Posted on 04/10/2024 7:03:34 PM PDT by Roman_War_Criminal
See tagline. Repeat as necessary.
Rampant hypocrisy among Catholics clearly doesn’t embarrass or shame enough.
Some on this very forum have even lifted up the writings of Augustine over Scripture.
That’s just how they roll.
You should live by your own tagline then and stop propagating lies.
They are obnoxious and ignorant.
I wish you guys would make up your minds. The church doctors on this site keep saying a Christian is ALREADY JUDGED at the moment of grace, and that all one has to do to be saved is BELIEVE, and nothing else required. Done deal. Goin' to heaven. But, that's not sound biblical doctrine, now is it?
1 Peter 4:17For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? 18And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?
“Nutz and Cults”
Has he ever called you a cultist? 😁
Wasn’t that long ago we could get a job without the Internet or cell phones.
It just seems to happen in a relatively short time. I don’t remember having a choice in the matter?
So only 144,000 is literally true?
My heart breaks for Catholics,ORTHODOX Jews,Mormons and all others who don’t understand that the Bible Stands as Our
Final Key that breaks the Captive Free!
That the Blind will receive Sight.
When you ask for Wisdom and Jesus is your
Goal You are unlocking the Kingdom of God with Eternity in your Grasp!
Easy Believeism ain’t in My Book FRiend.
The Apostles strove Hard to spread GOOD NEWS and most were executed for it.
Judas ‘believed’ I guess and now his name is used to mark a traitor.
Nope. Many of your church doctor buddies, some posting on this very thread, have said that all one has to do to be saved is BELIEVE. Already judged at grace. Done deal. Goin’ to heaven.
As a Christian, is obedience required, AFTER GRACE? Obeying the gospel?
IIRC, it was from Roman Catholicism that the preterist viewpoint came to be.
——>it was from Roman Catholicism that the preterist viewpoint came to be.
As well as Futurism... denied by all FR “church doctors”.
The Catholic Origins of Futurism and Preterism
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/antichrist.htm
https://www.whitehorsemedia.com/docs/romanism_and_the_reformation.pdf
First, note the fact that Rome’s reply to the Reformation in the 16th century included an answer to the prophetic teachings of the Reformers. Through the Jesuits Ribera and Bellarmine, Rome put forth her futurist interpretation of prophecy. Ribera was a Jesuit priest of Salamanca. In 1585 he published a commentary on the Apocalypse, denying the application of the prophecies concerning antichrist to the existing Church of Rome. He was followed by Cardinal Bellarmine, a nephew of Pope Marcellus II, who was born in Tuscany in 1542, and died in Rome in 1621. Bellarmine was not only a man of great learning, but “the most powerful controversialist in defense of Popery that the Roman Church ever produced.”
Clement VIII used these remarkable words on his nomination: “We choose him, because the Church of God does not possess his equal in learning.” Bellarmine, like Ribera, advocated the futurist interpretation of prophecy. He taught that antichrist would be one particular man, that he would be a Jew, that he would be preceded by the reappearance of the literal Enoch and Elias, that he would rebuild the Jewish temple at Jerusalem, compel circumcision, abolish the Christian sacraments, abolish every other form of religion, would manifestly and avowedly deny Christ, would assume to be Christ, and would be received by the Jews as their Messiah, would pretend to be God, would make a literal image speak, would feign himself dead and rise again, and would conquer the whole world ù Christian, Mohammedan, and heathen; and all this in the space of three and a half years. He insisted that the prophecies of Daniel, Paul and John, with reference to the antichrist, had no application whatever to the Papal power.
“The Good Theif” comes to mind perhaps.
But snarky taunts coming from
Cultists is a sign of a problem.
Snarky taunt? No, a question on doctrine affecting one’s salvation.
I’m not sure.
It never fit well with Scripture so I never gave it much thought.
LOL. No, not yet. But he repeatedly calls me a liar, which is pretty much a conversation stopper. :)
But, to address your point about just believing.
It's clear you don't understand what exactly this involves. IF one is a follower of Christ, one is going to do what He says to do. It's that simple.
——>IF one is a follower of Christ, one is going to do what He says to do. It’s that simple.
One would think. However, ALL Evangelical FR church doctors state that NOT DOING what He says, after grace, will in no way affect one’s salvation. OSAS/OJAJ and NOTHING will keep you out of heaven.
“The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene Age is the prominent chiliasm, or millenarianism, that is the belief of a visible reign of Christ in glory on earth with the risen saints for a thousand years, before the general resurrection and judgment. It was indeed not the doctrine of the church embodied in any creed or form of devotion, but a widely current opinion of distinguished teachers.”
With the union of church and state under Constantine, the hope of Christ’s coming faded some. The Alexandrian school of interpretation attacked the literal hermeneutic on which premillennialism was based, and the influence of the teachings of Augustine reinterpreted the concept and time of the Millennium.
Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999), 524.
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.