Great Sermon! Great discussion, As a recovering pre-trib/dispensationalist, I too struggle with Rev 20. If you study the New Covenant/Testament only you don't see a literal 1000 year reign. I believe in Matthew Jesus says that His Kingdom is not of this world. 1 Cor 15:25 and its companion verse of Matt 22:44 and Psalm 110.1, Jesus is sitting on David's throne now at the right hand of the Father. Acts 15:16 and Amos 9:11-12. But if you read and study the Old Covenant/Testament, you see a future kingdom that seems earthly as in Isaiah and Zechariah and any other places. So, is everthing in the Old is fulfilled in New or in Christ Jesus? It seems so, ?
Reply to Jeff Brother Jeff,
Thanks for listening and thanks for the question. I cannot answer for the other three guys, but I can tell you that Paul is SO definitive in my opinion that if it doesn't pan out the way he says, he was mistaken. The thing I need to do is determine whether that endangers inerrancy. I know the right answer in this forum, but I refuse to believe the apostle was wrong or so guided by the Holy Spirit that He could be so definitive and yet proceed beyond that which was appropriate given his limited understanding of eschatology.
Great Sermon! Im sure you guys are familiar with Doug Wilson. He just sat down with Jeff Durbin and did an eschatology "conversation" explaining his views. He used ICor 15. I enjoyed it and believe it to be worthwhile. I found it on apologia radio.
Feed-back Friends, the apparent need to 'reconcile' matters derives from existent preconceived ideas brought into the discussion. No single eschatology position has 'all the answers' if dealing with fallible/limited creatures. Yet there should be positions, which will respond satisfactorily to sound hermeneutics.
It is a danger and a serious flaw to deal with the particular from the humanistic approach of trying to 'reconcile' what four authors (Paul, Peter, John and Jesus) say about the topic along their personal 'amount of understanding', instead of seeing the whole of Scripture as God's sufficient and infallible revelation. The doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible makes that no author was subject to his 'personal' intuition, understanding or revelation as it were. Useful and edifying series on the matter by Dr. Sinclair B. Ferguson: Apocalypse Now: The Reign of Christ (SA). Regards
Interesting opinions I do appreciate you guys living out your namesake and being true Berean's, and searching the scriptures and not being fixed on any system. I do remember struggling when an organization leader told me that if he ever changes his doctrinal position he would retire and leave the ministry/ and even the church he currently was at.
I had only 2 thoughts on this:
1) Has any effort been made to talk with some people who have more experience with pre-mill, maybe a pre-mill apologist from a seminary. The reason I ask this is when I have people converting to another faith, or even atheism how I wished they would of talked with someone and maybe get all the facts straight, instead of just dropping out at the very first sign of doubt. If I was in your position I would seek out the some prominent anti-amillenium folks who write books and radio such as:
Jimmy DeYoung "Prophesy Today" organization.
Dr. Michael Brown of "Ask Dr Brown"
And "Friends of Israel" Gospel Ministry.
My second thought is that there is more at stake in these doctrinal positions, I always believed that each one came with it's own presuppositions, which would lead to different interpretations of scriptures, such as prophesy of Daniel, and if the church existed in the O.T or only in N.T.
Great Sermon! I truly like that you are not afraid to discuss the hard stuff. It is helping me grow. My question is, "Was Paul looking to make a definitive statement of eschatology at this point?" It looks like his focus is more on salvific faith by understanding how important resurrection is, than making a declarative statement on end times. If his intent was to make such a statement, I would think he would have gone into more detail. Could it be that he did not go into great detail because that was not his focus? It is not an oversight or error, just not the main theme of his argument. i.e. You need to put gas in your car for it to run. I am not going to get into the details of a combustion engine, but you put gas in, turn the key and it runs. A lot of things happens between the key turning and it running, but the main thing is that it needs gas.
Just a thought I always cringe when I hear somebody say they wouldn't want to shoot one if the mass shooters. Usually it is some very Christian sounding reason like I want them to be able to hear the gospel. What about the victims? Most if not all of the victims are in hell with their killers. I never hear people talk about the victims chance to hear the gospel. I would rather kill the shooters and give the victims further opportunities to hear about God.
Really Great! I am terribly thankful for this sermon! The uncompromised truth of God's Word is needed so desperately in a time of so many who want to wrest the scripture, trying to conform it to their brand of theology! Praise God! This is TRUTH! Salvation is of HIM! And He says Everyone that thirsts, let HIM COME unto Me! Sovereign grace does not negate our responsibility! "Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!" -Romans 11:33
Thanks Pastor Harris
Great Sermon! I disagree - I think the author of this article is painting with too broad a brush. In addition to Charles Spurgeon, what about John MacArthur, Al Martin, Conrad Mbewe, John Piper, and Paul Washer? These are some of the most passionate Gospel preachers alive today, and they are all Calvinists.
Great Sermon! I'm afraid I belong to one of those Churches where you would get a myriad of answers if asked "what is the Gospel"?There are many "Church members" who believe their salvation lies in their works or their "being better" than their neighbor? It is disappointing and scary, but it is, unfortunately, a field that needs to be worked. Thank you, your podcasts are thought provoking and uplifting.
Great Sermon! As I was thinking more on the article, the words of Paul came to mind, the greatest preacher other than Christ of course who ever lived, 1 Cor 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be none effect. and 1 Cor 2:3-5 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling, And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, BUT IN THE POWER OF GOD. What Paul is saying here is salvation is the power of God, not him, not any other preacher. Not to diminish the role of a preacher or a lay person sharing the gospel, but sometimes we give ourselves too much credit.
Great Sermon! I assume now remove the title Prince of Preachers from Charles H. Spurgeon. Just because someone does not know how to deliver a sermon doesn't change the doctrinal truth of the message. But, I agree some Presbyterian services can bring out the zzz monsters. I prefer a Reformed Baptist.
Great Insight In a word, "Sent" I don't see Paul although he had the authority as a Apostle would use it to force transport Onesimus back to Philemon. If he did, I suppose his choice of words would be "brought" whether he personally did or sent faithful brothers to forcibly transport Onesimus. If this had been the case also, I think the tone of the letter would have been more commanding rather than pleading for Philemon to be gracious in receiving him. Just my take away.