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]

no one's saying anything about your intelligence, in fact I rate is as high enough to realise just how much Calvinists despise non-Calvinists and how they club every non-Calvinist in the same bucket "This goes to what the Reformers taught; that is the "enthusiasts" or what we call today Pentecostals, are really no different from the Roman Catholics.""

You are definitely smart enough to read the links by Aruanan like "Calvinism is evangelicalism in its purest and only stable expression." B.B. Warfield, Calvin and Augustine, ed. Samuel G. Craig, 1956.

h. "Calvinism is the Gospel and to teach Calvinism is in fact to preach the Gospel." Arthur C. Custance, The Sovereignty of Grace, 1979.


And the OPC website that calls Pentecostalism etc. as damnable heresy.

it is crystal clear what the Calvinists think of non-Calvinist Protestants. So, I have no doubt that people of your intelligence can read and understand the despise that Calvinists have for non-Calvinists

[HossB86]

Nice try at putting words in my mouth to argue against.

As you are fond of saying:

Go look it up. It’s in Scripture. Hint: I believe it’s in one of Paul’s epistles.

Again, fail.

Hoss

[HossB86]

“The Word of God is not a book. This is partly why we consider you guys not to be Christian. We do not worship a book.”

And it’s this exact obtuse statement that shows your error. We do not worship books. ‘Word of God’ is used to describe The Bible... which I thought you could understand since Rome apparently authored it. Christ is our focus; not tradition, not popes, not iconography, or prayer beads, or other tripe like indulgences, Maryolatry, and all the other false doctrine that has been pointed out on various threads. Yet WE are not considered Christian! Were it not so sad, that would be a hilarious statement.

“Jesus is our focus. Not Paul.”

Wait—THAT might be the funnier claim were the falsehood of it not so plain as to make it pitifully sad.

Denying truth because of semantics. Oh, wait: Roman Catholicism seems built on that premise.

Earlier Doc E said to “pray for ears to hear”—I’m praying that is what you do.

Hoss

[HossB86]

So ... Are hungry or thirsty after taking the Eucharist? If so, you and every other Roman Catholic should be fearing for their salvation— for as you said:

“Jesus doesn’t clear up the Metaphor”

So... Which is it? Are you eating and drinking nothing since your first communion?

The lack of logic is stultifying.

Again. Fail. Miserably.

Hoss

[HossB86]

Sad. Can’t argue facts, so try to stir up other problems.

Three year olds do that — not adults!!

[Cronos]

Are you talking about this? Why don't you try to read things exegetically? It's quite simple

And, if you read in the Bible, starting from John 6:30, we read

30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’
32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.

They asked Him for a sign, saying that Moses gave them manna in the desert. If Jesus (according to them) was aspiring to the level of Moses, He should do something as big as that.

and Jesus says something strange to them -- He says Moses didn't give you bread, My father did, and bread that comes down from heaven. Then He says that HE is the bread of life, HE is the manna -- and manna was to be eaten.

The Jews made the same mistake you did, which is to think he was speaking as a metaphor.

Yet Jesus REPEATED the same thing, saying

48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

And now the crowd is openly rebellious saying “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
And

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.

Note -- Jesus doesn't clear up the Metaphor, like he did in Matt. 16:5–12

5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread.
6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”
8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?
9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

So, Jesus DOES indicate when it is a metaphor and when it isn't.
In this case, look at the reaction of his DISCIPLES, people who had heard his teachings for so long and followed him

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”...

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

You cannot say that this was just bread and wine of that this is a metphor for coming and having faith in the Lord or some kind of metphor for believing in Christ because of the reaction of the Jews and the very language -- to eat one's flesh and drink the blood means to do violence on some one. You see it even in Hindi where a threat is "Mein tera Khoon pie jaongaa" or "I will drink your blood" -- and this is among vegetarians! To drink a persons blood means a serious threat of injury.

You cannot even say it was a metaphor by incorreclty comparing it to John 10:9 (I am the gate/doorway) or John 15:1 (I am the true vine) is because this is not referenced in the entire verse in the same way as John 6 which shows the entire incident from start to finish of Jesus saying His body is to be eaten, repeating it and seeing his disciples go and not correcting them (as he did in Matthew 16). Even in the literal sense -- Christ says he is the gateway to heaven and the vine such that we get nourishment with him as the connecting path. But John 6 is much much more than mere symbolism as He categorically states that "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).

Even at the end of John 6, Jesus rebukes those who think of what He has said as a metaphor by emphasising that

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”

Jesus repeats the rebuke against just thinking in terms of human logic (Calvin's main problem) by saying

15 B<>You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.
16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.

Just using human logic as Calvinist thought does, without God's blessings behind it fails in grace.John 6:63 does not refer to Jesus's statement of his own flesh, if you read in context but refers to using human logic instead of dwelling on God's words.

And, all of this is confirmed in Paul's writings to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 10:16)

6 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

and also 1 Cor 11:27-29

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.
29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

How clear can Paul get? "The bread IS a participation in the body of Christ" and "who eats the bread... will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" This is not just mere bread and wine anymore. This is the body and blood of Christ.

Finally, the Earliest Christians also said any consideration of this as just a metaphor was false -- Ignature of Antioch (disciple of Apotle John) wrote in AD 110 wrote about heretics who bstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (Letter to the SMyrnaens). The earliest Christians beleived this to be the ACTUAL body of Christ. Why, they were also accused by pagans of being cannibals and Justin MArtyr had to write a defence to the Emperor saying "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus"

in view of this overwhelming evidence from scripture and supplemented by the practise and belief of the earliest Christians, we can only say that there IS a real presence in the Eucharist. Martin Luther too believed it -- he said that Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. --> only Calvin/Zwingli turned around what Christ had said

[Cronos]

So, do you then agree with the OPC when it says from the opc.org site:

In essence this view would have us believe that we can have the same charismatic gifts that we read about in the age of the Apostles - such as prophecy, speaking in tongues, and healing - today. This is a very serious error. In essence it is a result of a failure to grasp the Biblical teaching concerning the history of salvation.

Or perhaps, do you agree with the OPC that

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.

Or, do you agree with Arthur C. Custance, The Sovereignty of Grace, 1979. when he said "Calvinism is the Gospel and to teach Calvinism is in fact to preach the Gospel."?

[Cronos]

Do you agree with OPC site that says a

Never again will there be an outpouring of the Holy Spirit such as took place on the day of Pentecost.

The sending of the Holy Spirit is just as much an unrepeatable event as the birth of Christ was.

This states clearly that the OPC wishes to believe that the sending of the Holy Spirit is UNREPEATABLE

Is this your belief too?

[Cronos]

In fact, if you are Pentecostal, do you realise that according to Presbyterians "This goes to what the Reformers taught; that is the "enthusiasts" or what we call today
Pentecostals, are really no different from the Roman Catholics."

And, according to their doctrinal website the OPC believes that Arminian (i.e. Methodist, Pentecostal, Baptist) preachers are heretics preaching a damnable heresy?

Do you agree or disagree with this?

[Cronos]

Of course, your group does — no wonder it can’t answer simple exegetical questions on Biblical topics that even a 9 year-old in my Sunday school class could answer.

[HossB86]

“Are you talking about this? Why don’t you try to read things exegetically? It’s quite simple”

Funny. I’m still waiting on an exegesis of “purgatory” from you.

When you learn to exegete, get in touch with me.

By the way; you having anything to eat today?

Snort.

Hoss

[HossB86]

“Of course, your group does.”

And.... My group is?????

Hoss

[HossB86]

Oh... And nice reference to one of my posts where I referenced my Sunday Schoolers exegeting scripture better than those RCC’ers here; unoriginal much?

Hoss

[metmom]

We are not as stupid as you seem to think.

That seems to be a common malady amongst Catholics. Although it might more be that we're not as stupid as they would like to think we are, or hope that we are.

The problem is, there's too many ex-Catholics who are willing to speak out and the mask is torn for those with eyes to see.

[metmom]

[metmom]

I almost split a gut at that complaint from you.

[metmom]

A group like the Calvinists Roman Catholics outright says that it alone is Christianity and everyone who is not a follower of Calvin the pope is a damnable heretic.

There, fixed it for you.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Everything you've accused and condemned non-Catholics for the Catholic church is guilty of itself. No Catholic is in any position to be able to point fingers at other's doctrine or behavior in light of the barbaric, immoral, corrupt history of the Catholic church.

[xzins]

Ask a lutheran....sorry, guys, I’m a Methodist.

[metmom]

And, since we're giving free advice, here's one from me --> find out what your Presbyterian posters here think of your Pentecostal beliefs. Hint --> they've already clearly stated that they consider you Pentecostals the same as Catholics, they already have it as their doctrines that Pentecostals follow a "damnable heresy" and that Pentecostals are in " a very serious error. In essence it is a result of a failure to grasp the Biblical teaching concerning the history of salvation."

Still trying to stir the pot?

[xzins]

Anyone who truly repents is truly forgiven. That is a true statement. However, it does not follow that because a man hangs the Christian label on himself that that makes him a Christian. The Apostle John would say that they leave us because they never really were part of us.

I repeat again that I am a Methodist and not a Lutheran.