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
AMEN! Metmom. Our pastor says this too (the Berean approach) and it is one of the reasons I like him so much. No man and no thing is above scripture in authority. And you're right that the written word has not substantially changed over the years even with all the different translations. The Church of God as a whole by the Holy Spirit has decided which translations are faithful and which are not.
Jesus passing through door shows His ability to work a similar miracle. It doesn’t of course prove that He did in that particular case. But it reminds us that Mary’s life, including her physiological life, was all filled with miracles.
The Church believes that her hymen was inviolate, despite the birth. The Church passes that on as a historical fact. That Christ rose from the death is another historical fact. I believe both because I have consistent Catholic Christian beliefs. I don’t pick and choose which part of the good new to believe and which part not to believe.
There are, incidentally, things that are mentioned in the writings of the Church that the Church does not porpose as historically true. For example, we don’t know if St. George really strung a dragon on a princess’ garter. But the perpetural physical virginity of Mary is kept as a historical fact, so I believe it. “Fear not, only believe” (Mark 5:36).
"Hypocrisy" is a word describing a moral defect, namely when a higher moral standard is urged than the one actually adhered to. When you are facing a putative defect in logic rather than morals, the word does not apply; the word becomes "inconsistent" or "self-contradictory".
There is no contradiction here. The Church teaches things outside of the Bible because the Sola Scriptura is wrong: the scripture authorizes theChruch to teach outside fo the Bible ("the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you", John 14:26).
However, the Protestant sects think that Sola Scriptura is correct. Then it is fair to ask them: if Sola Scriptura is correct, then where is it found in the Bible? Mind you, not "where the actual words found" by where is the idea found? I think that the Trinity (and of course the "Mother of God"; the Immaculate Conception has be easily inferred as well, but I agree that the Church at times teaches outside of the Bible, you just don't know her teaching enough to even pick your examples right) are all in the Bible even though not in the actual words. But I don't think Sola Scriptura is in the Bible even remotely; as I showed, its opposite is taught directly from the Bible.
Good answer,FK
Then you would agree that God wills all to be saved(1 tim 2:4) and gives us the free will to repent?Thus, we are all given sufficient Grace to follow His will
Yes.
So now we come to "firstborn", and while you have already closed the door to any other light to come out, you have reopened the door a crack to say that we now have a theological truth pouring out and that is in the significance of legal and traditional responsibilities, "benefits and duties" assigned to it.
Yes, the "firstborn" points to the fact that Jesus is to be dedicated to God. Which of course, He is. So? That Jesus was not a result of natural conception and birth has meaning for the future narrative of the Gospel beyond the time mark of Matthew 1:25. That Jesus was dedicated to God by the mere virtue of being firstborn has some significance beyond that mark as well. But how Mary disposed of her life does nto have a similar significance, so St. Matthew does not make any allusions to it.
The perpetual virginity of Mary is not an assumption. It is a fact passed on through tradition but not recorded in the Gospel. You choose not to believe it and I choose to believe it. But it is not an assumption that someone makes without knowledge. Someone had the knowledge and passed it on.
There are things about my family that have never been recorded. (in fact most things about my family have not been recorded, but that it beside the point). For example, my grandfather volunteered for the General Kolchak army, and since that would have earned him a firing squad under the Bolsheviks, he destroyed any evidence he had of it. But he told me that. It is a fact that has no documentary corroboration. It is still a fact. I tell it to you as a fact. Now, you may decide not to believe me. That makes it fact in which you don’t believe. But it is a fact nevertheless. You can tell me, — Annalex, I don’t believe you. Very well. But you cannot tell me —Annalex, you are making an assumption about your grandfather. I did not make an assumption based on some circumstantial evdidence. I have direct evidence. Same with Perpetual Virginity of Our Lady.
Does whatever group you belong to reject the Trinity?
As far as the term mother of God, how is this term any different from Elizabeth addressing her as the "mother of my Lord" in Luke 1:43? Please note that the word Lord is capitalized in this verse, I am not aware of a single verse in the Bible where the term is capitalized that does not refer to God and EVERY time the capitalized word Lord is used in the New Testament it is referring to Jesus Christ (in some of His parables he uses the term lord, but it is never capitalized).
There are really only three reasons why a person should reject the term mother of God and NONE OF THEM actually have anything to do with Mary:
1. They do not believe that Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary.
2. They do not believe that Jesus Christ is God.
3. They believe that Jesus Christ is God now, but that He was somehow elevated to this position after the Resurrection and was just a man during His life.
Many Protestants are so eager to distance themselves from Catholic Marian beliefs that they never really consider the implications of what they are saying.
To assume a thing is to accept it as fact without proof (a rough definition). That’s why stories fall into the area of tradition, explanations or stories without proof like “George Washington slept here” in how many places in New England?
Obviously the tradition started somehow, somewhere, with someone, for some reason but not necessarily due to knowledge based upon fact.
You cite your grandfather’s experience, a reasonable story and as such you accept his story as fact without documentation, you assume he is telling the truth, perhaps with justification.
Is there contradictory evidence? Say some record that shows your grandfather was elsewhere? No? But if there were then the evidence both for and against would have to be weighed by others (he’s your grandpa, you’re not going to question his word) before arriving at a decision as to whether the family tradition is true, factual.
So to with the tradition for the perpetual virginity of Mary. Weighing evidence for and against the evidence against is the stronger and more reliable.
The Bible makes no reference, however oblique, to the idea, there is no theological argument or principle in Scripture that would suggest or demand such perpetual virginity of Mary, and there is the contradiction of the Scriptures themselves.
“Same with Perpetual Virginity of Our Lady.”
So what is the supporting evidence? Tradition? If “It is a fact passed on through tradition but not recorded in the Gospel.”, What are these “facts” and where are they found?
“Someone had the knowledge and passed it on.”
O.K., Who and how?
It's relative and has to do with the middleman idea. If the fullness of the Church is found in "one bishop, surrounded by his monastics, clergy and laity all centered on the Eucharist" then there are extra layers in between God and His people. This is also true of praying to the Saints. With this approach the relationship appears far less personal and direct. Or, the personal relationship is really with people, present or departed, instead of with God. We would say that our equivalent of advancing in theosis, sanctification, is not seen as it relates to our relationships or standings with the clergy (confession) or Saints (prayer). Growth would come in part from taking both of those directly to God.
The more collectivist religious phronema of the East, therefore, developed earlier into a very very different way of looking theosis than developed in the West 1500 years later.
Thanks for the background. This would certainly match the "way of life" aspect of faith you and Kosta have explained to me, making a very strong culture an integral part of life in the faith. I think it's interesting that while Protestants would embrace the individualistic aspect of freedom of faith and personal relationship with God, we would completely reject the humanism that exploded during the Renaissance. Likewise, the Orthodox embrace a "collectivist" approach to faith, but completely reject communism.
You must be mistaken, that is what SOME Protestants do with Saint Paul.
With only a few exceptions, the non-Catholic/Orthodox who frequent these Catholic-bashing threads ARE NOT Christians (yes, you read that correctly, I cannot with good conscience say that more than a handful of the anti-Catholics on FR are Christians, they are either voluntary or unwitting agents of Satan and they are damned for it), their religion is based on the misinterpretation of Saint Paul's epistles (which was SPECIFICALLY foretold in the Bible) and it is their own destruction.
Anti-Catholics like to CLAIM that Catholics raise the Blessed Mother up to the level of God. When they do this, they are acting as agents of Satan, trying to trick Christians into following them into Hell.
” “Fear not, only believe” (Mark 5:36).”
WHAT was believed had to be the truth and that truth was God’s Word as Jesus prayed at John 17:17, “Sanctify them by means of the truth. Your word is truth.”
ph
Yup, I couldn't agree more. Core principles are non-negotiable to be within the theater of Christianity. That's why it confuses me that such a basic idea eludes those who would include clearly non-Christian groups under the heading of "Protestant".
LOL! That's a great story. God works such wonders in those who are His.
What would prompt you to throw this into the soup?
You (collectively) speak of the LEGEND of the LXX as if it were fact while, in actuality, the Septuagint is composed of various scraps dating from the 4th century.
Yes, there is a Septuagint today and, yes, it is a compilation of several, and varying, scrolls.
A short article on the Greek Septuagint follows:
You are aware the Septuagint, magically composed by 70 scholars, is a fable. Others are not. That is the point.
metmom wrote:
“If someones doctrine doesn’t match mine in areas where it is not critical for one’s salvation, then I figure it’s up to God to convict them. There is no compromise however, on the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, His death, burial, and resurrection though.”
Forest Keeper replied:
“Yup, I couldn’t agree more. Core principles are non-negotiable to be within the theater of Christianity.”
I completely and wholeheartedly agree with both of the statements above, and so does the Christian Church of every century. There are non-negotiable doctrines. The fundamental confession of the Holy Christian Church since the 2nd century A.D. has been the Apostles Creed. These are the non-negotiable doctrines. Disagreement on any point is cause to assume that the one who disagrees is either a) sincerely ignorant and in urgent need of correction and serious instruction or b) not Christian. There is no in-between. That is how non-negotiable its assertions are.
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.