A question for Cavinist

[37818]

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

Genesis 1 is prophecy of a history of past. Whether literal or metaphor.

 

[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.

Hi bro
Why would he mention the five previous heads? He mentions the sixth, so he says five have already fallen, one is, and one is yet to come. That was future when Revelation was written. He was to continue for a short time tiĺ he wa taken out of the way. Future again. The eighth, who is the geast that was, and is not and yet is was another type of emperor, even further in the future.

Our previous pastor said the five fallen were the Egyptians, Assyrians , Babylonians, Persians and Greeks. But the Revelation has to fit into the 4th empire prophecies in Daniel 2 and Daniel 7.

Daniel 8 adds extra detail to the 2nd and 3rd empires, Daniel 7 already added to all the kingdoms in Daniel 2.

Daniel 11 adds even more detail to the 3rd kingdom.

The gospels and other new testament books introduce us to the 4th kingdom, and Revelation fills in the rest of history of that, the Roman Empire.

The five that are fallen, five different forms of Roman government, just as the last 3 are. Kings, Republics, Democracy, Triumvirates, Dictators, the one that was, Emperors and to one to come, Christian Emperors.

 

[kyredneck]

Hi bro

Bro, your certainty and assuredness in your speculations make you sound a lot more like a Dispensationalist than a Historicist.

 

[David Kent]

Bro, your certainty and assuredness in your speculations make you sound a lot more like a Dispensationalist than a Historicist.

I hope not. Actually I was brought up in the Brethren and although throughout history they are sometimes described as Calvinist I never heard any Calvinist teaching there.

They are some of the early dispensationalists and thay did teach that. During and just after the war we went to the Brethren till as they were thr only ones who preached the gospel in the area. My dad had doubts about their dispensational teaching and told me that he went to a meeting where the speaker was comment on the 200,000, 000 horsemen, which he said were literal horses not cars or tanks. Dad said how can that be, as when you have cavalry, you have to have 10 times or more backup, infantry, cooks, suppliers of food ammunition etc.

When Xerxes attacked Greece, Herodotus said his armies drank every river dry. And he had an army of 2 million or more.

Anyway the preacher said I'll answer that later. When he went on to something else my dad said "you haven't answered my question yet." "I' answer it later." As the man closed the meeting my dad again said "You didn't answer my question." He replied rather sheepishly "It must be symbolic."

 

[JonC]

I hope not. Actually I was brought up in the Brethren and although throughout history they are sometimes described as Calvinist I never heard any Calvinist teaching there.

They are some of the early dispensationalists and thay did teach that. During and just after the war we went to the Brethren till as they were thr only ones who preached the gospel in the area. My dad had doubts about their dispensational teaching and told me that he went to a meeting where the speaker was comment on the 200,000, 000 horsemen, which he said

Thing is Calvinism (proper....the teachings of Calvin and systematic compilation of Beza) were very influential. One does not have to know John Calvin, of Presbyterian theology, of Methodist theology, etc. to be influenced by Calvinism.

At one time Methodists were Calvinists. They were not the same as Presbyterians. And in the 19th century the Methodist Church was the most influential (followed by the Presbyterian Church).

My point is that doctrines are not contained. Some Baptists have adopted Covenant Theology, some Dispensationalism (both Calvinistic doctrines).

 

[David Kent]

Dispensationalism a calvinistic doctrine. I suppose so in a way. Edward Irving was a minister of the church of Scotland, a Presbyterian church. He introduced tongues and prophecy into his church in London, and but he was excommunicated from the CoS for heresy due to his views an the nature of Christ. One of his ex members said his worst error was that he believed that believers had actual righteousness rather than imputed righteousness. He got his futurist views from a book by "Juan Josephat Ben Ezra, a converted Jew," fake name of Manuel Lacunza, a Jesuit. So it can hardly be said that it is a Calvinist teaching.

From Irving, dispensationalism was continued by John Nelson Darby, a minister of the Irish church (I believe) he took over the emerging Brethren movement, which seemed to start in Ireland and moved to Oxford England. Many members in Oxford were refused ordination due to their Evangelical (Calvinistic views) although dissolute young men were ordained. One or two became Baptists. Including George Muller after a brief spell in the Brethren.

Darby seemed to be an extreme Calvinist. But I think that may have been a front.

Another in Oxford at that time was John Henry Newman who founded the Oxford movement which became Anglo Catholicism. Newman eventually joined the church of Rome and became a Cardinal.

 

[JonC]

Dispensationalism a calvinistic doctrine. I suppose so in a way. Edward Irving was a minister of the church of Scotland, a Presbyterian church. He introduced tongues and prophecy into his church in London, and but he was excommunicated from the CoS for heresy due to his views an the nature of Christ. One of his ex members said his worst error was that he believed that believers had actual righteousness rather than imputed righteousness. He got his futurist views from a book by "Juan Josephat Ben Ezra, a converted Jew," fake name of Manuel Lacunza, a Jesuit. So it can hardly be said that it is a Calvinist teaching.

From Irving, dispensationalism was continued by John Nelson Darby, a minister of the Irish church (I believe) he took over the emerging Brethren movement, which seemed to start in Ireland and moved to Oxford England. Many members in Oxford were refused ordination due to their Evangelical (Calvinistic views) although dissolute young men were ordained. One or two became Baptists. Including George Muller after a brief spell in the Brethren.

Darby seemed to be an extreme Calvinist. But I think that may have been a front.

Another in Oxford at that time was John Henry Newman who founded the Oxford movement which became Anglo Catholicism. Newman eventually joined the church of Rome and became a Cardinal.

Darby was definitely a Calvinist, just not the kind we typically think of (I can't see him being a 5 point Calvinist, and I only see 5 points as the logical position as the points tie together).

My point is what was once known only within Calvinism branched out. Calvinistic atonement branched out. Some Mennonites hold a free-will form of it now (a short time ago that would be unheard of). Non-denominational churches typically hold a blend of Calvinism and free-will theologies to varying degrees.

The Methodist Church is a good example as well. They maintained a lot of Calvinism (Calvinism proper) while ultimately adopting Arminianism.

Baptists are like this also. Most Baptists have benefited from Calvin, Luther, and Anabaptist theologies (to varying degrees).

That isn't a bad thing in principle. We should consider what Christians say, eat the meat and spit out the bones.

 

[David Kent]

The Church of England was Lutheran rather than Calvinist. Now it seems to be mainly nothing, apart from a few.

The following was on the GbNews channel last Saturday evening 7.00pm.

I have never heard anything like this on a news channel before. Calvin was refused ordination because of his traditional views. But he was ordained in The Free Church of Endland.