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
No, but here you construct an elaborate theory of Mary having other children based on passages clearly not intended to communicate that. Sola Scriptura, anyone?
Mary has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's salvation. ONLY JESUS!
Truth telling is important. Telling lies is also important, even if it is about Mary and not about Jesus. The Holy Evangelists saw it fit to tell us many things about Virgin Mary and recorded many of her words. It was important to them to tell us about Mary, and I do the same in ways available to me.
The apparent contradiction did not bother St. Paul:
[I] now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church (Col 1:24)if by the Spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live (Romans 8:13)
Of course there is no contradictions because the Catholic Church is His body also in suffering.
[26]...if one member suffer any thing, all the members suffer with it; or if one member glory, all the members rejoice with it. [27] Now you are the body of Christ, and members of member (1 Cor. 12)
Learn from the scripture and you will leave the shackles of Protestantism and become Catholic as God intended you to be.
Indeed. This is why the Church teaches salvation by faith and good works, but not by works alone, and not by faith alone. It is a good idea to figure out what the Church teaches before arguing against it.
the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you. (John 14:26)"Sola Scriptura" is a superstition that is contrary to scripture.when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you. (John 16:13)
let the unction, which you have received from him, abide in you. And you have no need that any man teach you; but as his unction teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie. (1 John 2:27)
there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written. (John 21:25)
"Sola Fide" is expressly taught against in the scripture. You can find many verses that praise faith and explain that without faith one cannot be saved. But the doctrine that we are saved by faith alone without the necessary good works is contrary to the scripture:
[17] So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. [18] But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith. [19] Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble. [20] But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? [21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? [22] Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? [23] And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. [24] Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? [25] And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers, and sending them out another way? [26] For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead. (James 2)
Cannot be clearer.
You can believe whatever you want. It is a free country. If you want to believe a sect that tells you how you can gain eternal life without doing anything for it because someone thumped the Bible on the pulpit long enough to convince you, fine. But please do not keep up the pretense that your weird set of superstitions accords with the Bible.
annalex wrote:
“Indeed. This is why the Church teaches salvation by faith and good works, but not by works alone, and not by faith alone. It is a good idea to figure out what the Church teaches before arguing against it.”
Don’t be so narrow-minded and restrictive, annalex, your church teaches that one doesn’t even need faith in Christ for salvation, works alone will do:
Under the rubric: “Outside the Church there is no salvation”
“This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
‘Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ of his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.’”
Catechism of the Catholic Church for the United States of America copyright @ 1994, United States Catholic Conference, Inc. - Libreria Editrice Vaticana, page 224, paragraph 847.
I can agree with this entirely, but from a very different perspective. First I think we would disagree on what the composition of "The Church" really is. In addition we would disagree on the source of "our understanding of what God's word says". If God really doesn't care to lead us, but rather only a few men, then we should just presume to blindly follow what other fallible men say. -- I think I remember that on the Orthodox side the laity has to approve of the pronouncements of the Bishops, but that such authority is very rarely invoked. -- But in any case if God does want a personal relationship with us, then we may presume that He does indeed lead us. It appears to be a presumption either way, in favor of Holy Spirit leading groups or individuals, based on our world views of the relationship God wants to have with us.
Different Mary?
Different Jesus?
Different James and Joses and brothers and sisters?
Fiction and Legend are worthwhile for entertainment, but not worthwhile as something upon which you would build your faith.
Congratulations! Finally some fact which cannot be disputed. "Not every Mary is Mary Our Lady.
Sadly the rest of your post is tortured speculation.
The fatal flaw with that action is that just any group of men can come along and claim to be instructed by God, lead by God, inspired by God and how does the laity discern this? Do we just blindly follow on their say so? That didn't work out so well for the followers of Jim Jones and other cult leaders. The blind following the blind.
That's the reason it is so critical to have ONE source of recognized truth to refer back to and correct doctrine against.
The written word of God does not change. Doctrines of denominations do. I've heard pastors from the pulpit preach and tell the congregation to not just take their word for it that it's even in the Bible but to read and study it for themselves and if they think the he (the pastor) is in error, to approach him and show him and they will discuss it.
That's the pastor recognizing that he's human and subject to error, just like any man. That's accountability and someone who takes their responsibility seriously.
That's something I don't see happening in the Catholic church. The laity is so intimidated by their priests and so in awe of their position, that I can't imagine any of them daring to challenge them. I've seen all kinds of questionable behavior excused by the laity because if the priest did it, he wouldn't sin so it must be OK.
I separate me from my understanding by keeping faithful to what scripture says. My sinful nature would love to interpret scripture to allow for all sorts of sins. We have both seen nutjobs of all stripes use scripture to try to legitimate everything from adultery to abortion to homosexual conduct, etc. Those might be the easy ones, but I have definitely caught myself before trying to justify something I wound up deciding was wrong because of a more honest look at scripture. I take those occasions as concrete evidence of Holy Spirit's personal leading. And so, if in accordance with scripture Holy Spirit leads on these occasions then it follows that He leads individually as a general matter since no distinction is made in scripture. The Bible just says that Holy Spirit will lead us "in all things".
Now, concerning why all Christians don't have the same interpretations it should be noted that all Christians are at different places in their respective walks with the Lord. There are some spiritual truths that some are just not ready to handle yet, so Holy Spirit deals with us accordingly. It doesn't mean He leads in error, just that He may lead in varying "doses" or in varying levels of understanding. I'm sure we would agree that any given verse or passage could potentially have more than one fully true meaning. So for example, at one point I felt led to hold the Arminian view of cooperation. It can certainly be argued that the Bible has support for this. But now I believe the Holy Spirit has taken me to the next level in Reformed theology, also arguably supported by scripture. I don't think I could have made the jump directly so I believe it was necessary to get me there in steps, which is what I think Holy Spirit did. Undoubtedly I have many more steps to go concerning many many issues and I can't wait to have them revealed to me. All of this makes sense because Christian growth, whether through the leading of the Magisterium or Holy Spirit directly, is a life long process.
Exactly...years ago there was a Priest in the small community I lived who use to be seen out and about with a young teenager. I asked why he was always with him...they (catholics within his church) said he had taken the young man in to help him thru some difficult times in his life...but the clencher was they also said not uncommon for this Priest to have a boy toy and that was what this was about. He sought out troubled teens and took them home to his cave. They whole Parish knew about this and they simply stated it was just accepted as it is. I wonder if the Priest was as acommodating to his Parish members when they sinned?
I don't see where any of this is negated by pointing out that "God wants a personal relationship with each of us". He may very well. We as humans, however, are not "saved" in some divine vacuum, at least not the overwhelming majority of us. We advance in theosis and become like God, thus fulfilling our created purpose, within the liturgical community of The Church.
"It appears to be a presumption either way, in favor of Holy Spirit leading groups or individuals, based on our world views of the relationship God wants to have with us."
I like that, FK! The religiously individualistic mindset of the West since the Renaissance is particularly suited to Protestantism. This seems even more true since the Enlightenment. The East was and is a very different place. There was a real, "God Ordained" Emperor until 1453 and after that in Russia until 1917. And these empires were seen as imitations, flawed certainly, of the Empire of God. Everyone had a role and a place in these empires (this was true even under the Mohammedan caliphates, but those roles and places were all designed to create "heaven on earth" The more collectivist religious phronema of the East, therefore, developed earlier into a very very different way of looking theosis than developed in the West 1500 years later.
I've known people who have been saved out of horrendous lifestyles. They were still rough around the edges and were often criticized by others who called themselves *Christian*.
Sure, they weren't to the same level of *spirituality* that may church people felt they had attained, but for their flaws in doctrine and sometimes still sin in their lives, they had made light years of progress. Much more so than the legalists who were condemning them.
It was just a matter of where they started from compared to others. They had further to go, but made MUCH, MUCH more individual progress.
If someones doctrine doesn't match mine in areas where it is not critical for one's salvation, then I figure it's up to God to convict them. There is no compromise however, on the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, His death, burial, and resurrection though.
Plus... pagan rituals, idol worship, a Priesthood which Christ ended, traditions taught by men, praying to the departed and Mary worship...just to name a few. 'But please do not keep up the pretense that your weird set of superstitions accords with the Bible.'
“”The written word of God does not change.””
It changes plenty if you are reading from the KJV,NIV etc.. as opposed directly from the Greek LXX. That coupled with the correct meanings of the written words means you’re likely to be in error going it alone interpreting scripture outside of historical interpretations of the early Church’
Common sense ought to tell you that the early Church and the Fathers saw the closest thing to anything original and lived closer to the time Christ and the Apostles ,therefore Solo Scripture makes no sense outside of the Church.
The correct INTERPRETATIONS Of Scripture is what is important ,dear mm.
I Pray all goes well with your health issues and trip to Boston.
Your comment reminds me of a conversation I had with the father of one of my godchildren. He and his wife and children all converted to Orthodoxy. Anyway, he was going on and on about how awful and heretical Protestantism was and how glad he was that through bible study he had "stumbled" upon the Fathers and having read some of the Fathers, he and his family found Orthodoxy. I was going to slug him, but instead reminded him that his bible study had been in a very small Baptist community where the HS had lead him to read that bible and in turn to read the Fathers which in turn lead him and his to Orthodoxy. He was, shall we say, embarrassed. He is now an Orthodox priest! :)
"God moves in a mysterious way
his wonders to perform;"
The ability to read doesn't necessarilly correspond with understanding.
I can read the Basics of String Theory.
You can read the Basics of String Theory.
I dont understand it.
With your ability to read please explain it to me.
The thief had no idea of Perpetual Virginity. The "Legend" hadn't yet been invented.
Would it burst your bubble if I told you I have learned nothing new about Catholic beliefs from our dialogue? However, I am impressed with the extent to which you have drunk the Kool-Ade.
I imagine you are a great dancer.
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.