Re: [Covenanted Reformation] The Pope is very Antichrist.
- 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@...> 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
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
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Barry Ferguson
> 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,
> 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
> 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?
> gmw <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:
> --- In email@example.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
> could be resisting God's leadership - or His Spirit - in your own
> 1. Tis not merely my theory, but the dying testimony of countless
> martyrs, and the universal position of Protestants up until very
> 2. My theory makes sense if the Bishop of Rome is not in
> 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
> 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
> and usurps the position and perogatives of Christ, is the Pope of
> > he opposed Peter to his face and in doing so he did not call
> > 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
> when Peter was not Antichrist. The term certainly does apply to
> Pope of Rome, however.
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
- 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.