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

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Of the Papacy and their merry men (Spurgeon)

Expand Messages
  • Brainiac
    Hi Barry, Well, I m afraid I disagree with how you assert tht Luther judged Erasmus., When he was refuting his free will diatribe, it was with the zealousness
    Message 1 of 19 , Oct 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Barry,
       
      Well,  I'm afraid I disagree with how you assert tht Luther judged Erasmus.,   When he was refuting his free will  diatribe,  it was with the zealousness that defending truth   commands,  but also not with unconcern as anyone who reads can see for Erasmus's soul or Spiritual welfare.  
       
      Too many namby pamby Christians today,   dont speak the truth in love,  cos it may cause offense.    There is a diffrence between speaking the truth in love and  being downright   uncharitable towards them.
       
      As for Erasmus  dying with peace in his heart.  Well not sure any of us are in a place to  confirm or refute that for sure.    But  he was clinging to the Romish Church towards  the end of his life,   I wonder if he still has "peace"? 
       
      ~Deejay
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2004 8:21 PM
      Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Of the Papacy and their merry men (Spurgeon)
       
            
       
             Luther judged More's friend Erasmus in the same damning way he judged all his opponents.   
       
             Erasmus died with peace in his heart and praise on his lips to Jesus Christ.
       
             
           
             Barry Ferguson
       
       

      covie1646 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
      Although Luther wrote that, Spurgeon's "Geese in the Hoods" was
      brought to my mind.  Has anyone read that book and have an opinion
      about it?

      Whit


      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Braniac"
      <brainiac@c...> wrote:
      > On account of this judgment fear and trembling might well  seize
      our great Spiritual prelates,  as they call themselves, the popes,
      cardinals, bishops, canons, priests and the  hole diabolical rabble
      of the anti-Christian crowd at Rome, and everywhere,  in their
      monasteries and brothels, if they were not altogether hardened and
      deliberately given to Satan body and soul.  They think and act as
      though they were  especially appointed to snatch to themselves
      everything that belongs to the poor church,  and in their own
      wantonness to consume, spend,  waste, squander, in dissipation,
      gambling and debauchery, in the most shameful and scandalous manner,
      whatever has been given for the maintenance of students, schools and
      the poor people.  They mock God and man,  2 Pet. 2, 13; yeah, they
      publicly murder innocent, pious people.
      >

      >
      > Yea, woe another and eternal woe, to them and to all who side with
      them.  For it had been better for them,  had they never been born, 
      as Christ says of Judas.  Therefore they ought rather to wish that
      their mother had drowned them in their first bath, nor that they had
      never come forth from the womb,  than that one of them should have
      become pope or cardinal or a popish priest.  For they are nothing
      else than merely desperate and select ones,  not highway robbers, but
      public country thieves, who take, not the goods of the mighty and the
      powerful that really have something, but of the poor and wretched, of
      the parish churches, schools and hospitals,  whose morsels are
      snatched from their teeth, and whose drink is torn from their mouths,
      so that they are unable to maintain life.
      >

      >
      > Therefore, let every man beware of the Pope, the bishops, and the
      priesthood, as he would beware of those have already been condemned
      alive to the abyss  of perdition.  Truly Paul did not prophesy in
      vain, 2 Tim 3, 1 that in the last days perilous times shall come.
      >

      >
      > From a sermon by Martin Luther from his third Postil.  Pages 387-389


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


      Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. BUG CHECKER AT LARGE!
      Checked by AVG Anti-Virus (http://www.grisoft.com).
      Version: 7.0.271 / Virus Database: 264.9.9 - Release Date: 01/10/2004
       

    • Barry Ferguson
      gmw: When I used to believe that every word proceeded from Luther s mouth was inspired by the Holy Ghost, I loved his ferocious language. I was a much younger
      Message 2 of 19 , Oct 2, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        gmw:
         
              When I used to believe that every word proceeded from Luther's mouth was inspired by the Holy Ghost, I loved his ferocious language.
         
               I was a much younger man and I was captivated by his language - and I was a bit of a "rager" myself.
         
               Did you read my entire post?
         
               If you want my opinion on what Luther was right about, I'll say he was right about the fact that God embraces sinners wholly in Christ crucified apart from works of righteousness which we have done; he was right about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist; he was right about retaining infant baptism; he was right about taking songs from drunkards and transforming them for the glory of Christ; he was right about composing hymns of his own for the common people; he was right about drawing up catechisms that reflected the apostolic faith as well as the pure, free, and unmerited favor of God our heavenly father; he was right about translating the scriptures into the language of the people; he was right about God's right hand and the mystery of Christ's "ubiquity"; he was right about "in, with and under" as an alternative interpretation to Rome that does justice to the Word of Christ, the mystery of the Eucharist and the reality of what appears before our eyes and senses.   He retained to the best of his ability what he truly believed was apostolic and Christian.   He showed a great deal of courage and heroism to take his stand.
         
                So if you don't believe in the real presence of Christ in the eucharist, if you don't believe in infant baptism, if you don't believe in the free use of hymns in the church, if you don't believe in the rich mercy and lavish generosity of God poured out on undeserving sinners through Christ, then you are on the wrong side of Luther, and I am with him on all these points.
         
                Did he vent his spleen in harmful ways that did a great deal of damage that could have been prevented were he more humane to the peasants, to the Jews, and to others?
        Had he been more moderate, he wouldn't have been Luther.   Melanchton tried to smooth over and calm the storm, and Luther described himself as a ruffian and Phillip as a tactician.  
               
                Luther was a reformer and he had the temper and disposition of a prophet, so there are probably many things that are "hard sayings of Luther" that seem more like Amos from the Old Testament than St. Paul in First Corinthians thirteen.   He knew God's wrath in the lightning bolt and he knew God's tenderness in the dear Lord Jesus.   He experienced the full range from God's proper work to God's "strange" work, and he expressed that full range quite clearly and boldly.   He thundered and that is probably what was required to shake the complacency of the crap he saw in Rome when he visited.  
         
               Did he know the motives of everyone who opposed him?
         
               Could he read into human hearts with omniscient clarity?
         
               Could he set himself up as God in the temple of God with regard to the heart of Erasmus, who performed a great service for Christianity, or with the heart of several other of his opponents?
         
               He was simply wrong, wong, wrong, on several personal fronts.
         
               He was only a man, he had all that treasure in a fallen earthly vessel, and he was not the infallible Pope of the Protestants, and neither was John Calvin and neither are you, g.m.w., nor is anyone who writes in this forum.   When our founding fathers were drawing up their Constitution they came to a stalemate; so Ben Franklin stood up and suggested everyone drop their own pretense of infallibility and look to God in heaven who raises up and puts down kingdoms and who sees the fall of every sparrow.
         
               The presumptive infallibility of people who condemn the motives of those who disagree with them is an easy out for people who would rather vent their spleen than think, or pray, or beg God for more light for either their opponent or for themselves. 
         
         
               Barry Ferguson

        gmw <raging.calvinist@...> wrote:

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

         
        > But Luther cuts a pretty wide swath in here below in terms of
        > character assassination.

        When unable to answer Luther, most immediately point out that he was
        harsh with his words.  Anyone who reads Luther knows that Luther was
        harsh with his words.  The point is, was he right or wrong?

        gmw.  





        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

      • gmw
        ... Wow. Are you being hyperbolic, or did you actually believe he was inspired? As much as I love Luther, I would never ever hold him to have been inspired
        Message 3 of 19 , Oct 2, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Barry Ferguson
          <gogon789@y...> wrote:

          > When I used to believe that every word proceeded from Luther's
          > mouth was inspired by the Holy Ghost,

          Wow. Are you being hyperbolic, or did you actually believe he was
          inspired? As much as I love Luther, I would never ever hold him to
          have been inspired in this way.

          > If you want my opinion on what Luther was right about, I'll
          > say he was right about the fact that God embraces sinners wholly in
          > Christ crucified apart from works of righteousness which we have
          > done;

          Are you saying that you part with Rome on the issue of Justification,
          and side with Luther instead? Interesting. What I was intending,
          though, was the more immediate context -- Luther's assertion that the
          Papacy is Antichrist, and the other things mentioned in the post
          Deejay graciously provided for us here. I would like to see less
          complaining about his harsh language, and more dealing with his
          position on Antichrist -- was he right or wrong, and why.

          > He thundered and that is probably what was required to shake the
          > complacency of the crap he saw in Rome when he visited.

          Especially the guy sitting on a throne pretending to be the head of
          the Church, the vicar of Christ, the one who "excommunicated" Luther
          for his "heretical" teachings.

          > Did he know the motives of everyone who opposed him?
          >
          > Could he read into human hearts with omniscient clarity?

          Are you equating these two things? Can one not discern motive by the
          actions or words and circumstances themselves? If a man breaks into
          my home at night with a weapon in my hand, must I refrain from self
          defense because I am not omniscient and cannot possibly know his real
          secret inner motives?

          > He was simply wrong, wong, wrong, on several personal fronts.

          His dispute with Rome was essentially doctrinal and not personal.

          > He was only a man, etc. etc.

          Yawn. Same old tired mis-applied mantra. Look, no one is saying that
          anyone but God is infallible. No true Protestant is saying this
          anyway. You can turn those accusations on the man of sin you are
          defending.

          gmw.
        • covie1646
          Barry, I was not the one who mention Dr. White s poison tongue . I was only asking if it was the Dr. James white of Alpha Omega Ministries. I only learned of
          Message 4 of 19 , Oct 3, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Barry,

            I was not the one who mention Dr. White's "poison tongue". I was
            only asking if it was the Dr. James white of Alpha Omega Ministries.
            I only learned of it yesterday and was shocked to hear of it as I
            regarded him as an excellent apologist. The recent posts has led me
            to reconsider my regard for him.

            About the Civil War, Lincoln was not as good a man as Lee nor as good
            as Luther. Lincoln spoke with two tongues regarding racial equality
            and state rights. He issued the Emanicpation Proclamation yet stated
            in the same time frame, "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have
            been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political
            equality of the white and black races [the crowd applauds] – that I
            am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of
            negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry
            with white people, and I will say in addition to this that there is a
            physical difference between the black and white races which I believe
            will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social
            and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while
            they do remain together there must be the position of superior and
            inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the
            superior position assigned to the white race." (C. Woodward, The
            Strange Career of Jim Crow) Lincoln ordered aggression against the
            CSA to "save the Union" yet in the same time frame stated his support
            for states' rights to secede or declare independence:

            "The expression of that principle [political freedom], in our
            Declaration of Independence was most happy and fortunate. Without
            this, as well as with it, we could have declared our independence of
            Great Britain; but without it, we could not, I think, have secured
            our free government, and consequent prosperity." (Machan, "Lincoln,
            Secession, and Slavery)

            "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the
            right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a
            new one that suits them better." (Ibid.)

            "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the
            institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I
            have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

            Talk about being seduced by language through the belief that Lincoln
            is as good as Lee. Further, so what about their conscience? It is
            the Lord, not conscience, that determines goodness and right "My
            conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the
            Lord who judges me." 1.Cor. 4:4

            I am not saying that Lincoln is not good. All that I am saying is
            that Lincoln is not as good as Lee.

            Regarding Luther, he was indeed brash and loud and could have been
            more self-controlled. However, Christ and His Gospel was at stake,
            and strong words were necessary to contend for the Faith against the
            rank abuses of Rome. Also, strong words tend to offend people, not
            seduce them. And, yes, one can read the motivations and state of
            people to certain degree for "by their fruit you shall know
            them", "faith without works is dead", etc. although not to a perfect
            degree. Our beliefs do not determine what it Truth. Scripture
            does. So, what of those who believed Antichrist and his anti-church
            was the true church?

            Whit


            --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Barry Ferguson
            <gogon789@y...> wrote:
            > Whit:
            >
            >
            > You mentioned in a previous post about James White's poison
            tongue assassinating the character of various opponents - he's not
            too popular with the "Catholic Answers" people as well.
            >
            > But Luther cuts a pretty wide swath in here below in terms
            of character assassination. Can he read into the motivations of
            all these people who stayed loyal to what they believed from
            childhood was the true church?
            >
            > Those who study the American Civil War understand that Robert
            E Lee was as good a man as Abraham Lincoln, and those on both sides
            were obeying their consciences.
            >
            > We can't presume that those who took a stand on the other
            side of the Reformation had bad or sinister motives. Luther's
            beloved confessor stayed behind with the traditional church and
            advised Luther to moderate his tone. This is the man Luther says
            saved his soul from complete ruin.
            >
            > Luther lashed out left and right - I can pull up the same
            sort of quote from Luther toward the vileness of people who do not
            believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist - men like
            Zwingli. I can also pull up the same sort of quote from Luther
            toward the vileness of people who do not believe in infant baptism -
            men like Spurgeon.
            >
            > Those who love language can be seduced by Luther even when
            he is rabid - especially if you are in total agreement with his
            fundamental theological insight.
            >
            >
            > This kind of speech allowed an incredibly gifted man to
            ventilate his spleen and to take out his frustrations - it also
            provided some relief from the enormous load of responsibility bearing
            down upon him, and from the relentless torment he had to overcome.
            >
            > It is not sacred scripture, however, and it does not provide
            an accurate reading into the hearts of those who disagreed with him -
            and all those who stood on the other side.
            >
            > To read into the hearts of your opponents in the name of God
            is to set oneself up as God in the temple of God.
            >
            >
            > Luther's good will spread all the way to England, and
            received the following adulation from an otherwise restrained Thomas
            More:
            >
            > "Since Luther has written that he already has a prior right
            to bespatter and besmirch the royal crown with shit, we will not have
            the posterior right to proclaim the beshitted tongue of this
            practicioner of posterioristics most fit to lick with his anterior
            the very posterior of a pissing she-mule until he shall have learned
            more correctly to infer posterior conclusions from prior premises."
            >
            >
            > A highly legal argument in very arcane, technical language.
            >
            > More remained loyal to that bespattered crown even while
            taking his own lonely stand of conscience - at the cost of more than
            his posterior.
            >
            >
            > Luther judged More's friend Erasmus in the same damning way
            he judged all his opponents.
            >
            > Erasmus died with peace in his heart and praise on his lips
            to Jesus Christ.
            >
            >
            >
            > Barry Ferguson
            >
            >
            >
            > covie1646 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
            > Although Luther wrote that, Spurgeon's "Geese in the Hoods" was
            > brought to my mind. Has anyone read that book and have an opinion
            > about it?
            >
            > Whit
            >
            >
            > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Braniac"
            > <brainiac@c...> wrote:
            > > On account of this judgment fear and trembling might well seize
            > our great Spiritual prelates, as they call themselves, the popes,
            > cardinals, bishops, canons, priests and the hole diabolical rabble
            > of the anti-Christian crowd at Rome, and everywhere, in their
            > monasteries and brothels, if they were not altogether hardened and
            > deliberately given to Satan body and soul. They think and act as
            > though they were especially appointed to snatch to themselves
            > everything that belongs to the poor church, and in their own
            > wantonness to consume, spend, waste, squander, in dissipation,
            > gambling and debauchery, in the most shameful and scandalous
            manner,
            > whatever has been given for the maintenance of students, schools
            and
            > the poor people. They mock God and man, 2 Pet. 2, 13; yeah, they
            > publicly murder innocent, pious people.
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Yea, woe another and eternal woe, to them and to all who side
            with
            > them. For it had been better for them, had they never been born,
            > as Christ says of Judas. Therefore they ought rather to wish that
            > their mother had drowned them in their first bath, nor that they
            had
            > never come forth from the womb, than that one of them should have
            > become pope or cardinal or a popish priest. For they are nothing
            > else than merely desperate and select ones, not highway robbers,
            but
            > public country thieves, who take, not the goods of the mighty and
            the
            > powerful that really have something, but of the poor and wretched,
            of
            > the parish churches, schools and hospitals, whose morsels are
            > snatched from their teeth, and whose drink is torn from their
            mouths,
            > so that they are unable to maintain life.
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Therefore, let every man beware of the Pope, the bishops, and the
            > priesthood, as he would beware of those have already been condemned
            > alive to the abyss of perdition. Truly Paul did not prophesy in
            > vain, 2 Tim 3, 1 that in the last days perilous times shall come.
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > From a sermon by Martin Luther from his third Postil. Pages 387-
            389
            >
            >
            > 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
          • covie1646
            ... was right about retaining infant baptism; he was right about taking songs from drunkards and transforming them for the glory of Christ; he was right about
            Message 5 of 19 , Oct 3, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              >>he was right about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist; he
              was right about retaining infant baptism; he was right about taking
              songs from drunkards and transforming them for the glory of Christ;
              he was right about composing hymns of his own for the common people;

              Barry,

              Could you show us how he was right concerning Consubstantiation,
              uninspired hymnody, and the ubiquity of Christ?


              > He was only a man, he had all that treasure in a fallen
              earthly vessel, and he was not the infallible Pope of the
              Protestants, and neither was John Calvin and neither are you, g.m.w.,
              nor is anyone who writes in this forum.

              Neither am I infallible nor you, nor the Pope, nor the Councils, nor
              the Magisterium nor any human upon this earth living or dead except
              Christ (who was also God). Never did Gerry, I, or anyone else in the
              Reformed church and history claimed or implied infalliblity, which is
              a doctrine opposed to Scripture.

              >When our founding fathers were drawing up their Constitution they
              came to a stalemate; so Ben Franklin stood up and suggested everyone
              drop their own pretense of infallibility and look to God in heaven
              who raises up and puts down kingdoms and who sees the fall of every
              sparrow.
              >

              That causes me to shudder because if God was the center and basis of
              our Constitution, then our Constitution would not be the godless,
              idolatrous document that it is. Note that this same Benjamin
              Franklin also once said, "Lighthouses are more helpful than
              churches", "I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in
              life I absented myself from Christian assemblies", "Revealed religion
              has no weight with me."

              Whit


              > The presumptive infallibility of people who condemn the
              motives of those who disagree with them is an easy out for people who
              would rather vent their spleen than think, or pray, or beg God for
              more light for either their opponent or for themselves.
              >
              >
              > Barry Ferguson
              >
              > gmw <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:
              >
              > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Barry Ferguson
              > <gogon789@y...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > > But Luther cuts a pretty wide swath in here below in terms of
              > > character assassination.
              >
              > When unable to answer Luther, most immediately point out that he
              was
              > harsh with his words. Anyone who reads Luther knows that Luther
              was
              > harsh with his words. The point is, was he right or wrong?
              >
              > 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!?
              > Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
            • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
              GMW, ... You mean, I may have a companion?? ;-) Just kidding, Edgar ... was ... was
              Message 6 of 19 , Oct 4, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                GMW,

                >Luther...was harsh with his words.

                You mean, I may have a companion?? ;-)

                Just kidding,
                Edgar

                --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
                <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:
                >
                > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Barry Ferguson
                > <gogon789@y...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > > But Luther cuts a pretty wide swath in here below in terms of
                > > character assassination.
                >
                > When unable to answer Luther, most immediately point out that he
                was
                > harsh with his words. Anyone who reads Luther knows that Luther
                was
                > harsh with his words. The point is, was he right or wrong?
                >
                > gmw.
              • Barry Ferguson
                gmw: I did believe Luther was inspired - like a prophet, and like Beethoven and Amos and Jeremiah and David and the Apostle Paul. But I was just a kid. I still
                Message 7 of 19 , Oct 5, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  gmw:
                   
                   
                        I did believe Luther was inspired - like a prophet, and like Beethoven and Amos and Jeremiah and David and the Apostle Paul.  
                   
                        But I was just a kid.
                   
                        I still am (:)
                   
                        I can't read German but everything I read in English by Luther captivated me.  He seemed earthy and spiritual at the same time, and I liked his colorful language and his gift for ridicule - and hyperbole.
                   
                        He seemed like someone so drunk on scripture that he belched it out like Wittenberg beer.
                   
                        Of course I had never heard him rage against the Jews - his early remarks about the Jews were very candid and very true and they still remain good to this day: "If I were Jewish I would not want to become a Christian either."
                   
                        
                   
                        
                   
                         Luther forcefully brought justification to the forefront - and Trent countered by reaffirming justification in very Augustinian terms. 
                   
                         Augustine never separated justification from an inward work of sanctification - i.e., from the "love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who is given to us."   Augustine, therefore, believed that justification "inhered" in the believer - for the Spirit who brought about our justification can never be separated from the love of God, and the faith that God bestows in justification brings within us a dynamic that "works by love."
                   
                         
                   
                         Calvin and Luther's doctrine of "extrinsic" justification was novel in terms of traditional Catholic and Orthodox doctrine in both east and west. 
                   
                          Is our salvation completed and perfected by something that is extrinsic to us (apart from the merciful providence of him who works all things together for the good of those who Love him (back) and are called according to his purpose?)
                   
                          "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for GOD IS AT WORK WITHIN YOU, both to will and to do of his good pleasure."
                   
                          "Christ IN YOU, the hope of glory."
                   
                          Not as our innate righteousness "in Adam" - but as God's outpouring and invasion into our lives, from beginning to end, "in Christ."
                   
                           Luther's dispute with Rome was HIGHLY PERSONAL  - he absolutized his wounded feelings, he was deeply wounded by his ordeal as well as by his rejection; he was a very proud German - and he was highly insulted that any right thinking theologian would see in him anything less than the inspiration of the Holy Ghost with respect to doctrine and to enlightened Biblical interpretation. 
                   
                           Just ask Erasmus (:)
                   
                   
                           He claimed that his authority and his office, as did Calvin, came solely and directly from God, and they both modelled themselves after the Apostle Paul, as men set apart for the gospel of Christ.  They claimed the same authority that Paul had in Galatians, as apostles who should be trusted and followed against the established church, because they had the true gospel of grace, even if they did not have traditional institutional sanction.    They were making a very solemn and absolute claim on the consciences of millions of traditional Catholics - and millions of Protestants who still take them as oracles of God.
                   
                           I do not know how you can separate such a weighty and grave sense of mission and authority from a profound sense of divine inspiration and calling.   If they did not feel they were speaking the Word of God into their historical situation, then they were speaking mere words of men - pure opinion and grist for the mill of raging polemecists. 
                   
                   
                           You have not answered my question, gmw:
                   
                            Is Calvin your infallible Pope - i.e., your reliable father in Christ who will not steer you wrong or lead you into error?
                   
                            If not, then what did Calvin promulgate that you find to be in error or misleading?
                   
                            Just who "the man of sin and the Anti-Christ" was (as discussed by Paul in Thessalonians) was not even accessible to Augustine, who had access to more material than I have at my immediate disposal.
                   
                           Augustine did not think the Bishop of Rome was the anti-Christ, and Augustine knew his Bible quite well, as well as his early church history.
                   
                           The Pope wrote a "tome" which inspired Augustine and others to say that "Peter has spoken."
                   
                            A far cry from an inflammatory accusation toward the anti-Christ. 
                   
                            It takes quite a bit of divine inspiration to state with absolute certainty that the Bishop of Rome is the anti-Christ and the scourge of the earth in the twenty first century.   I see several other forces much more dangerous to the church, and I believe that no man who is as devoted to Jesus Christ as John Paul the second can justly or accurately be called the Antichrist.   
                   
                            Are you so inspired, g.m.w.?
                   
                            I hope I am wrong, but my impression has been that the contempt of many people in this forum toward the "Romanist" form of Christianity - as well as the contempt in this forum toward the man who leads the Catholic Church from St. Peter's chair, is as highly personal as Luther's was.
                   
                            It has, at times, seemed palpable - I have felt very close to expulsion simply for being a "Romanist," or for showing sympathy for that position.
                   
                            I consider myself first and foremost neither Catholic nor Protestant, but a shattered image of God under renovation and renewal by the sheer grace of God (in whom I place my hope, and to whom I owe my grattitude for his temporal and eternal favor).
                   
                            Whether I am in a Catholic or a Protestant Church, there is only one thing I seek:
                   
                            The fair beauty of the Lord - in the face of Jesus Christ.
                   
                           
                   
                            Barry Ferguson
                   

                  gmw <raging.calvinist@...> wrote:

                  --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Barry Ferguson
                  <gogon789@y...> wrote:
                   
                  >       When I used to believe that every word proceeded from Luther's
                  > mouth was inspired by the Holy Ghost,

                  Wow.  Are you being hyperbolic, or did you actually believe he was
                  inspired?  As much as I love Luther, I would never ever hold him to
                  have been inspired in this way.
                   
                  >        If you want my opinion on what Luther was right about, I'll
                  > say he was right about the fact that God embraces sinners wholly in
                  > Christ crucified apart from works of righteousness which we have
                  > done;

                  Are you saying that you part with Rome on the issue of Justification,
                  and side with Luther instead?  Interesting.  What I was intending,
                  though, was the more immediate context -- Luther's assertion that the
                  Papacy is Antichrist, and the other things mentioned in the post
                  Deejay graciously provided for us here.  I would like to see less
                  complaining about his harsh language, and more dealing with his
                  position on Antichrist -- was he right or wrong, and why. 

                  > He thundered and that is probably what was required to shake the
                  > complacency of the crap he saw in Rome when he visited.  

                  Especially the guy sitting on a throne pretending to be the head of
                  the Church, the vicar of Christ, the one who "excommunicated" Luther
                  for his "heretical" teachings.
                   
                  >        Did he know the motives of everyone who opposed him?

                  >        Could he read into human hearts with omniscient clarity?

                  Are you equating these two things?  Can one not discern motive by the
                  actions or words and circumstances themselves?  If a man breaks into
                  my home at night with a weapon in my hand, must I refrain from self
                  defense because I am not omniscient and cannot possibly know his real
                  secret inner motives?

                  >        He was simply wrong, wong, wrong, on several personal fronts.

                  His dispute with Rome was essentially doctrinal and not personal. 
                   
                  >        He was only a man, etc. etc.

                  Yawn.  Same old tired mis-applied mantra.  Look, no one is saying that
                  anyone but God is infallible.  No true Protestant is saying this
                  anyway.  You can turn those accusations on the man of sin you are
                  defending.

                  gmw.




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

                • Barry Ferguson
                  Deejay: Fair enough, I probably have not had enough examples of the truth spoken in love to see how that thing works in a Christian sort of way. Nine times
                  Message 8 of 19 , Oct 5, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Deejay:
                     
                         Fair enough, I probably have not had enough examples of the truth spoken in love to see how that thing works in a Christian sort of way.   Nine times out of ten (as a former hockey player) these sorts of things start off nice and break out into a hockey match.
                     
                          Surely, DeeJay, you don't think the sovereign and majestic God of grace cannot give peace to someone in the Roman Catholic Church.
                     
                           Do you limit the Holy One of Israel to local and corporal dimensions?
                     
                     
                           Barry

                    Brainiac <brainiac@...> wrote:
                    Hi Barry,
                     
                    Well,  I'm afraid I disagree with how you assert tht Luther judged Erasmus.,   When he was refuting his free will  diatribe,  it was with the zealousness that defending truth   commands,  but also not with unconcern as anyone who reads can see for Erasmus's soul or Spiritual welfare.  
                     
                    Too many namby pamby Christians today,   dont speak the truth in love,  cos it may cause offense.    There is a diffrence between speaking the truth in love and  being downright   uncharitable towards them.
                     
                    As for Erasmus  dying with peace in his heart.  Well not sure any of us are in a place to  confirm or refute that for sure.    But  he was clinging to the Romish Church towards  the end of his life,   I wonder if he still has "peace"? 
                     
                    ~Deejay
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2004 8:21 PM
                    Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Of the Papacy and their merry men (Spurgeon)
                     
                          
                     
                           Luther judged More's friend Erasmus in the same damning way he judged all his opponents.   
                     
                           Erasmus died with peace in his heart and praise on his lips to Jesus Christ.
                     
                           
                         
                           Barry Ferguson
                     
                     

                    covie1646 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                    Although Luther wrote that, Spurgeon's "Geese in the Hoods" was
                    brought to my mind.  Has anyone read that book and have an opinion
                    about it?

                    Whit


                    --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Braniac"
                    <brainiac@c...> wrote:
                    > On account of this judgment fear and trembling might well  seize
                    our great Spiritual prelates,  as they call themselves, the popes,
                    cardinals, bishops, canons, priests and the  hole diabolical rabble
                    of the anti-Christian crowd at Rome, and everywhere,  in their
                    monasteries and brothels, if they were not altogether hardened and
                    deliberately given to Satan body and soul.  They think and act as
                    though they were  especially appointed to snatch to themselves
                    everything that belongs to the poor church,  and in their own
                    wantonness to consume, spend,  waste, squander, in dissipation,
                    gambling and debauchery, in the most shameful and scandalous manner,
                    whatever has been given for the maintenance of students, schools and
                    the poor people.  They mock God and man,  2 Pet. 2, 13; yeah, they
                    publicly murder innocent, pious people.
                    >

                    >
                    > Yea, woe another and eternal woe, to them and to all who side with
                    them.  For it had been better for them,  had they never been born, 
                    as Christ says of Judas.  Therefore they ought rather to wish that
                    their mother had drowned them in their first bath, nor that they had
                    never come forth from the womb,  than that one of them should have
                    become pope or cardinal or a popish priest.  For they are nothing
                    else than merely desperate and select ones,  not highway robbers, but
                    public country thieves, who take, not the goods of the mighty and the
                    powerful that really have something, but of the poor and wretched, of
                    the parish churches, schools and hospitals,  whose morsels are
                    snatched from their teeth, and whose drink is torn from their mouths,
                    so that they are unable to maintain life.
                    >

                    >
                    > Therefore, let every man beware of the Pope, the bishops, and the
                    priesthood, as he would beware of those have already been condemned
                    alive to the abyss  of perdition.  Truly Paul did not prophesy in
                    vain, 2 Tim 3, 1 that in the last days perilous times shall come.
                    >

                    >
                    > From a sermon by Martin Luther from his third Postil.  Pages 387-389


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


                    Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. BUG CHECKER AT LARGE!
                    Checked by AVG Anti-Virus (http://www.grisoft.com).
                    Version: 7.0.271 / Virus Database: 264.9.9 - Release Date: 01/10/2004
                     



                    Do you Yahoo!?
                    vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!

                  • Brainiac
                    Hi Barry, This is from a post that will appear later in the week at another group: Anyone is welcome to join: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ReformersCorner/
                    Message 9 of 19 , Oct 5, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi Barry,

                      This is from a post that will appear later in the week at another group:  Anyone is welcome to join: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ReformersCorner/


                      From the posting of the “Theses” on the doors of the Schloss   Kirk of Wittenberg on October 31st,  1517, to the burning of the Pope’s bull on December 10th,,   1520,  at the eastern gate of the same town,  are just three years and six weeks. In these three short years a great change had taken place in the opinions of men, and indeed of Luther himself.  A blessed springtime seems to have visited the world. How sweet the light!  How gracious the drops that begin to fall out of heaven upon the weary earth! What a gladness fills the souls of men,  and what a deep joy breaks out on every side,  making itself audible in the rising songs of the nations,  which,  gathering around the standard of a recovered Gospel,  now  “come” in fulfillment of the ancient oracle,  “unto Zion with singing!”  [from Wylies History of Protestantism][book vi ch 3]

                       
                      People are drawn to light like flies are ariticial light.  They loved the doctrines Luther taught and believed.  They knew they were  Biblical.

                           Whether I am in a Catholic or a Protestant Church, there is only one thing I seek:

                                The fair beauty of the Lord - in the face of Jesus Christ.
                       
                      For any of us to behold the beauty of the Lord, Jesus, aright,  we must also seek the truth.    [John 4:24]
                       
                      ~Deejay


                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: Barry Ferguson
                      To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 12:38 AM


                       

                      Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Of the Papacy and their merry men (Barry)‏‏‎‎‌‎‌‍‎‏‏‍ ‍‍‏‏‌‌‍‌‎‌‌‏ ‏‍‍‌‌‍‏‎‎‏‌‌‎ ‎‎‌‌‍‍‌‎‏‏‍‏‏ ‏‏‌‍‍‏‌‌‍‎‎‍‍ ‌‌‎‍‌‍‍‎‏‏‎‌‏ ‎‏‍‏‏‎‌‌‎‍‍‏‍ ‏‍‍‎‍‍‏‏‌‏‏‎‎ ‌‌‏‏‌‎‎‏‎‎‏‏‍ ‍‏‏‍‍‏‏‍‏‏‎‏‌ ‍‎‎‌‌‎‎‏‏‌‏‎‍ ‍‍‎‎‍‎‎‌‌‍‍‌‎ ‍‌‌‍‌‎‌‌‎‎‏‍‍ ‏‏‎‏‍‍‎‏‏‌‌‍‍ ‎‎‌‌‎‍‍‎‎‌‌‎‏ ‌‌‍‏‏‍‏‏‍‍‏‏‎ ‎‎‍‏‏‍‍‎‎‏‏‌‎‎ ‎‎‌‍‏‍‏‏‍‍‏‍‌ ‎‌‌‏‏‌‍‌‌‏‏‌ ‏‏‎‍‌‌‎‎‏‏‎‎‌ ‏‏‌‌‏‍‍‌‎‏‎‍‌ ‏‎‎‌‎‎‌‏‌‎‎‏‏ ‏‏‎‏‏‌‌‎‎‏‌‎‍ ‎‌‍‍‏‎‎‏‏‌‌‏‍ ‏‍‍‎‌‌‎‌‌‏‍‍‏ ‍‎‎‌‏‎‏‌‌‍‎‌‌ ‌‌‍‍‏‍‍‌‏‎‎‏‍ ‎‍‌‍‍‏‏‌‏‍‍‎‌ ‎‏‏‌‌‏‌‌‏‏‌‌ ‌‍‏‎‏‏‍‍‌‌‏‏‍ ‌‌‍‍‎‎‌‌‎‎‌‏ ‎‌‏‍‎‎‏‎‌‌‎‍‏ ‌‌‏‏‌‎‏‎‎‍‍‌‏<title> Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Of the Papacy and their merry men (Barry)
                    • bucerian
                      ... wrote: Of course I had never heard him rage against the Jews - Which he learned to do from the breast milk served to him by the Harlot
                      Message 10 of 19 , Oct 5, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Barry Ferguson
                        <gogon789@y...> wrote:

                        Of course I had never heard him rage against the Jews -

                        Which he learned to do from the breast milk served to him by the
                        Harlot
                        (Rome) who persecuted the Jews throughout the middle ages out of
                        nearly every country in Europe... TPL
                        >
                        >
                        > Luther forcefully brought justification to the forefront - and
                        Trent countered by reaffirming justification in very Augustinian
                        terms. Augustine never separated justification from an inward work
                        of sanctification - i.e., from the "love of God shed abroad in our
                        hearts by the Holy Spirit who is given to us."

                        Augustine, who never read the N.T. in Greek, but in the old Latin,
                        was wrong and the humanist trained Luther as right. TPL

                        >
                        >
                        > Calvin and Luther's doctrine of "extrinsic" justification
                        was novel in terms of traditional Catholic and Orthodox doctrine in
                        both east and west.

                        Novel in terms of articulation, not in terms of being authentic
                        Paulinism. TPL
                        >
                        > Is our salvation completed and perfected by something that
                        is extrinsic to us (apart from the merciful providence of him who
                        works all things together for the good of those who Love him (back)
                        and are called according to his purpose?)

                        Yes, completed by the passive and active obedience of Christ.
                        Absolutely completed. TPL
                        >
                        > "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for
                        GOD IS AT WORK WITHIN YOU, both to will and to do of his good
                        pleasure."
                        >
                        > "Christ IN YOU, the hope of glory."
                        >
                        > Not as our innate righteousness "in Adam" - but as God's
                        outpouring and invasion into our lives, from beginning to end, "in
                        Christ."

                        "Infusia" may be Augustinian; it IS NOT Pauline. TPL

                        >
                        > Luther's dispute with Rome was HIGHLY PERSONAL - he
                        absolutized his wounded feelings, he was deeply wounded by his ordeal
                        as well as by his rejection; he was a very proud German - and he was
                        highly insulted that any right thinking theologian would see in him
                        anything less than the inspiration of the Holy Ghost with respect to
                        doctrine and to enlightened Biblical interpretation.

                        And nearly every learned mind who read the bible in the original
                        languages agreed with him, as the entire history of the sweep of the
                        Reformation from Wittenburg, to England, to Geneva, to the
                        Netherlands, to
                        Scotland, to Eastern Europe, makes perfectly clear. TPL


                        >
                        > Just ask Erasmus (:)
                        >
                        >
                        > He claimed that his authority and his office, as did
                        Calvin, came solely and directly from God, and they both modelled
                        themselves after the Apostle Paul, as men set apart for the gospel of
                        Christ. They claimed the same authority that Paul had in Galatians,
                        as apostles who should be trusted and followed against the
                        established church, because they had the true gospel of grace, even
                        if they did not have traditional institutional sanction. They were
                        making a very solemn and absolute claim on the consciences of
                        millions of traditional Catholics - and millions of Protestants who
                        still take them as oracles of God.

                        Not them, but the purified original language texts, cleaned of the
                        putrid medieval scholasticism in which the truth had been buried (in
                        a defective, late medieval edition of a corrupt Latin text--thank
                        you, Erasmus and Valla). TPL


                        >
                        >
                        > Augustine did not think the Bishop of Rome was the anti-
                        Christ, and Augustine knew his Bible quite well, as well as his early
                        church history.

                        The Bishop of Rome had not fully manifested as the Antichrist yet. TPL

                        >
                        >
                        > It takes quite a bit of divine inspiration to state with
                        absolute certainty that the Bishop of Rome is the anti-Christ and the
                        scourge of the earth in the twenty first century.

                        No it does not. Merely a good grasp of history, of the teachings of
                        Rome, and of Scripture. The Pope is, was, and always will be the
                        final and exclusive Antichrist predicted by Paul. TPL


                        Theodore P. Letis
                        (www.thetext.org)
                      • Brainiac
                        Sorry, I just got what you meant. No, God is everywhere present. But if you also believe the above, as a R.C. why do R. Catholics worship Him by an
                        Message 11 of 19 , Oct 5, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Sorry,  I just "got" what you meant. No,  God is everywhere present.
                           
                          But if you also believe the above,  as a R.C. why do R.  Catholics worship Him by an image?
                           
                          ~Deejay
                           
                           
                           
                           
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 1:34 AM
                          Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Of the Papacy and their merry men (Spurgeon)

                          Deejay:
                           
                           
                                 Do you limit the Holy One of Israel to local and corporal dimensions?
                           
                           
                              

                           
                        • Barry Ferguson
                          Whit: Some say our constitution is constructed around a Calvinist view of human nature, which is why checks and balances were put in place for every position
                          Message 12 of 19 , Oct 7, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Whit:
                             
                                   Some say our constitution is constructed around a Calvinist view of human nature, which is why checks and balances were put in place for every position of authority.  In my view it is not a godless document - it is the most workable human instrument for human government ever contrived.
                             
                                   Considering human nature, it has worked as good as a human document can work.
                             
                             
                                   Read Madison and Hamilton in the Federalist Papers while praying and fasting.  
                             
                                   That is my assigned pennance for your defamation of our constitution, which, at bottom, is only as good as the people for whom it was drawn up.
                             
                                   If the pennance, the prayer, and the fasting, do nothing for you, then The Federalist Papers will certainly clear your head (:).
                             
                             
                                   Ben Franklin, in terms of civiity and affability, put most Christians to shame.  He was a sucker whenever under the spell of George Whitefield, and my guess is that this is because he was also a sucker under the godspell - of Jesus Christ.
                             
                                   Maybe I'll introduce you to uncle Ben once we get to heaven - if you're there, Whit (:).
                             
                             
                                   I cannot prove consusbstantiation or transubstantiation, both of which indicate the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  
                             
                                   It is an article of Christian faith.
                             
                                   The early apostolic church taught a change, and if you cannot believe in what Christ taught in terms of transubtantiation (take, eat, this is my body, take, drink, this is my blood), then consubstantiation is the second best explanation - Christ presents his body "in, with and under" the bread and wine.
                             
                                   Calvin taught a real participation in the true body and blood of Christ (as did St. Paul) "under" the signs of bread and wine.
                             
                                    The thing that stands under something is its substance.
                             
                                    So Christ is the substance of this meal, even for Calvin.
                             
                                  
                             
                                   The real presence is best understood in the total context of redemption, and Calvin does a service in that he shifts the focus from the elements themselves to the reality of a true communion with the Father through our head while assembled with the other members of his body in God's Spirit - in a bond of Holy Love.
                             
                                   Calvin wrote, as did Aquinas and Luther, that this mystery is better experienced than explained.   
                             
                                   But I think Calvin unintentionally did a disservice in that many who claim to be his followers became rationalists who simply don't believe in the presence of Christ through this means, and he defined down a mystery by giving people an opportunity to say that this is "nothing but" bread and wine.
                             
                             
                                   Even at very crude levels of understanding, the substance of a hundred dollar bill is not paper.  
                             
                                   Even people who don't believe in a sacramental universe salivate at the sight of a hundred dollar bill - or a very large stack of Franklins, Whit.
                             
                                   That's because the substance of a hundred dollar bill is not paper.
                             
                                   The substance of a hundred dollar bill is its purhcasing power and its exchange value. 
                             
                                   At the last supper Christ minted his redemptive purchasing power (his flesh, for the life of the world) and his exchange value (his spotless divinity for our sinful humanity) by designating bread and wine to re-present to us the reality of his substance - i.e., to make himself present to our senses and our faith in a very tangible way. 
                             
                                   How he does this is beyond me - it is a mystery of faith.
                             
                                   To Protestants who understand Scripture (as well as Calvin and Luther), the bread and wine are merely incidental to the substance of this meal.
                             
                                   To Catholics, the bread and wine are merely accidental to the substance of this meal.
                             
                                   
                             
                                    Luther did not really care for the term "consubstantiation."    He said it is best not to describe this mystery in human terms - that it is best to stick to the Words of God incarnate in childlike faith.
                             
                                    Roman Catholics follow Luther to the letter with respect to this directive.
                             
                                    So do the Orthodox.
                                    The early Christians reserved the consecrated bread for those who could not be present.   They treated it as something much more significant than common bread and wine. 
                             
                                    If I understand Luther with respect to ubiquity, he means that God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God emptied himself, took on the form of a servant, submitted himself to the death of a cross, descended into the abyss, and reascended to his place of glory.   In doing so, he filled all things, all times, all places, all conditions in such a way that nothing human is alien or removed or separated from our mediator in terms of time and space or state of soul - not even a godforsaken derelict is beyond the reach or touch of Jesus, the God-man.  
                             
                                    We cannot understand God in terms of dimension or human categories of finitude.  
                             
                                    But through his incarnation, dereliction and glorification he has made it possible for us to comprehend him through his Word, by means of which we discern his true body and true blood in the sacrament - in light of the reconciliation he accomplished on our behalf. 
                             
                                   As with the multiplying of the loaves, he can do this with innumerable and limitless "numbers" of human beings, for God is truly one, God is truly human, and God is truly boundless.
                             
                             
                                    His center is everywhere - and his circumference is "nowhere" - i.e., past finding out.
                             
                             
                                    If I ascend to the heavens, He is there.
                             
                                    If I make my bed in hell, He is there.
                             
                                    In either case, His Word is nigh me, in my heart and on my lips.
                             
                                    That's getting to be pretty ubiquitous, if you ask me (:)
                             
                                   
                             
                             
                                    Barry
                             
                                   

                            covie1646 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                            >>he was right about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist; he
                            was right about retaining infant baptism; he was right about taking
                            songs from drunkards and transforming them for the glory of Christ;
                            he was right about composing hymns of his own for the common people;

                            Barry,

                            Could you show us how he was right concerning Consubstantiation,
                            uninspired hymnody, and the ubiquity of Christ?


                            >        He was only a man, he had all that treasure in a fallen
                            earthly vessel, and he was not the infallible Pope of the
                            Protestants, and neither was John Calvin and neither are you, g.m.w.,
                            nor is anyone who writes in this forum.  

                            Neither am I infallible nor you, nor the Pope, nor the Councils, nor
                            the Magisterium nor any human upon this earth living or dead except
                            Christ (who was also God).  Never did Gerry, I, or anyone else in the
                            Reformed church and history claimed or implied infalliblity, which is
                            a doctrine opposed to Scripture.

                            >When our founding fathers were drawing up their Constitution they
                            came to a stalemate; so Ben Franklin stood up and suggested everyone
                            drop their own pretense of infallibility and look to God in heaven
                            who raises up and puts down kingdoms and who sees the fall of every
                            sparrow.


                            That causes me to shudder because if God was the center and basis of
                            our Constitution, then our Constitution would not be the godless,
                            idolatrous document that it is.  Note that this same Benjamin
                            Franklin also once said, "Lighthouses are more helpful than
                            churches", "I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in
                            life I absented myself from Christian assemblies", "Revealed religion
                            has no weight with me."

                            Whit


                            >        The presumptive infallibility of people who condemn the
                            motives of those who disagree with them is an easy out for people who
                            would rather vent their spleen than think, or pray, or beg God for
                            more light for either their opponent or for themselves.


                            >        Barry Ferguson
                            >
                            > gmw <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:
                            >
                            > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Barry Ferguson
                            > <gogon789@y...> wrote:
                            >
                            >  
                            > > But Luther cuts a pretty wide swath in here below in terms of
                            > > character assassination.
                            >
                            > When unable to answer Luther, most immediately point out that he
                            was
                            > harsh with his words.  Anyone who reads Luther knows that Luther
                            was
                            > harsh with his words.  The point is, was he right or wrong?
                            >
                            > 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!?
                            > Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.





                            Do you Yahoo!?
                            vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!

                          • Barry Ferguson
                            Mr. Lettis: First of all, I defer to you on points of scholarship in terms of textual matters, and I am willing to learn from any mistakes I make out of
                            Message 13 of 19 , Oct 7, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Mr. Lettis:
                               
                                    First of all, I defer to you on points of scholarship in terms of textual matters, and I am willing to learn from any mistakes I make out of ignorance.
                               
                               
                                     But help me in terms of common sense.
                               
                                     You concur with me that Augustine did not know that Paul was referring to the Pope in Thessalonians.
                               
                                     Are you willing to agree that the Pope of Rome in Augustine's time was an orthodox Christian who wrote an influential tome that clarified for the church an orthodox dogma?
                                
                                     You say Augustine did not know this Pope was the anti-Christ because the Papal office had not yet morphed into the beast of Luther's day - and our own.
                               
                                    Yet you later said the Pope "always was" the anti-christ Paul was referring to.
                               
                                    How do you square those two comments?
                               
                                    You seem to be asserting that Paul knew what Augustine did not know about the true identity of the anti-Christ, even though Paul came before Augustine.
                               
                                     Is that correct?
                               
                                     If so, are you asserting that Paul knew the identity of this anti-Christ by divine foreknowledge?
                               
                                     And that he was speaking to us, and not to the Thessalonians?
                               
                                     Do you have a view of inspiration that allows for Paul not knowing who he was talking about in the immediate context, while the Holy Spirit knew what He was saying through Paul in the far off context?
                               
                                     Is Paul to the Thessalonians to be read like a text from Nostrodamus?
                               
                               
                                     My comments to your reply are inserted beneath your comments.
                               
                               
                                     Barry
                               
                                      
                                     
                              bucerian <bucerian@...> wrote:



                              --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Barry Ferguson
                              <gogon789@y...> wrote:
                                  
                              Of course I had never heard him rage against the Jews -

                              Which he learned to do from the breast milk served to him by the
                              Harlot
                              (Rome) who persecuted the Jews throughout the middle ages out of
                              nearly every country in Europe... TPL
                              >       

                              Not quite.   Luther spit out that breast milk as curdled stuff.  He subsequently declared his freedom from Rome and developed his theology over several decades - with the superior text on his desk, right beside his inkwell.   Did his Spirit-inspired reading of this superior text, which apparently excluded Augustine's view that the love of God is "shed abroad in our hearts," influence his venemous comments about the Jews at the end of his career?
                               

                               

                              Is this latter day statement a reflection of his purified text and purified theology that claims only an exterior God who does not work his love into our lives?   

                              Or are you saying that Luther relapsed - and crawled back into the lap of the harlot at the end of his career? 

                               

                              B.F.


                              > Luther forcefully brought justification to the forefront - and
                              Trent countered by reaffirming justification in very Augustinian
                              terms. Augustine never separated justification from an inward work
                              of sanctification - i.e., from the "love of God shed abroad in our
                              hearts by the Holy Spirit who is given to us."

                              Augustine, who never read the N.T. in Greek, but in the old Latin,
                              was wrong and the humanist trained Luther as right. TPL 

                              The Westminster divines, who read Calvin carefully (a humanist scholar), wrote that grace is "infused" in sanctification, which is distinct yet not separate from extrinsic justification.

                              Every text I have read from Paul in Romans says that the love of God is shed abroad "in" our hearts by the Holy Spirit, who is given to us.

                              From my own understanding, this does not mean that we own the gift of God.  It does mean that God has taken possession of us - by his grace, and that we are not our own.

                              Are you saying that Christ does not dwell by faith in the heart of a believer, who is rooted and grounded in the Love of God in Christ?

                                B.F.






                              Novel in terms of articulation, not in terms of being authentic
                              Paulinism. TPL

                              I can understand that distinction, if indeed Luther and Calvin really did strike root into Paul in a way that God, in his providence, with-held from the doctors of the church for fifteen hundred years.  Is this what happened?  B.F.

                               



                              >         Is our salvation completed and perfected by something that
                              is extrinsic to us (apart from the merciful providence of him who
                              works all things together for the good of those who Love him (back)
                              and are called according to his purpose?)

                              Yes, completed by the passive and active obedience of Christ.
                              Absolutely completed. TPL

                              I need more of that assurance and hope to find it by learning to understand that better.   But are you saying that He imparts nothing of Himself to the believer with whom he is united, but only imputes, from here to Eternity?  B.F.



                              >         "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for
                              GOD IS AT WORK WITHIN YOU, both to will and to do of his good
                              pleasure."

                              >         "Christ IN YOU, the hope of glory."

                              >         Not as our innate righteousness "in Adam" - but as God's
                              outpouring and invasion into our lives, from beginning to end, "in
                              Christ."

                              "Infusia" may be Augustinian; it IS NOT Pauline. TPL

                              Did the Westminster Divines know this?

                              "They who are effectually called and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created IN them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, by his Word and Spirit dwelling IN them; the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified, and they more and more quickened and strengthened, in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord."   Westminster Confession of Faith

                              AND: "Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification, yet they differ in that God, in justification, imputeth the righteousness of Christ; in sanctification, his Spirit INFUSETH GRACE (MY EMPH), and enableth to excercise thereof; in the former, sin is pardoned; in the other, it is subdued; the one doth equally free all belivers from the revenging wrath of God, and that perfectly in this life, that they never fall into condemnation; the other is neither equal in all, nor in this life perfect in any; but growing up to perfection."   THE LARGER CATECHISM.

                              These people took their readings from Calvin, also a humanist scholar.   ARE THESE REFORMERS WRONG ABOUT GOD INFUSING HIS GRACE?  (INFUSIA?)

                              B.F.

                               


                              >          Luther's dispute with Rome was HIGHLY PERSONAL  - he
                              absolutized his wounded feelings, he was deeply wounded by his ordeal
                              as well as by his rejection; he was a very proud German - and he was
                              highly insulted that any right thinking theologian would see in him
                              anything less than the inspiration of the Holy Ghost with respect to
                              doctrine and to enlightened Biblical interpretation.

                              And nearly every learned mind who read the bible in the original
                              languages agreed with him, as the entire history of the sweep of the
                              Reformation from Wittenburg, to England, to Geneva, to the
                              Netherlands, to
                              Scotland, to Eastern Europe, makes perfectly clear. TPL


                              Were there no learned minds on the opposite side of the fence, such as Erasmus, who provided the new and improved texts to the Reformers yet who stayed with the established church, and Thomas More, who stayed with the established church?    Were there no learned scholars or humanists in the Council of Trent?  Calvin argued with Cardinal Sadoleto, who Calvin said was an admirable humanist scholar.  Was Sadoleto all alone at Trent in terms of top shelf scholarship? 

                              B.F.


                              >          Just ask Erasmus (:)


                              >          He claimed that his authority and his office, as did
                              Calvin, came solely and directly from God, and they both modelled
                              themselves after the Apostle Paul, as men set apart for the gospel of
                              Christ.  They claimed the same authority that Paul had in Galatians,
                              as apostles who should be trusted and followed against the
                              established church, because they had the true gospel of grace, even
                              if they did not have traditional institutional sanction.    They were
                              making a very solemn and absolute claim on the consciences of
                              millions of traditional Catholics - and millions of Protestants who
                              still take them as oracles of God.

                              Not them, but the purified original language texts, cleaned of the
                              putrid medieval scholasticism in which the truth had been buried (in
                              a defective, late medieval edition of a corrupt Latin text--thank
                              you, Erasmus and Valla). TPL


                              >You are making them more modest, less bold and daring than they actually were.   Luther and Calvin both claimed a divine call and office directly from God, and both claimed to preach the Word of God - they both said the word preached from the pulpit was the Word of God, not just the purified sacred text.  They spoke that Word into their contemporary situation.   The claim they were making for the scriptures was also based on their authority to interpret those scriptures - as doctors of the church, as scholars, and as men having as much apostolic authority as anyone in the established church.  Luther, on the basis of his office and superior reading of scripture, had more authority from God than the Pope and Bishops of the established church - and all of the doctors of the church who had gone before him.   He had authority to call the traditionally accepted head of the Western Church the Anti-Christ.  

                                   On his own authority (under God) he ripped out a portion of the mass.   He did not have this through the sanction of the traditional church.   He had this under the strength of his own conviction - and his invisible office, so to speak, given to him by God alone through his spirit.  Calvin made the same claim for himself, after the fashion of the Apostle Paul.   B.F. 
                              >      
                              >  

                                      Augustine did not think the Bishop of Rome was the anti-
                              Christ, and Augustine knew his Bible quite well, as well as his early
                              church history.

                              The Bishop of Rome had not fully manifested as the Antichrist yet. TPL

                              Yet Paul knew this, four hundred years before Augustine?  Was he not warning the Thessalonians?   B.F.

                              B.F.>

                               

                               
                              >       
                              >           It takes quite a bit of divine inspiration to state with
                              absolute certainty that the Bishop of Rome is the anti-Christ and the
                              scourge of the earth in the twenty first century.

                              No it does not. Merely a good grasp of history, of the teachings of
                              Rome, and of Scripture. The Pope is, was, and always will be the
                              final and exclusive Antichrist predicted by Paul. TPL


                              Theodore P. Letis
                              (www.thetext.org)
                               

                              I could use a better grasp of history and I admit that.  I am willing to learn, and I will learn by leaps and bounds, because I refuse to close my mind on tendentious readings into scripture and party based views of history.    


                              Barry





                              Do you Yahoo!?
                              Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

                            • Theodore Letis
                              Barry Ferguson wrote: Mr. Lettis: First of all, I defer to you on points of scholarship in terms of textual matters, and I am willing to
                              Message 14 of 19 , Oct 8, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment


                                Barry Ferguson <gogon789@...> wrote:
                                Mr. Lettis:
                                 
                                      First of all, I defer to you on points of scholarship in terms of textual matters, and I am willing to learn from any mistakes I make out of ignorance.
                                 
                                Me, too, Barry...
                                 
                                 
                                       But help me in terms of common sense.
                                 
                                       You concur with me that Augustine did not know that Paul was referring to the Pope in Thessalonians.
                                 
                                Yes.
                                 
                                       Are you willing to agree that the Pope of Rome in Augustine's time was an orthodox Christian who wrote an influential tome that clarified for the church an orthodox dogma?
                                 
                                Yes.
                                  
                                       You say Augustine did not know this Pope was the anti-Christ because the Papal office had not yet morphed into the beast of Luther's day - and our own.
                                 
                                Yes.
                                 
                                      Yet you later said the Pope "always was" the anti-christ Paul was referring to.
                                 
                                      How do you square those two comments?
                                 
                                Because the Bishop of Rome was not the "Pope" until much later (see my earlier post).
                                 
                                      You seem to be asserting that Paul knew what Augustine did not know about the true identity of the anti-Christ, even though Paul came before Augustine.
                                 
                                       Is that correct?
                                 
                                Yes. Where did Paul get the notion in the first place?--He didn't just make it up.
                                 
                                       If so, are you asserting that Paul knew the identity of this anti-Christ by divine foreknowledge?
                                 
                                Absotutly...
                                 
                                       And that he was speaking to us, and not to the Thessalonians?
                                 
                                Certainly not. Read II Thess. 2:5. He had already gone over all this stuff with them and here he is just reminding them in a new conversation, about the 2nd coming, that this ain't gonna happen until the Antichrist comes. Then John saw him too on Mt. Patmos, and he told the world where he was going to come from when he wrote that around 90 AD (please remind your preterist friends of this date): The city on seven hills--ROME.
                                 
                                 
                                Do you have a view of inspiration that allows for Paul not knowing who he was talking about in the immediate context, while the Holy Spirit knew what He was saying through Paul in the far off context?
                                 
                                This, of course, is not a good question in light of the above...
                                 
                                       Is Paul to the Thessalonians to be read like a text from Nostrodamus?
                                 
                                Nope. Just like Scripture... 
                                 
                                 
                                       My comments to your reply are inserted beneath your comments.
                                 
                                 
                                       Barry
                                 
                                        
                                       
                                bucerian <bucerian@...> wrote:



                                --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Barry Ferguson
                                <gogon789@y...> wrote:
                                    
                                Of course I had never heard him rage against the Jews -

                                Which he learned to do from the breast milk served to him by the
                                Harlot
                                (Rome) who persecuted the Jews throughout the middle ages out of
                                nearly every country in Europe... TPL
                                >       

                                Not quite.   Luther spit out that breast milk as curdled stuff. 

                                No he did not, because a child--just like the children molested in the Roman Church--don't know how to resist such authority at such a tender age...

                                 

                                 He subsequently declared his freedom from Rome and developed his theology over several decades - with the superior text on his desk, right beside his inkwell.   Did his Spirit-inspired reading of this superior text, which apparently excluded Augustine's view that the love of God is "shed abroad in our hearts," influence his venemous comments about the Jews at the end of his career?

                                No. His having been brought up in the explicitly, unapologetically Jew-hating Roman Catholic church did. You know little of anti-Semitism in the I6th Century...
                                 

                                Is this latter day statement a reflection of his purified text and purified theology that claims only an exterior God who does not work his love into our lives? 

                                See above...  

                                Or are you saying that Luther relapsed - and crawled back into the lap of the harlot at the end of his career?

                                See above... 

                                B.F.
                                >  > Luther forcefully brought justification to the forefront - and
                                Trent countered by reaffirming justification in very Augustinian
                                terms. Augustine never separated justification from an inward work
                                of sanctification - i.e., from the "love of God shed abroad in our
                                hearts by the Holy Spirit who is given to us."

                                Augustine, who never read the N.T. in Greek, but in the old Latin, was wrong and the humanist trained Luther was right. TPL 

                                The Westminster divines, who read Calvin carefully (a humanist scholar), wrote that grace is "infused" in sanctification, which is distinct yet not separate from extrinsic justification.

                                Distinct is enough. Separate in so much as justification is NOT sanctification--unless you are a Roman Catholic, or a Theonomic Shepherdite

                                Every text I have read from Paul in Romans [he]says that the love of God is shed abroad "in" our hearts by the Holy Spirit, who is given to us.

                                And so he is...thanks be to God.

                                From my own understanding, this does not mean that we own the gift of God.  It does mean that God has taken possession of us - by his grace, and that we are not our own.

                                Indeed, we are not...

                                Are you saying that Christ does not dwell by faith in the heart of a believer, who is rooted and grounded in the Love of God in Christ?

                                Why would I?

                                  B.F.

                                Novel in terms of articulation, not in terms of being authentic Paulinism. TPL

                                I can understand that distinction, if indeed Luther and Calvin really did strike root into Paul in a way that God, in his providence, with-held from the doctors of the church for fifteen hundred years.  Is this what happened?  B.F.

                                No more than when I wear my plaid shirt with red, green and blue in it, and when I put on a blue jumper, the blue comes out in my shirt--blue that was there all the while. When I wear a red, the red comes out and that ugly green jumper--well, the same is true. Not until the Papacy claimed a man could NOT be saved unless in obedience to him, did it become evident, by a fresh reading of the GREEK N.T. (thank you, brother Erasmus, for which you earned a place on the Harlot's address book, known as the Index Librorum Prohibitorum)just what Paul had in mind. You see the early church always wore a purple jumper (martyrdom)and so never fully saw justification stand out--though it was there--because a true mark of a Christian in those days was their willingness to die for Christ. In Luther's day, the killing of Christians by the "new" Pontifex Maximus (The Antichrist, "Bishop" of Rome), was once again involved in killing so many Christians and so much blood flowed, that the red in the Pauline writings came to the fore once again (i.e.,iustificatus fide sine operibus)and so the original meaning of the Pauline teaching came back in sight...

                                Is our salvation completed and perfected by something that
                                is extrinsic to us (apart from the merciful providence of him who
                                works all things together for the good of those who Love him (back)
                                and are called according to his purpose?)

                                Yes, completed by the passive and active obedience of Christ. Absolutely completed. TPL

                                I need more of that assurance and hope to find it by learning to understand that better.   But are you saying that He imparts nothing of Himself to the believer with whom he is united, but only imputes, from here to Eternity?  B.F.

                                Only to his elect--his Bride, of which the envious Harlot can never know...


                                > "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for
                                GOD IS AT WORK WITHIN YOU, both to will and to do of his good
                                pleasure."

                                >         "Christ IN YOU, the hope of glory."

                                >         Not as our innate righteousness "in Adam" - but as God's
                                outpouring and invasion into our lives, from beginning to end, "in
                                Christ."

                                "Infusia" may be Augustinian; it IS NOT Pauline. TPL

                                Did the Westminster Divines know this?

                                Indeed, they did...

                                "They who are effectually called and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created IN them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, by his Word and Spirit dwelling IN them; the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified, and they more and more quickened and strengthened, in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord."   Westminster Confession of Faith.

                                And yet, they have already precluded elsewhere that this "practice" could not possibly mean that our "conduct" can contribute anything to ADD TO Christ's perfect righteousness earned for us through both his passive (death)and active (his keeping the law for us p-e-r-f-e-c-t-l-y) obedience. Thanks be to God.

                                AND: "Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification, yet they differ [indeed, they do...] in that God, in justification, imputeth the righteousness of Christ[Which can neither be added to, nor supplemented by our conduct] ; in sanctification, his Spirit INFUSETH GRACE (MY EMPH), and enableth to excercise thereof; in the former, sin is pardoned; in the other, it is subdued; the one doth equally free all believers from the revenging wrath of God, and that perfectly in this life, that they never fall into condemnation; the other is neither equal in all, nor in this life perfect in any [and hence can never do us any good in our standing with God in terms of salvation ]; but growing up to perfection."   THE LARGER CATECHISM.

                                These people took their readings from Calvin, also a humanist scholar.   ARE THESE REFORMERS WRONG ABOUT GOD INFUSING HIS GRACE?  (INFUSIA?)

                                No, which is rather obvious when you read how very Lutheran they are in keeping justification separate from sanctification, in terms of which act saves and which act modifies character as a result of salvation, not as a condition to it.

                                Luther's dispute with Rome was HIGHLY PERSONAL  - he
                                absolutized his wounded feelings, he was deeply wounded by his ordeal
                                as well as by his rejection; he was a very proud German - and he was
                                highly insulted that any right thinking theologian would see in him
                                anything less than the inspiration of the Holy Ghost with respect to
                                doctrine and to enlightened Biblical interpretation.

                                And nearly every learned mind who read the bible in the original
                                languages agreed with him, as the entire history of the sweep of the
                                Reformation from Wittenburg, to England, to Geneva, to the
                                Netherlands, to
                                Scotland, to Eastern Europe, makes perfectly clear. TPL


                                Were there no learned minds on the opposite side of the fence, such as Erasmus,

                                Brother Erasmus was a rare and wonderful anomaly, thanks be to God for him...

                                 who provided the new and improved texts to the Reformers yet who stayed with the established church, and Thomas More,

                                More was seriously damaged goods--hair-shirt and all. Learned, wise, judicious, but in the end, a tragic papist...

                                 who stayed with the established church?    Were there no learned scholars or humanists in the Council of Trent?

                                A topic I took up in an essay published in the journal REFORMATION found here:

                                http://www.tyndale.org/Reformation/7/reformj7.html

                                 Have a read of this and you will soon learn that there were no humanists there whose voices amounted to much, elsewise they never would have declared the Vulgata Latina as "authentica."

                                  Calvin argued with Cardinal Sadoleto, who Calvin said was an admirable humanist scholar.  Was Sadoleto all alone at Trent in terms of top shelf scholarship? 

                                B.F.


                                >          Just ask Erasmus (:)


                                >          He claimed that his authority and his office, as did
                                Calvin, came solely and directly from God, and they both modeled
                                themselves after the Apostle Paul, as men set apart for the gospel of
                                Christ.  They claimed the same authority that Paul had in Galatians,
                                as apostles who should be trusted and followed against the
                                established church, because they had the true gospel of grace, even
                                if they did not have traditional institutional sanction.    They were
                                making a very solemn and absolute claim on the consciences of
                                millions of traditional Catholics - and millions of Protestants who
                                still take them as oracles of God.

                                Not them, but the purified original language texts, cleaned of the
                                putrid medieval scholasticism in which the truth had been buried (in
                                a defective, late medieval edition of a corrupt Latin text--thank
                                you, Erasmus and Valla). TPL


                                >You are making them more modest, less bold and daring than they actually were.   Luther and Calvin both claimed a divine call and office directly from God, and both claimed to preach the Word of God - they both said the word preached from the pulpit was the Word of God, not just the purified sacred text.  They spoke that Word into their contemporary situation.   The claim they were making for the scriptures was also based on their authority to interpret those scriptures - as doctors of the church, as scholars, and as men having as much apostolic authority as anyone in the established church.  Luther, on the basis of his office and superior reading of scripture, had more authority from God than the Pope and Bishops of the established church - and all of the doctors of the church who had gone before him.   He had authority to call the traditionally accepted head of the Western Church the Anti-Christ.  

                                     On his own authority (under God) he ripped out a portion of the mass.   He did not have this through the sanction of the traditional church.   He had this under the strength of his own conviction - and his invisible office, so to speak, given to him by God alone through his spirit.  Calvin made the same claim for himself, after the fashion of the Apostle Paul.   B.F. 
                                >      
                                >  

                                        Augustine did not think the Bishop of Rome was the anti-
                                Christ, and Augustine knew his Bible quite well, as well as his early
                                church history.

                                The Bishop of Rome had not fully manifested as the Antichrist yet. TPL

                                Yet Paul knew this, four hundred years before Augustine?  Was he not warning the Thessalonians?   B.F.

                                B.F.>

                                It takes quite a bit of divine inspiration to state with
                                absolute certainty that the Bishop of Rome is the anti-Christ and the
                                scourge of the earth in the twenty first century.

                                No it does not. Merely a good grasp of history, of the teachings of
                                Rome, and of Scripture. The Pope is, was, and always will be the
                                final and exclusive Antichrist predicted by Paul. TPL


                                Theodore P. Letis
                                (www.thetext.org)
                                 

                                I could use a better grasp of history and I admit that.  I am willing to learn, and I will learn by leaps and bounds, because I refuse to close my mind on tendentious readings into scripture and party based views of history.    


                                Barry
                                Barry, you are my hero. I mean that...

                                TPL



                                Do you Yahoo!?
                                Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.


                                Do you Yahoo!?
                                vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.