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
lol. That is one of the most ludicrous examples of papist double-speak I've ever read.
As Metmom reminded us, the written word is consistent and reliable compared to the conniving and ignorance of men and their traditions which can change from one day to the next.
Rome must diminish Scripture because Rome does not adhere to what the Scriptures, the word of God, teach.
You problem is with St. Paul:
πασα γραφη θεοπνευστος και ωφελιμος προς διδασκαλιαν προς ελεγχον προς επανορθωσιν προς παιδειαν την εν δικαιοσυνηI believe, at least one popular translation also has it "useful", but I cannot find it at the present time. My bet would be, it's NIVAll scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice (D-R)
(2 Tim 3:16)
No one says the word of God is not powerful. Do you understand the nature of your Bible Alone heresy? I can explain, or perhaps you can do me a favor and read around for my posts to others on exact this topic.
Nothing in Scripture says that Scripture alone isn’t good enough and nowhere are we instructed to add tradition to it.
It’s only tradition which teaches that tradition must be added to Scripture.
Very convenient, you know.
That is addressed to the gnostics who indeed forbade people to marry and forbade certain foods. But the scripture also teaches that celibacy is good for the servant of God (1 Cor 7:32-25) and so are various forms of mortification of the flesh, including fasting: Romans 8:13, Matthew 4:2.
The Curch does not force anyone to be a vegetarian or to go into Latin Rite priesthood. These are things people do voluntarily.
She did not have any other children. "Brothers" of Christ are indeed mentioned, but, curious thing, every time a "brother" of Jesus is mentioned by name, his mother also is mentioned and she is not Mary.
Isn't that wierd that there is another "Mary" out there who named her sons "James" and "Joses"
Mark 15:40-41 "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joses, and Salome..."
Because how do you explain these passages?
Matthew 13:55-57 "Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?"
Mark 6:3 "Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?"
Even Paul reminds us that James is our LORD's half brother
Galatians 1:19-20 "But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother."
Somehow Paul felt that Mary had more sons...
1 Corinthians 9:5-6 "Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"
Even John got into the "conspiracy"
John 2:12 "After this He went down to Capernaum, He, His mother, His brothers, and His disciples; and they did not stay there many days."
And I am still struggling to find any evidence whatsoever for your claim that a so-called "brother" was named in proximity to another woman other than Mary, the mother of Jesus. You must have a special Bible that is alien to what was originally written.
Unfortunately, it's still "later" and they aren't tired of citing the error yet. Thanks for posting it, AGAIN. We should give this a name and simply cite it every time someone comes up with the silly statement. How about Duplicitous Denomination Deception?
I’m still trying to figure out why it’s so important that Mary was always a virgin her entire life.
The critical part was that she was a virgin when she bore Jesus, to fulfill the prophecy. Once the prophecy was fulfilled, her virginity is irrelevant.
What is with the RCC’s obsession with sex. They treat it as if it’s dirty or something.
Priests can’t marry. Mary was always a virgin.
Others are indeed taught in the scripture: the equal authority of the tradition (2 Thess. 2:14)
Now you are insulting your audience. In the passage you cited the word παράδοσίς means "precepts", specifically the Jewish traditionary law. The word itself is pretty much fixed in its definition at Paul's time.
1 Cor 11:2-3 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.
You are going to have a Devil of a time (quite literally) to give evidence that the variety of pagan rituals Rome indulges in, commonly profaned by calling "Holy Traditions", were taught and practiced by Paul himself.
Indeed, it is good that you drew our attention to 2 Thessalonians, because in the heart of the next chapter we read what every good Protestant has done:
2 Thess 3:6 But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.
That is, we have withdrawn, as if by command from the Apostles themselves, from the apostate Rome which clearly does not walk according to the "traditions" received by the Apostles. Rome has made up all kinds of laws and regulations just as the Jews did to supplement the Law handed down to them from Mt Sinai. Our LORD had some choice statements regarding the sin the Jews committed and that Rome perfected.
Here is the scene. The scribes and Pharisees who were in Jerusalem came up to Jesus and demanded an explanation from him by saying "Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?". We read in Matthew 15 the SmackDown™ delivered by our LORD on these wicked men. "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?". He then provides an example, then quotes Isaiah 29:13. He then gives us a saying repeated today about the "blind leading the blind into a pit". Clearly, our LORD didn't respect "traditions", characterizing them as "vain in their worship, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men."
What Rome is doing in the form of "Holy Traditions" is perpetuating the prophecy of Isaiah, or as our LORD summarizes "These are the things that defile a man". Rome takes the word "traditions" and then sins in the same manner as the Pharisees of Matthew 15. Rome does NOT honor the teaching of the Apostles, rather the Holy Traditions are a deliberate hijacking of the meaning of the word, transforming it into sin.
Utterly shamefull trying to support something that is clearly condemned in Scripture and even a theme focused on and vehemently condemned by our LORD in the Gospels.
The very interesting thing is that the Roman Catholic church and especially FRoman Catholics, so disparage Paul when they feel that what he has to say supports Protestant doctrine, but when they feel it supports Catholic doctrine, Catholics will quote Paul so fast your head will spin.
All of a sudden, he’s a church father, even if he is a *loon*, a *goofball*, and a *kook*.
Either Paul is worthy of quoting or he is not. Not depending on what doctrine you choose to have him support, but either he’s reliable, or he’s not.
Cherry picking doesn’t cut it. It leaves one with no credibility. Catholics need to make up their mind about what they believe about Paul instead of moving the goalposts all the time.
annalex is the most HONEST of the RCCs we encounter...if I needed to know a truthful answer about a certain Catholic teaching, annalex is the one I would ask.
I second that declaration. We are fortunate to have annalex among us in that regard.
AMEN, metmom. Paul is loved/reviled according to what they WANT him to say, not what he actually says. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen a person so misunderstood. And for no other reason than they do NOT want to believe what he actually said. Not an IMPLICIT meaning in any of his epistles. Yet you would think they were written in some kind of pre-Adamite claw scratching on a cave wall. A stumblingblock, to be sure.
I agree. I stick with the KJV, but the NKJV and the ESV are excellent.
I like the ESV the most.
King James contains language that is too antiquated at this point and if you hadn’t been brought up with it, it’s just way too confusing.
I have a friend who teaches Greek and he says the ESV is excellent.
AMEN! Great post.
Amen to that. Thank God that the Catholic Church doesn't promote that. Saint Paul is venerated by the Catholic Church and his writings are part of the revealed Word of God. What the Church does not accept or promote is the notion that Paul's writings are on par with or superior to the Gospel as revealed by Christ Himself. When read in support of the Gospel Paul is glorious. However, when presented as a stand alone revelation they are misleading. The sin does not lie with St. Paul, but with those who would corrupt his work.
The very interesting thing is that the Roman Catholic church and especially FRoman Catholics, so disparage Paul when they feel that what he has to say supports Protestant doctrine, but when they feel it supports Catholic doctrine, Catholics will quote Paul so fast your head will spin.
All of a sudden, he’s a church father, even if he is a *loon*, a *goofball*, and a *kook*.
Either Paul is worthy of quoting or he is not. Not depending on what doctrine you choose to have him support, but either he’s reliable, or he’s not.
Cherry picking doesn’t cut it. It leaves one with no credibility. Catholics need to make up their mind about what they believe about Paul instead of moving the goalposts all the time.
OF COURSE . . . IT EVEN INVOLVES RELIGIOUS DUTIES OF OBLIGATION . . . RITUALS . . .
RELATED Stations of the Stations of the White Hanky:
2. Black/white icon of duplicity, double standard dance
6. Icon of the rubber bible
10. Icon of hubris to the supreme degree
11. Groping for any explanation but the truth
12. Icon to the holy flip-flops in word meanings and arguments
14. Icon to the fantasized divine right, to be correct, pristinely sanctified & perfectly flawless in all respects in all cases all the time, regardless.
15. Icon to chronic & obsessive inconsistency.
Well above average in my experience.
Was reared on KJV. Wore out several Dixon versions.
In China ran across folks who insisted that teaching the Chinese KJV English made sense.
I thought they were absolutely looney toons. Still do.
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.