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
You're not a trial lawyer, are you! ten eyewitnesses almost invariably tell ten noticeably different stories, FK, without any of them being either a liar or crazy.
"In the proper context it is fully consistent with co-equality. Many times the Bible explains concepts that are in truth beyond our complete comprehension in terms we can best understand. What is described here are roles of Persons, for our benefit, not superior-subordinate relationships. Throughout all of the Gospels Jesus says that He is there to do the will of the Father, yet no Christian interprets this to mean the Son is inferior to the Father."
Very good, FK. +Gregory Palamas would be pleased!
"To interpret this theme as a superior-subordinate relationship is to simply declare the whole of Christianity void on its face."
But it's OK to deny the "monarchy" of the Father by an embrace of the filioque clause?
So you think it's something we determine? Not God?
No, I think it's from God. It matches what we see in scripture. Christ Himself said "Do this in remembrance of me." Therefore, I would think He would approve of any time or occasion when He is remembered. Forget all the commercialization baloney, reflecting on and remembering the story of His birth has to be a Godly thing. Linus had it right when he said "That's what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown." :)
FK: 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
Like Trinity?
I don't at all consider the Trinity to be extra-scriptural Tradition. The totality of scripture contains the whole idea of the Trinity. I think I have posted this website before, but just in case see: Trinity in the Scriptures.
FK: 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?
The website handles the Trinity stuff, and for Sola Scriptura here are some examples in support:
We also have Jesus' example of handling every temptation of satan with scripture only.
You "recognize the pattern"? Does that mean you are "scared"? Rather than assume the "Ex-Catholics" on this thread are engaging in vicious attacks against the Roman Catholic Church out of some sort of fear or hate, how about, for once, consider the concept that they are expressing their understanding of the truth from God's word, rather than accepting man's explanation of it? In our posts, we are trying to plead that God has revealed his plans for mankind and its redemption and that what is being taught by the predominant, self-defined, all-encompassing representative of Christianity is NOT truly that and instead IT is leading people away from the real plan of salvation God has revealed in his Word.
We proclaim that we have really been there and have come out from under the burden of works-based salvation into the light of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ which is that God has provided a way for mankind to be saved by his awe-inspiring GRACE through FAITH ALONE. This is the reason for our posts, and not because of hate. If that were really the case, we would not bother to even take the time to do so. Indifference really IS the opposite of love, think about it.
Excellent post, FK. I agree that we are already united on the major tenets of the faith and that God has certainly allowed liberty on minor ones. What happens far too often, in my opinion, is that some religious leaders demand complete obedience in those minor areas and, by exerting that control, they ensure their power over God’s people.
I think I have affirmed a type of infallibility by universal Church consent. It’s real basis, however, and the supreme source of authority is the issue.
I would have to get back to this later, and am actually typing this using speech to text software due to the cold. It will not get the next word though.
“PhronemaI:” Tell me the truth, you looked it up also.
“How does a veritable babel of theological opinion advance fulfillment of Christ’s prayer?”
The unity attested to in the book of Acts was not that of a comprehensive theological kind (and considering its scope and depth this is ever a goal), but one which was based upon core truths, and surrender to the Christ of them to do his will.
And it is faith in the biblical Lord Jesus Christ , and his gospel, and the resultant conversion that results in the essential unity of spirit, and those who know if it realize that this transcends all denominational boundaries, despite disagreements on some of the things. The real division is between those whose unity is based upon the dedication was one particular church, thus they remain in it, despite the many various opinions, which can be just as numerous.
Well, you are dealing with individual writings as well as a compilation, and although the writings themselves were not the work of a committee, it is true that the church whose members penned these books and who complied which books it considered worthy of publishing with the Divine stamp could claim a type of copyright status. Likewise bodies of Jews could, regarding those books they held as Scripture, in particular the Law and the whole Palestinian canon, which the writings that the church held to as Scripture indicates Jesus held to, (Luke 24:44, etc.) and to whom it says the covenants, the giving of the law and the service of God and the promises pertained.
And consistent with this, those who complied somewhat differing NT lists could be considered authors, while what the whole compilation would consist of was not finally, fully decisively settled for RC's until Trent, as we have hitherto discussed.
However, while your here points can be basically acknowledged, there is more to it than the instrumentality by which Scriptures were codified.
So the selection was made in accordance with the Church dogma, which is based on the Holy Tradition
And what most essentially gave Holy Tradition its authority? What was its basis?
The banal argument that the body of believers gradually came to accept the correct books that we have today is not supported by historical documents. It is a myth
It certainty is not that simple, but what is a myth is a bunch of men sitting around and deciding what would make the best novel. There certainly was an ecclesiastical process which most are ignorant of, but I posit that both the selection and enduring acceptance of the books which are most universally held to be Scripture was essentially due to an inherent quality of these writings, including its conflation with the prior established scriptures, and the faith of its accompanying Tradition, and its effects when believed. Therefore not only church fathers but those who could ask our Scriptures came to progressively realize what was manna from heaven. While the FDA may put its stamp of approval on certain things, their enduring popularity is due to their effects.
And while it is true that some three hundred years after Christ most local churches contained almost all the books of the Christian Bible, they also contained many heretical ones which is a detail most Christian apologetics today choose to ignore or don't know.
True, and Jesus said that the tares most be allowed to grow along with the wheat, and by comparison with writings that were was previously established as Divine, among other factors, helped to separate the two has concerns their ultimate author.
So, the theological basis and the actual codification of the Christian Bible to the exclusion of all other books took place in the Catholic Church and under Catholic Church's episcopal authority, and not, as the Protestants confabulate, through some sui generis "spiritual" guidance of the lay believers.
It certainly would be a mistake to imagine the latter, as it also would be to suppose that it was they who gave these writings their real authority and appeal, and that these choices to place apart from the qualities of these writings and their effects and appeal to believers. If so, they contradict what the very writings they agreed upon testify of, as well as multitudes more since that time, without constraint or compulsion.
So, it is really disingenuous for the Protestants to insist that the Church has no spiritual authority when it comes to scriptures, when it is clear that the they accept, by necessity, the decision of the Church as to what constitutes Christian canon.
No, as while the church corporate was responsible for the writing of New Testament Scripture, and its councils for,the compilation of all books which it holds as constituting it, this presumes
1. that being the instruments through whom Scripture is written, and being the stewards of it renders them to be assuredly infallible autocratic interpreters of it, as Rome effectively supposes it is, rather than themselves being subject to it, which the Lord Jesus showed the Pharisees they were to be. Consistent with the authorship/stewardship=authority logic, than the first Christians should have submitted to the Jews. Which you probably agree with.a
2. that the authority of the early church is established by formal historical lineage, rather than scriptural faith, which Scripture attests is the case. It was the error of the Pharisees who presumed that their lineage made them sons of Abraham, but which both the Baptist and Lord Jesus reproved. (Mt. 3:9; Jn. 8:44)
Clearly, he [Luke] togive all credit to himself and other humans, but not to God.
I put this here because it is related to your consistent rejection of God working through men, making it all their work. Certainly this was not the understanding of Luke. (Acts 1:1-3)
No, I'm Greek. It's a word I use all the time, even in non theological contexts. It is a very important word when discussing Holy Orthodoxy.
Change “’dedication’ of one particular church” to identification. Sorry
Like so many in "the church" that love the church, and the tradition more than Christ, and look to the church and tradition more than to Christ.. ..
How does one love a false religion? A false tradition? How does one love lies?
Christ in present fully in either consecrated species, so long as either species remains in appearance, respectively, apparent bread or apparent wine. Body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ is present either in the bread or in the wine. This is why a communion in bread alone or in wine alone is possible, and in fact for many centuries was the norm.
So it follows that so long as one of the two species remains what it appears to be, the entire Christ is present.
This is not something a Christian brain should be preoccupied with, especially at communion, but if you think it is important to know, here it is.
In John 10 we see that a metaphor is being given. Observe that a minute later Jesus becomes a shepherd rather than a door, and each time there is an explanation fo the metaphor in direct terms: salvation is by Jesus as entry into the sheephold is through the door, Jesus gives His life for us like a shepherd would give his for the sheep. In the words of Institution ("This is my body", etc) there is no room to see a metaphor: there is no explanation in what sense is the bread now His body and there is an instruction to the Apostles to "do this". You don't tell people to "do" metaphors.
From these examples we only see that St. Peter was called Peter by Evangelist Matthew who wrote after the events in Matthew 16.
Because nothing reasonable comes to mind to describe your inanities. Would you please explain why Jesus said that phrase about "Peter" and "rock" in Matthew 16:18?
If you bothered to read around the phrase that you are quoting, you would have seen that the Smyrneans is not in dispute, except by some unsubstantiated slander by Calvin, who simply did not like the content.
OK, presuming that the passage does say that the bread and wine actually do turn into the literal body and blood of Christ, what about this part of the passage where it says that anyone eats of His body, he will live forever?
Seems to me that everyone who has ever taken communion in the Catholic church has died. Unless the Catholic church has saints that it claims are almost 2,000 years old?
The prediction of the angel was regarding the future. Yet she wandered how it will be possible. She, too, was referring to a future impossibility. If she was referring to the present state without implying the future, there would be no question.
I know not men. I smoke not. I eat not pork. All these statements refer to a chosen way of life which is not about to change.
Old Reggie: Where?
In the entirety of the Holy Tradition of the Catholic Church.
You know that how? You were there?
He is quoting selectively hoping no one would check the actual article. See my recent post.
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.