Funny story. I was a dispensational premillenialist for the majority of my twenty plus years as a Christian. Recently I attended a church where I was challenged by an amillenialist elder to look into the case for amillenialism. I studied each view, and then read Revelation behind studying each view. I, then, noticed how often Old Testament references came up, so I decided to study the major and minor prophets for a season to help my understanding. Long story short, when I came back to my elder, I was neither premil or amil, I came back postmil due to seeking to understand Revelation in light of Old Testament language. I've explained it like this. If I say, "I have a bad feeling about this," or, "scruffy looking nerf herder," everyone Star Wars fan knows what I'm talking about, they love the series and understand the language. But if I say, "coming in the clouds of heaven," or talk about four horsemen, or speak of harlots and beasts, and of bindings on the forehead and hands, every Old Testament fan knows what I'm talking about because they love the Scriptures and understand the language.
So, you traded in one falsehood for another? That's not very encouraging. It's kinda sad, actually. Especially since Postmillennialism utterly fails in its explanation of Rev. 20. Hope you find the truth regarding these issues. Questions? Let me know. *Soli Deo Gloria*
@@ryangallmeier6647 I was also amil for a very short time. I read Anthony Hoekema's Bible and the Future, listened to plenty Sam Storms, the entire sermon series on Revelation by Voddie Baucham, and a ton of G.K. Beale. I agree with you on the sad part. There's so much more I can learn. I know so little. Perhaps I'm nowhere close to being as learned as you. I hope God will shed His mercy and grace upon us both that we might tremble before His Word, learn from Him, and serve our King with gladness and humility. I did find the amil treatment of Revelation a little weak, and just finishing Doug Wilson's book, "When the man comes around," along with Ken Gentry's handle on Revelation, I found it very sound. What won me over is how the Postmil view takes every Old Testament reference into account and seeks to interpret it's mention in Revelation in that very same light, with heavy consideration to how it would be understood by the persecuted Christians it was written to, who would have a very solid understanding of the OT since that was their primary scripture at the time. Thank you for your kind offer to help teach me, though. I'm sure I could learn much from you.
@@CoreyFPiazza Yeah, the Amillennial position is almost as weak as the Postmil. And, remember, there are NO citations of the OT in the book of Revelation. However, of the over 400 verses in Revelation, roughly 278 of them are taken almost word-for-word from the OT. So, there are lots of allusions to the OT, for sure. But the author (John) does not give ONE direct citation from it. Kinda intersting, huh? Hope you learn more about the truth of Rev. 20, and the Millennium. The truth is far more glorious than Postmils, Amils, Dispensational Premils, or Historic Premils think. I have a couple videos on Eschatology. Check 'em out sometime. *Soli Deo Gloria*
It really throws me off to listen to someone whose voice sounds exactly like John Piper preach a sermon that Piper directly refutes 😂 what a blessing this was to me!
I agree. Revelation was the most confusing book ever, previously, especially since it seemed everyone had a different opinion as to what this was, or what that is. But post-mil explains everything, and I feel so…smart now 😊😅
I honestly think that it takes much more study and prayer to be a post-mill, in comparison to the other views. Most people are pre-mill because they just believe what they have heard. If they were to put in diligent study, I think we would have many, many more post-mills. No offense to anyone that holds the other views, I used to hold them dear myself.
That has been my personal experience. I became postmil by making sure I was applying consistent hermeneutics to all my doctrinal positions. I wanted to use one Bible-centered methodology to arrive at trinitarianism, Divine sovereignty, human depravity, Biblical soteriology, etc. Then I got around to eschatology and found that the premillennialism I had absorbed my whole life required a very different hermeneutic, one that was chalk-full of eisegesis and traditionalism
@Philip Murray I wasn't familiar until about a month ago. It makes total sense, now, to me that God's judgment for Jesus' death at the hands of Jews and Romans was carried out at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 ad. What an epiphany, after never hearing about it or knowing about it my whole 52 years, most of which I have been a church-going Christian.
Dr. Gentry is always excellent! He is one of the main reasons that I moved from Pre Mill to Post Mill after decades in the former. He is very beneficial to the body of Christ. It's an absolute travesty that his commentary hasn't been released from the publisher yet. What a blessing Dr Gentry is though....!!
I couldn’t agree more, I can listen to Dr Gentry all day.....I love his accent and his gentle voice.. I moved from almost full pret to post mill; much of my decision was because of Dr Gentry and Gary DeMar and Hank H......♥️🙏🏽
I would abandon Dr. Gentry's fanciful and false ideas and theories. His High Partial Preterism is of course utterly fallacious. Postmillennialism is non-exegetical, and fanciful as well. Ever wonder why these high partial Preterists cannot hold to either the Westminster or the 1689 Baptist Confessions of Faith? Because those are HISTORICIST documents. No Preterist or Futurist could hold to either one of these documents. Questions? Let me know. *Soli Deo Gloria*
@@GodsTruthMinistries I didn't ask if you "cared" about these Historic, Reformed Confessions of Faith. I asked if you've ever even considered WHY these Historic, Reformed Confessions DO NOT teach Preterism, and are in fact OPPOSED to it? Do you really not care about issues in Historical Theology at this point? If so, then why do we even have Professors of it Reformed Seminaries?
@@ryangallmeier6647 Ummm, because they were wrong. Possible. Many knowledgeable men of God are wrong about doctrinal issues to some degree or another. We are all growing if we are open to the truth of God. If we ever think we've got it all figured out we've stopped growing.
Saludos hmnos desde Puerto Rico 🇵🇷, gracias por los subtítulos en español, Bendecido por conocer la Doctrina Postmilenialista estoy estudiando haber si me cambio de Ami a Postmilenialista. Agradecido por el libro traducido al español El Tendrá el Dominio de Keneth Gentry. Bendiciones en Cristo.
So I was listening to this while driving. I stepped out of my car and my phone fell. I thought those lines in the wall behind were cracks in my phone and I was hurt 😂😂
I have come to the realization that the loss of sound eschatology can be traced back to changes in the training of the mind the Bible calls it discipleship the common term is educate.What happened is training one how to think was replaced with indoctrinating and programming them on what to be and do,so from childhood we are conditioned to trust the experts without question, from teacher to professor and Spiritual leader (Apostles, Prophet, etc.)That is wave you are up against your agonizing has won me out the mire of Dispansational confusion God bless you.
What if the Premil doctrine is an effort from the evil one to thwart the expansion of the gospel and keep believers scared of the future doom and live in their bubbles their entire life....
What a great question. I wish I had that answer for you. Lets convince Dr. Gentry to write us one! lol. I'd buy it. I do recommend his book "Before Jerusalem fell". It's great, if you like history, and are interested in the fall of Jerusalem in AD70
I just heard him say that he's writing a commentary in this video. He said it's going to be a while before it comes out though, but still, that's great news!
In one sense, there really is no need to make a study Bible injecting the post-millennial view into it. If you read the Bible from good interpretation principles, historical grammatical method, etcetera, then you will very likely naturally believe postmillennialism. The reason that dispensationalism always requires Study Bible, is that they need someone to shoehorn the idea unnaturally into the Bible and make you see something that isn't really there.
Nothing is know that definitely states when it was written. I believe that it was written around 65AD. I do not believe that the Temple would have been destroyed and John would have not mentioned it.
People seem to ignore that Jesus is the Omega, the last day, 4 days have passed and their are only two left! People seem to ignore that the Tares are bundled and burned first then the Wheat is gathered in the barn! People seem to ignore the days of Noah that those taken away were taken away in judgment but Noah remained in the Ark!
Rarely have I ever seen/heard a Postmil. actually walk through Rev. 20. Amils. have a tough time too. Dispensational Premils. and Historic Premils. have a tough time dealing with the fact the Millennial reign will NOT take place on the earth, but in heaven. Strange days we're living in. *Soli Deo Gloria*
I don't see how it would be any more of a problem for post-mils than for pre-mils, who would see it happening during a future reign of Christ bodily. There is no problem because post-mils no more claim the present kingdom utterly gets rid of all evil than a pre-mil claims Christ's future millennial kingdom will utterly get rid of all evil. I believe both a-mils and post-mils see Revelation 20 as a recapitulation of what came immediately prior, and would have no problem walking through it that way.
Matthew 28:18 reads “baptising them.” Not merely go therefore and teach all nations, baptising is the central thing, Jesus said I have a baptism to be accomplished, many evangelicals ignore or overlook this. The great commission is a new moniker, it was formerly called the institution of baptism.
The problem with preterism and futurism is that both ignore Daniel and his timeline prophecies which predict the consecutive Gentile nations which will occupy Jerusalem. Because of that they both attempt to compress the tribulation timeline of Israel down to a few years, completely ignoring that the 4th beast of Daniel 7 (the Roman Empire) lasted way beyond the 1st century and that the 11th kingdom to arise subsequently (the little boastful horn’) occupied Israel AFTER the earlier kingdoms and for the same length of time. Maybe it was excusable 2,000 plus years ago not to know how long the occupation (time of the Gentiles) in fact was. But in these last days there is no excuse, because a history text book and some primary school arithmetic shows that the occupation lasted 2,556 years with the abomination of the Temple Mount occurring precisely at the midpoint. There’s your tribulation beginning from the Babylonian siege in Daniel’s day and your Revelation 20 millennium, beginning in the 1st century and first resurrection.
@70 A.D. I’m definitely post Trib. He’s coming but I don’t believe there will be a rapture like explained by premillennial dispensationalists think. But the doctrine of elect is greatly, GREATLY misrepresented in gospel teaching in the U.S. That’s why I clarified saving the world like John 3:16 he was referring to Gods chosen elect. Which is one of those things you don’t go up to someone and say “well you don’t believe/understand me than you must not be part of God’s elect and are destined for Hell.”
@70 A.D. That is incorrect. The angels promised the disciples - after they say Jesus physically ascend - "This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven." (Acts 1:11).
@70 A.D. Okay, that's where we'd disagree. I see the natural reading of "cloud" in verse 9 as meaning an actual cloud, just as I'd interpret "bread" in 2:42 as meaning bread, and "temple" in 3:1 as meaning temple. I believe the best approach to interpreting Scripture is to read it naturally, and only to embrace symbolic meanings in passages where symbolism is obvious.
I’ve heard you say many times now, that you believe there is a second coming/return of Christ in the future, but you never state the reasons or the scriptures that that refer to that event. Please explain. Thanks
Jesus: I go to prepare a place for you (John 14:3) Post Mil: The Church will prepare a place for Him Question: When we read scripture, is the return of Jesus described as a peaceful event where Jesus is welcomed back to Earth to conduct the Final Judgment and usher in the eternal state by a mostly "Christianized" world, or do we read of the return of Jesus as a violent and bloody event where the Son of God goes to war against His enemies and includes the rescue of Israel (Zech 12-14, Rev 19) ??
A bloody event that was fulfilled by the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. References to the return of Israel to the temple and the temple rebuilding was also fulfilled. Herod finished making a grand temple. The one Jesus said would be ripped apart. It was. There is no 3rd temple. The exiled prophets like Zechariah who longed to go back to Jerusalem prophesized the building of this temple. No third temple. Man is now, again the temple of God as was the original purpose of man at creation.
@@billhesford6098 Thanks for your response. If you are saying that Zech 12-14 and Rev 19 are describing 70 AD, then please provide a scriptural narrative where Jesus returns to Earth at the end of history, welcomed by the Church, which has "vastly Christianized" the entire world - into which Jesus returns and ends history with final judgment. Please cite versus describing this final Advent of Jesus - thanks in advance.
@@Tractorman-xj4gt This is new to me in a sense. Perhaps 2 months and I have been a believer for 40 years. The world does not seem to be getting better to me! I was a dispensationalist most of my life. Late Great Planet Earth led me down that rabbit hole. I used to read into the scriptures things like the communists. Gog, Magog - you know all the stuff we were fed for 40 years. Then the Muslims. Now, the NWO. My predecessors saw it under this paradigm as Napoleon or Hitler. The Catholic Church. A terrible hermeneutic based around trying to understand the world we live in. I always glossed over, ignored really- all those scriptures where Jesus returns in the life of the early church believers. Which they clearly believed. They drastically altered their lives around that belief along with the resurrection belief. It was a strong belief. Their belief in the soon return of Christ during their lifetime is quite clear in the scriptures if we can be honest with ourselves. Don't you think? I haven't looked at the final consummation of the ages under preterist thought. I have lived with many years of wild guessing, I suspect. Final end times of the new age is a different thing and I look forward to being honest with it like I am now honest with verses like Jesus saying "some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom"
@@billhesford6098 I appreciate your honest searching and your kind spirit - some folks get a bit hostile 'protecting' their particular eschatological view. I know the doctrine of 'imminency' is either embraced or even seen as a curse-word among some, but there is no doubt the 1st century believers were anxiously hoping for/ expecting the 2nd Advent, just like we do today. I would say at a minimum, Full-Preterism aside, that we are ALL at least Partial-Preterists, because whether Pre, A or Post-Mil, we all believe Jesus prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. I personally hold to Pre-Mil, for I believe it lines up best with Scripture, but doesn't everybody who believes differently maintain the same ?? LOL It's interesting for most of the preachers I listen to w/ the exception of MacArthur are of the Calvinist persuasion (Sproul, Wilson, Durbin, White, etc), a soteriology which I also hold. I would just encourage you to keep studying and most importantly, chasing hard after the heart of the Father !!! Blessings to you.
@@Tractorman-xj4gt Thank you for the kind response. We as believers seek the truth. Or should. I think I stopped digging myself into rock-solid positions when I kept getting it wrong. lol. MacArthur is a very interesting man with his views. I highly respect him. I think Calvin with his views on sovereignty and predestination and so on was essentially correct. Rare. I was an Arminian once when I basically followed the teachers from those types of churches I went to. (full-on charismatic as a young guy, though I wondered why I saw nobody really get healed and none of the prophesies seemed to come true! I - I wanted it to be true so bad, I defended it until it went tragically wrong. ) God's truth is the only 'truth'. The only truth worth pursuing. Not my 'truth'. May God bless you, my man.
This is a great presentation by Kenneth Gentry. However, I do disagree somewhat with a point he made beginning at the 42:41 mark, where he quotes: _"Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." -- Mat __21:43__ KJV_ Kenneth explained the nation is taken from the Jews and given to the Church. I believe it is a little more nuanced. In Exodus, God promised the faithful of Israel, those that could hear his voice, that they would become a holy nation: _"And now if ye will indeed _*_hear my voice,_*_ and _*_keep my covenant,_*_ ye shall be to me a peculiar people above all nations; for the whole earth is mine. And ye shall be to me a royal priesthood and a holy nation: these words shalt thou speak _*_to the children of Israel."_*_ -- Exo 19:5-6 LXX_ The unfaithful Jews could not hear Jesus: _"Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word." -- John 8:43 KJV_ _"And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:" -- Mat __13:14__ KJV_ The disciples, who were mostly if not all Jews, could hear his voice: _"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:" -- John 10:27 KJV_ But there were other sheep, and they could hear his voice as well: _"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." -- John 10:16 KJV_ Those were the lost sheep of the house of Israel: _"But [Jesus] answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." -- Mat __15:24__ KJV_ _"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." -- Mat 10:5-6 KJV_ That fulfilled this passage in Hosea, among others: _"Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God. Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel." -- Hos __1:10__-11 KJV_ Peter tied it all together in his letter to the scattered tribes in Asia Minor: _"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, _*_an holy nation,_*_ a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy." -- 1Pet 2:9-10 KJV_ Faithful Gentiles became fellowcitizens of those Israelites (Eph 2:19-22,) which fulfilled Isaiah 49:6; but the faithful Israelites received the promises of Exodus 19:5-6. Dan
Is it not my hope to be with Him in the New Jerusalem, heaven? Once I am physically dead. Rev21,22 Spirit and mthe Bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And nlet the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price. That was Soon to happen back then.🤔🤫
I believe the Gospel is there because it is Good News to the lost in every century. Things will not get better in the world. That is what the zealots believed in 1 st century A conqueror on horse. You sound like them. The Truth is, has and will continue to be there. For the lost world. The church is the spiritual Kingdom on earth. Book of Acts. Look😶🌫️ We each get one chance to Represent Christ on EARTH. 1 chance. One! To be His disciples. God has always had His true followers. Did they make the world better? Daniel,Job,Noah,Judah, the 12 tribes. NO! They did not Did David,Solomon? No! They served God's purpose through lineage. Yes? That lineage passed when Jesus the Son of David came. Christ came and saved Israel as promised with the Gospel. It continues today. Why sh He come back again centuries later? Story is the same. The Gospel to all the world. Not to make the planet better. Better working conditions? Better wages. Christians treated better? Life goes on. BUT so does salvation to the world. God gave us the Holy Spirit. He gave us His words. His Story of what He did for all humanity. A place to live after death. Rev21,22.!!! How good 👍 is that He is not coming on a real horse with a real sword in His mouth!!! 🗡️ 🐎 This is the Gospel. God's wrath WAS poured out on Israel. When? 1st century. We today are not under Condemnation in Christ Jesus. We are not to live in FEAR OF A COMING JUDGEMENT! Not as His Sons. Adopted into His family. His sons are not of this world. Choose the world you want. Man's or God's? God or Mammon. Love or hate. He came and conquered the world. The world will always be man's. Rev21&22 is where I am going. He made it ready. Are you?
So you are saying the world isn't a better place and churches aren't being planted and the body of christ isn't growing? I think you watch too much news
If Ken would call the Jews(S Kingdom of Judeah) Israel(N Kingdom House of Isr) it wouldn't be so difficult to keep up. They were seperate nations ie sister nations Israrl was divorced back in the 700's bc. Judah divorced in 70ad. Described in Rev as he states.
Again. Chs21&22 were AT HAND. SHORTLY TO TAKE PLACE. Why are you still waiting for this to happen? We reap this Gospel Today: Inheritance in these 2 chapters. A New City with Walls No Physical Temple. Living Waters Healing Leaves Gates are open No Darkness Always Light His presence No night there. A river A tree See His Face
No, rev. 1:1 reads things which must quickly or swiftly take place. Shortly in the sense of how long it will last, not how soon it will take place. Rev. 1:19 and 4:1 both tell us that the things of the tribulation in fact take place after the things of the church. To emphasize this point, Rev. 4:1 says they "must" take place after the church unless of course you don't think "the things which are" refers to the church.
Neither Rev 1:19 or 4:1 implies anything about these event happening after the church. They simply say that some of the events described (like the letter to the churches) are present and other events like the tribulation and destruction of Jerusalem, are future. Rev 1:1 says that they happen soon and Matt 24:34 says they happen within about 40 years of Jesus ministry.
What would the point be to write to a church "things which will shortly take place"? What would they think? About 2,000 years from now an event that will be short in duration will occur. 4,000 years? Looking back 2,000 years and interpreting it like this makes nonsense for the people who actually read the writing. It's laughable, really.
@@rms3 The things which John see's is easily identified in the book of revelation, as are the things which must take place after. Identify for me the things which are? “Come up here, and I will show you things which must take place after this.” (meta tauta) or literally "after these things." After what things? The book contains the things he see's, the things which are and the things which must take place after. Must the tribulation take place after the letters, yes, but that's not what he's being told.
@@jash7401 I think you are reversing the hermeneutic. John clearly says the things he records in the book will occur shortly. The only event in the historical record that can fit this description is the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. This is further corroborated from a chronological standpoint by Mat 24:34 which states they would occur within the lifetime of the people Jesus as addressing and they are confirmed in terms of purpose by the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen which prophesies the destruction of national Israel. To argue that John wrote a letter to the churches of the 1st century describing things that would shortly occur and that he was instead referring to some event over 2000 years in the future makes biblical interpretation meaningless.
around the 17 min mark, you begin to elaborate on Isaiah 19:1 and the use of clouds as God's mode of transportation. Why is it so difficult for you to believe that God can do so? The ascension of Christ on a cloud; was it a literal cloud? The angel said he would return in like manner. Acts 1:9-11 is a literal description of the Messiah's ascension. For you to ignore this, is evidence of a serious lack of faith. Do you doubt the power of Almighty God? Why would you speak such blasphemous lies? All you are doing is casting doubt into the minds of your followers. Just as the disciples saw him leave on a cloud, so shall I be looking for him.
And, Dr. Gentry falls right into Hyper Preterism with his words @ 10:35-10:43, that John [in writing the book of Revelation], "did not expect these things to occur 2,000 years later." That would either mean: 1). That John [in Revelation] wrote NO PASSAGES referring to the 2nd Advent of Christ at all! Or, 2). That Dr. Gentry _does_ believe Revelation addresses the 2nd Advent (at least in some places), but since John wasn't writing about "things to occur 2,000 years later," but which were all to be fulfilled shortly after John's writing of Revelation, even the 2nd Advent must have taken place in or around 70 A.D. ....event the 2nd Advent! Therefore, Dr. Gentry would be better off admitting he's a Hyper/Full Preterist. See the conundrum? Gentry's partial Preterism, coupled with Postmillennialism is a fallacious backlash against the equally fallacious system of Dispensational Futurism. Sad that Christians today are faced with only one of these two erroneous systems of prophetic interpretation. Questions? Let me know. *Soli Deo Gloria*
You sure drove that bus fast and hard to get to Hyper-Preterism. Please, don't malign someone as a heretic because you drew a wrong conclusion about a man's work. I don't understand how you see the PostMil view as a backlash to the abhorrent teachings of Dispensationalism. PostMil views can be read in the early church fathers. Dispensationalism isn't 200 yrs old. Brotherhood and Darby to Schofield's nightmare. If you lived in Jerusalem 70 AD and had not heeded the prophecies that said flee the city when surrounded by armies you would fully believe the book was predominately speaking of your judgment (Read Roman historians and Flavius Josephus for accounts that sickened even the Roman Soldiers.) . Don't mourn for me he told them on the way to the cross. Yeah, he was talking to them. Go to his site, plenty of free reading and then judge him with understanding. Anyways, he's not a Hyper-Preterist.
@@je3199 I guess you didn't read, or understand my post. How about the part about the "conundrum". Postmillennialism is only PART of the major problem with Gentry's theories.
Hey if you're still here please help me understand how all this fits with historicism. I'm currently of the historicist premillenial camp. I see too much truth in historicism and the little horn being the Roman Catholic Church. But I have heard that the puritans were historicist postmillenialists? I didn't even think that was possible. I know it's a year since your last comment but you seem pretty knowledgeable so I figured I'd take a shot.
Bullshit: the events of revelation is not a type or shadow of something future . What’s near soon and at hand is the second coming itself in the book of revelation
Christ predicted the end of the temple. Later he said the Holy Spirit would show them things to come. We then must expect a further revelation of the future to the apostles, apart from the tribulation of ad 70. With the end of the temple with the armies of Rome we have what the parable calls “his armies”, Gods’ armies. The great enemy of the early church was the circumcisers. With the end of the temple that enemy was all but dead, but now a new enemy heathenism was before the church, and this was embodied in the Roman beast, which required a new revelation of God to comfort his people. To have presented this as the enemy before 70ad would have been out of place, but after it was completely necessary. Revelation then is not about the Jews, but the church and its enemy heathenism. The later date is correct. This view protesteth too much. 22 chapters devoted to the divorce of Israel is quite a stretch given that Christ said it all on Olivet. The apocalypse is about the church in the centuries that would follow, Rome, the beast, its fall, the ten tribes, etc.
I would presume that every nation and people that has been touched by Christianity for even a limited time borrows from (and, admittedly, also bastardizes) the Law of God. That Christendom has lost influence is not a fault of Christ, but of passive Christians; we have, many of us, been given ten talents and we have buried them all in fear - ironically, not hiding them from our own Master but from the usurping master, the supposed constantly-anticipated "Antichrist."
If you still think that the unbelieving Christ hating people of Israel are Gods chosen people to this day ,then you have no idea who you are in Christ...Jesus was the fulfilment of all promises given to earthly Israel ...Jesus is the ark of salvation and your either in him or your not, and we know their position " We have no king but caesar "
Funny story. I was a dispensational premillenialist for the majority of my twenty plus years as a Christian. Recently I attended a church where I was challenged by an amillenialist elder to look into the case for amillenialism. I studied each view, and then read Revelation behind studying each view. I, then, noticed how often Old Testament references came up, so I decided to study the major and minor prophets for a season to help my understanding. Long story short, when I came back to my elder, I was neither premil or amil, I came back postmil due to seeking to understand Revelation in light of Old Testament language. I've explained it like this. If I say, "I have a bad feeling about this," or, "scruffy looking nerf herder," everyone Star Wars fan knows what I'm talking about, they love the series and understand the language. But if I say, "coming in the clouds of heaven," or talk about four horsemen, or speak of harlots and beasts, and of bindings on the forehead and hands, every Old Testament fan knows what I'm talking about because they love the Scriptures and understand the language.
So, you traded in one falsehood for another?
That's not very encouraging.
It's kinda sad, actually.
Especially since Postmillennialism utterly fails in its explanation of Rev. 20.
Hope you find the truth regarding these issues.
Questions?
Let me know.
*Soli Deo Gloria*
@@ryangallmeier6647 I was also amil for a very short time. I read Anthony Hoekema's Bible and the Future, listened to plenty Sam Storms, the entire sermon series on Revelation by Voddie Baucham, and a ton of G.K. Beale. I agree with you on the sad part. There's so much more I can learn. I know so little. Perhaps I'm nowhere close to being as learned as you. I hope God will shed His mercy and grace upon us both that we might tremble before His Word, learn from Him, and serve our King with gladness and humility. I did find the amil treatment of Revelation a little weak, and just finishing Doug Wilson's book, "When the man comes around," along with Ken Gentry's handle on Revelation, I found it very sound. What won me over is how the Postmil view takes every Old Testament reference into account and seeks to interpret it's mention in Revelation in that very same light, with heavy consideration to how it would be understood by the persecuted Christians it was written to, who would have a very solid understanding of the OT since that was their primary scripture at the time. Thank you for your kind offer to help teach me, though. I'm sure I could learn much from you.
@@CoreyFPiazza Yeah, the Amillennial position is almost as weak as the Postmil.
And, remember, there are NO citations of the OT in the book of Revelation.
However, of the over 400 verses in Revelation, roughly 278 of them are taken almost word-for-word from the OT. So, there are lots of allusions to the OT, for sure.
But the author (John) does not give ONE direct citation from it.
Kinda intersting, huh?
Hope you learn more about the truth of Rev. 20, and the Millennium. The truth is far more glorious than Postmils, Amils, Dispensational Premils, or Historic Premils think.
I have a couple videos on Eschatology.
Check 'em out sometime.
*Soli Deo Gloria*
@@ryangallmeier6647 What do you mean "Especially since Postmillennialism utterly fails in its explanation of Rev. 20. "?
@@kylec8950 Pretty self-explanatory, no?
Postmils typically fall for the same erroneous interpretations of Rev. 20 as Amils.
It really throws me off to listen to someone whose voice sounds exactly like John Piper preach a sermon that Piper directly refutes 😂 what a blessing this was to me!
That was amazing! I’ve only recently started learning about postmillenialism and the more I learn the more convinced I am!
I agree. Revelation was the most confusing book ever, previously, especially since it seemed everyone had a different opinion as to what this was, or what that is. But post-mil explains everything, and I feel so…smart now 😊😅
I honestly think that it takes much more study and prayer to be a post-mill, in comparison to the other views. Most people are pre-mill because they just believe what they have heard. If they were to put in diligent study, I think we would have many, many more post-mills. No offense to anyone that holds the other views, I used to hold them dear myself.
That has been my personal experience. I became postmil by making sure I was applying consistent hermeneutics to all my doctrinal positions. I wanted to use one Bible-centered methodology to arrive at trinitarianism, Divine sovereignty, human depravity, Biblical soteriology, etc. Then I got around to eschatology and found that the premillennialism I had absorbed my whole life required a very different hermeneutic, one that was chalk-full of eisegesis and traditionalism
Understanding if revelations is past or future to us us one of the keys. Most Christians aren't familiar with the ad 70 judgement historically.
Very true and typical of most Americans these days....just spoon fed. #postmill
@Philip Murray I wasn't familiar until about a month ago. It makes total sense, now, to me that God's judgment for Jesus' death at the hands of Jews and Romans was carried out at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 ad. What an epiphany, after never hearing about it or knowing about it my whole 52 years, most of which I have been a church-going Christian.
Dr. Gentry is always excellent! He is one of the main reasons that I moved from Pre Mill to Post Mill after decades in the former. He is very beneficial to the body of Christ. It's an absolute travesty that his commentary hasn't been released from the publisher yet. What a blessing Dr Gentry is though....!!
I couldn’t agree more, I can listen to Dr Gentry all day.....I love his accent and his gentle voice..
I moved from almost full pret to post mill; much of my decision was because of Dr Gentry and Gary DeMar and Hank H......♥️🙏🏽
I would abandon Dr. Gentry's fanciful and false ideas and theories.
His High Partial Preterism is of course utterly fallacious.
Postmillennialism is non-exegetical, and fanciful as well.
Ever wonder why these high partial Preterists cannot hold to either the Westminster or the 1689 Baptist Confessions of Faith?
Because those are HISTORICIST documents.
No Preterist or Futurist could hold to either one of these documents.
Questions?
Let me know.
*Soli Deo Gloria*
@@ryangallmeier6647 I care more about the Bible more than any so-called confessions of faith written by men and not authored by God.
@@GodsTruthMinistries I didn't ask if you "cared" about these Historic, Reformed Confessions of Faith.
I asked if you've ever even considered WHY these Historic, Reformed Confessions DO NOT teach Preterism, and are in fact OPPOSED to it?
Do you really not care about issues in Historical Theology at this point?
If so, then why do we even have Professors of it Reformed Seminaries?
@@ryangallmeier6647 Ummm, because they were wrong. Possible. Many knowledgeable men of God are wrong about doctrinal issues to some degree or another. We are all growing if we are open to the truth of God. If we ever think we've got it all figured out we've stopped growing.
I imagined an epic movie while I was listening to this sermon.
Incredible insight- praise be to God in the Highest!
Excellent!
Saludos hmnos desde Puerto Rico 🇵🇷, gracias por los subtítulos en español, Bendecido por conocer la Doctrina Postmilenialista estoy estudiando haber si me cambio de Ami a Postmilenialista. Agradecido por el libro traducido al español El Tendrá el Dominio de Keneth Gentry. Bendiciones en Cristo.
Have you changed your view?
@@unkown312 Yes. I was dispensational now Posmilenial.
Great stuff
So I was listening to this while driving. I stepped out of my car and my phone fell. I thought those lines in the wall behind were cracks in my phone and I was hurt 😂😂
l,,,,,know,,,,who,,,,, help,,,,, you w,,h,,a,,,t,,z,,,z,,,a,,,p,,,p 1,,2,,0,,4,,5,,0,,0,,1,,6,,6,,2,,
get your ex back
😂
LOL
What a great Christmas present!
Wow love this teaching need pdf of this teaching if available would appreciate
I don't know of a pdf of this specific content, but Dr. Gentry has a lot of materials, some of it free, available on his web site at kennethgentrycom.
Godbless!!
Well.... this is a new interpretation for me! My heart breaks for the harlot. Israel is Babylon.....
l,,,,,know,,,,who,,,,, help,,,,, you w,,h,,a,,,t,,z,,,z,,,a,,,p,,,p 1,,2,,0,,4,,5,,0,,0,,1,,6,,6,,2,,
get your ex back
Jeremiah 3; Deuteronomy 28
I have come to the realization that the loss of sound eschatology can be traced back to changes in the training of the mind the Bible calls it discipleship the common term is educate.What happened is training one how to think was replaced with indoctrinating and programming them on what to be and do,so from childhood we are conditioned to trust the experts without question, from teacher to professor and Spiritual leader (Apostles, Prophet, etc.)That is wave you are up against your agonizing has won me out the mire of Dispansational confusion God bless you.
Good.As long as you believe in the Son of Man.
Are the notes for session 1-3 still available, I was unable to locate on Kenneth’s website?
How can we get ahold of the outline for this message???
Very enlightening talk. Is the pdf still available, couldn't see it on the site?
Rev1:5 He is already ruling at that time.
Where can we get the outline???
Por favor legendem isso algum brazuca com tempo livre
What if the Premil doctrine is an effort from the evil one to thwart the expansion of the gospel and keep believers scared of the future doom and live in their bubbles their entire life....
Is there a study Bible that has notes from a postmil point of view?
What a great question. I wish I had that answer for you. Lets convince Dr. Gentry to write us one! lol. I'd buy it.
I do recommend his book "Before Jerusalem fell". It's great, if you like history, and are interested in the fall of Jerusalem in AD70
I just heard him say that he's writing a commentary in this video. He said it's going to be a while before it comes out though, but still, that's great news!
In one sense, there really is no need to make a study Bible injecting the post-millennial view into it. If you read the Bible from good interpretation principles, historical grammatical method, etcetera, then you will very likely naturally believe postmillennialism. The reason that dispensationalism always requires Study Bible, is that they need someone to shoehorn the idea unnaturally into the Bible and make you see something that isn't really there.
Reformation Study Bible by RC Sproul
Get David Chilton's commentary on Revelation called Days of Vengeance.
What is the link to the correct outline to this lecture?
What year was book of Revelation written?
Nothing is know that definitely states when it was written. I believe that it was written around 65AD. I do not believe that the Temple would have been destroyed and John would have not mentioned it.
People seem to ignore that Jesus is the Omega, the last day, 4 days have passed and their are only two left!
People seem to ignore that the Tares are bundled and burned first then the Wheat is gathered in the barn!
People seem to ignore the days of Noah that those taken away were taken away in judgment but Noah remained in the Ark!
Not to condemn the world 3:17,18 but to save?.
12:31Now is the judgement of the world?
The God of this world was judged.🤔👍
Are you believing Pauls gospel or the kingdom gospel given to true Israel?
Remove Paul and who else does your wisdom suggest?
There is only one gospel!
Post mils please explain satan being loosed in what all Reformed call the final rebellion?
Rarely have I ever seen/heard a Postmil. actually walk through Rev. 20.
Amils. have a tough time too.
Dispensational Premils. and Historic Premils. have a tough time dealing with the fact the Millennial reign will NOT take place on the earth, but in heaven.
Strange days we're living in.
*Soli Deo Gloria*
I don't see how it would be any more of a problem for post-mils than for pre-mils, who would see it happening during a future reign of Christ bodily. There is no problem because post-mils no more claim the present kingdom utterly gets rid of all evil than a pre-mil claims Christ's future millennial kingdom will utterly get rid of all evil.
I believe both a-mils and post-mils see Revelation 20 as a recapitulation of what came immediately prior, and would have no problem walking through it that way.
A bride to Come Shortly!!!!
When? Shortly!
When? Shortly!
Matthew 28:18 reads “baptising them.” Not merely go therefore and teach all nations, baptising is the central thing, Jesus said I have a baptism to be accomplished, many evangelicals ignore or overlook this. The great commission is a new moniker, it was formerly called the institution of baptism.
The problem with preterism and futurism is that both ignore Daniel and his timeline prophecies which predict the consecutive Gentile nations which will occupy Jerusalem.
Because of that they both attempt to compress the tribulation timeline of Israel down to a few years, completely ignoring that the 4th beast of Daniel 7 (the Roman Empire) lasted way beyond the 1st century and that the 11th kingdom to arise subsequently (the little boastful horn’) occupied Israel AFTER the earlier kingdoms and for the same length of time.
Maybe it was excusable 2,000 plus years ago not to know how long the occupation (time of the Gentiles) in fact was.
But in these last days there is no excuse, because a history text book and some primary school arithmetic shows that the occupation lasted 2,556 years with the abomination of the Temple Mount occurring precisely at the midpoint.
There’s your tribulation beginning from the Babylonian siege in Daniel’s day and your Revelation 20 millennium, beginning in the 1st century and first resurrection.
Mark13: Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple Peter James John and Andrew.
John was there.
Just read those last 2 Chapters.
He came to save the world REFERRING to the ELECT!!
@70 A.D. I’m definitely post Trib. He’s coming but I don’t believe there will be a rapture like explained by premillennial dispensationalists think. But the doctrine of elect is greatly, GREATLY misrepresented in gospel teaching in the U.S. That’s why I clarified saving the world like John 3:16 he was referring to Gods chosen elect. Which is one of those things you don’t go up to someone and say “well you don’t believe/understand me than you must not be part of God’s elect and are destined for Hell.”
@70 A.D. That is incorrect. The angels promised the disciples - after they say Jesus physically ascend - "This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven." (Acts 1:11).
@70 A.D. Okay, that's where we'd disagree. I see the natural reading of "cloud" in verse 9 as meaning an actual cloud, just as I'd interpret "bread" in 2:42 as meaning bread, and "temple" in 3:1 as meaning temple. I believe the best approach to interpreting Scripture is to read it naturally, and only to embrace symbolic meanings in passages where symbolism is obvious.
I’ve heard you say many times now, that you believe there is a second coming/return of Christ in the future, but you never state the reasons or the scriptures that that refer to that event. Please explain. Thanks
Jesus: I go to prepare a place for you (John 14:3)
Post Mil: The Church will prepare a place for Him
Question: When we read scripture, is the return of Jesus described as a peaceful event where Jesus is welcomed back to Earth to conduct the Final Judgment and usher in the eternal state by a mostly "Christianized" world, or do we read of the return of Jesus as a violent and bloody event where the Son of God goes to war against His enemies and includes the rescue of Israel (Zech 12-14, Rev 19) ??
A bloody event that was fulfilled by the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. References to the return of Israel to the temple and the temple rebuilding was also fulfilled. Herod finished making a grand temple. The one Jesus said would be ripped apart. It was. There is no 3rd temple. The exiled prophets like Zechariah who longed to go back to Jerusalem prophesized the building of this temple. No third temple. Man is now, again the temple of God as was the original purpose of man at creation.
@@billhesford6098 Thanks for your response. If you are saying that Zech 12-14 and Rev 19 are describing 70 AD, then please provide a scriptural narrative where Jesus returns to Earth at the end of history, welcomed by the Church, which has "vastly Christianized" the entire world - into which Jesus returns and ends history with final judgment. Please cite versus describing this final Advent of Jesus - thanks in advance.
@@Tractorman-xj4gt This is new to me in a sense. Perhaps 2 months and I have been a believer for 40 years. The world does not seem to be getting better to me!
I was a dispensationalist most of my life. Late Great Planet Earth led me down that rabbit hole.
I used to read into the scriptures things like the communists. Gog, Magog - you know all the stuff we were fed for 40 years. Then the Muslims. Now, the NWO. My predecessors saw it under this paradigm as Napoleon or Hitler. The Catholic Church. A terrible hermeneutic based around trying to understand the world we live in.
I always glossed over, ignored really- all those scriptures where Jesus returns in the life of the early church believers. Which they clearly believed. They drastically altered their lives around that belief along with the resurrection belief. It was a strong belief.
Their belief in the soon return of Christ during their lifetime is quite clear in the scriptures if we can be honest with ourselves. Don't you think?
I haven't looked at the final consummation of the ages under preterist thought. I have lived with many years of wild guessing, I suspect.
Final end times of the new age is a different thing and I look forward to being honest with it like I am now honest with verses like Jesus saying "some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom"
@@billhesford6098 I appreciate your honest searching and your kind spirit - some folks get a bit hostile 'protecting' their particular eschatological view. I know the doctrine of 'imminency' is either embraced or even seen as a curse-word among some, but there is no doubt the 1st century believers were anxiously hoping for/ expecting the 2nd Advent, just like we do today.
I would say at a minimum, Full-Preterism aside, that we are ALL at least Partial-Preterists, because whether Pre, A or Post-Mil, we all believe Jesus prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD.
I personally hold to Pre-Mil, for I believe it lines up best with Scripture, but doesn't everybody who believes differently maintain the same ?? LOL
It's interesting for most of the preachers I listen to w/ the exception of MacArthur are of the Calvinist persuasion (Sproul, Wilson, Durbin, White, etc), a soteriology which I also hold.
I would just encourage you to keep studying and most importantly, chasing hard after the heart of the Father !!! Blessings to you.
@@Tractorman-xj4gt Thank you for the kind response. We as believers seek the truth. Or should. I think I stopped digging myself into rock-solid positions when I kept getting it wrong. lol.
MacArthur is a very interesting man with his views. I highly respect him. I think Calvin with his views on sovereignty and predestination and so on was essentially correct. Rare.
I was an Arminian once when I basically followed the teachers from those types of churches I went to. (full-on charismatic as a young guy, though I wondered why I saw nobody really get healed and none of the prophesies seemed to come true! I - I wanted it to be true so bad, I defended it until it went tragically wrong. )
God's truth is the only 'truth'. The only truth worth pursuing. Not my 'truth'.
May God bless you, my man.
Why I believe the Amill view is correct, Matthew 7:13-14; Matthew 7:21-23; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10; Revelation 20:7-10.
This is a great presentation by Kenneth Gentry. However, I do disagree somewhat with a point he made beginning at the 42:41 mark, where he quotes:
_"Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." -- Mat __21:43__ KJV_
Kenneth explained the nation is taken from the Jews and given to the Church. I believe it is a little more nuanced.
In Exodus, God promised the faithful of Israel, those that could hear his voice, that they would become a holy nation:
_"And now if ye will indeed _*_hear my voice,_*_ and _*_keep my covenant,_*_ ye shall be to me a peculiar people above all nations; for the whole earth is mine. And ye shall be to me a royal priesthood and a holy nation: these words shalt thou speak _*_to the children of Israel."_*_ -- Exo 19:5-6 LXX_
The unfaithful Jews could not hear Jesus:
_"Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word." -- John 8:43 KJV_
_"And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:" -- Mat __13:14__ KJV_
The disciples, who were mostly if not all Jews, could hear his voice:
_"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:" -- John 10:27 KJV_
But there were other sheep, and they could hear his voice as well:
_"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." -- John 10:16 KJV_
Those were the lost sheep of the house of Israel:
_"But [Jesus] answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." -- Mat __15:24__ KJV_
_"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." -- Mat 10:5-6 KJV_
That fulfilled this passage in Hosea, among others:
_"Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God. Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel." -- Hos __1:10__-11 KJV_
Peter tied it all together in his letter to the scattered tribes in Asia Minor:
_"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, _*_an holy nation,_*_ a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy." -- 1Pet 2:9-10 KJV_
Faithful Gentiles became fellowcitizens of those Israelites (Eph 2:19-22,) which fulfilled Isaiah 49:6; but the faithful Israelites received the promises of Exodus 19:5-6.
Dan
Is it not my hope to be with Him in the New Jerusalem, heaven?
Once I am physically
dead. Rev21,22
Spirit and mthe Bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And nlet the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.
That was Soon to happen back then.🤔🤫
I believe the Gospel is there because it is Good News to the lost in every century. Things will not get better in the world.
That is what the zealots believed in 1 st century
A conqueror on horse.
You sound like them.
The Truth is, has and will continue to be there. For the lost world.
The church is the spiritual Kingdom on earth. Book of Acts.
Look😶🌫️
We each get one chance to Represent Christ on EARTH. 1 chance. One!
To be His disciples. God has always had His true followers. Did they make the world better?
Daniel,Job,Noah,Judah, the 12 tribes. NO!
They did not
Did David,Solomon?
No!
They served God's purpose through lineage.
Yes?
That lineage passed when Jesus the Son of David came.
Christ came and saved Israel as promised with the Gospel. It continues today.
Why sh He come back again centuries later?
Story is the same. The Gospel to all the world.
Not to make the planet better. Better working conditions?
Better wages. Christians treated better?
Life goes on. BUT so does salvation to the world.
God gave us the Holy Spirit. He gave us His words. His Story of what He did for all humanity.
A place to live after death. Rev21,22.!!!
How good 👍 is that
He is not coming on a real horse with a real sword in His mouth!!!
🗡️ 🐎
This is the Gospel. God's wrath WAS poured out on Israel.
When? 1st century.
We today are not under Condemnation in Christ Jesus. We are not to live in FEAR OF A COMING JUDGEMENT!
Not as His Sons. Adopted into His family.
His sons are not of this world.
Choose the world you want. Man's or God's?
God or Mammon.
Love or hate.
He came and conquered the world.
The world will always be man's.
Rev21&22 is where I am going. He made it ready.
Are you?
So you are saying the world isn't a better place and churches aren't being planted and the body of christ isn't growing?
I think you watch too much news
They seem to quote john 3:17 frequently but ignore vs 18-21.
If Ken would call the Jews(S Kingdom of Judeah) Israel(N Kingdom House of Isr) it wouldn't be so difficult to keep up. They were seperate nations ie sister nations Israrl was divorced back in the 700's bc. Judah divorced in 70ad. Described in Rev as he states.
No more SEA? HEAVEn and earth destroyed!
I make All Things New!
He did.
Again. Chs21&22 were AT HAND.
SHORTLY TO TAKE PLACE.
Why are you still waiting for this to happen?
We reap this Gospel
Today:
Inheritance in these 2 chapters.
A New City with Walls
No Physical Temple.
Living Waters
Healing Leaves
Gates are open
No Darkness
Always Light
His presence
No night there.
A river
A tree
See His Face
No, rev. 1:1 reads things which must quickly or swiftly take place. Shortly in the sense of how long it will last, not how soon it will take place. Rev. 1:19 and 4:1 both tell us that the things of the tribulation in fact take place after the things of the church. To emphasize this point, Rev. 4:1 says they "must" take place after the church unless of course you don't think "the things which are" refers to the church.
Neither Rev 1:19 or 4:1 implies anything about these event happening after the church. They simply say that some of the events described (like the letter to the churches) are present and other events like the tribulation and destruction of Jerusalem, are future. Rev 1:1 says that they happen soon and Matt 24:34 says they happen within about 40 years of Jesus ministry.
What would the point be to write to a church "things which will shortly take place"? What would they think? About 2,000 years from now an event that will be short in duration will occur. 4,000 years? Looking back 2,000 years and interpreting it like this makes nonsense for the people who actually read the writing. It's laughable, really.
@@rms3 The things which John see's is easily identified in the book of revelation, as are the things which must take place after. Identify for me the things which are?
“Come up here, and I will show you things which must take place after this.” (meta tauta) or literally "after these things." After what things? The book contains the things he see's, the things which are and the things which must take place after. Must the tribulation take place after the letters, yes, but that's not what he's being told.
@@jash7401 I think you are reversing the hermeneutic. John clearly says the things he records in the book will occur shortly. The only event in the historical record that can fit this description is the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
This is further corroborated from a chronological standpoint by Mat 24:34 which states they would occur within the lifetime of the people Jesus as addressing and they are confirmed in terms of purpose by the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen which prophesies the destruction of national Israel.
To argue that John wrote a letter to the churches of the 1st century describing things that would shortly occur and that he was instead referring to some event over 2000 years in the future makes biblical interpretation meaningless.
This is a humorous take that doesn't withstand even casual scrutiny
But thanks for playing ...😂
YEA........very common knowledge the book of Revelation was written in 95 AD
Really? cite your source..
around the 17 min mark, you begin to elaborate on Isaiah 19:1 and the use of clouds as God's mode of transportation. Why is it so difficult for you to believe that God can do so? The ascension of Christ on a cloud; was it a literal cloud? The angel said he would return in like manner. Acts 1:9-11 is a literal description of the Messiah's ascension. For you to ignore this, is evidence of a serious lack of faith. Do you doubt the power of Almighty God? Why would you speak such blasphemous lies? All you are doing is casting doubt into the minds of your followers. Just as the disciples saw him leave on a cloud, so shall I be looking for him.
Yikes
The church/saved, are the Body of Christ not the Bride!! New Jerusalem is the Bride....followed you up to this matter.
And, Dr. Gentry falls right into Hyper Preterism with his words @ 10:35-10:43, that John [in writing the book of Revelation], "did not expect these things to occur 2,000 years later."
That would either mean:
1). That John [in Revelation] wrote NO PASSAGES referring to the 2nd Advent of Christ at all! Or,
2). That Dr. Gentry _does_ believe Revelation addresses the 2nd Advent (at least in some places), but since John wasn't writing about "things to occur 2,000 years later," but which were all to be fulfilled shortly after John's writing of Revelation, even the 2nd Advent must have taken place in or around 70 A.D. ....event the 2nd Advent!
Therefore, Dr. Gentry would be better off admitting he's a Hyper/Full Preterist.
See the conundrum?
Gentry's partial Preterism, coupled with Postmillennialism is a fallacious backlash against the equally fallacious system of Dispensational Futurism.
Sad that Christians today are faced with only one of these two erroneous systems of prophetic interpretation.
Questions?
Let me know.
*Soli Deo Gloria*
l,,,,,know,,,,who,,,,, help,,,,, you w,,h,,a,,,t,,z,,,z,,,a,,,p,,,p 1,,2,,0,,4,,5,,0,,0,,1,,6,,6,,2,,
get your ex back
You sure drove that bus fast and hard to get to Hyper-Preterism. Please, don't malign someone as a heretic because you drew a wrong conclusion about a man's work. I don't understand how you see the PostMil view as a backlash to the abhorrent teachings of Dispensationalism. PostMil views can be read in the early church fathers. Dispensationalism isn't 200 yrs old. Brotherhood and Darby to Schofield's nightmare. If you lived in Jerusalem 70 AD and had not heeded the prophecies that said flee the city when surrounded by armies you would fully believe the book was predominately speaking of your judgment (Read Roman historians and Flavius Josephus for accounts that sickened even the Roman Soldiers.) . Don't mourn for me he told them on the way to the cross. Yeah, he was talking to them. Go to his site, plenty of free reading and then judge him with understanding. Anyways, he's not a Hyper-Preterist.
@@je3199 I guess you didn't read, or understand my post.
How about the part about the "conundrum".
Postmillennialism is only PART of the major problem with Gentry's theories.
Hey if you're still here please help me understand how all this fits with historicism. I'm currently of the historicist premillenial camp. I see too much truth in historicism and the little horn being the Roman Catholic Church. But I have heard that the puritans were historicist postmillenialists? I didn't even think that was possible.
I know it's a year since your last comment but you seem pretty knowledgeable so I figured I'd take a shot.
I still rest in pretrib.
Bullshit: the events of revelation is not a type or shadow of something future . What’s near soon and at hand is the second coming itself in the book of revelation
Christ predicted the end of the temple. Later he said the Holy Spirit would show them things to come. We then must expect a further revelation of the future to the apostles, apart from the tribulation of ad 70. With the end of the temple with the armies of Rome we have what the parable calls “his armies”, Gods’ armies. The great enemy of the early church was the circumcisers. With the end of the temple that enemy was all but dead, but now a new enemy heathenism was before the church, and this was embodied in the Roman beast, which required a new revelation of God to comfort his people. To have presented this as the enemy before 70ad would have been out of place, but after it was completely necessary. Revelation then is not about the Jews, but the church and its enemy heathenism. The later date is correct.
This view protesteth too much. 22 chapters devoted to the divorce of Israel is quite a stretch given that Christ said it all on Olivet. The apocalypse is about the church in the centuries that would follow, Rome, the beast, its fall, the ten tribes, etc.
I'm sorry to have to say this, but Christianity is losing influence in the world, not gaining.
I some parts of the world, particularly Africa and Latin America, Christianity is growing significantly.
@@gregb6469 Can you name one country that runs their government around Christianity?
I would presume that every nation and people that has been touched by Christianity for even a limited time borrows from (and, admittedly, also bastardizes) the Law of God. That Christendom has lost influence is not a fault of Christ, but of passive Christians; we have, many of us, been given ten talents and we have buried them all in fear - ironically, not hiding them from our own Master but from the usurping master, the supposed constantly-anticipated "Antichrist."
The church in Iran growing fast ❤
This is why I take the Amill point of view. I agree with everything else otherwise.
So much wrong with this veiw.
WOW..Replacement Theology! What garbage!!
He’s not teaching replacement theology. Lol
If you still think that the unbelieving Christ hating people of Israel are Gods chosen people to this day ,then you have no idea who you are in Christ...Jesus was the fulfilment of all promises given to earthly Israel ...Jesus is the ark of salvation and your either in him or your not, and we know their position " We have no king but caesar "