Some of them take the same approach with Mark 16:18 (not realizing that it is merely foreshadowing Paul being bitten by an viper and not harmed in Acts 28:4-6).
Posted on 05/03/2008 4:38:34 PM PDT by NYer
Perhaps it is not a hate site.
It is however a site filled with hate.
Mine fits perfectly. Note that Peter is calling attention to scripture, not the faulty ideas of men.
15: "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."
Say what?
What you wrote had NOTHING to do with my question. NOBODY has ever disputed that Peter and Paul both wrote Scripture.
Thayer Definition:
1) to twist, turn awry
2) to torture, put to the rack
3) metaphorically to pervert, of one who wrests or tortures language in a false sense
Part of Speech: verb
I think definition #3 is a great warning against YOPIOS.
Every day here is another argument demonstrating the folly of individual interpretation.
Not from the very beginning, but man did start changing the Gospel soon after Christ returned to His Father.
I don’t understand why, given that the LDS church rejects the trinity, they insist on being called a name (Christian) that has for 2000 years followed such heresies (in their mind) as the trinity.
++++++++++++++
We follow Christ.
Many good people work hard to follow Christ.
A Christian is one who follows Christ.
Yes, it is better to have no earthly authority from a flawed human. Everyones salvation rests solely on their relationship with the Lord. Not what anyone tells you to do.
Don’t leave the Divine Author and Preserver out of the equation.
+++++++++++++++
I am not.
To do as you say, these men would have some kind of authority to lead all other men in the name of Christ.
That, to me, would make them Prophets.
But then, I am told, by many who say God's word in only in the Bible, that there has been no Prophets since the time of the Apostles.
I agree with you. All the proof I need is that in his epistles, Paul claims to have argued with Peter and seemed proud that he apparently won; clearly Peter in those early days wasn’t the sole authority. And I always think that they saw things a lot more clearly in the early days than we do now from a “distance” of 2000 years.
exactly and quiet as it’s kept James (the Lord’s half brother) seems to have been the one who had final say so regarding matters of doctrine. Not as “pope” or anything like that, but when discussing the matter as to whether or not Gentile believers were required to keep the Jewish traditions of the law, It was James whom the Lord used to dictate what the living (not salvation) requirements would be for non-Jewish believers not Peter.
Some of them take the same approach with Mark 16:18 (not realizing that it is merely foreshadowing Paul being bitten by an viper and not harmed in Acts 28:4-6).
No one is FORCING RC’s to
BEHAVE as they do . . .
No one is forcing anyone to lie about it either. It just happens.
What am I wrong about?
Pontifex Maximus(Pope) means WHAT?..
First of all, we have two terms here. "Pope" is from the Italian (I believe) for "Papa", i.e., father. Pontifex Maximus means "supreme bridge maker (or builder)".
And as a matter of simple grammer, it STILL says union with Christ. Spin it however you will.
If the Church's teachings about the Blessed Virgin Mary are wrong, then why did Reformers such as Luther, Calvin, Zwengli and Wesley not disavow them?
Who said they didn't???? In The Works of Luther, Vol. 22, "[...] since His mother, Mary, the virgin, was known to be a plain carpenter's wife, no more respect was shown to her than to any ordinary woman.....For the greater the men of God and the larger the measure of the Spirit in them, the greater the diligence and attention they devote to the Son rather than to the mother." - Martin Luther
Reformers and Protestants revere Mary, but we do not elevate her to sinless status, or equality with God or a co-Savior as the Roman Catholic church does. There are many statements by Reformers who spoke against Mary worship and idolatry. There are also many who couldn't quite let go of the old ideas of Mary's perpetual virginity which is contrary to Scripture. I don't really care about what men may or may not have said. I care about what Scripture says. And Scripture is clear Mary was not a perpetual virgin or any any way to be worshipped or became sinless.
Question for you....Was Joseph required to live in perpetual celibacy even though he had a wife after Christ was born????? Where is your Scriptural support for this??? Notice Matthew 1:25 "but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus." That verse does not say "kept her a virgin forever"....it says "until" she gave birth. The Greek word we translate until is ἕως or heōs. An adverb which means: until, as long as, marking the continuance of an action up to the time of another action. There is nothing in this grammar that indicates anything less than TEMPORARY. Also note Matthew 13:55,56 where it is recorded Christ had brothers/sisters. If Mary were a perpetual virgin where did these other children come from? Was Joseph an adulterer? Were these children also sons of God like Christ Himself? OR, more likely, did Joseph know his wife in the traditional sense following Christ's birth and have children the same as any family does????? The only reason that view is rejected is because of the unbiblical view that Mary was a perpetual virgin.
Does the phrase, "blessed art thou among women" leave open the possibility that ANY woman was more blessed?
Protestants don't reject the view that Mary was the most blessed of women. We believe she was unique in having been chosen by God to bear the Son of God. In that sense she was indeed a righteous woman. But Mary herself rejects the notion that she ever earned this position, or is deserving of worship. You forget the FIRST part of Luke 1:48 - ...."He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave". Note Mary referred to herself as being in a 'humble state'. Again the word for humble here is ταπείνωσιν or tapeinōsin which quite literally means a reference to one's own sinful condition. It conveys the idea of spiritual abasement and a recognition of one's own guilt before God. As regards to the word 'blessed' it is μακαριοῦσίν or makariousin. It literally means 'to be happy'. It does not mean to be exalted, nor does it mean to be revered, or worshipped. Makariousin is also found in James 5:11 "Behold we count them happy [Makariousin]...." which should illustrate the true meaning. [The NASV actually translates Makariousin as blessed, the KJV translates it happy in James 5:11]. So no, protestants don't EXCLUDE this verse, we translate it ACCURATELY.
And BTW: The above is EXACTLY how sola scriptura reconciles 2 Peter 3:16. There are many who 'distort' the Scriptures, a hem, and cough cough. And you left out v. 17 which says: "You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness,". And so I ask YOU a question again, how do you know who is distorting and who is not if you deviate away from sola scriptura????
With all due respect: BUNK. That is competely unbiblical. If sacraments are the 'how' we didn't need the cross! All God needed to do was institute the sacraments and spared His son a grueling death. Can't you see that???
No one is arguing that Scripture is not needed to be "thoroughly equipped."
The Protestant argument is that Scripture is sufficient (Sola Scriptura). This passage does not say that only Scripture is required.
See the difference?
I may say that gasoline is profitable so that the motoring man may be fully equipped for every good journey.
That doesn't mean i only need gasoline. I also need other things, like a car, a driver's license, a map, etc.
Asked and answered. Have a nice day.
They would not exist and would have no salvific power were it not for Jesus' Sacifice.
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.