Three Things You're Probably Getting Wrong about Praying to the Saints

My apologies to "I want the USA back" for pinging that individual to this thread again, yet I must for reason of needing to go over once again what has been said, and then -- what that has led to, for I do see that what has occurred is presently being just a bit (but a significant "bit") misrepresented.

Before the discussion had a chance to begin, a post appeared calling out the perceived Protestant-bashing in the article- which simply compared the difference in beliefs, without derision.

Not really.

What was said was an observation that the source of the article itself billed itself as "shameless popery";

“shameless popery”
No bias there, eh?

which notes the inherent bias, but did not go further, which is different than "calling out perceived Protestant bashing".

G2G included in comment or reply [to the above quoted & inset potion], in the first initial sentence;

Doesn't that tell you that it was Catholic thread for a Catholic audience?

To which I myself objected, that objection beginning with use of the word "then" to denote provisional nature of my own retort;

Then

This is an open thread, yet your own commenting "Doesn't that tell you that it was Catholic thread for a Catholic audience?" appeared to me to attempt to shut down critical observation on the one hand, while in the remainder of reply bring Roman Catholic lecture on the other.

If this is not intended for a wider audience -- then what's it doing on the pages of FreeRepublic? Like I said (and I meant) if such as this is intended for a "Catholic audience" then please take it (or yourself) elsewhere, if presenting it here (and viewing replies & comments) causes yourself grief. Provisionally speaking, of course. lol. Man up and toughen-up or risk having others point out how that is not being accomplished amidst the other seemingly overall aim of more than a few FRomans to unilaterally take over the religion forum (but get all pouty when those efforts are hugh & seriesly checked).

I did venture comment towards a specific aspect of the lecture(s) portions of your own comments, but have received nothing of actual substance in return, the conversation instead being all about; how put upon 'Catholics' are here, followed by yet more repeat of the one-sided lecturing.

Why the subsequent personal remarks toward me, beginning with the suggestion I leave forum, have been tolerated, well, I have no answer.

If half or more of a person's own cause is effort to browbeat persons here into silence while also serving up lecture -- then this is not the forum for them. That can cut both ways, of course.

I do however, have the Catholic Church's teaching on what we call The Communion of Saints

Yes, I've seen it before. And before that. And for years seen pretty much the same repeated. I, myself, as many others here are, fully well enough understand what is being said regarding 'communion of saints" prayers to those same saints, teachings of purgatory, etc. Your own last note/presentation did seem to mix and match considerations for those who are said to still be in need of prayers from the living, and those who do not(?), yet instead are prayed towards. In other words, despite how good it may have appeared before hitting the final "send" button, it was a bit sloppy, theologically speaking. Yet than again considering what it is you may be working from in way of materials, such less-than-internally consistent results could be expected.

Repeating it all yet again --- doing so while seeming to not understand the objections which I myself raised will result in there being no real communication.

If that sort of thing truly is what you are here for, to promote Roman Catholics doctrines, to in effect proselytize in that manner, then complaints about resistance to those efforts are worth about as much as a bucket of warm spit particularly when followed by repetition of the advertising --- while also seeming to ignore (or else not understand) what is being said by others in return.

Now this sort of (quoted below) thing or mindset, cannot be found but in Apocryphal writings, although later (later than beginning centuries of "the church") having become adopted somewhat widely by the Church, although it was not much at all present (save but marginally, if at all) in the first centuries of the Church;

"'because it is a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins'

That sort of theological consideration is like a bad hangover coming from the era after prophecy (as in spiritual office of prophetic witness and teaching) had all but entirely vanished among the Jews, in the few centuries or so prior to Christ having come to this earthly realm, in the flesh.

It is by the blood of Christ and by the very name of Christ that anyone can be (and will be) saved.

To express this in another way, hoping also to summarize, I'll take the last portions of the article itself -- and adjust that.

With a correct view of the state of the glorified Saints and their role in the Church, most of the arguments ~~against~~ for seeking their direct, personal or individual intercession simply dissolve.

The reason behind the provided correction(s) lay hidden in plain sight within a select, small portion of the words which you brought;

In full consciousness of this communion of the whole Mystical Body of Jesus Christ

Communion of but one "mystical" body.

Calling out some "saint" by name in praying to that one individual is akin to someone trying to get my own attention by speaking to one of my individual toes, or a thumb, asking those body parts to relay message to myself.

Meanwhile, I'm looking on (and if God, which I am not of course, but if I were -- I would be All Knowing, knowing even the very inwards intents and problems also) in wonder, perhaps saying "hey bud -- don't talk to a fingernail or submit appeal to my spleen --- I'm right here, guy".

As Paul wrote; 2 Corinthians 5

6 So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. 7 For we walk by faith, not by sight. 8 We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.

Paul is not writing there of anyone who would be with Christ could rightfully be considered to need some additional< prayers from the living (who are but sinners themselves or else lie to themselves when or if thinking themselves not) but instead is conveying a strong sense that Christ's own sacrifice is sufficient.

The sufficiency of the Lord, unto us, is the Apostle Paul's one Great Theme, if such as that were to be identified.

El Shaddai (the All Sufficient God)-- does that ring any bells? It should. It's enough that it's what the church bells ring for. It was enough for the children to not be able to be restrained from shouting "Hosanna, Hosanna in the highest heaven!".

In the 1st chapter of Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, he does speak of prayers on the part of the living for yet others who are not "absent from the [their own physical] body" but are still yet living upon earth, including mention there;

21 For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. 22 But if I live on in the flesh, this will mean fruit from my labor; yet what I shall choose I cannot tell. 23 For[c] I am hard-pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better.

The promise of Christ; John 6:44

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

I'll put it this way; when years ago asking an old baptist preacher's wife "what is the difference between [Roman] Catholics, and seemingly everyone else [of the Church]?"

Shaking her head sternly, she first replied, "oh...we don't talk about that" with myself getting the impression that going into details was avoided for more than one reason, yet all about not stirring up strife while preferring to emphasis the positives of Christ, instead.

Pressing the question once again, after a moment's pause, while holding both hands in front of herself as if she was grasping a basketball-sized object, she said, "we believe in Jesus" and while repeating the same gesture again square in front of her body "not Jesus..." then moving her hands off to one side in the same type of grasping "...plus something else".

I told you; "Comments on the forum in the here and now are not "emails".

to which you relied;

I know the difference. I’m just making certain history, at least in that respect, is not repeated.

By making unclear mix and match accusational sort of comment ...that makes it appear as one thing while it is yet another ---

You hope to do well?

How about be square with me, instead?

If I raise complaint about the way(s) you can come across, instead of continually handing me high & mighty brush-off sort of lecturing reply, do something else, and then I won't be so irritated with your "style".

One begets another.

A long while back I called you out on what appeared to me to be efforts to browbeat people here into not commenting negatively against the persistent barrage of Roman Catholic promotional propaganda this forum has long been subjected to.

Anyone (who is a member) can post articles. Any who is signed up can argue for or against.

If myself doing so while also pointing to flawed suppositions which bear upon positional statements (replying, returning comment for comment and supposition) amid all the posing and posturing a few indulge in --- is too much to bear --- then how would anyone ever think they could promote the same agendas (while acting the same way) elsewhere -- like -- in the real world, face to face?

Meanwhile, I am one (among more than a few present here at FreeRepublic) who is capable of rationally engaging in theological discussion.

As I've said several times over now --- I've not been getting anything much from yourself for the efforts other than the same declarative statements and quoting from CCC etc.

All along I've been trying to explain the (multiple) reasons for not buying into the storylines tangent to those items of discussion which are most often disputed, both on these pages and elsewhere.

Similar conversations have been going on for about 500 years now. One can track how those have changed just a little bit here and there, with RCC positions having in many ways adopted portions of the theological views held by those of Reform traditions albeit most often expressing those same, similar or parallel views in differing wording -- while also trying to keep hold of "papacy" and prayers to departed saints (and the Marionsism which is smack-dab in the middle of that) at the same time.

Believe what you will. Bring it here though, and it may face being inspected, dissected, roasted, and then --- rejected.

The religious forum has become poison on FREE REPUBLIC.

Some of you people are vermin....”christ like” my ass.

It’s really sickens to see this crap going on while ISIS is beheading, shooting, and burning “christians” alive....and they wont care of you are a catholic or a protestant.

They will put our heads on pikes side by side...then point and laugh at the silly weak infidels who were so busy arguing which head should be placed on which pike first.

Food for thought.

But religious zealots never listen to logic.

How about be square with me, instead?

Okay. I tried to be polite and to avoid this, but, Per your request, here it is:

2/2/2015 4:46:50 PM
It began with this: a personal, accusatory comment directed by you, to me, on a post made to another person. The post was mentioned; the subject unaddressed. You went straight at me. The unfounded accusation that followed, and the comment afterward, frankly, creeped me out.

Our posts continued, same thread, numbers 260; 263; 267; 274; 291; 294. Speaking of 294: since you find it necessary to criticize my literary form, please review the correct use of "who" vs. "whom" and of reflexive pronouns, such as, "yourself." It's almost as annoying as the condescending attitude you project in forum and email.

Speaking of email:
02/02/2015 3:13:42 PM PST (excerpt):
In an unsolicited email, you stated the following:
I do not believe a word that you say, although you may be, in part, or goodwill. Yet that breaks down rather rapidly, doesn’t it?
Your general tone and tenor, comes across as a well-studied “act”.

---My Reply 02/02/2015 4:08:45 PM PST sent (in full):
Blue, I’m sorry you feel that way, but I can’t change the way you think. We are faceless names on a computer server.
Those who actually know me, know I’m no liar. So does God; so do I. That’s what’s important.
God bless you!

02/02/2015 6:03:14 PM PST (excerpt):
Far too many (but not all) of your religious cohorts are not -— and are instead hypocrites TO THE MAX, yet seemingly entirely blind to their own selves, how they are, and how they come across. Yet I have witnessed yourself agreeing with more than a few of those, even as you like to make it out as if you are here for peace.

---My Reply 02/02/2015 6:30:14 PM PST sent (in full, with quote from previous email):
“From BlueDragon | 02/02/2015 3:13:42 PM PST replied I do not believe a word that you say, although you may be, in part, or goodwill. Yet that breaks down rather rapidly, doesn’t it?
Your general tone and tenor, comes across as a well-studied ‘act.’”
The above was your statement in the previous email. I simply said I cannot change what you think. God bless you!

02/02/2015 6:45:12 PM PST replied (in full):
You are too fully confusing what I wrote to you — with what I truly think.
But no, I don’t believe you very much at all — and have provided some clues as for why.
You may *think* yourself honest...yet not realize just how superficial that alleged ‘honesty’ actually is.

And thus, feeling harassed and annoyed, and frankly, fed up, I wrote the following:

---My Reply 02/02/2015 6:49:52 PM PST sent (in full):
I thank you in advance for refraining from further email to me.
God bless you!

Disregarding my request, you sent the following:

02/03/2015 2:19:31 AM PST read (in full):
Then why send me one saying that?
That’s like trying to get in the last word, while not addressing the issues at hand...
Are you actually concerned with this “one sided-ness” sort of thing which you mentioned — or not? I did not bring up the subject, as one that could be taken to a Moderator.
Yet you did, recommending to me that I should — when it was not me at all who had the complaint in the first place -— if applied to FR forum moderation.
Look to your own one-sidedness, and what is much worse, that of persons like ‘verga’ (and a significant number of other Roman Catholics) if you truly are concerned with persons being one sided.
For that sort of one-sidedness, I cannot go to a moderator, but instead must take that to the individuals who are “one sided”.
Salvation is another example of being “one-sided” — demanding of Protestants things which she does not go after her own co-religionists for failing to do, in her feeble effort to find some fault with those whom dare supply criticisms towards particular aspects of Roman Catholicism.
Open your eyes man, please.
All the playing nicey-nicey while yourself being also (at times) a polemicist yourself, is to be having things both ways.
Do one or the other. In other words...be more consistent. And then, after a while of that, I may take yourself serious.

Once again, PER YOUR REQUEST, I am being "square" with you. Your accusations; statements on how you were observing me; unsolicited and unwanted email make me hesitant to discuss anything with you. Your attitude toward my Catholicism is no surprise here.
<>
I'm a Catholic. I follow those teachings you state you have heard so often. That is what I believe. I will be quoting those when my beliefs are derided in forum. That's just the way it is. It's intrinsic to these forums that my Catholicism is hated; categorically, I, too am hated by some. That's life, and nothing or no one will change that. Reject it if you choose; I'm not here to proselytize. I am here to learn. If you or anyone else makes fun of my Faith, derides it, know I will be coming back with the same words that you say "irritate" you.

I don't like being blunt; I try to be polite, but I'm human too, and frankly, some push the envelope to far.

Whether or not you believe me, I do wish all here God's Blessings. Whether or not you believe me is immaterial. It's your issue. You asked for me to be "square," and I have done so.

God bless you!
Grateful

Per your request

I don't think you get it still.

The mixing of the references I understood well enough, yet yourself having worded things as you did would likely have come across to a casual observer as having been something yet again, even as it appeared to me to be utterly distracting from what we were otherwise talking about theologically speaking, in here and now.

It's been requested that we not make mentions of freepmails.

But I won't be complaining to a moderator.

After all the nicey nicey then the justifications (such as further exampled here) there is still yet anything approaching actual communication.

There's plenty of lecturing, but no effort of discussion.

That was one of the isssues which I had with you. Remember?

Whether or not you believe me is immaterial. It's your issue. You asked for me to be "square," and I have done so.

Now that you've gotten that off your chest,then perhaps turn towards considerations for how the rhetoric (wording) used on official levels of the RCC makes it out to be that "they" are God upon earth?

Sitting in the Temple, ~~showing~~ proclaiming themselves (himself? not really, it's a corporate thing) to be God (upon earth).

I understand how that can be viewed and accepted by RC faithful (for they are being told that that's the way it is) yet it runs danger of horribly confusing identities.

We are not Him, and He is not us, even though we may be hid in him, communing as one with Him, as is outlined in John chapter 14.

That differs from praying TO those whom are perceived to have been 'saints' requesting that they pray "for us" etc.

Yet such prayers are not limited to that, for in RCC practice these same saints must either perform miracles (but invisibly, not seen, for they are thought to be in heaven) or else have the Lord perform those same in their honor.

Contrast that with how signs and miracles are spoken of in the Scripture in Mark 16

One more thing

If you truly desire for communication to be a one-way street, or else threads on FreeRepublic be for and by 'Catholics', then caucus up.

I won't stand for anyone otherwise trying to in effect enforce some quasi-caucus like shut-down of criticisms.

That's what I first brought to your attention. It doesn't appear to me to have yet sunk in, being that not only has there been no acknowledgement of that, but instead there were things like the skipping over of the provisional "then" attached to "then just leave" (*if you don't like the way the forum operates).

"Speaking of 294: since you find it necessary to criticize my literary form..."

Huh? I'm not sure what you are talking about there, but will assume that I was speaking more of concepts and principles themselves, regardless if toying around with "literary form" while doing so.

This is the perpetual thing which is troublesome.

Yourself having become offended (that's no mind-reading on my own part) in your comments and replies to myself never seem to get past the being offended part, to then seem to grasp (and attempt to address) what else it would be that I WAS saying.

Other than merely again repeat the "story" or set of explanations --- which were the very items I was attempting to raise points of discussion concerning.

Which is among the reasons why I have spoken critically of all the nicey-nicey "God Bless you" sort of thing. It leaves me cold and less than grateful, when everything else comes across as just so much lecturing. I truly have heard it all before.

Proverbs 27:6

Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

It’s really sickens to see this crap going on while ISIS is beheading, shooting, and burning “christians” alive....and they wont care of you are a catholic or a protestant.
They will put our heads on pikes side by side...then point and laugh at the silly weak infidels who were so busy arguing which head should be placed on which pike first.
Food for thought.

Please check out this link. On Christian Unity
There are some really good people on both sides of the argument. The link above was an attempt to find a common ground- praise, thanksgiving, love of God and what He has done in our lives.

God bless you!

I thank you for you blessing....

I'm sure there are good people on both sides of the discussion....but they are the ones discussing and debating with open hearts and without ranker, without insults and without clear hatred.

There are also the vain, the prideful , those filled with hate and insults....while other Christians die at the sword of Islam without even so much as a comment from them.

By their fruit you will know them.

Much of the fruit in these threads is spoiled,has rotted, and is nothing but poison.

Free Republic is our House...

It's stands for what is good and right in America....it's stands against the evils of men and attacks on our values...it's stands so that we can share information critical to our very survival as a nation built upon Religious FREEDOM....and a house divided cannot stand.

Our Forefathers were of many denominations...and each respected the other......they set aside such things to fight for a greater good.

They didnt stand and scream "begone cultists".....they worked together to form a more perfect Union. You either believe...or you dont.....and there are still good men who do not believe as you or I do......and they will die, and have died, for our freedom.

According to some here...they now burn in hell....and I dont believe that for a second.

Thanks for the link as well, I will check it out.

Consider my post akin to toppling tables in a temple...I have simply had enough.

May God Bless you, and all of yours.

BTW...that post is now gone....LOL...some people can dish it out...but they sure cant take it.

I'll read the bulls, and dust off my encyclicals, as I know the latter will better reflect the Church's current position.

Sigh...

The UNCHANGING church triumphant!

This merely shows (to me anyway) a certain umbrage being taken.

Some of you people are vermin....”christ like” my ass.

AHHhhh... the vague 'some' is used once again.

Matthew 15:16
   "Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them.

Matthew 23

1. Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:
2. "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.
3. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.
4. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5. "Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long;
6. they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues;
7. they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them `Rabbi.'
8. "But you are not to be called `Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers.
9. And do not call anyone on earth `father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
10. Nor are you to be called `teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.
11. The greatest among you will be your servant.
12. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
13. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
14. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
15.   "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
16. "Woe to you, blind guides! You say, `If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.'
17. You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?
18. You also say, `If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.'
19. You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred?
20. Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it.
21. And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it.
22. And he who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the one who sits on it.
23. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.
24. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
25. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.
26. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
27. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean.
28. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
29. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous.
30. And you say, `If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.'
31. So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets.
32. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!
33. "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?
34. Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town.
35. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
36. I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.
37. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.
38. Look, your house is left to you desolate.
39. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, `Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.' "

Mark 7:26-27
26. The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.
27. "First let the children eat all they want," he told her, "for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

And St. Paul chimes in...

Galatians 5:12
   As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

It’s really sickens to see this crap going on while ISIS is beheading, shooting, and burning “christians” alive....and they wont care of you are a catholic or a protestant.

This 'crap' was going on LONG before ISIS was ever a gleam in Mohamed's eye.

If I recall; it was the CATHOLICS who were torturing folks even before Luther was born; right?

But religious zealots never listen to logic.

I'll listen.

What do you suggest we DO about ISIS?

OK, once more for posterity:

CHURCH MILITANT: The people of good will on earth.
CHURCH SUFFERING: The Holy Souls in Purgatory
CHURCH TRIUMPHANT: Those in Heaven with God and the angels

men such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer , on him be peace, are inspiring for he spoke out for social justice to include the Jews.

On this point, Bonhoeffer was explicit about the church’s obligations to fight political injustice. The church, he wrote, must fight evil in three stages: The first was to question state injustice and call the state to responsibility; the second was to help the victims of injustice, whether they were church members or not. Ultimately, however, the church might find itself called “not only to help the victims who have fallen under the wheel, but to fall into the spokes of the wheel itself” in order to halt the machinery of injustice.

Who stands firm? Only the one for whom the final standard is not his reason, his principles, his conscience, his freedom, his virtue, but who is ready to sacrifice all these, when in faith and sole allegiance to God he is called to obedient and responsible action: the responsible person, whose life will be nothing but an answer to God's question and call.

— Dietrich Bonhoeffer1

Protestant theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer stands out among the Christian leaders during the Nazi era, for he was one of the few to actively resist the racist actions of the Nazi regime. In addition to his legacy of courageous opposition to Nazism, Bonhoeffer's theological writings are still widely read in Christian communities throughout the world.

While plans to topple Hitler progressed only slowly, the need to evacuate more Jewish refugees became increasingly urgent. In early 1943, however, the Gestapo, which had traced Bonhoeffer and Dohnanyi's large monetary sums intended for Jewish immigrants, foiled plans for a new refugee rescue mission. Bonhoeffer and Dohnanyi were arrested in April 1943.

Initially, the Gestapo believed that Bonhoeffer and Dohnanyi were embezzling money for their own interests. Then the truth began to leak out, and Bonhoeffer was subsequently charged with conspiring to rescue Jews, using official travel for other interests, and abusing his intelligence position to keep Confessing Church pastors out of the military. But the extent of Bonhoeffer's resistance activities was not fully realized for months.

In October 1944, Bonhoeffer was moved to the Gestapo prison in Berlin. In February 1945, he was taken to the Buchenwald concentration camp, and then to the Flossenbürg concentration camp, where he was hanged on April 9, 1945. Hans von Dohnanyi was executed soonthereafter.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, of blessed memory, laid down his life for the least of Jesus' brethren.

Consider my post akin to toppling tables in a temple...I have simply had enough. May God Bless you, and all of yours.

Thank you! I, too have had enough: back to the prayer forums!

“AHHhhh... the vague ‘some’ is used once again”

Well...if you choose to self idenity that’s your choice.

*oops*

.
>> “Says who?” <<

Says the word of God!

Numerous passages in the NT make it plain that those being saved under the grace of God will be saved “in the twinkling of an eye,” or similar descriptions, and will not be subject to judgement to determine their eternal fate.

Revelation 20 is one of the best over all explanations to those willing to think.

Revelation 20:

[4] And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
[5] But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
[6] Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

.
It probably would have been easier for those unwilling to think if verses 5 and 6 had been presented in reverse order, but nevertheless, the meaning is still the same. "The rest of the dead" are obviously not a part of that first resurrection that lived and reigned with Yeshua for the 1000 years, they were not resurrected yet.

Those reigning with Yeshua for the 1000 years were obviously the first resurrection, and they were not subjected to the judgement. Blessed indeed are they! Those resurrected 1000 years later are subject to the examination of the books, and their names are not found written in the book of life, so they are subject to the "Second Death."

.

.
>> “a certain petulance.” <<

No Kidding!
.