more indept study of Armenian and Calvinist

[Omegaman 3.0]

47 minutes ago, Willa said:

I repent in dust and ashes--well not quite because it irritates my COPD.  But I misread what I thought you quoted out of context.  It was not a quote at all.  My dyslexia makes me a very poor reader. I do ask you to forgive me for accusing you of that.  

The posts I made in the past you may have eliminated because you thought they had degenerated or because you thought they were off topic.  At any rate, I have spent a lot of time looking up and trying to quote the same Scriptures time after time.  This time many of them are in the reply to humbled but not all.  

As said, predestination is looking at it all from God's view.  But I do believe that men alone are responsible for resisting God's call.  We who are saved can look back and see how God shaped circumstances and softened our hearts to convict us of sin and to receive Him into our lives.  God's revelation of Himself to me in nature was very sovereign.  There was no preacher nor was there any help from my parents or from church or any person.  The same goes with His conviction of sin and my repentance.  But I did need help after that to understand the nature of Christ and the Trinity.

47 minutes ago, Willa said:

 

I repent in dust and ashes--well not quite because it irritates my COPD.  But I misread what I thought you quoted out of context.  It was not a quote at all.  My dyslexia makes me a very poor reader. I do ask you to forgive me for accusing you of that.

Not a problem I am slightly dyslexic myself, so I get that. Back when I was an Agnostic and an Insomniac, I used to lie awake at night, and wonder if if there really was a Dog! Not a problem, forgiveness is really easy, when no harm was intended.

As said, predestination is looking at it all from God's view.  But I do believe that men alone are responsible for resisting God's call.

That for me, is interesting to ponder. I think I would agree with your notion that they are responsible for resisting God's call, but at the same time, I still think they are unable to. As a poor comparison, I think of the person, who see's him or herself, attracted to the same gender. I do not think that God made them that way. But I also do not think they just woke up one day, and thought: "You know, I think I will cease being interested in what is natural, and choose to be homosexual instead. God espects certain behaviors of us as a standard, and failure to meet that standard is a sin. I think it is possible, that a homosexual has a nature, that inclines them to that interest, not a choice there, it is how they are. Similarly, I never chose my orientation either, I am what I am. What God requires of us, that we do have control over, is how be behave.

Now some will read this, and think about how those homosexuals, were not made that way, and are totally responsible. I would point out, that we are ALL sinners. I did not choose to be a sinner, but . . . I did choose to sin. We do not become sinners when we sin, we sin, because we are sinners, that is our unfortunate nature. We are born, with a predisposition, to rebel against God. it is so pervasive, that we still sin, even as believers, and we have a new nature that people who have not been regenerated by God, have no way to tap, because it just is not there. So, Christians are not sinless, they just sin less, and even that, is not always true!

Anyway, now that our exchanges are back to a more respectful and understanding tone, I truly look forward to more dialogue with you and others here, I do think that overall, this has been a really helpful thread, in terms of gaining understanding of positions, and what certain words and phrases mean. I think that the discussion (not just here in this thread) is hampered by terminology that hearkens back hundreds of years, instead of being discussed in non church, not theological and non modern terms. When, and if, we can get it to where a 21st century English speaking 10 year old can follow, we might be better off.

Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse said - "The goal of the good Bible teacher is to get the hay down out of the loft onto the barn floor where the cows can get at it."

You also said: "predestination is looking at it all from God's view" 

Interesting idea to think about a little, I don't know that I endorse this idea or not, but I have heard it said, that approaching the gates of heaven we read the sign on the outside that says:

"All who will, may enter"

Once on the inside, we see the sign that reads:

"Welcome, you who were chosen from before the foundations of the world!"

[hmbld]

2 hours ago, Willa said:

• Lexical-syntactical analysis: This step looks at the words used and the way the words are used. Different order of the sentence, the punctuation, the tense of the verse are all aspects that are looked at in the lexical syntactical method. Here, lexicons and grammar aids can help in extracting meaning from the text.
• Contextual analysis: A verse out of context can often be taken to mean something completely different from the intention. This method focuses on the importance of looking at the context of a verse in its chapter, book and even biblical context.

 

Thank you for this Willa!  As for the rest of your post, If I am understanding you correctly, and I admit I do not grasp this thread as a whole very well, I believe I am very much in agreement with what you are pointing out, and have been for some time.  I am interested in understanding Mega, as he has a very distinctive style that I think I would appreciate even more if my IQ were a little higher, maybe I am on the wrong track, but it seems he is almost in agreement, only looking at the subject from the other side of the room.  Everyone is reading the same scripture, but their observation point is set a little different.  I wish to understand his viewpoint, if only to understand if I am basing my personal understanding on scripture, and not someones opinion that I have heard told repeatedly.  Sometimes I come to learn I believe things, without being able to point to the why I believe these things.  

I just read Mega's last post, and his last three sentences seem to be looking at the same sign from opposite sides of the sign.  

[Omegaman 3.0]

One problem that we may be having in discussing this topic is a communication issue. People here come from different levels of understanding in terms of their familiarity with Scripture. People have been led to believe certain things by listening to pastors or to their friends or reading a pamphlet or a book here or there and all matter of other influence.

Some of us have just accepted some ideas as truth without really having done sufficient homework to really justify what we believe with great confidence.

Some of us come to topics with such prejudices, that it seems as though we can't really hear what the other person is saying. Some of us do not understand the terminology of theology, or perhaps we have a misunderstanding or a skewed understanding of what some terms mean.

Some of us might only accept one version of the Bible as authoritative, and some might prefer a version of the Bible because it is very easy to understand. The problem with some of those versions, is that the writer may not even be translating what the Bible says so much as they are restating what they think it means.

Some of us approach the Bible in a pretty much strictly literal fashion, and that may not always be the right thing to do. On the other hand some of us might approach the Bible viewing it with the idea that it is mostly symbolism or allegory and then miss entirely what it is saying to us. There is probably some balance in between these extremes which is best, but it is very hard to know or to say where that balance is.

For those of you who are reading my posts, you should know that I am speaking to people who believe that the Bible is the word of God, that it does not contain errors, and that it has no contradictions, even though we might see plenty of things that appear to be contradictory.

When I say this I do not mean to say that the Bible that we have in our hands no matter what version it might be, is completely error-free. I mean to say that when God inspired certain individuals to write what became Scripture, that that inspiration was perfect and those individuals wrote down exactly what it was that God intended for us to know. We do not have any copies of those original manuscripts.

On the other hand, the tens of thousands of copies of ancient manuscripts and manuscript fragments are of such overwhelming consistency and similarity, that I believe a reasonable person looking at them without prejudices would conclude that for all intents and practical purposes they are very very good and worthy of our trust.

So, if you are not a person who believes and trusts the Scriptures, then I am not speaking to you as my audience. Of course you are free to read what I write and free to believe what you want. But I am not likely to engage you in any debate when we cannot even approach the Bible from the same reference of its reliability.

One thing that is difficult in this thread, and in other threads as well, is that people have such a variety of experience and sophistication that it is very difficult to write something meaningful that everyone can understand.

Sometimes people in this thread as well as myself, might refer to some grammar and vocabulary concerning the original languages of the Bible, primarily Hebrew and Greek. I have had some training in Greek, absolutely no training in Hebrew, but I would venture to say that probably no one commenting in this thread is an expert in any of these languages, and we should all be distrusted a little bit when we speak on that topic. Most of the time when the Bible is translated, it has been done so by people who have more training and experience in the original languages, and there translations should probably be seen and respected more than things like we laymen might say about a verse based on our dim understanding of an original language and a copy of a lexicon in our hands.

I understand and admit my limitations in this area and I caution everyone to take what I say about Greek or Hebrew with a grain of salt and do the same for others posting here who may sound knowledgeable, but really might be pretty ignorant.

Finally, because I have noticed that a lot of people are commenting on the difficulty which they are having trying to follow this discussion, I am going to make an effort to try to simplify what I am saying while at the same time not sounding condescending.

I don't know how well I will be able to strike that balance. I will be depending on you all to let me know if I am going over your head, or being too simple-minded. It is a broad audience here, and very hard to fit our posts in a way which are both understandable and informative.

I pray that the Holy Spirit will open the eyes and ears of your understanding to what it is that he is saying, and block you from accepting the errors of us who are posting in this thread.

[angels4u]

7 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

One problem that we may be having in discussing this topic is a communication issue. People here come from different levels of understanding in terms of their familiarity with Scripture. People have been led to believe certain things by listening to pastors or to their friends or reading a pamphlet or a book here or there and all matter of other influence.

Some of us have just accepted some ideas as truth without really having done sufficient homework to really justify what we believe with great confidence.

Some of us come to topics with such prejudices, that it seems as though we can't really hear what the other person is saying. Some of us do not understand the terminology of theology, or perhaps we have a misunderstanding or a skewed understanding of what some terms mean.

Some of us might only accept one version of the Bible as authoritative, and some might prefer a version of the Bible because it is very easy to understand. The problem with some of those versions, is that the writer may not even be translating what the Bible says so much as they are restating what they think it means.

Some of us approach the Bible in a pretty much strictly literal fashion, and that may not always be the right thing to do. On the other hand some of us might approach the Bible viewing it with the idea that it is mostly symbolism or allegory and then miss entirely what it is saying to us. There is probably some balance in between these extremes which is best, but it is very hard to know or to say where that balance is.

For those of you who are reading my posts, you should know that I am speaking to people who believe that the Bible is the word of God, that it does not contain errors, and that it has no contradictions, even though we might see plenty of things that appear to be contradictory.

When I say this I do not mean to say that the Bible that we have in our hands no matter what version it might be, is completely error-free. I mean to say that when God inspired certain individuals to write what became Scripture, that that inspiration was perfect and those individuals wrote down exactly what it was that God intended for us to know. We do not have any copies of those original manuscripts.

On the other hand, the tens of thousands of copies of ancient manuscripts and manuscript fragments are of such overwhelming consistency and similarity, that I believe a reasonable person looking at them without prejudices would conclude that for all intents and practical purposes they are very very good and worthy of our trust.

So, if you are not a person who believes and trusts the Scriptures, then I am not speaking to you as my audience. Of course you are free to read what I write and free to believe what you want. But I am not likely to engage you in any debate when we cannot even approach the Bible from the same reference of its reliability.

One thing that is difficult in this thread, and in other threads as well, is that people have such a variety of experience and sophistication that it is very difficult to write something meaningful that everyone can understand.

Sometimes people in this thread as well as myself, might refer to some grammar and vocabulary concerning the original languages of the Bible, primarily Hebrew and Greek. I have had some training in Greek, absolutely no training in Hebrew, but I would venture to say that probably no one commenting in this thread is an expert in any of these languages, and we should all be distrusted a little bit when we speak on that topic. Most of the time when the Bible is translated, it has been done so by people who have more training and experience in the original languages, and there translations should probably be seen and respected more than things like we laymen might say about a verse based on our dim understanding of an original language and a copy of a lexicon in our hands.

I understand and admit my limitations in this area and I caution everyone to take what I say about Greek or Hebrew with a grain of salt and do the same for others posting here who may sound knowledgeable, but really might be pretty ignorant.

Finally, because I have noticed that a lot of people are commenting on the difficulty which they are having trying to follow this discussion, I am going to make an effort to try to simplify what I am saying while at the same time not sounding condescending.

I don't know how well I will be able to strike that balance. I will be depending on you all to let me know if I am going over your head, or being too simpleminded. It is a broad audience here, and very hard to fit our posts in a way which are both understandable and informative.

I pray that the Holy Spirit will open the eyes and ears of your understanding to what it is that he is saying, and block you from accepting the errors of us who are posting in this thread.

 

Thank you Mega for all the time you take on this topic and it's all very Biblical, I have to admit, it was going over my head.

I do read the post and I'm glad it's not a Salvation matter.

Most Calvinist ( this is off the topic for a moment ) think that we're already living in the Millenial, do you agree with the Amillenial doctrine?

Thank you dear friend in Christ, someday soon we shall see that blessed day !

 

[angels4u]

I'm just reading a little more of who what for kind of person John Calvin was:

1. Calvin believed that executing unrepentant heretics was justified.

The best known example of this is when Calvin consented to the execution of Michael Servetus, a man who denied the Trinity and infant baptism. Servetus burned for one hour simply because of his theological views.

Calvin supporters are quick to point out that the great Reformer didn’t directly execute the man. He even tried to persuade Servetus not to come to Geneva. Calvin also tried to get Servetus to repent and sought for him to be granted a more humane execution (which was beheading instead of burning).

Even so, Calvin made this remark regarding Servetus, showing that he believed death for heresy was justifiable.

“But I am unwilling to pledge my word for his safety, for if he shall come [to Geneva], I shall never permit him to depart alive, provided my authority be of any avail.” [1]

During Servertus’ trial, Calvin remarked:

“I hope that the verdict will call for the death penalty.” [2]

Nine years after the execution, Calvin made this comment in answering his critics: “Servetus suffered the penalty due his heresies, but was it by my will. Certainly his arrogance destroyed him not less than his impiety.” [3]

Calvin is also quoted as saying, “Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt. This is not laid down on human authority; it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for his Church.” [3a]

Whether you agree with Calvin’s view or defend his actions because he was “a man of his times,” many Christians find the idea of executing heretics to be shocking.

This brings up another point for another post, but consider for a moment if murder was legal in our time.

If it were, I think we’d have a lot of dead Christians who lost their lives to other Christians over doctrinal trespasses.

If you think I’m wrong, just watch the vitriol and hatred in many “Christian” online forums as they verbally bludgeon one another over theological interpretations.

In addition to Servetus, Jerome Bolsec was arrested and imprisoned for challenging Calvin during a lecture, then banished from the city. Calvin wrote privately about the matter saying that he wished Bolsec were “rotting in a ditch.” [4]

Jacques Gruet was also a man who disagreed with Calvin. He called Calvin an ambitious and haughty hypocrite. The administrations of Geneva tortured Gruet twice daily until he confessed, and with Calvin’s concurrence, Gruet was tied to a stake, his feet were nailed to it, and his head was cut off for blasphemy and rebellion.

Pierre Ameaux was charged with slandering Calvin at a private gathering. He was to pay a fine, but Calvin wasn’t satisfied with the penalty, so Ameaux spent two months in prison, lost his job, and was paraded through town kneeling to confess his libel, also paying for the trial expense. [5]

2. Calvin believed that the Eucharist provides an undoubted assurance of eternal life.

Resembling the Roman Catholic view, Calvin stated that the sacrament of the Eucharist provided the “undoubted assurance of eternal life to our minds, but also secures the immortality of our flesh.” [6]

3. Calvin believed that the Reformed Church (his church) was the true Church and there was no salvation outside of it.

Calvin persuaded an Anabapist named Herman to leave the Anabaptists (which he considered a sect), and join the Reformed church. He wrote the following, which sounds strikingly similar to the way the Catholics of that time spoke of the Roman Catholic Church:

“Herman has, if I am not mistaken, in good faith returned to the fellowship of the Church. He has confessed that outside the Church there is no salvation, and that the true Church is with us. Therefore, it was defection when he belonged to a sect separated from it.” [7]

4. Calvin believed it was acceptable to lambast his opponents with vicious names.

Calvin treated his critics with contempt, calling them “pigs,” “asses,” “riffraff,” “dogs,” “idiots,” and “stinking beasts.” In this vein, Calvin said this of the great Anabaptist leader, Menno Simons: “Nothing could be prouder, nothing more impudent than this donkey.”[8]

5. Calvin believed that the Old Testament capital offenses should be enforced today.

The city of Geneva was ruled by the clergy, which was composed of five pastors and twelve lay elders chosen by Geneva’s Council. But Calvin’s voice was the most influential in the city.

Here are some laws and facts about Geneva under Calvin’s authority:

* Each household had to attend Sunday morning services. If there was preaching on weekdays, all had to attend also. (There were only a few exceptions, and Calvin preached three to four times a week.)

* If a person came to the service after the sermon had begun, he was warned. If he continued, he would have to pay a fine.

* Heresy was regarded as an insult to God and treason to the state and was punished by death.

* Witchcraft was a capital crime. In one year, 14 alleged witches were sent to the stake on the charge that they persuaded satan to afflict Geneva with the plague.

* Clergy were to abstain from hunting, gambling, feasting, commerce, secular amusements, and had to accept annual visitations and moral scrutiny by church superiors.

* Gambling, card-playing, frequenting taverns, dancing, indecent or irreligious songs, immodesty in dress were all prohibited.

* The allowable color and quantity of clothing and the number of dishes permissible at a meal were specified by law.

* A woman was jailed for arranging her hair to an “immoral height.”

* Children were to be named after Old Testament characters. A rebellious father served four days in prison for insisting on naming his son Claude instead of Abraham.

* To speak disrespectfully of Calvin or the clergy was a crime. A first violation was punished by a reprimand. Further violations with fines. Persistent violations were met with imprisonment or banishment.

* Fornication was punished by exile or drowning.

* Adultery, blasphemy, and idolatry was punished with death.

* In the year 1558-1559, there were 414 prosecutions for moral offenses.

* As everywhere in the 16th century, torture was often used to obtain confessions or evidence.

* Between 1542-1564, there were 76 banishments. The total population of Geneva then was 20,000.

* Calvin’s own step-daughter and son-in-law were among those condemned for adultery and executed.

* In Geneva, there was little distinction between religion and morality. The existing records of the Council for this period reveal a high percentage of illegitimate children, abandoned infants, forced marriages, and sentences of death. [9]

* In one case, a child was beheaded for striking his parents. [10] (Following Old Testament Mosaic law, Calvin believed it was scriptural to execute rebellious children and those who commit adultery.) [10a]

* During a period of 17 years when Calvin was leading Geneva, there were 139 recorded executions in the city. [11]

Sabastian Castellio, a friend of Calvin’s who urged him to repent of his intolerance, made the shocking remark,

“If Christ himself came to Geneva, he would be crucified. For Geneva is not a place of Christian liberty. It is ruled by a new pope [John Calvin], but one who burns men alive while the pope at Rome strangles them first.” [12]

Castellio also made this remark:

“Can we imagine Christ ordering a man to be burned alive for advocating adult baptism? The Mosaic laws calling for the death of a heretic were superceded by the law of Christ, which is one of mercy not of despotism and terror.” [12a]

6. Calvin believed that Jewish people were impious, dishonest, lacked common sense, were greedy, and should die without pity.

Calvin wrote, “I have had much conversation with many Jews: I have never seen either a drop of piety or a grain of truth or ingenuousness – nay, I have never found common sense in any Jew.” [13]

Calvin is also quoted as calling Jews “profane dogs” who “under the pretext of prophecy, stupidly devour all the riches of the earth with their unrestrained cupidity.” [14]

He also stated that “their rotten and unbending stiffneckedness deserves that they be oppressed unendingly and without measure or end and that they die in their misery without the pity of anyone.” [15]

7. Calvin believed that God did not create all humans on equal terms, but created some individuals for eternal damnation.

This idea is known as “double predestination.” According to this view, God predestines some to salvation and others to destruction. While this idea will not be shocking to some Christians, particularly Calvinists, the idea that God would knowing create some individuals so as to destroy them eternally in the end is shocking to many believers.

According to Calvin, “The predestination by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and adjudges others to eternal death, no man who would be thought pious ventures simply to deny . . . By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.” [16]

Chapter 21 of Book III of John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion is called “Of the eternal election, by which God has predestinated some to salvation, and others to destruction.”

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frankviola/shockingbeliefsofjohncalvin/

[enoob57]

What I struggle with is the preponderance of Scripture that indicates choice that man has responsibility toward~ that the
Calvinist says isn't there   Really ... literally from beginning to end choice is an initial focus from God Speaking to
man and right beside all of this they have the thought that God does it all and man is but a puppet in and of himself....
Deception is defined
de·cep·tion  
de·cep·tion [di sépsh'n]
(plural de·cep·tions)
n
1.  practice of misleading somebody: the practice of deliberately making somebody believe things that are not true 
2.  something intended to mislead somebody: an act, trick, or device intended to deceive or mislead somebody 
[15th century. Directly or via French < Latin deception- < decept- , past participle of decipere (see deceive)]
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
misleading somebody to the very simple hermeneutic of God's Word in responsibility to choosing God rather than the
the world they were born in along with the person they are and the manipulator of it all satan - debunks the majority
of Scripture and It's purpose...  as plainly written!
Love, Steven

[Omegaman 3.0]

1 hour ago, angels4u said:

Thank you Mega for all the time you take on this topic and it's all very Biblical, I have to admit, it was going over my head.

I do read the post and I'm glad it's not a Salvation matter.

Most Calvinist ( this is off the topic for a moment ) think that we're already living in the Millenial, do you agree with the Amillenial doctrine?

Thank you dear friend in Christ, someday soon we shall see that blessed day !

I do not know whether most Calvinists are amillennial or not. I have never heard that, and I do know know why that would be true. As I said early on in this discussion, I do not prefer the term Calvinism, because that label is a bit of a nebulous envelope and sort of implies one believes what Calvin believed, and what Calvin believed is a huge topic. If one wants to know more of that, one can read the Institutes of the Christian Religion, which he authored. It is a quick read, being only about 100 pages (sarcasm).

As for myself, I an not amillennial, I am pre-millenial. Views of the millenium, and other eschatological events, are properly another topic I imagine.

 

[angels4u]

29 minutes ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

I do not know whether most Calvinists are amillennial or not. I have never heard that, and I do know know why that would be true. As I said early on in this discussion, I do not prefer the term Calvinism, because that label is a bit of a nebulous envelope and sort of implies one believes what Calvin believed, and what Calvin believed is a huge topic. If one wants to know more of that, one can read the Institutes of the Christian Religion, which he authored. It is a quick read, being only about 100 pages (sarcasm).

As for myself, I an not amillennial, I am pre-millenial. Views of the millenium, and other eschatological events, are properly another topic I imagine.

 

 

 

Thanks ,actually, if you want delete the Amillenial question,it was off the topic :)

[Omegaman 3.0]

1 hour ago, angels4u said:

I'm just reading a little more of who what for kind of person John Calvin was:

1. Calvin believed that executing unrepentant heretics was justified.
2. Calvin believed that the Eucharist provides an undoubted assurance of eternal life.
3. Calvin believed that the Reformed Church (his church) was the true Church and there was no salvation outside of it.
4. Calvin believed it was acceptable to lambast his opponents with vicious names.
5. Calvin believed that the Old Testament capital offenses should be enforced today.
6. Calvin believed that Jewish people were impious, dishonest, lacked common sense, were greedy, and should die without pity.
7. Calvin believed that God did not create all humans on equal terms, but created some individuals for eternal damnation.
 

This is part of the problem with labels, and another reason I do not normally call myself a Calvinist. A lot of these things, where true among the early protestants, and that was a product of the times they lived in. Some of these same things can be said of Martin Luther, and for that matter, are left-overs from Roman Catholicism that the Reformation grew out of. 

Associating modern Calvinists or Calvinism with these things, is a bit like blaming you for the Crusades. For myself in this discussion, I will probably limit myself to the so-called 5 points. Also, it should be noted, that this thread is about Calvinism and Aminianism. Those things are not really based on John Calvin and Jacob Arminus, as they are on their later followers. With respect to that, it should be noted, that the 5 points of Calvinism, are responses to the remonstrants. 

The Remonstrants are the Dutch Protestants who, after the death of Jacobus Arminius, maintained the views associated with his name. In 1610 they presented to the States of Holland and Friesland a remonstrance in five articles formulating their points of disagreement with Calvinism.

Now think about that, if the 5 points of Calvinism, are the Dutch followers of Calvin responding the the 5 points of the Remonstrants, it might be reasonable to assume, that these Arminians, did not take issue with the details listed in your post, those were not things they were protesting in Calvinism.

Through the 15th - 18th Centuries, Catholics and Protestants and the Church of England, were guilty of persecuting heretics and witches and each other. It was a dark time in church history. It is a black mark on the record of the church. Atheists of course, sometimes point this out, but frequently fail to notice, that atheists are responsible for more mass executions than all religions combined. When you consider that atheists have always been a minority, that tends to cast religion is a somewhat better light.

That should serve as a reminder, that all people are sinners and capable of evil, and we need to be vigilant about ourselves.

Anyway, John Calvin's character flaws are not part of the doctrines of Calvinism. We should probably note, with regard to him and the church of his age, that most people had no access to Bibles yet, and were subject to the teaching of their leaders. This is similar to Judaism in the time of Christ, where the leadership had taken their religion where it should not have gone. These Christian tragedies, were partly because people knew of the laws of the Old Testament, concerning what capital crimes were, and had not yet, come to embrace fully, the reforms and grace implied in the New Covenant. 

[Omegaman 3.0]

8 minutes ago, angels4u said:

Thanks ,actually, if you want delete the Amillenial question,it was off the topic :)

Yes, but it was a short diversion, we won't let it take the thread off course.