The Not So Secret Rapture

reformed.org ^ | W. Fred Rice

[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.

[Quix]

Yup.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

every Christian receives from God Himself the Spiritual knowledge of Who Christ IS. And that Spiritual knowledge comes neither by sensory perception nor reasoning. The knowledge of Who Christ IS comes directly from God. It is a Spiritual revelation.

AMEN!!!

That is Christianity!

"Knowledge is connected with faith because we are certain and fully convinced of the truth of God, not in the same manner as human sciences we learned, but when the Holy Spirit seals it on our hearts." - Calvin, John I:279

[kosta50]

[why do men continue to sin?] Because no man is perfect but Christ.

So, when does one become perfect, and if so does that mean divine?

I can only speculate according to Scripture that the "purpose sin serves" is to continue to facilitate the display of God's mercy in those He graces with faith in Christ, and the display of God's perfect judgment in those without faith.   

You mean God makes sure everyone sins so the recipients of his grace can either always feel unworthy of it, and the damned reminded of what awaits them?

[No, my eyes were opened and all I saw was man-made superstition and fantastic tales.] And yet you continue to defend the most superstitious and fantastic of tales which are so clearly outside of the written word, namely the veneration of Mary, the apostolic priesthood, the fiction of the mass, etc. There's a long list.

You must have me confused with someone else. I never defended the veneration of Mary. To the contrary, I was revolted by it while still a practicing Orthodox Christian.

The apostolic priesthood is not a superstition, and neither is the liturgy. The liturgy is worship.  Now, you may question the efficacy of the sacraments as empty rituals, but the liturgical service is no more superstitious than the belief that man can live for three days  inside of a belly of a large fish and tell about it!

I find it disingenuous for any believer to make fun of someone else's belief system as "superstitious" as if it did not apply to either! Kettle calling the pot black.

Some may perceive incorrectly, but that doesn't negate the fact that others are truly experiencing their salvation as real and effectual.

Provided there is such a thing as "salvation," I would say you are spot on.

Whereas to say "I know there is a God," is a less certain statement. We have a reasonable certainty that there is a God by faith, but it's not possible to say "I KNOW 100% that there is a God."

When people are faced with that uncertainty they either accept it as a mystery or they make the leap of faith and choose to believe. That's fair.

So from my perspective, it's correct and believable to say "Assuming there is a God (an assumption which I embrace,) according to the word of God and my own experience, I believe and therefore I know that I am saved."

How can you "know" anything based on an assumption? Another example would be to say "it seem that we can reasonably affirm that we feel healthy," but we can't know know it.

Ultimately, our life will either affirm our belief or it will not

You are right. I agree.

If we're brought down by life and made weary and alone, it may be difficult to see the truth of Christianity.

Yet it is usually the poor and the disadvantaged who flock to churches because that is the only hope they have. I disagree that loneliness and a school of hard knocks necessarily drives people away from faith in Christ. I think many who have never been loved by anyone have experienced love in Christ.

 But if, during life's trials, our faith literally sustains us and eases our way through the bad times and lifts us even higher during the good times, then that is a type of proof in itself.

Yes, many make that association. It seems to work for them.

When I first became convinced of things, it was only as I looked back that I saw God there all along. And only then was I able to anticipate God in the future.

I used to feel that way, maybe to appease my guilty feelings. I wish I could say the same thing, even though I have been incredibly blessed, fwiw.

And so far, He's been there. I don't ask for more. I don't need His body in the wafers. I don't need "another Christ" beyond the "only" Christ. I don't need a "mother of the universe" or a "co-redeemer" or other dead saints to plead my case. I don't need any of that. All I need is the word of God and His Spirit. The first I know I have; the second I believe I have.

That is is your faith and I respect that. Thank you for sharing it.

[boatbums]

Yup, sorry. Apologies to hacksaw.

[kosta50]

Thank you, caww. I am not sure why you posted this to me. I am not against God. I just don't know what God is, and if he is I leave everyting in his hands. I try to live my life by the Golden Rule as much as humanly possible. I have no desire or need to explain or descirbe anyhing divine, nor to convert anyone to believe what I believe.

We all deal with life in different ways. I respect others as I exp[ect others to respect me. I raise questions only when people make statmeents of faith as statements of fact. If God is a mystery he has been descirbed in too much detail. Too much human fancy was woven into that fabric imo.

I know that everyhting that lives dies, be it a human, or an amoeba. At some point the bretahing stops and the body falls apart. That is the life. We are born and then we die. Neither is our will or request. Live it to the fullest mindful that others are citizens of this earth as well. It's an accident, not a right, or a privilege. Get used it.

[kosta50]

errata:
the life = life
or request = nor request

[Cronos]

RM —> here is a sneaky way to finesse the rules. The poster is obvious trying to call Mark names and is finessing the rules. This is not the first time.

[Cronos]

yes, but you forgot to copy Gamecock who said This goes to what the Reformers taught; that is the "enthusiasts" or wwhat we call today Pentecostals, are really no different from the Roman Catholics

Or perhaps the Reformers themselves sowed the first discord since, according to Gamecock right from Calvin's time they consider Pentecostals to be no different from Roman Catholics.

and you forgot to copy Dr. Eckleburg who wrote in post 2874 Thanks for providing evidence that the liberal church teaching of free will has infected the Lutherans, too, in contradiction to what Martin Luther taught from Scripture.

Though of course, what she says is what the OrthodoPresbyterianC "elders" doctrine is, namely Arminian preachers (Pentecostals/Methodists) are heretics and preaching Arminianism is a damnable heresy

[kosta50]

Are you thinking about present day Jews? I believe the Jews of the OT certainly knew about the devil. They had the book of Job, right? Just who do you think it was talking about?

Present day and ancient Jews of course. The Book of Job is not about the devil but ha-satan (the satan, a title) menaing the accuser. The book of Job (ch. 2) considers ha-satan as one of the "sons of God" (angels).

"Again it fell upon a day, that the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD." — Job 2:1, Tanakh

The OT Satan is God's faithful servant, not "resident evil." From the Jewish point of view:

Satan is here to make things difficult for us, so we can overcome our evil temptations, and PASS the test. That is the purpose of Satan. Satan is an angel whose purpose has been determined by G-d.

At no point did mainline Judaism ever consider the devil as a force that could challenge or rebel against God. Being an angle of God, created to serve God (i.e. an obligate servant), angles in Judaic thought are incapable of resisting God's will by their very nature and purpose.

[Quix]

imho,

you are

brilliant enough,
clever enough,
vociferous enough,
personally relentless enough,
verbally skilled enough,

you really do NOT NEED to join the

symphonic wailing and whining of the Thin-Skinned Chorus.

It only further neuters already iffy to silly arguments and perspectives.

There’s being absurd and then there’s being . . .

pointlessly, pettily, silly-to-the-max absurd in a shooting-self-in-foot way.

just free advice from mho, of course.

[Cronos]

Actually, according to your Calvinist Presbyterian posters here, you Pentecostals are no different than Catholics Gamecock:
"This goes to what the Reformers taught; that is the "enthusiasts" or what we call today Pentecostals, are really no different from the Roman Catholics."

And Dr. Eckleburg said "That's Christianity. That's Calvinism"

and, the Presbyterian OPC doctrines say
On their website opc.org: "(to)believe that we can have the same charismatic gifts that we read about in the age of the Apostles - such as prophecy, speaking in tongues, and healing - today... is a very serious error. In essence it is a result of a failure to grasp the Biblical teaching concerning the history of salvation

And they go on to say in OPC doctrine from the OrthodoPresbyterianC website: Pentecostalism and Methodism that follow Arminian teachings is indeed a heresy, Pentecostal/Methodist preachers are heretics and they follow a damnable heresy

Since the Presbyterians consider Calvinism=Protestantism ,
in fact Calvinism=Christianity (see above)

and
the Calvinist Presbyterians consider Pentecostalism to be a damnable heresy and Pentecostals to be "no different than Catholics",

it follows that they despise you lot of Pentecostals as non-Protestants and in fact consider Pentecostals not Christian as Pentecostals do not follow the CAlvinist doctrine of double-predestination

[Cronos]

Thank you. However, note that I've posted the links from the direct OPC doctrinal site where they clearly call Arminian thought a damnable heresy.

They are a small cult of 20,000 folks and diminishing, so you can argue that they have no significance, and I would agree, however they have a disproportionate shouting voice here on FR.

What was surprising to me is that the PCA also shares the same feelings as the OPC about non-Calvinists. If you read the pcahistory.org website, the amount of legalese would make a Vatican II writer envious :-P, yet between the lines we've read clearly what they think of those who do not submit to Calvinist's doctrine (they thing you are all damnable heretics)

[Cronos]

A group like the Calvinists outright says that it alone is Christianity and everyone who is not a follower of Calvin is a damnable heretic.

[Cronos]

Actually, Harley, the Lutherans believe that the Eucharist is the Real Presence of Christ.

From the Lutheran LCMS.org website

All three accounts of the institution of the Lord's Supper in the Gospels (Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-23) explicitly state that Jesus took BREAD, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to his disciples saying, "Take, eat; this [i.e., this BREAD, which I have just blessed and broken and am now giving to you] is my body." Jesus uses similar language in referring to "the cup" (of wine) as "his blood."...

Perhaps the most explicit expression of this truth, however, is found in 1 Cor. 10:16-17, where Paul writes: "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread."

Paul clearly says here that we all "partake" of "BREAD" when we receive the Lord's Supper--even as we also partake of and "participate in" the true body of Christ. And he says that we all "partake" of the wine (the cup), even as we also partake of the true blood of Christ.

Similarly, in 1 Cor. 11:26, Paul says: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." Paul expressly states here ........................that those who eat this bread and drink this cup are also partaking of the true body and blood of Christ.

So "real" is this participation in Christ's body and blood, in fact, that (according to Paul) those who partake of the bread and wine "in an unworthy manner" are actually guilty of "profaning the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:27). (Partaking of the Lord's Supper "in a worthy manner," of course, is not something that we "do" or "accomplish" on the basis of our "personal holiness" or "good works." It means receiving God's free and gracious gifts of life and forgiveness offered in the Lord's Supper in true repentance produced by the work of the Spirit through God's Law and in true faith in Christ and his promises produced by God's Spirit through the Gospel).

Even Martin luther weighed in in favor of the True Presence in the Eucharist when he said:

Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture?

Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body?

or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so?

It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men.

[Cronos]

That is sometimes the case with an otherwise good church, and i consider it the downside of commitment to doctrinal purity, when it tends to go beyond the real essentials to teach somewhat debatable things which require more objective inquiry, as detailed dogma requiring complete assent.

Valid -- I know what you're getting at :), but the basic critical doctrine is always to be "What do you teach a dying man?" and the answer is "To believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and God and Savior" -- the rest is just additional.

On the other hand, a sectarian spirit of elitism is easy to slip into and is always to be avoided --> my contention is that this is something that is inherent if one has the idea of a caste-system with a "if you're one of us you are the Brahmin elect" system. For me, personally, I think we need charismatics AND retiring monks, yet there must be a balance (in the force :-).

There is a difference between the liturgical and the charismatic and the purely written word groups -- and there should be a balance. Will expand more on this in the next post to you

[Cronos]

And, if you read in the Bible, starting from John 6:30, we read

30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’
32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.

They asked Him for a sign, saying that Moses gave them manna in the desert. If Jesus (according to them) was aspiring to the level of Moses, He should do something as big as that.

and Jesus says something strange to them -- He says Moses didn't give you bread, My father did, and bread that comes down from heaven. Then He says that HE is the bread of life, HE is the manna -- and manna was to be eaten.

The Jews made the same mistake you did, which is to think he was speaking as a metaphor.

Yet Jesus REPEATED the same thing, saying

48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

And now the crowd is openly rebellious saying “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
And

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.

Note -- Jesus doesn't clear up the Metaphor, like he did in Matt. 16:5–12

5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread.
6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”
8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?
9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

So, Jesus DOES indicate when it is a metaphor and when it isn't.
In this case, look at the reaction of his DISCIPLES, people who had heard his teachings for so long and followed him

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”...

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

You cannot say that this was just bread and wine of that this is a metphor for coming and having faith in the Lord or some kind of metphor for believing in Christ because of the reaction of the Jews and the very language -- to eat one's flesh and drink the blood means to do violence on some one. You see it even in Hindi where a threat is "Mein tera Khoon pie jaongaa" or "I will drink your blood" -- and this is among vegetarians! To drink a persons blood means a serious threat of injury.

You cannot even say it was a metaphor by incorreclty comparing it to John 10:9 (I am the gate/doorway) or John 15:1 (I am the true vine) is because this is not referenced in the entire verse in the same way as John 6 which shows the entire incident from start to finish of Jesus saying His body is to be eaten, repeating it and seeing his disciples go and not correcting them (as he did in Matthew 16). Even in the literal sense -- Christ says he is the gateway to heaven and the vine such that we get nourishment with him as the connecting path. But John 6 is much much more than mere symbolism as He categorically states that "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).

Even at the end of John 6, Jesus rebukes those who think of what He has said as a metaphor by emphasising that

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”

Jesus repeats the rebuke against just thinking in terms of human logic (Calvin's main problem) by saying

15 B<>You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.
16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.

Just using human logic as Calvinist thought does, without God's blessings behind it fails in grace.John 6:63 does not refer to Jesus's statement of his own flesh, if you read in context but refers to using human logic instead of dwelling on God's words.

And, all of this is confirmed in Paul's writings to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 10:16)

6 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

and also 1 Cor 11:27-29

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.
29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

How clear can Paul get? "The bread IS a participation in the body of Christ" and "who eats the bread... will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" This is not just mere bread and wine anymore. This is the body and blood of Christ.

Finally, the Earliest Christians also said any consideration of this as just a metaphor was false -- Ignature of Antioch (disciple of Apotle John) wrote in AD 110 wrote about heretics who bstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (Letter to the SMyrnaens). The earliest Christians beleived this to be the ACTUAL body of Christ. Why, they were also accused by pagans of being cannibals and Justin MArtyr had to write a defence to the Emperor saying "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus"

in view of this overwhelming evidence from scripture and supplemented by the practise and belief of the earliest Christians, we can only say that there IS a real presence in the Eucharist. Martin Luther too believed it -- he said that Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. --> only Calvin/Zwingli turned around what Christ had said

[Cronos]

Dr. E, I'd rather hear from Lutherans like xzins or xone on whether Martin Luther believed in double-predestination.

Also, I have The Lutheran LCMS website saying

The LCMS does not believe that Scripture teaches a predestination to damnation: God desires all to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:3-4).

and Dr. E saying that Dr. Eck disses the LCMS: "he liberal church teaching of free will has infected the Lutherans, too, in contradiction to what Martin Luther taught from Scripture" --> is this true, xzins, xone?

[Cronos]

Presbyterians do NOT consider Pentecostals to be their brethern --> Gamecock:
"This goes to what the Reformers taught; that is the "enthusiasts" or what we call today Pentecostals, are really no different from the Roman Catholics."

in fact, they consider Pentecostals, since they are followers of Arminianism to be "damnable heretics" and to be in " a very serious error. In essence it is a result of a failure to grasp the Biblical teaching concerning the history of salvation."

These are not the words of brethern....

[Cronos]

Actually, how come you’ve not given your free advice to Dr. E to not join the “symphonic wailing and whining of the Thin-Skinned Chorus.” when she complains to the RM?

[Cronos]

And, since we're giving free advice, here's one from me --> find out what your Presbyterian posters here think of your Pentecostal beliefs. Hint --> they've already clearly stated that they consider you Pentecostals the same as Catholics, they already have it as their doctrines that Pentecostals follow a "damnable heresy" and that Pentecostals are in " a very serious error. In essence it is a result of a failure to grasp the Biblical teaching concerning the history of salvation."

They despise Pentecostals almost as much as they despise Catholics -- in fact, going by their post that they consider Pentecostals the same as us, it means they hate you Pentecostals the same.

Watch how they are using you Pentecostals for their attacks and read their websites etc. how they actually despise Pentecostals as much as they despise us. Read their websites and comments and one sees how they consider Calvinism to be synonymous with Christianity and that anyone who is not a follower of Calvin is not Christian in their book, so that leaves you Pentecostals, Methodists, Lutherans, etc. out...