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
It also appears that the modern day Lutheran may have no assurance of salvation since it is conditional on making the choice to repent on an ongoing basis. Yet, Luther himself had full assurance.
The men who follow them decide if they believe them or not. I believe the Holy Catholic Church because I can verify she teaches me the truth. I can compare the teaching of today's Catholic Church with the Holy Scripture, and with the historical evidence, and see consistency. I can compare the moral theology of the Church and see its validity according to the natural law of reason. I alos see the Catholic moral theology courageously defended by my Church, often alone against the corrupt world filled with supposedly Christian sects.
I also can see the deception of Protestants, the mean interest these sects have been catering to since Hus and Luther, and see how Protestantism does not square with the Holy Scriptutre in its foundational teachings. I observe fake prophets show up like mushrooms after a rainy day all over the Protestant dreary landscape. I see their followers uncapable of a sustained argument strictly over the scripture: they give fantastical explanations to plain text or they run off, or they insult my Church on some unrelated matter so that to change the topic. I decide therefore that they are all charlatans and people fooled by charlatans. It is not complicated.
His first tenet is that men are saved by faith alone and that men are saved at the time they make a profession of faith onward no matter what sins they subsequently commit. That teaching is absurd and damaging to anyone's soul, and it is in plain contradiction to the scripture, which teaches the necessity of both good works and penance for salvation.
Further, had Luther simply offer us a new religion which "corrected" the scripture, sort of like Mohammed, that would have been an honest thing to do. But instead he created a system of deception that allowed men he trained in his German sophistry to rationalize and spin away a better half of the Bible to suit his theological fantasy. He then capped that off by saying that he was reforming, or even "reviving" Christianity. He is a cheap shyster, and those who believed him place their souls in great danger.
You can rebuff what I say by explaining how it is that "faith alone" is a biblical concept. Do mot forget to involve James 2:17-26 and Matthew 31-46 because these two passages most clearly contradict the basis of Protestantism.
Or you can continue posting something accusing the Church of God of all kind of evil.
Either way, you are not talking to uneducated peasants like Luther did. If you wish a serious scriptural dispute you will get it.
Kiss a Muslims'......................................Koran if it were presented to you?
Got any more stupid questions?
Where does it say to follow "Tradition" not yet invented?
"Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you" or "by works a man is justified; and not by faith only" or "Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God".
To that your response is:
You willfully add to, and take away from the word of God? If post 3304 were mine, I would ask that it be removed
I now repost the verses I quoted in 3304 with the original Greek, so that you can point out what I added or removed.
English: Douay-Rheims Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000) John 6
53. 6:54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. ειπεν ουν αυτοις ο ιησους αμην αμην λεγω υμιν εαν μη φαγητε την σαρκα του υιου του ανθρωπου και πιητε αυτου το αιμα ουκ εχετε ζωην εν εαυτοις
James 2
24. Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? ορατε τοινυν οτι εξ εργων δικαιουται ανθρωπος και ουκ εκ πιστεως μονον
Acts of the Apostles 20
28. Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. προσεχετε ουν εαυτοις και παντι τω ποιμνιω εν ω υμας το πνευμα το αγιον εθετο επισκοπους ποιμαινειν την εκκλησιαν του κυριου και θεου ην περιεποιησατο δια του ιδιου αιματος
The reason I posted these in 3304 was to ask whether you take these verses axactly as written. Now it appears you don't take them at all. Nice work.
An entire doctrine of salvation of works built on ONE misunderstood scripture
The book of James was written to the converted Jewish church , not heathens seeking salvation It tells them how their conversion is seen by the unsaved world . It is not about becoming saved or being saved. It is about the fruit of your salvation.
Jam 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Jam 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
This is an amplification of the teaching of Jesus that we know a tree by the fruit it bears.It is how we know the saved from the unsaved. It does not declare that the man has faith ...but that he SAYS he has faith.
This addresses a hollow profession of faith , not a saving one .Can a hollow profession save him? NO, any more than works can save.This scripture says to the church that this faith is non existent , it is dead.
The bible is clear that it is God that gives the faith and it is God that ordains the works of the saved
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Hbr 13:21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom [be] glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Phl 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of [his] good pleasure.
John 19:25 says "there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas" and Mark 15:40 says "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". It is of course possible that there were four Marys and not three: Mary the Virgin Mother of God, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James et al, and Mary of Cleophas. I think it is natural to assume tha the latter two were the same Mary, bu you are correct that it is not exactly in the text.
the other Gospels do name Mary, the mother of Jesus, James, and Joseph.
I am not aware of any gospel naming "Mary, the mother of Jesus, James, and Joseph". Mark 15 mentions Mary, the mother of James, and Joseph, and John mentions Mary, the mother of Jesus, but no gospel identifies the two as the same woman. Further, it is clear from Mark 15:40 that Mary the motehr of James et al was not the mother of Jesus because Evangelist Mark would not indentify the Mother of Jesus in the scene where Jesus is dying as a mother of some obscure characters James et al without also identifying her as the mother of the main character on the scene, Jesus.
You would have her {Mary the Virgin Mother of God]washing her hands of Jesus after His crucifiction. Certainly she wouldn't be that callous. She certainly was there
It is a nice feeling on your part, but she wasn't. Again, Mark 16:1 is identifying the woman as a mother of some insignificant for the narrative figures and not as mother of Jesus precisely because Mary the Virgin Mother of God was not there.
Many minds wondered why did Mary not go. The answer is rather clear: she knew He won't be there.
Acts 1:14 is clear to define His mother, Mary and His brothers as distinct from the company of about 120 brethren.
Mary the Virgin Mother of God was certainly in the Upper room, the text identifies her. Whether Mary of Cleophas or any other Mary was in the room with them we don't know, as St. Luke simply writes "the women". James the Just, the brother of the Lord was indeed there as well. In all 120 people are called "brothers". Were thay all literal brothers, that would have kept Mary busy giving birth non-stop, -- strange no one mentions that in any of the Bible.
I agree, and so does the Church. One does not invent traditions, one keeps them. We sure do. Inventing traditions is Protestantism and we condemn it for that.
because of the attention and love of Scripture
You cannot figure out the scenes of the Crucifixion and the Empty Tomb from the scripture but you are attentive to the scripture?
Forest Keeper wrote:
“It also appears that the modern day Lutheran may have no assurance of salvation since it is conditional on making the choice to repent on an ongoing basis. Yet, Luther himself had full assurance.”
You are a perceptive reader. Good for you. Luther was, as you said in another part of your post, “no free-will Arminian.” What you have to understand is that Rome has chosen (it will irritate our Roman friends that I say it this way) to put their soteriological eggs in the basket of “free will.” For them free will is a theological hill to die on. Geneva, i.e. Calvin, has chosen (this will irritate them as well ... tongue in cheek) to put their soteriological eggs in the basket of Unconditional Election, the “U” of TULIP. These two things appear, at least to human reason, to be the only two logical possibilities. The problem is that both run afoul of Scripture.
Lutherans have chosen to say, ‘Who cares about human reason?’, we’ll go with Scripture, logical or not. This is where the teaching of Sola Scriptura really kicks in. God is always right, whether we think so or not, whether we find it pleasing to our understanding or not. By this standard, Scripture trumps both Roman tradition (past human experience and thinking) and Calvinistic reason (contemporary experience and thinking).
The Arminians, when they found themselves confronted with the horribleness of the logical outcome of Calvinistic pre-destination, that is, that God pre-destines some to damnation, went back to the free-will path and, thus, into conflict with a different set of contradictions in the Holy Scriptures.
Lutherans simply go with Scripture: If we are saved, it is God’s doing. For the teaching of salvation by grace ultimately leads to the truth that it is God’s election, not ours. Otherwise, grace is not grace. On the other hand, if we are damned it is our doing. If you think about it just a little bit, you will realize that this is what Scripture teaches, even though it is not logical to our way of thinking. It is 2 plus 2 equals 7. Lutherans simply say, with God, “My ways are not your ways ...” In other words, they are content to let God be God. What He has withheld from us, we assume is done in accordance with His good and gracious will, i.e., it is for our good or because it is beyond our understanding. This tends to be insulting to many. It is like being told you are a child and therefore don’t need to know. Lutherans simply respond, ‘OK, so I am a child. Isn’t that what Jesus said I should be before God?’
When it comes to “assurance of salvation,” you are missing the point. Although it may be true that some modern day Lutherans are confused on this point, it is only because they were poorly instructed or spent too much time listening to bad teaching either from unfaithful so-called Lutheran preachers or from non-Lutheran sources that only succeeded in confusing them.
What is lacking in the various Reformed denominations, to a greater or lesser extent, is the proper understanding of the means of grace, that is, the Gospel in Word and Sacrament. Luther was very strong here, and all who truly could be called Lutherans, are so as well. The Word (the preached and taught Gospel) and Sacraments (properly speaking, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper) were all instituted by Christ for the very purpose of giving assurance of forgiveness, life, and salvation. It is to these that faith clings, because in these Christ, who was crucified and risen then and there (it is finished!) is given to us here and now. In these there is full assurance, as you say.
The devil most likes to undermine either the certainty of the vicarious atonement’s “It is finished,” (the problem of Rome) or the certainty of Christ’s sure and certain presence among and in us through the means of grace (the problem of the Reformed in general).
Well, Forest Keeper, that will have to be enough for now. I hope you find this at least informative, if not even helpful.
But rest assured that the teaching that underlies the terms “Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, and Solus Christus” is Martin Luther’s, and is Scriptural. Others have simply borrowed or appropriated them, some well and some not so well.
OK.
Tell me you're just joking
Why should I be joking? Peter denied Christ three times. Christ asked him if he loved Him. Peter responded, "I do -- thou knowest I do" (John 22:15). Then Jesus tells him to feed and guide his sheep. That is reinstatement in the Petrine Office.
Have you considered that Jesus made no distinction between the significance of the name "Peter" vs "Simon"?
That idea would not agree with the fact that this name, Peter, is mentioned in reference to the rock on which Christ will build His Church. Further, St. Peter receives aspecial role right there: to hold the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and to "bind and loose". Indeed, the office of Peter would be no less if his name had remained Simon, but the fact is he was renamed, the name is synonymous with rock, and the rock is said to be the foundation of the Catholic Church. So your idea that the renaming should be simply left out fo the equation is unwise.
Forest Keeper, one more thing before I go. You said:
“One thing that confuses me is given that Luther was no free-will Arminian, yet, there appears to be here the strong aspect of free-will choice on whether to come to faith and continuously repent, etc., for salvation.”
Maybe this is what confuses you: Look carefully at how the word “repent” is used in the Scriptures. It is never used when speaking to unbelievers or to those who could be expected to have no knowledge of God’s Word. Repent is a word of those who are of the faith or have knowledge of the faith. It is a calling back to faith to the God of grace and mercy. So, “coming to faith” and ongoing repentance are two quite different things. Faith is often very weak and seemingly fragile, yet it is according to God’s Word, “the gift of God, not of works.” That is, it is heaven sent. Often faith is the slender reed or the smoking flax, as Isaiah famously said. But God in His grace has promised He will not break the one or quench the other. Faith apart from Christ’s strengthening Gospel in Word and Sacrament tends to grow weak and doubting, just as we tend to grow weak and faltering with food and drink. Speaking of which, I must say goodbye.
The more I discover about the state of the art of Bible translation in Catholic circles — I have written off the Protestants long time ago — the more I think that a reform of the Church in the Anglosphere is sorely needed.
For our amusement please explain how Faith Alone emerges from the scripture.
all of the translations, including the Douay, have adequate ammunition to demolish all errant catholic doctrine
OK. Go ahead. Please.
I do not appeal to traditions or extra-biblical writings to argue with the Protestants about the errors of Protestantism. I also do not refer to anythign other than the scripture whe arguing about Catohlic doctrines that are adequeately present in the srcipture.
When someone asks me about a Catholic doctrine that is poorly supported by the scripture, I begin by admitting the fact that it is poorly supported. I then proceed clarifying the doctrine using the material that speaks to the doctrine.
ph
Not from sin. It purifies from the defects of the soul caused by sin. For example, one can commit a sin, say, a theft, and then receive absolution of it. So he is free from the sin of theft, but he still has the underlying disposition of greed. He never commits another theft, because of the strength of his will and the divine grace given him through the confession and the Eucharist. But he is still a greedy man. There are no greedy men in heaven. Hence he goes through Purgatory, to cleanse himself from that.
If you can think of someone who you would hesitate calling a living saint, even though he does not seem to have committed any actual sin -- that is a good candidate for purgatory -- at least in your judgment.
Galatians 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
When you do it is a scripture that supports the Catholic teaching, and I then point that out to you. But if I ask you to explain, for example, James 2:24, or John 6:54, you will do exactly what I say you do: "by explaining how the Scripture doesn't say what it says".
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.