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
That's because God's breathed scriptures deny it...
I mean . . . can you imagine
how much fun it would have been to have been Joseph in that culture if the RC idiocies had had a shred of reality to them?
Just think of all the pointed fingers and shaking of heads in Joseph’s direction.
Then there’d have been the endless train of older ‘brothers’ to make sure Josheph had proper instruction in the technicalities.
And poor Mary . . . all the clucking of all the women about whether Mary was performing her wifely duties at all or properly enough.
On the other hand, I guess Joseph wouldn’t have had an over-abundance of Viagra salsemen pounding on the carpentry shop door.
What a farce. It’s embarrassing to think that there are “Christians” who actually believe such a stinking pile of falsehoods from hell as that collection of Maryolatry fantasies depicts.
Their bible is their catechism along w/their traditions.
Here's your opportunity...Post the Apostolic traditions that were taught by the Apostles that were not recorded in scripture...
INDEED.
Duty?
Naw, it's still funny...But I'm waitin' for the next one he comes up with...
The only evidence supporting your assertion of God's intent regarding scripture and tradition comes from your own subjective opinion. Correct?
No, they don’t.
metmom wrote:
“Which all gets back to the original question of WHY Catholics are so obsessed with her perpetual virginity. Once prophecy was fulfilled, she didn’t need to remain a virgin and once Jesus began His ministry and all the miracles and raising from the dead, He didn’t need her virginity to prove who HE was.”
I have watched with dismay this ongoing argument about the perpetual virginity of Mary, one side defending it as if the very foundations of the one Holy Christian and Apostolic Church depended on it, the other side attacking it as if the Vatican and all its errant teaching could be brought down along with this doctrine.
The basic facts are these: the early church fathers both believed and were not silent about their belief that Mary was perpetually virgin, meaning that even after she gave birth to Jesus she remained a virgin. Whether one likes it or not, that is the historical record.
The position of the reformers, and here I will speak chiefly for Luther and the Lutherans, was that the Holy Scriptures did not settle the question one way or the other. In other words, there are good, scripturally based (and by this, I mean solely on the basis of the vocabulary and the grammar as employed at the time the words were written) arguments both ways, but that neither was conclusive. That being the case, the reformers, who almost unanimously accepted the judgment of the early church (for they had - and this is critically important! - no Scriptural proof that it was not so, and there was no conflict with any other scripturally revealed doctrine) in simple respect of their forefathers in the faith and their greater nearness to the events in question.
However, and this is a big however, they also knew that this matter must be left as an adiaphoron, that is, an indifferent matter. By definition this means that they take the position that Scripture alone does not and cannot settle this issue (and this is, of course, true of many things), therefore it cannot be taught as doctrine nor rejected as that which is contrary to doctrine. This judgment remains the standard among confessional (i.e., genuine) Lutherans, many of whom still today believe she was perpetually virgin and many of whom do not. In other words, we are the opposite of obsessed with this. We take the position that if God chose not to make this clear, then we bow to His judgment, and leave it alone.
At the same time it is recognized that through the centuries heretical assaults on the divinity/humanity of the one Christ have been made, indirectly, by those who would sow doubt about the virgin birth and the very possibility of Mary’s being and remaining virgin. So, for the Lutheran, the question becomes, “Why is any person obsessed with this matter when the Scriptures do not settle the question?” You see, we really are stuck on Sola Scriptura and at the same time retain great respect for those who have come before us, as God would have us do.
So, the bottom line is that the Catholic insistence that Mary’s perpetual virginity be taught as doctrine is suspect for the reason that it is for reasons other than simply to defend true, scriptural Christology. The Protestant insistence that Mary could not have remained virgin for various sensible sounding -sounding! - reasons is suspect for the reason that is puts human reasoning above the testimony of Holy Scripture, in effect replacing the supposed authority of the Roman tradition/magisterium with the supposed authority of individual human opinion, whether based on reason, experience, or simply emotional preference.
On the matter of Mary’s perpetual virginity, I freely admit that I do not know. And I am very familiar with the arguments both ways, both historically and textually.
One last matter, there is quite a difference in, let us say, believing Mary remained perpetually virgin and believing that she was without sin and thus - thus! - merited direct entrance into heaven (the assumption of Mary) without the necessity of death. The first is scripturally unverifiable, not in conflict with any other revealed doctrine, and certainly possible either way. The second is, in terms of Scripture, wholly without support or even implication, in conflict with direct scriptural testimony, and thus simply impossible to call Christian teaching. I insert this last paragraph just to illustrate the difference between what is truly an unverifiable, yet pious and essentially unharmful belief and one that is plainly at odds with God’s word and certainly harmful to faith.
Which all gets back to a very old and wise question, WHY is anyone so obsessed with Mary’s perpetual virginity either way? Let each examine carefully his/her reasoning and motivation.
Fine. I am a nobody. No doubt you enjoy the endless pictures of donkey lips and teeth on the religious forum. Please proceed as before and forget about my unruly interruption.
Apparently Mary was the first nun...But first she gets engaged to and marries an impotent 80 year old guy who has a houseful of kids already...
If the RCs are right and the local RC gynecologists checked Mary out and found her to still be a virgin, what evidence would there be that Mary was really the mother of Jesus???
Why do you have such a sadly truncated understanding of the Divinity of Christ — if, indeed, you actually believe in 8it?
Don't beat around the bush...You claim you got em'...Show em'...Let's see a list of the traditions that you guys got from the Apostles that were not recorded in scripture...
Thanks for your kind reply.
Sometimes, it’s hard to keep the kid part alive and active ENOUGH! LOL.
Catholics are clueless to God’s Word - instead they have catechism mush which is meant to deceive. And it has done what it was designed by satan to do.
Jesus is the ONLY sinless ONE that ever walked the earth. When Catholics get that under their belt; only then can they speak about the Divinity of Christ.
LOL. INDEED.
Honorary mother?
Fantasy mother?
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.