Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

11343Re: [Covenanted Reformation] The Pope is very Antichrist.

Expand Messages
  • Barry Ferguson
    Oct 5, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Dan:
       
          
       
       
           Saturday night I re-read Calvin's self defense in Calvin vs. (Cardinal) Sadoleto.
       
           He (Calvin) is very compelling and persuasive - and incredibly passionate in a cool sort of way.
       
           Like Ben Hogan, who systematically and singlehandedly nearly dismantled Oakland Hills Golf and Country Club ...
       
           He certainly brought it down to its knees (:)
       
          
       
       
       
           I like the King James as well, but I also found the R.S.V. easier to read at times.
       
           Are there any errors in the K.J.V.?
       
          
       
            Calvin and King James are both first rate, but are there no contemporary translations or commentaries you can safely recommend?
           
          
       
       
             Barry
           
          

      Dan Fraas <fraasrd@...> wrote:

      Barry: 

      Do you recommend a Bible translation and commentary that represents
      the very best in scholarship that would command the respect of the
      majority of thoughtful people in this holy catholic and apostolic
      Christian forum?

      Riley: Sure.  For a Bible translation I'd recommend the King James
      Version.  For a commentary I'd recommend Calvin's commentaries. 
      These have been most helpful to me.

      God bless,

      Riley



      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Barry Ferguson
      <gogon789@y...> wrote:
      > Dan:


      >      Touche.

      >     

      >      But I didn't say absolute coherency, I said a certain
      coherency, and I didn't call myself a flaming apologist for the
      church of Rome.   I was raised in a Protestant country in a
      Protestant church in the sixties - so I have strong individualist,
      Lutheran, Presbyterian, American, democratic, sympathies - and have
      wrestled with and given vent to marked hedonistic and bohemian
      tendencies all my life in a very zestful "pursuit of happiness."  (:).

      >      "Sin when its finished is death."


      >      It's hard to be unbiased and impartial in trying to get to the
      bottom of things, and the little I knew that was dangerous grew into
      a little more that I knew that was confusing.

      >       Maybe I threw my hands up in surrender to Rome too early, but
      at the time I was fighting off a great deal of chaos and
      fragmentation.

      >      I am still thinking and praying my way through to the light of
      day and the light at the end of my tunnel.

      >      Meanwhile, there is a great deal of clarity and coherency in
      the Catechism of the Catholic Church - it has helped me to understand
      the creeds better and has fostered in me a certain calm in reflecting
      on, and seeking to understand, the Catholic faith.

      >       I believe even Pat Robertson and Billy Grahm gave it positive
      reviews.


      >       I also have a copy of Luther's Small and Large Catechisms and
      the confessions and catechisms of the church I was raised in - and I
      think these through to the best of my ability and have found much
      that is helpful in all of this.
      >      

      >       Do you recommend a Bible translation and commentary that
      represents the very best in scholarship that would command the
      respect of the majority of thoughtful people in this holy catholic
      and apostolic Christian forum?

      >       Do you dare?
      >       

      >       Barry

      >     
      >
      > Dan Fraas <fraasrd@y...> wrote:
      > "Rome has at least going for it a certain coherency among its
      people,
      > its clergy, its teaching office and its leader, and it has historic
      > cohesion, ..."
      >
      > It does?  Haven't you seen the war going on between rival factions
      in
      > the Roman Catholic Church on theology, liturgy, charismatic gifts,
      > Mariology, and the very definition of catholicity?  It's not
      coherent
      > at all.
      >
      > Riley
      >
      > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Barry Ferguson
      > <gogon789@y...> wrote:
      > > gmw:
      > > 
      > >      I understand and respect your views, they are clear and
      > coherent, and they make sense, and can be reasonably held in
      > principle and in good conscience, as you so ably do.
      > > 
      > >      I disagree, however, that this is what Paul meant when he
      > wrote this letter with regard to the man of sin.
      > > 
      > >      I also believe that there is a very strong historic
      precedent
      > drawn by many fathers of the church that gives Peter a certain
      office
      > and a charism in terms of leadership and primacy, and this was
      > historically found in the chair of Rome.  This can be scripturally
      > justified, and the interpretation that applies to Peter's
      confession
      > also applies to Peter's office.
      > > 
      > >      But this office was not meant in the autocratic way that it
      > came to be understood in the middle ages, and that autocracy was
      > judged by God, clearly, by way of the events that led up to the
      > schism with the east and subsequently followed in the
      Reformation.  
      > Apostolic authority is distributed throughout the episcopacy as
      well
      > as in the "sense of the faithful" and they all work upon each
      other -
      > and a leadership role for one bishop ensures just that -
      leadership,
      > not lordship. 
      > > 
      > >      God's judgements are corrective, not punitive.   History is
      > not frozen back in the sixteenth century.
      > >
      > >       Continual splintering through the Protestant mode just
      > creates more chaos and confusion and division, and God is not the
      > author of confusion.
      > > 
      > >      The people in this forum can't even agree on an authorized
      > Biblical text.   And if the Bible is our only source of authority,
      > then what good does it do if we can't get an "authorized" version
      > that is commonly agreed on among warring Protestant factions?
      > > What is the standard Biblical text that is authoritative for all
      > Protestants who believe that Scripture alone is the sole authority?
      > > 
      > >      Can you tell me that without starting a huge controversy,
      > either in this forum or elsewhere in the Protestant world?
      > > 
      > >      Rome has at least going for it a certain coherency among its
      > people, its clergy, its teaching office and its leader, and it has
      > historic cohesion, despite the tragedy that created both major
      > schisms.  The Modern Catechism of the Catholic Church befits the
      > teaching office of an ancient historic Christian Church.  It is
      rich
      > in patristic testimony and conveys sound interpretation according
      to
      > what the church has believed consistently always and everywhere
      > throughout antiquity.  
      > > 
      > >      Am I a staunch and flaming apologist for the Roman Catholic
      > Church?   I am not.   But the more I see arguments that will never
      be
      > resolved over Bibles that are apparentlly illigitimate the more
      > confused I become.   I am not a scholar.  I am a lay person.  I
      grew
      > up reading the Revised Standard Bible - that's what was given to me
      > in ninth grade confirmation class.   I did not know I was reading
      > some sinister document subtly altered by God's hissing arch-
      rival.  
      > I thought I was reading God's Word.
      > >     
      > > 
      > >       The Protestant "priesthood" is composed of its so-called
      > scholars, and they can't agree on anything.
      > > 
      > >       Can they?
      > > 
      > >       So who do we believe - and whose leadership do we follow?  
      > > 
      > > 
      > >       Barry
      > >
      > > gmw <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:
      > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Barry Ferguson
      > > <gogon789@y...> wrote:
      > > > gmw:
      > > >      Your theory makes sense if the Bishop of Rome is not in
      > > subjection to the Spirit and the Word of God in obedience to
      > > Christ.    If he is, however, and he is who he thinks he is, then
      > you
      > > could be resisting God's leadership - or His Spirit - in your own
      > > life.
      > > > 
      > >
      > > 1. Tis not merely my theory, but the dying testimony of countless
      > > martyrs, and the universal position of Protestants up until very
      > > recently.
      > >
      > > 2.  My theory makes sense if the Bishop of Rome is not in
      > subjection
      > > to the Spirit and the Word of God in obedience to Christ.  But
      the
      > > Bishop of Rome is not in subjection to the Spirit and the Word of
      > God
      > > in obedience to Christ.  Therefore my theory makes sense.  ;)
      > >
      > > >      Your scripture about the "man of sin" is misapplied to the
      > > > Bishop of Rome,
      > >
      > > No no, and again no.  The man of sin that sits himself in the
      > church
      > > and usurps the position and perogatives of Christ, is the Pope of
      > > Rome.
      > >
      > > > he opposed Peter to his face and in doing so he did not call
      > Peter
      > > > the anti-Christ,
      > >
      > > This is correct, obviously because Peter did not claim for
      himself
      > > the title or position of Pope, neither was it given to him by
      > > Christ.  It would therefore be very silly to call
      > Peter "Antichrist"
      > > when Peter was not Antichrist.  The term certainly does apply to
      > the
      > > Pope of Rome, however.
      > >
      > > gmw.
      > >
      > >
      > > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
      > >
      > >
      > > ---------------------------------
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >    To visit your group on the web, go to:
      > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/covenantedreformationclub/
      > >  
      > >    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > > covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > >  
      > >    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      > Service.
      > >
      > >
      > > __________________________________________________
      > > Do You Yahoo!?
      > > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      > > http://mail.yahoo.com
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
      >
      >
      > ---------------------------------
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >    To visit your group on the web, go to:
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/covenantedreformationclub/
      >  
      >    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >  
      >    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      Service.
      >
      >
      >            
      > ---------------------------------
      > Do you Yahoo!?
      > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!




      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail.yahoo.com

    • Show all 32 messages in this topic