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
Exactly my point. When Pope Leo wanted people to kiss his big toe after his hunt, how could people judge him for that?
...the Spanish Inquisition is generally considered to be one the most scrupulously honest court systems in history.
I think it's wrong to look back on the morays of another era, but the Spanish Inquisition was NOT the most scrupulously honest court system. Jews and Muslims were forced to become Catholics and if they refused to become "good practicing" Catholics they were burned at the stake. Hardly what I would call honest.
Do you reject ALL Catholic teaching?
You'd have to define "ALL". If you mean the Trinity then no I do not reject it. If you mean their interpretation of the "saints", the bogus idea of purgatory, the made up doctrine of Mary, the goofiness of imparting God's grace through the Eucharist, (and others); well, yes I do reject it.
The split with the East was caused by schism, not issues of doctrine.
They reject the Pope as the final word. To them the Pope is one more bishop. I would say that's a big schism especially since Catholics teaches the Pope to be infallible.
Reformers "left" to acquire Church property.
Well, that's a new one. I thought it was because the Church was collecting money through indulgences to pay for their indulgences.
but cannot happen the Church because it is ultimately protected by the Holy Spirit.
Do you believe homosexual priest are a good thing that the Holy Spirit wants in the Church?
And yet God chose Paul to be the PRIMARY catechist of the New Church .
This is not a competition between Peter and Paul, both were chosen by God to be apostles
Peter had backslidden and was falling back under the law (so much for infallibility) and he needed to be reprimanded by the church .
The 1st church council was held at the seat of the new church and that was Jerusalem . James was the bishop of Jerusalem and thus was the leader of the council. Peter was not in charge, Peter did not make the final ruling, but did as we are commanded, he submitted to the authorities ordained by God
There is no "older"protestant denomination that teaches or believes in baptismal regeneration . The only "protestant church " that does is the Church of Christ, and they do not baptize infants . They teach AFTER one has repented and believed one MUST be baptized to be saved.
There is no evidence for infant baptism or for baptismal regeneration in scripture.. as is usually the case it is proof texting out of context , setting and audience ...
I guess the Catholic church has had a real change of heart then, from the the Crusades of trying to elimniate islam to embracing it and kissing the koran.
Quite a spiritual journey, I’d say...
So, If apostolic succession is still in effect, who are the twelve apostles of today who are direct successors of the original Twelve?
Where does it say that God instructed them to choose another apostle to replace Judas? If they wanted to put the selection beyond all doubt, they would have said they did it on God's direct instruction.
Jesus have come to them and given them voluminous on what to do next. They were likely following his instructions.
Likely. But not for sure. Another unsubstantiated presumption.
GMTA!!!!!
You thought, dd you???
You thought, did you???
Details, details...
Their theology is already in enough knots.
You just had to go and point that out, didn’t you?
So, when very your next sentence, which Dr. Eckleburg also quoted, states,
Inquisition is purely an internal Catholic matter and not really the business of any non-Catholic.is "Inquisition" here a generalization, or did you intend to refer only to the Spanish Inquisition?
What Dr. Eckleburg clearly disputed are your claims that inquisition was "only concerned with public, baptized Catholics", and that "Jews and Muslims were outside of its scope." Dr. Eckleburg didn't say anything about the Spanish Inquisition per se. You did. Resorting here to your modifier, "Spanish" to the class of Inquisitions as though that single class were representative of the whole class of Inquisitions is utterly fallacious and impotent to rebut in the least anything Dr. Eckleburg actually said,
Sorry, Dr. Eckleburg is not deceitful just because you commit a fallacy of hasty generalization.
Cordially,
This would, of course, depend on the eyes of faith one sees thru...be it thru the eyes of Christ... or that of men whose faith is placed elsewhere.
Well put.
This speaks of fleshly birth..."Born of water"....as we know this occcurs just prior to giving birth..commonly called "breaking water" and thus a child is born.... Baptism is not required for Salvation, rather the outward evidence one has given his life to Christ. It depicts death to self, resurrection to a new life in Christ.
So, If apostolic succession is still in effect, who are the twelve apostles of today who are direct successors of the original Twelve?
Better yet, to be an Apostle means that one must have actually seen the Risen LORD.
And seeing Jesus' image on the side of a barn or a slice of toast doesn't count.
Rome gratuitously redefines what is an Apostle because Rome grants itself greater Authority than Scripture.
Conversing with a Roman Catholic is like dealing with Humpty Dumpty.
But don't let that stop them from pulling Popes out of their pointy hats..
THAT was funny! In a tragic sort of way...;)
It is logical that the church in Rome is not mentioned in Revelation because Holy Spirit left the building centuries before the END TIMES spoken of in Revelation—except for scattered Charismatic groups here and there.
Your end-times delusional fantasies has been proven countless times to be false. It never was logical, and asserting that it is doesn't make it so. Heck, even Rome rejects the Premillennial Dysfunctionalism you mindlessly repeat here.
Metmom has a very valid point, for the entire foundation of the RCC depends on this foolishness of the Church being centered in Rome, yet no mention of it is in the Scripture, particularly the letters written to the seven churches.
Furthermore, there are many Roman Catholics of old who consider Revelation one of the earlier texts written, not some post Fall of Jerusalem 95 AD drivel that routinely comes out of the Dysfunctionalist camp. You are arguing against your own cult, again, I see nothing logical about that.
YOU need to return to Rome and embrace her eschatology, not the lunacy of Tim LaHay and Hal Lindsey.
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.