Posted on 07/21/2021 4:40:51 PM PDT by Roman_War_Criminal
Quote
We should note that the four Gospels not only share a unique perspective of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, they do so with four particular audiences in mind.
Lots can be learned by studying the discrepancies and contradictions in the gospels.
For instance,the Mount of Transfiguration.
Mathew and Marks versions shows it two days before Luke’s.
And given Marks version actually gives the number of demon possessed swine as about 2,000, one can conclude that Luke’s version would seemingly have to come to pass after 2 days or 2,000 years.
If a day is as a 1,000 years and 1,000 years as a day.
A problem though arises.
The Transfiguration is a rapture picture. A picture of the Messiah in His Kingdom on the Mount.
But only 3 of the 12 disciples went up the mount to see Him come in His Kingdom.
The remaining 9 disciples were stuck on the ground. Fighting and losing to demons.
Until He came back down the next day, and healed the boy.
The whole 12 didn’t go up the mount. Only 3 didn’t taste death till they saw Him come in His Kingdom.
Only a remnant of His went up the mount.
The rest were down on the ground fighting,and losing, against demons.
In that scenario, a small remnant gets to escape with the King.
While the rest of the disciples of the King are left to fight, and lose to demons.
Until He returns.
And it seems that Lukes version is held 2 days later than Mathew and Mark.
About 2,000 demon possessed swine years is almost up.
You are in error. http://www.standeyo.com/News_Files/Inspire/Rapture.Darby.html
Again I do not dispute the removal of the caucus designation, but here is cronos again calling us anti-Christian. Your idea, circle, your suggestion that the Catholic caucus cannot be used to call Protestants heretics is remarkable indeed. Did you simply mean that the word heretic cannot be in the original posted article?
I am aware on the Religion forum, that an idea can be attacked, but not the person who holds that idea. So cronos can say “Rejection of the True Presence is anti-Christian.” He cannot say, “BrianD, you are anti-Christian,” even though that is exactly what he means. This is a perfectly acceptable and reasonable rule. Perhaps the word “heretic” can be ruled either completely off-limits as a purely perjorative term, or perhaps be held in reserve, used only for ideas which have historically been defined as heretical by the Catholic Church, Monarchianism, Monophysitism, etc., or among Prottys those ideas which deny one or more of the five fundamentals of the Protestant faith. This is fine and could be clarified in the rules.
Where can I read the caucus rules? Now mind you, I do not need to know the caucus rules. The religion moderator does, not me. I can say whatever I want, and if the admin deletes my post or comment or issues a warning to me, this is entirely their business and it does me no harm whatsoever!
I do not agree that the term “heretic” (or any form of the word) has lost its historical meaning and has now become purely perjorative, but I could be wrong. I do not read the original article outside of my understanding of the word. In fact, I think Pete’s point is dependent upon that original definition. If Pete is assuming the pejorative however, then the article to me reads completely differently. Removing the caucus designation takes the discussion in a different direction. Did Pete say what he meant by the term?
When they finally succeeded in executing Cromwell, the important term they used in his trial was “traitor” not heretic. The crucial charge was sacramentarianism, for which the penalty was death. I am absolutely a sacramentarian, and I stake my eternal soul on it. To ask cronos to not call me a heretic seems a pretty point indeed, but I can live with it. (Hier stehe, ich kann nicht anders!)
Excuse me. I am wordy. I do love you all (you too cronos!) and appreciate so much what we have here on Free Republic. It is worthy of financial support!
Comment #1 Removed by Moderator
I guess I missed it. Oh, well.
The Heresy of the Pre-Wrath Theory
The author is calling a minor tweak of bog standard dispensationalism a "heresy".
Who are the redeemed by the blood of the Lamb?
Do we have any indication as to when the mod removed the caucus tag? Was the caucus tag discussion preceding the change [presumably]?
Do we have any indication as to when the mod removed the caucus tag? Was the caucus tag discussion preceding the change [presumably]?
No caucus tag now, and first post (from thread originator) is gone, so I assume a moderator did it.
Yes. I raised the objection to the moderator/admin and the caucus label was removed about an hour later.
Good to know.
Keep up the good work.
When I asked the questions, the first post had not been removed.
I had no idea Irenaeus was God’s official interpreter. Perhaps Irenaeus forgot to study God’s word God’s way; 2Timothy 2:15 “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman who needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
Because, had he studied Romans through Philemon, Paul’s Epistles, and compared them to Mat, Mark, Luke, John, and Hebrews through Revelation, he would have seen a dramatic difference between what the 12 were commissioned to preach, that is the Gospel of the Kingdom, and what Paul was commissioned to preach, that is the Gospel of the Grace of God.
Rightly dividing the Scriptures: Law from Grace. A kingdom of believers from a Body of believers. An earthly inheritance from a heavenly inheritance. Which, btw, is the first sentence in God’s word “ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. He created the heaven for a reason and He created the earth for a reason.
Rightly dividing His word of truth will explain “why”. Much better than Irenaeus could have ever attempted.
Thank you so much for trying to help me!
I have seen this before and I would expect that calling someone a heretic falls under general religion forum rules. This article however being an argumentative one, it must be on the open forum. But I would appreciate your opinion on my comment #44. Thank you for any advice or correction.
If you are Pre-Trib, then what do you think was Pete’s point, and do you agree?
I am mostly pre-trib but I see no positive benefit to hashing it out on a thread like this.
I like how my church colleague characterized it. He calls himself a panmillennialist — it will all pan out in the end.
Pre-Trib here.
Hearing Marv Rosenthal preach, you knew he was such a man of God and there are so many Jewish believers who look to him and the mission he founded as their soul winner. I understood perfectly why he had put the pre-Trib rapture in the board SOF for board members and missionaries. When he resigned I appreciated his broken-hearted humility about his change of position. Rennie Showers wrote a book about where he went wrong doctrinally.
Marv R. never said an unkind word about Rennie S. either. It is hard to use the word “heretic” for a man whom I believe will wear his shining crown when I shall be passed over.
Fast Forward to today and now we are on the receiving end of a lot of hostility, most from defectors to New Calvinism who either left the IFB or SBC churches where they were pre-Trib or have hijacked their churches and are changing its doctrine to align with that. None of this is surprising to me, nor shakes my faith.
If Pete is sincerely asking a question, then I think the answer would be no. However it is hard to deny that there is a Dispensationalist backlash coming. If Pete is saying he is in full backlash mode, then try telling him to be nice. Roman do you know him? I don’t.
Please correct me with my thanks!
I see thanks.
I take then that you would say Pete is going too far with the heresy thing, which I believe at this point in time will be the consensus primarily because of the hostile connotation of the word.
Yup.
Correct!
Amen brother. thanks for the truth.
A long read, but perhaps you might agree with this also:
In my last post, I posted the witnesses of Irenaeus on the church in the tribulation; then there is his famous student, Hippolytus, whose writings on the subject was that of his teacher. Hippolytus had much to say on this issue. Though unlike today he didn’t write argumentively about it, as there was no such thing yet in his day as dispensationalists; pretrib, midtrib, and prewrath rapturists; Amillennialists; Preterists; nor Postmillennialists to take issue with him. When he spoke of the endtime, as all of the writers of his time, he spoke matter-of-factly about it. It was a fact to everyone that, as Jesus set forth in Matt. 24, there was only one second coming in the future…which would be after the tribulation, and would usher in the millennial kingdom.
Here are some quotes from Irenaeus’s student Hippolytus on the subject:
“Two advents of our Lord and Savior are indicated in the Scriptures, His first advent in the flesh, which took place without honor… His second advent is announced as glorious, when he shall come from heaven with the host of angels, and the glory of the Father.” (Notice, only one second coming lay in the future. No mention by him, nor any other writers of his time about an additional coming prior to the one at the very end of the age. No such thing to any of these men as a pre, mid, or prewrath rapture). p. 213
On the same subject (the one and only second coming), Hippolytus says the two witnesses of Rev. 11 would “come and proclaim the manifestation of Christ that is to be from heaven… in the half of the week whereof Daniel spoke (Daniel’s seventieth week). P. 213
On the mark of the beast, like his teacher Irenaeus (see my last post), he said the number of his name would remain a mystery until the beast comes, at that time the number of his name would be known, “But when it comes to pass, we may be prepared for it, and not deceived.” P. 215
On Rev. 12, “Now, concerning the tribulation, the persecution which is to fall upon THE CHURCH from the adversary…” By “the woman clothed with the sun, he meant most manifestly THE CHURCH”… “And the dragon persecuted the woman (for 3 ½ years)… when the tyrant (the antichrist) is to reign and persecute THE CHURCH.” P. 217
Hippolytus then proceeds to describe the hope of the church in the great tribulation, after quoting 2 Thess. 2:1-12 verbatim and applying it to the church in these times, he says “with the whole world finally approaching the consummation, what remains but the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ from heaven, for whom WE have believed in hope. And shall bring the conflagration and just judgment upon all who have refused to believe in him.” P. 218
Not finished, he next applies in machine gun like succession, Luke 21:28, 18; Matt. 24:27,28; Matt. 24:31; Isa. 26:19 (Come my people, enter thou into my chamber, and shut the door: hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast”); Rom. 1:17; Dan. 12:2 (the resurrection); Isa. 26:19; John 5:25; Rev. 20:6 (the first resurrection); Matt. 13:43; Matt. 25:34, to that hope of the Church. P. 218
Then, “Concerning the resurrection of the righteous, Paul also speaks thus in writing to the Thessalonians (he quotes 1 Thess. 4:13-17 verbatim). He closes by applying “looking for the blessed hope, and glorious appearing of our God and Savior” to this long string of passages (Titus 2:13)! P. 219
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.