Right.

I, I definitely, I definitely see the continuity.

And, and you're 100 right.

If, if you are.

If you.

Hold on, hold on, hold on.

Let's.

Let's get you.

Say that again.

I need that quote.

You are 100 right, Johnny.

Welcome to the show.

Hey, guys, thank you for having me.

Yeah, really engaging discussion.

Especially the fact that Tom said that I was correct on something because I gotta clip that because that's never going to be heard.

Oh, it'll.

It's gonna be heard because Andrew's gonna play it.

Yeah, he's gonna, he's gonna sample it.

It's gonna become part of the show.

Intro from here.

I gotta remember to get that.

Wait, wait, wait.

Tom, say that again.

Andrew was right.

Andrew was right.

Andrew.

I've never heard a dispensationalist say that, but thank you very much.

I 100 agree with you, Drew.

Either you or someone out there, please, you gotta.

You gotta clip this.

This episode because no idea.

I'm a hundred percent right.

He totally agrees.

Andrew's not used to having so many people go, yeah, you're right.

What do you mean used to?

I'm not used to anyone doing that.

What do you mean?

I'm only here used to being called the heretic.

Andrew, what is up?

I mean, we are agreeing just way too much here.

I mean, that's great.

Answer.

This is Apologetics Live to answer your questions.

Your host from Striving for Eternity Ministries, Andrew Rapaport.

Welcome to another edition of Apologetics Live.

We're here to answer your biblical questions.

Any challenges you have about God and the Bible, we can answer them, guaranteed.

You doubt that?

Well, just go to apologeticslive.com scroll down to the streamyard, link the little duck icon which may be changing soon.

And.

And just click on that and join us as my throat just needs water all of a sudden.

So.

But we're.

This is a ministry of Striving fraternity.

And by the way, if you challenge me with a hard question, just remember one thing I don't know is a perfectly good answer.

I am your host, Andrew rapport.

Here is Mr. Drew Vanita, the co host here.

Drew, sir.

Doing well?

I'm doing well, yes.

I'm doing very well.

You know, I need to.

I.

So what we're going to do, folks, this month tonight, we're going to talk about the topic all month.

I was asked whether we would cover the different end time views.

And tonight is Dispense.

Sorry.

Is amillennialism.

And the.

Basically, I.

We had to laugh because Tom was So excited to be here.

Tom Shepard is in California, so he's gonna miss his own, but we're gonna give him a chance to make up.

Maybe next week we'll have post millen millennialism on the 17th with Josh Howard and maybe some others.

The 24th will be historic pre millennialism with Michael Schultz and another friend of his.

And then Peter Gaiman is going to join me, possibly with some others on dispensational premillennialism.

So we will cover the, the different views.

But let me introduce our guest today and, and this is how he should be introduced.

According to what I had seen online, Keith Fosky, first of his name, King of the Amillennials, Harbor Freight, Doug Wilson, Florida Man Spurgeon and now the captain of the Amillennial Falcon, Keith Fosky, welcome.

Thank you, Andrew.

And you're the first to make that, that announcement even though it was online.

You're the first to say it out loud.

So thank you very much.

Am the captain of the Amillennial Falcon.

You can call me Han Solo Fide.

Yeah.

Oh, that's great.

So, so Keith, let folks, I mean I'm sure much of my audience knows who you are, but in case someone just tuning in for the first time, which we do have folks do that, so introduce yourself a little bit about you, your, your church, your podcast, things like that.

Yeah.

My name is Keith Foskey.

I am the pastor at Sovereign Grace Family Church where I pastor alongside two other elders, Brother Mike Collier, Brother Andy Montoro.

And January will be the 20th year that I have served as pastor there.

I am in the Jacksonville, Florida area where my wife and I have lived our entire lives and we have six children.

I have a podcast called your Calvinist Podcast as well as all the other social media stuff that's all marked by the same name.

So if you want to follow me, go to your Calvinist.

Just like Doc Holliday is your Huckleberry, I'm your Calvinist.

And that's the way that, that I have signed off my show now for several years.

So that's the name that I go by.

Yeah, I joked with you because you're, you're, your podcast used to be conversations with a Calvinist, which meant it was always on the top of my podcast feed and you change it to your Calvinist and you drop to the bottom.

That darn Alphabet.

You know, if you see my shirt though, I, I promote pretty well.

My wife buys me clothes with my name on it.

I feel like you're Calvinist.

I'M a nerd, but I don't care.

It's like this is people.

People walk up and touch it.

It's like they're subscribing.

They're trying to subscribe onto your T shirt.

I do, I do have to say thank you for saying Huckleberry and not this new invention.

Huckleber.

Yeah, That's a big, keeping, steaming, nutty brown pile of garbage that, that Huckleberry statement.

And if people who don't know what that's all about, don't even bother.

It's not worth your time.

Yeah, yeah.

So anyone who says that to me, I always direct them to Val Kilmer's own memoir that's titled I'm your Huckleberry.

Yeah, yeah.

He knows what he said.

He knows what he said.

Well, and.

And for folks that don't know, Keith is very up on pop culture, just like I am.

Or maybe he's the complete opposite.

Whenever.

Whenever I need to understand pop culture, Andrew's the first one I. I contact.

Hey, hey, hey, hey.

Speaking of pop culture, this Sunday I'm doing something I don't often do, but this Sunday I'm include a movie reference in my sermon.

Now, I'm not doing a sermon at the movies.

I'm not that guy.

But I am going to make a reference and I want to get your opinion.

You're too godly and learned men.

Give me your opinion if you think this is a bad illustration.

And I hope I'm not trying to take over your show, Andrew.

That's why I thought this might be fun to ask.

Okay, so in, in John 3:18, which is where I'm at, in the Gospel of John, it says that they're condemned already because they have not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Right?

It says, Jesus.

Jesus not come the world to condemn the world, but through him the world might be saved.

And then I, I forget exactly how to.

But basically.

Here, let me.

I'll read it.

I'll read it.

Because I just pulled it up.

It Sundays.

So John 3:18 says, he who believes in him is not judged.

He who does not believe has been judged already because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Yeah, and so what I'm.

What I'm talking about in that statement is it would seem to us that it would say.

And again, I'm not questioning Jesus's words, but it would seem to us that it would say he's condemned already because he's a sinner Right.

Like that's why he's condemned already.

But it says he's condemned already because he has not believed.

Right.

And my point is he's, he's condemned because he's a sinner.

But the only salvation that God has provided is Christ.

So by abandoning the only salvation he has, he is in fact condemned for not believing.

And, and I, and I compared it in my sermon notes.

I compared it to the movie Jaws.

And here's, here's.

Here's the scenario.

And I don't know if you've seen Jaws.

I mean, it's almost as old as you, Andrew.

So you may have seen I'm older, but in the movie, there's a point where the shark is surrounding the boat.

It's got the three guys in the boat.

Sheriff Brody, Quinn and Hooper are in the boat.

The, there's the killer shark is surrounding the boat.

And the, the Brody goes to call for help, and he goes to the radio, he goes to call for help.

And, and Quinn, who is this rugged sea captain, he grabs his baseball bat and he beats the radio.

So he.

Because he doesn't want help, he wants to take the shark on.

On himself.

And I said by doing that, he's.

He's abandoning any way to get help.

And therefore he's condemning them to die at the, at the hands of the shark.

So by abandoning his only hope, he's condem.

So that's the illustration.

Do you think that's way out?

Is it making sense?

Well, the only question I have is don't they get the shark in the end?

Well, but Quinn does.

And the guy who beat the radio gets eaten, so.

Okay.

Okay, so that works then.

Yeah, no, that makes sense.

Look, I don't remember much of the movie, but it, it did make sense.

I mean.

Yeah, I, I see where you're going, but you know, also when I.

Because I'm thinking about the natural state of man first.

Right.

The fall.

Sure, sure.

And so I mean, it, it works if, I mean, if.

I can see it working in the basic.

Like, you have been presented the knowledge of Christ, right?

You have been presented the gospel.

You have been presented the knowledge of Christ so you know who he is.

And to remain in unbelief is to beat the radio of help.

And you're condemning yourself to death, which he ultimately does.

Yeah, I mean, yeah, that's the illustration.

Yeah.

I'm just more surprised as it, as it always is.

All illustrations fall apart at some point.

They're not.

Nothing's.

Yeah, there's no perfect Illustration.

So I'm just more surprised that that would be the first time you ever did a movie reference.

Well, I will.

It's.

It's.

I don't do them a lot, I guess.

It's not the first.

First.

Okay.

Okay.

I'm not.

I'm not that guy.

As much as I'm a pop culture guy.

I very rarely will.

Will, you know, throw in a movie.

I try to, you know.

My best illustrations, I think, are when I can find Scripture.

Amen.

Straight.

A point.

That's right.

I think.

I think that's the.

You know, to go into the Old Testament, find a narrative that draws out that point, I think is the best way to do it.

But there are times where, you know, even the apostle Paul uses the.

Uses the literature of the pagans to.

To make a point.

So I think it's.

I think it's okay.

It's.

From time to time, you know, an interesting.

You just had the 50th anniversary of JAWS, so, I mean, you know, you're celebrating two things, right?

You're celebrating Christ, you know, the resurrection of Christ and what he did for us.

And you're celebrating 50 years of fantastic movie.

Terrific movie.

I don't know.

It's.

It's.

It's one of the best.

I used to have movie posts.

I still have movie posters, but these are.

These are fake posters behind me.

These are the ones I created because I took.

I was afraid of copyright, so I took down all my.

My.

I used to have Jurassic Park, Jaws, and all the best movies behind me, but I took them out of my studio.

So.

An interesting thing, I went to seminary with a gentleman who.

Yeah, you graduated.

Yeah, I'm shocked at that, too.

One of the guys did his thesis on the preaching of John MacArthur and the preaching of Chuck Swindoll, specifically on their use of illustrations.

So.

Oh, wow.

Between those two men, which one do you think is preaching the Bible more and which one do you think is preaching illustrations more?

In my mind, I would have to say it's MacArthur gets Bible, swindoll gets illustrations.

But did it go the other way?

It was.

That's what everyone says.

He actually said it was 50.

50.

The difference was all of MacArthur's illustrations are scripture.

Ah.

And so it's.

You know, even his illustrations are still bringing you back to the Bible, So Melissa says it sounds good.

I don't.

I don't remember that guy being eaten, though.

Quinn.

Quinn is the only one who dies.

There's the three guys.

There's Quinn, Hooper, and Brody.

Brody's the sheriff, Hooper's the marine biologist, and Quinn is the grizzly sea captain.

He gets, he get.

He's the only one who gets eaten, but he does get eaten.

And, and, and, and, yeah, just.

If you look up the last five minutes of Jaws, you'll see it.

He does.

I promise.

You go in the water.

Yeah.

I can't see a good impression.

That's good.

So, so let's get into, you know, I mean, we can't talk amillennialism without having the king of amillennialism here.

I mean, I don't see a trophy.

I do see a belt up there that you won, you know.

Well, that was for winning the podcast championship, and it was a gift from, from the, the second, second person, Matthew Everhard, who's a good friend of mine.

And, and I do have a crown somewhere.

It's not behind me.

It's around here somewhere.

I had to find it.

So for folks who, and I know in this audience, we have probably, if I was to take a poll, I'm going to guess we probably have more amillennialists than post or pre millennials.

That's going to be my guess.

So have an intelligent audience.

And Drew is there.

They basically just follow me.

Pretty much, yeah.

Drew, is there any.

Is there any announcements you want to make to.

To the public?

I mean, not to put you on the spot or anything, but, I mean, I guess so.

I mean, you did, you did, you did come on and do it.

Promote you.

You came in and promoted post millennialism against Jim Osmond when he was arguing for pre millennialism.

Yeah.

And Tom Shepard is amillennial.

But is there something you want to announce?

Put you on the spot.

Yeah.

So, been studying for a while.

Been studying for a while.

And I read this really great book about a year and a half ago, maybe called the Five Points of All Millennialism by Jeffrey Johnson.

And I was like, I, I just really started thinking about the post millennial position I held, and then what Jeffrey was saying, and I go, you know, I think most people today that call themselves post mill are actually just optimistic, all mill.

And so I believe I'm pretty much just all mill, you know, because a lot of the same beliefs line up.

And so I was like, you know, I'll know.

I'll just go with it.

Well, that's going to be a question I'm going to end up asking Keith at some point, is what is the difference between all millennialism and post millennium?

Because I, you know, not much of a difference there.

Very little difference.

So, so, so, you know, I did the show with Darren Stood and Jeremy a couple years ago and a couple years before that, me and Darren were talking and he was basically saying that the view that most people hold that they is called post millennialism.

Now that's very, very similar to amel, is a newer development in the postmodern system.

It's not historic postmill because historic postmill, which would be held to by the Puritans and that revelation commentary set that I have back there, believes in the golden Age, which is the literal thousand year after Christ, after Christ returned.

So the, even the.

There's two different postmill systems and one of them is almost identical to the all mill system.

Yeah.

Yep.

Can I, can I read a quote?

Sure.

Kim Riddlebarger on that.

He says he's referring to Louis Berkoff and he says Berkoff pointed out in his 1938 systematic theology that the name amillennialism is new indeed, but the view to which it has applied is as old as Christianity.

Even B.B.

warfield, usually portrayed as post millennial in his eschatology, remarked to his friend Samuel Craig that amillennialism of the type held by his esteemed Dutch colleagues Herman Bovink and Abraham Kuyper is the historic Protestant view as expressed in the creeds of the Reformation period, including the Westminster Standard.

So, yes, that's what I think you're referring to.

The amillennialism we hold to really has been a very consistent the.

But, but there's a, there's a, there's different views of post millennialism and we're going to talk about what those are in a little bit.

But I just wanted to point that out.

And for folks that may not be watching listening to Keith's program, the.

Your Calvinist podcast.

Keith has been going through on his podcast, a kind of a short series giving different views of dispensationalism, Covenant theology, progressive covenantalism, which if you're not familiar with that, go and watch or listen to his latest episode so you can get all that.

I will say that that show is packed.

Yeah, it's a lot.

Your guests really packed it in.

Yeah.

So.

But for folks that maybe knew that, you know that don't know amillennialism, could you give like the core beliefs and, and the hermeneutical system that brings you to the position of amillennialism?

Sure.

I think the, the.

To.

To start with, if you don't mind, I just want to address, when we talk about millennialism, we're talking about a how we come to our conclusions About Revelation chapter 20, verses 1 through 10, because that's the only place in the new testamen have a referent for a thousand year period where Christ is ruling and reigning with his saints.

And so there are different positions on what that thousand years is talking about.

A pre millennialist will say that that thousand years begins when Christ returns.

That's why it's called premillennial, says Christ comes back and the millennium begins.

A post millennialist says that the millennium occurs prior to Christ's return and therefore Christ returns at the end of the millennium.

That's why it's called post millennialism.

Now amillennialism is a misnomer because amillennialism sounds like we're saying there's no millennialism.

We're not there.

We do believe there is a millennium.

We believe that it's the current state that we are in.

We are in the millennium.

Now.

Therefore it's sometimes called inaugurated millennialism or even nuke millennialism, which is N u N C. That name is not going to catch on.

But it is, it is a name that some people use and it means, means now, now millennialism, nuke millennialism.

But ultimately that is saying that the thousand year period is not a literal thousand years.

That's where the ah, millennialism comes from because it's not literal, but it's referring to a long period of time which Christ is ruling and reigning and he returns at the end of it.

And so amillennialism says that the millennium began when Christ ascended and that it, it concludes when Christ returns.

And therefore the millennium is what we call the inter advental period, Advent referring to the coming of Christ.

There's, there's two comings of Christ.

There's the first coming and the second coming.

And so an interadvental period means the period between the first and second coming.

Therefore, amillennialists or inaugurated millennialists, new millennialists and even post millennialists will say that the millennium is the period between Christ's first and second coming.

And so the, and that's good overview.

First off, the, the thing that people end up, I think that don't hold to amillennialism.

I do, I think they do struggle with some of the passages you brought up.

Revelation 20, that's clearly one that, that you know, we'll, we'll deal with because there's not only the, the mentioning of the millennium, there's also the mentioning of the binding of Satan in there.

So those are, those are two that we're going to end up having to address with it.

And, and I should remind folks, if you want to ask questions, you could do it in the chat or you better yet, you can join@apologexlive.com and join the discussion.

That's always a better way to do it.

And, and you know, I am realizing that Maybe doing it July 3rd was not the best, best time to do as people are probably getting ready for holidays.

But I'll just encourage people to go share the link now so that folks who maybe typically would be watching go, oh, that's right.

And we get more people joining.

So let me, let me just.

The idea that, that all millennialism would have is that the, in Revelation 26, six times the word thousand years is used.

You would take that as a figurative time frame.

Correct.

Not a literal thousand years, but as a long period of time.

Fair enough.

Yes.

Yep.

Okay.

And you know, I should tell you this, Keith, I was, I, I had the idea to come on the show with a bow tie, and you would have got it immediately.

And folks who listen to your Calvinist Keith does, every once in a while, he'll do what he calls a bow tie dialogue where he has people he disagrees with come on and they get to actually talk.

I was actually on one of those, on discussing dispensationalism.

And so that's what we're going to be doing for these next couple weeks, where we may be disagreeing, but as we always do here, when we have guests, we let them speak.

Right.

So this isn't set up to be a debate with Keith and showing him how wrong he is.

It is letting him explain his view.

And I plan to just ask lots of questions now that Drew's converted to the dark side.

Hey, did you get the, did you get the movie reference?

Say that's a step closer to dispensationalism, you know?

No, you know, I, I, the only dark side of dispensationalism was Left behind series.

But I, I think that that series probably could convince more people away from dispensationalism.

Look, those people are all over tick tock right now, and it is the worst thing to listen to.

The books were a fun read, though.

I read all of them.

So, I mean, you know, they were, they were fun.

I didn't read any of them.

I didn't read them.

Did you read them and go, yeah, that ain't it?

No, actually I, and, and let me just be quite frank.

I didn't read them.

I listened to them books on tape.

This is before MP3s or any of that.

I, I purchased the books on tape and, and on tape.

Not even cd.

It was on a big case.

Wow.

And I just enjoyed listening to the story man.

It was fun.

And at the time I didn't know any better.

I, I, I grew up where.

And that's something I want to say to people who maybe have never heard anything else.

I never heard anything else.

I had only heard there was going to be a pre tribulation rapture.

I had only heard there was going to be the return of Christ in a pre, pre millennial reign.

I didn't know there was another option.

I remember talking to a guy and he said well, not everybody believes that.

I said well they should.

It's the only it' right?

Like, like, like that's my level at that point.

I just didn't know anything.

And I'm not saying that people who believe it now, they don't know anything else.

But I didn't, I didn't know there were even other options.

This was just it.

Right.

And so I, I'm willing to admit I have grown.

And one of the first things that made me question it was I, I, I had a guy asked me about it, asked me to prove a pre tribulation rapture and I really couldn't do it from the scripture without bringing that to the text myself.

I couldn't pull it out of the text.

And so that was, that was kind of the first domino to fall for me on, on, on my eschatology was the question of the pre tribulation rapture.

So what are you feel the strongest passages of scripture that would support an amillennial view?

Well, if I could.

I hate to just read something but I do want to read something to help because you asked me about my hermeneutical.

I didn't really answer that.

So, so me for, for not.

But the context of Revelation is apocalyptic literature and it's written in vivid images which point to greater realities.

I think we all agree with that.

It's just how do we come to our conclusion about what it means?

I do believe it's not intended to be taken specifically literally.

Nor are the signs specifically chronological.

That's the part I think that gets most people tripped up is when I say I don't believe revelation is meant to be understood chronological any more than when read the Old Testament, when we read Isaiah, when we read Jeremiah, when we read other apocalyptic prophetic books.

We don't find necessarily a strong chronology there either.

It'll be talking about something and Then it'll be talking about something else that happened before.

G.K. beal, in his commentary, emphasizes that the visions in Revelation are not strictly chronological, but rather are cyclical.

The visions presented in the book are not meant to be read as linear sequences.

Instead, they're covering the same ground from different perspectives.

And here's an example of where we, we see that in the Bible and some in a different place because people say, well, I don't see that anywhere else in the Bible.

Yes, we do.

We actually see that in the first two chapters of the Bible, because in Genesis chapter one, we're given an overview of the seven days of creation.

And at the end of Genesis chapter one, we're told, you know, God created them, male and female, in the image of God, he created them.

You know, this is this, this is, this is what we're told.

But then in chapter two, it's like he starts over and he focuses in on the creation of man.

And he says, okay, now he planted a garden and he put man in the garden, and he put the beast, and he allowed man to name the beast, and then he put the man to sleep, pulled out the rib, created the woman.

So even the first two chapters, we have what's called recapitulation, where the story is told two different ways so as to emphasize a different aspect of the story.

And I think Revelation follows a very similar pattern throughout.

Therefore, when we get to chapter 20, we have to ask this question.

Is it a continuity continuation of chapter 19 where it's going from one to the other?

And if so, what is chapter 19 about?

Or is it a recapitulation of the narrative of redemption, which is that Christ came, Satan has been bound, the Gospel has gone forth, people are being regenerated, and through that regeneration, the gospel is covering the world.

And there is actually Christ ruling and reigning on the earth.

And one day in the future, Satan will be released.

There will be one final battle, and at the end of that battle, the end will come, which includes the bringing in of the eternal state.

And that's what I believe revelation chapter 2110 is referring to.

Not a future event, but the current event that we're seeing unfold in front of us.

So I wanted to see.

I understand you're saying, so chapter 19 would be an overview and then chapter 20 is zooming in or.

No, I want to be clear because there's, there's different ways people interpret 19.

And that's what I meant when I said depending on your view of 19.

I believe 19 is a picture of the end is when Christ comes and destroys his enemies and puts the nations under his feet.

Right.

So I believe chapter 21 to 10 is a recapitulation of that.

But some people believe that chapter 19 took place in AD 70.

They're called partial preterists.

They believe that's when Christ did that thing.

And therefore the church age begins right after that.

Right, right after A.D. 70.

So I was just being, I was being congenial to people who would say 19 is chronological to 20 because 19 refers to something that happened in our past, but in Christ's future.

Right.

This was something that happened in the future, but, but our past.

That's what the preterist idea is.

But, but even though I'm a partial preterist, I do take a futurist view of verse of chapter 19.

I believe 19 is referring to something coming in the future.

So.

And then chapter 20 is the current period.

Yeah, it's a recapitulation.

Taking us back to the point where Christ bound Satan.

And that's the key to my understanding is when was Satan bound?

Because if somebody asked me, well, I don't believe Satan was bound.

I say I believe he was.

And I believe, believe Satan was bound at the first coming of Christ.

So that leads to my understanding of Revelation 21:10.

So do you believe Satan is bound?

Currently, yes.

Even though there are some in my camp who would say that Satan has been released and we're in the period of Satan's release.

And I even had somebody asked me, I do a live show on Tuesdays.

Shameless plug, come watch my show on Tuesdays.

But in my, in my live show on Tuesday night, someone asked, asked, is it possible that with the rise of all of the terrible things that happened in the last century, I mean, we had, you know, two world wars and the, the invention of the nuclear bomb and all of the technological advances that have brought more death in 100 years than was ever seen in the, you know, the, the countless centuries before, you know, the, the, the overall amount of destruction that's taken place over the last hundred years.

They said, is it possible Satan is unbound now?

I said I don't believe so because I think the unbinding of Satan will be unmistakable.

I think when that happens, we will know it if we'.

It.

But I understand where they're getting that and I kind of, I kind of.

It was, it's an interesting thought.

I mean, think about how much has changed even in your lifetime, Andrew.

Think about, you know, when you were, when you were a child you know, you're not that much older than me, but when we were children, the, the world was a different place.

And that's only 50, 60 years ago.

When we go back a hundred years ago, people were riding horses 150 years ago.

And we went from a hundred years.

We went from riding hors horses to flying to the moon.

If you believe we went to the moon.

And I don't even know.

Well, it's sort of, it's sort of like this.

When my daughter was in high school and she turned to me and it's like, dad, what did you do when your parents grounded you from the cell.

Your cell phone.

And I just had to laugh like.

No, we had one phone in the kitchen and it, we were excited when you had.

My dad got a 25 foot cord so that we could go into like the bathroom to hide when having private conversations because you know, all the siblings want to pay attention to what you're saying.

Especially when my brother was talking to his girlfriend.

I was excited when we got our first cordless phone because that meant when I stayed home during the summer, I didn't have to stay in one room to make sure I heard the phone if my parents called.

Yep.

How.

Here's a, here's a fun question.

How old were you guys when you got your first cell phone phone?

When I got my first car.

Okay.

So I was 16.

Yes, 16.

I was old enough to have children.

Okay.

Well, I, I was talking to somebody the other day and I told him, I, they said, yeah, you know, when I got married and I, and I was on my honeymoon, I left my cell phone at home because I didn't want to be bothered on my honeymoon.

I said, well, I didn't have that option because I didn't get my first cell phone until my wife and I had been married for five years.

You know, we were 26 years old, we got our first cell phone.

Yeah, yeah, I, I probably was 30 something.

So.

Yeah, so at the same time, probably.

Yeah.

Now I, I will say this.

My, you know, this is a fun fact, but my, my dad's uncle had the, a mobile phone like in the, in the 50s.

The brick.

No, he just had a phone.

He had a phone.

He took a, a dial up phone that he just had in the car and he would drive pretending like he was on a phone.

Yeah, my dad did have that big brick of it.

Yeah.

So.

So when you talk about Satan being bound, I think, I think from someone that doesn't hold to an amillennial position.

Position.

I Think this is where there's, they, there's lots of pushback.

And I think the pushback people get is because of what it means to be bound.

I think that for many who don't hold to am millennialism, when they hear Satan's bound, they think he's.

He can have no influence at all.

He's like, imprisoned and can't do anything.

So the challenge that they would, that I hear from those that wouldn't hold on millennialism, is that Satan can't be bound because he's obviously the, the power, the prince of the air today, and he's obviously working in the world today.

So when you say Satan's bound, what do you mean by it?

And then for people that make the accusation, maybe you'll answer it with what it means to be bound.

But how would you answer that accusation?

Okay, so I, I break Revelation chapter 20 into three parts.

The binded, the blessed, and the battled.

And, and that's because I'm a Baptist and I can't help but have.

Have three points, and all three of them have the same letter.

So the binded is verses 1 to 3, the blessed is the verses 4 through 6, and the battled is verses 7 through 10.

So in the referent of the binded, referring to Satan being bound, when Christ came, he told us specifically that there was a binding that he had placed on Satan.

Not comprehensively, not finally, but specifically in regard to deceiving the nations against Christ and thwarting the proclamation of the Gospel.

If you notice, in Revelation 20:20, it says that he is bound from deceiving the nations.

And when accused of being an agent of Satan, if you remember, Jesus was accused of being in league with Satan.

Right, you're doing this by the power of Beelzebul.

Jesus said, how can someone enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods unless he first binds the strong man, then indeed he may plunder his house.

Well, in that analogy, that's Matthew 12, 20, 29.

In that analogy, Jesus is the one who is going in to plunder the strong man's house.

And in that analogy, Satan is the strong man.

And he says, how can someone enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods unless he binds the strong man?

So the idea is that for Christ to accomplish what he has, his mission in the Gospel, which is to take the gospel to all the nations, and for the church to accomplish that mission, Satan, Satans must be bound from deceiving the nations against the Gospel.

So this I believe, the reference of the binding of Satan is a reference to Christ's work, which he compared to binding the strong man.

And we see this in Luke, chapter 10, verses 17 to 19.

It says, when the 72 returned, remember, Jesus sent them out to preach the Gospel.

It says, when the 72 returned with joy, saying, lord, eat.

Even the demons are subject to us in your name.

And he said to them, I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.

Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you.

And then in Colossians, chapter 2, verse 15.

I don't mean to be throwing out a lot of scripture, but these are just passages I would point to.

It says regarding the work of Christ, it says, God disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame by triumphing over them in Christ.

Now, this is in the past tense.

He has done this.

He has triumphed over them.

He has disarmed them.

He has put them to shame.

How?

Through the work of Christ and through the ongoing proclamation of the gospel.

So the proclamation of the Gospel in the world demonstrates the power of Christ over his enemies, as his church continues to see converts in every tribe, tongue and nation.

If the binding of Satan were final and complete, there would be no need for a final battle.

But since there is a final battle coming, that tells us that the binding is not meant to be complete or total, but it does have a specific reference, and the referent is the deceiving of the nations.

And do you think that the final battle is going to be a physical battle, or would that be more spiritual?

Chapter 19 of Revelation is referring to that battle.

I think there's going to be nations that rise up.

This is kind of what keeps me from the post millennial side, the post millennial side of this idea of a Christianized world or a world that's, you know, that, that.

And I've had this conversation publicly with several post millennialists, and we're very similar in our view, but we do have some differences.

And I say, where are these nations coming from that are rising up against Christ?

If the world has been Christianized, right?

If there's been this.

This overall Christianization in the world, which is the post millennial hope, where are these angry, vicious, hateful nations that hate Christ?

Where are they coming from?

And they'll say, well, not everybody's been saved.

I said, yeah, but you guys make it pretty clear that you think it's going to be the vast majority.

I don't.

I think there's going to be a continual growing of good and evil until the end.

And that's the, of course, the wheat and the tares.

Right.

And it's at the harvest when that final battle comes, when Christ descends and he at that point puts his enemies under his feet.

That's when I think that that will, will be the end.

And that's Revelation 19 and Revelation 20, verses 7 to 10.

Okay, so Jesse says he is bound now in respect to deceiving the nations to war against God.

Would you agree with that?

I think so.

I think, I think to collectively, yes, I would agree with him to say collectively, but I, I think also to deceive the nations.

There's an individual aspect to that as well because the nations include people.

And there are people from every tribe, tongue and nation who are receiving the gospel.

And we compare this to the pre Advent period.

Think of the time prior to Christ.

Right.

The gospel.

And by that I mean we have to think of gospel in more of a broader term than just the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

But the, the blessings that had been given to Israel and to the people of God were held very closely within the nation of Israel and within the people of God.

Were there people from the outside who received blessings?

Yes.

I mean we can go to Rahab and we can go to others and say, yeah, there were people who came in, but it was always through Israel and through that nation.

But after Christ there is this expansion where now the gospel is going to all nations and there's no more that it's limited.

You know, when Jesus spoke to Nicodemus is on my mind because I'm preaching John 3.

He says God's God loved the world.

Right?

There's.

And, and, and it's referring not just to the nation of Israel, but to people from every tribe, tongue and nation.

So I think there is an expansion at the coming of Christ which does include the, the, the gospel going out to people from every, from every nation.

Yeah.

And so the.

Well, I'm gonna, I want to get to Fatima's question because I think this is good.

I'll ask.

I'm gonna come back to what I was going to ask.

So this is really good.

Maybe we should start with this.

But she asked it a little bit later on.

So Fatima asks.

And by the way, Fatima is from the Philippines.

So you're, you're actually now going halfway around the world, Keith.

So is.

I've been on your show before and Fatima was on the show before, so.

Hi, Fatima, nice to see you again.

Thank you.

For coming back.

So she asks, is the millennial interpretation a primary doctrine?

So with that, you first maybe define what primary is versus secondary and tertiary.

Is the, is millennial interpretation a primary doctrine?

And the second question is, does it have deep consequences on one's entire theology?

It is absolutely essential.

And if you disagree with me, you're not a Christian.

Christian preach.

No, no, no, no, no.

Okay.

So when, when Andrew mentioned primary, secondary and tertiary doctrines, I like to use the phrase definitional, denominational, and doubtful.

That's the three, because again, I'm a Baptist and I can't help but alliterate everything, right?

So there are, there are doctrines that are definitional.

What it means to be a Christian is you must believe this, right?

You must believe Jesus is divine.

You must believe in the Trinity, you must believe in justification by faith.

These are things you must believe.

But then there are secondary doctrines which I call denominational.

These are things that would separate, like me and my Presbyterian friends.

Right.

Like we have differences on baptism that may change where I go to church.

But that's not going to make me say, you're not a Christian.

Right.

That's a different level of doctrine.

And so I call those denominational differences.

And I think those are beautiful.

I think it's, it's wonderful that God gives us the ability to remain brothers in Christ and have secondary differences.

This is what you don't get in Roman Catholicism.

You know, this whole week there's been this whole argument as to the, you know, about.

Roman Catholics are arguing over something that was said in Vatican 2.

And they're saying we have to believe this.

Why do they have to believe it?

They have to believe it because they don't have the option of disagreeing.

Right.

They can't disagree because if Rome says it, it's de fide.

It must be believed under the threat of anatomy.

Anathema.

Right?

Right.

We have the blessing of not having that threat of anathema simply because we have a difference on a secondary doctrine.

Now, a tertiary doctrine is something I call doubtful.

The fancy word is adiaphora, or things that are disagreeable or that we can disagree on things that we can discuss.

And I would put the millennium in the third category with the caveat that it often makes its way into the second category because a lot of denominations sort of define themselves by their millennial position positions.

But for instance, a lot of Adventist groups are very much focused on their end times view.

And therefore it's gonna, it's going to come to their denominational view.

But within my church, within My one single local church in Jacksonville, Florida.

We have.

All of our elders are amillennial, but we have had elders in the past who were pre millennial, and it did not keep us from serving together.

So I think that that is possible.

Possible.

I think that where it becomes an issue is when someone, any doctrine can be made a primary doctrine.

When someone says, you must believe this to be saved.

And that's where I think it would be wrong to do that with the millennial position to say, you must believe this to be saved.

And another, another good example would be like King James Onlyism.

I don't have a problem with somebody who prefers the King James, but when you tell me I'm not saved unless I use the King James, then you've made it a primary issue, and I think it's wrong.

And so as long as we can have hold our millennial position with an open hand and buy an open hand, I don't mean we don't believe it.

I'm just saying we hold it without having to hold it so tight that we can't release it.

Right.

As long as we hold it with an open hand and we're gracious to our brothers and sisters in Christ, then I think that's what matters most.

And if somebody came to my church tomorrow and said, I want to join your church, but I disagree with your millennial position, I would say say that's not even going to be, you know, the hardest part for you is just going to be like, when I mention the millennium, you might wince a little because I'm going to have a different view.

But every time I mention it, I say, this is.

This is just the view I hold.

It's not.

This is not a certain view.

So, yeah, Fatima says that when you said that you had to hold it, she goes, gosh, I nearly gave me a heart attack.

I got you.

That was my goal.

Give you a little poke there.

So.

And just throw this.

Ian just says, thank you for the clear explanation of the specific binding of Satan, reference to Christ.

And I think it.

That's good because I do think this is when, when people hear an amillennialist say that they believe that Satan is currently bound.

I think people are often talking past one another.

Another.

Yeah, it's.

It's the hardest point.

That's.

Nobody wants to go past that because it sounds ridiculous until you hear what we mean.

Yeah, exactly.

And that's what.

And that's why I want people to hear what, what you mean by it, because that's the f. I Mean, this is what we do here at Apologetics Live, right?

We, we want to equip you to do apologetics.

And one of the key things in doing apologetics is listening to the person you're speaking with, not assuming you know what they believe, but listening to what they actually believe or maybe able to argue their point for them.

Can I mention one other quick passage when I was reading earlier, I forgot to mention this one last one.

This is, this is just a great like thought.

Jesus is preaching in, in John chapter 12.

He's speaking rather to the disciples and he says, now is the judgment on the world.

Now will the ruler of this world be cast out.

And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men to myself.

In that context, Jesus is referring to his crucifixion, lifted up from the earth, and the resulting judgment will be on Satan.

The judgment of this is the ruler of this world will be cast out.

His crucifixion and his resurrection signify the defeat of Satan's power to deceive the nations and keep them from believing the Gospel.

And that's just, just something else I want to throw.

Remember this, guys, the Gospel is invincible, not the devil.

Jesus is victorious, not Satan.

That's a, that's a very important amillennial perspective.

Yeah.

And, and to the point you're making a bit earlier, as far as how tightly we hold to these things, I think you would agree when we look at the first coming to us, it is very clear because it's hindsight, but to, to the Jewish people of that day, it wasn't so clear.

I mean, they, they were looking right past the Messiah standing in front of them.

Right.

And I personally think the same is going to be the case with the second coming.

I think that people who hold to their end times view, and you, you heard the word eschatological, that just means end times, study of end times.

So people that hold to their end times view so tightly that there's no room for error, no room for hearing one another out.

I think that becomes dangerous.

And there are many that are like that.

And I think that they missed the first come and we're gonna miss the second.

I, I'm glad you said that because I know we differ on this, but I think you and I would 100% percent agree with each other on what you just said.

The most dangerous thing is when, when, when, when people are so convinced that I don't think Jesus himself could convince them otherwise.

Yeah, right.

Like, like, like even if Jesus Came down, he said, no, this is what I'm doing.

Nope, I read it and I've, I'm convinced in my position, Jesus, you must have misspoke because I know what it means.

Yeah.

You know, I think some of the disciples said that to, to Jesus.

I think Peter might have been told, hey, Satan, get behind me.

Yeah.

You know, to.

Along the lines of this point, people do hold so tightly to their eschatological position and they can articulate it so well.

But one of the things you don't see them deal with is where the weaknesses are.

Right.

So where, so where they, they don't want to admit, like, this is my position.

But, but the weaknesses of it are here.

And every eschatological position has weaknesses.

And strengths.

And strengths.

Yeah, I was gonna, I'm glad you mentioned that, brother, because I was actually going to say, I'm, I will tell you what I think the weakest part of my position is if anybody ever asks.

Well, I will, I will be before the show's over, because one of the questions I'm going to ask each, each position, what's the strike and what's the weaknesses?

So, so since it came up, what, what from the amillennial position, what do you feel are the strongest arguments, the strongest case for it?

And then what's, what are the weaknesses that you see?

The strongest case for amillennialism in my position.

But.

Well, one of the strongest cases is that there is when you, when you step back from the, from just Revelation 20.

I know how someone can read Revelation 20 and come to a pre millen, but when you step back from Revelation 20 and look at the rest of the New Testament, you don't find this intermediate kingdom separating the return of Christ and the eternal state.

That's the part that I think is just not anywhere.

It's not in any of the parables, it's not in any of the writings of Paul.

We just don't see an intermediate kingdom anywhere.

It's the kingdom that's coming.

It's not this age.

We always hear about this age in the age, age to come.

Not this age, the age to come.

Oh, and then the other age, right?

Like, like there's, it's almost like there's something that's going to come, but nobody ever talks about it.

And then we get to Revelation 20 and we, we, we front load Revelation chapter 20 with all this stuff and then we go back and we say, well, this is what it's referring to, but it just isn't anywhere else.

I'LL give you a few thoughts.

The Gospels do not give us any explicit teaching about a thousand year reign after the turn of Christ.

Jesus does not give any parable about a coming kingdom or, excuse me, the coming judgment that we mentions an intermediate kingdom following judgment.

The book of Acts also offers no reference to such an intermediate kingdom.

Paul's epistles don't mention it.

The general epistles do not mention it.

And it's fair to say that the only New Testament passage that explicitly mentions anything about a thousand year reign of Christ is Revelation, chapter 20, verses 1 through 10.

Therefore, it's either an outlier or it needs to be interpreted in light of the revolution rest.

And that's the.

And that's what I want to do.

I want to interpret Revelation 20 in light of the rest of the New Testament rather than forcing what I think Revelation 20 says into the rest, which it doesn't fit.

And then what do you think would be the weakness of a millennial position?

I'm going to give it to you guys, but I have to, I have to make you promise never to use it against me in a court of law.

No, I've been in this conversation.

In fact, I was, I was on.

Was it, was, was it with Peter Gam.

No, it wasn't Peter Gaiman.

I was with another brother a few weeks ago doing a millennial.

We were four different views, right?

And we were giving the four different perspectives.

And because we were doing pre millennialism, dispensational premillennialism, amillennialism, post millennials.

And on that show he asked me about this one and I said this is the weakest point, I think in Revelation 20:20, from verses 4 to 6, it talks about the first resurrection, right?

And debating what that means in an amillennial scope, in a premillennial scope, they believe there's a resurrection at the beginning of the millennium and as a resurrection at the end of the millennium, right?

Like so there are two resurrections, but in amillennialism there's only one resurrection.

So what's it referring to when it refers to the first resurrection and there are differing views on this?

There's different positions.

There's the view that this is referring to the resurrection of Christ.

Blessed is he who has part in the first resurrection.

Well, that's resurrection, right?

Some people believe it's referring to that.

Some people believe it's referring to the fact that when we die, we are in the intermediate state.

That's the resurrection of our soul, right?

Like we don't die we actually go and be with Christ.

And then some think it's referring to regeneration, the fact that when we are regenerate, we are spiritually resurrected.

But any one of those I think is difficult to prove from the text and therefore I think that's the hardest place for us to deal with in Revelation 20 to come to our conclusion.

I don't think, think it's impossible, but it is certainly the more difficult.

I'd love to hear my brother's thought on where he comes on that particular.

If you've had a thought on it, you might not.

I have not had a thought on it.

Okay.

That's a difficult one though.

I think that's, that's a, that's a harder.

When people say, well, what about the binding of Satan?

For me, the binding of Satan is not hard, as I said earlier.

I think, I think I know what that means, but I think I have a harder time understanding what this.

And guys like Sam Storms, who's written a book on, on, on amillennialism, he, he takes the position that it's the intermediate state, I believe, or I think, I think he actually combines that with regeneration.

And I, and, and Kim Robarger as well comes to some different conclusions.

So really smart guys have tough with this.

So, so somebody as dumb as me, I don't have a problem having trouble with it.

I track the general resurrection.

Right.

General just judgment that happens when Christ returns.

So where we see everyone is, is judged at the same time.

What Bonson would call the unity of the eschatological complex.

Right.

It happens at the same time.

But then, yeah, once this part, yeah, I kind of leave it there.

Well, it's tough.

I know, I know someone who is probably right now dying to give an answer.

Answer.

But he's not here.

And that would be Tom Shepard, who is posting while he's out, while he's out preparing to do an evangelum training there in California.

He's saying resurrection.

So which one?

It says the first resurrection.

Tom, be clearer.

Tell us which one are you referring to?

I, I, I think the, I think regeneration is certainly possible, especially in light of passages like Colossians 2:13, which says you were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision vision of your flesh God made alive, together with him having forgiven us our trespasses.

There's a sense in which our salvation is a resurrection of a dead soul.

And so I think there, I think that that can be the answer, but I don't, I, I, you know, I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna base my whole life on that.

I'm just saying I think that's a possible answer.

Yeah.

Tom is saying regeneration.

I, I think what's going to happen, whether we plan since we don't have someone settled up for another end times view for next week.

Tom will be here next week.

I'm, I'm making a prediction.

It doesn't matter what topic we do.

Tom is going to discuss a millennialism the whole time because he's missing this.

Tom can fill in all the gaps that I leave behind.

So feel, feel free Brother Tom, to do your thing.

Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute.

I didn't know you took a dispensational view that there's gaps.

Just, just saying.

I like the gap theory.

I like the idea that there was a whole earth prior to our Earth.

I'm just kidding.

So if for some folks won't get that gap joke until we get to the pre millennialism.

But yeah, the, the view would be that, that there's a gap between first coming, second coming and that's the church age.

That's how it's usually how it's, it's explained from some who don't hold to it.

Daniel 69th and 70th week.

Right?

That's right.

That would be the gap.

So.

All right, so, so part of, part of the question here that I, I think this is these two questions, this is back to Fatima's, but she says, you know, so basically does amillennialism have a deep consequences on the entire theology?

We didn't get to that part.

And, and I'm going to ask you to broaden it not just to amillennialism, let's broaden it to end times.

You, you could start with either one.

But how does an end times position affect our entire theology?

And, and the reason I think it's important to do, to answer this, Keith, is I'm sure you've seen this where there's, there's people who start their theological study in end times.

Like that's the thing that got them really into studying theology.

And the first thing they do is read Revelation.

Yeah, yeah.

And it's like it's either, it's either they either are soteriology or, or eschatology.

It's either study the salvation or they're getting into the Calvinism, Arminianism debate or it's their end times view and it's, it's like that's what they study.

That's their start of their theological underpinnings and it seems like that under.

That is what drives everything for them.

So.

Yeah, I think that when, when we ask the question is, can you actually put her question back up?

Because I want, I want to specifically address something she, she's asking.

Give you a second here.

Yep.

Because I, I unstarted.

So it was.

There we go.

Okay.

She says, does it have deep consequences on, on one's entire theology?

It certainly can.

Part of it is what Andrew was just saying is you have people who make it the primary point.

Right.

And it's just like there's a, there's a joke among pastors.

It's like the guy who wants, the guy who really, really wants to teach the eschatology Sunday school class is not the guy you want teaching the esc Sunday school class.

Like, that's not the guy that you want because that's.

Usually they're unbalanced.

And that's what I was going to say about the deep consequences.

The deep consequences in theology is when you have an unbalanced theology.

I've noticed this very recently in conversations with people from differing perspectives.

And a lot of new people, especially new online guys, is they've really focused in one area, but when you ask them a question about an area they haven't thought about, it's like crickets.

It's, it's, it's deer in a headlight.

And so I think one of the ways that there's a deep consequence to the millennial interpretation is when it becomes the, the only thing that matters.

And nothing else has even been considered as, as important.

As I said, I think it's a tertiary doctrine.

If you don have a right Christology, I don't care about your millennial position.

If you don't write, if you don't have a right soteriology, meaning your doctrine of salvation, if you don't have that right, I don't care if you can tell me all about what the 666 means in Revelation 13.

I just don't care.

So if you don't have a robust systematic theology, which is based on a solid, solid biblical theology, then I really don't care how well you can articulate your argument for Revelation 21:10.

So that's the consequences is, is it becomes, it can become unbalanced.

So I think, I think we all need to step back and look at our overall like, where are we unbalanced?

Where are we allowing ourselves to get over focused in a certain area?

And it's not to say you can't take a Deep dive.

Take a deep dive.

But don't forget to come back and look at everything else as well.

So that's, that's, that's a thought.

Okay, I'll take one.

I know I don't want to take all the time.

One more thing.

When it comes to the issue of the consequences of these things, things in the, in the 70s, 80s and 90s, when there was a, when there was a lot of.

And forgive me for this Andrew misrepresent, but there was, There was Rapture fever.

Oh, yeah.

All the movies, the Thief in the Night and all, all the really, the really corny movies of Christian.

If you've never seen my review of Thief in the Night, go watch it.

Go to my channel.

Look up Thief in the Night, Keith Fosky.

I did a actual, like, I watched the movie live.

I'd never seen it before, and I filmed myself watching it, giving the review as it went.

And the dude in the jean shorts that's given the gospel, he's my hero.

I call him Jorts.

He is amazing.

All right, so Jorts is my, is my evangelistic hero because he's warning everybody about the Rapture.

Here's the thing.

If we're warning everybody about the rapture, that's our focus, then we, I think we've taken our eyes off of the, the main goal.

Because guess what?

Even if you don't, even if you're not alive when the resurrection or the rapture takes place, you're gonna die one day.

Every one of us is in our end times right now.

I say this all the time.

Even if we're not living in the end times, we are.

Because none of us are going to be alive 100 years from now.

I mean, Andrew and I are going to be alive 50 years from now, right?

We're not going to make it another 50 years.

I'm all.

Almost certain Andrew's probably gonna have some sponsor from some new supplement that's gonna keep him alive.

Look, I'm gonna outlast you guys because, you know, it was.

You just put the segue up for cold plunging there, you know, because I get into the.

I was gonna ask Keith, like, what's the one thing he would, he would rather do?

Do a cold plunge or go, you know, be in hell for five minutes.

Like, I, I, I, I'm not sure which cold plunge for five minutes or hell for five minutes.

Hey, just come on over to Georgia.

The humidity is basically like the lake of fire.

Yeah.

So, so if you want to get yourself a good cold plunge, and actually plunge is the, The.

Our sponsors not only do cold plunges.

If you don't like those, they also have saunas and they are having sales right now for July 4th.

So you can go either way whether you want the heat or the cold.

I do both.

But go to striving fraternity.org plunge and get chilled.

That was, that was a nice segue into the sponsor.

That was great.

I'm, I'm learning from you all the time.

You're my, you're my Obi Wan Kenobi when it comes to this stuff, so.

Very good.

Let me, let me ask this.

You know, an argument that John MacArthur makes the.

All the time is the fact that so much of the Old Testament references the Second Coming, and he.

Or he makes the case that it is.

I don't think he would say it's a primary issue.

I think he probably put it in, in a secondary category.

But he, he, he seems to feel that it's.

There's so much scripture, and because there's so much scripture, we must pay a lot of attention to it.

You said, like, okay, like, people that are out of balance would.

That would affect.

But when it comes to this, you know, to MacArthur's argument, he's saying, hey, Scripture gives a lot of explanation for second coming.

We should focus on it too.

Well, I don't think that we should, should.

That we should not study it.

I think this is, again, it comes down to anything, Anything can become out of balance.

So, so I'm not saying it should be ignored, and I'm not saying it doesn't have an importance.

I think the, the, the, the, the question Fatima was asking was in regard to how it affects, you know, what, what are the effects?

And I think one of the effects is, is, is it becoming out of balance?

Like I said, rapture fever, that kind of stuff where every time you turn on the TV and you hear a preacher talking, he's, he's talking about the second coming, but is he talking about justification by faith?

Right.

I mean, the Bible talks about that as well.

And are we, are we, are we, are we being faithful to that doctrine or are we pursuing, well, his doctrine?

I think, I think MacArthur's point would be that because so much of the, the Bible covers the Second coming, that we should be studying it more.

And I would say, you know, to, to a, to a.

If you ask a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Right?

I think MacArthur does see the second coming and everything because he's, you know, that's kind of his, you know, a Big part of what he talks about.

And he's, I mean, I obviously Disagree with Mike MacArthur.

Smart and intelligent, as godly of a man as he, as I think that he is.

I've, I've gone, you know, over the years, I've probably listened to hundreds of hours of his sermons just in, you know, and study and, and things.

And, and I can, I can see even with him, times where he'll, he'll stop in a message and start talking about, well, this is the millennial kingdom.

Like, that's not in this text, but that's in your mind.

So it's kind of.

And again and, and don't anybody be mad at me.

I'm not.

Any of us, us are.

Are.

You know, when we have something in our mind, we tend to see it everywhere.

Again, when you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

And I think that's why some people get into the, whichever view they hold to when they start there, they, they'll read the entire Bible through that lens.

Yeah.

And, and stepping away from MacArthur for a minute because I know some people who love him are going to want to, they're going to want to tar and feather me for what I just said.

Said I'm gonna, I'm gonna use the same example against my post millennial friends because I tell you what, everything I hear now from my post millennial guys, oh, there's the post millennial hope.

There's a post millennial hope.

I tell them, hey guys, I've seen Walmart bathrooms.

Things are not getting better.

It's not, it's like, like, like, you know, Bucky's may be an example of post millennial hope, but just be careful with, you know, your examples.

I would like just being on Twitter or X. I, I can't stop calling it Twitter, but some, some of the loudest voices in the theonomy post mill group that they're men that are acting like they don't know Christ in their behavior.

So, so, I mean, is it getting better?

I mean, you're not conforming more to Christ, so I don't know that, that I.

How are you going to affect the world if you're not, if you're like the world.

I mean, how are you going to affect them for Christ?

Yeah.

And, and, but to be fair, and I know you know this, I just want to make sure everybody, nobody misunderstands what we're saying.

There are some very good and godly men who hold that position.

But, but I, I think that there, there is a, there is a subset of.

Of, Of, Of.

Of guys who are focused on what I would say their version of rugged masculinity.

Yeah.

Which is.

Which is.

Which is being emphasized and I think sometimes, as you said, emphasized to a point of unchrist, like, almost.

Oh, sure, sure.

Absolutely.

Yeah.

Let me.

This is a question from being.

He says, in this sort of going off of what Fatima was saying, in what ways does embracing a millennial view impact the belief believers everyday walk with Christ?

So a little bit different view of it, but.

I would say, first of all, it's great to walk with Christ and have.

Right.

Theology.

So, I mean, that's.

I mean.

Yeah.

And.

And I'm so glad you.

You said that on the first episode.

That way Andrew couldn't say it on the last episode.

Oh, no.

We're gonna end on the, on the biblical position.

We're gonna do, you know.

Well, we're gonna do a millennial, post millennial, historic, pre, millennial and biblical with, you know, but.

Well, at least you'll be able to compare all the incorrect ones with the right one.

Yeah.

Because you'll have.

Yeah, the right one.

You always start with the correct one first.

That way.

No, you know.

No, no, no.

Go.

Go listen to any of MacArthur's sermons.

He always goes through the.

The wrong interpretations first so that he won't.

Walks you through to see what the right one is.

See.

Yeah, he does that.

And I agree with Keith that he doesn't always get it right all the time.

You know, that's right.

That's right in the wrong place.

And.

And I actually agree that he doesn't always get.

I mean, I actually.

Okay, rabbit trail.

But I. I had a church where I got in trouble.

Okay.

I was preaching.

I. I was filling in, doing the preaching every week, and I disagreed with MacArthur on a passage, and I said that.

And I'll tell you, there were some people that were like, I. I found out after I had left that church, they had a candidate.

The candidate said he doesn't agree with MacArthur on anything.

And one of the guys told him, you know, if you don't agree with MacArthur, I don't think you can be here.

That's a real problem.

Right.

McCarthy.

MacArthur would disagree.

I mean, MacArthur has disagreed with MacArthur at times.

Right.

But MacArthur would tell you that you don't hold to that position, so you can't.

Yeah, yeah.

So let me.

Go ahead, brother.

Yeah.

What I was thinking.

Oh, you want to say something?

No, I think the other brother.

Oh.

He was gonna say.

Oh, I'm sorry.

All Right, let's.

Let's do this.

A good thing to do.

We're talking about, you know, with the king of all millennials, colonialism.

And what I think, I think might be good is if we just have a word, you know, you know, from.

From said king or for said king.

Here we go.

You know, some people think they're the king of all millennialism, so they like to wear a crown.

They also like to have a championship belt because they win a podcast awards and maybe they got themselves a black belt or two or technically three.

But the reality is, men like Keith Fox Muskie might have all of those things, but the reality is a real man makes sure that he has his squirrelly Joe's coffee in a cold plunge.

Get some@restrivingforatrenity.org coffee.

You know, some people like to think they're the church of all millennialism, so they need a crown.

That didn't work.

I just want to say that your audience is still here even though you were stripping on camera.

I just don't know how you do it.

I don't know.

I had clothes on.

I just took the ghee off.

I went from ghee to no gi.

So you don't do that in karate.

In.

In jiu jitsu.

We go from gi to no gi.

Now I gotta make a commercial about something.

So.

Yeah, so if you do want to get yourself some coffee, just go to Squirrelly do's, go to strivingfraternity.org Coffee and I do always like to remind you, go to strivingforternity.org Coffee when you reorder so that he knows that you got there from us.

So he continues sponsoring us here.

And use the promo code if it's your first time sfe it is either gets you a free cup of co. A free bag of coffee or 20% off.

I don't know if he changed that, but if you use Keith, it gets you a free bag of coffee 20% off.

Better, in my opinion.

Can we go back to the last question?

I need to ask you to go back, but the gentleman asked the question and I wanted to mention something.

I.

Unfortunately, I can't see the comments.

I can.

Let me go back.

You should be able to.

But I got a.

That was bit back.

So let me get.

He.

He asked about how it affects your everyday walk.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

That, that, that's.

I think that's a great question.

So if you don't mind me me taking just a minute to answer.

You know, how.

How do.

How do Millennial positions impact a daily believer's daily walk.

A lot of folks will argue that if you have a post millennial position, that that will encourage you to want to do more, to see the kingdom grow on earth.

Because the post millennial view is that Christ's kingdom is going to overcome.

It's going to have success, it's going to have victory.

Well, amillennialists believe that too.

Amillennialists believe, and sometimes I'm called an optimistic amillennialist.

I do believe there's going to be victory.

I do believe there's going to be success.

I do believe there's going to be the kingdom conquering in one sense, where the Gospel goes out and conquers souls and brings people into the kingdom.

And I don't believe that we're rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

That's the thing that I think has to be considered.

And I don't think that my premillennialist friends believe that either.

That's often an argument used against them.

They'll say premillennialists are negative or they are.

What's the word I'm looking for?

Pessimistic.

Yeah, escapists or pessimistic.

In fact, here's, here's, here is a joke.

I'll say that, you know, post millennialists are optimistic and pre millennialists are pessimistic, but amillennialists are realistic.

And so I do believe that the gospel is going to have success.

However, I also believe that we are going to continue to have opposition till the end.

And here's something I brought up in my discuss discussion with Doug Wilson about this.

And I still don't think, I still don't think his answer was, was, I don't think he understood what I was saying.

Not, not that he's, I mean, he's, he's a very smart man.

But I just don't think he got where I was coming from.

In, in Romans, chapter eight, it tells us that those who are in Christ will suffer with him.

Right.

You know, it says, provided we suffer with him.

And so I said, in the post millennial view, there's this idea that there's a coming time where there's not going to be suffering because the Christianity is going to overtake the world.

And he said, well, there's always going to be suffering because there's always going to be pain, there's always going to be sickness, there's always going to be death until Christ returns.

I said, yes, but this is specifically referring to suffering with Christ in The idea of persecution.

This is what Romans 8 is talking about, being persecuted for the faith.

And if there are not those who were persecuting us because Christianity has overcome that persecution, then what does it mean when it says provided we suffer with him, that we may be glorified with him?

I think that's another part.

Think.

I think I go back to the wheat and the tares and Doug told me, he says, well it's a wheat field.

I agree.

It's a wheat field.

I agree the gospel is overcoming, but there's going to be tears, there's going to be a battle, there's going to be the enemy who we will always have to go up against.

So the impact on a daily walk with Christ, I think it gives us a realistic view of the battle we're always going to be in until Christ returns.

The difference.

And here's something Kim Riddlebarger says.

He says the difference between post millennialism and amillennialism is in post millennialism Christ comes back to a saved world.

But in amalgama millennialism, Christ comes back to save the world.

So, so there's two different perspectives on what the world the end is going to look like.

Maybe what we do next week.

Since you're the optimistic amillennial if, if Matt slicks up to it, maybe I should get mad on since he believe what he, he describes.

His end time view is the prestatology.

He would be more the pessimistic amillennialist.

So he, he, he says his view of end times will bring you to depression.

So maybe we'll do that.

I'll reach out to him and ask.

I want to try and get to questions that folks have asked.

So let's see.

So Fatima had said Calvin had no commentary on Revelation.

Did that mean his Amel position couldn't stand good systematic theology Apology?

I, I don't know if she's kid.

I mean you're laughing.

I, I don't know if she's kidding.

I think she probably at least there's humor in that.

I think there's some.

You know, it's funny when we look when we think about Calvin.

You know, he wrote a commentary on just about every book of the Bible except Revelation.

And so there's questions about why not and there's maybe he didn't get to it.

Well, revelation is tough.

Revelation is straight up.

I mean it's difficult there.

I, I have a short video called Eschatology for for Dummies where I talk about there's four different there's four different frameworks that can be used to read Revelation and where the framework you start with is going to affect how you understand the book.

And so as I said, I take sort of Beal's approach, which is a recapitulation view where it's.

Things are occurring over and over.

Some people take a strict chronological, literal view of understanding the book.

Other people take an idealistic view of the book, seeing it basically as allegory.

There's all kinds of different ways and how you approach it is going to affect how you understand it.

And I just wonder if Calvin, you know, was still.

Was still working through that, still working through what he.

What he thought it meant.

He might have let me just give a shout out to JT, became a new YouTube member.

So thank you for that.

That.

That's.

We don't usually mention that, but you guys that are on YouTube can help support us either by being members on YouTube or by doing super.

The.

The super chats.

So super chat is where you donate some money and it pops up different on our screen so that we know how much you gave and we definitely read those comments.

So one way to guarantee your comment gets ready.

So one of the, One of the things that I think that I liked was two.

Two different people.

One was a professor at Masters University whose name's escaping me.

I think it was, I think Robert Thomas.

He wrote two volumes on Revelation.

But anyway, he.

He had.

He said, you can sum up Revelation in two words.

Words Jesus wins.

Everyone can agree with that, right?

Fred Zaspel.

And that's a name that you'll know.

You know, Fred's a friend, love him.

Y.

He's a friend of mine as well.

He.

And I go, he.

He's.

He's actually the one that I.

That we'd go back and forth on the Calvinism, Arminianism, or really God's sovereignty, human responsibility issue.

And he's the one who I actually preaching through Philippians.

And I came to Philippians 1:29 and I had to call him up before I preached.

And I had to be like, fred, I was wrong.

You're right.

This passage I said, you shouldn't have been arguing out of Ephesians 2, 8, 9.

You should have been arguing out of Ephesians, Philippians 1:29.

Because it's really clear there, there's no way around it.

And he just was like, yeah, I knew you'd get around to it eventually.

But you know, Fred had once said Revelation is if you look at it as a, like a political comic.

You know, if you take a picture and I know some of the younger people won't get this, but if you see a picture of an eagle swooping down on a bear, what does it mean?

The, the illustration there politically would be the United States being the eagle, the bear being Russia, and it's swooping down.

You know, America is winning over Russia.

You get the big picture, but you don't get all the details.

We read into the details and I thought that was a pretty helpful way of understanding revelation, that if we take the step back, it's the only book of the 66 books where it tells you that there's a blessing to the reader.

And, and I look at it and say, okay, I think, I personally think a lot of what, what we're doing sometimes is trying to get too much of the details that are not so clear.

And for some people, they miss the big picture.

And I think that, I think that's a good point.

That's a very good point.

Missing the big picture, the forest for the trees is such a common problem, not only there, but in many.

And much about Bible study.

Yeah, yeah.

So, okay, so, so more fun question for you.

Jesse says, would you rather live today or you rather live a thousand years ago?

I don't want to live at any point in history prior to the invention of air conditioning.

That is my position and it will not change.

Okay, So I was going to edit this and say, okay, we, you, you know, would you rather live today?

Would you rather live a thousand years ago or would you rather live a thousand years in the future?

Depending if the, if there's still going to be a thousand years left.

Well, I would have to know there was going to be a thousand years from now.

I, I, I, I do have, like, I have.

Back to the Future is one of the greatest film trilogies ever made thinking about that.

And I always want my big question about Back to the Future is would it have been possible for Doc Brown to go so far into the future that he missed the second coming of Christ?

Like he missed the end because he mentions the birth of Christ in the first movie.

He says we can go back.

And he literally types in 12-25-0000 as the date Jesus is born.

He goes, we can witness the birth of Christ.

And he types in December 25, 0,000.

So I always wondered like, is it it possible that Doc Brown could go past the like, like and end up in oblivion?

Right, because he would be past the, you know, and then he wouldn't have a, then he wouldn't be able to get.

Okay, the, the answer to this.

I've, I've watched your programs enough and I know the answer.

The answer is obviously because.

And I'm going to tell you why.

And you're, you're going to have to agree with me on this.

But Karate Kid can go and from knowing no karate in just four months win a championship.

So obviously.

No, no, no, no, no, no.

Let me.

Because this is in my stand up act.

This is one of my favorite bits.

It's not four months.

It is less than six weeks.

Daniel LaRusso gets beat up on Halloween night.

We know this because they're all dressed in Halloween costumes.

That is the day before Mr. Miyagi offers the challenge to the Cobra Kai dojo to go to the all Valley Under 18 Karate Championship, which was a couple occurring on December 9th.

I'm sorry, December 19th.

Which means it's October 31st was the day got beat up.

So this is November 1st.

He now has less than six weeks to go from knowing no karate to being the undisputed all Valley Under 18 Karate Championship.

And he goes without even knowing the rules.

He walks in having to be told the rules by his girlfriend and he wins the.

He is.

Mr. Miyagi is not a sensei.

He is a magician.

And therefore, yes, doc, whoever can go past, because as my wife and I will say, we do it too.

Yeah, when my wife and I, if we watch tv, like we see things and I, I'm the one that be like, that doesn't make sense.

And she'll be like, it's a movie.

I do the same thing.

We'll be watching something and I'll go, hold on, that doesn't work.

And my wife goes, will you shut up and just watch the movie?

No, I can't do that.

I can't enjoy that.

That's not the way life works.

Okay, why don't they just stay here.

And then they don't have to do this at all in the movie.

And they arrive back in the same position they were when the movie started.

She gets up and leaves.

Well, okay, if you can time travel, why don't you just go back and kill Baby Thanos?

I mean, come you if you have travel ability.

What's that?

Who is Baby Thanos?

Okay, there's reference.

That's a reference to the Avengers End game.

Oh, I saw that one.

Yeah, yeah, that was, that was the.

First Stones to have the whole battle over again.

I. I saw that one.

So.

So you'll like this story, Keith.

I went to so I was that at a bar mitzvah.

My.

My nephew's bar mitzvah.

We had three hours to kill in between.

And my son in law said, let's go to see Endgame.

So that's the first Avengers that I saw was Endgame, which I think he.

He regretted it because he had to explain the entire movie to me while it was.

Because there was so much references to other movies.

And so.

But here we are, we.

We came in dressed in suits and dresses for formal attire to this little movie theater that had two theaters that they were like.

The manager actually called the person to ask if we were in the right place, like what we were doing there.

And I just played off.

We're going to the movies.

You got to get dressed up to go to the movies.

So.

Yeah.

So back to amillennialism.

Okay.

I'm sure people will be happy to hear that.

So Ian says, how crucial is Christ's role as mentioned in Ephesians 2:14,15.

I'll read in a moment.

In one's escalade eschatological view.

Can you shed more light on this?

So let me pull that up.

And that is Ephesians 2:14.

And.

And so it says this.

For he himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall by abolishing in his flesh the enmity which is the law of commandments, contained in ordinances, so that in himself he might make the two one, make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace.

I think the focus he's.

He's thinking of is the peace that there.

Are you.

Are you translating that on the fly or are you reading a different translation?

Because I don't think I know that translation well, that.

Are you reading the Greek?

Are you translating for us on the fly?

Did we just unlock a specific skill from.

For that we didn't know existed?

I think I was reading the New American Standard.

Okay, okay.

All right.

I was like.

I was like, wow, I'm listening to Andrew Rapaport throughout the Greek because I.

It was totally.

I was reading the ESV while you were reading that.

I do not translate on the fly, but I. I do.

Okay?

So I, I would always do my own translation.

And there are times when I will read my own translation.

And my congregation knew that.

And so I.

At least if.

When I'm wrong, I'm consistent.

Keith.

And so I had translated.

I miss.

Said a word three times in a message.

And I had.

I had three different ladies come up to me afterwards to ask Me why?

Why I translated this word that way.

They were looking in their MacArthur study bible, their ESV study bible.

They couldn't figure it out.

So the following week I had to get up and say, any of you wondering why I translated the word, this word that way?

And I heard, see a whole bunch of heads nod.

I said, the answer is, your pastor's an idiot.

I just got the word wrong.

I will say this, though.

Let me say one thing.

Thing.

A pastor who's willing to admit an error is a.

Is.

Is good.

Because some won't.

And so I would I give you props on that.

Oh, I've done it.

Unfortunately, I've done it a couple of times, several times.

But, you know, I wonder if the focus that he's getting at here is the church and Israel distinction.

Is it that or the peace?

I'm not.

Not sure.

But.

But yeah, I mean, maybe so.

So go for it either.

Why don't you try answering both what is the piece and what is the.

This.

The.

The two coming to be one?

Well, I think maybe I agree with Drew.

I think what the.

The.

The.

The.

At least part of the question is asking how does our end times view.

How is our end times view affected by how we see the relationship between Israel and the Church?

Yes.

Yes, he says.

Yes, that's it.

And so typically in a amillennial view, you tend to find at least an understanding that the promises that were made to Israel, particularly the promises given to Abraham that were fulfilled through.

Through Israel, find their ultimate fulfillment through Christ and his church.

And so the promises of Israel, the promises to Abraham are twofold.

The promises of seed and land are the.

Are the promises that Abraham has given.

And the seed promises we know have their.

Have their immediate fulfillment in his physical offspring, but they have their eschatological fulfillment in his spiritual offspring.

Romans chapter four tells us that he, the father of all who believe, Galatians chapter three says the same thing.

But then we also see the land promise where he is given the promise of the land, which is a very specific tract of land, which is we.

We call the land of Israel or the Holy Land.

But we see in the New Testament a reference to him not only receiving the land, but becoming the heir of the world.

And so the promise to Abraham is not just a specific track of land in Israel, but is a.

A promise of the receiving of the world, the new heavens and the new earth is the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham.

And so if you take a premillennial view, whether it's dispensational or just a historic premillennial view.

Oftentimes the focus is on the land of Israel as a fulfillment of the land promises to Abraham.

But I think those land promises have a much bigger and greater fulfillment not in the tract of land which we, we call the Holy Land, but in the new heaven, new earth that we, we receive if we are in Christ.

And so that's the, that is a distinction between how we understand the land of Israel and the people of Israel in amillennialism versus maybe say dispensational premillennialism.

And when Paul talks about the Israel of God In Galatians chapter 6amillennialist, at least my position is that that's not referring to ethics, ethnic Israel, ethnic Jews, but it's referring to all who have trusted in Christ who have now been joined to the Israel of God through Christ.

And so that's the, that may be.

And that's how I would understand Ephesians 2, that it's referring to that wall of division which was separating Jews and Gentiles has been crushed and, and brought down and we are now one man in Christ and there's peace there through Christ.

Christ.

Yeah.

And I, I would see that.

I, I think we might agree, I in the sense of.

I see that in the current period.

So we.

But that would, you would have no issue with that because you would think that we're in the millennium period.

Right?

So, so I think that's just what the, this, the church age where you have Jewish and gentile people together.

So basically, you know, no distinction between Israel being able to be like that.

There's some special relationship.

Right.

You know, now in the same sense as it was with the nation of Israel, you know.

Well, I think, I think there's a, it's interesting you bring that up because I think one of the, one of the places where there's disagreement and discussion on this is the question of, of what might be called socio political or geopolitical Israel.

And what I would, I would distinguish that from ethnic Israelites.

So you, you Andrew, are an ethnic Jew.

You are, you were born and into a Jewish family and you are Jewish by birth.

And yet at the same time you are a follower of Jesus Christ.

You are saved.

And so you have been, you have been, you have reached the fulfillment of your Judaism because the, the, you, you are a, you're, you're a Jew, but you're also a Christian, right?

I am not an ethnic Jew.

I did a 23andMe where they swab your mouth and tell you where you come from.

I was 99 British and 1% Scandinavian.

I'm the whitest dude.

You know, Like, I am like, like I am so white.

You can, if I take my shirt off and stand, stand before a big light, you can see my entire circulatory system.

I am a white, like, straight line.

I, I mean, it's crazy.

I'm, I'm a Brit.

But you and I have equal standing in the economy of God because we are both in the Lord Jesus Christ.

We have been made the.

The.

In him a new man.

And so I do believe, and this is where I differ from some in my amillennial, in my millennial position.

I'd love to hear Drew's thought on this.

I do believe that a revival arrival among ethnic Jews is a future reality and most likely a very real possibility.

But I don't think it's tied to the land, the geopolitical state of Israel.

That's where I would.

That I don't believe the geopolitical state of Israel is relevant to an ethnic Jewish revival.

I think because there's Jews in America, there's Jews in South America, there's Jews in Asia and in.

And, and in Europe.

They, they.

I don't think that the state of Israel is going to play in and factor into the revival.

But it could, but I just don't think it has to.

Yeah, yeah, I would, I would agree.

And I mean, Paul says as much in Romans 11 talking about there is a remnant of Israel that will be saved.

He's speaking specifically of salvation in.

And they will be brought into being believers in Christ.

And so.

Yeah, absolutely.

Yeah, I want to.

I was going to bring up Romans 11 for that purpose, you know, and that's one of the things like Matt Slick believes in a future for Israel as an amillennialist.

And so this is something that there are amillennialists that do see that God might do something with Israel in the future.

But is it Israel or Israelites?

And I don't mean mean to, I don't mean to be pedantic, but are we referring, are we referring to the, the, the nation that's currently the, like the Netanyahu Israel or are we talking about Israelites?

And I think, I do think that might be a difference.

Yeah, no, and you might be right there.

I mean, that may be where we would end up differing.

I, I don't know.

I will have to ask Matt that question to see whether.

Where he, he'd go, because he just says Israel.

But and this is of part of the problem as we see online, people use the word Israel.

And you know, I was putting this qu.

This, this comment up from JT and, and this plays into it.

That distinction is huge right now.

A lot of misunderstanding.

Demiss dismissing the entire Jewish identity.

And so I was on a program, a podcast called Tearing Down High Places and it'll, that episode will play eventually on the Rap Report podcast.

And one of the things we, the topic was on, you know, is the Israel and Iran dispensationalism things the, the 12 day war.

And so one of the things that we've seen is a lot of people, a lot of people from my covenant position that are, I think because of their view of covenant theology have been this back to what Keith said earlier in the show.

When you make something primary, you get out of balanced and you start to lose sight of things.

And there are people who are now denying that there's even a, a country known as Israel today.

They just, no, that's, that does, it doesn't.

So their, their theology has so influenced them that they deny the, this, this country that Netanyahu is the prime minister of today.

It, it doesn't exist.

And that's like, and, and one of the things I said on that show is you do not have to hold as a covenant theologian.

You can hold to the fact that there is a nation of Israel today.

There's a country known as Israel that's made up mostly, but not completely of ethnic Jewish people and that you can hold to that.

And covenant theology, it's not mutually exclusive.

Go ahead, Keith.

I just, I've not ever heard anyone deny that the, the nation of Israel exists.

I, I, I wonder if they deny that it's relevant.

Maybe, but I've never heard anyone say it just doesn't exist.

But, but, but I, I again, I don't listen to everybo heard some people I haven't.

Yeah, yeah, no, I have.

I mean it's, if it goes, there's a gamut of it.

You have people who are saying basically because whether it's that because Israel's currently under God's judgment or because yeah they'll say you can't, we shouldn't even defend Israel.

But what, what I would say and maybe this is where, you know, we could have a discussion.

I would say the Israel that exists as a nation is not the Israel of God.

God.

And I agree with Bond Servant for Jesus.

The person in the comments who said I think Israel is all believers from past, present, future.

That's true Israel.

I agree.

That's the Israel of God is believers.

And so because Paul says not all who are of Israel are true Israel.

Right.

Who is the true Israel?

Those who believe.

So, so, so I think when you say Israel doesn't exist, I say as a nation, it's a geopolitical entity and I think it's our ally.

Israel is our ally ally.

And therefore we have, you know, as an as, as, as a, as a political ally, we have responsibilities as America does to her allies.

Right.

We.

This is another conversation.

But I don't think it's right to say what Ted Cruz said, which is those who bless Israel will be blessed.

And he says therefore we must support Israel.

I don't, I don't agree with him on that because I think now we're saying that the Israel nation is the Israel of God.

And I, and I think that's two different things.

Yeah.

And with the clips from Tucker Carlson, I was on Bold Apologia where we, they.

He asked me about.

We actually played that clip.

He, he wanted to, to get the thoughts and, and I, he, I, I think both guys might have been doing debate tactics and playing games.

But, but yeah, no, I would.

So.

And this, and you've posted this where you said people were attacking you and you know, me saying you're anti Semite for, for saying it.

And I came in saying, look, first off, I'm Jewish and I don't think you're hating Jewish people by saying, by saying that the, the, I mean, I think that God is doing something with Israel today.

It's called judgment.

Right.

They're currently under God's judgment.

So I don't think that they're, I don't, I wouldn't say that ethnic Israel is God's people the way we would have said we would have seen it in the Old Testament because there they were.

They were the ones that were supposed to bring the word of God to the world.

Now they're a judgment under God.

Now where you and I definitely are going to differ is I think that God is good going to bring them back into focus.

And that's where, you know, so I might agree with you to, to an extent here today, but I think there will be a future and I think there will be a, a future land promise being kept.

That.

And that's one of the areas we end up disagreeing.

Yeah.

I think where, where most of the disagreement comes between me and my dispensational friends and, and they're, they, they tend to be getting fewer because they like me less.

But, but I do.

Well, you got to stop poking the bear.

Well, yeah, but, but the, the, the, the, the issue does tend to be the land promise, because I see it as, I see it as a greater fulfillment.

In the same way, one of my, one of my elders made this really good illustration the other day and he talked about that his son, you know, when his, when his son got his first job, he, he, he was going to get him a bicycle to ride to work.

And because the, the job was close enough he could ride a bike to work.

But on the day that he started his job, he walked out and there was a car, he had actually bought him a car and not a bicycle.

And he said, it's a greater fulfillment of the promise.

You're going to have transportation.

The promise all along was a promise of transportation, but it's a greater fulfillment of the promise rather than what you thought it was going to be.

More.

And so where there's a land promise, the greater land promise is the world, not just a track of land in the nation of Israel.

And so that's, I think that's a simple way, maybe, maybe in all illustrations break down, but I think ultimately it's a simple way of saying God is doing more for Israel, not less, when he gives them the world.

And I'll say I like that illustration a lot better than the jaws of the illustration.

I didn't come up with that one.

That was my, you can give that credit to Michael Collier.

Michael Collier is my fellow elder and he's a great teacher.

So I give him all the credit for that.

So something I said, my jaws illustration.

No, go for it, use it.

I said it was decent, but you know, oh, decent.

It was good.

It was good a little while ago.

Now it's decent.

So, so, you know, Keith, I, I mentioned this on your, on your show and I know the one more classic dispensationalist, when we did the bow tie dialogue on dispensationalism, the one more classic didn't like this.

But you know, when we think of the church, right, in the Middle Ages, there was a debate because everyone was kind of forced to go to church.

And there became this distinction between the visible local church, which was that gathering on Sunday in a building that's made up of believers and unbelievers, and the invisible universal church, which is all believers, only believers everywhere.

Right.

And I think what helps me to understand this issue with Israel is to use that same language or thought with Israel, because I think that there's A national Israel and a spiritual Israel.

So you have national Israel, local, you know, visible Israel, that is those that were from the, the line of, you know, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, they're from that lineage.

They're in the land.

But it doesn't mean they're all believers, that it was made up of believers and unbelievers in that nation.

But then within that there was a spiritual Israel that makes up all those that were believers, believers in all.

All over the world in all time.

And to me, that, that's what I think Paul is making the argument there of not all Israel, the nation.

National Israel is Israel, spiritual Israel.

Right.

Just like we would say not all of the local church is the universal church.

And that helps me understand that as.

Saying there is Israel and then there is true Israel.

Right.

And true Israel, I would say, are those who are in Christ because the brand, like Paul talks about the branches being grafted in.

Well, the, the tree is Israel and the Gentiles are the branches that are being grafted into that root.

And so the church, those who are in Christ would be true in Israel, whereas not necessarily ethnic or national Israel.

Now would you say the same with the church?

Would you say that the church.

That there's a true church being just the saved within.

Like, in terms of like the local, like in my local church, there's.

There's a true believe.

Yeah, yeah.

There's true believers and there.

And there's.

There's false converts.

Yeah.

And so.

So that's that.

That's the comparison I'm trying to make.

Got it.

I think where the, where the issue lies still.

And again, not trying to be argumentative, but just to push back and say, well, step back.

I would agree, but I don't think it's the.

I don't think it's the nation of Israel right now.

And here's why I think ethnic Israel has always existed.

You'll know this historically.

I don't know the answer to this, so I'm legitimately asking.

This isn't like a guy.

Your question.

I know that Israel as a nation was reformed in 1948.

Prior to that, when was the last time the Jewish people occupied that land in Israel as a, as a people?

Well, was it so, so, so tough question because they've.

There's always been Jewish people that's been in the land, certainly.

But I mean, as nation.

I, I don't know, might have been sometime after 70 A.D. it means probably during the Roman period.

Okay.

The.

I mean, for sure by the time of Muhammad, because that's when, you know, Muhammad takes it over.

There were still a lot of Jewish people there, but after Muhammad takes it over and then the Crusades with the Catholic Church coming down, they, there was more and more disbursement after that.

Well, the reason why I'm bringing this up and, and because, because here's my thought.

The, the, the distinguish.

The distinction you made was visible Israel versus spiritual Israel.

Right.

Well.

And that's the.

Yeah.

Visible versus I say natural.

Natural.

National.

Sorry, national, which would be local or visible.

Spiritual, which would be universal, invisible.

Well, well, I would say that the natural or ethnic Israel has always been.

Even when there wasn't a nation that called itself Israel.

So in that period of whether it was 1500, a thousand or however many years it was before 1948.

So that's why I, that's why I'm not tying my idea of physical Israel to the land.

I'm saying that physical Israel.

Because there are Israelites all around the world.

Old.

I think that they, the, the, the, the revival among Jewish people is not tied to a land.

That's that, that's that, that, that's that.

That's the point I'm making now.

When, when Israel was reoccupied in 1948 and, and was re.

Established.

That did start a clock in the minds of some people.

This is why there was a book called 88 Reasons Jesus Will Return in 1988.

Right.

And then there was 88.

Nine for 1989.

What was the added one?

It didn't happen in 88.

Yeah.

So, so that's my, that's just a thought.

I, I, in regard to what you were saying.

That's why I just don't see the geopolitical state of Israel as being as important as saying the ethnic.

There will be a revival among ethnic Israel's Israelites but not tied to a place in, in, in, in the middle, in the Middle East.

That's.

And again, I know there's disagreement, but that's to make my position a little more clear.

Yep, let's.

Because I know we're coming up on time.

There are a couple.

First off, JT says this, we, we are literally grafted into the, this thing no longer ethnical.

I would, I would say dot post.

Yes, we are grafted into Israel.

That's the Romans 11 promise is that we have been.

We are the wild olive branch that's been grafted into the root.

But what is the root?

And this is.

I'm going to mention a book that was mentioned on my last show and that's the show I did with Richard Lucas and Brent Parker.

Brent Parker believes and has a book where he argues that Christ is the true Israel.

And so we are united to Christ and become part of true Israel.

And so I think that's something worth exploring.

What are we grafted in, into?

We are grafted into Israel, but, but Christ is the true Israel and we, and he makes the argument that all of the things that Israel was in the Old Testament were pre figurings of the one, the person of Christ.

Israel is called the Son of God, you know, out of Egypt, I call my Son.

All these things.

Well, those things are then applied to Christ.

And how are we, how are we saved?

We're united to Christ.

We are brought into Him.

We are in Him.

And, and so I think that's a concept worth exploring.

We'll have to see how that book compares with Dale Partridge's new book on the same topic.

I didn't know Dale wrote a book.

I, I, I wasn't aware, I was.

Aware when someone sent it to me because, you know, so, and I may, I may have to try to get a hold of it and read it and have them on.

Drew, were you going to say son?

No, I was agreeing with.

Okay, Keith.

All right, so agreement, two thumbs up.

Christopher said earlier, son, you said, Keith, he says you got to be careful to, to preach sin and not merely a rapture with a call to repentance.

And, and, and you were, you were talking about the fact that there are people who, you know, it back in, especially in the 80s 90s, it was all about, you know, the rapture.

And I, I think there, you know, and this should be for people to realize.

Some people actually think that the, that Dispensationalism started after 1948 because of Israel.

And it's the other way around.

Dispensationalism actually started late 1800s.

Yeah.

So it, it predated and, and I say that to say 1800s because it predated for folks that don't know the Turks own the land.

Land that we think of as, you know, Israel today or Palestine.

It was called Palestine by the Romans and had been known as that area.

And every Jewish person before 1948 that lived in that area was called a Palestinian.

Just so, you know.

But in, after the World War I, the UK had took, took over the land.

They won it by, they took it by force and in warfare.

And in around 1919, 17, they were planning to re, establish Israel back then.

So dispensationalism for those that Want to.

Say, well, it was.

Yeah, but they were talking about it.

Yeah, they, they started talking about in 1917, but pre millennialism still predates that.

So it's, it's not something that people came up with because they were reading the newspaper just saying, sure, yeah, no.

It certainly fit into the paradigm.

But it wasn't, it wasn't the cause for sure.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, Kathy says thank you Andrew Drew and Keith for a good show.

Look forward to viewing the, the other views being discussed.

And, and then, you know, here's one for you, Keith.

Perhaps Keith would have to change his choice instead of ac the invention of movies.

He.

Well, let me tell you something.

Something.

It's hard to enjoy a movie without a nice air conditioned room.

So I think the two go hand in hand.

It is a fist in glove or hand in glove situation.

Yes, I love movies, but I love them with a giant ice cold Diet Coke, a box of sugar free Russell Stover's candy because I'm currently on a sugar free diet and a nice ice cold room.

And I will be doing that on July 11th.

I, I'm going to go to the premiere of the new Superman movie which is coming out on July 11th.

And, and J.T.

stole my.

I literally was gonna say this.

I see he put it up.

But thanks for the cold plunge.

You should get a cold plunge, Keith.

I mean then for the record, you live in Florida.

That's why you, you, you're like in the air conditioning because you're in Florida.

Absolutely.

There are places in the world that's places in America where people still don't think they need air conditioning.

Air conditioning.

I don't know anywhere I would live that I wouldn't, I'd live in Canada and need an air conditioner.

I don't know.

So I went to Reno for work and this was right when summer had started.

And I'm thinking, okay, we're going to Reno.

We're going to a desert.

It's going to be hot.

I don't need to take long sleeves, a jacket, anything like that.

So I get out there, we land, we go outside and, and it's freezing.

And the first thing I do is I text Chris Honholz and I go, I thought this was a desert.

No, he was like, the mountains over there, there's a breeze that comes through, swoops down and this place stays cool all the time.

Yep.

I need to clarify.

Bond servant for Jesus said, how did I get tickets to the premiere?

I meant the first day.

I'm not going to the premiere.

I wish I was.

I wish I was.

Was.

Superman is the best fictional character in history.

It's my favorite.

I love it.

And he was created by two Jewish men, Joel Schuster and Jerry Siegel.

Wrote the first Superman comic, 1938.

And I've been a fan right after Batman.

Yeah, I agree.

Batman.

Batman's the coolest.

Superman's the greatest.

There's two different.

There's.

There's two different streams there.

And we could.

Drew and I should come back and debate on Apologize live.

We can debate the.

The relative benefits of winged vigilantes.

I would love to do that.

I will moderate that for sure.

And.

And folks, I just want you to realize as.

As much as Keith understands these really small, trivial details of movies, he knows his Bible the same way.

Just saying.

Fatima says she agrees with Kathy.

This was a good program.

Program.

Always great to listen to Keith's explanations.

Cheers to all.

So thank you.

I will say that if you want to check out, Keith and I will both be speaking in Tullahoma, Tennessee.

That's coming up.

That's Jeffrey Rice's church down there.

If you just do a search online for road trip to revival, you'll get the details.

It's going to be September 12th and 14th.

14th.

And that's in Tullahoma, Tennessee.

That.

That same weekend.

If you are in the Philadelphia area, those of you, unfortunately, Aaron Brewster could not be here tonight.

Had son.

He had to, you know, matter he had to take care of.

And so.

But he will be at my home church doing a striving fraternity seminar at my home church at Oxford Valley Chapel in Levittown, Pennsylvania.

So if you're in that area, contact Oxford Valley Chapel.

You can get the details and maybe meet Aaron face to face.

And so I. I just gotta say, you know, Keith, I think he convinced me.

I think I'm on mill.

Yes, I have won the day.

Rule it all, people.

Andrew's a trickster.

Like a little leprechaun.

He's a little trickster.

Yeah.

No, no, sorry.

Every day's April Fool's Day with Keith.

Oh, my goodness.

Hey, J.T.

said.

J.T.

said something.

He said that James White said on the dividing line that I could handle some debates.

I wonder which ones he's referring to because I.

That's nice.

Well, I was, you know, I heard James said that he's going to be coming your way.

He had.

He hasn't made it all the way down that far in Florida, but yes.

I guess it's never too early to make an announcement.

In March of 2020.

6.

We are going to be hosting a three day conference with Dr. James White as the primary speaker for the conference.

And we are currently trying to work on a debate.

So if you are in or around the Jacksonville, Florida area or you're willing to travel, we are literally 10 minutes from the Jacksonville International Airport.

We will be having him.

The dates currently are tentative, but they're the 6th through the 8th of March of January 2020 or I'm sorry, March 2026.

March 6th through the 8th.

So keep in mind that we will have my good friend and faithful brother Dr. James White there to preach for us.

So that's the topic of the conference.

Well, currently we're working on a debate related to an issue of Roman Catholicism and if that ends up being the case, then it will probably be a reformation related confere.

Because of it.

Related to the, to that.

But because we haven't got the debate nailed down yet.

We're still working on that.

But, but as soon as all the information's out, we'll be, we'll be plastering.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And you know, Keith can tell everyone the story of how he just watches James Whitey Hamburgers, you know, and he'll explain that at the conference.

It was a glorious day.

Watch that man eat a cheeseburger that I had purchased with my own money.

But if you, if you can get down to Jacksonville for that, I, I'll just say this.

For those folks up north, March is like a wonderful time to go down to Jacksonville, Florida, get out of the cold before like we really get spring.

It's just, it's a great time to be there.

So I encourage, encourage you to check that out.

So I'm sure we'll get dates.

And Keith, when you get those dates, we'll share them here as well.

So we're happy.

So any, anything, anything you want to let folks know before, before we close out.

Any last thoughts, comments, things you want to promote?

Just want to say that I'm very thankful for you and your friendship and the fact that you have been sponsoring my show now for, for a while.

We, we talk about the Striving for Eternity conferences on our show every week and I'm just grateful to have you as a friend.

And Drew, it was good to get to meet you in person, online, in person, you know, and chat with you.

So thank you both for having me and putting up with my nonsense for the last couple hours.

I appreciate it.

Yeah.

And I put up with Andrews all the time, you know, so you did, you did one of your episodes that was on YouTube.

YouTube.

I, I can't remember who you were talking to, but you asked them one of their skills.

It was like, what's, what's one of your greatest skills?

Yeah, your grace.

Greatest useless skill that you're very proud of.

That's right, yes.

Yeah.

And I commented on it and I said my greatest useless skill is being able to put up with Andrew.

Well, I, we did get a comment from last week's show on can Christians lose their salvation?

And so someone had said this.

I find some additional clear passages to be the parable of the unforgiving servant where his debt was truly cancelled before he was unforgiven towards the person whose was in debt to him.

And in Acts where it says that Simon the sorcerer believed and was baptized.

It doesn't say he thought he was, that he thought he believed or that he perceived in belief.

So this is dealing with the fact that we had said, dealing with the issue of losing your salvation, that the cases where you see these people that seem like they believe, believe are actually just hypocrites that stop pretending they profess a faith that they don't actually have.

And so this person is Mr. Swifty 404.

For folks that don't know what 404 is, a reference to go type something onto an Internet with a bad link and you're going to get a.

What's called a 404 error.

So, but the, the, the issue here just to, to, you know, is first off, he's using a parable to argue that the, the guy who forgives the debt then is.

Has the debt held against him.

And so what he's using that to say, well, the guy had salvation and lost it.

If that's the argument, it's violating a rule of hermeneutics.

How you interpret the Bible.

When we interpret a parable.

Parable.

We interpret the parable.

It's an illustration.

So you interpret it based on what it's illustrating.

You do not take it beyond what it's illustrating.

The purpose of the parable there is to illustrate that the person who has been forgiven far more should be willing to forgive someone who's done him far less.

Less.

The idea being that we have sinned against Christ far more than we've sinned than anyone has sinned against us.

And if Christ was willing to forgive us so much, we should be willing to forgive others.

It has nothing to do with trying to teach that someone get.

Can lose their salvation.

When we do that through a parable, we're reading something into it.

So with that, I say.

Say you're.

You're.

It's violating the rules of interpretation.

As far as Simon the Sorcerer.

Yes, it says he believed and was baptized.

He wasn't saved through his baptism, but he.

He believed and he got baptized, but he believed he was saved.

But that's what I was talking about, the profession.

He made a profession of belief, but he didn't have possession of belief.

He thought he was saved.

And so it refers to him as having believed.

But clearly from the context, he was never a believer that we would say is regenerated.

He was someone who had a head knowledge, a head belief, but didn't possess Christ in a regenerative way.

All right, so, Drew, you were on the show last week.

So.

So I don't know if anything more you'd want to respond to that with that.

No, I think you did it.

It's good.

I mean, I think we made our case.

I mean, through scripture, you know, about eternal security with Jesus's own words.

So I don't.

I don't think we need to add anything to it.

Yeah.

All right, well, with that, as I said, next week.

Next week, maybe I will get.

Get Matt Slick to come in so that, you know, just so Tom Shepard will have a chance to talk about his millennialism, because I know he's.

He's miss.

As much as he's enjoying doing some July 4th evangelism, I know he's.

He missed being able to, you know, talk about his idol.

Millennialism.

Oh, sorry.

That's not nice.

It's a joke.

Thought you're gonna say I was his idol because I'm the king of the amillennials.

Well, therefore you are.

Therefore.

Therefore you are.

And.

And that's.

That's hero.

Yeah.

I really was hoping Tom would be.

Here because I. Superman to Tom Shepard.

I have a really fun intro for next week when both Drew and I've been waiting and waiting because I know the guys, the one we did that to start this program.

I know that Drew was having fun with it.

He was knowing that I was going to clip it, and I did clip it, but I clipped something else, and I'm waiting for them so that I could.

I could put that out.

So next week so that Tom and.

I did and you weren't here.

I'm not going to tell you which episode it was from.

You're gonna have to be here.

I'm just waiting for the two of you to be there so you can get a good laugh.

Just saying I'm gonna get with Tom.

And I'm gonna say, you know what?

Let's just frustrate Andrew even more and you come on, and then I'll.

I'll have something come up where I can't come on, and then we'll just.

Oh, when you hear this intro, you're.

You're gonna love.

You're gonna be wishing that I'd play it every week.

Trust me, you'll see.

You'll see.

All right, so next week we may deal on millennialism with Matt Slick and talk about since we had the.

The optimistic amillennialism, we can get the depressed X depressic one depressed at holiday, as Matt would say next week.

So I'll talk to him, see if he's available.

But on the 17th, we'll do post mill.

On the 24th will be historic pre millennialism, and then on the 31st will be dispensational premillennialism.

So I just, I did not.

We actually were going to do post mill this week, but it was the only week all month Keith could do.

And you can't have amillennialism without having the king, so.

That's right.

Thank you for coming on, Keith.

I appreciate you working it out for me.

Thank you.

Yeah, I am just a jester in the court.

So do go and check out your Calvinist podcast if you don't already follow that one.

You want to go.

And I will say you also want to go and check out your Calvinist on YouTube because they'll usually do sometimes some things on YouTube, especially some of the shorts.

Keith is known for some of his funnier stuff that he does with the different dis.

Different religious, you know, with dispensationalism versus Lutheran versus, you know, the Presbyterians and, and doing different things like owning planes and shooting guns.

And they're, they're very funny.

So if you don't, if you haven't seen those, go check out his denominational series.

So appreciate you coming in.

I appreciate, appreciate not just the humor, your knowledge of movies, but really your precision in theological discussion is appreciated, especially with.

And this is why I knew I could do this discussion with you.

Because the thing I love about you, Keith, is the fact that, like your bow tie dialogues that you can have a discussion like we had tonight where this time you're doing all the talking and I'm just sitting back asking questions, questions for better understanding.

Unfortunately, very few Christians seem to be able to do that.

You can.

And I love that about you that you can have someone on your show talking about a position you don't hold to and you don't feel like you have to get your points in.

You can let.

You let others talk.

You try to understand.

It's greatly appreciated.

You're a great model for many Christians to follow.

Well, I appreciate that.

That's a very kind word.

So thank you very much.

Very much.

Thank you.

And with that, folks, remember to strive to make today an eternal day for the glory of God.

And we'll see you next week.