Upon this Rock I will build My church

I would like to suggest that "this rock" (Greek "Petra") references the apprehension and acceptance of that special revelation that Jesus is "the Christ, the son of the living God" (Mat 16:16); and this truth apprehended and accepted adds one to the "church" of which the second death has no authority to prevail over:  "on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it," Mat 16:18.

In Matthew 7:24, Jesus likened the man who heard and did his sayings to one who "built his house on the rock" (Greek "Petra"), and nature could not prevail against it, Mat 7.25.  It was not just the sayings, but the apprehension and acceptance of them that was likened to a man building on the rock.  Like in Matthew 16.18, that which is built on the rock will not be overcome by other forces.  

It's also interesting that in Matthew 7.21-23, Jesus speaks of "never" knowing certain individuals who laid claim to doing certain things in the name of the Lord--these were obviously those who never apprehended and accepted the sayings of Christ or the revelation about Jesus and the Christ that Peter had apprehended and accepted.

The Church and its members are those who have "part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power." Revelation 20:6  This could correspond to what Jesus said about the "gates of hell shall not prevail over it":  hell is the second death, and this gates reference could be metaphoric of power or authority.

After Peter's confession that Jesus is "the Christ, the son of the living God," Jesus acknowledges the name of Peter: "you are Peter"; and then He says "upon this rock, I will build my church."   

Why did Jesus call attention to Peter's name, which in Greek is "Petros," and then use the Greek word "petra" to reference this "rock" upon which he would build his church?  

"Petros" is masculine in gender, while "Petra" is feminine.  Is the gender difference significant?  Do both words speak of a rock, but the masculine gender was used for "Peter" because he was a man?  Maybe.

But maybe Jesus was making a contrast of sorts:  Peter's was just a name, but the truth apprehended and proclaimed by Peter was the "rock" upon which the Church would be built.

Why didn't Jesus just say to Peter that he would build his church upon him--if Jesus was referring to Peter as the rock?  Jesus could have said: "Peter, you are the rock upon which I will build my church."  If Jesus did mean Peter, in what way did Jesus build his church upon him?  Is there any evidence in the New Testament that Peter was meant as the rock?   

Jesus does proceed to say to Peter that he will give "the keys of the kingdom" to "you": this "you" is in the singular.  Whatever the "keys" are, Jesus is direct in saying to Peter that they will be given to him, but he  wasn't similarly direct in calling Peter the "rock."   Though the "keys" reference is directed to Peter, he speaks to the disciples in Matthew 18:18 about whatever "you [plural] bind on earth will be bound in heaven"--similar to what is said in 16:19.  This just seems to speak of an authority they have:  if they agree on something on earth, God will honor it ("I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. Matthew 18:19).

 One can possibly find a role of Peter in the early stages of the "Church" in the book of Acts that stands out, but nothing in the New Testament beyond that gives a clue that would suggest Peter is the rock of which Jesus spoke.  

Peter was the one who spoke on the day of Pentecost, Acts 2:14, and he proclaimed that Jesus was "both Lord and Christ."  We are told in Acts 2:41 that 3000  "souls were added" to them, and "the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved," Acts 2:47.  It was those who believed the message and were saved that were "added" to the church.  Peter may have spoke on Pentecost, but it was the truth he spoke by which people were saved and added to the church.  The truth by which people are saved was not confined to Peter.  

Peter had a confirmatory part in the response of the Samaritans, Acts 8.14-17.  And then finally, Peter was sent to the gentiles, being Cornelius and company, in Acts 10, to "tell" them "words by which" they would "be saved," Acts 11:14.  

Peter, after this significant role in the early stages of the Church, in the book of Acts, doesn't have as significant of a role as the Apostle Paul, when it came to the evangelism and growth of the more dominant gentile church.  Peter is one of the "pillars," of the Jerusalem Church, as Paul said he "seemed" to be, Galatians 2:9.  But one of those pillars was also James, the Lord's brother, who wasn't even an original Apostle, and James seemed to have a very prominent role in the Jerusalem Church.  There is no indication that Peter held any significance in the Church other than his apostolic authority--which he shared with others.   The only thing that stands out is his role in the early stages of the church in the book of Acts.

Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, and whoever believes in him for salvation will be saved.  Some would say that revelation itself is the "rock," and that's understandable, considering that salvation comes by believing certain divine revelation, and whoever believes that revelation, is saved and added to the church.  But considering the analogy of building on a rock in Matthew 7 about the man who listens to Christ's sayings, I think the rock could reference the apprehension and acceptance of the truth that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God.

Some will say that Jesus was referring to himself as "this rock."  In Matthew 21:42, Jesus quotes the Psalm (118:22) :  "Have you never read in the Scriptures: The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone. This was the LORD's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes'? 

Jesus being the "chief cornerstone" is an argument for Jesus himself as the rock he was referencing.  However, the word "stone" is not the Greek "petra" but "lithos."  This stone is again referenced in Acts 4:11 and 1 Peter 2.7.  The "household of God" is said to have Jesus as that cornerstone, Eph 2.20.   Romans 9.33 and 1 Peter 2.8 speaks of Jesus as a stone and rock, not in a building sense, but as a cause of stumbling:  a "stone of stumbling" and a "rock of offense." "Stone" is "lithos" which is masculine in gender and "rock is "petra" feminine in gender--if the gender proves anything.  1 Corinthians 10:4 speaks of the "spiritual rock" that followed the Jews  with Moses, and that rock was Christ--the Greek word is again "petra (feminine in gender).   So Jesus is clearly referred to as a stone and a rock, and though some usages are not about building but causing stumbling, he is the chief cornerstone.  

So was Jesus referring to himself before Peter?  He could have easily said that he was the rock upon which he would build his church.   But he doesn't say anything like that.  It was after Peter made the proclamation that Jesus said "upon this rock," which suggests to me that Jesus was referring to that proclamation, a proclamation of a specific divine revelation that Peter had apprehended--a revelation that if one apprehends and accepts, they will be added to the church.

"Being saved" and "being sanctified" are not about practical sanctification

"Being saved" and "being sanctified" in certain translations are not about practical sanctification but about those who are receiving eternal life

The words "being saved" and "being sanctified" in certain texts speaks not of those who experiencing some degree of practical sanctification in their lives, but of those who were believing the gospel and being justified or receiving eternal life. 

They are the "being saved" or "being sanctified" people.  Newer translations are more accurate with the Greek grammar in translating with the words "being" "saved" or "sanctified," since the words "saved" or "sanctified" are a verb-participle-present-passive, but the King James interprets it as about those who have received eternal life and not practical sanctification.  

The King James reads in Acts 2:47, "the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved."

The New King James in Acts 2:47 translates, "the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved."

Those who were believing the gospel, the being saved, were added to the Church, by God. The words "being sanctified" in Hebrews 10:14 are also from the Greek word which is also a verb-participle-present-passive.

The KJV reads, "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." Hebrews 10:14

The NKJV says, "For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified." Hebrews 10:14

The NKJV is more accurate, but the KJV has the right idea:  it's about those who are sanctified in the positional sense, not about those who are experiencing some degree of sanctification.  God has perfected forever those who have come to saving faith and been set apart (sanctified).

We find a similar verse about being saved in First Corinthians 1:18.  

The NKJV reads, "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."" 1 Corinthians 1:18

The NKJV is accurate, but the KJV has the right idea: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." 1 Corinthians 1:18

The words "being saved" are the right translation of the verb-participle-present-passive.  But the KJV has the right idea, being that this is about those who are saved--those who were coming to saving faith, and not those who were experiencing a certain degree of practical sanctification.

The Lord's Supper

The "Lord's Supper" is that tradition established by Christ with his disciples during the last Jewish Passover meal that he shared with them.  Jesus changed it to that which remembers his death for the remission of sins.  The practice would anticipate a period of time during which believers assembled together would observe the supper until Christ returns.  

Passover was a meal observed within the Jewish family in remembrance of the deliverance from Egypt in connection with the Passover sacrifice.  The change of this observance for the Christian is according to Jesus being our Passover sacrifice and the change of family, being the Church family--since our natural families do not necessarily share in the significance of the ritual as the Jewish family shared in the significance of the original ritual.

1 Corinthians 11.20 identifies the tradition as the "Lord's Supper."  Verses 24 and 25 remind us of the words of Christ concerning the eating of the bread and the drinking of the cup in that new tradition.  

24 when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." 1 Corinthians 11:24-25

Verse 26 states that "as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes."

I believe to partake of the Supper in an unworthy manner (vss 27-29) is to do so without regard for those who had nothing to eat.  This is what was going on in the Corinthian Church.  They were practicing the Lord's Supper by bringing food for themselves and not sharing with those who had none.  Paul said this was not the Lord's Supper (vss 20-22).  Because of this, Divine judgment came, and many were sick and some had died (30-32).  It would have been better if they just ate at home than to do it the way they were doing it.

The Martyrs of Revelation 20:4 and the timing of the Rapture

In Revelation 20:4, we see those who were martyred for their faith during the time of the "beast" and the implementation of his "image."  The text says that they "lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years."  This quote is from the New King James, but translations like the ESV say that they "came to life and reigned..."  This translation is why some would argue that their resurrection was at this point in time; and this is an argument against a PreWrath or Post-Trib rapture, because why were they resurrected at this point in time and not with those resurrected at the end of the Great Tribulation in a PreWrath or Post-Trib rapture scenario?

The text identifies them as "souls," and I see no reason not to see them as those identified earlier in the 5th seal of Revelation 6.9-11.  Those souls in the fifth seal were martyred for their faith, and there were more to come, and I can't see why they are not the same as the souls of Revelation 20.4.  

The word "souls" in Revelation 20.4 surely reminds the reader of those previously mentioned in the fifth seal.  At this point in the vision, which John is receiving, special attention and recognition are given to these souls.  I think that the designation "souls" doesn't have to mean disembodied spirits that still need to be resurrected, but particular people who are seen and remembered and now comforted about their future.  It's not that they were resurrected as a distinct group apart from others, but they are given special attention at this point in the vision, and their status is revealed.

Translations make it sound like they are resurrected at the time of Revelation 20.4, which would be an argument against a Prewrath or Post-Trib rapture view, because if the rapture was Post-trib, why weren't they resurrected with the dead believers at the end of the Great Tribulation?  I believe they were resurrected then, but they receive particular attention and recognition at that point in the vision.   

The word translated "lived" in the NKJ is the same as the word "reigned" in tense, being indicative/ aorist / active, and they both speak of their fate, being they "lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years."  This is in contrast to the unsaved who do not live again until after the thousand years: "But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished." 20:5 NKJ  The verb "live" in verse 5 is also the same Greek tense.   The Martyrs will both live and reign with Christ for a thousand years, while the unsaved will not even live during the thousand years.  

Revelation 20.5 also says that "This is the first resurrection."   The first resurrection would be the one preceding the Rapture.  The Martyrs were part of that Resurrection, and they will both live and reign with Christ.  The unsaved will be resurrected later, and they will not live until after the Thousand years.

I think that a Post-trib view has a little advantage over the PreWrath view in this, because the Prewrath view has an undetermined amount of time between the end of the Great Tribulation, when the resurrection and rapture happens, and the end of the 70th Week or the Bowls' judgments, which they usually put beyond the 70th Week. For what of any new believers who possibly die as Martyrs, as these need to be accounted for?  But I'm not sure if PreWrathers are seeing the Martyrs of Revelation 20:4 as a very specific group between the Rapture at the end of Great Tribulation and the final defeat of the Beast by Christ.   I think the Martyrs of Revelation 20:4 are the same as the fifth seal Martyrs.  

It makes sense to me that the "souls" of Revelation 20:4 are the fifth seal Martyrs who are resurrected at the end of the Great Tribulation, and those particular individuals get special attention and recognition: they will both live and reign with Christ for a thousand years.

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years. Revelation 20:4-6

Parable of the Sower: varied outcomes to the saving message

Matthew 13:3-9; 18-23; Mark 4:1–9; 13-20; Luke 8:4–8; 11-15

Jesus called it the parable of the Sower, though it seems it is about the soils and their conditions.  It must be that it is simply a message about how the Sower should be prepared for different results.  The parable is not designed to answer every question one can throw at it.  It doesn't explain why or how the soils are different.  We see that the seed spread has different outcomes based on the precondition of the soil.  We don't get any information as to whether the soil is stuck in the condition forever.  We only see the outcomes from the sowing of the seed in different soils and the outward affect by certain forces on the growth (or non-growth) of the seed in such soils.

In the explanation of the parable, looking at parallel texts, we see that the seed is the word of God and the word of the kingdom.  In the First Case-example, the word is not understood, and Satan takes the word out of the recipient's heart, so they may not believe and be saved.  This reveals that the word here is a saving message.  The Word of the Kingdom to be a saving-content message must be concerning Jesus as the Christ who is Savior from sin for those who believe in Him for it; for to believe this is to be born again and qualify to see and enter the Kingdom of God—according to John 3 and what we read about the Samaritans in John 4 who believed that Jesus was the Christ, the Savior of the World.  If one doesn't understand the message, as far as the terms of salvation, then Satan works in a way to keep one from understanding it and believing it.

The next 2 Cases are debated as to the outcome of the recipients as to whether they are actually saved. It seems common for Free Grace folks to believe they are saved (see quote one below), while non-Free Grace do not, though there may be exceptions (see quote two below).  The latter expects a perseverance of the saints view in salvation, while the former would say that Salvation does not guarantee perseverance.   The outcome in Cases Two and Three are that the results are short-lived due to the condition of the soil and the outward conditions on the plant.  We can't answer questions with this parable that the parable wasn't meant to answer or doesn't answer.  Persecution and the cares of life will bring failure if one is not rooted and grounded in the truth.   That is the outcome in these cases.   Is the failure due to these not really understanding and therefore not believing? It is tempting to make arguments from silence, since we are not told whether they understood and believed or didn't understand and disbelieve.  It seems they did understand and believe, but their sanctification-progress was later interrupted by worldly cares and persecution.  It seems they are both those who do not "endure to the end" (Mat 10:22, 24:13:  they are those who did not "lose their souls for Christ's sake and the gospel"—as Jesus said, (Mark 8.35)..."whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it." (Mat 16.25)   The truth is that Jesus did not say whether they understood and believed or didn’t understand and disbelieved.  One’s view will be based on their soteriology, whether saving faith will persevere or quickly recover or eventually recover (in some reasonable amount of time) after failure under the circumstances that cause the failure.  

The Fourth Case hears the word and understands and bears fruit, but not equally among those who receive it.  We don't know why that is, as far as the explanation, but the good soil has varied outcomes itself.  We don't know why these have good soil and the others don't  We are not told about those who have good soil and bear fruit for a time, then become less fruitful or unfruitful.  Again, the parable doesn’t answer things like that.  Some suggest good soil is regeneration, and that is why they understand and bear fruit, and that will be your conclusion if you are of the Reformed Theology mindset. (Moderate Calvinists might say it is a "quickening," but that is a word used in Scripture for either the resurrection of the body or the new birth, and so it's an attempt to come up with something like regeneration to enable the unsaved to be saved by faith before regeneration.)

Jesus doesn't explain how the soils were prepared.  In farming, we use to prepare soil for planting, by disking, plowing, and dragging—sometimes twice. What creates good soil?  Who's responsible for good soil.  Why varied amounts of fruit?  The parable doesn't answer those questions.  It only illustrates varied outcomes  to the word of God spoken based on human heart-psychological conditions.   

Quote One:  While many commentators say the second soil represents another type of unbeliever, that view is untenable because the seed sprang up (v 5), and clearly germination must precede springing up! Luke 8:13 specifically says that this person believed the saving message for a time. Sadly, apostasy is possible for born-again people. Of course, everlasting life, once it has germinated, is everlasting--even if the faith later fails. Then there are the distracted hearers. Their hearts' interest is deflected away from God toward seductive material and worldly pursuits (Matt 13:22). “The cares of this world" refer to the worries or excessive concerns of this life. “The deceitfulness of riches" refers to the false security offered by the accumulation of temporal wealth (cf. Luke 12: 15-21). Riches may promise fulfillment, but they fail to deliver. The result of the worldly distractions is that the person "becomes unfruitful." The believer represented by this soil perseveres in faith, but his works are not brought to maturity (cf. Luke 8:14).  Quoted from The Grace New Testament Commentary, Matthew, Hal Haller Jr.

Quote Two: D. A. Carson seems to believe Case Two is an unsaved person, for he says the person receives the word "in a thoughtless way" that "may show immediate signs of life and promise to be the best of the crop...But without real root, there is no fruit; and external pressures, trouble, and persecution..., like the sun beating on a rootless plant, soon reveals the shallowness of the soil. ... Such temporary disciples are always numerous in times of revival and were so in Jesus' ministry."

In Case Three, Carson doesn't say he is a nonbeliever, so it's unclear whether in this case he believes unfruitfulness is a lack of spiritual life in a believer or lack of spiritual life in the sense of a lack of eternal life.  Carson says of this person that he "simply never permits the message about the kingdom to control him:  life has too many other commitments that slowly choke the struggling plant, which never matures and bears fruit."  Carson says about the "deceitfulness" or "delightfulness" "of wealth"..."The idea is clear: worries about worldly things or devotion to wealth...snuff out spiritual life...If deceit is understood...these thorns are so subtle that one may not be aware of the choking that is going on...What must be avoided is unfruitfulness, for only fruitfulness, not it's opposite, indicates spiritual life..."   The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Matthew

Is Jerusalem's destruction in Luke 21:20-24 that of Babylon the Great?

Could Jerusalem's destruction in Luke 21.20-24 be that of the destruction of Babylon the Great [BTG] in Rev 17.16?  Would Jesus have had in mind BTG in Luke 21, instead of the coming destruction of Jerusalem that he prophesied in Luke 19.41-44? 

Those who believe Jerusalem is BTG might see Luke 21.20-24 as referring to the destruction of BTG in Rev 17, 18, and 16.19.  Some would see 2 stages of that destruction, being by the 10 horns in which it is burned, and then by God in the 7th bowl, according to Rev 16.19.   I could see how one might identify Luke 21.20-24 as BTG, since the prophesy is followed by the cosmic disturbance event and second coming (see Luke 21.25-27) that comes at the end of the Great Tribulation [GT] (see Matthew 24:29-30).  If Jesus speaks of the destruction of AD70, then there is a big gap of time between the desolation of Jerusalem and the cosmic disturbances.

But would Jesus have had that far future destruction of BTG in view since he prophesied of Jerusalem's near destruction in Luke 19:41-44?  That destruction is foretold in the words of the parable in Matthew 22 about the king's army who destroys and burns the city.  There's also the reference to the destruction of the city in Daniel 9.24-26 that fits in the near future time after Christ's first coming.    I don't think Jesus had Jerusalem as BTG in view, though if Jerusalem is BTG, I could see how it might seem to be in view.  But if Jerusalem is not BTG, it obviously can't be BTG in Luke 21.  

It is curious that a near future prophecy of AD70 is immediately followed by a prophecy of the cosmic events that follow the GT.   Rev 18.4 does exhort God's people to come out of BTG, and Luke 21.21 does warn to flee Jerusalem, but it also speaks of it as days of vengeance, but wasn't that vengeance back in AD70?   But there is a vengeance on BTG as the city that shed the blood of the prophets and apostles and saints, Rev 18.20, 24.  Luke 21 also speaks of Jerusalem being trampled by gentiles; this could be AD70 and onward, but it could be referring to the great tribulation period (see Revelation 11:1-3) , and maybe this destruction is at that time, being burned by fire.  

The prophecy of Jerusalem in Luke 21 would seem to fit with the destruction of BTG, and the close connection of the cosmic disturbances would support that, though it could be that the connection is that Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles from AD70 onward until the time of the cosmic disturbances at the end of the Great Tribulation.  Luke 21 says Jerusalem will be trampled until the "times of the gentiles are fulfilled."  That "times of the gentiles" has been identified as the whole time Jerusalem is under the overlordship of gentiles.  Yet Ezekiel speaks of the "Day of the Lord" as the "time of the gentiles," 30:3.  It could be understood that from AD70 onward, Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by gentiles until the Day of the Lord is fulfilled, which comes in connection with the cosmic disturbances.  This makes the connection with such a long gap between the AD70 destruction of Jerusalem and the cosmic events.  The Day of the Lord will be the time of the gentiles' distress.

So, would Jesus have had in mind the destruction of BTG in light of his prophecy about Jerusalem being destroyed in Luke 19?   Near and far prophecies being together is not all that unusual.   Jerusalem being BTG in Luke 21 would probably work if there are 2 stages of BTG's destruction, as some believe; the first stage near the beginning of GT--though it seems the armies of the world are gathered against Jerusalem near the end of the 70th Week (Zechariah 12.3)--yet Zechariah indicates God will protect the city, 12.9.   

There are similarities between Luke 21 and the fate of BTG, but there are uncertainties too.   Maybe the similarities are intended, making the ability to sort it out difficult until we are very near that time.

To inherit and to enter the kingdom of God

Jesus said one must be born again to enter the kingdom of God, John 3.3-5.  Jesus said to the sheep, "Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world," Matthew 25:34  

The words "enter" and "inherit" do not mean the same thing, but they seem to speak to the same thing in these two references: those who inherit the kingdom will enter the kingdom.  

Does "inherit" always simply refer to those who will enter the kingdom, or does it speak of reward in some usages?     All believers are heirs, if entrance is understood as inheritance.  But could there be heirs of a more restricted kind based on performance in this life?

When Paul gives a vice list, he speaks of those who will not inherit the kingdom, being those who commit immorality.  I believe he is speaking of unsaved people who are identified by what is often characteristic of them, and he is telling believers not to do such things: "9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10  Since believers can do these things, I think some will say that this inheritance is about rewards, but I think that here, Paul is speaking of the unsaved by what characterizes them, and we who are saved should not do these things.  The unsaved, the unrighteous, will not inherit the kingdom, and we who are saved, the righteous, should not do these things, because these things belong to our old man/ self-identity and are unbecoming of a child of God.  

But Scripture does seem to make a distinction about inheritance that seems to go beyond entrance into the kingdom to co-ruling with Christ: "... if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together."  Romans 8:17   This may be the case where not all inheritance will be equal, unless all believers in some sense suffer with Christ.  All believers are children and therefore heirs, which means they will inherit the kingdom.  But it may be that the inheritance is not equal as far as status or recognition in the kingdom, based on faithfulness in this life.  There are Scriptures that indicate reward or recognition in the life to come.  Inheritance among children is not always equal, and performance can be a basis for different distributions of inheritance.  His lord said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord.' Matthew 25:23   This is a parable, however, and it is at least making the point that one is accountable for what God has dispensed, and there is divine recognition and some sort of reward for being faithful with what God has dispensed.

Quickened?

Some believe that God “quickens” a person so that they can believe and be saved.  

This word “quicken” is an old English translation of the Greek “Zoopoieo” more commonly translated “make alive” as in Ephesians 2:5.  The idea of a quickening for faith is according to the theology of “total depravity” in which one is too depraved to believe and be saved, and it is a substitution for the Reformed view that that regeneration comes before faith--a view that some Calvinists find problematic.  

I believe the Greek words zoopoieo and syzoopoieo, translated “make alive” or “give life to” either speak of the resurrection or regeneration. 

It seems to be just a theological requirement to make the Greek words refer to some act of God before faith, but the usages are actually about the resurrection or regeneration.   God does make alive again the believer through regeneration and in the resurrection.  There is no requirement to come up with something like regeneration before saving faith and call it a quickening.  The quickening is regeneration or resurrection, and both happen after saving faith--the latter after physical death at the second coming.

God quickens by regeneration those who believe.  “Total depravity” is a Calvinist theology that requires a pre-faith enablement. 

Depravity is a sufficient term to speak of mankind’s condition, and why the new birth is necessary, but a pre-faith enablement is not necessary.  The work of Holy Spirit through Scripture is sufficient.

References where the Greek words appear are Rom 8.11; 1 Cor 15.22, 36; Eph 2.5; Col 2.13; 1 Pet 3.18.  Also found in the LXX.

The Successive-Final View of the Seals, Trumpets, and Bowls of Revelation.

I tend towards a Post-Tribulation Rapture view that sees the seals, trumpets, and bowls of Revelation as successive, and yet with overlap at the end of each group, the "successive-final view" as seen in the picture below.  

This means the three groups of events are mostly successive, that is, sequential in that each group transpires before the next according to the order given, except for the final event of each group, each of which parallel one-another.  For the seals, both number 6 and 7 line up with the final event--number 7--of the trumpets and bowls.   In this view, the great tribulation continues to the end of the 70th Week that concludes with the 6th and 7th seal, the 7th trumpet and bowl, followed by the Coming (parousia) of Christ and the Day of the Lord.  The Day of the Lord is the direct wrath of Christ at his coming upon the nations beginning with the battle of Armageddon...

¹² Then the sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up, so that the way of the kings from the east might be prepared. ¹³ And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs coming out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. ¹⁴ For they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

¹⁵ “Behold, I am coming as a thief. Blessed is he who watches, and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked and they see his shame.”
¹⁶ And they gathered them together to the place called in Hebrew, Armageddon. Revelation 16:12-16

This is a brief post, but I've written more elsewhere on why I'm Post-Trib and how I understand the "Day of the Lord."  This is just a statement of how I understand the progression of the seals, trumpets, and bowls in relationship to one-another.

The burdens and yoke of the local Church

Jesus said, "For My yoke is easy and My burden is light." Matthew 11:30 This probably speaks of discipleship, which should come after one believes in him for salvation--which I believe he invited to earlier: "Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Matthew 11:28. It's the ambitions of man that places an unnecessary burden on others to build that organization manifested in the local church.

The local church puts burdens on people that I think encourage people to stay away. The expectations, traditions and programs, can be an unnecessary burden. They require commitment to be maintained. But are they necessary? Those who don't attend regularly or don't help in the maintenance of these things may still expect them when they attend, so someone must maintain them. But do they really need to?

The church is the people. Bigger buildings and programs will have their attraction, but the burden to maintain them is usually put on a few. People may not come if you don't have the facilities and programs, but they won't come if you put the maintenance of the operation on them as well.

The purpose of the gathering is to build one another up and to stir one another up: Hebrews 10:26; Ephesians 4:11-16. If people don't want to come for this purpose, then why try to draw them in with those things that a few are burdened to maintain?

Jesus' yoke and burden are easy and light through the enabling that comes through abiding in the word of God and through a simplicity of believers assembling together to edify one another through the roles they have. But it doesn't seem to work quite this way, because of the expectation and traditions of the maintenance of property, programs, and the vocational staff. I don't think this will change, and so the burdens will continue, because of the usual expectations and traditions.

Known to God (God's knowledge and Man's free will)

Concerning God's knowledge and will and man's free will, I take a simple position that...God knows what man will do, and God knows what He will do.

I also like to say that free will is *figured in* to what God will do.  I don't think it's necessary to think God doesn't know everything, even though it may seem to support at least a soft determinism, God knows what our free will actions will be.  And if this means that the future is fixed, because God knows what we will do, and what He will do, well then, it must be. 

If one suggests that God chooses not to know everything, so that free will is truly free will, then we have a problem with when God chooses to know anything about someone, because if the cutoff point is before one comes to saving faith, then nothing can be known about them at some point prior to and after their salvation, because to be ignorant of their future salvation would require Him to know nothing about them, less that ignorance be violated (and free will would seem to be fixed).   How could this even work?  If God knows the future, he must know our free will choices and the outcomes.

James said concerning God...

"Known to God from eternity are all His works."  Acts 15.18

Concerning future actions of men, we have some of these examples prophesied, revealing that God knows...

Moses said concerning Israel... 

"I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that you will soon utterly perish from the land which you cross over the Jordan to possess; you will not prolong your days in it, but will be utterly destroyed. And the LORD will scatter you among the peoples, and you will be left few in number among the nations where the LORD will drive you." Debut 4:26-27

Apostle Paul warned the Ephesian elders, "For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves." Acts 20.29-30

Jesus said to Peter, "'when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.' This He spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God." John 21.18-19 

Invitation to the The Rest

Jesus said, "Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Matthew 11:28

Jesus gives the invitation for spiritual rest--to come to him for that eternal life that is free, received through believing in Him as the Christ, the Son of God who saves from the wages of sin through believing in him for it.

The "heavy laden" would seem to reference the burden placed on the people by the religious leaders, making the way of eternal life dependent on one's ability to meet the demands that the leaders set.

We see a similar invitation to salvation in the book of Revelation: "And the Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely."  Revelation 22.17

The way of eternal life is received through faith in Christ alone for it.  The "rest" is the ceasing from the labors that were an impossible burden, that could not give life, in which there was no rest.  But in Christ, there is rest, and He invites all to come to him for eternal life and rest.

Repentance and faith, must both exist?

I understand faith (to believe) as being convinced or persuaded that something is true.  Repentance is a resolve to think or do differently.   

I believe it can be said that faith precedes repentance, for one must believe the message that causes them to resolve to think or do differently.  An example is the Ninevites who believed Jonah's message and then repented. One text says they believed, and another says they repented.  They did both, because they believed the message of Jonah, and then they repented, which then resulted in them changing their behavior.

But one can believe something and not repent.  One could believe the message they hear but not resolve to think or do differently.  An example would be that one could hear the warning that a hurricane is coming their way, but they do not resolve to leave their home.   It's not that they don't believe the message, it's just that they are not going to do anything about it.  It could be that they are not convinced it is a threat, but in that case, it's another issue to be believed.  And that is something to consider when it comes to the relationship between faith and repentance.  It depends on what is being believed or not believed.  The repentance depends on what is being believed.  I think one could believe something that doesn't result in a change of thought or behavior, for whatever reason.

So repentance to involve belief, but belief, it seems, doesn't necessarily involve repentance.

Let the dead bury their own dead

 Then He said to another, "Follow Me."

But he said, "Lord, let me first go and bury my father."

 Jesus said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and preach the kingdom of God." Luke 9:59-60

This seems rather harsh.  The usual explanation is that Jesus was saying let the unsaved-- who are spiritually dead--bury those who are physically dead.

I once read of another view in which there was a custom that after a year had passed in which a deceased person was in a sepulcher, a relative would then officially bury them.  I don't know if this was a common practice in Jesus' day, or if it was even what he was referring to.

I think that in some way Jesus was saying that, depending on the circumstances, one will have to allow others to take care of certain things of a temporal nature when you need to take care of certain things of eternal nature or significance.  We have to discern what has priority.

Anoint the most Holy being fulfilled after 70 Weeks

Seventy weeks are determined

For your people and for your holy city,
To finish the transgression,
To make an end of sins,
To make reconciliation for iniquity,
To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy,
And to anoint the Most Holy. 

Daniel 9:24

It could be that the 2300 days of Daniel 8 are a time reference for when the Millennial temple is built, but I am back and forth over what applies to Antiochus IV in the past and what applies to the Antichrist in yet future.  

Then I heard a holy one speaking; and another holy one said to that certain one who was speaking, "How long will the vision be, concerning the daily sacrifices and the transgression of desolation, the giving of both the sanctuary and the host to be trampled underfoot?"

And he said to me, "For two thousand three hundred days; then the sanctuary shall be cleansed." 

Daniel 8:13-14

"Understand, son of man, that the vision refers to the time of the end."

...And he said, "Look, I am making known to you what shall happen in the latter time of the indignation; for at the appointed time the end shall be. 

Daniel 8:17-19

²³ "And in the latter time of their kingdom,
When the transgressors have reached their fullness,
A king shall arise,
Having fierce features,
Who understands sinister schemes.
²⁴ His power shall be mighty, but not by his own power;
He shall destroy fearfully,
And shall prosper and thrive;
He shall destroy the mighty, and also the holy people.
²⁵ "Through his cunning
He shall cause deceit to prosper under his rule;
And he shall exalt himself in his heart.
He shall destroy many in their prosperity.
He shall even rise against the Prince of princes;
But he shall be broken without human means.
²⁶ "And the vision of the evenings and mornings
Which was told is true;
Therefore seal up the vision,
For it refers to many days in the future." 

Daniel 8:23-26

For the longest time, I believed most of Daniel 8 was fulfilled in the past (though Antichrist seems in view in 8.23-25). 

Not too long ago, I concluded it could be all in the future, but recently listening to Joel Richardson and Chris White on Daniel 8, I found myself going back to my old view, that most is fulfilled in the past.   

I could see the 2300 days being the time reference from the abomination of desolation in the Tribulation Temple to the time of the Millennial Temple being built.

I was also thinking, possibly, just as the temple Antiochus desecrated was eventually cleansed, that the tribulation temple would be cleansed first after the end of the 70th Week and used until the Millennial temple is constructed.  

The Antiochus view of the 2300 days is that it is both evening and morning added together, and that would be 1150 days from his desecration of the temple until it was cleansed.  The antichrist view is that it is 2300 days after the abomination until it is cleansed, which is another 1140 days after the 1260 day Great Tribulation.  Why that many days to cleanse the temple?  That would probably work better with the time to build the millennial temple.  I think it is thought that the millennial temple will stand in another spot than where the temple mount is in old Jerusalem.

The 7 heads of the beast and the image and beasts of Daniel

Two of the 7 heads of Revelation chapters 13 & 17, according to the "traditional" view, are Egypt and Assyria.  That view understands that Daniel was only seeing the kingdoms from his time and forward in Daniel chapters 2 and maybe 7?  Those 2 nations, like those that follow, are considered Mediterranean-world powers during the time of Israel as God's people?  And so those 2 would be of the 5 who have fallen, according to Revelation 17.10. 

Maybe the 4th beast of Daniel 7 is the 6th, 7th, and 8th head of Revelation 17, and the 4th kingdom (legs, feet, toes of the image) of Daniel 2 represents the same heads of Revelation 13 & 17.  The 7th and 8th heads would be two latter phases, the first phase being for a short time and followed by a second phase (in the second half of the "Week") after the Antichrist is revealed. 

The 4 beasts of Daniel 7 could correspond with the 4 sections of the image in Daniel 2 as distinct kingdoms, but the 4th section and 4th beast represent both a transitioning empire from the Roman to the Ottoman Empires, but a confederacy of nations in the latter ten-horned kingdom.  Also, from a vision perspective, in Daniel 7, the first 3 beasts were spatially  "before" the 4th beast, for Daniel saw them all before him in the vision.  Though maybe they all have some future existence in some sense, since the fall of an authority doesn't mean the geography and people of that authority no longer exists, and even the authority may still exist in a lesser extent.  When Babylon was the reigning authority, and had authority over Jerusalem, during the time of the Babylonian captivity, Egypt still existed, and many Jews fled there. 

To be Perfect

Matthew 5.48 "Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect."

To be perfect can mean to be complete or whole, lacking nothing.  James 2.4 "But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing."

"If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." Matthew 19.21

 To be perfect is to be lacking nothing.  And thus to be like our heavenly Father who lacks nothing.

Is Jerusalem Babylon the Great?

The destruction of Babylon the Great has a finality to it: "Then a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, "Thus with violence the great city Babylon shall be thrown down, and shall not be found anymore." Rev18.21

I can see several reasons to identify Jerusalem as Babylon the Great.  Revelation refers to Jerusalem as "the great city" that is "spiritually" "called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified." Rev11.8
Rev18.24 tells us that in Babylon the Great was "found the blood of prophets and saints, and of all who were slain on the earth."
Jesus said, ""O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her." Mat23.37 "it cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem." Lk13.33

Reference is made of "the great city" being divided into 3 parts by an earthquake. Rev16.19 This would seem to be Jerusalem.  The same verse then says, "and great Babylon was remembered before God, to give her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath." Are 2 cities in view or one here?

The "woman" (and "harlot") is later identified as Babylon the great and is called "that great city." Rev17.18 Are all references to "the great city" the same?

Zechariah speaks of how God will make Jerusalem a "cup of drunkenness" for all the surrounding people, 12.2." This sounds a little like Rev18.3, but in Zechariah, the nations will gather against Jerusalem, while in Rev18, the kings and merchants of the earth have benefitted from Babylon the Great.  "For all the nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth have become rich through the abundance of her luxury."

Zechariah 12 speaks of God making it difficult for the nations who gather against her.  God will restore Jerusalem. "And it shall happen in that day that I will make Jerusalem a very heavy stone for all peoples; all who would heave it away will surely be cut in pieces, though all nations of the earth are gathered against it." 12.3
This sounds like God will not let the nations destroy the city.  We know that the 10 kings of the beast's kingdom will destroy Babylon the Great: "And the ten horns which you saw on the beast, these will hate the harlot, make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh and burn her with fire. For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled." Rev17.16-17. God will cut in pieces those who would heave Jerusalem away, but God puts in the hearts of kings to destroy Babylon the Great.  Can God both protect and destroy Jerusalem?

We also read that Jerusalem will be "inhabited again, in her own place." Zech12.6 The word "again" and "own place" doesn't work well with the fact Babylon the Great will be destroyed and never inhabited.  The only way it can work for Jerusalem to be Babylon the Great is that the Jerusalem of Zechariah will be in another place, and her "own place" is not her former place. 

One other issue is the timing of the destruction of Babylon the Great.  There is the belief that it goes through 2 stages of destruction, first by the 10 kings, and then later by God.  Maybe the destruction by the kings doesn't render it uninhabitable, but the warning to flee from her seems to do suggest the destruction is great.  It seems whether 1 or 2 stages of destruction, it happens after the coming of Christ.  Jesus returns to the mount of Olives, and Jews will be fleeing the city at that time. Does all that happens at the coming of Christ fit with Jerusalem being Babylon the Great?  Zech14: "For I will gather all the nations to battle against Jerusalem; The city shall be taken, The houses rifled, And the women ravished. Half of the city shall go into captivity, But the remnant of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then the LORD will go forth And fight against those nations, As He fights in the day of battle. And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, Which faces Jerusalem on the east. And the Mount of Olives shall be split in two, From east to west, Making a very large valley; Half of the mountain shall move toward the north And half of it toward the south....".  This doesn't seem to fit with the destruction of Babylon the Great in Revelation 18, unless it happens after that time.  It seems difficult to reconcile the destruction of Babylon the Great with everything that will happen in Jerusalem in Zechariah.  It seems like to make every thing fit time wise would require the destruction of Babylon the Great by the 10 kings to be after Jesus returns according to the scene of Zechariah 14. 

Body Parts Removal

...it is more profitable for you that one of your members [body parts] perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. 

Matthew 5:29

Jesus said some very hard things.  He said:  If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.  And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. Matthew 5:29-30

These words reveal the seriousness of sin, so serious that if sin sends you to Hell, and it is caused by a body part, then remove that body part.  It would be better to miss a body part, to avoid sin, than to be cast into Hell with that body part that causes the sin.   

We know elsewhere in Scripture that removing body parts is not God's solution to our sin problem, but what Jesus said reveals the seriousness of the sin problem, and his words should cause one to seek what that solution is.  The solution is in Jesus dying on the cross to bear the penalty (consequences) that our sins required.  But that solution will not be meaningful until one sees the seriousness of sin and its consequences.  God has provided for the consequences of sin in the person and work of Christ.  That provision promises salvation (forgiveness of sins, justification, and eternal life) to all who believe in Jesus for it.  Through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins;  and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.   Acts 13:38-39

Shake off the dust

Jesus instructed the 12 Apostles on how to respond to people when he sent them out:  

"Now whatever city or town you enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and stay there till you go out. 12 And when you go into a household, greet it. 13 If the household is worthy, let your peace come upon it. But if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. 14 And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet." 

Matthew 10:11-14

I think the shaking of dust off the feet or garments by the messenger signified that they were now clean from those they had warned: they would no longer be held accountable for those individuals.  

Another figure of speech connected with this is "your blood is on your own heads."  We see this concerning the Jews who rejected the message of the Apostle Paul that Jesus was the Christ: "But when they opposed him and blasphemed, he shook his garments and said to them, 'Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.'" Acts 18:6   

He was in effect saying to them: "I told you and you did not believe me, so I'm no longer responsible for what happens to you; I am clean of you."   

A Prophet's Reward

[Jesus said]  41 "He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward. And he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward." Matthew 10:41

There are reasons to believe that there are rewards in heaven that the believer in Christ will receive because of their faithfulness to Christ.  The words above could be a reference to such heavenly rewards, but I tend to think that rewards in this life are referenced above.

What exactly is a prophet's reward or a righteous man's reward?  We are not told.    I tend to think it could be what they have to offer as a prophet or a righteous man.  If one receives either, you receive what they have to offer:  you benefit from what is unique about their lives and ministry.

If you receive a missionary into your home, you get to have fellowship with them; you can hear their experiences.  It can be an enriching experience.  They can become lifelong friends, almost like family. There are different ways God may bless you in this life for receiving them.  

Jesus instructed the 12 Apostles on how to respond to people when he sent them out:  "Now whatever city or town you enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and stay there till you go out. 12 And when you go into a household, greet it. 13 If the household is worthy, let your peace come upon it. But if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you." Matthew 10:11-13

To receive the truth about Jesus as the Christ will bring salvation, but as Jesus said to the Apostles, if the household is worthy and you stay with them, "let your peace come upon it."  That would be a present, temporal kind of benefit.

Jesus clearly spoke of temporal rewards or benefits for faithfulness and sacrifice in addition to persecution.  "So Jesus answered and said, 'Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My sake and the gospel's, 30 who shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time—houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions—and in the age to come, eternal life. Mark 10:29-30   

Faithfulness doesn't mean one can only expect persecution in this life or rewards in the next.  I might add that if the receiving of a prophet and righteous man can bring with it reward in this life, it is a reason to serve the Lord, because the kind of reward they bring may have the impact on your life that you need.   Have you ever heard the stories that the Gideons tell about the salvation of those who found a Gideon Bible?  Have you ever heard the stories of Bible translators who work for Wycliffe translators?  Inviting these people into your homes, spending time with them--maybe getting involved with them--may benefit you, change your life. They may become a part of your life as well.  Receiving such people has its rewards.

The heresy of Grace Evangelical Society

Wilson identifies the “Universal Propitiation” view of Hodges, Wilken, and GES as heresy.  There are those who hold to this view that disagree with GES on the “Content of Saving Faith” (COSF) or know nothing about GES and their views.   I think Wilson doesn’t understand that that view he calls “universal propitiation” makes a distinction between forensic forgiveness (which must be inseparable from the propitiation accomplished at the cross) and fellowship forgiveness.  I think this is why Wilson is critical of Hodges, because Hodges believes in a forensic forgiveness of all sins for all people, and yet Hodges believed that one is not forgiven until they believe, but Hodges, and many others, believe this is fellowship forgiveness, not forensic forgiveness.   This belief in “universal propitiation” seems common among free grace people, and even among those who don’t hold to GES’s COSF or know anything about them.  If it is a heresy, it is very common among Free Grace people.  I, however, believe that forensic remission of sins is not received until one believes in Christ as Savior from sin, so I am in alignment with Wilson and at odds with GES and many Free Grace people on that particular issue, but I don't believe it is a heresy.

Wilson is critical about GES’s understanding of Eternal Life as Eternal Security.  Wilson is seeking to argue that if one has to understand eternal life as eternal security, then hardly anyone has been saved throughout time.  One can be opposed to Hodges’ COSF, and yet believe that if one does not believe in eternal security when they believe the gospel, then they haven’t believed in the gospel correctly.  I tend to agree with Wilson on this as well. 

I have understood “eternal life” as primarily qualitative--a quality of life.  Even though I probably have more books by Zane Hodges than any other author, and I used his commentaries when I taught through James, Hebrews, First John, and First Peter, I didn’t really discern that he was understanding the words “eternal life” as “eternal security.”  I started to sense that though as I would listen to his discussion on “assurance is OF the essence of saving faith.”  Though I do agree firmly that assurance is OF THE ESSENCE of saving faith, I may have not understood what he was saying, if he meant the assurance was in eternal security.  I understood the assurance in the message to be believed was the promise of salvation or eternal life; that is, I am believing a promise from God, and that is the assurance; if I don't have the assurance of eternal life, then what have I believed in? 

I would identify the content of John 3:16’s “should not perish but have everlasting life” as assurance.  Now I have heard Dr. Wilkin say often that “everlasting life is everlasting,” and I took him to mean eternal security, but that’s where I didn’t quite agree with him, because I understood eternal life as primarily qualitative, though it is forever as well.  I believe in eternal security, but I don’t think the primary meaning of everlasting/eternal life is eternal security.  

Wilson said that everyone has everlasting life, because we live forever.  I'm not aware of any Scripture that says everyone has everlasting life, for that terminology is used with reference to what one can have or does have who believe in Jesus.  The contrast is made between perishing and eternal life.  The unsaved may live in some form forever, but it is perishing, not everlasting life.  I believe it's about a quality of life.  So here again, I appear to be more in line with Wilson that GES on the meaning of "eternal/ everlasting life."

Concerning the COSF, I believe there are 2 pieces of information that are usually divided up as what one is to believe and what happens when one believes it.  These two things are usually identified as the gospel and the response to the gospel, or maybe, intellectual assent and trust (the 2 of 3 aspects of faith such as Evangelist Larry Moyer promotes.  The first aspect is knowledge.).  I think Hodges was referring to these two things as the “two step.”  I think Hodges combined these two pieces into one statement to be believed, to avoid the two-step or intellectual assent and trust approach.  Of course, his COSF didn’t require certain content others believe should be necessary.  His COSF was “cross-less,” “minimalist,” and it was “faith in faith,” or more of the response to but not the gospel itself.  

Obviously, no one would just say to someone that Jesus died for your sins, was buried, and rose again, and then say nothing else about it, if they were seeking to evangelize.  Obviously, not everyone is automatically saved, if an universal propitiation or an universal forensic forgiveness of sins (which Wilson rejects)—for one has to believe to be saved.  

So does one have to believe they are saved by faith to be saved by faith?  It kind of seems to me they do—even if you say it’s the response to and not the gospel.  You can argue that it is not what saves you, but you do have to believe it.  Jesus did tell the woman that her faith saved her, Luke 7:50: "Your faith has saved you, go in peace."

I think Hodges' COSF seeks to avoid the two-step (as in the two of the three so-called aspects of faith, being intellectual assent and trust): Hodges combines it into one step.  

Wilson thinks one can be saved as long as they believe in Jesus as God and Savior, even though one also adds works for salvation. Interestingly, Wilson doesn't believe this is heresy, but just error.   Were the Jews saved who said one had to be circumcised to be saved?  They obviously didn’t believe in faith alone.  But did they add circumcision from the beginning or later?  If later, then they had “fallen from grace” (Gal 5.1-4).  But if from the beginning, then I would be concerned, though since they were already Jews and circumcised, it probably wasn’t on their minds when they first believed.   

I do think that one could not get to that COSF Hodges held to without some prior knowledge and belief.  It is a hypothetical situation to say that if one could believe Hodges’ COSF, they would be saved, even though they didn’t know and believe the things that one typical does before that belief that results in salvation.   

But there is going to still be debate on what content is pre-salvation-content and what is necessary salvation content.   If one believes that Jesus is God and Savior from sin, are they saved, as Wilson believes, even though they weren’t thinking in the terms of Jesus bearing their sins on the cross to God’s satisfaction?  Is the message of the cross prerequisite knowledge or final-content knowledge?   Is the message of the cross essential or helpful knowledge?  I think I need to read Wilson again to know exactly how the message of the cross fits in, because I mainly remember him saying one must believe in Jesus as God and Savior to be saved.  Hodges believed Jesus was the guarantor of eternal life to all those who believed in him for it.  Wilson pointed out that Hodges’ view didn’t require one to know that Jesus was God, but it did require the belief that eternal life is eternal security.

I already said that I believe eternal life is qualitative.  I understand that to mean life with God: to have eternal life is to have a quality of life, which will be life with God.  Since God is in view for all of this, since it is with reference to him, I either have eternal life or I don’t-- it seems that I must understand something as to why I don’t already have eternal life, naturally.  Obviously, sin is the reason we don’t naturally have eternal life.  I would understand that Jesus being savior from sin and being given eternal life as the same thing, ultimately.   Sin brought death, the “wages of sin,” but through the forensic forgiveness of sins, I am given eternal life:  I am made alive, born again, and I will be raised up.   But if I believe in Jesus as Savior from sin or for eternal life, for me, it means the same thing.  And though it would require prerequisite knowledge, to believe in who this Jesus is, who can make such a thing possible, I do have to believe in Jesus’ divine authority, whether he is God or the son of God.   I think that believing Jesus is the Christ is to believe he is the son of God—Peter, Nathanial, Samaritans, and the High Priest understood this.  Jesus had the authority to forgive sins, which the Pharisees said only God could do.  I think that one would have to have some prerequisite knowledge and belief about who Christ was to believe his COSF.   If one could hypothetically get to Hodges' COSF without that knowledge, I would wonder why or how one would believe it.   It seems the authority would not be there, and the Divine connection and promise missing.

If one believed in Jesus as the son of God who saves from sin through his death and gives eternal life to those who believe in him for it, you have Wilson’s 2 primary beliefs about Jesus, as the Son of God and Savior from sin.  You have a content that is somewhat similar to Hodges' but more fully acknowledges Jesus as the Son of God and combines the provision and the promise: Jesus is Savior from sin for those who believe in him for it.  

Last days and Scoffers

Peter writes of scoffers who are to be expected in the "Last Days."  That period can have a broad time reference (see Hebrews 1.2), but Peter may have in view a time beyond his own life-time.

Knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation. 2 Peter 3.3-4

Their identity is uncertain. Scoffing at the expectation of the coming of Christ by the unsaved would be nothing unusual, so I think this must be a reference to those who have some association with Christianity, and we do see that they make reference to the "fathers" having fallen asleep. But who are the fathers, and why make reference to them and then refer to the beginning of creation as a reference point? I would tend to think the fathers are the early church fathers--as they are referred to by some, and the scoffers are first referencing them, and then they go all the way back to the beginning of creation. There point is that nothing of note has happened that hasn't been happening throughout time that would indicate the coming of Christ is near. There's nothing to "hang your hat on."

I suspect these are liberal Christians who typically question the authority of Scripture and are skeptical of eschatological expectations.

Their scoffing suggests an expectation of an event or events that would signify or precede the Coming of Christ. This seems to be a typical expectation.

The disciples of Christ asked Jesus what signs would precede the Second Coming and the end of the age. In Matthew 24.3-8, Jesus answers the question. He speaks of those things one might normally associate with the expectation that Christ's coming and the end is near. But Jesus said these things must come to pass, and the end is not yet.

The things Jesus references are things one might expect to signify the Coming of Christ (COC) or the end of the age is near. It's typical to think this way. Major wars have led to such speculation. Some people count earthquakes. Is Covid 19, that has gone global and is still with us a year later a "pestilence?"

But Jesus said that "the end is not yet." What is Jesus telling us?  I believe He is saying don't "jump the gun." We don't want to be scoffers, but we need to be discerning.

Some believe Jesus spoke more specifically of the "70th Week" events, being represented in the "seals" of Revelation, but others say it speaks of the period between His First and Second Comings. If those things are the same as the seals of Revelation, during the 70th Week, then when they begin, we should know the time is short, with less than 7 years to go. But if they are concerning events between his comings, which I tend to think they are, one should realize these things will happen, and they are not specific enough to know how close to the Second Coming we are. But the temptation has always been to see major world events as an indication that the end is near.

In 2 Peter 3.5-7, Peter points out that the Flood was an event the scoffers choose to forget, but it was a Divine event that reveals they are wrong. There has been an event in history clearly unusual, beyond that which is merely natural.

The Flood was divine judgment on the world, and it is set forth as how it will be at the COC, though it will have some "hang your hat on" indictors of its approaching occurrence.

I believe Peter clearly connects the COC with the Day of the Lord (DOL). They can be used interchangeably as a Day of judgment on the world and coming like a "Thief." 2 Peter 3.8-10 says the DOL will come as a "Thief." All the "thief" references speak of how it comes on people who are unprepared: it comes as destruction: see John 10.10; Matthew 24.36-44; 1 Thes 5.1-3; Rev 16.15 (in connection with Bowl 6 and approaching Armageddon).

There are no specific fulfillments as of yet, nothing to "hang your hat on," but there are some curious events that may be getting us closer. We don't want to be a scoffer or jump the gun.

The Covid virus and the vaccine are not the "Mark of the Beast." The timing is not right, nor can it be just a vaccine. The Mark must involve a state of mind that confirms one's conscience in a state of unbelief about salvation through Christ. However, how this virus has affected the world, and the way it has been handled, along with a vaccine that the world needs, and how it may be part of a required verification system to move about freely could be how the Mark comes about and works: you need the Mark to buy and sell. I still do not understand the Mark's nature as being eternally condemning.

There's also the Abrahamic Accords that has stated agreements between Israel and some Arab countries. Some may anticipate something similar to this that starts the 70th Week of Daniel, the last 7 years before the COC, as revealed in Daniel 9.27.

It's also interesting that the Saudis recently stated that the Temple Mount holds no interest for Islam. Israel gave custodianship of the Temple Mount to Jordan. So what could happen if this changes? It is believed, prophetically--and this is "hang your hat on"--stuff, a temple or tabernacle has to exist for what Daniel 9.27 and what Jesus and Paul spoke concerning, being the "abomination of desolation": Matthew 24.15; 2 Thes 2.3-4. These things must precede the COC and DOL.

How should we answer the claim that "we are in the last days, and Christians are not prepared for it?"

I don't think we are there yet, but even if we were, what should we do? Being a "prepper" is a lot of work and expense. I think we should live wisely, prepare as we can, and do what is always required as a believer, abiding in God's word.

THE QUESTION: “What must I do to be saved?’

THE ANSWER: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.” Acts 16.31

That answer to the question is the response required and the guaranteed outcome to that response.

The word “saved” (or “salvation”) is used with the understanding that one is not right with God and in eternal peril and needs deliverance. The word "saved" simply speaks of “deliverance.”

So the question is seeking the solution to one's present dire situation of not being right with God with a destiny of eternal peril or destruction (in a place called “Hell”).

The answer tells one how to be saved, that is, how to have deliverance from not being right with God and a certain destiny of eternal peril.

The answer is that one is saved by believing in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation.

This is the word of God and the promise of God. This word and promise connects the salvation that is sought by believing in Jesus Christ for that salvation.

Faith is the assurance of what is said and promised. Faith is taking God at His word.

Whatever one may believe up to this point can not deliver from eternal peril until he or she comes to know and believe this answer to the question of “how can I be saved?”

This is vital information: God saves those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation.

“Sin” is of course the big problem as to why one is not right with God and faces eternal peril. The issue with sin is that it is a violation of God’s nature and moral law. Sin is subject to penalty or consequence—the consequence has already been stated as not being right with God and a certain destiny of eternal peril. 

Salvation can also be understood as the "remission of sins."

"To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins." Acts 10:43

“Remission of sins” speaks of being released from the consequence of sin: this is “salvation” from sin. This remission of sins is the result of believing in him, that is, Jesus Christ. This is attested to by “all the prophets.” It is according to God’s word; it is God’s promise.

The reason that remission of sins is connected with Jesus Christ is because He died for those sins in the place of--as the substitute for--all people, who have sinned.

“All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” Romans 3.23

The death that Christ died on the cross was to bear the “wages” of sin, that is, the consequence of sin. 

“The wages of sin is death.” Romans 6.23

"who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree [the cross]." 1 Peter 2.24 

This death of Christ was how God loved the world and gave His son.

It is because of the death of Christ for our sins that we can have everlasting life. 

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” John 3:16

Because of what Christ did, God can give everlasting life to those who believe in Jesus for that everlasting Life. Everlasting life is salvation, because the alternative is to “perish.” 

The word “perish” means “destruction”: this is that condition of not being right with God and being assigned to eternal peril in that place called “hell.” (The New Testament was originally written in Greek, and the Greek word for "perish" is the same as "destroy." Jesus said, "do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10.28

Why must it be this way? It is because God created man with a certain measure of free will. The outcome of free will was disobedience to God and the result was separation from God. 

Yet God made provision for this at His own great sacrifice through the death of Christ for our sins. One can’t completely fathom the depths of this sacrifice, for it was not just a physical death that Christ suffered, but something more...for while on the cross, Jesus cried out: "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" Matthew 27.46

Yes, we did not choose to come into this world, a world of this arrangement. Consider that we did not choose our parents, and yet our parents usually love us and want a relationship with us, and us with them. The situation is similar with God, but God is without moral failure, unlike our parents. Most people want to live, enjoy life, and have meaningful relationships. These things are fulfilled by God through that salvation which is through faith in Jesus Christ for it.

Jesus said: “I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.” John 10:10

This life and salvation is the possession of those who believe in Jesus Christ for it. This answer is the final piece of information to be understood and believed for salvation to take place.

"That whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.” The words of Jesus, the Gospel of John 3:15

12-26-2017

Jonathan: An example of a man who knew his God.

He was the eldest and noble son of King Saul and heir to the throne of Israel.

He was the brave friend of David.  

DTS professor and prolific writer M.F. Unger wrote: “one of the most beautiful characters of the Bible” (Unger’s OT commentary).

We don’t read concerning him as with David as being “a man after God’s own heart,” but there are significant spiritual qualities revealed about him and a clear contrast between him and his father Saul.

Bravery was clearly characteristic of Jonathan:  1 Samuel 13.1-6; 14.1-6

He commanded1000 men against the Philistines.  We read that he and his armor bearer, by themselves, engaged a military post of the Philistines.

Jon’s bravery was centered in a belief in God as one who can save by “many or by few."

Surely, Jon had a similar understanding and faith as that of David when it came to the relationship of God to Israel and the promises of God of deliverance from their enemies through faith and obedience. 

Deuteronomy 7.23: “the Lord your God will deliver them over to you…”

Daniel 11.32:  During the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (Seleucid Ruler who persecuted the Jews and foreshadow of Antichrist) and the Maccabean revolt: “The people who know their God shall be strong and carry out great exploits.”

1 Samuel 14.7-17: The Philistine soldiers fell down before Jon as he climbed up to them on his hands and knees; Jon’s armor bearer killed them with the sword.  God brought about victory for Israel following this act of courage.

 

Friendship with David was surely due to a common faith in and submission to God.

1 Samuel 18.1-4:  Jon loved David as himself, but Saul would grow to despise David, jealous of his popularity and fear for his throne.  

Close friendships are very valuable.

Proverbs 18.24: “A person who has friends may be harmed by them, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.”  NET Bible

David had 7 bothers, but his close friend was Jonathan.

The believer's closest friends should be those with whom they share a common faith. 

If you're married, it should be your spouse—no competition should exist with your spouse.  Friendship is significant for encouragement or for admonition if necessary. 

1 Samuel 19.1-7:  Jon intercedes for David, temporarily diverting Saul’s murderous intentions, but it wouldn’t stay this way.

1 Samuel 20.12-15: The plan…David doesn’t show up for dinner with the king, so Jon could discover Saul’s intentions toward David.

1 Samuel 20.27-34:  Jon angrily reacts to Saul’s murderous jealousy against David.  Jon then goes to inform David of the danger, that he should flee. 

Jonathan shows humble acceptance in the will of God.

David is constantly on the run, hiding from King Saul’s attempt to find and kill him.

1 Samuel 23.14-18:  Jon finds David in hiding, and he “strengthens David’s hand in God.”

That was a figure of speech.  Here is a quote from another source: “Jonathan comforted and supported him against all fears, by considerations of the divine goodness and power, and by reminding him of God’s faithful promises to him, and his providence which had been and would still be with him.”

Jon encourages David, acknowledging that he shall be king of Israel.

It wasn’t an attitude of not wanting the kingdom for himself, but an accepting acknowledgment that it was the will of God.

Jon knew that God chose David to be king.  He accepted this.  Unlike Saul, he was accepting of the will of God.  He accepted that what was rightfully his, was given to another as a consequence of his father’s disobedience to God. 

Though Jon thought he might reign by David’s side, he chose to unite with his father in battle against the Philistines, a battle determined to take the lives of Saul and 3 sons, including Jon.  Jon may not have known the words of the witch. Jon chose to be loyal to the authority of his father in battle, and surely fought by his side with the decision that ‘God’s will be done.’

David laments Jon’s death:  2 Samuel 1.17; 25-27.

Jonathan is an example of bravery, friendship, and humility centered in a belief in and submission to God.