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
According to this, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao and every mass murderer was doing the will of God since their wills are "completely subjugated to His free will" as you are saying.
I see.
I have been following this discussion for quite some time now. Where does it say that Jesus ate and drank after those words? What I find fascinating is that even though the so-called Gospel of John says that Jesus called his blood true drink and his flesh true meat the Protestants refuse to accept it as such, and insist that "true" in only metaphorical!
Your vain attempt to justify your argument by citing the Law is pointless because even Jesus calling his blood the blood of the "new testament" (or covenant) is violating the Law which says the Torah is eternal, and must be observed forever.
FK: Nah, I see talking snakes and talking asses all the time when I flip on C-SPAN, and we've all seen dead people voting in places like Chicago and Louisiana for years. :)
That much more, since this has bene going on forever. :)
We are told that those who die in Christ are not really dead. It stands to reason, therefore, that they have as much right to vote as anyone else!
This is, yet again, an attempt by the Usual Suspects to make the Eucharist strictly symbolic. The argument goes, “If it wasn’t symbolic, then Christ broke the Law, and Christ never broke the Law.”
Except when He healed a man on the Sabbath, or publicly forgave a man his sins which only God could do, or interrupted the legal stoning of the woman taken in adultery, or ate grain from a field on the Sabbath...
We get around all that by saying that Christ fulfilled the Law, which He did. But it’s wrong to think He was being symbolic, when He specifically said, “My flesh is real meat, and My blood is true drink.” Followers left Him at that point, driven away by the forbidden cannibalistic implications. He did not call them back and say, “Hey, I was only kidding, it was symbolic.”
ἡ γὰρ σάρξ μου ἀληθής ἐστιν βρῶσις, καὶ τὸ αἷμά μου ἀληθής ἐστιν πόσις.
In fact, the whole passage, John 6:47-59, especially in the Greek, makes it clear that Christ was being quite literal about us eating His flesh and drinking His blood.
That's not what Kolo said. He said man's sovereignty has its origin in God. St. Paul says so much when he urges that everyone obey all earthly authority, because all authority is (i.e. originates) from God (and is delegated to appointed rulers and princes).
Deuteronomy 30:14 states that we can do what is necessary to be saved (although Paul chooses to misquote it in Romans 10:8).
Jesus tells different people, not just his disciples, what they must do to be saved, to enter the kingdom of heaven, to be with him in the next world, etc. Yes, he also says you must believe, but you also must do certain things (which almost no one does) in order to go through that narrow gate.
I don't think it is comparable. I would say that only God's will is truly free
Good for you, for there are many a Protestant who says that God had [sic] to become man! I am sure you'd agree with them on such "core beliefs". :)
Our free will is completely subjugated to His free will
Does that include Satan's will as well? Is Satan merely doing God's will?
Whenever different, His will overrides ours every time
So, then, we are to give praise and thanks to God for every Holocaust-like event because it was his will??? You've got to be kidding, FK! How many other Protestants share this "core belief" of yours?
God created no one FOR THE PURPOSE of reprobating them. He created all of us for the same purpose, and part of His good pleasure is evidently that some will be with Him in eternal life and some will not.
And those who will not are those who did not have faith (because he didn't give it to them specifically so that they may be "lost"!) and for that they will spend eternity in hell, punished for sins they had to commit, all for the pleasure and glory of this God!
Ultimately, the creation of every person will bring glory to God, but that will manifest itself in very different ways.
And since all do his will (because, remember, he overrides theirs if it is different form his), some are destined to do evil and some are destined to do good; no matter how you turn it around it is still God's doing (or overriding), FK, be it good or evil. Is this another Protestant "core belief"?
If we had an open forum with Jewish posters willing to participate on this issue, it would be clear that this is not possible without God himself abrogating his own word, but I do understand that this is essential doctrine for Christians and that it is a core belief which cannot be compromised, or else the whole thing falls apart.
But it’s wrong to think He was being symbolic, when He specifically said, “My flesh is real meat, and My blood is true drink.” Followers left Him at that point, driven away by the forbidden cannibalistic implications. He did not call them back and say, “Hey, I was only kidding, it was symbolic.”
You are thinking logically and clearly, JA. No one walked away when he said he was the vine and they were the branches, or when he said he was the light, and the way, just as no one walks away when we speak of the "Christian heart" for that matter, because no one takes these expressions literally.
His followers left him, as you say, because they understood his words as literal cannibalistic implications and Jesus made no effor to dispel their impression.
It might do our friend FK well to digest the words of Saint Hippolytus...
This Logos we know to have received a body from a virgin, and to have remodelled the old man by a new creation. And we believe the Logos to have passed through every period in this life, in order that He Himself might serve as a law for every age, and that, by being present (amongst) us, He might exhibit His own manhood as an aim for all men. And that by Himself in person He might prove that God made nothing evil, and that man possesses the capacity of self-determination, inasmuch as he is able to will and not to will, and is endued with power to do both.-Refutation of All Heresies/Book X/Part 30
We get around all that by saying that Christ fulfilled the Law, which He did. But it’s wrong to think He was being symbolic, when He specifically said, “My flesh is real meat, and My blood is true drink.” Followers left Him at that point, driven away by the forbidden cannibalistic implications. He did not call them back and say, “Hey, I was only kidding, it was symbolic.”
John 4:24
"God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."
John 6:63
It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
Acts 17:24 - Not in a Monstrance or Roman tabernacle
"The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands;
Matt 26:28
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom
Only Jesus can save. Not the church, not any ceremonies.
If you are trusting in the church to save you, I suppose God will let you appeal to that, but it's not going to do you any good. It's Jesus only and Jesus alone.
The church is not Jesus Himself. It's the bride of Christ, the body of believers of all time and places. It's what become part of when you believe, not what you join to be saved.
You can't say you weren't warned.
Welll EXCUUUUUSSSSEEEE ME!!!!!
Not up to me.
I will continue to get my theology from the Scriptures, it being ‘sharper than two edged sword’ and what others do is their affair.
Every major heresy has been justified from Scripture. Even the devil can quote Scripture for his own purposes. The bulk of the Faith predates the choosing of the NT Scripture, including such beliefs as the Trinity. When one reads the Scriptures without the guidance of the Institution that Jesus created and the Holy Spirit commissioned, why then, one is free to create all manner of incorrect beliefs. And lo, witness, they have. There is the Faith and then there is every other belief.
I’m beginning to like this word, “snippets” so I’ll use it more with you. SNIPPETS YES!
And on it goes...
This statement is wrong on two levels. Firstly, the Faith was largely formed before any writings were committed that we know of. The Jewish oral tradition was utilized very heavily. These people were mostly illiterate and relied on verbal transmission. The icons were created in order to get by the illiteracy of the day, to show proper belief. Secondly, whilst I have done a search through the WCF (some years back)in order to quantify its justification, I'd suggest that you do the same to the Catechism in order to dispel that very notion from your own mind. The Catechism uses the entire Bible, leaning most heavily on the Gospels and then on Paul - but the words of Jesus come first, not Paul's.
The amusing thing is, the Catholic snippets of Scripture are not only snippets out of context with the passage, but even snippets of one verse or sentence.
Have you been ignoring my posts again?
Catholicism is the master of snippeting.
Claims without evidence and assertions without merit. You claim to be a failed Catholic - why not read the Catechism and find out what you really spurned?
I had always thought that Luke was a Greek physician who lived in Antioch before he fell in with this new bunch who called themselves Christian.
Don't you believe that Jesus kept the Law perfectly?
Except when He healed a man on the Sabbath, or publicly forgave a man his sins which only God could do, or interrupted the legal stoning of the woman taken in adultery, or ate grain from a field on the Sabbath...
Oh, I guess not.....
We get around all that by saying that Christ fulfilled the Law, which He did.
Now He did ? Which is it. Did He or didn't He?
But it’s wrong to think He was being symbolic, when He specifically said, “My flesh is real meat, and My blood is true drink.” Followers left Him at that point, driven away by the forbidden cannibalistic implications. He did not call them back and say, “Hey, I was only kidding, it was symbolic.”
Jesus also said that if the woman at the well drank the water He gave her that she'd never thirst and taht anyone who drank it would have springs of living water flowing from them? Is that literal or symbolic?
Jesus said He was the bread of life. Does that make Him the Pillsbury Dough Boy?
He said he was the door to the sheepfold and the true vine. Is He made of wood or green and leafy?
Jesus called the cup *the fruit of the vine, as recorded in three of the Gospels.
Why don't Catholics insist on reading THAT literally? It's part of the same passage of the Last Supper said immediately after saying the cup is the new covenant in His blood.
Or are we again, dealing with selective literal/figurative/metaphorical interpretation on a sentence by sentence basis with no consideration of applying the same standards to the entire passage.
Catholics are astounding in their ability to reconcile and state two contradictory statements and proclaim that they're both true and not contradictory.
Scripture cannot be broken. Jesus did not eat His own flesh and blood in violation of the Law. He did not force His disciples to, neither did they in Peter's own words.
In either case, Jesus would have sinned and he could not have been the perfect sinless sacrifice for our sins.
Yeah, like the perpetual virginity of Mary, the eating of blood in communion, the papacy, tradition elevated to be equal to Scripture. The RC church provides no end to the number of heresies it supports with Scripture.
When one reads the Scriptures without the guidance of the Institution that Jesus created and the Holy Spirit commissioned, why then, one is free to create all manner of incorrect beliefs.
Jesus did not create any *institution*.
Romans 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
Through the word, not through the church.
And lo, witness, they have. There is the Faith and then there is every other belief.
If your confidence in in the fact that you have *Faith*, you are not on very solid ground. True, salvation comes only through faith, but it's who our faith is in, not that we have it. Everyone has faith. Not everyone has faith in God or Christ.
Not so. Those who have forsaken Christ and forfeited the eternal life of Salvation are dead.
I’ve read the Catechism and I’ve spurned the lies it contains in exchange for the truth in God’s Word, the Bible.
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.