In reply to:
[color:"blue"]And everything is NOT tainted if you are a covenantalist? Please. You are correct as always, the issue is hermeneutics, but you have yet to make a compelling case why your particular green glasses are the correct ones to wear.

Well, first study the text of Revelation, without your sunglasses of Dispensationalism. Properly interpret the terms, without your sunglasses of Dispensationalism. Look at the original Greek and the comparative texts in Scripture, without your sunglasses of Dispensationalism. Then read the article that is posted. They will concur (that is the Biblical text and the article). Truthfully have you ever read a history on the origins of Dispensationalism? It will turn your stomach! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/puke.gif" alt="puke" title="puke[/img]

Challenge yourself, read Hendriksen's More than Conquerors, Bavinck's The Last Things, Cox's Amillenialism Today, or Venema's The Promise of the Future. John Wilmot's Inspired Principles of Prophetic Interpretation is also highly recommended, but you will have to find it used someplace.

Your sounding allot like Johannah:

In reply to:
[color:"blue"]I am a Zionist. Premillennialism leads to that. Believing the Bible leads to that....I will read some of those articles, but I won't ever change my mind about Israel Hell will freeze over first.

What is the use of study if one is not willing to learn? BTW I use to concur with MacArthur before I began AGAIN to restudy the issue from as impartial view point as I could (I was even a Baptist at that time [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]). Thus, growth is possible if you are interested, but if one has the mind set that "[color:red]I won't ever change my mind about Israel Hell will freeze over first" then they have become unteachable and thus, incompatible with Calvinism. (P.S. Johannah stated what she did to be "dogmatic" about her belief, and though the phraseology was troubling, she is still teachable--please do not understand otherwise. Her wording was used just as an illustration of how some study Scripture--that is just to reaffirm what they already think they know).

In reply to:
[color:"blue"]Why Not? Postmills can argue just like you that Amills are incompatible with Calvinism because it is a defeatist eschatology that limits the power of God's sovereignty to subdue the world.

When I made my study (I still am learning) I inspected all the different variations the best I could. Post-Mil did not make the cut, but it certainly had more going for it than some others... A-Mil is where I ended up. It was the ONLY one I found to be consistent wholly with the biblical text.

Defeatist Theology, only because it defeats every other view! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/rofl.gif" alt="rofl" title="rofl[/img]

God's sovereignty is not limited in the A-Mil, but rather IMHO revealed. It glorifies the sovereign God to have His Word rightly divided. It glorifies the sovereign Creator to have a people He "keeps through" the hour of temptation, et. al.. Far from limiting His omnipotent power He actually puts it on display in a wondrous manner. A limiting aspect of the Pre-Trib is that Christ comes back with a shout so loud that some do not hear it. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img] (joking)

Please remember that we are speaking of compatibility. Truth may only be compatible with truth. Thus, when the question is asked, "if Calvinism is compatible with XYZ" and there there can ONLY be ONE real truth... one will naturally say that everything else is inconsistent. But, this does not mean that others holding different views on this issue are not Christians or true Calvinists. It merely means they are inconsistent - in their eschatology.


Reformed and Always Reforming,