| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 10/27/2009 12:40:43 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Childish behavior. |
Posted on 07/25/2009 2:40:04 AM PDT by Quix
The Bible says we cannot know the time of the Lord's return (Matthew 25:13). But the Scriptures make it equally clear that we can know the season of the Lord's return (1 Thessalonians 5:2-6):
"You yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night... But you brethren, are not in darkness, that the day should overtake you like a thief; for you are all sons of light and sons of day. We are not of night or darkness; so then let us not sleep as others do, but let us be alert and sober."
This passage asserts that Jesus is coming like "a thief in the night." But then it proceeds to make it clear that this will be true only for the pagan world and not for believers. His return should be no surprise to those who know Him and His Word, for they have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to give them understanding of the nature of the times.
Furthermore, the Scriptures give us signs to watch for — signs that will signal that Jesus is ready to return. The writer of the Hebrew letter referred to these signs when he proclaimed that believers should encourage one another when they see the day of judgment drawing near (Hebrews 10:25-27). Jesus also referred to the end time signs in His Olivet Discourse, given during the last week of His life (Matthew 24 and Luke 21). Speaking of a whole series of signs which He had given to His disciples, He said, "When you see all these things, recognize that He [the Son of Man — that is, Jesus] is near, right at the door" (Matthew 24:33).
A Personal Experience
Every time I think of "Signs of the Times," I am reminded of a great man of God named Elbert Peak. I had the privilege of participating with him in a Bible prophecy conference held in Orlando, Florida in the early 1990's. Mr. Peak was about 80 years old at the time.
He had been assigned the topic, "The Signs of the Times." He began his presentation by observing, "Sixty years ago when I first started preaching, you had to scratch around like a chicken to find one sign of the Lord's soon return."
He paused for a moment, and then added, "But today there are so many signs I'm no longer looking for them. Instead, I'm listening for a sound — the sound of a trumpet!"
The First Sign
One hundred years ago in 1907 there was not one single, tangible, measurable sign that indicated we were living in the season of the Lord's return. The first to appear was the Balfour Declaration which was issued by the British government on November 2, 1917.
This Declaration was prompted by the fact that during World War I the Turks sided with the Germans. Thus, when Germany lost the war, so did the Turks, and the victorious Allies decided to divide up both the German and Turkish empires.
The Turkish territories, called the Ottoman Empire, contained the ancient homeland of the Jewish people — an area the Romans had named Palestine after the last Jewish revolt in 132-135 AD.
In 1917 Palestine included all of modern day Israel and Jordan. In the scheme the Allies concocted for dividing up the German and Turkish territories, Britain was allotted Palestine, and this is what prompted the Balfour Declaration. In that document, Lord Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary, declared that it was the intention of the British government to establish in Palestine "a national home for the Jewish people."
The leading Evangelical in England at the time was F. B. Meyer. He immediately recognized the prophetic significance of the Declaration, for he was well aware that the Scriptures prophesy that the Jewish people will be regathered to their homeland in unbelief right before the return of the Messiah (Isaiah 11:11-12).
Meyer sent out a letter to the Evangelical leaders of England asking them to gather in London in December to discuss the prophetic implications of the Balfour Declaration. In that letter, he stated, "The signs of the times point toward the close of the time of the Gentiles... and the return of Jesus can be expected any moment."
Before Meyer's meeting could be convened, another momentous event occurred. On December 11, 1917 General Edmund Allenby liberated the city of Jerusalem from 400 years of Turkish rule.
There is no doubt that these events in 1917 marked the beginning of the end times because they led to the worldwide regathering of the Jewish people to their homeland and the reestablishment of their state.
Since 1917
Since the time of the Balfour Declaration, we have witnessed throughout the 20th Century the appearance of sign after sign pointing to the Lord's soon return. There are so many of these signs today, in fact, that one would have to be either biblically illiterate or spiritually blind not to realize that we are living on borrowed time.
I have personally been searching the Bible for years in an effort to identify all the signs, and it has not been an easy task to get a hold on them. That's because there are so many of them, both in the Old and New Testaments.
I have found that the best way to deal with them is to put them in categories, and in doing that, I have come up with six categories of end time signs. We will explore these catetories beginning in Part 2 of this series.
I never understood that phrase.
PETRONSKI: That part I said.
What does "Mary standing on the earth towering over the oceans and continents with electric-blue light rays blazing from her arms" symbolize?
A most common mistake made by protestants who do not understand Catholic teaching is the suggestion that the opposite of "faith alone" is "works alone," and that Catholics believe in "works alone." Not true.
The question is not faith or works, not at all. Salvation requires faith and works.
It symbolizes a stumbling block to those who denigrate the Mother of God and hate the Catholic Church.
No, Henry VIII was NOT responsible for Tyndale’s death. He was tried before a church court on the charge of heresy. In fact, oddly enough, for some time Henry VIII tried to PROTECT Tyndale - it seems Anne Boleyn was a fan of Tyndale, in spite of Tyndale’s opposition to her marriage and support for Catherine of Aragon.
Tyndale’s prosecutors were Catholic, and after the sentence of death, he was turned over to civil authorities for the actual execution - since the ever so pure church didn’t want to have blood on its hands...
“Tyndale’s three accusers were all professors and doctors of theology of the University of Louvain: the Belgian archives list them as Ruward Tapper, dean of St Peter’s Church in Louvain; Jan Doye, canon of St Peter’s; and Jacobus Latomus, also canon of St Peter’s.[2] All three were distinguished: Tapper was chancellor of the university, Doye about to be rector. The most significant, however, was Jacques Masson, Jacobus Latomus.”
“Latomus’s Three Books of Confutations against William Tyndale (Confutationum adversus Guilielmum Tindalum libri tres) were written, in some form, within six years of Tyndale’s death, a fact which might comment on Tyndale’s continued importance. They were first printed in Latomus’s Omnia Opera, published by his nephew in 1550, six years after his uncle’s death; but there they are prefaced by a letter to his friend Livinius Crucius dated 12 June 1542, in which he summarizes the position. He explains how William Tyndale, while imprisoned for the Lutheran heresy, wrote a book on this theme: that faith alone justifies before God. In this book (which would, of course, also have been in Latin): ‘he strove to take away all the merit of good works, for as the foundation and key (as he called it) of the understanding of sacred Scripture as salvation, he started from this premise: that God grants us everything freely through Christ, having meanwhile no regards to works.’”
A most ironic epithet, since we're not the one handling snakes.
And Baptists don’t believe that baptism actually means anything.
LOL
Where'd you get that whopper? Foxe?
We agree - it is despicable to attack another for asking for prayer.
That is NOT to say that Catholics don’t bash Protestants with glee, and vice-versa.
Actually, it comes from two books - Wide as the Waters and another I don’t have in hand right now to give the title.
Sorry, but Tyndale was NOT tried for opposing King Henry’s marriage. Nor was he taken to England for trial.
You are not entitled to your own facts. Tyndale was not tried in a civil court in England. And at one point during his imprisonment and trial, while Anne Boleyn was still alive and influential, England sent a messenger to support Tyndale. If you would like, I can try to dig out the messenger’s name.
The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith
Chapter 29: Baptism
29.1 Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be to the person baptised a sign of fellowship with Christ in his death and resurrection, of being grafted into him, [1] of remission of sins, [2] and of giving up oneself to God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life. [3]
1. Romans 6:3-5 Colossians 2:12 Galatians 3:27
2. Mark 1:4 Acts 22:16
3. Romans 6:4
Why are you apologizing? I never claimed that.
Nor was he taken to England for trial.
Never said that either.
You are not entitled to your own facts.
Why would I need my own facts, since you seem bent on providing my facts for me?
“The question is not faith or works, not at all. Salvation requires faith and works. “
The question is whether faith produces works acceptable to God, or if works done make us acceptable to God.
“Faith is a work of God in us, which changes us and brings us to birth anew from God (cf. John 1). It kills the old Adam, makes us completely different people in heart, mind, senses, and all our powers, and brings the Holy Spirit with it. What a living, creative, active powerful thing is faith! It is impossible that faith ever stop doing good. Faith doesn’t ask whether good works are to be done, but, before it is asked, it has done them. It is always active. Whoever doesn’t do such works is without faith; he gropes and searches about him for faith and good works but doesn’t know what faith or good works are. Even so, he chatters on with a great many words about faith and good works.
Faith is a living, unshakeable confidence in God’s grace; it is so certain, that someone would die a thousand times for it. This kind of trust in and knowledge of God’s grace makes a person joyful, confident, and happy with regard to God and all creatures. This is what the Holy Spirit does by faith. Through faith, a person will do good to everyone without coercion, willingly and happily; he will serve everyone, suffer everything for the love and praise of God, who has shown him such grace. It is as impossible to separate works from faith as burning and shining from fire.” — Martin Luther
Yet you lay blame for Tyndale’s death at King Henry VIII’s feet.
He killed enough on his own, without adding falsely to his score.
Do Baptists believe that baptism is salvific?
That is your question, your false dichotomy. I do not subscribe to your traditions of men.
***The idea that one can paint all Pentecostals (250M) with the “Oneness” or “modalist” brush (24M) is rather silly.***
Which is why I didn’t; I pointed out that not only are the Oneness Pentecostals not Trinitarian, many others are as well. Modalism is common amongst all Protestant denominations, and not just the Pentecostals. That is why I said that either a large minority or a small majority do not hold the Christian beliefs on the Trinity. Ask around and you may be surprised even amongst your peers.
***NO ONE can rightly prove the mystery of the Godhead, and while the Oneness doctrine observes a different model than the one I prefer, neither can be PROVED at all. ***
Christianity is a belief set, not knowledge. Therefore there is no PROOF. There is the definition of Christianity set by the Church. If you deviate from that, it is by definition, non Christian.
***Theirs does not subtract divinity from any of the Three, nor does it intend to disparage Christ as a “made creature”. It is simply a different formula, or explanation, for how the Three exist as One, and have done so since the beginning of all things. ***
The individual does not have the authority to do so and still call it Christian.
***The problem lies in anyone having made declarations in the first place. WE DON’T KNOW. We think we know, but it is a mystery of God. To say otherwise breeds confusion.***
No, to not define Christianity is what breeds confusion.
***I would admit no such thing. My walk with Pentecostals/Charismatics has found them all to be WELL educated, well versed in doctrine, and tending toward traditions***
That is the opposite of both my experience and the testimonials of many Pentecostals. It has been explained to me thusly: the Holy Spirit comes upon one and leads one down the individual road and the Pentecostal will go this way or that depending upon how they perceive the Holy Spirit leading them.
***I have found that to be the case in all denominations, including your own.***
Catholicism is not a denomination. It is Christianity; everything else is a man made copy or imitation. And the Catechism of the Church is very explicit. There is no deviation permitted in the doctrine of the Faith.
***I think the general tenor of those outside of the movement is to see snake-handlers, poison-drinkers, tambourines, hillbilly-rock music, and preachers dressed like Elvis... If that is what one expects, that is what one will find.***
That is not my experience. I have not encountered preachers dressed like Elvis.
***But the vast majority are quiet, well-mannered, simple services... It is the Spirit Who comes down to rock da’ house... And if one has never experienced such a thing, either in a congregation, or personally, then one should not throw stones. There is NO WAY one could know what one is missing.***
Well, which is it? Quiet? Or rock da’ house? I have been to a handful of Pentecostal services which got quite out of hand and were less worship than mob emotion.
Identify this court more specifically.
Because that is who killed him.
From Catholic Answers:
“..And we must remember that this was not merely a translation of Scripture. His text included a prologue and notes that were so full of contempt for the Catholic Church and the clergy that no one could mistake his obvious agenda and prejudice. Did the Catholic Church condemn this version of the Bible? Of course it did.
The secular authorities condemned it as well. Anglicans are among the many today who laud Tyndale as the “father of the English Bible.” But it was their own founder, King Henry VIII, who in 1531 declared that “the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people.”
So troublesome did Tyndale’s Bible prove to be that in 1543—after his break with Rome—Henry again decreed that “all manner of books of the Old and New Testament in English, being of the crafty, false, and untrue translation of Tyndale . . . shall be clearly and utterly abolished, extinguished, and forbidden to be kept or used in this realm.”
Ultimately, it was the secular authorities that proved to be the end for Tyndale. He was arrested and tried (and sentenced to die) in the court of the Holy Roman Emperor in 1536. His translation of the Bible was heretical because it contained heretical ideas—not because the act of translation was heretical in and of itself. In fact, the Catholic Church would produce a translation of the Bible into English a few years later (The Douay-Reims version, whose New Testament was released in 1582 and whose Old Testament was released in 1609).
When discussing the history of Biblical translations, it is very common for people to toss around names like Tyndale and Wycliff. But the full story is seldom given. This present case of a gender-inclusive edition of the Bible is a wonderful opportunity for Fundamentalists to reflect and realize that the reason they don’t approve of this new translation is the same reason that the Catholic Church did not approve of Tyndale’s or Wycliff’s. These are corrupt translations, made with an agenda, and not accurate renderings of sacred Scripture.
And here at least Fundamentalists and Catholics are in ready agreement: Don’t mess with the Word of God.”
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0212fea3.asp
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.