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
Why do you think I have, or had two accounts? I’m very curious. People suspect with good reason? Why? People can read? What did they read?
I was caught with two accounts? When? Who caught me? I'm not fessing up to anything. What makes you think I have two accounts? For the record I change my tag often. What does that have to do with having two accounts?
However, when we consider that only one Gospel mentions Peter as the rock and the Catholic Church uses this one verse as "proof" of it's claim of "Papal Primacy".
RSV (IGNATIUS EDITION> MATTHEW 16:
18* And I tell you, you are Peter, * and on this rock * I will build my church, and the powers of death * shall not prevail against it.
Compare to parralel passage:
RSV (IGNATIUS EDITION) MARK 8:
29 And he asked them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered him, "You are the Christ."
30* And he charged them to tell no one about him.
By using your given choices we must conclude either Mark saw no need to mention the "Rock" thing -or- Matthew and Mark contradict each other and we must be prepared to accept that EVERY VERSE in the Bible is false.
John doesn't mention the following women, only Mary Magdalene, - is it false?
RSV (IGNATIUS EDITION) MARK Chapter 16:1* * And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.
RSV (IGNATIUS EDITION) LUKE 24:
1* But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices which they had prepared.
2 And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb,
3 but when they went in they did not find the body.
* 4 While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel;
5 and as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, "Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen." *
6* "Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee,
7 that the Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise."
8 And they remembered his words,
9 and returning from the tomb they told all this to the eleven and to all the rest.
10* Now it was Mary Magdalene and Jo-anna and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them who told this to the apostles;
It appears you are very selective in your "other Mary" choice or you are suggesting Mary, the mother of Jesus, didn't accompany the women. That would be strange wouldn't it?
What is the third possibility you think is reasonable?
Do you deny that the Gospel of Saint John clearly lists THREE women named Mary at the Crucifixion?
However, when we consider that only one Gospel mentions Peter as the rock and the Catholic Church uses this one verse as "proof" of it's claim of "Papal Primacy".
Are you suggesting that the omission of some event is a denial? THREE Gospels list the women at the Crucifixion. Your comparison is meaningless.
By using your given choices we must conclude either Mark saw no need to mention the "Rock" thing -or- Matthew and Mark contradict each other and we must be prepared to accept that EVERY VERSE in the Bible is false.
What do you mean by "no need"? No, we can conclude nothing more than the fact that Saint Mark didn't record it.
We cannot take the absence of something as a contradiction. The Gospel of Saint John never mentions the Virgin Birth of the Lord, you don't honestly think he doubted it do you?
John doesn't mention the following women, only Mary Magdalene, - is it false?
RSV (IGNATIUS EDITION) MARK Chapter 16:1* * And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.
RSV (IGNATIUS EDITION) LUKE 24:
1* But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices which they had prepared.
2 And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb,
3 but when they went in they did not find the body.
* 4 While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel;
5 and as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, "Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen." *
6* "Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee,
7 that the Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise."
8 And they remembered his words,
9 and returning from the tomb they told all this to the eleven and to all the rest.
10* Now it was Mary Magdalene and Jo-anna and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them who told this to the apostles;
It appears you are very selective in your "other Mary" choice or you are suggesting Mary, the mother of Jesus, didn't accompany the women. That would be strange wouldn't it?
You are aware that the Crucifixion and the discovery of the Resurrection are two different events aren't you? Since none of the Gospels even speak of Mary, the Mother of God at the empty Tomb, it is very probable that she wasn't there.
I will accept the fact that you haven't even addressed the clear FACT that the Gospel of John speaks of Mary of Cleophas as a concession of the fact that there were three Mary's at the Crucifixion.
Sirach 8:3
You, my FRiend, have brilliantly pointed out the contradiction that is Calvinism. Those who profess that works and deeds are of no consequence for themselves, so long as there is election and faith, are the first to cry out against perceived misdeeds by others, often making up their own rules and passing judgment themselves.
Seriously, can you expect honesty, even intellectual honesty from those who are not even honest with themselves or an omniscient God?
This seems to be the foundation of their faith. Then they cherry pick the Bible and use it as if it's their bully big brother backing up their big mouths.
The Prots will shoot their mouth off in any direction they choose - even if it means making up complete lies about others, and then duck beyond their "Nyanananana... Ha ha... you can't get me because I'm saved!" garbage.
I don't care what they do or believe. They mean nothing to mean. I just wish they'd stop calling themselves "Christians". Sola scriptura faith only Prots are not Christians.
They don't have the same God as the Church. Pretending they're Christians doesn't do anybody any good. The God of the Protestants is evil. He makes people that he knows will never believe in him, and then tortures them for eternity for not having the eyes and ears he decided to withhold from them. To me, that is the definition of pure evil.
Their God is a little kid with a magnifying glass burning ants in the afternoon sun. It disgusts me that they have nerve to call themselves "Christians". If these Prots are Christians, then I'm a pink unicorn on Jupiter.
My objection goes beyond Sola Scriptura, it is the Infectus Scriptura of the Paulian heresy. They have elevated the works of St. Paul to be a final rewrite of the Revealed Word, having an importance and meaning that supersedes the words of Christ.
I've seen Kosta post very extensive lists of quotes from the Gospels that stress the importance of how 'works' are vital to our salvation, and each and every time the response is a quote from St. Paul to contradict that list.
I imagine their collective heads all cocked on an angle like a confused dog when they're presented with Kosta's list. If all the Bible is equally important, why do they always choose St. Paul over Christ whenever there's contradicting passages? Obviously they hold St. Paul in higher esteem than Christ. Again - that ain't Christianity. It's really time we stopped labeling it as such.
Sorry, forgot to ping you to this post.
Peter was one among other leaders at this "council" and was subordinate to James
Not what the scripture said. Peter rose, spoke, and all agreed. St. James as the presider, approved the letter.
More bunk! James "my judgment is..." presided and pronounced his judgment.
And if you want to split a split hair invent a new language and call it "Hyperdulia". That will fool em!
I am not going to spend any emotional energy on what the anti-Catholics do or do not believe. In the big picture it is completely irrelevant. I only get involved when they propagate obvious lies and falsehoods about the Church, its Catechism, dogma, history and clergy, but not for their benefit. I fear they are lost in their own willful blindness. Mere ignorance van be overcome.
Amen to everything you said!
No, actually it's not formalized at all as far as the congregation is concerned. Everything in the litrugy reflects the way the Church believes.
“1700 years ago”? You have copies that can be dated accurately?
You can read more about it here
BB-”’God remains unchangeable yet still expresses hate for certain things. I do not see any contradiction in that.””
The problem with this is that God is moved from love to hate something or someone based on an action of sin,therefore sin would have the ability to alter God from love,thus God would be moved from His essence due to a action from another source outside Himself making that outside source have the power to move and change God
A worse scenario would be a God who has hate along with love as His essence,thus being dualistic and thus have imperfection of hate as part of essence-leaving you with an imperfect God
God is Love ,bb.That is His essence,and that love has the power to crush imperfection of sin and rejection of love,it is not hate that crushes sin,it is Love that crushes the unrepentant sinner and that same love can also save the repentant sinner by abiding in the love of our unchangeable loving God(“God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him” (1 Jn 4:16)
So, God does not change from Love ,but love effects those who accept it and they do things such as “love their neighbor as themselves” and love punishes those who are selfish and reject love,thus, God is not moved because love never ends or is changed
“Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away”.1 Cor 13;8
“If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing”.1 Cor 13:1-3
We also see Church Fathers write the following(as Kolokotronis has posted before)
“God is good, dispassionate, and immutable. Now someone who thinks it reasonable and true to affirm that God does not change, may well ask how, in that case, it is possible to speak of God as rejoicing over those who are good and showing mercy to those who honor Him, and as turning away from the wicked and being angry with sinners. To this it must be answered that God neither rejoices nor grows angry, for to rejoice and to be offended are passions; nor is He won over by the gifts of those who honor Him, for that would mean He is swayed by pleasure. It is not right that the Divinity feel pleasure or displeasure from human conditions. He is good, and He only bestows blessings and never does harm, remaining always the same. We men, on the other hand, if we remain good through resembling God, are united to Him, but if we become evil through not resembling God, we are separated from Him. By living in holiness we cleave to God; but by becoming wicked we make Him our enemy. It is not that He grows angry with us in an arbitrary way, but it is our own sins that prevent God from shining within us and expose us to demons who torture us. And if through prayer and acts of compassion we gain release from our sins, this does not mean that we have won God over and made Him to change, but that through our actions and our turning to the Divinity, we have cured our wickedness and so once more have enjoyment of God’s goodness. Thus to say that God turns away from the wicked is like saying that the sun hides itself from the blind.” Saint Anthony the Great
“I say that those who are suffering in hell, are suffering in being scourged by love.... It is totally false to think that the sinners in hell are deprived of God’s love. Love is a child of the knowledge of truth, and is unquestionably given commonly to all. But love’s power acts in two ways: it torments sinners, while at the same time it delights those who have lived in accord with it” +Isaac the Syrian
..And Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote
Saint Aquinas write...
“But even other affections (affectiones), which are specifically inconsistent with divine perfection, are predicated in Holy Writ of God, not properly but metaphorically, on account of likeness of effects. Thus sometimes the will in following out the order of wisdom tends to the same effect to which one might be inclined by a passion, which would argue a certain imperfection: for the judge punishes from a sense of justice, as an angry man under the promptings of anger. So sometimes God is said to be ‘angry,’ inasmuch as in the order of His wisdom He means to punish some one: When his anger shall blaze out suddenly (Ps. ii, 13). He is said to be ‘compassionate,’ inasmuch as in His benevolence He takes away the miseries of men, as we do the same from a sentiment of pity: The Lord is merciful and compassionate, patient and abounding in mercy (Ps. cli, 8). Sometimes also He is said to be ‘repentant,’ inasmuch as in the eternal and immutable order of His providence, He builds up what He had previously destroyed, or destroys what He had previously made, as we do when moved by repentance: It repenteth me that I have made man (Gen. vi, 6, 7). God is also said to be ‘sad,’ inasmuch as things happen contrary to what He loves and approves, as sadness is in us at what happens against our will: And the Lord saw, and it seemed evil in his eyes, because judgement is not: God saw that there is no man, and he was displeased, because there was none to meet him (Isa. lix, 15, “
That God hates nothing by Saint Thomas Aquinas
AS love is to good, so is hatred to evil; we wish good to them whom we love, and evil to them whom we hate. If then the will of God cannot be inclined to evil, as has been shown, it is impossible for Him to hate anything.
2. The will of God tends to things other than Himself inasmuch as, by willing and loving His own being and goodness, He wishes it to be diffused as far as is possible by communication of His likeness. This then is what God wills in beings other than Himself, that there be in them the likeness of His goodness. Therefore God wills the good of everything, and hates nothing.
4. What is found naturally in all active causes, must be found especially in the Prime Agent. But all agents in their own way love the effects which they themselves produce, as parents their children, poets their own poems, craftsmen their works. Much more therefore is God removed from hating anything, seeing that He is cause of all.*
Hence it is said: Thou lovest all things that are, and hatest nothing of the things that Thou hast made (Wisd. xi, 25).
Some things however God is said, to hate figuratively (similitudinarie), and that in two ways. The first way is this, that God, in loving things and willing their good to be, wills their evil not to be: hence He is said to have hatred of evils, for the things we wish not to be we are said to hate. So it is said: Think no evil in your hearts every one of you against his friend, and love no lying oath: for all these are things that I hate, saith the Lord (Zach. viii, 17). But none of these things are effects of creation: they are not as subsistent things, to which hatred or love properly attaches. The other way is by God’s wishing some greater good, which cannot be without the privation of a lesser good; and thus He is said to hate, whereas it is more properly love. Thus inasmuch as He wills the good of justice, or of the order of the universe, which cannot be without the punishment or perishing of some, He is said to hate those beings whose punishment or perishing He wills, according to the text, Esau I have hated (Malach. i, 3); and, Thou hatest all who work Iniquity, thou wilt destroy all who utter falsehood: the man of blood and deceit the Lord shall abominate (Ps. v, 7).*
One of the saddest things about at least some forms of protestantism is that so many of it’s adherents really believe that God “hates”. The origin of this notion is the thoroughly pagan concept that God, like the pagan gods, is compelled and ruled by an implacable Necessity and like them is subject to even the most base of human emotions.
“Love never hates anyone, never reproves anyone, never condemns anyone, never grieves anyone, never abhors anyone, neither faithful nor infidel nor stranger nor sinner nor fornicator, nor anyone impure, but instead it is precisely sinners, and weak and negligent souls that it loves more, and feels pain for them and grieves and laments, and it feels sympathy for the wicked and sinners, more than for the good, imitating Christ Who called sinners, and ate and drank with them. For this reason, showing what real love is, He taught saying, ‘Become good and merciful like your Father in Heaven,’ and as He rains on bad and good and makes the sun to rise on just and unjust alike, so also is the one who has real love, and has compassion, and prays for all.” Abba Ammonas
What you stated is a personal philosophy vaguely connected to the scripture. In a few critical points you substitute what you (or Luther and many others) think and then you find a prooftext hera and prooftext there to appear to be "scriptural".
1) Salvation won for us [...] was won on the cross of Calvary by Christ alone. In this Rome errs
In this Rome agrees. There is no need for another Savior. But this not yet a salvation given, so we proceed.
2) Salvation given to us: [...] that is to say, the proclamation that all sins are forgiven for the sake of His bitter suffering and death [...] Through these, that is, the Gospel and Sacraments, as through means, the salvation that Christ won then and there for the whole world is conveyed to us here and now
That part, by itself, is true, -- that is why the Church is here, to proclaim the Gospel and to offer the Sacraments.
3) Salvation received by us: [...] The means of receiving it is faith, faith pure and simple
Christ spent a lot of time teaching that our sins are forgiven and salvation available to us conditional on our behavior. First, they are conditional on our forgiveness of tresspasses against us (Lk 11:4), conditional on our good works in general (Mt 25:31-46), conditional on repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16), conditional on not merely declarative but all-consuming, self-denying faith (Luke 14:26-27). Sins are forgiven not wholesale but by the Apostles, and so therefore by their assigns (John 20:23). So no, what you say here is very simple way but it has nothing to do with what the scripture teaches, so it is also a very wrong way.
Of course, Ephesians 2:8-9, the only scripture you bring in support, is an incomplete quote. The full quote explains what I just said: we are His "workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them". Note the imperative "should walk". Good works are required for our salvation. We are saved by grace alone but not by faith alone. That, is the message of James -- not a "warning" that our faith might not be a dead one, but that such as it is faith is not sufficient for salvation alone.
What Roman Catholics seem unable to believe is that which God says and promises, that true, heaven-sent faith will produce good works (good tree leads to good fruit).
Why, yes. Faith will produce works. No one said otherwise. It would be height of insanity to "pick up a cross and follow Christ" without believing in Christ. But in order to be saved you cannot just wait for these works to be some kind of chemical product of the faith. You have to either do the good works or you will kill your faith, as St. James so thunderously states. "Why call you me, Lord, Lord; and do not the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46). Faith is what we do.
In short,
If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.
““1700 years ago”? You have copies that can be dated accurately?”
Yes, nearly so. There are a number of fragments of texts of the Divine Liturgies of both +Basil and +John Chrysostomos from the late 5th / early 6th century. I suspect it is because they were and are so widely used. The older Liturgy of +James was never widespread but the oldest complete copy I think is from the 8th or 9th century.
The DLs of +Basil and John Chrysostomos both are derived from the West Syriac Liturgical tradition which was established at Antioch and thereabouts. The earliest versions of these liturgies extant are also from the 5th century.
It is quite literally true that if an ancestor of mine from, say, the year 500 showed up at my parish church for liturgy next Sunday, he’d know exactly what was going on.
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.