Amillennialism Baptist Covenant Idealism

after the show. Why you staring at your cop dot, signing my

John Hancock on the dotted line. Tell me what's the bottom line. The bottom line is

I'm not right. I'm not left, but this elephant won't fight. There's nothing left but the spotlight.

Hold my beer, you can find me in the moonlight. You can say what you want.

You can say what you want, what you want around me. You can say what you want. You can say what you...

I'm whips in the deep end and I can't find my assigned seat to sit in.

My theology don't fit in. Black sheep of the reformation sheep pen. To the reformed,

I'm just another Baptist baptized again. The bastard child of Anabaptist.

Host of child of reformation. Society, we don't need your education. Give me a

Bible and a bookshelf of dead men. Cigars, bourbons, and beer cans. Bow ties, tattoos, and bearded men.

Making reformation great again. You can say what you want. You can say what you want, what you want around me.

You can say what you want. You can say what you want... All right, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Open Air Theology.

My name is Jeff Rice. I'm one of the pastors of...

I forgot the name of my church. Covenant Reformed Baptist Church. We're here tonight to talk about all millennialism and Baptist covenant idealism.

Theology -ism, right? If you're ever in Tallahoma, Tennessee, and you're looking for a good church to go to, please come check us out.

Covenant Reformed Baptist Church. I'm going to pass it to this jack leg underneath me.

Is that me? Yeah, that's you. I am Pastor Braden of Valley Baptist Church.

We meet on Sundays at 11 a .m. Come join us for a great time to worship the Lord together. Just a super blessed privilege to be able to fellowship with these brothers here and enjoying a pipe after a long, hard day of doing different errands for the family.

So it's been a busy day. So it's a blessing to be on here to talk about this. Whatever the topic is, that's what we're talking about.

I'll pass it over to... Nope, that way. Oh, it's like the

Brady Bunch, you know. Well, I am Haps Addison, your friendly neighborhood Calvinist, and coming live from SoCal, home of the

People's Republic of California, and on my way to Idaho. I am passionate, one of the hosts of Open Air Theology, and passionate up to...

Who's the new guy? The fourth Beatle. My name is

Tom Shepherd. I'm with Grace Bible Church of Bernie. I'm a member there, and it's in Texas.

So we're free over here along with some Idaho people. I'm just excited to be here and join you guys in the talk about Amillennialism and Idealism and Covenant Theology, Baptist Covenant Theology.

So thank you for inviting me. You're welcome. You might not want to come back.

You might need therapy, medication, and a hug after this. Yeah, you might walk off of this and have

PTSD. One of my pastors is a biblical counselor.

I might be calling him after this show. You're going to need it. Yeah, you're going to need it.

So apparently we were miscommunicating with one another.

I was wanting to talk about how Amillennialism fits best with Baptist Covenant Theology.

Brayden heard that and thought we were talking about the book of Revelation. So we're going to kind of put it all together for you, if you will.

So work with us or be patient with us as we travel down this road.

So for those that might not understand what Amillennialism is, let's give them a definition.

Brayden, would you mind giving a definition of what Amillennialism is? Well, Amillennialism is the biblical eschatological position to have.

So I would start off saying that's a good definition right there. That's a really good definition. The second definition is not a great one that I would love, but just defining the word awe is the negation of.

Millennialism is the thousand years, talking about the book of Revelation, chapter 20. And so the word itself would mean the negation of the millennium, which is not what any

Amillennialist would hold to. They would say that Christ inaugurated the kingdom, that Satan is currently bound or curtailed, and that we are in the kingdom right now, awaiting its consummation for the second coming of Christ.

That differs from postmillennialism as postmillennialism would say that and what the world will look like is how the

Amillennialist and the postmillennialist differ, is what will the world look like when Christ returns.

Now, would you say that there's a difference between this group of postmills today versus historical postmills?

They're not even the same. My understanding of postmillennialism is that they believe in a literal thousand years, and some would say it doesn't necessarily have to be a literal thousand years, but it will be post the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth, right?

So there's this, the kingdom of God has been built on earth. There's this long period of time of this golden age to where the kingdom of God is on earth.

It's, you know, the rule and reign of Jesus is taking place versus the modern day postmills would basically agree with all millennialism that the thousand years is the millennial period from first advent to second advent, right?

It's believed that as we get closer to the return of Christ, then there's this kingdom established, right?

But if at any time there's this established kingdom where you can say, oh, look, there it is, and you can enter into it, like it denies regeneration, in my opinion.

And so that was my big reason of leaving postmillennialism is because if that postmillennial hope does come true, then there is no more regeneration because you don't have to be born again to see it or enter into it.

You know, Kyle and Julie are already throwing up postmill gang signs.

They're gang banging on us over here. Well, that's fine. It's because they're not really postmill.

They think they're postmill, but they're really just happy all mills. They're Moscow, Moscow, Moscow.

They're really postmills. I think that all millennialism has been given a pessimistic view from the postmills.

They think, you know, where is your victory? And we would say that the victory is in the gospel, that God will save whom

He will save when He wants to save them. And there's victory in that, that God is glorified in condemning sinners just as much as He is saving sinners because He is righteous and He's just and He's holy.

So there's victory in the gospel going forth and God will save whom He's going to save. So that's why

I'm very optimistic. You know, it's for me coming out of the whole dispensational,

I was just like so full of fear and it was just like fear, so many different things and everything.

And, you know, and then going to postmill, it was like victory, victory, victory, you know.

And when I started learning all mill, which I'm still working some things out with all mill and everything, but you see victories in Christ, victory to victory throughout the ages in Christ.

You know, I mean, you see, and when I go to read Revelation, it's so comforting, you know, that Christ is ruling and reigning right now and His church is going through tribulation and not a tribulation.

And, you know, and yeah, it's for me, it's very, very comforting. Anybody else have anything to say about all millennialism?

I know we're going to dive in deeper, but just concerning definitions. Yeah, real quick.

As far as, you know, as you know, the kingdom growing, we know that God is going to grow

His kingdom. But as we go outside and we look out the door,

I mean, we know God is growing the kingdom. It's growing. But when we go outside and we look around society, you look in your neighborhoods, you look at all the people, you don't see it.

So the kingdom is growing, but it's invisible. So evil is growing and the kingdom is growing at the same time.

The wheat and the tares, right? They both grow together. That's right. Absolutely.

A hundred percent. All right. So let's get into real quick the definitions that we would hold to concerning covenant theology.

All right. Now, there's a difference between classical covenant theology versus Baptist covenant theology.

Would any of y 'all want to give that definition? If not, I can. But I'm kind of just partializing and leading this conversation.

Yeah, I do this. Good. Tom, would you want to give a definition for classical covenant theology and how

Baptist covenant? Baptists don't really fit in, although there's a lot of Baptists who hold this position.

So Presbyterian covenant theology would would flatten everything out. They would say it's it's one covenant of grace all the way through flattening everything out so that so that it's a different administration of the exact same.

Covenant everything where the Baptist would say, no, there's a distinction between the new covenant and the old covenant.

It is a better covenant. Things are realized. Things are things are all together better. It's a better land.

It's a it's a it's a eternal peace. And so that the difference in between the the the flattening out of the one covenant going all the way through, we would say that there is that there's types and shadows that pointed to Christ and in the new covenant.

It's all together different. It's a it's all together better. Yeah, yeah.

And I go ahead. Yeah. And, you know, also, you know, when it comes to the, you know, like we were talking about this throughout the week and everything, you know,

Presbyterian covenant theology is it's just it's more of taking the old covenant, new covenant and conflating both of them.

And, you know, I was just talking with Schumacher, Andrew Schumacher, and you see that with Hebrew roots, that the old the new covenant is just renewing of the old covenant.

No, no, it's it's a new covenant. It's actually in the language when you go and you you you translate it from Hebrew to English in the

Old Testament. But if you go through the Septuagint, it new is new and built on better promises.

You know? Yes. So like Tom was saying, the the Presbyterian classical covenant theology, they hold to the one covenant.

And that one covenant is the covenant of grace. And all the covenants are administrations of the one covenant.

That being the covenant of grace. So so Abraham, Moses, David and also

Jesus, the cup, the covenant that Jesus makes is an administration of the one covenant, the covenant of grace.

And so and where they would say that. Go ahead. I'm sorry. Yeah. So where they would say that is that since the grace is the same, the covenant's the same.

Since grace is dispensed the same way or in a different way, but in a different time period or a different dispensation.

So they flatten it out. So they'll say since the grace is the same, the covenant's the same. Right, right, right.

Yeah. So and then what most modern day reformed

Baptists will do is, is they'll take that covenant theology and they'll basically add on to it believers baptism.

And I want to say with the Presbyterians that that doesn't work. And I know there's a lot like there's really good faithful Baptist reformed

Baptist brothers who are making an argument that it fits. And I'm not saying that it doesn't that the confession doesn't allow for it.

But I'm telling you that it doesn't work. That if that view of covenant theology was true, this guy right here would not be a

Baptist. I would be a Presbyterian. Right. And so what we're arguing for is that there is no establishment of the covenant of grace in Genesis chapter 3.

Presbyterian covenant theology rests on the foundation. The foundation being

Genesis chapter 3 verses 14 and 15. Right. And so in every covenant that we see throughout the

Old Testament, you have a do this and live. And then you and then there's a prohibition given.

And by prohibition, I'm saying what not to do. So you have to do this and live.

And then you have the what not to do. And in the what not to do, you disobey. It could either mean your life or it could mean that you're being removed from the land.

Which is why we have the establishment of sacrifices.

Right. So like there's some sins that didn't call for taking your life.

There's there's some sins that call for sacrifice. But there's some sins that actually call for you being removed.

Like what you see in the Abrahamic covenant. If someone refuses to circumcise their male child, they were to be removed from the land.

They would be cut off from the land. And we see several times that. Well, let's just take the captivity of Babylon.

They were supposed to have a Sabbath year. Right. So so every seven years, the seventh year, they were not to work the land.

And they did. And they disobeyed for four hundred and ninety years. So they were taken into captivity for 70 years.

Seven years. I mean, one year for every seven that they disobeyed.

They were cut off from the land. They were removed. God removed them from the land for being disobedient.

Right. Any comments on that? All right.

So so you have to do this, keep the law and live. And if you don't keep the law, the prohibition, you will be removed from the land.

So so so Adam had to fill the earth and multiply. And he was not to eat of the fruit of the ground.

I mean, I mean, he was not to eat of the fruit of the tree or he would die. So you see the do this and live the prohibition.

If you eat of the fruit of the tree as a knowledge of good and evil, you will die. Noah was told it was a recreation covenant.

He was told to to to be fruitful and multiply. He was not. So here's the prohibition.

He was not to eat blood. And he and the blood was not to be shed.

For if you shed man's blood, your blood will be shed. So that was the prohibition. The covenant given to Abraham, Abraham and I would add, as well as his descendants, were to walk upright before the

Lord. Prohibition was that they were to circumcise their male child.

And if they didn't, they would be removed from the land. Moses, they were to keep the law in order to live.

And if they broke the law, depending on what the consequences was of that law that they broke, and they could either be put to death or they could be removed from the land, such as we just saw that took place in the seventh, the

Sabbath year. The covenant, the Davidic covenant. God promised to raise up a son of David so that the covenant is that he's going to raise up a son of David and that this son would sit on the throne forever.

If here comes the prohibition, he keeps the covenant. The prohibition is, is that if he breaks the law covenant, he would not sit on the throne forever.

Therefore, that means that he would die. So son after son after son of David, who did not keep the law, died and did not sit on the throne forever.

So, so that's the, the, the ingredients that you have for when

God opposes a covenant. You have the do this and live, and then you would have the prohibition that which not to do.

And if you do it, it comes with a punishment. And so what I want to do is, is I want to look at Genesis chapter 3 verses 14 and 15 and see if we see those two things.

Would one of y 'all like to read that? Which one?

Genesis 3 verses 14 and 15. I just want to now pay attention to see if you see the do this and live and see if you see the prohibition.

Because this is where, this is where Presbyterian classical covenant theology, this is their foundation.

So it should have those two things in here. And if it doesn't have it, we should not hold to that covenant theology.

And Yahweh God said to the serpent, because you have done this, cursed are you more than any of the cattle and more than every beast of the field.

On your belly you will go and dust you will eat and all the days of your life. And I will put an enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed.

He shall bruise you on the head and you shall bruise him on the heel. Did I miss it?

It's not there. It's not there. It's not there. And so as Baptist, what we say is that this is a promise only.

And that will lead into Baptist covenant theology of why we say it's a promise only.

I know I've been talking for a while. So if one of you guys want to take the reins from there.

I think I think you did a good job. So you would say that that classical covenant theology with a Baptist mindset, that's what typically is meant when somebody says they believe in Baptist covenantalism.

Right. And then what you expressed right there would be typically defined in the term of 1689 federalism.

That would be the distinct, which I think is the correct. That's that that's Baptist covenant theology. What you just perfectly explained there.

It's it's it's more than I don't know. I feel like the covenant theology person that is a is believing in classic covenant theology.

They're using all the arguments that a dispensation list would use in why not to baptize your baby.

Right. Whereas the 1689 federalist is going to have a much more robust argument for why you shouldn't baptize a baby.

And I think that's because they can't draw from covenant theology to explain why it would be improper to impose a sign of a covenant onto a child that is not believing it.

So that's just that's just something that came to my mind as you were talking on that, Jeff. Right.

So what's the what would be the what would be the difference of the distinction? I know you guys know the answer to this, but the distinction between who is in the covenant, you know, in Presbyterian theology or covenant theology versus who is in the covenant in Baptist covenant theology.

There's a huge distinction there. The Presbyterian would look at the old covenants and say, look, there were children all throughout this covenant that were included in this.

They were given signs. They were included in the community. They were included in the worship. They were included in the meals.

They were included in the festivals. They were included and so on and so forth. And therefore, they were covenant members, which is correct.

They were covenant members. They were born in the nation of Israel. But all those things were. So, first of all, they were born into a covenant of works.

They had a yoke upon their back to obey God based off of him imposing commands upon them.

So this child was not born into a position of grace. They were born into a position of obedience to God.

So you're saying that so they weren't born into a position of favor, but yet they were still born in the covenant of it was a nation.

Yeah, they were covenant members of that covenant they were born into. And so the nation only.

Right. This is not salvific. It's nation only. And those covenants that they were being born into, they then would receive the sign after they were born into them.

And that would be proper. If you were in any covenant, you should receive the sign of that covenant. And so in those days, they were they were national covenants being made with the purpose of the future promised seed that would come.

And so that comes about through procreation and protecting a nation, protecting communities, coming about protecting the line of David.

Right. All these things that would fit to to bring about the Messiah. And now now that the

Messiah has come now, the Messiah has died and rose again on the third day. Now, the covenant of grace, you enter by being born again.

And that's the message of Jesus Christ. You must be born again or else you cannot enter into the kingdom of God. In Israel, you could be born physically into that physical kingdom.

And Jesus is saying, no, the kingdom that those things were always pointing towards, you have to be born again into.

And that's where a Baptist would say that that comes along with a profession of faith.

And just like the old covenants that you would be born and then receive a sign, you must be born again and then receive a sign.

It's that continuity between both both the old and new covenants. It's the continuity of covenantal language, period.

Where I would say that a Presbyterian, what they are doing is essentially would be the equivalent of somebody trying to circumcise a child while inside the womb of their mother before they're born.

Absolutely. Because if you look at Romans chapter eight, verse nine, at the end of that verse 9b, it says, but if anyone does not have the spirit of Christ, he does not belong to him.

And so if a person belongs to him, only those who are in Christ, who are believing, who have been converted are the ones that should receive the sign.

Baptism versus somebody who is Presbyterian would say it's presumptive.

Is there a blessing to be born of two believing parents?

Absolutely. But is it a guarantee? Yeah. But is it a guarantee? No.

So we would wait. Yep. Yeah. Statistics prove that right. Statistics show that the child that is born in a

Christian household is more likely to have faith in Christ. Right. And so there's obviously a ordinary means.

Yeah. And the benefit that God that God providentially uses with bringing his elect to himself. But that that a child that is born in a

Christian household, if they are not born again, they are not members of the covenant of grace. They should not receive the sign.

So in the same way, when you think of the Old Testament, when you think of the nation itself, there were people in that nation who were believing and had faith in the promise.

And the people who didn't believe within that nation were reaping the benefits of their belief, were reaping the benefits of having peace.

You know, you look at judges, you know, all the way through it. And it talks about that they had peace and then they, you know, they fell off.

They went round and round. And and but because of the nation, not everybody who was was was believing, they were still reaping the benefits of of of being part of the believers in in the nation itself.

Yeah. Yeah. The God's covenant kingdom people in the old covenant were physical descendants of Abraham.

Right. If you are a physical descendant of Abraham, you know, you were born into that covenant.

Right. But that doesn't mean that you have the faith of Abraham. We find out in Galatians that that God's people are those that have the faith of Abraham.

Right. The nation of Israel was set aside. Like if you just go back to Galatians chapter three, he talks about putting enmity between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman.

And so we see that this seed of the woman is the seed of the woman is passed on to Abraham.

The promise here that we see is the promise of the gospel that that this seed of the woman is going to bruise the head of the of the serpent while only bruising his heel.

Now, in hindsight, we know that this is speaking about what took place in the death, burial, resurrection, ascension of Jesus Christ.

Right. His triumphant over his. How do I say it?

Triumphancy over. I think I just made up word over Satan. Right. But that seed that it's speaking about is passed to to Abraham.

Right. Abraham is told that that he's that from him there's going to come a seed that would bless the nations and also inherit the land.

And then we see it passed on through the line of Israel, finding its fulfillment in David.

Right. This this seed. And so when we're talking about the earthly descendants of Abraham, that covenant was made to bring about this seed.

All the other nations around you could probably say is the offspring of the serpent.

Yep. Right. They constantly were trying to destroy the nation of Israel, pollute it in such a way that this one seed that would come to bless the nations would would not be able to to happen.

And then you see in John chapter eight, Jesus even calls the nation of Israel. I think at this time, the seed of the serpent has done protruded into the nations because he calls them sons of the devil.

Yeah. Well, there's some things taking place in Scripture that if you're honest, you had to say, yeah, this is this is getting weird.

Right. So when you have some that say, well, we're still looking for a land, a physical land, what would a

Baptist covenant theology person say who holds to all millennialism be? What is the land promise?

Has it not been fulfilled? So I want to just pause there and just make mention of something on.

Well, there's there's several places I want to go. I was going to go back a little bit further, but let's talk on that topic right there.

That's where the historical post -millennialist and maybe the more modern post -millennialist disagrees on things.

I think that they maybe haven't worked out completely a historical post -millennialist. That's why they would say that that thousand years is yet to be still future for us, because they would see those those promised land promises.

They would see the age promises, the long longevity of life. They would see the promise of a child putting their hand into a den and not being bit by the

Viper. All these kind of this this these things are being talked about. They would say that that's all future through the advancement of the gospel.

And so that land is future, whereas I think a lot of the modern post -millennialists are borrowing from some of the the metaphorical language that I'm on.

Millennialists would hold to and saying, no, we're in the land right now. I think the post -millennialists would say, well, we're in the land right now.

We're at peace right now that the child puts his hand in the pit of the Viper and doesn't we come.

We're born again. Children crying, Abba, father, we're we're not we're not able to die. You see what I'm saying? Like we would sometimes apply those things in those ways.

I think post -millennialists are borrowing from an amillennialist, but they're still holding to that. The whole world is going to be taken over or majority of it's going to be

Christianized. And so the amillennialist would though would say that today we find pastor.

We find the land because we're in Christ. We're seated with Christ in heavenly places. I'm in Idaho.

Tom is in Texas. Haps is in California. Jeff is in Tennessee. Right. We are in a kingdom.

We are kingdom brothers, same kingdom. Yet we live miles apart from each other, miles, miles apart from each other.

We don't see each other face to face. We can't see this kingdom around us that that in the same sense, like a people in Israel would be able to go to their neighbor and be like, oh, yeah, you're part of the same kingdom.

Right. We this is a kingdom that transcends just the physical. You see what

I'm trying to say? But it's a kingdom that you have to be born again in order to enter. And we can't be trying to be taken over the world.

It is absolutely like like this kingdom is in Africa. This kingdom is in China. This kingdom is all around the world.

You mean it's not just this little space in Israel where it's not just that little section to the

Euphrates and it's cut off. This is this is the great thing about the

Galatians three. It says all the promises were made to the seed, not the seeds referring to many, but rather referring to one.

And that seed is Christ. Those promises, the land promises were made to Jesus. And so when we look and see what

Jesus accomplished on the cross, according to Ephesians two, he broke down the barrier wall and Jew and Gentile is included in the

Commonwealth. What was the Commonwealth? It was the land, baby. It was the kingdom. Yeah.

Jesus makes it clear. He says that the meek, his people shall inherit the land.

Not the land. It's the earth. Yeah. And also it expands.

And also going from how Israel, you know, the old covenant promises that they get to inherit the land.

Well, Christ was the perfect Israel. He came and fulfilled what Israel couldn't do. He came to fulfill the law, the land promises, everything.

And so now, you know, according to, you know, Daniel seven, as he ascended, you know, the one like the son of man ascending to the meek came into the ancient of days to him was given dominion.

And you go to second Psalms chapter two.

And he goes ask me. There's a second Psalms? What? I mean, Psalms chapter two.

Psalms chapter two. Man, that's not in my Bible. Oh, it's not? Oh, wait a second.

I got a... Second recitations. No, he says ask me and I will make the nations your heritage.

So the, um, and the ends of the earth, your possession, you know, and, and, and so just one more, if I could just quote one more thing.

And the reason why we will look outside, we're like, oh, look at everything that's going on and all this and that.

Well, Hebrews chapter, uh, chapter two, um, says, uh, in, um, eight,

I'll just bring it right here. Uh, um, now in putting everything in the subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control at present.

We do not yet see everything in subjection to him. So we, we, we don't see everything in subjection to him, but he is ruling and reigning right now.

And as God's new covenant people, we are to take the gospel to the nation.

That's, that's, that's how the kingdom is, is blossoming and everything, but not, not in the sense of like, uh, post -millennial where, you know, everybody is, you know, it's going to, everything's going to be

Christianized and stuff. So in the same way, would you guys agree with this? I mean, because I mean, when you, when you think of post -millennialism, um, and you think of, let's say

Christian nationalism, yeah, I said it. Um, when, when you think of the benefits of, of having parents that are believers, if you think of the benefits back in the old covenant, when, when, uh, when the nation that everybody in that nation reap benefits of the believing, uh, of the believing people.

Um, shouldn't it in the same way, uh, our society be affected by, um, uh, by people who are going out and sharing the gospel?

Shouldn't there be a, right. So we would definitely say that. And going back here, I just wanted to put that in before I lost it, but I would definitely say that the land promises were expanded.

Um, in Romans 4, 13, it says for the promise of Abraham or to his seed, that he would be the heir of the world was not through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

So it wasn't just a little thing. Hebrews chapter 11, beginning in verse 14 is speaking of Abraham, right?

And it says, uh, for people who speak thus, make it clear that if they were speak, uh, seeking a homeland, if, if they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return.

But as it is, they desired a better country. That is a heavenly one.

They were not looking to a physical earthly land. Therefore, God is not ashamed to be called their

God for he has prepared for them a city. And that city is the kingdom of God, which is here, but it's not yet.

Yeah. Susan Salter just said it right here. She made a comment. It says, ultimately, the land is the new heavens and the new earth.

Absolutely. But it's been inaugurated now. Jesus came like, like it's here, but when he comes back, it's going to fall on earth.

So it's not coming like this. Like, let's say this is the earth and this is the kingdom.

Like, it's not coming to where it's slowly developing to where we can see it.

It's here. And when he comes, it's going to fall. Then when he comes and it falls, it's going to be tangible.

Yes. Yeah, but I'm here, but you can't see it unless you're born again.

Yeah. I was just going to say, I do appreciate what Tom said, though, because there is tangible things like that.

That's where an amillennialist like post -millennialism grabs this thought of. We're the only ones that do things in the community.

We're the only ones trying to really trying to make a difference for the kingdom of God. Where no, an amillennialist should be.

If they're not doing it, they're not doing the work of an evangelist. They're not doing that, which they're called on to do. And that's a failure as a

Christian, not as an amillennialist. An amillennialist, though, says we're ambassadors here.

Right. We're ambassadors here. Like, we're doing the work for the kingdom that the people in this world can't even see.

They hate us. And yet we know that there's one who overcame. Of course, you got bad apples in all the groups, right?

Absolutely. You got the premillennial dispensationalists who are hunkered down in a bunker, waiting for the rapture.

Every 30 minutes, there's a new prophecy. Worshiping Israel. Yeah. You got the amillennialists who are saying everything is spiritual, and he's ruling inside the heart.

No, you need to take it out to the streets. And then you got the post -millennialists who are trying to establish

God's kingdom right now in such a way that it's actually, if it comes true, it's heretical.

And God's using every single one of those for his glory, by the way.

Even if it's for him to laugh. And I would say also that that's why

I think post -millennialism only consistently works within Presbyterianism. Yeah, totally.

And the reason I say that is because Presbyterians could say that their children are a part of a covenant, even though they may not be saved.

Right? They have this view that if we expand the

Christian, we expand the community, we expand the overarching covenant that is around us, we can bring other people into this covenant relationship with God, yet they're not saved.

And that's what post -millennialists are trying to do. We can bring Christianity in this way and bring it to people even though they might not be saved.

Whereas the Baptist, you have to be born again. Like a Presbyterian would say that their child who has been baptized as an infant is a

Christian until they prove themselves not to be. And we would say, no, our child is not a

Christian until they are born again, profess Jesus Christ, and then at that new birth, they are baptized.

Which happens to be the same means of grace that God has saved everybody. You are born again.

You place faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus imputes his righteousness onto you.

He paid for your sins 2 ,000 years ago. That's been the means of this taking place every single time, every single time.

And so it extends to the child and it extends to the elderly person that's on their deathbed.

You must be born again in order to enter into the kingdom of God. It's not through you being born in my family and me giving you the sign, making you a covenant member.

That's not the means of you being saved. It's that you're born again into a covenant and therefore you receive a sign of the covenant.

It's one and one. I think Jeff hit it on the head earlier when he had talked about the covenant in the

Old Testament was made with the nation. In that nation, there was a mixed congregation. It was mixed.

In the new covenant, we are not a mixed congregation. Only those who have been bought by the blood of Christ are in that.

So in the visible church, we'll see not everybody in the visible church.

And so Presbyterians will say, well, see, that's the exact same thing. No, it's not. It's not the same thing because only those who are professing believers are able to be counted as sons and daughters of God.

And I think the backlash on that from there, what they'll say is, well, then why raise up your kids in the ways of the

Lord? It's like,

I mean, I can give you 10 or 20 reasons why, right? I mean, for a simple reason,

Jesus says, if you love me, you'll obey my commands. Well, Jesus also is the

God of the Old Testament. I don't know if a lot of y 'all know that. There's not two different gods. They're not God, the father of the

Old Testament, and God, the son of the New Testament, and God, the Holy Spirit of the church age. You mean there's not two brides?

There's not two brides? There's just one bride, right? Yeah, there's only one bride, right? And God doesn't have a bride in the side church.

Good cop, bad cop. Absolutely not. And so, you know, whenever God tells

His covenant people to raise up their child and to teach them, right?

We as Christians who have families are to raise up our children and teach them God's way, right?

We want to be missionaries to our kids. We want to raise up our kids knowing who

God is and catechizing them, right? The gospel is God's power for salvation.

Why would we not preach the gospel to our kids? Why would we not call our kids to faith and repentance, right?

Go ahead. But what it comes down to is still it's saving faith.

You know, like, I mean, just because I raised my kids up in the way of the Lord, if the

Lord hasn't called them unto Himself, just because like if it was a

Presbyterian brought into a covenant promise, you know, the family, you know, you're baptized within the church, into the church, into this covenant promises, stuff like that.

But I can honestly say I have a son that was brought up Presbyterian, baptized.

I went all that, believed all that, and he does not believe. I've heard

Doug Wilson say basically in describing covenant theology and Presbyterianism, would, you know, this band represents, this is the sign and seal of my marriage, this wedding band.

But it doesn't mean that I'm going to be faithful. This is Doug Wilson's position. And I could take off this wedding band anytime

I want and not be faithful. But you can't do that with Christianity.

You can't do that in the new covenant. I mean, if you were, you were never part of the new covenant if you were never born again.

So those people who leave or have never been a part of the covenant, they were never believers in the first place.

Yeah, I would say that, you know, like this is, this is kind of like a sneak peek and I won't go all the way through it with you.

But in the old covenant, like, you know, like speaking with continuity and discontinuity, like I would say that our position is more faithful than the

Presbyterian's position. The old covenant had a kingdom people, an earthly, I mean, had a kingdom people, an entrance into the kingdom, a covenant sign, a meal on the law.

And I'll just stop right there because I can keep going. The new covenant has a kingdom people, an entrance into the kingdom, a covenant sign, a meal on the law.

Right. It's just the difference is the kingdom people from the old covenant, as I mentioned earlier, are the physical descendants of Abraham.

In the new covenant, the kingdom people are the spiritual descendants of Abraham, those who have the faith of Abraham.

The entrance into the old covenant was birth. The entrance into the new covenant is the new birth.

You must be born again. The covenant sign was circumcision. And the new covenant sign is baptism.

Right. You didn't, like Brayden was saying, you didn't enter into a woman's womb and circumcise the child before it exit the womb.

Nor do you baptize someone before they've been born again.

Right. The meal was Passover. So if your child had been born into the covenant, when

Passover came, even if it was an infant, you would at least get a little meat on your hand and rub it on the baby's gums.

Right. That baby was a partaker in the meal. So too in the new covenant. If you've been born again, baptized, you partake in the meal.

The old covenant people were under a law, so too in the new covenant. You know, whenever you're a

Christian, Jesus says, this is the Bible. Jesus says, if you love me, you'll keep my commandments.

First John chapter three, chapter two, verse three says, this is how we know that we've come to know him. If we keep his commandments.

Right. And so the continuity is there. The discontinuity is, is that the new covenant is built on greater promises.

And plus we can go off throughout the promises of Jeremiah and in Hebrews, which talks about the new covenant and how the old covenant is vanishing away.

How can they be the same thing if one is vanishing away? That's right. Second Corinthians chapter three clearly says that.

You know, the old covenant is vanishing away. We are the ministers of the new covenant and you can't, you can't bring both of them together.

You can't bring the old covenant and new covenant together and think that, I mean, that's what cults do.

Well, and I think, go ahead. Sorry. No, no, no. I was just going, you know, anyways,

I'm sorry. Yeah, no, it's good stuff. The thing that blows my mind, the thing that I think a lot of Presbyterians fail to recognize is why it was a physical kingdom in the

Old Testament. Put yourself in the shoes of Eve and she hears the curse pronounced to the serpent that the seed is going to crush his head.

Right here. She has Cain and Abel and she, she's hopeful.

She's had a seed and she's like, maybe that's what it is. Abel dies.

Abraham. But how did Abel die? Through the seed of a serpent, right? He was, he was killed, right?

And he didn't rise again. You go, you fast forward and it's this continual promise of a seed.

Abraham, you're going to have a seed. There's this physical part of what the old covenant was, was because it was bringing about Jesus.

They were longing for Jesus. The whole point of when it says that they were longing for a kingdom that was heavenly, they were longing for the, for the heavenly kingdom in Hebrews is that they were longing for the seed that would return them to garden of Eden.

To bring them back to the tree of life. And seed after seed after seed, that seed died and died and died and died and died.

And that's why when Jesus dies, all the disciples scatter, another seed died, but then he rose from the grave.

It's, it's not a physical, it's not needing to be a physical kingdom in the sense of bringing about a seed again, that's done.

It's done. That was the whole point of those old covenants was to bring about the seed and that's happened.

Yeah. Yeah. Amen. Good stuff.

All right. All right. Now, how does all millennialism fit in to Baptist covenant theology?

And we'll get into the, the interpretation of revelation after this.

So biblical. So I get that, but I think our listeners are going to want a little more explanation.

So I might get this mixed up here. I might get this mixed up, but in Matthew three, I think it's

Matthew three 16. It says that Jesus came into the city of Galilee, preaching the gospel, preaching the king, preaching the gospel, saying the kingdom of God is hand repent and believe in the gospel.

And then in Mark, it says that the kingdom of heaven is near repent and believe in the gospel.

Mark one 15, I believe it is. And so that kingdom of heaven kingdom of God is interchangeable according to the gospel account writers.

What kingdom was that? So first of all, what kingdom was at hand? If it was at hand, was it future for us still?

Or is it a current reality? Was it current reality when Jesus walking when he said it was at hand? Is that kingdom going to be replaced with a thousand year kingdom in the future?

As a premill person would say, because Jesus says that's the kingdom at hand. So there's where I'm going with this is that the only logical conclusion is, is that Christ as our mediator,

Christ as our king, he inaugurated a kingdom at his death, burial and resurrection, specifically at his resurrection.

What kingdom did he inaugurate? What kingdom was at hand? And do we think that it's going to be replaced with another, another new kingdom in the future, which would then will also have an end and will be replaced with another, another new kingdom.

You see what I'm saying? Like, yeah, that doesn't work. That doesn't work. The kingdom, the consummation of the kingdom of the consummation of the new heavens and the new earth in the future is going to be when all the kingdom people that Christ died for in his inaugurated kingdom.

When he inaugurated the kingdom, all the people he died for have come to live in Jesus, have come to have faith in Jesus.

And that, therefore, it's not a different kingdom in the, in the eternity future. It's just all the people are now realized together, one another, fellowshipping and worshipping the

God who saved them. Yeah. Like in, in the prophecy of Daniel, the son of man come going up to the ancient of days, he's given a kingdom, a dominion, and it's everlasting and all the nations are going to come to him.

Right? Yep. And at the resurrection, it's the same kingdom, but, but, but Jesus hands it over to the father.

That kingdom never ends. It never ends. And that's the kingdom that we're saying is here, but it's not yet.

And at the resurrection, it comes. In the same way, in the same way, in Ephesians chapter 2, we are seated with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.

So that in the ages to come, he might show us surpassing riches towards us in kindness. So yes,

I'm here in Texas. You're in Idaho, California, Tennessee, but yet we're seated with him in the heavenly places already and not yet.

Right now, right now. We worship the same God that we cannot see right now.

There's going to be a time though, where Tom, Jeff, Haps, me, we get to worship together.

The one God that we will see. And we have that, we have that, that now and not yet where all tribes and tongues, you know, people are, are all flowing to God right now.

We see that in our congregations and, you know, one day, yeah, he is tabernacling, tabernacling with us right now.

But one day it's a now and not yet. But one day we're going to physically be walking with him in the garden, you know.

Hey, Holly and Anthony just wanted to say hi. Saw him at the, at the Open Air Theology Conference. That's right.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's a good couple right there. Oh, yeah. I love them. And everybody at Open Air was, was fantastic, man.

Oh, yeah. They were fantastic. Me and Susan. Even Layton Flowers. Layton Flowers is good in person.

He's not good online. Yeah, he's not good online, but he's a nice guy in person. Yeah, he's a...

He said I look like him and his dad. Yeah.

Poor Kevin. He gets older. So let's look into the book of Revelation real quick.

And let's... Can I say something real quick first? And I think it's important to set something up.

Yeah, absolutely. No, no. Okay. As the guest. The fourth beetle. The fourth beetle.

The fourth beetle. So when we talk about this age and the age to come, I think this is an important thing, especially for the premillennialists and everything.

This right here went to you into some trouble. Yes. Well, no, because they know who

I am. So hold on. Let me go ahead and qualify this saying.

Number one, yes, I go to a dispensational church. Both of my... Two of my elders have graduated from the

Master's Seminary, and they are the most loving guys I know. I mean, they're...

It's a wonderful church that I belong to. We do disagree on eschatology. That being said, we agree...

Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with that at all. Yeah. We... It's not essential. Yeah, we have a great...

Right. Right. So that being said, here we go. So this age is always referring to, always referring to this present course of the human age.

Whenever the Bible mentions this age, it's talking about temporal things. It's talking about where things die.

It's talking about where... I used to not agree with that. Jeff used to disagree with this. I used to not disagree with that.

I'm glad you talked about it. He was back when he was a postmill. Yeah, I got him. I got him. When I was a postmill, I disagreed with it because I was a hardcore preterist.

Right, yeah. Not cool, but I was pretty hardcore. So, but when the coming of Christ comes, that's at the consummation of things, when temporal gives way to eternal, when mortality and death give way to immortality, when corruptible gives way to incorruptible, when things that die...

So when Christ comes back and we are raised from the dead, all raised, the judgment, and He comes back to raise the dead, judge the earth and makes all things new.

There's no gap. When Christ comes back, everything is consummated. And there's so many verses that we could go to talking about what happened on the last day, talking about the resurrection of the believers and the unbelievers happened on the last day.

And I have the verses here. I don't know if you guys want to go through them or not, but I just wanted to make that point here that to think that there's a millennium in a pre -millennial, a pre -millennium when the church is raptured off the earth and when

Christ comes back, we are in our glorified bodies and we're going to be on the earth with people in corruptible bodies makes absolutely no sense.

That is a biblical impossibility and we say it and when we pray it all the time that when we're saved, we're saved from the power of sin, but there's going to be a day when we are saved from the presence of sin and that's going to be the day when we have our glorified bodies.

But in the millennial kingdom, that's not the case. You are surrounded by people that die.

You are surrounded by people that sin and lie and cheat. And during this millennium, there are believers and people in glorified bodies next to their neighbor is eating and having sex with his wife and et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Makes absolutely no sense. So I had to get that out. That's right.

Yeah. All right. So the book of Revelation.

Braden and myself would argue tooth and nail about how this book should be interpreted.

Even as an all male, I would have argued that this is mostly past.

And he was like, everything is spiritual, right? You mean, listen, listen, if y 'all don't leave me, listen, me and him would argue, like, but like, if y 'all don't think him and I argue, like, like if y 'all could be a fly on the wall sometimes.

Yeah. Like even yesterday we were arguing on the first one. And we still got to finish that one. I was yelling at Jeff about first John yesterday.

And a church member of mine pulls up in the parking lot for Bible study and gets out of the car. I'm like, Jeff, I got to let you go.

Yeah. And this, this church member watched me yelling at Jeff for a solid minute before I could let you go. I was like, shut up.

Habs just got raptured. Habs got raptured. Yeah. So me and Braden, me and Braden argue like, like for real argue.

Yeah. And so we were going through the book of revelation on how it should be interpreted. And, and it turns out that both of us were wrong.

I was wrong. Braden, was you wrong? I was a little less wrong, but yeah. I was wrong.

So, so we did coin a name for how we think the book of revelation should be interpreted.

And it's, and it's, it's the second part of the topic.

And that is Baptist covenant idealism. And so the idealism here would be kind of modified.

So we're not saying that everything in the book of revelation should be interpreted idealism.

But, but the foundation of the interpretation should come from what we've been talking about as in Baptist covenant theology.

I would just pause real fast and just say, this came about one night after we were arguing hardcore and something clicked in the text.

And we both started bawling, just crying and glorifying

God. It was, we couldn't, we stayed awake for like an hour, just like marveling over this.

And I mean, this is like at one o 'clock in the morning and we're like, okay, we got to go to bed at this point. And then none of us look asleep.

So this was just revelation. One 19. No, it was in revelation. Revelation 11, whenever we started.

But, but because I was arguing, like, like I was like, chapter one tells us how to interpret it.

And he was like, this right here tells us how to interpret it. And then next thing you know, we, we were reading this verse and we came about what, what, what it came about because we were discussing when was the book of revelation written.

And since Jeff was that partial predators, that hardcore partial predators, he was saying it had to been written before because there's a mention of temple.

And so then we started digging deep into all this language around that. And all of a sudden it clicked and it was, it was awesome.

But so before we even introduced maybe what that is, I would just qualify these things.

So idealism is typically seen as a very allegorical means of interpreting. It's that it's the idea of both good and evil in the book of revelation continually at war from the beginning of the

Christ's first coming to the second coming is typically just a really general sense of idealism. And so like everything in the book of revelation is just spread over the entire last 2000 years together, always continually happening.

Redemptive historical modified idea or no. Yeah. Redemptive historical modified idealism is the position of GK bill.

That's the position I used to hold too. And it's still really similar to what I hold to now, but that was more that there could be particular instances where you could point back to 70

AD or things that happen in time as a fulfillment of those things. But it still wasn't super clear in a lot of the ways that it answered it.

And so that's, that's where we're, we're, it's still idealist because it's still, it's still taking the symbols for book of revelation that it's talking about and it's applying them in the way that the book actually tells us to apply him.

Yeah. Cause when the Bible, when the book of revelation, when it gives you a symbol, if you keep reading, it interprets the symbol and that's what

Braden was missing from, from his idealism. It wasn't given him, he wasn't seeing the interpretation.

And I was seeing everything as, as past events and maybe some of this could be coming, coming true.

Right. And I think that you were also missing a little bit too. So the, the redemptive historical modified idealism also really plays into the seven recapitulations that are found in the book of revelation as well.

And so we still see that. Yeah. Yes. Yep. You did, but it was all placed on 70

AD or majority of it was placed on 70 AD. Right. Yeah. And so Braden, what's, what's the difference real quick in idealism and modified historical idealism?

So like in, so just to give you an example, so Matthew chapter 24, a classical idealist would say that that chapter should be totally explained.

In fact, I, from what I can remember, reading the commentary from John Calvin, I would classify him as a, as a classical idealist because of his interpretation of it.

He would say things like these, these things that we see that are taking place in there that has always been taking place since the first coming to the second coming of Christ.

All of Matthew 24 is always taking place. Whereas a modified idealist would say, well, well, chapter 24 verses one to verse 32, that was 70

AD and then the rest of the chapter is what's taking place throughout the rest of time. And so that, and they, they would, they would look at like chapter 21 and they would say, you see there's highlights of different parts of this story that are taking place in these different chapters.

In chapter 24, there's just a major point of the highlight is focused on chapter seven is, is focused on 70

AD. So, so I would, I would say a modified idealist finds more particulars within history, mostly falling around 70

AD, which, so I, I would say what the big thing,

I would say that leads into the interpretation that Jeff and I, I hope Tom, you would agree with the two. Oh, then myself have come to into the book of revelation is that we have to understand that it is written to John while they're still members that are proclaiming the old covenant.

There's still Jews and Judaizers and these people that he's fighting against. That was very culturally contextually important for us to understand the book of revelation.

But yet he's also explaining what the new covenant is and, and how that plays out overall, of course, of history throughout the, throughout the first coming to the second coming of Christ.

And so the big part is right. Yep. Yep. And so the big part is, is in revelation one 19 it's, it's right.

The things that, that you have seen, the things that are, and the things that will be right. And so that's that recapitulation of what was, was

Christ's death. What, what was accomplished, what is, is what's taking place for John in that day and can be drawn out to us today.

And then what will be is what's future for John and what's future for us as well. and so.

Coming second, coming personally persecution, second coming rapture.

I mean, not rapture. Well, it is right. Second coming. There we go.

A different rapture. Well, I said rapture up here. Let me get them back on the screen.

Did you really appear? Yeah. Well, yes, it's pretty cool.

God says, hi Lazarus. I was, I was,

I was listening and, um, you know, I, I think that, that when we go to revelation, I mean, chapter one, he,

I mean, the first verse, or so you, you have God. I know, but you interrupted me.

Jesus. No, no, no. God gives a message to Jesus. That gives it to an angel that symbolizes it to John.

And John explains it to the, the, to the church that that's the, all of revelation right there.

Right. So, well, well, you're not getting into the, the meat to what we was talking about is that we're, you know, like there's seven recapitulations and I never say that word.

Right. So please forgive me. But, but it's the idea that, that the, what was speaking of what happened to Jesus, what he is from John's writing all up until the second coming, well, nearing the second coming.

And what will be, will be the persecutions, the release of, of the dragon from the, uh, from, from being bound and, and, uh, second coming rapture of the church, so on and so forth.

And so when you read the recapitulations with that understanding, we would say that's where the covenant theology comes from.

And that's what I was going to say. So I was, I was reading this as an idealist and an all millennialist, and I wasn't reading it as a 1689 federalist.

And as soon as you and I were talking about this, all of a sudden, the hermeneutic that we've been applying, like we've been talking about every other hour, every other book in the

Bible. That's so clear. That teaches this. Define the hermeneutic for everybody.

It would be, um, just that, that, that looking continual looking at the covenant of grace playing out in the world.

Right. And maybe that, that wouldn't be the fine tuning of all the hermeneutic with that, because that's obviously looking to Christ and, and letting the book explain itself, letting clear interpret the unclear.

All those hermeneutics are still at play. But the big part is, is that, that we're now recognizing. The way that the world will look at those that are the covenant of grace members,

I think is a big part of it. And so. Do you want to give an example? So, yeah.

So what would you, would you say that we're, um, uh, looking at basically through the lens of, of Christ?

Absolutely. Okay. Yeah. That would have covenant framework that, that there was, uh, a nation that was right to bring about a, the physical offspring,

God's son, son of God, son of David, son of man who received the kingdom that is here, but it's not yet.

And then, and then, and then the recapitulations, you see those events, uh, what, what has happened, what's happening and what will happen and unfold.

And so the last couple of chapters where it really focuses in on that, that what will be right.

You see what I'm saying? And that, so that GK Beal book does a great job at explaining some versus it.

It fantastic. Love the book, but then there's some areas that were, where it seems like he's just answering in a very general.

And I w I want to, I hopefully one day I can sit down. I want to interview GK Beal because I really enjoy his work on that.

It seems like he then just kind of is more gray in some of the areas where he's interpreting things.

And that was always a frustrating part of it. And all of a sudden now when, when looking at that book of revelation and seeing it now with those

Baptist covenant theology framework to it, it's all of a sudden, okay, that's what

John is getting at with this. That's what, that's what's being spoken of in here. And it applies and answers those difficult, those difficult versus that I couldn't answer before as just a modified idealist.

Um, and so that's, I don't know. I, it's going to be hard to just generalize it without looking at specific examples.

And I don't know if we have time for that tonight. So. Yeah. Yeah. To, to real quick answer

Dawson's question. Um, and I'm sure that, and I'm not sure if I'm having the right answer for you, but, but it is an answer that this, that what happened when

Christ was, was, um, what happened when Christ was raised from the dead and those other people were raised, that could have been a shadow of what's going to happen.

And, and we don't know for sure if their resurrection was like his resurrection, meaning, uh, that they had, uh, glorified bodies that descended into heaven.

The scripture doesn't ever, uh, fully flesh that out. It could have been a resurrection such as, uh, uh,

Lazarus to where they had to die again. But, but, but I would definitely right now lean toward that that was a, a foreshadow of something greater to come at the resurrection of the dead.

So I wouldn't say that it was the resurrection of the dead, but I think it was pointing to something that's going to happen, right?

That's how, that's how powerful his resurrection was that others rose with them.

And so when he comes in, the dead will rise in Christ. I mean, that's just, yeah, yeah.

So maybe before we get off here, let's give them a little taste of how. So, so let's look at a recapitulation in here where you can see the, what was there's several places that is, is the kind of y 'all know there's seven, right?

Yeah, obvious. John, John loves sevens. Just go read. Yeah, absolutely.

Yeah. And I don't know, maybe we should give him the example of the revelation. 11 one that we talked about a little bit with the temple and all that, or if we should talk about, yeah,

I'll let him in 20. Yeah. Well, I'm fine with 11 and I'm fine with 20.

Um, maybe not. I'm just, I'm fine with doing both of them right now. I don't know how long y 'all have to, to talk.

I ain't got nothing, but I got to take pictures of some Bibles and stuff like that later. But, uh,

I was thinking eventually we'll do a podcast where we just compare the tape. But if you think we've got time right now,

I'm up for it. Should, should we maybe give just the example of what kind of opened our eyes with, with this?

And then maybe we can come back and do another time where we go further in depth in the book of revelation then. Yeah. Yeah. Because you know, like simply because in the name of the, uh, the title of this,

Brayden was thinking we were just going to be in the book. I thought we were just doing revelation. Yeah. And, and then

I had no idea it was even going to touch revelation. Like you asked Tom, like it was like five minutes before we were going on him and I are arguing about the topic.

Yelling, yelling at each other. Yeah. So, I mean, like, like I'm fine either way.

I ain't got nothing to do. Um, I'm sure. No, let's do it.

Facebook world. Yeah. I don't know. Right. I don't know. I, I'd kind of like a little more time on it.

I like Brayden's idea. Yeah. Well, let's just give them a, a sneak peek of the recapitulation and, uh, of, of, of, of what we see.

So if you remember in chapter one, verse 19, and I'll, I'll also want to point out.

So, so real quick chapter one, verse 19, he says, right. What, right. The things that you have seen, those that are, and those that are to take place.

Right. And also was talking about symbols earlier. So in this, we're talking about how symbols are given interpretations.

And I think we need to go through the book of revelation and show a lot of those, but just to wet your mouth right here, he's talking about lamp stands.

And then you read in verse 20, it says, ask for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw my right hand and the seven golden lamp stands.

The seven stars are, are the angels of the seven churches. And the seven lamp stands are the seven churches.

So when you read the book of revelation and it mentions lamp stands, your mind should say church is the lamp.

The churches, because the book of revelation defines that for us. Yeah. Yep.

Yep. And so whenever, as you're reading through here and you see the word lamp stand or anything concerning with a candle fire or whatever, like it's speaking to a lamp stand, it's talking about the churches.

So when you hear a pre a pre -millennial say that after chapter, chapter three, the churches are not mentioned.

Well, it is mentioned, but they're just called the lamp stands. so one night, so Jeff and I were arguing, right.

We were saying temple was still standing. Temple wasn't standing. When was the book of revelation written?

And so we looked at revelation 11, one, then a measuring rod, like a staff was given to me saying, get up and measure the sanctuary of God and the altar and those who worship in it.

I'll pause there for a moment. And this is where Jeff, Jeff was like, you see, it had to have been written before 70, 80.

It had to have been written 65, 80 before. And he sort of put like, this had to have been when it was somewhere in that period, which

I still think it was written that early, but I don't think it matters concerning the interpretation.

And this temple that it's talking about as the measuring is not the physical temple that was standing in 68, 80.

Right. Right. Because I said, Jeff, when is there any case in the new

Testament when it talks about the sanctuary, God, the temple of God, that it's not talking about the church.

And I'm telling you, Baptist covenant, theology kicks in, right. When he said that Baptist covenant, theology dropped, kicked me right in the face.

And you said, wait, hold on. I think you said, wait, hold on. You're right.

Like something along those lines is how you said it. Like it doesn't. Every time it talks about the sanctuary, it talks about the church.

And so, so then, then we are his body and we, and the church and we'll come back to verse one here in a moment.

But then you said, so then, then it says, and leave out the court, which is outside the sanctuary and do not measure it for.

It has been given to the Gentiles and they'll trample the Holy city underfoot for 42 months. And then I was like, well,

I don't know. And Jeff was like, well, what does the outer sanctuary mean? I was like, I don't know. And I think the GKBL, this is where it doesn't go into as much detail as what

Baptist covenant, theology would answer this for us. Or covenant theology in general, but we're saying that it's still

Baptist covenant, theology. Jeff said, well, John is the same author of the book of revelation as he is a first John.

And he is of the gospel of John. Yeah. Who had the appearance to be religious, but really wasn't who had the appearance of being a part of God's people, but weren't

Pharisees, the Pharisees, the Judaizers, those that weren't of the church, right.

They had the appearance to be a part of the temple, but they're outside of the sanctuary. They don't worship inside of it.

And they're trampled underfoot for 42 months. Now, pause there. 42 months is used over and over and over again through this chapter in chapter 12.

And it's talking about the period between the first and second coming of Christ. And so this isn't talking about just the destruction of the 70

AD it's included in that, right. The temple and the Jews and all these things have been persecuted by the

Gentiles. They've been warring against that, which has the appearance of being God's people, but isn't 70

AD included in it. The point of this is going back to verse one, what does a measuring rod because the court outside is not measured.

The court, the, the, the sanctuary and those that worship in it are in the old

Testament. It always talked about protection in the end of the book of revelation. When the, the, the measurements are given to the perfect exact dimension of what the new heavens and the new earth is.

It's talking about divine protection. And so again, what is this book being written for the persecuted church?

The persecuted church has had Judaizers come to it. Pharisees attacking it, all these things that have the appearance of the church, but aren't the church.

Paul, John is saying in here, church, even though you're persecuted, don't you worry. You're divinely protected.

Yeah. Yeah. Those people out there, those people outside that have the appearance, the dogs, the dogs.

Yeah. They're going to be attacked by the Gentiles. And when you're even attacked, you're protected.

They aren't. And you know what? I think the end of revelation really sums everything up, you know, because he said, let the evil doers keep doing evil, all this and that, you know, and, and, you know, but what

I, I found like so encouraging and stuff was this was meant to be understood. This isn't like what the, you had the, like the dispensational pre -millennial set that has progressive revelation going on, you know, like somehow in the 1800s, they, they all, they got this, this new revelation of how to interpret revelation and, and like something new

Jesus is doing and stuff. No, no, no. He says at the very end of, of a revelation, he goes like this, do not seal up the prophecy of this book.

It's not like Daniel where he said, do seal it up for a time later on. No, no, no. This wasn't sealed up because it was meant to encourage us.

It was meant, you know, yeah. It was meant to be read and encouraged the persecuted church, you know, understood in a way of comfort, right?

Yes. Only a book of comfort, man. And so when you, when we kept on reading these things, we kept on seeing that take place.

And then we went to revelation chapter 12 and we see a woman being cared for. And then in revelation chapter 17, there's a woman that's also in the wilderness, but she's not being cared for.

And she's being ravished by the beast that's sitting upon the many waters. And the many waters is talked about as the nations, the tribes, the tongues, and the peoples of the world that are not gods.

And yet those are the ones that are ravishing this woman. That's in the wilderness. That just happens to be in the same appearance and the same location as the woman that went into the wilderness that's being divinely protected in chapter 12.

And so again, church, those that appear to be the church and the world persecuting, we are secure.

The, the, the shaft, the chaff will, will fly, fly away. Right. They'll be persecuted.

They'll, they'll be dealt with. You know what? I think we were all talking about it several months ago when we were staying up really late talking about this, but what

I thought was really cool in revelation where, you know, the new Jerusalem where we are the bride, you know, so he's, he's he's shown us that, that that the bride is actually the new

Jerusalem. He says that in scripture. He actually calls us that. But I also thought it was fascinating how you see the other bride.

And I don't mean of God, you know, you have, you have the, the, the

Babylon, the synagogue, Satan. Yeah. You know? And it's just like, when you start, when the

Lord starts opening up your eyes to see that you're like, oh, that's, that's pretty tight. I got to go guys.

I'm getting, but I'll get raptured off. I'm going to get raptured. Go eat your tacos.

Glory. I got an enjoyment for forever guys. All right. Later. Boom. So that was just a quick, that was just a quick demonstration of what we're seeing and kind of how this all started unraveling.

And I would say too, that this is not anything new that Jeff and I are seeing. It's several commentaries say these things, but they aren't putting them together.

They're not. They're not cohesive in one set yet. And just think about this.

Just think about this, you know, having a hermeneutical background, a hermeneutical framework, but you abandon that hermeneutical framework.

The moment you get into the book of revelation, like that doesn't make any sense. And so your hermeneutical framework should be consistent from Genesis to revelation.

Right. And that's what we're trying to do with this way of interpreting.

I think it's, it was good the way you guys pointed out in verse 11 the, the framework in which revelation should be interpreted because a dispensationalist would say the exact same thing as you are, except their hermeneutic is different.

They're going to, they're going to, they're going to interpret everything literal. They're not going to abandon what they, how they, how they interpreted

Genesis all the way through revelation. They're going to stick with that hermeneutic, which is why they come up with what they come up with.

It's craziness. You know, at the end, I mean, you look at there's, there's clearly symbolic language and in, in the book of revelation.

I mean, just think about the gospel of John, the gospel of John is, is, is a very, very symbolic.

Yes. And so it's the same author in revelation. Right. We, we, when we sit and like, that's where I think that the, the

Western church has failed to understand what literal means. Right. Because the grammatical historical hermeneutic that Christians ought to be taking, where we understand the

Bible and its grammatical sense and also in its historical sense, literal means a noun is a noun.

A question is a question. A verb is a verb, and we can't change those things. When somebody says,

I take a literal position, they're talking usually that I take a physical position and they're ignoring, in my opinion, oftentimes they're ignoring the genre and then the way that the author was intending for the person to read it.

Somebody, when they say, I, I fought someone and I knocked their socks off.

Do we take that as a physical, that their socks are laying out in the streets? No, we say that the person won the fight, right?

It emphasizes how bad they lost, right? I knocked their socks off. And so when there's genre that is being written apocalyptically and, and symbolically, and it's giving us symbols with explanations, how dare we try to take those same symbols and say, ah, you see, it's, it's the

Apache helicopters. Yeah. So, yeah. Yeah.

I mean, just so you know, I mean, the dispensation list that I go to church, they would never say that.

They wouldn't say that. Right. There is a huge distinction between John Hagee dispensationalism and John MacArthur dispensation.

So totally, totally. But yeah. Well, one of the things I wanted to bring up and hopefully doesn't just real quick,

Dr. Schultz, he was, he was talking about one of the verses here and we went to Revelation 119 as well.

Yeah. And, and he was looking in the same pattern except he was looking at it in a different way.

And he was saying that therefore write these things, which you have seen, which is exactly what we would say that he's looking exactly what he's been shown, exactly what he just got through writing and then the things that are, so he says.

That was the present church, the churches at that time. Right. So he's saying that, that in the

Greek that it's saying and what they signify. And, and, and he could look in different chapters.

He's, he's got, he's got this all written out, but in other words, he's looking. Yeah. So it's saying it's what, what, what was just written, what you've just seen, the things that John just saw and the things which are means in the, in the

Greek, according to Michael Schultz, he's making a case for this is that, and what they signify and the thing.

So he's explaining what he just, what the symbols were, what everything was, what everything it was that he saw.

Um, anyway, I thought, I thought it was an interesting approach. Yeah. And I would echo that too.

That's how very first one of verse one starts off with chapter one, verse one, the revelation of Jesus Christ, which

God gave him to show his slaves, the things which must soon happen. And he ain't indicated that word right there is that same signified word.

And he signified, he indicated this by sending it through his angels and to his slave.

Uh, it's through his angel to his slave, John. So, so I think it means the same thing, but it is a different word.

It is a different word. Shultz would take the interpretation that, that, that when he's speaking to the seven churches, that that is the

R and that which will take place will be chapter four onward.

Except for he'll have some, like, he'll say something with chapter 11. He'll say that that's something that's happening now.

Like it's, it's kind of weird the way his, his interpretation. Yeah.

Revelation is because I would say what is what the things that are, is that seven churches, but that also extends to us as well.

So like, um, when, when John is saying that the, the, the witnesses will witness for 42 months, right?

Or the thousand 260 days, that's including the seven churches in that day.

That's including the churches of Asia. And that's including us to today, right? The two witnesses that are given to us as the two lamp stands, which is defined.

The 1 ,260 days is this long period of time of first and second advent.

Which, and the reason I say that as in chapter 12, it tells us that the woman that give birth to the seed runs to the wilderness for 42 months.

That's the thousand 260 days. Who is the woman that gave birth to the seed? That's old covenant, ethnic

Israel's or oath covenant, Israel giving birth to Jesus. Then those that run to the wilderness and her seeds run with her.

So now that's Jew and Gentile. You see the language, see the Baptist covenant theology right there. They run to the wilderness and they're protected divine protection.

We would say that since we have the faith of Abraham, we are. Yeah, absolutely.

Yeah. Right. So, yeah, even if some even might even interpret Romans 11 as Abraham being that root, that's the root that he's talking about.

I would go a little bit further and say that the root is Christ. Yeah. But yeah, yeah, it's good stuff.

Well, anything else you want to add to this? We definitely need to do another show.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Love it. So maybe next time, the next show we'll, we could dive deeper into the book of revelation.

Let's do that. Like we've already got, you know, you know, now that we know, right.

Right. Right. We're on the same page, brother. Apparently sometimes, some days.

Yeah. But we still got to finish that first John conversation.

Yeah, yes, we do. We'll take care of that at another time. Cause I got a lot of pushback. It was an interesting

Bible study because then it opened up more dialogue. We're. You're conflating things, but I won't,

I won't get into it here. Cause people won't understand what we're talking about. Dawson long.

Yeah. Just, just keep on coming, man. I mean, you're, you're almost there. Just, just make the leap. Make the spiritual leap, man.

Yeah. Well, he was talking at the cigar shop the other night that he was a theonomist and I was like, shut your mouth.

Stop it. Stop it. Stop it right now. Yeah, we are.

We are. Yep. Yeah. We are all male. I used to be a dispensational pre -meal.

I cut my teeth on, on Harry stone, John Hagee, and all those guys.

Jack Vanipi. Jack Vanipi. Yep. Absolutely. No, no

Joelstein. And, and so I, I went to a historical pre -meal, pre -meal, but I don't think

I had a, a rich understanding such as I would say, Schultz's his understanding of, of, of historical pre -meal is beyond anyone else's.

I've heard of. Yeah. I said it, Greg more better, better too. I would say, yeah, way better.

Like, like it's really good. If I didn't hold the position that I have now, I would definitely be on Schultz's side.

Yeah. So I jumped over all millennialism and went to post millennialism. But, but understanding the historical narrative of how words matter, things have definition, the definition of his.

No, no, I wouldn't say that. I'm going to say it. I think. He, he, he definitely had a hand.

Excuse me. Right. It was a small hand. Yeah. It was a small hand. Speaking of small hands.

I had to fix this theology on some things. And he's helped me come around on some things as well.

Right. But, but I bought into post millennialism hook, line and sinker. But, but understanding that, that, that a word has a definition and you cannot change the definition of a word.

Right. You cannot change the definition. And so, and I think that post mills have changed the definition.

Right. Because again, post mills believe that a literal thousand years. And it doesn't necessarily have to be a literal thousand years, but a long period of time, the earth will be

Christianized before the second coming of physical kingdom. Yep. Yeah. Physical kingdom.

So a historical pre post millennialism wouldn't see the thousand years being first to second advent, but modern day post millennials see it first to second advent.

And I'm just saying, if that's what you see, you need to just say you're an optimistic all meal. If you're going to say your post meal, you need to hold to a literal golden age.

And that's the king, like, like that's that period of time of that millennial reign versus saying that we're in it.

Now, if you're saying that we're in it right now, first and second advent and you're an all meal.

Yeah. Definitions matter. I'm an all mill. All millennialism is just, just makes more sense.

It's seamless. It is. Yeah, it really is. I mean, you know, the other day there was, there was a popular dispensational preacher who spent 18 minutes explaining his system before he went in to, to actually explain the text.

And it's because if he was to read the text, nobody ever would have gotten what he was getting ready to preach.

Yeah. And so, yeah, huge presupposition. And I would say like,

I am a partial preterist, but if your interpretation of all the texts is partial preterist, you are on your way to being a full preterist.

So, so, so I bought into the hook, line and sinker. I was hardcore partial preterist.

And the only thing that kept me from being full preterist was the creeds and the confessions.

It wasn't for the creeds and confessions. I would have been a full preterist. Look, Jeff was saying,

Jeff was saying that Revelation chapter one to chapter 20 had all been fulfilled. Yes.

Scary. Yes. That's seriously dangerous.

Let me circle back real quick. Remember how I was saying that the reason why classical covenant theology doesn't work in Baptist covenant for a

Baptist is because a Baptist, they have to slap a bandaid or our bumper sticker to classical covenant theology that says, yeah, but believers are to be baptized.

Right. That was my position in preterism that, that, that I believe that all these things were fulfilled, but then

I would slap a bumper sticker that says, except for the second coming of Jesus and the resurrection of the dead.

Yeah. Amen. And it wasn't working. That's a good way. I had to abandon that position.

And so I'm still, I see partial, I'm still a partial preterist, right?

And if you're a Christian, you are a partial preterist and you, and you are a futurist, but you cannot dogmatically interpret everything in with that lens on, or you, you will be going into full preterism.

You will be going into full preterism. That's what Sam Frost said. Didn't he, wasn't he saying that, that, that partial preterism is dangerous.

It's the, it's the dating phase. It's the dating phase. Right. Right. And that's where I asked, like, that was my pushback to Jeff was what, what is the hermeneutical principle to stop you from going all the way?

Right. No, there isn't. Oh gosh. Yeah. Right. It was, it was only crazy and confessions.

It wasn't the scriptures. It was crazy and confessions. You know, and that's the thing right there. I mean, when you sit, when you have the create, that's so, that's so important to be confessional.

When you're confessional, it prevents you from going outside the lines outside, like the melodic lines and playing your own tune.

Yeah. Yeah. I remember that. It's the bumpers. It was the bumpers that kept the right and gutter ball.

Yeah. It's literally was, I mean, I mean, I mean, like, like at the partial, at the preterist, the,

I can't, the dangers of full preterism conference that we had. I mentioned that, right. That, that the thing with preterism is the reason what makes it so attractive is that it answers a lot of questions that surface level, like, like, like it just answers so many questions, but that's not how the

Bible is supposed to be interpreted as surface level answers. Right.

We're meant to dig into this book and to connect the dots and to interpret it the way that the author that is writing the book intent.

Well, you know, like, like, like I would say, that's the same way that I use this pen to write a letter.

God used men to pin his letter, the Bible, but he also used the way that they spoke and, and interact it with people.

Like he used them to do it. So these letters have these guys personalities in there.

Sure. I mean, the quirks and stuff like that in it. So you're able to see it.

And so he's going to use how, how they speak and, and articulate things to, to write this.

And so you cannot just, just say partial preterist stamp on everything. Right.

You got to let the author of the book explain what he is saying. Right. And I think if you're just coming at it with that framework, with those goggles, it's the same thing that we're saying about the

Presbyterians. I would also add, you know, when, when we as Christians read the old

Testament, you know, important to keep the lens through Christ and everything, because the, like the old Testament authors.

And I think it was a Sam Renningham that said the old Testament authors. Hadn't knew exactly what they were writing.

They knew what they were writing about, but they didn't have an exhaustive exhaustive knowledge of what they were writing.

Right. In the old covenant, you know, because there are things that were revealed over time, over time.

You know, and then now we look through the lens of Christ and now we can understand what, what it meant.

So that's right. Yeah. John Jonathan Edwards would have been one of those historical post -mill guys that would have said that the golden age is future.

Right. And so it's not, not the same type of post -millennialism that's common today. And I think when it comes to partial preterism, the issue is that it gives really clear answers.

Like you go to Matthew 24, that's the starting point, right? It gives a really one for one. This sounds super sweet.

It refutes. And a lot of the post post -mill partial preterist guys are post dispensational people.

Right. And so here dispensationalism gave you really good, solid answers, but then you look into it and it was like,

Ooh, it's not really there in my opinion. And so then, then you look somewhere else. Oh, here's something that says.

That that's 70 AD. Wow. That sounds really good over here. And then it just, let's keep on stretching that canvas.

Okay. Let's keep on stretching it. Let's keep on stretching it until eventually the sad part is now

I'm denying there ever being a physical resurrection in the future. I'm now denying Jesus coming again.

I'm now denying because 70 AD, right. It, it, it, it's just that slippery slope.

That that's not great. Yeah. And again, I want to echo that, that all of us are partial preterists, right?

If you believe, you know, you cannot be a Christian and not be a partial predator. It's just like, you cannot be a

Christian and not be a futurist. Right. The thing is, is you want to allow the scriptures and the authors of the book to, to give you the interpretation, right?

You just don't want to come at it with a presupposition of this is partial predator.

Like this is preterist. This, this whole text, it's preterist. And I have been guilty of that.

And, and I do repent. It's, it's good to acknowledge that when we have presuppositions too,

I mean, because we're all looking at through different lenses, you know, and my presupposition now is

Baptist covenant theology. Right. Yeah. Which, which would be through the lens of Christ.

I would, I would. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Yeah. That's what scripture teaches. Yeah. Scripture, scripture, scripture, scripture, always interpret scripture.

Yeah. Yeah. That's the big thing when it came to revelation for me is that it's, why, why has there been consistent answers given in other books that are, are when diving deep into it, 1689 federalism just so sweetly shows and demonstrates that that's the, the harmony that's throughout the scriptures is this hope of the covenant of grace, the hope of the seed coming and the types and the shadows and all these.

Yeah. And then all of a sudden revelation comes and I'm like, I'm not going to apply it to it. You see what I'm saying? Like it, it's still there, still there.

The one who overcame is the one who was, that is, and is to come. Right. Like, and just happens to be the same interpreted grid that, that it's said to read the book.

What was, what is, and what is to come. We interpret it through the lens of Christ. He is the one who was, who is, and is to come.

Yep. And so, so was what happened is what, what's he doing right now?

He's ruling and reigning, putting all of his enemies under his feet. He's protecting the church. Yes. There's going to be persecution.

What will be the Satan is released and Christ comes back and destroys him for a final time.

Like, like you just, it's so beautiful. Yeah. It's so beautiful.

It is. Yeah. And one, one, one last thing before we go to, if, if there's anybody watching who doesn't know

Christ as their savior, and you're trusting your own righteousness before Christ and thinking that you're reconciled to him, thinking that you could be pleasing to him on your own, repent of your sin and turn to Christ.

Amen. Amen. All right. Any last words, Brayden? I just echo everything

Tom just said. Amen to that. Thank you everybody for, for, for watching.

If you haven't checked out the YouTube yet, check it out, like it, subscribe, all that good stuff.

And if you're ever in Tallahoma, Tennessee, please come check us out. And we are, we have another conference coming up next week.

February on sanctification. It's the, it's going to be called war, the, the flesh versus the spirit of the spirit versus the flesh, whatever.

So, so keep that in mind, make plans on coming. And as always, hallelujah.