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
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.
First, it is not is John 3:9 , but first John 3:9,
Then you could check your own sources.
Likewise, seeing as you ref Mt. 3:9 as referring to the devil.
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 “
Yes, so?
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 anyone’s 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,
Who says?
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
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2005-0815-liberty.htm
In place of a great civilization ordered to Christ, the forces of liberalism—quite suddenly in historical terms, and by force of arms at each critical juncture—established 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 man’s 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 God’s 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 Liberty’s 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 one’s 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 death—physical, moral and spiritual—that 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 government—kings, parliaments, presidents, congresses, governors, public magistrates, and so forth—can 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 Liberty’s 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 State’s “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 order–a role de-ethicized secular governments are only too happy to facilitate with judicial decisions that bar any substantial legal limitation on the market’s 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 men’s 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 order—the 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 Church’s political claims…”[xvi] Hence both terms are in line with liberalism’s fundamental movement away from the Church’s 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 Liberty’s 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 freedom—the 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.
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.