Dangers of Hyper-Preterism | w/ Dr. Sam Storms

Hello and welcome to the Apologetic Dog. This is an apologetics ministry where we're guarding the deposit of grace and we do that by worrying against pagan philosophy, avoiding irreverent babble, those things that claim to have knowledge but really contain contradictions.

And so I'm so glad that you were able to join us this evening. I have a couple announcements that I want to mention.

I have a debate coming up just around the corner on June 24th at 6 p .m.

It's going to be hosted here at 12 -5 Church where I serve as pastor and elder and it's going to be on the long debated topic of free will and what does that look like.

I will be debating A .K. Richardson. Wonderful gentleman. We've had the pleasure of just talking to one another over social media and getting used to one another.

He actually has visited 12 -5 before when we had Dr. James White come and teach on salvation by faith alone.

So be on the lookout for that debate. We are going to be live and in person.

We can hold up to a hundred and thirty people. This is going to be a free event and if you're interested in coming, please send me a message and we would love to reserve a seat.

But like I said, we have a cap of a hundred and thirty seats and so those are going to fill up fast.

This debate will also be live stream so you can come to the Apologetic Dog and have your questions ready there.

Show your support. I finally have a thousand subscribers so I'm able to have the super chat turned on.

So questions from the audience will definitely be displayed for me and A .K. to examine and talk about.

So if you're not able to travel to Jonesboro, Arkansas, you can definitely join us online.

So be on the lookout coming up June 24th at 6 p .m. as A .K. and I debate about free will.

One last announcement. In September, this is a little bit ways away, but September 8th,

I've been invited to speak at the eschatology conference in Topeka, Indiana.

The topic that I've been assigned to talk about is the resurrection of the dead. And so it's all revolving around the question, how then shall we live?

A lot of times we're very comfortable talking about eschatology, having coffee and just sharpening another over the nature of the millennium or God's promises related to Israel.

And those are wonderful things that we can continue to sharpen one another about. But this conference says what your eschatology is is going to impact how we live here and now.

And so it's a pleasure to be able to talk about the resurrection of the dead amongst these wonderful theologians and pastors about our blessed hope.

Things that we hold with a closed fist that are not up for debate. And so eschatology is one of those things that I was so comfortable in my pre -millennial dispensational pre -trip rapture world and I thought, you know,

I got to start taking these things seriously because I did not understand that eschatology can go wrong.

There's eschatologies out there that actually try to take away our blessed hope in many different ways.

And so as I began studying more and more and more about this, I thought, man, there's so much that I've not uncovered.

So I had to contact one of the big guns out there, Dr. Sam Storms, because I read your book and I loved it, talking about the kingdom come and what that looks like here and now.

I reached out to Dr. Storms and he's like, hey, I'd love to come on your show and talk about these important issues.

And I just said, hey, I have a lot of questions. We need pastoral insight on how we're supposed to handle eschatology that goes wrong.

Can you hear me okay, Dr. Storms? You can hear me perfectly. Now you like to be called

Sam, is that right? Yes, please. Well, I appreciate you coming on the Apologetic Dog.

This is just an apologetics ministry that the Lord has really opened up doors for me to pursue. And Sam, my church family has been the biggest support and along with my beautiful bride,

Allie Nortier. And so that's why I'm able to break away this evening and have this conversation with you.

Great. Let's do it. Yes. Well, real quick, tell us where people can find you at if you're on social media, if you have a website, a little bit more about your books, things like that.

Actually, I'm not on social media. Never have been. I doubt if I ever will be. But they can find me at samstorms .org.

So www .samstorms .org. And I blog there.

Access to all my books is there. I have probably several thousand articles, book reviews, commentaries on Scripture, you name it.

It's all there free of charge. Access to anybody who wants to make use of it in any way.

So that's probably the best way to do it is to go there. Most of my sermons while I was at Bridgeway Church, I think all of them, in fact, are available there either in audio or video form.

And most of the sermon manuscripts, I would transcribe every sermon in advance. All those are available as well.

So samstorms .org. That's the best way to do it. Thank you so much for that.

I started listening to you more and more from the Remnant Radio guys. I really appreciate their ministry and a lot of your wonderful insight there.

And when I found your book, I want people to see this, Kingdom Come. And this is definitely from an all -millennial paradigm.

And so I love the angle that you examine many of these things talking about eschatology. But I definitely wanted to recommend my audience go check out the

Remnant Radio YouTube channel, podcasts, all those things. You've been a frequent guest on there, haven't you?

Yes. In fact, interestingly, I was with all three of them this morning for a couple of hours.

They were all here in Oklahoma City. So, yeah, they're all very, very good friends. And I highly recommend the program.

It's really, really educational and entertaining at the same time. Now, before we hopped on here, you told me you will actually be close to my neck of the woods.

I'm in Jonesboro, Arkansas, northeast Arkansas. But before too long, you're gonna come and speak on the

Holy Spirit. Is that right? Yes. And that'll be in Perigould, Arkansas, at the

Crossing Church. I'm sure they won't mind me giving that plug. But that is cool. I may have to break away and see if I can grab a ticket or grab a seat or something.

I'm sure they'd welcome you. Yeah. Well, once again, thanks for coming on. I loved your book here.

And one of my favorite things that you covered was the Olivet Discourse in Matthew chapter 24.

I was hoping, as we begin to talk about this, I want you to be thinking about and our audience to be thinking about full preterism.

In your book, you reference it as an extreme view and have rightly recognized that.

Rightly so. The historic faith has said this is actually hyper. This is outside the bounds of orthodoxy as hyper -preterism.

And Sam, the reason why I'm having to really be, you know, be on alert, high alert, is in Jonesboro.

There is a church that preaches full preterism from the pulpit. And just barely outside of Jonesboro, there is a

Southern Baptist Church that teaches full preterism from the pulpit. And so I have a lot of the members at 12 .5

Church asking questions, saying, what do we do? How do we combat these things? And so it's in God's providence

I've had to really take eschatology serious and realize, you know what, eschatology does matter. It actually does.

Our view of the end times affects how we live here and now. And so full preterism looks at the

Olivet Discourse and says it's all talking about the same event. And they said, and it was fulfilled at 70

AD. Now in your book here, you have a little bit different approach, which

I really would like for you to break down a little bit, because you're almost saying, well actually there's two questions being asked to Jesus, and so he's answering two separate questions.

Is that right? Yes. I hold to what might be called a partial preterist view of the

Olivet Discourse. I do believe that verses 3 through 35 are

Jesus addressing the issue of what will transpire in 70 AD within the lifetime of that current generation, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, one of the most unbelievably massive slaughters that had ever occurred up until that time.

And I do think that Jesus is, I mean they are asking him, they said, when will all these things come to pass?

They pointed at the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.

So it seems pretty clear that Jesus is at least addressing the events that will lead to the destruction of the temple in 70

AD. Now there's a possibility, I'm still working through whether or not this is cogent, it's a possibility that the

Olivet Discourse is describing both the events leading up to 70 AD and what will transpire at the end of the age.

In other words, some commentators and scholars have said that what we have in Matthew 24 is a description on what we might call a microcosmic scale, a limited local scale, these events which will take place on a macrocosmic or global scale at the end of the age.

So what transpired between the years basically 33 to 70 will also occur on a global scale at the end of the age.

What was basically restricted Jerusalem in the first century will take place in the entire earth at the end of the age in conjunction with Christ's return.

Now I'm not totally convinced by that yet, but I'm certainly open to that. But then I think the reference to the second coming begins in verse 36.

So I think Jesus is answering two questions. When will the temple be destroyed? And I think he answers that in verses 3 through 35.

And then secondly, what will be the sign of your coming? When will you return? The parousia, the second advent, that I believe he addresses in verses 36 and following.

Now in your book, you made a point. I remember just stopping and saying, yes, this is what I've been talking about.

Because you said, look at all the timing indicators with this generation. I remember you grounded of saying, if we're looking to the human writer

Matthew, he's used this generation earlier, Matthew 23, with the contemporaries, the

Pharisees that are getting the most scathing rebuke that Jesus probably ever gave. But he's talking to the people that are listening to him.

And when he's answering this first question, you know, about when are these things going to take place, the destruction of the temple, he's giving all the timing indicators.

And then you see a shift in verse 36 with no timing indicators. No one knows the day or the hour, not even the sun, which is a remarkable statement.

And so I really think you do see a transition happen there with verse 36.

And I read, I believe it was Ken Gentry's book, Have We Missed the Second Coming?

And he talked about the Greek there, but concerning, that day, but concerning. He makes a case that that's a transitional phrase.

We can see earlier in Matthew 22, he used that same transitional phrase to build arguments on top of one another, so we see a shift.

And so do you think there's any connection with, as you go into Matthew 25, with the parable of the virgins of just saying, that's why we're to be ready for him to come at any moment?

Oh, absolutely. And in fact, that bears directly on a comment you made earlier, that there are massive practical ethical implications for the whole idea of full preterism, as over against what

I think is the biblical view. Because if full preterism is true, there is no blessed hope.

It's already come and gone. If full preterism is true, all the exhortations toward holiness of life based on our expectation of the return of Jesus are meaningless.

They're empty. So yes, it is massively important that we understand that our

Lord is talking about his return at the end of the age. And of course, again, the full preterist view,

I don't know if you want to jump into this right now, but they would argue that everything here, the coming of the

Son of Man, everything associated with verses 36 and following, all that transpired within the span of years from 33 to 70

AD. It's all past. That's what the word preterism means. It's from the

Latin prateritus, which means past. And so all of this is past history.

And I believe that a large part of it is up through verse 35. But I also think

Jesus is talking about his second coming from there on through into Matthew 25. Yeah.

How relevant do you think the phrase, the end of the age, which we see mentioned many times in Matthew's gospel,

I believe earlier, Matthew chapter 13. We see it here in the Olivet Discourse and at the end of the

Great Commission. I really think this is maybe a difference between all mill and post mill.

They understand maybe these two phrases differently. Do you think this has a big bearing in the conversation with full preterism?

Yes, it does, because they argue that the age that is in view in that phrase is the age of Judaism and the

Mosaic Covenant, and that what Jesus was saying is the end of that age will happen in 70

AB. I think the end of the age is a reference to the entire current period of church history in which we are living.

That is the age that will terminate with the second coming of Christ, the visible, personal, physical return of Jesus to consummate his kingdom.

So, you know, there are variations among post -millennialists on what the end of the age is.

But again, the full preterist view argues that it's referring specifically to the

Mosaic era, the covenant under which the Jewish people in Israel lived that terminated in 70

AB. Of course, the problem with that is that 70 AB really wasn't the end of the

Mosaic Covenant. The book of Hebrews tells us that happened with the death and resurrection of Jesus and when he established the new covenant in his blood and instituted the

Lord's Supper. So I don't know how you can extend the Mosaic Covenant and the age of Moses, as it were, beyond the time of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

But that's the way they understand it. Yeah, because Hebrews talks about how Christ is a perfect mediator.

So his ascension plays a big role in him fulfilling or at least showing how he's the better high priest.

And that work is continual, right? Now, I mean, he's the sacrifice, right? But he's also the perfect high priest.

And so he sits down in the Holy of Holies, right? He's not like these imperfect priests that have to continually come and go.

So that's a good point of just saying to the full preterist, why? Why does everything end at 70

AD if you're being consistent with these Old Testament principles? Well, then it should have ended at his death, right?

Yeah. And at the same time, I think we should acknowledge that 70

AD was a significant termination of God's unique relationship with Israel because the temple was destroyed.

The city was reduced to rubble. All the sacrifices ended. The Jewish people who survived it were sold into slavery.

So, yeah, it was a very visible, undeniable kind of confirmation of the termination of that covenant.

But I think the Hebrews indicates the covenant had been terminated, you know, many years in advance of that with the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Now, with the all -millennial paradigm, because I've studied, obviously, your book, I've read Rudelbarger, and we actually did a full eschatology series here at 12 .5

that I was able to teach, and a member of 12 .5, Adam Carmichael, where I gave a positive presentation of the pre -millennial view.

That was the very typical Johnny Mac style. And I went ahead and preached post -millennialism in a positive light, you know what

I mean? So, rightly trying to understand this age and the age to come, and how to view the law of God going forth, and how you're going to have this kingdom expanding, being

Christianized, submitting to King Jesus in a very particular way. And then we did, Adam preached on all -millennialism.

And so, the last sermon was about the death knell to hyper -preterism.

And so, I've just, I've looked at their hermeneutic. It seems so backwards to how you and I would approach the scripture, really, with this

Christocentric understanding of how the New Testament just shines light on these

Old Testament paradigms. And you get into that a lot in your book. And so, with this age, it seems to me,

I really want to hear more from you on this, but this age, is it really talking about this temporal age?

Is this something that is unique to the all -millennial perspective? You've got this age, the temporal age, and then you have this already -not -yet paradigm where the kingdom is inaugurated with Christ, with his resurrection, his ascension.

And then you have the overlap, the age to come being inaugurated. Well, yeah,

I think most eschatological views believe in the principle of already and not yet, except for preterism, full preterism.

For them, everything is already. There's no not -yet -to -come. There's nothing yet to be fulfilled.

There's no prophecy that hasn't come to pass. And of course, we can go into more detail on that.

They would include in that the resurrection, the final judgment, the new heavens and the new earth. All these things have already been not just inaugurated, but have come in their fullness, in their consummate form.

But yeah, an all -millennial such as myself, I do believe that we are to understand this age and the age to come as a distinction between the church age in which we now live that spans between the exaltation of Jesus to the right hand of the

Father and his second coming at the end of history. The age to come is the new heavens, the new earth, the eternal state.

The pre -millennial view inserts in between this present age and the eternal state a thousand years of ongoing human history on the earth.

I believe that that, I believe, by the way, a -millennial, you may have addressed this before in other contexts, that's a very bad label.

I don't like it. It's a misnomer. Yeah, because it suggests that I don't believe in a millennium. Like someone who's apolitical or amoral.

No, I believe very much in the millennium of Revelation 20. I just think that it's a reference to what we call the intermediate state.

It's the reign of Christ together with his saints, extending from his exaltation to the second coming.

So just to give an example, I believe that Augustine and Calvin and Luther and my mom and dad, all of whom have lived and died as believers, are now reigning with Christ, the right hand of the father.

And they are experiencing the first resurrection, the life in the intermediate state that will be consummated, obviously, by the return of Christ and the bodily resurrection of all saints.

So again, yeah, the already not yet, very much the kingdom has been inaugurated.

Jesus made that very clear all through the gospels. And part of what that means is many of the blessings and the realities of the age to come have intruded into the present now.

But again, it's already but not yet. So we have been regenerated, right?

We're new creatures in Christ. Second Corinthians 517. But we haven't completely been regenerated in the sense that our bodies still suffer.

Paul talks about the redemption of our bodies in Romans eight that we await. So you mean that's not corporate

Israel, according to the forerunners? No, I don't believe so. So my point is, there are a number of things we've been we've been forgiven of our sins, but we still have to wrestle with the reality of indwelling sin.

That's part of the already and the not yet. You mentioned a second ago about the intermediate state, and I had flashbacks to where Dr.

John Piper was having an evening of eschatology. And I seem to remember you being there. And you want to know what?

I was a premillennialist, pretty hardcore at the time. So I remember listening to you make points because you and the historic premillennialist, and you had

Doug Wilson there too, right? He was the other person. I remember pausing it and arguing with you, trying to go back.

And I was like, Oh man, I wish I could have answered that better. So you caught me when I was a little bit caged stage premill back then.

But it was so good, because I was able to see these conflicting eschatologies that are all orthodox, right?

Sharpening one another in the nature of the millennium, and how God fulfills his promises to Israel, yet retaining our blessed hope.

And so I remember y 'all talked a little bit about that. So I got flashbacks there for a second. How long ago was that?

It's been a number of years, hasn't it? That was 2009. It was in conjunction with the conference that John hosted on the, what was it?

I guess the, I'm trying to think, get my dates correct here. Is that the five?

Wait a second. Calvin was born in 1509. So this was the 500th anniversary of his birth.

And so it was, it was the conference on that. And then after that was concluded, that's when we gathered at Bethlehem Baptist Church for this very special night of eschatology.

Not to derail too far off, a shining moment that I thought you had in that conversation is,

I remember you and the historic premill were talking about the end of Revelation 19, about everyone being wiped off the planet, essentially.

And you're like, where's your kingdom that's going to be populated? And the gentleman said, it's not comprehensive. And I remember,

I was like, MacArthur has taught me how to answer this question. I wish I could help. So I just, it was such a good video and it was about two hours long.

So I'm definitely going to include somewhere to encourage people to go listen to that long, but wonderful conversation that y 'all had.

It was fun. I really enjoyed it. It was great. And I just want to encourage people.

These are good conversations to have. And sometimes it's hard to talk with people that you disagree with.

And typically what I tell people is eschatology is third tier. You can have coffee, shake hands, agree to disagree.

And it's great. Full preterism just totally flips everything upside down. And you were talking some of the ethical implications or byproducts of full preterism at large.

And one of those things that maybe you can help me out here with is Satan is already thrown into the

Gehenna. And so virtually there is no spiritual warfare. I know you may have a few things to say about that.

Oh my, yes. Well, as a non -millennialist, I do believe that Satan is in one sense bound during this present age.

But I think the mistake my pre -millennial friends make is that they universalize what

John restricts. John very specifically says, and you can read Revelation 20 verse 3 and then again in verse 7, that Satan is bound so that he might not orchestrate the unbelieving nations of the earth in a premature provocation of Armageddon.

That's what he's kept from doing. Nowhere does it say that he's kept or prevented from tempting or harassing or prowling about like a roaring lion, like Peter says in 1

Peter 5, or blinding the minds of the unbelieving. He's simply hindered completely from provoking

Armageddon prematurely. And when he's released from his prison, what does he do? He immediately goes out, gathers the unbelieving nations of the earth to launch this final assault against the kingdom of Christ.

So, yeah, the idea that somehow Satan has been thrown into the lake of fire. I mean, that just renders utterly irrelevant so much of the

New Testament. Ephesians 6, why bother with the armor of God? Because there are no principalities and powers.

There are no spiritual forces of darkness. There are no firing missiles being launched at us.

Why bother with 1 Peter 5 and be aware of the prowling lion who's seeking someone to devour?

I mean. Sam, 1 Peter 5 was right before 70 AD, so he was being released at the very end that was to come.

I know it. I'm aware of that argument. But again, all of that is tied up in a single package.

You have to believe that all of these things transpired pre -70 AD and none of them extend beyond that point, which

I just think mutes so much of the New Testament and furthermore, is totally inconsistent with what the

New Testament says about the nature of judgment, the nature of the bodily resurrection, the nature of the second coming, the nature of the new heavens and the new earth.

All of those things are undermined by the full preterist perspective. Yeah, so I have ongoing conversations with the full preterist and I know

Isaiah chapter 65, which mentions the new heavens and new earth, which you do spend some time in your book talking about some of the the hyperbolic language that goes on there.

I believe it's around verse 20 with an infant will die yet at 100 years of age, things like that. And the full preterist would look to Isaiah 65 as procreation happening in the new heavens, in the new earth.

And so what's what's so troublesome to me is they say we're living in the new heavens, new earth now in total, right?

Not a culmination of all things or Christ coming to do away with sin and death. But everything that you see now, evil will continue on into infinity.

You see physical death that's going to continue on into infinity because they've boxed themselves in to reading

Isaiah 65 in a very literalistic fashion. And then

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this, too. And then they take Daniel 12, this understanding about the resurrection of the dead, final judgment having to also happen right here.

So I've noticed those are two chapters that they bring together and saying the parrhesia has to happen with the resurrection.

We agree in principle. But they're saying all that's at 70 A .D. And then at the new heavens and new earth, as we see it now, they say it's code for, you know, spiritual life, faith in Christ.

But this is the new heavens and new earth now. No resurrection of the dead. How in the world can you say this is the new heavens, new earth as it is described in Revelation 21 and 22?

I mean, I'm serious. If if this is the new heavens and new earth, spiritual, I give up.

I see. Are we really forced to say this is as good as it gets? If it is, man,

I think I bought into the wrong religion. I'm following the wrong savior. That's just is beyond my comprehension.

And I know what to do. They spiritualize everything. Just like the resurrection. There's no physical resurrection body.

It's very Gnostic in its orientation as well. It's very, you know, almost demonizing and vilifying physical reality when in fact,

God is the author of it all. So, yeah, it's a it's a dangerous doctrine. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that full preterism, as you said earlier, is outside the boundaries of orthodoxy.

Any other eschatology, dispensational, pre -trib, post -trib, mid -trib, pre -meal, a -meal, post -meal, they're all within the bounds of orthodoxy as long as they affirm the literal, physical, visible, personal return of Jesus to consummate his kingdom.

But when you deny that latter doctrine, you're running counter to the entire history of Christianity, at least up until full preterism emerged.

And that wasn't until about the 17th or 18th century. Every creed, every confession would run counter to it.

I know what they say. They say, well, creeds and confessions aren't inspired and infallible. You're right. But that doesn't mean we can ignore them.

Right. It strikes me as a bit on the arrogant side to suggest that the entire

Christian church for 1700 years got it wrong. And then suddenly a very small, little, select few have insight into the nature of biblical eschatology.

I find that very hard to swallow. Yeah. And I love what you said.

We're not bringing the confessions and the creeds on par with Scripture, but we're saying we have a historic faith.

And, you know, at 12 .5, I encourage people, the right parameters is at least stepping into studying this saying,

OK, Jesus is coming to return in the future bodily because full preterism says that happened all spiritually at 7

AD. But Jesus is coming in the future bodily. He's going to judge the living and the dead. He's going to restore all things.

And we're going to be resurrected to new life, to rule and reign with him. We are stepping into the topic of eschatology with those things in view.

And so I've often said full preterism fails historically. But I also think full preterism fails logically because the way that they've articulated the new heavens and new earth doesn't go on eternally, but it goes on into infinity because this is a created world.

And so when you start having evil procreation going on into infinity, this is actually going to contradict necessary attributes of God with his omniscience and his sovereignty because God never truly knows all who are his.

Right. Because you could always add one more. It's going on infinitum. Well, evil is not going to be ultimately vanquished or destroyed.

A lot of their complaint is, well, the scripture just doesn't really address that.

Anytime that you see the end, it's talking about the end of the Jewish covenant age. So anyway,

I think there are some logical problems to say that procreation goes on into infinity or these events go on into infinity because God doesn't truly know these things.

Right. So you kind of give up a necessary attribute of who God is. And I think this goes back to the creeds and confessions.

Yes, we say these are wonderful and good, but they should always be tested with scripture.

And so tell me what you think. I think one of the clearest passages that goes against full preterism exegetically is 1

Corinthians 15. Beautiful chapter talking about the very essentials of the gospel rooted in Jesus's physical death and his physical bodily resurrection.

And then we're we're promised to have a resurrection like that. You know, it's this in fact.

But in fact, Christ has been raised from the dead and we know that that was physical. He's the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep.

So in other words, he was the first of the rest of us who have died physically. We will be raised like him.

I mean, I think also of Romans six, five. If we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

Well, his was a physical bodily resurrection. You know, you have very similar statements in Romans 8, 11.

In fact, real quickly, I can flip over there and and because I've been immersed in Romans lately in Romans 8, 11.

If the spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his spirit who dwells in you.

We go on and on. You know, I think of Philippians 3, 20 and 21, where our bodies will be made like unto his.

Well, he was raised physically. He was glorified physically. God, the son lives in a glorified physical body even now and will forever.

And so will we. So again, you know, 1 John 3, 1 to 3, we will be made like him when he returns.

And that's not just morally or spiritually, it's physically. We will be raised physically. So, yeah, just on and on.

So many texts that that full preterism has to dismiss. I don't know what they do with Acts 1, 9 through 11 for the angels.

I figured this out. So what you saw Jesus ascend, the angel says, is really he's ascending authoritatively and he's going to return authoritatively at the end of the age spiritually.

So the question then is, did he ascend, go up? I mean,

I'm looking at it. They were looking on as he was lifted up and a cloud took him out of their sight and they were gazing into heaven.

And the angel said, he's going to come back the same way. Yeah, no, I do. I agree.

That's one of those hard pills to swallow is to try to take away the immediate context of what the apostles were witnessing.

They got to spiritualize it, like you were saying earlier. And I remember talking to Dr. Sam Frost, who was a leader in full preterism for a decade and came out of it.

He was one of the first guests I had on the Apologetic Dog saying, Dr. Frost, I need help here. I'm getting a lot of questions and this is starting to spawn in my front yard.

And he said one of the things that led him out was the verse that you read in Acts 1, 11 around there saying, yeah, that's that's a hard one to try to get around.

He also told me now this is interesting to all millennialism because the millennial reign, a thousand years is symbolic for a long period of time, right?

Well, let me just quickly insert here the number one thousand virtually every place that appears in Old and New Testament is symbolic for the perfect period of time.

You know, God says he owns the cattle on a thousand hills. What about that one thousand and first hill? You didn't own that one?

You know, it's it's almost always symbolic of the perfect period of time. So I'm sorry to interrupt you, but no, you're good.

I mean, God makes a promise to a generation and then to a thousand generations. Well, all the generations, right?

God's promises are going to hold. But full preterism does the exact opposite. They say, well, really a millennium is less than 40 years, right?

Because of 780 and it's just unprecedented within scripture.

And so that's something else that I've looked. So I would say full preterism fails historically, logically and exegetically.

And a lot of it is due to a backward hermeneutic. And so you're you and your book spend a lot of time talking about understanding eschatology, having a proper hermeneutics, especially as we look to prophecies in the

Old Testament. And so I'd like for you to speak to that a little bit, because my experience with full preterism is everything starts with the time indicators of, you know, things being soon.

Things are going to happen at hand. Jesus is at the door. Jesus says, I'm coming quickly.

All this has to mean that 70 AD is around the corner to this first century audience.

And so everything is interpreted in light of that, not an unfolding progressive revelation. But you're starting with the end and then reading everything backwards into it rather than observing how

God's progressive revelation has unfolded. So I don't know if you want to speak to that. Yeah, just briefly.

Admittedly, we have to wrestle with those time indicators in Revelation. But my understanding of the book of Revelation is contrary to the dispensational pre -trib view.

I don't believe that the book of Revelation is concerned exclusively with the end of the age. Now, it does deal with it.

I do. But I believe it's descriptive of what I call the commonplaces of the entire present age in which we live.

I think the seal, trumpet and bowl judgments were all unleashed in the earth at the time of the exaltation of Christ to the right hand of the father.

And they are manifested in varying degrees of intensity and scope throughout the entire present age and will intensify as we come closer and closer to the end.

So when Jesus said these things will happen soon, I think he was right. I think they're happening right now and they are being experienced by people throughout the earth in varying degrees throughout the last 2000 years.

So that's my understanding of those phrases. I admit that, you know, of course, the other thing is there's more than just a coming at the end of the age.

You know, I can't remember which of the seven churches Jesus said, I will come to you soon and remove your lampstand.

He's talking about coming in judgment against them and basically terminating their influence, their spiritual influence in the earth.

So, yeah, I do. I can't remember what else you were asking just then, but I do believe that those time indicators can be understood in a reasonable way.

Absolutely. If you project everything in Revelation to be descriptive of only the last seven years of human history, you do have a problem.

Although at the same time, those who would take that position say, look, soon in the in the timetable of the

Lord can be a thousand, two thousand, three thousand years for a day is a thousand, a thousand as a day.

Second Peter three. I understand that perspective. There's some truth to that. But I think there's a better explanation of those time indicators than the one that the futurists would take.

Sure, because I do know your book dealt a lot with the dispensational premillennial paradigm. But it's so interesting how a lot of your principles equally would undo full preterism.

And we're talking about some of those timing indicators. I know another one they would say the time is near as though that it's still impending chronologically around the corner.

Well, many of our translations render that the time is at hand, meaning it's here. It's at hand.

It's upon us. And especially from John's perspective, that would be absolutely true. And I think with the all millennial paradigm, we would see recapitulations of this judgment happening with the people of God going through tribulation, going back to the

Olivet Discourse. Right. A lot of these things were slamming that early church, but it's going to continue rather than that first generation.

Yeah, and another another problem I have with full preterism and even with some partial preterists,

I don't believe I don't believe Revelation was written pre 70. I take that.

I do believe that it was probably written in the early 90s. Then one of the major reasons for that.

And again, there's really no external evidence that decides it. You know, the quote from Irenaeus doesn't decide it because it can be interpreted in one of two ways.

But I read Revelation and I do not know how you can cram all of the descriptive events in Revelation four through 20 into a period between 33 and 70

A .D. I don't know how all of Revelation, in effect, is describing those last few years of the siege of Jerusalem.

There's just too much detail, too much, too much universal language there to somehow restrict it to just the last few years preceding 70

A .D. So that's another real problem I have with full preterism, but even with partial preterists who put the dating of Revelation in probably 60 to 65.

Now, again, I'm open to being persuaded of that. I don't think it's a radical. I think a lot of Orthodox believers embrace that.

We get to keep Doug Wilson. Yeah, I just I just have I need somebody to write a commentary on Revelation that exegetically accounts for all the details in the book and applies them to that little three year period from basically 67 to 70

A .D. I find that that's found it to be a real stretch. So my ministry deals with a lot of apologetics.

And so when I'm looking to the full preterist arguments, the time indicators are kind of their initial starting point.

Everything is reinterpreted in light of that. And so people are like, Jeremiah, what do we do with the argument? And I say, well, we come back with better timing indicators.

And so this is one of the slam dunk passages. I'll be getting to speak at that Eschatology Matters conference in September, and I get to speak on the resurrection of the dead.

So First Corinthians 15 to me, it's didactic. Paul has in mind his Old Testament perspective of what the resurrection was going to look like.

But he has a regenerated heart. He understands the fulfillment of that being in Christ and the ramifications of what that has for believers.

Tell you what you think about this, Sam. Here is a timing indicator that I think the full preterist cannot account for.

So in verse 23 of First Corinthians 15. But each in his own order, Christ, the first fruits, like you referenced earlier, he's the principle, the rule, not the exception.

And then at his parrhesia, his coming, those who belong to Christ, then comes the end when he delivers the kingdom to God the

Father after destroying every rule, every authority and power. He must reign until he has put all enemies under his feet.

And the last enemy to be destroyed is death. And so I think the whole context he's talking about physical death, physical death.

Right. And what's the big indicator that Jesus has not returned yet?

Well, there's still death in this world. There's still wars. The way that Jesus talked about is going to be apparent in this age.

Right. So when you look out and see sickness, when you look out and see evil, when you see sin, all these things are indicators that the end has not come yet, that when the parrhesia will happen and Christ will restore all things and then present all of it back to God the

Father. So what do you think about that? The fact that there's still death and everything attached to that, that is an indicator that Christ has not returned.

You're preaching to the choir. Yeah, I totally agree with you. Not only that, but, you know, down in verses 50 to the end of the chapter about he says we shall all be changed in the twinkling of an eye.

The dead will be raised imperishable. The perishable body must put on the imperishable body.

This mortal body must put on immortality. So, again, our bodies are going to be transformed.

They're not going to be vaporized or spiritualized. They're going to be delivered from the remaining effects of sin and corruption with which we live right now.

So, yeah, those are very powerful texts. It's really important.

Like I said, I'm all respective of the different eschatological perspectives that rightly handles our blessed hope, the non -negotiables, the essentials of eschatology.

And so full preterism just takes that away. But like I was alluding to earlier, and you get into this in your book,

I believe it's chapter one, where you talk about the hermeneutics of how to understand prophecy.

And, you know, something that dispensationalism does, and even though, you know, it's orthodox, but there's a radical split with ethnic

Israel in the church, right? And so I've noticed that full preterism has a very dispensational feature.

And some people maybe will tune me out because they feel like they're truly the antithesis to dispensationalism. I don't think so.

When they are reading the Old Testament about the blessings, the cursings and prophecy, they think it's talking only to ethnic

Israel. I'm like, there's another methodology that kind of thinks of the same way. So I don't know if you want to speak to how important hermeneutics are into this conversation.

Yeah, I can. Just given our time limits, I can give one fundamental underlying foundational principle, and that is the

Old Testament has to be interpreted Christologically, has to be interpreted in light of the coming of Christ.

And I'll just give a couple of quick examples where Jesus is, in fact, the consummate fulfillment of the temple.

This idea that dispensationalists hold that God is going to sanction the rebuilding of a physical structure in Jerusalem, I think is horrendous.

And I even used the wrong language. Now, there may be people in Jerusalem that rebuild the temple.

If they can get the Muslims off of the Dome of the Rock and the Dome of the Rock out of the way, OK, maybe they will. You know what the argument is these days, that the

Dome of the Rock is actually built in the wrong place. Yeah, the wrong place. Regardless, if they rebuild it, it will rise up as a stench in the nostrils of God because it basically denies that Jesus is the incarnate embodiment of the temple in whom the glory of God resides.

And we, the church, by extension, his body, are the temple of God, which Paul says repeatedly.

Then there's also the Sabbath. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Sabbath. He is.

There's a very real clear train of thought all through Matthew's gospel, especially where Jesus is basically

Israel fulfilled. He is the true son of God. I mean, you look even at the temptation in Matthew four and all of the ways in which

Jesus responds to Satan were texts that applied to Israel during its time of wilderness wandering.

So you have to read the you can't read the Old Testament as if Jesus never came. You have to read it in light of the

Christ event and ask yourself the question, in what in what ways has he transformed these prophetic truths?

Another one, Galatians three, where, you know, all through the Old Testament, the seed of Abraham referred exclusively to the physical progeny of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Galatians three, Paul says, no, the seed of Abraham is anybody who's in Christ.

He is the true seed. If you're in Christ, you are the seed of Abraham and you're equal heirs of the promises given to the fathers.

So all these things have to be looked at from a Christological perspective. That, to me, is the most fundamental hermeneutical principle that I try to unpack in the book.

So I can hear a full preterist say, yeah, that's exactly what we believe, that you have to have Christ fulfilling everything for ethnic

Israel. And so I think they once again, they only read the the blessings, the cursings, the prophecy as only referring to Israel, ethnic

Israel. And that's a very dispensational framework because we are the new Israel, right?

Right. So the true Israel. Can you speak to that a little bit of how that's not just shoehorned something all into the past, but how to we are reaping the blessings of what

Christ has accomplished? Yeah, I have been accused many times of advocating replacement theology, and I reject that label.

I don't believe that any believing Jewish man or woman has been replaced by any believing

Gentile man or woman. I believe in fulfillment theology. And what

I mean by that is the Church of Jesus Christ, the body of Christ, that according to Romans 11, this one olive tree that's comprised of both believing

Jews and believing Gentiles, natural branches, unnatural branches, we together as one body equally inherit the promises.

So the illustration I use is, does the butterfly replace the caterpillar?

Not really. The butterfly is the organic consummate fulfillment of the caterpillar.

So that's the relationship between Israel and the church. The church is the emerging consummate expression of God's remnant people within Israel.

Now, Jew and Gentile together brought together, as Paul says in Ephesians 2, such that one new man has been created, co -heirs of the covenants of promise.

So nobody's been replaced. Every believing Jewish man and woman will inherit everything that God intended for them and promised to them.

But so too, on an equal basis, will every believing Gentile man and woman. So that's not replacement theology.

That's fulfillment theology. That's why the church is the true Israel of God, not necessarily the new

Israel. Although new is okay. I just like the word true better. Oh, I like that because I think that is the same complaint that full preterist have is saying, well, that's the church replacing

Israel. And you're saying, no, it fulfills all these things in Christ. You can't replace yourself because think about what was the early church.

The early church was exclusively believing Jews who were in the upper room when he instituted the new covenant and the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31.

It's Jewish believers who formed kind of the core remnant of those that would eventually emerge and become the multi -ethnic global body of Christ.

Yes. Well, thank you so much, Sam, for coming on and talking with me about these important things, because like I said, full preterism is popping up in Jonesboro, Arkansas, which you'll be coming to Paraclete soon.

So I really wanted you to have on to be able to speak pastorally. Are you still serving as a pastor?

No, I stepped down back in August 31st of last year.

So still in full -time ministry with Enjoying God Ministries, writing, speaking, doing a whole lot of things like that, doing things like this more often, but I'm just not leading the church.

Well, I wanted you to be able to speak pastorally to people that are maybe on the fence or are in full preterism, but maybe they hear someone like you that they respect and have read your book and hear you talking about what hope do we have?

What are we doing now? A lot of full preterists are universalists.

I understand that because you're living in this post -redemptive plan, right? Just to have one heresy on top of another, it sounds like.

Well, it has its hands in everything. It's a different religion. It's not Christianity anymore.

Everything is being redefined in a totally different way. Unfortunately, I've heard many testimonies of atheists that were full preterists that eventually just left the faith altogether, and I think it at least makes sense.

I know that's very anecdotal, but think about it from just a very practical perspective. What hope do you have? They'll tell me.

They believe in a heaven that 2 Corinthians 12, Paul didn't know how to articulate,

I think the new King James says, with words unexpressible or something like that. Sometimes they get on to me to say, you're not representing our view right.

Yeah, we believe we're living in the new heavens and new earth now, but that's not to negate that we don't cross over into the heaven.

To me, it's like, how many things are going to redefine, going against what Christianity has always upheld?

Even amongst the differing perspectives of Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism, these are things that we still hold in unison together about when

Christ is coming. And how he's going to restore all things, and how we're going to receive resurrected bodies.

So I appreciate all of your pastoral insight. I just want to encourage our viewers, check out his book,

Kingdom Come. Isn't that an incredibly great cover design?

The lion and the lamb. I love it. Yeah, a fellow in our church who does graphic design, he's actually one of the elders at Bridgeway.

He did that, and I thought, I just think it's awesome. Well, before you hop off here,

I got to give someone a shout out, Christy Wilkes. I don't know if you've ever come across that name on your

Twitter, but she's a member at 12 Five Church, and she is the one that, she is a

Patreon of the Apologetic Dog, and she just says, when are you going to get Sam on there, Jeremiah? I'm like, I'm working on it.

So thank you, Christy, for your support for the Apologetics Ministry, and getting me to have

Dr. Sam Storms on the show. So thank you for your time.

We'll have to do this again sometime. I'm going to have to read some more of your books and have you back on.

Sure. Love to do it. All right. Maybe I'll see you in Paragould here soon. All right.

Thank you so much. God bless. Good to meet you. Bye bye. Well, thank you all for joining us here on the

Apologetic Dog. I hope this blessed your heart. I can say doctor now, since Sam has left, but I appreciate his book.

Really challenges us to, you know, handle eschatology with care, because eschatology does matter. It does impact the way that we live here and now.

And I love the name of his book, Kingdom Come. Yes, the kingdom is at hand. We are living in this overlap of the already, but not yet, but not in total.

Jesus will return and he will restore all things. I look forward to seeing you all again. Take care.