This was helpful, even hopeful. When I first heard of preterism, I kind of thought it did not seem hopeful...of course that was after years of being reinforced in premillennialism, dispensational thought. But today I saw the hope
Hey brother, I'm slowly transitioning form a pre-mill to a post-mill theology myself. In the west we like to think we're privileged and we "are" yet only as so in those of our Christian brothers whom have been persecuted all around the world. It's only because of my father's times 1000 that I am here, and can analyse history of my own "free will" (by God's blessing)... to believe in the truth. We don't like to think of that but here we are. God bless you! From an evangelical Anglican from the UK.
Thanks, brother. Great to hear from an evangelical Anglican from across the pond. Especially one who is discovering the glories of postmillennialism, ha! I do greatly appreciate the evangelical wing of the Anglican tradition. Keep up the good work and God bless you, too!
As you continue to ponder Postmillennial thinking, you will (most likely) come to re-think the Scriptures regarding modern Israel -- that since 70 AD, they no longer exist as God's Chosen People. There is no Jew or Greek. One is either IN CHRIST JESUS or NOT! There are no other distinctions, of any kind, to be had.
Except Paul maintains the distinction in some places and disregards it in others. I affirm both, just as Paul does. I affirm this: "Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." (Romans 11:28-29) Just as much as I affirm this: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28) I think it's quite easy to affirm both and covenant theology has a history with the Puritans that affirms both. Dispensationalists are wrong in denying the Church as Israel, and modern postmillennialists are wrong in denying the elect (but currently apostate) status of Israel according to the flesh. I have settled categories in my mind that I think sufficiently affirm all of Scripture in this area and I highly doubt they will change. Though I am open to refinement. But I don't think a total obliteration of Israel according to the flesh's election adequately accounts for Paul's language in Romans 11. I draw this out further here if you're interested: ua-cam.com/video/nKy0alcPshA/v-deo.html
@@jackshannon777 Thank you for your thoughtful response. Very kind! :-). I understand your point, in Romans 11. I struggled with that, as well. However, the more I climbed into Pauls shoes, understanding the context, and the people he was addressing at that time, it became clear that he was arguing for an opportunity for Jews (at that time) to still come to the knowledge of the Truth... That God had not rejected them (though they still rejected/murdered The Christ). The Temple was still standing. The End had not yet come. After 70AD, there is no more Old Covenant Israel. The Temple is DESTROYED, forever. It would NEVER BE, again! There is no longer a distinct People; every man is either “elect’ in Christ or he/she is not. Previous heritage and promises are not corporate but, individual. We can observe that in any local church. That “Chosen People” System is gone; Each Chosen one is based on Christ-given Faith, alone. Christ Jesus and HIS Kingdom-Church, alone! ALONE!
@@randallswetnam The Puritans had a pretty developed understanding of these verses that I'm sympathetic with. They don't appear to be fulfilled yet. How do you understand them? "Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness! ...For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?" (Romans 11:12,15) I agree with you that the temple system is destroyed forever. And that Christ Jesus and His Kingdom alone are what endures. But don't these verses anticipate Israel according to the flesh coming into Christ's kingdom? In other words, isn't Paul saying that the conversion of his Israelite brothers to the fullness of Israel, that is Christ's Church, means something significant? That the Jews will eventually become Christians? That Jews will eventually become true Jews, like us?
@@jackshannon777 So, what is Paul really talking about, in Romans 11:12, 15? I think we read into the text what we have been taught (brainwashed - sorry!). All Paul is saying is that God used Old Israel to pave the way for the New Israel. God gave it value; God gave it mission: Mission, fulfilled! Mission, accomplished! Fine'! Now, we move on to the Newer Thing! The Old Thing is passing away (Finished at the Cross, Spiritually; Fished at The Temple, Practically.) The Old Party is OVER! All have equal opportunity to the Father, according to individual election. Being an Old Israelite means nothing, anymore! NOTHING! The Adulteress, Old Israel, has been stoned to death! The True Bride is being made ready, through The New Israel: Christ Jesus, alone! The Faith (Faith in the coming, Victorious Messiah; Faith of the now, Victorious Messiah) has always been The Key to Righteousness... The Key to The Chosen/Election. It is is available to any-ONE, who WILL (The individually, predestined-elected). We don't look to "synagogues" or "assemblies" for election--- though God tends to use them as a "means" of Salvation. The First Dough or The Root (The Faith) was/is/always will be Christ Jesus, alone! Those individuals who are Elect, in The Dough/Root/Faith, are "God's Chosen People"... ONLY! Something that might be helpful (been there, done that... many times): Pretend you are arguing the Scriptures from the position that it has been OVER for Old Israel, as I have said. Then, read the Scriptures in that Light. Slowly but, surely, I believe you will "see" the better and more consistent context of the Scriptures. Additionally, when you look at all of the detriment-evil that has come from legitimizing modern Israel, prophetically/biblically, everything is practically, de-legitimized. The lies, theft, terror, murder, and wars that are at the core of this antichrist--- which John warned the 1st Church, (not some silly, nonsense, heretical, Hollywood "end of the world", boogeyman) are apparent. Lastly, there are theologians/pastors with MUCH BETTER MINDS than me, who have also, been heavily blessed/influenced by the Puritan thought. Yet, they have concluded that the Puritan view on modern Israel was wrong.... with which, I agree. If you become interested in these resources, I would be happy to make a few suggestions.
@@randallswetnam Nah, I'm not reading into the text what I've been taught. I'm just reading what the text says and trying to be as objectively exegetical as I can. I have no problem discarding things I've been taught. I've done it with numerous things. And I'm not coming to these conclusions through the Puritans. I came to these conclusions by attempting to deal honestly with the text and then I subsequently found out that the Puritans read these passages in a similar way. But I would very much be interested in resources that present different exegetical options/interpretations. It's been awhile, but I'm fairly positive I've read Gary DeMar and Kenneth Gentry on this, and haven't found them convincing. Other than those two, I can't think of anyone else I've read who holds to covenant theology and a preterist view of Romans 11. Happy to hear some recommendations.
Thank you my brother. I remain unconvinced however you are so right about this not being reason to disfellowship. As if we needed any more reasons than we already have. My greatest exceptions with both eschatologies is their use to excuse immoral behavior, Gross lack of stewardship and a casual attitude regarding inevitable future results. After all, we won't be here , when those cows come home
Thanks for doing this. My own journey sounds similar to your own. I was helped by the writings of Gentry and Chilton, via Wilson. Have you got any other sources to recommend?
Yeah, Gentry and Chilton are really great on this issue. Paradise Restored and He Shall Have Dominion are my main suggestions for people interested, and Heaven Misplaced by Wilson if they just want a short primer. I used the preterist archive more than anything else when I first was digging into it. But that website is now defunct for whatever reason. I'm currently reading The Puritan Hope by Iain Murray, but only because I've heard Wilson recommend it. It's pretty good so far, but it isn't really an exegetical, passage by passage, exposition of postmillennialism. So far it's more of a history of postmillennial thought among the Puritans, dealing with passages along the way, which has been good, but not as good as Chilton and Gentry, imo. Though they are different kinds of books with different goals. I have especially liked the section dealing with Israel according to the flesh, because it has reaffirmed my own Scriptural understanding of Israel according to the flesh. Whereas many modern postmillennialists are fairly indifferent to the nation state of Israel, or outright hostile. The Puritans were not that way. I also have a book on my shelf that I intend to read by Tom Holland, a nominal Anglican turned atheist, called Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World. I have seen passages quoted from that book, and also read articles written by or about Tom Holland that make me eager to read Dominion. He has a knack for pointing out how profoundly Christianity transformed the world from paganism. So, I would enthusiastically reaffirm Chilton and Gentry as the best places to go. I would give Murray's The Puritan Hope a moderate to enthusiastic recommendation since I haven't finished it. And I would give Holland's Dominion an enthusiastic recommendation without having even read it yet. But be warned, it is a beast of a book. Over 500 pages.
@@jackshannon777 I was digging around for some footage of Chilton and stumbled across an unlisted teaching series on UA-cam (just audio) he did on his Days of Vengeance book and it’s amazing. I ripped the audio and compiled it as an audiobook for Apple if you’d like to hear him. A very dynamic and engaging communicator with a profound grasp of the Scriptures.
@@jackshannon777 No, I just generated the audio as an audiobook so I could listen to it while driving . I have the file and will look you up on Facebook and make contact. Here's the series: ua-cam.com/play/PL91ng2_jOZ4NOStWI0ns0qXMwspCdRPwv.html
Does post millennial mean that tribulation and mark of beast already occurred. Becwuse so far that's my understanding and after re reading my gospels I was shocked how I totally misunderstood tribulation
History? You did not mention the views of the Early Church Fathers Ante-Nicene. Their views were fairly consistent for the first couple of hundred years. This important witness, and they are in fact witnesses, to the Early Church view of Eschatology is missing in your presentation. It seems that what they believed and taught might be extremely important.
The views of the early fathers were not consistent on eschatology. In fact, they are kind of all over the place. However, we do see plenty of fathers reading many Scriptural texts preteristically, and speaking in ways that support a postmillennial view. Athanasius and Eusebius (not Ante-Nicene, we understand) being the more prominent ones. These texts are dealt with and discussed in this series. This is an introduction. If you care to witness interaction with the fathers, watch the other videos. We have read the Ante-Nicene fathers. Some of them were right. Some were wrong. By "history", in this video, what is meant is actual historical events. The history of the world since Christ only testifies to a Postmillennial eschatology and nothing else.
@@SaintAthanasiusChurch I myself found them very consistent in many things, including Eschatology. Using the Ante-Nicene Fathers, by Hendrickson Publishing, we read the entire corpus of Early Church Writings over a 3 Year Period. It is of interest to see how they read the Scriptures (being so close with each other, and close with the Apostles themselves), and also how they did not read them, and what views no-one seems to even know about in that day. This is just my observation: They were clear, they were agreed, they were Dispensational (they used this word in a couple of different way, including as one thinks of Dispensational today), they were pre-Mill (expecting a literal reign of Christ, and many other things like this. Forgive me if I sound like I am intruding for no other reason than to differ; that is certainly not my intention. Blessings to you sir and God bless your ministry.
@@dennis11251 Thanks for the input. You are not informing of us anything we are not already aware of. We, unlike many churches, are steeped in the traditions and teachings of the early fathers, and not just the ante-nicene, but all of the fathers, our entire 2,000 year heritage as much as we can be. We esteem that heritage and consult it regularly. But we hold the Scriptures to be the final authority and privilege the Scriptures first when interpreting the Scriptures. We let the Scriptures interpret Scripture. We have found that there exists a tendency for some Christians to want to lean too heavily on one era of church history, and filter everything through that lens, rather than recognizing that era may have valuable things to offer, but also may be wrong in certain areas. We may be able to see things more clearly where they were blind and they may be able to see things more clearly where we are blind. The Holy Spirit brings the Church into more understanding as she continues to wrestle with Scripture. We would agree that many of the ante-nicene fathers said things that would place them in the historic premillennial camp, and would deny they said thing that were dispensational. Yes, they used the term. So do we. But we are not dispensationalists, and neither were the ante-nicene fathers. These conversations are more fruitful when discussing specific texts from the fathers that pertain to specific texts from Scriptures, rather than speaking in generalities. God bless and peace.
@@SaintAthanasiusChurch Thanks for your response. Eusebius and others are far enough away from the first FATHERS that I would expect changes with that much time (which is what is seen). It would be of interest if you could find a Postmill. view within a couple of hundred years. If you did not find it, that would be of great interest. We will disagree on what is there (and what is not there). Some of the earliest writers who had no Concordance, Bible Dictionary or Commentary, I believe wrote fairly well. The number of different Authors writing on Eschatology I believe to be important evidence and testimony (and worth consideration). We would both say the Scriptures are the final authority, but read the texts on this subject differently. Both claiming our view comes directly from the Scriptures. This, I believe, is where the earliest writers can bear witness to the correct OVERALL view. The last texts written on Eschatology was, I believe, written in A.D. 318, and the subject disappears from Church History almost completely until the 1800s. The views of the Ante-Nicene Authors are not always represented well today (the Left Behind series for example). Still, I read A-Mill. and Post-Mill. brothers in Christ, and will continue to. Again, Blessings in the Lamb, Sir.
Postmill's, in my experience, have a much richer and fuller understanding of the scriptures. We glorify God and our Lord Jesus Christ because He kept His word. Also, once you understand postmill, the book of Revelation finally becomes the climactic conclusion, instead of something we hardly touch because it's "too difficult". God made promises, and then kept them....ALL of them.
We are an independent church. We would like to be part of a denomination. Preferably one that is organized as an episcopal polity. But we don't know of any denominations that are like-minded enough and also prohibit adulterous remarriages. So, just as some people opt to not join a denomination because they permit homosexual marriages. We have opted to not join any denomination, because they all permit adulterous marriages. The Protestant Reformed Church is an exception, but we would be considered heretics to them for many other reasons, and we would not be interested in joining them because of those differences anyhow.
Saint Athanasius Church ...I’m interested in your interpretation of adulteress remarriages and what your heresy might be pertaining to the Protestant Reformed. No judgement. Genuinely curious.
@@Jebadebbis Thanks for the genuine inquiry. We view all remarriages, while the former spouse is still alive, to be adultery. And that if one is in an adulterous remarriage they ought to repent by separating, or else be excommunicated. We get this from the entirety of Scripture, but principally from the dominical sayings in Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18, and the Pauline sayings in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, 39 and Romans 7:2-3. These clear verses interpret the unclear verses on the issue. This way of interpretation is shared by Augustine, Jerome, Thomas Aquinas, and many other fathers throughout the Church's history. When we reference the Protestant Reformed Churches, we mean specifically the denomination called the Protestant Reformed Churches in America, founded by Herman Hoeksema, not the reformed churches generally. Here is a link to their website. www.prca.org/ The Protestant Reformed Churches in America denomination is fiercely Calvinistic, and specific about a lot of doctrines. We would be considered heretics to them because we are very comfortable with other forms of reformed theology, often associated with Norman Shepherd, and the Federal Vision. We would be heretics because we're postmillennial and comfortable with Christian Reconstruction. We would be heretics because we are continuationists, and not cessationists. We would be heretics, probably, because we believe in paedocommunion. There are probably many more reasons. But those are the main ones. Essentially, we are on the other end of the reformed spectrum - the more catholic end you might say. The Mercersburg Theology is what we are closer to than the PRCA brand of reformed theology. Happy to engage in further discussion if you have more questions.
Saint Athanasius Church ...thank you for the reply. How would you handle an adulteress marriage where a husband cheated on his wife? Is the woman released from that marriage?
@@Jebadebbis It's not clear to us what you mean by adulteress marriage. But if the marriage is a valid marriage, where they are not divorced people who had remarried, but never married people or widows, or widowers, who then became married to each other, we would proceed as follows. If the husband was repentant we would counsel the wife to forgive the husband of his sins, and be reconciled to him. If the husband were persistent and unrepentant in his adultery, we believe that she is permitted to separate and remain single as long as the husband is alive, or else be reconciled to the husband when he repents. She is not free to remarry until he dies. But she is not required to remain in a situation where the husband is an adulterer. Divorce or separation may be permitted in certain instances, but remarriage while the spouse is still alive is never permitted. Only death releases someone from a marriage.
@@keithwilson6060 Jesus said he would return in his disciples generation. Before they even finished spreading the gospel to all the towns of Israel. Was he wrong?
This was helpful, even hopeful. When I first heard of preterism, I kind of thought it did not seem hopeful...of course that was after years of being reinforced in premillennialism, dispensational thought. But today I saw the hope
For the last 15-20 years a thought that I was amillinnarian until I realized that I was a post millinnarian partial preterist.
Hey brother, I'm slowly transitioning form a pre-mill to a post-mill theology myself. In the west we like to think we're privileged and we "are" yet only as so in those of our Christian brothers whom have been persecuted all around the world. It's only because of my father's times 1000 that I am here, and can analyse history of my own "free will" (by God's blessing)... to believe in the truth. We don't like to think of that but here we are. God bless you! From an evangelical Anglican from the UK.
Thanks, brother. Great to hear from an evangelical Anglican from across the pond. Especially one who is discovering the glories of postmillennialism, ha! I do greatly appreciate the evangelical wing of the Anglican tradition. Keep up the good work and God bless you, too!
Excellent teaching on postmillennial eschatology! I've learned that I am probably postmillennial!
Thanks for the encouraging comment, Arthur. God bless!
As you continue to ponder Postmillennial thinking, you will (most likely) come to re-think the Scriptures regarding modern Israel -- that since 70 AD, they no longer exist as God's Chosen People. There is no Jew or Greek. One is either IN CHRIST JESUS or NOT! There are no other distinctions, of any kind, to be had.
Except Paul maintains the distinction in some places and disregards it in others. I affirm both, just as Paul does. I affirm this: "Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." (Romans 11:28-29) Just as much as I affirm this: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28) I think it's quite easy to affirm both and covenant theology has a history with the Puritans that affirms both. Dispensationalists are wrong in denying the Church as Israel, and modern postmillennialists are wrong in denying the elect (but currently apostate) status of Israel according to the flesh.
I have settled categories in my mind that I think sufficiently affirm all of Scripture in this area and I highly doubt they will change. Though I am open to refinement. But I don't think a total obliteration of Israel according to the flesh's election adequately accounts for Paul's language in Romans 11. I draw this out further here if you're interested: ua-cam.com/video/nKy0alcPshA/v-deo.html
@@jackshannon777 Thank you for your thoughtful response. Very kind! :-). I understand your point, in Romans 11. I struggled with that, as well. However, the more I climbed into Pauls shoes, understanding the context, and the people he was addressing at that time, it became clear that he was arguing for an opportunity for Jews (at that time) to still come to the knowledge of the Truth... That God had not rejected them (though they still rejected/murdered The Christ). The Temple was still standing. The End had not yet come. After 70AD, there is no more Old Covenant Israel. The Temple is DESTROYED, forever. It would NEVER BE, again! There is no longer a distinct People; every man is either “elect’ in Christ or he/she is not. Previous heritage and promises are not corporate but, individual. We can observe that in any local church. That “Chosen People” System is gone; Each Chosen one is based on Christ-given Faith, alone. Christ Jesus and HIS Kingdom-Church, alone! ALONE!
@@randallswetnam The Puritans had a pretty developed understanding of these verses that I'm sympathetic with. They don't appear to be fulfilled yet. How do you understand them?
"Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!
...For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?" (Romans 11:12,15)
I agree with you that the temple system is destroyed forever. And that Christ Jesus and His Kingdom alone are what endures. But don't these verses anticipate Israel according to the flesh coming into Christ's kingdom? In other words, isn't Paul saying that the conversion of his Israelite brothers to the fullness of Israel, that is Christ's Church, means something significant? That the Jews will eventually become Christians? That Jews will eventually become true Jews, like us?
@@jackshannon777 So, what is Paul really talking about, in Romans 11:12, 15? I think we read into the text what we have been taught (brainwashed - sorry!). All Paul is saying is that God used Old Israel to pave the way for the New Israel. God gave it value; God gave it mission: Mission, fulfilled! Mission, accomplished! Fine'! Now, we move on to the Newer Thing! The Old Thing is passing away (Finished at the Cross, Spiritually; Fished at The Temple, Practically.) The Old Party is OVER! All have equal opportunity to the Father, according to individual election. Being an Old Israelite means nothing, anymore! NOTHING! The Adulteress, Old Israel, has been stoned to death! The True Bride is being made ready, through The New Israel: Christ Jesus, alone! The Faith (Faith in the coming, Victorious Messiah; Faith of the now, Victorious Messiah) has always been The Key to Righteousness... The Key to The Chosen/Election. It is is available to any-ONE, who WILL (The individually, predestined-elected). We don't look to "synagogues" or "assemblies" for election--- though God tends to use them as a "means" of Salvation. The First Dough or The Root (The Faith) was/is/always will be Christ Jesus, alone! Those individuals who are Elect, in The Dough/Root/Faith, are "God's Chosen People"... ONLY!
Something that might be helpful (been there, done that... many times): Pretend you are arguing the Scriptures from the position that it has been OVER for Old Israel, as I have said. Then, read the Scriptures in that Light. Slowly but, surely, I believe you will "see" the better and more consistent context of the Scriptures.
Additionally, when you look at all of the detriment-evil that has come from legitimizing modern Israel, prophetically/biblically, everything is practically, de-legitimized. The lies, theft, terror, murder, and wars that are at the core of this antichrist--- which John warned the 1st Church, (not some silly, nonsense, heretical, Hollywood "end of the world", boogeyman) are apparent.
Lastly, there are theologians/pastors with MUCH BETTER MINDS than me, who have also, been heavily blessed/influenced by the Puritan thought. Yet, they have concluded that the Puritan view on modern Israel was wrong.... with which, I agree. If you become interested in these resources, I would be happy to make a few suggestions.
@@randallswetnam Nah, I'm not reading into the text what I've been taught. I'm just reading what the text says and trying to be as objectively exegetical as I can. I have no problem discarding things I've been taught. I've done it with numerous things. And I'm not coming to these conclusions through the Puritans. I came to these conclusions by attempting to deal honestly with the text and then I subsequently found out that the Puritans read these passages in a similar way. But I would very much be interested in resources that present different exegetical options/interpretations. It's been awhile, but I'm fairly positive I've read Gary DeMar and Kenneth Gentry on this, and haven't found them convincing. Other than those two, I can't think of anyone else I've read who holds to covenant theology and a preterist view of Romans 11. Happy to hear some recommendations.
Jack! Its Mitch. Your video popped up organically.
I AM THE ALGORITHM
Thank you my brother. I remain unconvinced however you are so right about this not being reason to disfellowship. As if we needed any more reasons than we already have.
My greatest exceptions with both eschatologies is their use to excuse immoral behavior, Gross lack of stewardship and a casual attitude regarding inevitable future results. After all, we won't be here , when those cows come home
Wow great summary video. Went through this recently as I taught the Olivet Discourse in Mark 13. Blessings
Thanks for doing this. My own journey sounds similar to your own. I was helped by the writings of Gentry and Chilton, via Wilson. Have you got any other sources to recommend?
Yeah, Gentry and Chilton are really great on this issue. Paradise Restored and He Shall Have Dominion are my main suggestions for people interested, and Heaven Misplaced by Wilson if they just want a short primer. I used the preterist archive more than anything else when I first was digging into it. But that website is now defunct for whatever reason. I'm currently reading The Puritan Hope by Iain Murray, but only because I've heard Wilson recommend it. It's pretty good so far, but it isn't really an exegetical, passage by passage, exposition of postmillennialism. So far it's more of a history of postmillennial thought among the Puritans, dealing with passages along the way, which has been good, but not as good as Chilton and Gentry, imo. Though they are different kinds of books with different goals. I have especially liked the section dealing with Israel according to the flesh, because it has reaffirmed my own Scriptural understanding of Israel according to the flesh. Whereas many modern postmillennialists are fairly indifferent to the nation state of Israel, or outright hostile. The Puritans were not that way. I also have a book on my shelf that I intend to read by Tom Holland, a nominal Anglican turned atheist, called Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World. I have seen passages quoted from that book, and also read articles written by or about Tom Holland that make me eager to read Dominion. He has a knack for pointing out how profoundly Christianity transformed the world from paganism.
So, I would enthusiastically reaffirm Chilton and Gentry as the best places to go. I would give Murray's The Puritan Hope a moderate to enthusiastic recommendation since I haven't finished it. And I would give Holland's Dominion an enthusiastic recommendation without having even read it yet. But be warned, it is a beast of a book. Over 500 pages.
@@jackshannon777 I was digging around for some footage of Chilton and stumbled across an unlisted teaching series on UA-cam (just audio) he did on his Days of Vengeance book and it’s amazing. I ripped the audio and compiled it as an audiobook for Apple if you’d like to hear him. A very dynamic and engaging communicator with a profound grasp of the Scriptures.
@@davejcampbe11 That would be awesome. I'd love to hear it. Can I purchase it on iTunes?
@@jackshannon777 No, I just generated the audio as an audiobook so I could listen to it while driving . I have the file and will look you up on Facebook and make contact. Here's the series: ua-cam.com/play/PL91ng2_jOZ4NOStWI0ns0qXMwspCdRPwv.html
Does post millennial mean that tribulation and mark of beast already occurred. Becwuse so far that's my understanding and after re reading my gospels I was shocked how I totally misunderstood tribulation
History? You did not mention the views of the Early Church Fathers Ante-Nicene. Their views were fairly consistent for the first couple of hundred years. This important witness, and they are in fact witnesses, to the Early Church view of Eschatology is missing in your presentation. It seems that what they believed and taught might be extremely important.
The views of the early fathers were not consistent on eschatology. In fact, they are kind of all over the place. However, we do see plenty of fathers reading many Scriptural texts preteristically, and speaking in ways that support a postmillennial view. Athanasius and Eusebius (not Ante-Nicene, we understand) being the more prominent ones. These texts are dealt with and discussed in this series. This is an introduction. If you care to witness interaction with the fathers, watch the other videos. We have read the Ante-Nicene fathers. Some of them were right. Some were wrong.
By "history", in this video, what is meant is actual historical events. The history of the world since Christ only testifies to a Postmillennial eschatology and nothing else.
@@SaintAthanasiusChurch I myself found them very consistent in many things, including Eschatology. Using the Ante-Nicene Fathers, by Hendrickson Publishing, we read the entire corpus of Early Church Writings over a 3 Year Period. It is of interest to see how they read the Scriptures (being so close with each other, and close with the Apostles themselves), and also how they did not read them, and what views no-one seems to even know about in that day. This is just my observation: They were clear, they were agreed, they were Dispensational (they used this word in a couple of different way, including as one thinks of Dispensational today), they were pre-Mill (expecting a literal reign of Christ, and many other things like this. Forgive me if I sound like I am intruding for no other reason than to differ; that is certainly not my intention. Blessings to you sir and God bless your ministry.
@@dennis11251 Thanks for the input. You are not informing of us anything we are not already aware of. We, unlike many churches, are steeped in the traditions and teachings of the early fathers, and not just the ante-nicene, but all of the fathers, our entire 2,000 year heritage as much as we can be. We esteem that heritage and consult it regularly. But we hold the Scriptures to be the final authority and privilege the Scriptures first when interpreting the Scriptures. We let the Scriptures interpret Scripture. We have found that there exists a tendency for some Christians to want to lean too heavily on one era of church history, and filter everything through that lens, rather than recognizing that era may have valuable things to offer, but also may be wrong in certain areas. We may be able to see things more clearly where they were blind and they may be able to see things more clearly where we are blind. The Holy Spirit brings the Church into more understanding as she continues to wrestle with Scripture. We would agree that many of the ante-nicene fathers said things that would place them in the historic premillennial camp, and would deny they said thing that were dispensational. Yes, they used the term. So do we. But we are not dispensationalists, and neither were the ante-nicene fathers. These conversations are more fruitful when discussing specific texts from the fathers that pertain to specific texts from Scriptures, rather than speaking in generalities. God bless and peace.
@@SaintAthanasiusChurch Thanks for your response. Eusebius and others are far enough away from the first FATHERS that I would expect changes with that much time (which is what is seen). It would be of interest if you could find a Postmill. view within a couple of hundred years. If you did not find it, that would be of great interest. We will disagree on what is there (and what is not there). Some of the earliest writers who had no Concordance, Bible Dictionary or Commentary, I believe wrote fairly well. The number of different Authors writing on Eschatology I believe to be important evidence and testimony (and worth consideration). We would both say the Scriptures are the final authority, but read the texts on this subject differently. Both claiming our view comes directly from the Scriptures. This, I believe, is where the earliest writers can bear witness to the correct OVERALL view. The last texts written on Eschatology was, I believe, written in A.D. 318, and the subject disappears from Church History almost completely until the 1800s. The views of the Ante-Nicene Authors are not always represented well today (the Left Behind series for example). Still, I read A-Mill. and Post-Mill. brothers in Christ, and will continue to. Again, Blessings in the Lamb, Sir.
@@SaintAthanasiusChurch I'm excited to see you embraced the postmillenialist view!
Double fulfillment, needs proof unless they have a foundations we can make any text change its full meaning.
Interesting
Simple preach the gospel. Jesus is coming soon.
Postmill's, in my experience, have a much richer and fuller understanding of the scriptures. We glorify God and our Lord Jesus Christ because He kept His word. Also, once you understand postmill, the book of Revelation finally becomes the climactic conclusion, instead of something we hardly touch because it's "too difficult". God made promises, and then kept them....ALL of them.
hey, i just came across your channel and I'd like to know what denomination are you
We are an independent church. We would like to be part of a denomination. Preferably one that is organized as an episcopal polity. But we don't know of any denominations that are like-minded enough and also prohibit adulterous remarriages. So, just as some people opt to not join a denomination because they permit homosexual marriages. We have opted to not join any denomination, because they all permit adulterous marriages. The Protestant Reformed Church is an exception, but we would be considered heretics to them for many other reasons, and we would not be interested in joining them because of those differences anyhow.
Saint Athanasius Church ...I’m interested in your interpretation of adulteress remarriages and what your heresy might be pertaining to the Protestant Reformed. No judgement. Genuinely curious.
@@Jebadebbis Thanks for the genuine inquiry. We view all remarriages, while the former spouse is still alive, to be adultery. And that if one is in an adulterous remarriage they ought to repent by separating, or else be excommunicated. We get this from the entirety of Scripture, but principally from the dominical sayings in Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18, and the Pauline sayings in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, 39 and Romans 7:2-3. These clear verses interpret the unclear verses on the issue. This way of interpretation is shared by Augustine, Jerome, Thomas Aquinas, and many other fathers throughout the Church's history.
When we reference the Protestant Reformed Churches, we mean specifically the denomination called the Protestant Reformed Churches in America, founded by Herman Hoeksema, not the reformed churches generally. Here is a link to their website. www.prca.org/
The Protestant Reformed Churches in America denomination is fiercely Calvinistic, and specific about a lot of doctrines. We would be considered heretics to them because we are very comfortable with other forms of reformed theology, often associated with Norman Shepherd, and the Federal Vision. We would be heretics because we're postmillennial and comfortable with Christian Reconstruction. We would be heretics because we are continuationists, and not cessationists. We would be heretics, probably, because we believe in paedocommunion. There are probably many more reasons. But those are the main ones. Essentially, we are on the other end of the reformed spectrum - the more catholic end you might say. The Mercersburg Theology is what we are closer to than the PRCA brand of reformed theology.
Happy to engage in further discussion if you have more questions.
Saint Athanasius Church ...thank you for the reply. How would you handle an adulteress marriage where a husband cheated on his wife? Is the woman released from that marriage?
@@Jebadebbis It's not clear to us what you mean by adulteress marriage. But if the marriage is a valid marriage, where they are not divorced people who had remarried, but never married people or widows, or widowers, who then became married to each other, we would proceed as follows. If the husband was repentant we would counsel the wife to forgive the husband of his sins, and be reconciled to him. If the husband were persistent and unrepentant in his adultery, we believe that she is permitted to separate and remain single as long as the husband is alive, or else be reconciled to the husband when he repents. She is not free to remarry until he dies. But she is not required to remain in a situation where the husband is an adulterer. Divorce or separation may be permitted in certain instances, but remarriage while the spouse is still alive is never permitted. Only death releases someone from a marriage.
Postmillennial? Oh, did I miss it?
Yes, yes you did
@@toknowhim2242
So did everyone in the first millennium.
@@keithwilson6060 Jesus said he would return in his disciples generation. Before they even finished spreading the gospel to all the towns of Israel. Was he wrong?
@@keithwilson6060 Miss what? Yes, thankfully you missed the Great Tribulation.
@@kylec8950
Then I missed the millennial reign of Christ too. What does that make us, chopped liver?
BECAUSE YOU WANT TO BELIEVE A LIE.....................