In Christ Alone (Happy reformation day)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExnTlIM5QgE ^ | Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;

[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

[Belteshazzar]

stfassisi wrote:
“Theology is only useful if the end result is love.I’m sure we both agree on this?”

Theology is only useful if it upholds the truth about God. That’s what theology is, by definition. The truth, in turn, is the native territory of God the Holy Spirit. It is He who uses truth to enlighten our sin darkened hearts and minds. It that light we sight God as He has revealed Himself to us, that is, we see Him for who He really is, not who we piously or impiously imagine Him to be.

In the light of His law we see His perfection, His wrath toward mankind as a whole, how far short of His glory we have fallen, and thus His condemnation of each of us as individuals. The law, rightly taught (as good theology does) leaves us despairing and hopeless, condemned to eternal separation from God, in other words, hell. To the extent we do not see our own hopeless condemnation we stand as the Pharisee in the temple, putting forth to God all our supposed good qualities. And we will not go down to our house justified. No, we will in due time do down to hell condemned, because we saw God as He is, as He has revealed Himself to us, and we told Him to stuff it. This finally is the only unforgivable sin, the sin against the Holy Spirit, the sin of telling the Holy Spirit that He does not know what He is talking about.

However, condemned and despairing, to which point the Spirit has brought us, He reveals also that this same God who mercilessly crushes us under the weight of His holy law, tolerating no unholiness in His presence, also so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son to bear the weight of our sin on His own shoulders, to become sin for us, and bear the full condemnation in our stead, so that we might be counted righteous, we might have His righteousness as our own. This righteousness, which consists both of His active and perfect obedience to God’s law in thought, word, and deed (”He has done all things well!”) and His passive and patient obedience to the Father in drinking the full cup of His wrath (see His prayer in the Garden of Gethsamane) toward all sin and all sinners, is ours by faith in this crucified One whom the Father sent into the world to redeem sinners.

The apostle John wrote, “By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us.” (1 John 3:16) If one does not see the complete extinction of God’s wrath toward sin in Christ and thus the fulness of His and His Son’s love for us poor, condemned sinners, that one can and will never know what love is. So, stfassis, yes, theology is only useful if the end result is love. When theology leads us to see the fulness of the love of God in Christ for sinful humanity then theology is good. In other words, good theology leads us to faith in Christ Jesus the only Savior from sin, death, and the power of the devil. And from the good tree of faith the fruit of good works will follow, chief of which is love, love that loves as it has been loved.

Sadly, the above is not what Rome teaches, but it is what God’s Word teaches. And thus it is good theology, and oh so useful - and welcome - to us.

[OLD REGGIE]

Read the scripture for what it says, pay attention how it says it and before you know it, you will be Catholic.

Yes, but they will be holy catholic as opposed to the Roman variety.

[OLD REGGIE]

you need to quote Scripture because it is ONLY in HIS WORD where truth resides

No, not at all. There are historical facts known to us and that are not described in the scripture. Perpetual virginity of Mary is one of them. The Church retained a collective memory of the fact.

Und ve have the magic decoder ring.

[mas cerveza por favor]

I will say that I don't think it helps the case much for his infallibility, though, to say that he was a Satanically inspired, passive dupe - "a fit tool for his will", as they put it.

Infallibility applies only to ex cathedra definitions.

he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrine."

According to Vatican I, the pope speaking ex cathedra involves "defin[ing] a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church." Honorius may have passively confirmed heresy, but in the same letter he sought to impose silence about the issue. That is not defining a doctrine to be held by the universal Church.

After the letter fell into mischievous hands, Honorius was apparently adopted as the poster child for a new heretical movement. If this happened against Honorius' will or after his death, he is not fully to blame. Authorities seeking to crush the heresy 50 years later, condemned its poster child in the strongest language they could muster. The anger of the counsel was probably directed more at the current heretics than at Honorius personally. It is hard to defend oneself in a "trial" held 50 years after death. If the old pope had still been living, perhaps he would have pleaded ignorance and shown some repentance. The council verdict may well have been overly harsh on Honorius. His letter said its contents were meant to be kept in silence and therefore not to be held by the universal Church.

[mas cerveza por favor]

According to Augustine, [free will] is Pelagius' error.

That cannot be right. The Catholic Church believes in free will and considers St. Augustine to be her greatest defender against the heresy of Pelagianism.

I re-skimmed Augustine's treatise and did not find any condemnation of the doctrine of free will. He only said free will should not be used to disprove predestination. The Catholic Encyclopedia has two good articles mentioning Augustine and Pelagius. One is on the heresy of Pelagianism and the other is on an opposite reaction called Predestinarianism.

[OLD REGGIE]

It is about the fourth time you ask this question. If you still need the answer, ask. Hint: Mark 15, — different Mary.

And I answered with a rebuttal. Also, I asked if you believed that Mary, the mother of Jesus, wasn't there.

[OLD REGGIE]

Why do we need translations at all?

"εν τουτω τω σκηνωματι", "in this tabernacle". "Skinoma" is literally "tent", a form of dwelling in liturgical use since Moses. They put manna in there, by the way, in prefigurment of the Catholic tabernacles. There is not shortage of Baptist houses of worship called "tabernacle". Did they, too, name their church after their bodies?

Let's not be silly. I posted verses, and footnotes, from two different Catholic Bibles which you choose to ignore.

2 PETER 1:

RSV St. Ignatius Edition - 13 I think it right, as long as I am in this body, * to arouse you by way of reminder,
14 since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me.

Nab
13 I think it right, as long as I am in this "tent," (8) to stir you up by a reminder,
14 since I know that I will soon have to put it aside, as indeed our Lord Jesus Christ has shown me.

Note (8) [13] Tent: a biblical image for transitory human life (Isaiah 38:12 <../isaiah/isaiah38.htm>), here combined with a verb that suggests not folding or packing up a tent but its being discarded in death (cf 2 Cor 5:1-4 <../2corinthians/2corinthians5.htm>).

Perhaps annalex is a more reliable source than official Catholic Bibles.

[Diamond]

It is hard to defend oneself in a "trial" held 50 years after death. If the old pope had still been living, perhaps he would have pleaded ignorance and shown some repentance. The council verdict may well have been overly harsh on Honorius. His letter said its contents were meant to be kept in silence and therefore not to be held by the universal Church.

While I happen to agree with you - poor old Honorius likely would have come around to an orthodox view if he had just lived a few years longer, do you think the Council erred? Do you think they committed an injustice against Honorius?

Cordially,

[OLD REGGIE]

If you compare that with the reference to another Mary at the foot of the cross in Mark 15, with a similar name list of children, you will recognize that “brothers” there are simply “members of the same household that are close in age”.

And the mother of Jesus wasn't there?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

lol. Great find, Old Reggie. Keeping them honest takes effort. 8~)

The peculiar thing about the RCC is that given enough time, it will say anything about everything. It does not believe in absolutes. It is variable and relativistic. Whatever works at the moment in a particular discussion, that is what is asserted.

The end justifies the means, even if that means is something like kissing the Koran or retaining a homosexual priesthood.

[mas cerveza por favor]

I went to various versions of scripture looking for the term "victim". There are a few versions that does include the word victim including the NKJV (4), NIV (2), RSV (1), NLT (13) [a paraphrase], ESV (1), and HNV (2). [...] When I searched on the word "victim" on my PC version of the DRV I come up with 56 hits on "victim" and 96 hits on "victims". Typical practice in studying various text is that when most translations describes a verse one way, while one has a completely different meaning, you follow the crowd. But one has to wonder if the DRB was modified to push Catholic theology.

The Douay-Rheims Bible is the literal English translation from the Latin Vulgate with nothing changed or manipulated. The Latin Vulgate is the literal translation of original NT and Septuagint sources by St. Jerome in the Forth Century. At that time there obviously could have been no Roman agenda to oppose Protestant or East Orthodox theology.

Two Latin words frequently used in the Vulgate are "victima" and "hostia." According to the Google Latin translator, both words can be translated as victim or sacrifice. When applying the translator to the Vulgate text, "victima" is usually translated as "victim," but sometimes as "sacrifice." "Hostia" is usually translated as "sacrifice," but sometimes as "victim." Click the words to see those translations.

I suspect that most of those bibles you searched were translated from the Masoretic text, which was not completed until many centuries after the time of St. Jerome. If there is some agenda to modify the scriptures for theology, it is probably was implemented in the Masoretic text or the non-Vulgate English translations.

[boatbums]

Do I go around policing your posts and telling you how much you should comment? I mean the liberty some of you take when it comes to me is really over the top.

I apologize for hurting your feelings about your postings. I do not "police" your posts nor do I tell you how much you should comment, I was responding to your post to Metmom where you said:

To Post #2648
SFA asked me to comment on a linguistic issue, not spiritual matters. Do you understand the difference?

I was pointing out that you were doing much more than commenting on a "linguistic issue" in your post. Do you understand the difference?

[OLD REGGIE]

HA! Our friend Kosta doesn't even believe in the existance of the full Septuagint as he just posted. Are you willing to take that stand?

On this I agree with Kosta. There is not, nor ever has been, such a thing as a Septuagint.

[Belteshazzar]

Dr. Eckleburg wrote:
“The peculiar thing about the RCC is that given enough time, it will say anything about everything. It does not believe in absolutes. It is variable and relativistic. Whatever works at the moment in a particular discussion, that is what is asserted.”

By way of comparison the Islamic principle of Al-Takeyya comes to mind, as opposed to that which guides the Christian Church, the statement of our Lord: “For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. Therefore whatever you have spoken in the ear in inner rooms will be proclaimed on the housetops.” (Luke 12:2-3)

[kosta50]

Ἔλεον εἰρήνης, θυσίαν αἰνέσεως.

That's right, Kolo mou, lex orandi, lex credendi.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

AMEN! Truth is absolute. Life is absolute. God is absolute.

Adding to your excellent Scripture from Luke 12, I found this decisive verse this morning...

"Death and life are in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof." -- Proverbs 18:21

[Kolokotronis]

“lex orandi, lex credendi.”

Precisely! :)

[presently no screen name]

“reference to another Mary at the foot of the cross in Mark 15, with a similar name list of children, you will recognize that “brothers” there are simply members of the same household that are close in age”.

And in my large family my siblings were, also, of the same household and close in age but that didn't stop brothers from being brothers.

And my parents would say, 'our household', Nothing uncommon about that. There are different ways of saying the same thing.

Matt 12:46 "While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him."

Matt 12:47 "Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."

Mark 3:31 "Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him".

Mark 3:32 "A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you."

Luke 8:19 "Now Jesus' mother and brothers came to see Him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd".

Luke 8:20 "Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you."

Matthew, Mark and Luke - all addressing his brothers as brothers and telling Jesus His mother and brothers want to see Him.

You think that particular event was in the Scriptures for a reason THREE TIMES. You think the Holy Spirit might be trying to get a message across. And that He is ALMIGHTY and ALL KNOWING from the end to the beginning.

Let's get to the point here - there is enough evidence about who Jesus says his mother is - to the names of her children But if you agree with God's Word concerning Mary and her children, the cost may be too much for you to bare. Surely, it's more than Jesus bore./sarc

[boatbums]

It is certainly possible that from time-to-time everyone goes through a "crisis of faith". I do believe that our Father in Heaven allows them to "try our faith", to test it, not to discover if it is real or not, but to refine it, to make it stronger. I have gone through these times, I readily admit it, and have come out on the other end stronger in my faith and more sure of the truths of God's word. On the other hand, not once did I express my doubts, questions and conflicts to total strangers because I did not want to cause anyone to stumble or be caught up in what was my own to bear.

I question the sincerity of those who do and who, whether they realize it or not, are used by Satan to confuse and draw others away from the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

[boatbums]

Thank you for the reminder. I should have said, “You say”.