At 1:28 to say that keith isn't "dealing with the context" is ludicrous. SCRIPTURE INTERPRETS SCRIPTURE, and LENDS ITSELF to CONTEXT ALL OVER THE BIBLE!!!
Came in an Amil and left an Amil. The idea that you can't grab relevant passages from all of scripture to back up your position is absolutely insane, regardless of what his holiness Dr. White has to say. Pastor Keith you asked at the beginning about episode ideas. I think you should look into the Saxon Visitation Articles and the "Crypto-Calvinist controversy." This is an interesting moment in the Reformation that never gets discussed outside Lutheran circles. It demonstrates the key differences on the Eucharist between the Reformed and Lutheran. Good stuff
I love how hard Mr Foskey was a holding back from admitting that Dr White’s debate techniques can be underhanded, even though doing so would have helped him win this. It’s perfectly reasonable to use larger context to verify one’s interpretation of a specific passage. Banning it from a debate is silly as saying that you cannot use any words in the debate that aren’t also in that verse. ..Also, great job Keith on defending your views. I also appreciate that you say “I don’t know” when you aren’t sure of something.
Frustrating watching Lucas say you weren’t staying on topic of the debate by going to different passages. The debate was “Is Revelation 19-20 chronological.” The debate was NOT “Does Revelation 19-20 teach that Revelation 19-20 are chronological.” Huge difference, because he tried to undercut your biggest argument against premillennialism in that his interpretation contradicts tons of other scripture, making his exegesis very unlikely. Of course, the debate must go through the exegesis of Rev 19-20, but once both positioned were laid out from within the passage cohesively, it becomes clear how premillennialism simply doesn’t fit due to a faulty “overly wooden” hermeneutic.
@@shawngillogly6873 Explain why Keith couldn’t leave Revelation 19-20 to show how they can’t be chronological. The premise did not dictate they had to stay in the passage. That is way different than James White’s debate, which was Does Romans 9 teach unconditional election,” which dictates they must try and remain in the passage, as much as possible.
@chadsteven9334 Because other texts, especially those outside Revelation, do *not* prove recapitulation. They only prove prior theological conclusions. They provide no exegetical warrant. The same reason we said Leighton Flowers was out of order in the debate with James White going everywhere but the agreed passage. If there is an agreed on premise, it is bad form to leave that premise.
@@shawngillogly6873 That’s a fair point, but I still don’t believe it outside of the agreed upon premise, it’s just that you disagree with Keith’s strategy.
@@chadsteven9334I think that Keith would have pointed this out if it didn’t also mean pointing out that Dr White is equally out of line when he use this illegitimate objection. It’s a shame too because Dr White is knowledgeable enough to perform well without this sneaky trick. But now apparently he’s a “role model” for how others debate 😔. Side note: I didn’t realize till he said it that Mr Curcio is not a dispensationalist. I’m not sure I’ve ever heard of a non-dispy pre-millennialist. I wasn’t raised in either, and have always encounter the two ideas together.
If all were slain in revelation 19, who were the unbelievers than satan was able to gather to battle against Christ in Revelation 20?!? How can there be unbelievers still left alive in Rev 20?
Good debate. Keith’s most powerful argument is that the Millennial is nowhere taught outside of Rev. 19-20 in Scripture, so we must interpret it in light of clear prophecy by The Lord Jesus, the New Testament writers, and the prophets. Daniel, Isaiah 9, and Psalm 110 don’t support the premil interpretation. This makes it clear to me that the a amill or post mill are the two possible correct interpretations.
Study the Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic covenants and you'll come to a different conclusion. Also, I recommend listening to John MacArthurs 6 part sermon series , '' Why every Calvinist should be premillennial. And even though the 1,000 years is only in Revelation Is poor way to interpret scripture. The amount of times something is mentioned Is irrelevant. Is It true? That's what matters. Jesus said I'm the way the truth and the life no one comes to the Father except through Me, only one time in all of scripture. Does that mean It's false??? CONTEXT context context. That's what you're missing. I'm really shocked at the poor hermeneutics used by fellow Calvinist. These are arguments I would expect from the biblically Illiterate.
“Ultimately not satisfied with the text of scripture…” I was dissatisfied with Lucas’ inability to acknowledge other scripture to support his view. I myself am unsure what position I hold BUT I believe Lucas was taking an unfair “out” by refusing to bring in scripture. If something is true and taught in the Bible, other scripture Will not refute it.
Lucas should leave eschatology to the experts. He either overplayed the "I don't get it," dumb card or he truly is not the sharpest tool in the shed. His speaking for post-mills and trying to educate on things he himself is completely clueless about was just cringe-worthy and annoying (and he actually gets in front of a congregation to try and preach? What kind of people would listen to this kid and what is this world coming to?). Everything Keith Foskey said makes total sense and his maturity, wisdom and collected demeanor is always a plus.
Naw, not "epic," since neither of you hold to the truth of the Millennium of Rev. 20. Lucas, you were closest to the truth: Historic Premillennial. I understand the Amillennialist view just fine, and it's still fallacious (still love Keith, a Reformed brother). Indeed, the 2nd Advent is what precedes the Millennium. However, where both Dispensational Futurist Premillennialism, and Historic Premillennialism fail is their assertion that the Millennial reign of Christ and His Glorified Saints takes place 'on the earth'. It most certainly does not. It takes place in Heaven. Heavenly Premillennialism. I'll do a response video to this debate on my channel. It'll only be about 16 min., laying out my own views. *Soli Deo Gloria*
I just listened to this over a few days during my long walks. It was a great, cordial debate. I appreciate James White, but he could take a lesson in debate politeness from these two gents. I thought that Lucas Curcio had the edge, not because I support his position, but for two other reasons. 1) He rightly pointed out that Keith was constantly straying away from the passage at hand, Rev 19-20, one that he himself had proposed. He tried to steer it to more of a general millennium debate, which apparently wasn't what Lucas had understood. 2) Keith didn't adequately answer Lucas' pointing out his inconsistent interpretation that "came to life" means different types of resurrections within these two chapters. I came away with my perspective reinforced that there are holes in every eschatological viewpoint, and we should have an attitude of grace and humility, as these two brothers displayed, when considering viewpoints other than our own. Very good debate, and kudos to both Keith and Lucas.
It’s a little ridiculous to try to refuse to answer leaving the context when other passages directly relate to Christs return, even if the topic is revelation 19-20
Lucio, I hope that you will receive these points for consideration. The thing that I often see in the discussion of Eschatology is that there is little spoken of the Old Testament. I think this is the reason that we have so many differences. The binding of the strong man has its roots in the book of Isaiah. "Can the prey be taken from the mighty man, Or the captives of a tyrant be rescued?” Surely, thus says the LORD, “Even the captives of the mighty man will be taken away, And the prey of the tyrant will be rescued; For I will contend with the one who contends with you, And I will save your sons" (Isaiah 49:24-25). This chapter is all about the restoration of God's people through the New Covenant (vs. 6) and the Gospel (vs. 8). In short, it is about the breaking of Satan's power (Hebrews 2:14) - which is his binding, and his being cast out of heaven(Revelation 12:7-10) and into the Abyss (Revelation 20:4). This work was necessary to prepare for the restoration of fortunes in "the day of salvation" (i.e. the Jubilee - "the year of favor" (2 Corinthians 6:2). I believe the book of Revelation cannot be understood apart from the Old Testament. Here is why I believe Revelation 20 is recapitulatory. But this is where I disagree with many of my fellow Amillennialists. John is not referring to the spiritual regeneration of believers. These believers had already "come to life" spiritually speaking, when they were born again by faith in Jesus Christ. Therefore, "the first resurrection" is NOT a spiritual resurrection. It is a physical resurrection. But it is also not specifically THEIR resurrection. They are sharing in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. They are blessed and holy because "they have a part in" (the resurrection of Jesus Christ Himself (Revelation 20:6) - a very real and physical resurrection. He is the firstborn from the dead (Colossians 1:18; Revelation 1:5). He is the first fruits of the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:20). This is what it means "to share in" or "have a portion in" (meris μερίς G3310) the inheritance of the saints (Colossians 1:12). This is closely related to the verb merizō (μερίζω G3307), which means to apportion" (Mark 6:41; Romans 12:3; 1 Corinthians 7:17; Hebrews 7:2; Luke 12:13). It all has to do with the inheritance. This is why we read in 1 Peter 1:3-5: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, TO OBTAIN AN INHERITANCE which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. When John says "they lived and reigned" with Christ, he is not referring to bodies "coming to life." Nothing is said in this passage about bodies being raised. And "souls" don't "come to life." When people die, their bodies die, but what happens to the soul depends on whether or not they are born again and "have a part in" Christ's body. When a Christian dies, his soul continues to live. Jesus says that those who believe in him, even though they die, will live (John 11:25). Though Jesus is referring specifically to the body when speaking to Martha, it would be wrong to think that the souls of believers die (or sleep) until the resurrection because they have eternal life. Therefore, the verb zaō (ζάω G2198) simply means "to live." Even Historical Premillennialists agree that Jesus Christ began to reign at the Ascension, so if Christians go to heaven after they die, why would we think that the apostles need to wait until the Parousia to "live and reign" with Christ? If they are living, aren't they also reigning with Him? Paul did not think that he had to wait "to live" with Christ. It would happen immediately after his death when he entered the presence of Christ (Philippians 1:23; 2 Corinthians 5:8). There are two Greek verbs that are used to speak of the resurrection of bodies. The first is egeirō ( ἐγείρω G1453) and the second is anistēmi (ἀνίστημι G045). The first time anistēmi is used in the Synoptic Gospels is in Mark 5:42 in the story of the little girl who had died. Extraordinarily, Jesus told those gathered, "The child has not died, but is asleep" (Mark 9:39). Jesus tells her, "“Talitha kum!” (which translated means, “Little girl, I say to you, get up (egeirō!)!" Immediately the girl got up (anistēmi) and began to walk. The reason I like this passage is because it easily refutes Full Preterism because it uses both words in the same passage. While anistēmi refers to "standing up," egeirō has more to do with arousing from sleep. Luke's Gospel is even more specific. In this account, when Jesus takes her hand and tells her to rise up (egeirō), we are told that "her spirit returned, and she got up (anistēmi) immediately. The resurrection does not mean that the spirit or soul is raised from the dead. It means that the spirit returns to the body and it is aroused and stands up. Therefore, the resurrection of believers is not simply a spiritual resurrection, but a bodily one. And this is NOT what is happening in Revelation 20. This is not a spiritual resurrection or a bodily resurrection. It is the intermediate state. This is the same thing that happened to the beggar Lazarus when he died. His soul went down into the grave (Hades), but his soul was immediately "carried by the angels" into the bosom of Abraham or Paradise, which is in heaven (Luke 16:22). It is interesting that Revelation 20 does not use either egeirō or anistēmi. Instead, it refers to a singular resurrection, which John calls "the first resurrection" (verse 5). Why does he call it the first? Revelation never speaks of a "second resurrection." That is an assumption that must be read into the text. It does, however, speak another group of the dead that live after the 1000 years. I would say that they join the first group in the judgment at the Great White Throne [the bema (judgment) seat]. The reason I say this is because the book of life is opened during this judgment (Revelation 20:12) and ALL the dead are judged. There would be no need for the book of life to be opened if only the wicked are present. Instead we are told, "if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire" (Revelation 20:15). This assumes that there are at least some of the righteous present at this judgment. When we look at Romans 14:10, we see that "Every knee will bow" - "every tongue will confess" and "each one will give an account of himself to God." That means everybody. In Isaiah 45 we see this even more clearly: “Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other. “ I have sworn by Myself, The Word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness and will not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance. “They will say of Me, ‘Only in the LORD are righteousness and strength.’ Men will come to Him, And all who were angry at Him will be put to shame" (Isaiah 45:22-24).
Ok, I became Amill because I do believe that verses 4-5 talk about a physical resurrection! Let me explain: These verses are parallel to the souls that get white robes (this implies that they are bodily resurrected) in Rev 6. I believe that those souls are the OT saints that were resurrected in Matthew 27. To understand what John means with multiple resurrections you have to take a closer look at John 5 and 11. In both of these passages he quotes Jesus talking about a spiritual resurrection (regeneration) a first physical resurrection (Lazarus and OT-saints Mt 27:50-53 foretold in John 5:25) and a final resurrection of just and unjust on the last day (within an hour and not 1000 years apart!). I believe that while Lazarus stayed in his mortal body, the Saints were glorified because they only appeared and were not mentioned again in passages other than probably Hebrews 12:1 or 2:10 and of course Revelation 6 and 20. Verse 6 is talking about our regeneration in which we take part in the first bodily resurection that already happend with Jesus and the Mt-27-Saints.
Curcio's point on "premillennialism is the only position with historical attached to it" was so absurd. It's because of dispensationalist not because everyone was a premillennialist until the 20th century.
The fun part about being a Partial Preterist here is that whether it's recapitulatory or sequential is inconsequential. If the fall of Babylon the Great is understood to be the Fall of Jerusalem, the Great Harlot of the OT, Revelation 19 into 20 depicts Christs first advent and his redemptive historical judgement upon unbelieving Israel who rejected their Messiah.
At 19:30 the saint that came alive are those in abrahams bossom. They were dead in their tresspasses but sparde by mercy. Lazurus is one of them. But Jesus went and preached to them that they may have eternal life and arise following Him.
It is ridiculous to think that the Glorious Revelation of Christ at His return the elements of the earth would be able to contain themselves. The elements will be burned up in fervent heat when He returns with His holy angels, in the Glory of the Father. This tells us He is not returning in the same state as when He ascended into heaven after His resurrection, where every eye shall see Him even those who pierced Him. He returns in the Glory of His Father, meaning no one can look upon God and live. Flesh and blood cannot exit, neither can any element exist in the presence of the full Glory of God the Father. At this revelation, there will only be the new heaven and new earth, wherein dwells righteousness. He won't return until the last enemy, death, is defeated. At His glorious revelation the earth will be destroyed by fire, for He comes to judge the earth. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My Word will never pass away. Anyone who thinks that our Glorious Savior will physically rule with a rod of iron and reign over this earth, the way it is now, with His physical presence, for a literal thousand years, has no concept of the Glory of God. Your eyes are on the temporal and not on the eternal and cannot conceive, nor can't even catch a glimpse of God's Glory.
Keith, I thought you brought out the Truth in the Scriptures you referred to and showed the truth of your position just in the questions you posed to Lucas, which when he explained his position did not make himself look credible. Lucas, I thought you had a lovely clock in your office.
Ζοω doesn't determine anything about bodily or not, or strictly refer to rising from the dead. So yes even in the same verse there can be a double meaning.
I think a debate needs to be one where the winner completely wins over and convinces the other to change their mind. I get annoyed with theological debates in general because it really shouldn't be about one who wins, it needs to be about coming to the conclusion of what the truth is. Would Paul engage in debate on a critical subject like this? Absolutely not. He would lay out what the truth is and leave it as that. No debate just a mic drop. Let's get to the truth of what the Scriptures actually say on this subject even though it may take days to do so.
Ill be honest, I struggle to reconcile anything other than premilenialism with OT prophecy even before considering Revelation. Looking forward to this.
Fellow postmil here! I have a dear friend who is historic premil like Lucas and I am hoping to learn how to better discuss eschatology with him, sinc postmil and amil have some similarities. Lucas did a debate with a guy named Jonas Saller who is postmil and Jonah totally won that debate. Glory to God and love #datpostmil!
@@ArugaPH I saw the debate also and tried to post the link but TH-cam keeps deleting it. Just search "End-Times Debate! | Premillennialism vs. Postmillennialism | Lucas U. Curcio vs. Jonah M. Saller. Lucas' channel is Method Ministries (he's an Arminan Methodist lol).
@@ArugaPH Turns out there is a second one that was just done a month ago. I haven't watched it yet, but I'm about to. Jonah Saller argues pretty well so I'm sure it's another slam dunk.
Lucas begins by using the term "Literal," which goes to the heart of the major error of dispensationalism, which informs (and corrupts) the entire system. While Dispensationalists differentiate between their "Literal" interpretation vs Amil's "Spiritual" interpretation, the biblical dichotomy is Earthly/Natural fulfillment (interpretation) vs Heavenly/Spiritual fulfillment *BOTH* Literal. We find this principle in 1 Corinthians 15 when Paul speaks of Adam, the *earthly* man and Jesus (the second Adam) the *Heavenly* man. And what is telling is when Paul speaks of the NATURAL (earthly) coming first, and THEN the Spiritual, which is exactly what we see in scripture; 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 *However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual* 47 *The first man was *OF THE EARTH* made of dust; the second Man is the Lord *FROM HEAVEN* 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we[l] shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man. The first Israel was "After the flesh," earthly Israel, who were given an earthly covenant which they had to obey. The first Jerusalem was "below" and is now "in bondage." The first circumcision was in the flesh. But the earthly Israel failed! According to Isaiah 49:3, JESUS IS the true "Israel" and according to Paul, only IN CHRIST (the True Israel) is ANYone, Jew or Gentile "The Israel of God." Jesus is the Heavenly/Spiritual Israel in whom WE become "The Israel of God" by faith! Isaiah 49 even goes on to say that Jesus/Israel "Will restore the remnant of Jacob (earthly Israel) I have kept (the elect) AND he will "bring in the gentiles. Also, according to Paul "The Jerusalem ABOVE (the heavenly Jerusalem) is THE MOTHER OF US ALL" We were BORN into Her (Psalm 87:5, Isaiah 54) And Hebrews 12:22 says we "HAVE COME to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem." How did we get there? Again, we were BORN there by the Gospel! We were "transferred from the Kingdom of darkness into the Kingdom of light." Jesus IS reigning NOW by the Gospel! Because by the GOSPEL He "sets the captives free," His children are BORN into His kingdom, and delivered out of the kingdom of darkness and "Rescued from the strong man" who IS BOUND now by the GOSPEL! And Jesus "Must Reign" (now) until ALL of his enemies are placed under his feet. How are Jesus' enemies being placed under His feet? By the GOSPEL! And, since "All that the Father gives me WILL (and must) come to Jesus" and God "Is not willing that ANY (of His sheep) should perish" (2 Peter 3:9, Matthew 18:12-14) The millennium will continue until ALL of Jesus' sheep are safely in the "pen" Just as God would have withheld Judgement on Sodom and Gomorrah for the sake of the righteous Just as the "farmer" would not pluck up the tares for the sake of the wheat (Matt 13) So too, now, God will not bring judgement on the earth for the sake of all sheep who must come to faith. The way Lucas speaks of "Christ reigning over an imperfect world" demonstrates how he is viewing things from the earthly perspective and doesn't seem to recognize what's happening SPIRITUALLY and yes, Literally; Christ IS reigning! It seems counterintuitive but Paul also speaks counterintuitively when He says "Even though our *OUTWARD* (earthly) man is perishing, yet the *INWARD* (spiritual) man is being renewed day by day. (2 Corinthians 4:16) And In Romans 8, speaking of all the physical tribulations he/we endure, he says "Yet *IN* all these things we *ARE* more than conquerors through Him who loved us. So we are wasting away yet being renewed? YES! So we are suffering tribulations and hardships, yet we are MORE than conquerors? YES! Likewise, the earthly perspective in this current millennium IS bleak and, at the same time, Saints are being gathered SPIRITUALLY and Literally, into God's Kingdom and are the Victors because the Kingdom of God IS OVERCOMING the kingdoms men! Dispensationalists are looking for earthly fulfillments and realities in the future, but the Spiritual, and yes literal (not wooden/earthly literal but heavenly/spiritually literal, just like Jesus, Just like Mount Zion above) realities are already happening, but they are "seen" by faith! To claim that the millennium is not in progress now is like claiming we have not been delivered out of the kingdom of darkness, or saying it's not true that we "HAVE come to the Heavenly Jerusalem!" Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of *things not seen* - Hebrews 11:1 While *we look not at the things which are seen* but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal. - 2 Corinthians 4:18
I have to admit, I struggled with Lucas' opening statement. It was the first time I've ever heard him and I will confess he was difficult to listen to. Firstly, there was (and I seem to be noticing this more and more lately) a umm..."quality" to his demeanor and speech. I try not to judge a book by its cover, but it was difficult, and given what Lucas explained about his denominational background, I could argue that my spidey senses may not be entirely off. Secondly, there is something about the way more and more young people have taken to pronouncing certain words that is just so jarring. It seems to be particularly two syllable words with a "T" in the middle such as Sa-an or impor-ant. The "T" is just GONE when they talk. What is up with that? More and more young people have taken to doing this and I don't get it. I admit both of these are petty grievances, but it really did distract me from being able to focus on the substance of the argument. Maybe I'm on an island here, but I just sense that the spirit of the age is making subtle inroads into the church through the softening of men and the erosion of speech and oration.
Seems to be a big reach. There’s been plenty of times where both parties didn’t pronounce the T in certain words. That just naturally happens when people talk fast in conversation.
I listened to another debate that Lucas did with a postmil guy named Jonas Saller (uploaded to Lucas' channel) and found his tone to be very condescending. I had the same sense, and it was hard to listen to. Also, his background as an Arminian Methodist is very off-putting. I think your spidey senses are intact.
Telling me I’m not allowed to use the Bible to interpret the Bible would be……Problematic FWIW: I think both sides of the larger pre/post debate are mostly wrong. I don’t really think we’re intended to figure it all out, I think there’s a reason no side seems to fit very well with the scripture. Be But that’s just me. I haven’t finished this yet, but Keith seems more convincing than I expected. I’d have thought defending that position would have been more difficult than he has made it seem so far, but it’s not like I’m overly exposed to the arguments of the Amill side.
I think you where correct Kieth on bringing other passages in the Bible to help understand Revelation as it is a book of prophecy Lucas argument about Romans is a straw man argument as it is a teaching book that still needs to be read in it’s entirety to understand a particular chapter
Seriously. The same Old Testament passage is referenced in rev 16,19,and 20. That my friends is called recapitulation. Also in that same Old Testament passage god claims that his name from that point on will no longer be profaned among the nations. Debate could have been over in like 7 and a half minutes.
Kieth I love you man listen to everything pretty much on your podcast. I know you probably won't read this but here we go. You say scripture doesn't teach an intermediary time. But think about the old iseralites or jews. They expected a time where the messiah would come and rule in perfection. That's one reason they had a hard time with Jesus. He didn't do that at the first coming. He made an intermediary time between the two comings called time of the gentiles or the church age. Where a partial hardening came on jews and the gentiles get to spread the gospel. Then he comes back he will end the church age and saves the rest of the jews and tosses the beast and false prophet in to the lake of fire. He reins on earth in a time of long life again and bliss like never seen before. At the end those who are not saved will rebel when satan is let loose. Then jesus destroys all evil and death. Then hands over the keys to the father. It's all spelled out in the old testament and within the new. I just read a passage in the new testament last night where Paul I believe tells a congregation. Do not believe those who say christ has already returned they are not from us. I know he was talking about deceitful men and you brother Kieth are not. You are a true brother. And perhaps us premills are wrong but I think we have alot better answer for all these things of scripture that have not been fulfilled yet. God bless
So is 1,000 literal in Psalm 50:10? The Lord only owns the cattle on a thousand hills? No, he owns them all. It's symbolic of a large number. Same as we say today, oh I've done that a thousand times.. means a large number, not that we have done something exactly 1000 times.
@@Ironica82 John 6 he just fed the 5000 that’s the perfect opportunity to use bread as an example of his body at the first communion cuz His body was handing out the bread saying this is my body ! John 10 Jesus is the door, not a literal door , He is the light of the world & is not a lightbulb or light. But when it says for 1000 years six times in Revelation 20 you cant have a fallacy of equivocation with John 6, now! Prove how the 1000 years in revelation 20 is NOT literal by using the verses and the language all around it!
@@Hartman0914 6 times equals the number of mans perfection…. hold your applause til the thread comes to a complete stop! Breakdown revelation 20 verses The verbiage and why would it be figurative if he says it six times in the language that he chooses to use in revelation 20 ?
@@jjphank I just showed the flaw in your logic. Just saying that a chapter says something multiple times so therefore must mean it is literal is terrible logic. All the decades I was in the dipsy camp, I have never heard anyone say that an actual multihead dragon shall rule, that Death is a literal being, and that the false prophet would literally have horns yet there they are plainly in Revelation. As for proving it, that is why we show what thousand means to the culture the book was written to. If I wrote a review of a band and states, " That show was on fire!" If you read that 1000+ years later and removed all cultural context, can you actually say what I meant by my statement with just that sentence? Of course not. That is why cultural studies are as important as context studies.
Love you, Keith. But I'm never a fan of side-stepping a debate premise to make the argument. Also, Michael Schultz's defense of Historic Premil, from the "Why Eschatology Matters," Conference dispelled any lingering musings about whether I could be swayed to Amil. And Postmil has never been convincing to me. His answer to your hardest problem for premil is simple: They're the dead of CH19, raised for final judgment. Hardened in unbelief, led by Satan, why wouldn't they rebel again?
Opposite reaction: the pro pre-mill was clinging to caveats and loopholes. 1. Christ "taught" a literal 1000 years thru John.... okay... 2. Does "kai" mean chronological "and" usually....yes? okay? 3. James White would chew you up? okay?.... and? 4. He was motivated by "attacks" on premill, and then says he is the one not committed to his theological framework....okay? Not convincing at all. Thank you to the brothers for bringing this debate.
It sounds to me like Lucas and Keith had very different ideas of what is relevant to a debate on the chronology of Revelation chapters 19 and 20. I sympathize with Keith's position that you have to compare scripture with scripture, and that if the pre-millenial understanding of the millennium doesn't fit well with how the Bible has talked about the end times, that this should qualify as solid evidence against the chronological position. It seems like Lucas not only wants to deemphasize that outside evidence, but it sounds like he walked into this debate thinking, based on their previous conversations, that this debate was going to stay focused on the textual evidence contained within chapters 19 and 20 of Revelation. It sounds like that's what he prepared for, and that's what he was excited to discuss, and he feels like Keith is avoiding the textual evidence in the relevant chapters in order to ask lots of other questions that Lucas thought were taken off the table before they even started. If that's the case, I can sympathize with Lucas. However, Lucas does not only argue that it is inappropriate to the topic of the immediate debate to bring up all of this other scripture, but he seems to argue that All of the scriptures Keith wants to bring up don't really have relevance to the current topic because, as he says, they have different contexts. And Keith keeps pointing out that lots of other scriptures talk about the same end times from Revelation 19 and 20, so the context is the same, and therefore that data ought to be highly relevant. It's very frustrating that Lucas keeps trying to make Keith sounds like a cheater, a bad debater, or (worse) someone using an invalid hermeneutic. If it was just a misunderstanding on what the focus of the debate was going to be, that would be understandable. But Lucas seems to be taking it beyond that, and I think he's flat wrong to try to invalidate Keith bringing up the rest of Scripture to weigh in on how to understand whether chapters 19 and 20 are chronological.
Here is some notes from a study I did a while back. This touches on the Amil view of the Ezekiel temple. I hope it helps bring understanding to the position. God bless. Revelation 21 alludes to Ezekiel 48 even using the same language and description of the city. Yet the angel says "I will show you the bride, the Lamb's wife" then it describes the city coming out of heaven. It is describing the church. And it happens after Revelation chapter 20 when Satan, the wicked, and death are all thrown into the lake of fire. The new heavens and earth come and then it shows the fulfillment of Ezekiel 40-48. premillennialism says these things are fulfilled in a future 1000 year rule of Christ. But Revelation 21 says that it happens after the new heavens and new earth. It's important to understand that the old testament is filled with types and shadows which point to Christ and the church and the new covenant and in the new testament those types and shadows find their true form. We must understand the old testament in light of the new. The book of Hebrews does this and gives us a lot of important hermeneutics to see the unfolding of scripture. Ezekiel 40-48 (along with many other old testament passages) are cast in old covenant language because they don't have their full revelation yet. But in the new covenant we see how those types and shadows find their fullness in Christ. We see the Apostles who interpret these old testament passages in the same way.
Curcio had his Lunch ate by Foskey during Foskeys Questioning session. He's asking questions that make Curcios position seem somewhat wacky and yet they still require answers. 😂
His defense was your are doing what James White said not to do. I’d just have responded by saying “this isn’t Roman’s 9 and I’m not James White. I don’t know why James White’s reasonings for saying such about Romans 9. Maybe James was right maybe not. Let’s do the topic.”
We do not have time for a millennial reign; Seven 1k yr days, the seals, seven headed dragon, Satan(a power and a principality) reared his ugly head seven times, 5 loaves and 2 fishes, God gave his laws (unleavened bread) to 5k years of man and Jesus died to give us the New Testament 2k years ago (meat, fish) to bind all scripture together, Rev 17:10 (KJV). In the time of John five kings had fallen, (five seals) and that makes the seal he is in the sixth seal, leaving only one seal (the seventh) left, the one we are in. We are at the end of our time on this earth, 13 … and in the earthquake were slain of men SEVEN THOUSAND: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven. Rev 11:13 (KJV). The 1k year reign was in heaven with those that were “caught up” with Jesus at the first resurrection, the thief on the cross being one of them, he did not “sleep in the lord”, he was in paradise that day. Amen
39:23 wrong (Zechariah 14:16 KJV) And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. (Zechariah 14:17 KJV) And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain. (Zechariah 14:18 KJV) And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. (Zechariah 14:19 KJV) This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. Aint no temple, Jesus aint in Jerusalem, aint noone celebrating the feast of tabernacles, Jesus is punishing nations for disobedience during the millenial reign.
Agreed. Historic Premil would say we are the Temple. And this is referring to the Risen unbelievers waging the final battle under Satan's leadership. Now, the Earth may be ruled from Zion in the Millenium. But that's not because Israel will be practicing renewed sacrifices.
53:33. Yes there will be death. (Isaiah 65:20 KJV) There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.
So in the millennium, all sinners who reach a hundred will be accursed? So ones cursing will be do to their age. If one is 99 years and 364 days 23 hrs 59 minutes and 59!seconds old he won’t be accused but will be one second later? That seems to a grossly incorrect interpretation of that verse considering this and the context of the passage and surrounding passages.
@@KIEFFNERCLAN talk about straining at a gnat to swallow a camel. Your angst ain't with me, it's with the bible. Is there death in the millennial reign? yes or yes. Is the exact same millennial reign in the exact same verse described as something remarkably more glorious than anything seen since christ arose? Yes or yes. At 53:33 he said the same time was after the new heaven and new earth and there would be no death. He's wrong.
@@joebobjenkins7837 you’re interpreting those verses in in Isaiah as literal direct truths to the millennial period mentioned very few times in one chapter in Revelation. Things in which Revelation doesn’t mention. Your interpretation is highly problematic.
There is no future binding of Satan: Rom 16:20: "The God of peace will soon CRUSH Satan under your feet. May the grace of our Lord Jesus, the Messiah, be with all of you!" Rev 17:8: "The beast that you saw existed once, but is no longer, and is going to crawl out of the bottomless pit and then proceed to its destruction. Those living on earth, whose names were not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, will be surprised when they see the beast because it was, is no longer, and will come again." The Rev17-beast is (or at least is described like) Satan in Rev 12. Rev 12 literally says that Satan was cast INTO the earth - followed by the two beasts coming out of the earth and the sea to deceive and persecute in his place. If Satan wasn't currently restricted in the bottomless pit, there would be no need for the harlot, the beast and the false prophet... There is nothing new in Revelation 20:1-3 and 7-10. Its all already there in chapter 9,11,12-13,16,17,19!!!
I post this here for our A-Mill and Post-Mill friends. Revelation 19:20 “And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur.”
Ive never heard an amil talk about Isaiah 65..... Saw that verse was brushed under the rug by Keith. Let's never talk about the temple at the end of Ezekiel either
The writings of Paul and Peter elucidate the spiritual fulfillment of these prophecies through the Body of Christ. Consider Paul's words in 2 Corinthians 6:16, where he boldly declares, "And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people." Here, Paul masterfully intertwines the essence of Ezekiel 37:27 and Jeremiah 31:31-33. These Old Testament passages, initially directed at Israel, are unequivocally applied to the New Covenant community of believers. This is further reinforced by the Apostle Peter, who speaks to the identity and purpose of believers in Christ: "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 2:5, KJV). Peter’s metaphor of believers as "living stones" constructing a "spiritual house" underpins the notion that the Church is indeed the living temple of God. This spiritual edifice, comprised of individual believers across time, collectively forms the dwelling place of God - a temple made without hands, as Isaiah foretold.
@@Psalm19-1 Thank you for your reply I actually have wanted some one who is amil to tell me what and how they interpret these things I disagree, the temple at the end of Ezekiel does not use symbolic prophecy. It is a literal prophecy and we can see this with the amount of detail given to its construction, and also it's operation. Symbolic prophecy does not give the integral specific details on all operations. Symbolic prophecy is like that in Daniel of the beast and horns with minor details "it was trampling the residue". Whereas we see in this temple that will be established by Christ Himself that there will be a physical priest hood "Levites" who are operating the temple procedures (Ez 44:10) Yes we are a kingdom of priests yes we are living sacrifices. No I don't think that has anything to do with eschatological prophecy. Isaiah 65 is not something that has been fulfilled but is something to come. Christ said it Himself that we will return to the times of Noah. When Christ returns the world is changed unglorified bodies Christians will live as the days of a tree were the accursed (unrepentant sinners) will not live very long. Animals will no longer eat each other the child will play in the cobras hole, the lion will lie down with the lamb. Christ will reign 1000 years while Satan is sealed up shut up in the abyss (no he's not partially sealed) after Christ has ruled 1000 years he is release to go and decide the Nations and gather those who were obedient to Christ but were not His in their heart. They will gather against the encampment and Christ will slay them with His word. Throw Satan in the lake of fire where the beat and false prophet were thrown ALIVE Then the dead are gathered to the throne Judgement where millennium Christians will receive their glorified bodies And the others the lake of fire. This earth will be destroyed and the new creation made. We live with God in new Jerusalem were there is no Temple no death no sickness and we live in the direct glory of Almighty Yah. I left out a lot of references and details that I have ready to go but this message took to long to write
@@Psalm19-1 I like to think of it this way: The first part of the book promises a temple will be raised, the second part talks about a temple that is raised (and being raised). So in other words it’s a complete story. why would you need another one?
My issue with amils and posties is more of a feeling than anything else. I listen to them and hear their desire to see "kingdom now" and get the impression that they are not all that interested in the imminent return of the Lord Jesus -- that the blessed hope of Titus 2:13 must be deferred until they have the world cleaned up and prepared for His return. As a premil guy, I believe that the system cannot be cleaned up. It is already under judgment for having crucified the Christ and awaits the execution of that judgment upon Christ's return as is outlined in Rev 19. In this present age we must seek to be Christ's ambassadors in a kingdom not our own preaching "repentance towards God and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ" as Paul did because the time is short. Faith in Christ is the only "escape from the wrath to come". We have a different understanding of Christ's commission concerning "the nations". A nation has no soul that can be saved nor a body that can be cast into hell. People do; human beings do. So, it is human beings to whom I bring the gospel. When I hear "nations" in the commission I think of the people not the government. I do believe that Christ will have His kingdom on this earth and it is He and He alone Who inaugurates it at His return in Rev 19. There is no battle. The armies of heaven do not even raise their swords. He destroys the beast and the false prophet by the sword that comes out of His mouth. I take that to mean that by His spoken declaration they are destroyed. Christ then establishes His earthly kingdom with its capital at Jerusalem. The 12 apostles return as well and sit upon the thrones set up in Rev 20 and "judge the 12 tribes of Israel" (Mt 19:28; Lu 22:30). All the people left on earth will become subject and will say "Let us go with you (to Jerusalem), for we have heard that God is with you.” (Zec 8:23). If they do not go up to celebrate the feast of booths this is the judgment upon them: "And it will be that whichever of the families of the earth does not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, there will be no rain on them. If the family of Egypt does not go up or enter, then no [rain will fall] on them; it will be the plague with which the LORD smites the nations who do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Booths." (Zec 14:17-18). This is characteristic of the millennial kingdom. This is also all very Jewish. The feast of booths is the end of the spiritual year of Israel. It is harmonious with the millennium and is that time when "In that day,’ declares the LORD of hosts, ‘every one of you will invite his neighbor to [sit] under [his] vine and under [his] fig tree.’" (Zec 3:10)
Yeah, this is pretty much where I am on the issue. At the same time, though, most American premils are into the pre-trib error. I think looking at the Exodus as an example of how God rescues his people is instructive as to why this is an error: God didn't whisk the Israelites out of Egypt and *then* bomb Egypt with plagues for having enslaved Israel in the first place. He warned Egypt to let Israel go, and then started with an escalating series of plagues when they did not. The first few plagues didn't even exempt Israel (we know this because the point at which the plagues began exempting Israel is explicitly noted). In light of this, why should we expect to be whisked away before the tribulation? Similar arguments can be made from Exodus against post/amillenialism: Things didn't just get better for them in Egypt, resulting in a symbolic Exodus, they actually left Egypt, and crossed the border in style.
@@JonBrase, I guess thoughts on this subject revolve around what we think that the church is. I am taught by holy scripture that the church is the bride of Christ. He has given Hid life for His bride so that she would not suffer judgment. He has promised to the overcomers, those that have ears to hear that "...I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that [hour] which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth." These are the words of a loving Bridegroom.
Yeah because Christ told us how to pray for His Kingdom to come, His will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Well... what do you think about the mindset of premils?.. aren't they also hoping for the kingdom here on earth? Same thing. 😂
@@ArugaPH A lot of eschatological errors stem from a wish to get to the millennium (or convince ourselves we're already in it) without going through the tribulation. The typical American pretrib premil is in this camp, and I tend to think postmils and amils are too.
Lucas' rebuttal fell flat as he is so focus on staying within Revelation that he basically states that showing how the culture of the time used the term thousand is bad. You must not only understand the context but also the culture and how they use language to fully understand it.
Lucio, I hope that you will receive these points for consideration. The thing that I often see in the discussion of Eschatology is that there is little spoken of the Old Testament. I think this is the reason that we have so many differences. The binding of the strong man has its roots in the book of Isaiah. "Can the prey be taken from the mighty man, Or the captives of a tyrant be rescued?” Surely, thus says the LORD, “Even the captives of the mighty man will be taken away, And the prey of the tyrant will be rescued; For I will contend with the one who contends with you, And I will save your sons" (Isaiah 49:24-25). This chapter is all about the restoration of God's people through the New Covenant (vs. 6) and the Gospel (vs. 8). In short, it is about the breaking of Satan's power (Hebrews 2:14) - which is his binding, and his being cast out of heaven(Revelation 12:7-10) and into the Abyss (Revelation 20:4). This work was necessary to prepare for the restoration of fortunes in "the day of salvation" (i.e. the Jubilee - "the year of favor" (2 Corinthians 6:2). I believe the book of Revelation cannot be understood apart from the Old Testament. Here is why I believe Revelation 20 is recapitulatory. But this is where I disagree with many of my fellow Amillennialists. John is not referring to the spiritual regeneration of believers. These believers had already "come to life" spiritually speaking, when they were born again by faith in Jesus Christ. Therefore, "the first resurrection" is NOT a spiritual resurrection. It is a physical resurrection. But it is also not specifically THEIR resurrection. They are sharing in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. They are blessed and holy because "they have a part in" (the resurrection of Jesus Christ Himself (Revelation 20:6) - a very real and physical resurrection. He is the firstborn from the dead (Colossians 1:18; Revelation 1:5). He is the first fruits of the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:20). This is what it means "to share in" or "have a portion in" (meris μερίς G3310) the inheritance of the saints (Colossians 1:12). This is closely related to the verb merizō (μερίζω G3307), which means to apportion" (Mark 6:41; Romans 12:3; 1 Corinthians 7:17; Hebrews 7:2; Luke 12:13). It all has to do with the inheritance. This is why we read in 1 Peter 1:3-5: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, TO OBTAIN AN INHERITANCE which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. When John says "they lived and reigned" with Christ, he is not referring to bodies "coming to life." Nothing is said in this passage about bodies being raised. And "souls" don't "come to life." When people die, their bodies die, but what happens to the soul depends on whether or not they are born again and "have a part in" Christ's body. When a Christian dies, his soul continues to live. Jesus says that those who believe in him, even though they die, will live (John 11:25). Though Jesus is referring specifically to the body when speaking to Martha, it would be wrong to think that the souls of believers die (or sleep) until the resurrection because they have eternal life. Therefore, the verb zaō (ζάω G2198) simply means "to live." Even Historical Premillennialists agree that Jesus Christ began to reign at the Ascension, so if Christians go to heaven after they die, why would we think that the apostles need to wait until the Parousia to "live and reign" with Christ? If they are living, aren't they also reigning with Him? Paul did not think that he had to wait "to live" with Christ. It would happen immediately after his death when he entered the presence of Christ (Philippians 1:23; 2 Corinthians 5:8). There are two Greek verbs that are used to speak of the resurrection of bodies. The first is egeirō ( ἐγείρω G1453) and the second is anistēmi (ἀνίστημι G045). The first time anistēmi is used in the Synoptic Gospels is in Mark 5:42 in the story of the little girl who had died. Extraordinarily, Jesus told those gathered, "The child has not died, but is asleep" (Mark 9:39). Jesus tells her, "“Talitha kum!” (which translated means, “Little girl, I say to you, get up (egeirō!)!" Immediately the girl got up (anistēmi) and began to walk. The reason I like this passage is because it easily refutes Full Preterism because it uses both words in the same passage. While anistēmi refers to "standing up," egeirō has more to do with arousing from sleep. Luke's Gospel is even more specific. In this account, when Jesus takes her hand and tells her to rise up (egeirō), we are told that "her spirit returned, and she got up (anistēmi) immediately. The resurrection does not mean that the spirit or soul is raised from the dead. It means that the spirit returns to the body and it is aroused and stands up. Therefore, the resurrection of believers is not simply a spiritual resurrection, but a bodily one. And this is NOT what is happening in Revelation 20. This is not a spiritual resurrection or a bodily resurrection. It is the intermediate state. This is the same thing that happened to the beggar Lazarus when he died. His soul went down into the grave (Hades), but his soul was immediately "carried by the angels" into the bosom of Abraham or Paradise, which is in heaven (Luke 16:22). It is interesting that Revelation 20 does not use either egeirō or anistēmi. Instead, it refers to a singular resurrection, which John calls "the first resurrection" (verse 5). Why does he call it the first? Revelation never speaks of a "second resurrection." That is an assumption that must be read into the text. It does, however, speak another group of the dead that live after the 1000 years. I would say that they join the first group in the judgment at the Great White Throne [the bema (judgment) seat]. The reason I say this is because the book of life is opened during this judgment (Revelation 20:12) and ALL the dead are judged. There would be no need for the book of life to be opened if only the wicked are present. Instead we are told, "if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire" (Revelation 20:15). This assumes that there are at least some of the righteous present at this judgment. When we look at Romans 14:10, we see that "Every knee will bow" - "every tongue will confess" and "each one will give an account of himself to God." That means everybody. In Isaiah 45 we see this even more clearly: “Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other. “ I have sworn by Myself, The Word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness and will not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance. “They will say of Me, ‘Only in the LORD are righteousness and strength.’ Men will come to Him, And all who were angry at Him will be put to shame" (Isaiah 45:22-24).
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.83[2/2] ประสบการณ์ขนหัวลุกจากตำนานวงการผี!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/T_kFecQw7Ds/mqdefault.jpg)
I just realized Keither Foskey and Doug Wilson are different people😅
That's quite a realization! lol
AGAIN?!! WHY IS GOING TO OTHER PASSAGES A DEAL BREAKER?? HOW DO WE INTERPRET ANYTHING WITHOUT THE HELP OF OTHER SCRIPTURE?
At 1:28 to say that keith isn't "dealing with the context" is ludicrous. SCRIPTURE INTERPRETS SCRIPTURE, and LENDS ITSELF to CONTEXT ALL OVER THE BIBLE!!!
Came in an Amil and left an Amil. The idea that you can't grab relevant passages from all of scripture to back up your position is absolutely insane, regardless of what his holiness Dr. White has to say.
Pastor Keith you asked at the beginning about episode ideas. I think you should look into the Saxon Visitation Articles and the "Crypto-Calvinist controversy." This is an interesting moment in the Reformation that never gets discussed outside Lutheran circles. It demonstrates the key differences on the Eucharist between the Reformed and Lutheran. Good stuff
I love how hard Mr Foskey was a holding back from admitting that Dr White’s debate techniques can be underhanded, even though doing so would have helped him win this.
It’s perfectly reasonable to use larger context to verify one’s interpretation of a specific passage. Banning it from a debate is silly as saying that you cannot use any words in the debate that aren’t also in that verse.
..Also, great job Keith on defending your views. I also appreciate that you say “I don’t know” when you aren’t sure of something.
Frustrating watching Lucas say you weren’t staying on topic of the debate by going to different passages. The debate was “Is Revelation 19-20 chronological.” The debate was NOT “Does Revelation 19-20 teach that Revelation 19-20 are chronological.” Huge difference, because he tried to undercut your biggest argument against premillennialism in that his interpretation contradicts tons of other scripture, making his exegesis very unlikely.
Of course, the debate must go through the exegesis of Rev 19-20, but once both positioned were laid out from within the passage cohesively, it becomes clear how premillennialism simply doesn’t fit due to a faulty “overly wooden” hermeneutic.
I think Lucas was right. The premise was agreed on.
@@shawngillogly6873 Explain why Keith couldn’t leave Revelation 19-20 to show how they can’t be chronological. The premise did not dictate they had to stay in the passage. That is way different than James White’s debate, which was Does Romans 9 teach unconditional election,” which dictates they must try and remain in the passage, as much as possible.
@chadsteven9334 Because other texts, especially those outside Revelation, do *not* prove recapitulation. They only prove prior theological conclusions. They provide no exegetical warrant.
The same reason we said Leighton Flowers was out of order in the debate with James White going everywhere but the agreed passage.
If there is an agreed on premise, it is bad form to leave that premise.
@@shawngillogly6873 That’s a fair point, but I still don’t believe it outside of the agreed upon premise, it’s just that you disagree with Keith’s strategy.
@@chadsteven9334I think that Keith would have pointed this out if it didn’t also mean pointing out that Dr White is equally out of line when he use this illegitimate objection. It’s a shame too because Dr White is knowledgeable enough to perform well without this sneaky trick. But now apparently he’s a “role model” for how others debate 😔.
Side note: I didn’t realize till he said it that Mr Curcio is not a dispensationalist. I’m not sure I’ve ever heard of a non-dispy pre-millennialist. I wasn’t raised in either, and have always encounter the two ideas together.
If all were slain in revelation 19, who were the unbelievers than satan was able to gather to battle against Christ in Revelation 20?!?
How can there be unbelievers still left alive in Rev 20?
Good debate. Keith’s most powerful argument is that the Millennial is nowhere taught outside of Rev. 19-20 in Scripture, so we must interpret it in light of clear prophecy by The Lord Jesus, the New Testament writers, and the prophets. Daniel, Isaiah 9, and Psalm 110 don’t support the premil interpretation. This makes it clear to me that the a amill or post mill are the two possible correct interpretations.
Study the Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic covenants and you'll come to a different conclusion. Also, I recommend listening to John MacArthurs 6 part sermon series , '' Why every Calvinist should be premillennial. And even though the 1,000 years is only in Revelation Is poor way to interpret scripture. The amount of times something is mentioned Is irrelevant. Is It true? That's what matters. Jesus said I'm the way the truth and the life no one comes to the Father except through Me, only one time in all of scripture. Does that mean It's false??? CONTEXT context context. That's what you're missing. I'm really shocked at the poor hermeneutics used by fellow Calvinist. These are arguments I would expect from the biblically Illiterate.
No... we look at all of scripture... I don't look to baptists for much...
While I came here for Keith... Curcio totally won this debate.
“Ultimately not satisfied with the text of scripture…”
I was dissatisfied with Lucas’ inability to acknowledge other scripture to support his view. I myself am unsure what position I hold BUT I believe Lucas was taking an unfair “out” by refusing to bring in scripture. If something is true and taught in the Bible, other scripture Will not refute it.
Amil and post mill say that Christ reigns over an imperfect kingdom too, they just make it now.
This isn’t a problem in those views though due to when Christs return happens in those views, this isn’t a “gotcha”
Lucas should leave eschatology to the experts. He either overplayed the "I don't get it," dumb card or he truly is not the sharpest tool in the shed. His speaking for post-mills and trying to educate on things he himself is completely clueless about was just cringe-worthy and annoying (and he actually gets in front of a congregation to try and preach? What kind of people would listen to this kid and what is this world coming to?). Everything Keith Foskey said makes total sense and his maturity, wisdom and collected demeanor is always a plus.
The Most Epic Debate on The Millennium Has Arrived!! ⚔
Naw, not "epic," since neither of you hold to the truth of the Millennium of Rev. 20.
Lucas, you were closest to the truth: Historic Premillennial.
I understand the Amillennialist view just fine, and it's still fallacious (still love Keith, a Reformed brother).
Indeed, the 2nd Advent is what precedes the Millennium.
However, where both Dispensational Futurist Premillennialism, and Historic Premillennialism fail is their assertion that the Millennial reign of Christ and His Glorified Saints takes place 'on the earth'.
It most certainly does not.
It takes place in Heaven. Heavenly Premillennialism.
I'll do a response video to this debate on my channel.
It'll only be about 16 min., laying out my own views.
*Soli Deo Gloria*
Or, The most epic debate of the Amillennium! ; )
This was a great debate! I really enjoyed it. It was a privilege to host and moderate it!
Gnarly thumbnail, I love it!
I thought this debate was GREAT! You both kept this debate very civil. Much appreciated, I could definitely feel that you are brothers in Christ
I just listened to this over a few days during my long walks. It was a great, cordial debate. I appreciate James White, but he could take a lesson in debate politeness from these two gents.
I thought that Lucas Curcio had the edge, not because I support his position, but for two other reasons. 1) He rightly pointed out that Keith was constantly straying away from the passage at hand, Rev 19-20, one that he himself had proposed. He tried to steer it to more of a general millennium debate, which apparently wasn't what Lucas had understood. 2) Keith didn't adequately answer Lucas' pointing out his inconsistent interpretation that "came to life" means different types of resurrections within these two chapters.
I came away with my perspective reinforced that there are holes in every eschatological viewpoint, and we should have an attitude of grace and humility, as these two brothers displayed, when considering viewpoints other than our own. Very good debate, and kudos to both Keith and Lucas.
Keith showed his kingship in this debate
I enjoyed this. Thx brothers.
Great debate.
Also, I got a Harbor Freight ad on this debate... I think they need to be an official sponsor ;)
Coming in premil but I greatly respect Keith, so looking forward to this
It’s a little ridiculous to try to refuse to answer leaving the context when other passages directly relate to Christs return, even if the topic is revelation 19-20
Lucio, I hope that you will receive these points for consideration. The thing that I often see in the discussion of Eschatology is that there is little spoken of the Old Testament. I think this is the reason that we have so many differences. The binding of the strong man has its roots in the book of Isaiah. "Can the prey be taken from the mighty man,
Or the captives of a tyrant be rescued?” Surely, thus says the LORD,
“Even the captives of the mighty man will be taken away,
And the prey of the tyrant will be rescued;
For I will contend with the one who contends with you,
And I will save your sons" (Isaiah 49:24-25). This chapter is all about the restoration of God's people through the New Covenant (vs. 6) and the Gospel (vs. 8). In short, it is about the breaking of Satan's power (Hebrews 2:14) - which is his binding, and his being cast out of heaven(Revelation 12:7-10) and into the Abyss (Revelation 20:4). This work was necessary to prepare for the restoration of fortunes in "the day of salvation" (i.e. the Jubilee - "the year of favor" (2 Corinthians 6:2).
I believe the book of Revelation cannot be understood apart from the Old Testament. Here is why I believe Revelation 20 is recapitulatory. But this is where I disagree with many of my fellow Amillennialists. John is not referring to the spiritual regeneration of believers. These believers had already "come to life" spiritually speaking, when they were born again by faith in Jesus Christ. Therefore, "the first resurrection" is NOT a spiritual resurrection. It is a physical resurrection. But it is also not specifically THEIR resurrection. They are sharing in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. They are blessed and holy because "they have a part in" (the resurrection of Jesus Christ Himself (Revelation 20:6) - a very real and physical resurrection. He is the firstborn from the dead (Colossians 1:18; Revelation 1:5). He is the first fruits of the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:20). This is what it means "to share in" or "have a portion in" (meris μερίς G3310) the inheritance of the saints (Colossians 1:12). This is closely related to the verb merizō (μερίζω G3307), which means to apportion" (Mark 6:41; Romans 12:3; 1 Corinthians 7:17; Hebrews 7:2; Luke 12:13). It all has to do with the inheritance. This is why we read in 1 Peter 1:3-5:
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, TO OBTAIN AN INHERITANCE which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
When John says "they lived and reigned" with Christ, he is not referring to bodies "coming to life." Nothing is said in this passage about bodies being raised. And "souls" don't "come to life." When people die, their bodies die, but what happens to the soul depends on whether or not they are born again and "have a part in" Christ's body. When a Christian dies, his soul continues to live. Jesus says that those who believe in him, even though they die, will live (John 11:25). Though Jesus is referring specifically to the body when speaking to Martha, it would be wrong to think that the souls of believers die (or sleep) until the resurrection because they have eternal life. Therefore, the verb zaō (ζάω G2198) simply means "to live."
Even Historical Premillennialists agree that Jesus Christ began to reign at the Ascension, so if Christians go to heaven after they die, why would we think that the apostles need to wait until the Parousia to "live and reign" with Christ? If they are living, aren't they also reigning with Him? Paul did not think that he had to wait "to live" with Christ. It would happen immediately after his death when he entered the presence of Christ (Philippians 1:23; 2 Corinthians 5:8).
There are two Greek verbs that are used to speak of the resurrection of bodies. The first is egeirō (
ἐγείρω G1453) and the second is anistēmi (ἀνίστημι G045). The first time anistēmi is used in the Synoptic Gospels is in Mark 5:42 in the story of the little girl who had died. Extraordinarily, Jesus told those gathered, "The child has not died, but is asleep" (Mark 9:39). Jesus tells her, "“Talitha kum!” (which translated means, “Little girl, I say to you, get up (egeirō!)!" Immediately the girl got up (anistēmi) and began to walk. The reason I like this passage is because it easily refutes Full Preterism because it uses both words in the same passage. While anistēmi refers to "standing up," egeirō has more to do with arousing from sleep. Luke's Gospel is even more specific. In this account, when Jesus takes her hand and tells her to rise up (egeirō), we are told that "her spirit returned, and she got up (anistēmi) immediately.
The resurrection does not mean that the spirit or soul is raised from the dead. It means that the spirit returns to the body and it is aroused and stands up. Therefore, the resurrection of believers is not simply a spiritual resurrection, but a bodily one. And this is NOT what is happening in Revelation 20. This is not a spiritual resurrection or a bodily resurrection. It is the intermediate state. This is the same thing that happened to the beggar Lazarus when he died. His soul went down into the grave (Hades), but his soul was immediately "carried by the angels" into the bosom of Abraham or Paradise, which is in heaven (Luke 16:22).
It is interesting that Revelation 20 does not use either egeirō or anistēmi. Instead, it refers to a singular resurrection, which John calls "the first resurrection" (verse 5). Why does he call it the first? Revelation never speaks of a "second resurrection." That is an assumption that must be read into the text. It does, however, speak another group of the dead that live after the 1000 years. I would say that they join the first group in the judgment at the Great White Throne [the bema (judgment) seat]. The reason I say this is because the book of life is opened during this judgment (Revelation 20:12) and ALL the dead are judged. There would be no need for the book of life to be opened if only the wicked are present. Instead we are told, "if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire" (Revelation 20:15). This assumes that there are at least some of the righteous present at this judgment.
When we look at Romans 14:10, we see that "Every knee will bow" - "every tongue will confess" and "each one will give an account of himself to God." That means everybody. In Isaiah 45 we see this even more clearly:
“Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth;
For I am God, and there is no other.
“ I have sworn by Myself,
The Word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness
and will not turn back,
That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.
“They will say of Me, ‘Only in the LORD are righteousness and strength.’
Men will come to Him,
And all who were angry at Him will be put to shame" (Isaiah 45:22-24).
For every premill who can't defend they deny the relevance to the discussion.
Ok, I became Amill because I do believe that verses 4-5 talk about a physical resurrection! Let me explain: These verses are parallel to the souls that get white robes (this implies that they are bodily resurrected) in Rev 6. I believe that those souls are the OT saints that were resurrected in Matthew 27. To understand what John means with multiple resurrections you have to take a closer look at John 5 and 11. In both of these passages he quotes Jesus talking about a spiritual resurrection (regeneration) a first physical resurrection (Lazarus and OT-saints Mt 27:50-53 foretold in John 5:25) and a final resurrection of just and unjust on the last day (within an hour and not 1000 years apart!). I believe that while Lazarus stayed in his mortal body, the Saints were glorified because they only appeared and were not mentioned again in passages other than probably Hebrews 12:1 or 2:10 and of course Revelation 6 and 20. Verse 6 is talking about our regeneration in which we take part in the first bodily resurection that already happend with Jesus and the Mt-27-Saints.
Letttttts Gooooo
Amill or Bust
Whoa! Doug Wilson debating Jonathan Scott! Cool!
🤣You don't know how many times I've been told I look like him, and I agree that I do!
Curcio's point on "premillennialism is the only position with historical attached to it" was so absurd. It's because of dispensationalist not because everyone was a premillennialist until the 20th century.
The fun part about being a Partial Preterist here is that whether it's recapitulatory or sequential is inconsequential. If the fall of Babylon the Great is understood to be the Fall of Jerusalem, the Great Harlot of the OT, Revelation 19 into 20 depicts Christs first advent and his redemptive historical judgement upon unbelieving Israel who rejected their Messiah.
At 19:30 the saint that came alive are those in abrahams bossom. They were dead in their tresspasses but sparde by mercy. Lazurus is one of them. But Jesus went and preached to them that they may have eternal life and arise following Him.
Why did they keep interrupting the ads?
It is ridiculous to think that the Glorious Revelation of Christ at His return the elements of the earth would be able to contain themselves. The elements will be burned up in fervent heat when He returns with His holy angels, in the Glory of the Father. This tells us He is not returning in the same state as when He ascended into heaven after His resurrection, where every eye shall see Him even those who pierced Him. He returns in the Glory of His Father, meaning no one can look upon God and live. Flesh and blood cannot exit, neither can any element exist in the presence of the full Glory of God the Father. At this revelation, there will only be the new heaven and new earth, wherein dwells righteousness. He won't return until the last enemy, death, is defeated. At His glorious revelation the earth will be destroyed by fire, for He comes to judge the earth. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My Word will never pass away. Anyone who thinks that our Glorious Savior will physically rule with a rod of iron and reign over this earth, the way it is now, with His physical presence, for a literal thousand years, has no concept of the Glory of God. Your eyes are on the temporal and not on the eternal and cannot conceive, nor can't even catch a glimpse of God's Glory.
Keith, I thought you brought out the Truth in the Scriptures you referred to and showed the truth of your position just in the questions you posed to Lucas, which when he explained his position did not make himself look credible. Lucas, I thought you had a lovely clock in your office.
Ζοω doesn't determine anything about bodily or not, or strictly refer to rising from the dead. So yes even in the same verse there can be a double meaning.
Excellent and entertaining, not to mention it only serverd to solidify my position as an amiller. Keith had solid answers where Lucas really didn't.
I think a debate needs to be one where the winner completely wins over and convinces the other to change their mind. I get annoyed with theological debates in general because it really shouldn't be about one who wins, it needs to be about coming to the conclusion of what the truth is. Would Paul engage in debate on a critical subject like this? Absolutely not. He would lay out what the truth is and leave it as that. No debate just a mic drop. Let's get to the truth of what the Scriptures actually say on this subject even though it may take days to do so.
Oh man I missed it both times lol I will watch for sure .. Amill here
Ill be honest, I struggle to reconcile anything other than premilenialism with OT prophecy even before considering Revelation. Looking forward to this.
Man! Pstr Keith, I feel that you're arguing for my position in your opening statement. #datpostmil.
Fellow postmil here! I have a dear friend who is historic premil like Lucas and I am hoping to learn how to better discuss eschatology with him, sinc postmil and amil have some similarities. Lucas did a debate with a guy named Jonas Saller who is postmil and Jonah totally won that debate. Glory to God and love #datpostmil!
@@SolidRock92 can u share the link?
@@ArugaPH I saw the debate also and tried to post the link but TH-cam keeps deleting it. Just search "End-Times Debate! | Premillennialism vs. Postmillennialism | Lucas U. Curcio vs. Jonah M. Saller. Lucas' channel is Method Ministries (he's an Arminan Methodist lol).
@@ArugaPH Turns out there is a second one that was just done a month ago. I haven't watched it yet, but I'm about to. Jonah Saller argues pretty well so I'm sure it's another slam dunk.
Lucas begins by using the term "Literal," which goes to the heart of the major error of dispensationalism, which informs (and corrupts) the entire system.
While Dispensationalists differentiate between their "Literal" interpretation vs Amil's "Spiritual" interpretation, the biblical dichotomy is
Earthly/Natural fulfillment (interpretation) vs Heavenly/Spiritual fulfillment *BOTH* Literal.
We find this principle in 1 Corinthians 15 when Paul speaks of Adam, the *earthly* man and Jesus (the second Adam) the *Heavenly* man.
And what is telling is when Paul speaks of the NATURAL (earthly) coming first, and THEN the Spiritual, which is exactly what we see in scripture;
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption.
43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power.
44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45 And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
46 *However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual*
47 *The first man was *OF THE EARTH* made of dust; the second Man is the Lord *FROM HEAVEN*
48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we[l] shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man.
The first Israel was "After the flesh," earthly Israel, who were given an earthly covenant which they had to obey.
The first Jerusalem was "below" and is now "in bondage."
The first circumcision was in the flesh.
But the earthly Israel failed!
According to Isaiah 49:3, JESUS IS the true "Israel" and according to Paul, only IN CHRIST (the True Israel) is ANYone, Jew or Gentile "The Israel of God."
Jesus is the Heavenly/Spiritual Israel in whom WE become "The Israel of God" by faith!
Isaiah 49 even goes on to say that Jesus/Israel "Will restore the remnant of Jacob (earthly Israel) I have kept (the elect)
AND he will "bring in the gentiles.
Also, according to Paul "The Jerusalem ABOVE (the heavenly Jerusalem) is THE MOTHER OF US ALL"
We were BORN into Her (Psalm 87:5, Isaiah 54)
And Hebrews 12:22 says we "HAVE COME to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem."
How did we get there?
Again, we were BORN there by the Gospel!
We were "transferred from the Kingdom of darkness into the Kingdom of light."
Jesus IS reigning NOW by the Gospel!
Because by the GOSPEL He "sets the captives free," His children are BORN into His kingdom, and delivered out of the kingdom of darkness and "Rescued from the strong man"
who IS BOUND now by the GOSPEL!
And Jesus "Must Reign" (now) until ALL of his enemies are placed under his feet.
How are Jesus' enemies being placed under His feet?
By the GOSPEL!
And, since "All that the Father gives me WILL (and must) come to Jesus" and God "Is not willing that ANY (of His sheep) should perish" (2 Peter 3:9, Matthew 18:12-14)
The millennium will continue until ALL of Jesus' sheep are safely in the "pen"
Just as God would have withheld Judgement on Sodom and Gomorrah for the sake of the righteous
Just as the "farmer" would not pluck up the tares for the sake of the wheat (Matt 13)
So too, now, God will not bring judgement on the earth for the sake of all sheep who must come to faith.
The way Lucas speaks of "Christ reigning over an imperfect world" demonstrates how he is viewing things from the earthly perspective and doesn't seem to recognize what's happening SPIRITUALLY and yes, Literally; Christ IS reigning!
It seems counterintuitive but Paul also speaks counterintuitively when He says
"Even though our *OUTWARD* (earthly) man is perishing, yet the *INWARD* (spiritual) man is being renewed day by day. (2 Corinthians 4:16)
And
In Romans 8, speaking of all the physical tribulations he/we endure, he says
"Yet *IN* all these things we *ARE* more than conquerors through Him who loved us.
So we are wasting away yet being renewed? YES!
So we are suffering tribulations and hardships, yet we are MORE than conquerors? YES!
Likewise, the earthly perspective in this current millennium IS bleak and, at the same time, Saints are being gathered SPIRITUALLY and Literally, into God's Kingdom and are the Victors because the Kingdom of God IS OVERCOMING the kingdoms men!
Dispensationalists are looking for earthly fulfillments and realities in the future, but the Spiritual, and yes literal (not wooden/earthly literal but heavenly/spiritually literal, just like Jesus, Just like Mount Zion above) realities are already happening, but they are "seen" by faith!
To claim that the millennium is not in progress now is like claiming we have not been delivered out of the kingdom of darkness, or saying it's not true that we "HAVE come to the Heavenly Jerusalem!"
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of *things not seen* - Hebrews 11:1
While *we look not at the things which are seen* but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal. - 2 Corinthians 4:18
I have to admit, I struggled with Lucas' opening statement. It was the first time I've ever heard him and I will confess he was difficult to listen to. Firstly, there was (and I seem to be noticing this more and more lately) a umm..."quality" to his demeanor and speech. I try not to judge a book by its cover, but it was difficult, and given what Lucas explained about his denominational background, I could argue that my spidey senses may not be entirely off. Secondly, there is something about the way more and more young people have taken to pronouncing certain words that is just so jarring. It seems to be particularly two syllable words with a "T" in the middle such as Sa-an or impor-ant. The "T" is just GONE when they talk. What is up with that? More and more young people have taken to doing this and I don't get it. I admit both of these are petty grievances, but it really did distract me from being able to focus on the substance of the argument. Maybe I'm on an island here, but I just sense that the spirit of the age is making subtle inroads into the church through the softening of men and the erosion of speech and oration.
Seems to be a big reach. There’s been plenty of times where both parties didn’t pronounce the T in certain words. That just naturally happens when people talk fast in conversation.
I listened to another debate that Lucas did with a postmil guy named Jonas Saller (uploaded to Lucas' channel) and found his tone to be very condescending. I had the same sense, and it was hard to listen to. Also, his background as an Arminian Methodist is very off-putting. I think your spidey senses are intact.
Telling me I’m not allowed to use the Bible to interpret the Bible would be……Problematic
FWIW: I think both sides of the larger pre/post debate are mostly wrong. I don’t really think we’re intended to figure it all out, I think there’s a reason no side seems to fit very well with the scripture. Be But that’s just me.
I haven’t finished this yet, but Keith seems more convincing than I expected. I’d have thought defending that position would have been more difficult than he has made it seem so far, but it’s not like I’m overly exposed to the arguments of the Amill side.
I think you where correct Kieth on bringing other passages in the Bible to help understand Revelation as it is a book of prophecy
Lucas argument about Romans is a straw man argument as it is a teaching book that still needs to be read in it’s entirety to understand a particular chapter
My favorite teacher .
Arnold Fruchtenbaum.
Give him a try.
Also one for Israel
Seriously. The same Old Testament passage is referenced in rev 16,19,and 20. That my friends is called recapitulation. Also in that same Old Testament passage god claims that his name from that point on will no longer be profaned among the nations. Debate could have been over in like 7 and a half minutes.
Kieth I love you man listen to everything pretty much on your podcast. I know you probably won't read this but here we go. You say scripture doesn't teach an intermediary time. But think about the old iseralites or jews. They expected a time where the messiah would come and rule in perfection. That's one reason they had a hard time with Jesus. He didn't do that at the first coming. He made an intermediary time between the two comings called time of the gentiles or the church age. Where a partial hardening came on jews and the gentiles get to spread the gospel. Then he comes back he will end the church age and saves the rest of the jews and tosses the beast and false prophet in to the lake of fire. He reins on earth in a time of long life again and bliss like never seen before. At the end those who are not saved will rebel when satan is let loose. Then jesus destroys all evil and death. Then hands over the keys to the father. It's all spelled out in the old testament and within the new. I just read a passage in the new testament last night where Paul I believe tells a congregation. Do not believe those who say christ has already returned they are not from us. I know he was talking about deceitful men and you brother Kieth are not. You are a true brother. And perhaps us premills are wrong but I think we have alot better answer for all these things of scripture that have not been fulfilled yet. God bless
Six times in revelation 20 it says “1000 years“ so it’s literally 1000 years!
Four times in John 6 Jesus called himself bread so that must mean that Jesus was literally made out of bread.
Same logic 😀
So is 1,000 literal in Psalm 50:10? The Lord only owns the cattle on a thousand hills? No, he owns them all. It's symbolic of a large number. Same as we say today, oh I've done that a thousand times.. means a large number, not that we have done something exactly 1000 times.
@@Ironica82 John 6 he just fed the 5000 that’s the perfect opportunity to use bread as an example of his body at the first communion cuz His body was handing out the bread saying this is my body ! John 10 Jesus is the door, not a literal door , He is the light of the world & is not a lightbulb or light.
But when it says for 1000 years six times in Revelation 20 you cant have a fallacy of equivocation with John 6, now!
Prove how the 1000 years in revelation 20 is NOT literal by using the verses and the language all around it!
@@Hartman0914 6 times equals the number of mans perfection…. hold your applause til the thread comes to a complete stop!
Breakdown revelation 20 verses The verbiage and why would it be figurative if he says it six times in the language that he chooses to use in revelation 20 ?
@@jjphank I just showed the flaw in your logic. Just saying that a chapter says something multiple times so therefore must mean it is literal is terrible logic. All the decades I was in the dipsy camp, I have never heard anyone say that an actual multihead dragon shall rule, that Death is a literal being, and that the false prophet would literally have horns yet there they are plainly in Revelation.
As for proving it, that is why we show what thousand means to the culture the book was written to. If I wrote a review of a band and states, " That show was on fire!" If you read that 1000+ years later and removed all cultural context, can you actually say what I meant by my statement with just that sentence? Of course not. That is why cultural studies are as important as context studies.
Love you, Keith. But I'm never a fan of side-stepping a debate premise to make the argument.
Also, Michael Schultz's defense of Historic Premil, from the "Why Eschatology Matters," Conference dispelled any lingering musings about whether I could be swayed to Amil. And Postmil has never been convincing to me.
His answer to your hardest problem for premil is simple: They're the dead of CH19, raised for final judgment. Hardened in unbelief, led by Satan, why wouldn't they rebel again?
Opposite reaction: the pro pre-mill was clinging to caveats and loopholes.
1. Christ "taught" a literal 1000 years thru John.... okay...
2. Does "kai" mean chronological "and" usually....yes? okay?
3. James White would chew you up? okay?.... and?
4. He was motivated by "attacks" on premill, and then says he is the one not committed to his theological framework....okay?
Not convincing at all. Thank you to the brothers for bringing this debate.
It sounds to me like Lucas and Keith had very different ideas of what is relevant to a debate on the chronology of Revelation chapters 19 and 20. I sympathize with Keith's position that you have to compare scripture with scripture, and that if the pre-millenial understanding of the millennium doesn't fit well with how the Bible has talked about the end times, that this should qualify as solid evidence against the chronological position. It seems like Lucas not only wants to deemphasize that outside evidence, but it sounds like he walked into this debate thinking, based on their previous conversations, that this debate was going to stay focused on the textual evidence contained within chapters 19 and 20 of Revelation. It sounds like that's what he prepared for, and that's what he was excited to discuss, and he feels like Keith is avoiding the textual evidence in the relevant chapters in order to ask lots of other questions that Lucas thought were taken off the table before they even started. If that's the case, I can sympathize with Lucas. However, Lucas does not only argue that it is inappropriate to the topic of the immediate debate to bring up all of this other scripture, but he seems to argue that All of the scriptures Keith wants to bring up don't really have relevance to the current topic because, as he says, they have different contexts. And Keith keeps pointing out that lots of other scriptures talk about the same end times from Revelation 19 and 20, so the context is the same, and therefore that data ought to be highly relevant. It's very frustrating that Lucas keeps trying to make Keith sounds like a cheater, a bad debater, or (worse) someone using an invalid hermeneutic. If it was just a misunderstanding on what the focus of the debate was going to be, that would be understandable. But Lucas seems to be taking it beyond that, and I think he's flat wrong to try to invalidate Keith bringing up the rest of Scripture to weigh in on how to understand whether chapters 19 and 20 are chronological.
I’d love to hear where Ezekiel’s temple comes into play…
That's what I'm sayin
So much stuff these debates don't go over
Here is some notes from a study I did a while back. This touches on the Amil view of the Ezekiel temple. I hope it helps bring understanding to the position. God bless.
Revelation 21 alludes to Ezekiel 48 even using the same language and description of the city. Yet the angel says "I will show you the bride, the Lamb's wife" then it describes the city coming out of heaven. It is describing the church. And it happens after Revelation chapter 20 when Satan, the wicked, and death are all thrown into the lake of fire. The new heavens and earth come and then it shows the fulfillment of Ezekiel 40-48.
premillennialism says these things are fulfilled in a future 1000 year rule of Christ. But Revelation 21 says that it happens after the new heavens and new earth.
It's important to understand that the old testament is filled with types and shadows which point to Christ and the church and the new covenant and in the new testament those types and shadows find their true form. We must understand the old testament in light of the new. The book of Hebrews does this and gives us a lot of important hermeneutics to see the unfolding of scripture. Ezekiel 40-48 (along with many other old testament passages) are cast in old covenant language because they don't have their full revelation yet. But in the new covenant we see how those types and shadows find their fullness in Christ. We see the Apostles who interpret these old testament passages in the same way.
Curcio had his Lunch ate by Foskey during Foskeys Questioning session.
He's asking questions that make Curcios position seem somewhat wacky and yet they still require answers. 😂
His defense was your are doing what James White said not to do. I’d just have responded by saying “this isn’t Roman’s 9 and I’m not James White. I don’t know why James White’s reasonings for saying such about Romans 9. Maybe James was right maybe not. Let’s do the topic.”
We do not have time for a millennial reign;
Seven 1k yr days, the seals,
seven headed dragon, Satan(a power and a principality) reared his ugly head seven times,
5 loaves and 2 fishes, God gave his laws (unleavened bread) to 5k years of man and Jesus died to give us the New Testament 2k years ago (meat, fish) to bind all scripture together,
Rev 17:10 (KJV). In the time of John five kings had fallen, (five seals) and that makes the seal he is in the sixth seal, leaving only one seal (the seventh) left, the one we are in.
We are at the end of our time on this earth, 13 … and in the earthquake were slain of men SEVEN THOUSAND: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven. Rev 11:13 (KJV).
The 1k year reign was in heaven with those that were “caught up” with Jesus at the first resurrection, the thief on the cross being one of them, he did not “sleep in the lord”, he was in paradise that day.
Amen
You are both wrong. Keith is just less wrong lol.
First for fancy amil postmil gang
Lucas, I appreciate your humility. God bless you both!
39:23 wrong
(Zechariah 14:16 KJV) And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
(Zechariah 14:17 KJV) And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.
(Zechariah 14:18 KJV) And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
(Zechariah 14:19 KJV) This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
Aint no temple, Jesus aint in Jerusalem, aint noone celebrating the feast of tabernacles, Jesus is punishing nations for disobedience during the millenial reign.
Agreed. Historic Premil would say we are the Temple. And this is referring to the Risen unbelievers waging the final battle under Satan's leadership.
Now, the Earth may be ruled from Zion in the Millenium. But that's not because Israel will be practicing renewed sacrifices.
Marriages, children???
53:33. Yes there will be death.
(Isaiah 65:20 KJV) There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.
This ignores the form of writing that talks about the current state in the ideal
So in the millennium, all sinners who reach a hundred will be accursed? So ones cursing will be do to their age. If one is 99 years and 364 days 23 hrs 59 minutes and 59!seconds old he won’t be accused but will be one second later? That seems to a grossly incorrect interpretation of that verse considering this and the context of the passage and surrounding passages.
@@KIEFFNERCLAN talk about straining at a gnat to swallow a camel. Your angst ain't with me, it's with the bible. Is there death in the millennial reign? yes or yes. Is the exact same millennial reign in the exact same verse described as something remarkably more glorious than anything seen since christ arose? Yes or yes.
At 53:33 he said the same time was after the new heaven and new earth and there would be no death. He's wrong.
@@joebobjenkins7837 you’re interpreting those verses in in Isaiah as literal direct truths to the millennial period mentioned very few times in one chapter in Revelation. Things in which Revelation doesn’t mention. Your interpretation is highly problematic.
@@KIEFFNERCLAN yes, I am interpreting them that way. Because it would take some Olympic gold medal mental gymnastics to take it otherwise.
There is no future binding of Satan:
Rom 16:20: "The God of peace will soon CRUSH Satan under your feet. May the grace of our Lord Jesus, the Messiah, be with all of you!"
Rev 17:8: "The beast that you saw existed once, but is no longer, and is going to crawl out of the bottomless pit and then proceed to its destruction. Those living on earth, whose names were not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, will be surprised when they see the beast because it was, is no longer, and will come again."
The Rev17-beast is (or at least is described like) Satan in Rev 12. Rev 12 literally says that Satan was cast INTO the earth - followed by the two beasts coming out of the earth and the sea to deceive and persecute in his place. If Satan wasn't currently restricted in the bottomless pit, there would be no need for the harlot, the beast and the false prophet...
There is nothing new in Revelation 20:1-3 and 7-10. Its all already there in chapter 9,11,12-13,16,17,19!!!
1 return not 3
Will someone pleeeeeeease talk about how the beast and false prophet are thrown into the lake of fire ALIVE
I post this here for our A-Mill and Post-Mill friends.
Revelation 19:20 “And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur.”
Ive never heard an amil talk about Isaiah 65..... Saw that verse was brushed under the rug by Keith.
Let's never talk about the temple at the end of Ezekiel either
Yeah Beale has never talked about the temple…😂
The writings of Paul and Peter elucidate the spiritual fulfillment of these prophecies through the Body of Christ.
Consider Paul's words in 2 Corinthians 6:16, where he boldly declares, "And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people." Here, Paul masterfully intertwines the essence of Ezekiel 37:27 and Jeremiah 31:31-33. These Old Testament passages, initially directed at Israel, are unequivocally applied to the New Covenant community of believers.
This is further reinforced by the Apostle Peter, who speaks to the identity and purpose of believers in Christ: "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 2:5, KJV). Peter’s metaphor of believers as "living stones" constructing a "spiritual house" underpins the notion that the Church is indeed the living temple of God.
This spiritual edifice, comprised of individual believers across time, collectively forms the dwelling place of God - a temple made without hands, as Isaiah foretold.
@@Psalm19-1
Thank you for your reply I actually have wanted some one who is amil to tell me what and how they interpret these things
I disagree, the temple at the end of Ezekiel does not use symbolic prophecy. It is a literal prophecy and we can see this with the amount of detail given to its construction, and also it's operation. Symbolic prophecy does not give the integral specific details on all operations. Symbolic prophecy is like that in Daniel of the beast and horns with minor details "it was trampling the residue". Whereas we see in this temple that will be established by Christ Himself that there will be a physical priest hood "Levites" who are operating the temple procedures (Ez 44:10)
Yes we are a kingdom of priests yes we are living sacrifices. No I don't think that has anything to do with eschatological prophecy.
Isaiah 65 is not something that has been fulfilled but is something to come. Christ said it Himself that we will return to the times of Noah. When Christ returns the world is changed unglorified bodies Christians will live as the days of a tree were the accursed (unrepentant sinners) will not live very long. Animals will no longer eat each other the child will play in the cobras hole, the lion will lie down with the lamb.
Christ will reign 1000 years while Satan is sealed up shut up in the abyss (no he's not partially sealed) after Christ has ruled 1000 years he is release to go and decide the Nations and gather those who were obedient to Christ but were not His in their heart. They will gather against the encampment and Christ will slay them with His word. Throw Satan in the lake of fire where the beat and false prophet were thrown ALIVE Then the dead are gathered to the throne Judgement where millennium Christians will receive their glorified bodies
And the others the lake of fire.
This earth will be destroyed and the new creation made.
We live with God in new Jerusalem were there is no Temple no death no sickness and we live in the direct glory of Almighty Yah.
I left out a lot of references and details that I have ready to go but this message took to long to write
@@Psalm19-1 I like to think of it this way: The first part of the book promises a temple will be raised, the second part talks about a temple that is raised (and being raised). So in other words it’s a complete story. why would you need another one?
My issue with amils and posties is more of a feeling than anything else. I listen to them and hear their desire to see "kingdom now" and get the impression that they are not all that interested in the imminent return of the Lord Jesus -- that the blessed hope of Titus 2:13 must be deferred until they have the world cleaned up and prepared for His return. As a premil guy, I believe that the system cannot be cleaned up. It is already under judgment for having crucified the Christ and awaits the execution of that judgment upon Christ's return as is outlined in Rev 19. In this present age we must seek to be Christ's ambassadors in a kingdom not our own preaching "repentance towards God and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ" as Paul did because the time is short. Faith in Christ is the only "escape from the wrath to come". We have a different understanding of Christ's commission concerning "the nations". A nation has no soul that can be saved nor a body that can be cast into hell. People do; human beings do. So, it is human beings to whom I bring the gospel. When I hear "nations" in the commission I think of the people not the government. I do believe that Christ will have His kingdom on this earth and it is He and He alone Who inaugurates it at His return in Rev 19. There is no battle. The armies of heaven do not even raise their swords. He destroys the beast and the false prophet by the sword that comes out of His mouth. I take that to mean that by His spoken declaration they are destroyed. Christ then establishes His earthly kingdom with its capital at Jerusalem. The 12 apostles return as well and sit upon the thrones set up in Rev 20 and "judge the 12 tribes of Israel" (Mt 19:28; Lu 22:30). All the people left on earth will become subject and will say "Let us go with you (to Jerusalem), for we have heard that God is with you.” (Zec 8:23). If they do not go up to celebrate the feast of booths this is the judgment upon them: "And it will be that whichever of the families of the earth does not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, there will be no rain on them. If the family of Egypt does not go up or enter, then no [rain will fall] on them; it will be the plague with which the LORD smites the nations who do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Booths." (Zec 14:17-18). This is characteristic of the millennial kingdom. This is also all very Jewish. The feast of booths is the end of the spiritual year of Israel. It is harmonious with the millennium and is that time when "In that day,’ declares the LORD of hosts, ‘every one of you will invite his neighbor to [sit] under [his] vine and under [his] fig tree.’" (Zec 3:10)
Yeah, this is pretty much where I am on the issue. At the same time, though, most American premils are into the pre-trib error. I think looking at the Exodus as an example of how God rescues his people is instructive as to why this is an error: God didn't whisk the Israelites out of Egypt and *then* bomb Egypt with plagues for having enslaved Israel in the first place. He warned Egypt to let Israel go, and then started with an escalating series of plagues when they did not. The first few plagues didn't even exempt Israel (we know this because the point at which the plagues began exempting Israel is explicitly noted). In light of this, why should we expect to be whisked away before the tribulation? Similar arguments can be made from Exodus against post/amillenialism: Things didn't just get better for them in Egypt, resulting in a symbolic Exodus, they actually left Egypt, and crossed the border in style.
@@JonBrase, I guess thoughts on this subject revolve around what we think that the church is. I am taught by holy scripture that the church is the bride of Christ. He has given Hid life for His bride so that she would not suffer judgment. He has promised to the overcomers, those that have ears to hear that "...I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that [hour] which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth." These are the words of a loving Bridegroom.
Yeah because Christ told us how to pray for His Kingdom to come, His will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Well... what do you think about the mindset of premils?.. aren't they also hoping for the kingdom here on earth? Same thing. 😂
@@ArugaPH A lot of eschatological errors stem from a wish to get to the millennium (or convince ourselves we're already in it) without going through the tribulation. The typical American pretrib premil is in this camp, and I tend to think postmils and amils are too.
@@JonBrase yeah, error aside. Let's just acknowledge, like John did, that experiencing tribulation is a reality.
Lucas' rebuttal fell flat as he is so focus on staying within Revelation that he basically states that showing how the culture of the time used the term thousand is bad. You must not only understand the context but also the culture and how they use language to fully understand it.
Loving the comedy series, Amill is hilarious…
It feels to me like Lucas is being intentionally obtuse in his cross-examination. Keith is being pretty clear.
Amillenial view: EVERYTHING is symbolic.
Premillenial view: sometimes the bible means what it says.
False Doctrine Foskey !
Lucio, I hope that you will receive these points for consideration. The thing that I often see in the discussion of Eschatology is that there is little spoken of the Old Testament. I think this is the reason that we have so many differences. The binding of the strong man has its roots in the book of Isaiah. "Can the prey be taken from the mighty man,
Or the captives of a tyrant be rescued?” Surely, thus says the LORD,
“Even the captives of the mighty man will be taken away,
And the prey of the tyrant will be rescued;
For I will contend with the one who contends with you,
And I will save your sons" (Isaiah 49:24-25). This chapter is all about the restoration of God's people through the New Covenant (vs. 6) and the Gospel (vs. 8). In short, it is about the breaking of Satan's power (Hebrews 2:14) - which is his binding, and his being cast out of heaven(Revelation 12:7-10) and into the Abyss (Revelation 20:4). This work was necessary to prepare for the restoration of fortunes in "the day of salvation" (i.e. the Jubilee - "the year of favor" (2 Corinthians 6:2).
I believe the book of Revelation cannot be understood apart from the Old Testament. Here is why I believe Revelation 20 is recapitulatory. But this is where I disagree with many of my fellow Amillennialists. John is not referring to the spiritual regeneration of believers. These believers had already "come to life" spiritually speaking, when they were born again by faith in Jesus Christ. Therefore, "the first resurrection" is NOT a spiritual resurrection. It is a physical resurrection. But it is also not specifically THEIR resurrection. They are sharing in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. They are blessed and holy because "they have a part in" (the resurrection of Jesus Christ Himself (Revelation 20:6) - a very real and physical resurrection. He is the firstborn from the dead (Colossians 1:18; Revelation 1:5). He is the first fruits of the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:20). This is what it means "to share in" or "have a portion in" (meris μερίς G3310) the inheritance of the saints (Colossians 1:12). This is closely related to the verb merizō (μερίζω G3307), which means to apportion" (Mark 6:41; Romans 12:3; 1 Corinthians 7:17; Hebrews 7:2; Luke 12:13). It all has to do with the inheritance. This is why we read in 1 Peter 1:3-5:
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, TO OBTAIN AN INHERITANCE which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
When John says "they lived and reigned" with Christ, he is not referring to bodies "coming to life." Nothing is said in this passage about bodies being raised. And "souls" don't "come to life." When people die, their bodies die, but what happens to the soul depends on whether or not they are born again and "have a part in" Christ's body. When a Christian dies, his soul continues to live. Jesus says that those who believe in him, even though they die, will live (John 11:25). Though Jesus is referring specifically to the body when speaking to Martha, it would be wrong to think that the souls of believers die (or sleep) until the resurrection because they have eternal life. Therefore, the verb zaō (ζάω G2198) simply means "to live."
Even Historical Premillennialists agree that Jesus Christ began to reign at the Ascension, so if Christians go to heaven after they die, why would we think that the apostles need to wait until the Parousia to "live and reign" with Christ? If they are living, aren't they also reigning with Him? Paul did not think that he had to wait "to live" with Christ. It would happen immediately after his death when he entered the presence of Christ (Philippians 1:23; 2 Corinthians 5:8).
There are two Greek verbs that are used to speak of the resurrection of bodies. The first is egeirō (
ἐγείρω G1453) and the second is anistēmi (ἀνίστημι G045). The first time anistēmi is used in the Synoptic Gospels is in Mark 5:42 in the story of the little girl who had died. Extraordinarily, Jesus told those gathered, "The child has not died, but is asleep" (Mark 9:39). Jesus tells her, "“Talitha kum!” (which translated means, “Little girl, I say to you, get up (egeirō!)!" Immediately the girl got up (anistēmi) and began to walk. The reason I like this passage is because it easily refutes Full Preterism because it uses both words in the same passage. While anistēmi refers to "standing up," egeirō has more to do with arousing from sleep. Luke's Gospel is even more specific. In this account, when Jesus takes her hand and tells her to rise up (egeirō), we are told that "her spirit returned, and she got up (anistēmi) immediately.
The resurrection does not mean that the spirit or soul is raised from the dead. It means that the spirit returns to the body and it is aroused and stands up. Therefore, the resurrection of believers is not simply a spiritual resurrection, but a bodily one. And this is NOT what is happening in Revelation 20. This is not a spiritual resurrection or a bodily resurrection. It is the intermediate state. This is the same thing that happened to the beggar Lazarus when he died. His soul went down into the grave (Hades), but his soul was immediately "carried by the angels" into the bosom of Abraham or Paradise, which is in heaven (Luke 16:22).
It is interesting that Revelation 20 does not use either egeirō or anistēmi. Instead, it refers to a singular resurrection, which John calls "the first resurrection" (verse 5). Why does he call it the first? Revelation never speaks of a "second resurrection." That is an assumption that must be read into the text. It does, however, speak another group of the dead that live after the 1000 years. I would say that they join the first group in the judgment at the Great White Throne [the bema (judgment) seat]. The reason I say this is because the book of life is opened during this judgment (Revelation 20:12) and ALL the dead are judged. There would be no need for the book of life to be opened if only the wicked are present. Instead we are told, "if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire" (Revelation 20:15). This assumes that there are at least some of the righteous present at this judgment.
When we look at Romans 14:10, we see that "Every knee will bow" - "every tongue will confess" and "each one will give an account of himself to God." That means everybody. In Isaiah 45 we see this even more clearly:
“Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth;
For I am God, and there is no other.
“ I have sworn by Myself,
The Word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness
and will not turn back,
That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.
“They will say of Me, ‘Only in the LORD are righteousness and strength.’
Men will come to Him,
And all who were angry at Him will be put to shame" (Isaiah 45:22-24).