The Not So Secret Rapture

reformed.org ^ | W. Fred Rice

[Quix]

we’ll keep the name because it fits!!

WHAT A JOKE!
THE EXCLUSIONIST
Vatican Alice In Wonderland School Of Theology And Reality Mangling's
haughty IN-GROUP mentality;
EXCLUSIONIST,
dogma and rituals;
EXCLUSIONIST,
idolatries, blasphemies and heresies
about Mary;
EXCLUSIONIST,
language and terms;
EXCLUSIONIST,
AUTHORITARIAN DEMANDS
of everyone;
EXCLUSIONIST,
rubberized history;
EXCLUSIONIST,
daffynitionary;
. . .

This same group wants to be known as
UNIVERSAL!

WHAT A HYPOCRITICAL FARCE!
What paradoxical obtuseness!
What absurd cheekiness!

No dice.
Not from this proddy.
Even the term "Roman Catholic" is too generous for such a smelly pile of farce.

[metmom]

I only courtesy pinged you.

The first person listed in the *To:* field is the one to whom the post is addressed. Others are added in the event they are interested in the response.

I wasn’t under the impression you were RC.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

some still are not sure if the baptist or lutheran is right on infant baptism, heads or tails?

[CynicalBear]

Don’t ping me again until you answer the question.

[MarkBsnr]

WHAT A HYPOCRITICAL FARCE! What paradoxical obtuseness! What absurd cheekiness!

You are far too modest. Claim it, brother.

[CynicalBear]

The Protestant teaching of sola scriptura is not a heresy or a novel doctrine, but in reality it is a reaffirmation of the faith of the early church. It is both biblical and historical, yet the Roman Catholic Church continues to teach that oral tradition is a second source of divine revelation, equally as authoritative as Scripture and that this was the view held by the church Fathers. Such a claim, however, contradicts both Scripture and history. When the Fathers speak of a tradition handed down from the apostles independent of Scripture, they are referring to ecclesiastical customs and practices, never to doctrine. Tradition was always subordinate to Scripture as an authority, and the Word of God itself never teaches that tradition is inspired. The Scriptures give numerous warnings against tradition, ('See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ' (Col. 2:8); 'Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition....They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.' (Matt. 15:6, 9; cf. Mark 7:3-13; Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:22; 1 Peter 1:18) and the Fathers rejected the teaching of an apostolic oral tradition independent of Scripture as a gnostic heresy. For the church Fathers apostolic tradition or teaching was embodied and preserved in Scripture. The teaching of the Fathers is this: What the apostles initially proclaimed and taught orally, they later committed to writing in the New Testament. Irenaeus succinctly states it in these words:

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies III.1.1, in Alexander Roberts and W. H. Rambaugh, trans., in The Writings of Irenaeus (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1874)

How is one to know what the apostles taught orally? It has been handed down to us in the Scriptures, and they in turn are the ground and pillar of our faith. The historical circumstances that prompted Irenaeus's words are important to understand. He was writing against the Gnostics who claimed to have access to an oral tradition handed down from the apostles, which was independent of the written Word of God. Irenaeus, as well as Tertullian, explicitly repudiates such a concept. The bishops of the church were in the direct line of succession from the apostles, and they were faithful to the apostolic teaching they proclaimed orally, but that doctrine could at every point be validated by Scripture.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

i dealt with your questions on Mary, any honor given her are strictly due to her position as the Mother of God, from which are Savior was born. My point to you is, you seem to put some weight on what early Christians such as St. Iraneus and St Cyril taught, yet in the two huge doctrines of baptism and the Eucharist, you would be considered a heretic by them!

[editor-surveyor]

>> “Is the rapture in the Bible?” <<

.
Yes! How could the saints possibly return to rule with Christ during the millenial reign unless they were removed first?

[CynicalBear]

Already did that in 531.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “The Holy Spirit protects the Church” <<

.
No, he Comforts the church, but he is removed when the church is removed.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

how are we to know? From the Church, the ground and pillar of truth ( 1 Timothy 3:15 ) how does the Church know, it was there, it heard the Apostles! how can an organization know started in the 16th century, it can’t because it wasn’t there!

[CynicalBear]

>> i dealt with your questions on Mary, any honor given her are strictly due to her position as the Mother of God, from which are Savior was born.<<

I’ll ask it one more time. Find the basis for the assumption of Mary from Scripture. Honor due her does not cut it. An important doctrine like that would not have been ignored by the apostles.

[topcat54]

If there was a sudden rapture, wouldn’t those “left behind” understand immediately that they were wrong, realize there is a God and believe?

You're trying to look at this thing logically. The doctrine is inherently illogical.

[topcat54]

I’ll ask it one more time.

I've been asking unanswered questions of you for a while.

[CynicalBear]

You didn’t read the scriptures referenced did you.

[MarkBsnr]

. Yes! How could the saints possibly return to rule with Christ during the millenial reign unless they were removed first?

Maybe they won't from a Reformed perspective...

[topcat54]

No, he Comforts the church, but he is removed when the church is removed.

So who is it allegedly that brings about the conversion of all those “tribulation saints” if the Holy Spirit is on the side lines?

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

i’m sorry! in all these posts, i missed #531 ( didn’t know where you got assumption from in your previous post, now it makes sense )
ok then, you seem to agree with Lutherans, so it is 2-1.
Your question on the Assumption of Mary being found in the Scriptures presupposes “sola scriptura” is our rule of faith, it is not! The doctrine is hinted at in Revelation, but the root is Sacred Tradition and the fact Mary’s body contained Jesus and He would not allow that body to corrupt.
again i ask you, why are you so hung up on Mary? I would think Baptism and the Eucharist are much more important doctrines and you seem to be very unorthodox in your beliefs. Believe me, you can be Catholic and never utter the word Mary!

[Quix]

NONSENSE.

[editor-surveyor]

Scripture reference please.