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
Have you ever read the Greek constitution? I doubt it. Nothing in it establishes Eastern Orthodoxy as the "state" religion. Church and state are separate. It recognizes is as the prevalent religion (93% of the population).
The Greeks are among the most religious people in Europe. The number of people who believe in God is equal or higher than in the United States of America. Only Malta and Poland come close.
Compare that to, say, Germany, where 30% are declared atheists, and church attendance is a meagerly 5-6%.
Orthodoxy is deeply intertwined with Greek culture, so that much of folklore also has Orthodoxy in it. The two are inseparable, as Judaism is inseparable from Israel.
As to being arrested for proselytizing, that may very well be true. Protestant Christians have no business in Christian Greece. Your missionaries should go where Christ is unknown.
daniel1212 : i have already answered it this vain argument, only to see it repeated
You will probably see it repeated many times even after I read and responded to what you wrote. Remember, I do not read ahead and respond when I get around to a particular post, usually about one week after it is posted, because there is one of me and many of you posting, and I don't skip serious posts. Why you will still see this argument repeated? Because your point, that you are at liberty accepting A but not B from the Church is, of course, valid, but I am not making that point at all.
It would indeed be wrong, -- completely un-Christian -- for me to thump the Catechism on the imaginary podium and shout, Obey the Living Magisterium! If I cite the Magisterium at all -- at times I do, typically, the Catechism, -- that is to explain what the Catholic Church really teaches. I do not expect anyone to obey the Church just because you have resolved to obey the Bible.
I do, however, have every right to point out how the Protestant doctrines stand in stark contrast to the Bible at least on the subject of Faith Alone and Bible Alone, and the rejection of the properly offered Sacraments of the Church. This is simply asking for consistency. If you did not profess obedience to the Bible I would not be making biblical points at all, just like I would not argue scripture with a Buddhist.
The hostile attitude to the historical wintess of the Church is of course not a logical contradiction to the belief in the same witness when it happens to be recorded in canonical scripture. It is simply something worth asking: what is it in the Scripture, beside the fact that the Church had canonized it, that makes it so distinct from things the Church also believed at the same time she canonized the scripture?
To your points.
1. Historical lineage does not make one an authentic Jew, spiritually speaking, as certain Jews presumed it did, (Mt. 3:9; Jn. 8:39,44; and their office required it), or a true Christian or church. Rather it is manifest Scriptural faith
True. Neither does historical lineage alone ensure validity of Apostolic succession. Both the Lutherans and the Anglicans lost it despite canonical provenance of their priests, due to the doctrinal errors of theirs.
unlike the church at Rome, the law was explicitly stated to have been committed to the Jews, (Rm. 3:2; 9:4) and yet they were manifestly not assuredly infallible in faith and morals
This goes to the disctintion between the non-salvific nature of the works of Jewish law, the part on which, hopefully we all agree, and the absolute nature of the teaching of Jesus Christ. The Jewish law was given to the Jews and not binding on the Gentiles; as the Church discovered, once a Jew becoems Christian the Law of Moses was no longer binding on him either. The Jewish lawmaking authority was temporal, the authority of the Church eternal (Mt 16:18-19). So no parallel can be drawn between the rule of the Rabbis and the Church.
3. Scripture being the supreme transcendent assuredly infallible objective authority [similar point is made in 4 and the same answer applies]
It is. The Magisterium that rules against the scripture, were it to ever happen, would not be guided by the Holy Ghost and will ispo facto cease to be the Magisterium of the Church.
5. The authenticity of Rome's AIM is based upon her own declaration that she is assuredly infallible
Yes. There are levels of speech uttered by the Magisterium, like there are levels of any speech. The Magisterium should be the judge of when the Magisterium intends to make an infallible statement and when it is ordinary teaching. This is just logical that the speaker is the judge of the intent of his speech.
This agins rests ont he idea that there is a direct analogy between the Jewish rabbinate and the Church. That premise is false.
the Divinely inspired writings were essentially progressively recognized as such due to their qualities and effects
Indeed, and that was the collective work of the Church.
7. ...immoral, impenitent Popes
we don't know about "impenitent", neither you or I were their confessors. St. Peter himself was not exactly infallible in his ordinary life. The issue is not that we had bad popes, -- we certainly did, -- but the teaching the Magisterium produced, perhaps, despite these very popes. Let us not forget that the infallible magisterial teaching is not a day-to-day governance of the Church. Bad popes generally left no lasting legacy.
But it was a decision of the Church (in part later neglected by Luther) to incorporate certain books into the Christian Bible. Further, the Church interpreted the Old Testament in the light of Christ. A Christian now reads the Old Testament with the eye of the Church, -- just talk to anyone Jewish and see how far you get agreeing on anything.
Claiming that the writers of Scripture were by default Catholics is only a tactic used to justify the Catholic church's power grab
That is not the claim though. Giordano Bruno was Catholic; Luther was Catholic for most of their lives. Just being a "default Catholic" does not guarantee anything. The Church as a whole -- not merely the four Evangelists and other authors, -- did the arduous work of selecting these particular writings from many other writings. It was done in council based on the criteria of canonicity established by the Church. Further, the teaching of the Church then and now is in complete harmony with the New Testament, whereas the teachings of every sect from the Arians to the Protestants contradicts the scripture in the major points of their doctrines. That is because the New Testament came from the bosom of the Church; it reflects her very essence.
True, but that fact is no license to take anything Jesus said and because for some reason you don't like it say, "gotta be metaphor". The "drinking" part in John 4 is a take off from the fact that He was given water to drink; but the life giving water is of course Baptism because He did give us that, and life-giving it is. Gate and vine metaphors are self-evidently metaphors because they come in the course of the same passage. There is no commandment to drink water and there is no commandment to do anything about gates and vines. As to body and blood, the metaphorical interpretation flies int he face of the text itself, and indeed thare its a commandment to "do this" and a discourse that it is "food indeed".
No one says that all of the gospel is literal, but all of the gospel is inerrant as written. When a metaphore is offered, the inspired author made sure no sect in 16c could come alone and credibly pretend that they obey the scripture.
Not "any", but the so called "dynamic" translations certainly are. Douay is word-for-word Vulgate and Vulgate is the result of Jerome's work before some codices went missing, and in the living environment of 4c Palestine. There are problems with that as well, but on balance, there is no better window to the Greek original in English today than Douay. unless you are prepared to struggle with Young's Literal, or, best of all, learn Greek.
That is if you want to do, in the spirit of Protestantism, all the work for yourself from scratch. If, on the other hand, you are willing to accept a historical authority, listen to the Catholic (and/or Orthodox) Church and you will know exactly not only what the scripture says but also what it means. Then the blandest, most cursory and aerodynamic stuff like NAB would still become useful, because you read it with the eye of the Church.
Yes, that is monotheism, and some vaguely Arian provenance.
True, but this is a venue that evangelizes as it debates. I think it is a good idea to offer translation at least when asked.
The translations are required by the RM and have been stated so several times, and just as often, ignored.
Sure it is. Those "patient in good works" get "eternal life"; -- that's salvation. Those who "work evil" -- otherwise. Compare Matthew 25:31-46.
[cites Eph 2:8-10] we cannot do good works unless we are already saved.
It says "God hath before ordained that we should walk in [the good works]", so I don't think so. What kind of faith would that be, disobeying what God had "ordained" (it really says "prepared", by the way)?
Why is it them that today there is no sign of any "apostasy" in the Holy Catholic Church?
If you bring it up again, you haven't forgiven either.
"Filthy rags" is from a different context, but that is correct what you intend to say: good works are not done for any other reason than love of God and one's neighbor.
Only the works of one that is saved can be good
Based on what scripture?
one thing is wanting to thee: sell all whatever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me (Luke 18:22)
Observe: the young man was not saved, but that what he did is good. It just was not enough. The same episode promises salvation to anyone who "hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake". So these things are good even before the doers of these things are saved.
Like I said, it's juvenile and I'll ignore any further traps to draw me into what is always basically a spitting contest (or worse) with some people. No point to it.
The passage does nto describe the Law of Any Works; it only describes the Works of the Law. That is contrasted to faith, but that includes good works. This is why St,. Paul diod not say "justified by faith alone apart from any works" but rather "justified by faith apart from the works of the law", which is the Catholic teaching.
The idea that this passage gives credence to His Blood is present in the Eucharist is nowhere to be found here
"sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his bloodto be received by faith". You do not recieve the Blood by faith, -- you don't believe it is blood.
Boatbums: The point was that you claim "Protestants" must put their spin on verses of scripture, and I showed you that you do exactly that
Where did I spin John 3:16? You don't think you have to do what Jesus says?
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Yes, the young man was not saved, because he lacked faith in Jesus Christ as Savior. He thought he was perfect and could go to heaven because he was. When Jesus pointed out his weakness - his wealth - he showed him that his perceived perfection was never going to be enough. Note also that Jesus didn't say to him that if he gave everything to the poor and followed him, he would be saved, but that "his reward would be great in heaven". There is a difference. The base of our faith is that Jesus Christ is the one and only Savior and we should not allow anything in our lives - family, love, money, fame - to keep us from following him.
So who are the sheep in Matthew 25:31-46? They seem to do what Matthew 5-7 teaches and end up saved.
Also, you are telling us that Jesus said the Sermon on the Mount in order to tease us, like a cruel person would urge a lame to run Marathon. Is there any indication in the text of the Sermon itself that it is given as an example of the impossible?
once someone sinned one time, it wouldnt matter if they were perfect for the entire rest of their lives. Its too late
True. This is why Christ also gave the Church the "ministry of reconciliation" (2 Corinthians 5:18, cf. John 20:22-23)
[quotes Gal 2 and 3]
I explained it to you many times. The Church agrees with St. Paul that works of the law do not save anyone.
The Holy Eucharist is not a repetition or performance of anything.
It is usually a good idea to know a thing or two about the subject upon which you wish to opine.