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
Asked and answered - with such remarkable deceitfulness and rudeness that I hope you will never sign yourself as a friend of mine again.
stfassisi wrote:
“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.”
Sigh ... If Jesus had said of the OT Scriptures, “They are they that testify of her,” I would be sympathetic to your suggestion. But He didn’t. The OT Scriptures are quite full of typology, as well as rectilinear messianic prophecy and plainly stated heaven-sent doctrine. And all of it revolves around Christ. All of it glorifies Him. All of it points to Him. All that the Holy Spirit says and does is to bring glory to One only: “He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:14-15)
“I will not give My glory to another.” (Isaiah 48:11)
So, stfassisi, thanks, I’m sure you are well-intentioned ... but you know what they say of good intentions. So, no thanks. I have all I need in Christ.
Your statement contains nothing to dispute the principle of papally certified Church council infallibility established at the Firth Church Council in Jerusalem.
There is NOTHING in Acts that supports INFALLIBILITY
Workings of the Holy Ghost are not infallible?
Acts 15:28: "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things"
This is all a joke right? LOL The only ones they needed protection from was Rome ...
Please don't ping me, if it's not an inconvenience for me to ask, to these controversial threads any more.
What I observe is that they lead to a deadening of reason and a weakening of charity.
Quix: anyone who thinks that a picture of a horse appearing to laugh (however funny -- and it's pretty funny, the first few dozen times) is, as you say, a logical response to anything doesn't use the word "logic" as it has been used by philosophers and theologians for most of the past 2,400 years.
Very nearly every one of us here will be judged on the last day by the words of the 4th Chapter of Paul's (beautiful) Letter to the Ephesians. And very nearly everyone will be accused, not by angels or saints, not even by the Judge Himself, but by those who have lost their souls because we made Christianity, made Christ Himself repulsive to them -- and ourselves repulsive to one another.
We are invited, instead to "lead a life worth of the calling to which you have been called, with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." Is there anyone on these interminable threads who does not stand convicted by these words?
However, I will point out that your "quote" was incomplete and I can find no evidence that it was acknowledged. I will not accuse you of dishonesty nor will I call in a small army of hangers-on to smear you.
"It must in justice be admitted, however, that the list of Roman bishops has by far the preeminence in age, completeness, integrity of succession, consistency of doctrine and policy, above every similar catalogue,..."
Given that the list "has by far the premenince in age..." at the time the book was written in no way is an indication that it is, or was, historically correct.
The current List of Popes, like all prior lists, is a matter of "constructed" history and cannot be construed as complete and accurate.
This "fluid" list has constantly been revised and is subject to change to this very day.
Corrections Made to Official List of Popes
New historical research has prompted almost 200 corrections to the existing biographies of the Popes, from St. Peter to John Paul II.
The discoveries are included in the opening pages of the new edition of the "Pontifical Yearbook 2001," the "who's who" of the Catholic Church published by the Vatican Press.
The 13 pages entailed are the most rigorous study to date on the history of the papacy, confirming the uninterrupted succession of the Bishops of Rome. Researchers, however, are uncertain of the exact dates of the first pontificates and, in one case, doubt the exact order. This is why the yearbook does not assign a succession number to each pontiff.
CORRECTIONS TO THE LIST OF POPES
Yes, there are a lot of interpretations that Dake has that I do not agree with. LOTS. But as long as you know what you believe and can rightly divide, the rest of his reference Bible is chock full of fascinating and informative church history, Bible facts, and insight.
John 2:13-17 The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there. 15And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. 16And he told those who sold the pigeons, "Take these things away; do not make my Father’s house a house of trade." 17His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for your house will consume me."
That is why. If you read the whole passage in Psalm 69, it goes together.
Psalm 696Let not those who hope in you be put to shame through me, O Lord GOD of hosts; let not those who seek you be brought to dishonor through me, O God of Israel. 7For it is for your sake that I have borne reproach, that dishonor has covered my face. 8I have become a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my mother’s sons. 9For zeal for your house has consumed me, and the reproaches of those who reproach you have fallen on me.
In Romans, Paul quotes more of Psalm 69 in regard to Jesus.
Romans 15:3 For Christ did not please himself, but as it is written, "The reproaches of those who reproached you fell on me."
No reason if given for Jesus to pass the care of His mother on to the apostle John instead of the next oldest brother. That does not justify, however, making up a reason and teaching it as true or factual.
Regards,
smvoice
The problem is teaching something as true and factual when there's no definative statement supporting it. That's what is the problem for those who question her perpetual virginity.
Consensus doesn't make truth. If they're not sure, that's one thing. To declare it as true and fact when there's certainly plenty of evidence to the contrary, is irresponsible, bordering on deceptive.
It all depends on how accurate you think the Bible is. It clearly talks about His mother and brothers looking for Him and it names His brothers.
It clearly states that Joseph did not know Mary until AFTER she had given birth.
It takes a lot of twisting to make those verses say something else.
Brothers = cousins? Sisters = cousins?
Balderdash....
That's denying the plain, simple, obvious reading of Scripture.
How many threads is this going on? There’s more than one.
Do you have the links to all them so I can bookmark them?
I’m not sure who’s on first.....
Why such falsities? I pointed you to a Protestant history. Find one recent credible historian anywhere who doubts that Peter was executed and succeeded in Rome.
The problem is that scripture never puts peter in Rome but as a prisoner.
How is that a problem? History leaves no doubt. Do you also doubt that Caesar and Cleopatra were in Rome? You cannot support your assertion.
AS the 1st church met in Jerusalem it was presided over by James not Peter. Paul confronted Peter as an equal.
What is your point? Popes are able to delegate and to accept correction.
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.
That is unauthoritative subjective opinion.
Peter never claimed headship for himself. He was a humble man that would rebuke what is said of him today
He did not have to. He was anointed by Jesus as Rock-Peter-Cephus and the Apostles always obeyed him. Never did they disobey.
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 was never overruled. Never. Not once. He voluntarily accepted correction from Paul because Paul was right, no because Paul, "least of the Apostles," had higher rank.
When paul wrote to the church at Rome Peters name is no where listed
So? Probably Peter had not arrived by that time. Peter eventually retraced the path of Paul to confirm what he had taught, finally ending up in Rome where he was executed.
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
It was Peter who was first divinely inspired to liberate Gentiles from the OT laws at the Gentile household of Cornelius.
I have three observations:
1. Stop telling jokes which prompt his horse laugh.
2. Newbies don't make the rules.
3. The thin skinned don't belong on an open forum.
metmom wrote:
“The problem is teaching something as true and factual when there’s no definative statement supporting it. That’s what is the problem for those who question her perpetual virginity. Consensus doesn’t make truth. If they’re not sure, that’s one thing. To declare it as true and fact when there’s certainly plenty of evidence to the contrary, is irresponsible, bordering on deceptive.”
Reading what you write here, I do not think we are very far apart. It is now more a matter of emphasis and application.
For the record, the Reformers left the matter of Mary’s perpetual virginity an open question or adiaphoron precisely because it could not be irrefutably proved from the Bible, even though the church fathers were quite united in believing it. They meant what they said. When Rome insists that this must be believed, Rome is openly called wrong, and yet without denying the historical truth that the church fathers so believed, and that they might very well have been right because they knew something we longer can lay our finger on. But one cannot bind someone’s conscience to that which is not sure and certain from the plain, clear testimony of God’s word. That is not our prerogative. God, who would have all to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, left it that way. That alone should tell us how to deal with this matter.
If God chose not to make this clear either way, then that is our confession. It is unclear, therefore believe as you will so long as you believe rightly all that the Scriptures do teach about the Christ. This, as you are manifestly sensitive to, is one of Rome’s big problems. They insist on taking things that may or may not be true - and even build wholly ungrounded and doubtful (if not harmful!) doctrine on top of such things - and insist on pain of damnation, that one must believe them to be true. I will go you one better, this is not merely irresponsible and deceptive, it is the spirit of antichrist.
Sound scriptural, Christian doctrine glorifies Christ and the truth that has been revealed in and through Him.
Are you saying that secular government never abuses power? Are you denying that the Church greatly limitted the power of secular princes over the people? Any prince or merchant that tried to impose the immorality so common in our present system was severely chastised by the Church. You weep over this "oppression?"
Yes. Complaining about it only encourages them to bray all the more.
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.