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 ... 3,201-3,2503,251-3,3003,301-3,3503,351-3,392 next last
To: count-your-change
I think “hijack” is hardly the right word. When David wrote down songs they weren't dictation by God but none the less inspired and recognized by Christians as really God's word.

They were originally included in the Tanakh, which the Jews recognized as lesser Scripture. The Church used the Septuagint as OT Scripture, and eventually authorized the new writings of its choosing as NT Scripture. However, nowhere does the NT claim that God dictated it; the closest we come is the quotations of Jesus.

3,301 posted on 02/05/2011 4:39:25 PM 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 3297 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
I will call them generalities because a direct accusation of another poster

I gave you Scripture. If you feel a direct accusation it wasn't from me.

"For the Word of God is LIVING and ACTIVE. SHARPER than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it JUDGES the THOUGHTS and ATTITUDES of the heart."

of not either knowing Scriptures or the power of God are the two specifics of the question. And I know that you would not accuse me directly, being a good FR poster.

HE KNOWS who can and who cannot understand HIS Word. He knows the power behind HIS WORD. HE knows what is necessary to understand IT because it is "HIS WORD". You either learn from men in dresses OR you listen/learn from God's Word.

"The man WITHOUT the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he CANNOT UNDERSTAND them, because they are Spiritually discerned".

A favourite thing for antiCatholics to resort to when they run out of other options, such as truth or Scripture.

An obvious thing for ANTI-WORD catholics is to resort to using Scripture when they have no knowledge of it's meaning.

such as truth or Scripture.

There is ONLY ONE TRUTH - God's Word. Get used to it Mark, HIS WORD isn't going away while man made doctrine will burn and return from where it came.
3,302 posted on 02/05/2011 5:48:17 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3287 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
” However, nowhere does the NT claim that God dictated it; the closest we come is the quotations of Jesus.”

You argue against a proposition not made. The NT writers were conscious of what their writings constituted,
Paul finding it necessary to make clear when he was speaking his own opinion and not something directly attributable to God and Peter could call what Paul wrote “Scripture”.
The apostle John says that what he saw was a revelation from God to Christ and that he, John, came to be in the “Lord's Day” by inspiration or “in the spirit”.

So I don't see the ‘no claim it was dictated’ point having anything to do with whether the Scriptures are really God's word in their entirety.

3,303 posted on 02/05/2011 6:40:48 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3301 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
"Yes, many of the early fathers believed in the Real Presence. There are some that did not."

All of the Fathers believed in the Real Presence. There were none who did not. +Ignatius tells us of heretics who didn't, but we have no names. Do you?

"Ratramnus...."

Ratramnus said that the bread and wine on the altar table were "vere corpus et sanguis Christi". Sounds like the Real presence to me, HD. What he denied, heretically in the opinion of Rome and, I suspect given the fact that Rome had yet to break with the rest of The Church, in that of the other Patriarchates as well if they ever gave him any thought, was that Christ on the altar table was the "same Christ" as He who was born of the Theotokos, lived, suffered, rose from the dead and ascended to the Father; an odd teaching indeed but not, apparently, a denial of the Real Presence.

HD, the denial of the Real Presence as a doctrine for Christians was an innovation of some Protestants after Luther. It is not even remotely patristic, let alone a teaching found in the consensus patrum.

"Well, John and Paul for starters...

Joh 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

1Th 5:9 For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,"

Oh, HD, I'm disappointed. You know that while +Paul and John are considered among the greatest Evangelists and Apostles, neither are considered, even by the Reformers, as "Fathers". Beyond that, neither of the quotes you cite stand for any form of the atonement theory of salvation all of which, other than the "ransom" theory, were virtually unknown in The Church until Anselm of Canterbury's innovations in the 11th century which, as expanded on by Aquinas, your folks later picked up and ran with.

3,304 posted on 02/05/2011 6:47:50 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3296 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
In other words, "reality" exists independently of whatever "idealistic or notional ideas" we might have of it. It is not something "produced in our minds."

Indeed.

Thank you so much for your outstanding essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!

3,305 posted on 02/05/2011 9:43:48 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3286 | View Replies]

To: xone
The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod believes and teaches that it is possible for a true believer to fall from faith, as Scripture itself soberly and repeatedly warns us (1 Cor. 10:12; 1 Pet. 5:8; 2 Pet. 3:17; Heb. 2:1-3; 3:12-19; 6:4-8, etc.). Such warnings are intended for Christians who appear to be lacking a right understanding of the seriousness of their sin and of God's judgment against sin, and who, therefore, are in danger of developing a false and proud "security" based not on God's grace, but on their own works, self-righteousness, or freedom to "do as they please."


EXACTLY correct.
3,306 posted on 02/05/2011 11:10:22 PM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3284 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Thanks Metmom,

It's good that you are reading the links I sent that prove that Jesus Christ is God

We Christians believe that Jesus Christ IS God -- and, as I showed in the links, there is adequate proof in the scripture that He was who HE said He was -- namely, GOD.
3,307 posted on 02/05/2011 11:13:19 PM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3282 | View Replies]

To: HossB86
I'm still waiting for you to give exegetical proof for your denial of Christ's words inaugurating the Eucharist

Have you no eyes to read what Christ Himself says? Why do you deny His words?
3,308 posted on 02/05/2011 11:14:18 PM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3280 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
I might also be missing a bite of a certain apple... :)

Yeah, right, if it wasn't for women you men would still be eatin' strawberries in the Garden of Eden. Something tells me though, you would have gotten to that apple all by your lonesome. ;o)

3,309 posted on 02/06/2011 12:14:11 AM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3292 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Great references. They provide much to clear up the false doctrine of transubstantiation. Thanks.


3,310 posted on 02/06/2011 1:21:39 AM PST by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3191 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
Actually, the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ is as in the bible

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.


3,311 posted on 02/06/2011 1:44:40 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3310 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
here's the entire chapter for you
26 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill.
27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”

28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” 29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
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.
37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.
38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.
39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.
40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
41 At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.”
42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”
43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered.
44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.
45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’[b] Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.
46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.
47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life.

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.
52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
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.”
59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
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[c] and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.
65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve
68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life
69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”


3,312 posted on 02/06/2011 1:45:12 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3310 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
Remember, it was NOT a metaphor as 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
3,313 posted on 02/06/2011 1:45:44 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3310 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
In case of John 6 it is clear what Jesus means -- don't make Him out to be a liar -- 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).

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
John 8:15 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.
3,314 posted on 02/06/2011 1:47:33 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3310 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
Denial of Christ's clear words and misinterpration is sadly continuing what the pagans did in the days of the Early Christians

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. Lutherans, Orthodox, Catholics, Copts, Armenians, Assyrians all believe in the True Presence.

3,315 posted on 02/06/2011 1:48:33 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3310 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

1Cor 11:23-26 also explains the fallacy of transubstantiation.

John 6:26-69 well describes it. If transubstantiation were sound doctrine, there would have been no reference to the manna as being insufficient for life, for it also could have served that role.

On the contrary, we take of His body, the bread of life, or flesh, which God the Father provided, the living bread which came down from Heaven, then we have eternal life.

If we drink of the cup, His blood, i.e. His saving work on the Cross of His death, then we also have fellowship with Him.

As often as we eat or intake Him, we also are to do these things in remembrance of Him. 1stJohn 1:9 follows easily and matches well with the Eucharist.

Obviously to those whom the Father has drawn to the Son, it isn’t the physical consumption without the spiritual metaphor which saves, as the references to the manna and Paul’s admonition of those consuming the Eucharist because they were physically hungry, but now some were sickly (1Cor 11:30)


3,316 posted on 02/06/2011 2:02:54 AM PST by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3315 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; MarkBsnr; Alamo-Girl; xzins; Cronos; metmom; Dr. Eckleburg; Quix

bb: As Chesterton noted, when a man ceases to believe in God that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t then believe in nothing. Rather it means he’ll believe in anything.

Spirited: Indeed. When a man chooses to reject God the Father, this does not mean that his choice makes him an autonomous individual whose mind is “sacrosanct.” No, it is just when man willfully rejects God the Father that “peculiar” ideas take root in his mind.


3,317 posted on 02/06/2011 2:35:39 AM PST by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3196 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
1Cor 11:23-26 does nothing of that sort,
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
And this is clear -- this is the NEW Covenant, and plese note that you cannot read it in isolation without reading verses 27-29

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.
Now, you can not be guilty of sinning against the BODY and BLOOD of the Lord if you actually only Bread, no matter how symbolic. This is confirmed in Paul's (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?
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.

This cannot be a metaphor, because of the Words of JESUS himself --
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.
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.

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 and John 6 is NOT a metaphor -- He solemnly repeats it TWICE and even when the disciples leave, does not call back "oh, it's just a metaphor for fellowship"
3,318 posted on 02/06/2011 3:46:56 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3316 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
All of the Fathers believed in the Real Presence.

Isn't that a little extreme? While I'll agree there is substantial writings on this, this was not without controversy in the Church. The Roman Council in 1079 felt a need to issue a statement on it and the 4th Lateran Council of 1215 felt they needed to reiterate their stance. If this was universally accepted there would be no need to issue these proclamations, especially so late.

Even though Cyril believed in the Real Presence it seems he needed to remind others that it's not just bread and wine.

But more important than whether it actually turns into the body and blood, what does the Real Present represent? Would you say the Real Presence represents a "sacrifice offered to God", as Augustine states? Quotes from the early fathers says is in regards to a sacrifice given to God, some say to appease God's wrath, and therefore we must participate in that sacrifice.

Ignatius taught that it was Christ's suffering for our sins and those who refuse are perishing. Cyprian further this argument by saying that the sacrifice was to appease an angry God. Is this what the Orthodox believe when you take the Real Presence? Sure, the Real Presence is talked about by the early fathers but normally it is used in the context of appeasing God's wrath and satisfying our sins to God.

It makes no difference whether a person believes that the bread and wine actually turn into flesh and blood. What matters is whether a person recognizes that God is angry with man and that He carried out this anger on His Son who gave Him up as a sacrifice for us. And when we take the Real Presence, that is what we should remember.

3,319 posted on 02/06/2011 3:52:26 AM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3304 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
"The Roman Council in 1079 felt a need to issue a statement on it and the 4th Lateran Council of 1215 felt they needed to reiterate their stance. If this was universally accepted there would be no need to issue these proclamations, especially so late."

And therein lies the very danger in Rome's seeming inability to leave well enough alone. Dogma, in the One Church, was only declared to combat a known and present heresy, Arianism, Nestorianism, Iconoclasm, etc. In any event, the Roman Council was a local council and had no power to declare dogma. The 4th Lateran is not recognized by Orthodoxy as an Ecumenical Council but even if it were, in relevant part, what that council dogmatized was the Latin doctrine of Transubstantiation, which describes the Real Presence in physical terms using philosophical language. It didn't dogmatize the Real Presence doctrine.

"Even though Cyril believed in the Real Presence it seems he needed to remind others that it's not just bread and wine."

HD, I'll bet my own metropolitan has preached on this subject within the last year. That's what preachers do, they teach the Faith. He also teaches that Christ is True God and True Man, but there is no dispute in The Church about that either.

"Ignatius taught that it was Christ's suffering for our sins and those who refuse are perishing. Cyprian further this argument by saying that the sacrifice was to appease an angry God. Is this what the Orthodox believe when you take the Real Presence?

+Ignatius certainly teaches that Christ suffered for our sins. That is plain. Here he also teaches that those who cut themselves off from God's grace in the Eucharist have chosen their own fate. They reject God, not the other way around. You'll find no "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" phronema in +Ignatius. +Cyprian, like most of the early Westerners, was all over the map on theology (just like his theological mentor, the heretic Tertullian). Be taht as it may, the section you quoted from De Lapsi is not talking about partaking of the Body and Blood to appease an angry god, but rather about the Lapsi taking communion unworthily, before confessing their apostasy and receiving absolution for their sin. So, do the Orthodox believe as you have stated the matter? No. As I have stated the matter? Yes.

"It makes no difference whether a person believes that the bread and wine actually turn into flesh and blood. What matters is whether a person recognizes that God is angry with man and that He carried out this anger on His Son who gave Him up as a sacrifice for us."

What you have written expresses what may be the most profound difference between what is taught by The Church and that preached by the various ecclesial heirs of the Calvinist groups. I do not for one minute doubt the sincerity of your belief. But it is why I have come to believe that Calvinists worship a "god" unknown to the Orthodox.

3,320 posted on 02/06/2011 4:44:42 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3319 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; MarkBsnr; stfassisi

Meant to ping you guys to #3320


3,321 posted on 02/06/2011 4:46:51 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3320 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Er... Indulgences?

You continue to deflect!

Fail. Try again. I’ve already shown you how scripture refutes the false doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church; so have many others.

That point is now (and really, for a while) closed. Yet you cannot answer my question: it’s RCC doctrine—why no scriptural support.

Hoss


3,322 posted on 02/06/2011 5:14:13 AM PST by HossB86
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3308 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Who said I was reading them?


3,323 posted on 02/06/2011 5:19:18 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3307 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish

Plenty true.


3,324 posted on 02/06/2011 7:25:26 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 3317 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish
So very true. Thank you for sharing your insights, dear sister in Christ!
3,325 posted on 02/06/2011 8:05:11 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3317 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
They are separated by that bridge over the gap.

What bridge?

I do not understand what you mean by this "gap."

Dear Mark, it seems to me the two cannot be separable while a person lives. For when the soul departs (the spiritual principle), the body (the temporal principle) dies.

3,326 posted on 02/06/2011 8:38:50 AM PST by betty boop (Seek truth and beauty together; you will never find them apart. — F. M. Cornford)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3299 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Prior to placing faith in Christ, God the Father must draw us to Him, then He receives as we place faith in Him.

Without first being drawn to Him, the exercise is merely man made, an academic imagination.

Start by placing faith through Christ first, then consider the Eucharist.

Do not place faith first in the Church, then in what they provide to have access to God, but first in Christ, then in what God provides.

Do this in remembrance of Him. When we are doing this in remembrance of Him, we are exercising our mind, our soul.

When we think upon Him, His work at the Cross, and confess our sins to Him, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. We partake of the Eucharist while in fellowship with Him, not as a method of returning to fellowship, but the same process also occurs whenever we return to fellowship with Him.

Just as when we break bread and eat it, we are focusing on the Body being broken, namely our Lord Christ Jesus in the flesh, who gave Himself to be broken on the Cross and we consume, take part, focusing on accepting what He provided on the Cross, and intake from Him, the Bread of Life, being now part of the same Body.

Next we partake of the cup, the blood of sacrificial atonement for all sin by His death on the Cross, the New Covenant in His blood, his death on the Cross, which has paid the debt for sin, propitiated the wrath of God, and reconciled man to God.

We are not focused upon how His wrath is upon us, but how Christ and ONLY Christ has paid for that debt, such that we no longer are the object of His wrath.

While we are sinners, our perspective of God is facing His Perfect Justice, but in returning to fellowship with Him, our perspective is from the point of view of Perfect Righteousness,....through faith in Christ.

If we slip and approach Him as though we are guilty, fearing His wrath, we are not approaching Him from the perspective of faith in what Christ has already done on the Cross.


3,327 posted on 02/06/2011 9:16:54 AM PST by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3318 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
However:

Assurance of Salvation

Q. On what should we base our assurance of salvation? I know the Word and the promises of the Gospel are our rock, but how do we distinguish between real faith and mere intellectual assent? I ask this because many evangelicals make me nervous when they say that if one has doubts about one's salvation, one is probably not saved, because the Holy Spirit is supposed to provide inner assurance. (I guess this ties in to the whole Pietist problem.) But in the face of emotional ups and downs, moral failings, intellectual doubts, and confusion over doctrine, how can one know if one truly has faith in Christ?

A. Lutherans believe that faith is created and strengthened not by looking inside of one's self (to one's own faith and/or doubts) but by looking outside of one's self (to God's Word and promises in Christ). Therefore, assurance of salvation is to be sought by looking to God's Word and promises in Christ (which create and strengthen the faith through which one is saved), not by looking inward at the strength or weakness of one's own faith (which creates either pride and false assurance or doubt and lack of assurance). Anxiety regarding doubts, strength of faith and certainty of salvation are signs of faith (however weak it may be), not signs of unbelief, since the unbeliever has no concern or anxiety about doubts, faith or salvation. If you would like to study this issue further, I would recommend Martin Chemnitz's book on "Justification" available from Concordia Publishing House (1-800-325-3040, stock no. 15-2186).

Assurance of Salvation

3,328 posted on 02/06/2011 11:00:47 AM PST by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3306 | View Replies]

To: xone

Since man is unable to provide anything for his own salvation, he also is unable to do anything to lose it once God has given it.

That doesn’t mean there aren’t loss of rewards in heaven, should a believer fall out of fellowship and fail to walk according to God’s Plan.

It simply recognizes God is always faithful, even when man isn’t.


3,329 posted on 02/06/2011 12:53:59 PM PST by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3328 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr; xone

And THANK YOU, GOD for that!!!!!

2 Timothy 2:11-13 The saying is trustworthy, for:

If we have died with him, we will also live with him; if we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us; if we are faithless, he remains faithful—

for he cannot deny himself.


3,330 posted on 02/06/2011 3:47:22 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3329 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
Of course, the Catechism re-affirms that Prior to placing faith in Christ, God the Father must draw us to Him, then He receives as we place faith in Him.

And I quote:
"Thefirst work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus' proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high.

Justification detaches man from sin which contradicts the love of God, and purifies his heart of sin. Justification follows upon God's merciful initiative of offering forgiveness. It reconciles man with God. It frees from the enslavement to sin, and it heals.

Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or "justice") here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us

Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men.

and
Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life

The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace

The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification


The Eucharist IS Christ's very words. Our faith is in Christ, who inaugurated the Eucharist -- remember this, the faith of The Church, Christ's Church is in Him, that is why we obey HIS words when we follow His teachings of the Eucharist.

Note -- these are exactly what He taught in John 6 -- we must follow His teaching.
3,331 posted on 02/06/2011 11:58:07 PM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3327 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
Just as when we break bread and eat it, we are focusing on the Body being broken, namely our Lord Christ Jesus in the flesh, who gave Himself to be broken on the Cross and we consume, take part, focusing on accepting what He provided on the Cross, and intake from Him, the Bread of Life, being now part of the same Body.

Next we partake of the cup, the blood of sacrificial atonement for all sin by His death on the Cross, the New Covenant in His blood, his death on the Cross, which has paid the debt for sin, propitiated the wrath of God, and reconciled man to God.


Correct -- this is the actual Body and Blood of the Lord, which He gave freely
3,332 posted on 02/06/2011 11:59:01 PM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3327 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; MarkBsnr; Kolokotronis
There is no scriptural proof

Of course there is -- read John 6, 1 Cor. 10:16-17, 1 Cor. 11:26-32. This states clearly what Jesus Christ Himself said to inaugurate the Eucharist. His own words in John 6 and strongly reiterated in the letter to the Corinthians.

Why would anyone deny these very words?
3,333 posted on 02/07/2011 12:02:00 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3227 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; MarkBsnr; Kolokotronis
The Early Church reiterates these beliefs -- read Justin Marty who had to explain to the pagan Antoninus that Christians were not cannibals in eating the Body and Blood of Our Lord

he 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"

That is hardly ambiguous...
3,334 posted on 02/07/2011 12:04:17 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3227 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

There are some who believe Christ’s words in John 6 and Paul’s writings in Corinthians (namely Orthodox, Copts, Catholics, Armenians, Ethiopians, Assyrians, Anglicans, Lutherans) and there are those who do not believe in Christ’s words in John 6(Calvinists)


3,335 posted on 02/07/2011 12:07:47 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3238 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
It's strange how some people outside The Church fabricate and misinterpret the Word of God, even going so far as to say that: Thomas and the apostles were not blessed as they saw Jesus...
3,336 posted on 02/07/2011 12:11:37 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3263 | View Replies]

To: xone

That is pretty similar to what Catholics believe if not the same.


3,337 posted on 02/07/2011 12:13:54 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3328 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr; xone
Well, CV -- Lutherans, Pentecostals, Catholics, Orthodox, Orientals, Assyrians are of one thought that one can lose one's salvation. Yes, you disagree with us -- and you have the free will to do so, but this is so against Ezekiel 33:12-16
12 “Therefore, son of man, say to your people, ‘If someone who is righteous disobeys, that person’s former righteousness will count for nothing. And if someone who is wicked repents, that person’s former wickedness will not bring condemnation. The righteous person who sins will not be allowed to live even though they were formerly righteous.’

13 If I tell a righteous person that they will surely live, but then they trust in their righteousness and do evil, none of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered; they will die for the evil they have done.

14 And if I say to a wicked person, ‘You will surely die,’ but they then turn away from their sin and do what is just and right— 15 if they give back what they took in pledge for a loan, return what they have stolen, follow the decrees that give life, and do no evil—that person will surely live; they will not die.

16 None of the sins that person has committed will be remembered against them. They have done what is just and right; they will surely live.

The parts in bold disprove any sense that we cannot lose our freely given salvation.

Right from the start of the Bible, do we find Adam and Eve losing grace.

Remember Paul says "See then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off" (Rom. 11:22)
3,338 posted on 02/07/2011 12:25:10 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3329 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Cronos:
It's good that you are reading the links I sent that prove that Jesus Christ is God

We Christians believe that Jesus Christ IS God -- and, as I showed in the links, there is adequate proof in the scripture that He was who HE said He was -- namely, GOD.
Metmom: Who said I was reading them?

Oh, that's sad.. but then it doesn't matter, Jesus Christ is still and forever was and will be God.
3,339 posted on 02/07/2011 12:27:53 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3323 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
I think this is one reason why it is easy for certain evangelicals, often from the "enthusiast" wing, find it easy to become Roman Catholic.

One moralistic example is a guy whom I find hard to stand, radio-show host, ex-evangelical-Methodist-minister-now-Roman-Catholic layman Alan Hunt. Clearly on a basic theological level Mr. Hunt is not all that different (or less egotistical) now, than when he was a Methodist mega-church pastor....(and how annoying can a show be with the motto, "It's not about right and left, but right and wrong!" be?

EXTREMELY!!!

This guy is religious Rush Limbaugh, but more opinionated--without ever, seemingly, backing up his dogma with scripture.

As the (very) wise Dr. Doug Kelly says, "You should never bind the conscience of anyone but by scripture."

3,340 posted on 02/07/2011 12:02:33 PM PST by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2795 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns

***without ever, seemingly, backing up his dogma with scripture.***

Sounds like the Roman Catholic crowd around here.


3,341 posted on 02/07/2011 12:32:36 PM PST by Gamecock (The resurrection of Jesus Christ is both historically credible and existentially satisfying. T.K.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3340 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
There are some who believe Christ’s words in John 6 and Paul’s writings in Corinthians (namely Orthodox, Copts, Catholics, Armenians, Ethiopians, Assyrians, Anglicans, Lutherans) and there are those who do not believe in Christ’s words in John 6(Calvinists)

Actually, I think it is better expressed as some people THINK they are "believing" Jesus and Paul's words by holding to a strict, narrow and exclusive interpretation of them and there are others who understand ALL of the words of Jesus and Paul in context and as they were said in relation to the other truths that the Holy Bible preached. There is no place for stubborn insistence on a belief that was never really true but based on superstition and misinterpretation as well as a blind faith in a hierarchical authority that can never admit to mistakes. People are fallible, God's word never is.

3,342 posted on 02/07/2011 4:00:42 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3335 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
Yeah, right, if it wasn't for women you men would still be eatin' strawberries in the Garden of Eden. Something tells me though, you would have gotten to that apple all by your lonesome. ;o)

Nonsense; we be fermenting strawberries and all manner of other things in the search for the perfect brandy. Remember that man first became civilized in order to grow grains - for beer, not bread. Meat over an open flame, with whisky to wash it down. Nah. We wouldn't have gotten anywhere near that apple.

3,343 posted on 02/07/2011 4:29:12 PM 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 3309 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
They are separated by that bridge over the gap.

What bridge? I do not understand what you mean by this "gap."

Did you not say words to the effect that man bridges the gap between temporal and spiritual? Did you not further say that that in effect makes them one? Dear Mark, it seems to me the two cannot be separable while a person lives. For when the soul departs (the spiritual principle), the body (the temporal principle) dies.

Food is not the person, yet without food one dies.

3,344 posted on 02/07/2011 4:50:27 PM 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 3326 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
That doesn’t mean there aren’t loss of rewards in heaven, should a believer fall out of fellowship and fail to walk according to God’s Plan.

This pops up every once in a while. What other reward can a Christian possibly have other than to be in the presence of Almighty God forever? What rewards are you talking about? Do various Protestants see a celestial Bingo with door prizes? Or you get to sit on the 50 yard line in Heaven?

3,345 posted on 02/07/2011 5:11:08 PM 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 3329 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

2Tim 4:7-9 mentions the Crown of Righteousness.

Rev 2:10 mentions a Crown of Life.

1st Peter 5:1-5 mentions a Crown of Glory.

There are many Crowns predestined for believers at the bema seat, but they will only be rewarded by our Lord Christ Jesus to those who were faithful in His Plan.


3,346 posted on 02/07/2011 9:01:51 PM PST by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3345 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

The righteous believer will not only consider these Scriptures, but the more obvious Gospel directing belief/faith as the singular mechanism for eternal life.


3,347 posted on 02/07/2011 9:05:08 PM PST by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3338 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
Boatbums: I think it is better expressed as some people THINK they are "believing" Jesus and Paul's words by holding to a strict, narrow and exclusive interpretation of them

So you mean to say you think that Orthodox, Copts, Catholics, Armenians, Ethiopians, Assyrians, Anglicans, Lutherans are all wrong?

interesting -- you slam the Lutherans and Anglicans too?
3,348 posted on 02/08/2011 1:29:36 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3342 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
The righteous believer will not only consider these Scriptures, but the more obvious Gospel directing belief/faith as the singular mechanism for eternal life.

Are you saying that scripture is not sufficient?
3,349 posted on 02/08/2011 1:42:14 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3347 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
Remember also that it is CLEAR in Ezekiel
12 “Therefore, son of man, say to your people, ‘If someone who is righteous disobeys, that person’s former righteousness will count for nothing. And if someone who is wicked repents, that person’s former wickedness will not bring condemnation. The righteous person who sins will not be allowed to live even though they were formerly righteous.’

13 If I tell a righteous person that they will surely live, but then they trust in their righteousness and do evil, none of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered; they will die for the evil they have done.

14 And if I say to a wicked person, ‘You will surely die,’ but they then turn away from their sin and do what is just and right— 15 if they give back what they took in pledge for a loan, return what they have stolen, follow the decrees that give life, and do no evil—that person will surely live; they will not die.

16 None of the sins that person has committed will be remembered against them. They have done what is just and right; they will surely live.

The parts in bold disprove any sense that we cannot lose our freely given salvation.

Right from the start of the Bible, do we find Adam and Eve losing grace.

Remember Paul says "See then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off" (Rom. 11:22)
3,350 posted on 02/08/2011 1:44:43 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3347 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 3,201-3,2503,251-3,3003,301-3,3503,351-3,392 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