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.

[Natural Law]

"It is unacceptable for a single organization to "copyright" a term that encompasses an entire people."

You are as free to your opinion as Catholics are to theirs. Do not, however, expect the Church or Catholics to compromise their identity or lexicon for your sake. We are perfectly happy with it as it is.

[Quix]

MUCH APPRECIATED.

MUCH AGREE. THOROUGHLY AGREE.

What’s the range of the guesstimates about how much water is in the bulge?

Seems to me, it wouldn’t take a huge percentage above mean average sea level to be rather devastating—at least to coastal areas nearer the equater . . . but then water tends to slosh back and forth as in a bathtub . . . Hmmmmmm;

[Natural Law]

"There is no such thing as a pope ..."

As in there is no Bishop of Rome? Now that's funny!

[Natural Law]

"Or a failed one."

Lets call a spade a spade. I prefer the term "Excommunicated Catholic" for those who have left and now rail, a jure, against the Church. In the code of Catholic canon law currently in force, there are eight instances when a person may incur excommunication latæ sententiæ. One of these applies, ipso facto, to a number of the anti-catholics who frequent these threads. Apostates from the faith, a heretics, and schismatics have, by their own actions, severed Communion with the saints.

[CynicalBear]

>> The "RCC" or more properly the Catholic Church, has maintained an unbroken Apostolic Succession from Pope Peter I through Benedict XVI.<<

You obviously don’t know the views of the early church fathers very well.

Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Matt 16:18, John 21:17), not a single one applies them to the Roman bishops as Peter's successors. How many Fathers have busied themselves with these texts, yet not one of them whose commentaries we possess-Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, and those whose interpretations are collected in ca tenas, has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter! Not one of them has explained the rock or foundation on which Christ would build His Church of the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors, but they understood by it either Christ Himself, or Peter's confession of faith in Christ; often both together. Or else they thought Peter was the foundation equally with all the other Apostles, the twelve being together the foundation-stones of the church (Apoc. xxi. 14). The Fathers could the less recognize in the power of the keys, and the power of binding and loosing, any special prerogative or lordship of the Roman bishop, inasmuch as what is obvious to any one at first sight-they did not regard the power first given to Peter, and afterwards conferred on all the Apostles, as any thing peculiar to him, or hereditary in the line of Roman bishops, and they held the symbol of the keys as meaning just the same as the figurative expression of binding and loosing.

It is the Protestant and Eastern Orthodox interpretation that is endorsed by the Fathers of the early church and not the Roman Catholic, which contradicts that consensus. The Roman Catholic interpretation is, in fact, a direct contradiction of the decrees of Trent and Vatican I, which state that it is unlawful to interpret Scripture in any way contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.

The Church of Rome claims that papal primacy can be validated by the facts of history in that it was the universal practice of the church from the very beginning. These claims are false; the facts of history contradict them. The attitudes and practices of the Fathers and councils 27 reveal that the church never viewed the bishops of Rome as being endowed with supreme authority to rule the church universal. And there never has been a supreme human ruler in the church. This whole concept was repudiated by Pope Gregory the Great (A.D. 590-604) when he rebuked the bishop of Constantinople for attempting to arrogate to himself the title of 'universal bishop.' He insisted that such a position and title are unlawful in the church of Jesus Christ:

“Now I confidently say that whoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others. Nor is it by dissimilar pride that he is led into error; for, as that perverse one wishes to appear as God above all men, so whoever this one is who covets being called sole priest, he extols himself above all other priests....Certainly Peter, the first of the apostles, himself a member of the holy and universal Church, Paul, Andrew, John-what were they but heads of particular communities? And yet all were members under one Head. And (to bind all together in a short girth of speech) the saints before the law, the saints under the law, the saints under grace, all these making up the Lord's Body, were constituted as members of the Church, and not one of them has wished himself to be called universal. Now let your holiness acknowledge to what extent you swell within yourself in desiring to be called by that name by which no one presumed to be called who was truly holy.”

I could go on and on but suffice it to say, the RCC of today does not resemble or follow what the early fathers taught.

[presently no screen name]

I'd advise you to take your ...

Mark, take your control issues elsewhere.

[mas cerveza por favor]

One more time just special for you. Irenaeus was second century which as you know was more the 180 years ago.
Irenaeus
Against Heresies
Book 5, Chapter 29, Paragraph 1
And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, “There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.” Matt. xxiv. 21. For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption.

Irenaeus was a post-tribulationist. Your quote is way out of context. Here is the context:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers/Volume_I/IRENAEUS/Against_Heresies:_Book_V/Chapter_XXIX.

The Church is caught up in the end, not pre-tribulation. Here is a passage from chapter 26 in the same book:

It is manifest, therefore, that of these [potentates], he who is to come shall slay three, and subject the remainder to his power, and that he shall be himself the eighth among them. And they shall lay Babylon waste, and burn her with fire, and shall give their kingdom to the beast, and put the Church to flight.

The Church will be put to flight during the tribulation. Clearly, Irenaeus was a post-tribulationist.

Pseudo-Ephraem's Pre Tribulation Rapture Statement (c. 374-627) A Sermon by Pseudo-Ephraem (section 2)

This is another pretrib rapture hoax quotation which I previously dealt with in post 273 of this thread.

Again I repeat, you have nothing of substance to support the 180-year-old pretrib rapture theory.

[mas cerveza por favor]

So I repeat, you have nothing of substance to support the 180-year-old pretrib rapture theory.

In response to my challenge that you support your pre-trib rapture theory, you post a boilerplate list Catholic Mariology, much of which is fake. All genuine Mariology is derived from Scripture.

Again I repeat, you have nothing of substance to support the 180-year-old pretrib rapture theory.

[Natural Law]

"You obviously don’t know the views of the early church fathers very well."

You obviously don't know what I do or do not know and the attempted mind reading is not permitted.

That said, the unbroken chain of Apostolic Succession has stood fast against heresies and threats far greater that those posed by the few insignificant anti-Catholics that populate these threads or the feeble congregations they belong to.

I do not care if you believe or not, only that you do not misrepresent the teachings of the Church.

[CynicalBear]

>>This is another pretrib rapture hoax quotation which I previously dealt with in post 273 of this thread.<<

No, you did not deal with it in post 273. You gave a convoluted diatribe trying to make his words say something other then what they clearly say. You people try to do that all the time. Either you start throwing up straw dogs or attempt to claim that translations were done wrong or something else.

Let’s let the words speak for themselves.

"All the saints and elect of God are gathered together >b which is to come, and are taken to the Lord, in order that they may not see at any time the confusion which overwhelms the world because of our sins."

He specifically states, in so many words, that it is “before the tribulation” and no amount of double speak on your part can change the words.

[CynicalBear]

>>You obviously don’t know what I do or do not know and the attempted mind reading is not permitted.<<

When the very words of the early church fathers disagree with what you are trying to teach, and the RCC, I would conclude it is not speculation that you don’t know what they said. It certainly isn’t mind reading to observe and point out the facts. The views of the early church fathers differ from what you are trying to tell us and I will always put more credibility in them then in you.

[Quix]

WHAT A
DECEPTIVE, FALSE, INACCURATE, FARCICAL
ASSERTION!
!BESIDES!
IT HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED A LOT
ON THIS THREAD
THAT SUCH DISPY, RAPTURE ETC.
IDEAS WERE PART OF CHRISTIANITY'S
EARLIEST BEGINNING.
DENIAL IS NOT A PRETTY SIGHT.


SOMETIMES, I WONDER IF SOME RC'S COULD
MANAGE TO LOOK THEMSELVES IN THE EYES IN THEIR MIRRORS
[IF THE VATICAN HAD NOT SHATTERED ALL THEIR MIRRORS
AS AN ACT OF FAITHFULNESS TO THEIR PERVERSITIES OF DOGMA]
AND STILL RECITE SOME OF THE UNMITIGATED HOGWASH
THEY POST HEREON
AS THOUGH IT WERE
RATIONAL, ACTUALLY HISTORICALLY ACCURATE, FACTUAL, ETC.

I SUPPOSE SOME COULD.
THEY'VE BEEN FED SO MANY LIES AND DECEPTIONS FOR SO LONG
THEY PROBABLY SWALLOW THE SWILL AS A MATTER OF COURSE
--DREAMILY FANTASIZING ABOUT ALL THE ADDITIONAL
GILDED WHITE HANKYS THEY'LL ACCRUE ON MARY'S LAP.

GADS WHAT A HORRID PILE OF UNBIBLICAL, UNHISTORICAL NONSENSE.

SOMETIMES I THINK THE NWO BRAINWASHERS GOT TO THE RC'S FIRST
AS EXPERIMENTAL TRIAL RUNS OVER THE CENTURIES TO PERFECT THEIR MIND CONTROL BRAINWASHING.

ACTUALLY, THERE'S PROBABLY SOME TRUTH TO THAT. SIGH.

[Judith Anne]

Post 273 was not convoluted. Did you even read it?

[Judith Anne]

In response to my challenge that you support your pre-trib rapture theory, you post a boilerplate list Catholic Mariology,

Don't be surprised. Quix always does that, either that or some colorful html explosion that lacks any rational basis or any reason, just calls names, or claims "RCCs" whine, or some junk like that. Most people are immune to him, because the posts are content free.

[Natural Law]

"When the very words of the early church fathers disagree with what you are trying to teach,"

Your interpretation of the words of the early Church fathers, like your interpretation of Scripture and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are highly flawed. Speculative assumptions from an indefinable base are mind-reading.

You are free to post what ever incorrect opinions you make about the teachings of hte Church or the meaning of my posts, but when you make a statement that incorrectly declares the teachings of the Church I will respond.

[Judith Anne]

The other thing Quix does is pull psych diagnoses from some manual he may have stolen, and apply them to everyone who has the temerity to disagree with his persona. How DARE any “attachment disordered Mary-worshipping RCC demonic-inspired” yada yada yada. Every post has a good example of that (so-called) reasoning.

Anyway, it’s nothing new and nobody cares, we all just scroll past it. If he ever said anything worth reading, we’d all miss it because of the plethora of garbage.

[Quix]

GIVEN HOW
INTENSELY, BROADLY, CONSTANTLY, PERVERSELY,
The Vatican Alice In Wonderland School Of Theology And Reality Mangling Farcical Fossilized Institution
MANGLED AND MISREPRESENTED:

JESUS THE CHRIST, CREATOR GOD, KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS;
THE APOSTLES;
AND THE AUTHENTIC MARY!
AND CHRISTIANITY in general--
for the 1600-1700 CENTURIES of its EXISTENCE,

Proddys could misrepresent the Vatican AIWSOTARMFFI
100%, 24/7/365 for 1500 years and still fall far short of the horrorific record of the Vatican AIWSOTARMFFI!

So I'd call such a

WAIL
AN
EPIC FAIL!

[Judith Anne]

Another content free post!

[Quix]

ABSOLUTELY INDEED
!TO THE MAX!

[Quix]

SOUNDS LIKE
Mother Superior
is valiantly
TRYING
to sound
knowledgeable and authoritative
AGAIN!