And anyone who suggests that they know otherwise is a fool. (Spell check is your friend)
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
Christ is the head of the church, His body. He is the stone the builders rejected that the church is built on.
There is nothing in any of Peter's writings which even refer to his alleged position of being pope, the head of the church. He made no recorded singular major correct decisions as an apostle. He leaves no written instructions on how his successor is to be identified much less chosen.
Catholics claim that Peter was the first pope, but there's a huge gap in time about 300 years, IIRC, between Peter and the recorded beginning of the institution we know of as the Catholic church. And there's not even the kind of unity within that that Catholic claim.
The unity of believers is the unity through the Holy Spirit, not the unity of church membership.
To the extent that your inquiry represents a requirement to source one’s quotes ont he Religion forum I welcome the change.
With the “German” reference what was playing in my mind was a passage from G.K. Chesterton where he with perfect English deadpan called Protestantism something like a “piece of German sophistry no Englishman should be fooled by”, but I could not find it as an exact quote.
There is nothing in any of Peter's writings which even refer to his alleged position of being pope, the head of the church. He made no recorded singular major correct decisions as an apostle. He leaves no written instructions on how his successor is to be identified much less chosen.
Correct! Paul is the one who issues instructions on appointing oversears, elders and deacons. The papacy is the arch usurper.
1 Tim 3:2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)
1 Tim 4:1Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, 3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.
Details, details.
No wonder they reject Scripture in favor of their tradition.
Why, then, do you propose an Inquisition in the United States exclusively when it is so obvious it is a world-wide problem?
Many of the "Churches" listed don't consider themselves "Protestant". It would require a lunatic standard to claim they are so.
The don't consider themselves heresies either, but that doesn't make it so. Rather than passive aggressively snipe perhaps you could offer a working definition.
Or---from you to one of your Catholic brethren?
The NIV is the default because its publishers pay the web sites to make it the default.
It is the most corrupt of all versions.
Yawn.......
Ask a Protestant. Better yet, invent a Straw Man which is much easier to attack.
Another typical non-answer. Its what I have come to expect from the clueless and the passive aggressives. Although it is easier to obfuscate and confabulate when there is no substance to the discussion there is also no point to continuing.
Since you chose to punt I will continue to use my original definition Protestant, that being any member of a western Christian Church who stands in protest or opposition to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the Catholic Church. That shoe pretty much fits all ya'll who define yourslves not by what you are actually for or believe, but by what you oppose. It does put you in the company of Communists, Fascists and Muslims in your shared hatred of the Church.
When I first heard:
John 10:27-30
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand. I and [my] Father are one.
I knew what I heard and read was the truth that only a few months prior I had asked God to reveal to me. I knew that what these verses were saying was NOT what I had heard or learned in my nearly sixteen years as a "cradle" Catholic. It was the pure and simple truth of eternal life by grace through faith and the assurance that my Heavenly Father held me in his hands never to be plucked out. I did not leave the Catholic Church because of any other reason than I saw for myself that I had been told a lie all those years and that God would reveal the truth to any who search for him with all their heart.
Good one! ;o)
None of these verses teach that scripture alone is the rule of faith. They teach that the scripture is to be studied (Mt 22:29, Mk 12:24), that the Old Testament predicted the coming of Christ (Luke 24:27, John 2:22), that Christ explained the Old Testament to His Church (Luke 24:32,45), that the scruipture is to be used to verify theological claims (Acts 17:11, 2 Tim. 3:16). Finally, the entiore passage in 2 Tim. 3 teaches that the scripture is useful for the completion of the education of a "man of God", and is inspiured of God. None of that is under dispute. The Catholic Church would not have bothered to wruite theNew Testament if she did not consider the Hoyl Scripture very, very important.
The question is, where does the scripture teach that the scripture alone -- without the teaching authority of the Church and without the historical Sacred Tradition -- constitutes the complete rule of faith? Nowhere. But many times we read in the scripture that the entirety of the Word of Christ is equally important (your first "prooftext", Rom. 10:17), that the tradition is equally important (2 Thessalonians 2:14, 2 Timothy 3:14), that the Church will receive instruction from the Holy Ghost at all times (John 14:16, John 14:26), that the Church and not the reference to the scripture is to dispose of all disputes (Matthew 18:19).
A Christian man is not ruled by the Scripture alone but rather by "every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God".
The Church did not write the New Testament to justify her teachings but rather wrote the New Testament in order to record the teaching of Christ and His apostles in direct literal form. The rules for inclusion of a book in the canon were: (1) certainty of apostolic origin; (2) consistency with the core teaching of the Church as she already knew it from the Sacred Tradition and (3) continual use of the book in liturgy. Naturally, the teaching of the Church was broader even in the early times and of course, as the scripture informs us, the Church never stopped receiving the instruction of the Holy Ghost even after the canon was closed (John 14:16, 26).
None of the things you cite are in contradiction with the scripture; some of them simply are not discussed in the scripture much. In that category are the details of the live of Mary and details of everyday piety such as holy water (which reminds us of the baptismal water which is very much in the scripture). Others are indeed taught in the scripture: the equal authority of the tradition (2 Thess. 2:14), and the infallibility of the Church (Matthew 16:18, 18:18, Ephesians 5:27). Finally, the Church never claimed to have written the Old Testament. The Church did, however, take seriously the teaching of St. Paul to Timothy where he said that "all" of the scripture St. Timothy knew froom his youth is inspired by God, unlike the Protestant charlatans that dropped the books of the Old Testament they did not like, to their eternal shame.
The Church does not officially use the title of Mary the Co-Redeemer precisely because it also may mean equality, with is of course not the case, at least not in the English usage.
She did not have any other children. "Brothers" of Christ are indeed mentioned, but, curious thing, every time a "brother" of Jesus is mentioned by name, his mother also is mentioned and she is not Mary.
What is 'unique' about OBEDIENCE
Obedience is of course not unique (but worthy of veneration just the same). Giving birth to God is unique. That is why Mary is unique.
WHO DOESN'T?
I don't, for one. I agree that the title sounds provocative at least in English.
that is not the ONLY title given
Anything wrong with that? We love her. We love who Jesus loved.
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.