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
“makes postie, literal statements” Read “POSITIVE”!
Your comment, however, interests me as it seems emblematic of the distinctly American protestant attitude that Eastern Christians deserve the death and destruction that we and our Mohammedan friends are and have been dealing out to them...since they are not really Christians. Am I right, mm?
John 7:37-39
On the last and greatest day of the festival, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.” By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.
And Roman scholars and translators stand agenda free and pure in motive? Please already!"
As you know, I am not a Roman partisan nor am I a Roman Catholic. Whatever their bias may be, they agree with the rest of The Church on the Real Presence.
"All Christians? You know this and can speak for “all Christians”?"
As a matter of historical fact, all Christians believed in the Real Presence until Zwingli's pathetic, limited god couldn't be in two places at once. I know this as well as any other historical fact, cyc.
"One, it is the English translations that posters are discussing and Two, that the degree of literalness in English that we have still allows us to say that taking the word “is” literally sans context would completely change the meaning and intent of the speaker."
What astonishing Anglophone chauvinism! Because you base your faith on lousy, agenda driven English translations of Greek, the bible means what English speaking protestants say it means, even if that is in contradiction to what the original Greek says because English allows for variants that Greek doesn't?
"I just knew it was all my fault!"
Indeed, it is you Westerners, people who apparently think that using English gives them the right to twist the Scriptures, who, to further your rebellion against your Holy Mother Church, foisted false translations of the bible on otherwise unsuspecting people. The result, as I noted on another thread, is the bitter weed of heresy which has all but destroyed Western society.
"“Most Christians on earth accept the notion of infallibility residing in the person of the Pope.”"
Indeed, since most Christians are Roman Catholics...by a margin figured in the hundreds of millions.
Matthew (the only "eyewitness" here) says Jesus "took the cup and gave it to them saying 'Drink from it, all of you.'" {Mt. 26:27]
But then he said he would not drink of "this fruit of the vine from now on until [6:29] he sees them in the heaven.
From now on until...since he didn;t drink any but rather blessed it and gave to to all of them, he didn't drink of it.
However, it is strange (to me at least) that he first calls it the "blood" of the [new] covenant and then the a mere "fruit of the vine."
What is being instituted here is either some miraculous sacrament (mystery) or an empty and meaningless ritual. Every time people pray to God they remember Jesus, so why go through special ritualistic remembrance of taking of the "blood of the covennant" and eating of the "body" (both of which are portrayed as life-giving) unless it is to impart some qualities on those receiving them? And why would Paul warn that one should not receive them "unworthily" if they are a mere "remembrance" or just plain bread and "fruit of the vine"?
Incidentally, according to-the Synoptic Gospels, the order of giving thanks, first for the bread and then for the wine, is the exact opposite of what the early Christians practiced (see Didache), as well as of the Jewish custom!
I am not sure what prompted this reversal, but it seems strange that an observant Jew would institute them.
“”Believers were called Christians first in Antioch. Not called Catholics.””
Yes they were called catholic’s,mm.
Please post other historical writings from someone who lived in Antioch that prove the following wrong?
“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).
...and Ignatius of Antioch believed in the True Presence in Eucharist completely opposite of protestant heretics denying it
This was an idomatic manner of expressing things commonly use din the Middle east of the time, and porbably to this day. Strictly speaking, the living water being the Holy Spirit in the Christian sense is a Johannine innovation. It does occur in the Old Testament, such as in Jeremiah, where God calls himself a living water (i.e. the source of life).
But then you have Ezekiel 14:8 who writes "And in that day living waters will flow out of Jerusalem, half of them toward the eastern sea and the other half toward the western sea...And the LORD will be king over all the earth; in that day the LORD will be the only one, and His name the only one." Clearly this does not correpsond to John's construct very well.
On the other hand we have Isaiah 44:3 where it says "'For I will pour out water on the thirsty land and streams on the dry ground; I will pour out My Spirit on your offspring and My blessing on your descendants."
But he is talking of Israel, of course, so this dioesn't apply either.
And then again Isaiah 55:1 "Ho! Every one who thirsts, come come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost."
Of course this also has nothing to do with Jesus, but was used by the Gospel scribes for their agenda.
Or Isai 58:11 "And the LORD will continually guide you, and satisfy your desire in scorched places, and give strength to your bones; and you will be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water whose waters do not fail."
And Joel 2:28 says "It will come about after this that I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind; and your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions."
Pouring the spirit on all mankind obviously is something that does not describe the pouring of the Holy Spirit on the believers.
But one can see how cherry-picked OT phrases were used to advance Christian agenda.
How sad that in order to hold on to people, your religion uses fear of God to maintain its power. Just so sad. One thing the "once-saved-always-saved" - you so sneeringly deride - have all over you is the sweet assurance that being in the palm of our Father's hand brings. We KNOW we have eternal life - not wish, hope, plead or beg for - because we believe on the name of the only begotten Son of God (I John 5:13). His name means "God with us". Almighty God took on flesh and endured shame, beatings, insults and, finally, death upon a cross so that all our sins were paid in full. He paid the penalty our sin debt required.
So, like I said, you go right ahead and trust in your own good deeds and merits for your salvation. Let that be your motivation. I, on the other hand, will rest in the grace and mercy of my Savior Jesus Christ. I will lead a life that honors him, not because I believe I must do good deeds to be saved, but because of my gratitude for his love and the grace he lavished upon me and all those who trust in Christ alone for salvation. We have a new nature, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that creates within us the desire to do the works of God. Because we love him is why we obey his commandments. You totally miss the whole point and it is your lack of faith that is defective, not mine.
John 14:15-17 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.
Galatians 3:10-11
For 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.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”
Oh those wicked, WICKED Westerners!!! If only all of them could be more Greek!!!
G’nite, K. No eye gouging or hand chopping while I’m gone!
I was good all night. Not one hand chopped nor an eye gouged!
I stumbled on the article linked below early this morning. My initial reaction is that the writer ought just to become Orthodox and be done with it, but you folks might find it interesting. Much of what he says is surprisingly insightful coming from an American Protestant, though I may be being unfair since the flood of converts to Orthodoxy we are seeing especially here in No. America is predominantly made up of evangelicals, many of them former seminarians so maybe your co-religionists know, or are open to more than I had imagined.
http://www.ovrlnd.com/GeneralInformation/Oden_Method.html
Just who does the Priest represent in the Eucharist?
Does the Priest drink the wine?
Would it proper for the Priest to drink the wine if the "Church" believed Jesus did not?
Just asking.
You do know there is a vast difference in the meaning of "catholic" and "Catholic" don't you?
Oden seems to make much of consensus and the the assembly of some body of belief and practice that Western, Eastern, Reformers can sign off on so as to present a more unified, and therefore effective, face to the unbelieving world.
Not an unusual or original idea, perhaps the depth and “systematic” aspects of his efforts are.
He mentions two subjects that I would comment further on: The first is what is oft called the “Grand Commission” of Matthew 28:19,20, which evangelicals have taken as their marching orders to convert the world.
The second is the idea that such conversion or efforts to do so would expand the ‘kingdom of God on earth’.
That ‘Grand Commission’ made every Christian a preacher, a minister of the word, primitive Christianity was not a light to be hidden under a basket and thus that light was spread far and wide with the hope of reward for obedience to that commission under trial, even to the point of death.
From what Paul wrote to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 4:8,9)it's clear some wanted their reward, the king part of ruling as ‘kings and priests’ (Rev. 20:4-6) without the nastiness of having to die and wait.
In contradiction of Peter's admonishment (1 Peter 5:1-4) they weren't going to be overseer's but “Bishops” and wear that “crown of glory” now.
But preaching the word, the Good News, to an oft times hostile world, is humbling work and However is whole world going to be converted and establish God's Kingdom on Earth if it has to be done one convert at a time?
Instead of Jesus’ “Caesar’s things to Caesar’s and God's things to God”, why not enlist the power of the state and meld the interests into a thousand year reign of the church enforced by the state. The Kingdom of God established with a Bible in one hand and a sword in the other.
Neither ‘traditionalists’ nor ‘reformers’ can disavow their “Fathers” practices, one because they can't error, the other because it was indispensable to their very existence.
Of these a new consensus orthodoxy is to be formed? That's scary!!
In the context of Christianity and the comments of our Holy and God Bearing Father +Ignatius of Antioch, those of us who are members of The Church, as in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, be it Orthodox, Latin Rite or Oriental Orthodox, with the exception of some very few, uninformed, Latin Rite members of FR, all deny that there is any distinction at all between those two words, capital "C" or not. This, by the way, has been the position of The Church since the first years of the 2nd century as is apparent from +Ignatius' warnings against the teachings of extra ecclesial heretics. I assure you that sfa shares these sentiments.
What becomes a bit odd is Protestant's reciting credo some form of: One Holy (C)atholic and Apostolic.
It would not describe the same, or universal, beliefs; and, with reference to the article Kolo posted, "Apostolic" is not what it once meant - either in terms of authority or what was believed and taught by the Apostles. As in the recent discussion of the Real Presence.
Yes, that is correct,my friend.I think have been through this already with Old Reg this year if my memory serves me correct
ph
Nonsense. Paul was writing in his capacity as a long standing bishop of the Church. "Our" means the members of the clergy who have authority to write in such fashion.
Epistle=written New Testament scripture...Paul indicates that parts of the written New Testament were being circulated and these traditions are being recorded into scripture...And this is confirmed by the Apostle Peter...
Paul indicates nothing of the kind. If you have something here, prove it. Otherwise, consider this: 2 Peter was written centuries after Peter died in an attempt to squash the apparent rift between Paul and the rest of the Church. Epistle means a letter written. That's all. Paul had no idea that his letters would become Scripture.
And since I and all other Christians were put into the Church BY GOD when we believed, as the scripture states, and membership in your requires the 'good works' of your sacraments, a year of indoctrination and approval by your clerics, it is clear that your religion is not the Church of the Bible...
God put YOU into His Church? Not very picky, is he? And now you are saying that your salvation is of works? Your tune changes, my friend. In the next phrase, you accuse Catholics of the same thing and disapprove of it. We wrote and chose the Bible - we decided which books would be included in the NT, and which version of them; we further decided that the Septuagint was to be the OT Bible. If you adhere to the Canon of Scripture, upon whose authority do you decide your religious beliefs? Upon the Holy Spirit?
Or the image you see in the mirror...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.