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
Was the child Jesus God is more proper in context.
Is it possible for God to grow in wisdom and stature?
LUKE 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man.
How so? A building? A cupboard? A tent? The temporary abode?
May I take you back a while?
Why do we need translations at all?
"εν τουτω τω σκηνωματι", "in this tabernacle". "Skinoma" is literally "tent", a form of dwelling in liturgical use since Moses. They put manna in there, by the way, in prefigurment of the Catholic tabernacles. There is not shortage of Baptist houses of worship called "tabernacle". Did they, too, name their church after their bodies?
Let's not be silly. I posted verses, and footnotes, from two different Catholic Bibles which you choose to ignore. 2 PETER 1:
RSV St. Ignatius Edition - 13 I think it right, as long as I am in this body, * to arouse you by way of reminder, 14 since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me.
Nab
13 I think it right, as long as I am in this "tent," (8) to stir you up by a reminder,
14 since I know that I will soon have to put it aside, as indeed our Lord Jesus Christ has shown me.
Note (8) [13] Tent: a biblical image for transitory human life (Isaiah 38:12 <../isaiah/isaiah38.htm>), here combined with a verb that suggests not folding or packing up a tent but its being discarded in death (cf 2 Cor 5:1-4 <../2corinthians/2corinthians5.htm>).
Perhaps annalex is a more reliable source than official Catholic Bibles.
Annalex and Tabernacle
Perhaps you should publish a special annalex dictionary.
Amen! Especially since "church" really means us. The "called out assembly" of all believers in Jesus Christ as savior are part of this body of Christ. We become members through accepting Christ as our Lord and Savior.
“”Reformers hold that God does not will all people to be saved to the extent that He will cause it to happen, which causing is fully within His power.””
The Reformers are wrong because God would have two wills -one that wills bad and the other that wills good. Also God would be moved from being all things good
From Aquinas
That God is the Good of all Good
GOD in His goodness includes all goodnesses, and thus is the good of all good.
2. God is good by essence: all other beings by participation: therefore nothing can be called good except inasmuch as it bears some likeness to the divine goodness. He is therefore the good of all good. Hence it is said of the Divine Wisdom: There came to me all good things along with it (Wisd. vii, 11).
And
That the Will of God is His Essence
http://www2.nd.edu/Departments//Maritain/etext/gc1_73.htm
GOD has will inasmuch as He has understanding. But He has under- standing by His essence (Chap. XLIV, XLV), and therefore will in like manner.
2. The act of will is the perfection of the agent willing. But the divine being is of itself most perfect, and admits of no superadded perfection (Chap. XXIII): therefore in God the act of His willing is the act of His being.
3. As every agent acts inasmuch as it is in actuality, God, being pure actuality, must act by His essence. But to will is an act of God: therefore God must will by His essence.
4. If will were anything superadded to the divine substance, that substance being complete in being, it would follow that will was something adventitious to it as an accident to a subject; also that the divine substance stood to the divine will as potentiality to actuality; and that there was composition in God: all of which positions have been rejected (Chap. XVI, XVIII, XXIII).*
That God cannot will Evil
http://www2.nd.edu/Departments//Maritain/etext/gc1_95.htm
EVERY act of God is an act of virtue, since His virtue is His essence (Chap. XCII).
2. The will cannot will evil except by some error coming to be in the reason, at least in the matter of the particular choice there and then made. For as the object of the will is good, apprehended as such, the will cannot tend to evil unless evil be somehow proposed to it as good; and that cannot be without error.* But in the divine cognition there can be no error (Chap. LXI). 3. God is the sovereign good, admitting no intermixture of evil (Chap. LXI). 4. Evil cannot befall the will except by its being turned away from its end. But the divine will cannot be turned away from its end, being unable to will except by willing itself (Chap. LXXV). It cannot therefore will evil; and thus free will in it is naturally established in good. This is the meaning of the texts: God is faithful and without iniquity (Deut. xxxii, 4); Thine eyes are clean, O Lord, and thou canst not look upon iniquity (Hab. i, 13).
That's my understanding as well. Yes, there is still torment there, but it has not been thrown into the lake of fire yet.
Yes, I agree with most that you wrote. Faith is not something that the Church ("Rome", to you) can give you. Nor was it my point. I simply pointed out that since it so happens that you find the Scripture believable you then in that particular instance believe the Church. That you don't believe the Church otherwise is something for you to ponder.
Yes, but that does not negate the fact that it is that very Church that gave you the Scripture you profess to follow.
The human writers of the Holy Scripture were Catholic because everything they wrote the Catholic Church teaches today, and always has. They were demonstrably not Protestant because Protestantism believes that salvation is through faith alone, and the scripture says the exact opposite.
Catholics would never do that. Where did I say the Scripture is wrong? The Church teaches that the Holy Scripture is inerrant in its entirety:
all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. These are the words of the last: "The Books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council (Trent) and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical. And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author."Leo XIII on the inerrancy of scripture (from Providentissimus Deus) [ecum.]
It is usually a good idea to know something about the subject matter you wish to opine.
If her hyper-partizanship were true it would serve a good purpose of disseminating the truth. The trouble with her statement is not that it is expressed in a partizan manner, and not even that it is blatantly anachronistic, but that it is false in essence. There is no trace of Protestant distinctives (faith alone, Bible alone) in any patristic writing, including the Holy Scripture itself.
First, Protestants don't even believe that. When the Word says "you are not saved by faith alone" (James 2, I slightly paraphrase) or "This is my body" (Luke 22), you don't believe that.
Second, you don't believe that directly. You believe that because the Church went through the effort of putting the Canonical Scripture together for you. So you believe what the Church tells you, because the Church has told you that. But the distinction "I believe the scripture but I don't believe the rest of the teaching of the Church is foolishness. For one thing, it is nowhere to be found in scripture. Further, it makes no sense: you either believe the witness or you don't, regardless of the method of delivery of the testimony.
most Catholics were not even given a chance to read what the Bible actually said until 500 or so years ago
Anyone could read if he could and wanted to. Most simply could not read, Catholics and Protestants alike. The reason Lutehr was able to pull a fast one over the German peasants was that they were all illiterate.
disobey this mandate/commandment was a mortal sin
It was a sin. It still is a sin. You have to obey what the Church mandates. That part did not change. The mandate itself changed, because the Church saw it fit to change it. The Church has that authority, you know (Mt 18:18).
I have seen far too many bleating pastors; the Catechism is very clear on the matter; she did not post it in her reply; the fact of the matter is that the Church has been taught about Christ and that while there may be other paths to salvation, we do not know of or are qualified to even consider them. Yet salvation is of the Lord and He has the final say. I'm sure that Lera needs defense and is quite grateful to have you step in as her own personal F. Lee Bailey.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Church doesn’t save , Jesus does.
The Church is necessary for salvation, yet it by itself does not save. Repentence is necessary for salvation, yet if by itself does not save. Belief in the Lord is necessary for salvation, yet it by itself does not save.
Don't hold it back. I'd much rather discuss scripture than anything else. It is on the scripture alone that Protestantism, including Lutheranism, will be defeated.
Tell that to Mr. Reggie.
For you, yes, but that has been consistent Catholic anthopology for two millennia.
you know [the Monks and nuns are not interested in sex] how?
If they were, they would not be monks and nuns, yet the vast majority of them live out their vocations.
Because she had a Child from Him. But it is not a full-fledged belief, because we don't believe everything nornmally entailed with being a spouse: she was and remained married to Joseph, there was no trappings normally associated with marriage, -- no shared household, no mutually shared duties, etc. In a certain limited sense, one can say that she was a spouse of the Holy Ghost. In many other senses she wasn't. It is a unique situation.
Beautiful. It should be noted that the hymn is borrowing from St. John Chrysostom's
It is truly meet and right to bless you, O Theotokos,
Ever-blessed and most-pure mother of our God.
More honourable than the Cherubim,
And beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim,
Who without corruption gave birth to God the Word,
True Theotokos: we magnify you
Monks and nuns - obeyed the laws/traditions of The RCC
Yes. Also the scripture. "Sell all whatever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me" (Luke 18:22).
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.