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
Ah, OK. Because the Renaissance itself was profoundly Catholic.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.”
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:
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.
“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
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.
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.
That's why I love debating you guys, you make it SO easy. So "us guys" are the ones who run away from the understanding of Scripture? How about those who pull one verse, out of context, and then deny a ream of other verses that countermand their choice verse? Okay, you say a man is "justified by works"? Well, tell me how you then "explain" this:
Romans 3:23-26
23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
......”Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus”.......
I think this goes over their heads because their focus remains on how ‘they’ might gain favor before God...still. While He is trying to open their eyes that is He who has done the work....At the root of their thinking is pride...like the Sadduces and Pharises.
As we know it took the Diciples along time to understand Jesus’s teachings...and He had to repeat time and again His truths to them before they finally got it....and most didn’t until after His Resurrection....which the Resurrection needs a closer look at for many of them I think...as Christ is no longer on the cross.
I say this because I have noted much in the Catholic prayers posted show agony of spirit and begging God for forgiveness....where as He has clearly stated He is more than ready to forgive and cleanse us when we sin. Might be because they do pray to the departed to let Jesus know they are praying this...and the departed for help that they might not know His forgiveness unless they see themsleves begging...once more the focus on how much ‘they” display thier remorse than on His love which does Forgive. Prodical son comes to mind.....even before He got to His father the Father was preparing a feast.
I think this statement does capture a core principle of the Apostolic Church, that of glorifying the merit of man.
Amen. I love that the father of the prodigal son was keeping watch for him, he never stopped looking for him to return and before the son even got close to the house, his father seeing him from far away ran to meet him and threw his arms around him joyously kissing his neck and shouting, “Come, rejoice with me, for this my son who was dead is alive again; he was lost and now he is found.” I tear up every time I read that passage in Luke 15 because I think of my own life and my past rebellion from him, but he never gave up on me and was constantly drawing me back to him. Praise the Lord for his unceasing mercy and love!
Believers should not have to be commanded to remember him any more than family members have to be commanded to remember their loved ones.
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 Scriptures.
Yes you have and thank you again. It's a good source of study, but of course it is not all that it's hyped to be. It wold be good to debate it but on another thread.
and for Sola Scriptura here are some examples in support:
2 Tim. 3:16-17 : 16 All Scripture is God-breathed...
Neat, except Paul doesn't specify what constitutes scripture, by whose decision, and how. Jewish canon was not uniform. It varied greatly between the sectarian communities of Samaria, the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Alexandrian Greek-speaking diaspora.
...1 Cor. 4:6-7 : 6 ...“Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not take pride in one man over against another
Unless, of course, he is Paul! Now, you may try the banal Berean argument, which of course itself is another vague and open-ended argument, because it doesn't say that just, because the checked the scriptures (whatever they were), they found Paul's ramblings to be true; it just says they checked and not what they conlcuded.
Supposedly being an observant Jew, it is strange that he would think so lowly of oral transmission of the faith, which, in Judaism, is actually considered higher than the written, and which was not reduced to writing until well into the Christian era otherwise known as the Talmud.
Only the Christians consider Paul a "Hebrew scholar." People who practice Judaism and are familiar with Hebrew scholarship don't, the way Christians know that Mormons are not Christians and that it would be wrong to call Joseph Smith a "Christian" anything.
...Luke 1:1-4...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.
So, how did the people before Luke know with "certainty" what they have been taught before any of the NT (or for that matter any scripture) was written and widely read? Luke himself gathered what others told him, and not something he actually read! And what about those poor souls (most of the pagan world) who couildn;t read? LOL! This is so naïve it's embarrassing anyone would take it seriously.
We also have Jesus' example of handling every temptation of satan with scripture only.
Yeah, right, in the Greek, Zoroastrian-influenced dualistic sectarian stroy-telling. The Jews don't believe in the devil. How could an observant Jew?
Scared of what? If I believed that faith saves I would be. But I don't. The pattern I see is animosity towards one's former Church.
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?
Anyone who thinks he needs to be "saved," by or through faith or whatever, is going to be concerned with it at some point in their lifetime, especially if the Church they belonged to teaches that becoming an apostate is analogous to be damned.
As for considering the "concept that they are expressing their understanding of the truth from God's word, rather than accepting man's explanation of it" is concerned, isn't your explanation also in the same category of "man's explanation" of it? Why is yours "God's truth" and theirs' isn't?
This is the reason for our posts, and not because of hate.
Well if it's not love...
Indifference really IS the opposite of love, think about it.
Redefining the English language as well? What's next? The new Evangelical Thesaurus of Antonyms?
Until then, I will communicate using the standard English definition of words, lest I be misunderstood, where the antonym of love is: hatred, dislike; detest, hate.
Indifference is what I say about things I don't care to talk or write about—like fruit flies.
Yes. Of course. In 5130 did I say anythig different? We know that those who believe in Jesus Christ will have everlasting life. You believe in some statements made by Jesus Christ, ignore others (I showed which) and add your own tenets that contradict the Gospel.
You cannot say that you believe in Jesus Christ unless you believe in everything the Jesus Christ said. More often than not, you don't. You spin Matthew 25 away, you spin the words of Institution away, in Luke 18:18-25 you make Jesus a liar out to trick an honest questioner, -- the list is long. The Protestants do not believe in Jesus Christ according to their Protestant faith; if they do, that is because from time to time they ignore their pastors. Catholics believe in everything Christ said, if they are good Catholics.
Protestants don't do as I do. I do not quote anything out of context. If you think I misinterpreted scripture I cited, Caww, show me where and how.
Hebrew 7:11 says that another priest will rise, who is not of levitical priesthood. Luke 22:19 tells the Apostles to do what Jesus did: offer His body under the consecrated bread and wine. So Christ is a new prioest, and the Apostles offer His sacrifice in the Eucharist. That is new priesthood.
a tortured redefinition of the Greek in the Latin Vulgate and Douay Rheims (1 Timothy 4:14).
"Presbyteros" is Christian priest. The issue is not how you translate it, -- I am fine with leaving it untranslated, presbyteros. What do presbyteroi do? See Luke 22:19. See also James 5:14.
Some of the writings are heavily "synchronized" (Synoptic Gospels) or heavily interpolated (the Gospel of John), for example. Luke himself admits admits to compiling what he heard from others and form research, rather than by the "divine inspiration." So, although no formal committee took place as far as we know, the writings are evidently the result of multiple sources and multiple contributors.
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
Thank you. Maybe the Protestant crowd will now stop mocking the Church for claiming author of the Christian Bible. Not only does the Church have the copyright on the New Testament, but is the exclusive publisher of the compiled books of Both Testaments, otherwise known as the Christian Bible, as well.
while what the whole compilation would consist of was not finally, fully decisively settled for RC's until Trent, as we have hitherto discussed.
We've had this discussion before I am not going into another marathon race again on it. The canon was set in the west by the end of the 4th century and approved by the pope at the onset of the 5th. The west abided by that canon all the way until Trent when, with a minor relabeling of a couple of books of the OT deuterocanonicals, it set the canon "ecumenically" in silence. The NT was not touched. In the East, the harry Potter book of Revelation, which was rejected in the East, was compromislingly accepted as (more like horse traded) as canonical, but is never to this day read liturgically in Eastern Churches.
However, while your here points can be basically acknowledged, there is more to it than the instrumentality by which Scriptures were codified.
...and (can you make it brief)? And what most essentially gave Holy Tradition its authority? What was its basis? >[? What the Church considers the "Apostolic Faith," as expressed by the early Christian apologetics.
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.
I thin that is an excellent description of it.
There certainly was an ecclesiastical process [in forming the canon by the Church] which most are ignorant of
I hope your fellow Protestants take note of this.
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
I agree, except that the "quality" of the writing had to do with various additions and deletions, copying errors, etc. which eventually produced an internally somewhat consistent novel. Extant copies of variants show that to be so, and that a lot of manipulation and doctrinal "harmonizing" went into the final product.
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.