The Not So Secret Rapture

reformed.org ^ | W. Fred Rice

[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.

[Cronos]

Jesus died on the cross to save us all from sin and the eternal separation from God that sin causes

the promise of eternal life is a gift, freely offered to us by God.

Like ours, his human nature is destined for eternal life; but unlike ours, it is perfectly exempt from sin, the cause of death Rom 5:12

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned

; ⇒ Heb 4:15.

15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.

The beatitude of eternal life is a gratuitous gift of God. It is supernatural, as is the grace that leads us there. 2 Pet 1:4; cf.

4 Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

⇒ Jn 17:3.

3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Although it is God’s grace that enables us, for these acts of ours, God tells us Rom. 2:6–7

6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

Gal. 6:6–10

6 Nevertheless, the one who receives instruction in the word should share all good things with their instructor.
7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.
8 Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
9 Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.
10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers

Remember clearly at the end of John 6, when Christ asks his disciples if they too will leave Him, when He told them they would need to eat His Body and drink His blood, then Peter said

"Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life."

Jesus alone holds the words of eternal life because He is the Word of God (the bible is the written word, but the LIVING Word is Jesus Christ)

[Cronos]

reading is not the problem

Oh, it's something more serious than that? It's just as we suspected.

[presently no screen name]

You read the post. There is nothing to suspect - it’s something to understand. It’s to your advantage to leave twisting out of it - others read and understand.

Or is going to be another ‘Thomas’ fabrication that you pull out of your hat when needed? Nothing new under the sun, nothing slick about bitterness.

[Cronos]

From the Lutheran LCMS website

All three accounts of the institution of the Lord's Supper in the Gospels (Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-23) explicitly state that Jesus took BREAD, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to his disciples saying, "Take, eat; this [i.e., this BREAD, which I have just blessed and broken and am now giving to you] is my body." Jesus uses similar language in referring to "the cup" (of wine) as "his blood."...

Perhaps the most explicit expression of this truth, however, is found in 1 Cor. 10:16-17, where Paul writes: "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread." Paul clearly says here that we all "partake" of "BREAD" when we receive the Lord's Supper--even as we also partake of and "participate in" the true body of Christ. And he says that we all "partake" of the wine (the cup), even as we also partake of the true blood of Christ. Similarly, in 1 Cor. 11:26, Paul says: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." Paul expressly states here that when we receive the Lord's Supper we are "eating bread" and "drinking the cup" (wine), but he goes on to say that those who eat this bread and drink this cup are also partaking of the true body and blood of Christ.

So "real" is this participation in Christ's body and blood, in fact, that (according to Paul) those who partake of the bread and wine "in an unworthy manner" are actually guilty of "profaning the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:27). (Partaking of the Lord's Supper "in a worthy manner," of course, is not something that we "do" or "accomplish" on the basis of our "personal holiness" or "good works." It means receiving God's free and gracious gifts of life and forgiveness offered in the Lord's Supper in true repentance produced by the work of the Spirit through God's Law and in true faith in Christ and his promises produced by God's Spirit through the Gospel).

[Cronos]

As Martin Luther said

Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture?

Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies?

What language in the world ever spoke so?

It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

[Cronos]

Pagans never understand the meaning of the Eucharist.

Theophilus of Antioch "For though yourself prudent, you endure fools gladly. Otherwise you would not have been moved by senseless men to yield yourself to empty words and to give credit to the prevalent rumor wherewith godless lips falsely accuse us, who are worshipers of God and are called Christians, . . . that we eat human flesh."

This was in response to pagans who doubted what Christians celebrated in the Eucharist

Ignatius of Antioch in his Letters to the Smyrnaeans stated that Docetists, a group of heretics who denied the Incarnation, refused to receive the Eucharist because they failed to recognize it as the body of Christ.

Ignatius says: "These people abstain from the Eucharist as well as from prayer because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again from the dead" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 6:2)

[Cronos]

Paul only confirms what Jesus said

1 Corinthians 10:16–17 points to the Real Presence: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread."

;Isn't the cup of blessing that we bless a participation in the blood of Christ? Isn't the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

Paul explicitly confirms this: "You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons" (10:21)

[Cronos]

from the cccAs early as the second century we have the witness of St. Justin Martyr for the basic lines of the order of the Eucharistic celebration. They have stayed the same until our own day for all the great liturgical families. St. Justin wrote to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161) around the year 155, explaining what Christians did:

On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place.
The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.
When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things.
Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.
When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.
Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren.
He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts.
When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: 'Amen.'
When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the "eucharisted" bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent.¹⁶⁹

[Cronos]

Say, and do you now believe that St. Thomas and the Apostles are blessed?

Have your masters/elders/prophets allowed you to change the statement?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Thank you for your intelligent, accurate appraisal of Luther's POV regarding predestination and election.

You'd make a good Calvinist, assuming you come to agree with your appraisal.

There's time. 8~)

"I frankly confess that, for myself, even if it could be, I should not want 'free-will' to be given me, nor anything to be left in my own hands to enable me to endeavour after salvation; not merely because in face of so many dangers, and adversities, and assaults of devils, I could not stand my ground and hold fast my 'free-will' (for one devil is stronger than all men, and on these terms no man could be saved) ; but because, even were there no dangers, adversities, or devils, I should still be forced to labour with no guarantee of success, and to beat my fists at the air. If I lived and worked to all eternity, my conscience would never reach comfortable certainty as to how much it must do to satisfy God, Whatever work I had done, there would still be a nagging doubt' as to whether it pleased God, or whether He required something more. The experience of all who seek righteousness by works proves that; and I learned it well enough myself over a period of many years, to my own great hurt. But now that God has taken my salvation out of the control of my own will, and put it under the control of His, and promised to save me, not according to my working or running, but according to His own grace and mercy, I have the comfort¬able certainty that He is faithful and will not lie to me, and that He is also great and powerful, so that no devils or opposition can break Him or pluck me from Him. `No one,´ He says, `shall pluck them out of my hand, because my Father which gave them me is greater than all´ (John 10.28-29). Thus it is that, if not all, yet some, indeed many, are saved; whereas, by the power of ´free-will´ none at all could be saved, but every one of us would perish.

"Furthermore, I have the comfortable certainty that I please God, not by reason of the merit of my works, but by reason of His merciful favour promised to me; so that, if I work too little, or badly, He does not impute it to me, but with fatherly compassion pardons me and makes me better. This is the glorying of all the saints in their God." -- Martin Luther, "Bondage of the Will" -- (xviii) Of the comfort of knowing that salvation does not depend on free-will' (783)

If salvation depended on man's free will agree to be saved, then man would have the last word regarding who becomes an adopted son of God. And Scripture doesn't support this. The unmerited mercy of God who declared the end from the beginning is the sole reason men are saved.

"The reason for compassion is compassion itself." - Calvin

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The context of Jesus’ statements concerning the eating of His flesh and drinking His blood was the feeding of the 5,000 around Passover time. The crowd is looking for more bread (John 6:26, “Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled”) and Jesus directs their attention to the manna that the Children of Israel ate during the exodus right after the first Passover.

Jews identified manna with the Law (Torah) (Ex. 16:4, “Then said the LORD unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no”) and the need to daily eat it and drink it in (Sirach 24:20-24, “He who eats of me will hunger still, he who drinks of me will thirst for more; he who obeys me will not be put to shame, he who serves me will never fail.’ All this is true of the book of Most High’s covenant, the law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the community of Jacob”). Jesus says He is greater than the Law (Torah) (John 6:35, “And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.”)

Jesus is explaining to the Jews that believing on Him was eating and drinking (John 6:29, “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.”) just like they do with the Law (eating and drinking).

AMEN.

"I will feed my flock, and I will cause them to lie down, saith the Lord GOD." -- Ezekiel 34:15

---

"...lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." -- Matthew 28:20

[presently no screen name]

STOP, OK! I corrected your twisting of what I said WAY BACK months ago and you CONTINUE it anyway. No matter how much you twist posts, you will never make the RCC credible. In fact, it shows what the RCC produces - Garbage in, garbage out.

Answering to men in dresses and party hats while sitting on a 3-legged stool doesn’t appear to be an asset - as any one reading here can see.

My Savior sits at the right Hand of The Father! Good night!

[Cronos]

Actually, your group has no credibility -- after all it believes that the apostles were not blessed.

and your group denies Christ's words even when Paul says

1 Corinthians 10:16–17 points to the Real Presence: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread."

you were supposedly ex-Catholic, the second part of the phrase is "Garbage out"

Answering to fake prophets, elders and gurus while sitting cross-legged on a yoga mat can be pretty stupid.

May you learn to accept Christ's words as truth

[HossB86]

Still waiting on your proofs for indulgences and “purgatory.”

If you can’t do that (which, if you could, I would think you would have done so readily), it’s obvious that you can’t do anything without twisting scripture; there’s no need to refute a lie!

Besides, you never answered me when I asked you what you’ve had to eat recently. Christ said you’d never again hunger.

When was your last meal?? Hmmmmm???

Maybe, just maybe, Christ was saying we would spiritually be filled. You know — metaphorically.

Try something new or answer the questions posed to you earlier. If you can’t exegetically show your claims about purgatory then there’s no need for me to waste my time dealing with you. Only The Lord can soften your heart of stone and open your blinded eyes.

Hoss

[HossB86]

Well, let’s see:

One obvious fact is that Christ was not cannibalized. Pretty obvious to me. If his words were so literal, why didn’t all who heard him attack and literally devour him? I would think the desire for everlasting life would be pretty motivating.

But wait; that’s twisting things isn’t it?

Duh. Kinda obvious.

Well, unless the men in dresses and party bats need to twist and warp something to fit a man-made tradition.

Sheesh.

What have you eaten recently?

Hoss

[xzins]

I also believe in the Real Presence, albeit the greater Reality is Spiritual. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in Spirit and in Truth.

Some, not understanding what they know from scripture, misunderstand “spirtual” to be the equivalent of “symbolic.” The truly sad thing about that is their total lack of understanding regarding the spiritual.

Jesus said, “My words are Spirit, and they are life.”

Foolish humans think that reality is only this realm in which we reside.

[Iscool]

Remember clearly at the end of John 6, when Christ asks his disciples if they too will leave Him, when He told them they would need to eat His Body and drink His blood, then Peter said

"Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life."

Peter did NOT say, 'you have the flesh of eternal life'...He said you have the words...

Jesus explained it...

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; (not the flesh)
the flesh profiteth nothing:
the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Joh 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

These peoople didn't reject Jesus because he told them to eat his flesh...They didn't believe he was the Christ from the beginning...That's why Jesus did not call them back and tell them he was talking in a parable...Jesus knew it wouldn't have made a lick of difference...

Joh 6:41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
Joh 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

Joh 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Joh 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

Joh 6:69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

[aruanan]

This is condemning the falseness of the Calvinist legalistic mind.

Maybe not so much false, except in application, as hopelessly limited. There is no map or model that is as complex or complete as the thing it is attempting to represent. A systematic Christian theology is an attempt, using reason, experience, and a scriptural data set, to model both God and his relationship to the creation. It will necessarily be limited and, to the degree that the theologian attempts to make it universally or exhaustively applicable or predictive or descriptive beyond that allowable by the boundary conditions, mentioned above, increasingly more inaccurate.

The systematic theologian may, on the basis of his own insight or through ideas he has acquired consciously and unconsciously from his own culture or through ideas he has adopted through his study of other writers from other times and places, attempt to posit a relationship between what are taken by him and others in his current milieu to be commonly accepted truths in scripture. And even if he could be sure that his characterization of these truths are, in an originalist sense, completely accurate, it doesn't follow that the relationships he posits to exist between them are necessarily accurate or that they even exist. There are theological correlates to the phlogiston theory of combustion.

You don’t have to go any farther than daily life and human history (or the threads of FR) to see how quickly and easily it is to go so wrong by acting upon what one believes is true that was derived by reasoning from faulty or limited information. This is no less true in theology, but probably a whole lot more deadly.

[HossB86]

Fail. That’s not exegesis.

Try again.

Hoss

[HossB86]

I don’t recall where metmom denied Christ’s divinity—instead of haranguing please show the post where she said Christ is only a man; otherwise we’re to assume you are attacking a straw man.

Which you do very well, by the way, but I digress.

Post? Quote? And keep in mind, I’m asking for the post where metmom denies this; not your interpretation of something.

Hoss