22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[PinSeeker]

You’re a Calvinist – that’s what I figured.

LOL! As if that's a bad thing... Although certainly it is in the eyes of many, but that's really of no real consequence. Calvinists and Catholics really aren't far apart theologically on the whole. The core beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church are found in the Nicene Creed, which dates to 325 A.D., and any good Calvinist would say the same thing. But, Calvinists (like John Calvin, and Augustine centuries before him, but not because of either one):

1.) identify Christ and Christ alone as the Church's Head (as Paul says in Ephesians 1:22, 4:15, 5:23; Colossians 1:18, 2:10, 2:19)​

​

2.) reject the notion that Mary acts as a mediator between God and man, that Christ is that Mediator (1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 8:6, 9:15, 12:24)​

​

3.) reject the idea of making prayer and supplication to Mary for the same reason as #2 above and maintain that praying to the dead is not a practice supported by Scripture​

My sister is a Calvinist – and she also doesn’t like to identify as one.

Interesting. Was she a Catholic and became a Calvinist, or were you a Calvinist and became a Catholic. I know of folks who have traveled both paths; it's not a big jump either way... in most things.

YOU defined “denominations” as:

“Denominations are recognized autonomous branches of the visible Christian Church.”

Since the Catholic Church is the Original Tree from which Protestantism splintered – then it CANNOT be a denomination – per YOUR definition.

You disagree, I get it. As I said, your premise is wrong; Christ Himself as the Head of His Church (see point 1 above) is the "Original Tree." Actually, I would agree if and only if by Catholic Church you would recognize that 'catholic' merely means universal and as such universally includes all those whom God has called "out of darkness into His marvelous light," as the apostle Peter said in 1 Peter 2:9, and are therefore "in Christ... and walk according to the Spirit," as the apostle Paul says in Romans 8:1-4 and Ephesians 2, regardless of affiliation with any one group of folks. But you refuse to do that.

PRIOR to the Protestant Revolt – the Catholic church WAS the visible Church.

You misunderstand ~ or refuse to acknowledge ~ what the difference between Christ's invisible Church, which includes only God's elect, those whom He has called, which we cannot fully know at any point in this life) and the visible church (any visible Bible-believing/preaching congregation) is.

I think you're missing the point of what Jesus was saying.to Saul in Acts 9.

As I have said, you're welcom to think what you want to think, and certainly don't need my permission or anyone else's to do so.

He was recruiting him at that moment...

You can if you want, but I would not characterize it as "recruiting." In Acts 9, Luke documents Paul's conversion experience, which occurs in each of us subsequent to the Lord issuing to us His inward call by His Spirit. This is Paul's born-again experience. But I would agree ~ although I don't think this is what you are saying ~ that spiritually speaking, inasmuch as Paul was persecuting the church, he was doing it to Christ... in the same manner as what Christ says about believers and unbelievers, respectively, in Matthew 25, as I said... and really more identifying up to that point with unbelievers as referenced by Christ in Matthew 25:42-45.

The very HEART of the Protestant Revolt was separation. The entire movement was born of divorce.

Okay, but separation from what, BreadOfLife? Now, that's a rhetorical question... Martin Luther, the man who started the Reformation, thought ~ and he was right ~ that the Catholic Church was abusing its power in some egregious ways ~ including for political and self-profiteering reasons ~ and had some really bad theological beliefs (see above). We can see this in his final statement at his "trial," in which he was commanded to recant his statement (the 95 theses and other writings and teachings):

“My conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one’s conscience is neither safe nor sound. Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me.” (Martin Luther, Diet of Worms, 1521)​

And THAT person would know His Church.

Well, he/she does. As I pointed out, we know believers and unbelievers by their fruit. So I agree, but as I've said and will continue to say... I disagree with your opinion of who His Church is.

NOT quite . . .

Ohhhh... yes... Today's Catholic church is incredibly divergent. Respectfully, to deny this is a denial of reality...

There are some Catholics who have issues with some doctrine – and they are dissenters.

That's a very Pharisaical statement... and a shame that they would be labeled as such.

There are others who flatly reject certain doctrines. As I stated before – those are called Protestants.

Well that's not limited to Protestants; a large number of Catholics also "flatly reject certain Catholic doctrines." As a group, these people ~ the believing ones anyway ~ recognize themselves to be part of Christ's one catholic, apostolic church.

But it’s NOT true that we are as “divergent” as Protestantism.

It is. They may not have different names for themselves, but that matters not.

There ARE groups like the Old Catholic Church, the Irish Catholic Church, American Catholic Church, American National Catholic Chur, etc.

Right, and none of those few examples are homogenous themselves, by any stretch of the imagination.

I would encourage and exhort you, BreadOfLife, to identify Christ and Christ alone. If you say you do, then great, but my encouragement and exhortation then would be to... change your mind, and thus your actions and rhetoric, to match.

Grace and peace to you, BreadOfLife.

 

[rwb]

I don't think I said "proof that the current age nearing its conclusion," but only that "I think ~ don't know this to be true" (I was sure to enter that little qualifier) "that will be an indicator that the fullness of the Gentiles has been brought in." That can't be proven, and you may or may not agree with this, but it can't really be refuted, either. And I did classify all that as a relatively minor point that can only be speculated on.

And I would add this as an aside regarding "nearing its conclusion." There are two perspectives on that, I think, God's and ours. It is all "near" as far as God is concerned; to Him, as David says, "a thousand years in (His) sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night." But to us, that's not so much the case. It's often a very hard thing to wait upon the Lord...


So do I, and I was clear in stating that. But, near the end of the Church Age, I think many ethnic Jews will come to the Lord in a short period of time. Again, that's speculation on my part, but it seems to me consistent with what Jesus says in Matthew 24. Yes, He's talking about the entire Church Age, but I see a ramping up (to put it mildly) near the end, or at least as we get ever closer.


I agree. But I think it not to be so simple. Not that you're over-simplifying it; I don't mean to insinuate that. But I think it's a different thing to say the Gospel is open to all, regardless of ethnicity (so in that sense the wall of separation is indeed gone) and then to some extent (not that you mean to do this, but...) soft-pedal the distinctive Jewish race, even in the eyes of the Lord, which of course we cannot see through but only acknowledge, as Isaiah does, that His thoughts and ways are different than ours (Isaiah 55:8-9).

Again, grace and peace to you!

All that I will say to this is that perhaps we have a different understanding of that which is near/ready, and that which shall come. That which I see as near to both God and to us is the Gospel being preached unto all the earth so the Kingdom of God can be complete as peoples from all nations of the earth enter in. Rather than looking to nearness of His coming again, or the nearness of the conclusion of this age, I believe Scripture is showing us the preached Gospel by the power of the Holy Spirit is near to each and every heart, and whosoever hears and by grace through faith believes the Kingdom of God is within.

And grace and peace to you also!

 

[BreadOfLife]

LOL. Which one of us has only posted things in this thread that have nothing to do with the topic of this thread? Let me give you a hint. It's you. So, you are the child here and everyone can see that.

Gee - the topic is "22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine"
Sooooo, WHY is it that I had to cone here to put out all of the anti-Catholic fires?

Goodness gracious. You truly have no discernment whatsoever. Some people believe in God from the time they are very young. So, you're saying those people are sinless since they never said there is no God?

WHAT are you blathering about?
I said that Rom 3:23 is a reference to Psalm 14 - which is about sinful fools.

I never said there can't be exceptions to things like this. I acknowledged that babies are not included in Romans 3:23 or severely retarded people like you mentioned. But, there's no basis whatsoever for saying that Mary is not included among all who have sinned. None whatsoever.

WRONG.

I already explained to you that the angel calls Mary, "Kecharitomene" in Luke 1:28.
This name is reserved for Mary - and NOBODY else in Scripture is ever called Kecharitome.

As I explained earlier - it is the perfect passive participle, and indicates a completed action with a permanent result. It translates, as “completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.”

NONE of us on earth are in this state. We are being sanctified daily to REACH this state of being.

 

[PinSeeker]

"WHY is it that I had to come here to put out all of the anti-Catholic fires?"
LOL! What's the Biblical word (and where is it) that is translated to 'Catholic', BreadOfLife? And I certainly would not call myself anti-catholic... or anti-Jew...

I don't know how this conversation has evolved, but in my experience, that's the very nature of these boards... very rambling...

God's Word demands that we deny Mary a mediatorial role in salvation. Christ is that Mediator (1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 8:6, 9:15, 12:24). Yet Scripture also tells us that she has been blessed far above all other women. Indeed, she is to be regarded as the "favored one," for she was given the immense privilege of carrying the incarnate Son of God in her womb (Luke 1:26-33). She is, as the Council of Chalcedon affirmed, the theotokos—"God-bearer" or "mother of God." This title was not given to Mary to confer quasi-divine status upon her; rather, it was given to defend the truth of the deity of Christ. That is, the title is for Jesus' sake. The developing infant whom Mary carried to term and birthed in Bethlehem was none other than the incarnate Son of God. He was (and remains) a perfect union of the divine nature and a human nature. Mary, favored as she was, not so much. She knew that her believing God, much like Abraham's, was accredited to her as righteousness, and she later said as much, as recorded by Luke later in Luke 1 (46-55). in her magnificent song of praise.

Grace and peace to all!

 

[PinSeeker]

All that I will say to this is that perhaps we have a different understanding of that which is near/ready, and that which shall come.

Perhaps.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

So, in YOUR world, God is only capable of prohibiting severely retarded people from sinning??
Interesting,

That a weak, impotent little god you've invented for yourself . . .

What is this nonsense? Where do you see any indication that anyone who are not babies or not severely retarded are capable of being sinless? Why did Jesus die for our sins if we are able to be sinless? You are clueless.

As I already explained - as the NT Fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant - Mary's purity surpasses the OT Type.

NT fulfillments ate ALWAYS more glorious and perfect than their OT Types - without exception.

That is something you are making up. Nowhere does scripture suggest that Mary is sinless. You have to invent nonsense like this to try to back up that ridiculous claim.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I'm NOT the one who brought the Catholic church into this conversation.

When YOU guys go on your anti-Catholic tirades - you INVITE me to expose and correct you.

You've had your say at this point and are just repeating yourself over and over again. Now, go away and let the adults talk about the topic of this thread.

 

[covenantee]

I believe Scripture.
What's more - I'm not blindingly ignorant of languages - and I don't stagger around claiming that Jesus and the Apostles spoke Greek to one another.

Even a paper-weight knows that they spoke Aramaic . . .

You believe what papa tells you to believe.

When Peter wrote his epistles in Greek, did he speak to himself in Greek or Aramaic?

Better put that paperweight down before you injure yourself.

 

[BreadOfLife]

LOL! As if that's a bad thing... Although certainly it is in the eyes of many, but that's really of no real consequence. Calvinists and Catholics really aren't far apart theologically on the whole. The core beliefs of the Roman Cnd any good Calvinist would say the same thing. But, Calvinists (like John Calvin, and Augustine centuries before him, but not because of either one):

1.) identify Christ and Christ alone as the Church's Head (as Paul says in Ephesians 1:22, 4:15, 5:23; Colossians 1:18, 2:10, 2:19)​

​

2.) reject the notion that Mary acts as a mediator between God and man, that Christ is that Med​

​

3.) reject the idea of making prayer and supplication to Mary for tat praying to the dead is not a practice supported by Scripture​

Contrary to what Calvinists think – Augustine wasn’t a Calvinist. During his long journey of faith, some of his early writings depict some “Calvinist” tendencies. However, the sum of his work is ultimately Catholic – and solidly-Catholic.

Yes, Catholics and Calvinists have MANT things in common – but there are some of Calvin’s inventions that cannot be reckoned by Scripture or Transition. Namely, his TULIP theology.

Interesting. Was she a Catholic and became a Calvinist, or were you a Calvinist and became a Catholic. I know of folks who have traveled both paths; it's not a big jump either way... in most things.

She was a lapsed Catholic, ex-hippie who became a Protestant during the “Jesus Movement” of the ‘70’s., It was more an act of rebellion against our parents than anything else. I only wish I had been older and wiser at at time so that I could have dialogued with her. She eventually led 8 of my other siblings out of the Church.

Sadly, the ALL left because of an abject ignorance of their Catholic faith.

You disagree, I get it. As I said, your premise is wrong; Christ Himself as the Head of His Church (see point 1 above) is the "Original Tree." all those whom God has called "out of darkness into His marvelous light," as the apostle Peter said in 1 Peter 2:9, and are therefore "in Christ... and

The Church is the Original Tree because Christ is the Original Tree.

He and His Church are indivisible (Acts 9:4-5, Eph. 1:22-23, Col 1:18).

And, whereas, all Protestant denominations that hold to the Nicene Creed are related to the Catholic Church – they are separated from it of it by choice.

You misunderstand ~ or refuse to acknowledge ~ what the difference between Christ's invisible Church, which includes only God's elect, those whom He has called, which we cannot fully know at any point in this life) and the visible church (any visible Bible-believing/preaching congregation) is.

Sorry – but if you are a believer I Christ but you reject His Church – you may be a Christian by definition, but you’re outside of His Church,

You can if you want, but I would not characterize it as "recruiting." In Acts 9, Luke documents Paul's conversion experience, which occurs in each of us subsequent to the Lord issuing to us His inward call by His Spirit. This is Paul's born-again experience. But I would agree ~ although I don't think this

Saul didn’t’ believe in Christ,

For all he was concerned – he was just some dead guy that these “Christians” built a cult around. He was persecuting THEM in his mind - not Jesus. Jesus was already dead.

It was Jesus who informed Saul that he was persecuting HIM. Because, as Paul later wrote – the Church is the FULLNESS of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23). He also called the Church the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

Okay, but separation from what, BreadOfLife? Now, that's a rhetorical question... Martin Luther, the man who started the Reformation, thought ~ and he was right ~ that the Catholic Church was abusing its power in some egregious ways ~ including for political and self-profiteering reasons ~ and had some really bad theological beliefs (see above). We can see this in his final statement at his "trial," in which he was commanded to recant his statement (the 95 theses and other writings and teachings):

“My conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one’s conscience is neither safe nor sound. Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me.” (Martin Luther, Diet of Worms, 1521)​

The Church was absolutely in need of reform because there were some corrupt men within it. It SHOULD have been handled the way it was during the Counter-Reformation – from WITHING. Instead, Luther, Calvin and the rest simply invented new doctrines and started their OWN versions of “Church” – which could ONLY be built by Christ, not men.

And don’t get me started on Luther. He was a self-important, anti-Semite, hypocrite who had a LOT of issues with sin and forgiveness.

In his arrogance and spiritual pride – he ALSO stated:

“If your Papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word "alone" (sola), say this to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so and he says that a papist and an ass are the same thing’.”

And, he admitted adding the word 'alone' to Rom. 3:28 of his own volition:
“If your Papist annoys you with the word ('alone'), tell him straightway, ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so’: Papist and ass are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil's thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom.” (Amic. Discussion, 1, 127,'The Facts About Luther,' O'Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 201.)

Well, he/she does. As I pointed out, we know believers and unbelievers by their fruit. So I agree, but as I've said and will continue to say... I disagree with your opinion of who His Church is.

And NOT every “believer” is a part of the Church.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Ohhhh... yes... Today's Catholic church is incredibly divergent. Respectfully, to deny this is a denial of reality...

No. YOU said it was as divergent as Protestantism,

We don’t have denomination within the Catholic Church. It is monolithic.

That's a very Pharisaical statement... and a shame that they would be labeled as such.

WHY?
Do you honestly believe that Gog allows doe rejection of His doctrine??

Give me ONE example of Jesus telling someone – “Ahhh – it’s okay of you don’t believe this doctrine. I’ll let it slide”

Pharisaical, indeed . . .

Well that's not limited to Protestants; a large number of Catholics also "flatly reject certain Catholic doctrines." As a group, these people ~ the believing ones anyway ~ recognize themselves to be part of Christ's one catholic, apostolic church.

You can “recognize” or “identify” yourself as anything you want.

It DOESN’T mean that you are what you say. All of the “Trans” nonsense we liove with today should have taught you that.

A Catholic in name only (CINO) is like an man who swears that they is a woman.

Right, and none of those few examples are homogenous themselves, by any stretch of the imagination.

I would encourage and exhort you, BreadOfLife, to identify Christ and Christ alone. If you say you do, then great, but my encouragement and exhortation then would be to... change your mind, and thus your actions and rhetoric, to match.

Grace and peace to you, BreadOfLife.

I have - in HIS Church, which is the FULLNESS of Him (Eph. 1::22-23).

 

[BreadOfLife]

You've had your say at this point and are just repeating yourself over and over again. Now, go away and let the adults talk about the topic of this thread.

Absolutely.
BUT, as soon as you start with your anti-Catholic lies again - I'll ve there to expose you again . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

You believe what papa tells you to believe.

When Peter wrote his epistles in Greek, did he speak to himself in Greek or Aramaic?

Better put that paperweight down before you injure yourself.

Unlike YOU - Peter and the others actually had the mental capacity to understand more than ONE language, Einstein . . .

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Absolutely.
BUT, as soon as you start with your anti-Catholic lies again - I'll ve there to expose you again . . .

I wasn't the one who started saying anything relating to Catholic beliefs, but it figures that you wouldn't even know that. Now, please. Just go away unless you have any thoughts on the actual topic of this thread. If you do, feel free to share them.

 

[covenantee]

Unlike YOU - Peter and the others actually had the mental capacity to understand more than ONE language, Einstein . . .

You didn't answer the question.

Apparently you don't have the mental capacity to understand it.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Sorry – but if you are a believer I Christ but you reject His Church – you may be a Christian by definition, but you’re outside of His Church,

What in the world does this mean? What utter nonsense. You can't be a Christian and be outside of Christ's church. What a ludicrous thing to say. If you're a Christian that means you are a Christ follower and all Christ followers are in His church.

 

[BreadOfLife]

What in the world does this mean? What utter nonsense. You can't be a Christian and be outside of Christ's church. What a ludicrous thing to say. If you're a Christian that means you are a Christ follower and all Christ followers are in His church.

Didn't you just ask me NOT to post anything unless it pertained to the TOPIC of the thread, Einsyeins:
YOUR problem is that you'e obsessed with me. I suggest you gey over it . . .

As for youe nonsense in RED - you absolutely can.
There are MANY p[ep[le on this forum in that condition.

NOT everybody who follows Christ accepts ALL of His teachings.
Read Matt. 7:21-23.

 

[jeffweeder]

That is something you are making up. Nowhere does scripture suggest that Mary is sinless. You have to invent nonsense like this to try to back up that ridiculous claim.

I wonder why Mary became so disturbed and agitated at Gabriels salutation to her in Lk 1...,

26 Now in the sixth month [of Elizabeth’s pregnancy] the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, a descendant of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And coming to her, the angel said, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.” 29 But she was greatly perplexed at what he said, and kept carefully considering what kind of greeting this was.


If she was sinless, she wouldn't have reacted that way.

Something appears to be on her conscience.

 

[Illuminator]

Oh, is the Nicene Creed scripture? Is that in your Bible? What a joke. I didn't say anything one way or another about what is contained in it. You say I reject it? Tell me one thing in it that I said I reject? Good luck with that.

What I'm saying is that I don't care about creeds, I care about scripture.

I'll re-phrase:
Not caring about the Nicene Creed disqualifies you from making any determinations about Christianity, Protestant or Catholic.

If that creed portrays scripture accurately, fine. But, I don't care because scripture is enough for me. I don't need a creed to interpret scripture for me. Understand?

The Nicene Creed is not intended to interpret scripture, it's a statement of faith of the early church that predates the full canonization of the Bible by 50+ years. But you don't care what the early church believed because they didn't have Bibles and you do.

Doesn't look they're doing a very good job since there are still several false teachings in there.

I've presented to you at least twice our official teachings of the last 100 years or so, and not once have you pointed out which ones are false. Here it is again:

The Papal Encyclicals Online

“The Papal Encyclicals 1740-1981” published by Pierian Press. For several years, St. Michael’s Depot included these documents.

www.papalencyclicals.net

Your empty anti-Catholic slogans are boring. Covering up what the reformers taught about Mary is not obvious to everybody, but it is to me. It's fad theology, since no Protestant church on the planet before the 18th century taught that Mary was a sinner or that she had other children. Those are diabolical New Age traditions of men, feeding other false caricatures of Catholic teaching.

 

[Illuminator]

"WHY is it that I had to come here to put out all of the anti-Catholic fires?"
LOL! What's the Biblical word (and where is it) that is translated to 'Catholic', BreadOfLife? And I certainly would not call myself anti-catholic... or anti-Jew...

I don't know how this conversation has evolved, but in my experience, that's the very nature of these boards... very rambling...

God's Word demands that we deny Mary a mediatorial role in salvation.

That is a highly annoying presupposition. Mary does not mediate in the same way as Christ, and to say we believe that she does is a stupid anti-Catholic canard that never stops.

Christ is that Mediator (1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 8:6, 9:15, 12:24). Yet Scripture also tells us that she has been blessed far above all other women. Indeed, she is to be regarded as the "favored one," for she was given the immense privilege of carrying the incarnate Son of God in her womb (Luke 1:26-33). She is, as the Council of Chalcedon affirmed, the theotokos—"God-bearer" or "mother of God." This title was not given to Mary to confer quasi-divine status upon her; rather, it was given to defend the truth of the deity of Christ. That is, the title is for Jesus' sake. The developing infant whom Mary carried to term and birthed in Bethlehem was none other than the incarnate Son of God. He was (and remains) a perfect union of the divine nature and a human nature. Mary, favored as she was, not so much. She knew that her believing God, much like Abraham's, was accredited to her as righteousness, and she later said as much, as recorded by Luke later in Luke 1 (46-55). in her magnificent song of praise.

Grace and peace to all!

Agreed. Sadly, anti-Mary Christians are covering up what their own reformers taught about Mary, or don't know and don't care.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Didn't you just ask me NOT to post anything unless it pertained to the TOPIC of the thread, Einsyeins:

Who is Einsyeins? LOL. You can't be taken seriously.

YOUR problem is that you'e obsessed with me. I suggest you gey over it . . .

LOL. This is rich coming from you. Thanks for all the laughs you have provided for me, but I'm done with this now.

As for youe nonsense in RED - you absolutely can.
There are MANY p[ep[le on this forum in that condition.

NOT everybody who follows Christ accepts ALL of His teachings.
Read Matt. 7:21-23.

You can't be saved and be a Christian without being in His church. That is a no-brainer. So, it's no wonder that you would not understand that.