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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 19 , Oct 2, 2004
      --- 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 2 of 19 , Oct 3, 2004
        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 3 of 19 , Oct 3, 2004
          >>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 4 of 19 , Oct 4, 2004
            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 5 of 19 , Oct 5, 2004
              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 6 of 19 , Oct 5, 2004
                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 7 of 19 , Oct 5, 2004
                  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 8 of 19 , Oct 5, 2004
                    --- 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 9 of 19 , Oct 5, 2004
                      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 10 of 19 , Oct 7, 2004
                        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 11 of 19 , Oct 7, 2004
                          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 12 of 19 , Oct 8, 2004


                            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.