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
Slight correction there, smvoice...
Believe what you want, but just because your religion teaches/believes it doesn’t make it true for everyone.
TRUE. And thank you for the correction. True is true, even if no one in the world believes it. THANKS!
Catholic reasoning on this is that all the authors of NT Scripture were the *church fathers*. The RCC is the one true church. Therefore all the authors of the NT were by default Roman Catholic, therefore the Roman Catholic church "wrote" the NT.
There's no way it can with any credibility claim to have written the OT, so they're claim on it is that they were the first to compile it. That then makes them responsible for the OT as well.
So, they then claim that the Bible is their creation and castigate any who want to return to it as a point of authority in spiritual matters.
Clear as mud. Right?
There's enough circular reasoning in that line of though to drive anyone batty.
Regarding the advisability of written word when possible, I, of course, agree that it is preferable to oral tradition. You realize, don't you, that it's not like they sit around and tell some never-written-down tradition that is exclusively oral, in seminaries? The Church used written word all along. The Sacred Tradition is (a) not secret and (b) not oral. It is simply something that for a variety of reasons was not canonized as inerrant and wholly inspired by the Church. Which are these reasons? Lack of apostolic authorship; lack of direct conveyance of the historical words and deeds of Christ; lack even of a formulaic expression, such as for example in sacred arts and hymnody.
Like a big old teacup ride. Let's turn the cup harder and go FASTER!
It is quite ironic that we on the RF, who speak for the gospel of grace, are called a "bunch of old busibodies(sic)" who "insist that other(sic) believe as you do and are opposed to free speech...freedom of religion". This original post was praising the Lord through a hymn and got as far as three posts before the attacks started. Freedom for thee and not for me/we???
> “Why would we want to do that? We are in harmony with the Holy Scripture as written.”
.
In an alternate universe?
All the major catholic doctrines and practices are condemned in scripture:
> “Call no man Father”
> Pastors that are unmarried.
> ‘Salvation’ by works.
> Prayer to the dead.
> Repetitive prayer.
> Purgatory.
> Seances in place of the rememberance of Communion.
> Following traditions of men.
> Statues/idols worshiped and revered.
> Relecs worshiped and revered.
> Secret confession booths instead of openly confessing to brothers/sisters in Christ.
Just what do catholics do that is scriptural?
That is very true but in Matthew 16 (as well as Luke 22 and John 21) Christ singled St. Peter out as the Apostle in charge of the visible Church that is His Church. From this the scripture compells us to cnclude that the Church Chirst build is foundationally connected to the person of St. Peter and is orthodox, that is is built fully in accordance with the intention of Christ.
St. Peter did refer to his legacy past his life time thusly:
[11] For so an entrance shall be ministered to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. [12] For which cause I will begin to put you always in remembrance of these things: though indeed you know them, and are confirmed in the present truth. [13] But I think it meet as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance. [14] Being assured that the laying away of this my tabernacle is at hand, according as our Lord Jesus Christ also hath signified to me. [15] And I will endeavour, that you frequently have after my decease, whereby you may keep a memory of these things. [16] For we have not by following artificial fables, made known to you the power, and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ; but we were eyewitnesses of his greatness (2 Peter 1)
Note that St.Peter refers to the founding of the papacy as "laying away of this my tabernacle" and ensures that after his death the witness of the Apostolic Church will continue, "as our Lord Jesus Christ also hath signified".
The manner of papal election changed a few times int he past and may, for all we know, change again. This is not a dogmatic teaching of the Church, and is a matter of Chruch self- governance.
The list of popes is without interruption from St. Pater. The use of the attribute "Catholic" as opposed to "local" or "heretical" is from early 2c. Google it.
Sorry, left you out of the above post.
Because I am an American. I think, most West European countries are in a similar need of an inquisition, but it is not for me to call for it.
.
> “That is very true but in Matthew 16 (as well as Luke 22 and John 21) Christ singled St. Peter out as the Apostle in charge of the visible Church that is His Church.”
.
The propagation of that ugly falsehood is Satan’s proudest success.
> Note that St.Peter refers to the founding of the papacy as “laying away of this my tabernacle”
.
Sorry, no!
His Tabernacle is the body in which he existed on Earth.
He knew that his time was soon at hand.
I cannot even imagine how you ca make that stretch job.
To claim that Peter is the rock on which the church is built is wrong. If the Roman Catholic church teachers that Peter is the rock, they're teaching something in contradiction to what Peter said, IWO, a lie.
1 Peter 2: 1 So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. 2 Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— 3if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.
4As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, 5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6For it stands in Scripture:
"Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame."
7So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,
"The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,"
8and
"A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense."
They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
.
Amen!
.
annalex, there is nothing in those Scriptures that refer to what your post said. Peter was talking about his BODY when he referred to "this tabernacle", just as 2 Cor. 5:1-9 makes clear. How do you get the founding of the papacy in this scripture?
As to this:ensures that after his death the witness of the Apostolic Church will continue, "as our Lord Jesus Christ also hath signified".
, please tell me how you derived the "Apostolic Church" anything from this Scripture?
And on his best day Thomas Jefferson was barely a deist. He may have been a capable politician, but he was no theologian nor was he a Christian.
The vast majority of signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were Calvinist Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans and Congregationalists.
"Whatever the cause, the Calvinists were the only fighting Protestants. It was they whose faith gave them courage to stand up for the Reformation. In England, Scotland, France, Holland, they,... did the work, and but for them the Reformation would have been crushed... If it had not been for Calvinists,... and whatever you like to call them, the Pope and Philip would have won, and we should either be Papists or Socialists." ~ Sir John Skelton
Men loathe Calvinism in direct proportion to their disdain for the Scriptures. As Spurgeon wrote in his IN DEFENSE OF CALVINISM -- ...
"... It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor..."
All the gospel of Rome.
I would LOVE to know the answer to that one question.
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.