I hadn’t seen this video on the prosperity gospel before I preached Revelation 13:11-18, but it is relevant.
Here are my last two sermons on Revelation:
Revelation 13:1-10 keeps us from being deceived by Satan so that we can persevere to the end in the true faith.
Revelation 13:11-18 gives us wisdom to distinguish between God’s truth and Satan’s counterfeit.
Sorry this comment has nothing to do with your post but, I am currently listening to a podcast of “An evening of eschatology” and I just wanted to tell you I was so blessed to hear your responses and defense of premillennialism. I have some questions on premillennialism and schooling (two very different subjects, I know). When ever you can get back to me I would greatly appreciate it, my email is email@example.com thank you in advance.
I enjoyed watching the video “An evening of eschatology”, which is one the best resources available today for being acquainted with the various eschatological positions. One of the things that I did not understand is if you were defending the Historic PREMIL position or the Dispensational. I know that John Piper has been an historic PREMIL.
Even those of us who don’t agree with the premil or Amil positions will find this video a very good resource. The reason is because you had to interact with the opposing views at the same time and on the same spot, which is something that you cannot do in writting.
I really loved the way Doug defended the POSTMIL position. He was poignant and incisive. But most important of all, he was respectful of the other two positions. I think he did a great job. Also, I think it is time to give another careful look at the Premilenial presuppositions wich you defend. Even if I don’t agree with you on the eschatological matters, I commend you for your willingness to attend and defend your position.
Thank you and God bless you.
do you believe that the anti-christ is an actual person in the future or a series of false teachers and anti christs throughout christian history?
Can I say “Yes” – I think 1 John indicates that there are already false-teachers whom he views as anti-christs, and I think this pattern will find its fulfillment in a final anti-christ who will be the worst expression of the pattern.
Hope this helps!
Thanks for answering! I’ve got one more question though
Amillennialists believe that the great tribulation of Matthew 24 occurred in the first century with the persecution of the Christians by the roman empire in the first century which would explain why Jesus said that this generation won’t pass away before all these things take place. How do premillennialists deal with Jesus’ statements?
I think that different pre-mill interpreters would say different things, but here’s my take:
I think that the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 was a type of the final Day of the Lord, an installment in the pattern that includes the destruction of the city in 586 and its defilement by Antiochus Ephiphanes in the 160’s BC. I would say that “this generation” is a phrase that is not limited to those alive in Jesus’ day but includes all who belong to the “generation of the wicked,” or we might say, the seed of the serpent.
Hope this helps!
Regarding your previous answer, I would like to just point out that the text does not speaks of ANOTHER generation at a future time. This is one of the main problems that Dispensationalism has to face when interpreting Matthew 24 as something that WILL take place in the future. Even George Eldon Ladd admits in his comments that it is very difficult to apply the words of THIS GENERATION to ANOTHER generation than the one Jesus is speaking to.
Even some Amilenialists believe that the antichrist is still future and appeal to a “double reference” to explain the words of Jesus in Matthew 24. But a careful exegesis of the text is going to tell you that if language has some significant meaning, we have to conclude that Jesus was aluding to HIS generation, and not OURS or some other generation in the future. That is why Ladd was not too dogmatic when commenting on these texts because he knew that the language is very clear and most of the scholars who are unbiased agree with him. And that is why orthodox Preterism makes a lot of sense because these and other TIME TEXTS.
I think that seeing the reference to “this generation” as a typological statement about the wicked generation doesn’t fall prey to what you’re critiquing.
Leave a comment