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
No, because you are a man and not a duck. But if you do something that is in your nature to do, -- act like a saint,-- then you become a saint and therefore you will be saved. "Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matthew 5:48)
You are making Christ say the precise opposite of what He is saying.
How so? He says, I will judge you all, and this is how: by your works. It is not the onyl passage where this is taught, not always with the metaphor of animals; see for example, Romans 2:
[6] 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. [9] Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek. [10] But glory, and honour, and peace to every one that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Matthew 25:31-46, is about judgment day. There will be no mixed cases.
No, in the final judgement -- nor in the one that awaits you and me within few years -- there are no mixed cases. So the reason we are told how we are going to be judged, sheep or goat, -- its to teach us how to live so that we are saved. Live like the sheep in the parable and you will be saved. You are saved by your works of charity.
There are those who belong to the Good Shepherd’s flock and those who don’t.
Yes, and the passage tells us who belongs where: those who "who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life" belong, and those who don't, don't belong. It is up to you where to belong.
What is it that you and Kosta believe in common? :-)
BTW, I can understand questioning the Latin explanations of what happens at the consecration. You know, mysteries are just that, mysteries. And perhaps the less speculation the better about the nature of Divine Mysteries lest in doing so we misunderstand and fall into error.
I am having difficulty understanding just what you are saying. Is it your belief that the (Latin version) Catholic should not question the "Latin" explanation of the Eucharist without question or are you saying that no one, you, I, Protestants, any person, should not speculate on its' validity?
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
There would be no requirement for God to have two wills here. I would agree with you and Aquinas that all God wills is good. It's just that part of what God wills is that not everyone He creates is going to be in Heaven. Maybe it's natural for us humans to think that sounds bad, but it isn't, by definition, because it's from God.
I think most people would agree with me that at least some of the actions God took in the OT sounded pretty harsh under the circumstances. For example, the poor guy who got zapped for only trying to prop up the ark as it was falling. That sounds kinda mean, doesn't it? But do we say that God wished and did a "bad" thing? Of course not. We are the ones who have to adjust our mindsets to trying to understand it as a good. Likewise, I think it is the same with God not wanting all to be in Heaven with Him to the point of making it happen. Somehow, that is actually good.
...... 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. ......
I think I agree with all of this from Aquinas and it seems consistent with Reformed theology (even if also in agreement with Latin theology) as far as I can tell.
No, to assume is to postulate some thing in order to see what the consequences are, without knowing either way. Assume your grandfather was in the Kolchak army, then he would have had to hide the fact from authority later; Assume he wasn't, then he had no military experience prior to the Second World War, etc. In my case, I don't assume he was in the Kolchak Army, I know. Similarly, the Church does not assume that fact about Mary, the Church knows.
Weighing evidence for and against the evidence against is the stronger and more reliable
Of course. So, the evidence for the perpetual virginity is that it was the consistent belief of the Church since there were witnesses to her life alive, and that it meshes in with what we mortals are likely to do with ourselves in the unique curcumstance of giving birth to God. Contrary there are a verses about "brothers", where the word demonstrably is used in a wider sense than we use it today, and each time the borther is named by name, his mother is named also and she is not Mary Our Lady.
There are legends about the saints that the Church readily admits that they are legends, precisely because we adopt the reasonable approach of weighing evidence. This is not one of such cases.
Who and how?
We don't know that, but that does not make it less of a fact. There are plenty of things I know about my family that I would not be able to tell you how I know them, -- I did not keep a tape of every conversation I ever had with my old relatives, and I live in the age of tape recorders and ballpoint pens.
Telling lies IS very important, and the consequence is grave. For example, saying that "Mary had sex with Joseph" while pointing to a verse that does not say anything of the kind is telling a lie and the consequence is very unplesant to the teller.
Uh Oh! Telling lies IS very important, and the consequence is grave. For example, saying that "Mary never intented to have sex with Joseph" while pointing to a verse that does not say anything of the kind is telling a lie and the consequence is very unplesant to the teller.
Now, who has said this on numerous occassions?
Where does the bible teach we are saved through any works?
What Catholics have is a word game ..
When you use up the grace how and where does one get more?
If one does good works to be saved.. then they are self serving and add nothing to the glory of God..He hates them, they are sin .God will not be mocked.
The unsaved can do nothing but evil .. every good work as man counts good is evil
Will every atheists that does" good "be saved? How about the Muslims ?
What good works did the thief on the cross do?
At base insofar as our Orthodox Faith is concerned? Virtually everything; it's genetic. We especially "get" that mm can understand what we or the Latins say and she still chooses not to believe it.
"Is it your belief that the (Latin version) Catholic should not question the "Latin" explanation of the Eucharist without question or are you saying that no one, you, I, Protestants, any person, should not speculate on its' validity?"
I think "explanations" of the Mysteria are an almost sure way to fall into error. The Mysteria, we believe, are of God and so it is presumptuous far beyond the position of created beings to explain them. I think everyone, Latins, Orthodox, Protestants, you, me, Kosta, should, therefore, question ( and ultimately reject) explanations of what the Holy Spirit does at the consecration such as "transubstantiation" or "consubstantiation". For all I care, personally, people can question whether or not the bread and wine on the altar table actually becomes the true Body and Blood of Christ at the epiklesis. The Church, from the very beginning, has believed that. My people for the past 18-1900 years have believed that. But it is equally true that there were those from the earliest days who did not. God created us free, so it's not up to me to throw rocks at their heads.
I am almost an old man now (not as old as Kosta who is really old!), and I'm not enamored of change. Age has taught me very, very little of real value (mostly I'm just disgusted) except perhaps a low level of humility and an appreciation for my own sinfulness. So I'll stick with what I know.
If it's not found in Scripture, it's veracity is up for grabs. It's going to take a lot more than the writings of anyone whose other works that happened long after the fact and are considered heretical.
Extra-Biblical writings just don't hold much merit if they don't have solid Scriptural support.
They may be interesting as casual reading as an intellectual exercise, but if they're not Scripture the Catholic church is in a pretty weak position to criticize and condemn someone for being skeptical of their truthfulness.
Lots of other denominations claim extra-Biblical revelation to support their doctrine and yet they are considered cults for that. I am unconvinced that the Catholic church is the exception.
You don't become a saint by *acting like one*. You act like one after you become a saint.
The only way to have eternal life is through the new birth.
Jesus ran into plenty of people who kept the Law, which would qualify them as *acting* like saints. But He said they weren't saved.
That statement clearly shows a belief that it's works that save one.
count-your-change is right.
Here are the definitions of assume form Merriam-Webster; particularly #5. It does not contain your definition.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assume
a : to take up or in : receive b : to take into partnership, employment, or use
2 a : to take to or upon oneself : undertake *assume responsibility* b : put on, don c : to place oneself in *assume a position*
3: seize, usurp *assume control*
4: to pretend to have or be : feign *assumed an air of confidence in spite of her dismay*
5: to take as granted or true : suppose *I assume he’ll be there*
6: to take over (the debts of another) as one’s own
Well, annalex, you don’t listen and respond to what’s said in a way that indicates you actually understand the point at issue. Instead you hear something, categorize it according to the template you have before you, and choose whichever talking point most closely approximates an item on the menu of your template. It is like talking not to a man but to a machine.
“... act like a saint,— then you become like a saint and therefore you will be saved.”
So, this is your response to my question of how a “good tree” comes to be? It is not something God does, but the individual does? Will you appoint yourself your own Creator as well, able to make yourself into a “good tree”? You are a theologian of the caliber of Nicodemus who that night asked Jesus, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” You try to answer heavenly things with earthly wisdom.
annalex also asserted:
“You are saved by your works of charity.”
So, you have not only appointed yourself Creator, but now Savior as well, even though only One is called to that office? That is why the Holy Scriptures call Him the Savior of the world, and expressly deny that any can be his/her own savior.
Where do you get your doctrine from? It isn’t from the Holy Scriptures. Ahhh, I see. You have also appointed yourself your own Enlightener and Sanctifier. You are a veritable trinity in and of yourself.
This is where the white rabbit has led you, away from the written Word of God and down the rabbit hole ... and you still follow.
Since God knows our free decisions in one NOW eternally, this is true, "that not everyone He creates is going to be heaven" since God knows our free decisions.
Eternal creation of God , "who is love" means that God creates everyone wanting them to be in heaven while knowing eternally that those who will not be heaven is completely their own free decisions,not connecting them to the will of God that wants all creation to be heaven.Hell without freedom to end up in hell would mean that hell is part of God's essence,fk
Try understanding that God does not think first than create or God would be not all knowing eternally
“The moment will come when heart and mind are so suffused by the vision of the infinite holiness and humility of the God-Christ that our whole being will rise in a surge of love for God.”
Beautiful Post! Thank You for capturing such and awesome understanding of Our Eucharistic Lord!
Thanks for your answer. I can't say that I have any problem with this approach as it seems to not wish to address the issue. That is perfectly fine. I fully agree that burial and descent are distinct occurrences and that His descent resulted in a demonstrable victory.
What you stated in your post is essentially the Roman Catholic position (I don’t know if you know this). See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, American Edition, pp. 164, paragraph 633. On this, please note that in the same volume, paragraph 635, footnote 484, that John 5:25 is cited as proof that Christ preached the “Good News” to those in this supposedly (not!) intermediate place (wherein is the so-called limbus patrum).
I have to disagree with you here as I categorically deny any and all notions of purgatory or limbo. While I would agree with parts of the Catechism concerning this subject I disagree that anyone was converted "in hell". Once physical death occurs, it's over. Since the resurrection those who die and are saved go immediately into the presence of the Lord. In addition, I would agree with you that John 5:25 is used completely out of context in the Catechism. It is obvious that Jesus was speaking of the spiritually dead.
Forest Keeper, I can’t quite agree with you when you say that you have no problem with “this approach as it seems to not wish to address the issue.” What you are noting (quite understandably) as the Lutheran confessors not wishing to address an issue as fully as we might wish (we insatiably and foolishly curious human beings) is really an unwillingness to explain more fully something that God Himself has given us only minimal information about. They assumed that if God Himself saw fit to give only this much information, then that was sufficient for our faith, comfort, and understanding.
What you are seeing, again, is real application of “sola scriptura,” that is, a willingness to teach as divine doctrine only that which the Scriptures clearly and unequivocally state, and not an inch either less or more. They leave it open to everyone to speculate - as we all do - but to understand that such thoughts, finally, are just that, speculation, not doctrine. Rome loves to fill in the blanks God has left and call it doctrine/dogma, thinking that it is somehow their obligation to do so ... when it is not! And so, to a great extent, do many of the Protestant denominations also think. Lutherans, on the other hand, do not think they have to explain God’s motives for doing or not doing whatever. They take seriously their confession that God is omniscient and all-wise, and they are not. Their duty before Him is to say, “Yea and amen,” the pot giving glory to the Potter.
FK also wrote:
“I have to disagree with you here as I categorically deny any and all notions of purgatory or limbo.”
I am sorry, I had no intention of ascribing to you that you agree with these ideas that were clearly outside of what you had said. I only meant to point out that in general your approach to this subject was similar to that of Rome. Thank you for clarifying what I may have obscured. You are quite right, “once physical death has occured, it’s over.”
As you yourself appear to note, we are not far apart.
Someone who does not have faith in God is in no position to be taken seriously on matters of the Christian faith.....or those who adhere to the Christian faith.
Amen. Skip and scroll.
I agree with you there. I find it interesting that we were told the Greek meaning for "sacrament" yet nowhere in Scripture is that word ever even used. I looked at the Douay-Rheims as well, in case anyone wonders.
It becomes quite apparent to anyone who is truly a student of Scripture that your claims to "know" it are what is "nakedly false". I did not quote the verses that contradict your misreading of the context of verses in James because I already have on this thread as have many others, plus I think you are already aware of those I am speaking of. It is ironically humorous that you contend "not one" teaches we are saved by faith apart from works and state that if it did it would "obliterate" other Scripture. We know that God is the author of it and God would not contradict himself, so tell me how you can read in one place that we are saved by faith alone and in another you claim we are saved by faith AND works? Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps it is your own misreading of certain verses accompanied with a preconceived doctrine that renders you unable to see the true meaning of those verses?
You assert that the Catholic Church teaches nothing contrary to Scripture and when the numerous ones are pointed out on this thread and others you lash back with rationalized doublespeak to castigate whoever dared to make the claim. This is not the right way to answer in a debate. I can easily make the claim that the Catholic Church has repeatedly invented doctrines that are denied in the Scripture, yet because you contend that they are "Holy Tradition" it ceases to matter that Scripture is contradicted by them. Who has no shame???
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.