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 ...
Some may dispute whether a lamb or a ram, but all depictions on Egyptian imagery, pyramids etc. are of a ram, with horns. There is no sacred lamb in Egyptian imagery, nor in the egyptian religion.
This denotes a living "thing", one that can make a decision. A placard, say, is neither fallible nor infallible.
A better way of putting it. However, I am also pointing to the fact that English translations of the Bible are not what the authorized Greek versions are - they are approximate to them. That is why the Magisterium is required to teach the correct interpretation; otherwise Luther's every milkmaid will interpret any way and every way.
More importantly, Christianity literally turned some OT stories upside down. .... The lamb was clearly not killed to "atone" for any iniquities, as the Christians teach."The Church does not teach that the lamb was killed during Passover to atone for any iniquities.
Little more here: http://conservapedia.com/The_Bible_versus_the_Qur%27an
http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/JESUS.Vs.Muhammad.html
Your gracious spirit is a blessing.
Lev 5:1-4 describes sacrifices for wilful sins.
Likewise, the shedding of the blood for atonement applied only for unintentional sins. In Judaism the sins of willful commission could not be atoned by animal sacrifice, but only through repentance. Obviously the Christians "corrected" that too!
Who is 'we'? If you are referring to yourself, remember that you reject the Church in a great number of your posts.
We couldn't reject the church..
You regularly post that rejection.
We didn't join the church
Yes, that is quite apparent.
Jesus put us into it when we submitted our trust in Him, made Him our Savior...He then put us into His church
So you are responsible for your own salvation, then? Fascinating. Do you have a membership card?
How'd you get into the Catholic Church???
A little Biblical process called baptism. You may have heard of it.
Besides, the sacrificial animal had to be killed on the altar, and its blood sprinkled. Crucifixion was no altar sacrifice and Jesus bleeding all over the place from Roman torture and being nailed to the cross was hardly ritual "sprinkling.The altar sacrifice imagery is what we see in Revelation, more as a view from heaven, or a "higher altar". Ritual "sprinkling" is explained more as the way in which the Eucharist is sprinkled throughout the world, since the Eucharist IS the self-same ONE-time sacrifice and Christ's blood is sprinkled as in spread throughout by the effectiveness of the Eucharist.
Thank you oh so much, daniel1212, for posting this informative (and disturbing) article!
“unopposed”? To oppose cannot be construed as murder and persecution. Jesus “opposed” the Pharisees, he didn’t kill them or try to outlaw them or teach anyone that they should.
Paul “opposed” those who would demand a return to Jewish practices, he didn’t try to kill them or organize campaigns against them or demand the secular authorities outlaw them.
“If you believe in Judgement, how might you think Jesus would have Judged those who would have simply permitted the Waldensians to go to hell in their own handbasket unopposed?”
Jesus said it might earn the Father’s approval as He would call such His children:
“That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.”
(Matt. 5:45)
The preceding verses may be enlightening to you also!
Are you accusing the Jesuits of educating Hitler so that he would kill Reformed preachers? Impressive job of foreknowledge, right?
If their objective was to deal with the reformers what better way that to teach people to hate them ?
"Fully acceptable" does not mean that you believe the scriptures to be infallible. In fact, it sounds like a very half hearted response. If my wife got all dressed up and asked me how she looked and I said that she was "fully acceptable", I'm sure she'd slug me.
You stated in post 2093 the scriptures are not infallible or inerrant. The Church states they are. Would any decree coming from Rome be unacceptable? You are endangering your own soul and in peril of being anathematized.
I'm really not trying to put you on the spot. I'm simply pointing out that Catholics really no longer believe the scriptures to be infallible and inerrant. They do not follow the teachings of the early fathers. You are not the first that I've brought up the infallibility of the scriptures to, but you're at least reflective enough to answer this rather interesting question. Most Catholics just clam up. This is an illustration of how one of many doctrines of the Church has changed over the last 500 years.
Catholics should think hard and long about what they actually believe, the inerrant scriptural teachings or someone telling them what to believe.
That is an excellent quote. I often think of the rich man and Lazarus. When the rich man looked at Abraham, of all the things he could have asked for, all he asked for was something to quench his thrist.
Ooooooo....doggy. You Catholics sure do have a way of making things complicated. How about this.
This is illustrated in Preservation... chapter 19 although foreknowledge may exist without predestination; because God foreknew by predestination those things which He was about to do, whence it was said, He made those things that shall be. Isaiah 45:11 Moreover, He is able to foreknow even those things which He does not Himself do—as all sins whatever
I hate to repeat this mismash but this is a good illustration of the misuse of "foreknowledge". Here is a good read:
Now if future events are foreknown to God, they cannot by any possibility take a turn contrary to His knowledge. If the course of future events is foreknown, history will follow that course as definitely as a locomotive follows the rails from New York to Chicago. The Arminian doctrine, in rejecting foreordination, rejects the theistic basis for foreknowledge. Common sense tells us that no event can be foreknown unless by some means, either physical or mental, it has been predetermined. Our choice as to what determines the certainty of future events narrows down to two alternatives -- the foreordination of the wise and merciful heavenly Father or the working of blind physical fate.
My source is The Catechismand then pointed out that not only did the Catechism teach contrary to what you said, but also you had incorrectly (I guess you may not have scrolled down) quoted the website you referred to, called to communion, which actually said,"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous." (Rom 5:19)
By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who "makes himself an offering for sin", when "he bore the sin of many", and who "shall make many to be accounted righteous", for "he shall bear their iniquities".
Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.
One question, from the Reformed point of view, is: How then were our sins paid for, if Christ was not punished by the Father? Christ made atonement for the sins of all men by offering to God a sacrifice of love that was more pleasing to the Father than the combined sins of all men of all time are displeasing to Him. Hence through the cross Christ merited grace for the salvation of all men. Those who refuse His grace do not do so because Christ did not die for them or did not win sufficient grace for them on the cross, but because of their own free choice.
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.