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
OUCH!!!!
Excellent points.
Apart from gratuitious Protestant sloganeering, good and very Catholic answer on repentance and baptism.
Here’s a follow up: When you as Lutheran say “Sola Fide”, do you per chance mean faith that is well formed and inseparably blended with good works?
The divine presence leaves whent he host is dissolved inside the body.
Honestly, I really could not care less if the Catholic Church recognizes other churches as "churches" or not. The reason is that it is God, not man, who sees into the heart and knows if the faith in Christ is real or not.
And THAT is the determinate of "church" membership. We know that the church is the called-out assembly of the body of Christ and membership happens when by faith we trust in Jesus Christ as our Savior and certainly not when a baby gets splashed with water with a slogan spoken by
.
[some pontificating rep of the bureaucratic, political, power mongering magicsterical elites of the Alice In Wonderland School of Theology and Reality Mangling].
One more thing, Ignatius did NOT capitalize the word "catholic" in his letter because we know that in his day the church out of Rome that today considers itself the "real" amalgamation of all the body of Christ did not even exist. At that time, in Rome, there was a fledgling church made up of believers in Christ, they had a local leader just as those in Antioch had [their leader], Jerusalem had theirs, etc,.
It was not until 375 A.D. that the church in Rome declared itself sovereign. So, even though Ignatius is not an inspired nor inerrant source, he was correct that some deny the gift of God and reject the truth of Jesus' humanity/deity and his bodily resurrection.
However, he was NOT speaking of "Protestants", obviously, and he would not count us out of the Church of Jesus Christ today either. I believe also, that wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the universal church. Some of you need to get over that sin of exclusivist pride that keeps you from enjoying your place in the family of God.
Maybe "Sola" in "sola scriptura" stand for one verse alone. Which one?
AMEN. The RCC took Christianity hostage and by her own traditions and doctrines has [attempted to keep] it hostage to superstitio[ns] and fables.
In SPITE of her hijacking of God's Plan and intent to re-write [history and] His clearly laid out plan of salvation for mankind, God's word of truth remains.
The RCC has actually made God's plan easier to see and accept. She has turned so many truths into lies and deception that finding the truth and simplicity that is in Jesus Christ is as simple as hearing the Gospel, believing the Gospel, and knowing that the finished work of Christ has saved you.
The irony is, this can be proven, as the RCC [OFTEN] does not even [SEEM TO] KNOW what the Gospel is. They know all the works, doctrines, traditions, and superstitions. But they can not tell you what the Gospel is.
There should be absolutely no confusion as to who to believe. The Gospel or the Roman Catholic Church.
[They are usually]
As different as night and day.
No, it's not. Unlike most Catholics I've run into, we can see outside the box and have the ability to look at something from a perspective other than our own. Not to mention that many of us were raised and taught Catholic and remember what we were taught and what we believed.
Catholics as a group seem to be singularly incapable of getting outside the doctrines that have been hammered into their heads from birth and looking at it from another point of view.
I know what Catholics believe about communion and I disagree with it anyway, which I realize is beyond the comprehension of most Catholics.
There is this fallacy floating around which I've encountered quite often that goes along the lines of, *Well, you obviously don't understand ________, because if you did you would most certainly agree with us.* as if the evidence or reasoning is so compelling that if one only *KNEW* what the other person knew, that they would OF COURSE believe like them.
Some people just don't get that I can understand what they're saying and choose not to believe it.
That said, I find plenty of Scriptural support for the conclusion that the elements in communion are and remain simply bread and wine and are representative of Christ, just as they were in the Passover meal. Having them become the LITERAL flesh and blood of Christ violates too many other passages of Scripture and since Scripture doesn't contradict itself, that means that the literal flesh and blood interpretation is wrong.
Now, if some Catholic could actually wrap their minds around that, ......
LOL.
I’d think Joseph would be the one deserving the annulment!
Stupid formulation. "Tradition" is capital-T Tradition because it is something in existence since Apostolic times rather than invented. There are other traditions that get formed and replaced by others in any society, such as the use of certain calendar fasts, lives of the saints, and ways of worship, but they are not a part of the Sacred Tradition delivered to the Apostles, preserved by the Church, and expressed partly in the canonized Holy Scripture. Protestants have traditions like that too.
You probably meant to ask, "where does the scripture say to follow the living magisterium of the Church"? The living magisterium is the teaching power of the Catholic clergy from the pope down to deacons, that is done in the single Catholic voice of the Church. It is, of course possible for any member of the clergy to say something from himself that is not inerrant and not a part of the Magisterium. An example of the magistarial teaching is the Church teaching against abortion, euthanasia, human cloning and gay "marriage", -- all but the abortion have no explicit treatment in the Tradition (and none are treated in the scripture expressly) since they are new phenomena.
Well, that mandate to teach ont he issues of the day by living people is reflected in the scripture. It is, in fact expressly authorized by the scripture:
[17] And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. [18] Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. (Matthew 18)[25] These things have I spoken to you, abiding with you. [26] But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you. (John 14)
Ahhhhhhhhhhh . . . yes . . .
The Dogma of the Cheshire Cat PRESENCE.
--Fully PRESENT [goes the fantasy]
--not so fully present.
--less than not so fully present.
--less than less than not so fully present.
--MORE less PRESENT.
--Just a few crumbs worth still present.
--Just one or two crumbs worth left.
--Just a few molecules left.
--Just a few sub-atomic particles left.
.
INDEED TO THE MAX.
LOL.
The Catholic church has set up its own law to be followed.
Technically the Catholic church can say that they don’t teach or hold to the doctrine that salvation is by the Law (capital L) as God gave the Jews, but in principle, that’s exactly what they hold to.
Substituting its rules, regulations, ceremonies, sacraments, etc, doesn’t make any difference. All they’ve done is labeled something different. In essence, it’s the same teaching. You have to DO something in the way of works to be saved. They’ve just made up their own list instead of going by God’s.
There’s no where in the Bible where writers make any claim to Catholicism or even unity under one leader.
Maybe not the Capital 'C' catholicism, but the non-Dispensational believers recognize a universal church made up of the Church militant and triumphant. Not satisfied with that, Rome added the "Church Padecent" because a loved one died, the Vatican wanted money, and buying candles has long been a recognized form of bringing about one's salvation.
Your point is strongest regarding "under one leader". Rome likes to claim that while Jesus Christ was head of the Church, that in absence of His physical presence, that through the powers of tranformative language worked out on Matthew 16:18, this somehow relates to Peter being the first Pope and through a screwy lottery system comes a successor.
I have seen a gallery of arguments against this, mostly challenges to the language, but it is Peter himself, who seems to cancel out the idea that he is "the" (definite article) "rock" when he counts himself as one of many "living stones". (1 Peter 2:5)
Furthermore, we have this passage in Ephesians:
Eph 2:20-22 "...having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.
Here Paul identified "The" (definite article) "Rock" as Jesus Christ, who surely not physically present on earth when Paul wrote this still retains the identity of not only being the Foundation stone, but also the Corner stone. IOW, it is obvious that Jesus Christ never relinquished His role as head of the Church, never surrendering it to another man or a series of carnal men. Second, Paul doesn't identify Peter as being "the" stone, rather, he counts the apostles and the OT Prophets as the foundation. This theme is picked up again routinely in Revelation (4:4,10; 5:8,14;11:16...) as the foundation is the twenty-four apostles and prophets (or tribes if you wish)
Therefore, Rome is not only at odds with Peter, but with Paul and the LORD who provided John the vision. Those who have been appointed by God were able to demonstrate that authority through miracles. Rome has no such evidence that any of the Popes are legitimate heirs because, oddly enough for a cult that demands "works" - they have no works in what is arguably the most important role to exhibit works. You are correct in your observations that Rome has supplanted Jesus Christ and His testimony in the Scriptures by conjuring up Traditions to replace God's revealed will for what is clearly man's will.
For Rome to say that they alone have authority, their own Sola Potestate, and to derive that from having "Holy Tradition" trump Scriptures, and to declare that Holy Tradition supersedes Scripture is worse than grading your own tests, its writing your own tests and then grading them.
Minutes then if not seconds. The host begins to dissolve in the mouth. It's not going to last long in the stomach.
This is contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture where Jesus says that He will not abandon us or leave us.
John 10:27-29 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.
John 14:23-24 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.
Hebrews 13:5-6 Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, "I will never leave you nor forsake you." So we can confidently say, "The Lord is my helper; I will not fear; what can man do to me?"
I think you will find that most Catholics of the Orthodox persuasion understand where you are coming from fully. We're odd that way. We are not, as you have seen here, very "evangelical". You believe what you believe. We believe what we believe. "We have seen the true light; we have received the heavenly Spirit; we have found the true faith, worshiping the undivided Trinity, for the Trinity has saved us." as we chant in the Liturgy. If anyone wants what we have they can have it. If not, that's OK...have another cup of cafe and perhaps a piece of baklava!
"Some people just don't get that I can understand what they're saying and choose not to believe it."
Kosta and I do. "That said, I find plenty of Scriptural support for the conclusion that the elements in communion are and remain simply bread and wine and are representative of Christ, just as they were in the Passover meal. Having them become the LITERAL flesh and blood of Christ violates too many other passages of Scripture and since Scripture doesn't contradict itself, that means that the literal flesh and blood interpretation is wrong." The belief that the bread and wine on the altar table, through the power of the Holy Spirit, become in some way we do not understand the true Body and Blood of Christ is among the most verifiably ancient beliefs of The Church. Mere antiquity, of course, guarantees nothing. It does mean, however, that the bishops who determined the canon of the NT in the 4th century actually believed it. Why do you suppose they would have canonized scripture which, it appears to you and millions of others, clearly contradicts that fundamental belief? BTW, I can understand questioning the Latin explanations of what happens at the consecration. You know, mysteries are just that, mysteries. And perhaps the less speculation the better about the nature of Divine Mysteries lest in doing so we misunderstand and fall into error.
Likewise, Rome is at odds with Peter. He also states that Jesus is the rock on which the church is built.
1 Peter 2
4As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, 5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6For it stands in Scripture:
“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone,
a cornerstone chosen and precious,
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
7So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,
“The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”
8and
“A stone of stumbling,
and a rock of offense.”
They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
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.