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
And, finally, do you say, credo: in One Holy and Apostolic Church?
If so, what does it mean to you? What did it mean when it was decided in Council?
As a matter of curiosity, cyc, do you believe in Original Sin and if so, how do you and/or your ecclesial group define it?
Where is the spin? I said "you have to believe Christ in order to be saved by Christ" The verse said ""That whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life." What did I spin?
I did add "So you have, among other things, [to] do what He says and that includes the good works that He teaches". Do you disagree with this conclusion? Apparently yes, since you repeat the Faith Alone slogan. So where do you disagree, exactly? That he does not say that we ought to to good works? Or that believing Him does not necessitate believing that part of His teaching? Or that believing Him does not mean believing what He says at all?
Please explain yourself.
Also, the reader who thinks that my accusation of spin is unfounded is invited to review post 6,409, where the doing of good works is explained as a naturally occuring condition.
St. Peter, the first pope of the Church did worse: he recommended that Jesus abandon His purpose of the Cross. The Church is run by humans. Humans err. The Church doesn't err is teaching of faith and morals coming from the Church as a single voice. Approving of torture is not a teaching of faith and morals, it is a historically practiced form of judicial inquiry.
If Protestant communities of faith think that they are inerrant Catholic Church, they should pose the same question to themselves. They approved of torture, of slavery, of Nazi militarism, and of homosexual "marriage" and abortion. Not all of them, but some. Go fugure.
And if they don't think that they are inerrant, they should re-read the description of the Church as by divine will without blemish in the Scripture, Ephesians 5:27.
Boatbums: [quotes canons 1366, 1367 without comment] 1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:
[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.
1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."
So, as you now plainly see, the sacrifice of the Mass is not a repetition, and not a performance by the priest. (If you are willing to say that Christ "performed" his sacrifice on the Cross, then I guess it is "performance" by Christ).
See here on Penance: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/01/words-mean-things-1.html
And as relates to 242 (which is missing the issue, which is how one is saved under grace) http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/01/just-trust-us-on-this-one-wink-wink.html
Indeed. Today, as the priest consecrates the Eucharist, we still refer to it in the neutral gender as of a thing, and of its elements as bread and wine. But we, unlike you, do not ignore the fact that bread and wine become, as Jesus declared (Matthew 26:26-28), His body and His blood at the same time.
Would you however, agree that Jesus was a sacrifice that He offered Himself to God? If so, what are you arguing about? If no, are you familiar with the following?
He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross (Philippians 2:8)
walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath delivered himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God (Ephesians 5:2)
I worked in an orthopedic office for several years and as long as the dressing was clean, we would leave it on a few days.
Then if the wounds are no longer bleeding, keep it open to the air as you rest around the house.
Apply a new lite dressing when going out, or if there is any more bleeding or drainage.
That was the sort of impression I had from my 9 yr marriage to an RN. LOL.
Will go ahead and soak in very warm salt water w iodine today and redress and likely leave on for 3-4 days. Very little seepage this morning from last night.
Much appreciate your input.
GOD HAS BEEN SO MERCIFUL in this incident.
I kinda messed up my plan to do pottery a week before classes. LOL. Sigh. The wages of ignoring His Still Small Voice cost!.
Is it not the teaching of the Catholic church that Protestants are heretics? Saying, “We’re no worse than the heretics” is choosing the wrong measuring rod, isn’t it?
“Approving of torture is not a teaching of faith and morals, it is a historically practiced form of judicial inquiry.”
Then the Pope led the church into error by giving his approval? Into a practice that violates the greatest principles Christ set forth?
But since it wasn’t a teaching of faith and morals...well, that’s different. At least it wasn’t as bad as those Protestant heretics.
To try to answer both questions at once, the most concise but hardly exhaustive, teaching is Paul’s statement at Romans 5:12-14. We are not held responsible for Adam’s actions but do inherit an inclination toward sin and all being “children” or descendants of Adam we all sin. (1 John 1:8-10)
It is this I believe. Does that satisfy your curiosity?
So, then, since you have not sold all that you have, and given it to the poor, you are thus not saved?
My hand slipped off the hand bar of a chain saw running at full throttle...
No permanent damage, but what an educational moment!
A friend once almost amputated his left leg while trying to use a skillsaw sitting on top of a fence he was building.
This tells it all! "St. Peter was succeeded by one Linus of whom we know nothing."
Your entire story of the early Papacy's is an example of retroactive history built on myth, legend, imagination, and fiction.
Clement was the Bishop of Rome with no "supremency" over the other Bishops. There was no such title as POPE!
Yes it does; did Christ inherit "an inclination toward sin" from his mother? If not, why not?
There’s precious little known for sure of the early (so called) Catholic church history.
It’s all hearsay and indirect evidence.
Nothing very substantial for the church which claims was founded by Jesus Himself. You’d think if that were the case, the Jesus established and appointed the RCC to be THE church on the earth through which salvation were to come, that He’d have done a better job of establishing it and preserving for posterity, it’s beginnings.
There’s far too much of a gap between the Acts of the Apostles and Constantine.
No. Because the sin nature comes through the Father and since Jesus father was God, He had no sin nature.
That's why it was not necessary for Mary to be sinless.
you don't know...
More proof that you are clueless...
You lack so much knowledge...
Anything else you missed? Wanna have a go at my ancestry as well?
Your problem is that you don't know His Word. You cite a Scripture and add what you think and it shows you don't know his whole Word and what HIS KINGDOM is all about.
First order of things: the Word is Jesus, not Scripture. John 1 is very clear. To Christians, anyway. If you are referring to Scripture, I think that I have shown my knowledge of it and it transcends so many of the sola crowd who are repeatedly confounded with quotes from Scripture from the Christian side.
More proof that you are clueless about HIS KINGDOM. FAITH!! YES FAITH!! "Without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God". The RCC is worst that I thought - walking by faith and not by sight is called gibberish.
That's not what you said. You posted about a FAITH walk. Meaningless gibberish masquerading as a name. Christians walk the VIA of Christ. That's Scripture, by the way. And by the way, where did I or any other Catholic claimed that it was possible to please God without faith? Don't attribute things to me that I have not posted.
You lack so much knowledge so you can't understand what I wrote. It's NOT about his deeds - it's about his heart.
All three Synoptic Gospels indicate that Jesus did not speak against his faith or that he kept the law; Jesus did say that he must do something else as well. Sorry, am I actually referring to the real words of Scripture again? Do you remember me posting references to all three passages and quoting Luke? Tsk, tsk, another fantasy shot down in flames.
"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."
Why are you quoting something here? If you refer to a Scriptual passage, I challenge you to post it verbatim and then we can see what it really means. Hint: it doesn't mean what I think you would have it mean here.
That's NOT what I said, are you reading minds?
It's what you posted. I don't care what you meant to 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.