Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In Christ Alone (Happy reformation day)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExnTlIM5QgE ^ | Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;

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


TOPICS: Prayer; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: reformation; savedbygrace
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 7,221-7,2407,241-7,2607,261-7,280 ... 7,341-7,356 next last
To: terycarl
Photobucket


Sadly,
more unmitigated
Vatican Cult
UNHISTORICAL
UNBIBLICAL
NONSENSE.

7,241 posted on 02/25/2011 9:14:11 PM PST by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7239 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

Have gone through many periods where both sides of that have been by turns, right for me according to God’s leading.

I do think that as the END TIMES progress . . .

most authentic believers will end up in Holy Spirit arranged, associated groups, home groups primarily, imho, as authentic believers are driven underground in most areas.


7,242 posted on 02/25/2011 9:16:22 PM PST by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7240 | View Replies]

To: Quix
>> most authentic believers will end up in Holy Spirit arranged, associated groups, home groups primarily, imho, as authentic believers are driven underground in most areas.<<

I agree. As I watch most every organized church move towards accepting the “many ways to” attitude and mantra it’s becoming obvious to me that the personal relationship with Jesus is lacking in most organized religions.

7,243 posted on 02/25/2011 9:28:17 PM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7242 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

Yup.


7,244 posted on 02/25/2011 9:34:27 PM PST by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7243 | View Replies]

To: Quix

Thanks for the ping!


7,245 posted on 02/25/2011 9:48:53 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7236 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
I believe it is an evolutionary process to come to that realization, and a matter of extraordinary maturity, and honesty, to admit it. But, then, not everyone evolves.

So we can assume you think you HAVE evolved to extraordinary maturity and honesty? There is plenty of objective truth concerning the reliability of the Bible, ignoring or minimizing it is hardly honest to me or mature.

7,246 posted on 02/25/2011 10:22:12 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7201 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
So we can assume you think you HAVE evolved to extraordinary maturity and honesty?

Yes, I realize that different cultures created different deities and that each claims to be the "true one". I do think it takes certain amount of maturity and honesty to realize and admit that this is something man-made, and not made in heaven.

There is plenty of objective truth concerning the reliability of the Bible

Only on faith, and that's not objective, but subjective.

ignoring or minimizing it is hardly honest to me or mature.

It's not minimizing anything, but recognizing that man created his own religions.

7,247 posted on 02/26/2011 1:31:03 AM PST by kosta50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7246 | View Replies]

To: Quix

Wow! Great testimony! Thanks for posting & pinging!


7,248 posted on 02/26/2011 9:35:46 AM PST by cinciella
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7236 | View Replies]

To: Quix

Wow! Great testimony! Thanks for posting & pinging!


7,249 posted on 02/26/2011 9:35:55 AM PST by cinciella
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7236 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; Dr. Eckleburg
Matthias was chosen by the Apostles.

Before they had the indwelling Holy Spirit.. that was a decision of the flesh not God..

There is never another mention of Matthias again in the NT.. instead we have a NT that is filled with the writings of the man GOD chose as an apostle..

The scripture you quote (acts 6) was one where the new church was seeking to quiet a complaint by the greek believers that there was a favoritism in the distribution of goods to the elderly and needy. This is not about selecting PASTORS but deacons

7,250 posted on 02/26/2011 9:44:25 AM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7229 | View Replies]

To: cinciella

I much agree.


7,251 posted on 02/26/2011 9:45:02 AM PST by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7249 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
The scripture you quote (acts 6) was one where the new church was seeking to quiet a complaint by the greek believers that there was a favoritism in the distribution of goods to the elderly and needy. This is not about selecting PASTORS but deacons

Thanks, RnMomof7. Your knowledge of the Scriptures is most helpful.

7,252 posted on 02/26/2011 10:37:38 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7250 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
Yes, I realize that different cultures created different deities and that each claims to be the "true one". I do think it takes certain amount of maturity and honesty to realize and admit that this is something man-made, and not made in heaven.

Not sure what you mean by "this" being man-made, but I will absolutely agree that ALL religions ARE man-made. The very word means to bind back, man's attempt to bind himself back. However, there is a creator, a first cause, and being that we are "intelligent" ourselves, we can conclude that this "creator" also is intelligent, none of the complexity we see around us came out of chaos, but was designed. I won't go into all the stuff I know you have probably already heard, but suffice it to say, greater minds than ours have delved into the great beyond and come back with a surety. This surety is that this intelligent creator did not just create and then vanish to other universes but created with purpose and created us with purpose and an intellect to seek out answers to why and who and what.

There is objective truth in the midst of subjective, but wisdom allows one to see it clearly. There is a God-way and it's NOT man-made. I sure hope you haven't decided you have reached the epitome of intellect and stop looking for the truth, because it IS there, waiting for you. Real honesty also includes the ability to recognize a wrong path may have been taken and that the road to true honesty was where you were already traveling. Don't rule it out. I wish you Godspeed.

7,253 posted on 02/26/2011 5:48:43 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7247 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
However, there is a creator, a first cause

The first cause argument is self-defeating, at least logically speaking.

and being that we are "intelligent" ourselves, we can conclude that this "creator" also is intelligent

That is a pure conjecture.

none of the complexity we see around us came out of chaos, but was designed.

The Big Bang would have been pretty chaotic.

greater minds than ours have delved into the great beyond and come back with a surety

No mind is perfect and no man can claim to know everything. Appeal to (select) authority does not prove a conjecture. Surety can go both ways, pro and con. Either way, one's own surety is still not a proof.

This surety is that this intelligent creator did not just create and then vanish to other universes but created with purpose and created us with purpose and an intellect to seek out answers to why and who and what.

Man-made religions have created many "sureties" including those that claim there is no purpose at all.

There is objective truth in the midst of subjective

Depends how you define them.

but wisdom allows one to see it clearly

Every sect or cult uses the same stupid argument.

There is a God-way and it's NOT man-made

As a matter of one's belief.

I sure hope you haven't decided you have reached the epitome of intellect

I can say the same about you.

and stop looking for the truth, because it IS there, waiting for you

In order for man to know the whole truth man would have to know everything there is to know.

Real honesty also includes the ability to recognize a wrong path may have been taken

Equally applicable to me and you. I do recognize that I can be wrong, but I am not sure you do. That's why I am an agnostic and you are a believer.

Don't rule it out

Ditto.

7,254 posted on 02/26/2011 11:14:04 PM PST by kosta50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7253 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
Then it may be about time to try to wrap it up and give more attention to other threads and posters.

You are a serious poster, so it is a pleasure. But yes, I agree that a post in the beginning of a thread is worth much more in terms of its readership than when it is one of 7 thousand other posts. I will, in the spirit of letting this thread go, not dwell on your statements that repeat points already made and commented upon by me.

but extrapolating a perpetuated Petrine papacy and formulaic assured infallibility to that office is Rome's interpretation of [Matthew 16:18 and Luke 22:31-32.]

I would say it is the Church’s explanation. Catholics do not interpret, they explain. You are correct, however, in that the scripture rarely explains itself, especially on controversies brought up by the likes of Luther, the Anabaptists et al 1500 years later. The scripture is not the catechism; it is one job of the Church to provide the latter. Regarding the perpetuation of papacy, we have a scriptural evidence and a logical evidence. The scriptural evidence is the oft-repeated promise of Christ that He will not “leave us orphans” and that Divine advice will remain with the Church for ever (John 14:26); further it is precisely the Church built on Peter (in whatever precise allegorical sense) that shall prevail against “gates of hell”. Moreover, Peter himself promised to perpetuate his office:

[11] For so an entrance shall be ministered to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. [12] For which cause I will begin to put you always in remembrance of these things: though indeed you know them, and are confirmed in the present truth. [13] But I think it meet as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance. [14] Being assured that the laying away of this my tabernacle is at hand, according as our Lord Jesus Christ also hath signified to me. [15] And I will endeavour, that you frequently have after my decease, whereby you may keep a memory of these things. [16] For we have not by following artificial fables, made known to you the power, and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ; but we were eyewitnesses of his greatness.

(2 Peter 1)

Some here insisted that the use of “σκηνωμα” (“tent or “tabernacle”) somehow is a reference to St Peter’s body. I don’t know if you see through the absurdity of this interpretation, but in any event it is clear that St. Peter intended to perpetuate his role as a witness of Christ’s greatness through generations.

The logical argument is twofold. First, it should be the guiding principle of the Church to use the Early Church such as the Holy Apostles set it up, as a model. So if the Early Church had St. Peter as prince of the Apostles, modern bishops should likewise have such prince. Hence the papacy at least in some form, -- and I will easily acknowledge that the precise nature of the papacy can be productively debated with the Orthodox who insist on a less centralized model. It is also consistent with the top-down social organization evedent in the ordination process that we glean form the letters to Timothy and Tutus.

Secondly, since Jesus wanted to “build the Church” somehow “on the rock of Peter”, it would be prudent for us of Christian faith to believe that He succeeded. While it is logically possible that in Christ’s physical absence the Catholic Church went into heresy or even apostasy, and the Protestant (or Mormon) successor did not emerge till centuries later, such hypothesis would have to postulate that in fact the promise of divine guidance failed to materialize for many generations of Christians.

Instead, the plain evidence of scripture suggests that the Church was meant to be hierarchical, of single doctrine, and sacramental, and to persist all the way to the Second Coming in unity across time and geography. It was meant to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

the stewardship=infallibility principle would require submission to the Jews

It is a matter of faith. For a Jew it would be logical to consider only the Old testament infallible as explained by the Rabbis, and for a Christian it would be logical to consider the Old Testament and the New Testament both infallible with the latter fulfilling the typology of the former and the Catholic Church explaining both.

Rome had no infallible canon until over 1400 years after the last book was penned

The so-called African Councils defined the scripture in that local late 4c council as Trent defined it a thousand years later; there was no Bible ever produced without the Deuterocanonical books till the Reformation. It is true that debate preceded the formation of the canon, but so is with any other doctrine of the Church: debate leads to consensus, and if the debate is no longer challenging the faith, no council determination is made, and the issue is considered settled. It is only when debate does not seem to naturally lead to consensus that a council is convened, and at times even an ecumenical Council. The issue of the canon was not debated after the African local councils, and so there was no need for an ecumenical council to fix things. Thus, a de-facto knowledge of the proper canon of scripture existed in the Church since early 4c, but since the Reformers decided to protest everything, Trent had to formulate things for the faithful Catholics. It is a frequent misunderstanding of the Protestants to equate conciliar or papal pronouncements as the beginning of a new doctrine, when the practice of the Church is to so fix a doctrine already fully understood on the grass roots level.

you deny that only the Scriptures are assuredly the word of God (which of course, is meant the formal sense)?

Yes, I do deny it. “he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever.” (John 14:16). That means that even after the Scripture is written and the canon is formed, the divine guidance continues, assuredly, in the Church. The magisterial teaching has disadvantages compared to the Holy Scripture as its origin is not from the immediate circle of the Apostles, but it has the advantage also, and that is that the Magisterium can speak on the issues of the day directly.

refusal of the Orthodox to ascribe the full primacy of the Pope in the Roman sense (despite their present degree of concession), as well as papal infallibility, Mary's IM, etc. is a problem with Rome.

It is a problem but it is not a doctrinal problem. With the Protestants we have a case of heresy: salvation by faith alone, authority of the written word alone, denial of the fullness of the sacraments, absence of valid priesthood or consecrated life. With the Orthodox we have issues of church administration such as papacy or universal validity of dogmas proclaimed in councils the Orthodox don’t consider ecumenical. Debate on theological issues is of course possible with the Orthodox (for example, our Thomism versus their Palamism), but it does not exceed the breadth of the debates inside the Western Church. It is, shall we say, a happy and sisterly debate.

[In response that were john Kerry to become a Baptist that would be for him a step toward spiritual death, the same step former Catholics who are now Protestants have made] :you sound increasingly like a sedevacantist, who reject post Vatican Two changes (and i think they have some historical warrant), in which baptized Prots are overall regarded a separated brethren,

A sedevacantist is someone who does not think we have a valid pope in the person of the present Pope, and I am of course no sedevacantist. I am especially fond of the Holy Father Benedict, who I think is among this century greatest. I am critical of the Vatican II as are very many conservative and faithful to the Pope Catholics. However, you are reading the “separated brethren” language too self-servingly. The distinction needs to be made, and is invariably made, also after Vatican II, between the incomplete faith of the Protestant who grew up in the Protestant environment absorbing its limitations, and the grave error of the Catholics who fall away. The latter is a step toward a spiritual suicide which they should hurry to reverse.

loyalty to a particular church

It is loyalty to Christ, Who built just one Church, mine.

7,255 posted on 02/27/2011 1:52:11 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7140 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
A group of old men in dresses sitting in Rome has not been appointed to call pastors.

A group of men in dresses sitting in Jerusalem would differ from you:


7,256 posted on 02/27/2011 7:12:59 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7233 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
There is never another mention of Matthias again in the NT.. instead we have a NT that is filled with the writings of the man GOD chose as an apostle..

Are you saying that Scriptures show that the appointing of an Apostle is incorrect? What about doubting Thomas? He disappears, right? However, it turns out that he evangelized much of the east coast of India? Should we dismiss him because he does not appear in the Bible after the Gospels?

The scripture you quote (acts 6) was one where the new church was seeking to quiet a complaint by the greek believers that there was a favoritism in the distribution of goods to the elderly and needy. This is not about selecting PASTORS but deacons

I thought that I quoted a whole lot more than Acts 6. And it was about priests, not just deacons.

7,257 posted on 02/27/2011 7:29:51 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7250 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
You also appeal to Rm. 2:7-10 as teaching salvation by works, but which describe what saved persons do, which is works of faith

Yes, and it also described what a condemned person doesn’t do, just like Matthew 25:31-46. In other words, we are saved or condemned by what we do. Your grasp of this issue is actually close to Catholic, or possible entirely Catholic, but your reading of the Scripture is infected by typical Protestant exegesis, necessary to cram the silly slogan of “faith alone” into your sound belief.

when Rm. 4 contrasts Abraham being justified by works before he was circumcised or under the law, you insist this only means works of the law being disallowed, such as circumcision and works done for social recognition, when again, in reality it is part of his contrast between works morally meriting justification, as under the law, versus faith procuring it, in which he clearly states the latter is counted for righteousness.

When you say “works morally meriting justification” is it necessary to point out which works. But the context shows only works of circumcision, a ritualistic work bringing no one any good. So it is I who reads Romans 4 in its proper context.

if you have man doing works meriting justification which he could boast of but does not, and if your criteria (as stated in other responses) for such salvific works are works of love by one who imitates Christ, then you have souls doing Christian works of love in imitation of Christ before they are justified, in order to be justified!

Justification is a process, not a single event. If a Pagan does works in imitation of Christ without a formal faith in Christ then that is the salvific work of Christ done in him, -- his justification has begun.

That Clement exhorts them to works, just as those who hold to sola fide do

Yes, the Protestant communities of faith do exhort their flock to good works. The difference is that authentic churches do so without telling them at the same time that they are not saved by them.

no man has the ability to do works which would morally merit justification

Of course one can. Matthews 25:31-46 say so. The rub is that the meriting is according to the sovereign will of Christ Who gave us the grace to be saved by out works.

7,258 posted on 02/27/2011 9:14:19 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7146 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
I'm really worried.

Well you should be, because your cult, the OPC is due for its third split ;-)
7,259 posted on 02/28/2011 1:19:45 AM PST by Cronos ("They object to tradition saying that they themselves are wiser than the apostles" - Ire.III.2.2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7223 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw

It’s standard for him — he will never answer a straight question. It’s what the PCA/OPC guys are taught to do,


7,260 posted on 02/28/2011 1:21:22 AM PST by Cronos ("They object to tradition saying that they themselves are wiser than the apostles" - Ire.III.2.2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7226 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 7,221-7,2407,241-7,2607,261-7,280 ... 7,341-7,356 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson