In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, amen.
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
“Until” the terminus of the first is indicated by the second,
i.e., the first is no longer the case, it ends, when the second occurs.
“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?”
Not the same construction, no action was stated in that example that would terminate what the field was called. Had you you written “until the field was called “Y” then the construction would be the same and the same meaning and understanding would apply as at Matt. 1:25. (see Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament #2193)
thanks for the ping.
May try and respond tomorrow.
Point well taken, Mark. However, the right to the throne could not be passed on to the descendants of concubines. Only the legitimate decadent can claim the throne, and be the anointed one [i.e. the Heb. mashiyah, Eng. messiah, Gr. christos]. And the messiah is the warrior-king in Judaism, of Davidic line of inheritance, a royalty by direct descent and entitlement to the title of king.
Such inheritance is not matrilinear, so Mary's pedigree is irrelevant as to his being the anointed king of Israel by birthright, except to Jesus' Jewishness. And Joseph's lineage is irrelevant because his branch did not have the right to the title, and because he was not the father of Jesus, so his pedigree, although listed, is a pointless smoke screen.
Remember, Matthew writes to the Jews and is pursuing a mumbo-jumbo Joseph's pedigree, as if Joseph was the father, and knowing that patrilinear inheritance is the only one the Jews would even take as worthy of consideration.
This flies in the face of what follows, considering that as soon as he is done with Joseph's genealogy, Matthew makes it clear that Joseph is not the physical father of Jesus! So, why go through that genealogical charade?
Luke, on the other hand, writing to the Greeks ignorant of the Jewish customs, is grasping at the straws to establish legitimacy via Mary's genealogy, but all he really mnages to establish is Jesus' Jewishness, and not his legitimate royal inheritance.
nah, you’re not thick, well no more than the rest of us :-P But seriously, to really grasp the meaning of verses, chapters, books, the entire Bible — it’s like asking how many really know why e=mc2
If I was honest all my life, then a statement "I was honest until I was 11 years old" is an oxymoron, Alex. The expression "until 11 years old" implies that something changed at that marker (i.e. until); otherwise the expression is pointless.
Matthew 1:25 certainly does not suggest she remained a virgin after she gave birth! If Mary's perpetual virginity was intended to be a universal biblical belief, then Matthew's way of expressing it is very strange, considering that simply stating "she remained a virgin all her life." would have removed any doubt.
I know the Church believed otherwise, but that is a matter of tradition, not scripture, and trying to defend Mary's perpetual virginity with scripture is a rather untenable, Alex.
a rather untenable = rather untenable
The complexity that underlies the material universe just might be beyond the intellectual capacity of humans to grasp for some time, certainly our vocabulary is already inadequate, unless one speaks in the language of mathematical equations.
Conversely it appears there are some few simple themes running through the Bible that may look complicated because of the length of time covered compared to our rather abbreviated lifespan and the progressiveness of their development but which, like acts in a play, are connected and explain what has gone before and tell us what to look for in the future.
Cheers!
I cannot look at your heart, but I can look at your posts. Some parts you do reject. The gospel says "you are not saved by faith alone" and "works cooperate with faith to make faith perfect" and "my flesh is food indeed", -- these you reject.
what I reject is your religion's assertion that only it can determine what Scripture truly means
The church surely can, being "the pillar of truth" (that part you reject also). But one does not have to know a thing about the Church to compare what Faith ALone teaches with the actual scripture.
I have also not turned down God's gift of eternal life that he grants by grace through faith, because I have received it by faith.
Well, God says, "You will have life eternal" and that part you have faith in. But God also said much that you do not accept by faith. You have some parts of the faith but not entire faith because you believe some paorts of the Gospel but not the entire gospel.
Those who insist that they can somehow "supplement" the gift by adding their own good deeds to it completely change it from a gift into debt that they then insist God owes them for their good deeds.
That is empty sophistry. Many gifts come with an obligation attached to the gift. A gift card, for example, cannot be used unless you go to the store with it. Money often are given for a particular purpose, for example, to be used on education. There is nothing in the nature of gift-giving that precludes obligation on the part of the recipient.
The amazing grace of God never stops calling us and only death seals our fate
Fate? You are kidding, no? Belloc once remarked that the greatest damage Calvinism did to human civilization was to reintroduce pagan fatalism into it. Here is an illustration.
your responses are getting more shrill with each post
Depends on the post I am responding to. In this case, I asked you to note that Titus 3:7, "being justified by his grace, we may be heirs, according to hope of life everlasting". That part should be read by every one who believes that he "was saved", especially by "faith alone".
Of course works matter, [...] Only faith in Jesus Christ as Savior brings eternal life in heaven
So works matter for what? And, before I get very shrill again, re-read Titus 3:7 and see how that sits with your statement.
Good. Here's the template: I read the post. I select things that are incorrect in it. I look at the relevant scripture and next I look at the relevant context. I can understand both because I know Catholic theology well enough, having received thourough Religion Forum training (I have a FR diploma on my wall). I then present the scripture to the reader and explain it.
My 6676 is an example of that method. You made an assertion about a particular part of the scripture and decided to apply it to the entire scripture. I then looked at verses that contradict your generalization and cited them to you.
If you expect some different style of communication, you probably will not get it from me.
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, amen.
You had to go pretty far back to find a post from me. But you have ignored my 'recent posts' not to ping me. This will now be the 'third time' I will say: Please do not ping me to your posts nor go searching for something back on the threads in which you may feel justified in doing so. Otherwise my next move will be to contact the moderator.
He is.
PRAISE HIS NAME.
Thanks for your kind prayer.
Generally speaking; there are some exceptions both here and in European royal lines - once the legitimate heirs are either non existent or decline/abdicate, or are adopted to legitimacy.
Remember, Matthew writes to the Jews and is pursuing a mumbo-jumbo Joseph's pedigree, as if Joseph was the father, and knowing that patrilinear inheritance is the only one the Jews would even take as worthy of consideration.
Normally correct; however in many cases adoptive fathers legitimize their adopted sons.
Luke, on the other hand, writing to the Greeks ignorant of the Jewish customs, is grasping at the straws to establish legitimacy via Mary's genealogy, but all he really mnages to establish is Jesus' Jewishness, and not his legitimate royal inheritance.
This is correct.
Maybe this will help.
Normally correct; however in many cases adoptive fathers legitimize their adopted sons.
Not in this case. As I said earlier, Joseph's lineage was not acceptable; it was cursed. Consider the Jewish sources. They are down to earth.
Fascinating link; I must accept its validity based upon its own merit. I did not know Joseph’s line was cursed. Many thanks.
Very good. To still believe the "scroll" is not exactly a breach of formal logic, but is still nonsense.
I agree that these restrictions are an older group; that is probably why the Council of Jerusalem did not lift those. They are called Noahide Laws, as opposed to Mosaic laws. But Christianity is generally not about formal laws. We are very much against fornication and idolatry not because God said so to Noah but because the law to love God commanded that even before anything was told to Noah. As to blood and the method fio slaughtering livestock, there is not natural law against it, so the Church gradually dropped those.
We are saved by grace alone and not by the works of the law.
“the Church” cannot revoke the principles God has set, hence calling it “Noahide Law” and making a leap from that to,
“We are saved by grace alone and not by the works of the law.” is unwarranted and misses the whole purpose of God’s pronouncement on the restriction on blood use.
Those “necessary things” are still necessary in obedience to the Scriptural principles.
“the Church” could no more drop restrictions on blood than fornication.
It is not obvious from any scripture you cite. Were there a verse that said, in context "Man is saved by faith alone, and not by anything he does, not out of legal obligation, nor out of love of God, nor out of love of neighbor", and I still denied it, you then could say "you are denying the obvious". The best thing that can be said for Luther's system is that it made sense for someone who, in the grips of despair, wanted to retain some proximity to the Holy Word. But his system is not obvious, and in fact is scripturally wrong. It was not obvious even to Luther himself, -- had it been he would not try to mistranslate the Bible to get his theological fantasy some fake biblical footing.
Paul's whole thesis is contra ability and contra merit. Abraham was helpless to birth a nation, but his faith was counted for righteousness. Certainly he would have to put his faith into action, but it was not his actions that appropriated the promise, but his faith
For support you cite several passages from Romans 4, which indeed explain that "to him that worketh the reward is not reckoned according to grace, but according to debt". That is, of course, Catholic teaching: if you are owed something due to your work, that is not how salvation operates, being only "according to grace".
You omit the central part that explains that the Christians get Abraham's inheritance through faith rather than through the work of circumcision. That, too, is Catholic teaching. Christians are foremostly community of faith.
However, Romans 4 does nothing to discredit the salvific nature of works of love in general. I do not see anywhere in Romans 4 a teaching "contra ability and contra merit".
Further, if we look where else the New Testament scripture discusses the deeds and the faith of Abraham, se see how the same St. Paul recons the substantial work of crossing the desert, and the horrific work of offering his son up were the works of faith that pleased God; St. James says of the latter that Abraham was justified by his works (James 2:21) So as we look at the examples of works in Romans 4 -- not salvific, and Hebrews 11 -- all salvific, we see again that to St. Paul, the distinction between the two kinds of works is very vivid. Note also Romans 2:7-10. There is no broad "thesis contra ability and contra merit". There is a thesis that Christianity is a supranational system of faith rather than of ethnic heritage and laws.
your version must constantly substitute what Paul is precisely contrasting, a system of works-righteousness versus faith
I see the contrast between a system or works-righteousness and grace, which is the Catholic doctrine of salvation by grace alone. I do not see contrasting works of love and faith, in Romans 4 or anywhere.
Annalex: Righteousness is real , not "imputed". "Imputed" is an Old Testament construct. A Chjristian man is a "new creature" (Galatians 6:15), not an old creature in camouflage.
Daniel:Indeed he is the latter, but you wrongly contrive to set the two in opposition, as they are one event
Ah, good. Justification and sanctification is rather one process, but therefore you agree that imputation -- wherever the expression is used -- is not meant to negate a real and fundamental change in the believer. "You are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God", 1 Cor 6:11, as you point out.
So you agree that works done seeking [to] merit eternal life — and under the law they trusted God that this was the case — are a wage and invalid.
I would say that such works are works of obedience that configure the soul properly overtime. In isolation, they are not salvific, but when they become a moral habit, -- a virtue -- they become works of pure love, when the worker does not even realize he is doing something for Christ (Mt. 25:37-39).
Thus according to you works do merit eternal life but such can only [be] those done with a motive to merit eternal life
I am not sure I am parsing your grammar right, see if that [be] is in the right place. No, I don't agree. A righteous man does not feed the hungry because he is getting something for himself, even spiritually. He is feeding the hungry because he loves him who is hungry. That is the state of mind of a saint: heroic virtue, works done out of moral habit rather than out of any calculus.
this was Paul's argument
Where? Nowhere is the distinction between works of love done in obedience of moral law, and works of love done out of love apparent in Paul's writings. He is discussing circumcision in Romans 4, something that under no stretch could be seen as a work of love. That distinction that you refer to exists, but it is never discussed anywhere in the Bible. Abraham is justified in offering Isaac up, but nowhere is the disctinction you draw in the actual scripture. We are left to wonder whether he did the sacrificing out of love of God or out of obedience to God. He simply did it and it counted him for righteousness.
Grace is the rubric under which salvation is accomplished, which you try to equate it with the instrumental means, which is faith
I did not equate grace with anything, surely not with faith. Grace elicits three responses in us, the response of faith, the response of love, and the response of hope. We are not saved by any response in isolation, but by grace alone.
faith would still be the means to appropriating justification
It is, but it is not the only means. Faith and works of love are the necessary responses to grace (Eph 2:4-10).
In the Bible all believers are called saints
No, we don't know that "all" are thus called. Some, perhaps, most are indeed addressed to as saints (or holy men). Some are said to be simply "called to be saints"; this indicates that they are not saints yet. It is possible today to call someone a living saint as well. We are being sanctified. If your point is that the modern usage of "saint" is formalized and Paul's was informal, I agree.
your translation: “To him that worketh not with impure motive, but believeth on Him that justifieth the unGodly, his good heart and works of faith are counted for righteousness.”
No, I am fine with the original, "to him that worketh not, yet believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reputed to justice, according to the purpose of the grace of God" (Romans 4:5). I simply believe that this verse does not contradict "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? (James 2:21-22). One merits eternal life by his goodness and his works and his faith, but not by works alone and not by faith alone.
So “by grace are ye saved through faith..not of works” is contrasting the works with grace, not faith, although faith and works though both are instrumental means
Yes. It is plain in the text.
[Your] context argument simply consists of finding the fruit of faith in a verse following one which is contrasting faith and works, and then stating that the contrasts is between grace vs works, but which ignores the distinction between the two instrumental means which is being made.
Depends. In Tutus 3:5-8, for example, works of justice (v 5) are contrasted with mercy, baptism (v 5), and grace (v 7). Then good works are urged (v 8). In Eph 2:4-10 grace (vv 4-8) is contrasted with works (v 9); then, perhaps so that we don't, God forbid, go Protestant and think that works are opposed to faith, St. Paul points out that good works prepared for us are a manifestation of grace (v 10).
But generally, yes, anyone arguing scripturally against Protestant heresies should examine Protestant prooftexts in context, using a good translation (Douay is best unless one reads Greek). Every time one would find that either the very prooftext is not saying what the Protestant exegete would have you believe it says, or the larger context would clarify the meaning so that the intended impact is the Catholic doctrine, rather than the defended heresy. It is not difficult, and it is a shame that so many Catholics would shy away from biblical arguments.
Love was the motive, the cross was the method, but the atonement was the necessity
Yes. But it is still, simply, love. Love is not only a feeling, it is what you do, the greatest of all virtues.
["Faith Alone"] is a reaction against Rome's institutional system of sacramental works-righteous.
Yes, it is. The Protestant error is twofold. First, "faith alone" is plain unscriptural; it can be made fit into the scripture by enormous convolutions of additional sophistry (all these discourse of how faith is driving works or all works are really works for a wage, etc). Second, it misses the intended target because the sacraments are not works to begin with.
distinguishing grace vs one kind of works yet equating grace with another kind of works
If that is what you read from what I wrote, I ddi not write it very well. However, re-reading my "[2 Tim 1:9] is another contrast between works and grace. It is not a contrast between works and faith" I do not see how you woudl reach the conclusion that you reached. Grace is something God does. Works and faith are something man does. Grace cannot be equated with anything man does or thinks or feels; it is grace.
The effective basis is Christ and His blood and righteousness, while the instrumental basis for appropriating it is either works-merit which would include any such system, in contrast to man abssing [?] himself as one unable to escape hell/merit heaven as God must be holy and just, and casting himself on the mercy of God in Christ, who met the demands of each as scapegoat/atonement
There are three responses to grace: faith, love (or charity) and hope, and all three interconnect in the person. To think that one is saved by faith alone without the works of love is one disordered response (works become unnecessary), to say that one can merit heaven for being a nice guy is a disordered response (faith becomes unnecessary), and to say that one has been saved already (hope becomes presumption) is a disordered response as well. Either of the three disorders is also a sin, of sloth, of pride, and or presumption.
Of course, if one reads Romans 3:26-27 correctly, then he would realize that "believing in Jesus" is more than having faith alone, it also means believing in His moral instruction, which deals primarily with right works.
Mt. 25:31-36, [...] and other texts certainly would seem to support a works=salvation soteriology
Yes. Directly they do; one surely can see that works of love described therein cannot happen in one who does not imitate Christ, in his own works of self-denial, and so has faith in some inchoate level.
All must be reconciled, and Romans and the epistles mainly provide the theology which is largely missing in the gospels
Reconciled, they are. Controverted they are not. There is nothing in Romans or any other epistle that teaches anything Matthew 25 did not contain. Romans 2:7-10 is a Reader's Digest version of Matthew 25:31-46, written wihtout a hint of "reconciling" it to anything even vaguely Protestant. We are saved by works of love and faith together. We are not saved by faith alone. There is nothing in the Epistles that teaches Protestant theological error either. And how can it be? It is impossible to read Matthew 25:31-46 and not conclude that the primary basis of salvation is good works.
with grace giving a virile faith by which one is counted righteous, which is then lived out if salvific, doing works such as Mt. 25 refers to
Are you saying that it is possible for one to be counted righteous but then not have faith that is salvific?
If you were to simply say, on the other hand, that "grace gives us a virile faith, which is lived out, doing works such as Mt. 25 refers to" -- you'd be saying what the scripture is saying, and be sterling Catholic with that.
While faith and works are distinguished as regards how justification is appropriated, the two are synonymous as characterizing the redeemed
Faith is not exactly works, but the two are not in opposition in justification either (grace is in ontological opposition to both faith and works, which two are proper responses to the former). It is possible to do works but not out of love, and so contrary to the faith; it is possible to have faith as intellectual assent without doing any works. Works co-operate with faith and make the faith perfect and together they justify a man (James 2:21-22).
That is a wonderful post. Thank you very much.
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.