Posted on 04/10/2005 4:59:54 PM PDT by diverteach
Modern communication technology has helped make the Pope’s death an unparalleled event. The entire world has literally come together to praise this one man. I find that many sense that there will be some important and climactic consequences to follow the death of this Pope.
As I studied the many Bible prophecies of the Last Days, I found a most unusual extra-Biblical prophecy made by an Irish Catholic Bishop in the 12th Century. His name is St. Malachy. According to his biographer St. Bernard of Clairvaux, in his book Life of Saint Malachy, St. Malachy was known to have the gift of prophesy and even predicted the exact day and hour of his own death. St. Malachy was canonized in 1190 by Pope Clement III.
According to his biographer, St. Malachy was visiting Rome in 1139 when he went into a trance and received a vision. Malachy wrote down this extraordinary vision in which he claims to have foreseen all of the Popes from the death of Innocent II until the destruction of the Church and the Return of Christ. He named exactly 112 Popes from that time until the end.
St. Malachy wrote a few prophetically descriptive words in Latin about each one of the Popes. He then gave the manuscript to Pope Innocent II and it was deposited in the Vatican Archives where it was forgotten for several centuries. Then in 1590, it was rediscovered and published.
The interesting thing is that scholars have matched the brief 110 descriptive predictions with each of the 110 Popes and anti-Popes that there have been since Innocent II. Though they are a bit obscure, they have fit the general profile of each of the Popes.
Now these are in no way the same kind of predictions we find in the Bible....
(Excerpt) Read more at hallindseyoracle.com ...
And yes, I am proud that I support both Jack Van Impe and Hal Lindsey. They are both wonderful men of God who strive to be excellent in and out of season. BTW, it is the same teaching I receive in my church. Maybe you're right, maybe I'm right. Who cares really. I have a peace and that's all that matters. I rightfully discern everything I hear and read. Even your posts! Yet, I respect your interpretation of the Scriptures if it is what checks your Spirit. For me, I will continue believing what the Spirit tells me to believe and cast off those things that don't give me a peace.
I agree, thanks for clarifying that.
I have a lot of friends who are Roman Catholic, and who agree completely on the doctrine of justification being by God's Grace through faith in Christ apart from works, as Scripture says. One of the things that impressed me about the document I gave you the link to was that Rome also stated as much. I was pleased to read that. RC Mariology isn't such an important issue with me, though I may not agree with the extent of much of it. I would agree that Mary is to be held in high esteem, honor and venerated as the mother of our Lord, and sometimes grieve that so many Protestants do not honor Mary. Primacy is also an issue I would disagree with, but then I agree with the Reformers that Apostolic succession is granted by Scripture and not by a line of succession by men. I think Rome has had to deal with that problem from time to time when faced with popes and anti-popes.
I think that document was seeking a way to essentially nullify many of the anathemas toward Protestants in the canons of the Council of Trent. Removing the one's applying to the doctrine of justification was a good start in the right direction.
I hope your wife and family are Presbyterian Church in America Presbyterians, and not the liberal PCUSA. LOL
However, many of these "self proclaimed" evangelical prophets seem to believe that they alone can interpret scripture and they will routinely dismiss any view that does not correspond with their's as satanic.
Jack Van Impe has gone so far as to call Covenant Theology the worst heresy Satan has ever come up with and has done more damage than anything at any time. John Hagee, who is a heretic for sure, says that Covenant Theology is satanic and those who hold to it bear the mark of Hitler. Their attacks against orthodox theology goes beyond mere colligial debate, but into gross false accusations, bearing false witness and is heresy itself. Hal Lindsey has said that Covenant Theology was the cause of the Jewish Holocaust in Germany and will be the cause of a new Jewish Holocaust in the near future. Shame they say such hateful things, for they condemn the Apostles and the early church fathers, who were all Covenant theologians. All so they can sell lots of books.
I think that their myopic views would indeed be comical; however, many of these men have widespread followings that believe as fact whatever they say, and that fanaticism can become quite dangerous.
It's already dangerous, almost as dangerous as the Word of Faith charletans who claim to be "faith healers", like Benny Hinn.
Of course he is making predictions, so does JV Impe, they have time after time after time, and then when they fail, they try to cover their tracks with phoney excuses and new predictions. It's a shame that people send money to those charletans instead of genuinely worthy ministries of charity and evangelism. Those who do are not very good stewards of the resources God has given them.
Oh, but I do have "eyes to see and ears to hear", and the kind of dispensational Scripture twisting those two subscibe to is foreign to orthodox Christianity over 2000 years. Their kind of dispensationalism had it's beginning with a "vision" by a Roman Catholic girl in Scotland named, McDonald and was elaborated in by John Darby, then Scofield here in the US. Anyone who calls Covenant theology, which is the theology of the Bible heresy and from Satan is twisted and a false teacher. Scripture warns us to stay away from them.
As far as Marian teachings, even though some of them have been proclaimed as "infallible" by different Popes, these beliefs have never been necessary for salvation. Moreover, when most non-Catholics have Marian beliefs explained to them, they find them far less "threatening" than they originally thought. If you look at the writings of men such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, you will see that their feelings regarding Mary were essentially the same as present-day Catholics. Fringe groups who claim to be Christians have created a hysteria about Marian "worship" as a method to discredit and condemn all Catholics (and they have begun to start in on other Protestant denominations; Google "Billy Graham" and Catholic, you will be shocked at what you see). Reverence to Christ's Mother is not worship, there is no belief that Mary accomplished anything apart from God's favor and grace. There are some purported Christians who condemn as "heretical" anyone who does not agree with them, this is what Hitler did, this is what Osama bin Laden does, in fact it was this type of hypocrisy and intolerance that lead to the Protestant Reformation in the first place. Martin Luther did not set out to destroy the Catholic Church, he set out to help and strengthen in; it was the intolerance of Catholics who forced Luther to leave the Church. Though it has never been formally decreed, you would be hard pressed to find many Catholics today who would not readily agree that Luther's grievances were not only legitimate, but also long overdue. And if you look at what has transpired, you will see that the only major things that Luther asked for that have not been changed is celibacy for priests and Papal authority. However, no one can make the argument that any modern Popes have displayed the corruption and decadence of Pope Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia, the Pope who Luther undoubtedly viewed as the epitome of Church hypocrisy).
Dispensationalism was completely unheard of (because it didn't exist) until well into the 19th century. Had Christ and the Apostles been advocating dispensationalism, one would think they would have done so in a manner that it would have been made clear centuries before. Surely history's most esteemed theologians (Augustine, Aquinnas, Luther, Calvin and etc.) would have "happened" upon this concept.
Hey, without Hal's books, the shelves at Goodwill would look pretty darned empty. ;)
You know, for all their anti-Catholicism among dispensationalists, they would be greatly surprised to find it has it's beginning with a vision by a young Catholic girl, Margaret McDonald in Scotland in 1830, and then run with by John Nelson Darby of the schismatic Plymouth Brethren.
Once again I must say...it has been interesting to hear your views. I'll leave this thread with this: 2Tim 2:14 Remind everyone of these things, and command them in God's name to stop fighting over words. Such arguments are useless,, and they can ruin those who hear them.
And this: vs.23 Again I say, don't get involved in foolish ignorant arguments that only start fights. vs. 24 The Lord's servants must not quarrel but must be kind to everyone. They must be able to teach effectively and be patient with difficult people. vs. 25 They should gently teach those who oppose the truth. Perhaps God will change those people's hearts, and they will believe the truth.
I personally haven't felt kindness or patients from you today. Perhaps you don't mean to be cruel to someone who thinks differently. But in spite of that...Have a great day Fiat volvntas tva...
That's never been the argument. It's how grace operates and the position of "meritorious works" in salvation that has been the argument.
See Catholic Catechism #2010:
2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.
=============================================================
It's statements like the bolded part that have been the disagreement, but seem to be changed in the document I gave you the link to.
Like I said, I don't have any real issue with Mariology, there seem to be some excesses, but not anything that would be heretical or pertaining to essential doctrine for salvation. I think most would be surprised at the early fathers veneration of Mary, and most misunderstand what was meant by Ignasius of Syria when he first used the term.
Dispensationalism and semi-pelagianism has taken a stronghold on many western churches, and in their arrogance have condemned any who do not agree with them on secondary issues. They elevate secondary issues to being a litmus test for orthodoxy, especially eschatology, and then they degrade essential doctrines to being secondary, such as the dispensationalist who actually preach two ways of being saved, one by faith in Christ and the other by virtue of being born a Jew. Some have so marred the gospel that they are now outside the realm of orthodoxy and into the realm of heretical cultism.
Martin Luther did not set out to destroy the Catholic Church, he set out to help and strengthen in; it was the intolerance of Catholics who forced Luther to leave the Church.
That's fact often overlooked by many Catholics and Protestants.
And if you look at what has transpired, you will see that the only major things that Luther asked for that have not been changed is celibacy for priests and Papal authority.
Those were certainly issues Luther raised at first, but the main issue was "justification".
However, no one can make the argument that any modern Popes have displayed the corruption and decadence of Pope Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia, the Pope who Luther undoubtedly viewed as the epitome of Church hypocrisy).
That is for certain. It seems that VaticanII helped pave the way for some of the over-reactions by Trent in settling some of the issues of genuine importance like justification. I hope so.
Actually, I know quite a bit about Jack Van Impe. What he bases his nonsense on is called scriptorture, scripture twisting, and eisegesis. He starts off with a dispensationalist paradigm, then goes looking for snippets to twist and contort to fit his paradigm instead of taking the Scripture as a whole, and interpreting the individual passages with the context of the entirety. The devil bases his lies on the Bible too, or rather the misuse of the Bible.
In fact the Bible tells us to study the Word and WATCH for the signs.
Where does it say that? Cite the passage please.
Why do you think God put Revelations in the Bible?
The title of the book tells you.
The entire title is: The Book of the Revelation OF Jesus Christ. It is for what the book says, the Revelation of the Glory of Jesus Christ and edification of the saints. Also, it's historical context was to reveal, or rather to comfort the saints of the 1st century of the persecution they were going through, exactly as the Book says. Are you aware that the dispensationalists view purported by Van Impe and Hal Lindsey didn't come into existence until 1830 and started with a vision by a Catholic girl in Scotland named Margaret McDonald?
Did you know that 2/3s of John's Book of the Revelation are direct quotes or allusions to Old Testament apocalypic prophets and the imagery is symbolic of the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord, when Christ comes in Judgment, and not of some future earthly kingdom ruled by the Jews?
What would the purpose be?
I've just answered that, what do YOU think it's purpose to be?
Once again I must say...it has been interesting to hear your views. I'll leave this thread with this: 2Tim 2:14 Remind everyone of these things, and command them in God's name to stop fighting over words. Such arguments are useless,, and they can ruin those who hear them.
In context, Paul is warning about arguments over such things as genealogies and silly things, and not about debates over important doctrines and inspections of teachings of doctrines for truth and validity.
And this: vs.23 Again I say, don't get involved in foolish ignorant arguments that only start fights. vs. 24 The Lord's servants must not quarrel but must be kind to everyone.
A discussion over bad teachings is not in the category of "ignorant arguments", or Jesus and the Apostles would not have warned us about false teachers and would not have commanded us to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. I think you are reading political correctness into those passages. Or else Jesus, Peter, Paul and the other disciples and Apostles did not follow your prescription, for Jesus argued with the religious leaders of His day. Paul argued with the Jews in the synogogues and with the Greeks in the Aerogopolos, Peter argued with the Jews in Jerusalem, etc.
I think you are misunderstanding any "feelings" you have that I'm not being "kind" to you because I don't agree with you. It is indeed loving and kind to tell you the truth about false teachers, just as Jesus and the Apostles did.
You are half right and half wrong.
B'Shem Y'shua
chuck
Please explain how I've been "cruel". That is a pretty heavy charge to make towards another Christian, and one that must be substantiated with evidence and not just your own feelings. Or else, you are in the position of bearing false witness against a brother.
Yes indeed. I am quite sure that Athanasius, Francis of Assisi, Tertullian, Jerome, John Crysendom, and a host of church fathers and theologians, including Paul would have stumbled across it, but they were all Covenant Theologians. Why? Because that is what Scripture and the Apostles teach, that Christ IS the fulfillment of the OT Covenants and is our New Covenant, for He wrote the New Covenant in His blood, which we celebrate each time we partake of the Eucharist. Dispensationalism turns that upside down and is actually built on racist ideas, that the Jews are special and superior to everyone else and have no need for Christ since they have the Old Covenants, especially the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants to save them.
They seem to forget that God is no respecter of persons.
Yes indeed. I am quite sure that Athanasius, Francis of Assisi, Tertullian, Jerome, John Crysendom, and a host of church fathers and theologians, including Paul would have stumbled across it, but they were all Covenant Theologians. Why? Because that is what Scripture and the Apostles teach, that Christ IS the fulfillment of the OT Covenants and is our New Covenant, for He wrote the New Covenant in His blood, which we celebrate each time we partake of the Eucharist. Dispensationalism turns that upside down and is actually built on racist ideas, that the Jews are special and superior to everyone else and have no need for Christ since they have the Old Covenants, especially the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants to save them.
They seem to forget that God is no respecter of persons.
However, many of these "self proclaimed" evangelical prophets seem to believe that they alone can interpret scripture and they will routinely dismiss any view that does not correspond with their's as satanic
I guess Luke 21 pretty much sums things up. The whole chapter from vs 6 on "Jesus foretells the future" is how my Bible describes the chapter. Since these things didn't happen in their generation I would venture to say, it is meant for a future generation. That is us. vs.28 So when all these things begin to happen, stand straight and look up, for your salvation is near! And vs 36..."Keep a CONSTANT WATCH. And pray that, if possible you may escape these horrors and stand before the Son of Man." The Bible and if fact these are Jesus' own words which tell us to WATCH. Watch what? The signs he previously describes in the chapter. Wars, rumors or wars, earthquakes, etc.
It is easy for us in this day and age to forget that Revelations was written after John received his vision at Patmos. He was held in captivity by the Romans, and more than anything he wanted his letters to travel among the Christian communities. To be certain that the Roman officials did not destroy his letters, he used many alliterations to refer to things which HIS contemporaries would immediately understand. We often forget that in the first century AD, the Roman Empire represented everything that was evil to Jews and the early Christians; and by the Roman Empire I mean exactly that, not the Roman Catholic Church, but the Roman Empire of Nero and the like. Of course the Bible is written FOR all generations, but it is written TO the early Christians.
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.