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
And therein lies a problem....
Do these priests go to heaven?
If they themselves do not qualify for heaven because of their unrepentant sin, then how can they minister as priests before God? Is he not a holy God? How can defiled vessles like that dispense God's grace?
Look at what happened to Eli's sons, Hophni and Phinehas.
1 Samuel 2:22-25 22Now Eli was very old, and he kept hearing all that his sons were doing to all Israel, and how they lay with the women who were serving at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 23And he said to them, "Why do you do such things? For I hear of your evil dealings from all the people. 24No, my sons; it is no good report that I hear the people of the LORD spreading abroad. 25If someone sins against a man, God will mediate for him, but if someone sins against the LORD, who can intercede for him?" But they would not listen to the voice of their father, for it was the will of the LORD to put them to death.
1 Samuel 2:34&3534 And this that shall come upon your two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, shall be the sign to you: both of them shall die on the same day. 35 And I will raise up for myself a faithful priest, who shall do according to what is in my heart and in my mind. And I will build him a sure house, and he shall go in and out before my anointed forever.
These priests just fooled around with women. Imagine if it had been recorded that they were doing it with little boys?
The condemnation that is coming on the RCC for not taking this abomination seriously enough to deal with it appropriately is just.
And the Catholic church wonders why it's bleeding members. People hate hypocrisy.
Obviously not, but God allows free will. Calvinists are blinded to this reality, but anyone who wants to sin may do so. However, the Holy Spirit has not allowed homosexual "Catholic" officials to alter Church doctrine, as has happened in every Protestant denomination infested by homos.
Admit it. There is nothing else like the Catholic Church. Even if many of her officials are given over to sin for a season, her doctrine remains pure. Over the past 2000 years, as civilizations faded and empires collapsed, a miraculous regenerative power kept renewing the Church to a state of youth and vitality. Today, many who are blind to the workings of the Spirit predict that the Church is on her last legs and headed for extinction. Such naysayers will join the company of failed prophets who've said the same throughout the millenia.
You ignored the fact that Peter called the meeting to order and made everyone listen to Paul and James who were already in lockstep with Peter's position.
I grieve over so many souls that cannot grasp with their minds this critical difference. To have loved ones say things like, "I offer it up for my sins.", when they suffer anything from a cold to a perceived persecution when someone disagrees with their religion's doctrine. If ONLY they could grasp with their hearts what a magnificent gift the Creator has provided for us - that he desires we accept by faith - so that their motive for good works can be because of gratitude and not out of fear of condemnation.
1 John 4:19
We love him, because he first loved us.
There isn’t a single word in any of the epistles suggesting any form of punishment of the Elect.
“If any man’s WORK shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.”
.
It clearly states the the feckless WORKS will be burned, not the believer!
Catholics are conditioned from birth to expect the Lord to inflict pain and punishment on them; this is why few catholics will ever be saved: they believe in another Jesus!
The Jesus of catholics is not the savior, but the warden, and they must turn to Mary/Ishtar for the mercy that Bible believers expect fron their savior.
.
If they themselves do not qualify for heaven because of their unrepentant sin, then how can they minister as priests before God? Is he not a holy God? How can defiled vessles like that dispense God's grace?
Follow this "logic." RCs believe they are saved when they partake in "the eucharist." But the bread and wine will not become "the eucharist" unless and until a priest recites the exact correct words and uses the exact correct materials. As we've learned, it must be wheat bread. If donuts or bagels are used, the sacrament is seen as "invalid."
And yet if the priest administering the sacrament is an unrepentant pedophile, it doesn't matter. That priest still has the mojo to perform the alchemy that saves souls.
Bottom line -- Rome does not understand grace. Period.
That's an understatement.
Even if many of her officials are given over to sin for a season, her doctrine remains pure.
No, it doesn't. It's been revised more than once. The Council of Trent was one time and Vatican II another.
That is NOT true and is easily refuted by Scripture. There is no record of that happening. It's just wishful thinking on the part of any Catholics who want to give Peter a position he never claimed for himself.
The only way to get your interpretation out of that passage is to read more into it than it really says. But Catholics as a whole, are good at that. Everything they teach has to be read into or reinterpreted by the church to tell its adherents what to think and believe.
Where in this entire passage does it say that Peter called the meeting together and made everyone be quiet to listen to Paul and Barnabas?
Acts 15:1-13 1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." 2And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. 3So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. 5But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses."
6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.
8And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. 10Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."
12And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. 13After they finished speaking, James replied, "Brothers, listen to me.
Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us." -- Romans 8:33-34"Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
Catholics are conditioned from birth to expect the Lord to inflict pain and punishment on them; this is why few catholics will ever be saved: they believe in another Jesus!
The Jesus of catholics is not the savior, but the warden, and they must turn to Mary/Ishtar for the mercy that Bible believers expect fron their savior.
AMEN! Roman Catholics do not understand grace nor what it has already accomplished.
"(Christ) his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." -- 1 Peter 2:24
There is no such thing as "free will". You are either doing God's will or you are doing your (evil) will. If you wish to follow your (evil) will, you may indeed do so. But just as David (and others) found out, following your (evil) will will draw the chastisement of God.
So what you are saying is that the Church is following their "free will" (e.g. evil will) in allowing homosexual "Catholics" in the Church. To say that they have not altered Church doctrine is silly because they have. The Church had to draw up doctrine and policies on the matter.
Admit it. There is nothing else like the Catholic Church. Even if many of her officials are given over to sin for a season, her doctrine remains pure. Over the past 2000 years, as civilizations faded and empires collapsed, a miraculous regenerative power kept renewing the Church to a state of youth and vitality.
Actually, Islam has been around for a lot longer. That doesn't make her correct. I hope you would agree.
As far as the Roman Catholic Church's doctrine having "remain pure", I find that pure hogwash. There have been major shifts in their doctrines including the atonement in which the Church will admit they have changed from what the early church fathers believe. And the early fathers believed that we were the new Israel-something you won't hear the Church saying these days (instead they tell us what bigots the early fathers were). Saying that all religions worship the same God as the Church has is nonsense and is in direct rebellion to the Great Commission. And the Church's belief in the infallibility of the Pope is a new view that even the Orthodox find laughable. And we won't even go into the idolatry (yes, that's the correct word) of Mary.
Today the Roman Catholic Church resembles about as much of the Christian church as the Democratic party resembles the same party of JFK era. You may wish to read Augustine who warned of this; as Christians moved aways from the time of Christ, their doctrines would become more and more distorted. Like a pebble tossed into water Augustine said; the ripples become unclear the farther out you go. Catholics are more capable of spouting the Church canons rather than having a consistent systematic theology based upon God's written word. Catholics today do not really believe in the infallibility of scripture; rather accepting the fallible writings of the Church body.
Today, many who are blind to the workings of the Spirit predict that the Church is on her last legs and headed for extinction. Such naysayers will join the company of failed prophets who've said the same throughout the millenia.
I wouldn't be so bold as to predict the end of the Roman Catholic Church. They still, after all, have lots of money and keep a goodly number of people in innorant of the gospel. However, without darkness we couldn't see the light.
Amen to your excellent post. Hophni and Phinehas are two excellent examples of the corruption of the priesthood. God did not look favorably on them nor did He look favorably on Eli who allowed it to go on.
Dead wrong. Any Protestant who follows John Calvin believes in baptismal regeneration and its application to little children.
These are quotes from Calvin's online treatise against Anabaptists defending baptismal regeneration and its application to infants:
"the Baptizing of young children is not a thing newly brought up, neither a thing which took his beginning in the Papacy. For I say that it hath been a holy ordinance kept always in the Christian church. And that this is true, there is no doctor so ancient, which doth not confess, that it hath been always used from the time of the Apostles."
"If now, men make this argument: that it is against reason that little children, which have neither faith nor repentance, should be baptized, forasmuch as baptism is a sacrament of regeneration and spiritual washing which we have in Jesus Christ: I answer that the like may be said of circumcision. And yet, God commanded that the young infants should be circumcised"
http://www.truecovenanter.com/calvin/calvin_against_anabaptists.html
It is you and the Nineteenth Century revivalists against the universal Christian belief in baptism.
WHo are???? Names and documentation please.
It is possible that she allowed herself to be examined, because naturally it was a major contention at the time: Was Jesus or was He not, born miraculously?
Pure fantasy and wishful thinking.
Any evidence of His virgin birth would have been destroyed in the birthing process. And besides, there was nothing miraculous about His birth, just His conception. I'm sure He was born like any other human baby in that time since medical technology did not permit c-sections.
It is staggering the lengths Catholics will go to to defend an unscriptural doctrine like Mary's perpetual virginity. Especially since Matthew records here....
Matthew 1:24-25 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
In as delicate a manner as possible, Matthew lays that myth to rest.
Mary did NOT remain a virgin but had normal marital relations with her husband.
If not, then Matthew could have instead said right here that Joseph never knew her as his wife and she remained a virgin for the rest of her life instead of saying that he did.
Matthew walked with Jesus, did he not? He was alive at that time. Who am I going to believe? Him or someone who came along some 400 years later and made it official church dogma and doctrine.
The Jesus of catholics is not the savior, but the warden, and they must turn to Mary/Ishtar for the mercy that Bible believers expect fron their savior.
So true....
Which verses from Eph. 2 would be saying that? If, by some long shot, you are referencing Eph. 2:10, then you are clearly misunderstanding Paul.
"For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." - Eph. 2:10
Here Paul tells us the "we are His workmanship," which means the good works we do were first ordained by God the Father and accomplished by God the Son and imputed to us by God the Holy Spirit, all for the glory of God.
God beholds Jesus Christ in us and that is what He loves. Not our own works which are as "filthy rags."
Of course we do. All the Apostles had successors, not just Judas. The writings of Fathers, Doctors, and all historians are unanimous in this regard. You would dismiss such history as bunk?
In the New Testament we see the same usage: in Mark 6:3 Jesus is called brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon, but in Mark 15:40 it is another Mary who is named as the mother of the fisrt two.
OK, then you do conceed that the Mary listed in Mark 15:40 is the mother of more sons than just Jesus. Because the next argument is that Mary had a blood sister named Mary.
Quite frankly I am tired of hits topic so I am going to play the Ace up the sleeve card.
Matthew 1:24-25 "Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till ('έως') she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus. "
Joseph "knew" his wife. So much for the virginity.
The "firstborn", 'πρωτότοκον' part is a bit more sketchy since it is found in the Textus Receptus, rather than Tischendorf's or Wescott-Hort. But rest assured, Rome did manage to leave 'primogenitum' in the Vulgate, and thus you need to accept the idea that Joseph and Mary had other sons after her first.
Goodness . . .
it’s difficult to find a single sentence that makes remotely accurate, logical and Biblical sense in that post.
Might be difficult to think straight if one’s head is stuffed with White Hankys.
Thankfully, Isaac Newton predicted Israel would be made a Nation again . . . long before it was . . . He’s been asserted to likely be the most brillian man in recorded history. No huge shame being shown up as grossly ignorant along-side him.
Here’s a link to some commentary on some of his studies on Daniel. He studied it from age 12 until he died at 86. He saw it as talking about a future Dispensational END TIMES fulfillment of such stuff.
Folks with lesser IQ’s may be addicted to the
Vatican Alice In Wonderland School of Theology and Reality Mangling constructions on reality but they’ll never match Newton for Biblical understanding.
And REPLACEMENTARIANS CERTAINLY don’t stand a chance to even come up to his shoelaces on such scores.
I personally don’t know of a single Dispy who thinks that Revelation was written in 95 AD or after the fall of Jerusalem.
However, we Evangelical Proddy Dispies thank all the rabid clique RC’s who have such an addiction to being
so chronically terminally
!!!!WRONG!!!! about soooooooooooooooooooooo
many
HISTORICAL,
BIBLICAL,
LOGICAL,
NUMERICAL
things. It helps highlight the absurdities prancing around in Vatican finery pretending to be sensible theology.
I never left Rome except when I flew to Athens on the way to Israel.
I certainly have no need to join a bunch of bureaucratic magicsterical power-mongering politicians pretending to know something about theology while demonstrating the opposite.
Sometimes I wonder if they are typing their irrational pontifications with one hand while playing with altar boys with the other.
Acts 15:7: And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brothers [...]." And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul
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.