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
.
> “Just wow. The RCC doesn’t need the Word of God. Straight from a Catholic’s keyboard”
.
This is nothing new.
Catholics have been trying to eradicate the word of God since the catholic apostasy was founded in the fourth century.
The catholic church is just one of Satan’s organizations to defeat the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and they’re all working to erode his word.
.
.
> “I do think that he really did slip when he said *my muslim faith*. He was talking off the cuff, without a teleprompter, and got caught off guard.”
.
That was my initial reaction when I first heard it, but shortly thereafter I realized that while it was an honest statement for the most part, it was scripted to bring in the Moslem vote.
.
As much as we disagree, annalex is the most HONEST of the RCCs we encounter. He tells us what Catholics truly believe/teach without the whitewash. I do respect him for that. IMHO, if I needed to know a truthful answer about a certain Catholic teaching, annalex is the one I would ask.
In all fairness, metmom, annalex did not say that the “RCC doesn’t need the Word of God.” He said that they didn’t need the Holy Scriptures, that is to say, the written word of God. He then averred that the RCC could get along just fine with oral teaching.
However, such a position begs the question of why God gave His Word to the apostles and evangelists to be written down. God, manifestly, thought that it was necessary for His people to have His Word in written form since He gave it in such form. That any disciple of Christ would so blithely relinquish the written word of God (even if only to score a cheap debate point) is evidence of either a) an extreme (and unfathomable) optimism when it comes to the nature of man or b) a breath-taking lack of regard (if not reverence) for God and what He has done to enlighten sin-darkened man. I don’t know which is more lamentable or more frightening.
You are right. Just because a Church speaks of Jesus, grace, faith, atonement, etc. does NOT mean they are speaking of the Christ and His finished work of the Bible. Even the “Bible” can mean other things to other religions. It can be a very confusing situation unless the word of truth is rightly divided, and scripture is compared to scripture. NOT traditions or doctrines of men.
I recognize that honestly and appreciate it.
I was just rather taken aback by that admission.
It is rather shocking in its implications, which do not take a lot of reading in to.
I would have to agree, annalex is a pretty accurate guide to Roman teaching. He is to be commended for his service to the inquiring. But I do think also that he accomplishes a different purpose than he himself intends. For example, in my case he has increased my appreciation of Martin Luther’s analysis and refutation of so much of Roman teaching (but not all!). Luther had Rome dead to rights vis-a-vis the plain meaning of the Holy Scriptures. So, thank you, annalex, for validating Luther for me so often.
There's hardly a difference.
He then averred that the RCC could get along just fine with oral teaching.
There are two problems with that, though.
One is what we've seen the Catholic church do with teachings that are not specifically mentioned in Scripture, the written Word- all the stuff about Mary comes most quickly to mind.
The other thing is knowing how easily oral tradition can be corrupted. If it's not written down, there's little to no assurance that the account will maintain its integrity over time, and that what is handed down from generation to generation will remain true to the original.
Once it's recorded, future copies can be compared to originals to check for fidelity. That simply can't be done orally.
While it is possible that there could be some deliberate tampering with the originals, and then destroying them, it's still far more reliable than word of mouth.
The implications of his statement are shocking.
Yep, his intentions are to build up the RCC. But he accomplishes SO MANY other things he doesn’t even realize. Weird but true in the way that works:)
Five??? That’s funny. Just open your phone book and you tell me how many different denominations there are. There are more than five different major categories of Protestants, not to mention the endless schisms within each of them; Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Calvinist, Congregationalist, Presbyterian, Reformed, Baptist, Anabaptist, Zwingalian, Adventist, Quakers, Amish, Pietists, Evangelical, Unitarians, Pentecostals, Mormons, Jehovah Witness, Episcopalians, Shakers, and that doesn’t include the hundreds of independent, non-aligned “store front” entities.
Anyone who would believe that is probably institutionalized for their own protection.
You have essentially repeated, in expanded form, what I just said.
But it remains important not to put words in people’s mouths even if there is “hardly a difference.” annalex will not, of course, agree that there is hardly a difference and much time and effort will be expended straightening out - if that is even possible - what could be rather easily straightened out right away.
I was just trying to set the record straight so that the substance of what he said could be dealt with and not whether he said this or that.
This is a repeat of the previous post, since I should have included annalex in the ping:
You have essentially repeated, in expanded form, what I just said:
But it remains important not to put words in people’s mouths even if there is “hardly a difference.” annalex will not, of course, agree that there is hardly a difference and much time and effort will be expended straightening out - if that is even possible - what could be rather easily straightened out right away.
I was just trying to set the record straight so that the substance of what he said could be dealt with and not whether he said this or that.
Here’s something for you to FOTFLOL about. I just found out a couple of nights ago from an RCC that St. Paul was a member of the Catholic Church. This is how bad it’s getting...OK, tell me what you do about THAT bold pronouncement!
Put it right for you.
You need to read the comments that some of your catholic buddies have posted on this thread. Their hatred for God's word glows in the dark.
There, put it right for you.
I suppose to a catholic, eternally lost in feckless works based 'salvation,' and without the love of Jesus Christ, or the word of God, that might seem to be true, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ was reserrected from a 1200 year grave through Luther's brave actions.
I thought they claimed him as church father, since they claim their church fathers wrote the Bible, therefore the Bible was written by the Catholic church.
That does put Paul solidly in the “Catholic” camp, now doesn’t it, since he wrote so much of the NT, like all the epistles with their theology and all?
Imagine, claiming someone you consider a *loon*, a *freak* or a *goofball* writing the very material that your church claims it’s built on.
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.