✪ See Christ - believer - union. "The very nature of the baptism of the Holy Spirit forbids that it be experimental [experiential]. As an act of God, it is clearly instantaneous. There is no period of transition. The believer is brought from his position in Adam to his position in Christ instantly. In the nature of any instantaneous act, there can be no experience of process." Ref-0019, p. 147. "[Someone will] argue for two baptisms. Acts 1:5, he says, is a baptism ‘with’ the Spirit for miraculous power, and ‘this baptism with the Holy Spirit was not, of course, the baptism of Jews and Gentiles into one body.’ The baptism of 1 Corinthians 12:13 is ‘by’ the Spirit, and this is the one that forms the Body church. Such a distinction is quite admissible as far as possible meanings of the Greek preposition en are concerned. The preposition does, at different times, mean ‘with,’ ‘in,’ and ‘by.’ That is not contested. What is contested is the artificiality of making it mean one thing in Acts and another in 1 Corinthians when it is used in exactly the same phrase with the word ‘Spirit.’" Ref-0056, p. 205. Holy Spirit baptism can be distinguished from Holy Spirit - filled by commanded of believers in Eph. 5:18. "Our contention is that this is an illustration of εν used for means. By calling ‘Spirit’ means here does not deny the personality of the Holy Spirit. Rather, the Holy Spirit is the instrument that Christ uses to baptize, even though [H]e is a person. Since πνευματι ἁγιω clearly indicated means in Mark 1:8 (as in several other passages dealing with Spirit-baptism), it is surely not unreasonable to see ‘Spirit’ as the means here. Furthermore, if the Holy Spirit is the agent in this text, there is a theological problem: When is the prophecy of Mark 1:8 fulfilled? When would Christ baptize with the Holy Spirit? Because of the grammatical improbability of pneumati expressing agent in 1Cor. 12:13, it is better to see it as means and as the fulfillment of Mark 1:8. Thus, Christ is the unnamed agent. This also renders highly improbable one popular interpretation, viz., that there are two Spirit baptisms in the NT, one at salvation and one later." Ref-0129, p. 374. "what we have in the Book of Acts is a record of events in a period of history which is transitional in certain important respects. Hence, while every portion of Holy Scripture is ‘profitable for doctrine,’ we shall find in Acts some events which are unique in their appointed time and place, never being intended to serve as a permanent norm for the Church of the present age. For example, the day of Pentecost has never been precisely duplicated, and all attempts to do so have resulted in nothing but spiritual disappointment and often disaster." Ref-0183, p. 390. "The verb βαπτιζω followed by έν indicates that Jesus would baptize men in the sphere of the Holy Spirit (locative of sphere), or with the Holy Spirit (dative of association), or by means of the Holy Spirit (instrumental of means). Blass-DeBrunner views έν with the dative in an associative-instrumental sense when used with βαπτιζω, “to baptize with.” Swete sees the dative as either as a dative, or manner, or of instrument." Dick Roberts, "The Baptism in the Holy Spirit", Ref-0055, Vol. 8 No. 24, August, 2004, 229:244, p. 238. "There are some who attempt to make a distinction between being baptized by the Spirit and with the Spirit. In that view being baptized by the Spirit takes place at the point of salvation but being baptized with the Spirit is a secondary work that follows sometime after salvation and is based upon the believer meeting certain qualifications. Merrill F. Unger, noted dispensational theologian, said of this doctrine, “No instance in the Gospels or the Acts, when seen in proper dispensational perspective, is at variance with this truth. That there is no ground in all the Word of God for the error of the baptism with the Holy Spirit being considered a ‘second experience’ after regeneration, becomes patent.” [Merrill Frederick Unger, “The Baptism with the Holy Spirit,” Bibliotheca Sacra 101 (April 1944): 498]" David Q. Santos, Two Classes of Christians in the Pentecostal View of Spirit Baptism, Ref-0785 vol. 21 No. 63, Autumn 2017, 203-214, p. 204.
✪ ". . .were regenerated, indwelt, sealed, and filled with the Spirit at the same moment they were baptized with the Spirit." Ref-0019, p. 144.
✪ "The Baptism with the Holy Spirit is not regeneration-the apostles were already regenerate-and it is not given primarily to promote sanctification; it is a baptism of power, or a baptism of fire, a baptism to enable one to witness." Ref-1369, p. 308.
✪ Some of these terms are synonyms and others may describe simultaneous ministries of the Spirit.
✪ "As Gardiner states: . . .the outpouring at Cornelius’ house [Acts 10:44] followed Pentecost by eight years, yet Peter could not point to any continuous flow of such experience among the churches when he explained to the leaders at Jerusalem what had happened to the Gentiles [Acts 11:15-17]. After eight years he must say, ‘as on us at the beginning,’ not ‘as on all the churches.’ Here is a case where silence is eloquent indeed!" Ref-0226, pp. 8-9. "This action of the Holy Spirit was not the norm when anyone was saved. In supporting his stand for accepting Gentiles into the church, Peter referred to “the beginning,” that is, Pentecost, arguing that if the Holy Spirit Himself accepted Cornelius, then so too should the Jews. The Pentecostal experience was said by the Holy Spirit to prove that in the church there was now no difference between Israel and the Gentiles . . . (Eph. 2:14-15)." George Hilgeman, "The Destiny of the Unevangelized", Ref-0229, p. 99. "We believe that the baptism with the Holy Spirit is an experience that follows salvation. All believers have God’s Spirit within them. Holy Spirit baptism empowers believers to exalt Jesus, to live lives of holiness, and to be witnesses of God’s saving grace. We believe that those who experience Holy Spirit baptism today will experience it in the same manner that believers experienced it in the early church; in other words, we believe that they will speak in tongues—languages that are not known to them (Acts 1:5,8; 2:4)." Biblical Truths: It’s what the Foursquare Church Believes [http://www.foursquare.org/about/what_we_believe/spirit_filled_life] accessed 20130131. Questionable: Acts 8:17 (? Samaritans);
✪ Questionable: Luke 24:45 (?);
✪ Questionable: John 6:21 (? cf. Mat. 14:34 and Mark 6:53);
✪ "Humans are in a state of sin. . . because they do not believe in Christ. The Spirit proves that Christ is righteous because He rose from the dead and returned to the Father. The Spirit proves that judgment is sure to come because it has come in the past through the judgment of Satan at the Cross." Ref-0097, p. 153. "A faculty of reason remains since the fall, but it is greatly impaired and blinded. So natural conscience remains, but sin, in a great degree, stupefies it, and hinders it in its work. Now when God convinces a sinner, he assists his conscience against the stupefaction of sin, and helps it to do its work more freely and fully. The Spirit of God works immediately upon men's consciences. In conviction their consciences are awakened. They are convinced in their consciences. Their consciences smite them and condemn them." Ref-1289, p. 62. "Unless a man be thus convinced of his sin and misery before God makes him sensible of his redeeming love and mercy, he cannot be sensible of what love and mercy as it is; viz. that it is free and sovereign." Ref-1289, p. 69. "The heart of man is not prepared to receive the mercy of God in Christ, as free and unmerited, till he is sensible of his own demerit. Indeed the soul is not capable of receiving a revelation or discovery of the redeeming grace of God in Christ, as redeeming grace, without being convinced of sin and misery. He must see his sin and misery before he can see the grace of God in redeeming him from that sin and misery." Ref-1289, p. 70. "When the soul stands trembling at the bring of the pit, and despairs of any help from itself, it is prepared joyfully to receive tidings of deliverance. If God is pleased at such a time to make the soul hear his still small voice, his call to himself and to a Saviour, the soul is prepared to give it a joyful reception." Ref-1289, p. 71. "In 1883 C. H. Spurgeon declared: ‘In the beginning, the preacher's business is not to convert men, but the very reverse. It is idle to attempt to heal those who are not wounded, to attempt to clothe those who have never been stripped, and to make those rich who have never realized their poverty. As long as the world stands, we shall need the Holy Ghost, not only as the Comforter, but also as the Convincer, who will “reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment”.’ [The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, vol. 44, p. 421.]" Ref-0933, p. 206. "How it is possible that you should be willing to accept of Christ as a Saviour from the desert of a punishment that you are not sensible you have deserved. If you are truly willing to accept of Christ as a Saviour, it must be as a sacrifice to make atonement for your guilt. Christ came into the world on this errand, to offer himself as an atonement, to answer for our desert of punishment. But how can you be willing to have Christ for a Saviour from a desert of hell, if you be not sensible that you have a desert of hell? If you have not really deserved everlasting burnings in hell, then the very offer of an atonement for such a desert is an imposition upon you." Ref-1289, p. 139. "In the word of Robert Bolton: A man must feel himself in misery before he will go about to find a remedy; be sick before he will seek a physician; be in prison before he will seek for a pardon. A sinner must be weary of his former wicked ways before he will have recourse to Jesus Christ for refreshing. He must be sensible of his spiritual poverty, beggary, and slavery under the devil, before he thirst kindly for heavenly righteousness, and willingly take up Christ’s sweet and easy yoke. He must be down, confounded, condemned, a cast away, and lost in himself, before he will look about for a Savior." Ref-1302, p. 128 "Some there be that do deny any necessity of the preparatory work of the Spirit of God in order to a closing with Christ. If this opinion should prevail in the land, it would give a deadly wound to religion., it would expose men to think themselves converted when they are not. A man that knows there must be a work of preparation will be careful how he encourages others [to believe] that they are in Christ; he will enquire how God has made a way for their receiving of Christ; but another that is a stranger to it, will be read to take all for gold that glitters and if we sees men religiously disposed will be speaking peace to them; he will be like the false prophets, saying, Peace, peace, where there is no peace. So men will be hardened. it is a dismal thing to give men sleepy potions and make them sleep the sleep of death. [Solomon Stoddard, A Guide to Christ]", grandfather of Jonathan Edwards, Ref-1302, p. 131. "The application of their discourses is either short, or indistinct and general. They difference not the precious from the vile . . . They comfort people people before they convince them; sow before they plow; and are busy in raising a fabric before they lay a foundation. These foolish builders do but strengthen men’s carnal security by their soft, selfish, cowardly discourses. They have not the courage, or honesty, to thrust the nail of terror into sleeping souls! [Gilbert Tennent]", Ref-1302, p. 133.
✪ "The thought is not that individuals by any process have received more of the Spirit, but it is rather that the Spirit has complete possession of the individual." Ref-0019, p. 192.
✪ ". . . Edwards turned . . . to the perennial New England questions of what were sufficient evidences of a work of the Spirit. These were signs such as love to Jesus, renouncing of worldly lusts and ambitions, a love of Scripture, a spirit of truth, and true Christian love. These were “certain distinguishing marks” of true awakening." Ref-1348, p. 235.
✪ Questionable: Dan. 6:3 (?? (OG));
✪ "[One] assumption . . . is that if Jesus was generated from Mary's egg, then He would inherit the sin nature of man. This presumes a lack in the power of God because it is not essentially true. In fact, Luke spells out exactly why Mary's egg was generated but Jesus did not inherit Mary's sin nature. This is found in Luke 1:35 . . . What kept Yeshua from inheriting the sin nature of Mary was the overshadowing work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit generated Mary's egg, protecting it from inheriting the sin nature and there what was born of Mary was holy. Again, the requirement was that Messiah be a direct descendant of Adam, Abraham, Judah, and David. If Mary was simply a surrogate mother and was not the biological mother of Jesus, then Jesus does not have a direct biological line to anyone before Him. No creation occurred in the womb, but the Holy Spirit took one of Mary's eggs and generated it and produced the sinless God-Man." Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Questions and Answers, Ref-0067, Summer 2005, p. 4.
✪ ". . .it is said on separate occasions that the Spirit entered into Ezekiel (Eze. 2:2; 3:24). How could this be if Ezekiel was permanently indwelled?" Ref-0105, p. 27.
✪ ". . . the phrase “inspired by God” is but one word in Greek and that word is an adjective modifying “Scripture.” In fact, please note that the next adjective (“profitable”) also modifies “Scripture.” Biblically, Scripture possesses the quality of being “inspired” or “God-breathed,” not the writers—just as “profitable” is not a quality of the writers." William D. Barrick, Inspiration and the Trinity, Ref-0164 24/2 (Fall 2013) [2013121101.pdf], 179-197, p. 181. ". . . we may summarize the divine Persons’ individual roles in inspiration as follows: the Father sends His Messenger (the pre-incarnate Son) to His people with the divine message and the Holy Spirit superintends the inscripturation of that message. While this structure of trinitarian involvement in inspiration seems to faithfully represent core functions for each Person, there yet remain some areas in which their functions overlap. For ex-ample, David says, “The Spirit of Yahweh spoke by me, And His word was on my tongue” (2 Sam 23:2). There are times when the Spirit's role is very near to that of the Son's." William D. Barrick, Inspiration and the Trinity, Ref-0164 24/2 (Fall 2013) [2013121101.pdf], 179-197, p. 185. "Article IV: We affirm that the Holy Spirit who inspired Scripture acts through it today to work faith in its message. We deny that the Holy Spirit ever teaches to anyone anything which is contrary to the teaching of Scripture." -- J. I. Packer, Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, 20160104143017.pdf, p. 2. "The Spirit's illumination can only be expected where the biblical text is diligently studied. Illumination does not yield new truth, over and above what the Bible says; rather, it enables us to see what Scripture was showing us all along." -- J. I. Packer, Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, 20160104143017.pdf, p. 6. "It is quite possible for ordinary, unaided men and women to write, on a given occasion, a narrative which we might properly describe as ‘infallible’ : completely free from mistakes. There is nothing magical about infallibility! Most human authors--whether of letters to their parents or of learned treatises--aim at infallibility; they do all they can to be honest and careful in what they say. At their best, they succeed. Why is it thought strange that, with the special help of the Holy Spirit, the writers of Scripture should have reached this standard, as God required?" Ref-1417, p. 29.
✪ "Luke reminds the reader that the acts Jesus did while on earth were done in the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:2) and that these acts of the apostles are the continuing acts of Jesus -- performed through the apostles and members of the church as the body of Christ, but still facilitated by the Holy Spirit." Ref-0105, p. 121. "The Spirit was upon Jesus at all times. His entire ministry was the result of the presence and power of the Spirit. Luke notes that even at the end of Jesus’ earthly ministry, just before His ascension, Jesus gave orders to the apostles by the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:2)." Ref-0105, p. 158. "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me (Luke 4:18; cf. Isa. 61:1-2). Jesus preached only in the power of the Holy Spirit!" Ref-0105, p. 159. citing R. Kent Hughes, "Preaching: God's Word to the Church Today," in The Coming Evangelical Crisis, (Chicago: Moody, 1996), p. 96. "He came as a man, and in a mysterious sense He was obedient to the Lord and dependent upon the Spirit's power to accomplish His earthly mission. Again, the paradox is that, as God's Son, He had His own innate divine power to do as He pleased." Ref-0105, p. 284.
✪ Note that Judas was empowered to do the works described in Mat. 10:8 yet was eternally lost (Mark 14:21; John 17:12; 19:11; Acts 1:25).
✪ In the case of 2Cor. 13:14, if the Holy Spirit were not a person then the benediction would be in the name of two persons and one thing. "The use of ἐκεῖνος here [John 15:26] is frequently regarded by students of the NT to be an affirmation of the personality of the Spirit. Such an approach is based on the assumption that the antecedant of ἐκεῖνος is πνεῦμα. . . . Bu tthis is erroneous. In all these Johannine passages, πνεῦμα is appositional to a masculine noun. The gender of ἐκεῖνος thus has nothing to do with the natural gender of πνεῦμα. The antecedent of ἐκεῖνος, in each case, is παράκλητος, not πνεῦμα. . . . Thus, since παράκλητος is masculine, so is the pronoun. Although one might argue that the Spirit's personality is in view in these passages, the view must be based on the nature of παράκλητος and the things said about the Comforter, not on any supposed grammatical subtleties." Ref-0129, 331-332.
✪ "Hence the meaning here seems to be that Christ was put to death in respect of flesh, but quickened or made alive in respect of Spirit, in the power of which He went and preached to the spirits in prison." Ref-1342, p. 10. "It is certain, however, that the preaching of which the apostle here speaks was addressed neither to angels nor to devils, nor yet to patriarchs, but expressly to those who did not hearken to it in the days of the divine long-suffering, just before the deluge." Ref-1342, p. 16. "This is as we saw confirmed by Genesis 6:3, where Jehovah said, “My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh; yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.”" Ref-1342, pp. 18-19. "The preaching was in the power of the Spirit, and hence attributed to the Spirit of Christ, who is ever the active person in the Godhead, as is well known in each visitation of man before the incarnation, preparing both the way and mind for it. Compare “the Spirit of Christ” which was in the prophets of old (1 Peter 1:11)." Ref-1342, pp. 18-19. "Taken as it stands for Christ’s going and preaching in virtue of the Spirit by Noah to the rebellious antediluvians, it is in my judgment fully justified . . . " Ref-1342, p. 21. "We are thus shown as plainly as words can that we here read of Christ preaching, not in person but by virtue of the Spirit, to those suffering the consequences of having been disobedient in the days of Noah." Ref-1342, p. 21. "the scope is that, having once on a time disobeyed when God’s long-suffering was waiting before the deluge, they are in: prison. In virtue (or in the power) of the Spirit Christ went and preached to such, by a preacher of righteousness, no doubt; but it is styled His preaching to enhance the solemnity of what was then refused, as it was also in Peter’s day." Ref-1342, p. 27. "It is not said that He went to the prison and there preached to the spirits; but that in the power of the Spirit He went and preached to the spirits that are there. For it is certain that ἐν τοῖς ἐν φυλακῆ πνεύμασιν can signify “that are in prison” as naturally at least as “that were” there: only the necessity of the context could really justify the latter sense. But if the context favour “that are,” it is the simple unforced bearing of the phrase. And that it does favour it should be plain from ἀπειθήσασίν ποτε ο῝τε, κ.τ.λ., which points to an antecedent time of guilt as the ground of their being now imprisoned." Ref-1342, pp. 10-11. "The passage cited [1Pe. 3:18-20] simply means that Christ, by His Spirit, preached through Noah to men who were “disobedient” in Noah’s day and were condemned for their sin. Those disobedient and condemned sinners where “spirits in prison” in Peter’s day. The use of “sometime” clearly marks the disobedience and the preaching as contemporaneous. The longsuffering of God is shown in His waiting in the days of Noah, not a “second chance” after death." Ref-1363, p. 133.
✪ In Gal. 3:14, την επαγγελιαν του πνευματος (the promise of the Spirit) is an appositional genitive -- the promise is the Spirit.
✪ In Acts 8:14 this was God's way of preventing two churches from forming (the Samaritans who worshiped at a rival temple at Mt. Gerazim vs. the Jews who worshiped in Jerusalem - John 4:20). It had the two-fold effect of showing the Samaritan's their interrelationship with the Jews in one body and validating the Samaritans to the Jews as true believers. In the case of Gentiles (Acts 10:45; Acts 19:2), it served to validate to the Jews that God was indeed including the Gentiles in the giving of the Spirit (Acts 11:15-17). "When the Samaritans were evangelized by Philip (Acts 8:14), it was Peter and John who were sent to examine the situation; and they served as the agents who mediated the Holy Spirit to the Samaritans, thereby ensuring that the Jewish believers in Jerusalem and the Samaritan half-breed believers farther north would begin on the same footing and belong to the same body." Ref-0062, p. 17. "In none of the three incidents of the Gospel going to Jews, Samaritans and Gentiles, was the experience the same. At Pentecost the Spirit was manifested by a mighty wind and tongues like as of fire. In Samaria the Holy Spirit was received by the laying on of the hands of the apostles. There was no baptism mentioned and no speaking of tongues. However in the case of the Gentiles the Spirit came in response to the hearing of the Word. There was no laying on of hands, no wind or fire, but here speaking in tongues did follow. Here are three different circumstances where Jews, Samaritans and Gentiles received the Holy Spirit, and they were all different. Which shall we follow, if these are meant for today?" Ref-0105, p. 141 citing M. R. DeHaan, Pentecost and After, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1964), p. 99. "The essential difference between the Samaritans (Acts 8) and the Gentiles (Acts 10), and why in Samaria there was the laying on of hands and not in Caesarea, was that Samaria had rejected the authority of Jerusalem and was postured in opposition to the Jews. Cornelius had embraced Judaism. He was already postured toward Jerusalem. Laying on of hands was necessary in Samaria in order to remove the schism and show the Samaritans that they must not continue in rejection and opposition to Jerusalem and the apostles. Conversely, it was necessary that there be no laying of hands on the Gentiles so that the apostles would not assume that Gentiles must become Jews to belong to the church of Christ." Ref-0105, pp. 141-142. "The Gentiles. . .received the Spirit apart from apostolic conferral so as to prevent inequality. Acts makes very clear that Gentiles are to be received into the church as Gentiles. The early Jewish church was slow to comprehend this distinction (Acts 10:32-11:18; 15:1-29)." Ref-0105, p. 166.
✪ "The delusional character of false faith means that the effects of sin cannot be reversed simply by presenting correct, rational arguments to unaided human minds. Such arguments would not be understood, much less rightly appraised, by fallen human reason." Ref-1291, p. 113. "Salvation must be an act of illumination, for we have exchanged the truth about God for a lie, worshipping idols instead of the true God. Salvation must be an act of liberation, for we are captive to the delusions of our false faith, and cannot save ourselves. Salvation must be an act of divine grace, God’s work from beginning to end, for the desires of our hearts are set against God -- we do not even want to save ourselves. Salvation must be an act of reconciliation, for we are alienated from God and hostile to him. Finally, salvation must be an act of conquest, for we are oppressed by the devil, and need someone to win the victory for us." Ref-1291, p. 125.
✪ "The Antichrist cannot be revealed until the mystic Body of Christ and the Holy Spirit have been removed from the earth. This is made clear by what we read in 2Th. 2." Ref-0215, "The Papacy Not the Antichrist" "A number of suggestions have been proposed concerning the identification of the restrainer. Yet these suggestions all have their problems. (1) The Ancient Roman Empire and Its Ruler. But that empire and its rulers disappeared centuries ago, and the Antichrist was not revealed at that time. In addition, the Antichrist will be the ultimate ruler of a future form of the Roman Empire (Dan. 7). (2) Gentile World Dominion or Human Government. But these will not be removed before the Antichrist is revealed. He will be the ultimate ruler of the last form of Gentile world dominion or human government prior to the second coming. (3) The Jewish State. But the Jewish state will not be removed before the Antichrist is revealed. It will enter a binding, seven-year covenant relationship with him and will be desolated by him during the second half of his reign (Dan. 9:27). (4) Satan. But instead of being removed before the antichrist is revealed, Satan will empower him during his reign (2Th. 2:9). (5) The Binding of Satan. But Satan will not be bound and imprisoned in the bottomless pit until after the Antichrist has reigned and been judged by Christ at His Second Coming (Rev. 19:11-20:3). (6) The Preaching of the Message of Salvation. But the fact that many people will get saved during Antichrist's reign (Rev. 7; 13:7; 20:4; Dan. 7:21, 25) indicates that the message of salvation will not be removed before Antichrist is revealed. (7) The Church. Paul's indication that the restrainer is a person (2Th. 2:7) militates against this identification. (8) Michael, the Archangel. But instead of being removed before the Antichrist is revealed, Michael will be actively involved protecting Israel from total annihilation during the Great Tribulation portion of Antichrist's reign (Dan. 12:1). (9) Elijah. Paul indicated that the restrainer was present in the world, hindering the ultimate expression of lawlessness during the first century A.D. (2Th. 2:7). Elijah was not in the world at that time." Renald E. Showers, "The Restrainer", Ref-0057, May/June 2004, p. 22. "One of the primary objections pertaining to the Holy Spirit as this restraining power is the change in gender from the neuter participle to katechon, “the thing now holding (him) down” in [1Th. 2:6] to the masculine participle ho katechon, “the one now holding (him) down” in [1Th. 2:7]. There is a simple solution to this problem. The Greek word for Spirit is pneuma, which is a neuter noun. Verse 6 is referring to the Spirit whereas verse 7 (being masculine) is referring to the person of the Holy Spirit. This construction occurs in other verses in the New Testament [John 14:26]." Brian K. Richards, Holy Spirit: The Restrainer, Ref-0114, 174-175, p. 175.
✪ Examples of the intended permanence of sealing: (1) Mat. 27:66 the tomb (2) John 3:33 Jesus’ testimony (3) John 6:27 Jesus sealed by the Father (4) Rev. 7:3 witnessed during the tribulation (5) Rev. 10:4 what the seven thunders uttered (6) Rev. 20:3 Satan during the millennium
✪ Tarrying was an instruction for the disciples because the Holy Spirit had not yet been given (John 7:39). It does not apply to modern believers now that the Holy Spirit has been given -- the "body of Christ" already having been formed. "The story is told of a man who came to Dr. Harry Ironside one night and said, ‘I have just come from a great tarrying meeting. Hundreds have been tarrying for many days in San Jose, California, waiting for the Holy Ghost.’ Ironside asked by what authority they were doing this. ‘Why Jesus said, tarry ye in the City of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.’ To this Ironside replied with quick wit and straight theology, ‘Well, my friend, are you not confounding the location and time? You are over 10,000 miles too far away, and over 1,900 years too late.’" Ref-0004, pp. 23-24
✪ "More concisely than anywhere else, in A Divine and Supernatural Light [Edwards] related his most profound theological reflections on his understanding of true Christian experience. . . . What distinguishes saints from the unconverted is that the Holy Spirit dwells within converted person and so gives them the power to apprehend the things of God. They have, in effect, a new spiritual sense. This new sense is not an ability to have visions, or to gain new information that goes beyond Scripture, or to experience intense religious emotions. Rather, it is the power necessary to appreciate the spiritual light that radiates from God, the power to hear the communication of God's love that pervades the universe. It is a power to appreciate beauty or excellency, specifically the beauty and excellency of Christ." Ref-1348, p. 157.
✪ "Jesus also hinted at the upcoming New Testament writings by His use of martureo (Gk. "to testify" or "to bear record") when He said, "the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify [μαρτυρήσει] of Me. And you also will bear witness [μαρτυρἴτε]" (John 15:26-27). The Greek word is associated with the written record of the Scripture in a number of places (see John 5:39; 19:35; 21:24; Acts 10:43; Rom. 3:21)." Ref-0785, Volume 15 Number 46, December 2011, Brian H. Wagner, New Testament Criticism: Helps and Hurts, 37-60, p. 43
✪ The books which were "confessed," that is, "were undisputed" (homolegeo = "to confess"). These were the writings which were not only received as cononical without dispute from the first, but whose right to a place in the canon was not subsequently challenged. They are thirty-four in number and comprise all the Old Testament books except the five which are disputed.
✪ "Liberals who think the New Testament condemnations of homosexuality. . .were only an expression of the culture of the day are precisely wrong. Greek culture not only tolerated but encouraged homosexuality. Greek military minds reasoned that soldiers tied together by homosexual relationships would fight harder to defend their lovers. Even Plato believed that women were inferior, and therefore, the highest love would be expressed between men. New Testament sexual morality was countercultural, as it must be today." Ref-0116, pp. 30-31. "The Greeks lived in fear of large families, for that could mean starvation. Custom and law condoned homosexuality, abortion, and the exposure of infants in woods, mountains, or garbage dumps." Ref-0150, p. 217. "It is a known fact by now that the homosexual community comprises a very small segment of the population, less than 2% by some estimates, but not nearly the 10T that was originally proposed." Alex D. Montoya, The Church's Response to Homosexuality, Ref-0164, Vol. 19 No. 2 Fall 2008, 233:248, p. 245. "Homosexuals account for almost half of all child abuse cases." The Church's Response to Homosexuality, Ref-0164, Vol. 19 No. 2 Fall 2008, 233:248, p. 247. "To imply that Jesus approved of gay marriage because he did not speak specifically against it would be like claiming that an American preacher did not condemn cannibalism, so it must have been acceptable in 20th century America." Ref-1351, p. 13. "What is historically odd is that as gay marriage is gaining acceptance, the resistance to polygamy is much more powerful. Yet until this generation, gay marriage had been sanctioned by no society that we know of, anywhere at any time in history. On the other hand, polygamy was sanctioned, indeed common, in large parts of the world through large swaths of history, most notably the biblical Middle East and through much of the Islamic world." Ref-1414, p. 164. "The most important sections of Vines’s book deals with the Bible itself and with what he identifies as the six passages in the Bible that “have stood in the way of countless gay people who long for acceptance om their Christian parents, friends, and churches” Those six passages (Genesis 19:5; Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; and 1 Timothy 1:10) are indeed key and crucial passages for understanding God’s expressed and revealed message on the question of same-sex acts, desires and relationships, but they are hardly the whole story." Albert Mohler, God, The GOspel and the Gay Challenge: A Response to Matthew Vines, in Ref-1493, 9-23, pp. 12-13. "Biblical Christianity can neither endorse same-sex marriage nor accept the claim that a believer can be obedient to Christ and remain or persist in same-sex behaviors." Albert Mohler, God, The GOspel and the Gay Challenge: A Response to Matthew Vines, in Ref-1493, 9-23, p. 22. ". . . there are numerous linguistic links between Romans 1:26-27 and the creation narratives of Genesis 1-2. For example, Paul’s use of the relatively unusual words thelys for females and arsen for males strongly suggests he is relying on the creation account of Genesis 1 where the same two words are used. . . . Paul is not drawing on his Greco-Roman context in his use of these terms. In fact, the term arsenokoitēs appears nowhere else in Greek literature until Paul coins the term here. There were other words for homosexual behavior, but Paul did not choose them. Rather, he coined a term that derives from the Greek translation of Leviticus 20:13, arsenos koitēn." Denny Burk, Suppressing the Truth in Unrighteousness: Matthew Vines Takes on the New Testament, in Ref-1493, 44-57, pp. 49-51. "Paul uses the terms malakos and arsenokoitēs to refer to the active and passive partners in a homosexual encounter. Like Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Paul identifies both halves of a homosexual coupling as sinful." Denny Burk, Suppressing the Truth in Unrighteousness: Matthew Vines Takes on the New Testament, in Ref-1493, 44-57, p. 52.
✪ "This initial response to the attempt to further publicize Edwards’ writings is worthy of some comment. For one thing it reflects the fact that Edwards was not regarded in his own age, in his own country, with the general esteem which he received in a later period." Ref-1302, p. 449
✪ "Hope is not a sentimental wish for some improved situation or circumstance but rather a confident expectation fixed in unshakable truth." Daniel M. Starcevich, Living and Dying in Light of the Rapture, Ref-1525, Volume 19 Number 57 (Summer/Fall 2015), 111-132, p 115.
✪ "Antiochus Epiphanes (Dan. 8: 11:21-35) is a foreshadowing of the Antichrist (Dan. 7; 11:36-45), and this revelation clarifies why the two resemble each other yet are distinct. This can be seen by a comparison of the two little horns, as seen on the next page." Andrew E. Steinmann, Is the Antichrist in Daniel_11?, Ref-0200, 162 (April-June 2005): 195-209, p. 204. "By observing the literary organization of Daniel 8 and the verbal parallels of the two textual units, it becomes evident that the king of verses 23–26 constitutes the same individual as the horn of verses 9–14." -- Mark A. Hassler, The Identity of the Little Horn in Daniel 8: Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Rome, or the Antichrist?, Ref-0164, Volume 27 Number 1, Spring 2016, 33-44, p. 34. See 20160522181858.pdf "For about seven years Antiochus persecuted the Jews, be-ginning with the murder of the High Priest Onias III in 170 BC, and ending near his death in 163 BC. Antiochus slaughtered eighty-thousand people in Jerusalem within a three-day period (2 Macc 5:14). He terrorized the city and citizens of Jerusalem (1 Macc 1:29–32; Josephus Ant. 12.2.3–4)." -- Mark A. Hassler, The Identity of the Little Horn in Daniel 8: Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Rome, or the Antichrist?, Ref-0164, Volume 27 Number 1, Spring 2016, 33-44, p. 36. See 20160522181858.pdf "Antiochus did not conquer the beautiful land; he lost control of it. Shea's chapter, “Why Antiochus IV Is Not the Little Horn of Daniel 8,” traces the military history and rightly concludes, “the net results of what Antiochus accomplished in these three geographical spheres was rather negligible and even negative in some cases.”" -- Mark A. Hassler, The Identity of the Little Horn in Daniel 8: Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Rome, or the Antichrist?, Ref-0164, Volume 27 Number 1, Spring 2016, 33-44, p. 37. See 20160522181858.pdf "Antiochus cannot be the little horn because he amassed less country than the ram. As Shea reasons, “Antiochus IV should have exceeded the Persian and Greek Empires in greatness. Obviously, this was not the case, since he ruled only one portion of the Grecian Empire with but little success.”" -- Mark A. Hassler, The Identity of the Little Horn in Daniel 8: Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Rome, or the Antichrist?, Ref-0164, Volume 27 Number 1, Spring 2016, 33-44, p. 38. See 20160522181858.pdf ". . . the little horn emerges “In the latter period of their rule” (v. 23). Antio-chus IV did not live during the latter period of the Seleucid Kingdom, but near the middle.16 The Seleucid Dynasty endured from 311 to 65 BC, while Antiochus IV reigned from 175 to 164 BC. Antiochus served as the eighth of more than twenty rulers in the Seleucid Empire. If Daniel had envisioned Antiochus, he should have placed him in “the middle period of their rule.”" -- Mark A. Hassler, The Identity of the Little Horn in Daniel 8: Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Rome, or the Antichrist?, Ref-0164, Volume 27 Number 1, Spring 2016, 33-44, p. 37. See 20160522181858.pdf "Some futurists advocate the view that the prediction concerning the little horn of Daniel 8 points to a distant eschatological monarch known as the antichrist. Support for this hypothesis comes by way of linguistic and conceptual parallels between the little horn and other guises in the book that arguably depict this individual. These guises include the little horn of Daniel 7, the coming prince of 9:26–27, and the despicable person of chapters 11–12." -- Mark A. Hassler, The Identity of the Little Horn in Daniel 8: Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Rome, or the Antichrist?, Ref-0164, Volume 27 Number 1, Spring 2016, 33-44, p. 41. See 20160522181858.pdf "The little horns of chapters 7 and 8 exhibit multiple commonalities. Both individuals share the same symbol—a horn (7:8; 8:9). Both live after the height of Grecian rule and during the end time (7:25; 8:17). Both begin small and become great (7:8, 20; 8:9). Both possess the power of perception (7:8; 8:23). Both exude hubris and blasphemy (7:8, 11, 20, 25; 8:11, 25). Both conquer and destroy (7:8, 20–21, 24; 8:9, 24–25). Both persecute the saints (7:21, 25; 8:24). Both suffer a supernatural demise as expressed grammatically by divine passives (7:26; 8:25).42 Both receive the most attention in their respective visions. Both appear as the final malevolent power in the literary structure of the visions. The extensive overlap suggests that chapters 7 and 8 describe the same ruler." -- Mark A. Hassler, The Identity of the Little Horn in Daniel 8: Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Rome, or the Antichrist?, Ref-0164, Volume 27 Number 1, Spring 2016, 33-44, p. 41. See 20160522181858.pdf "The little horn of chapter 8 and the despicable person of chapters 11–12 constitute one and the same person based on the following commonalties. He desecrates the sanctuary, terminates the sacrifices, and set ups the transgression/abomination of desolation (8:11–13; 11:31; 12:11). He rules as a “king” (8:23; 11:27, 36). He is the only person in the book said to practice “trickery/deception,” . . . (8:25; 11:23). He conquers the south and the beautiful land (8:9; 11:25, 41–42). He destroys “many” (8:25; 11:44). He “prospers,” . . . (8:12, 24; 11:36). He exalts himself . . . above the gods and the God of gods (8:11, 25; 11:36–37). He starts small: “a rather small horn which grew” (8:9) and “a despicable person will arise, on whom the honor of kinship has not been conferred . . . and will seize the kingdom by intrigue” (11:21). He lives during “the time of the end,” . . . (8:19; 11:35, 40; 12:4, 9). He lives during “the appointed time” . . . “the end,” . . . (8:19; 11:27, 29, 35). He lives during a time of “ease/security,” . . . (8:25; 11:21, 24). He lives during the final period of “indignation” . . . and fosters “indignation” . . . against the covenant (8:19; 11:30, 36). Such excessive and sometimes exclusive overlap signals that the writer envisions one and the same tyrant." -- Mark A. Hassler, The Identity of the Little Horn in Daniel 8: Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Rome, or the Antichrist?, Ref-0164, Volume 27 Number 1, Spring 2016, 33-44, pp. 42-43. See 20160522181858.pdf "The little horn of Daniel 8:9–14 constitutes the same individual as the king of verses 23–26. He emerges as a distant eschatological dictator known also as the little horn of chapter 7, the coming prince of 9:26–27, and the despicable person of chapters 11–12. The NT calls him the antichrist. In no way does the little horn point to Antiochus IV Epiphanes or Rome. The incongruities between the little horn, Antiochus, and Rome bolster this conclusion." -- Mark A. Hassler, The Identity of the Little Horn in Daniel 8: Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Rome, or the Antichrist?, Ref-0164, Volume 27 Number 1, Spring 2016, 33-44, p. 44. See 20160522181858.pdf
✪ Greek for "save now". From Hebrew hoshiana which is from Hebrew Yasha Na of Ps. 118:25
✪ "When various hourly notations are considered in the Gospel according to John, it is found that they do in fact work out well in terms of the Roman reckoning. For example, in John 1:39 a reckoning from the morning would make the “tenth hour” four o'clock in the afternoon, but a reckoning from midnight would make it ten o'clock in the morning, the later being more appropriate to the fact that the two disciples then stayed with Jesus “that day.” In John 4:6 the “sixth hour” would be midday in the one case, but six o'clock in the evening in the other, and the latter would be a very likely time for the gathering at the well. In John 4:52 the “seventh hour” would be one p.m. or seven p.m., and the latter may be more likely for the arrival at cana from Capernaum, a journey of twenty miles." Ref-0840, pp. 10-11.
✪ "John evidently applied that principle in his own practice too. Irenaeus (who was born shortly after John died and was personally acquainted with people who had sat under John's teaching) records that John once refused to enter a public bathhouse in Ephesus when he learned Cerinthus was inside. So much did John love the truth and hate falsehood that he refused any kind of fellowship (or even casual association) with the peddlers of gnostic notions." Ref-0789, pp. 92-93.