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

Evangelical book catalogs promote books such as Planet Earth: The Final Chapter, The Great Escape, and the Left Behind series. Bumper stickers warn us that the vehicle’s occupants may disappear at any moment. It is clear that there is a preoccupation with the idea of a secret rapture. Perhaps this has become more pronounced recently due to the expectation of a new millennium and the fears regarding potential Y2K problems. Perhaps psychologically people are especially receptive to the idea of an imminent, secret rapture at the present time. Additionally, many Christians are not aware that any other position relative to the second coming of Jesus Christ exists. Even in Reformed circles there are numerous people reading these books. Many of these people are unaware that this viewpoint conflicts with Scripture and Reformed Theology.

(Excerpt) Read more at reformed.org ...


TOPICS: Theology
KEYWORDS: crusades; endtimes; eschatology; rapture
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 2,201-2,2502,251-2,3002,301-2,350 ... 3,351-3,392 next last
To: kosta50

God will use whoever He chooses....and no one is excempt from sin, except the Christ,or group of people.... so therefore there is no “perfect” religion. Thus it puts all people in the place of being used or sent by God at His choosing....and there will always be failures and falling short of what we might otherwise be...we all have a “trail” of damage behind us.


2,251 posted on 01/31/2011 4:20:19 AM PST by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2242 | View Replies]

To: caww; kosta50
Actually, Kosta -- lambs were not sacred in egypt but the ram was -- a significant difference.

also, I did some checking and there are disputes about the dates of the Tanakh vis-a-vis the Septuagint (600 year) and also that the Jewish scriptures were originally written without vowels, hence possibilities of differences. I need to read more to answer.
2,252 posted on 01/31/2011 4:25:12 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2250 | View Replies]

To: caww

additionally to that.....

Matthew 19:30 But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.
Mark 10:31 But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”
Luke 13:30 Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last.”

Greek

http://biblos.com/matthew/20-16.htm

http://bible.cc/matthew/20-16.htm


2,253 posted on 01/31/2011 4:28:10 AM PST by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2251 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
We Christians do follow the Good Shepherd and being sheep, we are small minded and easily distracted - hence, the rest of my post.

And my point is, again, how does one know if one is not following the brighest angel if one rejects the Church of Jesus on earth?

2,254 posted on 01/31/2011 4:36:03 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 2203 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; Religion Moderator
I didn't attribute the offending post to Mark.

Cronos made the exorcism comment to me (which was later pulled) and Mark responded to my disgust with that post that I was some kind of hall monitor who has a problem with Latin.

Let's see what you actually said:

Perhaps it's not willful disregard for the rules that leads you and Cronos to post excerpts without attribution (putting FR at risk of copyright infringement)... I>

This is a direct accusation of me posting excerpts without attribution. Do I see an apology in the near future? Or am I predestined to go without?

2,255 posted on 01/31/2011 4:40:52 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 2207 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
By what teaching, by what example or principle of Jesus or his apostles are Christians authorized to use threats of death or harm against those who did not agree with them?

How is it anyone’s “duty” to persecute the Waldenses or any other group in Christ’s name?

It is the duty of all Christians to preserve the Faith, and not let the whims of men dilute or change it. The Waldensians were decidedly not Christian any more than Calvin was centuries later. Look at all those out there right now who call themselves Christian and have no resemblence to Christians. There are those who believe in double predestination. There are those who disbelieve the Trinity. And so on.

If you believe in Judgement, how might you think Jesus would have Judged those who would have simply permitted the Waldensians to go to hell in their own handbasket unopposed?

2,256 posted on 01/31/2011 4:49:19 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 2213 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; Dr. Eckleburg; Quix
However, even in Perservering Grace, Augustine's theology is not for double-predestination. One sees this in Book II, Chapter 33...To which calling there is no man that can be said by men with any certainty of affirmation to belong, until he has departed from this world;

You are confusing "double-predestination" with perseverance. These two doctrines are completely separate.

Double predestination is when God purposely chooses the elect and purposely reject others. Predestination is when God purposely chooses the elect. The difference, of course, is that in DP God have purposely sentence people to hell. I happen to fall in the category of the Ps but I think it is splitting hairs. It is a moot point because the fact is that God by de Facto has sentence all of us to hell; and it was done on purpose.

And the arguments against DP and P are spurious because there are numerous times in scripture where God does elect and choose people. Why He chooses one over another we can’t say. For the difference between believers and unbelievers, the angel of death at the time of Moses is an excellent example of where God past someone over and took vengeance on another. So yes, God has ordained and predestined some to greatness and some to other tasks. One may recall the 6,000 prophets who hid in a cave during the time of Ahab and Elijah. They too were called of God, if for no other reason than to hide in a cave.

Does God purposely send people to hell? People are already sentence to hell. You don’t start in a neutral position. And, yes, God did pass judgment that we would go to hell. That’s just the way it is. Scripture teaches that we are all haters of God. If we really loved God we would do the things of God so let's not have any arguments that we really love God. I can only marvel at my own wickedness yet knowing that God loves me.

Is it unfair of God to harden a person's heart who hates Him? No. However it is far more gracious of God to change a person's heart who hates him. And God doesn’t have to do this for everyone in order to be gracious.

Persevering Grace, OTOH, is totally consistent with Augustine's view. I have known too many people who had a wonderful walk with the Lord only to fall away. And there are some who fall away for a season but return. We just don't know what a person truly believe. The Westminster Confession states this very clearly:

People who are truly in the faith can rest in the assurance that God will keep them. People who are "pretending" to love God will fall away. I see nothing out of alignment with Augustine's view.
2,257 posted on 01/31/2011 4:54:00 AM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2152 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Augustine’s Treatise “On Grace and Free Will” was written before the Perseverance of the Saints. I don’t think you can look at one and the other with equal weight. Instead it shows a progression in Augustine’s thinking.


2,258 posted on 01/31/2011 5:21:11 AM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2156 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish; betty boop; kosta50; Alamo-Girl; xzins; Dr. Eckleburg; MarkBsnr; YHAOS; metmom; ...
kosta has confused the right use of free will (to accept salvation) with the fatally wrong use of free will (to reject salvation)

Amen. If one truly has the choices of heaven and hell standing before them, what choice would they make? Once we see the light we will never want the darkness.

2,259 posted on 01/31/2011 5:25:30 AM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2162 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; Dr. Eckleburg; Quix
Note -- I am arguing against double-predestination.

Double predestination is where God purposely chooses who is damned. This is not splitting hairs as it is quite different from predestination which is God choosing the elect. A god that chooses people to be damned from before time is quite contrary to a Christian concept of a loving God.

Does God purposely send people to hell? People are already sentence to hell. You don’t start in a neutral position. And, yes, God did pass judgment that we would go to hell --> that is because the people IN hell CHOSE it -- they rejected GOD.

God didn't tell them "I chose you from before time to go to hell"

St. Augustine's position is on PERSEVERENCE, not PRESERVATION,
2,260 posted on 01/31/2011 5:25:37 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2257 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; Dr. Eckleburg; Quix
And regarding the Westminister Confession of Faith, in the next chapter, XVIII, he points out " this assurance may, in due time, be revived" viz may be revived not a complete assurance.

In chapter IX he wrote
I. God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil.[1]

II. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God;[2] but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.[3]

III. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation:[4] so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good,[5] and dead in sin,[6] is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.[7] IV. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He frees him from his natural bondage under sin;[8] and, by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good;[9] yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he does not perfectly, or only, will that which is good, but does also will that which is evil.[10]

V. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to do good alone in the state of glory only
andChapter XV: Of Repentence unto Life
I. Repentance unto life is an evangelical grace,[1] the doctrine whereof is to be preached by every minister of the Gospel, as well as that of faith in Christ.[2]

II. By it, a sinner, out of the sight and sense not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature, and righteous law of God; and upon the apprehension of His mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for, and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God,[3] purposing and endeavouring to walk with Him in all the ways of His commandments.[4]

III. Although repentance is not to be rested in, as any satisfaction for sin, or any cause of the pardon thereof,[5] which is the act of God's free grace in Christ,[6] yet it is of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it.[7]

IV. As there is no sin so small, but it deserves damnation;[8] so there is no sin so great, that it can bring damnation upon those who truly repent.[9]

V. Men ought not to content themselves with a general repentance, but it is every man's duty to endeavor to repent of his particular sins, particularly.[10]

VI. As every man is bound to make private confession of his sins to God, praying for the pardon thereof;[11] upon which, and the forsaking of them, he shall find mercy;[12] so he that scandelizeth his brother, or the Church of Christ, ought to be willing, by a private or public confession and sorrow for his sin, to declare his repentance to those that are offended;[13] who are thereupon to be reconciled to him, and in love to receive him
In fact, in Chapter XVI : Of Good Works he writes
. These good works, done in obedience to God's commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith:[3] and by them believers manifest their thankfulness,[4] strengthen their assurance,[5] edify their brethren,[6] adorn the profession of the Gospel,[7] stop the mouths of the adversaries,[8] and glorify God,[9] whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto,[10] that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.<[
"strenghten their assurance"? I don't read double predestination in this, I'm sorry.
2,261 posted on 01/31/2011 5:26:58 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2257 | View Replies]

To: Lera
The Jesuits were charged with dealing with the Reformers. We see which order fulfilled their duty.

Seems to me those Jesuits dealt with them pretty harshly when they educated Hitler and he put many of those Reformer preachers to death.

Are you accusing the Jesuits of educating Hitler so that he would kill Reformed preachers? Impressive job of foreknowledge, right?

2,262 posted on 01/31/2011 5:28:49 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 2241 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

Valid enough that “on Grace and Free will” was written before the “Perseverance of the Saints”, though I of course, disagree with you that this is a progression in Augustine’s thinking. Will reply specifically to the P of the S later this evening. Thank you


2,263 posted on 01/31/2011 5:28:57 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2258 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
I said that you do not have infallible Scripture in your hands. The Early Church did.

They apparently had it as late as the 4th century. Did the Church lose the scriptures?

Interesting statement. Which Councils are you referring to?

Well, as much as I'm not impressed with the Council of Trent, we really don't have to go back too far to see that the Catholic Church viewed the scriptures as the authentic works.

DECREE CONCERNING THE EDITION, AND THE USE, OF THE SACRED BOOKS

Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.

Council of Trent Fourth Session

2,264 posted on 01/31/2011 5:39:46 AM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2178 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.

Impressive. I didn't realize that you used the Church-authorized Latin Bible. I thought that you used the KJV.

2,265 posted on 01/31/2011 5:49:50 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 2264 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; betty boop; James C. Bennett; Alamo-Girl; xzins; HarleyD; Dr. Eckleburg

kosta: Which is another way of saying it is up to you to be saved or lost, i..e man decides his own slavation/ perdition, not God. Dostoyevsky’s view basically makes God a provider and man the ultimate decider.

This also flies in the face of Matthew 20:16 which reads “for many be called, but few chosen.” [KJV, Douay-Rheims, Russian (1876) Synodal Edition]*

Spirited: Moral imbecility results when man’s reason is uninformed by Universal Moral Law. Your imbecilic claims are merely fiery darts from the abyss, for they are not the result of morally imformed reason used in pursuit of truth but will-to-power speaking through warped reason (liberated from Moral Law) in pursuit of personal power.

In pursuit of personal power you twist, distort, and torture the permanent things until, devoid of all truth and meaning, they become just what you require them to be. For this reason, your responses cannot be taken seriously, for they come from the void.


2,266 posted on 01/31/2011 5:52:32 AM PST by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2189 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; Dr. Eckleburg; Quix
Double predestination is where God purposely chooses who is damned. This is not splitting hairs as it is quite different from predestination which is God choosing the elect.

Everyone from the day they are born are doomed to hell. This was the judgment of God. Rebellion against the things of God is in our nature. And, yes, God did tell them (us) that we are bound for hell unless He steps in and changes this nature.

A god that chooses people to be damned from before time is quite contrary to a Christian concept of a loving God.

The fact is that God did sentence the entire Adam race to hell. Love has nothing to do with it-at least OUR concept of love-which is nothing more than "fairness", not love. What we don't understand is the concept of grace and justice. Knowing that we do not do the things that we should be doing, yet God is gracious to forgive and help us to grow. This is the Father's love.

2,267 posted on 01/31/2011 5:53:17 AM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2260 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

More surprisingly is that you reject the Church-authorized Latin Bible.


2,268 posted on 01/31/2011 5:55:04 AM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2265 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

I don’t. The Latin Bible authorized by the Church is fully acceptable to me.

I also accept that the Church has the only authorization to interpret the Bible. Interpretations of men are Scripturally forbidden.


2,269 posted on 01/31/2011 5:57:41 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 2268 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

Thanks for the ping.


2,270 posted on 01/31/2011 6:15:59 AM PST by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2267 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
And my point is, again, how does one know if one is not following the brighest angel if one rejects the Church of Jesus on earth?

We didn't reject the church of Jesus Christ on earth...We couldn't reject the church...We didn't join the church...Jesus put us into it when we submitted our trust in Him, made Him our Savior...He then put us into His church...

How'd you get into the Catholic Church???

2,271 posted on 01/31/2011 6:18:00 AM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2254 | View Replies]

To: caww
Nope....sounds like your religious history/faith has far to go to reach the truth Kosta

Nope...the sun doesn't shine...

2,272 posted on 01/31/2011 6:20:46 AM PST by kosta50 ("Spirit of Spirit....give me over to immortal birth so that I may be born again" -- pagan prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2250 | View Replies]

To: caww
and there will always be failures and falling short of what we might otherwise be...we all have a “trail” of damage behind us

And your point is?

2,273 posted on 01/31/2011 6:23:20 AM PST by kosta50 ("Spirit of Spirit....give me over to immortal birth so that I may be born again" -- pagan prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2251 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish
The only thing that's "imbecilic" is someone trying to make a point with insults—seemingly your preferred method. Which tells me that you have nothing of substance to say, and explains your pathetic, superstitious, drivel.
2,274 posted on 01/31/2011 6:37:16 AM PST by kosta50 ("Spirit of Spirit....give me over to immortal birth so that I may be born again" -- pagan prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2266 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; betty boop; Alamo-Girl

snip: If one truly has the choices of heaven and hell standing before them, what choice would they make? Once we see the light we will never want the darkness.

Spirited: Those who freely choose the Light of Jesus Christ cannot empathize with those who freely reject Heaven, thereby willfully condemning themselves to Hell. There can be no meeting of minds (empathy) between the former and the latter.

Dostoevsky noted that there are those whose will (Pride of Mind, Flesh, Life) is so terrible as to be satanic. How did Dostoevsky know this to be true? Because he was a self-confessed terrible-willed man, but he sought spiritual remedy through Jesus Christ.

CS Lewis understood this to be the case as well, which is why he said that the gate to Hell will be slammed and locked from the inside.

No, I cannot empathize with such a mind, and I thank God that I cannot.


2,275 posted on 01/31/2011 6:44:07 AM PST by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2259 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Here's an extract from the Preservation... chapter 17 (heavy read!)
Thus the salvation of this religion, by which only true one true salvation is truly promised, never failed him who was worthy of it; and whoever it failed was not worthy of it. And from the very beginning of the propagation of man, even to the end, the gospel is preached, to some for a reward, to some for judgment; and thus also those to whom the faith was not announced at all were foreknown as those who would not believe; and those to whom it was announced, although they were not such as would believe, are set forth as an example for the former; while those to whom it is announced who should believe, are prepared for the kingdom of heaven, and the company of the holy angels.
and whoever it failed was not worthy of it. --> no sense of pre-ordination of the damned.

Catholic dogma states that This is illustrated in Preservation... chapter 19
although foreknowledge may exist without predestination; because God foreknew by predestination those things which He was about to do, whence it was said, He made those things that shall be. Isaiah 45:11 Moreover, He is able to foreknow even those things which He does not Himself do—as all sins whatever
He goes on to say
Because, although there are some which are in such wise sins as that they are also the penalties of sins, whence it is said, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient, Romans 1:28 it is not in such a case the sin that is God's, but the judgment.
As an aside, he says in chapter 25
If the Pelagians should dare to say this, by their denial of original sin they would thus be relieved of the necessity of seeking, on behalf of infants outside of the kingdom of God, for some place of I know not what happiness of their own; especially since they are convinced that they cannot have eternal life because they have not eaten the flesh nor drank the blood of Christ; and because in them who have no sin at all, baptism, which is given for the remission of sins, is falsified.

2,276 posted on 01/31/2011 6:46:08 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2258 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; MarkBsnr
HD -- Mark is pointing out the meaning of the word infallible viz. Fallible means able to make a mistake or able to teach error. Infallible means the opposite: the inability to make a mistake or to teach error.

This denotes a living "thing", one that can make a decision. A placard, say, is neither fallible nor infallible.

The proper term to use about the Bible is that is has no errors, that it is inerrant

2,277 posted on 01/31/2011 6:58:35 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2264 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

Good points. Will get back to you after I think a bit and rest my eyes (Augustine has looooong sentences)


2,278 posted on 01/31/2011 7:01:18 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2267 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; caww
Actually, Kosta -- lambs were not sacred in egypt but the ram was -- a significant difference

Some people are disputing it, fwiw. But one thing is clear: the Passover lamb was not killed to atone for anyone's sins. The Jews use a goat for that purpose and that happens on Yom Kippur, which is nowhere near the Passover.

Again, animal sin offerings were for involuntary sins only, which is a big fly in the Christian ointment.

As for the Tanakh, the book of Isaiah which is found in the oldest known Tanakh (9th century AD, Moscow), and all subsequent copies of it, agree fully with the Qumran version of Isaiah.

2,279 posted on 01/31/2011 7:03:44 AM PST by kosta50 ("Spirit of Spirit....give me over to immortal birth so that I may be born again" -- pagan prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2252 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Amen. If one truly has the choices of heaven and hell standing before them, what choice would they make? Once we see the light we will never want the darkness.

If that is true, then why did satan and 1/3 of all the angels choose to reign in hell rather than serve in Heaven?

2,280 posted on 01/31/2011 7:13:42 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 2259 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; caww

Some may dispute whether a lamb or a ram, but all depictions on Egyptian imagery, pyramids etc. are of a ram, with horns. There is no sacred lamb in Egyptian imagery, nor in the egyptian religion.


2,281 posted on 01/31/2011 7:14:43 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2279 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; HarleyD
HD -- Mark is pointing out the meaning of the word infallible viz. Fallible means able to make a mistake or able to teach error. Infallible means the opposite: the inability to make a mistake or to teach error.

This denotes a living "thing", one that can make a decision. A placard, say, is neither fallible nor infallible.

A better way of putting it. However, I am also pointing to the fact that English translations of the Bible are not what the authorized Greek versions are - they are approximate to them. That is why the Magisterium is required to teach the correct interpretation; otherwise Luther's every milkmaid will interpret any way and every way.

2,282 posted on 01/31/2011 7:16:46 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 2277 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; caww
kosta:
More importantly, Christianity literally turned some OT stories upside down. .... The lamb was clearly not killed to "atone" for any iniquities, as the Christians teach."
The Church does not teach that the lamb was killed during Passover to atone for any iniquities.

The first indication is by John the Baptist (John 1:29) who calls Jesus the lamb of God to take away the sins of the world.

The more important imagery is the lamb whose death and whose blood provided the seal of a covenant. Just as the Israelites ate the lamb as a seal of the old covenant, we too must eat the lamb of God (Jesus's body in the Eucharist) as the seal of the new covenant

The linking of atonement to the lamb is not taken in the context of the lamb as in Passover, rather the linkage of the lamb sacrifice is as the seal of a covenant
2,283 posted on 01/31/2011 7:23:57 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2279 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Little more here: http://conservapedia.com/The_Bible_versus_the_Qur%27an

http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/JESUS.Vs.Muhammad.html


2,284 posted on 01/31/2011 7:30:08 AM PST by daniel1212 ( "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2219 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

Your gracious spirit is a blessing.


2,285 posted on 01/31/2011 7:31:05 AM PST by daniel1212 ( "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2204 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; caww
kosta:


Likewise, the shedding of the blood for atonement applied only for unintentional sins. In Judaism the sins of willful commission could not be atoned by animal sacrifice, but only through repentance. Obviously the Christians "corrected" that too!
Lev 5:1-4 describes sacrifices for wilful sins.

Also, the sacrifice of Christ IS for unwitting sin (Adam's) -- repentence is still necessary in the Christian world for our non-venial sins. We are not Calvinists to believe that we should not repent.
2,286 posted on 01/31/2011 7:33:19 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2279 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
We didn't reject the church of Jesus Christ on earth

Who is 'we'? If you are referring to yourself, remember that you reject the Church in a great number of your posts.

We couldn't reject the church..

You regularly post that rejection.

We didn't join the church

Yes, that is quite apparent.

Jesus put us into it when we submitted our trust in Him, made Him our Savior...He then put us into His church

So you are responsible for your own salvation, then? Fascinating. Do you have a membership card?

How'd you get into the Catholic Church???

A little Biblical process called baptism. You may have heard of it.

2,287 posted on 01/31/2011 7:37:34 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 2271 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; caww
kosta:
Besides, the sacrificial animal had to be killed on the altar, and its blood sprinkled. Crucifixion was no altar sacrifice and Jesus bleeding all over the place from Roman torture and being nailed to the cross was hardly ritual "sprinkling.
The altar sacrifice imagery is what we see in Revelation, more as a view from heaven, or a "higher altar". Ritual "sprinkling" is explained more as the way in which the Eucharist is sprinkled throughout the world, since the Eucharist IS the self-same ONE-time sacrifice and Christ's blood is sprinkled as in spread throughout by the effectiveness of the Eucharist.
2,288 posted on 01/31/2011 7:37:56 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2279 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; HarleyD
Here you see the Greek Orthodox fighting (correctly in my opinion) with their Metropolitan about usage of common Greek over proper, Church Greek -->
2,289 posted on 01/31/2011 7:40:17 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2282 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Iscool: Jesus put us into it when we submitted our trust in Him, made Him our Savior

Whoa there -- YOU made Him our savior??
2,290 posted on 01/31/2011 7:43:35 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2271 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212; Alamo-Girl; xzins
I think I'm just going to stick with my trusty KJV.... and go on being a "Bakery Shop Kid."

Thank you oh so much, daniel1212, for posting this informative (and disturbing) article!

2,291 posted on 01/31/2011 8:48:46 AM PST by betty boop (Seek truth and beauty together; you will never find them apart. — F. M. Cornford)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2190 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

“unopposed”? To oppose cannot be construed as murder and persecution. Jesus “opposed” the Pharisees, he didn’t kill them or try to outlaw them or teach anyone that they should.
Paul “opposed” those who would demand a return to Jewish practices, he didn’t try to kill them or organize campaigns against them or demand the secular authorities outlaw them.

“If you believe in Judgement, how might you think Jesus would have Judged those who would have simply permitted the Waldensians to go to hell in their own handbasket unopposed?”

Jesus said it might earn the Father’s approval as He would call such His children:

“That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.”
(Matt. 5:45)
The preceding verses may be enlightening to you also!


2,292 posted on 01/31/2011 9:06:21 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2256 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

Are you accusing the Jesuits of educating Hitler so that he would kill Reformed preachers? Impressive job of foreknowledge, right?


Where you not the one who mentioned they were charged with dealing with the reformation ?

If their objective was to deal with the reformers what better way that to teach people to hate them ?


2,293 posted on 01/31/2011 10:30:05 AM PST by Lera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2262 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
The Latin Bible authorized by the Church is fully acceptable to me.

"Fully acceptable" does not mean that you believe the scriptures to be infallible. In fact, it sounds like a very half hearted response. If my wife got all dressed up and asked me how she looked and I said that she was "fully acceptable", I'm sure she'd slug me.

You stated in post 2093 the scriptures are not infallible or inerrant. The Church states they are. Would any decree coming from Rome be unacceptable? You are endangering your own soul and in peril of being anathematized.

I'm really not trying to put you on the spot. I'm simply pointing out that Catholics really no longer believe the scriptures to be infallible and inerrant. They do not follow the teachings of the early fathers. You are not the first that I've brought up the infallibility of the scriptures to, but you're at least reflective enough to answer this rather interesting question. Most Catholics just clam up. This is an illustration of how one of many doctrines of the Church has changed over the last 500 years.

Catholics should think hard and long about what they actually believe, the inerrant scriptural teachings or someone telling them what to believe.

2,294 posted on 01/31/2011 10:46:22 AM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2269 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish; betty boop; Alamo-Girl
CS Lewis understood this to be the case as well, which is why he said that the gate to Hell will be slammed and locked from the inside.

That is an excellent quote. I often think of the rich man and Lazarus. When the rich man looked at Abraham, of all the things he could have asked for, all he asked for was something to quench his thrist.

2,295 posted on 01/31/2011 10:51:22 AM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2275 | View Replies]

To: Lera; MarkBsnr
What rot are you talking about? Josef Stalin was born in Georgia, at sixteen, he received a scholarship to a Georgian Orthodox seminary, where he rebelled against the imperialist and religious order

You do know that's Georgia the ex-Soviet state, not the state where Atlanta is in, right?
2,296 posted on 01/31/2011 11:01:42 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2241 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Here's an extract from the Preservation... chapter 17 (heavy read!)...

Ooooooo....doggy. You Catholics sure do have a way of making things complicated. How about this.

If a person is truly saved they will continue. If they are not truly saved then it's clear that they are not "of us". That seems rather straight forward with perseverance.

This is illustrated in Preservation... chapter 19 although foreknowledge may exist without predestination; because God foreknew by predestination those things which He was about to do, whence it was said, He made those things that shall be. Isaiah 45:11 Moreover, He is able to foreknow even those things which He does not Himself do—as all sins whatever

I hate to repeat this mismash but this is a good illustration of the misuse of "foreknowledge". Here is a good read:


2,297 posted on 01/31/2011 11:08:20 AM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2276 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; MarkBsnr
The scriptures are inerrant, i.e. they have no error. A person or a living entity that can make decisions can be infallible, not a non-living, non-decision making entity.

Taking the contrary measure, you or I are fallible, but the dictionary can be errant. The dictionary cannot be fallible as it does not make decisions and you and I cannot be errant.

I'm simply pointing out that...

That's a lie, Harley -- simply untrue. Please don't repeat a lie like that -- you may be taken in by misquotes from websites like earlier when you incorrectly said that we didn't believe in the atonement to which I told you that
My source is The Catechism
"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous." (Rom 5:19)

By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who "makes himself an offering for sin", when "he bore the sin of many", and who "shall make many to be accounted righteous", for "he shall bear their iniquities".

Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.
and then pointed out that not only did the Catechism teach contrary to what you said, but also you had incorrectly (I guess you may not have scrolled down) quoted the website you referred to, called to communion, which actually said,
One question, from the Reformed point of view, is: How then were our sins paid for, if Christ was not punished by the Father? Christ made atonement for the sins of all men by offering to God a sacrifice of love that was more pleasing to the Father than the combined sins of all men of all time are displeasing to Him. Hence through the cross Christ merited grace for the salvation of all men. Those who refuse His grace do not do so because Christ did not die for them or did not win sufficient grace for them on the cross, but because of their own free choice.

2,298 posted on 01/31/2011 11:17:50 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2294 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; MarkBsnr
Dr. eck: Does that make sense to you? I doesn't to the rest of us.

so true....
2,299 posted on 01/31/2011 11:25:45 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2150 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; MarkBsnr
Dr. eck: Does that make sense to you? I doesn't to the rest of us.

so true....
2,300 posted on 01/31/2011 11:27:41 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2150 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 2,201-2,2502,251-2,3002,301-2,350 ... 3,351-3,392 next 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