(Re: Does salvation rely on us believing the right things, instead of on God's sufficient grace?)
God's sufficient grace (2 Corinthians 12:9a) includes His giving His elect people the Bible, which in its entirety is sufficient for them to be able to come into perfect knowledge of, and obedience to, God's doctrine (2 Timothy 3:15-17). After they become Christians, elect individuals have to be diligent to study (2 Timothy 2:15) every word of the Bible for themselves (Matthew 4:4; 2 Timothy 3:16), and to continue to believe everything that it teaches (John 8:31b). If they wrongly employ their free will to not read every word of the Bible, or to not believe everything that it teaches, then God is not going to force them to. For His grace does not take away their free will. Subsequent to their initial salvation, Christians can wrongly employ their free will to reject the Bible's doctrine and follow man-made and demonic fables instead (2 Timothy 4:2-4; 1 Timothy 4:1), to the ultimate loss of their salvation (Hebrews 6:4-8, John 15:6; 2 Timothy 2:12b).
(See Hebrews 6:4 and Romans 9:11 above)
~
(Re: If our salvation depends on our beliefs, then is our salvation no longer based on the Cross but on ourselves?)
It is not either/or, but both/and, for our salvation depends both on the fact that Jesus Christ suffered and died on the Cross for our sins (1 Corinthians 15:3; 1 Peter 3:18) and on our believing to the end (Hebrews 3:6,12,14, Colossians 1:23; 1 Corinthians 15:2) that He did so (Romans 3:25-26). Similarly, our salvation depends both on the fact that Jesus resurrected physically from the dead on the third day (1 Corinthians 15:4,17) and on our believing to the end that He did so (Romans 10:9b). Also, our salvation depends both on the fact that Jesus is the Christ and the human/divine Son of God (Mark 14:61-62) and on our believing to the end that He is (John 20:31, John 3:36; 1 John 2:23).
~
(Re: *Dogma)
Both "dogma" and "doctrine" refer to beliefs, for "doctrine" is defined as: "a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group: [e.g.] the doctrine of predestination" (Oxford English Dictionary).
--
*2 John 1:10 / *2 Jn. 1:10 -
This refers to one's literal house, that is, the literal building which is one's usual dwelling.
--
*3 John 1:11b / *3 Jn. 1:11b -
See 1 John 3:6 above.
--
*Jude 1:1, in the original Greek Textus Receptus, does not mean that elect individuals are sanctified before they are called. Instead, it is simply addressing those individuals who have been both called and sanctified. No one is sanctified in the sense of Hebrews 10:10 until they come into faith in Jesus Christ and His Gospel (Acts 26:18b; 1 Corinthians 6:11; cf. Romans 3:25-26).
~
(Re: "Sanctified" is in the perfect tense)
See the "Sanctified" section of Hebrews 10:10 above.
--
*Jude 1:3 -
(Re: 1 Corinthians 13:10-12)
1 Corinthians 13:10-12 is not referring to the maturity of the Christian faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3) but to the perfect maturity which all obedient Christians will obtain when they will literally see Jesus Christ face to face at His future, Second Coming (1 John 3:2).
--
*Jude 1:5b does not mean that they never believed, but means (by type: 1 Corinthians 10:11-12) that a return to unrepentant disobedience after one is initially saved is equivalent to a return to unbelief. For faith and obedience are as intertwined as a body (faith) and its breathing (obedience) (James 2:26). While you can at one point have a living, breathing body (a saved Christian), you can subsequently have a body which has stopped breathing (stopped being obedient), until you have a dead body (a dead faith which can no longer save from hell ultimately: James 2:14-26).
(See also Jude 1:21 below)
--
*Jude 1:6 -
See section 2 of 2 Peter 2:4 above.
--
*Jude 1:7 -
(Eternal fire)
This does not say that the suffering of the people in Sodom and Gomorrha has been eternal, like the suffering of the people in the future Gehenna hell/the lake of fire will be eternal (Matthew 25:41,46, Revelation 20:10,15, Revelation 14:10-11). Instead, Jude 1:7 simply says that the fire which killed the people in Sodom and Gomorrha was eternal fire, which would be some sort of spiritual fire which never goes out, like the fire in the Gehenna hell/the lake of fire will never go out (Mark 9:45-46, Isaiah 66:24).
Because we today do not see the eternal fire which destroyed Sodom and Gomorrha, God could have sent it deep under the earth after it had completed its destruction of those cities. Or, God could have taken it back up into heaven from whence it was cast down in Genesis 19:24.
--
*Jude 1:9 -
It is said, and it could very well be true, that Jude 1:9 refers to a now-lost end-portion of an ancient Jewish writing called: "The Assumption of Moses" or "The Ascension of Moses", which end-portion referred to a contention over the possession of Moses' recently dead body. The title of the work would mean that the archangel Michael prevailed over the devil and took Moses' recently dead body into heaven, like how God took the still-living bodies of Elijah and Enoch into heaven (2 Kings 2:11, Hebrews 11:5).
From a reading of Hebrews 2:14b, it would make sense that the devil would have had first possession of Moses' recently dead body (Jude 1:9).
(See also John 3:13 above, and Revelation 11:3 below)
~
(Re: Means that Michael viewed Satan as too powerful to oppose?)
No, for Michael will not only oppose, but, with his angels, will succeed in defeating Satan and his fallen angels during a future, mid-tribulation war in heaven (Revelation 12:7-9). Also, sometime after that, a single angel (possibly Michael) will be able to bind Satan with a chain, cast him into the literal Bottomless Pit and keep him locked down there for 1,000 years (Revelation 20:1-3).
So Jude 1:9 does not mean that Satan is too powerful for an angel to oppose. Instead, in its context (Jude 1:8b-10a) it means that just as even the archangel Michael in contending with Satan did not rail against him, so Christians in their contending with Satan and his fallen angels (Ephesians 6:12) should not rail against them. Indeed, Christians should not rail against anyone (Titus 3:2).
--
*Jude 1:14a -
Enoch was the seventh from Adam when Adam is counted as the first (Genesis 5:3-18).
--
*Jude 1:14b -
(With)
See 1 Thessalonians 3:13 above.
--
*Jude 1:21 -
Christians need to be careful to keep themselves in the love of God (Jude 1:21) and continue in His goodness (Romans 11:22) by continuing in obedience to Him (John 15:10, John 14:21,23), if they do not want God to ultimately cut them off (Romans 11:22, John 15:2a) and cast them away (1 Corinthians 9:27, John 15:6).
The way for Christians to expect mercy from God (Jude 1:21b) is for them to repent from their sins and confess them to God (1 John 1:9). Christians cannot expect mercy from God if they commit unrepentant sin (Jude 1:7-18,23, Hebrews 10:26-29), turning the grace of God into lasciviousness (Jude 1:4), or if they commit apostasy (Jude 1:5, Hebrews 6:4-8) or become utterly lazy without repentance (Matthew 25:26,30, John 15:2a).
(See also Hebrews 10:26, Hebrews 6:4, and John 15:2a above)
--
*Jude 1:24 does not require once-saved-always-saved, for it only shows what God's help makes possible for Christians, not what is assured. For Christians can wrongly employ their free will to fall into apostasy, unrepentant sin or laziness, to the ultimate loss of their salvation (Hebrews 6:4-8, Hebrews 10:26-29, Matthew 25:26-30).
--
*Revelation / *Rev. -
(Re: Someone quoted Martin *Luther about Revelation: "Christ is neither taught nor known in it")
The entire book of Revelation is from Jesus Christ to the Church (Revelation 1:1, Revelation 22:16) and Christ is taught and known throughout the book. For Revelation 1 is about Christ's appearance and His speaking to the apostle John while John was on Patmos, and Revelation chapters 2-3 are letters which Christ spoke directly to seven church congregations. And Revelation 5 is about Christ as the Lamb (cf. John 1:36, Acts 8:32; 1 Peter 1:19), now in heaven. And Revelation 6 is about how Christ will unseal the seven seals of the future Tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24. And Revelation 7:9-17 is about Christ comforting the souls of dead Christians in heaven. And Revelation 11:8 refers to Christ as our Lord. And Revelation 11:15 refers to Christ in our future, taking legal possession of all of the kingdoms of the world away from the future Antichrist. And Revelation 12:10 mentions the power of Christ. And Revelation 12:11 refers to Christian martyrs overcoming Satan by the blood of Christ. And Revelation 12:17 refers to Christians having the testimony of Christ (Revelation 12:17). And Revelation 13:8 mentions Christ. And Revelation 14:1 refers to Christ standing on the heavenly Mount Zion (cf. Hebrews 12:22). And Revelation 14:4 refers to how the 144,000 will be Christ's followers (Revelation 14:4).
And Revelation 14:10 refers to those in hell in the future being tormented in the presence of Christ. And Revelation 14:12-13 refers to Christians keeping the faith of Christ even unto martyrdom, and Revelation 14:14-16 refers to Christ reaping their souls into heaven after their death. And Revelation 15:3 refers to the song of Christ, and Revelation 16:15 quotes something which Christ says. And Revelation 17:6 refers to those martyred for Christ, and Revelation 17:14 refers to Christ's future victory (as Lord of lords and King of kings) over the ten kings of the future Antichrist's empire (Revelation 17:12-14). And Revelation 19:7 refers to Christ's future marriage to the Church, and Revelation 19:9 refers to the marriage supper of Christ. And Revelation 19:10 refers to those who have the testimony of Christ and says that the testimony of Christ is the spirit of prophecy. And Revelation 19:11-21 describes Christ's future, Second Coming, and Revelation 20:4-6 refers to Christ's subsequent Millennial reign on the earth with the physically resurrected Church for 1,000 years. And Revelation 20:11-15 refers to when Christ will resurrect and judge (cf. John 5:22,28-29) all non-Christians of all times. And Revelation 21:9 refers to how the literal city of New Jerusalem pictures Christ's bride, the Church. And Revelation 21:14 mentions Christ's apostles.
And Revelation 21:22 refers to Christ Himself and God the Father as the temple of New Jerusalem, and Revelation 21:23 refers to Christ being the light of New Jerusalem. And Revelation 21:27 refers to Christ's Book of Life, and Revelation 22:1,3 refers to the throne of Christ and God the Father. And Revelation 22:3 refers to the servants of Christ and God the Father, and Revelation 22:7,12-13,16,20a quotes Christ. And Revelation 22:17,20b refers to the Church calling for Christ's (still future) Second Coming, and Revelation 22:21 closes the book with: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen", just as the book had opened with: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" (Revelation 1:1).
So it does not seem possible that anyone could say that Christ is neither taught nor known in the book of Revelation.
~
Also, Luther rejected the book of James as "an epistle of straw" because James 2:24 contradicted his pronouncements. He placed his theology above the Bible.
Also, Luther was a notorious anti-Semite. For example, regarding the Jews, it is said that he commanded: "Set fire to their synagogues or schools" in his writing called: "On the Jews and Their Lies".
--
*Revelation 1:1,3 / *Rev. 1:1 -
(*Signified)
This does not mean that Jesus Christ in Revelation chapters 6 to 22 is expressing the events of the future Tribulation and of the subsequent Second Coming, Millennium and other events only through symbolic references instead of indicating these events almost entirely literally. For just as the original Greek word (deiknuo: G1166) translated as "show" in Revelation 1:1 does not have to refer to something being shown through symbolic references but can refer to something being shown literally (Matthew 8:4), so the original Greek word (semaino: G4591) translated as "signified" in Revelation 1:1 does not have to refer to something being indicated through symbolic references but can refer to something being indicated literally (Acts 25:27).
(See the "Literal" section of Revelation chapters 6 to 22 (Overview) below)
~
(*Apokalupsis)
In Revelation 1:1 the original Greek word (apokalupsis: G0602) translated as "Revelation" does not require a symbolic revelation but can refer to literal revelation, like how, for example, Jesus Christ will be literally revealed, will literally "appear" (apokalupsis) to the world at His future, Second Coming (1 Peter 1:7b).
(See also paragraph 3 of the last section of 1 Thessalonians 4:17 above)
~
(Re: What about the symbols in Revelation 1? Is not Revelation symbolic, like Jesus' teachings in the Gospels?)
Revelation chapter 1's symbolic parts do not contradict that the chapter as a whole, like Revelation as a whole, is almost entirely literal.
(See section 2 of Revelation 16:21 below...)
Similarly, in the Gospels, what Jesus Christ spoke as a whole was almost entirely literal. For example, see His Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chapters 5-7) or what Mark 10:33-34 says.
~
(Re: *Soon)
In Revelation 1:1,3, as in Revelation 22:6,10, "shortly" and "at hand" can be understood in the same manner as: "Surely I come quickly" in Revelation 22:20, which refers to Jesus Christ's (still future) Second Coming. That is, shortly/at hand/quickly in these verses can be understood from the viewpoint of God, not humans (2 Peter 3:8-9, Psalms 90:4).
Also, from the viewpoint of humans, part of what Revelation chapters 2-3 foretold could have begun unfolding "shortly" (Revelation 1:1,3) after the apostle John saw his Revelation vision. For the letters to the seven, literal, first century AD local church congregations (Revelation chapters 2-3) in seven cities in the Roman province of "Asia" (Revelation 1:11b) could have foretold a first century AD persecution (Revelation 2:10, Revelation 3:10) under the Roman Emperor Domitian which happened shortly after John saw his vision around 95 AD, near the end of Domitian's reign (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3c). But even all of the (to us) still-future events of the Tribulation and subsequent Second Coming of Revelation chapters 6 to 19 will unfold "shortly" (Revelation 1:1,3) or "quickly" (Revelation 22:20) after John saw his vision. For from the viewpoint of God, even the passing of some 2,000 years is like the passing of only two days (2 Peter 3:8, Psalms 90:4). Christians should look at the future fulfillment of Revelation chapters 6 to 19 and Matthew 24 from the viewpoint of God, not humans, for whom the passing of some 2,000 years seems like a long delay for its fulfillment (2 Peter 3:9).
Other books in the Bible contain prophecies of events which would not occur for 3,000 to 4,000 years. For example, Ezekiel prophesied of the Gog/Magog event (Ezekiel chapters 38-39, Revelation 20:8-9) some 3,600 years before its (still future) occurrence. For Ezekiel gave that prophecy some 600 years before Jesus Christ's first coming but it will not be fulfilled until some 1,000 years after Jesus' (still future) Second Coming (Revelation 19:7 to 20:10). Also, God prophesied Jesus' spiritual defeat of Satan at the Crucifixion (Genesis 3:15, Hebrews 2:14) some 4,000 years before its occurrence. And Isaiah prophesied God creating a New Heaven and a New Earth (Isaiah 66:22, Revelation 21:1-8) some 3,700 years before its (still future) occurrence, for Isaiah gave that prophecy some 700 years before Jesus' first coming but it will not be fulfilled until some 1,000 years after His (still future) Second Coming (Revelation 19:7 to 21:8).
~
(Re: If the apostle John wrote down Revelation in 95 AD, then why does it make no mention of Jerusalem and the second Jewish temple being destroyed in 70 AD?)
Since the apostle John saw his Revelation vision around 95 AD, near the end of Domitian's reign (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3c), and Revelation is about future events (Revelation 1:1), not past events, there was no need for it to include the past events of 70 AD.
~
(Re: Does the evidence show that John saw Revelation before 70 AD?)
No, there is no internal evidence in Revelation nor any external evidence which requires that the apostle John saw the vision in the book of Revelation before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, instead of seeing it in 95 AD.
~
(Re: Does the passage which you are using from Irenaeus only refer to when John himself was seen, not the vision?)
No, for the main idea in that passage from Irenaeus is the vision, not "him": "the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign" (Against Heresies 5:30:3c).
The whole point of the passage is that if the Church at the time of Irenaeus (b. 140 AD) were meant to know the personal name of the future Antichrist, then the name would have been included in the vision of Revelation, which had been seen by the apostle John and given to the Church (Revelation 22:16) not long before the time of Irenaeus:
"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign" (Against Heresies 5:30:3c).
~
(Re: In the passage you quoted just above, is "that was seen" a textual corruption of an original manuscript which said "he was seen"?)
Note that there is no proof of any textual corruption in the passage, and if we went down that road, we could make the early Church fathers say whatever we wanted simply by saying that anything we disagreed with was a "corruption" which we could then replace with whatever purportedly "original" statement we desired.
~
(Re: But does not Irenaeus like to use the word "seen" with reference to persons but not to things like visions?)
No, for Irenaeus likes to use the word "seen" with reference to visions:
"John has thus described in the Apocalypse: 'And the beast which I had seen was like unto a leopard...' " (Against Heresies 5:28:2).
"...the toes of the image seen by Nebuchadnezzar" (Against Heresies 5:26:1b).
"...the ten horns shall be which were seen by Daniel" (Against Heresies 5:26:1a).
"...seen in a prophetic manner" (Against Heresies 5:1:2b).
"...visions alone which were seen" (Against Heresies 4:20:12).
"...this man had seen the vision" (Against Heresies 4:20:10c).
"...what he saw in a dream" (Against Heresies 2:33:1c).
Even when Irenaeus' says, regarding 666 (Revelation 13:18), "this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies, and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony" (Against Heresies 5:30:1), Irenaeus similarly focuses on the vision itself, not John. The only reason that John is mentioned in this case is as support for the accurate copying of the vision of the book of Revelation.
~
(Re: Regarding the last quote which you gave just above, how does it jibe with what you are asserting is Irenaeus' just-subsequent claim -- see the third paragraph, three sections above here -- as to when Revelation was written? That is, how could the copies of a manuscript of a vision seen "almost in his day" be considered "ancient copies"?)
With what word and in what language did Irenaeus express in his original manuscript the idea translated as "ancient" copies? That is, can the word Irenaeus himself used not have to mean what we would mean today by the English phrase "ancient copies", but simply mean the "oldest copies" known to the Church in his time, just as someone today could refer to the "most ancient members of our congregation", and simply mean its oldest living members, even if they are in their 80's?
Also, if Irenaeus was born about 140 AD and wrote "Against Heresies" around, say, 180 AD, and Revelation had been written down, say, 115 years earlier, in 65 AD, then even the original manuscript of Revelation would not have been "ancient" in the sense that we use "ancient" today. For we do not refer to books written down 115 years ago as "ancient". But if, in your view, Irenaeus could refer to manuscript copies of Revelation which were only 115, or even less, years old as "ancient", then why not copies 85 years old? That is, why could not Revelation have been written down in 95 AD, some 85 years before Irenaeus wrote "Against Heresies" in 180 AD?
-
Next entry / Prior / Table of Contents
Dec 26, 2018
God's sufficient grace (2 Corinthians 12:9a) includes His giving His elect people the Bible, which in its entirety is sufficient for them to be able to come into perfect knowledge of, and obedience to, God's doctrine (2 Timothy 3:15-17). After they become Christians, elect individuals have to be diligent to study (2 Timothy 2:15) every word of the Bible for themselves (Matthew 4:4; 2 Timothy 3:16), and to continue to believe everything that it teaches (John 8:31b). If they wrongly employ their free will to not read every word of the Bible, or to not believe everything that it teaches, then God is not going to force them to. For His grace does not take away their free will. Subsequent to their initial salvation, Christians can wrongly employ their free will to reject the Bible's doctrine and follow man-made and demonic fables instead (2 Timothy 4:2-4; 1 Timothy 4:1), to the ultimate loss of their salvation (Hebrews 6:4-8, John 15:6; 2 Timothy 2:12b).
(See Hebrews 6:4 and Romans 9:11 above)
~
(Re: If our salvation depends on our beliefs, then is our salvation no longer based on the Cross but on ourselves?)
It is not either/or, but both/and, for our salvation depends both on the fact that Jesus Christ suffered and died on the Cross for our sins (1 Corinthians 15:3; 1 Peter 3:18) and on our believing to the end (Hebrews 3:6,12,14, Colossians 1:23; 1 Corinthians 15:2) that He did so (Romans 3:25-26). Similarly, our salvation depends both on the fact that Jesus resurrected physically from the dead on the third day (1 Corinthians 15:4,17) and on our believing to the end that He did so (Romans 10:9b). Also, our salvation depends both on the fact that Jesus is the Christ and the human/divine Son of God (Mark 14:61-62) and on our believing to the end that He is (John 20:31, John 3:36; 1 John 2:23).
~
(Re: *Dogma)
Both "dogma" and "doctrine" refer to beliefs, for "doctrine" is defined as: "a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group: [e.g.] the doctrine of predestination" (Oxford English Dictionary).
--
*2 John 1:10 / *2 Jn. 1:10 -
This refers to one's literal house, that is, the literal building which is one's usual dwelling.
--
*3 John 1:11b / *3 Jn. 1:11b -
See 1 John 3:6 above.
--
*Jude 1:1, in the original Greek Textus Receptus, does not mean that elect individuals are sanctified before they are called. Instead, it is simply addressing those individuals who have been both called and sanctified. No one is sanctified in the sense of Hebrews 10:10 until they come into faith in Jesus Christ and His Gospel (Acts 26:18b; 1 Corinthians 6:11; cf. Romans 3:25-26).
~
(Re: "Sanctified" is in the perfect tense)
See the "Sanctified" section of Hebrews 10:10 above.
--
*Jude 1:3 -
(Re: 1 Corinthians 13:10-12)
1 Corinthians 13:10-12 is not referring to the maturity of the Christian faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3) but to the perfect maturity which all obedient Christians will obtain when they will literally see Jesus Christ face to face at His future, Second Coming (1 John 3:2).
--
*Jude 1:5b does not mean that they never believed, but means (by type: 1 Corinthians 10:11-12) that a return to unrepentant disobedience after one is initially saved is equivalent to a return to unbelief. For faith and obedience are as intertwined as a body (faith) and its breathing (obedience) (James 2:26). While you can at one point have a living, breathing body (a saved Christian), you can subsequently have a body which has stopped breathing (stopped being obedient), until you have a dead body (a dead faith which can no longer save from hell ultimately: James 2:14-26).
(See also Jude 1:21 below)
--
*Jude 1:6 -
See section 2 of 2 Peter 2:4 above.
--
*Jude 1:7 -
(Eternal fire)
This does not say that the suffering of the people in Sodom and Gomorrha has been eternal, like the suffering of the people in the future Gehenna hell/the lake of fire will be eternal (Matthew 25:41,46, Revelation 20:10,15, Revelation 14:10-11). Instead, Jude 1:7 simply says that the fire which killed the people in Sodom and Gomorrha was eternal fire, which would be some sort of spiritual fire which never goes out, like the fire in the Gehenna hell/the lake of fire will never go out (Mark 9:45-46, Isaiah 66:24).
Because we today do not see the eternal fire which destroyed Sodom and Gomorrha, God could have sent it deep under the earth after it had completed its destruction of those cities. Or, God could have taken it back up into heaven from whence it was cast down in Genesis 19:24.
--
*Jude 1:9 -
It is said, and it could very well be true, that Jude 1:9 refers to a now-lost end-portion of an ancient Jewish writing called: "The Assumption of Moses" or "The Ascension of Moses", which end-portion referred to a contention over the possession of Moses' recently dead body. The title of the work would mean that the archangel Michael prevailed over the devil and took Moses' recently dead body into heaven, like how God took the still-living bodies of Elijah and Enoch into heaven (2 Kings 2:11, Hebrews 11:5).
From a reading of Hebrews 2:14b, it would make sense that the devil would have had first possession of Moses' recently dead body (Jude 1:9).
(See also John 3:13 above, and Revelation 11:3 below)
~
(Re: Means that Michael viewed Satan as too powerful to oppose?)
No, for Michael will not only oppose, but, with his angels, will succeed in defeating Satan and his fallen angels during a future, mid-tribulation war in heaven (Revelation 12:7-9). Also, sometime after that, a single angel (possibly Michael) will be able to bind Satan with a chain, cast him into the literal Bottomless Pit and keep him locked down there for 1,000 years (Revelation 20:1-3).
So Jude 1:9 does not mean that Satan is too powerful for an angel to oppose. Instead, in its context (Jude 1:8b-10a) it means that just as even the archangel Michael in contending with Satan did not rail against him, so Christians in their contending with Satan and his fallen angels (Ephesians 6:12) should not rail against them. Indeed, Christians should not rail against anyone (Titus 3:2).
--
*Jude 1:14a -
Enoch was the seventh from Adam when Adam is counted as the first (Genesis 5:3-18).
--
*Jude 1:14b -
(With)
See 1 Thessalonians 3:13 above.
--
*Jude 1:21 -
Christians need to be careful to keep themselves in the love of God (Jude 1:21) and continue in His goodness (Romans 11:22) by continuing in obedience to Him (John 15:10, John 14:21,23), if they do not want God to ultimately cut them off (Romans 11:22, John 15:2a) and cast them away (1 Corinthians 9:27, John 15:6).
The way for Christians to expect mercy from God (Jude 1:21b) is for them to repent from their sins and confess them to God (1 John 1:9). Christians cannot expect mercy from God if they commit unrepentant sin (Jude 1:7-18,23, Hebrews 10:26-29), turning the grace of God into lasciviousness (Jude 1:4), or if they commit apostasy (Jude 1:5, Hebrews 6:4-8) or become utterly lazy without repentance (Matthew 25:26,30, John 15:2a).
(See also Hebrews 10:26, Hebrews 6:4, and John 15:2a above)
--
*Jude 1:24 does not require once-saved-always-saved, for it only shows what God's help makes possible for Christians, not what is assured. For Christians can wrongly employ their free will to fall into apostasy, unrepentant sin or laziness, to the ultimate loss of their salvation (Hebrews 6:4-8, Hebrews 10:26-29, Matthew 25:26-30).
--
*Revelation / *Rev. -
(Re: Someone quoted Martin *Luther about Revelation: "Christ is neither taught nor known in it")
The entire book of Revelation is from Jesus Christ to the Church (Revelation 1:1, Revelation 22:16) and Christ is taught and known throughout the book. For Revelation 1 is about Christ's appearance and His speaking to the apostle John while John was on Patmos, and Revelation chapters 2-3 are letters which Christ spoke directly to seven church congregations. And Revelation 5 is about Christ as the Lamb (cf. John 1:36, Acts 8:32; 1 Peter 1:19), now in heaven. And Revelation 6 is about how Christ will unseal the seven seals of the future Tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24. And Revelation 7:9-17 is about Christ comforting the souls of dead Christians in heaven. And Revelation 11:8 refers to Christ as our Lord. And Revelation 11:15 refers to Christ in our future, taking legal possession of all of the kingdoms of the world away from the future Antichrist. And Revelation 12:10 mentions the power of Christ. And Revelation 12:11 refers to Christian martyrs overcoming Satan by the blood of Christ. And Revelation 12:17 refers to Christians having the testimony of Christ (Revelation 12:17). And Revelation 13:8 mentions Christ. And Revelation 14:1 refers to Christ standing on the heavenly Mount Zion (cf. Hebrews 12:22). And Revelation 14:4 refers to how the 144,000 will be Christ's followers (Revelation 14:4).
And Revelation 14:10 refers to those in hell in the future being tormented in the presence of Christ. And Revelation 14:12-13 refers to Christians keeping the faith of Christ even unto martyrdom, and Revelation 14:14-16 refers to Christ reaping their souls into heaven after their death. And Revelation 15:3 refers to the song of Christ, and Revelation 16:15 quotes something which Christ says. And Revelation 17:6 refers to those martyred for Christ, and Revelation 17:14 refers to Christ's future victory (as Lord of lords and King of kings) over the ten kings of the future Antichrist's empire (Revelation 17:12-14). And Revelation 19:7 refers to Christ's future marriage to the Church, and Revelation 19:9 refers to the marriage supper of Christ. And Revelation 19:10 refers to those who have the testimony of Christ and says that the testimony of Christ is the spirit of prophecy. And Revelation 19:11-21 describes Christ's future, Second Coming, and Revelation 20:4-6 refers to Christ's subsequent Millennial reign on the earth with the physically resurrected Church for 1,000 years. And Revelation 20:11-15 refers to when Christ will resurrect and judge (cf. John 5:22,28-29) all non-Christians of all times. And Revelation 21:9 refers to how the literal city of New Jerusalem pictures Christ's bride, the Church. And Revelation 21:14 mentions Christ's apostles.
And Revelation 21:22 refers to Christ Himself and God the Father as the temple of New Jerusalem, and Revelation 21:23 refers to Christ being the light of New Jerusalem. And Revelation 21:27 refers to Christ's Book of Life, and Revelation 22:1,3 refers to the throne of Christ and God the Father. And Revelation 22:3 refers to the servants of Christ and God the Father, and Revelation 22:7,12-13,16,20a quotes Christ. And Revelation 22:17,20b refers to the Church calling for Christ's (still future) Second Coming, and Revelation 22:21 closes the book with: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen", just as the book had opened with: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" (Revelation 1:1).
So it does not seem possible that anyone could say that Christ is neither taught nor known in the book of Revelation.
~
Also, Luther rejected the book of James as "an epistle of straw" because James 2:24 contradicted his pronouncements. He placed his theology above the Bible.
Also, Luther was a notorious anti-Semite. For example, regarding the Jews, it is said that he commanded: "Set fire to their synagogues or schools" in his writing called: "On the Jews and Their Lies".
--
*Revelation 1:1,3 / *Rev. 1:1 -
(*Signified)
This does not mean that Jesus Christ in Revelation chapters 6 to 22 is expressing the events of the future Tribulation and of the subsequent Second Coming, Millennium and other events only through symbolic references instead of indicating these events almost entirely literally. For just as the original Greek word (deiknuo: G1166) translated as "show" in Revelation 1:1 does not have to refer to something being shown through symbolic references but can refer to something being shown literally (Matthew 8:4), so the original Greek word (semaino: G4591) translated as "signified" in Revelation 1:1 does not have to refer to something being indicated through symbolic references but can refer to something being indicated literally (Acts 25:27).
(See the "Literal" section of Revelation chapters 6 to 22 (Overview) below)
~
(*Apokalupsis)
In Revelation 1:1 the original Greek word (apokalupsis: G0602) translated as "Revelation" does not require a symbolic revelation but can refer to literal revelation, like how, for example, Jesus Christ will be literally revealed, will literally "appear" (apokalupsis) to the world at His future, Second Coming (1 Peter 1:7b).
(See also paragraph 3 of the last section of 1 Thessalonians 4:17 above)
~
(Re: What about the symbols in Revelation 1? Is not Revelation symbolic, like Jesus' teachings in the Gospels?)
Revelation chapter 1's symbolic parts do not contradict that the chapter as a whole, like Revelation as a whole, is almost entirely literal.
(See section 2 of Revelation 16:21 below...)
Similarly, in the Gospels, what Jesus Christ spoke as a whole was almost entirely literal. For example, see His Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chapters 5-7) or what Mark 10:33-34 says.
~
(Re: *Soon)
In Revelation 1:1,3, as in Revelation 22:6,10, "shortly" and "at hand" can be understood in the same manner as: "Surely I come quickly" in Revelation 22:20, which refers to Jesus Christ's (still future) Second Coming. That is, shortly/at hand/quickly in these verses can be understood from the viewpoint of God, not humans (2 Peter 3:8-9, Psalms 90:4).
Also, from the viewpoint of humans, part of what Revelation chapters 2-3 foretold could have begun unfolding "shortly" (Revelation 1:1,3) after the apostle John saw his Revelation vision. For the letters to the seven, literal, first century AD local church congregations (Revelation chapters 2-3) in seven cities in the Roman province of "Asia" (Revelation 1:11b) could have foretold a first century AD persecution (Revelation 2:10, Revelation 3:10) under the Roman Emperor Domitian which happened shortly after John saw his vision around 95 AD, near the end of Domitian's reign (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3c). But even all of the (to us) still-future events of the Tribulation and subsequent Second Coming of Revelation chapters 6 to 19 will unfold "shortly" (Revelation 1:1,3) or "quickly" (Revelation 22:20) after John saw his vision. For from the viewpoint of God, even the passing of some 2,000 years is like the passing of only two days (2 Peter 3:8, Psalms 90:4). Christians should look at the future fulfillment of Revelation chapters 6 to 19 and Matthew 24 from the viewpoint of God, not humans, for whom the passing of some 2,000 years seems like a long delay for its fulfillment (2 Peter 3:9).
Other books in the Bible contain prophecies of events which would not occur for 3,000 to 4,000 years. For example, Ezekiel prophesied of the Gog/Magog event (Ezekiel chapters 38-39, Revelation 20:8-9) some 3,600 years before its (still future) occurrence. For Ezekiel gave that prophecy some 600 years before Jesus Christ's first coming but it will not be fulfilled until some 1,000 years after Jesus' (still future) Second Coming (Revelation 19:7 to 20:10). Also, God prophesied Jesus' spiritual defeat of Satan at the Crucifixion (Genesis 3:15, Hebrews 2:14) some 4,000 years before its occurrence. And Isaiah prophesied God creating a New Heaven and a New Earth (Isaiah 66:22, Revelation 21:1-8) some 3,700 years before its (still future) occurrence, for Isaiah gave that prophecy some 700 years before Jesus' first coming but it will not be fulfilled until some 1,000 years after His (still future) Second Coming (Revelation 19:7 to 21:8).
~
(Re: If the apostle John wrote down Revelation in 95 AD, then why does it make no mention of Jerusalem and the second Jewish temple being destroyed in 70 AD?)
Since the apostle John saw his Revelation vision around 95 AD, near the end of Domitian's reign (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3c), and Revelation is about future events (Revelation 1:1), not past events, there was no need for it to include the past events of 70 AD.
~
(Re: Does the evidence show that John saw Revelation before 70 AD?)
No, there is no internal evidence in Revelation nor any external evidence which requires that the apostle John saw the vision in the book of Revelation before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, instead of seeing it in 95 AD.
~
(Re: Does the passage which you are using from Irenaeus only refer to when John himself was seen, not the vision?)
No, for the main idea in that passage from Irenaeus is the vision, not "him": "the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign" (Against Heresies 5:30:3c).
The whole point of the passage is that if the Church at the time of Irenaeus (b. 140 AD) were meant to know the personal name of the future Antichrist, then the name would have been included in the vision of Revelation, which had been seen by the apostle John and given to the Church (Revelation 22:16) not long before the time of Irenaeus:
"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign" (Against Heresies 5:30:3c).
~
(Re: In the passage you quoted just above, is "that was seen" a textual corruption of an original manuscript which said "he was seen"?)
Note that there is no proof of any textual corruption in the passage, and if we went down that road, we could make the early Church fathers say whatever we wanted simply by saying that anything we disagreed with was a "corruption" which we could then replace with whatever purportedly "original" statement we desired.
~
(Re: But does not Irenaeus like to use the word "seen" with reference to persons but not to things like visions?)
No, for Irenaeus likes to use the word "seen" with reference to visions:
"John has thus described in the Apocalypse: 'And the beast which I had seen was like unto a leopard...' " (Against Heresies 5:28:2).
"...the toes of the image seen by Nebuchadnezzar" (Against Heresies 5:26:1b).
"...the ten horns shall be which were seen by Daniel" (Against Heresies 5:26:1a).
"...seen in a prophetic manner" (Against Heresies 5:1:2b).
"...visions alone which were seen" (Against Heresies 4:20:12).
"...this man had seen the vision" (Against Heresies 4:20:10c).
"...what he saw in a dream" (Against Heresies 2:33:1c).
Even when Irenaeus' says, regarding 666 (Revelation 13:18), "this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies, and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony" (Against Heresies 5:30:1), Irenaeus similarly focuses on the vision itself, not John. The only reason that John is mentioned in this case is as support for the accurate copying of the vision of the book of Revelation.
~
(Re: Regarding the last quote which you gave just above, how does it jibe with what you are asserting is Irenaeus' just-subsequent claim -- see the third paragraph, three sections above here -- as to when Revelation was written? That is, how could the copies of a manuscript of a vision seen "almost in his day" be considered "ancient copies"?)
With what word and in what language did Irenaeus express in his original manuscript the idea translated as "ancient" copies? That is, can the word Irenaeus himself used not have to mean what we would mean today by the English phrase "ancient copies", but simply mean the "oldest copies" known to the Church in his time, just as someone today could refer to the "most ancient members of our congregation", and simply mean its oldest living members, even if they are in their 80's?
Also, if Irenaeus was born about 140 AD and wrote "Against Heresies" around, say, 180 AD, and Revelation had been written down, say, 115 years earlier, in 65 AD, then even the original manuscript of Revelation would not have been "ancient" in the sense that we use "ancient" today. For we do not refer to books written down 115 years ago as "ancient". But if, in your view, Irenaeus could refer to manuscript copies of Revelation which were only 115, or even less, years old as "ancient", then why not copies 85 years old? That is, why could not Revelation have been written down in 95 AD, some 85 years before Irenaeus wrote "Against Heresies" in 180 AD?
-
Next entry / Prior / Table of Contents
Dec 26, 2018