Today’s post is a fine-tuning of how we use the term, “the Antichrist.” No doctrinal issues are in jeopardy that I am aware of, but Zane Hodges proposed that the term, “the Antichrist,” refers to the coming false prophet of Revelation 13:11, not to the first beast of Revelation 13:1. Here is Zane’s argument from his commentary on 1 John:[Read More]
Greek
On Reconciliation, Soteriology, and All that Jazz (2 Cor. 5:18–20)
Jesus did some things for everybody and some things for believers only. It is important to understand this to maintain a consistent theology of salvation through faith alone in Christ alone. If we confuse the work done for everyone with the benefits given to believers, then we could mistakenly think that faith alone in Christ alone is unnecessary. Likewise, if we confuse what Jesus did for believers and what Jesus expects from believers, then we could mistake faith alone in Christ alone as insufficient.[Read More]
Greek for People Who Don’t Know Greek: James 2:21–24
James 2 has become a proof text for a concept that is known in Russian as “Salvation Through Lordship,” which supposes that saving faith must be accompanied by works (or submission to the lordship of Christ) in order to be truly salvific. There are several problems with this view, but one problem in this context is that James 2 is saying precisely the opposite, that it is possible to be saved through faith alone, not through lordship, and still lack works. Obviously, James wants his audience to have both faith and works, so in James 2:21–24, he appeals to the life of Abraham to distinguish between faith and works and to show that faith and works have two different results.[Read More]
Response to “Luke’s Gay Apocalypse” Part III: Yes, Non-Celibate Homosexuals Can Be Saved
This is part three of a response to a post by Jeremy Myers. In that post, Myers summarizes the view of Ron Goetz, which proposes that Luke 17:34–35 is about saved non-celibate homosexuals. While I believe that there are saved non-celibate homosexuals, I disagree with the process of forcing a gay reading into this text (especially by using Document Q and Pagan mythology).[Read More]
Response to “Luke’s Gay Apocalypse” Part II: Context
This is part two of a response to a post by Jeremy Myers. In that post, Myers summarizes the view of Ron Goetz, which proposes that Luke 17:34–35 is about saved non-celibate homosexuals. While I believe that there are saved non-celibate homosexuals, I disagree with the process of forcing a gay reading into this text (especially by using Document Q and Pagan mythology).[Read More]
Response to “Luke’s Gay Apocalypse” Part I: Intro and Word Studies
This is part one of a response to a post by Jeremy Myers. In that post, Myers summarizes the view of Ron Goetz, which proposes that Luke 17:34–35 is about saved non-celibate homosexuals. While I believe that there are saved non-celibate homosexuals, I disagree with the process of forcing a gay reading into this text (especially by using Document Q and Pagan mythology).[Read More]