Re: [Covenanted Reformation] The Pope is very Antichrist.
- --- In email@example.com, Barry Ferguson
> I understand and respect your views, they are clear and coherent,Thank you for your kind words, Barry.
> 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 wroteOf course you disagree, but why?
> this letter with regard to the man of sin.
> I also believe that there is a very strong historic precedentPeter's office was Apostle, and yes, there is inherent in such an
> 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.
office such things as leadership, and some level of primacy. But the
office of Apostle is extraordinary, and not ordinary, and according
to the commandment Christ, Peter was not given primacy over the other
Apostles, Matthew 20:25-27, as is evidenced by the fact that Peter
never took upon himself any such a title as Pope, or Primary See, or
any other such title, but only "an elder" and "an Apostle," 1 Peter
1:1; 5:1-4, and by the fact that he did not hold primacy over James
or Paul, but submitted to them both as James presided over the
Jerusalem ,Acts 15:13ff, and as Paul rebuked Peter, though both Peter
and John "appeared to be pillars," 2:9, 11. But let us suppose that
the Peter was actually not as Scripture portrays him, but more like
what you say he was, some kind of Pope. What Scriptural evidence is
there that this primacy is something to be passed on from Peter to
someone else, and so on and so forth down through the ages?
> leadership, not lordship.I'll try to remember that next time I see him sitting on his throne,
in his ridiculous pompous hat, as someone bows to him kissing his
ring and addressing him as the Holy Father.
>God's judgements are corrective, not punitive.God's judgments are sometimes corrective, and not punitive. But
please explain how the judgment of Revelation 18 is merely
corrective, and not punitive.
> Continual splintering through the Protestant mode just creates moreContinual splintering, confusion, chaos, and division is very sad and
> chaos and confusion and division, and God is not the author
sinful, and is a sign of judgment, I believe. But it is NOT
Protestantism that is causing it, but the departing from
Protestantism that causes it. From the beginning of the Reformation,
the Reformed Churches sought unity in the faith, which explains why
the Churches in the Protestant nations framed Confessions of Faith.
Where there were differences, many sought to rectify the situation.
rd.html for an example of such an attempt in regards the varying
views of the Lord's Supper.
As for Presbyterians, the purpose of the Solemn League and Covenant,
and of the Westminster Standards, was to unite Protestants under a
common Confession, system of Catechizing, and Form of Church
Government. We Covenanters hope that one day those churches that
descended from that old Presbyterian vision would return, and that
true unity in the truth under Christ our head (and not under the
Popish usurper). We seek unity, but that unity must be in the truth
or it is no true unity.
> The people in this forum can't even agree on an authorized BiblicalActually, Barry, I've not seen anyone disagreeing over the actual
text. The arguments have been more over the questionable character
of some of the folks involved in the revision texts, and for the
right reasons to prefer the AV vs. wrong reasons. That's how I see
> And if the Bible is our only source of authority, then what goodWe have an AV, and we should use it until a proper revision is done,
> does it do if we can't get an "authorized" version that is
> commonly agreed on among warring Protestant factions?
and properly approved for us in worship.
> What is the standard Biblical text that is authoritative for allSee above. But I'll tell you what. Hand me the Bible you're using
> Protestants who believe that Scripture alone is the sole authority?
and I'll show you from that why Rome is wrong.
> I thought I was reading God's Word.You were, Barry. You were.
- Dan:Blessings to your and your loved ones as well.Barry
Dan Fraas <fraasrd@...> wrote:
> Are there any errors in the K.J.V.?
I don't know. I'm still a novice in Greek and Hebrew. Ask me again
in about 30 years. Right now I find the KJV to be the most accurate
and most skillful translation among all English translations which I
> Calvin and King James are both first rate, but are there no
contemporary translations or commentaries you can safely recommend?
The New King James Version is not bad. I'm not as well-read in newer
commentaries compared to the older stuff. I hear that James M. Boice
has some good stuff.
Blessings in Christ,
Do you Yahoo!?
Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.