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

[MarkBsnr]

Those "bozos" give God ALL the glory for saving them because anyone who is saved, realizes where they've come from and how little they deserve it and how incapable they are of doing it themselves.

Yeah, yeah. Arrogant in your humility. Look at me; I am a thousand times more humble than thou art...

God gets the glory because our faith overcomes the world and the world system. God gets glory through the faith we have in Him that He is trustworthy.

What tripe. You claim personal salvation and are arrogant in it and sneer at those who retain Christian beliefs and do not usurp the role of Christ.

BTW, I normally don't correct spelling, but since it's so unusual for you to have grammar errors in your posts, "judgment" has only one *e*.

Not to those who speak English, rather than American patois.

[metmom]

Was the Bible that Luther received inerrant (without error)? If no, then Luther's doctrine of "The Bible Alone" is self-refuting.

Not so because the writers of the Bible never instructed men to add tradition to Scripture.

Jesus condemned tradition in many places in the gospels. Why would He then go back and add it again, or instruct it to be added again?

And if so, where did He instruct us to add tradition to Scripture and hold it in equal esteem?

He constantly referred to Scripture to validate Himself. Why don't Catholics follow His example?

[presently no screen name]

What would some Catholics know about love? They love their man made teachings/doctrines/traditions which nullifies/opposes God’s Word.

“Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down..” Mark 7:13

Like I could give a flip what a Catholic who nullifies God’s Word thinks. LOL! Get off your high horse, Mark, before it throws you.

GOD’S WORD ALONE REIGNS - Always has and always will.

[metmom]

I’ve asked you and others the same thing and haven’t received an answer from one of you. So here;s your chance again....

Would you bow down and kiss the koran to appease a muslim?

[Quix]

INDEED.

[presently no screen name]

I said that they are arrogant in deciding that they were saved.

Get it right - it's call ASSURANCE. And since God's Word is not #1 in your walk, you don't know that. I won't charge you for that info.

I AM SAVED and have ETERNAL LIFE! Thank You, JESUS!!

[MarkBsnr]

A total misconstruing of what I said. You are disappointing me. I stated that the "taking up of our cross and following" Christ does not mean that we do this to pay for our own sins since that is what he did for us ON HIS CROSS. I, in no way, implied that the cross we take up is a lazy, hazy day at the beach.

It sure sounded like it.

When we take up our cross we submit to his will and bear with joy whatever suffering we encounter for the cause of Christ in the world. It is those who trash the work of our Lord who believe that their own "suffering", be it persecution or a toothache, a firing squad or a hairshirt, can in any way be compared or replicate what he suffered for our sakes. Some of the followers of your religion even went so far as to beat their own bodies bloody mistakenly thinking that they had to manufacture at least a semblance of suffering or they wouldn't be holy enough or good enough to merit everlasting life! How totally grievous and condescending to the real purpose of the cross. We certainly should take up our cross but he sure didn't mean we also got crucified on it to please him.

I'm not even sure how to approach this; it is so wrong on so many levels. I would simply approach you with the examples of Christians from the first six centuries that willingly were martyred for their Christianity in the Colisseum, in the pagan kings' arenas and bringing Christianity to the pagan world of the East, all the way through recent times, including Fr. Jean de Brebeuf being martyred by the Algonquins and Fr. Damien martyring himself tending to the lepers in Hawaii. If your faith is shallow and self serving, then you may wish to consider their examples.

Paul certainly spoke of his drive to win the lost to Christ and he disciplined himself so that his life and the way he led it could never be used as an excuse for the unsaved to reject the gospel. But NOOOO, that explanation isn't good enough for y'all, instead it is twisted into some surreal masochistic behavior done not for sexual pleasure but to somehow please a sadomasochistic God who simply giggles with delight when his children scream out in pain. Just what kind of God is it that you all are trying to sell us anyway? A God of LOVE or a God of gleeful rapture over human sacrifice? And it's "Protestants" that teach a God of hate??? Please don't insult us with that drivel.

I'm disappointed in your post right here. It is not masochism - it is the drive to submit self to Christ. We are all called on to imitate Christ and to become the least. You cannot do that if your overriding whims drive your actions. The God of Love tells us to love others, not ourselves. You cannot love others if you put yourself above all others. Perhaps a rereading of the Beatitudes might help.

[Forest Keeper]

.......... But both of the above teachings are scriptural, and both are the position of Luther and all true Lutherans. That is historical fact.

After doing some reading I have to admit that you are right and I was wrong. Thank you for the correction on Lutheran beliefs. I can't remember ever having a conversation with a Lutheran concerning this before on FR. May I assume this is the first? If so, then would that make you Sola Scriptura but not Sola Fide? How do you stand on the other Solas?

Christ won salvation for all (no limited atonement here!), Baptism conveys salvation to all, and Faith receives salvation in all. That some reject the salvation Christ won and that is conveyed in Baptism, preaching and the Supper is the fault not of God, but of man. God gives faith through the Gospel in Word and Sacrament, but fallen man can reject God’s gracious promises. That too is thoroughly scriptural.

This appears to say that true salvation can be held, and then lost through rejection. If correct so far, then presumably salvation could be won back again through some means. If that was done then what would replace the adult baptism and what it represents (since it looks like you believe in only one baptism)? In addition, how does Lutheranism interpret passages like the following:?

John 10:27-30 : 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”

I believe the Catholic interpretation is that "no one" really means "no one except me". Is it the same?

[metmom]

The man of God will be complete if he learns the Holy Tradition (2 Tim 3:14) as well as Holy Scripture (2 Tim 3:15) which two together are sufficient, just as the Catholic Church teaches.

That is not what the passage says, but as a mental exercise, even supposing that it did mean that, since Paul didn't specify what traditions it was that he passed down to Timothy, there's no way to know what they were.

Nor does that give people leave to make things up, claim it's tradition, validate it by quoting out of context a Scripture passage and then expect it to become truth.

It is not a license to add fairy tales to Scripture and pass them off as truth.

The only reason that the Catholic church has to elevate tradition to the level of Scripture is to give some sort of credibility to the obviously unscriptural doctrines it teaches. It's the only way they can justify overriding the authority of the Bible.

[MarkBsnr]

I’m asking you this .... Are you saying that God can fail? Since you asked..’did God fail’? Seems like you may think it’s possible in order to ask that question.

It was a possibility presented by the original poster. I merely asked for confirmation and have not had that poster reply as of yet.

[MarkBsnr]

Let me help you, Mark.

Muchly appreciated.

The dictionary definition of "reprobate is... rep·ro·bate n. 1. A morally unprincipled person. 2. One who is predestined to damnation.

Unable to provide a Scriptural proof of reprobate, and therefore resorting to the secular dictionary?

The whole WCF up until now has told us that the reprobate cannot avoid sin and cannot be saved.

Mark, no man can "avoid sin." That is not the definition of a reprobate. That is the definition of mankind. The definition of a "reprobate" is one who will not repent and believe. Thus, by definition, a "reprobate" is one who "cannot be saved" for "everything not of faith is sin."

The WCF defines the reprobate as one who has been created to be damned. It is not that the WCF reprobate will not repent, it is that the WCF reprobate cannot repent.

Now you know.

Only that you guys are as bad as the Mormons when it comes to redefining things away from original Christianity. Your post keeps mixing 'cannot' with 'will not'. These terms are worlds apart, but beware that Christians understand the difference. Will not - Paul - is an act of will and personal decision. Cannot - the WCF - is an act of Creation and innate to the individual as decreed by God. You guys have no Scriptural basis for this and in fact are opposed by the Paul that you worship.

[metmom]

Those who spurn the Church of Jesus Christ Almighty and loudly proclaim their own personal salvation are unlikely to achieve it.

Wrong again. Those who spun JESUS CHRIST do not achieve salvation.

John 3:14-18 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

And here are Peter's words on the matter....

Acts 2:21 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.'

Acts 4:12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

It's through Jesus Himself, alone.

Not through a church. Not through any other name, church included.

Romans 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

Scripture is enough to bring one to salvation where they become the body of Christ, the church regardless of the local assembly where they decide to worship.

[MarkBsnr]

Now that’s a rig to keep moles from tunneling...

[presently no screen name]

Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you

Of course, I usually ignore empty accusations like this,

LOL! The words 'Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you' is part of the Scripture and NOT my words.

It's good, though, that you are taking Scripture personally - that's progress. ..........'empty accusations' LOL!

[metmom]

You have provided neither Scripture nor Catholic sources to support your obviously erroneous viewpoint of Catholic church doctrine.

There is Scripture and the Catechism of the Catholic church which teaches the immortality of the soul, which you’ve denied in your previous posts, and eternal punishment, which you’ve also denied in your previous post.

Your statements are at odds with the clear position of the Catholic church and the clear teachings of Jesus in the Gospels on the issue.

Every man his own pope.

YOPIOS and YOPIOTCOTCC.

[Lera]

I see. You quote Isaiah to me to provide support for hate. Congratulations; I quote Christ and you think that Isaiah supersedes Christ. You are quite some Christian.

---

No it would be not Christian of me to tell you that it is ok to bow down to and kiss an idol.

It would be not Christian of me to tell you that worshiping the devil who has set himself up as a counterfeit diety as allah is the same as worshiping the God of Abraham , Issac and Jacob.

I quote Issiah because it is the warning of what was going to happen.

You do know that Issiah is also the inspired Word don’t you?

For me to tell you that it is ok to bow down and kiss an idol would be no different than for me to tell you that it is ok to tell you that it is ok to have an abortion or no different than to tell to tell you it is ok to have homosexual sex . It’s not about hate it’s about what God considers an abomination.

To not tell bow down and kiss that book is no different than telling the muslim that it is ok to worship the idol.
Telling them the Gospel is the most loving thing to do as a Christian.

[MarkBsnr]

I have said often, and maintain to this day, that the appeal of the Protestant churches over the Christian ones is the relative ease and convenience.

Frankly, what you say and "maintain to this day" is of little account.

Sad, really. However, it does coincide with the experiences of the ex Catholics that have been related to me throughout my life.

It is far easier to be a puppet, turn of your thinker, and just believe what we, the majesterium, tell you what to do and believe.

You are a majesterium now? Do you get a hat and a cape with it?

[presently no screen name]

It was a possibility presented by the original poster

No it wasn't and you know better than that. I wouldn't reply myself, as a believer in God's Word alone, to such a obvious taunt posed as question.

[stfassisi]

God could certainly choose to alter that course at any time and if He does, then I shouldn't fight it. My faith now says that both of us are right now exactly where God wants us to be, and that we should both be thankful for it.

Very well stated.Life is a journey and as long as our focus is on our Blessed Lord and love for each other, we will be lead down the right path in following the will of God

Thank you, I really appreciate that. I will pray for you as well.

Thank you,dear brother. You are a beautiful example of Christian love and are a true brother in Christ by that example of Christian love

I wish you a Blessed evening!

[MarkBsnr]

How do you know it was a mistake?

I don't. That's probably I phrased it as a question. :-)

That's true. You did. I don't think that it was a mistake, otherwise it would have been shown to be one. Our Bahble Bleevers (t) should be on the front lines shouting that since it is in the Bahble, then we had better bleeve it (t) by gum.