Could you please tell us what experts currently say about the timing of the writing of John's Revelation? Was it in the late 90s? Or, as some argue, was it from an earlier period? This also helps us understand whether eschatology should be viewed as futurist or perhaps with partial or complete fulfillment in AD 70, with the fall of Jerusalem. Thank you for the video, it’s excellent!
Just for fun I wanted to lay out a quick overview of Irenaeus' relevant commentary on eschatology and answer the most common objections to his pre-trib position. 4-21-3 -For to this end was the Lord born, the type of whose birth he set forth beforehand, of whom also John says in the Apocalypse: "He went forth conquering, that He should conquer." To begin, Irenaeus sees the First Seal of Revelation six as referring to the coming of Jesus/the going forth of the Gospel just as Victorinus does in his commentary on Revelation, NOT the Antichrist. Irenaeus doesn't go into greater detail, but based on Victorinus the seals appear to have been understood as the present age of the Church culminating in the Harpazo with the 6th seal. This is quite different from the idea that the seals represent either the first half of the Last Week or an overview of the whole of the Last Week. 4-33-11 -others beheld Him coming on the clouds as the Son of man; and those who declared regarding Him, "They shall look on Him whom they have pierced," indicated His [second] advent, concerning which He Himself says, "Do you think that when the Son of man comes, He shall find faith on the earth?" Paul also refers to this event when he says, "If, however, it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you, and to you that are troubled rest with us, at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven, with His mighty angels, and in a flame of fire." Others again, speaking of Him as a judge, and [referring], as if it were a burning furnace, [to] the day of the Lord, who "gathers the wheat into His barn, but will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire," were accustomed to threaten those who were unbelieving, concerning whom also the Lord Himself declares, "Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, which my Father has prepared for the devil and his angels." And the apostle in like manner says [of them], "Who shall be punished with everlasting death from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of His power, when He shall come to be glorified in His saints, and to be admired in those who believe in Him." So Irenaeus understood that Jesus' second advent has two distinct aspects to it; Jesus coming as the Son of Man coming on the clouds to give His Church rest and Jesus coming as judge on the Day of the Lord to punish the wicked. It isn't clear from this passage alone whether he understands this to be two aspects of the same event or two separate events. I do however think it's very interesting that he splits that passage from 2 Thes 1 in half to say that it is referencing both. 5-5-1 -But why do I refer to these men? For Enoch, when he pleased God, was translated in the same body in which he did please Him, thus pointing out by anticipation the translation of the just. -Wherefore also the elders who were disciples of the apostles tell us that those who were translated were transferred to that place (for paradise has been prepared for righteous men, such as have the Spirit; in which place also Paul the apostle, when he was caught up, heard words which are unspeakable as regards us in our present condition 2 Corinthians 12:4), and that there shall they who have been translated remain until the consummation [of all things], as a prelude to immortality. This is a very fascinating statement. According to Irenaeus it was taught but the elders that the translation of Enoch is a typological prophecy pointing to our own future translation. They were translated to Paradise where they will remain until the consummation (the Day of the Lord). Irenaeus isn't envisioning a royal 'come out and meet Jesus in the clouds and come right back to the Earth' scenario here. This can't be speaking of waiting in a disembodied state of death because the whole purpose of this chapter is to defend the bodily nature of our final salvation. Regardless, this passage makes it clear that there's some span of time between the Harpazo and the Day of the Lord. It does not, however, tell us how MUCH time. 5-29-1 -And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, "There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be." Matthew 24:21 For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption. This is the passage that gets most of the attention since he's stating explicitly that the Great Tribulation follows the Harpazo. Since some of our brothers are convinced that Darby made up the pre-trib rapture they need to find a way to make this passage say something other than what it is stating explicitly. To that end, they point to the 'last contest of the righteous'. The problem with this argument is that there isn't a single pre-trib believer in so far as I'm aware who argues that there are no Christians on the Earth during the Great Tribulation. The Great Tribulation being the last contest of the righteous is compatible with every single Pre-Mil framework AND some Amil frameworks. This statement is making trouble for preterist interpretations of Matthew 24 and nothing else. This is why it's VERY important to be careful to avoid trying to prove too much with a patristic statement or Bible verse. Be aware of what is stated explicitly, what is being stated implicitly, and what you're arriving at through inference. None the less, this provides us with a time-frame fro the Harpazo but it isn't specific enough yet to resolve between a pre-trib and mid-trib position. In both of those frameworks the Great Tribulation comes after the Harpazo. We still need more information to reduce uncertainty.
PART TWO! 5-30-2 - But, knowing the sure number declared by Scripture, that is, six hundred sixty and six, let them await, in the first place, the division of the kingdom into ten; then, in the next place, when these kings are reigning, and beginning to set their affairs in order, and advance their kingdom, [let them learn] to acknowledge that he who shall come claiming the kingdom for himself, and shall terrify those men of whom we have been speaking, having a name containing the aforesaid number, is truly the abomination of desolation. This, too, the apostle affirms: "When they shall say, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction shall come upon them." 5-30-4 -But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom, that is, the rest, the hallowed seventh day; and restoring to Abraham the promised inheritance, in which kingdom the Lord declared, that "many coming from the east and from the west should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." THIS is the passage that gives us enough information on Irenaeus' eschatology to definitively identify his position. I think one of the strongest arguments for a post-trib rapture is Paul linking the Harpazo with the Day of the Lord in 1 Thes 4 and 5. However, from the passage it isn't clear whether Paul is talking about the formal Day of the Lord (when Jesus returns to set up His kingdom) or the informal Day of the Lord (a time of national judgement and thus the whole of the Last Week). Depending on which is correct he could be talking about a post-trib rapture or one of its alternatives (pre, mid, wrath). The only way we can tell is by using Inference to the Best Explanation to decide for ourselves which is most consistent with the whole council of God. Irenaeus here takes the informal Day of the Lord position. He sees the 'peace and safety' Paul is speaking of as the Ten Kings getting their affairs in order. But suddenly the Day of the Lord overtakes them and the Antichrist begins his war against the Ten Kings, overthrowing three of them. Eventually the Antichrist assumes absolute power and then he reigns for 3.5 years until Christ comes to destroy him and set up His own kingdom. He also thought that the Church would be here to witness the rise of the Ten Kings and we'll thus be able to identify and avoid the Antichrist before he formally reveals himself with the Seven Year Treaty. Since Paul links the Harpazo in chapter 4 with the Day of the Lord in chapter 5 this gives us the following timeline per Irenaeus' understanding: -The Ten Kings rise -The Antichrist can be identified by 666 -The Ten Kings persecute the Church -The Harpazo takes place -The informal Day of the Lord begins and the Antichrist attacks the Ten Kings, causing devastation for 3.5 years -The Antichrist assumes absolute power for 3.5 years -Jesus returns to destroy His enemies and set up His kingdom Not only does this give us a pre-trib rapture, it also answers two major objections to Irenaeus' pre-trib eschatology. But didn't he tell us to look for the Antichrist and avoid him? Didn't he say that the Ten Kings would persecute the Church? Yes! Absolutely! He just understood those events taking place before the Harpazo. 5-35-1 -and [with respect to] those whom the Lord shall find in the flesh, awaiting Him from heaven, and who have suffered tribulation, as well as escaped the hands of the Wicked one. For it is in reference to them that the prophet says: "And those that are left shall multiply upon the earth," And Jeremiah the prophet has pointed out, that as many believers as God has prepared for this purpose, to multiply those left upon earth, should both be under the rule of the saints to minister to this Jerusalem This statement is utterly incompatible with a post-trib Harpazo. When the Harpazo takes place the dead will be raised and the living believers will be transformed; all will be sons of the resurrection and no longer married nor given in marriage. If the Harpazo and the Day of the Lord are the same event who then are these mortal believers found in the flesh who will repopulate the world and be ruled over by the resurrected Saints? For this scenario to play out Irenaeus MUST have understood the Harpazo and the Day of the Lord as two separate events where unsaved become saved during a span of time after the Harpazo. Given the quotes above I think a pre-trib rapture fits best with the framework Irenaeus has laid out. With all that said, I have one final point to bring up for those insisting on a post-trib Harpazo. In Mark 13 Jesus says that no one knows the day nor the hour of the coming of the Son of Man. It could be at any hour of the day or night. In Zachariah 14 the prophet says that the Day of the Lord comes at the hour of evening. The Day of the Lord comes at a known hour. The coming of the Son of Man comes at an unknown hour. Therefore, per the Law of the Excluded Middle, the Day of the Lord CAN NOT be the coming of the Son of Man.
I've started it by looking at the rapture section. I've been blessed by his contextual arguments from Irenaeus that he seems to believe in a partial rapture view. Great help explaining the quote below. "When in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, 'There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.'" Irenaeus Against Heresies 5.29.1
Well I think that’s assumed, but one of the difficulties is that everyone assumes the Bible teaches their position. So it becomes helpful to look at how the earliest Christians viewed a passage. It is a non essential argument but it is helpful to illustrate and consider.
@@thebiblesojourner Albert Einstein left behind some truly applicable quotation's. One such fitting here reads as follows. He said; "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Thx Peter.
Fascinating conversation! Does Dr. Svigal address the impact of heretical movements such as Marcionism and Montanism on hermeneutics in the early church? Pom’s like a very worthwhile book!
New Covenant Whole Gospel: How many modern Christians cannot honestly answer the questions below? Who is the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Who is the “son” that is the “heir” to the land in Matthew 21:37-43? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary? What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word. Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary. God is not now a “racist”. He has extended His love to all races of people through the New Covenant fulfilled by His Son’s blood at Calvary. The Apostle Paul warned against using “genealogies” in our faith in 1 Tim. 1:4, and Titus 3:9. If the New Covenant is "everlasting" in Hebrews 13:20 and the Old Covenant is "obsolete" in Hebrews 8:13, why would any Christian believe God is going back to the Old Covenant system during a future time period? ===== Multiple Second Coming Visions in Revelation: (book not in chronological order ) Christ returns one time in the future. However, there are several different visions of His return shown from different perspectives in the Book of Revelation. Christ returns at the end of Revelation chapter 6, with signs in the sun, moon, and stars, as are found in the Olivet Discourse. Those at the end of the chapter are hiding from the wrath of the Lamb. Why would they be hiding if Christ is not present? The "kings", "captains", "might men", "free", and "bond" are also found in chapter 19 at the return of Christ. The wicked city in Revelation 11:8 stands in opposition to the heavenly city in Revelation 3:12. He returns at the 7th trumpet, which is the last trumpet in the Bible, and the time of the judgment of the dead in Revelation 11:15-18. The beginning of chapter 12 is a history lesson containing the fall of Satan, and the birth and death of Christ, who is the seed promised to crush the head of Satan in Genesis 3:15. The Second Coming is found in the "harvest" of chapter 14, which is related to the parable of the wheat and tares in Matthew chapter 13. He comes as a thief at Armageddon, and we find the greatest earthquake in history in chapter 16. This occurs when the 7th angel pours out his vial. How powerful is an earthquake which moves islands and destroys the mountains? What is happening to the planet? He comes on a horse in chapter 19, right after the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. Chapter 20? Does He come with the fire, and the judgment of the dead at the end of chapter 20, which agrees with what Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, and 2 Timothy 4:1? What did Peter say about the fire in 2 Peter 3:10-13? (The time of the judgment of the dead is also found in Revelation 11:18.) There are no mortals left alive on the planet at the end of Matthew 25:31-46. Why does an angel come down from heaven with a key to unlock the bottomless pit in Revelation 9:1-2, if the pit was not already locked before that time? Are there wicked angels in the pit in Rev. 9:11? If the beast "ascends" from the pit in Rev. chapter 11, where was the beast before that time? Does your view agree with Peter in 2 Pet. 2:4, and Jude in Jude 1:6, when they both said wicked angels are already in chains of darkness? Revelation 9:14 proves some of the angels were previously bound in some manner. Because the two witnesses were bodily resurrected from the dead in Revelation 11, the "first resurrection" at the beginning of Revelation 20 is not the first bodily resurrection in the book. The principle of "Recapitulation" means there are multiple visions of His return.
While considering the information in this video it’s also important that the audience is aware of two additional pieces of history. First, the FEW early church fathers referenced here are ones who held beliefs in Montanism and/or chiliasm/millennialism. It’s important to note that the chiliasm/millennialism is not the same as modern day pre-millennialism (as it’s being referenced to in this video) Chiliasm was the belief that there would be a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on this earth, over Christians in an earthly paradise, BUT unlike pre-millennialism of today it had NO connection to the idea of ethnic Israel being a separate people from the church and the need for certain prophetic promises to be fulfilled in a material way. So when the early church Father’s beliefs are mentioned here just keep in mind it’s a different millennialism than today’s pre-millennialism. Second, the ideas of a millennial reign come from the book of Revelation only, it’s the only book in scripture that uses this term of 1,000 years. The book of Revelation was not fully canonized until way later… the 900’s(at least in the east and even Luther consider the book of Revelation New Testament apocrypha). That’s not to say that it wasn’t circulated and read amongst the churches of the East and West because it definitely was, BUT there were major issues of accepting this book as authoritative/ inspired because of the early chiliastic beliefs that sprung up from this book which most Christians of the time found to be problematic. So it was in the early third century, when the broader church began its push back against chiliasm, and in the process pushed back against the book of Revelation as well. This created tension over the book of Revelation being accepted that lasted for centuries. So the few early church fathers who did hold to a millennial period is what postponed and gave hesitation to the book of Revelation being accepted and canonized by the church as a whole until the issue of chiliasm was weeded out. This is also important history to know. Anyone interested to know more can read blogs.ancientfaith.com/wholecounsel/2018/08/15/is-the-book-of-revelation-canonical-in-the-orthodox-church/
The early Church from the 1st to 3rd century were premillennialists. The issue is that when Catholicism started to rise in the FOURTH century alongside it came the rise of amillennialism. Papias (c. 60-130 AD), Polycarp (c. 69-155 AD), St. Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), St. Irenaeus (c. 130-202 AD), St. Hippolytus (c. 170-235 AD), Tertullian (c. 155-240 AD), St. Lactantius (c. 250-325 AD), St. Victorinus (c. 280 AD), St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 313-386 AD), were premillennialists. Papias of Hierapolis (60-130 AD), a disciple of the Apostle John, Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), Irenaeus of Lyons (130-202 AD), Tertullian (155-240 AD) Hippolytus of Rome (170-235 AD), Lactantius (c. 250-325 AD), and Victorinus of Pettau (280 AD) explicitly believed in a literal future 1000-year reign of Christ. Papias: “There will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth.” Polycarp: “Polycarp…who was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, by apostles in Asia…always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles.” (Polycarp discipled Irenaeus) Justin Martyr: “But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged.” Irenaeus: “For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded...This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year...For the righteous shall reign in the earth, until the end of the thousand years, when the world shall be brought to its consummation.” Tertullian: “But we do confess that a kingdom is promised us upon the earth, although before heaven, only in another state of existence; inasmuch as it will be after their resurrection for a thousand years in the divinely-built city of Jerusalem…” Hippolytus of Rome: “And 6,000 years must needs be accomplished, in order that the Sabbath may come, the rest, the holy day on which God rested from all His works…For the Sabbath is the type and emblem of the future kingdom of the saints.” Lactantius: “But when He shall have destroyed injustice, and shall have restored the just to life, He will be conversant among men for a thousand years, and will rule them with most just command.” Victorinus of Pettau: “The true Sabbath will be in the seventh millenary of years, when Christ with His elect shall reign.” Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 313-386 AD): “For we shall reign with Christ a thousand years; we and the heavenly Jerusalem, after which we shall be taken up.”
A Millennium Puzzle to solve… Will Christ be conducting funeral services for mortals killed in accidents 500 years after His Second Coming? The “first resurrection” in Rev. chapter 20 is not the first bodily resurrection in the Book of Revelation, because the two witnesses are resurrected from the dead in chapter 11. There are two different types of resurrection in John chapter 5. There is a spiritual resurrection from the dead in John 5:24, and a bodily resurrection from the dead in John 5:28-29. Does your view of the Millennium agree with what Paul said in 2 Thess. 1:7-10, when Paul said Christ returns in "flaming fire" taking vengeance on those who do not obey the Gospel? The fire comes at the end of Rev. chapter 20. Does your view agree with what Peter said in 2 Peter 3:10-13, when Peter said this earth is going to burn and "dissolve" when He comes as a thief on the day of the Lord? The fire comes at the end of Rev. chapter 20. Does your view agree with what Paul said in 2 Tim. 4:1, when Paul said both the living and the dead will be judged at His appearing? The time of the judgment of the dead, with reward for some and destruction for others is found in Rev. 11:18, right after the 7th trumpet, which is the last trumpet in the Bible. (This verse also proves the Book of Rev. is not in chronological order.) The judgment of the dead is also found at the end of Rev. chapter 20. Does your view agree with what Jesus said in Matt. 25:31-46, where He described the judgment of the sheep and goats, which leaves no mortals alive on the planet at the end of the passage? There are also no mortals left alive on the planet at the end of Rev. chapter 19. Does your view agree with Peter in 2 Pet. 2:4, and Jude in Jude 1:6, when they both said wicked angels are already in chains of darkness? Does your view agree with what John recorded in Rev. 9:1-2, when an angel comes down from heaven with a key to unlock the pit, which means the pit was locked before that time? Are there wicked angels already in the pit in Rev. 9:11? John recorded angels already "bound" in Rev. 9:14. The beast "ascends" out of the pit in Rev. chapter 11, which means the beast was in the pit before that time. Take all of the above and compare it to the symbolic language found in Rev. chapter 20, and the fact the Book of Revelation is not in chronological order, and you will have the truth.
@@SpotterVideo Quick answer here is 'yes'. I'm glad you have a passion for the truth of the Bible, but you're making some unwarranted inferences and then viewing all these passages through the lens of those inferences. If you want to pick one passage out of your list above that you feel is the most compelling argument I would be happy to take things one at a time rather than getting bogged down by moving goalposts. After I've answered your best challenge I would like to pose a Scripture in kind that I would love to have you explain within the context of your own eschatological framework. And since it's relevant to the topic of the video: According to Irenaeus ALL the Elders who were taught by the Apostles themselves held to chiliasm and passed on that teaching. You're going to have to argue that all the people who learned at the feet of John got Jesus' teachings wrong and a bunch of Neo-Platonic mystics from Egypt who never walked with Jesus got it right.
@@bennewby9600 It is my understanding Irenaeus said there were other viewpoints during his time. If you can provide the exact quote from Irenaeus, I will be glad to look at it. However, the ECF are not the ultimate source of truth. The following proves my post above is correct, based on the writings of all the New Testament authors. If you have to ignore any of them, your viewpoint cannot be correct. Multiple Second Coming Visions in Revelation: (book not in chronological order ) Christ returns one time in the future. However, there are several different visions of His return shown from different perspectives in the Book of Revelation. Christ returns at the end of Revelation chapter 6, with signs in the sun, moon, and stars, as are found in the Olivet Discourse. Those at the end of the chapter are hiding from the wrath of the Lamb. Why would they be hiding if Christ is not present? The "kings", "captains", "might men", "free", and "bond" are also found in chapter 19 at the return of Christ. The wicked city in Revelation 11:8 stands in opposition to the heavenly city in Revelation 3:12. He returns at the 7th trumpet, which is the last trumpet in the Bible, and the time of the judgment of the dead in Revelation 11:15-18. The beginning of chapter 12 is a history lesson containing the fall of Satan, and the birth and death of Christ, who is the seed promised to crush the head of Satan in Genesis 3:15. The Second Coming is found in the "harvest" of chapter 14, which is related to the parable of the wheat and tares in Matthew chapter 13. He comes as a thief at Armageddon, and we find the greatest earthquake in history in chapter 16. This occurs when the 7th angel pours out his vial. How powerful is an earthquake which moves islands and destroys the mountains? What is happening to the planet? He comes on a horse in chapter 19, right after the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. Chapter 20? Does He come with the fire, and the judgment of the dead at the end of chapter 20, which agrees with what Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, and 2 Timothy 4:1? What did Peter say about the fire in 2 Peter 3:10-13? (The time of the judgment of the dead is also found in Revelation 11:18.) There are no mortals left alive on the planet at the end of Matthew 25:31-46. Why does an angel come down from heaven with a key to unlock the bottomless pit in Revelation 9:1-2, if the pit was not already locked before that time? Are there wicked angels in the pit in Rev. 9:11? If the beast "ascends" from the pit in Rev. chapter 11, where was the beast before that time? Does your view agree with Peter in 2 Pet. 2:4, and Jude in Jude 1:6, when they both said wicked angels are already in chains of darkness? Revelation 9:14 proves some of the angels were previously bound in some manner. Because the two witnesses were bodily resurrected from the dead in Revelation 11, the "first resurrection" at the beginning of Revelation 20 is not the first bodily resurrection in the book. The principle of "Recapitulation" means there are multiple visions of His return.
@@SpotterVideo I do! In Against Heresies 5-32-1 Irenaeus says that while there are some orthodox Christians who hold to amillinialism, those opinions are based on the heretical discourses of the gnostics. In 5-33-3 Irenaeus relates that the elders who learned from John reported that John himself taught chiliasm. In verse 61 of Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching he relates that the Elders taught that the animals would be peaceable during the earthly 1000 kingdom of Christ just as the book of Isaiah says (twice no less!). You're right that the ECFs aren't the final word on Bible exegesis. They are, however, an important part of the puzzle on these uncertain issues that don't pertain to salvation. That John himself taught chiliasm to his students is no small claim and it shouldn't be dismissed lightly. You're wrong, however, that the passages you quoted prove your position. You're using abduction to reach your conclusion; inference to the best explanation. As an analytical tool it's both subjective and uncertain and as such is utterly incapable of proving anything definitionally. We ought to be suitably humble when addressing uncertain issues like these. I'll respond to your first verse, again because grabbing a whole pile of verses bogs things down. I'll say you're correct that Revelation 6 is referring to Jesus' coming, but that doesn't make a case for Gnostic Eschatology. There are two probable explanations. The first is that Revelation 6 and Revelation 19 are recapitulations of one another and both refer to the formal Day of the Lord. The second is that the first six seals are describing events that take place prior to Daniel's last week, this would suggest the Sixth Seal is describing the Harpazo and would correspond with Zachariah 12 10-14, Joel 2 28-32, and of course 1 Thes 4 13-18. Now, there IS a third option. Namely, that of the pre-wrath Harpazo. This would relate the 6th Seal with Revelation 14 14-16 which comes right before the bowl judgements are introduced. However, of the views that distinguish between the Day of the Lord and the Harpazo I think it's probably the weakest. I've answered one of your points so now I would like to ask you a question in kind. In Zachariah 14 9-20 the prophet speaks of the world after Jesus' return. Specifically, he relates how nations will be required to attend the Feast of Tabernacles and if they don't then God will judge them by withholding rain (which appears to be alluded to in Psalm 107 as well). How does this fit into your Eschatological framework since there are no sinners remaining who would rebel against Jesus' command?
@@bennewby9600 Based on John 19:37, Zechariah 12:10 was fulfilled at Calvary and on the Day of Pentecost when the Spirit was poured out in Jerusalem. On that day Peter addressed the crowd as "all the house of Israel" in Acts 2:36. Joh 19:37 And again another Scripture says, "THEY SHALL LOOK ON HIM WHOM THEY PIERCED." Proof the 70th week of Daniel was fulfilled in the past: Based on Hebrews 12:22-24, the Messiah’s death in Daniel 9:26 cannot be separated from the New Covenant fulfilled by His blood at Calvary. See the words "church" and "mount Sion" and "new covenant" and "Jesus" and "blood" in the passage. Are we supposed to believe the angel Gabriel appeared to Daniel to reveal the timeline of the Messiah who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and then the angel failed to even mention the New Covenant. Or, is the covenant with the many in Daniel 9:27 the same covenant with the many in Matthew 26:28? The 1599 Geneva Bible is the Bible the Pilgrims brought to America, before John Darby showed up on our shores about the time of the Civil War. What was the earlier understanding of Daniel 9:27 found below in the notes of the 1599 Geneva Bible? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dan 9:27 And he shal confirme the couenant with many for one weeke: and in the middes of the weeke he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the ouerspreading of the abominations, he shall make it desolate, euen vntill the consummation determined shalbe powred vpon the desolate. Daniel 9:27 And he (a) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to (b) cease, (c) and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. (a) By the preaching of the Gospel he affirmed his promise, first to the Jews, and after to the Gentiles. (b) Christ accomplished this by his death and resurrection. (c) Meaning that Jerusalem and the sanctuary would be utterly destroyed because of their rebellion against God, and their idolatry: or as some read, that the plague will be so great, that they will all be astonished at them.
I did not know you were from Northern Minnesota. I grew up in Cloquet. 3 blocks from Gordy's Hi-Hat. How's that for a landmark? I left in 1988 to join the USN. Never moved back. Miss hockey season. Not winter .
I’m not sure. I haven’t read or listened to Lindsey ever. I think I heard second hand that he believed tongues still exists but I’m really not able to say.
I’m curious and genuinely trying to understand different positions so how would a futurist answer this question. Why would Christ give the Revelation to John and tell him to give it to the 7 churches in Asia Minor a book that did not pertain to them and was speaking about the future. And secondly what is the explanation to Christs words in Revelation “about things that must take place very soon.”
What is soon to God is two days soon? For God a thousand years is as a day. So it’s been 2000 years but to God two days how is that not soon? Just like when scripture says that Christ was crucified before the foundation of the world, but it didn’t take place for thousands of years after how is this any different?
That's a really good question! Or two questions, I suppose. The first is that the letters to the seven churches spoke to issues they were having at their day and time. They also spoke to problems future churches would deal with, just like all the other epistles in the New Testament. None the less, it isn't any more strange than God revealing things to the Old Testament prophets that wouldn't take place for hundreds or thousands of years. The answer to the second is that imminent language is the norm when it comes to the Day of the Lord (see: Ezekiel 30: 3 and Isaiah 13: 6-9 among many examples). Why did God reveal His apocalyptic messages in this fashion? I have no idea! You'll have to ask Him. Though if I were to wager a guess I think He wants us to live as though these things are right around the corner (what I say to you, I say to you all: Watch!)
You should do a kickstarter or something similar to underwrite the front deposit for a publisher so you can have freedom to publish how you want. Just work out the partnership before hand and be full disclosure who your publisher is. Not sure. Has to be a solution. I’d would have bought your new book, but knowing that the detail was pulled and relegated to the online compendium, I’m thinking twice. Really prefer the bigger books and having the ability to sit down with them, work through references, etc What a terrible decision by the publisher.
As stated in the show, on the popular level, I believe the Pre-Trib Rapture has fallen out of favor due to the failed “Rapture dates” of the non-date setting, date setters. I remember 1982 being proposed (Israel became a nation in 1948, 40 years is God’s testing time, therefore 1948 + 40 years = 1988, then subtract 7 years for the Tribulation = Rapture in 1982. Then there was “88 Reasons why the Rapture will be in 1988”, Rapture in 1995, Y2K… and the list goes on. Whereas I am Pre-Trib, those of my tribe need to stop dishonoring the cause of Christ with their sensationalizing.
He absolutely did. Read his exegesis on 1 Thessalonians 5 in Book 5 chapter 30. He's kind enough to lay out a timeline for us. IMO, 1 Thes 5 linking the Day of the Lord to the Harpazo in chapter 4 is one of the strongest post-trib arguments. But it isn't clear from the text whether Paul is talking about the formal Day of the Lord (which would be post trib) or the informal Day of the Lord (which makes pre-trib, mid-trib, or pre-wraith possible). The most we can do is use Inference to the Best Explanation to try to figure out which Paul is talking about. Irenaeus takes the position that the Day of the Lord here is in the informal sense and referring to the whole 7 years. The 'sudden destruction' in his opinion is talking about the Antichrist's rise to power when he overthrows three of the ten kings. This is followed by the Antichrist's absolute rule for 3.5 years and then the return of Christ to set up His kingdom. As post-tribbers correctly point out, the Day of the Lord Paul is referring to here follows the Harpazo of the Church. While Irenaeus doesn't touch on chapter 4 specifically in this passage it isn't a huge jump to insert it into the sequence and thus arrive at a pre-trib rapture. The confusion on Irenaeus' position comes from the fact that Irenaeus expected the Church to be here to observe the rise of the Ten Kings and once those kings are on the scene it'll be possible to identify the Antichrist via the number of his name, but the Antichrist destroying the kings won't be going on until we're outta here. Most pre-tribbers hold that the Ten Kings won't be seen until the Church is gone, but I don't think that position is correct and Irenaeus agrees. There are other statements in books 4 and 5 that point to pre-trib eschatology in Irenaeus' work but his exegesis on 1 Thes 5 actually provides enough information to resolve his precise eschatological position, which is pretty uncommon in ancient writing.
In Against Heresies 5.29, Irenæus says, "When in the end that church will suddenly be caught up from this, then it is said, 'There will be tribulation such as not been since the beginning, nor will be.'" Notice Irenæus's order: "When in the end that church will suddenly be caught up from this." The Church is caught up in the end, which refers to the end times. What comes next, according to Irenæus? "then it is said, 'There will be tribulation such as not been since the beginning, nor will be.'" So, going by Irenæus's words, the Church will be caught up at the end times, after which the "tribulation such as not been since the beginning, nor will be," will begin. Thank you, and God bless.
@@thebiblesojourner Nope! I just dedicated lots of time to reading Against Heresy. I didn't catch the significance of his exegesis on 1 Thes 5 until my third read-through of his 5th book but as soon as I made the connection his position became quite clear. Previously I was convinced that he was talking about either pre-trib or mid-trib but I wasn't SURE which. I've found most of the critics of a pre-trib reading of Irenaeus will focus heavily on his 'this is the last contest of the righteous' comment without taking the broader context of that statement into account.
@@williambillycraig1057 Yep! This can be read as either a pre-trib or mid-trib rapture. I'm trying to be very careful with what's stated explicitly and what we're inferring. Irenaeus' comment here speaks of sequence, not immediacy. I know there are arguments to try to dismiss this pretty clear conclusion but I find them wildly unconvincing in the context of everything else Irenaeus said about eschatology. I really don't get the insistence that Irenaeus held a post-trib position; it makes no sense to me. It's a stretch of his words to say the least. And it REALLY isn't that hard to just say Irenaeus got it wrong since the early church held a variety of positions on eschatology.
In my very "elementary" view of the Rapture and the Church Age, I've described it this way - let's say there is a creek flowing which is the pre-church age (Daniel's 69 weeks). Then a huge boulder (the Church age) is dropped into the creek. The creek keeps flowing around the boulder. Then the boulder is taken out and the creek returns to its original flow, just like the boulder was never there, and continues with the 70th week. (Don't ask me what happens after the 70th week... I guess there's a waterfall or something, lol.🤔) Loved this discussion! Thanks.
The Second Exodus lays out the time frame of new heavens and earth forty years or a generation It all ended in Ad70 Num 14:34-35 KJV 34 After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise. 35 I the LORD have said, I will surely do it unto all this evil congregation, that are gathered together against me: in this wilderness they shall be consumed, and there they shall die. In the second Exodus from Christ's ministry to the destruction of the temple 40years and entrance into the new heavens and earth!
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever Absolutely! If that is what you see in scripture that should be how you believe! When I was a futurist for 25 years that is how I believed the scriptures taught until I saw the light and surrendered to the Word. Yet again this is what I see, and speaking for myself.
If you build a teaching on man, the early church fathers, what have you built? Rom 4:3 says count every man a liar only God true. Also if scripturally the majority has always been wrong should we trust man just because there might be more of them that believe a certain way? Lastly if there is no inspired writers nor inspired interpreters, then again what have you got building a teaching on what other uninspired men believed. With that said, for 1,500 years they were only catholic, and Protestants today have over 30,000 different denominations. Because no one is inspired after the NT writers, what have you built if you build a doctrine off of man. We can go at something from the side of weakness or from the side of strength. Scripture alone hermeneutically shows strength and clinging to men is the weakest stance we can make according to the Word. Notice the fulfilled camp always uses only scripture with hermeneutics and an open invitation to join in their discussions.
Never want to build a doctrine on a man. But the value of studying history is evident. God doesn’t just work in modern times. Gods spirit has been operative throughout all time. But Scripture is the authority, not man.
Amen to that! There is nothing wrong with listening to others but there is no point system that says if this man believed this, then that teaching gets a point and if a majority of men say it, you get 10 points per say, and with 10 points you win. No if all men are uninspired and then are to be counted as liars, or to say, they may not mean to be lying yet just simply being man, human, fallible, you cannot rely on them for your hope that you are on the correct path in your view of a doctrine. So we see the same here, you get zero points for any man or men to agree on a subject, what saith the Lord about the subject.
Why do people commend Augustine, when he approved of the false gospel books of the Apocrypha that contain praying for dead, works plus faith false gospel saved by almns keeping, and various other heterodox teachings?
One can go to extremes on either end. One can idolize them to an unhelpful degree, or one can under appreciate the significance of being an early Christian and the challenges that involved.
@@bigtobacco1098 Funny thing is, the 12 only one time shared something with the Gentiles, and that was Peter in Acts 10, then he withdrew from the Gentiles, then went back to focusing on the role Jesus gave him, that is going through all the cities of Israel until His coming. Only Paul, who was an apostle to the Gentiles, said anything to them about end of things. But even then he was cognitively focused on the house of Israel in his letters, since it was their last days. Not one single letter written by "church fathers" says anything about their gathering, did you know this? If you studied carefully, you would know their gathering already took place. You would eventually figure out when and where like I did. But don't take my word for it.
@@bigtobacco1098that’s fair. That is at best one or two people whose writings we have, though. We don’t want to oversell their connection to the apostles.
About 20 minutes in. Digging the interview! I have been waiting for this to come out. I love reading the Apostolic Fathers.
I am always delighted to meet history enthusiasts! They are not without error, but so helpful in many ways!
Could you please tell us what experts currently say about the timing of the writing of John's Revelation? Was it in the late 90s? Or, as some argue, was it from an earlier period? This also helps us understand whether eschatology should be viewed as futurist or perhaps with partial or complete fulfillment in AD 70, with the fall of Jerusalem. Thank you for the video, it’s excellent!
Just for fun I wanted to lay out a quick overview of Irenaeus' relevant commentary on eschatology and answer the most common objections to his pre-trib position.
4-21-3
-For to this end was the Lord born, the type of whose birth he set forth beforehand, of whom also John says in the Apocalypse: "He went forth conquering, that He should conquer."
To begin, Irenaeus sees the First Seal of Revelation six as referring to the coming of Jesus/the going forth of the Gospel just as Victorinus does in his commentary on Revelation, NOT the Antichrist. Irenaeus doesn't go into greater detail, but based on Victorinus the seals appear to have been understood as the present age of the Church culminating in the Harpazo with the 6th seal. This is quite different from the idea that the seals represent either the first half of the Last Week or an overview of the whole of the Last Week.
4-33-11
-others beheld Him coming on the clouds as the Son of man; and those who declared regarding Him, "They shall look on Him whom they have pierced," indicated His [second] advent, concerning which He Himself says, "Do you think that when the Son of man comes, He shall find faith on the earth?" Paul also refers to this event when he says, "If, however, it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you, and to you that are troubled rest with us, at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven, with His mighty angels, and in a flame of fire." Others again, speaking of Him as a judge, and [referring], as if it were a burning furnace, [to] the day of the Lord, who "gathers the wheat into His barn, but will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire," were accustomed to threaten those who were unbelieving, concerning whom also the Lord Himself declares, "Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, which my Father has prepared for the devil and his angels." And the apostle in like manner says [of them], "Who shall be punished with everlasting death from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of His power, when He shall come to be glorified in His saints, and to be admired in those who believe in Him."
So Irenaeus understood that Jesus' second advent has two distinct aspects to it; Jesus coming as the Son of Man coming on the clouds to give His Church rest and Jesus coming as judge on the Day of the Lord to punish the wicked. It isn't clear from this passage alone whether he understands this to be two aspects of the same event or two separate events. I do however think it's very interesting that he splits that passage from 2 Thes 1 in half to say that it is referencing both.
5-5-1
-But why do I refer to these men? For Enoch, when he pleased God, was translated in the same body in which he did please Him, thus pointing out by anticipation the translation of the just.
-Wherefore also the elders who were disciples of the apostles tell us that those who were translated were transferred to that place (for paradise has been prepared for righteous men, such as have the Spirit; in which place also Paul the apostle, when he was caught up, heard words which are unspeakable as regards us in our present condition 2 Corinthians 12:4), and that there shall they who have been translated remain until the consummation [of all things], as a prelude to immortality.
This is a very fascinating statement. According to Irenaeus it was taught but the elders that the translation of Enoch is a typological prophecy pointing to our own future translation. They were translated to Paradise where they will remain until the consummation (the Day of the Lord). Irenaeus isn't envisioning a royal 'come out and meet Jesus in the clouds and come right back to the Earth' scenario here. This can't be speaking of waiting in a disembodied state of death because the whole purpose of this chapter is to defend the bodily nature of our final salvation.
Regardless, this passage makes it clear that there's some span of time between the Harpazo and the Day of the Lord. It does not, however, tell us how MUCH time.
5-29-1
-And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, "There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be." Matthew 24:21 For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption.
This is the passage that gets most of the attention since he's stating explicitly that the Great Tribulation follows the Harpazo. Since some of our brothers are convinced that Darby made up the pre-trib rapture they need to find a way to make this passage say something other than what it is stating explicitly. To that end, they point to the 'last contest of the righteous'. The problem with this argument is that there isn't a single pre-trib believer in so far as I'm aware who argues that there are no Christians on the Earth during the Great Tribulation. The Great Tribulation being the last contest of the righteous is compatible with every single Pre-Mil framework AND some Amil frameworks. This statement is making trouble for preterist interpretations of Matthew 24 and nothing else. This is why it's VERY important to be careful to avoid trying to prove too much with a patristic statement or Bible verse. Be aware of what is stated explicitly, what is being stated implicitly, and what you're arriving at through inference.
None the less, this provides us with a time-frame fro the Harpazo but it isn't specific enough yet to resolve between a pre-trib and mid-trib position. In both of those frameworks the Great Tribulation comes after the Harpazo. We still need more information to reduce uncertainty.
PART TWO!
5-30-2
- But, knowing the sure number declared by Scripture, that is, six hundred sixty and six, let them await, in the first place, the division of the kingdom into ten; then, in the next place, when these kings are reigning, and beginning to set their affairs in order, and advance their kingdom, [let them learn] to acknowledge that he who shall come claiming the kingdom for himself, and shall terrify those men of whom we have been speaking, having a name containing the aforesaid number, is truly the abomination of desolation. This, too, the apostle affirms: "When they shall say, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction shall come upon them."
5-30-4
-But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom, that is, the rest, the hallowed seventh day; and restoring to Abraham the promised inheritance, in which kingdom the Lord declared, that "many coming from the east and from the west should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."
THIS is the passage that gives us enough information on Irenaeus' eschatology to definitively identify his position.
I think one of the strongest arguments for a post-trib rapture is Paul linking the Harpazo with the Day of the Lord in 1 Thes 4 and 5. However, from the passage it isn't clear whether Paul is talking about the formal Day of the Lord (when Jesus returns to set up His kingdom) or the informal Day of the Lord (a time of national judgement and thus the whole of the Last Week). Depending on which is correct he could be talking about a post-trib rapture or one of its alternatives (pre, mid, wrath). The only way we can tell is by using Inference to the Best Explanation to decide for ourselves which is most consistent with the whole council of God.
Irenaeus here takes the informal Day of the Lord position. He sees the 'peace and safety' Paul is speaking of as the Ten Kings getting their affairs in order. But suddenly the Day of the Lord overtakes them and the Antichrist begins his war against the Ten Kings, overthrowing three of them. Eventually the Antichrist assumes absolute power and then he reigns for 3.5 years until Christ comes to destroy him and set up His own kingdom. He also thought that the Church would be here to witness the rise of the Ten Kings and we'll thus be able to identify and avoid the Antichrist before he formally reveals himself with the Seven Year Treaty.
Since Paul links the Harpazo in chapter 4 with the Day of the Lord in chapter 5 this gives us the following timeline per Irenaeus' understanding:
-The Ten Kings rise
-The Antichrist can be identified by 666
-The Ten Kings persecute the Church
-The Harpazo takes place
-The informal Day of the Lord begins and the Antichrist attacks the Ten Kings, causing devastation for 3.5 years
-The Antichrist assumes absolute power for 3.5 years
-Jesus returns to destroy His enemies and set up His kingdom
Not only does this give us a pre-trib rapture, it also answers two major objections to Irenaeus' pre-trib eschatology. But didn't he tell us to look for the Antichrist and avoid him? Didn't he say that the Ten Kings would persecute the Church? Yes! Absolutely! He just understood those events taking place before the Harpazo.
5-35-1
-and [with respect to] those whom the Lord shall find in the flesh, awaiting Him from heaven, and who have suffered tribulation, as well as escaped the hands of the Wicked one. For it is in reference to them that the prophet says: "And those that are left shall multiply upon the earth," And Jeremiah the prophet has pointed out, that as many believers as God has prepared for this purpose, to multiply those left upon earth, should both be under the rule of the saints to minister to this Jerusalem
This statement is utterly incompatible with a post-trib Harpazo. When the Harpazo takes place the dead will be raised and the living believers will be transformed; all will be sons of the resurrection and no longer married nor given in marriage. If the Harpazo and the Day of the Lord are the same event who then are these mortal believers found in the flesh who will repopulate the world and be ruled over by the resurrected Saints?
For this scenario to play out Irenaeus MUST have understood the Harpazo and the Day of the Lord as two separate events where unsaved become saved during a span of time after the Harpazo. Given the quotes above I think a pre-trib rapture fits best with the framework Irenaeus has laid out.
With all that said, I have one final point to bring up for those insisting on a post-trib Harpazo.
In Mark 13 Jesus says that no one knows the day nor the hour of the coming of the Son of Man. It could be at any hour of the day or night.
In Zachariah 14 the prophet says that the Day of the Lord comes at the hour of evening.
The Day of the Lord comes at a known hour. The coming of the Son of Man comes at an unknown hour.
Therefore, per the Law of the Excluded Middle, the Day of the Lord CAN NOT be the coming of the Son of Man.
Favorite episode so far. Great interview. Thanks for the time stamps, too. Thanks.
Great! Glad to hear this was your favorite. Svigel is very easy to interview and he's quite enjoyable to talk with.
Boom! Svigel's book has been purchased. Can't wait to read it. ;)
I think you’ll enjoy the research and thought provoking nature of the book!
@@thebiblesojournercan you do an analysis of the "irrefutable pretrib rapture" section?
I've started it by looking at the rapture section. I've been blessed by his contextual arguments from Irenaeus that he seems to believe in a partial rapture view. Great help explaining the quote below.
"When in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, 'There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.'"
Irenaeus Against Heresies 5.29.1
An excellent discussion. Thanks.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Dr. Michael Svigel, great scholar.
Agreed! A great resource for the church.
What about using the Bible itself to be the “earliest” source of premillennialism. Paul, John especially.
Well I think that’s assumed, but one of the difficulties is that everyone assumes the Bible teaches their position. So it becomes helpful to look at how the earliest Christians viewed a passage. It is a non essential argument but it is helpful to illustrate and consider.
The "burden of proof." What a powerful and profound concept, one that has been lost in the vortex of modernistic reality !
It used to be a very basic concept. But logic and common sense are both not so common anymore.
@@thebiblesojourner Albert Einstein left behind some truly applicable quotation's. One such fitting here reads as follows. He said; "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Thx Peter.
Would love to see you interview Jason Staples and Michael A. Rogers who wrote “Inmillennialism”.
Fascinating conversation! Does Dr. Svigal address the impact of heretical movements such as Marcionism and Montanism on hermeneutics in the early church? Pom’s like a very worthwhile book!
I just ordered the book. :-)
I think you’ll like it! It’s got a lot in it.
Great interview! Waiting for my copy.
Thanks! And I hope you and many more people enjoy the book. It is really well done.
I'm no expert but this is one of my favourite subjects.
It is a worthwhile pursuit of study!
New Covenant Whole Gospel: How many modern Christians cannot honestly answer the questions below?
Who is the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Who is the “son” that is the “heir” to the land in Matthew 21:37-43? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary?
What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word. Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary.
God is not now a “racist”. He has extended His love to all races of people through the New Covenant fulfilled by His Son’s blood at Calvary. The Apostle Paul warned against using “genealogies” in our faith in 1 Tim. 1:4, and Titus 3:9.
If the New Covenant is "everlasting" in Hebrews 13:20 and the Old Covenant is "obsolete" in Hebrews 8:13, why would any Christian believe God is going back to the Old Covenant system during a future time period?
=====
Multiple Second Coming Visions in Revelation: (book not in chronological order )
Christ returns one time in the future. However, there are several different visions of His return shown from different perspectives in the Book of Revelation.
Christ returns at the end of Revelation chapter 6, with signs in the sun, moon, and stars, as are found in the Olivet Discourse.
Those at the end of the chapter are hiding from the wrath of the Lamb.
Why would they be hiding if Christ is not present?
The "kings", "captains", "might men", "free", and "bond" are also found in chapter 19 at the return of Christ.
The wicked city in Revelation 11:8 stands in opposition to the heavenly city in Revelation 3:12.
He returns at the 7th trumpet, which is the last trumpet in the Bible, and the time of the judgment of the dead in Revelation 11:15-18.
The beginning of chapter 12 is a history lesson containing the fall of Satan, and the birth and death of Christ, who is the seed promised to crush the head of Satan in Genesis 3:15.
The Second Coming is found in the "harvest" of chapter 14, which is related to the parable of the wheat and tares in Matthew chapter 13.
He comes as a thief at Armageddon, and we find the greatest earthquake in history in chapter 16. This occurs when the 7th angel pours out his vial. How powerful is an earthquake which moves islands and destroys the mountains? What is happening to the planet?
He comes on a horse in chapter 19, right after the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.
Chapter 20?
Does He come with the fire, and the judgment of the dead at the end of chapter 20, which agrees with what Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, and 2 Timothy 4:1? What did Peter say about the fire in 2 Peter 3:10-13?
(The time of the judgment of the dead is also found in Revelation 11:18.)
There are no mortals left alive on the planet at the end of Matthew 25:31-46.
Why does an angel come down from heaven with a key to unlock the bottomless pit in Revelation 9:1-2, if the pit was not already locked before that time? Are there wicked angels in the pit in Rev. 9:11? If the beast "ascends" from the pit in Rev. chapter 11, where was the beast before that time?
Does your view agree with Peter in 2 Pet. 2:4, and Jude in Jude 1:6, when they both said wicked angels are already in chains of darkness?
Revelation 9:14 proves some of the angels were previously bound in some manner.
Because the two witnesses were bodily resurrected from the dead in Revelation 11, the "first resurrection" at the beginning of Revelation 20 is not the first bodily resurrection in the book.
The principle of "Recapitulation" means there are multiple visions of His return.
My copy should be here Monday!
@@mikeyonce2323 Looking forward to your review.
Excellent!
While considering the information in this video it’s also important that the audience is aware of two additional pieces of history.
First, the FEW early church fathers referenced here are ones who held beliefs in Montanism and/or chiliasm/millennialism. It’s important to note that the chiliasm/millennialism is not the same as modern day pre-millennialism (as it’s being referenced to in this video)
Chiliasm was the belief that there would be a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on this earth, over Christians in an earthly paradise, BUT unlike pre-millennialism of today it had NO connection to the idea of ethnic Israel being a separate people from the church and the need for certain prophetic promises to be fulfilled in a material way. So when the early church Father’s beliefs are mentioned here just keep in mind it’s a different millennialism than today’s pre-millennialism.
Second, the ideas of a millennial reign come from the book of Revelation only, it’s the only book in scripture that uses this term of 1,000 years. The book of Revelation was not fully canonized until way later… the 900’s(at least in the east and even Luther consider the book of Revelation New Testament apocrypha). That’s not to say that it wasn’t circulated and read amongst the churches of the East and West because it definitely was, BUT there were major issues of accepting this book as authoritative/ inspired because of the early chiliastic beliefs that sprung up from this book which most Christians of the time found to be problematic.
So it was in the early third century, when the broader church began its push back against chiliasm, and in the process pushed back against the book of Revelation as well. This created tension over the book of Revelation being accepted that lasted for centuries.
So the few early church fathers who did hold to a millennial period is what postponed and gave hesitation to the book of Revelation being accepted and canonized by the church as a whole until the issue of chiliasm was weeded out.
This is also important history to know.
Anyone interested to know more can read blogs.ancientfaith.com/wholecounsel/2018/08/15/is-the-book-of-revelation-canonical-in-the-orthodox-church/
The early Church from the 1st to 3rd century were premillennialists. The issue is that when Catholicism started to rise in the FOURTH century alongside it came the rise of amillennialism. Papias (c. 60-130 AD), Polycarp (c. 69-155 AD), St. Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), St. Irenaeus (c. 130-202 AD), St. Hippolytus (c. 170-235 AD), Tertullian (c. 155-240 AD), St. Lactantius (c. 250-325 AD), St. Victorinus (c. 280 AD), St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 313-386 AD), were premillennialists.
Papias of Hierapolis (60-130 AD), a disciple of the Apostle John, Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), Irenaeus of Lyons (130-202 AD), Tertullian (155-240 AD) Hippolytus of Rome (170-235 AD), Lactantius (c. 250-325 AD), and Victorinus of Pettau (280 AD) explicitly believed in a literal future 1000-year reign of Christ.
Papias: “There will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth.”
Polycarp: “Polycarp…who was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, by apostles in Asia…always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles.” (Polycarp discipled Irenaeus)
Justin Martyr: “But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged.”
Irenaeus: “For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded...This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year...For the righteous shall reign in the earth, until the end of the thousand years, when the world shall be brought to its consummation.”
Tertullian: “But we do confess that a kingdom is promised us upon the earth, although before heaven, only in another state of existence; inasmuch as it will be after their resurrection for a thousand years in the divinely-built city of Jerusalem…”
Hippolytus of Rome: “And 6,000 years must needs be accomplished, in order that the Sabbath may come, the rest, the holy day on which God rested from all His works…For the Sabbath is the type and emblem of the future kingdom of the saints.”
Lactantius: “But when He shall have destroyed injustice, and shall have restored the just to life, He will be conversant among men for a thousand years, and will rule them with most just command.”
Victorinus of Pettau: “The true Sabbath will be in the seventh millenary of years, when Christ with His elect shall reign.”
Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 313-386 AD): “For we shall reign with Christ a thousand years; we and the heavenly Jerusalem, after which we shall be taken up.”
A Millennium Puzzle to solve… Will Christ be conducting funeral services for mortals killed in accidents 500 years after His Second Coming?
The “first resurrection” in Rev. chapter 20 is not the first bodily resurrection in the Book of Revelation, because the two witnesses are resurrected from the dead in chapter 11. There are two different types of resurrection in John chapter 5. There is a spiritual resurrection from the dead in John 5:24, and a bodily resurrection from the dead in John 5:28-29.
Does your view of the Millennium agree with what Paul said in 2 Thess. 1:7-10, when Paul said Christ returns in "flaming fire" taking vengeance on those who do not obey the Gospel? The fire comes at the end of Rev. chapter 20.
Does your view agree with what Peter said in 2 Peter 3:10-13, when Peter said this earth is going to burn and "dissolve" when He comes as a thief on the day of the Lord? The fire comes at the end of Rev. chapter 20.
Does your view agree with what Paul said in 2 Tim. 4:1, when Paul said both the living and the dead will be judged at His appearing? The time of the judgment of the dead, with reward for some and destruction for others is found in Rev. 11:18, right after the 7th trumpet, which is the last trumpet in the Bible. (This verse also proves the Book of Rev. is not in chronological order.) The judgment of the dead is also found at the end of Rev. chapter 20.
Does your view agree with what Jesus said in Matt. 25:31-46, where He described the judgment of the sheep and goats, which leaves no mortals alive on the planet at the end of the passage? There are also no mortals left alive on the planet at the end of Rev. chapter 19.
Does your view agree with Peter in 2 Pet. 2:4, and Jude in Jude 1:6, when they both said wicked angels are already in chains of darkness?
Does your view agree with what John recorded in Rev. 9:1-2, when an angel comes down from heaven with a key to unlock the pit, which means the pit was locked before that time? Are there wicked angels already in the pit in Rev. 9:11? John recorded angels already "bound" in Rev. 9:14. The beast "ascends" out of the pit in Rev. chapter 11, which means the beast was in the pit before that time.
Take all of the above and compare it to the symbolic language found in Rev. chapter 20, and the fact the Book of Revelation is not in chronological order, and you will have the truth.
@@SpotterVideo
Quick answer here is 'yes'.
I'm glad you have a passion for the truth of the Bible, but you're making some unwarranted inferences and then viewing all these passages through the lens of those inferences. If you want to pick one passage out of your list above that you feel is the most compelling argument I would be happy to take things one at a time rather than getting bogged down by moving goalposts.
After I've answered your best challenge I would like to pose a Scripture in kind that I would love to have you explain within the context of your own eschatological framework.
And since it's relevant to the topic of the video: According to Irenaeus ALL the Elders who were taught by the Apostles themselves held to chiliasm and passed on that teaching. You're going to have to argue that all the people who learned at the feet of John got Jesus' teachings wrong and a bunch of Neo-Platonic mystics from Egypt who never walked with Jesus got it right.
@@bennewby9600 It is my understanding Irenaeus said there were other viewpoints during his time. If you can provide the exact quote from Irenaeus, I will be glad to look at it. However, the ECF are not the ultimate source of truth. The following proves my post above is correct, based on the writings of all the New Testament authors. If you have to ignore any of them, your viewpoint cannot be correct.
Multiple Second Coming Visions in Revelation: (book not in chronological order )
Christ returns one time in the future. However, there are several different visions of His return shown from different perspectives in the Book of Revelation.
Christ returns at the end of Revelation chapter 6, with signs in the sun, moon, and stars, as are found in the Olivet Discourse.
Those at the end of the chapter are hiding from the wrath of the Lamb.
Why would they be hiding if Christ is not present?
The "kings", "captains", "might men", "free", and "bond" are also found in chapter 19 at the return of Christ.
The wicked city in Revelation 11:8 stands in opposition to the heavenly city in Revelation 3:12.
He returns at the 7th trumpet, which is the last trumpet in the Bible, and the time of the judgment of the dead in Revelation 11:15-18.
The beginning of chapter 12 is a history lesson containing the fall of Satan, and the birth and death of Christ, who is the seed promised to crush the head of Satan in Genesis 3:15.
The Second Coming is found in the "harvest" of chapter 14, which is related to the parable of the wheat and tares in Matthew chapter 13.
He comes as a thief at Armageddon, and we find the greatest earthquake in history in chapter 16. This occurs when the 7th angel pours out his vial. How powerful is an earthquake which moves islands and destroys the mountains? What is happening to the planet?
He comes on a horse in chapter 19, right after the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.
Chapter 20?
Does He come with the fire, and the judgment of the dead at the end of chapter 20, which agrees with what Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, and 2 Timothy 4:1? What did Peter say about the fire in 2 Peter 3:10-13?
(The time of the judgment of the dead is also found in Revelation 11:18.)
There are no mortals left alive on the planet at the end of Matthew 25:31-46.
Why does an angel come down from heaven with a key to unlock the bottomless pit in Revelation 9:1-2, if the pit was not already locked before that time? Are there wicked angels in the pit in Rev. 9:11? If the beast "ascends" from the pit in Rev. chapter 11, where was the beast before that time?
Does your view agree with Peter in 2 Pet. 2:4, and Jude in Jude 1:6, when they both said wicked angels are already in chains of darkness?
Revelation 9:14 proves some of the angels were previously bound in some manner.
Because the two witnesses were bodily resurrected from the dead in Revelation 11, the "first resurrection" at the beginning of Revelation 20 is not the first bodily resurrection in the book.
The principle of "Recapitulation" means there are multiple visions of His return.
@@SpotterVideo
I do! In Against Heresies 5-32-1 Irenaeus says that while there are some orthodox Christians who hold to amillinialism, those opinions are based on the heretical discourses of the gnostics. In 5-33-3 Irenaeus relates that the elders who learned from John reported that John himself taught chiliasm. In verse 61 of Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching he relates that the Elders taught that the animals would be peaceable during the earthly 1000 kingdom of Christ just as the book of Isaiah says (twice no less!).
You're right that the ECFs aren't the final word on Bible exegesis. They are, however, an important part of the puzzle on these uncertain issues that don't pertain to salvation. That John himself taught chiliasm to his students is no small claim and it shouldn't be dismissed lightly.
You're wrong, however, that the passages you quoted prove your position. You're using abduction to reach your conclusion; inference to the best explanation. As an analytical tool it's both subjective and uncertain and as such is utterly incapable of proving anything definitionally. We ought to be suitably humble when addressing uncertain issues like these.
I'll respond to your first verse, again because grabbing a whole pile of verses bogs things down.
I'll say you're correct that Revelation 6 is referring to Jesus' coming, but that doesn't make a case for Gnostic Eschatology. There are two probable explanations. The first is that Revelation 6 and Revelation 19 are recapitulations of one another and both refer to the formal Day of the Lord. The second is that the first six seals are describing events that take place prior to Daniel's last week, this would suggest the Sixth Seal is describing the Harpazo and would correspond with Zachariah 12 10-14, Joel 2 28-32, and of course 1 Thes 4 13-18.
Now, there IS a third option. Namely, that of the pre-wrath Harpazo. This would relate the 6th Seal with Revelation 14 14-16 which comes right before the bowl judgements are introduced. However, of the views that distinguish between the Day of the Lord and the Harpazo I think it's probably the weakest.
I've answered one of your points so now I would like to ask you a question in kind.
In Zachariah 14 9-20 the prophet speaks of the world after Jesus' return. Specifically, he relates how nations will be required to attend the Feast of Tabernacles and if they don't then God will judge them by withholding rain (which appears to be alluded to in Psalm 107 as well). How does this fit into your Eschatological framework since there are no sinners remaining who would rebel against Jesus' command?
@@bennewby9600 Based on John 19:37, Zechariah 12:10 was fulfilled at Calvary and on the Day of Pentecost when the Spirit was poured out in Jerusalem. On that day Peter addressed the crowd as "all the house of Israel" in Acts 2:36.
Joh 19:37 And again another Scripture says, "THEY SHALL LOOK ON HIM WHOM THEY PIERCED."
Proof the 70th week of Daniel was fulfilled in the past:
Based on Hebrews 12:22-24, the Messiah’s death in Daniel 9:26 cannot be separated from the New Covenant fulfilled by His blood at Calvary. See the words "church" and "mount Sion" and "new covenant" and "Jesus" and "blood" in the passage.
Are we supposed to believe the angel Gabriel appeared to Daniel to reveal the timeline of the Messiah who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and then the angel failed to even mention the New Covenant. Or, is the covenant with the many in Daniel 9:27 the same covenant with the many in Matthew 26:28? The 1599 Geneva Bible is the Bible the Pilgrims brought to America, before John Darby showed up on our shores about the time of the Civil War. What was the earlier understanding of Daniel 9:27 found below in the notes of the 1599 Geneva Bible?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan 9:27 And he shal confirme the couenant with many for one weeke: and in the middes of the weeke he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the ouerspreading of the abominations, he shall make it desolate, euen vntill the consummation determined shalbe powred vpon the desolate.
Daniel 9:27
And he (a) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to (b) cease, (c) and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
(a) By the preaching of the Gospel he affirmed his promise, first to the Jews, and after to the Gentiles.
(b) Christ accomplished this by his death and resurrection.
(c) Meaning that Jerusalem and the sanctuary would be utterly destroyed because of their rebellion against God, and their idolatry: or as some read, that the plague will be so great, that they will all be astonished at them.
I did not know you were from Northern Minnesota. I grew up in Cloquet. 3 blocks from Gordy's Hi-Hat. How's that for a landmark?
I left in 1988 to join the USN. Never moved back. Miss hockey season. Not winter .
Very cool! Know Cloquet well being from Grand Rapids. It is a fun and interesting world!
Greetings from a Minnesotan in Romania!
Welcome! Minnesotans have a special place in my heart!
@thebiblesojourner same for me too!
You mentioned "Charismatic Dispensationalists" Would Hal Lindsey qualify as one?
I’m not sure. I haven’t read or listened to Lindsey ever. I think I heard second hand that he believed tongues still exists but I’m really not able to say.
What?!? He's from DTS and he's premil?... lol
Just cutting up, gents. Thank you for your ministry and God bless!
Haha, life is filled with surprises! 😀
I’m curious and genuinely trying to understand different positions so how would a futurist answer this question. Why would Christ give the Revelation to John and tell him to give it to the 7 churches in Asia Minor a book that did not pertain to them and was speaking about the future. And secondly what is the explanation to Christs words in Revelation “about things that must take place very soon.”
What is soon to God is two days soon? For God a thousand years is as a day. So it’s been 2000 years but to God two days how is that not soon? Just like when scripture says that Christ was crucified before the foundation of the world, but it didn’t take place for thousands of years after how is this any different?
That's a really good question! Or two questions, I suppose.
The first is that the letters to the seven churches spoke to issues they were having at their day and time. They also spoke to problems future churches would deal with, just like all the other epistles in the New Testament. None the less, it isn't any more strange than God revealing things to the Old Testament prophets that wouldn't take place for hundreds or thousands of years.
The answer to the second is that imminent language is the norm when it comes to the Day of the Lord (see: Ezekiel 30: 3 and Isaiah 13: 6-9 among many examples). Why did God reveal His apocalyptic messages in this fashion? I have no idea! You'll have to ask Him. Though if I were to wager a guess I think He wants us to live as though these things are right around the corner (what I say to you, I say to you all: Watch!)
You should contact Lee Brainard ! Good researcher.
That’s a good tip! I don’t know him well but have heard good things about his work.
You should do a kickstarter or something similar to underwrite the front deposit for a publisher so you can have freedom to publish how you want. Just work out the partnership before hand and be full disclosure who your publisher is. Not sure. Has to be a solution.
I’d would have bought your new book, but knowing that the detail was pulled and relegated to the online compendium, I’m thinking twice. Really prefer the bigger books and having the ability to sit down with them, work through references, etc
What a terrible decision by the publisher.
As stated in the show, on the popular level, I believe the Pre-Trib Rapture has fallen out of favor due to the failed “Rapture dates” of the non-date setting, date setters. I remember 1982 being proposed (Israel became a nation in 1948, 40 years is God’s testing time, therefore 1948 + 40 years = 1988, then subtract 7 years for the Tribulation = Rapture in 1982. Then there was “88 Reasons why the Rapture will be in 1988”, Rapture in 1995, Y2K… and the list goes on. Whereas I am Pre-Trib, those of my tribe need to stop dishonoring the cause of Christ with their sensationalizing.
32:50 timestamp
Irenæus did not hold to "something like a pre-tribulation rapture."
He absolutely did. Read his exegesis on 1 Thessalonians 5 in Book 5 chapter 30. He's kind enough to lay out a timeline for us.
IMO, 1 Thes 5 linking the Day of the Lord to the Harpazo in chapter 4 is one of the strongest post-trib arguments. But it isn't clear from the text whether Paul is talking about the formal Day of the Lord (which would be post trib) or the informal Day of the Lord (which makes pre-trib, mid-trib, or pre-wraith possible). The most we can do is use Inference to the Best Explanation to try to figure out which Paul is talking about.
Irenaeus takes the position that the Day of the Lord here is in the informal sense and referring to the whole 7 years. The 'sudden destruction' in his opinion is talking about the Antichrist's rise to power when he overthrows three of the ten kings. This is followed by the Antichrist's absolute rule for 3.5 years and then the return of Christ to set up His kingdom. As post-tribbers correctly point out, the Day of the Lord Paul is referring to here follows the Harpazo of the Church. While Irenaeus doesn't touch on chapter 4 specifically in this passage it isn't a huge jump to insert it into the sequence and thus arrive at a pre-trib rapture.
The confusion on Irenaeus' position comes from the fact that Irenaeus expected the Church to be here to observe the rise of the Ten Kings and once those kings are on the scene it'll be possible to identify the Antichrist via the number of his name, but the Antichrist destroying the kings won't be going on until we're outta here. Most pre-tribbers hold that the Ten Kings won't be seen until the Church is gone, but I don't think that position is correct and Irenaeus agrees.
There are other statements in books 4 and 5 that point to pre-trib eschatology in Irenaeus' work but his exegesis on 1 Thes 5 actually provides enough information to resolve his precise eschatological position, which is pretty uncommon in ancient writing.
In Against Heresies 5.29, Irenæus says, "When in the end that church will suddenly be caught up from this, then it is said, 'There will be tribulation such as not been since the beginning, nor will be.'"
Notice Irenæus's order: "When in the end that church will suddenly be caught up from this." The Church is caught up in the end, which refers to the end times.
What comes next, according to Irenæus? "then it is said, 'There will be tribulation such as not been since the beginning, nor will be.'"
So, going by Irenæus's words, the Church will be caught up at the end times, after which the "tribulation such as not been since the beginning, nor will be," will begin.
Thank you, and God bless.
Have you already read Svigel’s book on that section? 🤔 I actually haven’t read that part yet so am looking forward to seeing the case he makes.
@@thebiblesojourner
Nope! I just dedicated lots of time to reading Against Heresy. I didn't catch the significance of his exegesis on 1 Thes 5 until my third read-through of his 5th book but as soon as I made the connection his position became quite clear. Previously I was convinced that he was talking about either pre-trib or mid-trib but I wasn't SURE which.
I've found most of the critics of a pre-trib reading of Irenaeus will focus heavily on his 'this is the last contest of the righteous' comment without taking the broader context of that statement into account.
@@williambillycraig1057
Yep! This can be read as either a pre-trib or mid-trib rapture. I'm trying to be very careful with what's stated explicitly and what we're inferring. Irenaeus' comment here speaks of sequence, not immediacy.
I know there are arguments to try to dismiss this pretty clear conclusion but I find them wildly unconvincing in the context of everything else Irenaeus said about eschatology.
I really don't get the insistence that Irenaeus held a post-trib position; it makes no sense to me. It's a stretch of his words to say the least. And it REALLY isn't that hard to just say Irenaeus got it wrong since the early church held a variety of positions on eschatology.
👍Historic PreMill, PreWrath
In my very "elementary" view of the Rapture and the Church Age, I've described it this way - let's say there is a creek flowing which is the pre-church age (Daniel's 69 weeks). Then a huge boulder (the Church age) is dropped into the creek. The creek keeps flowing around the boulder. Then the boulder is taken out and the creek returns to its original flow, just like the boulder was never there, and continues with the 70th week. (Don't ask me what happens after the 70th week... I guess there's a waterfall or something, lol.🤔)
Loved this discussion! Thanks.
70 weeks 490 years its all finished eschatology ended when Daniels people were judged in 70AD
The Second Exodus lays out the time frame of new heavens and earth forty years or a generation
It all ended in Ad70
Num 14:34-35 KJV 34 After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise. 35 I the LORD have said, I will surely do it unto all this evil congregation, that are gathered together against me: in this wilderness they shall be consumed, and there they shall die.
In the second Exodus from Christ's ministry to the destruction of the temple 40years and entrance into the new heavens and earth!
@20:00 WOW WOW WOW! Excellent! I can be an optimist AND hold to what scripture says on premillennialism! I love this interview
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever Absolutely! If that is what you see in scripture that should be how you believe! When I was a futurist for 25 years that is how I believed the scriptures taught until I saw the light and surrendered to the Word. Yet again this is what I see, and speaking for myself.
If you build a teaching on man, the early church fathers, what have you built? Rom 4:3 says count every man a liar only God true. Also if scripturally the majority has always been wrong should we trust man just because there might be more of them that believe a certain way?
Lastly if there is no inspired writers nor inspired interpreters, then again what have you got building a teaching on what other uninspired men believed. With that said, for 1,500 years they were only catholic, and Protestants today have over 30,000 different denominations. Because no one is inspired after the NT writers, what have you built if you build a doctrine off of man.
We can go at something from the side of weakness or from the side of strength. Scripture alone hermeneutically shows strength and clinging to men is the weakest stance we can make according to the Word.
Notice the fulfilled camp always uses only scripture with hermeneutics and an open invitation to join in their discussions.
Never want to build a doctrine on a man. But the value of studying history is evident. God doesn’t just work in modern times. Gods spirit has been operative throughout all time. But Scripture is the authority, not man.
Amen to that! There is nothing wrong with listening to others but there is no point system that says if this man believed this, then that teaching gets a point and if a majority of men say it, you get 10 points per say, and with 10 points you win. No if all men are uninspired and then are to be counted as liars, or to say, they may not mean to be lying yet just simply being man, human, fallible, you cannot rely on them for your hope that you are on the correct path in your view of a doctrine. So we see the same here, you get zero points for any man or men to agree on a subject, what saith the Lord about the subject.
Why do people commend Augustine, when he approved of the false gospel books of the Apocrypha that contain praying for dead, works plus faith false gospel saved by almns keeping, and various other heterodox teachings?
Not impressed with early “church fathers” really.
One can go to extremes on either end. One can idolize them to an unhelpful degree, or one can under appreciate the significance of being an early Christian and the challenges that involved.
I'll take the men who learned directly from the apostles over 99.999% of today's "scholars"
Lol... you're not alone.
@@bigtobacco1098 Funny thing is, the 12 only one time shared something with the Gentiles, and that was Peter in Acts 10, then he withdrew from the Gentiles, then went back to focusing on the role Jesus gave him, that is going through all the cities of Israel until His coming. Only Paul, who was an apostle to the Gentiles, said anything to them about end of things. But even then he was cognitively focused on the house of Israel in his letters, since it was their last days. Not one single letter written by "church fathers" says anything about their gathering, did you know this? If you studied carefully, you would know their gathering already took place. You would eventually figure out when and where like I did. But don't take my word for it.
@@bigtobacco1098that’s fair. That is at best one or two people whose writings we have, though. We don’t want to oversell their connection to the apostles.