Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
Amen. Worth remembering.
That's OK. You have a warehouse full of "civility offsets" in your name. :)
The promise to Abraham was that his heir was to inherit the entire world.
No its not because you just run to the same scriptures and ignore context and other scriptures.
You do what any Cult member would do to defend their position.
I don't have the desire to repeat the same stuff over and over. All you are doing is twisting Scripture to suit your purposes. James is not talking about eternal salvation? What else is he talking about? Physical salvation???
He is talking about a Christian not suffering the sin unto death by not bearing fruit.
Why is Rehab mentioned in the passage?
She and her family were saved physically by her faith and actions.
Had she only faith, and did not act, she and her family would have died physically with the rest of the city.
Friend, EVERYONE is going to physically die, even one with faith...
Not everyone dies before their time (Acts 5:5) and a Christian that does not act on his faith and produce fruit suffers the sin unto death (1Jn.5:16).
Paul states that one can suffer that same death if one takes the Lord's supper without due respect (1Cor.11:29-30).
Christ stated that those who did not bear fruit the Father 'taketh away' (Jn.15:2)
Now, since you cannot deal with these clear scriptures, you just have to repeat your James 2 mantra over and over again 'faith without works is dead, faith without works is dead' like any other bible rejecting cultist.
Jesus talks about Sola Scriptura? LOL!!! WHICH verse does he say that?
And which verse does He ever use any other source but scripture?
Does He cite any ancient authority to back up His words, like the Pharisse's did?
No.
Never did He ever state that anything was needed to be known except scripture, including paying any special respect to Mary for nuturing Him!
Paul is speaking in the historical present??? What are you talking about? Forget it. Don't bother.
Don't tell me you never heard of the 'historical present'?
LOL!
Historical present so common in Mark's vivid narrative. http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/RobertsonsWordPictures/rwp.cgi?book=mr&chapter=3&verse=13&word=historical%20present
I leave you to your fantasies. I do not see the point in continuing.
Ofcourse not.
Once a Roman Catholic has to deal with scripture he is done. Regards
Ah, the real Catholic finally comes out!
Regards!
You clearly do not understand the difference between guilt by association and historical relevance.
Darby is by all accounts the father of the modern system known as dispensationalism. One of the hallmarks of dispensationalism is the pre-tribulation rapture. Darby claims to have invented that doctrine after realizing the radial distinction between Israel and the Church. The pre-trib doctrine was absolutely unknown with the Church prior to 1830. (Tommy Ice has been desperately seeking a Christian pre-tribber prior to Darby for years.) Further, the historical relationship between Darby and the group which included Margaret MacDonald is well known.
There has never been any relationship established between the so-called “Jesuit-Romanist” theory of one person and preterism. That is pure guilt by associaiton.
As I just posted above, the promise to Abraham was that one day his heir would inherit the entire world (Rom 4:13). It wasn't about physical boarders or boundaries. It wasn't the physical land God was talking about but the spiritual land.
Divorcing myself from all the pre-, post-, amil- views which I can't keep straight; in my mind the issue is really over what it means that Christ will conquer, reign, and return (primarily return). There are only two possible views; 1) society is improving under Christ's reign until one day, the vast majority of the world are Christians, Jews accept Christ (along with everyone else) and Christ returns, or 2) or Christ's reign is limited to His people and society is devolving until few Christians will be left and Christ returns. (Some feel He has physically returned but we'll leave that one alone. I don't believe it.)
Our friend topcat, if I'm not mistaken, believes in the first position. There are legitimate arguments to be made for position #1. Society is not nearly as bad off as it was in the dark ages and the message is preached around the globe. Whatever blips we see in our life time are just that, blips on a very small screen. We can't see the big picture. While we may be discouraged, we don't know that God may not raise up someone in 50 years who will cause a great revival and turn people's hearts to Him. The times we live in that seems disheartening may be simply setting the stage for a mighty work of God that we are unable to foresee. There is LOTS of biblical support for this argument and we are commanded not to be discouraged for He has overcome the world. God is on His throne. I have a tremendous amount of respect for topcat and this view.
Position 2 would say the world is devolving into chaos and ruin. Things will continue to devolve until Christ returns. This, personally, is my view but I don't hold a dispensationalist view. There is SOME biblical and (mostly) historical evidence for this position but I find it to be the most pragmatic. I believe God is calling out His people and we are walking in a wilderness that He has created so that we learn and grow until called home. Someday, the last Christian will be called and that will be that.
How this devolution of position #2 works itself out I'm not sure but any formulation of eschatology opinion must be tempered with and measured against other established doctrine clearly recorded in scripture. We have a High Priest who intercedes for us after the order of Melchisedec-not Levite. The Levitical priesthood was always corrupt going back to Aaron who built the golden calf that led Israel to sin (and then lied about it). Establishment of some temple to do sacrificial rites is not now and will never be pleasing to God. The sacrifice has been made and God made it for us. We don't rest on works but on faith and His promises that He will do what He has promised.
The well respected scholar, Dr. Robert H. Gundry, chairman of the Department of Religious studies at Westmont College and author of seminary textbooks and books on eschatology, has recently authored a book entitled, First the Antichrist. On pages 161-188, he gives several quotes from the real Ephraem of Syria which show that Ephraem believed the resurrection and translation of believers would occur after the tribulation. So, this alleged pre-trib statement, if it is indeed such, would directly contradict statements known to be genuinely from Ephraem of Syria who lived in the fourth century. (For further information regarding this aspect, see Dr. Gundry's book, First the Antichrist). Therefore, we should conclude that either the Pseudo-Ephraem sermon is not genuinly Ephraem's, or Pseudo-Ephraem did not mean to imply a pre-trib rapture, or both! …Thus far, it appears that the author was not expecting a pre-trib rapture. He saw some of the signs Jesus gave in Matthew 24, hunger, plagues, violence among the nations, as already current and fulfilled. What he saw as "imminent" or "overhanging" was ONLY the arrival of the Antichrist, which Jesus spoke of in verse 15. Pseudo-Ephraem spoke as though Christians should expect the Antichrist's appearance at any time. "[T]here is not other which remains, except the advent of the wicked one..." This seems to rule out a pre-trib rapture. Had he taught a pre-trib rapture, one would expect that this would be "imminent" for the believers rather than the appearance of Antichrist. He then encouraged believers to reject their earthly cares and prepare themselves so that "he may draw us from the confusion, which overwhelms all the world." Some might suppose that this means a rapture to heaven. However, later we will see that Pseudo-Ephraem believed Christians would be sustained in remote locations on earth while the rest of the world reeled under the tribulation. So, with this thought in mind, our forsaking worldly cares, and making preparation to be "drawn" away from the confusion to remote places where Christ will sustain us, is a logical inferrence from the above statement. Pseudo-Ephraem continues; …
True to his text, Pseudo-Ephraem alluded to the angels gathering the elect "immediately after the tribulation" [Matt. 24:29-31], and also seems to place this at the "empire of the Lord" (or Millennial Kingdom of God). He seems to be tying in the parable of the wheat and tares in Matthew 13, where the reapers (the angels) harvest the wheat immediately before the Kingdom of God, and after the tribulation, according to Matt. 24:29-31.
In section IV, while describing the horrors of the tribulation, our author made the following interesting statement; "In those days people shall not be buried, neither Christian, nor heretic, neither Jew, nor pagan, because of fear and dread there is not one who buries them; because all people, while they are fleeing, ignore them." Apparently, he believed Christians would still be present in the tribulation, perhaps not all prepared themselves, as he exhorted earlier, and so would not be taken to the Lord for protection in remote places. In the following quote, we see clearly that Psuedo-Ephraem believed Christians would be preserved in remote places even while the rest of the world starved and went without water. …
It seems that Jeffrey and Ice not only have misrepresented Pseudo-Ephraem's sermon, but they also misrepresented the Byzantine scholar, Paul Alexander! Yes, Alexander did make a note of the fact that Pseudo-Ephraem seems to emphasize being "taken to the Lord' i.e., participate at least in some measure in beatitude". But, Ice and Jeffrey are forcing a pre-trib rapture into this statement and assuming that 'taken to the Lord' means a pre-trib rapture. That is simply not so! Alexander saw Pseudo-Ephraem as a post-tribulationist! He was NOT making a distinction between other post-trib writers and a pre-trib Pseudo-Ephraem, as Jeffrey and Ice would have you believe! Rather, Paul Alexander distinguished between two different forms of preservation of believers through the tribulation until the second coming after the tribulation. Other Byzantine writers saw the elect suffering, and being preserved in the tribulation via. the shortening of the days. But, Pseudo-Ephraem spoke of "some measure of beatitude", (that is, being 'taken to the Lord' and sustained in remote places on earth). A few pages after the quote provided above by Thomas Ice, Paul Alexander laid out his understanding of the sequence of events in Pseudo-Ephraem's sermon, and he did NOT include a pre-trib rapture! Here is Alexander's commentary on the sequence of events in Pseudo-Ephraem's eschatology.
But now it's time to analyze Pseudo-Ephraem (hereafter: P-E), the name attached by scholars to manuscripts that were possibly, but not provably, written by the well-known Ephraim the Syrian who lived from 306-373 A.D.
And what's the discovery in P-E's early Medieval sermon on the end of the world that's led pretrib promoters to see pretrib in it? It's basically these words:
"For all the saints and elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins." A pretrib rapture is seen by promoters in the phrase "taken to the Lord."It needs to be emphasized that pretrib in P-E has been palmed off on unsuspecting Christians by promoters seeing rapture aspects in P-E's sermon where none exist and by covering up such aspects where they do exist in his 10-section sermon!In Section 2, P-E says that the only event that's "imminent" is "the advent of the wicked one" (that is, Antichrist). Nevertheless, Grant Jeffrey in his 1995 book, FINAL WARNING, had the audacity to claim that P-E "began with the Rapture using the word 'imminent'" and added in the next sentence that "Ephraem used the word 'imminent' to describe the Rapture." (If he and other P-E promoters can look at a coming of Antichrist and see a coming of "Christ," is it any wonder that in his endtime view folks will look at Antichrist and see "Christ"?
Ephraim the Syrian, reportedly P-E's inspiration, said the same thing (SERMO ASCETICUS, I): "Nothing remains then, except that the coming of our enemy, Antichrist, appear...." (Nobody's ever found even a trace of pretrib in this earlier work!)
In the before-the-tribulation sections, P-E mentions neither a descent of Christ, nor a shout, nor an angelic voice, nor a trumpet of God, nor a resurrection, nor the dead in Christ, nor a rapture, nor meeting Christ.
So where does P-E place the rapture? The answer is found in his last section (10) where he writes that after "the sign of the Son of Man" when "the Lord shall appear with great power," the "angelic trumpet precedes him, which shall sound and declare: Arise, O sleeping ones, arise, meet Christ, because the hour of judgment has come!" (Like Morgan Edwards and Manuel Lacunza, Pseudo-Ephraem has the nasty, non-pretrib habit of blending the rapture with the final advent!) …
Dr. Paul Alexander, the leading authority whose book inspired the P-E claim, is portrayed in Jeffrey's book, FINAL WARNING, as "perhaps the most authoritative scholar on the writings of the early Byzantine Church." But this misleading statement, designed to make readers think that Professor Alexander supports the P-E claim, covers up the fact that this world famous scholar sees not even a smidgen of pretrib in the same Medieval writer!
In fact, Alexander writes that the phrase "taken to the Lord" (which has become a bonanza for pretrib history revisionists) means "participate at least in some measure in beatitude." While Jeffrey and Ice do include this "beatitude" phrase, all P-E promoters carefully avoid revealing that the Catholic doctrine of "beatitude," according to the NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, has to do with "the highest acts of virtue that can be performed in this life" - works on earth and not being raptured off earth! (Elsewhere in his sermon P-E repeats the importance of doing "penance," because of "our sins," so that church members will be "sustained" during the tribulation!)
In fact (again), Alexander has two summaries (textual and outline), in chronological order, of P-E's endtime events. And guess what. Alexander demonstrates both times that P-E saw only one future coming ("Second Coming of Christ" for the "punishment of the Antichrist") which follows (!) the great tribulation ("tribulatio magna lasting three and a half years") - claim-smashing summaries that self-serving promoters, with malice aforethought, have jointly swept under their "secret rapture" rug!
How could I have found Scripture to support your contention if your contention is wrong? Surely if you were correct you could have provided all the Scripture you needed. But the fact is it's not there.
The fact is that God hates all men who are in rebellion against Him, as the Scripture which I quoted plainly teaches. But He also loves His elect in Jesus Christ. “Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated.” His electing love is unexplainable other than it brings glory to Him.
Some sentimental nonsense about God loving all men is not biblical.
OF COURSE. Well put.
. . . though in terms of anthromophizing . . .
God kind of did that A BIT, to begin with, when He made us in His image—whatever that means.
But certainly there are an infinite number of areas and aspects where the anthromorphizing just doesn’t apply.
It’s pleasant to consider that a thread in FR about the advent of our Savior ;-) lasts longer than one about the unfortunate demise of Anna Nicole Smith. :-(
= = =
EXCELLENT POINT! AND PRAISE GOD FOR THAT!
INDEED!
See, we can agree on some things! :)
INDEED!
. . . which . . . IS OBVIOUSLY a loud, clear bell sign that . . .
we ARE in the END TIMES AND
JESUS IS COMING AGAIN! :)
Well the Jesuit Alcasar was the founder of the school of preterism. That is a well known fact of history. And if you're going to hang around the school of preterism, you will be associating with its founder and his followers.
Rather than feeling guilty about it, maybe you should just proudly embrace your heritage and acknowledge the debt you owe to your founding father.
THX.
The WHOLE counsel of God in the WHOLE of Scripture is true, and perfect.
Insisting on only one end of a seeming continuum or some such . . . is flawed.
Is this the same Gundry that got expelled from the Evangelical Theological Society back in the early 80s for his redaction commentary on Matthew?
The promise to Abraham was that his heir was to inherit the entire world.
Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
This was fulfilled.
NO, in most of the terms we'd consider as evidence of fulfillment in our sphere of existence--no. NOT YET!
YES, Christ took legal title deed again at The Cross/Cresurrection/going to The Father after seeing the gals at the tomb.
But taking overt possession as in overtly ruling and reigning over all conquered forces; having locked satan and his forces up; etc. in THIS SPHERE OF EXISTENCE--HAS NOT YET HAPPENED. But is clearly afoot as the Bible prophecies related to such are being fulfilled at a faster and faster clip.
Toooooo sadly true, for some individuals.
I am not going to speculate, Q. I am happy just singing praise to God on Sundays, and be perfectly at peace by saying "Thy will be done."
Fascinating.
However, it just doesn’t wash. Even when reading it—first flush—just doesn’t wash, with me.
I don’t buy into the inferences postulated at all.
Seems like a lot of convoluted rationalizations to avoid plain Scripture, to me.
But, hey, I understand folks have to go to great lengths to justify their constructions on reality. Sometimes, we all do.
Some sentimental nonsense about God loving all men is not biblical.
= = =
Maybe I’ll bother to look such up by and by.
But I can believe that the Calvinist perspective would have a big investment in focusing on those Scriptures mentioning God’s hatred of some humans.
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.