Posted on 08/27/2010 11:45:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
Let's hear Calvin's take on the verse...
This explanation contains a true, godly, and useful doctrine, that then only are the prophecies read profitably, when we renounce the mind and feelings of the flesh, and submit to the teaching of the Spirit; but that it is an impious profanation of it when we arrogantly rely on our own acumen, deeming that sufficient to enable us to understand it, though the mysteries contain things hidden to our flesh, and sublime treasures of life far surpassing our capacities. And this is what we have said, that the light which shines in it, comes to the humble alone. But the Papists are doubly foolish, when they conclude from this passage, that no interpretation of a private man ought to be deemed authoritative. For they pervert what Peter says, that they may claim for their own councils the chief right of interpreting Scripture; but in this they act indeed childishly; for Peter calls interpretation private, not that of every individual, in order to prohibit each one to interpret; but he shews that whatever men bring of their own is profane. Were, then, the whole world unanimous, and were the minds of all men united together, still what would proceed from them, would be private or their own; for the word is here set in opposition to divine revelation; so that the faithful, inwardly illuminated by the Holy Spirit, acknowledge nothing but what God says in his word. However, another sense seems to me more simple, that Peter says that Scripture came not from man, or through the suggestions of man. For thou wilt never come well prepared to read it, except thou bringest reverence, obedience, and docility; but a just reverence then only exists when we are convinced that God speaks to us, and not mortal men. Then Peter especially bids us to believe the prophecies as the indubitable oracles of God, because they have not emanated from men's own private suggestions. 20. Knowing this first - Here Peter begins to shew how our minds are to be prepared, if we really wish to make progress in scriptural knowledge. There may at the same time be two interpretations given, if you read ἐπηλύσεως as some do, which means occurrence, impulse; or, as I have rendered it, interpretation, ἐπιλύσεως. But almost all give this meaning, that we ought not to rush on headlong and rashly when we read Scripture, confiding in our own understanding. They think that a confirmation of this follows, because the Spirit, who spoke by the prophets, is the only true interpreter of himself.
Yes, some theologians did and those theologians were wrong.
Neither Christ nor the apostles taught the concept of limbo and the early church didn't believe it.
Rome pretends.
Discernment.
My question was not about the Mormons. I asked if Dr. E contends that non-Trinitarians such as Oneness Pentacostals and Unitarians are not Christians.
"And highly plausible, too." - Michael Keaton, "Multiplicity."
And you got the answer.
some hold that there are 3 in the one, but the 3 vary, even to being 4 and sometimes 5. Are there 3 persons, 4 persons, or 3 persons, one ghost and or one god who was a man, to men and a baby.
two
What do you then call the state that in which the souls of the Patriarchs were held, the Bosom of Abraham, while awaiting Christ's opening gates of Heaven?
Sinners.
The dirty little secret is that Rome has always cozied up to Islam because for centuries the muslims have been instrumental in destroying one of Rome’s primary adversaries — the Russian Orthodox church.
They believe he is their savior. The Bible says "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." It doesn't say believe he is God equal and coeternal with the Father, just that God [sic] raised him: "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
The Bible also says "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" or obey Jesus "And [Jesus] being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him," or keep his saying "If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death" or just by his name "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name [besides Jesus'] under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved," etc, etc. etc.
I did.
I did, but it was to a question I didn't ask.
and 1.5 million Armenian Christians
And Christ told them they could pass on the special gifts He gave for the foundation of the New Testament church where again?
Scripture teaches peters infallibility where again?
1000 silverlings: you posted that you would go “into a feral rage”
OK, upon reflection that was entirely too strong a term to use. There was a smiley just before it and a lol at the end of the description but obviously I failed to express myself clearly. I was attempting to briefly but forcefully answer a question without (and this is to laugh) going into too much detail.
Maybe I should have just responded by posting a link to this. For goodness sake don't read too much into it.
OLD REGGIE: Why would an individual expect to post highly unusual personal information without raising eyebrows and inviting questions?
I think I made it clear that I knew I was opening myself up to comments. People are allowed to make observations about me and at the same time I am allowed to express my disappointment at the nature of the responses.
It was a risk, I took it. The shift in focus from the issue to my person was annoying but it didn't actually damage me. I'll go back to my comments that OLD REGGIE found so condescending because I believe them: we can't call each other liars, we just treat each other like liars. We aren't allowed to "make it personal" so we strip the personhood from the people we're supposedly engaging.
One wonders why they hate Luther so much
Luk 6:22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you [from their company], and shall reproach [you], and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
Isn't that what the pope believes?
So you want us to believe that the Holy Spirit indwells and speaks to every Protestant with absolute clarity and fidelity but not to the Pope? Right......
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.