Skip to comments.The Not So Secret Rapture
Posted on 01/14/2011 5:57:52 PM PST by topcat54
click here to read article
” For the Word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” Hebrews 4:12 KJV
We are the hands and feet, and voice of God on earth. When we do our part, God does the rest.
MATTHEW 5:44" ... and Pray for those that despitefully use you and persecute you."...
"Matthew 5:44 (King James Version) 44.But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."
Thank you for your presenting God's Word in clarity. That is it!
“May we hear well done my good and faithful servant.”
When you have a few minutes. Scroll down a little for the article.
Thanks yet again for your very wise and very Biblical words and exhortations.
I essentially agree.
I suppose I will likely persistently apply same differently than you would. You’re likely a much loftier saint than I am. LOL. Sigh.
I do care for all involved. I do pray for all involved.
I have a mandate to be me . . . as God made, trained, taught, conditioned me to be . . . not someone else. It’s challenging enough to be me! LOL.
PLEASE ALWAYS FEEL FREE TO EXHORT ME—PUBLICLY OR OTHERWISE AS YOU SEE FIT.
Satan's claim wasn't "God never changes.". Quite the opposite. This is a new tactic.
Are you familiar with all the NT says about Jerusalem?
Thanks. May get to it this evening.
>>You’re treating his somewhat unclear words as if there are infallible and trump all other arguments.<<
Unclear? Only those trying to twist them to conform to a preconceived belief system would read them any other way. Revelation was clearly written between 90 and 96AD. Not only was that confirmed by Irenaeus but fits with other Biblical prophecy.
White hanky? You mean this Pentecostal hanky from Peter Popoff? The huckster and idiot who thinks that the US issues 25 dollar bills as currency? Or did you have another white Pentecostal hanky in mind?
From Peter Popoff: December 1997.
Dear Brother Smith,
I have been reaching out to God on your behalf ever since I heard from you. I have been praying and listening for God’s Word concerning your needs and your special blessing. I’ve heard the voice of the Lord concerning these needs and also another need that you have in your life.
THE LORD IS LEADING ME TO LOAN YOU MY “FAITH HANDKERCHIEF”
TO START A MIRACLE IN YOUR LIFE.
Brother Smith, God has kept you on my heart. God has awakened me at night and I have sat up in my bed with tears running down my cheeks, crying out to God for You! You must listen to me.
I said, “Lord, You sent the Smith family to me. I know You did. I am praying for You to send to the Smith family the same kind of blessing, the same kind of great miracle, that only You can send. Lord, through this anointed red Bible Handkerchief send the Smith family the same kind of miracle You sent to dear Sister Davies in Los Angeles when she needed that $1,778.00 miracle. Lord, remember how in that powerful service we were having Sister Davies proved You, according to Malachi 3:10, with the largest bills she said she had in her billfold that day, ($25.00 that she needed) and then You blessed her with that $1,778.00. John, as I kept praying I said` “Lord, I know you are no respecter of persons. I know as surely as You honored the faith and obedience of Your servant Paul, Your anointed instrument for his generation, and .. through their faith and obedience the people with needs received a special TOUCH as the handkerchief from his body touched them I feel deeply that You will honor my faith and obedience as I take Your healing power to my generation. I know, Lord, you won’t perform a SPECIAL MIRACLE for one and not for another who acts with the same faith and obedience. Lord, I ask you to do it again. Send the same kind of miracle this time for John. Let your miracle power flow to 123 Main. Through this anointed Faith Handkerchief let great miracles start happening in Chicago.” . . . .
John, God spoke to my heart and mind and said, “Send the Smith family your anointed faith handkerchief just like the apostle Paul sent out handkerchiefs in Acts 19:11 12 if you really want the Smith’s to be blessed. If I moved for the apostle Paul, I will also move for the Smith family for I am no respecter of persons.”
I have obeyed God and loaned you my faith handkerchief. Now I want you to print your name on it. It is a must! I must have your name on my handkerchief!
BROTHER SMITH, DON’T MISS GOD. FOLLOW THESE FAITH INSTRUCTIONS EXACTLY IF YOU WANT THE MIRACLE I HAVE CLAIMED FOR YOU. HERE IS HOW USE MY FAITH HANDKERCHIEF.
Acts 19:11-12 says: “And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them and the evil spirits went out of them.”
Now I am obeying God and loaning you my blessed handkerchief. I use the word “loan” because I must send my faith handkerchief to another family who has a need after you use it and print your name on it. Please do not keep my handkerchief! I must send it to another family when you send it back. You will not need it after tonight, John.
Here are the faith steps you are to take, in Jesus’ Name:
1. Print your name in the center of my handkerchief. Yes, either print or write your name.
2. John, open your Bible to Acts, Chapter 19, Verses 11 and 12.
3. Lay my faith handkerchief with your name printed on it on this scripture and leave it there for tonight only. Only one night without fail.
Please, Brother Smith, in the morning get my “Faith Bible Handkerchief out of your Bible, place it into this self addressed envelope and return it to me. I will pay the postage for you. This is so important! I repeat, do not keep this “Faith Handkerchief” and please do not break this flowing of God’s spirit from my home here in Upland to your home there in Chicago. Rush my “Faith Handkerchief”, which I have felt led to loan you tonight, back to me for I must write you something in the Spirit that is coming to your door. I must take this handkerchief (with your name on it) and hold it in my hands and pray a special prayer for you. I feel a special miracle for you and someone you love.
Right now, I am asking you to get out your largest bill. God sees your sacrifice, and it will be a sacrifice. God sees. It may be a $50.00 bill or $25.00. It may be a check. But step out in faith and give it to the work of Jesus Christ as a seed. Now give God a sacrificial offering. Give your biggest bill (or check). If it is a $50.00 bill, or $25.00. God sees. And ask God for His best blessings to be bestowed upon you.
The Holy Spirit is in this letter and is speaking to you now while you read these words. Please obey the Holy Spirit. The greater your sacrifice, the greater your blessings. I am waiting on this powerful “Faith Handkerchief” back from you.
Of your unsubstantiated claims? Obviously not.
Perhaps we can use Rex Humbard's nail to pin your claims down:
When Religion Forum posters take the view that Israel is no longer God's chosen people or particularly blessed of God then I ask the posters to state their views towards Jews and races or genealogies because that particular belief is held by Christian Identity and other white supremacist groups, none of which are tolerated at all on Free Republic.
What I hold:
God's plan, from the beginning, was to redeem "a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages".
Paul tells us that "Israel according to the flesh" has many advantages:
Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.
They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.
All great advantages, all things that point to God's work in Christ. (And I note, parenthetically, that the concrete land promise that a certain eschatological school obsesses about, hardly seems to matter to the New Testament writers. Curious, that.)
I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Those that eat at the eschatological banquet come from all nations.
Are there physical descendants of the patriarch Israel who are now part of God's people through faith in Christ? Yes. Are there physical descendants of the patriarch Israel who are cut off through unbelief? Unfortunately, yes.
I find Christian Identity to be, just, weird. A crackpot racist sect.
Another "red flag" is when the poster claims that the word "Adam" means white.
I've honestly never heard that one before.
Israel is Israel.
"A is A", which tells us nothing about what "A" is.
Shall we go through the many different ways the sting literal "Israel" is used in the bible?
Having read the majority of the postings to this thread, I see little clarification as to the facts of the Bible. Rather a good deal of time spent either insulting, denigrating or otherwise dissing each other.
You're jumping in late into a long running dispute.
When there are basic areas where God left it intentionally (it seems) vague or even hidden ... it is for a purpose.
The bible doesn't tell us everything we want to know. Some people can't handle the uncertainty.
Wouldn't be the first time a nut job has been granted a security clearance.
Probably fictitious, anyway.
When I was in the service we used to joke
about above top secret as "Burn before reading"
Exactly. Here's Gentry's comments (since you're apparently too convinced in your error to read them for yourself):
(I apologize for the formatting. I've had to remove the Greek original because of font issues as well as footnotes. Please consult the original .)
The (that was seen) is commonly considered to refer back to the immediately preceding noun, (Revelation or apocalyptic vision), in the preceding sentence. Irenaeus is af- firming, it is argued, that John saw (i.e., received by vision) the prophecies of Revelation at a time fitting the late date theory of composition: no such long time ago, almost in our own genera- tion, and, more precisely, at the end of the reign of Domitian. As the external evidence section of the present study is developed, additional ancient historical witnesses will be considered. But the importance of this evidence found in Irenaeuss work is universally recognized and demands careful and lengthy consideration. How shall early date advocates deal with such strong and forthright testi- mony by this noteworthy ancient church father? As a matter of fact, there are several considerations that tend to reduce the usefulness of Irenaeus for late date advocacy. These will be brought forward in some detail.
The Translational Problem
Certainly the two initial considerations in any judgment regard- ing the interpretation of a crucial documentary witness are those of textual certainty and translational accuracy. In that there are no crucial questions regarding the integrity of the text of Irenaeuss statement raised from either camp in the debate, we can move directly to consideration of the matter of translational accuracy.
On the matter of translation there has been a good deal of debate on various aspects of the statement in question. In fact, this transla- tion has been disputed by a number of scholars. 10 According to Peake and Farrar the problem of translational accuracy was first broached by J. J. Wetstein in 1751.] 1 We should note at the outset, however, that most scholars doubt there is a problem of translation. For instance, Robinson (an early date advocate) speaks of the alleged translational problem as very dubious. 12 Moffatt (a vigorous late date advocate) discounts the supposed problem with just one sen- tence, stating that the proposed revisions are ingenious but quite unconvincing. 13 According to Barnes, Chapman is frankly con- temptuous against the proposed reconstruction of Irenaeus.4 There are, however, a number of noted scholars who have disputed various parts of the common translation. Among these are J. J. Wetstein, M. J. Bovan, S. H. Chase, E. Bohmer, James M. Macdonald, Henry Hammond, F. J. A. Hort, Edward C. Selwyn, George Edmundson, Arthur S. Barnes, and J. J. Scott. 15
Three of the major problems with the generally accepted transla- tion will be dealt with below: (1) The referent of (was seen). (2) The significance of the time reference: (no long time ago was it seen, but almost in our own time). (3) The overall internal confusion in Irenaeus suggested by the incom- patibility of Irenaeuss statements on Revelation.
Indisputably, the most serious potential objection to the common translation has to do with the understanding of was seen. What is the subject of this verb? Is it him who saw the Apocalypse (i.e., John) or the Apocalypse? Which of these two antecedents was seen almost in Irenaeuss time and near the end of the reign of Domitian? Swete records for us a significant observation from master expositor F. J. A. Hort: Dr. Hort, it appears, in his lectures on the Apocalypse referred to an article by M. J. Bovan in the Revue de Theologie et de Philosophti (Lausanne, 1887), in which it was sug- gested that the subject of&opa@ in Iren. v. 30.3 is not rj &IoKcLhxpzc but d njv &ioKciJvyw $opaK6ro<, i.e. d Tcobwq<.7 Such is all the more significant when we consider the observations of the first English translators of Irenaeus:The great work of Irenaeus, now for the first time translated into English, is utiortunately no longer extant in the original. It has come down to us only in an ancient Latin version, with the exception of the greater part of the first book, which has been preserved in the original Greek, through means of copious quotations made by Hippolytus and Epiphanies. The text, both Latin and Greek, is often most uncer- tain. . . .S. H. Chase, the writer of one of the most persuasive and compre- hensive articles on this matter, heard Horts May, 1889, lecture and recorded some of that very lecture:
Irenaeus, even in the original Greek, is often a very obscure writer. At times he expresses himself with remarkable clearness and terseness; but, upon the whole, his style is very involved and prolix.]8My note is as follows . . . : The passage of Irenaeus is urged against dating the Apocalypse shortly after Neros death. A suggestion, however, has been made in a French periodical: it is a question of the interpretation of Irenaeus. The writer raised the question whether Irenaeus means to say that the Apocalypse itself belongs to Domitians reign. What is the subject of .40pa0q? He or it? For the latter note the phrase just used [i.e. T05 Kaz rr)v ChTOK&@JW ~opcrK6zo<]. But there is the fact that the language of Irenaeus is difiicult on this [i.e. the common] theory. Why yap? But if Irenaeus meant that he, John, was seen, this is in accordance with his favourite phraseology.19For Hort, the (for) in Irenaeuss statement is syntactically difllcult to account for unless it makes reference back to the main idea of the preceding statement: it [the name of the Beast] would have been spoken @ him. Chase notes that Irenaeus is fond of yhp in such contexts, which lends support to the re-interpretation of Irenaeus at this point .20 Hort also recognizes the general tendency of Irenaeus to use dpckw with persons, rather than of visions or things (such as a book, as here, i.e. Revelation). For as Swete comments of Horts position: he admitted the difficulty of accounting for yc@ on the common interpretation, and the force of the argument from the use of dpbo.z
Chase moves beyond the purely grammatical ambiguity relative to syntactical structure to the actual thematic flow of the passage cited:The logic of the sentences seems to me to require this interpretation. The statement that the vision was seen at the close of Domitians reign supplies no reason why the mysterious numbers should have been expounded by him who saw the apocalypse, had he judged such an exposition needful. If, on the other hand, we refer ;mpaeq to St John, the meaning is plain and simple. We may expand the sentences thus: Had it been needful that the explanation of the name should be proclaimed to the men of our own day, that explanation would have been given by the author of the Book. For the author was seen on earth, he lived and held converse with his disciples, not so very long ago, but almost in our own generation. Thus, on the one hand, he lived years after he wrote the Book, and there was abundant opportunity for him to expound the riddle, had he wished to do so; and, on the other hand, since he lived on almost into our generation, the explanation, had he given it, must have been preserved to U S.22Chases observations are quite perceptive. Upon recognizing the ambiguity of the passage when narrowly conceived in terms of purely grammatico-syntactical analysis, he then proceeds upon sound her- meneutic principle to elucidate Irenaeuss precise point by considera- tion of the contextual flow.
This sort of argumentation is why Wetstein, too, understood ~ohn (which immediately preceding the verb becomes him who saw the apocalypse) to be the nominative of &Jpa6q, rather than Revelation.23 Macdonald agrees, and states the case dogmatically:[Irenaeus] argues that if this knowledge [i.e., regarding the identity of 666] had been important at that time it would have been communi- cated by the writer of the Apocalypse, who lived so near their own time. . . . There was therefore really no ambiguity to be avoided, requiring him to use the name ofJohn or the personal pronoun as the subject of q, the verb of sight. The scope requires this nomina- tive and no other. 24But there is still more to the contextual argument. In his Ecclesias- tical Histou (5:8:5,6) Eusebius again cites Irenaeuss statement (Against Heresies 5:30:3), this time with more of the context (Against Heresies 5:30:1):He states these things in the third book of his above-mentioned work. In the fifth book he speaks as follows concerning the Apocalypse of John, and the number of the name of Antichrist As these things are so, and this number is found in all the approved and ancient copies, and those who saw John face to face confirm it, and reason teaches us that the number of the name of the beast, according to the mode of calculation among the Greeks, appears in its letters. . . . And farther on he says concerning the same: We are not bold enough to speak confidently of the name of Antichrist. For if it were necessary that his name should be declared clearly at the present time, it would have been announced by who saw the revelation. For it was seen, not long ago, but almost in our generation, toward the end of the reign of Domitian.25Notice should be made of the personal knowledge that is empha- sized by Irenaeus: those who have seen John face to face testifj. It rather clearly seems that the (was seen) of the latter quotation (the very one under consideration) is but the dim reflection of the former quotations more precise statement: (those who have seen John face to face testifj). In fact, the very verb in question (d@o, at Herewk 5:30:3) appears in this immediate context (in Agaimt Hereszks 5:30:1 ) employed of John himself Ititiwqv topaK&ciw.26 Furthermore, this interpretation is in harmony with the characteristic thought and phraseology of Irenaeus. 27 By this is meant that Irenaeus constantly emphasizes the organic and living unity of the Churchs life. Irenaeus shows a concern to demon- strate carefully that one Christian generation is in touch with the next generation since the time of the apostles. The men of one generation heard from the lips of the men of the previous generation what they themselves had heard and seen. 28 We must recognize that Irenaeuss work sought to demonstrate that the same gospel which was first orally preached and transmitted was subsequently committed to writing and faithfully preserved in all the apostolic churches through the regular succession of the bishops and elders. 2 9
In the 1913 Bampton Lectures at the University of Oxford, George Edmundson offered his analysis of the problem, which is along the lines of Chases:But surely this rendering [i.e., the common rendering of Irenaeus] is wrong. It should be for he (St. John the writer) was seen . . . almost in our generation toward the end of the reign of Domitian. It is of the Seer and his ability to declare the name of Antichrist that Irenaeus is speaking. The misunderstanding about the meaning of the passage is largely due to Eusebius, who after a reference to Domitians perse- cution proceeds in this (persecution) report [he] tihns that the Apostle and Evangelist John, who was still living, in consequence of his testimony to the divine word was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos, and then he quotes Irenaeus in support of his statement. 30Edmundson feels that Eusebius imparted this wrong historical data as a result of reading too much into Origens comments on Matthew 20:22. That is, apparently Eusebius merely assumed that John was exiled to Patmos under Domitian, based on Origens obscure com- ment.3 Edmundson thus surmised that this led Eusebius astray in his historical arrangement of the data at this point.
A further reaso~ for Irenaeuss emphasis is that to say of one he was seen, meaning thereby he was still alive at a certain time, might seem unusual, whether in Greek or English, as applied to an ordinary man. When we consider, however, how much would be thought of seeing this most aged apostle who had seen the Lord, there is nothing unnatural in the use of such an expression. In fact this verb is applied to him in precisely the same sense in the be~nning of the chapter.32
The evidence rehearsed above has not convinced everyone. Even early date advocates such as Hort, Stuart, Guericke, and Robinson 33 fail to endorse such a re-interpretation of Irenaeus. Stuart dismisses the re-interpretation on the grounds that the ancients clearly under- stood the matter along the lines of the common interpretation.34 Robinson points out two problems that appear to him to be fatal to the re-interpretation of Irenaeus. 35 The first is that the Latin transla- tion of Irenaeus stands against it by its use of viswn (which better suggests a thing, such as a book), instead of visa (which is more suggestive of a person). This argument is closely related to Stuarts. The second is that Irenaeus twice elsewhere says John lived to Trajans reign, not just to Domitians.36 If Irenaeus is to be re- interpreted here along the lines of Chase and others then there would seem to be some confusion in Irenaeuss record.
In response to these three objections, we offer the following explanations. First, regarding Stuarts statement that the early fa- thers seemed to have understood him in terms of the common inter- pretation, it should be noted that although many ancient fathers employed Irenaeus with high regard, they do not seem to have regarded him as a final authority. For instance, contrary to Irenaeus, Tertullian placed Johns banishment after his being dipped in a cauldron of burning oil, which Jerome says was in Neros reign. 37 Photus preserved extracts of Life of Timotheus in which he states that Johns banishment was under Nero. Others who record a pre- Domitianic date for Johns banishment include: Epiphanies (Hewsie$ 51:12, 33), Arethas (Revelatwn 7:1-8), the Syriac versions of Revela- tion, Hi.rto~ ofJohn, th Son of Zebedee, and Theophylact (John). Though Eusebius quotes Irenaeus as proof of the date to which John lived (i.e., into the reign of Trajan),38 he disagrees with Irenaeus as to the Johannine authorship of Revelation. 39 In light of all this We cannot accept a dubious expression of the Bishop of Lyons as adequate to set aside an overwhelming weight of evidence, alike external and internal, in proof of the fact that the Apocalypse was written, at the latest, soon after the death of Nero.w
Second, the Latin translation of Irenaeus reads: quiet Apoca~psin uiderat. Neqw enim ante multum tempoti vi-sum est. The Latin translator may indeed have understood the Greek phrase as commonly under- stood. This may explain the visum est as opposed to the visa est. But it should be remembered that the Latin translation is not Irenaeuss original and thus did not come with his imprimatur. Indeed, re- nowned Church historian John Laurence von Mosheim who com- posed his famous Church history in Latin spoke quite despairingly of the Latin translation of Irenaeus. He laments that Irenaeuss writings have reached us merely through the medium of a wretch- edly barbarous and obscure Latin translation.4 Schaff agrees that this translation employs barbarous Latin. 42 Stuart calls it a dead literality.4 3 Having remarked on the obscurities of Irenaeuss Greek (see quotation above), the translators of Irenaeus for the Ante-Nicesw Fathers add that the Latin version adds to these difllculties of the original, by being itself of the most barbarous character. . . . Its author is unknown, but he was certainly little qualified for his task. w
Not only was the translator inadequate to the task, but he probably had no independent knowledge of the matter apart from what he had learned fi-om his own reading of Irenaeus. Hence, his mistake (if it be one) could be due to the very real ambiguities of the text that have led modern Greek scholars into debate over the trans- lation.
In addition, it may well be that the Latin text is corrupt. The science of textual criticism has an impressive capacity to work back to the original readings of corrupted texts through the application of sound philological and critical principles. Chase suggests that the problem may indeed be one of accidental textual corruption in light of the following intrinsic probabilities: The translator, especially with ujv&oKdiqJw before him in the Greek text, could not have been ignorant that ALIOKCilVplC is a feminine substantive. Espe- cially when contractions were used, vim-s and uium would be easily confused. It appears to me probable that the somewhat strange vi.wm e.rt points back to an original ZJisus est. The latter words, if they seemed difficult, would easily be corrupted into vfium e$t.45
The third problem with the re-interpretation of Irenaeus is ex- plaining how Irenaeus could speak of those who saw John toward the latter end of Domitians reign in light of the fact that he also tells us John lived into Trajans reign. In Agaimt Heresies Irenaeus writes that John continued with the Elders till the times of Trajan.4G Surely Irenaeus would not contradict himself by suggesting in one place that John lived until the end of Domitians reign, while in another saying that he lived to Trajans reign.
The problem, however, is not as diflicult to overcome as might initially appear. In the first place, Domitian died in A.D. 96 and Trajan became emperor in A.D. 98 (after a very brief reign by Nerva). Swete states of Irenaeuss reference that it speaks of Johns having lived to the time of Trajan, i.e. to the year 98 at least.4 7 Orz@ two years separati th rei~. It is not unreasonable to suppose that almost a century later the two years difference separating the two emperors could have been blurred by Irenaeus. It must be remem- bered that dating then was very imprecise because chronicles were not kept by Christians. As Robinson notes regarding problems of chronology during that era: The sources, Roman, Jewish, and Chris- tian, are largely uncoordinated and share no common canon of chronology such as is supposed by any modern historian.48
In the second place, Irenaeus does not say (upon the reconstruc- tion of his argument as per Chase and others) that John died at the end of Domitians reign. He simply says he was seen (bpddq) at that time, perhaps by those who spoke to him face to face (to whom lrenaeus refers). Possibly there is a contrast of ideas between these two references, a contrast that involves Johns advanced age: Obvi- ously the statement that the Apostle was seen at the close of Domi- tians reign cannot be considered inconsistent with the statement that he continued with the Elders till the times of Trajan. It may well be that there is an intentional contrast between the phrase IZt--6jJElVEV aikof~ and &opc@q. The former appears to me simply to suggest the idea of survival, the latter (as used by Irenaeus) of free intercourse. ln his extreme old age, in the times of Trajan, [if it be well into Trajans re@, KLG] it can hardly be but that, though he continued with the Church, St John withdrew from the society of the Christians at Ephesus; he was no longer seen. 4 9 Such is an entirely reasonable hypothesis.
Dayum dude. Theres more conjecture, could bes and possibles in that excerpt to leave one with more surety that the majority are correct in that the writing was definitely at the end of Domitions reign. The later date also fits better with the rest of scripture. All in all Ill take that as supporting my views. Thanks.
I hope you realize the difference between scholarly writing and the swill you’ve been ingesting (and passing off as your own).
Ill stick with the real scholars and leave the dying Preterist falsehoods to those of you pushing the Theonomy and reconstuctionist mantra.
With such a shocking level of Biblical ignorance,
REPLACEMENTARIANS et al
are so clueless about eschatology!
Or perhaps Revelation 7, 10, 15, 20, 21 & 22 are not in their rubberized "Bibles?"
How would you assess my explanation of security clearances
the . . . stuff . . . from the REPLACEMENTARIANS on the other side?
No, that is not what I meant to imply; we are saved by grace through faith. Not by works. Any works we do are just evidence of our faith.
I see by your screenname that you once may have been a “Beckite”. He is Mormon, last I knew. They are quite works-oriented, in addition to issues I won’t go into here.
I was referring to the end of the age- rapture territory- that the thread was about. Professing our faith may have adverse fleshly consequences. I don’t consider that a “work”.
Matthew 16:25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
Rev 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
Peace, FRiend; thank you for your request for clarification.
the . . . stuff . . . from the REPLACEMENTARIANS on the other side?
You are spot on.
Thanks- I’m a fellow traveller who would prefer to die of old age whittling on the porch but suspect that may not be the case...
I’ve struggled my whole life to live up to the grace I have received. I’m a failure at being a “good Christian”.
But, I cannot deny what I know to be true- God will give me the strength to claim his redemption through Jesus Christ whatever the earthly consequences.
Rev 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
You sure can string together non sequiturs. I realize how desperate you are to avoid the subject at hand, which is the error of dspensational futurism and its unbiblical teaching on the pre-trib rapture. So desperate you will quote the words of others without thought and attribution.
Thanks for the confirmation. Was certainly my experience as well as the experiences of every other such clearance experienced and savy person I’ve ever known . . .
except for the clueless sorts hereon.
Welllllllllllllll. overdue for a shower.
God’s best to you this week.
since when did you start believing what st iraneus has to say? i thought Catholics were pagan?
I don’t believe a LOT of things attributed to the early Christian writers.
I don’t disbelieve EVERYTHING attributed to the early Christian writers.
Do you believe EVERTHING CNN says?
Do you DISBELIEVE EVERYTHING CNN says?
How about everything attributed to your mayor?
Your local altar boy trainer?
Many RC’s ARE pagan in their beliefs and practices.
I don’t believe everything 100% of all RC’s do is pagan.
Do yellow lights give you heart burn?
you are very entertaining, the contradictions of your beliefs. when you want to establish when the Book of Revelation was written, Iraneus is ok in your book, since he was taught by Polycarp, who in turn, was taught by John. However, when i point out Iraneus believed in baptismal regeneration, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, apostolic succession, the Catholic Church, the Sacrifice of the Mass, he is a pagan!!
remember my friend, the Catholic Church has been here since 33ad, and so have it’s enemies. deal with it!
...and born- again Christians have been here since the day of Pentecost......
yes and they are found in the Church.
It is a hallmark of those whose agenda is to divide via inflaming arguments that they persist in trying to make everything an either or proposition. You’re no more a Christian advocating for Jesus Christ than the demonically inspired girl with the familiar spirit who followed Paul around proclaiming he had the word for salvation. You’re working FR from Mormonism to the Catholic v Proddy discussions. You’re not here advocating for Jesus Christ, nor really even the Catholic Chruch. You’re here playing at agitprop ... the question is, for whom are you working, ‘cause it sure isn’t for The Savior of Mankind.
agenda to divide??? no, no, no, a thousand times no. you don’t read me accurately! i believe the Church is ONE, because Jesus is One! i am trying to bring those who appear to divide the Body of Christ before the world, into unity with the Church. This is the will of Jesus as expressed in John 17 and Paul expains why this is important in 1 Corinthians. Please, please Read John 17 and pray about it.
Wonder who Christ was speaking to when He said in Luke 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
Course one does need to begin reading verse 1 of chapter 12 to find the reason and meat of what is being said. And of course finish the chapter to finish His instruction.
the division is between the believer and unbeliever, to the elect and the lost, between those that do the will of the Father and those who do the will of Satan.
Please read John 17 and 1 Corinthians 1 and tell me if divisions within those that claim the name of Christian is God’s will?
I live in South Jersey and in my town, within a two mile area, we have a Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, SDA, JW, AOG, and 2 “independent” churches. Now, if you think that is what Luke 12 is referring to, i am sure Jesus must be very pleased then.
Don’t expect the poster to comprehend what these groups have in common. It is very Catholic to ignore the catholic-ness of all who profess the Jesus of the Bible as Lord and Savior, for such Catholics are advocating for their institution, whereas catholics are advocating for the Savior. There are lots and lots of catholics in the Catholic faith. I know many. There are also lots of institutionalized Catholics attending mass who need more than anything to trust in the Savior instead of an institution which cannot save them.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
I’ll leave the thread.
First the Heavenly Father is in control, and He allows what He will.
Christ set the standard/path as the 'bridegroom' as to how one measures whether the 'division' be of and from Him.
Christ did not ever hand off to another flesh/physical being His place of 'Saviour' and authority to hand out or pass out salvation. And if the flesh being claims to have said power and authority they are deceived and are deceivers. NOT one of we in a flesh body saves anyone else.
Jesus is the only Savior, He alone died on the cross and it is this Sacrifice which atones for sin and makes peace with the Father possible. If anyone believes this Jesus did not found a Church, in which He uses as the instrument thru which He accomplishes saving His people, this person is deceived. If anyone believes Jesus did not give His Church authority to teach and baptize, he hasn’t read Matthew 28 and is deceived. If anyone believes Jesus did not send the Holy Spirit to this Church to lead it to all truth and gave the keys of the kingdom to the Church, they are deceived. If anyone believes there is more than one Church, they are deceived. If anyone believes the Church is not the pillar of truth, they are deceived. If anyone believes you can be saved without being a member of the Body of Christ on earth, the Church, they are deceived. If anyone believes you can have your sins forgiven or are added to the Body of Christ any other way than being baptized, they are decieved. If anyone believes this Church has not been on the earth continuously from 33ad to the present, they are deveived.
There are a lot of deceived people in the world.
More false assertions and rubberized history.
The RCC has been around only after 300 some odd AD.
Truth in advertising is honorable.
The opposite, is not.
Particularly in the RC Charismatic groups.
I wonder what percentage of the
“authentic,” Real, NON-RCINC folks
—the authentic 20% of those who self report as Roman Catholic . . . what percentage of those are Charismatic RC’s.
An interesting question.
Let us we stay humble (teachable) before the LORD and not lose our joy, and hope; let us grow in wisdom and knowledge and pass it on to those that may be overcomers, or not, because we do not know, and yet not become prideful like Hezekiah, we can be to be examples in the will of God.
Pray believing, without doubt. I have not succeeded in keeping out questions and doubt, have you?
In God there is no shadow of turning.
you keep making this assertion about the RCC being started around 300ad. let’s explore that for truthfulness, ok?
first, i’d like to know who started the Catholic Church?
what “true Christians” opposed the Catholic Church at it’s founding?
what were the new or special doctrines that the Catholic Church taught at it’s founding that differed it from the true Christians at the time?
tell me where the term RCC was first used and by whom?
What happened to the Church at Rome when the Catholic Church was founded?
let’s see what “facts” can be provided to back the assertion.
here are the answers to my questions from #199 in order:
11th century in the Great Schism, prior to that the whole Catholic Church was in commuion with each other.
The Church at Rome didn’t exist before the founding of the Catholic Church, since the Catholic Church was started in 33ad in Jerusalem. It would be a few years before the Apostles arrived at Rome
there you have it.
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.