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

[presently no screen name]

Deliberately silly. It’s a joke to some, IMO.

[boatbums]

Yes, but that does not negate the fact that it is that very Church that gave you the Scripture you profess to follow.

Odd that that is the common belief of the Roman Catholic and it IS said frequently enough and believed among most of you, yet you have also quoted from one of your Popes (Leo XIII) that God is recognized as the author of Scripture:

"And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author." Leo XIII on the inerrancy of scripture (from Providentissimus Deus) [ecum.]

I think it would be more fitting to also acknowledge that since we believe God himself is the author of Scripture and that it is inerrant, then we should, too, accept that God is the one who has preserved it so that even today, thousands of years later, it is just as relevant, true, sacred, inerrant and our sole source for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly equipped for all good works. Why try to steal God's glory?

[metmom]

Nor was it my point. I simply pointed out that since it so happens that you find the Scripture believable you then in that particular instance believe the Church. That you don't believe the Church otherwise is something for you to ponder.

Wow is that backwards.

Scripture comes first and last.

If the Catholic church happens to agree with it, then all it demonstrates is that at some point, the Catholic church got it right. I believe Scripture because I believe God. The Roman Catholic church has little to do with it.

[metmom]

Belief in the Lord is necessary for salvation, yet it by itself does not save.

Are you saying that Paul lied???

His epistles are full of statements where he says that salvation is through faith alone. It's the common theme of his writings.

Acts 16:29-32 And the jailer called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas. Then he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.

[metmom]

You know, the RCC claiming credit and responsibility for Scripture does a couple things.

First off, it really destroys it’s divine inspriation. It then becomes a book written by men who later take responsibility for it.

And if that’s the case, then it makes it easier for tradition to trump it because since the RCC takes responsibility for both, it gives it the power to decide which one is more authoritative.

The argument that the RCC wrote the Bible because the men who wrote it were Catholics is without merit. For the Catholic church to posthumously claim that the writers of Scripture to be Catholic, when that was never acknowledged by the writers themselves, therefore it wrote the Bible, is disingenuous on their part.

Anyone can make any kind of claim they want and it doesn’t make it true.

There’s no where in the Bible where writers make any claim to Catholicism or even unity under one leader. The early church was a very loose association of local congregations scattered across Asia. The world *catholic* never shows up in Scripture.

Catholicism claiming that the writers of the Bible were Catholic sounds too much like the Mormon’s who go back through their family lines to have their dead ancestors baptized.

God preserved the Bible intact in spite of the Catholic church, not because of it.

[boatbums]

Honestly, I really could not care less if the Catholic Church recognizes other churches as "churches" or not. The reason is that it is God, not man, who sees into the heart and knows if the faith in Christ is real or not. And THAT is the determinate of "church" membership. We know that the church is the called-out assembly of the body of Christ and membership happens when by faith we trust in Jesus Christ as our Savior and certainly not when a baby gets splashed with water with a slogan spoken by anyone.

One more thing, Ignatius did NOT capitalize the word "catholic" in his letter because we know that in his day the church out of Rome that today considers itself the "real" amalgamation of all the body of Christ did not even exist. At that time, in Rome, there was a fledgling church made up of believers in Christ, they had a local leader just as those in Antioch had him, Jerusalem had theirs, etc,. It was not until 375 A.D. that the church in Rome declared itself sovereign. So, even though Ignatius is not an inspired nor inerrant source, he was correct that some deny the gift of God and reject the truth of Jesus' humanity/deity and his bodily resurrection. However, he was NOT speaking of "Protestants", obviously, and he would not count us out of the Church of Jesus Christ today either. I believe also, that wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the universal church. Some of you need to get over that sin of exclusivist pride that keeps you from enjoying your place in the family of God.

[smvoice]

AMEN. The RCC took Christianity hostage and by her own traditions and doctrines has kept it hostage to superstitious and fables. In SPITE of her hijacking of God's Plan and intent to re-write His clearly laid out plan of salvation for mankind, God's word of truth remains. The RCC has actually made God's plan easier to see and accept. She has turned so many truths into lies and deception that finding the truth and simplicity that is in Jesus Christ is as simple as hearing the Gospel, believing the Gospel, and knowing that the finished work of Christ has saved you.

The irony is, this can be proven, as the RCC does not even KNOW what the Gospel is. They know all the works, doctrines, traditions, and superstitions. But they can not tell you what the Gospel is. There should be absolutely no confusion as to who to believe. The Gospel or the Roman Catholic Church. As different as night and day.

[presently no screen name]

Is Mary sinless - NO.

Even according to the RCC with ‘their Mary’. Since Mary was married, she must have, first, married under a false premise - with no intention of fulfilling her marriage vows. And, second, ignored ‘be submissive to your husband’ and the reason for marriage - to procreate.

Perhaps, next we will see the Vatican giving Mary a posthumous annulment.

[boatbums]

Some verses of the Bible are poetical or allegorical, but by default the first interpretation is always literal and even if not, attentive to detail. I am, you know, Catholic: I love, study and obey he scripture as written. If I wanted to spread around my own theories I'd become Protestant and tell tall stories instead.

Since you attest to your love for Scripture and your attention to detail, I wonder if you have ever wondered why that verse (Luke 1:28) only says "full of grace" in one (1) English translation of Scripture. It happens to be the Douay-Rheims version. In all others it says "highly favored"; "favored woman"; "favored one"; "favored by the Lord"; or "to whom special grace has been given". Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the Bible didn't really say "full of grace"?

I also find it a little curious that you say the only reason Mary said "How shall this be done, because I know not man?" must mean she never intended to have sexual intercourse. Could she also not have meant that she and Joseph still had some time to go on their betrothal period before they would come together to consummate and the angel's announcement sounded imminent? I think it is the detested "Protestants" that cling more to the Scriptures as written, and don't create their own "tall tales" or "theories" to advance their own wistful legends.

[boatbums]

There’s no where in the Bible where writers make any claim to Catholicism or even unity under one leader. The early church was a very loose association of local congregations scattered across Asia. The world *catholic* never shows up in Scripture.

Amen. We are told to be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind (Phil. 2:2). We are also advised to:

"Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." (Eph. 4:3-6).

Now I certainly believe that we can accomplish this unity and still have differing customs in regard to church hierarchy, structure and manner of worship. It is only those who want total control and therefor, total power who insist that Scripture requires a single, united under a supreme "commander" "church" institution. We have freedom and liberty in Christ and, yet, are united in the major doctrines of our common faith. I have enough trust in our Lord that he desires that above all else - the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace and in all things, love.

[kosta50]

why that verse (Luke 1:28) only says "full of grace" in one (1) English translation of Scripture [Douay-Rheims]. It happens to be the Douay-Rheims version. In all others it says "highly favored";

You are right. This is a perfect example of an attempt to "harmonize" the manuscripts to fit the doctrine.

I think it is the detested "Protestants" that cling more to the Scriptures as written, and don't create their own "tall tales" or "theories" to advance their own wistful legends.

That's simply not true, bb. For example NIV is the worst of all Protestant Bibles when it comes to changing what the Greek text says.

The koine Greek term "full of grace" is πλήρης χάριτος (John 1:14, Act 6:8, older variants). In comparison, Luke 1:28 says κεχαριτωμένη which, because the grammatical form is intensive some translate as full of grace(DR) or highly favored (KJV).

The Slavonic translation, the one that most closely correpsonds to the oriignal Greek in all aspects, uses the word is благодатная or graced, and not full of grace ( преблагодатная)

So, there is no doubt that transitional flexibility, combined with doctrinal harmonizing is responsible for these variations, which ultimately lead to different interpretations, which then result in different theologies, and endless FR debates over what the Bible really says.

Even if the scripture was originally the word of God, it has long ceased to be that due to various human interventions. The only way the faith may have been preserved (by some miracle) would be through the Church Sacred Tradition, in spate of trends and translations and corruptions, and never by merely reading the Bible.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: Where He guides any individual Christian is exactly right FOR that particular Christian

And I imagine you know that because he whispered that in your ear?

I see it as a pretty basic Biblical principle. For example:

John 16:12-15 : 12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.

So if Holy Spirit guided a CHRISTIAN down the wrong path then it would not bring glory to Christ.

FK: My "catching myself" and "deciding" are merely my becoming aware of Holy Spirit's work.

How is that different from what Andrea Yates believed when she drowned her five children—claiming God told her to do so?

Because the desire and actions moved in opposite directions. My desire started off wrong and then changed to a Godly one according to scripture. Yates' started off fine and then changed to a decision that served satan according to scripture. That's a big difference.

The only problem is what qualifies one as a Christian?

True faith in the Biblical Christ.

And where does the word Christian appear in the Bible?

The NIV, NKJV, and the ESV all have it in Acts 26:28 :

28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?”

But regardless of what other translations say the concept of followers and believers in Christ is throughout the Bible, obviously especially in the NT.

And where is December 25 noted in the Bible as the day Jesus was born?

Nowhere.

Traditions of men, right?

Absolutely.

That's what determines who is a Christian, FK; whatever an individual believer decides, or a group of believers decide. That's what Protestantism created.

I don't think things like whether the words "Christian" or "Trinity" are in the Bible or whether one believes Jesus was actually born on 12/25 has anything to do with whether one is a Christian. A Christian is one who has been graced and has come to faith.

So, how do we know who is being deceived (how could one know? Isn't that what deception is all about?). Then how does one "know" that he is being led by the Holy Spirit instead of being deceived?

We always have the Bible as the standard bearer. I'm not aware of any cases where God deceives a believer, so with non-believers it can be hard to tell if it is the Lord or not, but if a good is claimed that is actually evil according to scripture then a deception is occurring one way or the other.

Wouldn't someone being deceived think he is being led by the Holy Spirit? Doesn't even the Bible say the satan can appear as the Angel of Light?

For professing, but false believers this could well be the case. The "Lord, Lord" crowd whom Jesus turned His back on might be an example.

If the master of lies is always out there trying to deceive, wouldn't he try to appear as someone who is telling the truth at all times?

Yes, as we see in many places in scripture. That is why we are told to be of discerning hearts, and believers have the Holy Spirit indwelling to help them. We still blow it here and there, losing a few battles, but never the war.

Even Paul warns you "The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons." [1 Timothy 4:1] Wouldn't the Protestant Reform, some 1,500 years later, qualify as the "later times"? :)

Well, yes :), but I've never heard of any demons teaching to adhere closely to the Bible, so I think we're ok on that front. :) When satan "quoted" scripture to Jesus in the desert he left out key phrases that changed the meaning completely.

FK: I see "absolute certainty" as a relative term, which science has proved over and over

Only a lawyer could say that and believe it. :) Science does not claim 100% certainty on anything. Science is based on probability.

I fully agree.

Religious certainty is not relativism; it's absolute, dogmatic certainty. No believer can say the chance that Jesus resurrected from the dead is 99.9% certain, with 0.1% chance he didn't!

On core principles (like the resurrection) I agree, but on everything else I don't. A Latin and I can both be true believers with me saying I am 99% certain I am saved by grace through faith alone and the Latin saying he is 99% sure that he is saved by grace plus faith plus works. So with most of the things we talk about around here I think "absolute certainty" is relative.

[Forest Keeper]

So, we do not progress in theosis because of a relationship with others (that is almost always incidental) but rather because of our participation in the Body of Christ which is found in its fullness where there is one bishop, surrounded by his monastics, clergy and laity all centered on the Eucharist.

So if I'm following you, then the one-on-one, personal relationship, the direct interaction that is so important, is found mainly during the time of the Eucharist? If that is right (or close) then it would seem limiting to me because the real communication only happens at a specific place during specific times. I don't see how a CLOSE personal relationship can form under those circumstances. I don't say it's impossible, just something I can't identify with. For us, our "one-on-one" time is anywhere, anytime, 24/7/365. I consider those to be the conditions for the ultimate personal relationship.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

God preserved the Bible intact in spite of the Catholic church, not because of it.

AMEN to that fact!

[kosta50]

I see it as a pretty basic Biblical principle. For example:  John 16:12-15 ... 13 He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears

FK, this is very nonTriniatrian. I am surprised you even chose to quote this. Here John makes the Holy Spirit, God Almighty himself, into a third fiddle—an obedient angel, who can't speak on his own. Obviously John's idea of who or what the Holy Spirit is was vastly different from that of what the Triniatiran Church believes HolySpirit is.

[1 John 16] "14. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you." So if Holy Spirit guided a CHRISTIAN down the wrong path then it would not bring glory to Christ.

My question was: How do you know it's the Holy Spirit guiding you? Did he whisper in your ear? How do you know it's not the satan when the Bible says he can disguise himself as the Angel of Light?

Because the desire and actions moved in opposite directions. My desire started off wrong and then changed to a Godly one according to scripture. Yates' started off fine and then changed to a decision that served satan according to scripture.

No, FK, she "knew" it was the "right" thing to do because "God" told her so, and you seem to say that the scripture is true because the Spirit guides you (i.e. "tells" you so). Both of you claim God told you so.

[And where does the word Christian appear in the Bible?]

The NIV, NKJV, and the ESV all have it in Acts 26:28 : 28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?”

Good try. The word means "anointed." Also older manuscripts say "to play an anointed one."

[And where is December 25 noted in the Bible as the day Jesus was born?]

Nowhere

Then why are Protestant Christians celebrating a lie that is not in the Bible?

[Traditions of men, right?]

Absolutely.

So, then Protestants also hold on to traditions of men. How does that differ from the Church?

I don't think things like whether the words "Christian" or "Trinity" are in the Bible or whether one believes Jesus was actually born on 12/25 has anything to do with whether one is a Christian. A Christian is one who has been graced and has come to faith.

The why are Protestants relentlessly attacking the Church for following traditions?

[Forest Keeper]

I suppose for the Protestants it is difficult to see that the Communion is believed to be the most direct participation with God, even more so than through prayer, because to them communion is a ritual of memorial significance and not a sacrament (mysterion).

Speaking for myself I would agree with you in that I do not see how Communion would be superior to prayer in communicating with God. I suppose I see the Lord's Supper as a combination of remembrance, prayer, and ritual, with the prayer part being the communication.

Communism* is a Utopian state where all means of production and state wealth are supposed to be collectively owned and at a disposal of anyone who needs them. Of course no such state ever existed, except maybe in the most basic form on some California hippie commune.

Real life communism was tried by the Pilgrims at Plymouth. Here is an excerpt from The American Christian History Page:

"Just how do you suppose the Pilgrims became involved in communism in labor and supply? The answer to this question is simply that this was the way in which colonization was done at this time. In the Spring of the year 1620, the Pilgrims entered into a joint-stock enterprise with the Virginia Company of London. They were unhappy with some of the conditions of their contract, but it was the only way, at the time, to acquire the religious liberty which they so dearly desired. The particular condition in the contract that established a communism in labor and supply was: "That all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provision out of ye common stock & goods of ye said colony."

..................... Let us now look into Governor William Bradford's history Of Plimoth Plantation, and examine the picture which he so clearly draws of the evils of communism.

"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince, the vanity of that conceit of Plato & others ancients, applauded by some of later times; that ye taking away of property, and bringing in community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community... was found to breed much confusion & discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort... The strong, or man of parts, had no more division of victuals & cloths, than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter ye other could; this was thought unjust... As for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes & etc. they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon ye point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in ye like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off ye mutual respect that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men's corruption, and nothing to ye course it self. I answer, seeing all men to have this corruption in them. God in His wisdom saw another course fiter for them." (emphasis added)

It failed miserably as could be expected, and soon free-enterprise took over. The Protestant work ethic had come to America.

[kosta50]

We always have the Bible as the standard bearer

As I observed with John 14, the standard bearer is not always standard. Different people read different things into it, and sometimes just plain ignore the obvious. Given the virus versions of the Bible and different theologies, even among Protestants (trinitarians, unitarians, etc.) the Bible cannot be the standard bearer.

I'm not aware of any cases where God deceives

The OT is full of such examples. Just look up "deceiving spirit."

I've never heard of any demons teaching to adhere closely to the Bible, so I think we're ok on that front. :)

I wouldn't be so sure. Given the corruption and variations of biblical texts, the first thing the devil would want to do, I imagine, is make a believer break away from the Church tradition and make him believe various man-made versions of the Bible with nothing else to compare it to.

When satan "quoted" scripture to Jesus in the desert he left out key phrases that changed the meaning completely.

Funny, the same can be said of New Testament authors, who misquote the Old Testament.

Wouldn't ha-satan want first to change the theology and split the Church? Seems like a brutally effective plan. Divide and conquer. It seem the devil is not aiming at disbelief but at creating a parallel and competing belief to make it a more effective and credible opposition.

Creating a nuance rather than a whole new product is much more effective at converting someone to the new idea than a radically different one would.

On core principles (like the resurrection) I agree, but on everything else I don't...with most of the things we talk about around here I think "absolute certainty" is relative.

Okay, but unlike science there are core beliefs that are a "must" in no uncertain terms.

[kosta50]

So if I'm following you, then the one-on-one, personal relationship, the direct interaction that is so important, is found mainly during the time of the Eucharist? If that is right (or close) then it would seem limiting to me because the real communication only happens at a specific place during specific times. I don't see how a CLOSE personal relationship can form under those circumstances. I don't say it's impossible, just something I can't identify with. For us, our "one-on-one" time is anywhere, anytime, 24/7/365. I consider those to be the conditions for the ultimate personal relationship.

The OT God did not make himself directly accessible to every Jew, but only through priesthood and sacrifice/offering. Did God change?

Even the NT requires two-or-three for Christ (the Intercessor) to be in their midst.

[kosta50]

It failed miserably as could be expected, and soon free-enterprise took over

It failed because of human nature and mindset it produces, namely that to have is better than not to have and to have more is better than to have less.

Isn't heaven going to be a sort of "communism" in that there will be like-mindedness, lack of comeptititon, ritualistic never-ending prayers, no unfulfilled desires, etc?

[Kolokotronis]

“So if I’m following you, then the one-on-one, personal relationship, the direct interaction that is so important, is found mainly during the time of the Eucharist? If that is right (or close) then it would seem limiting to me because the real communication only happens at a specific place during specific times.”

You missed my point. We become a participant in or a part of the Body of Christ through the Eucharist and that almost always occurs within the community called the ecclesia. Being a “participant” in the Body of Christ, being a member of The Church, does not cease when the Divine Liturgy ends or when, as some sarcastic person here on FR once commented in a thoroughly Western way, the Bread and Wine are absorbed into the body.

This participation can, by an openness to God’s “grace” lead to a “dying to the self” so that the Christian exists only within the love of God, a situation where the eye of the soul sees no longer “as through a glass darkly” but rather is so focused on God that the Christian can clearly “see” and become one with the uncreated energies of God in the form of the Divine Light which the apostles experienced at Mount Tabor. We consider this to be beyond any “personal relationship with God”. A very holy Archmandrite, now asleep in Christ, a man who to my way of thinking is very much a saint, wrote:

“The moment will come when heart and mind are so suffused by the vision of the infinite holiness and humility of the God-Christ that our whole being will rise in a surge of love for God.”

Or, as our God bearing Father, +Gregory Palamas taught:

“We unite ourselves to Him, in so far as this is possible, by participating in the godlike virtues and by entering into communion with Him through prayer and praise. Because the virtues are similitudes of God, to participate in them puts us in a fit state to receive the Deity, yet it does not actually unite us to Him. But prayer through its sacral and hieratic power actualizes our ascent to and union with the Deity, for it is a bond between noetic creatures and their Creator.”