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.

[xone]

I’ve read what you wrote before, in this area you are better than I am. And I was just bustin’ your ‘thesis’ here. In today’s age, you must have some fun brother.

[FourtySeven]

You really don’t see the pathetic irony in complaining about “deflecting from the original topic” when it’s clear to anyone with half a brain the “original topic” to which you refer is clearly not the “original topic” of the thread?

Or were you complaining that Cronos is the one who hijacked the thread in the first place?

You know what, forget about replying unless you desperately need the last word. I think my point is clear to anyone rubbing two brain cells together.

[HossB86]

Motive.

Stirring controversy, or reasoned dialogue.

No complaints; just observations.

Sorry if I’ve offended your sensibilities. And no need for a last word; you can have it if you want.

Hoss

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The Methodists have never been Calvinistic.

That's not my reading of history. The Methodists were part of the Dissenters in England and many of them were definitely influenced by Calvin.

Like so much of modern religion (and maybe all religion), it may start out conservative and Scripturally-faithful, as hard as that may be, but liberalism seems to creep in without fail.

SEE HERE

George Whitefield (December 16, 1714(O.S) – September 30, 1770(N.S)) was an Anglican Protestant minister who helped spread the Great Awakening in Britain and, especially, in the British North American colonies. He was one of the founders of Methodism and of the evangelical movement generally.[1] He became perhaps the best-known preacher in Britain and America in the 18th century, and because he traveled through all of the American colonies and drew great crowds and media coverage, he was one of the most widely recognized public figures in colonial America...

Whitefield formed and was the president of the first Methodist conference...

Three churches were established in England in his name...where a form of Calvinistic Methodism similar to Whitefield's could be spread...

Like his contemporary and acquaintance, Jonathan Edwards, Whitefield preached with a staunchly Calvinist theology...

And, once again, proving we learn something new every day on this forum, here's an interesting entry about what remains of those "Calvinistic Methodist churches"...

COUNTESS OF HUNTINGDON'S CONNNEXION

The Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion is a small society of evangelical churches, founded in 1783 by Selina, Countess of Huntingdon as a result of the Evangelical Revival. For years it was strongly associated with the Calvinist Methodist movement of George Whitefield.[1] Today, it has 23 congregations in England and some in Sierra Leone.

Whitefield's Calvinism may have nearly died out in Methodism, but we can't deny there was a Calvinistic influence in certain quarters of Methodism from the very beginning, as illustrated by Whitefield, its first president.

And today, there is a remnant.

IMO, one reason why Whitefield's influence wasn't stronger could well have been his advocacy for the legalization of slavery. While he was a benevolent owner of slaves (it was said he was revered by those who worked for him) nonetheless, it was an error both Scripturally and morally.

[xzins]

I didn’t deny the contribution of Whitfield, I simply said that his version died out. As you point out, it did.

I also said that I lean in his direction in my interpretation of the Methodist movement...but in terms of the absolute foreknowledge of God.

I am still unable to overcome the hurdle of God foreseeing someone exercise their own choice and using that as the basis for His choosing them. It puts the cart before the horse....you have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you. I simply move that event back a step into the time before God created into God’s editing the future time.

FWIW, I admit that. Nonetheless, I’ll continue chewing on it until I figure it out by the Grace of Almighty God...whose I am.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

In other words....8~)

If God perceives even the slightest "free will" goodness in us that He Himself did not ordain and animate by the Holy Spirit alone, then there is something in men that is worthy of their own boasting, thus making grace a payment for giving God something He didn't already have and something He stood a chance of actually not already possessing as His own.

A "free" gift is the hardest one to accept. We prefer gifts that we think we're deserving of, that are given to us as a result of our own abilities, efforts and attitudes, that reflect our status as worthy of being given a gift in the first place.

But that's not grace. Grace is unearned. Unmerited. Undeserved. We "deserve" condemnation yet somehow God has chosen us to receive mercy. And mercy comes with no strings attached; no pre-qualifications. God is merciful to us because of who HE is, not because of who WE are. Mercy for mercy's sake.

`Tis not that I did choose thee,
For, Lord that could not be;
This heart would still refuse thee,
Hadst thou not chosen me.
Thou from the sin that stained me
hast cleansed and set me free;
Of old thou hast ordained me,
that I should live to thee.

`Twas sov'reign mercy called me
and taught my op'ning mind;
The world had else enthralled me,
to heav'nly glories blind.
My heart owns none before thee,
for thy rich grace I thirst;
This knowing, if I love thee,
Thou must have loved me first."
Josiah Conder

"There is nothing of which it is more difficult to convince men than that the providence of God governs this world." -- Calvin, Isaiah I:406,407

[caww]

I am not against God. I just don't know what God is, and if he is I leave everything in his hands.

I don't think you are alone in this Kosta. But I do think your vast knowledge, books and endless literature gets in the way of God himself revealing who He is to you, for it does seem all your research has not lead you to that end.

One can study throughout life, all the popular and historical findings and evidences yet still not come to an understanding of who God is, though they may learn various things 'about' Him. Even Christians who do know who He is can get caught up in all the literature available...though they are learning they are not necessarily knowing Him any better for it. It's like knwoing there's someone you've never really met, but know them thru writings as in a novel...it's another story altogether when you actually meet with them.

There was a time when I too read volumes of literature, though this was after I understood and accepted the Gospel of Christ. All very interesting and a sense of gaining in my understanding about the things of God, history etc. Still I wasn't 'satisified', for want of a better word. enough perhaps to say I didn't want to know God from someone elses writings of how they saw Him...but for myself.

It occurred to me that of all the literature man has available to Him it seemed to me that the scriptures somehow left far more an impression and understanding..and with that I somehow knew God better. So I returned to just reading the scriptures and a bible dictionary when I got hung up on definitions. At first for a few days which then lead to many weeks.

I cannot begin to explain the difference except to say I understood that which I know I do not have the intellict to understand apart from God somehow bringing that clarity thru the scriptures as I read. Many times the "lightbulb" turned on and I could see and understand....not all at once but more than enough to keep me engaged, He somehow connected the dots, and more than on occassion I was in awe of "who" He is, sitting back in my chair totally dumbstruck.

This is why I do know know that it is thru His scriptures, no matter if someone believes them are true, or not or somewhere in between, He does indeed reveal Himself if one really wants to know who He is.

Tony Snow knew this I think. And I posted this to you because I do believe you want to know who God is, and moreso God wants you to know who He is. Tony was in the Shadow of death and there are certain things in life you cannot learn other than walking that walk. Be it beside another enduring this or going thru questionable times yourself. Time does stop, that which is really insignificant is clear...that which is significant equally as much. When all is said and done it's an individual and where do they stand on the issue of Christ. We find the scriptures time and again reveal Christ from Genisus to Revelation. It's all there and complete.

So I guess what I'm saying is if your truly desire to know who God is, and not just about Him...ask Him and then read the scriptures for as long as it takes...just read...God will somehow meet you along the way in remarkable ways. And for a time put aside all the study books and literature.

BTW I think when God gets His hands on you, as He did Paul, you will be a mighty instrument in His hands in more ways than you can imagine. He will use all your knowledge and years of learning where He wants that to be known.

Please do not think I'm in any way trying to convert you to any particular religion or church...rather that you are so close to what you are looking for, but you might need to get off the circle of knowledge and just read the letters He wrote.. with Him....until you do know.

[xzins]

All of that I agree with. I just don’t believe that “foreknew” means “love.”

They had a word for love. And “knowing” one’s wife or husband actually means “sexing” them.

There’s a satisfactory answer in the Bible, DrE. He’ll show me in His time.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

There’s a satisfactory answer in the Bible. He’ll show me in His time.

Hurry, Lord Jesus. 8~)

"... as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." - Acts 13:48

---

"As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." -- Romans 9:13-16

---

"But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep" -- John 10:26

REGENERATION

"...It is a doctrine supported by the great light of the Reformation and by the pillars of the evangelical churches ever since: that regeneration is a physical work. And by this they mean there is an actual new creation, as absolutely so as when the world was created; that a new spiritual taste or discernment, and principle is implanted by a sovereign creative operation, and not simply a new direction given to the old faculties.

Such a work being proved, the whole system of evangelical truth; the doctrines of grace; of divine sovereignty; of election; of redemption only by Christ; of human depravity and others connected with them, all flow from it. There is one grand, harmonious, and perfect system: and God is the sum the substance and the glory of all.

My friends, I am fully aware of the difficulties incident to the doctrines here laid down. I know full well how ready the natural heart is both to oppose, and misconstrue them. But if the Bible supports them, it is enough. Here our carnal reason must bow. Here our proud hearts must submit. Charge them with mystery-with inconsistency-with unprofitableness, O sinner, and you assail not man, but God. Look on his word and read. There it stands; and it is written in characters of light, 'which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God...'"

[MarkBsnr]

Since the excerpts showing Luther’s belief in double predestination were posted by aruanan, ask him for them.

Since the accuracy of your posts is very well known and understand, I shall. Aruanan, is that what you posted?

[MarkBsnr]

No! We have quite enough screwballs of our own without taking in yours!

A pity. We could overwhelm the good monks of Mount Athos by putting them in a room with Joe Biden and his microphone for 24 straight hours; and you could overwhelm the Gibson bunch with stick wielding Greek monks. It could be a win-win situation. :)

[MarkBsnr]

lol. Mark, you write with great authority. And it's all your own.

While I am in accord with the Church, I am backed by the authority given to it by Jesus. When I stray from that accord, I will accept correction by even the heretic, apostate and heathen.

[MarkBsnr]

50 feet? Were i live (18k per sq mile) that could be a lot of space, which we need to put the snow.

I was born and raised in an area which has about 9 million inhabitants. A plus - we had about 20 hockey arenas within 20 minutes drive. And a whole lot more within an hour. And the weather was a whole lot better than here in Iowa...

As re the sedevacantists holding with Church teaching on Scripture but the succession of the Popes, they actually think the chair has been empty since either the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958 or Pope John XXIII in 1963, due to the embrace of Modernism, or of having otherwise denied or contradicted solemnly defined (as they see them) Catholic dogmas

They see Vatican II and the years leading up to it as a repudiation of true Catholicism.

As re SS type, it means sola (not solo) scriptura.

May I ask how you quantify the difference?

[MarkBsnr]

Cheers, it was a pleasure jousting with you! We really must again soon.

Our debate this series of exchanges was significantly better in my opinion than the ones I remember in the past. See you soon.

[MarkBsnr]

It’s a pity that you evidently have already accepted the existence of a wall between “belief” and “knowledge.”

Since they are different things, their names and descriptions ought to be different.

Not everyone gets a “Road to Damascus” experience

I believe that God sends us what we need to believe.

but every Christian receives from God Himself the Spiritual knowledge of Who Christ IS. And that Spiritual knowledge comes neither by sensory perception nor reasoning.

There are Buddhists and Muslims who claim the same. There are Jewish mystics who claim the same. There are the Navajo on peyote in medicine tents who claim the same. I ask again, how do you know? What makes your Gnosticism correct and their Gnosticism incorrect?

So obviously we have no common ground between us to discuss this further. It’s been interesting, though, and a great opportunity to testify. Thank you!

Probably correct. Thank you for being gracious. I would just close out here by saying that I have knowledge in engineering and manufacturing, and belief in God.

[count-your-change]

That’s because you’re improving....(chuckle, chuckle)

[MarkBsnr]

OMG! Some of the verses "agree" with an already established Trinity??? Do you mean that the Jews already believed in a triune God as implied in the OT and the NT writers confirmed it in their writings?

I do not bring the OT writers into the fray. I mean that the NT writings for the most part do not even testify to the divinity of Jesus except for a few, somewhat. Most of them say or intimate that Jesus is a man, favoured of God, a super David. That's part of the great insistence on the lineage, which doesn't really work out - we've explored that one on two recent threads of which I believe that you were a participant.

Or, are you saying that your "church" had already made dogmatic statements concerning the Trinity and good, old Paul accommodated y'all and put it all down in his epistles?

Nope. The Church had not made any pronouncements when Paul was writing - it took the various heretics to move them to actually start defining things. Look at the early Church - each pronouncement or definition of the Faith was in response to some heretic or another.

I can only imagine how much your seeming refusal to admit you might be wrong about something from time to time would seriously irritate your wife. It sure would me.

When I am wrong I admit it. Since I am in physical danger from her, I must do it. I am only 6'5" and 250 lb, and she is all of 4"11" and 105 lb, so I do not stand a chance in a physical confrontation.

[MarkBsnr]

Are you thinking about present day Jews? I believe the Jews of the OT certainly knew about the devil. They had the book of Job, right? Just who do you think it was talking about?

The Jews do not have the Christian hell, nor the Christian devil. That has all been redefined for the NT Christians.

[MarkBsnr]

Proverbs 17:28 Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: [and] he that shutteth his lips [is esteemed] a man of understanding.

Proverbs 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that is wise hearkeneth unto counsels. You may call me counselor. :)

[MarkBsnr]

RM —> here is a sneaky way to finesse the rules. The poster is obvious trying to call Mark names and is finessing the rules. This is not the first time.

Appreciate the fine words, but not necessary. My dear boatbums' outburst may be simply a reaction to her increasing understanding of 1 Corinthians 14:34 or 1 Timothy 2:12. I would make nothing more of it than to express my gratification that our exchanges are leading her to Christianity and an understanding of the New Testament.