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]

So, do you think that the comments made by the OPC are idiotic?

Comments like these from the OPC website

Arminianism is indeed a heresy,....

The Bible teaches that Christ did his atoning work on behalf of his elect people, and no others.....

Since the teachings of Arminianism are contrary to Scripture, they are manifestly false. They are serious perversions of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Are Arminian preachers heretics? In a sense, yes,

Is Arminianism a damnable heresy? Yes.

Arminians = Methodists, Pentecostals, some Baptists. So, as an OPCer, do you agree to this OPC belief that all Methodists, Pentecostals etc. are damnable heretics?

[HarleyD]

Earlier than that. What you hold in your hands is not what the Council approved. For one thing, it is in English.

So are you saying that the Church lost the scriptures? There are many sites in which you can download and translate the Latin version.

Where is the authority that approved your Bible, Harley? And who?

That is another issue. If you can't agree that the scriptures exists and are infallible, then it doesn't matter who approves what, does it?

[Cronos]

Kosta: Judaism has 613 mitzvot (commandments) given in the Law, which God gave directly to Moses, of which slightly more than a half are the mitzvot of omission and the rest of commission. The intent is crucial. Those that would count as unforgivable are those intentional and premeditated

Exactly -- and the Original STAIN would count as an unintentional sin and on our part non-premeditated.

Cronos: Also, the sacrifice of Christ IS for unwitting sin (Adam's) -- repentance is still necessary in the Christian world for our non-venial sins. We are not Calvinists to believe that we should not repent
Kosta: Yes, that is correct, all of it.

Yes, penance is needed for our wilful sins. Christ, the sacrifice took away the mitzvot of omission

[presently no screen name]

If you're talking from a Christian perspective, then anyone can understand God's word sufficiently to come to salvation since the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.

Then we should reject God's Word for yours? You had to read God's Word before you realized you needed a Savior?

[HarleyD]

Scriptures cannot be infallible.

Thank you very much. Your's is not a unique view in the Church. I hope some will realize how much error Rome is teaching these days and how far the Church has moved from it's foundation.

[presently no screen name]

More nonsense. It is unrelated to my posts. Are you bored?

Oh really? Are you confused? Sin is sin.

repentance is still necessary in the Christian world for our non-venial sins. We are not Calvinists to believe that we should not repent...(Kosta 50)..Yes, that is correct, all of it.

[HarleyD]

Thank you. I'm on flu medication and I was probably delirious when I wrote it. ;O)

[HarleyD]

For clarification, are you saying that the RCC does not hold Scripture to be infallible in its original mss (as do most evangelicals)?

Please check out post 2425.

[Cronos]

There are a number of additional themes running in the Screwtape letters like

1. After the dedication, Lewis has two quotes, both mocking the devil: one by Martin Luther and the other by Thomas More. The great hero of the Protestant Reformation Luther, alongside St. Thomas More, a Catholic heroes of the Counter-Reformation. And BOTH have the same theme of mocking the devil
2. The entire book elaborates free will.
3. Of course the key theme is that we can fall into two extremes that are error-prone: denying demons exist or getting obsessed with them

[Cronos]

For someone who says they aren't in the habit of posting lies....

You said that Stalin was supposedly taught by Jesuits. You then said, oh, "He attended Theological Seminary of Tiflis, Georgia"

I pointed out to you that

he was Georgian Orthodox, this was a Georgian Orthodox seminary -- Jesuits generally don't set up Orthodox seminaries......

And he was from Georgia, the ex-Soviet state in the Caucasus, not the American one, you know.

Stop posting lies like Jesuits taught (and ran a Georgian Orthodox seminary to boot!) Josef Stalin

Finally, you dig around for where he uses JesuitICAL as an adjective --> that's hilarious!! Stalin learnt at a Georgian ORTHODOX seminary -- those are not run by Jesuits.

in the biography he is supposed to say "Jesuitical discipline that crushed me so mercilessly at the Seminary. " --> you DO know what an adjective is, right?

Please stop posting lies like this.

[Cronos]

You mean that the Holy Spirit does not report to Calvin?

you never know what Calvinists may believe.

These Calvinists also say that Calvin improved on Augustine and Paul.

The Calvinists also say that "That's Christianity, that's Calvinism" showing that they dismiss the Lutherans, Catholics, Pentecostals etc. -- this is apparent on their website where they say that Arminianism (preached by Methodists, Pentecostals etc.) "is a damnable heresy" showing that they consider Pentecostals, Methodists etc. as "preaching a satanic gospel"

[Cronos]

Ok — not doubting you or saying I’m any kind of expert on Egyptian mythology, but I have not read or seen any instance of a lamb in egyptian mythology. Do you have any links to that? I would be interested to read more, thanks.

[HarleyD]

Mark: If that is true, then why did satan and 1/3 of all the angels choose to reign in hell rather than serve in Heaven?

I missed this question.

Did Satan have a "free choice" to choose to reign in hell? If so, do angels today still have a "free choice"?

As boatbums explained, most people believe that Satan fell not because he had a choice but because of pride. There is some evidence to support this claim although we'll never know. I personally think (and this is Harley's explanation mind you) that Satan fall was like Adam. In both cases, they lacked the wisdom of God to make the right decision. Rather than ask God for wisdom from above, as we are commanded in scripture to do, they decided to follow their own course.

When we depart from being dependent on the Lord, we will fail. Which is exactly what the Lord is trying to teach us as Christians-to become more dependent on Him. The other 2/3 of the angels are totally dependent on the Lord.

[Cronos]

Yet, Kosta brings a good point about the differences between the tanakh and the OT. Startling differences — read the blog by “jew with a view”. It’s quite interesting.

[Cronos]

we are warned that those converts who forsake the (persecuted) Christian fellowship, and go on in impenitent willful sin (including going back into their former faith) have effectively denied and despised the faith

And yet, that very statement implies:

1. That one can reject the graces of God (thereby denying Irresistable Grace)
2. That one can lose one's salvation (thereby denying double predestination)
3. That penance and repentence is key for forgiveness. It doesn't forgive the sin, but we must do penance for the wilful sin

[HarleyD]

No, that was not your point, HD, you claim it is a "free" choice. But there is no free choice in predestination, period.

Of course there is no free choice in predestination. There is no free choice. If you could rationally choose between heaven or hell, then the rational choice would be to go to heaven. God would have to give everyone the ability to rationally make a choice and, if they had that choice, they would choose heaven. Everyone would go to heaven.

You don't make the choice. The choice has bene made for you according to your religion.

Of course you make a choice. It's the choice that you would rationally make once God opens up you eyes and ears.

[Cronos]

Hey -- a fellow engineer! I'm a mechanical engineer which means we bummed around learning everything from thermodynamics to electronics to electrical engineering to computers and would look puzzled if we ever opened up a scooter engine (but we could design it ;-P)

I too spent some time in my teens and early 20s investigating and seeking around -- my aunt was some type of "born-again" but is back to the Catholic fold now, so I investigated that, then read the Bible in detail (but I'm far from an expert, more like an idiot who knows how big an idiot he is :-), read the Koran, Avesta, Ramayana, went through the entire tired stream of authors who think Christianity is derived from Mazdaism and it turned out they were wrong. And, then in my 20s by chance I attended a parish in the UK where the priest had a bible discussion group -- not just reading, but reading, reflecting, questioning. All questions were open, like any Catholic study group. And I started reading the early church fathers, the history of the Church, the early heresies, the teachings of the Calvinists, Lutherans, Anglicans, Adventists. And in the end I'm stronger in my faith -- if other folks want to be Calvinist or even Moslem,Hindu etc. let them. If they ask me why I believe what I believe, I'll tell them. If they attack the Christian faith, then the gloves come off.

[Cronos]

A person can be fallible/infallible.

A book can be errant/inerrant.

A person cannot be errant/inerrant and a book cannot be fallible/infallible.

The Bible is inerrant, without errors. That is Church belief and doctrine.

This was repeated in Vatican I

These books [of the canon] the Church holds to be sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author (De Fide Catholica 2:7).

and in VII

it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully, and without error that truth that God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation

This rejected any form of limited inerrancy

[Cronos]

What is your obsession?

True -- they seem to have an unhealthy obsession that every post is somehow cross-verified by the CDF! No wonder they seem to believe that there are red-liveried Cardinal Biggles hiding behind every tree and that any time a Catholic says xyz, then these obsessed non-Catholis think it's Church doctrine!

These guys even think that when someone uses an adjective like "Jesuitical discipline" indicating a discipline as strict as the Jesuits, it means that the person was trained by Jesuits!! Even if the person in question was a Georgian Orthodox trained in a Georgina Orthodox seminary in Georgia (I wonder if they know that this is not the state of Atlanta...)

How obsessed can these outside The Church get?

[Cronos]

You're welcome.

The Westminster Confession does NOT indicate double-predestination. This is an unbiblical belief strongly denied by any reading of Ezekiel 33.

Do you believe in double-predestination? That God pre-damns people to hell?