Christian view of eternal families

[madeleine1]

BTW, Madeleine, Mormons are NOT Protestant (even though many lump us in). We are a Restorationist Christian church. We believe the Catholic Church fell away from priesthood authority and revelation. We also believe that Protestantism was a reaction to Catholic excesses, and formed their own faith without proper authority and revelation from God. We agree with Catholics that priesthood authority is necessary. We do not agree with Protestants that God's ancient apostolic authority was replaced with a priesthood of all believers.

Yes, I understand this. My own perspective is, Mormonism/Restorationism is a result, a product if you will, of Protestantism. All rely on a belief that Jesus abandoned what He established. None holding the authority given to Christ's Church.

BTW, Catholics also hold a belief in the priesthood of all believers. By virtue of our baptisms (Catholic and most Protestants included), we all partake in the divine High Priesthood of Jesus Christ. We are in agreement that Jesus is our only High Priest, Prophet and King. Catholics also believe in the Sacrament of Holy Orders, whereby the keys handed to the Apostles are passed on, by the laying on of hands, to the successors of the Apostles.

The Protestant Reformation was a reaction to excesses of some Catholics. The difference is, as a Catholic I don't believe Jesus abandons us, or calls us to give in to the Protestant temptation to abandon what is His. Rather, we are called to turn to Christ, and deepen our discipleship. Made possible only by Jesus Christ Himself, who we seek forgiveness from and find our justification. When we call to mind our sins, and seek the forgiveness of Jesus Christ, we plead, "look not on our sins but on the faith of Your Church".

Protestants and Mormons would have us believe that there must be a point where we are too filthy to be cleansed by the atonement of Jesus Christ. I don't believe this is the message of Christ Crucified. Rather, it is the depth of our depravity and suffering when we need Him most of all and where we find the Mercy of God.

Peace.

Edited April 6, 2011 by madeleine1

[Soninme]

I understand that Gnostics were heretics

And just because they were heretics, does not mean all their teachings were wrong.

Why would I seek a heretic for truth?

However, if you get past Protestant Bible school to the actual scholarly programs,

Nice. Edited April 6, 2011 by Soninme

[prisonchaplain]

I understand that Gnostics were heretics. However, if you get past Protestant Bible school to the actual scholarly programs, you'll find that many consider the Gospel of Thomas to be Q (or related to Q), the source for many of Jesus' sayings in Matthew and Luke.

I would recommend a good deal of caution in this distinction between "Bible school" and scholarly. Too often "scholarly" simply means liberal orthodoxy. They deem themselves more intellectual and academic because they are more open to academic perspectives that are critical of traditional teaching and views.

To use an analogy, theological liberals are often to willing to abandon the fort, believing it is no longer worth protecting. We conservatives (evangelicals mostly, as well as more conservative Catholics and more Orthodox Jews) may be guilty of protecting sacred cows a little too carefully, but I dare say our predisposition keeps us anchored to apostolic teaching a whole lot better.

And just because they were heretics, does not mean all their teachings were wrong. As it is, many early Christians agreed with some of their concepts; and later Christianity adopted some of their beliefs. Also, Gnostics was a large group of Christian sects, some of which were close to proto-orthodoxy, while others were definitely further out in left field.

We should not ignore the writings, even if we do not necessarily agree with all of them. Do you agree with St Augustine that children who are not baptized will burn in hell? If no, why not? He was and is considered orthodox by both Catholics and Protestants.

The Gnostics may offer us an occasional diamond in the rough. Classic teachers like Augustine had occasional rough spots in their cache of diamonds.

[Faded]

Why would I seek a heretic for truth?

Soninme, you're Protestant. You're not in agreement with with the Catholic Church. Therefore you are just as much a heretic as a Gnostic.

The Gnostics were an extremely broad category of Christians. They are the earliest serious thinkers who actively sought to develop Christian theology. So many different groups, practices and beliefs have been tossed into the pot "Gnostic" that it's pretty much impossible to nail down any certain beliefs that they all have in common. Catholicism adopted about half of what the Gnostics came up with and claim it as their own. The other half of their material was denounced of course. So what you've got to wonder is if the early Church got it right. Did they throw out truths that the Gnostics had preserved? Did they adopt any false doctrines by mistake?

Protestantism gets itself into a bit of a pickle here. Ancient Catholicism denouncing and exterminating Gnosticism goes against the entire basis of Protestantism. It's basically Catholicism telling other Christians what they can or can't believe in. If Protestants thinks it's wrong now, how can it be right back then?

[madeleine1]

To be clear, from a Catholic view one can only be a heretic if they were once Catholic, professing the faith and then corrupting its dogmas. I don't think I could come up with one Protestant today who is a heretic. The term is tossed around on the internet freely, but in reality, there are few who can truly be called "heretic". Martin Luther, certainly having professed the Catholic faith and professed the solemn vows of Holy Orders, was and is declared a heretic. (Not to slag on him, but only to point out a matter of fact. There are several things I admire about Luther and several points that he had nailed absolutely, which were reformed within the Catholic Church. But that is another conversation for another day!)

Those who follow the Protestant reformers are not heretics. There remain heresies in Protestant doctrines, from a Catholic view, but the people who adhere to them are not heretics.

Also, the Catholic Church does not seek to impose, but to propose, the first proposition being the Love of God for all mankind. Until a person accepts this proposition as a reality, the Church has nothing to say to that person (paraphrasing John Paul II).

The Early Church Fathers record the refutations of several gnostic errors. The first seven councils of the Catholic Church, which are accepted universally by nearly ALL Christians, declared as anathema several gnostic teachings. The councils are accepted as authoritative insofar as one believes the Holy Spirit guided them. As far as I know, the major Protestant denominations do not declare the Catholic Church gone astray until much later than these councils. Certainly, not accepting the decrees of the Council of Trent!

Yes, there were several "brands" of gnosticism, but their most pervasive commonality are Christological errors, of various kinds.

Peace.

Edited April 7, 2011 by madeleine1

[prisonchaplain]

I'm still rather fond of Pope John Paul's term for me and us..."separated bretheren." It is indeed too bad that we cannot be organizationally united. On the other hand, day to day, I find it incredible easy and joyful to work with the Catholic chaplain. Madeiline is certainly right that Gnosticism is heresy to both Protestants and Catholics. People can be serious and wrong...and thus seriously wrong. Many on this site likely think I am--at least about some theological matters. :-)

[rameumptom]

So, PC are you saying you are a Mormon heretic?

As there are as many opinions of what orthodoxy should include/exclude as there are people reading the Bible, it amuses me when one group is rejected more than another for the cause of heresy or non-orthodoxy.

There are those who are religious scholars of the Bible, and then there are those who are scholars of the Bible. They will disagree on various things, just as religious scholars do not agree amongst themselves. How many Catholics believe that having the Pope as the vicar of Christ as orthodoxy, and how many Protestants believe it is a spurious concept? Grace vs works, priesthood vs priesthood of believers, baptism or none, baptism of infants or only when accountable, Creationism or evolution, etc. Each of these is a tenet that divides Biblicists. For those who are religious scholars, each of these creates heretics or enmity. For many, they only see value in their own beliefs, and not in any other viewpoints. Why else would a small town preacher burn Qurans for the notoriety, or others protest at soldiers' funerals?

These battles today among "orthodox" Christians is no different than the battles that went on anciently among the religionists: proto-Orthodox vs Gnostics, Arians vs Athanasius, Origen vs Jerome, etc. From what happened to Origen, we find that what is one person's orthodoxy today, becomes tomorrow's heretic. For 2 centuries, Origen was considered a major apologist for the Christian faith. Then Jerome and Augustine shredded him to pieces, because some of the doctrines of the faith changed.

There were some Gnostics that did use normal scripture. The Book of Luke was almost rejected by Jerome because certain Gnostics used it to demonstrate some of their beliefs regarding Christ. Some Gnostics rejected the Old Testament, which some Christians today also do. And Gnosticism almost won out over proto-orthodoxy. Only by canonizing the books we now have, and rejecting any further apostolic revelation, were the proto-orthodox able to slowly diminish the Gnostics until just a few exist today.

[Faded]

To be clear, from a Catholic view one can only be a heretic if they were once Catholic, professing the faith and then corrupting its dogmas. I don't think I could come up with one Protestant today who is a heretic. The term is tossed around on the internet freely, but in reality, there are few who can truly be called "heretic". Martin Luther, certainly having professed the Catholic faith and professed the solemn vows of Holy Orders, was and is declared a heretic. (Not to slag on him, but only to point out a matter of fact. There are several things I admire about Luther and several points that he had nailed absolutely, which were reformed within the Catholic Church. But that is another conversation for another day!)

Those who follow the Protestant reformers are not heretics. There remain heresies in Protestant doctrines, from a Catholic view, but the people who adhere to them are not heretics.

madeleine1, I love the fact that this has changed in recent history, but it's all very new thinking. Back in the day, the Church was nitpicking over the tiniest details. Wars were fought and people slaughtered over the most subtle of differences.

Protestantism represents a much larger departure from orthodoxy than many, many movements who were violently crushed before. Catholicism did try to eradicate Protestantism but they were unsuccessful. The fact that they didn't succeed and eventually came to accept Protestantism as a misdirected but well meaning group of Christians comes about primarily because they actually survived.

Also, the Catholic Church does not seek to impose

if I had a time machine, I'd take you back to Konstanz, Germany July 5, 1415. You could explain to to Jan Hus how the Catholic Church does not seek to impose their will on others while he is being burned alive by the Catholic Church.

I love that Catholicism has made such great strides in tolerance and acceptance of those who believe differently from them. Historically, that's not something they've done very well at.

The point I'm driving at is simple: Protestantism isn't heresy because:

a.) It survived and grew to be very very large.

b.) Catholicism has drastically changed it's approach to "heresy" in the last 500 years. They don't kill people just for disagreeing with them -- not anymore that is.

PC can better explain it than me, but as I understand it, Protestantism holds that no hierarchical system of control, rule and decree was ever intended and that after the apostles, Christianity becomes a "priesthood of all believers." I don't think that they acknowledge that leaders from the Pope on down had any right to rule Christendom, but imposed their rule without any right to do so. So coming from that understanding, if we're looking at it from the Protestant point of view, did anyone have any right to tell the Gnostics that they were wrong and systematically eliminate them?

If all of the Protestant Reformers had come around with their same ideas in the first five centuries AD, they would have faced the same fate as Gnosticism and with their successful elimination they would be branded heretics as well.

[madeleine1]

madeleine1, I love the fact that this has changed in recent history, but it's all very new thinking. Back in the day, the Church was nitpicking over the tiniest details. Wars were fought and people slaughtered over the most subtle of differences.

Protestantism represents a much larger departure from orthodoxy than many, many movements who were violently crushed before. Catholicism did try to eradicate Protestantism but they were unsuccessful. The fact that they didn't succeed and eventually came to accept Protestantism as a misdirected but well meaning group of Christians comes about primarily because they actually survived.

if I had a time machine, I'd take you back to Konstanz, Germany July 5, 1415. You could explain to to Jan Hus how the Catholic Church does not seek to impose their will on others while he is being burned alive by the Catholic Church.

I love that Catholicism has made such great strides in tolerance and acceptance of those who believe differently from them. Historically, that's not something they've done very well at.

The point I'm driving at is simple: Protestantism isn't heresy because:

a.) It survived and grew to be very very large.

b.) Catholicism has drastically changed it's approach to "heresy" in the last 500 years. They don't kill people just for disagreeing with them -- not anymore that is.

PC can better explain it than me, but as I understand it, Protestantism holds that no hierarchical system of control, rule and decree was ever intended and that after the apostles, Christianity becomes a "priesthood of all believers." I don't think that they acknowledge that leaders from the Pope on down had any right to rule Christendom, but imposed their rule without any right to do so. So coming from that understanding, if we're looking at it from the Protestant point of view, did anyone have any right to tell the Gnostics that they were wrong and systematically eliminate them?

If all of the Protestant Reformers had come around with their same ideas in the first five centuries AD, they would have faced the same fate as Gnosticism and with their successful elimination they would be branded heretics as well.

I am not ignoring history. :) I am also not ignoring that we learn from mistakes. John Paul II brought this recognition to where it should be, when he asked publicly for forgiveness for the wrong-doings of the Catholic Church.

It is also more complicated than saying "the Catholic Church did X". Ruling governments seeking control over their kingdoms did many things under the name of God and in the name of the Church.

I am not well-versed in Protestant doctrines, however, Protestants have not forgone orthodoxy. Most profess the same faith, and so are rightly called our separated brethren. Clearly there are Apostolic teachings that are correct and "secret knowledge" of gnosticism was never an Apostolic teaching.

It can be argued that gnosticism existed before the birth of Christ. A form of religion that took on what it liked and morphed it to its own uses. Somewhat I might point out, to how Mormonism functions. So it is not a surprise that Mormons defend gnosticism when there are elements of gnosticism in Mormonism.

The other thing is, this tendency in Mormonism to not accept anything that just might be orthodox and instead go looking for the "loose canons", as it were. It is very puzzling, to say the least.

The Bible teaches of unity. The Apostolic faith is not fractured into many pieces. There is one faith, one baptism. Faith seeks understanding, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the true faith is preserved. Otherwise, one must go down the path that the Holy Spirit either was not present in Christ's Church or God supported division rather than unity.

Protestantism fractured the unity of the faith. Mormonism does so even further. (You should understand that is how I see these arguments to bring out errors and heresies that existed long, long ago.) From the Catholic view, this is not the work of God.

Peace.

Edited April 8, 2011 by madeleine1

[prisonchaplain]

This is such a great conversation. Thanks for making it so. No easy agreeism, nor angry contention. "Convicted conversation," as Robert Millet and Greg Johnson (an LDS leader/scholar and and evangelical pastor who do dialogues publically) put it. Good good stuff. This is the prime meat of LDS.net right here...kudos to all.

[rameumptom]

Madeleine,

We can also say that Christianity existed before Christ, especially through prophets that foresaw his existence, and through the Jerusalem temple's sacrifices and ordinances we see Christ's atonement and life. Yet, in Jesus' ministry, he went against the temple leaders on many occasions, stirring up issues and dissolving the unity that there was between the Pharisees and Sadduccees (or perhaps he united them against a common enemy).

So for me it means nothing that forms of Gnosticism were around before Christ, just as other proto-Christian groups were also around.

There is truth to be found in many places. I believe in the higher law and gospel of Christ, yet still study the words of Moses in order to learn about Christ and his gospel. I know it isn't for everyone, but why should I reject writings from the Gnostics, simply because some stand aghast at them today. BTW, not all the writings the Gnostics had were gnostic writings. They used, for example, the Books of Luke, Enoch, etc.

[madeleine1]

Madeleine,

We can also say that Christianity existed before Christ, especially through prophets that foresaw his existence, and through the Jerusalem temple's sacrifices and ordinances we see Christ's atonement and life. Yet, in Jesus' ministry, he went against the temple leaders on many occasions, stirring up issues and dissolving the unity that there was between the Pharisees and Sadduccees (or perhaps he united them against a common enemy).

So for me it means nothing that forms of Gnosticism were around before Christ, just as other proto-Christian groups were also around.

There is truth to be found in many places. I believe in the higher law and gospel of Christ, yet still study the words of Moses in order to learn about Christ and his gospel. I know it isn't for everyone, but why should I reject writings from the Gnostics, simply because some stand aghast at them today. BTW, not all the writings the Gnostics had were gnostic writings. They used, for example, the Books of Luke, Enoch, etc.

Judaism is not proto-Christianity. Gnosticism is not proto-Mormonism.

Jesus did not divide, He unites all of humanity in Himself. The Church is His Body, and one cannot divide the Body of Christ, not any more than you can divide yourself.

Peace.

[twinbrother]

I truly enjoy your insight and views of the many posts you put up here prisonchaplain!!!! Though our beliefs may be different, our Love for our Father above is the same!!!!! When Jesus talks about the two greatest commandments, and we live by those, we all can come to together and rejoice as children of His!!! I sometimes am saddened by seeing people from all cultures and religions forget the greatest gift we can give to one another, and that's Love in it's entirety!!! I can honestly look at a stranger and say, I love you brother or sister and mean it, because of all the examples Jesus Christ gives us while he was on this earth. I personally want to wish you a most wonderful Easter and know that it's our savior Jesus Christ's sacrifice that mankind is saved!!!

[rameumptom]

Madeleine,

Judaism IS proto-Christianity. It is a religion that prepared the way. People recognized Jesus as Messiah because the Jewish prophets prophesied of him. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, we find that the Essenes had a holy communion in anticipation of the coming Messiah. They had baptism as entrance into the community. They had many other teachings that pointed to Christ. It is believed that John the Baptist, a Jew, was raised by the Essenes at Qumran and so his teachings and baptizing fits perfectly with their teachings.

So, yes, they were proto-Christian.

Christ will eventually join us together. But remember that in Matthew 10 he said he came not to bring peace, but a sword. Families would be disrupted because of his teachings, and the teachings regarding him. Paul taught that we needed continual prophets and apostles UNTIL we come to the unity of Christ at the 2nd Coming (Ephesians 4:11-14). I think we can agree on many things, but we won't perfectly agree on doctrine until Christ reveals all doctrine to all people at his Coming in Glory.

[madeleine1]

It is a definitive difference I have noticed. Mormons are waiting for something to happen that already has happened. Jesus Christ, reconciled the world to the Father. This isn't something that will happen, it has happened.

Jews are also still waiting, so no, they are not Christians.

All things are summed up in Christ (Ephesians 1:9-10). All things are reconciled through Him, making peace by the Blood of the Cross. (1 Col 1:20)

He is the Way and there is no other.

God is not the wedge that divides us, it is our own blindness. It is Jesus Christ who heals the blind.

Peace.

[bytebear]

It is a definitive difference I have noticed. Mormons are waiting for something to happen that already has happened. Jesus Christ, reconciled the world to the Father. This isn't something that will happen, it has happened.

Jews are also still waiting, so no, they are not Christians.

All things are summed up in Christ (Ephesians 1:9-10). All things are reconciled through Him, making peace by the Blood of the Cross. (1 Col 1:20)

He is the Way and there is no other.

God is not the wedge that divides us, it is our own blindness. It is Jesus Christ who heals the blind.

Peace.

From an LDS point of view, God had the plan for the world from the beginning. His plan is not complete. If it were, the book of Revelation would be meaningless. We aren't preparing for Christ's coming, but we are preparing for His second coming. I believe this concept is not lost on other Christians who are also preparing.

[rameumptom]

Bytebear is correct. It is common among most Christians, including Catholics, to be looking forward to the 2nd Coming of Christ in glory.

Maureen, you seem to discuss a lot of non-sequiturs in these discussions you are involved in. You say Mormons are awaiting something that has "already happened." From my understanding of Catholicism, you do not believe that the Millennium and 2nd Coming have occurred yet. So you also are awaiting this.

Yes, Christ performed much of his works in his mortal ministry and on the cross. However, he has not finished his work. There is yet to be the resurrection and final judgment of mankind, for example. Surely you do not believe that all those who will ever be resurrected have already done so? Nor do you believe that the final judgment has already occurred?

We differ from the Jews, in that they are still awaiting the Messiah's first coming. Yet, the first converts to Christ were all Jews. Before Paul took the religion out to the Gentiles and changed it into a world religion, Christianity was just another Jewish sect. Paul and the other apostles still attended the feasts and sacrificed at the temple. This even decades after Jesus' death and resurrection.

With the gospel being taken to the Gentiles, key concepts changed: Gentiles did not have to live the Mosaic Law (no circumcision, etc). The focus was taken away from obedience to the Mosaic Law to the grace of Christ. It would still be many years before Christianity would no longer be viewed as a form of Judaism.

As a historian and a student of religion, I find that we need to make our statements reflect what the scriptures and history show us. Otherwise we will be having people insist that Jesus made the moon out of green cheese....

Edited April 11, 2011 by rameumptom

[madeleine1]

There are foundational differences. The first being, the doctrine of Original Sin, and what that means for the world (us) and what the meaning of the Cross is in relationship to Original Sin. That would be a very, very long discussion, that I have had with LDS people before. It is one of those things that is so different, there is no common ground.

Revelations is read very differently by LDS, and Evangelical Protestants. A type of reading that did not exist until the 19th century. While I know LDS do not believe in the rapture, some of the interpretations reached for a conclusion of 'end times' prophecies and 'signs of the times' sort of ideas, are shared. I recommend the book, "The Rapture Exposed: The Message of Hope in the Book of Revelation" by Dr. Barbara R. Rossing. (She is a Lutheran pastor.) Though the book is aimed at Rapture theology (particular to the "Left Behind Series"), her explanation of Revelations, as believed by the majority of Christianity until the 19th century, would go far into explaining the Catholic stance on the Book of Revelations. In short, we are not millenialists.

But yes, as Catholics we await the perousia. I would say we have a deeper meaning to what this means, as related to the Eucharist. Where the past, present and future are made present to us. Which, brings up an entirely new tangent not discussed, the concept of eternity and time. Time does not exist for God, and so the millenialist idea of a literal "1000 years", is not literal to us but represents "a long period of time".

This long period of time began when death was conquered by Jesus Christ. The Paschal Mystery: the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We believe Satan is conquered NOW, not at some point in the future. This is what I mean by LDS are waiting for something that has already occurred.

Peace.

[rameumptom]

But we also believe there was original sin, except that Christ has already paid for it with his atonement:

• Moses 6:54

  54 Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world.

So, while traditional Christians still struggle with original sin, we believe that Christ took care of it for us. For this reason, we believe in a near universal salvation, while most other Christians do not. Most others at least insist on an expressed belief in Christ in mortality to be saved, we do not. We believe that most will learn of and obtain a testimony of Christ in the Spirit World/prison (1 Peter 3:18-20, 4:6). This includes the billions who have lived on earth who never had a chance of hearing the gospel or of Jesus Christ.

This can all occur because Jesus' atonement and resurrection save us from original guilt. It does not require baptism of infants or adults to be saved from Adam's transgressions.

19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (1 Cor 15)

This here shows from the scriptures that Christ's atonement saves ALL of us from the original sin of Adam. The only question remaining is our own faith and faithfulness.

[rameumptom]

LDS do not believe in the rapture of the Protestants. BTW, not all of them believe in it, either. There is no rapture to cause the believers to escape the tribulations of the last days.

Instead, we believe that the righteous will gather together in holy places, the center place being Zion, built on the American continent. This will be a refuge from the storms to come.

Latter-day Saints do not know whether God lives without or within time, but do understand that his time is different than ours, as Peter noted it is measured 1000 man years to 1 day of God (whether literal or symbolic, we do not know. If literal, then God does dwell within a form of time). As for the Millennium, our doctrine does not teach 1000 literal years, but most LDS do read it literally. However, a close reading of the scriptures show that many of the tribulations occur after the 7th seal is opened, or after the technical beginning of the Millennium, and that Satan is loosed at the end of the Millennium "for a season", showing that if it is 1000 years then not all of it is peaceful. Personally, I consider the time frames as approximate at best, since the previous seals of "1000 years" may not be exact, either.

The issue with LDS doctrine is there really is little that is actual core doctrine. There are many teachings, but these can easily be replaced by new revelation and understanding. For example, We once taught that blacks had the curse of Cain, but no longer teach it and we're going quickly away from that belief.

Core doctrines do not change. Our interpretations of those core doctrines and practices can and do change as we learn higher and better things.

So, I have no problem with these concepts of a Millennium composed of a long period of time, of no Protestant rapture, and that God does not experience time as we do.

As for Satan being conquered NOW by Christ, I would agree with that in many ways. I do not believe he is yet bound, and so he continues to tempt and try people. His binding will come after the 2nd Coming of Christ in glory. And the last time I spoke with my Catholic grandparents about it, they were also looking forward to it, as well.

[madeleine1]

Yes I know LDS do not believe in the rapture. I also know that it is more of a Fundamental Evangelical Protestant belief, for the most part (but not believed by all). And more to the point, as a German friend of mine notes, very American.

The book I recommended is written by a Lutheran. (Mainline Protestants are not millenialists.) As I said, I recommend it because Fundamentalist Evangelicals and LDS read Revelations in the same way. That of, end times, chiliastic, etc.

There are comparisons I note, going through life. :) Like a co-worker who was LDS and wasn't buying a house, or planning for retirement, but storing up a lot of food, because he said he believed the world would end soon. So long term investments and retirement were not going to be things he needed to worry about. But, a lot of bad things were going to happen and he was going to need to be able to eat. I remember clearly asking him why he stored hundreds of pounds of wheat! What in the world does a modern person do with wheat? Why not just buy flour, or rice?

Anyway, those who believe in the rapture think similarly. The world is going to end soon, so that is what should be prepared for. An ending to life as we know it, not a continuation.

We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life to come, but we do it with an understanding that He will come as a thief in the night. No one knows the day but the Father. So it is we should be prepared. Not in terms of catastrophes, as Jesus taught we don't need to worry over these things. But prepared, as in, doing the work of the Kingdom of God. Teaching the Good News of Jesus Christ raised from the dead. Caring for the poor, sick, imprisoned, etc.

------

We believe Satan is bound now. He is defeated. The only power he has is what we give him. Death and sin are defeated. Not sort of defeated, but truly, defeated. It is not the fault of God that we don't act in accordance to this truth.

The Kingdom of God is present, now, with Christ reigning from Heaven. The Christian vocation, for all is to live in witness of Christ, our King. To live with the understanding that we live in the Kingdom of God. Jesus' reign is not something we are waiting to arrive, He reigns NOW. Though, like all things we understand the coming of Jesus Christ will bring a fulfillment that is not yet being experienced.

Peace.

Edited April 13, 2011 by madeleine1