Debunking the Rapture Myth

[SPALATIN]

I just saw a book at Barnes and Noble titled "Rapture Exposed" by Barbara Rossing. I looked over the first chapter and from what I have seen it looks pretty good. She works at the Lutheran Seminary in Chicago.

Just checked out her stats. She is an ELCA lutheran pastorette. Even so the very little I read was pretty good. I like anyone who puts down Tim LaHaye. The man is being used by Satan to perpetuate a lie.

[IowaLutheran]

I read it about a year ago, and it is pretty good. The best part is the appendix at the end of the book where she goes through the verses that allegedly support the rapture and debunks the theory one by one.

I seem to recall that every once and awhile she throws in a comment that LCMS or conservative ELCAers would find objectionable, but I wouldn't let those distract you from the main analysis of the book.

[KEPLER]

I just saw a book at Barnes and Noble titled "Rapture Exposed" by Barbara Rossing. I looked over the first chapter and from what I have seen it looks pretty good. She works at the Lutheran Seminary in Chicago.

Just checked out her stats. She is an ELCA lutheran pastorette. Even so the very little I read was pretty good. I like anyone who puts down Tim LaHaye. The man is being used by Satan to perpetuate a lie.

You have to start at the root, though, which is Dispensationalism in general. Which means you have to teach people HOW to read the bible all over again. Dispensationalism does not see continuity between the Old and New Testaments.

Sadly, this is one place where being Lutheran comes back to bite us in the @$$. Because we (offically) see the book of Hebrews as antilegomena (http://www.bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html), we tend to ignore it. And yet Hebrews provides a pretty good antidote to this stuff, with its application of Jeremiah's New Covenant to the New Testamant believers.

[BigNorsk]

A radio show about the book is online here (http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2004/03/20040330_b_main.asp). Pretty interesting to listen to. She comes off pretty level headed and really lays out problems with the "Left Behind" series of books.

I thought the comment on Hebrews was interesting, in my quest to get law and gospel correct, I have found Hebrews to be a most helpful book. It really ties the Old and New Testaments together.

Marv

[KEPLER]

A radio show about the book is online here (http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2004/03/20040330_b_main.asp). Pretty interesting to listen to. She comes off pretty level headed and really lays out problems with the "Left Behind" series of books.

I thought the comment on Hebrews was interesting, in my quest to get law and gospel correct, I have found Hebrews to be a most helpful book. It really ties the Old and New Testaments together.

Marv

Marv

I absolutely agree. It's a great book. I just seem to encounter so much dismissal of it... Lenski's commentary (if you don't already have it) is quite good, BTW.

Cheers,

K

[SPALATIN]

What scares me most is that people like LaHaye and Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have some power influencing public policy. These guys need to be exposed as charlatans on a regular basis. The whole religious right is under the belief that there is no separation of church and state. They want the church to run the state.

[KEPLER]

What scares me most is that people like LaHaye and Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have some power influencing public policy. These guys need to be exposed as charlatans on a regular basis. The whole religious right is under the belief that there is no separation of church and state. They want the church to run the state.
Now, ya'lls gots to be carefool, uthuhwise, some fokes's liabuhl tuh think yooz one them libruls, there Scotty!

(p.s., I agree!)

K

[Flipper]

Wow, Scott, such an informative intelligent book, by a FEmale? A Pastor even? You are taking it seriously?

kerplunk... That was the sound of me fainting.

So, a female pastor is ok, if their agenda matches yours? You bought and read her book, I think that would be supporting her ministry to an extent.

Ok, all sarcasm (I was being sarcastic) set aside, I have heard of the book, and though I haven't read it, it has been highly recommended to me to read on many occassions. I'm glad many of you are enjoying it - I may have to pick it up sometime.

[RobNJ]

Here's an article on the subject:

http://www.reformed.com/pub/rapture.htm

[AngelusSax]

Ok, all sarcasm (I was being sarcastic) set aside, I have heard of the book, and though I haven't read it, it has been highly recommended to me to read on many occassions. I'm glad many of you are enjoying it - I may have to pick it up sometime.

READ! READ! READ! READ! READ! READ! READ! READ! READ! READ!

Okay, now that that's out of my system...

READ! READ! READ! READ! READ! READ! READ! READ!

Seriously, it's a wonderful read, and compared to many other theologically orietned books, it's quite inexpensive. At least around where I live.

[SPALATIN]

Wow, Scott, such an informative intelligent book, by a FEmale? A Pastor even? You are taking it seriously?

kerplunk... That was the sound of me fainting.

So, a female pastor is ok, if their agenda matches yours? You bought and read her book, I think that would be supporting her ministry to an extent.

Ok, all sarcasm (I was being sarcastic) set aside, I have heard of the book, and though I haven't read it, it has been highly recommended to me to read on many occassions. I'm glad many of you are enjoying it - I may have to pick it up sometime.

Don't get me wrong here Flip. I still don't agree with women being a pastor. What I agree with her on though is that Left Behind is bunko. The fact that she is ordained doesn't impress me. By the way I didn't buy the book. I surveyed the Introduction and some of the first chapter while in Barnes and Noble. I left the book behind.

[Flipper]

Go back and get the book, it's calling to you. Scott....you want to buy me....

^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^

Then you can do a book report here for those of us who don't have time to go to B&N.

[SPALATIN]

Go back and get the book, it's calling to you. Scott....you want to buy me....

^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^

Then you can do a book report here for those of us who don't have time to go to B&N.

Maybe I will and Maybe I won't. I don't always have the time to browse B&N.

[AngelusSax]

I got it at a Joseph-Beth bookstore. If you have one of those nearby, you can go there to check too. They have (at least at this one), a nice theological collection.

[Lutherrunner]

I bought it online yesterday used at amazon for about 5 bucks, plus shipping....

[xristos.anesti]

I am kinda happy to see Lutherans not being rapturians.

Many years.

[Phoebe]

Don't get me wrong here Flip. I still don't agree with women being a pastor. What I agree with her on though is that Left Behind is bunko. The fact that she is ordained doesn't impress me. By the way I didn't buy the book. I surveyed the Introduction and some of the first chapter while in Barnes and Noble. I left the book behind.

Tee hee. You said the book was Left Behind. (insert guffaw here)

What's even funnier is that Flip and I met on that web site.

[Flipper]

Tee hee. You said the book was Left Behind. (insert guffaw here)

What's even funnier is that Flip and I met on that web site.

You're punny.

That's right - can you believe it was over 4 years ago???

Never had anything to do with messageboards until then. Don't know if it's a blessing or curse. :P;):D

[Phoebe]

Only four years? It must be creeping up on five. Yeah... we got our first computer in December of 2000.

;) :P

[Breetai]

...Then you can do a book report here for those of us who don't have time to go to B&N.Or for those of us who DON'T EVEN HAVE a B&N to go to! :D

Maybe I can find it online.

[CSMR]

The whole religious right is under the belief that there is no separation of church and state. They want the church to run the state.
How so, and what is wrong with this exactly?

[Breetai]

How so, and what is wrong with this exactly?Have you ever heard of the Roman Catholic Church? Look at the history of Europe, then ask this question again.

[CSMR]

OK, I'm thinking of the history of Europe and asking the question again!

[Jim47]

OK, I'm thinking of the history of Europe and asking the question again!

I had a friend who lives in Germany and another friend who lives in Finnland. They both tell me the churches are empty when services are held.

[KEPLER]

How so, and what is wrong with this exactly?
In this country, it's a matter of the "big personality" evangelicals (Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, the TBN circus, and others) who want to influence voting to the degree that only (or a majority of) right-wing Christians are in control of the Governement. This presumes of course, that Christianity is adequately represented by the theology of these people, which I say it isn't. Other than abortion, I'm not sure what I agree with those lunatics on.

Do I believe in small government? Yeah, but that has nothing to do with my theology.

Do I believe that having a conservative Government will bring unregenrate souls to the faith? Uh, no, only an idiot would believe that.

I think what Scott was getting at is that the political agenda of the above mentioned people is a complete confusion of Law and Gospel, and a complete confounding of the Two Kingdoms.

The boneheads above (Robertson, et al.) who perpetuate the myth of "Christian America" are trying to take us back to something that never was, and (from a Lutheran theological persepctive) even if they could take us back tot hat, it would not serve to save a single soul. It would only serve to turn the "church" into a tyrannical force.

(And please don't anyone take any of my statements above and make any assumptions about my politics).

Pox on all their houses.

[SPALATIN]

Just a little side bar note. It was reported in the Minneapolis Star Tribune yesterday that James Dobson's "Focus on the Family" has fired Wells Fargo as it's bank. The reason: Because Wells Fargo (a business organization) made a matching charitable contribution to GLAAD (GAY LESBIAN ALLIANCE AGAINST DEFAMATION).

Now I am not an advocate for any group that promotes homosexuality, however I do work for Wells Fargo and it shows me that Dobson and his crony's are trying now to influence what a major banking corporation does with it's money. Wells Fargo has to employ people regardless of their race, religion, sexual leaning etc. If they give money to organizations like the Boy Scouts or United Way they also have to contribute to groups like GLAAD.

I guess that Dobson can do just about anything he pleases with regard to his non-profit organization but it wreaks of the kind of politicism I can't condone. Therefore I will not support Focus on the Family (as if I ever did in the first place) now or in the future. He is persona non grata on my radio.

[KEPLER]

Just a little side bar note. It was reported in the Minneapolis Star Tribune yesterday that James Dobson's "Focus on the Family" has fired Wells Fargo as it's bank. The reason: Because Wells Fargo (a business organization) made a matching charitable contribution to GLAAD (GAY LESBIAN ALLIANCE AGAINST DEFAMATION).

Now I am not an advocate for any group that promotes homosexuality, however I do work for Wells Fargo and it shows me that Dobson and his crony's are trying now to influence what a major banking corporation does with it's money. Wells Fargo has to employ people regardless of their race, religion, sexual leaning etc. If they give money to organizations like the Boy Scouts or United Way they also have to contribute to groups like GLAAD.

I guess that Dobson can do just about anything he pleases with regard to his non-profit organization but it wreaks of the kind of politicism I can't condone. Therefore I will not support Focus on the Family (as if I ever did in the first place) now or in the future. He is persona non grata on my radio.

Good for you, Scott. :thumbsup:

edit:
And (pulling in the motif from another thread!), FOTF's decision is a perfect example of the "Theology of Glory" in action.

[SPALATIN]

This is the last few paragraphs from the article:


Founded in 1977, Focus on the Family says its mission is to spread the Gospel, especially by preserving traditional values and the institution of the family.

Focus has started a campaign asking its members to pay more attention to the businesses they patronize and the companies they invest in.

The organization's founder and chairman, Dr. James C. Dobson, said that 49 of the top 50 Fortune 500 companies have adopted "pro-gay policies."

Focus, which said that Wells "did the job well," did not disclose the extent of its business dealings with the company.


My question is how does one spread the Gospel by preserving traditional values and the institution of the family?

I thought one spreads the Gospel by sharing it with others. What Focus is doing is all LAW. There is no Gospel. Wells Fargo will not lose that much business here. The message the FOTF is sending is extortion at best.

"Don't give any money to the Homosexual advocacy and you keep our business." I am seriously thinking of writing the people at FOTF and telling them their goal is unrealistic and foolish.

[furry001]

I have a question regarding this:

If there is no rapture, how can the coming of the Lord be unknown? Scripture teaches that "For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night." Perhaps someone would explain it for me.

Thank you.

[KEPLER]

I have a question regarding this:

If there is no rapture, how can the coming of the Lord be unknown? Scripture teaches that "For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night." Perhaps someone would explain it for me.

Thank you.

Furry001,

We don't deny that Our Lord Jesus Christ is coming again; we also don't deny that no one knows the day or the hour.

What we deny is the mythology that has been built up aroung a "secret rapture" that will come before a period of seven years of "tribulation".

Jesus is indeed coming again, and we will all be caught up to meet him in the air as Paul states in Thessalonians. The dead shall rise first, and then then those who are still alive in the Lord. At that moment comes the Last Judgment...

"Jesus Christ will come again in Glory to Judge the Living and the Dead," says our creed.

That's it...there is NOTHING biblically significant about the modern day nation of Israel. Personally, my poitical support for Israel has nothing at all to do with any alleged prophecies regarding the rebirth of the nation. All of that stuff is nonsense.

[furry001]

But if we read scripture right, then there are 7 years of tribulation. If this is true, then we know when Christ will come and that is against what scripture teaches.

I'm confused.:scratch:

[KEPLER]

But if we read scripture right, then there are 7 years of tribulation. If this is true, then we know when Christ will come and that is against what scripture teaches.

I'm confused.:scratch:

Well furry001,

That sort of begs the question, doesn't it? Are you reading the Scriptures right? In truth, the idea of a "seven year tribulation" is completely unknown in the history of the church until an Englishman named John Nelson Darby invented it in the middle of the 19th century.

It sounds as if you would do well to read the book Scott is talking about.

Here is the link (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0813343143/qid%3D1133798248/026-2428504-4319603) at Amazon.co.uk.

I also suggest looking at the link theat RobNJ suggested in Post #9 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=20300333&postcount=9).

Kepler

[SPALATIN]

Well furry001,

That sort of begs the question, doesn't it? Are you reading the Scriptures right? In truth, the idea of a "seven year tribulation" is completely unknown in the history of the church until an Englishman named John Nelson Darby invented it in the middle of the 19th century.

It sounds as if you would do well to read the book Scott is talking about.

Here is the link (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0813343143/qid%3D1133798248/026-2428504-4319603) at Amazon.co.uk.

I also suggest looking at the link theat RobNJ suggested in Post #9 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=20300333&postcount=9).

Kepler

Correctamundo Kep. The idea of a seven year trib comes from the Old testament where I believe those in Darby's court say that Daniel 9:24-27 prove that 70 weeks will pass before the end of time. Each Week represents 7 years and the time between Daniels dream and Christ's death was 483 years. So there are supposedly another 7 year period to make the prophecy come true.

Darby pre-millenialists read too much into scripture. There is no mention of a 7 year period in Revelation. Revelation was not written for the purpose of scaring people to become Christians before the end, but rather as a comfort to Christians in the time of John that there would be victory in the end and that Christ would win just as he had with them.

[heron]

"If this is true, then we know when Christ will come and that is against what scripture teaches."

Actually, Jesus taught that we should watch the signs, and told us what they were, because we won't know the day or hour. He doesn't say we won't know the century, decade, or even the year.

Matthew 24:36 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=24&verse=36&version=31&context=verse)
Matthew 24:50 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=24&verse=50&version=31&context=verse)
Matthew 25:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=25&verse=13&version=31&context=verse)
Mark 13:32 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=13&verse=32&version=31&context=verse)
Luke 12:46 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=12&verse=46&version=31&context=verse)

[KEPLER]

Correctamundo Kep. The idea of a seven year trib comes from the Old testament where I believe those in Darby's court say that Daniel 9:24-27 prove that 70 weeks will pass before the end of time. Each Week represents 7 years and the time between Daniels dream and Christ's death was 483 years. So there are supposedly another 7 year period to make the prophecy come true.

Darby pre-millenialists read too much into scripture. There is no mention of a 7 year period in Revelation. Revelation was not written for the purpose of scaring people to become Christians before the end, but rather as a comfort to Christians in the time of John that there would be victory in the end and that Christ would win just as he had with them.

Righty-O!

Sadly, the misinterpretation of Daniel 9 goes farther than that and edges on the border of blasphemy.

The dispies argue that in the middle of that 7th week, "anti-christ" will make a covenant with Israel which he then will break. The blasphemy of course is that the entire 7th week is a description of what Jesus will do on the Cross. To give to the anti-Christ what properly belongs to Christ is a textbook definition of blasphemy.

I'm a little disappointed that Lutheran biblical scholars haven't done a better job debunking this nonsense. Pr. Aaron Plueger wrote a little book that is frankly mediocre at best. It's not that I disagree with him, it's that he's not thorough enough in shredding the system apart.

There is actually an excelent article on this subject by a Reformed theologian named Meredith Kline (this is one doctrine which Lutherans and Reformed agree on pretty much line-for-line). He shows that the language used in Daniel 9 is covenantal language, and that the only person who can make the kind of convenant described is God, thereby proving that there can be no way to interpret an "anti-Christ" as making a "new" covenant with Israel. I have a .pdf of the article and can email it to you if you like...

Cheers,

Kepler

[KEPLER]

"If this is true, then we know when Christ will come and that is against what scripture teaches."

Actually, Jesus taught that we should watch the signs, and told us what they were, because we won't know the day or hour. He doesn't say we won't know the century, decade, or even the year.

Matthew 24:36 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=24&verse=36&version=31&context=verse)
Matthew 24:50 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=24&verse=50&version=31&context=verse)
Matthew 25:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=25&verse=13&version=31&context=verse)
Mark 13:32 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=13&verse=32&version=31&context=verse)
Luke 12:46 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=12&verse=46&version=31&context=verse)


Heron,

The implication from Jesus's statement "no one knows the day or hour" is that we are not even to speculate about it. We are to go on preaching the Gospel, and doing the works for our neighbor which we are called to do.

Period.

Any speculation about the century, the decade, the year, the aeon, the nano-second, or any other kind is a violation of the clear command of Christ. Therefore, there is no one who is a true follower of Christ who speculates about this....


Kepler

[CSMR]

In this country, it's a matter of the "big personality" evangelicals... who want to influence voting to the degree that only (or a majority of) right-wing Christians are in control of the Governement. This presumes of course, that Christianity is adequately represented by the theology of these people, which I say it isn't. Other than abortion, I'm not sure what I agree with those lunatics on.

Do I believe that having a conservative Government will bring unregenrate souls to the faith? Uh, no, only an idiot would believe that.

I think what Scott was getting at is that the political agenda of the above mentioned people is a complete confusion of Law and Gospel, and a complete confounding of the Two Kingdoms.
This seems to be more a question of a particular group having a bad theology than whether someone with the right theology should apply that to politics. If the question is should we as members of the Church with the aims of the Church insofar as it is in our legitimate power advance those aims if possible by laws then I have to say the answer is yes.

In matters of justice, the Christian if he finds himself with some power - let us say to legalize or to allow abortion - he should surely be better able to make this decision if he knows the attitude of God to this practice, and that is something he can only know as a member of the Church ("the law is spiritual").

That is not to say he should assume the role of God and assume he can create faith by what he does.
Luther: "the sword cannot force the heart and bring it to faith. In view of its inability, it must keep silent in matters of faith; here one must enter by the door, and preach the Word and make the heart free."
That seems to be important to the point you are making. The external compulsion of laws is not the same as the inward work of Jesus Christ the Word. (Do these groups assume that they are - not that we need address them?)

However this does not mean that laws have nothing to do with bringing people to faith. Just as we can be by our words paradoxically preachers of the Word, a government can be by its laws a preacher of the Law. And if it is, it is surely helping to accomplish the "first duty of a preacher of the Gospel" (Luther, preface to Romans). If laws help or hinder us in understanding the Law, they help or hinder us in understanding the gospel, and so act as a minister of God for good or for wrath.

And that is not to consider the many other things that a government might do which can be seen as having a bearing on faith. Supporting, allowing, or banning the work of churches, having Christianity, or secularism, or nothing, in schools. If we can see the state as a potential agent of God we will not find these issues irrelevant to the church.

If this were not so then surely we should stay out of these controversies, because if they are irrelevant to the church and to faith, we cannot help anyone by advancing some policies over others.

[CSMR]

I had a friend who lives in Germany and another friend who lives in Finnland. They both tell me the churches are empty when services are held.
It may be that in certain countries in modern times the disestablishment of churches may well be in the interests of Christianity, and in that case they should (advocating whatever policy furthers the interest of the gospel!) press for desestablishment. The issue is not simple though and there are such problems in many european countries whether with established churches or without. (Both in France and the UK for instance.) Establishment is no longer something real in any case, like monarchy.

[furry001]

Obviously I need to study this subject in greater detail. I will be absent for a while as I conduct the necessary study. I will present my findings once I am able.

[heron]

"Therefore, there is no one who is a true follower of Christ who speculates about this...."

Kepler, you know Jesus' conditions on true believers. That was not on the list.

Just as you sense there are more important things to study and pursue, I say there are more important things than going after believers who happen to gain something from Jesus' words here.

God has a reason for things He tells us. We are not above His teachings. We meditate on His Word, whether we agree with it or not. If He gives us the signs of the times, then we read them and think about them. No big deal.

Agreed, "we are to go on preaching the Gospel, and doing the works for our neighbor which we are called to do." That is definitely the focus of the passage. But Jesus never said to ignore his own teachings on the end times.

[KEPLER]

"Therefore, there is no one who is a true follower of Christ who speculates about this...."

Kepler, you know Jesus' conditions on true believers. That was not on the list.

Just as you sense there are more important things to study and pursue, I say there are more important things than going after believers who happen to gain something from Jesus' words here.
Actually, as a Lutheran, I would say that the only condition is the Cross of Christ.

There are many things, however, which can lead people astray. End-times speculation is the chimera du jour.

Also as a Lutheran, I will press the Law upon people in its full force when I see them doing things that lead sheep astray. SO when Jack van Wimpy and the rest of the Endtimes Goofball Brigade (Lindsay, La Haye, et al) steer people wrong, yes I am obligated to set things right, to "rebuke them sharply" as Paul commands Titus to do.

Endtimes folk often look to 1 Thessalonians as the basis for their unchristian speculation. Specifically Chapter 4. However, that's where they stop reading. Because in Chapter 5, Paul tells the Thessalonians that the reason he gives them the information in Chapter 4 is to get them to SHUT UP and STOP SPECULATING.
1Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers, you have no need to have anything written to you. 2For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3While people are saying, "There is peace and security," then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. 4But you are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a thief. 5For you are all children of light, children of the day. We are not of the night or of the darkness. 6So then let us not sleep, as others do, but let us keep awake and be sober. 7For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk, are drunk at night. 8But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation. 9For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, 10who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him. 11Therefore encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing.
Thessalonians is a book AGAINST endtimes speculation, and yet the Goofball Brigade uses it as the BASIS for speculation. So yes, when I think Paul gives a crystal admonition NOT to get consumed with speculation and then some believers do, they are no longer "keeping in step with the Spirit."

God has a reason for things He tells us. We are not above His teachings. We meditate on His Word, whether we agree with it or not. If He gives us the signs of the times, then we read them and think about them. No big deal.

Agreed, "we are to go on preaching the Gospel, and doing the works for our neighbor which we are called to do." That is definitely the focus of the passage. But Jesus never said to ignore his own teachings on the end times.
I'm not suggesting that we all skip over the Olivet discourse whenever we read Matthew. THose are indeed the words of our Lord which demand our attention. We are then to apply them properly.

His words are law insofar as they warn us about our personal behavior and our treatment of others; His words are Gospel insofar as they promise to us that we are His children and we have life through Him.

His words are also deliberately vague...every generation since then could see some of the signs around them, and every generation since then could say, "SEE! The signs are increasing!" Indeed they may be.

We have to ask ourselves, what are passages like the Olivet Discourse for? What are they supposed to do? They are - simply put - to keep us on our toes. They are not there so that we can speculate endlessly about things and ignore our duty to help the needy, the widows, and the orphans.

We have NO MANDATE to pull out our calcualtors and slide rulers to start figuring things like decades and years out. That is NOT our job.

The people who are on TV selling their latest video as to why they think a the meltdown of a Russian nuclear reactor, NAFTA, and Hurricane Katrina's destruction of New Orleans are all sure signs of Christ's imminent return are nothing but charlatans and crooks. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. OF. THEM.

[SPALATIN]

This seems to be more a question of a particular group having a bad theology than whether someone with the right theology should apply that to politics. If the question is should we as members of the Church with the aims of the Church insofar as it is in our legitimate power advance those aims if possible by laws then I have to say the answer is yes.

In matters of justice, the Christian if he finds himself with some power - let us say to legalize or to allow abortion - he should surely be better able to make this decision if he knows the attitude of God to this practice, and that is something he can only know as a member of the Church ("the law is spiritual").

That is not to say he should assume the role of God and assume he can create faith by what he does.
Luther: "the sword cannot force the heart and bring it to faith. In view of its inability, it must keep silent in matters of faith; here one must enter by the door, and preach the Word and make the heart free."
That seems to be important to the point you are making. The external compulsion of laws is not the same as the inward work of Jesus Christ the Word. (Do these groups assume that they are - not that we need address them?)

However this does not mean that laws have nothing to do with bringing people to faith. Just as we can be by our words paradoxically preachers of the Word, a government can be by its laws a preacher of the Law. And if it is, it is surely helping to accomplish the "first duty of a preacher of the Gospel" (Luther, preface to Romans). If laws help or hinder us in understanding the Law, they help or hinder us in understanding the gospel, and so act as a minister of God for good or for wrath.

And that is not to consider the many other things that a government might do which can be seen as having a bearing on faith. Supporting, allowing, or banning the work of churches, having Christianity, or secularism, or nothing, in schools. If we can see the state as a potential agent of God we will not find these issues irrelevant to the church.

If this were not so then surely we should stay out of these controversies, because if they are irrelevant to the church and to faith, we cannot help anyone by advancing some policies over others.

If we believe in true separation of Church and State in this country we then need to keep it divided. Church should not run state and state should not run church. Those seeking to do so whether their theology is correct or not are not following the dicatates of God. They are following the dictates of their own sinful desires for power. This country was not founded on any Christian principles, but rather those of the age of Enlightenment. Any reference to such Christian ideal is false.

[BigNorsk]

Obviously I need to study this subject in greater detail. I will be absent for a while as I conduct the necessary study. I will present my findings once I am able.

I'm not sure which way to take this. I do agree that you should look into this a bit, but the point that I think was trying to be made concerning "Rapture Exposed" is that many get too deeply into this area. God tells us certain things. There are also things he doesn't tell us. When you see a lot of end times teachings they are often things that God tells us with a whole bunch of things he doesn't to tie things together and flesh them out.

After awhile, it becomes very difficult for people to distinguish what is from God and what was added. Often the parts added affect the people more than what God told them. That is when we see people taken over by the view of the endtimes and their life becomes centered around things they think are true and from God but really isn't.

I know some people who are here because they believe in a probable hoax prophecy of George Washington where Washington fortold that the US was going to be fought by the whole world. That sort of thing fit right in with what they thought already so they accept it. They came here to try and escape the fighting. (I don't know where they find in scripture that they can) The funny part is that they plopped down right near the US border in one of the locations that would make the most sense to attack the US. Just 40 miles from where European tanks often practice their maneuvers. I see the whole thing as a nonsensical application of things that God did not reveal.

Even if you cut out the extras. One should still be careful because history tells us that knowing when things are going to happen that are fortold is pretty nigh impossible. Sometimes it is a short term thing that happens quite soon but clearly, in human terms, the end of the world isn't one of those prophecies.

Be ready, be aware, but don't go off the deep end.

Marv

[KEPLER]

This seems to be more a question of a particular group having a bad theology than whether someone with the right theology should apply that to politics. If the question is should we as members of the Church with the aims of the Church insofar as it is in our legitimate power advance those aims if possible by laws then I have to say the answer is yes.
The problem here is that the people with the right theology are also the people who understand the distinction between the two Kingdoms. My theology does not compel me in any way to "take over the governement". That doesn't mean that people with my theology never participate in government, of course we do. But we recognize that there is a limit to what the Law can do, and there is a limit as to what we can do with the Law.

In many cases, the application of the law is going to force some segments of society to get worse, not better. And in fact -speaking on a strictly spiritual level - that is all the law can actually do. As Luther said, "The Law of God, the most salutary doctrine of life, cannot advance man on his way to righteousness, but rather hinders him." (Heidelberg Disputation, Thesis #1)

In matters of justice, the Christian if he finds himself with some power - let us say to legalize or to allow abortion - he should surely be better able to make this decision if he knows the attitude of God to this practice, and that is something he can only know as a member of the Church ("the law is spiritual").
Agreed. On the issue of abortion. But what about, say, gambling? Drinking alcohol? Adultery? Working on Sunday (including professional sports!)? Perhaps the government can decide that Jesus would indeed have been a good environmentalist, and therefore ban all SUVs? Restrict travel, in order to protect against spiritual mongrelization? (IOW, keep all the Muslims out!) Perhaps, based on COrinthians, the gov't could force all women to wear their hair long, and all men to wear their hair short? (I'm not kidding! This is the extreme to which some of these groups would go! What's the far-right political party in your country? "UK First" or something like that? Not everyone in that party is insane, but the ones who make it onto the Telly sure are!)

Here's one: what about marriage? Should the state have in its power the ability to regulate whether or not people use sacred or secular music at their weddings? The Church does. In the Missouri Synod, churches are not allowed (not supposed to be allowed) to play the Wedding March from Wagner's Lohengrin. (Because it's pagan). Should the state have such power? The only reason I ask aboiut something so seemingly miniscule is that once the door is cracked open, it is very difficult to keep the state from regulating things (or attemtping to regulate things) which they ought not regulate.

That is not to say he should assume the role of God and assume he can create faith by what he does.
Luther: "the sword cannot force the heart and bring it to faith. In view of its inability, it must keep silent in matters of faith; here one must enter by the door, and preach the Word and make the heart free."
That seems to be important to the point you are making. The external compulsion of laws is not the same as the inward work of Jesus Christ the Word. (Do these groups assume that they are - not that we need address them?)
You are very correct, here, and yes this is the ultimate point I am getting to. And yes, I do believe that because of their synergistic theology, these groups (Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, etc) these groups actually do believe that they are advancing the cause of the Gospel.

However this does not mean that laws have nothing to do with bringing people to faith. Just as we can be by our words paradoxically preachers of the Word, a government can be by its laws a preacher of the Law. And if it is, it is surely helping to accomplish the "first duty of a preacher of the Gospel" (Luther, preface to Romans). If laws help or hinder us in understanding the Law, they help or hinder us in understanding the gospel, and so act as a minister of God for good or for wrath.
The government can't be a "preacher of the law" simply because the government isn't ordained to do so. Even insofar as the government is a keeper and enforcer of the law, it can only be so (in the United States, at any rate) in regards to the second table of the law. How is the governemt going to keep and enforce the First Commandment: Thou shalt have no other Gods before me? The First Amendment of our Constitution categorically and absolutely forbids this. I don't know about England, but I do know the lines are a lot fuzzier there.

And that is not to consider the many other things that a government might do which can be seen as having a bearing on faith. Supporting, allowing, or banning the work of churches, having Christianity, or secularism, or nothing, in schools. If we can see the state as a potential agent of God we will not find these issues irrelevant to the church.

If this were not so then surely we should stay out of these controversies, because if they are irrelevant to the church and to faith, we cannot help anyone by advancing some policies over others.
There are a lot of things which should be left to public opinion at a local level, but ever since the Civil War in this country, the Federal Government is seen as the panacaea for all social problems. If a public school in New York City serves a predominantly muslim neighborhood, and the parents vote to remove the 10 Commandments form the walls in that school alone, I have no problem with that. When the Federal gov't decides that because of a few mealy-brained liberals, that the 10 commandments are verboten everywhere, that's overstretching their authority.

But I can say with utmost confidence that having the 10 Commandments on a school wall has never, in the entire history of the human race, never saved a single soul from perdition. So in the end, I don't think it makes a dang bit of difference whether they are there or not. My only concern is (like I said above) when the government that is "of the people" starts going around and enforcing the preferences of "only a few of the people".

I'm not disagreeing that Christians can and should be involved in the politcial process. I guess where I'm disagreeing is that Gov't regulation of non-life-or-property-threatening behavior is unnecessaryeven at the civil level. So when Dobson wants to boycott a bank because they made a donation to a gay organization, well that's his business, but does he ever stop to think that if his boycott worked (which, happily, it won't) Wells Fargo would probably end up laying off workers, some of whom are his fellow Christians? No , he doesn't think about things like that, frankly, because he's an idiot.

I'm going to stop here, because now I'm conflating the Dobson kerfuffle with the Robertson/Falwell nonsense and I need to go look at Scott's post and see what it was he originally said...

Cheers,

Kepler

[Edial]

I just became a Lutheran, was a Baptist.
Wow.
I should note that you do not really like these guys too much, do you.

Ed

[KEPLER]

I just became a Lutheran, was a Baptist.
Wow.
I should note that you do not really like these guys too much, do you.

Ed

Ed, welcome to TCCL.

Don't like Baptists? Or don't like Dobson, Robertson & Falwell?

I like Baptists (especially the ones who become Lutherans! :thumbsup: ) Some of my best friends are Baptists...doesn't mean I don't argue with them.

As for the end-times brigade, my anger is a reflection of the sadness that my entire family is caught up in it. :cry:

Kepler

[Melethiel]

I like Baptists...I just think they're wrong...and their music sucks. ;) But I can't exactly hate them, because half my family is Baptist in the truest sense. (Ie., the big stocky type who will pray for 30 minutes straight :P )

[KEPLER]

I like Baptists...I just think they're wrong...and their music sucks. ;) But I can't exactly hate them, because half my family is Baptist in the truest sense. (Ie., the big stocky type who will pray for 30 minutes straight :P )

As opposed to the Orthodox side of your family who are the...lanky, bearded types who will recite the Litany for 60 minutes straight? ;)

[SPALATIN]

I like Baptists...I just think they're wrong...and their music sucks. ;) But I can't exactly hate them, because half my family is Baptist in the truest sense. (Ie., the big stocky type who will pray for 30 minutes straight :P )

Yes but if you listen to each petition you will hear a few of them repeated and the segue into each petition sounds like ". . .and we just pray for. . ., or, pray that"

Ex corde prayers are pietistic in nature because they serve to show how "holy" the person is who is saying them.

[Melethiel]

As opposed to the Orthodox side of your family who are the...lanky, bearded types who will recite the Litany for 60 minutes straight? ;)
I don't know about that...but twas my ultra-Orthodox grandma that ordered my parents to have me baptized. :P
On the other hand, the Baptists on my mom's side of the family beat out any Southern Baptist-in-the-heart-of-the-Bible-belt in terms of Baptist-ness. :P (You can't insult my great-uncle's mother, or he'll sit you down in a chair and pray for you. ;) )

[KEPLER]

I don't know about that...but twas my ultra-Orthodox grandma that ordered my parents to have me baptized. :P
On the other hand, the Baptists on my mom's side of the family beat out any Southern Baptist-in-the-heart-of-the-Bible-belt in terms of Baptist-ness. :P (You can't insult my great-uncle's mother, or he'll sit you down in a chair and pray for you. ;) )

ROTFL

(and thank God for Grandma!!) :thumbsup:

[Edial]

Ed, welcome to TCCL.
Thanks.

Don't like Baptists? Or don't like Dobson, Robertson & Falwell?
Not sure. Some made general comments concerning Baptists.

I like Baptists (especially the ones who become Lutherans! :thumbsup: ) Some of my best friends are Baptists...doesn't mean I don't argue with them.
Can you imagine me having a conversation here prior to considering becoming a Lutheran?

As for the end-times brigade, my anger is a reflection of the sadness that my entire family is caught up in it. :cry:

Kepler
The OP did not make it clear that he is talking about the pre-tribulational rapture. He just said "rapture".

Rapture will be there. Yet, pre-tribulational rapture does not exist.

In other threads I challenged to present even one verse that proves it. A usual handful are presented which are easily disproven.

"Emotionally-charged" Baptists (as well as Lutherans) often fall in traps such as these - no verses, just a charismatic leadership of a man combined with wishful thinking.

Does your family care that there are no verses to prove the pre-tribulational rapture? Not the rapture in general, but the pre-trib.

And since they have some verses that they think proves their point, do they care to know whether these can be re-addressed?

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

I like Baptists...I just think they're wrong...)
Where?
and their music sucks. ;)
What music is that?
But I can't exactly hate them, because half my family is Baptist in the truest sense.)
So if not for your family being Baptists you would hate them?
(Ie., the big stocky type who will pray for 30 minutes straight :P )
This is bad, right?

Ed

[heron]

"Once the door is cracked open, it is very difficult to keep the state from regulating things (or attempting to regulate things) which they ought not regulate."

Kepler, that is such an imporant issue at this time.
I see it snowball...starting with the popularity of teleteachers, to crowd mentality, to people neglecting to study on their own and communicate with God one on one, to teleteachers having sway (sometimes unknowing) over masses, to mass panic, to mass petitions for societal change.

I don't object to end times teachers at all. I have to sketch out a visual map every time I read Revelations, and get bogged down in details and time lines...I appreciate a variety of people interpreting different translations of this vision. The key statement there--a variety. Because if we follow a person and don't discern truths for ourselves, we're on the slippery slope.

[SPALATIN]

"Once the door is cracked open, it is very difficult to keep the state from regulating things (or attempting to regulate things) which they ought not regulate."

Kepler, that is such an imporant issue at this time.
I see it snowball...starting with the popularity of teleteachers, to crowd mentality, to people neglecting to study on their own and communicate with God one on one, to teleteachers having sway (sometimes unknowing) over masses, to mass panic, to mass petitions for societal change.

I don't object to end times teachers at all. I have to sketch out a visual map every time I read Revelations, and get bogged down in details and time lines...I appreciate a variety of people interpreting different translations of this vision. The key statement there--a variety. Because if we follow a person and don't discern truths for ourselves, we're on the slippery slope.




That's just it Heron,

Revelation is not about time tables and visual maps. It is about victory in Christ. It is a salve unto our conscience that when the end comes, WE WIN! It could come today, tomorrow, next year, next decade, next century or next millenium, but when that day comes we need to be prepared. I don't care about all the signs that are in the Revelation to St. John because I am of the belief that if we were meant to know what all that stuff was God would have been more clear and not made it so enigmatic.

I am not saying you shouldn't read it, but don't get all bogged down in the mire of having to know what it all means, or be constantly looking for signs.

Jesus told those who were looking for a sign or miracle that the Son of Man had come. He told them that no sign would be given but the sign of Jonah.
We all know now that he was talking about being dead for 3 days like Jonah was 3 days in the fish. The sign was very humble and they all wanted a sign that was of great magnitude. Satan is the same way. He took Jesus to the top of the Temple and told him to jump because he could call his angels down to save him. Jesus told him not to tempt the Lord your God.

Revelation is not a secret puzzle like the Constitution in "National Treasure". It is not up to you or any human to determine what the signs mean. The message of Revelation is "don' worry (I won't say "be happy), believe in Christ and you will be with him at the end of the age."

[KEPLER]

That's just it Heron,

Revelation is not about time tables and visual maps. It is about victory in Christ. It is a salve unto our conscience that when the end comes, WE WIN! It could come today, tomorrow, next year, next decade, next century or next millenium, but when that day comes we need to be prepared. I don't care about all the signs that are in the Revelation to St. John because I am of the belief that if we were meant to know what all that stuff was God would have been more clear and not made it so enigmatic.

I am not saying you shouldn't read it, but don't get all bogged down in the mire of having to know what it all means, or be constantly looking for signs.

Jesus told those who were looking for a sign or miracle that the Son of Man had come. He told them that no sign would be given but the sign of Jonah.
We all know now that he was talking about being dead for 3 days like Jonah was 3 days in the fish. The sign was very humble and they all wanted a sign that was of great magnitude. Satan is the same way. He took Jesus to the top of the Temple and told him to jump because he could call his angels down to save him. Jesus told him not to tempt the Lord your God.

Revelation is not a secret puzzle like the Constitution in "National Treasure". It is not up to you or any human to determine what the signs mean. The message of Revelation is "don' worry (I won't say "be happy), believe in Christ and you will be with him at the end of the age."

:clap: Preach on, Brother!

Heron, I will add only this. Down in my sig is my favorite verse from Scripture:

John 16:33These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

The book of Revelation is that verse expanded to 22 chapters. Nothing more; nothing less.

Connversely, the entirety of the book of Revelation can be summed up in that verse!

Pax,

Kepler

[KEPLER]

The OP did not make it clear that he is talking about the pre-tribulational rapture. He just said "rapture".
A quick look at the book on Amazon.com clears that up, n'est pas?

Rapture will be there. Yet, pre-tribulational rapture does not exist.

In other threads I challenged to present even one verse that proves it. A usual handful are presented which are easily disproven.

"Emotionally-charged" Baptists (as well as Lutherans) often fall in traps such as these - no verses, just a charismatic leadership of a man combined with wishful thinking.

Does your family care that there are no verses to prove the pre-tribulational rapture? Not the rapture in general, but the pre-trib.

And since they have some verses that they think proves their point, do they care to know whether these can be re-addressed?

Thanks,
Ed
True, as Paul says, we will be caught up in the air with Him, as Christ returns. There is no denying that.

The objection is to a theology which makes several mistakes:

1) a radical separation between "Israel" and the "Church" (both of which are actually referred to rather inoccuously in Scripture as the "assembly" of God..."qahal" in Hebrew and "ekklesia" in Greek) so as to effectively indicate two modes of salvation.
2) attributes actions to the anti-Christ which are properly Christ's, i.e., the misinterpretation of Daniel 9 in which there is no mention of anti-Christ: it is ALL about Christ.
3) violates basic hermeneutical rules
4) makes the Cross of Christ a "plan B" for salvation
Other mistakes, too, but these are the ones I can think of quickly.

As for my family, when people are so mired in this, you can't disprove it verse by verse. It requires a radical alteration of how Scripture is viewed. In fact, upon first leaving the pentecostal church I was raised in, I tried for some time to maintain the eschatology. But after coming to a deeper and deeper understanding of Justification by grace alone through faith alone, the pre-trib stuff just all disintegrated.

I guess that's why Luther called the doctrine of Justification the doctrine upon which the Church stands or falls. Get it straight, and other things will start to fall into place; get it wrong, and there's no telling what kind of loopiness is possble. :doh:

Kepler

[Edial]

A quick look at the book on Amazon.com clears that up, n'est pas?
My French is very High School, so "no", the Amazon.com did not occur, especially since I did not contemplate buying it.


True, as Paul says, we will be caught up in the air with Him, as Christ returns. There is no denying that.

The objection is to a theology which makes several mistakes:


1) a radical separation between "Israel" and the "Church" (both of which are actually referred to rather inoccuously in Scripture as the "assembly" of God..."qahal" in Hebrew and "ekklesia" in Greek) so as to effectively indicate two modes of salvation.

Many hold on to the pre-trib because they have a certain "paranoia" of having the Israel disappear from a soteriological perspective. So they "choose" the pre-trib as a defensive weapon against "elimination" of Israel, and not based on the Scriptures.
Oh, they use Scriptures, but only to support their existing views and not to shape them.

The doctrine of Israel being separate from Church

stands on its own verses. And the salvation method is also identical between the two.


2) attributes actions to the anti-Christ which are properly Christ's, i.e., the misinterpretation of Daniel 9 in which there is no mention of anti-Christ: it is ALL about Christ.
3) violates basic hermeneutical rules

They "start off" from the OT prophecies (which are much foggier to understand), instead of the NT's crisp verses.

Their rudder is slightly off course from the start. This takes them into hermeneutical violations.


4) makes the Cross of Christ a "plan B" for salvation
What do you mean by that? What other salvation they propose?




As for my family, when people are so mired in this, you can't disprove it verse by verse. It requires a radical alteration of how Scripture is viewed. In fact, upon first leaving the pentecostal church I was raised in, I tried for some time to maintain the eschatology. But after coming to a deeper and deeper understanding of Justification by grace alone through faith alone, the pre-trib stuff just all disintegrated.

I guess that's why Luther called the doctrine of Justification the doctrine upon which the Church stands or falls. Get it straight, and other things will start to fall into place; get it wrong, and there's no telling what kind of loopiness is possble. :doh:

Kepler
Well, all I can say is that there are many families that are not saved.

And many would love to have such "problems" that you have.:)

Thanks,
Ed

[SPALATIN]

Well, all I can say is that there are many families that are not saved.


Thanks,
Ed


That is where proclaiming to all that Christ was crucified for their sins to all nations comes in. Not by preaching eschatology but by showing them that they need what Christ did on the cross and not worry about Israel. God will take care of Israel.

[Melethiel]

Where?

What music is that?

So if not for your family being Baptists you would hate them?

This is bad, right?

Ed
The Sacraments, for one.
The hymns all have identical harmonies, and a very pietistic leaning.
As for the other two points...if you're going to stick around here, you'll have to learn to read the finer points of my sarcasm. ;)

[KEPLER]

Many hold on to the pre-trib because they have a certain "paranoia" of having the Israel disappear from a soteriological perspective. So they "choose" the pre-trib as a defensive weapon against "elimination" of Israel, and not based on the Scriptures.
Oh, they use Scriptures, but only to support their existing views and not to shape them.

The doctrine of Israel being separate from Church stands on its own verses. And the salvation method is also identical between the two.

They "start off" from the OT prophecies (which are much foggier to understand), instead of the NT's crisp verses.

Their rudder is slightly off course from the start. This takes them into hermeneutical violations.
If I understand you properly, then I think I agree. One of those "basic hermeneutical principles" is that, as Christians, we read the OT in light of the NT. We don't read OT prophecies nakedly. If we do, then (for example) we might look at Jeremiah 31 and conclude that God still has another covenant in store for the "house of Israel" and the "house of Judah". However, when we read Hebrews and follow how the author interprets jeremiah, we understand that Jeremiah's New Covenant is established with Christ. Ergo, we --the NT assembly "ekklesia"-- are the recipients of the promise made to the OT assembly "qahal". Which of course fits right in with Romans 9-11 and Galatians 3-5, where we (the NT followers of Christ) are the true children of Abraham.

What do you mean by that? What other salvation they propose?
Dispensationalist theologians have contended that the body of NT believers were an "accident" arising from the fact that the Jews rejected Jesus, which wasn't really supposed to have happened. Therefore, we are currently in a "parenthesis" in God's plan. (I found a fairly good and balanced article compoaring and contrasting Covenant Theology with Dispensationalism here (http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=534). Lutherans, while not agreeing with all of Covenant Theology, are a lot closer to CT than we are to Dispensationalism). The future millenium will be a return to an earthly Israelite Kingdom, with the re-establishment of the Sacrificial system. Dispensationalists arguments ultimately lead to the conclusion that God has two plans of salvation, one the OT sacrificial system, the other Christ.

Pushed to the wall, Dispensationalists will deny this (and personally, I give them the benefit of the doubt). But they are trapped by their hermeneutics: it is the logical conclusion of their system.



Well, all I can say is that there are many families that are not saved.

And many would love to have such "problems" that you have.:)

Thanks,
Ed
I'm not sure how to take that.

[Edial]

That is where proclaiming to all that Christ was crucified for their sins to all nations comes in. Not by preaching eschatology but by showing them that they need what Christ did on the cross and not worry about Israel. God will take care of Israel.
True. :)

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

If I understand you properly, then I think I agree. One of those "basic hermeneutical principles" is that, as Christians, we read the OT in light of the NT. We don't read OT prophecies nakedly. If we do, then (for example) we might look at Jeremiah 31 and conclude that God still has another covenant in store for the "house of Israel" and the "house of Judah". However, when we read Hebrews and follow how the author interprets jeremiah, we understand that Jeremiah's New Covenant is established with Christ. Ergo, we --the NT assembly "ekklesia"-- are the recipients of the promise made to the OT assembly "qahal". Which of course fits right in with Romans 9-11 and Galatians 3-5, where we (the NT followers of Christ) are the true children of Abraham.
The Church is the true Israel (of promise).
However, the original promises to the 12 tribes will not be aborted.


Dispensationalist theologians have contended that the body of NT believers were an "accident" arising from the fact that the Jews rejected Jesus, which wasn't really supposed to have happened. Therefore, we are currently in a "parenthesis" in God's plan. (I found a fairly good and balanced article compoaring and contrasting Covenant Theology with Dispensationalism here (http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=534). Lutherans, while not agreeing with all of Covenant Theology, are a lot closer to CT than we are to Dispensationalism). The future millenium will be a return to an earthly Israelite Kingdom, with the re-establishment of the Sacrificial system. Dispensationalists arguments ultimately lead to the conclusion that God has two plans of salvation, one the OT sacrificial system, the other Christ.

Pushed to the wall, Dispensationalists will deny this (and personally, I give them the benefit of the doubt). But they are trapped by their hermeneutics: it is the logical conclusion of their system.
If I were them I would also deny it. :)




I'm not sure how to take that.
What I meant was that your family is saved, yet is caught up in the pre-trib fever. :)

There are many whose families are not saved.

They would probably gladly settle of having their families saved even if it means being caught up in the pre-trib teaching.

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

The Sacraments, for one.
What about them?
The hymns all have identical harmonies,...
The old hymns also have identical harmonies - simple folk songs.
and a very pietistic leaning.
Maybe they do feel pious, or repentant.
Why do you think they choose them - hypocricy?

As for the other two points...if you're going to stick around here, you'll have to learn to read the finer points of my sarcasm. ;)
Sarcasm was never a good method of communicating incognito.

Ed

[KEPLER]

The Church is the true Israel (of promise).
However, the original promises to the 12 tribes will not be aborted.


Which promises?

[Edial]

Which promises?
That they will be saved Rom.11
And then we see the 12000 from each tribe and so on.

Thanks,
Ed

[SPALATIN]

That they will be saved Rom.11
And then we see the 12000 from each tribe and so on.

Thanks,
Ed

You mean Romans 11:5 which reads: 5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.

25I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
"The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27And this is[f (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2011&version=31#fen-NIV-28222f)] my covenant with them
when I take away their sins."[g (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2011&version=31#fen-NIV-28222g)]


Which Israeli's this day are covered by this verse? Do you know any of them that are part of the remnant chosen by grace?

This does not speak of a Nation of Israel, but of those who have remained faithful. His chosen people are not the Israelites any longer. His chosen people are those who live by grace through faith.

[KEPLER]

This does not speak of a Nation of Israel, but of those who have remained faithful. His chosen people are not the Israelites any longer. His chosen people are those who live by grace through faith.

Indeed. Some of those who live by grace through faith may be ethnically Jewish, but Spiritually, they are followers of Christ. Gal 3:28-9.

[Melethiel]

What about them?

The old hymns also have identical harmonies - simple folk songs.

Maybe they do feel pious, or repentant.
Why do you think they choose them - hypocricy?


Sarcasm was never a good method of communicating incognito.

Ed
Baptists deny the efficacy of the Sacraments.
Not at all. Remember, I'm getting my degree in organ music - the other hymns definitely have more variety than the Baptistic ones.
I was using the Lutheran definition of "pietism". I could also go into theological depth - I own both the Baptist hymnal and several Lutheran ones.
No one else has had any trouble with my sarcasm.

[filosofer]

That they will be saved Rom.11
And then we see the 12000 from each tribe and so on.

Thanks,
Ed


Howdy, Ed. Except that the 12,000 from "each tribe" does not match any OT listing of the tribes, and never in the order as given in Revelation. Must be more than "Israel as 12 tribes" going in these texts.

In Christ's love,
filo

[Edial]

You mean Romans 11:5 which reads: 5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.

25I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
"The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27And this is[f (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2011&version=31#fen-NIV-28222f)] my covenant with them
when I take away their sins."[g (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2011&version=31#fen-NIV-28222g)]


Which Israeli's this day are covered by this verse? Do you know any of them that are part of the remnant chosen by grace?

This does not speak of a Nation of Israel, but of those who have remained faithful. His chosen people are not the Israelites any longer. His chosen people are those who live by grace through faith.
I do not disagree with that. :)
All will be saved through Jesus Christ, the Messiah. There is no other way.

Yet Israel also has a national identity from a context of a specific nationality that is genetically tied.
So, from that "nation" 12000 from each tribe will ne chosen.

But salvation - Jesus Christ, by faith through grace, not works (law).

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

Indeed. Some of those who live by grace through faith may be ethnically Jewish, but Spiritually, they are followers of Christ. Gal 3:28-9.
That's what I meant - ethnically Jewish.

Thanks,
Ed

[SPALATIN]

I do not disagree with that. :)
All will be saved through Jesus Christ, the Messiah. There is no other way.

Yet Israel also has a national identity from a context of a specific nationality that is genetically tied.
So, from that "nation" 12000 from each tribe will ne chosen.

But salvation - Jesus Christ, by faith through grace, not works (law).

Thanks,
Ed

Edial,

Go back one page on this thread and read what filosofer wrote. It is the last post on that page.

[Edial]

Howdy, Ed. Except that the 12,000 from "each tribe" does not match any OT listing of the tribes, and never in the order as given in Revelation. Must be more than "Israel as 12 tribes" going in these texts.

In Christ's love,
filo

Hello filo. :)

Well, I think Dan is missing, but then this can be reconciled with the events of the OT.
But the 12 Israeli tribes are quite plainly stated.
I cannot disprove that. :)

Thanks,
Ed

[KEPLER]

Edial,

Go back one page on this thread and read what filosofer wrote. It is the last post on that page.
I think he's getting there Scott; he is working his way methodicially through the posts. Hmmm, maybe Ed's a Methodist? ;) (Just playin' with ya, ED!! :wave: )

[Edial]

I think he's getting there Scott; he is working his way methodicially through the posts. Hmmm, maybe Ed's a Methodist? ;) (Just playin' with ya, ED!! :wave: ):)

[Edial]

Baptists deny the efficacy of the Sacraments.
What they deny is that Water Baptism saves, as in "justifies".
They do not deny that God can save via Water Baptism.
They deny that God saves via Water Baptism all the time.
They also deny that Water Baptism is necessary for justification.
And they are Scripturally correct.

What they deny is that the elements of the Lord's Supper save.
They state that these are symbolic of the Lord. And they have Scriptures to support that.
I believe that there is more to it than purely symbolic (I do not mean transubstantialization) but I do not have Scriptures to support that.
And they do not have Scriptures to prove that the Lord's Supper is more than a purely symbolic and reflective act.

If the Scriptures are silent in some areas, there are no problems to have different views.

Not at all. Remember, I'm getting my degree in organ music - the other hymns definitely have more variety than the Baptistic ones.
The Baptists sing hymns and worship (contemporary) songs.
There is no question that there are some "7/11" songs - 7 words repeated 11 times. But some are really, really good.

The hymns that we sing did come from simple folk songs - Amazing Grace (my favorite) as an example.
Some hymns are elaborate.
Some Lutheran songs are way too elaborate for my personal taste - loose connection with the context of the song or my voice does not hold up.

So, if you mean "7/11 songs" - Baptists do not like them either.
But not every Lutheran song is a gem neither.

I was using the Lutheran definition of "pietism". I could also go into theological depth - I own both the Baptist hymnal and several Lutheran ones.
I used the Dictionary.com definition of pietism.
No one else has had any trouble with my sarcasm.
As I said before, sarcasm is not an effective way of communiction. It can be personally satisfying, but it is not effective in establishing a foundation upon which anything can be built, anything beneficial for all, that is.

But thanks for the clarifications, :)
Ed

[Melethiel]

The Baptists sing hymns and worship (contemporary) songs.
There is no question that there are some "7/11" songs - 7 words repeated 11 times. But some are really, really good.

I know what Baptists sing...was one for a long time. :)
I don't deny that some hymns are good. However, I'm comparing the overall quality of the hymnals. The hymns in the Baptist hymnal all have very similar melodies and harmonies, and texts - not much variety. Overall, the Lutheran hymnal has more variety and depth - a point acknowledged by several Baptist/Methodist organists that I know.

[SPALATIN]

I know what Baptists sing...was one for a long time. :)
I don't deny that some hymns are good. However, I'm comparing the overall quality of the hymnals. The hymns in the Baptist hymnal all have very similar melodies and harmonies, and texts - not much variety. Overall, the Lutheran hymnal has more variety and depth - a point acknowledged by several Baptist/Methodist organists that I know.

Hello M.

Question for you. At 15 years of age, how long is a long time for you? 3 yrs, 5, 7, 10? just wondering.

[SPALATIN]

What they deny is that Water Baptism saves, as in "justifies".
They do not deny that God can save via Water Baptism.
They deny that God saves via Water Baptism all the time.
They also deny that Water Baptism is necessary for justification.
And they are Scripturally correct.




18For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;


19in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,

20who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.

21Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.



We are saved by Baptism. It is a means of Grace. Like if you fall overboard and are in the ocean drowning and someone throws you a rope. Do you say that the rope saved you or do you say that the person who threw the rope saved you? The rope is only the means in this scenario. Baptism is the means in which we are brought into salvation through Christ. Being brought into salvation through Baptism we are then Justified by his work on the cross. Having been justified we are also now sanctified to do good works prepared in advance for us.

[KEPLER]

Hello filo. :)

Well, I think Dan is missing, but then this can be reconciled with the events of the OT.
But the 12 Israeli tribes are quite plainly stated.
I cannot disprove that. :)

Thanks,
Ed

Why is the remnant entirely male?

K

[Edial]

We are saved by Baptism. It is a means of Grace. Like if you fall overboard and are in the ocean drowning and someone throws you a rope. Do you say that the rope saved you or do you say that the person who threw the rope saved you? The rope is only the means in this scenario. Baptism is the means in which we are brought into salvation through Christ. Being brought into salvation through Baptism we are then Justified by his work on the cross. Having been justified we are also now sanctified to do good works prepared in advance for us.
The one that throws the rope saves, of course. Not the rope.

However, we are the ones that prepare the water baptism.
We can precisely pinpoint that a certain baptism is scheduled for 11 am next Sunday morning.
And, if we are stating that via this baptism God will save ALL the time, we are telling God when to throw that rope - and that is a technical impossibility. :)

One might say that God MIGHT save a person - that's another conversation.

Also, one might be brought into a salvation - no problem.
Even Christ said in the gospel that salvation is not far from certain people.
I am talking about the "assurance of salvation". The clamp. The seal. The lock.

But justification is by faith, as in Abraham. We are indeed are justified by his work on the cross, but NEVER apart from personal faith. :)
It cannot be. It just cannot.

And then we are sanctified, as you mentioned.

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

I know what Baptists sing...was one for a long time. :)
I don't deny that some hymns are good. However, I'm comparing the overall quality of the hymnals. The hymns in the Baptist hymnal all have very similar melodies and harmonies, and texts - not much variety. Overall, the Lutheran hymnal has more variety and depth - a point acknowledged by several Baptist/Methodist organists that I know.
Fair enough. :)

Ed

[Tonks]

Just my two ducats. I've read the book mentioned at the beginning of the thread. Enjoyed it quite a bit.

[Edial]

Why is the remnant entirely male?

K
Huh ! :scratch:
Excellent question. Never thought of it before.
I do not know why.

But I'll think about it once I clarify the intent of your question.
Do you mean to imply that having a male definition was not literal in the Revelation?

What exactly do you want to propose by that good question?

Thanks,
Ed

[KEPLER]

However, we are the ones that prepare the water baptism.
We can precisely pinpoint that a certain baptism is scheduled for 11 am next Sunday morning.
And, if we are stating that via this baptism God will save ALL the time, we are telling God when to throw that rope - and that is a technical impossibility. :)

Numbers 21:4-9 They traveled from Mount Hor along the route to the Red Sea, to go around Edom. But the people grew impatient on the way; they spoke against God and against Moses, and said, "Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the desert? There is no bread! There is no water! And we detest this miserable food!"

Then the LORD sent venomous snakes among them; they bit the people and many Israelites died. The people came to Moses and said, "We sinned when we spoke against the LORD and against you. Pray that the LORD will take the snakes away from us." So Moses prayed for the people.

The LORD said to Moses, "Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live." So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, he lived.

The Israelites looked to the snake whenever they were bitten, and received healing.

But justification is by faith, as in Abraham. We are indeed are justified by his work on the cross, but NEVER apart from personal faith. :)
It cannot be. It just cannot.
No one here has said otherwise.

[Edial]

However, we are the ones that prepare the water baptism.
We can precisely pinpoint that a certain baptism is scheduled for 11 am next Sunday morning.
And, if we are stating that via this baptism God will save ALL the time, we are telling God when to throw that rope - and that is a technical impossibility. :) http://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-bot-left.gifhttp://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-bot-right.gif



http://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-left.gifQuotehttp://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-right.gif http://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-by-left.gifOriginally Posted by: Numbers 21:4-9 http://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-by-right.gifhttp://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-right-10.gifNumbers 21:4-9 They traveled from Mount Hor along the route to the Red Sea, to go around Edom. But the people grew impatient on the way; they spoke against God and against Moses, and said, "Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the desert? There is no bread! There is no water! And we detest this miserable food!"

Then the LORD sent venomous snakes among them; they bit the people and many Israelites died. The people came to Moses and said, "We sinned when we spoke against the LORD and against you. Pray that the LORD will take the snakes away from us." So Moses prayed for the people.

The LORD said to Moses, "Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live." So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, he lived.http://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-bot-left.gifhttp://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-bot-right.gif


The Israelites looked to the snake whenever they were bitten, and received healing..

But here the Israelites are forced to look at the bronze snake and live. They are bitten. In pain. About to die.

When one prepares a Water Baptism and schedules it for next Sunday morning - it is different - salvation "by choice", my choice, on Sunday at 11am.

Thanks,
Ed

[KEPLER]

Huh ! :scratch:
Excellent question. Never thought of it before.
I do not know why.

But I'll think about it once I clarify the intent of your question.
Do you mean to imply that having a male definition was not literal in the Revelation?

What exactly do you want to propose by that good question?

Thanks,
Ed

Not saying I know the answer. But I think that the nature of the remnant changes substantially depending on whether one interpets the Apocalypse figuratively or literally.

Figuratively, the remnant are all the faithful believers. Male because of the Patriarchs, Priests, and Kings. Virgins because they are pure (in doctrine!). etc etc. It's quite simple.

Literally....? Beats me.

[SPALATIN]

The one that throws the rope saves, of course. Not the rope.

However, we are the ones that prepare the water baptism.
We can precisely pinpoint that a certain baptism is scheduled for 11 am next Sunday morning.
And, if we are stating that via this baptism God will save ALL the time, we are telling God when to throw that rope - and that is a technical impossibility. :)

One might say that God MIGHT save a person - that's another conversation.

Also, one might be brought into a salvation - no problem.
Even Christ said in the gospel that salvation is not far from certain people.
I am talking about the "assurance of salvation". The clamp. The seal. The lock.

But justification is by faith, as in Abraham. We are indeed are justified by his work on the cross, but NEVER apart from personal faith. :)
It cannot be. It just cannot.

And then we are sanctified, as you mentioned.

Thanks,
Ed

Ed,

The parents bring their child to the baptismal font in faith that what is done there with the water and the word is done by God not by man. So by us scheduling the time and place of the baptism suggests that we are manipulating God? I disagree. We schedule the event with the church so that the Pastor can prepare and have Baptism service printed out and so that we can gather our relatives together so that we may all be witnesses to what God is doing in the child. If the child were in danger of dying soon we would call the Pastor to the hospital to do an emergency Baptism.

Baptism is necessary, but not absolutely necessary. Baptism is the water conjoined to the word of God. God used Baptism to save Noah and his family. The Israelites were Baptized when they crossed the Red Sea. True they didn't get wet, but God used Water as their means of getting away from their enemies.

It is not when he throws it that is important, but that he throws it because of his Son, Jesus. We do not manipulate him but rely upon his promises. Through his Great Commission in Matthew 28 we hear him say that we are to Go and tell all people, young, old, racially mixed, male and female, about Jesus Christ and what he has done on the cross and then Baptize them in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

[KEPLER]

But here the Israelites are forced to look at the bronze snake and live. They are bitten. In pain. About to die.
Forced? And are we not all "in pain, about to die"?

[KEPLER]

We can precisely pinpoint that a certain baptism is scheduled for 11 am next Sunday morning.

Matt 18:20

[KEPLER]

Just my two ducats. I've read the book mentioned at the beginning of the thread. Enjoyed it quite a bit.
Hey Tonks,

I suspect that in your case, it was preaching to the choir. The question is how to get our dispensational brethren to read it...?

K

[Edial]

Not saying I know the answer. But I think that the nature of the remnant changes substantially depending on whether one interpets the Apocalypse figuratively or literally.

Figuratively, the remnant are all the faithful believers. Male because of the Patriarchs, Priests, and Kings. Virgins because they are pure (in doctrine!). etc etc. It's quite simple.

Literally....? Beats me.
But if I interpret things by the way I understand - I'll never understand anything since the figurative interpretation will be a default for all.

REV 14:3 And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. 4 These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among men and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb. 5 No lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless.

V. 3 There are specific elements and people here - throne, 4 creatures, eleders, song, 144000, earth. Well, I definitely believe that there is a throne, why not the 144000?
V.4 Besides not defiling themselves with women and other behavior - no lie was found in their mouth. Lie is found in my mouth - cannot be me. Blamless - I am not blameless - cannot be me.
Cannot be figurative - must be them.

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

Forced? And are we not all "in pain, about to die"?
Different.
If one can schedule his own salvation 2 months in advance at 11 am at the St.Patrick's Cathedral and make out a guest list and has his distant relatives traveling from Budapest ... :) - not in pain, and certainly not about to die.

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

Matt 18:20
MT 18:20 For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

Sure he is there. He is EVERYWHERE. :)

But his presence does not automatically mean justification. It cannot.

Thanks,
Ed

[Melethiel]

Hello M.

Question for you. At 15 years of age, how long is a long time for you? 3 yrs, 5, 7, 10? just wondering.

5 years. I turned Lutheran shortly after my 15th birthday, around Lent.

[Edial]

Ed,

The parents bring their child to the baptismal font in faith that what is done there with the water and the word is done by God not by man. So by us scheduling the time and place of the baptism suggests that we are manipulating God? I disagree. We schedule the event with the church so that the Pastor can prepare and have Baptism service printed out and so that we can gather our relatives together so that we may all be witnesses to what God is doing in the child. If the child were in danger of dying soon we would call the Pastor to the hospital to do an emergency Baptism.

Baptism is necessary, but not absolutely necessary. Baptism is the water conjoined to the word of God. God used Baptism to save Noah and his family. The Israelites were Baptized when they crossed the Red Sea. True they didn't get wet, but God used Water as their means of getting away from their enemies.

It is not when he throws it that is important, but that he throws it because of his Son, Jesus. We do not manipulate him but rely upon his promises. Through his Great Commission in Matthew 28 we hear him say that we are to Go and tell all people, young, old, racially mixed, male and female, about Jesus Christ and what he has done on the cross and then Baptize them in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
All you said here is correct.
I like child baptism and I do not have a problem if a Pastor would state that a child that died baptised will go to heaven. Since baptism IS a type of a grace - a desire of his parents for God to bless the baby.
So, if a baby died while having grace of God on him - who am I to state the he will not go to heaven? :)
I personally would say that "I do not know". Because I do not.
But I cannot disprove that Scripturally.
And if I cannot - I cannot.

As I said above, all you said here is correct, but the understanding of "salvation".
You are talking about being "brought into salvation", having special grace of God. I do not have a problem with this. :)
Then, when a child grows up he decides to receive Christ by faith - this IS justification (another "mode" of salvation). And this one cannot "lose".

However, one can easily "lose" the grace that one received while baptised as an infant when one rejects Christ as an adult.

Thanks,
Ed

[KEPLER]

But if I interpret things by the way I understand - I'll never understand anything since the figurative interpretation will be a default for all.

REV 14:3 And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. 4 These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among men and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb. 5 No lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless.

V. 3 There are specific elements and people here - throne, 4 creatures, eleders, song, 144000, earth. Well, I definitely believe that there is a throne, why not the 144000?
V.4 Besides not defiling themselves with women and other behavior - no lie was found in their mouth. Lie is found in my mouth - cannot be me. Blamless - I am not blameless - cannot be me.
Cannot be figurative - must be them.

Thanks,
Ed

Anyone who is a believer is clothed with Christ's Righteousness (as all believers are), and is presented with the likeness of Christ before the throne. Gal 3:27.

If you are presented with the likeness of Christ, then you are 1) male (we are all 'sons' (Gal 3:26), and 2) undefiled with women. You are presented with Christ's identity: Gal 3:28. We are all Abraham's seed (Gal 3:29) and therefor represented in the 12 tribes.

In Christ, there is no lie in your mouth.
In Christ, you are blameless.

K

and BTW, I'm glad you objected in that particular manner....I had never thought of this episode in the Apocalypse this way...it makes me think of the movie "The Matrix": 144,000 Jesuses standing before the throne. Kinda cool.

[Edial]

Anyone who is a believer is clothed with Christ's Righteousness (as all believers are), and is presented as the likeness of Christ before the throne. Gal 3:27.

If you are presented with the likeness of Christ, then you are 1) male (we are all 'sons' (Gal 3:26), and 2) undefiled with women. You are presented with Christ's identity: Gal 3:28. We are all Abraham's seed (Gal 3:29) and therefor represented in the 12 tribes.

In Christ, there is no lie in your mouth.
In Christ, you are blameless.

K

and BTW, I'm glad you objected in that particular way...I had never thought of this episode in the Apocalypse this way...it makes me think of the movie "The Matrix": 144,000 Jesuses standing before the throne. Kinda cool.
:)

[SPALATIN]

Then, when a child grows up he decides to receive Christ by faith - this IS justification (another "mode" of salvation). And this one cannot "lose".

However, one can easily "lose" the grace that one received while baptised as an infant when one rejects Christ as an adult.

Thanks,
Ed

How does one make a decision to come receive Christ? We can not make a decision to receive Christ. Our faith receives him as a result of the Holy Spirit's prompting and not our decisiveness. After Baptism, most children are then educated by their parents as they are able to understand who Jesus is and what he did on the cross. Much like a baby needs it's food strained so that the stomach and organs will be able to digest it.

As they get into the age of schooling, we continue to repeat the same stories of Christ only they get a little more complex each year so that our understanding of the story becomes more complete. We are also taught doctrine in this way as well. If a child grows in knowledge of who the Lord is in his/her life the Holy Spirit will guard them in their knowledge and they will not likely reject him. So they have through Baptism received their salvation and are justified by the faith instilled by the Holy Spirit in which they have grown. From where I sit, there is no decision to be made by anyone. It is all the Holy Spirit who is the third in the triune God.

[Edial]

How does one make a decision to come receive Christ? We can not make a decision to receive Christ. Our faith receives him as a result of the Holy Spirit's prompting and not our decisiveness.
You are correct. I misspoke.
It is by faith, not choice. :)

After Baptism, most children are then educated by their parents as they are able to understand who Jesus is and what he did on the cross. Much like a baby needs it's food strained so that the stomach and organs will be able to digest it.

As they get into the age of schooling, we continue to repeat the same stories of Christ only they get a little more complex each year so that our understanding of the story becomes more complete. We are also taught doctrine in this way as well. If a child grows in knowledge of who the Lord is in his/her life the Holy Spirit will guard them in their knowledge and they will not likely reject him. So they have through Baptism received their salvation and are justified by the faith instilled by the Holy Spirit in which they have grown. From where I sit, there is no decision to be made by anyone. It is all the Holy Spirit who is the third in the triune God.
You are correct once again.

The faith is instilled by hearing the gospel.
The child understands it eventually and must receive it in his heart.

We are talking about a "point of salvation", which is justification before God.

That "point" is never discussed in many Christian denominations.

The Baptists however, stress it strongly.
And in my opinion, they are very much correct (on this one :) ).

They have significant deviations from the teachings of Christ in other areas, but this is not one of them. :)

Once the definitions are defined, much unneeded conflict is resolved.

Thanks,
Ed

[SPALATIN]

You are correct. I misspoke.
It is by faith, not choice. :)


You are correct once again.

The faith is instilled by hearing the gospel.
The child understands it eventually and must receive it in his heart.

We are talking about a "point of salvation", which is justification before God.

That "point" is never discussed in many Christian denominations.

The Baptists however, stress it strongly.
And in my opinion, they are very much correct (on this one :) ).

They have significant deviations from the teachings of Christ in other areas, but this is not one of them. :)

Once the definitions are defined, much unneeded conflict is resolved.

Thanks,
Ed

Ed,

Thank you and on the last point I will have to respectfully disagree with you. Please come back again and discuss the faith us.

Scott

[Edial]

Ed,

Thank you and on the last point I will have to respectfully disagree with you. Please come back again and discuss the faith us.

Scott
Thank you.

[Breetai]

Once the definitions are defined, much unneeded conflict is resolved. I've found this, so far in my young life, to be a true statement.

[filosofer]

You are correct. I misspoke.
It is by faith, not choice. :)


You are correct once again.

The faith is instilled by hearing the gospel.
The child understands it eventually and must receive it in his heart.

We are talking about a "point of salvation", which is justification before God.

That "point" is never discussed in many Christian denominations.

The Baptists however, stress it strongly.
And in my opinion, they are very much correct (on this one :) ).

They have significant deviations from the teachings of Christ in other areas, but this is not one of them.


You have several contradictory statements in the above ("by faith, not by choice" vs. "The Baptists... are very much correct"). So, I, too, would like to read more about how you come to the final conclusion.

BTW, it is not "by faith" - it is "by grace through faith"... just so we keep our prepositions straight. :)



Once the definitions are defined, much unneeded conflict is resolved.



Except when the stakes are high. Ask Luther and Zwingli in the midst of the Marburg Colluquy, 1529.

In Christ's love,
filo

[SPALATIN]

You have several contradictory statements in the above ("by faith, not by choice" vs. "The Baptists... are very much correct"). So, I, too, would like to read more about how you come to the final conclusion.

BTW, it is not "by faith" - it is "by grace through faith"... just so we keep our prepositions straight. :)






Except when the stakes are high. Ask Luther and Zwingli in the midst of the Marburg Colluquy, 1529.

In Christ's love,
filo


If we differ on one point of doctrine we differ on the whole thing. Luther would not cave to Zwingli and Bucer. They differed on the Real Presence of Christ in the elements. Luther told Bucer that if they were apart on part of doctrine that there was no unity.

[filosofer]

That was my point. At Marburg, it appeared that there might be consensus, but the further they got down the list, the further apart they became. The Lord's Supper highlighted all key issues where even with "correct definitions" there was not unity/agreement.

BTW, trivia time: who refused whose hand in fellowship at the end of Marburg?

In Christ's love,
filo

[ByzantineDixie]

BTW, trivia time: who refused whose hand in fellowship at the end of Marburg?

In Christ's love,
filo


The Lutherans refused the hand of fellowship the Zwinglians extended at the close of the collequy "for important Christian reasons".

From volume 38 of Luther Works:
After the colloquy had come to a close without resulting in an agreement on the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, Philip of Hesse nonetheless continued to seek ways and means by which to effect some political federation between the Lutherans and the Zwinglians. For this reason smaller groups from both sides engaged in dialogue on Monday morning, October 4, for the purpose of ascertaining whether fellowship between the two parties could be established in spite of the existing doctrinal difference. The Lutherans concluded that fellowship was not possible “for important Christian reasons.”23 At this juncture the landgrave requested Luther to draft articles of faith which would express those beliefs held in common by the two opposing parties. Using the Schwabach Articles as a basis for this assignment, Luther formulated the Marburg Articles. After completing the task, the Reformer did not expect Zwingli and his party to sign the articles he had drawn up; but much to his surprise they did so.

Agreement was reached by both parties on the first fourteen articles in the document. The fifteenth article, in the formulation of which Philip of Hesse appears to have had a part, stated that there was an agreement on five of the six points that dealt with the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.24 To be sure, the sixth point was the sensitive and critically important one that had to do with the bodily presence of Christ in the sacrament. Zwingli and those who sided with him agreed to sign their names to the Marburg Articles, not because they were fully in accord with the details of the doctrinal formulations they contained, but because they, like the landgrave, believed in the need of achieving political solidarity with the Wittenbergers. The notes, which Zwingli later appended to the Marburg Articles as a kind of commentary and correction of the doctrines stated in them, reveal that his views differed from those of Luther.25
23 See Osiander’s report below.
24 Koehler, Zwingli und Luther, II, 127.
25 WA 30III, 160–171.
Luther, M. (1999, c1971). Vol. 38: Luther's works, vol. 38 : Word and Sacrament IV (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.


and Luther's comments

Luther said: “I am not your master, not your judge, and not your teacher either. Our spirit is different from yours; it is clear that we do not possess the same spirit, for it cannot be the same spirit when in one place the words of Christ are simply believed and in another place the same faith is censured, resisted, regarded as false and attacked with all kinds of malicious and blasphemous words. Therefore, as I have previously stated, we commend you to the judgment of God. Teach, as you can account for it before God.” Luther, M. (1999, c1971). Vol. 38: Luther's works, vol. 38 : Word and Sacrament IV (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.


What was most interesting for me as I reread portions of this work this evening is the Zwinglian's appeal to the church fathers to support their position.

[Edial]

You have several contradictory statements in the above ("by faith, not by choice" vs. "The Baptists... are very much correct"). So, I, too, would like to read more about how you come to the final conclusion.

In order to answer your question I would need to know where the contradictions are.

BTW, it is not "by faith" - it is "by grace through faith"... just so we keep our prepositions straight. :)
There is one on my part. Erred in words.

Do you mean these types of contradictions?






Except when the stakes are high. Ask Luther and Zwingli in the midst of the Marburg Colluquy, 1529.

In Christ's love,
filo

If you are talking about the point or the real presence in the elements (thanks to SPALATIN's follow up post), both Luther and Zwingli should not have made a debate over it, since the Bible is silent concerning this topic.

(It is not silent concerning transubstantialization, it is against it).
But concerning consubstantialization and a symbolic presence - it is silent.
And so should have the debaters been - silent.

People love unnecessary fights, because they love fighting.
And such historical examples just fuel it.

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

That was my point. At Marburg, it appeared that there might be consensus, but the further they got down the list, the further apart they became. The Lord's Supper highlighted all key issues where even with "correct definitions" there was not unity/agreement.

.....
(sorry for a rewrite of a post, since it is buried and this topic resurfaced at the root).

In my opinion, both Luther and Zwingli should not have made a debate over it, since the Bible is silent concerning this topic.

(It is not silent concerning transubstantialization, it is against it).
But concerning consubstantialization and a symbolic presence - it is silent.
And so should have the debaters been - silent.

People love unnecessary fights, because they love fighting.
And such historical examples just fuel it.

Thanks,
Ed