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
What is a "material concept"? It sounds like a contradiction in terms.
In the closed, accidental conglomeration of matter in motion, otherwise know as the universe, what is your foundation for any of these non-material "abstractions", "pretend-reality axioms", ("axioms" which further presuppose the existence of "assumptions" and "propositions") ? No one can see or touch any of these things you're referring to .
The ultimate proof of logic is in the material world from which it comes. Thus, if A=B, and B=C, then A=C must have some basis in reality, the symbols representing real things. Otherwise, the equations are meaningless.
Logic and the proof of logic are the epiphenomenon of non-rational, materialistic chemical reactions? Chemical reactions occur whenever bonds are formed or broken between molecules. Certain atoms combine with which other atoms electromagnetically based on the properties of their electron shells. How can chemical reactions account for non-material laws? If they do, why should electro/chemical reactions in a brain extend beyond an individual brain? If logic comes from the material world then it is not timeless, universal, and unchanging. Is logic absolute or is it merely conventional? If it is merely conventional, rational debate would be impossible because there could be as many standards as there are people. Alternatively, in an accidental materialistic universe, why would there be universal, unchanging standards?”
I would like to know your foundation - in an accidental, materialistic universe - for all these non-material, accidental by-products of matter in motion, which you refer to as the laws of logic.
Cordially,
“IOW, you admit that you don’t know what you’re talking about.”
Ah....but k50 does trust (read put faith in) “most scholars”!!
“Mosts scholars are “wrong” and you are right? Dream on.” k50.
I am not trying to speak for another freeper who is perfectly able to explain herself but I would really hate for you to continue to make these assertions without knowing that you are wrong. Metmom is not a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) nor is she particularly Calvinistic in her beliefs. Contrary to your misunderstanding of the term semper reformanda as meaning an "ever changing, never sticking to one true faith in anything" is not the meaning of the term. It is instead referring to the conviction of certain Reformed Protestant theologians that the church must continually re-examine itself in order to maintain its purity of doctrine and practice.
Interestingly enough, the term was also used by ecclesiastical reformers of the Roman Catholic Church who were caught up in the spirit of Vatican II of the 1960s. This latter usage appears in a 2009 pastoral letter by bishop R. Walker Nickless that encourages a hermeneutic of continuity in Catholic teaching and practice.
It would be a good idea to not jump to conclusions when you hear something and then to express an opinion without doing at least some cursory research first.
What are you talking about?
I never said that. Show me where you think I did.
Is that a concept foreign to Catholics? Don't they do it?
Interestingly enough, the term was also used by ecclesiastical reformers of the Roman Catholic Church who were caught up in the spirit of Vatican II of the 1960s. This latter usage appears in a 2009 pastoral letter by bishop R. Walker Nickless that encourages a hermeneutic of continuity in Catholic teaching and practice.
Oh, I see they do....Fancy that.
It would be a good idea to not jump to conclusions when you hear something and then to express an opinion without doing at least some cursory research first.
Spoil sport :(
It’s logic, mm. “I don’t know” = “You don’t know” and “you don’t know” = “Nobody knows” then “I don’t know” = “Nobody knows”.
Logic.
Of course not. All men are called to good works and some choose to do them and some choose not to, but it is not a random process.
I realize that, but it is reasonable, so I congratulated you on it.
[The Fathers of the Church] were completely unwilling to teach such as doctrine/dogma
How were they "unwilling"? No one called her anything but "the virgin". That was simply a fact to them.
LOL....
Our efforts do not "add to grace"; verse 9 makes that clear. However, grace stirs us both to faith and to good works, in which we "should walk".
Indeed. And the New Testament writers he inspired were all Catholic Christians. Those who later decided which works to canionize and which not to canonized were Catholic Christians. God dictated the scripture to the Church, who then gave it to you.
The witness of the Church, -- St. Joseph and the apostles in particular, and Mary herself, on that score. Like the entire Christianity it is a matter of belief. Some disbelieve. It is characteristic of the Protestants to disbelieve. But Catholic Christians believe.
Sure it can be. There were people around her who knew her life well. They provided the witness. That witness lives to this day. It is a fact. You may disbelieve it, but it does not make it any less a historical fact.
This thought just occurred to me, if Joseph did have other children from a previous marriage, how come there is no mention of them when he and the very great with child, Mary, had to leave Nazareth and travel to Bethlehem? Wasn't he traveling in order to fulfill the census by command of the emperor, Caesar Augustus? If he did not take those other kids, he would have been breaking the law, would he not? If he could have just left them at home in the care of relatives, then he certainly could have left Mary there as well rather than risking her health making such a trip in her condition.
You are welcome, but do not listen to Luther, he is a 16c charlatan not connected to the historical Church.
The Eucharistic fast is set at one hour. Yes, those things change from time to time, and will probably change again, but no one who has a clue about the Catholic Church bases his faith on these matters. The matters of faith are the virgin birth, death and resurrection of Christ, His teachings, the history of the Church -- all those things without which there would be no Protestantism either. The difference is that we believe wholly and you believe selectively. We also believe directly and you believe through the filter of your pastor. But we both believe the Church. There is simply no ohter source of knowledge about the salvation Christ offered you.
If there is a point you are trying to make with your clowning, please make it in the form of a reasoned argument.
But you believe the scripture. Who told you that truth?
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.