As an Amill who's in agreement with most everything stated here, I do think the moderator needed to push back on the wheat and tares parable. If Sam doesn't understand the Postmill argument, then you have to spell it out clearly for Sam. Don't just move on to the next question.
I really like Waldron. In my 25 year studies, been thru all the ideas and accept capitulation, but see a Comprehensive Historicist Model to understand Revelation.
I've heard the series of why every Calvinist should be a premillennialist, and never heard John MacArthur say that Agustin was a premillennialist. He did say that Agustin was part of the people that started promoting amillenialism. Maybe I'm missing something 🙏🏼
This was really helpful, but perhaps someone on Dr. Waldrons level can try to explain a different understanding of “separation of church and state” as a recognition of the different institutions, and not a principle of separating God and state (which he then goes on to apply in some sense right after (with the second table comments), so I don’t really know why he’s so perplexed about how to understand it) Edit: maybe Pastor Howards recent article on a Christian nation would be a helpful read!
The argument for the recapitulation for the seals, trumpets, bowls is a strong one because they all end with thunder and lightning, which then gets connected to the judgment of the great city in the seventh trumpet (and Rev. 14:14-20). and the Seventh bowl (Rev. 16:19). The battle in 19 also seems to fit in this recapitulation as the winepress of the city is mentioned again (19:15). That said, I am inclined to think that Amillennialism requires a partial-preterist reading. The difficulty with the idealist position for me is that it departs from the historical symbolism of books like Daniel. The symbols are not of generic kingdoms but of specific kingdoms. And the sea beast of Revelation 13 is clearly Rome, not just some generic symbol for all kingdoms. Certainly, it has that application, but that's not the referent of the symbol. The land beast seems to point to Judea as it tried to form a kingdom not after Christ, but in the image of the beast (Rome/Nero) and to exercise authority in Rome's presence. There are also timing arguments from Chapter 12 and 20 that really seem to place the binding of Satan after the martyrdom of the Apostles and after the death of the Beast (Nero) in Chapter 19. But this would place the binding of Satan around the time of the fall of Jerusalem. And then the millennial or gospel age unfolds until the return of Christ (Rev. 20:9-13). The 5 Roman kings that “are fallen” in Rev. 17 are also a pretty big deal for me as far as internally dating the book. This would place its composition during the reign of Nero around AD 65, after the fire in Rome. John is exiled, and Peter and Paul eventually killed. It is actually this partial-preterist exegetical sequence that turned me into an amillennialist. It took me a while to understand Jesus' cloud coming as a providential judgment coming, but that does fit Isa. 19's use of this language, and it seems clear that Jesus' actions in several of the churches were a form of judgment comings against them. If this could be true of Jezebel, why not against Jerusalem and its spectacular fall? It makes a lot of sense to me.
Thank you for discussing your views on Revelation online, I am busy working through them. I am a confirmed amillennialist but have a question that I haven’t been able to find an answer to. In Rev20:3 when Satan has been bound for 1000 years (church age) that he should not deceive the nations anymore, allowing the gospel to spread through all nations, it then says that he must be loosed a little season. This is the part I’m not sure about, the little season Satan is loosed. What is that period? What is happening then? Does that period have any particular characteristics?
I don’t know the answer for sure but I would say a time where the true gospel is severely retarded by God removing much of His restraining grace or not giving people grace to believe the pure gospel.
The premil position in the times of Jesus was Jewish eschatology. Jesus, however, repudiated this in such passages as Luke 17:20-21; John 18:37-38; John 6:14-15.
If the church is the fulfillment of the promise of a people given to the father through the son it would appear to me that the current state of ethnic Israelites is no longer in view ?
Postmil guy here: Some important distinctions to make with pastor Sam Waldron. While he rightly recognizes that 1 Corinthians 15 does not allow for a future Kingdom, it is worth noting that the passage does not allow for a flat kingdom either. The Lord must reign until all enemies are submitted, and the last enemy to be death denotes progressive sanctification in history. This progression in history is Christ submitting his enemies under his feet, and the world is his footstool. Another important distinction is our view of the new heavens and new Earth. 2 passages in Scripture give us 2 perspectives on the nature of the new heavens and Earth. The first passage is Isaiah 65, where death is mixed in with abundant blessing and life. The other passage is Revelation 21, where there is no death and the covenant is no longer mixed. With Christ's victory on the cross and ascension to the Father's right hand, we are currently enjoying the first fruits of a new creation. This is the very theology of why we worship on the Lord's Day and not on Saturday. While we look forward to the picture laid out for us in Revelation 21 and the heavenly city, we are not to dismiss the blessings the Lord is giving us today. The world is his footstool currently. Viewing the new heavens and Earth only through the lens of Revelation 21 rather than together with the lens of Isaiah 65 borders on giving a bad report of the land and the nations that belong to Christ (psalm 2).
Excellent! The bible is written in a way to cover God is all interpretations I mean by that is there is one truth in the "end of things" and to me it is Amill no premill or post mill. but I believe God has so designed things that he keeps all true believers on the wheel. In other words, he keeps us searching for not only what is true but that deeper truth regarding The Book Revelation. Bottom line is we must all be ready because either by death or by the appearing of Christ in vengeance we need to be ready to greet him! What a day that will be!! To meet the king of kings and the Lord of Lords!! Breath taking! speechless. Watch and be ready love and forgive time is short.
It’s good to note the importance of the NT for understanding the OT, but it’s better to cite the OT predictions of the kingdom beginning in the first century in relation to the coming of Christ and the stone, as seen in Daniel 2, during the Roman Empire as the 4th kingdom. Also Daniel 9:27, with the coming of Christ and then the end of the Temple and tie this in with Hebrews 8:8. One can also appeal to Isa. 66:1-6, which foretells the end of the sacrificial system and the destruction of Jerusalem. The argument for the Amil is that the messianic kingdom was planted by Christ and that it is the millennial kingdom to which Christ returns when he comes (1 Cor. 15:24).
I've come to a very important conviction during this.... Dr. Waldron looks like Rodney Dangerfield. I hope he would find that funny. I love you Dr. Waldron. Your doctrine of last things lectures really helped me.
Interesting that such a seasoned and well studied man, one who has even written books on eschatology, hasn't done any thorough study on the Revelation 20 of the OT (Zechariah 14). It is true that Zechariah 14 does have heavenly type language as he pointed out but also it has other language that doesn't fit heaven as well like the nations being cursed if they don't go up to Jerusalem to worship the Messiah. This is described at the end of chapter 14 after the Messiah has come. This fits well with a premil intermediate kingdom idea. Also, be great next time to hear some arguments against Macarthur looking at his actual arguments from the sermon rather than just giving a response based on his sermon titles. What is his argument and why is it wrong? How is he misinterpreting the texts? Could be a whole episode. Walk through his sermon, look at the points and arguments he makes from the text and then provide an analysis and critique.
There is a bunch of stuff refuting jmac’s 2007 shepherd conference speech. Now it was just one speech and a pretty bad one. It’s better to go to academic sources and books imo. For example, when anyone starts using terms like “replacement theology” you’re likely not going to get a serious treatment of the issue.
@@zgennaro John macarthur had a seven sermon series that walked through each point. It's better to address his actual arguments, the scriptures he uses, etc. Replacement theology historically has been a common label for replacement theologians (or fulfillment theology or covenantalists or whatever you want to call it) that they have used for themselves. It's not until recent years that the label has become a negative term.
@@Brian-tk5vt Yeah I’ve listened to it years ago I still like the books more. There is a new book called covenantal and dispensational theologies that’s pretty good. Kim Riddlebarger has a series on youtube defending amil that’s pretty good(24 hours of lectures). I’m more or less at a dead end with it for the moment. Classical dispensationalism isn’t hard to disprove but the “progressive dispensationalists” frame their arguments in such a way that’s impossible to disprove them. I think it’s fairly unconvincing but it’s possible they are correct. As it relates to the future I highly doubt there will be a 1k year reign with memorial sacrifices, a new temple, and a renewed priesthood. My go to’s for progressives is Darrel Bock and Michael Vlach with just essays from a few others.
The great commission surely defeats all arguments- keep making disciples until the day I return - not the day when your all whisked off with the rapture - the task of making disciples was a challenge to believers until the LAST day
Nope, Galatians 6:16 does not say that the church is the Israel of God. There's a very important "and" before the phrase Israel of God, referring to the Israelites who converted to Christ as opposed to the Israelites who did not. This is the context of the letter of Galatians.73 times the word Israel is used in the NT, not once does it refer to the church or gentile converts, search it up.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Gal 3:29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise
@@Kenneth-nVA none of those passages is saying that the Church is Israel, we are sons of Abraham by faith according to the promise, amen to that, yet we are not national Israel, there's a distinction.
@@empese1127 The ethnic or national entity Israel (as a whole) was never truly Israel or God's eternally elect, redeemed, and justified people. "For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham" (Rom 9:6-7). True Israel only included elect Jews, who without exception experienced genuine conversion and justification by faith alone during their lifetime. The fact that under the New Covenant believing Gentiles are engrafted into the same olive tree (Rom 11) with believing Jews as "Abraham's seed, heirs according to the promise" (Gal 3:29) simply underscores the fact that true Israel and the Church are one and the same entity.
@@rgmann Amen brother, I've no problem stating that True Israel and the Church are consonous terms and are in fact the same people of God. But when the NT speaks of Israel it does not speak of True Israel, it speaks of national, ethnic Israel and that is a distinction that I believe we must establish and maintain. Those of us who take the promises of the old testament regarding an earthly throne and kingdom of Jesus Christ to be literal and yet to come, also hold that on that time all of "Israel will be saved" and that national Israel will turn in mass to Jesus and become part of the True Israel.
@@rgmann Wait. If that's true, then what do you do with Rahab, Ruth, the wives of the patriarchs, Moses's Ethiopian wife, the multitude of Egyptians that left with Moses, the foreigners living in Israel and worshiping at the temple, etc? I don't see how anyone can read scripture and think there was ever a time when the promises were ethnicity based. The Israel of the promise, the seed of Abraham, and all those terms were for those joined by faith, not by race. This was always the case, and why the NT spends so much time on the heroes of the same faith in the promised Messiah as they were preaching, and why Paul can say that we are grafted into the promises.
Optimistic amil, what an oxymoronic belief, to be optimistic yet praying the Lord will rescue us out of this world quickly because things r so bad. Thats also very bad exegesis. A careful study of Psa 2,22,46,110 ans Isa 2,9,42 along with yhe Lords orayer, your kingdom come in the earth, 2 Cor 15:20 n Col 1:20 all point to an increase in the kingdom in this age till the whole earth is leavened and the mustard tree filling the earth. Time for Christians to get their bible facts straight, and see what most great teachers have agreed on the post mil position. All cant be right, only one is the truth. Study well to discover as I have after 30 yrs a premil then 20 yrs an amil, that both r pessimistic and wrong but the postmil is the only one thats optimistic, truly. May your eyes be opened as mine n nany others r finding out and change our whole perspective on life.
Which earth? The present one or the one to come? Romans 4:13 says Abraham was promised that he would inherit the world. Again, which world? Post Mils make the same exact mistake in interpretation as the Dispensationalists; they fail to understand that the dichotomy in interpretation is not "Literal" (what they claim) vs "Spiritual" (which is what they accuse Amils of) The biblical dichotomy is Earthly/Natural fulfillment vs Heavenly/Spiritual fulfillment, BOTH literal! This is what Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians 15 regarding Adam being the "earthly" man and Jesus as the "Heavenly/Spiritual" man, stating "The spiritual does not come first but the natural, THEN the spiritual." So rather than understand the fulfillments that ARE HAPPENING NOW, in heavenly realms, Dispensationalists look for earthly/natural fulfillments that have already occurred. Example: God took the earthly/natural Israel IN ADAM, gave them earthly/natural promises, AND FULFILLED THEM 100% (Joshua 21:45, Nehemiah 9) But they failed and God warned that they would lose all of the promises (Jeremiah 17:4) The earthly/natural Jerusalem is "in bondage." The eartly/natural covenant of circumcision means nothing! NONE of them would have been saved were it not for God preserving "some" (Ezekiel 6, Isaiah 1:9, Romans 9:29) But the The TRUE ISRAEL, who Is Christ (see isaiah 49:3) WILL fulfill God's intent for Israel to "be a light to the nations." "The people walking in darkness have seen a great light (Isaiah 9:2) (The light of Jesus, the light of the Gospel) So while dispensationalists continue to look for "God to take up his time clock with earthly/natural Israel of land, seed, blessing," the TRUE ISRAEL IS fulfilling the promises of "Land Seed Blessing" NOW by THE GOSPEL! The meek SHALL INDEED "inherit the land" (or the world, Romans 4, because we are NOW heirs with Israel (Eph 2) and Heirs according to the promise (GAl 3:29) The "Seed" IS being added to God's Kingdom EVERY DAY as Jesus, by The Gospel "Delivers us from the Kingdom of darkness to the Kingdom of light" Again, the earthly Jerusalem is in bondage but the Jerusalem ABOVE is 'The Mother of Us All' And we HAVE COME to they city of the living God (Hebrews 12:22) And as for the "Blessings," Need I list all of the blessings we have IN Christ? Has Paul not told us "ALL things are yours?" Likewise, Post Mils speak of the "success" of the Gospel and then look around at the earth and say "Well certainly what we see cannot be the success of the Gospel, But it's coming and you'll see it!" So in essence, Post Mils look for EARTHLY/NATURAL fulfillments in order to "SEE" the "success" of the Gospel! But you are mistaken! The Gospel IS SUCCESSFUL NOW! Jesus HAS "bound the strong man" (Isaiah 49, Matthew 18) and He IS "plundering his house" This is exactly what Luke 4 means when it speaks of "setting the captives free" They ARE being set free from darkness and being transferred into the Kingdom. Remember, the bible teaches that Christians will suffer AND be victorious *AT THE SAME TIME!* This is what Paul is speaking of in Romans 8 where he speaks of all the sufferings, distress, persecution, etc He says IN all of these things we ARE MORE than conquerors! (not will be some day when Christians rule the earth) *DON'T MISS THIS* This is exactly Paul's message in 2 Corinthians 4 16Therefore we do not lose heart. Even though our *OUTWARD MAN* (earthly/natural) is perishing, yet the *inward man* (Heavenly/Spirutal man who HAS COME to the Heavenly Jerusalem and HAS been risen with Christ) *is being renewed day by day* 17For our light affliction, (outward, earthly/natural) which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal (heavenly/spiritual) weight of glory, 18while *WE DO NOT LOOK AT THE THINGS WHICH ARE SEEN* *BUT AT THE THINGS WHICH ARE NOT SEEN* For the things which are seen are temporary, (BECAUSE THEY ARE EARTHLY/NATURAL) but the things which are not seen are eternal. (BECAUSE THEY ARE HEAVENLY SPIRITUAL) "Looking at things which are seen" is the precise mistake made by Dispensationalists AND Post Mils! Sorry, this was longer than I intended! CAPS are for emphasis only!
The scriptures are quite clear about the second advent and the period between the first and second and the Amillenialist position is in perfect harmony with everything the NT teaches on the subject of eschatology. There is room for some minor differences about some things spiken of by our Lord in the Olivet disciurse or that the book of Revelation might have been written before 70 AD. Other than that the Amillenialist position is consistent with everything Jesus, Peter, Paul and John write on this subject. Take Revelation 20 and the 1,000 years out of the scriptures and you have not a single verse that even remotely suggests that there is an earthly material reign of our Lord upon this earth let alone some glorious future gospel age that will sweep accross whole nations. Only the perverse minds of men who want to hold onto this earth would look for such utter rubbish when the scriptured are permitted to plainly speak for themselves. As Jesus was a stumbling stome and rock of offence to an earthly minded and bound Jewish nation so too God has ordained eschatology to be a similar snare and point of stumbling. Of course I believe that those who hold to the other false eschatological views to be saved men but sadly that remaining unmortified sin and fleshly attachment holds many captive to this world rather than being eager for the age to come where sin sorrow and death are no more. Post millenials in particular will not be looking for or fully prepared for the Lords sudden coming as He commanded all of His faithful Saints. Anyone who would dare suggest that 2 Peter 3:8-12 is referring to a spiritual renovation and refinement of this present sin cursed earth is a liar and deceiver. I use that as an example of the kind of pure eisegesis and distortion typical of the pre and post millenial interpretation. I am sorry to say but sin and a sinful love and attachment to this earth is at the heart of these false doctrines. I pray that our Lord will give His people eyes to see and ears to hear what the Spirit teaches regarding a right and proper understanding of the new covenant dispensation and the triumph and glory of the day when Jesus comes to gather all His elect from the four corners of the earth. Even so come Lord Jesus.
