Pre-Tribulation Rapture DEBATE (Keith Foskey vs Spencer Smith)

Welcome to Eschatology Matters Fight Night, brought to you by Squirrely Joe's Coffee.

For what is certain to prove to be a battle for the ages, is the coming of Jesus going to be in two stages with a pre

-tribulation rapture?

Or is it all going to happen at one time?

Tonight we have two formidable opponents who are going to battle it out over this important topic.

First, we have the macho man himself, Spencer Smith.

He will be defending a pre -tribulation rapture.

And his opponent, the king of the Amillennials, Keith Foskey, he will be opposing the pre -tribulation rapture.

So get ready.

The fight of the century begins now.

All right, well welcome to Eschatology Matters for our, I think our first Theology Fight

Night.

We here at Eschatology Matters have hosted a few debates and a few dialogues, but this is one of our first of

this type, so I'm going to let our two inaugural Theology Fight Nighters introduce themselves, starting with our

returning champ, Keith Foskey.

Keith, would you make introductions, sir?

Well, I only answered to King Keith at this point.

You have to call me by my official title.

I have a, well, excuse me, I'm Keith Foskey.

I'm the king of the Amillennialists, and I'm here to drop a suplex on my now good friend, Mr. Spencer

Smith, on the subject of the rapture.

So Keith Foskey, pastor of Sovereign Grace Family Church, reigning king of the Amillennials, and

the most handsome man on this screen.

All right.

Joined by Spencer Smith.

Spencer, you and I have just gotten to know each other, but a little introduction, brother, and where you're coming from.

Well, I am Spencer Smith, and I am the heavyweight champion of fundamentalism, and I

heard that there was some guy who called himself the king of the Amillennials, but I didn't believe a word of it.

And so I was coming here to stake my claim and let him know that there

is another champion in this world, and I'm looking forward to destroying my good

friend, brother, Keith Foskey, tonight.

And I am actually a missionary doing mission work, trying to start churches,

and a YouTuber and all that kind of crazy stuff as well.

I don't know.

It depends on who you ask what I am.

So that's what I'm sticking with.

So far.

Well, guys, I feel underdressed, but I'm sure we're in for a fun night.

One of the things that I've appreciated about the way you've both engaged this topic is it's a serious topic, and you guys have done some good study

and some good work.

We're going to have some good dialogue, but yet not take it too seriously.

And I do appreciate the love that you guys are going to bring to this.

Keith Foskey, you're going to be taking the affirmative tonight, and we'll get down to the schedule and how we're going to be walking through

everything.

Keith, you are taking the negative.

Mr. Spencer Smith is taking the affirmative.

The topic, the present thesis that we'll be debating tonight, and we'll walk into it here in just a moment, is the rapture and

the second coming of Christ are two separate events.

That'll be the topic we'll be debating.

Spencer, you're taking the affirmative.

I know we had some technical difficulties just there, so everybody got to see me trying to do some software fixes there in the nick of time.

But Spencer, would you make your introduction one more time, where you're coming from, and how you got interested in this debate topic as

well?

Well, I mean, I believed in the pre -tribulation rapture of the church.

I believe that the church is not going through the seven -year literal tribulation period.

And that's my position that I take.

And I've always taken that position, and I take that from a dispensational perspective.

And so that's what I believe.

That's what I'm here to debate tonight.

Very good.

Thank you, Spencer.

Keith, you are taking the negative, which is an unfortunate title.

But, Keith, where are you coming from?

How does this topic interest you, and how are you going to be approaching this?

Well, you guys at Eschatology Matters have been so good to me in bringing me in as the King of the Amillennials, and I want to thank you

again for this illustrious title.

I'm sitting in the sanctuary at Sovereign Grace Family Church because I wanted all of the leftover

anointing from all of my sermons to be able to waft in the room as I sit here to defend the true

eschatology, which is not a pre -tribulation rapture, but that the rapture and the second coming are the same event.

They're going to happen at the same time at the end of the age.

And we're not going into a millennium.

We're going into the eternal state.

But that's not what we're debating.

But just so everybody knows, that's what's going to happen.

Very good.

Well, we will start off with introductions from both of you.

You will have 10 minutes.

I will start waving my arms desperately if we start approaching that 10 -minute mark.

But you'll both have introductions.

Spencer, you will be starting with the affirmative.

I'll start the timer at 10 minutes.

Again, the topic for tonight is the rapture and the second coming of Christ are two separate

events.

Spencer, you're taking the affirmative and you have 10 minutes, sir.

Okay.

I got to take my glasses off so that I can actually read tonight.

And I apologize for that.

So I believe that the pre -tribulation rapture is what the Bible teaches.

I believe that Jesus Christ's coming is in two separate phases.

If you will, the rapture and then the second coming of the advent of the Lord Jesus Christ.

And oftentimes when somebody is opposing the pre -tribulation

rapture position, they talk about a secret rapture or something like that.

I never have really used the term myself.

But what we're going to prove tonight, and I hope to demonstrate this to you, is that there

is a rapture for the saints.

And at the end, there's a coming where the Lord comes to judge.

And so they're two separate things.

Now, 2 Timothy 2 .15 describes to us how to handle the Bible.

The Bible says, 2 Timothy 2 .15, study to show that self -approved unto God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly

dividing the word of truth.

And if you want to, you know, someone said years ago, the only verse in the Bible that tells you how to study the Bible tells you, or

that tells you to study the Bible, tells you how to study the Bible.

And you study the Bible by dividing the Bible.

And that's really one of the things that's very tricky, very difficult.

It's a strong meat type of thing.

But I think that what we can do is by taking this dividing mindset, we can

take the word of God and divide certain things to certain people.

For example, if I write a love letter to my wife and I hand it to somebody else that

is not my wife, and they read it and think that I have these incredibly inordinate affections for them, it

causes confusion.

And I think really a lot of the heresies, if not all the heresies that are out there today, are people that are

taking things in the Bible that are not necessarily to them and are implementing those things into

their, you know, trying to obey those things.

And so my golden rule that I always give to people when it comes to Bible study is all the Bible is for you, but not all the Bible is to you

necessarily.

And I think that's a principle for Bible study that you have to have.

Now, let me do this.

There's a verse in 1 Corinthians 10 .32 that says, give none offense neither to the Jews, nor to the

Gentiles, nor to the church of God.

The Jews, Gentiles, church of God.

So I think that those are three good categories that we have to, you know, we can use that kind of as a

tool to divide our Bibles.

Is God speaking to the Jews?

Is he speaking to the Gentiles?

Or is he speaking to the church of God?

I think much of the errors in prophecy today are people that are,

they are taking prophecy that was for the nation of Israel and applying it to the church of God.

And I think there's a difference tonight.

And we hope to show you that tonight.

Like, for example, there's the verse in Isaiah 54, 17, where it says no weapon formed against thee

shall prosper.

And that is a verse that we see charismatics use that

verse all the time.

And they say, you know, go forward and conquer in Jesus name or whatever.

And they say that no weapon formed against you shall prosper.

Well, my question then was, you know, did a weapon prosper against Stephen at the stoning of Stephen?

So that's a fair question to these people.

I throw at them.

But that verse, you have to understand, is that to the Jews?

Is that to the Gentiles?

Is that to the church of God?

Well, I don't think that verse is necessarily to the church of God.

Isaiah 54, 17, no weapon formed against thee shall prosper, is a verse that will be fulfilled

for the nation of Israel at the second coming of Jesus Christ.

And so you have to learn how to divide the Bible properly that way if you're going to understand prophecy.

Now, here's one thing I want to show to everybody that I think, how am I doing on time, brother?

You've got six minutes left.

Good, good.

Okay.

One thing I want to point out to everybody is that there's, when people

talk about the rapture, the rapture, it's kind of like a misnomer because there is

actually more than one rapture in the Bible.

So when you speak about the rapture, you have to differentiate which rapture you speak of.

I've done my looking at it and kind of looked at it for years.

I do believe that there are seven raptures in the Bible.

I believe that the first rapture is in Genesis 5 where Enoch and Enoch walked with God and he was not.

I believe that's a rapture.

I believe Elijah was raptured when it came to the chariot of fire coming down to get him and taking him up into heaven.

I believe he was raptured.

Jesus in Acts chapter number one, where he went up right there on the Mount of Olives, which I've happened to

been there before and it was a wonderful trip, went up on the Mount of Olives.

I believe I count that as a rapture.

I count where Paul said, I knew a man so many years ago who was called away to the third

heaven, which in my opinion was when he was stoned at Lystra and

I think he was technically raptured there.

So that's a fourth rapture.

I believe that 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15 teach a fifth

rapture and that rapture is directed towards the local church.

And that is, it's a very unique, it's uniquely described as a unique

thing.

It is not the second coming of Jesus Christ.

It's separate.

And then also in Revelation 11, there is a voice has come up hither to the two witnesses.

People debate on if that's Moses and Elijah or whatever, but definitely there is a voice that says come up hither

and those two men are raptured away.

And then also you have what I believe is the final second coming, the rapture of the tribulation saints in

Matthew 24 verse 31.

And so really where people get all messed up in this

is that they don't have any problem with the first couple of raptures.

What they try to do, there's the church rapture, the two witness rapture, and then there's the final rapture of tribulation saints in

Matthew 24.

They try to condense all of those into one.

And I think that's, I think you're gonna have some difficulty theologically if you do that.

For example, the rapture at the end of the tribulation period.

First Thessalonians describes it as a shout.

There's a shout, voice of archangel, trump of God and that kind of stuff.

You don't see it described that way in Matthew 24.

So there's a different description because I believe it's a different event.

Also, you have the mid tribulation rapture of Revelation chapter 11, which is the two witnesses.

And then you don't see a shout there either.

And you also don't hear a trump there in Revelation chapter 11, but you do hear a voice.

So they're described differently because ultimately they are different events.

And then thirdly, you have the pre -tribulation rapture, which of course is described in first

Corinthians 15, the twinkling of an eye, and there's the trump of God.

First Thessalonians four, there is of course, we all know that one in a moment.

And see, I'd probably be good if I pulled that up here so I can quote it real quick.

But first Thessalonians four and verse number, the end of the chapter there,

verse number 13, ignorant brethren concerning them in their sleep, verse number 16 said, for the Lord himself

shall descend from heaven with a shout, with a voice, the archangel, with the trump of God and the dead in Christ shall rise first.

Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with him in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.

And so shall we ever be with the Lord.

I think that is described completely differently in first Thessalonians four than it is in

Revelation and even in Revelation 19, Revelation 20, and then also in Matthew 24.

There's no mention in this passage as far as lightning, as far as

Matthew 24, 27 is coming as lightning.

There's no mention of the foul of the air, you know, the great supper of the great God.

Matthew 24 talks about the sun and moon being darkened, heaven shaking.

That's not mentioned in first Thessalonians four, first Corinthians 15.

The tribes of the earth are mourning in Matthew 24, 30.

There's a white horse, Revelation 19.

There's a medicating of war, Revelation 19, 11, eyes of flame of fire, Revelation 19, 12.

And on and on,.

Vesture dipped in blood, armies fallen in white horse.

All that stuff's described in Revelation 19, whereas it's not described that way in first Corinthians 15 or

first Thessalonians chapter four.

And so because of that, because they're described completely different, we conclude from that

scripturally that they are completely different events and are not the same

thing.

So just taking in consideration, and there's more, I can get into more details I could dig into with that, but that's

just the basic gist of the whole idea.

But also studies show that self -proved unto God.

One minute.

That needs not be ashamed,.

Rightly dividing the word of truth, dividing the Bible.

And I think that's the big key to Bible interpretation that everybody, if we

don't divide it correctly, if we start reading other people's mail, so to say, reading letters that God wrote to

somebody else, that's not, it's for us, but it's not necessarily to us, then I think we get in trouble and I think

we mess it all up.

So I wanna throw that out there for everybody to hear and I yield the floor.

Very good.

Thank you, sir.

10 minutes to you, Spencer.

Thank you very much.

Keith, 10 minutes for your response.

This'll be your introductory response.

10 minutes, sir.

I wanna thank everyone.

I wanna thank Eschatology Matters, especially Brandon Wood, who's become a very good friend.

You, Josh, for having me on and for Spencer Smith, who I plan to theologically suplex at some

point in this debate.

In all honesty, I'm glad to have met Spencer through this and I look forward to doing some other projects with him in the future and

thankful for his friendship.

I do, however, want to add that I thoroughly disagree with the pre -tribulation rapture and if you believe in it, you probably also believe

that piglet needs a squat rack.

So just to put that out there, I'd like to preface my opening with this statement.

My view of what is going to happen in the eschaton or the end times is relatively simple.

I believe Jesus is going to return at the end of the age.

The dead in Christ will rise.

The living and the dead will be judged.

Some will be thrown into the lake of fire where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth and some will enter into the eternal kingdom with Christ in the new

heavens and the new earth.

All of that is true and is still in the future.

This simple outline seems to fit well within the bonds of the passages which speak about the end times.

In fact, it is the principle which is laid out in many of the parables Jesus gives, including the parable of the sheep

and the goats, Matthew 25, 31 to 46, the parable of the dragnet, Matthew 13, 47 to 50, the

parable of the wheat and the tares, Matthew 13, 36 to 43.

The only thing which does cause some consternation is the interpretation of the millennium and revelation.

I am an amillennialist, as many of you know, because of this crown, but the position I argue tonight does not

depend on the millennium.

We are not arguing the millennium tonight.

I believe similar arguments to the ones I will make could also be made by historic premillennialists because we

are simply arguing that there is no pre -tribulation rapture.

So whether you believe that after Christ comes, there's going to be a kingdom on this earth does not make a difference as

to whether or not we hold to a pre -tribulation rapture.

So if that comes up later in the rebuttals or anything else, just remember that is an irrelevant argument.

The millennium is not relevant to this argument.

It is only the question of the pre -tribulation rapture.

When in seminary, I was taught that the end times would follow a specific outline of events which are much more elaborate

than what I just described to you.

The church would be raptured out of the world.

A seven -year tribulation would follow.

There would be a rise of an antichrist who would rule the world during the tribulation.

Some would get saved and then be persecuted.

This would culminate in the true second coming of Christ where he would come and set his foot on the Mount of Olives and inaugurate the millennial

kingdom.

This position was popularized by the Left Behind series of books and movies.

It is also endorsed by famous pastors whom I respect like John MacArthur and Spencer Smith.

So it is not something that I would say should divide us and make one of us say the other is a heretic.

I can love my brother and still think he is cuckooed for Cocoa Puffs on this particular issue.

Now, I wanna say also, I was completely sold out for this position for many years.

I believed it, talked about it, argued for it.

And then a friend challenged me to prove this position from scripture.

I went to a few passages.

He rightly pointed out that those passages did not prove that there was going to be a pre -tribulation rapture.

So I went to my eschatology professor and I asked him to help me prove my case so that I could take it to my

friend.

And that's when the wheels really fell off the cart.

Now, keep in mind at this point, I wanted to believe in the pre -tribulation rapture.

I was trying to argue for it.

I asked my professor who taught it.

I took eschatology one, two, and three, and he taught it in all three of those semesters.

And I said, tell me how to prove it.

And as he made his case, I began to realize that there was no single text that taught his view.

My professor, try as he might, could not show me any text, but rather he had to create a string of pearls

which were connected by a predetermined doctrine, which was being imposed

upon the text, not exegeted from the text.

Now, I realized that this position, when I realized that this position didn't come from exegesis, but from what is

classical eisegesis, reading into the text something that is not there, I had to abandon it.

And again, for a while, I remained premillennial because the rapture was the issue.

And when I gave up the pre -tribulation rapture, I stayed premillennial, but eventually I came to discover that

that also was not the case.

Now, I believe that it is because of this lack of scriptural support that we do not find any pre -tribulational

teaching until relatively recently in church history.

It is true you will find premillennial teaching in the early church.

That's why I don't think that there's anything wrong necessarily with being premillennial, even though I would hold a different view.

But we must not confuse pre -tribulation rapture with premillennialism.

Though pre -tribulational views are premillennial, not all premillennials are pre -trib.

I have friends like Dr. Michael Schultz and others who are historic premillennials.

They do not hold to a pre -tribulation rapture, but they hold to a premillennial view.

So we have to understand there is a distinction, and the distinction is this idea of a pre -tribulation rapture.

There's just, in my estimation, there is no text of the Bible that would prove it.

And I know my brother mentioned dividing the text, and I'm not gonna do my rebuttal now, but when we get to the rebuttal, I'm gonna talk about that

because that is an important conversation to have.

The English word rapture comes from the text in 1 Thessalonians, which was already read, 1 Thessalonians chapter

four, verse 17.

It says, then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds.

That comes from the Greek word there, harpazo, which was then

translated into the Latin rapturo, and rapturo becomes where we get the word rapture.

And so because that's the classic text, I wanna spend my time looking at that.

I'm not gonna read the whole text.

If you have your Bibles, turn to 1 Thessalonians chapter four, read verses 13 to 18 and do Smith a favor and read it

in the King James, it'll make him happy.

But I do want you to know that this text is the text that is often cited as

the one.

Give me my time, Josh, if you would.

You've got four minutes.

Okay.

This text is the one that is the one that's almost always debated because this text, as Spencer mentioned, does

seem to be something different than the second coming.

However, when we examine this text, it is the second coming of Christ.

And we see some key indicators to let us know that that's true.

This passage is the return of Christ.

This is his second coming.

And we know that because it specifically says that.

It tells us that the Lord is coming.

It says in this text that he is, this is his parousia.

The parousia is the word which means his arrival, his coming.

And it was tied to the idea of a king who comes after victory,

comes in victory, and he comes with his entourage.

And how is his entourage coming?

His entourage will be caught up with him so that they can escort him in.

And the same picture Paul is giving us in 1 Thessalonians 4 is the picture of the Roman

triumph where the triumphing army would come in triumphal procession and would come with him.

Those who've come out of the city greeted him and brought him back in.

I remember my professor said, I don't believe that the rapture happens.

We go up and come right back down.

That's like a yo -yo.

My professor said, I don't think we're like a yo -yo, but it's not a yo -yo.

It's a welcoming, like the people who welcomed Jesus, who was coming in on the back of the donkey on the day of the triumphal entry

into Jerusalem.

We will meet the Lord in the clouds and we will come with him in his

victorious second coming.

And again, if you don't believe that, then you believe that there are two parousias.

You believe there's that parousia where Jesus comes but doesn't really come.

He snatches away the church, but he didn't really come even though the word come is there.

And then you have to ask the question, well, what does it mean when it says that we're to take communion until he comes?

Is it that coming or the second coming?

What does it mean when we read the scripture and the angel said, when you saw Jesus go up, he's going to come again.

Well, is it that coming or is it another coming?

Do we have a second coming and a third coming?

And this is where another issue comes up is what is the coming of Jesus?

What is this parousia that we have seen?

And again, the idea that this second coming, this rapture event happens before tribulation

period is something that was not believed.

It was not taught.

And there is no evidence that this was taught until relatively recent in history.

And that is why I'm going to refer to it tonight as theological novum.

Theological novum simply means new theology.

How new is it?

Well, you won't find any teaching on it in the first thousand years of the church.

You won't find any teaching on it in the first 1 ,500 years of the church.

You really won't find any teaching, commentaries, creeds, or confessions that hold to it in the first 1

,800 years of the church.

Throughout church history, believers have seen 1 Thessalonians 4.

They've seen 1 Corinthians 5.

And they have said, this is the second coming of Christ.

And only now in the last 200 years have we come along and said, it can't be.

Only now have we come along in the last 200 years and said, no, that doesn't fit.

We can't have that.

And here's something I just want to point out.

If we can harmonize Genesis 1 and 2, which are the two accounts of creation,

and we harmonize them.

And if we can harmonize Kings and Chronicles, which are two histories of Israel, why can't we harmonize

these events and the return of Christ as the one event that they are?

Why do we have to divide them into two?

And why do we feel the need to do that?

So that's my opening statement.

Very good.

Thank you, sir.

And thank you both for some strong introductory opening statements.

To let everybody know that is in the chat or watching this live, please submit any questions you might have.

We've had two opening statements from both of our participants.

Again, the topic that we are discussing is the rapture and the second coming of Christ are two separate events.

Spencer Smith is taking the affirmative.

Keith Foskey is taking the negative.

We're going to have some time here for some rebuttal, some back and forth.

You'll both be allotted five minutes.

I'll give you guys a minute to gather your notes.

So again, if you're following this live and if you have any questions after they've had their rebuttal time, we'll also have

some discussion time between Keith and Spencer.

And then following that, time permitting, we're going to get to audience questions or any that come from me.

So please list those in the chat and we'll try to get to those.

Again, time permitting.

Spencer, you led off with the affirmative.

Keith, you answered with the negative from your introductions.

So I'm going to go back to Spencer for the first rebuttal.

Are you ready, sir?

Yeah, I am.

All right.

Five minutes when you're ready.

Okay.

Well, okay.

I hear what Brother Keith is saying there and I understand what he's saying.

You know, this is one of those things where this is strong mate and I think good men can disagree on

this and that's no problem.

When it comes to church history, I want to say, I do look at church history.

I think it is interesting and useful.

But at the end of the day, church history is not as authoritative as we want it to be.

So, I mean, you know, just because we don't see anybody teaching that doesn't necessarily mean that the Bible didn't teach that.

And so, I mean, it's a good point, but it's not necessarily the end -all, be -all

measure of truth that we have.

We have to just be Bible -believing Christians and say, this is what the Bible teaches.

I would suggest maybe in church historical ideas that there were good people who believed this type of

stuff.

Maybe they were repressed.

That's a possibility that I'm open to,.

Although I'm not willing to,.

I wouldn't debate that, of course.

But so, the Lord does come, no question.

He comes in Revelation, I believe chapter 19,.

Riding a white horse.

I've never ridden a horse.

Oh, I've ridden a couple times, but I'll be riding a horse one day, and it's going to be amazing.

But there are other examples, like 1 Thessalonians chapter 4,

where this is described completely differently.

So, let me get into this list that I have here.

And I've got several list of things that I could throw out there.

But the rapture of the church is different from the second coming in several ways.

Number one, the rapture of the church is for the church.

And the second coming of Jesus Christ is related more towards the Jews.

And that's Matthew 24.

Let me say this.

Let me just get to this list right here.

In 1 Thessalonians chapter 4, there is no mention of lightning.

Whereas in Matthew 24, 27, there is a mention of lightning.

Let me go on to this.

No mention of the wrath of Almighty God in 1 Thessalonians chapter 4, whereas Revelation 19, 15, there is.

There's no mention of Christ's name written on his thigh.

Whereas in Revelation 19, 16, there is a mention of that.

1 Thessalonians chapter 4, 1 Corinthians 15, there's no mention of fowls of the earth.

And that's actually quite an interesting thing.

They suffer the great God.

Jesus is gonna come back and slaughter all his enemies.

And all these birds are gonna eat all these bodies.

That's what's going on.

And in 1 Corinthians 15, 1 Thessalonians chapter 4, there's no mention of any of that type of stuff.

No mention of the beast and his kings assembling an army in the Valley of Megiddo, where they'll have that final

showdown as there is in Revelation chapter 19.

There's no mention of the beast and false prophet being cast into the lake of fire as there is in Revelation 19, verse 20.

And there's no mention of his army being slain in Revelation 19, 21.

And then also in Matthew 24, Revelation 19, there's no mention of the word shout.

And so I'm bound by what the Bible says.

And I just don't see that being directed towards these two

things in the local church, 1 Corinthians 15, 1 Thessalonians chapter 4.

And so because of that, I've concluded that they're different events entirely.

And really that's all I can do.

So either it's all one big event and it's just described different ways in different books, or

it's different events described different ways because they are different events.

And that's the point that I'm trying to say.

And that's one of the reasons why I believe that 1 Thessalonians 4, 1 Corinthians 15 is not the same as

Matthew 24 and not the same as Revelation 19.

The coming of Jesus Christ comes in two parts.

And that's what I wanna throw out there.

So how am I doing on time?

You have two minutes left, well, a minute and a half.

A minute and a half.

So I wrote this down, do the differences of these three events, the rapture,

the pre -tribulation rapture, 1 Thessalonians 4, the rapture in Revelation chapter 11, and the

second coming, the rapture that is described in Matthew 24, which will be revealed in Revelation 19.

Because of those three things being described three different ways, I concluded they are three different events

and not one just event, one event in of itself.

That's what I wanna throw out there to everybody.

And so that's what I got.

That's my rebuttal, thank you.

Very good, thank you, sir.

I'm logging down some of these questions.

I appreciate the questions.

We will try to be getting to these.

Keith, you have five minutes for your rebuttal.

Five minutes when you're ready, sir.

All right, so Spencer began his presentation

by saying that he believed that there were two entirely different descriptions of

the rapture and the second coming.

And he reiterated this in his rebuttal.

So I want to make it clear, I am responding to his opening statement, not to his rebuttal, to stay within the

bounds of rules of debate.

I'm supposed to respond to the opening statement, not to his rebuttal.

But he did say in his opening statement that he believed they were two entirely different events and that they were described

entirely differently.

So as I respond to that, just to be clear, I'm trying to stay within the rules.

The first and second chapters of Genesis, as I mentioned in my opening, have been often

claimed to be two different creation accounts.

In fact, it has led to entire movements that believe in different creation accounts.

And the higher critics of the Bible have come along and said, these are two different creation accounts because they,

according to them, they cannot be harmonized.

You cannot harmonize Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 with the creation of man and woman and Genesis 1 and the image

of God and the creation of man as a special creation of God and a woman made from the side rib

of Adam in Genesis 2.

And I'm stressing this simply to say that we who believe that the Bible is the word of God

do not believe there were two creations.

We believe in one creation account that is given in two different chapters.

And in those two chapters, we have to harmonize certain things as we know it is one

event.

And as I said before, we can say the same thing for the Kings and the Chronicles, the history

of Israel.

It's one story told by two different groups, a group of the

one who wrote Kings and the one who wrote Chronicles.

And when we get to the Gospels, we have four stories of the life of Jesus.

And many of those stories would seem to be somewhat contradictory.

And I remember the first time on an Easter service, it was very early in my ministry, I taught the four different

resurrection accounts from each of the four Gospels.

And I showed how all four of the Gospels, if you read them back to back, there seem to be some things that certainly don't

seem like they could be the same thing.

There's this one has two angels.

This one has one angel.

This has the angels outside.

This has the angels inside.

I said, but if you spend the time to harmonize these, you realize it was one single event.

And I think that's what we need to do.

So when Brother Spencer, my good friend, my loving brother says, we need to rightly

divide the word of truth.

I say, I agree with you, but the key word is rightly.

Because if we ought not divide where a division isn't being made, and that's what I think is the problem here.

A division is being made where it is unnecessary.

And again, I think dividing Jew and Gentile, and this is something I don't know how far we're gonna get

into tonight, but I certainly hold a different view about the distinction between Jew and Gentile than my brother

does.

And the main reason it is is because Christ came to tear that wall down.

We all know Ephesians chapter two, we all read Ephesians chapter two, one through 11.

We get all excited about, by grace we're saved through faith and that and out of ourselves.

But if you go after verse 10 and you read the rest of Ephesians two, it's all about how he has broken

down the wall of division between Jew and Gentile.

And if you go to Galatians, it says there is no Jew or Greek, but we are all one in Christ Jesus.

Now, does that mean that there is no distinction in that time between Jews and Greeks?

And therefore, when he quotes 1 Corinthians about the Jews, the Gentiles and churches of God, well, certainly there were Jews and certainly there were Gentiles and certainly there

was the church of God, but the church of God was made up of Jew and Gentile.

Paul proves that.

He himself was a Jew.

Peter was a Jew and they were part of the church of God.

Will they be raptured?

Certainly they will because they're part of the church.

But how can we say then that there's this massive divide when the division has been broken down

by Christ?

So I think that's again where we're rightly dividing, not wrongly dividing.

And the right divisions have to be made.

You know, I don't disagree with you that people misunderstand Isaiah 54, 17,.

Where it says,.

No weapon formed against me shall prosper.

I think, obviously, there are people who misunderstand that, but I don't necessarily think that that applies only to

the tribulation Jews.

Again, I think we're creating categories the Bible doesn't create.

And if I misrepresented you there, Spencer, I didn't mean to.

30 seconds, 30 seconds.

Jews at the end time or something.

But if I'm wrong on that, I'll retract that.

But I think there can be an application made in the same way that Romans 8 makes the application,

where it says that neither death nor life nor angels nor powers nor things present nor things to come nor anything else in all creation will separate us from the

love of God.

No weapon will prosper because nothing can separate us from the love of God.

Even if my head is taken from my body, I'm not separated from Christ because Christ is in me and I'm in him.

So I'll leave it with that as my rebuttal.

Very good.

Thank you guys.

We're getting questions in from the audience.

Appreciate the questions.

Several of these are very good.

We're going to have 15 minutes allotted for some questions between Spencer and Keith.

15 minutes.

Again, we're looking at the rapture and the second coming of Christ are two separate events.

Spencer is taking the affirmative.

Keith is taking the negative in this.

So Keith, Spencer, 15 minutes.

Keith, since you wrapped up.

Spencer, we will lead in with you, sir.

Okay, so I understand, and it's a solid point what you're saying about the four different gospel records.

Maybe they say something different, but it's the same story.

I understand that and that's fair to say, and I agree with you on that.

But what we're seeing is two different events described.

1 Thessalonians 4, 1 Corinthians 15 is a joyful, hopeful thing written to the church.

Whereas Matthew 24 is a terrible, dreadful judgment that is described there.

And the way they're described is two different events, of course.

How, where does the physical nation of Israel play into the amillennial view is

my question?

Because, I mean, of course, there's a division, Jew, Gentile, church.

I take the Jew there, meaning the, of course, and I understand and agree that in the church age today, the church

is made of Jew and Gentile.

But where does the physical nation of Israel play into the amillennial view of the

rapture?

I'm glad you asked that, only because this is actually my sermon for Sunday.

Okay, yeah.

It's so amazing because I'm in, I'm preaching through 2 Corinthians chapter three.

I'm in preaching through, verse by verse through 2 Corinthians.

And Paul talks about the veil of Moses covering the glory of his face.

And then how that veil has been, has been over the eyes of the Jewish people so that when they read the old

covenant, and he's talking about the old covenant scriptures, that they can't actually see it because they don't believe in

Christ.

They don't see Christ in their old Testament scriptures.

But that's where I, when you ask, what is the future for Israel?

The future for Israel is to trust in Christ.

There is no Jew who will be saved without trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now, could there be a revival in the future of Jewish people and them finally seeing

the Messiah?

I think that's possible in Romans 11.

I think where it talks about the times of the Gentiles being fulfilled and God has

grafted us into the root and God may graft them back in, I think there's a possibility of that in the future.

But I don't think that that has to happen after a pre -tribulation rapture.

I don't think that has, I don't think the church has to leave for that to happen.

In fact, I think the church is instrumental in that because if the Jews receive Christ, it's gonna be because they were

evangelized by people who trust Christ.

And so I would say, is there a future for ethnic Israel?

And that's, and I wouldn't make a distinction between ethnic and national because national Israel is, we think of national Israel, the

nation and the place.

There are ethnic Jews all over the world.

And if God were to seek to lift that veil and bring a revival, I would say, amen.

And I hope for it.

And I actually think it's a very big and true possibility.

So in that regard, they will not be saved without coming to Christ.

That's the key.

The salvation of the Jews is in Christ.

The salvation of Gentiles is in Christ.

It's all in Christ.

So that would be my answer.

Yeah, sure.

Well, it's the, I mean, what I'm speaking of is the nation, the physical earthly nation,

not just Jewish people being saved, but that's what I was talking about there.

So I just wanna clarify that.

So, okay, I guess it's your turn now.

Are we gonna do it back and forth?

Okay.

All right, well, okay, all right.

Well, let me ask this question first then.

And I know you, I think I know the answer, but I'll give it.

Can you take me to any single passage that unambiguously declares that Jesus

will rapture the church seven years before his return?

Well, I can take you to a series of verses that do that.

But I mean, you know, there's, if you're looking for one exact specific verse that captures the

entirety of prophecy of the pre -tribulation rapture, just one tiny thing.

No, I mean, it's a series of things.

And I think prophecy is made that way woven throughout the Bible, of course.

And so I don't know if that's necessarily possible or necessarily even needed, really.

Okay, all right, fair enough.

Your turn.

Okay, all right.

What does the amillennial view of, okay, from my understanding, it is the church goes

through it, like you believe in a seven -year tribulation period, right?

Not exactly.

I believe the tribulation happened in AD 70.

I believe most are revelation.

I am what's called a partial preterist amillennialist.

You remember I sent you my lesson.

You've heard me teach on this, so you know at least a little bit.

Hey, for those who don't know, we became friends when we talked about this.

But yeah, okay.

So I would say that many of the things that we see in revelation that we think of as future events have actually happened.

That's what preterism means, is that it means it's in the past.

So their future is our past.

I think Revelation 19 is still to be fulfilled.

I think that's the second coming of Christ.

I think that's the fulfillment of 1 Thessalonians 4, 1 Corinthians 15, all that is culminated in Revelation

19.

And 20.

And I do, well actually not 20, because I believe the church age is the millennium.

And that's again, that's not what I came to debate tonight.

We can talk about it, but that takes us away a little bit from the rapture discussion.

Okay, so is it my turn or is your turn now?

I guess it's my turn now.

Okay.

All right.

That was just for me, for my understanding.

I just wanted to make sure I knew that, so.

No, no, no, no, you're fine.

I just want to make sure I give the best, because we're limited on time.

I want to give the best questions I have, because I really want to hear your answers about these.

Do you really think, and I want you to be honest with me now, do you really think that this doctrine is

so obviously taught in the Bible that a person who never heard anything about this, had

never heard of the system before, would come to this conclusion on their own without

someone leading them to this conclusion?

Do you think someone would come to this conclusion without an a priori

suggestion?

Well, I mean, that's a tough question.

I think there's probably several things that are like that.

But no, I do believe that if you just sat down and just read the Bible, I do think you would see a difference between the

Jew, Gentile church.

I think that you would, I mean, and my background, I got saved when I was 18.

So I kind of came into it with no Sunday school history.

Or nothing like that.

And I saw Matthew 24 as a future thing happening.

I saw the book of Revelation as a future thing.

Revelation 4, one on, I saw that as future events that I even saw chronologically, I could believe it that way.

So I had no trouble believing that.

I believe the Lord is coming, but I also believe that the Lord's coming is imminent as far as the church being taken out.

And I just, I don't see why that could be any, I had no difficulty seeing that now.

Okay, all right, your turn.

All right, okay.

So, and maybe this is just an obligal question in and of itself, but is the

church of, is the coming of Christ an imminent thing?

Do you believe that it's imminent right now?

Well, this is something that I've really struggled with because when would they define imminence?

And I know what you mean by that, if I'm sure the audience does too, but just in case there's anybody who doesn't, that means can it happen at any

time?

Can it happen any moment?

I think that there is a sense in which it can, and this is my answer.

This is why I think that, because I think we could be incorrect about what is going to happen in

the future.

And those who say, Jesus can't come because there has to be a seven -year tribulation.

Well, what if we misinterpret it?

What if we misunderstood that?

What if much of that was fulfilled in AD 70?

And what if what we're waiting to happen doesn't have to happen?

You know, when Jesus came the first time, many people say this can't be him because this isn't happening, and that isn't happening, but they

missed the first coming because they had a misunderstanding of what they thought was supposed to happen.

So I think it's, I think Jesus, if Jesus returned tomorrow, I wouldn't be mad.

And I, but I would also say, I do think there are some things that

I look forward to as a non -millennialist that says there's going to be, I believe Satan is bound right now.

And I know there's some people who'd lose their mind if they hear me say that, but I actually do believe that Satan is bound right now by the preaching of the gospel.

I do believe there's going to be a loosening of Satan before the end of the age.

And so I do believe there's going to be a time of difficulty.

And so that time hasn't, I don't think is upon us yet.

So I think that that is something that we would see before his second coming.

So it wouldn't be as eminent as to say it would happen right this moment.

But again, I think we are to live with our lamps full of oil, ready for Christ to return at any moment,

because in that sense, we know not wherein the master of the house cometh.

So, so, so you believe Satan is bound right now.

How do you explain all these Taylor Swift concerts going on out there?

I knew you, I knew it.

I knew it, man.

Taylor, uh, you know, Aristore, man.

I just want to throw that out there.

You walked into that one a little bit.

No, I did.

I did.

I did.

I'm going to ask you a question.

It's my turn, right?

It is.

I'm going to ask you a question based on the video you made.

You mentioned Augustine.

Yeah, now, now this is,.

This is, again, some of our prelim talk.

You mentioned Augustine and, and how he was a little, had a little weird stuff.

And I assume you were mentioning him because obviously amillennialists, obviously he was taught the amillennial position.

And so a lot of people attribute that to him.

If Augustine, if it were found that Augustine taught a pre -tribulation rapture, which would

provide the only affirmative teaching for your position in the first thousand years of church history, would you

cite him in support of your position?

No, because he was a weirdo.

You would too.

You know you wouldn't.

I know you wouldn't.

You'd be so excited.

Somebody in the first century believe what you believe.

Well, you know,.

Josh is about to lose his mind.

He's like, I think it just went off the rails.

Well, no, I mean, like, I don't base any doctrine that I believe based on church history.

I mean, I can look to history.

And I mean, I don't dismiss church history.

But at the same time, you know, I'm kind of a Baptist.

So, you know, I stick my head in church history and I see, I mean, I don't see a whole lot of

authoritative ground I want to stand on there.

I mean, there's things I've read about Martin Luther that make me think, you know, question his sanity.

There's things I've read.

I mean, I read something about Calvin and his institutes, the man who taught baptismal regeneration.

So I don't want to stand, you know, on his and much that he said.

So I, you know, I don't dismiss church history.

But at the same time, I don't use it as like a foundation that I build my doctrine on.

I am a strict biblicist now, you know, and I just go with what the Bible says.

And I have to, I think you, I think there's a danger in, and I don't,

I'm not saying we shouldn't read men, but I think there's a danger in we are allowing our

presuppositions that we take to the scriptures to be affected by placing an inordinate amount

of faith in certain groups of people.

So Augustine said, it's no substitute for the Bible said.

And I would say that about any preacher alive or dead or anything, you know, the Bible says, Trump's

all what man said.

And so that's what I would throw at you on that one.

Can I do a follow?

I know you used your turn.

Can I at least ask a follow up?

Doesn't it though seem peculiar that no Christian before

this, and I'm not just talking about your position on pre -tribulation rapture.

I want you to answer this honestly.

If nobody had ever seen what you think you're seeing, does that not leave you to come to the conclusion that you

might be an error?

Yes, you know, like if I read the Bible and I've seen the flying spaghetti monster and I'm the first guy who's ever come up with that in the world, in the

Christian history ever, that would cause me to question.

But I do think that, and I don't have all the notes in front of me right now, but I have read some things from early church fathers that

seem to indicate that there was an imminent coming of Christ and that type of stuff and that the

church and Israel were not the same thing.

Okay, so that does make me that, but at the same time, that's what I'm saying.

Like church history does not pull that much weight as far as that goes.

And so I want that to be thrown out there.

So it's no problem.

Fair, and I'm sorry for asking two questions.

So I'll let you, I'll let your body send me or you can ask two questions or Josh can tell us what to do.

How much time we got?

You got two and a half minutes, so.

Okay, well, you finish with as many questions as you want, Spencer.

I doubled up, so you can do it.

Yeah, okay, so there are things that were promised to Israel.

Like there's several things that were promised.

Do you believe that the, and maybe this is an amillennial question, I'm sorry if this is outside the bounds of what we're talking about,

but I've got right here, I sent you the seven pillars of the pre -tribulation rapture.

I'll read them to you.

There's a distinction with the rapture and second coming, a dispensational interpretation of the Bible.

The church is a mystery in the Old Testament.

The imminent return of Christ, tribulation seven year period, distinction between Israel and the church and literal interpretation

of the Bible.

I don't see how your view allows for a seven year tribulation period.

And I'm curious about that.

Can you help me with that?

I don't hold to a literal seven years.

So that's, maybe that's helpful.

I said there may be a time of tribulation in the future.

And again, the loosening of Satan, that doesn't mean that I hold to a literal interpretation of

revelation.

And this is where I would take a progressive parallelism view of revelation where I believe it's the same thing being told over and

over.

I don't think it's chronological and I don't think it's meant to be taken literal.

And you remember when I sent you my thing that I taught on where I talked about the same language used in revelation is used in

Isaiah and Jeremiah to discuss the destruction of Jerusalem and in the destruction of

Babylon and these different things in Daniel.

And so the language that is used in revelation is intentionally figurative.

I know you're allergic to the word allegory.

So I'll use the word figurative because you said that was okay.

I watched your video.

You said figurative is okay, but allegory is not.

So if we can say the progressive parallelism of revelation is figurative, then I think

the datings and the times and all that, I'm not looking for a literal seven -year tribulation.

So that would be my answer.

And, but you said about, you said something about amillennial.

You had another question built in there for amillennial.

No, that was my question.

No, you did.

You asked, but the promises of Israel.

Because I would say the promises are finding their yes and amen in Christ.

I think every promise that was made from Abraham on, or even from Genesis 315 on, find their

yes and amen in Christ.

There's nothing that the Jews were promised that they will not have fulfilled in the new heaven and new earth through the Lord Jesus Christ.

So there's nothing that they will miss.

There's nothing that they will not have.

Sure, sure.

And so -.

And we're inheritance in that promise too.

We are grafted in to those promises.

Yeah, yeah.

Well, so there is no seven -year tribulation period.

Then is what you're saying?

Not literally.

No, at least not as I would understand it.

Okay, okay.

Well, that would be one of the differences.

That's why I do believe in a pre -tribulation rapture because there is a seven -year tribulation period, which is called Jacob's Trouble in the book of

Jeremiah, which is where God turns from the church

But in that passage, I don't mean to interrupt, but in that passage, does it say a seven -year tribulation or does it call it Jacob's Trouble?

And you're introducing that idea.

No, not at that.

That has to do with a whole different can of worms with Daniel's 70th week and all that stuff.

Right there.

Exactly, exactly.

See, that again, that's my point is I feel like we assume something and we introduce it.

I'm not trying to be ugly.

That's what I think is the issue there.

No, I'm not assuming.

I'm just taking pieces of prophecy and kind of chaining them together and taking the bits and bits of

information that we have and making something and putting the doctrine of that together.

So it's not necessarily assuming something, but that, of course, that opens up a whole nother can of worms with Daniel's 70th week and

whatever.

So that's not where I'm willing to go, but I think that's a 15 minutes right there.

Yeah, I was about to say, Spencer, if you're wrapping up, I appreciate that.

Yeah, we're about a minute over, but good discussion, guys.

Thank you very much.

We've got several really good questions here and I'm trying to sort through these.

As you guys can imagine, some of these questions would take us pretty far from

the topic at hand.

Again, I'm trying to sort most of these in line with our present thesis, which is the rapture and the second coming of Christ are two

separate events.

So let me start us with this question, please.

Looking toward the tribulation specifically, a couple of people have asked questions around the area of

what is the tribulation.

Are we now in the tribulation?

At least one or two people have asked about Revelation 1 .9 where John speaks of himself as a partaker in the revelation.

But if you guys could both just kind of answer that question, what your conception is of the tribulation or the great

tribulation, or however you want to frame that, and what do you think maybe John was getting at in the revelation itself?

So Spencer, we could start with you if you don't mind.

So what is the tribulation?

Is that what you're asking?

Yes, sir.

Yeah, what's your understanding of it?

The tribulation is a future seven -year event where God

will pour out judgment upon the earth as kind of like a final last stand in which he will try to

get men to repent and turn to him.

There'll be all kinds of things.

There'll be 144 ,000 Jewish evangelists going around the world preaching the gospel to everybody.

God will be working in the hearts of the nation of Israel.

And there will be a final showdown at the end of that tribulation between the Antichrist armies and Jesus Christ coming

on a white horse in Revelation chapter 19 into the Valley of Megiddo.

And at the end of that, we'll end a literal seven -year tribulation period, which of course, all this is

built on a literal, grammatical, historical interpretation of the scripture, not necessarily an allegorical

or maybe even a spiritual interpretation of the scriptures.

You have to be literal, historical, grammatical interpretation of the scriptures.

And that is what we define the, if you're gonna take the dispensational, literal, historical, grammatical,

which is a lot of words that mean I went to Bible college, take all those words and that's

what you'll come up with as a seven -year literal tribulation period.

Thank you, sir. Keith.

Yeah, it's interesting.

We talk about literal and taking things as they're read.

John says in the beginning of Revelation, these things must soon take place.

And then we put a 2 ,000 -year gap in between them or more when I believe those things took place, much of

those things that were written about in Revelation took place in AD 70.

And therefore, they did take place in the hearing of those who would hear.

I believe that John was writing to a people so that they would know what they were about to face and they're about to deal with.

Some people take a later dating of Revelation.

I believe Revelation was written before AD 70 and it was written to prepare those who were going to go through that time

of tribulation in Jerusalem.

And so that would be my answer to that.

I would also add that again, when we say we're taking things literally,

we're literal only until we're not, right?

It's literally locusts until they become Apache helicopters.

It's literally, you know what I mean?

So that would be my answer.

I think that John's timetable at the beginning was the things that must soon come to pass.

And must soon take place.

So that's, yeah.

Well, let me add a small addendum to that.

Literal interpretation still gives room for symbolism, figurative language, metaphor, and even

allegory.

There's a difference between a literal interpretation and allegorical interpretation.

And so that's deep harmonetical stuff.

But yeah, I do literal, but I don't interpret the scripture allegorically.

I interpret it literally, which gives me room for allegory, symbolism type and mythology or figurative language and that type of stuff.

That's not what I'm talking about.

The term I use is literary.

I don't interpret the Bible literally.

I interpret the Bible literarily, meaning according to the literature that it's being used.

So I interpret narrative as narrative.

I interpret poetry as poetry.

I interpret revelation, apocalyptic language as apocalyptic language.

And therefore it's to be interpreted according to the literary type it is given.

And so that's basically what you're saying.

Yeah, but Apache helicopter is so cool though.

That's right.

Hey, I would take one if it were given to me.

Yeah, just for the record, I don't believe in Apache helicopters like that.

We could have had a way better debate if that was the case.

That would have been a fun one to cover.

Guys, let's walk into that just a little bit more because a couple of the questions were about how you guys approach.

I think the real question is how you're approaching prophecy and prophetic passages in scripture, specifically with the ones that

have been brought up tonight.

What is your hermeneutic or what's your approach to interpreting scripture?

And specifically, some people have asked about some of the timing indicators.

Typically those sort of questions will come up where you have mentions of this generation or those standing here

or surely one will not pass away, those sort of things.

So I think we can kind of dovetail those two into one question.

How are you approaching scripture, specifically thinking toward those prophetic passages?

And how would you answer some of those questions with timing indicators such as this generation shall not pass away, et

cetera.

And Keith, if it's okay, we'll go back to you for this one.

Sure, and this generation passage is very important because it's often used by

those who want to attack the scripture as they'll say, well, this is Jesus's failed prophecy because he didn't return

in that generation.

And so some people try to interpret that generation as, well, that's the generation that will be there when Jesus returns.

And then you get the nation of Israel going back to, or the nation of Israel being reestablished in 48 and the book 88 reasons

Jesus will be returning in 1988 because that's a generation, right?

And so I believe when Jesus said that in the Olivet discourse, he's referring to

the generation that was standing there and that the fall of Jerusalem.

Again, we cannot overemphasize the importance of that historical event.

I don't even remember being taught about that historical event when I was in seminary because again, it didn't matter.

It was all about the future.

It was all about a third temple.

It was all about these things that were gonna happen in the future.

But when you look back at the things that did happen, the things that have occurred, the beastly nature of Nero and the

things that he did in the fulfillment of those prophecies, I think to me, it

answers a lot more questions than it raises.

No system is without question.

Nothing I teach doesn't leave me with some question marks.

And that's something I have to say.

Amillennialism is not perfect.

I think it's correct, but I think it's correct with caveats.

I have to say, but this, you know, if the primal evidence are right and I spent a thousand years here with Jesus, I'm not gonna

be mad.

If Spencer's right and Jesus takes me in a rapture, trust me, I'm not gonna argue on my way up.

I'm just, and this is how it makes sense to me, based upon a literary hermeneutic.

And that's what I said before.

And it is a grammatical historical.

The grammar indicates what form of literature it is.

And the historical indicates in what way it was used, the historical context

in which it was used.

That's why when Psalms tells us the trees will clap their hands, we know the trees don't have hands, but we

can interpret that according to the language that's being used.

And when Jesus says, this is my body, this is my blood, we can look at the Lutherans and say, don't get

too crazy here.

He's using this to symbolize.

And there, I just made half the audience mad and I just lost all my Lutherans.

And if I had any Catholic fans, everybody just got mad, but it's not the literal body and blood of

Christ, even though we have to debate what is really means.

And so that's, I hope that's helpful.

I'm a little off there.

Your turn, Spencer.

Yeah, okay.

So I, the old adage that I've been given is that if the plan initial sense makes good

sense, seek no other sense for all other senses, nonsense.

Okay, so that's what I try to go with when I read the Bible.

And another thing that I try to do is I try to use laws like the law first mentioned

and stuff like that.

Now, for example, when I look at the word elect in the Bible, I see that the first

elect is Jesus Christ.

And then I say, the next elect is Israel.

And so I try to follow that as well.

And of course we know believers are as elect as well.

But I also try to, you know, I also try to give room for symbolism.

Like when I look at Revelation 13, there's a beast rising up out of the sea.

When I see that, I don't think that, you know, I don't think Godzilla's attack in Tokyo and the book of Revelation.

Okay, that's not what I, that's not how I view that, although that would be pretty entertaining.

But I do give room for symbolism.

And I try to, I try to take the symbolism of prophecy and kind of use the law first mentioned and

go backwards and see what the thread is being woven throughout the scriptures and all that.

And if I can see something that is, just makes plain sense like that, then I can

handle that.

But of course, one thing that I'm doing and one thing I've come to the conclusion of, Matthew 24 is in the tribulation period, whereas

1 Thessalonians chapter four, 1 Corinthians 15, there's a difference between the

church and the nation of Israel.

And I have come to that conclusion by just dividing the word of God and coming to it from a

literal standpoint.

And that's what I've tried to do.

And there's a whole nother harmonetic there as well as all that we can go into.

But that's what I try to do.

And I have found that the Bible fits perfectly when you do it that way.

And of course, I wanna add to what Keith says.

Ah, millennialism, he said it is not perfect.

I would say pre -millennialism, pre, post, ah, whatever, all of them do

present some difficulty.

Okay, there's no question as far as that.

But pre -millennialism and pre -tribulation rapture is what I've come to believe in because that's what I've

found that the most plain literal sense of the Bible seems to fit that the best.

Okay, very good.

Thank you guys.

We've had several questions about the revelation and I don't wanna get too sideways on this because again, our

primary thesis is looking at the rapture and the second coming of Christ are two

separate events, either in the affirmative or the negative for that.

But let me ask this question.

We've had several ask about the revelation.

Both of you have mentioned passages out of there.

If you could give us a kind of synopsis of when you think the revelation was written, the revelation to John, what

connection does it have with the events of AD 70?

And if you feel comfortable doing so, maybe your approach to revelation, how you think it's structured.

Both of you have already kind of made mention of that.

So maybe just giving a little bit of a brief synopsis of what you guys were talking about for those who didn't catch that.

So when was revelation written?

What's its connection to AD 70?

And maybe a brief word of explanation about what you guys had mentioned as far as your approach to the structure and overall tenor of

revelation.

All right, who do you wanna go first?

Spencer, we'll go back to you if that's okay.

Yeah, that's fine.

I believe the book of Revelation is future.

Although I do believe that, of course, the church letters were written to actual

churches that existed in that time.

And I do believe that.

But once you get Revelation 4, verse one, I believe that all that's future.

All that is stuff that is gonna happen later on down the road.

And I think that you could take the book of Revelation chronologically.

I think there are some addendum chapters.

There's some parenthetical chapters in there where it's like the woman, there's several in there I could talk about,

the war in heaven and things like that.

But I do think that from Revelation 4, verse one, you could take it literally, you can use the symbolism, understand all that

and go forward.

And I believe that the entirety of the book of Revelation from chapter four to the very end, all that's in the future.

And that's how I interpret that.

Keith, yep.

Yeah, well, as I said earlier, and I don't wanna repeat myself too much, but I think that Revelation is written

before 80, 70.

I know about the arguments against that.

I would recommend Ken Gentry's work on that about why it's written before 80,

70.

And I've said this publicly in teaching, if it was written after 80, 70, if that's

proven, which I don't know, I don't think it could ever really be proven, but if it were proven it was written after 80, 70, then that would adjust some of the

things of the way that I understand it.

But I do believe 66, 67, probably as far as the dating for the

book, maybe a little later, but right there in the time leading up

to and the destruction of Jerusalem.

Progressive parallelism says that they're essentially like, there's seven parallels throughout the book of

Revelation that progressively expand upon each other and tell the same story several

times.

And so that would be my understanding of it.

And again, we have the churches of Revelation, which are literal churches.

And these are things that are going to happen in a short time.

Up to the, again, it's expanding out, expanding out, expanding out until the final

appearing of Christ in Revelation 19, which is the end.

Some preterists think it's all completely fulfilled prior

at 80, 70, even the resurrection.

And I think that that is, I think that's untrue.

I don't think that it's all been fulfilled.

And so that's why I call it partial preterism.

I actually call it orthodox preterism because I think a full preterist view is outside of the bounds of orthodoxy because it

violates the accepted, and I don't know how Spencer feels about the Apostle's Creed, but the Apostle's

Creed tells us about the end that Christ will come and will raise the dead and judge living and the dead and

all those things.

If that's been the teaching of the church for 2000 years, if you can't affirm that Christ is coming again, if you can't affirm a

future resurrection, I think you've put yourself outside of orthodoxy at that point.

And so that's a dangerous thing.

And so that's where I, that's why I'm partial or orthodox preterist and not

full.

Very good.

Thank you both on that.

We have at least a couple of other questions and then we'll try to wrap up and have some closing remarks from you

guys.

One person asked, since the church is raptured, when did it start?

And that might sound like a little bit of an unfair question, but I think it fits in.

We've been talking about the rapture of the church.

What is your understanding of the beginning of the New Testament church?

And where would you, where would you place that within scripture so as to help us understand this idea of a rapture,

whichever way you take this discussion.

So Keith, we'll go back to you for that question, please.

When did the church start?

What's your understanding of the beginnings of the New Testament church?

See, this leads into part of the issue and part of the divide between

myself and Spencer my side and Spencer's side.

And that is seeing such a hard division between the old covenant people of God and the new covenant

people of God and seeing this division as being so divided that you have Israel and the

church and never the twain shall meet.

And that leads to this problem because I believe the old covenant saints and the new covenant

saints are part of the people of God.

And the word church, ecclesia, means assembly.

And that word is used in the Septuagint is used of Israel in the Septuagint as the assembly of

God's people in the old covenant.

And we have the assembly of God's people in the new covenant.

And there's one people of God.

This is the part that this is the divide between Spencer and I.

I think if you really wanna bring this down to a brass tacks issue, we believe I would say there's one people of

God.

And I think Spencer would say there's two.

Now he can correct me if he wants to say maybe I'm overstating this.

But if there are two people of God, then that is where the division is.

And so that's why he has to have this parallel.

He has to have the church as John MacArthur says, the church is a parenthesis.

You have Israel at the beginning, Israel at the end, the church is a parenthesis.

And I say, that's a shame.

And let me say why I'm not trying to be ugly and you know I love you, Spencer.

But here's why I say that's a shame.

You're gonna say Christ's bride is a parenthesis.

You're gonna say Christ's bride is this, that it's not really about Christ's bride.

No, it's all Christ's bride.

Every person who's ever believed has been saved by Jesus Christ.

From Adam to the last person who will believe has all been saved by the blood of Jesus Christ.

Either before he came or after he came, it's all been saved.

Every sacrifice that came before Christ pointed forward to the sacrifice of Christ.

Every single feast, everything Israel ever did pointed forward to the coming Messiah.

And when he came, the Bible says the shadows gave way to the substance.

Colossians tells us that the shadows went away because the substance has come and we are all one in

Christ Jesus.

There is not a division.

So that would be my position on that.

Very good, thank you.

Spencer.

Well, you mentioned John MacArthur and he talked about the church being a parenthesis.

I wouldn't use the word parenthesis, I would use the word mystery, which is what the Apostle Paul taught.

He said that the church is a mystery to be revealed and of course there's that.

You know, I would, of course, I believe throughout all the Bible, everybody's been saved the same way.

I think, you know, Abraham believed God, he was counted for him for righteousness.

But at the same time, I have to, like I look at Hebrews 12, 23, it says to the general

assembly and the church of the firstborn, which were written in heaven,.

And the God, the judge of all,.

And the spirits of just men made perfect.

So there's the general assembly, there's church born, there's spirits just men made perfect.

That division is there in the scriptures.

And some people I've read said that the general assemblies of the Old Testament saints, church of the firstborn, church people, and spirits of just men made

perfect would be tribulation saints.

I see that division, but at the same time, I can still acknowledge that it's one.

I don't have any difficulty there with that.

And, you know, I understand what you mean that it, you know, the church being a prepared, you know, some parenthetical is a

shame.

But that's what the Bible shows us.

And that's what the Bible teaches us, that there is a division between the physical and the physical

earthly nation of Israel and the New Testament church.

There is a difference.

And it kind of with, and the key to all this, like I said, rightly divide in the word of truth.

There are divisions that are there that, you know, I didn't put them there, but they're there.

I acknowledge that they're there.

I do believe there's a difference between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God in the scriptures.

I believe the kingdom of heaven is a physical earthly kingdom.

Like in Matthew six, thy kingdom come, thy will be done.

I believe that physical earthly kingdom will come in Revelation chapter number 19 with a

king, but also the kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom.

So there's a division there.

There's a difference.

And I think we get all messed up in the Bible when we don't divide it the way that the Bible clearly divides itself.

So I understand, I understand that there's this, you know, I mean, you said it was just a, it's

a shame that Israel and the church aren't the same thing.

And I get what you're saying.

But at the same time, that's what the Bible teaches.

That's just what it plainly says.

Israel is not the church and the church is not Israel.

And we just, we can't, we have to rest the scriptures, I believe to make them one of the same.

And I understand they're grafted in.

Salvistically, we are in the one body in the church, the Jew and the Greek, but there's still the physical earthly nation of Israel is still

its own unique thing that God has made promises to that will be fulfilled in the future in a

seven -year tribulation period.

And that's something that we have to, if you interpret the Bible, literally, grammatically, historically,

you have to understand that there's some things that have not yet been given to the nation of Israel and they will be given during the tribulation period.

So that's what we believe on that.

All right.

Thank you, Spencer.

I think we've got time, guys.

If you guys are game, I know we're about five minutes over on our time schedule, but if you have time for one more, we'll take one more audience

question.

And then I'm going to ask you guys for any closing remarks, any final comments on your view.

But thank you guys so much for walking through this.

This has been helpful.

And I know a lot of people are engaging this conversation.

So grateful for that.

If you were to summarize your view, so again, specifically, we're looking at our topic

is the rapture and the second coming of Christ, whether they are two separate events or not.

If both of you could just sort of summarize, if you were to look to certain passages that are key to your

view or that you would say are particularly helpful for people to understand where you're coming from, how would you sort of summarize

that?

I understand that's a big ask.

You guys have been pointing to a lot of places in scripture, but how might you summarize the key points of your view?

And I'm specifically thinking toward maybe 1 Thessalonians 4.

Several people have asked about that.

So just kind of a summation viewpoint of where you would point people in scripture to sort of explicate your view

generally.

And Spencer, we'll go back to you for that one, if that's OK.

To a key passage about our view, for what again?

This would be key passages or maybe key pillars, just even if you're not thinking of a chapter and verse, but

key points in scripture that would point to why you take the position you do on the rapture and the second

coming of Christ being two separate events.

What are the key things that people need to understand?

And I think the question is really relating to.

Is it about the way you interpret scripture?

Is it about your conception of Israel in the church?

Is it about how prophetic fulfillment happens?

Those sort of things, like where would you point people to as those key foundational pillars?

OK, it's very obvious to me that Israel and the church are not the same thing.

The nation of Israel was made up of one group of people.

Of course, there were some that were, of course, came in from the outside, of course.

But it was largely one group of people, whereas the church is all nations, all people, OK?

The nation of Israel had a priesthood, but the church is a priesthood, OK?

There's so much there.

I mean, I could show you, I believe that 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15 are to the church.

I believe Revelation 19, Matthew 24 are to the nation of Israel, the physical earthly nation of Israel.

And, you know, if you go through, I mean, there's several other things out there, like the nation of Israel, there was a physical birth

that produced a relationship.

But in the church, there was a spiritual birth that produces a relationship into this family.

And there's I mean, I could give you example after example, after example.

But that's what all this is built on.

If you can see the difference between Israel and the church and rightly divide, don't read somebody else's mail

when God's speaking to the nation of Israel.

Don't put yourself into that.

And I think the church today is putting themselves in Matthew 24 futuristically.

And I think they get all messed up.

And that kind of stuff.

And that's what I believe.

So you have to rightly divide the word of truth and ask yourself the question, is this to the nation of Israel?

Or is this to the local church?

And in the future, when you're looking at the book of Revelation futuristically,.

Who's he speaking to?

Who's he dealing with?

What's all that?

And I think if you understand that,.

You'll understand the Bible.

And I think you'll come to a position of the pre -tribulation rapture.

OK, thank you very much, Spencer.

Keith, over to you, sir.

I don't see how the average person

without some form of prodding or pointing to this doctrine would

arrive there on their own.

Because when we simply examine the basics of

certain things, like, for instance, I mentioned in my opening statement,.

The parables.

The parables never seem to indicate any type of pre -tribulation rapture.

And that's what we're arguing.

We're not arguing the millennium.

We're not arguing these other things.

But like, for instance, the parable of the sheep and the goats.

This is all one event.

The parable of the dragnet.

This is one event.

The parable of the wheat and the tares.

This is one event.

And Jesus describes the judgment, even going back to Daniel 12, where there is a resurrection

of the righteous and the unrighteous.

And the righteous go into eternal felicity and the unrighteous go into eternal torment.

And there is this e -indicating, constant reality

of this resurrection event that's not going to be divided by seven years.

It's not going to be divided between Israel and the church.

It's going to be divided between the righteous and the unrighteous.

And the righteous will be those whose righteousness has been given to them, imputed unto them because of the

righteousness of Christ.

And the unrighteous will be those who do not have the righteousness of Christ, whether they're old covenant saints or new

covenant saints.

And so those are the ways that I would say we have to come at this.

You know, he mentioned earlier the plain sentence reading.

The plain sentence reading does not lead to a pre -tribulation rapture because it's just not there.

I've asked for it to be proven.

It hasn't been proven tonight.

It hasn't been proven to my satisfaction any other time.

It's always a string of pearls.

It's always, well, you have to look at this verse and this verse and this verse and you have to add this and you have to times this and you have to plus this.

No, just the straightforward reading is that Christ is going to return and this idea of a

pre -tribulation rapture, the reason why it wasn't believed for the first 1800 years of the church, the reason why it isn't in

any of the commentaries or any of the confessions or any of the things in the first 1800 years of the church is because it

wasn't introduced until about 200 years ago.

When it was introduced, though, boy, did it go gangbusters and boy, did it become popular.

But it became popular at a time when Adventism was popular throughout the United States.

And there was all kinds of movements that were popping up about the end times.

And this is where we get a lot of Advent movements.

It's all part of the, it's all fruit of the same tree.

And it's a problem.

It's not what's in the text.

Thank you, Keith.

Yeah, let me just throw that out there, too.

It's just about my point.

And maybe, Keith, you want to say something.

But yeah, I mean, I do agree in the general resurrection at the end times.

And I think the Lord spoke.

About that quite often.

The point is, where do you place that?

And I think that the wheat and the tares and all that sheep and the goats, all that kind of stuff, are the judgment of the nations, of course.

And of course, there's the general resurrection at the end.

But at the same time, there still is a presence.

And if you take all these resurrections and all these comings and just mush them all into one event, I think that we don't divide the Bible

like the Bible says to divide the Bible.

That'd be the point I'd throw at that.

So yeah, but if you push, but if you mush Genesis 1 and 2 together, people would say that's wrong, too.

That's new to me.

And I'm glad you pointed that out because I've never read that.

So I want to, I want to.

Well, the textual critics will argue that there was two authors, that there was a group that wrote

Genesis 1 and there was a group that wrote Genesis 2.

The JEPD argument, which is the argument that there was a multitude of people who put

together the Pentateuch and it wasn't written by Moses.

And they argue that you cannot, you cannot, there's their argument is you cannot justify the

reading of Genesis 1 and the reading of Genesis 2 because of when certain things happen.

And when they, when, you know, here it has the, this is happening on day three, but over here, it seems to happen on a different day.

And they're doing the same thing you do.

And that is they're saying it can't be.

So it's got to be two different things.

And I'm saying, yeah, yeah.

Well, I've never read anybody say that.

So that's interesting.

I'd like to, I'd like to read more on that.

Maybe point that to me later.

So yeah, let's, let's do this in closing, guys.

Let's, let's go to just closing remarks just briefly.

And I'd like to really ask you guys the question this in closing.

And again, Keith, Spencer, thank you both for, for coming on here.

Thank you for the, the, the gentle spirit with which you guys have been engaging this topic.

But why does the rapture matter?

Why does it, why does it matter for the Christian, for us to think deeply on these things, even though as you both have laid out and

exemplified that we can have amicable and ironic disagreement with these things.

Why is it important for the Christian to grapple with these sorts of things for scripture?

But just in your closing remarks, if you would, and Keith, we'll go to you first for that.

Well, first of all, I just want to say that that guy in the, in the, in the headband, in the glasses is my

brother.

And I really do love him.

And I, and I've come in the last couple months to really love Spencer Smith.

I think he's funny.

I think he's a man of God.

And even though we disagree on this, this is not something that would ever cause me to think in any way that he doesn't

love Jesus.

And I, and I just want to say that, that, that I'm, I'm thankful for our friendship, that we can poke at each other.

And I hope to do more things in the future.

So I say that in all genuineness, we have each other's phone number.

We've been poking at each other for a couple months now.

And I'm, and I'm glad.

So when it, when you ask, why does the rapture matter?

Well, it matters because we should care about the truth.

And that's why these types of conversations happen.

Debates don't have to happen between people who hate each other.

Debates can happen between brothers who love each other because we want to try to nail down the truth.

And sometimes maybe something I say or something Spencer says might sound like we're being forward with each other or

we're poking each other too hard, but we're not trying to be offensive.

We're trying to, to dig deeper.

We're trying to mine the truth.

And, and, and, and, and sharp iron doesn't sharpen iron if it never touches, right?

It has to scrape against itself to, to sharpen.

So with that, I would say it's, it's valuable to have these conversations.

Should we be concerned about the return of Christ?

Yes, it should make us live in the light of the hope of his coming.

And, and, and, and so why does it matter?

It matters because Christ is returning.

He is coming back and he is going to come back in glory.

And when he returns and in 10 ,000 years, we won't be debating this anymore.

We'll just be enjoying the, the, the eternal felicity of his presence.

And, and I'm thankful for that.

But until the, until he comes, we'll keep having these conversations until we get it right.

Thank you, Keith.

Spencer.

Amen.

All right.

Well, I appreciate Brother Keith.

And I, I thank, I'm thankful for his kind spirit.

Most people in the realm of theology are nasty, hateful people.

And I, I don't like those people.

I've been asked to debate things before and I'd go watch their channel.

I mean, I ain't getting near that guy, but I appreciate Brother Keith.

He's a nice fella and I love him.

And the Lord, just thank God for him.

And, and yeah, we've been, we've been sending Calvinism memes to each other, you know, and we have had

a good time with that one.

I sent him this meme of a kid pulling a sword out with the word who's so ever on it.

And it said, I'm about to end this whole career.

And, you know, we, we joke about that stuff, you know.

But I love Keith and I, I, I know he's a brother in Christ.

He loves the Lord.

And I'm glad for that.

And I do pray for him and his family and all that.

I appreciate that.

Why do we talk about this?

Because 1 John 3 talks about, he that hath this hope in himself purifies himself.

I, I think the rapture of the church is imminent.

And if, if I didn't, if I thought that I'd have to see an antichrist, I'd have to see all this, that, the other, before I believed

Jesus was coming back, I would wait till then.

I know in my flesh, I, and I know other people would too, wait till we see an antichrist and then get right with God.

But we know that Jesus is coming at any moment and that encourages me to, you know, not get caught doing

anything I shouldn't be doing.

Be busy about the master's work and be busy trying to win souls.

Be busy trying to, trying to preach the gospel, trying to see people saved.

And, and that's, that's why this kind of talk matters.

And so, you know, I, I don't think, I don't think anybody, well, I think it was,

I think it was R .C. Sproul that said this.

He said, even the best theologians are only about 85 % right.

And, and I, you know, I, I think I've, I kind of think that's fair to say, you know, I don't think I know

everything.

And someone on Twitter was saying that I have massive blind spots and I'm just like, well, who does it?

Who, I mean, does it, that's like saying everybody knows everything or, you know, whatever.

And I think the man who thinks he knows everything is probably on his way out, if I could put it

that way.

So I appreciate the discussion.

You gave me some things to think about.

I hope I've done the same.

And if anybody out there thinks that Spencer is an idiot, I just want to say, I believe the same thing John MacArthur believes.

So if you're going to hate on me, hate on John MacArthur too.

But you won't do that because you're scared of him.

And so I, as a matter of fact, I believe the same thing about Baptist church history that Charles Spurgeon did.

So if y 'all want to hate on me for Baptist church history, hate on Spurgeon too.

So that's what I say.

But I do appreciate Keith.

And thank you, man.

I appreciate you.

And thank you guys, Eschatology Matters, for having this event.

I appreciate you guys.

Absolutely.

Well, thank you guys so much.

Hopefully we can do something in the future.

But Keith Foskey, Spencer Smith, thank you both.

And yeah, great, great discussion, guys.

Thank you.