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
Sorry, daniel1212, I still don’t get it. Are you saying that the gospel preached in the book of Acts is the “gospel of least resistance” and that it no longer works today?
I am confused.
Forgive me for wasting your time. I was attempting to make the point that when the Apostles Creed was first written in Greek "catholic/universal" was not capitalized and was an adjective. For that matter the letters of Ignatius were written "catholic" was not capitalized.
Somewhere along the way "catholic" (adjective) became "Catholic" (and used as a proper noun.) ie. "Catholic Church".
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.
I have already answered that in 5,677, and I do realize that your replies are backlogged. Of course, your post only shows to what level of rationalization Christian apologetics had to go through (and still do) in order to "explain" this conundrum called Christianity.
However, if (as a lawyer) you carefully read what I wrote, you will note that it says the Son and the Spirit are eternally caused by the Father, so your objectionthat it means "there was a time of non-existence"is unsubstantiated.
But this still doesn't explain what makes Son a son, and the Father a father! All this, of course, is part of the Christian riddle which gives it that "mysterious" appeal that requires a language that almost borders on psychotic (i.e. "I am in you and you are in me" type) yet trips all over itself because it is an amalgam of mutually exclusive and incompatible elements (Judaism, Platonism and Zoriastrianism), so much so that everyone has a slightly different take on it.
The fact that the caused and uncaused concepts of divinity (i.e. the "Godhead") appear to be alien to a mainline Christian only shows the chasm of mutual misunderstanding that exists in Christianity under the guise of commonly used terminology and a superficial unity in "core beliefs" among all Christians. Christianity is as heterodox today as it was 2000 years ago. If you scratch the surface, you find a bottomless canyon between various communities in terms of what they understand Christian concepts to mean and, ultimately, what they believe in.
OK. First, I hope you read the the rest of the post which this last portion came from, part of which stated,
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.
Then note in the last section at issue that the first paragraph presents what manner gospel preached in the book of Acts was as regards repentance, which was the context of the post. And in which what repentance meant to some as part of conversion was considered, with some preaching a “stop sinning and come to Christ” type gospel.
Beginning the second sentence the word “but” serves to make a distinction, qualifying that the repentance preached in Acts was a basic repentance of faith, that is, from unbelief in the Lord Jesus to faith in Him, which (consistent with what i described before) signified a basic turning in heart from darkness to light, and which results in the inner transformation that resulted in effectually turning away from sin to serve Him who died in rose again.
Beginning the second paragraph, the important word “but” is used again to signify a another distinction in describing a gospel which I had previously censured as as one that does not bring souls under the Biblical conviction which works to brings souls to see their need for mercy, and and it is that gospel-lite preaching which increasingly predominates today.
Sorry for presuming to much upon the context , and not making the distinction clearer.
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.
Good affirmation. I see the Deity of Christ as something well attested to (http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/DEITYofCHRIST.html) but the error that is often made is that positional distinctions disallow it, but while the head of Christ is the Father, to whom He will be subject to in the future, and the Spirit is subject to the Son, that does not negate their ontological oneness.
There is a question as to how much, if any, one must understand this relationship in order to be saved. My thinking is basically that the soul who first looks to the Son sent from the Father to be the Savior the world (1Jn. 4:14) for the salvation of his own soul, is implicitly attributing Deity to Christ, as well as to the Father. And as this is spiritually revealed, the saved soul should realize the basic core teaching of the Godhead of the Father Son and Spirit when enlightened to it by the Scriptures and scriptural teaching, if in as he continues therein.
“Somewhere along the way “catholic” (adjective) became “Catholic” (and used as a proper noun.) ie. “Catholic Church”.”
Pretty much after the Great Schism. In the West (and here on FR)the term “Catholic” became identified solely with the Church of Rome. In the East we still call The Church (Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox) “Catholic”. And we call the Church of Rome, the Roman Catholic Church.
Truth be told, it is funny to see Roman Catholics say that +Ignatius of Antioch was speaking, apparently exclusively, of the operation headquartered today in Rome and saying he used a “capital C” (in Greek which has no “c”) when he wrote to the Smyrneans that the “catholic” church was where the bishop is.
All double predestination means is that God is sovereign and He chooses His children and who will be with Him in Heaven. It is opposed to the idea that man is the one who chooses whom are God's children and will be with Him in Heaven. I am unaware of any concept of dualism that would include God choosing alone in His sovereignty what He alone has the right to choose.
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 mans merit.
Perhaps you dont understand what the Church teaches regarding merit. From the Catechism...
...... 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 mans 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. Mans merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit. (emphasis added)
2009 Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of Gods 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 Gods gifts.62 (emphasis added)
I really may not understand what the Church teaches here as I find these two sections completely contradictory. One shares credit between God and man's free will (meaning will that has not been under God's control), and the other somehow gives all the credit to God. These would appear to be mutually exclusive ideas, but I have thought that the actual position of the Church is really the first. It would be a misnomer to refer to "man's merit" if the truth is that it is "God's merit through man". Plus, free will choice requires partial independent credit for man alone. Otherwise it would not be free will.
Maryz: 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).
Kosta: How does either differ from the OT God?
I rather like that Kosta, thank you. The Calvinist God is unlike the Latin God because the Calvinist God is like the God of the OT. I love it! :)
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?
Since every Protestant is charged or enabled to come up with his own belief, there is theoretically one separate interpretation for every Protestant out there. When a Protestant of a singular belief attempts to convert another, then that opposes however slightly another Protestant attempting to convert another. This is what I mean.
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.
The Magisterium was the group that wrote, massaged, chose and published the Christian Bible. If you don't like the history of it, that is up to you. However, if you do believe in the Bible, I would think that you oughta know what went into it, what changed, who changed it, and to the best of our knowledge, why.
The Truth? The original Christians - the Apostles? From Jesus. The succeeding generations - from them and from the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Do you scoff? If so, consider this: you guys believe in the Holy Spirit guiding the individual. We have millions of individual beliefs resulting from that idea. The Catholic Church has one idea. There are some differences about a few things, but those are addressed in the context of One Faith. There is one Catechism. Not, as in the case of the Baptists (not to pick on them), of every single congregation picking and choosing their own beliefs. Or, following the escapades of the Presbyterians, it looks like a kitten unraveling a ball of yarn.
The Truth? From God, and from His stewards on earth. Where else?
Since God wills every man to be saved, we are in accord on this.
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.
What those others are Jesus, the Apostles, and the Fathers of the Church, I'll take those scrapings.
***Since every Protestant is charged or enabled to come up with his own belief, there is theoretically one separate interpretation for every Protestant out there.***
In the last couple of days I have been told I am a brother in Christ, but other times I’ve been told I am going to Hell.
We have been told that Paul was a lunatic, but Rome tells us otherwise.
Goes on and on.
When FRoman Catholics can agree on all doctrines promulgated by Rome we’ll chat.
You: What those others are Jesus, the Apostles, and the Fathers of the Church, I'll take those scrapings.
The theology that comes from Jesus Christ, Moses and the prophets and the Apostles through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God are not "scrapings". They are the words of life. The theology from the "Fathers of the Church", well some of what they said could be called scrapings, and worse. :o)
Not all Latins are exclusively Rome-centric. The ancient five sees are, well, the equals.
That is my understanding as well...
FK “I rather like that Kosta, thank you. The Calvinist God is unlike the Latin God because the Calvinist God is like the God of the OT. I love it! :)”
MB: “That is my understanding as well...”
I agree too, FK. That’s why I often observe that it seems we worship different Gods.
We have been told that Paul was a lunatic, but Rome tells us otherwise.
Goes on and on.
When FRoman Catholics can agree on all doctrines promulgated by Rome well chat.
INDEED. Their hypocrisies on such matters are outrageously deep and broadly demonstrated. Yet, I don't recall
a SINGLE RC
in over 10 years on FR admitting a single such brazen hypocrisy.
What's WITH that?
The usual Vatican AIWSOTARM ARROGANCE TO THE MAX?
The theology that comes from Jesus Christ, Moses and the prophets and the Apostles through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God are not “scrapings”. They are the words of life. The theology from the “Fathers of the Church”, well some of what they said could be called scrapings, and worse. :o)
Are Protestants not exhorted to read the Bible for themselves and go as the "Holy Spirit will lead them"?
In the last couple of days I have been told I am a brother in Christ, but other times Ive been told I am going to Hell.
Catholics cannot judge another's final Judgement. That is only up to Christ. If we believe that you are a brother in Christ, that is one thing, but final Judgement is beyond us.
We have been told that Paul was a lunatic, but Rome tells us otherwise.
Paul is venerated as a great saint, but we are cautioned not to misunderstand him, as many have to their detriment.
When FRoman Catholics can agree on all doctrines promulgated by Rome well chat.
I don't care what individual FRoman Catholics believe. There is the One Faith of the Church. I care about that. That is Catholicism, not what any individual poster may say, or any individual FReeper may interpret. The Catechism is final.
That is the purpose of the Magisterium. For example, Origen, one of the greatest Doctors of the Church, was excommunicated because he did not believe in the end, as the Church did. Augustine departed from Church beliefs, only to come back in the end, repudiating his extra-faith writings. The Magisterium is the consensus patrum - the one Faith and the one Belief. The extra-Magisterial writings are simply that - individual writings and have no weight on the Faith.
“”All double predestination means is that God is sovereign and He chooses His children and who will be with Him in Heaven.””
Everyone is chosen to be God’s children,it’s our free decisions that send us to hell and has nothing to do with God sovereignty deciding from eternity.God can only desire goodness in creation since that is His essence.Hell is completed connected to mans decisions to do evil
“Thou lovest all things that are, and hatest nothing of the things that Thou hast made” (Wisd. xi, 25)
From the words of the late blessed Pope JPII...
Eternal damnation, therefore, is not attributed to God’s initiative because in his merciful love he can only desire the salvation of the beings he created. In reality, it is the creature who closes himself to his love. Damnation consists precisely in definitive separation from God, freely chosen by the human person and confirmed with death that seals his choice for ever. Gods judgement ratifies this state.
FK-””I really may not understand what the Church teaches here as I find these two sections completely contradictory. One shares credit between God and man’s free will (meaning will that has not been under God’s control)””
Nothing contradictory,dear brother. Man moved by Grace can accept that Grace and freely follow God’s will,thus man synergistically WITH GOD does good works enlightened by the Holy Spirit being fully aware and wanting to participate with God through that synergism with God.
A few words from Church Fathers...
When effort on our part is absent, then Gods help also stops. Saint John Chrysostom
“God works together with willing souls. But if the person abandons his eagerness, the spirit from God is also restrained. To save the unwilling is the act of one using compulsion; but to save the willing, that of one showing grace. 190 AD St. Clement of Alexandria Salvation of the Rich Man chap. 21
Everyone is chosen to be Gods children,its our free decisions that send us to hell and has nothing to do with God sovereignty deciding from eternity.God can only desire goodness in creation since that is His essence.Hell is completed connected to mans decisions to do evil
Thou lovest all things that are, and hatest nothing of the things that Thou hast made (Wisd. xi, 25)
If one examines Scriptural inclusion of the 'reprobate', one discovers that there are only 3 instances and only in Paul. They speak of reprobate of works and of faith. Not of the pre-damned of Reformed theology.
***I don’t care what individual FRoman Catholics believe.***
Funny thing is that you Romanists interpret the Roman Catholic catechism in many different ways.
Each of you seems to be your own Pope her on FT, telling us what Rome teaches.
Again, I don't particularly care. The Catechism is final. I have had some Protestant friends who were at least as knowledgeable about the Catechism as I am. Unlike the children of the Reformation who have the licence to come up with whatever the hell they come up with, for whatever reason, we are not free to create our own religion. Else, we fall outside of the Faith and are, or should be, excommunicated like that nun in Pheonix, AZ., who was in the business of baby butchering.
Our Reformed friends are interestingly silent. And their sycophants are speechless.
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: John 14:9-14 : 9...This doesn't match a stand alone "the Father is greater than I"
Of course it does. :) It implies, according to the Greek word used, that the Father is even more excellent that the Son. John 14:9-14 doesn't show otherwise. The excellence of the Father is not a stand-alone feature but an ongoing one of the New Testament.
Jesus also referenced his own works as being a greater witness than that of John as well as the then-existing Scriptures, (Jn. 5:36,39) in substantiating His claims and teachings. And he likewise reproved the Jews for presuming that physical lineage validated their claim to be sons of Abraham, (Jn. 8:39,44) a presumption which Paul also corrected. (Rm. 2:28,29) While under the Old Testament the magisterial teaching office was perpetuated through the Levitical priesthood, which was based upon physical lineage as well as formal ordination, this did not render them assuredly infallible interpreters of the Scriptures, and presumption to teach doctrines which were contrary to Scripture was reproved by the Lord and using Scripture. (Mk. 7:6-13) And it is self-evident in the New Testament that the Law, the Psalms and writings of the prophets (Lk. 24:27,44) had come to be accepted as Scripture without an infallible magisterium, although certainly that teaching office was important to that process.
As concerns Roman Catholicism, the claim is made his that her historicity, in which she claims she uniquely is the same church as that of the first century onward (including the fourth century when the canon of Scripture was largely settled from), confers upon her a unique interpretive authority, and even being more so, an assuredly infallible magisterium. And which office in turn infallibly interprets both history Scripture to mean that she is that one true church.*
However, as pointed out before, if her historical argument was accepted as a basis for her authenticity, the logic behind this claim would require us to submit to the Jewish magisterium in interpretation of Scripture, as they alone are explicitly declared to to be the stewards of Scripture, a least those which then existed. But by whose interpretation there would be no New Testament.
But as the church exists by faith, and overcomes the gates of Hell by it, and faith comes by hearing their word of God, and the Scriptures are the only source which are assuredly wholly inspired of God, then for those who accept Scripture it should be held as the supreme judge of faith and morals. And as God could essentially raise up from stones children to Abraham, so he can raised up a church using stones like Peter, who profess the essential truth by which the faith journey begins.
Yet the church does not exist estranged from history, for faith without works is dead, and the testimony and teaching of extra-Biblical believers works to influence understanding of faith, and of the Object of it. However, if they have any valid testimony and teaching then it is a result of having believed the word of God, which again Scripture is, and which itself was essentially established as being such by its qualities and the attestation given it by God, including effects which result from believing it. But as influential as such men are, they were not assuredly infallible, and all must be subject to warrant and conformity with that which is written (we know which writings of Biblical men were inspired by their inclusion therein). That said, the more one's testimony is effectual like that of Scripture then the more power he will have with men, and with God.
Other issues related to this is the uncertainty as to how many of all the writings of Rome are infallible, its inability to fully understanding every truth found in the Deposit of Faith, and the degree of disagreement which Catholics and clergy are allowed to have and do have concerning those which are not, as well as the need to interpret both fallible and infallible teachings. Within Catholic scholarship there are two very diverse camps even as concerns interpretation of Scripture, while her laity evidence greater disagreement in basic moral issues in certain doctrines than her Evangelical counterparts.
How this relates to the doctrinal unity SS type evangelicals most universally have regards core essentials, and the unity of the Spirit as a result, and the degree they may disagree in secondary matters, is a further consideration, but this is long enough already.
I've let this observation sit for a while, hoping someone better equipped to address the matter might happen upon it, and correct such a peculiar misperception.
The Old Testament God is the New Testament God. God is eternal. He is the Great I AM. Anyone who believes it was God who changed from Old to New is deluded. If the "Latin" God is not the Old Testament God, then there is a problem with the "Latin" belief, not the Calvinist.
God is not all love and forgiveness and the New Testament does not claim that that is His sole nature. Vengeance and judgment are His and always have been.
Our Calvinist brothers and sisters are more severe in their beliefs, that much is clear to anyone who has participated here for any length of time. Their beliefs regarding predestination seem to me to be rather too harsh and mechanical, instead of accepting the fact that we do have free will to choose Him or not. That our decisions have always been known does not change that.
But, predestination does acknowledge the foreknowledge and that the ultimate fate for each of us sitting here today is known and always has been. So, I'm not going to nitpick and squabble over it. Their doctrine is theirs, and whether or not I dispute it does not affect their salvation or mine, it's a minor matter in the greater scheme of things.
Putting created beings, dead or alive, in a position of authority or even as intercessor between us and God is not a minor doctrinal matter, and so we see the apparently endless debate. Calvinists have been the most determined to point out the error in this, but it's an error that is recognized by most deemed "Protestant." Could the language be less provocative? It certainly could. But, then again, severity is a hallmark of Calvinism, in my perception at least, and so it's to be expected to some extent.
I would think it axiomatic among Christians that the Bible wasn't assembled for the whole world but for Christians only (including future Christians).
The Torah was assembled for Christians? The Gentiles are included only insofar as the Seven Noachide Laws are concerned. The Gentiles have no other role in In God's plan. The Torah is about the Jews and for the Jews, and Christians are not Jews.
The entirety of the OT points directly to Christ, so there would have been plenty to check. :) Jesus said: John 5:45-47...
This is like a Mormon "proving" the entirety of the OT points to Latter day Saints because the Book of Mormon says so. Moses did not write a single word about Jesus or anyone like him, except in convoluted Christian rationalizations and alterations, such as demonstrated here.
The author argues that Matthew misquotes and/or distorts Jewish prophets, contradicts other Gospels, and makes up stories by providing bible verses and references.
I am not posting his arguments (they have already been posted on FR on July 21, 2010 by another poster) because my intention is not to get into the polemics, but to simply remind you that things are not as clear cut as you seem to present them.
You ask for proof that Scripture tells us that salvation is by the grace of God through faith alone. I and others have repeatedly shown you the proofs from the Word of God. What you seem to not understand is that when God tells us something, dealing with the most critical subject of "what must a man do to be saved", he never minces words and that is what you seem to be doing. Why would Scripture say through faith in Christ we are purified, sanctified and justified and then omit the very thing you say is required - our works? The verses I gave never said faith plus some other thing, so we may have confidence that this is what God is speaking to. Salvation is by grace through faith, just as he says.
We are not saved by works of the law, you say you agree, but you then say it is by "works of love", "works of faith" that bring salvation. Yet, you totally leave out the impetus for those very works - the new birth. Salvation comes through faith in the saving grace of God who gave his son to be the propitiation for our sins. His blood pays for sin, completely. Our works are a by-product of the changed heart of flesh that was once stone, the new nature versus the old sin nature. It is Christ working in us to will and to act according to his good purpose. (Phil. 2:13)
So, if you choose to do your good works out of your own strength to ensure your salvation, then you are rejecting the grace of God that promises salvation to us through faith and that, by his power and grace, he works his will through us to the praise of his glory. It's the MOTIVE that he cares about. Works done to add to the grace he has already given us, nullifies his grace and will not save.
He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
But we know that what was written was not all the same, as great many variant manuscripts show, and that there were errors and additions and omissions, and that Chirtsianity neither used the same books, nor preached the exact same faith for three centuries.
Just like today, they all preached Christ, their version of who and what he is. Sure, they all had some version of the Gospels, be it either the one where the Great Commission does not have the Triniatrian formula in it (as attested by Eusebius in the third century), which also the Book of Acts strongly supports, or be it the long or short versions of Luke's Gospel, or be it the Peshitta or the various 2nd century AD attempts to bring LXX closer to the Hebrew text (Aquila, Symmachs, etc.), etc.
All this has been erased or eliminated, or conveniently forgotten, or even destroyed or buried somewhere, so as not to cause any 'confusion'. And the myriad of other books, besides the "canonical" ones that were used by Christian apologetics were simply expunged as profane and purged from the canon, including the ones found in the oldest complete Bibles dating back to the 4th century, as if they never existed.
[FK: The Apostles taught orally with authority from Christ] [Who says?]Jesus did in His Great Commission.
And who wrote the Great Commission if not the very people who claim to teach with the authority of Christ!? This is like the Congress voting itself a pay raise.
Judaism never believed in the devil.
Moses was also an "observant Jew" (as Jesus approved of Moses' testimony about Him).
Of course he did. Written in retrospect by people vying desperately for some divine authority as they were being kicked out of synagogues as apostates and heretics by the Jewish community. Remember, this is "John" writing at the end of the first century as this was taking place. Besides, there is no Mosaic testimony of Jesus, in the minds of people capable of hyperbolic rationalizations.
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.
If is the operanat word here, FK. John 5:46 does not correspond to anything specific Moses wrote about Christ, unless of course one uses some pretty far out ideations. Judaism simply does not believe in satan, and never did. Apparently some heretical Jewish sects did under the influence of Zoriastrinaism.
If the works of the Law, which are from God, cannot save, what on earth makes people think that the works THEY decide on, the works which are from men, can save?
As i have pointed out before, the only kind of saving faith is one that bears fruits which correspond to repentant faith, and “things which accompany salvation, and which is overall what Reformers taught.
Thus “the doers of the law shall be justified” (Rm. 2:13) not because they merit it by works, but because it is that kind of faith which is salvific.
But as stated before, the Scriptures also warn of denying the faith, and of forfeiting what faith appropriates. (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 10:25-39)
Get ready, one day you will stand before the Lord God Almighty and explain to him why you call grace through faith "drivel".
Christians are exhorted to be faithful in doing good because it is what being a Christian is about. By our lives we give testimony of the rebirth that comes when we accept Christ as our Lord and Savior. Good works such as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness are called the "fruits of the Spirit". They indicate a person who has been born of the Spirit and it is his work within us. By our free will we choose to do these works, we assent to the leading and guiding of the Holy Spirit to purify and mature our faith. Any person God uses to lead his people has this calling to not only lead others to a faith in Christ as Savior but to surrender themselves to him as their Lord.
The role of the evangelist is to lead people to saving faith in Jesus Christ and then to direct them to a fellowship of believers for instructions in living the full life of a Christian. The apostles went about preaching the Gospel and the assemblies of believers formed in every area to pray, learn, share burdens with and worship the Lord in unison. The pastors, teachers, elders, even each believer had roles within the congregation. The assembly was intended to be for those believers who had been won to Christ by the preaching of the soul winners and everyone of us should be winning souls to Jesus.
Well, we know Jesus did not ever deceive, so, he was telling him the truth, in fact, he told many people that their righteousness had to exceed even the holiest people they knew (the Pharisees). The man he was speaking to was so full of pride that he thought he deserved eternal life, he would not even look at how sinful he really was. His money was his weak spot it seems. Jesus was showing him and all the others that the perfection of God was impossible for anyone to achieve and, by that, he was pointing them to the only hope they had, Jesus Christ the Savior, the Messiah.
If the Jews didn't believe in Satan, then it was because they didn't read their own Scriptures. Starting in Genesis, he is referred to as the "serpent" who deceived Eve. There are many scriptures that speak of "evil spirits". We see in Isaiah 14:12, that he is called "Lucifer" who was at one time "Son of the morning". He was the "anointed cherub", the "Great Dragon". Jesus made references to him many times and the Jewish religious leaders never called him on it - they would have grabbed at anything to trip him up. In Revelation we are given many references reiterating the same titles such as in Rev. 8:10 and Rev. 12:9.
I think that is an excellent question!
"Eternal damnation, therefore, is not attributed to Gods initiative because in his merciful love he can only desire the salvation of the beings he created. In reality, it is the creature who closes himself to his love. Damnation consists precisely in definitive separation from God, freely chosen by the human person and confirmed with death that seals his choice for ever. Gods judgement ratifies this state."
Sometimes Roman Catholicism can be completely Orthodox. :)
And then there are times when the Catechism deviates from the the consensus patrum that it is positively breath taking. For example, that section of the Catechism found here:
on "Merit" is so at odds with what The Church in the East teaches as to be a stumbling block to reunion. Quite aside from the assertion that we can become partakers of the Divine Nature ("[T]he hypostatic union is fulfilled only in the case of the Logos, the God-man." +Gregory Palamas), to maintain that our theosis is in any fashion the result of some "merit" as opposed to dying to the self and becoming like God, by freely given grace alone, through the following of the Commandments and the practice of those virtues which are particular attributes of God.
"We unite ourselves to Him [God], in so far as this is possible, by participating in the godlike virtues and by entering into communion with Him through prayer and praise. Because the virtues are similitudes of God, to participate in them puts us in a fit state to receive the Deity, yet it does not actually unite us to Him. But prayer through its sacral and hieratic power actualizes our ascent to and union with the Deity, for it is a bond between noetic creatures and their Creator." +Gregory Palamas
The Catechism's talk of "merit", and even more so of the "Treasury of Merit", leads me to conclude that the Western Church believes that somehow or other humans can "deserve" theosis, that they can "merit" it and that The Church can dole out additional "merit" from its Treasury to whomsoever it wishes. This looks to me to be the pernicious result of the notions of indulgences and quantifiable "created grace (created energies)". There is a profound difference, at least as I see it, between the metanoia leading to theosis experienced by those who die to the self and live only in noetic contemplation of the Trinity and practicing the divine virtues and following the Commandments in order to get "merit" which then, apparently, compels God (Necessity again?)to admit the Christian into a union with Him. Do I misunderstand? Is it simply the words the Catechism uses? You know, the implications of this for any reunion are not good, my friend.
It would make whatever problems you see clearer to the rest of us.
“”The Catechism’s talk of “merit”, and even more so of the “Treasury of Merit”, leads me to conclude that the Western Church believes that somehow or other humans can “deserve” theosis, that they can “merit” it and that The Church can dole out additional “merit” from its Treasury to whomsoever it wishes. This looks to me to be the pernicious result of the notions of indulgences and quantifiable “created grace (created energies)”. There is a profound difference, at least as I see it, between the metanoia leading to theosis experienced by those who die to the self and live only in noetic contemplation of the Trinity and practicing the divine virtues and following the Commandments in order to get “merit” which then, apparently, compels God (Necessity again?)to admit the Christian into a union with Him. Do I misunderstand?””
Pope Paul VI wrote the following Apostolic Constitution On Indulgences that hopefully will help you understand this better coming from Latin Viewpoint
Here are a few excerpts,but you should really read the whole thing because it really clears up many misconceptions
Following in the footsteps of Christ,(16) the Christian faithful have always endeavored to help one another on the path leading to the heavenly Father through prayer, the exchange of spiritual goods and penitential expiation. The more they have been immersed in the fervor of charity, the more they have imitated Christ in his sufferings, carrying their crosses in expiation for their own sins and those of others, certain that they could help their brothers to obtain salvation from God the Father of mercies.(17) This is the very ancient dogma of the Communion of the Saints,(18) whereby the life of each individual son of God in Christ and through Christ is joined by a wonderful link to the life of all his other Christian brothers in the supernatural unity of the Mystical Body of Christ till, as it were, a single mystical person is formed.(19)
Thus is explained the “treasury of the Church”(20) which should certainly not be imagined as the sum total of material goods accumulated in the course of the centuries, but the infinite and inexhaustible value the expiation and the merits of Christ Our Lord have before God, offered as they were so that all of mankind could be set free from sin and attain communion with the Father. It is Christ the Redeemer himself in whom the satisfactions and merits of his redemption exist and find their force.(21) This treasury also includes the truly immense, unfathomable and ever pristine value before God of the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, who following in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by his grace have sanctified their lives and fulfilled the mission entrusted to them by the Father. Thus while attaining their own salvation, they have also cooperated in the salvation of their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body.
“For all who are in Christ, having his spirit, form one Church and cleave together in him” (Eph. 4:16). Therefore the union of the wayfarers with the brethren who have gone to sleep in the peace of Christ is not in the least weakened or interrupted, but on the contrary, according to the perpetual faith of the Church, is strengthened by a communication of spiritual goods. For by reason of the fact that those in heaven are more closely united with Christ, they establish the whole Church more firmly in holiness, lend nobility to the worship which the Church offers to God here on earth and in many ways contribute to building it up evermore (1 Cor. 12: 12-27). For after they have been received into their heavenly home and are present to the Lord (2 Cor. 5:8), through him and with him and in him they do not cease to intervene with the Father for us, showing forth the merits which they have won on earth through the one Mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 2:5), by serving God in all things and filling up in their flesh those things which are lacking of the sufferings of Christ for his Body which is the Church (Col. 1:24). Thus by their brotherly interest our weakness is greatly strengthened.(22)
For this reason there certainly exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth a perennial link of charity and an abundant exchange of all the goods by which, with the expiation of all the sins of the entire Mystical Body, divine justice is placated. God’s mercy is thus led to forgiveness, so that SINCERELY REPENTANT SINNERS may participate as soon as possible in the full enjoyment of the benefits of the family of God.
Then how come the OT God did (by sending or being a "deceiving spirit")?
The man he was speaking to was so full of pride that he thought he deserved eternal life, he would not even look at how sinful he really was
The man earnestly believed he did everything right. Having an honest but erroneous belief is not sin in and of itself.
His money was his weak spot it seems. Jesus was showing him and all the others that the perfection of God was impossible for anyone to achieve and, by that, he was pointing them to the only hope they had, Jesus Christ the Savior, the Messiah
No he didn't. He told him to sell everyhting and follow him. How many people do you know who give up all their vices and follow Jesus (except perhaps some monks)?
Oh sure, that must be it! They need Christians to teach them their what's in their own scriptures. LOL!
Starting in Genesis, he is referred to as the "serpent" who deceived Eve. There are many scriptures that speak of "evil spirits". We see in Isaiah 14:12, that he is called "Lucifer" who was at one time "Son of the morning". He was the "anointed cherub", the "Great Dragon"
There is no Satan in the Garden because he appears elsewhere in the Old Testament as an angel of God, his prosecutor general, and the word Satan itself is not always applied only to him. It's a title. Perhaps you need to learn Jewish scriptures a little better.
Lucifer is a word invented by Jerome in the 6th century AD. The morning star is a Babylonian deity, like Baal is the Phoenician deity and therefore an idol (or devil), not an angel of God which Satan is clearly identified as in Job.
In Revelation we are given many references reiterating the same titles such as in Rev. 8:10 and Rev. 12:9.
Revelation is hardly a Jewish scripture. Christian scriptures were written to reinterpret the Old Testament and make it "christianized" the way the Book of Mormon tries to "momonize" both the Old and the New Testaments.
Merit is a problematic word that implies "earning" something. But the Latin side will rationalize it away the way it rationalizes the filioque, because no church, regardless which, can ever admit to being wrong.
7 Now they know that everything that thou hast given me is from thee;
8 for I have given them the words which thou gavest me, and they have received them and know in truth that I came from thee; and they have believed that thou didst send me.
9 I am praying for them; I am not praying for the world but for those whom thou hast given me, for they are thine;
10 all mine are thine, and thine are mine, and I am glorified in them.
11 And now I am no more in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.
"...that they may be one, even as we are one."
Are "they" to retain an individual identiry or are "they" to become God in the same manner you say Jesus is God?
Jesus did not ever claim to be God. Rather, He said "I am in the Father and the Father is in me,..." and this is the same he asks for you.