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 ...
Thank you for the clarity and simplicity of this post.
It’s always refreshing to see a post from you.
Arminianism is indeed a heresy,....So, as an OPCer, do you believe that
The Bible teaches that Christ did his atoning work on behalf of his elect people, and no others.....
Since the teachings of Arminianism are contrary to Scripture, they are manifestly false. They are serious perversions of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Are Arminian preachers heretics? In a sense, yes,
Is Arminianism a damnable heresy? Yes.
Arminianism is indeed a heresy,....=================================================
The Bible teaches that Christ did his atoning work on behalf of his elect people, and no others.....
Are Arminian preachers heretics? In a sense, yes,
Is Arminianism a damnable heresy? Yes.
The main thing is that neither you Methodists, nor the Lutherans, nor Catholics/Orthodox say that God willfully pre-damns people to hell.
snip: Faith is belief, not knowledge. Even while arguing with me, you post on faith. Paul writes extensively on faith, belief, hope. If you know something, there is no hope, there is surety. You are using the term ‘know’ here to indicate fervent belief. Okay, be that as it may. When we debate, I will not accept that
Spirited: The author of the above claim is obviously confused, for he “believes by faith” that faith and knowledge are two different things entirely. So just what are faith and knowledge and do they impact each other and if so how? Definitions are in order:
1. Faith: “Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth (or proposition) advanced by another, resting on his authority or veracity, without other evidence....”
2. Knowledge: A clear and certain perception of that which exists, or of truth and fact’ the perception of the connection and agreement, or disagreement and repugnancy of our ideas; Acquaintance with any fact; Learning, illumination of the mind...(American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828)
It is by observation (ie., eyesight) that we know (our spiritual minds are illumined) that the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening. However, we cannot know that the sun will —ALWAYS-— rise in the morning and —ALWAYS-— set in the evening anymore than we can know for sure that when we go to sleep at night that we will wake up in the morning. We cannot possibly know for certain because we cannot foresee what the future holds let alone what the morrow will bring. Thus we must believe by faith both that the sun will rise and set and that we will wake up in the morning.
Truths, propositions, facts, ideas, beliefs, dreams, memories, theories, concepts, etc. are not elements that can be “sensed” (seen, measured, tasted, weighed, etc). They do not ooze from the brain as bile from the liver. We do not “sense” trees because they emit “tree atoms” that implant themselves on our eyes and from there to our brain as Atomists believed. No, all of these cognitions are of the unseen dimension...the spiritual dimension.
MarkB: “You are using the term ‘know’ here to indicate fervent belief. Okay, be that as it may. When we debate, I will not accept that”
In other words, the spiritual mind of MarkB has assented to the “metaphysical” proposition that knowledge is only knowledge if it is “sensed.” This “metaphysical” proposition was advanced on the authority of others (Atomists/scientistic materialists) and MarkB accepts this authoritative “metaphysical” proposition “without other evidence” because he has been assured that this “belief” is scientific. In sum, MarkB accepts by faith that he can only know what is “sensed.”
This is faith...belief, the very sin MarkB accuses Alamo-Girl, betty boop and others of.
Yes, your posts are hardly original. I’m still waiting for you to give an exegetical proof for why you deny Christ’s words in the Eucharist.
Quoting the Bible would rarely if ever be a case of finessing the Religion Forum guidelines.
The Methodists have never been Calvinistic.
That is why the theology was always referred to as Wesley-Arminianism.
Some might point to George Whitfield, and I might personally be closer to George than to John, but Whitfield’s contribution to the Methodist movement died out with Whitfield.
God had become Man, and God had become Man to redeem mankind. That was no part of the old idea of Inevitable Fate. On the contrary, it was a relief from that pagan nightmare. We of the Faith say that the Incarnation was intended to release us from such a pagan nightmare.
Well, Calvin accepted the Incarnation, but he forced it to fit in with the old pagan horror of compulsion: “Ananke.”
He reintroduced the Inexorable.
Yes, God had become Man and had died to save mankind; but only mankind in such numbers and persons as He had chosen to act for. The idea of the Inexorable remained. The merits of Christ were imputed, and no more. God was Causation, and Causation is one immutable whole. A man was damned or saved; and it was not of his doing. The recognition of evil as equal with good, which rapidly becomes the worship of evil (the great Manichean heresy, which has roots as old as mankind; the permanent motive of Fear) was put forward by Calvin in a strange new form.
He did not indeed oppose, as had the Manichean, two equal principles of Good and of Evil. He put forward only one principle, God. But to that One Principle he ascribed all our suffering, and, for most of us, necessary and eternal suffering.
“In fact, if you are Pentecostal, do you realise that according to Presbyterians....”
If, in fact, you do not know what “stripe” of Protestant I am, why infer? Maybe to, oh, I don’t know....
Try to deflect the original topic and try to set up ‘strife’ between Protestants?
Seems like to me that is what happens when you run out of arguments. Or you’re shown that your “arguments” have no weight or truth?
Hmmm?
So — if you DON’T know, why stir a pot? Hmmm?
Having anything to eat today? Any word on where in Scripture the effect of prayer reduces time in “purgatory” or where indulgences are authorized?
Still waiting.
Hoss
Thank you so much for that quote, dear sister in Christ!
“Yes, your posts are hardly original. I’m still waiting for you to give an exegetical proof for why you deny Christ’s words in the Eucharist.”
Then why copy them? Are you that bankrupt of original thought?
Just asking....
And funny thing: regardless of whether a protestant believes that God predestines salvation, or whether a protestant believes that ultimate free will gives a choice to reject salvation — the ultimate truth is this: Protestants believe that Christ’s death, shed blood, and resurrection is all sufficient for blotting out our sins. We don’t add anything to the Gospel, in contrast to the Roman Catholic Church...praying to ‘saints’, Maryolatry, “tradition” and any other bilge that is added and results in a false gospel.
So you see — that’s why your vain, feeble, and infantile attempt to stir controversy by trying to pit one denomination of Protestants against another will never work and is futile; we have a common, TRUE core belief and faith for salvation — and that’s found in one place — Christ and Him crucified — from one source — God’s Word, NOT human, fallible tradition and made up fakery.
Go ahead and continue to fuss and fume about, “Presbyterians say this...., “ and “Methodists believe that....” You’re not going to do any harm. But this outburst is truly indicative of the fact that the falseness of the Roman Catholic Church is being laid bare and exposed to all eyes.
And do try to be original. And remember to cite. Plagiarism=bad.
Hoss
Thank you oh so very much for wonderful essay-post, dear sister in Christ!
Try to deflect the original topic and try to set up ‘strife’ between Protestants?
"[Deflecting from] the original topic", on a thread with the title, "The not so secret Rapture?"
Exactly what do you think the "original topic" of this thread is (or more accurately was)? And who do you think "deflected" it?
RM: “Are you that... “ —> personal attack, third time by the same poster.
Why do you copy them then? I’m still waiting for you to give an exegetical proof for why you deny Christ’s words in the Eucharist.
RM — look at the context. She’s using it to insult the other poster. And this is not the first time.
For instance, "Are you a heretic?" is not making it personal. But "You are a heretic" is making it personal.
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.