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 ...
Matt 22:29 "Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God."
Posting in generalities to content with my quotes from Scripture will not prove you to be true.
How dare you use Isaiah to condemn the Presbyterian mind? They believe that Isaiah supersedes the Gospels and that Ezekial is the equal of Paul
Theopneustos (if my spelling is correct) means inspired of God, activated, motivated by God per 2 Peter 1:21 and 2 Tim. 3:15, 16.
But why would you ask such an obvious question?
I used to drink it when I was young and foolish and liked liquor. I did not get hangovers from it. It was pretty good and even better when mixed half and half with a good rye such as Alberta Premium.
The Vatican has offered a bridge to the Anglicans who wish to flee. I'm not sure of why the Methodists are not included - probably because they are a step removed, and may not have made any overtures or connections to the Vatican.
Mat 26:27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you, Mat 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Finally, the Earliest Christians also said any consideration of this as just a metaphor was false
There is no scriptural proof. I've read the church fathers. Some of the things they said were not too impressive. In fairness to them, they were coming from pagan cultures trying to understand the scriptures. You have a lot of Christian Greek fathers saying things that were poorly understood and in which they were viewing doctrine with a pagan understanding. They were more evangelists than teachers.
Catholics tend to pick and choose what early writings they want to believe and which ones they don't. The early fathers also believed our Lord paid the penalty for sin to appease the Father's wrath for us. Heck, they believed that for 1500 years. Do you believe that?
But I'm less impressed with today's Catholics when tell me they're following the early fathers and traditions. They hide behind the magisterial who tells the folks which parts of the early fathers are right and which are wrong. They even change what the fathers originally said and was accepted by saying, "Well, we've come to a deeper understanding."; discarding what was taught. It's no different then the Pharisees, teaching traditions and changing laws and theology so they fit with whatever benefits the "Church" at the time.
So no, I'm not impressed anymore when Catholics quote me the church fathers. It's nothing more than a lie and a game.
That's a damnable thing to do to nice rye!
I would contend, dear sister that it is you that is filled with recycled stuffing. I do not believe in anything that is not handed down from the Apostles and the Church; whereas the non Christian beliefs are handed out and proselytized with wild abandon.
I also agree with you that MarkBnsr has crossed over into what, for him, should be "forbidden territory": metaphysics. The materialist/mechanistic view of the universe that he seems to hold stipulates that "all things supervene on the physical." That is, the ultimate principle of the universe reduces to matter in its motions. All natural effects must have natural causes. There are absolutely no spiritual or metaphysical principles or entities operating in the universe. To believe otherwise is to confess ignorance and superstition....
There is plenty of superstition here... I realize that there is a separation of the temporal and the spiritual. Those that claim to bridge the gap are either of God or of the tent revival preachers.
What is reality? And how does that relate to this rather interesting post?
The question, though, was whether Luther believed in a type of predestination by which God controlled the destinies of every single human being no matter where they ended up, in heaven or in eternal torment. I think these paragraphs from The Bondage of the Will indicate that at the time he wrote this work he did. Question: is the thing that God executed, according to Luther, the free will of the individual, or predermination to hell? If you could indicate from these verses, I would be grateful.
But why would you ask such an obvious question?
Uh, uh. Did God dictate the New Testament?
I liked Alberta Premium Rye and I liked Ouzo 12. Why not create a mixed drink?
Beyond what Christ said according to scriptures, what further "proof" would you need? We know that +Ignatius of Antioch believed in the Real Presence. We know that the 2nd century anaphorae of The Church certainly appear to teach the Real Presence. It is also apparent that there were people running around at the end of the 1st century and into the 2nd who didn't believe in the Real Presence, but that understanding of scripture seems to have faded away until after Luther. In any event, what would scripture have to say to convince you that Christ meant what he said?
"The early fathers also believed our Lord paid the penalty for sin to appease the Father's wrath for us. Heck, they believed that for 1500 years."
The Fathers did, HD? Which ones?
The only stuff to mix good rye with is sweet vermouth and perhaps a dash of bitters.
Think about it, there are some people that believe the "presence" of Christ is spiritually discerned in the Communion elements, and there are others that demand that Christ meant it "literally", they will go so far as to say anyone who refuses to believe he/she is LITERALLY consuming real flesh and blood of Jesus cannot be saved. What I find the most confusing about this entire argument, is the ones who hold to literal flesh and blood, will be the first to try to explain that the elements don't really change into flesh and blood, but they, instead, remain the "accidents" of bread and wine, while mystically becoming the actual body and blood of the Savior. Now, I don't claim to be a scholar, but that sure as heck sounds like "spiritually" and NOT "literally". If the bread and wine do not miraculously change into human flesh and blood but remain for all eyes STILL bread and wine, then the obvious conclusion is that it is a spiritual belief. Is it pure stubbornness or is it blind obeisance that prevents some from admitting this?
That certainly is my viewpoint as well. I find it interesting that when Paul was first converted, Scripture says:
Acts 9:17-18
Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized
Here is a Scripture that goes with the point you are making:
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.