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]

Actually, no.
1. we've pointed out that the dogma does not contradict scripture. you or others say it's not in scripture, not that they contradict scripture. There is a difference

2. The infallibility as we've said before is on matters of dogma strictly. Most Protestants follow some if not all of the infallible teachings of it's predecessors, the Councils, especially on Christological matters

3. Furthermore, every denomination outside the Church still has a council, a synod, a set of ruling elders and catechism that describes what they believe in -- this is the basis of having a coherent faith. I may not agree with say the LCMS or the PCA but they keep a coherent list of what they believe in -- this is necessary as there are so many little questions, like Genesis 1, etc.

4. It's not an effort to supersede Scripture -- Scripture is the final, gold standard. That is why I insist on the word "contradict" -- if something contradicts scripture, it cannot be true. But if it is not in scripture and does not contradict it, that does not necessitate it's verity or falsity

[Cronos]

CYC My definition of a Christian? Why not let Christ define who is a follower of him? To paraphrase Matt. 7:21-23 Thanks.

Matt 7:21-23 21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity

Not trying to gotcha but that is defining salvation by faith AND works.

Even in this case, Constantine could arguably be said to have done the will of The Father to stop the persecution of Christians. Remember that Constantine's edict stopping the persecution is a starting boulder to eventually the Roman and Byzantine Empires being the channels for the conversion of Europe and the Mediterranean.

He was baptised on his death-bed, that's a fast. He most likely belived this washed away his sins. He believed that his beliefs were fine and yet all his sins would be washed away at his baptism and he'd enter into heaven pure. Note, I'm just pointing out what Constantine believed.

Seriously -- why do you think Constantine was a worker of lawlessness any more than most rulers right up until post WWII? And I mean this as a historical question, not a religious one.

[caww]

You looking behind closed doors again...tsk tsk.

[caww]

But if it is not in scripture and does not contradict it, that does not necessitate it's verity or falsity

That's just giving loads of wiggle room for anyone to claim what they want...and say it's from God or truth "in another sense"....and that thinking is why there are so many false religions and nutcases out there as well.

[cinciella]

Very true. THX!

[cinciella]

What part of “and to your descendants” is so hard to understand?

“And what part of the “father of many nations” don’t you understand?”

I never said I don’t understand that. We are “adopted” in. Abraham is also the father of all that came from Ishmael. That is not what “and to your descendants” is talking about. There are specific promises made to the ethnic children of Israel that don’t apply to the Ishmaelites or to the Gentiles.

[cinciella]

Thank you for posting this. God is faithful, and He does indeed keep His promises! I’m looking forward to see His marvelous works!

[count-your-change]

“Not trying to gotcha but that is defining salvation by faith AND works.”

As James writes in James 2:14-26. He makes the point that faith in demonstrated by actions. If your brother is hungry and cold you don’t say, “Have faith” and do nothing for him.

Rahab had heard of the victories of the Israelites but it was her actions that saved her life and that of her family.

“Even in this case, Constantine could arguably be said to have done the will of The Father to stop the persecution of Christians”

So Jesus could stop the persecution of his followers. Jesus more over could call upon legions of angels to assist him in so doing. But he didn’t.

Those who did “many wonderful works” Jesus called them workers of iniquity or lawlessness. Why?

They had cast out demons in his name, they had prophesied in his name, they had recognized him as Lord, but he says,

“I NEVER knew you Get away from me”

He doesn’t call their works “wonderful” he calls them iniquity because he didn’t authorize what they did or how they did it, “He never knew them”, he didn’t recognize them as acting in his name right from the beginning. They were adjudged by him as “lawless” since they weren’t doing the will of his father nor in the way He wanted it done.

“He was baptised on his death-bed, that’s a fast. He most likely belived this washed away his sins. He believed that his beliefs were fine and yet all his sins would be washed away at his baptism and he’d enter into heaven pure. Note, I’m just pointing out what Constantine believed.”

He was mistaken according to what I understand the Scriptures say about repentance.

As for the conversion of Europe and the Mediterranean how much of that was done by force? Yet never did Christ teach his followers to spread the word by the power of Caesar.
He wouldn’t let others defend him with force of arms either as the ear chopping incident in Gethsemane.

“Seriously — why do you think Constantine was a worker of lawlessness any more than most rulers right up until post WWII? And I mean this as a historical question, not a religious one.”

It has to be a religious question as Jesus was discussing the doing of his fathers will and the ones he called workers of iniquity or lawlessness were not called such because they broke some secular law.

Constantine more a worker a worker of lawlessness? Well you did call what he did “a starting boulder”.

[Lera]

Amen.

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

[Cronos]

Of course, one of the basic reasons for the argument for or against is what exactly does one believe it is? Is it just a symbol or does it actually communicate grace?

I think we ALL agree on the normal process for an adult which would be to believe, repent, and then be baptized -- correct?

next, is it regenerative or not?

John 1:33 33 And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’
John 3:3,5 Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God. . . Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven
And then you see next
John 3:22 22 After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized.
Luke 18:15–16 tells us that "they were bringing even infants" to Jesus; and he himself related this to the kingdom of God: "Let the children come to me . . . for to such belongs the kingdom of God."

Now this is clear, the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, Jesus' peaching on this and then his baptizing of others. Tie this in to the last where Jesus tells the Children to come to Him Remember that this is "of water and the Spirit". The analogy is to Naaman in the OT 2 Kings 5.

This is repeated by Peter 1 pet 3: and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.[e] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First the positive proof in scripture -- now here, while we (Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians etc.) say that the baptisal of entire households includes children, you would dispute that, correct?

And yet Paul also says 11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh[b] was put off when you were circumcised by[c] Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead -- Paul indicates that baptism had replaced circumcision. Now circumcision was performed on adult converts to Judaism, but also and mainly on new-borns born INTO Judaism. The adults could assent to this but the infants had their parents assenting. This is the same reasoning we use for child baptisms

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Next, take the negative proof (or the positive proof for non-infant baptism) -- no where in the Bible does it say that infants were refused baptism, no where in Early Church history do we hear about this either

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, historical. The only debates about infant baptism were in the 3rd century AD and that too, only over WHEN, i.e. 2/3 days after birth or later not why. It was taken for granted that infants were to be baptised. No one even countenanced anything different and there was no murmur about this for 1700 years which clearly indicates that this is what was practised from apostolic times. Hippolytus in A.D. 215: "Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16).

Or Ireneus "He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God--infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 180]).

If it had been an innovation, why was there no record in Church history of protest at its introduction? There is no group prior to the 1700s who rejected infant baptism

[Cronos]

Please do note, cyc, one of the basic reasons for the argument for or against is what exactly does one believe it is? Is it just a symbol or does it actually communicate grace?

I think we both agree on the steps for an adult baptism which would be to believe, repent, and then be baptized -- correct?

next, is it regenerative or not?

John 1:33 33 And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’
John 3:3,5 Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God. . . Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven
And then you see next
John 3:22 22 After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized.
Luke 18:15–16 tells us that "they were bringing even infants" to Jesus; and he himself related this to the kingdom of God: "Let the children come to me . . . for to such belongs the kingdom of God."

Now this is clear, the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, Jesus' peaching on this and then his baptizing of others. Tie this in to the last where Jesus tells the Children to come to Him Remember that this is "of water and the Spirit". The analogy is to Naaman in the OT 2 Kings 5.

This is repeated by Peter 1 pet 3: and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.[e] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First the positive proof in scripture -- now here, while we (Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians etc.) say that the baptisal of entire households includes children, you would dispute that, correct?

And yet Paul also says 11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh[b] was put off when you were circumcised by[c] Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead -- Paul indicates that baptism had replaced circumcision. Now circumcision was performed on adult converts to Judaism, but also and mainly on new-borns born INTO Judaism. The adults could assent to this but the infants had their parents assenting. This is the same reasoning we use for child baptisms

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Next, take the negative proof (or the positive proof for non-infant baptism) -- no where in the Bible does it say that infants were refused baptism, no where in Early Church history do we hear about this either

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, historical. The only debates about infant baptism were in the 3rd century AD and that too, only over WHEN, i.e. 2/3 days after birth or later not why. It was taken for granted that infants were to be baptised. No one even countenanced anything different and there was no murmur about this for 1700 years which clearly indicates that this is what was practised from apostolic times. Hippolytus in A.D. 215: "Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16).

Or Ireneus "He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God--infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 180]).

If it had been an innovation, why was there no record in Church history of protest at its introduction? There is no group prior to the 1700s who rejected infant baptism

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For any group that rejects infant baptism but acknowledges the transformative power of baptism, there are a lot of questions that follow.

For any group that rejects the transformative power of baptism, the questions differ.

[Cronos]

I don't have the link, but I have asked Quix if he was a trinitarian before and he answered yes and that he acknowledged the message in the Nicene Creed.

That's the main reason (along with his toning down the fonts!) why I started really reading what he wrote rather than getting mired in the format.

You Lee and we(imp and me) may disagree with some if not most of Quix' beliefs, but he does believe in God as a Triune God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

He is not a polytheist and also acknowledges Jesus and the Holy Spirit as God along with God the Father. By the strictest definition that makes him trinitarian (though he doesn't seem to like labels).

[Cronos]

Boatb, I respect you and believe you sincerely mean and believe what you say What sola scriptura does NOT mean is that nobody can have their traditions to follow or that there cannot be gifted teachers and preachers of the Bible within the church of God. but that is your definition of sola scriptura (your interpretation of sola scriptura.

There are other Christian groups that have a stricter definition.

[Cronos]

RM, with due respect, oneLord did NOT ask for personal information. He asked in 784

if your pastor baptized an infant, there would be a great hue and cry, no? show me from history, where the mythical “true” Christians you believe existed in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries that were not Catholic, show me where they preached against the Catholic practice, give names, dates,etc. your silence will tell all!!

No question on personal information.

This is a religion forum and it is perfectly natural to ask someone where they stand on a religious point. For example, to ask metmom on her stand on infant baptism makes sense in a debate ON infant baptism. To ask her her stand on the Trinity makes sense in any discussion on the Trinitarian nature of Christ.

No one is asking a poster their name, address or SSN, rather the questions are "what do you believe" -- which is highly relevant and not personal.

[Cronos]

Do realise that the principle of infallibility rests on the office of bishop of rome (in conjunction with other bishops when in council) ON doctrine alone. The pope himself is a sinner like all of us -- this grace accorded him does not mean that he can be a blithering fool or worse, JUST, that while pronouncing doctrine, the office is protected from fallibility. And that has held true even in cases like the Borgia Pope -- check his pronouncements and see if he made any infallible declarations and what they were about and you will see.

Note on Boniface's pronouncement, this echoes

St. Ignatius of Antioch (110 AD):
"Those, indeed, who belong to God and to Jesus Christ -- they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church -- they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion." (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:2-3)

[Cronos]

Secondly, do note the historical background. This was written in 1302, during the dispute between Philip the Fair of France with the papacy.

the background put succintly is this:

• The Capet King of France is fighting with the Norman kings (I won't call them English as they mostly spoke French and controlled the entire western half of what is now France, in fact more of French territory than the "French" king
• The idea of a nation as separate from a kingdom and from Christendom was just rising
• Philip was running out of money. In the shorter term, Philip arrested Jews so he could seize their assets to accommodate the inflated costs of modern warfare: he expelled them from his French territories on 22 July 1306 (see The Great Exile of 1306). His financial victims also included Lombard bankers and rich abbots.
• He was condemned by The Church for his spendthrift lifestyle.
• When he also levied taxes on the French clergy of one half their annual income, he caused an uproar within the Roman Catholic Church and the papacy, prompting Pope Boniface VIII to issue the Bull Clericis laicos forbidding the transference of any church property to the French Crown and prompting a drawn-out diplomatic battle with the King.
• In the bull, Boniface states "they exact and demand from the same the half, tithe, or twentieth, or any other portion or proportion of their revenues or goods; and in many ways they try to bring them into slavery, and subject them to their authority. And also whatsoever emperors, kings, or princes, dukes, earls or barons...presume to take possession of things anywhere deposited in holy buildings...should incur sentence of excommunication."
• On November 18, 1302, Boniface issued one of the most important papal bulls of Catholic history: Unam sanctam. It declared that both spiritual and temporal power were under the pope's jurisdiction, and that kings were subordinate to the power of the Church.
• Philip wasn't convinced and he sent his soldiers in to capture the pope, which they promptly did and beat him nearly to death. he was released and 3 days later died.