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
Blasphemy is against GOD not false doctrine and many of us would say attributing the work of God to Mary or the attributes of God to a Pope is Blasphemy ...
Psssss MARY IS NOT GOD
Of course her death is only conjecture.. there is no body, so no crime errr, I mean death may have occurred .. remember there is no record of her death in any of the scriptures
It is a very sad crime that the early church, especially Rome, lost its focus from the simplicity of the Gospel and started deifying the Church, Mary, the saints, Relics, Tradition, the papacy, superstition, putting ever increasing distance between the Savior and those in need of salvation.
Psssss MARY IS NOT GOD
Well, not yet anyway. Don't give the Pope any new Ex Cathedra ideas.
Seriously?
[17] So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. [18] But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith. [19] Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble. [20] But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? [21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? [22] Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? [23] And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. [24] Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? [25] And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers, and sending them out another way? [26] For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead.(James 2)
The exact opposite of Luther's theological fantasy.
Laugh very hard and wait for the next pope. We know our faith.
And there were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joseph, and Salome: (Mk 15:40 )
It is a Mary allright, but a different one.
HEY WAIT A MINUTE! Haven’t we just learned tonight that the Pope’s Infallibility can sometimes be Falllible? You are dependent on what your Church says, through the Pope and the Magisterium. You’re telling me that if an insane Pope, like the one mentioned earlier (sorry, can’t remember his name will have to look back on posts) tells you that God spoke to him, you would LAUGH? Your faith IS his faith.
I fat-finger and dislexify all the time, I didn't mean to be snotty. I inserted "sic" because I was not sure what the intended grammar was, but got the general meaning.
Are you suggesting the entire series of letters from Paul to Timothy are restricted to Timothy alone? That the "man of God" can be limited to Timothy (or the clergy) alone?
The scripture in 2 Timothy 3:17 does not restrict the "perfection" to Timothy alone, -- I never claimed it did. It does however say "man of God", and given that Timothy was a bishop who St. Paul consecrated, the natural reading is that the reference is to clergy. However, like with most scripture it is possible to read it expansively and say that not only trhe clergy but laymen as well can perfect their faith formation by studying the scripture.
That reading is fine with me, and of course the Church never restricts the study of the scripture to the clergy alone. The fact remains that the passage does not prove "sola scriptura" as it in fact says the opposite: that the scripture is useful addition toward perfection, the implication being that it does not alone furnish that perfection.
Ah, the old “Simon Says” of infallibility. Did not meet the requirements of an ex cathedra statement. Just another way of saying “I didn’t say SIMON says. You’re OUT..”
But that assertion is not in the scripture. You added it to the scripture, it seems.
Where do you find a Scriptural suggestion that we "add" to Scripture as we see fit?
Nowhere. It is heresy to either add or subtract from the scripture. It is further a heresy to teach contrary to the scripture, like the Protestants do with their "faith alone". When the Church teaches things that are part of the Tradition, or are present day magisterial teaching, she is not pretending it is scripture. It is what it is.
You are speaking of what YOU know? Perhaps. However, the Church being a collective of people dedicated to the preservation of the faith certainly had knowledge of things that happened yet were not recorded at the time. For example, St. John wouldn't be able to write "there are also many other things which Jesus did" unless he knew of these unrecorded things. That body of knowledge therefore is larger than the scripture, -- by the inerrant word of the scripture itself. It is not lost altogether: it is the body of knowledge that tells us, for example, that Mary was virgin all her life, that the Church understood the nature of baptism and the Eucharist exactly how we understand it today; that prayers for the dead and to the saints are an integral part of worshiping God, -- all that which we know as the Holy Tradition of the Church
You should have pinged Natural Law. You say that Christ was not a victim but a sacrifice? Your quibble is with Mr. Webster, not with the Church.
I would also refer to Augustine's statement in the Treatise of the Predestination of the Saints, that once he fully understood St. Cyprian's doctrine he recalled most of his life's work to destroy it.
In the Treatise, St. Augustine said:
"I was in [...] error, thinking that faith whereby we believe on God is not God's gift, but that it is in us from ourselves, and that by it we obtain the gifts of God, whereby we may live temperately and righteously and piously in this world. For I did not think that faith was preceded by God's grace, so that by its means would be given to us what we might profitably ask, except that we could not believe if the proclamation of the truth did not precede; but that we should consent when the gospel was preached to us I thought was our own doing, and came to us from ourselves. And this my error is sufficiently indicated in some small works of mine written before my episcopate."
Yes, the Catholic Church teaches that faith is dependent upon grace. Apparently, Augustine did not immediately grasp that point after his conversion, but his study of Catholic writings completed his understanding. Augustine only withdrew a few small works written before he became a bishop and before he wrote "The City of God." Please tell me what part of St. Augustine's writing you think conflicts with Catholic teaching?
So, it's a conspiracy? Our Lord called them tares.
Indeed, "an enemy hath done this."
The words of the Ecumenical Council itself prove otherwise, and trump the Catholic Encylopedia. The words of the Council demonstrate that Honorius was specifically anathematized in his official capacity as pope and not as a private theologian; he was condemned for confirming the heresy of montheletism; and he was condemned for actively propagating heretical teachings in his official capacity as pope which affected the whole Church. To say that his teaching does not meet the test of ex cathedra is to absurdly impose arbitrary conditions that didn't even exist at the time:
Session XIII: The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to the promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal God protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasius and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God preserved city, and were like minded with them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subject to anathema. And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.
(Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, pp. 342-344).
Session XVI: To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema! To Paul, the heretic, anathema!...
Session XVIII: But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will we mean Theodorus, who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus...and moreover, Honorius, who was Pope of the elder Rome...), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris
Cordially,
Theology 101: At the very least, she would need a savior to cleanse her of original sin.
I thought the idea behind the Immaculate Conception was that Mary was exempt from original sin? So if the IC is true, why did she need a Savior considering that she never sinned? Did she lie?
See 2,493. The words of the Councils and the Popes for several hundred years after Honorius prove otherwise.
Cordially
count-your-change wrote:
“’Until, is a conjunction in Matt.1:25 and thus connects a before phrase and an after phrase. Nothing complicated about it .”
Thanks for the Greek lesson.
One good turn deserves another, so:
Matthew 1:25: “And he did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.” This is, of course, according to the KJV/NKJV, which translation is based pretty much exclusively on the late Byzantine family of manuscripts. The Greek is: “heos hou eteken ton huion autes ton prototokon.” The earliest, Alexandrian manuscripts, as well as Old Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Georgian translations simply have: “heos hou eteken hiuon,” “until she bore a Son.” You will find in the various UBS and Nestle-Aland editions (the standard works) of the Greek New Testament that the latter is the preferred reading. It is rated “A,” which indicates the highest level of confidence, the ratings being from “A” to “D.” So, unless you want to turn this into a “Textus Receptus” debate (which is fine with me), the text is the latter. According to your reasoning Matthew 1:25 must of necessity mean that Joseph did not have marital relations with Mary until she bore her son, and thereafter did.
However, take note that the exact same word and construction, “heos” plus the genitive, are to be found not just in Matthew 1:25, but also in Matthew 28:20 (note: the same author): “And, lo, I am with you always (literally: all the days) until the end of the age.” According to the same reasoning you employed for Matthew 1:25 this would mean that the Lord promised to be with His (baptized and instructed) disciples until the end of time (or end of the world, if you prefer, but NOT after that.
This, c-y-c, is what happens when you base a theological conclusion on bad grammar ... and your grammar is bad.
Now, we know that Christ will not abandon His disciples at the end of the world because other passages of the Bible tell us explicitly that He will not. But that is not information contained in the grammar of Matthew 28:20, just as the information you insist on in regard to Mary and Joseph is not there on the basis of the grammar of Matthew 1:25. Here, as with Matthew 28:20, that information must be got from other passages of the NT. And therein lies the problem I identified, one which the great reformers, whose Greek was, I am afraid, a lot better than yours, recognized and in all honesty would not take a doctrinal stand on, because they knew all the other passages, knew the possibilities of meaning in the vocabulary in those passages, and knew that the early church fathers (Greek speakers all!) still believed that Mary had no other children. But the testimony of the fathers was not enough to base doctrine on and, therefore, to bind the consciences of Christ’s holy people to, so they left this, CONTRARY TO THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH MAGISTERIUM, an open question.
Their conviction was that all Christian doctrine had to be based on and confirmed from the plain, clear sense of the Holy Scripture alone, thus SOLA SCRIPTURA.
If you detach the meaning of Scripture from grammar and vocabulary, you are doing the very thing you accuse Rome of doing. For then you must base your reason for what you believe on something other than Holy Scripture.
c-y-c also wrote:
“... but if it still is unclear I suggest going to Thayer’s Lexicon.”
Thank you for the suggestion, however, normally one goes to a dictionary for questions of vocabulary, but to a textbook on grammar for questions of grammar and usage. Thayer’s doesn’t tell you how vocabulary is used, unless you look at all the examples, and it is not exhaustive. No, for that kind of information Bauer/Arndt/Gingrich is good. Liddell and Scott (the big one, not the small or intermediate) is better. Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament is best (it is hard not to be exhaustive when filling ten volumes). As for NT Greek grammars ... well, you get the picture, I think.
Finally c-y-c also wrote:
“As for the rest...well, if you and your dog don’t like what is on this thread, no one is forcing you to stay.”
Thank you for your civility.
Yes, it does speak volumes: Si falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
Nicely done, Diamond.
She needed a savior to preserve her from original sin and provide sanctifying grace (cleanse is the wrong word to use).
You make a straw argument. The Catholic Encyclopedia did not say Honorius was acting as a private theologian.
To say that his teaching does not meet the test of ex cathedra is to absurdly impose arbitrary conditions that didn't even exist at the time
Straw argument aside, the Encyclopedia gave reasons why the letter did not meet the test of ex cathedra. Which of these reasons do you dispute?
"The letter cannot be called a private one, for it is an official reply to a formal consultation. It had, however, less publicity than a modern Encyclical. As the letter does not define or condemn, and does not bind the Church to accept its teaching, it is of course impossible to regard it as an ex cathedra utterance. But before, and even just after, the Vatican Council such a view was sometimes urged, though almost solely by the opponents of the dogma of Papal Infallibility."
The scriptures clearly teach that we are saved (justified) by faith in Christ and what He has done on the cross. This faith alone saves us. However, we cannot stop here without addressing what James says in James 2:24, "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone."
There is no contradiction. All you need to do is look at the context. James chapter 2 has 26 verses: Verses 1-7 instruct us not to show favoritism. Verses 8-13 are comments on the Law. Verses 14-26 are about the relationship between faith and works.
James begins this section by using the example of someone who says he has faith but has no works, "What use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him?" (James 2:14). In other words, James is addressing the issue of a dead faith, a faith that is nothing more than a verbal pronouncement, a public confession of the mind, and is not heart-felt. It is empty of life and action. He begins with the negative and demonstrates what an empty faith is (verses 15-17, words without actions). Then he shows that type of faith isn't any different from the faith of demons (verse 19). Finally, he gives examples of living faith that has words followed by actions. Works follow true faith and demonstrate that faith to our fellow man, but not to God. James writes of Abraham and Rahab as examples of people who demonstrated their faith by their deeds.
In brief, James is examining two kinds of faith: one that leads to godly works and one that does not. One is true, and the other is false. One is dead, the other alive; hence, "Faith without works is dead," (James 2:20). But, he is not contradicting the verses above that say salvation/justification is by faith alone.
Also, notice that James actually quotes the same verse that Paul quotes in Rom. 4:3 amongst a host of verses dealing with justification by faith. James 2:23 says, "and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, and Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.'" If James was trying to teach a contradictory doctrine of faith and works than the other New Testament writers, then he would not have used Abraham as an example. Therefore, we can see that justification is by faith alone and that James was talking about false faith, not real faith when he said we are not justified by faith alone.
http://carm.org/are-we-saved-faith-alone-or-do-we-need-works-too
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.