Do Catholics Really Worship the Virgin Mary?

Remnant Newspaper ^ | May 1894 | Hugo Klapproth

[SouthernClaire]

Will a frozen flagpole be in this scene?

[Elsie]

MAybe.

Or a frozen bully.

[imardmd1]

Since you cannot or will not comply with my request for you to take under consider this issue of a no-longer secret "rapture" (named so in the Latin Vulgate translation), and write in your own words the your defense of just one of your instances taken from a post involving conterntion with MHGinTN and the eschatology of the "harpadzo" and the Great Tribulation; rather than posting a long indefensible screed dumping the responsibility of unscriptural opinions of other uninspired authors and abandoning a coherent debative argument to me, I simply will not waste my time on you alone.

You may well read through the Post #720 by Kandy Atz, which is a very sturdy acceptible unarguable summary of God's plan for our times, to whom God gave the excellent scholar John N. Darby a grasp of the veil covering the withheld mystery of the Rapture to whisk it off for our warning and preparation.

This is to you still a secret because you seem to fit the profile of a "natural" (psuchikos) man described in 1 Corinthians 2:14-16, Kandy Atz has the mind of Christ (Php. 2:2,5), as do MHGinTN (despite his not unwarranted rudeness to you), myself, and our infallible counselor Saul (Paul) of Tarsus and other first-generation Apostles.

It is their doctrine we follow, not yours.

No more with you on this doctrine, well expositorially preached by many regenerated teacher/scholars.

"Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen" (Jude verses 24-25 AV; bolding added for emphasis) 

  You are dismissed.

[Philsworld]

——>You may well read through the Post #720 by Kandy Atz, which is a very sturdy acceptible unarguable summary of God’s plan for our times, to whom God gave the excellent scholar John N. Darby a grasp of the veil covering the withheld mystery of the Rapture to whisk it off for our warning and preparation.

Sorry, but your false PTR doctrine came from Satan. SPT said so. He was there. You weren’t. Oh, and notice how many times he says “SECRET”.

“I am not aware that there was any definite teaching that there would be a SECRET RAPTURE of the Church at a SECRET coming, until this was given forth as an utterance in Mr. Irving’s Church, from what was there received as being the voice of the Spirit. But whether any one ever asserted such a thing or not, it was from that supposed revelation that the modern doctrine and the modern phraseology respecting it arose. It came not from Holy Scripture, but from that which falsely pretended to be the Spirit of God, while not owning the true doctrine of our Lord’s incarnation in the same flesh and blood as His brethren, but without taint of sin.”

“But there is a very different theory of the coming of the Lord as the hope of His Church, which many teach, and which many more receive, as though it were unquestioned truth.”

“It is said that there shall be a SECRET coming of the Lord Jesus Christ; that at this SECRET coming His believing people who are in their graves shall be raised, and the living changed, and that a secret rapture of the Church shall then take place; that this SECRET coming and SECRET rapture are our hope, and not the manifested appearing of Christ in the clouds of heaven.”

“It is said that after this SECRET removal of the Church, the full manifestation of human evil, for some years at least, will take place, during which time shall be the display of the power of Antichrist,—the persecutions foretold in the Revelation, the extreme trials of Israel, the unequaled tribulation,—and that the end of this will be the manifestation of Christ visibly coming with His Church in the cloud of glory.”

“This is the doctrine of the SECRET coming of Christ, which many now preach as if it were the acknowledged truth of God, instead of its being (as is really the case) that which at every point would require proof from Scripture.”

“But not only is this doctrine of the coming of Christ not taught in the Word of God, but if, in what has been previously said, there is any point of truth, then this whole system stands in distinct contradiction of what the Scripture reveals.”

Samuel Prideaux Tregelles

[Ultra Sonic 007]

Since you cannot or will not comply with my request for you to take under consider this issue of a no-longer secret "rapture" (named so in the Latin Vulgate translation), and write in your own words the your defense of just one of your instances taken from a post involving conterntion with MHGinTN and the eschatology of the "harpadzo" and the Great Tribulation; rather than posting a long indefensible screed dumping the responsibility of unscriptural opinions of other uninspired authors and abandoning a coherent debative argument to me, I simply will not waste my time on you alone.

Seriously?

Who here is self-taught? Who here would rest on their laurels if there are far more learned scholars (whatever denomination they may be) who make more persuasive arguments? Why should I bother when St. Peter is already on the record of warning all that Scripture is not subject to private interpretation?

That you apparently think I didn't 'comply' with your request, as though it was a mandatory demand, is irrelevant. I gave you but one example of many as to why the pre-Tribulation Rapture cannot be supported. That you call it an "indefensible screed", quite frankly, is none of my concern at this point.

The same principle applies to Kandy Atz's post; she calls it an "unarguable summary of God's plan". Opening up with two provisions of the Old Law and stating 'if you no longer do those, then you're a dispensationalist!' is an utterly silly statement, given that Dispensationalism encompasses far more than that, AND that you do not have to accept dispensationalist framework to explain why some aspects of the Old Law no longer apply under the New Law. But I digress.

As Kandy stated: "The Bible is not complicated, except when we make it that way." The mere fact that heresy exists, and that so many denominations exist that profess Sola Scriptura - while professing mutually exclusive doctrine on so many things - shows how untrue that statement is. Some parts of Scripture are simple. Some are not. Hence why St. Peter warned in his 2nd epistle: "Wherefore, dearly beloved, waiting for these things, be diligent that you may be found before him unspotted and blameless in peace. And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness."

I retired from this thread because there's no further point in continuing. Your post only solidifies why. As but one example:

to whom God gave the excellent scholar John N. Darby a grasp of the veil covering the withheld mystery of the Rapture to whisk it off for our warning and preparation.

Notwithstanding that one of Darby's most notable Protestant critics in that day was Charles Spurgeon, why should the fact he was an "excellent scholar" mean anything by your reckoning? You bemoaned that I resorted to others whose arguments I believed more persuasive, yet don't shy away from resorting to the word of Darby (as though he were the only 'excellent scholar' around)? Okay, yeah, sure.

It is their doctrine we follow, not yours.

You can say it all day long, but that won't make it any more true.

Christ warned all who would listen that we would suffer for His sake. Paul warned over and over that we are called to persevere until the day of the Lord, when all are judged upon His Second Coming. We are commanded to be receptive to all the graces of God, that we may endure through good times and bad.

So you can kindly take your dismissal back, as though merely being dismissed by you means anything.

Rather, may you go in the Peace of Christ and His Saints.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

Correction: It was imardmd1 who called Kandy’s post an “unarguable summary of God’s plan”, Kandy herself.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

*NOT Kandy herself

[Seven_0]

No he didn't.

You need to check your sources. The article by Erik Reed is demonstrably false. From the article;

There are two primary passages where Rapture theology is purported to have emerged: Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians

There is no proof for a pre-tribulation rapture but there is evidence. Just not in Matthew 24. Are you aware that the Scofield Reference Bible has a footnote in Matthew 24:39 that says verses 36-50 refer to the Second Advent? Was Scofield wrong? People who reject the pre-tribulation rapture like to attack Matthew 24 because it is easy, but they lie about it.

We can agree that the ones taken in verses 39 and 40 are taken by judgment, but what happens to the ones left behind. The article actually says they are also taken.

[imardmd1]

Seriously?
Who here is self-taught?

"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him" (1 Jn. 2:27 AV).

Any question?

[Ultra Sonic 007]

That verse was already addressed in posts 663 and 677.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

You need to check your sources. The article by Erik Reed is demonstrably false...There is no proof for a pre-tribulation rapture but there is evidence. Just not in Matthew 24.

Erik presumably brought up Matthew 24 because there are people who actually use Matthew 24 as a prooftext for the pre-Tribulation Rapture.

Like Verse by Verse Ministry ("What follows in vs.36-51 is His description of His coming for the Church, otherwise known as the Rapture..."). Or Grace Evangelical Society ("The evidence is strong (overwhelming?) that Matt 24:40-44 refers to the church’s pre-trib Rapture..."). Or the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association ("Then, second, after a period of seven years of tribulation on earth, Christ will return to the earth with His church, the saints who were raptured (Matthew 24:30...)").

A cursory search shows that other Biblical scholars and theologians believe(d) the same, like Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Ed Hindson, Leon J. Wood, Mark Hitchcock, William Eugene Blackstone, David Reagan, Henry Morris, Tim LaHaye, and so on.

So you yourself may think that Matthew 24 provides no evidence for PTR. But there are a lot of people who did and do, which — I assume — is why Erik mentioned it at all.

[imardmd1]

It's not new to me, US7; and you misuse it when you avoid Paul's clear Gospel and Beloved John's, that are more well-defined than Peter's. Or yours.

So, as I said, your involvement with me is uneconomic, and dismissed. Please stop badgering me with nonsense.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

??

You are the one who initially demanded a response from me, then threw down the proverbial gauntlet when my responses were deemed ‘insufficient’.

We’re on a public Internet forum operating under anonymous usernames; there’s no need for you to act like a prima-donna.

[Seven_0]

So you yourself may think that Matthew 24 provides no evidence for PTR. But there are a lot of people who did and do, which — I assume — is why Erik mentioned it at all.

Yes but Erik specifically mentioned Darby and Scofield who did not teach that. He misrepresents their teaching to promote his teaching. You can list many people that teach pre-tribulation rapture using Matthew 24, which is why I say that history is less reliable that scripture.

[Seven_0]

Erik presumably brought up Matthew 24 because there are people who actually use Matthew 24 as a prooftext for the pre-Tribulation Rapture.

The rapture is the dead in Christ and the living in Christ being caught up to meet the lord in the air. This is not a good fit to Matthew 24, but it does describe what happens at the second coming. The evil ones are removed first Those days are shortened and the flesh is preserved. Christ sets up his kingdom (and will rule with a rod of iron).

Dispensationalism is a system that puts prophetic events on a timeline. Post-tribulation rapture is fine with the having rapture in Matthew 24 because they say the rapture and the second coming happen almost at the same time. Pre-tribulation says they are not at the same time. There is a passage in Revelation that is more closely aligned with the rapture.

Rev 14:16-19 And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped. And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle. And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe. And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God.

In this one the believers are removed and the rest are left behind for judgment. It is a much better fit to the rapture, the question is; when does this happen? I don’t think this is the same event as Matthew 24. Where is Revelation 14 on the timeline?