The answer to this is simple: Christ condemns vain repetitions, or heaping up empty phrases. Repetitive prayer, including the use of form prayer, is embraced by Scripture, and practiced by the early Church. Let’s look at repetitive prayer first, and then form prayer.
One of the most vivid examples of this comes from Jesus’ agony in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:39-44):
Carl Bloch, Gethsemane (1805) And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.”
And he came to the disciples and found them sleeping; and he said to Peter, “So, could you not watch with me one hour? Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.”
Again, for the second time, he went away and prayed, “My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, thy will be done.” And again he came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were heavy. So, leaving them again, he went away and prayed for the third time, saying the same words.
So Jesus prayed the same prayer three times in a row. That’s certainly repetitive prayer. But it’s hardly vain repetition, or empty phrases. Jesus was begging the Father intensely. Likewise, we’re invited to beg God for things, and even to nag Him. This invitation comes from Jesus’ parable of the persistent widow (Luke 18:1-8):
And he told them a parable, to the effect that they ought always to pray and not lose heart. He said, “In a certain city there was a judge who neither feared God nor regarded man; and there was a widow in that city who kept coming to him and saying, `Vindicate me against my adversary.’
For a while he refused; but afterward he said to himself, `Though I neither fear God nor regard man, yet because this widow bothers me, I will vindicate her, or she will wear me out by her continual coming.'”
And the Lord said, “Hear what the unrighteous judge says. And will not God vindicate his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them? I tell you, he will vindicate them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of man comes, will he find faith on earth?”
So the model for continual prayer that Jesus holds up is a woman who asks the exact same thing (`Vindicate me against my adversary’) over and over again, so much that it’s obnoxious.
 |
| Psalm 1, from Florian’s Psalter (c. 1400) |
The idea that the Bible condemns form (or pre-written) prayers is silly. After all, the Book of Psalms is nothing but a set of 150 form prayers that can be prayed on a variety of occasions, and which Christ quotes extensively during His earthly life.
Plus, Jesus leaves us a form prayer of His own. Immediately after Matthew 6:7, in which He denounces vain repetitions, Christ gives us the Our Father (a.k.a. the Lord’s Prayer, Mt. 6:9-13), introducing it, “This, then, is how you should pray…” That’s a form prayer, and one which we’re to pray often.
Plus, the Lord’s Prayer was recognized as a form prayer to be prayed repeatedly by the early Church. The Didache is perhaps the oldest Christian document outside of the Bible, from sometime around the middle to late first century. The oldest portions of the Didache are probably older than the latest portions of the New Testament. It’s something of a Church handbook, explaining the beliefs and practices of Christianity to the newly initiated converts. In Chapter 8, Christians are instructed to pray the Our Father three times a day. In the next chapter, form prayers for the Eucharistic preface are given. Plus, the Didache is describing what’s already going on in church, meaning that we can safely date repetitive praying of the Lord’s Prayer back to the time of the Apostles.
Christ condemns thoughtlessness in prayer, of mindlessly repeating empty words. We shouldn’t do that. But the cure isn’t to throw out all form prayer, or to throw out all repetitive prayer. It’s to pray these prayers with sincerity. Sometimes this is hard, particularly when we’re tired or have a lot on our mind. But we should try our best to do it anyway. Go back to the example of the Garden of Gethsemane. The Apostles were clearly tired, and it’s an understatement to say that Jesus had a lot on His mind. But while the Apostles shunned prayer in favor of sleep, He went ahead and prayed anyway, repeating the same impassioned prayer three times. That makes all the difference.
Update: I’ll be talking about this post tomorrow morning at 8:50 on Son Rise Morning Show. You can listen to it live at that time online, or wait to hear if it gets re-aired on EWTN later in the week.
@Joe: I even stated that she is a great example of humility and obedience. I don’t think I went too far, by any means. But songs of praise specifically for her: come on. Why wouldn’t it be safe to say it went too far?
Michael,
Are you similarly against Für Elise for being for Elise? Or every love song ever written?
I don’t see anywhere in Scripture where we’re ever told that singing songs of praise for anyone other than Christ is verboten.
I just think you’re acting as if you’re the arbiter of Christianity. Certain things seem “obvious” to you, and you impose them on all believers, and I think you do so without cause or Scriptural authority.
I may be mistaken, but it seems from the outside like you’re acting like one of the weaker brethren that Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians 8.
I.X.,
Joe
Michael, false Christs don’t call us to holiness. That’s my calling. I know it because it hurts when I fail at it.
Joe, you’ve inspired an innovation for when I say my last Glorious Mystery. Right after each, “Holy Mary, Mother of God,” I’ll say something like, say, “Queen of Heaven,” just to spice things up. And there are plenty others for the rest of the decade:
Queen of Heaven
Queen of the Angels
Queen of Peace
Co-Redemptrix
Mediatrix
Ever-virgin
Star of the Sea
Mother of the Church
Most Gracious Advocate
Mother of the Redeemer
Do you think the Protestants would like this version better? 😉
MIchael, maybe it would be easier for you if I said songs about praise songs about Mary. Look, they always include Jesus of course, because to not do so would be absurd.
Let me ask you; I know each one had their roles and played them well, but wouldn’t you hold Mary, mother of God, in higher esteem than Sarah, Ruth ,Esther, or maybe even Eve(whoa!).
And no, I am not seeking to join the RCC, but as I lurk this blog and see your comments, I’m sometimes embarrased brother. You really hate the RCC and it shows. Why?
Michael Revelations 12, v17 shows that she is your mother that is unless you do not hold to the testimony of Jesus. Let’s pray for each other Michael maybe that is all we have left among the separated brethren. also let us all pray for Daniels wife.
The Jesus prayer, “Jesus, Son of God, have mercy on me/us” is a particularly strong example of repetitive prayer. I first ran across this in reading “The Pilgrim’s Tale” (Classics of Western Spirituality collection). It’s similar to the Divine Mercy Chaplet. Here again repetition does equal vanity. On the contrary, repetition signifies a deep humility and dependence on Mercy of God. Extolling God’s Mercy is not in Satan’s toolbox, rather diametrically opposed to his fundamental choice to reject God and his plans to drag us down with him. Pray always as St. Paul recommends, and this little prayer will defeat any temptation by keeping the door shut.
God’s nature is love, which is seen in the very nature of the Trinity. Love is diffusive and poured out in many and various ways, and is similarly returned. Prayer is collective and individual. We all are called to share and be conduits of God’s love in prayer for each other and that includes the Saints. Love not only calls us to prayer, but to action as being Christs to each other and so draw each other to Christ. Being Christs to each other refers God’s/Jesus’s gifts back to Himself and gives Him glory. In turn God, Who needs nothing, returns it as a place at the head of table. Those at the head of the table are those who have abandoned themselves to be the servants of all in His name. This is the nature of the Communion of Saints with Jesus as its head. Insofar as God chose Mary as the door through which Jesus stepped in and made this happen gives her a particularly distinctive role in bringing us all to her Son.
Ooops…meant to say “Here again repetition does NOT equal vanity.”
@WRA:
1) “…because to not do so would be absurd.”
That’s just it. There are songs that are specifically for her, and it is absurd as you said. That said, I enjoy many Christmas songs, as an example, that nonchalantly mention her. But specific songs of praise to her. Na-ah.
2) “but wouldn’t you hold Mary… in higher esteem than…”
No, I wouldn’t. (Not to take away from the fact that she was blessed.)
3) “You really hate the RCC and it shows. Why?”
You don’t need to be embarrassed. The reason I hate Catholicism is stacked up high: It is obviously condemned by our Master (Revelation 17&18 as only one example of many). Also, my family (on my dad’s side) has been Catholic as far back as family history goes, and that makes my spirit weep. – That’s why I’m so passionate about the subject.
@Joe: But specific songs about Mary sung in assemblies of the brothers? (That Elise thing was way out of context, and you know it.)
@Ben: I know you’re provoking us ‘protestants’, but anyways, those titles for Mary are extremely blasphemous.
@BlackBeard: Revelation 12 has nothing to do with Mary. It hasn’t occurred yet. (Yes, we are separated, and I just got done sayin’ a prayer for you and all Catholics whom see this site.)
Thanks for your prayers Michael. I must always remind myself that we as Christians should not discuss and debate, especially in regards to our faith, with pride but rather with love.
Revelation 12 speaks of a woman who gave birth to a male child. That is not talking about a future event. The early church fathers identified her with Mary because of this verse. Furthermore, many have felt that this “woman” is the same “woman” from Genesis 3, the New Eve, the Ark of the Covenant, the one who said Yes to the Lord. Our Mother Mary. She has offspring, that offspring is you and the rest of the church who keep God’s commands and hold fast to their testimony about Jesus.
Well, I wasn’t trying to provoke anything. But since you asked, here’s my challenge: Answer the following. Here.
Since undoubtedly the mound of sand we call Protestantism has been around less time than the Catholic Church, either the Catholic Church or remarkably similar-in-content Eastern Orthodox has the presumptive case for being the Church founded by the apostles against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail. Protestantism, I believe, bears the burden of proof for showing both the Church with a Pope and the Communion of Patriarchs are not what simple history would otherwise show them to be. I submit that “Catholic Apostasy” is as central to Protestantism as the Eucharist is to Catholics. The Irish in me says: Chew on that.
Since you have the burden of proof, let us consider what the earliest case against the Catholic Church has been: Luther took scandal as evidence of apostasy. But these are as different as weakness and hypocrisy: scandal is grave public sin leading others into sin; apostasy is officially teaching that this is a-OK. Despite that gloss, the initial force of this argument proposed the sad state of affairs that our only option was sola scriptura, to self-correct a purportedly apostate ecclesiology. Sola scriptura is necessary for every other anti-Catholic argument.
Scandal does not necessitate apostasy; to wit, indulgences for almsgiving, if spun for Protestantism, is at best and at the point of principle only muddy, though at the point of practice certainly abused. However, if we apply this case for apostasy to the Legion of Magesteria called Protestantism, we see a far clearer case for unquestionable apostasy which cannot be sadly admitted as scandal. What small voices in this Legion who keep the faith on, say, divorce — an utterly clear condemnation straight from the mouth of Christ — can be heard over the cacophony of dissent against God we hear from the official voices of Protestantism? To wit, if there was ever a reason to break from the Church with a Pope, there is far, far more reason to break back from the Anarchism of Many Popes.
As your historical argument unquestionably weighs more heavily against you than we, your burden of proof becomes far more burdensome. You must simultaneously balance justifying the original claim against Catholics while maintaining your own innocence at the same standard, despite the two-edged blade harming you more than us. I submit that your task is to grip that argument tightly, but not too tightly, because otherwise you cannot honestly maintain what I call a faulty Biblical hermeneutic. Moreover, without the sola scriptura shibboleth, The Tradition of Men’s afactual, ahistorical and just plain bad arguments against the Church fail.
Consider that the theory from pietic impulse called Protestantism is false, that the Church is a hospital for sinners just as Israel is a faithless bride, and that when Christ said the gates of Hell shall not prevail against his Church, the Logos Incarnate spoke plain truth.
Please notice how I back up several claims with links for further reading, particularly those I believe would be points of particular contention. If it has more heat than light, I apologize, but really: Show me the Catholic Apostasy is more than urban legend, that approaching the Church Fathers without preconception or rationalization we find, on balance, that they are more Protestant than Catholic. Show me that returning to an acorn, if it can even be known, is what God would want an oak tree to do.
As a Protestant, and according to all the rules of honest debate, you are the one bearing this burden of proof. I submit that this yoke is not easy and this burden is not light.
@Ben: What!?!?!?
@BlackBeard: In Genesis 3:15, Christ crushes the head of Satan; it’s not Mary; although I can agree Mary is the her of ‘and her seed’. And yes, Revelation 12 is a future event. Satan hasn’t been cast out of heaven yet (Job 1&2). Read my comments to Joe in his post ‘Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant’ (12/5/2011 7:40pm; 12/5/2011 11:55pm). So, as said, Mary is neither my mother or your mother.
Protestantism makes a claim to legitimacy based on the apostasy of Catholics. It is a serious charge, with substantial evidence against it including an assurance directly from the mouth of God, but it is foundational to Protestantism’s authority and right to exist.
If you cannot make a solid case, independent of the question of if I agree, you are not allowed to use sola scriptura in your case against the Church. For that matter, your credibility will seriously be in question.
My challenge does have one flaw: That there even exists a single thing we can call Protestantism. Really, it’s more of a collection of attitudes and urban legends. If I am wrong in this, disprove me. I will eat as much crow as you can dish.
I would sooner believe in the bodily assumption of Mary than the ecclesiological assumptions of Protestants, and I do.
I saw this a year later, sorry:-) You should just be an apologist( if you already aren’t)!!!
Of course The Church has most credibility.
Food for thought; 1st of all, sola scriptura is not in the Bible!!Since our dear brothers defense is always,’where is it in the Bible’. Nowhere in the Bible does it say solely scripture, it even says that not everything could be written down obviously because it was too much, so Luther is erroneous. The rest is what we call tradition, carried on from the Apostles;the early church.
If there is truth to what you say, it should be apparent to everyone here.
Michael I will look at that post and you look at revelation 11 verse 19, the final verse in that chapter… when God’s temple is open and the Apostle John writes that the Ark of the Covenant is revealed…who then appears immediately in revelation 12….the woman…
Luke 10:18 suggests that Satan was already cast out of heaven by the way.
I saw your post but frankly I am struggling to see how you arrived at your conclusions.
You say, “the saints will rule during the thousand-year reign with some iron”..the text says Jesus not the saints.
You also say “, as Scripture indicates, who won’t believe until the Second Coming when He defeats the Mahdi (Antichrist) and Jesus of Islam (False Prophet)”
Where did you get that from the book of revelation (ie the muslim references)?
@BlackBeard:
1) “Luke 10:8… by the way.”
Yea, he is Satan and no longer Lucifer. He has been declared condemned, and in that sense has been cast out of heaven. But have you not read Job 1&2? He is allowed into heaven to accuse the saints. In Revelation he is cast out to the point where he can’t accuse the saints before God in heaven. It’s rather simple.
2) “…the text says Jesus not the saints.”
Revelation 20:6
Psalm 149:5-9
3) Read Perry Stone Jr.’s ‘Unleashing the Beast’ to find out more about the end of days. It doesn’t condemn any religion within Christianity. It just uses Daniel, Revelation, and other texts to come to the conclusions of the end times. And although he is COG(Cleveland), the biggest followers of his prophetic teachings are none other than Catholics.
(Again, Revelation 12 does not have anything to do with the story of Jesus birth, going to Egypt, etc. The story of his birth is but a parallel to what has yet to be fulfilled in Revelation 12. Job 1&2 proves Revelation 12 hasn’t been fulfilled.)
Mike: Since you ignore my previous challenge, here’s a shorter one: Tell me something that couldn’t be proved with Daniel, Revelation and a pretext.
LOL! I am laughing because we seem to have taken our discussion into an entirely different direction than the initial topic of the article:)
we should start our own blog and name it point counter point or something like that.
I think I understand where you are coming from. You must hold to pre-millenialism.
As far as Perry Stone, I remember that name…when I was protestant Hank Hanegraaff wrote a piece on heresies in his teaching.
Thank you, Black Beard. Yes, yes, let us go back to the main topic of this Post. Merits and demerits of Repetitive Prayer and the disposition of the Faithful during Prayer. I also added another very powerful repetitive Intercessory Prayer to our Heavenly Father given by Jesus Christ Himself – The Chaplet of the Divine Mercy. So, please my beloved people of God, let us ignore the Protestants’ abhorence of our Catholic Faith and educate and enlighten one another on how to pray as the Holy Spirit guides each one of us. Our Catholic Websites are for the sole purpose of Catholics sharing knowledge, experiences, their individual journeys, encouraging one another and strengthening others in our Faith as we walk together on our Road to our Destiny in Eternity. Be blessed
Michael: You present a contradicition by saying that Satan can enter Heaven, when we know from the Bible that “nothing unclean can enter Heaven.”
That is why some books of the Bible are allegorical or simply stories. The Book of Job falls into this category.
Michael,
I wanted to address a couple of your points on your Revelation 12 exegesis, since this comes up frequently.
You claim that it refers to a future event since Satan is still in Heaven. In support, you cite Job 1-2, a Book the Jews put in the Ketuvim, rather than the Nevi’im
(in the very canon that you appeal to in defending the Protestant Bible, if I’m not mistaken). That’s likely because the Book of Job was recognized from the beginning as not being a historical account. This is also why Job has no genealogy — the author isn’t claiming he was a historical figure.
Black Beard pointed out that Luke 10:18 is really clear that Satan fell from Heaven. Your response was, “Yea, he is Satan and no longer Lucifer. He has been declared condemned, and in that sense has been cast out of heaven.” But in Luke 10:18, Jesus says, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.” Not, “I saw Lucifer demoted from Lucifer to Satan.” You’re trying to argue around the explicit words of Christ.
Next, you claim that the Son in Rev. 12 doesn’t refer to Christ, but to some of the Saints, and cite to Revelation 20:6 and Psalm 149:5-9, which aren’t on-point.
Revelation 12:5 describes the Son as the One who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.” This is a quotation of Psalm 2:9, which is a Christological passage. Psalm 2:7 is explicitly applied to Christ in Hebrews.
So I think that whatever else may be said about Revelation 12, your interpretation is contrary to some pretty explicit Scriptural passages. I don’t think you can get around this by appealing to Perry Stone.
I.X.,
Joe
@BlackBeard: No joke, we are WAY off the original topic! But, to keep the conversation going, what were some of Hank’s views of Perry’s ‘heresies’?
@Taylor: It is blasphemy to call Job a story. Next time just say that the Word is a lie.
@Mary: This is an apologetics blog. Ignoring people like me would defeat the purpose. Also, I have been ignored and blocked from a few other Catholic sites (as you seem to wish of me on this site), but Joe mans-up. He doesn’t defeat the purpose as a few of the others do. That said, he has my respect, although it might not always seem so since some of my discussions have been slightly heated.
Also, my presence on Catholic blogs hasn’t always been for the sake of arguing. I’ll admit I’ve learned some valuable insight from Catholic blogs:
a) From Joe’s blog, his post about interior peace vs exterior peace went well in my spirit.
b) From Joe’s blog, on one of his posts he talked of the difference of Christ using My Father/Our Father and how Christ never used the Our Father to be used WITH us and Christ to show the difference in relationship. That went well in my spirit.
c) In Mr. Charles Popes blog (somebody who erases about 75% of my comments), I learned in the parable of Lazarus about how the rich man in hell was still unrepentant of his ways, admitting he was where he belonged, saying ‘send Lazarus’ as if the rich man was still above Lazarus. Again, that went well in my spirit.
There has been other examples, but I just can’t think of any at this moment.
@Joe:
1) I didn’t say he’s still in heaven, but I did say he has access to heaven as Job 1&2 and Revelation 12 confirms.
2) So are you saying Job 1&2 is a lie? Is it to you like it is to Taylor? I’m confused.
3) I’m not saying Christ lied. You just don’t, as a Catholic, understand that you have to look at all Scripture. Otherwise you wouldn’t deny Job 1&2.
4) How weren’t my previous citations of Revelation 20:6 and Psalm 149:5-9 on-point.
5) Yes, some passages only refer to Christ ruling with an iron scepter. But look, as an example, at all the meanings for God’s Temple (literal Temple, bodies of believers). So, like your denying Job 1&2, you deny Psalm 149:5-9. I don’t get it.
6) Rev. 12 talks of the man-child, not the Son.
7) I’m just saying you should look to the teachings of Stone on end-times prophecy, especially ‘Unleashing the Beast’. Specifically, I’m still using Dake on Revelation 12.
Job isn’t a “lie”, it’s just not a piece of history. As Joe said, it is part of something that the Jews categorized as poetry-type stories.
But if nothing can be a lie and it all must be literal…then maybe soon you’ll receive Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist.
mike go to equip.org..it should be thre. hank is my favorite protestant apologist.
i like the discussion mike. you seem to be sincere. God bless you my brother in Christ
@ Michael~January 20, 2012 5:24 PM
This comment confuses me. “Mary is not my mother, nor yours. She is Jesus’ earthly mother and his half-siblings mother. That is it. The Lord did not entrust her to the church as its mother. Otherwise He would have told the other believing Mary’s that were at the cross that she was their mother, too.”
Here’s the confusion. Is Jesus both divine (God) and human (man)? If he is only man, then sure I would agree with you that Mary was only his “early mother.” But he is also God, which makes Mary the mother of God and not just an “early mother” but also a heavenly one.
So I suppose my simple question is this: Do you believe that Jesus is both human and divine?
@Taylor: Even if Job 1&2 is poetry, does it make it a lie? Also, how do you know it wasn’t a piece of history?
@Deltaflute:
1) I called her his ‘earthly mother’, not his ‘early mother’.
2) How is Mary His heavenly mother? He was who He was before Mary was born.
3) Of course Jesus is human and divine. Why did you ask?
@BlackBeard: This man should not be your favorite protestant theologian.
1) He embraces once saved always saved. (CRI: “Can Christians lose their salvation?”) Catholics even acknowledge you can lose your salvation. This teaching, possibly more than any, should not be tolerated.
2) He believes you can’t be a prophet anymore. (CRI: “Are there apostles and prophets today?”) Look at your very own ‘St.’ Malachy. He predicted, to a T, the last 100+ popes. (The prophecy also states B16 is the second to last pope. But, there is controversy as to whether B16 of Peter the Roman with no papal name is the final pope, because some say Peter the Roman was an addition.)
Also, he denies the rapture and is preterist, so of course he denies Stone. – take care, BlackBeard
Michael,
It depends. Great Expectations is a story that takes place in our world. Was there really a “Pip” that got attacked while in a graveyard? No, but that doesn’t mean what happened didn’t act as a set-up to the story.
It’s the same thing here. Satan enters our Lords presence in this story to begin test, the challenge.
It should be pretty obvious. I mean, would God simply chit-chat with Satan? He who cannot tolerate sin?
Jesus had a chit chat with satan huh?
Benjamin Baxter, I really enjoy reading your comments. Do you have a blog?
Michael, I am not a protestant so I do not always come to the same conclusions as Hank Hanegraaff. With that said, I do think he is as sharp as an apologist as I have heard from the reformed tradition.
Catholics do not believe in the rapture/premillennialism as most protestants believe. This interpretation of the book of revelation is probably no older than 150 years. It is a very recent approach to the book of revelation.
Anyway therein lies the problem with reformed christianity. Everyone has their own interpretation of the bible. Stone disagrees with Hanegraaff. Michael disagrees with someone else. Yet they all claim that he is loyal to biblical teaching, that he is a bible only Christian. This is what drove me away from protestantism. Really the only thing they had in common was their hatred of Catholics. Their hatred for the Church. I was so frustrated that I bought books on the early church fathers. Read them, and I discovered that they way they worshiped was not the protestant way but rather the Catholic way. I still did not want to return so I looked into orthodoxy. I mean how could I return the catholicism? I refused, to make a long story short, it was the discovery of who was given the keys to the kingdom that humbled me..I went to confession, partook of the holy Eucharist and wept. I have not looked back since.
@ Michael- My apologies. It was either an auto-correct or typo/fatigue on my part. What I meant to do was quote “earthly mother.”
I ask because if she is only his earthly mother as you say, then that would only be the human side of Jesus. If Jesus is both divine and human, then that would make Mary also his divine (heavenly) and earthly (human) mother. Jesus didn’t divide himself in the womb. Mary literally gave birth to God incarnate. So that would make her the Mother of God. This term is Theotokos.
Which is why I asked. Because if you believe that Jesus is God, then Mary is not merely his earthly mother as you’ve said. It wouldn’t make sense unless you think his natures were somehow divided.
True Deltaflute.
We are also made up of both body and soul, if your mother dies, does she stop being your mother because her body is no more??Then her soul is not your mother – nonsensical. Then you should just forget about her forever…I bet you wouldn’t.
@Taylor: With that logic, God wouldn’t chit-chat with us before we repented, and that would mean there wouldn’t be any conviction of sin.
@BlackBeard: No, the teaching of the rapture began with the bible, not 150 years ago. (Zephaniah 2:1-3, Matthew 24:37-44, 1Thessalonians 4:16-18, 2Thessalonians 2:1-8, Revelation 3:10) Also, I’m sorry you believed the lies, and turned away from true belief. (Exodus 20:4-5, Deuteronomy 18:11, Isiah 46:6-7, 1Timothy 4:1-4, Galatians 1:8, Colossians 2:18,23, Revelation 17&18) Also, of course there will be disagreements. (1Corinthians 11:19, Acts 20:29 – apostolic succession, huh?) BlackBeard, may you look back and see the lies.
Michael,
How many Christians within the first 1800 years of Christianity believed in the Rapture? I don’t just mean Church Fathers, I don’t even mean just Catholics. Use Catholics, Orthodox, Protestant, Gnostics, whoever you want. Can you find more than two Christians who unambiguously believed in the Rapture during that period of time (that is, the first 90% of Christian history)?
@Deltaflute: That’s just it. He used to only have one nature: divine. That’s why I said ‘earthly mother’. To not take away from his pre-existence. That’s why Scripture says he became the Son of God. Otherwise, why would he, in OT times, be revealed as an Angel of the Lord (Genesis 16:7,13) and not the Son; or a mediated/seen form of God (Genesis 16:7,13, Exodus 3:2-6 compared to the Father – Exodus 33:20) and not the Son? Mary is the mother of Yeshua (Jesus). That’s it.
@Joe: Instead of asking me about some ‘church father’ or Catholic-preserved writing for proof, explain why the Scriptures I cited aren’t for rapture teaching. (Oh, and all early true Christians believed in the rapture. Just look at the before cited Scriptures.)
Michael,
We don’t disagree that the saved who die are taken up into Heaven, nor do we deny that the saved are exalted on the Last Day. What we do deny is the idea that sometime before the Last Judgment, the saved will be secretly whisked away. That idea is a total perversion of a handful of Scriptural verses.
As a general matter, all of the passages you cite to refer to the Dies Irae (“Day of Wrath”), better known as Judgment Day. Catholics have written (and sung) a lot about this Day. This is the day that Christ will come in glory and judge the world — it’s the prophesied Second Coming, and the General Judgment. There are numerous Scriptural references to it: Catholic Encyclopedia lists 1 Cor. 15:23, 2 Thes. 2:1-9, 2 Thes. 2:8; 1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 4:1; Titus 2:13, 2 Thess. 2:7 1 Pet. 4:13, 2 Tim. 4:8, 1 Thess. 5:2, Phil 1:6 Luke 17:30, and John 6:39-40, but there are more.
With that said, let’s address the specific passages you point to. Matthew 24:37-44 is explicitly about when the Son of Man returns (Mt. 24:37, Mt. 24:42), as is 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18 (1 Thes. 4:16), as is 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8 (2 Thes. 2:8). So these actually disprove the idea that Christ will rapture the elect before His Second Coming.
Zephaniah 2:1-3 is expressly about the Day of Wrath, or at least a Day of Wrath (Zeph. 2:2), and we’re to hope to be shielded from God’s wrath on that day. Nothing in there about being secretly raptured. Revelation 3:10 talks about specific Christians being preserved from the Great Tribulation. Revelation 7:14 is clear that not all Christians will be preserved from it, as are Matthew 24:29–31 and its parallel passages Mark 13:24-27 and Luke 21:25-27. I’d also point to Matthew 24:22 to show that the way Christ will preserve us from the Tribulation is by shortening it, not secretly whisking us away while the not-yet saved are left in some sort of half hellish state.
Absolutely none of these passages point to a pre-Judgment Rapture. I asked you for examples of more than two Christians who unambiguously believed in the Rapture prior to 1800,* and so far you haven’t done it. Even if you disagree, and think that the texts are ambiguous enough to support a Rapture interpretation, I think you’d have to at the very least concede (for the sake of honesty) that none of these are unambiguous. All of them are easily and plausibly explained as about the Second Coming, without any recourse to a secret Rapture.
Honestly, I’d rather not get bogged down into the usual routine, where you read Scriptures one way, and just assert that everybody else must be wrong since they disagree with you. If your interpretation of Scripture is correct, you should be able to early Christians who believed this way. If you can’t do that, why not?
I.X.,
Joe
*I really should have said 1700, rather than 1800, because you might be able to point to some of the Puritans’ writings. Either way, whether this doctrine was added on to Christianity in the 18th or the 19th century, it’s absolutely an addition, and we can even name names as to who added it (John Darby in the 19th century, and possibly Cotton and Increase Mather in the 18th).
@Joe:
1) I can at least say we agree that the pre-trib Scriptures I cited have something to do with the Second Coming. But anyways, you’re ignoring the contexts, especially 1Thess. And to call it a perversion: psss. Wow!
2) I’m not sure about the ‘shortened tribulation’ you’re speaking of. It is seven years.
3) “If you can’t do that, why not?”
a) For the most part, as said, it’s because of who preserved them: RCC.
b) I’ve mentioned in past comments how the protestant canon was obviously going around a long while back (Jerome’s opinion). I’ve mentioned in past comments how there obviously wasn’t an agreement on icons (the murderous iconoclast).
That said, there were true Christians in the ‘church father’ days. To disagree would be obtuse.
@Joe: When I said, “…who preserved them: RCC”, I was talking of being skeptical of citing ‘church father’ writings because almost all were preserved by the RCC, which doesn’t exactly make it trustworthy.
Michael,
We agree that there were true Christians in the days of the Church Fathers. The question is what they looked like. Were these true Christians Catholics or proto-Protestants?
So let’s address the excuses you provide for your inability to point to what we might call “early Church Protestants” in turn:
a) This is a weak excuse. Most of what we know of Gnosticism, and much of what we know of Greek paganism, comes from either (i) the Church retaining ancient documents, or (ii) early Catholic writers arguing against these beliefs.
For example, Against Heresies is an absolute encyclopedia of what Gnostics believed, since Irenaeus believed it was important to understand a heresy before refuting it.
So to orchestrate some sort of historical coverup, where all evidence of these early Protestants is wiped away, the Church would have to destroy, not only all of the Protestants’ writings, but all of the Catholic writings refuting them. And would have to do this globally. And would have to do this absolutely, so that no Dead Sea Scrolls-type situation popped up, where documents were secretly preserved.
Now consider that the Church didn’t cover up the existence of the pagans, or the Gnostics, or any of the scores of other heresies She bested. In fact, Her triumph over them was one of the jewels in Her crown, since it showed that Truth triumphed over error, and that Christ crushes the head of Satan. Why treat Protestants any differently?
So the theory that the Church somehow suppressed the existence of early Church Protestants is sheer mythology. All the evidence points in the other direction.
b) Your (b) actually further disproves your (a). The fact that the Catholic Church preserved Jerome’s writings, even when he argued for what we would today call a Protestant canon, shows that She wasn’t engaged this sort of historical conspiracy. And that doesn’t even address arguments made by Origen or Tertullian, who She never canonized, owing to some dangerous and erroneous views that they advanced.
Instead, folks like the “murderous iconoclast” were remembered by the Church (as were Caesar, and Pilate, and Nero, and Julian the Apostate, etc.). And where heresies like iconoclasm arose, the Church didn’t cover them up. She assembled a Council addressing these heresies head-on (the 7th Ecumenical Council). So it was when Protestantism did arrive (the Council of Trent). An Ecumenical Council is the opposite extreme of a cover-up.
Having said that, Jerome was advancing a view that was a novelty based on his own experience in Israel (I’ve addressed this elsewhere, and don’t want to go over all of the evidence again here). And iconoclasm arose in the eighth century, although strains of it are recurrent throughout various periods in Church history.
But none of those folks taught a secret Rapture, either, which gets us back to the real heart of the matter. How can you justify the lack of evidence that the early Christians believed what you believed here?
I.X.,
Joe
As you can see Michael, all the passages cited were interpreted another way for centuries. Not even Luther and Calvin held to pre-mill beliefs. Darby is the first who came up with this line of thinking.
There is an arrogance to what you have put forth. How come early Christians did not write about your belief in the rapture. Do you think, that people in the past were stupid? they read the same new testament. Do you think, they did not understand it? did the Holy Spirit not illuminate them like He does you? How come you are so chosen but St. Augustine isn’t? How come the rapture was revealed to you but not St. Ignatius?
In essence you pre-mill believers propose two second comings of Christ.One in secret (rapture) and another in plain view of the entire world.
You offer no proof that early christians believed the way you do. Your trump card is to say that somehow the church erased history….
Really????
Michael buy yourself books on the writing of early christians. They were men of great faith. Brilliant men and women. Read what they believed.
Oh yea and Jerome believed in the real presence of Christ. How come you don’t since you accept his “canon”
Michael,
“With that logic, God wouldn’t chit-chat with us before we repented, and that would mean there wouldn’t be any conviction of sin.”
This is not true for humanity, particularly not for baptized people (children of God). Satan is different; angels are beyond salvation, they aren’t getting a second chance.
Michael.
Your claims are for the most part unfalsifiable, and therefore becomes useless in intellectual discussion. Whatever evidence is provided to debunk your arguments is twisted to prove your own argument because the RCC somehow “controls” the evidence.
The same type of arguments have been used elsewhere. For example, some young-earth creationists, after having evidence of an ancient fossil record presented to them, insist that God had to have put it there to test our faith. This immediately removes any intellectual basis for the discussion.
If no evidence can change your mind or at least suggest to you that you might be wrong, then I don’t see the point of you posting here. Joe has been debunking myth after myth, while you have not once shown any real evidence for your own position.
@ Michael~ So is it my correct understanding that you don’t believe in the Trinity? Because you seem to be arguing against it.
Mary didn’t become the Mother of God until the conception of Jesus. True. But Jesus was fully human and fully God at his own conception as well.
To separate the two natures of Jesus is to believe in the concept of Cristotokos (or Christ Bearer). To quote Wikipedia’s explanation “this as dividing Jesus into two distinct persons, the human who was Son of Mary, and the divine who was not. To them [early Church fathers] this was unacceptable since by destroying the perfect union of the divine and human natures in Christ, it sabotaged the fullness of the Incarnation and by extension, the salvation of humanity.”
This is why early Church believers said that Mary is also the Mother of God because Jesus is both God and human not separate. To separate Jesus’s two natures is to not fully believe in the Trinity: that is that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one in three persons. To quote Wikipedia again: “The Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three divine persons the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The three persons are distinct yet coexist in unity, and are co-equal, and co-eternal, and consubstantial.”
In other words, Jesus is eternal like the Father is eternal. He has always been (has no beginning) regardless of when his human conception took place. He is both divine and human equally.
Therefore one can conclude that because Mary is the mother of Jesus who is also God that she is the Mother of God who is and has always been. That is if you believe in the Trinity.
If you separate the eternal aspect of the Father’s and Son’s relationship than you believe in something else. Of course my explanation of the Trinity is the best human understanding of it. God’s ways are mysterious.
Jhn 6:39 And this is the Father’s willwhich hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but shouldraise itupagainat the last day.
Jhn 6:40 And this is the willof him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Fatherwhich hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 11:24 Martha saith untohim,I knowthathe shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.
Jhn 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shalljudge him in the last day.
POP QUIZ: When is the resurrection?
ANSWER: On the LAST DAY.
Why is this significant?
Th 4:16 Forthe Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout,withthe voice ofthe archangel, andwiththe trump of God: and the dead inChristshallrisefirst: 1Th 4:17 Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caughtuptogetherwiththeminthe clouds,tomeet the Lord inthe air:andso shallwe everbe withthe Lord.
So if the resurrection happens before the living Christians are caught up in the air, and the resurrection happens on the last day, then being caught up in the air happens on the last day.
The last day of the world as we know it is after the tribulation.
Ergo, the pretrib rapture is a myth.
@Deltaflute: How you got that I denied the Trinity and pre-existence of Christ from my statement to you is beyond me.
@BlackBeard: Like I said to Joe, the early church did acknowledge the rapture. Just look at Paul’s writings (the ones I cited to you earlier.) Also, Jerome was a grave worshiper. He was not St. Jerome. So I don’t care what he believed. I just thought it hilarious that you guys argue the ‘protestant’ canon, yet he who translated believed what he believed. Also, I never said you guys erased history.
@Joe&George: Look, I just find it interesting:
1) Over-exaggerations (lies) about the Montanists. (latter-rain.com)
2) Joe and almost all Catholics claim the ‘protestant’ canon didn’t exist, yet it just happens to be that the one who translated the Latin bible (Jerome) thought the ‘protestant’ canon was it.
3) There were councils concerning icons that were against icons that Catholics just happen to not recognize; and, to my knowledge, there isn’t really any writings of those that were against icons even though there were councils that specifically addressed such. (Although, I must admit, the iconoclasm was very eastern, so Islam might have had a little something to do with it.)
4) Then there were those who followed Waldo, or whatever his name was, and various others at different times throughout history.
But, hey, there’s no evidence for ‘protestantism’ starting until the 1500s!!! Wow, Paul was so right when he said your consciences were seared as with a hot iron! But glory to God, there’s still hope for you! Somehow, in the Lord’s awesomeness, He can make it as if your conscience never was seared as with a hot iron. Glory to God!
@michael re: Jerome and the Canon, http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2011/09/did-st-jerome-reject-deuterocanoical.html
@Joe, Job is historical per Ezekial 14:19-20, IMHO.
@Daniel: Yes, the Lord will raise us up on the last day. But to the Lord a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day (2Peter 3:8). In light of Revelation 21:1 happening directly before the perfect comes (1Corinthians 13:10, Revelation 21:2), 2Peter 3:10-13 happens at the end of the thousand-year reign. So a thousand years ARE like a day to the Lord. That said, the Scriptures you cited talk of the Lord not letting the pits of hell close on believers when ALL the condemned are where they belong after the thousand-year reign. But wait, that’s not all. The Scriptures you cited have dual meanings since the Rapture takes place on the last day of the church age/period of mercy. So we will be raised on the last day of the period of mercy/church age AND the day of judgement. But I guess I shouldn’t be so upset you all don’t see this. Peter did prophesy what you mockers would say: “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised?”
Michael: Prove that the early church acknowledged the pre-mill rapture. We can point to the same scriptures but arrive at different conclusions. The fact is that you cannot. It did not exist. It is an invention of your tradition.
I only mentioned Jerome because you held him up as a standard. He did not speak for the Church hence his version of the translation did not become canon. Also, his canon was different than the modern protestant canon so this is not a good support for your argument. Moreover, he later accepted the canon as adopted by the Church.
He later in his writings quoted the deuterocanonicals. see his letters http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2710.htm
against rufinus.
I am shocked that you would put him down. He was a pious man whose pursuit of God led him to achievements that still resonate to this day. I would hope to accomplish 1/100 as much in my life time.
you are holding up the waldenesians as an example of reform theology. This is a bad example. Study who they were. Justification by faith alone which is the hallmark of protestantism is nowhere to be seen. Study them from legitimate sources. Your local library probably has something on them. Celibacy, vow of poverty, liked the practice of christian perfection (works)…you probably do not want to bring them up as support for your argument.
As far your quote of 1 timothy 4 v 1-2
But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron,
St Paul is referring to the latter times. Our Church has held the same beliefs since about 33AD so he could not be referring to body of Christ. We have faithfully held to the teachings of the apostles. The Church only canonized the New Testament only after it was assured that it also was inline with what the apostles taught. We have not fallen away, we have stayed true.
The people here have studied the Faith. They know what the Fathers taught us. We know the scriptures. I think I can speak for all to say the it is not our conscience that is burning. But rather the love we have for Jesus and his Holy Church that has set us on fire.