Last July 4th, WND reported on the failure of the group American Atheists to find pilots willing to fly “Godless” banners over American cities in all 50 states. Some 80 percent of pilots refused the jobs, saying things such as, “I’m not going to hell flying that sign.”
According to the atheists’ website, this year they aren’t trying to be quite as ambitious.
Instead of trying to locate pilots in all 50 states, this year the group plans to hire one pilot to fly a banner above New York City on the 4th of July.
According to the group: “In celebration of the rise of atheism in America, American Atheists flew aerial banners across the country on July 4th in 2011. … The banners proudly stated, ‘God-LESS America’ and ‘Atheism Is Patriotic.’ The banners brought the breadth and patriotism of the movement into America’s conversation.”...
Jim Lincoln wrote: No worse than taking the King of England and his church as an inspiration The Truth About KJV Only: The..Agendas and The Influence of An Anglican Archbishop on the KJV
Perhaps the reason behind Jim's constant outbursts at the KJV is that he is really a Roman Catholic at heart. After all his hero's W & H were popish at heart too.
Daily Planet religion correspondent Media Halfways reports that Nilsson Publishers (A subsidiary of Rambling House) has announced the publication of the Holy Bible Special Edition that takes the inspiration for its cover from a recent issue of Time magazine.
This special Sola Scriptura edition features a mirror (of lightweight Mylar) affixed on the front cover, above the words "Bible Scholar of the Year."
Nilsson Publishers' CEO Miles Blandish told the Daily Planet "This is part of an ongoing effort to give the Holy Scriptures new relevance by presenting them in a hip, culturally aware way that grabs the attention of the public. We realize that part of our mission is to stay current, to keep up with trends, to be phat and dope and poppin' fresh."
Time magazine recently revealed their "Man of the Year" issue for 2012, with a mirrored cover that reflects the reader's face. Blandish admitted "Frankly, we were a little embarrassed that we hadn't thought of this before. It fits in so well with the idea of Sola Scriptura. What we are saying with this cover is; Who should you really count on to interpret the Bible? The answer? It's right there on the cover! You! Why rely on someone else who might have it all wrong, when you can get it straight from the horse's mouth?"
knowing wrote: Oh John, you musn't be so hard on him. Remember that the Roman catholic can't read the Bible without a priest. And without Traditions he cannot possibly provide Sola Scriptura interpretation. (Or any other Sola for that matter).
Pauvre dabs!
I wouldn't have asked him that if I had known. Oh the poor, little thing. He needs help for sure.
Lame Box, do you need help? Do you want help? Is the Lord dealing with your soul, convicting you of sin, and righteousness, and judgment to come? If so, you have arrived at the right place, because we will all tell you the same thing concerning the sacrifice for sin of the Lord Jesus Christ, his death and burial and resurrection and ascension and coming again, which things constitute The Gospel, by which you may be saved, if the Lord is willing to open your eyes and get you out of your box, which is obviously over your head, blinding you currently as to the truth.
In Essentials, Plurality wrote: Which of these has dogmatically defined the essentials? MacArthur? Moore? Spurgeon? Piper? Sproul? Osteen? Masters? Hammack? Calvin? Crouch? Robertson? Young? Jakes? Driscoll? Swindoll? Owen? Edwards? Flavell? Whitefield? Wesley? Knox? Luther? Zwingli? If not one of these, who else knows the essentials?
I didn't realize truth was determined by dogmatism. You learn something new every day.
As to the dilemma you perceive, do you have a solution you're willing to share?
Remember that the Roman catholic can't read the Bible without a priest. And without Traditions he cannot possibly provide Sola Scriptura interpretation. (Or any other Sola for that matter).
"One of the great differences between Protestant and Catholic doctrine is in the area of Tradition. The Protestant church maintains that the Bible alone is intended by God to be the source of doctrinal truth (2 Tim. 3:16). The Catholic Church, however, says, "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God . . ." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 97. Note, all citations in this article are from this Catechism).
The Catholic Church reasons thusly:
1."The apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority.'" (Par. 77). 2."This living transmission, accomplished through the Holy Spirit, is called tradition..." (Par. 78). 3."Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence." (Par. 82)." (M.Slick)
[p.s. I picked out an easy text to start you off, and you seem to be struggling with it. Would you like us to go through it step by step?]
How about the first verse?
1 Corinthians 15:1 KJV 1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
Hello?......
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Ah, I guess you're having difficulty finding the passage in Pope's Commentary. Well if you're unregenerate, that's all you've got, poor dab. No Comforter, No Teacher, No Spirit to guide your thinking, paddling about in the dark and rejecting the glorious gospel I've just given you an opportunity to believe.
John UK wrote: If you can get this one right, you will be saved and get to heaven. You will be justified immediately through faith alone in Christ alone, and you will give all the glory to God alone.
This is just your interpretation.
Call Pastor Hammack at (00-1)(325)695-8202 (his home phone) to determine how many interpretations there are on this passage. He stated 'millions' for each and every verse. Not just by pastors but by everyone who has ever read the paragraph.
Spin the dial, get an interpretation. If you don't like it, spin it again. If you still don't like that, search SA for one you like. None there? Search the Web, surely you'll find one you can live with or modify to suit. Pick the one you like. At the end of the day, and by all means, be happy.
Now use this interpretation to convince thousands online that you are dogmatically correct. Start a Bible study in your basement and if you can convince 10,000s to follow your interpretation of this passage and others, someday you could be Joel Osteen, the World's Pastor. Like him, you could eventually have your own greeting card line.
1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV 1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures...
If you can get this one right, you will be saved and get to heaven. You will be justified immediately through faith alone in Christ alone, and you will give all the glory to God alone.
can i get an interpreter wrote: It's easy to cast stones at a Baptist pastor who only wishes to understand these issues. Perhaps a Reformed Baptist pastor isn't to ever publicly doubt his doctrines. It's poor form, perhaps. But before the Internet age, the plurality of interpretations wasn't as easy to discern. Now that there are upwards of 100,000s of pastors interpreting a given verse online, which of these has the dogmatic teaching? MacArthur? Moore? Spurgeon? Piper? Sproul? Osteen? Masters? Hammack? Calvin? Crouch? Robertson? Young? Jakes? Driscoll? Swindoll? Owen? Edwards? Flavell? Whitefield? Wesley? Knox? Luther? Zwingli?
It's easy to cast stones at a Baptist pastor who only wishes to understand these issues. Perhaps a Reformed Baptist pastor isn't to ever publicly doubt his doctrines. It's poor form, perhaps.
But before the Internet age, the plurality of interpretations wasn't as easy to discern.
Now that there are upwards of 100,000s of pastors interpreting a given verse online, which of these famous preachers has the dogmatic teaching?
Reformed Reflections wrote: "'Everyone does what's right in their own eyes.' That's the new mode of biblical interpretation. No one agrees. Everyone disagrees. And you have churches doing all kinds of crazy things. And you've got some saying "That's wrong." Some saying "That's right." No one can agree on anything. "Take all Christians. There is no agreement on what to do with water in baptism. People can't agree on the mode of baptism. They can't agree on who should be baptized. They can't agree on what baptism does. We can't even agree on what to do with water. "You take the Lord's Supper. No one can agree on what to do with the Lord's Supper. "No one can agree on who can be a pastor and who can't. "Nobody can agree on what the biblical teaching is about divorce. "No one can agree on pretty much anything." "What this comes down to is 'sola interpretation.' Your interpretation becomes binding on everyone else. Because you believe everyone else who doesn't agree with your interpretation is wrong. So not only is it sola scriptura, you become The Magisterium. You become The Pope pronouncing the dogmatic interpretation of that passage. Which of these popes is right?
RCs avoid the turmoil by not discussing Scripture. Is that better?
the one interpretation wrote: Which of the thousands of SA preachers on this one chapter has the single dogmatic interpretation on foreknowledge, predestination, justification and salvation?
Reformed Reflections wrote: No one agrees. Everyone disagrees. That's wrong. That's right. No one can agree on anything. There is no agreement on what to do with water in baptism. People can't agree on the mode of baptism. They can't agree on who should be baptized. They can't agree on what baptism does. We can't even agree on what to do with water. No one can agree on what to do with the Lord's Supper. No one can agree on who can be a pastor and who can't. Nobody can agree on what the biblical teaching is about divorce. No one can agree on pretty much anything. Your interpretation becomes binding on everyone else. Because you believe everyone else who doesn't agree with your interpretation is wrong. So not only is it sola scriptura, you become The Magisterium. You become The Pope pronouncing the dogmatic interpretation of that passage. Don't believe me? Look up a passage on Sermon Audio and listen to each sermon. Massive disagreement.
knowing wrote: Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Reformed Reflections wrote: What this comes down to is
The elect will still be saved, and they will be the only ones who are saved.
Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will"
Isn't the Lord's FOREKNOWLEDGE a wonderful comfort.
Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
1 Peter 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied
"'Everyone does what's right in their own eyes.' That's the new mode of biblical interpretation. No one agrees. Everyone disagrees. And you have churches doing all kinds of crazy things. And you've got some saying "That's wrong." Some saying "That's right." No one can agree on anything.
"Take all Christians. There is no agreement on what to do with water in baptism. People can't agree on the mode of baptism. They can't agree on who should be baptized. They can't agree on what baptism does. We can't even agree on what to do with water.
"You take the Lord's Supper. No one can agree on what to do with the Lord's Supper.
"No one can agree on who can be a pastor and who can't.
"Nobody can agree on what the biblical teaching is about divorce.
"No one can agree on pretty much anything."
"What this comes down to is 'sola interpretation.' Your interpretation becomes binding on everyone else. Because you believe everyone else who doesn't agree with your interpretation is wrong. So not only is it sola scriptura, you become The Magisterium. You become The Pope pronouncing the dogmatic interpretation of that passage.
"Don't believe me? Look up a passage on Sermon Audio and listen to each sermon. Massive disagreement."
Mass Scripture Confusion wrote: "There is massive disagreement on every Bible verse."
Apart from the fact that the statement is untrue.
I suppose your solution is to bow down to a mere man, and accept his interpretation of each and every Bible verse, not questioning, nor thinking for yourself, accepting bulls as inspired of God, "worshipping" in a manner not worthy of being called worship, believing in magicians calling themselves priests, accepting Mary as co-mediatrix with the Son of God, et al, at al.....
39
There are a total of 58 user comments displayed | add new comment |
Dr. Bill Jones | 6/18/2008
COMMENTS | 
The Truth About KJV Only: The..Agendas and The Influence of An Anglican Archbishop on the KJV
but he, I, and all conservative Christians agree that the Romish Church isn't Christian. Now isn't that simple. We would agree on the Five Solas, 
unprofitable servant from georgia: "
san jose john
yeah. more trouble for the..."
