Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
In Christ Alone lyrics
Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;
In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm
What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand
In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save
?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live
There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again
And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ
stfassisi wrote:
“But the practical difficulty is also a parable. You cannot chip away the statue of a mother from all round that of a newborn child. You cannot suspend the new-born child in mid-air; indeed you cannot really have a statue of a newborn child at all. Similarly, you cannot suspend the idea of a newborn child in the void or think of him without thinking of his mother. You cannot visit the child without visiting the mother, you cannot in common human life approach the child except through the mother. If we are to think of Christ in this aspect at all, the other idea follows I as it is followed in history. We must either leave Christ out of Christmas, or Christmas out of Christ, or we must admit, if only as we admit it in an old picture, that those holy heads are too near together for the haloes not to mingle and cross.”
I will take your word for it that this is to be attributed to G. K. Chesterton. In its own way it is a lovely picture. But GKC gets the parable a little wrong. His sentence, “you cannot in common human life approach the child except through the mother. If we are to think of Christ in this aspect at all, the other idea follows ...” Notice: “If ... the other idea follows ...”
The plain fact of the matter is that the mother/Child relationship of Mary and her Son is not “common human life.” And thus the analogy fails. Better to understand this way: The Byzantines (and others of the time) building on the foundation of the creeds routinely represented the mother and Child together in artistic representation. In this way they showed two very important facts: First, the true humanity of Him who is God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, something that the various Christological heresies tried to obscure, gainsay, or explain away. Second, they showed where salvation lay, that is, in the woman’s embrace of the Child. There is no doubt, if we would like to indulge in some OT/NT typology that Mary is the very personification of the faithful church, the church that believes and trusts her Lord in all things, but above all in the matter of salvation. She holds on to Him and will not let go.
This is the very sense of the Greek verb “tereo,” found so often in the NT (and so often lamentably translated by the execrable NIV as “obey”). For example, John quotes Jesus saying, “I anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me.” (John 14:23-24) One cannot “cling” physically (or any other way) to Christ, as Mary Magdalene tried to do in the Garden on resurrection morning. (John 20:17) No, one can only cling to Him, hold Him, keep Him, through faith, the very “organon leptikon” God Himself gives each of us by grace alone, faith that clings to Him in the Gospel, given us in Word and sacrament, in St. John’s parlance “keeps My word.” Mary is such a wonderful and beautiful picture of the faith and trust and serenity of the Holy Christian Church as she clings in faith to her Savior.
It is contrary to the very picture Scripture itself paints, that the church would venerate her, for she is church. Ought man venerate himself? I think not.
I will agree with Chesterton in this, to tear the Child out of Mary’s arms is horrible, if not anti-Christian. Let Mary be Mary and Christ Christ, and all is well.
Prior to the printing press, a complete Bible cost about $10,000 to purchase so most people could not afford them. However, the scripture were commonly available to students at the many schools and universities across Christendom. Prior the printing press, spoken dialects varied greatly from town to town and students learned to read and write in Latin.
The Council of Toulouse, 1229 AD Cannon 14 Prohibts laymen from owning any books of the Old or New Testament
This was not common in Europe. Southern France experienced a noxious heresy in the 1200s that discouraged marriage and promoted homosexuality. This group would take selected scriptural quotes out of context, abusing the authority to promote falsehoods.
That’s right the Catholic Church prohibited and killed people just for having copies of the Bible.
When and where?
Not to mention that they kept the masses of people illiterate (unlike the Jews who taught their own to read)
There were once a very large number of monasteries and abbys in almost every town and village across Europe. These institutions provided free schooling for the children of all income groups. In his later writings, Luther lamented the loss of free schooling in Germany that resulted from the confiscation of the monasteries by Protestant princes. Jews of the middle ages were generally wealthy and could afford to hire their own teachers.
After the invention of the printing press things got out .. maybe that’s why they NEEDED their inquisition.
The Inquisition was most often used to detect hostile infiltrators burrowing into positions of power within the Church, such as the homosexual priests and bishops of today.
I could care less about your modernists opinions
Now I'm confused. I already offered the succession of Peter. Does that not comply with your request?
"Besides those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches." 2 Cor. 11:28.
It's just too bad Peter did not say this, it would have been written on the Basilica ceiling. But he didn't. Paul did. Because HE was responsible for the daily care of all the churches. As the Apostle who was given the ministry of the dispensation of the grace of God and the Church the Body of Christ.
Anti Catholics are impartial
Now THAT is true history!
The calendar was changed, also. Jesus was born in September not December.
So we agree he was teaching error ...how infallible!
It was Peter who was first divinely inspired to liberate Gentiles from the OT laws at the Gentile household of Cornelius.
Indeed he did..That was a gift from Christ to his friend..THAT is what Christ meant by the keys to the Kingdom.....Keys are only good for one thing..to open doors, once opened they have no more value ..
Peter was the first to proclaim Christ as Savior... To open the door to the gospel to both jews and gentiles
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. :17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Peter was given the privilege of opening that very gospel to Jews and Gentiles.. BUT His primary ministry..ACCORDING THE SCRIPTURE was to the Jews.. and Paul to the gentiles..
Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter;
8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision,
Of Paul God says
Act 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
1Cr 1:1 Paul, called [to be] an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes [our] brother,
Peter writes to the scattered and exiled jews
1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen
1Cr 3:19
Pretty good,belt. Perhaps you should convert to Eastern Orthodox?
Also, Chesterton's analogy is a good one because of the valid point it drives home the horrible mistake of chipping away the child Jesus-which you agreed was wrong as well
presently no screen name wrote:
“Are you saying that there are no Scriptures that show Mary had other children?”
I am saying that it is not certain, since the terms can mean cousins or half-brothers, i.e., children of Joseph, not Mary. If one goes back into the long, long history exegesis, pre-Romanist and Reformation era included, this was the nearly unanimous belief ... again, whether you like it or not. All else that Rome has done with Mary is another matter altogether.
pnsn also wrote:
“Are you, also, agreeing with the Vatican teaching she was born without original sin?”
No. That is contrary to Scripture, explicitly.
In both cases Scripture and Scripture alone remains the sole norm for Christian doctrine. Clear?
A disinterested historian appr. 25 years old at the time James was martyred (62 A.D.) had this to say about the “perpetual virginity” of Mary,
“Josephus, Antiquities Book 20: chapter 9
1. CONCERNING ALBINUS UNDER WHOSE PROCURATORSHIP JAMES WAS SLAIN; AS ALSO WHAT EDIFICES WERE BUILT BY AGRIPPA.
1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:”
It has been argued that this was an addition/editorial comment of Eusebius in the 4th century, however Eusebius was the fawning historian of Constantine who wanted to consolidate the church with the political Rome so it would be counterproductive to alienate the early church fathers.
Sorry, stfassisi, being Lutheran is far better than being Orthodox ... or Roman. I get to keep all the good stuff, and wash my hands of all the icky stuff.
By the way, the scriptures also talks about people praying and making things for the "queen of heaven". There is nothing new under the sun.
It cannot be questioned that this theory [sic: the blood of Christ paying our penalty] also contains a true principle. For it is founded on the express words of Scripture, and is supported by many of the greatest of the early Fathers and later theologians. But unfortunately, at first, and for a long period of theological history, this truth was somewhat obscured by a strange confusion, which would seem to have arisen from the natural tendency to take a figure too literally, and to apply it in details which were not contemplated by those who first made use of it. It must not be forgotten that the account of our deliverance from sin is set forth in figures. Conquest, captivity, and ransom are familiar facts of human history. Man, having yielded to the temptations of Satan, was like to one overcome in battle. Sin, again, is fitly likened to a state of slavery. And when man was set free by the shedding of Christ's precious Blood, this deliverance would naturally recall (even if it had not been so described in Scripture) the redemption of a captive by the payment of a ransom.
....
(d) These ideas retained their force well into the Middle Ages. But the appearance of St. Anselm's "Cur Deus Homo?" made a new epoch in the theology of the Atonement.
.....
It may be safely said that this is precisely what has come to pass. For the theory put forward by Anselm has been modified by the work of later theologians, and confirmed by the testimony of truth. In contrast to some of the other views already noticed, this theory is remarkably clear and symmetrical. And it is certainly more agreeable to reason than the "mouse-trap" metaphor, or the notion of purchase money paid to Satan. Anselm's answer to the question is simply the need of satisfaction of sin. No sin, as he views the matter, can be forgiven without satisfaction. A debt to Divine justice has been incurred; and that debt must needs be paid. But man could not make this satisfaction for himself; the debt is something far greater than he can pay; and, moreover, all the service that he can offer to God is already due on other titles.
....
I'll stick with the early church fathers on this one thank you.
pnsn wrote:
“The calendar was changed, also. Jesus was born in September not December.”
Care to furnish verification for this assertion?
I care plenty about God's word,I just reject modernists interpretations of it from people like you.
The rest of your post sickens me.I will pray for you
Please do not ever post me again!
We see where Spain has ended up under Catholicism.
Never let it be said that times or seasons matter to Rome when they are busy creating traditions! A pound of heresy, a cup of deceit, and a spoonful of blasphemy. The perfect ingredients for creating a false religion certain to appeal to all who count on others to feed them.
blue-duncan wrote (quoting Josephus):
“Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others ...”
Again, what does brother mean here? The early fathers, as well as Luther and nearly all of the Reformers, were well acquainted with Josephus. Still, they were not swayed that this was conclusive proof. Also, Josephus’ accuracy is not always perfect.
For the record - again - I have no dog in this hunt. I freely admitted that, having examined the arguments both ways, I don’t know. For that reason I well understand why the early and even not so early Lutherans labeled this a true adiaphoron.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.