The Immanent Trinity and the Economic Trinity

Immanent Trinity:
God, Word, and Spirit.

The Three Persons of the Godhead are completely equal in every sense;
There is no subordination of any kind or sense.
In the Immanent Trinity, there is NOOOOOOOOO Son.
Read John 1:1,14. ONLY AFTER the eternal Word is made flesh in the outworking/economy of redemption, there is the Son.
TOO MANY are ignorant of or reject this simple bible truth.

Economic Trinity:

Father, Son, and Spirit;
the Son and Spirit are subordinated to the Father; 
the Spirit is subordinated to the Father and Son.
This subordination is in the context of the
outworking of redemption of the elect;
this subordination was mutually agreed
by the three Persons of the Godhead
in the covenant of redemption
before the foundation of the world.

--------

August 21, 2016

This is how very many Christians make John 1:1,14 to read because of their erroneous view of the sonship of Jesus, i.e. the eternal sonship of Jesus.

"In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was God.... And the Son was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

Jesus,  the Son of God,  is ETERNALLY begotten, they insist. 

I say, Jesus, the Son of God, is DIVINELY begotten when the Word was made flesh.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

The Word is the one-natured Divine Being,
The Son is the dual-natured Divine-Human Being.
The Son is the eternal divine Word made flesh. 
Aren't these so simple and obvious?

A biblical distinction is the essence of sound theology.

----------

John Burkett
So your saying Jesus didn't become unique until he was born of Mary

Sing F Lau
The possessive pronoun "your" is NOT the same as you're, the contraction of "you are."

DIVINELY begotten is not the same as ETERNALLY begotten.
There was NO NO NO NO NO NO Jesus before he was conceived in the womb of the virgin Mary. Thus your question betrays some misunderstanding somewhere.

The truth is quite simple; Jesus WAS UNIQUE from the moment of His conception by the power from on high. He did not become unique. He is the only begotten of God from the instant He was begotten.

I take it that your question presupposes that He was NON-unique prior to His becoming unique! Am I right, just asking?

Ante Zivkovic
Monogenes does not mean "unique" in general sense, but only in procreational sense. It can only mean "only begotten". Jesus became only begotten son in his conception/birth. Prior to that, he was not begotten.

More and more people are using Monogenes to mean unique generally. It is what one must do to avoid the doctrine that Word was begotten.

Sing F Lau
Starting with the fiction of eternally begotten, they have to invent other errors to explain that basic error. Redefining "monogenes" is one such attempt.

https://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2012/01/begotten-then-later-manifestedsent-at.html

Things New and Old: Begotten, then later Manifested/Sent at baptism

Another of the same attempt, read here:
https://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2011/12/jesus-eternal-or-begotten.html
Things New and Old: Jesus: Eternal but also Begotten, i.e. eternally begotten! Really?

Sing F Lau
The uniqueness lies ENTIRELY in Jesus being the ONLY-BEGOTTEN of the Father; there is no one else like Him.

Ante Zivkovic
I think people should cease to use that word. So misleading. When you have an only child, you do not call him unique. You call him your only child. With us humans it is understood that that child was begotten. But with Jesus emphasis should be made on His begetting, because Word became flesh. Thus Jesus is both "only "and "begotten". There is no other rendering than the only begotten. These discussion are mostly with Kjb deniers.

Sing F Lau
Yes, cease! But the PBs are all Kjb-only.

Ante Zivkovic
Then PB's have problem with "begotten" in KJV.

Sing F Lau
Some DO have, on that point, because it doesn't suit their fable of eternal sonship.

Jorge Quierrez Jr.
Ha?

Sing F Lau
Look at the links above on "jesus-eternal-or-begotten."

John Burkett
Sing, if only begotten means only born, then what does one do with Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son ,

Isaac was the only begotten because he was the child of promise, born supernaturally, thus making him unique to his 7 brothers.

1. The Word had two titles which described who he was: 1. The Son of Man 2. The Son of God. When the Word was made flesh, he became the Son of man but he has always been the unique son of God. If he were not the son before his incarnation Psalms 2:12 should read "kiss the Word lest he be angry"

2 the personalities that compose the triune Godhead have alway been referred to as God the father, God the word/son and God the spirit. If Christ were not the son from all eternity the God is not a father from all eternity. The Father gave his Son when he caused him to be born the son of man. Isaiah 9:6 KJV

[6] For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

3. If only begotten means only born what does that say of us? We are born children of God and is we are considered the sons of God he cannot be the only-born.

[sing: Jesus is the only begotten Son because He was "born in a supernatural way," just as Isaac was.]

Ante Zivkovic
Isaac was the only begotten because he was an only heir. Isaac had no co-heirs. In that sense, Isaac had no brother. We are co-heirs with Christ, being his real brothers, through adoption. Christ is the only begotten Son because he was the only one fathered by the Highest. Isaac, likewise ba Abraham. 2. Luke 1:35 teaches that that which shall be born shall be called Son of God.

John Burkett
Ante Zivkovic, you just proved my point that only begotten doesn't mean only born but rather unique. Issac was the only heir because he was the unique son but not the only son.

Luke 1:35 shall be "called" the son of God. By who? The answer by men not God. God already considered him a son but the world of men that he was born into would come to know him as the son of God.

Ante Zivkovic
Again, you mislead by translating monogenes as generic "unique". That is violation of the menaning of the word. The truth is, that it means only-born. Issac is still monogenes. He would only stop being only born, if he had a brother, by Sara, who would in fact be co-heir. Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

John Burkett
Ante Zivkovic, "he would only stop being only born, if he had a brother, by Sara" wrong! In a natural sense, he was not only born; he had seven brothers. You gave Rom 9:7; what about Rom 9:10-13? Jacob and Esau both were born to the same people but only one was special, and it is in his seed that the promise came. The only reason Isaac is termed only- begotten is because he was special or unique in comparison to his brothers not because he was only-born.

Ante Zivkovic
Your definition makes Jesus not the only born son of God, which I reject. Other sons of God are either adopted or made (like angels). No other son of God was generated by God except Jesus. And no other son of Abraham was counted as an heir, or even a real son. Esau and Jacob could never be monogenes, because the word cannot be used to mean unique. Gal 4:30 "Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman."

Ante Zivkovic
In your definition, even Jacob is monogenes. Which is just a pure violation of the scope of uniqueness monogenes overs. And the scope is within generation, an only child. Applying a generic "unique" meaning to the term just violates it. Perfect rendering is only begotten.

Sing F Lau
John @ 3. If only begotten means only born, what does that say of us? We are born children of God, and if we are considered the sons of God, he cannot be the only-born.
=========

Can you name me another similarly begotten like Jesus?

Can you tell me in ONE way in which you are born of God is similar to Jesus being the begotten of God.
Thanks.

Sing F Lau
John @ 1. The Word had two titles which described who he was: 1. The Son of Man 2. The Son of God. When the Word was made flesh, he became the Son of man but he has always been the unique son of God. If he were not the son before his incarnation, Psalms 2:12 should read "kiss the Word lest he be angry"

==========================

When the Word was made flesh, the Son of God was begotten!!!

Your prejudice has blinded you to this SIMPLE PLAIN truth.

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

The only begotten of the Father is the only begotten Son of God. There was NO begotten Son UNTIL the Word was made flesh. Isn't that plain and simple?

Such plain and straightforward truth, but VERY INCONVENIENT to the "eternal sonship" fable!

"Kiss the Son" is spoken of in the context of God resurrecting the crucified Son. See Acts 13:33. It is a prophetic Messianic Psalm.

Sing F Lau
John @ 2: The personalities that compose the triune Godhead have alway been referred to as God the father, God the word/son and God the spirit. If Christ were not the son from all eternity the God is not a father from all eternity. The Father gave his Son when he caused him to be born the son of man. Isaiah 9:6 KJV

[6] For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

=====================

Are you saying that the designation "the everlasting Father" in Isa 9:6 refers to God the Father? If you are, then you are quite mistaken.

The Father didn't give His Son when He caused him to be born the son of man. That is at best a false and erroneous statement.

When God MADE the Word flesh, He caused His Son to be begotten. The Father gave His Son when Jesus was manifested and entered His public ministry, at which point God thundered to Israel, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased."

PJ Walters
The subtle resurgence of Arianism...

Sing F Lau
Please describe briefly what is Arinianism. Thanks.
Don't throw terms around. It doesn't help. Deal with the precise issue at hand.

PJ Walters
That God had no Son until Jesus came.

Sing F Lau
Is that Arianism? Go read a bit further.

Jorge Quierrez Jr.
It's sound Arianism doctrine sir,
INC in the Phl.

Sing F Lau
Arianism denies the DIVINITY of Christ, does it not?
Do I? Go read and use the finest PB comb at your disposal and see if you can find one shred of evidence.

Be careful of throwing labels around. The last I read, it is still a TRANSGRESSION of the law of God to bear FALSE witness.

Read my initial post and tell me the error if there is any.

Beware of SOUND BYTE.

Ante Zivkovic
Dear PJ. Our position is stronger, as it gives the Word and the Spirit co-equality within the Godhead. So neither do they proceed from the Father, but are co-eternal; neither is there hierarchy within the Godhead. Our doctrine is also stronger concerning the manhood of Jesus, whose flesh, soul and spirit did not exist prior to his begetting when the Word was made flesh. So we have Jesus who is 100% God, and 100% man.

Sing F Lau
Co-eternality and eternally begotten are mutually exclusive concepts except for some nonsensical twisting. Co-eternality also excludes the idea of anyone in the Godhead proceeding from anyone.

PJ Walters
Nay, but I allege that God GAVE his only begotten Son.

Sing F Lau
Your begotten Son is eternally begotten.
The Scriptures plainly state that the Son was begotten WHEN the Word was made flesh.

Read John 1:14.

PJ Walters
As Isaac was Abraham's only begotten son (remember, he had Ishmael, too!), so the Word is the only begotten of the Father. What meaneth this? That he is his Father's special Son.

Sing F Lau
"... so the Word is the only begotten of the Father"?

A plain Scriptures is now TWISTED to fit your eternally begotten fable!!!

It is getting worse!

PJ Walters
Ah, there is the denunciation!

Sing F Lau
Denunciation? If so, it is against a newfangled idea. I sure hope you are ALONE among the PBs who believe that the eternal Word is the begotten of the Father, forget about the "only" for the moment.

Good night.

Ante Zivkovic
Pj Walters, Gal 4:30, For the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, in Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Was Isaac the only begotten of Abraham? Yes! You see, only Isaac was the heir, or true legitimate son. Only he was a real son. For if Isaac is not only begotten of Abraham, neither is Jesus. Furthermore, " only begotten" does not mean "Unique" in English. "Unique" is just a modern pseudo-Greek translation of the word Monogenes. And a wrong translation. The correct translation is only begotten. Which means only born son. Which Jesus is. Not only is he the ONLY Son of God, but He is also the only BORN Son of God. (The fact that he is born or begotten ousts christophanies in OT, along with Heb 1:2) Monogenes is not applicable outside begotten offspring. "unique" argument weakens or even destroys KJV-only position.

PJ Walters
Sing, I am not alone in this position amongst PBs.

Ante, in Hebrews 11, Isaac is called Abraham's only begotten son. Monogenes is used in that text, as it is elsewhere, because it means single of its kind, or only! He was his darling son, and Ishmael was not.

Sing F Lau
A newfangled idea: the Word is the Son and the Son is the Word.

You have just obliterated the most momentous event in the history of redemption - the Word was made flesh, and the Son of God was begotten.

Sing F Lau
Can I take it that it is the UNIVERSAL opinion of the PBs that "... the Word is the only begotten of the Father"?

Sing F Lau
The begetting of the Son - which happened when God made the Word flesh - precedes the giving of the Son.

PJ Walters
Nay, God SENT his Son into the world.

Sing F Lau
God SENT His Son into the world when He thundered from heaven, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.

The Son must be begotten first, the Word made flesh, and at the appointed time SENT into the world. Plain reading from the Scriptures.

Marty-Sandy Smith
Just as we may suppose that "Son" necessarily implies "begotten", we may also suppose that "Word" implies "expressed". One term seems no more co-equal or co-eternal than the other.

John Burkett
God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit the three personality have existed co-eternal and co-equal immutable for all eternity. Jesus the same yesterday, today, and forever.

According to the record of church history one of the very first heresies in the church was the belief that the Son was not eternally the son. The disciple of Peter was a huge defender of the Christ being the Son before his incarnation.

Sing F Lau
The Word made flesh is how the eternal Word was specifically expressed. When the eternal Word was made flesh by God is the moment the Son was begotten.

I fear only a prejudiced mind could miss that simple and obvious truth from John 1:1,14.

[Immanent Trinity: God, Word, and Spirit.
Completely equal in every sense; there is no subordination of any kind or sense.

(In the Immanent Trinity, there is NOOOOOOOOO Son. Read John 1:1,14. ONLY AFTER the eternal Word is made flesh in the outworking/economy of redemption, there is the Son. TOO MANY are ignorant and oblivious of this simple bible truth.)

Economic Trinity:
Father, Son, and Spirit; the Son and Spirit subordinated to the Father,  the Spirit subordinated to the Father and Son. This subordination is in the context of the outworking of redemption of the elect; this subordination was mutually agreed by the three Persons of the Godhead in the covenant of redemption before the foundation of the world.]

Sing F Lau
Hey John, move beyond soundbyte! Does the statement "Jesus the same YESTERDAY, today, and forever" teach you something. Move beyond soundbyte. YESTERDAY is not the same as eternal, is it?

Mark Thomas
Who did Nebuchadnezzar see in the furnace along with the three Hebrew children?

Joshua Winslett
The word "begotten", or more specifically the phrase "only begotten" does not necessarily hold the connotation of a procreation or birth in time.

The OED's third definition reads, "3rd. Theol. Applied to the relationship of the Father to the Son in the Trinity ME."

Notice that it's Middle English, theological definition does not denote the idea of procreation or generation, but instead one of relationship.

Also consider this quote from Zodhiates' Complete Word Study New Testament, "John alone uses monogenes to describe the relation of Jesus to God the Father, presenting Him as the unique one, the only one (monos) of a class or kind (genos), in the discussion of the relationship of the Son to the Father (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). Genos, from which genes in monogenes is derived, means race, stock, family, class or kind, and geno comes from ginomai (1096), become, as in John 1:14, "and the word became [egeneto] flesh." This is in distinction from gennao (1080), to beget, engender or create. The noun from gennao is gennema (1081), the result of birth. So then, the word means one of a kind or unique." End Quote.

It is also noteworthy that John actually used two different Greek words when describing to us how Christ was the only begotten (John 1:14,18 etc. - monogenes) and how we are begotten of God (1 John 5:1,18 - gennao). One shows a special kind and the other denotes being born, or procreated.

Joshua Winslett
The truth of eternal Sonship can be seen in how the NT often uses language that states that God sent his son into the world, and gave his son. You cannot send or give a son that does not already exist. I would challenge anyone to find a passage that says that God made a son. (Isaiah 9:6, John 3:16, 1 John 4:9-10, Galatians 4:4-6, etc.). Isaiah 9:6 not only states that a son was given (not made) but it says that one name for God is everlasting Father. How can you have an everlasting Father without an everlasting Son. The Son is also said to have made all things (Colossians 1:13-16; Hebrews 1:2). Furthermore, how can something be manifest that did not already previously exist (1 John 3:8)?

Also consider Hebrews 7:3, "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually." In comparing Melchisedec to Jesus and showing how this high priest was "made like unto the Son of God", the writer of Hebrews uses this parallel, "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life." Please take note of this parallel. The fact that Melchisedec was without father, mother, natural decent, beginning or end of days proved that he was like unto the Son of God.

John Burkett
Excellent brother Joshua Winslett

Sing F Lau
Hebrews was written after the Word has been made flesh. The author was pointing out the superiority of the priestly office of Christ compared to that of the Levitical.

The author wasn't proving that Melchisedec was like unto the son of God, but that the priesthood of Christ, being the Word made flesh - the Son of God - is superior to and transcends that of the Levitical order, i.e. of the order of Melchisedec.

Sing F Lau
Joshua, is the eternal Word the same as the Son?
It is strange no one dares touch those inconvenient statements in John 1:1,14!

John declared that the Word was made flesh. Please tell what happened when the Word was made flesh? Was that a little bump in the redemptive history, or was it a momentous watershed event in fulfilment of all that has been prophesied and foreshadowed?

Sing F Lau
Who did Nebuchadnezzar see in the furnace along with the three Hebrew children?
------------

Here is the answer to your good question: Dan 3:28,
28Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve b worship any god, except their own God.

His angel... that's the identity of the son of god stated in v25.

Marty-Sandy Smith
I can only find one angel that has ever gone into affliction with God's children:

[Isaiah 63:8-9] For he said, Surely they are my people, children that will not lie: so he was their Saviour. In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old.

What is the name of this angel?

Joshua Winslett
Sometimes the word angel does not speak of a grouping of celestial beings but rather a messenger that can at times be referring to God himself. Consider Exodus 3:2, Genesis 22:15- 16. Many more verses could be cited.

Sing F Lau
The Word was made flesh.... was MADE FLESH by God once, and remains so forever. Just ONCE... ONE TIME only.

The eternal Word is not an angel. The Word was God.

John Burkett
Excellent point brother josh. We find in Malachi 3:1 KJV
[1] Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.

The term "messenger of the covenant" in the Hebrew is angel of the covenant. Everywhere else in the Old Testament the word for messenger is translated angel

John Burkett
It is also to be noted that all through the Old Testament the "Angel of the Lord" takes to himself the identity of deity.

Ante Zivkovic
Has Christ taken on the nature of angels in OT? In which body did he appear then? Answer: he didn't appear. Angels did. Looking like humans, representing God.

Sing F Lau
You are stating the obvious.
Jesus the same YESTERDAY, today, and forever.
Once the Word was made flesh, He remains in that Divine/human state FOREVER.

The sundry times when angels took on human nature it was temporary, for specific, temporary tasks.

The Divine Word WAS MADE FLESH, only once and FOREVER.

Now "Jesus Christ the same YESTERDAY and to day, and for ever" should make sense to some people.

Sing F Lau
If you need to depend on all those obscure passages to prove your eternal sonship, I will leave the matter here. … See more

Mark Thomas
2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Sing F Lau
If that warrants you the liberty to derive doctrines contrary to plain and clear Scriptures like John 1:1,14, you are free to do so.

Mark Thomas
I firmly believe that all Scripture is free from any contradiction when rightly divided. When I find folks who are willing to cling to contradiction and cease to answer sincere questions or simply ignore instruction provided, I begin to wonder if they prefer their fables to truth.

Sing F Lau
I wonder too!

Ante Zivkovic
By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. .... My wife was sent to that elementary school by her parents.... Was Abraham Abraham when he went out of Ur, or was he Abram at that time? Was my wife my wife when she was going to elementary school? That settles "sent" argument.

Sing F Lau
I thought that it is just everyday common sense, but common sense does not mean anything to minds already prejudiced.

They just reject such an obvious thing, even though they speak in the same common-sense manner.

I have a great acrylic painting by Alice at home when she was 14. I often tell people that the drawing was done by my wife when she was only 14. Everyone has common sense enough NOT to conclude that Alice was my wife at 14!

Jorge Quierrez Jr.
INC in the Phil.?

Roy Armada Fidelis
So, using the word divinely begotten, and setting aside the term Eternal Son, What was Christ first existence?

Joey Candelaria
Christ is the Word.

But the question is, If God the Father became only a Father because of creation, who is He prior to creation? What is the distinction of the Triune God before creation?

Sing F Lau
Joey, know the distinction between Immanent Trinity and the Economic Trinity.
May the Lord grant you understanding

Immanent Trinity: God, Word, and Spirit.

Completely equal in every sense; there is no subordination of any kind or sense.

In the Immanent Trinity, there is NOOOOOOOOO Son. Read John 1:1,14. ONLY AFTER the eternal Word is made flesh in the outworking/economy of redemption, there is the Son. TOO MANY are ignorant and oblivious of this simple bible truth.

Economic Trinity:
Father, Son, and Spirit; the Son and Spirit subordinated to the Father,  the Spirit subordinated to the Father and Son. This subordination is in the context of the outworking of redemption of the elect; this subordination was mutually agreed by the three Persons of the Godhead in the covenant of redemption before the foundation of the world.

Joey Candelaria
If Jesus is the Word, and Holy Ghost is the Spirit/Holy Ghost before creation, who is the Father among the Triune God?

Joey Candelaria
*[[1Jn 5:7]] KJV* For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

I don't know if this verse is applicable prior to the creation.

Roy Armada Fidelis
So you don't believe in the eternal sonship of Christ?

Sing F Lau
You do, I don't.
I believe in the begotten Sonship when the eternal Word was divinely MADE flesh... the eternal Word is not the Son; the eternal Word who took upon Himself flesh and blood is the Son.

Marty-Sandy Smith
There are at least 3 scriptural aspects of sonship:
- (1) A son is one who is begotten of, or born of, his father, e.g. I Peter 1:3,
- (2) A son is one who receives or acknowledges his father, e.g. John 1:12-13, and
- (3) A son is one who emulates or obeys his father, e.g. Philippians 2:14-16.

It is thus possible, within the scope of scripture, to embrace the doctrine of "the eternal Son of God" without advocating the doctrine of "the eternally begotten Son of God". For prior to his incarnation, God the Son both received and obeyed God the Father, acting in accordance with the Father's will even when he came to be born of a virgin.

He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh

He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh:
the Lord shall have them in derision. Psalms 2:4

#The_LORD_Reigneth
#The_floods_Rage

On Sunday I was meeting with a small group of believers in KL. The service was led by a young man who read and exhorted us from 93rd Psalm. I was blessed and comforted by the glorious truth set forth: the LORD is sovereign and reigns firmly upon His everlasting throne despite the fierce raging of the ungodly.

Psalm 93

1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.
2 Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting.
3 The floods have lifted up, O LORD, the floods have lifted up their voice; the floods lift up their waves.
4 The LORD on high is mightier than the noise of many waters, yea, than the mighty waves of the sea.
5 Thy testimonies are very sure: holiness becometh thine house, O LORD, for ever.

The LORD reigns and is firmly established on His everlasting throne even though the world rages fiercely like the mighty waters of the raging floods. It was rightly pointed out and demonstrated that the "floods... the noise of many waters... the mighty waves of the sea" refers to the wicked.

Isaiah 57:20
But the wicked are like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt.

(who is restless and raging, whose waters cast up filth.)

Psalm 2:1
Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

(raging like a fierce flood.)

Psalm 18:4
The sorrows of death compassed me, and the floods of ungodly men made me afraid.

(the flood of the ungodly)

Psalm 69:1-2
Save me, O God; for the waters are come in unto my soul. I sink in deep mire, where there is no standing: I am come into deep waters, where the floods overflow me.

Jude 1:13
Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

Read again what the psalmist declares in light of these raging floods:

"The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved...Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting...The LORD on high is mightier than the noise of many waters, yea, than the mighty waves of the sea. Thy testimonies are very sure: holiness becometh thine house, O LORD, for ever."

Ps 2:4
He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. 

How many is "as many as"?

How many is "as many as"? -
It is not one more and not one less
than the exact number given to Christ. 

Leongsy
Which verse in the bible says that Christ saved as many as he died for?

-------

John 17:2 KJV — As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

Christ saved all those (as many as) that were given to Him by His Father through His redeeming work; as many as Christ has saved, He should give them eternal life.

John 6:39 KJT — And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he *hath given* me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

"hath given": God elected a people out of the fallen race of Adam and gave them to Christ, the Redeemer appointed by God for His elect.

In English, "hath given" is present perfect tense, indicating a past completed action with the effect of that action continuing to the present, i.e. remains given.

"lose nothing" - as many as were given to Christ, as many as were saved by Him, not one more and not one less.

John 6:37 KJT All that the Father *giveth* me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

John 6:44 KJT — No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me *draw* him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

"giveth" - is simple present tense, indicating an action that is repeated, like "the sun rises in the east."

The Father gives to the Son by drawing each elect individually out of his NATURAL STATE of sin and condemnation and death unto the SPIRITUAL STATE of righteousness, justification and eternal life in Jesus Christ.

What God *hast given* (present perfect tense) to Christ in the election (one action that embraced the complete number of the elect) before time, God *draws* and *gives* (simple present tense, throughout time, since Adam onward) by His effectual calling of each elect individually out of his natural state of sin and condemnation and death unto the spiritual state of righteousness, justification and eternal life in Jesus Christ.

May the  Lord bless you with understanding.

Conversion REQUIRES human decisions

No Sir. Conversion REQUIRES human decisions;
It is regeneration that does NOT require any; 
The dead in trespasses and sins are incapable of any.
What's the matter with you?  

Regeneration and Conversion

Regeneration - when the spiritually dead are quickened and given eternal life - is by the Spirit's work alone.

Conversion - when the regenerated is brought to believe the gospel truth of his eternal salvation by God's free grace in Jesus Christ - involves human decisions. (ONLY those regenerated by the Spirit of God CAN BE converted, brought to understand and embrace the truth of their salvation by the free grace of God while STILL dead in trespasses and sins. Eph 2:5,8.}

Regeneration and conversion are distinct, but not a few revered theologians obfuscate them.                                                   

The former is monergistic, and the latter is synergistic. In conversion, the gospel truths need to be preached/read/heard, understood, and believed - activities that ONLY a regenerate elect can exercise.

Conversion requires the decisions of the regenerated.

Regeneration involves NO human activities because it is the spiritually dead who are quickened to life.

A biblical distinction is the essence of sound theology, not a soundbite. 

The END of what - theocratic Israel or the gospel age?

Knowing this first,

that there shall come in the last days scoffers,

walking after their own lusts,

And saying, Where is the promise of his coming?
2Peter 3:3-4
What happened to all such scoffers? 
BURNED and ROASTED by the Roman armies.

Dec 1, 2021
https://www.facebook.com/groups/PrimitiveBaptistgroup/posts/4883018085082952/

1 Peter 1:13 KJV — Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Please help me with the passage.
Q. What is "the end" spoken of?
Q. What is "the revelation of Jesus Christ"?
Q. Is the "end" synchronous with "the revelation of Jesus Christ"?
Q. Have they happened?
Q.If not, when? If yes, when?

Thank you most kindly in advance for your help.

============

Mark
Personally I believe this has been fulfilled when our Lord brought judgment against the nation of Israel and graciously dispersed the church prior to the rendering of justice on the disbelieving and unrepentant Jews. The end was the destruction of Jerusalem and of the corruption of law worship and Israel as a nation. Having said that, I can understand the parallel some draw to the future coming of Christ on resurrection day. My difficulty with embracing that point of view is because Peter directed the meaning to those then present and hearing his words

Sing
Mark: Thank you, Sir.

Gentile believers often fail to put themselves in the shoes of the Jewish believers in the early church. When we do, much light dawns. The significance of the end of a theocratic nation that has been around for thousands of years is not often appreciated by us Gentiles. It's a heaven-and-earth-shattering event to those concerned, even though it does not register with others.

Thank you, again.

Reggie
GIF

Sing
Reggie, What are you so excited about? Did you strike black diamond?

Reggie
Sing no!! 🤣…
This guy had a powerful message a while back…
His message was basically surrounded around the idea of “the Bible is not about you…. You are not David and Goliath isn’t your sin or your trials in life…”

This is where the modern American church is today. Many make the Bible all about them and try to find themselves or their America in Bible prophecy… and it just isn’t there… ego is the tool by which Satan twists the scriptures.

Reggie
And so, this is where bad eschatology creeps in…

Billie
Bro Mark When Peter addresses this letter to the strangers scattered, isn’t this a reference to the Gentiles? I see the parallels to the Jews and the destruction of Jerusalem, but fell that Peter is addressing the manifest trials that the mixed churches in Asia were going to experience.

Again just my thoughts.

Mark
Brother Billie, my thoughts are that the Gentiles would not be the ‘strangers’ in the churches located in Gentile nations- the Jews dispersed or driven from Israel would be the strangers in those Gentile lands.

Billie
Mark, I had never considered it that way. Thats something “to chew on” as my ancestors used to say.

Mark
Billie, take it with a grain of salt and compare to Scripture- the great Standard by which to test all things.

Billie
Mark, I agree. That is the only way understand. Let scripture interpret scripture and ask for God’s sweet guidance in our understanding.

Just wanted to say to you how much I loved your sweet father and his gentleness and spirit made an impact on me at our first meeting. I will miss him.

Mark
Billie, thank you for your kind words. I miss him already, but am thankful that he is in his long sought home free from pain and trials. He loved you dearly and spoke often of your friendship in the faith.

Billie
Mark, Amen

Sing
Billie @ "When Peter addresses this letter to the strangers scattered, isn’t this a reference to the Gentiles?"

======

I have never heard of the concept of the Gentiles being scattered. This is my first time hearing such an idea.

Thanks.

Billie
Sing I had always thought they were Christians scattered. Regardless of nationality, both Jews and Gentiles. I think the church members are “strangers” in this world. Also, Solomon references the Gentiles who would be converted to the Jewish religion as “strangers” when he prayed the temple dedication prayer.

Sing
Billie, Gentiles need to learn to put themselves in the shoes of the Jewish believers to think right thoughts with matters pertaining to them.

Billie
Sing, we will see it was not all the Jews who were holding on to law covenants. Some Jews, like Gentiles, followed the disciples

Into the church kingdom under the grace covenant. The destruction coming in 70 AD was coming to those who wholly rejected the grace covenant or who were straddling fences between the two. Those watching were told to flee and escape the trails of the judgment of the first century non-believing Jews. I think the church members addressed in1 Peter were not holding on to the law but were

Being persecuted by those who were holding on and Peter advices them to hold on to the hope until the end of their trial. No doubt many more trials came to the first century church that they each had the admonition to hold on to the end. Knowing that whether dead ir alive they would see Christ Manifest in a way which would do away with hope , for why do we hope for what we see? So at seeing him we would be able to shout victory in the work of christ in our ours of death.

Marty-Sandy Smith
I think, for many of God's children, their physical death is "the end" of the time when they need hope, because they go in spirit into the presence of Jesus Christ, and He is revealed.

For some of God's children, Jesus Christ will come to earth for them, be revealed to them, and that is "the end" of the time when they need hope.

So: (1) "the end" is the end of the time God's child must spend on earth, (2) the revelation of Jesus Christ is when a child of God sees Jesus Christ as He is, and (3) the "end" is indeed synchronous with that revelation.

Sing
Marty-Sandy Smith: Thanks for your thoughts. Doesn't the passage imply one common end by the one common revelation of Jesus Christ? Just thinking.

John Burkett
For those hold a preterist view of this passage, I have a few questions, seeing I have never quite understood the position.

The term strangers being taken for a mixed bag of believers both of Jews and Gentiles, why would this mixed bag care about the destruction of Jerusalem?

What impact did the destruction of Jerusalem have on Christians in Rome, phillipi, or Ephesus which were hundreds of miles away?

Can it be shown that church life was drastically altered after 70 ad?

What extra grace was given to the church after 70 AD that they did not have before?

Seeing that the persecution of the church was at its most brutal between the time of Peter and Constantine, we know that nothing changed in that regard, so what did?

Reggie
John Burkett, do you hold to any specific eschatological view?

Reason for asking… ideas have consequences; we both know this… and so, preconceived ideas guide our understanding of further information given. How we structure our belief of this subject can be greatly effected by preconceived ideas which are already established in our thinking…

Robert
Reggie, do you mean like Preterism, wherein people try to make every prophetic passage fit 70 AD?

John Burkett
Reggie: agreed, presuppositions can be a problem when: 1. They lack supporting evidence. 2. When they go unchecked by scripture

I asked these questions because if preterism is applicable there should be overwhelming evidence of a fundamental change in church life after 70 ad given the multitude of promises. In light of that I have seen no such evidence being provided to support that position.

As brother Michael Ivey has stated, if we take Scripture as the only rule of faith, Scripture evidence must be provided as to what that change would be after 70 ad.

Reggie
Robert: yes, and also like premillennialism, which removes the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD for the purpose of hiding from the world the Hostility God had toward Spiritual Sodom and Spiritual Egypt (Carnal Israel).

Robert
Reggie: I’m not pre-mil, but can you substantiate such a conspiracy?

Michael Ivey
Excellent questions Brother. And I might add that any response should provide details, and the details should be limited to what is specifically presented in scripture. My studies cause me to conclude that scripture mentions God's pending judgment against Israel and alludes to its severity and consequences; but provides few if any, actual details. This being so, I tend to shy away from 70AD details-specific-interpretations of NT passages, including the Book of Revelation. In my experience, over the years, I've read way too much para-scripture speculation by commentators who hold a preterist view of Revelation and cite uninspired accounts of 70AD by the likes of Josephus to support their opinions.

John Burkett
Michael Ivey: Right, if there is plain support in Scripture of what would transpire in church life after 70 AD and historical evidence to support it, I might could embrace it. I have no problem with historical evidence, as long as it gives testimony to the plain meaning of Scripture.

Robert
John Burkett yes, for example Herodotus gives some interesting details of when Cyrus took Babylon that accord with Isaiah’s prophecy, yet we would say that not everything he wrote on that or any other subject is without error. Only where it accords with scripture do we take it to be a supporting witness.

Another problem preterism has is that it often requires violating the simplest understanding of prophetic language to make it fit into the preconceived fulfilment.

Sing
John Burkett

I checked on the meaning of "preterist" - "The meaning of preterist is one who holds that the prophecies in the Bible about the End Times have already been fulfilled."

If this is a correct definition of a preterist, then I'm not a preterist.

The prophecies concerning the "last days" of the Jewish world have already been fulfilled; the prophecies concerning the end of the world at the coming of Christ are awaiting fulfillment.

The end times of the Jewish world and end times of the present world are distinct.

John Burkett
Sing I’m not sure a Wikipedia article has fully explained the preterist position. The distinction you make between the end of the Jewish world and the end of the present world is a distinction every preterist would make. Preterist understand that there will be an end of the world and that certain passages speak of that end. A preterist will, however, interpret most passages concerning the coming of Christ as fulfilled in 70 ad. They would interpret the passage under consideration as a 70 ad text, as well as 2 Peter 3:12-14 as 70 ad, all of Matthew 24 as 70 ad etc……

Not saying you a preterist just that the assumption that they make no distinction in different fulfillment’s, isn’t entirely correct.

Joe Holder
Brother Sing, I am inclined to view this passage in a fairly simple way. Ocham’s Razor principle often proves a good one when studying Scripture.

I am inclined to think the answers to your questions are stated in the passage. I agree with you suggestion that the “end” in mind is “the revelation of Jesus Christ.”

I am further inclined to believe that “the revelation of Jesus Christ” occurs with believers who “gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace” that comes in response to the faith way of thinking and living life.

Michael Ivey
As usual, Joe Holder you say with brevity and greater clarity what I struggle and lumber to say. 

Sing
Joe Holder Thank you, Elder Joe.
May I inquire?
Mat 24:14 "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

What is the end spoken of here? Has it happened?

Mat 24:30 "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

Does this passage speak of the revelation of Jesus Christ? Has it happened?

Mark
Brother Micah, if indeed it is the end that came first after Peter’s words, it is very likely that coming for those spoken to would be His coming to reign in justice at the end of the law dispensation and the destruction of Jerusalem. Just a thought.

I think it is quite likely this passage has several true applications.

Sing
Mark, Were the Jewish believers under severe persecution of the "state church" from which they have left behind to be followers of Jesus Christ? Honest question, Sir.

Mark
Sing, they were being rabidly persecuted by the Sanhedrin even unto death both at home and even abroad in some cases. Witness the zeal of Saul.

Sing
Mark, Thanks. Then understanding the passage as the final overthrow, and the end of the "state church" and the relief that would bring to the Jewish saints makes sense indeed.

Thou art a great sounding board. Thank you.

Mark
Sing, you’re welcome. I believe that to be the primary application of the passage, but can appreciate the further application voiced by the Brethren on this passage.

Sing
I want to know the meaning first.
The applications are manifold.
Thank you.

Reggie
Sing, no!

Sing
"No" to what?

Reggie
Sing: the Jewish believers were being pressed upon by the harlot who was riding the beast, which gave her power for a season. The harlot was Jerusalem and all which fall under her rule.

The harlot was then destroyed by the beast she rode on while at the same time The Church fled to Petra…. The dragon was upset about this and so he spewed out of his mouth, a great flood… water… which represents Judaizing Christianity… a works based righteousness that we read of in the letter which circulated Galatia… which is a false gospel… anti in scripture means more so to imitate, to counterfeit… not so much to stand against… but yeah, also to stand against… but by imitating for the sake of carrying away victims… in the flood that came out the mouth of the dragon.

Reggie
Sing: but if you mean, Judaism as being the state church, yeah… the state church later on founded by Constantine was more like a liberating act for believers.. but… it also eventually went into corruption….

Billie
Mark and brothers,
Did the law dispensation end at the destruction of Jerusalem or at the death on the cross. When the vail was rent in twain, did not this signify the ending of the sacrifice under the law? The judgment on Israel was indeed fulfilled in the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem, but the Church under grace had already began. At this time the scripture places all that are under Christ in the church as, Israel regardless of nationality. Thoughts?

Mark
Brother Billie, I agree the law dispensation ended at the cross. This did not, however, end the efforts of the Jews to attempt to continue on the same as before until the temple was razed to the ground in the destruction of Jerusalem.

Sing
Billie The Law dispensation ended legally at the cross; it was vitally ending during the 40 years reformation; and it ended practically and finally with the destruction of Jerusalem/Temple in 70AD.

Micah
Mark: One of the main problems with narrowing this text down to the destruction of Jerusalem would be that hope is now past. While I certainly believe this text has an application to the saved individuals who lived through or died as a result of the temple destruction, to make it exclusive would basically require that we no longer have hope. Because the end already came, and hope was to the end.

Sing
Micah: The hope arising from the revelation of Jesus Christ in 70AD for the Jewish believers and the hope of the revelation of Jesus Christ for the saints at the end of the world are distinct. Confusion arises when the distinction is neglected.

Micah
Sing, show it to me.

Sing
Micah: It's pointless.

Micah
Sing, interesting way of ending a discussion if you have an answer.

Michael Ivey
IMO opinion Paul's use of "the end" is intended to convey the idea of continuing to hope until Jesus comes again. In this sense, his statement applies to believers in every generation in that we do not know the time of his second coming. Peter understood that the timing of Jesus' second coming cannot be predicted inasmuch as he heard Jesus teach it as recorded in Matthew 24:43. This is confirmed by Peter's use of the same metaphor as Jesus used, the unpredicted appearance of a thief, to signify the unpredictability of Jesus return; as did Paul also. (See 2 Pet 3:10, 1 Thes 5:2.) This being so, all believers are instructed to hopefully anticipate that theirs may be the generation of his return. Thus, it applied to his immediate audience of believers and in a broader sense to all subsequent believers. Until Jesus comes again Peter instructed they and we are to always hopefully anticipate Jesus sudden and unannounced return. And even at death we go to the grave resting in hope (See Psa 16:9, Acts 2;26) of His return to raise us from the dead. In this way, in each generation until Jesus returns, we are instructed to hope continually to the end.

Sing
Michael: Apostle Peter was writing to the Jewish believers. The end that concerned them was more likely the end of the earthly theocratic Israel than the ends of other things.

Robert
Sing: so, they were hoping for the destruction of Jerusalem? Because that would put them at odds with the OT prophets, Jesus, and the apostles. They all mourned the coming destruction of that city, although it must be so

Michael Ivey
Sing: Kindly and with respect, dear brother, I must disagree. I do so because I cannot find context within the epistle by which I can agree with your position. Where in the epistle does Peter limit "the end" to the destruction of Jerusalem? In the rules of logic, Ocham's Razor teaches the simplest explanation is most often the correct explanation. With this in mind, and since Peter no where specifically mentions God's pending judgment against Israel, I must take the position the "the end" means "the end" for his audience and not "the end" of Jerusalem where none of his specified audience resided. Furthermore, the destruction of Jerusalem position begs the question regarding the practice of hope, what was Peter's audience to do after the destruction? The epistle says "hope to the end." Does this mean hope was no longer to be practiced after the destruction of Jerusalem? Also, what specifically was his audience to hope for up to the destruction of Jerusalem; that Israel would repent and Jerusalem not be destroyed? Too late to hope for that. Jesus pronounced with finality God's judgment in Matthew 23:37-39 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, [thou] that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under [her] wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed [is] he that cometh in the name of the Lord." The die was cast for national Israel. As a people, they would not be allowed to repent. The next time they would see Jesus is when he returns at God's command at the resurrection, when the elect among them will rejoice to say "Blessed [is] he that cometh in the name ofthe Lord."

Sing
Michael Ivey
What is the end spoken of here?

Mat 24:14
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Does this passage speak of the revelation of Jesus Christ?

Mat 24:30
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

I will attend to your long list of questions later.

Sing
Robert @ so, they were hoping for the destruction of Jerusalem? Because that would put them at odds with the OT prophets, Jesus, and the apostles. They all mourned the coming destruction of that city, although it must be so
======
1 Peter 1:13 KJV — Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

No, they were not hoping for the destruction of Jerusalem. The text doesn't say so; you are imagining it!

The destruction of Jerusalem - prophesied by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself and repeated by the Apostles to the Jewish believers - will deliver them from the bloodthirsty persecution of religious establishment. That's great deliverance, the grace that is to be brought to them at the revelation of Jesus Christ to execute judgment upon the perverse untoward generation.

Christ Jesus Himself prophesied the certain destruction of Jerusalem; therefore believing in its destruction put them in line with the Lord, and not at odds with the OT prophets that foretold the event.

Apostle Peter is exhorting the Jewish believers to hold on, to endure to the end.

Mat 10:22
And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

Robert
Sing no it didn’t. Revelation, written near the end of the first century, says Christians still had to deal with Jewish persecution.

Furthermore, they were persecuted by the government to at least as great an extent as the Jews ever did

Sing
Robert: What didn't?
Persecuted by the pagan government and persecuted by the blood-thirsty untoward religious Jews are a wee bit difference, is it not!

Robert
Sing how so? Explain

Sing
Robert If you don't see the difference, then it is futile for me to explain. Thanks.

Billie
Bro Sing
I believe the “end” is the end of the trial and temptation they faced through persecution that they, the church, were facing. This may be many times in life.

He tells them that they trust him though they have not “seen” him. They hold on to hope until we see him in all His glory at our moment of death and ultimate deliverance from this world of trials and temptations.

Just my humble opinion.

Sing
Billie: Thank you.

Sing
Billie: "This may be many times in life."

The passage speaks of "the end" - one specific end common for all the people addressed, the Jewish believers.

Billie
Sing i believe I was speaking of the many deaths that the church collective must experience. This is one end will be common to us all.

Elbert
I read all comments they could be right. There are differences in the end, ,Jesus when he arose from the dead, ascended to God in heaven and all power was giving him. This was the end of the law covenant, started the Grace covenant. The end for us on earth as we know is death ,we will come out the grave with a body like Jesus,the be gaining of life in heaven,the end there are many the time on earth end of as we know it, new birth is the end of our old life ,there are many ends ,we just have rightly decide it ,have a great day

Micah
1 Peter 1:13 KJV — Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Please help me with the passage.

Q. What is "the end" spoken of?
I would say either the end of the individuals life, or the return of Christ, which ever comes first.

Q. What is "the revelation of Jesus Christ"?
It is the view of him that is unveiled by our flesh. Having either died and been ushered into glory with the Lord or having viewed him in the clouds at the last day it is the perfect vision of His person.

Q. Is the "end" synchronous with "the revelation of Jesus Christ"?
Yes, I believe the afore provided explanations would require it.

Q. Have they happened?
Yes and No. it depends on the individual.

Q. If not, when?
The final completion at the resurrection. For those passing before then at their death.

Q. If yes, when?
Upon the death of every saint who has previously passed away.

Thank you most kindly in advance for your help.

Hope that helps.

Reggie
Micah: although I agree with bro. Mark, I do like how you applied the spiritual aspect to this…

Sing
Reggie: The right meaning of the text is NOT THE SAME as the various applications of the text. 😊😊😊

Sing
2Peter 3 1 ¶ This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

----------

Please help me

Q. What are the "last days" spoken of - the last days of the Jewish world or the last days of the gospel age?

Q. What is "the promise of his coming" spoken of - his coming in 70AD to judge Israel, or his coming at the end of the gospel age?

Q. Who was scoffing at the promise of his coming?

. Did Peter write of the same thing in his first epistle?

Thank you.

Robert
Sing: are these more real questions or just another prompting to argue with people over your own views which are already settled? Because if it’s the latter, why not just make plain statements and invite discussion?

Sing
Robert: I learned from the late Elder Gene Thomas the art of learning by asking questions.

He turned a parrot into a student of God's word. For that, I'm eternally grateful to him.

Robert
Question for the preterists: where do the other Jewish revolts (the Kitos War and the Bar Kokhba revolt) fit in?

Reggie
Good morning brothers and sisters.. this is probably the best read I’ve had in a good while.

Eschatology is important. Having the proper view of where we are today because of the Accomplishments of Jesus Christ and His Cross is vital to society in every generation.

It’s a good thing to apply the scriptures to our lives, sure. But, our ego is sneaky. If we don’t reel it in from time to time, we will begin perverting the truth by making the Bible say things She never said.

So, in that spirit of humility (which is surely among every person who has commented here) I would like to connect The Revelation of Jesus with 1st Peter.

Who is the audience reading 1st Peter?

1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, (1 Peter 1:1 KJV)

Who was The Revelation of Jesus written to?

4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; (Revelation 1:4 KJV)

Some common threads are….

Tribulations, persecutions, an end that is very near and of course, the revelation of Jesus.

13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; (1 Peter 1:13 KJV)

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: (Revelation 1:1 KJV)

Sing
Reggie: What happened at the revelation of Jesus Christ in 1Peter 1:13?
What is the Revelation of Jesus Christ in Revelation 1:1?
Thank you.

Reggie
Sing: the Jewish wars that began in 66 AD, one could say, was the catalyst which started a huge, a mass killing off of people all over that world, that area.

God, according to Jesus, used armies to kill the Jews.

Luke wrote…..20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. (Luke 21:20 KJV)

This is the same as…. What Daniel spoke of… according to Jesus again…

Matthew wrote…..15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) (Matthew 24:15 KJV)

And both these verses are followed by….

Luke wrote…21 Then let them which are in Judæa flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. (Luke 21:21 KJV)

Matthew wrote….16 then let them which be in Judæa flee into the mountains: (Matthew 24:16 KJV)

This is Jesus commanding the jewish Church which was birthed at Pentecost, to flee… this is also the meaning behind the 5 wise and 5 foolish virgins parable… this is also why Jesus taught the unjust Stewart parable… that the churches in Asia Minor (houses) might be more willing to receive the Jewish church in their exodus.

But remember what Jesus said before this?

(This is why Corinth was so so so so important! This is why Corinth was chosen out of all the other churches to have the prolonged gifts of tongues. Corinth was the hub of all Asia, Rome, sea ports and highways from the north in between Rome and Asia Minor.)

14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. (Matthew 24:14 KJV)

So, what happened in 1st Peter ch.1 vs.13?

The mass killing off of the Jewish people all over that region, including Israel, along with the major instabilities that region was in…

The ruler over all the land, even down into Egypt, was the Keisers… the Kurioses. The Lord, which was The Emperor or Rome. During this time, they went through 7 kings. 5 right before the destruction of Israel. Then two more right behind them, in quick fashion.

This should tell us that this was the most unstable time this land had ever experienced, and it hasn’t experienced so great a mass killing off of people that even the Ceasars were being assassinated….

Copy paste…
The Jewish–Roman wars were a series of large-scale revolts by the Jews of the Eastern Mediterranean against the Roman Empire between 66 and 135 CE.[10] While the First Jewish–Roman War (66–73 CE) and the Bar Kokhba revolt (132–136 CE) were nationalist rebellions, striving to restore an independent Judean state, the Kitos War was more of an ethno-religious conflict, mostly fought outside Judea Province. Hence, some sources use the term Jewish-Roman Wars to refer only to the First Jewish–Roman War (66–73 CE) and the Bar Kokhba revolt (132–135 CE), while others include the Kitos War (115–117 CE) as one of the Jewish–Roman wars

Ok, now that we got all that out the way….and by the way, we learn our arithmetics, literature, economics and government in what we call…(Elementary School)… this is that element which melted with fervent heat…. The world’s ways of doing things…And the stars were the rulers of that time which so called, gave light (understanding)… and they fell from their seat of power.

Now think of elementary school rebuking vain traditions from our fathers…

14 as obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: 15 but as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; 16 because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. 17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: 18 forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; (1 Peter 1:14-18 KJV)

The world we live in today holds to truths that are absolutely true… the world in their day was full of fables and old wives tales…

The Grace of God removed the hostility that God had toward man, enabling God to draw near unto man, giving man a heart and desire to seek Him, and that seeking God produced our education system of today which gives us all the creaturely comforts we have… and this world is getting better and better… God has been restoring and is continuing to restore this earth and man whom He created… this is the reason for the cross.

Reggie
Part of the revelation of Jesus is…..His Words concerning the nation of Israel coming to an end being fulfilled. If one takes away 70 AD… then they take away all the apocalyptic passages concerning Jesus’s prophesies about Jerusalem and the temple being destroyed.

To take away 70 AD is to hide Jesus’ Prophecy coming true.

Reggie
So, to make the Bible say things that it didn’t say, aka bad eschatology, is to take away from the Words Jesus said,
36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. (Matthew 23:36 KJV)
making Him a liar…

Reggie
The destruction of Jerusalem

Sing
Reggie: Thank you, Sir.

Reggie
I might add, the historical majority view of Primitive Baptists has been
Copy Paste…
The amillennial view regards the "thousand years" mentioned in Revelation 20 as a symbolic number, not as a literal description; amillennialists hold that the millennium has already begun and is identical with the current church age. Amillennialism holds that while Christ's reign during the millennium is spiritual in nature, at the end of the church age, Christ will return in final judgment and establish a permanent reign in the new heaven and new Earth.

Reggie
And I’m not a Preterits, fully, I am Post Mill. #DatPostmil

Sing
Reggie: I'm a gospel millennialist. 😊

Reggie
Sing, then you may fall under Amill… just as the classical long held view of the Anabaptists/Primitive Baptists…

This idea of a future fulfillment of Israel building some third temple to be destroyed stems from dispensational premillennialism… it’s a consequence of an idea… anyone who strives to be consistent with a view they hold must adjust all other truths surrounding that view to fit…

Robert
Reggie: the idea of a rebuilt temple can stem from how one views 2 Thessalonians 2, and have absolutely nothing to do with a particular framework of eschatology.

I rather dislike boiling people down into various camps. It is possible for people to honestly search the scripture and arrive at an opinion of what they mean without regard to a particular school of thought