Steve Gregg Responds to Jack Hibbs

End Times
User avatar
Biblegate
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 11:07 pm

Steve Gregg Responds to Jack Hibbs

Post by Biblegate » Thu Sep 24, 2015 10:05 am

Image

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP6_cq4EuOY


In this informative video, Bible teacher Steve Gregg responds to a video in which Dispensationalists Jack Hibbs, Mark Hitchcock and Paul Wilkinson discuss the topic of "Replacement Theology" (properly known as Supersessionism).

User avatar
Biblegate
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 11:07 pm

Re: Steve Gregg Responds to Jack Hibbs

Post by Biblegate » Fri Oct 02, 2015 9:23 pm

The response to this video has been amazing! :o It's been up only a week and has gotten way more views in way less time than any other video on Biblegate (the YouTube channel dedicated to broadcasting videos of Steve's lectures).

Here is a sample of the responses received on this video:

ShieldOfTheKingdom
I always enjoy watching Steve Gregg videos, he is the one who opened my eyes up to the seven churches (that they are not church ages nor literal churches in a supposed 7 yr end time scheme) and also his teachings on youtube have led me to study church history, many dispensationalists ignore church history, Hyper-dispensationalism is the worst because they completely ignore church history altogether.

Steven...
This is worthwhile therapy for probably anyone familiar with modern evangelicalism. Thank you Steve.

Maria...
Great to hear a Holy Spirit anointed message! Rare indeed!
God bless you Steve!

SilentPrayingmanTis
Generaly Dispensasional teachers never teach the other points of view out side of the "7 year tribulation" theory other than to say "that's replacement theology" In other words that's so wrong and dirty we wont even talk about it mmk. ..lol but these others are wrong too they just got the timing wrong but if you pick these in our box here that we made up, its ok I suppose. But you will be critizied, o yes I was hated on for being pre wrath on the fringe. Didn't know any better at the time ^^ Thank you very much Steve Gregg. : )

Darryl...
Excellent treatment of the subject. Thank you Steve for clarifying. So much of the Church follows the "Left Behind Theology." The remnant covenant people of God are those governerned by God. We are blessed. This recent doctrine of dispensationalism has lead people astray to look for signs and and look at Isreal instead of looking for Jesus.

Matt...
Thanks Steve. You really nailed this, especially the parts about taking the Bible literally. I hear a lot from that camp of an either/or mindset--either the Bible is literal or allegorical, as if all the prophecies, poems, and Jesus Himself never spoke in symbolic language. I appreciate your ministry. Thank you.

Fred...
There's so-so work, good work, outstanding work, and then this. Steve Gregg has successfully elevated his kind-hearted, yet biblically authoritative radio presence to what feels like a one-on-one teaching at his kitchen table. I am so very impressed with this detailed treatment of such an unnecessarily divisive topic. Sincere thanks Steve for such fine work. Very well done!

Jean-Pierre...
Smashing :-)

dwilkins
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:54 pm

Re: Steve Gregg Responds to Jack Hibbs

Post by dwilkins » Sun Nov 08, 2015 9:16 am

Steve,

I enjoyed the video very much. The key point that I think you made was that the panel of Hibbs, Wilkinson, and Hitchcock don't seem to understand the position that they are arguing against, or don't understand the different schools of preterism.

You made one point about Full Preterism that I'd like to correct. In the opening segment you said that Full Preterists don't believe in the second coming. They do. They just think it has already happened.

As far as the power of late dating Revelation at about 1 hour 9 minutes, there are a number of preterists who would be fine with a late date. Eusebius would be an ancient one and Andrew Perriman would be a modern one. Both think that the fulfillments modern preterists usually assign to the fall of Jerusalem should actually be assigned to the conversion of Rome under Constantine. They have different ways of understanding how much was fulfilled, but that slightly later fulfillment allows for late dating of preterism. In addition, there are some modern preterists who are trying to push a Bar Kokhba revolt fulfillment of Revelation. But, that's not the real crisis from my point of view. I go back to the preterist time statements in Revelation. For the sake of argument I'll allow that it was written in 95AD. But, it would still need to be fulfilled "soon" afterward. Their inability to engage the literal time statements in that book as well as the rest of the New Testament (at least 350 of them) is the real problem.

Doug

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: Steve Gregg Responds to Jack Hibbs

Post by robbyyoung » Sun Nov 08, 2015 12:38 pm

Hi Steve,

I too appreciate your response to the opposition's, sometimes, misinformation to an otherwise reasonable, alternative understanding relating to eschatology. As you know, my brand of preterism sides with the only relevant authority available to us, the N.T. Writers. It's very simple for me, as it was for them and those who were "the original audience", and that is, their expectations, and teachings to the same, regarding the last days were inspired revealings from God. Many are tempted to boldly proclaim that the last prophets to walk the earth were flat-out wrong. Well, The N.T. Writers dealt with these scoffers, didn't they? However, for those who insist, by default the authors are no better than the false prophets that came before or after them. This of course puts the integrity of God's Word in peril. Others concede that they were right, however, there must be some kind of dual fulfillment, in which case the integrity of scripture is maintained. In any case, I simply side with their expectation, understanding and teachings regarding their generation. I, for the life of me, can't see how this is unreasonable. To ascertain "How" last days events transpired is a whole other line of questioning that may or may not be solved. Because of this blind-spot, it is highly unreasonable to conclude that the last and only prophets to the subject matter were in-fact false, wrong, or confused in the end. Consequently, if they were wrong on any concluding point, where does that leave us? We are not inspired, and we can't add to scripture to correct their erroneous expectations. As a matter of fact, post Apostolic Era, all christians can do is study the historicity of events, not rewrite them to suit their agenda. The last days authors and audience are gone; what was pertinent to them cannot be cross examined at the source by us today, therefore, all scoffers and those in disbelief, doubt, and able to cross examine were indigenous to the 1st century. In fact, The N.T. Writings were partly rebuttals to any and all dissent of last days events. Shouldn't this mean anything to us today?

God Bless.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3340
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Steve Gregg Responds to Jack Hibbs

Post by steve » Sun Nov 08, 2015 12:45 pm

Hi Doug,

Thanks for your comments.

Yes, I have encountered late-date preterist commentators years ago—but many of them were liberals who did not think the book was inspired. They seemed to think the book was a specimen of wishful thinking that Rome would soon fall after 95 AD, but which proved to be a pipe dream.

Sorry for the inaccuracy of my statement about the second coming. I am aware, of course, that full-preterists believe in "the second coming" as a past event. I was not aiming at full representative precision, but simply picking up the term "second coming" in the way that the guys on Hibbs' video (and probably 95% of all Christians) use the term—meaning that cosmic event that brings about the end of the world as we know it.

Eusebius was indeed a preterist, with reference to the Olivet Discourse. He also held to the late date of the writing of the Book of Revelation. I am not sure whether he took a preterist view of Revelation or not, because he was among those who did not accept the canonicity of the book.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3340
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Steve Gregg Responds to Jack Hibbs

Post by steve » Sun Nov 08, 2015 1:00 pm

Robby wrote:
Many are tempted to boldly proclaim that the last prophets to walk the earth were flat-out wrong.
I must say that I have no idea who the last prophets to walk the earth were, nor what they may have prophesied, but if they were true prophets, then they were not wrong.

I think you are making the mistake of assuming that the apostles who wrote the epistles (which are where your favorite evidences of immediate expectation are mostly found) were writing as prophets. I would prefer to take them at face value. They claimed to be apostles of Jesus Christ. Not one of them was called a prophet, and Paul clearly distinguished between apostles and prophets (1 Cor.12:28; Eph.4:11). To call the apostles "prophets" is to go against their own teaching and their claims. There were no prophets whose prophecies were recorded in the New Testament, except for Jesus, Agabus, and the Revelator.

Prophets sometimes made inspired predictions of the future. That is not the commission given to apostles, who were charged with teaching the disciples "to observe all things" that Jesus had commanded them (Matt.28:19-20). The apostles were specifically told that it was not for them to know the times that the Father had put in His own authority (Acts 1:7). This means that, if they made speculations about such matters, they were speaking outside their sphere of authorization. Not one of them claimed that their letters were written under some force of inspiration. That is an evangelical tradition as surely as the perpetual virginity of Mary is a Catholic tradition.

Paul, James, John and Peter never identified clearly the time in which the Christian's eschatological hopes would be fulfilled (since they didn't know any more than did any other person). The general expectation and hope that these things might happen soon may have dwelt in their hearts, as in all generations of Christians, but they were not granted knowledge of the timing.

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: Steve Gregg Responds to Jack Hibbs

Post by robbyyoung » Sun Nov 08, 2015 3:51 pm

steve wrote:I think you are making the mistake of assuming that the apostles who wrote the epistles (which are where your favorite evidences of immediate expectation are mostly found) were writing as prophets. I would prefer to take them at face value. They claimed to be apostles of Jesus Christ. Not one of them was called a prophet, and Paul clearly distinguished between apostles and prophets (1 Cor.12:28; Eph.4:11). To call the apostles "prophets" is to go against their own teaching and their claims. There were no prophets whose prophecies were recorded in the New Testament, except for Jesus, Agabus, and the Revelator.
Hi Steve,

The 12 Apostles were unique, Yeshua said, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." Therefore, this is noteworthy and advantageous to truth, including "things" regarding the last days. For instance, in the Olivet Discourse The Apostles were told the following, "And He said, “See to it that you are not misled; for many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am He,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not go after them." Why? Because these false prophets will have THE TIMING dead wrong! However, The Apostles were told the following, "So you also, when you see these things happening, recognize that the kingdom of God is near." And yes, this included the second coming. So since The Apostles were promised that The Holy Spirit will guide, teach and bring all things back to their remembrance, Peter's claim, "The end of all things is near; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer." Is he not declaring his authentic discernment based on what transpired in the Olivet Discourse? Did he not, in-fact, get it right? Prophet or not, the ability to discern properly rested with The Apostles. So again, Peter said the time was near, because Yeshua said he would know the signs of the time, and you say... what exactly? By the way, this is just one example out of many and I see no reason at all to align myself with the scoffers they corrected regarding the timing. I think it to be very unwise and problematic. If they were wrong here, what makes you think they were correct in anything else? So we get to pick-and-choose I guess, and create a designer eschatology, gospel, etc...

God Bless.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2607
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Steve Gregg Responds to Jack Hibbs

Post by Homer » Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:27 am

Hi Robby,

You wrote:
The 12 Apostles were unique, Yeshua said, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you."
I agree with you on this; the statement applies uniquely to the Apostles.
However, The Apostles were told the following, "So you also, when you see these things happening, recognize that the kingdom of God is near." And yes, this included the second coming.
You quoted correctly but the second statement is only opinion.

The Preterist, it seems to me, insists on a literal understanding of Jesus' words as His audience would have understood them. But then He said this:

Matthew 24:30 (NASB)

30. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.

Let us say "all the tribes" refers to the world as known to His hearers. Do you believe his coming in AD 70 was literally seen by all the tribes from Spain to India? How far was it seen?

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3340
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Steve Gregg Responds to Jack Hibbs

Post by steve » Mon Nov 09, 2015 11:05 am

Hi Robby,

Let me work through some of your statements in your last post:
The 12 Apostles were unique, Yeshua said, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." Therefore, this is noteworthy and advantageous to truth, including "things" regarding the last days.


I have no reason to agree that the "things" mentioned here have to do with the end of the world. The Holy Spirit certainly did teach the disciples all things necessary for life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3). It is hard to imagine how any information about the end times would fit into such a category. How is my life or godliness enhanced by any knowledge of the end times—whether by your system or any other? Since Jesus Himself told the same apostles that it was not for them to know the times that the Father put in His own authority, I think we can safely assume that such "times" were not among the "things" that the Holy Spirit would teach them about.
However, The Apostles were told the following, "So you also, when you see these things happening, recognize that the kingdom of God is near." And yes, this included the second coming.


This statement cannot be taken at face value without some demonstration that the nearness of the kingdom is synonymous with (or even related to) the second coming of Christ. This is your assumption, but not one that anyone else would be required to make.
So since The Apostles were promised that The Holy Spirit will guide, teach and bring all things back to their remembrance, Peter's claim, "The end of all things is near; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer." Is he not declaring his authentic discernment based on what transpired in the Olivet Discourse? Did he not, in-fact, get it right?
Peter may well have been basing this prediction upon the statements of Jesus in the Olivet Discourse—though there would hardly need to be any special discernment for him to know this. If he is referring to the fall of Jerusalem here (as I believe he is), then he would know, as did all Christians, that Jesus foretold this to occur in their generation. Peter, writing over thirty years later, would know (as anyone familiar with the discourse would know) that the time must be very near. This would not require special revelation being given to Peter. Anyone familiar with Christ's discourse (most Christians probably were) would be able to deduce the same.
Prophet or not, the ability to discern properly rested with The Apostles. So again, Peter said the time was near, because Yeshua said he would know the signs of the time, and you say... what exactly?


What I would exactly say is that the promise of divine instruction given to the apostles was no guarantee that they would be omniscient. As I have pointed out in previous threads, Paul admitted ignorance of certain things, and said he was stating his opinion or his judgment about other things, even in his written epistles. When a man tells you in writing that he does not remember certain things, or doesn't know certain things, it would seem presumptuous for us to deny his statements and to insist that he actually knew all things.
If they were wrong here, what makes you think they were correct in anything else? So we get to pick-and-choose I guess, and create a designer eschatology, gospel, etc...
In our previous dialogues on these topics, I have made it clear that I do not think that the apostles made wrong statements about the timing of things (although I would not say they were incapable of doing so). There are two kinds of statements that New Testament writers made concerning future things:

1) There were times when they spoke about the nearness of the destruction of the old order, which occurred in AD 70—proving them correct;

2) There were times that they spoke generally of the end of the world and the future coming of Christ, in which they made no specific reference to timing, and, for all we know, they were correct about these things as well. Time will tell.

I have never suggested that the New Testament writers made incorrect statements about the timing of future events (although Paul did seem to expect to visit Rome sooner than this actually occurred—Romans 15:22-28). However, I have said that it was not impossible for them to be mistaken about such things, except in cases where they had divine revelation about them. There is no evidence in scripture that the apostles had special divine revelations given to them concerning the timing of the end of the world—especially since the Lord Himself told them that such things were not for them to know! Therefore, if ever they had expressed an opinion about such a thing, they were as capable as anyone else of being mistaken about it.

As for your question about how we would pick or choose what to recognize as authoritative, I would say that we recognize the epistles for exactly what they claim to be—letters from apostles to their friends and churches. Apostles were mortal, fallible men (sometimes even needing to be corrected by each other—Gal.2:11), who were divinely-selected spokespersons, trained and divinely-informed concerning the message they were to give. There is no suggestion of magical writing techniques, nor of omniscience, implied by any of the authors concerning their letters, in general, though they sometimes mentioned that some of the points they were making were specifically revealed to them (at some earlier time) by God.

They wrote about things which they knew well, and which they were authorized to lay down as normative Christian theology and practice. They also included personal information and locally-restricted material, like personal greetings to friends in the recipient churches, reference to upcoming travel plans, retelling of their recent experiences, requests for Timothy to bring Paul's cloak and scrolls to him, thanks for recent gifts, exhortations to greet with a holy kiss, etc. There is no evidence that the writers, in writing such passages, were aware of any divine revelation or inspiration occurring while they wrote.

The same is true of their theological and ethical instructions. These instructions were definitely informed, at times, by what Christ had taught when present, or at other times, by special revelations that they had subsequently received from the Holy Spirit. Because of these divine sources, we know that these men wrote truths revealed to them by God. This does not mean that, in the later writing of these truths, they labored under a supernatural form of writing—nor would that be necessary in order for us to trust them.

When they affirmed something to be true, they were writing the truth. When they said that they had nothing from the Lord about a subject, and were giving their opinion, this was also the case. When they said they had forgotten certain things and were not sure whether they were right about those things, I accept this also as they represent it. If they express expectations about things, which, by definition, are known to no human being, I would take this for what it is—a personal hope or expectation, based upon possibilities, but no known certainly. In other words, I take the information in the apostolic correspondence in the very manner that they seem to want their listeners to receive it.

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: Steve Gregg Responds to Jack Hibbs

Post by robbyyoung » Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:29 pm

Homer wrote:Hi Robby,

You wrote:
The 12 Apostles were unique, Yeshua said, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you."
I agree with you on this; the statement applies uniquely to the Apostles.
However, The Apostles were told the following, "So you also, when you see these things happening, recognize that the kingdom of God is near." And yes, this included the second coming.
You quoted correctly but the second statement is only opinion.

The Preterist, it seems to me, insists on a literal understanding of Jesus' words as His audience would have understood them. But then He said this:

Matthew 24:30 (NASB)

30. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.

Let us say "all the tribes" refers to the world as known to His hearers. Do you believe his coming in AD 70 was literally seen by all the tribes from Spain to India? How far was it seen?
Hi Homer,

Your response is unfortunately saturated with a superficial view preterism. Any bible student would compare vs.30 with Matt 26:64, "Jesus *said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN". Here Yeshua was speaking to the High Priest, and what he will witness during his lifetime. Notice The High Priest reaction in vs.65 - he knew very well what Yeshua was saying and the significance of a "Cloud Coming". This was interpreted as a judgement on the nation, not some literal manisfestation of real clouds. Furthermore, let's not push aside "The Timing" because we struggle with "The How" question. Deal with The High Priest being told he would witness the "Coming", Yeshua said he would, therefore it happened around 2000 years ago. There are many teachings out their regarding cloud comings, and with a bit a research, you will soon be convinced of its symbolism by it usage in the Old Testament.

The tribes in view are relating to Israel, it was altogether a local event within the Roman Empire. Your mistake is that you are not properly addressing the audience and time parameters in order to get the interpretations correct.

God Bless.

Post Reply

Return to “Eschatology”