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
Well, we know Jesus did not ever deceive, so, he was telling him the truth, in fact, he told many people that their righteousness had to exceed even the holiest people they knew (the Pharisees). The man he was speaking to was so full of pride that he thought he deserved eternal life, he would not even look at how sinful he really was. His money was his weak spot it seems. Jesus was showing him and all the others that the perfection of God was impossible for anyone to achieve and, by that, he was pointing them to the only hope they had, Jesus Christ the Savior, the Messiah.
If the Jews didn't believe in Satan, then it was because they didn't read their own Scriptures. Starting in Genesis, he is referred to as the "serpent" who deceived Eve. There are many scriptures that speak of "evil spirits". We see in Isaiah 14:12, that he is called "Lucifer" who was at one time "Son of the morning". He was the "anointed cherub", the "Great Dragon". Jesus made references to him many times and the Jewish religious leaders never called him on it - they would have grabbed at anything to trip him up. In Revelation we are given many references reiterating the same titles such as in Rev. 8:10 and Rev. 12:9.
I think that is an excellent question!
and
"“Eternal damnation”, therefore, is not attributed to God’s initiative because in his merciful love he can only desire the salvation of the beings he created. In reality, it is the creature who closes himself to his love. Damnation consists precisely in definitive separation from God, freely chosen by the human person and confirmed with death that seals his choice for ever. God’s judgement ratifies this state."
Sometimes Roman Catholicism can be completely Orthodox. :)
And then there are times when the Catechism deviates from the the consensus patrum that it is positively breath taking. For example, that section of the Catechism found here:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm
on "Merit" is so at odds with what The Church in the East teaches as to be a stumbling block to reunion. Quite aside from the assertion that we can become partakers of the Divine Nature ("[T]he hypostatic union is fulfilled only in the case of the Logos, the God-man." +Gregory Palamas), to maintain that our theosis is in any fashion the result of some "merit" as opposed to dying to the self and becoming like God, by freely given grace alone, through the following of the Commandments and the practice of those virtues which are particular attributes of God.
"We unite ourselves to Him [God], 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." +Gregory Palamas
The Catechism's talk of "merit", and even more so of the "Treasury of Merit", leads me to conclude that the Western Church believes that somehow or other humans can "deserve" theosis, that they can "merit" it and that The Church can dole out additional "merit" from its Treasury to whomsoever it wishes. This looks to me to be the pernicious result of the notions of indulgences and quantifiable "created grace (created energies)". There is a profound difference, at least as I see it, between the metanoia leading to theosis experienced by those who die to the self and live only in noetic contemplation of the Trinity and practicing the divine virtues and following the Commandments in order to get "merit" which then, apparently, compels God (Necessity again?)to admit the Christian into a union with Him. Do I misunderstand? Is it simply the words the Catechism uses? You know, the implications of this for any reunion are not good, my friend.
It would make whatever problems you see clearer to the rest of us.
“”The Catechism’s talk of “merit”, and even more so of the “Treasury of Merit”, leads me to conclude that the Western Church believes that somehow or other humans can “deserve” theosis, that they can “merit” it and that The Church can dole out additional “merit” from its Treasury to whomsoever it wishes. This looks to me to be the pernicious result of the notions of indulgences and quantifiable “created grace (created energies)”. There is a profound difference, at least as I see it, between the metanoia leading to theosis experienced by those who die to the self and live only in noetic contemplation of the Trinity and practicing the divine virtues and following the Commandments in order to get “merit” which then, apparently, compels God (Necessity again?)to admit the Christian into a union with Him. Do I misunderstand?””
Pope Paul VI wrote the following Apostolic Constitution On Indulgences that hopefully will help you understand this better coming from Latin Viewpoint
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19670101_indulgentiarum-doctrina_en.html
Here are a few excerpts,but you should really read the whole thing because it really clears up many misconceptions
Following in the footsteps of Christ,(16) the Christian faithful have always endeavored to help one another on the path leading to the heavenly Father through prayer, the exchange of spiritual goods and penitential expiation. The more they have been immersed in the fervor of charity, the more they have imitated Christ in his sufferings, carrying their crosses in expiation for their own sins and those of others, certain that they could help their brothers to obtain salvation from God the Father of mercies.(17) This is the very ancient dogma of the Communion of the Saints,(18) whereby the life of each individual son of God in Christ and through Christ is joined by a wonderful link to the life of all his other Christian brothers in the supernatural unity of the Mystical Body of Christ till, as it were, a single mystical person is formed.(19)
Thus is explained the “treasury of the Church”(20) which should certainly not be imagined as the sum total of material goods accumulated in the course of the centuries, but the infinite and inexhaustible value the expiation and the merits of Christ Our Lord have before God, offered as they were so that all of mankind could be set free from sin and attain communion with the Father. It is Christ the Redeemer himself in whom the satisfactions and merits of his redemption exist and find their force.(21) This treasury also includes the truly immense, unfathomable and ever pristine value before God of the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, who following in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by his grace have sanctified their lives and fulfilled the mission entrusted to them by the Father. Thus while attaining their own salvation, they have also cooperated in the salvation of their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body.
“For all who are in Christ, having his spirit, form one Church and cleave together in him” (Eph. 4:16). Therefore the union of the wayfarers with the brethren who have gone to sleep in the peace of Christ is not in the least weakened or interrupted, but on the contrary, according to the perpetual faith of the Church, is strengthened by a communication of spiritual goods. For by reason of the fact that those in heaven are more closely united with Christ, they establish the whole Church more firmly in holiness, lend nobility to the worship which the Church offers to God here on earth and in many ways contribute to building it up evermore (1 Cor. 12: 12-27). For after they have been received into their heavenly home and are present to the Lord (2 Cor. 5:8), through him and with him and in him they do not cease to intervene with the Father for us, showing forth the merits which they have won on earth through the one Mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 2:5), by serving God in all things and filling up in their flesh those things which are lacking of the sufferings of Christ for his Body which is the Church (Col. 1:24). Thus by their brotherly interest our weakness is greatly strengthened.(22)
For this reason there certainly exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth a perennial link of charity and an abundant exchange of all the goods by which, with the expiation of all the sins of the entire Mystical Body, divine justice is placated. God’s mercy is thus led to forgiveness, so that SINCERELY REPENTANT SINNERS may participate as soon as possible in the full enjoyment of the benefits of the family of God.
Then how come the OT God did (by sending or being a "deceiving spirit")?
The man he was speaking to was so full of pride that he thought he deserved eternal life, he would not even look at how sinful he really was
The man earnestly believed he did everything right. Having an honest but erroneous belief is not sin in and of itself.
His money was his weak spot it seems. Jesus was showing him and all the others that the perfection of God was impossible for anyone to achieve and, by that, he was pointing them to the only hope they had, Jesus Christ the Savior, the Messiah
No he didn't. He told him to sell everyhting and follow him. How many people do you know who give up all their vices and follow Jesus (except perhaps some monks)?
Oh sure, that must be it! They need Christians to teach them their what's in their own scriptures. LOL!
Starting in Genesis, he is referred to as the "serpent" who deceived Eve. There are many scriptures that speak of "evil spirits". We see in Isaiah 14:12, that he is called "Lucifer" who was at one time "Son of the morning". He was the "anointed cherub", the "Great Dragon"
There is no Satan in the Garden because he appears elsewhere in the Old Testament as an angel of God, his prosecutor general, and the word Satan itself is not always applied only to him. It's a title. Perhaps you need to learn Jewish scriptures a little better.
Lucifer is a word invented by Jerome in the 6th century AD. The morning star is a Babylonian deity, like Baal is the Phoenician deity and therefore an idol (or devil), not an angel of God which Satan is clearly identified as in Job.
In Revelation we are given many references reiterating the same titles such as in Rev. 8:10 and Rev. 12:9.
Revelation is hardly a Jewish scripture. Christian scriptures were written to reinterpret the Old Testament and make it "christianized" the way the Book of Mormon tries to "momonize" both the Old and the New Testaments.
Merit is a problematic word that implies "earning" something. But the Latin side will rationalize it away the way it rationalizes the filioque, because no church, regardless which, can ever admit to being wrong.
JOHN 17:
7 Now they know that everything that thou hast given me is from thee;
8 for I have given them the words which thou gavest me, and they have received them and know in truth that I came from thee; and they have believed that thou didst send me.
9 I am praying for them; I am not praying for the world but for those whom thou hast given me, for they are thine;
10 all mine are thine, and thine are mine, and I am glorified in them.
11 And now I am no more in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.
"...that they may be one, even as we are one."
Are "they" to retain an individual identiry or are "they" to become God in the same manner you say Jesus is God?
Jesus did not ever claim to be God. Rather, He said "I am in the Father and the Father is in me,..." and this is the same he asks for you.
Of course you are right. However, I don't believe it is "funny" as in Ha Ha funny, but is an example of extreme arrogance or extreme ignorance (take your pick).
I do get a chuckle out of it. I don't think it's arrogance, at least not now. It may be a bit presumptuous, however. Ignorance? Probably, but understandable. I'll bet that 99 out of 100 Westerners, if they have ever even heard of +Ignatius of Antioch, have no idea what his letters looked like written in Greek...without the letter "c", so not "extreme" ignorance. What isn't so funny, I suppose, is when Latins who really do know better nevertheless try to mislead the heterodox.
Indeed. I posted on this is in
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2618333/posts?page=5661#5661, but if i could reiterate and expand as things slow down.
Seeking to justify salvation by the grace of God thru merit, it is taught that such statements as “a man is not justified by the works of the law” (Gal. 2:16a) is only excluding works of the law versus works of faith as gaining justification before God, as if two types of works were what are contrasted. However, that is manifestly not what is being distinguished, rather works versus faith is what is separated as regards what the actual basis for justification is, “that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.”
Other texts do not mention “works of the law,” but simply say “works,” (Eph. 2:8,9; 2Tim. 1:9) showing that it is not by “works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us,” (Titus 3:5)
To be sure, the only manner of faith which is true and thus salvific faith is that which orders one’s life, as one cannot truly believe in the Lord Jesus without being moved to obey Him, and repent when convicted of failure to do so.
But rather than making works of the law inferior to works of faith, Paul affirms that the law is good, and that “if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.” (Gal. 3:21)
Moreover, the righteousness of the law is not abrogated, rather it is what those who live by faith are to fulfil. (Rm. 8:4)
And in making the distinction between vain belief and true faith, he further states, “For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified,” (Rm. 2:13) And thus when teaching on what actually justifies in cp. 4, he uses Abraham as the example.
And while the believer is not being “under the law, but under grace,” (Rm. 6:14) this does not refer to a life ungoverned by moral standards, as the basic moral laws of the O.T. are clearly upheld, along with teachings complementary to it being added, and a covenantal distinction made between that class and ceremonial law. But it refers to being saved by faith in the mercy of God in Christ, trusting Him for salvation by His blood and righteousness, rather than supposing one merits salvation it by full obedience to the law, as the inability to keep it perfectly actually shows man his need for mercy and the atonement. (Rm. 3,4)
It also means the moral life of the believer is governed not by looking at the letter of the law as his standard, or by seeking to justify himself thereby, but by a relationship with the law-giver, looking unto Jesus who kept the law in its full intent, and thru faith in whom the believer gains an acceptance which he could not achieve by confidence in his own righteousness, so that those who are led by His Spirit can grow towards the same.
May i and we do so more, and recover any lost ground where applicable.
We'll see about that in the next few years - how the filioque will be handled during the negotiations.
The subject has already been discussed between two particular Churches in 2003, Mark, with no visible reuslts.
Another:
MARK 10:
17 And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
18 And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.
I dunno, but this old guy has difficulty with the Trinity.
Sounds like they were using the same source. :)
+John Chrysostomos appears to disagree, Kosta mou:
"Wherefore then doth Christ thus reply to him, saying, “There is none good?” Because He came unto Him as a mere man, and one of the common sort, and a Jewish teacher; for this cause then as a man He discourses with him. And indeed in many instances He replies to the secret thoughts of them that come unto Him; as when He saith, “We worship we know what;” and, “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.” When therefore He saith, “There is none good;” not as putting Himself out from being good doth He say this, far from it; for he said not, “Why dost thou call me good? I am not good;” but, “there is none good,” that is, none amongst men.
And when He saith this self-same thing, He saith it not as depriving even men of goodness, but in contradistinction to the goodness of God. Wherefore also He added, “But one, that is, God;” and He said not, “but my Father,” that thou mightest learn that He had not revealed Himself to the young man." Homily LXIII on MATTHEW
Here’s what the Venerable Bede wrote about this passage (Mark 10:17-18). It’s similar to what +John Chrysostomos taught. Interesting that the wording is almost identical to that from +Matthew. Some of the Fathers believed that +Mark was sort of an abridged version of an early version of the Gospel According to +Matthew:
“But by this one God, who is good, we must not only understand the Father, but also the Son, whom says, I am the good Shepherd; and also the Holy Ghost, because it is said, The Father which is in heaven will give the good Spirit to them that ask him. For the One and Undivided Trinity itself, Father, Son amid Holy Ghost, is the Only and One good God. The Lord therefore does not deny Himself to be good, but implies that He is God; He does not deny that He is good Master, but He declares that no master is good but God.”
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.