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
There may be some difference in the RC construct, but in addition, when God wants us to know that someone or something is pure and without sin than He tells us in a way that is not problematically derived.
“Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? “ (John 8:46)
“Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: “ (1 Peter 2:22)
“For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. “ (2 Corinthians 5:21)
“For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; “ (Hebrews 7:26)
“The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. {8} The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. {9} The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether. “ (Psalms 19:7-9)
The question is, if God could God bring forth His pure word thru men who were sinners, though overall holy, (2Pet. 1:20-21) then almighty God could do the same as regards Mary. And such esp. ought to be allowed if transubstantiation is believed, even so far as that the blood of Jesus was in the stomachs of the (kosher) apostles while Jesus was sitting or reclining next to them.
LOL! I doubt the rabbis care what you may think about Jewishness being matrilinear. The fact of the matter is, that it is.
Perhaps you have another link because that one just didn’t really have anything to support you assertions. Quite the opposite, so is that it?
Yes, and I do likewise. While my remarks can be, I am afraid, cutting, they are never intended to demean the opponent; my sarcasm, as best I can make it, is aimed at ideas or historical persons who got their names associated with their ideas, rather than people I converse with.
If I may digress, I was lately reading "The Ecumenism Challenge" by a contemporary Russian Orthodox thinker Deacon Kuraev (unless you read in Russian, this is not useful to you, but here it is: Вызов экуменизма). Well, if you are looking for a church that "loves the preeminence" this is she; most of the book is up-and-down thourough critique of the Roman Catholic ecumenical intentions vis-a-vis Orthodoxy, politics, theology and spirituality from the dispute over the Uniate churches in the Ukraine to St. Theresa of Avila's naughty mysticism and to the Filioque. (The Protestant theology, as far more distant from Orthodoxy, he does not dwell on barely at all). He makes one point I can wholly subscribe to. Wait, he .actually makes many points about ecumenism, even ecuumenism between our two Sister Churches I wholly subscribe to! This is that excellent point I want to let you read (translation mine, from page 4 according to the online pagination):
The way of human thought, the way of science and philosophy -- is the way of the search for the maximally clear, sharp formulations, way of proof and substantiation of one's position. Reason demands maximally full cognizance by man of his sensations, convictions, and his faith. The way of the theological thought is not an exception to that.When at the First Ecumenical Council the Fathers turned to the search for the most "God-appropriate words" to elucidate the Mystery of the Trinity, they did not look for words that might hide the distinctions between the Orthodox and the Arians, but rather words behind which the Arians could not hide. The entire labor of the Council was the search for the words with which all the participants in the Council would NOT agree; the search of the words that would separate the Orthodox from the Arians.
First, they suggested to insert into the Creed the formula "Son from God", but it turned out that the Arians consider that formula acceptable as a specific application of the more general formula "all things are of God" (2 Cor. 5:18). The formula "Son is God" was also accepted by the Arians who then would explain that the Son became God. Next, the formula offered by the Orthodox "The Son exists in the Father" was interpreted as applicable to the creatures, since "in him we live, and move, and are" (Acts 17:28). It was offered the formula "The Word is the true power of God" but it turned out that even the locust is called "my great host" (Joel 2:25 [, "η δυναμις μου η μεγαλη", "my Great Power" according to LXX which is the Orthodox Old Testament reference]), -- and so therefore even an Arian can easily speak of the son as "power of God" and at the same time see in Him not God but a creature. Yet another biblical formula was remembered, "Son is the light of the glory and image of His hypostasis". Well, it turned out that the Arians applied these images to man, referring to 1 Cor 11:7. So they had to find a word that would make clear the extraordinary degree of proximity of the Son to the Father, one that could not also apply to the relationship that exists between the creature and the Creator. When the word "one in being" was proposed -- then, finally, the Arians voted against it. At that time th econciliar thought reached its success, the word was found that clearly defended the Apostolic deposit of faith from the false reinterpretations. Theology is the science of most precise, rather than most acceptable words and formulae.
Yet in the ecumenical movement "In the contradiction of the Fathers and the Councils, expressions are sought, not most clearly fencing off the truth, but rather the fuzziest, the most acceptable" (46). The ecumenical impreative says: -- there is no need for clearer, and most elaborated formulae and arguments. If to have one's own position altogether becomes a crime against the humanity ("How dare you think different that the Catholics or the Buddhists?!") , -- then understandably there is not reason to substantiate or prove anything.
----
[46] Uspenski L.A. Theology, the icons of the Orthodox Church, Paris, 1989, pg 468.
I think, since I pinged our two Eastern Orthodox to this, after this ecumenical broadside, I will take a break and resume later on the rest of your post.
Then you know of some writings of Mary or Luke or John that are NOT contained in the Scriptures?
John 21:25 says there were many things Jesus did that were not written down. Or have you found a source of unknown Scriptures?
Mary adopted who? John? John was not a little child, was he? and who else did Mary adopt?
“You realize that before the Magnificat prayer got into St. Luke’s gospel, St. Luke had to find out from somebody what did the prayer say?”
I should think she likely told a number of people that Luke could’ve consulted.
Markbsnr: You might wish to read the three versions again, and see what words are actually written, not the meaning that you might bring to them.
So, do YOU think, like the rich man, that he DID keep the whole law except for that one little detail about his love of his money? C'mon...do you honestly think that he was really being honest? That's what I was talking about that Jesus knew his heart, how else did he know about his weak spot? We have ALL sinned, we are ALL lawbreakers. Some are just better at hiding it than others but nothing is hidden from God. This guy was a sinner because he was merely human. There would have been no point in Jesus arguing with him over all the ways in which he wasn't as perfect as he thought, instead, he cut to the chase and pointed out the heart of the matter. Money was this guy's downfall because it kept him from following Christ but, in reality, he was the same as everyone else in that he needed to see his need for a Savior. This is a place we all must come to.
You, know, I believe you are correct in that. I once heard a guy say, "If it wasn't for women, us guys would still be eatin' strawberries in the Garden of Eden."! ;o)
"Minority Report" starring Tom Cruise - saw it. You know, I wonder why we never hear of all the books that must have been written by Mary's Mom and Dad and all the aunts, uncles, cousins, brothers and sisters about the incredible miracle Mary was as a perfect baby, a two-year old, etc. and how she never, ever did anything wrong her whole life. No two-year-old terrible twos, no temper tantrums, no "Me, me, me, me", or "NO, I want to do it MY way.". No squabbles with the other kids in the family. Or all the other ways the rest of us found ways to be bad even when nobody was looking. Yes, those books should have certainly stood the test of time alright. So, I wonder, where are they all??? ;o)
That is true, but NAB also presents (usually) the oldest manuscript versions known. Some verse are doctrinally adjusted.
That was beautiful. Thank you. Here’s another like it:
John 3:16
For God - the greatest lover
So loved - the greatest degree
The world - the greatest company
That He gave - the greatest act
His only begotten Son - the greatest gift
That whosoever - the greatest opportunity
Believeth - the greatest simplicity
In Him - the greatest attraction
Should not perish - the greatest promise
But - the greatest difference
Have - the greatest certainty
Everlasting life - the greatest possession
But justification is not "most precisely by faith". As I read the scripture, foremostly Matthew 25:31-46, which is singificantly, in case you wish to engage St.Paul vs. the Gospel type of argument, echoed in Romans 2:6-10, -- justification is not by faith but precisely by good works. I am not saying it is all by works, but it appears, scripturally, that it is. The Catholic Church teaches that faith that is mature incorporates good works, so we are fine with the formulation that we are saved by properly mature faith alone. We are not fine with faith alone in such way "that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will" (DECREE ON JUSTIFICATION , CANON IX).
it is Rome who engages in the most “artistry” in having believers merit the gift of eternal life via her sacramental system
But that, too, is plain scripture. The Church was told to baptize and celebrate the Eucharist (Matthew 28:19, Luke 22:19). She was told that the Baptism and the Eucharist are fonts of eternal life (Mark 16:16, John 6:55 or next to it). Where is the "artistry"?
Scripture itself affirms men to judging what is taught by the Scriptures (Acts 17:11) and its attestation, as well as to ascertaining their own status as believers by what is written. (1Jn. 5:13)
One should indeed do as the Bereans and "daily search the scriptures". This advice does not negate advice to seek understanding from an apostolic source (Acts 8:27-31). It is my constant theme that the Protestants at best -- at the historical, now virtually extinct best -- do not have doctrines that can self-evidently be reconciled with the scripture. I see plenty of sophistry that ostensibly reconciles it, but I do not see that simple, boot-in-the-bouilion simplicity of "my flesh is food indeed" or "by works man is justified and not by faith only".
those in Rome do not even know the infallible status of multitudes of pronouncements
No, we don't. That might be a blemish of a kind. Certainly a Catholic should do a better job figuring out his own faith, -- just look at all these Catholics going Pentacostal or something out of pure ignorance of their own Pentacostal birthright. But tat the same time, this is a legalistic argument. Would you as easily convict an American citizen for not knowing the Uniform Commerce Code, his state's Criminal code and the taxation laws? The American citizen has someone to ask and he has a general intuition of these things. This is not an endorsement of the mostrosity of the present US legal system, -- merely an appeal to the fact that a well-oiled formal legal system, which Catholicism in part surely is, -- doesn not necessitate a law degree of every participant. When in doubt ask the Church. Biblically speaking, by the way: Mt 18:18ff.
very little of the Bible has been defined
Good point. I heard it, and don't know the reference, but the Church actually fixed the interpretation of less than a dozen biblical verses. We have doctrines, -- we don't have quotebooks.
her teaching itself requires some interpretation, both of which engage private interpretation (PI), and her members evidence less unity in core truths and moral values than those within evangelicalism.
That is true too, and again speaks to the non-legalistic method employed by the Church, in the spirit of Matthew 5, "But I say to you". Again, the avenue of spiritual growth given a Catholic is primarily his priest, who is someone he can ask. That is not infallible, but the model works also to the larger community, till the questioner either finds an assent of faith ot leaves the Church. Whether Evangelicanism possesses a similar or superior degree of unity is not the proper question. The proper question is whether Evangelicanism accords with the Scripture. If it does, surely the Holy Spirit wil provide true unity. If it doesn't, and it doesn't, then the unity of Evangelicanism is simply the unity of any other group of people sharing a subculture: it does not unite in essence. There are many bikers, they all look alike in their leather, and they all fight bacause they're bikers.
along with Divine attestation of the faith, including the transformative effects of believing the preaching of what you seem to malign as the “misanthropic self-effacing me, filthy rags” gospel of grace, by which those who thus humble themselves are exalted. (Lk. 18:14)
The gospel of grace is the Catholic teaching. So is transformational rather than forensic justification by grace. However, penance is not a one-time public act. It is rather an recurring act of faith that involves telling of one's sins, sacramental absolution, and taking up the work where it has been left off due to sin "In stripes, in prisons, in seditions, in labours, in watchings, in fastings, In chastity, in knowledge, in longsuferring, in sweetness, in the Holy Ghost, in charity unfeigned, In the word of truth, in the power of God; by the armour of justice on the right hand and on the left; By honour and dishonour, by evil report and good report ... be you also enlarged", (2 Cor. 6:5ff). When penance is reduced to a single time getting-saved event, one can surely say thet the spirit of penance has been replaced with a spirit of social recognition of the penitent. That is what I was directing my sarcasm at.
thanks for the pings...’Truth in Poetry’...and as we know the Holy Spirit certainly reveals his appretiation for the “art” all thru the Psalms..and more.
Says "Pœnitentiam agite". The only official Bible is the Latin translation or the Greek original. The Greek original says μετανοειτε.
The only guidance of whether μετανοειτε refers to a physical act of penance is in the acts of St. John the Baptist. St. Peter, as Acts 2:38 reports, likewise directed the Jews to baptism for the remission of their sins. To suggest that the "changing of the mind" was purely an intellectual exercise is not biblical.
In Acts 26:20, “that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet [corresponding to] for repentance.” -- corroborates the fact that the Bible teaches "metanoia" as something people DO rather than think or feel. "Do penance" is the proper translation, it reflects the active nature of true penance.
It appears to me the only ones who write about Mary’s life from the perspective of her being all which Rome has deligated to her, are catholics. All the information I’ve seen thus far makes it clear this extreme adoration and her sinlessness etc. was established by Rome. Since catholics must abide by Rome’s degrees then it’s no wonder those on the thread refuse to see the truth...to them Rome is the Truth. Sad.
Penance is not Biblical Annalex....Jesus Christ either bore the penalty for all our sins...or none at all...there is no half-way measures He weighed in on. There is nothing more that we can do which can or would satisfy the requirements of God.
But Rome will continue this requirement for it's members as doing so creates a false sense of being forgiven and of course fills the coffers of the church.
Let the 'mind' that was in Christ Jesus be in you. The scriptures speak often of the re-newing of our minds.
I worry for about 10 seconds when someone reads plain words, and cannot understand them. Then I just say, “Feh!”
The novel idea that μετανοειτε or μετανοια means only an abstract intellectual exercise is nonsense. Indeed, there is a form of veneration, a deep bow from the waist while touching the floor with the fingers of the right hand, called a "metania" and a full body prostration (the great metania) of the sort we use while saying reciting the great penitential Prayer of +Ephraim the Syrian. Both words are obviously find their root in μετανοια.
BTW, imagine a congregation doing 3 full body prostrations while reciting this:
"O Lord and Master of my life, give me not the spirit of sloth, idle curiosity, lust for power and idle talk.[prostration]
But grant unto me, Thy servant, a spirit of chastity, humility, patience and love.[prostration]
Yea, O Lord and King, grant me to see my own faults and not to judge my brother. For blessed art Thou unto the ages of ages. Amen."[prostration]
We do this in Great Lent. Μετανοια, indeed, means more than simply changing one's mind about life and one's relationship to God. It means at least self examination followed by intense penitential prayer and even physical action.
Please do not ping me to your posts.
Despite the sham of a "... complex and collegial process" the Supreme Pontiff is the boss and only he can remove, "put on the shelf", and reassign Bishops.
Despite the sham of a "... complex and collegial process" the Supreme Pontiff is the boss and only he can remove, "put on the shelf", and reassign Bishops.
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.