Posted on 01/14/2011 5:57:52 PM PST by topcat54
Evangelical book catalogs promote books such as Planet Earth: The Final Chapter, The Great Escape, and the Left Behind series. Bumper stickers warn us that the vehicle’s occupants may disappear at any moment. It is clear that there is a preoccupation with the idea of a secret rapture. Perhaps this has become more pronounced recently due to the expectation of a new millennium and the fears regarding potential Y2K problems. Perhaps psychologically people are especially receptive to the idea of an imminent, secret rapture at the present time. Additionally, many Christians are not aware that any other position relative to the second coming of Jesus Christ exists. Even in Reformed circles there are numerous people reading these books. Many of these people are unaware that this viewpoint conflicts with Scripture and Reformed Theology.
(Excerpt) Read more at reformed.org ...
>>You cannot cite passages from scripture<<
Maybe you should just do more study.
“Rapture” is an English translation of the Latin word raeptius in the Vulgate, which in turn is a translation of the Koine Greek word harpazo, found in the Greek New Testament manuscripts of 1 Thessalonians 4:17. In many modern English translations of the Bible, harpazo is translated “caught up” or “taken away.”
1 Thessalonians 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
THAT’S PARTLY WHY
I refuse to use the word Catholic or catholic
without “Roman” when referring to the Vatican edifice, structure.
They don’t happen to “own” the word regardless of a Capital or not. Their use of the word is another example of their arrogance gone to seed.
I refuse to kowtow to that use of the word.
INDEED.
I pray that they will get into the word for themselves because of some of the conversations we have here.
ABSOLUTELY INDEED. About the only reason worth bothering with their arrogant cheekiness, hubris, rubberized ‘Bible’s’, rubberized histories, etc.
Thanks.
Appreciate the input.
NO. The Navy and John Moore have NOT
bought into the global warming scam. They assert THAT is a deliberate farce of a distraction.
Nonsense.
Peter was made Christ’s Vicar on Earth (AKA Pope) when Jesus said what He said in Matthew 16:18. That is the siginificance to the RCC.
Jesus also gave Peter the keys to Heaven, something He did not give the other Apostles. This is important because the use of the word keys (and being a key-holder) represents an office, at least it refers to an office when keys are discussed in the Old Testament. If the gates of hell shall not prevail against Peter’s office then, voila, we have Papal succession right down to Benedict 16.
We have documented repeatedly that the Dispensational view(s) of THE RAPTURE go back to the early eras of the Christian Church—and most certainly many many 100’s of years before Darby.
Of course, it’s somewhat common on FR for deliberately deceptive people to continue to spew brazen falsehoods in spite of documentation to the contrary.
INDEED.
You thought the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was conceived in ignorance of the Paul’s correction Peter? A pope’s pronouncements are only infallible upon meeting highly stringent requirements. Look it up. Most popes never exercise their power of infallibility.
Not only is that wrong for anyone who understands what is needed for salvation but the disparaging word usage is indicative of a weak position.
And criticizing style is somehow evidence of strong position?
I don't care to spin this into a discussion on soteriology, but the American Religion (and I'm thinking of the Joel Osteens and the Ed Youngs of this world) couldn't deliver the Gospel if their lives depended on it, particularly since they reject the need for true repentance.
I was asked by this one sincere woman, after a long discussion on discipleship, how then do I know if a person is saved. Being that I don't have the Book of Life at my fingertips, experience has taught me that one of the primary fruits of salvation is a strong understanding of the need for salvation. I am convinced that the popular message "Jesus will make your life better" is not that sort of Gospel that will lead one into a full confrontation with their sin. If I were to put it on a bumper-sticker, I think a good litmus test is: Have you ever come to that point in your life where you say, like Job, "I am vile."?
Unfortunately, the cultural mindset and target demographic for Futurist consumer market is a vain and shallow crowd who constantly needs entertainment, affirmations of esteem and a rich diet of sensationalism. This is the swill dealt out in your local American Religion Big Box and is available 24/7 on any one of the religious channels on cable and satellite. I'm just reporting what I see, not what I want.
Everyone want to know the future. Your choices are old school Nostradamus, new age crystals, Miss Cloe or the so-called Christian equivalent Lindsey/Hagee/LaHaye hucksters. What really sells is pseudo-religious dreck that mixes geo-politics, hijacked scripture fragments with crystal ball predictions of the future. Why do you think so many people obsess about the Mayan calendar or Bible Codes?
The Gospel has long left the American Religion, and after the amateur musical and acting entertainment, the second tier self-help therapy and esteem boosting, you have to have something that MTV and Dr.Phil don't offer and you have no chance to replicate or beat - and that is the ability to gaze into the future and assuage fears of a nuclear holocaust coming your way because no matter who you vote for or how low your involvement in your community to promulgate Godly character and values, you can always rely on the rip-cord of the Rapture to pluck you out of whatever mess one has Left Behind.
You are talking about Ephraim the Syrian? According to Dave MacPherson, the Epharaem quote does not support rapture theory because it is taken out of context:
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!"
http://poweredbychrist.homestead.com/files/articles/deceiving.htm
I am in agreement with you on this brother. It is unacceptable for a single organization to "copyright" a term that encompasses an entire people. The one, true church Jesus spoke about establishing was clearly a living organism, not an organization. WE are all members of his body, the CHURCH, which is the called-out assembly of all true believers in Christ for all time. Even those before Jesus came to earth that believed God's promise of salvation are members of this body. When one specific group wants to claim proprietary use of the word "catholic church" - which simply means universal - and then boasts of its 2000 year history, we who are part of the real church can claim that we can go back to Adam and Eve because even back then God communicated his redemption plan and they were the first members!
But we do know he liked fish. ;o)
Grope Grope.
The RCC has it’s roots in the demonic - that’s a given. But didn’t realize they would be so bold as to warn their members that it didn’t matter - just lie down and accept it.
Can we conclude every Catholic has no problem serving satan if they stay w/the RCC?
Are you saying this passage supports pre-tribulation rapture? The preceding verse makes it clear that this rapture happens at the time Christ comes to judge dead:
1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
So I repeat, you have nothing of substance to support the 180-year-old pretrib rapture theory.
I do realize that there are other arguments for the later date but the Irenaeus statement leaves no wiggle room that is believable. The late date does unravel the foundation of most Preterists.
Irenaeus statement is weak and there are better - witness the ready response you got from tomcat54. The counter argument against Irenaeus is not something one waves off - the Greek there really does offer some contest to what was the subject of the verb "was seen", and one must read into it one view or the other - though the majority of evangelical scholars go with the later date.
Here is where your Dispensationalism keeps you from having a good argument - I have three fairly sound arguments for a late date based on internal evidence, but, alas, your Futurism prevents you from using them.
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.