"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

A Church Member's Question About the Use of the Word "Shortly" in the Bible

A friend and member of Emmanuel for years, Jeff Rogers, sent me an email with a question about the interpretation of Revelation.. I am not going to provide an answer to his question, but thought it would be interesting to see if any readers might offer insight. Here goes:

“Yes, I think it is right, as long as I am in this tent, to stir you up by reminding you, knowing that shortly I must put off my tent, just as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me.” 2 Peter 1:13-14

The most likely interpretation of this passage is that Jesus had revealed to Peter that…

A. Peter was about to die
B. Peter’s home was about to be destroyed
C. Peter would live for many more years
D. Peter is still alive today

The majority of people are most likely to choose option “A,” and least likely to choose “D.” That being the case, consider another passage in which Jesus revealed something to an apostle which was to shortly take place:

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must shortly take place.” Revelation 1:1

So here we have Jesus revealing two events to two different apostles, and each event is to shortly take place. In the case of Peter, if we were to say that event would take place at least two thousand years later, we would be laughed at. And yet, many laugh at the suggestion that the events of Revelation did indeed take place shortly after it was written.

Can we have it both ways?

If we don’t believe that Peter is still living today, why are we looking for the events of Revelation to be fulfilled today, instead of shortly after the book was written?

145 comments:

Jonquil said...

What was the original Greek for each word? Was it the same?

Johnny D said...

I think it is unwise to interpret the word “shortly” as having an equivalent meaning in both 2 Peter and Revelation. Mainly because doing so would force us to ignore the genre of the two books.

2 Peter is written as a narrative epistle. As such its writing style is very straight forward, using natural meanings for its words – which makes interpretation fairly simple. So when Peter writes that he is preparing to put off his tent shortly, he is clearly indicating that he is going to experience a physical death in short order.
Revelation however is not a narrative but an apocalyptic writing. As such its writing style is very symbolic in nature, which makes interpretation very difficult. Apocalyptic books use imagery to paint a broad picture, meaning that their words do not usually follow their natural meaning – especially in the context of time. So when John writes that these things will take place “shortly” we cannot assume that he means shortly as it is usually used.

Any time someone comes to me with a new thought about the book of Revelation, I always hold my breath because they inevitably grasp one important aspect of the book, while ignoring all others – and I think that is the case here. Given the symbolic nature of the writing, it is unwise to try to base one’s interpretation of Revelation (or any apocalyptic book) on any one word.

Anonymous said...

The answer might be in the fact that 2 Peter and Revelation are using two DIFFERENT words, though they are related. in 2 Peter 1:14, the adjective tachinos is used. In Revelation 1:1 the noun tachos is used. Tachos can mean "pertaining to a relatively brief time subsequent to another point of time" according to the BDAG lexicon. Two different words so they can mean two different things.

HMJ said...

The "shortly" that Jesus had shown him was in reference to the events in John 21 when Peter was a young man, now he is old.

What Jesus had said decades before now was to shortly come to pass in the life of Peter.

Preterism is a false doctrine that underminds the urgency of the gospel, and the truth of the scriptures.

Rex Ray said...

Wade,
“And it is only right that I should keep on reminding you as long as I Live. For our Lord Jesus Christ has shown me that I must soon leave this earthly life.” (NLT)

“In fact, I think I should keep on reminding you until I leave this body. And our Lord Jesus Christ has already told me that I will soon leave it behind.” (Contemporary English Version)

“But the Lord Jesus Christ has showed me that my days here on earth are numbered, and I am soon to die. As long as I am still here I intend to keep sending these reminders to you.” (Living)

You said: “The majority of people are most likely to choose option “A,” and least likely to choose “D.” That being the case…”

Where do you get B, C, and D? It’d be interesting to see the proof they exist.

The older I get, the more logic I see in my cousin (retired missionary) saying: “I do not argue words in the Bible.”

BTW, how ‘wrong’ was the church of Antioch NOT to add Revelation to their Bible for 800 years?

Also how is it a proven fact that Elder John did not write Revelation when Jesus told Apostle John he would drink the cup that Jesus did? History records John being boiled in oil but tradition has him surviving.

B Nettles said...

While words definitely (yes, redundant word in this sentence) have meaning(s), there are also idiomatic uses of words and phrases. Unless one is acquainted with the culture of the time AND place AND audience, interpretations taken from literal word-for-word translations can be misleading. For example, evangelicals often use the word "just" in praying. "Lord, we just ask you now to bless Wade. He just needs an extra measure of grace today." What the heck does "just" mean? It's a filler word which sounds holy. Literally, it should mean "only" as an adverb (as used here) or "fair or righteous" when used as an adjective (but adjectives can't modify verbs as in "just ask"). Now, substitute "only" for "just" and see what you get in that prayer. It's not what you mean, is it? Wade needs (as do we all) much more than "just" a little more grace. But no one, except grammar mongers like I, think twice about it.

Similarly, if I say, "I'll do that 'tirecly'," I'm using a Southern colloquialism for "directly" and what I mean is "That's the next important thing on my list, and I'll get around to it, but I'm busy with something else and will try to get started when I finish what I'm working on now."

"Shortly" could belong to an idiom which means "next" as in the sense of imminent: there's nothing else big that's going to happen before this.

Now I have $0.25 less.<\idiom literal interp>

greg.w.h said...

OH look at the time...

Shortly is an odd English expression especially when it refers to time. For one, it's an adverb. Secondly, we think of shortness more in a length perspective.

The Greek word tachine that is rendered "shortly" appears to me to be a nominative feminine adjective that modifies the noun phrase "apothesis tou skenomatos mou" which could be translated "the putting off of (the) dwelling place of me"

Car buffs recognize "tachometer" as measuring the RPM of an engine, and scientists are familiar with the proposal that the "tacheon" is a particle that goes in the reverse direction through time. Tachy- is the Greek root for quick or swift.

(The flip side of the same concept is recalled by my brothers and I from a song the Brothers Four did called The Sloth, i.e.:

"A bradypus or sloth am I, I live a life of ease" which is to say that brady- is the Greek root for slow.)

Since the King James uses the word "tabernacle" to render "skenomatos", you have to wonder if there is a verse in the Old Testament that the Septuagint uses "skenomatos" to render the Hebrew "mishkan". Indeed, Psalms 26:8 is such a verse:

8 I love the house where you live, O LORD,
the place where your glory dwells. Psalms 26:8 (NIV)


or

8LORD, I have loved the habitation of thy house, and the place where thine honour dwelleth. Psalms 26:8 (KJV)

We English readers probably most closely associate the word tabernacle with the tent that post-Egyptian Hebrews that were descendants of Israel (prior to possessing their promised land) carried with them. Two amazing things about this concept were:

1. An undefinable, invisible God chose to be associated with not a locale but with a temporary tent that was designed to be portable.

2. God permitted a willing offering of the same substances that were used to make the golden calf to be offered to adorn the tabernacle. And so much was given that they cut off donations...and this occurred AFTER the golden calf and the raising of the bronze serpent.

Anyway, while I don't see anything wrong with using tent, tabernacle OR dwelling place, I think we need to build from this phrase in order to treat the Greek faithfully:

"swift is the putting off of (the) dwelling place/tent of me"

Preceding that phrase is "eidos hoti" which could be rendered "Being aware that" or "Having perceived that".

Following that phrase is "kathos kai o kurios emon iesous kristos edeiosen moi" or, roughly, "according as (and) the master/Lord of us Jesus Christ made apparent (same root as eidos) to me."

Putting it together

"Being aware that swift is the putting off of the dwelling place of me according as and the Lord of us Jesus Christ made apparent to me"

I would therefore argue none of the above. Instead, Peter is aware of how swiftly/suddenly that the time when he gives up this dwelling place will be, so he teaches with urgency (see verse 13). But that urgency could be--if Peter believed he was one of the apostles that would be alive until Jesus's second coming as Jesus suggested in one verse--just as strong because of his appropriation of that expectation.

I guess whether it is about his living or dying being revealed by Jesus depends on what Jesus made him aware of, but I tend to lean towards him believing that his death would be sudden/swift and might not be predictable, either.

Greg Harvey

P.S. Sorry for the reminiscing and the lazy exposition. It's my day off.

James Gibson said...

The key here is to understand to whom the book of Revelation was written. Did John write it to a contemporary audience or to an audience 2,000+ years into the future? If it were the latter, the book would have been sealed until which time the events foretold began to take place (see Daniel 12.9). If it were the former, however, there would have been no need to seal the book until some future date. At the end of Revelation, John is told specifically, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near" (Revelation 22.10).

It would seem rather obvious, then, that Revelation was written "to the seven churches that are in Asia" (Revelation 1.4) during the mid-to-late first century and the events therein described took place within that historical time frame.

Steve said...

First, let me say what a refreshing post this is in comparison to the usual “As The SBC Turns” posts and “These Are The Days Of Ergun Cantor's Life” posts.

Secondly, and anecdotally, “Wade, wait just a minute.” When you hear that, do you look at your watch and start counting to sixty?

I would agree with Johnny D. Context is the key. In the whole NT the word tachinos is used twice, both by Peter, one the King Jimmy translates as swift the other as shortly. Tachos, as used in Rev 1:1 is used seven times in the NT. One example is Luke 18:8 where Jesus says “I tell you that he will avenge them speedily . Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh , shall he find faith on the earth?” Do people receive their justice swiftly? Usually not. Context is key. Just because one word is the same as another does not undo the entire work of the rest of Scripture.

Can't wait to read more comments.

Blessings

Anonymous said...

preterism refuted

Wade Burleson said...

Good thoughts all.

Bobby Brown said...

Perhaps it was because the events of Revelation were about to take place shortly!

Bobby Brown said...

Perhaps it is because the shortly in Revelation means these events will take place shortly.

Jeff Rogers said...

All uses of the Greek word come from the identical root. Vines Expository Dictionary defines them all identically as "Quickly".

One of the cardinal rules of interpreting the Greek is that usage trumps wooden translation and definition. The uses of all three of these convey events that were expected to happen in exactly the lifetime of the one speaking and that of the audience spoken to. In this case first century believers.

Tachu
Tacheos
Tacheion
En Tachei

The following references all use "En Tachei" The identical Greek word used in Revelation 1:1 and Rev 22:6.

Acts 4:25 But Festus answered, that Paul should be kept at Caesarea, and that he himself would depart SHORTLY thither.

Was Festus expecting to be delayed another 2000 years?

Romans 16:20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet SHORTLY. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

In this case the Audience is essential to understand...he is speaking to the audience of first century Roman Christians. NOT to 21st century people or later.

1 Timothy 3:16 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:

Was Paul hopeful in a coming to Timothy that would be thousands of years after both of them were dead?

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

It is interesting to note that John made bookends of the Revelation of Jesus Christ with this concept of SHORTLY. He did not just mention it in passing. He emphasized the time frame in the first verse and the last chapter.

Rev 22:6 And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.

To Be continues...

Jeff Rogers said...

...Continuation

In using the same root (Tachu) John goes on to emphasize this coming time frame over and over again in the Revelation.

Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

Rev 2:16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

Rev 3:11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

Rev 22:7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.

Rev 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

Rev 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

In other writings of the NT other apostles by inspiration chose this same root to convey the same concept of time.

Tacheos

1 Corinthians 4:19But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power.

Philippians 2:19 But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timotheus shortly unto you, that I also may be of good comfort, when I know your state.

Philippians 2:24 But I trust in the Lord that I also myself shall come shortly.

2 Timothy 4:9 Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me:

Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you.

In Hebrews the writer uses the word "TACHEION" The same word in 2 Peter 1:14 Did the writer mean something different from Paul in writing to Timothy and the Philippians when he was promising to come to them shortly (not meaning 2000 years) meaning in their own lifetime.

2 Peter 1:14 Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.

Why do we want to play linguistic gymnastics with the scripture? We are left to jump through hoops making a mockery of sound scholarship. Even C.S. Lewis is left looking like a fool.

"Say what you like," we shall be told, "the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, 'This generation shall not pass till all these things be done.' And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else."

"It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible."

Essay "The World's Last Night" (1960), found in The Essential C.S. Lewis, p. 385.

I find C.S. Lewis's assessment the thing that should be embarrassed. He is willing to call the Apostles deluded and willing to say that Jesus created that delusion because he is going to hold onto his own scholarship. The bible makes no room for a savior who assisted in deluding His Apostles.

And the New Testament is correct in spite of mans scholarship.

Jeff Rogers
Full Preterist.

Jeff Rogers said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jeff Rogers said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jeff Rogers said...

Here are some other New Testament statements about Time and the Timing of events of the New Covenant.

1. "The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." (Matt. 3:2)

2. "Who warned you to flee from the wrath about to come?" (Matt. 3:7)

3. "The axe is already laid at the root of the trees." (Matt. 3:10)

4. "His winnowing fork is in His hand." (Matt. 3:12)

5. "The kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matt. 4:17)

6. "The kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matt. 10:7)

7. "You shall not finish going through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes." (Matt. 10:23)

8. "...the age about to come." (Matt. 12:32)

9. "The Son of Man is about to come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and will then recompense every man according to his deeds." (Matt. 16:27)

10. "There are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." (Matt. 16:28; cf. Mk. 9:1; Lk. 9:27)

11. "'When the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vine-growers?' '...He will bring those wretches to a wretched end, and will rent out the vineyard to other vine-growers, who will pay him the proceeds at the proper seasons.' '...Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it.' ...When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them." (Matt. 21:40-41,43,45)

12. "This generation will not pass away until all these things take place." (Matt. 24:34)

13. "From now on, you [Caiaphas, the chief priests, the scribes, the elders, the whole Sanhedrin] shall be seeing the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven." (Matt. 26:64; Mk. 14:62; Lk. 22:69)

14. "The kingdom of God is at hand." (Mk. 1:15)

15. "What will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the vine-growers, and will give the vineyard to others. ...They [the chief priests, scribes and elders] understood that He spoke the parable against them." (Mk. 12:9,12)

16. "This generation will not pass away until all these things take place." (Mk. 13:30)

17. "Who warned you to flee from the wrath about to come?" (Lk. 3:7)

18. "The axe is already laid at the root of the trees." (Lk. 3:9)

19. "His winnowing fork is in His hand..." (Lk. 3:17)

20. "The kingdom of God has come near to you." (Lk. 10:9)

21. "The kingdom of God has come near." (Lk. 10:11)

22. "What, therefore, will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and destroy these vine-growers and will give the vineyard to others." ...The scribes and the chief priests...understood that He spoke this parable against them." (Lk. 20:15-16,19)

23. "These are days of vengeance, in order that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Lk. 21:22)

24. "This generation will not pass away until all things take place." (Lk. 21:32)

25. "Daughters of Jerusalem, stop weeping for Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For behold, the days are coming when they will say, 'Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed.' Then they will begin to say to the mountains, 'Fall on us,' and to the hills, 'Cover us.'" (Lk. 23:28-30; Compare Rev. 6:14-17)

Jeff Rogers said...

Here are some more.

26. "We were hoping that He was the One who is about to redeem Israel." (Lk. 24:21)

27. "I will come to you. ...In that Day you shall know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.' ...'Lord, what then has happened that You are about to disclose Yourself to us, and not to the world?'" (Jn. 14:18,20,22)

28. "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?" (Jn. 21:22)

29. "This is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel: 'And it shall be in the last days...'" (Acts 2:16-17)

30. "He has fixed a day in which He is about to judge the world in righteousness..." (Acts 17:31)

31. "There is about to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked." (Acts 24:15)

32. "As he was discussing righteousness, self-control and the judgment about to come..." (Acts 24:25)

33. "Not for [Abraham's] sake only was it written, that [faith] was reckoned to him [as righteousness], but for our sake also, to whom it is about to be reckoned." (Rom. 4:23-24)

34. "If you are living according to the flesh, you are about to die." (Rom. 8:13)

35. "I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is about to be revealed to us." (Rom. 8:18)

36. "It is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep; for now salvation is nearer to us than when we believed. The night is almost gone, and the day is at hand." (Rom. 13:11-12)

37. "The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet." (Rom. 16:20)

38. "The time has been shortened." (I Cor. 7:29)

39. "The form of this world is passing away." (I Cor. 7:31)

40. "Now these things ...were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come." (I Cor. 10:11)

41. "We shall not all fall sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed." (I Cor. 15:51-52)

42. "Maranatha!" [The Lord comes!] (I Cor. 16:22)

43. "...not only in this age, but also in the one about to come." (Eph. 1:21)

44. "The Lord is near." (Phil. 4:5)

45. "The gospel ...was proclaimed in all creation under heaven." (Col. 1:23; Compare Matt. 24:14; Rom. 10:18; 16:26; Col. 1:5-6; II Tim. 4:17; Rev. 14:6-7; cf. I Clement 5,7)

46. "...things which are a shadow of what is about to come." (Col. 2:16-17)

47. "...we who are alive, and remain until the coming of the Lord... We who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds... ...You, brethren, are not in darkness, that the Day should overtake you like a thief." (I Thess. 4:15,17; 5:4)

48. "May your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." (I Thess. 5:23)

49. "It is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire." (II Thess. 1:6-7)

50. "Godliness ...holds promise for the present life and that which is about to come." (I Tim. 4:8)

Jeff Rogers said...

Here are some more...

51. "I charge you ...that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ." (I Tim. 6:14)

52. "...storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for that which is about to come, so that they may take hold of that which is life indeed." (I Tim. 6:19)

53. "In the last days difficult times will come. For men will be lovers of self... ...Avoid these men. For of these are those who enter into households and captivate weak women... ...These also oppose the truth... ...But they will not make further progress; for their folly will be obvious to all..." (II Tim. 3:1-2,5-6,8-9)

54. "I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is about to judge the living and the dead..." (II Tim. 4:1)

55. "God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son." (Heb. 1:1-2)

56. "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who are about to inherit salvation?" (Heb. 1:14)

57. "He did not subject to angels the world about to come." (Heb. 2:5)

58. "...and have tasted ...the powers of the age about to come." (Heb. 6:5)

59. "For ground that drinks the rain which often falls upon it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near a curse, and it's end is for burning." (Heb. 6:7-8)

60. "When He said, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." (Heb. 8:13)

61. "The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way of the [heavenly] Holy Places has not yet been revealed, while the outer tabernacle is still standing, which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation." (Heb. 9:8-10; Compare Gal. 4:19; Eph. 2:21-22; 3:17; 4:13)

62. "But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things about to come..." (Heb. 9:11)

63. "Now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin." (Heb. 9:26)

64. "For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things about to come..." (Heb. 10:1)

65. "...as you see the Day drawing near." (Heb. 10:25)

66. "...the fury of a fire which is about to consume the adversaries." (Heb. 10:27)

67. "For yet in a very little while, He who is coming will come, and will not delay." (Heb. 10:37)

68. "For here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the one that is about to come." (Heb. 13:14)

69. "Speak and so act, as those who are about to be judged by the law of liberty." (Jms. 2:12)

70. "Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you. ...It is in the last days that you have stored up your treasure!" (Jms. 5:1,3)

71. "Be patient, therefore, brethren, until the coming of the Lord." (Jms. 5:7)

72. "You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand." (Jms. 5:8)

73. "...salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." (I Peter 1:6)

74. "He ...has appeared in these last times for the sake of you." (I Peter 1:20)

75. "They shall give account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead." (I Peter 4:5)

Jeff Rogers said...

Here are some more.

76. "The end of all things is at hand; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer." (I Peter 4:7)

77. "For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God." (I Peter 4:17)

78. "...as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is about to be revealed." (I Peter 5:1)

79. "We have the prophetic word ...which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the Day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts." (II Peter 1:19)

80. "Their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep." (II Peter 2:3)

81. "In the last days mockers will come. ...For this they willingly are ignorant of..." (I Peter 3:3,5)

82. "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God." (II Peter 3:10-12)

83. "The darkness is passing away, and the true light is already shining." (I Jn. 2:8)

84. "The world is passing away, and its desires." (I Jn. 2:17)

85. "It is the last hour." (I Jn. 2:18)

86. "Even now many antichrists have arisen; from this we know that it is the last hour." (I Jn. 2:18; Compare Matt. 24:23-34)

87. "This is that of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world." (I Jn. 4:3; Compare II Thess. 2:7)

88. "For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation. ...About these also Enoch ...prophesied, saying, 'Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones, to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly...'" (Jude 1:4,14-15)

89. "But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they were saying to you, 'In the last time there shall be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts.' These are the ones who cause divisions..." (Jude 1:17-19)

90. "...to show to His bond-servants, the things which must shortly take place." (Rev. 1:1)

91. "The time is near." (Rev. 1:3)

92. "Nevertheless what you have, hold fast until I come." (Rev. 2:25)

93. "I also will keep you from the hour of testing which is about to come upon the whole world." (Rev. 3:10)

94. "I am coming quickly." (Rev. 3:11)

95. "And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is about to rule all the nations with a rod of iron." (Rev. 12:5)

96. "And in her [the Great City Babylon] was found the blood of prophets and of saints and of all who have been slain on the earth." (Rev. 18:24; Compare Matt. 23:35-36; Lk. 11:50-51)

97. "...to show to His bond-servants the things which must shortly take place." (Rev. 22:6)

98. "Behold, I am coming quickly." (Rev. 22:7)

99. "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near." (Rev. 22:10; Compare Dan. 8:26)

100. "Behold, I am coming quickly." (Rev. 22:12)

101. "Yes, I am coming quickly." (Rev. 22:20)

When we are ready to explain away all of these passages for the sake of our theological system...then we are in trouble.

Jeff Rogers

Jeff Rogers said...

Wade here is the companion question that goes with the one you posted.

One deals with the word "Shortly".

The other with the word "Quickly"

Both show the same parallel usages.

********************

"Be diligent to come to me quickly" (2 Tim 4:9)

In the above verse Paul:

A. wants Timothy to join him as soon as possible

B. doesn’t care when Timothy comes, he just wants Timothy to travel rapidly once he departs

Without doubt, Paul desired Timothy to join him as soon as possible. In fact, the second option appears laughable and not really an option at all. But is this not exactly how some want us to understand the following?

He who testifies to these things says...

---“Surely I am coming quickly.” Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus!

Both instances of “quickly” in these verses come from the same root in the Greek. Yet, in order to avoid the obvious implication that Jesus claimed He was coming soon, there are those who would have us believe that Jesus was not proclaiming when He was coming, but how—rapidly.

His Second Coming might not occur until centuries after He spoke these words, but once it commenced it would not be a drawn-out affair—it would occur rapidly! Would we accept that meaning for quickly in Paul’s request of Timothy? If not, then perhaps we should question that meaning for Jesus’ statement in Revelation.

Richard said...

Jeff Rogers,

How about the literal view of the impending fulfillment of these prophecies--fully completed at 70 AD?

If I am not mistaken Hank Hannegraff, James White(?) also hold to the preteristic view of Revelation. Hence, it all these were fulfilled literally in the past.

Jeff Rogers said...

Richard,

I apologize that I do not understand what you are asking in your question. I would like to take a crack at answering it if you want me to. But I do not want to answer my impression of your question, but I want to answer exactly what you are asking. Could you please rephrase it.

Thanks

P.S. if you would rather talk off line in case the question and answer becomes too involved please e-mail me at

prosther@excite.com

Thanks

Jeff Rogers

Jeff Rogers said...

Richard, my apologies...

I made a typo on my e-mail address.

it it

prosthero@excite.com

I left out an O.

Jeff

Anonymous said...

Preterism may or may not be a false doctrine.

Which is why I'm a partial preterist. :)

Christiane said...

""...every event in the world
is a type of those that follow,
history proceeding forward
as a circle ever enlarging. "

John Henry Newman

Richard said...

Hi Jeff Rogers,

I was only thinking of Wade's original text of Rev1:1 regarding things which shortly or soon to take place.

Some people said these "things" in the book of Revelation (beyond chs 2-3) took place "shortly" (sequencially) and fulfilled by the year 70AD (except for the 2nd coming of our Lord). So, the perspective is called preterism.

So it is a lot more than word study here.

I see "take place" as things that will "come up next"--things revealed in the next two chapters, plus the prophetical fulfilment of the judgments/tribulations as the background for the second advent of Christ and His reign.

My take is: Rev 2 and 3 are being fulfilled, but not the rest of the book of Revelation. A futuristic view.

The preterist and the futurist can both agree on the meaning of the word "shortly" and yet differ in reading the rest of the book of Revelation.

I hope the discussion goes beyond word study.

Thank you Jeff.

Anonymous said...

I highly recommend, The End Times Controversy, which deals with the second coming and preterism. I am not pretrib but historic premill, yet i think the book has many great arguments against preterism.

Chad Kaminski said...

I believe preterists are right in trying to understand what first century believers who were familiar with the apocalyptic genre would have understood as they read Revelation. Therefore understanding first century historical background is crucial.

But I also understand John's apocalypse to contain hints that at least some of the first century events were but a foretaste of future events.

Don Carson points to the 1John 2 passage concerning the Antichrist and the many antichrists as an illustration that some of the first century events described in Revelation are shadows of future events, therefore functioning somewhat like Old Testament types.

Here's Dr. Carson's quote, "I think the book of Revelation in that regard prepares first generation Christians for first generation assaults, but in categories and terms that prepares later generation Christians for other assaults, and ultimately the final assault. And in that sense I think there are elements of a futurist's view here too."

Tim Marsh said...

One of the things that would be helpful to all interested in the "end times" is first:

1. Stop trying to place Revelation into a category such as Preterist or Futurist. It contains elements of both.

2. Study Jewish apocalypticism and apocalyptic literature, of which much of the New Testament is based, not just Revelation.

3. The dispensational premills have it wrong, period. They take literal things that are meant to be symbolic, such as numerology. Then they take things symbolic which should be taken literally, like the seven churches and their historical situations. Leave behind "Left Behind" before it is too late!

Richard said...

Tim Marsh,

Can you give some examples and/or references of contemporary dispensational works in which they "take literal things that are meant to be symbolic, such as numerology. Then they take things symbolic which should be taken literally, like the seven churches and their historical situations. . .?

I deem that C. Scofield, J. Walvoord, J.D. Pentecost, C. Ryrie, etc. are past dispenstionalists, but they are not representatives of today's dispensationalism.

What books did you read to arrive at your absolute conclusions?

Thank you

James Gibson said...

Preterism is an exegetical methodology, not a doctrine. When applied judiciously, it can help in better understanding certain doctrines always held by the church. When applied carelessly, it can lead to distortions and doctrinal errors. Such is the case with most such methodologies.

debbiekaufman said...

Jeff: I agree with what you have in your comments. That is the way I have understood the word quickly in scripture. Good job explaining.

debbiekaufman said...

Instead of dealing with the question as a preterist/partial preterist/name any view, I would like to see this dealt with in the way the question is asked. By usage in scripture. I would like to see others do a study like Jeff has on this. It would help in finding out how some of you came to your conclusions.

Richard said...

James Gibson,

How would a judicious preteristic interpretation of "But the one who endures to the end, he shall be saved" (Mt24:13) delineated this text in its context?

Jeff Rogers said...

You can read on my blog some of the dispensational futurist hermeneutic paradigms where you will see some confusing of the literal, figurative and apocalyptic.

I invite you to read and consider this and other topics on my blog concerning this topic.

http://prosthero.blogspot.com/2010/05/dispensational-dilemma.html

Jeff Rogers

Richard said...

Augustine is the true father of Calvinism.

The calvinistic amillenialism is a continuum of Augustine's eschatology.

So, preterism is in essence an Augustinianistic eschatological reading of prophecies, etc.

A key change in Augustinianism was his theological shift from premillenialism to amillenialism--clearly seen in is his early and later interpretation of Mt24:13.

Early Augustine sees this text as millenial salvation (not salvation from hell).

Augustine, tragically, changed his original premillenial reading of "But the one who endures to the end, he shall be save" from a millenial salvation promise to a salvation from hell promise.

Augustine's deficiency in Greek and his dependence on Origen's spiritualization hermeneutics influenced this change. Hence, the resultant MERGING OF JUSTIFICATION & SANCTIFICATION.

Luther brought the reformation precisely caused by his rejection of this Augustinian merging of justification and sanctification--big in Catholicism.

EARLY CALVIN SIDED with Luther against this Augustinian Catholicism.

But under the Catholics' pressure, Calvin REVERTED back to the MERGING OF JUSTIFICATION & SANCTIFICATION. Until this very day this catholic Augustinianism persists in Calvinism: no perseverance in holiness = no final salvation. You can see this very clearly in the teaching of John Piper, John MacArthur, Arthur Pink, etc.

This particular THEOLOGY forces its preunderstanding upon text such as Mt24:13 and seeing it as salvation from hell based on perseverance in holiness.

So preterism, whether as methodology and/or theology hinders a objective reading of prophecy in general and Mt24:13 in particular.

Jeff, I will be looking at your website soon. Thanks.

Jeff Rogers said...

These Quiz questions, like the one that Wade used to start this discussion are not original with me. I have taken them from an on-line magazine from a web site called http://fulfilledcg.com

You can see all the quiz questions at the magazine section but you need to look at each magazine individually in the archive. Each magazine with a couple exceptions has a quiz question at the end. They are all intriguing and thought provoking. I post one more for your consideration.

I have most of them on my facebook page. I am on Facebook using the name "Miztah Rogers"

******************

True or False: The following passage is describing the Second Coming of Christ:

Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the wine press of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. (Rev 19:11-16)

Most people would answer that the above passage is indeed a picture of Christ’s glorious Second Coming.

However, many of these same individuals believe that His Second Coming will be both bodily and visible because of the words of the angel in Acts 1:11:

"Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven."

If Jesus is to return in the same manner He was taken up,...
---Why was there no white horse in the ascension?
---Where was the robe dipped in blood?
---Where were the heavenly armies following on white horses?

We cannot deny these discrepancies between the ascension and Second Coming accounts above. Perhaps we have misapplied the term “in like manner.”

Instead of applying the words to how Christ ascended into the air (sky), what if we apply them to how He ascended from the air into heaven (the spiritual dimension)? In what “manner” did that occur? “A cloud received Him out of their sight” (Acts 1:9). He left in the clouds and He would return in the clouds (Rev 1:7). The Old Testament describes several “cloud-comings” of God—and yet God was never seen physically (Isa 19:1; Joel 2:1-2; Nah 1:2-3).

In light of this Old Testament precedent, how would the New Testament generation have understood Christ’s “coming on the clouds”?

Tim Marsh said...

Richard,

Thank you for your question.

I recommend:
Revelation in the NIV Application Commentary series by Craig Keener

Reversed Thunder by Eugene Peterson

Left Behind? by James M. Efird

David Aune's commentary on Revelation in the Word Biblical Commentary

Breaking the Code by Bruce Metzger

Richard Hays' The Moral Vision of the New Testament has an excellent chapter on Revelation's theology.

Theology of the Book of Revelation by Richard Bauckham

The Climax of Prophecy by Richard Bauckham

G. B. Caird's The Revelation of St. John in Black's New Testament Commentary

In God's Time by Craig Hill

Those could get a serious student started. However, one hermeneutical leap flaws many premillenialists, but especially dispensational theologians, is that Revelation is a coded view of the last seven years of the world. That view is the refusal to read Revelation according to its literary genre - apocalyptic.

Left Behind? by Mickey Efird as well as his course in Revelation is the source of your specific question.

We must read Revelation according to its genre, located in its historical context and setting. For those who come to Revelation with eisegesis and presuppositions that "prophecy" means telling the future rather than procaliming the word of God, we must simply agree to disagree. Revelation does talk about the future hope of Christians. However, it was never intended to reveal the future of earth in its last seven years before the end of the world.

Jeff Rogers said...

To illustrate the dispensational view of figurative or non-literal language, I Quote from John MacArthur,

"Figurative Language strips language of its power".

from "The Glorious Return"

How silly is that statement?
Try telling your wife how beautiful she is with one of the two following phrases:
...
1. "Honey, when I look at you...Time stands still!"

2. "Dear, you have a face that could stop a clock."

Which of these uses of figurative language has been stripped of its power?

And what reaction will you get from your wife when using these statements? One may be good...the other may result in dog house time.

Either way, both figurative statements are in no way stripped of power.

Anonymous said...

gnats and camels . . .

preterism truly has no viable chair at the table of legitimate eschatological studies.

it is dead wrong.

any day now we can all talk about it on the way up.

Christiane said...

The apocalyptic language of the Book of Revelations is so beautiful, and clearly meaningful to the first Christians:

'and His Voice was like the sound of rushing water' . . .
so evocative of Our Lord and the power of His Words

And yet there are signs that the early Christians were already practicing some of the things referred to in the Book of Revelation.
From the beginning, the sites of martrydom were considered consecrated holy ground. As was the burial sites of the martyrs.
Christians came to pray among their tombs, often using the tomb itself as a site for the 'thanksgiving'.
And, not wishing to disturb the bones of the martyrs, Churches were built over their remains, and the bones of the martyrs lay under the 'altar tombs'.

Some reference is made to this by the engraving attributed to Sixtus II which celebrates the burial site of martyrs from the persecution of Roman Emperor Valerian. This engraving is found in the catacombs of Callixtus.

The Book of Revelation, chapter 9, gives a verse that mentions the martyrs crying out from below the altars:

"9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne. 10 They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” 11 Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been."

The persecution of the early martyrs by Valerian had continued because they refused to stop gathering to celebrate the thanksgiving in the catecombs, among the altar tombs.

This particular persecution ended when the Emperor Constantine came to power.

Tim Marsh said...

Jeff Rogers,

You are exactly right! Words have their greatest impact when they are taken as they are intended, whether that is literal or figurative.

Though I fear being politically incorrect here goes:

Dispensational Theoloogy and Fundamentalism make several assumptions:

1. Everything is literal in the Bible.

2. The KJV is the inerrant word of God.

3. Anything that disagrees with what we say is "liberal" or "of the devil."

Why do they do this? My guess is out of ignorance.

1. It would be convenient to label the KJV as the Word of God because it eliminates the need to study original languages and compare translations. It is simple.

2. Accepting everything as literal means that we do not have to study the First Century World, literary genres and other ancient texts that come from that time period. Again it is simple.

When will we realize that we must invest something of ourselves in reading scripture to hear the Word of the Lord?

When will we stop defending our uncles and cousins who are KJV, Bible-believing Christians and go in search of truth of the Bible and following Christ?

Richard said...

Tim Marsh & Jeff Rogers,

I am dispensational Baptist and I do not read KJV at all for my studies (however I like to read KJV).

How would you interpret "ho de hupemeinas eis telos houtos sothesetai" of Mt24:13 using your OBJECTIVE SCHOLARLY hermeneutics?

Just give us an example of practicing what you preach re.: superior than dispensational 'heretical' interpretation.

I have a strong feeling that without even looking at the context to study the text you already know the meaning of what the text is supposed to be saying. Just maybe.

Prove me wrong please!

Thank you.

Jeff Rogers said...

Richard, I will give you a very short expo of Matt 24:13.

It has to be read in the context of the predicted persecution that Jesus is speaking of. I see the predicted persecution being the first century persecution under Nero, culminating in Christs return to judge the rejecting nation of Israel. I believe and I can give you some more textual reasons for this but I want to keep this short.

The intent of Matt 24:13 is to speak to that first century audience who were going to experience (first hand) this predicted persecution. It makes no sense to the hearing audience of that day if this persecution was not for 2000+ years.

Audience relevance is essential.

So those who were in that first century audience who would endure to the end of that first century persecution would be saved.

I do not believe this is salvation in the spiritual sense, but I believe that the salvation spoken here is based in the context...salvation from the persecution.

I hope this helps.

Jeff Rogers

Tim Marsh said...

Richard,

My problem is not with how a particular verse or phrase is translated, but the big picture from which you operate.

"The one enduring or the one who endures to/unto the end, that same one will be saved."

I understand this verse as a call to perseverence for Christians at the time of the destruction of the temple. Read 24:1-3. The question is regarding the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, which happened in 70 AD. It can be applied as a call to persevere in the midst of any suffering as well as a warning not to give up in the midst of persecution.

BTW, no hermeneutics are objective. Everyone comes with presuppositions. What are yours? Why should you accept dispensational theology? Is it because most Southern Baptist's do? Did a close relative believe it? Why should you accept it? Rejecting dispensational theology is not finding the answers, for there are many interpretations of the end times. It is rejecting a fundamental flaw in the presuppositions brought to the text that God is dealing with national Israel rather than believing Israel, that prophecy means future telling (it means preaching or forth-telling in Hebrew), and that God is giving us what will happen in the end as well as the means to discern when these events will happen.

Jesus said that we will not know the day or the hour.

B Nettles said...

Tim Marsh,
I believe that John MacArthur, Chuck Swindoll and R.B. Thieme, III, would strongly disagree with your attempt to characterize the hermeneutic of Dispensational Theology. They probably wouldn't agree in details with each other, but they would all disagree with you.

Your statement is about as accurate as Jerry Vines or Ergun Caner talking about Calvinists.

Anonymous said...

Jeff,

This is Patrick, I humbly ask two questions, answer them if you like.

1. Do you believe that Christ is coming again sometime? Yes or No?

2. If the answer is yes, could you provide Biblical support from your perspective? And would it be possible to not use any of the scripture quotations you have used earlier, since they pertain to around a.d. 70?

If the answer to #1 is no, please disregard.

Jeff Rogers said...

Patrick,
I believe based on what I have posted and much more, that Jesus promised and his apostles taught a first century return of Christ.

So far from denying the teaching of the second coming as is often the accusation toward preterists by those who really do not look into it in detail. I confirm the second coming, exactly as it was prophesied and exactly as it was promised in the scripture.

In Hebrews we read...

For yet a little while, and he that shall come WILL COME AND WILL NOT TARRY. Hebrews 10:37

Why is it that when the writer of Hebrews quotes Habakkuk 2:3 he leaves out the "...is yet for an appointed time,..." And he changes... "IT" to "HE" It will surely come/He that shall come will come. Seems like the prophecy in Habakkuk is about to be fulfilled in the first century day of the writer of Hebrews.

For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry. Habakkuk 2:3

How is it by authority of the Inspiring Holy Spirit the writer of Hebrews takes the license to change The same event to it will tarry to it will NOT tarry? Unless the event in question is to occur in that generation as the Lord taught.

So YES i completely affirm a second coming of Christ. But I affirm based on the scripture that it occurred as promised on time and without fail. It is not in our future...it was in the future of the first century audience of the New Testament.

Jeff Rogers said...

If the words of Jesus and His Apostles made No Sense to the original first century audience...Then Jesus and His Apostles are guilty of speaking Nonsense.

If what was written in the New Testament was for an audience 2000+ years in the future...How then was the first century audience, to whom the writings were addressed, to understand what was written?

If what was written in the New Testament was for an audience 2000+ years in the future...Then why did none of the authors of the New Testament writings say so?

Please explain if you can...these are some thoughts that come to my mind when I try to evaluate the New Testament hermeneutic that we use.

Jeff Rogers

Christiane said...

Hi JEFF ROGERS

i found this site for you that references hermeneutics from many traditions, including Judaic.

The Judaic considerations are valid because apocalyptic language was their 'invention', so to speak, and it was popular with them from 200 B.C. until 200 A.D.

Here is the reference:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/links16.html

Anonymous said...

If the words of Jesus and His Apostles made No Sense to the original first century audience...Then Jesus and His Apostles are guilty of speaking Nonsense.

Matthew 13:13
This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

Mark 4:13
Then Jesus said to them, "Don't you understand this parable? How then will you understand any parable?

Luke 2:50
But they did not understand what he was saying to them.
Luke 9:45
But they did not understand what this meant. It was hidden from them, so that they did not grasp it, and they were afraid to ask him about it.

John 8:27
They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father.
John 12:16
At first his disciples did not understand all this. Only after Jesus was glorified did they realize that these things had been written about him and that these things had been done to him.

Acts 8:30
Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked.
[did Isaiah understand what he was prophesying?]

2 Peter 3:16
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Jeff Rogers said...

Anonymous...You post some very instructive passages. They all seem to indicate that the first century audience was made up of two sets of people.

One, the group whose eyes were shut to the message of the kingdom and the Gospel.

Two, the group that did understand the message.

Clearly both were represented in the hearing of the first century audience and it is these two audiences that are being referenced in the passages you have posted.

There is no indication that these verse teach that all of the first century audience did not get it and only some future audience will get it.

If that were the case, what passage identifies which future audience would get it?

Where is the passage that says it is the 21st century audience that will understand...or is it the 17th century audience? Do we get it and Luther Calvin and Zwingli did not?

I hope you see the dilemma that you are left with if you say that the passages you posted prove that the apostles generation did not get it en masse and we do.

That would be some hefty spiritual arrogance...I am sure you are not saying that.

Inkling said...

Jeff Rogers, could you elaborate a bit more on your beliefs, as to what you believe the future holds? Specifically:

1. Do you believe that Christ will physically return to Earth in the future?

2. Will there be a new heaven and earth?

3. Will there be a resurrection of the dead?

I'm sympathetic to the preterist view of Revelation, but I'm not familiar enough with full preterism to understand it's view of future events.

Mark

Jeff Rogers said...

Inkling, I read your profile, you said that you are one who...

...who rejects dispensationalism, embraces NCT, and plays footsie with calvinism.

I am with you in rejecting dispensationalism, fully embracing NCT, but I do not play footsies with Calvinism...I am a full 5 pointer. So I think I understand where you are coming from.

I am a Long time Baptist...but I am taking medication for that...lol.

My preterism I beleive came as a result of following the logical conclusions of NCT. Your request to elaborate on my beliefs in detail I would like to honor, but I do not want to impede on Wades blog with an elaborate elongated personal conversation. You can read a lot of what I believe at my blog, http://prosthero.blogspot.com

Or on facebook, you can friend me using my facebook name "Miztah Rogers".

I am not trying to avoid the discussion, but it is a very large field of topics and I believe it touches on many peripheral topics.

So find me at those forums or we can meet some other place over e-coffee and chat.

Jeff Rogers

Anonymous said...

I hope you see the dilemma that you are left with if you say that the passages you posted prove that the apostles generation did not get it en masse and we do.

That would be some hefty spiritual arrogance...I am sure you are not saying that.


You arrogantly said "If the words of Jesus and His Apostles made No Sense to the original first century audience...Then Jesus and His Apostles are guilty of speaking Nonsense."

The collection of scriptures in response show that a lot of what Jesus and the apostles said made no sense to the 1st cent. audience.

Anonymous said...

preterism refuted

Jeff Rogers said...

Anonymous, you said...

"The collection of scriptures in response show that a lot of what Jesus and the apostles said made no sense to the 1st cent. audience."

Don't you see that in the passages that you posted that there are two groups in that first century audience. Some who did get it, and some who did not. So then does that mean that the New Testament written to a first century audience was not intended for either?

I am not trying to be arrogant. I just know that the message of Jesus Christ and his Apostles DID make sense to the first century audience that it was intended for. It is not arrogance to say that a message that makes NO SENSE to its intended audience is in fact NONSENSE...for that is what the word actually mean...Nonsense means that it makes NO SENSE.

I am not arrogantly assuming that, that is indeed what the words mean.

When Paul wrote to the Church at Rome, the Roman Christians understood his message, or else they read it scratching their heads and walking away confused...which is it?

When he wrote to correct the excesses of the church at Corinth, did they not get it? I presume they did since Paul in the 2nd letter to the Corinthian church Paul says they DID get it.

So do we read these NT letters as addressed to us in the 21st century? I believe that would be arrogant, for they are not addressed to us.

They were written TO a first century audience...and they were written FOR all ages who would read them. Try to grasp the difference between written "TO" and written "FOR". The difference is essential to a reasonably harmonious hermeneutic.

Jeff Rogers

Anonymous said...

Try to grasp the difference
That's pretty condescending.

They were written TO a first century audience...and they were written FOR all ages who would read them.

So all prophecy written in the OT was understood by people at the time of the prediction, including those of the coming Messiah?

And when the NT says "take a little wine for your stomach" it is FOR all ages?

Anonymous said...

How would you refute the linked article on refuting preterism?

Anonymous said...

I hope someone can answer this question. 2 Thess. 2:1-2 says

Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come.

How could the people of Thes. have been fooled into thinking they missed the terrible events of not only the Temple being destroyed but the sun darkened, the moon turned red, etc.? Whatever "day" this was, the people were tricked into thinking they missed it. And they were scared.

Jeff Rogers said...

Anonymous...I thought I was having a discussion with you...(whatever your name is) and unless you are Charlie H. Campbell, I am not interested in debating your favorite theologians PhD dissertation. I have debated with many people many of the facets of Mr. Campbells points but I do not think Wades blog is the place for that. As I have invited many already, read my blog a bit so that you understand what I believe. As you have not represented me absolutely correctly so far, you might need to take the time to hear with the intent of understanding.

Campbell ends his paper with recommendations to read the following.

Dr. Tim LaHaye, Dr. Thomas Ice, and Dr. John MacArthur and others have teamed up to write a book called: The End Times Controversy, published by Harvest House in 2003, to refute preterism. If you’d like to know more about the problems with preterism, this is a great place to start.

Some other good books on Bible Prophecy are:

--Things to Come by Dwight Pentecost
--Every Prophecy of the Bible by Dr. John Walvoord
--The Second Coming by John MacArthur
--The Revelation Record by Henry Morris
--The Revelation of Jesus Christ by John Walvoord
--End Times by Dr. John Walvoord
--101 Answers to the Most Asked Questions About Bible Prophecy by Mark Hitchcock
Dr. Norman Geisler has also published a critique of Hank Hanegraaff’s book The Last Disciple that can be found at:
www.ses.edu/NormGeisler/lastdisciple.htm

I have read over 3/4's of this list. I too could give you a list of opposing theologians who I would prefer, but you might not have time to read them, nor would I expect you to. But if your mind is open to hear what I believe, I would love to recommend some reading along the lines of reasonable preterists.

I spent 15 years as a convinced dispensational futurists and I am very familiar with these authors theologians and their arguments. But I would rather not have a drawn out debate on Wades forum. It is his forum not mine. But please pose your first affirmative for your case on my blog and I will engage.

http://prosthero.blogspot.com

Open and ready to discuss this and any other topic you find worthy.

Jeff Rogers

Jeff Rogers said...

Anon said...

"How could the people of Thes. have been fooled into thinking they missed the terrible events of not only the Temple being destroyed but the sun darkened, the moon turned red, etc.? Whatever "day" this was, the people were tricked into thinking they missed it. And they were scared."

It seems to me that you make a fantastic point. If all these things were to be fulfilled in a literal and natural way....they how could you miss the sun being darkened and the moon turning to blood, and a rapture like event.

That is the exact position I take...they could not possibly have been duped if those things were understood by the first century audience as being fulfilled physically and literally.

So there must be a spiritual or figurative fulfillment that the first century Thessalonians understood. Not a physical bodies coming out of graves resurrection, but they understood a resurrection of spiritual deadness being given spiritual life.

Paul had to correct their misunderstanding of the timing....not the nature of the fulfillment. If the first century audience understood these things to be fulfilled physically/literally and naturally, then why didn't Paul address that? No, the audience to whom the letter was written TO, recognized that these things could be fulfilled without outward manifestation or even their notice.

Remember Paul did not correct their understanding of the nature of the fulfillment...only the timing.

And at the time of the writing of this letter, these things were still in their future...70 A.D.

Jeff Rogers

James Gibson said...

Richard,

The simplest, and most judicious, interpretation of Matthew 24.13 is that it is an encouragement to the disciples to persevere through the suffering and tribulation they will inevitably encounter as they continue the redemptive mission which Jesus began. In "the end," they will be vindicated and share with Jesus in the final victory which is and shall be the resurrection. No amount of tribulation, not even the most severe form of punishment the world can mete out, will prevent the coming of the kingdom of God. To proclaim the Gospel, in word and deed, in the midst of suffering and persecution, is to bear witness to the fact that the kingdom of God is already advancing on the kingdom of this world. “The end,” the final consummation of history, will bear out this truth, and all creation will stand in awe at the glory of the God who spoke it all into being.

Richard said...

Anonymous,

As you know correctly, Paul's Thessalonias epistles were written to clarify that Christ's bodily 2nd coming and the attending resurrection of dead believers (including the rapture or translation of living ones) are still yet future.

Jeff Rogers' view has been refuted long time ago by Paul's and Peter's Epistles--the fatal error of some of the confused 1st century believers and sceptics.

It is a sample case of eschatology swallowed by soteriology.

Anonymous said...

That is the exact position I take...they could not possibly have been duped if those things were understood by the first century audience as being fulfilled physically and literally.

So there must be a spiritual or figurative fulfillment that the first century Thessalonians understood. Not a physical bodies coming out of graves resurrection, but they understood a resurrection of spiritual deadness being given spiritual life.


I don't see this as being a necessary conclusion. It is one possibility but not the only one. It's equally possible that it refers to the Rapture, which also better explains the fear the people of Thess. had. Nobody fears a figurative fulfillment of prophecy, and if prophecy is only to be taken figuratively, what would most people care? And if the people were already saved, then why would they fear a figurative resurrection?

Anonymous said...

Also, Jeff:

Why would the destruction of the Temple be literal, but nothing else?

Richard said...

Anonymous,

Well said. The figurative interpretation should be put to rest.

Realized eschatology robs the future of any rewards--what is left is only WORKING hard to secure final salvation.

FAITH-WORKS eschatology = FAITH & WORKS = FAITH THAT WORKS soteriology = FAITH-WORKS eschatology. Both are one and the same.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Richard. :)

And I agree about the connection between eschatology and soteriology.

Richard said...

Jeff Rogers,

I have questions similar to Inkling''s three questions posed to you. Do you plan to answer these three?

Thanks

Kevin M. Crowder said...

Obama, Soros, SEIU, ACORN, New Black Panthers, Chicago Mafia, Mexican Drug Cartels, and many more...

...the Spirit of Antichrist.




-The Minute Man

Richard said...

James Gibson,

Re. Mt24:13

Your emphasis on our standing in awe of the glory of God now and in the future is great--but not great enough if it is limited only to salvation.

Your narrowing everything in the Bible to salvation and kingdom now robs you of many blessings prepared for now, later, and forever.

For example, in the calvinistic- amillenial system there is only one end time soteriological paradigm because:

--there is NO future kingdom on earth. So the future is soteric only, NOT millenial.

--there is NO future REWARDS in heaven; since WORKS are for proving salvation, NOT for rewards.

--there is NO other purpose of perseverance now till the end, except for final soteric salvation from hell--NOT for a future millenial salvation and ruling.

--re. Mt24:13, calvinists maintain a performance-based heaven. No performance = no salvation; or no performance = no heaven.

We would say: a believer will reach heaven by FAITH ALONE IN CHRIST ALONE.

Calvinists would say: faith that reach heaven IS NOT ALONE. It is faith THAT works. NO PERFORMANCE = NO SALVATION.

We would say: No performance = no reward.

Heaven is NOT a reward. It is a GIFT. NOT of works.

ENDURING UNTIL THE END IS A WORK. AND THE PURPOSE IS NOT SOTERIC.

Work has different purpose eschatologically. WORKS HAS NOTHING TO TO WITH SALVATION.

PERFORMANCE-BASED SALVATION IS ------------?

Jeff Rogers,

Your system of belief is radically deterministic and not necessarily biblical.

Do you know that Calvin's "TULIP" was taken almost totally from Augustine?

Bezae was the one advanced the TULIP and Perkins radicalized and applied it.

If you think the TULIP is Calvin's, it is not really so. It is more Bezae's.

Perkins taught: If election then perseverance. No perseverance = no election. This theology determines the interpretation of texts such as Mt24:13 and the more famous James2:14-24. John MacArthur uses Jam2 to teach salvation by performance.

After Perkins, it is whosoever persevering in good works will in the end be finally saved.

This is the theological paradigm that influence John Piper, etc.

What I am saying is: A PRETERIST'S INTERPRETATION OF PROPHECY IS DETERMINED BY HIS/HER DOGMA; NOT NECESSARILY BY TEXT IN ITS CONTEXT.

James Gibson said...

Richard,

You apparently have mistaken me for a "Calvinistic a-millennialist." I'm not SBC, so I'm not really interested in the present dustup between Calvinists and non-Calvinists. I just happen to enjoy Wade's blog from time to time. If you have to pigeonhole me into one of those categories, I'm probably more of a Wesleyan post-millennialist, but I would rather live by the adage that millennial theories are like bad days -- everybody has one. I won't waste space here by elaborating, but will refer you to here, here, and here for my further thoughts on the subject.

Richard said...

James Gibson,

There are many similarities in your eschatology and those of the amillennialists' persuasion. I deem postmillennialism is just the optimistic wing of no millennialism--two side of a coin; the one is pessimistic and the other is optimistic.

The side-effects or logical conclusions of yours and Wade's eschatology are clearly seen in your similar interests and emphasis.

World Council of Churches have been doing what you all are trying to do since its inception in 1948.

I will visit your blog.

Anonymous said...

Jeff, I posted something in your prosthero blog.

Jeff Rogers said...

Anon Asks...


Also, Jeff:

Why would the destruction of the Temple be literal, but nothing else?

Anon, I cannot find any passage in the Thessalonian letters where it indicates that they were concerned with the destruction of the temple?

I thought we were talking about Thessalonians??

Jeff Rogers said...

Inklings three questions.

1. Do you believe that Christ will physically return to Earth in the future?

No, Jesus said about his kingdom that it will not come with observation...it is not physical and it is within us. So why does he need to come in a physical way when he is ruling a spiritual kingdom. He is with us even now. He said I will never leave you nor forsake you. If you are waiting for a physical manifestation then you are denying his ever present presence with us.

2. Will there be a new heaven and earth?

Yes...There IS a new heaven and new earth...it is called the New Covenant. Hebrews 12:22 "But ye are come (Past Tense) unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,"

For further biblical evidence of my position, see the article I wrote on my blog exactly about this. Dated June 12, 2010. at the following link.

http://prosthero.blogspot.com/2010/06/body-building-bride-wife-city-temple.html

3. Will there be a resurrection of the dead?

There already has been.

Let me give you some scriptures.
Ephesians 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

Ephesians 2:5-6 "Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And HATH RAISED (Past Tense) us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:"

Adam died in the day that he ate the fruit. But in the day that he ate the fruit he did not die a physical death. He died spiritually. So why would he or his seed need a physical resurrection? We don't,we need a spiritual resurrection. And Paul in Ephesians is declaring that this is exactly what we already have by way of the power of Christs death burial and resurrection.

We died with him...we were buried with him, and we were raised with him. All this by way of imputation. If you deny imputation you are actually denying the gospel itself. So just as I have been crucified with Christ...I too have been raised with him and have been MADE (past tense again) to sit in heavenly places with Christ.

Jeff Rogers said...

Richard said...

Jeff Rogers,

Your system of belief is radically deterministic and not necessarily biblical.

I am not sure if you are criticizing my eschatology or what you think of my assumed Calvinism. I really would like to stick to one topic at a time if at all possible, it really would go far to avoid any confusion and allow us to do all things decently and in order.

Jeff

Jeff Rogers said...

Richard said...


"What I am saying is: A PRETERIST'S INTERPRETATION OF PROPHECY IS DETERMINED BY HIS/HER DOGMA; NOT NECESSARILY BY TEXT IN ITS CONTEXT."

This is a statement with absolutely no support. Are you planning to present evidence for this claim, biblical or otherwise?

Could I not be able to make the same accusation about Dispensationalism, or Covenantalism or any other of mans theological systems?

It is customary in organized discussion to have something with which to back up your blanket statements. Otherwise the discussion degenerates to ad hominem and circular reasoning. How about an explanation.

thanks

Jeff Rogers

Jeff Rogers said...

Richard Said...

"Realized eschatology robs the future of any rewards--what is left is only WORKING hard to secure final salvation."

Richard, Our reward is secure. Christ is our reward. There is no reward in the New Covenant for any believer that the believer can earn by his works. All of our reward and blessings flow directly from and ONLY from the work of Christ. We are co-heirs with Christ of ALL of the reward that he has earned from his Father for his perfect obedience. We cannot improve on that with any work or obedience of our own.

Our reward is sure and it is outside of ourselves to earn.

***********************

Richard went on to say...

"FAITH-WORKS eschatology = FAITH & WORKS = FAITH THAT WORKS soteriology = FAITH-WORKS eschatology. Both are one and the same."

I am totally baffled by this statement. If you intend to characterize some facet of preterism with this colloquialism, I am sure I am at a loss to understand what facet you are characterizing. Not only does the statement not make sense to me....it is far removed from reflecting anything I believe. Please make an effort to explain this a little more succinctly.

Thanks.

*********************

Anonymous said...

Thanks Richard.

"And I agree about the connection between eschatology and soteriology."

I am glad that you agree about this so called connection. Would you be so kind as to explain to me what the connection is that you are referring to? I am not sure that I see my position reflected in anything that was said, so I am hard pressed to explain in light of your comments where I might stand.

Surely you can be more clear.

jeff

Jeff Rogers said...

Richard,
In reference to reward for believers...Here is what I posted on my blog on 25 June. Please read it prior to characterizing my position, so at least you know what my position is.

thanks.


http://prosthero.blogspot.com/2010/06/bema.html

Jeff

Richard said...

Hi Jeff Rogers,

Your strung together Scripture texts does not YET mount to a serious study of these texts.

By the way, I read several pieces in your blog, especially the ones pertaining to dispensationalism. I deem mostly straw man arguments. I don't hold to the dispensationalism that you allegedly debunked in your posts.

Your stringing of many texts from a concordance does not YET amount to a valid method. It can be best called a proof-texts approach.

Don't you think take a text in its context would be best approach?

I am interested in the Bible though. I am learning the best I know how while keeping my eyes open.

Jeff, if you don't modify your approach to blogging, not many people will read and discuss ideas with you.

By the way I like the pictures of your area.

Dave Miller said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Jeff,

Thessalonians is talking about the end times, would you agree? And you have indicated that you are a preterist, have you not? Then the question about what things you take literally and what you don't is exactly on topic and has direct bearing on your hermeneutic.

So tell me, why do you believe the part of end-times prophecy that speaks of the destruction of the Temple would be literal, visible, and physical, but nothing else? Please don't be evasive like some other people here have been.

Besides, since you asked me to explain the connection between soteriology and eschatology, which isn't a direct topic of Thess. either, I don't think my question is out of line, and I'd be happy to discuss it after you explain why only one piece of end-times prophecy would be literal.

John Wylie said...

One of the keys to refuting preterism is found in the dating of the book of revelation.

Dr. Mark Hitchcock has written a wonderful treatise on that for his PHD requirements at Dallas Theo. Seminary. In it he presents the evidence that revaltion was not penned by John until after 90 a.d. (BTW this is the majority position of all Christian scholars) If this is true it effectively refutes the preterist view.

As far as my beliefs concerning this I would pose one argument from the Scripture: Mat 24:21 "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." Mar 13:19 "For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be." As bad as the 70 a.d.fall of Jerusalem was it can not be characterized as the worst period of time in history. Not even in Jewish history.

John Wylie said...

As far as one poster's rather arbitrary comment about dispensational premillennialism being "wrong period". The truth is he mischaracterized the dp position. The comment about the seven churches of asia minor being regarded as symbolic is true of some in the dispensational camp cetainly not all. This has been an ongoing debate in the dp camp.

As far as the numerology issue is concerned the pat answer of "oh that's symbolic language" to arbitrarily dismiss others is laughable. Symbols must symbolize something otherwise they have no meaning. The whole apocalyptic language argument is code for they don't know what it means. To act as though the premils are foolish to believe in a 1000 year reign of Christ on the earth is unfathomable since that is exactly what Rev. 20 says. I know alot of scholarly men who hold the dp postion. Deal with thier arguments but don't just dismiss them as though they don't belong in the debate.

Anonymous said...

John Wylie, you took the words right out of my mouth. I have already prepared similar words for Jeff in his blog, where he has invited us to continue the discussion, since he demands we read what he has written elsewhere while flatly refusing to return the favor when one of us links to an off-site article. But I will hold him to questions he has yet to address before answering any more of his.

Jeff Rogers said...

Anonymous said...

"Thessalonians is talking about the end times, would you agree? And you have indicated that you are a preterist, have you not? Then the question about what things you take literally and what you don't is exactly on topic and has direct bearing on your hermeneutic."

Here again you assume that you know what I believe before you have asked me and before you have read anything I have written. Again, I recommend that you spend time reading what is on my blog and take up your disagreements THERE not here on Wades forum.

You make a blanket Generalization about assuming that "Thessalonians is about the end times". Then you make the presumptuous leap and assume I agree with your blanket statement, and then you convict me of all manner of alien doctrine using your assumptions and presumptions. Please stop this. it does not contribute to the conversation at all. If you do not know what I believe, ask me or go read my blog. I will be very clear about what I believe, you do not need to guess or assume.

I do not believe that Thessalonians is about the "End Times" as you put it. Reason number one is because you have not defined your terms. And I cannot find the term "End Times" in the bible. This is a theological term invented and used by dispensationalists to further their futuristic system. The bible no where talks about the "End Times".

What the bible DOES talk about is "The Time of the END". There is a big difference. The specific language of the New Testament writers should not be rearranged by modern theologians to fit their theological system. The Time of the end begs the question...the end of what? Is it the end of the world? Clearly NOT...for Paul in Ephesians 3:21 uses this language that clearly contradicts a world ending view. "Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, WORLD WITHOUT END. Amen.
Ecclesiastes 1:4 says...
"One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: BUT THE EARTH ABIDES FOR EVER.

If there was an end of time or an end of the world clearly this is in contradiction with these two passages and there are at least a dozen more.

So then what is the "Time of the End" It is the time of the END OF THE AGE. Most "End of the World" passages that seem to confuse dispensationalism do not use the word Cosmos at all they use the Greek word Aion, which means "AGE". So what the New Testament authors are writing about is the "End of the Age". You have to ask, which "AGE" is spoken of as coming to an END. It has to be the Jewish Age, or the Age of the Mosaic Covenant, which verily came to an end in the first century. Paul wrote about it passing away in his day and it did indeed pass away in 70 A.D. completely.

It cannot in any way refer to the current church age for Isaiah says that of the increase of his kingdom (of which we are a part) there shall be NO END. In Hebrews 13 he refers to the Covenant that Christ established in his blood (of which we are partakers) as the "Eternal Covenant". So there is NO WAY to claim that the Church or the New Covenant age will end as it is declared as "Endless"

So if you want to talk about the end of the Age, or the "Time of the End", let's talk. But I have nothing to say about a fictitious "end of time" or "The End Times" which the bible NEVER even mentions.

Jeff

Jeff Rogers said...

Anonymous goes on to say...

"why do you believe the part of end-times prophecy that speaks of the destruction of the Temple would be literal, visible, and physical, but nothing else? Please don't be evasive like some other people here have been."

Again you use a non-biblical term, "End-Times" I will assume...mayb e I am wrong, but I will assume for the sake of discussion that you mean the "time of the end of the old covenant age".

You accuse me of seeing ONLY the destruction of the temple as literal visible and physical. I gave you a list earlier in this discussion of 101 time statements all of which I take literally, so if you want to tear apart my literal interpretations, I suggest you start there. We can discuss 101 actual texts of scripture, instead of what you assume I think.

One of them quotes John the Baptist as using an allegorical expression to illustrate the LITERAL time frame of the destruction of the nation of Israel. "The Axe is ALREADY laid to the root of the tree." ALREADY...in the first century when John spoke those words. I take them literally. Why is it you refuse to take these 1010 passages as literal.

Lets examine your failure to take literal the plain language of scripture and then we can move back to my view of Thessalonians...which is NOT about the "End Times" (Sic)

Jeff Rogers

Tim Marsh said...

Apocalyptic Numerology:

3: The Spirit world/heavenly realm (Good or evil)
4: The Created Order
7: Completion
10: Inclusiveness
12: The people of God
3 and 1/2: A short, temporary period
666: Is not an apocalyptic number but the sum total of the value of the Aramaic Characters in the name Neron Caesar. The variant, 616, is Nero Caesar, the name without the final 'n'

Other examples of the use of numerology come in Revelation 4, where the worship of God from the four living creatures (the entire creation) is giving God three attributes (it is taking place in heaven), whereas the worship of the 24 elders (a multiple of 12, representing God's people) gives four attributes to God.

Revelation 5, the lamb ransoms people from every "tribe and language and people and nation" (four: people from all creation).

Seven spirits (The holy Spirit)

Yes, the numbers are symbolic, but they represent something meaningful in recalling apocalyptic imagery.

They are not values to be assigned. Furthermore, Revelation is seven visions that are not necessarily sequential. It is no accident that seven churches receive Revelation as a letter, but they receive the letter in order of their geographic location.

I have given a bibliography of many, not all, of my sources. Don't debate me, debate them.

Finally, what makes you all assume that Revelation is a seven-year detailed plan of the events of the last days? What are your assumptions? It is not phrases and verses we need to discuss, but the big picture of your assumptions about why God would give something to the First Century world that had no bearing on their situation.

Why do you assume that "prophecy" means future predictions, rather than the proclamation of the word of God?

Please, give me insight into this...

Jeff Rogers said...

Anonymous Said...

"I have already prepared similar words for Jeff in his blog, where he has invited us to continue the discussion, since he demands we read what he has written elsewhere while flatly refusing to return the favor when one of us links to an off-site article. "

Now we degenerate to false accusations?? I have never said I would not read the article you linked to I DID READ CAMPBELLS ARTICLE...If you scroll back and read my response, I clearly stated that I was not here to debate your favorite theologian, I was here to discuss the scripture with you...unless you happen to be Campbell. Then I went on to explain how I spent 15 years as a convinced (Deluded more like) dispensational futurist and have read over 3/4 of what Campbell, your hero, recommended in his article. I quote that below.

Jeff Said...
"I have read over 3/4's of this list. I too could give you a list of opposing theologians who I would prefer, but you might not have time to read them, nor would I expect you to. But if your mind is open to hear what I believe, I would love to recommend some reading along the lines of reasonable preterists."

"I spent 15 years as a convinced dispensational futurists and I am very familiar with these authors theologians and their arguments. But I would rather not have a drawn out debate on Wades forum. It is his forum not mine. But please pose your first affirmative for your case on my blog and I will engage."

So, Anon...If you would like to have a productive discussion about this, let's do that, propose a scriptural position and provide the texts to support it and we will discuss it. That is what I am trying to do. But if you think you are going to beat me into agreement by false representation and name calling, and lying about what I have said...I will not be participating. Please choose.

So, Please show me where I have...In your words, "flatly refusing to return the favor (of reading your article) when one of us links to an off-site article."

This is blatantly false and your misrepresentation of me is uncalled for. What I clearly said was that I would NOT DEBATE your article, I did in fact read it...I would however be glad to debate YOU. If YOU are up to it sans name calling and misrepresenting me.

Jeff Rogers

Jeff Rogers said...

Anonymous...you said that I had demanded that you read my blog posts...

Your exact quote
"since he demands we read what he has written elsewhere"

Again this is a misrepresentation. I encouraged you to read what I wrote so that you would stop assuming that you knew what I believe. I can tell that you know something of preterism, but just like dispensationalism it is not a homogeneous system where every dispensationalist dots the same 'I's and crosses the same 'T's. If you have heard that one preterist believes A-B-and-C...don't assume I believe exactly that. Ask me what I believe, or read what I have wrote, and then you can have the confidence to quote me and accuse me accurately. But just because R.C. Sproul (A partial preterist) believes one way....does not mean I agree with him, or any number of other Preterists and partial preterists.

Jeff

Anonymous said...

No Jeff, my "accusations" are true. You brushed off the link and then told us we'd have to read your stuff, as if you have some version of Preterism we've never heard before. And here's a false accusation of your own:

"I clearly stated that I was not here to debate your favorite theologian"

MY FAVORITE THEOLOGIAN, Jeff? Where did you get that? I found the article a few days before in a search online. I never heard of the guy before. You also use words like "deluded" to describe your former beliefs, which means any still holding to them must also be "deluded".

Want "a productive discussion", Jeff? Then get off your high horse and just answer the simple questions put to you. No more diversions, Jeff.

Jeff Rogers said...

John Wylie said...

"As far as my beliefs concerning this I would pose one argument from the Scripture: Mat 24:21 "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." Mar 13:19 "For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be." As bad as the 70 a.d.fall of Jerusalem was it can not be characterized as the worst period of time in history. Not even in Jewish history."

The destruction of Jerusalem and over 1.1 million Jews by the Roman army represent the worst disaster in the history of the Jewish nation precisely because it was exactly that...It was the Final judgment and destruction of that nation. They ceased to be a nation at that time. No worse result has ever or will ever occur to THAT nation for THAT nation was utterly destroyed just as Moses promised in Deuteronomy. God told the Nation as they came out of Egypt that if they did not keep his covenant, they would be destroyed. Guess what...The rejection of their messiah was the ultimate rejection of God and his covenant. And So God kept his word...and he destroyed them.

You cannot get any worse result than utter destruction.

So indeed AD 70 fulfills the description of Matt 24:21 to A "TEE" "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."

Jeff

Anonymous said...

On what basis do you assert that the reference to destruction that would never be surpassed must be restricted to Israel?

Jeff Rogers said...

Anon..Yes, I believe that dispensationalists (or Darbyites) are deluded. They have bought into a man made theological system and they cannot see past it. I am being honest. I am not trying to call you names...just describe a system that is snti-biblical and anti-gospel. If you want evidence I will provide it. but you really do not want evidence...you want to pontificate.

But nonetheless I will provide evidence of Dispensationalism's Anti-gospel teaching...But you won't read it I am sure. It would be easier if you read it on my blog as it is probably too big for a post here.

http://prosthero.blogspot.com/2010/05/dispensational-dilemma.html


Dispensational Dilemma

Jeff Rogers said...

Anon...I see Israel depicted in Matt 24 because the context from verse 15 Where Jesus says that this prophecy concerns the prophecy made by Daniel which was made to Daniels People and their city Jerusalem...If you would read Daniel 9 you would see that.

From verse one of the chapter it deals with the temple. This would be the Jewish temple...not the gentile one...Oh wait...there Never was a gentile temple... I guess it does deal with Israel. The entire chapter of Matt 24 is dealing with Israel as a nation. And it follows on the indictment that Jesus made to the scribes and pharisees in chapter 23 ...at least 7 times he pronounces a curse on the nation of Israel and their leaders...using the word "WOE"

It clearly is dealing with Israels national judgment and final destruction. There is no textual evidence to show that it is speaking to a gentile audience at all.

Jeff Rogers said...

Here is the summary statement from my article showing the problem that dispensationalism has with the Gospel. I recommend the entire article...but if that is too much, at least read the summary.

***************************

Here is what Dispensationalism actually does.
--Dispensationalism would replace the spiritual temple as the body of Christ, with a physical edifice.
--Dispensationalism would replace the spiritual priesthood of all believers, with the Levitical/Zadokite priesthood.
--Dispensationalism would replace equality in Christ, with the Jew/Gentile discriminatory practices.
--Dispensationalism would replace the spiritual circumcision of the heart, with physical circumcision.
--Dispensationalism would replace the atonement of Christ with the offering of bulls and goats for atonement.


In order to have the millennium as described by dispensationalism you have to overthrow, abrogate, abolish the gospel of Jesus Christ. The eternal gospel of grace through the blood of Christ has to be thrown out in order to establish the dispensational idea of a literal millennium. If a person loves the gospel, how can they in good conscience believe such a Christ dishonoring view of a time when the gospel is to be trashed?

************************

Again the link to the entire article.

http://prosthero.blogspot.com/2010/05/dispensational-dilemma.html

Anonymous said...

Jeff said: "Anon..Yes, I believe that dispensationalists (or Darbyites) are deluded. They have bought into a man made theological system and they cannot see past it. I am being honest. I am not trying to call you names...just describe a system that is snti-biblical and anti-gospel. If you want evidence I will provide it. but you really do not want evidence...you want to pontificate."

So you can judge me as not wanting evidence, but I can't say what you've already made very clear about your Preterism? You can say all dispies are deluded, but somehow this isn't calling me deluded? And blind, being a dispy as I am? What point is there in trying to have a conversation with you?

The problem is that your line between literal and figurative is all over the map; somehow Jesus was being literal when he said "this generation" but not when he said that disaster would come upon the whole world, with signs in the sky etc.; the destruction of the JEWISH temple was literal and visible but not the resurrection of "multitudes"; I could go on.

Jeff, you "pontificate" with the best (or worst) of them, you disparage people as deluded and blind (you did specify the PEOPLE who believe dispy), you do everything you say we do. Clearly your mind is made up, so I won't bother your comfort zone anymore.

Anonymous said...

An article exposing more of Preterism's inconsistencies regarding Bible prophecy:

http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/eschatology/preter.htm

Jeff Rogers said...

Luke 2:1 "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed."

Here the word World clearly has a limited application. Unless you believe that the Roman government was actually taxing the American natives, Chinese and Japanese as well as all those in the "KNOWN" world of the Jews of that day.

And so it is this limited usage that occurred in 70 A.D. the "World of the Jews" was destroyed. This is a literal rendering of the limited usage of the word "World"

As for dispensationalists being deluded....I include myself in that assessment. If I did not think that the system deluded its adherents I would not have abandoned it. Would you have a conversation with a Mormon and tell them that they are not deluded? You would have to lie to them to do so. There are many positions I once held and based on seeing the scripture I have abandoned those positions...I have had to make a judgment...that my previous position was "wrong" or "In Error". I was Deluded by the dispensational system.

I also believe Arminians are wrong, confused and or deluded. You also hold this view of people who do not believe as you do...So why not be honest about it.


In the fourth post of this very string HMJ stated the following...

"Preterism is a false doctrine that underminds the urgency of the gospel, and the truth of the scriptures."

So my position has come under the same scrutiny and blanket statements from the very beginning of the discussion.

Difference is, I am providing scriptural evidence to show that dispensationalism is false.

If you are so open minded, go read what I have written in that regard. and then we can talk. Let's at least be honest. I think you are wrong, you think I am wrong. There are many words in the arsenal to choose from to describe that belief that the other is wrong. I used the word Deluded because you had already used it...And I felt that when I was in that system I had been deluded.

So get over yourself and either read what I wrote and show me where I am wrong or deluded...or go on in your own delusion.

Jeff Rogers said...

Through and under the gospel we are saved by grace through faith, not by Law.

Ephesians 2:8-9 “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”
Galatians 2:16 “Knowing that a man is NOT justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”
Galatians 3:11 “But that NO MAN is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.”

Through and under the gospel men worship Christ in Spirit and in Truth and are not limited or mandated to worship at a specific geographic location or building.

John 4:20-24 “Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”
1 Corinthians 3:16 “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?”
1 Corinthians 3:17 “If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.”
1 Corinthians 6:19 “What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?”
2 Corinthians 6:16 “And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.”
Ephesians 2:21-22 “In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.”

Continued...

Jeff Rogers said...

Continued

Through and under the gospel man is free from the restrictions of the Old Law and being judged in regard to meat, drink, new moons, feast days, and the observance of days, weeks, months and years Colossians 2).

Galatians 2:16 “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”
Galatians 2:19 “For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.”
Galatians 3:11 “But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.”
Colossians 2:16-17, and 20-23 “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.”

Continued...

Jeff Rogers said...

Continued...

Through and under the gospel the law of circumcision as a characteristic identifying mark of the child of God is removed, for we receive the circumcision of the heart, a circumcision not made with hands, in faith and baptism (Galatians 6 Colossians 2:11-12)

Galatians 5:2-6 “Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you NOTHING. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.”
Galatians 6:12-16 “As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh. But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.”
Colossians 2:11-13 “In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;”

Continued...

Anonymous said...


If you are so open minded, go read what I have written ...I used the word Deluded because you had already used it...And I felt that when I was in that system I had been deluded.

So get over yourself and either read what I wrote and show me where I am wrong or deluded...or go on in your own delusion.


1- I did read it. I read it just as surely as you read the linked article.

2- I NEVER used the word 'deluded'. And do you actually think it's okay for you to call names as long as somebody else did? Nice. But at least you admit you called names.

3- Get over your own self. Jeff. And showing you where you're wrong hasn't made a dent in your tightly-closed mind.

4- Go on in your own delusion, Jeff.

5- Better yet, just go. :-P

Jeff Rogers said...

Continued...

Through and under the gospel all believers are priests unto God, to offer up spiritual sacrifices.

Matthew 27:51 “At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split.”
Hebrews 10:19 “Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,”
Hebrews 13:15 “By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.”
1 Timothy 2:5 “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,”
1 Peter 2:5-9 “But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light"
1 Peter 2:5 “you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.”
Revelation 1:6 “And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.”
Revelation 5:10 “And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.”

Through and under the gospel, because we have the forgiveness of sin, animal sacrifices have been abolished because, “where there is remission of sin, there is no more sacrifice for sin”

Hebrews 10:16-18 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. “

Through and under the gospel, we memorialize the deliverance from sin and death through his sacrifice, in our Communion Supper. The Communion Supper is the memorial of deliverance. It is not “for atonement,” but a celebration of atonement.

1 Corinthians 11:24-25 “And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.”

Continued....

Anonymous said...

Ha!

Jeff writes post after book-length post and then says others should get over themselves!

Priceless.

Jeff Rogers said...

Continued...

But look at the contrast between what we now have in the Gospel through Christ and what the teaching of premillennium dispensationalism says will occur during the 1000 year millennium.

--Now, in Christ, under the gospel, there is no geo-centric pilgrimage worship, but then, in the millennium, geo-centric, pilgrimage worship will be restored (Ezekiel 43-44).

--Now, in Christ, under the gospel, there is no Temple worship mandated, for the church is the Temple of God, but then, in the millennium, under the Jeremiad covenant, Temple worship will be restored.

--Now, in Christ, under the gospel, there is no genealogically based priesthood, with exclusive rights to offer liturgical sacrifices, but then, in the millennium, under the Jeremiad covenant, the Levitical, exclusionary, genealogically based priesthood will be restored.

--Now, in Christ, under the gospel, there is no animal sacrifice, since Christ’s blood has brought remission of sin, but, then, in the millennium, under the Jeremiad covenant, animal sacrifices will be offered “for atonement.”

--Now, in Christ, under the gospel, there is no mandate to observe new moons, feast days, and Sabbaths, but then, in the millennium, under the Jeremiad covenant, all men will be required to observe the feast days, new moons and Sabbaths.

--Now, in Christ, under the gospel, there is no Jew and Gentile distinction, but then, in the millennium, under the Jeremiad covenant, Jew and Gentile distinctions will be restored.

--Now, in Christ, under the gospel, there is no theologically mandated practice of physical circumcision, but then, in the millennium, under the Jeremiad covenant, physical circumcision will once again be mandated by God (Ezekiel 44:9).

Continued....

Anonymous said...


If you are so open minded, go read what I have written ...I used the word Deluded because you had already used it...And I felt that when I was in that system I had been deluded.

So get over yourself and either read what I wrote and show me where I am wrong or deluded...or go on in your own delusion.


1- I did read it. I read it just as surely as you read the linked article.

2- I NEVER used the word 'deluded'. And do you actually think it's okay for you to call names as long as somebody else did? Nice. But at least you admit you called names.

3- Get over your own self. Jeff. And showing you where you're wrong hasn't made a dent in your tightly-closed mind.

4- Go on in your own delusion, Jeff.

5- Better yet, just go. :-P

Jeff Rogers said...

Last part.

-Now, in Christ, under the gospel, there is no theologically mandated practice of physical circumcision, but then, in the millennium, under the Jeremiad covenant, physical circumcision will once again be mandated by God (Ezekiel 44:9).

Here is what Dispensationalism actually does.
--Dispensationalism would replace the spiritual temple as the body of Christ, with a physical edifice.
--Dispensationalism would replace the spiritual priesthood of all believers, with the Levitical/Zadokite priesthood.
--Dispensationalism would replace equality in Christ, with the Jew/Gentile discriminatory practices.
--Dispensationalism would replace the spiritual circumcision of the heart, with physical circumcision.
--Dispensationalism would replace the atonement of Christ with the offering of bulls and goats for atonement.

Is dispensationalism the insistence on a literal millennium after the character that they are teaching actually undermines the gospel?

In order to have the millennium as described by dispensationalism you have to overthrow, abrogate, abolish the gospel of Jesus Christ. The eternal gospel of grace through the blood of Christ has to be thrown out in order to establish the dispensational idea of a literal millennium. If a person loves the gospel, how can they in good conscience believe such a Christ dishonoring view of a time when the gospel is trashed?
I think it is time to ask, who is it that teaches a dangerous replacement theology?

End

Jeff Rogers said...

Anon...I was making the point that we both think the other is wrong...and my first use of the word "Deluded" was to describe myself when I believed dispensationalism.

YOU applied it to yourself...not me.

But since you did apply it to yourself being a dispensationalist... I was at least honest enough to agree with you.

You also believe I am deluded...the difference is that I am being honest with the language.

And yes I DID READ THE ARTICLE YOU POSTED BY CAMPBELL.

No amount of accusing me that I did not will not make it true.

But if you really did read what I wrote about dispensationalism, I posted all of it for your sake...Then tell me where I have misrepresented the Dispensational teaching.

I will wait.

Anonymous said...

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff... denial ain't just a river in Egypt. Anybody can read the thread and see what you said.

Jeff Rogers said...

Anon...Read on....I encourage all to read all posts in their entirety.

But you still have not showed me where I have misrepresented Dispensationalism.

If I in fact have not misrepresented it, then it will be proven that it is a perverse anti-gospel and deluding teaching.

So, I still wait...Where have I misrepresented Dispensationalism?

Richard said...

Jeff Rogers,

Your equation of reward and gift is a clear case of your calvinism has murdered language and meaning.

Calvinists have been known to equate rewards = gift; and gift = reward.

WAGES/REWARD IS NOT A GIFT
A GIFT IS NOT A REWARD

You said there is NO reward. Jesus speaks of rewards IN heaven produced by suffering service (WORKS).

Jesus speaks of reward IN heaven for MAN'S WORKS (with enablement of course--but MAN'S WORKS nevertheless).

Your holy nonsense [equating wage with gift] language is against Jesus & the Scriptures.

11"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." Mt 5:11-12

Jeff, heaven is NOT a reward. Heaven is a GIFT.

So there is no rewards OF heaven. But there ARE rewards IN heaven.

HEAVEN IS A GIFT, NOT A REWARD.

4Now when a man WORKS, his WAGES are NOT credited to him as A GIFT, but as an obligation. 5However, to the man who does NOT WORK but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. Romans 4:4-5.

Jeff, just drop the holy nonsense language of heaven as our reward--or reward for Christ's works. Because the Scriptures talk of rewards IN heaven.

REWARD [MISTOS] is totally different from gift [charis].

Rev 14:13Then I heard a voice from heaven say, "Write: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on."
"Yes," says the Spirit, "they will rest from their labor, for their deeds will follow them." MAN'S WORKS WILL BE REWARDED IN HEAVEN.

Heaven is a GIFT, NOT a REWARD
Rewards are EARNED
Heaven is NOT EARNED, it is a GIFT.

Faith is Sole Condition of Receiving Salvation. Faithfulness is Work. Hence, Faithfulness/Work is NOT a condition of receiving Salvation. BUT . . .

Works ARE necessary for rewards IN heaven.

The OPPORTUNITY to earn rewards is a POLICY OF GRACE

The PROMISE of rewards is given by GRACE.

But REWARDS ARE GIVEN TO WORKS NOT TO GRACE--REWARDS ARE NOT GIVEN TO THE POLICY--REWARDS ARE GIVEN TO MEN WHO WORK ACC TO THE POLICY.

Luke 6:35But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your REWARD will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.

God Rewards Faithfulness
Faithfulness are Works
Hence, GOD REWARDS WORKS!

John 12:26b, "My Father will honor the one who serves me." It is not God honors God's works--it is God honors THE ONE WHO WORKS. 1Pet2:20b But if YOU suffer for doing good [WORKS]and YOU endure it, this is commendable before God.

Jeff, your calvinism keeps your from reading the Scriptures objectively.

My suggestion to you, just try to read the Word. Forget your calvinism for awhile or better altogether. It hurts you actually--both spiritually and theologically.

Richard said...

Jeff Rogers,

Your equation of reward and gift is a clear case of your calvinism murdering language and destroying meaning.

Calvinists have been known to equate rewards = gift; and gift = reward.

WAGES/REWARD IS NOT A GIFT
A GIFT IS NOT A REWARD

You said there is NO reward. Jesus speaks of rewards IN heaven produced by suffering service (WORKS).

Jesus speaks of reward IN heaven for MAN'S WORKS (with enablement of course--but MAN'S WORKS nevertheless).

Your holy nonsense [equating wage with gift] language is against Jesus & the Scriptures.

12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your REWARD IN HEAVEN, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." Mt 5:11-12

Jeff, heaven is NOT a reward. Heaven is a GIFT.

So there is NO rewards OF heaven. But there ARE rewards IN heaven.

HEAVEN IS A GIFT, NOT A REWARD.

4Now when a man WORKS, his WAGES are NOT credited to him as A GIFT, but as an obligation. Romans 4:4-5.

Jeff, just drop the holy nonsense language of heaven as our reward--or reward for Christ's works.

REWARD [MISTOS] is totally different from gift [charis].

Rev 14:13Blessed are the dead . . . for their deeds will follow them." MAN'S WORKS WILL BE REWARDED IN HEAVEN.

Heaven is a GIFT, NOT a REWARD
Rewards are EARNED
Heaven is NOT EARNED, it is a GIFT.

Faith is Sole Condition of Receiving Salvation. Faithfulness is Work. Hence, Faithfulness/Work is NOT a condition of receiving Salvation. BUT . . .

Works ARE necessary for rewards IN heaven.

The OPPORTUNITY to earn rewards is a POLICY OF GRACE

The PROMISE of rewards is given by GRACE.

But REWARDS ARE GIVEN TO WORKS NOT TO GRACE--REWARDS ARE NOT GIVEN TO THE POLICY--REWARDS ARE GIVEN TO MEN WHO WORK ACC TO THE POLICY.

Luke 6:35But love your enemies, do good to them . . . Then your REWARD will be great . . .

God Rewards Faithfulness
Faithfulness are Works
Hence, GOD REWARDS WORKS!

John 12:26b, "My Father will honor the one who serves me." It is not God honors God's works--it is God honors THE ONE WHO WORKS. 1Pet2:20b But if YOU suffer for doing good [WORKS]and YOU endure it, this is commendable before God.

Jeff, your calvinism keeps your from reading the Scriptures objectively.

My suggestion to you, just try to read the Word. Forget your calvinism for awhile or better altogether. It hurts you actually--both spiritually and theologically.

Jeff Rogers said...

Anon,
Thank you for the article.

I have known Fred Zaspel for over 12 years, and I have known his dad Dr. James Zaspel for over 28 years, and I am well familiar with his "Already Not Yet" position. I have read that article in the past.

I like Fred and I am in the same NCT camp as both Fred and John Riesinger. We have talked face to face about the subject of eschatology, Preterism, and the Already Not Yet ("ANY") at length. But again, thank you for the article.

While Fred makes some very good points the use of double fulfillment by the "ANY" camp, I believe removes any credibility to his position.

It was John Owen who said that if the scripture has more than one meaning, it has NO meaning.

Who is to arbitrate which meaning to use? If there are two meanings, why can't there be three, or four, or ten, or fifty?

Where does it end?

The double meaning of scripture school of thought has been utterly discredited by theologians for centuries. If there is more than one meaning, then wouldn't there be room for the Mormons to be correct and the Catholics, and the JW's?

Any cult would be able to justify their theology given enough lee-way (SP) in the school of double meaning and double fulfillment. The scripture has but one meaning...perhaps a multiplicity of application, but ONLY ONE meaning.

And it is the meaning that was understood by the first century audience...and no other. If we neglect the original audience context and relevance we will never arrive at the actual meaning of the text.

But that takes us back to Wade's original post...How exactly did Peter and John understand Jesus when he gave them the time reference of "Shortly".

Still dispensationalism has no answer and must live with a contradiction here.

Jeff Rogers

Jeff Rogers said...

Richard,
Please quit while you are way behind. You have so badly misrepresented what I believe I hardly know where to start.

Let me summarize...I am not waiting for any reward...I have my reward.

My reward is Christ.

All other things regardless of what you want to call them, "rewards", "Gifts" etc. Fall under the heading of inheritance. I am a co-heir with Christ, SO...ANYTHING that Christ has earned based on his works and obedience is MINE by way of imputation.

For me to claim ANYTHING based upon my work is to boast that my work is somehow better than that of Christ's. I cannot go there.

If Christ's work was insufficient to provide my reward-gift et. al. then I am not entitled to it.

What the bible says about my works are that they are as filthy rags.

And that even if I have been perfectly obedient doing all I am required I am no more than an unprofitable servant.

Any reward/gift is all a result of grace. If a person thinks he has earned something outside of the merit of Christ alone that person is deceived.

ALL of the blessings rewards gifts inheritance etc are based on Christ's work and his alone.

Please do not try to characterize my thoughts outside of those parameters.

Thank you!!

Jeff Rogers

James Gibson said...

Richard,

I spent half a lifetime opposing the the World Council of Churches. Their "eschatology" is really utopianism, and not at all connected with sound theology, doctrine, or biblical interpretation. I'd rather you continue to mistake for a Calvinist than an oldline liberal.

Richard said...

Jeff Rogers,

You can continue to affirm calvinism, but it is exactly what I was saying: it is a holy nonsense--you can parrot theology as much as you want to; but it is a clear denying of explicit Scriptures (as I pointed out some of them).

Jeff, why should you let calvinism swallowed Scriptures.

I would suggest to you again: drop your calvinism for sometime and just read the Bible. Let us say for a year or so. How if you were deceived by calvinism?

You are dishonoring Christ by denying Him saying there are "REWARDS IN HEAVEN" to the ONES WHO WORK--DOING GOOD AFTER SALVATION FREE GIFT.

John Wylie said...

First of all 70 a.d. was not the end of Israel. The idea that Israel being restored as a nation in 1948 being insignificant is ludicrous. God is going to save a remnant in national Israel. Rom 11:25-26 "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:" BTW there were over 6 million Jews killed in the holocaust trumping 70 a.d. by a long shot for the worst period in their history. Further, they had lost their national identity before, temple was destroyed, a like number killed, starvation, mothers eating their children. The idea that 70 a.d. fits the bill to a "tee" is not tenable.

Also, the vast majority of Christian scholars date Revelation in the 90's a.d. Mark Hitchcock made a powerful argument for the late dating of Revelation. If that is so preterism is dead in the water.

John Wylie said...

First of all 70 a.d. was not the end of Israel. The idea that Israel being restored as a nation in 1948 being insignificant is ludicrous. God is going to save a remnant in national Israel. Rom 11:25-26 "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:" BTW there were over 6 million Jews killed in the holocaust trumping 70 a.d. by a long shot for the worst period in their history. Further, they had lost their national identity before, temple was destroyed, a like number killed, starvation, mothers eating their children. The idea that 70 a.d. fits the bill to a "tee" is not tenable.

Also, the vast majority of Christian scholars date Revelation in the 90's a.d. Mark Hitchcock made a powerful argument for the late dating of Revelation. If that is so preterism is dead in the water.

John Wylie said...

P.S. Sorry about the dual posting I messed up. I guess Wade would have to take it off?

Also, I want to tell everyone is this discussion that it is not my intention to disrespect anyone. Please don't mistake my passion for sarcasm. Thanks

Richard said...

What do you think of the following comparisons?

I started to feel that preterism is anti prophecy, anti Israel and anti eschatology wearing the cloak of spiritual reading of prophecy and Israel. It is the conservative side of liberalism eschatology.

It is the same sceptical attitude to prophecy--actually it is a rejection of the prophetical books of Daniel, Revelation, etc.

For liberalism it is realized eschatology. The same with preterism.

The end results of these positions are the same: spiritual and moral lessons in symbolic language [nothing pertaining to Israel and the future]. All being realized today.

Don't you see the red thread of realized eschatology from Augustine to Catholic view of Church/Kingdom to Calvin & Luther's eschatology?

Have you all read Luther's hatred of and his demonization of Israel? The subtle anti Semitism inherent in preterism is well documented.

Anonymous said...

Christian's are worse, much worse, than the world for letting discussions go to pot. This exchange started so well and I enjoyed reading both sides and all opinions.

Then the name calling and theology bashing started.

By both sides.

Why does everyone think they are so right? Especially when the chances are good that they are NOT right. And the chances are 100% absolute that they are NOT right about everything.

What a shame.

Richard - You are not the only one for sure, but because your comments have gone from being a good exchange into a pathetic display of christian charity toward someone who disagrees with you, you are most certainly NOT interested in this tidbit.

But your depiction of Calvinism sounds like it is for idiots only and I assume you know that you are making them on the blog of someone who holds to those doctrines.

And I am one of 10's of thousands (or more) who do not think that Wade is an idiot.

Good grief this is ridiculous. And I know I'm right about that.

Anonymous said...

Richard, I think your comparisons are excellent. Many do not see how this allegorization of scripture undermines its divine authority and reduces the Bible to just another religious book about the struggle between good and evil. If the OT saints had the same opinion of prophecy as that advocated by Preterism, they'd never have looked for a literal Messiah, a literal restored Temple, a literal kingdom of God, a literal re-establishment of Israel, or pretty much anything else. Anybody can write a book on ethics and create stories that inspire. But it takes God to "declare the end from the beginning, from ancient times what is still to come".

James Gibson said...

Richard,

If you intend to disqualify Augustine, Luther, and Calvin as credible sources for eschatology, then you are pretty much wiping out some 1500 years of Christian teaching on the subject. Sorry, but I don't think the church was completely in the dark about last things before Darby and Scofield came along with their novel interpretations of biblical prophecy. The whole counsel of the church--East and West, Protestant and Catholic--has always looked toward the future with the sure and certain hope of the final, glorious consummation of the kingdom of God, complete with a new heaven and a new earth. This is not a belief exclusive to pre-millennialism. To reject Augustine, Luther, and Calvin simply because they were a-millennial or post-millennial--and to lump them in with post-war utopian liberalism--is to shut off the conversation before it even gets started.

Richard said...

Mr. Gibson,

Israelology is what distinguishes dispensationalism millennialism and covenant no millennialism.

The exegesis of some texts is NOT the main issue. The ONE PEOPLE of God FRAME is the MAIN issue. And it was planted by St. Augustine (don't forget the reformers were Augustinians).

Covenant theology as the FRAME of calvinistic system allows only ONE PEOPLE OF GOD. That ONE people is the CHURCH.

The Church started either with Adam or Abraham. The church is spiritual Israel--believing Israels are incorporated in this one body.

There is NO future prophecy program for ANOTHER people or nation of Israel. So, the posture regarding Israel is the distinguishing factor of millennialism and no-millenialism.

In THIS sense I said, Luther and Calvin had an inherent anti Semitism in their eschatology. Luther, even demonized the Jews. I agree 100% with Luther's view of justification.

What did Luther say about Israel?

What did Calvin say about Israel?

This is NOT the same as saying anybody is an idiot. I am just pointing out that the rejection of Israel as a NATION/PEOPLE in God's future prophetic program is the other side of the coin of liberals' rejection of prophecy.

Let us continue to discuss specific verses; but don't forget the differing FRAMES.

Anonymous said...

"Sorry, but I don't think the church was completely in the dark about last things before Darby and Scofield came along"

I DO wish you people would stop re-stuffing this old straw man.

Anonymous said...

Hey Jeff...

I looked again to be sure, and sure enough, YOU are the only one who called others 'deluded'. And more than once.

Will you admit you falsely accused me of this? Will you?

James Gibson said...

Richard,

I am not a liberal, and I do not reject prophecy. What I do reject is the dispensational scheme which divides the people of God. That is, I believe, a profoundly conservative reading of Scripture, particularly of passages like Ephesians 2.11-22 in which Paul talks of Christ creating "in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace."

You are correct that "Israelology" is what distinguishes dispensationalism from covenentalism. But it is precisely that distinction which places dispensationalism outside of historic orthodoxy. I realize that doesn't count much in your book, but it should put the discussion in proper perspective. If Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and a myriad of other noted theologians throughout the church's history were covenental in their approach to eschatology, then it is the dispensational position which is the innovation, the "liberal" position, if you will.

Yes, it would be difficult to defend Luther against charges of subtle and not so subtle anti-Semitism. He was also given to over-indulgence of adult beverages. But I could just as easily point out some rather unsavory facts about the founders of dispensationalism if I wanted to go down that road. Aside from Jesus himself, there are ZERO figures in church history who didn't have one quirk or another in their theology or personality (they are, after all, only men). That does not, in and of itself, disqualify them from the discussion or make their positions less valid.

Jeff Rogers said...

Anon...Here is my first use of the word deluded/delusion. It was used in a quote from C.S. Lewis.

I find C.S. Lewis's assessment the thing that should be embarrassed. He is willing to call the Apostles deluded and willing to say that Jesus created that delusion because he is going to hold onto his own scholarship. The bible makes no room for a savior who assisted in deluding His Apostles.

This was not name calling, it was quoting Lewis

Earlier, than this the name calling began with HMS declaring that Preterism is a false doctrine see the post at July 6 12:46.

My next reference to any delusion was to my own. I admitted that I was deluded by the Dispensational system for 15 years.

At this point you began your own name calling, but as slick as you are you have deleted those posts...Good move...remove the evidence.

So where do I stand at this point. I have believed since 1994 that dispensationalism is handmaiden of Arminianism, and that it is a false foundation for eschatology. Those who believe it are either willingly believing a false system or they are deluded. That is they are taken in by the system and its teachers. The whole idea of delusion is that people unknowingly believe something that is not true...But they do not know that it is untrue.

I believe that dispensationalism is false...so what option do I have in viewing people who swallow the system hook line and sinker. I believe they are confused or deluded...by definition I would have to believe that.

Just as you feel preterism is wrong, how would you account for those who believe it? Are we evil?

I do not think dispensationalists are evil.

Are we confused, addled, deluded? If we are wrong, you will have to come to a some conclusion as to why we are wrong. My conclusion about why people believe the false system of dispensationalism is that they are deluded....because that is where I was as a dispensationalist.

So then where do we go from here. I posted extensive biblical reasons why Dispensationalists are wrong, and why the system is anti biblical and anti gospel. I have posted this as evidence that was demanded of me in the course of the discussion/debate. Hence it is incumbent that those who believe in dispensationalism as a biblically sound system show where my arguments are in error.

You have chosen to make an issue about the word delusion. I have already shown that it is a legitimate word...it is now time for you to show where my arguments about dispensationalism are in error.

If you are not willing to do so, then you have in essence conceded the point and we can move on. But if you are willing to post some biblical arguments against my case, I will consider them.

Inkling said...

Sigh. What a depressing comment thread. I tend to disagree with Jeff Rogers' positions, but at least he is discussing the matter with tact and politeness. And on the other side, you have the rude, incoherent rantings of Anonymous and Richard, who seem willfully incapable of understanding the positions they claim to refute. Jeff, thank you for answering my questions. I'll ponder your answers some more and perhaps check out your blog.

Jeff Rogers said...

Anon,
Here is where I first used the term deluded/delusion. It was in quoting C.S. Lewis.


"Say what you like," we shall be told, "the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, 'This generation shall not pass till all these things be done.' And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else."

"It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible."

Essay "The World's Last Night" (1960), found in The Essential C.S. Lewis, p. 385.

I find C.S. Lewis's assessment the thing that should be embarrassed. He is willing to call the Apostles deluded and willing to say that Jesus created that delusion because he is going to hold onto his own scholarship. The bible makes no room for a savior who assisted in deluding His Apostles.


I believe C.S. Lewis is the one who was mistaken and deluded if he thinks that Jesus aided in the delusion of the Apostles.

I also said later that when I adhered to Dispensationalism that I was deluded by that system.

So then you asked if I felt all people were deluded who were dispensationalists? So in trying to be honest...if I in fact admitted that when I believed it, it was due to my own delusion....then I would have to be honest and say that those who still believe it are also deluded.

It is either they are deluded because it is false...or they are purposefully teaching falsehood knowingly. The second option would make them evil. And since I do not want to assume that any of my friends who are dispensational are evil, I choose to believe that in believing this false system they are deluded as was I.

So I do admit to stating that you also may be deluded...Pending your confirmation of your adherence to Dispensationalism. But I cannot say that I have falsely accuses you as I believe the statement is accurate.

Then I went on to outline why dispensationalism is Anti-bible and Anti-gospel, which if this fact is established it would show that those believing it are indeed deluded. And since you have refused to counter my contentions about dispensationalism being anti-biblical and anti-gospel, you then have conceded the point that it is indeed as I have portrayed it.

So if you would like to continue the conversation you would have to now show where my assessment of Dispensationalism is wrong. And if you can show me to my satisfaction from the scripture...then I would indeed owe you an apology for assuming that you and other dispies are deluded. But until you do so, I suppose you will labor in your delusion.

And you might note that the reason I spend so much time like this is to illustrate that you would rather stay in the ad hominem phase of the discussion and not really get to the meat of the scriptural evidence because maybe you are not deluded...maybe you know dispensationalism to be false and you really cannot defend it.

Jeff

Richard said...

Mr. Gibson,

As you know, what the Reformers did in the 1600s--they clarified the gospel and for that we can be very, very thankful, but there’s a lot of stuff that they never dealt with.

They never dealt with eschatology; they never really reformed the Biblical view of the Church.

They simply replaced the Catholic church-state with state churches, wherever they went in Europe.

In the reformation theology, the Kingdom of God and the Church are closely unified and barely kept distinct [Israel swallowed by the Church].

The error of this view is illustrated by Louis Berkhor, for example.

Berkhof does not believe in a literal kingdom, so Christ’s office of kingship must be exercised in some other way.

There are two facets to Christ’s kingship: “the spiritual kingship of Christ” and “the Kingship of Christ over the universe.”

It is the former that most affects his Israelology.

In discussing the nature of the spiritual kingship of Christ, Berkhof defines the spiritual kingship of Christ as Christ’s “royal rule” over “His people” which in turn is defined as “the Church.” This is determined by his one people view (the church started in the garden and Abraham).

He said that Christ’s rule “is established in the hearts and lives of believers.” This anti eschatological spiritualization of the Kingdom is a killer of true eschatology.

I believe in Christ's rule in the hearts; but it does not need to be established by denying a future millennium.

Since Amillennialism denies any literal kingdom on earth over Israel or the world, Christ’s kingship must be “spiritual” and “His people” must refer to the elect, or the Church, and not Israel.

The key problem of amillenialism is its narrowing everything in the Bible to ONE motive, that is soteriological; hence, even the kingship is related “on a spiritual end, the salvation of His people.”

Berkhof claims that Christ’s kingship and kingdom, as he has defined them, are found “in many places” in the Bible.

The passages he cites, especially those of the Old Testament, hardly prove his contention.

Berkhof’s conclusions are not a result of exegesis of these passages, for as they read, and if taken literally, they obviously speak of Messiah’s rule over Israel on earth.

Berkhof [and I deem yours too] must presuppose non millennial theology and then impose it on these passages.

Richard said...

Mr. Gibson,

To make the church started in Genesis is at best a FORCED exegesis in view of Mt16, etc. For example, Berkhof said that the “New Testament Church is essentially one with the Church of the old dispensation.”

It is a position from theology and dogma but not exegesis.

The problem stems from a loaded theological definition of the church. Berkhof defines the Church as: “The Church is essentially... the community of believers, and this community existed from the beginning of the old dispensation right down to the present time and will continue to exist on earth until the end of the world.”

This dogma-based theological definition is refutable.

To affirm the one church since Adam, the non-millennialists must explain away Matthew 16:18, where Jesus said, I will build my church, using a future tense and implying that the Church was not yet in existence.

But as we all know, in many cases, the Bible has been twisted to prove all kinds of errors.

Rex Ray said...

Guys,
I’m afraid you are over my head in a lot of areas as I don’t know many of the words you use.

But I have a question as I’m trying to reply to some statements that may fit in your conversation.

What type of ‘thinking’ would these statements portray?

First statement:
“The Gospel does not burden people with responsibility, but it does demand/offer many responsibilities for response.”

Other statements:
The Gospel does not burden us with responsibility because:
1) It sets us free from slavery to sin, the flesh, and death.
2) It is predicated upon the finished work of Christ.
3) It is not about rules and regulations but relationships (with God and others)
4) We are no longer “enemies and slaves” but “sons and friends.”
5) The HS is present, working, and guiding within believers.

Any replies will be appreciated.
Thanks,
Rex

Anonymous said...

Earth to Jeff: this is from Google about deleting Blogger comments.

You can delete any comment that you create on anyone else's blog, as long as you signed in to your Google Account when you left the comment. You can also delete any comments (registered or anonymous) that are left on your own blog, or on another blog for which you have admin privileges.

To delete a comment, first make sure that you are logged in to the correct Blogger account (administrator of the blog or author of the comment). Then go to the blog and find the page where the comment is listed. Next to the comment, you should see a trash can icon, like this:

Jeff Rogers said...

Anonymous,
So than I understand that you are either unwilling or unable to show me where my understanding of dispensationalism is incorrect?

If you are unwilling to discuss the issue based on the issue then I guess we are done.

Rex Ray said...

Jeff,
If you are done with dispensationalism, would you care to discuss the responsibility of Christians? Or should I say IF Christians have any responsibility as this statement implies:

“The Gospel does not burden people with responsibility, but it does demand/offer many responsibilities for response.”

I believe the statement comes close to being oxymoron with a twist of reasoning. It’s like the boy struggling with a boy on his back saying: “He’s not heavy – he’s my brother.”

On the other hand, I believe the Gospel does burden people with responsibility because Jesus said “For my yoke is easy to bear, and the burden I give you is light.” (Matthew 11:30)

Here is another statement:

“The Gospel does invite a response that includes repentance, commitment, and obligation through relational fidelity and love. But even in that God has shouldered the burden of responsibility to make it available to any and all that are willing to trust in the finished work of Christ.”

Jeff, do the statements in question lean toward Calvinism?

Anonymous said...

Jeff,

1-- You falsely accused me of doing the impossible: deleting my comments in any Blogger site. Admit it if you want to continue.

2-- You keep deleting everything I post at your site. That is not how people have conversations.

3-- Given your acute case of denial, I agree that we're done.

Jeff Rogers said...

Rex, you write of responsibility...
and in doing so you quote Matt 11:28-30. What about Matt 25-27?

I post it here so you do not have to look it up.

"At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him."

It seems that ONLY those to whom Christ has been revealed by the father will see themselves as laboring and wanting rest. It is a sovereign act of God to reveal Jesus in the soul of the elect...and they WILL respond for that is God's will and plan. He will save his people from their sin.

Nobody is capable of coming, so why would you preach responsibility. It is as if I told my son when he was ten years old..."Son, you have a responsibility to OBEY ME...Your Father." Which would be true. Then I told him I demanded of hiim that he Jump from the ground to the Roof of our three story house. His inability to accomplish that which is expected would nullify any responsibility.

So it is with God. We are commanded to come in faith and repentance to Jesus.

But faith and repentance are acts that we as lost corrupt humans are unable to do without the divine enablement of God's Spirit.

The New testament teaches our inability over and over. Jesus told the pharisees that they COULD not come. But God is still just for we are still condemned in Adam. So when God saves a person from their sin and he gives the gifts of faith and repentance, ALL the glory goes to God, for it was not an act of man it was Gods work from start to finish...This is the Gospel. Salvation is of the LORD. Not of man, not of will, not of race or heritage, and not by responsible acts.

So I am at a loss as to how you fit this concept of responsibility into the gospel of Jesus Christ and the work he did on behalf of sinners who were unable and unwilling. God enables and changes the will, and then with the faith of the New creation that God has made in us we freely come. Not out of fear from any failure on our part...but based on God's goodness mercy and grace.

Jeff Rogers

Richard said...

Jeff Rogers,

John 3:16 teaches "whoever' believes in Him may have eternal life [saved]. So is Acts 16:31, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved."

Tell me how come calvinists say just the opposite of the text--that people are saved/born again FIRST then believe LATER as the result?

How come the CONSEQUENCE [SAVED] in the text has been changed by INABILITY THEOLOGY to become CONDITION [believe]?

I read R. C. Sproul, etc. say that people do not believe in order to be saved; but people are saved in order to believe.

Is it possible that TULIP blinds the eyes from seeing simple things in Scripture?

Jeff, can you give an exegesis of John 3:16 WITHOUT jumping all over the Bible? Just THAT text. I would like to see. I feel that somehow TULIP MUST be used to read it. Prove me wrong.

Rex Ray said...

Jeff,
Thanks for the reply. I feel like the old lady thanking the boy for helping her cross the street, and ended saying, “But I didn’t really want to cross the street.”

My goal is not to debate Calvinism. I’ll explain: Last Sunday, our pastor asked the congregation to write his statement (“The Gospel does not burden people with responsibility, but it does demand/offer many responsibilities for response”) and contact him if we had any thoughts on the subject. We exchanged emails and he added five other reasons why the Gospel does not burden Christians with responsibility.

I thought his reasoning leaned toward Calvinism, but he says he does not believe in Calvinism.

I asked for anyone’s thoughts if the quotes leaned toward Calvinism. I’m still asking.

Jeff you asked: “ …so why would you preach responsibility?”

In the first place Jesus does not ask us to do the impossible like you telling your son to jump to the roof, because he said, “…the burden I give you is light”, but he did tell Peter to “feed my sheep.”

What if Peter said, ‘No Lord, that’s responsibility and you told God that you and Him were going to do everything. Feeding sheep might get me killed – I think I’ll just stick to fishing.’

“Sheep” represented all the lost people of the world. The food to feed them was the Gospel. We have a choice of being responsible or not.

Another Scripture “I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; and what-soever thou shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what-soever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:19)

“Keys of the Kingdom” was the Gospel. Acceptance of the Gospel binds on earth and heaven.

I believe too many of us preach against Calvinism but act like Calvinist in shirking responsibility.

Jeff Rogers said...

Rex,
I get the impression that you are mixing two concepts. Obedience and responsibility. I believe that when it comes to the gospel we must differentiate.

You mention Peter and him feeding the sheep. That is obedience, there is some responsibility there, but it is not responsibility in reference to the saving work of the gospel. His responsibility came after he was already born again.

But for salvation how do you hold a dead person responsible. We who were DEAD in trespasses and sins, hath God quickened (That is made alive). The picture of salvation that Paul was depicting in Ephesians 2 was that of a dead man being given new life from a source outside of himself.

This is new covenant salvation. There is no work, no activity, no responsibility. It is all by the sovereign choice and action of God himself

The dead man cannot be held responsible to do that which is impossible for him to do. But once he is quickened, revived, resurrected, regenerated, then and only then can you speak of responsibility.

We do indeed as believers obey. But as lost unregenerate unbelievers we cannot obey nor be held accountable to be responsible to do that which we are incapable of doing.

Jeff Rogers