Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In Christ Alone (Happy reformation day)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExnTlIM5QgE ^ | Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;

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


TOPICS: Prayer; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: reformation; savedbygrace
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 5,351-5,4005,401-5,4505,451-5,500 ... 7,351-7,356 next last
To: MarkBsnr
I am doing what I can to rectify that.

Boy, that's sure gonna be an easy job! ;o)

5,401 posted on 12/14/2010 8:18:27 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5397 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

There’s a little German named Ratzinger that just made it a whole lot easier...


5,402 posted on 12/14/2010 8:29:22 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5401 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
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"?

I understand that there would have no church or bishops but for God establishing men and writings as being from Him, by the means i described.

My statements did not deny the efficacy of conciliar lists, nor the Biblical basis for the church magisterium behind them, but why something gets included is the issue. The bishops of The Church did not make Scripture inspired, and as it is, then it has a power all its own, and no matter what such authorities affirm or deny, the manna from heaven will be manifests as such due to its effects. The church is a supernatural entity, whose faith realizes effects which correspond to the claims of manifest men of God and their writings, and what they believed was related to why they believed it.

And while oral tradition usually came before written, does a common ground sanctify both tares and wheat? As traditions of men can become taught as truth from God, as the Jewish “bishops” did, thus should what is held as Scripture be based upon such authority as if they were infallible? Or was it by the above means that writings were progressively recognized as Divine, and the canon being closed, nothing should be held as equal, and all be subject to conflation to it.

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?

Thank God if they did not make anything equal with that within a closed, Divinely established canon. That it inherited things from other churches does not make the latter infallible or supreme any more than it makes the Jews today.

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?

The have to with whether men can teach whatever they judge among traditions to be of God, or whether judgment is bound to be most supremely subject to what has been prior established as being of God, the Scriptures. This does not reject “tradition” from being considered, and within Protestantism what its founders said and did has some consideration, but what is the supreme source by which all is tested is the issue, and what really establishes it.

It isn't that the NT's claims are factually self authenticating is it?. Tell me you don't mean that!

Don't tell me you believe councils are infallible, but we have no Scripture that is. Not self authenticating, but God-authenticating as truth, using men who believed it and realized its effects, which conformed to and complemented that which was prior established as being of God. Again, Biblically, God made Himself real to Abraham and he believed, God supernaturally attested to his faith and overall morality, which established him as a friend of God and through whom a holy nation was born. Moses was established as "the man of God" due to his holiness and faith which conformed to that which was prior testified to as from God, to whom more was revealed, and whose authority God mightily supernaturally attested to, and who provided the written law. And in like manner the apostles where established,and added more to Scripture. (2Cor. 6:1-10; 12:12; 2Pt. 3:16)

What is the objective source which we are assured is wholly inspired by God? Is it the NT, with all its variations?

What was Paul referring to when he wrote 2Tim. 3:16? Or the author Ps. 19? It is only the originals that were called God's word or Scripture?

OK. What exactly about it is "infallible"? It is a book, d. Are books "infallible"?

“The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it.” (Ps. 68:11) Not by literal presses then, but while the inspiration was pure, men where/are responsible for its future transmission, and discernment is required when faced with variants, but which do not make or break a doctrine or render books to not be Scripture, which texts from copies and from the LXX were called even with its manuscript variations.

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?

Why leave out the LXX? Jesus did need the original manuscripts to called something Scripture. And the fact that He and others did testifies to their being a source called Scripture, which cannot lose its force, and which He much referenced. Likewise the Scriptures abound with references to that which was written.

As for “distinct,” no, we have not full list from then, but the fact that there was such a things as the Scripture separates them from that which was not.

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,

To the degree that it is the church today that it was when it contended for such Scriptural essentials we agree on, yes, just as we should to Judaism, and to the Jews, though due to the national character of the latter there is a difference. Roman Catholics could also admit the Reformation resulted in needed beneficial reformative effects on itself (and in finally concluding any internal debate on the canon), and in expanding the kingdom of God, even if by “separated brethren.”

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.

The sentence runs, “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.”

SS means Sola Scriptura, while the latter refers to such practices a praying to the departed.

Whose or what "classic concept of tradition"?

The main issue i see in all this is whether a class of men by whom Scripture was discerned assuredly pass on the same discernment via formal ecclesiastical lineage, so that those in one church can teach extra-scriptural and counter-scriptural traditions as being from God, based upon their authority, or whether all must be subject to writings which have been established as from God essentially due to their inherent qualities.

The Orthodox say, “The interpretation of Scripture, even as a guide to personal faith and ethical conduct, is unthinkable apart from the fullness of tradition:..The Holy Spirit abides in the covenanted fellowship, and personal experience, to be fruitful, is confirmed by the Spirit.” But by what is the authority of those who decide what the fullness of tradition is established, and if extra-scriptural traditions are as binding (i assume) as those clearly expressed in Scripture, based upon the same-source logic, then is the canon really closed?

Orthodoxy has always preserved the kerygma of the Apostles. Read this by Fr. Georges Florovsky,

Who says they do? How do we know that the Pharisees were wrong in some of their traditions? When the Orthodox disagree with the RC's then who/what decides the truth???

Thanks for the link. I also found this interesting previously: http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/papalinfallibility.pdf

"To follow the Fathers" does not mean simply to quote their sentences. It means to acquire their mind, their phronema.”

Applicable to studying the Scriptures, but which the apostles preaching was judged. I will read more.

5,403 posted on 12/14/2010 8:29:26 PM PST by daniel1212 ( ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5384 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; annalex; metmom
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?

Though it may seem to you that my responses are "emotional" it does not mean that I am scared, least of all, that the "Church was right after all". If that was truly the case I would have no qualms about returning - and I know Mom would be tickled pink! There are even other Catholics on this forum that I know would welcome me with open arms and they have expressed those sentiments often which I genuinely appreciate. Perhaps the reason you think this is because you have expressed your own struggles with your "cradle" faith. I can only attest to my own search for truth and I am confident that I have found it.

I wrote an earlier post to this one where I spoke about my thoughts concerning the role of the "Church" in the Bible that we have today. I'd preferred not to repeat myself so you can look at it if you want to know my thoughts about the subject. It was around ten or fifteen posts ago on this thread.

5,404 posted on 12/14/2010 8:33:22 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5400 | View Replies]

ph


5,405 posted on 12/14/2010 9:21:04 PM PST by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5404 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; annalex; metmom
Though it may seem to you that my responses are "emotional" it does not mean that I am scared, least of all, that the "Church was right after all".

If you say so.

Perhaps the reason you think this is because you have expressed your own struggles with your "cradle" faith.

Perhaps that's why I recognize the pattern. Unlike so many ex-Catholics who engage here in viciously attacking the Catholic Church, I still love Orthodoxy; I just no longer believe it. There is no struggle, just questions.

I wrote an earlier post to this one where I spoke about my thoughts concerning the role of the "Church" in the Bible that we have today

I thought I was responding to it (5395 or something like that). It's hard to deny that evidence seems to support the Church's position. The Church did write the New Testament and the Church canonized the books you call the Holy Bible.

5,406 posted on 12/14/2010 11:57:39 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5404 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; kosta50; MarkBsnr; metmom; stfassisi; daniel1212; getoffmylawn
You know, I'll bet I have asked at least a couple of dozen times how those in the sola scriptura crowd can so blithely cast aside Holy Tradition when it is an historical fact that the canon of the NT was established by bishops deciding what was in and what was out using Holy Tradition as the gold standard, the measuring tool of "orthodox" Christianity.

Well, right there we disagree with the premise. While Apostolic faiths give credit to men for authoring scripture, we give all the credit to God. As Daniel1212 noted, it was God who led the body of believers to gradually accept the correct books that we have today. The organized Church mostly just codified what already was in practice. And if you think about it, Sola Scriptura matches giving God all the credit for the authorship and organization of scripture. For those who give credit to man and Tradition, naturally Sola Scriptura doesn't cut it since men want to add so many things. If God's word really WAS God's word (discussed below), then Tradition could be a stumbling block since it would have the potential to conflict. Sticking with the Bible alone eliminates this possibility.

What you read in the NT (lousy English translations aside) is there because bishops of The Church, the guys who believed in, for example, the Real Presence, said those scriptures were in accord with "what The Church always and everywhere believed", Holy Tradition. The ones that didn't make the cut were not entirely in accord with "what The Church always and everywhere believed".

If true, then I maintain that it is wrongful for these believers to call the Bible "God's word", since it really is, by the belief you just stated, man's word ABOUT God. If men make the decisions on their own authority, then it is BY men. Besides that, I thought that in Orthodoxy what was determined to be "what the Church always and everywhere believed" was not even known or understood for almost a thousand years after the time of Jesus (Revelation). That sounds like quite a while to discover what one has always known. :)

Every time I am convinced that the HS is surely guiding me, however, I remind myself of the hundreds and hundreds of writings of the Desert Fathers about monks whose lives revolved around the scriptures, real people who came to spiritual destruction because they failed to discern that a demon was guiding them rather than the HS. Why has the danger from demonic influence apparently fallen away for Protestants over the past 500 years when for all the billion and a half members of The Church, it is a constant struggle to overcome the wiles of the demons to this day?

I don't think anyone on my side has claimed any sort of immunity from being fooled by satanic forces. We are all engaged in spiritual warfare, which is very real and ongoing. And, we Protestants often succumb to being fooled. But when that does happen, the postmortem analysis will invariably show a substitution of the desires of the person for the teaching of the scripture.

I wouldn't worry so much about comparing myself to those in the distant past on some things because we have had the benefit of their mistakes. For example, there used to be Christian clergy who rationalized that it was right and proper to set up special brothels for themselves. We can laugh (or cry) at that today, but for them there was no conflict. So in some senses our understanding has strengthened since then. It is easy for us to see the scriptural error in what they did. Perhaps 500 years from now they will see error in common decisions we make today that we think are scriptural. So be it, but the only test we need concern ourselves with is the conformity with the image of Christ. That never changes, and we should be able to handle it with reasonable success. All of us here have profound theological differences, but none of us considers for a moment whether Jesus would have approved of brothels for clergy.

FK, I sincerely want to understand, even if I likely won't accept, why you folks believe that you individually can unerringly interpret scripture (corrupted texts notwithstanding), free from the influence of Holy Tradition and safe from demons posing as the HS?

To my knowledge, none of us claims infallible personal scriptural interpretation, even though we do claim leadership by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does give us truths, but not all of them at once. And, as I said, we are not immune from demon attacks. So, it is entirely possible that I could be given a truth which I then foolishly add to as a result of succumbing to my own wants and desires (or demon influence).

But if that happens, then scripture will expose and convict me. I think it is far easier to discover this with the Sola Scriptura approach since we say the Bible interprets itself. Therefore, my error would have to be backed up throughout scripture instead of my just wrongly interpreting one verse. I think that's much harder to do than if there is also a ton of Tradition out there which may indeed agree with my error.

How is it that Western Christianity is riven with hundreds of interpretations of the same passages in scripture?

I don't think that's really true if Western Christianity is really whittled down to the Latins and the Bible-believing Protestants. Of course there are differences, but IMO most of them really can be traced back to a fundamental disagreement about the meaning of a very very few verses. When I think about it, only a small hand-full of words in scripture allegedly give the Apostolic Church plenary power over the Christian faith. I think the vast majority of our disagreements boil down to that fact, does God lead and have authority over the earthly Church or does man (did God delegate to an extraordinary degree)? After this difference, I think we all pretty much agree on the other basics, such as the fundamental identity of Christ, etc.

Do you really believe that "...for some reason it does serve God's purpose for there to be many Christians out there with profound theological differences." Is there any passage in scripture where confusion in the faith is applauded?

Yes, I really believe that. If we all agreed on everything and we were all right, then we would have the full knowledge of God on these matters and not be able to grow any closer to Him. That will never happen here on earth. We are commanded to grow closer to Him. We couldn't if we all already had all the answers.

I'm not sure of any passage that glorifies confusion, but I do remember Metmom quoting from Romans 14 the other day. I think it's relevant here:

Rom. 14:1-8 : 1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2 One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8 If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

This passage appears to fully allow for different interpretations of scripture on certain matters not being any real problem. It isn't a question of Holy Spirit leading correctly or incorrectly for some. The issue is what inspires growth in true faith. Holy Spirit might lead one person to fast once a month, but not another. There is nothing wrong with this.

Contrary-wise what about John 17:20-23? How does a veritable babel of theological opinion advance fulfillment of Christ's prayer?

We are all one on the defining core issues of Christianity. We all believe in the same Christ, that He died for our sins, and that under normal circumstances we need faith in Him for salvation, etc. These have been revealed to all of us in many different ways and I think it points to Christ's prayer. We are to be "brought to complete unity" meaning we start with differences. We won't actually reach complete unity until the next life.

5,407 posted on 12/15/2010 12:24:58 AM PST by Forest Keeper ((It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5238 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212; kosta50
These parts of your post stand out to me:

"The main issue i see in all this is whether a class of men by whom Scripture was discerned assuredly pass on the same discernment via formal ecclesiastical lineage, so that those in one church can teach extra-scriptural and counter-scriptural traditions as being from God, based upon their authority, or whether all must be subject to writings which have been established as from God essentially due to their inherent qualities."

This is NOT what Orthodoxy teaches. In fact, it is far from it. Ultimately, the only "infallible" group in The Church is the Laos tou Theou, the People of God, or otherwise the Laity, because without the Great AXIOS of the people, exemplified by the living out of dogma and doctrine in their lives within the liturgical community of The Church, all the dogmatic proclamations and doctrinal pronouncements of hierarchs are nothing. Hierarchs who teach otherwise are sidelined or even removed. The Laos tou Theou are the guardians of Orthodoxy, not the hierarchs.

"The Orthodox say...."

You want to be cautious about your sources, d. The author of the quoted piece is part of a movement, thankfully very small, in the Antiochian Church which has attempted to attract Western converts by dressing Orthodoxy up in Western liturgical forms. It is aggressively "evangelical" and tends towards polemics. To the best of my knowledge it has not been formally condemned as heretical. It should be in my opinion. That said, the article itself, while both prideful and distinctly Western, is generally accurate in its comments about the theology of The Church vis a vis the scriptures.

"When the Orthodox disagree with the RC's then who/what decides the truth???"

The linked article is absolute nonsense. Like I said, be careful of your sources. Quoting drivel hurts your credibility.

"When the Orthodox disagree with the RC's then who/what decides the truth???"

An interesting article which points out the very issue which the theologians from the Church of Rome and the Orthodox Churches are working on right now in the dialogs on the reestablishment of communion between the Church of Rome and the other Patriarchates and particular churches within The Church; I am not sure why you cited it, however.

Your quote from Fr. Florovsky is a good catch. Phronema is a marvelous word which really doesn't have an English equivalent. Fr. Florovsky's use of the word "mind" is good. "Worldview" is another. We can say that it is the Orthodox Christian way of relating to everything and everyone in this life. It is almost always acquired by living within the liturgical community of The Church because lex orandi, lex credendi. Unless one is raised within that community, it takes years to develop and either way it is always a gift of the Holy Spirit. But when it does, that phronema, which is the same today was it was for, say, +Basil the Great or +Isaac the Syrian, becomes definitional of who and what the Orthodox Christian is because it is as much part of us as the molecules of our skin. And it means that we really do not approach or practice Christianity the way the heterodox do.

5,408 posted on 12/15/2010 4:03:44 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5403 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; boatbums
The koine Greek term "full of grace" is πλήρης χάριτος (John 1:14, Act 6:8, older variants). In comparison, Luke 1:28 says κεχαριτωμένη which, because the grammatical form is intensive some translate as full of grace(DR) or highly favored (KJV).

Correct, a backtranslation of "gratia plena" gives πλήρης χάριτος; that is because "κεχαριτωμένη" is a near-neologism by Luke. You will find it also once in a deuterocanonical book, forget which, but not in any of the New Testament.

The big fraud here is not the exact way to form an adjective out of grace, but the replacement of grace with favor. While occasionally it is possible -- grace is a kind of favor -- in the contect of the Annunciation it makes it sound a bit pedestrian. "Do me a favor, pal...".

5,409 posted on 12/15/2010 5:28:47 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5071 | View Replies]

To: metmom; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; Belteshazzar; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww
Technically the Catholic church can say that they don’t teach or hold to the doctrine that salvation is by the Law (capital L) as God gave the Jews, but in principle, that’s exactly what they hold to. Substituting its rules, regulations, ceremonies, sacraments, etc, doesn’t make any difference

Correct.. The Church has a body of Canonical Law not less complex and perhaps more complex than the rules of Judaism. The difference is that the Church does not say that our laws save anyone. The law helps figuring out correct behavior. Breaking a law can condemn. But following laws does not save.

5,410 posted on 12/15/2010 5:33:36 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5096 | View Replies]

To: The Theophilus; metmom
it is Peter himself, who seems to cancel out the idea that he is "the" (definite article) "rock" when he counts himself as one of many "living stones". (1 Peter 2:5)

That matches the Catohlic view of the Church as a collection of hierarchies starting on the family level, where the man of the household is priest, up to the parish level with ministerial preisthood, up to the bishop sovereign in his local Church, and then up to the Pope. On every level the Church Local is a Church Universal scaled down.

It is simply not true that "Rome alone has authority" as you say.

5,411 posted on 12/15/2010 5:37:12 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5097 | View Replies]

To: metmom; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; Belteshazzar; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww
The host begins to dissolve in the mouth. It's not going to last long in the stomach ... Jesus says that He will not abandon us or leave us

The presence under the appearance of bread and wine begins when the priest asks God to enter the species, and naturally ends when bread and wine dissolve, but Christ is present in all we do at all times.

5,412 posted on 12/15/2010 5:41:19 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5098 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; metmom; kosta50; stfassisi; MarkBsnr; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; Belteshazzar; ...
You believe what you believe. We believe what we believe

Indeed, any of the explanations and corrections of heresy do not in themselves convert anyone; it is especially unlikely to convert an active poster who made it a habit of displaying public anti-Catholicism. God converts. My purpose is simply to provide essential knowledge for the reader, -- not necessarily the poster, -- who can do his own thinking.

As one Freeper of anti-Catholic persuasion once admitted to me, -- OK, in the hermeneutical system of Catholicism you do have a complete and consistent view of the scripture. That admission is all I hope to achieve. If after that you turn around and worship Buddha or Luther, that is your business.

5,413 posted on 12/15/2010 5:48:39 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5099 | View Replies]

To: metmom; The Theophilus
Rome is at odds with Peter. He also states that Jesus is the rock on which the church is built.

Rome agrees that it is faith in Jesus on which His Church is built. This argument is just silly, -- as if giving Peter his defined role took something away from Christ the Giver. When you tell your daughter to clean the room, does your authority decrease or increase?

5,414 posted on 12/15/2010 5:52:06 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5100 | View Replies]

To: annalex; metmom
This argument is just silly, -- as if giving Peter his defined role took something away from Christ the Giver.

It is only made silly because the assertion that Peter was given a role of Pope is unsubstantiated and has been refuted countless times over the ages, here in this forum, and by yours truly just recently.

Since I haven't seen any effort to counter what I previously posted, I consider the observations uncontested and thus agreed to. What then is the problem? Isn't it silly to keep asserting as true what has been demonstrated to be false?

5,415 posted on 12/15/2010 6:02:17 AM PST by The Theophilus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5414 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis; kosta50; MarkBsnr; metmom; stfassisi; daniel1212; getoffmylawn
[FK to Kolo] While Apostolic faiths give credit to men for authoring scripture, we give all the credit to God.

Then you must be holier than St. Luke! For he writes:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the gospel, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;  [Luke 1:1-3]

Clearly, he give all credit to himself and other humans, but not to God. Gee, poor Luke would have never passed muster in your assembly!

As Daniel1212 noted, it was God who led the body of believers to gradually accept the correct books that we have today.

How does Daniel know that? Because a man known as Apostle Paul says so? Also, Apostle Paul doesn't specify what constitutes scriptures, or who and how does one determine what writings are scriptures.

The Jews did not agree on that. The Essenes had their own version and canons, and so did the Samaritans (yes, they are also Jews), the Sadducees recognized only the Torah, while the Alexandrian Jews used the Septuagint with the so-called "apocrypha" (not all, as some were actually written in Greek later on). What you call the "Hebrew Bible" today is the canon of Palestinian Pharisees, the only Jewish sect that survied, the rabbinic Judaism (not counting the remaining the 700 or so Samaritans).

5,416 posted on 12/15/2010 6:51:19 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5407 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis; kosta50; MarkBsnr; metmom; stfassisi; daniel1212; getoffmylawn
The organized Church mostly just codified what already was in practice 

Actually, the Church can rightfully claim authorship at of least the New Testament, because all authors of the New Testament were Christians. Surely you'd agree the Church is competent to recognize its own! But the Church is also the author of the codex you call the Christian Bible, as the selection of books that were to be read exclusively was made by the Church hierarchy. 

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. 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.

The early Christian alphabet soup had many letters in it, not only those used today but also numerous others that are no longer used, because there was no uniformly agreed upon Christian dogma.

Historical evidence shows without any serious challenge to the contrary that the Catholic Church hierarchy, through its episcopal authority, spooned out everything it didn't consider fit for reading in that soup, and that this was done in a series of episcopal council meetings in the fourth century—but only after the very same Church set in stone the Christian dogma (the First and Second Ecumenical Councils of the 4th century).

So the selection was made in accordance with the Church dogma, which is based on the Holy Tradition (understanding here that the Greek word paradosis doesn't mean tardition in the modern Engish sense of the word), which is itself base don the Aposotlic faith passed on by the succesisve bishops, and their collecitve interpretation of the scriptures, and in accordance with the way the Church worshiped (lex orandi, lex credendi), since the Eastern liturgical service of today (The Divine Liturigies of SS. Basil and John Chrysostom) reflect and coincide with that time period of theological and canonical consolidation of Christian faith directly by the Church authority.

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.

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.

5,417 posted on 12/15/2010 7:15:50 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5407 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212; annalex

““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.”

If you don’t believe I’m Superman why would you believe I can fly?


5,418 posted on 12/15/2010 9:10:13 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5381 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Kolokotronis; MarkBsnr; metmom; stfassisi; OLD REGGIE; boatbums
FK: For you to be right, Trinitarian Christians would all have to judge John as a madman, liar, etc., and no one does that

Lying about what? If he wrote what he believed then he wasn't lying, FK.

John's Gospel is presented as his eyewitness account of what he saw and what Jesus taught. It is presented as fact, not John's opinion. There is no supposition or conjecture. Therefore, if what he wrote is wrong he is either a liar or crazy.

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.

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. To interpret this theme as a superior-subordinate relationship is to simply declare the whole of Christianity void on its face.


5,419 posted on 12/15/2010 11:15:42 AM PST by Forest Keeper ((It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5253 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Kolokotronis; MarkBsnr; metmom; stfassisi; boatbums
FK: If the idea or choice gives glory to God or is otherwise in accordance with scripture, (and for example, I wouldn't normally want to do it), then I believe it to be from Holy Spirit.

So, then, hypothetically speaking, if you found yourself in the same situation as Lot did, you would offer your daughters?

Lot offered up his daughters to be raped because he believed the greater evil would have been to allow harm to come to his guests. As you know, at that time the Law had not yet been handed down, however some measure of it was nonetheless on the hearts of men. That being said, I can't imagine anything Godly that Lot could have thought that compelled him to make the offer. His goal was noble and Godly, but I don't think his solution was since it doesn't appear it was an either-or situation. He could have prayed for deliverance, or fought to his own death, or perhaps something else. It isn't clear to me at all that Lot's only way to give glory to God in that situation was to offer up his own daughters.

FK: 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.

But the lesson from that story was to NOT take an oath lightly or in haste. The man was wrong to make the oath. God allowed the sacrifice NOT because He approved of the oath, but to uphold the law concerning oaths. So, God did not inspire or support the making of the oath and likewise God was not behind what Yates did.

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.

There can be any manner of surety behind "God told me." If the surety is high it means the person is certain that whatever it is, it is consistent with scripture. If not positive, then of course consulting scripture is a proper check. Any time words equivalent to "God told me" have entered my mind it was an easy slam dunk as to being a Godly (scriptural) thing. A couple of years ago I got home from the grocery store and noticed that they had miscounted and I had a $10 item they did not charge me for (the classic hypo). "God told me" to notify them and ask how to make amends. No scriptural consult was necessary, and before I became a Christian the idea would never have occurred to me. I would just have considered it my lucky day.

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 gutsy—for a believer.

God's communication with Abraham was not like it is today, and we have to remember that Abraham was truly a "man of God", an extremely mature believer. Being that mature and close to God made it much easier for him to discern God from demons or satan. IOW, if my faith was as advanced as Abraham's was, then I would know the Bible backwards and forwards and sideways and would rarely, if ever, need to consult it. I would already know. I'm nowhere near there yet, but am thankful to God that I get a tiny bit closer every day.

5,420 posted on 12/15/2010 12:06:14 PM PST by Forest Keeper ((It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5255 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; kosta50; MarkBsnr; metmom; stfassisi; OLD REGGIE; boatbums
"John's Gospel is presented as his eyewitness account of what he saw and what Jesus taught. It is presented as fact, not John's opinion. There is no supposition or conjecture. Therefore, if what he wrote is wrong he is either a liar or crazy."

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?

5,421 posted on 12/15/2010 12:37:35 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5419 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Kolokotronis; MarkBsnr; metmom; stfassisi; boatbums
FK: 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?

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:

2 Tim. 3:16-17 : 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

1 Cor. 4:6-7 : 6 Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not take pride in one man over against another. 7 For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?

Luke 1:1-4 : 1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

We also have Jesus' example of handling every temptation of satan with scripture only.

5,422 posted on 12/15/2010 12:56:17 PM PST by Forest Keeper ((It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5256 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; metmom; RnMomof7
Perhaps that's why I recognize the pattern. Unlike so many ex-Catholics who engage here in viciously attacking the Catholic Church, I still love Orthodoxy; I just no longer believe it. There is no struggle, just questions.

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.

5,423 posted on 12/15/2010 2:53:24 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5406 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper

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.


5,424 posted on 12/15/2010 3:12:27 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5407 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

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.


5,425 posted on 12/15/2010 5:08:55 PM PST by daniel1212 ( ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5408 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper

“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.


5,426 posted on 12/15/2010 5:20:21 PM PST by daniel1212 ( ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5407 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis; MarkBsnr; metmom
Actually, the Church can rightfully claim authorship at of least the New Testament, because all authors of the New Testament were Christians. Surely you'd agree the Church is competent to recognize its own! But the Church is also the author of the codex you call the Christian Bible, as the selection of books that were to be read exclusively was made by the Church hierarchy.

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)

5,427 posted on 12/15/2010 5:24:02 PM PST by daniel1212 ( ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5417 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
"“PhronemaI: Tell me the truth, you looked it up also."

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.

5,428 posted on 12/15/2010 5:25:00 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5425 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

Change “’dedication’ of one particular church” to identification. Sorry


5,429 posted on 12/15/2010 5:27:18 PM PST by daniel1212 ( ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5426 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; boatbums; metmom
, I still love Orthodoxy; I just no longer believe it. There is no struggle, just questions.

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?

5,430 posted on 12/15/2010 5:35:32 PM PST by RnMomof7 (Gal 4:16 asks "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5406 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change; RnMomof7; boatbums; metmom

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.


5,431 posted on 12/15/2010 5:54:00 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5105 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; boatbums; RnMomof7; metmom
And you also take this literally? JOHN 10:7

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.

5,432 posted on 12/15/2010 6:00:07 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5117 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; metmom
Was he or was he not called "Peter" before your magic ROCK event?

From these examples we only see that St. Peter was called Peter by Evangelist Matthew who wrote after the events in Matthew 16.

5,433 posted on 12/15/2010 6:02:07 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5118 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
inane analogies? [that perhaps Jesus likened St. Peter to the rock of the Church because he thought St. Peter forgot what his given name was]

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?

5,434 posted on 12/15/2010 6:06:17 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5119 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; boatbums; blue-duncan
leaves one to guess just what to believe

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.

St. Ignatius of Antioch

5,435 posted on 12/15/2010 6:12:46 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5120 | View Replies]

To: annalex; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; Belteshazzar; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww; ...
John 6:48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."

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?

5,436 posted on 12/15/2010 6:14:23 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5431 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; presently no screen name; bkaycee
One is present tense. One is future tense.

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.

5,437 posted on 12/15/2010 6:16:26 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5122 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; metmom; Iscool; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; Belteshazzar; bkaycee; blue-duncan
Annalex: The Church preserved what the Holy Apostles taught.

Old Reggie: Where?

In the entirety of the Holy Tradition of the Catholic Church.

5,438 posted on 12/15/2010 6:17:55 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5123 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; Iscool
There is no Apostolic "TRADITION" which supports The Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity, or Bodily Assumption of Mary

You know that how? You were there?

5,439 posted on 12/15/2010 6:18:55 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5124 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; OLD REGGIE; boatbums; blue-duncan

He is quoting selectively hoping no one would check the actual article. See my recent post.


5,440 posted on 12/15/2010 6:20:22 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5126 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; Forest Keeper
since the Renaissance, not on account of the Renaissance!

Ah, OK. Because the Renaissance itself was profoundly Catholic.

5,441 posted on 12/15/2010 6:22:11 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5145 | View Replies]

To: caww
The scriptures you have presented here have many times been explained

No they haven't. They have been spun away. No sale. You guys don't understand the scripture and run away from it. "See that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?" shouldn't require any "explanations", it means what it says.

5,442 posted on 12/15/2010 6:24:37 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5146 | View Replies]

To: caww
Not for my taste.

That was my point. The further down the history we go the more Catholic art becomes, and the least attraction it holds to the Protestant slave-to-its-age mind. That ought to tell you something.

5,443 posted on 12/15/2010 6:26:44 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5147 | View Replies]

To: metmom

That’s the catholic way.

Now for the REAL WAY, the ONLY WAY, those who are ‘in Christ’ have eternal life now. He has denied nothing from His church. Praise God!


5,444 posted on 12/15/2010 6:33:05 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5436 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Forest Keeper
"Because the Renaissance itself was profoundly Catholic."

And, by reason of the Fall of the City to the Turks and the flight of so many to Italy, a true intellectual child of the Empire.

5,445 posted on 12/15/2010 6:35:49 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5441 | View Replies]

To: annalex; OLD REGGIE; RnMomof7; metmom
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.

Then why don't we also drink water as the "water of life" that Jesus said he was?

John 4:9-14

Then the woman of Samaria said to Him, “How is it that You, being a Jew, ask a drink from me, a Samaritan woman?” For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans. Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.” The woman said to Him, “Sir, You have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep. Where then do You get that living water? Are You greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank from it himself, as well as his sons and his livestock?” Jesus answered and said to her, “Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.”

5,446 posted on 12/15/2010 6:37:24 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5432 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Kolokotronis; stfassisi; metmom; MarkBsnr; boatbums
FK: God has always been directly accessible through direct prayer, so God has changed nothing concerning that.

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.

There are countless examples of David praying to God in the "normal" sense, i.e. without having a supernatural one on one conversation with Him. Here are some other examples of "regular" prayer in the OT:

1 Sam. 1:12-16 : 12 As she kept on praying to the Lord, Eli observed her mouth. 13 Hannah was praying in her heart, and her lips were moving but her voice was not heard. Eli thought she was drunk 14 and said to her, “How long will you keep on getting drunk? Get rid of your wine.” 15 “Not so, my lord,” Hannah replied, “I am a woman who is deeply troubled. I have not been drinking wine or beer; I was pouring out my soul to the Lord. 16 Do not take your servant for a wicked woman; I have been praying here out of my great anguish and grief.”

Gen. 32:9-12 : 9 Then Jacob prayed, “O God of my father Abraham, God of my father Isaac, O Lord, who said to me, ‘Go back to your country and your relatives, and I will make you prosper,’ 10 I am unworthy of all the kindness and faithfulness you have shown your servant. I had only my staff when I crossed this Jordan, but now I have become two groups. 11 Save me, I pray, from the hand of my brother Esau, for I am afraid he will come and attack me, and also the mothers with their children. 12 But you have said, ‘I will surely make you prosper and will make your descendants like the sand of the sea, which cannot be counted.’ ”

Dan. 9:4-19 : 4 I prayed to the Lord my God and confessed: “O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with all who love him and obey his commands, 5 we have sinned and done wrong. We have been wicked and have rebelled; we have turned away from your commands and laws. 6 We have not listened to your servants the prophets, who spoke in your name to our kings, our princes and our fathers, and to all the people of the land. 7 “Lord, you are righteous, but this day we are covered with shame—the men of Judah and people of Jerusalem and all Israel, both near and far, in all the countries where you have scattered us because of our unfaithfulness to you. 8 O Lord, we and our kings, our princes and our fathers are covered with shame because we have sinned against you. 9 The Lord our God is merciful and forgiving, even though we have rebelled against him; 10 we have not obeyed the Lord our God or kept the laws he gave us through his servants the prophets. 11 All Israel has transgressed your law and turned away, refusing to obey you.

“Therefore the curses and sworn judgments written in the Law of Moses, the servant of God, have been poured out on us, because we have sinned against you. 12 You have fulfilled the words spoken against us and against our rulers by bringing upon us great disaster. Under the whole heaven nothing has ever been done like what has been done to Jerusalem. 13 Just as it is written in the Law of Moses, all this disaster has come upon us, yet we have not sought the favor of the Lord our God by turning from our sins and giving attention to your truth. 14 The Lord did not hesitate to bring the disaster upon us, for the Lord our God is righteous in everything he does; yet we have not obeyed him. 15 “Now, O Lord our God, who brought your people out of Egypt with a mighty hand and who made for yourself a name that endures to this day, we have sinned, we have done wrong. 16 O Lord, in keeping with all your righteous acts, turn away your anger and your wrath from Jerusalem, your city, your holy hill. Our sins and the iniquities of our fathers have made Jerusalem and your people an object of scorn to all those around us. 17 “Now, our God, hear the prayers and petitions of your servant. For your sake, O Lord, look with favor on your desolate sanctuary. 18 Give ear, O God, and hear; open your eyes and see the desolation of the city that bears your Name. We do not make requests of you because we are righteous, but because of your great mercy. 19 O Lord, listen! O Lord, forgive! O Lord, hear and act! For your sake, O my God, do not delay, because your city and your people bear your Name.”

In addition, all of Habakkuk 3 is listed as "A prayer of Habakkuk the prophet". Also see Solomon’s Prayer of Dedication (2 Chron 6:12-42). There really are plenty of others. Conventional prayer has always been around.

...... 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?

Not at all, the OT righteous got exactly what they prayed for all the time. Nothing has changed. When a child of God prays for anything in conformity with God's will, he gets it every time.

5,447 posted on 12/15/2010 6:57:43 PM PST by Forest Keeper ((It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5263 | View Replies]

To: annalex

“Christ in present fully in either consecrated species, so long as either species remains in appearance, respectively, apparent bread or apparent wine”

Let’s see here: Before the ‘species’ is consecrated Christ is not present body, blood, soul and divinity but after consecration he is but only “so long as one of the two species remains what it appears to be, the entire Christ is present.”

He’s not present, he is present and then he’s not present as the apparent bread, which is body, blood, soul, divinity is eaten and changes appearance. Same for the apparent wine.

“This is why a communion in bread alone or in wine alone is possible, and in fact for many centuries was the norm.”

Amongst whom? Certainly not among those who followed Jesus’ instructions given at that last memorial meal, not amongst those who were going to be part of that “new covenant”, so amongst whom was this counterfeit communion acceptable?

The only place where Christ’s blood was offered was in heaven. (Hebrews 9:12)

I can see why you say it’s not something to think about


5,448 posted on 12/15/2010 7:14:20 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5431 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Kolokotronis; Forest Keeper; kosta50
Ah, OK. Because the Renaissance itself was profoundly Catholic.

Was this comment "tongue in cheek"? I hope? I did find some interesting info about the Renaissance, from our friends at Wikipedia I think may aid the discussion:

*******************************************

The new ideals of humanism, although more secular in some aspects, developed against a Christian backdrop, especially in the Northern Renaissance. Indeed, much (if not most) of the new art was commissioned by or in dedication to the Church. However, the Renaissance had a profound effect on contemporary theology, particularly in the way people perceived the relationship between man and God. Many of the period's foremost theologians were followers of the humanist method, including Erasmus, Zwingli, Thomas More, Martin Luther, and John Calvin.

The Renaissance began in times of religious turmoil. The late Middle Ages saw a period of political intrigue surrounding the Papacy, culminating in the Western Schism, in which three men simultaneously claimed to be true Bishop of Rome. While the schism was resolved by the Council of Constance (1414), the 15th century saw a resulting reform movement know as Conciliarism, which sought to limit the pope's power. Although the papacy eventually emerged supreme in ecclesiastical matters by the Fifth Council of the Lateran (1511), it was dogged by continued accusations of corruption, most famously in the person of Pope Alexander VI, who was accused variously of simony, nepotism and fathering four illegitimate children whilst Pope, whom he married off to gain more power.

Churchmen such as Erasmus and Luther proposed reform to the Church, often based on humanist textual criticism of the New Testament. Indeed, it was Luther who in October 1517 published the 95 Theses, challenging papal authority and criticizing its perceived corruption, particularly with regard to its sale of indulgences. The 95 Theses led to the Reformation, a break with the Roman Catholic Church that previously claimed hegemony in Western Europe. Humanism and the Renaissance therefore played a direct role in sparking the Reformation, as well as in many other contemporaneous religious debates and conflicts.

5,449 posted on 12/15/2010 7:42:23 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5441 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi; kosta50; Kolokotronis; metmom; MarkBsnr; boatbums
FK: God doesn't have to change Himself for Him to change direction.

This does not make sense if God can't be moved or changed. What MOVES God that He needs to change direction?

What moves God in this context is His own plan, executed within time. At one point in time God instituted the "Old Covenant". Then later He changed course, by preordained design, and instituted the New Covenant. God Himself did not change and neither did His plan. The plan simply involved change, which I suppose is necessary for anything within time. Of course God is not at all constrained by time, but it is clear that He has chosen to do some of His work within it.

5,450 posted on 12/15/2010 7:49:53 PM PST by Forest Keeper ((It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5271 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 5,351-5,4005,401-5,4505,451-5,500 ... 7,351-7,356 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson