2 heavyweights of the faith (on more levels than 1😂) go head to head! A battle for the ages. Can't wait to enjoy this treat from the 2 funniest pastors in America.
What a wonderful conversation.... it was way too short! I wish our church pulpits here in the UK were as full of grace, wisdom and humour as these two are.
I’m glad for our heritage but an made imminently sad by the Church in the UK. Honestly, there is a huge divide in the US but many pastors have woken up and the church militant is on the march. Praying the church in the UK would do the same and that it would break in the right direction despite all signs pointing the other way.
This was the first truly edifying debate I've ever heard...and I've heard many. I've never felt joy in a debate before and that matters so much. God bless these gentlemen for espousing joy in Christ while debating. RARE. So much love for this video.
Oh man it ended right when it started to get going, and it wasn’t really a debate but oh well I still enjoyed it. Please have these two great men on again. God bless
This is the most joyful exchange I have ever heard regarding eschatology. When pre-mill folks get together and talk eschatology it is so common for people to get angry or upset.
@greggpurviance7252 I grew up in an IFB pre-mill dispensational church and I've seen more than half a dozen angry eschatological discussions. May not be the case everywhere but sadly it was in and around the churches that I grew up in.
@danielnoel3540 IFB church... How did they argue about the different Bible translations? Calmly and peacefully.... r... r.... right....? Those people have many more problems and it only appears in their "discussions."
@@greggpurviance7252 lol Maybe not angry but a little loopy on the constant theories and signs and wonders that are always just around the bend with pre-mills. It's funny you'll never hear a premill say the world's going to end in 2190
One thing-a quote from Spurgeon-condensed. “Pastor Spurgeon, I preach and no one’s getting saved.” Spurgeon asks, “do u expect someone to get saved every time u preach?” “No, I guess not.” Spurgeon. “thats your problem.”
That was a blessing! Thank you for help in understanding why eschatology matters, but also how we can pray together in Christ after we talk about it!❤️🙏
From 27:08 - 27:32 Keith says, "It would take such a wholesale and massive change… it might change my eschatology if I saw all of our senators repent…" Doesn't this indicate that he's not basing his eschatological expectations on faith in God's promises, but rather on his sight?
I absolutely loved this! Brothers coming together to have a good-faith conversation about opposing views. I’d love to see more postmil vs premil debates. God bless you all!
I listened to Voddie Bauchams sermon series on Revelation, he is A-Mill, and totally convinced me…I would be too curious to know what he’d say about the whole question of optimism. It’s definitely something I have not wrapped my head around, what to expect. I haven’t actually heard much comparison between A and Post, so this was really interesting! Whenever people preach it seems the one thing they are trying to dismantle is Pre, but comparing post and A rarely happens. Thanks!
Questions for Amill: 1. Can you explain how Satan is currently bound and not deceiving the nations (Rev 20:3) yet Satan is deceiving the nations at the same time (1 John 5:19; Rev 12:9)? 2. In your scheme WHEN do the events in Rev 20:7-10 take place? (NOTE Satan is released at that point which means Satan has been bound, I.e., has not been deceiving the nations.) 3. If “came to life” means a "spiritual conversion (?)" what does "beheaded" mean (Rev 20:4)? NOTE beheading comes before "came to life." 4. In Rev 20:4c-5 you have two resurrections, using the same words for both. So how is it possible that “the first resurrection” is not literal and the second resurrection is literal? (NOTE the noun anastasis always means a literal, physical resurrection of dead people.) 5. If there are no mortals in the kingdom how do you explain Isaiah 65-66? 6. Since in your view there’s only one resurrection of ALL the dead, what does “the rest of the dead mean” (Rev 20:5)?
Hi, I’m new to the Amillenial perspective so I’m answering this as an exercise of my own understanding, not to fight. I hold this view loosely. 1. Satan was able to offer the kingdoms of the world to Jesus while tempting him in the desert. Jesus didn’t correct him by saying the kingdoms weren’t his to give. At the cross Jesus “bound the strong man” and the gospel went out to the gentiles afterwards. Before the cross, Israel was exclusively in Covenant with God and the nations were deceived. At the ascension Jesus declared all authority in heaven and on earth had been given to him, therefore go and make disciples of all nations. Satan is bound from being able to prevent that specifically. 2. At the end of the “thousand years” Satan is released to be allowed one final attempt at battle. This is before the second resurrection (physical bodily resurrection on earth). 3. My understanding is the first resurrection is when the believer dies and is alive with Christ, albeit disembodied. No head, no problem. Our spiritual conversion is when that date is sealed, we will never die, though we die we shall live, do you believe this?.. 4. Thrones in Heaven, where the disembodied saints are. Look into thrones mentioned in visions in the Bible, those are heavenly thrones. 5. 66 could be fit into any millennial view, 65 when it says that a child shall die at 100 and a sinner being 100 shall be accursed; if it means that living a natural life in the post resurrection millennium (premil) why would it be a curse for the sinner to be 100? In the amil stance, dying at 100 years old to enter the grave and only be raised up to enter the lake of fire fits. As for the youth dying at 100, I can only guess that somehow alludes to a full life awaiting those who died in infancy or childhood. I’ve long considered what the new creation would look like, we no longer marry or are given in marriage, but so many of us have had miscarriages, myself included, would it be possible that we get to raise up those children in the new creation but they don’t have to die, since they technically already did? 6. One bodily resurrection, we won’t all sleep but will all be changed… at the last trumpet. Glorified bodies are not going to those who get thrown in the lake of fire. One general, bodily resurrection, only the saved get to eat from the tree of life, ie eternal life in the new creation. I started changing from historic premil a few weeks ago because I couldn’t fit the unsaved into the millennium after the “not all will sleep but all will be changed”. And the animal sacrifices that view has coming back for 1000 years, and everyone having to travel to Jerusalem each year or it won’t rain. It also bothered me that the New Testament really seems to quote OT prophecy as if the kingdom is the church age, not post second coming.
First time watcher! What is the song that opens and closes this video, please? I really like it. Also, I enjoyed this discussion very much. I just recently discovered Ps. Doug Wilson and also just recently began wanting to understand eschatology and figure out my own beliefs on that.
The disagreement is this: 1)Christ will always have a remnant within a rebellious world or 2)Christ shall overcome this world so much so, that the wheat will outnumber the tares and the law of the land everywhere will be like Israel’s before they were exiled to Babylonia.
This was really fun and super helpful. I have really struggled to get a straight answer on the difference between optimistic amil and postmil. Thank you all for doing this.
It really depends on which version of either you're looking at. For Doug and Keith? Doug's a pp postmill guy, while Keith is an optimistic amill guy, who (thankfully) rejects the "radical" two-kingdoms idea. I do believe both would hold to the more historic understanding of two-kingdoms - that there's the civil and governmental, but Christ rules over both. The church is not in control of the government, but does offer godly wisdom to the rulers. (So-called "radical" two-kingdoms... think of Dr. Horton, for instance... would say there's two-kingdoms and never shall the two meet. Almost as if Christ doesn't rule in the affairs of men.) So, the biggest difference between Doug and Keith is expectation of what the expansion of the gospel will do. Personally, this is one of the things that pushed me from Amill to Postmill. I was being inconsistent believing that the gospel would go forth and change hearts, but not too many (I guess Christ doesn't want that?) and that the man with a changed heart wouldn't seek to live in accordance with that new heart (re: a changed society, made up of men, women, and children who seek to live out their faith the best they can).
@@stuffipost137this is an honest question since you are more postmil. How do you account for the forces of Gog being able to surround and nearly amohilate the church in Revelation 20?
They're both wonderful nen of God. In the Kingdom I can imagine alot of good nstured humor will be derived from the theology of our previous lives, particularly eschatology. We'll all be surprissed to some extent, and ultimately both grateful for our deliverance and amused at our hubris
My problem with dispensational pretribulationism is that “he that now letteth shall be taken out of the way,” which is assumed to be the Holy Spirit, and yet 144,000 Jews get saved during the tribulation. How do men get saved without the Holy Spirit? Doug Wilson makes exegesis fun!
Jesus and the Apostles and new converts over the years have healed people, raised the dead and calmed the storms, and greater things, essentially proving to the world that Jesus was ALREADY victorious and brought Heaven down. The real debate should be what happened to stop heaven from coming to earth, who is now shutting the door to the kingdom of heaven? The answer is simple and in the Bible.
I was raised Roman Catholic and God saved be out of that, and then went to a Baptist church(exposed to premil/rapture) and believed it, then going through Voddie's study on Revelation and found I couldn't get premil/rapture to fit with scripture. Then studied Darby and was like why having belief in a "prophetic" revelation by a man of only about 200 years, have rested on Amillennialism and always find Amillennial and postmillennial friends and dispensationalist people don't talk to me lol....now going to an OPC church
What they dont tell you is that every prophecy in the bible where a time is given for the prophecy, is always literal. The Millennium cannot begin until the return of Christ and the resurrection of the saints. Anyone who says otherwise is not merely misinterpreting the test, they are rewriting it to fit a specific view that seeks to omit the final tribulation and trouble that precedes Christs return, which has a purpose. Judgement begins at the house of the Lord, and if the righteous are scarcely saved, what then for the lost.
When Christ says “no one knows the day or the hour”. The first question that comes to mind is the context and audience relevance. Why do we rip that out of the Bible?
Ive never heard a single explanation of eschatology that addresses scripture as a whole. Ive seen a whole bunch of "yeah, yeah, but look at this verse over here"
I think that the problem with eschatological views is that they all project a great amount of baggage upon the opposing views and ignore the historical behaviors.
Seems to me the key difference is whether a major worldwide revival CAN take place before Christ returns (which amills should affirm) or whether it MUST take place before His return (which is problematic because of all the imminency verses and benefits).
Another important issue, which I think all stripes of believers get wrong, is the assumption that the universalistic prophecies mean that the gospel MUST go farther than it's already gone before Christ returns. Besides the imminency problem mentioned above, this assumption misses the fact that in Colossians 1 Paul declares those prophecies fulfilled in the first century: verses 5-6 say, "the truth of the gospel, which has come to you, as it has also in all the world," and verse 23 says, "the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven." Ironically, some who are otherwise critics of "wooden literalism" seem to be failing to recognize the figurative elements in some key prophecies. (For another example, it would be consistent with other OT prophecies to understand the imagery of Isaiah 65:20 as a poetic way of referring to eternal life.)
Around the 00:20:00 mark, Doug addresses the issue of suffering (which we all agree is essential for sanctification), even in the Postmillennial golden age. But he needs to be pressed much harder on this very point, since much of his thinking is based on his understanding of Isaiah 65. I think he's correct in describing this life, even until the end of the world, as being a 'veil of tears.' (Seems a bit pessimistic, does it not?) But if Isaiah 65 is clear on anything, it is that there are no more tears in the new creation. "Be glad and rejoice FOREVER in what I create." "I create Jerusalem to be a joy." "NO MORE SHALL BE HEARD IN IT THE SOUND OF WEEPING." "NO MORE SHALL BE HEARD IN IT THE CRY OF DISTRESS." "The wolf and the lamb shall graze together." "The lion shall eat straw like an ox." "They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain." Isaiah is very explicit, that weeping and crying are banished. How can the Postmill say then, "Life in the new creation is a veil of tears"? For my part, I think the Amil explanation is much more coherent. Isaiah 65 is highly figurative. Isaiah is giving his readers a sense of the world to come, by using typological frameworks. Just as I would not argue from Isaiah 65 that heaven must have animals (lambs, wolves, lions, oxen, serpents, etc.), so too I don't think it's appropriate to see death as a necessary aspect of God's new creation. Indeed, Isaiah 25:7-8, 35:10, 51:11, Revelation 7:17, 21:4, to name just a few, make it clear that death will not be an aspect of the new creation, so Isaiah 65 must be seen as figurative language. I'm convinced that this is why we should let scripture interpret scripture and leave off both the Dispy and Postmill propensity for using the newspapers as their primary hermeneutical grid.
With the death portion of that passage in Isaiah, that’s where the Post Mil points to show that that chapter is talking about the kingdom being built in earth, before Christ returns and creation is redeemed like it is described at the end of the chapter
@@arcanum3882 Correct, and I'm suggesting Postmil interpreters can't have it both ways. If death is to be expected in the new creation because of Isa. 65:20, then tears are not to be expected, since the death verse is immediately proceeded by the no tears verse. What I'm getting at here is that prophetic language is inherently figurative and typological. The result for us is that during the Old Testament era, these things were wrapped in a mystery. It was not so clear, but we don't have that excuse now that we have a more complete revelation in the New Testament. Isa. 65:19 I will rejoice in Jerusalem [and] be glad in my people; NO MORE shall be heard in it THE SOUND OF WEEPING [and] THE CRY OF DISTRESS. 20 No more shall there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, [or] an old man [who] does not fill out his days, [for] the young man shall die a hundred years old, [and] the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed. We might say that verse 20 is a further development of verse 19. You can ask, why is there no weeping? Because the normal life and death cycle is transformed. But how can there be no tears if there is still death? This mystery is resolved in the further development of what the new heavens and new earth consists of in the New Testament. There are no tears or death in heaven.
@@PostPostiesErr, wait. Don't you have the same problem? Postmil says it can't be the new earth because there is death, and in your last post you seem to agree that there won't be death, yet here we have death. So either Christ doesn't defeat the last enemy, or at least this part of the chapter isn't about the new earth. If we insist that the entire chapter must either be about the new earth or the time proceeding the new earth, either way creates a conflict. It seems a bit of a forced conflict IMO for postmil, but a pretty heavy one for someone who I sists this is the eternal state with death, contrary to many other passages. I guess I missed how you avoid your own trap.
@@oracleoftroy Truth be told, I don't have a good solution for Isaiah 65. It's one of the biggest pieces in the eschatological puzzle that I don't have a satisfactory answer for. Even so, all I'm trying to establish is that this OT prophecy text is far too opaque and cloaked in mystery to allow it to govern my overall framework. Even the postmill theologians agree that when we have various scriptural passages that are obviously related to each other, it's best practice to allow the more clear and agreed upon texts to shed light on the more difficult and allusive texts. When I look at all the other new creation, new heavens, new earth type of texts, the others point to an everlasting joy, without death or weeping. Therefore, when I circle back to Isaiah 65, I feel forced by the rest of scripture to say, Isaiah must have been speaking with some sort of prophetic perspective that allowed him to foreshadow the glories to come, while only looking through a glass dimly. Side Note: If we take things too literally in Isaiah 65, we might be tempted to conclude that we're all supposed to be stoics. But, when our friends and family die, we do and will always weep, this side of heaven. Death is inherently sad, Jesus wept even though he knew he was about to raise Lazarus from the dead. As Doug said, this life is a veil of tears. Therefore, Isaiah 65 must be highly figurative and should be treated as such.
The spirit of this debate was great! But the content was an absolute joke. I clicked on this video, expecting them to open their Bibles and show why the Book supports their belief. Did I miss that part?
What if we look at the parable of the five virgins and their oil lamps as the Apostles on the night of the arrest in the garden? Only two stayed with Jesus throughout his trial and tribulation (Peter and John,) while the other nine scattered like sheep without a shepherd.
If wholesale cultural roto-rooting is going to occur, it will be POST-US...Too much at stake financially for wholesale repentance and renewal under the current American "dispensation."
I liked getting to hear the difference in viewpoint, but I wish I heard the Amil refutation of some of the Postmil interpretations of biblical passages. I’m Postmil, and I’ve never heard an actual biblical refutation of the Postmil hermeneutic that was satisfying. Maybe round two where they discuss actual passages of scripture?
I would probably start with the Gog/Magog battle in Revelation 20. The fact that the hordes of Gog seem to outnumber the people of God at this time seems to go against the postmil view. Of course one can be optimistic about the spread of the gospel, but this event seems to suggest Christianity will never be the majority. Also, when Paul is confronting people who think the day of the Lord has come in 2 Thess 2, he doesn't really give a postmill answer. He doesn't say, well the world must be first Christianized before that can happen. He says there must be a great falling away and a man of lawlessness. It is these wicked events that must proceed Christ's coming. Of course, many may take a preterist approach to this passage, but that leads to further problems.
@@beliefbiteThey have enough people to surround a city. That doesn't have to take a very large army, and it was wiped out trivially easy. It seems like a final desperate defiance from those who refuse to serve God. There are a lot of them, but it isn't clear that they are anywhere close to a majority.
Do people have a take on whether optimistic amil is a category best reserved for a partial preterist amil? Or is it equally applicable to a futurist amil? Is Foskey a partial preterist?
As a futurist Amil, I think that depends on what exactly is future, and what we mean by optimism. There is a lot of variance in the amil position, so feel free to go where scripture leads. For example, partial preterism vs futurism isn't precise enough. Sometimes people are futurist regarding one thing and preterist regarding another. Is the ending of the Olivet Discourse future? What about the beginning? It makes a difference if the great apostasy of 2 Thess 2 is in our future or our past. And what about the forces of darkness surrounding the church at the end of the millennium in chapter 20? Where do these forces come from, and how can they outnumber the church? And what does optimism even mean? Does the church win by establishing Christian nations or by suffering and dying? Maybe both? Does the kingdom growing like a mustard seed to fill the whole earth mean the whole world will be Christianized? Or does it just mean that there will be at least a small Christian presence everywhere? Both preterism and optimism are not black and white; they are on a spectrum. Where you see the best balance is up to you
As a Pre-Mil Dispensationalist, I find this conversation frustrating, because both speakers are aware of the problems of the positions of the opponents, meaning they should both be aware of the problems in their own positions after speaking with each other. I like what Doug Wilson says at 12:48, that the Lord can disrupt our calculations, implying he is open to correcting his own understanding of the biblical timeline. The Apostle Paul lays it out so clearly; Israel fell (Romans 11:11), until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in (Romans 11:25), then God shall save Israel as it is written (Romans 11:26). If we understand the fullness of the Gentiles being the completion of Paul's ministry (Ephesians 3), then many pieces fall into place. Paul's 13 letters disrupted the Israel-centered program, as Israel fell in the book of Acts, transitioning from the ministry of the 12 to Paul. Paul then is the Apostle for the age we are living in, until his ministry is complete and the full number of Gentiles are saved and sealed and taken to meet the Lord (2 Thess 2:1). Then God returns to dealing with the nation of Israel as the prophets foretold, bringing their final generation through the time of Jacob's trouble, the anti-christ, the mark of the beast, the Day of the Lord (Revelation 1:10), and the 2nd coming of Christ to the earth to setup the Kingdom in Jerusalem (Isaiah 2, Isaiah 66). This is why after Paul's 13 letters, you have Hebrews to Revelation, jewish epistles written to the 12 tribes of Israel dealing with the final generation of Israel. In Paul's letters, there is no distinction between Jew or Gentile (Galatians 3:28) because God consigned both to unbelief (Romans 11:32), yet we find in Hebrews to Revelation a return to a distinction between Jew and Gentile! The book of Hebrews, obviously written to the Jewish people, begins with Hebrews 1:1 "In the past, God spoke through the prophets to our ancestors in many times and many ways." Clearly God is now returning to dealing with the nation to whom God spoke through the prophets (Israel). This is exactly what Paul said would happen (Romans 11:23). The next book, the book of James, begins with James 1:1 "To the twelve tribes scattered." Then the next book, Peter, begins with 1 Peter 1:1 "to the exiles scattered", the term scattered used by James and Peter is a biblical term for Israel when they are outside of the boundaries of Israel. James, Peter and John agreed with Paul to limit their ministry to Israel (Galatians 2:9), so their letters are addressed to that nation, and that final generation who sees the return of the Lord, after Paul's letters/ministry are completed. This is the correct biblical timeline, and the order of the books in your Bible prove it.
@@gregb6469 I am aware of counter-arguments though I am not all-knowing and therefore have not heard of all possible counter-arguments. I am open to it of course, but have not heard any that I find persuasive or not able to be defended against.
If just the possibility of Jesus returning and catching us with our knickers down is what keeps us faithful and committed Christians, then we are whores through and through. One of the weakest arguments ever is one that suggests what keeps us alert and faithful is the immanent return of Christ. Are we Reformed or not?
"Many will come to Me in that day, saying Lord, Lord, to whom I will say, "Depart from Me, I never knew you."" Suppose this implies 1/2 of the Christian community are apostates, along with the majority of the world that are unrepentant God-haters. Scripture seems to imply that the enemies of Christ will be more vehement as the Day approaches. "As in the days of Noah" seems to imply wickedness will gain on Earth before Jesus Christ returns. I am incredibly optimistic that "all the Father has given to [Jesus] will come to [Jesus,]" but I disagree with Doug that the optimism regarding souls is the same as Dispensational optimism. I see Dispy optimism is as heavily weighted by the hope of Rapture or as I refer to it, escape. Amillennialism seems the most Scriptural, realistic eschatology, without undue cultural optimism, or undue escapist hope. I know Christ has won the war & believe the continues battles are Him bringing in former enemies as the elect while He judges the wicked in time & beyond. I also fear the Postmillennialism has been done in the 19thC. when mainline denoms went cultural gospel & lost their moorings in the Christian faith, eventually losing Christianity wholesale. JMO
No response to why u r optimistic. The Postmil looks at Isa 2 and sees all nations flowing to the Lord's Mt and many people coming to worship. Then there's 1 Cor 15:25 and Col 1:20, he reconciles all things to himself.. Isa 42 speaks to his being faithful to bring forth justice. Study these verses well and like me your views will be changed, guaranteed.
Doug Wilson, you have time to agree with the other side in a debate, but have no time to debate a Full Preterist? C’mon sir, you’ve taken the time to write extensive books, surely you have a bit of time to meet head to head with those whose views you often attack. You quoted “no man knows the day or hour” but ignore the phrase “truly THIS generation shall not pass away until…” as a time text. Let’s get a debate scheduled.
It's pretty much always one of the postmil positions vs premil or the various premil positions fighting amongst themselves. It's much rarer and rather nice to see the postmil side debating their distinctives.
Except that scripture demonstrates that neither position is correct. Matthew 19:28 - And Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne (lit. “the throne of His glory,” ἐπὶ θρόνου δόξης αὐτοῦ), you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel (cf. Revelation 20:6). Matthew 25:31 - “But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne (lit. “the throne of His glory,” ἐπὶ θρόνου δόξης αὐτοῦ). In Matthew 19:28, 25:31, Jesus says that He will assume His glorious Davidic throne and reign over Israel in the regeneration, at the time of His second coming when He comes in glory and all of the angels with Him, and not before (cf. Luke 1:32-33, 2 Samuel 7:12-13, 17, Isaiah 9:7, Revelation 3:21). At that time, the disciples of Jesus will judge/rule over the twelve tribes of Israel that has been restored. Until this happens, “difficult times will come” in the last days as “evil men and imposters will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived” (2 Timothy 3:1, 13); things will not be improving here on earth, but getting worse (cf. Luke 17:26ff, 18:8, Matthew 24:37). While it is true that all authority has been given to Jesus in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18), and it is true that Jesus has indeed sat down at the right hand of God, having finished His work of making purification of sins for His people as promised for His first advent (Colossians 3:1, Mark 16:19, Hebrews 1:3, 10:12, 12:2), this is not His Davidic throne rule, this is Jesus fulfilling His priestly role as intercessor; “He always lives to make intercession for them” with the Father (Hebrews 7:25, 8:1, 9:24, Romans 8:34). Jesus will remain seated at the right hand of the Father as Intercessor until the Father makes the enemies of the Son a footstool for His feet (Psalm 110:1), only then will Jesus rule “in the midst of Your enemies;” only then will “He will bring forth justice to the nations” (Isaiah 42:1); this time of Jesus’s rule is the Millennium after the Second Coming. Until then, “He (the Father) must reign until He (the Father) has put all His enemies under His (Jesus) feet” (1 Corinthians 15:25), lastly defeating death itself. Until the Millennium, it is the Father who reigns (1 Corinthians 15:25). This time of judgment takes place after the seventh trumpet of the tribulation, and it is at this time that “the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ,” it is only then that Jesus first begins to reign (Revelation 11:15-19), when all things are subjected to Him (1 Corinthians 15:28), and we then see His coronation as King in Revelation 19. This will fulfil the vision of Daniel 7:13-14 where He receives universal authority from the Ancient of Days. Note that in Daniel 7:9, the thrones are not even set up until the time of judgment (cf. Revelation 20:4). This is very significant. Jesus explicitly ties His Davidic throne reign with His second coming to earth and not before. This shows that Jesus’ kingdom is future from our standpoint. The kingdom of God is present wherever Christ is (cf. Luke 17:20-21), therefore the kingdom comes when Jesus comes again; while the kingdom of God was incomplete at His first advent since many rejected Him then, after His second advent when He is given an everlasting dominion, glory, and a kingdom, all the peoples, nations, and men of every language will serve Him (cf. Daniel 7:14), and this kingdom of God can only be seen by those who are born again (John 3:3) who will receive and possess the kingdom of God at this time (Daniel 7:18). This truth makes amillennialism and postmillennialism impossible since these positions assert that Jesus is now reigning from the Davidic throne in His millennial kingdom in this age. Incidentally, the “regeneration” spoken of in Matthew 19:28 refers to the “new heavens and new earth” of the Messianic age (Isaiah 65:17, 2 Peter 3:13), the renewal of the cosmos; the glorification of creation (Romans 8:19-23); the eschatological restoration of all things (Acts 3:21). So, because Jesus has not yet returned in glory with all of His angels, because there has been no judgment “in flaming fire” against those who do not know God nor obey the Gospel (2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, 2 Timothy 4:1, Matthew 25:31-46), because there has not yet been a glorification of the creation, Jesus’ Davidic Kingdom rule is yet future, therefore any views that see Christ's Davidic reign as a present reality are necessarily false, and any attempt to maintain those views require one to either spiritualize or allegorize the text, ignoring its plain meaning.
“I’m the Harbor Freight version of Doug Wilson “ - LOL!
It’s not funny. Fat Christian’s is nothing to laugh about it’s sin
The Harbor Freight analogy is one I’ve used many times in my life. 😅
2 heavyweights of the faith (on more levels than 1😂) go head to head! A battle for the ages. Can't wait to enjoy this treat from the 2 funniest pastors in America.
😂
“Like” if you were shocked and disappointed when the moderator announced that 30 minutes had already gone by and they were ending the conversation. 😢
If these two awesome pastors had talked for 3 hours I would have loved this even more!
Can't agree more 😂😂😂
What a wonderful conversation.... it was way too short! I wish our church pulpits here in the UK were as full of grace, wisdom and humour as these two are.
I’m glad for our heritage but an made imminently sad by the Church in the UK. Honestly, there is a huge divide in the US but many pastors have woken up and the church militant is on the march. Praying the church in the UK would do the same and that it would break in the right direction despite all signs pointing the other way.
This was the first truly edifying debate I've ever heard...and I've heard many. I've never felt joy in a debate before and that matters so much. God bless these gentlemen for espousing joy in Christ while debating. RARE. So much love for this video.
I'm very optimistic about this debate and the growth of the Kingdom. #DatPostmill
oh me too!
Oh man it ended right when it started to get going, and it wasn’t really a debate but oh well I still enjoyed it. Please have these two great men on again. God bless
I find this conversation uplifting and just edifying and fun. Love Foskey and Wilson. I thank God for both of these men.
This is the most joyful exchange I have ever heard regarding eschatology. When pre-mill folks get together and talk eschatology it is so common for people to get angry or upset.
Sorry, I'm not angry they are just both wrong. By the way, no pre-mill I know gets "angry"
@greggpurviance7252 I grew up in an IFB pre-mill dispensational church and I've seen more than half a dozen angry eschatological discussions. May not be the case everywhere but sadly it was in and around the churches that I grew up in.
I don't know who you heard, but I find that bunk.
@danielnoel3540
IFB church... How did they argue about the different Bible translations? Calmly and peacefully.... r... r.... right....?
Those people have many more problems and it only appears in their "discussions."
@@greggpurviance7252 lol
Maybe not angry but a little loopy on the constant theories and signs and wonders that are always just around the bend with pre-mills. It's funny you'll never hear a premill say the world's going to end in 2190
The goodwill, mirth and brotherly love each of these men show is such a delight.
I love the lighthearted nature of the conversation, though you are covering a very important and difficult subject. Thank you gentlemen
One thing-a quote from Spurgeon-condensed.
“Pastor Spurgeon, I preach and no one’s getting saved.”
Spurgeon asks, “do u expect someone to get saved every time u preach?”
“No, I guess not.”
Spurgeon. “thats your problem.”
Dang
Was it up to Spurgeon ??
Thank you Dr. Keith and Dr. Doug. That was great fun and delightfully educational. Scott in NC
That was a blessing! Thank you for help in understanding why eschatology matters, but also how we can pray together in Christ after we talk about it!❤️🙏
They’re so cordial. It feels so different than the usual theological debates.
That's because they're Christians.
Yeah, cordial. Like Jesus and the Pharisees.
What a wholesome and fun talk. Glad I watched it. Thank you much
From 27:08 - 27:32 Keith says, "It would take such a wholesale and massive change… it might change my eschatology if I saw all of our senators repent…" Doesn't this indicate that he's not basing his eschatological expectations on faith in God's promises, but rather on his sight?
What are you going to believe, the Bible or your lying eyes?
I absolutely loved this! Brothers coming together to have a good-faith conversation about opposing views.
I’d love to see more postmil vs premil debates. God bless you all!
How about including preterists?
@@JohnO318 absolutely!
I love the humorous banter! Great job.
Hardly a debate. Was mostly agreement. Which is sort of a blessing in disguise. A bitter sweet outcome for a debate 🤣
Can't wait to see this!
I listened to Voddie Bauchams sermon series on Revelation, he is A-Mill, and totally convinced me…I would be too curious to know what he’d say about the whole question of optimism. It’s definitely something I have not wrapped my head around, what to expect.
I haven’t actually heard much comparison between A and Post, so this was really interesting! Whenever people preach it seems the one thing they are trying to dismantle is Pre, but comparing post and A rarely happens. Thanks!
Feel free to take this opportunity to explore our channel. We have several episodes that compare and contrast Amil and Postmil 🙂
That was fun and encouraging…thanks!
Great discussion. I appreciate all the agreement here because I am Postmill but can barely tell how I am not amill.
Questions for Amill:
1. Can you explain how Satan is currently bound and not deceiving the nations (Rev 20:3) yet Satan is deceiving the nations at the same time (1 John 5:19; Rev 12:9)?
2. In your scheme WHEN do the events in Rev 20:7-10 take place?
(NOTE Satan is released at that point which means Satan has been bound, I.e., has not been deceiving the nations.)
3. If “came to life” means a "spiritual conversion (?)" what does "beheaded" mean (Rev 20:4)? NOTE beheading comes before "came to life."
4. In Rev 20:4c-5 you have two resurrections, using the same words for both. So how is it possible that “the first resurrection” is not literal and the second resurrection is literal?
(NOTE the noun anastasis always means a literal, physical resurrection of dead people.)
5. If there are no mortals in the kingdom how do you explain Isaiah 65-66?
6. Since in your view there’s only one resurrection of ALL the dead, what does “the rest of the dead mean” (Rev 20:5)?
Hi, I’m new to the Amillenial perspective so I’m answering this as an exercise of my own understanding, not to fight. I hold this view loosely.
1. Satan was able to offer the kingdoms of the world to Jesus while tempting him in the desert. Jesus didn’t correct him by saying the kingdoms weren’t his to give. At the cross Jesus “bound the strong man” and the gospel went out to the gentiles afterwards. Before the cross, Israel was exclusively in Covenant with God and the nations were deceived. At the ascension Jesus declared all authority in heaven and on earth had been given to him, therefore go and make disciples of all nations. Satan is bound from being able to prevent that specifically.
2. At the end of the “thousand years” Satan is released to be allowed one final attempt at battle. This is before the second resurrection (physical bodily resurrection on earth).
3. My understanding is the first resurrection is when the believer dies and is alive with Christ, albeit disembodied. No head, no problem. Our spiritual conversion is when that date is sealed, we will never die, though we die we shall live, do you believe this?..
4. Thrones in Heaven, where the disembodied saints are. Look into thrones mentioned in visions in the Bible, those are heavenly thrones.
5. 66 could be fit into any millennial view, 65 when it says that a child shall die at 100 and a sinner being 100 shall be accursed; if it means that living a natural life in the post resurrection millennium (premil) why would it be a curse for the sinner to be 100? In the amil stance, dying at 100 years old to enter the grave and only be raised up to enter the lake of fire fits. As for the youth dying at 100, I can only guess that somehow alludes to a full life awaiting those who died in infancy or childhood. I’ve long considered what the new creation would look like, we no longer marry or are given in marriage, but so many of us have had miscarriages, myself included, would it be possible that we get to raise up those children in the new creation but they don’t have to die, since they technically already did?
6. One bodily resurrection, we won’t all sleep but will all be changed… at the last trumpet. Glorified bodies are not going to those who get thrown in the lake of fire. One general, bodily resurrection, only the saved get to eat from the tree of life, ie eternal life in the new creation.
I started changing from historic premil a few weeks ago because I couldn’t fit the unsaved into the millennium after the “not all will sleep but all will be changed”. And the animal sacrifices that view has coming back for 1000 years, and everyone having to travel to Jerusalem each year or it won’t rain. It also bothered me that the New Testament really seems to quote OT prophecy as if the kingdom is the church age, not post second coming.
First time watcher! What is the song that opens and closes this video, please? I really like it.
Also, I enjoyed this discussion very much. I just recently discovered Ps. Doug Wilson and also just recently began wanting to understand eschatology and figure out my own beliefs on that.
Great!
The song is "I Know My Redeemer Lives" by Tim Bushong
As a Preterist this looks fun to watch. Like IMAGE comics vs Marvel comics.
The disagreement is this:
1)Christ will always have a remnant within a rebellious world or
2)Christ shall overcome this world so much so, that the wheat will outnumber the tares and the law of the land everywhere will be like Israel’s before they were exiled to Babylonia.
Hopefully Phil Johnson is watching because he needs to come on Keiths show and man rampant next year
"Stay, stand apart! I know not which is which!" - Comedy of Errors
That intro though
We need a debate of the ages part 2, electric boogaloo.
Wow, what a delightful mini debate, but I have to give a slight edge to Doug because it’s a wheat field not a tare field
Round two in the future?
This was the least debatey debate since Doug debated James White on Paedocommunion
Waited 2 weeks for a 30 min convo.
I know ima get a lotta flack for this but.... Seriously.
Love both of you though 😉
This was really fun and super helpful. I have really struggled to get a straight answer on the difference between optimistic amil and postmil. Thank you all for doing this.
this was a good video, its ludicrous that only half hour was alotted
I hope Keith's channel blows up. I love his content 😂
Good. We didn't include the premills. they're crazy
Are these guy brothers?! Couldn’t initially tell who was who
Okay okay, so here’s the deal. What is different between postmil and amil? I listened but somehow missed that small detail.
nature of the kingdom
It really depends on which version of either you're looking at. For Doug and Keith? Doug's a pp postmill guy, while Keith is an optimistic amill guy, who (thankfully) rejects the "radical" two-kingdoms idea. I do believe both would hold to the more historic understanding of two-kingdoms - that there's the civil and governmental, but Christ rules over both. The church is not in control of the government, but does offer godly wisdom to the rulers. (So-called "radical" two-kingdoms... think of Dr. Horton, for instance... would say there's two-kingdoms and never shall the two meet. Almost as if Christ doesn't rule in the affairs of men.)
So, the biggest difference between Doug and Keith is expectation of what the expansion of the gospel will do. Personally, this is one of the things that pushed me from Amill to Postmill. I was being inconsistent believing that the gospel would go forth and change hearts, but not too many (I guess Christ doesn't want that?) and that the man with a changed heart wouldn't seek to live in accordance with that new heart (re: a changed society, made up of men, women, and children who seek to live out their faith the best they can).
@@stuffipost137this is an honest question since you are more postmil. How do you account for the forces of Gog being able to surround and nearly amohilate the church in Revelation 20?
Doug always so gracious towards believers …
They're both wonderful nen of God. In the Kingdom I can imagine alot of good nstured humor will be derived from the theology of our previous lives, particularly eschatology. We'll all be surprissed to some extent, and ultimately both grateful for our deliverance and amused at our hubris
My problem with dispensational pretribulationism is that “he that now letteth shall be taken out of the way,” which is assumed to be the Holy Spirit, and yet 144,000 Jews get saved during the tribulation. How do men get saved without the Holy Spirit?
Doug Wilson makes exegesis fun!
Is Bah Humbug Postmil a category?
Jesus and the Apostles and new converts over the years have healed people, raised the dead and calmed the storms, and greater things, essentially proving to the world that Jesus was ALREADY victorious and brought Heaven down. The real debate should be what happened to stop heaven from coming to earth, who is now shutting the door to the kingdom of heaven? The answer is simple and in the Bible.
The intro to this had me actually laughing out loud!
Would have been great to explain what post and amillenium is.
I was raised Roman Catholic and God saved be out of that, and then went to a Baptist church(exposed to premil/rapture) and believed it, then going through Voddie's study on Revelation and found I couldn't get premil/rapture to fit with scripture. Then studied Darby and was like why having belief in a "prophetic" revelation by a man of only about 200 years, have rested on Amillennialism and always find Amillennial and postmillennial friends and dispensationalist people don't talk to me lol....now going to an OPC church
What they dont tell you is that every prophecy in the bible where a time is given for the prophecy, is always literal. The Millennium cannot begin until the return of Christ and the resurrection of the saints.
Anyone who says otherwise is not merely misinterpreting the test, they are rewriting it to fit a specific view that seeks to omit the final tribulation and trouble that precedes Christs return, which has a purpose.
Judgement begins at the house of the Lord, and if the righteous are scarcely saved, what then for the lost.
Christ is King 👑 brothers
When Christ says “no one knows the day or the hour”. The first question that comes to mind is the context and audience relevance. Why do we rip that out of the Bible?
Ive never heard a single explanation of eschatology that addresses scripture as a whole. Ive seen a whole bunch of "yeah, yeah, but look at this verse over here"
I think that the problem with eschatological views is that they all project a great amount of baggage upon the opposing views and ignore the historical behaviors.
Was that intro a shoutout to Radio Free Geneva?
Tim Bushong, the moderator, produced this intro as well as RFG's intro! Thats why they sound similar. Same voice, same guy!
@@eschatology_matters wow! The more you know
Where does he return to?
Spiritus S. Scripturae supports Foskey!
#optimisticamil
What is the name of the song at the beginning of the video?
Hail To Jesus (Psalm 110) by Tim Bushong
@@eschatology_matters Thanks
Seems to me the key difference is whether a major worldwide revival CAN take place before Christ returns (which amills should affirm) or whether it MUST take place before His return (which is problematic because of all the imminency verses and benefits).
Another important issue, which I think all stripes of believers get wrong, is the assumption that the universalistic prophecies mean that the gospel MUST go farther than it's already gone before Christ returns. Besides the imminency problem mentioned above, this assumption misses the fact that in Colossians 1 Paul declares those prophecies fulfilled in the first century: verses 5-6 say, "the truth of the gospel, which has come to you, as it has also in all the world," and verse 23 says, "the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven." Ironically, some who are otherwise critics of "wooden literalism" seem to be failing to recognize the figurative elements in some key prophecies. (For another example, it would be consistent with other OT prophecies to understand the imagery of Isaiah 65:20 as a poetic way of referring to eternal life.)
The oil ran out because the bridegroom took *longer* than the virgins expected…
What did the king of Nineveh do?
It's a Silver Age that the postmils look for before the Eschaton. The Golden Age is the New Heavens and the New Earth.
man wouldn't it be great if we could all disagree like this
👌
This seems to me that be a blind leading the blind debate.
Around the 00:20:00 mark, Doug addresses the issue of suffering (which we all agree is essential for sanctification), even in the Postmillennial golden age. But he needs to be pressed much harder on this very point, since much of his thinking is based on his understanding of Isaiah 65. I think he's correct in describing this life, even until the end of the world, as being a 'veil of tears.' (Seems a bit pessimistic, does it not?) But if Isaiah 65 is clear on anything, it is that there are no more tears in the new creation.
"Be glad and rejoice FOREVER in what I create."
"I create Jerusalem to be a joy."
"NO MORE SHALL BE HEARD IN IT THE SOUND OF WEEPING."
"NO MORE SHALL BE HEARD IN IT THE CRY OF DISTRESS."
"The wolf and the lamb shall graze together."
"The lion shall eat straw like an ox."
"They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain."
Isaiah is very explicit, that weeping and crying are banished. How can the Postmill say then, "Life in the new creation is a veil of tears"?
For my part, I think the Amil explanation is much more coherent. Isaiah 65 is highly figurative. Isaiah is giving his readers a sense of the world to come, by using typological frameworks. Just as I would not argue from Isaiah 65 that heaven must have animals (lambs, wolves, lions, oxen, serpents, etc.), so too I don't think it's appropriate to see death as a necessary aspect of God's new creation. Indeed, Isaiah 25:7-8, 35:10, 51:11, Revelation 7:17, 21:4, to name just a few, make it clear that death will not be an aspect of the new creation, so Isaiah 65 must be seen as figurative language.
I'm convinced that this is why we should let scripture interpret scripture and leave off both the Dispy and Postmill propensity for using the newspapers as their primary hermeneutical grid.
With the death portion of that passage in Isaiah, that’s where the Post Mil points to show that that chapter is talking about the kingdom being built in earth, before Christ returns and creation is redeemed like it is described at the end of the chapter
@@arcanum3882 Correct, and I'm suggesting Postmil interpreters can't have it both ways. If death is to be expected in the new creation because of Isa. 65:20, then tears are not to be expected, since the death verse is immediately proceeded by the no tears verse. What I'm getting at here is that prophetic language is inherently figurative and typological. The result for us is that during the Old Testament era, these things were wrapped in a mystery. It was not so clear, but we don't have that excuse now that we have a more complete revelation in the New Testament.
Isa. 65:19 I will rejoice in Jerusalem
[and] be glad in my people;
NO MORE shall be heard in it THE SOUND OF WEEPING
[and] THE CRY OF DISTRESS.
20 No more shall there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
[or] an old man [who] does not fill out his days,
[for] the young man shall die a hundred years old,
[and] the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed.
We might say that verse 20 is a further development of verse 19. You can ask, why is there no weeping? Because the normal life and death cycle is transformed. But how can there be no tears if there is still death? This mystery is resolved in the further development of what the new heavens and new earth consists of in the New Testament. There are no tears or death in heaven.
@@PostPostiesErr, wait. Don't you have the same problem? Postmil says it can't be the new earth because there is death, and in your last post you seem to agree that there won't be death, yet here we have death. So either Christ doesn't defeat the last enemy, or at least this part of the chapter isn't about the new earth.
If we insist that the entire chapter must either be about the new earth or the time proceeding the new earth, either way creates a conflict. It seems a bit of a forced conflict IMO for postmil, but a pretty heavy one for someone who I sists this is the eternal state with death, contrary to many other passages.
I guess I missed how you avoid your own trap.
@@oracleoftroy Truth be told, I don't have a good solution for Isaiah 65. It's one of the biggest pieces in the eschatological puzzle that I don't have a satisfactory answer for. Even so, all I'm trying to establish is that this OT prophecy text is far too opaque and cloaked in mystery to allow it to govern my overall framework.
Even the postmill theologians agree that when we have various scriptural passages that are obviously related to each other, it's best practice to allow the more clear and agreed upon texts to shed light on the more difficult and allusive texts. When I look at all the other new creation, new heavens, new earth type of texts, the others point to an everlasting joy, without death or weeping.
Therefore, when I circle back to Isaiah 65, I feel forced by the rest of scripture to say, Isaiah must have been speaking with some sort of prophetic perspective that allowed him to foreshadow the glories to come, while only looking through a glass dimly.
Side Note: If we take things too literally in Isaiah 65, we might be tempted to conclude that we're all supposed to be stoics. But, when our friends and family die, we do and will always weep, this side of heaven. Death is inherently sad, Jesus wept even though he knew he was about to raise Lazarus from the dead. As Doug said, this life is a veil of tears. Therefore, Isaiah 65 must be highly figurative and should be treated as such.
Can somebody tell me the name of the song at the begining and the end please ? It would be really appreciated.
th-cam.com/video/jtmVHsEgFAs/w-d-xo.htmlsi=hw-jDdxp_5eJg0_q
What's the song?!?
"I Know My Redeemer Lives" Tim Bushong
Thank you 🙏
Actually I think it was from the same album but,
"Hail to Jesus (Psalm 110)"
The spirit of this debate was great! But the content was an absolute joke. I clicked on this video, expecting them to open their Bibles and show why the Book supports their belief. Did I miss that part?
Half an hour is just not anywhere nearly enough time. . .
Although maybe that was enough as Doug and Keith seemed to agree just a tad too much 😂
Umm... Which one's doug?
What if we look at the parable of the five virgins and their oil lamps as the Apostles on the night of the arrest in the garden? Only two stayed with Jesus throughout his trial and tribulation (Peter and John,) while the other nine scattered like sheep without a shepherd.
🙏🏻🙏🏻
You should’ve entitled this “the debate of the millennium”
Like Joel Osteens salvation! Good one
28:07 lol
Only 30 minutes?
If wholesale cultural roto-rooting is going to occur, it will be POST-US...Too much at stake financially for wholesale repentance and renewal under the current American "dispensation."
I liked getting to hear the difference in viewpoint, but I wish I heard the Amil refutation of some of the Postmil interpretations of biblical passages. I’m Postmil, and I’ve never heard an actual biblical refutation of the Postmil hermeneutic that was satisfying. Maybe round two where they discuss actual passages of scripture?
I would probably start with the Gog/Magog battle in Revelation 20. The fact that the hordes of Gog seem to outnumber the people of God at this time seems to go against the postmil view. Of course one can be optimistic about the spread of the gospel, but this event seems to suggest Christianity will never be the majority.
Also, when Paul is confronting people who think the day of the Lord has come in 2 Thess 2, he doesn't really give a postmill answer. He doesn't say, well the world must be first Christianized before that can happen. He says there must be a great falling away and a man of lawlessness. It is these wicked events that must proceed Christ's coming. Of course, many may take a preterist approach to this passage, but that leads to further problems.
@@beliefbiteThey have enough people to surround a city. That doesn't have to take a very large army, and it was wiped out trivially easy. It seems like a final desperate defiance from those who refuse to serve God. There are a lot of them, but it isn't clear that they are anywhere close to a majority.
Carnivore diet will fix the 3X really fast bro.
Do people have a take on whether optimistic amil is a category best reserved for a partial preterist amil? Or is it equally applicable to a futurist amil?
Is Foskey a partial
preterist?
I believe I've heard him say things that'd fit into the pp camp. That said,
@@stuffipost137that said what?
@@arcanum3882
I don't know where I was going with that anymore... or why it cut off and only posted half a thought. Sorry about that.
As a futurist Amil, I think that depends on what exactly is future, and what we mean by optimism. There is a lot of variance in the amil position, so feel free to go where scripture leads.
For example, partial preterism vs futurism isn't precise enough. Sometimes people are futurist regarding one thing and preterist regarding another. Is the ending of the Olivet Discourse future? What about the beginning? It makes a difference if the great apostasy of 2 Thess 2 is in our future or our past.
And what about the forces of darkness surrounding the church at the end of the millennium in chapter 20? Where do these forces come from, and how can they outnumber the church?
And what does optimism even mean? Does the church win by establishing Christian nations or by suffering and dying? Maybe both?
Does the kingdom growing like a mustard seed to fill the whole earth mean the whole world will be Christianized? Or does it just mean that there will be at least a small Christian presence everywhere?
Both preterism and optimism are not black and white; they are on a spectrum. Where you see the best balance is up to you
@@stuffipost137 all good
As a Pre-Mil Dispensationalist, I find this conversation frustrating, because both speakers are aware of the problems of the positions of the opponents, meaning they should both be aware of the problems in their own positions after speaking with each other. I like what Doug Wilson says at 12:48, that the Lord can disrupt our calculations, implying he is open to correcting his own understanding of the biblical timeline. The Apostle Paul lays it out so clearly; Israel fell (Romans 11:11), until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in (Romans 11:25), then God shall save Israel as it is written (Romans 11:26). If we understand the fullness of the Gentiles being the completion of Paul's ministry (Ephesians 3), then many pieces fall into place. Paul's 13 letters disrupted the Israel-centered program, as Israel fell in the book of Acts, transitioning from the ministry of the 12 to Paul. Paul then is the Apostle for the age we are living in, until his ministry is complete and the full number of Gentiles are saved and sealed and taken to meet the Lord (2 Thess 2:1). Then God returns to dealing with the nation of Israel as the prophets foretold, bringing their final generation through the time of Jacob's trouble, the anti-christ, the mark of the beast, the Day of the Lord (Revelation 1:10), and the 2nd coming of Christ to the earth to setup the Kingdom in Jerusalem (Isaiah 2, Isaiah 66). This is why after Paul's 13 letters, you have Hebrews to Revelation, jewish epistles written to the 12 tribes of Israel dealing with the final generation of Israel. In Paul's letters, there is no distinction between Jew or Gentile (Galatians 3:28) because God consigned both to unbelief (Romans 11:32), yet we find in Hebrews to Revelation a return to a distinction between Jew and Gentile!
The book of Hebrews, obviously written to the Jewish people, begins with Hebrews 1:1 "In the past, God spoke through the prophets to our ancestors in many times and many ways." Clearly God is now returning to dealing with the nation to whom God spoke through the prophets (Israel). This is exactly what Paul said would happen (Romans 11:23). The next book, the book of James, begins with James 1:1 "To the twelve tribes scattered." Then the next book, Peter, begins with 1 Peter 1:1 "to the exiles scattered", the term scattered used by James and Peter is a biblical term for Israel when they are outside of the boundaries of Israel. James, Peter and John agreed with Paul to limit their ministry to Israel (Galatians 2:9), so their letters are addressed to that nation, and that final generation who sees the return of the Lord, after Paul's letters/ministry are completed. This is the correct biblical timeline, and the order of the books in your Bible prove it.
Are you as aware of the problems with the pre-mil dispy position as you expect Doug and Keith to be aware of the problems with their positions?
@@gregb6469 I am aware of counter-arguments though I am not all-knowing and therefore have not heard of all possible counter-arguments. I am open to it of course, but have not heard any that I find persuasive or not able to be defended against.
@@VFXShawn-- No doubt Doug and Keith would say the same thing about criticisms of their positions.
love all the jabs left and right
I regards to the efforts taken here. Thank you!
Sorry for going too serious! Staying with the fun, where can I buy a “Make the Kingdom Better Hat”?
If just the possibility of Jesus returning and catching us with our knickers down is what keeps us faithful and committed Christians, then we are whores through and through. One of the weakest arguments ever is one that suggests what keeps us alert and faithful is the immanent return of Christ. Are we Reformed or not?
Zach 14:4 doesn't support amill or postmill.
Lol Are you reading that in a woodenly, literal fashion? You cannot read apocalyptic text and ignore the symbology and simply take a literal meaning.
@@axowashereeExplain the “real” meaning.
This is not a debate. It's a discussion .
But we can agree it's a Wheatfield
Two people who both cant see the forest through the trees.
"Many will come to Me in that day, saying Lord, Lord, to whom I will say, "Depart from Me, I never knew you."" Suppose this implies 1/2 of the Christian community are apostates, along with the majority of the world that are unrepentant God-haters. Scripture seems to imply that the enemies of Christ will be more vehement as the Day approaches. "As in the days of Noah" seems to imply wickedness will gain on Earth before Jesus Christ returns. I am incredibly optimistic that "all the Father has given to [Jesus] will come to [Jesus,]" but I disagree with Doug that the optimism regarding souls is the same as Dispensational optimism. I see Dispy optimism is as heavily weighted by the hope of Rapture or as I refer to it, escape. Amillennialism seems the most Scriptural, realistic eschatology, without undue cultural optimism, or undue escapist hope. I know Christ has won the war & believe the continues battles are Him bringing in former enemies as the elect while He judges the wicked in time & beyond. I also fear the Postmillennialism has been done in the 19thC. when mainline denoms went cultural gospel & lost their moorings in the Christian faith, eventually losing Christianity wholesale. JMO
No response to why u r optimistic. The Postmil looks at Isa 2 and sees all nations flowing to the Lord's Mt and many people coming to worship. Then there's 1 Cor 15:25 and Col 1:20, he reconciles all things to himself.. Isa 42 speaks to his being faithful to bring forth justice. Study these verses well and like me your views will be changed, guaranteed.
Very good indeed
Amillennial here. Confessional Lutheran.
Has anyone mentioned that these two look exactly the same
Doug Wilson, you have time to agree with the other side in a debate, but have no time to debate a Full Preterist? C’mon sir, you’ve taken the time to write extensive books, surely you have a bit of time to meet head to head with those whose views you often attack. You quoted “no man knows the day or hour” but ignore the phrase “truly THIS generation shall not pass away until…” as a time text. Let’s get a debate scheduled.
Does anyone try to talk to premill or do they just ignore them
It's pretty much always one of the postmil positions vs premil or the various premil positions fighting amongst themselves. It's much rarer and rather nice to see the postmil side debating their distinctives.
Except that scripture demonstrates that neither position is correct.
Matthew 19:28 - And Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne (lit. “the throne of His glory,” ἐπὶ θρόνου δόξης αὐτοῦ), you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel (cf. Revelation 20:6).
Matthew 25:31 - “But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne (lit. “the throne of His glory,” ἐπὶ θρόνου δόξης αὐτοῦ).
In Matthew 19:28, 25:31, Jesus says that He will assume His glorious Davidic throne and reign over Israel in the regeneration, at the time of His second coming when He comes in glory and all of the angels with Him, and not before (cf. Luke 1:32-33, 2 Samuel 7:12-13, 17, Isaiah 9:7, Revelation 3:21). At that time, the disciples of Jesus will judge/rule over the twelve tribes of Israel that has been restored. Until this happens, “difficult times will come” in the last days as “evil men and imposters will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived” (2 Timothy 3:1, 13); things will not be improving here on earth, but getting worse (cf. Luke 17:26ff, 18:8, Matthew 24:37).
While it is true that all authority has been given to Jesus in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18), and it is true that Jesus has indeed sat down at the right hand of God, having finished His work of making purification of sins for His people as promised for His first advent (Colossians 3:1, Mark 16:19, Hebrews 1:3, 10:12, 12:2), this is not His Davidic throne rule, this is Jesus fulfilling His priestly role as intercessor; “He always lives to make intercession for them” with the Father (Hebrews 7:25, 8:1, 9:24, Romans 8:34). Jesus will remain seated at the right hand of the Father as Intercessor until the Father makes the enemies of the Son a footstool for His feet (Psalm 110:1), only then will Jesus rule “in the midst of Your enemies;” only then will “He will bring forth justice to the nations” (Isaiah 42:1); this time of Jesus’s rule is the Millennium after the Second Coming. Until then, “He (the Father) must reign until He (the Father) has put all His enemies under His (Jesus) feet” (1 Corinthians 15:25), lastly defeating death itself. Until the Millennium, it is the Father who reigns (1 Corinthians 15:25). This time of judgment takes place after the seventh trumpet of the tribulation, and it is at this time that “the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ,” it is only then that Jesus first begins to reign (Revelation 11:15-19), when all things are subjected to Him (1 Corinthians 15:28), and we then see His coronation as King in Revelation 19.
This will fulfil the vision of Daniel 7:13-14 where He receives universal authority from the Ancient of Days. Note that in Daniel 7:9, the thrones are not even set up until the time of judgment (cf. Revelation 20:4). This is very significant. Jesus explicitly ties His Davidic throne reign with His second coming to earth and not before. This shows that Jesus’ kingdom is future from our standpoint. The kingdom of God is present wherever Christ is (cf. Luke 17:20-21), therefore the kingdom comes when Jesus comes again; while the kingdom of God was incomplete at His first advent since many rejected Him then, after His second advent when He is given an everlasting dominion, glory, and a kingdom, all the peoples, nations, and men of every language will serve Him (cf. Daniel 7:14), and this kingdom of God can only be seen by those who are born again (John 3:3) who will receive and possess the kingdom of God at this time (Daniel 7:18).
This truth makes amillennialism and postmillennialism impossible since these positions assert that Jesus is now reigning from the Davidic throne in His millennial kingdom in this age.
Incidentally, the “regeneration” spoken of in Matthew 19:28 refers to the “new heavens and new earth” of the Messianic age (Isaiah 65:17, 2 Peter 3:13), the renewal of the cosmos; the glorification of creation (Romans 8:19-23); the eschatological restoration of all things (Acts 3:21). So, because Jesus has not yet returned in glory with all of His angels, because there has been no judgment “in flaming fire” against those who do not know God nor obey the Gospel (2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, 2 Timothy 4:1, Matthew 25:31-46), because there has not yet been a glorification of the creation, Jesus’ Davidic Kingdom rule is yet future, therefore any views that see Christ's Davidic reign as a present reality are necessarily false, and any attempt to maintain those views require one to either spiritualize or allegorize the text, ignoring its plain meaning.
😆
How is a layman such as I supposed to take any of this seriously when the introduction uses the words "their stood" when it should be "there stood"?