P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
…and how we treated the “least of these.”
I never said that, though seeing my Savior face to face will be reward enough.
On this, we agree.God will force no man to heaven, what can I say.
- Status
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
Are you blind? Is someone doing the reading for you? If there is, they just missed a vital part in my post.
I even bolded it and underlined it for you.
B
BOMC
Guest
That’s your choice, but what does any of that have to do with knowing God? Did you think church affiliation is where salvation is, and now that you found the “true” church your salvation is safe?
Interesting…
B
BOMC
Guest
C
CWBetts
Guest
“To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant” --Cardinal NewmanThat’s your choice, but what does any of that have to do with knowing God? Did you think church affiliation is where salvation is, and now that you found the “true” church your salvation is safe?
Interesting…
“There are not a hundred people who hate the Catholic Church, but there are untold millions who hate wat they think the Catholic Church to be”–Archbishop Sheen
To be honest, the Evangelical movement has two kinds of people who are anti-Catholic. The first is ignorant of the Church. They take waht thaey have been told to be true, and simply assume the Church is a man-made institution. Others know waht the Church teaches, and promulgate lies. Why? I don’t know. They have something against the Church. If you would investigate the Church with an attitude of humility, instead of thinking you will be the one to prove Her wrong, it would do you good. But to do that you must put away your childish spirit of pride.
B
BOMC
Guest
C
CWBetts
Guest
The Church dismisses the Rapture as a false doctrine.
You support the Rapture.
You seek to prove faithful Catholics wrong.
Did I miss anything?
B
BOMC
Guest
Tell me what your definition of the rapture is.
K
kinja
Guest
Well said.
B
BOMC
Guest
Your logic is flawed from the start. According to a previous poster, Catholics absolutely believe in the rapture.
I haven’t said whether I believe in your definition of the rapture, you still haven’t given it.
How I am seeking to prove faithful Catholics wrong?
Try again.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
The Rapture will always have something to do with the end of the world. I wouldn’t have a problem with it if those who were obsessed with the idea didn’t sound like a bunch of raving lunatics, always pointing fingers at the alleged “Beast/anti-Christ/Whore of Babylon”, making dates supposedly marking Christ’s return, and when proven wrong… ugh, the excuses they come up with.
I’ve asked you countless times. Where are the physical signs that the Rapture is coming? Everyday, I wake up each morning, seeing the same cars driving by, seeing the same people, nothing out of the ordinary.
If you want us to embrace it, show us a sign. That’s it.
C
CWBetts
Guest
catholics do not believe in the rapture. They believe in a single second coming of christ, at the end. Jesus will not come to gather believers first, and them some again at the end.your logic is flawed from the start. According to a previous poster, catholics absolutely believe in the rapture.
I haven’t said whether i believe in your definition of the rapture, you still haven’t given it.
How i am seeking to prove faithful catholics wrong?
Try again.
P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
Actually, Catholics can believe in a ‘rapture’, just not as it’s described in the Left Behind books, with the 7-year Tribulation separating it from Jesus’ return in Glory. Jesus says that He will “raise us up” on the last day. The word rapture means “caught up.”
M
MarysGirls
Guest
Yes, but we (or rather they, I haven’t been on for a while) are speaking of the rapture as in the Left Behind books.
P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
Yep - I used to be one of those. I just wanted to clarify that it is possible to be Catholic and believe in a rapture, but the LaHaye/Jenkins version ain’t it.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
The core of the idea is 1 Thessalonians 4.17 - which I think you’ll find is in the NT. Granted, that the fully-developed Dispy Premill idea is a mess; but it’s not quite baseless. Paul is here, as elsewhere, applying some well-known apocalyptic ideas: in this instance, to Christians & their Messiah. Since such ideas were not well-known in Gentile circles, that part of that letter understood in that sense ceased to attract much notice in later, mostly Gentile, Christianity. Which would [help to] explain why the Church did not preserve the understanding of it as apocalyptic.
The fully-developed DP narrative of the last things is a hodge-podge of things that are not properly understood, which is a pity.
S
SHW
Guest
Catholics believe that when Jesus returns at His Second Coming, that those Christians (who are still alive on earth after the defeat of Antichrist) will meet Jesus in the air at this time and that their bodies will be instantly changed from mortal to immortal and from corruptible to incorruptible. The Latin word for being “caught up” in the air is “rapiemur” which is where the English word “rapture” comes from. davidmacd.com/catholic/ra…_catholics.htm
1 Thessalonians 4:16-18 “For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.”
1 Corinthians 15:51-53 “Behold, I tell 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 trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.”
These two Scriptures are about the same event and it happens at Jesus’ Second Coming at the end of “time” on Judgment Day at the sound of the trumpet. Catholics do not believe that Jesus will come and take His Church out before the tribulation of Antichrist. It is not Biblical.
Acts 14:22 "strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying, “We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God.”
The Church was built and furthered with martyrs’ blood. It is still being built and furthered with martyrs’ blood today. It will be no different in the time of the Antichrist.
Revelation 6:9-11 “When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” 11 Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed.”
This number of martyrs is not completed until the tribulation of Antichrist is finished and he is destroyed. After Antichrist is destroyed, then Jesus returns at the sound of the trumpet which signals His Second Coming and Judgment Day. Those faithful Christians who are still left on earth then meet Him in the air as He comes to get them.
Pax,
SHW
R
ryanoneil
Guest
In addition, this confirms the order of events. There is not a single passage of scripture that contains a two-stage coming of Christ, slit into a secret rapture and a later public advent.
For just as in Adam all die, so too in Christ shall all be brought to life, but each one in proper order: Christ the firstfruits; then, at his coming, those who belong to Christ; then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has destroyed every sovereignty and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death, (1 Cor 15:22-26)
- Christ was raised bodily from the dead.
- Christians will be raised from the dead.
- The end comes.
L
losh14
Guest
Just because it irks me and its Friday and I need some pointless self-indulgence from Argumentation class sophmore year … and every apologist should try to understand his or her opponent (no matter how off-base their arguments may seem) …
A “straw man” is a rhetorical error in which a debater wishes to attack an argument by first putting up a false, weakened or incomplete version of the actual argument and then attack that version instead. It is a logical error because it does not attack the real argument.
BOMC says there are two straw men:
- that the Rapture doctrine is new (invented by Darby, not attested to prior to 1800, etc)
- that Rapture prevents the spread of the Gospel
BOMC objects to argument 1) “Rapture is new doctrine” because, in his perspective, new doctrine is supposed to be revealed in the End Times (per Daniel 12:4). The correct term is paradigmatic fallacy rather than straw man, and is not classified as a rhetorical error but rather as an error of assumption. He assumes that revelation is incomplete, we assume that it is complete. He also (inherently) assumes that the correct interpreter of Scripture is himself (or his church, can’t tell) while we assume the correct interpreter is the Catholic Church which is why we look to the Church present and why we look to the early fathers. Hence we challenge any doctrine that was not taught early on, and why more recent Catholic doctrines (especially the Marian ones) had to be dogmatically defined by the Magisterium while the earlier ones were sufficiently defined by the earlier bishops.
As such, while historical precedence is convincing to a Catholic, it’s not convincing to BOMC. Moving on…
BOMC objects to 2) Rapture prevents the spread of Gospel out of sheer disagreement. There’s no term for this because there doesn’t need to be - it’s not a rhetorical error, it’s an entirely different argument. The “five brides” are from the parable in Mt 25:1-13 and dare I venture that every Christian I’ve spoken with understands this to be a metaphor for vigilance and perseverence in faith. BOMC is the first I’ve heard suggest that there will literally be:
I suppose that he would accuse us of Comparative Reversal, ie taking as metaphor that which is intended as literal. Likewise, we’d accuse him of Ruby Slipping, ie taking as literal that which is metaphor. Either way, it shows a profound disagreement over intent and context of sections of Scripture (as we already know). Given that we disagree over what constitutes the corpus of Scripture (since he includes the Book of Mormon and likely excludes Wisdom, Sirach and Baruch), it is not surprising that we’d disagree over the nature, intent and audience of Scripture.
While we’re on the topic of rhetorical errors:
BOMC also mischaracterizes CWBetts’ condemnation of Darby, although I think this is because BOMC isn’t getting CWBetts’ reason for condemning Darby’s advance of the Rapture. BOMC says that it is guilt by association (aka, poison the well) and this would be the case if CWBetts argued that Darby’s being anti-catholic invalidated any arguments that Darby made due to prejudice. However, CWBetts’ argument is predicated upon two assumptions: expertise to formulate doctrine, and precedence of doctrine.
CWBetts’ questioning Darby’s ability is not poisoning the well any more than someone saying that Barack Obama has less experience in the Senate than John McCain is racial prejudice. It is a personal attack (against the person of Darby) but is based on requirements intrinsic to the field and so is a valid argument. To overcome this objection, BOMC would have to either prove Darby’s expertise (ie, “Darby has a D.Div”), or prove that it is irrelevant to have expertise in order to formulate doctrine (ie, “Darby was uniquely inspired by the Spirit”).
CWBetts’ calling upon precedence of doctrine is likewise not a rhetorical error but it displays an underlying assumption that prefers orthodoxy and requires heterodoxy (newer teachings) to surpass a higher hurdle, or at least explain why heterodox teachings were not present in orthodox teachings. BOMC could refute this by arguing (conclusively) that heterodox teachings are better than orthodox, that there is a reason for this teaching to not be included in the orthodox, or by arguing that the date of revelation of a doctrine is not related to its importance or correctness. I’ve seen some dispensationalists get around this by arguing that some revelations were meant for certain dispensations (periods of time) and this is a new dispensation so this new revelation is germane. I suspect that BOMC, relying in part on the Book of Mormon, would argue either in a progressive revelation (“nothing’s changed, but God hasn’t told us everything yet”) or a dispensationalist perspective (“things have changed and this is why God’s telling us now”).
And that’s your rhetoric lesson for the day. You are all entitled to a pudding pop for suffering through my regurgitation of a class I took in … 1998.
- Status