The Rapture, if it were to happen

  • Thread starter Thread starter malachi_a_serva
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
JSmitty2005:
Nope, although it is a favorite of liberal modernist progressivists. They try to pass it off as being something from Augustine, but it’s bunk.
Click to expand...
Well, here’s one non-liberal, non-modernist, non-progressivist who likes it…and thinks that, word for word, it’s true.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
Well, here’s one non-liberal, non-modernist, non-progressivist who likes it…and thinks that, word for word, it’s true.
Click to expand...
Haha. I don’t really have a problem with it. I just said that they’re fond of it…likely because they misuse it. :eek:
 
40.png
malachi_a_serva:
The early church and premillennialism (chiliasm)

“Millenarianism became the general belief of the time and met with almost no other opposition than that given by the Gnostics.” - Gieseler, Church History, vol.1, p.166

“…the early Fathers lived in expectation of our Lord’s speedy return. . . . They distinguish between a first resurrection of the saints and a second or general resurrection. These they supposed would be separated by a period of a thousand years, during which Christ should reign over the saints in Jerusalem. . . . While the church was alternately persecuted and contemptuously tolerated by the Roman Empire, the belief in Christ’s speedy return and his millennial reign was widely entertained. . . . When the Church was recognized and patronized by the state, the new order of things seemed so desirable that the close of the dispensation ceased to be expected or desired.” - Crispen, History of Doctrine, p.231-232

“Immediately after the triumph of Constantine, Christianity having become dominant and prosperous, Christians began to lose their vivid expectation of our Lord’s speedy advent, and to look upon the temporal supremacy of Christianity as a fulfillment of the promised reign of Christ on earth.” - Smith, New Testament History, p.273
Code: 
Above citations taken from Dr. I.M. Haldeman, The History of the Doctrine of Our Lord's Return, pp.14-20,24
Tertullian, Commodian, Lactantius, Methodius, and Apollinaris of Laodicea all advocated premillennial doctrine. [1] In addition, according to religious scholar Rev. and Dr. Francis Nigel Lee the following is true, "Justin’s ‘Occasional Chiliasm’ sui generis which was strongly anti-pretribulationistic was followed possibly by Pothinus in A.D. 175 and more probably (around 185) by Irenaeus. Around 220, there were some similar influences on Tertullian though only with very important and extremely optimistic (if not perhaps even postmillennial modifications and implications). On the other hand, ‘Christian Chiliastic’ ideas were indeed advocated in 240 by Commodian; in 250 by the Egyptian Bishop Nepos in his Refutation of Allegorists; in 260 by the almost unknown Coracion; and in 310 by Lactantius. [2]

Melito of Sardis is frequently listed as a second century proponent of premillennialism. (Taylor, Voice of the Church, P. 66; Peters, Theocratic Kingdom, 1:495; Walvoord, Millennial Kingdom, p. 120; et al.). The support usually given for the supposition is that Jerome [Comm. on Ezek. 36 ] and Gennadius [De Dogm. Eccl., Ch. 52] both affirm that he was a decided millenarian.”(Richard Cunningham Shimeall, Christ’s Second Coming: Is it Pre-Millennial or Post-Millennial? (New York: John F. Trow, 1865), p. 67. See also, Taylor, p. 66; Peters, 1:495; Jesse Forest Silver, The Lord’s Return (New York, et al.: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1914), p. 66; W. Chillingworth, The Works of W. Chillingworth, 12th ed. (London: B. Blake, 1836), p.714; et al).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennialism
Click to expand...
You have a really bad practice of quoting what protestants say the early church fathers taught. Please deal with first hand sources instead of of people with an obvious agenda I already pointed out to you that your list coveniently left out the amillinial thought of Origen which is just to obvious and big to ignore also many of the fathers listed are claims that are dubious or largley speculative there are a handful of fathers who subscirbed to chialism and since you don’t even know what the difference between their views and modern day fundamentalist you should abstain from painting the broad brush that they are somehow similiar yet you continue to do so to support a theory that is grossly inadequate.

Here is what you and the protestant authors you quote conveniently leave out the chialism of the fathers have the church as the center of eschatology you have secular Israel as the center of eschatology. Also the church in chialsim undergoes the persectution of the anti-christ and undergoes a severe tribulation and this has always been the thought of catholic eschatology even until now.

Dispensationalist preach the exact opposite the church dissapears literally and does not undergo a tribulation nor see the anti-christ. Now you tell me are these views similar anymore? No they are very very different this blatant misrepresentation that you have given is deceptive to say the least and you shouldn’t be misrepresenting the church fathers as modern day dispensationlist as you have lost all credibility.
 
40.png
Wisdom:
You have a really bad practice of quoting what protestants say the early church fathers taught. …this blatant misrepresentation that you have given is deceptive to say the least and you shouldn’t be misrepresenting the church fathers as modern day dispensationlist as you have lost all credibility.
Click to expand...
All I did was provide info from a web page and the link. I never touched it one bit. The web site was their before me and after me. There are those, apparently, that disagree with you and they provide the info to make their claim. 😃
 
40.png
malachi_a_serva:
However, I do see in scripture where it tells me everything I need to know to salvation is in the scriptures…plus that other verse rebuke.etc…etc. I do realize the Catholic defense. Anyway, that is another thread/topic.
Click to expand...
Did you refer to “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be equipped, prepared for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16–17). ???

I still can’t see where Scripture supports the Rapture idea.
 
40.png
malachi_a_serva:
All I did was provide info from a web page and the link. I never touched it one bit. The web site was their before me and after me. There are those, apparently, that disagree with you and they provide the info to make their claim. 😃
Click to expand...
So your ok trusting these men that provide secondary sources and their commentary.
I suggest you dig a little deeper and go to the primary sources without the agendas. Would you read a commentary about scripture without reading the primary source, the Bible? You seem to be doing this when it comes to the church fathers.

In any case it is obvious you have not done your homework but have regurgitated a protestant website they gives you you asnwers. You know protestants are the first to rail to trust no man. But they constantly trust men - I guees the just don’t trust a man that is named the pope other men I guess its ok to trust them?
 
40.png
Marquette:
In essentials unity.
In non-essentials charity
In all things to glorify Christhttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif
Click to expand...
Amazing…this was the topic of our sermon yesterday. The timing was incredible, since I had just reconciled things on Friday with a dear friend who remains Catholic, and I, not.

The differences became divisive, and we were both hurt by this. Visiting this website and engaging in dialogue with many of you has been very helpful to me — I have realized that I must love my brothers and sisters, and not allow the non-essentials (things that are not essential for salvation) to cause division.

The Scripture used in the sermon was Romans 14…
including:
14:13 Therefore, let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way…
and
14:19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.

Anybody got an AMEN?
👍
 
40.png
Doreen:
I have realized that I must love my brothers and sisters, and not allow the non-essentials (things that are not essential for salvation) to cause division.
Click to expand...
Membership in the Catholic Church is an essential for salvation.
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
Membership in the Catholic Church is an essential for salvation.
Click to expand...
If “Catholic” means “universal” and if you are talking about the family of God (those who truly believe, obey, and trust Jesus as Lord), then I agree with your statement…

But IF you mean the “Catholic Church” as the institution led by the Pope…I cannot agree with you.

To limit Christ’s saving grace this way, is a grievous act against His mission and purposes. Think about what you are saying. Can you really stand in judgment over the salvation of the world? That, in itself, is heresy.

This is the kind of talk that pushes me farther from the RCC. It wreaks of prejudice and that is surely not of God.

With the measure you use it shall be measured unto you, friend.

Maybe it would help if you can tell me where you get this idea from. What is your reason for having such a staunch exclusivity over the kingdom? And remember, I am not against the teachings of the apostles as professed in the Epistles. But these men were not replacements for Christ. The Spirit led them, but they were still men, and they were vessels used of God to bring the truth to the Jew and Gentile…but to hallow them is idolatry.

Where does your faith lie? Really…in man? the traditions of man? or in Christ…the only gate to the kingdom?

Will you say Peter was given the keys? I will say…yes, and the keys were the Words written in the Epistles. And in no other way did Peter have power over who would be allowed in…

I put my faith in Christ. The gatekeeper. 👍
 
40.png
Doreen:
If “Catholic” means “universal” and if you are talking about the family of God (those who truly believe, obey, and trust Jesus as Lord), then I agree with your statement…

But IF you mean the “Catholic Church” as the institution led by the Pope…I cannot agree with you.
Click to expand...
Doreen, this is a very distracted and somewhat contentious thread. The doctrine of No Salvation Outside the Church doesn’t belong here.

“Extra Ecclesia Nullus Salus” (that’s the Latin term) is a far less problematic doctrine than it appears to be on its surface. Check out the Catechism, which I know you have a link to on line.

This doctrine does not say that nobody outside the jurisdictional confines of the Roman Catholic Church can be saved.

The Church does contend (with perfect logic) that once you recognize Who the Church is and still deny her, then you have placed your soul in peril. Who could argue with that? If you believe that the Catholic Church is, by history and grace, the strongest claimant to the title “Body of Christ,” and that she is by his promise the privileged place of Christ’s guidance in the world and still you knowingly reject her, then you are placing your soul in peril.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled topic.
 
40.png
mercygate:
Doreen, this is a very distracted and somewhat contentious thread. The doctrine of No Salvation Outside the Church doesn’t belong here.

“Extra Ecclesia Nullus Salus” (that’s the Latin term) is a far less problematic doctrine than it appears to be on its surface. Check out the Catechism, which I know you have a link to on line.

This doctrine does not say that nobody outside the jurisdictional confines of the Roman Catholic Church can be saved.

The Church does contend (with perfect logic) that once you recognize Who the Church is and still deny her, then you have placed your soul in peril. Who could argue with that? If you believe that the Catholic Church is, by history and grace, the strongest claimant to the title “Body of Christ,” and that she is by his promise the privileged place of Christ’s guidance in the world and still you knowingly reject her, then you are placing your soul in peril.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled topic.
Click to expand...
Mercygate is correct. (Thanks “MG”)

Doreen;

Here’s an :amen: for you.
 
40.png
mercygate:
Doreen, this is a very distracted and somewhat contentious thread. The doctrine of No Salvation Outside the Church doesn’t belong here.

“Extra Ecclesia Nullus Salus” (that’s the Latin term) is a far less problematic doctrine than it appears to be on its surface. Check out the Catechism, which I know you have a link to on line.

This doctrine does not say that nobody outside the jurisdictional confines of the Roman Catholic Church can be saved.

The Church does contend (with perfect logic) that once you recognize Who the Church is and still deny her, then you have placed your soul in peril. Who could argue with that? If you believe that the Catholic Church is, by history and grace, the strongest claimant to the title “Body of Christ,” and that she is by his promise the privileged place of Christ’s guidance in the world and still you knowingly reject her, then you are placing your soul in peril.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled topic.
Click to expand...
I have to go fix dinner for the crew, but wanted to just make a quick reply.

I’ll have to look up the link later on. Thanks.

Here’s what I hear you saying,

Once we understand the teachings of the Catholic Church to be fitting the description of the “body of Christ,” and reject it, we are cast out.

Would that be accurate?

So let me ask you this: Can I say, likewise, the “Church of Doreen” (for example) is the One true church, and represents the “body of Christ” because the “Church of Doreen” stands on the promises of God, given through Christ and the Holy Spirit?

👍
 
40.png
Doreen:
So let me ask you this: Can I say, likewise, the “Church of Doreen” (for example) is the One true church, and represents the “body of Christ” because the “Church of Doreen” stands on the promises of God, given through Christ and the Holy Spirit?
Click to expand...
Actually, as a Protestant, that’s what you do say whether you’ll admit it or not since you are your own final authority. 😉
 
40.png
Doreen:
So let me ask you this: Can I say, likewise, the “Church of Doreen” (for example) is the One true church, and represents the “body of Christ” because the “Church of Doreen” stands on the promises of God, given through Christ and the Holy Spirit?

👍
Click to expand...
Hi again Doreen;

The Church of Doreen is not the One true Church because there can be only one “One true church” and that is the Church founded by Christ on Peter and the Apostles. That Church IS the mystical body of Christ. It does not simply represent the “body of Christ” but its members ARE the mystical body of Christ. To the extent the members of the “Church of Doreen” are baptised and believe in Christ and the Gospel, they are also members of the One Church, although “imperfectly” joined. Is that clear?
 
Robert in SD:
Hi again Doreen;

The Church of Doreen is not the One true Church because there can be only one “One true church” and that is the Church founded by Christ on Peter and the Apostles. That Church IS the mystical body of Christ. It does not simply represent the “body of Christ” but its members ARE the mystical body of Christ. To the extent the members of the “Church of Doreen” are baptised and believe in Christ and the Gospel, they are also members of the One Church, although “imperfectly” joined. Is that clear?
Click to expand...
Crystal.
😉
 
40.png
Doreen:
I have to go fix dinner for the crew, but wanted to just make a quick reply.

I’ll have to look up the link later on. Thanks.

Here’s what I hear you saying,

Once we understand the teachings of the Catholic Church to be fitting the description of the “body of Christ,” and reject it, we are cast out.

Would that be accurate?

So let me ask you this: Can I say, likewise, the “Church of Doreen” (for example) is the One true church, and represents the “body of Christ” because the “Church of Doreen” stands on the promises of God, given through Christ and the Holy Spirit?

👍
Click to expand...
Does the Church of Doreen have Apostolic Succession in a continuous unbroken line that is physical, through hands-on ordination, spiritual via a consistent doctrinal teaching and development, and historic – traceable across the face of the planet for 2000 years?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top