Are Catholics "born again"?

[Melchior]

I was born again in the spirit when I was chosen a few years ago, after repenting and dedicating my life to my Lord and Savior. After being born again in the spirit, I wanted to be born again by water as an act of obedience to my Savior. However, this does not mean that I believe that a person is saved through an act of the flesh.

I am glad Jesus is your Lord and Savior. He is mine too. I am not a Catholic for clarity sake. But i must ask where does scripture teach that Baptism is an act of obedience?

I have not held that infant baptism is a bad thing throughout this thread. I was as an infant. I am godfather to two catholic kids. My kids were baptized at something like 6 and 8 years old purely as a matter of happenstance from the backslidden, or at least non-Church going, parent I had been.

I too was baptized a secind time after being born again. But I wish I wasn’t there was nothing wrong with my original. God has kept all His promises He made to me in baptism. As the Apostle says “there is one baptism…” Particulalry if you only believe it to be a symbol then how can the original symbol be invalidated. Either you were baptized or you weren’t. If you were immeresed in water or it was poured over you in the name of the Trinity you have been baptized, whether you consented to it or not.

But did this tradition in the Church prevent some from being baptized as I was? We know about adult baptism in Scripture. Only speculation has been presented in this thread in regard to infant baptism, and weak at best, and contradictory at worst.

Well consider the nature of the New Testament. It records the events of the *first generation *of believers. Think of the significance in relation to this topic. It would be impossible to see many infant baptisms since it records the conversions of the first generaitonof adult believers, the babies would be the second generation. The household baptisms should be convincing enough with a proper understanding of how God always operates through covenants and has always graciously made convanent with families, not just individuals. You need to see the entire, covenantal flow of the dcriptures form Old Testament to new. Further you need to look at intertestamental baptisms that converst to Judiasm went through which were alway heads of households that brought their whole family along in the washing ritual. There is a context for baptism in the OT and in the broader culture of the time. You cannot read a naked text without some cultural context. No Jewish man would ever exclude his child from the covenant, effectively declaring him a pagan, unless there was explicit instruction to do so. Peter never gives it. Not does Paul.

In fact, in the Great Commission Jesus instructs the apostles to make disciples by baptizing… and teaching…

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Disciples are made by baptizing. Since we Christians instruct our children from the earliest age possible are they not disciples? If they are disciples they must be baptized. Someone not a visible memebr of the Church via baptism is outside the church, in an objective sense. So to disciple one who is not baptized is a violation of the Great Commission.

I know an elderly gentleman, Christian all his life, that had come to feel that he needed to be baptized in his 80s. He had been baptized as a child. Far be it from me to fault him for it. I believe it was the Lord’s lead.

I did the same thing at 18. We can be sincere and sincerely wrong. But I don’t doubt that God blesses good intentions in such circumstances. I don’t fault the man either. But he was already baptized the second baptism was for his benefit, but it was not a real baptism since you cannot be baptized twice any more than you can enter your mothers womb a second time and be born naturally twice.

We are all on our own paths and if we walk humbly with the Lord and follow His lead He will continue to bless us with direction as to how we can best serve Him.

Agreed

(cont.)

 

[Melchior]

(cont.)

If a person is secure in their relationship with the Lord, and they search their heart and find that their infant baptism is sufficient, I am confident that they will not go to perdition for not making the choice. Just as I am confident that infants will not go to perdition simply because they weren’t baptized, as one poster here seemed to suggest.

I agree about the perdition comments. But I don’t believe we can find objective truth in our hearts. The heart of man is deceptive above all things. If our hearts contradict scripture for example, our hearts are wrong. I also trust in God’s mercy for the unbaptized children of Christians. But I do think it a shame that parents unwittingly teach their children sceptism by doubting their standing before God. I have three small children two of them are old enough to articulate their fiaht in child like terms and I assure them of their standing before their savior. I have absolutely no reason to doubt they are believers, since they believe everything daddy and mommy tell wihtout question as most small children do. Parents are to nurture that faith, not cast doubt on it because they did not respond to an altar call and have a profound experience. Timothy believed since infancy according to scripture. My children discipleship began when, in faith, I brought them before God and they were baptized.

 

[JohnWilliams]

Fine, I understand the distinction, and thank you for making it. However, I ask again: how do you know that he corrected the errors in your previous views on eschatology,

My former futurist eschatology cannot stand in the light of the truth of God’s Holy Word even briefly. When you study it’s roots it gets a lot worse.

and how do you know he is right, and all the others preaching and writing on this topic are wrong?

He will be the first to tell you he doesn’t have all the answers, and could well be wrong about some things. He does make a very good case however, based on sound principles of hermeneutics.

You’ve practically endowed him with infallibility where eschatology is concerned.

Not at all. Try reading a chapter or two. I think you will be able to set aside some of your presumptions about Skolfield.

I have no idea what you’re talking about, or why you think that the Second Coming should hold such prominence in Christian theology. Does it really matter how and/or when Christ returns?

I’ll defer to C.S. Lewis who put your point well:
“We have the assurance of the New Testament regarding events to come. I find it difficult to keep from laughing when I find people worrying about future destruction of some kind or another. Didn’t they know they were going to die anyway? Apparently not…The world might stop in ten minutes; meanwhile we are to go on doing our duty. The great thing is to be found at one’s post as a child of God living each day as though it were our last, but planning as though our world might last a hundred years.”

Where is the focus on doing what Christ said, living a Christian life, loving God and loving our neighbor?

It has given me a passion for helping to save Muslims from Islam. I believe they were neglected by the Church but many are coming to the Lord today.

I used to attend a church that preached heavily on the pre-millenial, pre-tribulation rapture view of eschatology, and a few (not many) focused on that to the exclusion of all else, and used it as a measuring stick as to who was really ‘saved’ and who wasn’t. So I must ask, why do you focus so heavily on eschatology?

Because I came from a Church much like you describe. Futurism is dangerous doctrine and much of my effort is geared toward helping to correct the heresy in the doctrines you mention. I have found that those who hold pre-trib doctrine are led out of that within a couple of days in a Christian chat forum based on scripture.

An example of the worst case, might be a guy that gets dragged by his wife to Church every Sunday. He may want to remain unrepentant because he’s still having “fun”, but figures that if his wife gets “pre-trib raptured” he will knuckle down and fly right. Particularly young people do not consider that they may die in a car today and may put off repentance the same way.

If my Savior does return today many of these will understand that there is no second chance, as would seem to be promised by futurist doctrine, that has only been in part of the Protestant Church for barely more than 100 years.

False doctrine is in all Churches. Satan is responsible for it. You won’t find him working an atheist convention. Hollywood is already in his back pocket. You can look for Satan in the Church doing what he can to cart off Jesus goods. Don’t you think?

(be back in a little while)

 

[djrakowski]

My former futurist eschatology cannot stand in the light of the truth of God’s Holy Word even briefly. When you study it’s roots it gets a lot worse.

I agree. It is rather anti-Biblical, isn’t it?

He will be the first to tell you he doesn’t have all the answers, and could well be wrong about some things. He does make a very good case however, based on sound principles of hermeneutics.

I’m glad he realizes he doesn’t have all the answers, but how do I know he’s right at all? After all, the pre-trib, pre-mil rapturists believe they’re absolutely right, and that they’re using sound principles of hermeneutics, and yet they’re opposed to what Skolfield believes is true. They can’t both be right, and yet, there’s nobody in an authoritative position who can tell which is right (and possibly, whether both are totally wrong).

Not at all. Try reading a chapter or two. I think you will be able to set aside some of your presumptions about Skolfield.

I have no presumptions about Skolfield. I’m just trying to get you to establish why he’s more credible than the exegetes who also believe they’ve used sound hermeneutical principles to come up with a pre-mil, pre-trib rapture view of eschatology.

I’ll defer to C.S. Lewis who put your point well:
“We have the assurance of the New Testament regarding events to come. I find it difficult to keep from laughing when I find people worrying about future destruction of some kind or another. Didn’t they know they were going to die anyway? Apparently not…The world might stop in ten minutes; meanwhile we are to go on doing our duty. The great thing is to be found at one’s post as a child of God living each day as though it were our last, but planning as though our world might last a hundred years.”

You’re right - that sums it up well, and the further we discuss, the more we seem to have in common in this regard

It has given me a passion for helping to save Muslims from Islam. I believe they were neglected by the Church but many are coming to the Lord today.

I don’t understand how a supposed neglect of witnessing to Muslims has anything to do with eschatology. I’ve known rapture-believers who were consumed with a passion for sharing the faith with Muslims.

Because I came from a Church much like you describe. Futurism is dangerous doctrine and much of my effort is geared toward helping to correct the heresy in the doctrines you mention. I have found that those who hold pre-trib doctrine are led out of that within a couple of days in a Christian chat forum based on scripture.

I’m totally with you (admit it - you’re surprised, right? ) However, I’m still trying to get you to establish why you think you and Skolfield are right, and all the earnest rapture-believing adherents are wrong. Fair enough, eh?

False doctrine is in all Churches. Satan is responsible for it. You won’t find him working an atheist convention. Hollywood is already in his back pocket. You can look for Satan in the Church doing what he can to cart off Jesus goods. Don’t you think?

You ought to know enough of Catholic theology by now to know that we don’t believe there’s any false doctrine in the Church. Sure, I agree that Satan is present everywhere, but I will not admit (since it is not true) that he has infected the doctrines of the Catholic Church. You may find more answers if you were to start threads about each doctrine of the Catholic Church you believe to be Satanic in origin, and by logical extension, at variance with authentic Christianity. Or, you could just review the threads (there are many) on these topics, and come back with other questions. But lay aside your prejudices for a while and learn what we *really *believe.

 

[jim1130]

jim1130:

Luke 18:15 – Jesus said “Let the children come to me.” Did this exclude children who were not of the age of reason?

rbarcia:

So why do catholic kids have to wait till their seven to take communion. It seems like you are picking and choosing. Catholics believe in Real Presence, then little children under seven should be allowed to take communion from the minute they can eat bread, based on this reasoning since you believe that Christ is really in the bread, why can’t children under seven receive communion?? You are forbidding children under seven then from coming to Christ.

However, Let little children come to me does not mean let little children be baptized. Unless you believe in Jesus presence in the Water? It seems you are in more violation of this children rule with communion.

Baptism is a saving grace. Understanding the Eucharist, also a saving grace, is more complicated (and it is not figurative). Yes, it would be nice if my son had been able to receive the Eucharist early on, but I see no problem with delaying.

jim1130:

Acts 2:39. Peter says that baptism is for children as well as adults. The Greek word used for children is “teknon.” This is the same word used to describe eight-day old infants in Acts 21:21

rbarcia:

The context suggest otherwise. They were to do 2 thing, Repent and be baptized. An infant cannot do the first. The phrasing is such that, if your children repent and is baptized, then the promise is theirs.

Acts 2: 36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”
37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”
38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

According to YOUR interpretation the context says otherwise. “Children” is not defined by age. Parents play an important role in their children’s salvation and one role they play is through baptism.

jim1130:

Acts 16:15. Lydia’s household (again, in the Greek, “oikos,” which includes children) was baptized based on Lydia’s faith.

Please show for me the verse that excludes infants from baptism. You have never shown that. You have made a presumption over your own interpretation.

rbarcia:

The verse does not suggest that Lydia’s household was Baptized solely on her faith, you are deriving that yourself.

Later in the chapter, we see an example of the whole household believing.

Acts 16

32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.

In verse 32, he spoke with everyone in the house, it would seem odd to speak to infants. This is strong enough evidence, but after being baptized in verse 33, verse 34 says the whole household believed . Obviously, an infant cannot believe yet. Here we have an example, with context, of the whole household believing. So it is quite obvious there was no infant.

And 1 Peter 3:21 says “baptism saves you” (not repent first and baptism will save you). I wanted my son baptized as soon as possible into the Kingdom of God. Why delay?

And Jesus Matt. 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Where does Christ say (1) make sure they repent first and (2) do not baptize children, but delay until they are of the age of reason?

Also, YOU define what constitutes a household and what does not constitute a household. For you, infants and children are not part of a household. Do not parents speak on behalf of their children? In the Old Covenant, did not parents bring their newborns to the Temple on the eighth day? Do you not see a similarity with baptism?

All I have read from the Protestants is that the information shared on infant baptism has not been sufficient to convince them otherwise. “Convincing” is not my job; that is the Holy Spirit’s.

The questions that subscribers to SS have still not answered: Show the verse that says NOT to baptize infants. The burden of responsibility to show that baptism was not intended for babies, infants, children, etc. is on the Protestant.

As far as the Church is concerned, ample evidence exists otherwise whether you choose to agree or not. You choose not to see it.

 

[JohnWilliams]

I agree. It is rather anti-Biblical, isn’t it? I’m glad he realizes he doesn’t have all the answers, but how do I know he’s right at all? After all, the pre-trib, pre-mil rapturists believe they’re absolutely right, and that they’re using sound principles of hermeneutics,

This is not true. To begin with they would have to rewrite the book of Matthew:

Matthew 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time.
Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days … the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
Matthew 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet [a great trumpet, NASB], and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Note the sequence of events:
(1) Tribulation.
(2) After the tribulation.
(3) Great trumpet."

One of the very verses they use for support does the opposite:

1 Chronicles 15:51-52 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

Does this say “at the last trump … er … except for…”?
And who the heck is the WE anyway?

and yet they’re opposed to what Skolfield believes is true.

I’ve yet to learn of a futurist that gave Skolfield and honest read that wasn’t led out of futurist doctrine. I recently bore testimony by a pastor that taught futurism since 1962, and his pastor son, that understand this study as containing truth, by allowing scripture to define scripture. .

They can’t both be right,

Produce for me a futurist that doesn’t buy it before you continue with your premise.

and yet, there’s nobody in an authoritative position who can tell which is right (and possibly, whether both are totally wrong).
I have no presumptions about Skolfield. I’m just trying to get you to establish why he’s more credible than the exegetes who also believe they’ve used sound hermeneutical principles to come up with a pre-mil, pre-trib rapture view of eschatology.

It is simply a brick by brick empirical argument. I believe we are in the time of the end. I believe that the Lord returning his people to our covenant land in 1948 in fulfillment of so much prophecy marked our entry into the time of the end. The gentiles are finished “trodding” the Holy City and the Jews were restored to power there in 1967 for the first time in over 2500 years. I also believe the book and the words of Daniel remained sealed until this time. Matthew Henry and Isaac Newton for example, wrote passionately about this time and what would become a further opening of God’s Holy Word.

 

[Damascus]

John the Baptist was a very special case. Are you saying all babies are like John the Baptist?

Mary even more special, but of course none as special as Christ’s.

I agree St John the Baptist was a very special case. Why do Protestants ignore this unless its convienient?

 

[JohnWilliams]

You’re right - that sums it up well, and the further we discuss, the more we seem to have in common in this regard
I don’t understand how a supposed neglect of witnessing to Muslims has anything to do with eschatology.

I believe if the Church had understood the central role of Islam it would have understood more urgency in evangelizing Muslims.

I’ve known rapture-believers who were consumed with a passion for sharing the faith with Muslims.

That is unusual in much of the Church. Indeed Calvary Chapel has an entire ministry of Jews, but if you do a web search you are likely to find only one X-Muslim pitching a book that is associated with Calvary Chapel. Muslims for Christ is a good group. I don’t know their eschatology however and likely it is not their primary interest being in the trenches.

I’m totally with you (admit it - you’re surprised, right? ) However, I’m still trying to get you to establish why you think you and Skolfield are right, and all the earnest rapture-believing adherents are wrong. Fair enough, eh?.

Quite. I could tell you about it until I was blue in the face though. It is an easy read. Try it and you be the judge.

You ought to know enough of Catholic theology by now to know that we don’t believe there’s any false doctrine in the Church.

I didn’t know that. But surely they approach eschatology in an “perhaps this is meant, or alternately this could be the…”.

Sure, I agree that Satan is present everywhere, but I will not admit (since it is not true) that he has infected the doctrines of the Catholic Church.

It is difficult for each of us to consider the possiblity that our church could be in error.

You may find more answers if you were to start threads about each doctrine of the Catholic Church you believe to be Satanic in origin, and by logical extension, at variance with authentic Christianity.

I have avoided getting into this area in this forum because mine is not an effort to divide the Body of Christ.

Or, you could just review the threads (there are many) on these topics, and come back with other questions. But lay aside your prejudices for a while and learn what we *really *believe.

May God bless you Bro.

 

[tequilamac]

This is not true. To begin with they would have to rewrite the book of Matthew:

Matthew 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time.
Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days … the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
Matthew 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet [a great trumpet, NASB], and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Note the sequence of events:
(1) Tribulation.
(2) After the tribulation.
(3) Great trumpet."

One of the very verses they use for support does the opposite:

1 Chronicles 15:51-52 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

Does this say “at the last trump … er … except for…”?

I’ve yet to find a futurist that gave Skolfield and honest read that wasn’t led out of futurist doctrine. I recently bore testimony by a pastor that taught futurism since 1962, and his pastor son, that understand this study as containing truth, through allowing scripture to define scripture. . Produce for me one before you continue with your premise. You need to consider this brick by brick empirical argument before dismissing it. I believe we are in the time of the end. I believe that the Lord returning his people to our covenant land in fulfillment of so much scripture marked our entry into the time of the end. The gentiles are finished “trodding” the Holy City and the Jews were restored to power there for the first time in over 2500 years. I also believe the book and the words of Daniel remained sealed until this time. Matthew Henry and Isaac Newton for example, wrote passionately about this time and what would become a further oopening of God’s Holy Word.

Problem with your premise:

Anyone truly following Christ is not going to speculate that this is the end of time. Even He denied knowledge of it. So if He denies knowledge and says not to do it, why in the world would a sola scripturist encourage others to believe his own individual prophecy?

 

[djrakowski]

I’ve yet to learn of a futurist that gave Skolfield and honest read that wasn’t led out of futurist doctrine.

Nice that all your acquaintances have believed Skolfield, but that doesn’t speak for everyone who reads his book (unless you happen to know all of them, and in that case, one could only reasonably assume that the circulation of his supposedly definitive work on the subject is rather small).

Produce for me a futurist that doesn’t buy it before you continue with your premise.

I have no premise. You’ve continued to miss the point of my responses, which is this: what authority does Skolfield have to bind my conscience, or anyone else’s, on the matter of eschatology? Why should I believe him? And if the argument is so compelling, then why are there still so many rapture-obsessed evangelicals preaching in prominent evangelical churches today?

I believe we are in the time of the end. I believe that the Lord returning his people to our covenant land in fulfillment of so much prophecy marked our entry into the time of the end.

I don’t mean this to be rude, but I don’t care what you believe. I want to know the facts.

I also believe the book and the words of Daniel remained sealed until this time. Matthew Henry and Isaac Newton for example, wrote passionately about this time and what would become a further oopening of God’s Holy Word.

What do you mean? That our minds were obscured from understanding Daniel until now? What evidence, based on **facts **(there’s that nasty word again) - do you have for this assertion?

 

[JohnWilliams]

Problem with your premise:

Anyone truly following Christ is not going to speculate that this is the end of time.

I guess you’re the best judge of who is and who is not following Christ.

Even He denied knowledge of it.

I too believe that Jesus will not know the time until it comes.

So if He denies knowledge and says not to do it,

Can you support this please.

why in the world would a sola scripturist encourage others to believe his own individual prophecy?

I am simply encouraging any who chooses to read a Bible study. I have been under the impression that we are all grown-ups in here. Anyone reading it is obviously free to* believe* as they choose.

But then do you even know what I am suggesting when I say we are in Daniel’s “time of the end”, or are you simply speculating about what you think I believe?

 

[djrakowski]

I believe if the Church had understood the central role of Islam it would have understood more urgency in evangelizing Muslims. That is unusual in much of the Church. Indeed Calvary Chapel has an entire ministry of Jews, but if you do a web search you are likely to find only one X-Muslim pitching a book that is associated with Calvary Chapel. Muslims for Christ is a good group. I don’t know their eschatology however and likely it is not their primary interest being in the trenches.

So which is it - those who fail to properly understand eschatology are not witnessing to Muslims (as you asserted in an earlier post), or some whose eschatology isn’t all that prominent in their preaching are doing a good job of reaching Muslims? What’s the point? I still don’t understand how you’re saying that eschatology affects whether Christians share the faith with Muslims.

Quite. I could tell you about it until I was blue in the face though. It is an easy read. Try it and you be the judge.

I don’t need to read it, because whatever view of eschatology turns out to be true, it doesn’t affect the way I live my life for Christ, and it doesn’t stop me from sharing my faith with anyone.

I didn’t know that. But surely they approach eschatology in an “perhaps this is meant, or alternately this could be the…”.It is difficult for each of us to consider the possiblity that our church could be in error. I have avoided getting into this area in this forum because mine is not an effort to divide the Body of Christ.

I believe the doctrines of the Catholic Church are without error because I have studied the unique claims of the Church, and am convinced that it is what it claims to be. As a result, I believe that there are no doctrinal errors in Catholicism, and will hold fast to that belief for the rest of my life.

And again, why the emphasis on eschatology? The Church hasn’t decreed the ‘right’ view of eschatology, but our theology definitely rules out the rapturist’s point of view. And in one post, you claim that eschatology doesn’t matter with respect to salvation, then claim that my Church could be teaching error because it hasn’t decreed an official position. Which is it - important enough to determine whether a church is in error, or so unimportant that those with differing views can be saved?

May God bless you Bro.

And likewise, you! But I ask, don’t make nasty assertions about the Catholic Church, not backed up with facts, and then beat a retreat when you’re called on it, citing a noble-sounding intention of not dividing the body of Christ. And when you’re corrected, as you have been several times in this thread, take it to heart, and stop perpetrating lies, half-truths and misconceptions as what the Catholic Church really believes.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Originally Posted by JohnWilliams
I believe we are in the time of the end. I believe that the Lord returning his people to our covenant land in fulfillment of so much prophecy marked our entry into the time of the end.

I believe you know nothing. I take Christ at His Holy Word when He admonished us that we will not know when He will come again. For you to claim something in direct contradiction to His Holy Word makes you a false prophet and thus an anathema (to be shunned by all who follow Christ). I suggest all good Christians should ignore this poster.

 

[Damascus]

I believe you know nothing. I take Christ at His Holy Word when He admonished us that we will not know when He will come again. For you to claim something in direct contradiction to His Holy Word makes you a false prophet and thus an anathema (to be shunned by all who follow Christ). I suggest all good Christians should ignore this poster.

I did.

 

[dalcent]

Try reading a chapter or two. I think you will be able to set aside some of your presumptions about Skolfield…

To be blunt Johnny I have and he sounds more completely in error than I expected: typical of today’s fundamentalist prophecy teachers: a lone oddity.

His interpretations are typical of the whacky baseless jumps all these fantasist teachers make

I’ll paste in one of his passages.
Text is KJV (brackets Skolfield’s commentary)* [sarcastic remarks mine]*
ellisskolfield.com/fall-of-islam-2006.shtml
*Revelation 13:6-9 "And he (the Leopard-Bear-Lion) opened his mouth in blasphemy against God (by saying "God forbid that He should have a Son") [there are many blasphemies on the market, how does Skolfield know it is this specific Islamic heresy, on what basis], to blaspheme his name (by trying to change the name of the true God from I AM, to that of a local Arab deity) [the leap is total assumption: the name Allah is used by all Arabic Christians even anti-Catholic, anti-Islamic fellowships such as this Maltese Evangelical group **http://www.fgpc.org.mt/bible.htm, they’re semites, and Alla/Allah is a generic name like theos or God] and his tabernacle (God’s temple mount in Jerusalem), and them that dwell in heaven (Believers are presently seated in heaven with Christ, Eph 2:6). [for some reason Skolfield has decided he wants the passage ‘them that dwell in heaven’ to be earthly ‘Believers’ : its not the literal/Catholic sense, I don’t buy it, how does Skolfield’s sound hermeneutic arrive at the sleight of hand] And it was given unto him (the Islamic empire) [him???, Skolfield interprets the text from “him???”] to make war with the saints (the Christians and Jews), [don’t agree with his definition of saints: the only saints according to the NT are those who’ve accepted Christ: Jews and Gentiles who are Christians, he has no warrant to call unbelieving Jews “saints”, there is no reason to call believing ethnic Jews anything other than Christans] and to overcome them (during the 1st Jihad): and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations (of the Middle East). [Absolute textual hacking ’ all kindreds, and tongues, and nations’ means ALL, not "of the Middle East: silly, groundless nonsense] And all that dwell upon the earth (the known world at the time of John) [we jump back in time! why? on what basis? the text doesn’t change its tense or sense to suggest this? the whole world at the time of John didn’t worship Allah or any single deity, some were pantheist, some atheist, some gnostic, no global turning to Alla occurred at the time of John, what is this garble?] shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb (Jesus, the Son of God) slain from the foundation of the world. If any man have an ear, let him hear…"
Revelation 14:9-1 ". . . If any man worship the (Islamic) beast *[really the Islamic beast? funny, if God had wanted us to think 'Islamobeast perhaps He would have put it in the text Himself] *and his image (some eschatologists believe that image to be the Kaaba stone in Mecca), [the Kaaba stone although to be disdained is hardly a image (Greek:eikon=likeness, statue, profile, ??) it’s a shapeless rock, dur ] and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand (man thinks evil thoughts in his mind and with his hands he does them), [Skolfield has by his own wit decided to make this passage mere symbol: I actually prefer the buying/selling microchip nonsense commonly espoused in the contemporary apocalyptic books to this: dull inanity Skolfeild has come up with] …

You see JW, I’ve had a good look at EllisSkolfield.com (modest website eh, why not choose a name that gives glory to the Lord not to a man).

JW, (edited by Mod) get a Catechism, drop this Skolfield dreamer. It’s twaddle, obviously so: typical end-time twaddle written by a sad old man.

You need a grown-up faith : a two thousand year old faith : the original deposit my friend: I’m glad you’re here. Hang around, listern to others: learn.

Try starting off with Will Catholics Be
"Left Behind"?

 

[JohnWilliams]

Nice that all your acquaintances have believed Skolfield, but that doesn’t speak for everyone who reads his book

Already you abandoned the context. This is how so much error neters Bible study as well. What I wrote was that I had no knowledge of a FUTURIST that has read it that hasn’t believed that it contained truth, and enough of it to walk out of futurist doctrine.

Kinda like the folks that keep trying to paint me as being against infant baptism.

(unless you happen to know all of them, and in that case, one could only reasonably assume that the circulation of his supposedly definitive work on the subject is rather small).
I have no premise. You’ve continued to miss the point of my responses, which is this: what authority

So-called AUTHORITY in the Church is an interesting concept. Nicolaitionism is the only thing in scripture that God Himself expresses a hatred of. I don’t believe that men give other men authority.

does Skolfield have to bind my conscience, or anyone else’s, on the matter of eschatology?

Why not pray for the Holy Spirit to lead?

Why should I believe him? And if the argument is so compelling, then why are there still so many rapture-obsessed evangelicals preaching in prominent evangelical churches today?

This question is the key. The entire Church is awash in false doctrine. Look at Revelation Chapter 2. It was even before John wrote about it. The bigger a Church is the more unthinkable a change in what is taught becomes, even if the Holy Spirit leads. That is why Churches have to reform from the bottom up. With the laity. Pastors are not to Lord over God’s heritage but be examples to the flock.

I don’t mean this to be rude, but I don’t care what you believe.

I understand this.

I want to know the **facts**.

What do you mean? That our minds were obscured from understanding Daniel until now? What evidence, based on **facts **(there’s that nasty word again) - do you have for this assertion?

I based it on scripture. We ALL have to agree that the book of Daniel and the words, were sealed up until a “time of the end” in Daniel’s future.
When do you believe it started/will start?
Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, [even] to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
Dan 12:9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words [are] closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

Anecdotally, here is what Isaac Newton wrote of this:
“This Prophecy is called the Revelation, with respect to the scripture of truth, which Daniel was commanded to shut up and seal, till the time of the end. Daniel sealed it until the time of the end; {Daniel 12:4, 9} and until that time comes, the Lamb is opening the seals:…
All which is as much as to say, that these Prophecies of Daniel and John should not be understood till the time of the end: … But in the very end, the Prophecy should be so far interpreted as to convince many.”

Here’s what Matthew Henry wrote:
"He must seal the book because it would not be understood, and therefore would not be regarded, till the things contained in it were accomplished; but he must keep it safely, as a treasure of great value, laid up for the ages to come, to whom it would be of great service; for many shall then run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. Then this hidden treasure shall be opened, and many shall search into it, and dig for the knowledge of it, as for silver. They shall run to and fro, to enquire out copies of it, shall collate them, and see that they be true and authentic. …Those that would have their knowledge increased must take pains, must not sit still in slothfulness and bare wishes but run to and fro, must make use of all the means of knowledge and improve all opportunities of getting their mistakes rectified, their doubts resolved… "

 

[djrakowski]

Wow, dalcent, how in the world did you force yourself to read through all that nonsense? Thanks for doing us the favor of showing why the rest of us needn’t bother following JohnWilliams’ advice.

 

[djrakowski]

Already you abandoned the context. This is how so much error neters Bible study as well. What I wrote was that I had no knowledge of a FUTURIST that has read it that hasn’t believed that it contained truth, and enough of it to walk out of futurist doctrine.

And you know all the ‘futurists’ (I must admit for the first time that I’ve never seen this term before you used it here) who’ve read his book? That must be an impossibly small sampling of ‘futurists’ who’ve read his book, then!

Kinda like the folks that keep trying to paint me as being against infant baptism.

Well, if you’re in favor of folks repudiating their infant baptism with something called a ‘believer’s baptism,’ then by extension, you’re against infant baptism. Otherwise, what’s the validity of doing it again? I see no scriptural warrant for repeating the sacrament once it has been administered.

So-called AUTHORITY in the Church is an interesting concept. Nicolaitionism is the only thing in scripture that God Himself expresses a hatred of. I don’t believe that men give other men authority.

But Jesus gave Peter authority to bind and loose (Matthew 16:18-19), and then later in the New Testament we see discussions on how to appoint people to fill offices of bishop, priest and deacon. Even in the early chapters of Acts, we see a process whereby the office of Judas is filled by the casting of lots. Interesting that you would oppose the very plain words of scripture that lay all this out in front of you.

Why not pray for the Holy Spirit to lead?

Every Protestant Christian says that he’s prayed for the leading of the Holy Spirit, and that has produced precious little doctrinal unity. You simply can’t be serious that this is the way to arrive at all truth.

This question is the key. The entire Church is awash in false doctrine. Look at Revelation Chapter 2. It was even before John wrote about it. The bigger a Church is the more unthinkable a change in what is taught becomes, even if the Holy Spirit leads. That is why Churches have to reform from the bottom up. With the laity. Pastors are not to Lord over God’s heritage but be examples to the flock.

This is merely rhetoric without any grounding in fact. You have no basis for stating that the entire church is awash in false doctrine, and if you hold to this theory, that means you and those who agree with you are the real Christians, and everyone else is buying into wholesale heresy. By extension, that means you consider yourself (and Ellis Skolfield) to have been infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit, and yet you deny that any man is infallible.

How do you know that you’re not buying into some of this heresy?

 

[djrakowski]

One more thing: if I shouldn’t trust any man as having a charism of infallibility, then of what are you trying to convince me with the words of Matthew Henry and Isaac Newton? Furthermore, one of those quotes mentioned that “He must seal the book because it would not be understood, and therefore would not be regarded, till the things contained in it were accomplished.”

Who has the authority to tell us that the things contained therein have happened? Why should I trust anyone’s interpretation of this?

 

[JohnWilliams]

To be blunt Johnny I have and he sounds more completely in error than I expected: typical of today’s fundamentalist prophecy teachers: a lone oddity.

His interpretations are typical of the whacky baseless jumps all these fantasist teachers make

I’ll paste in one of his passages.
Text is KJV (brackets Skolfield’s commentary)* [sarcastic remarks mine]*
ellisskolfield.com/fall-of-islam-2006.shtml
**Revelation 13:6-9 "And he (the Leopard-Bear-Lion) opened his mouth in blasphemy against God (by saying "God forbid that He should have a Son") [there are many blasphemies on the market, how does Skolfield know it is this specific Islamic heresy, on what basis]On the basis of the description of the beast. Look I have seen your style of blind flailing in doctrinal defense. Nothing new. Effort to misunderstand.

The basis of the assertion is the beast being described as a composite leopard-bear-lion. Since you apparently missed the whole premise it would be pointless to continue further.
Muslims declarations that God has no son are blashpemies driven by the spirit of antichrist. Perhaps you disagree.
dalcent;1731026:

Try starting off with Will Catholics Be

"Left Behind"?While your link didn’t work I copied and pasted it from the post. No surprise that you would pull a pre-trib rapture rabbit out of your hat. (Edited by Moderator)