Posted on 05/22/2011 10:02:42 AM PDT by DaveMSmith
Last Judgment 28
V. THE LAST JUDGMENT IS TO BE WHERE ALL ARE TOGETHER, AND SO IN THE SPIRITUAL WORLD, NOT ON EARTH
The general belief about the Last Judgment is that the Lord accompanied by angels will appear in glory in the clouds of heaven, and He will then raise up from their graves all who have ever lived from the beginning of creation, clothe their souls with a body, and, when they have been summoned to meet, judge them, sending those who have lived good lives to everlasting life or heaven, and those who lived wicked lives to everlasting death or hell.
The churches have taken this belief from the literal sense of the Word, and there was no possibility of removing it so long as it remained unknown that everything mentioned in the Word has a spiritual sense; and this sense is the real Word, the literal sense serving as its basis or foundation. Without this kind of literal sense the Word could not have been Divine, and have served both heaven and the world as a means of instruction on how to live and what to believe, and as a means of conjunction. So if anyone knows the spiritual things corresponding to natural things in the Word, he can know that the Lord's coming in the clouds of heaven does not mean His appearance there, but His appearance in the Word. The Lord is the Word, because He is Divine truth. The clouds of heaven in which He is to come are the literal sense of the Word, and the glory is its spiritual sense. The angels are heaven, from which He appears, and they are also the Lord as regards Divine truths.# This makes plain the meaning of these words, namely, that when the church comes to an end the Lord will open up the spiritual sense of the Word, and thus reveal Divine truth such as it is in itself. This will be a sign that the Last Judgment is at hand.
That there is a spiritual sense within each thing and expression in the Word, and what it is may be seen in the Arcana Coelestia. This book expounds in full detail the contents of Genesis and Exodus in accordance with their spiritual sense. Some selected passages dealing with the Word and its spiritual sense may be found in the small work About the White Horse described in Revelation.
# The Lord is the Word, because He is Divine truth in heaven (AC 2533, 2813, 2859, 2894, 3397, 3712). The Lord is the Word because the Word comes from Him and is about Him (AC 2859). It is about nothing but the Lord, especially in its inmost sense about the glorification of His Humanity, so that the Lord Himself is contained in it (AC 1873, 9357). The Lord's coming is His presence in the Word and the revelation of this (AC 3900, 4060). A cloud in the Word means the letter of the Word, or its literal meaning (AC 4060, 4391, 5922, 6343, 6752, 8106, 8781, 9430, 10551, 10574). Glory in the Word means Divine truth such as it is in heaven and in the spiritual sense (AC 4809, 5922, 8267, 8427, 9429, 10574). Angels in the Word mean Divine truths coming from the Lord, since angels are the means by which they are received, and they do not utter them of themselves but from the Lord (AC 1925, 2821, 3039, 4085, 4295, 4402, 6280, 8192, 8301). The trumpets and horns then blown by angels mean Divine truths in heaven and revealed from heaven (AC 8815, 8823, 8915).
You, sir, were just doing your job. No complaints about that...post 7, someone notified you and took my comment personally...that is what I was refering to..have a great day FRiend...
What on earth are you talking about?!
Jesus is the Son of God, and in no way is He a “minor player.” That’s utter nonsense. His apostles were His chosen followers. The words they wrote were from Jesus, who is God.
Your reply makes no sense and has nothing to do with what I said.
I'm talking about your absurd contention that "There is no “new” revelation from Jesus.". I've heard a lot of Calvinist claptrap on this forum, but that takes the cake.
God progressively revealed Himself and The Word to mankind until such time as He choose to reveal Himself fully by sending his own Son, in whom he has established his covenant forever. Jesus entire life and ministry is one of revelation. Jesus is one hypostases of the Trinity, one in being with the father. Unless you would care to retract or revise your statement you will not be able to call yourself a Christian with any credibility.
You apparenty do not understand what I said.
I said there is no “new” revelation, and by that I mean there is no extra-biblical revelation at this time. Things like the Book of Mormon and the extra-biblical teachings of the Catholic church are what I’m talking about. These kinds of things are man-made teachings that people claim to be “new” revelations from God, outside of the Bible, but are nothing more than lies from hell.
That’s what I’m talking about.
You know nothing about me and my Christianity. You can take a hike with your assertions on my Christian credibility.
I see you and your fellow buffoons rail on about the lack of legitimacy of Catholic teaching predicated upon nothing other than your own individual infallible interpretations of Scripture. It brings to mind an argument articulated by the late Cardinal Gibbons.
First Catholics are told that infallibility is too great a prerogative to be conferred on any man, especially a Catholic one. But if God could make mere men the instrument by which he revealed the infallible Word, why is it impossible to make man its infallible guardian and interpreter?
Next we are told by Protestants that an infallible Bible is sufficient for you. That then begs the question of whether your interpretation of the Bible is equally infallible. If you are infallibly certain, then you assert for yourself, and by extension for every other reader of Scripture, a personal infallibility which you deny the Pope and the Magisterium. On what basis or what knowledge do you deny to them what you claim for yourself? And how do you rationalize the many differences in interpretation among and between the various Protestant sects and denominations?
On the otherhand, if you are not infallibly certain that you have properly interpreted and understand the whole Bible then what use to you is the objective infallibility of the Bible without an infallible interpreter?
Standing applause.
You have hit the nail square on the Protestant thumb.
About the only thing that I can add is that the Church chose Scripture to begin with - the choice of the OT (Septuagint) and the NT rests with the Church - guided by the Holy Spirit, not any Tom, Dick or Luther regardless of how infallible they deem themselves.
And just think of the books that were thought of as Scripture - we know of about 80 Gospels or so - and which versions of each book were to be chosen? Each book had to be hand copied - and the copyists were not always the most faithful to the originals.
There are many out there that believe that Jesus carried a KJV (1611 of course) around with Him and taught in English. I have run into a few and have done my best to disabuse them of that notion (if English was good enough for Jesus, then it is good enough for immigrants - so I have been told).
Actually, rather than parroting a refuted RC polemic, if you had read and been able to comprehend what i wrote in this thread, then you might have understood how truth is established, which is not by Rome’s self-proclamation nor simply someone claiming they are infallible.
The modern-day Berean cannot claim either, but can only point them to the only material authority that is wholly inspired of God - which is not a perpetual promise that a pope will be - and seek to persuade them by manifestation of the truth.
Which is not the same as the implicit assent to your supreme magisterium you must require in order to have assurance of truth.
Or rather, the last thread we exchanged upon.
So, you want to resort to juvenile name-calling? Buffoon?
Forget it. I’m not going to go around and around with a bunch of Catholic adherents to their man-made traditions. That’s a useless endeavor, and I have better things to do.
Good evening.
I had a friend in high school (mid-1960's) whose very aging French great-grandfather came to the US for an extended stay. Even though the old guy was a devout Catholic he refused to attend Mass in the US because he said that God only choose Latin to speak to man.
I read what you wrote and, while I agree it may make perfect sense to you, it is in fact laughable.
You are going to have to do a lot better than that. Snippets cut form websites and links to your own website stuffed with cut and paste arguments don't carry much weight. Merely declaring an argument refuted doesn't make it so. I will dumb it down so that even you can get it and give you another chance to refute it. (note: Your compatriots have already punted):
1) Do you deny that God chose otherwise ordinary men to record the infallible and inerrant written Word?
2) Do you deny God's ability to choose other otherwise ordinary men to defend and inerrantly and infallibly interpret His word?
3) Do you declare that the Bible, as canonized by men acting under the direction of the Holy Spirit, is an infallible collection of infallible works?
4) Are you infallibly certain that your interpretation of the Bible is infallible?
5) If you are certain your interpretation of Scripture is infallible can you assert that this ability is reserved only to you?
6) If you are not certain that your interpretation is infallible what use to you is an infallible Bible without an infallible interpreter?
Stomping off is sure a lot easier than defending the position you have taken. Good night.
Hey, SCHMUCK! I’ve ALREADY “defended” my position with Scripture, which is not mine, but is the WORD OF GOD.
Your stupid beef is not with me, pal, but with God.
Please tell me you don't put food in that dirty mouth or kiss your mom with it.
one thing that we (and me most of all!!) forget is that our RM does this for free. Carramba! I don’t envy him his duty, dealing with folks like me!
Like the Trinity, Baptism for the Remission of Sins and the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Lutherans, traditional Anglicans and Methodists believe in these. Do you? These are all Biblically sound beliefs that were practised right from the New Testament times, through the Early Christians through right until recently. Do you believe in these?
NL's statement make sense -- if you say that your interpretation is infallible, then why isn't the interpretation of the Church as a whole infallible?
And if your interpretation is infallible, then how come your interpretation on a fundamental belief like the Trinity differs from the Unitarians or the Oneness Pentecostals?
how come your interpretation on a fundamental belief like baptism for the remission of sins differs from the Lutherans?
The extra-biblical teachings also include such lovely bits like double-predestination, TULIP, etc.
I realize that you are being true to form, and your recourse to blithe dismissal of what refutes you is typical, but i assure you i do far more than simply cutting and pasting of arguments, though i do tend to substantiate or supplement what i write, directly or by links, while your own argument is hardly original:
1) Do you deny that God chose otherwise ordinary men to record the infallible and inerrant written Word?
No: "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:21)
2) Do you deny God's ability to choose other otherwise ordinary men to defend and inerrantly and infallibly interpret His word?
No: "...our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased." (Psalms 115:3) Yet consistent with what is written, it does not assure infallible interpretations based upon Rome's criteria which renders whatever it speaks to be so, even though it may declare infallible truths, if Scriptural, and thus we agree on some core truths. But your question does not prove your particular premise, but must allow others to also defend and inerrantly and infallibly interpret His word. The issue is the basis for assurance.
3) Do you declare that the Bible, as canonized by men acting under the direction of the Holy Spirit, is an infallible collection of infallible works?
As canonized by Rome, like the Orthodox (at least in this regard), NO, but as 66 books being progressively manifest as God-breathed, yes, like as my affirmation of the existence of God does not rest upon Rome's say so but His manifestation of Himself.
Most of the Divine writings were established by the time of Christ as being such, and thus the references to the tripart Palestinian canon, (Lk. 24:44) and which was not the result of a formal action of men, but like true men of God, they were established as being from God due to their unique qualities and the attestation and witness God gave them. And which is the only way the rest of the writings of the 66 books of the Bible could be progressively established as such. The church can formally affirm things like Christ's Divinity, as well as the books of Scripture as being inspired by Him, but their enduring acceptance is due to them being what they are and effecting what faith in them does. The church which is of the living God, and consists of those begotten by His word of truth, (Ja. 1:18; 1Cor. 12:13) provides witness to the Divine inspiration of the 66 books of the Bible, partly by manifesting effects which correspond to its claims, not simply declaring it is.
As your argumentation for Rome being the infallible interpreter appeals to the omnipotence of God, so does the establishment of His writings by the aforementioned means, and is consistent with how He established men of God from Moses to John the Baptist as being just that.
However, Rome had no infallible canon until over 1400 years after the last book was written, with debate among scholars continuing right into Trent, and its canon was not exactly the same as Carthage, nor is it the same as that of the Orthodox. Thus your argument would not be valid prior to Trent, and that you had an infallible church without an infallible canon (argue as you might that it was) is telling.
4) Are you infallibly certain that your interpretation of the Bible is infallible?
More than i can be certain that Rome is the infallible interpreter, and as much as i can certain its interpretations are infallible, insomuch as Scripture clearly declares such. And anyone who even affirms that there is a God could be declaring infallible truth.
5) If you are certain your interpretation of Scripture is infallible can you assert that this ability is reserved only to you?
NO, or for Rome; though as said, I even allow that Rome can teach infallible Truth. The issue is the basis for such a claim, demonstrable Scriptural substantiation and manifest warrant, or that one is assured infallibility when it speaks according to its infallibly defined (content and scope-based) formula. Such may claim Scriptural warrant but its claim to infallibility does not rest upon it.
6) If you are not certain that your interpretation is infallible what use to you is an infallible Bible without an infallible interpreter?
As much use as it was the Jews for centuries before Rome. And as regards interpretations i would not hold as infallible, which would be substantial, an infallible Bible provides me a source by which God can lead me into truth, and which source materially includes the magisterium of the body of Christ, but which they also must submit to, rather than presuming authority over all.
Meanwhile, although Scripture teaches one can know that they presently have eternal life based upon Scriptural criteria, (1Jn. 5:13) you claim an infallible magisterium which has defined very little, nor you cannot be sure that you are giving the required assent of faith to all that Rome has infallible spoken, as you cannot be sure how many times she has. More in post 36.
Moreover, you are allowed varying degrees of dissent in non-fallible teachings, as well as on things not taught on, and the things Catholics can legitimately disagree on is very substantial, while the prolixity of prelates adds more of a burden. “Alexander III is said to have issued thirty-nine hundred and thirty-nine decrees and Innocent II over five thousand." (General Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law, p. 42), while the papal "Bulls" just from 540 to 1857 fills forty-one volumes.
You are going to have to do a lot better than that.
Indeed i have and did so again, by God's grace, though a Catholic who showed he could reasonably interact would have been preferable. But thanks (honestly) for the questions.
It has to do with comprehension, or a tendency to fail to read carefully, and supposes that nothing was said regarding as to why some things Rome says can be considered as infallible truth, while we both allow some disagreement in other things, and on what tends to characterizes those who deny the core truths we both agree on. But at least you showed you read some.
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.