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
Obviously Paul was not the first to share the Gospel with them but he most assuredly went there with the intent to lead others to faith in Christ and to train them in the truths Jesus had revealed to him. See:
Romans 1:11-17
I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong— that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith. I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles. I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are in Rome. For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”
Their "rule of faith" was that they believed in the Gospel of Christ and followed their bishops who were expected to know -- hence the bishops kept in touch across the churches.
Those that could, read aloud to every church the writings that were circulated by the disciples. Many copies were obviously made so that each local church had what they needed. The bishops were appointed first of all by the apostles, and only after making sure the doctrine was fully understood and their lives were sold-out to Christ. The way the faith spread so rapidly, no one could keep track of everywhere that the name of Christ was heard. I'm sure the bishops would have liked to stay in touch, but without the means we have today, I seriously doubt they kept track of everyone. I fully believe in the spiritual body of Christ and we ARE already one in the faith. Just because we may not all speak the same language, wear the same clothes, conduct our worship in the same manner, doesn't mean we are not one in the Spirit because the Holy Spirit is who recognizes us - what's in our hearts - and he is who unites us.
I fully understand your need to assert what your church has concluded about its authority and you have bound yourself to it so you have no choice but to defend it. What I, instead, am trying to say is that we are not one because of the denominational labels we place on ourselves but rather by the faith that is within our hearts. We can be in unity of faith as we are all part of the universal body of believers in Christ. It is this that sets us apart, not what we call ourselves.
You've been given the Scripture on this thread so I'll try another approach.
Romans 5:12 does not say that original sin is passed from the father only, in spite of your gloating about women. Let's see what you have now.
403 - Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul".291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.
Where does it say that sin is transmitted from father only to offspring, leaving the mother out of it? It doesn't. The Catechism is in accord with the Bible. So where does that leave the Bahble Bleevers (tm)? On the outside of Christianity looking in, right? When two women's eggs are combined (in the near future) creating a human, are you saying that the resulting girl will be sinless since she has no father? Are you saying that Mary cannot be sinless, but your Reformed girl can?
This is pretty basic stuff, Mark. Christians of all denominations understand it. Aren't you pleased you now have the opportunity to join them?
In order to prove something, you actually have to prove it. Your posts are in error and do not reflect Christianity. They do not even reflect Scripture. Prove to us that sin is transmitted through the father only using Scripture, if you please. You were the one who bragged openly that you learned this through the FR RF. Where does your learning come from? Where are the proofs? Where is the Scripture that you guys say that you only follow? You aren't kidding us on this are you?
(And did you catch whom your catechism is using as reference, Mark? Are papists now Paulists?)
No; we reverence St. Paul. We worship God. We have not reversed it as so many children of the Reformation have.
Of course you said something of that kind. You keep contesting that the sin nature comes through the father.
In post 6,952 where bb states that I'm correct about where the sin nature comes from, you said it was unscriptural.
In post 6,951 you are stating that Jewishness is matrilineal and that's why the sin nature doesn't come through the father.
In post 6,932 you point out that Jewishness is matrilineal to contest the sin nature coming through the father.
You have said by default that the sin nature comes through the mother. Just who, pray tell, do you think it comes through if not through the father?
Christians have believed it. Catholics (apparently) haven't.
"Catholic" and "Christian" are not synonymous. Do not conflate the two.
Maybe they think it comes from the black underside of the white hankys?
Only from the father, sure.
You have said by default that the sin nature comes through the mother. Just who, pray tell, do you think it comes through if not through the father?
Do not put words into my mouth or attempt to interpret my posts as you guys interpret Scripture. I am asking you to prove your statement that sin only passes through the father to the offspring. Well, can you? Let's have it.
Since they are identical, I don't see the problem.
Yup, might be. Could be. May be. Depending on our Christian conduct which will be Judged by the Almighty.
I was just waiting for someone to finally say this! It is funny - ironic - to me that whenever the Scripture uses a word that implies an assurance of some sort, the naysayers always come back with this. "Might be" - yeah but it didn't say will be. "Shall have" - yeah, but it didn't say does have. It is just playing semantics "Password" games.
Like I've said before, go right ahead and trust in your good deeds to usher you into Heaven. "Oh no", you say, "I have faith, too!". But just what kind of faith is it that places the burden on the believer to do a list of works in addition to the faith and then, if there is an instance of sin and death before absolution and penance, ALL the good works and faith made no difference at all and the believer ends up in the same place as the depraved atheist??? Just how much did the faith really mean?
I could use terms like impious boasting and hubris here (I am a million times as humble as thou art...). But I won't, because I would simply like to point out that since you are human, you don't. You cannot. You may try and you may succeed or you may fail, but I will submit to you (not evening knowing you - I'd bet any amount though) that you have not surrendered yourself completely to God. There are very few people who even come close. I know that I haven't, not by a long shot. I still have more the RDA of pride and I admit it. I do not boast of what I do not have.
It is not impious boasting to trust in the promises of God. To not do so is the grievous sin of pride. As long as I have this body of this death (Romans 7:24) hanging around it will be a battle, I know, but through Christ I have the victory and am delivered from the sentence of death. By the way, the term "body of death" had to do with a Roman torture that they used to execute someone painfully and slowly. They tied a dead body to the living man and as the body slowly rotted, the live man slowly got sicker and sicker and eventually died - it just took a long gruesome time. Yuk...it is so hard to think of the unbelievable acts of evil people can think up.
So my works will be held up to God's judgment and the penalty for my sins has already been paid in full by the blood of Christ and I will not be judged guilty of them. It will be an acquittal by God's grace through faith. And I know that not all the things that I have done for Christ are all gold, silver and precious stones, but I will watch those that aren't burn, trusting in the righteous judge and, in the end, all the rewards I may be given I will lay at the feet of Jesus who alone is worthy to receive all glory, honor and praise for all eternity!
Jesus was legally entitled to the throne of David? God Almighty constricted to human legalities? Oh man, oh man, oh man. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at statements like this.
I don't know whether to keep up this silly charade of a discussion or go find someone else to talk to. Perhaps you didn't know this, but, Jesus DID have legal HUMAN right to the throne of David. You may not care but God took the trouble to spell out Jesus' lineage in both Matthew (Joseph)and Luke (Mary). Didn't you ever wonder why?
Scriptural discernment tells Protestants and apparently most Roman Catholics that the sin nature is passed from Adam to his children, and thus from the father to his off spring.
You’ve been given Scripture and your own catechism.
Now show us where Scripture, your catechism or anyone but you says man’s sin nature comes from the mother.
You’re quick with the questions, Mark, but so far, you’re void of answers. If you’re so certain we’re wrong, you must have some evidence to back-up your claims. Where is it?
One of my favorite new worship songs... Love the Getty hymns. They were at our church last year.
Why are you introducing strawmen again?
Nobody said that God was constricted to man made human legalities. God is, however, constricted to the promises HE made.
And it was God who established the legality that gave Jesus the legitimate human right to the throne, thus it was not a *human* legality.
The promise to David was that the throne was to be given to one of David's descendants.
Mark is also quick to tell us we’re wrong, but not so quick to demonstrate that he is right.
He demands Scriptural support, and yet in true Catholic fashion, when it is provided, it is dismissed off hand with NOTHING to back up their contentions.
They reject our Scriptural support and offer nothing in return.
This whole issue of the sin nature coming through the mother is nothing more than a bid to lay claim to the involvement of Mary in the process of salvation beyond dispute. We’ve seen it before. The Catholic church has tried it before in its deliberate mistranslation of the Hebrew in Genesis3:15. Anything to shoehorn in on God’s plan for mankind and rob the glory from Christ and God.
It’s really pathetic the unscriptural nonsense invoked to support their worship of Mary.
ANYTHING but Christ alone.
Well this is what they teach in the Catechism regarding the sin nature:
The consequences of Adam's sin for humanity
402 All men are implicated in Adam's sin, as St. Paul affirms: "By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290
403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul".291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292
404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man".293 By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.
that some folks . . .
for both psychodynamic and spiritual reasons
seem to be quite . . . fiercely . . .
possessive of and protective of . . .
the burrs under their saddles
or their curious affinity for strange pine-cone fetishes.
Evidently they LIKE every excuse they can find
for
OR throwing dust in the air and pretending every dust particle is a golden dew drop of saintly wisdom.
or
For throwing rocks and pretending they are nuggest of warm fuzzy charitable inclusive winsome truth.
or
For throwing out a whole NEW set of rabid straw dogs and pretending they are innocent friendly putty cats merely trying for a warm snuggle.
It's interesting occasionally from a psychological or sociological perspective. Mostly it's weary-ing because so much of it is sooooooo irrational; soooooooooo UNBiblical and soooooooooo unhistorical while too often hysterical to the max.
Well certainly... as it is just one of the pillars that props her up in their belief system. If those pillars are brought down...she no longer can take predominance in their 'Goddess' worship of her. The Image would fall but then Christ would have His sole rightful place...which He shares with no one...He's omnipotence would reign supreme as it should.
The problem was that in the feast of charity, which was an actual communal meal, some members of the body were being treated like lepers:
"When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. {21} For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. " (1 Corinthians 11:20-21)
Paul's criticism of them is that they are really not commemorating the Lord's unselfish sacrifice of Himself due to the selfish manner in which they are practicing it.
He then states the instructions given in instituting the supper, and that "as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew [manifest] the Lord's death till he come." {26}
Christians manifest His death for them by death to self in serving God and therefor others. Thus they were not manifesting recognition of Jesus death for them because they were not caring for the life of others. And because as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew [manifest] the Lord's death till he come," therefore the next verse says,
"Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. {28} But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. {29} For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. " (1 Corinthians 11:27-29)
Examining primarily concerns how you were treating each others, which recalls Jesus words about being reconciled before offering sacrifice, (Mt. 5:23,24) But there is nothing in here about the composition of the physical bread they ate, but not discerning or judging the "Lord's body" refers to either effectively denying what His death represents by their selfishness, as per v. 20 - "this is not to eat the Lord's supper" - or by failing to recognize the other members as part of the body and to them justice according.
Paul next reveals that this miscelebration was the reason that they were being chastened and judged, including death, which capital punishment for lack of care is consistent with O.T. penalty about not caring for the poor. (Ex. 22:22-24)
In further confirmation that this was the issue, Paul provides the remedy needed to avoid chastening, which was not by recognizing that the bread was really Jesus flesh, but by rightly judging what the sacrifice of Christ which they commemorated represented and acting accordingly; "Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come. " (1 Corinthians 11:33,34) "
This corresponds to what Paul said in the previous chapter, that "For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. " (1 Corinthians 10:17) For the body of Christ to be in communion with Jesus broken body and shed blood in His death is to be communally consistent with Him who died for us and purchased us with His blood.
"For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: {15} And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. " (2 Corinthians 5:14-15)
In the next chapter Paul further elaborates on the interdependence of the body, For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ." "That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another." (1Cor. 12:12,25)
And how superficial we are in this today. go.
[20]When you come therefore together into one place, it is not now to eat the Lord's supperYou are right in verse 20, St. Paul reprehends the abuses of the Corinthians;
[21] For every one taketh before his own supper to eat. And one indeed is hungry and another is drunk
[22] What, have you not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God; and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? Do I praise you? In this I praise you not.
[23] For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread.
[24] And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me.
[25] In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
[26] For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
[27] Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
[28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.
[29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
[30] Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.
[31] But if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
[32] But whilst we are judged, we are chastised by the Lord, that we be not condemned with this world.
[33] Wherefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.
[34] If any man be hungry, let him eat at home; that you come not together unto judgment. And the rest I will set in order, when I come.
[16] The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?Here Paul states that because the bread is one, all we, being many, are one body, who partake of that one bread
And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?
[17] For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread
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.