It is my attempt here to shed some light on one of the most debated passages in scripture. As a Calvinist I have seen many of my brothers and sisters try to avoid the consequences of this passage to uphold the biblical doctrine of perseverance. With that said, they often minimize the seriousness of apostasy. It is my belief that the author of Hebrews narrows in on this serious topic to talk about those who have failed to grow in their walk and could potentially fall back into old practices. This isn’t a text that ought to be used to argue that believers can lose their salvation, nor does it undermine perseverance of the saints. Rather, it upholds the seriousness of actively remaining obedient to the Law of Christ.
2 Peter 3:9 has become a common proof text used by Arminians to attempt to demonstrate God’s desire to save everyone. They regard the argument to follow along these lines:
“God is not slow about his promise to save you, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you (unbelievers), not wishing that any of you (unbelievers) perish, but that all (unbelievers) come to repentance.”
Here is my revised exegetical analysis of Revelation 1-22. My exegetical analysis is a clear defence of the “Dispensational Futuristic Premillennial” stance. I have attempted to address some of the contention that the Idealists, Historicists, and Preterist’s have mentioned (though it may not be completely exhaustive).
As a Dispensationalist I believe that Ezekiel 40-48 forms an incredibly important foundation for solidifying the future for Israel. Ezekiel paints a clear picture that the people of Israel will once again be restored to their former state in the future (Ezekiel 36-39) and with that the restoration of the Davidic Dynasty led by Christ himself. Also, the reestablishment of the temple (Ezekiel 40-48) and the return of the Lord and his Shekinah Glory (Ezekiel 43).
Below you will find my exegetical analysis of Acts 2:29-36. My exegesis is an attempt to explain why Peter, in his sermon, appealed to the Psalms to directly link Jesus to the Messiah.
Here is my exegetical analysis of one of the more complicated texts in scripture. I hope that it will encourage you to further pursue your studies and that it will help you grow in your knowledge of the Lord.
Come check out my new exegetical analysis of Matthew 24:1-51. It has been my attempt to provide a thorough exegetical look at the Olivet Discourse from a Dispensational Premillennial/Futuristic standpoint. As the Preteristic position has gained momentum, I believe it is important to put out scholarly responses to opposing positions. I hope that reading this will provide you with a serious challenge and will encourage you to continue your own studies on the subject.
Update: May 2023 – I have re-published the exegetical analysis that I completed back in 2020 with some slight modifications. The first modification I made pertains to the structure that I used for Matthew 24:3 and how Jesus proceeds to answer the questions that are asked. I followed the work of John Hart on the structure of Matthew 24 and his chiasm as seen in his book “Evidence for the Rapture.” I felt at the time his work was persuasive but after many discussions have since moved away from it. The approach I take in my revised work emphasizes what I believe is a stronger understanding of the text while also incorporating more information from Luke’s Gospel. The second modification pertains to the latter portion of Matthew 24, specifically vs.36-51. In following Hart’s work I had seen a pre-tribulational rapture after the peri de transition in Matthew 24:36. I have found this difficult to defend for a number of reasons, however, these reasons have led me to shift gears here and to see the coming parousia in vs.37 as the second coming and not the rapture. I have not abandoned the pre-tribulational rapture, but I have merely excluded it from the arguments in Matthew 24.
Check out my newly formatted exegetical analysis of Romans 9:1-13. This exegetical analysis is an attempt to defend the categorical distinctions between Israel and the Church, as well as to establish the doctrine of Unconditional Election. My prayer is that this will help you see the Calvinistic Dispensational perspective.
Check out my newly formatted exegetical analysis of Romans 2:17-29. I have attempted to defend the categorical distinction here between Jew and Gentile as Covenant theologians often appeal to this text in defence of the blurring of Jews and Gentiles. This belief comes from isolating vs. 28-29 and ignoring the context of Paul’s message to the Jews. Hence the title “If You Bear The Name Jew”.
Here is my exegetical analysis examining another common proof text used by Covenant Theologians. This text is often “assumed” to mean that Gentiles and Jews are both referred to as the “Israel of God”. There is no good reason to include Gentiles in the term “Israel of God” as that merely makes the words “Israel” and “Gentiles” mean something other than there normal usage. In my exegesis I hope to show and explain the proper rendering of the text.
