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
Annalex: your point, that you are at liberty accepting A but not B from the Church is, of course, valid, but I am not making that point at all.
daniel1212: you are unable to accept A and B from Scripture if you obey the requirement that you do not question the church.
This seems to speak to a point I am not making, -- I agree that you can in logic accept that the Scripture is valid as written (A) but not accept that Mary was forever virgin (B), even while seeing that both the scripture and the knowledge about life of Mary come from the same group of people, the Early Church. But I would like to comment on "obeying the Church". That requirement exists, but not in a way to forbid questioning. Rather, a Christian should examine the doctrine in order to understand it and without prejudice. Second, if he understands it, there is no confict of conscience. If he doesnt't understand, or if he thinks that he understands, but his perceived understanding is contrary to the doctrine, then as a good Christian he should continue internal work on it (that usually means seeking competent help) and in the meanwhile not speak against the doctrine. All that time, including the time when he is in internal conflict with the doctrine he remains a faithful Catholic. If he obstinately declares that he does not believe the doctrine and does not wish to further develop his understanding to bridge the conflict, and especially if he makes a public stand of it, then he has left the Catholic Church: he has excommunicated himself and joined a view that is under anathema. Freedom of will is also a freedom to err, but the state of error cannot be held in God's house which is the Church.
Lastly, I do not understand how under any form of obedience to the Church it follows that I am "unable to accept A and B from Scripture" so long as the Chruch teaches both A and B. It seems that the opposite would be true.
the Catechism is only infallible where it restates truths that have already been defined by the Magisterium
Yes.
some things may change, yet its teaching still requires an assent of the will and intellect
What you quoted to support that is a formal definition of lying that changed from 1994 to 97. Did the moral judgment of varyous types of speech change, or did merely a definition change? As you gave it, the definition was broadened to include cases of lying, say, to military enemy at war. Did the previous Catechism morally prohibited such and the next morally alowed for it? At most we are seing a minor correction, most likely, no change in the moral teaching at all, just a change in verbal delivery. Surely, if one is surprised by anything in the Catechism as to what is ethical or the rule of faith, he can ask his priest or bishop, -- that is, ask the living magisterium directly, where he would have the benefit written word does not offer, to ask follow up questions.
while Roman Catholics apologists condemn the PI method as relying upon fallible human reasoning if the conclusions conflict with Rome, they allow themselves to engage in PI when responding to evangelicals if it backs up Rome's claim
Private interpretation is a stage of reading the scripture that is inevitable, like a child must crawl before he can run a marathon. It is not a sin to engage in it; it may be helpful or simply amusing to do it. The Church has defined little as the only possible interpretation. I'll give you an example. Jesus on the Cross tells Mary and the beloved disciple to mutually adopt each other. St. John then records what happened rather idiomatically: "the disciple took Mary 'eis ta idia'". This is often liberally translated "took her to his HOME". The literal translation should say "to HIS OWN". So there is a range of interpretations here, from seeing here a fact of spiritual adoption by Mary of the entire Church to an economic arrangement between two people without much theological significance. The Church does not say that one interpretation is valid and the other is all wrong, but the Church teaches that Mary has a mystical connection to the Church and would cite this episode. The scripture is evidence of the fact and the fact is taught by the Church. The Church does not say that the scripture mathematically necessitates the fact. One can interpret the verse in a mundane way; he then loses use of an evidence, but his private interpretation is possible. Another apologist would interpret the same scripture in the highly spiritualized sense and it would appear that he derives the whole mariology from it. Both ar private interpretations, one unhelpful, the other helpful, but both are possible private interpretations. Naturally, a Catohlic apologist would prefer one and not the other, and at the same time point out to you critically that the mundane interpretation is merely private.
but you appeal to [the scripture] as if it were able to [alone ascertain truth] in condescension to Protestants
It is not necessarily condescension as a psychological attitude. It is a logical device. If you say that the Scripture is the sole rule of faith then I can point to you where the scripture would condemn your doctrine. Therefore either your doctrine is wrong, or your view on the scripture as the rule of faith is wrong. Classic example: you teach that salvation is by faith alone, but a verse in James 2 says exact opposite. You can interperet James 2:17-26 cleverly as not quite contradicting what now becomes a seemingly complex doctrine that somehow holds both "faith alone" and "not by faith alone". But the outcome is that either the entire complexity of the doctrine is not in the scripture or the apparent trust of the doctrine is condemned by the scripture. Either way, either the scripture is not the sole rule of faith for you or your doctrine contradicts the scripture.
At the same time, the Church considers herself the sole rule of faith. So, the scripture must only be consistent with what the Church teaches, but it may not contain everything that the Church teaches, and not every private interpretation of the scripture must agree with what the Church teaches. For example, our mariology is poorly supported by the scripture. If the Protestants had something poorly supported by the scripture, they would be under a logical obligation to drop it from their doctrines, because they state the Sola Scriptura. But Catholics reserve the right to teach outside of the scripture, -- they only need consistency with the scripture. So a few scriptural references to Mary, while not containing the entirety of the doctrine, do not contradict it.
Either you as Protestants fail by your rules or your rule fails you, but we are fine by our rules. Yes, the rules are different, -- but you chose your rules yourselves in 15c while our rules came from before the scripture was even written.
More later...
I could love these passages just for Paul’s mastery of the language as he contrasts and compares...but that is just a wee bit of the all right.
Romans has taken a fair portion of my study time (maybe I’m a bit thick) as I ask:
If all have sinned 12 how can sin not be imputed 13? If death reigned from Adam to Moses 14 why do people after Moses still die?
Anyway.....Cheers!
According to the Jewish law, those who are born of a Jewish mother are Jewish by birth. The patrilinear factor was/is important for the purposes of inheritance, not Jewishness.
And speaking of inheritance, Jesus could not claim to be the seed of David because that is a patrilinear requirement.
Just because Mary's own genealogy leads back to David is immaterial for that purpose.
Why is it Adam's sin when Eve clearly initiated it? Even the punishment exacted by God for it seems to be harsher on the woman (painful birth) than man (toiling the field). And, wasn't it Paul who says
So, which scripture is metmom referring to?
Er, that would the end of the 2nd century (c. AD 180-200).
Correct; no legalities involved.
The term used is "seed" (John 7:42, Gr. σπέρμα, spérma; also Ps 89:4, Heb. zera') and seed implies patrilinear inheritance, which is synonymous with legality.
Of course, women were believed to have no "seed". The Jews believed that the woman is a "fertile field" on which man's "seed" (a term synonymous with offspring or descendants) would grow.
This is how the term "barren" or "infertile" originated for women who could not get pregnant. As long as man produced "seed" the "fault" was woman's. So much for bible-based "science" under spiritual guidance.
In Romans 1:3 Paul clearly states that (he believed) Jesus was the product of patrilinear Davidic line:
Inheritance could not be passed on through the mother as the mother did not have the spérma.
Yes, Eve was deceived but that doesn't change that Scripture attributes to the man sin entering the world.
Read Genesis again.
God gave the command to Adam, THEN created Eve. It was Adam's responsibility to pass on that ONE verse correctly to Eve.
Then there's this, nice guy that Adam was....
Genesis 3:1-7 1Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made.
He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?" 2And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" 4 But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. 5For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and
In verse one, Satan questions God's Word.
In verse two, Eve misquotes what God told Adam.
Adam was there with Eve watching this entire conversation. He did nothing to stop her. He watched her listen to Satan without correcting the error in her misquoting of the ONE verse they had to obey. He watched WHILE SHE ATE. Apparently, when he saw that nothing happened to her, he figured it was safe and ate as well.
It was after HE ate that the eyes of both of them were opened.
The responsibility was Adam's. God gave him dominion over the whole earth. He was responsible for his family. He failed. The sin was his for disobedience. He did not protect her and chose to disobey God when he had no excuse as he talked with God himself.
Adam blames Eve (”the woman whom YOU gave to be with me”), Eve blames the serpent (”..it deceived me..) But the serpent, like Edgar Bergen’s dummy, Charlie McCarthy, can’t say anything in his own defense. Satan has deceived Eve in yet another way by making it seem a serpent spoke.
Just a sidebar to your comments.
It was after HE ate that the eyes of both of them were opened.
The responsibility was Adam's. God gave him dominion over the whole earth. He was responsible for his family. He failed. The sin was his for disobedience. He did not protect her and chose to disobey God when he had no excuse as he talked with God himself.
A lot can be learned by simply reading the Bible. Life falls into place. Things make sense when our lives are aligned to His word. Men are the head of the household and men are responsible for the spiritual education of their family. When that order is denied or ignored, confusion and error follow.
Oh, yeah, the woman gets excused. How convenient—the woman was deceived, but Adam did it intentionally...heard that before.
God gave the command to Adam, THEN created Eve. It was Adam's responsibility to pass on that ONE verse correctly to Eve
Eve was aware that God did not want them to eat of the tree and that the penalty for disobeying was death.
The rest of the story paints a pretty naive if not stupid woman who was told by the Serpent (it says nothing about it being Satan) that they will not die and she believed him.
Now, whether Adam was "right there" as you claim, I don't see that anywhere. Even could have brought the fruit to Adam to show him that it was good to eat, and he ate it. Which is why he says to God afterwords: "The woman whom You gave [to be] with me she gave me of the tree; so I ate." [Gen 3:12]
When he saw that nothing happened to Eve, he was deceived by her, because as his God-given companion he believed her more than he believed God, just as Eve believed the Serpent more than her husband, or God!
So, while Adam's in is in blaming God for giving him the woman, and Eve blames the Serpent. That's pretty much the way it is to this day, people blame either God or the "devil" for their deception or stupidity, but never themselves.
Adam also blames God.
It was the woman GOD gave him.
Genesis 3:6 6So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.
Is there something about about the words "her husband who was WITH her" that is too hard for you to understand?
I do not necessarily understand it to mean right next to her, or "right there" as you said. He could have been 30 feet away, picking berries or something, and not heard what transpired.
Eve could have tasted the fruit and then turned to Adam to get his attention, saying, "here Adam, eat, this fruit is good."
If only Adam is responsible for the fall, than only men would need to be saved, which is not the case. In God's eyes, both are equally guilty, but Eve committed sin first, and her punishment is also harsher then man's.
what is it in the Scripture, beside the fact that the Church had canonized it, that makes it so distinct from things the Church also believed at the same time she canonized the scripture? [...] what is so distinct about basis for the claims of Rome [even past the set of beliefs of the Early Church] versus what the Scriptures reveal?
The answer is that the Holy Scripture is that part of the Holy Tradition that was available in written form by the close of the period of the Apostolic Fathers, was wholly consistent with the Deposit of Faith as the Church knew it to be, had clear Apostolic or near-apostolic authorship, and was used in the Liturgy. The rest is the beliefs that the Church held, at least in the sense that she collectively could tell orthodoxy from heresy. For example, as the trinitarian and christological dogmas were decided, they were decided based on the sense of orthodoxy that the Church possessed internally, rather than on the written Word. To that, over time, doctrines are added that clarify points not clearly expressed earlier, or points referring to the issues of the day that come along. For example, the Church could not develop doctrines to do with medical ethics till very recently when certain medical possibilities became reality. That latter part is the teaching of the Living Magisterium.
Annalex: Both the Lutherans and the Anglicans lost it despite canonical provenance of their priests, due to the doctrinal errors of theirs.
Daniel: And they say they same for Rome
Yes. So we are not Lutheran and they are not Catholic. These demarkations, by the way, do not exclude arguments that are "Scripturally substantiated and Divinely attested to". They simply mark doctrines that are inacceptable for the benefit of the flock on either side.
your distinctions [between temporal authority of the Jewish rabbis and eternal character of Christ's Church] are irrelevant here
I don't see how the fact that some typological comparisons can nevertheless be drawn between the two, makes the distinction irrelevant.
In like manner the apostles for their authority and preaching [used the scripture]
Yes. So does the Infallible Living Magisterium fashioned after the Holy Apostles. It is the function of the Church, among others, to persuade rather than to simply proclaim doctrines.
You cannot claim to defined both the exten of Scripture and its meaning and claim to be subject to it [etc...]
I am not sure I understand that paragraph, -- I have difficulty grammatically parsing it. The Church Fathers defined what the Scripture is. The Magisterium today is not them, even though it succeeds them. It can, in a thought experiment, go into apostasy. We have a divine assurance that it won't. So far it hasn't. If the Magisterium commits an act of apostasy, we shall find out, -- maybe not everyone, but some informed remnant will find out, and we'll know them by their orthodoxy. This is a part of normal live functioning of the Church where parts self-correct. Consider, for example, the near-apostasy of the Vatican II and how it is being corrected in the past two pontificates quite nicely by forces of traditionalism, often lay traditionalism.
The magisterial principle is constant, irregardless that the Jewish one ceased
No, it is not constant, because the Church lifted the centerpiece of the Mosaic Law (Acts 15) and Jesus himself taught His Church to read the Old Testament critically abd be aware of its limited pedagogical nature (Matthew 5-7, Mark 10:5). Yet the Church herself enjoys the promise of infallibility from Christ because she is sent by Christ as Himself (John 20:21, Luke 10:16, 1 Cor 4:16, as well as, of course, Matthew 16:18).
Moses chair was a prefigurement of the chair of St. Peter
"Prefigurement" it surely was, but it is Christ's Kingship that "will have no end". You are arguing from a type.
they [bad popes] cannot lay claim to saving faith
So? It is quite possible that there were some popes that went straight to hell. Only some popes are canonized saints; about the rest, you can have any opinion you want.
But nowhere does Jesus say that everyone has a lustful or wrathful heart. As a general description of fallen man, I agree, Romans 3 is accurate. The issue is, does it apply to absolutely everyone? Its grossly exaggerated form testifies that is does not.
Yes. I argued otherwise?
There may be the TESTIMONY of the church but not the witness of it because nobody was there to witness everything Mary ever did.
Testimony is witness. It is possible that some events in the life of Mary are lost to history. In fac,t I am sure that most are. Her lifelong virginity, however, is witnessed by her contemporaries; this is how it had become the faith of the Church.
"Knew her not" and "until she gave birth to Jesus". So? Where does it say anything about what happened after? "I did not fire the gun until [eos] the turkey fell on the ground dead". Does it mean I fired the gun at the dead turkey? I gave you an example of "The field was called X until [eos] ths day". Does that mean the field got renamed after the gospel was written?
Hate to quibble here, but the term used is that one of David's descendants would be the one - which the Jews regularly used to include legitimate as well as illegitimate offspring. Since the principal wife of the hareem was the legitimate one, all other male offspring were normally recognized in some fashion or other. They were not simply cast off. And were recognized as descendents. But not heirs.
Inheritance could not be passed on through the mother as the mother did not have the spérma.
Wealth and the distribution of it to the next generation was and is of concern to those who have it.
That is correct. We'll have to watch the PCA to find out if they follow the same road as the Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans, most Presbyterians...
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.