Posted on 06/17/2014 9:05:04 AM PDT by Gamecock
I am pretty sure the editors of the Wall Street Journal would be disinclined to endorse Pope Francis' call for international regulation of markets via state action, to promote impact investment. Yet, that is just what he called for yesterday in speaking to a meeting at the Vatican on the theme "Investing in the Poor," which was organized, in part, by the University of Notre Dame. The pope said:
No spinning that is there. I am sure our libertarian friends think this pope just keeps wandering down the road to serfdom.Advances in technology have increased the speed of financial transactions, but in the long run this is significant only to the extent that it better serves the common good. In this regard, speculation on food prices is a scandal which seriously compromises access to food on the part of the poorest members of our human family. It is urgent that governments throughout the world commit themselves to developing an international framework capable of promoting a market of high impact investments, and thus to combating an economy which excludes and discards.
So very well put, dearest sister in Christ! Darwin's theory is literally "mindless."
Thank you so very much for writing!
Mr.R:They enable production. Speculators make money by risking theirs on the chance that the producer will make them money - or they enable lenders to do so. No one is forced to deal with a speculator. They take chances on markets, and win or lose based ultimately on production and what people choose to buy. Freedom: it’s a good thing...unless you are Pope Peron.
Thank you for making this point that should be obvious to anyone over 21.
If it's equities, or bonds, a business will sell them to gain capital (money) to expand and the buyer (the "evil" speculator) gets to share in the profit if the business is successful. If it's commodities the speculator buys contracts which lets the producer of the commodity fix the price of the product he's producing. The only "evil" associated with this activity is govt interference for the benefit of crony's.
You’re attacking a straw man. In my earlier posts, I was very plain that speculating CAN be virtuous, comparing Joseph, son of Isaac to a speculator.
“But it is most unbecoming to pass by, in ignorance or contempt, the excellent work which Catholics have left in abundance, and to have recourse to the works of non-Catholics - and to seek in them, to the detriment of sound doctrine and often to the peril of faith, the explanation of passages on which Catholics long ago have successfully employed their talent and their labour. For although the studies of non-Catholics, used with prudence, may sometimes be of use to the Catholic student, he should, nevertheless, bear well in mind-as the Fathers also teach in numerous passages(41) - that the sense of Holy Scripture can nowhere be found incorrupt outside of the Church, and cannot be expected to be found in writers who, being without the true faith, only gnaw the bark of the Sacred Scripture, and never attain its pith.” - PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS
It's to bad that no one in authority in your church can tell your leader he's wrong on this issue and many others. It's the problem of a hierarchy.
I imagine that a great many RC's are pretty disgusted with him aligning himself and your church with the palestinians against the Israelis, or the allowing muslims to offer prayers from the quran in your churches, but we all know nothing will be done about it.
Your hierarchy is under the control of leftists and all good RC's will grumble about it, but in the end they will fall in line.
But you must accept them as brethren.
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.”322 Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.”323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”324
Since the Sacraments were all instituted by Christ, they belong to the Church He founded. One Lord, one Faith, one baptism. Those baptized Christians who reject His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church are the ones who are in effect rejecting Catholics as "brethren".
With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”324
But it does lack the fullness (which the catechism also states). The existence of the gulf rather than its degree is the material point, ecumaniacal delusions not withstanding.
That is simply presumptuous, as it presumes the church of Rome is the NT church, but which it stands in contradiction to, and that the act of baptism itself makes one born again and formally justified on the basis of their own personal holiness, but which is not Scriptural. (Acts 15:7-9; Rm. 1:1-7ff)
How could it be anything else? The only Church which has existed since Christ is the Catholic Church. If He didn't establish the Catholic Church, then he didn't establish any church, and if that were the case, that would make Him a liar:
"Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. [18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
the act of baptism itself makes one born again and formally justified on the basis of their own personal holiness, but which is not Scriptural.
Formally justified on the basis of their own personal holiness? What do you mean by that?
Baptism is no guarantee of "personal holiness".
"He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned"
"If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments"
"For he that said, Thou shalt not commit adultery, said also, Thou shalt not kill. Now if thou do not commit adultery, but shalt kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. [12] So speak ye, and so do, as being to be judged by the law of liberty. [13] For judgment without mercy to him that hath not done mercy. And mercy exalteth itself above judgment. [14] What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? [15] And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food:
[16] And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit? [17] So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. [18] But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith. [19] Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble. [20] But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?"
On the contrary, it's the CCC that teaches that those who reject the RCC and will not submit to it's authority are not saved. It's the Catholic church which labels people heretics and ex-communicates them, which means that Catholics are rejecting Christians as brethren.
Luther didn't leave the Catholic church. It ex-communicated him.
If someone has rejected the Church, they have excommunicated themselves.
Luther didn't leave the Catholic church. It ex-communicated him.
Of course he left the Church, by formally rejecting Church teachings. And he also betrayed his priestly vows. What other outcome could reasonably be expected in such a case? And speaking of reason, didn't Luther say that reason was of the devil, and therefore the Christian's greatest enemy?
Luther acted of his own accord. To imply that he was somehow victimized by the Church is to ignore the facts.
Was Luther wrong for rejecting the corruption associated with the selling of indulgences?
Is that really rejecting the church?
Or should he have just shut up and taken it, corruption and all?
Which teachings did he formally reject?
That is simply another assertion in lieu of an argument, and in which your premise does not validate your conclusion.
The Lord Jesus did indeed establish a church thru faith in the gospel, and by the same faith that one True church continues as the body of Christ, as it alone consists only of believers, and is visible in the variety we seen in the NT, and in which even the church of the Laodiceans was called a church, thus one might even call Rome a church.
For no one organized church is the one true church since it consist of both unregenerate and regenerate souls, and Rome in particular is mostly the latter (i was an active one), and is fundamentally different than the NT church, engaging in progressively deformation .
Searching the Scriptures we will not find the church with men led by apostles but are not, like those who claim to be their successors in Rome, for the true apostles were those who authority was unmistakable of God, '"in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God,..By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, (2 Corinthians 6:6-7) Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. (2 Corinthians 12:12)
Yet nor do we see the NT church looking to Peter as the first of a line of exalted infallible popes in Rome reigning autocratically (unhindered power, needing no agreement from the Bishops in speaking "from the chair") over the church, nor even the necessity of promise of a perpetual assured infallible magisterium.
Instead, both writings and men of God were recognized and established as such, and Truth provided and preserved, and faith, long before a church of Rome would presume itself infallible and essential for this.
And truth was established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, not the premise of the assured veracity of Rome.
And Peter was the street level leader among brethren, and one of those who were manifest pillars, exercising a general pastoral role, yet who could err in leadership, and did not deliver the final verdict in Acts 15.
Meanwhile, nowhere were perpetual apostolic successors promised, unlike under the Law, and only one is seen, even though James was martyred, (Acts 12:1,2) and only one, as this was to maintain the number of the original apostles (Acts 1:15ff; Rv. 2:14)
In addition, the NT knew nothing of all revolving around the Lord's supper as the source and summit of their faith, and in the only place that it is manifestly mentioned in the life of the church then it is the church which is the focus as the body of Christ that needed to be recognized, by showing the Lord's death toward each other in their sharing of the communal meal. (1Cor. 11:17ff)
Thus the NT church knew nothing of NT pastors being distinctively titled "priests," as they did not have any unique sacrificial function, but their main function was to "preach the Word," (2Tim. 4:2) that the flock might be "nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine." (1Tim. 4:6)
It also knew nothing of a separate class of believers called “saints,” ” or the mention of the postmortem location of the saints being in purgatory versus with the Lord. (Lk. 24:43; 2Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23; 1Thes. 4:17)
And among other aberrations, based on Scripture it also knew nothing of the practice of praying to the departed, and the hyper exaltation of and devotion to Mary above that which is written; (1Cor. 4:6)
"Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. [18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
And which does not even have close to unanimous support of the "fathers," and even Catholic scholarship evidences to the contrary of and above all, in Scripture, in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the ancients concur with.
Formally justified on the basis of their own personal holiness? What do you mean by that? Baptism is no guarantee of "personal holiness".
You are missing your own teaching.
Although the sinner is justified by the justice of Christ, inasmuch as the Redeemer has merited for him the grace of justification (causa meritoria), nevertheless he is formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness (causa formalis)" (effected by baptism). - Catholic Encyclopedia>Sanctifying Grace
"If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments"
Here you are protesting against sola fide as if that marginalized works, or left the justified as simply a white washed sinner. But instead Reformers taught that faith without works is dead, but that it is a living faith that actuallly appropriates justification, not doing the commandments as under the Law, but believing with a faith that will work to fulfil the righteousness of the Law.
Peter taught that God purified the hearts of believers by faith, before baptism, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9) and as Paul taught, "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the un Godly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (Romans 4:5)
But it can said that "not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified," (Romans 2:13) and one who truly believes is baptized shall be saved, because works testify to things which accompany salvation, confirming one has true faith.
Thus is can be said Abraham believed God and was justified, not on the basis of his works, "For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." (Romans 4:2-3)
Yet is can be said that "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?" (James 2:21) For while Abraham was already justified in Gn. 15:6 by faith, yet he is also justified in a confirmatory way in testing in cp. 22, like as a prophet is justified as being one when the prophecies come true, though God knows beforehand. .
He established His Church by calling twelve Apostles whom he taught and trained to preach. "And he made that twelve should be with him, and that he might send them to preach. [15] And he gave them power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils."
"And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also."
[1] And in those days, the number of the disciples increasing, there arose a murmuring of the Greeks against the Hebrews, for that their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. [2] Then the twelve calling together the multitude of the disciples, said: It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. [3] Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. [4] But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. [5] And the saying was liked by all the multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith, and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch.
[1] Greeks: So they called the Jews that were born and brought up in Greece.
[6] These they set before the apostles; and they praying, imposed hands upon them. [7] And the word of the Lord increased; and the number of the disciples was multiplied in Jerusalem exceedingly: a great multitude also of the priests obeyed the faith.
---------------------
Chapter 44. The Ordinances of the Apostles, that There Might Be No Contention Respecting the Priestly Office.
Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm
You are missing your own teaching.
Effected by baptism is not the same as guaranteed by baptism, which is what you appeared to be implying.
Here you are protesting against sola fide as if that marginalized works
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we are saved by faith alone.
"Who will render to every man according to his works. [7] To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life: [8] But to them that are contentious, and who obey not the truth, but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation."
You are again engaging in giant leaps of spurious extrapolation and argument by assertion. None of the texts show apostolic succession, but what Scripture shows is only one successor being made after an apostles death, and which was by an non-political OT method Rome never has used.
After that only deacons and pastors are shown were ordained, and Paul himself was baptized by a "certain disciple," and even that "certain prophets and teachers" sent forth Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto God called them. (Acts 13:1-3)
And that pastors Titus are those who ordained other pastors, but never those distinctively titled "priests," which is foreign to the NT, as is Rome's mass being the source and summit of Christian faith.
..and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore,
Regardless of their opinion, pastors are not apostles which Rome imagine her bishops are, nor did they have the distinctive apostolic power Rome presumes even more than, as even the apostles did not presume assured infallibility of office, which novelty was not essential in order to provide and preserve Truth in Scripture.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we are saved by faith alone.
Wrong. Even Rome believes in baptism by desire, and contritio caritate perfecta, which can only work by faith appropriating justification by faith. And indeed, Peter confirmed souls as having their hearts purified by faith, as shown and ignored.
But what the Bible does not say is that we are saved by an inert faith, one that does not effect obedience, presuming opportunity, but remains alone, which is contrary to the faith Reformers preached.
To the contrary, I am applying common sense. Nowhere in Scripture is it stated that "Scripture alone" is the sole source of Christian knowledge. In fact the opposite is true. St. Paul says: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle."
Furthermore, Christ, Our Divine Teacher, established a visible, hierarchical Church and directed His Apostles to "teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". He instructed and directed them orally, and quite obviously, Scripture does not contain a complete record of His every word. Tradition bridges the historical gap between the life of Christ and the written Gospels. We know that the Apostles endeavored to serve the Lord faithfully and to obey His Holy Will, even unto death. Therefore, it can be quite logically inferred that the Apostolic succession is Christ's plan for His Church, communicated directly by Him to the Apostles.
The idea that Apostles, Church Fathers and early Christians would deliberately act in opposition to Christ's Holy Will by circumventing or corrupting His plans for the operation of His Church, yet at the same time submit to martyrdom rather than deny His teachings does not pass the reasonable man test.
Even Rome believes in baptism by desire, and contritio caritate perfecta, which can only work by faith appropriating justification by faith.
No, it is by grace alone that one is saved. Without grace, faith is not possible.
Please see my link above, or read Orestes Brownson's criticism of Newman.
No, i see you as applying Romanized sense, which supposes papal assertions and parrotted "proofs" are actually were valid, and when refuted again, it jumps to another specious accusation, often employing staw men a needed.
Nowhere in Scripture is it stated that "Scripture alone" is the sole source of Christian knowledge.
Indeed, and thus contrary to the straw man of RC apologetics, Westminster states,
that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.” http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm
And Scripture affirms natural revelation in creation and innate sense of the Law. But Scripture is what determines whether conclusion drawn from them are true.
But the sufficiency aspect of SS refers to what is "necessary," either materially of formally, and as Scripture in its fulness uniquely providing for that, while it alone was the supreme standard to which all had to conflate and complement once Moses wrote the Law.
Scripture formally provides for salvation in such ways as providing the very sermons souls heard and believed and were saved by, such as Acts 20:36-43.
But it materially provides for such things as reason, the church and preachers, study helps, etc., and it is the only body of Truth that is stated to be wholly inspired of God, and the instrument which the church uses for "doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2Tim. 3:15-17)
CARM states
Sola Scriptura is the teaching that the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation and proper living before God. Sola Scriptura means that the Scriptures--the Old and New Testaments (excluding the Catholic apocrypha)--are the final authority in all that they address (1 Cor. 4:6); and that tradition, even so-called Sacred Tradition, is judged by Scriptures. Sola Scriptura does not negate past church councils or traditions. Those who hold to Sola Scriptura are free to consider past councils, traditions, commentaries, and the opinions of others. But, the final authority is the Scripture, alone because the Scripture alone is what is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16) and not past church councils, tradition, commentaries, and opinions. Scripture is is above them all.
Even before the last book was written the fact is that it is abundantly evidenced that Scripture was the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God, and to which conflative and complementary writings were further added.
And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus materially provides for a canon of Scripture.)
St. Paul says: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle."
Indeed, and a SS preacher can say the same, and even preach Scriptural truths without a Bible, while Rome cannot show one tradition Paul referred to that was not subsequently written.
The issue is whether apostolic preaching was dependent upon Scripture as being the supreme standard, and which it was. Thus "Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures." (Acts 17:2)
And unlike what may be said of apostolic preaching and that of writers, Rome cannot and does not claim that the words which which express her traditions are wholly inspired of God. Even infallible decrees do not have God as their author as Scripture does. They both are declared and assuredly believed to be of God based upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome. Which claim is contrary to Scripture.
Thus again as Keating asserts,
The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true. ” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.[http://www.catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption]
Furthermore, Christ, Our Divine Teacher, established a visible, hierarchical Church an...
You already tried this, and which does not equate to Rome today being the infallible church, which is not Scriptural, and she is fundamentally different than the NT church. But the body of Christ continued nonetheless as salvific truth was yet conveyed.
He instructed and directed them orally, and quite obviously, Scripture does not contain a complete record of His every word.
And we know this because of the written word, which judges all Truth claims, and which must conflate with it as supreme. But that not all that can be known is irrelevant, nor does Rome provide all that can be known. Both sola scriptura and sols ecclesia can only claim of sufficiency, but only the words of Scripture were wholly inspired of God, and thus must judge all truth claims.
We know that the Apostles endeavored to serve the Lord faithfully and to obey His Holy Will, even unto death. Therefore, it can be quite logically inferred that the Apostolic succession is Christ's plan for His Church, communicated directly by Him to the Apostles.
Your premise does not establish your conclusion, as the faithfulness of the apostles does not require apostles perpetually, and which is not seen or taught in Scripture. Again, the means of transmission after apostles was by NT pastors, not priests, among other things . Rome is a foreign church in Scripture.
The idea that Apostles, Church Fathers and early Christians would deliberately act in opposition to Christ's Holy Will by circumventing or corrupting His plans for the operation of His Church, yet at the same time submit to martyrdom rather than deny His teachings does not pass the reasonable man test.
That is a false dilemma, a logical fallacy, as besides the issue not being that Apostles were aberrant, it is not necessary for men to deliberately act contrary to Christ in order to subscribe and perpetuate some unScriptural aberrant teachings, such as prayer to the departed , while many souls have died for even non-Christian faith, in all sincerity, and no one is saying CFs were not sincere.
No, it is by grace alone that one is saved. Without grace, faith is not possible.
That is ambiguous and avoids the fact that one can even claims salvation under the law was by grace, as man could not even breath except by God' grace, or hear and obey the Law.
The fact is that Roman salvation is by grace thru merit. By God's grace one becomes good enough for heaven based on his own personal holiness. This begins at baptism which act makes one good enough, and typically ends by becoming good enough again to enter Heaven thru suffering in "purgatory" commencing at death. But in every place which clearly describes the postmortem place or condition of believers it shows it is with the Lord, (Luke 23:43; Acts 7:59; 1Cor. 15:52; 2 Cor 5:8; 1 Th 4:17; 1Jn. 3:2), in whose presence there is fulness of joy (Ps. 16:11). To God be the glory.
Where can I find Westminster in my Bible?
But Scripture is what determines whether conclusion drawn from them are true.
Amazing how many varying interpretations of Scriptural "truth" are floating around these days.
Scripture in its fulness uniquely providing for that, while it alone was the supreme standard to which all had to conflate and complement once Moses wrote the Law.
If that were true there would have been no time gap between the life of Christ and the completion of the written Gospels. That time gap cannot logically be glossed over.
Scripture is above them all.
If that were the case, the written Gospels would have to have been available to Christians from the beginning.
while Rome cannot show one tradition Paul referred to that was not subsequently written.
"Subsequently" being the weak link in your argument. St. Paul was clearly referring to traditions taught orally, but not written.
Your premise does not establish your conclusion, as the faithfulness of the apostles does not require apostles perpetually
Faithfulness to continuance of the visible Church established and structured by Christ requires Apostolic succession.
The fact is that Roman salvation is by grace thru merit.
False. Grace is a supernatural gift of God bestowed on us through the merits of Christ for our salvation.
Grace is free gift.
"All have sinned and have need of the glory of God. They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ".
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.