Pastor Keith Foskey aka King of the Amillennialists and Pastor Doug Wilson aka Prince of the Postmillennialists have a friendly debate over eschatology. #fancyamil #grumpypostmil #Postmillennialism #amillennialism
2 heavyweights of the faith (on more levels than 1😂) go head to head! A battle for the ages. Can't wait to enjoy this treat from the 2 funniest pastors in America.
What a wonderful conversation.... it was way too short! I wish our church pulpits here in the UK were as full of grace, wisdom and humour as these two are.
I’m glad for our heritage but an made imminently sad by the Church in the UK. Honestly, there is a huge divide in the US but many pastors have woken up and the church militant is on the march. Praying the church in the UK would do the same and that it would break in the right direction despite all signs pointing the other way.
Oh man it ended right when it started to get going, and it wasn’t really a debate but oh well I still enjoyed it. Please have these two great men on again. God bless
One thing-a quote from Spurgeon-condensed. “Pastor Spurgeon, I preach and no one’s getting saved.” Spurgeon asks, “do u expect someone to get saved every time u preach?” “No, I guess not.” Spurgeon. “thats your problem.”
From 27:08 - 27:32 Keith says, "It would take such a wholesale and massive change… it might change my eschatology if I saw all of our senators repent…" Doesn't this indicate that he's not basing his eschatological expectations on faith in God's promises, but rather on his sight?
This is the most joyful exchange I have ever heard regarding eschatology. When pre-mill folks get together and talk eschatology it is so common for people to get angry or upset.
@greggpurviance7252 I grew up in an IFB pre-mill dispensational church and I've seen more than half a dozen angry eschatological discussions. May not be the case everywhere but sadly it was in and around the churches that I grew up in.
@danielnoel3540 IFB church... How did they argue about the different Bible translations? Calmly and peacefully.... r... r.... right....? Those people have many more problems and it only appears in their "discussions."
@@greggpurviance7252 lol Maybe not angry but a little loopy on the constant theories and signs and wonders that are always just around the bend with pre-mills. It's funny you'll never hear a premill say the world's going to end in 2190
The disagreement is this: 1)Christ will always have a remnant within a rebellious world or 2)Christ shall overcome this world so much so, that the wheat will outnumber the tares and the law of the land everywhere will be like Israel’s before they were exiled to Babylonia.
The spirit of this debate was great! But the content was an absolute joke. I clicked on this video, expecting them to open their Bibles and show why the Book supports their belief. Did I miss that part?
I listened to Voddie Bauchams sermon series on Revelation, he is A-Mill, and totally convinced me…I would be too curious to know what he’d say about the whole question of optimism. It’s definitely something I have not wrapped my head around, what to expect. I haven’t actually heard much comparison between A and Post, so this was really interesting! Whenever people preach it seems the one thing they are trying to dismantle is Pre, but comparing post and A rarely happens. Thanks!
This was the first truly edifying debate I've ever heard...and I've heard many. I've never felt joy in a debate before and that matters so much. God bless these gentlemen for espousing joy in Christ while debating. RARE. So much love for this video.
I absolutely loved this! Brothers coming together to have a good-faith conversation about opposing views. I’d love to see more postmil vs premil debates. God bless you all!
If wholesale cultural roto-rooting is going to occur, it will be POST-US...Too much at stake financially for wholesale repentance and renewal under the current American "dispensation."
"Many will come to Me in that day, saying Lord, Lord, to whom I will say, "Depart from Me, I never knew you."" Suppose this implies 1/2 of the Christian community are apostates, along with the majority of the world that are unrepentant God-haters. Scripture seems to imply that the enemies of Christ will be more vehement as the Day approaches. "As in the days of Noah" seems to imply wickedness will gain on Earth before Jesus Christ returns. I am incredibly optimistic that "all the Father has given to [Jesus] will come to [Jesus,]" but I disagree with Doug that the optimism regarding souls is the same as Dispensational optimism. I see Dispy optimism is as heavily weighted by the hope of Rapture or as I refer to it, escape. Amillennialism seems the most Scriptural, realistic eschatology, without undue cultural optimism, or undue escapist hope. I know Christ has won the war & believe the continues battles are Him bringing in former enemies as the elect while He judges the wicked in time & beyond. I also fear the Postmillennialism has been done in the 19thC. when mainline denoms went cultural gospel & lost their moorings in the Christian faith, eventually losing Christianity wholesale. JMO
I was raised Roman Catholic and God saved be out of that, and then went to a Baptist church(exposed to premil/rapture) and believed it, then going through Voddie's study on Revelation and found I couldn't get premil/rapture to fit with scripture. Then studied Darby and was like why having belief in a "prophetic" revelation by a man of only about 200 years, have rested on Amillennialism and always find Amillennial and postmillennial friends and dispensationalist people don't talk to me lol....now going to an OPC church
That was a blessing! Thank you for help in understanding why eschatology matters, but also how we can pray together in Christ after we talk about it!❤️🙏
No response to why u r optimistic. The Postmil looks at Isa 2 and sees all nations flowing to the Lord's Mt and many people coming to worship. Then there's 1 Cor 15:25 and Col 1:20, he reconciles all things to himself.. Isa 42 speaks to his being faithful to bring forth justice. Study these verses well and like me your views will be changed, guaranteed.
Nope! No optimism. Luke 18:8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? -Jesus is pessimistic about the End.
What they dont tell you is that every prophecy in the bible where a time is given for the prophecy, is always literal. The Millennium cannot begin until the return of Christ and the resurrection of the saints. Anyone who says otherwise is not merely misinterpreting the test, they are rewriting it to fit a specific view that seeks to omit the final tribulation and trouble that precedes Christs return, which has a purpose. Judgement begins at the house of the Lord, and if the righteous are scarcely saved, what then for the lost.
When Christ says “no one knows the day or the hour”. The first question that comes to mind is the context and audience relevance. Why do we rip that out of the Bible?
Ive never heard a single explanation of eschatology that addresses scripture as a whole. Ive seen a whole bunch of "yeah, yeah, but look at this verse over here"
If just the possibility of Jesus returning and catching us with our knickers down is what keeps us faithful and committed Christians, then we are whores through and through. One of the weakest arguments ever is one that suggests what keeps us alert and faithful is the immanent return of Christ. Are we Reformed or not?
It really depends on which version of either you're looking at. For Doug and Keith? Doug's a pp postmill guy, while Keith is an optimistic amill guy, who (thankfully) rejects the "radical" two-kingdoms idea. I do believe both would hold to the more historic understanding of two-kingdoms - that there's the civil and governmental, but Christ rules over both. The church is not in control of the government, but does offer godly wisdom to the rulers. (So-called "radical" two-kingdoms... think of Dr. Horton, for instance... would say there's two-kingdoms and never shall the two meet. Almost as if Christ doesn't rule in the affairs of men.) So, the biggest difference between Doug and Keith is expectation of what the expansion of the gospel will do. Personally, this is one of the things that pushed me from Amill to Postmill. I was being inconsistent believing that the gospel would go forth and change hearts, but not too many (I guess Christ doesn't want that?) and that the man with a changed heart wouldn't seek to live in accordance with that new heart (re: a changed society, made up of men, women, and children who seek to live out their faith the best they can).
@@stuffipost137this is an honest question since you are more postmil. How do you account for the forces of Gog being able to surround and nearly amohilate the church in Revelation 20?
Jesus and the Apostles and new converts over the years have healed people, raised the dead and calmed the storms, and greater things, essentially proving to the world that Jesus was ALREADY victorious and brought Heaven down. The real debate should be what happened to stop heaven from coming to earth, who is now shutting the door to the kingdom of heaven? The answer is simple and in the Bible.
17:12 Doug: "There will be holdouts." Eeeeeeekkkkk!!! You have to turn the Earth upside down like never has been before to be in an Age where the rejectors and haters of God are shaved down to "holdouts." Ughhhhh no way Jose
My problem with dispensational pretribulationism is that “he that now letteth shall be taken out of the way,” which is assumed to be the Holy Spirit, and yet 144,000 Jews get saved during the tribulation. How do men get saved without the Holy Spirit? Doug Wilson makes exegesis fun!
I think that the problem with eschatological views is that they all project a great amount of baggage upon the opposing views and ignore the historical behaviors.
Around the 00:20:00 mark, Doug addresses the issue of suffering (which we all agree is essential for sanctification), even in the Postmillennial golden age. But he needs to be pressed much harder on this very point, since much of his thinking is based on his understanding of Isaiah 65. I think he's correct in describing this life, even until the end of the world, as being a 'veil of tears.' (Seems a bit pessimistic, does it not?) But if Isaiah 65 is clear on anything, it is that there are no more tears in the new creation. "Be glad and rejoice FOREVER in what I create." "I create Jerusalem to be a joy." "NO MORE SHALL BE HEARD IN IT THE SOUND OF WEEPING." "NO MORE SHALL BE HEARD IN IT THE CRY OF DISTRESS." "The wolf and the lamb shall graze together." "The lion shall eat straw like an ox." "They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain." Isaiah is very explicit, that weeping and crying are banished. How can the Postmill say then, "Life in the new creation is a veil of tears"? For my part, I think the Amil explanation is much more coherent. Isaiah 65 is highly figurative. Isaiah is giving his readers a sense of the world to come, by using typological frameworks. Just as I would not argue from Isaiah 65 that heaven must have animals (lambs, wolves, lions, oxen, serpents, etc.), so too I don't think it's appropriate to see death as a necessary aspect of God's new creation. Indeed, Isaiah 25:7-8, 35:10, 51:11, Revelation 7:17, 21:4, to name just a few, make it clear that death will not be an aspect of the new creation, so Isaiah 65 must be seen as figurative language. I'm convinced that this is why we should let scripture interpret scripture and leave off both the Dispy and Postmill propensity for using the newspapers as their primary hermeneutical grid.
With the death portion of that passage in Isaiah, that’s where the Post Mil points to show that that chapter is talking about the kingdom being built in earth, before Christ returns and creation is redeemed like it is described at the end of the chapter
@@arcanum3882 Correct, and I'm suggesting Postmil interpreters can't have it both ways. If death is to be expected in the new creation because of Isa. 65:20, then tears are not to be expected, since the death verse is immediately proceeded by the no tears verse. What I'm getting at here is that prophetic language is inherently figurative and typological. The result for us is that during the Old Testament era, these things were wrapped in a mystery. It was not so clear, but we don't have that excuse now that we have a more complete revelation in the New Testament. Isa. 65:19 I will rejoice in Jerusalem [and] be glad in my people; NO MORE shall be heard in it THE SOUND OF WEEPING [and] THE CRY OF DISTRESS. 20 No more shall there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, [or] an old man [who] does not fill out his days, [for] the young man shall die a hundred years old, [and] the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed. We might say that verse 20 is a further development of verse 19. You can ask, why is there no weeping? Because the normal life and death cycle is transformed. But how can there be no tears if there is still death? This mystery is resolved in the further development of what the new heavens and new earth consists of in the New Testament. There are no tears or death in heaven.
@@PostPostiesErr, wait. Don't you have the same problem? Postmil says it can't be the new earth because there is death, and in your last post you seem to agree that there won't be death, yet here we have death. So either Christ doesn't defeat the last enemy, or at least this part of the chapter isn't about the new earth. If we insist that the entire chapter must either be about the new earth or the time proceeding the new earth, either way creates a conflict. It seems a bit of a forced conflict IMO for postmil, but a pretty heavy one for someone who I sists this is the eternal state with death, contrary to many other passages. I guess I missed how you avoid your own trap.
@@oracleoftroy Truth be told, I don't have a good solution for Isaiah 65. It's one of the biggest pieces in the eschatological puzzle that I don't have a satisfactory answer for. Even so, all I'm trying to establish is that this OT prophecy text is far too opaque and cloaked in mystery to allow it to govern my overall framework. Even the postmill theologians agree that when we have various scriptural passages that are obviously related to each other, it's best practice to allow the more clear and agreed upon texts to shed light on the more difficult and allusive texts. When I look at all the other new creation, new heavens, new earth type of texts, the others point to an everlasting joy, without death or weeping. Therefore, when I circle back to Isaiah 65, I feel forced by the rest of scripture to say, Isaiah must have been speaking with some sort of prophetic perspective that allowed him to foreshadow the glories to come, while only looking through a glass dimly. Side Note: If we take things too literally in Isaiah 65, we might be tempted to conclude that we're all supposed to be stoics. But, when our friends and family die, we do and will always weep, this side of heaven. Death is inherently sad, Jesus wept even though he knew he was about to raise Lazarus from the dead. As Doug said, this life is a veil of tears. Therefore, Isaiah 65 must be highly figurative and should be treated as such.
They're both wonderful nen of God. In the Kingdom I can imagine alot of good nstured humor will be derived from the theology of our previous lives, particularly eschatology. We'll all be surprissed to some extent, and ultimately both grateful for our deliverance and amused at our hubris
First time watcher! What is the song that opens and closes this video, please? I really like it. Also, I enjoyed this discussion very much. I just recently discovered Ps. Doug Wilson and also just recently began wanting to understand eschatology and figure out my own beliefs on that.
Questions for Amill: 1. Can you explain how Satan is currently bound and not deceiving the nations (Rev 20:3) yet Satan is deceiving the nations at the same time (1 John 5:19; Rev 12:9)? 2. In your scheme WHEN do the events in Rev 20:7-10 take place? (NOTE Satan is released at that point which means Satan has been bound, I.e., has not been deceiving the nations.) 3. If “came to life” means a "spiritual conversion (?)" what does "beheaded" mean (Rev 20:4)? NOTE beheading comes before "came to life." 4. In Rev 20:4c-5 you have two resurrections, using the same words for both. So how is it possible that “the first resurrection” is not literal and the second resurrection is literal? (NOTE the noun anastasis always means a literal, physical resurrection of dead people.) 5. If there are no mortals in the kingdom how do you explain Isaiah 65-66? 6. Since in your view there’s only one resurrection of ALL the dead, what does “the rest of the dead mean” (Rev 20:5)?
Hi, I’m new to the Amillenial perspective so I’m answering this as an exercise of my own understanding, not to fight. I hold this view loosely. 1. Satan was able to offer the kingdoms of the world to Jesus while tempting him in the desert. Jesus didn’t correct him by saying the kingdoms weren’t his to give. At the cross Jesus “bound the strong man” and the gospel went out to the gentiles afterwards. Before the cross, Israel was exclusively in Covenant with God and the nations were deceived. At the ascension Jesus declared all authority in heaven and on earth had been given to him, therefore go and make disciples of all nations. Satan is bound from being able to prevent that specifically. 2. At the end of the “thousand years” Satan is released to be allowed one final attempt at battle. This is before the second resurrection (physical bodily resurrection on earth). 3. My understanding is the first resurrection is when the believer dies and is alive with Christ, albeit disembodied. No head, no problem. Our spiritual conversion is when that date is sealed, we will never die, though we die we shall live, do you believe this?.. 4. Thrones in Heaven, where the disembodied saints are. Look into thrones mentioned in visions in the Bible, those are heavenly thrones. 5. 66 could be fit into any millennial view, 65 when it says that a child shall die at 100 and a sinner being 100 shall be accursed; if it means that living a natural life in the post resurrection millennium (premil) why would it be a curse for the sinner to be 100? In the amil stance, dying at 100 years old to enter the grave and only be raised up to enter the lake of fire fits. As for the youth dying at 100, I can only guess that somehow alludes to a full life awaiting those who died in infancy or childhood. I’ve long considered what the new creation would look like, we no longer marry or are given in marriage, but so many of us have had miscarriages, myself included, would it be possible that we get to raise up those children in the new creation but they don’t have to die, since they technically already did? 6. One bodily resurrection, we won’t all sleep but will all be changed… at the last trumpet. Glorified bodies are not going to those who get thrown in the lake of fire. One general, bodily resurrection, only the saved get to eat from the tree of life, ie eternal life in the new creation. I started changing from historic premil a few weeks ago because I couldn’t fit the unsaved into the millennium after the “not all will sleep but all will be changed”. And the animal sacrifices that view has coming back for 1000 years, and everyone having to travel to Jerusalem each year or it won’t rain. It also bothered me that the New Testament really seems to quote OT prophecy as if the kingdom is the church age, not post second coming.
The heavy weights is truly evident....as for the debate itself, well, not so much. The deplorable way some mangle, what is a simple understanding of scripture, becuase for some reason they know more about the interpretation (opinion!!) then Paul, via the Holy Spirit, intended formhis audience. This is a waste of time.
Doug Wilson, you have time to agree with the other side in a debate, but have no time to debate a Full Preterist? C’mon sir, you’ve taken the time to write extensive books, surely you have a bit of time to meet head to head with those whose views you often attack. You quoted “no man knows the day or hour” but ignore the phrase “truly THIS generation shall not pass away until…” as a time text. Let’s get a debate scheduled.
What if we look at the parable of the five virgins and their oil lamps as the Apostles on the night of the arrest in the garden? Only two stayed with Jesus throughout his trial and tribulation (Peter and John,) while the other nine scattered like sheep without a shepherd.
Seems to me the key difference is whether a major worldwide revival CAN take place before Christ returns (which amills should affirm) or whether it MUST take place before His return (which is problematic because of all the imminency verses and benefits).
Another important issue, which I think all stripes of believers get wrong, is the assumption that the universalistic prophecies mean that the gospel MUST go farther than it's already gone before Christ returns. Besides the imminency problem mentioned above, this assumption misses the fact that in Colossians 1 Paul declares those prophecies fulfilled in the first century: verses 5-6 say, "the truth of the gospel, which has come to you, as it has also in all the world," and verse 23 says, "the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven." Ironically, some who are otherwise critics of "wooden literalism" seem to be failing to recognize the figurative elements in some key prophecies. (For another example, it would be consistent with other OT prophecies to understand the imagery of Isaiah 65:20 as a poetic way of referring to eternal life.)
Doug Wilson, a "fancy prince" haha. Not a term I would've thought would've applied to him. Perhaps Christian Crusader, Masculine Commander, , but "fancy prince"? Hahahaha, never.
This was really fun and super helpful. I have really struggled to get a straight answer on the difference between optimistic amil and postmil. Thank you all for doing this.
