Am I (becoming) Calvinist?

ShaulHaTarsi · Aug 24, 2016

Over the past few weeks I've been reading lots of things by what would be called the "New Calvinists". The doctrine of free grace received, delivered, and made effectual by the sovereignty of God alone is a very strong and uncompromising message and has really allowed me to formally approach God as the source of all grace and help let go of the vestiges of my pride (or at least try to). That being said...

I am having issues understanding limited atonement and the size of the elect. I was watching a sermon the other day by R.C. Sproul (

), and towards the end of it, he implies he believes that "less than 10%" of Americans are saved. I'm not sure this is actually a purely Calvinistic problem. Perhaps even by Arminian standards (if one cannot be saved except by conscious faith in Christ), the number of those who are saved is fairly small. This does change a bit when x amount of people are predestined to hell.
Personally I would not wish to speculate (i.e. remain "agnostic" about those who are not regenerate); or perhaps I would take the view that those who sincerely care about their salvation have already manifested signs of regeneration. There is a thin line between being agnostic about who the elect really are, and a de-facto universalism. Our Lord does make it quite clear in many places that Hell is not empty.
Do calvinists in general necessarily deny any salvation-agnostic doctrines?

To approach it another way, here is how I understand the five points myself:

Total Depravity: We are incapable of having a saving relationship with God, and are by nature apathetic and/or indifferent to him, even if not openly hostile. We seek to glorify ourselves.

Unconditional Election: Because of total depravity, our election is not based on the "type of person" someone is. The relationship is inverse. One becomes a believer because he has been elected as such by God and regenerated and convicted by the Holy Spirit

Limited Atonement: The cross does not atone for those who do not see themselves atoned by it. The atonement is only effective for those who have been regenerated. Those who deny its power, or those who do not recognize its power are not atoned for, and it is because of their sins that they are convicted.

Irresistible Grace: One does not choose regeneration. It just happens. It is a process ordained by God, and not something we can participate in. We may have free will with respect to how we choose to live our lives within grace, but the free will itself is limited and can never by definition truly stray.. which leads to the last point

Perseverance: One cannot willingly or truly turn away from God once captured by His grace, to the extent in which his salvation is lost.

I wish I could take the actual time to read the original founding documents etc. - for example, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/adrianwarnock/2010/11/was-spurgeon-an-arminocalvinist/ seems to sum up what I think.

JM · Aug 25, 2016

Hello ShaulHa,

ShaulHaTarsi said:
Total Depravity: We are incapable of having a saving relationship with God, and are by nature apathetic and/or indifferent to him, even if not openly hostile. We seek to glorify ourselves.

Romans 8.7 "...the carnal mind is enmity against God..."

Enmity
EN'MITY, noun

1. The quality of being an enemy; the opposite of friendship; ill will; hatred; unfriendly dispositions; malevolence. It expresses more than aversion and less than malice, and differs from displeasure in denoting a fixed or rooted hatred, whereas displeasure is more transient.

I will put enmity between thee and the woman. Genesis 3:15.

The carnal mind is enmity against God.Romans 8:7.

2. A state of opposition.

The friendship of the world is enmity with God. James 4:4.

Unconditional Election

Click to expand...

: Because of total depravity, our election is not based on the "type of person" someone is. The relationship is inverse. One becomes a believer because he has been elected as such by God and regenerated and convicted by the Holy Spirit

Election is based on God's freewill to choose. It is not based on any condition, faith/works/etc, found in the sinner but on God's mercy and grace alone.

Limited Atonement

Click to expand...

: The cross does not atone for those who do not see themselves atoned by it. The atonement is only effective for those who have been regenerated. Those who deny its power, or those who do not recognize its power are not atoned for, and it is because of their sins that they are convicted.

All Christians limit the atonement of Christ. Some limit the power claiming Christ’s death doesn’t actually save unless faith is added. Others limit the scoop to only those for whom Christ was given. The Bible teaches that Christ died for “the church,” “the elect,” “many” etc. The Bible limits the scoop of Christ’s death.

Irresistible Grace

Click to expand...

: One does not choose regeneration. It just happens. It is a process ordained by God, and not something we can participate in. We may have free will with respect to how we choose to live our lives within grace, but the free will itself is limited and can never by definition truly stray.. which leads to the last point

When God calls a sinner that call is irresistible. God always gets His man (or women hehe).

Perseverance

Click to expand...

: One cannot willingly or truly turn away from God once captured by His grace, to the extent in which his salvation is lost.

Right. We may stumble and fall but will always get up. Those who don't turn from sin or repent have no place in Christ.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

JM · Aug 25, 2016

You may find a Reformed Confession of Faith helpful.

Ending statement and Signatories

hedrick · Aug 26, 2016

While your statement of the limited atonement is logically correct, I would recommend the term "definite atonement," with a positive statement. That is, the purpose of the atonement is to actually save people, not just set up the possibility of being saved. Hence everyone for whom Christ died is in fact saved.

I don't see anything in Reformed theology that commits you to the number of people who are saved. However there are things that would tend to lead people to relative small estimates.

The key question is whether explicit faith in Christ is required for salvation. (Actually, in the spirit of my previous statement, it's probably best not to say that one must have faith to be saved, but rather to say that the process of God saving someone includes producing explicit faith in Christ.) Calvin, and all the conservative Calvinists I know, believe in Christian exclusivism. That is, they don't think someone can lack faith in Christ and still be saved (aside from infants). If you accept that, it limits the number of people who are saved. Of course more liberal Reformed (including me) are often inclusivist. That would allow a larger fraction to be saved. My sense is that you're interested in conservative Calvinism.

I agree with JM that if you want to read founding documents, the Westminster Confession (or better yet, Calvin's Institutes) is a better place to start than the page you pointed to.

ShaulHaTarsi · Aug 26, 2016

hedrick said:
While your statement of the limited atonement is logically correct, I would recommend the term "definite atonement," with a positive statement. That is, the purpose of the atonement is to actually save people, not just set up the possibility of being saved. Hence everyone for whom Christ died is in fact saved.

I don't see anything in Reformed theology that commits you to the number of people who are saved. However there are things that would tend to lead people to relative small estimates.

The key question is whether explicit faith in Christ is required for salvation. (Actually, in the spirit of my previous statement, it's probably best not to say that one must have faith to be saved, but rather to say that the process of God saving someone includes producing explicit faith in Christ.) Calvin, and all the conservative Calvinists I know, believe in Christian exclusivism. That is, they don't think someone can lack faith in Christ and still be saved (aside from infants). If you accept that, it limits the number of people who are saved. Of course more liberal Reformed (including me) are often inclusivist. That would allow a larger fraction to be saved. My sense is that you're interested in conservative Calvinism.

I agree with JM that if you want to read founding documents, the Westminster Confession (or better yet, Calvin's Institutes) is a better place to start than the page you pointed to.

Thanks for your reply.

I just used Limited Atonement because I was using the TULIP acronym. I think the idea of particular atonement speaks to be the best, showing its individual nature and how God's grace is transformative, rather than it just being available to all.

Regarding salvation and inclusivism vs exclusivism, I found this very interesting chart (written by a self-identifying "accessibilist" Calvinist): http://thoughtstheological.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Typology-re-salvation.pdf; I'd say I'd range myself a 5-8 on that.

I'm not sure if I want to be classified as a Conservative or Liberal. Of the New Calvinists, the one that speaks the most to me would be Tim Keller. I'm not sure how he classifies.

I'm halfway through the LBC that JM linked to. I'm assuming the Westminster Confession is a bit different

hedrick · Aug 27, 2016

The LBC is fairly similar to Westminster.

Keller is on the liberal end of conservative Presbyterianism. While he is less strident than many, and is sympathetic to liberal concerns, in the end he is committed to PCA doctrines. So I'd be pretty sure he is exclusivist.

twin1954 · Aug 27, 2016

The five points aren't about just doctrine. They are about God's love, mercy and grace that actually accomplished something for the chosen sinner for the glory of God in Christ alone.

Total depravity is about our Federal head Adam plunging us all into a state of spiritual death and depravity that takes the things of God and makes them to be the things of man. It shows us what we are by nature and that we are no different than anyone in the world. We are actually the worst of the bunch.
Election is electing love.
Particular redemption is about mercy and grace found in Christ alone that actually did something for all He stood as Surety and Substitute for.
Effectual calling is about the Gospel of the free and sovereign grace of God in Christ Jesus being preached and believed by all the elect who hear it by the call of the Spirit.
Perseverance is about the power of God keeping all that He has chosen, called and justified by and in Christ keeping the saved sinner and causing him/her to persevere in faith.

It is all about God and about us incidentally. Salvation in Christ Jesus is in order to glorify God and we are passive recipients of the wondrous love, mercy and grace of God through it.

We ought always to keep our focus on Him who has loved us and gave Himself for us. We preach Christ and Him crucified.

As to the elect being a small number, Heaven will be a full place. They are as many as the stars of the sky and the sand of the sea, an innumerable company. They are never the majority in any generation to be sure but they are certainly not just a handful. Our responsibility is to the generation in which we live. We are to preach Christ in all His wondrous saving glory to all who will hear us in our generation and do all we can, as God gives us opportunity, to see to it that the Gospel of the free and sovereign grace of God in Christ Jesus is preached in all the world.

hedrick · Aug 27, 2016

I'm a bit surprised. I found an interview where Keller talked about non Christians His answer was that Christ is the only way of salvation we have been told about, but that we haven't been told about the possibilities for non-Christians.

ShaulHaTarsi · Aug 27, 2016

hedrick said:
I'm a bit surprised. I found an interview where Keller talked about non Christians His answer was that Christ is the only way of salvation we have been told about, but that we haven't been told about the possibilities for non-Christians.

I did some research on the issue. Are you referring to https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.or...ains-his-remark-on-the-exclusivity-of-christ/ ?

JM · Aug 27, 2016

Keller is confusing at times. Stick with fellas like R. C. Sproul, Joel Beeke, James White, Al Mohler, etc. Sproul alone will keep you busy for years!

ShaulHaTarsi · Aug 27, 2016

Perhaps slightly unrelated, but I'm not understanding what this means from the LBC (http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc21.html)

God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his word, or not contained in it. So that to believe such doctrines, or obey such commands out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring of an implicit faith, an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience and reason also.

The referenced scriptures imply that one is to make a distinction and evaluate any commandment of men in the light of God, and that conscience is the realm of God, and that the law of men is simply suggestive. Perhaps I'm missing out some historical context here.

hedrick · Aug 27, 2016

ShaulHaTarsi said:
I did some research on the issue. Are you referring to https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.or...ains-his-remark-on-the-exclusivity-of-christ/ ?

Yes. Different web page but the same interview.

hedrick · Aug 27, 2016

Liberal is ambiguous. When I use it, it’s normally a reference to Christian theology in general. To me a conservative is one who believes in inerrancy, with implications such as no ordination of women and gays. A liberal holds the opposite position. However in the context of this group conservative could refer to reasonably strict adherence to Westminster and other Reformed standards. Keller definitely believes in inerrancy, and draws the usual conclusions from that. By being a pastor in the Presbyterian Church of America, he’s supposed to be committed to supporting Westminster, which would make him conservative in the Reformed sense as well.

I’ve seen nothing to suggest a compromise on inerrancy or the usual associated issues. But he’s right at the borderline on being conservative in the Reformed sense. There are members of the PCA who thinks he’s gone beyond the boundaries. My sense is that he doesn’t positively assert anything contrary to Westminster. In this case, e.g., he doesn’t positively assert that anyone can be saved other than through explicit faith in Christ. But he implies that it’s possible. Similarly, the PCA seem to reject evolution. Keller doesn’t positively teach evolution (as far as I know), but has implied that it’s not necessarily a problem. This paper of his https://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Keller_white_paper.pdf comes *very* close to asserting something that is unacceptable to the PCA (or at least was in 1989. See http://theaquilareport.com/pcas-sta...hold-to-theistic-evolution-by-don-k-clements/)

Most of the participants here are nearer the mainstream of the PCA, i.e. they are traditional Reformed as well as conservative in the broader sense. (I represent the mainstream of the PCUSA, so I’m liberal in both senses.) That’s why few here would recommend Keller to a newcomer exploring Reformed theology. Of course you're free to reject that advice, and explore Keller-style "new Calvinism" or even my style of liberal Reformed theology, but you should be aware of the tensions.

ShaulHaTarsi · Aug 27, 2016

hedrick said:
Liberal is ambiguous. When I use it, it’s normally a reference to Christian theology in general. To me a conservative is one who believes in inerrancy, with implications such as no ordination of women and gays. A liberal holds the opposite position. However in the context of this group conservative could refer to reasonably strict adherence to Westminster and other Reformed standards. Keller definitely believes in inerrancy, and draws the usual conclusions from that. By being a pastor in the Presbyterian Church of America, he’s supposed to be committed to supporting Westminster, which would make him conservative in the Reformed sense as well.

I’ve seen nothing to suggest a compromise on inerrancy or the usual associated issues. But he’s right at the borderline on being conservative in the Reformed sense. There are members of the PCA who thinks he’s gone beyond the boundaries. My sense is that he doesn’t positively assert anything contrary to Westminster. In this case, e.g., he doesn’t positively assert that anyone can be saved other than through explicit faith in Christ. But he implies that it’s possible. Similarly, the PCA seem to reject evolution. Keller doesn’t positively teach evolution (as far as I know), but has implied that it’s not necessarily a problem. This paper of his https://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Keller_white_paper.pdf comes *very* close to asserting something that is unacceptable to the PCA (or at least was in 1989. See http://theaquilareport.com/pcas-sta...hold-to-theistic-evolution-by-don-k-clements/)

Most of the participants here are nearer the mainstream of the PCA, i.e. they are traditional Reformed as well as conservative in the broader sense. (I represent the mainstream of the PCUSA, so I’m liberal in both senses.) That’s why few here would recommend Keller to a newcomer exploring Reformed theology.

Actually, the approach of a personal conservatism and an implicit agnosticism (with respect to the realities around us, when practical to do so) very much speaks to me. I think his example towards evolution and creation are rather in step with my own. I personally believe in a literal, young earth creation, but I also acknowledge that people are able to reconcile the historicity of the fall together with the theory of evolution. To be more clear, I think that a high view of scripture and the fundamental belief in its inerrancy is more important than debating over creationism or exclusivism or matters of a similar nature that do not in themselves have direct implication on our own salvation and sanctification.

I may perceive certain "innovations" with suspicion and certainly would hold steadfast to the primacy of scripture, I do not see a lockstep interpretation in every matter theoretically necessary to accurately convey the faith and preach the gospel, and acknowledge the fact that many of my interpretations are essentially personal and not universal.

If I had to summarize what I've learned from Keller and other theologians and pastors, is the fact that God is sovereign. God is not our conception of love, nor our conception of wrath. Our faith is in a God that Himself defines and reveals to us that only he is love, and it is only through him that we are granted this understanding and faith, and that that our acknowledgement and recognition of our own inability for faith and love and indeed anything else we see as purposeful or divine is ultimately the beginning of the process of regeneration.

JM · Aug 27, 2016

“The truth is that the life-purpose of Jesus discovered by modern liberalism is not the life purpose of the real Jesus, but merely represents those elements in the teaching of Jesus--isolated and misinterpreted--which happen to agree with the modern program. It is not Jesus, then, who is the real authority, but the modern principle by which the selection within Jesus' recorded teaching has been made. Certain isolated ethical principles of the Sermon on the Mount are accepted, not at all because they are teachings of Jesus, but because they agree with modern ideas.”

“Paganism is that view of life which finds the highest goal of human existence in the healthy and harmonious and joyous development of existing human faculties. Very different is the Christian ideal. Paganism is optimistic with regard to unaided human nature, whereas Christianity is the religion of the broken heart.” ― J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism

Skala · Sep 19, 2016

Hi there ShaulHaTarsi!

I wanted to chime in because I noticed in your post that Limited Atonement was proving itself difficult for you. I agree, it is very difficult, but only because most people approach it wrong! I felt inclined to reply and try to explain Limited Atonement because I think it is the single most important doctrine a Christian can (and should) believe.

I mentioned that sometimes people approach it wrong. here's what I mean. Most often when discussing Limited Atonement (usually non-Calvinists who are attacking or arguing against the doctrine), they spend all of their time focusing on the "quantity" of sinners that Christ died for. That is why they get hung up on words like "all" and "world". This demonstrates that they don't really understand Limited Atonement.

Why?
Because Limited Atonement isn't really best understood or even defined in terms of "quantity", but rather, for lack of a better word, "quality"

In other words, Limited Atonement doesn't care so much about the question "how many people did Christ die for?" but rather, it is more concerned with the question "What did Christ's atonement actually accomplish?"

When you talk about what it accomplished rather than a "number of people" affected by it, you get much closer to the true intention and understanding of the doctrine.

If you look in the Bible and see how it talks about the atonement, not a single time will you find that what it accomplished was merely "making salvation possible".

Not.
A.
Single.
Time.

Instead, you find verses like this:

"he will save his people from their sins" Mat 1:21

"stricken for he sins of God's people" Isaiah 53:11

he would "justify many people" because he "bore the sin of many" (Isaiah 53)

"he made him..to be sin on our behalf" What is the result? "so that we would be made righteous" 2 Cor 5:21

"Christ loved the church and gave himself up for..." for who? Every single person? Even those people who are not his wife? Nope, "for HER". Why? to what end? what was accomplished? "To present her to himself as blameless and without any stain or blemish" Eph 5:25ff

"I lay down my life for the sheep" What is the accomplished result? "i give them eternal life, and they will never perish" John 10 Notice, the ones he dies for receive eternal life. There is no such thing as Christ dying for someone who in turn is not saved.

His death cancelled the record of debt that stood against us (Col 2:14)

he said "It is finished", and the Greek word is "teteleo" which is the word used to indicate a debt has been paid in full (John 19:30)

Please notice something in these verses. The atonement is spoken of in the Bible as actually accomplishing salvation for people. Not merely making salvation a possibility. As I said above, not a single time is it described as having made reconciliation with God a mere possibility, but an actuality for everyone Christ died for.

If Christ "bore the sin" of Hitler, then Hitler is in saved, redeemed, and in heaven. End of story. There is no possible way for Hitler to be in hell, because there is no left over guilt that God can find in Hitler, Christ having "cancelled the record of sin that stood against him".

Thus, you see that Limited Atonement is better understood when you talk about what it actually accomplished, not "how many people did Christ die for".

Words like "world" and "all" - what do we make of them?

Remember, the Jews were anticipating a Messiah of the Jews. The Messiah was supposed to come and save God's people, and wipe out all of their enemies. It never dawned on a Jewish mind that the Messiah was also going to be a savior of the Gentiles. The gentiles were pagans. The gentiles were "the world" and worshiped false gods and needed to be destroyed.

Thus, the authors of the New Testament were constantly trying to correct the Jewish mindset that the Messiah would be a savior not only of the Jews, but of the whole world.

This does not mean that Christ's atonement was for every single person, as you see with Christ's own argument in John 10, he said he was dying "For His sheep". God's elect.

stenerson · Oct 5, 2016

Regarding the size of the elect there is no official "reformed" number. Paul seems to allude to the fact that a remnant will be saved through grace. Does that apply to all of NT history?
It also depends on one's eschatology. Both premillenaelist and postmillienialist believe in a glorious future for humanity where salvation and true worship will be the norm, and that this period will last a very long time. That would put the over all elect/saved/redeemed in human history as the majority. (assuming current population trends).
Bottom line is that the redeemed are described as a great multitude, a number too great to count. The number is also described as the stars of the Heavens in multitude and like the grains of sand on the seashore.

sdowney717 · Oct 7, 2016

stenerson said:
Regarding the size of the elect there is no official "reformed" number. Paul seems to allude to the fact that a remnant will be saved through grace. Does that apply to all of NT history?
It also depends on one's eschatology. Both premillenaelist and postmillienialist believe in a glorious future for humanity where salvation and true worship will be the norm, and that this period will last a very long time. That would put the over all elect/saved/redeemed in human history as the majority. (assuming current population trends).
Bottom line is that the redeemed are described as a great multitude, a number too great to count. The number is also described as the stars of the Heavens in multitude and like the grains of sand on the seashore.

Christ says few are saved and many go to destruction.
Matthew 7:13-14New King James Version (NKJV)
The Narrow Way
13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

Those whose names are written in the book of life will be delivered.
Those who are saved (the wise), shall shine like the stars in the sky, but this no indication of their numbers being as the stars.

Daniel 12:1-3New King James Version (NKJV)
Prophecy of the End Time
12 “At that time Michael shall stand up,
The great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people;
And there shall be a time of trouble,
Such as never was since there was a nation,
Even to that time.
And at that time your people shall be delivered,
Every one who is found written in the book.
2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
Some to everlasting life,
Some to shame and everlasting contempt.
3 Those who are wise shall shine
Like the brightness of the firmament,
And those who turn many to righteousness
Like the stars forever and ever.

Moses tells Israel, God has fulfilled His word to Abraham about them multiplying as the stars in the heavens, from just a few people.
But they were not actually billions of people, yet they are a large multitude, compared to as like the stars that you look up and see in the sky for number.

Deuteronomy 1:10
The Lord your God has multiplied you, and here you are today, as the stars of heaven in multitude.

God was very displeased when Satan and David numbered the people.
So we don't number them either. Just say a large multitude as the stars in heaven, yet still few compared to those who go to destruction.

Revelation 7:8-10New King James Version (NKJV)
8 of the tribe of Zebulun twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Joseph twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Benjamin twelve thousand were sealed.

A Multitude from the Great Tribulation
9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands,10 and crying out with a loud voice, saying, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!”

God has a set number that will be saved.
Revelation 6:11
Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both thenumber of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed.

stenerson · Oct 7, 2016

sdowney717 said:
Christ says few are saved and many go to destruction.

So we don't number them either. Just say a large multitude as the stars in heaven, yet still few compared to those who go to destruction.

Sure, we know the verses about the few.. And then there are the verses about the great throng too great to count.
There are also promises about a glorious future where salvation and those seeking God will be the norm. Of course it depends on eschatological interpretation. Both pre-millienialist and post-millienialist believe this will be a long period of almost universal peace and salvation to the nations. I've been for a long time an A-millienialist assuming all the promises in the OT about this great future time of growth in the Kingdom of God here on Earth was just hyperbolic language. That is, I would take it as meaning just a small remnant from all the different tribes, nations etc. I'm not so sure anymore. Seems I'm not doing justice to the language and optimism in those passages.

sdowney717 · Oct 8, 2016

stenerson said:
Sure, we know the verses about the few.. And then there are the verses about the great throng too great to count.
There are also promises about a glorious future where salvation and those seeking God will be the norm. Of course it depends on eschatological interpretation. Both pre-millienialist and post-millienialist believe this will be a long period of almost universal peace and salvation to the nations. I've been for a long time an A-millienialist assuming all the promises in the OT about this great future time of growth in the Kingdom of God here on Earth was just hyperbolic language. That is, I would take it as meaning just a small remnant from all the different tribes, nations etc. I'm not so sure anymore. Seems I'm not doing justice to the language and optimism in those passages.

I have always been a pre millennialist and a futurist.
Jesus also calls them a little flock, and says many will deceive many people. We can assume those who are deceived about Christ are not saved, since He talks of the elect whom He chose being the only ones saved.

No doubts a little flock grew into a bigger flock, but there is a fullness number to come in and that is predetermined.

I have also wondered will all people on the earth be destroyed at His returning who did not know Christ, or only those drawn to the battle with the Lamb and the saints.

And where do all those born during the millennial rule come from, they are born, so they had married parents on this earth during Christ's rule for the 1000 years. Yet Jesus says they are not given in marriage but are like the angels.

Of which afterwards is a release of Satan, who again deceives the nations and then finally the new heavens and earth.

6 since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, 7 and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 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. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10 when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe, because our testimony among you was believed.

It seems clear that those who do not know God will be destroyed. So then married christian people have children who after a 1000 years Satan deceives many again.

7 Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea. 9 They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them. 10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Am I (becoming) Calvinist?

Active Member

Augsburg Catholic

Augsburg Catholic

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Baptist by the Bible

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Augsburg Catholic

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Augsburg Catholic

I'm a Saint. Not because of me, but because of Him

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads