My husband was trying to get me to calm down and not worry about the state of society, reminding me that we’re to be trusting in God throughout all these trials that Christ told us He has overcome. The World vexes me, but I am commissioned to a different path than “the world”. Your talk here helps me. Thanks.
Amen, Doug. The light bulb moment to get me out of twenty years of dispensationalism was when I literally heard Jesus say "that's me" while I was reading Dan 9 26 & 27
@@matts.6558 It was always Jesus until dispensationalism was created in the 1800's Jesus is the one who "confirms a covenant with many". That is the Abrahamic promise that he would eventually become the father of "many" nations and Jesus would give His new covenant blood also shed "for many". On the cross, the Abrahamic covenant confirmed by Jesus becomes the New Covenant.
@@contemplate-Matt.G appreciate the response, ok how do you see the rest of verse 27 being fulfilled? “In the middle of the ‘seven’[i] he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple[j] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him” I’m not a dispensationalist but see this very different from you, so trying to understand
@@matts.6558 I have a different take than most when it comes to the 70 weeks prophecy. I see Jesus' baptism as the beginning of His 3 1/2 year long public ministry which is the first half of the 70th week. The sacrifices are technically put to an end by the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus on the cross in the midst of the week. Then there is a 40 year period i.e., the acts period, where Israel is given a "space to repent". The Gospel is preached to the Jew first and then the Gentile and the veil is removed from Israel on an individual basis when ever "one turns to the Lord". The acts is the transition period were the Old and New Covenants reside together until the "firstborn" is "cast out", namely, Israel by way of the 3 1/2 year Roman siege of Jerusalem as the second half of the 70th week, ending in a.d. 70. The reason I call Israel God's "firstborn" is because God does so in Ex 4 22. National Israel is the fulfillment and anti-type of Ishmael who Paul calls the first covenant. Isaac, who becomes Abraham's "only son" depicts Jesus, God's one and only Son and inaugurates the New Covenant. Just as Ishmael and Isaac, the two covenants, dwelt in the same house until Ishmael was removed "never to inherit the promise with the son of the free woman, so Israel, the firstborn was removed after residing with the newly established Church during the acts. The desolation of Jerusalem completes the seventy weeks prophecy and leaves nothing but the New Covenant.
One of the big things stopping me from being postmil is this. When the last day comes, God will judge this world by fire, comparable to the flood of Noah's day. Similar to that flood, the fire will be a deserved judgment, meaning lots of worldly sin leading up to that last day by lots of people. Nowhere in scripture does God send that kind of widespread judgment without a good reason. What is the postmil answer to that one, if you think the world will be largely Christian at that time?
Yes. Or this: 2 Timothy 3:12-13 NASB95 Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. [13] But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.
Doug Wilson is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and you blinded so called Christians are being deceived! Post-millennialists are denying Jesus Christ His glorious Kingdom on Earth.
I got to say I’m pretty excited to see this come across my feed. My wife and I were able to go down to Tim’s church when Jon Harris came last year. We really enjoyed ourselves and appreciate the hospitality of everybody there. I’ve been wanting to ask this question for sometime and this seems like the place to ask. How important is it to go to a church that has the same eschatology as you? We’re currently going to a reformed church, but it is dispensational. There’s really not much in my area to choose from. We have been going to church for over three years and my eschatology has changed since I first walked in the door. I see Postmill written throughout the Scriptures. therefore, I am Postmill.
As we always say in these instances, it really, really depends. If it is a paramount and central tenet of this Church, and it's constantly being pushed every Sunday, then you might eventually be really conflicted. But I doubt that's the case - most Churches like that hold their dispensationalism fairly loosely, and it's not the main/plain focus. Either way, be gracious, humble, and approach your elders in the way that respects their office.
@@timbushong4387 thank you for the advice Tim. I definitely want to be gracious and humble. I do respect them as elders. I’ll continue to listen via podcasts and hope to see you guys again in October.
Based exclusively on the incarnation I am 100% sure that all of us are wrong on the eschaton. All of us. Oh, each one of us will get some portion of it okay but God has a way of doing things completely differently than we expect or can guess at, but that makes perfect sense.
I’ve heard that “of he must reign until he has put every enemy under his feet as being and meaning he’s not coming back until all of his enemies have been put under his feet are the elect. Meaning, when all the elect have been gathered to himself then I’ll come back becausebefore regeneration the Bible says we are enemies of God. Thoughts on this?
Why do these guys allways make it an issue of calvinism vs arminianism? I am neither of those. And I think that they are both wrong. If you read Romans chapter nine. The whole chapter. It says that God has the right to choose who ever He wants. But in the last verses it says: Romans 9:32-33 [32] Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. [33] As it is written: “Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” Yes God has the right to choose who ever He wants. So in His sovereignty He chose to save who so ever believes in His Son. Does not have to be harder than that.
I don't know about getting him to read stuff, but he always goes to Grace Agenda (Just to make 100% sure he is going, look at the speaker list). If you bring him a copy of the book, that would probably be your best chance
Serious question: Why is God only sovereign enough to put Christ's enemies under His feet if Calvinism is true - i.e., He meticulously controls every molecule, and unchangably ordains whatsoever comes to pass, including all the sin we commit?
We are fallen humans, we will never quite understand everything until we see our Lord. We are tainted. Some things might not be for us to understand. Edit- God is sovereign enough to do as he wants.
Is it possible, or common, to be a postmillennialist and not hold to a partial preterist view of Revelation? Can one hold to an idealist interpretation for example but still be postmil?
I was listening to Bahnsen teach through Rev. and he kept quoting Thy Kingdom Come, commentary by Rushdoony. RJR is an idealist in his interpretation of Rev. but postmillennial overall.
Its a labeling system. Its only purpose is communication. Call yourself a post millennialist, and if people don't get the right idea, stop calling yourself a post millennialist.
I do not understand how the posties get all of their optimism given Matthew 24. Clearly Jesus is telling the disciples that things will get progressively worse. He speaks of a coming tribulation that will be greater than anything ever experienced by this world before.
He also gave us a clear time frame reference in verse 34. Jesus was not linguistically challenged. This generation always means "this generation", speaking to his contemporaries. I'd like to ask you what "age" (aion) was coming to an end, and where do you find the gap of 'thousands of years' future to them, in the text?
@@evantheorthodox740, since we both know that the Lord Jesus was not linguistically challenged, as you say. In the verses immediately preceding "this generation" of verse 34, when did this happen?: "THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory." The only way to make sense of this is to allegorize it all away as not literal or to take it as literal and understand "this generation" to mean the generation extant at the time of the events described happen. I chose the latter.
@@Saratogan You choose the latter because your system demands it. Do you have any idea where Jesus is quoting from? Do you know where "coming on the clouds" is used of Jesus in the prophets? Lack of O.T. knowledge leaves one in the dark on how to interpret this.
@@evantheorthodox740 and your system requires the same of you. Do I have any idea from where the Lord Jesus is quoting? Look at my face. I am 72 years old and have been studying the holy scriptures over 50 years. Has "every eye" seen Him? Have all the nations mourned because of Him coming in judgment? How about John seeing the risen Christ in Revelation 1 (written ~90 AD) and therefore past the destruction of the temple and the city? Why does He not say to John that all that stuff of Matthew 24 & 25 has already happened? Where are the two witnesses of Revelation 11? When did they prophesy for 1,260 days? When did their bodies lie in the the streets of Jerusalem for 3.5 days? When were they resurrected? So many more things but I'll stop with these for now.
@@Saratogan This does not answer the question. You have not stated where Jesus is quoting from when he says he is "'coming on the clouds" , nor what "age" (aion) was going to end, in Matt. 24:3? You didn't work with either.
Its easy enough to see why one becomes premill. So much trouble everywhere, unless one wants to be blind. So, we hope. Post mill is not any better, it just pushes the solution out there, just beyond reach, always promising, never delivering. I suspect scripture is speaking quite a diferent story than most modern churchianity. Faith, hope, trust in the Name, not men and religious traditions, perhaps. Eschatology matters.
Not in an approved course of some sort. I always looked at history, the creeds, confessions and the like. Generally through the lens of the church I was in. I think I subordinated scripture to church history and have only recently observed this about myself. Analogy of faith and making the scriptures work together has to be the lens, imo.@@unkown312
Maybe Gods law as salvation of society is not the right term, how about upright society? We know it is the prescription, e.g, 1 Tim 1:8-11, Rom 13. So I kind of disagree with Doug on this point.
Gospel preaching will not save the parents of California when the law is passed mandating affirmation by parents of their children's desire to transgender or to trans. it will be the law. it will be politics that will save these parents not gospel preaching. If Doug means by gospel preaching also preaching about politics then I am wrong.
Who's 'we'? And if the 'better understanding' is such an improvement, why does it still not answer a) Paul's dilemma over unsaved ethnic Jews, and b) deal with the 'not all descended from Israel are Israel' issue? The attempts at skirting God's absolute sovereignty in the matter of salvation haven't been able to allow for both of those exegetical necessities, and always chalks it all up to national privileges and/or exclusively corporate election of some type.
@@timbushong4387 “we” was just the royal “we.” And it’s really Calvinists who skirt God’s sovereignty in salvation. Calvinists assert God must choose who is and who is not saved. “We” non-Calvinists assert God is more powerful than that, he is sovereign enough to create mankind with their own ability to decide whether to worship him or not. He is strong enough to not have to control them. The corporate/national election is also not the correct rendering of Romans 9, at least not how corporate election is commonly explained (God predestined the airplane, we decide whether to buy a ticket type of explanation). It’s odd you pick a.) Paul’s dilemma over unsaved Jews and b.) ‘not all Israel are Israel’ as the supposed stumbling stones for your opponents. I don’t honestly see how those points are good for Calvinism. A.) In the lead up to Romans 9, Paul’s overarching message is that what the Jews had always taught, that they alone were the elect chosen people of God and that the Gentiles were just out of luck, was terribly wrong. Paul’s message is that no, indeed, the Gentiles have always also been loved by God, and have always been destined to be included into the invitation to his kingdom. The Jews hated this message and hated him for delivering it. They rebuked Paul for teaching that God would love and bless the dirty disgusting Gentiles as much as he loved the holy nation of Israel. Yet Paul persisted. In chapter 8, Paul has just finished teaching how great the love of God is and all the blessings he has for these Gentiles who are now accepted into the family of God, just like the Jews. And though he’s skirted the issue several times before in this book, Paul now decides to move headlong into and directly confront the unbelieving Jews’ objections, all of them. When Paul moves into chapter 9 he begins to give us all of the winning lines, references and allegories he used in confronting unbelieving Jews throughout his ministry. He remembers how they hated him, called him Gentile-lover and Jew-hater, and tried even to kill him. So in Rom 9:1-3 when Paul laments over Israel he does so with certain language. His words are strident, deeper than what a casual reader would expect, coming out of chapter 8. Indeed, when we review casual commentaries on Rom 9:1-3 we see pastors whose supposition is that the support for Paul’s deep feelings here are based on an expected reaction from his gentile Christians. Such is not the case. Paul’s language is stark. He is remembering the death threats and hateful slander of his own people, the Jews, and he remembers their pain and violence. This is why he brings up the dilemma of unsaved Israel, he is remembering their hatred when he preached, just as he just finished doing in chapter 8, that the Gentiles have now received all the same blessings from God. B.) The main Jewish objection to Paul’s teachings is “No! God would never allow the Gentiles into his kingdom! Blasphemous!” Knowing this is the main objection is key. Some lesser objections would be, “has God changed his plan?” “Is God abandoning the Jews?” “Why would God be letting the Gentiles into his family so many thousands of years later?” “Why did God even choose us Jews? What was the point?” He answers that last one in verse 9:17. He answers the time one in 9:12. He answers the plan one in 9:9. But to your question, Paul’s explanation in 9:6 is just a reminder to the Jews that what God counts for someone to actually be his people is whether the people have faith and worship him, not his choosing of them. He doesn’t determine some to be his people and not others, for his part he has “chosen” everyone. The point is, the people that will see eternal life with him will be the ones who have faith, Jew or Gentile. And that has always been the case. In summary, I don’t know why you think these two points are stumbling stones for non-Calvinists, they are not. And the correct understanding of Romans 9, although I haven’t gone into much detail of it here, is that in it Paul is explaining how all the Jews proofs for their errant doctrine of election can be seen to be preposterous and turned on their head. The doctrine of election is entirely man-made, false, and even evil. And Paul uses line after line in chapter 9 to destroy it. With humor. Maybe irony.
@@TheRomans9Guy - Well, brother that was yet another 'swing-and-a-miss' in an attempt to do exactly what I said you would do. The fact that you mis-read the didactic arch of both Romans 8 AND 9 is kind of typical. For example, the Jew/Gentile issue is in the background, not the forefront of 'peace with God,' Federal headship, and 'no condemnation,' the Golden Chain of redemption, and the question "Who will bring a charge against God's elect?" in ch. 8. Paul's issue in ch. 9 isn't with obstreperous Jews' rejection of the Gentiles, it's with the faithfulness and truthfulness of God regarding the majority of Jews remaining in their unbelief. In fact, your conclusion is 180 degrees opposite - you said "not his choosing of them" and Paul says "in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls." That's all for me on this - I have a busy day, and I pray that you can consider my (reformed) convictions without all the hyperbole and accusatory invective.
@@TheRomans9Guy Talk about Strawman arguments. You seem to have a need to mischaracterize "Calvinism" completely and make any Reformed person replying look like they are authoritarian or harsh (or worse). A God who is not just and in the process of implementing his perfect plan is no God at all. That would be the obviously fallacious (on many levels) "watchmaker thing" (he made us and stepped out of the picture). Most of us "Reformed" types only ever identify as "Calvinists" to try to explain this stuff to overly proud (either non-logos or non sola scriptura) Arminian-types. You seem to just enjoy appearing more lenient, tolerant and welcoming (and enjoy portraying "us" as... otherwise).
@@rawbingham “A God who is not just and in the process of implementing his perfect plan is no God at all.” Yes, and that’s usually the primary source of where the objection to Calvinism starts. It teaches an unjust God. If you’re attempting to say a non-Calvinist theology has a God who is not implementing his perfect plan that accusation doesn’t stick well. The non-Calvinist believes God is carrying out his plan. He planned to forgive all of humanity, not just some, and offer eternal life to all humans, not just some, so that any who surrender to him, repent and believe, to those he will grant eternal life. This is a far more perfect plan than him just choosing some people, and he’s carrying it out perfectly.
I appreciate the Calvinist / post millennial combo in the idea that the majority of people will be saved, it is sweet and kind hearted but it doesn’t correct or rationalize the pernicious heresy which is limited atonement causing double predestination. I mean, William Ln., Craig can’t even come to accept this rationalization, and he is one of the best logic choppers there is when it comes to Christian apologetics and analyzation. Just let it go, let Calvinism go away from you
When you reference Wm. Craig, who has to import an *entire* philosophical system, made up out of whole cloth and originating with a Jesuit whose sole purpose was to overthrow the glorious liberty of reformation-gospel, and then to transpose that system on *top* of everything the Bible teaches regarding God's decrees, that makes it very difficult to give your smarmy assessment of Reformed theology much (if any) weight at all. And to label the belief in particular redemption (the "L") 'heresy' is ignorant.
So what are your thoughts on election and predestination? It's certainly taught in the Bible, but the Definite Atonement interpretation seems to be held in low regard, so again, what do you think? Genuine question btw
@@samsilva8000 well, in all sincerity, it can’t be anything that affirms double predestination. Calvinism makes god the author of evil. It’s a fascinating discussion, but it’s ok to say we just don’t know. We might be incapable , it’s might be a requirement of true faith, it’s a complicated issue nevertheless
My husband was trying to get me to calm down and not worry about the state of society, reminding me that we’re to be trusting in God throughout all these trials that Christ told us He has overcome. The World vexes me, but I am commissioned to a different path than “the world”. Your talk here helps me. Thanks.
You have a good husband.
Prepare for
defective systems to fail.
Gotta love a Choir that ROARS...
I really enjoyed the intro...
Anyone know what is the name of the choir?
I could listen to Doug talk for a millennium
Also, you are an excellent interviewer! Great inputs and follow ups
WHEN THE MAN COMES AROUND; A great book!!! Very contextual, precise, and Doug's jokes are funny.
Two of the greats. Thanks for this!
Singing that intro at FLF was amazing! One of my favorites! New to the channel... wait, Tim Bushong that does the awesome worship music!? Whaaaat!? :D
Well, we try to good good work around here - thnx Sammy.
Amen, Doug. The light bulb moment to get me out of twenty years of dispensationalism was when I literally heard Jesus say "that's me" while I was reading Dan 9 26 & 27
Out of curiosity, your saying the “He” that start off verse 27, you’re saying that’s Jesus?
@@matts.6558 It was always Jesus until dispensationalism was created in the 1800's
Jesus is the one who "confirms a covenant with many". That is the Abrahamic promise that he would eventually become the father of "many" nations and Jesus would give His new covenant blood also shed "for many". On the cross, the Abrahamic covenant confirmed by Jesus becomes the New Covenant.
@@contemplate-Matt.G appreciate the response, ok how do you see the rest of verse 27 being fulfilled?
“In the middle of the ‘seven’[i] he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple[j] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him”
I’m not a dispensationalist but see this
very different from you, so trying to understand
@@matts.6558 I have a different take than most when it comes to the 70 weeks prophecy. I see Jesus' baptism as the beginning of His 3 1/2 year long public ministry which is the first half of the 70th week.
The sacrifices are technically put to an end by the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus on the cross in the midst of the week.
Then there is a 40 year period i.e., the acts period, where Israel is given a "space to repent". The Gospel is preached to the Jew first and then the Gentile and the veil is removed from Israel on an individual basis when ever "one turns to the Lord".
The acts is the transition period were the Old and New Covenants reside together until the "firstborn" is "cast out", namely, Israel by way of the 3 1/2 year Roman siege of Jerusalem as the second half of the 70th week, ending in a.d. 70.
The reason I call Israel God's "firstborn" is because God does so in Ex 4 22. National Israel is the fulfillment and anti-type of Ishmael who Paul calls the first covenant. Isaac, who becomes Abraham's "only son" depicts Jesus, God's one and only Son and inaugurates the New Covenant.
Just as Ishmael and Isaac, the two covenants, dwelt in the same house until Ishmael was removed "never to inherit the promise with the son of the free woman, so Israel, the firstborn was removed after residing with the newly established Church during the acts. The desolation of Jerusalem completes the seventy weeks prophecy and leaves nothing but the New Covenant.
@@matts.6558type in MLJ Daniel 9. He explains it
You know this will be good!
- We aim for quality around these parts.
One of the big things stopping me from being postmil is this. When the last day comes, God will judge this world by fire, comparable to the flood of Noah's day. Similar to that flood, the fire will be a deserved judgment, meaning lots of worldly sin leading up to that last day by lots of people. Nowhere in scripture does God send that kind of widespread judgment without a good reason. What is the postmil answer to that one, if you think the world will be largely Christian at that time?
Yes. Or this:
2 Timothy 3:12-13 NASB95
Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.
[13] But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.
Wonderful conversation. Love Doug. One of the most faithful men around today. Godspeed!
Doug Wilson is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and you blinded so called Christians are being deceived! Post-millennialists are denying Jesus Christ His glorious Kingdom on Earth.
Glory Hallehuja
I got to say I’m pretty excited to see this come across my feed. My wife and I were able to go down to Tim’s church when Jon Harris came last year. We really enjoyed ourselves and appreciate the hospitality of everybody there. I’ve been wanting to ask this question for sometime and this seems like the place to ask. How important is it to go to a church that has the same eschatology as you? We’re currently going to a reformed church, but it is dispensational. There’s really not much in my area to choose from. We have been going to church for over three years and my eschatology has changed since I first walked in the door. I see Postmill written throughout the Scriptures. therefore, I am Postmill.
As we always say in these instances, it really, really depends. If it is a paramount and central tenet of this Church, and it's constantly being pushed every Sunday, then you might eventually be really conflicted. But I doubt that's the case - most Churches like that hold their dispensationalism fairly loosely, and it's not the main/plain focus. Either way, be gracious, humble, and approach your elders in the way that respects their office.
@@timbushong4387 thank you for the advice Tim. I definitely want to be gracious and humble. I do respect them as elders. I’ll continue to listen via podcasts and hope to see you guys again in October.
@@anthonyg5055 - Excellent - look forward to seeing you again, brother.
Based exclusively on the incarnation I am 100% sure that all of us are wrong on the eschaton. All of us. Oh, each one of us will get some portion of it okay but God has a way of doing things completely differently than we expect or can guess at, but that makes perfect sense.
Great interview!
This was very good!
Love that intro! I'm primitive Baptist and well, sacred Harp is our thang!
I’ve heard that “of he must reign until he has put every enemy under his feet as being and meaning he’s not coming back until all of his enemies have been put under his feet are the elect. Meaning, when all the elect have been gathered to himself then I’ll come back becausebefore regeneration the Bible says we are enemies of God. Thoughts on this?
Why do these guys allways make it an issue of calvinism vs arminianism? I am neither of those. And I think that they are both wrong.
If you read Romans chapter nine. The whole chapter. It says that God has the right to choose who ever He wants. But in the last verses it says:
Romans 9:32-33
[32] Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. [33] As it is written: “Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”
Yes God has the right to choose who ever He wants. So in His sovereignty He chose to save who so ever believes in His Son.
Does not have to be harder than that.
I love that Idols for Destruction is right behind Doug on his shelf. Seems fitting for this discussion.
I love Calvinism the basis to our faith
Make America 🇺🇸 Puritan Protestant Christian ✝️ again 😀
Including the stocks and dunking?
I like the evangel choir... what group is that? I want to look into their music.
ruclips.net/video/v6hkbIdycpc/видео.htmlsi=f7pOAK6cqKZlfsnr
@@eschatology_matters thank you
What is the intro song?
ruclips.net/video/v6hkbIdycpc/видео.htmlsi=f7pOAK6cqKZlfsnr
@@eschatology_matters Thank you!
Doug is awesome. How do I get in touch with him? I have a recently published work I want him to read
I don't know about getting him to read stuff, but he always goes to Grace Agenda (Just to make 100% sure he is going, look at the speaker list). If you bring him a copy of the book, that would probably be your best chance
Serious question: Why is God only sovereign enough to put Christ's enemies under His feet if Calvinism is true - i.e., He meticulously controls every molecule, and unchangably ordains whatsoever comes to pass, including all the sin we commit?
We are fallen humans, we will never quite understand everything until we see our Lord. We are tainted. Some things might not be for us to understand.
Edit- God is sovereign enough to do as he wants.
send a link to that opening hymn please./...
ruclips.net/video/v6hkbIdycpc/видео.html
@@eschatology_matters thanks!
Is it possible, or common, to be a postmillennialist and not hold to a partial preterist view of Revelation? Can one hold to an idealist interpretation for example but still be postmil?
I was listening to Bahnsen teach through Rev. and he kept quoting Thy Kingdom Come, commentary by Rushdoony. RJR is an idealist in his interpretation of Rev. but postmillennial overall.
Yes, Rushdoony was idealist, and Lorraine Boettner was post mil but not preterist.
Its a labeling system. Its only purpose is communication. Call yourself a post millennialist, and if people don't get the right idea, stop calling yourself a post millennialist.
❤ Calvin, but maybe this is why tulips aren't my favorite... 🌷 He is risen!🎉
What's the song and artist at the beginning?
ruclips.net/video/v6hkbIdycpc/видео.htmlsi=f7pOAK6cqKZlfsnr
What song is the introduction to the video
ruclips.net/video/v6hkbIdycpc/видео.htmlsi=f7pOAK6cqKZlfsnr
What song was the intro?
ruclips.net/video/v6hkbIdycpc/видео.htmlsi=f7pOAK6cqKZlfsnr
I'm not 100% sure about Postmillennialism
I am because James White says so, LOL. Also, it's biblical.
@@MegaTigers01 I don't agree, but we will see sooner or later.
I do not understand how the posties get all of their optimism given Matthew 24. Clearly Jesus is telling the disciples that things will get progressively worse. He speaks of a coming tribulation that will be greater than anything ever experienced by this world before.
He also gave us a clear time frame reference in verse 34. Jesus was not linguistically challenged. This generation always means "this generation", speaking to his contemporaries. I'd like to ask you what "age" (aion) was coming to an end, and where do you find the gap of 'thousands of years' future to them, in the text?
@@evantheorthodox740, since we both know that the Lord Jesus was not linguistically challenged, as you say. In the verses immediately preceding "this generation" of verse 34, when did this happen?: "THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory." The only way to make sense of this is to allegorize it all away as not literal or to take it as literal and understand "this generation" to mean the generation extant at the time of the events described happen. I chose the latter.
@@Saratogan You choose the latter because your system demands it. Do you have any idea where Jesus is quoting from? Do you know where "coming on the clouds" is used of Jesus in the prophets? Lack of O.T. knowledge leaves one in the dark on how to interpret this.
@@evantheorthodox740 and your system requires the same of you. Do I have any idea from where the Lord Jesus is quoting? Look at my face. I am 72 years old and have been studying the holy scriptures over 50 years. Has "every eye" seen Him? Have all the nations mourned because of Him coming in judgment? How about John seeing the risen Christ in Revelation 1 (written ~90 AD) and therefore past the destruction of the temple and the city? Why does He not say to John that all that stuff of Matthew 24 & 25 has already happened? Where are the two witnesses of Revelation 11? When did they prophesy for 1,260 days? When did their bodies lie in the the streets of Jerusalem for 3.5 days? When were they resurrected? So many more things but I'll stop with these for now.
@@Saratogan This does not answer the question. You have not stated where Jesus is quoting from when he says he is "'coming on the clouds" , nor what "age" (aion) was going to end, in Matt. 24:3? You didn't work with either.
Its easy enough to see why one becomes premill. So much trouble everywhere, unless one wants to be blind. So, we hope. Post mill is not any better, it just pushes the solution out there, just beyond reach, always promising, never delivering. I suspect scripture is speaking quite a diferent story than most modern churchianity. Faith, hope, trust in the Name, not men and religious traditions, perhaps. Eschatology matters.
Have you ever studied church history?
Not in an approved course of some sort. I always looked at history, the creeds, confessions and the like. Generally through the lens of the church I was in. I think I subordinated scripture to church history and have only recently observed this about myself. Analogy of faith and making the scriptures work together has to be the lens, imo.@@unkown312
Maybe Gods law as salvation of society is not the right term, how about upright society? We know it is the prescription, e.g, 1 Tim 1:8-11, Rom 13. So I kind of disagree with Doug on this point.
Gospel preaching will not save the parents of California when the law is passed mandating affirmation by parents of their children's desire to transgender or to trans. it will be the law. it will be politics that will save these parents not gospel preaching. If Doug means by gospel preaching also preaching about politics then I am wrong.
We have a much better understanding of Romans 9 now and we can finally get away from Calvinism entirely. It’s a bad/unbiblical system.
Who's 'we'? And if the 'better understanding' is such an improvement, why does it still not answer a) Paul's dilemma over unsaved ethnic Jews, and b) deal with the 'not all descended from Israel are Israel' issue? The attempts at skirting God's absolute sovereignty in the matter of salvation haven't been able to allow for both of those exegetical necessities, and always chalks it all up to national privileges and/or exclusively corporate election of some type.
@@timbushong4387 “we” was just the royal “we.” And it’s really Calvinists who skirt God’s sovereignty in salvation. Calvinists assert God must choose who is and who is not saved. “We” non-Calvinists assert God is more powerful than that, he is sovereign enough to create mankind with their own ability to decide whether to worship him or not. He is strong enough to not have to control them.
The corporate/national election is also not the correct rendering of Romans 9, at least not how corporate election is commonly explained (God predestined the airplane, we decide whether to buy a ticket type of explanation).
It’s odd you pick a.) Paul’s dilemma over unsaved Jews and b.) ‘not all Israel are Israel’ as the supposed stumbling stones for your opponents. I don’t honestly see how those points are good for Calvinism.
A.) In the lead up to Romans 9, Paul’s overarching message is that what the Jews had always taught, that they alone were the elect chosen people of God and that the Gentiles were just out of luck, was terribly wrong. Paul’s message is that no, indeed, the Gentiles have always also been loved by God, and have always been destined to be included into the invitation to his kingdom. The Jews hated this message and hated him for delivering it. They rebuked Paul for teaching that God would love and bless the dirty disgusting Gentiles as much as he loved the holy nation of Israel. Yet Paul persisted. In chapter 8, Paul has just finished teaching how great the love of God is and all the blessings he has for these Gentiles who are now accepted into the family of God, just like the Jews. And though he’s skirted the issue several times before in this book, Paul now decides to move headlong into and directly confront the unbelieving Jews’ objections, all of them. When Paul moves into chapter 9 he begins to give us all of the winning lines, references and allegories he used in confronting unbelieving Jews throughout his ministry. He remembers how they hated him, called him Gentile-lover and Jew-hater, and tried even to kill him. So in Rom 9:1-3 when Paul laments over Israel he does so with certain language. His words are strident, deeper than what a casual reader would expect, coming out of chapter 8. Indeed, when we review casual commentaries on Rom 9:1-3 we see pastors whose supposition is that the support for Paul’s deep feelings here are based on an expected reaction from his gentile Christians. Such is not the case. Paul’s language is stark. He is remembering the death threats and hateful slander of his own people, the Jews, and he remembers their pain and violence. This is why he brings up the dilemma of unsaved Israel, he is remembering their hatred when he preached, just as he just finished doing in chapter 8, that the Gentiles have now received all the same blessings from God.
B.) The main Jewish objection to Paul’s teachings is “No! God would never allow the Gentiles into his kingdom! Blasphemous!” Knowing this is the main objection is key. Some lesser objections would be, “has God changed his plan?” “Is God abandoning the Jews?” “Why would God be letting the Gentiles into his family so many thousands of years later?” “Why did God even choose us Jews? What was the point?” He answers that last one in verse 9:17. He answers the time one in 9:12. He answers the plan one in 9:9. But to your question, Paul’s explanation in 9:6 is just a reminder to the Jews that what God counts for someone to actually be his people is whether the people have faith and worship him, not his choosing of them. He doesn’t determine some to be his people and not others, for his part he has “chosen” everyone. The point is, the people that will see eternal life with him will be the ones who have faith, Jew or Gentile. And that has always been the case.
In summary, I don’t know why you think these two points are stumbling stones for non-Calvinists, they are not. And the correct understanding of Romans 9, although I haven’t gone into much detail of it here, is that in it Paul is explaining how all the Jews proofs for their errant doctrine of election can be seen to be preposterous and turned on their head. The doctrine of election is entirely man-made, false, and even evil. And Paul uses line after line in chapter 9 to destroy it. With humor. Maybe irony.
@@TheRomans9Guy - Well, brother that was yet another 'swing-and-a-miss' in an attempt to do exactly what I said you would do. The fact that you mis-read the didactic arch of both Romans 8 AND 9 is kind of typical. For example, the Jew/Gentile issue is in the background, not the forefront of 'peace with God,' Federal headship, and 'no condemnation,' the Golden Chain of redemption, and the question "Who will bring a charge against God's elect?" in ch. 8.
Paul's issue in ch. 9 isn't with obstreperous Jews' rejection of the Gentiles, it's with the faithfulness and truthfulness of God regarding the majority of Jews remaining in their unbelief. In fact, your conclusion is 180 degrees opposite - you said "not his choosing of them" and Paul says "in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls."
That's all for me on this - I have a busy day, and I pray that you can consider my (reformed) convictions without all the hyperbole and accusatory invective.
@@TheRomans9Guy Talk about Strawman arguments. You seem to have a need to mischaracterize "Calvinism" completely and make any Reformed person replying look like they are authoritarian or harsh (or worse). A God who is not just and in the process of implementing his perfect plan is no God at all. That would be the obviously fallacious (on many levels) "watchmaker thing" (he made us and stepped out of the picture). Most of us "Reformed" types only ever identify as "Calvinists" to try to explain this stuff to overly proud (either non-logos or non sola scriptura) Arminian-types. You seem to just enjoy appearing more lenient, tolerant and welcoming (and enjoy portraying "us" as... otherwise).
@@rawbingham “A God who is not just and in the process of implementing his perfect plan is no God at all.” Yes, and that’s usually the primary source of where the objection to Calvinism starts. It teaches an unjust God. If you’re attempting to say a non-Calvinist theology has a God who is not implementing his perfect plan that accusation doesn’t stick well. The non-Calvinist believes God is carrying out his plan. He planned to forgive all of humanity, not just some, and offer eternal life to all humans, not just some, so that any who surrender to him, repent and believe, to those he will grant eternal life. This is a far more perfect plan than him just choosing some people, and he’s carrying it out perfectly.
I appreciate the Calvinist / post millennial combo in the idea that the majority of people will be saved, it is sweet and kind hearted but it doesn’t correct or rationalize the pernicious heresy which is limited atonement causing double predestination. I mean, William Ln., Craig can’t even come to accept this rationalization, and he is one of the best logic choppers there is when it comes to Christian apologetics and analyzation. Just let it go, let Calvinism go away from you
When you reference Wm. Craig, who has to import an *entire* philosophical system, made up out of whole cloth and originating with a Jesuit whose sole purpose was to overthrow the glorious liberty of reformation-gospel, and then to transpose that system on *top* of everything the Bible teaches regarding God's decrees, that makes it very difficult to give your smarmy assessment of Reformed theology much (if any) weight at all.
And to label the belief in particular redemption (the "L") 'heresy' is ignorant.
Craig: there's a force that coexists with God that limits God.
Craig: I don't like limited atonement, because it limits man
@@PunkEvangelist - But - but - muh libertarian free will!!!
So what are your thoughts on election and predestination? It's certainly taught in the Bible, but the Definite Atonement interpretation seems to be held in low regard, so again, what do you think? Genuine question btw
@@samsilva8000 well, in all sincerity, it can’t be anything that affirms double predestination. Calvinism makes god the author of evil. It’s a fascinating discussion, but it’s ok to say we just don’t know. We might be incapable , it’s might be a requirement of true faith, it’s a complicated issue nevertheless