Isaac and Rebeccah

[Gefra]

Ideopathogen,

Respectfully would you please respond to the following?

*To be given the truth, you need to get the order right. The church does not teach. It is taught, and is in a place before God to be a responsible witness to God. Like Israel, she must give an answer for her activity down here. In 1 Tim, it says, “judgement must begin at the house of God.” There is only one infallible authority.
*
To whom is the truth given?

How is the truth given?

Who determines the right order?

Who/what is the only one infallible authroity?

*. The church does not teach. It is taught *

Who teaches the Church?

How does whoever teaches the Church do it?

 

[Gefra]

You get a nice history of the Church in Revelation 2 and 3. Constantine’s time would correspond to Pergamos. Ephesus to the early Church, Smyrna to the persecuted Church before it united with the state, Rome to Thyatira with Jezebel (Rome) teaching idolatry. The results of the reformation in Sardis which became basically a political movement.

Ideopathogen,

Would you please explain the following?

The Letters to the Seven Churches in Revelation Chapters 2 and 3 were written in the first century to seven actual churches in Asia MInor. What is your documentation and authority for your position that these letters contain a future “nice history of the the Church”?

Can you explain what historical methodology takes actual events of certain era and applies those events to future occurances?

What is your authority for positing such a viewpoint of history?

Would you please supply the dates for the corresponding future historical events that you claim apply to the seven different churches?

I look forward to your responses.

Thanks,

Gefra

 

[idiopathogen]

You get a nice history of the Church in Revelation 2 and 3. Constantine’s time would correspond to Pergamos. Ephesus to the early Church, Smyrna to the persecuted Church before it united with the state, Rome to Thyatira with Jezebel (Rome) teaching idolatry. The results of the reformation in Sardis which became basically a political movement.

Ideopathogen,

Would you please explain the following?

The Letters to the Seven Churches in Revelation Chapters 2 and 3 were written in the first century to seven actual churches in Asia MInor. What is your documentation and authority for your position that these letters contain a future “nice history of the the Church”?

Can you explain what historical methodology takes actual events of certain era and applies those events to future occurances?

What is your authority for positing such a viewpoint of history?

Would you please supply the dates for the corresponding future historical events that you claim apply to the seven different churches?

I look forward to your responses.

Thanks,

Gefra

Gefra,

Revelation was a “prophecy,” I believe it says somewhere in the 1st chapter. Chapters 2 and 3 are addresses to 7 churches that could have easily been written as seperate letters, but instead were written as part of a prophecy, and given in a specific order. I think that is significant. I find it fairly simple to see their prophetic significance, because they are now historical. None of the events in them are future. It’s pretty clear to me that the current state of most of the Church is Laodicean.

If you can’t see them as prophetic, it may be your will that is active in this.

Even if you think the order is insignificant, it does not change the fact that there is One walking among the candlesticks who is both the authority and infallibility as God Himself, our Lord Jesus Christ. He is the Judge. That is the point of chapters 2 and 3.

Perhaps Scott Hahn knows why these letters are together in a given order? A priest? The pope? I know “brethren” certainly have some knowledge of these things. stempublishing.com/history/MILLER00.html

Gefra,

If I was in the “brethren” or not, I have not “fallen away” from anything. My Forerunner is in Heaven, and I am member of His Body. I may “stumble,” but the expression “fall” is consistently used for apostates in the new testament. I am specifically with the “TW” brethren, and contributed to the Let’s keep it simple section about them here: brethrenpedia.com/Tunbridge_Wells. If any of you want to meet me or give me a call, I work and own this business here: glacierview.us/

You will find the answers to your other questions in Ephesians 4 if you have the eyes and ears to hear and see it, but seeing you are somewhat familiar with “brethren” I’m sure you’ve already been over it. Let me simplify the brethren divisions for you too. There’s the Catholics (Exclusive Taylorite Brethren), and if you search “exclusive brethren” on youtube you will find a documentary about them. Just like catholics, they put pictures of the early brethren in their home and revere them, and have an “infallible” leader they call their “elect vessel.” If you have read any of the early brethren writings, you will immediately see that as repulsive, about as repulsive as revering any saint I might add.

Then you have the KLC’s or Re-united brethren, kind of like a band of rebels, refusing to recognize the authority of the assembly to make binding decisions. Then you have the open brethren, which can be compared to a bunch of independent baptist. In fact they came about because of a Bapstist church at Bethesda that was annexed to the brethren movement, but thought it was ok to have a teacher among them teaching that Jesus could have sinned. None of them hold that doctrine, but think that kind of doctrine is not contaminating enough to be put out of the assembly.

TW’s are what is left, and occasional splinter groups that come off of us due to failure to submit to assembly decisions. It happens about every 18 years (every generation is tested).

Darby himself was an Anglican priest, and converted hundreds of Catholics, and was forced by a biship to ask the new converts to swear allegience to the king rather than the pope. That is what opened his eyes about the true nature of the Church and to separate from the Church of England. You will find his plea with Catholics here, and just like Scott Hahn uses types to draw people in, he uses types to draw people out:

stempublishing.com/authors/darby/DOCTRINE/18001E.html
stempublishing.com/authors/darby/DOCTRINE/18002E.html

I think the argument that your priesthood is a slam against our High Priest is quite compelling.

Oh yes, and Adam and Eve are a type of Christ and the Church, not Christ and Mary. That’s silly.

~Peter

 

[Nita]

Oh yes, and Adam and Eve are a type of Christ and the Church, not Christ and Mary. That’s silly.

~Peter

From Catholic Encyclopedia newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm - Quote:

**Mary as the second Eve
This celebrated comparison between Eve, while yet immaculate and incorrupt – that is to say, not subject to original sin – and the Blessed Virgin is developed by: **

**Justin (Dialog. cum Tryphone, 100), ** (b. 100 AD; d. 165 AD approx.)

"…and that He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, …"]

Irenaeus (Contra Haereses, III, xxii, 4), (b. 130AD; d. 200 AD; approx.)
"4. In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient… But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. …having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith."]

Tertullian (De carne Christi, xvii), (b. 160 AD; d. 220 AD; approx.)
“For it was while Eve was yet a virgin, that the ensnaring word had crept into her ear which was to build the edifice of death. Into a virgin’s soul, in like manner, must be introduced that Word of God which was to raise the fabric of life; so that what had been reduced to ruin by this sex, might by the selfsame sex be recovered to salvation. As Eve had believed the serpent, so Mary believed the angel. The delinquency which the one occasioned by believing, the other by believing effaced.”]

**Julius Firmicus Maternus (De errore profan. relig xxvi), **
**Cyril of Jerusalem (Catecheses, xii, 29), **
**Epiphanius (Hæres., lxxviii, 18), **
**Theodotus of Ancyra (Or. in S. Deip n. 11), and **
**Sedulius (Carmen paschale, II, 28). **

End quote.
The bolded portion is the quote from the Encyclopedia. I looked up and pasted in the first three references from newadvent.org/fathers/.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Gefra,

Oh yes, and Adam and Eve are a type of Christ and the Church, not Christ and Mary. That’s silly.

~Peter

St. Paul didn’t think it was silly.

Romans 5:14
[14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

1 Corinthians 15:45-50
[45] Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
[46] But it is not the spiritual which is first but the physical, and then the spiritual.
[47] The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.
[48] As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven.
[49] Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.
[50] I tell you this, brethren: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

As for Mary, here are some comparisons/contrasts (from a really great blog called You are Cephas

There is much more scripture which points to Mary as the New Eve.

Eve was tempted by a fallen Angel (Gen 3:1-13): Mary was announced by a loyal Angel (Luke 1:26-38)

Eve had pride (Gen 3:4-7): Mary had humility (Luke 1:38)

Eve disobeyed (Gen 3:4-7): Mary obeyed (Luke 1:38)

Death came through Eve (Gen 3:17-19): Life Himself came through Mary (John 10:28)

Eve could not approach the tree of life (Gen 3:24): Mary approached the ‘Tree of Life’ (John 19:25)

An angel kept Eve out of Eden (Gen 3:24): An angel protected Mary (Rev 12:7-9)

Eve is the mother of all the living (Gen 3:20): Mary is the mother of all the living (John 19:27)

Idio - I’m beginning to wonder if you’ve even read the Bible, or have you just read the tracts of your sect about the Bible.

 

[idiopathogen]

St. Paul didn’t think it was silly.

Romans 5:14
[14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

1 Corinthians 15:45-50
[45] Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
[46] But it is not the spiritual which is first but the physical, and then the spiritual.
[47] The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.
[48] As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven.
[49] Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.
[50] I tell you this, brethren: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

As for Mary, here are some comparisons/contrasts (from a really great blog called You are Cephas

There is much more scripture which points to Mary as the New Eve.

Well, so far you have not presented any, so I doubt it. It seems that so far you have presented regarding the first and second Man, but nothing regarding a second Woman. Mary was a partaker of the divine nature, having faith and new birth, and was capable of displaying humility and faith, but having a human father, and Adam’s sinful nature. Eve was innocent, and capable of being deceived. Jesus on the other hand was the second Man from Heaven, and heavenly, and had no sinful nature.

Eve was tempted by a fallen Angel (Gen 3:1-13): Mary was announced by a loyal Angel (Luke 1:26-38)

Eve had pride (Gen 3:4-7): Mary had humility (Luke 1:38)

Eve disobeyed (Gen 3:4-7): Mary obeyed (Luke 1:38)

Mary, like all that have been justified by faith, had a nature that was incapable of sinning. “We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.” 1 John 5:18.

Death came through Eve (Gen 3:17-19): Life Himself came through Mary (John 10:28)

Eternal life has nothing to do with Mary, and John 10:28. John’s gospel in particular does not bring her in at the beginnig, but simply states the “word was made flesh and dwelt among us,” because the subject of John’s Gospel is Christ’s diety, and Luke the physician fittingly bring in His Perfect Humanity and therefore the incarnation and birth. How in any way does John 10:28 refer to Mary? “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” John 17:3 The Spirit carefully left Mary out of most of John’s gospel for a reason. Correction, he rebuked her at a wedding in John 2 for prompting Him to perform a miracle, but graciously did perform the miracle anyway. He made it very clear that obedience to His Father came before His natural relationship with her. I actually saw a Catholic children’s book showing Mary and Jesus together, both with halo’s on their head, and she was upset at him for staying back at the temple, and the narrator of the children’s book said they had a “misunderstanding.” What wicked blasphemy to expose children too, and as the righteous Judge, the author of that children’s book will answer for it.

Eve could not approach the tree of life (Gen 3:24): Mary approached the ‘Tree of Life’ (John 19:25)

An angel kept Eve out of Eden (Gen 3:24): An angel protected Mary (Rev 12:7-9)

Eve is the mother of all the living (Gen 3:20): Mary is the mother of all the living (John 19:27)

None of these test or prove anything about Mary’s nature. Adam and Eve were tested by the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, 1 John 3:16. “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise…” Gen 3:6. Jesus was also tested in the same way and in the same order (Luke 4:3-14). Do you have a record of Mary being tested in this way to prove her nature? No you don’t. I would revere Jael before I revered Mary. “Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent.” Judges 5:24. I guess we better not give the pope any new ideas right?

The Father jealously guards the reverence of His Son above all others. You should as well. Remember Peter’s naughty suggestion on the mount of transfiguration, and the Father said, “this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him…and they lifted up their eyes and saw no man, save Jesus only.”

Idio - I’m beginning to wonder if you’ve even read the Bible, or have you just read the tracts of your sect about the Bible.

I’m thankful for both. There are very few apologetic type materials produced by the brethren, and nothing in audio format. See for yourself: whosefaithfollow.org/. That would be all negative, and not necessary, because the truth does not come to us in this way, James 3:17, but certainly enables us to recognize error.

The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth, but when the foundations are destroyed, where shall the righteous go? Paul was the masterbuilder (not Peter), and laid a foundation. It is Paul that was turned away from by all in Asia. It was Paul that declared “all the counsel of God,” weeped about what was to come on the Church after he departed, and commended us, not to the Church Fathers, but unto “God and the word of his grace.” (Acts 20:20-32.
We, you, the pope need to take care how they have built on that foundation. (1 Cor 3:10-15). It is our works that our burned up, not us. I know you guys like the burning part and everything, but the subject here is the works added to that foundation, both doctrine and practice. All that time wasted on that rosary, etc.

Paul: “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” 2 Cor 11:3.

So how long do you guys want to keep this up? I don’t want to force myself here, and will leave at any time. I have no intention on ever becoming a Catholic. Is there anyone “riding the fence” or reading along that finds this interesting or helpful? Like old brother Hayhoe used to say, you get just as dirty fighting a chimney sweep as you do hugging him. You guys present things to me that you find beautiful and sweet, and I find them repulsive and nasty. So, why am I here? I have other responsibilities, and Paul said the servant of the Lord “must not strive,” and I must admit I feel I am here in disobedience to that. Paul was reasoning with the Jews in the synagogue in disobedience to the Lord and he ended up in jail.

Christ is everything, or Christ is nothing.

Nothing but Christ, as on we tread,
The Gift unpriced–God’s living Bread,
With staff in hand and feet well shod,
Nothing but Christ–the Christ of God.

Everything loss for Him below,
Taking the cross where’er we go;Gospel
Shewing to all, where once He trod,
Nothing but Christ–the Christ of God.

Nothing save Him, in all our ways,
Giving the theme for ceaseless praise;
Our whole resource along the road,
Nothing but Christ–the Christ of God.

 

[idiopathogen]

I was able to make corrections above.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Mary, like all that have been justified by faith, had a nature that was incapable of sinning. “We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.” 1 John 5:18.

Do you believe that people that are “saved” are incapable of sinning? Mary was without sin, but I wouldn’t say that about the rest of humanity, justified or not.

Eternal life has nothing to do with Mary,

Jesus said “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Mary was the holy vessel through which the Life came into the world. How can you say she has nothing to do with it?

The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth,

You’re right here, you just need to add The Catholic Church is the pillar and ground of the truth.

Christ is everything, or Christ is nothing.

You ought to come to Mass, it’s all centered on Christ. He’s even present.

Nothing but Christ, as on we tread,
The Gift unpriced–God’s living Bread,

So, you guys believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist too? See you at Mass!

 

[mercygate]

Well, so far you have not presented any, so I doubt it. It seems that so far you have presented regarding the first and second Man, but nothing regarding a second Woman. Mary was a partaker of the divine nature, having faith and new birth, and was capable of displaying humility and faith, but having a human father, and Adam’s sinful nature. Eve was innocent, and capable of being deceived. Jesus on the other hand was the second Man from Heaven, and heavenly, and had no sinful nature.

You mean in the sense of 2 Pet 1:4, [correct? Not sure what you are getting at. Typological “agreements” are not hard-and-fast one-to-one correlations; they are literary/devotional connections by which we see the unity of all Scripture.

Mary, like all that have been justified by faith, had a nature that was incapable of sinning. “We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.” 1 John 5:18.This is a whole different subject. I see your profile says “Plymouth Brethren - so called.” I KNOW by Brethren friend would not parse this verse as you do, since he understands 1 John 5:16-17.

Eternal life has nothing to do with Mary, and John 10:28. John’s gospel in particular does not bring her in at the beginnig, but simply states the “**word was made flesh **and dwelt among us,” because the subject of John’s Gospel is Christ’s diety, and Luke the physician fittingly bring in His Perfect Humanity and therefore the incarnation and birth. How in any way does John 10:28 refer to Mary?

Just responding to the bolded points:
John 10:28 in the RSV reads: “I give them eternal life . . .” It is through Mary that God gives Jesus [eternal life] to the world.

How was the word made flesh? Through Mary.

Also adding John 3:16, “God so loved the the world that he gave his only begotten son . . .” So did Mary.

This isn’t exactly typology. But it is a sensitive and accurate reading of Scripture. God might have redeemed the world without the Incarnation; but he chose to do it through the scandal of human flesh, and he chose to clothe himself in human flesh through Our Lady.

None of these test or prove anything about Mary’s nature. Adam and Eve were tested by the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, 1 John 3:16. “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise…” Gen 3:6. Jesus was also tested in the same way and in the same order (Luke 4:3-14). Do you have a record of Mary being tested in this way to prove her nature? No you don’t.

So?

I would revere Jael before I revered Mary. “Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent.” Judges 5:24. I guess we better not give the pope any new ideas right?

Is this a discussion of typology? Sounds more like a typical anti-Marian snipe.

The Father jealously guards the reverence of His Son above all others. You should as well.

You are suggesting that we do not reverence Christ above all others? You seem to be of the opinion that loving the whole of Our Lord’s family in some way diminishes the devotion we give to God. A lot of people seem to think that.

Remember Peter’s naughty suggestion on the mount of transfiguration, and the Father said, “this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him…and they lifted up their eyes and saw no man, save Jesus only.”

What does this have to do with typology?

I’m thankful for both. There are very few apologetic type materials produced by the brethren, and nothing in audio format. See for yourself: whosefaithfollow.org/. That would be all negative, and not necessary, because the truth does not come to us in this way, James 3:17, but certainly enables us to recognize error.

Not sure where you’re going with this or where that link fits in here.

The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth, but when the foundations are destroyed, where shall the righteous go? Paul was the masterbuilder (not Peter), and laid a foundation. It is Paul that was turned away from by all in Asia. It was Paul that declared “all the counsel of God,” weeped about what was to come on the Church after he departed, and commended us, not to the Church Fathers, but unto “God and the word of his grace.” (Acts 20:20-32.
We, you, the pope need to take care how they have built on that foundation. (1 Cor 3:10-15). It is our works that our burned up, not us. I know you guys like the burning part and everything, but the subject here is the works added to that foundation, both doctrine and practice. All that time wasted on that rosary, etc.

You seem to be chiding us for our ecclesiology and for our devotional exercises. But since the rosary is one way we pray the Gospel, we would not call it a “waste of time” and in fact, Catholics might well be justified in considering the phrase “waste of time” insulting if it were not simply ignorant.

Paul: “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” 2 Cor 11:3.
So how long do you guys want to keep this up? I don’t want to force myself here, and will leave at any time.

Keep what up?

I have no intention on ever becoming a Catholic.

Has anyone here suggested that you should?

Is there anyone “riding the fence” or reading along that finds this interesting or helpful? Like old brother Hayhoe used to say, you get just as dirty fighting a chimney sweep as you do hugging him.

You are suggesting by this that this conversation has made you “dirty” because WE are dirty?

You guys present things to me that you find beautiful and sweet, and** I find them repulsive and nasty.** So, why am I here?

We are beginning to ask that orselves. We didn’t come to you, after all.

I have other responsibilities, and Paul said the servant of the Lord “must not strive,” and I must admit I feel I am here in disobedience to that.

I think I can understand why you feel that way. But how you strive or do not strive is really your call, not ours, would you not agree?

Paul was reasoning with the Jews in the synagogue in disobedience to the Lord and he ended up in jail.

You can relax. That won’t happen here.

**Christ is everything, **or Christ is nothing.

Agreed.

Nothing but Christ, as on we tread,
The Gift unpriced–God’s living Bread,

. . .

Hey! One of the things my Brethren friend and I share high-fives over is the fact that we BOTH believe without any compromise in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. “Bloody Brethren!” he always says. This is virtually unique among the Protestant sects. They “break bread” every week.

If you are still interested, I just located a ton of early Fathers on Joseph. Great stuff: Jacob’s appointing the sons of Joseph as the 13th tribe = Paul as the 13th Apostle . . . Joseph’s “two breasts” are the Old and New Testaments in which Christ is foretold and revealed . . . But it seems you have got past your interest in typology.

 

[idiopathogen]

I trust I will see many of you tomorrow as well, in the loaf:

“For we being many are one loaf, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one loaf.” 1 Cor 10:17.

“There was a little city, and few men within it; and there came a great king against it, and besieged it, and built great bulwarks against it: Now there was found in it a poor wise man, and he by his wisdom delivered the city; yet no man remembered that same poor man.” Ecc 9:14,15

“Then spake the chief butler unto Pharaoh, saying, I do remember…” Genesis 41:9

"If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever. " Exodus 21:2-6.

“Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;” Eph 5:25

“Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Philippians 2:5-11.

Glory, honour, praise, and power,
Be unto the Lamb for ever!
Jesus Christ is our Redeemer.
Hallelujah ! Hallelujah !
Hellelujah ! Praise we the Lord !

–Written by Theodolph, died 821, a bright spot in the dark ages.

On Calvary we’ve adoring stood,
And gazed on that wondrous cross,
Where the holy, spotless Lamb of God
Was slain in His love for us;
How our hearts have stirred at that solemn cry,
While the sun was enwrapt in night,
“Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani ?”
Most blessed, most awful sight.

Our sins were laid on His sacred head,
The curse by our Lord was borne ;
For us a victim our Saviour bled,
And endured that death of scorn ;
Himself He gave our poor hearts to win –
(Was ever love, Lord, like Thine !)
From the paths of folly, and shame, and sin,
And fill them with joys divine.

We’ve watched by the tomb where our Saviour lay
When He entered the gloomy grave ;
And by death the power of death might slay
And His lambs from the lion save.
Oh ! glorious time when the Victor rose!
He liveth, no more to die;
He hath bruised the head of our mighty foes,
For us was His victory !

The gates of heaven are opened wide,
At His name all the angels bow ;
The Son of man who was crucified
Is the King of glory now :
We love to look up and behold Him there,
The Lamb for His chosen slain ;
And soon shall His saints all His glories share,
With their Head and their Lord shall reign.

And now we draw near to the throne of grace,
For His blood and the Priest are there ;
And we joyfully seek God’s holy face,
With our censer of praise and prayer.
The burning mount and the mystic veil,
With our terrors and guilt, are gone ;
Our conscience has peace that can never fail,
'Tis the Lamb on high on the throne.

We eat the same supper, but at different tables. That won’t always be the case.

in Christ,
Peter

 

[mercygate]

Hey, idiopathogen! Whaddaya mean: “Dark Ages?”

No Christian should sit still for that term. The only reason they are called “dark” is because the “Enlightenment” rejected “the age of faith.”

 

[mercygate]

So, you guys believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist too? See you at Mass!