!NONSENSE!
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
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church.
I quoted from the Jewish Encyclopedia about primogeniture, and you call my post “RC by design?” LOL! And then you call me a “crowd of one” while asking for my “affiliation”? Duh!
And I imagine you know that because he whispered that in your ear?
My "catching myself" and "deciding" are merely my becoming aware of Holy Spirit's work.
How is that different from what Andrea Yates believed when she drowned her five children—claiming God told her to do so?
It's unknowable since one nutjob belief is not necessarily automatically disqualifying for Christianity
Yeah, well, that's abundantly clear just reading these threads. The only problem is what qualifies one as a Christian? And where does the word Christian appear in the Bible? And where is December 25 noted in the Bible as the day Jesus was born? Traditions of men, right? That's what determines who is a Christian, FK; whatever an individual believer decides, or a group of believers decide. That's what Protestantism created.
OR, God might cause it since He is known to confound the wicked
Sure, the Old Testament God becomes a "deceiving spirit" (1 Kings 22:22-23; 2 Chronicles 18:21) to deceive those he doesn't like. I guess we could call that "divine deception," couldn't we? :)
So, how do we know who is being deceived (how could one know? Isn't that what deception is all about?). Then how does one "know" that he is being led by the Holy Spirit instead of being deceived? Wouldn't someone being deceived think he is being led by the Holy Spirit? Doesn't even the Bible say the satan can appear as the Angel of Light?
If the master of lies is always out there trying to deceive, wouldn't he try to appear as someone who is telling the truth at all times? There would never, ever, be any reason to suspect him of lying. So how do you know you are not being deceived?
Even Paul warns you "The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons." [1 Timothy 4:1]
Wouldn't the Protestant Reform, some 1,500 years later, qualify as the "later times"? :)
Sure they do, all I'm saying is that in some cases God is directly behind it.
Or maybe he or the devil is just deceiving you? :)
I see "absolute certainty" as a relative term, which science has proved over and over
Only a lawyer could say that and believe it. :) Science does not claim 100% certainty on anything. Science is based on probability. Religious certainty is not relativism; it's absolute, dogmatic certainty. No believer can say the chance that Jesus resurrected from the dead is 99.9% certain, with 0.1% chance he didn't!
Not in the ecclesiology of The Church. What is described is the Body of Christ, not a layered system. It is the "ecclesia", the assembly of the People.
"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."
Certainly we have these relationships among ourselves and very much so with the saints. This isn't the end purpose of what The Church teaches, though it is very nice, rather The Church teaches that within the ecclesia at the Divine Liturgy, we partake of the true Body and Blood of Christ and thus, in a way we certainly don't understand, we become part of the Body of Christ, not as to God's essence, since such a union occurs only among the hypostasia within the Holy Trinity, but rather as a noetic union with God through a participation in His uncreated energies.
So, we do not progress in theosis because of a relationship with others (that is almost always incidental) but rather because of our participation in the Body of Christ which is found in its fullness where there is one bishop, surrounded by his monastics, clergy and laity all centered on the Eucharist.
"Likewise, the Orthodox embrace a "collectivist" approach to faith, but completely reject communism."
The collectivist mindset of the early Church which the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches have preserved, long preceded the communist perversion of that aspect of society.
Kolo: Certainly we have these relationships among ourselves and very much so with the saints. This isn't the end purpose of what The Church teaches, though it is very nice, rather The Church teaches that within the ecclesia at the Divine Liturgy, we partake of the true Body and Blood of Christ
I suppose for the Protestants it is difficult to see that the Communion is believed to be the most direct participation with God, even more so than through prayer, because to them communion is a ritual of memorial significance and not a sacrament (mysterion).
FK: "Likewise, the Orthodox embrace a "collectivist" approach to faith, but completely reject communism."
Kolo: The collectivist mindset of the early Church which the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches have preserved, long preceded the communist perversion of that aspect of society.
Good answer, Kolo mou. However communism has no connection to Christian communion with God (i.e. becoming one with him through grace). Communism* is a Utopian state where all means of production and state wealth are supposed to be collectively owned and at a disposal of anyone who needs them. Of course no such state ever existed, except maybe in the most basic form on some California hippie commune.
*Distinguished from socialism, which is a transient state leading to communism in theory.
The word ἔρχομαι is being interpreted not as walking in (since the doors were shut), but as appearing without opening the doors. Thus, by analogy, Jesus' birth did not open the womb, but was, like the Incarnation, a supernatural event leaving Mary a virgin.
While it may be consistent, the problem I see with that analogy is that Jesus could not claim the status of the firstborn (of redemption) since in order to have the status of the firstborn the progeny had to "open the womb." (as per the OT).
Like all Protestant supposed prooftexts for their heresies, these are pieces of scripture often taken out of the immediate context that says the opposite, and in any case not saying what the Protestant heresy needs it to say. This kind of scripture-quoting insults the scripture and the intelligence between the said ears.
For example, the Church teaches that we are saved by grace alone -- but not by faith alone, just like Eph 2:8 says; grace does not come form works, just like Eph 2:9 says, and good works are necessary for salvation, just like Eph. 2:10 says, the latter verse omitted by the prooftexting doctor in her post. These are techniques of an illusionist who uses bold fonts and red color to draw attention away from the empty hat placed in front of us.
As the Catholic Church teaches, works of the law do not justify, but rather works done in charity. Surprise, that last part is what the doctor's Galatian quote omitted:
[4] You are made void of Christ, you who are justified in the law: you are fallen from grace. [5] For we in spirit, by faith, wait for the hope of justice. [6] For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision: but faith that worketh by charity.
Look at them quoting the Bible and you might believe them; but look at the text itself and the deception of the Protestant method becomes clear.
Read the Bible honestly and you will leave the feebly edifice of Protestantism and become a Bible believing Catholic, and the Good Shepherd and the saints in heaven will rejoice.
That we are not saved by the works of the law IS the Church's doctrine. It is usually a good idea to know a little bit of the subject you opine about.
It is not an order. Simply, if you want my response, you will get it if yor post contains serious matter, preferably about the scripture or the Catholic doctrine. If it is purely irony and swears, chances are I'll ignore it.
Ah, OK. The perpetual virginity of Mary is not in any creeds. But that is not the same as saying that it is not in any patristic writing. The creed is barely on page long, -- there is a lot of stuff that is not in it.
Your problem, annalex, is that you cannot separate your Roman Catholicism from your Christianity
How am I supposed to do that? Roman Catholicism is Christianity is its fullest form. You are asking me to injure myself?
What? Have you talked to her? Did she tell you? Are you a trained medical professional who did an exam?
What's your direct evidence that Mary was perpetually a virgin?
What's your direct evidence that Mary was perpetually a virgin?
Now, now.
Evidently you missed out on some of the
persistently irrational, elaborately & persistently pontificated
quite mystifyingly mumbo-jumboed
dogmatic discourses
on
the Magnificent, Mystical, Megacycling, Magic Matrix pseydo-Miraculous hymen.
Sigh.
annalex wrote:
“Ah, OK. The perpetual virginity of Mary is not in any creeds. But that is not the same as saying that it is not in any patristic writing. The creed is barely on page long, — there is a lot of stuff that is not in it.”
I didn’t say it was the same. In fact, since you are the one who complimented me for what I have written before on this very subject, you also know that I am well aware of what is said in the patristic literature. To say, “the creed is barely one page long,” is simply a way of “damning with faint praise.” This is either an indication of insincerity on your part or of real ignorance about the difference between the creeds and all other human writing about Christianity.
The perpetual virginity of Mary, although indeed believed by many, perhaps even most, of the early church fathers, didn’t make it into any of the three creeds because it was not doctrine! It was not necessary to believe for salvation! But Rome, like the Pharisees of old, seems to like laying heavy burdens on people rather than simply doing what the Lord commanded ... preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Power is the ultimate narcotic. Who are really the pharmakoi?
No, annalex, I am not asking you “to injure” yourself. Quite the opposite.
annalex wrote:
“It is usually a good idea to know a little bit of the subject you opine about.”
Go look in a mirror.
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.
Thanks for the compliment, but you might not think it's so good when you hear my explanation. :)
Reformers hold that God does not will all people to be saved to the extent that He will cause it to happen, which causing is fully within His power. When God wills it to rain, it rains, etc., but this doesn't apply to saving people. Therefore, it cannot be said that God gives saving grace (grace sufficient for one to come to Him) to all people. This relies on the idea that when God gives saving grace it isn't potential or partial grace but real and full grace that works in a Godly manner, that is, perfectly (or all the time).
Relating this back to my statement, then, would mean that if any two people did repent and did love God the same, the reason is that God had decided to give saving grace to both of them. And for all God decides to give saving grace to, none is lost (John 10:25-30), so neither of these goes to hell.
I agree, but there is one small matter I am curious about. What do you say about the precise meaning of "He descended into hell"? I have read very different interpretations from people I in all other ways consider fully Christian. Could there be any room on this issue?
My current understanding/belief is that He did NOT go to "lake of fire" hell, since that is a final, post-Judgment destination. Rather, He went to what the OT calls sheol or hades. In that place were held the OT saints as well as those who were doomed but awaiting final judgment. The NT refers to this place (the "good" side) as Abraham's bosom or paradise, hence His statement to the thief of being with him there that day. How do you see it?
Septuagint "books"? Complete "books"? References please.
There are enough 2nd century NT manuscripts quoting from the Old Testament that differ significantly from the Hebrew (Masoretic) text. Whether these quotes represent Christian corruption of the Old Testament or a canon of an alternate version of the Jewish scripture is debatable.
I am not qualified to judge.
The existence of Essene's Qumran documents indicate that the Palestinian (Pharisaical) version of the Old Testament was not the only one, so the existence of alternative versions is not without foundation.
Once again - I am not qualified to comment.
On the other hand, New Testament books such as the Book of Hebrews (for example chapter 8 comes to mind) shows that Christian authors did not shrink from adding their own text to Old Testament verses in order to "harmonize" them with the emerging new theology.
Yup.
What did I say which led to this detour?
I had one point to make and one point only:
You are aware the story of the Septuagint LXX, composed by 70-72 scholars, is a fable.
Other of the posters are not aware of this.
That is all!
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.