Posted on 12/04/2012 6:46:21 PM PST by fwdude
I'm afraid Dave is on the last leg of his earthly journey, but he leaves a legacy of biblical truth to point the way.
There is nothing in the Bible to suggest the Rapture is secret. On the contrary it will be a very public event.
.
It is breathtaking how dishonest Dave Hunt’s writing is about Constantine is here.
I suppose you think Constantine was an altruistic benefactor who loved children and pets?
It's great how Dave Hunt just makes stuff up out of thin air, isn't it?
Constantine never used the title "Vicar of Christ". Ignatius of Antioch applied an expression (in Greek) similar to it to every bishop -- but that was two hundred years before Constantine. The title "Vicarius Christi" was first applied to a single individual in the person of Pope Gelasius I, two hundred years after Constantine.
Old Connie also never "assumed leadership of the Christian church," and in fact, wasn't a Christian at all until he was on his deathbed.
Hunt's view of church history is generally a network of fables.
Incidentally, nobody believed in your "rapture" before the early 19th century.
He lies, too.
He should be kinder to murders? If what Hunt said is not so then where is the error?
Another example, I’m afraid, of my own variant of Santayana’s dictum about not remembering history. As I’ve often written before: Those who cannot remember Church history are condemned to make it up.
Why is it that self-proclaimed “Biblical Christians” seem to live in an alternate universe in which the Donation of Constantine isn’t forgery? The nonsense about Constantine would be bad enough were it not compounded with a novelty I have not seen before — making the sentimental 19th century notion of “the Rapture” into the centerpiece of Christian belief.
Inadvertently the piece does show some insight: the author rightly opposes the notion of “the Rapture” to chiliasm. Unfortunately the Evil One sends heresies into the world in matched and opposing pairs, (as Arianism and docetism, Nestorianism and monophysitism, Pelagianism and total-depravity,. . .) or in this case chiliasm and belief in a “pre-tribulation Rapture”.
The passages of Scripture adduced to support “the Rapture” describe the experience of the Church still in the world at the time of the General Resurrection. The glory of the Church in the Last Days will be the same as the glory of the Church in its beginning — martyrdom for Christ’s sake.
where is the error?
LOL, it would be easiser to ask, where is the truth?
lets’ see:
Constantine never was head of the church
Constantine never was a bishop
Constantine never had the title vicar of christ
it was no advantage being a Christian and you didn’t have to attend a church to get ahead
Constantine did not encourage the growth of any ecclesiastical system, Catholic Bishops were ordained fom the Apostles to the present, Constantine or no Constantine
the rapture is unknown to Catholics because it’s unknown to the Bible, only being invented in the 19th century.
i could go on, but i think that gives you a flavor into dave hunt and his stupidity or deceitfulness.
maybe old dave is senile, could that account for the stunning stupidity of this section of the book?
or maybe dave gets his church history from dan brown?
the problem dave has, is when he looks at church history, he can’t find anyone who believes what he believes until the 16th century. that’s a problem, no?
so what does dave do? same thing the jehovah witnesses do, the 7th day adventist, mormons, etc, etc. they invent the boogey man Constantine turning the church pagan.
well, Catholics believe the Holy Spirit is stronger than 1,000,000 Constantines and is able to protect the Church from the gates of hell prevailing against it. we believe that on pretty good authority, the question is, why doesn’t dave hunt?
“It is often argued that belief in a pre-trib Rapture leaves one unprepared to face Antichrist and susceptible to deception. The facts are just the opposite. It is those who deny the Rapture who have set themselves up for the most horrible deception. Antichrist will pretend to be the very “Christ” whom they expect to come to earth to reign. He will congratulate them on the good work they’ve done in preparing the world for his rule. Hundreds of millions of those who call themselves Christians will be completely deceived.”
Ho ho ho, that’s pretty funny stuff. Let’s see what the expectations really are, and see who is really likely to be deceived in each scenario:
Case #1: Pre-tribbers Are Right
In this case, the rapture happens before any seven year tribulation, or the appearance of the Antichrist. Since the rapture isn’t an article of faith pertaining to salvation, all the faithful Christians who are not pre-tribbers should be raptured as well, so they won’t be on Earth to be deceived. The ones “left behind” would only be non-faithful, unsaved “Christians”, who are probably not prepared for the tribulation in any case, and would likely be deceived easily, no matter what.
Case #2: The Pre-tribbers Are Wrong
In this case, the seven year tribulation period and machinations of the Antichrist begin while the pre-tribbers are still waiting for Christ to rapture them away. Some of them probably would notice that events happening are matching up with the prophecies, conclude that their belief in the rapture was premature or misplaced, and prepare accordingly. Others, however, will continue to believe that, since the rapture hasn’t happened, the tribulation can’t be happening either. Some, believing they wouldn’t be around for the tribulation, may not have bothered to study those prophecies closely in the first place. Their faith in the rapture could then be a big obstacle to recognizing and reacting to the dangers of that time.
Basically, it’s a version of Pascal’s wager. If pre-tribbers are right, both pre-tribbers and non pre-tribbers are fine. If they’re wrong, then the pre-tribbers are likely worse off than the non pre-tribbers. So, all things considered, non pre-tribbers have the best aggregate outcome.
Who here, or where in the piece, did anyone say it would be a “secret” rapture?
Is anyone aware of a more objective account of how the church developed? Something obviously happened that caused the church to change or even grow in a different direction with Constantine’s conversion. I don’t trust Dave Hunt, but I don’t believe the Catholic Church either.
Is anyone aware of a more objective account of how the church developed? Something obviously happened that caused the church to change or even grow in a different direction with Constantine’s conversion. I don’t trust Dave Hunt, but I don’t believe the Catholic Church either.
Is anyone aware of a more objective account of how the church developed? Something obviously happened that caused the church to change or even grow in a different direction with Constantine’s conversion. I don’t trust Dave Hunt, but I don’t believe the Catholic Church either.
Is anyone aware of a more objective account of how the church developed? Something obviously happened that caused the church to change or even grow in a different direction with Constantine’s conversion. I don’t trust Dave Hunt, but I don’t believe the Catholic Church either.
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.