But we're not in the final, consumate NHNE. It amazes me how many of these Christians have the cheek to point their finger at God and say "if this is the consumate NHNE then this isn't good enough" I've heard it so many times.
Roght out of the bat Doug states "The reason FP is a big deal, bigger deal fir me is it disagrees with the apostle creed and nicean creed" - the creeds. That's really telling. Doug was nicer this time but he has condemned FP as damnable. If his position has changed or is changing, a public brotherly reach out and an apology to Gary is in order.
That is one way of looking at it. The way I see it, all who claim biblical based theology assume their comfort in relying on scripture and would claim such, but, if they can, they also make a historical argument. I hear all non-dispensational, non-premils make the historical argument against the dispensationalists as being neuvo in their interpretations and maybe even more incidiously, based on some 'prophetic' knowledge from a woman that Darby took and ran with. The reasoning for the historical argument is to question modern eschat theories against the question "how did all the church get it wrong up until recently?" Otherwise your historical argument is which history claim is factual if your theology can even claim a historical progenitor. I just ask are we careful in the difference in 'discerning the times' (like Simeon knowing the Messiah had been born) vs. the view of a progression in our interpretational abiliities over our church forefathers.
they call you a heretic because they cant prove you wrong. calling someone a heretic is how they end their own intellectual responsibility. if the creeds are inspired, then say it. if they are not. then don't treat them as truth. An appeal to the creeds is a lazy and dishonest retreat.
The Creeds and Church history are biggies for many, if not all, futurists. In regards to the Creeds, my understanding is that they have been amended in the past. The word "body", "flesh" and "dead" have, i think, all been used with the phrase "resurrection of the...". If my understanding that the Creeds have been amended is true then the precedent has been set for amending them in the present and the future. Thanks for listening.
This was an excellent interview, Ward. Thanks for your work here. One thing that Wilson claims struck me as a bit wild. So a second "now-not yet period"? One "coming" at the end of the age [AD 70], then another "now-not-yet" period... And THEN the 2nd Coming? Wowsers.... That would mean Wilson just postulated a second transition period. I want to see how that will be sold to the wider church. Good luck with that! How in the world is this "orthodox" eschatology according to the history of the church? It appears to me that this is just novel eschatology according to Pastor Doug Wilson. Where is the legitimate historical justification for these conclusions? It's almost as if partial preterists have double vision eschatology. Two of everything.... Where are the brakes on this thing?
@@duanedahl8856 It involves that, yes. But it's a lot more than that. I put this together to show why: ruclips.net/video/ujLmX1v7dk8/видео.htmlsi=cNXyWuF_YwpbKoWm
There is such wonderful insight in this video from two very contrasting views. Nonetheless both perspective each hold so much value even though they are vastly different. And even in this, the discussion you both carry remains very respectful and understanding, as you both come together to find a middle ground. And I’m happy to say I hope that more viewers come across this, as to see a great example of what it is like to hold a substantial and concrete conversation even from opposing viewpoints, because today that has been proven a bit more difficult to do.
Nice Job Ward! Doug says something that I find to be very incredible. Doug stated that he believes in double fulfillment, two NH&NE's, two "now and not yet periods of time", etc.. Peter's future NH&NE will one day give way to another NH&NE? Say what? 😬Very puzzling and not orthodox to say the least. However, this sort of double-talk is essential for Partial Preterism to work. Overall it was a very gracious dialogue and worth a listen.
Once again Doug Wilson to the rescue. Such a great productive conversation. I've been having several conversations with my pre-mil brothers and I know I really frustrated them cause I'm not a good apologetic explaining why I believe what I believe (covenant reformed post mil) but I tell them I just know what I think is true when I hear it.
Ward, that was very refreshing. You were more than gracious. In an effort to encourage further dialogue it was obvious that you attempted to merely expose the differences without trying to back him into a corner. I was impressed that Wilson even agreed to the convo especially after cancelling DeMar. You gently pushed a few buttons that procured some odd and somewhat embarrassing admissions. Embarrassing to me for Doug but obviously not to Doug. When in an obviously precarious position postmils almost always resort to their Groundhogs Day hermeneutic. In Chris Date’s recent debate with Don, he was forced to admit that there might be another Great Tribulation in the future. Anything to maintain his paradigm. Still disappointed in Doug’s hypocritical (IMO) interpretation of Romans 8. You clearly held back. I presume you made a calculated decision to remain measured. How he can time warp Romans 8:18ff 2,000 years into the future, boggles my mind. He’s just far too smart to miss the near term verbiage. Romans 8:18 YLT 18 For I reckon that the sufferings of the present time [are] not worthy [to be compared] with the glory about to be revealed in us; But, the reality is that he can’t give that one up lest it put undue pressure on his creedal commitments. Overall, it was a well crafted interview. I hope to see more dialogue in the future. Thanks for representing so well.
Doug touched on an overlap of time between Jesus' earthly ministry and the fall of Jerusalem . The nature of the resurrection is certainly not debated and discussed enough . Whereas most Christians have been taught and believe that resurrection is of the individual physical body, I believe that the Bible talks about resurrection as being corporate and spiritual and being accomplished in the heavenly realm.
His commitment to creedalism (the Apostle’s Creed to be exact) Do these people realize that the Apostles did not write that! Great job gentleman! I did not realize Wilson was so young!
The thing is the "Toddlers" were more informed about the Jewish Culture of which the Old and New Covenant flowed from... The Older Children's (modern day) perspective of the scripture has shifted very far from the Jewish World and 1st century Christians ... so how can they provide any correction?
This was a really great conversation to listen to - and I enjoyed it. I thought both people in the interview were gracious and very respectful of each other.
I wouldn't call myself a full preterist, but Protestants like Wilson are being quite selective about exactly which church history they accept as defining "heresy". There's an ongoing tension between championing both extra biblical "guardrails" and sola scriptura that Wilson cant quite square.
@@markf5229 By “extra biblical guardrails", I believe WiIson was referring to historical church tradition which would include things like councils and creeds. Or at least a selected portion of them, depending on which ones you want to pick and choose. I doubt Wilson gives much weight to Trent. As far as the physical resurrection, I wouldn't think full preterism denies that. When we are in heaven with Christ, I assume we'll need, and will be given, a glorified body of some kind. But you'll have to ask a full preterist, as I am not one.
I agree with Doug!... it IS a two way street. the logical thing to do in a normal Christians view is to anathematize each other. To be fair also, FP would have every right to do so! however, praise the Lord for grace towards others. God has enduring patience and we can have that too. FP will win because it is true, but it does not have to be at the behest of going to war with other Christians doing the best they know how to serve God. everything would be better IF they accepted FP but we have to be realistic and accept that things are going to be rough (more than it should be) till we get our theology right
England did not have a bloodly war to overcome slavery like the U.S. of A. Granted, the situations were different. Hopefully overcoming futurism will be peaceful.
My entire Christian life I thought people's hope was Christ, but after becoming preterist, I've realized that for many of them, their hope is just to get a new physical body. Weird and sad...and sooooo carnal!
The NT was written to the OT 1st century audience. We are reading their mail. Any doctrine having a so-called long historical heritage in the church doesn't prove it is correct. Historical Premillennialism came long after the 1st century. Unlike other very important doctrines, there has never been any church synods or councils addressing eschatology (yet).
Starting at 50:45, did you catch what Doug Wilson said? He said the new covenant was "fully established" in 70AD and then a few seconds later says the new covenant is NOT fully established. What?!
Sounds weird at first but he (I believe) was saying that he "fully believes" ("I believe, fully, etc") in establishment at 70ad, but that it was not "fully established" at that time
I think for me it’s a 1 1/2 way street. I would never anathematize a partial preterist. Heresy has come to be a strong word…Peter seems to imply that there are heresies that are damnable. But contextually and immediately historically, that is referring to the Judaizing Pharisees and works/circumcision salvation per Acts 15, Galatians etc. However, many creedalists (e.g. Sandelin, North, West et al) attach “damnable” to a violation of the creedal affirmation of a future coming (timing)- a creed put together by church fathers who affirmed transmutation (cannibalizing Christ)/transubstantiation. Such a doctrine which the fathers unanimously affirmed as perpetuating the eternal life upon ingestion, seems to me to be more damnable than denying timing of the Lord’s coming in the Nicene and Apostles’ creed.
@ncmilive I truly believe in my heart that it's a sad cop-out for Christians to dismiss brothers & sisters in Christ instead of actually making the genuine effort to understand covenant eschatology. That makes sense to me. However, I assume many modern-day Roman Catholics would deny the "literalism" that's implied regarding transubstantiation. I personally transferred from partial-preterist to full, and my membership at a Reformed Baptist church was removed about 6 weeks ago. I know who Andrew Sandelin and Gary North are, but not West.
Appreciate the interview and you, Ward, were the man to have it. And although Doug was being as gentle as possible, unfortunately I have a bad taste in my mouth from his prior video where his true unbridled thoughts on FP came out more clearly. FP is the pig he hates because he believes it threatens the foundations of tradition Christianity, so he put some lipstick and perfume on it so he can stomach talking about. He then seems to contradict himself in saying the Church is still young and maybe a teenager (we all know about teenagers), but yet whoa be to the Berian student who upsets the "long-standing" traditions. He obviously is a very intelligent man, yet the excuses and verbal gymnastics he goes through so he doesn't have to exegete the word but stand by tradition was evident. If God is sovereign and Christianity is still young, why is it so important to protect these traditions? He made it clear he needs to protect his worldview without any consideration for the sovereignty of God and arc of history. I'm glad he is talking though, and appreciate his honesty. It clears the air on what we have ahead of us. Ward, with your clear grasp and articulation of scripture, you asked important questions. Thank you.
Good points. Just listen very carefully about his statements about accepting FP into church membership and communion. Wilson was assuming church membership in the discussion about accepting FPs. He later qualified that FP "members" as "wanting to learn from us." What I got from that is very, very subtle and precise. But what he had in the back of his mind is that church vows require one to submit to the teaching of the elders. He even referenced that. One would have to vow to accept the teaching of the church leadership as part of the membership covenant. What would happen next? Probably some time for orientation, and relationship. Then the meetings would start where the leadership would explain the creeds and the doctrine of the church. What happens if the FP member holds firm on their belief about the teaching of fulfillment from Scripture? What happens next? Wilson mentioned the word "contumacy"... get the drift. Listen very, very carefully. So, there is no scenario where a FP would be allowed in the church and served communion for an open-ended future or as a permanent scenario. At some point they would use the authority of the congregation to call the FP to orthodoxy. Any extended, principled denial of that would lead to excommunication if the FP held firm in that context. And they would believe they were doing God a favor.
Exactly. He's made it clear at this point in time he doesn't think the church should have anything to do with FP. It's dangerous to the worldview he demands.
Here's hoping that the Duncans and the DeYoungs of the world will just agree to sit down and discuss things with Mr Wilson about the "Moscow Mood" and what their real objections to it are.
The Belgic confession states the whole world is to be burned up 2Pe3. I think Doug believes that passage fulfilled. Does that mean Doug is not orthodox or a confession is in error.
He's a Westminster guy, so I don't think he holds to the Belgic Confession. However, he has plenty of problems because his PP Postmillennialism contradicts some of the Westminster.
FYI! The Lord has rained and His enemies are under His feet to this day. I don’t get Post mills??? You need to prove way too much! Post trib is absolutely the only theology you can derive from the scriptures…Haha All good, I love you brother. When you see the great falling away, I think you’ll figure out that the theonomy post mil doctrine makes no sense…Love you guys!
The resurrection occured at Daniel 12:7 in 70 AD and the millennium was from Christ's baptism till 70 AD and the beast from "the Land" is Israel and the scribes & Pharacies which is also the same beast that is cast into the fire, also 666 is the number of the Babylonian Sun God's magic square or their Sigilla Solis and obviously Jarusalem was mystery Babylon.
So it seems we have “creedal”preterists who move closer to “non-creedal” Preterist positions with every new publication or interview… the two camps can not fully work together in teaching the fulfilled and powerful Kingdom (because of the inconsistency of the creeds?) But can we and should we not work together a la American Vision to proclaim the absolute sovereignty of Christ and the foibles of socialism aka atheism?
@skyeart273 let me make it as simple as possible: Once you or I require one thing more than Christ (or his Apostles) to be a full functioning member of the church, it is no longer Christ' Church/Body, it is ours. It's not up for debate.
Aw yes! Doug made it very clear that we must be morally perfect to be resurrected or experience oneness with God. Which is simply bad interpretation comsidering it was never about subjective morals but perfect Sinai Law keeping. Many more contradictory and telling positions.
@@philipmurray9796 Out of one side of his mouth. He littered the video with suggestions of doubt of the resurrection being past and complete based on his perceptions of the former and current moral ledger of the church. In the same way, he pays lip service to Sola Scriptura and then subjects the text to church traditions. One foot in. One foot out.
@@teyateyaohteya the resurrection of Jesus is in the past. That is common Orthodox Christian teaching that Doug holds to. All saints have not been resurrected. That's future. It seems there is a difficulty in you understanding basic language.
@philipmurray9796 1st of all, I would really appreciate if you could hold yourself back from your snide insults about my ability to comprehend. I know it's hard without a face to face interaction, but I'm a woman and there's a certain way you need to talk to me to have a discussion. More importantly, "we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. ~ Paul
@@teyateyaohteya you've made at least two demonstrably wrong assumptions about Doug's view in your comments. That's the reason I ask if you have difficulty understanding language.
Ward Fenley is so full of crap. He plays this "speak the truth in love" game to get attention. He doesn't actually believe it. Wilson is right that it is a two-way street, in terms of anathematizing the other side and Ward knows it because he has done it. These are his words: "The Dangers of Referring New or Unsuspecting Believers to “Reformers” or “Calvinists” for Good Teaching. Imagine eating a delicious ribeye steak, medium rare, seasoned perfectly and so juicy and tender...Then the chef tells you it was poisoned with cyanide. That’s what it’s like for me to listen to a person talk about the glorious doctrines of grace and then proceed to speak of how we are being progressively conformed closer and closer into the image of a Christ through good behavior and cleaner thoughts. If people understood the express contradiction of this type of theology, and the psychological damage and demoralizing results of such thinking, by the grace of God they would flee into the arms of King Jesus and bask and glory in His cross alone. Dare I say, do not recommend Lordship theologians (or any other “orthodox” theologian for that matter) to new believers. Use the knowledge of scripture and grace God has given you. Don’t use the argument, “but Johnny Mac and Washer explain grace so well!” No. They don’t. They corrupt grace like cyanide corrupted a delicious steak. Sovereign grace through the finished work of Christ and Lordship theology and/or federal vision theology is an oxymoron at best and should not be recommended. If one is willing to recommend such to a new believer because of an inability to explain grace and the kingdom of God to that new believer, then someone needs to study their Bible more. Do not turn someone on to someone else just because they are “reformed,” or “Calvinist” because part of the message is agreeable. I agree with certain parts of the word of faith movement, Mormonism, Islam, Baptists, but I never turn anyone on to their theology without serious disclaimers of the inherent dangers within those movements. And even then, why would I do even that to a new believer if I have to give such radical disclaimers? If I want to learn about healthy living, I’m not going to read a book by someone who argues that both broccoli and cigarettes are good for your health. So why would I recommend someone else read such a book? As a believer in the fulfilled kingdom, do you not wince when you hear a spectacular message on grace followed up by a warning of an imminent rapture or tribulation period? Likewise, do you not wince when “progressive sanctification” culminates a sermon on the riches of God’s effectual love through the redeeming work of Christ? We must get back to the Bible and fulfilled kingdom of God and the pure and unadulterated grace of God by His sovereign will and love for us. We should be ready to give an answer from scripture and not have to send anyone to wolves in order to get a better understanding of Jesus and His sheep. It doesn’t matter how good the steak is if it is going to kill them in the end. This is the Gospel, folks. We mustn’t toy with it."
By the sound of your introductory sentence, it must be Sam Frost, or his puppy, Jason Bradfield. It just sounds like it for some reason. If Jason, how’s that rap career going? If Sam, how’s that book on the resurrection of the dead from the full preterist perspective doing? Is it selling like hotcakes?
Say what?! 🫣 Now this, I’ve got to see! (Editing to add)... Excellent interview! It was refreshing to see civil interaction here. I appreciate your posture and the questions you posed. The group of preterists where I live are going through what WIlson began describing at the 19:50 mark (being made to step down from being elder or teacher because of their views). But the other side isn't willing to bring it to the surface to discuss, so this was encouraging and shows it IS possible. Praying good fruit will come :)
Doug Wilson admits we are in the New heavens and new earth. That's great!
But we're not in the final, consumate NHNE.
It amazes me how many of these Christians have the cheek to point their finger at God and say "if this is the consumate NHNE then this isn't good enough"
I've heard it so many times.
@@danthemede323 I'm not complaining about the current NH&NE.
@@williambrewer good for you!
@@danthemede323what will be different about the “final consummate NHNE”?
@@danthemede323 so we’ve been in the engagement period, now and not yet holding period, not really saved fullness period, for two thousand years!
Most premills in evangelical circles don't know why they are premill. It's just what you believe because everyone else does.
Roght out of the bat Doug states "The reason FP is a big deal, bigger deal fir me is it disagrees with the apostle creed and nicean creed" - the creeds. That's really telling. Doug was nicer this time but he has condemned FP as damnable. If his position has changed or is changing, a public brotherly reach out and an apology to Gary is in order.
Stand back and realise that Doug has to step through the mine field of creedalism and preterists can enjoy the comfort of studying scripture.
That is one way of looking at it. The way I see it, all who claim biblical based theology assume their comfort in relying on scripture and would claim such, but, if they can, they also make a historical argument. I hear all non-dispensational, non-premils make the historical argument against the dispensationalists as being neuvo in their interpretations and maybe even more incidiously, based on some 'prophetic' knowledge from a woman that Darby took and ran with. The reasoning for the historical argument is to question modern eschat theories against the question "how did all the church get it wrong up until recently?" Otherwise your historical argument is which history claim is factual if your theology can even claim a historical progenitor. I just ask are we careful in the difference in 'discerning the times' (like Simeon knowing the Messiah had been born) vs. the view of a progression in our interpretational abiliities over our church forefathers.
Wow great job getting this interview. We need more conversations like this. Looking forward to listening to this. God bless.
Thank you bro Ward for this interview with Mr Doug Wilson, you did an excellent job!
The age of Christ which is the age without end doesn't have a last day.
This was EPIC!!!! You guys were so kind and respectful to one another.
they call you a heretic because they cant prove you wrong. calling someone a heretic is how they end their own intellectual responsibility.
if the creeds are inspired, then say it. if they are not. then don't treat them as truth. An appeal to the creeds is a lazy and dishonest retreat.
The Creeds and Church history are biggies for many, if not all, futurists. In regards to the Creeds, my understanding is that they have been amended in the past. The word "body", "flesh" and "dead" have, i think, all been used with the phrase "resurrection of the...". If my understanding that the Creeds have been amended is true then the precedent has been set for amending them in the present and the future. Thanks for listening.
This was an excellent interview, Ward. Thanks for your work here. One thing that Wilson claims struck me as a bit wild.
So a second "now-not yet period"? One "coming" at the end of the age [AD 70], then another "now-not-yet" period... And THEN the 2nd Coming?
Wowsers....
That would mean Wilson just postulated a second transition period.
I want to see how that will be sold to the wider church. Good luck with that! How in the world is this "orthodox" eschatology according to the history of the church? It appears to me that this is just novel eschatology according to Pastor Doug Wilson. Where is the legitimate historical justification for these conclusions?
It's almost as if partial preterists have double vision eschatology. Two of everything....
Where are the brakes on this thing?
"We loose the BIG Picture"....aka your pay check! 😂
@@duanedahl8856
It involves that, yes.
But it's a lot more than that. I put this together to show why:
ruclips.net/video/ujLmX1v7dk8/видео.htmlsi=cNXyWuF_YwpbKoWm
There is such wonderful insight in this video from two very contrasting views. Nonetheless both perspective each hold so much value even though they are vastly different. And even in this, the discussion you both carry remains very respectful and understanding, as you both come together to find a middle ground. And I’m happy to say I hope that more viewers come across this, as to see a great example of what it is like to hold a substantial and concrete conversation even from opposing viewpoints, because today that has been proven a bit more difficult to do.
Amen!
Nice Job Ward! Doug says something that I find to be very incredible. Doug stated that he believes in double fulfillment, two NH&NE's, two "now and not yet periods of time", etc.. Peter's future NH&NE will one day give way to another NH&NE? Say what? 😬Very puzzling and not orthodox to say the least. However, this sort of double-talk is essential for Partial Preterism to work. Overall it was a very gracious dialogue and worth a listen.
Once again Doug Wilson to the rescue. Such a great productive conversation. I've been having several conversations with my pre-mil brothers and I know I really frustrated them cause I'm not a good apologetic explaining why I believe what I believe (covenant reformed post mil) but I tell them I just know what I think is true when I hear it.
Ward, that was very refreshing. You were more than gracious. In an effort to encourage further dialogue it was obvious that you attempted to merely expose the differences without trying to back him into a corner. I was impressed that Wilson even agreed to the convo especially after cancelling DeMar.
You gently pushed a few buttons that procured some odd and somewhat embarrassing admissions. Embarrassing to me for Doug but obviously not to Doug. When in an obviously precarious position postmils almost always resort to their Groundhogs Day hermeneutic. In Chris Date’s recent debate with Don, he was forced to admit that there might be another Great Tribulation in the future. Anything to maintain his paradigm.
Still disappointed in Doug’s hypocritical (IMO) interpretation of Romans 8. You clearly held back. I presume you made a calculated decision to remain measured.
How he can time warp Romans 8:18ff 2,000 years into the future, boggles my mind. He’s just far too smart to miss the near term verbiage.
Romans 8:18 YLT
18 For I reckon that the sufferings of the present time [are] not worthy [to be compared] with the glory about to be revealed in us;
But, the reality is that he can’t give that one up lest it put undue pressure on his creedal commitments.
Overall, it was a well crafted interview. I hope to see more dialogue in the future. Thanks for representing so well.
Only Christians were resurrected from the baptism of Christ till 70 AD when all the old testament saints were raised.
Doug touched on an overlap of time between Jesus' earthly ministry and the fall of Jerusalem . The nature of the resurrection is certainly not debated and discussed enough . Whereas most Christians have been taught and believe that resurrection is of the individual physical body, I believe that the Bible talks about resurrection as being corporate and spiritual and being accomplished in the heavenly realm.
His commitment to creedalism (the Apostle’s Creed to be exact) Do these people realize that the Apostles did not write that!
Great job gentleman! I did not realize Wilson was so young!
Sounds like Sola Credo, not Sola Scriptura. Count me out!
So in Doug’s paradigm, we have “toddlers” creating binding creedal statements that can’t be corrected by much older children?
Hahaha true
The thing is the "Toddlers" were more informed about the Jewish Culture of which the Old and New Covenant flowed from... The Older Children's (modern day) perspective of the scripture has shifted very far from the Jewish World and 1st century Christians ... so how can they provide any correction?
the phrase, "already, but not yet", is so annoying.
Great interview. Thanks!
Drives me up the wall. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
I can see, 10,000 years from now, AI-generated stained-glass windows of St. Douglas adorning our virtual churchesphere.
Best intro music of all podcasts. Wow!!
If the church has been wrong on eschatology ? Of course it has . You can't have competing positions all be right .
This was a really great conversation to listen to - and I enjoyed it. I thought both people in the interview were gracious and very respectful of each other.
Really enjoyed this dialogue. Thanks Brothers!
I wouldn't call myself a full preterist, but Protestants like Wilson are being quite selective about exactly which church history they accept as defining "heresy". There's an ongoing tension between championing both extra biblical "guardrails" and sola scriptura that Wilson cant quite square.
@@markf5229 By “extra biblical guardrails", I believe WiIson was referring to historical church tradition which would include things like councils and creeds. Or at least a selected portion of them, depending on which ones you want to pick and choose. I doubt Wilson gives much weight to Trent. As far as the physical resurrection, I wouldn't think full preterism denies that. When we are in heaven with Christ, I assume we'll need, and will be given, a glorified body of some kind. But you'll have to ask a full preterist, as I am not one.
I agree with Doug!... it IS a two way street. the logical thing to do in a normal Christians view is to anathematize each other. To be fair also, FP would have every right to do so! however, praise the Lord for grace towards others. God has enduring patience and we can have that too. FP will win because it is true, but it does not have to be at the behest of going to war with other Christians doing the best they know how to serve God. everything would be better IF they accepted FP but we have to be realistic and accept that things are going to be rough (more than it should be) till we get our theology right
England did not have a bloodly war to overcome slavery like the U.S. of A. Granted, the situations were different. Hopefully overcoming futurism will be peaceful.
Leave the physicality thinking “death is the enemy” behind. Physical death was built into the good creation by God.
Covenant Eschatology as presented by Don K Preston, William Bell and Michael Sullivan is 💯% Biblicaly the truth.
Amen
Well, DP is for sure a great teacher, he pulled me out of modern Faux Christianity, but imo he falls short of the truth.
Wow! I’d love to chat with you some on your experience with David Chilton! Super cool you got to meet him. I was untimely born 😥
My entire Christian life I thought people's hope was Christ, but after becoming preterist, I've realized that for many of them, their hope is just to get a new physical body. Weird and sad...and sooooo carnal!
The NT was written to the OT 1st century audience. We are reading their mail.
Any doctrine having a so-called long historical heritage in the church doesn't prove it is correct.
Historical Premillennialism came long after the 1st century.
Unlike other very important doctrines, there has never been any church synods or councils addressing eschatology (yet).
Starting at 50:45, did you catch what Doug Wilson said? He said the new covenant was "fully established" in 70AD and then a few seconds later says the new covenant is NOT fully established. What?!
Sounds weird at first but he (I believe) was saying that he "fully believes" ("I believe, fully, etc") in establishment at 70ad, but that it was not "fully established" at that time
It is a 2-way street, and therefore, further dialog is all-the-more necessary.
I think for me it’s a 1 1/2 way street. I would never anathematize a partial preterist. Heresy has come to be a strong word…Peter seems to imply that there are heresies that are damnable. But contextually and immediately historically, that is referring to the Judaizing Pharisees and works/circumcision salvation per Acts 15, Galatians etc.
However, many creedalists (e.g. Sandelin, North, West et al) attach “damnable” to a violation of the creedal affirmation of a future coming (timing)- a creed put together by church fathers who affirmed transmutation (cannibalizing Christ)/transubstantiation. Such a doctrine which the fathers unanimously affirmed as perpetuating the eternal life upon ingestion, seems to me to be more damnable than denying timing of the Lord’s coming in the Nicene and Apostles’ creed.
@ncmilive
I truly believe in my heart that it's a sad cop-out for Christians to dismiss brothers & sisters in Christ instead of actually making the genuine effort to understand covenant eschatology.
That makes sense to me. However, I assume many modern-day Roman Catholics would deny the "literalism" that's implied regarding transubstantiation.
I personally transferred from partial-preterist to full, and my membership at a Reformed Baptist church was removed about 6 weeks ago.
I know who Andrew Sandelin and Gary North are, but not West.
Such a refreshing discussion.
Great discussion from you both .....we need more of this
Those last words of Doug almost sounds like the words of a closeted full preterist.
Fantastic convo Ward and Doug!!!
Great interview great Ward love the spirit of love through out the interview.
Appreciate the interview and you, Ward, were the man to have it. And although Doug was being as gentle as possible, unfortunately I have a bad taste in my mouth from his prior video where his true unbridled thoughts on FP came out more clearly. FP is the pig he hates because he believes it threatens the foundations of tradition Christianity, so he put some lipstick and perfume on it so he can stomach talking about.
He then seems to contradict himself in saying the Church is still young and maybe a teenager (we all know about teenagers), but yet whoa be to the Berian student who upsets the "long-standing" traditions. He obviously is a very intelligent man, yet the excuses and verbal gymnastics he goes through so he doesn't have to exegete the word but stand by tradition was evident. If God is sovereign and Christianity is still young, why is it so important to protect these traditions? He made it clear he needs to protect his worldview without any consideration for the sovereignty of God and arc of history.
I'm glad he is talking though, and appreciate his honesty. It clears the air on what we have ahead of us.
Ward, with your clear grasp and articulation of scripture, you asked important questions. Thank you.
Good points.
Just listen very carefully about his statements about accepting FP into church membership and communion.
Wilson was assuming church membership in the discussion about accepting FPs. He later qualified that FP "members" as "wanting to learn from us." What I got from that is very, very subtle and precise. But what he had in the back of his mind is that church vows require one to submit to the teaching of the elders. He even referenced that. One would have to vow to accept the teaching of the church leadership as part of the membership covenant.
What would happen next? Probably some time for orientation, and relationship. Then the meetings would start where the leadership would explain the creeds and the doctrine of the church. What happens if the FP member holds firm on their belief about the teaching of fulfillment from Scripture? What happens next?
Wilson mentioned the word "contumacy"... get the drift. Listen very, very carefully.
So, there is no scenario where a FP would be allowed in the church and served communion for an open-ended future or as a permanent scenario. At some point they would use the authority of the congregation to call the FP to orthodoxy. Any extended, principled denial of that would lead to excommunication if the FP held firm in that context.
And they would believe they were doing God a favor.
Exactly. He's made it clear at this point in time he doesn't think the church should have anything to do with FP. It's dangerous to the worldview he demands.
Here's hoping that the Duncans and the DeYoungs of the world will just agree to sit down and discuss things with Mr Wilson about the "Moscow Mood" and what their real objections to it are.
This was great. Thank you both!
Thank you both of you!
😢 Jesus said if you believe in him you will never die😊
Doug will let you be a member but you have to be quiet. 😢
Post Mill is going to have a serious overpopulation problem lol.
Death has been conquered. Christ is King. Constantine wasn't the head of the church. Jesus said not to call anyone father. Father Doug.
All futurist perspectives which post mill is are just so sad.
The last day of the old covenant they were raised from Sheol.
The Belgic confession states the whole world is to be burned up 2Pe3. I think Doug believes that passage fulfilled. Does that mean Doug is not orthodox or a confession is in error.
He's a Westminster guy, so I don't think he holds to the Belgic Confession. However, he has plenty of problems because his PP Postmillennialism contradicts some of the Westminster.
FYI! The Lord has rained and His enemies are under His feet to this day. I don’t get Post mills??? You need to prove way too much! Post trib is absolutely the only theology you can derive from the scriptures…Haha All good, I love you brother. When you see the great falling away, I think you’ll figure out that the theonomy post mil doctrine makes no sense…Love you guys!
The resurrection occured at Daniel 12:7 in 70 AD and the millennium was from Christ's baptism till 70 AD and the beast from "the Land" is Israel and the scribes & Pharacies which is also the same beast that is cast into the fire, also 666 is the number of the Babylonian Sun God's magic square or their Sigilla Solis and obviously Jarusalem was mystery Babylon.
When does Revelation stop being about AD70 and then into the "Second" coming?
It doesn’t. The second coming was in AD 70. This is where pastor Wilson and I disagree.
So there is two new covenants ????????????????
Seems like we ought to be able to unite on First Things--the gospel.
So it seems we have “creedal”preterists who move closer to “non-creedal” Preterist positions with every new publication or interview… the two camps can not fully work together in teaching the fulfilled and powerful Kingdom (because of the inconsistency of the creeds?)
But can we and should we not work together a la American Vision to proclaim the absolute sovereignty of Christ and the foibles of socialism aka atheism?
Sooooo, Doug Wilson is willing to divide the Body of Christ through exclusion out of fear of discussion. That is not the Spirit of Christ. At all!!!
Did you listen to the full discussion? And his willingness to dialogue ?
@skyeart273 let me make it as simple as possible: Once you or I require one thing more than Christ (or his Apostles) to be a full functioning member of the church, it is no longer Christ' Church/Body, it is ours. It's not up for debate.
All the typical stuff progressive atonement, church traditions, double fulfillment, lack of covenental concepts.
Aw yes! Doug made it very clear that we must be morally perfect to be resurrected or experience oneness with God. Which is simply bad interpretation comsidering it was never about subjective morals but perfect Sinai Law keeping. Many more contradictory and telling positions.
At 34:50 timestamp Doug agrees with the host that it's referring to imputed righteousness, and not personal "moral perfection" of our own.
@@philipmurray9796 Out of one side of his mouth. He littered the video with suggestions of doubt of the resurrection being past and complete based on his perceptions of the former and current moral ledger of the church. In the same way, he pays lip service to Sola Scriptura and then subjects the text to church traditions. One foot in. One foot out.
@@teyateyaohteya the resurrection of Jesus is in the past. That is common Orthodox Christian teaching that Doug holds to. All saints have not been resurrected. That's future. It seems there is a difficulty in you understanding basic language.
@philipmurray9796 1st of all, I would really appreciate if you could hold yourself back from your snide insults about my ability to comprehend. I know it's hard without a face to face interaction, but I'm a woman and there's a certain way you need to talk to me to have a discussion. More importantly, "we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. ~ Paul
@@teyateyaohteya you've made at least two demonstrably wrong assumptions about Doug's view in your comments. That's the reason I ask if you have difficulty understanding language.
Ward Fenley is so full of crap. He plays this "speak the truth in love" game to get attention. He doesn't actually believe it. Wilson is right that it is a two-way street, in terms of anathematizing the other side and Ward knows it because he has done it. These are his words: "The Dangers of Referring New or Unsuspecting Believers to “Reformers” or “Calvinists” for Good Teaching.
Imagine eating a delicious ribeye steak, medium rare, seasoned perfectly and so juicy and tender...Then the chef tells you it was poisoned with cyanide. That’s what it’s like for me to listen to a person talk about the glorious doctrines of grace and then proceed to speak of how we are being progressively conformed closer and closer into the image of a Christ through good behavior and cleaner thoughts. If people understood the express contradiction of this type of theology, and the psychological damage and demoralizing results of such thinking, by the grace of God they would flee into the arms of King Jesus and bask and glory in His cross alone. Dare I say, do not recommend Lordship theologians (or any other “orthodox” theologian for that matter) to new believers. Use the knowledge of scripture and grace God has given you. Don’t use the argument, “but Johnny Mac and Washer explain grace so well!” No. They don’t. They corrupt grace like cyanide corrupted a delicious steak. Sovereign grace through the finished work of Christ and Lordship theology and/or federal vision theology is an oxymoron at best and should not be recommended. If one is willing to recommend such to a new believer because of an inability to explain grace and the kingdom of God to that new believer, then someone needs to study their Bible more. Do not turn someone on to someone else just because they are “reformed,” or “Calvinist” because part of the message is agreeable. I agree with certain parts of the word of faith movement, Mormonism, Islam, Baptists, but I never turn anyone on to their theology without serious disclaimers of the inherent dangers within those movements. And even then, why would I do even that to a new believer if I have to give such radical disclaimers? If I want to learn about healthy living, I’m not going to read a book by someone who argues that both broccoli and cigarettes are good for your health. So why would I recommend someone else read such a book? As a believer in the fulfilled kingdom, do you not wince when you hear a spectacular message on grace followed up by a warning of an imminent rapture or tribulation period? Likewise, do you not wince when “progressive sanctification” culminates a sermon on the riches of God’s effectual love through the redeeming work of Christ? We must get back to the Bible and fulfilled kingdom of God and the pure and unadulterated grace of God by His sovereign will and love for us. We should be ready to give an answer from scripture and not have to send anyone to wolves in order to get a better understanding of Jesus and His sheep. It doesn’t matter how good the steak is if it is going to kill them in the end. This is the Gospel, folks. We mustn’t toy with it."
What’s your name?
By the sound of your introductory sentence, it must be Sam Frost, or his puppy, Jason Bradfield. It just sounds like it for some reason. If Jason, how’s that rap career going? If Sam, how’s that book on the resurrection of the dead from the full preterist perspective doing? Is it selling like hotcakes?
@@ncmiliveSo no answer to your own words on FB? Thought so. You're a fraud.
I agree with what Ward said for the most part.
I think he and Doug Wilson both exaggerated a bit by insinuating if a person is saved or not.
@@ncmilive
Hmmm, crickets.
I think you nailed it.
Say what?! 🫣 Now this, I’ve got to see! (Editing to add)... Excellent interview! It was refreshing to see civil interaction here. I appreciate your posture and the questions you posed. The group of preterists where I live are going through what WIlson began describing at the 19:50 mark (being made to step down from being elder or teacher because of their views). But the other side isn't willing to bring it to the surface to discuss, so this was encouraging and shows it IS possible. Praying good fruit will come :)