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

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

Expand Messages
  • gmw
    ... Thank you for your kind words, Barry. ... Of course you disagree, but why? ... Peter s office was Apostle, and yes, there is inherent in such an office
    Message 1 of 32 , Oct 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Barry Ferguson
      <gogon789@y...> wrote:

      > 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.

      Thank you for your kind words, Barry.

      > I disagree, however, that this is what Paul meant when he wrote
      > this letter with regard to the man of sin.

      Of course you disagree, but why?

      > 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.

      Peter's office was Apostle, and yes, there is inherent in such an
      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 more
      > chaos and confusion and division, and God is not the author
      >of confusion.

      Continual splintering, confusion, chaos, and division is very sad and
      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.
      See
      http://truecovenanter.com/calvin/calvin_best_method_of_obtaining_conco
      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 Biblical
      > text.

      Actually, 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
      it anyway.

      > 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?

      We have an AV, and we should use it until a proper revision is done,
      and properly approved for us in worship.

      > What is the standard Biblical text that is authoritative for all
      > Protestants who believe that Scripture alone is the sole authority?

      See above. But I'll tell you what. Hand me the Bible you're using
      and I'll show you from that why Rome is wrong.

      > I thought I was reading God's Word.

      You were, Barry. You were.

      gmw.
    • Barry Ferguson
      Dan: Blessings to your and your loved ones as well. Barry ... I don t know. I m still a novice in Greek and Hebrew. Ask me again in about 30 years. Right
      Message 32 of 32 , Oct 8, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        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
        have studied. 

        >       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,

        Riley





        Do you Yahoo!?
        Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.