Amillennialists...Here's a chance to state your case.

Yeshua also was not caught in the act of homosexuality either. Do you actually understand the term sodomy for those days? It meant, they caught another man's manhood in the mouth of Calvin. Either way, what sort of church claiming to be of God builds their principles upon a homosexual, and then preaches against churches pastored by homosexuals? The Baptist do

Do you understand the concept of staying on topic these days?

rumors are rumors. this is offtopic, and most baptists arent reformed(calvinists).

@crossnote is my answer of any help? will there be a follow up question?

You put Calvin in the same light as God (Yeshua),in the post of yours I last quoted. No one in their right and sound mind should let that go unnoticed.

And after all, just like the point you are attempting to make in this thread, can also be applied to my posts.

The TRUTH shall set you FREE!!

And you have been shown the TRUTH!!

AMEN!!
Rumors are just that, Rumors...

But literal court documents are FACTS, which are everything else but a Rumor!!

===============================
Cross,
REV. 20:5., at the very END, 'this is the FIRST RESURRECTION, = is a 'mis-statement' to our understanding.
the First Resurrection is CLEARLY explained in 1COR. 15, the whole CHAPTER is about the FIRST RESURRECTION,
it consists of 'those sanctified', but the 'resurrection' mentioned in REV. 20:5, is speaking of 'all humanity',
therefore, YOUNGS Literal Translation, although not exactly 'correct' to our 'English understanding', is
the BEST translation that we have...

the First Resurrection is at the Last-Trumpet, - many Scriptures EXPOUND on this...

=================================
No Az,
it's NOT from an amil - when the scripture is speaking in a symbolic manner, it always gives us a
'clear-clue' - 'a 1000 year reign is a 1000 year reign'...

the YLT, although is not a great translation for 'English understanding', is Closer to the 'CORRECT MEANING'..,,
like we shared with Cross; 1COR. 15., is a 'detailed description of the First Resurrection', it only consists
of those that have 'received The Holy Spirit', for this is the guarantee of our 'INHERITANCE'...
there are not TWO FIRST RESURRECTIONS!
the Resurrection mentioned in REV. 20:5., of the Rest of the Dead, is ALL HUMANS that have ever LIVED,
(EXCLUDING those from the FIRST RESURRECTION), so, those called 'the rest of the dead', when they
'arise', it would better be called, to our English Understanding, (The Second Resurrection)...

let us remember, (we have an Hebrew Author, speaking in the Greek language, translated into English -
as it is written:
11TIM. 2:15.
Study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing The Word of Truth.

It sounded approximately what the Amills believe, but since you don't believe it yourself, I'll take that into consideration

Actually I put you in the same category as the smut news reporters. All I said was that they even accused Jesus of wrong doing. Of course He was sinless whereas Calvin wasn't. Now please, I'll report you if you keep this off topic stuff up.

============================================
this is just to ridiculous - come on Cross, where's your sense of humor???

You know, I have heard some amills explain the first resurrection as when we received Christ and the 2nd as everyone.

When you say 'all humanity', I assume you mean 'all unsaved humanity', correct?

===================================
Absolutey!!!

Jesus will reign a 1000 years on the throne of his father David as the LION of JUDAH

NEXT

If you see posts #16 &22 as humorous, then we have a different definition of humor.

Nothing funny there.

1. those on the thrones judging are the Bride of Yeshua
2. those beheaded were martyrs from the 7 year Tribulation
3. Both are reigning with Yeshua for 1,000 years
4. Both are part of the First Resurrection

Not sure how being a Calvinist or Amill makes any difference here at all?
In all Biblical versions, what is stated above ^ is found in every other version.

Because an Amillennialist wouldn"t hold to #3, as he sees no literal 1000 years even though the Scriptures use that #.

I think I need to study both views, or at least the Biblical principals each one stands for. I have never heard of this argument until I joined this site and noticed literally a ton of threads on it. It's hard to believe something like the views of John Calvin, and the views of the Amill's, have caused such a separate between members of the Baptist faith.

You're seriously twisted.