The Antichrist, Great Tribulation, and Millennium: End Times Triage
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 лип 2024
- In this video I do theological triage in the realm of eschatology, or the doctrine of last things. I argue that Christians should divide over the second coming, final resurrection, and final judgment, but not over differences concerning the millennium, the Antichrist, or the Great Tribulation.
Original theological triage video: • Theological Triage: Wh...
My theological triage book: www.amazon.com/Finding-Right-...
Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus.
Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.
SUPPORT:
Become a patron: / truthunites
One time donation: www.paypal.com/paypalme/truth...
FOLLOW:
Twitter: / gavinortlund
Facebook: / truthunitespage
Website: gavinortlund.com/
MY BOOKS:
gavinortlund.com/mypublications/
PODCAST:
anchor.fm/truth-unites
DISCORD SERVER ON PROTESTANTISM
Striving Side By Side: / discord
00:00 - Introduction
04:13 - The Millennium
18:43 - The Antichrist + Great Tribulation
38:24 - Why Not Full Preterism?
42:34 - Final Implications
This man is way too balanced and has way too much common sense to be a theologian…may God raise up a thousand (pun intended) more men like him in our generation!
Maybe 10, 000 men
Maybe 144,000? 😂😂😂
I don't know, I'm not sure how helpful it is to be meek with everybody. Don't you think that sometimes pastors should put
Galatians 1:8-9 into practice? I'll copy the verses here for everyone's convenience.
Galatians 1:8-9
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed"
Note that it's repeated twice. When the Lord inspires the writer to write something more than once it's always very important.
I wonder if Gavin have done this at some point of his ministry.
I have heard him saying "catholics are part of the body of Christ". That's a huge thing to say knowing they consider Mary co redemptor and even higher than Jesus, just to name the most heretical of their teachings concerning the gospel. Let alone every other secondary doctrine.
Is this ok? Is this what a pastor should do? I see 99% of people here praising Gavin everytime he tries to build bridges with those that believe a false gospel and I feel so conflicted, because I love Gavin and most of what he says, but when he refuses to stay firm against heresies I feel like I want to cry, because I know it can open the gates of ecumenical thinking, and knowing how much influence he has on his viewers who respect him and trust him so much it could lead to many people to a false gospel. All I can do is pray that no one listening to him end up taking that path that leads to destruction.
In my experience of watching many theologians from many streams, this is actually the norm. Most people who have incredibly dogmatic views are local pastors, who have not wrestled through the deep material
I would argue that that is exactly why he is a theologian.
Roman catholic here binge listening to my favorite Bible teacher :) another amazing video from Dr. Ortlund. The way I feel about end times things is that I always remember how the most theologically educated of Jesus day, those who had studied the old testament prophecies for their lives, still somehow failed to recognize the fulfillment in Christ because it happenes totally different than they had imagined. That's why Dr Ortlunds cautious but we'll thought out teaching on end times is much appreciated!! Moving on to more Gavin videos now lol. Thank you Dr Ortlund for your great teaching! It's HAS to be hard to find time with family, church, and writing books to give us these great videos!!
@robertstephenson6806when the man comes around. Revelation commentary. Check that out.
Mike Winger did a really good talk on this too. Where he also presented different options with strengths and weaknesses of each. He also stated where he stands at the moment and why, but recognised he might change his mind. I find the open honest approach from both of you so helpful.
Mike also said that it shouldn't be divisive but concluded that whichever is correct we have to follow Jesus, preach the Gospel, and work to build the body of Christ. (Or something like that).
Thanks
Incidentally Mike was one of the people who brought me into Partial Preterism.
@@williamnathanael412 I need to that talk again, then listen to Gavin.
Would be cool if they did a livestream together
That’s the next video I have saved to watch later 😀
I love those videos. Very long but probably the most honest coverage of all those views.
I also appreciate that given the evidence Mike is still Premillenial (which I am also) even though I lean heavily to being Postmillenial based on other scripture.
Amillenialism bothers me quite a lot because I find it basically to be the Preterist view but softened to adjust for the times. I sadly think the Church lost its boldness and refuses to talk about Jesus returning because they think it somehow discredits the gospel.
O'l Miky is also a devouted Calvinist. To be avoided at all times
I've been blessed to have discovered your ministry and have listened to a lot of your content on Protestant and Catholic issues. And now I am excited to learn that you are a partial preterist! Having grown up in an environment of dispensationalism that took things too far, in my opinion, partial preterism has been a breath of fresh air in my eschatology.
Glad to be connected, and always glad to meet another partial-preterist!
A few years ago I can't believe that the Book of Revelation explains its interpretive rule within the book itself. "What was and what is and what is to come."
As a Christian (Dutch) Reformed Christian, these are also my views on this subject. Thanks for trying to articulate it.
Gavin! I would LOVE for you to cover annihilationism!
Yes!
+1 to this.. I’ve been working through this issue and I’m not sure what to believe.
I really appreciate the open minded, irenic approach that you take to divisive issues Gavin. We need more like you. God bless.
This was a very helpful video. Thank you for spelling this out! 😀
So glad I found this channel from Becket Cook channel! Subscribed, of course. Now I have so much good content to listen to. May God bless this channel to His glory.
Hope you enjoy!
Another partial preterist here, and I became one through R.C. Sproul's lecture series on "The End Times according to Jesus" and he did call himself a partial preterist in that lecture series. 😁
thanks for sharing that! I was wondering if he did.
Watching that was what made me start thinking partial-preterism is true. Even though I've never believed Calvinism is true, I still really liked his content and found a few, good nuggets of truth and wisdom.
@@Real_LiamOBryan While I am a Calvinist I can understand your sentiment here. Soteriologically speaking I do affirm Calvinism but I also utilize Molinism as a model of God's omniscience and feel it provides the best means to square many of the statements in the Westminster confession and cathechisms. So I would label myself a middle knowledge affirming Calvinist.
@@jacobbrown4971 I, too, am a Molinist, my brother. I agree with you, namely, it seems to be the best model we have for understanding God's omniscience, sovereignty, and the relation thereof.
My church offered a Sunday school class using that video series. The majority of the class leaned futurist-dispensational, but every lesson I found myself drawn closer to a partial preterist view. I learned about it in a New Testament class back in Bible college, but Sproul made it make so much sense.
What a wonderfully well-needed thing. In crazy times, it's wonderful to see the Lord raise up balanced voices. I truly appreciate yours, even when I don't see eye to eye with you on every detail. Keep it up, please, brother!
Awesome video, Gavin. Very informative.
Glad you found it helpful!
This is awesome
I thought Matthew 16:28 and 24:34 showed that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic preacher but now I see them in a different light
Isn't that crazy? A whole religious industry was born on calling Jesus mistaken.
Enjoyed the video Dr. Ortlund. I’m always thankful for the nuances you bring to these topics and the thorough treatment you give them.
I’m still not settled on an eschatological position, though I would currently categorize myself as post-millennial. I think I’m drawn to it mostly because I like the idea of the Great Commission being successful in a sense, where through the Holy Spirit the Gospel is brought to the nations gradually winning them to Christ before he returns. More so than because of good arguments for the position.
I remember reading somewhere that R.C. Sproul was never truly settled on a position, but said something to the effect of “all I know is it’s not the dispensational premillennial view” in typical R.C.-like comedy. I’ve found that funny seeing as how greatly that viewpoint has influenced American Christianity today. Definitely hoping RC was right. 😂
@@Reformation1580 I know. I’m pretty sure he’s wavered on his position at times and never held it with strong conviction.
@@Particularly_John_Gill Just curious, why do you say that he never held it with strong conviction? Sure, he was humble and said he still had passages which he had not settled on, but why is that a lack of conviction? I'd be more inclined to say that he was convinced (he did write a book after all) but reserved the right to change his mind.
Gavin Ortland for the win. What an excellent video full of charity and truth. Thank you, sir.
To add some perspective to this discussion - here in Australia, after 35+ yrs of church attendance I don't remember a single sermon on eschatology.
I heard one in UK, but in a church I was visiting. The preacher took us tentatively (not arrogantly) down the prederist route and I thought there was something in it, but it didn't fully work! 🤔
*preterist...I've only ever heard Americans say it!
They fear that subject
Excellent video, thank you so much for pointing out the inconsistencies of FP.
Thanks Gavin. I'm quite partial to partial preterism 😂 I understand some versions of dispensationalism say another temple will be built, which means the Olivet discourse refers to a future temple and not the one right in front of their eyes. For a literalist hermeneutic it's not particularly literal.
Always a pleasure to listen to a more eloquent and educated kindred spirit. Our theological perspectives are very similar and I appreciate your ability to express your personal convictions in a way that encourages unity above being right. Looking forward to the next one!
Thank you so much for this video. It was incredibly helpful.
so glad to hear that!
Amazing Video!
Thanks so much Gavin for that video. Respect your views. I'm a pre tribulation dispensationalist.
Thanks Gavin!
I think this is really helpful for people. For me it was helpful to learn that it really isn't a question of literal versus non-literal, because most of us agree there is symbolism. I actually find that there is sometimes more agreement between premil futurists and amil partial-preterists than some idealists amil futurists. The main reason is because, the question of whether the symbols are supposed to refer to specific historical events is actually what most people mean when they say they take things "literally." And premills and partial-preterists agree about this in principle, but the premill is usually just saying they don't see it in history. But often it's because they don't know what's there.
.
The thing about taking passages "literally" is that we are forced to decide, are we going to take references to Jesus' "coming," especially his "cloud coming" as his physical decent (literally) or are we going to take "in this generation" and "soon" in their normal sense (literally). What was convincing to me, is that we see the bible being able to distinguish near and far (not that every context is clear). But in Daniel, it says, "seal it up" for these things are "far off," but Jesus says, "this generation" and "soon" and "don't seal it up." Whereas, when we look at “comings” in the OT, there is a rich understanding of Yahweh's judgment "comings" and "presence" (Psalm 18, Isa. 19:1 the Babylonian attack on Egypt) which do not require that God be made visible at all. When Jesus uses such language, he is actually appropriating divine action to himself. The high Priest recognized this when Jesus claimed, at his trial, that he was going to come on the clouds. This was Yahweh "action" and considered blasphemy. The fact that there is this depth to the OT view of coming is obscured to us because we tend to see "coming" in light of the incarnation rather than the unseen creator being made present through fulfilled prophetic events. And certainly, the incarnation is essential, but we don't want to forget that there is a depth to "coming" and "presence" which is not dispensed with simply because Jesus has come and will descend again (Acts 1, 1 Thess 4:13, I Cor 15:50-55).
It's also helpful to see that in Matthew 24:30, Jesus speaks of seeing the "sign of the son of man in heaven." The likely sign being the astronomical events. Another interesting thought, that goes along with this, is that one does not always have to choose between symbolic and literal. For example, the sun turning dark and the mood to blood. These could be symbolic for stable things like one's nation ceasing to exist. But it could also be the natural effect of the burning of a city. Such an event does result in the sun being darkened and the moon seeming to turn to blood.
Hi Gavin, thank you for this. I find that I think very similarly to you on a lot of topics. Of course, this makes me more and more convinced of your absolute brilliance 😉
haha isn't it amazing how the smart always are those we tend to agree with? :)
@@TruthUnites 28:20. I believe Jeff Durbin (pastor with Dr James White) is also a partial preterist. He made a video awhile ago on Daniel and the Olivet Discourse. He thinks the 3 1/2 years (“times, time, and half a time”) in Daniel 9 is discussing the point when Jesus was crucified, which ended sacrifice. Personally, I am a pretrib premill, but his video is interesting, and I consider him and Dr White to be brothers-in-Christ despite differences in our eschatology.
In a similar way concerning the partial preterist view, the threat of exile in the OT came to the larger groups of people (Israel and Judah). Yet, there had been several judgments on smaller groups and individuals. I’ve held this view without knowing it. Thank you for doing these.
Thank you pastor. I have come to believe this for nearly two years now after developing a more common sense interpretation of the bible. When you ask yourself how the immediate audience (or the writer's intended audience) would have understood that text plainly, it becomes clear that this was about 70 AD. I'm glad RC Sproul believed this as well.
Could u do a video about the differences in church polity and the arguments for each view, also great video
Very helpful video, thank you for it. I’d like to hear you do one on young earth creationism, old earth creationism and theistic evolution.
I've been listening to you for about a month and I've watched your debate with Trent. I must say we agree with everything that I've listened to and I'm not sure if that is a good thing for me and my beliefs or a bad thing for you and yours. My God continue to use you now and in the future. Take care and God bless you and your ministry.
Great video, Dr. Ortlund. Thank you for always making an effort to take a nuanced, honest approach to theological topics.
I too am a partial-preterist, so I was glad to see your take on the matter. How would you personally respond to those who refer to 2 Peter 3:8 to support their idea that when Jesus’ return is described as imminent in the Bible, it doesn’t necessarily mean what we think of as soon but can mean a longer period of time (because one day can be like a thousand years for God)? I don’t find this to be a compelling argument, but I was wondering how you’d articulate your rebuttal.
41:58 I’m sure you said “more complicated, knotty thing” but I heard it as “more complicated, naughty thing” And did a double take 😂😂
Many thanks Gavin. On his channel Bruce Gore has a very good playlist, Apocalypse in Space and Time covering Revelation from a preterist perspective. Most interestingly the first 9 videos are a historical overview of the apocalypse through church history. The remaining 51(!) videos are a study of Revelation
He also has a very good playlist on church history.
I wish we Christians (myself included) would take this approach more often. There are some things that I disagree with you on, but I still have alot of respect for you. I think it all comes down to the heart, it is obvious to me that you are very sincere in your walk with Christ and love for others. And that promotes the unity you talk about.
Thanks for these thoughtful videos! I just finished your book, it was insightful (the historical perspective you bring is so helpful) and heartbreaking at times. I was interested to see you didn’t examine the doctrine of hell, which in my experience has been very divisive among evangelicals these days. Any plans to address in a video?
thanks Greg, will try to do that sometime. I need to study annihilationism more first.
@@TruthUnites right on. I’ve learned a tremendous amount from Chris Date, YT channel Rethinking Hell, on the topic of Conditional Immortality (superset of the concept of annihilationism). Including some research into historical perspectives on the doctrine, which I think you’d appreciate. Thanks for the response!
Fulfilled eschatology (Preterism) is the one that explains history and glorifies God and Christ.
Thank you!
Amen to that. Also does not make God look like a false prophet.
As Mid-Acts dispensational Baptist I very much agree with the charity and unity that this video calls for! Let us all study the scriptures and enjoy the essentials of the Christian faith together in the same. God bless you all!
Mid-acts and Baptist?
@@tarascoterry oh yes! Not very difficult actually (1 Cor. 1:14-17; Acts 16:15,33; 18:8) and like Matthew Poole and John Gill posit as a feasible interpretation in their commentaries I take 1 Cor. 15:29 to actually be referring to baptism being an emblem of our death in Christ and corporeal resurrection in him.
So yes I firmly believe that one can hold to a Mid-Acts dispensational view (Pauline dispensationalism) and hold to a Baptist ecclesiology.
Just as grounding for the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper for the Mystical Body of Christ comes from 1 Corinthians so does baptism.
@@IsaiahPatrick0115 Yeah, I've just never heard of anyone holding to both. So do you think baptism should be a requirement for church membership? Baptism is usually not subject to the "charity and unity" which is espoused for eschatology in this video. This would seem to make sense if you believe baptism is necessary for salvation, but that is not a common 'protestant' idea.
@@tarascoterry We’re out there lol. I would say it is a requirement according to 1 Corinthians (1:1- members of the local church at Corinth) & (1:13- all of them were baptized).
I do not believe baptism is necessary for salvation, any more that I believe that the Lord supper is, but these are emblems of the sacred grace of salvation which we already have. We observe these in light of our already finished and accomplished salvation as members of the body of Christ.
Thank you for this video, it helped me a lot with the questions of eschatology, and one I’ve learned, that I can’t really know every detail and that’s fine. God bless you Pastor!
Enjoyed the video a lot, myself an Amilennialist but jumping from idealism to partial preterism and vice versa, but after your case I'm pretty convinced on the latter
Good summary. I have been a post-millenialist for the longest time tending toward and a partial preterist
I spent my full life being a full futurist but I started openning my mind to partial preterism some years ago. Still cannot make sense of everything (probably never will) but if feel like comparatively speaking makes way more sense.
What can't you make sense of yet, if I may ask?
Trust the Holy Spirit to lead you into all truth. Not men.
@@heathers4961 The thing I've never understood about this kind of saying is, doesn't the Holy Spirit use men to achieve His ends?
@@Real_LiamOBryan Hi, yes he does. But scripture doesn't support this idea of shelving or ranking God's word into a hierarchy based on what we think.
When Jesus was being tempted in the wilderness he told Satan: Man will not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
In 2 Timothy
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Jesus warned us 3 times to let no man deceive us by any means, and that people will have itching ears heaping up for themselves teachers and will wander from the truth. People will be giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons.
Revelation is the only book with a blessing attached for anyone who would read and keep its words.
There is a stern warning at the end about those who would add or take away from the words in it.
Truth doesn't unite; it divides. Jesus told us that.
However, right now Satan is working hard to unite the world. Unity in itself is not righteous. People can be united for very wrong reasons.
Test ALL things and do not believe every spirit.
@@heathers4961 I don't quite get what you mean when you say, *"But scripture doesn't support this idea of shelving or ranking God's word into a hierarchy based on what we think."* Who is doing that, and how does that apply to the Futurism/Partial-Preterism discussion? I'm sorry. I'm trying, but I'm just not tracking, sister.
*"Revelation is the only book with a blessing attached for anyone who would read and keep its words."*
Yes, but it also said that the people alive at the time it was written, its original and primary audience, would understand things like the number of the beast if they had wisdom, but that would be impossible on a purely Futurist view.
*"Truth doesn't unite; it divides. Jesus told us that."*
Yet we are told in scripture to be united and of one mind, as well as to not even argue if it breaks the peace.
*"People can be united for very wrong reasons."*
Very true!
*"Test ALL things and do not believe every spirit."*
How do you test them?
So blessed and encouraged by this. I attend a multi site church with 7 pastors on staff who all hold different views on eschatology and soteriology. They minister side by side in love and God is doing great things.
Hey Gavin, I was curious which book of Ken Gentry’s you were referring to when you mentioned in the video that he took Josephus line by line and compared it with the middle chapters of Revelation and shows the similarities. I would love to pick up that resource and check it out.
helpful the different areas of eschatology explained
Love your channel, brother! One thing I keep thinking about is the often dual fulfilment of biblical prophecy, one near term and another that's far off into the future. We see it clearly woven throughout scriptures regarding His first coming so if you apply the same hermeneutic we should expect to see it with His return. The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD is prophecy fulfilled but I also believe we have yet to see it's greater fulfillment in the tribulation to come. Israel returning as a nation in the last century has profound eschatological significance. The fig tree has put forth it's leaves and Summer is near. The events of Zechariah 12 is the harvest of that fruit. I find myself learning a lot from the way you approach these topics with grace and humility
Seems like you really don’t understand the fig tree parable.
Hi Dr. Ortlund,
Thank you for this video! Since you mentioned that the final separation of believers and nonbelievers is something that Christians should affirm, do you think it would be right to divide over Christian universalism? It seems to me like this view would not meet the criteria. Thanks!
Interesting video. And as always, love your heart. 💯
I'd be very keen to hear a more detailed deep dive into why you think the Historicist view is not likely or less likely than partial preterism. What are some of the similarities and overlaps? What are the major differences, etc?
Blessings! 👑
Amillennial writers are very good at thematic analyses, dissecting the differences between this age and the age to come. Premillennial writers are good at laying out the chronology found in the Olivet discourse and the Revelation to John. For myself, I found that historic premillennialism coincided with my own reading of scripture and the apostolic fathers. But it is the Lord who knows the first things and the last things, so I'll leave it in his hands.
I appreciate a perspective that Mike Winger shared about progressive dispensationalism. This view emphasizes the "already, not yet" aspect of biblical prophecy, making it almost a blending of partial preterism and premillennialism in some ways. It's an intriguing position that I'm loosely holding to for now. More than anything, I'm a pan-millennialist--whatever pans out is fine with me! God knows best.
Can you do one on paedobaptism vs. credobaptism?
One video that might be helpful is a discussion about music in worship. There's a lot of controversy today over whether it's okay to have drums and electric guitars in church or if it's better just to have an organ or piano. Many detest the use of musical instruments at all. If memory serves, St. Augustine, at one point, didn't even want people to chant the Psalms because he was afraid the sound would distract them from the words.
This quote of St Augustine is well known in German churches:
„The one that sings prays twice.“
The Lord gives me strength, it’s only because of him I have persevered. I have two beautiful boys both are autistic. My husband passed away years ago. I’m all alone. I lost my job over declining the vaccine. LIKE MANY OTHERS! I declined due to my pre existing health conditions lupus and heart disease. I’ve been struggling to provide for myself and my children since losing my job from Forsyth hospital. I’m now waitressing, and I’m thankful, but I’m not making nearly enough to get by. Groceries are super expensive. Every month is a battle to not end up on the streets with my two children. I’m constantly in fear of losing my home. To even think about being on the streets with two young children is terrifying. But even as I face homelessness seemingly every month. I have faith, God will provide. With GOD ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE! Faith over fear.
Hi Dr. Ortlund. Would you consider a review of John 2:12 -- After this he went down to Capernaum, with his mother and his brothers and his disciples, and they stayed there for a few days. (ESV) -- in light of RCC perpetual virginity claims of Mary. Also Matt 1:25, and Matt 2:13-14, 20-21, where one wonders why Joseph was not ordered to take his other children with him, if he actually had other children from a previous marriage. Thanks for your work.
Does anyone know the reference made at 34:33 about Ken Gentry’s writing on this? I see he has a few books about Revelation but I would be interested to know which of his writings has the comparison referenced.
Couldn't agree more. Knottiness rules w grace, like Christ, Himself
Are there any preterist commentaries on Revelation that you would recommend?
In my humble opinion, I find it makes the most sense to consider everything before revelation 20, for the 1000 years to be the present, and everything after that to be the future.
Good video. Thank you so much. While I've not yet come to solid conclusions in eschatology, I also know that Christ Jesus comes again, judgement happens, and the new creation becomes a reality. I think part of the pull of specific eschatology, for me, is that I'd like to confidently know that I agree or disagree (and why) when a certain position is presented. For example, just the other day a Christian said she wished for the rapture already so she could be taken away from all this. In other words, this stuff is very much a part of many Christians' identity. Makes sense that I study it, but boy can it make my head swim! Also I like to learn, and sometimes people ask me to explain things and I think it's good to be able to.
Again, good video. Next I'll be looking closer at partial preterism.
Having a good understanding of hermeneutics first, goes a long ways before actually studying this topic.
As a postmil partial preterist I really appreciate the balanced view and I completely agree that we shouldn't divide over eschatology. A couple of things I will say is that I do believe eschatology has an impact on how we go about spreading the gospel and making disciples and the impact we have in this world before Christ returns. I believe having a more pessimistic view of eschatology causes us to give up on fighting to win this world. Why polish the brass on a sinking ship? In a more optimistic view like postmil we can have hope for the future and think about future generations and build for the future.
Also, I will add that most modern postmils hold a metaphorically view on the thousand years. Not a literal thousand year golden age. We share a similar view to amill in the sense that the millennium isn't a literal thousand years but we have an optimistic view of how history will play out before Christ returns.
Hi Gavin! I would recommend a book to you on this particular subject. I know there are many, but I think you will enjoy this one. It's titled When Jesus Returns by David Pawson.
Sidenote: he's not giving a date for when Jesus returns.
Great teaching!. Complicated subject no doubt but how much of this teaching has a bearing on ones salvation?. Thanks for your research.😎
Hey Gavin. Great video. I’m curious, does your view require a date for the book of Revelation being before 70 AD? Because historically the book of Revelation has been seen as being written in the 90s.
What is a problem text for the premillennial position? I cant find one
Dr Gavin, thank you for a balanced handling!
Btw, have you been introduced to the work of Dr Philip Kayser? He builds on the work of Gentry and others to make the most hermeneutically sound preterist schema yet, while avoiding many of the common problems found in popular partial and full preterist teaching. I highly recommend his Revelation Project sermon series, available on podcast.
cool, thanks for the tip!
@@TruthUnites Hi Gavin! I left you a comment over on your practicing gratitude video. Would you mind checking it out? I’ve been wrestling about the Enneagram and was wondering if you might dive into it more for us. Thanks for considering.
Gavin, how about a video on the various views of hell? Or on old earth versus new earth? Thanks again for the well-made and helpful videos!
I second this hell idea!
@@jonathanvickers3881 hell is the grave
In Jewish thought, the day of the lord is always near. There is this idea that if Israel will perfectly keep the commandments for just one day, the end will come.
Where does performing triage fit into the triage?
In all seriousness, Bruce Gore's UA-cam channel has a series of lectures that objectively explains the varying schools of thoughts and their origins on these matters.
Can someone be both a partial preterist and pre trib? By that I mean that a typical pre trib view but with partial prophetic fulfillment? It seams that may of the OT prophecies had a partial fulfillment and then a full fulfillment later on.
Gavin, do you hold an early dating of Revelation? Before 70AD?
I feel like the practical effect of views on the millennium is more in the interpretation of other texts like Daniel 7-12, Zechariah, Ezekiel’s temple, the little apocalypses from the Synoptics, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, etc.
I do find it interesting that Christians in the 20th century would shift to the more “pessimistic” view regarding the direction of history. Perhaps that’s not so surprising given the world events they were experiencing. My general view of eschatology is “if I remain faithful to the Lord and familiar with the scriptures, I’ll know it when I see it.”
Almost 42 years I've studied the Scriptures, even after 3 Theology Colleges I've reached greater insight.
Let us say, because the Scriptures say this or that .... we let the Holy Spirit speak to the listener as He speaks to Yeshua and on to our Father.
I will hear you again.
Do a vid on the law for Christians and the different views!!!
Or maybe on Sabbatarians
Thanks Gavin, I enjoy watching a disciple in Christ seeking to "rightly divide The Word of Truth" by searching the Scriptures. Preaching to the choir of course, one must never be myopic in their examination of The Word of God, lest he fall into believing a different gospel (which -as you know - is why we should always pray prior to reading The Word, asking for The Holy Spirit to provide insight, guidance, wisdom, and discernment that the fleshly aspect of our nature lacks). Thanks and appreciation aside, I am examining your claims starting at 37:41 where you make claim that the Scripture quoted is addressed only to the the people that Christ is presently speaking to. You invoke the pronoun "you" in the most literal of senses (the direct reference to the person(s) in immediacy to Christ), but I understand this differently. We know that Scripture is for all generations and every Word of God has meaning even in the present age as there is wisdom even behind even what many would conclude are purely historical events depicted in the more ancient times of the OT. That said, I see the word "you" in these verses as the Generic "you", and not the Specific "you" as you imply in your exposition on this slide. In other words, it infers a broader audience than the immediate audience of that specific time. Would you care to comment/clarify your position here, if you would be so kind. I just do not see compelling evidence that this pronoun is spoken in the Specific context. I see the pronoun "you" in most of these phrases as a generalization of His witness pool, which is all of humanity, time present and time future. Again, thanks for the wonderful videos. They always make me search even deeper into Scripture to rightly divide The Word of Truth.
I would be interested to hear what you think of the apparitions of Mary and the prophesies that come with that on a triage based view
I am amillennial and a partial preterist. It’s not an easy view to hold in the American South.
Try being a postmillennial partial preterist in the deep South. They think you arw nuts, lol
Its not an easy view to hold biblically either.
Hy Dr. Ortlund, do you could make a respond to Trent Horn about the video called "One question Protestants can’t answer"?
The inherent problem with post-mil theology is that it has created aberrations such the social gospel, Christian reconstructionism, Kingdom Now and dominion theology, as well as Christian nationalism.
As a partial preterist myself I approve this video lol
How do we interpret: And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven MK 14:62 from a partial preterist viewpoint?
From an Orthodox perspective, theological triage is a confounding proposition. Have you had an opportunity to dialogue with any Orthodox Christians about it? I’d be interested in hearing how it went. Within Orthodoxy, I’ve never heard of eschatology being a a cause for division. I imagine most EO are amillennialist, but I’m sure there are those among us who ascribe to other theories. Protestants would probably be surprised at how little attention we pay to eschatology at all. Thanks for the summation of the varied theories - I’d never really considered most of them.
You might be surprised to find out the same variety of views on the millennium (pre/post/amillenial) exist in orthodoxy as well. It’s not as though orthodox Christians are quite as theologically United as it is often made out to be.
@@nickhanley5407 it wouldn’t surprise me at all. If it isn’t clearly expressed by Holy Tradition (Scripture, Creeds, Councils, consensus of the Fathers), we don’t dogmatize it.
Anecdotal, but most of the E.O folks Ive run across have been historic premil.
@@joefrescoln that’s interesting. I’ve never personally met any EO that were anything other than amillennial, albeit my experience is limited.
@@cassidyanderson3722 My limited experience has been with ROCOR. I wonder if different sees lean a certain way or other.
Another great video Gavin! I imagine those who would say, “We’re living in the New Heavens & New Earth right now,” are probably living in a comfortable Western democracy. I certainly wouldn’t feel excited to teach that view in the slums of India or to survivors of the Rwandan genocide.
I've thought about the typology of the second coming and I generally think of a wedding rehearsal. I think this makes sense as to prepare the bride(:
I am personally a historic premillennialist as the Early Church was highly oriented towards that view, with the exception of Origen, Augustine and Cyprian
Hippolytus and Irenaeus both speak of a rapture as does Ephraim.
@@tonyb408 not as pretribulation
@@fivesolae5379 yes, as pretrib. Ephraim sometimes speaks of a 3.5 year tribulation but his rapture is still before that.
@@tonyb408 Will you please provide your sources for claiming that Hippolytus, Irenaeus and Ephraim (or any other early Christian theologian) ascribed to the concept of a rapture as we understand it today?
@@cassidyanderson3722 Ireneaus-Against heresies 5.29.1, Hippolytus read the Christ & Antichrist and understand his chronology (64), see the pre-trib conf presentation from 2021 by Lee Brainerd with 10 additional statements by Ephrem beyond the pseudo document. The first two can be read in the standard volumes of the church fathers.
Yes
I currently hold to the pre-mil post-trib view, largely influenced by Joel Richardson. Not holding to this dogmatically, it's more of a reflection of where i'm at with regards to understanding His word.
Hey Gavin, very helpful video. To help me understand a partial preterist view, is it fair to say that the judgement upon Jerusalem in 70 a.d. is a fulfillment of the olivet discourse and Daniel 7 etc. BUT it’s also pointing the future of Christ’s second coming where those prophecies will be fully fulfilled?
As an Amill, yes. It’s a literal, partial fulfillment, but also is a typological example of the things to come, as is many other things regarding eschatology. When Jesus says “coming on the clouds,” he is quoting Daniel 7 and coming in judgment on Israel, and not referring to His second coming.
A lot of partial preterism involves the idea of dual fulfillment prophecy... the idea that one prophecy will be fulfilled by multiple events at different times.
I grew up in the preTrib rapture church but never believed. Looking at their timelines, they had two second comings- preTeib and post Trib. I, too, am a partial preterist. I believe in only one second coming, not a third coming. I did not divide over it. Yes, RC Sroull was a partial preterist.
I was always taught preterism was heresy. But I see how partial preterism can have some valid points. I think dual fulfillment comes most to my mind on this topic. I can see how a lot of what was foretold was fulfilled, but a few key things have not yet. Therefore Nero could have been “an antichrist” without being THE ultimate one. The desolation of Jerusalem also being one of the judgements, perhaps foreshadowing an even worse time coming in the future. I see this very similar to passages in Daniel. The wars of the Diadochi line up extremely well with one of his visions, as does the man of lawlessness with the person Antiochus Epimanes. But some verses still really can’t find complete fulfillment in those events but seem to line up more with the actual “end.” Again this could be a foreshadow or taste of what is to come. So in that sense I’d somehow see myself as both a partial preterist and a premillennial. 🤔
How do we know that there wasn't a thousand year reign already, and that we are in the short season wherein we are being deceived? "'After that, he must be set free for a short time."
Full Preterism is refuted with this verse: “They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. “Men of Galilee, “they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.” (Acts 1:10-11) The world has never seen Jesus descend from the sky to the earth therefore his second coming remains a future event.
Could you make another video explaining in detail your end times views? Like how do you deal with Jesus saying in Matthew "immediately" after the tribulation of that time, you will see Jesus coming in the clouds and sending out His angels to gather His elect? If the great tribulation happened in 70 A.D., why didn't Jesus return?
I'm honestly wondering. It does seem like the clearest interpretation of the generation would be the one alive at the time of Christ. But Jesus hasn't physically returned yet, so I don't know how that couldn't mean that Jesus was talking about the generation that would be here at the end of the age.
You misrepresented James Steward Russell. He strenuously argued against squishing down the millennium. In fact, he actually thought we were still in the millennium.
Pan-mil.
Yeah. I’ll grab that.
Thanks again Gavin
Why do you think the foolish virgins don’t bring enough oil to last all night?
Amill, Partial Preterist here 👌🔥💥😂
That the thousand-years is mentioned 6 times in Rev. 20 favors a literal interpretation. The future earthly kingdom is very prominent throughout the OT, particularly in the prophets. So Revelation is simply adding the time duration, which was not mentioned in the OT, to the teaching of the future earthly kingdom.
When Jesus says “this generation” He seems to be talking about the generation that will see and experience these things, but not necessarily the generation in the first century.
The difficulty with that take is that "this" and "that" in Greek, as in English, are different words. If Jesus had been talking about a future generation, the more natural expression would have been "that generation will not pass away until all these things take place" (Mat. 24:34). Also, Mat. 23:36 says the same thing and the context is that the pharisees to whom he was speaking to were going to "fill up" or complete the sins of their fathers. It's too contextually specific to be a later generation.
@@jrhemmerich while the Greek has different words for “this“ and “that,“ just like in English the context of the words can determine whether or not it is talking about current or future. In the case of Matthew 23, the context is clear that “this“ refers to the generation of the Pharisees in the first century. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that this same Greek word for “this“ that is used in Matthew 24 automatically refers to the generation of the apostles. You have to look at the entire chapter in order to discern that “this“ generation simply refers to the generation that will see and experience the specific things that Jesus is talking about. In fact, earlier in the chapter, Matthew writes “let the reader understand.“ Matthew is writing probably around AD 50. So, while it is possible that his readers could be the generation that experiences these things, since they would have been reading prior to the destruction of the Temple, it doesn’t leave out the possibility that this could still be talking about a future generation reading this beyond AD 70.
@@BornAgainRN, I’m sympathetic with the attempt, I used to try and divide Matthew up. The strategy was to equate Luke’s period of the trampling of the gentiles over Jerusalem with the great tribulation, and so draw out the tribulation into our present and thus put the cloud coming in our future.
I still think that what made the AD 70 tribulation so great was that the exile lasted so long, when compared to the 70 years in Babylon. However, it’s just really hard to convince oneself that there is any need to delay the cloud coming once one understands its OT background and we can distinguish judgment comings at the end of the Mosaic age and temple from the second comming at the end of the New Covenant Kingdom age. And the “judgement coming” uses the typical astronomical signs for the burning of cities in war, which were to occur “immediately” after the tribulation that the disciples were supposed to flee Jerusalem to escape.
The problem with the “this” and the “that” is that we are stuck with “this” and there really is no reason to take anything in Matthew 24 as having to do with a third temple. If Matthew 23’s context is clear, the transition to the question in 24:2 is also pretty clear and connected with what was said in Jesus’ temple teaching in 23.
So far as I can tell the only real reason to put Mat 24 into the future is the reference to the abomination of desolation. So really people are using 2 Thess 2 and Daniel 11:36-12:13 to dictate the placement of Matthew 24. Its understandable that this is difficult. Do you think this last observation on the main reason to be relatively accurate?
@@BornAgainRN He doesn't just say "this generation" He also says "these stones." That blows away any notion that He's talking about some temple thousand of years away.
And if you want context. Look at the chapter before and see Him tell the Jewish leadership that their generation will pay for the blood of the saints and profits.
He also told his prosecutors that "they" would see the son of Man come.
Why believe Darby over Jesus?
And when was the temple destroyed and the Jewish leadership punished? In THAT generation.
Which generation witnessed the destruction of the temple? And the fleeing of the Christians from Jerusalem in time to escape the tribulation?
"Are we going to say that Augustine...are hermeneutically suspicious?"
On this particular point, yes. Why not. The leading lights of Gospel truth of any given time are liable to be wrong about some particular area or other. That includes today, which is why we should continue to be careful. This sounds like it's moving toward an "everyone's doing it," argument.
Also, your historical examples of who was post-mil and a-mil in the past actually argue for the practical importance of the doctrine in the life of the Church. For example, "The Puritans were Post-mil..." Yes, and their hermeneutic was greatly tainted by Christian Utopianism in which their expectation was that they were building the worldly millennial kingdom on earth by their own personal piety and political/legalistic efforts in the world. This had very real repercussions on the lives of believers and lead to serious error and trouble. The Utopianism and their Post-mil doctrine are not merely coincidental. The travesty of British Israelism and the extravagancies of many cults come from thinkers identifying their efforts or group with "Establishing the Kingdom on Earth."
Also, that the main confessions of history have generally been a-mil has allowed them to lessen their apocalyptic expectation over time which the Gospel expects us to maintain. That God is going to once again, when we least expect it, plunge dramatically into the course of human history, has a serious impact on one's stance toward the world and history. Yes, a-mils believe in the Second Coming and Judgement, but that is a closing of the book of history rather than the final glorious chapter. The lack of (Biblical) pessimism concerning the world-system specifically allows more conciliation with the world among a-mils, while pre and post are expectant of a necessary and dramatic distinction (though post-mils see this distinction being eventually overcome).
I believe a Pre-mil stance is the most consistent with (note I didn't say "necessary for") the proper positioning of the believer in the world and human history. We are aliens in a foriegn land. We work for the good of people and the world, but we don't expect the world to stop being the world because of it and become disheartened. We aren't going to "save the world" through our Spirit-led efforts. It will still be the messed up world when Christ comes, and *He alone* will overcome the nations, right all wrongs, and establish His throne. An expectation of the eschaton, gracious seperation from the world while laboring in it, and humility regarding our role and that of Christ, placing our hope on Christ alone during the time of our laboring rather than on our labors themselves in Christ, and others are effects which Pre-mil tends to nurture.
I will not ignore the abuses of the Pre-mil position either. Some have tended to become fully world-denying or world-hating apocalypticists or at least turn from their responsibilities as "salt" and "light." There are often cults that have apocalyptic stances which come from an idea of God coming any day to smite the nations and set up Utopia. Let's not forget the mass embarrassment and lingering doctrinal error stemming from Miller's Dispensational calculations in the Great Dissapointment of the Millerites.
But my point was not necessarily that one position is better or worse relative to hermeneutics and practical theology and life so much as simply to remind us that these issues *do* in fact have such an impact.
I am also not arguing that these should be categorized as Second Tier, much less First Tier, doctrines. They *should not* , in themselves, be matters of division.
I merely wish to point out that we can also go too far in the opposite direction if we deny the reality of their practical effects.
You only covered 1 viewpoint and barely mentioned the other stuff?
I became a Christian 12 years ago from a background of secular Judaism, atheism, New Ageism, lay Buddhism, and even some Saivism (Hindu), and one thing that struck me about the Christian world after entering it are the secondary and tertiary doctrines that, for me, often lead people to spend a lot of time on issues that not only cause division within the Church but also impact the behaviors of Christians in a negative way. The End Times obsession (from writings that no one agrees on because they are apocalyptic) often makes Christians passive and defeatist. There is evil to be fought against today that many Christians don't stand up to and mutter that it's just the End Times. And then people hunker down in their churches and wait... If the German Church had stood up against Hitler in large numbers, Hitler might have been defeated much earlier.