Skip to comments.In Christ Alone (Happy reformation day)
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
NOT remotely supported by unvulcanized Scripture.
NOT remotely supported by unvulcanized history.
I'm sure Greek IS a beautiful language and Hebrew as well. I appreciate the wonderful study guides, concordances and lexicons we have today so that every single word in the Bible can be looked up and the word in the original language is given along with the meaning and other uses of it.
It is curious that the word "sacrament" is not used anywhere in the English language translations but, as you said the word means mystery. I wonder why then that it did not get translated that way? There are many places where the word IS translated as mystery from the Greek "mysterion" and according to the Strong's concordance, it means a hidden thing or secret. It even has that meaning in the Hebrew OT.
So I'm not getting the sense that it is really like you say in that it implies the same thing as the Church's term "sacrament". For example, there is the "mystery of the Kingdom"; the mystery of Israel's salvation; the mystery of the Gospel being preached to all the world; the mystery of the hidden wisdom of God; the mystery that we will not all die but we will all be changed; the mystery of Christ in us; mystery of faith; mystery of Godliness; even a mystery of the seven stars and the mystery of iniquity and, finally, the mystery of the whore of Babylon. But I did not find anywhere a mystery of marriage, of baptism, of communion/Eucharist, of Holy Orders, of healing or of last rites that would justify your assertion of the sacraments being described in Scripture.
I'm fully aware that the Church developed these doctrines of the seven sacraments, but they were really not spelled out as such in Scripture.
Lying about what? If he wrote what he believed then he wasn't lying, FK. What he wrote is that the Spirit "will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears." That doesn't sound like God. He will glorify Jesus because he will take what Christ's, and that is the same as the Father's. That doesn't describe someone co-equal.
When I said this is non-Trinitarian I mean non-Trinitarian as Christianity defines it. Just because you mention Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit is itself not Trinitarian. If it were, then the Morons and some Protestant sects are "Trinitarian" and "Christian" too.
The concept of Trinity has to do with how we see the divine Hypostases, namely as one God, co-eternal, and co-equal. In John's presentation, the Spirit is subordinated to both the Father and the Son, who is himself subordinated to the Father. That is not orthodox Trinity no matter how you turn it around.
I think one can be aware of an idea or choice not normally coming from him.
Then, "normally," you cannot be deceived?
When I notice this happen I see it as a distinct possibility of leading.
FK, in retrospect, bad things are rationalized as being ordained by God for the "greater good," as part of his divine plan or some pedagogic lesson. But at the time this "greater good" is hidden even from believer's discernment because humans don't have the ability to know what the future brings. We are blind as to what will happen the next day. That's why believers have to have faith (trust) that whatever happens, even if it appears as "injustice," is really part of God's just plan and is all good.
Conversely, just because something seems right or righteous or even necessary, from our perspective, or even as "guidance" from above, may not be for the greater good. So when you say you see it as "distinct possibility of leading" it seems to be closer to your gut instinct being confused with "divine guidance" than a "distinct possibility" that you are being "led" from above.
So, then, hypothetically speaking, if you found yourself in the same situation as Lot did, you would offer your daughters?
Incidentally, Yates would fail this test in claiming her idea was from God because scripture strongly condemns what she did.
Not really. The Biblical story of a man who promises God that he will sacrifice to him the first living thing he sees when he returns home, sees his beloved daughter and sacrifices her to God and God doesn't stop him, is am example of such insanity.
I have heard Protestants tell me "God told me." If they believe God told them, are they going to tempt God (and doubt their faith) by checking the scriptures?!? It's not like Paul telling the Bereans, who then check the scriptures to see if this man Paul is right.
Imagine if Abraham said "I don't believe you! Prove to me that this is all for the glory of you!" In other words, you really don't trust the "indwelling Spirit" but rather have to check up on him? That's pretty gutsyfor a believer.
Actually, birthdays are a western custom. In the East, the patron namesake Saint is celebrated. Personal birthdays are considered vanity. But for some reason the Church decided to celebrate a date common to the birth of pagan gods. It wasn't a random choice.
Of course Christians should be thinking about Christ all the time, but I think reminders like Holy days are still good things. History has proved that we need all the reminding we can get.
So you think it's something we determine? Not God?
Yes, Protestants have some traditions, but one difference from the formal ones that are dogma is that they are not commanded of us by any higher earthly authority and our salvation has nothing to do with complying with them
Latin and Orthodox Churches almost always involve a tradition we believe is in violation of scripture, or is based on an interpretation of scripture with which we strongly disagree
Where do you find in scriptures such beliefs as "sola scirptura" or co-equal, co-eternal Trinity?
Instead of answering some went on a verbal shooting spree. If I rejected your answer it is because it wasn't an acceptable answer.
You state your "criteria" for believing are things people can see and detect yet you leave out those things that people everywhere and at all times have accepted
Like what? Appealing to numbers or antiquity, or what have you is no proof that something exists. More than one billion Muslims believe the Koran is true, and have since the 7th century. And all the Jews in the world deny the New Testament base don their faith which is much older than Christianity. What does that prove?
It is something which no medical tests have ever or could ever "detect", yet no sane person would aver that this "something" isn't real.
Really? So, then you are saying only "insane" people will doubt that this imaginary "something" is real?
So, then, in your book, being "objective" is to be subjective? How objective if you!
And, I presume, you have hard proof that this is just the way you described it?
But despite this "leading" people fail, so that is not a true statement.
But for some reason it does serve God's purpose for there to be many Christians out there with profound theological differences. Perhaps it stirs each of our searches for greater understanding.
Ah, and the circle is complete! If we can't explain the "bad" with the devil, we can always say it is God's hidden purpose!
Absolutely, there must be some parameters that define a Christian or else everyone and no one would be one
And those must be a priori axiomatically presumed. It's simple, FK: if we unquestionably presume pink unicorns exit on Jupiter, we can build a whole story based on them. It's called fiction!
What proof would you require?
I have no idea why the word wasn't translated into "sacrament". We don't use translations so there's no problem for us. Maybe the people who did the English translations didn't like the idea of Latin Church sacraments? "...according to the Strong's concordance, it means a hidden thing or secret."
For us, the essence of a "sacrament" is hidden or secret thing. "So I'm not getting the sense that it is really like you say in that it implies the same thing as the Church's term "sacrament".
The "sacraments" do not comprise all of the mysteries of and around and about God, bb. In the East we don't constrain God, putting Him in little boxes, having Him compelled by Necessity and limiting Him to what we can fully understand.
"I did not find anywhere a mystery of marriage, of baptism, of communion/Eucharist, of Holy Orders, of healing or of last rites that would justify your assertion of the sacraments being described in Scripture."
I assume you are familiar with the biblical (not Traditional) basis for the Mysteria so I won't go into that. So far as I recall, the only one actually called a Mysterion in the NT is marriage but calling it a Mysterion is not the point. Mysterion and Mysteria are not "magic words". The point is that we do not fully (or even marginally) understand the what and how of the Mysteria because these are matters of God, not us. When we claim we do, we inevitably fall into error. Can you explain how baptism works on us (not what it does visibly), or Holy Orders, or the Annointing of the sick, or confession or Holy Communion or how matrimony is a type of Christ's relationship to The Church and how it advances us in theosis?
The West is fixated on "proving" and explaining matters of Faith and rejecting matters of Faith when it cannot "prove" or explain what is essentially unprovable and inexplicable. It is absolutist and legalistic, whether in Latin Rite or Protestant vestments, which leads to otherwise perfectly rational human beings arguing over whether bats really are birds! What does this lead to? Simple, it leads to atheistic secularism. Western Christians need to learn humility. A step in that direction will be to accept that they don't need to know everything!
"The power to bear Mysteries, which the humble man has received, which makes him perfect in every virtue without toil, this is the very power which the blessed apostles received in the form of fire. For its sake the Savior commanded them not to leave Jerusalem until they should receive power from on high, that is to say, the Paraclete, which, being interpreted, is the Spirit of consolation. And this is the Spirit of divine visions. Concerning this it is said in divine Scripture: 'Mysteries are revealed to the humble'. The humble are accounted worthy of receiving in themselves this Spirit of revelations Who teaches mysteries" +Isaac the Syrian
I don't see to many references in the OT to that effect. The OT God appears to those he chooses to communicate with, not to every Tom, Dick or Harry who kneels down and prays. Prayer is petition, not a two way communication. That doesn't mean God is accessible, for the Bible says God will do whatever he want regardless what we say. After all, since you as a Calvinist believe in double predestination, prayer is meaningless except as a senseless commandment that will not change what God has preordained.
Obviously, the New Testament God is different in that regard. He hears you and listens to you, and in fact Jesus is quoted as saying that whatsoever you ask you shall be given. That's novel compared to the OT, don't you think? So, it seems like God changed...
It's like Christ fulfilling the Law. It doesn't mean God changed.
If he fulfilled what cannot be fulfilled, what is eternal, and what is to be observed forever (according to the Old Testament), then either God changed or someone didn't get it right while taking down notes.
If you think telling lies is unimportant, you belong with the Protestant gang.
That it illustrates the miraculous nature of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. Just as someoe wonders how did He pass through the hymen of His mother not violating it, one wonders how did He pass through a bolted door. It does not prove anything, but it explains, and I am here to explain.
Communism is the imagined ideal society, where the greed has been eliminated by the fact that all means of production and goods are owned by everyone, and that no social inequality exists. Three is no money, no tax, no social difference. Everything that one could need is accessible to anyone at any time.
Once free from the basic human instinct of hoarding and ownership, social inequality, etc., crime, corruption and greed would disappear. How is that different from the imagined life in heaven? Both sound Utopian.
But since He created our individualities differently :) I would presume that different people will have different things to do in Heaven.
Same thing in communism; those who like to fish would fish; those who like to golf would golf. What will you do in heaven? Fish? Golf? You can't be serious!
In addition, there is the matter of whatever specifically "Heavenly reward" entails.
Your guess is as good as mine. :) But it's just a guess, regardless.
When did He claim it, and are you sure the legalisms of the Old Testament, -- not that we care either way -- exclude cases of virgin birth?
If you read it, it actually said that Mary most certainly did not have a sister named Mary. Therefore, the "adelpheh" in "there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary" (John 19:25) is another case of expansive use of "brother/sister" semantic, common to the Scripture. If you don't pay attention, how would you learn anything?
How do you know I talked to my grandfather? People I trust told me. That is how I know most facts.
This does not make sense if God can't be moved or changed.
What MOVES God that He needs to change direction?
To make it sound more "mysterious." :) Well, why not translate the word "amen," or "why not translate the word mystery as secret because that's what it means, or Christ as the Anointed One, or Messiah as the Anointed One, or the Kingdom of God as Israel, or Satan as the Accuser, which is a title and not a name, etc.?
There are also other Greek words translated as mystery that doe not come form the word mysterion, thus adding to the confusion and erroneous conflation of concepts.
No it is not "necessary for salvation" in the same sense as "I believe in God" is. But this part, "I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" is in the Creed, and comes without a disclaimer about "unless it is a historically known fact".
laying heavy burdens on people rather than [...] preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
To believe the Mary was a virgin all her life is no burden any more than remembering her name is a burden (your scriptural allusion is to a very real burden to exclude half of the menu in the time when getting fed with anything was a life's challenge, Acts 15:28).
More than you word for it.
Why, Implacable Necessity, of course! /s
If there is anything I say that is in ignorance of facts, please point me to it without trying to get cute, and I will give your post a careful and public consideration like I always do. At the same time, it is not my habit to respond to personal one-liners without substance like that post of yours, so if you have more in that style, there is no promise that I will respond. I ingore, for example, most Quix's posts, for reasons that should be obvious.
To which I would add that the confusion and erroneous conflation of concepts is "inevitable" without at a minimum, access to Holy Tradition and at best, HT combined with a knowledge of biblical Greek.
“”I have heard Protestants tell me “God told me.” “”
This is why there is so many heretical teachings today
The late Bishop Fulton Sheen said it best....
“Every heresy in the history of the Church has been either a truth exaggerated to an excess, or diminished to a defect. Calvinism, for example, had a very good first principle, which is a sound Catholic principle, namely, the absolute Sovereignty of God; but Calvin carried it so far as to rule out human merit. Bolshevism, too, is grounded on a very sound Catholic principle, which is the Brotherhood of Man, but it has exaggerated it so far as to leave no room for the Sovereignty of God. And so it is easy to fall into any of these extremes, and to lose ones intellectual balance. The thrill is in keeping it.”- Bishop Fulton J Sheen
It is legalism because Christ's Jewishness is based on it, and his Jewishness is absolutely required by the OT for him top be the "Anointed One" (the "Meshiyah," aka "Messiah," aka "Christos").
But in order for him to be the firstborn of redemption (i.e. the firstborn of the matrilinear line) he would have had to be the first to "open the womb" and not just "jump" out, so to say, as if walking through closed doors.
Now, being the firstborn of the Father simply means that he inherits twice as much as the rest. Yet that is a problem as well, since Christ inherited all, since there is no "rest"! So, basically, Jewish legalism were retained where they were needed and discarded or modified where they were a stumbling block. :)
You can't interpret something without a standard to compare it to. In the Church it is the Holy Tradition, based on Church records and mindset that was much closer to the original Christianity.
In the Protestant world it is whatever they "feel" inside, a perusal tradition of sorts, how they were raised, how healthy and wealthy they are, the language they speak, the culture they embrace, etc.
If the Biblical Greek and the Holy tradition are not sued as standards, then anything goes.
Spot on, Kolo mou. One cannot approach faith with reason and remain faithful. The Age or reason is the precursor of atheism and it is no coincidence that it was energized by the Protestant west.
Western Christians need to learn humility. A step in that direction will be to accept that they don't need to know everything!
That's what happens when you treat your faith as knowledge and not hope.
It really scares me when they say "God told me so." I never know what their next move will be.
"Every heresy in the history of the Church has been either a truth exaggerated to an excess, or diminished to a defect" . Bishop Fulton J Sheen
Is anything sounds too good to be true, or hard to believe it probably isn't.
John 20:19 an “illustration” of Jesus’ birth? Let's see.
Before birth Jesus is in tightly closed up womb and then remaining flesh comes into the outside world as an infant. No indication in Scripture that the birth process was anything but normal.
Jesus is resurrected as a spirit (1 Cor. 15:45) and goes from the outside world into a room, a space with many others present and appears as a full grown person.
The second is recorded in John's gospel, part of God's inspired word.
The idea that Jesus was born passing “through the hymen of His mother not violating it” is the silliness from the Infancy Gospel of James, a fraudulent work.
So I ask ‘What does John 20:19 have to do with the birth of Jesus?’
Am honored, touched and blessed that you do.
“No it is not ‘necessary for salvation’ in the same sense as ‘I believe in God’ is. But this part, ‘I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’ is in the Creed, and comes without a disclaimer about ‘unless it is a historically known fact.’”
Here is your standard answer to all questions: ‘The Catholic Church is right in all things. The Catholic Church says this or that. Therefore it is so, and must be believed.’
It is interesting that you say the perpetual virginity of Mary (which as you know I have no problem with, but do not consider or believe to be Scriptural doctrine) is not ‘necessary for salvation’ in the same sense as ‘I believe in God.’ This is, of course, a dodge. You can never let words simply mean what they mean. You do insist that believing Mary to have been perpetually virgin is necessary for salvation, because the Catholic Church says she was, and the Catholic Church cannot be disbelieved on pain of damnation. So, your phrase ‘in the same sense’ is in effect a distinction without a difference.
Now, when it comes to your phrase, ‘I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church,’ which is from the Nicene rather than the Apostles’ Creed, you mean to say that you believe in the Church similarly to the way you believe in God. That is what you are saying. Because every time you make this assertion it has to do with the authority, power, and prerogatives of the Catholic Church, what it can and cannot do, what does and does not teach.
But, you know, the Creed doesn’t say that. It doesn’t mean that. It doesn’t hold anyone to that. Now, of course, you are going to disagree because you have been taught by holy mother Church that it does too mean that. But look at the Creed, whether Apostles’ or Nicene (there is no mention of the church in the Athanasian) carefully. When it says I believe in God, it attributes real authority, power, prerogatives, and works accomplished and being accomplished to each of the persons of the Trinity. It attributes no such things to the church. None.
You see the Catholic Church as a visible entity whose authority and power you are supposed to fear, love, and trust. But the Creed does not say that. It attributes nothing to the Church except existence. It exists. This has to be confessed for one simple reason. No one can see it. I believe in the holy Christian/Catholic Church just as I believe in the Communion of Saints, just as I believe in the forgiveness of sins, just as I believe in the resurrection of the body, just as I believe in the life everlasting. I can see none of them. They are not tangible, subject to discovery by my natural senses. I can only believe them to be, to exist. They are real to be sure. I know that because God says so. But I can only take Him at His word.
No, annalex, you attribute things to the Church that are not to be found in the Creed. The things you believe are accretions and suppositions that were attached to the “Catholic” understanding of the Creed. But such things were not written into the Creed for the very good reason that they are not only not necessary for salvation (AT ALL, not just in some sense), but also because many are simply not true. The men of Nicaea were not fools. They were serious men who took the Word of God seriously, and who feared, loved, and trusted God above all things, and Him alone.
The belief in God spoken of in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds is a belief in the very things about God that are plainly stated in the Creed. To say otherwise is simply disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. When the Creed says, “I believe in God the Father,” it immediately adds, “Almighty.” It says nothing of the kind about the church. It goes on to add that the “Father” we are here talking about is the “Maker of heaven and earth.” It attributes no such deeds, in fact, no deeds of any kind to the church, for the simple reason that the church has no deeds. She is the recipient of the grace of God. She is God’s creation. She is the bride of the Lamb. Even the good that the church does is attributable to the causation of God, who alone is to be praised. You know, “Soli Deo Gloria,” DEO!
The really sad thing is that Romanists like you have so twisted the meaning of the Creed, been so successful in foisting your propaganda about it and its meaning, that you have gotten much of the rest of Christendom to look at it with not belief but disbelief, to stop using it, and even to sneer at those who do still confess it publicly, fervently, trustingly. You have, in effect, driven millions away from the Creed in your arrogance. In this you have done not evangelism, but anti-evangelism. And anti-evangelism is not the modus operandi of the Church of the Christ. It is the modus operandi of the Church of the ...
I will let the discerning reader fill in the blank.
Fortunately - or I should say - by the grace and providence of God, many in the church of the pope still simply believe what the Creed plainly says, hearing there not his voice, but the voice of the real Christ. (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4) I have met some of them.
SOLI DEO GLORIA
But you, annalex, know the Creed about as well as the clergy of Jesus’ day knew the Old Testament. They stood before the Lord and argued meaning, that it meant what they said, not what He said. (John 5:31-47) Moses stood as their judge. His Antitype will stand as yours.
I believe I understand your belief that the Eastern Church is considerably more faithful to the "early" Church than the Latin variety. In fact, I am in total agreement.
However, I am of the belief that no Church is truly faithful to the Church of the Apostles. The passage of hundreds of years allowed for many legalistic "betterments" to the original practice.
Perhaps. But we Orthodox are a simple people and do the best we can with what God has given us. :)
LOL! That's not what the Greek text says. It simply says "The last [Adam] is [εἰς] a living [ζῳοποιοῦν] Spirit." Gnostic Paul at his best.
and goes from the outside world into a room, a space with many others present and appears as a full grown person
So, him being a Spirit only appeared to have a body? Is that what you are saying? The Gnostic count-your-change at his best!
Please enlighten me as to just when "Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" changed from adjectives to proper nouns in your Creed.
The Eastern Churches are not legalistic, OR.
All that was important was that Mary was a virgin until after the time of her delivery.
Anything after the fact is irrelevant.
But to teach something that unsupportable as absolute truth and threaten people with ex-communication for not believing it demonstrates some serious control issues on SOMEONE’S part.
According to many (most) Catholics Mary spoke to three peasant girls at Fatima, she spoke to Bernadette at Lourdes, she spoke to Juan Diego at Guadalupe, etc.
To quote you; "This is why there is so many heretical teachings today"
If Holy tradition is used as a standard, then anything goes.
You sir, are an honest witness and I admire that.
Agreed. I should have made it clear that the legalistic "betterments" have been developed by the Latin variety.
Scripture isn’t subject to the revision like *Holy Tradition* is.
It’s in writing, we have the oldest available manuscripts to which we can refer if need be.
Tradition is a ship adrift.....
“”According to many (most) Catholics Mary spoke to three peasant girls at Fatima, she spoke to Bernadette at Lourdes, she spoke to Juan Diego at Guadalupe, etc.””
These have been approved by the Church as authentic ,so I believe them to be true.
As in the case of Fatima it’s pretty clear that communism has spread it’s error’s throughout the world.
As my dear friend Kolokotronis once told me that his grandmother and other members in his family said to have regular conversations with the Blessed Mother and no one doubted they did.
There is nothing heretical about this