The Not So Secret Rapture

reformed.org ^ | W. Fred Rice

[Lera]

The Waldensians were heretics, regardless of the romance that you would bring to their story. The Dominicans were charged with dealing with the Waldensians.

Can you explain to me what part of Thou shalt no murder is it that the Dominicans did not understand ?


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

Seems to me those Jesuits dealt with them pretty harshly when they educated Hitler and he put many of those Reformer preachers to death.Guess there were some bad side effects for them though since the monster they raised ended up killing a lot of Catholics too. I guess they don't mind sacrificing some of their own as long as they can MURDER who they think are heretics as they certainly had lots of Protestants/Orthodox/Jews exterminated.

Lets just look at some of the other MONSTERS these Jesuits have schooled ...

.... Joseph Goebbels

.... Fidel Castro

.... Joseph Stalin

seems to me they have been busy creating plenty of destruction alrigt

[kosta50]

The Golden Rule is a universal standard of conduct which says the same thing.

However, people who think they are providentially "sent" to change the world or do something "in the name of God" have done many good things but also quite a bit of damage in the past.

[Cronos]

The followers of Machen, the OPC, disregard scripture where it calls men to repent, have faith, convert, and persevere. Instead they insist on some kind of non-scriptural preservation which is not only non-scriptural but also disagrees with the beliefs of their hero, St. Augustine who believed in perseverance of the saints, not preservation. Augustine did not believe in Calvin's understanding of the "perseverance of the saints,"

the OPC's theory that man can never lose his salvation, no matter what he does, so when they read 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Galatians 5:19-21 the OPC believes that if anyone commits any such sin, there is no repentence for the followers of Calvin. Their deity will not take repentence, so the followers of Calvin will say that the person never was Christian at all!

To answer, they twist their weasel-words as

First between true and false conversion. The Bible recognizes that not everyone who says he believes in Christ really does

Voilą! (by the way, that means "see there" in French) -- the followers of Calvin-Machen use their rubber dictionaries to say "Oh, they never were Christian in the first place!"

[Lera]

However, people who think they are providentially “sent” to change the world or do something “in the name of God” have done many good things but also quite a bit of damage in the past.

---

I agree . Plenty of atrocities in history have been committed in his name by those who don’t know him.
Plenty by those who call themselves Christians to who DON’T know Christ.

[Cronos]

Cronos: And remember — Jesus Christ IS God. To deny Jesus is God automatically means that one is not a Christian. Catholics, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Orthodox etc agree that if you do not believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and God, you are not Christian

Metmom: So you keep saying

yes, I hope to convince you of that.

[Cronos]

the OPC with it’s double-predestination seems to willingly cause it’s cultists to plumb the depths of despair — since they do not believe in repentence, then anyone who fails then is told by the OPC that they were never Christian.

[Cronos]

Dawkins does not have the depth of Jainism.

Jainism's beliefs are at least 2900 years old and are born out of the Gangetic Indo-European beliefs in reincarnation, the concept of maya and rejection of Aryanic deities like Indra/Thor and Varuna/Dyaus Pita/Zeus/Jupiter.

By 900 BC, the Aryans had been in northern India, in the Gangetic plains for 800+ years and had been moving towards demoting their ARyanic gods like Indra (who in the Rig Veda (c. 1700 BC) is mentioned quite often as the War/Storm God and get high praise and yagnas (sacrifices etc.) of worship, yet in modern-day Hinduism is practically ignored along with the rest of the pantheon bar the Hindu trinity (Shiva-Vishnu-Brahma).

Shiva seems to be more a Dravidian god (if one connects the pictures of the ascetic with a cobra protecting his head that are depicted on Harappan coins to Shiva), while Vishnu seems like a convenient way to add in different gods to the pantheon -- functioning in the same way as Osiris did, so both Rama and Krishna are incarnations of Vishnu (and also 8 other incarnations from Narasimha, the half-man, half-lion to the dwarf who could step across worlds) and Brahma is the creator but ignored)

Indra seems to have retained his place until the time of Emperor Asoka (300 BC) who proclaimed Buddhism as the theme religion of his Empire (which stretched over all of what is now Afghanistan, Eastern Iran, TAjikistan, eastern Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, all of Pakistan, India except what is now southern Tamil nadu, Bangladesh, Nepal) -- this act destroyed Vedic Hinduism and even when Hinduism reclaimed ground under the Nandas (post Christ), it was Brahmanical Hinduism with Manu rated highly and a Hinduism influenced by Mahavira and GAutama Buddha's rejection of the old gods.

This is reflected in the Jatakas and that era writing where there is a story of Indra attempting to disturb Shiva and shiva cursing him to have his body covered with va... (well, woman's private parts) -- and India from that point on becomes an object of ridicule in Hindu religion (he was already ridiculed in Jainism and Buddhism).

Jainism, with it's rejection of Vedic Hinduism also added in the concepts of ahimsa and vegetarianism --> Jains will not eat any meat or eggs or fish or any vegetable that grows under the ground.

The Jain idea of the universe is

They believe that EVERYONE on this diagram except the Siddhis/Adinaths (conquerors of death) i.e. those who live in Siddhasila are subject to death and reincarnation -- the gods may have powers, but they are just another one of those subject to the law of reincarnation.

They believe in endless cycles of time, and cycles within cycles (the hindu ability to generate high numbers is truly amazing -- their cosmology relates to billions of years).

To answer betty's question -- the Jains argue that all are subject to the laws of the universe and that it is illogical to argue for a being that exists out of it. While Maths did originate in the EAst (from the Babylonian concepts of 360 degress of a circle to the Hindu discover of 0, Natural Sciences too had their origins in the Near East - India, with the extensions into Greece (mainland Greece didn't get civilised until the fall of the Minoans on Crete c. 1700 BC IMHO). The Indians concentrated on maths, metallurgy and medicine.

To answer boatbums -- no one is needed to keep score in their theory as what you do influences your internal "aura" or whatever. This is completely alien to the Christian concepts so it is not Pelagianism either as this is not "doing good" but "cleansing your aura". Also, do note that in the Hindu system, at least the modern one, there is a higher god above the trinity called Ishwara (of whom Shiva is supposed to an embodiment of -- I don't quite follow that). Presumably he keeps score. however, Hindus believe that the universe ends when all (including the gods) are absorved into Ishwara and everything ends.

This ties in to their concept of maya (or that the entire universe is an illusion) which is what influenced the Gnostics from the Paulicians to the Cathars.

[Cronos]

One interesting correlationship is between the Aryanic gods from Dyaus Pita (Sky Father) to Jupiter and Zeus and Deus

also the storm god, Indra = Thor.

And, finally the two "families" of gods. In the Indic religions these are Devas and Asuras.

You see initially in the Rig Veda how some of the gods are referred to as Asuras -- like Varuna (god of wind) and Agni (god of fire).

By the time of Buddha, the Asuras were relegated to a lower family of supernatural beings, not to be worshipped but feared (an aside -- one of the now-famous Hindus gods, Ganesha/Ganapati, the elephant-headed god started out around the time of Christ as an asura or a spirit of malevolence like the rogue elephants who destroyed houses, but now he's the most popular Hindu god -- check Ganeshutsav).

Then, Christianity came and highly influenced Hinduism, from the Hindus taking the concept of a Trinity (only completely accepted around 900 AD) to their relegation of Asuras as demons.

In contrast, the opposite happened in the Irani Aryanic group where the Asura got prominence. Now, between Indic and Iranic languages there is a change of the sound S to H (so the people of Sindh (Indus valley) became Hindus) and the Irani gods were the Ahuras, with the Daeves being relegated to household gods, gods of the fireplace. These daeves were the same as the genius fireplace gods in Greek and Roman myths.

Zoroaster, around 1800-1700 BC was the prophet of his religion Zoroastrianism -- he took ONE God, Ahura Mazda and raised him as THE God of light. He consider there to be an equal god of darkness, Aingra Mainyu who represented evil. The Zoroastrian belief is that mankind should fight for Ahura Mazda against Aingra Mainyu. They should do this based on the Zoroastrian motif of "Good thoughts, good words, good deeds". Later sects of Zoroastrianism even went so far as to say that some humans were made by Ahura Mazda (Ormazd in some English poems) and others by Aingra Mainyu hence the idea that Ahura Mazda only loved some. They also had the concept of a Messiah-type figure, angels etc. (though their angels are bulls with the heads of men and wings!). It is fascinating on this Zoroastrian influence on Judaism post the exile.

Anyway, I digress -- the other branches of the Aryan family were the Greek-Romans who reduced it to one family of gods. The Romanic religion was far more primitive than the Hindu/Irani and more primitive than the GReek, hence whole-scale borrowing from the Greeks, who in turn were influenced by Semitic religions of the Canaanites/Pheonicians.

The Nordics/Germanics were probably the most primitive Aryanic religion retaining BOTH families of gods: Aesir and Vanir. No, wait, they would tie for primitiveness of their religion with the Celts.

[Cronos]

Good point about the Jewish messiah not being God. That would have been inconceivable to the Jews and is also the stumbling block for Moslems.

Some other differences between the Tanakh and Septuagint - Is7:14 -- tenses different
Is 9:5, againt tenses.

Why? I don't know.

[caww]

More importantly, Christianity literally turned some OT stories upside down. For example the Passover Lamb. Lambs were considered sacred animals in ancient Egypt. Killing the Passover lamb and smearing its blood on the Israelite homes was a way if telling the Egyptians that their god was nothign but a stinky animal, and wa sno god of any consequence. The lamb was clearly not killed to "atone" for any iniquities, as the Christians teach

Nope....sounds like your religious history/faith has far to go to reach the truth Kosta...and likely will never do so. Remember I did say sometimes it takes time to discern where someones beliefs are at. Yours is pointing in a particular direction.

[caww]

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

[Cronos]

Actually, Kosta -- lambs were not sacred in egypt but the ram was -- a significant difference.

also, I did some checking and there are disputes about the dates of the Tanakh vis-a-vis the Septuagint (600 year) and also that the Jewish scriptures were originally written without vowels, hence possibilities of differences. I need to read more to answer.

[caww]

additionally to that.....

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

Greek

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

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

[MarkBsnr]

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

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

[MarkBsnr]

I didn't attribute the offending post to Mark.

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

Let's see what you actually said:

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

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

[MarkBsnr]

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

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

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

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

[HarleyD]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter XVII

Of the Perseverance of the Saints I. They, whom God has accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.[1]

II. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father;[2] upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ,[3] the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them,[4] and the nature of the covenant of grace:[5] from all which arises also the certainty and infallibility thereof.[6]

III. Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins;[7] and, for a time, continue therein:[8] whereby they incur God's displeasure,[9] and grieve His Holy Spirit,[10] come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts,[11] have their hearts hardened,[12] and their consciences wounded;[13] hurt and scandalize others,[14] and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.[15]

WC-Perseverance of the Saints

People who are truly in the faith can rest in the assurance that God will keep them. People who are "pretending" to love God will fall away. I see nothing out of alignment with Augustine's view.

[HarleyD]

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

[HarleyD]

kosta has confused the right use of free will (to accept salvation) with the fatally wrong use of free will (to reject salvation)

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

[Cronos]

Note -- I am arguing against double-predestination.

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

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

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

St. Augustine's position is on PERSEVERENCE, not PRESERVATION,