“And referring to the Greek and the historical/cultural context, Romans 1 clearly describes heterosexuals having same-sex sex as part of idol worship” Wrong again Pe, the context of Romans 1:24-27 clearly suggest otherwise; the expressions Paul uses cannot be misunderstood, “to dishonor their own bodies between themselves” [1:24], “vile affections” [1:26], “leaving the natural use...more

“And referring to the Greek and the historical/cultural context, Romans 1 clearly describes heterosexuals having same-sex sex as part of idol worship”

Wrong again Pe, the context of Romans 1:24-27 clearly suggest otherwise; the expressions Paul uses cannot be misunderstood, “to dishonor their own bodies between themselves” [1:24], “vile affections” [1:26], “leaving the natural use of the woman”, “burned in their lust”, and “men with men working that which is unseemly” [1:27].

This is consistent with the overall and collective testimony of the Scriptures; from the very beginning God made male and female [husband and wife] telling them “…Be fruitful and multiply” [Genesis 1:22] and Jesus echoed the same when he said, “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh” [Matthew 19:5]…

Nowhere in Holy Scripture will we find ‘positive’ references to same sex intercourse; they simply do not exist…If I am wrong I would love someone to reference a single passage that portrays same sex intercourse in a positive light…

Also, appealing to the ‘historical/cultural context’ does not support Pe’s case; for example, [and I ask for pardon for the language that is quoted here] … Philo the Jewish Hellenistic Biblical Philosopher stated… “Although they were men, [they began] mounting males, the doers not standing in awe of the nature held in common with those who had it done to them. In the process of trying to beget children, they were given convincing proof of their error inasmuch as they were sowing procreative sperm without result” [Abr. 135]…less

Pe, it is you my friend who needs to re-read Romans 1 carefully; the context is clearly speaking of same sex intercourse. Paul parallels idolatry with same sex relations by pointing to the obvious 'visible' signs of creation and the obvious 'visible' signs in our human anatomy... The entire chapter is emphasizing human culpability for doing what God has clearly shown to be wrong through the vis...more

Pe, it is you my friend who needs to re-read Romans 1 carefully; the context is clearly speaking of same sex intercourse. Paul parallels idolatry with same sex relations by pointing to the obvious 'visible' signs of creation and the obvious 'visible' signs in our human anatomy...

The entire chapter is emphasizing human culpability for doing what God has clearly shown to be wrong through the visible evidence of creation. So, this parallel suggests a complete denial of God's natural revelation...

You said, "It is in my nature..." Well, since we are referring to the epistle of Romans, take a look at 5:12-21... Paul attributes our sinful nature and its impulses to the fall of Adam... It is also within our fallen nature to lust, to get angry, to covet, etc. Are these impulses right and should we act upon them? Are these good simply because we feel them?less

Rev, thanks again; I sent you an email...Chat with you soon; God bless...

Chas, here is an interesting fact for you; Jesus quoted the Old Testament Scriptures over 70 times and the apostles quoted it over 200 times; not ‘once’ did they quote ‘sacred tradition’ and not ‘once’ did they mention any of your extra-biblical traditions…This is something to consider! Christ and the apostles may not have used the word, “Alone” but we do know for a fact that...more

Chas, here is an interesting fact for you; Jesus quoted the Old Testament Scriptures over 70 times and the apostles quoted it over 200 times; not ‘once’ did they quote ‘sacred tradition’ and not ‘once’ did they mention any of your extra-biblical traditions…This is something to consider!

Christ and the apostles may not have used the word, “Alone” but we do know for a fact that both Jesus and the apostles referenced the Word “Alone”… As for the Bible being the only source; it is the very Words of God, not the words of men…God himself dictated his Word to the prophets and apostles; so, if his Word is not infallible, nothing is! Again, and this cannot be overstated; Jesus and the apostles ‘always’ appealed to the ‘inspired Word.’ Never did they reference any other source…less

ihs, why do you lean so heavily on what men have said and neglect what God has said in His Word? The mass is unbiblical; nowhere does God’s Word teach transubstantiation…Jesus’ once atoning sacrifice is not represented in or re-sacrificed in an ‘unbloody manner’ as Romanism teaches…This is a gross misrepresentation of the Lord’s Supper…

ihs, instead of quoting church councils regarding Mary and the use of images why don't you demonstrate from the New Testament where the apostles ascribed the titles of Mediatrix, Co-Redeemer, etc. to Mary and where they supported image use?

ihs, others here have been trying to encourage you to honestly consider what the Word of God teaches about this issue and to forsake those things that are contrary to its testimony…Besides, there is a difference between what God said to make and what men have chosen to make… Also, this has nothing to do with being biased or not considering one another’s culture but it has everything to do...more

ihs, others here have been trying to encourage you to honestly consider what the Word of God teaches about this issue and to forsake those things that are contrary to its testimony…Besides, there is a difference between what God said to make and what men have chosen to make…

Also, this has nothing to do with being biased or not considering one another’s culture but it has everything to do with being obedient to God’s Word; call it what you will but God’s Word explicitly says otherwise…One fruit that is extremely important is obedience my friend…less

ihs, respectfully, I have heard your testimony several times but it still does not change the fact that the Second Commandment explicitly tells us that we should not be bowing, kissing, praying, weeping, and prostrating before images made by the works of men’s hands…Also, there are some of us here on the CP who were former Roman Catholics and can testify to its unbiblical teachings and practic...more

ihs, respectfully, I have heard your testimony several times but it still does not change the fact that the Second Commandment explicitly tells us that we should not be bowing, kissing, praying, weeping, and prostrating before images made by the works of men’s hands…Also, there are some of us here on the CP who were former Roman Catholics and can testify to its unbiblical teachings and practices…less

Rev, I left you a post on the other article that we were on...

ihs, yes; context does help and you just mutilated these passages out of context…Let’s examine these once again; in Exodus 25 the ark was made and became the central object of all the furnishings of the Sanctuary. The OT Tabernacle along with its furnishings pointed to God’s plan of salvation through Jesus Christ…Besides, none but the High Priest was permitted to stand before it and seeing...more

ihs, yes; context does help and you just mutilated these passages out of context…Let’s examine these once again; in Exodus 25 the ark was made and became the central object of all the furnishings of the Sanctuary. The OT Tabernacle along with its furnishings pointed to God’s plan of salvation through Jesus Christ…Besides, none but the High Priest was permitted to stand before it and seeing that the Levitical priesthood has been replaced by our High Priest Jesus Christ your reference to it does not justify the bowing before your statues…

In Numbers 21 the bronze serpent was erected as an agency of healing and the gaze was an act of faith on the part of the people but what you failed to mention was that King Hezekiah destroyed it because the people just like today made it an object of worship [See 2 Kings 18:4].

There is no Biblical justification for those who “Bow down”, “Kiss”, “Pray before”, “Peer” or “Gaze at” images made by the works of men’s hands…Again, the Second Commandment says that we are not to “make” “anything” of any “likeness”…less

Funny how you Roman Catholics call those who disagree with you extremists…Extremists are like those who instituted and operated the Inquisition; wouldn’t you say? As MuggleBorn pointed out earlier, we do not “Bow down”, “Kiss”, “Pray before”, “Peer” or “Gaze at” images made by the works of men’s hands. Besides, what part of the Second Commandment don’t you understand...more

Funny how you Roman Catholics call those who disagree with you extremists…Extremists are like those who instituted and operated the Inquisition; wouldn’t you say?

As MuggleBorn pointed out earlier, we do not “Bow down”, “Kiss”, “Pray before”, “Peer” or “Gaze at” images made by the works of men’s hands. Besides, what part of the Second Commandment don’t you understand? It says that we are not to “make” “anything” of any “likeness” …less

“This is an OT reference that was never meant to apply to our Savior.” Really? You may want to meditate on Acts 17:29-30 which says, “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent.”

Wrong again Msn, the apostles never taught the man-made traditions of Roman Catholicism; try reading the New Testament without implying or imposing your traditions into the texts of God’s Word…

Okay; should this email be addressed to 'Rev'?

Dwights, you are not the only one who can name drop regarding this issue and I will not fill this board with their names unless you care to see them. We seem to be veering off our original objective here…That is, evaluating these biblical passages that supposedly teach ‘infallibility’…. Before we move on though I will briefly respond to your thoughts about Peter; it is interesting that ...more

Dwights, you are not the only one who can name drop regarding this issue and I will not fill this board with their names unless you care to see them. We seem to be veering off our original objective here…That is, evaluating these biblical passages that supposedly teach ‘infallibility’….

Before we move on though I will briefly respond to your thoughts about Peter; it is interesting that Jesus actually clarified this issue in John 1:42; it says, “And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone” Did you catch that; is says a stone not an immovable “Rock”…

Regarding Matthew 18:18-20 you said, “The words do not specify either, but it can be reasonably concluded (or implied) that maybe it was some of all of the above” …With that said let’s move on to Matthew 16:18; it says:

“But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established”

Where is the infallibility here?less

Goodone said, "Why do you bow down to the cross?" Respectfully, I bow only in prayer and never before any cross, picture, or image made by the works of men’s hands; that would be a violation of the Second Commandment… “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, or that is in the water under the ...more

Goodone said, "Why do you bow down to the cross?"

Respectfully, I bow only in prayer and never before any cross, picture, or image made by the works of men’s hands; that would be a violation of the Second Commandment…

“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, or that is in the water under the earth” [Exodus 20:4].less

Rev, thanks; does the front cover have a ladder between earth and heaven?

Objectivity, I totally agree; although many think otherwise nothing has changed… This false ecumenism obscures Biblical truth and promotes a common unity based not on God’s Word but on carefully selected words. Manny sincere people are being duped by this current movement and very few are speaking out…All should know that there is a clear distinction between true Biblical unity and the relig...more

Objectivity, I totally agree; although many think otherwise nothing has changed… This false ecumenism obscures Biblical truth and promotes a common unity based not on God’s Word but on carefully selected words. Manny sincere people are being duped by this current movement and very few are speaking out…All should know that there is a clear distinction between true Biblical unity and the religious conformity that these others are proclaiming. True unity in the body of Christ is founded on shared Biblical truth and fellowship in the Holy Spirit; this gospel is shared in love as the other has been historically imposed by secular power and penalties…Obviously, the two are not the same…less

Objectivity, yes; if we search long enough we can trace the majority of these views back to their original source…The other name is Luis de Alcazar [1554-1613] who introduced another alternative eschatological view known as Preterism...Not sure about the woman but Darby’s contributions have so influenced many that he has been called the father of modern Dispensationalism. It is so unfortunate ...more

Objectivity, yes; if we search long enough we can trace the majority of these views back to their original source…The other name is Luis de Alcazar [1554-1613] who introduced another alternative eschatological view known as Preterism...Not sure about the woman but Darby’s contributions have so influenced many that he has been called the father of modern Dispensationalism. It is so unfortunate that many Christians [Protestants] do not know their own history… It is interesting to note that many of the church fathers held to the Historicist view: http://biblelight.net/fathers-on-antichrist.htmless

Hi Objectivity, Darby was just one of many who adopted this new eschatological view; in fact, it can be traced back much further…It was first proposed to counter act the Historic eschatological view that the Church had always taught. Francisco Ribera [1537-1591] was a Jesuit doctor in theology and published a commentary on the book of Revelation in 1590 and in so doing Futurism was born…Althou...more

Hi Objectivity, Darby was just one of many who adopted this new eschatological view; in fact, it can be traced back much further…It was first proposed to counter act the Historic eschatological view that the Church had always taught. Francisco Ribera [1537-1591] was a Jesuit doctor in theology and published a commentary on the book of Revelation in 1590 and in so doing Futurism was born…Although it has been modified since then it can be traced back to Ribera…

Robert Bellarmine [1542-1621] an Italian Cardinal further popularized this view and eventually others like Dr. Samuel Maitland [1792-1866] a scholar from the Church of England, James Todd [1805-1869] a professor of Hebrew at the University of Dublin, John Henry Newman [1801-1890] a former member of the Church of England, Edward Irving [1792-1824] a Presbyterian minister, Darby, Scofield, Lindsey, and finally Tim LaHaye all adopted it…less