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
In the present day he would be a highly paid Spin Doctor.
Then why did it take the Church 300 years to come up with a statement of what is believed?
God decided to wait for 300 years before pulling together the convenience of one "official" canon. The elect were still being taught the correct things before that happened, though. It wasn't like the collection and selection of the canon exposed the elect to correct teaching for the first time.
The agreement [on the canon] is remarkably superficial. Scratch the surface, as I mentioned earlier, and you will find that, while Christians use the same words, they mean different things to different communities.
The last part is certainly true, but in debate we are far better off with being able to start with the same words, at least, and in many cases similar worldviews. There's only so far an atheist and a believer can get with debating scripture since there is no common starting ground.
FK: I would think it axiomatic among Christians that the Bible wasn't assembled for the whole world but for Christians only (including future Christians).
The Torah was assembled for Christians? The Gentiles are included only insofar as the Seven Noachide Laws are concerned. The Gentiles have no other role in In God's plan. The Torah is about the Jews and for the Jews, and Christians are not Jews.
As you know the Torah [5 books part if there is other] is part of the Bible, but they are different assemblies. As far as who is a Jew and who is a Gentile is concerned, the NT makes it clear that a true Jew and a true Christian are both true believers in the One true God.
The author argues that Matthew misquotes and/or distorts Jewish prophets, contradicts other Gospels, and makes up stories by providing bible verses and references.
But the author claims as fact that both the Christian and Jewish Holy books are fictitious (note at bottom of link). The Bible tells us plainly that to such as these the word of God will be utter nonsense. I can't take him seriously when the book I consider authoritative says not to.
Yes, I think these principles can be compared too. We obviously aren't going to get everything in this life so we do with and are thankful for what we are given. Because God presented it this way it must be to our benefit.
The reality is that no where is it stated that all the church ever teaches on faith and morals will be assuredly infallible (nor that is authenticity is based upon formal historical linkage, versus Biblical faith), but only one objective source is, that being Scripture. (2Tim. 3:16)
That does not mean the church cannot teach infallible truth, and the N.T., church did, being soundly substantiated by Scripture and Divine attestation (Acts 15) and which we know because it is in the Scriptures. the problem is that of an assuredly infallible magisterium
Yes, it is logically speaking somewhat of a problem. If Christianity were a branch of mathematics that would be a real difficulty. This is the same difficulty anyone with any kind of authority has: -- how do I know your badge is for real, officer?. As the matter stands, there is an assent of faith involved.
Or how do i know you are a not a fake officer with a real badge or uniform, in essence, taking the name of the law in vain? Regardless of the appropriateness of the analogy, that faith is involved is the point, but by God's grace it can be seen that there is more to it than that:
I also believe that the Church can lead me to salvation today dues to her unique relationship to God. Were I to discover some illogicality in what the Church porposes for my salvation, I would, no different than the Bereans' intention was, lose my faith.
The “also” aspect is still based upon faith, presumably due to some evidence. The point here is that you rely upon the very means that Protestants are criticized for using, because they discover inconsistency between what the Scriptures say and what she says. And while the Roman Catholic argument is that Protestants cannot ascertain truth by the use of PI (private interpretation) as they examine the Scriptures, and are told they need the AIM (Assuredly Infallible Magisterium) to ascertain truth, yet they can never be sure Rome is the OTC until they join her.
Rome affirms the use of PI in order to decide that Rome is the right infallible interpreter, and to therefore trust her implicitly*, and claims to give assurance which cannot be had by trusting Scripture, but condemns them if they hold that the Scriptures are the only infallible source of Truth, and dismisses all Scriptural arguments against any of her doctrines as being the result of PI, charging them with presuming they could be infallible, while asserting she assuredly is.
However, Rome's claim to be infallible is effectively based upon her infallible claim to be infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (content and scope-based) formula. Scripture, tradition and history may be invoked in support of its conclusions, but the infallibility of her interpretations are based upon her claim to formulaic infallibility. Yet I also read where noted Roman Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott states that “the infallibility of the Papal doctrinal decision extends only to the dogma as such and not to the reasons given as leading up to the dogma.” — Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, ed. James Canon Bastible (Rockford: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., reprinted 1974), p. 200.
In contrast, the apostles (whose office Rome presumes to sit in) means of persuading souls was by appealing to man's conscience by “manifestation of the truth,” (2Cor. 4:2) which manifestation was by holiness and teaching which conformed to and complemented that which was written, along with powerful supernatural attestation from God. It was by such that their authority was established, while the Scriptures themselves were progressively established as being Divine due to their qualities and effects consistent with its claims. And while the apostles disciplined church members, their authority was not in words but in manifest power. (1Cor. 4:19,20)
That the Church can speak infallibly is not the issue, but the assuredly infallible aspect is. We know the New Testament church spoke infallibly in such places as Acts 15, because it promulgated Scripturally substantiated disciplinary law which is recorded in the inspired writings. But in no place do we see the church being promised that it would be infallible whenever it universally spoken on faith and morals, in union with the Pope, while Jesus reproof of magisterial presumption teaching things which were contrary to Scripture, some of which they could have argued was derived from it, argues against Rome's presumption in doing likewise.
While the Jewish magisterium was crucial, writings became recognized as being Scripture and faith was preserved in the Old Testament without an assuredly infallible magisterium, as the Jewish magisterium could and did err in teaching on faith and morals, but God raised up prophets -whose authenticity was not based upon physical lineage - to reprove them. And thus the faith was preserved among a remnant, which, relatively speaking, is where it really resides today.
In addition, insofar as belief that the Roman Catholic magisterium “eliminates the doubts, confusion and misunderstanding which inevitably results from individual interpretations” (see below) this is a rather specious claim, as,
1. Disagreement continues even as to how many of the plethora of its pronouncements are infallible, which may be substantially higher than is commonly thought.
2. Not all Roman Catholic teachings is infallible (which requires assent of faith), for as non-infallible teachings of the Ordinary and General magisteriums may contain error, even if not salvific, then you can disagree with them to a certain degree.
3. Infallible teaching as well as non-infallible teachings require some interpretation (as does deciding which ones do and to what extent), a reality which has been abundantly evidenced. Even recently.
4. As very little of the Bible has been infallibly defined, “the Roman Catholic Bible interpreter has the liberty to adopt any interpretation of a passage that is not excluded with certainty by other passages of Scripture, or by the judgment of the magisterium, or the Church Fathers, or by the analogy of faith [all of which is subject to interpretation]. That is a great deal of liberty.” (Jimmy Akins, Roman Catholic apologist)
5. Within Catholic scholarship there are two very diverse camps even as concerns interpretation of Scripture, both publishing officially approved literature
6. Roman Catholics widely disagree with each other and the church, including official teaching (and which is implicitly allowed), and more than evangelicals on certain core moral and doctrinal issues.
7. Rome's official unity is not necessarily any greater than that of any one single Protestant denomination, while unity itself is not the goal of the Godly, nor are the means of attaining unity equal. The greatest doctrinal unity is found among groups such as the Watchtower society, which, like that of Roman Catholics, is based upon implicit trust in a magisterium that is effectively held as supreme over the Scriptures.
The teaching of the Living Magisterium is certainly open to critical review; no one is held inside the Church by force, and many indeed leave.
The former only concerns non-fallible teachings, while the AIM is the premise behind the argument for Rome eliminating divisions. As for freedom to leave the R. Catholic Church, this is was never issue, but the cult-like requirement of implicit trust in a teaching magisterium, which in times past implied loss of salvation by failure to do so, and today is required by Rome in order to be considered part of the one true church, continues to be so.
The reason Catholics remain Catholics is that invariably the apparent contradictions are shown to not be, upon careful examination.
They are not to doubt Rome in the first place, while your invariable conclusion is a highly presumptuous stretch. Based upon available evidence, Catholics come in close to last in Bible reading, and substantially disagree with her and each other. And while Rome promotes itself as providing the fullness of grace, her members overall manifest less commitment and conformity in key doctrinal and moral issues then evangelicals, while most who leave the Catholic church for evangelical churches (and this is the way the tides mostly runs) say they do so because of a spiritual lack within Roman Catholicism. Meanwhile, the Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception because they are contrary to tradition.
Considering that lay Roman Catholics have just as much or more disagreement in key issues as evangelicals may, another reason for their staying can be surmised, which is that their unity is based upon confidence in the church itself, and in their conscious identity, social and otherwise, as Roman Catholics. In contrast, evangelicals consciously identify themselves as relationship-oriented Christians far above any denominational adherents, as they see their Christian life really beginning with their conversion experience. This popularly fosters remarkable transdenominational fellowship with those who have realized the like transformative conversion.
Continued next post.
On the other hand, the Protestant doctrines are unbelievably distant from the Holy Scripture. How, for example, do you arrive from "Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?" (James 2:24) to its direct reversal? And that is not some peripheral stuff like your eternal premillenialism versus antelapsarianism (did I get that right?) struggle. This i the cornerstone of Priotestant theology, yet is does not stand a one-minute scriptural scrutiny.
Annalex, I'm sorry to say that you have continually manifested a ignorance of Protestantism. As this is a key issue I need to make it somewhat explanatory.
It is not Protestantism which originated the teaching that the actual cause of justification is faith alone, Rather it is soundly based upon the scriptural statements that the precise basis for justification “is not of works,” “not by works of righteousness which we have done,” being “not according to our works”, that “God imputeth righteousness without works,” and is granted “to him that worketh not,” (Rm. 4: 5,6; 9:11; Gal. 2:16; Titus 3:5; 2Tim. 1:9) and that “this is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent,” for, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.”
But while Protestantism rightly understands that justification is by faith alone, as regards the precise basis for man's justification before God, it historically has understood that is not not by a faith which is alone, and that “not of works refers” to the exclusion of works meriting salvation, in contrast to works having nothing to do with saving faith. Rather than teaching that a faith without works is salvific, it affirms Jame's teaching that faith without works is dead.**
But if one studies the issue much they should realized that it is the common Catholic interpretation of James that renders it to be in plain contradiction of Genesis 15:6 as well as Romans 4 and other places. You cannot have one Scripture declaring that a soul is counted righteous because of faith, in contrast to merit of his works, (Eph. 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; 2Tim. 1:9) and another (it is supposed) teaching that works merit eternal life, which Rome teaches. While she and her defenders seek to make eternal life both a gift to and a reward, the two are Scripturally opposed to each other. (Rm. 6:23; 11:6)
One either has confidence that his own works merit him acceptance before God, or he realizes himself a sinner who is utterly destitute of any merit by which he may escape his just punishment in hell-fire or gain eternal life, and thus places all his faith the mercy of God in Christ, trusting Jesus to save him by His blood. But while he rests in Jesus as Savior, the object of his faith is also the Lord who loves righteousness and hates iniquity, and so faith works obedience toward its object.
The apostle Paul clearly establishes that it is on the basis of God-given faith that one is justified by, not of works. And this is not simply works of the Lord either (see the above post here which supplements this aspect). But as regards the conflict between Rm. 4 and Ja. 2, one must consider the context and issue being addressed, as the manner of faith is the issue of James 2, whereas Paul in Romans 4 is precisely defining upon which basis man is justified by.
Consistent with what Paul himself taught elsewhere, what James is referring to is that the only faith that is salvific is the one that does work obedience, in contrast to one who simply professes but does not possess faith. Before Paul addressed the precise issue of faith versus works, he clearly stated, “For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” (Rm. 2:13) And elsewhere he and other writers affirm that one can deny the faith by disobedience, (1Tim. 5:8; Gal. 5:1-5) and that it is those who obey Jesus who have eternal life. (Heb. 5:9) The key difference is that works are a result of saving faith, not the cause of justification.
This complementary aspect is also the case in the Gospels, in which salvation comes to the repentant who believe, (Lk. 16:9) and eternal life upon faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, (Jn. 5:24) while the obedient are given eternal life after consideration of their works. (Mt. 25:39-41) But the latter is due to works being an attestation of faith, not works meriting salvation. For again, when the actual basis for justification is doctrinally specifically dealt with, it is clearly stated that “God imputeth righteousness without works,” as was the case in Genesis 15:6, while the actions of Abraham justifies him as one possessing saving faith, without such works faith is dead. Romans 10:9,10 also testified that it to is a faith which is confessional in quality that justifies, although God sees that faith in the heart before men do.
*Once one assents to Rome being infallible, it is logically concluded that they are not to question her infallible teaching or seek to objectively verify it by examining both sides of arguments, for or against.
"The use of private judgment, on the other hand, in the sense of an inquiry into the 'motives of credibility,' and a study of the evidences for the Faith, to enable you to find out which is the one Church founded by Jesus Christ -- this is permissible, and not only permissible, but strictly necessary for all outside the Fold who wish to save their souls. But mark well: having once found the true Church, private judgment of this kind ceases; having discovered the authority established by God, you must submit to it at once. There is no need of further search for the doctrines contained in the Christian Gospel, for the Church brings them all with her and will teach you them all. You have sought for the Teacher sent by God, and you have secured him; what need of further speculation?
"Your private judgment has led you into the Palace of Truth, and it leaves you there, for its task is done; the mind is at rest, the soul is satisfied, the whole being reposes in the enjoyment of Truth itself, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.... — Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means"
"What Catholics do believe is that the church, not the individual, must interpret and explain Christ's teaching, including those set forth in the Bible. Christians outside the Catholic fold do not of course accept this authority, but for Catholics it eliminates the doubts, confusion and misunderstanding which inevitably results from individual interpretations.
"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question."
“Who else can teach him religious truth when he believes that an infallible Church gives him God's word and interprets it in the true and only sense?” (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapter xxiii. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York )
**Calvin, in his Institutes,, states: "With good reason, the sum of the gospel is held to consist in repentance and forgiveness of sins (Luke 24:47; Acts 5:31)" (p. 592); and, "surely no one can embrace the grace of the gospel without betaking himself from the errors of past life into the right way, applying his whole effort to the practice of repentance" (Book III, p. 593). "Repentance has its foundation in the gospel, which faith embraces" ( Book III, Chapter 3, p. 593)
“To repent of sin and to believe in Christ as a Savior from sin are really two aspects of one and the same spiritual transaction...Some recognition of Christ and some measure of appropriating faith must thus be involved in all true repentance On the other hand such recognizing and appropriating faith seems to require as its condition some deep consciousness of sin and guilt and impending doom such as will impel the convicted soul to look away unto Jesus for the deliverance it needs.
The practical fact is no one repents worthily except in the sight and vision of as a possible Savior from sin nor does any one truly attain sight and vision of Christ without finding his wicked nature subdued within him and his eyes filled with penitential tears. Whether therefore we place faith first and repentance subsequent as the Symbols do or reverse the order of the two elements should never forget that both are in reality parts of the gracious experience logically set in a certain procession chronologically and spiritually one and inseparable. So we ever interpret the tender injunction so often repeated in the Testament Repent and Believe.
The biblical conception of acceptable repentance is well in the language 87 of the [Westminster] Shorter Catechism a saving whereby a sinner out of a true sense of his sin and of the mercy of God in Christ doth with grief and hatred of sin turn from it unto God with full purpose of and endeavor new obedience. The Larger Catechism 76 expands the in terms but adds nothing except that this saving grace is to be wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word God. The [Westminster] Confession emphasizes the sense of the filthiness odiousness of sin as contrary to the holy nature and righteous of God and defines the scope of repentance in the declaration the penitent soul is henceforth resolved to walk with God in the ways of his commandments. Other descriptive phrases in the Minutes 279 and elsewhere Such an experience is course to be radically differentiated from all experiences might seem to be in any way related to it from natural arising from some perception of the loss or other harmful consequence providential or retributive that may be following indulgence in transgression from moral remorse the sting outraged conscience in view not so much of evil results from a sinful course but rather of the intrinsic wrong the of wickedness in the sight of the personal reason and judgment that must rise up occasionally in every soul not seared and deadened by personal sin also from what may be termed penitence
Calvin has comprehensively defined acceptable repentance as a true conversion of our life to God proceeding from a sincere and serious fear of God and consisting in the mortification of our flesh and of the old man and in the vivification of the Spirit.
The Augsburg Confession Art XII says Repentance consisteth properly of two parts one is contrition or terrors stricken into the conscience through the acknowledgment or recognition of sin the other is faith which is conceived by the Gospel and doth believe that for the sake of Christ sins be forgiven and comforteth the conscience and freeth it from terrors.
The Catechism of Heidelberg defines repentance as twofold the dying of the old man and the quickening of the new heartfelt sorrow for sin on the one side causing us to hate it and turn from it always more and more heartfelt joy in God on the other side causing us to take delight in living according to the will of God in all good works.
The Second Helvetic Conf teaches that repentance is a change of heart produced in a sinner by the word of the Gospel and the Holy Spirit and includes a knowledge of native and actual depravity a godly sorrow and hatred of sin and a determination to live hereafter in virtue and holiness.
Repentance say the Irish Articles 40 is a gift of God whereby godly sorrow is wrought in the heart of the faithful for offending God their merciful Father through their former transgressions together with a constant resolution for the time to come to cleave unto God and to lead a new life One of the Confessions embodies the whole in the simple declaration that true repentance is turning to God and all good and turning away from the devil and all evil Nearly all of the Protestant creeds contain similar definitions though with some confusion in many cases between repentance and faith on one hand and repentance and conversion as a consequence of faith on the other.” — THE WESTMINSTER SYMBOLS, pp. 482-83 by Edward D Morris D D LL D Emeritus Professor of Systematic Theology In Lane Theological Seminary, 1900
Thomas Watson, an old Puritan, said in The Doctrine of Repentance, "Two great graces essential to a saint in this life are faith and repentance. These are the two wings by which he flies to heaven." “Christians, do you have a sad resentment of other things and not of sin? Worldly tears fall to the earth, but godly tears are kept in a bottle (Ps. 56.8). Judge not holy weeping superfluous. Tertullian thought he was born for no other end but to repent.” “It is a bad sign when a man on his deathbed bequeaths his soul to God and his illgotten goods to his friends. I can hardly think God will receive his soul. Augustine said, 'Without restitution, no remission'. And it was a speech of old Latimer, If ye restore not goods unjustly gotten, ye shall cough in hell.”
When God begins to draw me to Himself, the problem of my will comes in immediately. Will I react positively to the truth that God has revealed? Will I come to Him? To discuss or deliberate over spiritual matters when God calls is inappropriate and disrespectful to Him. When God speaks, never discuss it with anyone as if to decide what your response may be (see Galatians 1:15-16). Belief is not the result of an intellectual act, but the result of an act of my will whereby I deliberately commit myself. But will I commit, placing myself completely and absolutely on God, and be willing to act solely on what He says? If I will, I will find that I am grounded on reality as certain as God’s throne.
In preaching the gospel, always focus on the matter of the will. Belief must come from the will to believe. There must be a surrender of the will, not a surrender to a persuasive or powerful argument. I must deliberately step out, placing my faith in God and in His truth. And I must place no confidence in my own works, but only in God. Trusting in my own mental understanding becomes a hindrance to complete trust in God. I must be willing to ignore and leave my feelings behind. I must will to believe. But this can never be accomplished without my forceful, determined effort to separate myself from my old ways of looking at things. I must surrender myself completely to God. — My Utmost for His Highest (The Golden Book of Oswald Chambers;1992, “The Drawing of the Father”)
Eph. 2:10 A regenerated sinner becomes a living soul; he lives a life of holiness, being born of God: he lives, being delivered from the guilt of sin, by pardoning and justifying grace. All is the free gift of God, and the effect of being quickened by his power. It was his purpose, to which he prepared us, by blessing us with the knowledge of his will, and his Holy Spirit producing such a change in us, that we should glorify God by our good conversation, and perseverance in holiness. None can from Scripture abuse this doctrine, or accuse it of any tendency to evil. All who do so, are without excuse. — Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible
James 2:14 In order to a proper interpretation of this passage, it should be observed that the stand-point from which the apostle views this subject is not before a man is converted, inquiring in what way he may be justified before God, or on what ground his sins may be forgiven; but it is after a man is converted, showing that that faith can have no value which is not followed by good works; that is, that it is not real faith, and that good works are necessary if a man would have evidence that he is justified. Thus understood, all that James says is in entire accordance with what is taught elsewhere in the New Testament. — Albert Barnes (1798-1870), Notes on the Bible
Jas 2:14 From Jam_1:22, the apostle has been enforcing Christian practice. He now applies to those who neglect this, under the pretence of faith. St. Paul had taught that "a man is justified by faith without the works of the law." This some began already to wrest to their own destruction. Wherefore St. James, purposely repeating (Jam_2:21, Jam_2:23, Jam_2:25) the same phrases, testimonies, and examples, which St. Paul had used, Rom_4:3, Heb_11:17, Heb_11:31, refutes not the doctrine of St. Paul, but the error of those who abused it. There is, therefore, no contradiction between the apostles: they both delivered the truth of God, but in a different manner, as having to do with different kinds of men. — John Wesley
James 2:14-26 6. We are taught that a justifying faith cannot be without works, from two examples, Abraham and Rahab. Those who would have Abraham's blessings must be careful to copy after his faith: to boast of being Abraham's seed will not avail any, if they do not believe as he did... [2.] Those works which evidence true faith must to works of self-denial, and such as God himself commands (as Abraham's offering up his son, his only son, was), and not such works as are pleasing to flesh and blood and may serve our interest, or are the mere fruits of our own imagination and devising. — Matthew Henry (1662 – 1714), Commentary on the Whole Bible
Jas 2:14-26 Those are wrong who put a mere notional belief of the gospel for the whole of evangelical religion, as many now do. No doubt, true faith alone, whereby men have part in Christ's righteousness, atonement, and grace, saves their souls; but it produces holy fruits, and is shown to be real by its effect on their works; while mere assent to any form of doctrine, or mere historical belief of any facts, wholly differs from this saving faith. A bare profession may gain the good opinion of pious people; and it may procure, in some cases, worldly good things; but what profit will it be, for any to gain the whole world, and to lose their souls?...True believing is not an act of the understanding only, but a work of the whole heart. — Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible
Jas 2:17 If it hath not works, is dead - The faith that does not produce works of charity and mercy is without the living principle which animates all true faith, that is, love to God and love to man. — Adam Clarke, LL.D., F.S.A., (1715-1832), Commentary on the Bible
Jas 2:14-18 Even so faith. Faith that has no power to bring one to obedience and to sway the life is as worthless as good wishes which end in words. — The People's New Testament (1891) by B. W. Johnson
Jas 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. It is like a lifeless carcass, a body without a soul, Jam_2:26 for as works, without faith, are dead works, so faith, without works, is a dead faith, and not like the lively hope and faith of regenerated persons: — Dr. John Gill (1690-1771), Exposition of the Entire Bible
“If the works which living faith produces have no existence, it is a proof that faith itself (literally, ‘in respect to itself’) has no existence; that is, that what one boasts of as faith, is dead.” “Faith” is said to be “dead in itself,” because when it has works it is alive, and it is discerned to be so, not in respect to its works, but in respect to itself. — Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown, Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Jas 2:17 So likewise that faith which hath not works is a mere dead, empty notion; of no more profit to him that hath it, than the bidding the naked be clothed is to him. — John Wesley
Even so faith; that which they boasted of, and called faith. Is dead; void of that life, in which the very essence of faith consists, and which always discovers itself in vital actings and good fruits, where it is not hindered by some forcible impediment; in allusion to a corpse, which plainly appears to have no vital principle in it, all vital operations being ceased. It resembles a man’s body, and is called so, but in reality is not so, but a dead carcass. — Matthew Poole (1624 -1679)
"Very often many things are said by the Holy Scriptures and in it many names are used not in a literal sense... those who have a mind understand this" +Isaac the Syrian, Homily 83
""It is because fear edifies simpler people." +Basil the Great, That God is not the Cause of Evil
I should add, "and also most of the rest of us"!
Is that another way of saying a lawyer? :)
How can you say that? Have you ever read any of the early Christian apologetics, such as Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus...? Have you ever considered their own canons?
The last part is certainly true, but in debate we are far better off with being able to start with the same words, at least, and in many cases similar worldviews
yeah, like Trinity and the existence therefor...
There's only so far an atheist and a believer can get with debating scripture since there is no common starting ground
I understand that, but I am talking Christains of different persuasions.
As you know the Torah [5 books part if there is other] is part of the Bible, but they are different assemblies. As far as who is a Jew and who is a Gentile is concerned, the NT makes it clear that a true Jew and a true Christian are both true believers in the One true God
You are subjecting the OT to the New Testament while claiming they are all equal. They don't teach the same thing. On what authority does the NT supersede the Torah when the Torah is said to have been dictated by God word for word to Moses and was written by God before the foundation of the world? How can the Torah be "fulfilled" when it says in the Torah itself that the Torah can be fulfilled.
But the author claims as fact that both the Christian and Jewish Holy books are fictitious (note at bottom of link). The Bible tells us plainly that to such as these the word of God will be utter nonsense
The author himself is not a believer, but he is only the messenger. The arguments he presents are the arguments made by Jewish theologians that can be found elsewhere. He just summarizes them in an easy to follow manner.
From Fulton Sheen...
Direct opposite of what Archbishop Hilairon says. The part about the Holy Trinity explaining Plato's questions is extremely telling, as it was very important for the early Church's acceptance among pagan Greeks to harmonize the pagan Greek Platonic ideas with the new religion, which was essentially alien (Jewish) to the Greeks, and to present Jesus as a Hellenized (demiugric Logos) concept rather than as a Jewish mashiyah. Nevertheless, this was not easy, which is why it too three hundred years to "hammer out." Even the First Ecumenical Council did not have it altogether (just base don the number of Credal versions that were floating around), as the Greed ends with a simple statement "And we believe in the Holy Ghost" without elaborating, or equating him with the Father and the Son.
“”Direct opposite of what Archbishop Hilairon says””
I don’t agree with you
Here is more from Blessed Bishop Sheen...
“Finally, this Word or Son, born of the Eternal God, is personal. The thought of God is not commonplace, like ours, but reaches to the abyss of all that is known or can be known. Into this Thought or Word, God puts Himself so entirely that it is as living as Himself, as perfect as Himself, as infinite as Himself. If a human genius can put his whole personality into a thought, in a more perfect way God is able to put so much of Himself into a thought that that Thought or Word or Son is conscious of Himself and is a Divine Person. We humans can know ourselves, but it is first the exterior world that we know. Then we come to know ourselves as a result of knowing the world. We are dependent on whatever is outside us. But God knows Himself without any original assistance from the outside world. God has an idea of Himself, as a face is seen in a mirror, but this idea is so deep and so reflective of His Nature as to be a Person.
The Father does not first exist and then think; the Father and Son are co-eternal, for in God all is present and unchanging. An unbelieving father one day said to his son, who had just returned from catechism class: “What did you learn today?” The boy answered: “I learned there are Three Persons in God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—and they are all equal.” The father retorted: “But that is ridiculous! I am your father; you are my son. We are not equal. I existed a long time before you.” To this came the answer: “Oh, no, you didn’t; you did not begin to be a father until I began to be a son.” The relationship of father and son on earth is contemporaneous; so the relation between Father and Son is co- eternal. Nothing is new, and nothing is lost. Thus it is that the Father, contemplating His Image, His Word, His Son, can say in the ecstasy of the first and real paternity: “Thou art my Son; I have begotten thee this day.” (Acts 13:33) “This day”—this day of eternity; that is, the indivisible duration of being without end. “This day” in that act that will never end as it has never begun, this day of the agelessness of eternity—”Thou art my Son.”
Go back to the origin of the world, pile century on century, aeon on aeon, age on age—”The Word was with God.” Go back before the creation of the angels, before Michael summoned his war hosts to victory and there was a flash of archangelic spears—even then, “The Word was with God.” It is that Word which St. John heard in the beginning of his Gospel, when he wrote: “At the beginning of time the Word already was; and God had the Word abiding with him, and the Word was God.” Just as my interior thoughts are not made manifest without a spoken word, so the Word in the language of John, “was made flesh, and came to dwell among us.” And that Word is no other than the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity; the Word Who embraces the beginning and end of all things; the Word Who existed before creation; the Word Who presided at creation as the King of the Universe; the Word made flesh at Bethlehem; the Word made flesh on the cross; and the Word made flesh dwelling with divinity and humanity in the Eucharistic Emmanuel.
The Good Friday of twenty centuries ago did not mark the end of Him, as it did not mark the beginning. It is one of the moments of the Eternal Word of God. Jesus Christ has a prehistory that is prehistory—a prehistory not to be studied in the rocks of the earth, nor in the caves of man, nor in the slime and dust of primeval jungles, but in the bosom of an Eternal Father. He alone brought history to history; He alone has dated all the records of human events ever since into two periods—the period before and the period after His coming: so that if we would ever deny that the Word became Flesh and that the Son of God became the Son of Man, we would have to date our denial as over one thousand nine hundred years after His coming.
Every mind and heart in the world is aspiring to this kind of Love which is the very essence of God! We all want Wisdom, Learning, Truth; but we do not want it in books, theorems, or abstractions. Truth never appeals to us unless it is personal. No purely philosophical system can long hold the devotion of men. But as soon as Truth is seen incarnate in a Person, then it is dynamic, magnetic. But nowhere else can we find life and Truth identical except in the Word of God, Who became Our Lord, Jesus Christ. Every other teacher said: “Follow my code,” “Observe my Eightfold Way.” But Our Lord, the Son of God, and the Son of Man, alone could say: “I am the Truth.” For the first time in history, as from all eternity in God, Truth is Personal!
But generation does not tell the full story of the inner life of God, for if God is the source of all life and truth and goodness in the world, He has a Will as well as an Intellect, a Love as well as a Thought. Nothing is loved unless it is known. There is no love for the unknown. Love implies knowledge. The intellect sets up the goal or target; the will is the bow and the arrow combined, directed to that target. Whenever we meet anything good we are drawn to it, and the more good it is, the more desirable it is—whether it be a meal, a vacation, or a human heart. Whenever love is deep and intense, a tremendous transformation is wrought within the soul! This is because love does something to us; it affects us so profoundly that the only way we have of expressing it is by the lover’s sigh, which is expressed in the Latin word spiritus! The deeper love is, the more wordless it becomes. Byron spoke of “the sigh suppressed, corroding in the cavern of the heart.”
In the Divine Essence, the Father not only contemplates His Son, Who is His Eternal Image. As a result of the mutual love for one another, there is also a spiration, or an act of mutual love, which is called the Holy Spirit. Just as to speak means to pronounce a word, and to flower means to produce blossoms, so to love is to breathe love, or sigh, or spirate. As we know that a rosebush is in flower by its blossoms, so the Father gives intellectual expression to all knowledge by His Word. Now we know that the Father and Son are in love, both for themselves and even for us, through their Holy Spirit of Love. This mutual love of Father for Son and of Son for Father is not a fleeting love like ours, but so eternal and so rooted in the Divine essence as to be personal. For that reason, the Holy Spirit is called a Person. The love of friend for friend is sometimes said to make them one soul; but in no sense does it breathe forth a new person. In the family, however, the analogy is better, for the mutual love of husband and wife does “breathe,” not wholly in the order of the spirit but in the order of spirit and matter, a new person, who is the bond of their love. But all this is imperfect, for regardless of how much love there is among humans, the good which is loved remains separated and external.
A kiss is a sign of love; but it is a giving of one’s breath, or spirit, which is inseparable from life itself. The purpose of all love is to take the beloved into oneself to possess it, to become identified with it. A mother pressing a child to her breast is seeking to make that child one with her in love. “I bear you in my heart” is a romantic expression of the same craving for unity through love— for love, as we shall see, by its nature is unitive.
But despite this desire to be one with the beloved, there must still be distinctness. If the other person were destroyed, there would be no love. Unity must not mean absorption or annihilation or destruction, but the fullness of one in the other. To be one without ceasing to be distinct, that is the paradox of love! This ideal we cannot achieve in this life because we have bodies as well as souls. What is material cannot interpenetrate! After a union in the flesh, one is thrown back on one’s own individual self. In Holy Communion there is the closest approximation there can be on earth to this, but even that is a reflection of a higher love. We can never completely give ourselves to others, nor can others entirely become our own. All earthly love suffers from this inability of two lovers to be one, and yet distinct. Love’s greatest sufferings come from the exteriority and separateness of the beloved! But in God, the love uniting Father and Son is a living flame, or the Eternal Kiss of the Father, and the Son. Fulton J Sheen
Not really. I recall a conversation I had with a "doubter" one time and his biggest beef was, "God must be some kind of egomaniac or really conceited because why does it say that he created all things for his own glory?". I guess some could ask the same question here about God creating beings to be the object of his love so that they would love him in return.
The way I see it is, God really deserves all the glory and praise anyway and he is being honest about it. There is no conceit when the praise is righteously deserved. For all eternity God was God, in his being, at some point, he created the angelic beings and then he created time. He created time and placed within it a universe. In the universe he created beings in his own image capable of returning the love he showed them just as the angels could. Did God NEED to create any of this? I don't think he did but he chose to. So we can conjecture why he did or we can accept what he has revealed to mankind about it and it was:
Ephesians 2:6-7
And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.
So, no, I don't think we can begin to understand everything there is to know about why God did what he did and, so, we will have to be content with faith for the time being. I'm okay with that.
Talk about anthropomorphizing God.
It sounds like a serious case of projection going on.
Either that or someone's view of God is just not big enough.
Rome (and apparently FRoman Catholics judging by the complete lack of response to this passage that I've posted numerous times, completely ignores this ......
Galatians 3 1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. 2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? 4 Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? 5 Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— 6 just as Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"?
7 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them." 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for "The righteous shall live by faith." 12 But the law is not of faith, rather "The one who does them shall live by them." 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
15 To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20 Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.
21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
I don't know that we can speak of "self" with reference to God as we can with creatures -- don't the psycholgists speak of infants' gradually gaining a "sense of self" as apart from the rest of reality (well, they did back when I occasionally read that sort of thing!)? But God is not apart from the "rest of reality" -- He is Ultimate Reality (pace kosta50 here -- I'm speaking to believers! ;-) But he knows what we're talking about.).
"Self" with reference to God sounds to me the same sort of thing as "existence" in the Cappadocian Fathers' sense of "I believe in God; God does not exist." Maybe Kolo can bring an apposite quote from one of the Greek Fathers or someone that expresses this more exactly (he often does such!).
So you are taken with the Cappadocians! It is good for all Christians to study the Cappadocian Fathers. Some say that there hasn’t been any material contribution to Trinitarian theology since them. I don’t know that I agree. For example, it is all but impossible to discuss Eastern Christian Trinitarianism without having a working knowledge of the writings of +Gregory Palamas. But, of course, given when the Cappadocians were writing, there is no denying the overwhelming and fundamental importance of their theology for all Christians. You, however, wanted an “apposite” quote. Here’s one from +Gregory Nazianzen, Oration XL on Holy Baptism:
“This I give you to share, and to defend all your life, the One Godhead and Power, found in the Three in Unity, and comprising the Three separately, not unequal, in substances or natures, neither increased nor diminished by superiorities or inferiorities; in every respect equal, in every respect the same; just as the beauty and the greatness of the heavens is one; the infinite conjunction of Three Infinite Ones, Each God when considered in Himself; as the Father so the Son, as the Son so the Holy Ghost; the Three One God when contemplated together; Each God because Consubstantial; One God because of the Monarchia. No sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illumined by the splendour of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish them than I am carried back to the One. When I think of any One of the Three, I think of Him as the whole … When I contemplate the Three together I see but one torch, and cannot divide or measure out the individual light.”
If you are interested, here’s a fabulous book which discusses this subject at length and which you all might find both interesting and informative. Fr. Lossky was one of our great modern theologians:
If you seek God before your comfort you shall return to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and God bless your mother.
Given a new name, given the keys to the Kingdom of heaven, told to feed Christ's sheep and told to confirm his brethren. That points to primacy of St.Peter in the apostolic college. Whether modern papacy is an exact implementation of Petrine office, or it has developed historically as the Church reacted to heresies, is a valid question, but I'd rather discuss that with the Orthodox who understand the issue.
I haven't seen any effort to counter what I previously posted
If you think I diod not couinter something "you reviously posted", show me what is it.
If you don’t believe I’m Superman why would you believe I can fly?
Yes, you rephrase what I was saying correctly. If you don't believe the Church in her historical knowledge, why do you believe the Gospel?
You don't seem, according to this post, have any familiarity with the Holy Gospel. Here's the good news: those who live according to the manner that the Catholic Chruch proposes for their salvation, even though they experience death, live forever. One who takes communion worthily s ready for heaven and eternal life, exactly as Jesus taught. "Whosoever believeth in him, may not perish; but may have life everlasting" (John 3:15)
Unless the Catholic church has saints that it claims are almost 2,000 years old?
You bet, and older. Righteous Abel is a saint of the Catholic Church, for example.
This post, I am sorry to say, is stunningly ignorant of Christianity.
The reference is the water of baptism. The difference between the prophecy of John 4 regarding the Baptism and John 6 regarding the Eucharist is that the liturgical part of Baptism has already been known thanks to St. John the Baptist. Fittingly, Jesus does not tell the apostles to give people water in that passage or anywhere else, and He does tell them to baptize (Matthew 28:19). He also tells the Apostles to give people the Eucharist (Luke 22:19)
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.