Run AWAY from Calvinism!

[stunnedbygrace]

Of course, it makes sense! Have you read my signature?

And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. (1 Corinthians 8:2)

Did I ever tell you about the time I saw an angel?

No, you never told me. Will you please? I think I saw one too but it’s so silly I’ve never told anyone.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

What about the elect who have not yet been converted?

The elect are the elect from the foundation of the world! They are not yet saved in time, but God chose them long long ago, so they will be saved.

Ephesians 1:4-6
King James Version

4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

But this is what they make it out to be. It is the effect.

Maybe some, but not in the circles I read and fellowship with.

Again, I don't think so. I'd like to know what you mean by "replacement churches." I have an idea, but I'm not going to put words in your mouth.

simply? the church is now "spiritual Israel".

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Agree, generally speaking.

I know not of any symbols that need to be hunted down outside of SCripture.

Common sense Golden Rule of Interpretation “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.”

I agree. You think covenantal theologians disagree with this? Because they do not.[/QUOTE]

Then why do they ignore the other covenants besides teh Mosaic and New? why do they reject that god dealt with people different ways at different times (dispensations)

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Well, again, the whole "allegorical" characterization is wrong. Tell me what you think covenantal theology is, Ronald.

Well I guess wiki has a good general definition:

Covenant theology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Covenant theology (also known as covenantalism, federal theology, or federalism) is a conceptual overview and interpretive framework for understanding the overall structure of the Bible. It uses the theological concept of a covenant as an organizing principle for Christian theology. The standard form of covenant theology views the history of God's dealings with mankind, from Creation to Fall to Redemption to Consummation, under the framework of three overarching theological covenants: those of redemption, of works, and of grace.

Covenentalists call these three covenants "theological" because, though not explicitly presented as such in the Bible, they are thought of as theologically implicit, describing and summarizing a wealth of scriptural data. Historical Reformed systems of thought treat classical covenant theology not merely as a point of doctrine or as a central dogma, but as the structure by which the biblical text organizes itself.[1] The most well-known form of Covenant Theology is associated with Presbyterians and comes from the Westminster Confession of Faith. Another form is sometimes called "Baptist Covenant Theology" or "1689 Federalism", to distinguish it from the standard covenant theology of Presbyterian "Westminster Federalism". It is associated with Reformed Baptists and comes from the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689.[2] Methodist hermeneutics traditionally use a variation of this, known as Wesleyan covenant theology, which is consistent with Arminian soteriology.[3]

As a framework for Biblical interpretation, covenant theology stands in contrast to dispensationalism in regard to the relationship between the Old Covenant (with national Israel) and the New Covenant (with the house of Israel [Jeremiah 31:31] in Christ's blood). That such a framework exists appears at least feasible, since from New Testament times the Bible of Israel has been known as the Old Testament (i.e., Covenant; see 2 Corinthians 3:14 [NRSV], "they [Jews] hear the reading of the old covenant"), in contrast to the Christian addition which has become known as the New Testament (or Covenant). Detractors of covenant theology often refer to it as "supersessionism"[citation needed] or as "replacement theology"[citation needed], due to the perception that it teaches that God has abandoned the promises made to the Jews and has replaced the Jews with Christians as His chosen people on the Earth. Covenant theologians deny that God has abandoned His promises to Israel, but see the fulfillment of the promises to Israel in the person and the work of the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, who established the church in organic continuity with Israel, not as a separate replacement entity. Many covenant theologians have also seen a distinct future promise of gracious restoration for unregenerate Israel.[4][5][6][7][8]

Like dispensationalism, I am sure there are variances and nuances among its followers. Bu8t this seems to cover the general belief pattern.

I would disagree that covenantalism follows the golden rule, for if it did it would recognize the nation of Israel still has a place in future escatology.

 

[reformed1689]

This is a smokescreen for Calvinists. They say they don't deny free will but thier theology say that the will is never free.

So you want to advocate for an absolute free will meaning a will that has no external influences and can equally choose between two choices. I have news for you. That's not in existence.

 

[PinSeeker]

Maybe some, but not in the circles I read and fellowship with.

They don't even realize it.

...the church is now "spiritual Israel".

God's Israel was always spiritual. So the New Testament church does not replace anything, but joins with. I'll come back to this, but say for now that Christ's Church is no longer just ethnic Jews in Christ, but all those in Christ, which now includes Jew and Gentile, which... I think you agree with.

I know not of any symbols that need to be hunted down outside of Scripture.

Okay. I'm not sure what to make of this comment, but okay... Revelation is filled with symbolism. But that does not mean it's "allegorical"... or that literal things are not symbolized. But again, regarding those symbolic things, there are many, many literal iterations of those symbols.

Ronald Nolette: Common sense Golden Rule of Interpretation “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.”
Pinseeker: I agree. You think covenantal theologians disagree with this? Because they do not.

Then why do they ignore the other covenants besides the Mosaic and New?

They do not. Why do you think they do? Just because you've been told that? Hold that thought and read on, because I will speak to this misperception...

why do they reject that god dealt with people different ways at different times (dispensations)

Because God is unchanging, the same yesterday, today, and forever. I might ask you why anyone would think God dealt with people different ways at different times, because He did not and does not. Now, I'm being a little facetious, but as we read through God's Word, we shouldn't get the idea that God said, at various times, "Well that didn't work, so I'll make this covenant." The various covenants (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and even the New) are not a series of "Plan Bs." Again... a little facetious, but true. Covenant Theology says that there is one Covenant, and that one everlasting Covenant is revealed more and more in full, finally blossoming into its full, perfect, complete form in Christ Jesus. Try this:

The writer of Hebrews opens his letter by saying the following:

"Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world." (Hebrews 1:1-2)

You might notice ~ at least you should ~ that God spoke differently to His people in the Old Testament ("by the prophets") than He does now, in New Testament times ("by His Son"). But it does not say that He said "different things." In fact it implies very strongly that what He is saying is exactly the same, but now infinitely better. The method employed was different ~ because Jesus hadn't yet come ~ but the content was really no different. But with regard specifically to "infinitely better," this is exactly what the writer of Hebrews goes on to say in Hebrews 7-9:

"...(for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God." (7:19) ... "This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant." (7:22) ... "But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises." (8:6) ... "Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these." (9:23)

You see? The New Covenant, first prophesied by Jeremiah in chapter 31 of his prophecy, was not a replacement, per se, of any of the previous lesser covenants, but the final full, complete, perfect manifestation of the one everlasting Covenant, the incorporation of them all in Jesus, and and it will be made complete ~ fulfilled, consummated ~ when Jesus returns. This is Covenant theology. The Bible is very covenantal; it is not dispensational. Which leads to your next question and my answer...

Well I guess wiki has a good general definition...

Yes, but it has a problem (like a lot of Wiki stuff)... From your quote, it speaks to the crux of the issue when it says the following:

"...covenant theology stands in contrast to dispensationalism in regard to the relationship between the Old Covenant (with national Israel) and the New Covenant (with the house of Israel [Jeremiah 31:31] in Christ's blood)... Detractors of covenant theology often refer to it as "supersessionism"[citation needed] or as "replacement theology"[citation needed], due to the perception that it teaches that God has abandoned the promises made to the Jews and has replaced the Jews with Christians as His chosen people on the Earth."

The real issue is what/who God's Israel is. And we can see the correct answer in what Paul says in Romans 2... and really throughout all of his letters, that now there is no Jew or Gentile, but that all are one in Christ Jesus. The perception that God has abandoned the promises made to the Jews and has replaced the Jews with Christians as His chosen people is a terrible misperception. What has happened is that we Gentiles are now included in those promises. There is no "replacement," or "supersession."

I would disagree that covenantalism follows the golden rule, for if it did it would recognize the nation of Israel still has a place in future escatology.

This is the issue, really. Covenant theology absolutely does follow the golden rule, but does not confuse physical Israel (the nation of Israel) with God's true Israel. We are all one in Christ Jesus. So, we today should identify intensely with the Israelites of old. They are us, and we are them; we are one people. So their history is our history. And the promises given to them are given to us also. As Peter puts it:

We are all "like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ... a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for His own possession, that (we) may proclaim the excellencies of Him who called (us) out of darkness into His marvelous light." (2 Peter 2:5,9)

Regarding God's Israel and who is of it, Paul says:

"For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God." (Romans 2:28-29)

And he hits on it again later in Romans in one of the passages we have been discussing at length here in this thread:

"But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but 'Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.' 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." (Romans 9:6-8)

As Paul says in Galatians:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise." (Galatians 3:28-29)

Let me know your thoughts.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Renniks]

The astounding thing is that you deny this, and then affirm it, and then deny it again

Where did I ever affirm it?

 

[Renniks]

So you want to advocate for an absolute free will meaning a will that has no external influences and can equally choose between two choices. I have news for you. That's not in existence.

No, that's a straw man.
Influences doesn't equal causes.
If you are going to be deterministic, own it and quit dancing around it.
Calvinism is deterministic when you really understand it. And so it's very similar to fate, which comes from paganism.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

The real issue is what/who God's Israel is. And we can see the correct answer in what Paul says in Romans 2... and really throughout all of his letters, that now there is no Jew or Gentile, but that all are one in Christ Jesus. The perception that God has abandoned the promises made to the Jews and has replaced the Jews with Christians as His chosen people is a terrible misperception. What has happened is that we Gentiles are now included in those promises. There is no "replacement," or "supersession."

`
Do you believe that when Jesus returns He will establish a physical 1,000 year kingdom on earth with regenrated Israel as teh governing earthly authority?

Do you believe that Israel and the church have differing roles in the millennial kingdom?

Do you believe teh New covenant as spelled out in Jeremiah 31 is in effect today either partially or fully?

 

[PinSeeker]

Do you believe that when Jesus returns He will establish a physical 1,000 year kingdom on earth with regenerated Israel as the governing earthly authority?

No. Christ's millennial kingdom is in full force right now ~ since Pentecost and lasting until His return. And as individuals who are in Christ die the first death, they enter into this rule with Christ over the course of the millennium (Revelation 20:4-6), which is not literally 1000 years, but rather the fullness of God's time in bringing the elect Gentiles into Israel and then removing the partial hardening that has come upon Israel; in this way all Israel will be saved (Romans 11:25-26). And this is directly relevant to my quote of Hebrews 1 above, that "in these last days, He (God) has spoken to us by His Son" (Hebrews 1:1-2)

Do you believe that Israel and the church have differing roles in the millennial kingdom?

No. How could I, if (as I said above) Israel and the Church are the same group of people? And again, the Church has not "replaced" Israel (see above).

Do you believe the New covenant as spelled out in Jeremiah 31 is in effect today either partially or fully?

Absolutely. As Jeremiah writes, quoting the Lord, "...this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put My law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be My people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest... For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." This time is here now, and will be until it is complete. And then Jesus will return. Which takes us right back to what I said about the millennium in the first part of this post.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

No. Christ's millennial kingdom is in full force right now ~ since Pentecost and lasting until His return. And as individuals who are in Christ die the first death, they enter into this rule with Christ over the course of the millennium (Revelation 20:4-6), which is not literally 1000 years, but rather the fullness of God's time in bringing the elect Gentiles into Israel and then removing the partial hardening that has come upon Israel; in this way all Israel will be saved (Romans 11:25-26). And this is directly relevant to my quote of Hebrews 1 above, that "in these last days, He (God) has spoken to us by His Son" (Hebrews 1:1-2)

this is where your allegory comes in. You take 1,000 years and say it doesn't mean one thousand years.

So you believe Satan and His host has been abyssed. You also believe Jesus has returned!
also you believe the first resurrection has taken place.

You also believe the antichrist has come and gone
You also believe the mark has come and gone
You alkso believe that those who refused the mark are reigning with Christ now on earth!

Those are the conclusions if you accept the Revelation is written in a logical and sequential way in chapters 19 and 20. If you don't what evidence do you rpesent to say these chapters bounce around chronologically.

 

[marks]

own it and quit dancing around it.

How many times have I wished someone would just own up to their view, and stop trying to skirt the issues that may exist with it?

Like this whole "double predistination" thing, that if God is going to select a certain group out of the whole to be saved, then He de facto sure did select the "unselected group" for condemnation! God chose the destiny for all! IF that's your view, that is.

It's not mine, to be clear!

To me, that's akin to . . . you stand in front of a house that is burning, with 6 children laying unconscious just inside the front door. The fire is in the back, so you have time, but eventually the whole thing is going to burn down. So you go inside, and you pick up a child, and carry them to safety. You return, pick up another child, and carry that one to safety. Then, you sit down, and watch the house burn to the ground, the other 4 children inside.

You've chosen 2 to save, and chosen to not save the other 4, instead choosing to let them burn. Oh . . . and you lit the fire. That's Calvinism.

Much love!

 

[BarneyFife]

How many times have I wished someone would just own up to their view, and stop trying to skirt the issues that may exist with it?

Like this whole "double predistination" thing, that if God is going to select a certain group out of the whole to be saved, then He de facto sure did select the "unselected group" for condemnation! God chose the destiny for all! IF that's your view, that is.

It's not mine, to be clear!

To me, that's akin to . . . you stand in front of a house that is burning, with 6 children laying unconscious just inside the front door. The fire is in the back, so you have time, but eventually the whole thing is going to burn down. So you go inside, and you pick up a child, and carry them to safety. You return, pick up another child, and carry that one to safety. Then, you sit down, and watch the house burn to the ground, the other 4 children inside.

You've chosen 2 to save, and chosen to not save the other 4, instead choosing to let them burn. Oh . . . and you lit the fire. That's Calvinism.

Much love!

You got it, Baby!

 

[PinSeeker]

this is where your allegory comes in.

There is no allegory. It is symbolic of a time period of completeness. That's symbolism, not allegory. The number 1000 is used many times in the bible to denote completeness. The cattle on a thousand hills belong to the Lord. Well there are far more than 1000 hills in this world, so are the cattle on the hills that number 1001 and on not the Lords? Well, of course they are. The cattle on all hills everywhere are the Lords.

You take 1,000 years and say it doesn't mean one thousand years.

No, I understand how "thousand" is used there in Revelation 20. Revelation is apocalyptic in genre, and should not be read in the same way as a Dick and Jane first grade primer. That's not to say Revelation is difficult to understand, but should be read for what it is.

So you believe Satan and His host has been abyssed.

Ah. Well he has been. Satan is no longer, since Jesus was born 2000-plus years ago, able to deceive the nations. As Jesus Himself says in Matthew 12:29, "how can someone enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house." He's speaking of Himself ("someone") and Satan ("the strong man").

You also believe Jesus has returned!

Nope. Not yet.

Also you believe the first resurrection has taken place.

Well, it is taking place, over the course of the millennium, which is going on right now. The first resurrection happens to believers individually as the come to Christ, as they are born again of the Spirit, as they are, as Paul puts it in Ephesians 2, made alive together with Christ, saved, and raised up with Him and seated with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus. This is the first resurrection.

You also believe the antichrist has come and gone

No, I believe, as John says, that many antichrists have come, which was true in the first century and is true now. This is how we know that it is the last hour.

You also believe the mark has come and gone

Ah, the mark. Well, come, but not gone... not yet...

You also believe that those who refused the mark are reigning with Christ now on earth!

LOL! No...

Okay, if you're going to tell me what I do and don't believe, especially wrongly, I'm going to bow out gracefully. You decide.

Those are the conclusions if you accept the Revelation is written in a logical and sequential way in chapters 19 and 20.

I don't accept that at all. I believe that the Revelation 19 is the end of one cycle, and Revelation 20 is the start of another. These cycles are concurrent.

If you don't what evidence do you present to say these chapters bounce around chronologically.

Well, they don't bounce around. But Revelation is a series of concurrent cycles. Here's an excellent link:

The Returning King: A Guide to the Book of Revelation

Grace and peace to you.

 

[ChristisGod]

How many times have I wished someone would just own up to their view, and stop trying to skirt the issues that may exist with it?

Like this whole "double predistination" thing, that if God is going to select a certain group out of the whole to be saved, then He de facto sure did select the "unselected group" for condemnation! God chose the destiny for all! IF that's your view, that is.

It's not mine, to be clear!

To me, that's akin to . . . you stand in front of a house that is burning, with 6 children laying unconscious just inside the front door. The fire is in the back, so you have time, but eventually the whole thing is going to burn down. So you go inside, and you pick up a child, and carry them to safety. You return, pick up another child, and carry that one to safety. Then, you sit down, and watch the house burn to the ground, the other 4 children inside.

You've chosen 2 to save, and chosen to not save the other 4, instead choosing to let them burn. Oh . . . and you lit the fire. That's Calvinism.

Much love!

That’s true I should know since I’ve defended it for over 4 decades now. Many Calvinists will deny double predestination even when I quote Calvin , Augustine, Spurgeon, Gill and many others who say the non elect were created for destruction/ hell/ eternal torment just as the elect were created for heaven and salvation . At least those men owned up to that horrific doctrine .

 

[Lifelong_sinner]

How many times have I wished someone would just own up to their view, and stop trying to skirt the issues that may exist with it?

Like this whole "double predistination" thing, that if God is going to select a certain group out of the whole to be saved, then He de facto sure did select the "unselected group" for condemnation! God chose the destiny for all! IF that's your view, that is.

It's not mine, to be clear!

To me, that's akin to . . . you stand in front of a house that is burning, with 6 children laying unconscious just inside the front door. The fire is in the back, so you have time, but eventually the whole thing is going to burn down. So you go inside, and you pick up a child, and carry them to safety. You return, pick up another child, and carry that one to safety. Then, you sit down, and watch the house burn to the ground, the other 4 children inside.

You've chosen 2 to save, and chosen to not save the other 4, instead choosing to let them burn. Oh . . . and you lit the fire. That's Calvinism.

Much love!

i cant speak for others, but as for me, i’d like to think i own my beliefs. I did like your example, and i agree that God has only selected few comparatively for salvation. My question to you then, is why does that bother you? I think this leads us back to the question of how do we view God? Our view of God is what determines our view of theology in general.

 

[Renniks]

i cant speak for others, but as for me, i’d like to think i own my beliefs. I did like your example, and i agree that God has only selected few comparatively for salvation. My question to you then, is why does that bother you? I think this leads us back to the question of how do we view God? Our view of God is what determines our view of theology in general.

Well for one thing it means we can never know if we are saved. For another, it means God is creating people for destruction, and that's not a Christ centered understanding of God. Christ died for all.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

There is no allegory. It is symbolic of a time period of completeness. That's symbolism, not allegory. The number 1000 is used many times in the bible to denote completeness. The cattle on a thousand hills belong to the Lord. Well there are far more than 1000 hills in this world, so are the cattle on the hills that number 1001 and on not the Lords? Well, of course they are. The cattle on all hills everywhere are the Lords.

Bogus argument. Just because 1000 is used one other time and is used euphemistically there does not mean it is an allegorical number in Revelation. Each instance stands and falls on its own. and there is no warrant for thinking the 6 times in Rev 1000 years is used, it is non-literal. BTW in biblical numerology 7 is the # for completion!

No, I understand how "thousand" is used there in Revelation 20. Revelation is apocalyptic in genre, and should not be read in the same way as a Dick and Jane first grade primer. That's not to say Revelation is difficult to understand, but should be read for what it is.

there are also many literal passages in REv., unless you think the lake of fire is non literal as well and Gods Judgment is non-literal as well and the 7 letters etc.etc. You have to show cause why this should not be taken literally. You said you believe in the golden rule of interpretation and toss out the rule in the 1000 years.

Nope. Not yet.

Well you have a problem then. for whether literal or non literal, Jesus returns beffore those 1000 years commence. Unless you toss out the golden rule again and say rev. 20 takes place before rev. 19 return!

Ah, the mark. Well, come, but not gone... not yet...

So what is the mark if not a physical marking as SCripture says it is. When was it instituted. Why have we not seen in history an angel warning about teh mark!

I guess then you also believe the seals and trumpets have come as well.

No, I believe, as John says, that many antichrists have come, which was true in the first century and is true now. This is how we know that it is the last hour.

Yes this is true! but John also agrees that there is one particular Antichrist to come, who has multiple names!

Well, it is taking place, over the course of the millennium, which is going on right now. The first resurrection happens to believers individually as the come to Christ, as they are born again of the Spirit, as they are, as Paul puts it in Ephesians 2, made alive together with Christ, saved, and raised up with Him and seated with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus. This is the first resurrection.

But the mil-annum is non literal according to you but a symbolic number! where is the church reigning. God the Father reigns in heaven! Are teh graves of believers empty? for resurrection means the physical rising of teh dead!

LOL! No...

Okay, if you're going to tell me what I do and don't believe, especially wrongly, I'm going to bow out gracefully. You decide.

Well I am quoting Scripture.

Revelation 20
King James Version

20 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

Using the normal, usual way of understanding and the Golden rule you say you believe in, these events happens after chapter 19 when Jesus returns and defeats the antichrist and false prophet and casts them into the lake of fire! then Chapter 20, and Satan is abyssed. Paul and Peter said he was still roaming around.

These first resurrection people never worshipped the beast or his image (which is what?) so to you the beast is about 2k years and going ?

I don't accept that at all. I believe that the Revelation 19 is the end of one cycle, and Revelation 20 is the start of another. These cycles are concurrent.

And you rbiblical proof for this hypothesis is?

Well, they don't bounce around. But Revelation is a series of concurrent cycles. Here's an excellent link:

The Returning King: A Guide to the Book of Revelation

Grace and peace to you.

Well as I am in the process of packing to move in the near future, it will be hit or miss on trying to read this large site! But it is another attempt without divine or biblical evidence . Can you sum it up and give me the biblical evidence to say revelation is done in concurrent cycles that have lasted for nearly 2000 years now?

 

[marks]

i cant speak for others, but as for me, i’d like to think i own my beliefs. I did like your example, and i agree that God has only selected few comparatively for salvation. My question to you then, is why does that bother you? I think this leads us back to the question of how do we view God? Our view of God is what determines our view of theology in general.

I appreciate your honesty!

Why does this doctrine bother me? It denies God's love for His created people. It presents God as someone who created sensate and emotional beings for the purpose that they should suffer. The truth is that God Himself subjected Himself to such suffering so we could avoid that fate.

The God I know offers salvation to all, desiring all be saved, but allowing us choice. True love can only exist when there is choice. Calvinism doesn't allow for real love, freely given.

Much love!