# White Horse Rider ?



## LifeInReturn (Apr 1, 2007)

My best friend and I were discussing this last night.

_And I looked, and behold, a white horse! And its rider had a bow, and a crown was given to him, and he came out conquering, and to conquer. 
*Revelation 6:2 ESV*_

Who's on the white horse ? Is it a false Christ (anti Christ) or Christ ? When I read later in Revelation 19...

_Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. 
*Revelation 19:11 ESV*_

I know this may be a simple question, but Matthew Henry says it's Jesus; Johnny Mac and my Reformation Study Bible say pretty much the opposite.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Apr 1, 2007)

It's Jesus who rides out to conquer, and it is Jesus who must put all His enemies under HIS feet. "Why do the heathen rage".

"Psalm 2

1Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

2The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,

3Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

4He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision.
*
5Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.*

6Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.

7I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

8Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

* 9Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.*

10Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.

11Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
*
12Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.*"

and

1 Corinthians 15

24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

The very idea that it is the antichrist is erroneous and baseless. The Book of Revelation is a document written to churches who were in persecution showing them the providence of God and the Divine Rule of Jesus who judges the Churches enemies. It is Jesus who took the Book, It is Jesus who breaks the seals, it is Jesus who rides out to conquer, it is Jesus who brings the famine, it is Jesus who brings death, it is Jesus who scorches the earth, it is Jesus who allows the beast to behead the Saints, and it is Jesus who casts the beast and the dragon into the bottomless pit.


----------



## Devin (Apr 1, 2007)

I believe the context of the book of Revelations is that of Christ conquering two of the great enemies of the early church: apostate Judaism and the Roman Empire. Adding this context to the verse quoted in chapter 19, I believe there is more than sufficient grounds to believe that Christ is the rider on the white horse.


----------



## LifeInReturn (Apr 1, 2007)

The first white horse in Revelations 6... The chapter starts off with...

_Now I watched when the Lamb opened one of the seven seals...
*Revelation 6:1 ESV*_

If the Lamb is opening the seals, then would that still be Him on that horse ?

I've seen more documentation that the rider on the white horse in Revelation 6 is NOT Christ than documentation stating that it is. I know that the rider in Revelation 19 is DEFINITELY Christ.


----------



## Devin (Apr 1, 2007)

Remember that Revelation is a book of imagery. Just because Christ the Lamb opened the seal does not mean that the rider can't be Christ too. 

Also, every time the color white is used in the book of Revelation, it is used to describe either Christ, His followers, or something Heavenly. Thus, I don't see the warrant for this white horse to be a negative, anti-Christ type of figure.


----------



## LifeInReturn (Apr 1, 2007)

Devin said:


> Remember that Revelation is a book of imagery. Just because Christ the Lamb opened the seal does not mean that the rider can't be Christ too.
> 
> Also, every time the color white is used in the book of Revelation, it is used to describe either Christ, His followers, or something Heavenly. Thus, I don't see the warrant for this white horse to be a negative, anti-Christ type of figure.




Do you believe that the entire book of Revelation is solely imagery ?...


----------



## Devin (Apr 1, 2007)

Solely? No.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Apr 1, 2007)

It depends on how you approach the book of Revelation.

If you believe it's mostly imagery and recapitualation (amill, postmill), you'll probably take the white horse rider to be Christ.

If you believe the imagery is _progressive_ (i.e.- the book moves forward from chapter 4 onward until the return of Christ in chapter 19), then the identification of the white horse rider as the antichrist fits perfectly. Premill folks usually hold this view.

Most of the folk on this board are not premill, therefore, you'll probably get the other answer.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Apr 1, 2007)

BlackCalvinist said:


> It depends on how you approach the book of Revelation.
> 
> If you believe it's mostly imagery and recapitualation (amill, postmill), you'll probably take the white horse rider to be Christ.
> 
> ...



I think AntiChrist has to be read into the text.

We have 4 riders.

1. On White Horse riding out to conquer

2. A Red Horse to take peace from the earth

3. A black horse that is signified with balances. Economic hardships.

4. A Pale horse with death, hell, sword and to kill a fourth part of the earth i.e Apostate Israel.

Horse 1 is the conquering horse that leads the other 3 horses as subordinates to accomplish his goal of conquering. 

It fits the Gospels perfectly. Christ ascends to heaven, He is given a throne and a kingdom, and He rules and puts His enemies under His feet through His providential working of History. Who are His enemies? Who it was that killed Him and persecuted the church? as Devin said,"Apostate Judaism and the Roman Empire under the wickedness of the Julio Claudian Emperors especially Tiberias and later Nero.

A lot of people feel that it is unchristlike for Christ fo be riding on a horse and bringing violent perils, destruction and misery to land dwellers. Oh no, it cannot be that meek and gentle Jesus that wouldn't hurt anybody. But wait the rider is on a White Horse, surely it has to be Jesus, well no it has to be the antichrist, someone that assumes and appropriates the title of Jesus. Au contraire, the destruction, perils and misery that the White Horse brings is very congruent with the nature of Christ and God. From casting Adam and Eve out of the Garden, to the drowing of the world in a flood, to the absolute destruction of Soddom and Gomorrah, to the ten plagues of Egypt, to the seige of Nebuchadnezzar whereby ancient Israelites resorted to cannibalism. I am comforted quite well that it is in keeping with the nature of God to bring morbid destruction upon the earth.

But if one continue to read the book of revelation, there are two suffering groups.

1. Unbelievers. They face the wrath of God in the plagues and the tribulations, the seals, the vials, the trumpets and lastly the lake of fire.

2. Believers who face the persecution of unbelievers who are vindicated when Christ destroys their enemies.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Apr 2, 2007)

Greetings:

The White Horse is not Jesus - nor is it the Antichrist as Dispensationalists like to say.

Whenever Jesus is found in Revelation there is a name(s) attached to Him: Alpha and Omega, Lamb of God, Faithful and True, etc. Yet, the White Horseman is unnamed.

LifeinReturn rightly pointed out that it is Jesus who is opening the seals. The whole of the previous chapter (5) shows the worthiness of Jesus to unfold "those events which must shortly come to pass."

A look at the symbols:

1) A horse: The use of the horse may have varied at different times to some degree: at one time the prevailing use of the horse may have been for battle; at another for rapid marches - as of cavalry, at another for races; at another for conveying messages by the establishment of posts or the appointment of couriers. The things which would be most naturally suggested to a Roman by the horse as a symbol, as distinguished, for example, from an eagle, a lion, a serpent, &c., would be the following: (a) war, as this was probably one of the first uses to which the horse was applied. So in the magnificent description of the horse in Job 39:19-25.

2) The colour of the horse: "a white horse." What would a horse of that colour properly denote? The general notion attached to the mention of a white horse, according to ancient usage, would be that of state and triumph, derived from the fact that white horses were rode by conquerors on the days of their triumph. In the triumphs granted by the Romans to their victorious generals, after a procession composed of musicians, captured princes, spoils of battle, &c., came the conqueror himself seated on a high chariot drawn by four white horses, robed in purple, and wearing a wreath of laurel.

3) The bow: The bow would be a natural emblem of war. It was a common instrument of attack or defense.

4) The Crown: It would properly be emblematic of victory or conquest - as it was given to victors in war. The crown here was "given" to the rider as significant that he would be victorious, not that he had been victorious.

5) The going forth to conquest: He went forth as a conqueror. That is, he went forth with the spirit, life, energy, determined purpose of one who was confident that he would conquer.

What does this symbol represent?

It was in general a period of prosperity, of triumph, of conquest - well represented by the horseman on the white horse going forth to conquest. This period refers immediately to the time after the banishment of John by the Emperor Domitian, embracing about 100 years, and extending through the successive years of the reigns of Nerva, Trajan, Adrian, and the two Antonines, from the death of Domitian, A.D. 96, to the succession of Commodus, and the peace made by him with the Germans, A.D. 180.



From Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire:

"In the second century of the Christian era, the empire of Rome comprehended the fairest part of the earth, and the most civilized portion of mankind. During a happy period of more than fourscore years, the public administration was conducted by the virtue and abilities of Nerva, Trajan, Adrian, and the two Antonines ... That virtuous and active prince (Trajan) had received the education of a soldier, and possessed the talents of a general. The peaceful system of his predecessor was interrupted by scenes of war and conquest; and the legions after a long interval, beheld a military leader at their head. ... The praises of Alexander, transmitted by a succession of poets and historians, had kindled a dangerous emulation in the mind of Trajan. Like him, the Roman emperor undertook an expedition against the nations of the East; but he lamented with a sign that his advanced age scarcely left him any hopes of equally the renowned Alexander. Yet the success of Trajan, however transient was rapid and specious. The degenerate Parthians, broken by intestine discord, fled before his arms. He descended the river Tigris in triumph, from the mountains of Armenia to the Persian Gulf ... Every day the astonished senate received the intelligence of new names and new nations that acknowledged his sway. They were informed that the kings of Bosphorus, Colchos, Iberia, Albania, Osrhoene, and even the Parthian monarch himself, had accepted their crowns from the hand of Trajan."

What could be more symbolic of this time than that of a white horse "conquering and to conquer"?

To sum up this period Gibbon writes:

"If a man were called to fix a period in the history of the world during which the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that time which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of Commodus. The vast extent of the Roman empire was governed by absolute power, under the guidance of virtue and wisdom. The armies were restrained by the firm but gentle hands of four successive emperors, whose characters and authority commanded universal respect. The forms of the civil administration were carefully preserved by Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, and the Antonines, who delighted in the image of liberty, and were pleased with considering themselves as the accountable ministers of the laws."

The four horsemen symbolize four epochs that the Roman Empire was to go through before its ending.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## Devin (Apr 2, 2007)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Whenever Jesus is found in Revelation there is a name(s) attached to Him: Alpha and Omega, Lamb of God, Faithful and True, etc. Yet, the White Horseman is unnamed.



What about Rev 12:5? A man child is mentioned, "who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron". There is no name given, and yet this is the type of language so often used of Jesus (ie: Rev 19:15). Do you believe this man child is someone else?

(Note: I believe it could be said that, if your statement is correct, the White Horseman IS named, but the name is only revealed until the 19th chapter where He is called Faithful and True)


----------



## Devin (Apr 2, 2007)

Also, on the use of a white horse, I'd like to point out that the rider isn't riding in a triumphful procession. Alternatively, He's in the process of going out to conquer. That is, he's going out to battle. Thus, it'd be silly to go out to battle on a white horse because that would make you stand out as a prime target...unless you were completely sure of your victory (which I'm sure Christ is). That's why I think the color isn't used in an earthly manner to characterize an earthly ruler. Rather, as it does in the rest of Revelation, the color white denotes that this refers to something heavenly, postive, and pure: Christ Himself.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Apr 2, 2007)

Devin said:


> What about Rev 12:5? A man child is mentioned, "who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron". There is no name given, and yet this is the type of language so often used of Jesus (ie: Rev 19:15). Do you believe this man child is someone else?
> 
> (Note: I believe it could be said that, if your statement is correct, the White Horseman IS named, but the name is only revealed until the 19th chapter where He is called Faithful and True)



Greetings:

The man-child represents believers of whom the church (the mother) brings forth. The servants of Christ are to rule the nations with a rod of iron, Rev. 2:27.

The Elect are protected by God Himself. Thus, they are caught up unto God and His throne.

Another reason why the White Horseman is not Jesus is that he is carrying a bow. God, however, promised mankind that He would no longer use his bow, Genesis 9:13,14.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## Devin (Apr 2, 2007)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> The man-child represents believers of whom the church (the mother) brings forth. The servants of Christ are to rule the nations with a rod of iron, Rev. 2:27.
> 
> The Elect are protected by God Himself. Thus, they are caught up unto God and His throne.



Point well taken. However, if the man child is the whole of the elect, who are the "other offspring" spoken of in 12:17? 

[Just to clarify: My interpretation is that the mother represents the faithful portion of Israel who gave birth to Christ (who was taken to Heaven as well). After escaping the disaster of AD 70, this faithful Israel continued to preach the gospel and produce more offspring, IE, the Gentile converts.] 



> Another reason why the White Horseman is not Jesus is that he is carrying a bow. God, however, promised mankind that He would no longer use his bow, Genesis 9:13,14.



How does the covenantal sign of the rainbow in the sky necessarily mean that it is God's bow of war? After all, God is said to have metaphorically used this type of bow after the flood (Lam 2:4).


----------



## tcalbrecht (Apr 2, 2007)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> 
> Another reason why the White Horseman is not Jesus is that he is carrying a bow. God, however, promised mankind that He would no longer use his bow, Genesis 9:13,14.
> ...



With all due respect, that quite a stretch:



> I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth. It shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud; and I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh.



God said He would never again use a flood to destroy mankind, and the rainbow was a sign of that covenant promise.

He did not say He would not conquerer men by other suitable means, which the arrow-throwing device represents.


----------



## javajedi (Apr 2, 2007)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> Whenever Jesus is found in Revelation there is a name(s) attached to Him: Alpha and Omega, Lamb of God, Faithful and True, etc. Yet, the White Horseman is unnamed.
> -CH



I too disagree with this assessment. We have to be careful with these types conclusions. We have to watch what interpretive principles we use. We must really watch "novel" ideas that neatly result in our pet conclusions. I and not saying that CalvinandHodges has done this - I am speaking generally.

I call this a "hermeneutic of coincidence" (TM). Dispensationalists do this a lot. We notice some pattern that seems to hold in most, hopefully clear, cases (easier understood passages) and then use it as an interpretive principle for less clear passages. But it could just be a coincidence.

We need to use basic, standard hermeneutal principles in understanding a given text.


----------



## javajedi (Apr 2, 2007)

LifeInReturn said:


> Who's on the white horse ? Is it a false Christ (anti Christ) or Christ ? When I read later in Revelation 19...



Yes, Revelation is an interesting book...  

We need to be careful in how we understand it. A humble caution is the best approcach along with lots of  

[My comments here are general and not meant to imply what you have or have not done.]

Take time reading chapter 1 and considering the purpose and audience of the book. As mentioned already it was to be comfort to belivers of the 1st century (and all to follow) in light of tribulation and persecution. Its main theme is the glorious Jesus Christ and his sovereign providence over the world. More could be said to flesh that out but that is basically what one must keep in mind.

This really speaks against the premill dispensational view that sees this book mainly about a 7 year tribulation that takes place after "the church" is raptured away. This is silly in light of the purpose and audience. Why would the bulk of the book be for a time the audience (the church) will never live in and not be part of? The focus is not Israel, the focus is *NOT* the Antichirst.

Some general hermeneutical principles I find helpful when dealing with Revelation.
- Allow the more clear passages of scripture interpret the less clear.
- Scripture interprets scripture. Many of the images and numbers have a reference in other parts of the Bible - a lot from the OT.
- KISS (keep is simple stupid). Before jumping to complex and convoluted interpretaions (dispensationalism) is a simple understanding (amill  ) is probably correct most of the time. God wants us (and John's initial audience) to understand His Word. This goes with the "clear" comment above.
- Context, context, context
- Realize much is symbolic (is it visionary and prophetic [somewhat] literature)
- The pictures John sees are to convey the message I sumarized above. 
- Look at the general "pictures" and don't get too bogged down in gory details
- Interpret symbols and numbers first in light of Revelation itself, it provides its own context. This was already mentioned in regards to the the rider on the white horse (Rev 19 is clearly Christ) and in regards to white in particular. 

There are more I'm sure....
Oh, did I mention caution and humility?


OK, I'll go on a limb here...
As to rider in chapter 6? I go with Christ  - or at least the Gospel going forth. You get assentially the same result either way. [Notice also that this first horse is separate from the next 3. Horses 2-4 are linked in a common "cause" of death (6:8) which does not include the 1st horse.]

Why do I see it this way? As an Amill, and given the audience and purpose, I see Revelation dealing with the entire "inter-advental" period [the time between Christ's 1st advent and His second coming] and culminating in the New Heavens/Earth (Ch. 21-22). This is done with "recapitulation" (seeing this same period several times with different "views" and emphasis). So, I see chapter 6 as 1 "view" of this period ending with the second coming with the 6th seal. [I see chapter 7 related to chapter 6 as providing additional comfort to John's audience especially in light of the 5th seal martyrs - the gospel will be victorious with '_a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne_' (7:9)].

So, what happens in chapter 6? The gospel goes forth conquering while war, famine and untimely death continue as they always have. Believers will be persecuted and killed but they are kept close to alter in heaven and given a robe. This ends with second coming of the 6th seal [there really is no other way to see this passage as it is full of second coming imagry and speaks of the great day of wrath of the Lamb].


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Apr 2, 2007)

Amil here as well. My view is that the rider is Christ.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Apr 2, 2007)

Greetings:

The interpretation that I propose is in no way unique to me. Matthew Poole and Matthew Henry both expound vs. 5 in this fashion:

*She was safely delivered of a man-child, by which some understand Christ, others Constantine, but others, with greater propriety, a race of true believers, strong and united, resembling Christ, and designed, under him, to rule the nations with a rod of iron; that is, to judge the wrold by their doctrine and lives now, and as assessors with Christ at the great day,* Matthew Henry Commentary on Revlation at 12:5.

and vs. 17:

*The devil, being thus defeated in his designs upon the universal church, now turns his rage against particular persons and places; his malice against the woman pushes him on to make war with the remnant of her seed. Some think hereby are meant the Albigenses, who were first by Dioclesian driven up into barren and mountainous places, and afterwards cruelly murdered by popish rage and power, for several generations, and for no other reason than because they kept the commandments of God and held the testimony of Jesus Christ. Their fidelity to God and Christ, in doctrine, worship, and practice, was that which exposed them to the rage of Satan and his instruments, and such fidelity will expose men still, less or more, to the end of the world, when the last enemy shall be destroyed.*

The consistency of this interpretation is clear. 

There is no reason to separate the horses: "Conquering and to Conquer" indicates that someone will die. Death is a direct result of war.

The interpretation of these passages is the classic Protestant Amill-Historical approach.

If the White Horse is the gospel, and Jesus is the rider, then what do we make of the Red Horse? Internal strife within the Church - that Christians will be fighting "spiritually" against Christians? That the Kingdom of God, the Church will be spiritually divided? Or, the black horse pestilence and famine within the Church? It is more in accordance with Dispensationalism to "separate" these horses from one another. Matthew Henry is not consistent in his interpretation here either, because he says that it is unclear who is the rider of the red horse.

The Four Horsmen of the Apocalpyse indicate the four succeeding epochs of the Roman Empire as outlined in Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire:

The White Horse: From Domitian to Commodus circa 97-180 AD. Those of you who have seen the movie _Gladiator_ will recognize the tyrant Commodus as the antagonist.

The Red Horse: Sismondi (a Roman historian) writes:

With Commodus' death commenced the third and most calamitous period. It lasted ninety-two years, from 193 to 284. During this time, thirty-two emperors, and twenty-seven pretenders to the empire, alternately hurried each other from the throne, by incessant civil warfare. Ninety-two years of almost incessant civil warfare taught the world on what a frail foundation the virtue of the Antonines had reared the felicity of the empire. 

From Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire:

Commodus' cruelty at last proved fatal to himself. He had shed with impunity the best blood of Rome: he perished as soon as he was dreaded by his own servants ... The immediate consequence of the assassination of Commodus was the elevation of Pertinax to the throne, and his murder eighty-six days after. Then followed the public setting-up of the empire to sale by the pretorian guards, and its purchase by a wealthy Roman senator, Didius Julianus, or Julian, who on the throne of the world, found himself without a friend and without an adherent ... The public discontent was soon diffused from the centre to the frontiers of the empire. In the midst of this universal indignation, Septimius Severus, who then commanded the army in the neighbourhood of the Danube, resolved to avenge the death of Pertinax, and to seize upon the imperial crown. He marched to Rome, overcame the feeble Julian, and placed himself on the throne. After the death of Severus, then follows an account of the contentions between his sons, Geta and Caracalla, and of the death of the former by the latter. Caracalla was the common enemy of mankind. Every province was by turns the scene of his rapine and cruelty. In the midst of peace and repose, upon the slightest provocation, he issued his commands at Alexandria in Egypt for a general massacre.

Black Horse: Denotes distress and calamity. Black has always been regarded as such a symbol - the image of fear, of famine, of death, Lam. 5:10, Jer. 14:2, Joel 2:6, Naham 2:10. Famine, pestilence, oppression, heavy taxation, tyranny, invasion - any of these might be denoted by the colour of the horse. To interpret it correctly one must look at the other symbols.

A Pair of Balances: The idea is, that something must be weighed in order to ascertain either its quantity or its value. Scales or balances are the emblems of justice or equity, Job 31:6, Psalm 62:9, Prov. 11:1. But when joined with symbols that denote the sale of corn and fruit by weight, it becomes the symbol of scarcity, Lev. 26:26, Ezek. 4:16.

Two Balances: Indicates that things are going to be measured not just once - but twice. Thus, these things are to be measured carefully in order that no waste would be made.

Wheat and Barley: The necessities of life. Both important ingredients to make bread and other basic foodstuffs.

The Measure and the Price: A measure is about 1 quart. The price was equal to 1 days wage. Clearly, famine and economic distress is indicated.

Hurt not the oil and the wine: That the price for Wheat and Barley was set at one day's wage, but the oil and wine were not to be priced. This indicates a taxation of sorts. If this were an affliction of Nature, then all manners of crops would be destroyed during a famine.

Under the Emperor Caracalla (211-217) a heavy tax was laid upon the people of the Roman Empire. Caracalla granted all free citizens of the Empire the status of Roman Citizen. As a result of this "privilege" all Roman Citizens were required to pay a heavy tax.

During the reign of Galerius (305-311) the historian Lactantius notes:

Swarms of exactors sent into the provinces and cities filled them with agitation and terror, as though a conquering enemy were leading them into captivity. The fields were separately measured, the trees and vines, the flocks and herds, numbered, and an examination made of the men. In the cities, the cultivated and rude were united as of the same rank. The streets were crowded with groups of families, and every one required to appear with his children and slaves. Tortures and lashes resounded on every side. Sons were hanged in the presence of their parents, and the most confidential servants harassed that they might make disclosures against their masters, and wives that they might testify unfavourably of their husbands ... In the meantime individuals died, and the herds and the flocks diminished, yet tribute was none the less required to be paid for the dead, so that it was no longer allowed either to live or die without a tax.

Dr. Gibbon writes:

_The lands were measured by surveyors who were sent into the provinces; their nature, whether arable, or pasture, or woods, was distinctly reported; and an estimate made of their common value, from the average produce of five years ... _ In quoting the Roman Law he continues, _"If any one shall sacrilegiously cut a vine, or stint the fruit of prolific boughs, and craftily feign poverty in order to avoid a fair assessment, he shall, immediately on detection, suffer death, and his property be confiscated." Although this law is not without its studied obscurity, it is, however, clear enough to prove the minuteness of the inquisition, and the disproportion of the penalty._

The events fitting with this prophecy cannot be a coincidence. We have seen three of the horses of the book of Revelation, and we have seen three ages of the Roman Empire that fit perfectly with the symbols.

The Pale Horse: The period of Roman history that accurately reflects this time period can be found between AD 243-268, embracing the reigns of Decius, Gallus, Aemilianus, Valerian, and Gallienus. Dr. Gibbon remarks:

_From the great secular games celebrated by Philip to the death of the emperor Gallienus, there elapsed twenty years of shame and misfortune. During this calamitous period, every instant of time was marked, every province of the Roman world was afflicted by barbarous invaders and military tyrants, and the wearied empire seemed to approach the last and fatal moment of its dissolution, i., 135._

Specifically we can see the following things that fulfill this image:

1) The killing with the sword. A fulfillment of this might be found indeed in many portions of Roman history, but no one can doubt that it was eminently true of this period. It was the period of the first Gothic invasion of the Roman empire; the period when those vast hordes, having gradually come down from the regions of Scandinavia invaded the Roman Empire. Of this invasion, Dr. Gibbon says:

_This is the first considerable occasion in which history mentions that great people, who afterwards broke the Roman power, sacked the capital, and reigned in Gaul, Spain and Italy. So memorable was the part which they acted in the subversion of the Western empire, that the name of Goths is frequently, but improperly, used as a general appellation of rude and warlike barbarians, i. 136._

2) Hunger: This would naturally follow the series of invasions by the Goths. Again, Dr. Gibbon writes:

_But a long and general famine was a calamity of a more serious kind. It was the inevitable consequence of rapine and oppression, which extirpated the produce of the present, and the hope of the future, i. 159._

3) Pestilence: Of the pestilence (shall kill with death) Dr. Gibbon makes this remarkable statement:

_Famine is almost always followed by epidemical diseases, the effect of scanty and unwholesome food. Other causes must, however, have contributed to the furious plague, which, from the year 259 to 265, raged without interruption in every province, every city, and almost every family in the Roman empire. Five thousand persons died daily at Rome; and many towns that had escaped the hands of the barbarians were entirely depopulated, i. 159._

4) The Beasts of the Earth: Driven by hunger, and emboldened by the death of so many it would not be hard to understand wild animals entering cities and eating people. According to the historian Arnobius: Within a few years after the reign of Gallienus (300AD) he speaks of wild beasts in such a manner as to show that they were regarded as a sore calamity. The public peril and suffering on this account were so great, that, in common with other evils, this was charged on Christian as one of the judgments of heaven which they brought upon the world.

If Dr. Gibbon had designed to write a commentary on the Book of Revelation, then he could have selected no better portion of history to do it. What should be understood here is that Gibbon was a rabid anti-Christian.

Too many coincidences creates Providence.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## Devin (Apr 2, 2007)

I don't think your/Henry's commentary really answers my question:

If the male child is the elect as a whole, how could there be _other_ offspring distinguished from the first who are also elect? Or would/could you say that the male child is only a portion of the elect?

Edit: I just now noticed the subject of this thread is "White Horse Rider?" not "Man child?". So, if this becomes a distraction, feel free to shift the subject back to strictly talking about the rider on the White Horse.


----------



## javajedi (Apr 2, 2007)

CalvinandHodges said:


> There is no reason to separate the horses: "Conquering and to Conquer" indicates that someone will die. Death is a direct result of war.
> 
> The interpretation of these passages is the classic Protestant Amill-Historical approach.
> 
> If the White Horse is the gospel, and Jesus is the rider, then what do we make of the Red Horse? Internal strife within the Church - that Christians will be fighting "spiritually" against Christians? That the Kingdom of God, the Church will be spiritually divided? Or, the black horse pestilence and famine within the Church? It is more in accordance with Dispensationalism to "separate" these horses from one another. Matthew Henry is not consistent in his interpretation here either, because he says that it is unclear who is the rider of the red horse.



I think this was directed at me.

BTW, I am not real dogmatic on many of these symbols as can be seen by this thread that there are many opinions. But not all opinions are equal and some must be rejected where they violate the clear teaching of scripture and basic interpretive principles and logic/reason.


I did not separate the horse and rider. I said the rider is Christ or, to clarify, the horse/rider, as one image, is the Gospel. So Christ or the Gospel.

I do not understand your comments about the other horses. Again, I do not separate the horses/riders. I gave my opinion of them - they have nothing to do with the church. They are common forms of death on the people of the earth during the "church age" - as they always have been untimely forms of death.

I do see the 2nd-4th horses as separate from the 1st because the text says those three are connected in 6:8:
_And they [who are "they"?] were given authority over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by wild beasts of the earth._​Note: "kill with sword" [2nd horse], "with famine" [3rd horse] and "with pestilence" [4th horse]. We get wild beasts added for good measure. Nothing to tie in the first horse [conquering]. Nothing is being conquered. Just death.

"Conquering and to Conquer" does not require war/death. The text mentions neither. In fact its the 2nd horse that the text says "_men should slay one another_". Most all see the 2nd horse as the horse of war.


----------



## javajedi (Apr 2, 2007)

CalvinandHodges said:


> The Four Horsmen of the Apocalpyse indicate the four succeeding epochs of the Roman Empire as outlined in Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire:



Is this approach Historicist? Seems like it. Trying to tie in events in Revelation to suceeding points in history. 

Either way, what then is the 5th seal (martyrs)? Some persecution after the 4th period? Just curious.

Does your view continue to see the seals, then trumpets and then bowls as sucessive historical events?


The basic problem I have with these "historical" approaches is that its a lot like the dispensational "newspaper exegesis" we see today. Almost any event or selective series of events can be "force-fit" into Revelation by looking at selected details while ignoring other details.

Now, the book of Daniel does this with the 4 kingdoms/empires leading up to Christ. But these are clearly listed as empires/powers with the goal of showing when Christ comes and that Christ is greater and his kingdom will over-shadow these earthly powers. But Rev 6 has none of these "markers". There is no "point" to these 4 horses as they are not leading to a main conclusion (like the first advent of Christ in Daniel). They just seem to be describing general conditions on the earth - nothing more complex or hidden.

Another way to put it is - what in chapter 6 *clearly* points to these specific 4 Roman periods? What even *clearly* points to Rome? How would I, or any reader, know to look for these coming [future to John] Roman periods? In Daniel it is very clear.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Apr 3, 2007)

Greetings:

It may sound like I am dogmatic about this, but I am not. I simply know what I believe and I believe it.

Devin: If I understand both Henry and Poole rightly, then they are saying that the "remanent of her seed" in verse 17 are specific members of the Elect. It could also have some present/future aspect to it in that John is not simply saying that the Dragon will persecute the 1st Century Christians, but Christians through all of Church History.

javajedi: The "they" in Rev. 6:8 refers to the hoards that flow out of Death and Hell. The "they" refers to Death and Hell that follows the pale horseman.

You make some very good points when you wrote:



> The basic problem I have with these "historical" approaches is that its a lot like the dispensational "newspaper exegesis" we see today. Almost any event or selective series of events can be "force-fit" into Revelation by looking at selected details while ignoring other details.
> 
> Now, the book of Daniel does this with the 4 kingdoms/empires leading up to Christ. But these are clearly listed as empires/powers with the goal of showing when Christ comes and that Christ is greater and his kingdom will over-shadow these earthly powers. But Rev 6 has none of these "markers". There is no "point" to these 4 horses as they are not leading to a main conclusion (like the first advent of Christ in Daniel). They just seem to be describing general conditions on the earth - nothing more complex or hidden.
> 
> Another way to put it is - what in chapter 6 clearly points to these specific 4 Roman periods? What even clearly points to Rome? How would I, or any reader, know to look for these coming [future to John] Roman periods? In Daniel it is very clear.


First, Historicism is not Dispensationalism. If it is, then Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, the Puritans, the London and Westminister Confessions, and just about every Reformed man up to the late 19th Century were Dispensationalists.

Second, Historicism is not "newspaper eschatology." Luther, Calvin, etc... all understood Revelation as depicting the Covenantal promises of God to the Church as fulfilled in Church History. Understanding the history of the Church one can then see how the events relate to the Book of Revelation. One has to be educated in Church History before one can appreciate the Book of Revelation.

Third, is it a suprise to one to understand that prophecy will have an historical fulfillment? Is not this what all prophecy is about? "Behold a Virgin shall conceive," "Thou Bethleham Ephratah," "Seventy weeks of years," and so forth? Maybe, because of prophetical insight, Daniel understood the legs of iron to be the Roman Empire, but was there any indication of this while he lived? The Roman Empire did not exist at his time. The Apostle John is taking Daniel and extending his prophecies into Church History and up to Judgment Day.

There is nothing specifically in Chapter 6 that points to these 4 epochs - except the events that are related to each horseman. However, we are told in Revelation chapter one that "the time is at hand," 1:3. Thus, we should understand the opening of the seals to begin "shortly" after the writing of the Book of Revelation. Since most scholars argue that Revelation was written by John during the Domitian persecutions circa 97 AD it would be natural to read the events that happened/about to happen within that context.

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse is a lifeline sent by God through His Apostle to inform the Church that whether in prosperity (the White Horse) or in adversity, plague, famine, death (the other Horses) it is Jesus Christ who is opening the seals, and is in charge of all things.

Such an understanding would be a great comfort to believers during this time as well as edifying to us looking on the events:

*Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand,* Rev. 1:3.

Grace and Peace,

-CH

PS: I cannot give an entire commentary on the Historicist position in this forum. There is a good website I will direct you to:
http://www.historicism.net/

-CH


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Apr 3, 2007)

The rider of the White Horse is Michael Horton.


----------



## javajedi (Apr 3, 2007)

CalvinandHodges said:


> It may sound like I am dogmatic about this, but I am not. I simply know what I believe and I believe it.
> 
> [...]
> 
> javajedi: The "they" in Rev. 6:8 refers to the hoards that flow out of Death and Hell. The "they" refers to Death and Hell that follows the pale horseman.



Its not a problem to state plainly what you believe.

The "they" could not be some hordes as none are mentioned. It could be "Death and Hades". But do you at least see the "possible" connection with the 2nd-4th horses? As I mentioned here:


> Note: "kill with sword" [2nd horse], "with famine" [3rd horse] and "with pestilence" [4th horse].



You may not agree with my assessment but do you see the similarity?




CalvinandHodges said:


> The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse is a lifeline sent by God through His Apostle to inform the Church that whether in prosperity (the White Horse) or in adversity, plague, famine, death (the other Horses) it is Jesus Christ who is opening the seals, and is in charge of all things.
> 
> Such an understanding would be a great comfort to believers during this time as well as edifying to us looking on the events



I bascially agree. Here is where we need to focus. I mentioned before being careful not to get bogged down in detail. The main issue is: what is Revelation about? We might disagree on the specific fulfillment of these horses but the I do think the message is clear. Christ opens these seals, He is charge, He knows what is going on. We can take comfort in that . And I really think that is the primary purpose of the book.


----------



## javajedi (Apr 3, 2007)

CalvinandHodges said:


> First, Historicism is not Dispensationalism. If it is, then Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, the Puritans, the London and Westminister Confessions, and just about every Reformed man up to the late 19th Century were Dispensationalists.





Twice you have "read into" my comments things I did not say. I never said Historicism was Dispensationalism. Please read slower and do not jump to conclusions.

I said the approach/method was similar to the approach/method that dispensationalists use:


> The basic problem I have with these "historical" approaches is that its a lot like the dispensational "newspaper exegesis" we see today. Almost any event or selective series of events can be "force-fit" into Revelation by looking at selected details while ignoring other details.






CalvinandHodges said:


> Second, Historicism is not "newspaper eschatology." Luther, Calvin, etc... all understood Revelation as depicting the Covenantal promises of God to the Church as fulfilled in Church History. Understanding the history of the Church one can then see how the events relate to the Book of Revelation. One has to be educated in Church History before one can appreciate the Book of Revelation.



Yes, I know some of the Reformers looked at, at least some things, from a "Historicist" approach. How much, and Luther and Calivin in particular, I am not sure as I have not studied that aspect of their writings.

But, be that as it may, I think that the underlying presupposition here is very wrong - that "_One has to be educated in Church History before one can appreciate the Book of Revelation._".

Why? 
1) It means that we can not understand God's word as He gave it to us without some outside reference work. This is really the big issue.

2) Am I correct that the Historicists keep re-working the "_Understanding the history of the Church one can then see how the events relate to the Book of Revelation_"? Many major world events have come and gone since the Reformation. 

3) Like (1), and similar to Dispensationalism - *in that* one needs the "*secret decoder ring*" to understand what scripture is saying. And the proponents do not agree (beacuse there are so many ways things can be "seen" in history).

4) How can you really "know" what events line up with Rev? Its like "*pin the tail on the anti-Christ*". You can play with numbers long enough to make "666" apply to almost anyone in history.

Is there a carefully worked out process on how pick events and relate them to Rev? Does http://www.historicism.net/ have anything like this?

My main issue is (1) but the whole idea seems odd, regardless of who had applied it to their day.


----------



## javajedi (Apr 3, 2007)

To LifeInReturn:

I hope you have not been run off, or put off, by all this.

There are lots of "takes" on specific details of Rev. But do take time really thinking over what the main purpose and message is. Try to see that throughout the book. Then slowly try to work out the details.

If you noticed, a lot of my comments were about sticking with the text and context and not "reading in" what is not there. Does it really say what we want it to? We all want scripture to prove our views but we must take extreme care with God's word not to make it say what it does not. And I think we all have a tendancy to be careless about this.  

Revelation is a great book and the only one with a promised blessing if we read it. May God continue to bless your reading and studying of it.


----------



## javajedi (Apr 3, 2007)

CalvinandHodges said:


> There is nothing specifically in Chapter 6 that points to these 4 epochs - except the events that are related to each horseman.



This is what I mean. I am sure that someone else relates these 4 horses to some other set of events. The question then is, who is right? How do we know? Chapter 6 is no help as "_There is nothing specifically in Chapter 6 that points to these 4 epochs"_. So how do we choose?

I really do not think God intended for us to be so uncertain about His word. Scripture interprets scripture, not our ability to creatively conform events (past or present) to it.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Apr 4, 2007)

javajedi said:


> Twice you have "read into" my comments things I did not say. I never said Historicism was Dispensationalism. Please read slower and do not jump to conclusions.
> 
> I said the approach/method was similar to the approach/method that dispensationalists use:
> 
> ...



Hey:

I appreciated all of your responses, and you bring up some very good points. It shows a fine mind, and, one that is submissive to Christ as well.

That Christ is in charge of all events is a concept that I can shake hands with you:  

I would like to address your four points above:



> 1) It means that we can not understand God's word as He gave it to us without some outside reference work. This is really the big issue.


It does not seem to be that way when you consider, for example, the "iron legs" of Daniel's vision. Nowhere can we interpret the fulfillment of this prophecy from the Scriptures alone. We need the history books in order to interpret this prophecy as the Roman Empire. Preterists argue that Jesus' prophecy in Matthew 24 was fulfilled at 70 AD with the destruction of Jerusalem by heavily leaning on the account of it by Josephus. Nowhere in the Bible do we have a direct confirmation of the fulfillment of this prophecy.

What about unfulfilled prophecy? We know that Jesus Christ will return someday, but we will not know when until the event actually happens. The Book of Revelation unfolds events that will happen after the canon is closed. Thus, we must rely on the events depicted in the Bible in order to rightly interpret the history of its fulfillment.



> 2) Am I correct that the Historicists keep re-working the "Understanding the history of the Church one can then see how the events relate to the Book of Revelation"? Many major world events have come and gone since the Reformation.


The answer is yes and no. Unfulfilled prophecy is a difficult thing to interpret. Take, for example, the disciples of Jesus who were taught by Jesus Himself. Yet, when they were asked, "Who is the Son of Man?" They gave all kinds of answers from John the Baptist, Moses, to one of the prophets in the OT. So, yes, some Historicists have been incorrect in relating prophecy to history. Yet, as time passes, and the events become more clear, the errors have been corrected.



> 3) Like (1), and similar to Dispensationalism - *in that* one needs the "*secret decoder ring*" to understand what scripture is saying. And the proponents do not agree (beacuse there are so many ways things can be "seen" in history).


What kind of "secret decoder ring" do you need in order to interpret the number of the Beast? (Rev. 13:18). Where specifically in the Bible does it say that one should use Hebrew or Greek gematria? Where specifically in the Bible does it lay down the rules for gematria? Some interpret this passage as relating to Nero, but in order to do so one must change the name of Nero and add his title, and then use his Aramaic name (Neron qsr) in order to reach the number 666 as the number of his name. Where does that come from?

Constantly the Apostle John is told not to "seal up this vision" because the time is at hand, Rev. 1:3; 22:6,10. The 1st century church understood that the events will take place shortly. For example:

According to Eusebius, Church History, book 4 chapter 15, the Church in Smyrna understood the fulfillment of the prophecy (Rev. 2:10) to have occured at the martyrdom of Polycarp (circa 156 AD). How did they come to this conclusion? 1) Because they understood that the prophecy described events that went beyond inspired writ, 2) Because they used the events of history in order to interpret unfulfilled prophecy.

There is no secret code ring involved. It is simply the way the church has interpreted unfulfilled prophecy since Adam and Eve. The events described in prophecy are to match the events of history. If they do not line up, then either we have a false prophet in our midst, Deut. 18:21,22, or, the event has not come to pass yet. I doubt very much that the Apostle John was a false prophet. Thus, we should look for the events in history that line up with the events depicted in Revelation.



> 4) How can you really "know" what events line up with Rev? Its like "pin the tail on the anti-Christ". You can play with numbers long enough to make "666" apply to almost anyone in history.


This is not uniquely a problem with Historicism, but with Idealism, Preterism, and Futureism as well. The Historicist would answer that one must take all of the available data the Bible gives concerning the Antichrist (for example) and compare it to the historical data. The answer the Historicist gives is that The Antichrist is the Roman Catholic Church as it is headed by the Pope.

To give you a brief argument about this point:

1) The Bible tells us that there are many antichrists. However, there is one Antichrist who will fulfill all of the criteria given in the Scriptures.

2) One of these criteria is that the Antichrist will come from the "Temple of God," 2 Thess. 2:4, that is, the Church, 1 Peter 2:5. The Pope claims to "sit" (Holy See) as the replacement of Christ (vicar of Christ) on earth, and embodies the universal (Catholic) Church. Fulfills this point. Islam, which is antichristian, cannot claim this point because it does not come from the Christian church. Mohammed was never a Christian.

3) An apostacy "falling away" must come first, 2 Thess. 2:3. Can anyone doubt that justification by works, the sacrifice of the mass, indulgences, and praying to saints indicates a falling away from the doctrines of the Bible? Even as the Pope and the Roman councils claim that these are all Scripturally justified?

4) The last point I will mention is 1 Tim. 4:3. Only the Roman Catholic Church forbids its priests to marry, and enforces a vow of celibacy in order for one to qualify as a priest. Only the Roman Catholic Church has forbidden its members to eat meat on Friday, and especially on Easter Friday.

These are only a few of the many passages in Scripture that describe the Antichrist. Though some of these passages may fit with some antichrists (like Islam) it is only the Roman Catholic Church and its Pope that fulfills all of them.

For further reading on this I would suggest: Francis Turretin, Whether it can be proven the Pope of Rome is the Antichrist.

Grace and Peace,

-CH

PS: Francis Turretin's book can be found in PDF format here: 

http://www.iconbusters.com/iconbusters/htm/catalogue/turretin.pdf

-CH


----------



## Augusta (Apr 4, 2007)

BlackCalvinist said:


> The rider of the White Horse is Michael Horton.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Apr 4, 2007)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hey:
> 
> This is not uniquely a problem with Historicism, but with Idealism, Preterism, and Futureism as well. The Historicist would answer that one must take all of the available data the Bible gives concerning the Antichrist (for example) and compare it to the historical data. The answer the Historicist gives is that The Antichrist is the Roman Catholic Church as it is headed by the Pope.
> 
> ...




I asked this question once and don't think I got an answer, so I'll ask it again.

Suppose the Roman Catholic Church, and specifically the papacy, disappeared tomorrow? Or in a thousand years? What would that do to the historicist view of the antichrist?

Would folks need to invent/discover a new antichrist? Or would it be a fatal blow (Rev. 13:12) to the historicist view?


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Apr 4, 2007)

tcalbrecht said:


> I asked this question once and don't think I got an answer, so I'll ask it again.
> 
> Suppose the Roman Catholic Church, and specifically the papacy, disappeared tomorrow? Or in a thousand years? What would that do to the historicist view of the antichrist?
> 
> Would folks need to invent/discover a new antichrist? Or would it be a fatal blow (Rev. 13:12) to the historicist view?



Hi:

You are asking a "what if" question. One could also ask, "What if Jesus Christ was never born?" Such a question is not answerable but theoretically.

The Bible does tell us that the Roman Church will be overthrown prior to Judgment day. Revelation 18 details the destruction of the city of Rome and the great Harlot that sits atop it. Particularly verses 16-18:

*And saying, Alas, alas that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls! For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off. And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city!*

The overthrow of Rome will happen suddenly and without warning, "In one hour." Since the city of Rome sits on top of a volcano. That the Apennine mountains are volcanic: with Mt. Vesuvius and Aetna being the most famous. It is very likely that Rome will be destroyed by a sudden volcanic eruption such as what happened to Pompeii. Though, since this is an unfulfilled prophecy, I would not rule out other interpretations such as a nuclear bomb, or even a spiritualized interpretation. It just seems to me that a volcanic eruption fits best. Purple and scarlet, by the way, are the colors of the Roman Catholic Church.

We know that the Beast (the Roman Church) and the False Prophet (Islam following its "prophet") will both be judged before the last day, Revelation 19 deals with God's judgment on both the Beast and False Prophet, and we read in Revelation 20:10:

*And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet already are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.*

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## tcalbrecht (Apr 4, 2007)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> You are asking a "what if" question. One could also ask, "What if Jesus Christ was never born?" Such a question is not answerable but theoretically.



Logically those are two different hypotheticals. One is clearly not potential, the other is quite potential. 

It is quite possible that the Roman church and the papacy could fade away in the potential thousands of years before Christ's return. Especially if it is a great hindrance to the spread of the gospel and the building of Christ's kingdom on earth.

The fact remains that historicism and futurism are two peas in a pod. They are both based on human speculation about ongoing historical events. The correctness of the interpretation hinges on the outcome of an unforeseen/unknowable series of events. If Rome and Islam fall, and nothing replaces them, or if Rome were so changed to no longer resembles the Rome of the 16th and 17th centuries, then the absolutist historicist interpretation is wrong, at least on that single point. Imagine the effect of Rome becoming a true gospel preaching church! 

This approach to interpreting the Bible is analogous to futurists who place all their eschatological eggs in the basket of modern Israel. If Israel were to disappear tomorrow in a puff on Islamic nuclear smoke, the view of many folks would also disappear.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Apr 4, 2007)

tcalbrecht said:


> Logically those are two different hypotheticals. One is clearly not potential, the other is quite potential.
> 
> It is quite possible that the Roman church and the papacy could fade away in the potential thousands of years before Christ's return. Especially if it is a great hindrance to the spread of the gospel and the building of Christ's kingdom on earth.
> 
> ...




Again, If, If, If is pure speculation on your part. The fact is that the Roman Church *has* and is fulfilling prophecy.

One does not need to "invent" this, but simply look at the past historical facts. The four horsemen, for example, has been fulfilled - no futurist would admit to that.

The Historicist position strikes the balance between the two extremes of Preterism and Futureism. Preterism teaches that all, or most. of Revelation has been fulfilled. Futureism says that Revelation will be fulfilled in the distant future (from the Apostle's perspective). Historicism says that some of Revelation has been fulfilled, and some still needs to be fulfilled.

The Roman Church will fade away and be destroyed as predicted in the Bible.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## tcalbrecht (Apr 4, 2007)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Again, If, If, If is pure speculation on your part. The fact is that the Roman Church *has* and is fulfilling prophecy.
> 
> One does not need to "invent" this, but simply look at the past historical facts. The four horsemen, for example, has been fulfilled - no futurist would admit to that.
> 
> ...



Frankly, I'm not sure why one needs to "strike a balance"? But in any event I could just as easily argue that preterism is the proper the balance is between the two very similar and just as error-prone versions of speculative eschatology.

I would argue that the historicist “solution” regarding the four horsemen or the Roman church "fulfilling prophecy" is anything but an established fact. 

However, as a preterist I would agree that the four horsemen has been fulfilled as has most of the other images in Revelation. The preterist view is definite. The historcist suffers from a touch of futurism. It can still all change even as you are looking at Rome.

Or do you really deny that in the perhaps thousands of years until Christ returns Rome absolutely cannot change?

Historicists are just futurists caught in a 17th century induced time warp. Always looking backwards but never quite sure what is up ahead.


----------



## javajedi (Apr 5, 2007)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hey:
> 
> I appreciated all of your responses, and you bring up some very good points. It shows a fine mind, and, one that is submissive to Christ as well.
> 
> That Christ is in charge of all events is a concept that I can shake hands with you:



Thanks, by God's grace and we can agree  

This thread was about the white horse/rider of ch. 6. I don't want to get to far afield of that. You brought up a Historicist understanding. I want to stick with the method you use in general and for the 4 horsemen in particular.



CalvinandHodges said:


> I would like to address your four points above:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again, I ask you to compare the detail in Daniel's visions about the 4 empires to the lack of detail about the 4 horsmen. They are miles apart in terms of detail. 

Where is Rome even aluded to?
Where is there any indication that these are "epochs"?
Where is there any indication that these are even sequential (as opposed to simultaneous?)
Where is there any indication that these refer to any empire/state?
The fact is, none of this is there. With Daniel, while the empires are not named, all these things are clear. So with Daniel we know to look for fulfilment in future empires that match the data. You are making up the connection out of whole-cloth. Where does the text say we should look for anything like you describe? It doesn't.

This is what I mean about the desire to "read-in" to scripture what we want it to say. When looking the 4 horsemen what *CAN* we say?

Christ is in control - He opens the seals
We should expect: war, famine and death
From the 5th seal we are reminded that Jesus knows what is going on and that the dead in Christ are comforted.
We should not go much further because scripture does not. 

This is my point about what I see wrong with your "take". There is absolutley no way to know what history to try to match up against these 4 horsemen. Any attempt is speculative at best, and diverting the meaning the scripture at worst. This is why I urge caution.

Daniel gave us "markers" to "test" history by. Rev 6 does not. So I believe its not intended to be understood as Daniel was or God would have given info/markers that we could match against. [Which is why I see these as general condtions - becase that is all that is being described.]

Does this make sense? Do you understand what I am trying to get at?

My thinking here is also not just applicable to Rev 6 but all of Revelation. This also applies to Futurists. 





CalvinandHodges said:


> > 2) Am I correct that the Historicists keep re-working the "Understanding the history of the Church one can then see how the events relate to the Book of Revelation"? Many major world events have come and gone since the Reformation.
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is yes and no. Unfulfilled prophecy is a difficult thing to interpret. Take, for example, the disciples of Jesus who were taught by Jesus Himself. Yet, when they were asked, "Who is the Son of Man?" They gave all kinds of answers from John the Baptist, Moses, to one of the prophets in the OT. So, yes, some Historicists have been incorrect in relating prophecy to history. Yet, as time passes, and the events become more clear, the errors have been corrected.



Yes, unfulfilled prophecy is a difficult thing to interpret. This is why we should be careful. 

Actually it was not the disciples who gave all those wrong answers:
18 Now it happened that as he was praying alone, the disciples were with him. And he asked them, "“Who do the crowds say that I am?”" 19 And they answered, “John the Baptist. But others say, Elijah, and others, that one of the prophets of old has risen.” 20 Then he said to them, "“But who do you say that I am?” "And Peter answered, “The Christ of God.” Luke 9:18-20​The disciples (Peter) had the right answer. [I would encourage you to be more careful. When one mis-reads scripture (or other posts) one will jump to the wrong conclusions.]

What you agree with is the point I am trying to make. When history is the "key" you will make mistakes as you don't ever know where you are in the timeline. Also, I would caution that you *don't let history interpret scripture*. Thats what a lot of this looks like to me. Scripture interprets scripture.


----------



## javajedi (Apr 5, 2007)

*The possibiliy of future fulfillment*



CalvinandHodges said:


> What about unfulfilled prophecy? We know that Jesus Christ will return someday, but we will not know when until the event actually happens. The Book of Revelation unfolds events that will happen after the canon is closed. Thus, we must rely on the events depicted in the Bible in order to rightly interpret the history of its fulfillment.



You are right. Hind-sight can help. We also know that we will not know when Jesus' return will take place because scripture says so.

What you say makes me think of something that is interesting and that I had not thought about before. And that is the possibility of fulfilment in history where the lack of future scripture could interpret for us. 

What I mean is, there is a lot of prophecy in the OT that relates to human history (of God's people). In the NT we see the clear, explained fulfullment of a lot of that - mainly in the coming of Jesus and the "transformation" of the people of God by the inclusion of the Gentiles and the giving of the Spirit. 

So, my thought is, aside from the Second Coming which brings the end of human history as we know it, *since the canon is closed, would scripture give us prophecy about specific, future, historical events w/o the clear "followup" of more scripture to interpet it correctly?* Does scripture, instead, just give us general conditions for the church thoughout history [persecution, tribulation, expansion of the gospel (victory for the church), etc.] since there is no further scripture to clearly interpret for us? So should we even be looking and "guessing" at tying specific historical events to scripture, a la Historicism, Futurism and even Preterism.

Hmmm. just thinking out-loud here. Fits kinda nice with the Amill position...  

Ok, AD 70 is a point against my thought. But that was pretty clearly laid out ahead of time. 

I'll have to ponder that some more. Comments?




CalvinandHodges said:


> These are only a few of the many passages in Scripture that describe the Antichrist. Though some of these passages may fit with some antichrists (like Islam) it is only the Roman Catholic Church and its Pope that fulfills all of them.
> 
> For further reading on this I would suggest: Francis Turretin, Whether it can be proven the Pope of Rome is the Antichrist.
> 
> ...



I know the original WCF has the Pope as The Anti-Christ. My OPC version has this taken out (I believe correctly - even though I lean toward that understanding myself). I have not read this work, so thanks for the link.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Apr 5, 2007)

javajedi said:


> So, my thought is, aside from the Second Coming which brings the end of human history as we know it, *since the canon is closed, would scripture give us prophecy about specific, future, historical events w/o the clear "followup" of more scripture to interpet it correctly?* Does scripture, instead, just give us general conditions for the church thoughout history [persecution, tribulation, expansion of the gospel (victory for the church), etc.] since there is no further scripture to clearly interpret for us? So should we even be looking and "guessing" at tying specific historical events to scripture, a la Historicism, Futurism and even Preterism.
> 
> Hmmm. just thinking out-loud here. Fits kinda nice with the Amill position...
> 
> Ok, AD 70 is a point against my thought. *But that was pretty clearly laid out ahead of time. * (emph. added)



This issue is one of the reasons why I think the preterist view has much to offer. God has not left specific events up to the speculation of His people but has given us clear information. 

Given the numerous time texts in places like the Olivet Discourse and Revelation ("Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place", "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants--things which must shortly take place. ... Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.") and the ancient setting of many of the prophecies ("Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there. But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months") these help us by giving a bracket to enclose the fulfillment of the prophecies. 

The preterist identifies all the cataclysms of the apocalyptic scenes as being directly related to Christ coming into history, and being the natural outworking of His birth, death, resurrection, and ascension to the throne room of God, and confirming those facts. 

For example, what was the proof that Jesus had ascended and taken His rightful throne over the nations?



> But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 'And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams. And on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days; And they shall prophesy. I will show wonders in heaven above And signs in the earth beneath: Blood and fire and vapor of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord. (Acts 2:16-20)



The gift of the Holy Spirit (“I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh“, blessing) and the judgment of ancient Israel (“The sun shall be turned into darkness“, curse) were directly related and proof of His ascension. Later on Peter says to the people:



> he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool." ' "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." (Acts 2:31-36)



Christ is on the throne of His father David subduing the nations beginning with the judgment of Israel, much of which is pictured in the Olivet Discourse and Revelation.

Consider the words of Revelation 22:10, “And he said to me, ‘Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand.’” Contrast these words with what Daniel was told in Dan. 12:9, "Go your way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.” Daniel is told that the visions and prophecies are sealed even though the events in question are actually just a few hundred years off with the coming of Messiah. In the Revelation John is told not to seal the book because of the nearness of the prophecy. Is it really possible that John’s vision involves, in the main, events hundreds or thousands of years in the future?

Don't mean to hijack the thread. We can start another.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Apr 5, 2007)

Interesting discussion!

I post here the relevant chapter from Herman Hoeksema's commentary on Revelation, _Behold, He Cometh!_, where he discusses the four horsemen:

http://www.spindleworks.com/library/hoeksma/behold13.htm

If you're the impatient type you can scroll down to the section, "The Four Horses Individually Considered".

I like HH's amil orientation and his exegesis in Revelation.

Steve


----------



## javajedi (Apr 5, 2007)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Interesting discussion!
> 
> I post here the relevant chapter from Herman Hoeksema's commentary on Revelation, _Behold, He Cometh!_, where he discusses the four horsemen:
> 
> ...




Thanks for jumping in. I'll look at the ref (have not read Hoeksma).


*To tcalbrecht:*
Hi Tom,
To attempt to stick to the topic - what is a Preterist view of the 4 horsemen?


----------



## javajedi (Apr 5, 2007)

tcalbrecht said:


> javajedi said:
> 
> 
> > So, my thought is, aside from the Second Coming which brings the end of human history as we know it, *since the canon is closed, would scripture give us prophecy about specific, future, historical events w/o the clear "followup" of more scripture to interpet it correctly?* Does scripture, instead, just give us general conditions for the church thoughout history [persecution, tribulation, expansion of the gospel (victory for the church), etc.] since there is no further scripture to clearly interpret for us? So should we even be looking and "guessing" at tying specific historical events to scripture, a la Historicism, Futurism and even Preterism.
> ...



Yes, I do think there are some good issues Preterists bring up that must be taken seriously, but one can accept your conclusion (and the point of my musing) as an Amil, without being a Preterist.

If seeing AD70 as a fulfillment of scripture [at a minimum, some of the Olivet discourse] makes one a Preterist then I think we all are, at least, partial-preterists.  I guess it gets to how much do you limit to 70AD and how much do you see as descibing the "church age"?




tcalbrecht said:


> Given the numerous time texts [...]



Yea, there is where the debate is.  

[Warning *danger of thread hijack*] 
There is also the big issue of the dating of Rev. Late 60s or ~95AD. Either time is OK for the Amil [along with Historicist and Dispensational, I suppose] but for the Preterist it **must** be late 60s. There are arguments on both sides that I do not want to re-hash here. Maybe one day one will definitively be ruled out.
[/Warning]



tcalbrecht said:


> Consider the words of Revelation 22:10, “And he said to me, ‘Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand.’” Contrast these words with what Daniel was told in Dan. 12:9, "Go your way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.” Daniel is told that the visions and prophecies are sealed even though the events in question are actually just a few hundred years off with the coming of Messiah. In the Revelation John is told not to seal the book because of the nearness of the prophecy. Is it really possible that John’s vision involves, in the main, events hundreds or thousands of years in the future?



To take the Disp-Premill view, no - it makes no sense that the bulk of the book (chapters 4-19) must fast-forward 2000+ years, and counting, and then just be about a 7 year period is pretty ridiculous in my mind.

But for the Amil, or even Historicist view, its not a problem. As both see the events **starting** "soon" - like the 4 horsemen [note the neat thread topic tie in  ].




tcalbrecht said:


> Don't mean to hijack the thread. We can start another.



Yes, a general discussion of Preterism should be in a new thread.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Apr 5, 2007)

javajedi said:


> Yes, I do think there are some good issues Preterists bring up that must be taken seriously, but one can accept your conclusion (and the point of my musing) as an Amil, without being a Preterist.
> 
> 
> ...
> ...




You do realize there are many amils who are also preterists. One is not necessarily opposed to the other.


----------



## javajedi (Apr 6, 2007)

tcalbrecht said:


> You do realize there are many amils who are also preterists. One is not necessarily opposed to the other.



Yes. It just depends on how you define preterism - or in dealing with which particular details.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Apr 6, 2007)

Hi Javajedi:

Yes, you are right the Amill position (of which I am one) fits very nicely in the Historicist understanding of things.

We see in Chapters 18,19 the judgment on the Beast and the False Prophet (which is Roman Catholicism and Islam respectively). Then in chapter 20 we have a recapitualtion. We go back to the 1st Century and see that Satan is bound so that "he will not deceive the nations no more." Which allows the gospel to be preached to all nations. Christ's triumph in the Cross was the downfall of Satan.

During the millennium, while Satan is bound, it is the Beast (antichrist) and the False Prophet who do the bidding of Satan - they are his tools to wreck havoc as he cannot directly do so. Chapter 19 we see the judgment of the Beast and False Prophet which happens at the end of the millennium:

*And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison. And he shall go out and deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog*, Rev. 20:7,8a.

Thus, we see the series of events unfold like this:

1) We have seen the rise and fall of Roman Catholicism (The Beast, Antichrist). The end of Catholicism will result in the firey destruction of the City of Rome.

2) We are seeing the rise and fall of Islam. Which, again, will come to naught as Christ will bring judgment upon it.

3) We are witnessing the beginnings of the rise of Paganism (the religion of Satan). Which, once Papacy and Islam are removed, will dominate the nations to the extent of almost destroying the True Religion.

Then, the glorious return of our Lord Jesus, Come Lord Jesus! And the setting of all things anew.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Apr 6, 2007)

Partial Preterist, Optimistic Amillenialist (or as I prefer Gospel Millenialist), Idealist here. 

But I will admit I haven't thoroughly studied the issue. I know I find myself agreeing with Hendricksen quite a bit.


----------



## javajedi (Apr 6, 2007)

MrMerlin777 said:


> Partial Preterist, Optimistic Amillenialist (or as I prefer Gospel Millenialist), Idealist here.



Have you heard the term "panmillenialist"? Its one that believes it will all pan out in the end.



MrMerlin777 said:


> But I will admit I haven't thoroughly studied the issue. I know I find myself agreeing with Hendricksen quite a bit.



Yes. I assume you mean, "More than Conquerors". Its a excellent, easy to read, shorter book.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Apr 6, 2007)

javajedi said:


> Have you heard the term "panmillenialist"? Its one that believes it will all pan out in the end.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. I assume you mean, "More than Conquerors". Its a excellent, easy to read, shorter book.




Yep I've heard panmillenialist before. Gives me a chuckle when I hear it mentioned.

More than Conquerors is exactly what I was refering to.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Apr 7, 2007)

I still say it's Michael Horton.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Apr 7, 2007)

javajedi said:


> Thanks for jumping in. I'll look at the ref (have not read Hoeksma).
> 
> 
> *To tcalbrecht:*
> ...



Russell in his book _The Parousia_ identifies the four horsemen with the events coming upon ancient Israel ca. AD70. Death, famine, war, all those things identified by Jesus in the Olivet Dicourse (Matt. 24:4-28) caome upon Israel by the hand of Rome.


----------



## Dwimble (Apr 25, 2007)

I haven't studied this issue sufficiently to be dogmatic about it (I'm not sure who or what the first horseman is), but from a beginning standpoint, I find it very interesting that Matthew 24:3-8 seems to closely parallel the first five seals of Rev. 6:1-11...



> Matthew 24:3-8
> 3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
> 
> 4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
> ...



The first thing mentioned is many coming in Christ's name deceiving many. Then comes wars, famines, pestilences, and so on. All those things are then declared as the "beginning of sorrows." Then, the saints are delivered up to be afflicted, killed, and are hated of all nations.

Then comparing that with the seals...



> Revelation 6:1-11
> 1 And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see.
> 
> 2 And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.
> ...



Now, comparing those five seals with the previous passage, if the first rider represents something like false gospels or false Christs, deceivers, or the like...then, again, you have first the deceivers, then wars, famines, and pestilences, and then finally the saints being killed. That seems incredibly close to me. It is only when you make the first rider Christ that it breaks that parallel. Again, I don't know, because I've only begun to study these things, but starting with the basic tenant of always comparing scripture with scripture, at the first look that seems pretty compelling to me and clear. So far the main thing I've found that might be a good refutation of that is the fact that the color white always seems to be used to represent purity, clean, holy, and so on. But, Satan _is_ portrayed as an angel of light, and deception at the end is spoken of as being so great that, if it were possible, even the elect would be deceived. So, I can't be too quick to jump on the white color of the horse being the "proof" that its rider is Christ, though that may certainly be the case. Heck, for all I know right now the rider could represent the church, being given the crown in Him and conquering in His name.  

Anyway, I'm continuing to look at it and find the discussion interesting.


----------



## javajedi (Apr 26, 2007)

Dwimble said:


> I haven't studied this issue sufficiently to be dogmatic about it (I'm not sure who or what the first horseman is), but from a beginning standpoint, I find it very interesting that Matthew 24:3-8 seems to closely parallel the first five seals of Rev. 6:1-11...
> 
> [...]
> 
> ...




Very interesting. I do think that you are on the right track as I believe Revelation was meant to be understood by John's audience (and us). It would not be things in the future that we can only decipher today. So, at a minimum, I do think there is good reason that, at least, the 2nd-5th seals parallel Matt. 24. Scripture interprets scipture so we would expect that the symbols/visions in Rev. should be understood by comparing other related scripture. Also, the parallels do not have to match exactly to get the point across or to bring the readers minds to these other passages.

I do see the first rider as Christ, or at least the Church conquring via the gospel. You mention the consistant use of "white" in Rev is Christ or the saints. Nothing negative is said of the first rider (no death, dying). Also the the other 3 are linked in 6:8.

I hope this book continues to be a blessing to you, as Christ promised it would be.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Apr 26, 2007)

Hi javajedi:

I will take your post piecemeal.



> Again, I ask you to compare the detail in Daniel's visions about the 4 empires to the lack of detail about the 4 horsmen. They are miles apart in terms of detail.


I don't think that there is a direct correlation between the statue of Daniel's vision and the 4 horsemen.



> Where is Rome even aluded to?
> Where is there any indication that these are "epochs"?
> Where is there any indication that these are even sequential (as opposed to simultaneous?)
> Where is there any indication that these refer to any empire/state?


In the first four chapters of Revelation we see a vision that John received and the application of that vision to the churches in Asia Minor (which are, at this time, part of the Roman Empire). In chapter five we have the vision of John in heaven grieving because no one can be found worthy enough to open the scroll. Then we see that the Lamb of God is found worthy to open the scroll. In the following chapters we have the results of the opening of each of the seals of the scroll.

No specific church is referred to as these scrolls are opened, so the natural deduction would be that these events apply to the whole church - which at that time encompassed the Roman Empire from Britan to Egypt.

I think it is pretty obvious that the events described within the scroll are sequential since Jesus opens each seal sequentially. Each seal has a beast which says "come and see." It seems that if we were to understand these seals being all opened at the same time, then the Scripture would have been more specific.

I also think that the deduction that each of these seals/horsemen are epochs can be easily understood based on what happens:

White Horse - conquering and to conquer - indicates a time of prosperity (white) and warfare (conquering).
Red Horse - a time of bloody (red) civil war (take peace from the earth).
Black Horse - a time of heavy taxation (double balances) and famine.
Pale Horse - 1/4 of the earth's population destroyed.

Though some of these may overlap - it seems that they are distinct enough to stand on their own.



> The fact is, none of this is there. With Daniel, while the empires are not named, all these things are clear. So with Daniel we know to look for fulfilment in future empires that match the data. You are making up the connection out of whole-cloth. Where does the text say we should look for anything like you describe? It doesn't.


You mean the text does not say there will be warfare? famine? death? and that we should not look for an historical interpretation of this?



> This is my point about what I see wrong with your "take". There is absolutley no way to know what history to try to match up against these 4 horsemen. Any attempt is speculative at best, and diverting the meaning the scripture at worst. This is why I urge caution.
> 
> Daniel gave us "markers" to "test" history by. Rev 6 does not. So I believe its not intended to be understood as Daniel was or God would have given info/markers that we could match against. [Which is why I see these as general condtions - becase that is all that is being described.]
> 
> ...


We are told in Revelation that "these things must shortly come to pass" which is a "marker" that one can use to interpret the book. The Apostle, writing circa 97AD was telling us that the events depicted therein were about to unfold. We then take what happens in history and apply it to the "markers" found in the Bible. Where they coincide we find infallible proof for the fulfillment of prophecy.

The fulfillment of Daniel's prophecies to you seem obvious because the historical events that Daniel is referring to have already come to pass. However, we have no specific mention anywhere in Holy Writ that the "iron legs" of Daniel was the Roman Empire. There is nothing in Scripture that marks the fulfillment of this prophecy. Yet, you will tell me that the iron legs are the Roman Empire. Why?

As I said before: Historicists are not doing anything different concerning the interpretation of prophecy than what the Church has been doing since Adam and Eve.



> What you agree with is the point I am trying to make. When history is the "key" you will make mistakes as you don't ever know where you are in the timeline. Also, I would caution that you don't let history interpret scripture. Thats what a lot of this looks like to me. Scripture interprets scripture.


Scripture interprets history. History does not interpret Scripture. See, for example, Osborne's excellent principles of interpreting prophecy in his book, The Hermeneutical Spiral, pp. 205-216.

If all that you get out of the Book of Revelation is that Christ is in control of history, then we are in agreement  However, I think there is more detail than what you are willing to admit.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## LadyCalvinist (Apr 26, 2007)

Of one thing I am certain: How it all will end knows God.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Apr 26, 2007)

LadyCalvinist said:


> Of one thing I am certain: How it all will end knows God.




Amen!


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Apr 26, 2007)

I was about to photoshop a picture of Dr. Horton's head onto a guy with a bow riding a white horse. I decided against it, since that joke is now in overkill mode.


----------



## javajedi (Apr 28, 2007)

CalvinandHodges,
I am busy this week end. I'll try to respond next week.


----------

