The headline for this article might leave one with the impression that all Lutheran denominations reaffirm the Bible's stance on homosexuality. When you read the details, you find that is not the case. "the largest Lutheran denomination, ELCA, recently approved On Friday, the chief legislative body of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) voted 559-451 to approve a resolution allowing gays and lesbians in âlife-long, monogamous, same gender relationshipsâ to be ordained. Unquote It sometimes pays to read the article.
"Who else might "He" apply to here, bro? If you cannot name one, the question "Where did God go?" cannot properly be asked. "
You appear to have missed the whole point in this verse. Sure, you can say "He" refers to Jesus in the NASB and NIV and that might be obvious to most, but that still does not make it clear that Jesus is God. The KJV makes it clear by saying God was manifest in the flesh.
DisplacedMaritimer (Bert) wrote: Since Jesus is both fully human and fully divine, then He, too, must have been born in sin and sinned throughout His life.
The Bible teaches that Jesus was sinless. The sin nature is passed through the father (beginning with Adam )to the offspring, but Jesus did not have an earthly father so he did not receive a sin nature. That is why the virgin birth is so important. Jesus was born of a virgin. "for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." Matthew 1:20b; "Behold, a virgin shall be with child..." Matt. 1:23a
So the important point to consider is that Jesus being conceived by the Holy Ghost did not have an earthly father and so did not receive the sin nature. It is only passed through the father, not the mother. All other people on earth have inherited their fallen, sin nature through the father originally from Adam who fell.
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" Romans 5:12
"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation;" Romans 5:18
It is important to understand the transmission of the sin nature is through the father because Adam is the Federal head of mankind.
One verse where the modern versions such as the NIV, NASB, are deficient is 1 Timothy 3:16.
The KJV (1611) says "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."
The NIV and NASB change the part "God was manifest in the flesh" to read something like "He appeared in a body" (NIV) or "He who was revealed in the flesh" (NASB). It could be argued with these modern versions that the word "He" is not referring to God.
In this particular verse, the deity of Christ is greatly weakened in the modern versions I quoted. This makes it more difficult to use this verse in modern versions with JWs who do not believe in the deity of Christ and others to show that Christ is God. Christ is God and the KJV makes that clear.
You are correct in saying there has been debate in the first few centuries about the divinity of Jesus. There has always been those with heretical ideas within the professing church. That is why early church councils were called and creeds were developed in order to counter these heresies, the Apostle's Creed being one example.
However, in the case of the RC church, the number of false teachings were piled up over a period of 1600 yrs beginning about the 4th century, which made the Reformation an absolute necessity.
Protestants and RCs believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. They differ on the authority it has. We believe as the apostolic church that the Bible alone is authoritative while the RCC believes it must be supplemented by tradition consisting of apocryphal books, a huge amount of writings by church fathers, and a huge collection of pronouncements by papal decrees. The RCC gives these things equal authority.
The RCC in effect destroys the Word of God. This can be proven if you examine the mass, purgatory, worship of Mary, the priesthood, celibacy, use of images, etc. in the light of scripture. The RCC cannot support these dogmas with scripture and must resort to other means. see Isaiah 8:20.
DisplacedMaritimer (Bert) wrote: Why do you feel that it is not possible for God to decide that Mary (or anyone else) cannot be born without original sin? And as far as many theologians arguing against it, many theologians argued against the divinity of Jesus. Do you believe that Jesus is divine?
I had a full reply typed up but the SA system somehow lost it.
I read the relevant part of Wikipedia you gave. It does mention there is no direct scriptural proof of the immaculate conception.
God could do whatever He wished, but the fact is God's Word has revealed that all are sinners (Romans 3:23) and death by sin was passed upon all men (Romans 5:12).
Two verses I already gave you indicate Mary believed herself she was a sinner.
The Bible does not say this was an impediment to her carrying Jesus. Don't forget the Bible says the Holy Ghost came upon her.
Maryolatry is rejected by Protestants because we wish to worship God only as He has authorized in his Word, the Bible. God has made it clear in many verses he does not share veneration (worship) with any other. See ten commandments (Exodus ch20 and Deut. ch5.)
June wrote: I was taught well by an FPC Gospel Minister, John Greer, that the Bible plainly teaches âguilt by associationâ. Some of the sermons he preached in that regard are: # âCause of Christ under Attackâ (Christians . . walking in the counsel of the ungodly) # 'God's Man in the Lions' Den' (man's law subordinate to GOD's law) # âSanctifying the Lordâ (No alliance with the wicked) # 'The Church - Epistle of Christ' (God's people . . a holy people) # 'Unmasking the False Gospel' (Guilt by Association)
When I lived in Vancouver, B.C. in about 1984, I heard Rev. John Greer preach a week of evening meetings in the FPC on the World Council of Churches, the Penticostal movement, the ecumenical movement, etc. He is a very gifted preacher as are all the FPC ministers.
You sound like you have learned well from the FPC minister's messages. This is an encouragement to listen to more sermons from the FPC on SermonAudio.
Unfortunately there is no FPC close by, but we have SermonAudio which is a blessing.
DisplacedMaritimer (Bert) wrote: Wayne, Yes, we do believe that Mary is immaculate out of reverance for Jesus.
Bert, Gen 3:15 and Luke 1:28 say nothing at all about Mary being sinless. Please explain how you get an immaculate conception out of those verses.
The doctrine of the immaculate conception completely lacks any scriptural support. It is in fact directly opposed to the Scripture doctrine of original sin. The Bible teaches that all men (and women), with the single exception of Christ who was God incarnate and always existed, are sinners. Scripture clearly says "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Romans 3:23.
After the birth of Jesus, Mary brought a sin offering (a sacrifice acknowledging sin..Luke 2:22-24; Leviticus 12:6-8). The doctrine of the immaculate conception was unknown to the apostolic church and was unheard of until centuries later.
The doctrine was opposed by some of the greatest theologians of the RC church, such as Augustine (died 430A.D), Chrysostom, Eusebius, Ambrose, Anselm, most of the medieval schoolmen, including Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Cardinal Cajetan (Luther's opponent), and two of the greatest popes, Gregory the Great and Innocent III. It was not proclaimed until 1854 A.D.
Mike wrote: Bert, we may ask saints to pray for us, but we don't pray TO them. We pray to God.
Mike, RCs don't think of saints as christians who are still alive. I think Bert believes the saints are those who have been canonized by the Pope/RC church for some particular reason and have long since passed away. Canonizing people to sainthood is another invention of Rome contrary to scripture.
Protestants believe every christian is a saint as did the New Testament writers. Check out who many of the N.T. epistles are addressed to. Christians are referred to as saints because their sins have been washed away by the blood of Christ and they have the righteousness of Christ imputed to them.(see Romans 5:1 --justification)
"Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints..." 1 Cor. 1:2
Paul refers to other believers as "saints". See 1 Cor. 6:1, 2; "Now concerning the collection for the saints..." 1 Cor 16:1
Unless a person is a saint in this life, they will not be a saint in the next.
So we can ask other saints (christians) to pray for us, but not people who have already passed away. They would not hear our prayers because only God has the power to hear us.
Loraine Boettner also said "Back of Rome's insistence on the perpetual virginity of Mary, of course is the desire to justify the celibate state of the priests and nuns, Rome teaches that the single state is holier than the married state, that there is something inherently unclean and defiling about marriage. Says one RC writer concerning the Virgin Mary: 'It cannot with decency be imagined that the most holy vessel which was once consecrated to be a receptacle of the Deity should be afterwards desecrated and profaned by human usage.' According to this teaching a woman's body is "desecrated and profaned" when she becomes a mother in the normal course of family life! A nun is holier than the mother of lovely children! And since Rome thinks of marriage as unholy and unclean, and since she has set herself to maintain the holiness, even the sinless perfection, of Mary, she finds herself obliged to teach that Mary always remained a virgin. Unquote.
Interestly, two books of the N.T., James and Jude, were written by sons of Joseph and Mary! Luke's statement concerning Mary and the birth of Jesus was "And she brought forth her firstborn son" Luke 2:7
Mark ch.6 shows there were other children in the family of Joseph and Mary.
Protestants have great respect for Mary. After all she was Jesus' earthly mother. She was highly favoured, but she is still a human being.
The RCC teaches that Mary is a mediatrix and that she is immaculate. Is this biblical?
Is Mary immaculate (without sin)? Mary was born a sinner, just as every other person is, except Jesus. "And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord." Luke 2:22. Mary herself realized she was a sinner in need of a Saviour. "And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour." Luke 1:46,47.
Loraine Boettner in his comprehensive book "Roman Catholicism" said: The exaltation of Mary first began and the term "Mother of God" was first applied to her by the Council of Ephesus in the year 431 A.D.
Prayers to Mary began about 600 A.D.
The Rosary, mechanical praying with beads, was invented by Peter the Hermit in 1079 A.D.
The Immaculate Conception of Mary was proclaimed a dogma by Pope Pius IX in 1854 A.D.
As for Mary being a mediatrix, the N.T. teaches we are to pray only to God. Jesus gave as example in Matt. ch6. Also 1 Tim. 2:5 (Jesus is the only mediator between God and men).
Permit me to make a comment on worship of Mary. The claim that Mary is not being worshipped is false. When people say the rosary, they are praying to Mary. You must admit kneeling and praying to Mary or a saint is a form of worship.
The second commandment says "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath..." Exodus 20:4 Yet the RCC has all kinds of statues and images which they kneel before and pray in front of.
The first commandment says "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Exodus 20:3 Isn't kneeling and praying to Mary a violation of this commandment?
There are hundreds of passages which condemn the making and worshipping of images. This is another reason the Reformation was necessary...to get rid of these images and false worship.
Also, how can millions of people be pray to Mary at any given moment and expect her to hear their prayers if she is not God?
Bert, the Bible does NOT teach a N.T. priesthood. Confession in the N.T. is made to God's high priest and nobody else. "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." 1 Timothy 2:5 Anything apart from this means a lost eternity.
Have you had a chance to read any of the N.T. lately. As I said before, there is no N.T. authority for the human RC priesthood.
In the Old Testament, the office of prophet, priest, and king was prefigured by an earthly priesthood within the nation of Israel. This looked forward to the priesthood and once for all sacrifice of Christ. They were only types or shadows of the great Prophet, Priest, and King who was to come.
"And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: But his man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them." Hebrews 8:23-25.
Once Christ came and fulfilled the three offices of the priesthood, there was no further need for an earthly priesthood. He paid the debt in full for sin. This made it possible for his people to have fellowship with and access to God. See Hebrews chap. 9 for more detail on this.
Christians are today able to go directly to God in prayer. Christians can therefore intercede for themselves and others and in this sense every christian is a priest today. (Ref. "Roman Catholicism" by Boettner)
June wrote: ...June, a sinner by birth, a Catholic by tradition, but by God's grace, made a CHRISTIAN by virtue of the new birth through the work of the Holy Spirit to the praise & glory of Him alone! Eph. 2:8-9; John 3:3-8; 1 Pet. 1:18-25; James 1:17-18; Titus 3:3-7
Biblion wrote: Quote.... "There are two published Greek texts which purport to represent the Majority readings -- Hodges & Farstad 1982 and Pierpont & Robinson 1991. The reader may click on the links in the previous sentence to go to brief descriptions of these....." To click on the referred links [URL=http://www.bible-researcher.com/majority.html]]]GO HERE[/URL]
The article you referred to seems to raise more questions.
It refers to the Hodges-Farstad Greek N.T. as the Majority Text. Yet the book I mentioned, New Age Bible Versions says in ch.36 that the Hodges and Farstad Greek N.T. must be rejected as a Majority text because it follows von Soden's collation of only 414 of the 5000+ MSS and ignores the older Andreas line of Revelation MSS.
Reportedly the Critical Text is taken from a very small number of older mss copies from the 100 to 600AD era, while the Majority Text or Byzantine Text is drawn from a very large number of later mss copies.
The author of the article does not like the term Alexandrian mss being used. Could it be because the older mss referred to as Alexandrian are very few in number and the Byzantine mss (which some argue is the Majority Text) are much larger in number? Does older necessarily mean better? Why?
savedbygrace wrote: my concern led me to purchase a book by Dr. James White, "The King James Only Controversy". The TR is its own text and it is often found in disagreement with the Majority Text as well as with the modern critical texts."
There seems to be some confusion in this statement.
The book New Age Bible Versions by Riplinger, chap.36 "The Modern Greek Editions" says there are two highly disparate types of critical Greek Texts available in bookstores today. The first, represents the Majority text and is called the Textus Receptus, from which the KJV was translated. (The "Greek N.T. According to the Majority Text" by Hodges and Farstad must be rejected since it follows von Soden's collation of only 404 of the 5000+ MSS and ignores the older Andreas line of Revelation MSS.)
The Nestle-Aland twenty-seventh editions or the United Bible Societies fourth edition, representing the minority type text, differ from the TR in nearly 6000 places.
The book says on p.471 "unfortunately as we shall see, the new versions are NOT based on this majority text, but on the dissenting handful of manuscripts which disagree with the majority."
It seems the debate is characterized by misinformation. Will the real Majority Text please stand up?
I just saw your post and will save it. I have to go out so can't reply during the day today. I do want to reply later this evening or tomorrow. So I will get back to you.
I have a lot of information about this subject that you may be interested in. Regards, Wayne
One thought for now though. The so-called sacrament of Penance is such a big thing in the RC church, but is not mentioned in the New Testament except for your interpretation of John 20:23. If Christ really gave instructions to hear confessions and give absolution, why isn't there some evidence of it in the N.T. All through the N.T. the apostles speak about various things but nowhere is this sacrament of confessing, receiving penance, and absolution through the secret confessional. You would think if it were authorized, that much would be said about it, but nothing is. The whole idea of a man in a confessional hearing the secret, intimate thoughts of a young man or woman is bizarre and devilish to say the least.
Yes, we do pay more taxes. The gov't just announced they are going to add the 7% PST to many more things next July. This will increase taxes over $2000/year for everybody in B.C. Opposition to this is mounting across B.C.
Chiropractic is strictly private. The gov't does not pay. Some people have an extended benefits private insurance plan which covers 80% or 50% of that. I have that. They cover prescription drugs. Gov't has a Pharmacare plan too which pays a certain amount when you exceed your annual minimum.
I am not sure if Orthodontic is covered by the public system. Dental is not covered so Ortho might not be covered. You might have to pay.
I have my own GP. He is in demand so I usually have to wait five days to get in to see him. But I could go to a walk-in clinic any weekday and see a doctor right away if I had to or go to emergency and wait a couple hours to see one.
I had a semi-private room (one other person) in a hospital. Some rooms have 2 people, some 4 under the public system. My private extended plan would pay for a private room, but they are not always available.
Most people don't care about choice when they need medical care. Yes, care may diminsh somewhat; but there is a lot of political pressure to keep good care.
I believe it misinterprets verses in order to try to justify the doctrine of Rome that salvation is by faith plus works.
There is a website which has links to the historic Reformed confessions that refute this article and false teaching of the Roman Church. Space is very limited on here, but if you are interested, you can examine the Reformed confessions at:
This is a good Reformed church in Edmonton.
The evidence that Rome is wrong about all their key teachings is clear. 1. According to Hebrews Jesus made a complete atonement for sin. You need to believe this in order to be saved. The teaching that there are priests today who offer a sacrifice for sin (the Mass) is blasphemous and false. 2. Priests cannot give out forgiveness (absolution) for sin because there are no such priests today authorized in the Bible. Again read Hebrews. All believers are priests in the sense we can spread the gospel but we do not offer sacrifices for sins. 3. Rome gives equal authority to tradition and Scripture. There is no sanction to do this in Scripture. 4. Salvation is by faith alone. It is entirely a work of God the Holy Spirit. Christians do not lose their salvation.