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
And here I thought you were an "expert" in Biblical traditions. Can't know everything, I guess. Raising of hands in praise to God is an ancient practice, in fact the OT Jews made it a tradition and I can only assume God received the genuine show of praise they meant since he never forbid it. See the following for examples:
And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the LORD with their faces to the ground.
Let my prayer be set forth before thee as incense; and the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice.
I honestly believe that we should do so unapologetically. God desires the "sacrifice of praise".
There was no capitalization in Greek or any other language till much later. I capitalize “Catholic” for the same reason I capitalize “Protestant”, (or “Paleolibertarian”) because they refer to a particular system of thought to which many people exclusively belong, and that is how standard American English operates.
There is a modern idea that “catholic” means “universal” and “Catholic” means “Papist”. As you might imagine, I disagree: I never heard of “catholic joint” or “catholic remote”, and all historical references to “catholic” match “Papist” just fine. So I don’t think there ever is a real reason to not capitalize “Catholic”.
One delicate case is “Are the Eastern Orthodox Catholic or catholic”? That is the ony context in which perhaps, it makes sense to use “catholic” to indicate their peculiar status as conformant to Catholic theology but not in the formal union with the Pope of Rome. But I still would use “Catholic”, because I don’t like word games that cannot be backtranslated in Patristic Greek.
See my previous post on this subject.
St. Ignatius did not merely say that “Catholic Church is where the bishop is”. He also wrote about the centrality of the belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. My point is never that St. Ignatius was Catholic as opposed to Orthodox, — in general there is nothing in Eastern Orthodox Churches that is not Catholic in doctrine, — but that he was Catholic as opposed to Protestant.
I would agree with this statement to the extent that God did indeed grant some sovereignty to man in relation to other creations. Without reference to anything Kolo said, man's sovereignty is limited and man's will never supersedes God's.
Deuteronomy 30:14 states that we can do what is necessary to be saved (although Paul chooses to misquote it in Romans 10:8).
In my translation I don't see any conflict in word or intent:
Paul's correct starting point is that it is God Who gives us our faith and that by faith we are saved. He goes on to say "10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.". Paul is very clear in his teachings that this Christian heart is not something that we earn through works or because we are "good" enough. No, Paul teaches that faith is an unmerited gift from God.
FK: Our free will is completely subjugated to His free will
Does that include Satan's will as well? Is Satan merely doing God's will?
satan's will is certainly subjugated to God's, as we see at the beginning of Job. But I think whether we should characterize satan as "doing God's will" is a matter of semantics. In one sense "yes" because nothing can overrule God's will and everything that God wills, happens. In another sense, "no" because of course God hates all sin and is the author of none of it.
FK: Whenever different, His will overrides ours every time
So, then, we are to give praise and thanks to God for every Holocaust-like event because it was his will??? You've got to be kidding, FK! How many other Protestants share this "core belief" of yours?
Naturally if we took the time to give individual thanks for all that is due God, then that is all we would be doing every waking minute. So, Christians understandably focus on giving thanks for those things that are easily understood. But of course that doesn't mean we shouldn't give thanks for what is painful. Paul gives us a perfect example:
As far as other Protestants, I don't know how many would agree with the way I am expressing these ideas, but I know that every Reformer would agree with my sentiments that nothing trumps the will of God, and that whatever God wills is done.
And those who will not [be with God in eternal life] are those who did not have faith (because he didn't give it to them specifically so that they may be "lost"!) and for that they will spend eternity in hell, punished for sins they had to commit, all for the pleasure and glory of this God!
Absolutely, couldn't have said it better myself! Isn't it glorious? :)
FK: Ultimately, the creation of every person will bring glory to God, but that will manifest itself in very different ways.
And since all do his will (because, remember, he overrides theirs if it is different form his), some are destined to do evil and some are destined to do good; no matter how you turn it around it is still God's doing (or overriding), FK, be it good or evil. Is this another Protestant "core belief"?
I still disagree that everything is God's "doing" just because He wills it. For God to get what He wants, many many times He simply does nothing at all. I don't consider that the same as "doing". Now, if evil was a part of the plan and God "injected" evil into a person thus forcing the desired result then you would be right. But I say it doesn't work like that. We produce all the evil all on our lonesome.
From your statement it looks like the general topic you are raising is predestination. If so, then as far as being a Protestant core belief goes I would say not, since I think it is closely related to the heart of the disagreement between Reformers and Arminians.
10For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. 11For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty.
Once a person commits one sin, they are condemned. they need FORGIVENESS. Works could only save if someone kept the Law perfectly their entire life; only if they never sinned.
Since that is not possible, forgiveness must be granted. That's an act of mercy on the part of the forgiver, not what is due to the sinner for other good works racked up to his account.
Salvation is a gift given out of mercy. You don't work to earn a gift or earn mercy. If you earned it, it wouldn't be mercy, it would be wages.
John 6:29 Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."
These are the words of Jesus Himself. And yet Catholics as a whole, deny them when they claim that some other *works of faith* or some such nonsense, is what gets you into heaven.
There is no teaching anywhere in Scripture, certainly none from Jesus, where we are instructed to adopt a new set of works to get us into heaven.
No you didn't. You showed me verses where faith is praised and leads to salvation. You also showed me verses where grace is said to be not of works. But theae are all Catholic doctrine, and none of these teaches that faith alone is salvific. If you think you showed me somethign other than what is the general description above, find that post and then kindly find my response to that post, and if that does nto work, get back to me.
Our works are a by-product of the changed heart of flesh that was once stone, the new nature versus the old sin nature
Just recently (see my 6,378 responding to Gamecock's 5700) Gamecock infored me that "no one claims that good works automatically follows faith". Apparently boatbums did not get the memo.
If works are a by-product of faith, why does the Bible exhort to them, including Titus 3 that you incompletely and incorrectly cite:
 Admonish them to be subject to princes and powers, to obey at a word, to be ready to every good work.  To speak evil of no man, not to be litigious, but gentle: shewing all mildness towards all men.  For we ourselves also were some time unwise, incredulous, erring, slaves to divers desires and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.  But when the goodness and kindness of God our Saviour appeared:  Not by the works of justice, which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost;  Whom he hath poured forth upon us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour:  That, being justified by his grace, we may be heirs, according to hope of life everlasting.  It is a faithful saying: and these things I will have thee affirm constantly: that they, who believe in God, may be careful to excel in good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.
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
This just makes no sense. I choose to do good works because the Bible tell me I will not be saved otherwise (Matthew 25:31-46). Also, it is precisely because "His blood pays for sin, completely" that my works can sanctify my by the sovereign operation of His grace. If there had been no Cross, there would have been no "laver of regeneration" and no "faith that worketh in charity" (Gal 5:6), and no "good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2:10).
Show us the Greek word for penance and where it shows up in Scripture.
Repentance is in the Bible a lot. But God never commanded us to do penance. That’s another example of deliberate mistranslation by the Catholic church in order to support its heretical doctrine of works based salvation.
And of course, the Catholic church just happens to be the one to be able to dictate which works can save and to dish out penance for people to do to earn God’s forgiveness.
Scare tactics? Is that all you have?
We decide on them, and generally do our part, but "it is God that is working in us" (Phil. 2:12-13).
Also, note the illogicality in your question. The works of the law (i.e. getting oneself circumcized, or respecting other people's property) are ordained by God, but it is us who are dong the works. Likewise, the works of love (i.e. feeding the poor or explaining the Gospel) are ordained by God and it is us who are doing them. So your syllogism is in grammatical form only.
What makes us think the former is nto salvific but the latter is? The Holy Scripture that you ignored.
God says to Noah here, after the Flood.....
Genesis 9:3-5 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. 4But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. 5And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.
The prohibition against eating blood predates the Law.
Yes, it was reiterated again in the Law and was a sin. Whoever ate blood was to be cut off from his people (Israel).
But the eating of blood restriction goes back as far as possible.
So, even if the *church fathers* were able to pass judgment and officially rescind the obligation to keep the Law, since its was only purpose was to lead us to Christ to begin with, they had no authority to rescind the prohibition against eating blood, which was given outside the Law.
I am reminded again of the conversation I had with a parish priest over breakfast. The subject of favorite Scripture verses came up. I said mine was Ephesians 2:8,9 “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.”
“Hmmm”, he replied, “That sounds Protestant to me.”
No lie, those were his exact words and it showed me that God's word read in context means what it says. We have no excuse for not understanding the simplicity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Boatbums: why you call grace through faith "drivel".
I don't call the relevant passage of Ephesians 2 drivel because it is the Gospel taught by the Catholic Church. I called the false Protestant doctrine of Faith Alone (note capitalization indicating a known to the reader phenomenon of thought) drivel. It is not drivel? Then where is it in the Bible? Or you got yourselves your one tradition from someplace? It is not the first time that I ask.
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
Yes, exactly. This is why Faith Alone is empty drivel, because in the end a thinking Protestant himself would deny it.
From the next post, very similar: 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.
Once again, if "living the full life of a Christian" is necessary for salvation, then you have denied Faith Alone, and if that is not necessary for salvation then why instruct anyone in what is not going to save them?
Further, it may be how an Evangelical pastor views his mandate, but it is not biblical. This is what Christ instructed the Church to which, you say, you somewhat majically belong:
teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
The Church is sent to teach observance of "all things commadned", and baptize. Sounds like teaching works, and celebrating sacraments to me.
I answered that a few minutes ago and if you did not see the answer, it is a few posts of mine above.
How are they different? In either case you have an end result that is clean. The difference is in the moment of the cleaning, but that is not indicated in the scripture you cite.
Or perhaps one day you will understand that they already WERE members of the "universal" body of Christ. Hopefully, you will be, too.
Where did you get that? The Early Church (pre-Constantine) was far less centralized than the Roman Catholic Church is today, for reasons of being underground for most of its early life and the logisticsl impossibility of robust communication. These were local Churches in obedience to their bishops, and most important Churches were not even the Church in Rome. But they were all Catholic Chruches because they believed the same thing; when one or more Churches deviated in anything doctrinal, an apostle would write the letter to fix the problem, and after the passing on of the Apostles, a figure of inherited apostolic authority would do the correcting, or a Church Council would be held. This was nothing like the Protestant system os self-appointed pastors and divergent doctrines.
how is it that you can enjoy the liberty in Christ of practices of minor theological importance, yet deny that same liberty to others who are in Christ every much as you?
Again, where is it that I denied you following whatever practice you have? The problem the Protestants have -- all of them, whether they recognize it or not -- is that they do not obey the scripture because of the error that unites, them, the false doctrines of Faith Alone and Bible Alone. That I deny you because it is error and endangers your salvation gravely. That on top of that you are doctrinally diverse is merely a testimony to the absence of divine leadership, but you surely have the freedom to follow your consceinces, at least in the political sense.