Skip to comments.In Christ Alone (Happy reformation day)
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
The oldest excuse in the book.
“”I can only assume that the comparisons to dualism, Islam, and Manichaeism are founded in misperceptions that Calvinism stands for a God who is both evil and good””
There is no misconceptions,fk. Calvin’s belief in double predestination is a dualistic God
FK-””That is why I used the phrase “glorifying the merit of man”. If getting into Heaven is the name of the game, then it cannot be accomplished without the key ingredient of man’s merit.””
Perhaps you don’t understand what the Church teaches regarding merit
From the Catechism...
You are glorified in the assembly of your Holy Ones, for in crowning their merits you are crowning your own gifts.59
2006 The term “merit” refers in general to the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members, experienced either as beneficial or harmful, deserving reward or punishment. Merit is relative to the virtue of justice, in conformity with the principle of equality which governs it.
2007 With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.
2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man’s free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.
2009 Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God’s gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us “co-heirs” with Christ and worthy of obtaining “the promised inheritance of eternal life.”60 The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness.61 “Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due. . . . Our merits are God’s gifts.”62
2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.
2011 The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace.
After earth’s exile, I hope to go and enjoy you in the fatherland, but I do not want to lay up merits for heaven. I want to work for your love alone. . . . In the evening of this life, I shall appear before you with empty hands, for I do not ask you, Lord, to count my works. All our justice is blemished in your eyes. I wish, then, to be clothed in your own justice and to receive from your love the eternal possession of yourself.63
O divine Lord, how shall I dare to approach you, I who have so often offended you? No, Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof; but speak only the word and my soul shall be healed.
I think a better case could be made that the Calvinist God is a throwback to a tribal god (as I suppose you could say the Muslim God is).
Thank you for the act of humility,it's beautiful
I have a very uneasy feeling about the state of the world right now-let us all reflect on what you just posted
Father preached today on the very catholic virtue of hope. With that in mind:
O my God!
Who hast graciously promised every blessing,
even Heaven itself,
through Jesus Christ,
to those who keep Thy commandments;
relying on Thine infinite power,
goodness and mercy,
and confiding in Thy sacred promises,
to which Thou art always faithful,
I confidently hope to obtain pardon of all my sins;
grace to serve Thee faithfully in this life,
by doing the good works Thou hast commanded,
with Thine assistance,
I now purpose to perform,
and eternal happiness in the next,
through my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Thank you,dear Narses
O Lord my God, I know that I am not worthy nor sufficient that thou shouldest enter under my roof into the habitation of my soul, for it is all deserted and in ruins, and thou hast not a fitting place in me to lay thy head. But as from the heights of thy glory thou didst humble thyself, so now bear me in my humility; as thou didst deign to lie in a manger in a cave, so deign now also to come into the manger of my mute soul and corrupt body. As thou didst not refrain from entering into the house of Simon the leper, or shrink from eating there with sinners, so also vouchsafe to enter the house of my poor soul, all leprous and full of sin. Thou didst not reject the sinful woman who ventured to draw near to touch thee, so also have pity on me, a sinner, approaching to touch thee. And grant that I may partake of thine All-holy Body and Precious Blood for the sanctification, enlightenment and strengthening of my weak soul and body; for the relief from the burden of my many sins; for my preservation against all the snares of the devil; for victory over all my sinful and evil habits; for the mortification of my passions; for obedience to thy Commandments; for growth in thy divine Grace and for the inheritance of thy Kingdom. For it is not with careless heart that I approach thee, O Christ my God, but I come trusting in thine infinite goodness, and fearing lest I may be drawn afar from thee and become the prey of the wolf of souls. Wherefore I pray thee, O Master, who alone art holy, that thou wouldest sanctify my soul and body, my mind and heart and reins, and renew me entirely. Implant in my members the fear of thee, be thou my helper and guide, directing my life in the paths of peace, and make me worthy to stand at thy right hand with thy Saints; through the prayers and intercessions of thine immaculate Mother, of thy Bodiless Servitors, of the immaculate Powers, and of all the Saints who from all ages have been well-pleasing unto thee. Amen.
Christ King of Glory
Acclamations VIII Cent.
Ambrosian Chant (Variant)
Christus vincit! Christus regnat! Christus imperat!
Exaudi, Christe. Ecclesiae Sanctae Dei salus perpetua. Redemptor mundi, Tu illam
Christ Lord of glory, Christ Prince of nations, Christ our King of kings! Christ Jesus,
hear us. Perpetual safety and welfare to the Church of God. Redeemer, Savior. Assist
and strengthen her.
1. Sancta Maria: Tu illam adjuva!
O Mary blessed Mother. Assist and strengthen her.
2. Sancte Joseph: Tu illam adjuva!
Joseph holy guardian. Assist and strengthen her.
3. Sancte Michael Tu illam adjuva!
Blessed Michael patron Assist and strengthen her.
Optional (Sancte Patricii: Tu illam adjuva!)
Blessed Saint Patrick: Assist and strengthen her.
All repeat: Christus vincit! Christus regnat! Christus imperat!
Exaudi, Christe. Pio summo Pontifici et universali Papae vita! Salvator mundi, Tu illum
Christ Jesus hear us. Life and health and blessings to Pope Pius our Holy Father.
Redeemer Savior, Assist and strengthen him.
1. Sancte Petre, Tu illum adjuva! 1. Rex regum!
Blessed Peter, Assist and strengthen him. King of kings.
2. Sancte Paule, Tu illum adjuva! 2. Rex noster!
Blessed Paul, assist and strengthen him. Christ our King
3. Spes nostra!
Christ our hope.
Repeat: Christus Vincit! etc.
Gloria nostra, Misericordia nostra! Auxilium nostrum! Fortitudo nostra, Ar ma nostra
invictissima! Murus noster inexpugnabilis! Defensio et exaltatio nostra!
Lux, Via, et Vita nostra! Ipsi soli imperium, Laus et jubilatio per infinita saecula
Jesus our glory, Fountain of grace and all mercy. Source of all our blessing. Defender
in battle, Strong arm of our God invincible. Our stronghold and our exaltation. Our
captain leader who has won our salvation.
Christ Jesus, our life and light eternal. To Him only is victory all praise and jubilation.
Through all the endless ages of eternity. Amen.
Tempora bona veniant! Pax Christi veniat! Redemptis Sanguine Christi: Feliciter!
Regnum Christi veniat! Deo Gratias! Amen.
Abundance of good things be ours. The peace of Christ be ours. Redeemed by the blood
of Jesus. Proclaim our joy. May His holy kingdom come. Praise be to our God Amen.
Provided courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210
Thank you dear brother.
O my divine Jesus, how shall I return you thanks for the goodness in giving yourself to me? The only way I can repay your love is by loving you in return. Yes, my Lord, I love you, and I desire to love you all my life.
My Jesus, you alone are sufficient for me. Whom shall I love, if I love not you, my Jesus? You love those who love you. I love you. Oh, do you also love me. If I love you but little, give me the love which you require of me.
O Mary, my good Mother, and you glorious Saint Joseph, lend me your love wherewith to love my Jesus.
That is beautiful,thank you
“Humility, humility and always humility. Satan fears and trembles before humble souls. The Lord is willing to do great things but on condition that we are truly humble”
- St. Pio of Pietrelcina
It was meant to be in fun, it wasn’t intended to hurt. If it did so, I apologize. There is no mask, the true me has never been hidden, and I think you know it.
But it all comes down to the idea that the Church wrote, edited and chose all of the NT; and also chose the OT Scripture that fit its purposes. Either you accept the Church or you do not. If you do not, then you cannot accept the Canon. If you do, then you cannot reject anything else it has pronounced.
But as I was just showering, I was thinking, you know maybe what bothers people like him is the idea that they ARE lost and they just hate it when others say so, even, apparently, in joking. Jesus said, "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of Gods one and only Son." (John 3:18). Whoever does not believe that Jesus is God in the flesh is lost. Jesus said, "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." (John 8:24). We are also told this about those who deny the truth about Jesus:
I John 4:1-3
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already.
But the GOOD NEWS, the GOSPEL, is:
For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.
So as long as a person has breath, it is never too late.
Totally false, roaring rhetoric and simply an inane stab at trying to assert something you want others to think is true. Anyone with a semblance of intellect can see your "evidence" is clear as mud. Have we gone from the provably untrue number of 30K+ to "millions" now? Why should anyone take anything you say seriously with this kind of comment?
You say in this post, "I have never trashed Scripture" and in the same one you continue to cast doubt that anybody can have a true version of the Word of God. Because of this very distrust you have of it, you choose to, instead of reading it yourself and allowing God to illuminate the truth to you, turn that power over to your "magesterium" to do your reading and interpreting. How is it you can trust demonstrably fallible men to tell you what you can believe about God's revelation to man but in the same breath disparage the very word they are interpreting to you? Where are they supposed to get the truth in the first place if not the Bible??? Sad.
How does either differ from the OT God?
Oh sure such as John 3:9. The born again do not sin, to which some say "as a habit." Oh, really? Every religion claims some transformative effects as a "sign" of its authenticity.
By the way, my referencer to john 3:9 was being sarcastic. You reference some person by the name Cryle (apparently a 19th century nut) who says (I quote from the page you referenced):
What reference to john 3:9 are you taking about? You are the only one that referenced that, and wrongly so, rather than 1Jn. 3:9
You don't remember your post 5537, referencing transformative effects? Just scroll down (about five short paragraphs) where it says "First of all, John says, 'Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin;' and again, 'Whosoever is born of God sinneth not.' - John 3:9; 5:18." That is your own reference.
Sorry for whatever neglect on my part. I had searched and found no Cryle or text reference to - John 3:9; 5:18 from me, and the link was in indistinguishable green text in my original in My Comments, but searching all of FR today i found a post of the same page from 2001 (but not linked), and which has the same mistake, while other copies of it rightly have 1 John 3:9 which was intended.
Also check out the author whom you use as reference but don't even know.
And i presume you did. The name is not Cryle but Ryle, and rather than being a 19th century nut (except perhaps by your standards), he was the first Anglican bishop of Liverpool. He was an athlete who rowed and played Cricket for Oxford, where he took a first class degree in Greats and was offered a college fellowship (teaching position) which he declined. The son of a wealthy banker, he was destined for a career in politics before choosing a path of ordained ministry. He was educated at Eton and at Christ Church, Oxford, where he was Craven Scholar in 1836.
What does inspiration mean? There is only one reference to this Pauline coinage of the word "God-breathed" which can mean any number of things. But, to be "inspired" by something means to be moved or motivated by something, not that it hijacks you and writes with your hand or assures makes sure that you remember things just the way they were.
If it is by the breath of God, working to move men by the Holy Spirit, then the key issue is not how it works but that it does, and should not be unduly restricted. Outside the hijack, in writing Scripture God can give a a holy man discernment on the truth of accounts, and inspire by impressing a spiritual man how and what to write down regarding such.
But there is a caveat which affirms otherwise: "If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema." Trent.CANON XVI
So, now you favor Church councils over scirpture (Mat 7:12)?
This was in response to your statement, The Church teaches that there is no certainty in faith, just hope. Thus my invocation of what the Roman Catholic teaches is entirely fitting, without my sanctioning her conclusion.
Secondly, the text is Mt. 7:21-23 and as for that versus texts such as 1Jn. 5:13, the former does not state that one cannot know they are saved, nor that one cannot prevent falling, but records that many who did miraculous works will be revealed as having only that as a testimony, versus a faith with works which corresponded to repentance, (Act 26:20) things that accompany salvation, (Heb. 6:9) which a tree is known by. (Lk. 6:44) 1Jn. 5:13 describes that faith, in the light of which one may have assurance, contingent upon continued believing, while 2 Peter 1:5-10 prescribes a growing in grace and virtue which secures one against falling, but with the do (poieō) again indicating a continuous sense.
Well, if no one's interpretation is infallible, then the truth isn't and cannot be known. End of story. I could have told you that from the beginning.
There was no need to, as that is not the real story.
Says who? You?
Well, the context and reason does, which story again was not whether something can be known infallibly, but Rome's assuredly infallible magisterium and its basis.
Such are the typical attempts to discredit the integrity of the Bible
Says the "official truth." Yes, comrade commissar. No criticism allowed. Anything the official truth doesn't approve is "trashing."
Actually that is your attitude, with corrections never acknowledged.
and i would like to expose such allegations of supposed contras as spurious such as i have already done to yours, while many web sites deal with such, as well as the relative few copyist errors in every manuscript of any real import
Self flattery is not very convincing argument, even if ti may make you feel good. And appeal to multitude of "web sites" is likewise not proof of absolute truth either. It's just that zealots write more than ordinary people.
I will let my peers judge. And militant atheists also fit the description you gave , and with easily provoked antagonistic contentious dispositions.
As for personal interpretation, that is an expected reality in every field, and while theology is an extensive one, core truths find almost universal concurrence in Protestantism has a whole
Core truths find acceptance in every human gathering, no matter what the belief.
As does a basic and effectual unity based upon such, while allowing a limited degree of diverse disagreement and discussion.
But as you seem incapable of dealing with the anything related to the Bible and God without ending up in your narrow minded denigrations..why should i give you excuse to express more of the same?
Strike one. This is a predictable evolution of all your attemeptsto debate with me. Two more and this sidiscusison is over.
Kosta50, if anyones hold here should be considered tenuous it would be yours.
It is clear that Jesus wanted his message taught by "experts" and not read.
And just where is this clear?
By the fatc that he never told them to write anything but to spread the "good news" by word of mouth (preaching). He didn't tell them to argue theology but to reveal the promise of salvation.
This is one of your retreats into formalism which you have resorted to before. So while the Lord sent them out to preach, he also never told them to ordain elders or maintain buildings and other reasonable things that would be conducive to the permanency of an expanding church, which hopefully their preaching would result in, thus such must also be disallowed. And it cannot be permitted by you that even though writing down revelation from God was the norm, and which Jesus Christ implicitly affirmed, and even though He reproved his unlettered disciples for not for believing what was written in the Scriptures concerning him, (LK. 24:25-27) that He expected them to eventually write down what they had seen and heard, and to promote fluency in the Scriptures.
..and never said that you needed to be an apostle, prophet, or teacher to study the Scriptures, and commended Timothy having known as a child the holy scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (2Tim. 3:15)
That is Paul, and Paul is no Christ. Chrst never said what Paul said.
That is irrelevant as regards Rome's opposition to private interpretation, which was the issue, as she affirms the opposite of what you oppose.
This is altogether too typical. First, you were defending realms interpretive authority...
Whatever that is supposed to mean. You are tripping all over your own verbosity.
With 7 posts from you in one day (with typos) you are a match, and i think it should be evident whose interpretive authority is at issue, just as i can deduce what you mean with your frequent typos.
The issue being RC's authority, part of her expression of this is fitting: Thus the author of the Acts of the Apostles narrates events in which he himself took part...
Oh, sure, Luke was there in person in Chapter 1...so much for that. Luke never saw Jesus in person.
And in which you left out the rest of the sentence which reads, or which were related to him....
blah, blah, blah.
It is not irrelevant, as the whole sentence it shows your reproof to be false.
Rather than hoping to get out of your own whole with obfuscation and flowery language, why don't you just tell us when did Luke meet Jesus in person, namely that he he was an eyewitness, as you suggest?
No obfuscation here, as it is you who tried to misconstrue Rome's definition of infallibility as requiring Luke to be in Acts 1, and then marginalize it with blah, blah, blah, while i do nor recall my suggesting Luke was an eyewitness of Christ, but i said Whether Luke saw Jesus in person is not relevant to the issue. Another post i find by me was 5,547 in ref to 2Pt. 1:16, which does not mention Luke. I believe here you have me confused with another poster you responded to, while pinging me also.
Then you could check your own sources.
My original statement was that you reject its Bible and its God most antagonistically, not some undefined abstract Deity.
I don't know what God is. I have no problems with God as a concept. I am not here to preach that God doesn't exist because I don't know that. I ask those who claim they do to tell me what is God. I also ask them to prove what they claim as faith but state as fact.
I do have disagreements with what some people write and tell me about their God, the God they made in their own mind.
No, you have a manifest problem with the God of the Bible, and that being what most on FR assent to, you have plenty of target practice and rather than ask, even the premise of the idea of warrant for belief in such can result in you antagonistically oppose it, despite attempts to be civil.
No, your primary target is evangelical Protestants
Yes, because they claim to "know".
Not uniquely, as Rome infallibly asserts the Bible is and its God is true, but while Roman Catholics most strongly defend their church, it seems evangelicals are more likely to personally contend more for God and the Bible.
who you variously described (just of the few I've seen) as those who seek low self-image therapy and food for their narcissistic nature, while
Reformed "worship" is like "a pagan-like spectacle one would expect to see in a pagan temple, all swaying their hands in the air like something from "Indiana Jones" movie...
And your point is? None of this is outside the RF rules. I am just giving the taste of their own medicine to those who relentlessly insult the Church.
You have said more than this, and you are insulting both Catholics and Protestant as well, as both faiths are in opposition to your arrogant attacks and blasphemy of the God of the Bible and Paul etc. As for being within RF rules, they are part of FR statements on its general ethos, and somehow you suppose that you are consistent with such as,
For God, Family, Country, Life and Liberty!! If you cannot live with the above, fine, but keep your mouth shut about it while on FR. Don't fight against us on ANY of our deeply held beliefs!!
The rest of your post is bellyaching to which I have nothing say.
That is sufficient.
Well, that's very kind of you, but I didn't ask for an apology because I am not hurt, just surprised. As they say, my pay is the same. And, as an aside, when we like to make something "to be fun" we put :) next to it, just to make sure.
There is no mask, the true me has never been hidden, and I think you know it
That was my impression until now, but then your comment came a little out of the left field. You always make your points respectfully, free of personal attacks or ridicule. And you also don't joke very often, so the 'joke' was received as uncharacteristic of you.
J.C. Ryle. His sermons and tracts have been posted here on FR before. He was in many ways astonishingly Orthodox in his theology. His work is well worth reading, in my opinion. I believe it was the noble sionnsar who first posted his writings for us.
And when one derives their theology from what others "scrape out from under their toenails each day" it's better??? You really need a new shtick. This one is useless.
Yes, his work by the grace of God has been posted, and the page i found was from RnMomof7 (2001). And if Ryle is a “nut” then he is screwed to the right bolt!”
Hope I wasn't the first (ignoble me) -- but I do hope the direction forward he may have pointed for us Anglicans is the one we follow. We continue to have visitors from the lost elements, and that both saddens me and brings me joy.
Exactly. Worth repeating.
Boy, did you ever get that right!!! ;o)
What does showering have to do with anything that it should be mentioned in this context?
I was thinking, you know maybe what bothers people like him is the idea that they ARE lost and they just hate it when others say so, even, apparently, in joking
The only thing that bothers me is the audacity when people, who proclaimed themselves "saved," have the audacity to call others "lost."
Take it up with Jesus, he started it. :o)
No I didn't. I just read what he wrote in your reference about the born-again not sinning.
If it is by the breath of God, working to move men by the Holy Spirit
So, you don't believe the Holy Spirit is God? Another non-Tirniatrian "Christian?"
the key issue is not how it works but that it does
Who says it works? People who wrote the Bible wrote what they believed. They were moved by their faith. That's no different than anyone else. People write what they believe.
Outside the hijack, in writing Scripture God can give a a holy man discernment on the truth of accounts, and inspire by impressing a spiritual man how and what to write down regarding such
If you say so.
but records that many who did miraculous works will be revealed as having only that as a testimony, versus a faith with works which corresponded to repentance...
So what? This is something you believe and I don't. Why should I believe you?
And militant atheists also fit the description you gave , and with easily provoked antagonistic contentious dispositions.
Militant atheists are zealots just like militant evangelicals. Same fundamentalist mind set, different god.
Kosta50, if anyones hold here should be considered tenuous it would be yours.
No one is forcing you to post to me. I merely reminded you to stop using personally disparaging remarks (such as "you seem incapable" or "your narrow-minded denigrations") with someone you choose to debate.
I don't go around making personal comments about you capabilities or lack therefor, or your narrow-mindedness even if I thing you are. You believe the Bible and I don't, so stop quoting it to me unless you are prepared to allow me to respond without classifying it as "denigration."
This is one of your retreats into formalism which you have resorted to before.
Well, this is your retreat to "lableism," which you have resorted to before. What I said is that the disciples were sent to proclaim the good news and not to engage in theological lectures. They were supposedly simple fisherman after all.
And it cannot be permitted by you that even though writing down revelation from God was the norm,
and which Jesus Christ implicitly affirmed, and even though He reproved his unlettered disciples for not for believing what was written in the Scriptures concerning him, (LK. 24:25-27)
There are numerous sites, to use your argument, that shown that there is nothing written about Jesus in the OT, but that it is a Christian innovation.
He expected them to eventually write down what they had seen and heard, and to promote fluency in the Scriptures.
Where did he command them to write anything down and to promote "fluency in the Scriptures"?
[That is Paul, and Paul is no Christ. Christ never said what Paul said] That is irrelevant as regards Rome's opposition to private interpretation, which was the issue, as she affirms the opposite of what you oppose.
You have this fixation with Rome, and I don't understand why you keep referencing it to me. I already told you that private interpretation leads to relative morality, that every individual creates his own "theology." That's why you have endless denominations and interpretations and no one is of the same mind as they are supposed to be. Something's wrong with private interpretation. Jesus never promoted it., so why should Christians? Because Paul said so. But Paul is no Christ.
“”How does either differ from the OT God?””
The OT is a lot of “anti types” of God that shows what God is not.
The NT reveals Christ -who God really is -which is unmovable love
The OT is incomplete without Christ and the Church
With 7 posts from you in one day (with typos) you are a match, and i think it should be evident whose interpretive authority is at issue, just as i can deduce what you mean with your frequent typos.
I am a sloppy typist, what can I say. And FR's spell checker seems to have a mind of its own. :) BTW, you can improve your proof reading too.
As for the number of posts, that was intended to break down your "book" responses, never mind the color show.
No, you have a manifest problem with the God of the Bible,
Or the Koran, or the Upanishads, etc. I said man-made God. I don't know of any other kind.
Not uniquely, as Rome infallibly asserts the Bible is and its God is true
So? The difference is that, unlike the Protestants, the Catholic Church has enough humility to say to preach hope rather than certainty.
You have said more than this, and you are insulting both Catholics and Protestant as well,
Insults are not lacking on Christian forums. Pretty telling, isn't it? If I find someone's worship to be "pagan-like" that's my impression, which seems too much for those with mind-police mentality, but they don't mind when Mary is called all sorts of unflattering things.
as both faiths are in opposition to your arrogant attacks and blasphemy of the God of the Bible and Paul etc.
So, what now? A Fatwah? This is not a Christian-only Forum. It's a Religion Forum, all things about religion, any religion. People say all sorts of "blasphemous" things on these threads. Mary is a particular target of Protestants, and the Catholic Church in general. The Trinity is attacked and denied, etc. Not to talk about some other less popular religions.
As for being within RF rules, they are part of FR statements on its general ethos, and somehow you suppose that you are consistent with such as, For God, Family, Country, Life and Liberty!! If you cannot live with the above, fine, but keep your mouth shut about it while on FR. Don't fight against us on ANY of our deeply held beliefs!!
I have already told you that I am not against God. It's obvious from all my posts that I have objections and questions about man-made Gods. I am not against Country (I served this country 20+ years in uniform), I am not against Family, Life or LIBERTY! I recognize everyone's right to speak their mind and to have no "official truth" religion as the greatest gift of America. And, this is not a caucus thread.
The only one who seems to be against liberty and freedom of speech and belief is you, by telling me to shut up because my idea of God is different from yours.
I think you have gone over the top. From what you say you would have silenced some of American Founding Fathers for their religious stance! In the name of Liberty! I have nothing more to say to you
[How does either differ from the OT God?] The OT is a lot of anti types of God that shows what God is not.
SFA, I asked that because the OT God's dualism.
“”SFA, I asked that because the OT God’s dualism.””
I know. I answered that the OT is incomplete since Christ is not fully revealed.Thus God is not dualistic
“”For God, Family, Country, Life and Liberty!! If you cannot live with the above, fine, but keep your mouth shut about it while on FR. Don’t fight against us on ANY of our deeply held beliefs!!””
The western idea of liberty is a joke and not even Christian
Christopher A. Ferrara does a great job of explaining the western error
In place of a great civilization ordered to Christ, the forces of liberalismquite suddenly in historical terms, and by force of arms at each critical junctureestablished a new order whose god is Liberty. We ought to call Liberty a god because, like any idol that man sets up for himself, its claims are deemed to supersede those of mans Creator. Whereas Christ declared that His apostles were to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you,[vii] the god of Liberty declared the age-old baptism of nations to be annulled and the Christian commonwealth to be abolished. Whereas Christ taught that political authority descends to man from God, even in the case of the procurator who unjustly sentenced Him to death, Liberty decreed that political authority ascends from the sovereign will of the people, so that even Gods law could be subjected to popular repeal.
Whereas Christ taught that His truth will make men free, Liberty insisted upon a previously unknown conception of freedom in society: the mere absence of constraint on human action by the State, save for that necessary to prevent violence and to protect the right to the ownership, use and enjoyment of private property in the pursuit of whatever thing each individual deems to constitute happiness. Without the conformity of human law to the law of the Gospel, the term violence inevitably contracted, while the terms property and happiness expanded in proportion to what unrestrained human weakness and popular consensus demanded. Hence today human life in utero may, at the option of its owner, be destroyed and disposed of as waste, or extracted and inventoried at the embryonic stage for sale as a consumer good. And not even the political opponents of these crimes against humanity are willing to oppose them on any ground but an appeal to the same sovereign popular will that put Liberty on its pedestal.
In sum, the god of Liberty has imposed upon Western civilization what Pope Leo XIII succinctly denounced as that new conception of law which was not merely previously unknown, but was at variance on many points with not only the Christian, but even the natural law.[viii] This new conception of law expressed itself in utterly revolutionary principles which contemporary man, abysmally ignorant of his own Christian heritage, now unquestioningly accepts as the received wisdom of the ages:
[T]hat all are equal in the control of their life; that each one is so far his own master as to be in no sense under the rule of any other individual; that each is free to think on every subject just as he may choose, and to do whatever he may like to do; that no man has any right to rule over other men .that the judgment of each one’s conscience is independent of all law; that the most unrestrained opinions may be openly expressed as to the practice or omission of divine worship; and that every one has unbounded license to think whatever he chooses and to publish abroad whatever he thinks [ix]
That these principles would destroy the foundations of our civilization was self-evident. Only forty years after Leo, Pope Pius XI observed that With God and Jesus Christ, excluded from political life, with authority derived not from God but from man, the very basis of that authority has been taken away, because the chief reason of the distinction between ruler and subject has been eliminated. The result is that human society is tottering to its fall, because it has no longer a secure and solid foundation.[x] But perhaps not even Leo and Pius could have imagined the full extent of the civilizational debacle Liberty has wrought: not only the abortion holocaust, but an epidemic of divorce, the universal practice of contraception, the depopulation of Western nations, the relentless advance of homosexualism, the destruction of the family, the spread of orgiastic consumerism, the debasement of art, music and architecture, and finally the emergence of a veritable neo-pagan social order in which Christians increasingly face persecution for mere utterances against the orthodoxy of liberty.
In place of the Christian commonwealth, Liberty has erected a market-driven culture of rights, founded on the fiction of the isolated individual in a mythical pre-social, pre-religious state of nature, who is said to possess rights abstracted from any divine ordination to life in the State or any collective social duty to God. These rights are merely elaborate explications of Libertys one commandment: thou shalt not interfere in human action. Denying any ordination of the State to an objective common good conformable to Christ and eternal beatitude, the culture of rights has led to a tyranny of public opinion, enforced by despotic popular regimes which crush any attempt to secure true freedom through restoration of the Christian moral order, with its divinely ordained limits on human action and its positive duties in justice and charity toward ones fellow man.
Under such conditions the pursuit of any common good in the State is impossible, and society becomes a mere arena for the pursuit of what each individual deems his proper good, without regard for the total impact of these individual pursuits on life in society as a whole. Thus Christians are forced to live in a global, free-market Gomorrah in which a trip to the supermarket invites an attack upon the innocence of their children, which is assaulted on every side. The culture of rights has produced a culture of deathphysical, moral and spiritualthat oppresses not only the Christian life, but truth, beauty and goodness themselves.
The libertarian acolytes of Liberty argue that it is not Liberty but the State that oppresses us. Rejecting the entire Western tradition, they declare that life in the State is not natural to man. The State, they maintain, arises from the unnatural imposition of organs of government upon a naturally free civil society by an age-old conspiracy of nefarious ruling elites, who have somehow managed to persuade generation after generation, in virtually every place on earth, that government is necessary. If only the unnecessary organs of governmentkings, parliaments, presidents, congresses, governors, public magistrates, and so forthcan be eliminated, the monopoly of force by which the elites have for so long oppressed the Western masses will be ended, and civil society will triumph in the freedom and prosperity of the spontaneous order that arises from voluntary human cooperation. The State will wither away, just as it does in the dreams of Marxists. It will be the Second Coming of Liberty, whose first coming in 1776 ended with Libertys crucifixion by the Federalists, who gave the world yet another State.
Mass democracy, the libertarians concede, is a god that failed, just as communism failed.[xi] Democracy failed not because of Liberty (so the argument goes) but because the States monopoly of force enabled one group to oppress another through taxation, regulation and the threat of force in violation of the free-market principle of untrammeled interpersonal exchange. The libertarians conveniently overlook the indispensable role of the free market itself in fostering democratic tyranny by destroying social adherence to the objective moral ordera role de-ethicized secular governments are only too happy to facilitate with judicial decisions that bar any substantial legal limitation on the markets promotion of vice and corruption. Christians are pressed between what Wilhelm Röpke called the bloated colossus of the State and the cult of the colossal in the marketplace. Even the Protestant Röpke, one of the foremost free-market defenders of the 20th century, was constrained to issue the warning that market competition must not be allowed to predominate and sway society in all its spheres, or it will poison mens souls [and] destroy civilization [xii] In Catholic social order it was not possible for the market to have this effect, for both the law of the Gospel and civil law protected public morality. In liberal social order, however, that effect was inevitable.
The libertarians do not see, or will not acknowledge, that the god of Liberty reigns equally over secular government and free market, constantly maintaining a symbiotic adjustment between these two basic elements of de-ethicized liberal social order. The de-ethicized government exacts from the de-ethicized market a tribute of taxation and regulation which merely dampens a still immense and growing material prosperity, and in return the market receives from government legal protection against the moral claims of Christianity, so that profit may abound from the sale of anything and everything for which entrepreneurs can create a demand, including embryonic human beings. Röpke, who was no advocate of Catholic social order, observed this symbiosis in his own renowned critique of economic liberalism: [T]he economic liberalism of the last two centuries has disastrously gone astray in a manner fully paralleling the mistakes of political liberalism and ultimately stemming from the same source. [xiii]
The dreamers of the libertarian dream fail to perceive that it is not the State as such, which will exist as long as there is human society, but rather the theology of the State that has led to tyranny. The worst of the absolute monarchs of Christendom was a model of limited government compared with the presidents and prime ministers of modern secular regimes who owe no allegiance to Rome. Even a leading libertarian scholar has acknowledged, apparently without recognizing the significance of his admission, that the historic transition from monarchy to democracy represents not progress but civilizational decline.[xiv] The monarchies in question were Catholic states embodying Catholic social orderthe very order overthrown in the name of Liberty.
The liberal political philosopher Pierre Manent candidly observed that the distinction between civil society and the state, and their union through the idea of representation [i.e. democracy], sets off a natural oscillation between two extreme possibilities: the withering away of the state on the one hand, and the absorption of civil society by the state on the other. It is a distinction that calls out for negation, a negation that can benefit only one of the two terms.[xv] Yet both terms have been supplied by liberal political philosophy in service of its great project: the radical discrediting of the Churchs political claims [xvi] Hence both terms are in line with liberalisms fundamental movement away from the Churchs vision of Christocentric social order, which alone can preserve the State from the oscillation between absolutism and anarchy.
As statist and libertarian devotees of liberty debate the future of their idol, we live amidst the ruins of the Christocentric civilization Liberty has leveled to the ground. Narcotized by the material comforts an endlessly inventive marketplace provides, Christians in general and Catholics in particular (with a few noble historical exceptions) have offered little resistance to Libertys inexorable demolition of nearly everything that was good and holy in the commonweal. Today there is only the occasional verbal protest from among the few fundamentalists who actually understand what we have lost. But even the fundamentalists have been effectively converted by the new order. As the proto-libertarian Benjamin Constant observed with smug certitude concerning the Catholic reactionaries of post-revolutionary France: in declaring themselves champions of earlier centuries [they] are, in spite of themselves, men of our century [who] have neither the strength of their convictions nor the hope that ensures success.[xvii]
Liberty makes certain we remain deprived of the hope that ensures success by convincing us that the overthrow of Catholic social order was inevitable and is now quite irreversible: There will be faction and violence if any effort is made to topple me, Liberty warns us. For only Liberty can control the chaos that Liberty has unleashed. Our entire civilization has fallen prey to an ideological protection racket. But we are not protected. In fear of violence we pay tribute to violence. Each year abortion alone claims more victims for Liberty than all of the major wars in world history combined. And now ultimate violence approaches.
It is not as if our deliverance from this predicament were inconceivable. Another triumph of the new orientation is that it has blinded us to the political significance of the spiritual reality that, even today, the great preponderance of the population of the Western world consists of baptized Christians, with the overwhelming Western popular majority[xviii] remaining at least nominally Catholic. If this majority were to be aroused from its silent apostasy by the leaders of a Catholic Church returned to militancy, the world would certainly change again. As Dawson observed of our situation: However secularized our modern civilization may have become, this sacred tradition remains like a river in the desert, and a genuine religious education can still use it to irrigate the thirsty lands and to change the face of the world with the promise of new life.[xix] The leaders of the new order themselves, who erupt in nearly hysterical outrage at any sign of effective Catholic opposition to secular orthodoxy, evince an acute awareness of the immense spiritual power that lies dormant under the desert they have created. They know how easily an awakened fraternity of the baptized could topple the god of Liberty.
And topple Liberty we must, in the name of true freedomthe freedom that comes from the idea that we are the children of a loving God, who bestows upon us both temporal blessings and eternal happiness, if only men and nations will follow His counsels. But beyond a simple plea for a return to faith, Catholics must be prepared to argue that reason itself suffices to demonstrate that only a reconstruction of Christendom, or something approaching it as an interim step in the revival of the West, can avert the coming catastrophe, and that otherwise we are at the end of history. As the currently reigning Pope remarked when he was Cardinal Ratzinger: [N]o society will long survive if in its public structure it is built agnostically and materialistically and wishes to permit anything else to exist only below the threshold of the public.[xx] The Anglican scholar John Milbank, who represents the growing intellectual trend toward a radically Christian critique of secular social order, has expressed this conviction in a startling way: Only a global liturgical polity can save us now from literal violence.[xxi]
What of the objection that we are advocating the impossibility of a reconversion of the Western world to Roman Catholicism? I reply that this impossibility ought really to be seen as nothing less than the only reasonable course of action to save a dying civilization, which, after all, is still predominantly composed of baptized Catholics. At this point in the civilizational debacle, anyone who calls himself a Christian should at least be willing to make an effort to examine our situation from the traditional Catholic perspective, standing outside the framework of liberal premises whose adoption was no less an act of the will than the common faith that sustained Christendom for century upon century. As Milbank has observed, the governing assumptions of secular social theory are bound up with the modification or the rejection of orthodox Christian positions. These fundamental intellectual shifts are no more rationally justifiable than the Christian positions themselves.[xxii]
Let us argue, then, on the ground of reason in the hope that, for the skeptical, faith will follow. Even in the absence of faith, however, reason alone ought to impel the thoughtful man to rise up against Liberty, the failed god whose reign has brutalized and degraded us all in one way or another.
It differs in being retrograde, so to speak: the OT God is the God of Israel, but always, with hints, glimpses, promises, moving toward a day when all the nations would worship Him. From the earliest days, the Church understood itself as being meant for all men -- it was just a question of reaching them.
Islam is retrograde too -- in its own way, though it at least allows for conversion into the "tribe," even if it's enforced by the sword.
I know that's what you said, my friend, and I understand. But that is precisely what Mormons, or the Jews or the Muslims would say about the NT (and about each other!).
I know that it is unimaginable for you to even consider that any other religion could be the "true one" (or that there may not be a true one), but consider for a moment if you can that others feel the same about yours. So why are you "right" and they re "wrong?"
They believe in theirs, and they are even willing to suffer and die for it. Look what the Jews went through because of their refusal to give up what they believe in!
But going back to what you said ("the OT is incomplete "), the self-appointed censors on this Forum would say it's "blasphemy" calling the Bible imperfect (incomplete), in whole or in part, because you are saying that something even you recognize as God-inspired is also imperfect.
That's one way to look at it. But not the only way.
From the earliest days, the Church understood itself as being meant for all men
So is Judaism. The difference is that the Jews are the ordained clergy-nation, while the Gentiles are the Noachide congregation.
When St. Peter tells his audience "you are a priestly nation" who is he addressing, given that he was an apostle to the circumcision?
I admit I didn't have time to read the whole post, so this may be a shot in the dark, but how will you argue on the ground of reaoson if you don't have the liberty to argue, if your oponents don't have the stomach for it, but can only tolerate an atmosphere of one-sided partisanship?
Since there is so much heresy and blasphemy on the RF, one would think that there would be a campaign by real truth-promoters to shut down the RF, even if that meant giving up the opportunity to claim holier-than-thou status.
There's more than one way to look at most anything -- I thought it was clear that I was merely stating how I look at it! ;-)
So is Judaism. The difference is that the Jews are the ordained clergy-nation, while the Gentiles are the Noachide congregation.
Judaism got to that point, but it didn't start out there, and progress was . . . let's say "uneven."
When St. Peter tells his audience "you are a priestly nation" who is he addressing, given that he was an apostle to the circumcision?
I'm not sure what your point is here.
That is not "another". In several places St. Paul explains that works of the Law, Jewish Law or any other are not necessary for salvation, and we Catholics agree with him. In that passage, as well, he repeats that. Note verse 10.
As to Abraham's faith, St. Paul also lists the works that Abraham did to glorify God. His circumcision is not one of them. So does St James. (Hebrews 11:8-19, James 2:21-24). So, in the example of Abraham whose faith is indeed an inspiration for us, we conclude with St. James, -- Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?
Does this standard [Matthew 5:38-48] apply to Catholics when it comes to the sinlessness of Mary, her perpetual virginity, her immaculate conception, and her assumption? So, when Catholics evade the clear teaching of Scripture about Jesus siblings, then by your standard we can ridicule you back?
The standard of the Sermon of the Mount, and generally the standard of divine perfection in Matthew 5:48 applies to Catholics. In fact it applies to everyone, the Protestant just think they can avoid applying it to thmselves through their sleazy "faith alone" maneuvre.
As to these Mary issues, I agree that the scripture is not alone sufficient to teach about her lifelong sinlessness and virginity; we don't teach that from the Bible but rather from the Holy Tradition whence the entire knowledge of Mary and her life comes.
It is however false that there is a "clear teaching of Scripture about Jesus siblings". There is the correct usage of the word "adelphos/adelpheh" that may include other relatives or even apparent relatives. That usage does not preclude actual brothers in the narrow sense, but it does not prove it. The Protestant error is to read the English translation as if it were the original and pretend that they cannot understand the explanation of what the text means.
Do we Catholics love the Protestants? We love you all, and we hate your theology because your theology is false and leads you away from the Holy Church, the pillar and foundation of truth. How can we, as we love you, not hate that?
No one here agrees with that; I sure didn't "admit" that. It helps one who weants to be taekn seriously in a conversation to understand the posts you are referring to or at least point to the one that gave you this impression.
... and that, lo and behold, the word used in the NT actually meant BROTHER after all!
"Adelphoi/adelpheh" can mean biological brother/sister as well as a nephew/niece, step brother/sister, half brother/sister, adopted siblings, and even playmates, in the Greek and Hebrew usage. The "brothers" passages do not prove that Jesus had only brothers of another mother, but neither they prove that He had brothers from the same mother. They prove that He grew up in a large family.
I still haven't seen an answer to my question about why, if Joseph had other kids, he failed to bring them along with him when he had to go to Nazareth to register his family for the census? If they were left with family instead then why couldn't Mary also have been left seeing as how she was so close to her delivery?
Do me a favor. If you have a question to me, wait till I get around to that post and read the answer. If my answer for some reason missed that question, write a Freepmail to me and I will answer that one ahead of the line. However, you seem to have that figure of speech "I still haven't got an answer" which implies that I avoided answering something. Please try "I have a question" instead. I wouldn't be here if I did not want to answer your questions.
Now, the Bible does not tell us anything about the age of the brothers or what kind of brothers were they. I don't think it even tells us that they traveled to Bethlehem (not Nazareth) without them. The possibilities are that they were indeed left with the relatives as underage, or that they were grown up and were left alone, or traveled to Betholehem alone. That Mary had to travel is because she was the wife and a grown up and so subject to census.
Has anyone ever stated how old James the less was? If he really was a stepbrother to Jesus he had to be older than him. So when was he born...?
Ditto, we don't know and we don't even know for sure if St. James was a son of St. Joseph. Yes, if he was, then he would have to be older.
I'm not sure what your point is here
The point is that St. Peter was addressing Jewish Christians as the priestly nation. Remember, Jesus was sent, in his own words, to the lost sheep of Israel only, and he defines the lost sheep of Israel very clearly as not Gentiles and not Samaritans. I know, Matthew 28:19 suggests otherwise. That's another issue.
Judaism had a place for Gentiles as well as for the Jews ever since the Great Flood, when God gave all humans his seven Noachiade Laws to abide by. Gentiles are not held to any other task. They are to be the congregation and the Jews the priestly nation required to do what priests do.
The idea of a universal priesthood is a latter day development (a work in progress as you call it) that was necessitated by the turn of events that saw Christianity condemned as an apostate sect, kicked out of Israel, and left to itself to survive. Which it did, by becoming a hallenized religion acceptable to pagan Greeks and Romans.
I know this is not what they teach in Sunday school. That would be counter-productive. But the history tells us otherwise.
Well now isn't this revealing.....the ENTIRE knowledge of Mary and her life comes from catholic tradition...and not from the Bible....amazing confession Annalex.
So then 'anyone' can write their own rendition of the story about Mary and her life, (for that matter any Biblical person), and pass their ideas and imaginations of how they see her on thru the ranks of 'any religion' and call it truth. Then obtain the seal of approval from the leadership........draw a few pictures...form a few or various idols and icons...and there you have a new entity in which to worship.
So then how is that any different than fables and yarns passed thru the lineage of other religions who say they have their own truth and their leaderships approval as other religions also do this very thing and claim they are the only true religion. Even New Agers do this as well as Mormons and Eastern Religions.
The article is about the failure of what boundless liberty leads to ,not liberty to argue
As the late Fulton Sheen says... boundless liberty leads to boundless tyranny. Uncontrolled freedom will always lead a person into slavery. The second alternative can be found in people who have no direction. Their fleeting desires change without there ever being an internal change of the soul, and they are unable to choose between the many attractions and temptations in life. But there is hope because there is a searching. Those who are empty can be filled, but people who are intoxicated with their own egos have no room for God.