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 ... 5,401-5,4505,451-5,5005,501-5,550 ... 7,351-7,356 next last
To: annalex; caww
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'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.

5,451 posted on 12/15/2010 7:58:20 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5442 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

......”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.


5,452 posted on 12/15/2010 8:22:22 PM PST by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5451 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi; kosta50; Kolokotronis; MarkBsnr; metmom; OLD REGGIE; boatbums
“Every heresy in the history of the Church has been either a truth exaggerated to an excess, or diminished to a defect. Calvinism, for example, had a very good first principle, which is a sound Catholic principle, namely, the absolute Sovereignty of God; but Calvin carried it so far as to rule out human merit. Bolshevism, too, is grounded on a very sound Catholic principle, which is the Brotherhood of Man, but it has exaggerated it so far as to leave no room for the Sovereignty of God. And so it is easy to fall into any of these extremes, and to lose one’s intellectual balance. The thrill is in keeping it.”- Bishop Fulton J Sheen

I think this statement does capture a core principle of the Apostolic Church, that of glorifying the merit of man.

1 Pet. 1:24 : For, “All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, (from Is. 40:6-8).
5,453 posted on 12/15/2010 9:31:24 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 5278 | View Replies]

To: caww

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!


5,454 posted on 12/15/2010 10:45:51 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5452 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis; MarkBsnr; metmom; stfassisi; boatbums
Christ Himself said "Do this in remembrance of me.

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?

5,455 posted on 12/16/2010 4:18:09 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5422 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; metmom; RnMomof7
You "recognize the pattern"? Does that mean you are "scared"?

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.

5,456 posted on 12/16/2010 4:48:47 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5423 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
Do you really believe, as John 3:16 says, that we HAVE eternal life by believing in Jesus Christ?

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.

5,457 posted on 12/16/2010 5:37:28 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5148 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; caww
As if individual Protestants don't do the same thing?

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.

5,458 posted on 12/16/2010 5:39:33 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5149 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; caww
I can see no relationship in your claim to the Priesthood begun by Jesus in your first two references (Hebrews 7:11 and Luke 22:19)

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.

5,459 posted on 12/16/2010 5:45:29 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5157 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212; Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis; MarkBsnr; metmom
although the writings themselves were not the work of a committee

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.

5,460 posted on 12/16/2010 5:47:01 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5427 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; presently no screen name; metmom; count-your-change
For example, saying that "Mary never intented to have sex with Joseph" while pointing to a verse that does not say anything of the kind is telling a lie

I explained how Luke 1:34 allows us to conclude that Mary did not intend to have sex with Joseph her husband following the marriage. I did not say that Luke 1:34 says anything other than what it says. Where is the lie?

5,461 posted on 12/16/2010 5:48:21 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5166 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; editor-surveyor; presently no screen name; metmom
Where does the bible teach we are saved through any works?

Romans 2:7-10, Matthew 25:31-46, James 2:17-26.

What good works did the thief on the cross do?

Defended the innocently accused and did penance for his crime. Funny you ask -- did you read the Gospel at all? Try it one day.

5,462 posted on 12/16/2010 5:51:25 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5167 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212; Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis; MarkBsnr; metmom
True, and Jesus said that the tares most be allowed to grow along with the wheat

Of course he did. It's called covering all your bases. The Bible is full of such strategically placed comments.

Consistent with the authorship/stewardship=authority logic, than the first Christians should have submitted to the Jews. Which you probably agree with

Many did. Paul didn't, but Paul was an outsider, and his faction won, mainly because the Jewish Christians got kicked out of Israel and Judaism. The Catholic Church has the authority because it is the author and the steward and the owner of the Christian Bible. If the presumed divine author of the scriptures gave stewardship to the Catholic Church, he also delegated the authority to be the guardian of what is in it and how it is interpreted, unless he took a "chance" hoping they'd get it right.  :)

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)

And what makes Matthew or John the sons of Abraham? Is their faith equal to his? Do you know one Christian whose is willing to sacrifice his own children? As for John's Gospel, that was written at the end of the century with the explicit agenda to demonize the Jews. Matthew's rabid anti-Jewish sentiment is also considered one of the major factor for the rejection of Christianity in Israel.

And by the way, Jews don't believe in the devil, so Mat 3:9 is obviously not only unfriendly but theologically alien to the Jews. Obviously it wasn't written to win hearts and minds but, in retrospect, as an attack on the Jewish community for rejecting Jesus—another piece of evidence the Gospels weren't written early but late in the first century.

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)

Luke doesn't give credit to God but to himself (Luke 1:1-3). In Acts he is talking about recounting what Jesus did and taught. That's not "inspiration." It's recollection.

5,463 posted on 12/16/2010 5:52:11 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5427 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; boatbums; metmom
Kosta: I still love Orthodoxy; I just no longer believe it. There is no struggle, just questions.

RnMomof7: 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...

I love what Orthodoxy teaches, as an idea towards humanity. What's there not to love? Is certainly stands in stark contrast to the hateful Calvinist teaching of babies in hell and some divine "Love" creating human beings destined to hell.

How does one love a false religion?

Do you love only what is true? You don't have to believe something true to love it. I always liked Greek mythology without ever believing any of it. Are novels lies? Do you hate fiction because it's not true?

Aesthetics and richness of human creativity can be appreciated and enjoyed without worshiping it.

How does one love lies?

Are they lies of just honest (if mistaken) beliefs?

5,464 posted on 12/16/2010 6:04:55 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5430 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis; stfassisi; metmom; MarkBsnr; boatbums
Kosta: 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.

FK: 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

He didn't need supernatural anything, being favored of God. You do realize David is referred to as the anointed one in the Old Testament (2 Chronicles 6:42), namely christos or christ in Greek Septuagint, and mashiyah (messiah) in Hebrew. Hardly some Tom, Dick or Harry. :)

So, I think he had a direct line on his iPhone if you know what I mean. :)

5,465 posted on 12/16/2010 6:27:20 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5447 | View Replies]

To: annalex
“I explained how Luke 1:34 allows us to conclude that Mary did not intend to have sex with Joseph her husband following the marriage.”

Ummm...NO..... Mary says, “How shall be this since man not I am knowing”. (Luke 1:34)

“shall be” is the future and “not I am knowing” is present. Mary says she is not at the time she is speaking ‘knowing’ a man and says nothing about her intents or future. To conclude from her statement something otherwise is simply reading into it what one wants it to say.

5,466 posted on 12/16/2010 8:10:24 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5461 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

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.

And if such were the case, the Church of the fourth century is that of Rome today, that they certainly were amiss in failing to put at even one example of believers praying to the departed, or instructions thereto, or for the church to submit to feature as it's supreme head, etc. But besides your expected imaginative conspiratorial overtones and inferences of collusion, you seem to insist that divine inspiration can only be some sort of dictation of entirely new knowledge, rather than discerning and expressing truth when writing a historical record.

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.

The issue is what this avails, as my statement was not in isolation from the last paragraphs in my response to your post. In brief, the very scriptures which are authorized attest that the authority of a true believer or church is not established by formal historical lineage, but by scriptural faith by which it exists. And that being the body through whom divine revelation flowed and was discerned does not render them assuredly infallible autocratic interpreters of it. The reality is that God could raise up a true visible church tomorrow, which is part of the Church Universal, which only consist of born-again believers, which is the church from out of which the scriptures flowed. Both Catholics and Protestants must (and most do) agree that this body transcends their divisions, though the number of evident believers corresponds to the degree to which their faith is manifestly Biblical.

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.

Yes and we certainly do not need to go into another marathon session on it, though I have more data that establishes my statement that the Roman Catholic canon was not fully decisively settled for RC's until Trent, after which the degree of continuing internal disagreement and discussion among a notable minority ceased.

.and (can you make it brief)? And what most essentially gave Holy Tradition its authority? What was its basis?

Supernatural qualities and attestation, which was given to such men as Moses, Jesus, and the apostles, and which contrite, repentant, be believing souls in the Lord Jesus Christ find today today and due measure.

I thin that is an excellent description of it.

As you must. I think we all understand that despite your affirmation of the Orthodox Church has concerns historical warrant, you reject its Bible and its God most antagonistically. And for that I think both sides here are grieved and saddened.

5,467 posted on 12/16/2010 9:44:05 AM PST by daniel1212 ( ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5460 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
The Catholic Church has the authority because it is the author and the steward and the owner of the Christian Bible.

So much for the Orthodox church.

If the presumed divine author of the scriptures gave stewardship to the Catholic Church, he also delegated the authority to be the guardian of what is in it and how it is interpreted,

If the authenticity of the church is based upon historical lineage and which confers an autocratic infallible magisterium which defines itself as being scriptural. And that is the issue as regards her assertions of authority, not simply being the guide, nor being able to teach infallibility, but presuming she assuredly formulaically is, and thus may teach for doctrines things which are contrary to the Scriptures, the latter of which is what Jesus Christ reproved the Jews for so doing. And the Scriptures affirms men testing claims by the Scriptures as available to them. (Acts 17:11)

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)

And what makes Matthew or John the sons of Abraham? Is their faith equal to his? Do you know one Christian whose is willing to sacrifice his own children? As for John's Gospel, that was written at the end of the century with the explicit agenda to demonize the Jews. Matthew's rabid anti-Jewish sentiment is also considered one of the major factor for the rejection of Christianity in Israel.

What makes such the Sons of Abraham is the very scriptures (Lk. 13:16;19:9; Rm. 2:28,29; Gal. 3) which the church of Rome asserts the right to be the supreme unassailable interpreter of, and that is what the aforementioned examples oppose. But as expected, you seek to attack the integrity of the scriptures which is not relevant to that argument, or consistent with what Roman teaches, though many of its scholars are overall liberal.where

And by the way, Jews don't believe in the devil, so Mat 3:9 is obviously not only unfriendly but theologically alien to the Jews.

You have the wrong verse, and we've touched on this belief before, but belief in a personal devil was not the only thing that Jesus taught that they found offensive, and the devil is not only mentioned in one gospel, but all, while John 8:44 is another example on Jesus correcting the fallible Jews. And that is good considering some of the things the Babylonian Talmud says about demons, which sources such as “The Jewish Religion: A Companion” deny were inserted into the Talmud by ignorant copyists or by those influenced by folk-beliefs, which were repudiated by the rabbis themselves. Biblical commentators in classical Judaism differ in what the serpent in Gn. 3 represented, from the evil inclination (Yetzer HaRa), Satan, or the Angel of Death to a phallic symbol. According to the Midrash, before this cunning beast was cursed, it stood erect and was endowed with some faculty of communication. All of which is really irrelevant to the issue, as the Roman Catholic church affirms Jesus words as being divinely inspired truth.

Luke doesn't give credit to God but to himself (Luke 1:1-3). In Acts he is talking about recounting what Jesus did and taught. That's not "inspiration." It's recollection.

By this we understand that for something to be divine it must preclude using human recollection, and a believer could never describe what he did by the grace of God without explicitly saying such. But again in this, the Catholic Church to whom you ascribe authority of the scriptures disagrees with you in what you determined constitutes inspiration. And as we agree with her in other foundational doctrines that are Scripturally substantiated, so here also.

5,468 posted on 12/16/2010 9:44:21 AM PST by daniel1212 ( ("Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5463 | View Replies]

To: annalex; 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.

Just as Jesus taught His Apostles - NOT!

Matthew 26:
26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body."
27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you;
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

But then, you know a better way than Jesus taught.

5,469 posted on 12/16/2010 9:58:09 AM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5431 | View Replies]

To: annalex; RnMomof7; presently no screen name; metmom
Romans 2 gives no comfort to those lost in "salvation by works;" to the contrary, it addresses hypocrisy:

Rom.2
[1] Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
[2] But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
[3] And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
[4] Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
[5] But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
[6] Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
[7] To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
[8] But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
[9] Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
[10] But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
[11] For there is no respect of persons with God.
[12] For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
[13] (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
[14] For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
[15] Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
Matthew 25, "The parable of the Talents," also is devoid of any indication of "salvation by works," in as much as it deals with stewardship, which is valid only to those already saved.

Works are the result of salvation.

5,470 posted on 12/16/2010 10:07:52 AM PST by editor-surveyor (Obamacare is America's kristallnacht !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5462 | View Replies]

To: annalex; 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.

JOHN 6:63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

But Jesus did tell them to do it in remembrance of Him.

Matthew 26:
26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body."
27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you;
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

5,471 posted on 12/16/2010 10:14:33 AM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5432 | View Replies]

To: annalex; 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.

What is your point? All the Gospels were written after the events in Matthew 16. They were not diaries.

However, the Gospel accounts describe events prior to the Matthew 16 event.

Matthew 8:[14] And when Jesus entered Peter's house, he saw his mother-in-law lying sick with a fever;

Matthew 10:[2] The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb'edee, and John his brother;

Matthew 14:[28] And Peter answered him, "Lord, if it is you, bid me come to you on the water."
[29] He said, "Come." So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus;

Matthew 15:[15] But Peter said to him, "Explain the parable to us."

Mark 3:[16] Simon whom he surnamed Peter;

Mark 5:[37] And he allowed no one to follow him except Peter and James and John the brother of James.

Luke 5:[8] But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord."

Luke 6 [14] Simon, whom he named Peter, and Andrew his brother, and James and John, and Philip, and Bartholomew,

Luke 8:[45] And Jesus said, "Who was it that touched me?" When all denied it, Peter said, "Master, the multitudes surround you and press upon you!"

[51] And when he came to the house, he permitted no one to enter with him, except Peter and John and James, and the father and mother of the child.

He certainly was known as "Peter" prior to your magic "rock" event.

5,472 posted on 12/16/2010 10:34:04 AM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5433 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Would you please explain why Jesus said that phrase about "Peter" and "rock" in Matthew 16:18?

Perhaps you should rely on the teaching of the Catholic Church.

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.

It was Peters' faith, not Peter himself upon which Jesus built His Church.

5,473 posted on 12/16/2010 10:41:28 AM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5434 | View Replies]

To: annalex; 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

Your reply has no relationship whatsoever to my post #5120.

Care to begin again?

5,474 posted on 12/16/2010 10:46:18 AM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5435 | View Replies]

ph


5,475 posted on 12/16/2010 10:51:46 AM PST by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5474 | View Replies]

To: annalex; 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.

Even assuming the imaginative definition of the "I know not's" had any credibility one must assume no "I know not" was ever changed from "I don't" to "I do".

Get real and read the whole story of Joseph's reaction when he found she was pregnant.

I am tired of this merry go round. Enough!

5,476 posted on 12/16/2010 3:12:00 PM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5437 | View Replies]

To: annalex; 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.

I have been described as a cranky old man. I am.

I am tired of this infantile baloney.

5,477 posted on 12/16/2010 3:15:32 PM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5438 | View Replies]

To: annalex; 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?

Maybe. The chances are just as good as the men who told you those stories were there.

5,478 posted on 12/16/2010 3:20:42 PM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5439 | View Replies]

To: annalex; kosta50; boatbums; blue-duncan
He is quoting selectively hoping no one would check the actual article. See my recent post.

I can just imagine you and Kosta holding hands while you go skip, skip, skipping down the road.

Are you a mind reader? Please be aware this is discouraged on FR.

5,479 posted on 12/16/2010 3:26:02 PM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5440 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; kosta50; Kolokotronis; MarkBsnr; boatbums
STF quoting Fulton Sheen but Calvin carried it so far as to rule out human merit.

FK-I think this statement does capture a core principle of the Apostolic Church, that of glorifying the merit of man.

How you came up with the idea of glorifying human merit out of this is beyond me?

Self denial is human merit. God does not force self denial on us,dear brother,or we would be robots.

Calvin wanted to pawn off his sins on God and say it it was part of God's will to support his extreme dualistic personality of monster and think by interpreting the Gospel according to his own will He was doing God's will.

Calvin was very muslim like in doing this because his view of God is dualistic

5,480 posted on 12/16/2010 3:34:24 PM PST by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5453 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

Let me try the first sentence of my first post today again:

“And if such were the case, and the Church of the fourth century is that of Rome today, then they certainly were amiss in failing to put even one example of believers praying to the departed, or instructions thereto, or for the church to submit to Peter as it’s supreme head, etc.”

The text to speech software failed to read my mind, and i missed proofing this sentence.


5,481 posted on 12/16/2010 3:42:21 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 5460 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi; Forest Keeper; kosta50; MarkBsnr; boatbums
"How you came up with the idea of glorifying human merit out of this is beyond me?"

Got to say I agree with sfa, FK. You lost me on this one!

"Calvin was very muslim like in doing this because his view of God is dualistic."

More Manichean, sfa. In fact, I'd suggest that Calvinism really is more Manichean than Christian.

5,482 posted on 12/16/2010 3:54:06 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5480 | View Replies]

To: annalex; presently no screen name; metmom; count-your-change
For example, saying that "Mary never intented to have sex with Joseph" while pointing to a verse that does not say anything of the kind is telling a lie

I explained how Luke 1:34 allows us to conclude that Mary did not intend to have sex with Joseph her husband following the marriage. I did not say that Luke 1:34 says anything other than what it says. Where is the lie?

I have no intention of holding your hand throughout the entire process. Begin here:

If you have difficulty in discerning my intention, or your gratituous accusation of a "lie", simply forget the whole thing. I'll explain it to my cat who will certainly be equally capable of understanding. Besides, I am more patient with her.

5,483 posted on 12/16/2010 4:05:56 PM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5461 | View Replies]

To: annalex; metmom; RnMomof7
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.

Missed the point, again! I will try to remember that I must spell everything out for you and not assume you will recognize nuance.

You really cannot say we "Protestants" ignore selected Scriptures - I know that is always the pat answer, but it doesn't really work. When I asked you if you believed John 3:16, you replied you did, yet you then continue stating the standard Catholic line of works being necessary for salvation. Tell me where in John 3:16 does our Lord say "that whosoever believeth in him (and does good works) shall not perish but have everlasting life"? That's what I meant about needing to add the spin and say it doesn't really mean what it says that you accuse Protestants of.

Please save your "Protestants don't believe in Christ" rhetoric because you are wrong, you have been told that repeatedly, you have been shown it repeatedly, yet you cannot refrain from saying it at every opportunity. I KNOW Catholics do not believe in everything Christ said, because I once was one and rarely did we even read for ourselves what God's word said and if we dared do so and, as a result, we questioned the "Church's" teachings, we were admonished to leave the "interpreting" to the priest. You can deny this all you want, but I experienced it for myself as have others on this forum. We were lied to, deceived and drawn away from the truth of God's grace and God, through his mercy and love, saw our earnest desire for the truth and he rewarded our search with his true Gospel.

As many of have said, we did not initially seek to leave the Catholic Church but we eventually realized that staying, knowing what we now do, would hinder our walk with Christ and we would be hypocrites pretending allegiance to a religion that we knew did not teach the truth.

5,484 posted on 12/16/2010 4:31:35 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5457 | View Replies]

To: annalex; boatbums
You cannot say that you believe in Jesus Christ unless you believe in everything the Jesus Christ said.

Everything? In context?

Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Jhn 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Jhn 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Jhn 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Jhn 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

Jhn 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins.

Jhn 16:8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment::9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;

Jhn 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Jesus once asked peter.."who do you say I am"..Who do you say He is? What did His death on a cross accomplish for you? Did it mearly make it possible for you to earn salvation through your church and works or did it really do something?? Look to Christ annalex , not yourself or a religious institution ... Born to us this day is a Savior. A SAVIOR

Jesus never taught salvation by works, in fact he taught just the opposite

Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

What is the will of the Father? Scripture says this is His will for men Jhn 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The will of the Father is that we believe, so what does Jesus say to the man that thought his works or self righteousness would earn him salvation ?

Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
That mans WORKS which he did in the name of Jesus were called SIN (iniquity) by Christ. Why?

Rom 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because [he eateth] not of faith: for whatsoever [is] not of faith is sin.

Please this Christmas do not look into the manger and the infant there..look to the cross and the man that is the propitiation (wrath bearer) for your sins..

Believe John 6

Jhn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
Jhn 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
Jhn 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

5,485 posted on 12/16/2010 5:22:02 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 5457 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

Amen. I believe that when we get this part right, everything else makes sense!


5,486 posted on 12/16/2010 5:45:32 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5485 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
Moral of the story: There’s no use in overreacting to the events and circumstances of our everyday lives. Many times what looks like a setback, may actually be a gift in disguise. And when our hearts are in the right place, all events and circumstances are gifts that we can learn valuable lessons from.

Amen, that's a great story. It's absolutely true that we cannot always understand how what is happening around us is good. I am immediately reminded of the story of Joseph and his jealous brothers. The attitude he had is a great role model.

5,487 posted on 12/16/2010 5:45:37 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 5377 | View Replies]

To: metmom; boatbums; Grizzled Bear; RnMomof7; presently no screen name; 1000 silverlings
If it's not found in Scripture, it's veracity is up for grabs

It requires faith, -- but we also accept the scripture by faith. There is no shortage of sundry atheists who say that the veracity of the Holy Scripture is up for grabs. You either trust the Church's witness or you don't. Those who do are Catholics.

the Catholic church is in a pretty weak position to criticize and condemn someone for being skeptical of their truthfulness.

To criticize is logical, because by your scepsis your faith is defective and illogical. To condemn is indeed unfair, but I do not condemn anyone for lack of belief of any kind. You are not Catholic and you are free to believe whatever you want. Now, what is worthy of condemnation are the Protestant beliefs that contradict the scripture, and they happen to be your foundational beliefs in Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. For those I do condemn you as heretics and people who place their souls in great peril by listening to the charlatans of the Reformation. You disbelief in the life of the Holy Mother of God as it is known to us is something I am ready to shrug off; I only argue on this because you choose to argue.

5,488 posted on 12/16/2010 6:01:56 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5169 | View Replies]

To: metmom; Belteshazzar; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww
You don't become a saint by *acting like one*. You act like one after you become a saint.

Scripture, please. This is one of those Protestant theological fantasies. Sanctification is gradual and lasts a lifetime.

[2] Grace to you and peace be accomplished in the knowledge of God and of Christ Jesus our Lord: [3] As all things of his divine power which appertain to life and godliness, are given us, through the knowledge of him who hath called us by his own proper glory and virtue. [4] By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world. [5] And you, employing all care, minister in your faith, virtue; and in virtue, knowledge; [6] And in knowledge, abstinence; and in abstinence, patience; and in patience, godliness; [7] And in godliness, love of brotherhood; and in love of brotherhood, charity. [8] For if these things be with you and abound, they will make you to be neither empty nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. [9] For he that hath not these things with him, is blind, and groping, having forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. [10] Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time. (2 Peter 1)

Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect (Matthew 5:48)

If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow me (Matthew 19:21)


5,489 posted on 12/16/2010 6:08:09 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5170 | View Replies]

To: annalex; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; Belteshazzar; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww; ...
Do you take this literally?

It's from John 6 right near the place where Catholics claim that Jesus said they had to eat His actual flesh and drink his actual blood.

John 6:52-58 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever."

Here it says that whoever eats His flesh and blood will live forever and never die.

Don't Catholics die?

If they do, does that mean they didn't REALLY eat Jesus REAL flesh and blood?

5,490 posted on 12/16/2010 6:37:11 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5432 | View Replies]

To: metmom; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; Belteshazzar; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww

I usually don’t answer out of sequence, but as a bonus for your quick reponse, yes, we do believe that. One who worthily (for example, after a confession that resulted in absolution of sins) partakes of the Holy Eucharist, till such time that he sins again, is ready for Heaven and will have life eternal forever if he should die.


5,491 posted on 12/16/2010 6:47:20 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5490 | View Replies]

To: metmom; count-your-change

Perhaps (5) Still, we don’t take for granted that Mary did not have other children just so, we believe the witness of the Church.

However, I don’t argue over words. Whatever it is you think we are doing, it is a belief based on our belief in the historical witness of the Church, the same belief that we have in the scripture as a historical document produced by the Church.


5,492 posted on 12/16/2010 6:52:26 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5171 | View Replies]

To: Belteshazzar
Annalex: “... act like a saint,— then you become like a saint and therefore you will be saved.”

Belteshazzar: So, this is your response to my question of how a “good tree” comes to be?

Yes, -- why is it not a response? You may disagree with it -- on that in a moment , but why do you accuse me that I "don’t listen and respond to what’s said in a way that indicates you actually understand the point at issue"? You asked how one is counted among good trees or among sheep, and I answered: by becoming a saint.

It is not something God does, but the individual does?

Individual and God cooperate in that. God answers the prayer and gives man strength to withstand trials and be a saint.

Whatsoever we shall ask, we shall receive of him: because we keep his commandments, and do those things which are pleasing in his sight (1 John 3:22, several similar )

Annalex: “You are saved by your works of charity.”

Belteshazzar: Where do you get your doctrine from?

Romans 2:6-10, Matthew 25:31-46, James 2:17-26, Apocalypse 22:12.

This is where the white rabbit has led you, away from the written Word of God

Sorry, I am not one discussing rabbits. If you have a scriptural comment, make one, like an adult, please.

5,493 posted on 12/16/2010 7:03:23 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5172 | View Replies]

To: annalex; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; Belteshazzar; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww; ...

That’s not what it says.

It says he shall live forever. Why isn’t Peter still alive then and the rest of the apostles who partook of the Last Supper with Jesus?

If you take the preceding sentences literally, why not that one?


5,494 posted on 12/16/2010 7:09:26 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5491 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; metmom
I did not quote the verses that contradict your misreading of the context of verses in James because I already have on this thread as have many others, plus I think you are already aware of those I am speaking of

I am aware of some spin to do with works being an automatic result from faith and that Paul said that works of the law do not say. None of that is satisfying as an answer, and I am sure if you posted your musings to me, I answered in that vain, and if you did not post your musings to me, please do so.

how you can read in one place that we are saved by faith alone

Where do I read that? There is no scripture that says "that we are saved by faith alone". That is the whole problem.

perhaps it is your own misreading of certain verses

In a dozenb verses that drive home the point, how can one "misread" " Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?" (James 2:24).

I can easily make the claim that the Catholic Church has repeatedly invented doctrines that are denied in the Scripture, yet because you contend that they are "Holy Tradition" it ceases to matter that Scripture is contradicted by them.

Please make that claim, and I will respond by scripture alone, as I always respond to such claims. It is true that there are things we know from the Hoyl Tradition and not from the Holy Scripture alone, but if you claim that something that we teach contradicts scripture, show me.

I said your assertion of what James 2 says obliterates other Scripture passages

Which ones? This is your mythical "we are saved by faith alone" scripture that never surfaces up?

5,495 posted on 12/16/2010 7:12:41 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5180 | View Replies]

To: annalex; metmom

The Jews of Jesus day made claims of having long standing tradition and eminent forefathers too. It was of no value whatsoever in 70 C.E. Jesus had earlier said their ‘house was abandoned to them’ and all the claims went up in smoke.

Beginning in his own time Jesus gave the illustration of the wheat and darnel.
So which one were the “fathers” of the Catholic Church? Remember Jesus the wheat and darnel were indistinguishable and would remain so until the harvest when the crop became ripe.

As Paul said, even in his day some were teaching false doctrine and attempting to assume a position of ruling over the congregations like “kings”.

While the apostles were alive they could exercise a restraint but when the last of them died and the Bible canon closed then weeds would grow along with wheat.

So what is “the historical witness” of the Catholic Church?
Apocrypha? Debates over Greek philosophy? A wheat/weed field under a murderer like Constantine?


5,496 posted on 12/16/2010 7:43:42 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5492 | View Replies]

To: annalex; metmom
Which ones? This is your mythical "we are saved by faith alone" scripture that never surfaces up?

No, the only "myth" is the one you are following that will end up condemned because Jesus said "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."(John 3:18) So the real question is: What does "believing in the name of Jesus" mean? I say, based on the complete Bible, both Old and New Testaments, that belief is relying upon, trusting in, having confidence in, to throw myself upon him, to have FAITH in him. All throughout the Bible we are given types of the coming Savior. God has never winked at or ignored sin but he has continually shown us just how sinful we really are. He constantly reminded people, especially the "religious" ones, just how holy he was and that unless we were as holy and righteous as he is, we could never be in his presence. Not for a minute and certainly not for all eternity.

The sin problem is then that we are sinners loved by Holy God who is perfectly holy and perfectly just. Because of that great love for us he has provided a way for us to be with him in a way that both satisfies his perfect justice and that makes us as holy as he is.

What I think has been our basic difference on this matter is "How does a person attain that perfection God has provided so that we can be with him in heaven?".

You state "it is by grace through faith and good works". A person, in your example, must have faith but must also perform good deeds and refrain from sin. You also say that good works can be canceled out by sin such as committing a "mortal sin" and not following the prescribed remedy which is repentance, confession and due penance. Also the "good works" you say are required include many acts, beliefs and states of mind which include complete obedience to the "Church" and her proclaimed dogmas and doctrines. In this way of thinking, sin can actually cancel out the grace of God and whatever faith we placed in it in addition to any good deeds we may have done before we died.

Getting back to the original question of how we attain the perfection God has provided us, my belief is that God, through his grace, has provided the payment for all our sins through the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, who, as God incarnate took upon himself the sins of all mankind - past, present and future. We know from Scripture that "Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just (him) for the unjust (us), that he might bring us to God" (I Peter 3:18). All our own righteousnesses are as "filthy rags" compared to his own for us, so from that I realize that my good deeds, my good works as somehow being held at the same level or the same worth as what Christ has done for us is purely illogical. To hold that grace through faith is not enough if it doesn't also include our efforts negates the whole meaning of grace. It actually make the cross of no accord, Christ has died in vain if we can be justified by our works. When I placed my trust, faith, confidence in Jesus Christ, I came to God with empty hands. I admitted that I was a sinner in need of mercy and grace because that was the only way. I fell upon his throne of grace and through faith I was lifted up by him. He adopted me into his family. He filled me with his own Holy Spirit - which is his seal upon me for all eternity. I was saved, justified, made holy by his blood. Nothing will ever separate me from him. (Rom. 8:38)

So we in the end have two different people. One says he has faith but he also tries his best to follow all the rules out of fear that he may lose Heaven. The other has faith and follows the rules out of gratitude and love because she knows she is held in his hands where he will never lose her, he will never cast her out. Everyone must make that decision which person they want to be. But only one is really saved because what the first person has failed to realize is that he has never really put is faith in Christ, he thinks he has but it may only have been partial, it is not all. And God wants ALL.

5,497 posted on 12/16/2010 9:04:02 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5495 | View Replies]

To: annalex; metmom; Belteshazzar; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; ...

"You don't become a saint by *acting like one*. You act like one after you become a saint."

"Scripture, please. This is one of those Protestant theological fantasies. Sanctification is gradual and lasts a lifetime."

Speaking for myself, and i think may others, while i uphold that it is faith alone that saves, i do not hold that it is a faith that is alone, nor did classic Protestantism, but that faith that has no holiness and works is not salvific.

The meek shall inherit the earth, and it not vain hearers but "the doers of the law shall be justified," (Rm. 2:13) and Jesus is "the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him," (Heb. 5:9) not due to the merit of said works but because such is an attribute of saving faith.

The convicted and contrite sinner comes to the crucified and risen Lord Jesus Christ destitute of any means or merit whereby he may escape his just eternal damnation or merit eternal life, and casts all his faith in the mercy of God in Christ, trusting Him to save him by His blood and righteousness. And having made a basic turn in his heart from darkness to light, and resting in Christ as his savior, the response of such salvific faith is to follow Him as his Lord, according to the light he has. And repent when convicted of not doing so.

Yet while your second statement, that "sanctification is gradual and lasts a lifetime" is correct, and you cannot deny that it is initial sanctification that makes one a saint, and the oft repeated appeal of the Holy Spirit under the New Covenant is for believers to live out practically what they are positionally.

Acts 9:31,32,41; 26:10; Rm. 1:7; 8:27; 12:13; 15:25,26,31; 16:2,15 and more texts refers to believers in general , as saints.

The Romans were told of the salvation and position they had with God by faith before being exhorted to live it out. (Rm. 1-5ff)

The Corinthians were also called to be saints, (1Cor. 1:2; cf. 6:1,2; 14:33; 16:1,15, etc.) with “to be” being not in the Greek where it is used, and after chastising them for their overall immaturity and carnality, they were told told,

And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:11)

Yet in the next book those who did not repent of sins of the flesh were warned of being reprobate, being out of the faith. (2Cor. 12:21; 13:5)

After warning the problematic Galatians not to “bite and devour one another,” Paul exhorted them, “If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.” (Galatians 5:25)

As per that pattern, the Ephesians were told that they were positionally made to “sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus,” (Eph. 2:6) and then exhorted to live it out.

Likewise the Colossians were exhorted, “If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.” (Col 3:1)

And which is a principle which continues, as rather than seeking to gain acceptance of God and salvation, believers are first made “accepted in the Beloved,” (Eph. 1:6) and then, giving with life from a position of strength, they both rightly motivated and enabled to become more like Christ and to do His will. Not in order to gain salvation, but to continue in the faith, and response to so great a salvation through Jesus Christ the Lord, “whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end." (Hebrews 3:6) As such enduring faith is a mark of the elect.

As for knowing you are saved, the Bible , both provides for that, as well as the means by which one will never fall. 1Jn. 5:13, referring to all that he wrote previously, and appealing to spiritual judgment, offers that one can have assurance of eternal life if his faith corresponds to the marks of saving faith delineated therein.

In addition, the text you posted, 2 Peter 1:1-10, calls believers is to add to their faith things which make for maturity, with the promise that if one gives diligence to make his calling and election sure, then he “shall never fall.”

However I have much to go, especially in heart. May all that is within me cry glory, and nothing grieve His Holy Spirit.

5,498 posted on 12/16/2010 10:03:44 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 5489 | View Replies]

To: annalex

annalex wrote:
“but why do you accuse me that I ‘don’t listen and respond to what’s said in a way that indicates you actually understand the point at issue’?”

Well, OK, I will concede that maybe you do listen and understand, and only then do you purposely avoid engagement on the point at issue. That too is a possibility.

(Memo to self: Why do I feel like every time I talk to annalex some of my brain cells die?)

Since your moral obligation, frequently stated on FR, is to answer in order every post addressed to you, whether directly or not, I herewith grant you a special - time saving! - dispensation allowing you to forego responding to this one, if you so choose.


5,499 posted on 12/16/2010 10:48:44 PM PST by Belteshazzar (We are not justified by our works but by faith - De Jacob et vita beata 2 +Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5493 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; kosta50; MarkBsnr; metmom; stfassisi; OLD REGGIE; boatbums
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."

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.

I'm not a trial lawyer, but any lawyer knows that different eyewitnesses often give very different accounts. But different accounts can also be 100% factually true. There are many many minor surface discrepancies in certain details of the same event in different Gospels. That doesn't mean any of them are wrong. It just means that certain facts were emphasized and some were not mentioned.

For example, Luke 24:12 says that Peter ran to the tomb. But John 20:4 says that both Peter and John ran to the tomb. Is one wrong? No, both are 100% factually correct. Luke simply emphasizes Peter and omits that John was also there. No big deal. Therefore, I submit that my statement stands. If John's eyewitness testimony was FACTUALLY WRONG, then he had to know it and was lying or crazy. By the manner of presentation, there is no room here for simple mistake, either Jesus said what He said or He didn't, etc. Of course, all of this presupposes that John was writing on his own, which is not what the Church holds, so it is a bit of a moot point. The only errors in John's Gospel would be ones made by God. It's my understanding that at least the Latins would agree with this.

FK: "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?

As far as I understand the issue, yes. Everyone agrees that the Father sent the Son, and there is no issue of subordination. Why then would there arise an issue over whether the Holy Spirit "proceeded" from the Father alone or the Father and Son? Either way, there should still be no issue of subordination. Whatever the precise meaning of "proceeded" is, I wouldn't think it would infringe on the Three being co-eternal and co-equal.

5,500 posted on 12/17/2010 12:09:15 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 5421 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 5,401-5,4505,451-5,5005,501-5,550 ... 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