The Last Days According to Sproula

© 2013 Tony Garlandb

Part 1 (Revelation)

Part 2 (The Antichrist)

Part 3 (The Beast)

Part 4 (The Rapture)

Part 5 (The Millenium)


  1. An examination of recent teaching by the popular and influential theologian R. C. Sproulc of Ligonier Ministriesd concerning the "Last Days."

  2. Recent series of audio teachings featured on the Renewing Your Minde radio broadcast.

    1. The Book of Revelationf (11/4/2013)

    2. The Antichristg (11/5/2013)

    3. The Beasth (11/6/2013)

    4. The Rapturei (11/7/2013)

    5. The Millenniumj (11/8/2013)

  3. Sproul's commitment to preterism biases his interpretation resulting in a distorted understanding of eschatology.

  4. Irony of his book, The Last Days According to Jesusk

  5. Qualities, but liabilities.

  6. Two goals: (1) understand flawed reasoning and interpretation concerning prophecy; (2) discern the ways in which teachers go astray

  7. Check all teachers by the scriptures — including me!

    Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.1

  8. Two primary commitments of Preterism

    1. The “end of the age” which Jesus spoke about in Matthew (Mat. 24:3) is reinterpreted to mean the “end of the Jewish age”. The end of this “Jewish age” is then understood to be the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., which also figures prominently in Jesus' teaching in Matthew 24-25.

    2. Various predictions are interpreted in such a fashion as to require fulfillment within the lifetime of those who heard Jesus.

      1. So-called “timing texts” which indicate events will happen “soon,” or that their time is “near.”
      2. The phrase “this generation” must always refer to the generation alive at the time of Christ’s ministry to whom He spoke directly.
  9. The predictable result

    1. Prophetic passages “must” have a first-century fulfillment in view.

    2. Overt bias against all things futurist/dispensational

      1. Recording: “Ask R.C.”, Renewing Your Mind, October 29, 2010.2
      2. Caller asking about the number of dispensations
      3. Number of dispensations not critical, but the interpretive framework (covenant promises, distinctions, avoid spiritualizing OT passages)
      4. Sproul’s assessment: “aberrant,” “novel” (but formalization of CT not much earlier), “faulty theology”, “serious distortion of biblical Christianity”
  10. Sound Bites

    1. Fair use: minimize inclusion of Ligonier material

    2. Recommend listening to the full presentation of each topic on the Ligonier Ministriesl website.

Part 1 - The Book of Revelationm (11/4/2013)

  1. clip 1 (1:51-2:30) - Importance of the date

    1. Is the date “widely ignored” as he claims?

  2. clip 2 (3:01-3:50) - Relationship to Olivet discourse, preterist position of fall of Jerusalem

    1. In the time frame of the present generation.

    2. And His coming at the end of the age.

    3. Moderate preterist position.

    4. All these things did in fact come to pass in 70 A.D.

  3. clip 3 (4:10-4:52) - Historic/traditional view is the late date

    1. During the decade of the 90s, well after the fall of Jerusalem.

    2. Extremely unlikely that the prophecies had any reference immediately to Jesus' prediction on the Mt. of Olives.

  4. clip 4 (4:52-5:56) - What if before the fall? Revelation about cataclysmic events of Fall of Jerusalem, Matthew 24.

    1. Then, whole new cast on understanding the immediate application of the book to the contemporaries of John.

    2. Appeal to "reputable scholars"

    3. Catastrophic moments in 70 A.D.

  5. clip 5 (6:05-6:23) - Internal vs. external evidence

  6. clip 6 (7:54-11:53) - Testimony of Irenaeus reinterpreted

    1. The pronoun “that” is in the neuter gender, not used of persons but things.

    2. The antecedent of “that” was seen — obviously referring to the vision. The words “vision” and “seen” are intentionally paired.

    3. Creating ambiguity where none exists: a “grammatical and literary question.”

    4. Technical analysis: “the statement can mean” either.

  7. clip 7 (11:55-12:31) - Irenaeus and "ancient copies" of Revelation

    1. Not used if written in your own lifetime.

    2. Lived from 130-202 vs. 65 or 95 (65 or 35 years earlier)

  8. clip 8 (13:49-15:53) - Time texts all demand near fulfillment

    1. Mentions all soon time texts, and omits that actual return of Jesus is one they also hold is unfulfilled

  9. clip 9 (16:33-17:52) - Temple references, but no mention of its destruction, must be before 70 A.D.

    1. Mention of temple requires that it be in existence (contra Ezekiel).

    2. Internal evidence is from silence, lack of mention, very unreliable.

    3. John and motive for writing.

  10. clip 10 (17:52-20:34) - Book must be written during reign of sixth king. Key is found in counting Caesers

    1. Appeal to incorrect reading of Rev 17 about seven hills being other than seven kings.

      • KJV: AND THERE ARE seven kings.
      • NKJV: THERE ARE ALSO seven kings
      • ESV: THEY ARE also seven kings <<< REFORMATION STUDY BIBLE
      • NASB95: And THEY ARE also seven kings
      • NIV84: THEY ARE also seven kings
      • NET: THEY ARE also seven kings
      • HCSB: THEY ARE also seven kings
    2. Hills/mountains refer to kingdoms

    3. Says sixth king rules over the seven hills (assumption: not in the text).

    4. Agree that the sixth king is presently reigning when the book is given.

    5. Big assumption: the kings are all Roman

      1. Beast with seven heads is related to the visions of Daniel.
      2. Woman who rides is mother of harlots - argues for historic origin much earlier than the first Caesar.
      3. Revelation 12 ties the beast to the "serpent of old" and his historic influence down through history.
  11. clip 11 (22:32-22:50) - When counted "properly" we find Nero is king #6

    1. How many Caesars were there really?

      To be sure there have been many attempts to fit the date of Revelation . . . into the emperor lists of the first century. . . . But immediately there are admitted problems. Where do we begin—with Julius Caesar or Caesar Augustus? Are we to exclude Galba, Otho, and Vitellius who had short, rival reigns? If so, how can they be excluded except on a completely arbitrary basis? A careful examination of the historic materials yields no satisfactory solution. If Revelation were written under Nero, there would be too few emperors; if under Domitian, too many. The original readers would have had no more information on these emperor successions than we do, and possibly even less. How many Americans can immediately name the last seven presidents? Furthermore, how could the eighth emperor who is identified as the beast also be one of the seven (Rev. 17:11)?3

    2. Assume Nero is sixth for sake of argument

      1. Heads are related to the kings
      2. Who is the seventh?
      3. How does he disappear and reappear?
      4. His reappearance as the eighth is associated with his identity as the beast.
      5. Nero cannot be both #6 and #8.

Part 2 - The Antichristn (11/5/2013)

  1. clip 1 (6:32-6:48) - A clear and present threat (e.g., infers the person of the Antichrist is imminent)

    1. Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. (1Jn. 2:18-19)

  2. clip 2 (9:01-11:47)

    1. Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2Th. 2:1-12)

    2. Says the Thessalonians were concerned that “Christ had already come.” Actually, the concern was whether the “Day of the Lord” or “Day of Christ” had come — the tribulation.

      1. The Rapture (1Th. 4:16-18)
      2. Then, the “day of the Lord” as a thief
        1. But concerning the times and the seasons, brethren, you have no need that I should write to you. For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night. For when they say, "Peace and safety!" then sudden destruction comes upon them, as labor pains upon a pregnant woman. And they shall not escape. But you, brethren, are not in darkness, so that this Day should overtake you as a thief. (1Th. 5:1-4)
    3. Yes, man of lawlessness must come first, but prior to the literal, bodily second coming, not the Preterist “cloud coming in judgment.”

    4. Just like Daniel 7 predicts.

  3. clip 3 (11:50-13:00) - Apostasy of the Jews

    1. Within the "covenant community."

    2. BB Warfield, the apostasy is exclusively Jewish, not the end of history.

    3. Confusion over what constitutes the church: the religious leaders who rejected Jesus were not part of the Church (formed on the Day of Pentecost).

  4. clip 4 (15:03-16:52) - Sits in temple.

    1. States: if taken literally, must have occurred before 70 A.D. or must be a future rebuilt temple.

    2. To be frank, I’m not sure why his view requires it since he doesn’t find consistent literal fulfillment with Nero anyway.

    3. Rightly connects it to abomination of desolation in Mat. 24:15, “some kind of serious form of blasphemous sacrilege”

  5. clip 5 (16:52-19:31) - Restrainer

    1. Man is being held in restraint requires must already be on the horizon.

      1. Says Paul states that the individual, this mysterious person, the man of sin, is already at work. Is that what the text says? No, it says, “the mystery of lawlessness is already at work” (2Th. 2:7). “Mystery” is in the neuter gender, it does not refer to an individual.
    2. Holy Spirit as restrainer is a "bizarre view," yet Paul as the restrainer is not?!

      1. If Paul were the restrainer, why would he refer to the restrainer as "what" and in the third-person as "he" (2Th. 2:6)?
      2. Preterism has an invisible “cloud coming” of Jesus in judgment on Jerusalem in 70 A.D., but the idea of an invisible coming of Jesus for His Church at the rapture is deemed far-fetched.
      3. His eschatology suffers from his flawed ecclesiology: lacking an understanding of the formation, purpose, and identity of the Church he can’t see its termination at the rapture.
    3. Government: unlikely since the Antichrist is unopposed at his ascendancy and forms the only global government.

    4. Restrainer is taken out of the way and then Antichrist is revealed, but has Paul taken out by Nero.

      1. Paul is the restrainer, but then he who is being restrained (Nero) takes away the restrainer by killing him?
      2. How could Paul be considered as having power over Nero when Nero kills him?
  6. clip 6 (19:41-21:02) - Restrainer taken, Antichrist destroyed at coming of Christ

    1. Consumed by the Lord with the “brightness of His coming”.

      [CHRYSOSTOM] by its mere heat, so Christ’s mere approach is enough to consume Antichrist. The mere “appearance of the coming” of the Lord of glory is sufficient to show to Antichrist his perfect nothingness. He is seized and “cast alive into the lake of fire” (Rev. 19:20)4

      The “manifestation (or appearance) of His presence”: the first outburst of His advent—the first gleam of His presence . . . Next his adherents are “slain with the sword out of His mouth” (Rev. 19:21)5

    2. Power, signs, and lying wonders correspond to the beast of Revelation 13

      1. Rightly concludes that passages concerning the Antichrist, the Beast, and the Man of Sin have one and the same person in view.
      2. In what way was this fulfilled in Nero?

Part 3 - The Beasto (11/6/2013)

  1. Revelation 13 passage sets the context for a discussion of the beast.

  2. clip 1 (1:30-4:24) - Scriptural Details concerning the beast

    1. Notice: reads all kinds of information about the beast.

    2. Virtually ignores all the objective indicators.

      1. Leopard/bear/lion imagery (which points to the seven-heads/kings spanning an earlier time than the Roman Caesars)
      2. Satanically empowered
      3. Deadly wound, healed (Nero’s deadly self-inflicted wound was never healed)
      4. At his healing, the world marvels (Nero committed suicide and was never marveled afterwards)
      5. The world worships the dragon (not fulfilled in Nero’s day)
      6. Authority for 42 months (time, times and half-a-time, 1260 days) - not fulfillment in Nero
      7. Authority over every tribe tongue and nation.
      8. All who dwell on the earth worship him (localized the Mediterranean)
      9. Is Revelation global or not?
      10. Second beast, performs great signs, causes fire to come down to heaven on the earth in the sight of men.
    3. Majors on the number of his name, the least reliable indicator of his identity.

      1. Concerning the number of the beast: “this mysterious cryptic message”
  3. clip 2 (6:29-9:18) - History records lots of conjecture.

    1. His approach to identifying Nero is no different: majoring on the name, glossing over many other more objective clues.

    2. Mussolini example (take one of his titles, Il Duce, meaning "the leader")

    3. Notice the reformers did not take the Preterist view of Nero (but the Pope).

  4. clip 3 (10:07-10:40) - Written in a code.

    1. A veiled political document, not really record visions of objective future events.

    2. In other words: don’t read anything literally.

    3. This is required because a straight-forward reading of the text absolutely precludes Nero.

  5. clip 4 (11:41-12:16) - Nero is the best candidate if restricted to 1st century.

    1. The judgment coming of Christ on Jerusalem and the temple.

    2. Nero may be “the best” candidate among a group none of which qualify, but doesn’t fulfill the predictions.

    3. The Preterist mandate: it all must have happened before 70 A.D., even if we can’t find reliable fulfillment.

  6. clip 5 (12:16-14:08) - Nero’s horrible historical record.

    1. Newspaper exegesis

    2. Suicide in 68.

    3. The Preterist test: time the elapsed minutes appealing to biblical texts vs. appealing to extra-biblical opinion and writings.

  7. clip 6 (14:13-15:48) - More on Nero’s horrible historical record and called "beast"

    1. Preterist MO - leap from the Biblical page to Roman records and historical contemporary 'fulfillment' unknown to the pages of Scripture.

    2. Historical record, “not from the Christian community, but from the Roman culture itself”

  8. clip 7 (15:49-19:58) - The cryptic number and variation

    1. The most we can conclude is some scribe may have modified the original because he believed Nero was intended

    2. Neron Caesar in Hebrew transliteration = 666 (notice it includes the title or it doesn’t work)

    3. Neron Caesar in Greek transliteration = 616 (also includes the title)

      1. Could indicate that a transcriber thought it was Nero and should be based on Greek.
      2. Why is 666 the accurate value?
    4. People have pointed to various historical figures using the same gematria.

    5. This fact alone should warn us against placing too much stock in name calculations alone.

      G. Salmon has developed three rules that have been used throughout the centuries for making any desired name equal 666. His rules are appropriate for the attempts by preterists to make Nero fit the number of the Beast: “First, if the proper name by itself will not yield it, add a title; secondly, if the sum cannot be found in Greek, try Hebrew, or even Latin; thirdly, do not be too particular about the spelling. . . . We cannot infer much from the fact that a key fits the lock if it is a lock in which almost any key will turn.”6

      in transliterating a foreign word into Hebrew, there is considerable latitude in including, omitting, or varying vowel letters. What’s more, there are three possible Hebrew equivalents [samek, sin, and shin] for the Greek letter for “s.”7

    6. This flexibility of gematria is evident in the many suggestions which have been put forth as possible matches for the “666” calculation of the Beast.

      Throughout church history, the gematric method has been used to identify the beast as Teitan, Lateinos, Julius Caesar, Domitian, Vespasian, Caligula, the Nicolaitans, and the German Kaisers. Johnson notes that “the sheer disagreement and confusion created through the years by the gematria method should have long ago warned the church that it was on the wrong track.” Such confusion probably exists because the meaning of the number may not be evident until the Antichrist appears. Thus the best approach is to avoid all guessing and allow God to give the understanding when it is needed.8

  9. clip 8 (21:20-22:05) - The abomination of desolation

    1. Nero statue in a different temple, not the temple of God

    2. Standards of Rome in Jerusalem or the temple

    3. A complete mismatch with 2Th. 2 passage of the previous teaching!

    4. Early church fathers such as Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Chrysostom, The Didache - all expect a future figure and do not accept Nero

Part 4 - The Rapturep (11/7/2013)

  1. Discussion of 1 Corinthians 15 concerning the resurrection of the saints, where we are changed in the twinkling of an eye.

  2. A rapture passage in that dead saints are raised and live ones glorified (1Cor. 15:52).

  3. clip 1 (2:06-3:30) - Full vs. partial preterism

    1. Differentiating partial and full preterism (Dr. Sproul teaches partial preterism)

    2. Full preterism

      1. Sees all prophecy as having been fulfilled by the time of the 70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem.
      2. Including the Second Coming of Christ
      3. Including the resurrection of the saints
      4. Therefore not a physical resurrection: a denial of orthodoxy, heretical: essentially a cult
      5. Full preterism, interprets prophetic texts using the same interpretive lens as that of partial preterism: timing texts referring to “this generation,” “quickly,”, “soon”, and so forth required a 1st-century fulfillment.
      6. Full preterism differs from partial preterism in that it is more consistent in taking all such texts as requiring a 1st century fulfillment whereas partial preterism omits some passages, such as the future bodily resurrection and the second coming of Jesus.
      7. Slippery slope: begin as partial preterist which is within the pale of orthodoxy, but the interpretive lens leads toward full, also called consistent preterism, which is unorthodox—that is: heretical
    3. Notice Sproul refers to the "cloud coming of Jesus in judgment" in 70 A.D.

    4. Notice Sproul still sees a “final, consummate Day of the Lord”. But, if so, where does the Bible describe it if not in Matthew 24-25 and the Book of Revelation? If the beast has come and gone and the apocalyptic, politically veiled and encoded passages of Revelation concern the 1st century, where is there room for a final consummate Day of the Lord and where do we find it described?

  4. clip 2 (7:20-10:17) - Why full preterism places the resurrection in the past

    1. Full preterists also see timing texts in this passage when Paul writes, “Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed—in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.” (1Cor. 15:5-6)

    2. Notice how their understanding of the text—a position rightly rejected by Dr. Sproul—imposes an incorrect timing requirement on the text as if it were the only way the word “we” could be understood in the context.

    3. This is the same error which partial preterism makes in other prophetic passages, insisting that “this generation” could not have any other meaning than those alive at the time listening to Jesus.

    4. The same technique, applied to different passages, but with similar result: a distortion of what is being conveyed.

    5. Sproul explains that the use of “we” does not necessarily mean that Paul was saying he would be alive when these prophecies were fulfilled. Exactly!

    6. The same can be said in regard to predictive passages which refer to “this generation”, “quickly”, and “soon”.

  5. clip 3 (12:28-12:59) - Requires spiritualizing the text

    1. This is how the full or consistent preterists find the physical resurrection to be past: by denying its physicality.

    2. Partial preterism essentially borrows from this technique to locate cataclysmic events of Matthew 24/25 and Revelation into the 1st century.

    3. There are many ways to deny the primary meaning of a text, spiritualizing it is but one.

    4. Denial of a literal understanding, recast it as apocalyptic “code” or veiled political commentary.

  6. clip 4 (18:33-20:25) - 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18

    1. The pretribulation rapture position “has two comings of Jesus” at the end of history. The rapture at which the world will not see Jesus, and the second coming where they will see the sign of the son of man. True

    2. But is this a fair criticism coming from a preterist who also has “two comings of Jesus” where the first one was an invisible “cloud coming in judgment” upon Jerusalem in 70 A.D.?

    3. Besides all that, a careful study of Scripture shows one could identify as many as four comings of Jesus following His ascension:

      1. His coming in the form of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever—the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. (John 14:16-18) The Holy Spirit is none other than Christ in you, the hope of glory (Col. 1:27). Thus, the Spirit of God . . . the Spirit of Christ (Rom. 8:9-11), came to dwell in us.
      2. His coming for the Church at the Rapture (1Cor. 15:51-52 ; 1Th. 4:16-17)
      3. His coming in judgment as a thief on a unsuspecting world to usher in the final Day of the Lord, the tribulation (Mat. 24:43; 1Th. 5:2-4; 2Pe. 3:10; Rev. 3:3; Rev. 16:5).
      4. His literal, bodily return at the end of the tribulation at which he takes up his throne and the millennium begins (Mat. 25:31; Rev. 19:11-21).
    4. All the text says is that we meet him in the air and remain with Him. It is Sproul who is bringing to the passage the idea that the destination is necessarily the earth at His final coming.

      1. This view of coming to the earth at that point also fails to explain the order of events in Revelation 19 concerning the second coming which reveals that the bride marries the Lamb prior to his return to earth in victory (Rev. 19:7).
  7. clip 5 (20:25-22:01) - Imagery of Roman victors

    1. Here we go again: defining what the Bible is communicating by majoring on Roman practice.

    2. The Bible is not anchored in pagan Roman practices. If anything, it is anchored in Judaism and Jewish cultural practices.

    3. Notice that Sproul has once again jumped outside the Bible to explain the meaning of the text rather than looking at the overall teaching of the Bible concerning the Rapture.

    4. Seven arguments favor a pre-tribulational view:9

      1. The purpose of the tribulation concerns Israel rather than the church (Jer 30:7; Dan 9:24).
      2. There is an absence of any reference to the church on the earth in chapters 4-19 of the Book of Revelation.
      3. The church is promised an exemption from divine wrath (1 Thess 10; 5:9; Rom 5:9) and the tribulation represents a time of divine wrath (Rev 6:17; 11:18; 15:1, 7; 16:1, 19).
      4. Because the rapture is imminent it must take place before the tribulation period can begin (Jas 5:8; 1 Thess 1:10; 4:15; 1 Cor 1:7; 15:51; Philip 3:20).
      5. The doctrine of the rapture is designed to comfort believers (John 14:1; 1 Thess 4:18; Tit. 2:13).
      6. The Antichrist cannot come to power until the church’s restraining ministry is removed (2 Thess 2:6-7).
      7. Symbolic parallels mandate that the rapture must take place before the tribulation period begins (2 Pet 2:5-9 cf. Enoch in Gen. 5:24).

Part 5 - The Millenniumq (11/8/2013)

  1. clip 1 (1:00-04:58) - The passage: Revelation 20:1-10

    1. A helpful summary of the PRE/POST/A-millennial views

    2. As Sproul observes, the different views differ on more than just the millennium.

    3. Revelation 20 functions, as it were, as a litmus test of numerous related views, and even doctrinal views, concerning Biblical matters.

  2. clip 2 (5:39-8:05) - Begins summary of different views: Amillennialism

    1. Sproul: this is the only place this period is explicitly mentioned: yes (the time period) and no (the characteristics—ruling, activities, conditions)

    2. Amillennialism - we are already in the period described here

      1. The kingdom is purely spiritual and has no literal consummation with Jesus reigning from the throne of David on earth
      2. Inconsistent in its interpretation of the two resurrections (first spiritual, the second literal/bodily)
      3. Some of those who are part of the first resurrection have already been beheaded for the faith!
      4. Satan is presently bound in relation to access to Christians
      5. Prophesies concerning Israel are fulfilled in the Church
      6. The “Church is the Kingdom of God”
      7. Thousand years is symbolic of an indefinite time.
      8. Subsequent to this clip, Sproul teaches that amillennialism looks for a future apostasy and tribulation (my experience is that this would be a minority position)
  3. clip 3 (13:05-15:47) - Dispensational Premillennialism

    1. Kingdom hasn’t started — not exactly. The conditions of Christ’s parables in, for example, Matthew 13, describe the development of the kingdom of heaven during the present age.

    2. Believe that the kingdom doesn’t come in its literal form until the king returns (at His ascension he went to a far country and won’t return until He receives the kingdom)

    3. The king is not presently on His throne (that of David, an earthly throne, in Jerusalem—as inferred from mention of “the beloved city” in Revelation 20:9), but seated to the right-hand of the Father on His throne (which is in heaven)

      1. To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne. (Rev. 3:21)
    4. Sermon on the Mount - unfortunate that some dispensationalists have concluded it is only for the millennium

    5. Somewhat misleading to claim that dispensational distinctions between the church and Israel assumes “two redemptive programs.”

      1. Only one way of salvation.
      2. Israel and the church have different purposes in the plan of God.
      3. Therefore, the OT prophesies (including covenants and promises) will find fulfillment in Israel future.
  4. clip 4 (15:48-17:34) - Postmillennialism

    1. The thousand years is a final period of time when the world has been converted after which Jesus returns.

    2. Has tended to wane after periods where mankind’s sinful condition is difficult to overlook.

    3. Runs counter to Christian experience as well as Biblical teaching concerning how Jesus' kingdom comes to earth: only upon His personal return in judgment over a rejecting world.

  5. clip 5 (17:34-20:20) - Historic Premillennialism

    1. Basic difference from dispensational premillennialism is an underdeveloped view of the Rapture and the distinction between Israel and the Church

  6. clip 6 (21:47-22:14) - Prophesy is too tricky to know for sure.

    1. It is true that prophesy is more complex, say, than the way of salvation.

    2. Is the problem really one of clarity and perspicuity?

    3. Questions to consider:

      1. Which of the three major interpretive views (pre/post/a) reflects a straight-forward reading of the passage in context?
        1. Christ returns only after cataclysmic judgments are poured forth upon a rejecting world.
        2. Both first and second resurrections are "coming to life" literally.
        3. One thousand years is one thousand years.
        4. Satan is truly bound and cannot deceive the nations.
      2. Which of the three major views accounts for the fulfillment of OT prophecies (and covenants) as they would have been understood by the original recipients?

        Thu Nov 21 20:05:42 2013


1.NKJV, Acts 17:10-11
2.[] accessed 20101210.
3.Ref-0213, Rev. 17:10
4.Ref-1022, 2Th. 2:8
5.Ref-1022, 2Th. 2:8
6.Ref-0209, Mark Hitchcock, “The Stake in the Heart—The A.D. 95 Date of Revelation,” 142
7.Ref-0209, Andy Woods, “Revelation 13 and the First Beast,” 246
8.Ref-0209, Andy Woods, “Revelation 13 and the First Beast,” 247
9.Andy Woods, “When is the Rapture Relative to the Future Seven-Year Tribulation Period?”, [] accessed 20091018.


NKJVUnless indicated otherwise, all Scripture references are from the New King James Version, copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Ref-0209Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice, The End Times Controversy (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2003).
Ref-0213Alan F. Johnson, Revelation: The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996).
Ref-1022Jamieson, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary (n.p.: Word Search Corporation, 2007).

Links Mentioned Above
a - See
b - See
c - See
d - See
e - See
f - See
g - See
h - See
i - See
j - See
k - See
l - See
m - See
n - See
o - See
p - See
q - See
r - See