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
INDEED.
We get older, but His Word never changes.
mas cerveza por favor (jeste jednou pivo, prosim) wrote:
“The scriptural precedent for apostolic succession is at the end of Acts 1 when Peter led the eleven apostles to chose a successor for Judas. The Apostles had just received instructions from the Risen Christ that included His infallible interpretation of the ways that OT prophesies had just been fulfilled. Peter invoked an OT prophesy on Judas, and, exercising his authority as pope, gave instructions to replace Judas as “bishop.” All the Apostles dutifully obeyed.”
No. Judas was replaced as an apostle, and this by direct indication of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 1:26) Which other of the apostles were replaced? When? By whom? And why was, according to Roman logic, only one, Peter, replaced, and not 12? No, you read into the text what you want to see, not what is. Besides which, if Psalm 109:8 referred to Judas, and since the inspired St. Luke tells us that this is so, it must be, then it was Scripture, the Word of God, that determined that Judas was to be replaced as an Apostle, not Peter.
Peter also once walked on water at the command of His Lord. Does his successor also? Examples do not doctrine make.
mcpf also wrote:
“The scriptural precedent for the infallibility of papally certified Church councils was the First Church Council in Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and James where led by the Holy Spirit to established rules for Christian Gentiles. This was done over the objections of the Judaizers that had apparently been associated with James and had temporarily fooled Peter and Barnabas (Gal 2:11-13)”
Again, no. The authority of the council is grounded in God alone, first, in the direct revelation to Peter while at Joppa, and second, in the Holy Scriptures of the OT, from which one specifically is quoted in full: Amos 9:11-12. Again, you read into the Scriptures what you want to be there.
The question stands. Do you condemn the Apostles for adding their traditions to HIS WORD? It is a simple query derived from your own statement. You hedged on the answer. Try again or perhaps you should just withdraw your original statement.
The Sixteenth Century avant garde Protestants were not simple men.
Not one of them had men falling at their feet or kissing their rings.. they stood on the word of God as written by those simple men
LOL. The Protestant princes were "liberated" from obedience to the Church but the people had to bow and scrape before the new absolutist power of government. Previously, there had been a balance of power between the "lords temporal and religious." Subsequently, the people were on their own with no authoritative religious leaders to protect them. The Church had kept one third of the land in Europe as living space for peasants and monks. The newly "liberated" princes seized these properties for themselves and booted off the inhabitants. Luther bitterly lamented this result in his later years.
INDEED. TINY FONT SIZE!
AGREE ON SCRIPTURE!
Have people become more brittle on here the last 3 months?
Why don’t you try understanding the importance of typology through historical Christianity on the Blessed Mother and various other teachings and the Bible will make more sense
From University Of Dayton
The Life of Mary: Sacred Scripture:
Old Testament Typologies
http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/documents/docs6-1.html
I do not want you to think I was attacking your post. I just gave my reference Bible’s notes on this, for everyone to consider. I apologize if you were offended.
smvoice
“Mother said , “floss, floss!!” but did I listen?
You disagree? Why? Please be specific.
Heck, they’ve become more brittle in the last 3 days! Spiritual warfare hitting targets is all I can come up with. SHIRLEY no one could be so nasty, impatient, impertinent, or nit=picking....could they?!?
count-your-change wrote:
“Ahhh...No. The word “until”, or ‘till, limits the extent of time “Joseph did not know her”, that time ending when “she had brought forth her firstborn son”.”
OK. Prove that this is so on the basis of Greek grammar. The phrase is “heos hou.”
The rest of what you say is opinion, your opinion. It is sensible and plausible, but it is not incontrovertibly true. Again, this is the problem.
So, be obsessed with proving the unprovable. I don’t care. But I am not going to continue this much longer for the simple reason that it is pointless. There are bigger and better things to do. Again, if you what to go after all the truly wrong things the Roman church says and teaches about Mary, I’ll applaud you and, perhaps, even join in. But this dog just doesn’t hunt.
Thank you for confirming the undeniable. Many other Protestants on this thread apparently do not believe in scripture.
Besides which, if Psalm 109:8 referred to Judas, and since the inspired St. Luke tells us that this is so, it must be, then it was Scripture, the Word of God, that determined that Judas was to be replaced as an Apostle, not Peter.
Another excellent insight. I am willing to concede that Peter acted as an instrument of the Holy Spirit
The authority of the council is grounded in God alone, first, in the direct revelation to Peter while at Joppa, and second, in the Holy Scriptures of the OT, from which one specifically is quoted in full: Amos 9:11-12. Again, you read into the Scriptures what you want to be there.
Right. Peter and the Apostles acted infallibly at this council as the conduit of God's authority.
Which was LED BY JAMES and called in part because of an ERROR that Peter supported by his behavior ( Judaizing)
There is NOTHING in Acts that supports INFALLIBILITY.. (to anyone that understands how to read the word of God and does not blindly play follow the blind man )
Repeating the same errors/lies does not make them true..
Dear smvoice, I am not offended at all. No need to apologize. It is just that this whole matter of Mary’s virginity and whether it was only up to the time of Jesus’ birth or continued also thereafter is very well plowed ground, more well plowed than most realize. The chief reformers looked at this very, very carefully, and decided that Rome was wrong to insist on dogmatic acceptance of Mary’s perpetual virginity precisely because it could not be proven from Scripture, and would if left unchallenged as dogma, elevate the opinions of the early church fathers to the level of Scripture, rather than leave them firmly under its authority. At the same time it was left as an adiaphoron as testimony to the more radical of the wannabe reformers that however plausible something seemed to be on the basis of our reasoning, still Scripture and Scripture alone was the final and all-determining authority. In other words, they were rejecting both the claimed authority of the Roman pope as well as the assumed authority of the wannabe pope that lives in the heart of every fallen child of Adam.
Clear enough?
Again, no apology necessary.
LOL.
He has more teeth than I do.
What do you find absurd with my previous statement that you partially quoted:
"some Protestants assert that the biblical proof is not explicit enough and that historical evidence is inadmissible, even when the truth of said evidence is beyond question."
++++Historical proof of Peter’s apostolic succession is located in these previous thread posts:+++
We are looking for INFALLIBLE evidence not Catholic historians
The problem is that scripture never puts peter in Rome but as a prisoner .
When Paul writes to Rome, he never greets Peter in the letter, which proves (to my mind anyway) that Peter was not in Rome so he could not be the founding Bishop.
It is true, he probably was crucified in Rome, but dieing there does not make you a bishop there.
AS the 1st church met in Jerusalem it was presided over by James not Peter.
Paul confronted Peter as an equal.
It was the custom in those times to place the most important person first on the list. Peter is placed first when it comes to the list of the twelve original apostles,
however, James becomes a believer after the resurrection, and interestingly appears to be the leader, and Paul affirms it by placing his name first on the list. The Catholic Church cannot scripturally make a claim that Peter was the first Pope when the scriptural evidence clearly demonstrates that he was not even the chief apostle
It is clear here that james was in charge of that council and that it was James that made the final ruling.
Peter was the problem not the solution
Please READ the words of James
Act 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men [and] brethren, hearken unto me:
Not to Peter , listen the ME
Act 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
Act 15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
Act 15:16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
Act 15:17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
Act 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
That is James making the decision NOT PETER
Can the Pope be OVERRULED in matters of faith? That should be your first clue that he was not in charge and that he was not infallible .
Peter never claimed headship for himself. He was a humble man that would rebuke what is said of him today
Peter was the apostle to the Jews ..not the Roman gentiles
“The gospel of the CIRCUMCISION was unto Peter; (For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)” (Gal. 2:7-8).,P>It was Paul not Peter that wrote doctrinal letters to the Romans and Ephesian Church
PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles! This would have kept him from going to Rome to become the head of a Gentile church.
It is paul that wanted to build the church at Rome. That fact proved that Peter was not the “bishop “ of Rome. As Paul told us he would not build on another foundation.
“Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, LEST I SHOULD BUILD UPON ANOTHER MAN’S FOUNDATION” (Rom. 15:20).
When paul wrote to the church at Rome Peters name is no where listed
Around 45 A.D., we find Peter being cast into prison at Jerusalem (Acts 12:3, 4). In 49 A.D., he was still in Jerusalem, this time attending the Jerusalem Council. About 51 A.D., he was in Antioch of Syria where he got into differences with Paul because he wouldn’t sit or eat with Gentiles.
66 A.D., we find him in the city of Babylon among the Jews (I Pet. 5:13). Peter was the Apostle to the CIRCUMCISED.History shows that there were as many Jews in the Mesopotamian areas in Christ’s time as there were in Palestine.
Peter was an obedient apostle Of Christ and he carried out with honor the work the Lord had ordained for him to do , and that work never included being a bishop to a gentile church
Why is the perpetual virginity of Mary important? What does her sex life have to do with your sins or mine? What does her sex life have to do with eternity?
Why should her sex life be a part of ANY church doctrine?
I used to have a Dake’s, years ago ..I have gone through several different teaching Bibles since..
I like to have exposure to various views and I like good greek/historic sources
Simply ask yourself what would happen if they posted an anti-Catholic thread and no Catholics showed up. The thread would dry up or the liars, falsifiers, lunatics, burn-out old hippies, dunkers, satanists, communists, socialists, and those that represent the other end of the teeth Quix shows would turn on each other.
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.