Doug Wilson: Full Preterism, Kinism, Christian Nationalism, Racism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 чер 2024
- In this two pronged episode, Pastor Doug Wilson answers to primary questions: "What is the cosmological argument against full or hyper preterism, and why it is so far beyond orthodoxy?"
As well as, "what do Christian Nationalism and Kinism have to do with one another?"
I love Doug's calm demeanor. He explains without kicking a dead horse.
Well said, agreed: calm speaking!
He "explained" nothing! There was NO exegesis in this interview. But good try.
@michaelsullivan6868
??? This wasn't a Bible study, why would expect exegesis? Strange.
Sheep dip remains sheep dip regardless of delivery.
How do you express views like this without scriptural support?@@toddcote4904
Zach Davis and Travis Drum openly asked a simple question to both Jeff Durbin and Doug Wilson : Where do you place the cut between past and future events in the Olivet discourse. No answer yet.
If they come up with a valid answer, I might definitely put full preterism aside. Until then it will remain a potential view for me.
Do you have the video link where they were asked this question? I am curious to see it as well.
@@jb2009BCT ua-cam.com/video/JNhnxsbxhYs/v-deo.htmlsi=pIgdhT4IsdxyPXkd
This is one video that he dedicated to this particular question but he raised it a few other times inside of other videos he made.
I am not 100% set on a specific eschatology but I wouldn't call full preterism a heresy just yet because he makes a very good case in all of his videos. I'm cross examining pretty much everything and I kind of like these tough questions.
Travis Drum is another good one. Him and Zach Davis serve in the same church now and even if they don't have thousands of subs, there is a lot of substance in their teaching. Especially the series "The Olivet Discourse" by Travis Drum. It is a long 14 sermons or so playlist but I listen to it in my routine walk.
@@jb2009BCThere’s one I did responding to Doug’s thought (which he reiterated here) that Hebrews 1 is a different event than 2 Peter 3. ua-cam.com/video/1EtiiojAQH0/v-deo.htmlsi=roRQtuaGsX8aE2EL
When will Doug Wilson be man enough to accept Don K. Preston's offer to debate?
Agreed. I was a post mill post mill but their question must be answered! There has been no answer!
wonderful guest.
Can anyone explain to me why Doug Wilson will not debate or dialogue with full preterists like Don Preston and Michael Sullivan?
It sort of speaks for itself doesn’t it?
@@mjack3521 I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but it is certainly strange. Mr. Wilson always underrepresents the number of full preterists around the world, and basically only points to the creeds to disprove them.
What would be so wrong with engaging in discussion with a full preterist? The silence is deafening unfortunately.
@@MC-vr6kxAgreed.
@@MC-vr6kx yep, deleted my question. I do like him. Not the theonomy though.
Don't give clear heretics a mouthpiece. That's why.
Martin Luther was also "well off the beaten path." The "beaten path" is not proof of truth!
DW would likely argue that he was using the church fathers to show he was not "original". That is certainly true with the writers of the Book Of Concord.
I think he is correct that you should worry if you are the only one who believes something, but this doesn't seem to be the case. DW is just ignorant of the people of the past who seem to agree with FP.
I'm sure if Wilson was alive during Luther's day, he would have "bet 10.00 AGAINST Luther." His appeals to church tradition and the creeds were Roman Catholic in origin and we destroyed them in our book, "House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology..."
@@michaelsullivan6868 They we not Roman Catholic at all. The Roman Catholic church tries to retroactively claim the "fathers" as theirs, but there was no Roman Catholic Church.
The Bereans [Acts 17:11] were "more noble" than the Thessalonians in that they were "examining The Scriptures" to see if what Paul was saying was true or false. Let us be like The Bereans. Let us test everything and everyone with The Holy Bible alone [Sola and Tota Scriptura]. Let us fear God, not man.
Or the Theonomist Pope and his crusaders.
Yet Wilson will not step in the ring with me and PROVE I "don't have game" and that he has "game" - I wonder why? Stop the trash talking Wilson and subjective and non-exegetical attacks and let's get down to a debate that has been long overdue.
@@michaelsullivan6868
What does Wilson say about
Israelite identity?
After crossing the Caucasus Mountains, the Israelites were known as Caucasians.
Doug Wilson, Caucasian,
is an Israelite.
This is just so helpful, and insightful.
If sin hasn’t been defeated then we are all screwed. Sin has no power over those in Christ. Christ didn’t come to save us from physical death, He came to renew our covenant standing before God and save us from covenantal death by fulfilling the law. For the modern evangelical that’s not good enough. They have fantasies about Jesus coming out of the sky riding a cloud like Goku and starting a zombie apocalypse.
"Sin" is a Christian term. I don't use it.
I would say that He did do what you stated but why leave out the consummation spoken of in the scriptures?
If you've been made new, your body will be as well. ANd why leave out what we are to look forward to, namely, the full glory part?
Shining like the sun in the kingdom of our Father. When He is manifest we will be manifested with Him in glory (Col. 3:4). We can be joyful now while knowing that we have not entered the best & final state yet that we are looking forward too.
Why not debate Gary DeMar or Mike Sullivan on this subject? Many partial-preterists have different views on different scripture verses. The creeds are not our foundation. Amazing how many partial preterists run to the creeds for their argument. Most scholars believe Revelation was written post-70 A.D., yet partial preterists, like myself, believe it was written before the destruction.
Many will place the writing of Revelation post AD 70 because they might have misquoted Irenaeus on the dating.
This 6 minutes video from Zach Davis gives a pretty good exposition of why that is.
ua-cam.com/video/42j0hPZ_h08/v-deo.htmlsi=fAvQO_Ax509JD7oM
As a newer Christian with zero church background or preconceived notions, it amazes me how people can so easily be tricked and led astray from such basic Biblical teachings and evidence. Sadly much of it comes from seminaries and individuals more interested in defending theological systems and making a name for themselves rather than humbly serving God as a saved sinner….in other words forgetting to be the humble sheep herder David was when God selected him for service.
The Book is called “Revelation” because it details Jesus’ REVELATION, and is called a prophecy and is meant to encourage and inform all of Jesus’ followers of when He is coming back to get them…..and that makes perfect sense because it describes a terrible time for the saints and great tribulation prior to Jesus’ return.
And I don’t think it’s a coincidence that it carries such harsh warnings about changing it.
Now to think “Jesus’ Revelation” and all the thing’s leading up to happened somehow in 70AD is utter nonsense.
Mark of the beast, a mark in the right forehead or hand, one cannot buy or sell without it, show me where this occurred without spiritualizing it?
@@matts.6558 OK then what about the very first verse of Revelation 'the things that must soon take place'. Soon...not thousands of years in the future.
See also
Rev 1:3
Rev 22:6-7
Rev 22:10
Rev 22:12
Rev 22:20
Sounds like everything was about to happen when John wrote Revelation. This is what Doug believes as a partial preterist and as someone who believes most of Revelation was fulfilled in AD70. You have to do some serious exegetical gymnastics to brush those texts away as not meaning what they sound like they actually mean.
@@thecanberean although I agree the term “soon” can seem challenging, but the answer to rebut you is quite simple…you stated you believe most of revelation has come to pass already, yet you don’t believe it has ALL taken place…therefore how can you be ok with the term “soon” and not be a full preterist?
So you see…we both have the same issue really, you just think soon applies to Rev1-20, whereas I believe it is more for the messages to the physical churches of the time up to chapter 3 or so.
Further, as a partial preterist I assume you believe Rev 22 is still in the future. Note Jesus also uses “soon” in Rev 22:7, saying “Look, I am coming soon! Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy written in this scroll.”
So is Jesus not understanding “soon” the way you do?
And further are you going to blessed by keeping the words of the prophecy in Rev 22:7, given you think it is past history and not applicable to you? I mean if you’re not looking for any of this and edifying and helping do your part in preparing the church for the prophetic fulfillment of these words? Or will you, this channel, Doug Wilson and all those that allegorize or put most of Rev in the past do harm to the church by teaching optimistic nonsense like post-mil to Christ’s church, distract the church from what it’s mission is and start politicizing the Gospel, rather then discipling believers to endure and remain steadfast through what Christ said is to come.?
These aren’t small issues my friend, we don’t select eschatology like ice cream flavours or by whoever is the most convincing presenter. The consequences are significant enough for Christ to tell us and warn us about these things. So I agree with the channel name “ Eschatology Matters”. But believers better darn well they aren’t in anyway doing anything to be part of building the anti-christs coming kingdom.
My take on “soon”, it is to encourage believers to keep the faith and not waiver to the left of the right. Also some events are sooner than others obviously which we both have to agree on - unless you go full blown full preterist and depart from the faith (yes, you can actually apostatize fall away from the faith as the Bible claims verbatim)
John wrote revelations in around 90ad, it was called a prophecy, we have writings of people discipled directly by John like Polycarp and those Polycarp discipled that say John wrote this as an old man on Patmos during the reign of Domitian (81-96 AD)
It is impossible for Revelations to be written prior to 70AD. These are 100% facts if you do your research and understand biblical timelines.
Therefore partial preterism is false and a doctrine that should be avoided at all cost.
@@thecanberean also I appreciate how you failed to answer or address the points from my previous comment
I am curious if Pastor Wilson could provide a historical example of the ancient view of church eschatology that matches his novel partial-preterism model?
Particularly, I am wondering if his fulfilled view of 2 Peter 3 is supported by the creeds, confessions, and ancient writers?
It seems this is a relatively new eschatological conclusion.
And, furthermore, if the Reformed Historicists were all wet on their eschatology, couldn't a precedent be acknowledged that maybe the partial-preterism of Wilson is also mistaken?
Hey, Eusebius in his church history touches on how the Christians in Jerusalem fled before it's destruction because they heeded the warnings of Christ that we read in the olivet discourse. Not saying that Eusebius was perfect in his theology, far from it but he at least sheds some light on a period of history that is hard to crack. If he is right, it indicates that at least the church in Jerusalem believed that Christ was speaking to them and that generation when he gave the discourse. I know this isn't a full answer but it is a small piece of evidence.
Partial preterist isn’t the new kid on the block. The new kid on the block is the futurist/dispensationalist.
The new kid on the block is pre-millenial dispensationalists. The early Church believed and interpreted much more like Doug does in most ways. And that recent change is the greatest act of deception Satan has accomplished since the garden. It has changed the world view of Christians from bringing the whole world under the authority of Christ and building Christ's kingdom on earth, to being pathetic spineless cowards who let everything real Christians built be destroyed.
It is indeed new. Particularly this theonomic sect.
@@anthonya8478 not at all.
Doug Wilson did another shallow drive-bye hit piece on Full Preterism. My Full Preterist brief response: Doug basically gave the farm away by admitting two things: 1). Scripture is authoritative and forms doctrine for the Church and the creeds do not poses the same infallible authority to form doctrine for the Church that the Scriptures do. And 2). Wilson admits the "Church is organic" and thus God can shed new light on important eschatological texts and even doctrine [you know that "Reformed and always reforming" thing]. The rest of the podcast Doug is dedicated to trying to kill these admissions by the death of a million qualifiers - but really there are two main ones. Let's go over his admissions and qualifiers.
1). Again, Wilson has to admit the creeds do not poses the same authority as the Bible and may be wrong because that is exactly what the WCF states. I'm glad he is coming around to being a "WCF man."
2). Wilson also has to concede these points because he knows his own Partial Preterism and his Partial Preterist system as a whole has come up with very NEW exegetical takes on VERY KEY eschatological passages.
3). Wilson's "qualifiers":
a). After giving the farm away Doug tries to do some damage control by assuring the listeners that while God can move in individuals or believers to shed light on Scripture and doctrine, He most assuredly couldn't do it through "prideful" Full Preterist's - lol. Doug is now forced to wander out in SUBJECTIVE land grasping at straws. He assures his listeners that we are "prideful" because we seek to master one subject (eschatology) while Doug has mastered "158" or so. No irony there - Lol.
b). Doug's other major qualifier is time. He finds it very unrealistic and very unlikely that Full Preterism can be true because the Church didn't see this truth earlier. Again, another SUBJECTIVE point. Questions for Doug Wilson:
1. How long did it take for an individual or the Church to embrace that the coming of Christ and judgment in Mt. 24:27--25:30 was fulfilled in AD 70? Give me names and dates to support your Preterist understanding of this section of the OD? And do you believe Gary DeMar and Keith Mathison are filled with "pride" because unlike you they think 25:31 can also be referring to AD 70 and your two-comings theory is wrong?
2. How long did it take for an individual or the Church to embrace that 2 Peter 3 was fulfilled in AD 70?
3. How long did it take for an individual or the Church to embrace the imminent coming of Christ in Revelation is not actually the Second Coming event (you know the WCF view!), but was spiritually fulfilled in AD 70?
4. How long did it take for an individual or the Church to embrace the "end of the age" in both Matthew 13 and Matthew 24 is the old covenant age and not the end of world history?
5. How long did it take for an individual or the Church to embrace that God was "ready to judge the living and the dead" in an "at hand" AD 70 time frame (1 Pet. 4:5-7, 17). You opened with the WCF stating this event was in our Future and yet you say it was fulfilled in AD 70. Explain yourself.
6. How long did it take for an individual [John Lightfoot] or the Church to embrace the "creation groaning" in Rms. 8 has nothing to do with the physical creation but rather the "creation of man"? And that the THREE imminent time texts here are referring to AD 70 and thus need to be addressed [Gary DeMar]?
7. How long did it take for an individual or the Church to embrace the resurrection of Daniel 12 was actually fulfilled spiritually in AD 70 at the same time the Tribulation was [Ken Gentry / James Jordan / Steve Gregg]?
8. How long did it take for an individual or the Church to embrace that the coming of Christ in 2 Thess. 1:5-9 [you know the end of the millennium Second Coming] was fulfilled in AD 70 [Keith Mathison]?
I could go on, and on, and on, but that is sufficient to make my point. It's a good thing that God has uniquely given us Doug Wilson to show us which of those Partial Preterist's are "filled with pride" and are wrong on those texts and which one's aren't.
4). Doug claims we are wrong because God hasn't "united heaven and earth" and YET the MAIN texts Reformed theology has gone to to support this position is 2 Pet. 3 and Rev. 21-22 -- you know passages Doug says were fulfilled in AD 70! How many times does the New Jerusalem come down to earth at the coming of Christ in these chapters Doug?!? Has God established His presence with man back on earth? Has he brought us into the New Jerusalem to partake of the Tree of Life and Living Waters? Do we really see His "face" and is the curse of "the death no more" as Rev. 21-22 teaches? Are you going to start giving 2 Pet. 3 double fulfillments? Can't wait to cross-examine you in a debate when you are done with these little hit pieces.
5). Doug invokes the name of Sam Frost - a man who has come up with the NEW view never discovered in Church history - that the coming in Christ that gave the Thessalonians "relief" from persecution in 2 Thess. 1:5-9 was not his truly imminent AD 70 coming [Keith Mathison], but somehow the ascension coming that took place years before - Lol. A man who has non-pridefully blamed his alcoholism on Futurism [when he was a Preterist] and then again blamed it on [Full Preterism] when he ran back to Futurism.
Does Doug know that Sam calls his Partial Preterism "inconsistent" (meaning that if it were it would lead to Full Preterism) and that it is really, "hyper-Partial Preterism" ("hyper" meaning it is not orthodox Preterism). Apparently Sam believes the Church settled these issues long before John Lightfoot and John Owen showed up, and therefore Doug's "hyper-Partial Preterism" isn't as "orthodox" as Doug thinks it is. So here we go again on the SUBJECTIVE issue. Who do we rely on to tell us when God stopped shedding Preterist exegetical light to the church on key texts -- is it the "humble" Sam Frost or the "humble" Doug Wilson?
6). Doug once again appeals to 2 Tim. 2:17-18 but won't tell you his own editor and co-writer [Keith Mathison] says you can't apply this passage to Full Preterist's because he knows that Partial Preterism teaches there was an imminent spiritual resurrection event that was in AD 70. A dirty little secret Doug doesn't want to tell his audience.
7). Doug once again appeals to Ps. 102/Heb. 1 as an alleged end of world history / transformation of the planet event because he is running out of those texts [having surrendered them to AD 70]. Of course he can't do a complete exegesis of either Ps. 102 or Heb. 1 as Don Preston and myself have done on our show "Preterist Apologetics [in responding to Doug on these very texts]."
Conclusion: In the end Doug is FORCED to try and refute Full Preterism on SUBJECTIVE ground and not exegetical ground. The Church apparently needs Doug to tell us who is filled with "pride" within his Partial Preterist movement on what is "new" and unbiblical views on key eschatological texts and who is not. AND the Church needs Doug Wilson to tell us WHEN the HOLY SPIRIT [within his view of Church History] stopped giving guidance on Preterist developments of key texts. I have so many questions / challenges ready for Mr. Wilson. You know the questions and challenges he has been ducking since we wrote "House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology...," well, because Doug, unlike me, has been busy non-pridefully mastering "158" doctrines and things. Someday I hope to attain the humility stature of Doug Wilson and have the Holy Spirit discernment and knowledge he has to be able to read mens hearts so as to know whose Preterist interpretations are "prideful" and are just too "new" and which one's aren't. But for now we can only thank God for Doug's humility and Charismatic discerning powers to guide the Church through this eschatological storm. Hope to see you soon Doug :)
Excellent, thank you. Doug is a bully and doesn't do real debates or discussions in which he might get whipped.
Well, he has definitely been ducking our response in "House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology..." which was a Full Preterist response to his co-authored book, "When Shall These Things Be?..." seeking to refute Full Preterism. He doesn't want to address his inconsistent and "NEW" Partial Preterist hermeneutic on a LOT of NT texts. So he is reduced to a subjective defense or inferring we are "prideful" "fanatics," etc. Was David Chilton "prideful" - was eschatology the only thing he studied and wrote on? Is Gary DeMar "prideful" for asking the same questions to Doug that we have? This just adds steam to the movement when people see this kind of "response" to us.@@1Whipperin
Thanks Mike. I left partial preterism for full.
Hi Mike...While I pretty much agree with all of your scriptural points you made to Doug...and while I understand how frustrated you must be with his approach to full preterists and full preterism...throwing his 'humility' comment back at him as often as you have done may not be completely helpful at this juncture. Sarcasm and facetiousness in a serious biblical debate with serious and weighty repercussions doesn't really help anyone and hardly progresses the debate in a Godly fashion.
@@thecanberean Who told you that? Doug Wilson?
Just found your channel and agree with it’s channel name. Quick scan through the vid library and not seeing much on premil, would you mind clarifying your position?
Great question.
We primarily deal with Covenental eschatology, and in particular, Amillennialism and Postmillennialism. That being said, we do have a great discussion on Dispensational Premillennialism coming in the next few weeks between Daniel Hummel and Cory Marsh
@@eschatology_matters Thanks for the response. I would think it could be wise to ensure you include all types of premil positions as well, not just dispensation premil. Specifically historical premil, you know what the church believed from the beginning. I would hate to see your ministry come up blank on rewards day because you unintentionally only taught bad eschatology on your channel and didn’t prepare His church for what’s coming
Does anyone have a resource discussing God’s creativity? I have some thoughts and ideas about that, but want to find out if it’s been talked about before like Doug suggests.
Bible, Genesis.
@@jakebredthauer5100 wow, you don’t read any other books besides the Bible for insight into theological matters? Fascinating!
@@byronrhodes1659
Logic books might be helpful.
I discovered the question that full preterists can't answer. I was on a full preterist's video and posed the following question. If full preterism is correct, then why did John the apostle who wrote revelation and was alive for at least 25 years after the destruction of Jerusalem never say anything that Jesus had returned and the resurrection had occurred? Additionally, why were people who knew John personally, and probably knew and read Revelation, such as Polycarp, Ignatius, and Papias still looking for a future return of Jesus and the resurrection? They were all very young and also lived through the great tribulation, and none of them ever said that Jesus returned or the resurrection took place. No one could answer the question and I was told that I wasn't using proper bible exegesis or I was relying on fallible sources. Personally, as I began studying end times, I wavered back and forth between full and partial preterism. I eventually settled on a partial preterism/postmillennial view after coming to understand that Satan and death still exist. But when I discovered that contemporaries of John were still looking future to Jesus' return and the resurrection, that sealed the deal.
@vfs148 Easy question to answer in Revelation and Daniel. Hope this helps you understand how important time statements in Revelation were. Why didn't John in Revelation write about the destruction of 70AD?
There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time. Revelation 17:10 (the (one is), is Nero who died in 68AD)
1. Julius Caesar 2. Augustus 3. Tiberius 4. Caligula 5. Claudius (6. Nero) Yet to come 7. Galba 8. Otho
9. Vitellius 10. Vespasian the father of Titus. A prince of the Roman people Daniel 9:26
Thank you for the watermarks!
About ten years ago I ran into a guy who just came at me real hard trying to convince me of full preterism. He had his verses and his arguments lined up. I wasn't ready for him. All I had to fall back on was the testimony of the Spirit in my heart and what Doug said. This is a different story than what the Bible teaches. Where is the blessed hope in this? Christ is the first born from the dead. But this guy was saying none of us are going to raise from the dead. The Bible talks about all creation groaning for the revelation of the sons of God. This guy was saying that would never happen.
I prayed for God to help me settle the objections and I later read 2 Thessolonians where Paul is talking to believers who had been discouraged by false teachers who had said the exact same thing. They had told them that Christ had already come back. So, this is not a new false teaching. It has already happened even back when Paul was around, and in His Sovereignty God inspired Paul to write a letter to a church. We have it in the Scriptures to encourage us.
But partial preterists won’t actually engage consistent or full preterists. You talk about them, but you won’t talk to them? Why not, if it’s such a slam dunk? You frequently like to say, we don’t debate heretics, but engage Mormons, JW’s, Roman, Catholics Muslims, atheists, and Arminians. They refer commonly to the ancient Creeds and Confessions, while completely ignoring the fact that the Nicene council was virtually a churchwide debate with heretics. Y’all love to warn of the dire dangers of full preterism, but you never specify precisely what those dangers are. You insist that Christ must return, which implies that he did not complete His redemptive mission. Consistent preterists are quite sure that Christ fulfilled all that was written, and currently reigns at the right hand of God the Father. He now tabernacles in the midst of His people through His Spirit. Our ongoing job is to disciple the nations. As far as the fact, that sin continues in the new heavens and earth, one has only look at Revelation, chapter 22. Note, the dogs, adulterers, blasphemers, and sorcerers are still right outside the walls of the New Jerusalem.
As for being an Internet phenomenon, a book which you co-authored has been responded to with a book of its own. And yet Pastor Wilson does not deem it worthy of his attention.
Because FP are heretics 🤦🏼♂️🤦🏼♂️
Words of wisdom: if I've discovered something "new" in my Scripture studies, I might just have discovered "heresy" ... hence Hodge's quote.
"Full preterism is a social media phenomenon." Really? Maybe it would be a good idea if you check with Daniel chapter 12.
Daniel 12: 2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, some to shame and contempt.
Daniel 12:8 , that it shall be for a time, times, and half a time; (3 ½ years) and when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these things shall be finished.
Daniel’s “holy people” was OT Israel, and her only power was her covenant relationship with YHVH! Thus, the resurrection would be when Israel and her covenant relationship was “completely shattered!” That was the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in AD 70.
Wilson in other podcasts completely IGNORES the context of Daniel 12:2-3 and simply will NOT address v. 7. Nor will he publicly admit that Gentry, Jordan, Steve Gregg, etc. take the resurrection of Dan. 12:2-3 as being SPIRITUALLY fulfilled in AD 70. I find this scholarly dishonest and borderline deceptive!
What was Paul on trial for in the book of Acts?
The spiritual "heaven and earth" is the Conscious Mind [Heaven] and the Subconscious Mind [Earth]. We sow spiritual seed into the garden of the subconscious mind, where it grows into fruit. That fruit reflects onto the conscious mind, where it's manifested into the physical realm via the physical body. This is where immaterial spirit meets the material realm. ❤
Anyone on here heard of Bruce Gore, or Cam Williams, they both teach the Preterist view...
Doug can not debate a FP because the only argument he has to defend his inconsistent (partial) preterism is: but what about the creeds and confessions?
2000 years and endless volumes from the fathers to the present age deny and refute FP, it is heresy and ahistorical, and a departure from the Christian faith
God bless Doug Wilson. One of my favorites
If Doug is so convinced of his partial preterist position then surely he would have no problem debating Mike Sullivan or Don Preston or even Gary DeMar...So why won't he?
We are involved in mediation on HOW this is going to be worked out. Hopefully Doug and I will have an announcement soon for you and others.
@@michaelsullivan6868 Great to hear Mike. I'll be hanging out for that. Keep up your great work 👍😊
Is Gary a full preterist?
?
Does not sin(ners) and rebellion remain in the new heavens and earth with the existence of hell...in hell sinners remain unreconciled to God, yes they are being justly punished but not reconciled or redeemed. Maybe this is just a question of location, where is hell to be found within the framework of the new heavens and earth? I am not a preterist, I ask only for the sake of clarification.
More importantly is Wilson's eschatology and admission which states Isa. 65-66 was fulfilled in AD 70 and that evangelism continues TODAY in the New Heavens and New Earth per Revelation 21-22:17. There is NO reference here to the "end of world history" -- but good try Doug. Doug only offers emotional and creedal philosophical "arguments" - nothing more.
11:43 "sin is defeated." I'm sorry, I just don't know where I can fit that verse into my new testament. What verse says sin will be defeated (as you mean it - eradicated from the world)?
Just because something is defeated doesn't mean that it's eradicated from the world. If we take that position then what did Jesus actually achieve on the cross? Did He not defeat sin there?
What difference does it matter if bodies are resurrected or not? And why can't the resurrection be a spiritual resurrection? And sin goes on and on now? Don't think Jesus meant 2000 years and counting to get to the next step in escatology.
It matters because the tomb was EMPTY.
I agree with what Doug is saying concerning the view of Sin in the Hyper Preterist position. I will say though that sin will still exist for eternity because Hell is eternal. People do not stop sinning because they are in Hell.
42:04 - If I'm understanding you correctly, what you said here is not entirely correct. It is of course true that a white-majority suburban church would be pressured to reflect racial diversity, however it is NOT true that the same is expected of any non-white majority (e.g. inner-city) church. It's a one-way street, as with all woke standards.
Imagine an online Master's Degree in Escathology with Doug Wilson, James White, Kenneth Gentry, Jeff Durbin and others?! I think it would be game changing!
Imagine any of those boys becoming man enough to accept Don K. Preston's offer to debate?
@@1WhipperinDon who? Lol
@@raker1980 Preston
Yeah, a Master's Degree in ERROR!
@@judypeterson3614exactly what I was going to say lol. It would be an absolute nightmare train wreck.
31:06 Kinism "The reason this is happening is because whites have been vilified..." Wrong. The reason this is happening is because of demographic replacement. It would be just as bad if whites were not vilified but quietly became a minority in their own country without putting up a fight. Doug conflates three things: 1. The church 2. The nation 3. Personal responsibility.
Doug is correct that, in the church, all races are equal. It is also required of Christians to treat individuals of any race with dignity. But when it comes to national identity, we cannot apply the same personal requirements to public policy. Churches are not defined by race and ethnicity, but nations are. The problem with Doug and other religious conservatives is that they base their argument on utopian idealism which has no basis in reality. Let me give you an example... I have a dream that in every city in the United States young white girls should be able to walk down dark alleys at midnight without fear of being molested. Do you disagree with that? Of course not. This is a wonderful sentiment, but if you send your 16-year-old daughter down to the corner market at midnight to pick up some ice cream and tell her to take the shortcut through the dark alley, you would be reckless. Therefore, you must temper your idealism with reality.
There is a saying that you may not care about race but race cares about you. Implicit in many of these utopian fantasies about race is that the other races are going to be as magnanimous as you are. But this is not true. All racial groups have ingroup preferences and will bias their behavior accordingly. When whites were the vast majority, they had the upper hand that forced minorities to conform to them, but times have changed and now whites are being forced to conform to the foreigners that have flooded into this country since 1965. An example how race triumphs over Christianity is that most black evangelicals vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats. You can convert minorities all day long and they are still going to be your political enemy.
In my opinion, I find white conservative men who have children to be as wicked as the left, because they want to lay their head on the pillow at night feeling morally righteous about their racial egalitarianism at the expense of their children who they have allowed to become a minority. Men who are Doug’s age had the benefit of growing up in a country which was 87% white when they were born. Now, their grandchildren are minorities, and they did not say a word to stand up for them. Instead, they have sold them out for their self-righteous anti-kinism. I want men to be real men and stand up for their country and their children.
"death is not defeated sin is not defeated" 1Co 15:55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
1Co 15:56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.
1Co 15:57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. don't we have that now whoever has faith in Yeshua ?
Hebrews 9:28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
Hebrews 10:37 For,
“In just a little while,
he who is coming will come
and will not delay
he did come in a little while
Rev 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie
Doug needs to debate Don Preston.
"the gospel prohibits all ethnic malice..."
Jesus said 'I have come only unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel'
In the New Covenant appears to be made with only one race of people, as long as I'm letting the text speak
That would be reading into the text without taking into account all of scripture.
John wrote Revelation around AD90.... AFTER AD70 so what they Hey?
John wrote his gospel after AD70 and his purpose in living was to witness the second coming. Revelation was written before AD70, to warn the churches of the coming war.
I am a Praeterist and so is the NT, as the apostles before AD70 all new they were in the last time as per John.
In this video I am called a Crank, and I have discovered many new things to Christianity, but not new in the NT. Why not newly discovered when access to common people has only recently arrived with Google, before study required indoctrination and we the people are perceived as a threat.
For those open to learn I have made a Ytube video series 'Myths in so-called Christianity', to counter the bunker mentality of different denominations, where they do not seek the truth. My videos prove the breadth of the effect of Praeterism, so massive I have 29 videos so far of common errors in Christianity.
There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time. Revelation 17:10 (the (one is), is Nero who died in 68AD)
1. Julius Caesar 2. Augustus 3. Tiberius 4. Caligula 5. Claudius (6. Nero) Yet to come 7. Galba 8. Otho
9. Vitellius 10. Vespasian the father of Titus. A prince of the Roman people Daniel 9:26
@@james-cq3mi It is hard for us to agree now from so far in time, as all prophecy was fulfilled.
@@simonskinner1450 The Bible is so clear that Christ's second coming is past, and when you see it you can't unsee it. So many still believe the creeds and not what the Word actually says. Consider this little outline as a tool:
Most are taught from the pulpit, parroting the creeds, that the (he) in Daniel 9:27 is the anti-Christ.
• They say that Jesus didn't confirm a covenant with the many.
• Really? Mark 14:24, Matthew 26:26-28, Isaiah 53:11, and Romans 5:15.
• They teach that the anti-Christ will confirm a covenant with the many in the future.
• Please show me any verse that anyone but Jesus confirms a covenant with the many.
• Jesus came for judgment, and for the resurrection like He said He would, in their generation. Matthew 24:34.
@@james-cq3mi I agree and add that Revelation was John's first epistle, and his gospel written after AD70 as witness to the second coming.
I am a Praeterist and I have a Ytube video series 'Myths in so-called Christianity'.
Brothers in the Lord?…
Not a single exegetical argument against full preterism. This is why it is rising. These guys that continue to attack the position refuse to come to the table and have a healthy debate with a full preterist despite being challenged to one repeatedly. Time for an eschatological reformation.
Full preterism involves the position that Christ's second coming has already happened correct?
@@darryld.8616
-Christ 2nd coming already happened
-no future bodily resurrection of the dead
-we are living in the new heavens and new earth in full now
-Satan is already thrown into the lake of fire
-no Lord’s supper
-Great Commission is already fulfilled
Exactly - but if we focus on eschatology for this "reformation" then we are "fanatics" "un-balanced" etc... But if Luther and Calvin focused on forensic justification and the errors of their day -- that was FINE! Lol.
rising like a souffle in a rain storm
@@michaelsullivan6868 you think Luther and Calvin invented forensic justification??😄😄
8:46 try the enternet.
There’s a fp “college” in Oklahoma
Partial preterism just makes no sense biblically. You have to go full preterist or full futurist. I'd love to know which specific scriptures and prophecies Doug thinks are still to be fulfilled.
If full-preterism is correct, when do you think the great tribulation happened? What do you think the 666 mark of the beast was? Who do you think the miracle-working false messiah and false prophet were? Who sat in the Temple and declared himself God?
Finally, when was the second coming, and who noticed?
There’s a reason so many partial preterists are embracing full preterism. DW can attempt to minimize the numbers to make himself feel better. But, it is a fact it’s growing rapidly.
@@theocratickingdom30 , what's that reason? And can you answer my questions?
@@biblehistoryscience3530 Start with 'The Parousia' by J. Stuart Russell.
Well considering that Full Preterism is rank heresy…we can take that off as an option lol
DW statement that Hymanaus being a few months off shouldn't matter is utterly ridiculous. Of course it matters that actual events happened if you claim they already did. And of course there would have been theological import to their timing. Obviously they were talking about a different resurrection at at least some level.
And while there may be exceptions, there is nobody who believes in FP that is the only one they know who believes it. It would indeed be worrisome if they were. I am not sure about FP vs PP, but I have had many times where I thought that i was the only person that believed a particular thing, but then I sought out to find if others did. i would likely have thrown the belief aside otherwise.
But what he really means is that it isn't popular enough a belief, which is utterly ridiculous. both in that it is untrue and that it doesn't matter. Many of his own views are quite unpopular compared to the rest of the Christian world too.
I understand Pastor Wilson’s desire that new light from God come from people well versed in the writings of your past churchmen, but God does not always work in ways that man wants.
And how could you receive God’s correction, if your eschatology was wrong because it had been interpreted through the lens of Calvin’s opinions about Israel and the Kingdom?
God has given me “new light” on the question of free will.
Thus saith the Lord Jesus Christ, “None of My sheep have free will”.
I am forever praising and believing Jesus is the Christ, and this is pleasing to God.
@@robertcoupe7837 , is that you, Calvin?
No it has more to do with people studying their scriptures and seeing events pan out before their eyes the way the Bible describes them and realizing that God created us to live separate from one another. Miscegenation is a sin
So where's the evidence against full preterism? Doug is using fallacious logic for his arguments.
Straw men, red herring, circular reasoning (assuming creedal philosophy is true and then READING THAT INTO NT TEXTS THAT ARE CITED BUT NOT EXEGETED), and subjective personal attacks. Good observation!
@michaelsullivan6868 Thank you, sir! I appreciate the support, especially from you. I'm excited to see you next year in August at the Jonesboro conference!
As Doug says the consequences to doctrine are massive and broad, and I as a Praeterist consequently I have found many false teachings, and now I have a Ytube video series 'Myths in so-called Christianity' for NT truth.
Doug can you define planet?
@Matts6558 (In relation to your mark of the beast.) To them in that day, if you revealed you were a follower of Christ you would not be able to participate in the economy. Persecuted by both Rome (Nero the Sea beast) and apostate Israel (the land Beast) who Jesus called "the seed of the slanderer, tool of the adversary." "The dragon (Rome) gave power to the land beast." Here is your mark of the beast. You either had the mark of the beast, or the mark of the Lamb.
• The mark of the beast 666 (Nero) can’t buy or sell. Revelation 13:17 mark of the Lamb Revelation 14:1 The meaning of these marks on the hand and forehead. Deuteronomy 11:18
Theonomist Creedalist Cessasionist Pope wont debate Mike Wilson. 🐔
31:06 Kinism
You da real MVP
UnChristian manner? Like calling your brothers idiots? Doug says some birds of a feather like to hang together. Like FP? Ah they can't. They need to be a part of our exclusive brethren. No nailing anything to the church doors. 😂
Sin and death are defeated now. Jesus said in the Resurrection we would be like the angels. The problem is Cessationists don't understand the Kingdom because they deny the Holy Spirit. There is only one FP church. Even if there is more? There are more Catholics and JWs. Does more make right? Pope Wilson seems numbers make you right. So it's Creeds and a unanimous vote. Not Sola Scriptura.
I disagree that dispensationalism holds a historicist view of the 7 churches of Revelation.
Is it wrong to call our planet earth?
At this point, if you won't openly debate full preterists then you have no credibility on the topic.
Why should he waste his time with heretics??
The Bible clearly says “do not answer a fool according to his folly.” So why would he debate a Full Preterist?
@@apologeticswithoutapology I like your YT handle!
@@TheApologeticDog I just debated Don Preston and would love to come in your show to discuss it.
Well its either that or there's just so much fundamentally wrong with the position that it not worth the time. I doubt he debates the existence of unicorns either.
❤️✡️Genesis 12:3 is expressed through the deeds ❤️ shown in Matthew 25: 31-46 ✡️❤️
Creeds and confessions are NOT scripture. Using that as a defense is a terrible argument.
I think that's about exactly what Doug said.
Love Doug, but the Idealist view isn't that uncommon. A lot of Amils hold to it.
Yes, they are deceptive in handling that "the prophecy of this book" (singular) would be fulfilled "shortly" "soon" "near" "at hand" and would not "be delayed" and was thus "about to be" fulfilled in AD 70 when the "Great City" "Egypt" / "Babylon" (where Jesus was crucified) would be judged in AD 70. Sad view ignoring the clear time texts and historical references.
@@michaelsullivan6868 Not sure what that has to do with my comment. But I agree that they get the time indicators wrong :)
you need to define heaven. day one and two of the creation account will help in understanding what the heavens are.
God gives absolutely no credence to skin color. None whatsoever. Jesus was born a Jew, but that is not what made him the Son of God. All must be born again. So much for skin color being of any importance. In fact, flesh is what divides us. However, carnal mindedness is a fixation on flesh. The spiritually minded person cares not at all for any fleshly heritage. Even that of being a Jew after the flesh. That which is born of the flesh IS flesh. That which is born of the spirit IS spirit. "Henceforth, know we NO man after the flesh." Do you glory in being White? Do not so foolishly before God.
Eschatology only matters if you submit to judean literature. All of that evaporates if you don’t.
Or if a person is a Christian
@@TheApologeticDog Those of us that have eternal live have no care about the “when” questions.
I am forever praising and believing Jesus is the Christ, and this is pleasing to God.
Those of us that have eternal live have no care about the “when” questions.
I am forever praising and believing Jesus is the Christ, and this is pleasing to God.
@@robertcoupe7837 Paul condemned two false teachers who claimed the resurrection already happened. So the “when” of our blessed hope is very important
@@TheApologeticDog A faith that can be overthrown, should be.
My faith abideth forever.
1 Corinthians 13:13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
2 Timothy 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
I am forever praising and believing Jesus is the Christ, and this is pleasing to God.
As a conservative, 1689 Protestant, I would really call Wilson to repentance for his support of a vile man such as Robert Lewis Dabney.
Partial Preterist are those too cowardly to be consistent.