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
Let's just say there is more reliable and diversified evidence that they did exist then so many things described in the Bible. :)
The idea of inerrancy of the Bible is of a relatively recent origin. Wikipedia cites Theology Today published in 1975 as saying inerrancy doctrine is about two centuries old. Just as Luther believed in Mary's perpetual virginity, Protestants did not believe in error-proof scriptures for about 300 years after the Reformation.
In other words, Luther and the rest of them would be condemned as "Catholics" by the TULIP-staffel, possibly as dirty "progressivists," or even the abomonable Obamaphiles, and if possible—burned at stake. :)
So much for eschewing the traditions of men...
Well, yes and no. The first generation of Reformers still held to many of the tenets of Holy Tradition; the Perpetual Virginity of the Theotokos for example. In fact, the next generation after Luther attempted to connect with the Pat. of Constantinople and come under his omophorion, on their own terms of course and so it never happened but they did make the approach. By a generation or two later, that was all gone. It often takes awhile, but inevitably, to paraphrase The Shadow, the weed of heresy bears bitter fruit!
In any event, where do you and I learn our Faith? From the what we say when we pray, my brother, from the what we say when we pray. And the ultimate prayer of the People of God is the Divine Liturgy.
http://www.goarch.org/multimedia/audio/audiofiles/liturgy/liturgy-g
"Εἴδομεν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, ἐλάβομεν Πνεῦμα ἐπουράνιον, εὕρομεν πίστιν ἀληθῆ, ἀδιαίρετον Τριάδα προσκυνοῦντες, αὕτη γὰρ ἡμᾶς ἔσωσεν.
Christ a propagandist? No more pearls for you!
“What makes you or any other so-called “elect” the possessor of truth?”
Christ said his father's word was truth and ‘you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free’.
As in free of the mush like the Infancy Gospel of James.
“Remember, just because you believe something is true doesn't make it true.”
Well, I certainly showed how applicable that was in your case, didn't I? Oh, wait...you said you didn't BELIEVE, you KNEW!
“The Church teaches that faith is hope and that God is love. I don't find that to be propaganda.”
Ah, but the Scriptures say faith is the substance, the assured expectation of things hoped for, not hope.
and we can't trust an anonymous writer, huh?
“the Church” doesn't look so good with your explanations.
I wonder how many of the original generation of leaders of the Reformation would run back to the Church if they were here now to see what a squirrel cage Protestantism has become. I imagine more often than not they'd be right here shoulder to shoulder with the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox when dealing with the FreeRepublic 'Bahble Cults'.
The Catholic church claims the Bible is true. For that matter, it claims responsibility for it, that it wrote it. Are you saying that I'm wrong for believing that it's true?
We can rewrite that....What makes you or any other so-called "elect" "Catholic" the possessor of truth? Remember, just because you believe something is true doesn't make it true.
It could very well be, but it reflects what at least some Christians believed in the 2nd century.
Big deal. Some *professed* Christians. Do you know if they really WERE Christians?
People in the 2nd century believed in the Greek and Roman gods. Explain to me why that's not true.
And we should take your word for it.... why????
You can't even prove to us that YOU'RE real or verifiable. For all we know, you could be a computer program designed to produce meaningless faux theological posts.
Go ahead, prove you're real and give us ONE valid reason that we should believe YOU.
Oh really? Like what?
They're dead. Do you know anyone who ever actually met them?
Do you believe the Bible is without error?
Does the Catholic church believe and teach that the Bible is without error?
What parts are wrong and how do you determine where the lies are? What criteria do you use?
pfffftttt......
You owe me a keyboard AND monitor.
I think Kolo put it in a proper perspective. A generation following Luther still tried to reunite with the Orthodox. Their major opposition to the Latins were the abuses such as selling indulgences. They were not interested in creating a cult. So, I would say probably many, except of course Calvin and his ilk.
The way they wrote they were.
People in the 2nd century believed in the Greek and Roman gods. Explain to me why that's not true.
It's not true because people believed in Greek and Roman gods before and after that century.
I told you. Show me one of those five points to be wrong. You know, sitkcing your head in the sand and pretending the sun doesn't shine doesn't mean the sun doesn't shine.
Diversity of sources, bot pro and against. The Bible is a one-party document.
My 13 week old kitten, “Sava”, is really enjoying listening to the Divine Liturgy with me. I think I named him well :)
Sava is a much part of Creation as we are. Of course he enjoys the sound of theosis and the restoration, however briefly, of the pre-Fall world! :)
Yes, because he created His own.
defaming the Scriptures
No Catholic defames the scripture. Luther, however, was happy to remove books from it, and intentionally lied in his "translation" of it.
Name one.
No direct, observable evidence exists for George Washington crossing the Delaware River, either. Is that event nothing but empty hope, too?
So far nothing "supernatural" has been discovered. Invented, imagined, concocted, sure; not discovered
You would have to be omniscient to know that nothing supernatural has been discovered, which is self-refuting.
Cordially,
In Matthew 16 Christ renames Simon after the rock they are standing on. In John 1:42 Jesus merely predicts that future event at the meeting of St. Peter.
The “tend my sheep” episode reinstates St. Peter as the head of the Church after his denial of Christ.
You mean He calls Him by Peter’s birth name? What of it? You doubt it is the same person?
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.