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

[boatbums]

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.

It really amazes me that it is only "Protestants" who are pitied because they actually believe that "God hates". Gee, I wonder where we could have gotten that from??? I didn't think the EO scratched out words in their Bibles, too. God is most definitely said to "hate" IN SCRIPTURE. And I think what may get missed is that there is a pure and righteous form of hate. To say God hates is just agreeing with his word. It has no origin in paganism because paganism certainly did not exist before God revealed himself to man. We are told to hate as well. Jesus himself in Luke 14:26 says, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.". Certainly there can be a "Godly" form of hate and should not be a word we should necessarily shy away from.

Paul in Romans 12:9 says, "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.". Sorry, if it makes some people feel weird to admit that our God has a righteous hatred for some things, but, like I said, I see no contradiction at all with God being a God of love, who also has a Godly hate. It is not being anthropomorphic to ascribe these two emotions because HE SAID IT HIMSELF! If he did not say these things, then you may have a valid gripe, but then again, "Protestants" wouldn't believe it if it wasn't in Scripture.

[Religion Moderator]

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

And "enough!" with the multiple account accusations. Return to the issues.

[boatbums]

One has to believe someone is Lord in order to call him “Lord”. What Jesus is saying is the evidence of that belief is obedience.

I agree. I asked a question a number of days ago, on this thread, but it was never answered. Maybe you, annalex, would like to give it a try.

If a person trusts in Jesus Christ as Lord and savior, accepts the gift of grace God has given, and commits his life to serve the Lord in obedience to his commandments - not to be saved, but out of love and gratitude for God's mercy and grace. Would that person be a Christian and have assurance of heaven when he died? Leave out religious affiliations or labels. Would you consider that person a Christian and a brother in Christ?

[kosta50]

You keep asking me how do I know, and Is a proof a visible, detectable thing? Where do these rules of thought that you espouse come from?

Unlike those how claim "spiritual knowledge," I can show you how I know and if you have any doubts you can try it yourself. Such as "don't touch the hot stove top, but if you don't believe me, go ahead!"

Proof is a (readily) detectable and repeatable thing, not something only the "endowed" with "eyes" and "ears" can see and hear,  but everyone, because we are visible, detectable creatures living in a visible and detectable world.

Now, in the course of our developing civilization, we have come to know that there are things which we cannot see or detect with our natural senses, but need special tools. The discovery of such things shows us that they, even though undetectable to our natural senses, are part of the same physical universe we see around us, and are subject to the same laws as we are, and that the differences are in degree and not in kind. Nothing "supernatural" has been discovered—ever, be it on a microscopic or cosmic scale, so then what justifies assuming that "supernatural" exists?

You write "Suppose you assume that the universe is a gigantic, uncreated, purposeless accident. The question then becomes, what is the evidence for the notion of matter in motion not functioning as it "ought" to function?"

There is no reason or justification to make such an assumption any more than to assume it is created or purposeful, because we don't know, just as no one knows what, if anything happens after this life. I simply recognize that—as of today—we don't know what this is all about with any certainty, that it is a blank page but not necessarily outside our capacity to discover. As for matter, it functions the way it functions, whether we understand why or not.

[kosta50]

how claim=who claim

[count-your-change]

Catholicism just can’t make up its collective mind what to do concerning sex. It’s good, except when it’s bad, except when it’s good again.”

The recent priest sex scandals would bear that out.

[count-your-change]

At least quotations attributed to them.

“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.”

But none of Jesus’ apostles would.

[kosta50]

God is most definitely said to "hate" IN SCRIPTURE.

That all depends how you interpret what you read in the Bible. And that is determined by a variety of factors, personal preferences, education, language and quality of translation, marignal notes, historical context, etc, have more to do with how we internalize what we see written.

As I said literal (as well as allegorical) reading of the Bible is problematic, even if it appeals to human nature. As Thayer's Lexicon states "Not a few interpreters have attributed" the Greek word miseo (or the Hebrew equivalent ' sane), which is translated as hate, to mean to "love less, to postpone in love or esteem, to slight". Indeed, careful examination of the Bible seems to agree with this assessment.

For example, Genesis 29:30-31 says

And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years.

And when the LORD saw that Leah [was] hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel [was] barren.

This clearly shows that the the word "hate" really means "loved less" because the previous verse doesn;t say he hated Leah, but that he loved Rachel more. Yet, the following verse says that God saw that Leah was "hated."

Likewise, in Deuteronomy 21:15 a man has two wives, one beloved and the other one "hated." Knowing that a man could divorce a woman, it is reasonable to assume that the "hated" one was less favored between the two, and not really hated.

Also, in the case of Esau (Malachi 1:2, Romans 9:13), it is not to be understood that God hated Esau, but that he favored him less, because that is how the word hate is used throughout the Bible.

And, in Luke 14:26 Jesus is really saying unless a man loves him [Jesus] more than his own father and mother, and brothers and sisters, he cannot be his disciple.

John 12:25 states "He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal." Someone who had to struggle all his life probably was not a smug and blissful as some more fortunate ones, but who persevered despite the obstacles put in front of him in his miserable (hateful) life, he will be rewarded with the evrlatsing life.1

We can pretty be sure, again based on biblical stories, that those things God really hated he also destroyed or made sure they were destroyed, which is not the case in any of the above verses.

I think your response clearly demonstrates what I wrote about earlier: the apparent human preference when interpreting the Bible to make the glove fit the hand. The tendency is to conform God to our image of him, to create a God who is acceptable to us, so we can be comfortable with him, so that we can be "his" and he can "ours".

Obviously some need a a loving, gentle and non-demanidng figure; other want an authoritarian despot who makes us feel safe. It seems to reflect more what we need than what is.

[kosta50]

But none of Jesus’ apostles would.

They wouldn't be reading your Bible either. Between Christ's crucifixion and Paul's first letters at least 15 years have elapsed. There were no Pauline Epistles and no Gospels to read.

[count-your-change]

Unless there was a rapid die off, most of the apostles would have been alive 15 years later.

[kosta50]

Unless there was a rapid die off, most of the apostles would have been alive 15 years later.

So? Of the 12 "eyewitnesses" only two (Matthew and John) wrote anything. And their accounts are like night and day, and written some 50-60 years after the fact. Petrine Epistles are of much later date and are pseudoepigraphical works. We don't know what they taught, what they said, or did. We have no clue. We ware "told" some 50 years later by Luke who heard it from others in the book of Acts.

And, we don't have the original manuscripts, so we don't know for sure what was in them. In other words, God only knows what transpired in those 15 years and what was taught, but it sure wasn't the New Testament because there was no Pauline Epistles to "explain" the theology or the Gospels!

[getoffmylawn]

Thank you!

[boatbums]

Obviously some need a a loving, gentle and non-demanidng figure; other want an authoritarian despot who makes us feel safe. It seems to reflect more what we need than what is.

Thanks for the reply and, yes, I'm still up. I'm the kind of person who just believes that there is an intelligent God that created us. That this intelligent creator created man with intelligence as well. I also believe that he didn't just create this intelligent creature and take off but desired to communicate with this creation. That he did this in a way that was verifiable - he told certain people things they did not know and those things happened exactly as he said they would. He also performed miraculous deeds - things that were outside of what was normally observed - in order to demonstrate his power over the natural world.

Now, granted those things happened a long time ago, yet the record of it has persisted, which tells me that it is this intelligent creator who sees to it that this information has been preserved. I believe that the Bible is that record. It is also still relevant and timely and the wisdom contained in it is just as true today as when it was first revealed.

Now, to the subject of God's "emotions" as we call them. Obviously, they are not the same as human emotions, but perfect intrinsically. In the KJV the word "hate" is used less than 100 times. And there are really only a few that speak about God's expression of it. Most of the time it speaks of others who hate wrongly. A few times it is hate towards others who hate God and his ways. When I looked at the examples where the word is used about God, I see that, predominately, it is his expression of aversion to behaviors rather than to a creation. If you look at that great verse in Proverbs 6:16 where God is said to hate/detest and find "abominable" seven things. They are all negative behaviors. They are: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.

Every one of those behaviors are called evil and they result in evil outcomes. God hates all evil. He hates wickedness. We are told in Proverbs 8:13 "The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogance, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.". So we are commanded to also hate and detest those same evil behaviors. We are told repeatedly to hate evil and love good which is what God also does. Since he alone is omniscient, only he can hate perfectly.

It is really not just how you happen to interpret the Bible, it is overwhelmingly present throughout Scripture that God does hate, yet, it is NOT directly a person but the person's actions. It is those actions - and we all are guilty of one or more of those top seven - that separate us from God. Sin is what it is called and sin has a penalty associated with it. God is holy, righteous, and loves justice. His holiness will not even look upon sin. His righteousness will not allow sin in his presence. His justice demands penalty for sin. He says the only penalty his justice will accept is death.

But this is not the only side of God. He is also merciful, slow to anger and abounding in love. In fact, he loved us so much that he took on flesh as a man and paid the sin debt penalty in our place that his justice demanded. You had said before that it seemed unjust that an innocent person would be sacrificed for the guilty and I agreed. But it wasn't just an innocent man - because no man is innocent, all have sinned and fall short of God's perfection. It was God himself who bore our sins and paid the penalty in his own blood. That is the amazingly awesome grace of God. He offers this redemption as a gift and we, by faith, receive it. There aren't two different Gods, one Old Testament and a different one in the New. It's the same one, the only one, and we see that he has not changed at all. I accept him as he says he is, not what I pretend he is and he is pretty wonderful.

[count-your-change]

No original manuscripts are available but what was in the originals can be ascertained for the most part.

And the rest of the above is just silly just as is,

“Petrine Epistles are of much later date and are pseudoepigraphical works”.

But I do appreciate tossing in “pseudoepigraphical”, it's impressive, really.

[Kolokotronis]

“But none of Jesus’ apostles would.”

Certainly not all of it, no. But it is likely they would recognize at a minimum the Anaphora. A number of them were developed while at least +John was alive.

[count-your-change]

“A number of them were developed while at least +John was alive.”

Which ones?

[Kolokotronis]

“I wonder where we could have gotten that from??? I didn’t think the EO scratched out words in their Bibles, too.”

Remember, it was we who gave you the bible you quote from, bb. It never ceases to amaze me how protestants have such a Mohammedan view of scripture! “It is not being anthropomorphic to ascribe these two emotions because HE SAID IT HIMSELF!” God “said”? He is subject to hatred? Or did some pre Incarnation fallen human being write that God “said” that? The Church which gave you your bible knows very well what is written there and thoroughly understands it. It could have removed any of a number of offending verses, especially from the OT. I wouldn’t be surprised if it did. That it left in the “hate” verses” was for a reason:

“Very often many things are said by the Holy Scriptures and in it many names are used not in a literal sense... those who have a mind understand this” +Isaac the Syrian

and

“”It is because fear edifies simpler people.” +Basil the Great.

God did not write the bible; fallible men did, men who had no more understanding of the “essence” of the Creator of Existence than you or me. In most cases they did the best they could with their finite and fallen minds. +Gregory the Theologian recognized this when he wrote:

“For according to our own comprehension, we have given names from our own attributes to those of God.”

And +John of Damascus recognized that when human beings write or speak of God as if He has a body and is subject to all the attributes and limitations of a body, these things are said symbolically in an effort to teach us about what are in fact beyond our nature.

[Kolokotronis]

“Which ones?”

Probably the West Syriac ones, at least some of them. The Didache speaks of them. I think its likely that the anaphora used by the Maronites might be one, or at least very close. The one we use on most Sundays is from the 4th/5th century, but is taken from the West Syriac ones so would be recognizable if not exactly the same wording. This isn’t as remarkable as you might think. If I were to attend a Maronite Liturgy, or a Roman Catholic Mass or a High Church Anglican Liturgy, or the Liturgies of ++ Mark or James, I’d recognize their anaphorae immediately despite the fact that they are all different from the ones I hear. They all come from the same sources.

[annalex]

I commented on that in my previous post.

It is, as far as titles go, useaful to understand Mary. However, observing your excitement ofver this discovery, let me make a broader comment. As a rule, Protestantism, born out of cheap slogans, also thinks in slogans (a slogan is what Luther nailed to the rear bumper of his folk wagon). You go: Faith Alone! I've Been Saved! No King But Christ! and think that is all there is to Christian religion. So you think that Catholicism -- religion matured in the Middle Ages when people had time to think and knew how to do it,-- operates like that, too.

Catholicism treats simple matters simply and complex matters complexly. Just because you picked up some expression of piety does not mean you grasped the theology. Mary is a human being who had a grasp of divine nature like no one else. In treatment of her, especially, Protestant crudity of thought looks particularly squalid.