In Christ Alone (Happy reformation day)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExnTlIM5QgE ^ | Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;

[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

[daniel1212]

“The point is, everything the Church tells us you have to take on faith. If you think the Church lies to you about Mary, why do you believe the Church when she gives you the Gospel? The source is the same.”

That i think is called a genesis fallacy, that the source of a truth renders all that is says to be true, by which logic (in the above context) we must submit to Judaism out of whom the Scriptures first flowed and who were explicitly stated to be the stewards of them. (R. 3:2; 9:4)

The reality is that no where is it stated that all the church ever teaches on faith and morals will be assuredly infallible (nor that is authenticity is based upon formal historical linkage, versus Biblical faith), but only one objective source is, that being Scripture. (2Tim. 3:16)

That does not mean the church cannot teach infallible truth, and the N.T., church did, being soundly substantiated by Scripture and Divine attestation (Acts 15) and which we know because it is in the Scriptures.

But the problem is that of an assuredly infallible magisterium, which i abbreviated as AIM, in which the office has infallibly defined that it is infallible whenever it speaks in accordance with its infallibly declared (scope and content based) criteria. Which renders its declaration that it is infallible, to be infallible, as well as (in the eyes of some) the interpretation of whatever sources it invokes in support of it. By which autocracy they are immune to examination, and thus RC’s are discouraged to do as the Berean’s did in order to ascertain the veracity of is promulgations.

But which authority the Pharisees could have justified its Korban rule, (Mk. 7:7-13) and it is by such that Rome’s praying to saints and Mariology effectively is.

[daniel1212]

See above, but i also think that what the Jim Jones crowd drank was a different brand, thinking this was the way to paradise. But which was the result of people following a man who presumed to be a higher doctrinal authority than the Scriptures, as is the case with the LDS, WTS, etc.

[daniel1212]

You are correct, and there is more weight to it: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/The_Lord%27s_Supper.html#Exegesis

[Kolokotronis]

"As helpful and right as they can be, Divinely inspired writings were not essentially established as such by conciliar decrees, but as God first revealed Himself to man and supernaturally attested to His reality and truth, (like to Abraham) and of the faith and character of those who believed, obeyed it and testified of it (like Moses), so was the written testimony of them and by them established as from God, which progressively became the standard by which further revelation and men of God were tested and established, as a continuing principle. (Is. 8:20; Mt. 22:29-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:39,42; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Heb. 1, etc.)"

Really? You do understand, don;t you, that not one verse in your NT canon would be there but for the bishops of The Church who, using Holy Tradition as the measure, said it was OK for Christians to use them because, d, what they teach is in accord with what The Church "always and everywhere believed"? Tell, d, what did the HS inspire any protestant preacher or divine to add to the canon of the NT as established by The Church?

Now, as for your citations, well, it looks like the old proof text generator has a bug in its software. What in heaven's name do they have to do with the issue at hand? It isn't that the NT's claims are factually self authenticating is it?. Tell me you don't mean that!

"By the time of Jesus a distinct body of writing referred to as Scripture was already realized, without an assuredly infallible magisterium (which only Jesus was),..."

Which "distinct body of writing" was infallibly and magisterially realized by Christ? Leave out the "infallible" part. What distinct body of writing, other than the Septuagint, with all its variations, are you talking about?

"What Trent finally, decisively did (for Rome) was to recognize and ratify what had progressively become established, though i hold that that there was sound reason for great men to reject the apocrypha as Scripture, as i do, though not as forbidden reading."

What the Latin's local Council of Trent did is neither here nor there for me. It certainly isn't religiously "necessary" for nor binding upon me. I'm Orthodox. What I care about is "what The Church always and everywhere believed."

"But what they mean is that all must be tested for conformity by the only objective source which we are assured is wholly inspired of God, and thus is assuredly infallibly, and by such bring every thought to the obedience of Christ"

What is the objective source which we are assured is wholly inspired by God? Is it the NT, with all its variations? OK. What exactly about it is "infallible"? It is a book, d. Are books "infallible"?

"While interpretation requires discernment, and leaves room for a limited amount of disagreement in some things more than others, the same is true in every day life, with sound reasoning versus aberration being more demonstrable in accordance with the degree of revelation. And the “main and plain” things of Scripture are basically just that, and thus those who hold to SS most universally agree with Rome on such core essentials as an articulated in the Nicene Creed, while contending against those which are more based upon a nebulous oral tradition, and which in turn has the magisterium as its authority. And even teachings by church magisteriums require some interpretation, including which ones are “infallible.”"

Again, I couldn't possibly care less what Rome, the parent of all protestants in The Faith and to whom you all should show respect, says about interpretation of Scripture through the Magisterium. If you want to accept, for example, such "core essentials" as the Frankish innovation of the filioque, that's between you folks and Rome. I have no idea what you mean when you write of core essentials "...which are more based upon a nebulous oral tradition, and which in turn has the magisterium as its authority. Again, I'm Orthodox. For us, Holy Tradition is not based on anyone's Magisterium.

"Moreover, many things were not unanimously believed by church fathers."

I know. That's why we look to the consensus patrum on matters of patristic theology and not what any one, fallible, Father might have said.

"the classic concept of tradition as a particular way of reading and interpreting scripture is retained."

Whose or what "classic concept of tradition"? "Scripture, tradition and the kerygma are regarded as essentially coinherent, and as being transmitted, propagated and safeguarded by the community of faith."

I love it when protestants use Greek terms, even if they often use them incorrectly. Orthodoxy has always preserved the kerygma of the Apostles. Read this by Fr. Georges Florovsky, one of the greatest Orthodox theologians of the 20th century. It will explain where we are coming from: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/florov_fathers.aspx

[daniel1212]

I have never been a Lutheran, but they worked out some joint statements - from which these, relative to the issue at subject, are taken:

Appendix, Part 4.2. “The Lutheran doctrine has never understood the ‘crediting of Christ’s justification’ as without effect on the life of the faithful, because Christ’s Word achieves what it promises. Accordingly the Lutheran doctrine understands grace as God’s favor, but nevertheless as effective power . . . ‘for where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation’” [VELKD 86, 15-23].

“By justification we are both declared and made righteous. Justification, therefore, is not a legal fiction. God, in justifying, effects what he promises; he forgives sin and makes us truly righteous” (USA, no. 156,5).

...the Reformers taught a view of salvation that included both an imputational concept of justification, based on the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, as well as the necessity for transformation by the grace of God

“According to Protestant interpretation, the faith that clings unconditionally to God’s promise in Word and Sacrament is sufficient for righteousness before God, so that the renewal of the human being, without which there can be no faith, does not in itself make any contribution to justification” (LV:E 52).

- “As Lutherans we maintain the distinction between justification and sanctification, of faith and works, which however implies no separation” (VELKD 89,6-8). -
JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

[annalex]

My responses here have about 1 week latency. Thank you for participating and I will get to you on your post on substance in a few days.

[Quix]

THANKS for the ping and for all your great posts.

[annalex]

destroys it’s divine inspriation

Not at all. The Holy Tradition is divinely inspired as well. The Scripture is just a subset of it.

There’s no where in the Bible where writers make any claim to Catholicism or even unity under one leader

Maybe not a claim, but there is a strong condemnation of disunity (1 Cor 1:13) and Jesus's prayer for unity of His Church in John 14. That was St. Paul's work in the Church, to ensure her Catholicity, even though he did not use the word.

[annalex]

I really could not care less if the Catholic Church recognizes other churches as "churches" or not

Of course you don't, but the reasons why the communities of faith that emerged during the so-called Reformation are not churches are instructive and illuminate the proper Catholic ecclesiology. Also, the Easter Orthodox as well as pre-Chalcedon Oriental Churches are true local Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Ignatius did NOT capitalize the word "catholic" in his letter because [...]

...the capitalization was not invented till much later. The point remains that his criterion of proper ecclesiology was the same we have today: validity of clergy and sacraments and complete unity of doctrine (the pre-Chalcedons are churches but not Catholic; the Eastern Orthodox are essentially Catholic even though the term is seldom applied to them because of the confusion that might entail).

[annalex]

she must have, first, married under a false premise

Not if St.Joseph knew that she desired to remain celibate and went along with it, not innatural if he, as the Church believes, was significantly older.

Also, calling someone a sinner without evidence is slander. Where's Mary's sin in the scripture?

[count-your-change]

“Also, calling someone a sinner without evidence is slander. Where’s Mary’s sin in the scripture?”

The apostle who took Mary in, John, would know something about who was sinless and was not. (1 John 1:7-10)

[annalex]

The greeting in Luke 1:28 is

χαιρε κεχαριτωμενη

(and it sounds-- you can practice that alone -- KhAYray KeKhARiTOMenuh!)

χαιρε is literally "rejoice", and is used as a greeting even in modern Greek. "κεχαριτωμενη" is a word without a direct translation. It is a word formation from χαρις, grace. The suffix here creates a reflective past participle, so it is something like "one who had been graced". St. Jerome translated "gratia plena"; "full of grace" is a copy of that. The Church Slavonic has it "graced one". If you do a search on χαρις (and its inflections such as χαριν or χαριτος), especially in Pauline writings that develop the theology of grace, you will see that χαρις is consistently translated "grace". Why the Protestant translations all of a sudden break that and translate χαρις in κεχαριτωμενη as "favor" is anyone's guess. Mine is that any time a Protestant translator bumps into something in the scripture that sounds too Catholic -- has to do with Mary, or the priesthood, or the Church, -- he forgets the lingustic rules and seeks to mistranslate. This is how "tabernacle" becomes "[human] body".

Modern Catholic translations are not much better, although I believe NAB finally fixed its Luke 1:28. The mistaker of Vatican II was to assume goodwill onthe part of the Protestants, enter into various committees with them and the result is scandalously bad translations that were made in "ecumentical" committee somehow are considered Catholic. you want to know what the scripture really has to say, read Douay, or at least verify with the original.

This is a good online translation comparison tool:

http://unbound.biola.edu

Could she also not have meant that she and Joseph still had some time to go on their betrothal period before they would come together to consummate and the angel's announcement sounded imminent?

Where does it sound imminent? It is natural for people who are engaged to think of what their children will be like; no one says "how is it possible that our child will be such and such since we are not married yet?" The answer is obvious: you get married and you get pregnant, and a child results.

[boatbums]

So you believe the speech but not the speaker. That is silly.

Actually, what is silly, is to believe that men and their ideas are superior to God's Word. Which was my point. I said that the "Church" is not the arbiter of truth OVER the inspired Word of God. It is not a matter of believing the "speech but not the speaker" but rather believing the Author over the readers.

Regarding the accusation of "slander" by saying the Catholic Church has areas of doctrine contrary to Scripture is hardly that at all. In fact, examples can be found in this very thread. You may want to take some time to read them.

[boatbums]

If she intended to know man in marriage, she wouldn't be surprised that she will become a mother.

Apparently, you missed my question about this. I contended that Mary said what she did, not because she had already taken some unknown Jewish vow of perpetual virginity - even though she was already engaged to be married - but the angel's pronouncement had an immediacy to it and she knew that she was still in the betrothal period (it was usually a year long). I believe she was quite aware of how babies are made but, being a faithful fiancee, she questioned how she could become pregnant before she and Joseph were consummated in their marriage.

BTW...I learned that the reason for the year-long betrothal period was just for such a reason as Mary found herself in soon after the angelic visitation. The custom was to ensure that the wife was not already pregnant by another man in which case the groom would be tricked into raising another man's child. Joseph, it is said, was a just man and he did not want to subject Mary to open shame when it became obvious she was pregnant and they had not yet been together. The penalty for that was stoning. He intended to "put her away" or hide her, I guess, and he planned to do just that until the angel came to him in a dream and told him God's plan. The rest is history, according to Scripture.

[boatbums]

Who does that? The Church wrote what was dictated. She then gave it to you. She could have written what she wished to write, and told you that it's from God, and you would be o wiser. So you still have to put your trust in the Church when you believe the scripture.

"She" did not give me anything. It is God himself that has revealed his truths to mankind and seen that these truths have been preserved for all. Constantly taking credit for your religion as "The Church" is simply false, expected, but false. The reason is simply the fact that God revealed his truths to mankind long before there ever was a formal "church". Going by your logic, the Catholic Church can claim credit for writing the Old Testament as well because that is also Holy Scripture. Now if you are willing to agree that all those who are in Christ are members of the one body, the church (notice the lower case "c"), and accept that even those who believed during the time before Christ came are also part of this universal body, then I will accept that the church was endowed with the knowledge of God's truths, certain ones were inspired to record those truths for posterity and they as a whole, through the power of God ensured these recorded truths were preserved for all mankind. Do we have a deal?

The Catholic Church has indeed written what she wished and has passed it off as if it is from God over these many years. It is called "Holy Tradition". This has served "her" well in that her followers have been told that whatever "she" tells them it is as if God himself said it. Acceptance of it all is made mandatory if the members expect the "beatific vision" (heaven for us normal folks). You can certainly believe all that to your hearts content, but please spare us the condescending "you will be the wiser" advice. I KNOW where my faith lies - the source.

[boatbums]

Amen! Excellent posts.

[MarkBsnr]

Thank you for the link. The more I read about the Orthodox Church, the more I like it. The EO, I believe, has stayed a lot more faithful to the word than the “you-know-whos”. :o)

To my own embarassment and shame, they have. I am doing what I can to rectify that.

[boatbums]

To me, the works are indicators that the faith is not mere intellectual assent, but genuine faith. Even the demons believe and tremble. However, to expect those works to save you or contribute to your salvation, is in error. There’s a distinction that I think that Catholics miss. That is that there are two kinds of works. One is the kind that flow naturally out of a person as a result of the faith they have and Christ living in them. The other is the kind that someone else sets up and demands that everyone else adhere to in order to qualify for salvation.

I fully agree. May I add also that I hear many say "just believing is not enough, because even the demons believe, etc.". What is missed is two-fold. First the Scripture being quoted (James 2:19) speaks of someone who "believes in one God" and then says, basically, "So, what, even demons believe that." It does not speak of someone who believes in Jesus Christ as Savior. Secondly, of course the demons believe in one God, because it is the truth! But demons do not have the opportunity to place their trust in Christ who died to pay for their sins. Christ died for mankind, demons made their choice of who to follow long before there was mankind.

[boatbums]

Hmmm...genesis fallacy. I think that's a good term. I will remember it. Thanks.

[kosta50]

"She" [the Church] did not give me anything. It is God himself that has revealed his truths to mankind and seen that these truths have been preserved for all...God revealed his truths to mankind long before there ever was a formal "church". Going by your logic, the Catholic Church can claim credit for writing the Old Testament as well because that is also Holy Scripture

I realize that for Protestants this is a scary issue, and it shows just how scary it must be, by how emotional their responses can be. Especially for ex-Cathoics who often seem more Protestant and more anti-Catholic, than the "cradle" Protestants, because they know they left the Church and now it seems like the Church was right after all! That must be a rather sinking feeling, I would imagine.

The Catholic Church does not claim it "wrote" the entire body of scripture (just the New Testament), but all evidence shows the Catholic Church decided which books will constitute the Christian canon, and which won't, and that included the Old, as well as the New Testaments.

Individual human authors wrote the books of the New Testament, and they were all members of the Christ's Church. It was the hierarchy that church that decided which books will be part of the Christian Bible. As far as I know, the Protestants accept that decision for the New Testament 100%, so why the denial?