A question for Cavinist

[DaveXR650]

“A man is not saved because he believes in Christ; he believes in Christ because he is saved”. [L. Boettner The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, Page 75]

Yeah. That's a tough one for me too. If he means that the Holy Spirit will work on a soul allowing them to see the truth of their sin and their need for Christ and then they will then inevitably come to faith - I can see that. But if he means you really are saved and then incidentally believe, or maybe go for a time not believing but yet you are saved - I would think that goes too far. On the other hand, think about what it means to believe something. You hear the gospel and the claims of Christianity and you "decide" in a sense. But isn't there a part of that in which it just becomes apparent to you that all this is true. Well, what is that? It seems you thought it all baloney and then the next instant it isn't? I think something happened to you beyond your control. It's like that old song from the country gospel era "He Touched Me". Those weren't Calvinists but the song talks about "something happened and now I know, He touched me and made me whole". Even C.S. Lewis said that he was wrestling with all the issues of belief and, if I'm not mistaken, he was in car going to or from the zoo I think, but at some point he realized he was now a Christian. I'm just saying that our difference is mainly in the level of control we believe we have over our wills.

Regarding the OP, the level of animosity between Calvinists and non-Calvinists , for those of us who just are laymen and Christians living in a community and attending a church is a real shame in my opinion. I sort of understand Owen and the position he was in and I appreciate Baxter trying to find some middle ground and I understand some of the problems of their day. Martyn Lloyd-Jones had a lot of respect for Wesley and Baxter and yet was a serious Calvinist (who I think did believe you were born again before believing). I don't mind debating it but don't think it should lead to anything more than friendly debate.

 

[Silverhair]

Yeah. That's a tough one for me too. If he means that the Holy Spirit will work on a soul allowing them to see the truth of their sin and their need for Christ and then they will then inevitably come to faith - I can see that. But if he means you really are saved and then incidentally believe, or maybe go for a time not believing but yet you are saved - I would think that goes too far. On the other hand, think about what it means to believe something. You hear the gospel and the claims of Christianity and you "decide" in a sense. But isn't there a part of that in which it just becomes apparent to you that all this is true. Well, what is that? It seems you thought it all baloney and then the next instant it isn't? I think something happened to you beyond your control. It's like that old song from the country gospel era "He Touched Me". Those weren't Calvinists but the song talks about "something happened and now I know, He touched me and made me whole". Even C.S. Lewis said that he was wrestling with all the issues of belief and, if I'm not mistaken, he was in car going to or from the zoo I think, but at some point he realized he was now a Christian. I'm just saying that our difference is mainly in the level of control we believe we have over our wills.

Regarding the OP, the level of animosity between Calvinists and non-Calvinists , for those of us who just are laymen and Christians living in a community and attending a church is a real shame in my opinion. I sort of understand Owen and the position he was in and I appreciate Baxter trying to find some middle ground and I understand some of the problems of their day. Martyn Lloyd-Jones had a lot of respect for Wesley and Baxter and yet was a serious Calvinist (who I think did believe you were born again before believing). I don't mind debating it but don't think it should lead to anything more than friendly debate.

I can agree with what you said re when one comes to realize that they believe. As you alluded to in your last post. There just came a time when I knew that I loved the woman that was going to at a later time, once I got the courage to ask her, become my wife.

"He Touched Me" by the Gathers great song same as "At the Cross". I can remember when our pastor was preaching on Jesus calling Lazarus out of the grave. It just clicked with me, that was what salvation was all about. One of my brothers never has trusted in Christ. Now according to Calvinist theology that would mean that he was not included in the Unconditional Election. But would that not give him the perfect excuse for rejecting Christ when he stands before God? I think it would. It is when I see those kind of situations that I see the error in Calvinism. Same as saved before you believe, it does not fit with scripture. How one can rationalize it in they minds I do not know, perhaps they have a different understanding of believe or saved.

I know you like to read various commentaries and books by many different people as you refer to them quite often. Me, I do read them from both sides of the issue but if what they say does not comport with the bible then I reject it. Do not want to sound arrogant but I was brought up that the bible is the first and final word on things regarding faith and God.

I think most of us come on these boards to have friendly discussions but some do take it to far. Do I think that we will change anyone's viewpoint, NO. Free will has been my baptist understanding for 60 yrs and I had not even heard of the C vs A fight until about 10 yrs ago. What I have learned through reading and dealing with those that hold to Calvinism has not made me change my view.

Thankfully I do not have to defend either C or A as I just trust the bible. I'm old school.

 

[DaveXR650]

. One of my brothers never has trusted in Christ. Now according to Calvinist theology that would mean that he was not included in the Unconditional Election. But would that not give him the perfect excuse for rejecting Christ when he stands before God? I think it would. It is when I see those kind of situations that I see the error in Calvinism.

I see your point. I do like to read the guys who defended and "did" Calvinism rather than YouTube debaters because they shed some light on questions like you have above. For instance, Owen, near the passage I quoted above, says that to refuse the invitations of the gospel is a more offensive sin to God than even Satan can do because Satan, as bad as he is, was never offered a pardon. Now, how do you reconcile that with Calvinism and free will as explained on the internet? Owen clearly put the blame for rejecting an "invitation" (his word) squarely on the person who doesn't respond.

When you read a lot of Owen and Edwards, you get the idea that "all good things come from God". That's what all the old and ancient writers believed. Augustine would search and find a piece of scripture that benefited him and he would give all the praise for finding that to God. We would tend to say, in our modern mindset, that it was Augustine who did the work in finding the scripture. There is something different about the way they looked at things and how they applied providence compared to modern man. Sometime, if you have a lot of time to kill, read Edwards on "Concerning Efficacious Grace". When you really look into this, you find that it somewhat makes sense that we do indeed play a part in this, yet the motivating force behind a move by us toward Christ will come from God, not us. When you try to put it in a form as concise as the "I" in TULIP it won't make as much sense. By the way, my brother is in the same situation and we're not getting any younger so I hear you in that.

 

[David Kent]

My views come from the whole word of God not from a man-made theology. I do not pick the verses I like and discard those that I do not like as some are want to do on this board.

You said in post # 67 "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repent and turn to Christ" but if as has been said "Calvinism is the gospel" why do you not preach the truth of Calvinism? Why would you preach something that you say they cannot possibly do. To believe or repent requires a free will and Calvinism says man has no free will.

So what I clash with is Calvinism and the errant views that it presents.

Because it is not a condition on believing. The gospel is "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved.

It was Jesus who said "No man can come to me unless the father draw him." Those who didn't believe the, like you, followed him no more.

"You didn't choose me, I chose you"

 

[David Kent]

I see your point. I do like to read the guys who defended and "did" Calvinism rather than YouTube debaters because they shed some light on questions like you have above. For instance, Owen, near the passage I quoted above, says that to refuse the invitations of the gospel is a more offensive sin to God than even Satan can do because Satan, as bad as he is, was never offered a pardon. Now, how do you reconcile that with Calvinism and free will as explained on the internet? Owen clearly put the blame for rejecting an "invitation" (his word) squarely on the person who doesn't respond.

When you read a lot of Owen and Edwards, you get the idea that "all good things come from God". That's what all the old and ancient writers believed. Augustine would search and find a piece of scripture that benefited him and he would give all the praise for finding that to God. We would tend to say, in our modern mindset, that it was Augustine who did the work in finding the scripture. There is something different about the way they looked at things and how they applied providence compared to modern man. Sometime, if you have a lot of time to kill, read Edwards on "Concerning Efficacious Grace". When you really look into this, you find that it somewhat makes sense that we do indeed play a part in this, yet the motivating force behind a move by us toward Christ will come from God, not us. When you try to put it in a form as concise as the "I" in TULIP it won't make as much sense. By the way, my brother is in the same situation and we're not getting any younger so I hear you in that.

So you get your theology from the internet. That explains a lot.

I suppose you all believe in the pretribulation rapture as well?

 

[Silverhair]

I see your point. I do like to read the guys who defended and "did" Calvinism rather than YouTube debaters because they shed some light on questions like you have above. For instance, Owen, near the passage I quoted above, says that to refuse the invitations of the gospel is a more offensive sin to God than even Satan can do because Satan, as bad as he is, was never offered a pardon. Now, how do you reconcile that with Calvinism and free will as explained on the internet? Owen clearly put the blame for rejecting an "invitation" (his word) squarely on the person who doesn't respond.

When you read a lot of Owen and Edwards, you get the idea that "all good things come from God". That's what all the old and ancient writers believed. Augustine would search and find a piece of scripture that benefited him and he would give all the praise for finding that to God. We would tend to say, in our modern mindset, that it was Augustine who did the work in finding the scripture. There is something different about the way they looked at things and how they applied providence compared to modern man. Sometime, if you have a lot of time to kill, read Edwards on "Concerning Efficacious Grace". When you really look into this, you find that it somewhat makes sense that we do indeed play a part in this, yet the motivating force behind a move by us toward Christ will come from God, not us. When you try to put it in a form as concise as the "I" in TULIP it won't make as much sense. By the way, my brother is in the same situation and we're not getting any younger so I hear you in that.

I grabbed this off the net: “Efficacious grace” by Jonathan Edwards - Tolle Lege
“Efficacious grace” by Jonathan Edwards
“In efficacious grace we are not merely passive, nor yet does God do some, and we do the rest. But God does all, and we do all. God produces all, and we act all. For that is what he produces, that is, our own acts. God is the only proper author and fountain; we only are the proper actors.

We are, in different respects, wholly passive and wholly active. In the Scriptures the same things are represented as from God and from us. God is said to convert, and men are said to convert and turn. God makes a new heart, and we are commanded to make us a new heart.

God circumcises the heart, and we are commanded to circumcise our own hearts; not merely because we must use the means in order to the effect, but the effect itself is our act and our duty. These things are agreeable to that text, ‘God worketh in you both to will and to do.’ (Philippians 2:13)”

–Jonathan Edwards, “Concerning Efficacious Grace,” in The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 2 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1974), p. 557.

What I take from this short comment is that God is as he says "the only proper author and fountain; we only are the proper actors." thus man does not have a free will or ability to do anything on his own but only as directed. But that logically makes God the author of all sin and would thus relieve man of all responsibility for their actions. Thus no one could be condemned for their sin.

He then points to the bible and shows that God expects man to exercise his free will, God gives us the ability but man must exercise that ability. That is why we are told to "..work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." Philippians 2:12

He then goes on to say, and I agree with him, that God gives us the means {free will} but it is our act and duty.

 

[DaveXR650]

He then goes on to say, and I agree with him, that God gives us the means {free will} but it is our act and duty.

Yes. We are the actors in this and we are not puppets or robots. Now if you read Edwards on free will, you will find that he does not look at our free will as being independent of God or of many other influences for that matter. I tend to be Calvinistic for the most part but I have a sermon by Edwards where he is almost begging people to come to Christ and believe. He says that Christ has made everything ready for you, the invitation is there, and all that is lacking is your consent. That is similar to what I posted Owen saying above. Owen also said to beware, lest you put off coming to Christ and the Holy Spirit decides not to come to you any more - leaving you with no possibility of repentance. These guys could not have said those things without some belief in free will. How you fit that in exactly with the 5 points of the TULIP I don't know. Both men argued very forcefully against Arminianism and Owen wrote the definitive work in support of a limited atonement. What I think is happening is that we do have free will to do what we want to do. But we cannot do what we have no concept of, and we can't trust in and believe that which we don't value or find attractive. And those things are somehow imparted to us by the Holy Spirit. Yet, if we become believers, it is we that believe.

 

[DaveXR650]

So you get your theology from the internet. That explains a lot.

Yes. Owen was pre computer but Edwards I believe had one of those IBM PS2's.

I suppose you all believe in the pretribulation rapture as well?

And don't worry about this. My fundamentalist pastor one time told me that he had thought it over, and those who believed in a mid-trib rapture were probably also saved. So I am open minded.

 

[Silverhair]

Yes. We are the actors in this and we are not puppets or robots. Now if you read Edwards on free will, you will find that he does not look at our free will as being independent of God or of many other influences for that matter. I tend to be Calvinistic for the most part but I have a sermon by Edwards where he is almost begging people to come to Christ and believe. He says that Christ has made everything ready for you, the invitation is there, and all that is lacking is your consent. That is similar to what I posted Owen saying above. Owen also said to beware, lest you put off coming to Christ and the Holy Spirit decides not to come to you any more - leaving you with no possibility of repentance. These guys could not have said those things without some belief in free will. How you fit that in exactly with the 5 points of the TULIP I don't know. Both men argued very forcefully against Arminianism and Owen wrote the definitive work in support of a limited atonement. What I think is happening is that we do have free will to do what we want to do. But we cannot do what we have no concept of, and we can't trust in and believe that which we don't value or find attractive. And those things are somehow imparted to us by the Holy Spirit. Yet, if we become believers, it is we that believe.

I agree if we have no concept of something then we can not agree to it but that is why we have creation, the conviction of the Holy Spirit, the gospel message, etc. Before Paul came to the pagans they had not concept of salvation through faith in Christ Jesus but many did believe once they were provided with that information. That to me shows mans free will as some chose to believe and some rejected the message. I agree with scripture that the atonement is unlimited. Salvation on the other hand is limited to those that freely trust in Christ Jesus.

I have heard various Calvinist preachers and most have said you have to choose, you have to come or words to that effect. So that to me shows the flaw in Calvinism. How can they hold to determinism / TULIP and preach free will? That is a question each one has to resolve in their on mind.

 

[Silverhair]

Because it is not a condition on believing. The gospel is "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved.

It was Jesus who said "No man can come to me unless the father draw him." Those who didn't believe the, like you, followed him no more.

"You didn't choose me, I chose you"

David you need to start looking at context and then you will not make these mistakes. Christ was speaking to His disciples when he made that comment. John 15:16
Jesus said that it was not because they had chosen him to be their teacher and guide, but because he had designated them to be his apostles. He also made similar comments here: John 6:70; Matthew 4:18-22.

Jesus also said
Joh 12:32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself." Are you now promoting universalism? I hope not.

You say salvation is not based on a condition but it seems that God disagrees with you. Do you know something that He does not?
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. Notice the condition "believes"

And you also seem to be at odds with what Paul wrote
Eph 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, And here were see conditions again hear, believe and trust.

 

[Silverhair]

Yes. Owen was pre computer but Edwards I believe had one of those IBM PS2's.

And don't worry about this. My fundamentalist pastor one time told me that he had thought it over, and those who believed in a mid-trib rapture were probably also saved. So I am open minded.

Well I see that @David Kent is just not angry at me but he likes to vent on you as well. Makes one wonder what he does believe.

 

[David Kent]

Well I see that @David Kent is just not angry at me but he likes to vent on you as well. Makes one wonder what he does believe.

I am not angry with anyone.

Actually I am not a preterist. I am a continual historicist. This is a teaching which is continual from New Testament times . Partially understood in the dark ages by "heretics", that is true believers. From about AD 1,000 they began to understand it better. From about AD 1,160, the church recognised that the Papacy was Antichrist, being a continuation of the Roman Empire. "The beast that was and is not and yet is." Is the Roman empire in a new form. It is a Mystery. Mystery Babylon the great.
Our former pastor said that mystery Babylon was actually Babylon. Some bible notes I read said that Babylon was the Whole world. They believed in the seven parallel visions, Well Babylon was no mystery, but RC Babylon is. The old Babylon's religion was no mystery, its worship of false Gods was open. However papal Babylon is a mystery. The pantheon which was a temple for all the gods is noe a church dedicated to all saints. The same lump of metal that the pagans worshipped as Jupiter is now worshipped as Peter.

Albert Barnes 1798-1870 wrote that he had studied Revelation many times but thought it was indecipherable, till he read Gibbon's Decline and Fall of tha Roman Empire, where he said he saw all the visions acted out. If Gibbon was a believer he thought that he would have written it to fit the scriptures, but Gibbon was a scoffer.

All of the reformers of whichever brand, taught that the Pope was Antichrist. This teaching caused many to leave the RCC that they had to do something about it. 1st they invented Futurism which taught that Antichrist was future, then preterism which taught that Antichrist was in the past.

Futurism didn't enter protestant churches till first preached in 1825. It didnt enter many Baptist churches until after 1900.

A review of Barnes book. 5.0 out of 5 stars More Revealing Than the Modern Tripe!
Reviewed in the United States on 13 April 2018
Verified Purchase
I have this in hardcover but; wanted it for my kindle. I do not agree with 100% of this but, I find his insight into Revelation much better than all this Pre - Trib Rapture hogwash that is flooding the market. This was written before that woman in Ireland had that dream that started the whole "Rapture" movement. Back when people prayed and were guided by the Spirit. This man studied at Princeton Theological Seminary back when it was a doctrinally sound college. I hope it helps you as much as it does me.
One person found this helpful

One thing he got wrong was 'that woman in Ireland' was in fact in Scotland. *She gave a prophecy about the rapture, which is generally thought to be the beginning of pre tribulation teaching, but Edward Irving preached on it a few years earlier.

*Mary McDonald.

 

[Silverhair]

I am not angry with anyone.

Actually I am not a preterist. I am a continual historicist. This is a teaching which is continual from New Testament times . Partially understood in the dark ages by "heretics", that is true believers. From about AD 1,000 they began to understand it better. From about AD 1,160, the church recognised that the Papacy was Antichrist, being a continuation of the Roman Empire. "The beast that was and is not and yet is." Is the Roman empire in a new form. It is a Mystery. Mystery Babylon the great.
Our former pastor said that mystery Babylon was actually Babylon. Some bible notes I read said that Babylon was the Whole world. They believed in the seven parallel visions, Well Babylon was no mystery, but RC Babylon is. The old Babylon's religion was no mystery, its worship of false Gods was open. However papal Babylon is a mystery. The pantheon which was a temple for all the gods is noe a church dedicated to all saints. The same lump of metal that the pagans worshipped as Jupiter is now worshipped as Peter.

Albert Barnes 1798-1870 wrote that he had studied Revelation many times but thought it was indecipherable, till he read Gibbon's Decline and Fall of tha Roman Empire, where he said he saw all the visions acted out. If Gibbon was a believer he thought that he would have written it to fit the scriptures, but Gibbon was a scoffer.

All of the reformers of whichever brand, taught that the Pope was Antichrist. This teaching caused many to leave the RCC that they had to do something about it. 1st they invented Futurism which taught that Antichrist was future, then preterism which taught that Antichrist was in the past.

Futurism didn't enter protestant churches till first preached in 1825. It didnt enter many Baptist churches until after 1900.

A review of Barnes book. 5.0 out of 5 stars More Revealing Than the Modern Tripe!
Reviewed in the United States on 13 April 2018
Verified Purchase
I have this in hardcover but; wanted it for my kindle. I do not agree with 100% of this but, I find his insight into Revelation much better than all this Pre - Trib Rapture hogwash that is flooding the market. This was written before that woman in Ireland had that dream that started the whole "Rapture" movement. Back when people prayed and were guided by the Spirit. This man studied at Princeton Theological Seminary back when it was a doctrinally sound college. I hope it helps you as much as it does me.
One person found this helpful

One thing he got wrong was 'that woman in Ireland' was in fact in Scotland. *She gave a prophecy about the rapture, which is generally thought to be the beginning of pre tribulation teaching, but Edward Irving preached on it a few years earlier.

*Mary McDonald.

I did a study through the book of revelation over about 2-2.5 yrs. It was interesting and I am glad I did it but do not get worked up about any particular view. I think pretrist and amil are both wrong but as for pre, mid or post well those are open for debate. The reality is that whatever view one holds re end-times will not or actually should not affect their relationship to Christ Jesus. We are not saved by knowing when Christ will return but by knowing Him now.

Revelation was written not so that we could come to know Christ but that we, as Christians, could have assurance of His return.

 

[David Kent]

I think Futurism is most wrong, because it is the most dangerous. I have been on Baptist sites that are dispensational and if you show them scriptures that prove then wrong you are a false teacher and an heretic. I joined one under the same name as I used on the other and I was permanently ban although I had only made two posts one introducing myself and the other asking a question. Someone on the other board recognised me and said that he had told them that I was a preterist. I told him that was not true. My friend who IS a preterist went on there after that and was banned without making a post.

 

[JD731]

I think Futurism is most wrong, because it is the most dangerous. I have been on Baptist sites that are dispensational and if you show them scriptures that prove then wrong you are a false teacher and an heretic. I joined one under the same name as I used on the other and I was permanently ban although I had only made two posts one introducing myself and the other asking a question. Someone on the other board recognised me and said that he had told them that I was a preterist. I told him that was not true. My friend who IS a preterist went on there after that and was banned without making a post.

Futurism is not the problem, infiltration of the Christian faith by adversaries is the problem. We are warned about this in 2 Cor 11. Paul said in Ga 1:4 that this church age is “a present evil age.” The scriptures that God has given us are profitable for believers only. They are spiritually discerned and will do unbelievers little good no matter how often they read them. Reading the scriptures is not how a man becomes a believer.

Hearing the gospel preached by a believer is how God has chosen to save sinners and convert them from unbelievers to believers. The gospel is basic and fundamental. There is no way to build an enduring house without a solid foundation and so one’s doctrinal system will eventually fall without the solid foundation of the true gospel.

1 Corinthians 1:18-19
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.


1 Corinthians 1:21
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.


Romans 10:14-17
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

1 Corinthians 3:5-11
5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.
10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

God gives us his assessment of the written scriptures and they are profitable for believers only.

‘
2 Timothy 3:14-17
14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

in verse 15 Timothy’s faith would have come by means of hearing the gospel and believing it and after that the scriptures would have been profitable for the four things mentioned.

The reason for so many different theological systems and denial of words and contexts is the simple fact they are not built on the right foundation. This leaves human reasoning and the wisdom of men as the only guide in the scriptures of truth.

It is not okay to be wrong about the prophetic word of God, for several reasons.

 

[Reformed]

Why so much passion about something that doesn't matter?

When it comes to matters of theology, everything matters. Theology is the study of God. God is revealed to us through His word. True. Not every area of theology is weighed the same when it comes to our standing before God. If I am wrong on the issue of head coverings it does not imperil my faith. However, an issue like the sovereignty of God has tentacles that affect a myriad of other doctrines. It touches on the doctrine of man (anthropology), sin (hamartiology), and salvation (soteriology). It impacts how we view God's attribute of omniscience. God's holiness, mercy, and justice all come into play. These things seem like valid reasons to display passion, no?

A separate issue is frivolous debate. Arguing for the sake of arguing is pointless. I saw a sign the other day that said, "No bumper sticker has caused anyone, anywhere to change their mind." The same thing can be said about many of the Calvinist threads on this board. For the most part, it is preaching to the choir. However, sometimes there are real learning moments where honest questions are raised and a defense of the truth is given.

 

[kyredneck]

a continual historicist. This is a teaching which is continual from New Testament times

That I don't understand, why restrict the history to NT, since the Great Red Dragon with seven heads has been persecuting the Woman since Cain killed Abel, the seven heads, or epochs, being Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome (at the time of the writing), and the 'Holy' Roman Empire (future at the time of writing), and the Harlot has a long history of whoredoms which each of those heads.

 

[David Kent]

That I don't understand, why restrict the history to NT, since the Great Red Dragon with seven heads has been persecuting the Woman since Cain killed Abel, the seven heads, or epochs, being Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome (at the time of the writing), and the 'Holy' Roman Empire (future at the time of writing), and the Harlot has a long history of whoredoms which each of those heads.

Because Revelation is a prophecy, a history written in advance, not a history of the past.

 

[kyredneck]

Because Revelation is a prophecy, a history written in advance, not a history of the past.

A prophecy steeped in OT language and history. Why did the Spirit even mention the five previous heads if we weren't to gain anything from it? This is true 'Historicist' view.

 

[David Kent]

A prophecy steeped in OT language and history. Why did the Spirit even mention the five previous heads if we weren't to gain anything from it? This is true 'Historicist' view.

To show the current one, Emperors, one to come who was probably the Christian emperor, one of those, Constantine who lasted a very short time, and took the Empire and the Empire out of the way to Byzantium , 2 Thessalonians 2:5 He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed,

Then one which would be of the seven but a revived head, the eighth. A revived Christian Emperor.