In Christ Alone (Happy reformation day)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExnTlIM5QgE ^ | Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;

[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

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Rome gratuitously redefines what is an Apostle because Rome grants itself greater Authority than Scripture.

Exactly right. As the RCC catechism wrongly assumes...

78 - This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."38

"Her." "Her." "Her."

A totally feminized, and thus inauthentic religion defined not by the word of God but by the changing doctrines and "transmissions" of men.

[Quix]

Unmitigated nonsense.

About the only thing the Vatican has carefully preserved

is it’s privileged class of theological magicsterical elites and their ever increasing power-mongering.

. . . along, perhaps . . . with it’s increasing layers of idolatrous, blasphemous caricatured Mary personage heresies.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Church historian Philip Schaff writes: "The oldest links in the chain of Roman bishops are veiled in impenetrable darkness." For that reason, it is impossible for the RCC to substantiate its claims of papal succession from Peter to the present Pope.- Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids: eerdmans, 1910), vol. 2, pp. 164-165.

Amen. Schaff is a great historian.

But don't let that stop them from pulling Popes out of their pointy hats..

lol. There's a reason for those points...

[metmom]

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.

Nor does it say *her ONLY son*. It specifically says *firstborn*.

[caww]

Am catching up on the thread now and just have to say again how I love seeing Gods word used so fluently...thank you...and I will also say how smooth it flows within the context of discussion. This is one of the many reasons I love the Lord so very much...His word does indeed accomplish what he sets it out to do....truth is supported time and again and again.

You are absolutely correct in saying that the glory goes to God...in every way. When we can see Him move across these threads, as His word goes out, it is beyond describing....many thanks to all.

[metmom]

Do Catholics not have reading comprehension?

The crowd fell silent when Paul and Barnabas spoke, but NOWHERE does it say that they did this at Peter’s command and there’s nothing in that passage that indicates that Peter called the meeting together or to order. That is pure speculation and assumption.

Another observation on that passage is that Peter spoke then the crowd fell silent when Paul and Barnabas spoke. That implies that the crowd was not silent previously.

And who was speaking previously?

Peter.

[mas cerveza por favor]

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.

You know this? Where did the Church alter her doctrine on homosexuality like the Protestant denominations? Never happened.

Actually, Islam has been around for a lot longer.

Muhammed was born more than 500 years after Christ, the Founder of the Catholic Church. Anyway, Islam is just a Protestant-like hodgepodge with no central doctrine or authority so, unlike the Catholic Church, it is nothing unique. Every imam, like ever Evangelical, is his own interpretor of God's will.

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.

Nothing but unsupported assertion (hogwash). All Church doctrines are publicly accessible on the internet. You cannot cite that there has been any shift.

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).

This teaching is still very much Catholic doctrine as a Middle Eastern Catholic bishop recently attested, despite the cravenness of liberals and neocons. Your idea that the Church teaches its early saints were bigots is preposterous.

Saying that all religions worship the same God as the Church has is nonsense and is in direct rebellion to the Great Commission.

Again, you make unsupported assertions. The Church teaches that God is Trinitarian. Obviously, that is not the same god worshiped by Muslims or rabbinical Jews.

And the Church's belief in the infallibility of the Pope is a new view that even the Orthodox find laughable.

Eastern Christians did not find this laughable before the schism. All councils of the illustrious Greek Fathers were submitted to the Patriarch of Rome for approval. No council decisions rejected by the successor to Peter were retained in the East prior to the split.

And we won't even go into the idolatry (yes, that's the correct word) of Mary.

The Fathers, Doctors, East Orthodox, and even Martin Luther beg to differ.

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.

Latin Father St. Augustine, bishop of Hippo, did not apply this principle to Roman Catholic doctrine, so what is your point?

Catholics today do not really believe in the infallibility of scripture

Yet more heedless calumny. Liberals do not believe in Scripture. Catholics do.

[mas cerveza por favor]

No, it doesn't. It's been revised more than once. The Council of Trent was one time and Vatican II another.

The Council of Trent did not revise but confirmed existing doctrine. Vatican II began with Pope John XXIII promising no change in doctrine. Even though the council employed vague, feel-good, Sixties language, no doctrines were actually changed.

[RnMomof7]

what do you plan on doing with your works of righteousness, giving God a bill? He owes you, nor any of us, NOTHING. No matter how nice you are to your neighbor. Or how you strive to keep the Commandments, or the Beatitudes. He owes you NOTHING for your efforts.

This can not be stressed enough... Works are to earn salvation, that is not grace, that is not mercy..it is wages due

Thanks for the scripture :)

[RnMomof7]

James 2: 8-11 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. 9 But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11 For he who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not

I love that you posted this scripture, it was on my mind earlier today .. Catholics love to quote James thinking that it supports works, but they do not quote this :)

[The Theophilus]

Thankfully, Isaac Newton predicted Israel would be made a Nation again...but they’ll never match Newton for Biblical understanding."

And Newton wrote papers assailing the Council of Nicaea and denying the Trinity and the existence of Satan. So it appears that your Spriritual Genius blasphemes the Holy Spirit. (Mark 3:29)

Furthermore, while he predicted a return to Israel, he dated the Apocalypse at 2060 AD so you and your fellow Dysfunctionalists will likely be quite dead before our LORD returns so your claims that the latest troop movement or earthquake is a sure sign of our LORD's return are just as bogus. Granted, you aren't the only Dysfunctionalist who has name-dropped Newton and talked up his credentials, there are other characters who have tied in the 1948 date and Newton's numbers (using new math, apparently) and Sabbaths-till-Jubilee reckoning to perform yet another common stunt of the Dysfunctionalists: date setting. In this case the heroes of your cult have set a 2003-2004 return date of our LORD. Since you folks never admit error, we must surely be six years into the Great Tribulation and you have been "Left Behind".

Despite that gaff, you should also then surrender your Premillennial Dysfunctionalism and adopt his Preterist position since he, as a Historicist, has taken all of your Daniel, Ezekiel and Revelation prophecies that you swear are still future, and he shows in good detail their fulfillment well over a thousand years ago. But I do understand why you would pick and choose your teachings, because Dispies also suffer from acute Spiritual Alzheimer's, zealously quoting one passage as Truth, then minutes later conveniently forgetting that passage, and how it contradicts the other passage you claim as Truth.

I would also like to address the "there must be a nation of Israel" claim. Personally, I think it is a self-fulfilling prophecy since Zionists have been working a restoration of a political Israel for centuries. Clearly you either have never been taught, or simply have denied out of hand all of the doctrines regarding "The Land" and its relevance to the Covenants. I know you deny the teachings of Covenants else you wouldn't be screaming "Replacementarians" every time you argue yourself into a corner.

What is clear is that you believe that God is a failure and is not control of His Creation, why else would you give credit to the United Nations for the formation of Israel? Throughout Biblical history, God has raised up leaders and formed nations from their military conquests. In Genesis, when God promised to Abraham the land, God also told Abraham that the original inhabitants did not yet earn their expulsion from the Land, and as God is just, He gave the original inhabitants the time needed to merit their expulsion. That is part of the reason for the sojourn in Egypt and the desert. When Joshua entered in to the Promised Land, God marched before him to clear out their enemies.

Joshua 21:43"So the Lord gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and dwelt in it."

Despite your group's denials, the Scriptures plainly state that the Land Promise was fulfilled in Joshua's time. So any new Land for a political Israel is not in the Convenants, but is contained in your perversion of God's doctrines of Redemption, and the resulting eschatological heresies that deny the Promise God made to Abraham.

Can you honestly state that the 1948 Israel has any relation whatsoever to the mode and manner God fulfilled the land promise through Joshua? The formation of a political Israel was made by decree from a band of Gentile Reprobates, not by God leading one of his servants into battle. So who gets the Glory for a "restored Israel"? That's right, to the delight of the Dysfunctionalists, God gets zero glory. That is probably why Israel doesn't occupy even a significant fraction of the Original Promised Land, and appears highly unlikely to ever do so - because only God can set national boundaries. (Acts 17:26).

I personally don’t know of a single Dispy who thinks that Revelation was written in 95 AD or after the fall of Jerusalem.

Oh my. I'm going to pretend that you didn't actually post that. The Full Preterists probably won't though.

[RnMomof7]

Ephesians 2 clearly teaches that good works must accompany faith in order for us to be saved. I already commented on Romans iand Galatians. Luther invented his theory. It was not an innocent mistake -- he was an educated man.

You already commented on Romans and Galatians showing a lack of understanding

Ephesian's was written to a CHURCH ,saved men and women.. It was not a letter on HOW TO BE SAVED

Read the first verse .. 1And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
4But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,

5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
6And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9Not of works, lest any man should boast.

10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
11Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone
; 21In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Here it is, an epistle written to the saints , not about how to be saved but teaching them that their salvation is to the Glory of God, not themselves.. crediting God and His grace and His mercy NOT their works.. teaching that all the works they do are ORDAINED by God..God working in them and through them

Annalex it produces great sadness when we se the truth of 1Cr 2:14

[mas cerveza por favor]

St. Irenaeus, bishop and student of St. Polycarp who was student of St. John, wrote in his 180 AD book Against Heresies:

"we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times"

Look it up. There are mountains more of historical proof. Do you think that historical record has relevance to this issue?

[RnMomof7]

Look it up. There are mountains more of historical proof. Do you think that historical record has relevance to this issue?

The church Fathers were not infallible and did not always agree on what Catholics would call "doctrine" , History is not infallible

The Word of God IS infallible ...please use that as your source if the point is to prove the proof of a doctrine

[RnMomof7]

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?

There were other elders/overseers/bishops that flowed from the growth of the new church ..but there is no mention of other apostles being selected to replace the original apostles.

This raises an interesting question.. Christ choose 12 Apostles.. so how many successors are there now? As they "lay hands" on their successors ...do they pass the ability to handle snakes? Heal the sick? Preform miracles? ..where do we find the list of transferable apostolic gifts?

[Quix]

About what I expected from you.

I gather that the only theologian you think is flawless is the one in your mirror.

It appears that we don’t have a sufficiently shared vocabulary to have a meaningful discussion.

Enjoy your fantasies as long as ‘reality’ allows them.

I find them horrifically convoluted and UNBiblical as well as UNHistorical.

[mas cerveza por favor]

Dr. Eckleburg didn't say anything about the Spanish Inquisition per se.

In response to my request that she "be specific" in her objections to what I wrote, she selectively quoted from my sentence to cut out the word "Spanish." She then juxtaposed the hacked quote to events that took place 200 years prior in France. That was deceitful.

Your defense that she was not deceitful rests entirely upon the supposition that she was really referring to another sentence that she never quoted. That is quite a stretch.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dear sister in Christ!

[Alamo-Girl]

There is that tendency among Christians to do that sort of thing instead of praying FIRST to find out what God wants to do. They make the decision and then add a prayer to look for God’s stamp of approval.

I've done that many times, sad to say...

Thank you so very much for your insights and encouragements, dear sister in Christ!

[Alamo-Girl]

Amen!!!

Praise God!!!

Thank you so very much for sharing your testimony and insights, dear caww!