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 ...
Amen and well put. Simple truth.
Hoss
Here. This is for cronos to help him in his search....
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:metmom/index?tab=comments;brevity=full;options=no-change
"I think these paragraphs from The Bondage of the Will indicate that at the time he wrote this work he did."Because it isn't explicit in Scripture.
"There is a much shorter distance from these [quotes from The Bondage of the Will] to the concept of double predestination than there is from any scripture anywhere in the Bible to either single predestination to salvation or double predestination to salvation and to damnation."
Faith in Christ justifies.
IMHO the Lutheran view of justification is close (but not exactly of course) to the Catholic point of view.
Close as a relative term, there is a huge gulf unfortunately between the Catholic and Lutheran understanding over this. Part of the problem are the extras Catholicism ladles on the process apart from the clear Scriptural proclamation.
that one can lose one's salvation
A. The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod believes and teaches that it is possible for a true believer to fall from faith, as Scripture itself soberly and repeatedly warns us (1 Cor. 10:12; 1 Pet. 5:8; 2 Pet. 3:17; Heb. 2:1-3; 3:12-19; 6:4-8, etc.). Such warnings are intended for Christians who appear to be lacking a right understanding of the seriousness of their sin and of God's judgment against sin, and who, therefore, are in danger of developing a false and proud "security" based not on God's grace, but on their own works, self-righteousness, or freedom to "do as they please."
By the same token, the LCMS affirms and treasures all of the wonderful passages in Scripture in which God promises that He will never forsake those who trust in Christ Jesus alone for salvation (John 10:27-29; Romans 8; Heb. 13: 5-6, etc.). To those who are truly repentant and recognize their need for God's grace and forgiveness, such passages are powerful reminders of the true security that is ours through sincere and humble faith in Christ alone for our salvation.
A person may be restored to faith in the same way he or she came to faith in the first place: by repenting of his or her sin and unbelief and trusting completely in the life, death and resurrection of Christ alone for forgiveness and salvation.
Whenever a person does repent and believe, this always takes place by the grace of God alone and by the power of the Holy Spirit working through God's Word in a person's heart.
Here's the definition of reality from an unimpeachable source — the Oxford English Dictionary. Which I'm thrilled to say is now a free, on-line resource!!!
With regard to your second question — how does "reality" relate to "this rather interesting post?" — the point is the subject matter of the post is referencing a very real phenomenon — something that is actually taking place "in reality," and quite independently of what you or I might think about it. Even if we were to think that what these people are stressing about is "totally false," that does not detract one whit from the fact that this is a very real phenomenon.
In other words, "reality" exists independently of whatever "idealistic or notional ideas" we might have of it. It is not something "produced in our minds."
Dear Mark, you wrote: "I realize that there is a separation of the temporal and the spiritual. Those that claim to bridge the gap are either of God or of the tent revival preachers."
Man, made in the image and likeness of God, already bridges the gap between the temporal and the spiritual. In man, they are not separate.
Or at least, so it seems to me. FWIW.
Thank you so very much, dear Mark, for sharing your thoughts with me (us)!
I will call them generalities because a direct accusation of another poster of not either knowing Scriptures or the power of God are the two specifics of the question. And I know that you would not accuse me directly, being a good FR poster. The generalities are of a random verse which purportedly applies to the post at hand, but really doesn't. A favourite thing for antiCatholics to resort to when they run out of other options, such as truth or Scripture.
Actual Scripture was posted. Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say,....?
Is it the Vatican's fault that you can't recognize or understand Scripture?
That is either a specific accusation of me being satan, or a generalization of my previous post, which leads me to believe that you have run out of Scripture and cannot rebut my post.
What posts of yours were actual Scripture?
Certainly not the one that Genesis 3:1 was posted to.
But you’ve something more in mind, Yes?
Yes. Think of inspired versus dictated. One is verbatim; the other is the best interpretation of the inspired individual. We believe that the Holy Spirit guides the inspired individual, but does not hijack him. That is why we have four Gospels, and not just a single one - which would be the case if the Gospel were dictated.
mm:On the contrary, they have been demonstrated many times. If you choose not to believe hem, nobody can help that.
Nobody can force you to accept he proof given. That doesn't mean it wasn't given.
There wasn't any proof. There is no mention of the coequal and coeternal Trinity anywhere in Paul. There is no hint, nor can it derived from anywhere but the Gospel of John, which requires elaborate derivation.
Try answering MY questions about church tradition instead of your own.
Interesting charge. Since I do not have all Paul's writing, and up to half of those epistles attributed to Paul were not written by him, I cannot answer that question. I certainly cannot verify anything where I do not have the original writings.
I told you: I believe in the Faith handed down to us from the Apostles and given by Jesus the Christ. Not in some peculiar theology created within the last century by the surviving snake handlers.
I've always liked Paul. He is hardcore hardass and arrogant to boot. If he were in Western films, he'd have a sidearm, a belly gun, an Arkansas toothpick in his boot and a derringer up his sleeve.
The thing is, though, is that Paul is speaking about women asserting spiritual authority over their husbands. He also said women should not be in the position of Pastor over men, and I agree. However, THIS is not church nor am I your wife, so Paul's directions do not apply in this case. Nice try, though, in trying to silence me.
Well Socrates says that "Silence give proper grace to a woman". But Winston Churchill knew how to address a proper woman:
“Lady Nancy Astor: Winston, if you were my husband, I'd poison your tea.
Churchill: Nancy, if I were your husband, I'd drink it.”
This is not the first time you have said words to the effect of your resistance to anything a woman might teach you. Be careful, you may be missing a lot of blessings and truth from God with that attitude.
I might also be missing a bite of a certain apple... :)
I would never call you a pig. However, if you put wings on a pig, you still cannot call it an eagle.
Dresses and party bats and man made tradition? Whatever turns your crank, dude. Good luck on that.
Amen, padre.
Do you believe the night our Lord Jesus was with His disciples giving instructions on the breaking of the bread and the drinking of the cup that it actually changed into His body and blood? It's clearer that Christ message of the Last Supper was more symbolic then actual. Christ was willing to share the Last Supper with Judas (Luke 22). John 6 should be looked at in light of the Matthew 26.
We know that +Ignatius of Antioch believed in the Real Presence.
Yes, many of the early fathers believed in the Real Presence. There are some that did not. Up until the 9th century there seems to have been an undercurrent of this. Ratramnus wrote a treatise on this under Charles the Bald (love that). It wasn't until 1215 that the Church settle the matter but by then the seeds of the Reformation was already being planted.
HD-"The early fathers also believed our Lord paid the penalty for sin to appease the Father's wrath for us.
The Fathers did, HD? Which ones?
Well, John and Paul for starters...
1Th 5:9 For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, "
In fact David is called a prophet though he could not know exactly how or what the outworking of what he prophesied would be.
But saying, “One is verbatim; the other is the best interpretation of the inspired individual.” is the far end of the spectrum of the influence of holy spirit, it seems to me.
Oh, man! I had this all ready to go and I overstrained my browser with too many open windows and downloading The Works of Voltaire for a letter from Calvin and it CRASHED!!!! Now I'll have to quickly try to do it again. Now on, I'm going to do it in Word and then copy and paste into the browser.
Yeah, I do that far too often as well. Well, that's Microshaft...
I'm going to have to remember that.
Man, made in the image and likeness of God, already bridges the gap between the temporal and the spiritual. In man, they are not separate.
I disagree. They are separated by that bridge over the gap. They have both in their aspect, and one aspect can affect the other, but each aspect is separate.
I have posted far more Scripture to you guys than you have to me in order to support your claims. Genesis 3:1 is either a direct accusation of me being satan or equivalent, or else it is an open ended generality. Which do you claim it to be?
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.