HYPER-Preterist Hangups: Sin Goes On Forever w/ Dr. Stephen Boyce

Hyper -preterism as we know it now as a full -blown system believe what we're experiencing now

Continues on sin death all the gross kinds of evil always continues

No, and that's why I say this is relevant. If this is the new heavens new earth. We've all been ripped off I wouldn't need a comfy chair gets in some plastic made chair

Welcome to another episode of facts I'm your host Stephen Boyce joined today by a special guest

So I'm about to bring on in just a second to discuss the doctrine and teaching of Preterism what we're gonna intend to do today is number one

We're gonna easily define what it is the kind of the history behind it then we're gonna spend some time refuting it and showing why it is actually a

Heresy and should be perceived as such in relation to many facets of a scriptural basis of a historical basis

We're gonna get into all those things and so I've got Jeremiah Nortier with me today first time on the show was on his show recently reviewing the debate that Samuel Neeson and I did on Justification with Trent Horn and Jimmy Akin, so we reviewed that you can go to his channel.

I'll have later in the link a Connection and link to his channel. So Jeremiah tell everybody on facts a little about yourself what you do and then we'll jump right into this

I just want to start by saying when you have a studio at your house You risk of the wifey sneaking in there and leaving her her stamp of approval.

So yes, I do love my wifey Thank you for having me on Stephen. Your audience can find me at the apologetic dog.

That's my youtube channel and I've been really pursuing the world of apologetics and One of the

Mary there's a couple emphasis that I have number one. I really try to evangelize the Church of Christ I believe

I believe they've deviated from the gospel of grace They're a restorationist movement out of the early 1800s.

And so I have a lot of apologetic content pursuing evangelizing the Church Christ and full preterism as we're gonna get into today because in Arkansas, there's been kind of an uptick of interest in eschatology and it seems like people went from pre mill to all mill to post mill and Then as as you continue down the post mill route especially in terms of theonomy

And looking at this age and age to come as we'll get into some people just seem to fall off the main wagon into full or hyper preterism and So I've been really trying to pursue more apologetics in that field to help

Help encourage people. Hey, there's really good reasons to just reject that wholeheartedly

If you understand that a lot of people when they hear full preterism Stephen, they automatically know that who would believe this

There's a reason why as we're gonna get into the church has rejected this for 2 ,000 years So anyway, that's at the apologetic dog

I do a number of debates on Marlon Wilson's channel the gospel truth and Donny's channel

Standing for truth and I've been doing a handful of in -person debates and a lot of times that will be with the

Church of Christ But I've debated Roman Catholics Eastern Orthodox just kind of a whole slew love doing

Debates with brothers on important doctrines, but where we can still high -five. I don't know if I'm ready to ever square off with dr

Stephen Boyce, but you never know. Maybe one. Yeah, he won't touch the Anglicans. It's not even worth this time now

I did leave your screen up long enough for you to show your wife you post But then I'm gonna zoom us in here for the rest of the show here

Demonstrating what preterism actually is Jeremiah So that's that that's really a confusing term today because those that hold to the camp of preterism have to clarify

Because there's different nuances you got full preterist You've got semi preterist and then you got to go into what you disagree with on the full preterist if you're a semi preterist

But ultimately the word preterist comes from the Latin word prater Which just means past and when we look at preterism themselves in the belief system in its fullest sense their teaching is

That the book of Revelation the Olivet Discourse many of Daniel's prophecies are done

They were finalized. They were completed in 70 AD And therefore the relevance of many of these prophetic books including some that were in Paul's writings

Or are no longer needed as it relates to us today what some people are sitting around Counting, you know calendar days and looking at the color of the moon are freaking out about writing books because that's the other extreme of this

That stuff's all unnecessary so preterism and of itself is a view of eschatology that interprets these prophecies as Being only

Needed till the time of 70 AD and they find their consummation in those things

So kind of talk about your engagement with that alone Just the definition of it how you see that they really push this.

Where do they go? What's their main point? Why do they want to always point 70 AD for these things?

Yeah, the the hook into full preterism as I've been told is the quote -unquote timing indicators

This generation these things will happen soon mentioned in the book of Revelation and The the time is near at hand all of that.

It's like it's a it's a full -orbed worldview everything shoehorned 70 AD is is the nail or really the hammer that just Redefines everything else and slams everything else in it.

So I've also also said that this is a backwards hermeneutic It starts with eschatology and redefines everything else in light of yeah, yep

Yep, kind of the hook is the quote -unquote timing indicators And like I said everything you don't start with Genesis and a progressive revelation a fulfillment of old to new covenant everything is redefined and Shoehorned as I just try to emphasize to make 70

AD work at all cost Other problems you get into is it's not a look at redemptive history

It's a look at Israel's history, which they're gonna push for ends at 70

AD So nothing biblically can go past that date, which is the destruction of the temple Which they would assume then that all

New Testament books were written prior to that point, especially the prophetic nature How do you feel about that? I got a lot of feelings about that and we'll get into my feelings about that The timing of this and this is the issue.

I have a dispensationalism for example It's new Not historic pre -millennial ism, but actual modern -day dispensationalism is fairly new

The issue I have also with preterism is when you find Teachings that do not exist in the early sections of church writings especially early commentaries of the prophetic nature of the all the discourse or whether you're talking about the book of Revelation or even so Paul's language and first Thessalonians or first Corinthians 15 when you don't see this show up for almost 1600 years

That's where red flags should go up because most would at least agree

That the idea of preterism was a counter -reformation teaching Some would place it into the area of Jesuits Like Alcazar and I don't know, you know if they will are willingly going to say

Yeah, that's that's when this teaching started. Obviously, they're gonna push to try to make it more relevant history

But it really isn't no one in the patristics no one in the church fathers defined

Anything close to the belief system that preterism has about 70 ad now

I will say there are Church fathers who see a lot of the things that Jesus taught me all of the discourse taking place in 70 ad

Maybe not fully consummated. I will say that they would also play into the idea that That many of the events that were happening in Daniel's prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus in the first entry but to see them as Believing that there is no physical body razor bodily resurrection.

So a preterism will take you I There is no Orthodox Church father that would ever assert such a doctrine

See we're gonna get into some of that no creed, but Christ who cares what church history has to say that's right

Nobody cares what they say, but it does give us even if you okay, even if someone doesn't care about the church fathers they want to have the

Mormon view where heresy started when John died and Everybody up till you know, most recent times of the

Mormon faith got the truth If we want to hold that view, even if you believe that about the church fathers that they were just grossly mistaken on this

They completely misunderstood especially guys like Irenaeus even though He was alive in the descendancy of teachers and trainees down through John and was alive within a hundred years of John's writing that And we're gonna talk about that was a hundred nine hundred fifty

We'll get into that but when you talk about these individuals who make statements

What we're concluding about them is that they actually have parameters. There's there's points in time where you can see

When things came into existence, we can say whether you like them or somebody likes them or not

That teaching didn't exist in the 2nd century certainly did not exist in the 3rd century, which is where we have the earliest

Commentary the book revelation. It didn't exist there. It didn't exist in the 4th century

There was a lot of dispute in the 4th century You see BS even gets into some of this in his history of the church

He gets in the arguments of whether or not there really was a thousand years versus a hypothetical number

He actually makes fun of papyrus for this now in doing that we see there were two arguments about the millennial reign but not in a past sense in a present or future sense

Depending on your their interpretation. So we don't see this in the 4th century and on and on it really seems to arise

During a counter -reformation in the late 16th century So when we're talking about preterism, it's about 400 years old and to me when teaching start happening that recent and there's no traceability before it or a

Restoration of it. It's a cause for concern and red flag when it comes to theology I don't know your view of that, but that's just my well

No, I think it's really good and to compound the red flags hyper preterism

Really came on the scene Around maybe the early 80s with Max King a church of Christ minister which once again this finds its its roots in the restorationist movement and so full full preterism or covenant eschatology as It's had a spin or Pantel ism

Barely 30 not even 40 years old. I don't know how you like that And I see a lot of problems with the views that have a solo script here a mentality no creed, but Christ It's just me right now and the book of Acts what

God does in between there is irrelevant I think there's problems. It really takes those guardrails up when we are looking back throughout church history to see how exactly

Christ has been building his church for 2 ,000 years and Promising that the Holy Spirit would guide us ultimately the church into all truth

These are the bullets that full preterism has to say Yeah, the church for 2 ,000 years has got our blessed.

Hope wrong, right? Not only to me is that a red flag, but you you can be confident that they're wrong in this

I always want to hold fast to that which is good by testing the early church fathers to the scriptures and as you've studied these were brilliant men in the past and so There's a lot of great insight there but full preterism just wholesale says yeah, they're not the early church fathers.

They're the early church infants Infants to me that's hysterical because They would be absolutely mocked and probably expelled not.

Well, not probably they would have been expelled not only expelled. They would have been Flogged by many of these individuals for the nonsense that they're spewing

So let's talk about that in relation to the historical framework, let's start with the Apostles Creed shall we

So in the Apostles Creed, which is one of the earliest creeds the church probably was using or at least a form of it

I did an entire episode on that if those of you that listen this Tyler and I did a whole series on creeds

We did four total episodes. First one was why do we need them? Then we went through the history of each of the creeds in the

Apostles Creed. It states Plainly that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended in heaven that he is presently seated at the right hand of the

Father God Almighty from there. He will come again to judge the living and the dead and Then if that wasn't enough

Shortly after in the Nicene Creed you have a similar statement He ascended into heaven and seated at the right hand of the

Father He will come again in glory to judge the living and dead and his kingdom will not have no end

Now as we look at these creeds what they're telling us And even at the very end

Holy Catholic Apostolic Church baptism for the forgiveness of sins and look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come

So they were looking forward to this in the fourth century. Then you have the Athanasian Creed, which is probably after that Talks about how he is once again

Ascended into heaven see the right hand of the Father from there He will come to judge the living the dead at his coming

All people will arise bodily and given account for their deeds Those who have done good will enter eternal life.

Those who have done evil will enter eternal fire this is the Catholic faith one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully, that's an anathema at the end of this so When you get into the three creeds here the main

Institute of Creed's Apostles Nicene at the nation they all speak of Jesus's bodily resurrection his ascension into heaven his return and in that return they speak of dealing with people who have already died in a bodily resurrection

Who will give an account for the things they did in this earth? The Athanasian Creed goes so far as to put anathemas on those who deny this as a

Catholic faith There is no ability to defend the historical nature of Preterism in any of the

Apostolic churches not not a single place You can do that in the creeds With that full preterism fails historically and this is a point that full preterist will own in fact, they will prep their

You know potential converts by saying be ready to be called heretics because None of church history supports us.

So that's really where the brainwashing begins Yeah, and you know, they have to let them, you know, redefine persecution so forth

But yeah, they they realize this so like when we get into how full preterism fails logically and exegetically

They're wanting to talk more so just about scriptures and looking into certain Greek words and semantic domains to really just say well

It could possibly mean this But yeah, they they don't want to touch They don't want to touch history with the 10 -foot pole.

Can you blame them? I mean if you can't find something rooted in any Apostles churches or any kind of creed or Statement that's been given by a father who's connected one of the churches the

Apostles started There again folks that that's why we do facts. That's that's why this program exists.

It exists to warn you and Teach you to found your faith within the framework

Set down by Jesus himself through his Apostles of the churches They started the letters they wrote to that church the tradition that maintained those letters in the church

So that when things like this come on the scene There's an immediate pushback and discernment process that says wait a minute

Can this pass the test of? the church Doctrine that has been passed down through the ages can this be the faith that was once delivered to the

Saints and has been Guarded by as a deposit by the successors of the

Apostles. No, none of them mentioned this Okay, how about the councils of all the successors accumulating in these ecumenical groups?

Do they do it and I see it? No, do they do it in any parts of North Africa? No, do they have this teaching in the east?

Not a chance. Do they have it in Antioch? Not a chance So we have nothing and when they admit that they're already leaving themselves

Empty without any deposit to put themselves into historically you have to start

Redefining scripture without a historical framework and that is where most heresy comes from So that's that's a problem.

Now. You mentioned that it's also a logical fallacy Kind of go into why you think there's logical issues as it relates to preterism

Yeah, so when we do worldview analysis I do want to encourage people to think about full preterism as not

Christian It uses Christian ease and it appeals to the 66 books of the Protestant canon

But make no mistake about it when you start with a 70 AD hermeneutic everything else gets

Redefined and so as we're talking about, you know logical fallacies because once again

If you're doing what's called an internal critique if full preterism is true and it contradicts itself on its own terms then it's false and so One thing we have to understand about full preterism is they believe we're already living check this out

Stephen Boyce and the new heavens and new earth fully consummated now

Well, we what a ripoff So when you just tell people that they're like, oh, that's crazy

And it is and so most people aren't buying what they're selling because it's just crazy, right?

But what's baked into that? So when we look at passages like Isaiah 65 They interpret this in such a way where when you have an infant that's a hundred years old and you continue to read the account there

There's a couple of different things They believe Everything as we see it now continues on Forever, there's obscure verses they can pull from Ecclesiastes 1 for that generation the earth abides forever and so what you have is time being infinite and This is not eternal.

This isn't a qualitatively different state of affairs as we would see a new heavens new earth Eternity being different than time as we know it now, that's something outside of time

But what they have is what we're experiencing now Continues on sin death all the gross kinds of evil always continues well, then you get into some immediate problems because they believe human procreation is

Always going to happen infinitum and what you have infinity introduced into our time as we know it

You're going to have internal contradictions with the necessary attributes of God so one way to illustrate this is

God is omniscient and therefore knows his elect, you know, whether Someone falls on you know

Each side of the debate on understanding elect if we at least can understand that God is omniscient

He knows all of his own right But not with full preterism because you never get the benefit of using a word that entails a set like the word all

God doesn't know all of his people because you could always add one more and you could always add one more of the scripture

Could say all will go under judgment. Well, not all because you could always add one more and so that's one example of how it's good when you have

Infinity introduced into this world. This is the new heavens new earth and time continues on as is

Ultimately, it's going to come back and bite you with understanding God and force you to be logically consistent with God being in process other passages like John chapter 6

When it says all that the father will give to me will come to me and I will raise him up at the last day

Well, not all that the father gives you don't get that benefit of the word all including a set

So that does that kind of make sense where you get into some inherent sounds like a little problems.

Yeah. Well, it sounds like wordplay where you have to Wordplay something and insert something into the text.

That's ice Jesus and then it sounds like a knockoff of open theism In in relation to God's ability to even know an infinite number

If he has infinite knowledge, there's no limitation to the infinite number of his knowledge. I mean this again, yes logical fallacy in of itself as it relates to these things because I Look at preterism from the viewpoint of they have an agenda that has to be fit into scripture and therefore we have to take the basic meaning and basic interpretation of a lot of these passages and For some new idea into it say well, it really doesn't mean that when it says that Says who like why can't it mean that the only reason it can't mean that is because it doesn't fit your narrative

There's 99 reasons why it doesn't fit your narrative which are the most logical reasons to go with so again

I don't like any system that takes the common -sense understanding of anything Has to manipulate and twist it to make it something that it is not

So yeah, I mean I'm with you on the logical fallacy side of the teaching

Yeah, I just want to encourage your audience. I interviewed. Dr. Sam Frost who was a

He was one of the main voices in this movement for a bad decade from 2000 2010 main speaker for preterists speaking all the

Conferences on circuit and God in his grace saved. Dr. Frost out of that and so now

I've been able to interview him a number of different times speak with him at conferences on this and for him to kind of share his heart and speak to the dangers of hyper preterism and what draws people in but he wrote an article called

Full preterism and the problems of infinity and so me and him I have a clip from a long interview where we specifically talked about the inherent problems of infinity.

What I was going to say is when we try to understand we are finite human beings with a finite set of knowledge and When we try to force infinity into our world

We we see that it's going to spiral Everything anything becomes everything and Incoherent.

Well, we have to understand and apprehend as Ecclesiastes 311 is God has put eternity into the heart of man

We know something exists beyond our temporal world And when you start thinking and pondering about eternity too long, our minds can't fathom that that is our inability

It's limited. And therefore when we look at something that's Infinite really that's our inability to understand that which is eternal and so that's the big difference is we're not saying

Eternity is a sequence of events. We're not talking about quantity. We're talking about something

Qualitatively different that we will live Face to face with Christ one day in a new heavens and new earth, but like you said earlier

They are forced into that kind of harmony you get kind of two full predators when we're talking about this those that fully embrace what we just talked about and the logical problems and they would just say paradox and we're saying no there is a difference between Inherent contradiction versus paradox.

I mean those that just say I don't know and they they realize where that train is going And they don't want to acknowledge it.

So for those that don't You mentioned the timeless aspect the world goes on it goes on it goes on it goes on it goes on Take somebody through a process

You're in the new heaven new earth today our world which by the way, we've all been ripped off And and after I explain how my day has gone to you if this is the new heaven new earth.

I've really been screwed. So This this is not Anything of the redemptive nature of the new heaven new earth in the redeemed

Eden, but somebody dies Today in the new heaven new earth and their theology you go to the funeral

They don't believe in a bodily resurrection So walk the audience through how they would view a funeral today

Well as we're gonna get into first Corinthians 15 a little bit They can only understand death to mean spiritual death

And so you do lose your apologetic forgiving account why physical death happens?

And so what a lot of full predators believe is even though we're living in the new heavens and new earth fully consummated now

Your spirit does go on to heaven and they will quote 2nd Corinthians 12 that just says to Wonderful for words where Paul just said no man cannot utter so that is the only thing future

You don't get a body now. They're gonna bring it at first Corinthians 15. They'll call it a spiritual body But it's a ethereal spirit and nothing like we we see and perceive now

But that's the only thing for the that takes out full predators Eve either are trying to still preach the gospel today, which makes no sense in their worldview if we're opposed to my history

Or you have the Israel only group that are universalists so Yes, they would reject all the passages that are read at funerals like first Corinthians 15

John chapter 14 You know a handful of more about that Titus chapter 2 which

I want us to look at a little bit But anything pertaining to our blessed hope anything in Scripture is already fulfilled. And so yeah,

I just there's no hope in full preterism But but the ones that I've interacted with they'll try to say well

There is a kind of heaven that still awaits us, but you're not gonna get a body the way that you think All right.

So let's jump into the biblical side of this because that's that's the bridge right there So our blessed hope is mentioned by Paul in writing his letter to his preacher at Crete Titus He talks about looking for the blessed hope and that's that's a popular statement by Paul Anyway, this idea of hope the future even thinking about hope not just in the human bodily sense for people

Even in Romans he talks about the earth groaning for its redemption, right? So you have all of creation is

Dissatisfied in the current state now again, they're gonna say that was before 70 AD Yeah, but yeah, there's a major issue here

Biblically speaking now you mentioned Titus so kind of go into the blessed hope

How that relates to this from Paul's letter to Titus? I don't know if you can pull up the passage, but I definitely don't mind reading it in Titus chapter 2

But Paul's telling Titus for the grace of God has appeared bringing salvation for all people training us and What full predators are gonna do is they're gonna say audience relevance.

It was the us of the first century No one after that that's belonging training us as Christians to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions to live

Self -controlled upright and godly lives. This is something I want to talk about here in a moment in the present age

Waiting for our blessed Hope the appearing of the glory of our great

God and Savior Jesus Christ who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works and I want to include verse 15 because Stephen I've been accused of being too mean and too harsh about this topic and I say yeah

But he's talking about our blessed hope in verse 15 reminds us declare these things Exhort and rebuke with all authority.

Let no one disregard you So we're talking about things of salvation our blessed. Hope Titus 2 is a discipleship chapter

And so this when he talks about rebuke, he's saying call to repent someone that if they did fundamentally deny these truths, this is at the core of Christianity as we're gonna be looking at 1st

Corinthians chapter 15 And so you can't be neutral on these things. Sure. We can scratch our heads and continue to sharpen one another

But this is something that we go to task on this kind of relates back to Titus chapter 1 about the man of God must be able to rightly handle the word and Contradict and rebuke those that contradict the scriptures.

I'm just saying this is not something that we can just merely Disagree over coffee right now.

There are different eschatological views all meal pre meal post meal But we all conclude in a future blessed.

Hope a future Second -coming of Jesus Christ bodily, which is unfortunate. I have to emphasize that word bodily a resurrection of the dead that is future and bodily and the

Restoration of all things that is physical and still not yet That's kind of the core tenets of our blessed hope and in Titus He kind of mentions about the appearing of the glory of our great

God and Savior Jesus Christ so he is talking about that great Parasee of that great coming at the end of Temporal history mind you this perishing evil age is when it's gonna happen

But yeah, I just wanted to kind of read you that passage to say this is kind of what's at stake

We are contending for a future blessed. Hope full preterism say no. No, no, that's a realized past blessed hope

And it's so odd to me because their view of the redemptive nation and nature of things is similar to actually

Gnostic beliefs You find this major view in Gnosticism That disregarded the physical elements if there was a group that Preterism could more closely relate with as it relates to an idea of a resurrection

It's gonna be Gnosticism because they did not believe at all in a physical bodily resurrection because they believe all physical matter is evil and Therefore the salvation of anybody is to rid yourself of the physical world and go back now again sounded

Identical right that's the closest thing in church history that denies a bodily resurrection Was Gnostics so I mean they do have a friend in history.

It's not a good friend. They have that friend though Well, I liked how you say it's not identical to you know rank

Gnosticism, but it's at least neo or proto I mean, it's definitely touching back on that because most full preterists see

Jesus's second coming at 70 AD as a Spiritual coming of Jesus It wasn't a bodily and as we're going to talk about they look at the ascension of Jesus in Acts chapter 1 even though the angels

Said he's going to return the way you see him. They just see him covenantally with power and authority ascending and Somewhere along the way because they're forced into this

Understanding that flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God a a little literal tangible body will get in that passage

But somewhere along the way Jesus's physicality and human body ceased And so that touches on the nature of Christ No wonder they believe his second coming was spiritual or as we would say is

Gnostic Our resurrection isn't anything physical. We the church has been wrong for 2 ,000 years.

It's a spiritual kind of resurrection either for Those that were in Hadassah that have been spiritually raised to now be

In heaven, or they're just gonna say it's that point of regeneration the spiritual rebirth

That's the kind of resurrection that believers Speaking of physical things in the world.

I just got a comment that I have the comfiest looking chair on YouTube and it helps Man listen it took

Months to pick out chairs down here because my co -host has an identical chair over here.

I just yeah camera aimed here We did it on purpose because like that blue light you got going on in the back

Two of them back here I think but we we picked two of these and we pick comfy ones because my co -host and I both have lower back issues.

So So that's why I think it's not getting any better. This is the new heavens and new earth

No, and that's why I say this is relevant. If this is the new heavens new earth. We've all been ripped off I wouldn't need a comfy comfy chair.

It's in some plastic made chair and not even be bothered by it, but As it relates to the

Ascension let's once pause on that because at this point I'm Forget 70

AD you can disprove that if all the New Testament was written prior to 70 AD When you look at Jesus's appearance

When he appears to his disciples And say Thomas for example who was saying

I won't believe Unless I touch They're looking for physical evidence of a resurrection

Not spiritual in what way would they excuse the physical bodily resurrection?

Whether you see John leaned up on Jesus and John 21 whether you see Thomas over there

Touching Particularly the very wounds of where the scars were from the nails

Where in the world do they land as it relates to the issue of resurrection and bodily touching

Especially first John one that which we've seen we have heard we have touched the

Word of Life No great question So they're not gonna deny that Jesus is first coming the virgin birth incarnation was physical a literal flesh

What they're gonna say though is what you don't understand you hyper credulous to you is that he is restoring what

Adam lost which was Covenant and so by covenant that's kind of their code word.

That's their their duct tape that goes over everything is The covenant relationship between Adam and God had nothing to do with physicality.

It was relationship only And so when Adam plunged all of humanity into death, that's really into Hades So when man dies, it goes to Hades and what we see

Jesus physically doing that's an exception. He's not he's not the rule He's not the standard.

That's kind of an exception to what is spiritually and covenantally going on in the backdrop

And so Jesus, yes, he physically died. Yes. He physically resurrected Don't don't dwell too much on that but because when he went to Hades and led captivity captive really the big

Resurrection for covenant Israel as he was ushering them into the heavenlies And so now when you die in Christ, you don't go to Hades Because that's all done away with 70

AD now you just get to go straight to heaven Does that make sense where they just kind of brush aside the physicality of what we see in the gospel accounts and the book of Acts All right, so they state that Jesus is an exception

He's he's not he's not the standard here. That must be nice to just Manipulate that around so that leads us into 1st

Corinthians 15 because the Interesting perspective of the church was as long as Jesus resurrected ours is irrelevant

Paul comes in and puts up the big timeout sign and says wait, wait, wait If Christ is not risen, you're still dead sins and you're the most pitiful people around then in Relation to that he comes in and says that our resurrection is actually attached to his resurrection and He goes on to actually not only attach our resurrection to his but says that when we see him

We shall be as he is. So how can Jesus be an exception if we're gonna be as he is?

Covenantally he it can't restore Our oh you're I know but like I I'm almost is there any preterists in the crowd?

We'll drag in here. Come on now. How can that be speaking covenantally because the language there is not even covenant language.

Oh Steven you still you don't understand the Old Testament backdrop to what?

Jesus and the apostles were accomplishing before our eyes But it was serving so much of a greater backdrop behind the scenes.

We don't go to Hades when we die We go straight to heaven. That's what you hyper creed list and the church hasn't understood.

Okay, so let's let's back that up to Adam They believe that the issue with Adam was a spiritual loss.

Not a physical How do you respond to that because I see both I don't see one.

I see both We might be it's okay We might be jumping a little bit ahead because this does relate to first Corinthians 15

But you're 100 % right. It is both the dead Thanatos necessarily entails both a physical and spiritual separation from God and sure that is

Covenantal I point out a few different because what they want to do is go to I think it's

Genesis 2 17 where God is saying the day that you sin ultimately you will die.

Oh, but you hyper credulous Adam didn't physically die that Yom that day. Therefore.

It must be spiritual only now There's there's a few different lines of reasoning.

I want to bring out number one God made a covering for Adam and Eve. So if we are gonna say that Yom is a 24 -hour window

Oh, there was physical death. God was merciful. I substitute was made on their behalf

So no matter where you end up in interpreting Genesis 2 you can't overlook that there was a physical death that happened in Adam and Eve's stead because of the proto

Evangelion and God saying I'm going to make atonement for you. Now. I would also like to offer

That when it says in the Yom that you sin against me, you will surely die That's an ingressive sense meaning that you begin to die

And this is a a new Yom that the Apostle Paul has picked up on or in Ephesians 6.

He says Prepare yourself for the evil day the evil Yom this this age that Adam has plunged us into so yeah, there's nothing that demands that only be referring to a 24 -hour window

Yom Hebrew a lot of times will focus in on the action and There's maybe good evidence to say you don't see that Yom being qualified by evening and morning

And there's dispute on all that but just say look don't get it twisted that Adam and Eve Stepped into an evil day an evil

Yom where they began today and they they died Adam for nine hundred and thirty years that Genesis 5 talks about and not just them

But they plunged all of their posterity into that evil Yom Yeah, so this goes back to the first thing you said

Adam's sin brought forth physical death That's all we need as we step into 1st

Corinthians 15 here in a moment because 1st Corinthians 1526 and towards the end of that chapter cannot be merely talking about spiritual death

No, yeah well said Well described couldn't agree with you more.

There was a death that day. There was a substitution They were covered. It was an animal

It was gonna be a greater lamb to come so to speak that would come from the seat of the woman Would you have a question that came in here?

I do want to pull it up It says facts Go in here make sure

I've got it facts thoughts on the Catholic view Christ opens the gates of heaven to man at his

Ascension So the first man to enter heaven is on Ascension Thursday.

Is this an acceptable view? for both of you If it's got

Catholic in it, I'm gonna go ahead and say no for Jeremiah What Catholic no,

I'll let you go first on that one So I have a little different view of death In relation to what happens and the view of heaven itself.

I think that too much has been placed on the act of a place beyond the stars galaxy the spiritual dimension when

I say heaven or the idea of heaven or new heavens The emphasis of that is constantly seen on earth

Here a new heaven a new earth and by that it's coming to us.

We're not going to it now again I have a different view of death and some people have their view of the afterlife and intermediate state and all those things so there's a

Whole lot of extra here. That's not worthy of this challenge. So you don't really hold to the the intermediate view

All right, I don't think I just think it's a nuance for purgatory honestly, but at this day

I mean it there's so much to unpack there So I would say that I I wouldn't accept a view like that Anyway, just from my perspective and it's not because it's a

Catholic view There's a lot of Baptists that have similar views about the immediate moment after death and so forth

So it's not personal. So when I say no, I wouldn't accept it I'm not saying it as it relates to the question being specifically a

Catholicism view My reason for rejecting isn't a Catholicism view. It's my view of the afterlife

So what about you? Mr. Baptist? I probably just I tend to lean into the intermediate state, but I've also told people

I don't I It's not gonna be the the we're not gonna have time the way that we experience it

I would be totally fine With when we look at to be absent from the body is to be present with the

Lord as we are at the parisia You know, I mean and I've also Challenged the perspective of John 14 about I go to prepare a place for you and it's that's a passage, you know and my father's house there are many dwelling places as You know, we sing the hymns that talked about the the mansions in heaven

I am I am open to discussing how that might be language of the new covenant

Where the Holy Spirit and dwells believers and we maybe haven't looked at that. Keep going. Yeah But those are what those are some of those things

I just tell people I don't think we have the greatest amount of clarity on and when we talk about eschatology

This kind of goes back to the Titus chapter 2 the things that I want to hold close -fisted is our future blessed hope future second coming of Christ bodily the resurrection of the dead future bodily in the future restoration of all things because I think a lot of people especially in The evangelical world just have this binary understanding of heaven or hell only and it's like look

There is something so much more glorious that awaits us our inheritance of a restored heaven on earth a glorified eternal state and so I'm just saying that I don't know all the details when we pass from this life to the next of what that looks like but I am

Totally open to As soon as we pass from this life to the next Eternal state and don't know how that cashes out sure, but you don't think you don't hold that there's an intermediate state to the sense of a purgatory that gift and then you know work your way through because you're a

Baptist and You know, I'm vehemently opposed to purgatory He also mentioned the interesting fact about young which is a day and is it applicable to non -literal six days?

And the answer is absolutely so, yes, I Personally do not hold them to be literal six days

Sure of creation and I know again, there's a lot of can of worms opening there and a lot of discussion there after all

I am a contributing scholar to RTB reasons to believe with dr. Hugh Ross who teaches an older.

Yeah That's that's what I was wanting to say, even though I'm gonna give a little bit of a plug here

Ken ham goes into the word yawn in that verse. We're referencing which

I believe let me just double -check Genesis 2 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat for in the yawn you eat of it

You will surely die even with Ken ham being a six -day young earth creationist He makes a case that that is a wide open general yawn a new day of death

So I'm just saying even if people are having trouble with that Understanding because you can kind of contrast that with no evening and morning and there's no qualifiers with the seventh day which begins chapter 2 and then when you look at this this day of rest that God sees from creating the book of Hebrews in the

New Testament talks about How we can enter into that rest today faith in Christ today And so even if people are having trouble with that Regardless of your young earth or old earth.

There was a physical death. There was mitigating circumstances God showed mercy and Justice because the soul that shit sins shall die and life is in the blood

There was a physical substitute made that 24 -hour yawn with the animals and that's something that's inescapable

We're getting a little bit more into the nuance, but there's something inescapable with the substitute that was well

I think this is tied into preterism and the fact that we do believe that there is a Newness of life today.

We believe that old things are passed away. There is a new creation that has begun Jesus brought his kingdom on earth.

So as it relates to that Let me just go ahead and say Jeremiah, I do think that opening the door to the

Sabbath. We are in the seventh day. The eighth day is the new creation which is my view we are still in the seventh day and That does speak

Very very much into the idea that we are receiving a redemptive aspect today

There is a new Eden that has been issued in but it's not consummated till he bodily returns

So I believe we are invited into that rest Jesus invited people into that rest take my yoke upon you learning me

I'm meek and lowly of heart, you know come to me that are heavy laden I mean, this is this is what he says.

I will give you rest He invites people into that Sabbath. Hope the writer of Hebrews invites from a

Sabbath. Hope Definitely. We do have a super chat that came in and by the way, thank you for that We do we just recently opened up the super chat

So if you want to support us just by questions in a super chat When I come to visit you we can split that super chat and you can take me out to coffee

Yeah, because that's about how much coffee is these days Not even good coffee seven dollars now We used to make fun.

That was called five bucks. Now. It's like seven bucks. It's not five bucks anymore When you talk about Starbucks, it's not five bucks.

It's like seven. Yes. Yeah Anyway, are you familiar through redemptive idealist readings of Revelation? Yes GK Beal by the way great great point

Thank you for sending that JS. I Think G G K Beal and I believe it's a

Presbyterian Am I wrong about I'm pretty sure it's a Presbyterian he is a he is one of the best

Writers and commentators of the book of Revelation one of the best

I cannot emphasize and recommend his book anymore than this promotion

Read his book on the book of Revelation It will even if you end up disagreeing with him his ability to redemptively look at the

Apocalypse the consummation of many of prophecies from Isaiah to Ezekiel to Daniel to Zechariah being fully consummated in The book of Revelation it will change the way you look at numbers

It'll change the way you look at visions animals items horns

Trumpets all of that. It is an eye -opening experience. I highly highly recommend recommend

GK Beal's book The book I have downloaded right now. I'm looking at to my right is

Revelation a shorter catechism by GK Bill That's what I'm kind of working through now, and it's phenomenal

Absolutely and It helps I think as we look at the Olivet discourse, we might get into a little bit later

But understanding there's ongoing Principle that's being articulated there that has immediate crossover from Daniel 9 and the book of Revelation Anyway, I'm just I'm with you

GK Bill all the way. Yeah. Yeah He's he's phenomenal and and honestly changed the trajectory of the way that I thought about apocalyptic literature

Actually getting into the history of when it was used why it was used Second Temple Judaism's view of it some of the

Dead Sea Scroll interpretations of apocalyptic visions Really opens your mind and to understand what the first century readers would have been experiencing when they first opened the book

Revelation When John wrote it at the end of the first century

We'll get into that in a minute. I don't want to get ahead of myself Because I don't think it was written before 70 AD now

Let's talk about 1st Corinthians 15 where we left off because I really want to go back into 1st Corinthians 15

And by the way, feel free in the audience to continue to ask questions We highly recommend super super chance chats.

Of course, we'd like to upsize our tall lattes to a to a grande on the next super chat, but all that to say first Corinthians 15

Speaks greatly to the attachment of the bodily resurrection of Jesus to ours. We mentioned this earlier

I want to come back to this Paul is not Separating. In fact, the church was willing to give up the idea of their own

Resurrection in 1st Corinthians 15 they were fine with it. Like as long as he rose That's all the matter and and and Paul jumps in and says absolutely not

Your resurrection is attached to his if he rose

You will arise bodily. So if Jesus is the exception Then all of his

Saints are the exception with asterisks because we all are gonna rise with his bodily resurrection power

According to Paul in 1st Corinthians 15 now, I'm sure they're gonna wordplay that somewhere But we have to talk about the significance of that that's good because if you want a shortcut defeater for full preterism and you know talking about the logical implications of Their paradigm that contradicts the necessary attributes of God if that gets brushed off If you bring up historical points and they're so low scriptura you hyper created list.

Just give us the Bible only Fine, we can we can play that game think about this They are wrong about all the timing indicators if 1st

Corinthians is talking about physical death Because as we're about to see at his coming then comes the end

Jesus delivers the kingdom to the father and he destroys the last enemy

Thanatos. Yeah, if that can be demonstrated without a doubt from the immediate context as we relate it back to Genesis 1 if death is

Physical they're done. Why because the number one timing indicator is that death still exists?

Right, and so they're aware of this so they have to front load the conversation with Oh what Adam experience was a covenantal death a

Spiritual death only we've already kind of talked about how that just doesn't work But we're gonna get into 1st

Corinthians 15 here about how the model the paradigm and the standard is Jesus he died physically and bodily and he was raised physically and but I have to emphasize it like that because you'll that they will

Constantly try to bait and switch the whole time And so anyway, that's the whole point and what I like to say, let's let's start with 1st

Corinthians 1520 and kind of just look to verse 26 so much context is building up to that and Then continues to ripple afterwards.

And so I also want to encourage your audience if they go to the apologetic dog I have an hour presentation that I gave at a conference and I kind of just systematically

Do a lot of things we've talked about just undoing full preterism from the core And if somebody finds that presentation in the show notes

I had a handout that I gave people at this conference just so that people can follow along So verse 20, but in fact

Christ has been Perfect tense, I believe He has been raised from the dead meaning he is still currently the risen

Lord the firstfruits This is gonna be emphasized twice and so we'll kind of cycle back to this but this is really important for Paul's argument raised from the dead the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep an idiom of Physical death whereas by a man question mark.

Who's the man? It's Adam came death question mark What kind of thing toss we'll get into by a man has also come the resurrection of the dead double parallelism for as an

Adam All die right that word died death So also in Christ shall all be made alive

But each in his own order Christ the firstfruits second time he mentioned it then at his parousia

That's circled that in your minds is so important for us Dismantling full preterism from the core those who belong to Christ So if you belong to Christ, you'll be there at the resurrection.

So if that already happened, oh, there's problems there First 24 then comes the end. Well, how has

Paul been developing the end in first Corinthians 15? We can look at chapter 1 chapter 10 and chapter 7

When he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroy destroying literally

Decimating every rule and every authority and power for he must reign until he's put all of his enemies under his feet and in the

Last key verse here. The last enemy to be destroyed is death And so wherever you land at on that will necessarily impact the quotation in verse 54 and 55 where death is swallowed up in victory.

Oh death. Where's your victory? Oh death. Where's your sting? those are quotations from Hosea in the

Old Testament and Like I said, all of this is pointing back to Jesus being the first fruits

Meaning what is true of Jesus is true of the crop to come right first fruit harvest.

They would look at the first Fruit that gave them an indicator of what the crop was going to look like to come and so Jesus died physically

And this is if we go earlier in first Corinthians 15. This is

Gospel 101 you can't get this. Yes And so if we do look at those verses

Paul says for I deliver to you as a first importance What I also received that Jesus died

What kind of death all that was physical that was that actually happened not just a

Gnostic death For our sins, so this is why when we get to 2nd Timothy Chapter 2 with the the hominid and Philetus heresy is to mess with the resurrection

The dead is also to mess with Jesus's finished work his death and resurrection So we'll continue but it says according to the scriptures that he was buried and was raised

How was it Gnostic it was physically on the third day in accordance with the scriptures

This is the paradigm that's being grounded in the gospel of grace because human

Atonement right a physical bloody sacrifice has to be to be made

Leviticus 16 life Physical life is in the blood and so I'm just saying you can't when you start messing with These doctrines you're undoing

Christianity from the core and you're you're presenting a different gospel That's a whole new way of deconstructing.

It's deep contract Deconstructing the gospel from its very essence from its prophetic side from its literal side from its foretelling through sacrificial system side

It is completely Deconstructing the gospel at its core So you brought up the heresy of Hymenaeus and others?

So kind of talk about that too because that's a big deal in this discussion for them So talk about how that plays into this

Yeah, so if we look over at 2nd Timothy chapter 2 starting verse 16 Paul is is telling

Timothy giving him an apologetic something to be Warned about look out for false teachers

Like this he says verse 16, but avoid irreverent babble So pagan philosophy right anything that rivals the truth of God when you look at the apologetic dog

You can see the verse embedded in there 1st Timothy 6 20, which says

Oh Timothy guard the the deposit entrusted to you avoid irreverent babble how by also avoiding

Contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge. Okay, so I'm just saying there's a richness there with Avoiding irreverent babble for it will lead people into more and more

Ungodliness and their teaching their talk will spread like gangrene. I want to pause.

How do you deal with gangrene you cut it off? Okay You don't let it go in.

Yeah Among them are these false teachers Hymenaeus and Philetus now, this is anathema language who have swerved or veered from the truth

Okay, that's important to note. This is what they taught saying that the resurrection

Right the resurrection that the Hebrew Scriptures Daniel 12 has talked about in a very clear language.

I believe it's Isaiah 25 other places the Old Testament even even Job understood in a bodily resurrection

In my flesh. Yeah in my flesh. I will see God. Yes, if they say the resurrection is already happened

They are upsetting the faith of some right causing them to swerve altogether being cut off like gangrene now

Full predators would say you think they were actually talking about Physical resurrection here because anyone could have exposed them by just pointing to the grave.

That's the whole point they They must be talking about a kind of Gnostic spiritual resurrection

But here's here's the key here's the kicker that we can point the finger at full predators and say they are being inconsistent because Really Paul is not talking about the nature of resurrection here.

He's talking about the timing He's already dealt with the the nature of resurrection in 1st Corinthians 15, which is bodily

Which is physically right? And so the point is if someone gets the timing of the resurrection wrong

Anathema and my point is they need to stop leeching Christianity and pretending to be one of us

They need to be pointing at us saying that we've got the timing of the resurrection wrong Does that make sense? And so this is an anathema based on the timing of the resurrection

Yeah, and it's interesting that their their statements are identical almost to preterism Except it's before 70

AD that they're saying this so they're believing Hymenaeus is already stated.

Well resurrection has already come whether they believe that's the spiritual one or not. They have to see these as companions

Because that's what they're saying. So they're saying it's spiritual resurrection going on here.

So either way Paul's statements of anathema tizing these two men are still people whether they believed it was bodily or spiritually

Are still affirming a similar faith that they hold to Which again is problematic because now you're in the boat of being anathema ties by the

Apostle Paul himself again It doesn't hold up spiritually. It doesn't hold up logically. It doesn't hold up scripturally.

It doesn't hold up Historically, there's many issues as it relates to trying to Hold this view when others held similar views, but saying well, it's a little different Is it?

Where I've been accused of hat, you know presenting a contradiction because they'll say well

It's the full preterism start in the 80s or with Hymenaeus and Phileas. I'm saying in part

That's a major heresy that they were teaching a very Gnostic type of resurrection that already happened

But but full preterism hyper preterism as we know it now as a full -blown system That is one of the most innovative things on the map, right?

Which is what I was connecting earlier what Paul's dealing with there is a proto Gnostic belief that was coming on the scene

That's why I said the only group that they can actually connect themselves to That has any ground is the

Gnostics That's it. There's only the Gnostics that deny what they deny and This is a proto

Gnostic. That's the point the only chain of custody they have In their history is anathematized heretics

Yeah, that's it. And so you have to not not just from Church Fathers.

This isn't a council expelling it. This is Paul so you have Paul expelling it and calling an anthem like you have councils expelling it and anathematizing it and Anyone who does not accept these things according to even the

Athanasian creed is not of the Christian faith Now you are anathematized by the creed you're in it you're anathematized by Paul you're anathematized by councils you're anathematized by creed your only lineage reaches heretics so it's it's a terrible boundary and foundation to be a part of Something I've noticed where maybe post -millennialists will slip into full preterism

I've made mental notes and I can actually help people be on guard for something because I Want to I want to hold with a closed fist or a future blessed.

Hope but then I also want to tell people some of the things that are negotiable is Understanding Revelation 20 and fitting into that pre -mill all -mill post -mill camp like these are healthy good conversations to sharpen one another the things that I want to encourage people to be mindful of kind of two things

Because this is the whole crux of the full preterist argument is you see in the gospel accounts and The Pauline epistles is this age in the age to come

Okay, now there's a few different passages we could go to but I just want to kind of sketch this for people I believe it's clear in the

Gospels when Jesus talks about it I believe one is Luke 19 but also in Ephesians and first Corinthians 15 or just the letter of first Corinthians this aged is

Marked by a temporal evil Perishing age and since it's perishing it necessarily assumes a final day

Which the Gospels talk about Jesus says I will raise all that the father has given me

They will come to me and I will raise him up on the last day. This is the final day of History right?

It's perishing. It's it's fading away and as long as we hold that This age is perishing it's time -bound

It's diminishing. This world is groaning like you mentioned earlier. That is so good be on guard for certain partial preterist pushes

Of saying no this age terminated at 70 AD and it's the Jewish aeon

That is this age that Matthew was talking about and so forth Be on guard for that because that is 80 % or more of the full preterist

Argumentation when you give up this age to in being terminated at 70 AD well then what apologetic do you have with the

The Olivet Discourse that says at the end of the age the parousia, right? I'm just saying that that's that's gonna some that's gonna be something they try to to get you to think through Ken Gentry who is post -millennial partial preterist will not give that up because he understands the problems there and The age to come has interrupted this age.

And so we believe in already not yet I would I would kind of contend for The age to come right?

What is it Hebrews? Maybe it's six We have tasted of the the powers to come at Jesus's first coming.

This was the the kingdom of God Inaugurated right interrupting this this temporal age, but it's not fully consummated yet Yeah, that'll happen at the end of this temporal evil perishing age at his parousia

So do you want to do you want to speak to any of that real quick? No, no, I agree And in fact that verse in Hebrews is often connected to the

Eucharist to those who believe in real presence Because we believe that we today are actually experiencing the age to come in the physical body resurrected

Jesus But we're taking of his body and blood and there's a lot there I did a whole program with Eric your bar just on it recently.

You can go back listen to that but but it's not and even if you go to Eucharist today like in my

Anglican Church or any Anglican Church or even many of the Catholic and Orthodox When you go into the

Eucharist at the end of the readings of the liturgy at the table It talks about after they sanctify the elements when we will see our

Lord face to face Understanding that the taking of the communion is actually a a time where you're meeting with Jesus bodily in that moment, but it is only a foretaste of the greater

Physical face -to -face encounter that will come in the age to come We understand separately right the marriage over the lamb and this this this is

Understood in many of the Eucharistic theology that is given to us.

I mean when you're when you're talking about The commonality of Christ that a person can have with them at the table

It creates a longing Until Jesus comes in fact If you go to Paul's writings on the

Eucharist if you go into 1st Corinthians and he talks about how they were wrongly Using the table.

He he says do these things And take of these things until the

Lord comes so continue to practice the table until the Lord's physical return because there is a foretaste of a greater appearance a better bodily

Presence than that which is even in the Eucharist when Jesus comes back and we see him face to face

So I would make that comment with it. That's good now Go Ahead if you have one more thing before we get into the timing of the

Revelation prophecies. Oh sure Yeah, I just want to warn people Especially if they're kind of in the post -millennial partial preterist camp

I like said Ken Gentry, I think has a healthy if we can call it that Understanding of where you don't where we're too far, you know where you can make sure you don't go too far

Number one this age and the age to come this age did not terminate as 70

AD as the Jewish aeon That's the temporal perishing age that will continue unto the last day but if you give that up you've given full preterist the farm and if you look at 2nd

Peter 3 as Fulfilled and terminated 70 AD. Well, then now you've given them the livestock also.

Why do I say that 2nd Peter 3? Talks about in verse 3 the last days right where there's gonna be scoffing following their own sinful desires in verse 4 talks about they will say where is where is the promise of his coming?

So this chapter is very eschatological talking about the last days at the Parisia verse 10 talks about the day of the

Lord and it talks about waiting for the hastening the coming of the day of God because of Which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved and the heavenly bodies will melt as they are burnt verse 13

But according to his promise we are waiting for the new heavens in the new earth in which righteousness dwells if You take this to mean well

This is kind of the transition from Old Covenant to New Covenant that really began at 70

AD You've made 98 % of the argument for the full preterist paradigm

And so I just want to caution people as we continue this discussion is don't give that up There's there's too much sauce there in 2nd

Peter 3 is starting with The first creation which was natural which was physical hearkening back to Genesis Which is a historic account and the debate rages on between young earth and old earth creationists

But by goodness, it's it's physical, right? This is a historic account that God Actually created and you have to be consistent there when he's wrapping up talking about the new heavens and new earth.

It's not spiritual Israel only No And I would just go ahead and say lose lose the name preterism in any shape or form because preterism is a heresy

So why would you want to be a semi heretic? So I would just you know, I I'm Sarah like now who's going around saying

I'm semi Mormon like because they say some things that might Be partially true. I Drives me nuts.

It's like the semi Pelagian crowd the semi Preterist crowd just call yourself something else.

I don't know I want to piggyback on what you're saying the full preterist will actually look at the partial preterist and say things like what?

You can tell me that someone's only partially pregnant And so it's the full preterist that will mock the partial preterist crowd and just like I said though If that is still your cup of tea

There is some work that I feel good enough recommending to people like Ken Gentry that doesn't let go of this age of the age to come or 2nd

Peter chapter 3 Very good. Very good. Let's wrap it up on the historical side why the prophecies revelation could not be pre 70

The timing of the book is a major one almost all early church evidence points to the reality that the events of the vision given to John on the

Isle of Atmos took place under Emperor Domitian I Would say that this one alone

Gives so much weight to the argument Because Irenaeus of Leon Was connected to the

Johanan training. You got to understand something Irenaeus lived between 130 and 202

He died around the year 202 He was a student of polycarp

Polycarp was a student of John. So this is his grandson in the faith if you would this is his grandson

And this is what he had to say about the apocalyptic vision of John That it was seen not very long ago almost in our

Generation at the close of the reign of Domitian. That's an against heresies now

Two things one. He said it wasn't long ago. It was almost at our time now I remember

Irenaeus is writing this at the end of the second century He's saying this is close to our time almost our generation.

It was at the close of the reign of Domitian himself Now we have to remember Domitian was an interesting

Emperor he reigned between 81 and 96 AD Some could say that it was a couple years after that from what we know of Jerome aging the

Apostle John John was All the way to the time of 101

Jerome pretty much has him dying in Trajan's early reign in 101 Irenaeus is saying that we have received the book of Revelation its visions were given early on Or later on in the days of John at the end of the reign of Domitian, which is in the 90s

His statement has so much weight. He is in the line of John in succession

Now, let's just say he's the only one that said that because Irenaeus doesn't say everything true But he's not

Jump on Irenaeus, he's a good one. Do you know the counter -argument course preterist will make

I was gonna kind of throw it out Be a preterist for a minute. Go ahead. I'll let you be a preterist Okay, well

I'm trying to remember the nuance of their argument because they're saying something's ambiguous With what

Irenaeus were saying in relation to is it talking about the vision of John or John himself?

Are you familiar kind of with yes again wordplay is the best move they have

He was talking about the apocalyptic vision That wasn't seen not very long ago

It was the visions that he received and he did not write till after the visions were received

We can wordplay this if we want Any Historian if you leave Christians out of this and just leave

Irenaeus to a bunch of atheists to interpret for you I'm I'm quite confident.

They'll come away with He's referring to the book of Revelation. You want to know I know that like almost all critical scholars put the book of Revelation at the latest

Or excuse me at the earliest in the 90s at the latest in the second century so when you're talking about the apocalypse

The reason behind that and even critical scholars that are behind it are going to use people like Irenaeus to actually make that point

So they would say it either happened during the mission or Trajan No one has this turn

Nero not none of the early interpreters have this during the time of Nero All right, you ready for another 30 seconds of my

I only gave you one shot at being a protest But all right, you can go for round two and be careful. Don't get addicted

Yeah, no this one this one's interesting like this is one I still look at I'm just I can't wait to hear your thoughts so they will appeal back to Daniel chapter 9 and Say look at the list of the 77s that's going to happen and one of those in the list is to seal

Both vision and prophet the prophetic voice of God will cease. It'll be sealed up Dr.

Boyce and when is it going to be sealed? Well, it's going to be when the the st.

The sanctuary the temple is destroyed which is which has to be 7080 But whose prophecy the the the

Prophecy is going to be which vision of who all Daniels This this is this is the issue that that is presented here

When we're talking about the 70th week of Daniel which again we have to be careful careful of the calculations here because you end up dispensational and preterist here when you get

When the prophecy is sealed up what happens on the island of Patmos in Revelation chapter 10, for example

John receives the vision. He has similar Ezekiel vision. He's given the scroll

It's sweet to the mouth, but it becomes embittered as he begins to digest This vision that he has given is a message the final message of God for all peoples all kings all nations

Until the next events, which is the return of Christ. So John is sealing up the vision but again

When we're talking about him sealing up the vision when was that vision? They're going to say it had to be before 70

AD because of Daniel I'm not looking at this with the presuppositional view of I have an opinion

My point is where do we historically place the book of John? We have an individual who is in the same lifetime span with John the

Apostle and lived and was trained by his successor and He's telling us that what he learned from his time with Polycarp is that John received this vision while on the island of Patmos during the end of the reign of Domitian So this isn't a

Daniel against an Irenaeus thing. This is are we actually Understanding what

Daniel was teaching in the destruction of the temple I do think that the destruction of the temple is ingrained in Daniel's teaching

But is he speaking of all prophetic vision I Don't know your perspective.

Is he speaking to all prophetic vision? Ending at the destruction of the temple or is it the end of Daniel's vision?

But go ahead Here's here's my what is what Solomon said the grain conclusion of the matter.

I think if you're eschatology necessarily depends on the writing of Revelation then

Probably have an agenda, you know, I mean because I've looked at really good argumentation for Early and late writing and I'm over here saying hey,

I don't mind to continue to hear that ongoing conversation but once again if your eschatology demands an early writing a revelation then you box yourself in apart from the grand

Consensus of Theological Scholarship many that have come before us and you're putting yourself in a really bad place.

That's kind of my thought And like I said, I always want to leave that door to be very charitable

When looking at Daniel 7 as we look at it in terms of the a kind of coming of the

Lord's servant in terms of the Ascension Daniel 9 This prophecy and then obviously Daniel 12 as we get into kind of like a

Resurrection and the last day so on and so forth. Sure And and I'm I'm willing to give a lot of latitude on there to people that differ

But again, I go back to the question of Daniel They're saying all prophecy from God forever in any kind of way shape or form has come to consummation

I don't think that was the point of Daniel thing was speaking of his own individualistic prophecy

There's a lot I'd like to know your thoughts on We're looking at John's Revelation at Patmos to me this this could be a good principle regardless if you have an early or late date, but he talks about not to add or take away from this prophecy and it spans all the way to the eternal state and So no matter what date you have

You the canon is close right you can't add or take away without also invoking plagues or abominations on yourself and so I just say

John on the island of Patmos that point all the way to the new heavens a new earth

No more revelation from God Yeah, and well in my view is that that began in Revelation chapter 10

Where John is receiving the vision he is the one that's giving the final message to the world before the return

He's the last prophet. He was initiated the same exact way that Ezekiel was

He's giving not a message to a king a nation and a people it is to all nations all peoples all kings all rulers

Until the next event which is the return of Christ. He's the last prophet He is the last one who speaks on behalf of God.

That's my perspective And it looks like so script or 21 aka

Prima script or 21 said that Sealing up the vision has to do a

Daniels vision in his opinion and I and I agree Looks like we're gonna some eschatology any got any ideas with the seven thunders of Revelation.

Yeah So again, Jake GK Beals good on this but just just understand that when you see things in Revelation, it's not new

It's something old that's actually being used to illustrate a past present or potential future prophecy

Thunder was commonly seen as the voice of God Yeah, you don't have to go any further in the book of Exodus when the people of Israel near the

Mount They hear thunder And it was the voice of God and they were scared and they told

Moses you go if we go and talk to God He'll kill us later. Also, if you remember Jesus had a proclamation from the father put over him

One of the disputes in John's gospel is that only people heard Thunder so many many a time we find in Exodus and John's own writing in his gospel

Thunders associated with the voice of God. So if you have seven thunders in Revelation, you see those expressed through seven decreed judgments, so if you want to go

Through that you'll see that thunders are referring to the voice of God. They're played out in seven

Proclamational judgments in Revelation Just you know I told Tyler that we need to do apocalyptic literature on here and he gets all worked up about it

But you know because because it is a sensitive subject and I understand the sensitivity of that Yeah, so we also have a positive comment here as a hit

Historicist Historicist, I really appreciate these live streams explaining the different positions on eschatology followers are certainly gaining more interest in the end times.

Absolutely Who it's it's controversial who would want to be a part of that?

so Let's continue in to the writings by the way, if you'd like to continue to put questions in the comments, you can again if you want to Buy us a supersized coffee.

You can always do a super chat Alright, so have fun with that Clement of Alexandria says that John returned from the island of Patmos After the tyrant was dead.

This is in who is the rich man? Eusebius helps us understand who the tyrant was

He tells us in ecclesiastical history book 3 20 section 23 that the tyrant that Clement was referring to was demission now the earliest commentary

Jeremiah that we have of the book of Revelation that we have recorded in history is Victorinus now

There's statements about Revelation before him and I'm talking about an actual commentary He states this on the on his commentary of Revelation 10 11 when

John said these things He was on the island of Patmos condemned to the mines by Caesar demission there he saw the apocalypse and When at length grew old he thought that he could receive his relief by suffering but demission being killed

He was liberated So in the commentary the earliest commentary we have a revelation from Victorinus in the 3rd century

He tells us that it was demission that put him on the island and the only reason he was released because the mission was put to death liberating it

Jerome The famous translator of the Vulgate and doing the product work of the

Latin Vulgate says in the 14th then after Nero Demission having raised up a second persecution banished

John to the island of Patmos who wrote The apocalypse that's in lives of illustrious men nine.

So again when you look at Those are the early church infants That's fine they're all if the infants means producing some of the greatest records in church history like Jerome did in Rome for the

Latin Vulgate sure That's it says where they are But again, let's just say

Jerome's too far away. Let's say Victorinus is too far away Irenaeus is in the succession line of John and I don't mean five lines.

I mean a single hand ahead between them That one man was Polycarp so Irenaeus was either greatly misled by his mentor who purposely lied or had amnesia and Told Irenaeus these things in relation to John was the

Irenaeus that thought Jesus was 50 or something Yes.

Yes it is. But again, so that goes back to my first point. He says things that aren't true First of all,

I actually don't think we understand Irenaeus his point there. I Actually, I knew you're gonna come in to rescue.

I have to he's my favorite church father I think we don't understand his point there because remember

Can you think of any other time where Jesus was associated with the age of 50? In the

Gospels Help me. It's someone John's Gospel before Abraham was

I am ah Is yeah, is he 50 yet 50? How can he say?

He knew Abraham when this man's not even 50. I Intentionally wrong and that's what he came to believe.

Hey somebody got in the audience Johnny Great job

When you think about that he could have been Actually tying into the section there and playing in there.

I like I like that theory Let's just say he's wrong to say he's dead wrong

This is why we corroborate the evidence that we have no one else says as much as It relates to this

No one else says differently about the timing in the early patristics I just gave you multiple other people to corroborate the statement of demission with The earliest commentary

John the earliest connection to John One of the main

Bible Translators of Latin Vulgate and Rome with multiple records and libraries in front of him

You CBS attaches it to demission You CBS is a court historian looking at all the records of the churches and their archives that are still available to him

He's saying it Clement of Alexandria is saying it so again again, it's a corroborated a

Attested thing call it infant if you want That's what it is historical no,

I love the points you're making because Regardless where you fall on the prima sola scriptura line

We need to understand that Christ has been building his church for 2 ,000 years. And so we have a historic faith there's much great insight from The Giants that we stand on their shoulders that have come before us and to merely brush them off and say yeah

Doesn't matter like like to me. You're going to end up in heresy Phil. You know, I mean

History does there's nothing new in the Sun And so we would be foolish not to explore all that has come before us in between Christ's first coming and where we're at now.

So no, I love and appreciate your work, especially in church history Let's take appreciate that very much

Let's take one more and then we'll wrap this up or at the hour and a half mark Bob of Canada should preachers be permitted to promote a strange eschatological interpretation like partial preterism to the congregation without allowing opportunity for refutation from other church members

I think it would be wise for any leader in any pastor in the church to feel out his church and handle

Situations like this in a smaller segment before bringing it to just one day

You get up front of the whole church and start spewing away I think it'd be good to catch the pulse and more importantly

I think when you get into the eschatological side of things, I think it's important that people are very grace -filled for differences

Because I think we're all gonna find out we're we're partially wrong if we're not partially anything else

Let's not be partial preterist, but we will be partially probably wrong on this especially dispensationalist.

They're gonna be very wrong. So Yes, sorry, that was my jab at dispensationalist

Y 'all are mostly wrong. So There's there's very little, right? I Have I have to I have to beat up on my dis be friends

So I grew up dis be so I I have I have a right and license

I had to listen to them for years as their turn to listen to me So when you look at the different viewpoints of church history

There's really two major early positions. What would be considered all millennialism, which

I hate the term and Historic dispensationalism is a bad term

So I would say it's actually historic pre millennialism because there's other things historic dispensationalism as some want to call it.

There is historic Premillennialism that can be traced very very early So it really there there has to be latitude here

I I made points at many times when you read Irenaeus When he saw the number like a thousand he did not have literal view of numerology

Especially when it comes to scripture. I know people trust our day is believed in historic pre mill No now he

Said things about a thousand years, but if you read his understanding of numerology and scripture, it's it's not literal

Then you have Papias of Heriopolis who was also a disciple of John Who has a thousand -year view in mind and Eusebius mocks him for it

So you have two descendants of John's missionary journey teams? Who are produced through succession one in the city of Heriopolis one in the city of Leon?

One has a literal stage view of the thousand years one has a less literal view of the thousand years

Has a nuanced view of it, but yet they're both descendants from John. So if even early

Succession lines of John's disciples Differ slightly on this we can differ with grace.

That's that's what I would say I think that any pastor who is going to bring in any kind of teaching of eschatology needs to leave the door open for a lot of room to be wrong and disagreed with and allow a a

Multitude of perspective to come into it. I think the best thing to do is to state the other views

This is what I believe represent them fairly and then give why you land on one spot over the others

But be fair to the others So, you know I serve as a pastor along with within a plurality of pastors

Here at a church plant in Jonesboro, Arkansas And I typically, you know teaching the membership class on the statement of faith and just kind of letting people ask questions but kind of telling them where we are at and where we are

Close -fisted when it comes to gospel issues and where we have charitable disagreements And so when

I teach on the last things in section 14, so this is on 12 fives website regarding eschatology

We applied the dictum in essentials unity in Non -essentials Liberty in all things charity and it goes on a little bit

But this is kind of going full circle where we started what we hold close -fisted when it comes to last things is the future second coming of Jesus Christ where he will bodily return

Resurrect the dead physically bodily some to everlasting life and some to everlasting contempt

John rebel or Daniel chapter 12 John chapter 5 clearly teach this and that's future part of our blessed hope and a restoration of all things a new heavens and new earth and so that is what we hold with a close fist and You have went too far when you step into heresy ville and full preterism

But everything in between talking about the nature of the millennial reign Revelation 20 a lot of doctrine connected to that man

This is where we should have that door open to sharpen one another I think all three views have good interesting points

And like you said, I don't think necessarily one system has it all exactly, right? And so that's kind of how

I approach this conversation at twelve five church I tell people save that energy to contend against hyper preterism

Very well well said very very good and I do want to recognize a comment. I think Here it is your buddy

Prima scripture I mean solo scripture didn't the 50 have to do with being a wise alone teacher.

Yeah master. Yeah, that's correct His discussion was about Jesus reaching the different age categories from the time of his baptism

Which he mentions it was 30 of his baptism. I believe in that section. I'm almost positive and Then he goes into talking about the full age

Around the time of 50. I think he's continuing a statement. In other words. He was saying he is like that And that's the point

I was making earlier, I don't think we're fully understanding what Irenaeus is saying Because again numbers are not meant to be literal in his mind on a lot of things and the age of 50 was a completed

Master stage and his point was is that things are being completed Jesus completed the task of the different ages all the way to 50

Didn't mean he was 50 you say you saved our knees. I didn't save him.

He don't need my help. He's doing fine But I'm saying there's there's there's other ways to look at him.

There's other ways to look at what he was saying and What we did Irenaeus is what we do at Revelation We see a number we run with it as literal and they may not be meaning it to be that way

All right That next comment if you want to pull it up from JD And showing interest in discussion on beliefs that come from the restorationist movement pretty incredible because when we talk about the

Church of Christ the Campbellites what also spawns out of that restorationist movement are the

Seventh -day Adventist along with Mormonism and Perhaps Jehovah's Witnesses.

I mean it is the spawn of saying let us restore the church It has been lost, but you need us look to our particular sect that restored the church

That'd be a good one to do. Maybe we'll re -team up on the restorationist movement because that does lend itself into Sabbatarianism Especially as it connects to the

Seventh -day Adventist. So I I think that would be a good one to do for sure Sounds good, man.