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]

Actually, you're wrong.

We believe as we always have in the One God, Father the Altmighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, of All that is seen and Unseen. We believe in One Lord Jesus Christ, Only begotten Son of God. God from God, light from light, True God from True God

All of those points you raised have been discussed ad nauseum and are not central to the faith which is to Christ and are biblical and historical.

And, the proof of the pudding is that all the heresies have failed, the Catholic Church survives, as it always has, THANKS TO THE GRACE OF GOD AND THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. Only due to the Holy Spirit has the Church survived -- she's survived inspite of bad popes, clergy, attacks from within and without. She has survived inspite of what Catholics do, ONLY by the power of the HOLY SPIRIT has she survived.

Ireneus "Against heresies" Book V, ch 20, 2 Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, inharmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. 2 Timothy 3:7

And also

He shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies, [positively] destroy it—men who prate of peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel. Matthew 23:24 or no reformation of so great importance can be effected by them, as will compensate for the mischief arising from their schism.

8. True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine,.....

[Cronos]

I said nothing about official declarations but that Constantine made his state religion. Christianity

And yet Constantine did not do that. Throughout Constantine's reign, right up until 80 years after his death, the state religion was officially ancient roman paganism. Check it out. All Constantine did was remove the ban and stop the persecution of Christians.

Theodosius was the one in 391 AD who made Christianity the state religion -- Constatine died in 312 AD (he was baptised on his death bed)

[Cronos]

Constantine was never a Christian unless you can define a “Christian” as a murder(er) that makes a so-called death bed conversion

What is your definition of a Christian? Is it someone who became "saved" i.e. have trusted Jesus as Lord, God and Savior?

By that definition, we can be pretty sure that Constantine did this on his death-bed and we can safely assume that this was earlier when he saw the sign of the Cross on the sky and heard the words from heaven saying "by this sign you shall conquer".

I believe that he actually saw that and believed that Christ was God.

He may have been iffy on some points (there's strong evidence that as a later latin, he didn't really believe in any god initially) and he was not a "good man", but then, most rulers find that a difficult position.

Anyway, to your point -- during his life after seeing the Cross, I think Constantine believed in Christ as His Lord and Savior -- but there is no proof either way. He was a sinner and a murderer, but even sinners and murderers can repent and become reconciled with Christ.

On Constantine's death-bed he was baptised -- and remember the beleif in baptism at that point was that it completely washed away your sins, so Constantine showed that he truly believed in Christ as Lord, God and Savior.

[Cronos]

I'm referring to metmom's group, the non-Christian one.

To this group, they will not even hold to the Nicene Creed. They are not Christian

Nicene Creed

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

by whom all things were made;

who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;

he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;

from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the living and the dead;

and His Kingdom will have no end

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.

We believe in the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church;

we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

Amen.

[Cronos]

To know history is to be Catholic, yes indeedy!

[Cronos]

As you can see metmom, Ireneus denounced heretical groups like your group.

All of those that deny the divinity of Christ, call Yahweh a Yaltabaoth etc. are not Christians.

Met, it would be good to give up this false cult and become a Christian.

There are many Protestant groups you can join like the Baptists or Pentecostals or Lutherans or others if you don’t want to join the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church (Orthodox, Catholic, Oriental, Assyrian)

[cinciella]

“I think I have distilled it down to this primary error - Dysfunctionalists have bastardized Genesis 12:3 so much that it retains none of its original meaning and it now acts as the foundation of their WWGC (Who Would God Curse) jewelry set and their universal “Commerce Clause” to condemn anyone who doesn’t have an obsessive Jew fetish...From the early writers until well into the 19th century it was universally held to be a poetic way for God to say, “Abram, trust me when I ask you to leave your home country, I will take personally how you are treated and respond in kind.” Then I started reading some commentary from the non-reformed of the 20th century and while some retained this opinion, I noticed that the gratuitous opinion that “this could be extended to the Jews” was carefully added into the commentary. Reading Dysfunctionalist commentary, they completely departed from the centuries old majority view and just claimed “This means Jews”.

Furthermore, the “bless those who bless you, curse him who curses you” part was not repeated by God to Isaac yet all of the other promises were. When Isaac blessed Jacob, he personally added “bless those who bless you” but did not restore the “curse”. This is further scriptural evidence that the “blessing/cursings” promise was only to Abram and was a reward for his faith.”

If you look beyond Gen. 12:3, you can see that this promise was indeed made for the Jewish people. Take a look at Gen. 27:29 (promise to Isaac):

29 May peoples serve you,
And nations bow down to you;
Be master of your brothers,
And may your mother’s sons bow down to you
Cursed be those who curse you,
And blessed be those who bless you.”

Looks to me like the “curse” part is indeed in place.

Also, further support that God has continued this promise for the Jews is found in Numbers 24:1-10:

1When Balaam saw that it pleased the LORD to BLESS ISRAEL, he did not go as at other times to seek omens but he set his face toward the wilderness.
2And Balaam lifted up his eyes and saw Israel camping tribe by tribe; and the Spirit of God came upon him.

3He took up his discourse and said,
“The oracle of Balaam the son of Beor,
And the oracle of the man whose eye is opened;
4The oracle of him who hears the words of God,
Who sees the vision of the Almighty,
Falling down, yet having his eyes uncovered,
5How fair are your tents, O Jacob,
Your dwellings, O Israel!
6”Like valleys that stretch out,
Like gardens beside the river,
Like aloes planted by the LORD,
Like cedars beside the waters.
7”Water will flow from his buckets,
And his seed will be by many waters,
And his king shall be higher than Agag,
And his kingdom shall be exalted.
8”God brings him out of Egypt,
He is for him like the horns of the wild ox
He will devour the nations who are his adversaries,
And will crush their bones in pieces,
And shatter them with his arrows.
9”He crouches, he lies down as a lion,
And as a lion, who dares rouse him?
BLESSED IS EVERYONE WHO BLESSES YOU,
AND CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO CURSES YOU.”

10Then Balak’s anger burned against Balaam, and he struck his hands together; and Balak said to Balaam, “I called you to curse my enemies, but behold, you have persisted in blessing them these three times!”

So you see, this is not only a personal promise to Abraham, but to his descendants as well.

I leave you with Deut. 10:15:

“Yet the LORD set his affection on your forefathers and loved them, and he chose you, their descendants, above all the nations, as it is today.”

Everlasting.

[Cronos]

RM — now in this post, pnsm has made a false allegation. If my earlier statements likening metmom’s group to Mormons was pulled, then this too ought to be pulled.

[presently no screen name]

now, it is pointed directly at the individual Catholic.

Do with it what the RCC does with Scripture - twist it for your own agenda.

There are some here whose posting history is almost exclusively to denounce, deride, denigrate and deplore anything and all things Catholic.

One sees what one wants to see. It SHOULD be upsetting that it is GOD'S WORD that is being denounced and denigrated and nullified! But, as usual, with Catholics - it's all about them. Get over yourselves!

IT'S ALL about JESUS, THE WORD.

[presently no screen name]

Cronos, WHERE is my false accusation?

“It is error to believe that, if the Pope were a reprobate and an evil man and consequently a member of the devil, he has no power over the faithful.” Council of Constance, Condemnation of Errors, against Wycliffe, Session VIII, and Hus: Session XV; DNZ:621, 617, 588)

“Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom.” St. Catherine of Siena, SCS, p. 201-202, p. 222, (quoted in Apostolic Digest, by sedevacantist Michael Malone, Book 5:

“The Book of Obedience”, Chapter 1: “There is No Salvation Without Personal Submission to the Pope”)

[Cronos]

Of course, you take it out of context of it's historical intent. This was written in 1302 to the King of France about the dispute between the papacy and Philip the Fair of France (who was in the midst of the 100 years war with the Norman rulers of England and Western France). This also included the time with Avignon rises to prominence as the French king's attempt to keep the spiritual and temporal under his thumb. This is 1302, pre-Reformation and directed at temporal rulers who sought spiritual control of their subjects as well as temporal.

King Philip responded in a predictable way, he tried to have the Pope killed. Apparently he was not impressed with the legal arguments.

This was preceded by Ausculta Fill, a letter addressed December 5, 1301, by Pope Boniface VIII to Philip the Fair, King of France. Philip was at enmity with the pope. Under pretext of his royal rights, he conferred benefices, and appointed bishops to sees, regardless of papal authority. He drove from their sees those bishops who, in opposition to his will, remained faithful to the pope. This letter is couched in firm but paternal terms. It points out the evils the king has brought to his kingdom, to Church and State; invites him to do penance and to mend his ways. It was unheeded by the king, and was soon followed by the famous Bull "Unam Sanctam". this encyclical was written long before the reformation when all Western Christians were Catholic

[Cronos]

Furthermore, this bull is in the historical context aimed at Philip the Fair's attempt to bring together Church and State under his thumb (which he did with Avignon). Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads (King and Pope) -- Christ is the spiritual head of the Church, the bishop of rome remains just the steward, the administrator/shepherd on earth. The statements concerning the relations between the spiritual and the secular power are of a purely historical character, so far as they do not refer to the nature of the spiritual power, and are based on the actual conditions of medieval Western Europe.

Philip the fair

Philip arrested Jews so he could seize their assets to accommodate the inflated costs of modern warfare: he expelled them from his French territories on 22 July 1306 (see The Great Exile of 1306). His financial victims also included Lombard bankers and rich abbots. He was condemned by the Church for his spendthrift lifestyle. He debased the coinage. When he also levied taxes on the French clergy of one half their annual income, he caused an uproar within the Roman Catholic Church and the papacy, prompting Pope Boniface VIII to issue the Bull Clericis laicos, forbidding the transference of any church property to the French Crown and prompting a drawn-out diplomatic battle with the King. In order to condemn the pope, Philip convoked an assembly of bishops, nobles and grand bourgeois of Paris,

. Philip emerged victorious, after having sent his agent William Nogaret to arrest Boniface at Anagni, when the French archbishop Bertrand de Goth was elected pope as Clement V and the official seat of the papacy moved to Avignon, an enclave surrounded by French territories

Remember also that shepherds are held to a higher standard, which is why Boniface VIII in Dante's Divina Commedia placed him in a circle of Hell with King Philip IV of France.

on September 7, 1303, an army led by Nogaret and Sciarra Colonna of the Colonna family surprised Boniface at his retreat in Anagni. The King and the Colonnas demanded that he resign, to which Boniface VIII responded that he would "sooner die". In response, Colonna hit Boniface, a "slap" that is still remembered in the local lore of Anagni.

Boniface was beaten badly and nearly executed but was released from captivity after three days. He died of kidney stones and humiliation on October 11, 1303

[Cronos]

We’ve gone over this before. There is no dogma that contradicts Scripture. Holy Tradition cannot contradict scripture as scripture was birthed from Holy Tradition. you may put forth your own interpretation of scripture to oppose our interpretation, but it remains yopios

[Cronos]

Editor No, he Comforts the church, but he (The Holy Spirit) is removed when the church is removed.

sorry, what do you mean by the "Holy Spirit is removed"?

As TC has correctly pointed out The fact is there is no other agent other than the Holy Spirit by which a person can become a true child of God. Since the time of creation until the time of the new creation – the new heavens and new earth, the Spirit of God has been at work in the world.

Yet, because of the dispensational pre-trib rapture _____, we are to believe that the Holy Spirit will be removed from the earth for seven year --> is this true, editor-surveyor? I ask because I do not know if this is what dispensationalist pre-trib folks believe or not.

[Cronos]

Metmom, we Christians debate about baptism for infants. Some Christians groups like the Baptists don't, other Christian groups like Lutherans, Methodists, Orthodox, Presbyterians, Catholics, etc. do practise infant baptism

We baptise in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy SPirit.

What does your non-Christian group do if it doesn't baptise infants in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

[Cronos]

Interesting conversation

One: i’ll give you one, infant baptism. All the Church Fathers say the Church received the practice of baptizing infants from the Apostles, but there is not a verse explicitly saying so. Protestants are divided on this! Is infant baptism correct or not? You don’t know, you by yourself can’t know, unless you believe yourself infallible!! I can get a Lutheran say yes, a Baptist says no! Both will claim to follow “sola scriptura” no friend, Jesus is not the author of confusion, He left us a Church to teach!!

ES: An infant cannot be baptised because he is not aware. Baptism is the acknowledgement of salvation; how can an infant acknowledge something of which he is not yet aware?

One: salvation is all of grace, your “awareness” adds nothing to it. thank you for your response, i’ll put you down in the baptist column and opposing Luther and Calvin ( both of whom thought they understood the Bible ) you do realize no one in Christendom believed what you said before the 16th century? you believe the Body of Christ, under the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit, didn’t understand baptism for 1,500 years?

ES: Neither does baptism. Baptism is nothing but the obedient acknowledgement of the Lord’s sacrifice that saved us.

One: St Paul had a different teaching given to him in Acts 22:16 "16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’", and St Peter seems to disagree with you as well in 1 Peter 3:21 "21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.[a] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,".

You are following a tradition of men first taught in the 16th century, as opposed to the historical, biblical, orthodox and apostolic teaching for 2,000 years.

ES: Nonsense; your imagination seems to have taken hold. Post the specific words when you make a false accusation against the apostles.

One: the Apostles taught their doctrines very well, because the author was the Holy SPIRIT.

[Cronos]

One: i haven’t been here long, but it is becoming clear to me that some who claim they used to be Catholic, can not possibly be true when looking at their questions, which reveal absolutely no knowledge of Catholic doctrine!! and they can’t answer any questions put to them about Catholic teaching, unreal!

True, one -- in fact they don't even belong to any Christian groups.

The groups pretend to be Protestant so they can say "we Protestants believe..." and yet if you ask them if they believe in infant baptism or not, there is silence. If you ask them if they believe that Jesus Christ is Lord, God, Savior, Only begotten Son of God, there is silence, utter silence.

Their main aim is to foment discord between Catholics and Protestants and between Protestants themselves (you can find places where they accuse Arminians and Methodists of "preaching a satanic gospel" and other places where they attack anyone who reads a non-KJV translation as a heretic).

[Cronos]

metmom:Do they sit down and actually READ it (the Bible)? How do you know?

Cronos:Here you got 3 on FR to tell you we do read the Bible and actually do READ it (we don't read a 14-page excerpted annoted version like what your group is handed out, we read the Bible)

And we celebrate The Word of God in the Mass, right from In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (Matt. 28:19) right up to People: Thanks be to God. (2 Cor 9:15)

metmom: That’s how many percent?

Cronos: Nah, 3 out of 3 Catholic posters here on this thread -- that's 100%

How many of your group's people actually READ the bible? do you have any links showing the accurate statistics for your group on reading?

Crickets......



see, one, imp, NL -- we have on FR here members of non-Christian groups who attack Catholics and Protestants. These are NOT Protestants as our Protestant brethern are Christian believing in Christ as Lord, God

[aruanan]

Calvin did twist The Doctor of Grace’s teaching, but sorry, infant baptism didn’t come from St Augustine, but St Paul.

Are you saying that because you know it or remember someone saying it?

Infant baptism is not mentioned by any of the Apostolic Fathers. It came about because of the growth of the idea of original sin as an ontological reality that was transmitted genetically that could be "cleansed" by baptism. Jesus described the relationship between children and sin in a quite different way.

Here are the three verses in the Pauline epistles that mention baptism at all. Where's the infant?

Romans 6:4
We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

Ephesians 4:5
...one Lord, one faith, one baptism;

Colossians 2:12 ...having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.


A few from Augustine on the subject of infant baptism:

"If you wish to be a Catholic, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin." --On the Soul, Book III

""Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without the participation of His Sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole Church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they can not possibly be vivified in Christ."--Epistle 28.

"When children are presented to be given spiritual grace, it is not so much those holding them in their arms who present them—although, if these people are good Christians, they are included among those who present the children—as the whole company of saints and faithful Christians.... It is done by the whole of Mother Church which is in the saints, since it is as a whole that she gives birth to each and every one of them."--Epistle 98.

[Cronos]

Iscool: The events of the Rapture have always been in the scripture

Ok, now, TC and RB asked for scriptural proof for your statement. Perhaps you can give it to them