Skip to comments.In Christ Alone (Happy reformation day)
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
They are not anonymous, single source writers describing "supernatural" events. In other words, there is substantially more evidence to accept that Luther did exist, if not all aspects of his life. In other words is not legendary by any stretch.
And GOD ALWAYS WAS
How do you know that?
and you speak about HIS Word
How do you know that too?
and yet you are lost and question the One whose Words you post. WEIRD!!
No I simply post the words I find in the Bible.
Historical books suggest otherwise. very few people witnessed anything at all. Luke and Mark were not eyewitnesses, and neither was Paul. I think the problem is in overinflated figures by the NY writers.
the individual writers all wrote down their own memories of the events
Mark and Luke and Paul were not eyewitnesses. Luke even admits that he compiled his Gospel from what he heard form others. Both Matthew (supposed an eyewitness) and Luke borrow form Mar (not an eyewitness) , especially Matthew, in some cases verbatim whole paragraphs (we clal that copying today).
Nah, I'm just not seeing the whole feasibility thing. I think it takes more work to believe it is like you think than to believe that things happened like they did, like they were foretold to happen
You are right, it;s much easier to just believe the story uncritically and ignore all the red flags. Who has time for that.
Don't think you were the first person to come up with this idea though.
I don't. It's worth repeating tough.
In truth, Bible-believing Protestants ARE (at least reasonably) united in faith alone. Among Bible-believing Protestants, those who practice infant baptism and those who do not ALL agree that any form of water baptism does NOT confer salvation. We are all united that concerning salvation it is faith alone, NOT water baptism. It is likewise with scripture interpretation. While there are differences on some issues, Bible-believing Protestants are united that scripture in fact teaches faith alone for salvation.
The more I read of Reformation literature, the more I find unity among Protestants.
I would prefer they all be Calvinists, but that is tangential to the fact that Protestants agree with THE FIVE SOLAS OF THE REFORMATION...
Soli Deo Gloria
Certainly you do. How does someone discern something he doesn't believe even exists?
Since they were true Christians, the writers of the NT were obviously Protestant Christians since they taught salvation by grace through faith.
Besides which, the !!!!TRADITIONS!!!! of man bureaucratic political power-mongering magicsterical managed RCC Alice in Wonderland School of Theology and Reality Mangling did not even exist until 300-400 years after Christ.
Yes, He does, which is another illustration of "brother" and "sister" used expansively by our Teacher Himself.
Of course not. With everything you said up to her I agree fully.
Grace, undeserved favorable treatment, is nullified when we try to EARN favorable treatment
We simply do what we are told. We are told to ask for grace ("Our Father") and we are told to do good works (Eph 2:10, amany similar). Works do not earn grace. The Sacraments of the Church are free for the asking. You don't earn them, either.
In a lot of gospel narratives the full picture is clear when all the four gospels are consulted together. The scene at the Crucifixion is one of them. The Confession of Peter is perhaps another.
Neither of these two groups of narratives are contradictory. People wrote down who they remembered. Since St. John remembered Mary the Mother of God at the Crucifixion, she was surely there. Since no one mentions Mary the Mother of God at the empty tomb, even though the group of the women is identified by names, she was surely not there.
In the case of St. Mark, the usual explanation of why the narrative about the confession of Peter is so short, — is that St. Mark was a disciple and a secretary of St. Peter, and his boss did not want to elevate himself. It surely does not contradict the fuller St. Mathew’s narrative.
Your confusion and doubt, OldReggie, is characteristic of the bookworm Protestant method, which is, at best, a forensic examination of written evidence, police-station style. A Catholic, in contrast, simply gets the story, knows the story and can explain it to others, because we get the story from the horse’s mouth, the Holy Mother Church and we trust her witness. The difference is between unprocessed information and knowledge.
However, I do not want to discourage your effort. I wish every Protestant applied that very analytical approach to the tenets of their faith and found out how the Protestant theological fantasies contradict the very letter of the scripture.
John 1:42 says "thou shalt be called Cephas", future tense. However, I agree that possibly Jesus named Simon Peter as son as He met him, and in Matthew 16 He explains why. Now, is your argument that the name Peter was chosen without connection to the foundation of the Chruch that Christ said He will build in Matthew 16?
James "my judgment is..." presided and pronounced his judgment
Like I said, "Peter rose (Acts 15:7), spoke (vv 7-11), and all agreed (v 12). St. James as the presider, approved the letter (vv 19-20)." You seem to have forgotten what you are arguing about.
And all believe that God lies to them, when, for example, James 2:24 or Luke 22:19 is spun away as saying the opposite of what the text says.
For example, health is what we do. Do not do what the doctor says, and that choice of yours will destroy your health. Likewise, if you do not do what the Divine Doctor says (Mt 5-7 is a good summary), your faith will be dead (James 2:20-26).
Why do you think Protestants seek to reduce Christianity to a minimum subset of already truncated by them scripture? Because their faith is dying.
 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?  Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar?  Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect?  And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God.  Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?  And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers, and sending them out another way?  For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead.
I honestly do not understand how you read, parse, and understand human language.
Directly as written.
Yes, and in my 3061 I explain why:
We enjoy sex because through marital sex we learn something about God Who is the Creator (and sex creates) and Who is Love (and sex loves). But Mary learned about God directly and not through model substitution of sex. She probably was not interested
This is not a unique circumstance. Monks and nuns are not interested in sex either, and for the same reason.
Of course. He would also be Catholic in full communion with the Church, "out of love and gratitude for God's mercy and grace".
What you probably wanted to ask was, do I consider Protestants Christians. Yes, Protestants are Christians because they share with me some elements of Catholic faith. The defect of their faith is that they only share what they are comfortable with. But, defective as they are, they are without a doubt, Christian, and there is hope for them all.
Because He is love. It is not complicated.
Dear brother, you all have different versions of what you call faith,(while I agree we are all united in our belief that Christ is God Incarnate and the Holy Trinity),protestants are separated from each other on interpretations of Scripture and how to practice faith.
True “Faith alone” would mean protestants would be united in the fullness of the faith.
Basically ,protestants are always searching for meanings of Scripture in many cases,which is all well in good because at least you’re on a quest for truth,but unfortunately many end up falling into very bad heresies and end up misleading others in repeating some of the same heresies that Irenaues and others dealt with.
Having a concrete(dogmatic) faith with Sacraments and 2000 plus years of consistency to back up this teaching up is a united faith.
Dear Brother,I have often though that you could be someone who could convert to orthodox/catholic because you don’t seem closed minded in protestantism alone.
I really wish that some protestants would really take the time to read the Church fathers other than “Blessed Augustine alone” because I truly believe it would help you at least understand authentic historical faith was not many different beliefs.
Hope all is well with you and your family?
I will pray for you at Adoration today
Forest Keeper wrote:
“In truth, Bible-believing Protestants ARE (at least reasonably) united in faith alone. Among Bible-believing Protestants, those who practice infant baptism and those who do not ALL agree that any form of water baptism does NOT confer salvation. We are all united that concerning salvation it is faith alone, NOT water baptism”
I am sorry, Forest Keeper, but yours is not a true statement.
Augsburg Confession, Article IX:
“Our churches teach that Baptism is necessary for salvation, that the grace of God is offered through Baptism, and that children should be baptized, for being offered to God through Baptism they are received into His grace. Our churches condemn the Anabaptists who reject the Baptism of children and declare that children are saved without Baptism.”
On the other hand, regarding salvation and faith, it is said in Augsburg Confession, Article IV:
“Our churches also teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works but are freely justified for Christ’s sake through faith when they believe that they are received into favor and that their sins are forgiven on account of Christ, who by His death made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight (Romans 3, 4).”
There is no conflict in saying that baptism conveys/confers salvation and that salvation is through faith alone. First, Baptism, just like the preached Gospel and the Lord’s Supper, gives just what Scripture teaches it gives, forgiveness, life, and salvation. Second, faith, just like Scripture says, receives the forgiveness, life, and salvation God conveys/confers through Baptism, the preached Gospel, and the Lord’s Supper. In a similar way, there is no conflict in saying Christ alone saves. Of course! 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.
Generic Protestantism has a problem with the first. Roman Catholicism has a problem with the second. But both of the above teachings are scriptural, and both are the position of Luther and all true Lutherans. That is historical fact.
The proof of this is that the Roman Catholic Confutation of the Augsburg Confession roundly condemned Article IV and accepted Article IX. Similarly, the Apology (Defense) of the Augsburg Confession (this would be a year later in 1531) expends a mere three paragraphs restating what is in Article IX (Baptism), but 400 paragraphs defending what is said in Article IV (Justification by faith).
Infant baptism and baptismal regeneration are thoroughly scriptural and well represented in the writings of the early church fathers.
This is a demonstration of two things: First, Martin Luther (and those who supported him) was not afraid to defy Rome on the basis of scriptural and apostolic teaching. Second, he was not afraid to agree with Rome on the basis of scriptural and apostolic teaching. The important point was Scripture.
Scripture alone determines what is to be taught as Christian. This is a good example of the fact that Luther was no mere protester against Rome, that is of course the origin of the term Protestant, but a Reformer of the Church, desiring only to return the Church to its Scriptural foundation. In the case of Rome, when tradition militates against the clear teaching of God’s Word, tradition must be corrected, just as Jesus Himself made clear in His dealings with the chief priests and scribes, and as is evident in the writings of the prophets of the Old Testament. Old does not equal true. In the case of John Calvin or the Anabaptists, when human reason or experience militates against the clear teaching of God’s Word, human presumption must be corrected, just as Jesus Himself made clear in His dealings with all, and as is evident in the writings of the Old Testament prophets. Reasonable does not equal true.
Lutherans will forever be separated from Rome on the one hand and Geneva on the other. But that is the price of confessing “Sola Scriptura.”
This type of acid is NOT from someone in the Spirit of Christ
This kind of acid is what leads people away from Christianity and turn to atheism because it makes Christianity look similar to Islamic faith. Shame on you!
I did not "delete" anything. Jesus is called "firstborn" because that what He is. When a son is born in a family, that son is firstborn. He is a firstborn even before there is a secondborn. "Firstborn" is a legal status that accrues to the first born son the moment that son is born, not at the moment a second one is born. So therefore "firstborn" is not an evidence of Christ having siblings. If I did not comment on it to you already, here it is now. I surely have no intention to avoid argument.
your Greek rendering of the improper genitive preposition 'έως' is wrong
I am sorry. Is this a typo? 'έως' is alredy in Greek. It is used in Matthew 1:24:
και ουκ εγινωσκεν αυτην εως ου ετεκεν τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον και εκαλεσεν το ονομα αυτου ιησουν
, and it is used in Matthew 27:8:
διο εκληθη ο αγρος εκεινος αγρος αιματος εως της σημερον
"εως", of course, is used many other times, but I chose Matthew 27:8 because it is from the same human author and uses the word in the same way as in Matthew 1:25, to indicate that something that was the case prior to the moment it grammatically controls (ου ετεκεν τον υιον and της σημερον) continued even after that moment. Surely St.MAtthew did not mean to imply that the moment the ink is dry on Chapter 27, the field is renamed.
How you translate that in English is not something I ever argued about. The Evangelists did not write in English.
I have. I do. And I will continue. And what you said back in post 3073 remains just what I said, “Weird.” I could add unscriptural, but that is evident. I could also add creepy.
You are referring in the honorific title of Our Lady, one of the very many she bears, as Spouse of the Holy Spirit. It is a title, not a belief. If you need me to explain the difference again, I will.
As to what you think of it, St. Luke did not write this
The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:35)
with your senitivities in mind.
This would be another example of the defective Protestant method of reading the scripture through some personal filter and discarding whatever they cannot stomach.
Any truth is absolute truth. If it wasn't absolutely true, it wouldn't be truth.
Do coins with King Ahaz's name on them count as my "opinion"?
Sure it does. It's merely your opinion that they're authentic. How do you know the archeologists didn't make up the coins?
It's not like there haven't been frauds and hoaxes in science before... cough *archaeoraptor* cough...
kosta: Why don't you try me?
We have and.....
Daniel 5:27 Tekel, you have been weighed in the balances and found wanting;
In Greek we sing a hymn written by +Romanos the Melodist in the early 6th century called the Akathist Hymn. There we call her "Nύμφη ἀνύμφευτε", Bride Unwedded!
But you are. You have passed judgment on why he wrote it back in post 4440 where you said....These are not coincidental discoveries or prophesies, boatbums. The NT was written so that it would appear the OT is a Christian prophesy, the way the Book of Mormon was written to prove that it is the third authentic scripture.
You've answered the question and stated that Matthew wrote the gospel to make it appear that the OT prophecy was being fulfilled.
If it was written for such a manner, then it was deliberately written as a lie and you've essentially answered the question of whether Matthew was lying when he said that verse in Isaiah was prophecy.
Matter of fact, by stating that, you've declared that the whole NT is a fraud. If the NT is a fraud and all the NT writers were lying, including Peter and Jesus. In that case, that Jesus was a fictional character who never existed.
You've then declared that the church fathers were liars and fraudulent in writing it since Catholics claim authorship of the Bible. Therefore, everything the Catholic church claims and stands for is a fraud as well. It then becomes no different than islam which is a political ideology dressed up in religion because the church then claims authority granted by God and is deceiving the masses for what could be no other than political gain.
Do lots of people lying together make something true?
It could be a conspiracy to make it look like Luther existed so the Catholic church would have someone to blame it on when it started coming apart at the seams. You know, like how the NY was written?
Anything from that moment on was in the future.
Pure unadulterated speculation.
This is not a unique circumstance. Monks and nuns are not interested in sex either, and for the same reason.
And you know this how?
If they didn't believe it, why'd they give her that title?
Does the Church typically confer honors and titles on people which they know are false because they don't *really* believe it?
Matthew 2:13 ff
13 Now when they had gone, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, Get up! Take the Child and His mother and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is going to search for the Child to destroy Him.
14 So Joseph got up and took the Child and His mother while it was still night, and left for Egypt. 15 He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: OUT OF EGYPT I CALLED MY SON.
Interesting that the Angel didn’t say, “Get up! Take your wife and child...” ;-D
“This is not a unique circumstance. Monks and nuns are not interested in sex either, and for the same reason.”
Two billion dollars and hundreds of years of history says this isn’t so.
You guys might like this; it was written by +Nektarios of Aegina in the 20th century:
Refrain: Rejoice, O Bride Unwedded!
O Virgin pure, immaculate/ O Lady Theotokos
O Virgin Mother, Queen of all/ and fleece which is all dewy
More radiant than the rays of sun/ and higher than the heavens
Delight of virgin choruses/ superior to Angels.
Much brighter than the firmament/ and purer than the sun’s light
More holy than the multitude/ of all the heav’nly armies.
Rejoice, O Bride Unwedded!
O Ever Virgin Mary/ of all the world, the Lady
O bride all pure, immaculate/ O Lady Panagia
O Mary bride and Queen of all/ our cause of jubilation
Majestic maiden, Queen of all/ O our most holy Mother
More hon’rable than Cherubim/ beyond compare more glorious
than immaterial Seraphim/ and greater than angelic thrones.
Rejoice, O Bride Unwedded!
Rejoice, O song of Cherubim/ Rejoice, O hymn of angels
Rejoice, O ode of Seraphim/ the joy of the archangels
Rejoice, O peace and happiness/ the harbor of salvation
O sacred chamber of the Word/ flow’r of incorruption
Rejoice, delightful paradise/ of blessed life eternal
Rejoice, O wood and tree of life/ the fount of immortality.
Rejoice, O Bride Unwedded!
I supplicate you, Lady/ now do I call upon you
And I beseech you, Queen of all/ I beg of you your favor
Majestic maiden, spotless one/ O Lady Panagia
I call upon you fervently/ O sacred, hallowed temple
Assist me and deliver me/ protect me from the enemy
And make me an inheritor/ of blessed life eternal.
Rejoice, O Bride Unwedded!
Lovely! Thank you.
Let's see, on one hand you have a group of people who seek the counsel of a consensus formed by the greatest intellectuals and spiritual leaders of the last 2,000 years arrived at by a rigorous process of study and debate. On the other hand you have the "learned" opinions of the Rev. Billy-Bob Rolex and the alumni of the East Tree Stump School of Theology and Diesel Maintenance, or worse self cogitated drivel that makes a yokel feel spiritually superiority.........Makes you go hmmmmmmm.
You couldn't be more wrong. I am not claiming that the Church and children have not been victimized, but that victimization was committed by abhorrent individuals, not the institution of the Catholic Church.
The Church is an institution founded on the principles of faith, forgiveness and redemption. Over the years there have been well over a million priests, some of them truly wolves in sheep's clothing. To demand that the Church reject its founding principles because of the sins of a few would make it nothing more than another fading Protestant denomination.
Now I see Mary has been made into a liar and a deceiver. It’s wasn’t enough that the RCC teaches she wasn’t there for her own son at the tomb as if she was had no compassion/love as a mother. Now she married Joseph but deceived him because she wasn’t interested in sex. A wife is submission to her husband and you’ve made Mary submissive to her own wants/interest.
The RCC and Catholics are literally hellbent on using Mary as their propaganda tool. With your ‘she probably..., leaning unto your own understanding - which is taught not to do to because one will be led astray - that teaching is defied.
I believe the RCC/Catholics will pay dearly for what they have done ‘tried’ to do to the good name of Mary. We are taught to hear and obey, Mary did as everyone who loves God does. Catholics hear and disobey.
Monks and nuns - obeyed the laws/traditions of The RCC which, also, includes poverty and it has nothing to do with what they wanted but NEEDED to obey. They weren’t obeying GOD but ‘man’ because that is what the RCC REQUIRED them to do.
How many nuns left the convent because their eyes were opened? I know many. One thing - as much as the RCC has tried, Mary’s name will not be tarnished - because the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church - but it’s the RCC and Catholics who push their agenda that is tarnished. Hear and disobey has eternal consequences. Anything not of God/His Word, burns - for it is only HIS Word that always will be.
“Thus you nullify the Word of God by your tradition that you have handed down..” Mark 7:13
Yes it does!
Why people follow a group of theologians who don't even teach the members of their church The Gospel makes no sense to Bible believing Christians. Mock us all you want we know who our Rock is and on what we stand.
Thank God you are not referring to the Catholic Church because it put a lot of effort into teaching me the Gospel. Perhaps you would be more comfortable adhering to the following teachings of the Reformation:
"Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here in this world we have to sin. This life is not a dwelling place of righteousness"
"No sin will separate us from the lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day."
NATURAL LAW PRONOUNCES THAT WHAT WAS CHURCH POLICY WAS NOT!
And with that your comment has rec'd more of my attention than it warrants. Now I'll back to ignoring you.
Like reading a novel, the Iliad, Gilgamesh, etc..
Loosley. It is pulp fiction with a religous theme.
That sounds eerily like that religious sophism "if man was meant to fly, God would have given him wings." The world is not that cut and dry. There are many levels of truth, like peeling an onion, and there is relative truth as well.
It's merely your opinion that they're authentic
You mean like the Bible?
How do you know the archeologists didn't make up the coins?
The same way we can tell the biblical manuscripts were not written yesterday.
I haven't been impressed wiht you either.
But I didn't suggest what compelled the author to do that.
If it was written for such a manner, then it was deliberately written as a lie
Someone who wrote 40 years after the crucifixion was probably not even born when Christ died and was writing what he was taught, just as the rest of you, believing it was a prophesy. Erroneous belief is not a deliberate lie.
Matter of fact, by stating that, you've declared that the whole NT is a fraud.
Either your apparent lack of comprehension is appalling, or you deliberately enjoy twisting things into false conclusions. Only you can answer that.