@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever Absolutely! If that is what you see in scripture that should be how you believe! When I was a futurist for 25 years that is how I believed the scriptures taught until I saw the light and surrendered to the Word. Yet again this is what I see, and speaking for myself.
In my very "elementary" view of the Rapture and the Church Age, I've described it this way - let's say there is a creek flowing which is the pre-church age (Daniel's 69 weeks). Then a huge boulder (the Church age) is dropped into the creek. The creek keeps flowing around the boulder. Then the boulder is taken out and the creek returns to its original flow, just like the boulder was never there, and continues with the 70th week. (Don't ask me what happens after the 70th week... I guess there's a waterfall or something, lol.🤔) Loved this discussion! Thanks.
Fascinating conversation! Does Dr. Svigal address the impact of heretical movements such as Marcionism and Montanism on hermeneutics in the early church? Pom’s like a very worthwhile book!
Just for fun I wanted to lay out a quick overview of Irenaeus' relevant commentary on eschatology and answer the most common objections to his pre-trib position. 4-21-3 -For to this end was the Lord born, the type of whose birth he set forth beforehand, of whom also John says in the Apocalypse: "He went forth conquering, that He should conquer." To begin, Irenaeus sees the First Seal of Revelation six as referring to the coming of Jesus/the going forth of the Gospel just as Victorinus does in his commentary on Revelation, NOT the Antichrist. Irenaeus doesn't go into greater detail, but based on Victorinus the seals appear to have been understood as the present age of the Church culminating in the Harpazo with the 6th seal. This is quite different from the idea that the seals represent either the first half of the Last Week or an overview of the whole of the Last Week. 4-33-11 -others beheld Him coming on the clouds as the Son of man; and those who declared regarding Him, "They shall look on Him whom they have pierced," indicated His [second] advent, concerning which He Himself says, "Do you think that when the Son of man comes, He shall find faith on the earth?" Paul also refers to this event when he says, "If, however, it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you, and to you that are troubled rest with us, at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven, with His mighty angels, and in a flame of fire." Others again, speaking of Him as a judge, and [referring], as if it were a burning furnace, [to] the day of the Lord, who "gathers the wheat into His barn, but will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire," were accustomed to threaten those who were unbelieving, concerning whom also the Lord Himself declares, "Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, which my Father has prepared for the devil and his angels." And the apostle in like manner says [of them], "Who shall be punished with everlasting death from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of His power, when He shall come to be glorified in His saints, and to be admired in those who believe in Him." So Irenaeus understood that Jesus' second advent has two distinct aspects to it; Jesus coming as the Son of Man coming on the clouds to give His Church rest and Jesus coming as judge on the Day of the Lord to punish the wicked. It isn't clear from this passage alone whether he understands this to be two aspects of the same event or two separate events. I do however think it's very interesting that he splits that passage from 2 Thes 1 in half to say that it is referencing both. 5-5-1 -But why do I refer to these men? For Enoch, when he pleased God, was translated in the same body in which he did please Him, thus pointing out by anticipation the translation of the just. -Wherefore also the elders who were disciples of the apostles tell us that those who were translated were transferred to that place (for paradise has been prepared for righteous men, such as have the Spirit; in which place also Paul the apostle, when he was caught up, heard words which are unspeakable as regards us in our present condition 2 Corinthians 12:4), and that there shall they who have been translated remain until the consummation [of all things], as a prelude to immortality. This is a very fascinating statement. According to Irenaeus it was taught but the elders that the translation of Enoch is a typological prophecy pointing to our own future translation. They were translated to Paradise where they will remain until the consummation (the Day of the Lord). Irenaeus isn't envisioning a royal 'come out and meet Jesus in the clouds and come right back to the Earth' scenario here. This can't be speaking of waiting in a disembodied state of death because the whole purpose of this chapter is to defend the bodily nature of our final salvation. Regardless, this passage makes it clear that there's some span of time between the Harpazo and the Day of the Lord. It does not, however, tell us how MUCH time. 5-29-1 -And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, "There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be." Matthew 24:21 For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption. This is the passage that gets most of the attention since he's stating explicitly that the Great Tribulation follows the Harpazo. Since some of our brothers are convinced that Darby made up the pre-trib rapture they need to find a way to make this passage say something other than what it is stating explicitly. To that end, they point to the 'last contest of the righteous'. The problem with this argument is that there isn't a single pre-trib believer in so far as I'm aware who argues that there are no Christians on the Earth during the Great Tribulation. The Great Tribulation being the last contest of the righteous is compatible with every single Pre-Mil framework AND some Amil frameworks. This statement is making trouble for preterist interpretations of Matthew 24 and nothing else. This is why it's VERY important to be careful to avoid trying to prove too much with a patristic statement or Bible verse. Be aware of what is stated explicitly, what is being stated implicitly, and what you're arriving at through inference. None the less, this provides us with a time-frame fro the Harpazo but it isn't specific enough yet to resolve between a pre-trib and mid-trib position. In both of those frameworks the Great Tribulation comes after the Harpazo. We still need more information to reduce uncertainty.
PART TWO! 5-30-2 - But, knowing the sure number declared by Scripture, that is, six hundred sixty and six, let them await, in the first place, the division of the kingdom into ten; then, in the next place, when these kings are reigning, and beginning to set their affairs in order, and advance their kingdom, [let them learn] to acknowledge that he who shall come claiming the kingdom for himself, and shall terrify those men of whom we have been speaking, having a name containing the aforesaid number, is truly the abomination of desolation. This, too, the apostle affirms: "When they shall say, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction shall come upon them." 5-30-4 -But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom, that is, the rest, the hallowed seventh day; and restoring to Abraham the promised inheritance, in which kingdom the Lord declared, that "many coming from the east and from the west should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." THIS is the passage that gives us enough information on Irenaeus' eschatology to definitively identify his position. I think one of the strongest arguments for a post-trib rapture is Paul linking the Harpazo with the Day of the Lord in 1 Thes 4 and 5. However, from the passage it isn't clear whether Paul is talking about the formal Day of the Lord (when Jesus returns to set up His kingdom) or the informal Day of the Lord (a time of national judgement and thus the whole of the Last Week). Depending on which is correct he could be talking about a post-trib rapture or one of its alternatives (pre, mid, wrath). The only way we can tell is by using Inference to the Best Explanation to decide for ourselves which is most consistent with the whole council of God. Irenaeus here takes the informal Day of the Lord position. He sees the 'peace and safety' Paul is speaking of as the Ten Kings getting their affairs in order. But suddenly the Day of the Lord overtakes them and the Antichrist begins his war against the Ten Kings, overthrowing three of them. Eventually the Antichrist assumes absolute power and then he reigns for 3.5 years until Christ comes to destroy him and set up His own kingdom. He also thought that the Church would be here to witness the rise of the Ten Kings and we'll thus be able to identify and avoid the Antichrist before he formally reveals himself with the Seven Year Treaty. Since Paul links the Harpazo in chapter 4 with the Day of the Lord in chapter 5 this gives us the following timeline per Irenaeus' understanding: -The Ten Kings rise -The Antichrist can be identified by 666 -The Ten Kings persecute the Church -The Harpazo takes place -The informal Day of the Lord begins and the Antichrist attacks the Ten Kings, causing devastation for 3.5 years -The Antichrist assumes absolute power for 3.5 years -Jesus returns to destroy His enemies and set up His kingdom Not only does this give us a pre-trib rapture, it also answers two major objections to Irenaeus' pre-trib eschatology. But didn't he tell us to look for the Antichrist and avoid him? Didn't he say that the Ten Kings would persecute the Church? Yes! Absolutely! He just understood those events taking place before the Harpazo. 5-35-1 -and [with respect to] those whom the Lord shall find in the flesh, awaiting Him from heaven, and who have suffered tribulation, as well as escaped the hands of the Wicked one. For it is in reference to them that the prophet says: "And those that are left shall multiply upon the earth," And Jeremiah the prophet has pointed out, that as many believers as God has prepared for this purpose, to multiply those left upon earth, should both be under the rule of the saints to minister to this Jerusalem This statement is utterly incompatible with a post-trib Harpazo. When the Harpazo takes place the dead will be raised and the living believers will be transformed; all will be sons of the resurrection and no longer married nor given in marriage. If the Harpazo and the Day of the Lord are the same event who then are these mortal believers found in the flesh who will repopulate the world and be ruled over by the resurrected Saints? For this scenario to play out Irenaeus MUST have understood the Harpazo and the Day of the Lord as two separate events where unsaved become saved during a span of time after the Harpazo. Given the quotes above I think a pre-trib rapture fits best with the framework Irenaeus has laid out. With all that said, I have one final point to bring up for those insisting on a post-trib Harpazo. In Mark 13 Jesus says that no one knows the day nor the hour of the coming of the Son of Man. It could be at any hour of the day or night. In Zachariah 14 the prophet says that the Day of the Lord comes at the hour of evening. The Day of the Lord comes at a known hour. The coming of the Son of Man comes at an unknown hour. Therefore, per the Law of the Excluded Middle, the Day of the Lord CAN NOT be the coming of the Son of Man.
@@thebiblesojourner Albert Einstein left behind some truly applicable quotation's. One such fitting here reads as follows. He said; "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Thx Peter.
New Covenant Whole Gospel: How many modern Christians cannot honestly answer the questions below? Who is the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Who is the “son” that is the “heir” to the land in Matthew 21:37-43? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary? What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word. Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary. God is not now a “racist”. He has extended His love to all races of people through the New Covenant fulfilled by His Son’s blood at Calvary. The Apostle Paul warned against using “genealogies” in our faith in 1 Tim. 1:4, and Titus 3:9. If the New Covenant is "everlasting" in Hebrews 13:20 and the Old Covenant is "obsolete" in Hebrews 8:13, why would any Christian believe God is going back to the Old Covenant system during a future time period? ===== Multiple Second Coming Visions in Revelation: (book not in chronological order ) Christ returns one time in the future. However, there are several different visions of His return shown from different perspectives in the Book of Revelation. Christ returns at the end of Revelation chapter 6, with signs in the sun, moon, and stars, as are found in the Olivet Discourse. Those at the end of the chapter are hiding from the wrath of the Lamb. Why would they be hiding if Christ is not present? The "kings", "captains", "might men", "free", and "bond" are also found in chapter 19 at the return of Christ. The wicked city in Revelation 11:8 stands in opposition to the heavenly city in Revelation 3:12. He returns at the 7th trumpet, which is the last trumpet in the Bible, and the time of the judgment of the dead in Revelation 11:15-18. The beginning of chapter 12 is a history lesson containing the fall of Satan, and the birth and death of Christ, who is the seed promised to crush the head of Satan in Genesis 3:15. The Second Coming is found in the "harvest" of chapter 14, which is related to the parable of the wheat and tares in Matthew chapter 13. He comes as a thief at Armageddon, and we find the greatest earthquake in history in chapter 16. This occurs when the 7th angel pours out his vial. How powerful is an earthquake which moves islands and destroys the mountains? What is happening to the planet? He comes on a horse in chapter 19, right after the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. Chapter 20? Does He come with the fire, and the judgment of the dead at the end of chapter 20, which agrees with what Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, and 2 Timothy 4:1? What did Peter say about the fire in 2 Peter 3:10-13? (The time of the judgment of the dead is also found in Revelation 11:18.) There are no mortals left alive on the planet at the end of Matthew 25:31-46. Why does an angel come down from heaven with a key to unlock the bottomless pit in Revelation 9:1-2, if the pit was not already locked before that time? Are there wicked angels in the pit in Rev. 9:11? If the beast "ascends" from the pit in Rev. chapter 11, where was the beast before that time? Does your view agree with Peter in 2 Pet. 2:4, and Jude in Jude 1:6, when they both said wicked angels are already in chains of darkness? Revelation 9:14 proves some of the angels were previously bound in some manner. Because the two witnesses were bodily resurrected from the dead in Revelation 11, the "first resurrection" at the beginning of Revelation 20 is not the first bodily resurrection in the book. The principle of "Recapitulation" means there are multiple visions of His return.
The early Church from the 1st to 3rd century were premillennialists. The issue is that when Catholicism started to rise in the FOURTH century alongside it came the rise of amillennialism. Papias (c. 60-130 AD), Polycarp (c. 69-155 AD), St. Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), St. Irenaeus (c. 130-202 AD), St. Hippolytus (c. 170-235 AD), Tertullian (c. 155-240 AD), St. Lactantius (c. 250-325 AD), St. Victorinus (c. 280 AD), St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 313-386 AD), were premillennialists. Papias of Hierapolis (60-130 AD), a disciple of the Apostle John, Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), Irenaeus of Lyons (130-202 AD), Tertullian (155-240 AD) Hippolytus of Rome (170-235 AD), Lactantius (c. 250-325 AD), and Victorinus of Pettau (280 AD) explicitly believed in a literal future 1000-year reign of Christ. Papias: “There will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth.” Polycarp: “Polycarp…who was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, by apostles in Asia…always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles.” (Polycarp discipled Irenaeus) Justin Martyr: “But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged.” Irenaeus: “For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded...This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year...For the righteous shall reign in the earth, until the end of the thousand years, when the world shall be brought to its consummation.” Tertullian: “But we do confess that a kingdom is promised us upon the earth, although before heaven, only in another state of existence; inasmuch as it will be after their resurrection for a thousand years in the divinely-built city of Jerusalem…” Hippolytus of Rome: “And 6,000 years must needs be accomplished, in order that the Sabbath may come, the rest, the holy day on which God rested from all His works…For the Sabbath is the type and emblem of the future kingdom of the saints.” Lactantius: “But when He shall have destroyed injustice, and shall have restored the just to life, He will be conversant among men for a thousand years, and will rule them with most just command.” Victorinus of Pettau: “The true Sabbath will be in the seventh millenary of years, when Christ with His elect shall reign.” Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 313-386 AD): “For we shall reign with Christ a thousand years; we and the heavenly Jerusalem, after which we shall be taken up.”
A Millennium Puzzle to solve… Will Christ be conducting funeral services for mortals killed in accidents 500 years after His Second Coming? The “first resurrection” in Rev. chapter 20 is not the first bodily resurrection in the Book of Revelation, because the two witnesses are resurrected from the dead in chapter 11. There are two different types of resurrection in John chapter 5. There is a spiritual resurrection from the dead in John 5:24, and a bodily resurrection from the dead in John 5:28-29. Does your view of the Millennium agree with what Paul said in 2 Thess. 1:7-10, when Paul said Christ returns in "flaming fire" taking vengeance on those who do not obey the Gospel? The fire comes at the end of Rev. chapter 20. Does your view agree with what Peter said in 2 Peter 3:10-13, when Peter said this earth is going to burn and "dissolve" when He comes as a thief on the day of the Lord? The fire comes at the end of Rev. chapter 20. Does your view agree with what Paul said in 2 Tim. 4:1, when Paul said both the living and the dead will be judged at His appearing? The time of the judgment of the dead, with reward for some and destruction for others is found in Rev. 11:18, right after the 7th trumpet, which is the last trumpet in the Bible. (This verse also proves the Book of Rev. is not in chronological order.) The judgment of the dead is also found at the end of Rev. chapter 20. Does your view agree with what Jesus said in Matt. 25:31-46, where He described the judgment of the sheep and goats, which leaves no mortals alive on the planet at the end of the passage? There are also no mortals left alive on the planet at the end of Rev. chapter 19. Does your view agree with Peter in 2 Pet. 2:4, and Jude in Jude 1:6, when they both said wicked angels are already in chains of darkness? Does your view agree with what John recorded in Rev. 9:1-2, when an angel comes down from heaven with a key to unlock the pit, which means the pit was locked before that time? Are there wicked angels already in the pit in Rev. 9:11? John recorded angels already "bound" in Rev. 9:14. The beast "ascends" out of the pit in Rev. chapter 11, which means the beast was in the pit before that time. Take all of the above and compare it to the symbolic language found in Rev. chapter 20, and the fact the Book of Revelation is not in chronological order, and you will have the truth.
I did not know you were from Northern Minnesota. I grew up in Cloquet. 3 blocks from Gordy's Hi-Hat. How's that for a landmark? I left in 1988 to join the USN. Never moved back. Miss hockey season. Not winter .
I’m not sure. I haven’t read or listened to Lindsey ever. I think I heard second hand that he believed tongues still exists but I’m really not able to say.
You should do a kickstarter or something similar to underwrite the front deposit for a publisher so you can have freedom to publish how you want. Just work out the partnership before hand and be full disclosure who your publisher is. Not sure. Has to be a solution. I’d would have bought your new book, but knowing that the detail was pulled and relegated to the online compendium, I’m thinking twice. Really prefer the bigger books and having the ability to sit down with them, work through references, etc What a terrible decision by the publisher.
He absolutely did. Read his exegesis on 1 Thessalonians 5 in Book 5 chapter 30. He's kind enough to lay out a timeline for us. IMO, 1 Thes 5 linking the Day of the Lord to the Harpazo in chapter 4 is one of the strongest post-trib arguments. But it isn't clear from the text whether Paul is talking about the formal Day of the Lord (which would be post trib) or the informal Day of the Lord (which makes pre-trib, mid-trib, or pre-wraith possible). The most we can do is use Inference to the Best Explanation to try to figure out which Paul is talking about. Irenaeus takes the position that the Day of the Lord here is in the informal sense and referring to the whole 7 years. The 'sudden destruction' in his opinion is talking about the Antichrist's rise to power when he overthrows three of the ten kings. This is followed by the Antichrist's absolute rule for 3.5 years and then the return of Christ to set up His kingdom. As post-tribbers correctly point out, the Day of the Lord Paul is referring to here follows the Harpazo of the Church. While Irenaeus doesn't touch on chapter 4 specifically in this passage it isn't a huge jump to insert it into the sequence and thus arrive at a pre-trib rapture. The confusion on Irenaeus' position comes from the fact that Irenaeus expected the Church to be here to observe the rise of the Ten Kings and once those kings are on the scene it'll be possible to identify the Antichrist via the number of his name, but the Antichrist destroying the kings won't be going on until we're outta here. Most pre-tribbers hold that the Ten Kings won't be seen until the Church is gone, but I don't think that position is correct and Irenaeus agrees. There are other statements in books 4 and 5 that point to pre-trib eschatology in Irenaeus' work but his exegesis on 1 Thes 5 actually provides enough information to resolve his precise eschatological position, which is pretty uncommon in ancient writing.
In Against Heresies 5.29, Irenæus says, "When in the end that church will suddenly be caught up from this, then it is said, 'There will be tribulation such as not been since the beginning, nor will be.'" Notice Irenæus's order: "When in the end that church will suddenly be caught up from this." The Church is caught up in the end, which refers to the end times. What comes next, according to Irenæus? "then it is said, 'There will be tribulation such as not been since the beginning, nor will be.'" So, going by Irenæus's words, the Church will be caught up at the end times, after which the "tribulation such as not been since the beginning, nor will be," will begin. Thank you, and God bless.
@@thebiblesojourner Nope! I just dedicated lots of time to reading Against Heresy. I didn't catch the significance of his exegesis on 1 Thes 5 until my third read-through of his 5th book but as soon as I made the connection his position became quite clear. Previously I was convinced that he was talking about either pre-trib or mid-trib but I wasn't SURE which. I've found most of the critics of a pre-trib reading of Irenaeus will focus heavily on his 'this is the last contest of the righteous' comment without taking the broader context of that statement into account.
@@williambillycraig1057 Yep! This can be read as either a pre-trib or mid-trib rapture. I'm trying to be very careful with what's stated explicitly and what we're inferring. Irenaeus' comment here speaks of sequence, not immediacy. I know there are arguments to try to dismiss this pretty clear conclusion but I find them wildly unconvincing in the context of everything else Irenaeus said about eschatology. I really don't get the insistence that Irenaeus held a post-trib position; it makes no sense to me. It's a stretch of his words to say the least. And it REALLY isn't that hard to just say Irenaeus got it wrong since the early church held a variety of positions on eschatology.
Why do people commend Augustine, when he approved of the false gospel books of the Apocrypha that contain praying for dead, works plus faith false gospel saved by almns keeping, and various other heterodox teachings?
As stated in the show, on the popular level, I believe the Pre-Trib Rapture has fallen out of favor due to the failed “Rapture dates” of the non-date setting, date setters. I remember 1982 being proposed (Israel became a nation in 1948, 40 years is God’s testing time, therefore 1948 + 40 years = 1988, then subtract 7 years for the Tribulation = Rapture in 1982. Then there was “88 Reasons why the Rapture will be in 1988”, Rapture in 1995, Y2K… and the list goes on. Whereas I am Pre-Trib, those of my tribe need to stop dishonoring the cause of Christ with their sensationalizing.
If you build a teaching on man, the early church fathers, what have you built? Rom 4:3 says count every man a liar only God true. Also if scripturally the majority has always been wrong should we trust man just because there might be more of them that believe a certain way? Lastly if there is no inspired writers nor inspired interpreters, then again what have you got building a teaching on what other uninspired men believed. With that said, for 1,500 years they were only catholic, and Protestants today have over 30,000 different denominations. Because no one is inspired after the NT writers, what have you built if you build a doctrine off of man. We can go at something from the side of weakness or from the side of strength. Scripture alone hermeneutically shows strength and clinging to men is the weakest stance we can make according to the Word. Notice the fulfilled camp always uses only scripture with hermeneutics and an open invitation to join in their discussions.
Never want to build a doctrine on a man. But the value of studying history is evident. God doesn’t just work in modern times. Gods spirit has been operative throughout all time. But Scripture is the authority, not man.
Amen to that! There is nothing wrong with listening to others but there is no point system that says if this man believed this, then that teaching gets a point and if a majority of men say it, you get 10 points per say, and with 10 points you win. No if all men are uninspired and then are to be counted as liars, or to say, they may not mean to be lying yet just simply being man, human, fallible, you cannot rely on them for your hope that you are on the correct path in your view of a doctrine. So we see the same here, you get zero points for any man or men to agree on a subject, what saith the Lord about the subject.
One can go to extremes on either end. One can idolize them to an unhelpful degree, or one can under appreciate the significance of being an early Christian and the challenges that involved.
About 20 minutes in. Digging the interview! I have been waiting for this to come out. I love reading the Apostolic Fathers.
I am always delighted to meet history enthusiasts! They are not without error, but so helpful in many ways!
Boom! Svigel's book has been purchased. Can't wait to read it. ;)
I think you’ll enjoy the research and thought provoking nature of the book!
Dr. Michael Svigel, great scholar.
Agreed! A great resource for the church.
An excellent discussion. Thanks.
Glad you enjoyed it!
@20:00 WOW WOW WOW! Excellent! I can be an optimist AND hold to what scripture says on premillennialism! I love this interview
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever Absolutely! If that is what you see in scripture that should be how you believe! When I was a futurist for 25 years that is how I believed the scriptures taught until I saw the light and surrendered to the Word. Yet again this is what I see, and speaking for myself.
Favorite episode so far. Great interview. Thanks for the time stamps, too. Thanks.
Great! Glad to hear this was your favorite. Svigel is very easy to interview and he's quite enjoyable to talk with.
In my very "elementary" view of the Rapture and the Church Age, I've described it this way - let's say there is a creek flowing which is the pre-church age (Daniel's 69 weeks). Then a huge boulder (the Church age) is dropped into the creek. The creek keeps flowing around the boulder. Then the boulder is taken out and the creek returns to its original flow, just like the boulder was never there, and continues with the 70th week. (Don't ask me what happens after the 70th week... I guess there's a waterfall or something, lol.🤔)
Loved this discussion! Thanks.
Great interview! Waiting for my copy.
Thanks! And I hope you and many more people enjoy the book. It is really well done.
My copy should be here Monday!
@@mikeyonce2323 Looking forward to your review.
Excellent!
Fascinating conversation! Does Dr. Svigal address the impact of heretical movements such as Marcionism and Montanism on hermeneutics in the early church? Pom’s like a very worthwhile book!
I just ordered the book. :-)
I think you’ll like it! It’s got a lot in it.
Would love to see you interview Jason Staples and Michael A. Rogers who wrote “Inmillennialism”.
Just for fun I wanted to lay out a quick overview of Irenaeus' relevant commentary on eschatology and answer the most common objections to his pre-trib position.
4-21-3
-For to this end was the Lord born, the type of whose birth he set forth beforehand, of whom also John says in the Apocalypse: "He went forth conquering, that He should conquer."
To begin, Irenaeus sees the First Seal of Revelation six as referring to the coming of Jesus/the going forth of the Gospel just as Victorinus does in his commentary on Revelation, NOT the Antichrist. Irenaeus doesn't go into greater detail, but based on Victorinus the seals appear to have been understood as the present age of the Church culminating in the Harpazo with the 6th seal. This is quite different from the idea that the seals represent either the first half of the Last Week or an overview of the whole of the Last Week.
4-33-11
-others beheld Him coming on the clouds as the Son of man; and those who declared regarding Him, "They shall look on Him whom they have pierced," indicated His [second] advent, concerning which He Himself says, "Do you think that when the Son of man comes, He shall find faith on the earth?" Paul also refers to this event when he says, "If, however, it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you, and to you that are troubled rest with us, at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven, with His mighty angels, and in a flame of fire." Others again, speaking of Him as a judge, and [referring], as if it were a burning furnace, [to] the day of the Lord, who "gathers the wheat into His barn, but will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire," were accustomed to threaten those who were unbelieving, concerning whom also the Lord Himself declares, "Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, which my Father has prepared for the devil and his angels." And the apostle in like manner says [of them], "Who shall be punished with everlasting death from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of His power, when He shall come to be glorified in His saints, and to be admired in those who believe in Him."
So Irenaeus understood that Jesus' second advent has two distinct aspects to it; Jesus coming as the Son of Man coming on the clouds to give His Church rest and Jesus coming as judge on the Day of the Lord to punish the wicked. It isn't clear from this passage alone whether he understands this to be two aspects of the same event or two separate events. I do however think it's very interesting that he splits that passage from 2 Thes 1 in half to say that it is referencing both.
5-5-1
-But why do I refer to these men? For Enoch, when he pleased God, was translated in the same body in which he did please Him, thus pointing out by anticipation the translation of the just.
-Wherefore also the elders who were disciples of the apostles tell us that those who were translated were transferred to that place (for paradise has been prepared for righteous men, such as have the Spirit; in which place also Paul the apostle, when he was caught up, heard words which are unspeakable as regards us in our present condition 2 Corinthians 12:4), and that there shall they who have been translated remain until the consummation [of all things], as a prelude to immortality.
This is a very fascinating statement. According to Irenaeus it was taught but the elders that the translation of Enoch is a typological prophecy pointing to our own future translation. They were translated to Paradise where they will remain until the consummation (the Day of the Lord). Irenaeus isn't envisioning a royal 'come out and meet Jesus in the clouds and come right back to the Earth' scenario here. This can't be speaking of waiting in a disembodied state of death because the whole purpose of this chapter is to defend the bodily nature of our final salvation.
Regardless, this passage makes it clear that there's some span of time between the Harpazo and the Day of the Lord. It does not, however, tell us how MUCH time.
5-29-1
-And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, "There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be." Matthew 24:21 For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption.
This is the passage that gets most of the attention since he's stating explicitly that the Great Tribulation follows the Harpazo. Since some of our brothers are convinced that Darby made up the pre-trib rapture they need to find a way to make this passage say something other than what it is stating explicitly. To that end, they point to the 'last contest of the righteous'. The problem with this argument is that there isn't a single pre-trib believer in so far as I'm aware who argues that there are no Christians on the Earth during the Great Tribulation. The Great Tribulation being the last contest of the righteous is compatible with every single Pre-Mil framework AND some Amil frameworks. This statement is making trouble for preterist interpretations of Matthew 24 and nothing else. This is why it's VERY important to be careful to avoid trying to prove too much with a patristic statement or Bible verse. Be aware of what is stated explicitly, what is being stated implicitly, and what you're arriving at through inference.
None the less, this provides us with a time-frame fro the Harpazo but it isn't specific enough yet to resolve between a pre-trib and mid-trib position. In both of those frameworks the Great Tribulation comes after the Harpazo. We still need more information to reduce uncertainty.
PART TWO!
5-30-2
- But, knowing the sure number declared by Scripture, that is, six hundred sixty and six, let them await, in the first place, the division of the kingdom into ten; then, in the next place, when these kings are reigning, and beginning to set their affairs in order, and advance their kingdom, [let them learn] to acknowledge that he who shall come claiming the kingdom for himself, and shall terrify those men of whom we have been speaking, having a name containing the aforesaid number, is truly the abomination of desolation. This, too, the apostle affirms: "When they shall say, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction shall come upon them."
5-30-4
-But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom, that is, the rest, the hallowed seventh day; and restoring to Abraham the promised inheritance, in which kingdom the Lord declared, that "many coming from the east and from the west should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."
THIS is the passage that gives us enough information on Irenaeus' eschatology to definitively identify his position.
I think one of the strongest arguments for a post-trib rapture is Paul linking the Harpazo with the Day of the Lord in 1 Thes 4 and 5. However, from the passage it isn't clear whether Paul is talking about the formal Day of the Lord (when Jesus returns to set up His kingdom) or the informal Day of the Lord (a time of national judgement and thus the whole of the Last Week). Depending on which is correct he could be talking about a post-trib rapture or one of its alternatives (pre, mid, wrath). The only way we can tell is by using Inference to the Best Explanation to decide for ourselves which is most consistent with the whole council of God.
Irenaeus here takes the informal Day of the Lord position. He sees the 'peace and safety' Paul is speaking of as the Ten Kings getting their affairs in order. But suddenly the Day of the Lord overtakes them and the Antichrist begins his war against the Ten Kings, overthrowing three of them. Eventually the Antichrist assumes absolute power and then he reigns for 3.5 years until Christ comes to destroy him and set up His own kingdom. He also thought that the Church would be here to witness the rise of the Ten Kings and we'll thus be able to identify and avoid the Antichrist before he formally reveals himself with the Seven Year Treaty.
Since Paul links the Harpazo in chapter 4 with the Day of the Lord in chapter 5 this gives us the following timeline per Irenaeus' understanding:
-The Ten Kings rise
-The Antichrist can be identified by 666
-The Ten Kings persecute the Church
-The Harpazo takes place
-The informal Day of the Lord begins and the Antichrist attacks the Ten Kings, causing devastation for 3.5 years
-The Antichrist assumes absolute power for 3.5 years
-Jesus returns to destroy His enemies and set up His kingdom
Not only does this give us a pre-trib rapture, it also answers two major objections to Irenaeus' pre-trib eschatology. But didn't he tell us to look for the Antichrist and avoid him? Didn't he say that the Ten Kings would persecute the Church? Yes! Absolutely! He just understood those events taking place before the Harpazo.
5-35-1
-and [with respect to] those whom the Lord shall find in the flesh, awaiting Him from heaven, and who have suffered tribulation, as well as escaped the hands of the Wicked one. For it is in reference to them that the prophet says: "And those that are left shall multiply upon the earth," And Jeremiah the prophet has pointed out, that as many believers as God has prepared for this purpose, to multiply those left upon earth, should both be under the rule of the saints to minister to this Jerusalem
This statement is utterly incompatible with a post-trib Harpazo. When the Harpazo takes place the dead will be raised and the living believers will be transformed; all will be sons of the resurrection and no longer married nor given in marriage. If the Harpazo and the Day of the Lord are the same event who then are these mortal believers found in the flesh who will repopulate the world and be ruled over by the resurrected Saints?
For this scenario to play out Irenaeus MUST have understood the Harpazo and the Day of the Lord as two separate events where unsaved become saved during a span of time after the Harpazo. Given the quotes above I think a pre-trib rapture fits best with the framework Irenaeus has laid out.
With all that said, I have one final point to bring up for those insisting on a post-trib Harpazo.
In Mark 13 Jesus says that no one knows the day nor the hour of the coming of the Son of Man. It could be at any hour of the day or night.
In Zachariah 14 the prophet says that the Day of the Lord comes at the hour of evening.
The Day of the Lord comes at a known hour. The coming of the Son of Man comes at an unknown hour.
Therefore, per the Law of the Excluded Middle, the Day of the Lord CAN NOT be the coming of the Son of Man.
The "burden of proof." What a powerful and profound concept, one that has been lost in the vortex of modernistic reality !
It used to be a very basic concept. But logic and common sense are both not so common anymore.
@@thebiblesojourner Albert Einstein left behind some truly applicable quotation's. One such fitting here reads as follows. He said; "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Thx Peter.
Greetings from a Minnesotan in Romania!
Welcome! Minnesotans have a special place in my heart!
@thebiblesojourner same for me too!
I'm no expert but this is one of my favourite subjects.
It is a worthwhile pursuit of study!
New Covenant Whole Gospel: How many modern Christians cannot honestly answer the questions below?
Who is the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Who is the “son” that is the “heir” to the land in Matthew 21:37-43? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary?
What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word. Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary.
God is not now a “racist”. He has extended His love to all races of people through the New Covenant fulfilled by His Son’s blood at Calvary. The Apostle Paul warned against using “genealogies” in our faith in 1 Tim. 1:4, and Titus 3:9.
If the New Covenant is "everlasting" in Hebrews 13:20 and the Old Covenant is "obsolete" in Hebrews 8:13, why would any Christian believe God is going back to the Old Covenant system during a future time period?
=====
Multiple Second Coming Visions in Revelation: (book not in chronological order )
Christ returns one time in the future. However, there are several different visions of His return shown from different perspectives in the Book of Revelation.
Christ returns at the end of Revelation chapter 6, with signs in the sun, moon, and stars, as are found in the Olivet Discourse.
Those at the end of the chapter are hiding from the wrath of the Lamb.
Why would they be hiding if Christ is not present?
The "kings", "captains", "might men", "free", and "bond" are also found in chapter 19 at the return of Christ.
The wicked city in Revelation 11:8 stands in opposition to the heavenly city in Revelation 3:12.
He returns at the 7th trumpet, which is the last trumpet in the Bible, and the time of the judgment of the dead in Revelation 11:15-18.
The beginning of chapter 12 is a history lesson containing the fall of Satan, and the birth and death of Christ, who is the seed promised to crush the head of Satan in Genesis 3:15.
The Second Coming is found in the "harvest" of chapter 14, which is related to the parable of the wheat and tares in Matthew chapter 13.
He comes as a thief at Armageddon, and we find the greatest earthquake in history in chapter 16. This occurs when the 7th angel pours out his vial. How powerful is an earthquake which moves islands and destroys the mountains? What is happening to the planet?
He comes on a horse in chapter 19, right after the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.
Chapter 20?
Does He come with the fire, and the judgment of the dead at the end of chapter 20, which agrees with what Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, and 2 Timothy 4:1? What did Peter say about the fire in 2 Peter 3:10-13?
(The time of the judgment of the dead is also found in Revelation 11:18.)
There are no mortals left alive on the planet at the end of Matthew 25:31-46.
Why does an angel come down from heaven with a key to unlock the bottomless pit in Revelation 9:1-2, if the pit was not already locked before that time? Are there wicked angels in the pit in Rev. 9:11? If the beast "ascends" from the pit in Rev. chapter 11, where was the beast before that time?
Does your view agree with Peter in 2 Pet. 2:4, and Jude in Jude 1:6, when they both said wicked angels are already in chains of darkness?
Revelation 9:14 proves some of the angels were previously bound in some manner.
Because the two witnesses were bodily resurrected from the dead in Revelation 11, the "first resurrection" at the beginning of Revelation 20 is not the first bodily resurrection in the book.
The principle of "Recapitulation" means there are multiple visions of His return.
The early Church from the 1st to 3rd century were premillennialists. The issue is that when Catholicism started to rise in the FOURTH century alongside it came the rise of amillennialism. Papias (c. 60-130 AD), Polycarp (c. 69-155 AD), St. Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), St. Irenaeus (c. 130-202 AD), St. Hippolytus (c. 170-235 AD), Tertullian (c. 155-240 AD), St. Lactantius (c. 250-325 AD), St. Victorinus (c. 280 AD), St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 313-386 AD), were premillennialists.
Papias of Hierapolis (60-130 AD), a disciple of the Apostle John, Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), Irenaeus of Lyons (130-202 AD), Tertullian (155-240 AD) Hippolytus of Rome (170-235 AD), Lactantius (c. 250-325 AD), and Victorinus of Pettau (280 AD) explicitly believed in a literal future 1000-year reign of Christ.
Papias: “There will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth.”
Polycarp: “Polycarp…who was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, by apostles in Asia…always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles.” (Polycarp discipled Irenaeus)
Justin Martyr: “But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged.”
Irenaeus: “For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded...This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year...For the righteous shall reign in the earth, until the end of the thousand years, when the world shall be brought to its consummation.”
Tertullian: “But we do confess that a kingdom is promised us upon the earth, although before heaven, only in another state of existence; inasmuch as it will be after their resurrection for a thousand years in the divinely-built city of Jerusalem…”
Hippolytus of Rome: “And 6,000 years must needs be accomplished, in order that the Sabbath may come, the rest, the holy day on which God rested from all His works…For the Sabbath is the type and emblem of the future kingdom of the saints.”
Lactantius: “But when He shall have destroyed injustice, and shall have restored the just to life, He will be conversant among men for a thousand years, and will rule them with most just command.”
Victorinus of Pettau: “The true Sabbath will be in the seventh millenary of years, when Christ with His elect shall reign.”
Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 313-386 AD): “For we shall reign with Christ a thousand years; we and the heavenly Jerusalem, after which we shall be taken up.”
A Millennium Puzzle to solve… Will Christ be conducting funeral services for mortals killed in accidents 500 years after His Second Coming?
The “first resurrection” in Rev. chapter 20 is not the first bodily resurrection in the Book of Revelation, because the two witnesses are resurrected from the dead in chapter 11. There are two different types of resurrection in John chapter 5. There is a spiritual resurrection from the dead in John 5:24, and a bodily resurrection from the dead in John 5:28-29.
Does your view of the Millennium agree with what Paul said in 2 Thess. 1:7-10, when Paul said Christ returns in "flaming fire" taking vengeance on those who do not obey the Gospel? The fire comes at the end of Rev. chapter 20.
Does your view agree with what Peter said in 2 Peter 3:10-13, when Peter said this earth is going to burn and "dissolve" when He comes as a thief on the day of the Lord? The fire comes at the end of Rev. chapter 20.
Does your view agree with what Paul said in 2 Tim. 4:1, when Paul said both the living and the dead will be judged at His appearing? The time of the judgment of the dead, with reward for some and destruction for others is found in Rev. 11:18, right after the 7th trumpet, which is the last trumpet in the Bible. (This verse also proves the Book of Rev. is not in chronological order.) The judgment of the dead is also found at the end of Rev. chapter 20.
Does your view agree with what Jesus said in Matt. 25:31-46, where He described the judgment of the sheep and goats, which leaves no mortals alive on the planet at the end of the passage? There are also no mortals left alive on the planet at the end of Rev. chapter 19.
Does your view agree with Peter in 2 Pet. 2:4, and Jude in Jude 1:6, when they both said wicked angels are already in chains of darkness?
Does your view agree with what John recorded in Rev. 9:1-2, when an angel comes down from heaven with a key to unlock the pit, which means the pit was locked before that time? Are there wicked angels already in the pit in Rev. 9:11? John recorded angels already "bound" in Rev. 9:14. The beast "ascends" out of the pit in Rev. chapter 11, which means the beast was in the pit before that time.
Take all of the above and compare it to the symbolic language found in Rev. chapter 20, and the fact the Book of Revelation is not in chronological order, and you will have the truth.
I did not know you were from Northern Minnesota. I grew up in Cloquet. 3 blocks from Gordy's Hi-Hat. How's that for a landmark?
I left in 1988 to join the USN. Never moved back. Miss hockey season. Not winter .
Very cool! Know Cloquet well being from Grand Rapids. It is a fun and interesting world!
👍Historic PreMill, PreWrath
You mentioned "Charismatic Dispensationalists" Would Hal Lindsey qualify as one?
I’m not sure. I haven’t read or listened to Lindsey ever. I think I heard second hand that he believed tongues still exists but I’m really not able to say.
You should contact Lee Brainard ! Good researcher.
That’s a good tip! I don’t know him well but have heard good things about his work.
You should do a kickstarter or something similar to underwrite the front deposit for a publisher so you can have freedom to publish how you want. Just work out the partnership before hand and be full disclosure who your publisher is. Not sure. Has to be a solution.
I’d would have bought your new book, but knowing that the detail was pulled and relegated to the online compendium, I’m thinking twice. Really prefer the bigger books and having the ability to sit down with them, work through references, etc
What a terrible decision by the publisher.
32:50 timestamp
Irenæus did not hold to "something like a pre-tribulation rapture."
He absolutely did. Read his exegesis on 1 Thessalonians 5 in Book 5 chapter 30. He's kind enough to lay out a timeline for us.
IMO, 1 Thes 5 linking the Day of the Lord to the Harpazo in chapter 4 is one of the strongest post-trib arguments. But it isn't clear from the text whether Paul is talking about the formal Day of the Lord (which would be post trib) or the informal Day of the Lord (which makes pre-trib, mid-trib, or pre-wraith possible). The most we can do is use Inference to the Best Explanation to try to figure out which Paul is talking about.
Irenaeus takes the position that the Day of the Lord here is in the informal sense and referring to the whole 7 years. The 'sudden destruction' in his opinion is talking about the Antichrist's rise to power when he overthrows three of the ten kings. This is followed by the Antichrist's absolute rule for 3.5 years and then the return of Christ to set up His kingdom. As post-tribbers correctly point out, the Day of the Lord Paul is referring to here follows the Harpazo of the Church. While Irenaeus doesn't touch on chapter 4 specifically in this passage it isn't a huge jump to insert it into the sequence and thus arrive at a pre-trib rapture.
The confusion on Irenaeus' position comes from the fact that Irenaeus expected the Church to be here to observe the rise of the Ten Kings and once those kings are on the scene it'll be possible to identify the Antichrist via the number of his name, but the Antichrist destroying the kings won't be going on until we're outta here. Most pre-tribbers hold that the Ten Kings won't be seen until the Church is gone, but I don't think that position is correct and Irenaeus agrees.
There are other statements in books 4 and 5 that point to pre-trib eschatology in Irenaeus' work but his exegesis on 1 Thes 5 actually provides enough information to resolve his precise eschatological position, which is pretty uncommon in ancient writing.
In Against Heresies 5.29, Irenæus says, "When in the end that church will suddenly be caught up from this, then it is said, 'There will be tribulation such as not been since the beginning, nor will be.'"
Notice Irenæus's order: "When in the end that church will suddenly be caught up from this." The Church is caught up in the end, which refers to the end times.
What comes next, according to Irenæus? "then it is said, 'There will be tribulation such as not been since the beginning, nor will be.'"
So, going by Irenæus's words, the Church will be caught up at the end times, after which the "tribulation such as not been since the beginning, nor will be," will begin.
Thank you, and God bless.
Have you already read Svigel’s book on that section? 🤔 I actually haven’t read that part yet so am looking forward to seeing the case he makes.
@@thebiblesojourner
Nope! I just dedicated lots of time to reading Against Heresy. I didn't catch the significance of his exegesis on 1 Thes 5 until my third read-through of his 5th book but as soon as I made the connection his position became quite clear. Previously I was convinced that he was talking about either pre-trib or mid-trib but I wasn't SURE which.
I've found most of the critics of a pre-trib reading of Irenaeus will focus heavily on his 'this is the last contest of the righteous' comment without taking the broader context of that statement into account.
@@williambillycraig1057
Yep! This can be read as either a pre-trib or mid-trib rapture. I'm trying to be very careful with what's stated explicitly and what we're inferring. Irenaeus' comment here speaks of sequence, not immediacy.
I know there are arguments to try to dismiss this pretty clear conclusion but I find them wildly unconvincing in the context of everything else Irenaeus said about eschatology.
I really don't get the insistence that Irenaeus held a post-trib position; it makes no sense to me. It's a stretch of his words to say the least. And it REALLY isn't that hard to just say Irenaeus got it wrong since the early church held a variety of positions on eschatology.
Why do people commend Augustine, when he approved of the false gospel books of the Apocrypha that contain praying for dead, works plus faith false gospel saved by almns keeping, and various other heterodox teachings?
What?!? He's from DTS and he's premil?... lol
Just cutting up, gents. Thank you for your ministry and God bless!
Haha, life is filled with surprises! 😀
As stated in the show, on the popular level, I believe the Pre-Trib Rapture has fallen out of favor due to the failed “Rapture dates” of the non-date setting, date setters. I remember 1982 being proposed (Israel became a nation in 1948, 40 years is God’s testing time, therefore 1948 + 40 years = 1988, then subtract 7 years for the Tribulation = Rapture in 1982. Then there was “88 Reasons why the Rapture will be in 1988”, Rapture in 1995, Y2K… and the list goes on. Whereas I am Pre-Trib, those of my tribe need to stop dishonoring the cause of Christ with their sensationalizing.
If you build a teaching on man, the early church fathers, what have you built? Rom 4:3 says count every man a liar only God true. Also if scripturally the majority has always been wrong should we trust man just because there might be more of them that believe a certain way?
Lastly if there is no inspired writers nor inspired interpreters, then again what have you got building a teaching on what other uninspired men believed. With that said, for 1,500 years they were only catholic, and Protestants today have over 30,000 different denominations. Because no one is inspired after the NT writers, what have you built if you build a doctrine off of man.
We can go at something from the side of weakness or from the side of strength. Scripture alone hermeneutically shows strength and clinging to men is the weakest stance we can make according to the Word.
Notice the fulfilled camp always uses only scripture with hermeneutics and an open invitation to join in their discussions.
Never want to build a doctrine on a man. But the value of studying history is evident. God doesn’t just work in modern times. Gods spirit has been operative throughout all time. But Scripture is the authority, not man.
Amen to that! There is nothing wrong with listening to others but there is no point system that says if this man believed this, then that teaching gets a point and if a majority of men say it, you get 10 points per say, and with 10 points you win. No if all men are uninspired and then are to be counted as liars, or to say, they may not mean to be lying yet just simply being man, human, fallible, you cannot rely on them for your hope that you are on the correct path in your view of a doctrine. So we see the same here, you get zero points for any man or men to agree on a subject, what saith the Lord about the subject.
Not impressed with early “church fathers” really.
One can go to extremes on either end. One can idolize them to an unhelpful degree, or one can under appreciate the significance of being an early Christian and the challenges that involved.