Search

You searched for 'Prophet'

I've found 25 results!

Review of Walter J. Chantry's Signs Of the Apostles

Simon Wartanian | 4,589 views | 1,468 words | 0:07:37 hours | 21 April 2016 00:17

...text-align: center;"Observations On Pentecostalism Old And New^[1]

My feelings are mixed concerning this small volume. I believe that his case for cessationism did not stand. I believe that he misused some passages to make his case. Here are a few things that raised my eyebrows.

First, he argues that miracles were given for attestation from the narrative of Moses (Ex 4:5) and NT. No one disagrees, but he makes attestation the primary purpose of miracles. And not simple attestation, rather attestation for Prophetic ministry. Miracles were connected with the Prophets as he tries to argue from Ex 4:5 and Deut 34:10-11 (later from Elijah's example in 1Kings 18:36). But then he raises the anticipated objection about the miracles of Samson or the other Prophets, his answer is not satisfying. He basically says that the "history is incomplete" (p. 11), i.e. we do not have everything that they did, therefore, they must have done some Prophetic stuff as leaders of God's people. That is unsatisfactory.

Second, he uses Psalm 74:9 to say that "This is a striking endorsement of the principle that only Prophets work miracles. Where miracles are performed we should expect to hear the inspired Word of God spoken. When there is no Prophet, there are no signs." (p. 12)

Here pastor Chantry understands the signs to refer to the miracles of the Prophets. But I believe what is a more proper sense of the verse is to speak of the Temple. The enemies of Israel as they are described in verse 4 "have roared in the midst of your [God's] meeting place; they set up their own signs for signs." The enemies of Israel have set up their own things in the Temple of God as signs. But now destitute of the Temple (in the time of the exile), the Israelites do not have their signs, i.e. the ark, the sacrifices, the temple which pictured to the people the presence of God among them.

Whatever the sense of the text, this does not have bearing upon the miracles when we come to the NT as on Pentecost when they were to be poured out on all people (Acts 2:17ff).

Third, he uses Galatians 3:5 to say "Paul appealed to his miracle-working power as evidence that he, rather than the Judaizers, ought to be believed." (p. 15) Where does Paul fit into the text? The text reads "Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— ". Can it be that this is based upon the assumption that only the apostles can work miracles while the verse doesn't say a word about such a thing?

Fourth, he limits the scope of Hebrews 2:3-4 to the apostles though he does not explicitly say that (pp. 15-16). But the text does not reject the present work of God among the Hebrews, it simply highlights God's work among the Apostles.

Fifth, he anticipates the objection of non-apostles doing miracles and he raises the case of Philip in Acts 8:4-15. Then there's some weird comment about the people to whom Philip had preached that "[c]ertainly the true converts among them already had God's Spirit in their hearts, for [citation of Rom 8:9]" (p. 17). This was a first time for me, usually people explain it in terms of the foundational period of Acts and the primacy of Apostles that the believers did not receive the Spirit.

He accepts that Philip did actually perform miraculous deeds as the Bible obviously says (Acts 8:6-7), but then o

......

Hebrews 6:4-6, Apostasy and Calvinism

Simon Wartanian | 16,931 views | 11,271 words | 0:59:55 hours | 15 May 2016 15:27

Hebrews 6 Apostasy Perseverance Of The Saints Reformed Theology Calvinism Falling Away From Grace

...ngs:

Can we regard the people in this passage as false believers? I think we can. Think of Judas Iscariot, chosen by Jesus to be one of the twelve disciples. By joining Jesus’ band of followers, he turned away from the sinful world, a kind of repentance. Doubtless he received the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, either from Jesus or from John. He was enlightened by hearing Jesus’ teaching. He tasted the heavenly gift [Dr. Frame understands this to refer to supernatural gifts] as he watched Jesus heal and prophesy.1267 He shared the Spirit, at least as much as King Saul did when he prophesied, and people asked, “Is Saul also among the Prophets?” (1 Sam. 10:11). Judas also tasted the good word of Christ and Jesus’ miraculous powers, the powers of the age to come, the powers of the coming kingdom. Judas himself preached Christ and worked miracles in his name (Matt. 10:1–42). But he proved to be reprobate, unbelieving. He betrayed Jesus, who said of him that it would have been better if he had not been born. Externally, he seemed to be a believer, and indeed, he had many advantages that believers have, hearing Jesus’ words and watching his miracles.

Perhaps even more to the focus of the letter to the Hebrews: OT Israel was much like this—enlightened in comparison with the other nations, experiencing all sorts of heavenly gifts, powers, and words. But many of the Israelites were wicked and turned against God.^[13]

Then have fallen away

This falling away, is a total falling away and not a falling into sin for example, but it is a falling by which the person renounces completely the Christian faith. They have not fallen from their regenerate state, they have not fallen from the hand of God, but rather, they have fallen away from their previous profession. Though all of the descriptions given in vv. 4-5 could describe a true Christian, yet they are not conclusive as Judas and the “workers of lawlessness” of Matthew 7:21-23 experienced many of the same and similar things.

The word “then” is not in the original Greek, but it is supplied by the translators for a better translation in the English and a better understanding of the passage. In this way, their falling away is described against the background of their experience with the Christian faith as described in vv. 4-5. It is as if the Author said, “if even after experiencing these things, which, if regeneration were a natural work, would have undoubtedly led you to regeneration and you fall away from your previous profession, then there is no hope for you after having so much knowledge and yet rejecting it.”

Impossible to restore them again to repentance

Why is it impossible to restore them to repentance? Two reasons are given which are one: (1) they are re-crucifying the Son of God and thereby (2) holding Him up to contempt. But let us first inquire as to what it means to “restore them again to repentance.” Does this imply that these apostates at a time where truly repentant? Only if this is the only way repentance is spoken of.

Μετάνοια (metanoia) is simply “a change of mind” (Thayer’s. G3341.), but does not imply a genuine and godly repentance. Repentance has also an idea of grief in it for doing things that we now change our minds about. John Gill observes that:

repentance does not suppose that persons may have true repentance and lose it; for though truly penitent persons may lose the exercise of this grace for a time, yet the grace itself can never ...

A Review of Hell Under Fire

Simon Wartanian | 5,381 views | 1,399 words | 0:07:19 hours | 22 January 2017 20:36

Book Review Eschatology Heaven Hell Gehenna Judgment Eternity Annihilationism Universalism Eternal Punishment Hell Under Fire

...tion, deals in detail with these passages while interacting fairly and respectfully with the other side.

He shows how the eternality of hell is parallel with the eternality of heaven. Notice how in Revelation 14:11 the torments of the lost who are said to “have no rest, day or night” are side by side with the bliss of the saints who are said to have “rest from their labors” in Revelation 14:13. Notice also the close parallel between Revelation 14:11 and 20:10. Dr. Beale lays a great stress on this and rightfully so. The worshipers of the beast, the reprobate, will meet the same fate as their lord, the unholy trinity: Satan, the beast and false Prophet. Dr. Beale writes, ‘the temporal expression “day and night” (hemeras kai nyktos) clearly refers to ceaseless activity that endures for eternity in 20:10, but the identical sense is strongly implied in 7:15 and 4:8. In 7:15 the clause alludes to the worship of the whole congregation of saints in God's temple in the new creation at the end of the age...Such worship and relief will continue forever” (p. 118).

The parallel between the fate of the wicked and the righteous is also present in the fact that while the righteous “will reign forever and ever” (Rev 22:5), on the other hand, “the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever” (Rev 14:11). Notice that Scripture says that the smoke of their torment, not destruction goes up forever and ever. The expression “forever and ever” is identical for both the righteous as well as the wicked. Torment or punishment by definition implies consciousness. We do not torment or punish a car or a rock; but we do punish criminals. Therefore, “It still remains true that Revelation 14:11 and 20:10-15 are the Achilles’ heel of the annihilationist perspective” (p. 134).

Much more could be said about this chapter, but my advice is to simply pick up the book and read this chapter. It is mind-opening and very helpful.

Summary

I loved the respectful tone of the authors and their respectful and fair interaction with the other side. I enjoyed their fair and honest handling of the Scriptures. I loved the fact that the authors frequently referred back to earlier portions of the book, which tells me that the editor did a great job at putting the book together. Sometimes they even cite earlier portions. Much could be learned from this book, from both its theological as well as pastoral tone, and I will no doubt return and look up the arguments and the texts again. Lord willing, I will try to update my commentary on chapter 32 of the 1689 sometime in the future with the insights I've gained from this work.

My final advice is: tolle lege!

...

John Owen's Case For Particular Atonement

Simon Wartanian | 12,650 views | 15,628 words | 1:22:53 hours | 21 March 2017 23:01

John Owen Definite Redemption Limited Atonement Particular Atonement Calvinism Five Point Calvinism Arminianism

...ldquo;bear our sins” in 1 Peter 2:24. This means nothing less than Christ's substitutionary atonement. Christ bore our sins and their punishment upon Himself. The purpose for Christ bearing our sins is “that we might die to sin and live to righteousness.” After citing the purpose, Owen says:

And what was the effect? “By his stripes we are healed:” which latter, as it is taken from the same place of the Prophet where our Saviour is affirmed to “bear our iniquities, and to have them laid upon him” (Isa. 53:5, 6, 10–12), so it is expository of the former, and will tell us what Christ did by “bearing our sins;”^[11] (book II, chapter 3)

He underwent the punishment for our sins which we should have received and thereby we have been healed.

Reconciliation with God is one of the fruits of Christ's accomplishments as is said in Colossians 1:21-22; Ephesians 2:13-16; Romans 5:8-10. “Peace and reconciliation, deliverance from wrath, enmity, and whatever lay against us to keep us from enjoying the love and favour of God, — a redemption from all these he effected for his church “with his own blood,” Acts xx. 28.”^[12] (book II, chapter 3)

By His self-giving, He accomplished both our justification as well as our redemption (Rom. 5:9; 8:32-34; Rev. 5:9-10). By His death, He gives us life and we live (John 10:15, 28; Rom. 5:8-10; 6:4, 10-11).

Scope

What does Scripture say about the scope of atonement? Many different names are given for the objects of Christ's death. Some references are definite, others are indefinite and general, but both concern the same group, namely, the elect who actually receive the benefits of His work, according to the purpose of God.

In various places they are called “many” (Matt. 26:28; Isa. 53;11; Mark 10:45; Matt. 20:28; Heb. 2:10; Rom. 5:19; Heb. 9:28). But more important than that there are specific designations as:

sheep (John 10:15);
the children of God who are scattered abroad (John 11:52);
those given of the Father (John 17:2, 6, 9, 11);
God's elect (Rom. 8:32);
His people (Matt. 1:21; cf. Acts 18:10; Heb. 13:12);
those whom He foreknew (Rom. 8:29; 11:2);
His church (Acts 20:28; cf. Eph. 5:25-27).

Next to this, we should not forget the antithesis between the world and the people of God; those who are God's friends and those who are still His enemies; those who are sheep and those who are goats. When we understand the radical antithesis between the redeemed and the reprobate, it will no longer be necessary to demand a verse in which the word “only” is used.

The Obtaining and Application of Redemption

Next, Dr. Owen deals with the objection that Christ has purchased salvation for all without exception, but it is applied only to those who believe. In other words, the obtaining of redemption, or the death of Christ is for everyone, but the application only to those who believe, i.e., the elect. Owen explains that “by impetration we mean the meritorious purchase of all good things made by Christ for us with and of his Father; and by application, the actual enjoyment of those good things upon our believing;”^[13] (book II, chapter 4). Owen answers this objection, among other things, by pointing to Scriptures which enjoin and do not disjoin these two things.

But first let us deal with the question of faith and it being a condition. The condition for enjoying the work of redemption on our behalf is itself a gift of God. Faith, which is the key to justification and en...

Extensive review of Jonathan Menn's Biblical Eschatology

Simon Wartanian | 5,113 views | 12,397 words | 1:05:40 hours | 09 February 2022 21:11

Book Reivew Jonathan Menn Eschatology Amillennialism Dispensationalism Millennium

...) differ on the nature and timing of the kingdom in Revelation 20. He then proceeds to briefly lay out the eschatological positions and words which are often used.

Interpreting prophecy

Nature of Prophecy

In chapter 2, entitled “Interpreting Prophecy and Apocalyptic” he lays out the hermeneutics needed which will be used in interpreting prophecy. This is mainly directed against dispensational premillennialism with its insistence on “consistent literal interpretation,” especially of prophecy. Before we a priori decide upon a “literal interpretation” of prophecy, we must first understand the nature of prophecy. The Prophets primarily did two things: “(1) They warned God’s people of the consequences of disobedience to the Lord’s ways by oracles of judgment; and (2) They called God’s people back to faithfulness by oracles of salvation” (pp. 6-7). Their purpose was to change the behavior of people and call them to repentance rather than give them things interesting to think about or a map of the future. Their primary function was forth-telling rather than fore-telling. What makes prophecy difficult is the medium in which it was given to the Prophets. They are sometimes given in a dream or visionary form. This means that such a prophecy must be interpreted in line with its literature, and not the same as Genesis or Exodus which is narrated history. The way that God talks to the Prophets is said to be “in dark sayings” (Ps. 78:2; cf. Num. 12:6-8), which obviously does not mean that such a prophecy is clear on first sight. Prophecy, in comparison with didactic (teaching) or historical portion of the Bible, is less clear.

Contingency

Another important factor to keep in mind when dealing with prophecy is that, because it is concerned with the behavior of God’s people, it is therefore contingent. “God announced this principle of contingency in Jer 18:6–11; 26:12–13; 36:1–3; Ezek 18:1–32; 33:10–20” (p. 8). Sometimes this principle is explicitly stated (Menn adduces Jer 38:17–18; 42:7–17; Acts 27:21–44; Rom 11:17–24). Other times it is not stated though it is nonetheless conditional (Menn adduces Exod 32:9–14; Isa 38:1–5; Jonah 3:1—4:2; Matt 19:27–28. “In Matt 19:27–28 the promise by Jesus to the Twelve that they would judge the twelve tribes of Israel included Judas.”). This principle of contingency is also clearly seen in the preaching of Jonah to Nineveh which simply was “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” (Jonah 3:4). There are no ifs or buts to be seen in Jonah’s prophecy, but God clearly relented from the disaster which He intended to bring on Nineveh. Why? Because Nineveh repented and God will not judge the righteous. While there was no contingency in Jonah’s preaching, prophecy by its nature is nonetheless contingent.

Redemptive historical context

When interpreting prophecy, it is important to consider the context in which it was spoken. In this respect, it is of special importance to consider the redemptive historical context. Old Testament prophecy primarily gave New Covenant prophecies veiled in the shadows and types of the Old Covenant. The New Testament is unmistakably clear that the Old Covenant and its institutions are by nature typological of New Covena

...