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
Since when did you think the "tabernacle" Peter spoke of (DR), was anything but his body?
Let's look at a couple of approved Catholic Bibles rather than the archaic language of the Douay Rheims.
2 PETER 1:
RSV St. Ignatius Edition - 13 I think it right, as long as I am in this body, * to arouse you by way of reminder,
14 since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me.
Nab
13 I think it right, as long as I am in this "tent," (8) to stir you up by a reminder,
14 since I know that I will soon have to put it aside, as indeed our Lord Jesus Christ has shown me.
Note (8) [13] Tent: a biblical image for transitory human life (Isaiah 38:12 <../isaiah/isaiah38.htm>), here combined with a verb that suggests not folding or packing up a tent but its being discarded in death (cf 2 Cor 5:1-4 <../2corinthians/2corinthians5.htm>).
FYI The Eucharist hadn't yet been invented.
Yes, but first it is necessary to establish a general criteria for determining whether a teaching comes from Jesus. If we cannot do that, it is pointless to argue over particular teachings. Without such discipline, one can pick whatever teaching strikes his fancy.
In addition to being God, Jesus was a real human being of history just like Julius Caesar or George Washington. The Bible record of His teachings obviously did not fall from heaven, but was written and compiled by inspired men in the context of history. An heretical NT canon was first proposed in 140 AD but the Bible did not take its present form until the Forth Century. During this period, the Church had grown to include most peoples of southern Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa.
Many heresies had arisen but were successfully refuted in a series of doctrinal Church councils. The worst of the early heresies was Arianism which denied the godhood of Christ. St. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, Egypt, almost single-handedly defeated Arianism. In the process, he made the final adjustments to the NT canon to ensure that all its parts were in complete agreement with Church orthodoxy.
Scripture says that the Apostles built the Church based upon the teachings of Christ and the inspiration of Holy Spirit. The Bible is quite clear that it does not contain all of Christ's teachings but enjoins that Christians hold fast to the written and spoken Apostolic traditions. Are we on the same page so far?
I think it is quite easy to determine if an INFALLIBLE teaching came from Christ and not fallible men... is it a directive found in the scriptures
Anything other than that is not an INFALLIBLE teaching it is a teaching subject to human error.
In order for one to say that there is infallible teaching outside of Scripture God would have told us who, when and where they are found..
So can we agree that the scriptures are the place where the church gets its authority ? As such what authority did God grant to the church ...
The bible contains all that is needed for godly living, salvation and rebuke. We can not make doctrine from silence ...because of the possibility of human error..
So lets start there.. Where did Christ teach apostolic succession? And the infallibility of the church ?
No person in the Church has standing to judge a pope, except perhaps a successor pope. However, bishops, university heads, and superiors of religious orders would be subject just like everyone else.
What the Inquisition really advocates is those enemies of the Pope to be "cleansed".
Any system can be corrupted but the Spanish Inquisition is generally considered to be one the most scrupulously honest court systems in history. It is the successes of inquisition that are most resented, not its relatively few failures. There were corrupt popes during the Spanish Inquisition, but they intervened to protect the guilty hounded from Spain, not to target the innocent.
So, in a very real sense the Inquisition (not withstanding the Jews and Muslims who were burned at the state) really got rid of the "good" Catholics who disagreed with the Church while reinforcing the bad.
Public Jews and Muslims were not subject to the Spanish Inquisition, only Catholics. It is quite odd for you to equate all heresy with good and all Catholic orthodoxy with bad. Do you reject ALL Catholic teaching?
By nature, if you disagreed with the Church's right to have an Inquisition, then you must be a heretic subject to the Inquisition.
No. Many soft-hearted Catholics criticized the Inquisition from a purely orthodox perspective. These arguments eventually won out, unfortunately. Thus the present rot.
Instead of purging itself of corrupt people at the top, the Church reinforced corruption while eliminating true believers.
There were many nonbelievers that had attained the rank of bishop. That is corruption. The Inquisition cleaned them out.
Those who were unhappy with Catholic doctrine who weren't murdered left. Hence you see the Orthodox leaving in 1000AD
The split with the East was caused by schism, not issues of doctrine.
you see people leaving in the 13th century with the Church imposed requirement to fight in "Holy" Wars
Say what? Who were these people?
Reformers leaving in 1500AD because of the false doctrine.
Reformers "left" to acquire Church property. One third of European lands were kept by the Church for use by peasants and monks. Reformers became rich by seizing Church properties and booting off the inhabitants.
You will never cleanse the ranks of bishops and priests because the whole system is corrupted.
That has happened to Protestant denominations but cannot happen the Church because it is ultimately protected by the Holy Spirit.
What are you going to do about the homosexual Cardinals? And one day, probably not in the too distance future, you will most likely have a homosexual Pope.
Cardinals are subject to inquisition. The Church is capable of surviving bad popes.
The Roman church HATES to lose land..the loss of property in Spain let to the "celibate" priesthood.. too many priests willing "church" land to the kiddos...
I would appreciate some documentation on this "theft" from the church by the reformers.. not Catholic hate sites ok?
That's REALLY funny coming from a Catholic....
You mean like the perpetual virginity of Mary, her alleged immaculate conception, her bodily assumption, praying to her, praying to saints, holy water, .....?
Where did Jesus teach about ANY of that stuff?
Well, I can't wait to see where this is going, mas...
You want to establish a general criteria...?...How about the Bible?
You want to establish a general criteria...?...How about the Bible?
You don't mean like the one the Catholic church "wrote", do you?
I think it is quite easy to determine if an INFALLIBLE teaching came from Christ and not fallible men... is it a directive found in the scriptures
On what do you base this assertion? Did any Christian prior to the Sixteenth Century share the same viewpoint?
So lets start there.. Where did Christ teach apostolic succession? And the infallibility of the church ?
I will answer only under protest since we cannot establish a shared historical framework for evaluating basic reality. Hence we are doomed to forever squabble over comparisons of apples with oranges.
Anyway, apostolic succession was defined at the end of Acts 1 when Peter led the eleven Apostles to choose Matthias as the successor to Judas. One of the many scriptural demonstrations of Church infallibility is the Holy Spirit inspired First Church Council in Jerusalem where Peter chaired a meeting to establish rules for Gentile converts.
Unfortunately, if you consider yourself unbound to any historical framework, you could spin these strait-forward scriptural references a thousand different ways.
They do not seem to realize" because the church says so" has no infallible authority based on their own say so , it would only have validity if God clearly gave it to them ...
So far ((crickets))
On Soros he gives money to anyone he can manipulate I bet the council of churchs got some too.
How about "church Fathers?" Will that do?
"They [heretics] gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures...We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith" - Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1
"I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books [scripture], to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else." - Jerome (Letter 53:10)
"There is, brethren, one God, ,font color=red>the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practice piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scripture declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them." - Hippolytus, Against Noetus, ch 9
which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?" - Ambrose (On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102)
"We use Scripture to answer heresy and preceive that it is power and truth." - Basil the Great
“Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.” - Gregory of Nyssa (d.ca, 395) “On the Holy Trinity”, NPNF, p. 327
“We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.” - Basil the Great (ca.329–379) On the Holy Spirit, 7.16
“Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.” - Augustine (354–430) De unitate ecclesiae, 10
“For our faith rests on the revelation made to the Prophets and Apostles who wrote the canonical books.” - Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) Summa Theologiae, Question 1, Art. 8
"For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,--to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages." - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 2:9)
WRONG, as has been pointed out a hundred times. James presided over the council, not Peter. Acts 15:19, AGAIN. Not so infallible, that Church "fact".
Look at "The Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland" by William Cobbett. It was published by a Protestant Englishman in 1834 and is available as a free book on the internet. It is the most devastating account of injustice that I have ever read.
Do you mean the Bible in history or the bible that fell from the sky in the Sixteenth Century like Mormon gold plates?
I mean the Bible that, in the formation of the NT Canon, 20 of the 27 books were UNIVERSALLY accepted IMMEDIATELY as genuine. Only Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, James, and Revelation were questioned by some. (Strange, those are the VERY books that Catholics turn to after MMLJ, after they skip over Paul’s writings). I’ll tell you the main objectives to these 7 books if you’re interested. If not, I’ll let it go with this, the Catholic Church did NOT write the Bible. No one was sitting in a corner, drooling from the mouth, waiting for Rome to put together God’s Word of Truth. No matter what you say.
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.