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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.