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
I thought you would, boatbums, especially because the first reference I gave is written (strangely enough) in a rather Protestant style, but it summarizes the significant and important difference between English "tradition" and Greek paradosis quite well and also enumerates what elements constitute the Holy Tradition.
So you believe the speech but not the speaker. That is silly.
Would you agree that you (Rome) and I (non-Rome) have profoundly different definitions of the word (capital-"C") "Church"?
I think I see the central point of frustration between the two very different religions. I keep seeing things like "the Church wrote the Scriptures" in these threads. For a non-Roman, that is an awkward way to say that God inspired the prophets and the apostles to proclaim the Truth in writing. When we, (non-Rome) look at the canon of Scripture, we see men inspired by God to write, and other men through prayer and study, compile what they believe are inspired and relevant texts. We don't think "Church" as if it was singular living, breathing personal entity, yet when a Roman Catholic makes such a statement, its like saying "Joe Smith wrote the Scriptures". I understand that your "Joe Smith" keeps reincarnating as various Popes and Bishops over the span of time, but that appears to be the best analog of how y'all keep using the word "Church".
That is why it is frustrating to the true believers in Christ when we keep seeing Rome say "The Church did this... " or the "Church did that...". You speak collectively where the whole entity of saved and unsaved alike who bow the knee to Rome that resolves ultimately to a single man. When true Christians refer to the "Church" it refers exclusively to a collection of those who are saved which ultimately resolves to the finished work of Jesus Christ.
An excellent comparison to how Rome defines "Church" is found in statements like "The White House issued out new executive orders..." Here "White House" is used in a similar way to how Rome says "Church". We all know that when the press says "The White House" it is similar to a Catholic saying "The Church" we all know that it ultimately resolves to the guy sitting in the Oval Office (or in today's regime, to wherever George Soros happens to be), and we also know that these singular men didn't dream up this on their own, but the proclamations evolve organically under the command and ideology of the President/hedge fund manager/Pope.
I think when the definition of "Church" is understood in those contexts, the vast difference in the religion of Roman Catholicism compared to true Christianity can be seen, and thus reduce the animosity that exists between us.
You can call yourselves Christians, just like the Mormons and the unredeemed within the American Religion do, for it is a deconstructed label that says "I'm not a Muslim, Pagan or Hindu", but please understand that the true Church of Jesus Christ is very different than the Church of Roman Catholicism and trying to deceive by rewriting the definition of "Church" or using it deliberately in a deceptive manner is only going to continue the frustration.
I for one, truly appreciate your tireless efforts to help clarify the profound distinctions between the cult of Rome and true Christianity. I have learned plenty from these discussions, and I no longer feel that I am dealing with the Apostate, rather it is more like talking shop with my Muslim friends where I know that ecumenism between the two religions is impossible and we can get along for as long as they don't try to cut off my head.
Philippians 2:12,13
12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.Philippians 3:2-11
2 Watch out for those dogs, those evildoers, those mutilators of the flesh. 3 For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh— 4 though I myself have reasons for such confidence.If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.
7 But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8 What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith. 10 I want to know Christ—yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 and so, somehow, attaining to the resurrection from the dead.
Cordially,
How do you know the scripture reflects what God had to say?
Initially it is Faith through regeneration by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:14)
I can't speak for the garden variety Catholic, because Roman Catholicism is much like Islam in that it isn't strictly a denomination, rather it is more of a culture/life-style - IOW, you can be a Roman Catholic like Teddy Kennedy, John F'ing Kerry and Nazi Pelosi and still end-up burning in Hell for all eternity. For the non-Rome version of Christianity, you actually must believe the Scriptures and actually must have saving faith in Jesus Christ. To be saved, it is axiomatic that you believe the Scripture to be true, and to be saved one must first have the heart changed from stone to flesh where the Word of God is written on the heart, not left as "foolishness" on the page.
Again, this is one of the many remarkable differences between Roman Catholicism and true Christianity, belief in Scripture for the Roman is voluntary (though occasionally recommended) and it is to believed by authority of the Pope, so ultimately one must have unwavering faith in the authority of the Pope and his mistress "Holy Tradition". That is, you believe the Canon because the Pope told you that you must. Since this is a compulsory faith originating from whatever excommunication or vilification emanating from a political office in the Vatican is not spiritual in its foundation, it goes a very long way to explaining why Roman Catholics are fast and loose with Scripture and have no qualms about wresting it to weakly harmonize with some edict out of Rome or some popular opinion syncretized from a regional pagan religion.
Earlier I mentioned that it was "initial", for I can't possibly believe that a new convert can exhaustively fathom the depths of what little God has revealed of Himself to us. Yet, we have the benefit of apologetics to help ease us along intellectually, even popular forms such as Josh McDowell's "Liar, Lunatic or LORD" challenge. We have the vast confirming record of our LORD's works. What is the strongest evidence is prophecy fulfilled; for only the eternal Divine Alpha/Omega can declare the events of the future, with our LORD fulfilling hundreds of prophecies personally just by being born.
We can believe the Scriptures because they have been made alive in us via the Paraclete, are intellectually understood by apologetics, and are confirmed by eye witness and the testimony of fulfilled prophecy.
ph
If by this you mean, or allow it to mean, that Christian faith is baseless, like a wish, rather than it being a qualified step of faith based upon some warrant, and which results in realities which correspond to the claims of its object, as it is in the Bible, then i disagree. From Abraham to Moses to the apostle, God provided some warrant for taking a step of faith, and attested to it, and so it is today. That is the difference between dead sentimental religion and the church of the living God.
Certainly with God all things are possible, as consistent with His word, but your Jn. 20:19 analogy would either have Jesus not in a human body of flesh and blood, taking on the glorified physical body of flesh and bones He after His resurrection, in order to pass thru His mothers hymen intact, which is not the kind of miracle Jesus did after taking on human flesh. He was then in one place at one time, and did not beam Himself around.
Having to use such a stretch does not help your case.
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. By the way, are you insinuating that Orthodox Christianity is a "dead sentimental religion"? And if so, what is your conception of "the church of the living God"?
I have one. And your lovely post is well-worth pinging Christian to its solid Scriptural teaching...
"How do you know the scripture reflects what God had to say?"
Initially it is Faith through regeneration by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:14)
I can't speak for the garden variety Catholic, because Roman Catholicism is much like Islam in that it isn't strictly a denomination, rather it is more of a culture/life-style - IOW, you can be a Roman Catholic like Teddy Kennedy, John F'ing Kerry and Nazi Pelosi and still end-up burning in Hell for all eternity. For the non-Rome version of Christianity, you actually must believe the Scriptures and actually must have saving faith in Jesus Christ. To be saved, it is axiomatic that you believe the Scripture to be true, and to be saved one must first have the heart changed from stone to flesh where the Word of God is written on the heart, not left as "foolishness" on the page.
Again, this is one of the many remarkable differences between Roman Catholicism and true Christianity, belief in Scripture for the Roman is voluntary (though occasionally recommended) and it is to believed by authority of the Pope, so ultimately one must have unwavering faith in the authority of the Pope and his mistress "Holy Tradition". That is, you believe the Canon because the Pope told you that you must. Since this is a compulsory faith originating from whatever excommunication or vilification emanating from a political office in the Vatican is not spiritual in its foundation, it goes a very long way to explaining why Roman Catholics are fast and loose with Scripture and have no qualms about wresting it to weakly harmonize with some edict out of Rome or some popular opinion syncretized from a regional pagan religion.
Earlier I mentioned that it was "initial", for I can't possibly believe that a new convert can exhaustively fathom the depths of what little God has revealed of Himself to us. Yet, we have the benefit of apologetics to help ease us along intellectually, even popular forms such as Josh McDowell's "Liar, Lunatic or LORD" challenge. We have the vast confirming record of our LORD's works. What is the strongest evidence is prophecy fulfilled; for only the eternal Divine Alpha/Omega can declare the events of the future, with our LORD fulfilling hundreds of prophecies personally just by being born.
We can believe the Scriptures because they have been made alive in us via the Paraclete, are intellectually understood by apologetics, and are confirmed by eye witness and the testimony of fulfilled prophecy.
AMEN!
Great insight.
I think when the definition of "Church" is understood in those contexts, the vast difference in the religion of Roman Catholicism compared to true Christianity can be seen, and thus reduce the animosity that exists between us.
You can call yourselves Christians, just like the Mormons and the unredeemed within the American Religion do, for it is a deconstructed label that says "I'm not a Muslim, Pagan or Hindu", but please understand that the true Church of Jesus Christ is very different than the Church of Roman Catholicism and trying to deceive by rewriting the definition of "Church" or using it deliberately in a deceptive manner is only going to continue the frustration.
I for one, truly appreciate your (annalex) tireless efforts to help clarify the profound distinctions between the cult of Rome and true Christianity. I have learned plenty from these discussions, and I no longer feel that I am dealing with the Apostate, rather it is more like talking shop with my Muslim friends where I know that ecumenism between the two religions is impossible and we can get along for as long as they don't try to cut off my head.
lolol. Great conclusions. Worth pinging to a few FRiends.
If they have that authority and they do teach scripture then why is it so difficult for catholics to use scripture to support what they believe? What I see is allot of other literature and many opinions of authors...but very few catholics use scriptures to support their opinions and beliefs....it's more what the catholic leadership tells them, or what comes out of Rome they have to believe...and that is bondage not freedom in Christ.
BTW the catholic church is indeed another denomination...is it not the "catholic" faith?
This is probably my favorite post on this thread. It’s too bad it never got a reply.
As helpful and right as they can be, Divinely inspired writings were not essentially established as such by conciliar decrees, but as God first revealed Himself to man and supernaturally attested to His reality and truth, (like to Abraham) and of the faith and character of those who believed, obeyed it and testified of it (like Moses), so was the written testimony of them and by them established as from God, which progressively became the standard by which further revelation and men of God were tested and established, as a continuing principle. (Is. 8:20; Mt. 22:29-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:39,42; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Heb. 1, etc.)
By the time of Jesus a distinct body of writing referred to as Scripture was already realized, without an assuredly infallible magisterium (which only Jesus was), as is evident by references to the Scriptures by which they substantiated claims, and the apostles and true men of God were themselves established as being such by a holiness and doctrine which conformed to that which was written, and by the effects of believing which corresponded to its claims, which in turn affirmed the veracity and Divine inspiration of the Scriptures.
What Trent finally, decisively did (for Rome) was to recognize and ratify what had progressively become established, though i hold that that there was sound reason for great men to reject the apocrypha as Scripture, as i do, though not as forbidden reading. And the Divine inspiration of the writings of Scripture continue to be attested to through those who believe and obey its gospel of grace, thanks be to God.
As for interpreting free from the influence of Holy Tradition and safe from subjective aspects, i do not think that this is what those who hold to SS do in practice, any more than they disallow that God can “speak” to souls today during the offering. And even wedding ceremonies typically have some paganism in them. But what they mean is that all must be tested for conformity by the only objective source which we are assured is wholly inspired of God, and thus is assuredly infallibly, and by such bring every thought to the obedience of Christ
While interpretation requires discernment, and leaves room for a limited amount of disagreement in some things more than others, the same is true in every day life, with sound reasoning versus aberration being more demonstrable in accordance with the degree of revelation. And the “main and plain” things of Scripture are basically just that, and thus those who hold to SS most universally agree with Rome on such core essentials as an articulated in the Nicene Creed, while contending against those which are more based upon a nebulous oral tradition, and which in turn has the magisterium as its authority. And even teachings by church magisteriums require some interpretation, including which ones are “infallible.” Moreover, many things were not unanimously believed by church fathers.
And now this:
Although it is often suggested that the reformers had no place for tradition in their theological deliberations, this judgment is clearly incorrect. While the notion of tradition as an extra-scriptural source of revelation is excluded, the classic concept of tradition as a particular way of reading and interpreting scripture is retained. Scripture, tradition and the kerygma are regarded as essentially coinherent, and as being transmitted, propagated and safeguarded by the community of faith. There is thus a strongly communal dimension to the magisterial reformers' understanding of the interpretation of scripture, which is to be interpreted and proclaimed within an ecclesiological matrix. It must be stressed that the suggestion that the Reformation represented the triumph of individualism and the total rejection of tradition is a deliberate fiction propagated by the image-makers of the Enlightenment. -From Alister McGrath's The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in the Foundation of Doctrinal Criticism: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/deliberate-fiction.html
And do not forget that Jeremiah 31:33-34 was prophesied and fulfilled with the New Covenant.
Its in the wording.
“Works have nothing to do with salvation” is meant by us that believers do not merit the attainment of eternal life itself, that eternal life is not a reward to their good works and merits. (Trent, Chapter XVI; The Sixth Session Decree on justification, 1547) - with merit being understood as deserved - but that God-given faith is counted for righteousness, although it must be a manner of faith that results in works of faith, by the Spirit. (Jn. 10:27,28; Heb. 5:9) And which confessional type faith (Rm. 10:10:9,10) God sees and washes, sanctifies and justifies man. (1Cor. 6:11; Acts 2:38; 10:43-4; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) To the glory of God.
Faith alone but not a faith that is alone, but not works which merit eternal life.
I submit that faith in God working all things out for good to those that love Him, is not unwarranted, but that those of faith who truly do see many things meant for evil that God worked out for the good of those who love Him.
Yet it is true that one must not judge things too quickly, as the rather funny story illustrates;
Once upon a time, there was a farmer in the central region of China. He didn’t have a lot of money and, instead of a tractor, he used an old horse to plow his field.
One afternoon, while working in the field, the horse dropped dead. Everyone in the village said, “Oh, what a horrible thing to happen.” The farmer said simply, “We’ll see.” He was so at peace and so calm, that everyone in the village got together and, admiring his attitude, gave him a new horse as a gift.
Everyone’s reaction now was, “What a lucky man.” And the farmer said, “We’ll see.”
A couple days later, the new horse jumped a fence and ran away. Everyone in the village shook their heads and said, “What a poor fellow!”
The farmer smiled and said, “We’ll see.”
Eventually, the horse found his way home, and everyone again said, “What a fortunate man.”
The farmer said, “We’ll see.”
Later in the year, the farmer’s young boy went out riding on the horse and fell and broke his leg. Everyone in the village said, “What a shame for the poor boy.”
The farmer said, “We’ll see.”
Two days later, the army came into the village to draft new recruits. When they saw that the farmer’s son had a broken leg, they decided not to recruit him.
Everyone said, “What a fortunate young man.”
The farmer smiled again - and said “We’ll see.”
Moral of the story: There’s no use in overreacting to the events and circumstances of our everyday lives. Many times what looks like a setback, may actually be a gift in disguise. And when our hearts are in the right place, all events and circumstances are gifts that we can learn valuable lessons from.
- author unknown
The West is fixated on "proving" and explaining matters of Faith and rejecting matters of Faith when it cannot "prove" or explain what is essentially unprovable and inexplicable.
I understand that this was referring to what happens in sacraments, and i substantially agree we need not understand this, but i was also addressing an idea that is often expressed as part of it, which is that faith is opposed evidence.
To me, the works are indicators that the faith is not mere intellectual assent, but genuine faith.
Even the demons believe and tremble.
However, to expect those works to save you or contribute to your salvation, is in error.
There’s a distinction that I think that Catholics miss. That is that there are two kinds of works.
One is the kind that flow naturally out of a person as a result of the faith they have and Christ living in them.
The other is the kind that someone else sets up and demands that everyone else adhere to in order to qualify for salvation.
“To me, the works are indicators that the faith is not mere intellectual assent, but genuine faith.”
Paul says in Acts 26:20 to bring forth works that are in congruence with repentance (things that prove they had changed their lives).
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.