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
You mean like the Catholic Bible which deliberately mistranslates passages like Genesis 3:15 where the translators replaced the personal pronoun *he* in the Hebrew to *she* to support their idolatrous doctrines of Mary?
Or perhaps 2 Corinthians 7:10 where the Catholic Bible mistranslates the word "metanoian" as *penance* instead of the correct *repentance*?
You need to be telling this to the Catholic contingent. They're the ones who dismiss the importance of Scripture to begin with in favor of tradition and then work with the translation of a translation. (Greek to Latin to English).
What do you consider *true faith* and how do you determine if you have it?
For the most part....
“Is the Orthodox one the only true one since it understands and prays in Greek?”
In Greece it is, it being the state church. Proselyting for any other religion can bring arrest and jail.
All in the name of Christ though, you see.
bb: No, there is no mention of dunking in water at all. Jesus never baptized anybody but his disciples did and they were nowhere around, however, in this passage Jesus is speaking to a Samaritan woman, they were at the well and he definitely spoke about drinking this water he would give.
But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
Which is it now, I wonder? Is it drinking water that brings life or drinking blood?
Perhaps some Catholic can enlighten us to this apparent contradiction of the very words of Jesus Himself?
Yes, you rephrase what I was saying correctly. If you don't believe the Church in her historical knowledge, why do you believe the Gospel?
If you are asking me rather than the person you quote, i have already answered it this vain argument, only to see it repeated. To reiterate, your premise is that since Rome gave us the Bible and its gospel, then we are bound to believe her interpretation of history However, this assertion is fallacious on different levels, but the short version is that Rome's basis for her formulaic (scope and content-based) assuredly infallible magisterium (AIM), -by which she declares her interpretation of history, tradition and Scripture to be infallible - is herself, while the only assuredly infallible objective authority are the Scriptures, which reproves her. We are no more bound to implicitly accept whatever Rome declare must be, than the Lord and disciples had to accept binding teachings of the Jewish magisterium, but should be like the noble Berean and examine it in the light of the assuredly infallible word. And my next to last post to you dealt with the interpretative necessity both Roman Catholics and Protestants must deal with.
1. Historical lineage does not make one an authentic Jew, spiritually speaking, as certain Jews presumed it did, (Mt. 3:9; Jn. 8:39,44; and their office required it), or a true Christian or church. Rather it is manifest Scriptural faith and its fruits which does. (Rm. 2:28,29; Heb. 6:9; 1Thes. 1:4) As God could have raised up from stones children to Abraham, so he can build His church using stones which realize their destitute helpless condition, unable to escape Hell or merit heaven by their work, but have essential Abrahamic faith in the Lord Jesus to save them by His blood and righteousness. (Acts 8:36-39; 1Pet. 2:5,6)
2. Even if Rome could lay claim to being the same church of the 4th century, with her infallible doctrines actually having unanimous consent of the fathers as she alleges they do, this would not make her an assuredly infallible interpreter of Scripture. For unlike the church at Rome, the law was explicitly stated to have been committed to the Jews, (Rm. 3:2; 9:4) and yet they were manifestly not assuredly infallible in faith and morals. (Mk. 7:6-13; Rm. 10:2,3)
3. The reproof of Jesus of the Jewish magisterium while it yet sat in Moses seat, (Mt. 23:2) by Scripture, and His own statements as to the basis for His authority (see 5729) not only disallows the premise that historical lineage and stewardship of Scripture and the faith confers an AIM (assuredly infallible magisterium), but it evidences Scripture being the supreme transcendent assuredly infallible objective authority, which Scripture affirms it is. (2Tim. 3:16)
4. The Holy Spirit commends lovers of truth who examined the teaching of the very apostles by the Scriptures to ascertain their veracity, (Acts 17:11) and to which Jesus and the apostles and preachers abundantly appealed to, (Mt. 22; Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 17:2; 18:28; 28:23, etc.) as well as miracles and their testimony. (2Cor. 6:1-10; 12:1-12; Rm. 15:19, etc.)
5. The authenticity of Rome's AIM is based upon her own declaration that she is assuredly infallible, whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly declared (content and scope-based) formula.
6. While the teaching magisterium was crucial in the O.T. and now still is (and those who hold to SS affirm it is), the faith was not preserved due to an AIM, and writings were correctly recognized as being Scripture without one. As regards the former, God raised up prophets who reproved the magisterium as needed, and a remnant of faithful was preserved, while the authenticity of a prophet was not necessarily established by formal succession, but by conformity to that which was written, and Divine attestation, with speaking falsely in the name of the Lord being a capital offense. (Dt. 18:20; Jer. 20:1-6; 28:1-17)
As concerns Scripture, the Divinely inspired writings were essentially progressively recognized as such due to their qualities and effects, and attestation by men who had the same because of faith in them. Making official lists is valid, but such are not responsible for the authority for Scriptural writings, nor for their enduring popularity.
7. Even if formal historical linkage via an unbroken succession of magistrates were an essential basis for the magisterial office, unlike under the Old Testament, then Rome has fallen short, as its line includes immoral, impenitent Popes (including before they were enthroned) who would not qualify as Christians and church members, let alone bishops, and thus spiritually such did not belong to any church, but would be excluded or cast out of a valid N.T. church. (1Cor. 5:11-13)
Compiling the various writings of Scripture into one convenient, easily accessed document, while an admirable endeavor indeed, does not equate to the Roman Catholic church *writing* the Bible.
The entirety of the OT was recognized as Scripture long before the RCC came along. Jesus Himself quoted from it and referred to it as Scripture.
The Catholic church can make NO claim whatsoever of the authorship of the majority of the Bible.
And the argument that the Catholic church uses that it claims that all the writers of the NT were Catholics, therefore the Catholic church *wrote* the Bible is just ludicrous. Maybe Catholics can be duped into believing that line of *reasoning* (for lack of a better term) but not anyone who can think for themselves. Claiming that the writers of Scripture were by default Catholics is only a tactic used to justify the Catholic church's power grab and put its claimed authority in spiritual matters beyond contention.
Since there is precious little in the NT that even begins to resemble what the Catholic church is today and has been for most of history, that claim is empty. The Catholic church needs to massively twist precious few verses of Scripture to support itself, something which should be an immediate red flag to the veracity of their claims.
The writers of the NT made no claim to Catholicism or any allegiance to any denomination. And no one can legitimately claim ownership of them as their own after the fact.
***The Catholic church can make NO claim whatsoever of the authorship of the majority of the Bible.***
Oh but that doesn’t stop them from trying, now does it?
No, it certainly doesn’t.
Even when Scripture itself says otherwise.
But they never let that stop them before.
I'm sorry. Please replace all instances where I said comfortable with confident. I really don't see how that chances what I said.
On the other hand, many people (me, for instance) have a deep, intuitive sense that what they have been told all their lives needs to be confirmed so that they are not just comfortable, but confident in what they believe
Usually when something is confirmed it is no longer just believed but known. I can say that I believe (statistically) that there is a very good chance the sun will come up tomorrow, but I don't know that for a fact. In short, I hope I am right, but I can't be one hundred percent confident. What is your percentage and how do you determine that? How much does one have to believe to walk on water?
let’s try this again: chnages=changes... ;) You know what I meant.
Well, here's Genesis 3:15 from the Septuagint. Which pronoun do you mean? There's no "he" or "she" there, mm, at least in the Greek.
καὶ ἔχθραν θήσω ἀνὰ μέσον σου καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τῆς γυναικὸς καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σπέρματός σου καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτῆς αὐτός σου τηρήσει κεφαλήν καὶ σὺ τηρήσεις αὐτοῦ πτέρναν "
"Or perhaps 2 Corinthians 7:10 where the Catholic Bible mistranslates the word "metanoian" as *penance* instead of the correct *repentance*?"
If it says "penance", then you are correct. The translation is wrong. It means repentance, but in the sense of a fundamental change in the way one thinks from a bad way to a good way.
What do you consider *true faith* and how do you determine if you have it?"
Orthodox Christianity, of course. As for determining if I have it, well, for me it's sort of genetic. I guess I just "know" it. I can see it in others when they demonstrate an Orthodox phronema in the way the live their lives and an Orthodox praxis in the way they worship. There may be others. I don't know.
Which is it now, I wonder? Is it drinking water that brings life or drinking blood?
"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
Looks like John couldn't make up his mind...or was it really John?
Assuming we have any confidence at all that the Gospels and Epistles we have as the canon of the NT are speaking to us of real event, (I do by the way)then it's because we have the nearest thing to what the writers actually wrote instead of made up nonsense from the 19th and 20th Protestant West written to advance a 500 year old heretical agenda.
You have no manuscripts that are not available to everyone else so “ the nearest thing to what the writers actually wrote” is available to all translators.
If you wish to argue with the how of translation that’s another matter but speaking Greek provides you with no special theological insight on the meaning of the Scriptures.
Muslims could ask the same thing about their theology. One's belief in something doesn't render it either true or false. The veracity or falsity of something is not determined by one's belief either way, no matter how confident or comfortable one may be with it.
If God exists, does our own failures and shortcomings in description of Him, negate Him?
Does a novel prove that the story is true?