- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: A biblical warning about our times
Posted on 2/11/22 at 11:43 am to theunknownknight
Posted on 2/11/22 at 11:43 am to theunknownknight
quote:
Jesus returning in a pre-trib rapture to protect his precious beloved from suffering is not
The Bible gives a promise that we would be spared the wrath of God that he will unleash on an ungodly world. It makes no sense that he would pour out this wrath on his chosen.
Even in the Old Testament, the Israelites were spared from the plagues.
1
Posted on 2/11/22 at 11:45 am to Revelator
quote:
The Bible gives a promise that we would be spared the wrath of God that he will unleash on an ungodly world.
God’s eternal wrath and human earthly suffering are two different things
Did you completely miss 1 Peter?
Being a child of God doesn’t give us a “get out of jail” free card when it comes to sorrow. Bottom line.
Also - where in the Bible do you see Jesus’ third coming?
This post was edited on 2/11/22 at 11:46 am
Posted on 2/11/22 at 11:47 am to theunknownknight
quote:
Being a child of God doesn’t give us a “get out of jail” free card when it comes to sorrow. Bottom line.
It does not, but the final wrath of God and his judgments are different from suffering that occurs when we sin or by natural processes.
quote:
Also - where in the Bible do you see Jesus’ third coming?
What do you mean by a third coming
I Thessalonians 4:15
For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
Even people who dismiss a rapture type event can never explain what these verses mean.
This post was edited on 2/11/22 at 11:52 am
Posted on 2/11/22 at 11:47 am to bizeagle
quote:It was never unclear for me. We just happen to disagree
Reread Matthew 17 and 18 with this in mind and see if it clears up for you.
Posted on 2/11/22 at 11:50 am to Revelator
quote:
What do you mean by a third coming
Is the rapture not spurred on by the return of Jesus? If not? What is it and where is it explicitly taught in thf Bible?
Posted on 2/11/22 at 11:51 am to Champagne
quote:It may be true that a lot of people can't explain why it is that they believe what they believe, but that shouldn't be construed as their beliefs not having any basis in truth.
For some reason that a Presbyterian can't explain, the Presbys agree with the Catholics on this issue.
The reason why Presbyterians believe in infant baptism is based on a covenantal view of the scriptures. We believe that both the old testament and new testament proclaim a single story that unfolds progressively through revelation and that God works in history through the use of covenants. God covenanted with Abraham that God would make a people for Himself through him (the "Church"), and that the sign of that covenant was circumcision, and it was given to the children of Abraham before they could express faith in God's promises. It was a physical sign that expressed a spiritual reality if attained by faith.
Christ instituted a new covenant in His blood that reconstituted the old covenant with Abraham. This covenant was even more broad than the one given to Abraham, as the sign was given to girls as well as boys, and to gentiles as well as Jews.
Where circumcision signified the filthy sin that needed to be removed in the bloody ritual that ultimately pointed towards Christ, baptism signifies the cleansing His blood, by His death, provides. One pointed forward to what the Messiah would do while the other points back to what He did do.
With that said, we don't believe that baptism saves the children or justifies them in some way. It is a sign of entrance into the covenant community and a seal given that promises that salvation is promised to them if they put their trust in Christ's atoning work for them.
Posted on 2/11/22 at 11:52 am to theunknownknight
quote:
Is the rapture not spurred on by the return of Jesus? If not? What is it and where is it explicitly taught in thf Bible?
Go back to my previous post where I amended it.
Posted on 2/11/22 at 11:58 am to Revelator
quote:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
Ummm
Read the next few verses, think about it and get back to me (1 Thess 5:2-3), that day will also be a day of judgement
But, let’s assume what you say is true…then that necessitates a third coming in Revelation 19 when Jesus returns on the white horse to vanquish his enemies
Posted on 2/11/22 at 12:01 pm to Champagne
quote:Yeah, that's not going to happen on this forum. As Rev said, threads like this get tolerated because they tend to have a long discussion consolidated in one place. Making multiple threads simply to have a discussion between two people likely won't fly here.
OK, Foo.
Go ahead and tell us all about your particular version of Protestantism in which you believe. The we will take a look at your "catechism" and discuss it.
Please do this in a separate thread devoted to your particular "catechism".
We will examine your theology in that thread - and we will contain the examination to that particular issue and we won't allow any side-tracking.
Let's close this thread and move the examination to the new thread, which you will start. You will demonstrate that all of your theological claims are proven by Scripture Alone and that all of your theological claims are PERFECTLY CLEAR from Scripture Alone.
Please proceed.
That said, I'd be happy to continue with this discussion in private. foomanchoo.uga[at]gmail.com
I've already shared the Westminster Confession of Faith that I subscribe to but I'll provide additional material and engage in discussion with you if you would like.
Posted on 2/11/22 at 12:04 pm to Revelator
quote:
Even people who dismiss a rapture type event can never explain what these verses mean.
William Lane Craig explains it pretty well in this 3 minute video. He says the Rapture is not a Biblical doctrine; confirms that the belief in the rapture began in the 18th century, and he specifically addresses the passage you cited
william lane craig: youtube
Posted on 2/11/22 at 12:05 pm to Revelator
even more important about the Acts passage on the Ethiopian eunuch, is the fact that Philip was sent to him by the angel of the Lord and the spirit of God told Philip what to do, though Philip knew nothing of the man. This is more of a lesson on the doctrine if election.
BTW, baptism, prior to John the Baptist, was practiced by Jews and some pagan sects. The eunuch was aware of baptism as it was widely practiced. The eunuch was reading the scriptures and was convicted by the spirit to repent and believe, so God sent Philip to enable the eunuch to understand the good news. The eunuch's baptism occurred near the starting point of his new life but first the eunuch believed.
BTW, baptism, prior to John the Baptist, was practiced by Jews and some pagan sects. The eunuch was aware of baptism as it was widely practiced. The eunuch was reading the scriptures and was convicted by the spirit to repent and believe, so God sent Philip to enable the eunuch to understand the good news. The eunuch's baptism occurred near the starting point of his new life but first the eunuch believed.
This post was edited on 2/11/22 at 12:07 pm
Posted on 2/11/22 at 12:07 pm to L.A.
quote:
William Lane Craig explains it pretty well in this 3 minute video. He says the Rapture is not a Biblical doctrine; confirms that the belief in the rapture began in the 18th century, and he specifically addresses the passage you cited
This is true
The rapture seems, in hindsight, to be a made up doctrine to circumvent the academic philosophical attacks of the day and also (from a more cynical perspective) as a cheap selling point to western minds tired of war/suffering
This post was edited on 2/11/22 at 12:08 pm
Posted on 2/11/22 at 12:12 pm to Revelator
quote:Same, but not in the Catholic Church
I’ve been baptized twice. Once as an infant in the Catholic Church, then a second time as an adult in the Baptist Church. I think I’m covered.
Posted on 2/11/22 at 12:23 pm to L.A.
quote:
Reread Matthew 17 and 18 with this in mind and see if it clears up for you. It was never unclear for me. We just happen to disagree
I used to agree with you but my understanding grew from study. Comprehending the literal and real life context that surrounded Jesus's teaching of the disciples often clarifies the meaning of the conversations. Also, scripture interprets scripture. If you read something that appears to disagree with another passage, the answer is in scripture but you may have to find it.
IMO, the book Matthew is much about training the disciples and preparing them for their purpose after Jesus's mission (and about training us who would follow in the future)
Posted on 2/11/22 at 12:28 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
But, let’s assume what you say is true…then that necessitates a third coming in Revelation 19 when Jesus returns on the white horse to vanquish his enemies
It does not. We come back with him and make of the army of God.
Listen, I know Godly men who have a different belief about the rapture than I do, and that’s fine. The Idea of a rapture is separated from salvation and is not worth fighting over.
This post was edited on 2/11/22 at 12:36 pm
Posted on 2/11/22 at 12:31 pm to bizeagle
quote:How could you agree with me when I didn't even state what my position was?
I used to agree with you but my understanding grew from study
Posted on 2/11/22 at 12:41 pm to Revelator
Isaac Newton predicted the world would end and reset in 2060 ... or sometime thereafter, so if I'm going to meet Jesus it will be sometime before then 'cause I don't see myself living to 100 at the rate I'm goin'. In any case, I dunno 'bout all that, but he was a mathematician and physicist, and he did figure some stuff out about gravity they say.
But for all those who believe they're gonna be raptured up into heaven someday, I've got two questions.
1. When the rapture comes, can I have your stuff?
2. Got any good stuff?
But for all those who believe they're gonna be raptured up into heaven someday, I've got two questions.
1. When the rapture comes, can I have your stuff?
2. Got any good stuff?
Posted on 2/11/22 at 12:43 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
necessitates a third coming
I've thought the very same thing and Christians casually speak of the the second coming as well, (as if that is the only time Jesus can return). Also the Antichrist (as if it/he HAS to be singular entity at one time). I think it does a disservice to many to not clarify what is meant by that because there will be false christs that have arrived and more that will arise, as Satan will manifest his power as an adversary contrary to the Word and Satan will again manifest his power through two beast as well and even accept being worshiped in proxy fashion through a speaking idol in Rev 13. Same is true of a rapture (harpazo) event. It is casual spoken and argued as if it has to happen only once. There are very good arguments for both a mid-trib and pre-trib (and for some even a post-trib), although I personally feel the post-trib argument is the weakest. It does seem like there is more to the continuity of Scripture that is not always clear. I feel like there will come a time that will bring forth a rapid acceleration of understanding of these things as we approach them.
Posted on 2/11/22 at 12:51 pm to Revelator
Ok Rev I’m kinda tired of playing Bible Bingo.
Here is what I see is happening.
You post a scripture passage that seems to support your side. I post a scripture passage that seems to support my side, but you say well it doesn’t support your side because of this explanation. Which, I then respond and say you are in error. Then it likely turns into me giving my interpretation of a scripture passage and you giving yours. And back and forth we go.
I’m going to put my trust in Jesus first, then the word he gave us second, then the authority of the Church given by Jesus himself, then the 2000 year history of Christians who interpret the scripture and teach the faith.
1) Jesus himself seems to say Baptism is necessary to enter the kingdom of heaven. This is likely why Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize at the end of the Gospel of Matthew.
2) The word of God points to the necessity of baptism in multiple places. I've shown this as best as I can.
3) The Church throughout her history has taught that Baptism is necessary for salvation, the Catechism is just the latest in a long line of teaching.
4) Plenty of Church father's say that Baptism is necessary for salvation. In my ongoing reading on this I've even seen someone say that basically everyone until the Protestant reformation taught the necessity of baptism, and John 3:5's connection to baptism.
You can see why I believe in this viewpoint. Jesus himself declared Baptis m is necessary for salvation. As he said it one cannot enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the spirit.
Than later St. Peter says Baptism Saves. So too does St. Paul in multiple places. Despite what he said in 1 Corinthians 1:17.
I must have misspoken, while I'm trying to find common ground, it is clear to me from the scriptures, as St. Peter says. Baptism saves.
If Baptism saves (as we teach) and we cannot be saved without baptism. It would be evil to withhold that saving grace from anyone.
Or as St. Thomas Aquinas puts it.
Here is what I see is happening.
You post a scripture passage that seems to support your side. I post a scripture passage that seems to support my side, but you say well it doesn’t support your side because of this explanation. Which, I then respond and say you are in error. Then it likely turns into me giving my interpretation of a scripture passage and you giving yours. And back and forth we go.
I’m going to put my trust in Jesus first, then the word he gave us second, then the authority of the Church given by Jesus himself, then the 2000 year history of Christians who interpret the scripture and teach the faith.
1) Jesus himself seems to say Baptism is necessary to enter the kingdom of heaven. This is likely why Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize at the end of the Gospel of Matthew.
2) The word of God points to the necessity of baptism in multiple places. I've shown this as best as I can.
3) The Church throughout her history has taught that Baptism is necessary for salvation, the Catechism is just the latest in a long line of teaching.
4) Plenty of Church father's say that Baptism is necessary for salvation. In my ongoing reading on this I've even seen someone say that basically everyone until the Protestant reformation taught the necessity of baptism, and John 3:5's connection to baptism.
You can see why I believe in this viewpoint. Jesus himself declared Baptis m is necessary for salvation. As he said it one cannot enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the spirit.
Than later St. Peter says Baptism Saves. So too does St. Paul in multiple places. Despite what he said in 1 Corinthians 1:17.
quote:
Then the baptism of a baby who can’t demonstrate faith is pointless. By baptizing babies your are demonstrating the Church believes baptism itself saves.
I must have misspoken, while I'm trying to find common ground, it is clear to me from the scriptures, as St. Peter says. Baptism saves.
If Baptism saves (as we teach) and we cannot be saved without baptism. It would be evil to withhold that saving grace from anyone.
Or as St. Thomas Aquinas puts it.
quote:
Consequently it is manifest that all are bound to be baptized: and that without Baptism there is no salvation for men.
This post was edited on 2/11/22 at 12:53 pm
Posted on 2/11/22 at 12:54 pm to catholictigerfan
The earth was without form and void and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Gen 1:2 ESV
An interesting passage about His newly formed creation dealing with the Spirit and the waters.
An interesting passage about His newly formed creation dealing with the Spirit and the waters.
This post was edited on 2/11/22 at 12:55 pm
Page 20 of 24
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News