The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Are Calvinism and Premillennialism Incompatible?

Joe said:<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]What about your exposition of Rev. 20:1-6?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Exposition of Rev. 20:1-6<br><br>I am not a Bible teacher or a theologian. Actually, I don't have an exposition of Rev. 20:1-6. When I am not certan what a bible verse means, I go to someone who is usually right and let them explain it to me.<br><br>Here is what John F. Walvoord has to say on these verses. He is one of those who is usually right.<br><br>Rev. 20:4<br>...John recorded that he saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. In addition he saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their standing true to the Lord and His Word in the Great Tribulation. The fact that John could see them implies that they had received intermediate bodies in heaven and were awaiting their resurrection.<br><br>A distinction should be made between what John saw and what he received as revelation. Though he could see the souls, he was informed that they had been beheaded because they had refused to worship the beast or his image and would not receive his mark. What John saw was not all the souls in heaven but a particular generation of martyred dead who had been contemporaneous with the world ruler the beast out of the sea (13:1) If the church were raptured prior to this event, as premillennarians teach, it would make sense to single out these martyred dead for resurrection. But if the church were not raptured, it would be most unusual to ignore all the martyrs of preceeding generations, the church as a whole, and to specify this relatively small group.<br><br>John apparently was not told the identity of the individuals seated on the thrones. They evidently do not include the martyred dead themselves. Christ had predicted (Luke 22:29-30) that the 12 diciples would "eat and drink at My table in My kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the 12 tribes of Israel." As the disciples are also a part of the church, the body of Christ, it would be natural for them to sit on these thrones.<br><br>According to the Scriptures, a series of judgements is related to Christ's return. The beast and the false prophet will be cast into the fiery lake (Rev. 19:20), Satan will be cast into the Abyss (20:1-3), and then the martyred dead of the Great Tribulation will be judged and rewarded (v. 4). In addition, Isreal will be judged (Ezek. 20:33-38), and the Gentiles will be judged (matt. 25:31-46). These judgements preceed and lead up to the millennial kingdom.<br><br>John stated that these martyred dead came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. Their coming to life suggests that they will be given resurrection bodies. In addition to receiving the visual revelation, John was informed as to the meaning and character of the judgement that was here taking place.<br><br>I will do verses 5 and 6 on another post. I think verses 1-3 are pretty self-explainitory.

I'm not an antinomian either. I will respond to the rest of your post tomorrow.I said on another post that all the Ten Commandments, except the commandment on the sabbath, are repeated in the New Testament.

Joe said:<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]What about your exposition of Rev. 20:1-6?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Here is John F. Walvood's commentary on V.5:<br><br>Rev. 20:5<br>John was also informed that the rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. this refers to the resurrection of the wicked dead, discussed later (vv. 11-15).<br><br>John stated that what he was seeing is the first resurrection. Posttribulationists refer to this as proof that the church will not be raptured before the Tribulation and that no resurrection has taken place prior to this point in fulfillment of God's prophetic program. It should be obvious, however, that in no sense could this be the number-one resurrection chronologically because historically Christ was the first to rise from the dead with a transformed, resurrected body. There was also the resurrection "of many" (Matt. 27:52-53) which took place when Christ died. In what sense then can this resurrection in Revelation 20:5 be "first"?<br><br>As the contest which follows indicates, "the first resurrection" (vv. 5-6) contrasts with the last resurrection (vv. 12-13), which is followed by "the second death" (vv. 6, 14). It is first in the sense of before. All the righteous, regardless of when they are raised, take part in the resurrection which is first or before the final resurrection (of the wicked dead) at the end of the Millennium. This supports the conclusion that the resurrection of the righteous is by stages. Christ was "the Firstfruits" (1 Cor. 15:23), which was preceded by the token resurrection of a number of saints (Matt. 27:52-53). Then will occur the Rapture of the church, which will include the resurrection of dead church saints and the translation of living church saints (1 Thes. 4:13-18). The resurrection of the two witnesses will occur in the Great Tribulation (Rev. 11:3, 11). Then the resurrection of the martyred dead of the Great Tribulation will occur soon after Christ returns to earth (20:4-5). To these may be added the resurrection of the Old Testament saints which apparantly will also occur at this time, though it is not mentioned in this text (cf. Isa.. 26:19-21; Ezek. 37:12-14; Dan. 12:2-3).

Joe said:<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]What about your exposition of Rev. 20:1-6?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Commentary on V.6 by John F. Walvoord<br>The Bible Knowledge Commentary<br><br>Rev. 20:6<br>All those who share in the resurrection of the righteous are said to be blessed and holy, and the second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years. While all the righteous will be raised before the Millennium, individuals will retain their identities and their group identifications such as Gentile believers and believers in Israel in the Old Testament, the church of the New testament and saints of the Tribulation.<br><br>It should be noted that the term 'a thousand years" occurs six times in chapter 20. This was not something that could be seen visually; John had to be informed of it and the vision had to be interpreted as relating to a period of a thousand years. While amillenarians and others have tended to view this as nonliteral, there is no evidence to support this conclusion. This is the only chapter in Revelation where a period of a thousand years is mentioned, and the fact that it is mentioned six times and is clearly described as a period of time before which and after which events take place lead to the conclusion that it means a literal thousand-year period.<br><br>Since other time designations in Revelation are literal (e.g., "42 months," 11:2; 13:5; "1,260 days," 11:3; 12:6) it is natural to take "a thousand years" literally also. If the term "a thousand years" designates a nonspecific but long period of time, the present Age between Christ's two advents, as amillenarians hold, then one would expect John to say simply that Christ would reign "a long time," in contrast to the "short time" of Satan's release (20:3).<br><br>Events which precede the thousand years are (a) the second coming of Christ, (b) the beast and the false prophet thrown into the fiery lake, (c) the armies destroyed, (d) Satan bound and locked in the Abyss, (e) thrones of judgment introduced, and (f) the martyred dead of the Tribulation resurrected. These events revealed in their proper sequence make it clear that the thousand-year period follows all these events, including the second coming of Christ. The conclusion that the Seond Coming is premillennial is clearly supported by a normal, literal interpretation of this text. <br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]While amillenarians and others have tended to view this as nonliteral, there is no evidence to support this conclusion. This is the only chapter in Revelation where a period of a thousand years is mentioned, and the fact that it is mentioned six times and is clearly described as a period of time before which and after which events take place lead to the conclusion that it means a literal thousand-year period.</font><hr></blockquote><p> And here is the problem. There is NO PROOF he is right. Walvoord just offered his opinion. As one elderly lady once said in her philosophical ideology, "Where's the Beef".<br><br>The issue is simply hermeneutics and Scriptural proof. The Scripture explains itself and Venema reveals it.<br><br>Look at this great truth from What About Rev 20:<br><br>One of the intriguing features of the vision of Revelation 20 is its reference to a period of one thousand years. For most premillennialists, this language must simply be taken literally as a reference to a distinct period in history after the return of Christ. Particularly within the context of Dispensational Premillennialism with its commitment to a literalistic reading of the Bible, the language of Revelation 20 is regarded as sufficient to prove the error of Amillennialism and Postmillennialism. Because these two views treat the language of one thousand years in Revelation 20 non-literally, as referring to a long period within God’s superintendence during which Satan is bound and the kingdom of Christ is manifested, they are charged with wrongly spiritualizing the meaning of this language. Furthermore, if it is objected that this is the only passage in Scripture which speaks of a one-thousand-year period, the premillennialist response is typically that one passage should be more than adequate to make the point. If this passage clearly teaches a literal millennium of one thousand years, who has the right to deny its teaching?<br><br>Before looking at the expression ‘one thousand years’ more directly, two general observations are to be made regarding this premillennialist claim. First, the insistence that the language of Revelation (and of all Scripture) be taken literally betrays a way of reading the Bible that we have earlier contested. A book like Revelation, with its rich symbolism and use of biblical types and figures, gives no obvious reason to take literally the term of one thousand years. If much of the book is written in language that is clearly not literal, some reason needs to be given why this must be the case in the vision of Revelation 20 with its use of ‘one thousand years’. Second, there is reason to pause before conceding the argument of Premillennialism here precisely because no other passage of Scripture speaks of a literal period in history of one thousand years (whether before or after Christ’s return). One of the great difficulties in the case for Premillennialism is the relative lack of support for its doctrine of the millennium from other passages in Scripture. This suggests that before we concede as self-evident the claim that one thousand years must mean one thousand literal years, we consider whether Scripture might not support a different reading of this expression.<br><br>Those who argue that the thousand years is not to be taken literally often note that it is a perfect cube of ten, ten being a number of completeness. This would suggest, then, that the reference to a one-thousand-year period should be taken as symbolic of a perfect and complete number within the purpose of God. This is a plausible way of reading this language, but it tends to be too abstract. It still remains to ask, Do the Scriptures elsewhere use the number one thousand in a symbolic way which might cast some light upon Revelation 20?<br><br>As a matter of fact, the use of the term ‘one thousand’ in the Scriptures seems quite pertinent to the interpretation of Revelation 20. Though in some instances the number may be quite literal (for example, Gen. 20:16, Ezra 1:9-10) or possibly literal as well as symbolic (for example, Judg. 15:15-16, 1 Chron. 29:21), in other instances it has a clearly symbolic meaning. In Deuteronomy 7:9, the Lord is described as a ‘faithful God who keeps covenant and mercy for a thousand generations with those who love him and keep his commandments’. In the summary of the law given in Exodus 20, a contrast is drawn between the Lord’s visiting of judgement upon the third and fourth generations of those who hate him, and his ‘showing lovingkindness to thousands’ who love him and keep his commandments (Exod. 20:5-6). Similarly, in the Psalms we read that the ‘cattle on a thousand hills’ belong to the Lord (Psa. 50:10-11). The Psalmist also speaks of how a ‘day in Thy courts is better than a thousand’ (Psa. 84:10). In the well-known words of Psalm 90, the believer confesses that ‘a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night’ (verse 4). Responding to the mockers who mocked the promise of the Lord’s coming, the Apostle Peter notes that ‘with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day’ (2 Pet. 3:8).<br><br>What these passages indicate is that the number one thousand is often used in the Scriptures to refer to an extensive period of time. The use of one thousand years in Revelation is, when interpreted against the background of this usage of the symbolism of one thousand, likely a reference to a period of fullness, completion and perfection so far as God’s redemptive plan is concerned. This expression is not meant to teach that the millennium will be a period of 365,000 days, not one more nor one less. Just as God’s faithfulness is perfect and never failing (unto one thousand generations), so the times within his redemptive purposes are perfect and never failing. The most that can be concluded, then, from the use of the number one thousand in Revelation 20 is that the period of Satan’s binding will be great and full, not small and empty, of years. That this is the sense of the vision is only reinforced by the contrasting language that describes Satan’s season of rebellion as a little season, suggesting that it is a meagre and limited period of time within the will of God.<br><br>To summarize: in this first section of the vision of Revelation 20, we have a representation of that period of history between the time of Christ’s first coming and his return at the end of age, in which Satan has been bound so as no longer to be able to deceive the nations. The millennium is now, the period in which Christ’s kingdom is advancing by his Spirit and Word and the nations are being discipled. This period is not a literal period of one thousand years, but the entire period, perfect, complete and extensive, between the first and second comings of Christ. Compared to the vast expanse and power of the kingdom of Christ, the period of Satan’s rebellion at the end of the age prior to Christ’s return, will be pathetically small and limited in scope.

I have Walvoord's Prophecy Knowledge Handbook and have read his The Revelation of Jesus Christ (actually this may be on-line someplace). He is very lacking though in his exposition. He admits that he approached Revelation from a preterist tinted view of interpretation. He is a graduate from Dallas Theological Seminary and some other like Wheaton, Liberty Baptist Seminary, and Texas Christian University. He is not Reformed in his theology, though he was Professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary for over fifty years and also served as the President of the seminary from 1953 to1986. He admits that the two men who most influenced him, as he developed as a thinker, were Lewis Sperry Chafer and C.I. Scofield. Thus, I say once AGAIN go back and study the HISTORY behind old CI and you will end up scolding (Scofield) him [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]. Now onto his exposition, read below a very able refute:<br><br><ul>i. The theme of angelic ascent and descent[/LIST] The vision of Revelation 20 begins with the descent of an angel from heaven in order to bind Satan for a period of one thousand years. [color:blue]In other instances in the book of Revelation where an angel’s ascent or descent begins a new vision sequence, the vision portrays the course of events from the present time to the time of Christ’s return at the end of the age.</font color=blue> For example, similar visions of an angel ascending or descending are found in Revelation 7:2, 10:1 and 18:1. In these instances, the angel’s ascent or descent occurs at a time clearly prior to the return of Christ and marks the beginning of a vision whose sequence of events concludes with the coming of Christ in final victory over his enemies. It would not be surprising, accordingly, were the angel’s descent in Revelation 20 to be another instance of this pattern. Not only would this be consistent with the structuring of the book of Revelation throughout, but it would also be following a pattern evident elsewhere, in which vision sequences that parallel each other are introduced by the announcement of an ascending or descending angel.<br><br><ul>ii. The discrepancy between Revelation 19:11-21 and Revelation 20:1-3[/LIST] Secondly, the visions of Revelation 19 and Revelation 20 show an obvious discrepancy if they are read in chronological sequence. In Revelation 19:11-21, especially verses 19-21, we see a vision of Christ’s triumph over and destruction of the nations that are opposed to his kingdom. The language used to describe this triumph is vigorous: all the nations are described as taking up arms against Christ and are said to fall without exception by the sword that he wields against them. Christ’s victory over the nations is complete and final. They are wholly destroyed at his coming. [color:blue]However, if the vision of Revelation 20 follows in time and sequence the vision of Revelation 19, it seems senseless to speak of the binding of Satan in order to prevent his deception of the nations. Presumably, nations that have been utterly destroyed constitute no viable or continuing threat to the reign of Christ or the deceptive wiles of Satan. What sense does it make to speak of nations being protected from Satanic deception, when those nations which were formerly deceived by Satan have now been completely vanquished</font color=blue>?<br><br>Premillennialists who recognize this discrepancy might suggest, in order to mute its obvious implications for their view, that the nations of Revelation 20 are survivors of the battle described in Revelation 19. This suggestion, however, presents two difficulties. On the one hand, the language of the nations’ defeat in Revelation 19 is too absolute to allow for the notion that some nations survive unscathed. And on the other hand, the terminology of ‘the nations’ in Revelation typically denotes nations in their opposition to Christ and his church. The nations are the nations in rebellion against the Lord’s anointed. However, on this premillennialist construction, the nations of Revelation 20 would actually be the peoples of the earth during the millennial reign of Christ. The nations of Revelation 20 would have a different reference from the nations mentioned just before in Revelation 19.<br><br><ul>iii. The use of Ezekiel 38-39 in these visions[/LIST] In the visions of Revelation 19 and 20, the language used is extensively borrowed from Ezekiel 38-39. This prophecy describes a great end-time battle between the Lord and the nations of the north who are opposed to him and his people. In the description of this great battle upon the mountains of Israel, reference is made to Gog, prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal, and to Magog.<br><br>There are several striking parallels between Ezekiel 38-39 and Revelation 19 and 20. In Revelation 19:17-18, an angel issues an invitation to the great supper of God. This is almost an exact quotation of the invitation extended for the Gog-Magog conflict in the prophecy of Ezekiel (39:17-20). However, in Revelation 20:7-10, when the Apostle John describes the great warfare that will conclude Satan’s little season at the close of the millennium, the prophecy of Ezekiel regarding Gog-Magog is again drawn upon extensively. The nations in rebellion are termed Gog and Magog (verse 8; cf. Ezek. 38:2; 39:1, 6). The weapon used by God to destroy Gog-Magog is a fire coming down from heaven (verse 9; cf. Ezek. 38:22; 39:6). This means that the Apostle John, in his respective descriptions of the rebellion and defeat of the nations in Revelation 19 and 20, is drawing upon identical language and imagery from Ezekiel’s prophecy. It seems hard to believe, accordingly, that the episodes described in these visions are different episodes in history, separated by a period of one thousand years duration. A much more plausible reading would conclude that these visions describe the same event and are to be read as parallel descriptions of the same historical period.<br><br><ul>iv. The battle of Revelation 19:19 and 20:8[/LIST] The visions of Revelation 19 and 20 show a similar parallelism in their description of the battle that will terminate the period of history portrayed in them. [color:blue]In three instances in the book of Revelation, an end-time conflict between Christ and his enemies, a conflict in which Christ is triumphant and the rebellious nations defeated, is described as ‘the battle’.</font color=blue> Not only is the definite article used, suggesting that this battle represents a final and conclusive defeat of Christ’s enemies, but also the language used to describe the nations’ revolt and campaign against Christ is virtually identical (see Rev. 16:14; 19:19, 20:8).<br><br>Interpreters of the book of Revelation readily acknowledge the parallels between the description in Revelation 16:14-21 of the battle on the great day of Christ’s second coming and the description in Revelation 19:19-21. The latter battle is regarded commonly as a resumption and conclusion of the battle first described in Revelation 16. Fewer interpreters have noticed the similarities of language in Revelation 20:7-10 in its description of the Gog-Magog revolt. This is likely due to the assumption that the battle of Revelation 20:8 refers to a different battle after the millennium from the battle that occurred before the millennium at the time of Christ’s second coming.<br><br>If we reckon with the possibility of a parallel description of the same period of history in Revelation 19 and 20, then it is likely that the battle described in these passages is one and the same battle. Rather than positing the reoccurrence of a similar conflict and victory for Christ at the end of the millennium, a conflict that replays the earlier war that concluded history at Christ’s second coming, it is more likely that these battles are the same battle, variously described in visions that parallel each other and depict the same historical period.5<br><br><ul>v. The end of God’s wrath[/LIST] When Revelation 19 and 20 are read as two visions in sequence, a further discrepancy is introduced. Just as we noted a discrepancy between the complete destruction of all the rebellious nations in Revelation 19 and their continued presence in Revelation 20 (were these two visions describing events in sequence), [color:blue]so there is a discrepancy between the end of God’s wrath in Revelation 19 and the further outpouring of his wrath and judgement yet again in Revelation 20.</font color=blue><br><br>Revelation 15:1 contains an important declaration regarding the end of God’s wrath: ‘And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvelous, seven angels who had seven plagues, which are the last, because in them the wrath of God is finished.’ This verse indicates that the dispensing of the seven bowls of wrath by the seven angels will bring to a close the outpouring of God’s wrath upon the wicked in the course of history. The last of these bowls of wrath is described in Revelation 16:17-21, a passage that concludes with the final defeat of Christ’s enemies, the nations in the vision of Revelation 19:19-21. The vision of Revelation 19, therefore, represents the completion of the course of history and the finishing of God’s wrath upon the nations. The time frame for the fulfilment of the outpouring of God’s wrath in Revelation 15:1 is concluded by the vision of Revelation 19.<br><br>[color:blue]However, on a premillennialist reading of the visions of Revelation 19 and 20, the battle and pouring out of God’s wrath in the vision of Revelation 20 comes one thousand years later than the battle and pouring out of God’s wrath in the vision of Revelation 19. Thus, this reading conflicts with the teaching of Revelation 15:1.</font color=blue> It suggests that God’s wrath in history is not finished with the events depicted in the vision of Revelation 19. Some one thousand years later would come another and truly last outpouring of God’s wrath upon the nations. The deadline set for the completion of God’s wrath in history in Revelation 15:1 would be exceeded. For this and the reasons already mentioned, it makes better sense to read the vision of Revelation 20 as a recapitulation of the period of history earlier described in Revelation 19. Both visions would then be describing the same battle at the close of history with the final outpouring of God’s wrath upon the nations.<br><br><ul>vi. The cosmic destruction of Revelation 19:11-21 and 20:9-11[/LIST] Finally, another parallel in the visions of Revelation 19 and 20 reflects the influence of Old Testament prophecy. The Old Testament scenes of the Lord’s judgements and triumphs among the nations often refer to the involvement of the created universe in these events. [color:blue]Similarly, many of the visions in Revelation of the warfare between Christ and his enemies describe the shaking of the cosmos itself.</font color=blue> It is remarkable to notice in a series of such descriptions in the book of Revelation, how this shaking accompanies the coming of Christ as King and the exercise of his judgement upon the nations (e.g., 6:12-17; 16:17-21; 19:11-21; 20:9-11). [color:blue]The last two instances of this association of Christ’s coming in victory and the shaking of the earth itself occur in the visions of Revelation 19 and 20.</font color=blue><br><br>Again, this would confirm that these visions describe the same end-time event, but from a slightly different vantage point. Since the shaking of the earth at Christ’s coming is elsewhere said to be the last instance of such shaking, after which nothing shakeable will remain to be shaken further (Heb. 12:26-27), it would not make sense to say that the shaking of the cosmos at Christ’s second coming (Rev. 19) would still have to be followed by a further shaking of the cosmos at the end of the millennium (Rev. 20). A more likely reading would take these two visionary descriptions of this shaking to refer to the end of present history at the second coming of Christ.<br><br>These various clues and indicators of parallels between the visions of Revelation 19 and 20 having been considered, it may be helpful to summarize their significance for the understanding of the vision of the millennium in Revelation 20.<br><br>[color:blue]The premillennialist position depends significantly upon the claim that the visions of Revelation 19 and 20 are to be read in sequence. Since Revelation 19 is a vision of the return of Christ, and since the millennium of Revelation 20 follows this event, it seems that the premillennial position is the most likely one. However, if the considerations we have summarized in the preceding are correct, the premillennial position is seriously compromised, if not refuted. Not only does Premillennialism enjoy little support from other portions of Scripture, but it also fails to provide a plausible account of the relation between the visions of Revelation 19 and 20. For if these visions are not to be read in sequence but as parallel accounts of the same period of history, then the millennium of Revelation 20 would precede rather than follow the event of Christ’s return at the end of the age.</font color=blue><br><br>This seems to be the conclusion to which the above considerations lead. Just as the vision of Revelation 19 describes the return of Christ, the complete destruction of all of the nations, the last outpouring of God’s wrath at the close of the present period of history, so the vision of Revelation 20 closes with a description of the return of Christ at the close of the millennium, the complete destruction of all the nations, and the last outpouring of God’s wrath at the close of the present period of history. The parallels between these visions — in language, symbolism, use of Old Testament prophecy, and content — is so pervasive and compelling as to yield but one likely explanation: they are describing the same period of history, the same episodes and the same conclusion at the end of the age.<br><br>This means that in our study of the vision in Revelation 20 of the millennium, we have every reason to believe that the millennium it describes is now. The millennium of Revelation 20 coincides with the period of history prior to Christ’s return at the end of the age, prior to the day of Christ’s final victory over his and his people’s enemies, and prior to the last judgement and all the other events that will accompany the close of this present age.

The premillennial system requires a prophetic future with multiple resurrections and end-time judgments. The Bible, in contrast, repeatedly refers to the prophetic future in terms of a single resurrection and a single judgment. The only passage premillennialists have to prove their multiple resurrection theory is Revelation 20:4-6, which has already been refuted.<br><br>Does the Bible teach that there is a 1000-year gap between the second coming of Christ and the final judgment? Does it teach that there is a 1000-year gap between the resurrection of the righteous and the wicked? Actually, there is no gap between these events. In fact, the Bible teaches that these events are to occur on the very same day. Thus, Premillennialism is theologically and biblically impossible.<br><br>The gospels and epistles present a unified picture of the second coming and the judgment by Jesus Christ. The second coming of Christ, the rapture, the resurrection of the righteous and wicked, and the judgment of the righteous and the wicked all are to occur on the same day. The Apostle Paul teaches that when Christ returns, He will take vengeance on the wicked. The wicked will receive everlasting destruction, but Christ will dwell with the saints. All who believe will admire and glorify Christ. When will this occur? On [color:blue]that day</font color=blue> (singular), [color:blue]when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes, in that day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe</font color=blue> (2 Th. 1:7-10). Is there a 1000-year gap between the destruction of the wicked and the glorification of the saints? No, they both occur on that day. Does Christ crush the wicked from His throne in Jerusalem? No, He is revealed from heaven. On the final day Christ comes from heaven to judge all men, both the righteous and the wicked. The reward of the righteous and the punishment of the wicked are interwoven with each other as to time, and made to follow, both of them, immediately on the coming of the Lord. Surely this passage should make perfectly clear that there is no secret rapture to be followed at an interval of seven years by an open revelation of the Lord and His glory to the world. Surely it is perfectly clear also that since the coming of the Lord brings upon the wicked [color:blue]eternal destruction away from the face of the Lord,</font color=blue> there are no wicked who will survive His coming to be ruled over a millennium to follow. But there must be wicked people surviving, according to the premillennial scheme.

PrestorJohn,<br>Re:<br>"The London Confession of Baptist Faith" chapter XIII "Of Sanctification."<br><br>Would you mind listing several of these "Moral Laws" from the Mosais Law that we Christians are under - that are NOT repeated elsewhere in the Bible?<br><br>I don't need all of them, just 3 or 4 would help alleviate my confusion.<br><br>Thanks,<br>Johannah<br><br><br><br>

Johannah,<br><br>Obviously, I'm not Prestor John! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/laugh.gif" alt="laugh" title="laugh[/img] But I would like to comment/answer your question:<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Would you mind listing several of these "Moral Laws" from the Mosais Law that we Christians are under - that are NOT repeated elsewhere in the Bible?</font><hr></blockquote><p>First of all the Moral Law is NOT "Mosaic". The laws which were engraved in stone when Moses was on Mt. Sinai were not new...... they were in effect 1000's of years before Moses. They were simply emphasized once again at that time. Secondly, there are NONE which are not repeated elsewhere in the Bible, for they permeate the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation. They are PERPETUAL and perpetually BINDING, upon every man, woman and child, that has ever been born on earth. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img] God's standard of holiness cannot be bifurcated or abrogated. Either one lives according to the holy standards of God's character revealed or one doesn't. Even the Lord Christ was bound to keep the law perfectly; He who was the author of that Law. Men are either justified by keeping it; personally or vicariously or they are condemned for breaking it. It is the foundation of God's justice. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]<br><br>In His Grace,

Pilgrim,<br>Do you keep the Sabbath holy? The Sabbath Commandment is carved in stone. No one is told anywhere else in Scripture to "keep" it. Not even in Genesis. Saturday is and always has been the Sabbath. Ask any Jew. The Ten Commandments are just a summary of the 320 other Laws. Nine of them are repeated in the New Testament, but the commandmend on the Sabbath isn't.<br><br>I think we are back where we started.

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]The Sabbath Commandment is carved in stone. No one is told anywhere else in Scripture to "keep" it.</font><hr></blockquote><p>I really don't know where you get your information from, but it certainly isn't reliable. Perhaps you should reconsider who you read? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/wink.gif" alt="wink" title="wink[/img] The "Sabbath" was indeed carved in stone, but that surely isn't the first occurrence of the Sabbath. The Sabbath began in the Garden of Eden and will be finally expressed at the ushering in of the New Heaven and New Earth, where every day will be a Sabbath unto the Lord. If you truly are interested in learning about the Sabbath from a biblical standpoint, then I would recommend Dr. Francis Nigel Lee's book, The Covenantal Sabbath, which is out of print. But, would you believe . . . it just so happens to be online here: The Covenantal Sabbath.<br><br>Admittedly, the book is rather "hard going" in the beginning chapters, but well worth the effort. This is probably THE classic work on the Sabbath as it deals with nearly every aspect, question, etc., ever devised by man. The Scriptural references are plentiful, so much so, that the footnotes, which number far in excess of 1000 are all "hot linked" within the text so that they can be referenced quickly if desired. If after reading that book, assuming you are even interested, you are still convinced that the "Sabbath" is irrelevant to Christians today, I'll leave you to your error as only the Spirit can truly change the mind and heart. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]<br><br>In His Grace,

I didn't read all of the site you suggested, but I did read the chapter "The Sabbath in the Reformed Church." I see now where you are coming from. I have always wondered how it all came about and why - now I know. Thanks.

I assume everyone had seen a list of the 7 dispensations, but you might want to have another look.<br><br>http://www.lightandlamp.com/seven.htm

I found this statement in a booklet I am reading on Election. Will someone tell me what this statement means? I don't understand Covenant Theology, so I'm not sure what the author is talking about:<br>___________________________________________________ <br>It is true that the Bible says that Christ gave His life a ranson "for many" (Matt. 20:28), "for the sheep" (John 10:11), and for "the church" (Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25). It should be noted, in passing, that here is a link between five point Calvinism and so-called "covenant" or anti-dispenstional theology. No one believes that Christ died for saints of this age alone, so in order to view the word "church" in such verses as Ephesians 5:25 as equivalent to "the elect of all ages" one is led to a denial of dispensational teaching. But these statements do not deny that He died for others also, and in fact are no more exclusive than are the statements, "Christ died for me," and "This is my country." <br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]It is true that the Bible says that Christ gave His life a ranson "for many" (Matt. 20:28), "for the sheep" (John 10:11), and for "the church" (Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25). It should be noted, in passing, that here is a link between five point Calvinism and so-called "covenant" or anti-dispenstional theology. No one believes that Christ died for saints of this age alone, so in order to view the word "church" in such verses as Ephesians 5:25 as equivalent to "the elect of all ages" one is led to a denial of dispensational teaching. [color:red]But these statements do not deny that He died for others also</font color=red>, and in fact are no more exclusive than are the statements, "Christ died for me," and "This is my country." </font><hr></blockquote><p> Truth + Error = Error. It would be interesting to know the name of the book and author. There are some who "claim" to be 4 point Calvinists, but in reality are 4 point Arminians.<br><br>Christ did die for ONLY the elect: "for many" (Matt. 20:28), "for the sheep" (John 10:11), and for "the church" (Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25). Historical Christianity does lead to anti-dispensational thinking. An easy-way to picture this is with this edited JO paradigm:<br><br>God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for,<br><br><ul>1. either all the sins of all men,<br>2. or all the sins of some men,<br>3. or some sins of all men.[/LIST] If the last (3), [color:red]some sins of all men</font color=red>, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved; for if God entered into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight: “If the LORD should mark iniquities, who should stand?” Ps. cxxx. 2. We might all go to cast all that we have “to the moles and to the bats, to go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty,” Isa. ii. 20, 21.<br><br>If the Second (2), that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room Suffered for [color:red]all the sins of all the elect in the world</font color=red>.<br><br>If the first (1), why then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins?<br><br>You will say, “Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.”<br><br>[color:red]But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not</font color=red>?<br><br>If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not.<br><br>If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death?<br><br>If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins. Let them choose which part they will.