Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In Christ Alone (Happy reformation day) ^ | 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 ... 7,241-7,2607,261-7,2807,281-7,300 ... 7,341-7,356 next last
To: Dr. Eckleburg; terycarl
Let's see -- you Dr. Eck said to discern the sheep from the goats by the fruit of their lives.

Now, let's see how many pastors have bad fruit?

How do you reckon with Prof. Philip Jenkins (a Protestant and a researcher on paedophiles) who in his book Pedophiles and Priests writes that "The most-quoted survey of sexual problems among Protestant clergy states that some ten percent are involved in sexual misconduct of some kind, and that 'about two or three percent' are pedophiles, a rate equal or higher than that suggested for Catholic priests." (page 50-51)
7,261 posted on 02/28/2011 1:27:50 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 7227 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; Quix; caww; boatbums; Gamecock
Interesting, Eck -- does it mean that the OPC and the PCA both, as Gamecock stated believe that

>This goes to what the Reformers taught; that is the "enthusiasts" or what we call todayPentecostals, are really no different from the Roman Catholics?

Interesting -- so you don't consider the Pentecostals to be valid Protestants in your opinion?

see Quix -- the Presbyterians are just using you guys as cannon fodder while they despise the Pentecostals (in fact all non-Presbyterians) as damnable heretics

7,262 posted on 02/28/2011 1:31:26 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 7228 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; Quix
Dr. Eck -- you need to agree with Quix who says about Jesse Duplantis He’s like Jesus—loves everyone potentially God’s kid . --> do you disagree with him? Come on, say again the OPC truth that the OrthoPresbyterianCult believes that non-Orthod Presbyterian Protestants (Pentecostals, Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists etc) are not Christian
7,263 posted on 02/28/2011 1:33:50 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 7232 | View Replies]

To: Quix; Alex Murphy

Nice one quix — evidently you don’t realise that a Presbyterian C of American poster also despises pentecostals just as much as the OPCer does

7,264 posted on 02/28/2011 1:35:10 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 7235 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
souls doing works of a believer in order to become a believer

I’d say, worker doing works of the worker in order to become also a believer. Faith is a good thing but faith without works is dead.

It is in consequence of our justification, that our good deeds become rewardable

But Jesus never said that. He simply says, do this and you are justified, don’t do this and you are not justified. You seem to understand that it is works that counts, not faith alone and then you turn around and construct this faith-alone nonsense out of whole cloth.

a kind of faith that works obedience

First, no. It is a kind of faith that works love. God doesn’t ask us to obey Him, He asks us to Love Him. Second, as your Catholic personality understands, since faith must work something to procure salvation, we are not saved by faith alone.

Cornelius did good works which were preparatory to conversion

They were already conversion in progress.

Westminster Confession of Faith: Chapter 16: Of Good Works These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith [c]: and by them believers manifest their thankfulness [d], strengthen their assurance [e], edify their brethren [f], adorn the profession of the Gospel [g], stop the mouths of the adversaries [h], and glorify God [i], whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto [k], that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.

This is legalistic trickery. The good part is that rightly this confession separates good works from works in general, and certainly from works done for a temporal reward or under a legal obligation, juist as the Gospel does. It is also not incorrect to say that good works are fruits and evidences of faith. So that chapter 16 is by itself a passing grade, maybe a C. Not higher than that, because the idea that God who knows our hearts nevertheless for some reason needs evidences and fruits is silly. If I give my shirt to another, that is not because God needs evidence of faith but because that slob needs a shirt.

But the Westminster confession of “faith” also says in Ch. 11

I. Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies;[1] not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them,[2] they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.[3] II. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification:[4] yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.[5]
This is counterscriptural garbage. The reference to the most odious part, [2] is Romans 4, “to him that worketh not”, a passage dealing with the fact that the justification of Abraham once in his life was advanced by a pure faith before being circumcised.

most understand Rome as disallowing being confident you are saved in their present tense

Most simply don’t understand very much about “Rome”. One should indeed be confident that the motherly cares of the Catholic Church will lead him to salvation assuredly. But that confidence is that of a builder who has the materials, the tools and the skill to build; it is not the stupid and sinful false confidence that a once-saved-always-saved Protestant has, who once decided he is an accomplished piece of work.

you think "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" (Acts 10:47) refers to opposition by Simon?

I think that the question is rhetorical but this turn of a phrase is only possible if the water was to be either given or not given for that purpose; this suggests not a public space but a water in a private possession, most naturally, a bucket or some other vessel.

Annalex: the Eucharist does not make one born again [the Baptism does]

Daniel: Yes, that is clear, and which means that Jn. 6:53 cannot refer to the Eucharist, as having life has already been accomplished by believing the word

Baptism begins a Christian life, the Eucharist sustains it. Both are necessary in order to obtain life eternal.

only once in all the epistles to the churches on doing that is the Lord's supper mentioned, and which was to correct a problem with the manner of doing so

This is true of most Pauline Epistles, -- they are written to correct problems, not to teach comprehensive theology. Now, why is it that the fact that the Eucharist is mentioned in every gospel, -- the actual Eucharist being offered at the Last Supper in the synoptic, and its nature discussed at length in John’s – is not enough unless several epistles also discuss it? Hermeneutics replacing the Bible again?

Annalex: If the “food indeed” of John 6 was somehow “food metaphorical” why did the disciples have to leave? Jesus wanted to fool them?

Daniel: You are reading this into the text. They did not have to leave, but left for the same reason that Nicodemus supposed he had to be physically born again

The difference is that with Nicodemus, Jesus explains that the birth of the spirit is not the same as birth of the water. In the case of the Jews in John 6, Jesus explains that indeed He would give them His flesh to eat and they leave. If Jesus meant faith when He said “food”, He could have explained himself better like He did with Nicodemus, but He never softened his “food indeed”. That is because he meant it – He was, you know, Catholic.

As for 1Cor. 11, Paul's words are not the “as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, you consume Jesus body and blood, soul and divinity,” which you read into words such as “drinking” a cup, but “ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.”

The Eucharist certainly shows the Lord’s death, but it also is the Body of Christ as is clear from 1 Cor 11:29.

i do not think the early church doubted such things as whether Moses authored most of the Pentateuch, or if Jonah was really swallowed by a fish, by which things Rome's approved scholarly works typically deny

Matter of fact, you can find plenty of allegorical explanations in the Holy Fathers of the Church alongside literal ones. In today’s gospel, for example, Venerable Bede explains:

under the name of camel, He wished Himself to he understood, because He bore the burden of our weakness; and by the needle, He understands the prickings, that is, the pains of His Passion. By the eye of a needle, therefore, He means the straits of His Passion (Feb. 28)

I know, it is not the same as explaining away Jonas’ whale, but this illustrates the style of so-called “mystical” explanations common among the fathers. The idea that the Bible has multiple meanings for the same passage is very patristic and very Catholic.

the surety of the claim that Scripture and history renders Rome to be the 1st century church is based upon her claim that her claim is infallible truth

It is based on the fact that both the acts of the Early Church and the doctrines given in the New Testament all match the Catholic Church today with differences being matter of elaboration and style.

7,265 posted on 02/28/2011 5:20:50 PM PST by annalex (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7147 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
when Mt 1:24 Mk 8:39
before the event knew her not shall not taste death
event she brought forth her firstborn son they see the kingdom of God coming in power
after Joseph knows Mary carnally? they die?

7,266 posted on 02/28/2011 6:32:10 PM PST by annalex (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7150 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
The restriction on eating blood was based upon life being in the blood

If from that you conclude that God told the Jews not to kill animals, you are wrong. They killed them all right.

7,267 posted on 02/28/2011 6:34:45 PM PST by annalex (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7153 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

The Church.

7,268 posted on 02/28/2011 6:35:29 PM PST by annalex (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7154 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change; metmom
let’s see if by “works” we mean the same thing. I understand the term to indicate some sort of action or visible evidence of one’s faith as Paul and James described

The "good works" are works of self-denial examples of which are given in Matthew 25:35-36.

7,269 posted on 02/28/2011 6:37:52 PM PST by annalex (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7160 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; count-your-change
Yes, we did have this discussion many times.

do you mean to imply that your "works" do not include refraining from the "thou shalt nots"?

One certainly has to obey the shalt nots of the Bible in order to be saved, but merely obeying them does not save one, as the Sermon on the Mount explain. One has, in addition, to deny self and give his all to Christ, and then he will be saved:

[17] And when he was gone forth into the way, a certain man running up and kneeling before him, asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may receive life everlasting? [18] And Jesus said to him, Why callest thou me good? None is good but one, that is God. [19] Thou knowest the commandments: Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, bear not false witness, do no fraud, honour thy father and mother. [20] But he answering, said to him: Master, all these things I have observed from my youth. [21] And Jesus looking on him, loved him, and said to him: One thing is wanting unto thee: go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me. [22] Who being struck sad at that saying, went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. [23] And Jesus looking round about, saith to his disciples: How hardly shall they that have riches, enter into the kingdom of God! [24] And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus again answering, saith to them: Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches, to enter into the kingdom of God? [25] It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. [26] Who wondered the more, saying among themselves: Who then can be saved? [27] And Jesus looking on them, saith: With men it is impossible; but not with God: for all things are possible with God.

[28] And Peter began to say unto him: Behold, we have left all things, and have followed thee. [29] Jesus answering, said: Amen I say to you, there is no man who hath left house or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, [30] Who shall not receive an hundred times as much, now in this time; houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions: and in the world to come life everlasting.

(Mark 10)

7,270 posted on 02/28/2011 6:43:03 PM PST by annalex (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7161 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; metmom
[regarding Eph 2:8-10] grace THROUGH faith not by works

It says there that grace is not of works.

You conclude because it doesn't describe what those works are you can then assume it excludes your "works of love".

No, Eph 2:8-10 does not exclude any works, and I never said it does. It says that grace is not a result of any works whatsoever. It helps to understand the argument you are attempting to respond to.

Yet there are other verses such as Titus 3:5

Titus 3:5-8 follows the same pattern as Eph 2:8-10:

[5] Not by the works of justice, which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost; [6] Whom he hath poured forth upon us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour: [7] That, being justified by his grace, we may be heirs, according to hope of life everlasting. [8] It is a faithful saying: and these things I will have thee affirm constantly: that they, who believe in God, may be careful to excel in good works.

The grace that alone saves us is not a result of our works, but good works are necessary for salvation.

7,271 posted on 02/28/2011 6:50:51 PM PST by annalex (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7162 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
Catholic is a denomination of Christianity

No it is not. Denominations are abhorrent to God who did not want any:

That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us (John 17:21)

The Catholic Church is not a denomination. Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians (all 100 of them) are denominations, and they are the ugly product of the so-called Reformation. The Church is simply the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church that Christ founded.

7,272 posted on 02/28/2011 6:55:43 PM PST by annalex (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7163 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Not found anywhere in God’s word. You live in fear

with fear and trembling work out your salvation. (Philippians 2:12)

It is not a bad idea to familiarize yourself with the scripture before telling me what is and what is not in it.

7,273 posted on 02/28/2011 6:59:24 PM PST by annalex (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7175 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; OLD REGGIE; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom; RnMomof7; Gamecock; Alex Murphy
Ratzinger is a false bishop of Rome because he is not elected by the congregation

"Doctor", he was consecrated bishop and elected Pope according to the process established to that end by the Church where he is a bishop.

7,274 posted on 02/28/2011 7:02:40 PM PST by annalex (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7185 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name; Quix
Google is your friend:

Athanasius of Alexandria (Greek: Ἀθανάσιος, Athanásios) (c. 293 – 2 May 373), also given the titles Athanasius the Great, Pope Athanasius I of Alexandria, and Athanasius the Apostolic, was a Christian theologian, bishop of Alexandria, Church Father, and a noted Egyptian leader of the fourth century. He is best remembered for his role in the conflict with Arius and Arianism. At the First Council of Nicaea, Athanasius argued against Arius and his doctrine that Christ is of a distinct substance from the Father.[1]

Athanasius is counted as one of the four Great Doctors[2] in the Eastern Orthodox Christian tradition and is a Doctor of the Church in the Catholic Church. Athanasius is venerated as a Christian saint, whose feast day is 2 May in Western Christianity, 15 May in the Coptic Orthodox Church, and 18 January in the other Eastern Orthodox churches.


Athanasius was restored on at least five separate occasions, perhaps as many as seven. This gave rise to the expression "Athanasius contra mundum" or "Athanasius against the world". He spent his final years repairing all the damage done during the earlier years of violence, dissent, and exile, and returning to his writing and preaching undisturbed. On May 2. 373, having consecrated Peter II, one of his presbyters as his successor, Athanasius died quietly in his house.

Athanasius of Alexandria

7,275 posted on 02/28/2011 7:14:44 PM PST by annalex (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7186 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom; Dr. Eckleburg
it was a pastoral letter from one equal church to another [...] Clement had no direct authority over the church at Corinth.

Bishops to not write "pastoral" letters telling their fellow bishops what to do; it is a severe violation of the Canon Law.

7,276 posted on 02/28/2011 7:16:41 PM PST by annalex (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7189 | View Replies]

To: annalex


7,277 posted on 02/28/2011 7:18:55 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 7275 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy; metmom; daniel1212; Quix; 1000 silverlings; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums
Annalex: Read the Bible once in a while and you will become Catholic or maybe Orthodox.

Alex: Buit if you read it every day, you'll stay Protestant.

Go ahead, read it every day, you'll end up Catholic faster. I do. If your point is that not enough Catholics know their own Bible, you are absolutely correct.

7,278 posted on 02/28/2011 7:19:19 PM PST by annalex (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7197 | View Replies]

To: annalex
"Doctor", he was consecrated bishop and elected Pope according to the process established to that end by the Church where he is a bishop.

He also earned a real doctorate in theology in 1953. The website says: In 1953 he obtained his doctorate in theology with a thesis entitled "People and House of God in St Augustine’s Doctrine of the Church".

God has given us a steward who knows Augustine and therefore is able to protect God's people against Calvinism and all those who would pervert Augustine's writings.

7,279 posted on 02/28/2011 7:34:46 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 7274 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Unlike you, I’m quite familiar with what is and isn’t in the scriptures because I actually read them.

7,280 posted on 02/28/2011 7:48:35 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Going 'EGYPT' - 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7273 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 7,241-7,2607,261-7,2807,281-7,300 ... 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
Topics · Post Article

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