I often go to a weekly Bible study on my campus. I'm pretty sure it started out as kind of a Baptist group, but since then, it has become a Christian group, not specifically geared toward any denomination. Each week, we have a different minister or speaker who can talk about anything they want to. It's generally not a very big group, only a few people. OK, that's background.
Last night, the man leading the Bible study started talking about the parallels between Revelation and Daniel. How Daniel helps explain things that happen in Revelation. We looked up passages about the beast that rises from the water, with the seven heads and ten horns. Two of the other guys kept bringing up what I thought were rather nitpicking points, refuting what the leader was saying. Discussion is one thing, but I thought they were being kind of rude, not letting him just get on with the Bible study.
I had no idea where he was going with this, but apparently those other two guys did. And that's why they were pointing out flaws in his logic. Because in the end, the leader's conclusion was that the papacy is the anti-Christ. The very idea came as quite a shock to me. I had never heard of it before. But he had all these handouts from the internet of analyses of the prophecies in Daniel and Revelation. So it seems like a lot of people have looked into this quite a bit.
I do not believe that the papacy is the anti-Christ. There are things about the Catholic church that I do not agree with, but I was disturbed to find such an extreme accusation being made. Has anyone else heard of this idea before? Any thoughts?
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
It's not uncommon. http://www.reachingcatholics.org/ has a few sections on it, last time I looked. I usually just laugh.
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
I'm sure you can make that argument about any one person. (President Bush? No, he's a chimp). I tend to think that extreme thinkers may not be in possession of all their faculties.
[ April 09, 2005, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: CaySedai ]
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
If you believe that there is/will be an Antichrist, then doesn't somebody have to be him?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Yes, but there's a long tradition of declaring the Pope the Anti-Christ on very shaky "evidence" and a lot of conjecture.
[ April 09, 2005, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: ketchupqueen ]
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
Porter: I believe there is/will be an anti-Christ, but I don't know that he's been revealed yet. I don't know enough to speculate on his identity.
Posted by HesterGray (Member # 7384) on :
Honest question: Does the Bible say anything about the anti-Christ coming someday? Maybe that's what the beast in Revelation is referring to, but it doesn't have to be interpreted that way.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Hester, I have heard that claim about the pope or popes a few times. And various other candidates for the anti-christ as well. Usually the accuser is a young guy with an odd gleam in his eye, who I wouldn't trust to identify his dog.
Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
Does anyone remember the Death Cookie?
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
References in the Bible of the antichrist (by name):
# 1 Jn. 2: 18
18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
# 1 Jn. 2: 22
22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
# 1 Jn. 4: 3
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not• of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
# 2 Jn. 1: 7
7 For many adeceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Revlations is a very scary book.
quote: that's what the beast in Revelation is referring to
ASFAIK, the beast in Revelations is the same thing as the anti-christ.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Wow, Porter, that's all? I thought the antichrist was mentioned a lot more, especially in Revelations.
Posted by HesterGray (Member # 7384) on :
From those references, I gather that there could be lots of antichrists?
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
quote: The Man of Lawlessness 1Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, 2not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. 3Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for (that day will not come) until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
This seems to refer to one man only. So maybe there are anti-christs and THE ANTI-CHRIST.
Also, I know that biblical eschatology has been revised somewhat over the past few centuries, in some denominations.
In particular, I have heard that the Rapture is a 19th century invention with only limited scriptural support.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
My studies with the Jehovah's Witnesses revolved a lot around considering Daniel alongside Revelation this past week. It seemed critical to their contention that Satan was cast out of heaven to afflict the Earth in 1914. I'm still waiting to find out who determined this, and if it was just from Bible study. That seems to be what they are saying, bible study and prophetic fulfillment (the prophecies being biblical).
There was a very prolific Mormon writer back in the 50's that identified Catholicism as anti-christ, but subsequent editions of his work had that deleted- not sure if it was an insight he gained or a very strong suggestion from his church superiors. Catholics have a different conception of Christ than Mormons do, but to identify them as The Antichrist seems to leave a lot of other folks off the hook that deserve it more. Mainly, Mormons don't (or shouldn't) believe in one Antichrist. That is why it is a beast with multiple heads. Perhaps having multiple heads is what makes it anti-christ, as Christ taught "If ye are not one, ye are not mine."
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
A wide variety of churches have identified the Pope as Antichrist; the more decentralized they are, the more likely they are to blame the Catholic hierarchy for all manner of evils. (And it's been guilty of some before.) However you look at it, as mothertree said identifying one Antichrist leaves a lot of very evil people off the hook.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
4 main schools of thought about the antichrist(s):
quote:POSTMILLENNIALISM CONFESSIONAL THEONOMIC AMERICAN The Antichrist is viewed in the past, as various individuals, a movement or "spirit" (1 John 4:3) of deception. John wrote "even now many antichrists have come" (1 John 2.18).
AMILLENNIALISM REFORMED There will be a future "establishment of the kingdom of Antichrist over the entire world".7
The Antichrist is an individual.
PREMILLENNIALISM HISTORIC/COVENANT
A future Antichrist (an individual) will inflict persecution on Christians before the rapture.
PREMILLENNIALISM DISPENSATIONAL A future Antichrist (an individual) will become the world dictator and persecute both Jews and Christians. He will reach his dominant political position after the rapture
Pick your poison.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
We could have a conspiracy theory heyday with this one.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
skillery, I love a good conspiracy web page, and that's one of the nuttiest I've ever seen.
quote: The Jews, as with many other groups you mention, have been the unwitting pawns in this Jesuit Agenda.
Alberto Rivera says that it was Jews aligned with the Pope who published the Protocols [Of The Learned Elders Of Zion, an infamous anti-Semite propaganda piece. Some think it was written by the Czar's intelligence service]. Well, I tend to feel that it was just the Jesuits themselves because they, and they alone, were the ones who were able to bring this to pass.
One of the maxims of the spiritual exercises is that if my superior says “black is white and white is black”, then that’s the way it is. That is in his spiritual exercises. That is what is quoted in JFK, when Kevin Costner is telling his people: “Hey, people, we’ve got to start thinking like the CIA. Black is white and white is black.” That was a Jesuit giveaway that the Jesuits produced that movie, because they’re quoting Ignatius Loyola [founder of the Jesuits] in that movie from his spiritual exercises.
They've gotten to Oliver Stone, even! Who'll blow the lid off this conspiracy now! Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
I'm sorry. This is the funniest website I've ever read.
quote: The Jesuits obviously wrote the Protocols because they have carried out every protocol in that little handbook. They have carried everything out. And, Alberto Rivera says—and he was a Jesuit—he was greatly maligned, not helped at all by the Apostate, Protestants, and Baptists in this country; he was helped, somewhat, by Jack Chick. Jack Chick published his story in six volumes, titled Alberto I, II, III, IV, V, & VI.
Alberto Rivera says that it was Jews aligned with the Pope who published the Protocols. Well, I tend to feel that it was just the Jesuits themselves because they, and they alone, were the ones who were able to bring this to pass.
They’re the ones in the government. They’re the ones behind professional sports. The owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers is a Knight of Malta. The owner of the Detroit Lions is a Knight of Malta. All your top owners of these ball clubs, for the most part, are Knights of Malta, getting the people whooped up in this hoopla over games and sports, while they’re busy creating a tyranny. So, that was one of the things in the Protocols—that they would create “amusements”.
Another one they used was Walt Disney, 33rd-degree Freemason—Disneyworld, Disneyland. Another one was Milton Hersey, with Hersey Park. They create all of these amusements and games and pastimes to get the people drunk with pleasure, while they’re busy overthrowing the Protestant form of government.
So, the jews, the cathlics, the jesuit, and Freemasons are all aligned and are trying to destroy the protestant gov't by using such evil places as Disney World and Hersey Park. I knew the Lions were a bad team but evil is a new one.
[ April 09, 2005, 02:37 AM: Message edited by: Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I like the laundry list of groups he claims are responsible for the assassination of JFK:
quote:Regarding the assassination of President John Kennedy, which could take this entire interview, you say that the assassination was ordered by the Jesuit General, executed by Pope Paul VI, and carried out by the “American Pope”, Francis Cardinal Spellman—who, in turn, used the Knights of Malta, Shriner Freemasons, Knights of Columbus, and Mafia Dons, including the FBI and CIA, to carry out the order from Rome.
He forgot the Cub Scouts and Ringling Brothers. And they all kept it secret for 40 years. Except for this screwball, who uncovered it all from his mommy's basement. Riiight.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Maybe they have a bomb in every miniature car.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote: the jews, the cathlics, the jesuit, and Freemasons are all aligned and are trying to destroy the protestant gov't
Which is hilarious, because most of the Masons are Protestants...
Oh, and also, I was totally thinking "walk into a bar..." when I read the first part of that sentence. Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
A priest, a minister and a rabbi walk in to a bar. The bartender says, "What is this, some kind of joke?"
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
On my mission, I once had a born-again Christian refer to the "fact" that "the next Pope will be the anti-Christ" ... like anyone who knows anything should know that.
So watch those Cardinals ... they are DECIDING YOU DOOM!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Guys, can we at least concede that Christianity is at its more irrelevant, incongruous, and inconsistent when talking about the End Times, and especially the Anti-Christ(s)? Speculation on this is like speculating on Mormon "deep doctrine;" it won't get you anywhere, and at best winds up painting with a giant ugly brush.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Guys, can we at least concede that Christianity is at its more irrelevant, incongruous, and inconsistent when talking about the End Times, and especially the Anti-Christ(s)?
I can't quite concede that, because I wouldn't call it irrelevant, but certainly inconsistent fits.
The end times is a fascinating subject, and it's something I've studied but never become obsessed over. I think it's worth the time to study for any believer, but it's something that can definitely be taken too far.
There are two extremes - those that study it too much and try to read meaning into every little event that happens, and those that don't study it at all and get their knowledge of end times prophecy from the Left Behind books, or from conspiratorial websites or questionable Bible studies.
For the curious, I subscribe to covenant doctrine, and am therefore amillennial. Most of my family is premillennial dispensationalist, and it's fun at family gatherings when talk of the latest "Left Behind" book starts up and I begin arguing why I don't believe in the Rapture. Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
What exactly is this "covenant doctrine" you subscribe to?
I'm thinking it's probably a concept I'm familiar with, but just haven't heard it by that name.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Belle, if you don't mind, I'd love to hear more about that. The Rapture always seemed a bit odd to me since learning to rely on the Spirit to overcome adversity is one of the central tenets of my faith. The biggest chunk of adversity to ever exist comes along and all good Christians get a pass?
I have to admit though, if the AntiChrist is going to be a specific guy, it would make sense for him to try to get elected Pope. He'd have prestige, influence, and a huge base of support. Heresy handed down by the Pope himself might not be recognizable until it was already causing damage to the faithful. Besides, Satan loves messing with the saved. Lying to millions of devout believers would have him dancing in the streets.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
It is never rude to interrupt&correct someone who depends on others' politeness to allow him the time to pile on the manure to bury his victims.
[ April 09, 2005, 09:08 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The Rapture is merely a desire of cowards who desire eternal life without ever facing the doubt that death may bring oblivion.
[ April 09, 2005, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Satan would surely work on those who fear death so much that they would trade their souls -- promote the Apocalypse, the torture of billions -- so they themselves could have the Rapture to bypass death.
[ April 09, 2005, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Has anyone else heard of this idea before? Any thoughts?
It's been covered, but this is not uncommon.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Tom I was raised dispensational, not covenant. Mabus touches on it above. Basically I *think* (Belle correct me if I'm wrong) that it teaches that the covenants God made with the Jews have now been transferred to the church.
AJ
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
As for the "Mormon Writer" Bruce R. McConkie, he had a long tradition to get his ideas from in both LDS and traditional Protestant circles. There are two major problems that his theory, and those who agree with the old statement.
The first, if Mormons realize the relationship or not, is that the Anti-Chirst is already considered having arrived at the death of the Apostles. It has been considered around since the First Century; starting with the very days of Christ's Apostles. Its called The Great Apostacy. The few quotes above are used to show the start of this arrival.
The second problem is related, but not exclusive to, the Mormon idea of The Great Apostacy. The book of Revelations (and subsiquent LDS Scripture) all indicate a very Pre-Catholic arrival of the Anti-Christ more indicative of the Roman Empire or Civilization than a single Person or Church. At best the Catholic Church in LDS theory is a culminative by-product of the Anti-Christ's arrival.
Most Anti-Christ speculation in the LDS Church comes from traditional Protestantism and popular theories of the time. In the end, however, the official teachings by LDS Leaders have always been of a cautious nature, stating if we really needed to know the details God would say something specific through his prophets. In fact, I would say that Mormons are more speculative about the identity of the Book of Mormon's "Secret Combinations" than the Bible's Anti-Christ figure.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Basically I *think* (Belle correct me if I'm wrong) that it teaches that the covenants God made with the Jews have now been transferred to the church
No, you're doing pretty good.
We believe God's relationships to man have always been covenantal. Basically we differ from the dispensationalists in how we believe the Old Testament covenants have been or are to be fulfilled.
Now, terminology gets confusing here. Because "covenant theology" and "dispensationalism" are broad terms. I'll try to show some differences without being too confusing. I'll tackle the eschatology - amillennialism vs. premillennialism - issues in another post, though some it it may be touched on here.
Don't confuse "covenant theologian" with the covenants mentioned in scripture - the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants for example. Covenant in covenant theology generally refers to the fact that the covenant theologian sees God dealing with mankind through three over-reaching covenants - a covenant of redemption, a covenant of works, and a covenant of grace.
The Covenant of Redemption Sometime in eternity past, before the creation of man, God the Father made a covenant of Redemption with God the Son in which they agreed to save or redeem man (hence the term redemption). The Father appointed the Son to be the one who would redeem man through His death. Passages used to support this: Heb 10:10f, John 17:4, 18.
The Covenant of Works This was the covenant made with Adam in the garden, a covenant which was broken when Adam disobeyed God.
Covenant of GraceThis is a covenant made by God with the elect in which he offers salvation through Christ’s atonement. Many covenant theologians actually distinguish only two covenants—Works and Grace. They combine the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace and see them as just one covenant of grace with perhaps two phases.
Support for this would come from such passsages as Eph 1:3-14 which seems to imply such a covenant with phrases like, “which He purposed” (vs 9), “according to the plan” (vs 11). Acts 13:32 “What God promised to our fathers…”, etc. So it is obvious that God has a plan. What the Covenant Theologian has done is put a name to the plan.
Since the time of the fall, God has dealt with man on the same basis throughout human history. That basis is Grace. From Adam to the end of time, salvation comes through faith.
Confused yet? Now let's look at major differences between covenant theology and dispensantionalism:
Dispensationalists make a strong distinction between Israel and the church; covenant theologians do not. Dispensationalists believe that the promises which God made to Israel must be literally fulfilled. Consequently, dispensationalists believe that the millennium is necessary for the fulfillment of God’s covenant promises to the Jews to be literally fulfilled. Covenant theologians believe, the people of God are all those in Christ, without distinction. Thus, they believe that the promises made to the Jews will be fulfilled in Christ through the church. They do not look for a literal fulfillment during the millennium.
Dispensationalists view the plan and purpose of God in terms of two tracks: one track is the outworking of God’s plan for Israel; the second track is God’s plan and purpose for the church. They see God’s plan, His promises, and His covenants as being specified for one group or the other, but not for both at the same time. Covenant theologians see both Jews and Gentiles as one body through faith in Christ, with one plan, one set of covenants, one fulfillment.
Dispensationalism tends to view the Old Testament Scriptures and even much of the Gospels as primarily directed to the Jews, while the New Testament Epistles are directed to the church. Many dispensationalists will probably disagree with this statement, but I still believe it to be accurate: Dispensational teachers seem to teach disproportionately from the New Testament, and particularly from the Epistles, while giving less attention to the Old Testament, particularly the Law. Covenant theologians seem, in theory, if not in practice, to give the Old Testament Scriptures a more even treatment. This has definitely been my experience in going from a premillennial dispensational church to a church that teaches covenant theology - we did a whole series on the minor prophets, whereas I'd never heard their names mentioned in my southern baptist church.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Okay - now that we've already had some theological fun, let's look at eschatology.
Amillennialism is somewhat of a misnomer - it doesn't mean we don't believe in any millennium at all. It's just that we don't accept the premillenial view of a literal 1000 year reign following a rapture.
Amillenialists believe the millennium is now - it's the time period between the 1st and 2nd coming of Christ. We do not believe it's a literal 1000 year reign and we don't believe it's an earthly reign. We believe it's a period of time, between the resurrection of Christ, and his 2nd coming, during which he reigns from heaven.
We believe at the end of the millennium, Christ will return - the final judgment will occur, and the world will be destroyed and a new heaven and new earth will be created.
We believe the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies which seem to point to an earthly kingdom are either fulfilled in a spiritual sense, or refer to fulfillment on the New Earth. (different amillennialists see this different ways)
Premillennials believe in a "secret" rapture, in which God's people will be taken away from the earth and others left behind, and then seven years of tribulation will take place, after which there is the 2nd coming and the judgment, and then a literal 1000 year reign.
There's tons more I could say, and I may have said some things wrong, but I think that's a decent overview. Maybe when she gets back from her honeymoon dkw can correct my terminology if I've messed anything up. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
What's the relationship between the Amillenialists/Premillennialist distinction and the Dispensationalism/Covenant Theology distinction.
Can they be mixed and matched? That is, are there amillenialists covenant theologians, remillenialists covenant theologians, and amillenialists dispensationalists, and premillenialists dispensationalists?
Dagonee
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I kind of cross lines in thinking there have been anti-christs, there are anti-christs, and there will be more anti-christs as long as people have free will. I tend away from literalism in interpreting the accounts of the last days in the scriptures, though it is common for Mormons to be somewhat more literal, and some crazy few to be extremely literal. My mother in law gave me a book where the people swore they were doing scholarly level research, but then they included an unsupported rumor about the UPC symbols having 666 in them. It was like, they said they were holding to a scholarly level of proof, ergo anything they happen to say is now scholarly Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Dag, in my experience, most covenant theologians are amillennial, and most dispensationals are premillennial.
Covenant and dispensational are terms that also refer to hermeneutics - different ways of interpreting scripture. Basically, when you interpret scripture with the covenant hermeneutic you usually wind up with an amillennial interpretation of the end times and vice versa.
So, the terms apply to different things. Covenant and dispensational refers not only to the system of beliefs, but also to the hermeneutic itself, whereas amillennial and premillennial refer to a specific eschatological view.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
But the LDS teachings I'm familiar with seem to tend toward what you would describe as "Covenantal" and "Pre-millenial". If anyone is interested. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thanks Belle.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
That may be true - I'm not familiar enough with LDS teachings to say.
And that's not to say there aren't protestants who might very well accept the covenant view of the relationship between Israel and the church and yet agree with the premillennial view of the end times.
In fact, I would say a large proportion of my church feels that way, which is why we are having so much debate.
There are also a myriad of degrees within both theological systems - there are people who call themselves progressive dispensationalists, Reformed Covenant, New Covenant theologians, etc. All of them have their little differences.
That's why it's so hard to define them, in some ways they mean different things to different people.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
The main reason why some of these people and Christian sects would even think that the Pope is the anti-Christ is because they are A) ignorant/scared of the history of the Roman Catholic Church or B) still angry about the causes of the great revolt of the Reformation
The Roman Catholic Church is the original Christian Church and the last living remnant of the Roman Empire. When the Roman government finally died all that was left was the Church so they took up the helm. A thousand years later we have the first break, the Great Schism between Rome and Constantinople. Centuries later there came corruption in the original western half leading the Protestant Reformation that splintered the church further into a multiude of pieces. Even LDS is a Christian shard that came Protestants that came from Catholisism.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Well, I had it from an LDS Theology student once that LDS don't have theology. Why, then was he in the theology program? He wound up going to Law school and, as far as I am aware, leaving the church. I don't know if he joined any others or not. P.S. He was an incredibly intelligent fellow and I would tend to trust his assessment of the theology situation. We tend to put the emphasis on knowing God rather than knowing about him.
[ April 09, 2005, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: mothertree ]
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Belle, your description of Covenant Theology does sound very, very much like, well, LDS Doctrine
quote:The Covenant of Redemption Sometime in eternity past, before the creation of man, God the Father made a covenant of Redemption with God the Son in which they agreed to save or redeem man (hence the term redemption). The Father appointed the Son to be the one who would redeem man through His death. Passages used to support this: Heb 10:10f, John 17:4, 18.
Does this belief require affirmation that the Father and the Son are two distinct personages? Or is it still 'traditional' Trinitarianism?
quote:Dispensationalists make a strong distinction between Israel and the church; covenant theologians do not. Dispensationalists believe that the promises which God made to Israel must be literally fulfilled. Consequently, dispensationalists believe that the millennium is necessary for the fulfillment of God’s covenant promises to the Jews to be literally fulfilled. Covenant theologians believe, the people of God are all those in Christ, without distinction. Thus, they believe that the promises made to the Jews will be fulfilled in Christ through the church. They do not look for a literal fulfillment during the millennium.
So by this, does the Covenant Theologian affirm that the Believer has become a part of, and therefore heir to Israel? Or have the Abrahamic covenants been superceded?
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Ok...so what are the differences between the level of education between priests of different Christian branches?
Catholic Priests for instance get ALOT of schooling. They basicly have a masters or a doctorate in theology/history/language/etc...
From what I hear quite a few protestant churches don't have any system of education...that any old person can preach. That's cool and all...but I think if this is the case, while they may have all the fervor needed, don't have all the intelligence to be theologians.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
The LDS church is run entirely by lay leaders. Most don't have a degree in theology, although quite a few in the US, at least, have gone to college at a Church-run school where religion classes are required; at least a few in most wards in the US, and many in Canada, as well. But the same materials are distributed all over the world, the same doctrine is emphasised, and most of our young men are expected to serve a 2-year volunteer mission, spending almost all of their time teaching this doctrine to others. I'd say that anyone who cares to has a incredible opportunity to learn an awful lot about doctrine in our church, and those who are asked to teach are usually very good at it. Some who speak in our meetings do it very well; some do not. But almost everyone does have a good chance, if they want to, to read and listen and study and learn an awful lot of doctrine. I don't see any reason why that's wrong; it results in much of our membership understanding our doctrine as well as probably a minority do in other churches. (And I say that from experience, not having grown up LDS.)
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Taalcon, we believe in the Trinity there is one God, in three persons - father, son, Holy spirit.
As to the other: Galatians 3:29 - If you are in Christ, you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
The covenant theologian believes there is only one elect - one people of God, made up of all who believe in Christ. The covenant promises to the people of God in the old Testament are fulfilled in the church.
Those who believe in Christ become heirs to the promises made to Abraham. Remember that Paul makes it clear in his epistles that it's more than physical descendancy that makes one an heir to the promise. In Roman's chapter nine he says "But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel."
Because the "true Israel" who inherit the promises is not made up of every physical descendant of Israel. Paul argues this from the Old Testament itself. He concludes in verse 8: "This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring." In other words, God is not bound by physical descent or flesh when determining who his "children of promise" are.
In other words, it's not as if God decided not to fulfill his promise and replaced the children of Israel with the church. The covenant theologian believes the children of God are more than just a physical nation, and the promise applies to all of God's elect, not just those of a specific line of descent.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
It has been a while since I heard a good version of this (and my quickie Google check didn't show anything) but aren't most Biblical scholars pretty sure that Revelations wasn't intended to predict the future but was more useful as a tool to spread the Christian ministry around under the noses of those in power. By layering on the myth, lore, and gaudy excesses (dare I say it...a "code", if you will) of this book the folks writing and reading it could safely discuss what was current events without getting smacked down as Christians in need of being eaten by a Lion.
Or something like that.
Why didn't Jesus talk about the coming of his...er...anti-version?
[ April 09, 2005, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: fil ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Telp, it depends on the denomination as to what type of schooling is required.
Many denominations have seminaries, and my understanding of the Presbyterian Church of America is that one must be a graduate of an approved with at least a master's of divinity and serve a one year internship before you can be qualified to serve as a minister.
I don't know enough about other denominations to say.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:The covenant theologian believes there is only one elect - one people of God, made up of all who believe in Christ.
I take it you mean 'excercises faith in Christ' instead of just Believe. Because, "the devils also believe, and tremble."
--
Everything else you said I personally agree with nearly completely. I believe that those who choose to enter into and accept the Covenant with God become heirs - those who don't, aren't. All covenants are made with the caveat that one keeps his part of the bargain.
--
I guess I still can't grasp the Trinitarian concept of One God making a Covenant with another person/manifestation of His Own Being that is not Not His Being. I'm honestly trying to understand how people view this to work. When I was Trinitarian, I didn't really think about it much. When I did, it made my brain hurt, so I decided not to think about it too much, sort of Pavlovian. But now, I'm really trying to understand (and I know this is a topic big enough for another thread). I read the explanations in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and they made my brain physically hurt again. But now, I guess, I'm more of a masochist - I'll keep pushing until I can at least fully understand the other point of view.
***please understand that this I'm not at all trying to Bash any theology - I know how sensitive you are to this, and I'm honestly trying to understand the other understanding. Yours is the first I heard of Trinitarians claiming that there was an event where The Father made a covenant with The Son before the world was created. I don't see how this works with my understanding of Trinitarianism.***
[ April 09, 2005, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
To clear up, my view is that "I understand, but I disagree" is much more respectful, and useful, than "I don't understand, but I still disagree."
At this point, I'd like to understand so I don't have to fall into the latter camp. I've done that way too much in my life.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Most Biblical Scholars" who believe the interpretation that Revelations is "time sensitive" to the First Century are very liberal Christian. As a person who doesn't like to judge who is or is not Christian, it is hard for me to believe those "Biblical Scholars" are anything other than marginal Christians by faith. However, using "Most Biblical Scholars" as a definition of anything is fairly nebuleous. There are just too many KINDS of Biblical Scholarship -- from "Jesus Seminar Secularists" to Evangilical Charismatics.
quote:My mother in law gave me a book where the people swore they were doing scholarly level research, but then they included an unsupported rumor about the UPC symbols having 666 in them. It was like, they said they were holding to a scholarly level of proof, ergo anything they happen to say is now scholarly.
It would be nice to know the name of the book. On the other hand, the "666 number of the Beast in UPC Symbols" is an example of general Christianity views on the Anti-Christ accepted by LDS members without independent conclusion.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Thanks Belle. When I was singing with the Alma College Choir we used to tour around to alot of Presby churches to sing. Always fun. One place, Kirk in the Hills was very strict, having acolytes and all the bells and whistles. It was more fancy than most Catholic places. Hehehe... I remember teasing the Presby's, calling them "Catholic lite".
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
I love a good conspiracy web page, and that's one of the nuttiest I've ever seen. ![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Now let's look at major differences between covenant theology and dispensantionalism: ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
He wound up going to Law school and, as far as I am aware, leaving the church. I don't know if he joined any others or not. P.S. He was an incredibly intelligent fellow and I would tend to trust his assessment of the theology situation. We tend to put the emphasis on knowing God rather than knowing about him.