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
Good post boatbums...and great questions. Response should prove interesting I would think..
“”consider for a moment if you can that others feel the same about yours. So why are you “right” and they re “wrong?”””
I try to consider what other people believe and they are free to believe whatever they want,all I can do is try and imitate what I believe God is through my actions towards others in love and humility(which I admit that I fail sometimes)
I would never believe that God is not anything but love because He would lack perfection,so when I see the OT represent God as hateful I understand that these things a metaphoric because God cannot have love and hate in Him or he would not be perfection,Thus can not be God
If it [inspiration] 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?"
How or what do you extrapolate that? You must know that the Hebrew the same word for breath means Spirit, and second Peter 1:21 states that men were moved by the Holy Spirit. Also, Jesus is called the arm of the Lord and the Holy Spirit is called the finger, none of such is contrary to to the Trinity.
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
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.
The issue was about the nature of Divine inspiration in which you restricted, opposing that of the Roman Catholic Church, and my response was propositional. While it seems you must oppose any statement that affirms Divine inspiration, the point is that Roman Catholic Church, who you argue has the right to define doctrine, disagrees with you.
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.
The issue was how Divine inspiration may be understood, not that you had to subscribe to it.
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?
Once again, the issue is your take on Matthew 7:22 (though you said Mt. 7:12) regarding assurance of salvation, and while you contest Rome on inspiration, and which also allows for special of relation providing assurance, I tried to reason with you showing the Scriptures, which you don't necessarily have to believe in order to following argument, if you want to be reasonable.
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."
You are warning about disparaging remarks? You excel at them as the evidence shows, while my question, as you do 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? was well-justified as that is your propensity even if one attempts a civil discussion which touches on the integrity of the Bible or Protestantism.
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.
It is neither a retreat nor a need, as you look for an explicit command to the apostles to write down the gospel, and suppose that the commission to preach the gospel precluded writing the message down so that common people could read it. Yet Jesus obviously affirmed the practice of writing Divine revelation, and tutored his unlettered disciples by them, and commanded them to teach others, and there is more than one way to preach.
In addition, the issue was about the basis for Rome's rejection of private interpretation, and she bases her doctrine on more than the gospels, while you reject accepts 2Tim. 3 as being inspired by the Spirit of Christ. Your argument that it is clear based upon silence that Jesus wanted his message taught by "experts" and not read is simply unreasonable.
And it cannot be permitted by you that even though writing down revelation from God was the norm,
Do you mean who says it cannot be permitted? That is apparent by your rejection of the warrant for it versus an argument from silence and restricting preaching to only being orally. As for who says that was the norm to write Divine revelation, below are references on Scripture being written and having been so. And while there some evidence of revelation being not written, (Jn. 21:25; 2Cor. 12:4; Rev. 10:4) it is interesting that i find no place where the specific term the word of God or the word of the Lord refers to revelation for which the content was not subsequently written down. Ex. 17:14; 24:4,7,12; 31:18; 32:15; 34:1,27; 35:29; Lv. 8:36; 10:10; 26:46; Num. 4:5,37,45,49; 9:23; 10:13; 15:23; 16:40; 27:23; 33:2; 36:13; Dt. 4:13; 5:22; 9:10; 10:2,4; 17:18,19; 27:3,8; 28:58,61; 29:20,21,27; 30:10; 31:9,11,19,22,26; Josh. 1:8; 8:31,32,34,35; 10:13; 14:2; 20:2; 21:2; 22:9; 23:6; 24:26; Jdg. 3:4; 1Sam. 10:25; 2Sam. 1:8; 1Ki. 2:3; 8:53,56; 12:22; 2Ki. 1:8; 14:6; 17:37; 22:8,10,13,16; 23:2,21; 1Ch. 16:40; 17:3,9; 2Ch. 23:18; 25:4; 31:3; 33:8; 34:14,15,18,21,24; 34:30; 35:6,12; Ezra 3:2,4; 6:18; Neh. 6:6; 8:1,3,8,15,18; 9:3,14; 10:34,36; 13:1; Psa. 40:7; Is. 8:20; 30:8; 34:16; 65:6; Jer. 17:1; 25:13; 30:2; 36:2,6,10,18,27,28; 51:60; Dan. 9:11,13; Hab. 2:2;
Refs to Scripture in the New Testament: Mat. 1:22; 2:5,15; 3:3; 4:4,6,7,10,14; 8:17; 11:10; 12:3,5,17; 13:35; 19:4; 21:4,13,16,42; 22:29,31; 24:15; 26:24,31,54,56; 27:9,34; Mark 1:2; 7:3; 9:12,13; 10:5; 11:17; 12:10,19,24,26 13:14; 14:21,47,49; Lk. 2:3,23; 3:4; 4:4,8,10,16,17,20; 7:27; 10:26; 18:31; 19:46; 20:17,42; 22:37, 24:22.27,32,44,45,46; Jn. 2:17; 5:39,46,47; 6:31,45; 7:42,52; 8:17; 12:14; 10; 34; 12:14,16; 15:25; 20:31; 21:24; Acts 1:20; 2:16-21,25-28,34,35; 7:42; 8:28,30,32; 7:42; 3:33; 13:29,33; 15:15,21; 17:2,11; 18:24,28; 23:5; 24:14; Rom 1:2,17; 2:24; 3:4,10; 4:17; 8:36; 9:3,13,33; 10:15; 11:8,26; 12:19; 14:11; 15:3,4,9,21; 16:16; 1Cor. 1:19,31; 2:9; 3:19; 4:6; 9:9,10; 10:7,11; 14:21; 15:3,4,45,54; 2Cor. 1:13; 2:3,4; 3:7,15; 4:13; 7:12; 8:15; 9:9; Gal. 3:10,13; 4:22,27; Eph. 3:3,4; Col. 4:16; 1Thes. 5:27; 2Tim. 3:15; Heb. 7:28; 10:7; 13:22; 1Pet. 1:16; 5:12; 2Pet. 3:15,16; 1Jn. 2:21; 5:13; Rev. 1:3,11; 22:6,7;10,18,19 (Note: while the Bible reveals that there is revelation which is not written down, (2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4)
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.
No, the objection by the Church (not just by Rome) is that by private interpretation the morality of the Bible becomes relative. It is clear that Jesus wanted his message taught by "experts" and not read.
..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.
Where did he command them to write anything down and to promote "fluency in the Scriptures"?
In context, i was referring to the unreasonable nature of your disallowing this as a conclusion based upon the established pattern which He implicitly affirmed. Jesus often invoked Scripture from the beginning of His ministry to the end, which He would not have had the texts unless it was the practice to write it, and He specifically opened up the minds of the disciples to the understanding of the Scriptures. (Lk. 24:45) If they were to follow Jesus, they would have done likewise. And in the rest of the New Testament, which the Church of Rome accepts, it shows that writing of Divine revelation continued as a pattern.
[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.
Fixation? Your assertion that Protestants are to submit to Rome as being the authority over Scripture was how this exchange began and was primarily about, only to have you reject her definition of inspiration, etc.
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.
Actually, the things which Catholics must give assent to faith in corresponds to the core essentials evangelicals most universally consent to, while very little all of the Bible has been infallibly defined by the Catholic Church, and they can have varying degrees of disagreement on non-infallible teachings of the Ordinary and General magisteriums. And as there is no infallible list of all infallible teachings, there is disagreement upon all of which ones are. This is pointed out by the Orthodox.
Related to this, the Catholic Bible interpreter has the liberty to adopt any interpretation of a passage that is not excluded with certainty by other passages of Scripture, by the judgment of the magisterium, by the Church Fathers, or by the analogy of faith. That is a great deal of liberty, as only a few interpretations will be excluded with certainty by any of the four factors circumscribing the interpreters liberty (Jimmy Akin, Catholic Answers)
Moreover, Rome's official doctrinal unity is not necessarily greater than that of any single Protestant denomination. And if doctrinal conformity is the real goal itself, then the Watchtower Society would have the preeminence. And in this case the means of such unity is by implicit trust in an ecclesiastical office, versus men being persuaded by manifestation of the truth. The former means has greater quantity, while I would submit of the latter is of greater quality, however more rare it may be. Meanwhile, the basic unity the among evangelicals, which is manifest in many ways, is overall greater than the divisions among them, however deleterious they are.
Jesus never promoted it., so why should Christians?
Jesus appealed to man's reasoning as a means of discerning spiritual meaning, including from Scripture, from the fallible Pharisees to the common people (Mk. 12:36,37) to his disciples, (search refs above), and Rome actually realizes this this appeal is valid and necessary in bringing people to submit to Rome. However, once they have they are discouraged from objectively using it in order to ascertain the validity of her infallible teachings.
Because Paul said so. But Paul is no Christ.
Well again, since it is Rome's restriction that is at issue, and she accepts the plenary inspiration of all Scripture, and derives her doctrine from more than the Gospels, this must be included.
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.
A small percentage, but typos would be far worse if it were not for Firefox (marks typos as you type)
As for the number of posts, that was intended to break down your "book" responses, never mind the color show.
Partly due to your many assertions which require substantiation, and going off on another point when shown to be wrong on the one at issue. And the color is formatting others find helpful.
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.
Her hope does not refer to hope its true which would be contrary to her assuredly infallible magisterium, but a hope that one effectually believes the truth, versus presumption. But despite your affirmation of her in seeking to subdue Protestants, you effectively do denigrate her Bible and God.
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.
Insults themselves were not the issue, but your defense that your insults were only aimed at Protestants in defense of Rome, while you oppose its Bible and its God as well. And i do not engage in denigrating Mary, while opposing extreme exaltation, and try to have reasonable debates.
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.
You are the one who seems to have a sworn Fatwah against the Bible, while my statement her was in response to your inference that you were consistent with the rules of this pro-God forum.
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.
Thank you for your service, but as for this forum, the reality is that as you relegate all Gods to being man-made ones, you oppose being pro-God in any real Christian sense, to which their nation owes so much, while you denigrate the faith of those who attempt to reason with you as to warrant for it. While you do have freedom to do so, yet it can hardly be supposed that you support the FR pro-God intent.
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.
I do NOT tell you to be silent because you expressed an idea of God different from mine, and you said here that you do not know of any except man-made ones, nor would i have silenced AFF (though Paine's attacks where discouraged), but the problem is your reacting with censorious attacks when you see something that touches on the integrity of the Bible and its claims, mainly by Protestants.
I thank God we were able to have a fairly civil debate regarding the first infallible definition of the Roman Catholic canon however. Good day, over and out.
1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. 2Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? 3Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? 4 Did you suffer so many things in vainif indeed it was in vain? 5Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith 6just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?
7Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” 9So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
10For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for usfor it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree” 14so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
15 To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. 17This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
19Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.
21Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you are Christs, then you are Abrahams offspring, heirs according to promise.
Even in isolation man is never completely free, SFA. He is still subject to his environment and forces that are greater than he.
In any even a minuscule group or society, the pecking order established limits to liberty. Anarchy is untenable because it is unnatural.
As the late Fulton Sheen says... boundless liberty leads to boundless tyranny.
Of individuals in power only. And even then their tyranny is not boundless but will, in the worst case, expire with their life. Nothing human is boundless.
It's good to believe in God who is love. It is better for the whole world. But the world is not made to our measure, taste or order, so why would God be? Just asking...
To: annalex; metmom; Quix
we don’t teach that from the Bible but rather from the Holy Tradition whence the entire knowledge of Mary and her life comes.
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.
5,649 posted on Monday, December 20, 2010 9:02:54 AM by caww
Absolutely, good point.
I know you are busy, and this is true, but Rome teaches that believers are accounted to have "truly merited eternal life" by those very works which have been done in God. And that eternal life is both a gift as well as reward to their good works and merits, (Trent, Chapter XVI; The Sixth Session Decree on justification, p. 43; cf. Canon 32, 1547) that believers merit graces needed for the attainment of eternal life. (Catechism of the Catholic church, Part 3, Life in Christ, Merit, 2010)
Thus while works of the law are disallowed as salvific, Rome attributes salvific merit to works of faith. This implies that the reason for the use of the term works of the law in such places as Romans 4 is to place such in contrast to works of faith. However, other texts do not specify works of the law, but broadly refers to works, which it sets in contrast to faith. And the law being holy just and good, (Rm. 7:12) if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law, (Gal. 3:21) while the righteousness of the law is never abrogated. (Rm. 8:4)
Thus the problem is not with the manner of righteousness which the law upholds, but the manner of attaining it, which is not by any manner of merit of law-keeping, but by recognizing yourself as a law breaker and trusting in the mercy of God in Christ to save you by his blood, and which faith is imputed for righteousness. To be sure, the only manner of faith which is salvific is that which is of a confessional quality, meaning it confesses Jesus as the Lord in word and deed, with baptism being the first official expression of that faith.
The key difference as I see it between this and what Catholicism teaches is that it is not by any merit of works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, (Titus 3:5) not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. (2Tim. 1:9) And while Roman Catholicism seeks to make eternal life a gift as well as a merited reward, rendered to their good works and merits, it is either one or the other.
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?
You seem to be one who is diligent in your faith, and according to esteem of truth one can understand the mutual feeling. Yet your statement cannot necessarily say is that Protestant theology leads one to eternal damnation, as Rome overall recognizes that those separated Churches and Communities as such such as who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal,.. in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power, also stating. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation.
But what your statement implies is that Catholicism manifests a greater degree of grace, which is her stance, while the multitudes of those who left Catholicism for Evangelical churches (which has far more been the case than the opposite), testifies otherwise. To be continued..
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.
Evangelical Christians largely affirm the canon of Rome and core Scripture truths both agree on, but I hope you can also understand that evangelicals typically experienced a dramatic transformation due to trust the gospel of grace preached from the Scriptures, after having been in churches where it was not really preached nor the Bible was emphasized. Due to that and their resultant Scripture and relationship centered faith they are alarmed at doctrines which lack Scriptural warrant and militate against it (such as praying to departed saints) and which much depend upon tradition and the infallible magisterium.
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.
Matthew 5:48 certainly does apply to everyone, and while it is easy to broad brush evangelical faith, the reformers overall did not preach, easy believism, but held that a faith which is salvific is one which shows forth fruit fit for repentance and endures. Recently no less a figure then R.C. Sproul preached, Since our righteousness proceeds from our justification, which is based upon the righteousness of Christ alone, we must never be deluded into thinking that our works of righteousness have any merit of their own. Yet as Protestants, zealously maintaining our doctrine of justification by faith alone, we must be ever mindful that the justification which is by faith alone is never by a faith that is alone. True faith is a faith that manifests itself in righteousness exceeding that of the Pharisees and the scribes, for it is concerned with the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy.
The issue is what perfection means, and its attainment. What the Bible most clearly teaches is that true believers, for which faith is not a one-time deal, are declared righteous and thus practice righteousness. While they do not attain unto complete perfection, as Christ is perfect, they are not only positionally made to sit together , and heavenly places in Christ Jesus, (Eph. 2:6) but upon death they shall ever be with the Lord, (1Thes. 4:17; 1Cor. 15; 2Cor. 5:6-8) and will be made like Him when He appears, (1Jn. 3:2) but who show yet judge the quality of their works. (1Cor. 3:8-15; 2Cor. 5:9-11) More could be said, but I am trying to be brief
“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.”
There is actually some debate with Catholicism today over the Traditional position on inerrancy, expressed in such statements as the encyclical letter “Providentissimus Deus” (124-125) by Pope Leo XIII (1893), and “Spiritus Paraclitus” by Pope Benedict XV (1914-1922) and the 1943 encyclical “Divino Afflante Spiritu” by Pope Pius XII (1943) which affirmed full inerrancy (in the original mss i assume), and the limited inerrancy position derived from “Dei Verbum” of the Second Vatican Council.
The link to a page below , while being to a liberal site which i oppose in many things, on this issue presents a concise representation of quotes. http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran1.htm
The modern RC scholarship i have seen definitely lists strongly to port in its interpretive foundation, against which is this well written protest: http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/SEMINAR.htm
Of course,but there are still boundless things we can do in a lifespan within our human capacity in that environment that we have freedom to do.
In any even a minuscule group or society, the pecking order established limits to liberty
We still can freely ignore the limits set by the pecking order if we want to
Are you asking why would God be love? You have to excuse my Italianess of thinking ,dear brother :)
I agree wholly. We are not bound by the Jewish legalisms. When they accord with the natural law we retain them, e.g. we retain and in fact expand (in the sense of the Sermon on the Mount) the Ten Commandments. The dietetic laws, and this tiny literalism that you note, and the entire spirit of legalism we reject.
That freedom is not boundless, but conditioned by consequences that follow such a rebellion.
The pecking order is ever changing and not fixed and neither is those who rebel against the pecking order fixed,it's all boundless
That both are miracuous acts of similar nature that Jesus performed.
Infancy Gospel of James, a fraudulent work
It accuratley reflects the belief extant in 2c. Why should I instead take the beliefs of 20c? Looking for fraud, look at it among the shysters of Protestantism.
"Necessary for salvation" is itself a sleazy Protestant "dodge" invented in order to remove faith from people's lives. A Catholic believer would never ask that. According to Catholic belief, one can live a life of dissipation, wake up, confess it, take the Holy Eucharist and die a saved man. That one did "everything necessary" for salvation. According to Protestant belief, even less, he only has to walk up to a minister no one appointed sqeeze out a tear and profess something with Jesus Christ personal Lord and savior in it, and bingo, done, and he does not even have to stay away from sin afterwards. Mind you, I am not diparaging late life conversions, but I am disparaging that idea of minimalism. The Protestant project has always been, -- "what part of the Body of Christ can we amputate and still call ourselves Christians?"
A Catholic believer believes the entire faith, Christ, and Mary, and the saints, and everything. He knows the faith from the source of that knowledge, the Church that preserved it. That doesn't mean there are no degrees of importance, but the desire is to get it in full as best is possible, not to get something easy, preferably in a pill form and rush off to work. Our faith is a building with interlocking parts. Your faith is a stake in the ground where the building is supposed to stand. The building itself is never there.
when it comes to your phrase, I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is from the Nicene rather than the Apostles Creed, you mean to say that you believe in the Church similarly to the way you believe in God. [...] But the Creed does not say that. [...] I believe in the holy Christian/Catholic Church just as I believe in the Communion of Saints, just as I believe in the forgiveness of sins, just as I believe in the resurrection of the body, just as I believe in the life everlasting. I can see none of them. They are not tangible, subject to discovery by my natural senses.
And God is (now that Christ is in Heaven) tangible to our senses? The Church is not God. It is someone who preserved for me the knowledge of God. The Church, moreover, is the visible Church it has books open to my senses, buildings, clergy, bells and smells, all these are visibly present to give me Christianity. God became tangible, vulnerable flesh because He wanted to. God gave us a visible Church because He wanted to. I take her and I believe her witness. You can take her too.
You have, in effect, driven millions away from the Creed in your arrogance
The Western Church does bear the blame for the scandal and the tragedy of Protestantism, but believing the Holy Scripture as written and the Creed as formulated is not part of the blame. Also, we allowed Protestantism to happen and we shall heal it, glory be to God.
Well, annalex, your first two paragraphs are so full of false caricatures that there is no room for anything else. It must be very comforting for you as a Catholic to have as your enemies people so stupid, false, and hypocritical.
Then, in your third paragraph, you wrote: “And God is (now that Christ is in Heaven) tangible to our senses?” I read and reread what I wrote trying to figure out what the impetus for this question might have been, and thus what it might mean. I’m sorry, I don’t get it.
Well, I am left with only the Holy Scriptures and the historic Creeds of the Holy, Christian Church. And you possess holy mother church and all her caricatures, excuse me, her “interlocking” caricatures, of what God’s Word says. You offer me the choice: “You can take her too.” Thank you. But offered the choice of taking or leaving her. I will leave her, especially as she is pictured by you.
Jesus performed his own birth?
“It (my comment ‘Infancy Gospel of James, a fraudulent work’)accuratley reflects the belief extant in 2c. Why should I instead take the beliefs of 20c? Looking for fraud, look at it among the shysters of Protestantism.”
Lots of fraudulent beliefs existed in the 2nd. cen. and there are certainly shysters among Protestants but neither do I accept as explanatory of Scripture.
While generalizations are often valid, and Protestantism has its general characteristics as does Catholicism, yet the former is not one particular Church, in the above generalization is far from uniform and is actually more of a recent declension, which is part of taking on form of the world and which is exists, which Catholicism knows of itself. The reformers overall preached repentance and an enduring faith that would bear fruit as salvific*, and today there exists basically three camps within Protestantism.
The first camp is that of liberal, institutionalized churches in which there is little emphasis upon the authority of the Bible, with little strong preaching and heartfelt worship, and the need for salvation is not pressed upon the hearers, and perfunctory professions substituting for such. Catholicism also overall suffers from this type of religion.
The second camp is basically that of churches which may emphasize the Bible and the need for salvation, some fundamentalist types of which may have high standards for Christian conduct while others more appeal to the flesh, but they both preach a gospel in which salvation is not that of faith out of a broken heart and contrite spirit, which God promises to save (Ps. 34:18) and looks to, (Is. 66:2), but instead emphasizes faith in the promise of eternal life bt faith in Christ, largely divorcing faith in Christ as Savior from Jesus is Lord, the latter of which the sinner is to confess in receiving the former. (Rm. 10:9,10)
This does not mean a sinner stops sinning to come to Christ, but as those who do come to Christ are choosing light over darkness, (Jn. 3:19-21) so those who come to Christ to be saved from their sins are those which have a basic change of heart, from darkness the light, which shall be manifest in works which correspond to repentance, things which accompany salvation, (Heb. 6:9) according to the light they have.
The third camp are churches which largely preached this, which range from fundamentalist type churches to holiness Pentecostals, which recognize that repentance is implicit in leading on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Protesting against the current spiritual declension into easy believism, the popular fundamentalist preacher John MacArthur states,
The gospel in vogue today holds forth a false hope to sinners. It promises them that they can have eternal life yet continue to live in rebellion against God. Indeed, it encourages people to claim Jesus as Savior yet defer until later the commitment to obey Him as Lord. It promises salvation from hell but not necessarily freedom from iniquity. It offers false security to people who revel in the sins of the flesh and spurn the way of holiness. By separating faith from faithfulness, it teaches that intellectual assent is as valid as a wholehearted obedience to the truth.
Thus the good news of Christ has given way to the bad news of an insidious easy-believism that makes no moral demands on the lives of sinners. It is not the same message Jesus proclaimed.
One must be careful here, as it is possible to go to the other extreme of making conversion to Christ something that only persons who have sufficient character can be saved by, requiring them to be able to turn from all sins before they are saved, or not taking into account that growth in grace is related to the different degrees of grace of person has realized, and to whomsoever much is given much is required. (Lk. 16:48)
The gospel preaching in the book of Acts called souls to repentance, but it was a basic repentance of faith, recognizing Jesus is Lord and trusting in the salvation out of which transformed life results. But it is the gospel of least resistance, and is least difficult to preach, which does not work to convict men of sin, righteousness and judgment and which brings them to appreciate mercy, that marks the latter days we are in.
“The gospel preaching in the book of Acts called souls to repentance, but it was a basic repentance of faith, recognizing Jesus is Lord and trusting in the salvation out of which transformed life results. But it is the gospel of least resistance, and is least difficult to preach, which does not work to convict men of sin, righteousness and judgment and which brings them to appreciate mercy, that marks the latter days we are in.”
Excellent summery , thank you
I tend to agree with MacArthur , If Christ is not the Lord of your life, He is not Lord at all.
Thanks for the article, I read most of it and like much of it.
"For it would have been possible for Christ to do everything that the Holy Spirit was to carry out. But this is the reason why the Holy Spirit proceeds to miraculous deeds, so that we may learn of His importance. Similarly, the Father could have created all beings, but the Son does this so that we may learn of his power. It is for the same reason that the Holy Spirit undertakes such activity... For the Father is capable of doing all things, as is the Son and the Holy Spirit. (emphasis added) ......
This is the kind of co-equalness I can readily identify with. However, this does not seem to match my interpretation of what Kosta was saying about "causes".
"Is the Spirit greater than you (the Son) because that which could not be borne by the disciples he now prepares us to bear? Is his energy greater and more perfect? No, I am not saying this. For he will declare 'what is mine.' This is why it is said: 'For he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak...' But because he said, 'He will teach and remind you . . .' and that 'he will guide you into all the truth,' he also said, 'He will take what is mine and declare it to you,' so that you will not assume that the Spirit is greater. This means that whatever I (Christ) have said to you, he (the Spirit) will also say to you . . . nothing contrary, except the same things that I have said. And as the Son said, 'I do not speak on my behalf,' meaning that he does not say anything that is his alone and does not come from the Father, so also with the Holy Spirit. The expression, 'He will take what is mine and declare it to you,' as far as I know, has to do with the knowledge of the Son. For the knowledge of the Son and of the Spirit is one and the same ...
This is another good example. None is greater than the others. I really didn't see anything in this article portraying the Father as either "greater" or even a first among equals in the general sense. That is, some see the Pope as a first among equals in a general sense. I didn't see Chrysostom making a similar case for the Father. But that IS the case I thought Kosta was making with "causes".
Everyone at the Second Ecumenical Synod knew well that this question was settled once and for all by the use in the Creed of the word procession as meaning the manner of existence of the Holy Spirit from the Father which constitutes His special individuality. Thus, the Father is unbegotten, i.e. derives His existence from no one. The Son is from the Father by generation. The Holy Spirit is from the Father, not by generation, but by procession. The Father is cause, the Son and the Spirit are caused.
As Lutherans and Orthodox we confess together faith in "the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life." Like the Son, the Holy Spirit receives his existence from the Father, though the Spirit "proceeds from the Father," while the Son is "begotten" of the Father. Like the Son, he receives from the Father the Fathers own divine nature, and so he is one in essence with the Father and the Son
I really didn't see anything in this article portraying the Father as either "greater" or even a first among equals in the general sense
Again, FK, the Bible clearly quotes Jesus as saying "the Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)
The Greek word used (μειζων) is one of those Greek words with a pageful of meaning, generally translated as either greater or elder, in terms of excellence. There is simply no way around this verse.
Holy, Catholic and Apostolic are adjectives and Church is a noun. Not a proper noun. Maybe I don't understand the question or don't know the English grammar well enough to answer.
The dilemma in Romans 9-11 is the conflict between faith and works of the law. Faith is contrasted to legalisms. Faith is not contrasted to any kind of works without distinction, because St. Paul goes on to exhort people to good works later on in the letter, as I showed, and "works" is often qualified "of the law".
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision: but faith that worketh by charityFaith is work.
That Protestants do good works does not surprise me, but exhortations from a Protestant pulpit to do good works make no sense had the pastor himself believed his Faith Alone drivel. If works followed automatically from faith without involvement of the free will, there would be no more need to exhort people to charity than there is a need to exhort people to eat when they are hungry.
It's like "neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision: but faith that worketh by charity", so eating or not eating anything is not in itself good or bad. It is good when the Church encourages it and bad if she is not. Same with eating pork.
What council or pope have the chutzpah to override the decisions of those early church fathers?
I don't know, but to rule in matters of Church discipline (what and when to eat, how to serve the Liturgy, what saints to celebrate when, whether priests should be celibate -- is the undisputed prerogative of the Church (Matthew 16:19, 18:18)
The Law specifically forbade the eating of blood. Jesus, who had to perfectly fulfill the Law to be the spotless sacrificial lamb, could not have eaten blood at the Last Supper
Jesus is One Who gave the Law, including the Old Testament Law and he said "this is my blood". You are correct that the notion of eating His flesh and drinking His blood was terrifying to the Jews, see John 6 on that.
Depends on the nature of the purported sin. Eating pork or not circumcising boys were sins till the Church abolished these restrictions (Acts 15).
Ceremonial and disciplinary law is the prerogative of the Church. Laws of faith, nature and ethics are different, -- the Church may clarify them but she will not fundamentally change them.
I understand why you do them, but given the often stated belief that good works are a product of faith and not conducive to salvation I don't understand why the pastor would urge the works. He should be urging faith. Isn't his task to lead you to salvation?
I am not sure but I know for certain that I am free to eat blood sausage or any similar dish. I am not aware of any absolute restriction on diet today in the Church.
That would be late Renaissance; certaily Michelangelo had that streak.
On the other hand, Catholic art indeed must be understood as a consequence of the Incarnation: God condescends to our flesh and sanctifies it. It is therefore a proper object of art. The iconclasts disagreed.
“Depends on the nature of the purported sin. Eating pork or not circumcising boys were sins till the Church abolished these restrictions (Acts 15)”
Uhhh... No. The decision was made by God and He so informed the church of His decision. The Law had been fulfilled in Christ and thus was no longer binding upon anyone.
Ten Commandments are works of charity. Love God, love your neighbor, love your parents, etc. If one obeys the Ten Commandments as law then he perhaps avoids condemnation of the law, but he does not advance his salvation. If, on the other hand, he obeys the Ten Commandments because he loves God and the neighbor, then he is doing works of love and advances his salvation greatly. He doesn't even need to know what is in them.
It is sometimes said that we obey the Ten Commandments not because they are in the Old Testament (so is a lot of stuff we do not intend to obey) but because a reasoning loving person would not wish to break them. Note that in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus expands them but He does not repeat the prohibition on making of images -- which has nothignn to do with love, -- and makes the other commandments sort of fuzzy around the edges. You can have a law against murder. You cannot have a law against getting angry (see Mt 5:22).
Good question, and often asked.
I don't know them by name but the Bible describes them as those who have received grace through faith. Works of faith never hurt anything. They are acts of obedience and show a love for God. They just don't earn anyone anything that gets them closer to Heaven.
Second, the self-denial is to not follow yourself as a measure but what Christ did, but imitating him. Imitation implies works of some kind, whether mental or physical works, it doesn't matter. It is an effort, a struggle (Slavonic podvig) to conform to Christ in faith and in everything else.
That is all well and good and obedient as part of sanctification, but it doesn't save. Jesus said so Himself:
Jesus says that even someone who had kept all the Commandments all of his life (for the sake of argument) still had not done enough to earn his way in. In fact He says it is impossible. Perfection is impossible. And He doesn't say there needs to be some correct mix of works of faith, no, He goes on to say:
No mention of works there as contributing to their being in Heaven.
Those who rely, indeed excuse everything they do, on Christ's righteousness simply because they call on his name, are actually relying on their own and not his. They only use his name as an excuse for their doing whatever they want to do.
I couldn't agree more. However, I have to say that I have never seen an example of such a person on FR of any faith.
But that is not the same as "faith alone". To have faith in Christ must include believing in what he tells you to DO. Sanctity, for example, is what you do. You read "your faith saved you" and you understand "so faith without works saved me". You understand wrong.
If you haven't already, I'd say that article about Chrysostom's explanation that Kolo linked to the other day is worth a read. :) I was good with most of what he said about the issues of role and nature, etc. I believe he covered the point you raise above.
Either it's true or he was deceiving the man. He is telling him to give up everything he had and come follow him. How many people do you know who did that? I know none.
Matt. 19:28 Jesus said to them, I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. No mention of works there as contributing to their being in Heaven.
He was obviously speaking only to and of the 12 disciples. Their "works" seem to be in that they followed him, physically.
There is a reason why the Law in Lev. 17 said the soul of every sort of creature was in the blood and treated the blood as the life or soul just as our language does in speaking of taking a life as “shedding blood”.
That the blood was/is viewed by God as something special, as meaning life is Paul’s words in Hebrews 9:14 and chapter 10 about Christ’s shed blood.
God’s view has not changed about the blood of animals and humans since He guided the decision at Jerusalem.
This goes with my recent post to Kolo about the Chrysostom article. MY existence was caused by God, so how can the existence of any of the Trinity said to be caused? To say "caused" means there was a time of non-existence.
Sure, but Jesus was obviously not splitting His "hypostatic union" (if I am using that correctly) and speaking in His "Divine-only" capacity. Just a few verses earlier He says:
This doesn't match a stand alone "the Father is greater than I"
So why did it take theherarchichal clergy to figure out the puzzle (and still don't agree fully on it)?
I don't think God abdicated and left it up to anyone to figure out. It seems logical to me that if God was going to take such great care in inspiring His word to be exactly what He wanted it to be then He would also take similar care in having it assembled into one book. And while you are surely right that even today not everyone agrees on its composition, I still find it remarkable that there is agreement to the degree there is given the amount of theological disagreement between Christians on so many other issues.
FK: You're right that it didn't happen overnight, but we can be confident today that what we have contains the essence of what God wants us to know.
Unless you are Jewish or Mormon or Muslim, or Hindu...
I would think it axiomatic among Christians that the Bible wasn't assembled for the whole world but for Christians only (including future Christians).
What exactly did [the Bereans] check? To find risen Christ (the only one Paul supposedly got to know) in the Old testament? Give me a break.
The entirety of the OT points directly to Christ, so there would have been plenty to check. :) Jesus said:
FK: That's right, before any scripture was written down its truth was transmitted orally
Oh yeah? How, exactly, word for word, the same words every time? How do you know that?
I don't know if it was word for word before it was written down, but I do know it was idea for idea because what was taught was what was believed and that is what was written down and then later accepted and canonized. I would think that the writings that introduced new info from left field (and not written by a heavyweight) were the ones that were thrown out.
FK: The Apostles taught orally with authority from Christ
Jesus did in His Great Commission.
Judaism never believed in the devil.
Daniel1212 pointed out that Moses was also an "observant Jew" (as Jesus approved of Moses' testimony about Him). If Moses testified about the correct Jesus then he testified about a Jesus who believed in the existence of satan. Therefore, the faiths of the OT righteous included knowledge of satan.
Sorry for not making that part clearer, which the below changes should do. Thanks for speaking up.
The gospel preaching in the book of Acts called souls to repentance, but it was a basic repentance of faith, recognizing Jesus is Lord and trusting in Him for salvation, out of which transformed lives result.
But it is the gospel of least resistance (and which is the least difficult to preach), and which does not work to convict men of sin, righteousness and judgment - and which [conviction] brings them to appreciate mercy - that marks the latter days we are in.
“I don’t understand why the pastor would urge the works. He should be urging faith. Isn’t his task to lead you to salvation?”
1. You continue to present a view of SS type churches as simply trying to get souls past the gate. As noted before, this is far from the whole, and while it has its share, Catholicism has its equivalent, and she effectually, if not officially, fosters a faith in which her power and some good deeds will get the most nominal Catholic into glory, Ted Kennedy being just one.
2. To disassociate works with faith is no more valid than separating love with acts thereof (and multitude surveys show evangelicals far more fruits thereof). What a person does reveals what they ultimately believer, regardless as to whether it conforms to their profession. And the faithful preacher exhorts works in the same order as the Bible doctrinally does, after establishing the means to salvation and the state the believer has as a result, and with the motive to glorify God.
This entire piece is worth reading, especially sec. 7 where he has a great discussion of the patristics of the Trinity. It was written by the Dean of the Theology School at the University of Athens. Here's a link:
Apples/Oranges. We know from Scripture that faith comes from hearing. We also know that Scripture exhorts us to do good works. Since our sermons are based on Scripture it should come as no surprise to anyone, well most anyone, that if we are to hear all of Scripture will hear exhortations to do good works as part of out new status as sons/daughters of the King.
If works followed automatically from faith without involvement of the free will, there would be no more need to exhort people to charity than there is a need to exhort people to eat when they are hungry.
Why is that? Hind brain dominant activities have NOTHING at all to do with spiritual life of the elect. Your caricature of Sovereign Grace is, as usual, incorrect. As I pointed out above no one claims that good works automatically follows faith. It comes from good Biblical expository preaching, the kind that doesn't mix apples and oranges. Just like Scripture teaches.