Posted on 05/07/2011 9:27:55 PM PDT by tlb
May 21, "starting in the Pacific Rim at around the 6 p.m. local time hour, in each time zone, there will be a great earthquake,". The true Christian believers will be "raptured": They'll fly upward to heaven.
"and on top of all that, there's no more salvation at that point. 153 days later that the entire universe and planet Earth will be destroyed."
"I no longer think about 401(k)s and retirement," he says. "I'm just a lot less stressed, and in a way I'm more carefree."
Brown is married with several young children, and none of them shares his beliefs. It's caused a rift with his wife — but he says that, too, was predicted in the Bible.
But it appears that many became believers in 2009 after turning on Family Radio, a Christian network. Camping's predictions have inspired other groups to rally behind the May 21 date. People have quit their jobs and left their families to get the message out.
"Knowing the date of the end of the world changes all your future plans," says Adrienne Martinez.
She thought she'd go to medical school, until she began tuning in to Family Radio. She and her husband decided they wanted to spend their remaining time with their infant daughter.
"Why are we going to work for more money? "
"We budgeted everything so that, on May 21, we won't have anything left," Adrienne adds.
I've asked a dozen of Camping's followers the same question. Everyone said even entertaining the possibility that May 21 would come and go without event is an offense to God. They all hope they'll be raptured.
"If I'm here on May 22, and I wake up, I'm going to be in hell," says Brown
On the other hand, he will presumably have lots of company.
(Excerpt) Read more at npr.org ...
You’re welcome!
Yeah! I guess they were trying to follow Jesus's example:
Mathew 7:22: Many will tell me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name, in your name cast out demons, and in your name do many mighty works?’ 7:23 Then I will tell them, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.’
Likewise, no doubt those "foolish" ones who were the object of Paul's rebuke and correction (because of their dispensational beliefs also thought they were "being persecuted for righteousness sake".
Moses or Christ -The Apostle Paul's Reply To Dispensational Error
"To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you" (Gal. 2:5).
He who would understand the prophets had better begin with Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, where he will find that the Church is one in the Old Testament and New, and the New Testament Church is the fulfillment of all prophecy, the very last phase of God's redemptive work on earth.
He will discover in Galatians who the true Israel is, to whom the promises are made and that there is no other Israel, and no further fulfillment of prophecy.
"O foolish Galatians! Who hath bewitched you" (Gal. 3:1). In Paul's day men came from Judea to Galatia teaching that God had set aside neither the Jewish nation nor Jewish privilege, and unless the Gentiles became as Jews they could not be saved. They even insisted that Gentiles become circumcised as Jews. Against this Paul thundered,"I testify again to every man that is circumcised that he is a debtor to do the whole law, Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace" (Gal. 5:3-4).
In chapters 3 and 4, The first great conclusion Paul presents to the Galatians is that the only true children of Abraham, the heirs to the Abrahamic covenant, blessing and promise, are true believers, whether Jew or Gentile: "Know ye therefore that they which be of faith, the same are the children of Abraham" (Gal. 3:7).
There can be no appeal from this fundamental statement. In one sentence Paul destroys the entire dispensational, pre-millennial and post-millennial edifice.
"If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise" (v.29).
This one sentence is the death-knell of that dispensational heresy which has filled the Church with the rubbish of a dismantled legalism and aims to reimpose in an age yet to come all those temporalities and restrictions which Christ died once and for all to abolish.
"But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons" (Gal. 4:4-5).
"The fulness of the time" means the times of prophetical fulfillment of all the purposes and promises of God in redemption. That Paul should call the gospel times "the fulness of the time" means that the gospel age is the age of fulfillment of all things which God spake by His holy prophets since the world began-Luke 1:70.
These are "the last days" described by Paul in Hebrews 1:2, "the end of the world" (Heb. 9:26), "the last time" (1 John 2:18). If these are the last days and the last time, and the end of the world, how say the dispensationalists that there is a "time" after "the last time," another kingdom to come after the "kingdom of God" has run its course, another age after the gospel age?
In this "fulness of time" God's Son was sent forth, born of the virgin, born under the law, that as One obliged by His true humanity and the time at which He appeared, to keep the whole law, did so in the perfection of His mediatorial office, redeeming "those who were under the law" that they with us Gentiles might receive together that "adoption of sons" which sets us beyond the servitude of the law and introduces us to the full inheritance of the sons of God. "And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts crying Abba, Father" (v.6).
"God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me and I unto the world. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God." (Gal. 6:14-16).
This IMHO is a good definition of replacement theology.
OK, I think you misunderstand me: WE AGREE that no man will know the day or the hour; not even any Christian, so — yes — anyone going around claiming otherwise is a fraud.
We’re square on that point.
BUT, when you made that point back at Post 41, to support it you quoted I Thess. 5:1 & 2 in such a way as to suggest that the day and the hour are so un-knowable that even CHRISTIANS will be caught unaware; as when a thief comes in the night.
So, since we agree that Christians won’t be taken by surprise, and we agree that the day and hour are truly unknown, I am left to conclude that your use of those two verses wasn’t intended to address Christians, but that you just didn’t clearly state that in Post 41.
The Church will know it’s coming — The Revelation of John gives us some pretty unmistakeable milestones — we just won’t know the exact moment down to the day or hour.
Matchett-PI who I met recently is fascinating. He is amill partial preterist and very brilliant. I believe in the literal millennium. He told me about Gagdad Bob who's book I bought recently and am presently reading. It truly opened my eyes to the miracle that life truly is. Matchett-PI and I will never agree on coming end time events should this divide us?
With any luck I'll have something useful to say before 5/21. On the other hand, why should I work so hard on it? We're going to know one way or another by 5/22. I should be running up my credit card bill! (Of course, that didn't work so well with the whole Y2K thing ...)
I was telling a friend about the problem and thinking that trying to express this is like trying to explain what it is to be married to a couple who are just living together. To some extent it has to be experienced.
Also, I can only talk about MY experience, and it's not clear how helpful or relevant that is.
The main thing about a marriage is not the legal structures which support it. Neither is dogma the main thing about being Catholic. In both cases the main thing is more about relationship, disclosure, conversation, cooperation, mutual self-giving, and all the rest.
You don't need to be a hotshot theologian to be a Catholic.
What it's about is Jesus, and the Holy Trinity disclosed through Him, and encountered in many, many ways, but “in a special way” (Catholic weasel words) in the sacraments. Jesus may have vanished when he broke the bread in Emmaus, but He did not go away. The bread may be eaten, the wine drunk, but Jesus is still here.
This is a truth, and HE is the Truth, both too large for the kind of precise speech one could use for the infield fly rule (my fave example of recondite,intricate, and difficult stuff.) And it seems not too many folks get that comparatively easy thing straight.
Your vision, and that of many non-Catholics,seems like this: There is a huge body somewhere of official dogmata and a huge team — an army! — of bureaucrats who, when poked, deliver absolutely unquestionable opinions even the wording of which cannot be challenged. And when he's not busy siring bastards or diddling little boys, the Pope will sometimes rear back and unburden himself on an infallible truth.
We've KIND OF tried to address this,especially concerning papal infallibility, which turns out to be far more like a judicial than a legislative function.
So before the pronouncements, there was no problem with being on either side of the Marian dogma. (It would have been a problem if someone NOT the pope had gone around saying it's this way or that way and that's final.) So there's LOTS of diversity of opinion even among obedient and theologically schooled theologians —and lots of room for diversity.
And a lot of Catholics (and more non-Catholics?) will take this or that book which is within (even if only barely) the wide range of acceptable opinions and consider it the official statement.
You remember my Eucharistic theology challenge? IIRC the “authorities” launched against me were some Jesuit writing in the Catholic Encyclopedia or some web site,and some Sunday School teachers. These were presented as “official”.
So it's not astonishing that different opinions would be held and spoken, even by obedient Catholics.
As for disobedient Catholics, well, the Holy Office is understaffed and our ninja nuns just aren't as capable as they used to be. So we take a LONG LONG time to rear back and smack somebody down. But you will not that the current Pope just axed a couple of bishops. So there are smackdowns, sometimes.
Part of this is because we believe that people grow in holiness and wisdom and that God prefers not the death of a sinner but that he turn from his wickedness and live. So if we have, say, deacon, as we did in my former parish who is teaching an opinion on ethics specifically singled out by J2P2 for derogation, we're going to tolerate him, try to get the other opinion putout there, suggest that he revisit the relevant documents and questions.
If he starts the “Fundamental Option Quarterly” and start proclaiming this as official Catholic truth, well, he might get smacked down and his bishop make a pronouncement.
If all over the world suddenly a samizdat array of periodicals teaching this POV arose, THEN maybe the Vatican would act.
I would say “Fundamental Option” is NOT Catholic teaching because J2P2 denounced it in Veritatis Splendor. But that would be debatable because there hasn't been an infallible declaration. However, J2P2’s denunciation SHOULD control (in the legal sense.) But Catholics are ornery, so it won't, probably.
And,in the meantime, the deacon has not started his own denomination. He says he's Catholic, he thinks so, he worships weekly, and all the rest. He acknowledges the unity of the Church while he at the same time traduces it. As most Catholics do as we grow.
I hope that's not completely obfuscatory.
marbren:"This IMHO is a good definition of ___replacement___ theology."
Really?
You may have missed my earlier post:
Therefore, the Church is not separate from remnant Israel. The Church is remnant Israel.
For me remnant Israel today are Messianic Jews (a portion of the church)that believe in Our Lord Jesus Christ. I am still a Gentile in the Church. I can go to church on Sunday etc.
To me, Scriptures are like a multi-faceted diamond. What each of us sees depends on the facet we are facing. But it is the same diamond (words of God) and the same Light (God.)
If Jesus wanted us to agree on every detail He could have made it so by giving us not only the indwelling Spirit but identical minds to hear and follow Him. Or He could have chosen twelve with the same mind.
Instead He chose twelve very different men.
Peter was not like James who was not like John who was not like doubting Thomas, etc.
Each of them seemed to have a different perspective - they were facing different facets of the diamond. (Personally, I would like to have John's perspective because he was focused on the Person of Christ.)
If they were cookie cutter Christians then there would not have been a council in Jerusalem and Paul would have had no dispute to bring to their attention. And Paul and Barnabas would not have parted ways. But because they did the Gospel spread further faster (Acts 15)
So, in my view, theological differences are within God's will provided we are looking at the same diamond (words of God) and have the same Light (God.) Differences would not be acceptable among people who disagree on Who God IS or cannot hear the words of God at all.
To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. – John 10:3-5
[There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. - Romans 8:1
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. - 1 John 1:7
Thank you so much for sharing your testimony, dear brother in Christ!
I honestly really worry about some of these nutty Campy followers.
What the heck will they do on May 22nd? They have sold houses, quit jobs, etc....
Of course! And not just Mary. I think idolatry extends to worshipping one’s ideas, for example one’s idea of God. Idolatry and pride are so bound up in one another, that I think we have to pray for the grace of humility a LOT.
But I’m hoping that we can discuss what I struggled to express about diversity among Catholics. I don’t want to get into general mugging and defending denominations or groups
I Agree, How about we try to exercise Love. Love people for who and as they are and not have expectations from them. This will solve disappointment issues. Disappointment comes from unmet expectations. We are free to state our convictions on FR, if the Holy Spirit leads, even if we do not agree.
Or maybe better way is to back up whatever we say by God's Word similar to what Alamo-Girl does very well. Unfortunately, I am too lazy to do this and I have so much to say.
If the Scriptures are true, they are doomed. And they attempt to use the word "dispensation" to hide their relentless denial of Scripture, even when their own professed beliefs are repeatedly discredited and proven through Scripture to be false doctrines.
There is a time when, especially after years of giving someone the truth and having that person consistently reject that truth, that, like Jesus told us, you shake the dust off your shoes and move on. We can only do so much to try to free people of their spiritual blindness. And the real issue here, at the end of the day, is the willful, knowing, deliberate rejection of Jesus Christ.
Because no true Christian will ever deny or change or pervert any part of Scripture. It's just that simple.
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.