Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
In Christ Alone lyrics
Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;
In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm
What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand
In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save
?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live
There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again
And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ
I thought the discussion had to do with the sin nature coming from the father and not about "Jewishness". Scripture says, as Metmom pointed out, that sin came from Adam and because of Adam's sin we are all sinners. This doctrine is quite different from the one about Jesus' lineage going back to the throne of David. We had this discussion back some time ago, and we know that both Mary and Joseph can trace back to David's lineage but only Mary's side was without a curse (Jeconiah) so that Jesus was legally entitled to the throne of David.
1. while the majority of what we now consider constitutes scripture, there were other texts (valid or not--the 'not' being Gnostic ones in particular) which were held in esteemThe net effect is that apostolic authority still was utterly necessary until (and necessary after) the Council of Nicea for ensuring that one stayed true to the faith.
2. Even valid scripture was not completely accepted or available everywhere -- between AD 50 to 150 a number of documents began to circulate among the churches. According to Jerome, this included the Gospel of the Hebrews (the Gospel of Matthew that is attested as far away as the Syriac Churches in India). You also had epistles, gospels, acts, apocalypses, homilies, and collections of teachings circulating. While some of these documents were apostolic in origin, others drew upon the tradition they had utilized in their individual missions or were summaries of the teachings.
3. By the end of the 1st century, some letters of Paul were collected and circulated, and were known to Clement of Rome, but still the idea of scripture is the Tanakh. He may refer to "words of Christ" and to epistles, but there is no compendium noted.
4. Even later, Irenaeus in the 1st century cites 21 books excluding Philemon, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 3 John and Jude
Good points. I would agree except that we know that Jesus is/was a Jew and if Jewishness is not transferred through the maternal line, then we cannot say He was a Jew. Correct?
What anyone thinks about the matter is irrelevant. It’s what Scripture says that’s important.
Scripture says that the sin nature comes through the father.
It came into the world through Adam. In Adam, all sinned.
I know that Catholics like to believe that is through Eve, so that they can attribute participation in salvation to Mary, but all that surrounding her is unscriptural as well.
Well of course I told you my interpretation of the stated verses as you have also done, now.
Your words were: I have told you what the passages are saying - several times now.
If you recall the thread correctly, I was the one who posted the verses so that we could see what they actually said.
We differ on what Jesus was really saying to the "rich, young man". Here is the passage from Matthew:
We sure do. I quoted Jesus. You gave me several expositions.
So...my question about this episode is did the young man really tell the truth about never breaking any of the commandments? I believe he thought he was as perfect as a man could be. But, we know that Jesus taught that obeying the commandments of God meant more than just the outward acts but the inward as well. He told the Pharisees about hate being as murder, lust the same as adultery, etc. so it is the spirit of the law and not just the letter of the law. My contention is that this man was self-deluded and Jesus pointed out to him his actual sinful state. Notice, too, that nowhere is there a commandment to give everything you have to the poor.
Jesus did not point out the man's sinful state anywhere. Jesus accepted his testimony and simply added to the requirements. No command to give to the poor? Matthew 5, 6, and 7 gainsay that statement. Acts of the Apostles also has some very good examples for Christians to follow. But Jesus does not tell us generally to give everything to the poor, but He told this man specifically. The Gospels are full of examples of Christian deeds required of us.
I thought it curious that when the guy asks Jesus "Which ones?" and Jesus listed them, he did not list the first, greatest commandment, "And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.". Did you notice that? When the guy left, dejected, it was as I said, he knew he could never trust Christ that much and his money meant more to him. A person who thinks this way - and not just about money - is really saying they don't believe in God. If they really did think that God was real and that by rejecting him they were condemned to eternity in Hell, how many people would still reject him?
Do not judge this man harshly. Even the Apostles largely abandoned Him to die; even Peter denied Him three times. Do you have the same opinion of them? The man didn't want to give up his wealth; the Apostles abandoned Jesus to the Crucifixion. Do you think that they were more virtuous than the man?
To trust in Jesus Christ for my salvation means that I truly cast myself upon his throne of grace, I will not put anything in my life above him, I surrender my entire self to him, whatever he asks me to do, I will do because he is my Lord and Savior. So I hope you can see now that I have not discounted anything that Jesus was saying here, I just in hindsight can understand his point better than the man in the story or the followers of Jesus did.
I could use terms like impious boasting and hubris here (I am a million times as humble as thou art...). But I won't, because I would simply like to point out that since you are human, you don't. You cannot. You may try and you may succeed or you may fail, but I will submit to you (not evening knowing you - I'd bet any amount though) that you have not surrendered yourself completely to God. There are very few people who even come close. I know that I haven't, not by a long shot. I still have more the RDA of pride and I admit it. I do not boast of what I do not have.
Even they asked him, "Who then can be saved?". Yikes, they thought even we won't make it if that's what is required. Jesus said, "With man this is IMPOSSIBLE, but with God all things are possible." Man cannot save himself, he can never be as perfect as God and until he sees his need for grace and mercy, he will not ever have eternal life. Just as Jesus said, "There is only one who is good.", and we know he meant God. This man and all mankind must come to the point of realization that no one is as good as God nor can he ever attain it apart from Christ. We will have the righteousness of God through faith in Christ.
Back to this? Christianity never believed in self salvation; without God, there is no salvation. Yet all four Gospels make it very plain, Paul makes it plain, Acts makes it plain that there are requirements. Without fulfilling these requirements, there is no salvation. Matthew 25 is very plain.
II Cor. 5:21 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.
Yup, might be. Could be. May be. Depending on our Christian conduct which will be Judged by the Almighty. Since you are again reverting to Paul, let us have some of Paul's wisdom to the Romans in Chapter 2:
1 1 Therefore, you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment. 2 For by the standard by which you judge another you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the very same things. 2 We know that the judgment of God on those who do such things is true. 3 Do you suppose, then, you who judge those who engage in such things and yet do them yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you hold his priceless kindness, forbearance, and patience in low esteem, unaware that the kindness of God would lead you to repentance? 5 By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God, 6 who will repay everyone according to his works: 3 7 eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works, 8 but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness. 9 Yes, affliction and distress will come upon every human being who does evil, Jew first and then Greek. 10 But there will be glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good, Jew first and then Greek.
A rhetorical question: will your works stand up to God's Judgement? Or was Paul wrong?
If you have a Jewish friend or acquaintance, ask. I will accept your apologies at your leisure. Jewishness is matrilinear; if your father is Jewish and your mother is not, you are not considered Jewish until you convert.
Read the Bible some time. The genealogies are through the father.
We were not talking about genealogies; we were talking about Jewishness being matrilinear after the complete insanity of the claims that the sin nature was only passed on through the father. Completely insane claim and nowhere supported Scripturally. Consider this: if two female eggs are combined to produce human life, does that mean that the child has no sin? Bahble Bleevers (tm) come up with the dumbest things, claiming Scriptural support which is normally found very wanting, or non existent - like this crazy idea.
Correct; this unScriptural idea.
This doctrine is quite different from the one about Jesus' lineage going back to the throne of David. We had this discussion back some time ago, and we know that both Mary and Joseph can trace back to David's lineage but only Mary's side was without a curse (Jeconiah) so that Jesus was legally entitled to the throne of David.
Jesus was legally entitled to the throne of David? God Almighty constricted to human legalities? Oh man, oh man, oh man. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at statements like this.
No, WE weren't. I was talking about genealogies in Scripture. You were talking about cultural Judaism.
I was talking about the sin nature coming through the father, which is Scriptural. The genealogies listed in Scripture follow through the father.
In Abraham all the nations of the earth are blessed. in *in Sarah*. Not *in Eve all sinned*. Not *sin entered the world through Eve.*.
The sin nature comes through the father. It is Scriptural. The reason that Jesus had no sin nature was because His father was God, who knew no sin.
I provided the Scripture references to back up my contention that the sin nature comes through the father and yet you're telling me that it is unscriptural.
Where are yours to support YOUR contention that it comes through the mother?
You guys came up with this craziness about sin only being passed down through the father. And you heckle us about Mary...
I was talking about the sin nature coming through the father, which is Scriptural. The genealogies listed in Scripture follow through the father.
. It says nowhere in Scripture that sin only passes through the father. That single passage in Romans is often used as justification, but it doesn't say that.
In Abraham all the nations of the earth are blessed. in *in Sarah*. Not *in Eve all sinned*. Not *sin entered the world through Eve.*.
Entering the world is not the same as passing it on only by the father.
The sin nature comes through the father. It is Scriptural. The reason that Jesus had no sin nature was because His father was God, who knew no sin.
Twaddle. If we combine two female eggs to produce a human, are you going to claim that the child is sinless since she has no father? If there is no other reference than the really weak interpretation of Romans 5:12, then Bahble Bleevers (tm) have no justification whatsoever in holding this true. It is not specifically Scripture and it sure cannot be deduced without using what Joseph Smith used to write the Book of Mormon.
I provided the Scripture references to back up my contention that the sin nature comes through the father and yet you're telling me that it is unscriptural.
None of them say what you say it proves.
Where are yours to support YOUR contention that it comes through the mother?
I never said anything of the sort. Read back through the thread and see. I just said words to the effect that this father-transmitted "sin nature" was unScriptural and therefore you guys at least should have nothing to do with it, and should really denounce it since it is not found in the Bible.
Amen.
It's amazing how even "catechized" Roman Catholic apologists seem to be ignorant of basic Christianity. What do they learn in those catechism classes, if not the truth found in the Bible?
Still waiting for Scripture references to show that the sin nature enters through the woman........
You can’t legitimately argue that I have no point because you think that I have no Scripture with which to back up my statements, when you are making statements that you aren’t backing up with anything substantial, much less any Scripture.
Wait all you want. You made the claim and have no Scripture to prove it that sin is exclusively of the father. You are the Bible Believer (tm) and therefore when you make a claim, you must prove it.
You can’t legitimately argue that I have no point because you think that I have no Scripture with which to back up my statements, when you are making statements that you aren’t backing up with anything substantial, much less any Scripture.
This is the second time that you have said that I have said that sin nature (whatever that is) passes through the mother. I never said anything of the kind. I have repeatedly challenged you to justify your erroneous belief that sin is only passed through the father, though. You are the Bible Believer (tm). Prove it from Scripture. Romans 5:12 does not prove anything of the kind. Do you have anything else?
grace dispensed from Rome's treasury, replete with Indulgences and Novenas
These vehicles of grace, of course, are in no way exclusive. If one makes use of a particular form of spirituality, good. If he makes use of another, that is hs choice also. The necessary sacraments fopr a baptized Christian are the Confession as needed and the Eucharist "as often as you shall eat this" (1 Cor. 11:26).
whoever promotes works as meriting eternal life ... is under a curse
... is merely reading the Holy Scripture as written. I understand that an anathema is an umpleasant thing to be under, but it is there, not unlike canonical scripture, for your benefit. Compare:
The doctrine of Faith Alone, whether in its wooly "classic Protestantism" form or in the crass despiritualization of modern Protestantism is contrary to the direct instruction of the Bible.
James 2 Trent (Session 6) [22] Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? [23] And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. [24] Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? CANON IX.-If any one saith, 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; let him be anathema.
Your FM once again ... i included Rm. 4 already
I don't know what FM is, and your link is not helping. You did include Romans 4 now, and I explained in the first part of the responding post that Romans 4 is wholly in the context of works of the law, so it does not address the issue of the role of good works.
Protestant sola fide does teach that a "soul is counted righteous because of faith," but it does not teach that the soul is counted righteous because of a faith WHICH IS alone, or by merit of works
All this looks like an attempt to verbalize "We are not saved by faith alone" while avoiding a direct contradiction to the Protestant heresy, each flavor of which still says "we are saved by faith alone".
evangelical faith was largely responsible for the Christian character of America
Yes, it is. It is also responsible for the de-Christianization of America underway today. I would agree that Protestantism produced some good fruit, especially in its earlier and less "evangelical" forms. Protestantism was an experiment. Man learned the Protestantism's lessons. It is now falling apart because the experiment is over. The traditional Protestant denominations, Presbyterian, Congregational Anglican and Methodist -- those that built America -- are tapering off; they are being replaced by a collection of self-styled communities that function as social clubs where a boring sermon Sunday morning is a price of admission.
The first distinction which needs to be made again is that of the basis for justification, imputed (declared) righteousness procured by God-given faith (qualified as to its confessional character) in Christ and His blood, (Rm. 3:25-4:1-24) versus making justification to be on the basis of infusion, of an actual righteousness, and eternal life life gained by merit of works.
You derive the imputed character of grace from Romans 4:7, but that is a citation from the Old Testament, and brought in by St. Paul to contrast grace to the works of circumcision (v 10). The infused and transformational grace is taught everywhere else in the New Testament, including in the thematically close to the Romans Galatians: "in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature" (Gal 6:15). Jesus, of course, minced no words on that: "Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect" (Mt. 5:48).
you cannot have Moses and Paul both stating that Abraham was justified in Gn. 15:6, with many other verses stating justification is by faith, and never saying that justification was procured by any kind of works
St. Paul refers to the crossing of the desert described in Gen 12 as well as the birth of Isaac, and St. James-- to the sacrifice of Isaac. As St. James explains, all these are instances where works of faith cooperated with confessional faith and made the faith perfect. So the statement that the Scripture "never says that justification was procured by any kind of works" is simply not so.
if that means that making a manifest response such as Gn. 22 evidences is absolutely necessary to be justified then Gn. 15:6 must be rejected as being a present justification, and thus Abraham was not saved until such an expression
There is a string of manifestatons of faith starting with Gen 12, on to Gen 15 and then Gen 22. You are trying to single out one episode and declare that uniquely salvific for Abraham. That is not an objective reading of the scripture, but prooftexting: proclaiming one passage as supporting some extreme position and ignoring others. The fact is that justification is a process that typically lasts a lifetime. Moments of pure declarative faith are parts of justification,. They are not the whole of justification.
If you pardon a long quote:
One of the classic Old Testament texts on justification is Genesis 15:6. This verse, which figures prominently in Paul's discussion of justification in Romans and Galatians, states that when God gave the promise to Abraham that his descendants would be as the stars of the sky (Gen. 15:5, cf. Rom. 4:18-22) Abraham "believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness" (Rom. 4:3). 1This passage clearly teaches us that Abraham was justified at the time he believed the promise concerning the number of his descendants.Now, if justification is a once-for-all event, rather than a process, then that means that Abraham could not receive justification either before or after Genesis 15:6. However, Scripture indicates that he did both.
First, the book of Hebrews tells us that "By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to set out for a place that he was to receive as an inheritance, not knowing where he was going." (Hebrews 11:8)
Every Protestant will passionately agree that the subject of Hebrews 11 is saving faith—the kind that pleases God and wins his approval (Heb. 11:2, 6)—so we know that Abraham had saving faith according to Hebrews 11.
But when did he have this faith? The passage tells us: Abraham had it "when he was called to go out to the place he would afterward receive." The problem for the once-for-all view of justification is that is that the call of Abraham to leave Haran is recorded in Genesis 12:1-4—three chapters before he is justified in 15:6. We therefore know that Abraham was justified well before (in fact, years before) he was justified in Gen. 15:6.
But if Abraham had saving faith back in Genesis 12, then he was justified back in Genesis 12. Yet Paul clearly tells us that he was also justified in Genesis 15. So justification must be more than just a once-for-all event.
But just as Abraham received justification before Genesis 15:6, he also received it afterwards, for the book of James tells us, "Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,' and he was called the friend of God." (James 2:21-23)
James thus tells us "[w]as not our ancestor Abraham justified ... when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?" In this instance, the faith which he had displayed in the initial promise of descendants was fulfilled in his actions (see also Heb. 11:17-19), thus bringing to fruition the statement of Genesis 15:6 that he believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.
Abraham therefore received justification—that is, a fuller fruition of justification—when he offered Isaac.2 The problem for the once-for-all view is that the offering of Isaac is recorded in Gen. 22:1-18—seven chapters after Gen. 15:6. Therefore, just as Abraham was justified before 15:6 when he left Haran for the promised land, so he was also justified again when he offered Isaac after 15:6.
Therefore, we see that Abraham was justified on at least three different occasions: he was justified in Genesis 12, when he first left Haran and went to the promised land; he was justified in Genesis 15, when he believed the promise concerning his descendants; and he was justified in Genesis 22, when he offered his first promised descendant on the altar.
man is not justified by faith alone in the sense that it is not an inert faith that remains without evidences, which James is opposing, but one that overall enduring responds by works.
Verbalize all you want -- that statement still confirms that works are a necessary component of faith.
“no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. [But] Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life (CCC 2006,10)
So, what is unclear about that?
it is you who are using a specious substitution here, ignoring the actual means by which justification by IR is appropriated by God's grace (“Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace” — Rm. 4:16), which is by God-given faith in Christ and His blood, so you can teach salvation by grace through merit, while the very verse you want to hijack to that end is about election NOT being a result of any merit of man!
Of course grace is not by any merit of man. Where did I say any different? But grace is not faith -- obvious in the case of a child you yourself bring up. It is true that faith is our response to grace, -- but so are our works (Eph 2:10).
What this [Col 1:24] does not support is a type of bank account or “treasury of the satisfaction” won by Paul which he deposited into for future withdrawals via Rome
Why doesn't it (I assume you mean "treasure of merit")? St. Paul says that his suffering in some mysterious way builds up the Church and united with the suffering of Christ. But Christ's suffering is our treasure. Christ asked us to "build treasure in heaven" (Luke 12:33). Col 1 makes that request tangible to us. There are plenty other quotes from Paul where he not only describes his own suffering by urges others to "mortify the deeds of the flesh".
The criminal on the cross or the penitent publican hardly can be said to have had confidence in their own works as meriting eternal life
St. Dismas did works of faith and mercy, and Christ promised him eternal life. He defended the innocent Christ, did penance for his sin, and asked Christ to "remember him". Perfect Catholic conversion story, that includes in one whole faith and good works.
You make works being the cause of justification
Grace alone is the cause of justification. I never said any different.
[your] attempt to restrict [salvific works] to motive is untenable
So you say, but I see no reason it must be so. It is rather typical for Paul to contrast works of the law to faith and grace and go on to urge people to do good works. Making that distinction I am in good company.
Rome has works meriting (recompense owed) eternal life
You liek to insert that "merit" everywhere. Works merit salvation in the simple sense that works are the basius on which sovereign Christ grans us salvation (Matthew 25:31-46). No, Christ does not owe us anything. The Church does nto teach that He does. The Church simply takes His words at the face value.
grace through faith, not of works, lest any man should boast
Indeed, grace is not of works and we shouild not boast of our works as if it is them that produced grace. We are certainly saved through faith as it is through faith that we do the works that God had prepared for us (Eth. 2:10). This passage is a perfect expression of Catholicism, and it flatly cotnradicts "Faith Alone"
More later...
Amen. It's amazing how even "catechized" Roman Catholic apologists seem to be ignorant of basic Christianity. What do they learn in those catechism classes, if not the truth found in the Bible?
Izzat so? Prove it from Scripture. You guys make these idiot claims that Christians have never believed. Is the best that you have Romans 5:12? It doesn't say what you guys think it says: it says what it actually says. You bleat about Biblical truths and can't even get it right. Lay it out here, Dr. E. Present your Biblical truths.
You've been given the Scripture on this thread so I'll try another approach.
Will Rome's opinion work for you?
True, this wouldn't be the first time a Roman Catholic apologist has displayed ignorance of his/her own catechism. Understandable, given the poor catechizing of so many Roman Catholics, but nonetheless, sad that it occurs so often.
FROM MARK'S OWN RCC CATECHISM...
403 - Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul".291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.
Did you get that, Mark? Adam's sin. From Adam. Adam "transmitted to us a sin which we are all born afflicted."
This is pretty basic stuff, Mark. Christians of all denominations understand it. Aren't you pleased you now have the opportunity to join them?
(And did you catch whom your catechism is using as reference, Mark? Are papists now Paulists?)
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.