The Resurrection and Premillennialism

This is Apologetics Live. To answer your questions, your host, from Striving for Eternity Ministries, Andrew Rappaport.

All right. Tick -tock, ready to rock. Welcome to Apologetics Live. Shout out to Bondsurfer4Christ, Jesse, Melissa.

What up every all the other regulars? Sorry, Andrew can't be with us tonight. He is, uh, he's in, he's,

I had enough. I mean, he's incapacitated. I mean, you know, he's busy.

I had so much rather you be on, John, than Andrew. So that interruption.

The show just got worse again. Sorry, guys. You weren't going to have to deal with Andrew tonight.

He's back. It's Apologetics Live. Someone tried to take over the show, but they were trying to prevent our guests from coming in.

I hope he's okay. Was it one of those post -meal guys trying to come in and sabotage the show?

That's right. All right. Well, hey, I see that we have

Pastor Casey back there, so we'll have to bring him in in a minute so he can give another plug for Beulah Baptist Church where we're going to be.

We're going to be there, getting closer and closer. Anthony, you better start working on your messages.

I mean, just saying. And your tan, otherwise you're going to be glowing in the dark. I have a good tan. It's this light. I have these daylight light bulbs in here that make me look really white.

It's a dimmer switch. It's not the light bulb. Look, okay, just put something on that forehead of yours, okay, so that it's the shine.

I'm just wondering if you guys are putting your wife's makeup on to dampen the light. No, I know how to use the controls on my settings for my camera.

Yeah, Anthony. I'm lucky enough to get the camera on and zoomed in, so. Oh, all right.

Well, I see that Calculus Man is here. He says he's here, so that's good.

He had a great shirt the other day, for those of you who know calculus and differential equations. When you wear shirts like that, we'll get it.

So tonight, what we're going to do for the topic, to start off before you, if any of you guys have questions, just come on in to apologeticslive .com,

and from there, you'll be able to see the links to join. You just click on the duck icon.

That is the link. And so if you do that, you'll be able to join. Again, for folks who want to, if you want to help support us, on the video, if you're watching on YouTube, you can give super chats.

Any super chats always get read. So if you want to make sure we read your question, that is a way to get your question read.

And so what else do we have? Give us a review.

Reviews, yes. Put that up. Yes, so if you want to leave us a review, go to lovethepodcast .com, slash apologeticslive with the

A and L in apologeticslive is capitalized. And I'm going to give a, you know, we also have, we do this on the

Christian Podcast Community. Go to christianpodcastcommunity .org to listen to other podcasts there. And our guest that we're going to have on tonight is one of those podcasts.

It is none other than the author of God Doesn't Whisper, Pastor Jim Osmond.

And he is the pastor of Kootenai Community Church. And if you want to listen to his weekly sermons, which are excellent, you can go to the

Kootenai Community Church Morning Worship, which is one of the podcasts. And so that is available there.

And so let me see. So do you guys have anything else we need? Well, yeah. So before we open, you know, so Justin, you know, we should probably tell everybody that's, you know, so just so people understand, we had a good time last week.

Oh, you're feeling guilty now. I don't feel guilty at all. But I want to make sure people do understand.

The comments I got, Anthony, was it was really heated, but good. Everyone learned everything, learned things, but everyone was like, wow, that was heated.

But yet no one, like I was going, this isn't heated. This is Tuesday. What are you talking about?

We're friends. We're having a good time with it. But having said all that, you know, there is a there is a good lesson to be learned here.

Right. Through all this. I mean, in our good conversation last week, somebody, Chris Hunholtz, was in the chat room, was putting some comments in.

And before you get to that, because I did want to bring that, I thought you're going to bring up something else first. So I want to preface it with this, is to say this.

At Striving Fraternity, we take reconciliation serious. Anthony found this out when he joined the board at Striving Fraternity.

We take accountability. We take reconciliation as a serious thing. And in fact, the reason why you bring new board members on is you want somebody who has corrected you at some point.

And when someone is willing to correct you, you are willing to ask them to be on your board to help hold you accountable.

And which is actually a wonderful thing that you have as one of your standards. And so, you know, over the years,

I think all three, you know, you, I and Frank and David have worked well with one another, where if we see something that we say, hey, maybe you should take that Facebook post down.

Maybe you should do this. Maybe you should do that. Right. Something that might be a blind spot in one of us. We've been pretty quick to do that and pretty quick to hold one another accountable, whether whether it's really an issue or not.

Right. In fact, we actually have a policy that you and I both have been on receiving ends of, where we have a policy of trying to turn if somebody sees a

Facebook post or any social media post, anyone on the board see something. And if one of the other board members says, take that down.

Our first action is to take it down. That's why you don't even ask me first. It's just if this is this is just our policy.

So, you know, we take this serious and this leads up to what you were just about to get into. Yeah. So, you know, there is a as Justin and I were having fun and jabbing each other as I was having fun winning while he was trying to defend himself.

Yeah. As that was going on, it seemed to me like everybody was saying, you know, Justin's just killing it.

But as we were having a good time going back and forth, Chris Honolds was was writing in.

And and, you know, I think he took exception to something that that I cracked a joke on to you. And so afterwards,

I did reach out to through Andrew to get to get his phone number, reached out to him. And Andrew suggested it.

I was going to do it anyway. But but I'm thankful that Andrew was there to suggest it anyway. And so Chris and I talked afterwards is no big deal.

You know, he and I had a good conversation afterwards. And and it's not an issue. Right. But it's a it's a it was a heated topic last week.

It's a good topic. It's one that I think needs to be discussed further. And there's been a number of people reached out to me who said,

Anthony, I agree with you. I wish they would let you talk more. Yeah, a few people called you. But but in any case, it'll be a good topic for a different day.

Yeah. In the meantime, yes, driving fraternities policy was was there in in in full force there that Andrew was pretty quick to call me and say, hey, you really got to call

Chris and make sure you guys are reconciled. I didn't feel any issues. Chris said he didn't either.

You know, and but either way, we talked through it done. So no big deal. Well, just so everybody knows,

I mean, I had no clue about all that. But no, seriously, I didn't. The thing is, is what

I want to say in this is I'm kind of an outsider because I'm not a member of striving fraternities board.

I'm not I don't have any authority there in that vein. But these two guys are some of my best friends.

And, you know, Andrew holds me accountable. He's my mentor for the seminary

I'm going through. And he helps me and he guides me. And if I feel like they're in an error,

I'll tell them to. Because I mean, I've dealt with the fear of man for a long time and I got over it.

Praise God. I think I did. But sometimes I don't. But I try not to. But but I also these these gentlemen up here, they hold me accountable.

We hold each other accountable. We don't agree on every single thing under the sun. And eventually they'll they'll get their theology and their doctrine right.

And they'll all know. But but even if we don't agree, we love each other more than our disagreements would cause a problem.

You know, we want to we want to hold each other to the highest standard.

And these two guys are great mentors and friends. So thank you. Thank you. And we said someone we want to address because there were people that saw the comments.

We wanted to address that right as the show began before we get too much further in our gyms backstage waiting.

Yeah, let's bring Jim in. I was going to say, do we want to bring Casey in real quick just so we can plug what's going on?

I guess we can do that so we don't have to interrupt Jim then, because I know I know we've got a fire hose of information coming out.

And I'm sure we're going to have a lot of our AMIL and Postville friends listening in and jumping at the bit for the next two hours.

So the fact that Jim's a pastor, so, you know, you can't shut up a pastor. You know, it's just they just keep going.

And Anthony, are you sure you're not a pastor? No. Casey's not a pastor.

He's a pastor in training. He's just trying to make sure he goes, you know, that Anthony time thing. So Casey, tell us about Bueller Baptist Church, where people can find out about the conference.

Yes, sir. I'd love to share a little bit more about Bueller Baptist Church. But first, I have to weigh in and say, you know,

Andrew and Anthony, when I was riding around with you guys as a passenger, around in the Shepherds Conference over there with John McArthur and all these other fantastic guys, you two got into it on a couple of subjects.

And I was in the back seat thinking, man, are these guys friends or enemies? It's the iron sharpening iron.

Sometimes when you sharpen iron, you know, it just it cuts a little. It has some sparks, right?

You guys are really sharp, Ben. That's what I got to say. You know,

I always like the fact that in the end of those discussions, I'm always right. In your own eyes.

Just like the whole book of Judges. That last verse in Judges, huh?

All right. So Pastor Casey. I don't know if this is going to be visible tonight.

Yeah, we see it. You see it? Pull it back just a little bit. All right, man.

I tell you what. Well, there's Justin. You can see him at least. There's Anthony and Andrew and the host, of course.

But man, I was just able to go to WTLN. They broadcast from Daytona down to Tampa.

And so I'll be advertising this live the week before you guys come down.

And this will be on the air on WTLN in between John MacArthur and Chuck Swindoll preaching every morning.

And then sporadically throughout the rest of the day. So we'll have plenty of people, you know, hearing about this conference at Beulah Baptist Church.

So I'm thrilled about that. And this is the Snatching Them from the Flames seminar that you guys do.

And man, I'm telling you, it is so essential in our own area. We've got people signing up. We've got pastors bringing people.

So it's going to be a fantastic time. And if you're anywhere close to being able to come to central Florida, now's a good time.

You can go on our website, BeulahBaptistWG .org, which you see on the screen right there. There's hotels available as well that you can stay at.

And you will have a fantastic time with us there in the seminar. So that's the quick download.

And if you want more information, we could just talk for the next entire two hours on why you guys are coming and how much it's needed.

But I just appreciate your willingness to come and help out around here. As a matter of fact, there's another church being built nearly right across the street on Highway 50 in the

West Orlando area from us. And I went on their website. And again, it's all the experiential mystical worship along with the shallowest preaching ever on the

Pentecostal leaning side of things. And so when you watch their worship services online, it's just craziness.

And it's the farthest thing away from sound doctrine. So nevertheless, our area is inundated with false prophets and Paula White being one of them.

And so we're going to show up there and be a blessing to her people, Lord willing. But that's that, guys.

And I want to give a shout out to your people and say, hey, consider coming if you're anywhere close. Yeah, you got a crazy place, right?

You had Benny Hensel churches in your neck of the hoods. Paula White's there now. Right down the street is Lakeland where the

Lakeland Revival, Todd Bentley and others have been. That's where Todd Bentley really made his name, right? It was 45 minutes away from you.

So you're in the midst of all kinds of garbage. Plus the social justice nonsense is really, really big in your area, which

I'll be tackling when we're down there. So, yeah, it's going to be fun. To find out more, folks, go to BeulahBaptistWG .org.

That's BeulahBaptistWG .org. And you can find out more about the seminar there.

So I do encourage you guys to go and check that out. So thanks, Pastor Casey. We'll put you backstage.

We'll bring in none other than the man. Mr. Jim Osman, how are you, sir?

You're muted. I'm doing well. Thank you. Yeah. Well, it's good to have you on.

And, you know, some of some of the things that I was thinking we could talk about even tonight is, you know,

I got a question in our Christian Apologetics Facebook group. You know, someone wanted to you know, they wanted to pose a question.

They were looking for anyone that is really good with interpreting dreams. They want to do a podcast on, you know, interpreting dreams and visions.

I was thinking of recommending you. It's not my gift, but I know a guy. Yeah. My wife said

I should just go find Daniel from the Book of Daniel. But I was suggesting they should go get this guy,

Jim Osman. He wrote a book called God Doesn't Whisper. Yeah, no, I don't do dreams.

Okay. KT is asking. Andrew keeps making me wonder if the guy he tackled is okay.

No, no, actually. 9 -1 -1 was called, but he's still unconscious.

It's okay. Who did he tackle? Oh, you missed it.

I must have. He didn't see that. Oh, we'll have to go back and watch. So, you know, the first question

I have for you, though, Jim, before we get into your sermon and all is, you know, I want to know how well does he sleep? Sorry, what was that?

How well do you sleep? You sleep well? I sleep all right, yeah. Yeah, because if not, what

I would suggest is that maybe you should go out to MyPillow .com and use promo code

SFE to make sure you get a good sleep. I mean, they sponsor the show, so we have to give a shout out to them, right?

That's perfect. It's a good thing your spiritual transitions are better than your pillow transitions.

That's right. Well, here's the thing. What Jim would like about MyPillow is that they're made in the USA, and I know

Jim likes that aspect of it. I do, I do. So if you call 1 -800 -873 -0176 and use promo code

SFE for striving for eternity or just go to MyPillow .com, click the Radio Listener Square. They have a lot of discounts you can get there only with the promo code

SFE. So check that out today, and we want to make sure we got that done so people know about that.

Now, Jim, you did a sermon for Resurrection Sunday. Crazy to think about. You did it on the resurrection of Christ.

Crazy thing on Resurrection Sunday. But listening to it, you had made—the whole sermon was good, obviously, but you made an argument for premillennialism from the resurrection of Christ that really, really got me, that I never heard before.

And I thought, well, since we have—I mean, obviously, we know that some of these postmillennialists are not watching the news.

And we know that because they're still waiting for things to get better. And if Drew from Matter of Theology is watching, he's going to be saying that his argument is that this is just—there's going to be a revival coming.

See, all this persecution is going to bring about revival. And that's going to be what we're going to see as the postmill view.

I know you don't hold to that. You hold to a biblical view. And so what

I want to do is just let you explain some of what you said in your sermon. And then from there, let's get into just what is the premill view and things like that.

Okay, I'm kind of surprised a little bit that you even had texted me and asked me if I wanted to come on because what I—the comment that I made was kind of a throwaway comment.

It really wasn't the point of the whole sermon. I wasn't preaching on premillennialism. But it was a good point.

It was. Folks, this is the thing with Jim's sermons. His throwaway comments are still brilliant.

This is unlike other pastors who are like—they go and they talk, and it's like you're looking for the little gems.

The things he throws away are the gems too. It was just a small observation that I didn't want to let pass.

But I wanted people to just connect it to something that was outside of the sermon. So I was preaching from Acts 13.

I'll just kind of—I'll basically give the context of what I was talking about and kind of the argument that Paul makes from this context, and then

I'll tie that in with the observation that I made about premillennialism. In Acts 13, Paul's first recorded sermon in the church in Antioch, the city in Antioch, on his first missionary journey.

There is a parallel. It's parallel in structure, in argument, and in text to the argument that Peter makes on the day of Pentecost, and I'll get into in a moment why

Luke does that with Paul's first sermon. So Paul begins that sermon by basically tracing the history of the nation of Israel to show that God had fulfilled

His promise to—let me get here to Acts 13 in my Bible real quick because I'm going to read some passages out of that.

Paul traces the history of the nation of Israel to show that God had promised the nation a

Savior, and God had made a covenant with David. He makes reference to David in verse 22 of 13 where he says in verse 20,

After these things, he gave them judges until Samuel the prophet. Then they asked for a king, and God gave them Saul, the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, for 40 years.

After he had removed him, he raised up David to be their king, concerning whom he also testified and said, I have found David, the son of Jesse, a man after my own heart, who will do all my will.

And from the descendants of this man, that is from David, according to promise, God has brought to Israel a

Savior, Jesus. After John had proclaimed His coming, a baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel, and while John was completing his course, he kept saying,

What do you suppose that I am? I'm not he, but behold, one is coming after me, the sandals of whose feet I'm not ready to untie.

So Paul's basic argument was that the arrival of Christ was a fulfillment of prophecy. And of course,

John the Baptist announcing the arrival of Christ was a fulfillment of prophecy. He was the voice when crying in the wilderness, make straight the way of the

Lord. That's Malachi, I think it's chapter 3. So everything about the arrival of Christ fulfilled prophecy. And so Paul's whole argument is that everything then that happened to the

Christ, from the time that he came in fulfillment to the promise to David, everything that happened was connected to the promises that God made to the nation, and particularly some promises that God made to David.

So verse 26, the brethren, sons of Abraham's family, and those among you who fear

God, to us the message of this salvation has been sent. For those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers recognize neither him nor the utterances of the prophets, which are at every step fulfilled these by condemning him.

So he's arguing that the condemnation of Christ and the crucifixion of Christ, the rejection of the nation was itself also a fulfillment of prophecy, which we all recognize.

Verse 28, and though they found no ground for putting him to death, they asked Pilate that he be executed. When they had carried out all that was written concerning him, they took him down from the cross and laid him unto them.

But God raised him from the dead. And for many days he appeared to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, the very ones who are now his witnesses to the people.

And he preached to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers that God has fulfilled this promise to our children and that he raised up Jesus, as it's also written in the second psalm.

You are my son, today I have begotten you. As for the fact that he raised him from the dead no longer to return to decay, he has spoken in this way,

I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David. Therefore, he also says in another psalm, do not allow your only one to undergo decay.

Verse 36, for David, after he had served the purpose of God in his own generation, fell asleep and was laid among his fathers and undergo decay, but he whom

God raised did not undergo decay. Therefore, let it be known to you, brethren, that through him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you.

So in that passage, the apostle Paul is arguing that the coming of Christ, the rejection of Christ, the crucifixion of Christ, and then the resurrection of Christ are all filaments of promises that God made to the nation through the prophets.

You'll notice that he specifically cites three different passages as being fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ.

A passage from Psalm 2, where he says in the second psalm, verse 33, you are my son, today

I have begotten you. And Paul is there arguing that that word begotten, which means bring forth, was intended to be a pictorial prophecy of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, that the father would identify the particular son of David who would fulfill this promise by raising him from the dead.

That would indicate which of David's many, at this point, thousands of descendants, would have been the

Messiah, the one who would sit on David's throne. Verse 34, as for the fact that he raised him up from the dead, no longer to return to decay, as spoken in this way,

I give you the holy and sure blessings of David. That's a quotation from Psalm 55, where God is reiterating the

Davidic covenant to the nation, even in the midst of the destruction of the Davidic kingdom in Isaiah's time, and the dissolution, basically, of the

Davidic kingdom in David's time. He is reiterating the promises that God made to David, saying that these holy and sure blessings spoken of in 2

Samuel chapter 7, where God made a covenant with David and swore to seat one of his descendants on his throne and to rule the nations forever, that that promise was still yet to be fulfilled.

So Paul is making the argument, in verse 34, that the fulfillment of the eschatological promises to David required bodily resurrection, and that those eschatological fulfillments could not have been possible if the son of God were not raised from the dead.

So bodily resurrection is essential to the fulfillment of the holy and sure promises to David.

Those promises to David, he will seat one of his descendants on his throne, those promises must be fulfilled.

And so my argument, and this was my throwaway comment, my argument was that basically, if your eschatology does not require bodily resurrection, you do not have the same eschatology as Peter or Paul.

And I say Peter because Peter makes the same argument in Acts chapter 2. He says it even more explicitly,

Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.

And so because he was a prophet and knew that, and now Peter is quoting from the Old Testament, he knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants on his throne, he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of Christ.

So in Acts chapter 2, Peter is making the same argument that Paul makes in Acts chapter 13, namely that David believed that God would seat one of his descendants on his throne, that that would be the fulfillment of Old Testament promises to David, and therefore

God had to raise the Messiah from the dead. Bodily resurrection is necessary. It's essential for the fulfillment of the promises to David.

So my question would be if you are a non -millennialist or a post -millennialist, what in your eschatology requires physical resurrection?

Because a non -millennialist and a post -millennialist would say that Christ is today ruling in the hearts of his people, he's ruling over the spiritual kingdom, he's not ever going to sit on the throne of David and rule physically in this world, in a millennial kingdom, a literal, physical, political kingdom on this earth as it is right now with the curse lifted, but prior to the regeneration of all of creation.

Post -millennialists and non -millennialists would say that that is not going to happen, and therefore I ask you, post -millennialists and non -millennialists, what in your theology, eschatologically, requires bodily resurrection?

Because all of the promises of David, according to a non -millennialist and a post -millennialist, can be fulfilled without bodily resurrection, in a spiritual resurrection or a spiritual rule or a spiritual presence in the heart, on a spiritual throne at God's side.

So therefore, since Paul is arguing that bodily resurrection was essential, necessary, for the fulfillment of the promises to David, a literal, physical, bodily resurrection was essential to that, and that those promises could not be fulfilled without bodily resurrection, therefore,

Peter and Paul were not post -millennialists or non -millennialists. So that's the gist of my argument. And so, just to remind folks, if you want to come in and dialogue with us, go to apologitalive .com,

click on the duck icon there for StreamYard, and you can join us there. Now, there was a

Facebook user that said, post -millennialists completely affirm a bodily resurrection, so I don't see your argument here.

You're muted. I had to take a drink there and clear my throat. That's not my argument.

That's not my argument, because my argument is not that post -millennialists and non -millennialists reject the doctrine of bodily resurrection.

They believe it's soteriologically necessary, but they do not believe that it's eschatologically necessary. So I'm not suggesting that post -mill and non -mill people deny bodily resurrection.

That's not what I'm saying. I believe that all my post -mill brethren believe that Christ was raised physically from the dead.

My question is, what in your eschatology requires bodily resurrection, requires it to fulfill it?

So, can you give—I mean, I think most folks are probably familiar with the three— you're mentioning a -mill, post -mill, pre -mill.

Just give maybe a quick overview of each of the different positions, so people who may be new to this can understand what they are.

All right. So by necessity, I have to paint with a pretty broad brush here, because there are going to be different ways of cashing out each of these eschatologies.

But generally speaking, in the broadest possible terms, all millennialists believe that there is going to be no millennial reign of the

Lord Jesus Christ, not a thousand -year reign like we see promised in Revelation chapter 20.

They would say that that is—they don't believe that there's going to be a millennium. Some of them would say that—some of them, the full preterists,

I think, would say that this is— this right here—our state right now is going to continue as it is until Christ returns and basically burns up this present creation and creates a new heavens and a new earth.

Post -millennialists would say that Christ is going to return after, post, the thousand -year reign described in Revelation 20.

So our post -millennial brethren would say that Christ is— sorry, that Satan is found at this time right now, and that this is the millennium, and that the thousand years is not a literal thousand years, but it's simply a figure of speech for a long period of time.

So right now we're at least 2 ,000 years into this shindig, and so it could be another thousand years or another 5 ,000 years or the 10 ,000 years before Christ's return.

But eventually, over the course of time, things will get progressively better and better, and there will be like a stock market that goes up and down and up and down.

We're in the downtime right now. Things are getting bad in our country. It might be bad for a period of time, but overall, it's trending upward.

It's all getting better. And after we have Christianized the whole world and preached the gospel to the whole world and won

Congress and basically established a Christianized culture, society, and world, then

Christ will return. So we will usher in his return by the Christianization of everything, by making him rule and reign over everything, post -millennialism writ large.

Premillennialism is the belief that bodily resurrection is required because Christ is going to return to this earth, and he is going to set up a kingdom and reestablish

David's kingdom and David's throne, and he's going to sit on that throne in Jerusalem, and he will rule and reign over the nations, and that rule and reign will last for a thousand years.

During that time, which is according to premillennialist future, Satan will be bound, and the curse will be lifted to some extent, and Christ will rule and reign here over a political kingdom and fulfill all the promises made to David and all the

Old Testament saints so that the Old Testament saints were looking forward not to the existence of a heavenly kingdom, but the

Old Testament saints were promised this Messiah who would come and rule the nations and reign and live forever.

And of course, the necessity for him to physically live for a thousand years would require that death no longer had dominion over him, that he was no longer subject to death.

And so, for that reason, the Messiah would have to be raised from the dead. It would be impossible for a descendant of David, who was just an ordinary human being, to assume the throne and live forever, and never hand that kingdom off to a son or any other descendant.

Instead, it would be required for him to fulfill the promise that this son will rule the nations, and he will rule and reign forever, and there will be no end to his kingdom, and to his government there will be no end, and it will expand continually.

That would require somebody who would live forever. So if the Messiah were to come back and to die, and then to rise again, so that death no longer has dominion over him, then he could fulfill all the promises to David, to literally sit on David's throne in Jerusalem, and to rule over that messianic kingdom for a thousand years without dying.

So premillennialism, of course, has to have bodily resurrection as essential to fulfill those promises.

Okay, so we got a question here from Kofi for you. He says, question for Pastor Jim. How would you answer the claim that those prophecies were never intended to be understood literally?

I would say they are in the context of what prophecies are you talking about?

Specifically, the promises to David? That would be the question, I think.

So if you're trying to say the promises are prophecies regarding the eternal kingdom, then

I would say that some of those promises and prophecies come in the very same context, sometimes in the very same sentence, as prophecies that were fulfilled literally.

So when you look at the prophecies and the promises concerning the first coming of Christ, we don't read of him being born in Bethlehem and say, well, that's probably not really

Bethlehem. We don't read of him being born of a virgin. It's probably a symbolic symbol for something else. It's probably a metaphor for something else.

No, all of the prophecies regarding the first coming of Christ were fulfilled literally. Those same prophets spoke the second coming of Christ.

So I think that God has already demonstrated how he intends prophecies to be interpreted by how he has fulfilled all of the prophecies that have already been fulfilled.

And that's literally, not symbolically or metaphorically or spiritually. Well, and he says,

Kofi ends up saying, yes, the prophecies that would suggest that the earthly kingdom made to David and reaffirmed elsewhere.

And this is the thing a lot of people think that when they think of pre -millennialism, they think that's more of a newer view, a newer doctrine.

People tend to think that. Paul held to it. Yeah, yeah. Well, here's the thing. There's a lot of people who think that Augustine, for example, is maybe you'll look at him as really the father of all millennialism.

And yet what you end up seeing is with Augustine, and I wrote a paper on his view of revelation, specifically chapter 20.

And the interesting thing with Augustine is that he believed in a literal thousand year kingdom.

He just thought he was in it. And so realistically, both pre -millennialism and non -millennialism both get their roots from the same guy.

Right. And that's that's Augustine. I mean, from the scriptures. But I mean, you're seeing that both can turn to Augustine because Augustine did teach that there'd be a thousand year literal kingdom.

But he would also teach the things that would be used for Amill saying that it's a period of time because he was teaching that they were in it.

Yeah, that was that was the thing a lot of people don't understand is that the Amill view that we have today, I don't think really was finalized until Pope Innocent II after a thousand

A .D. People are going, hey, it's been a thousand years. Like they were expecting something to happen then.

And they didn't realize. Then you just redefine a thousand years to be symbolic of a long period. Correct. Yeah. And I wasn't able to find early church fathers, not saying that they they're not out there, but I wasn't able to find any of the early church fathers or even

Catholic writers prior to a thousand A .D. that took the thousand years as figurative until that time.

And so that's a case where what I believe is that that's something that, you know, they which is what premillennials get accused of all the time that we we get our theology from the newspapers.

I think that's what happened with our millennialism. A thousand A .D. came and went, and now they are reinterpreting their theology based on current events.

Yeah. Well, doesn't Christ say something about learning to discern the times? I mean, I mean,

I hear this argument all the time that that, oh, you're getting your theology from the newspapers. But Christ said, you'll know it by the seasons.

You can discern the times. And it's it's he's making that point clear on an eschatological point of view at that time.

And he's talking about later on. He says he says, you will know the seasons when you see when you see of of as it was in the days of Noah, as a time of lot, you will understand these things based on those those truths.

I think it's it's a straw man to throw out there and say, oh, you're just looking at the newspaper. Well, I mean, if you look at Luke 21, you see that there's going to be increases of earthquakes.

You're going to see more and more destruction going on and greater and greater events that are going on.

This is prior to the what we would call what we consider to be the rapture. Or if you want to say, oh, well, it doesn't say it there.

There's a purpose. But Luke, Luke 21 actually makes it clear that it's going to get worse and worse.

And everybody tries to say, no, it's going to get better and better. That's not what the Bible is clear about.

As far as I can, as far as I can tell from reading it. The question comes,

I do want to ask a question because somebody else had posted it up here and I couldn't find it again.

What do you say about the argument that the dispensationalist takes the entire

Bible literally and in a wooden sense? And that we take, you know, the true spiritualist,

I guess you could say it. And I'm not trying to cast aspersions, but that's just what I've heard is, you know, in a true spiritual sense, we should take it allegorically as Augustine did.

What would I say to that? Yeah, well, I would say that dispensationalists don't take the

Bible in a wooden literal sense. When Jesus said, I am the door, I read that and think, oh, he's made of wood and hinges and has a doorknob.

And that's a wooden literal sense. The dispensationalist would say that we take the

Bible in the sense in which it was intended, the text in which it was intended. So we have room in our hermeneutics for allegory, sorry, not allegory, for metaphors and symbols and figure of speech and symbolic apocalyptic literature and poetry and different genres all come into that.

The question is, how would the original hearer of the promises to David, how would they have understood what

God promised David? I will seat one of your descendants on your throne. Is it wooden literal to say that David would have understood

God to be promising him to seat one of his descendants on his throne? And all of the Old Testament promises and prophecies regarding the coming kingdom, all of them say the exact same thing.

That the Messiah would come, that he would take David's throne, and that he would rule and reign over the nations forever.

That the nations would bring their worships and their offerings up to Jerusalem. And they would worship, that Egypt would worship the

Messiah, that Moab would worship the Messiah. That all nations would do this and gather together and there would be a rule of prosperity and peace and justice and righteousness.

To take all of that symbolically requires that sometimes in the middle of an Old Testament prophecy, you have to change your hermeneutic.

From a literal interpretation of the first coming of Christ and the promises that were made concerning that.

And then switch hermeneutical grids or frameworks to an allegorical, metaphorical, or symbolic framework.

In order to interpret all of the promises regarding the second coming of Christ. So if John had intended to say that the

Messiah would just rule for a long period of time. There were words in Greek for long periods of time, eons. But he uses the term 6 ,000 or 1 ,000 years 6 times in Revelation 20 verses 1 through 7 or 8 there.

And some people will say, well, there's only one passage that talks about the length of this kingdom. Right, there's only one passage that talks about the length of this kingdom.

There's only one of the Gospels that goes through some of the details of other aspects of Christ's life.

But just because we find something only once in Scripture, doesn't make it less true than things that we find three or four times in Scripture. John is simply taking us to that end time event of the kingdom of Christ.

And he's giving us a detail that the Old Testament did not give us. John doesn't say in the book of Revelation, okay, now all of these promises that were made to David and to his offspring.

All of them now are to be interpreted spiritually. John doesn't do that. Instead, John says that promised kingdom that all the

Old Testament Jews would have understood. He doesn't overturn their understanding of the kingdom. Instead, he says it's going to be a thousand years.

This is what it's going to look like during this time. Satan's going to be bound. And John puts it in its eschatological timeline or framework.

But he doesn't overturn the interpretation that the Jews had of the kingdom. And you see the same thing at the beginning of the book of Acts.

We started talking about the book of Acts, Chapter 13 and Chapter 2. The beginning of the book of Acts is Jesus' ascension.

The disciples came to him and said, is it now that you're going to establish the kingdom? And Jesus didn't stop and say, oh, hold on.

I just spent 40 days with you, and I forgot to tell you all the promises regarding the kingdom. Those are all interpreted differently.

I wish I didn't have to go. I could lay all of this out for you. Instead, he says it's not your business to know the times.

He doesn't say that the kingdom was not going to be established. What were those disciples expecting? The same thing they expected before his crucifixion and resurrection, that he was going to establish the kingdom.

Well, now after his crucifixion and his resurrection, of course, this seemed like the ideal time for him to establish the kingdom. He's victorious over death.

He could set up David's throne. He could rule for however long they thought the millennial kingdom was going to last at that time forever and never die again.

And so they were asking him the natural thing. Is it now the time you're going to set up the kingdom? And he doesn't say the nature of the kingdom has changed.

The promises have changed. Now we're fulfilling them entirely differently than what you expected. He just said no, the timing is not right.

One thing that I wanted to pull up here for you. Yeah, there's a question here because I hear this.

I think it's a straw man all the time. But okay, Jim. So here's somebody who wrote, is Jesus not ruling at the right hand of the father over his children as we speak?

Yeah. So what? Is that all we should expect? Or is there more to come?

I mean, we all would say even if we say that, yeah, he is, we would all say that there's more to come. There's still future aspects of that rule.

So why should we not expect that? Why do we think that his ruling at the right hand of the father now over his children is the fulfillment of the

Davidic promise? And this gets us back to where we started at the beginning with Acts 13. He could do that without bodily resurrection.

So that's the fulfillment of the promise to David. Bodily resurrection was not necessary to do that. Paul and Peter argued that bodily resurrection was essential to the fulfillment of the promises of David.

And if they're making that argument, they were not postmillennialists or amillennialists. Because a postmillennialist and amillennialist could not argue that bodily, physical, literal resurrection from the dead is essential for the fulfillment of the promises to David and thereby their eschatology.

They could say it's a bonus, but they can't say it's essential. He is reigning and ruling, but not in the way that King David was reigning and ruling, which is what all the promises were.

That we would have an eternal kingdom through one person that was going to be an eternal king and reigning and ruling as David.

And that's how David would have understood that promise. And that's why Peter in Acts 2 says, because David knew that God had promised to seat one of his descendants on his throne.

David looked forward and predicted the resurrection. Now, that is only an argument that a premillennialist can make.

Well, 2 Peter 3, I was going to say this, 2 Peter 3, Chris had this question or statement he wanted to make.

He says, talking to me, he says, you realize that from the 2nd century forward, there's always been someone crying that Christ will return in their lifetime.

And then he says Martin Luther was sure that it was the case. And then my response to that is in 2

Peter 3, we are warned, verse 3, know this first of all, that in the last days, mockers will come with their mocking, following with their own lust and saying, where is the promise of his coming?

For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it has from the beginning of creation.

For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God, heaven existed long ago.

And the earth was formed out of the water and by the water through which the world is destroyed.

And we can go on and continue. But the whole point behind that is, is there's always been mockers that have always said, hey, look, you know,

Christ isn't going to come. And Peter says they've always been people. And in the last days, it'll be more and more and more people that will deny the return of Christ.

Now, that's the argument that I'm going to go with. So before I know you're going to say something,

I think before you do, let me just bring in someone that's in the backstage here. Now, this person, I don't know,

Jim, you may or may not recognize him. I don't know if you know who this person is.

I think he once attended your church at some time. I'll tell you, he follows me around like a lost puppy.

You know, he has a little boy, calls it a puppy, but it's more like a bear. Welcome, Justin Peters.

Hey, guys. I got I got no respect. No. Hey, so.

So another question that we didn't have. And, you know, Justin, you can weigh in on this, too.

But this coffee, for some reason, wants to advocate for the devil. But he says another devil's advocate question.

I don't know why he wants to be an advocate for the devil. But OK. So he asked this question for you.

Why does this even matter? Haven't we got bigger fish to fry? Discussing this is a distraction from from being on the offense.

So is this is this really worth having discussions on? Take that one. Yeah, there are bigger fish to fry.

But why should we fry all the fish? This is a fun one.

So there are huge issues that are in our culture, but we have discussed those.

So it's not like we have to neglect any of those things in order to have a lively discussion about the nuances of theology.

And I do think that eschatology is is it's not an essential issue, but it is an important issue.

And it does end up working its way into everything that you teach and preach in some way. Your eschatological framework is always in the background.

So having having clarity on these things and discussing these things, I think, can be helpful. Yeah. So here's a fish to fry.

I say this all the time, but I'll let Melissa take the heat tonight. What's scary about the postmeal position is that it is very similar to what people in NAR believe with a seven mountain mandate.

Does anyone else see this? Yes. Every one of us sees this. Yeah. Yeah. To be fair to the postmillennial brethren, there are a number of postmillennial people who would who would call

Bonk on the New Apostolic Reformation and their eschatology and their theology. Because there's similarities there doesn't necessarily mean that they would advocate that.

But yes, there is similarities. Yeah, absolutely. OK, here's a question for you,

Pastor Jim, from Chris again. So how does revelation affect you practically? What application can be made to your life and to the lives of the original audience?

To the lives of the original audience, I think, written at a time when the church was being persecuted. And I would take around the 70

AD for the writing of Revelation. I'd prefer an earlier date for that. And postmill and omnipeople and preterists are surprised to hear me say that.

But I have no problem dating Revelation right around the destruction of the temple.

And even written in that context, either right before or right after the destruction of the temple, even written in that context,

I think that one of the applications is that it demonstrated to them that ultimately their suffering was under the sovereign control of God.

And that suffering could get worse and that suffering would get worse and there would be difficult times ahead. But ultimately, this is the victor.

And all of the affliction and the persecution and sufferings that would come to God's people cannot overthrow

God's ultimate purpose and aim, which is the establishment of His kingdom and His ultimate victory in reconciling all of creation to Himself.

Okay, so we got, just real quick, someone is saying, a

Facebook user, I don't know who it is, but just says, I need to personally thank Justin's ministry for teaching me that the word of faith, what the word of faith is, prosperity gospel is and NAR is, and that I was put,

I was put a part of this and needed to repent. So whoever the

Facebook user is, they wanted to encourage you, Justin. And Justin, what do you think about Anthony's question about the relationship,

Post Mill, the similarities between that and NAR? Yeah, I mean,

I think we all see the similarities, but as Jim said, in fairness, you know,

I know Post Mill and they would cry, decry the word of faith NAR just as strongly as I would.

So it's kind of a slippery slope, though. I mean, it's, it's Post Mill is headed that direction, but they certainly don't go to the extremes that, you know, that the word of faith

NAR do. But they're, they're, they're kind of, they've got their toes in the water, so to speak.

But, but in fairness to them, they would, they would decry those movements as heretical, as heretical as do we.

So, but yeah, there's undeniable similarities. It's, it's a, it's a difference in degree, primarily.

Okay. We have someone backstage here who's, for folks who've been watching the show for many years will know this name, but Vincent is backstage, brought him in.

Vincent, you have any questions for us tonight? I'm not, can y 'all hear me?

Yep. I'm not sure how to do this anymore, man. It has been many, it has been over a year.

It's been a little while. Yeah, we've been on a discord, so I got to get used to something else. The only thing

I was curious then, what is, what is y 'all's interpretation of like Matthew 28, like 16 through 20, where it says all authority in heaven and earth have been given to me.

A lot of the, you know, post mill types will use that to say this, this is a command to carry this out in a post mill fashion.

What is y 'all's thought on, on that? Who wants to take that one?

I'm assuming, I'm assuming that the gist of the question is that because Christ has been given all authority, we are to make that authority to bear in this world through establishing his kingdom here.

That is exactly how they interpret that. So, yeah, I think it's a non sequitur in terms of logically, just because he has all authority in heaven and earth does not mean that he has given that authority to us.

Nor would I say that that means that therefore the expression of that authority is going to work itself out through what we do in here on earth.

He has that authority, but not now, but at some point he will use authority to establish the

Davidic Messianic Kingdom. Yeah, I would agree with that.

I'm, I'm reading here. You're talking about the great commission, Matthew 28, you know, 18 through 20.

And you think about what he's saying. He says, all authority has been in heaven and earth has been given unto me.

He's not saying that you have it because he tells us specifically what our job to do. Because he has all the authority, we are to go therefore make disciples of all the nations and baptize them in the name of the father, son, and the

Holy Spirit. Now, if you're trying to say that, that the command to go out into all the nations and make disciples of all the nations is to, is to take dominion over them.

He actually refers to baptizing them in the name of the father, son, the Holy Spirit. Right.

You know, so, and he says to teach them all that I've commanded you to observe all that I command you and lo,

I am with you always, even to the end of the age. What's the referent to the end of the age?

Is it, is it saying that the end of the age is 70 AD? Is it saying that the end of the age is 168?

Is it saying the end of the age is, I mean, give me a timeline here because, because what we're not seeing is that we are to exercise dominion and take over the world.

But we're supposed to proclaim the gospel of Christ and the, what Christ did. Right. We're supposed to be proclaiming his doctrine and his, his commands and making disciples and baptizing.

That's what we take. We take the gospel of Christ. We take the, those truths in that direction.

So I don't know how I would go any further than that, you know, on that, that, that, that versus.

Yeah, I agree. I guess that's just their, the interpretation is that, yeah, you're supposed to increase in this world continually.

Well, but one thing you got to think about is you got to admire the fact that you have a godly men, godly women who take seriously that, you know,

Christ is the king. I mean, look, every post -millennial and non -millennial, you know, whatever those groups, they have their reasons for, for what they believe.

And, you know, praise God, that's, that's, that's where they're going for it. You know, there are those that, that I listened to in seminary classes

I'm listening to, and they would say, you know, I'm, I'm post -mill or I'm on mill or whatnot.

And every one of them are strong to say that there is a limit to their millennial view that if you don't believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ and you don't believe in his physical return, that you're anathema.

They would say that that is heretical. And, and, and so we say that, that, you know, even of course, this passage here,

I am with you always in the end of the age, we're looking for Christ to return physical, you know?

And so I would respect my amillennial and post -millennial brothers and sisters that, that hold to a view that Christ is going to return.

And so we're going to go proclaim the gospel to everyone, everywhere. I would disagree with a lot of their positions on things, but I love them as, as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Amen. I'm the correct view, by the way, I'm historic pre -mill, so. There was a question earlier,

I'm trying to find it, but someone was asking the question is, is pre, is pre -mill, pre -millennialism the same as pre -trib?

So we kind of jumped into the major views, but pre -millennialism has three separate views.

Jim, you want to explain the three lower views that are, the three views that are within? Actually, there could be more, there could be a fourth in, that's under the pre -millennialism.

Yeah. So inside pre -millennialism, the pre -trib view has to do with the timing of the rapture concerning a relationship to the tribulation.

And so you can be a pre -millennial and be pre -trib, mid -trib, post -trib, or pre -raft, any of those positions and still hold to pre -millennialism.

Because millennialism, your view of the millennium, not the tribulation. So by pre -millennialism's eschatology, the tribulation will precede the millennium.

Christ will return at the end of that tribulation, establish that 1 ,000 year reign of Christ. So in relation to the rapture of the church, or I should say the rapture of the church in relation to the tribulation, you can hold one of four views.

That is, number one, that Christ will return before he pours out his wrath on the nation of Israel and the non -believing world, and he will snatch his church out.

And then most pre -tribs would say that there's at least a seven -year period of time in which that wrath is going to be poured out.

A mid -tribber would believe that the rapture is going to happen not in the first three and a half years, and there will be a peace treaty between the nation of Israel and the

Antichrist. But at the point in the middle of the tribulation where the Antichrist sets up himself in the temple to worship his

God and breaks his peace treaty with the nation of Israel and comes against Israel to persecute it and try and destroy the

Jews, that that rapture will happen at that point. And a post -tribulation rapture position would be that Christ, or sorry, that Christ will snatch his church up at the end of that seven -year period of tribulation.

So that about seven years, three and a half years of relative peace, three and a half years of great tribulation.

And at the end of that, Christ will rapture his church and then return with it immediately following that to establish the millennial reign of Christ.

And then Marvin Rosenthal back in the late 80s, early 90s, maybe 1990s, came up with the pre -wrath position, which is sort of a modified mid -trib position.

Yes. Yeah. So Melissa was asking this question, and I don't know who you want to answer this one, but can you guys touch on replacement theology with regards to Israel?

So any of you guys want to address that one? Replacement theology is basically the view, as the name implies, that the church has replaced

Israel. And so all of the promises that God made to Israel in the

Old Testament have been fulfilled in the church, basically, is kind of the Cliff Notes version of that.

I think it's very dangerous teaching. I don't believe that, I don't hold to replacement theology.

I believe that, kind of like what Jim was saying earlier when I first came in, that you would seemingly have to just randomly change your hermeneutical grid to accommodate for that.

You would kind of have to jump the historical grammatical approach to hermeneutics, literal historical grammatical approach to hermeneutics, just kind of jump the tracks from that and start allegorizing or spiritualizing these promises that God made to Israel to accommodate that and replace

Israel with the church. And I don't see that. I don't see any reason to do that.

I don't see any theological reason to do it. I don't see any hermeneutical reason to do that.

Not that we base our theology off of current events or what we see, but there's something to be said for the fact that Israel is the only nation in the history of the planet that has ever existed, ceased to exist, and then come back into existence like it did in 1948.

It's the only nation in the history of the planet that that's ever happened to. Hebrew is the only language that was ever spoken, ceased to be spoken, and is now spoken again.

And so it's almost like God has a plan for Israel or something. I don't know. It's just weird.

But I would think it would have been easier,

I guess, in a sense, to have been amillennial before the 1940s.

But I don't know. It's very, very compelling. That was the prevalent position from the amillennial, postmillennial position until you had the first great war.

They called it the war to end all wars, and then they had another one. It was kind of saying, look, everything isn't getting all better.

The idea is, according to a dispensational point of view, according to Jesus, the

Scripture makes it clear that evil times will wax worse and worse, and it's going to get more and more like we see right now with pastors going to prison and hardships coming and people being murdered for the name of Christ and things like that.

I think it's an important conversation to have. It's like somebody said here just a moment ago that we love our brothers and sisters in the

Lord in every direction, whatever position they take. And while these views are important to have, we just have them with grace and mercy.

And I tell you, one thing that gets to me is every one of us are going to be corrected when we get to heaven. So I'm OK with saying this is what

I hold to. And if I'm right, praise God. I hope I am. I'm trying my best to do my very best in understanding the word of God.

And I know Jim is and Andrew and all of us, Justin. I know we're trying to understand the word of God as best we can.

And I just want to make sure that we understand it in grace and kindness. So Chris Harris, he said that covenant theology is not replacement theology.

And that's what is said a lot of times.

But to be understood is what they say is it's not replacement because it's always been this way.

So we're not actually speaking of replacement theology. I just want to make sure that his point of view is point out clearly.

Just to be fair. Yeah. Yeah. So I'm just seeing someone.

Someone is Justin Peters. Tick tock has found my for your page.

I don't get what he's saying. Justin Peters. Tick tock. Justin Peters has never been on. Tick tock. Yeah. Now look, there are fake accounts all over YouTube.

I just reported one that was a YouTube Facebook account where they made it look like your page and then said that you were having visions and dreams.

Yeah. I think they're all from Nigeria. These knuckleheads. Hey, hey, hey, hey.

Did you want me to take that down? Yeah, I can stop that if you want. You're a knucklehead.

I'm not from Nigeria. I'm from North Idaho, man. All right.

So we got someone that shift gears maybe from end times. A longtime listener, supporter,

Joe Conkle is with us. He was trying to get in last time, but the Wi -Fi wasn't so good. So Joe, welcome. Thank you.

Thanks for having me. So you got a question for us tonight. Yeah, I did.

I was wondering how a millennial, post -millennial would interpret

Daniel chapter nine, the 70th week. Yeah, this is a good one.

So and this I think you had this question from when we had someone come in.

I'm just trying to pull up my descriptions here. So I'm not looking off this way, but move it over here.

But this was a question that we had raised some time ago.

And this is the thing that I've seen with this is the 70 weeks passage. And this is what

I think is the strongest. I believe this is the strongest premillennial passage because you really have a problem interpreting this any other way.

In my view, most everybody that I've spoken to with this passage will take.

There's three breakdowns here of the 70 of the seven year periods. Right. So you have the 60 of the seven year period, a 62 seven year period, and then a one seven year period.

And it is everyone will take these as literal years. And they match with history.

There's the decree to rebuild the city. We have a seven seven year period or sorry, 49, 49 year period, which is the first of the seven weeks.

And then there's a 62 year period. The 49 years is the building of the city.

We then have the extra two years brings us into the time of Christ. And then it says in verse 26, then after 62 weeks.

So there's it allows for a break in time there. And then this final one week covenant.

So I don't see how you can interpret this outside of if you're going to take this literal as I have a premillennial view.

Now, what you'll see what I've seen a millennial do is they'll take the first 69 weeks literal.

Some will even take the first half of that that three and a half year period.

If you look at the at the passage, it is going to say that in verse 27, and he will make a firm covenant with many for one week.

But in the middle of the week, he will he will put a stop to sacrifices and grain offerings.

So some will say that it's even literal. And that for that middle, that three and a half years was that was the ministry of Christ.

He brings an end. But the problem they always have is that last either seven year period or three and a half year period, whichever way they go, because they have to take that figurative.

And there's nothing in the text that I can see that lets you take everything literal and then that last section as figurative.

And so that's the thing that I see. Now, the only the only consistent that I've heard is from one of millennialists when he pointed this out, where he then switched to say that this is all figurative.

Since, you know, it was a thing where he was, you know, he saw the logic and then kind of stopped and said, well, it's all figurative.

He was originally saying it's literal. So I, I would say. Did Justin Peters just fall down?

Fell over. Yeah. Oh, I love you, brother.

It's the palsy. I mean, nobody's let a pick on you now and everything is like, oh, man.

I can't cerebral palsy up my stairs. I can't cerebral palsy. It works.

It's convenient. I'll tell you what, when you get in heaven and you get your glorified body, we're going to make fun of you for all this.

It's going to be running around. I'm not waiting until then. It's the only intersectionality point

I've got, man. Hey, you know, I love telling this story.

But a friend of ours, Justin Peters and ours, we have a friend, Ed Romine. And I love telling the story.

He and I were in New York City at the, doing some evangelism in the city. And just picture the scene.

Ed is in like, there was this circular area. Ed is in the center in his wheelchair. He's got a headset on, connected to two wireless speakers.

And he's preaching the gospel. Okay. And this, this big guy, he's trying to figure out who's preaching and he's getting upset.

He actually turns to the speaker, the speaker itself, the audio speaker.

And he just yells at it. He goes, whoever you are, I'm going to punch you in the nose when

I find you. And so Ed just goes, you're going to punch a handicapped man? Because Ed has cerebral palsy worse than Justin does.

And all of a sudden this guy just zoomed in and noticed and looked at Ed. And there's Ed and he's just there eye to eye.

And the guy starts walking over to Ed. And I'm like getting nervous. Like I'm like walking over to like try to protect Ed. And the guy just walks up to Ed, gives him a fist pump and goes, keep up the good work, man.

And walks off. Like after Ed was done preaching, I was like, what was that?

He goes, man, a handicapped man can get away with anything. I'm like, I would have been punched in the nose. He gives you a fist bump.

So just blame it on the palsy. That's okay. So, so, I mean, that's how I would, I'd answer the question,

Joe. I don't think there is a good argument that you can make when it comes to Daniel 9. Other than to say it's all figurative.

That there's, that none of these have anything to do with actual years. But then you have the problem that so much of this is very, it seems very liberal.

So then you have to figure out what does the rest of this mean then. And then you start really playing games, I think, with the scripture if you're going to do that.

I don't know if any of you guys have any, any other views with, with Daniel 9. No. Okay.

Does that answer the question? Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. And, and actually you wanted to ask this some time ago, but it comes in more fitting for this show.

So, yeah, it worked out well. Wow. Glad you could have me on today.

Is Mike Stockwell listening in the background? Because I know he's there. No, we were watching a

Christian movie. That I was really, really hoping that Theonomist would get in there and reclaim television movies and make them so much better.

But, you know. Well, they're trying right now. It's one of their, one of their mountains.

Yeah. I'll tell you what. You gotta work on that. It doesn't seem like nothing else is working either, you know.

I mean, Christians can't even make good Christian movies. Forget about the rest of me.

They can't even make good Christian movies. Yeah. Well, for anybody in the

Cleveland, Ohio area, Joe and, and Mike Stockwell are coming up to Cleveland tomorrow.

And we're going to do some preaching at Cleveland State University. And then have some fellowship at my house afterwards. Everyone's invited.

Everyone here is invited if you guys want to come to Cleveland. So, you know, any other questions you got,

Joe? Nothing I can think of, no. I mean, you guys do a good job answering questions that when

I watch the show and something comes to mind, you guys seem to answer it. So, keep up the good work.

Well, thank you. Praise the Lord. Thank you very much. Nice to see you again, Jim. Hey, good seeing you again, buddy.

All right. So, so here's, you know, we've talked about end times, but we're having both

Justin and Jim in here, you know, and we do have our cluck commander here.

He's, he's, he showed his chickens earlier. There we go. Chickens up while Jim was talking.

Is he chicken fighting him? Did I just see one peck at the other? Yeah, it was terrible. Yeah, there actually is.

Do you know where the, you know, the whole idea of the chickens pecking is it's our pecking order is when you feed chickens, they peck on each other to who's going to be the first to eat.

And so that's the idea of pecking order. But you do that when people put sushi in front of you.

No, I just eat the sushi. I don't, I don't give you time to, you know,

Justin does that with the loop, but that's okay. Make sure he's first eating. Which way that one.

How would that one, that one? There you go. Everything to do with it. It's sweet.

Yeah. So since we've got Jim and Justin here, let me ask this question.

In kind of Christian current events, we've had some things going on.

So let me just ask your take. We've had a well -known preacher who has left the

Southern Baptists and now repented of her, her, you know, heresy of, you know, compatibilism.

So any thoughts, anything you guys would like to share on this world renowned, wonderful gospel preacher known as Beth Moore?

Yeah. She announced her involvement in promoting complementarianism and, and, and ever supporting it.

Yeah. Yeah. She was finally just honest about what we've, everybody with theological

IQ above freezing has known for the last six years, at least, is that she's, she's not complementarian.

She's egalitarian and has been for a long time. I did an interview with Susan Heck, put it up on my

YouTube channel a few days ago, talking about those issues with her in regards to Beth Moore.

And I'm going to have a couple other, at least two other, maybe three other videos coming out on Beth Moore as well, dealing with other issues.

But yeah, it's high time that we start calling a spade a spade.

Beth Moore is a false teacher. You know, it's always good when the wolves take off the sheep's leg. Yeah. You know,

Jim and Justin, the three of us had done a podcast together for, I think it was the rap report pod.

I can't remember if we did our projects live or the rap report. We dealt with Beth Moore and we, we addressed the fact that she came out at that time.

This is a couple of years ago. She was defending she was defending complementarianism in words only.

And that was the whole thing of what we were doing was looking at what she was saying and comparing it to what she was doing.

And we, we made the case. She's egalitarian. She's just trying to put a facade up and deceive people into thinking she's complementarian.

And people attacked us when we did that show saying a whole bunch of her followers were coming after us saying how we're, we're lying.

And we're, you know, we're saying things untrue about her. The question

I would have is, you know, I don't know. Did, did you guys get any, anyone coming to you asking for forgiveness for the terms that they use to describe us as being these wicked, awful people?

Now that she's come and admitted we were right? Andrew, I, most of the time,

Beth Moore's followers are the most tolerant, loving, sympathetic, gracious, kind people that you'll ever meet anywhere on the internet.

And so I have a hard time believing you've got even one scathing email or comment about that.

So I haven't personally received any, any apologies for any of that. Sarcasm runs thick with Jim.

It's dripping. There's a pool of it right here on my head. And here's a comment

I think you guys would agree with. Melissa says, Susan Heck is an amazing example of what a godly woman looks like.

So is Michelle Leslie for that matter. And I would agree with both of them. Both of those with that comment.

So, yeah, there's a handful of good solid ladies out there. Susan Heck, Michelle Leslie, Elizabeth Prada, Martha Pease, Amy Spreeman, Janet Mefford, and Debbie Lynn Kespert, who calls herself

Headstick Deb. I would commend her as well. So Calculus Man's here.

He has an eschatology question. It's easy for you to say.

All right, yeah. Well, I guess for starters, I guess in regards to eschatology resources, one guy

I follow somewhat closely is a guy named Dr. Michael Vlach. Would he be considered a good resource in regards to accurately representing the three primary eschatology views?

Absolutely. Absolutely. Yeah, Michael Vlach is excellent. He wrote a book on, it's a primer on dispensationalism.

I don't remember the title of it right now, but it's a thin book, just kind of an overview, answering some of the common objections to dispensationalism, and really kind of presenting the essence, the essential nature of dispensationalism.

Divorced from a lot of the baggage that has collected around that over the years. People are often surprised to find out that I'm a dispensationalist and that I object to hearing the voice of God and binding

Satan charismatic gifts because too often people associate dispensationalism as being part and parcel with a lot of that extra baggage.

And Michael Vlach in his book on dispensationalism does a good job of just getting down to the essence of what true dispensationalism is and what makes it different from post -millennialism and non -millennialism.

For sure. There's also a great little book called Revelation 20 and the

Millennial Debate by Matt Waymire. That's fantastic. That's another, it's a thin book, you know, easily digestible, but very handy, very good kind of a...

That's it. That's it. This is it. Now there's the other one, Has the

Church Replaced Israel? He has multiple books. He Will Reign Forever.

There are multiple books. I tell you, I would recommend them. They're very balanced, very fair. And that's the thing is he's not vitriolic.

He just goes through the scripture. He has a lot of videos that I would recommend on YouTube. You can go right on there and find him.

He's very solid, very balanced. And I think he's a great brother. Yeah.

And those YouTube videos, are they like on the Master Seminary website for those playlists that they have for their seminary courses?

If you just type his name in, he's got probably a half a dozen or more.

Yeah. Has the Church Replaced Israel is one of his videos as well. Okay. Cool.

Cool. Any other questions for us tonight? Yeah. One other one here. So I know a lot of ongoing posts know they would take

Romans 11 to be symbolic in that regard in regards to the national salvation of Israel. I think

I've heard the argument before. Like if you look at this currency of Israel, say like, for example, when you guys are going on your trip to Israel here later this year, they'll be illegal to evangelize and that sort of thing.

So people say, well, the average Jew right now is secular, especially in the national state of Israel. There's a lot of pro -homosexual stuff going on.

So therefore, has God given up on Israel because the currency of Israel is like really secular and pro -homosexual and all that stuff?

If you want me to answer from what I understand, just I'll answer this way.

Everybody on this audience was elect before the foundation of the world. Right. So that means at a certain point in time,

God predestined that we were going to come to Christ. Well, that's the same with the elect of Israel.

Those people may or may not be born yet. Whenever time that takes place, those that Christ has decreed from before the foundation of the world are going to come to salvation, that God's creed that they're going to come to salvation.

And that just because, you know, Israel's in judgment or because, you know, we weren't grafted in at a certain point in time, that doesn't mean that God's purpose of election fails.

That doesn't mean that his eternal work, you know, I hear the gospel is going to win.

Absolutely. Praise God, it's going to win. He's going to get every single person he ever died for.

Yeah. Amen. That's what I got. Yeah. Yeah.

Well, thanks, Chris, for that. So another thing

I'm trying to find, there was another someone was asking about Kay Arthur. You got what are your thoughts on Kay Arthur, guys?

Good, solid, not solid. I went to one of her conferences where they did, taught us how to diagram and do the work that she was doing.

And but I mean, this was probably 15 years ago. I can't tell you now.

I don't have a clue. I guess maybe it's a good thing. Isn't that a good thing that she's not there with Beth Moore and running around?

Yes, I would say that overall, overall, she's good.

The one caveat, and it's a significant one, is that I know that she does not take the stand that like Susan Heck and Elizabeth Prada and these other ladies

I just mentioned would when it comes to women teaching men. She I don't think you would see her get up on a

Sunday morning. But at the same time, she I know because of conversations I've had with Susan Heck that that Kay Arthur does not does not draw that as clear a line as she needs to when it comes to complementarianism.

OK, so let's this is something I wanted to kind of deal with at the beginning of the show.

I could I was trying to find the video for it, but I couldn't. But, you know, this week has been something in the news, especially in Canada.

And I want to get your take on some of this, guys. We saw on Sunday or actually before Sunday, starting starting last last time that we did this show, we were talking about this.

The fact that in preparation for Resurrection Sunday up in Canada, Pastor James Coates, who was released from prison.

Well, the church where he pastors, the police came in with a fence company and they put a fence around the building.

Then they put a fence around the parking lot. Then they went in and took the inner fencing and put a privacy fence around it.

So you couldn't see what they might be doing there. Next day, they came at five in the morning to put in a fence all around the grass area.

So three levels of fencing to keep people out of this church prison.

Yeah. And so Sunday came. The church was not at the building.

They met at an undisclosed location. So even Pastor John MacArthur had said that, you know,

Canada, they're going underground for church now. And here's the thing I found so amazing is here.

You had them, you know, people that were out there protesting on Resurrection Sunday, singing hymns.

And the police were, you know, came in in a large forces to move everyone on. And that happens on Sunday.

And then we have the beginning of Ramadan. And in Canada, I had someone sent me a 40 second clip of a person who videotaped one of the local

Islamic centers. And what you ended up seeing is there was police there to direct traffic.

The parking lot filled, filled. And that's why they needed direct traffic, because there was a line of cars waiting to come in.

And so here in the same country, same area where you have them saying that, no, a church has to be closed down for one of its highest holidays,

Resurrection Sunday. But then with Ramadan again, and I pointed this out last year, the same behavior you see when

Ramadan comes, the state is helping. We saw this in New York City last year when churches were being shut down and people were being arrested for having church in New York City.

For, you know, Passover synagogues were closed. Then they had the issues with Resurrection Sunday.

And now Ramadan last year, we had the mayor of New York. He was out there setting up places for 75 places for people to get halal food.

They actually, before Ramadan, sent city workers into the mosques to map out where people can stand to pray.

So with this this week, I mean, what do you guys see? We got the issues with Grace Life Church in Canada.

We see this clear hypocrisy now when churches are being shut down and the mosques, they haven't been shut down at all.

No one wants to talk about that. What are your thoughts on that? Who wants to go first? I think that somebody should file a lawsuit.

I don't know why there haven't been dozens of class action lawsuits filed against government officials, government agencies, health districts, and these factless tyrants already.

That's unequal protection under law. It's obviously a violation of your constitutional rights. It's the establishment of religion.

If the government had done that for Christians while persecuting Muslims, I think everybody would object to that.

In fact, I know everybody would object to that. The left would burn the country down if the rules were reversed.

So it's obviously—the only way to explain this is that this is a satanic delusion, and this is a nation under judgment, and Canada is a nation under judgment as well.

Right now, righteousness is being punished, and everything evil and wicked is being promoted and celebrated. Who else wants to answer?

Justin? I'm just going to—I'm in shock. I don't—I mean, you know, as we talk about end times eschatology—you might want to take me off for a minute.

I'm going to get emotional in just a second. I'll tell you, I don't want to see my brothers and sisters persecuted.

I don't want to see this country fall. I don't want to see it—I love being an

American. I love this country. I love where I live. But I know that we have a home in heaven, and it breaks my heart to see these things going on, but I expect it, and I hate to see it.

You know, I hate to see my brothers being put in prison for the name of Christ. And, you know,

I've been reading a book by D .A. Carson on reforming prayer life.

And I want to say to everybody, you need to read that book, because we need prayer warriors.

Godly men, godly women who will stand in prayer, you know, open up Paul's prayers and be praying for the persecuted around the world, because it's going to happen in our homes and around the world, and this is just awful.

I just—I'm in shock, but it's—I shouldn't be, but I am. You know, this is the reason, for folks who may not be aware, on this same

YouTube channel, and actually in the same Facebook groups, Wednesday nights, you'll see at 7 o 'clock

Eastern time that I'm doing a Bible study, you know, for Striving Fraternity on 1

Peter. And we chose that book specifically because this is a book on suffering.

And I think it's to prepare us for what we have coming our way.

And I think that if you haven't been watching that, you can—we're only about three studies in, so, you know, it'd be good to catch up and then follow along.

And if you have church on Wednesday nights, good, go to church. You can always catch it afterwards on YouTube.

But, you know, we've been getting a lot of good feedback from that as well. So, Justin Peters, you want to add anything, or Anthony, on what we see going on with Canada and—

Cut the fences down. Yeah. Well, look, we're doing that.

The protesters were doing that. You know what? The church should. The church should stand up. I'm sorry. I know this is going to get into the same rabble we had last week.

And, you know, there's not enough time to finish this now. At some point, Christians have to be men and stand up.

At some point, pastors have to be men and stand up. I'm sorry. This is ridiculous. So at some point, you stand up.

They're being just as disobedient in going and hiding somewhere and meeting as they would by cutting down fences and going and meeting there.

So I just don't understand this. It is clear that the Canadian government is targeting

Christians. They're not targeting any other religious group. And it's time to stand up.

So, Andrew, what he's saying is we need to take dominion. Yeah, that's what I think he's saying.

As I've always said, we operate post -mill, even though we're really dispensationalists. They operate correctly.

They just don't have their end times actually right. Yeah, so Laura says, uh -oh, Anthony is going to get picked on again.

Get picked on again. But I agree. Stand up. So, you know, the issue is

I actually think that Pastor Coates is doing the right thing. His focus is on his church and his people. And so they're going to meet so that they can continue the worship of God.

I thought that that's the right thing to do on a Sunday. Not to distract from the worship of our

Lord and Savior Jesus Christ on a Sunday morning. So I actually thought it was a good idea for them to go and meet in an undisclosed location.

Because no matter what, if they tried to meet out there, that would have been just a spectacle.

And they wouldn't have a service where they're worshiping God. That service would be more of a protest. And so there were people that were there and they were protesting.

And that was different. And the church wanted to be known that their church was not there. But I think that what you end up seeing is

I think that their focus has been on getting the gospel message out. And they've been using this and allowing this to continue to communicate the gospel.

There's a lot of people that are protesting. They're communicating the gospel. They're worshiping God. They're worshiping

God. Who knows this, right? They're hiding. I'm sorry. This sounds really pious.

Again, you're getting into this pious attitude again. They're worshiping God. I agree.

I have no problem with them doing this on Sunday. Then go on Monday morning and cut down the fences. You have all week to cut down your fences.

And show people how much you trust God and his sovereignty and that you're willing to die for the gospel.

You're willing to die for the promotion of the one true God that exists. Hold on,

Justin. Justin, hold on. The same way the apostles ran around when Jesus was resurrected.

And they've been running around and didn't worry about getting killed. The same way the Christians should be today. Justin, you're going to need to help me out.

Isn't this the same Anthony who said he won't trust God to take a vaccine? That's right.

To get the gospel message out, he's not going to take a vaccine. I'm sorry.

Hold on. Let me try this right now. Everyone of you who are listening, you are a sinner.

You've broken God's law continuously. And if you don't repent and put your trust in Christ and trust in his death, burial, and resurrection, you will be in hell for eternity.

Amen. Here you go. I gave the gospel. And guess what? I have not gotten poked. I have not gotten jabbed. I have not gotten it.

And I can give the gospel still. I think you're hiding. Hey, Jim, I want to ask you a question. And I'll be at Cleveland State tomorrow preaching the gospel without a shot.

Oh, and by the way, without a mask, even though we were surrounded by 25 students last week telling us, you must wear a mask.

It's campus policy. I'm not a student here. So I want to ask a question.

If they don't cut down the fences and they just share the gospel, is that good enough?

Is that okay? You know what? I would be happier if they went there and they were protesting and they were sharing the gospel.

Yes. I would be much happier with at least that. Because here's the thing. One thing I didn't say last week.

I've said it before. I have no problems. I have no problems with protesting.

That's why I got to pull it back up. Because it's the husband says there isn't a worship service. You've got to read that.

That's funny. Husband says there isn't a worship service till someone is tased.

That's right. That's when you know the Holy Spirit is working. So I use the same argument in terms of protesting.

I know, Andrew, you brought it up last week that I was one of those guys protesting last year in Ohio. And you know what?

Christians have been protesting outside of abortion mills for years. Guess what? Abortion is legal. Abortion is allowed.

And if you use the same logic, then Christians shouldn't be outside abortion mills either. So I have no problems with Christians going and preaching the gospel and protesting outside of Capitol buildings, outside of churches that they got locked out of, or anywhere else.

So I think we have to be consistent. And that's being consistent. So, yes, they should be at least protesting and then cutting down the fences.

So Brad says time for pastors of the flock to put on their coats coat.

That's a good pun there. So Linda is asking Anthony if he can cite scripture to support his protesting.

Yeah, well, so what I'm going to do first is say the scripture is obey God and not man. And so I'm going to be much more concerned about doing what we're supposed to be doing as Christians.

The government has no business in our churches. But the church is meeting. They have no business in our building, on our land, where we meet.

They have no business. We were asked for the scripture. And you know what I'm hearing? I'm hearing this. I just gave the scripture in Acts.

Obey God and not man. We are called to meet. And they don't have a right to kick us out of there.

We're still waiting for the scripture that you can cite. As soon as you tell me the same scripture that you use to stand outside of abortion mills, then we can meet on that common scripture ground.

That's the same issue. You've been out there with me. Yeah, but I'm not saying scripture supports it.

I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that we're out there sharing the gospel. See, I'm out there to share the gospel.

You're protesting abortions. No, I'm not. I'm sharing the gospel. I'm just doing it at an abortion mill. Do you say anything at all about abortions while they're there?

The evils of abortion. People save the baby's life. Yes. Well, actually, no.

I don't. I usually actually. Typically, when I'm at an abortion mills, I talk about slavery.

Okay. My reasoning. My reasoning is. I argue for slavery.

And there's a reason I argue for slavery at abortion mills. I will argue for slavery.

And the benefits of slavery until I get someone. Because most of the time, people who are going to abortion mills are going to be black.

Why? Because they put them in black communities. Because Margaret Sanger wanted to get rid of black people.

And so they usually get somebody who's going to stand out and finally say that slavery is wrong.

And I try to argue for benefits of slavery. People took care of each other. They would take care of the people that they owned and feed them and clothe them in health care.

They didn't have to worry about any of that. I'll just keep arguing until I get. There's one thing I want to have someone say at the abortion mill.

That it's wrong to own another human being. Because once they say that, they just lost the abortion argument.

Because all I do is ask the question, what's the difference between this is my property and this is my body?

They're both ownership issues. However, my goal at the abortion mill is the gospel, Anthony. So I can give plenty of scripture and say plenty of scripture for preaching the gospel.

Why don't you go somewhere else? Because they're doing what they're legally allowed to do at the abortion mills. But see,

I'm not trying to get them to stop at the abortion mill. I'm trying to get them to believe the gospel. Because I believe that if enough people believe the gospel, the governors and politicians will just pretend to be

Christian and follow suit. So in all fairness, Linda, I don't see Jesus doing either tearing down fences or protesting abortions.

Well, actually, he went in and flipped the money changers' tables inside his father's house. And it's that same father's house that is being fenced off.

No, it is not. Did you just compare the temple to a church building?

You know what? We are temples of the Holy Spirit. We meet there in fellowship. And they are blocking off these areas.

This is where we meet. I know it's not the temple. That is not the sacrificial system, my friend.

I'm sorry. I'm not saying it's a sacrificial system. Well, that's what the temple was. Yeah. I mean, they didn't have weddings in there like the

Mormons thing. How are you being a hyper -dispensationalist? Look, we can't all live in a free state like Idaho.

Well, that's a good question. So, Jim, what would you do if you woke up tomorrow morning and you had fences around your church?

He lives in Idaho. They wouldn't do that. Well, hey, you know what? It's going to happen at some point here. Well, if that would happen to us,

I would – I'd have to evaluate the situation, what the arguments being made were. But I would be inclined to do exactly what you did and just cut the fences and go in anyway.

And probably immediately have a lawyer who would be ready to file a suit and say, you're trespassing on our property by putting up fences and you're violating our constitutional rights.

And I would have a lawsuit filed immediately. And I would Facebook -live the whole thing. I would videotape it and make some people famous and do everything

I could to go about our normal operational business. We're going to have to get used to the fact that in this country, this is going to happen more and more and more in this country.

And even in the face of persecution, the Christians are just going to have to say, you can arrest all of us if you want, so go ahead and arrest all of us.

We're going in. And this is what we do and this is who we are. So if you're going to arrest us, then arrest us.

I don't have any problem with them arresting us if they want to do that. Cut the fences, tear them down, walk over top of it. If BLM did that, if you – can you imagine a government official doing this to a

BLM location, fencing that off? Because Antifa was meeting there and they didn't want them meeting there because they're a threat to physical people or to property.

The left would burn the country to the ground for somebody doing that. And yet BLM and Antifa, they just cut the fences and go right over top of it.

The police would stand down. And I think if Christians just showed up with cameras in hand and said, we're going to go in here, we're going to cut the fences down, we're going to walk through them, we're going to go worship.

If you're going to arrest all of us, then arrest all of us and at least go on the news we're arresting the whole church. 300, 400 people, however it is,

I hope you brought a lot of cuffs because we're all going to jail today. At some point you just have to say that and make them back it up.

Yep. Well, at least there's two of us on the show. I just want to know why Anthony's still here and not up in Canada cutting some fences down.

Yeah, what's wrong with that? It's not his church, man. It's not my church. Oh, that's convenient. And look, the reality is that their church,

I mean, KT said, please look up Devin Davis's personal blog.

I watched the video. I understand where they're coming from. I disagree with it, but it's not my church.

I think every pastor is going to have to make decisions regarding that. John MacArthur waited a lot longer than we did before he went back to meeting.

I didn't criticize him for waiting longer than other people did. There was another pastor in the town here where we live who never shut down his church at all for COVID.

We did because we didn't know what was going on. We were told that there was going to be a 30 % infection mortality rate, that 30 % of people who got this were going to die.

That's what we were originally told. So we shut down for six weeks until we came to the conclusion that, though the virus is real, the crisis is manufactured.

The panic porn is all manufactured. And once we came to that conclusion, we went back to meeting. And fortunately, we live in an area where the sheriff is behind us, and he never even shut down that other church for meeting, even though they didn't shut down for a single week of the

COVID scare. And he didn't criticize me. I didn't criticize him. We shut down for about six weeks.

He didn't at all. Other pastors are still shut down in our area. And I think that we've got to have room in our theology of pastors who will make different decisions in different settings.

But, yeah. Jim, I don't think it's really fair for you to do that comparison for one reason.

We happened to see this picture from your pulpit. And when you have Nancy Pelosi at your pulpit,

I think that it's – I mean, here's a picture of you in your office.

We have here with Nancy, your arm around Nancy, and I see Bernie and AOC over your shoulder.

I mean, of course you can open when you're supporting folks like that. Those are all good points,

Andrew. I can't argue with any of that. And to explain that one.

Yes, please, explain. You got ahead with that one. So Jim's son and one of the guys, his choir director there at the church, his good friend, yes,

Josh Comstock, who Justin and Jim and I know, Josh went out and made – so they went into – if you ever go into Jim Osmond's office, his office has got pictures of Ronald Reagan, pictures of his family.

They were all replaced with pictures of liberals, all of them. AOC, Hillary Clinton, Anthony Weiner, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, all of them.

They've replaced every picture of my office and had a full -size cardboard cutout of Nancy Pelosi in there and replaced all the pictures with AOC and Bernie on the wall.

And it was – it took a week before I even discovered all of the things that they had changed in my office. And they did that for April Fool's last year.

Yeah, April Fool's. Walk us through – give us a blow -by -blow when you walked in the building that morning because it's funny.

It is. Let me just – before you do because there was one thing that I asked Josh to do and he ran back in the building before you got there to do this, was

I told him I wanted to get the video footage of your face when you walked in and saw that life -size

Nancy Pelosi. So he ran back in to put a camera on so that we could capture your expression, which was just great.

Yeah, so – He walked in and walked back out. I walked in and my – and I saw the silhouette of the cutout in my office because it was

Nancy Pelosi standing in the cutout, cardboard cutout, standing in the middle of my office. And so I walked in and I saw that and the lights were off and my shades were drawn.

So it was kind of dark in there because it was early morning. And my first instinct was to begin to slowly reach for my gun, which

I carry with me wherever I go. And it took me a second to realize that this thing was not moving.

So I turned on the light. Wait, wait, wait. This was your chance to shoot Nancy Pelosi. I sure hope no

FBI agent is listening to this show right now because Nancy is about to get arrested. And it's not even going to be doing something good like cutting down fences around the church.

We all disavow the statements of Andrews. Yes. We're not going to cut down a fence around a church, but let's shoot

Nancy Pelosi. Hey, I didn't encourage it, but go ahead. So, yeah, that's the story behind that.

Well, but the thing was is that, you know, you walked in, you walked back out of your office, then you called your wife so you walked in to show her.

I videotaped the whole thing. I walked her through the office. I think the best was that Nancy Pelosi made it throughout your church service.

I remember the story, if you want to talk about this, when you closed your eyes to pray for the first when you guys started, when you opened again and you were back.

No, no, no. It was not when we had opened. It was on Easter Sunday. Instead of doing a live stream behind the desk, like you are sitting there for that service, we were still kind of shut down.

It took us a couple more weeks before we opened up. I decided to preach the normal message from behind the pulpit like McArthur did when they were shut down, and there were just a few people who were there.

So I bowed and prayed in the sanctuary. And when I looked up, there was Nancy Pelosi. Josh had walked her down the aisle and set her right in the middle of the aisle, like 30 feet away from me, right in front of me.

And I tried to start the message and preach, but I just couldn't because it was so distracting.

And it took her out so that I could go on with my business. But it was quite a distraction. You got a lot of mileage out of that.

Yeah, that was great. All right. So I don't know if you guys have anything.

I know this is a sin for Anthony to end early. Oh, hey,

I got two things, Andrew, if I could. Yeah. So I made the point earlier that, to go back to what we started on,

I made the point earlier that if your theology or eschatology particularly does not require bodily resurrection, then you do not hold the same eschatology of the apostles.

That's point one. Point two is there's only one eschatology that requires bodily resurrection.

That's premillennialism. And therefore, Peter and Paul and the other apostles were premillennialists because they believed that bodily resurrection was necessary.

It was essential for the fulfillment of the promise to David. So therefore, their eschatology was premillennialism.

Now, I discovered that years ago when I was, I shouldn't say discovered because it's not like something I discovered, but something that kind of dawned on me.

I was working my way through the book of Acts. I saw it in Acts chapter 2 with Peter's sermon. Then I saw it in Acts chapter 13 with Paul's sermon.

And so for years, I've made this case, though not even as publicly or vocally as I am right now and did on this last

Easter Sunday. About a year ago or so, I called up Justin. Justin, do you remember this? I called you up, and I said, hey,

I have a theological issue that I want to bounce off of you. And I laid this case out to Justin. I said, am I off?

Like, am I misunderstanding amillennialism or postmillennialism, or is there something wrong with this theological argument?

And Justin said, for years, I thought the same thing. I don't see other premillennialists making this argument, and I don't know why.

So I kind of sit here in the premillennialist camp, and I made this argument that I just laid out. It's a very simple one.

I see it in Acts 2. I see it in Acts 13. And then when I don't see other premillennialists making it, I kind of look around and think, man, am

I alone in this? Like, why am I—why do I—am I standing all alone making this argument? So I guess my challenge to those brethren who would respect me and I would respect who are postmillennialists and amillennialists is can you point out where in my argument there is a flaw, where in my understanding of Scripture there is a flaw on that issue?

Because I'm open to it. I want to see it if I'm misrepresenting amillennialism or postmillennialism.

So that's kind of one thing I wanted to drop on you. What else do you have?

You said two. Oh, yeah. You know, Justin and I, we kind of have something of a reputation for being on the same page on a lot of this stuff.

But we found an area where there's severe disagreement between the two of us, and it has to do with whether or not

Matthias was a genuine apostle. So— I think you're wrong on that one. I have tried.

You don't even know what my position is. I have tried to— No, but I know what Justin's is, so I know he's right. You don't need to know it. You're just going to jump off the ship.

Okay. So I have tried my best to— You just got the right position. That makes you wrong. I have tried my best to walk

Justin through the truth, and this is an irreconcilable difference.

Well, the simple thing is that—let's go back to the basics. When we look at Scripture, we have the first thing of hermeneutics.

Justin Pierce, Pastor Justin, you're taking a hermeneutics class, right? The first thing in hermeneutics is to identify the genre.

So what kind of genre is Acts? Historical narrative. Historical narrative.

And so one of the things we know with historical narrative is that it doesn't teach what should happen, but what did happen.

And so when they chose Matthias as an apostle, that's what actually happened.

Nowhere do we see where God said they should have done that. Nowhere do we see God commending them for doing that. But we do see

God calling Paul an apostle. So I say, yeah, they did it.

They were just— Listen to Jim's side, though, because Jim makes a good convincing argument. I listened to this at dinner last week.

No, I'm not going to let my face out right now because Justin and I are planning a little debate on this issue. Oh, Mary, these are my cards.

These are my cards holding them close to my chest right now because I'm going to take the argument, Andrew, that you just gave me, and I'm going to poke so many holes in it, it'll be good for only straining macaroni by the time

I'm done with it. Jim has a really good argument on this. That debate will be here on Apologetics Live when?

Let's set this date up now. Justin and I, we don't know how we're going to do it, but we've got to resolve this before we can have fellowship again.

Justin and Jim can't wait. This is a debate that we need to see.

I think you guys should schedule it for next week, and let's do it. Oh, next week when

Anthony and I can't be here? Oh, that's fine. Actually, I don't think

I'm going to be here either. Maybe I am. I'm not sure. Well, see, next week we should do something special for Earth Day.

We can just confess our sins to plants. What university was that where they had the plants on stage and everyone was apologizing to the plants?

Yeah, that was Union Seminary. Wow. Do you remember those people that went – this was a couple of years ago.

They went into a grocery store with a microphone and some meter on it, and they were pretending like you could hear screams from the vegetables laying there in the grocery store.

Is that like the – They used to pick up paranormal activity in haunted houses. Probably. Is that like the

Grinch doing yoga where he's – Did you guys ever see – there was a video. I don't know if I can find it.

There was a vegan that went through a store screaming that chickens have feelings too.

Oh, you got to watch that video if you haven't. She was going through, and she's screaming at people in the meat department going, chickens have feelings too.

You're hurting the chickens. One person held up the chicken and went, it's dead.

Yeah, VeggieTales went broke. Anyway, about Justin and I, Justin's been studying for our discussion.

I don't need to study the discussion because I read the text, so I don't need to make any arguments other than just reading the text.

But Justin's been studying for the discussion, and I'm looking forward to it. Are you, Justin? You ready?

Huh? Are you ready? You put him to sleep on that one. I'm almost asleep because I haven't had any sleep in about a day and a half.

But no, yeah. No, I'm – yeah, we're going to do it at some point.

We got to find a date on the calendar to do it. Thursday night, we got the time set aside.

We want it here. Let's have this debate. Absolutely. We'll be happy to moderate this.

You don't sound like a good moderator. You just chimed in with getting all the bogus arguments.

Well, hold on. What are you – is your name Chris Wallace? Are you going to moderate this Thursday night? I can be an impartial moderator.

I can – even though I may disagree with a view, it doesn't mean I'm unfair to the people in the time given.

Yeah, you should have seen Andrew trying to silence me last week. Yeah, so your questions would be like, so, Justin – What am I saying?

I can't hear you. Well, Jim, if you care to make a good argument, then just convince me.

That's all. You shouldn't have to convince the moderator. That's the point of moderating. So your questions are going to be,

Justin, tell me why Jim's wrong. And then the question for me will be, Jim, why don't you tell me how come you persist in being wrong?

That's not moderation. No, no, no, Jim. Jim, it's really so – if you want to be wrong, that's your choice.

But if you have such a convincing argument, you should be trying to convince Justin and I even, everyone of your position.

So good. You're like the Huffington Post interviewing Joe Biden, just stroking his hair and beating and putting and telling him how great he is and asking him to comment on how horrible

Donald Trump was. That's not bond bias, man. I can't have that. Brother Justin, I would like to give you an hour and 45 minutes to go ahead and give the biblical position.

And Jim is going to have the next 15 minutes to go ahead and finish up with his opinion.

So go ahead. That's exactly right. Jim, we will make sure we do this show with me as moderator. We will not let

Justin or Andrew into the show. I understand that Jim just feels he doesn't want to be outnumbered because he has a bad view,

I'm sure. I understand. You're making my case for me, Andrew. Oh, man.

All right. So we do have to answer one question that KT was asking. She said, hey, the guy that was tackled, is he out of a coma yet,

Andrew? I'm all right, guys. I'm doing just fine.

I love you, mom. Hopefully I'll be home soon. So he's doing okay.

And so now we're going to end the show. What a good start and end to the show.

The best part is Anthony missed the beginning. No, I did see it. I just didn't realize what they were referring to.

So next week, I think actually we will be here. The next two Thursdays we'll be here.

After that, Anthony and I will be in Florida. And so Pastor Justin's going to have some surprises,

I'm sure. He'll have to figure out what he's going to be doing. Pastor Justin might be in Florida with you guys. Well, then, okay, if that's the case, maybe we'll do a live show from there.

We might do a live show. That's a good idea. Yeah. So Jackson's asking, any Anthony time?

No, because I've got to go take care of a guy. I've got to tell a quick, really quick, funny story.

So years ago, when I had an RV, a motorized RV, and a little trailer,

I had this trailer that I put my scooter in and all my resources and stuff, as Kathy and I drove around.

And I had Justin Peters Ministries on the trailer and, like, my website and whatnot. And we were in Florida and parked at,

I can't remember, a grocery store or Walmart or something to go in and get some supplies or whatever. And when we came back out, there was a note under my windshield wiper.

And it said, hello, we see that you're in the ministry. We're so excited about this.

We would love to have you come and worship with us at Church Without Walls, pastored by Paula White.

And I was just like, seriously? So anyway,

I'm looking forward to going to Florida with y 'all, because we're going to be right in a stone's throw away from Paula White's church.

That was before I was as – I don't think I was on their radar at the time, but I'm pretty sure

I am now. All right. Well, we're glad everyone –

I hope this is helpful, folks, understanding End Times views. And, Jim, I actually do think you have a really good argument for it.

So on that one, I like it. It's good. We'll see if you can convince me otherwise. It's only because you're hard -hearted.

All right. Well, we'll be back next time. And, folks, if you want to check out our Bible studies on 1

Peter, check those out. They're on the same YouTube channel, Striving for Eternity. Just go search for it on YouTube every

Wednesday night. So we got that. Go check out The Wrap Report as well, my podcast, and Justin's podcast,

Didache, and Pastor Jim's preaching sermons that are also in podcast form at Kootenai Community Church Worship Service.

So check those out. They're all available at the Christian Podcast Community. So until next week, strive to make today an eternal day for the glory of God.