I do not exaggerate when I say that I’ve never seen the prophetic portions of scripture handled more irresponsibly. This writer distorts and goes beyond the most extreme forms of non-millennial and anti-futurist viewpoints of preterism and / or amillennialism. At least those schools recognize a great tribulation and some form of Antichrist. Even if they interpret this to be Nero, or the 70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem, still, they understand that any “dominion” that Christ secured at the cross did not mean that the early church would not face a future falling away and Antichrist persecution. Even on amillennial terms, Satan’s “little season” is still future, as this is where many amillennialists locate a future Antichrist, just prior to what they see as a general resurrection, with no millennium to follow.

Even in the view of preterists and amillennialists, the early church is not so completely ‘done with the devil’, as to be exempt from what was certainly to them a future tribulation and Antichrist (2Thes 2:3-4). The “dominion” of the fourth beast was not so completely broken, as to exempt the early church from its expectation of a future tribulation of unequaled severity (Dan 12:1; Mt 24:21; Rev 7:14).

Reggie talks briefly about Revelation 3:10, Pre-Trib’s “best verse.” [ Part 1 | Part 2 ]

More videos from the September 2010 Convocation have been uploaded to YouTube under the user name aPeoplePrepared | Direct links to the following video playlists can be found below:

Mark Klafter’s session The Mystery of Israel
Fred London’s session The Jesus Centered Church
Mark’s second session These Are The Days of Elijah

Many thanks to Ed Bartol for posting these.

Additionally, the Convocation 2010 page has been updated to link to these videos.

Thank you (and thank God!) for the piece I just re-read on “The Mystery of the Gospel”. The matter of the gem and its setting explains so succinctly the transition that my wife and I have undergone, as I have tried to express before, in this regard. But, once the gem is appreciated in its [...]

[...] In every context where the eschatological day of the Lord is in view, there is usually a near and a far fulfillment. This is seen most clearly by the simple fact that the messianic salvation, everywhere identified with a climactic post tribulational day of the Lord, simply did not happen. A view of the inerrancy of the inspired scripture, will, of course, demand that a gap be recognized between the past, near and partial fulfillment, and a future fulfillment that is complete and exhaustive.

Even if you happen to deny a distinct future for natural Israel, and even if you are prone to interpret scripture allegorically, one is still obliged to recognize that the promised messianic salvation did not come until much later with the advent of Jesus. Beyond the earnest and first fruits (the “already”) of Israel’s promised salvation, there remains the “not yet” of a yet future day of the Lord that will accomplish “the restoration of all things spoken by the prophets” (Acts 3:21; Ro 11:25-29).

[Note: The difference between pre-mill and a-mill eschatology is simply the question of how much of Israel's promised salvation came in with the revelation of the gospel? All or part? [...] [...]