Posted on 03/31/2012 8:03:04 PM PDT by Salvation
- Clement Of Rome
- Ephraim The Syrian
- Revelation 3:10-11 (To the Church ofPhiladelphia)
So how do we learn about THOSE things? Apostolic Tradition. After all, the New Testament, as a book, didn't get put together until 420 A.D. And THOSE books were judged to be worthy and accurate by the Catholic bishops, the ROMAN Catholic bishops in Rome.
There is no line in Scripture that says that Scripture is the SOLE source of our teaching, but then, sola scriptura,is an invention of excommunicated Catholic priest, Doctor Father Martin Luther.
Father Luther did dump seven of the OT books (Tobias, Baruch, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiatics I and II, Macabees, seven chapters of the book of Esther, AND 66 verses of Daniel 3) and WANTED to dump the letter of St. James but his followers talked him into putting the letter of St. James BACK into "his" (his words not mine) New Testament.
I had an OLD friend (Reared Baptist, changed to Presbyterian because the Baptist church is her town (where she lived in as an adult) was not....well, not what she and her family wanted, read an excerpt from the Book of Wisdom at my husband's funeral. She called and said "Book of What?" We still laugh about that.
Just to be clear, are you and Daniel saying that the Church the Body of Christ will be going through the tribulation? I’m not fully clear on what you both are saying..:)
You quote a priest and a book, but no verifiable source. Could you also post that?
caught up does not mean rapture.
I can be caught up in a maze and not find my way out of it. Or caught up in a task and get distracted from fixing supper.
What about the Bible saying that Christ will only come once more at the General Judgement?
Doesn’t a rapture insinuate that Christ comes and takes some people.
At the General Judgment (Book of Revelation) is when we see Christ coming on a cloud.
You put that very well, thanks.
** Perhaps that’s what Salvation was thinking. At any rate...&&
Just like believers of other faiths are always saying that Purgatory is not in the Bible, but the words, purge, cleanse, clean are.
LOL!
** Perhaps that’s what Salvation was thinking. At any rate...&&
Just like believers of other faiths are always saying that Purgatory is not in the Bible, but the words, purge, cleanse, clean are.
LOL!
The Three Days of Darkness & Prophecies of Latter Times [Catholic Caucus]
Good to hear your point of view here, thanks!
But there are many references to Purgatory, just as some on this thread are claiming there are reference to rapture.
If the material universe is not to be itself fully fulfilled but merely burned up, then why did G-d create it in the first place?
The fact is there have been multiple views about the end times. I don't accept any Church's Dogma about a certain viewpoint. I read and study the Bible and come up with my own conclusions. I trust Christ with my soul. The rest like eschatology does not effect my salvation status anyway. So I tend to be tolerant of any viewpoint regarding how the world will come to an end and the arrival of the Kingdom. But we need to get facts straight.
The Bible when read for me indicates that there will be a rapture then the second coming. And in the end it does not really matter. If you have not accepted Christ as savior then hellfire awaits regardless of any personal eschatological view.
Rather, since i am a evangelical Protestant, i am free to go where the truth leads, and examine truth claims by Scripture, in accordance with the manner of doctrinal exegesis it teaches, as noble men whom the Holy Spirit commends did, (Acts 17:11) and upon which warrant Christ established His claims and thus the church, rather than giving implicit assent of faith to a self-proclaimed assuredly infallible magisterium (sola ecclesia).
The reality is rather than doctrinal anarchy characterizing historical Protestantism, those who hold to the supremacy of Scripture are marked by a common assent to core truths, and thus contend against cults who deny them.
While characteristically commonly holding to core truth, those who hold to Sola Scriptura do have disagreements in other areas, and likewise Roman Catholics must hold to certain core truths, while allowing varying degrees of disagreement in other things.
And under sola ecclesia there are also formal divisions. The difference between the two models is only a matter of degrees, while groups actually operate according to the means of Rome - that of a supreme magisterium acting as if it was assuredly infallible (sola ecclesia) - teach the more perverse things.
Being Catholic, I take the word of the Church, not words of individual priests. I always look for the words nihil obstat (declaration) and Imprimature (Let it be printed.). Those words make whatever is printed official Church-backed information.
Actually, despite your assurance of doctrine you assert you find in Rome, there is much disagreement and uncertainty, which even extends to what considered “infallible teaching.”
Can you tell me how many infallible teachings there are? Are all encyclicals infallible? Is everything in the Roman Catholic catechism infallible? Is everything Trent taught infallible?
So far, I've not seen hide nor hair of nihil obstat and Imprimature.
Well, the very article of the OP which you responding to has none, but your statement is just another example of the confusion that exists in Roman Catholicism, in which many opinions are offered as what kind of assurance these stamps provide. Some see them as assuring orthodoxy, while others do not even bother to seek them anymore, despite its history and the weight the Catechism places on such approval.
But since you see these as assuring such are official Church-backed information, then if you must defend such, you must support such teachings as that,
* Genesis 2 (Adam and Eve and creation details) and Gn. 3 (the story of the Fall), Gn. 4:1-16 (Cain and Abel), Gn. 6-8 (Noah and the Flood), and Gn. 11:1-9 are “folktales,” using allegory to teach a religious lesson
*The story of Balaam and the donkey and the angel (Num. 22:1-21; 22:36-38) was a fable, while the records of Gn. (chapters) 37-50 (Joseph), 12-36 (Abraham, Issaac, Jacob), Exodus, Judges 13-16 (Samson) 1Sam. 17 (David and Goliath) and that of the Exodus are stories which are "historical at their core," but overall the author simply used "traditions" to teach a religious lesson.
*The ages of the patriarchs after the flood are artificial and devoid of historical value.
*The Israelites crossed over the Reed Sea, which was “probably a body of shallow water somewhat to the north of the present deep Red Sea” (yet perhaps making the drowning of Pharaoh's army equally miraculous).
*Matthew may have only placed Jesus in Egypt to convince his readers that Jesus was the real Israel, and may have only represented Jesus giving the Sermon on the Mount on a mount.
And there is more, and to which can be added such things as papal sanction of torture of theological deviants, or suspects of such, and burning of heretics, of which class Rome now calls separated brethren.
Your post 13 brings up another question. If you don’t believe in the rapture then you must believe that faithful Christians must go through the time of the wrath of God. Would you show from scripture just one time that those who have been faithful to God had to endure His wrath?
Correct. Also that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven or that she is the “queen of heaven”.
Oh really?
First of all I would have thought you would have put more time investigating the meaning of rapiemur. I’m disappointed in your response Salvation. Did you actually think the RCC made a mistake in the Dewy Rheams and the Latin Vulgate as well? Check here; http://www.latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=1&b=13&c=4.
Even the answers found at catholic.com would disagree with the Catholics on this forum it seems.
“The word Rapture is connected to the Latin word rapiemur, which appears in Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians in the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible. It means to be raised up or caught up: Therefore, Catholics believe that those Christians who are still living at the Second Coming of Christ will be gathered together with those who have died in Christ to be forever with the Lord. Catholics do not generally use the term Rapture, nor do they believe in a Rapture that will take place some time before the Second Coming, as do many Evangelicals.” Jim Blackburn http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/do-catholics-believe-in-the-rapture.
It would appear that in fact Catholics do believe in the rapture but at a later time than many Protestants.
Now that brings up a question. If Catholics think the faithful Christians will be here during the time of the wrath of God they obviously believe that faithful Christians will experience the wrath of God. Would you please show from scripture where faithful followers of God had to endure His wrath as Catholics evidently believe they will in the end times?
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.