Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Not So Secret Rapture
reformed.org ^ | W. Fred Rice

Posted on 01/14/2011 5:57:52 PM PST by topcat54

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 3,201-3,2503,251-3,3003,301-3,3503,351-3,392 last
To: Cvengr; xone
Finally, note in the Gospels itself that Jesus says in John 15:2
He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit
and John 15:6
If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.
and John 15:10:
If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love,

note -- IF you keep, you WILL REMAIN, otherwise...

And Revelations 22:19 God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.
3,351 posted on 02/08/2011 1:50:42 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3347 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns; Quix; daniel1212; Lera
AnalogReigns: I think this is one reason why it is easy for certain evangelicals, often from the "enthusiast" wing, find it easy to become Roman Catholic.

Ok. So you think that Pentecostals or "enthusiasts" would find it easily to become Catholic?
3,352 posted on 02/08/2011 2:15:23 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3340 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
There are many Crowns predestined for believers at the bema seat, but they will only be rewarded by our Lord Christ Jesus to those who were faithful in His Plan.

Do these not refer to all those Judged for salvation?

3,353 posted on 02/08/2011 5:15:49 AM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3346 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

Sorry I haven’t responded but the Lord has bless me with a computer crash and a massive bill for a new computer. Though the fig trees do not blossom and there be a core meltdown of the processor, ya know. I’m still inching along until I can get everything replaced.

I will say that the Lord was very gracious through all of this. Sunday morning I turned on my computer only to see it doing some very strange things. I had enough sense to back up mostly everything before we went to church. We decided to leave the computer on until we got home to finish the process but, alas, it gave up the ghost and went home in spirit. I think the files are all there but not my programs. And you really never know what you’re missing until you go to retrieve something. :O)

It was communion Sunday, btw.


3,354 posted on 02/08/2011 6:14:08 PM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3320 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

The problem with such an interpretation is that every sin removes us from Him, and every man is a sinner, even after faith in Christ. There is only one sacrifice, so if it were possible to lose salvation, even after one sin, the group of humans who are saved would only have one member, namely Christ.

On the contrary, it is possible to be saved as a believer, and upon sin after salvation, we simply are removed from fellowship with Him. That post-salvation sin is then forgiven after we face God in repentance, and confess the sin to Him per 1st John 1:9.

He provides life in the spirit and when we fall out of fellowship, we might be acting soulishly, but not spiritually.

If we keep His commands, we remain in His love.


3,355 posted on 02/08/2011 7:42:33 PM PST by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3351 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; Alamo-Girl; xzins; YHAOS; MHGinTN; James C. Bennett; TXnMA; metmom; spirited irish
Food is not the person, yet without food one dies.

Dear Mark, I wasn't speaking of this or that proximate cause of death. I'm sure we could come up with a very long list; but this wasn't what I was trying to get at.

What I was trying to get at is something utterly basic and profound in its implications: "...everything that lives transforms disorder into order. Everything that dies moves from order to disorder."

3,356 posted on 02/09/2011 7:34:25 AM PST by betty boop (Seek truth and beauty together; you will never find them apart. — F. M. Cornford)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3344 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
What I was trying to get at is something utterly basic and profound in its implications: "...everything that lives transforms disorder into order. Everything that dies moves from order to disorder."

Not a precisely true statement. All processes increase entropy, and that includes the processes that keep us alive.

3,357 posted on 02/09/2011 10:30:09 AM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3356 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; Alamo-Girl; xzins; YHAOS; MHGinTN; James C. Bennett; TXnMA; metmom; spirited irish; ...
All processes increase entropy, and that includes the processes that keep us alive.

Who told you that? What was the frame of his observation?

[These days it seems most people get their information from "telling," not by "studying." In short, "others" tell them how and what to think.]

I'm focusing on the authority of your "ALL" statement here.

Just sniffing around the edges, your statement sounds like an ideological one. That is, not something based in the direct observation and experience of you, by you.

So, what are we talking about?

3,358 posted on 02/09/2011 3:08:32 PM PST by betty boop (Seek truth and beauty together; you will never find them apart. — F. M. Cornford)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3357 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Entropy is the state of disorder in matter/energy in our universe, as scientists understand it.

http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1246 states specifically that:

Even on a mid-scale, say with a bunch of plants and animals living in an isolated box, all the processes increase entropy. There is absolutely nothing that we know of that makes life any different from any other process in this regard. As for whether the net effect of life has been to increase or slow down the rate of entropy increase, I bet the answer is that it has slightly increased it. I'm guessing that because it seems that life has increased the light absorbancy of the Earth, and led to the thermalization of some light energy that might otherwise be traveling through space in a somewhat lower entropy form.

Erwin Schrodinger says: What then is that precious something contained in our food which keeps us from death? That is easily answered. Every process, event, happening - call it what you will; in a word, everything that is going on in Nature means an increase of the entropy of the part of the world where it is going on. Thus a living organism continually increases its entropy - or, as you may say, produces positive entropy - and thus tends to approach the dangerous state of maximum entropy, which is death. It can only keep aloof from it, i.e. alive, by continually drawing from its environment negative entropy - which is something very positive as we shall immediately see. What an organism feeds upon is negative entropy. Or, to put it less paradoxically, the essential thing in metabolism is that the organism succeeds in freeing itself from all the entropy it cannot help producing while alive.

from http://dieoff.org/page150.htm

Hardly a personal or ideological one; I am an engineer and scientist and have studied thermodynamics. What we are talking about is that life, like every other process, produces entropy - from a scientific basis.

3,359 posted on 02/09/2011 4:35:09 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3358 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Sorry -- and I realize it is shallow and petty of me to react so -- but I find it curiously difficult to endue with gravitas the pontifications of one who multiplies The Revelation of John.
3,360 posted on 02/09/2011 5:17:59 PM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3351 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
"...everything that lives transforms disorder into order. Everything that dies moves from order to disorder."

Dear Sister in Christ,

Please allow me a brief respite from doing battle with the onerous RINORick Perry to "revise and extend" your remark:

"...everything that lives selectively transforms disorder[ed input] into order -- and increases disorder by ejecting the remainder as heat, respiratory effluvia, excreta, etc... . Everything that dies moves from order to disorder."

~~~~~~~~

Picky, picky PChemist... '-)

3,361 posted on 02/09/2011 5:38:11 PM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3356 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; betty boop
MarkBsnr: Perhaps you will agree with this fellow scientist (#3361) that life temporarily and selectively does a bit of reduction of entropy while living, growing and reproducing. But, I agree with you that in totality -- including death and recycling, the final balancet is toward entropy...

bb: I haven't gone back far enough into the thread to catch the real thrust of your statement, but, from experience, I expect that you are correct, too. Probably what we have is a clash between a statement concerning system totality vs your view that slices the temporal sequence more finely...

3,362 posted on 02/09/2011 6:09:53 PM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3359 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA
MarkBsnr: Perhaps you will agree with this fellow scientist (#3361) that life temporarily and selectively does a bit of reduction of entropy while living, growing and reproducing. But, I agree with you that in totality -- including death and recycling, the final balancet is toward entropy...

Not exactly. Life extrudes that excess entropy so that it can continue living, growing and existing. That entropy is exported to the rest of the universe.

bb: I haven't gone back far enough into the thread to catch the real thrust of your statement, but, from experience, I expect that you are correct, too. Probably what we have is a clash between a statement concerning system totality vs your view that slices the temporal sequence more finely...

Not just temporal - but spacial, as well. I create excess heat now; I get rid of it to the environment now. Or I will die; same for the wastes of digestion and metabolisation.

3,363 posted on 02/09/2011 6:18:23 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3362 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; xzins; YHAOS; MHGinTN; James C. Bennett; TXnMA; metmom; spirited irish

Sorry, didn’t intend to exclude the rest of you... :-{


3,364 posted on 02/09/2011 6:22:00 PM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3361 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; Alamo-Girl; xzins; YHAOS; MHGinTN; James C. Bennett; TXnMA; metmom; spirited irish
What we are talking about is that life, like every other process, produces entropy — from a scientific basis.

Again, where does this "scientific basis" come from — without you having to invoke metaphysics by way of explanation???

From where I sit, the life principle is "at war" with the so-called "entropic principle" as articulated by "science."

Which is hardly to say that I hold "science" worthless, to be held in contempt.

I am only saying — or trying to say — that science can only get at problems that can be "measured."

It turns out that any such notion as "life principle" is immeasurable in scientific methodological terms.

Does this mean that there really is "no Life" in the universe of human experience, existentially discerned by human souls?

Oh, I forget. There are people nowadays who tend to argue that human beings are just machines anyway. And so have no possible "use" for "souls."

Still that answer doesn't "answer," as far as I'm concerned. For one thing, even if human beings were only "machines," they would still need a "program" in order to function in any kind of productive, beneficial way.

It all boils back to the seemingly eerie fact that the cosmos is indeed ordered; but not in such a way as to preclude the human search for understanding of its order.

Somehow Man seems to be the "free agent" of all the splendor and chaos of our present time....

3,365 posted on 02/09/2011 6:29:11 PM PST by betty boop (Seek truth and beauty together; you will never find them apart. — F. M. Cornford)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3359 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
What are you talking about? Metaphysics? I am talking from basic thermodynamic principles. Textbook stuff.

Any chemical reaction can only proceed if entropy increase exceeds zero. We are chemical beings, fuelled by chemical processes. None of our processes may violate the laws of thermodynamics. I don't know where you may be, but my body and all of its physical processes are firmly ensconced in the physical world.

It all boils back to the seemingly eerie fact that the cosmos is indeed ordered; but not in such a way as to preclude the human search for understanding of its order.

Gonna throw thermodynamic laws out the cosmic window?

3,366 posted on 02/09/2011 6:42:00 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3365 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; betty boop
You are not balancing the equation. You persist in ignoring the fraction of input that is organized to form the orderly structures that form the body, organs, cells, organelles, etc. of the creature while it is alive. Instead you act as if the effluent is totality; it is not.

As bb implied, once that active, structured organization ceases at death, entropy approaches totality.

3,367 posted on 02/09/2011 7:16:36 PM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3363 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA
You are not balancing the equation. You persist in ignoring the fraction of input that is organized to form the orderly structures that form the body, organs, cells, organelles, etc. of the creature while it is alive. Instead you act as if the effluent is totality; it is not.

It is not an equation; it is an inequality. The decrease in entropy of a localized volume of space-time must be less than the resultant increase in entropy of the rest of the universe.

While I admit that the localized observation may see decreased entropy, the increase to the rest of the universe will be greater than that decrease.

As bb implied, once that active, structured organization ceases at death, entropy approaches totality.

Negative. The results of death are stable particles, plus resultant energies (heat, etc.). In order to achieve the maximum entropy for that death, all matter has to be transformed into random energies.

3,368 posted on 02/09/2011 7:23:08 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3367 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; xzins; YHAOS; MHGinTN; James C. Bennett; metmom; ...
We frequently reverse (or hold in abeyance for a time) a bit of entropy. We call it "growing our living body" -- or, "manufacturing".

I invite anyone who does not believe entropy to be the eventual physical victor to examine any old auto salvage yard -- or my Jeep, which spent several winters on salty New England roads. (The rear bumper recently fell completely off when I hit a big bump while "four-wheeling" on my "back fifty"...) '-)

But that Jeep didn't weld its own bumper back on; I did that -- by adding more metal to fabricate new mounting brackets.

And as an archaeologist, I can attest that I have seen human burials in acid soil that left little remaining evidence other than the disturbed soil of the burial pit -- and a vague stain at the bottom -- plus a few stone or pottery "grave goods". Entropy is the eventual physical victor...

~~~~~~~~

But, as I understand it, bb is not confining her discussion to the purely physical...

Wish I had time to stay and join bb's side of the disciussion, but political battles need fighting...

3,369 posted on 02/09/2011 8:04:05 PM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3366 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; MarkBsnr; Alamo-Girl; xzins; YHAOS; MHGinTN; James C. Bennett; TXnMA; metmom

Mark: What we are talking about is that life, like every other process, produces entropy — from a scientific basis.

Spirited: We know entropy exists by its’ discernable effects, yet we cannot see entropy itself anymore than we can see gravity. We know life exists because we “live,” as do animals and plant life. We know life exists but we cannot see life. We know that light exists, yet we cannot empirically prove its’ existence. We might try pointing to a light bulb, but light bulbs are not light. They are conveyers of light. Processes exist. We know they do by their effects, yet we cannot see processes anymore than we can see power. If Mark was required to empirically demonstrate that he dreams, he could not do so even though he knows he dreams.


3,370 posted on 02/10/2011 3:50:42 AM PST by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3365 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA; MarkBsnr; Alamo-Girl; xzins; spirited irish; YHAOS; MHGinTN; James C. Bennett; metmom
But, as I understand it, bb is not confining her discussion to the purely physical...

Your understanding is totally correct TXnMA! I'm not speaking merely of the physical. There are all kinds of "phenomenal things" in the world that are not "physical." Spirited irish gave some great examples here.

And certainly I am not denying the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as MarkBsnr seems to be suggesting!

I'd only wish to point out that the Hungarian theoretical biologist Ervin Bauer has noticed something very interesting about life forms of all descriptions: While living, they appear to try to maintain maximal distance from entropy. Death occurs when they can no longer do that.

So, the vitally interesting question, "What is Life?"

It seems to me Life itself is not "physical," though it implements organic physicality, if I might put it that way.

It ain't something science is ever going to isolate by means of its own methods.

Which only says to me that the methods and techniques of science, as superb as they are, do not reach to all the important questions of human and cosmic existence.

[What political battle are you fighting now, dear brother in Christ? I wish you had time to stay, too! :^)]

Thank you ever so much for writing, dear TXnMA!

3,371 posted on 02/10/2011 7:22:49 AM PST by betty boop (Seek truth and beauty together; you will never find them apart. — F. M. Cornford)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3369 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA
Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
3,372 posted on 02/11/2011 7:15:05 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3369 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; TXnMA; MarkBsnr; spirited irish
Your understanding is totally correct TXnMA! I'm not speaking merely of the physical. There are all kinds of "phenomenal things" in the world that are not "physical."

Man, for instance, is more than the sum of his physical parts.

Since we are talking about entropy, I'll use Information Theory and Molecular Biology as an example.

In Shannon's mathematical theory of communications (the foundation theory of the field of mathematics known as information theory) - information is the reduction of uncertainty (Shannon entropy) in the receiver or molecular machine as it moves from a before state to an after state.

Further, the thermodynamic entropy tab is paid (increased) by heat dissipating into the local environment when the Shannon entropy is decreased.

Perfect balance.

Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

3,373 posted on 02/11/2011 7:23:06 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3371 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; TXnMA; MarkBsnr; spirited irish; xzins; YHAOS; MHGinTN; James C. Bennett
Perfect balance.

And possibly also suggestive of an amazingly elegant "interface" between the non-physical (i.e., "spiritual") and physical worlds. Just an idea that occurred to me....

Perhaps such an idea would be resisted by scientists as smacking of metaphysics or some other "subjective" modality of analysis/interpretation. But the problem of how the immaterial can affect/effect the material — which definitely seems to be the observational case, based on developments in information theory and complex systems theory, not to mention common sense — will not go away.

In short, it appears that tangible things arise from intangible causes. The problem is, it seems to me, that we never observe "causes" (because of their sheer intangibility), only "effects."

That is, only effects are observables; thus only effects are accessible to the scientific method.

The great skeptic philosopher David Hume outright says that the connection between a cause and its effect is not ever something that can be demonstrated. To put it another way, there is no observable evidence of such a connection, no observable/demonstrable "facts" between a cause and its putative effect. Thus, the cause–effect relation is something we take on faith. For Hume, the very attribution of causes is an act of ex post facto induction which is then passed on and publicly accepted, in due course becoming "conventional."

Well, that's how Hume tells the tale! Though I find him a remarkably attractive human being in so many respects, I think he was too much a "child of the Enlightenment" on this question — the Enlightenment which basically has shed so precious little light.... He is heir to the Baconian scientific revolution, which bottom-line marks the profound shift from deductive to inductive analytical methods.

But it seems to me the current development of theoretical biology is not helped by recourse to such abstractions. Nowadays in theoretical biology, the issue of the "interface" between information (non-physical) and biological function (physical) is commanding considerable attention.

But what is science to do in this situation? The current state of theoretical biology seems to be catching on to the idea of biological function as an end-directed and purposeful, not a "random," phenomenon. The problem seems to be: If there is purpose in biology — informed purpose at that — Whose "purpose" is it?

It seems Science definitely does not want to "go there"....

I think a way out of this epistemological impasse has been well proposed by Jacob Needleman, Professor of Philosophy at San Francisco State, and once-upon-a-time clinical psychologist:

...[T]here exists a world of ideas — ideas which are of an astonishingly different quality from the concepts and theories of science, yet which retain the element of objectivity. [Scientists] are being asked to use their mind, that mind which has led them through the problems of their scientific investigations — yet it is not the same mind, not the same part of the mind. They try with their scientific, familiar mind to answer the questions of philosophy, but it is not possible. (It is not possible to approach the questions of philosophy with the scientific/scholarly mind alone: that is what academic philosophy does not understand.) Some of them attempt to convert the questions to intellectual problems, but I know that at the other end of the problem they find the question still waits for them.... The scientist, the student of science, comes from his laboratory where he has attempted to abandon the hindrances of subjectivity and emotion in order to see the real world. In front of authentic philosophy, he is astonished to find that the emotion evoked in him by great ideas is actually the same thing as freedom from emotion. — The Heart of Philosophy, 1982, p. 12–13.

Thank you ever so much, dearest sister in Christ, for sharing your beautiful insights!
3,374 posted on 02/11/2011 1:46:47 PM PST by betty boop (Seek truth and beauty together; you will never find them apart. — F. M. Cornford)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3373 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

Non-physical world? ... First God created the dimensions, then He used light to get physical things going. Anything in God’s universe will have a where/when realm, whether we can now sense it or not. You might be better off stating non-visual, as in non-visual with our present physical configuration. But Jesus has told us that He is preparing a place for us and He shall come again to take us ‘there’, to that where/when. We have hints of that possibility with the fifth chapter in Daniel, the Old Testament/Tanakh. Whomever wrote on Belshazzar’s wall at palace party central was in a where/when and reached into Belshazzar’s where/when. Angels exist in some sort of where/when.


3,375 posted on 02/11/2011 2:47:38 PM PST by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3374 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Angels exist in some sort of where/when.

Certainly I think so, dear brother in Christ!

They are not as spatio/temporally remote from us as we may think....

JMHO. FWIW.

3,376 posted on 02/11/2011 6:46:39 PM PST by betty boop (Seek truth and beauty together; you will never find them apart. — F. M. Cornford)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3375 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
And possibly also suggestive of an amazingly elegant "interface" between the non-physical (i.e., "spiritual") and physical worlds. Just an idea that occurred to me....

I very strongly agree!

Perhaps such an idea would be resisted by scientists as smacking of metaphysics or some other "subjective" modality of analysis/interpretation. But the problem of how the immaterial can affect/effect the material — which definitely seems to be the observational case, based on developments in information theory and complex systems theory, not to mention common sense — will not go away.

In short, it appears that tangible things arise from intangible causes. The problem is, it seems to me, that we never observe "causes" (because of their sheer intangibility), only "effects."

So very true!

And as you further explain, only the physical had been recognized for the purposes of "doing" science until very recently.

I'm very grateful for the mathematicians and physicists who have been invited to the biologists' tables.

Thank you so very much for your superb essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!

3,377 posted on 02/11/2011 9:50:16 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3374 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns; daniel1212; Quix; Lera
AnalogReigns: I think this is one reason why it is easy for certain evangelicals, often from the "enthusiast" wing, find it easy to become Roman Catholic.

Ok. So you think that Pentecostals or "enthusiasts" would find it easily to become Catholic?
3,378 posted on 02/11/2011 10:52:51 PM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3340 | View Replies]

To: Gargantua

And few if any of the most thoughtful doctors in the history of the Church have believed in a complex multiple-2nd-coming scheme, as cooked up by the Millerites in the 1830s—and so popular today.

Lets see,
Jesus comes secretly, rapturing the Church, (1st 2nd Coming)

Next He comes either in the middle or end of the Great Tribulation to stop the Beast et al. from wrecking His plans and in this He is saving the Jews(2nd 2nd Coming)

Then Jesus sets up His Millennial Kingdom on Earth (headed by the Jews-for-Jesus or ?) (2nd or 2nd & 1/2, or 3rd, 2nd Coming)

After 1000 years the Devil is released messing up things again, and FINALLY Jesus puts a stop to all this, (3rd or 4th 2nd Coming) bringing the Last Judgement and Heaven on Earth (but wait, the White Throne judgement is in there somewhere too...hmmmm, soooooooo complicated!).

Golly, can’t Jesus just simply come, raise the dead, judge the world, and establish His reign once and for all?!!! (Well, yes, that’s exactly what the Bible teaches-—and the vast majority of Christians everywhere have believed for 2000 years...)


3,379 posted on 02/12/2011 9:38:55 AM PST by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
Read your bible. Trust it, not anyone else. God gave us His Holy Spirit to guide us and act as translator as we read His Word.

If you go to scripture, go "as a child," innocent and without preconceived notions. If you open your bible with the goal of proving or disproving some preconceived idea that you either want to prove or disprove, that is not the childlike heart of a true seeker.

Neither God nor His Holy Spirit will bless this endeavor with divine enlightenment. Neither should believers publicly argue (in forums such as this) over fine points of disagreement. This can lead astray young believers, and discourage those who might otherwise be seekers.

We are told to not behave in this manner. Read your bible. Grow up.

;-\

3,380 posted on 02/12/2011 10:50:09 AM PST by Gargantua (Palin ~ West 2012... Demand Exceptional--America deserves the best)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3379 | View Replies]

To: Gargantua

I’ve read my bible and still do so daily, not Tim LaHaye’s novels.

Jesus is surely coming again...but, if the Pharisees are any example to us—on how they misjudged His first coming, we should NOT be dogmatic about the hows of His 2nd coming.

I firmly believe however the bible does NOT teach three or four 2nd Comings, rather only one—which all the world will know.


3,381 posted on 02/12/2011 3:23:40 PM PST by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3380 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
That the Bible teaches of one Second Coming of which all the world will be aware is a fact we can both agree upon. Amen.

:-|

3,382 posted on 02/12/2011 3:50:04 PM PST by Gargantua (Palin ~ West 2012... Demand Exceptional--America deserves the best)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3381 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Both radical charismatics(Pentacostals)and Roman Catholics do not accept the sufficiency of scripture, and look for revelation from God outside of it—one in supernatural experience, the other in a supernatural human institution...

Neither is satisfied with God as He has certainly revealed Himself in His Word, and have that in common contra classical magisterial Protestants.

Liberal Protestants also look for “revelation” from God outside of scripture, primarily in their own arrogant speculations and imagination...


3,383 posted on 02/12/2011 4:11:02 PM PST by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3378 | View Replies]

To: Gargantua

One thing should be clear however: I’ve never (ever) heard of a Reformed or Presbyterian (Covenant-theology) assembly that would censure or excommunicate someone based on their understanding of the End Times.

There are though PLENTY of dispensational churches and organizations which hold huge dogmatisms on eschatology—and will throw a member out quickly—as an unbiblical heretic— who didn’t adhere strictly to their particular (multiple 2nd coming) interpretation.


3,384 posted on 02/12/2011 4:15:25 PM PST by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3382 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
But, look here, Analog sola scriptura folks say they hold to scripture alone, Yet they hold on to things like
  1. the Rapture
  2. "Accept Jesus as your personal Savior" --> this bears more time. This is never taught from scripture, yet parroted by many. While the Bible says that (Matt. 1:21 21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins, Acts 4:12 12Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.) Jesus is the savior, but nowhere can one make the fallacious derivation -- where is it per sola scriptura?
  3. In fact the Bible says
    Matthew 28.20
    20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
    Revelation 2.10
    10Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.
    1 Corinthians 15:58
    58Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.
    1 Corinthians 15.1-4
    1Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
    2By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
    3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
    4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:


    Why do they hold on to these non-biblical beliefs?

3,385 posted on 02/13/2011 12:11:23 AM PST by Cronos ("They object to tradition saying that they themselves are wiser than the apostles" - Ire.III.2.2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3383 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
Analog, the problem is, also that sola scriptura is not sufficient -- it leads to the number of sola views as below
  1. does sola scriptura say one should believe in something as basic as Jesus was always God (Trinitarian position) or that Jesus Christ was man made God (Oneness PENTECOSTAL Protestant position) or the Angel Michael (Seventh Day Adventist Ellen G White teaching)
  2. Does sola scriptura say that there is the REAL Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Lutheran, some Anglicans, maybe even Methodists), or is it just a symbol (Calvinists)
  3. Does sola scriptura say that one MUST talk in tongues (Oneness Pentecostal) to display faith or not?
  4. Does sola scriptura say that there should be an episcopate (Lutheran, Anglican) or not (Presbyterians)?
  5. Does sola scriptura say that apostolic succession is important (Anglican) or not (others)?
  6. Does sola scriptura say that Baptism is for infants and sufficient (Presbyterian etc.) or not (Baptists)?
  7. Does sola scriptura say that God pre-damns people to hell (Calvinism) or not (others)?
  8. Does sola scriptura say that vestements are ok (or in the silly words of one poster allowing men in dresses and silly hats) (Anglicans, Lutherans, some Methodists, Presbyterians, even Baptists and Pentecostals) or not?
  9. Does sola scriptura say that Jesus came only for the salvation of a few (Calvinists) or he was Savior of the world (everyone else)?
  10. Does sola scriptura agree or disagree with soul sleep? (Calvin: "As long as (the soul) is in the body it exerts its own powers; but when it quits this prison-house it returns to God, whose presence, it meanwhile enjoys while it rests in the hope of a blessed Resurrection. This rest is its paradise. On the other hand, the spirit of the reprobate, while it waits for the dreadful judgment, is tortured by that anticipation. . .", Psychopannychia,
  11. Does sola scriptura agree or disagree with worshipping on a Sunday (Presbyterians, Pentecostals etc.) or not (Seventh Day Adventists)
  12. Does sola scriptura agree with the Adventists that one should follow kosher laws or not?
  13. Does sola scriptura believe that we still have spiritual gifts like prophecy amongst us (Pentecostals) or not (Presbyterians)
  14. Does sola scriptura agree with being "slain in the spirit" (Pentecostalism) or not (Presbyterianism, Lutheranism etc)
  15. Does sola scriptura say that Regeneration comes through Baptism (Lutheranism) or not (Baptists)
  16. Does sola scriptura say that grace can be resisted (Pentecostalism, Lutheranism, Methodism) or not (Calvinism)
  17. Does sola scriptura say that baptism is three-fold (Mennonites) or not?
  18. Does sola scriptura say that there is no free will (Calvinism) or that man has free will (Mennonites)
  19. Does sola scriptura say that it is faith + works (Mennonites: Menno Simons told the followers of Luther and Calvin: “If you wish to be saved, you must walk in the way of the Lord, hear His Word, and obey it. For nothing avails in heaven nor on earth unto salvation, … not even Christ with His grace, merit, blood, and death, if we are not born of God, … if we do not believe His Word sincerely, and if we do not walk in the light and do right. As John says: …>If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie.’” (Complete Writings of Menno Simons, p. 208)) or not?
  20. Does sola scriptura say that there is imputed righteousness (Calvinism) or not (Mennonites)

3,386 posted on 02/13/2011 12:22:03 AM PST by Cronos ("They object to tradition saying that they themselves are wiser than the apostles" - Ire.III.2.2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3383 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; Cronos; Judith Anne; Dr. Eckleburg
Question: is the thing that God executed, according to Luther, the free will of the individual, or predermination [sic] to hell? If you could indicate from these verses, I would be grateful.

The thing that God executed, according to Luther in the selection I quoted, is every single thing that has, does, or ever will exist. In the selection I quoted earlier from The Bondage of the Will, written when Calvin was a young teen, Luther declared:
1. that there was no will but God’s will

…by this thunderbolt, Freewill is struck to the earth and completely ground to powder….

2. that the appearance of contingency is an illusion

…all which we do, and all which happens, although it seem to happen mutably and contingently, does in reality happen necessarily and unalterably, insofar as respects the will of God. [emphasis added]

3. that everything in creation that happens involving man or apart from man is a product of God’s will

Hence it irresistibly follows, that all which we do [everything in which man has a part], and all which happens… [everything else in creation] does in reality happen necessarily and unalterably, insofar as respects the will of God.

4. that God is not limited either in will or in knowledge

If God does not foreknow all events absolutely, there must be defect either in his will, or in his knowledge ; what happens must either be against his will, or beside his knowledge

5. that everything that has happened since creation and that God is executing now in creation is identical with what God had planned since before the beginning of creation and had yet to execute at the time of creation

But the truth is, what he willed in past eternity, he wills now; the thing now executed is what he has intended to execute from everlasting; for his will is eternal: just as the thing which has now happened is what he saw in past eternity; because his knowledge is eternal.
This is iron-hard determinism that substantively is no different than what Calvin, then 14, would later develop with bigger tail fins, and massive chrome bumpers and grills. Luther's appeal to theological determinism probably had more to do with his polemical needs at the moment in his battle with Erasmus. I’m sure that later, upon reflection, Luther probably thought something along these lines:
“Oh, crap. This makes everything in human existence and even in scripture that appears to depend on contingency, or choice, a complete illusion within a totally deterministic universe where even my thoughts about illusion, determinism, and choice are determined, and even worse than that because what would have been the point of it all to begin with? For God’s praise and glory? Praise and glory from whom? From some sort of intra-trinitarian blackslapping? Or from automata who, like the cuckoo popping out of the clock on the hour, say “Praise and glory. Praise and glory” with no more awareness or understanding or will than the wooden cuckoo has of clock-making and timekeeping?”
Calvin, though, completely jumped the shark and, from a young age, embraced total determinism. Maybe he needed some angle to distinguish himself from Luther to establish his own niche in the turmoil of the new religious ecosystem and went full-tilt, retro-boogie with what, from Augustine, he had already become infatuated even as a youth. Calvin admitted this kind of determinism was a horrible decree,1 but maintained his theological system was somehow revelatory of the hidden counsel of God, which, of course, he had deduced,2 but which others should not inquire into.3 And who could blame him, a really smart, fresh twenties-something law student who loved Latin so much that he changed his name to the Latin version? It was all just so darn logical! It followed so neatly from his premises. And God had created reason, so how could he, Calvin, possibly be wrong, assuming, of course, that Calvin had, according to his system, been regenerated and his pre-sin operating system restored, at least restarted in safe-mode to come up with his post-adolescent, theological über-ouvre?

If anyone questioned that perhaps such conclusions didn’t necessarily follow from his theological presuppositions and that such conclusions or presuppositions were possibly faulty, Calvin declared them heretics that should be exterminated.4 If anyone asked why God would ever have done such a thing and how in the world what he proposed about God’s hidden counsel made any sense at all when it made everything experienced by everyone in daily life and what God said in the scriptures completely meaningless unless one first attributed special meanings to them to juke their otherwise apparent sense into line with Calvin’s theology, he claimed that it was a mystery and that further inquiry along these lines was sin. 5

The truly weird thing is that if Calvin (and Luther and Augustine) was correct, all sorts of nutty things follow: My writing this is, to the very last letter, God's creation since before the beginning of time. Those Calvinists who claim they are defending God's sovereignty are, in reality, God himself, by definition the only non-contingent being in existence, saying, through the mouths of those utterly contingent upon his will for their every thought, action, heartbeat, and mistaken appearance of will, "I, who control every motion of every subatomic particle toward the end I intend, I am contending for my sovereignty against the wicked and the sinners, uh, whom I've also created before the worlds came to be, who claim by their willful misdeeds, that I have also planned and executed in their entirety, that they have some kind of independent will that reduces my sovereignty even though they are, through my sovereign will before all came to be, doing exactly as I had planned for them to do."

King James had an interesting thing to say about the entire system:
"This doctrine is so horrible, that I am persuaded, if there were a council of unclean spirits assembled in hell, and their prince the devil were to put the question either all of them in general, or to each in particular, to learn their opinion about the most likely means of stirring up the hatred of men against God their Maker; nothing could be invented by them that would be more efficacious for this purpose, or that could put a greater affront upon God's love for mankind, than that infamous decree of the late Synod [of Dort], and that decision of that detestable formulary, by which the far greater part of the human race are condemned to hell for no other reason, than the mere will of God, without any regard to sin; the necessity of sinning, as well as that of being damned, being fastened on them by that great nail of the decree before-mentioned." James Arminius, The Works of James Arminius, Vol 1, p 3.
1. “The decree, I admit, is dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknew what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree.” Calvin, Institutes, III, xxi, 1.

2. Regarding free will and foreknowledge: “If God merely foresaw human events, and did not also arrange and dispose of them at his pleasure, there might be room for agitating the question, but since he foresees the things which are to happen, simply because he has decreed them, they are so to happen, it is vain to debate about prescience…. If this frigid fiction is received, where will be the omnipotence of God, by which, according to his secret counsel on which everything depends, he rules over all?” Calvin, Institutes, III, xxiii, 6,7.

3. “Let us not be ashamed to be ignorant in a matter in which ignorance is learning. Rather let us willingly abstain from the search after knowledge, to which it is both foolish as well as perilous, and even fatal to aspire.” Calvin, Institutes, III, xxi, 2.

4. "Whoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in punishing them makes himself an accomplice in their crime and guilty as they are. There is no question here of man's authority; it is God who speaks, and clear it is what law he will have kept in the church, even to the end of the world. Wherefore does he demand of us a so extreme severity, if not to show us that due honor is not paid him, so long as we set not his service above every human consideration, so that we spare not kin, nor blood of any, and forget all humanity when the matter is to combat for His glory." as quoted in History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century, J.W. Allen, London, 1951, p. 87.

5. “How sinful it is to insist on knowing the causes of the divine will, since it is itself, and justly ought to be, the cause of all that exists…. Ignorance of things which we are not able, or which it is not lawful to know, is learning, while the desire to know them is a species of madness.” Calvin, Institutes, III, xxiii, 4,8.

From The Bondage of the Will cited earlier in the thread.
"God foreknows nothing contingently, but foresees, and purposes, and accomplishes every thing, by an unchangeable, eternal, and infallible will. But, by this thunderbolt, Freewill is struck to the earth and completely ground to powder. Those who would assert Freewill, therefore, must either deny, or disguise, or, by some other means, repel this thunderbolt from them."

"Hence it irresistibly follows, that all which we do, and all which happens, although it seem to happen mutably and contingently, does in reality happen necessarily and unalterably, insofar as respects the will of God. For the will of God is efficacious, and such as cannot be thwarted; since the power of God is itself a part of his nature: it is also wise, so that it cannot be misled. And since his will is not thwarted, the work which he wills cannot be prevented ; but must be produced in the very place, time, and measure which he himself both foresees and wills."

"If God does not foreknow all events absolutely, there must be defect either in his will, or in his knowledge; what happens must either be against his will, or beside his knowledge. Either he meant otherwise than the event, or had no meaning at all about the event, or foresaw another event, or did not foresee any event at all. But the truth is, what he willed in past eternity, he wills now; the thing now executed is what he has intended to execute from everlasting; for his will is eternal: just as the thing which has now happened is what he saw in past eternity; because his knowledge is eternal."

3,387 posted on 02/13/2011 6:19:57 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3230 | View Replies]

To: aruanan; Dr. Eckleburg
What Luther thought!!
“Oh, crap. This makes everything in human existence and even in scripture that appears to depend on contingency, or choice, a complete illusion within a totally deterministic universe where even my thoughts about illusion, determinism, and choice are determined, and even worse than that because what would have been the point of it all to begin with? For God’s praise and glory? Praise and glory from whom? From some sort of intra-trinitarian blackslapping? Or from automata who, like the cuckoo popping out of the clock on the hour, say “Praise and glory. Praise and glory” with no more awareness or understanding or will than the wooden cuckoo has of clock-making and timekeeping?”


ha! ha! It was left to the French lawyer CAlvin and the cheese-eating surrender monkeys that are the followers of Calvin to make their entire non-Christian theology based on that point!!
3,388 posted on 02/14/2011 12:12:45 AM PST by Cronos ("They object to tradition saying that they themselves are wiser than the apostles" - Ire.III.2.2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3387 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
What Luther thought!!

Based on the big shift from what he wrote in The Bondage of the Will and his position and that of the Lutherans later.
3,389 posted on 02/14/2011 9:48:23 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3388 | View Replies]

To: HossB86
"They are Roman Catholic, are they not?"

No, actually Charles Schumer is Jewish.

The facts are that Catholics comprised only about 30% of congress and Protestants about 60% of the last 10% congresses. Are you prepared to discuss abortion, homosexual rights and any number of other social issues in that context?

3,390 posted on 02/21/2011 9:56:48 AM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1674 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
, I was simply providing an accurate quote

No, you didn't, as anyone can see from reading the post.

You added the word "only" to my statement, completely changing the meaning of the sentence.

Apparently Roman Catholics play fast and loose not only with the words of Scripture, but also the words of other FReepers.


I see that in this reply and in the preceding one you are confusing me with Cronos. I had said that I was providing an accurate quote. As I went back, I discovered that what I was quoting was something written by Cronos, which I commented on. Whether or not he had added "only" to something you had previously written is something I don't know and didn't know at the time. As it stands, though, I accurately quoted Cronos, whether or not he accurately quoted you is another matter. In addition, your post previous to this that I am replying to now referenced me with regard to another post #2700. But I wasn't the author of that post:

2,700 posted on February 2, 2011 1:46:44 AM CST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2698 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
3,391 posted on 10/02/2013 8:50:54 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2862 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
You added the word ONLY to my statement.

Your post stands as evidence against your defense. Try to post within the rules.


Again, no, I didn't add anything to your statement at all. I see now that it wasn't Cronos I was quoting, but YOUR quote of Cronos's quote.
3,392 posted on 10/02/2013 8:52:30 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2883 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 3,201-3,2503,251-3,3003,301-3,3503,351-3,392 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson