Posted on 05/21/2016 8:38:01 AM PDT by Salvation
Double standards strike again......
Sigh; Praying for your heart to be opened.
For me the "worst" part was when the second wife died. No crying or morning at all, just on to the next chapter.
"Hey, we're in the Tribulation. **** happens."
(I actually didn't get far enough to find that there is a second wife. Not far enough to engage with the characters at all.)
It’s open to any Scriptural teachings.
There’s not a shred of evidence anywhere in Scripture about the alleged assumption of Mary.
One of your fellow Catholics even admitted it upthread.
Why should I take the say so of anyone about things of God if they can’t back it up with Scripture?
At that rate, I might as well throw in my lot with the word of faith people. At least they don’t damn to hell people who disagree with their official teachings and put it in their church statement of faith.
You have yourself a good day now.
51 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 1 Cor 15
15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. 1 Thess 4
28 Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, 29 and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment. John 5
14 But this I admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets; 15 having a hope in God, which these men cherish themselves, that there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. Acts 24
These passages leave no room for a secret rapture, nor even for two bodily resurrections separated by 1000 years. *One* resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous is what is clearly taught by Jesus and Paul.
The early creeds agree:
On the third day he rose again; he ascended into heaven, he is seated at the right hand of the Father, and he will come to judge the living and the dead. - Apostles Creed
He suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven with the same body, [and] sat at the right hand of the Father. He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father, to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there is no end. - Nicene Creed
He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved. - The Athanasian Creed 5th century A.D.
False...impossible. read Matt 24 (I posted it in post # 45).
Verse 29 “Immediately after the tribulation....verse 31 will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
Immediately AFTER the tribulation (not before tribulation ).
Worth a repost. Matthew 24:29-31 is a clear, unanswerable refutation of the pre-trib rapture teaching from our Lord Himself.
Full disclosure: I spent many years mindlessly adhering to the pre-trib theory largely because it was an Article of Faith for my church (Baptist), respected theologians (Walvoord, Dallas Theological Seminary), and prophecy teachers (Hal Lindsey, etc.) When I finally decided to follow the instruction of my church to "let Scripture speak for itself", I realized that the pre-trib theory was not taught in the Bible.
NOTE: this is not to deny that a rapture will occur, but Scripture indicates that it will be part of the sequence of events known as the Second Coming of Christ, the "last day," the Day of the Lord, etc.
The person I was replying to was comparing Rapture theorists introducing novel doctrine to Jesus and the apostles. If you want to claim the type of authority Jesus and the apostles had, then I insist you demonstrate the signs of that authority, which are miracles, otherwise I won’t even consider recognizing it.
Scripture doesn’t back up the notion of a rapture preceding the resurrection of the dead, so it’s no use appealing to that.
I agree, it’s only about believers, and Revelation places the resurrection of believers and the coming of the Lord after the tribulation. Any rapture of living believers cannot precede it.
Except by that criteria (the historical record), the Assumption (a.k.a. the "dormition of Mary in the Eastern churches) was celebrated liturgically in both the Latin west and Greek east by no later than the 7th century. And this early, widely-held belief comes with no record of dispute. (That Munificentissimus Deus in 1950 made the long-standing belief into dogma doesn't negate the historical fact that it was then and before a long-held, uncontroverted belief.)
By contrast, the notion of a "Pre-Trib Rapture" is unknown till the 18th Century, and was then and now controversial, as it contradicts accepted Christian teaching of many centuries.
As to Scripture, the Assumption is not in any way contradictory (the Bible doesn't speak explicitly of Mary's final days) and is harmonious with several verses about Mary as well as the Scriptural anti-types (Enoch and Elijah).
By contrast, as has been pointed out earlier on this thread, the very verses held up in support of a Pre-Trib Rapture contain within them items which contradict that notion.
Agree with every word, and I’m not a Roman Catholic believer. I especially agree with the phrase “unnaturally stitch.” Many doctrines that should unite Christians become exclusive tests of faith/fellowship by means of unnatural stitching.
The New Testament writers worked back from what Jesus already said and from the Resurrection. They didn’t posit stuff about Jesus that they hadn’t already seen and heard.
Correction: Enoch and Elijah would be the “types.”
Quoting Larry the Cable guy: Now that right there is funny, I don’t care who you are.
In the middle 1820’s a religious environment began to be established among a few Christians in London, England which proved to be the catalyst from which the doctrine of the Rapture emerged. Expectations of the soon coming of our Lord were being voiced. This was no new thing, but what was unusual was the teaching by a Presbyterian minister named Edward Irving that there had to be a restoration of the spiritual gifts mentioned in 1 Corinthians chapters 12–14 just before Christ’s Second Advent. To Irving, the time had come for those spiritual manifestations to occur. Among the expected gifts was the renewal of speaking in tongues and of prophetic utterances motivated by the spirit.
Irving began to propagate his beliefs. His oratorical skills and enthusiasm caused his congregation in London to grow. Then a number of people began to experience the “gifts.”
In 1830 a revival of the “gifts” began to be manifested among some people living in the lowlands of Scotland. They experienced what they called the outpouring of the Spirit. It was accompanied with speak-ing in “tongues” and other charismatic phenomena. Irving preached that these things must occur and now they were.
On one particular evening, the power of the Holy Spirit was said to have rested on a Miss Margaret Macdonald while she was ill at home. She was dangerously sick and thought she was dying. In spite of this (or perhaps because she is supposed to have come under the “power” of the spirit) for several successive hours she experienced manifestations of “mingled prophecy and vision.” She found her mind in an altered state and began to experience considerable visionary activity.
The message she received during this prophetic vision convinced her that Christ was going to appear in two stages at His Second Advent, and not a single occasion as most all people formerly believed. The spirit emanation revealed that Christ would first come in glory to those who look for Him and again later in a final stage when every eye would see Him. This visionary experience of Miss Macdonald represented the prime source of the modern Rapture doctrine.
Many people have thought that John Darby, one of the leaders in the beginnings of the Plymouth Brethren Movement, was the originator of the Rapture doctrine. This is not the case. John Darby received the knowledge of the doctrine from someone else. His source was Margaret Macdonald. Her sickness during which she received her visions and revelations occurred sometime between February 1 and April 14, 1830. By late spring and early summer of 1830, her belief in the two phases of Christ’s coming was mentioned in praise and prayer meetings in several towns of western Scotland. In these meetings some people were speaking in “tongues” and other charismatic occurrences were in evidence. Modern “Pentecostalism” had its birth.
These extraordinary and strange events so attracted John Darby that he made a trip to the area to witness what was going on. Darby visited Miss Macdonald in her home. Though he did not approve of the ecstatic episodes that he witnessed, there can hardly be any doubt that the visions and spiritual experiences of Miss Macdonald are the source of the modern doctrine. After returning from Scotland, Darby began to teach that Christ’s Advent would occur in two phases.
Darby was a brilliant theologian with outstanding scholarly abilities. The renewal of language studies, the teaching of the doctrine of ‘dispensationalism’ came from Darby and the Plymouth Brethren. The Rapture doctrine originated with Margaret Macdonald, and Darby popularized it. Scofield and others took it over. But Darby provided the intellectual mantle that helped make it respectable.
I was brought up under this teaching. My Great grandfather in England was contemporary with Darby and was a part of the Plymouth Brethren movement. He and Darby were friends. And no, I am not an advocate of the pre-trib rapture teaching, nor am I a dispensationalist.
I do think of the parable of the ten virgins...it is imperative for us to be ready for what is to come, for we do not know the time nor the season.
There's the crux of the matter. The PRIME SOURCE (the impetus, the revelation) was NOT Scripture. It was a visionary experience of one person (in contradistinction to Scripture, which is a matter of General Revelation). And from there a few who sought to validate that visionary experience (for perhaps their own individual reasons) turned back to Scripture to find verses and re-interpret them in a novel way to validate the vision.
Who are the “elect”?
Hint; They are not the body of Christ.
The elect are Jews just as they were in Numbers 10:7 and Deut 30:4 and Isaiah 27:13, 45:4, 65:9,22.
Lots of people believe wrong things for a long time and it doesn’t make them right.
You can appeal all you want to circumstantial evidence and practices and traditions, but the fact of the matter is there is ZERO support from Scripture for the event and just because the Bible doesn’t say something didn’t happen, doesn’t give anyone the right to make stuff up and claim it’s true just because it isn’t specifically mentioned as not happening in Scripture.
At that point, then Mormonism has lots of stuff that they claim happened that Scripture doesn’t outright contradict. Are we obligated to take that as fact to just because they claim it?
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.