Coming Against Reformed Theology

[Josheb]

Peter was specifically the apostle to the Jews; whereas, Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles.

Can we amend that to say Peter was designated in the beginning to be the apostle to the Jews, because we know from Galatians he did, in fact, minister to both Jewish and Gentile converts (and it was possibly due to his inconsistency that the division was made).

There is absolutely nothing to indicate that Peter had authority over the whole body of Christ (or even all the Jewish believers).

Yep. Absolutely nothing to indicate..... In fact, we should ask how he managed the entire body from afar, and while frequently moving.

 

[David1701]

Can we amend that to say Peter was designated in the beginning to be the apostle to the Jews, because we know from Galatians he did, in fact, minister to both Jewish and Gentile converts (and it was possibly due to his inconsistency that the division was made).

I qualified what I posted about those groups to whom Peter and Paul were sent, in a follow-up post.

"Peter was not sent exclusively to Jews, any more than Paul was sent exclusively to the Gentiles; but, their ministries were characterised by going to the Jews and Gentiles respectively. It's similar for the other apostles, and there is not a hint that any one of them had authority over the others."

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/coming-against-reformed-theology.1621/post-76283

Yep. Absolutely nothing to indicate..... In fact, we should ask how he managed the entire body from afar, and while frequently moving.

 

[Arch Stanton]

Why did Saint James clarify Saint Peter's Declaration?

Again, it is St. James' diocese .... post 223

because St. James was due the honor as the Bishop of Jerusalem [his diocese].

 

[Arch Stanton]

Peter was not sent exclusively to Jews, any more than Paul was sent exclusively to the Gentiles;

I just posted that [#238]

Thanks!

 

[Mr GLee]

none of that says scripture alone or even faith alone

Its a law of faith (his understanding) , "Let there be" and "the bride of Christ had the good seal the Holy Fathers approval "it as it writen "

As it is written is used 50 times to make the point . . . .trust the unseen Father Christ the head of the bride ,

Christ's faith as a labor of His love is a work . "Let there be" and noting changes. . dead faith ,dead works

Not our dead faith. towards Almighty God who is not served by dying human hands as a will but his working in us with us (Emanuel)

Hebrews 6King James Version6 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

 

[donadams]

A prime example of the abuse of Scripture. Just call your religion the "us" and the "our," and wallah---you have proof!

Should the Catholic reformers have stayed with a religion that forbid lay people from possessing the Bible in the common language? That hanged, burned, decapitated and hung heads on bridge spikes, any who were caught translating the Bible into languages they could read and speak? A church organization that did the same to all dissenters of their tyrannical reign, who failed to bow down to them? WHo had self appointed priests, full of sexual perversions, greed, self seeking, self serving, men of ill character, putting them in the place of Christ? Who invented doctrines nowhere found in Scripture, worshiped human saints they named as saints, extracted indulgences with the promise of heaven, set up idols and prayed to them?

Should they have stayed? Was that truly Christ's one true church? The only thing that has changed is the human slaughter.

I would need some historical evidence please

How does one translate a Bible into a language they don’t know or read or speak

I guess they had no translations

There is a common practice in England to hang the head of a traitor on the gate like they did to the faithful martyrs like St. Thomas More and yes (((canonized SAINT)))

 

[donadams]

You've been corrected about this on numerous occasions...

1) The "Pope's" "throne" is not on Vatican Hill.

2) Rome has expanded considerably, since the 1st C., but it is still called, worldwide, "the city on seven hills".

Did it also have seven hills when it was the pagan Roman Empire?

Conquered by Christ and His church?

Dan 2: 44 And in the days of these kings (Roman Caesars) shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

Isaiah 2:2
And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.

Micah 4:1
But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it.

Daniel 6:26
I make a decree, That in every dominion of my kingdom men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel: for he is the living God, and stedfast for ever, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed, and his dominion shall be even unto the end.

Daniel 7:14
And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

Daniel 7:18
But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.

Lk 22:29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;

 

[donadams]

Who said anything about the Vatican? The so-called "Pope's" "throne" is not in the Vatican, as I'm sure you know. In any case, it's irrelevant, since the city is still called the "city on seven hills", and that's what matters.

John was writing about the future (future to him, although not all future to us).

There is no proof that the apostle Peter was ever in Rome, nor that he was crucified upside down; not that either of those things makes any difference anyway.

1 pet 5:13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.

Babylon was rome

Why write to those on the way to Rome if he is not going there?

1 pet 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

Thks

 

[donadams]

I’m still waiting to hear just what reformed theology is and what the theology before that which was actually reformed. Thanks

 

[ReverendRV]

Again, it is St. James' diocese .... post 223

Why did Saint James' Diocese Ammend Saint Peter's Diocese at the Council of Jerusalem?

 

[His clay]

I’m still waiting to hear just what reformed theology is and what the theology before that which was actually reformed. Thanks

It may help to actually read the first post of the thread with comprehension. That would be a good start. Thanks.

 

[donadams]

It may help to actually read the first post of the thread with comprehension. That would be a good start. Thanks.

She talks about it being attacked and flowers

I want to know exactly what was (((rejected))) sorry i mean reformed?

Perhaps it’s the 255 dogma’s

Who knows since they never say

Thks

 

[donadams]

Is there a difference between the saints and the faithful?

 

[donadams]

Why did Saint James' Diocese Ammend Saint Peter's Diocese at the Council of Jerusalem?

Please explain?

 

[Arch Stanton]

Why did Saint James' Diocese Ammend Saint Peter's Diocese at the Council of Jerusalem?

St. Peter has spoken.... what St. James says to his 'flock/diocese' does not contradict St. Peter.

 

[Arial]

I would need some historical evidence please

Then find it and read it---just as I did.

How does one translate a Bible into a language they don’t know or read or speak

Those who translate the Bible from its original texts, or from any language they are reading it in , into another language, do know the languages. Translation and interpretation are two different things.

I guess they had no translations

Who are the they? NOw you are just being rediculeous.

There is a common practice in England to hang the head of a traitor on the gate like they did to the faithful martyrs like St. Thomas More and yes (((canonized SAINT)))

Is there?

 

[ReverendRV]

St. Peter has spoken.... what St. James says to his 'flock/diocese' does not contradict St. Peter.

Which Diocese did Saint Paul belong to, and which Diocese did he listen to?

 

[Arch Stanton]

Which Diocese did Saint Paul belong to, and which Diocese did he listen to?

St. Paul met with St. Peter for fifteen days [Gal 1:18] ... got to make sure he is in lockstep with the Church.

 

[Josheb]

Which Diocese did Saint Paul belong to, and which Diocese did he listen to?

St. Paul met with St. Peter for fifteen days [Gal 1:18] ... got to make sure he is in lockstep with the Church.

During which time it was Peter who was in error and in need of correction, and the question asked in Post #257 was dodged, not answered.

I’m still waiting to hear just what reformed theology is and what the theology before that which was actually reformed. Thanks

No, you're not. That is completely disingenuous. Reformed theology is theology that reforms errors found in 16th century Roman Catholic theology, beginning with canceling the profiteering and completely unscriptural and greedy practices of selling forgiveness of sins and the underlying position works (and/or money/barter earn salvation. These are matters the RCC refused to change despite knowing they were wrong, murderously persecuting the Catholics asking for the reforms, many of which the RCC eventually bowed to scripture and reason and reformed themselves. Among the other reforms made was the rejection of a single human individual as the sole authority over all Christians everywhere when the men in that position had proven corrupt, the elevation of God's word as the sole sufficient authority for understanding salvation and living life in Christ, an affirmation of the God-given ability for any human to understand scripture as written, the rejection of the inherent salvific nature of certain sacraments (like baptism) with the underlying misguided theology of salvation by works, the discarding of Roman Catholic Tradition(s) as equal to scripture in authority, and the restoration of human dignity, the discarding of the veneration of specially designated people called "saints" (an abuse of the word as used in scripture), the rejection of transubstantiation, purgatory, Marion devotion and sinlessness, and the hegemony of Roman Catholicism (that has consistently proven corrupt through the centuries leading up to and following the Reformation.

These reforms can be found listed by simply asking Google. Furthermore, if you do not know what Reformed Theology is then how can you claim any difference between RC theology and RT and argue against it. Nearly every thread in which you participated proves you already understand at least something of what Reformed Theology is (although many of your posts are straw men). You cannot post dissent and simultaneous claim ignorance without proving to the reader you are trolling.

 

[donadams]

During which time it was Peter who was in error and in need of correction, and the question asked in Post #257 was dodged, not answered.

No, you're not. That is completely disingenuous. Reformed theology is theology that reforms errors found in 16th century Roman Catholic theology, beginning with canceling the profiteering and completely unscriptural and greedy practices of selling forgiveness of sins and the underlying position works (and/or money/barter earn salvation. These are matters the RCC refused to change despite knowing they were wrong, murderously persecuting the Catholics asking for the reforms, many of which the RCC eventually bowed to scripture and reason and reformed themselves. Among the other reforms made was the rejection of a single human individual as the sole authority over all Christians everywhere when the men in that position had proven corrupt, the elevation of God's word as the sole sufficient authority for understanding salvation and living life in Christ, an affirmation of the God-given ability for any human to understand scripture as written, the rejection of the inherent salvific nature of certain sacraments (like baptism) with the underlying misguided theology of salvation by works, the discarding of Roman Catholic Tradition(s) as equal to scripture in authority, and the restoration of human dignity, the discarding of the veneration of specially designated people called "saints" (an abuse of the word as used in scripture), the rejection of transubstantiation, purgatory, Marion devotion and sinlessness, and the hegemony of Roman Catholicism (that has consistently proven corrupt through the centuries leading up to and following the Reformation.

These reforms can be found listed by simply asking Google. Furthermore, if you do not know what Reformed Theology is then how can you claim any difference between RC theology and RT and argue against it. Nearly every thread in which you participated proves you already understand at least something of what Reformed Theology is (although many of your posts are straw men). You cannot post dissent and simultaneous claim ignorance without proving to the reader you are trolling.

Which of the 255 dogmas was wrong and needed an unauthorized reform?

Which dogma’s do you believe?