u/Tricky-Tell-5698

Matthew 7:22-23

[22] On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ [23] And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

Continuationism vs Cessationism

What Jesus says about Continuationism

Jesus warned repeatedly that signs and wonders can deceive. The question is never merely “was something supernatural?” but “is it true?” “Is it the Holy Spirit or is it deception?”

When Jesus rebukes the false Christian as he front up the heaven, and it’s not the cessationist that he rebukes! it’s the continuationists!

Cessationism does not deny the Holy Spirit. It denies that the apostolic sign gifts were intended to continue beyond their redemptive-historical purpose.

The confusion today comes from people reading Acts as though it were written primarily as a manual for ongoing church experience, instead of recognising it as a historical transition from Old Covenant Israel into the establishment of Christ’s New Covenant church through the apostles.

The miracles, tongues, healings, and signs in Acts were not random spiritual experiences distributed equally across church history. They were tied directly to:
\- the revelation of Christ
\- the authority of the apostles
\- and the expansion of the Gospel into the covenant nations and peoples foretold in Scripture.

Jesus first sent the disciples out in limited form during His earthly ministry as His authorised messengers. But Pentecost becomes the formal public inauguration of the New Covenant age through the Holy Spirit.

Acts itself unfolds progressively and covenantally as the fulfilment of Christ’s prophecy in Act 1:8 as He declares:

\[8\] But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”
Acts 1:8

And these are the examples of that fulfilled prophecy, in every way. They are not examples of the continuation of tongues as Pentecostal and Charismatic leaders profess.

\- Acts 2 — Jews
\- Acts 8 — Samaritans
\- Acts 10 — Gentiles
\- Acts 19 — God-fearing disciples connected to John’s baptism

These are not repetitive patterns establishing a permanent doctrine of ongoing sign gifts. They are major covenantal transitions showing the Gospel reaching the peoples Christ said it would reach.

The signs authenticate the messengers and confirm the transition.

Hebrews 2:3–4 explicitly says God bore witness to the apostolic message through “signs and wonders and various miracles and gifts of the Holy Spirit.” The signs were attached to revelation and apostolic authority.

This is why Ephesians says the church is:
“built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone.”

A foundation is laid once.

The modern Pentecostal and Charismatic movements often treat Acts as though every visible manifestation must continue indefinitely as normative Christian experience. But Scripture itself never says that.

In fact, the New Testament repeatedly treats the apostolic era as foundational and unrepeatable.

Even Corinth the church most appealed to by continuationists was not being praised for its chaos. Paul was correcting disorder, immaturity, competition, interruption, and misuse. The entire tone of 1 Corinthians 12–14 is corrective.

And importantly, tongues in Acts were known human languages connected to covenant witness and judgment, not modern ecstatic speech patterns detached from intelligible nations and interpretation.

1 Corinthians 13 also explicitly says the gifts were partial and temporary:
“as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease.”

The question is not whether they cease, but when and why.

From a redemptive-historical cessationist perspective, the “perfect” is tied to the maturity and completion of the apostolic foundation and revelatory era, not to a future end-times revival movement.

The canon is complete.
The apostles are gone.
The foundation has been laid.

You do not continue laying foundations after the building stands.

None of this means the Holy Spirit stopped working.

The Spirit still:
\- regenerates the dead sinner
\- convicts of sin
\- grants repentance and faith
\- sanctifies believers
\- illuminates Scripture
\- comforts the church
\- seals believers in Christ
\- produces holiness
\- empowers preaching
\- sustains the saints

The Spirit has not become inactive. Rather, the revelatory and foundational sign gifts fulfilled their covenant purpose in establishing and confirming the apostolic Gospel.

Cessationism therefore is not a rejection of the Holy Spirit. It is the belief that the Spirit now works primarily through the completed Scriptures He inspired, the Gospel He established, and the church built upon the finished apostolic foundation.

God is not still revealing new doctrine.
Christ is not still building new apostles.
The foundation is not still being laid.

The sign gifts belonged to the establishment of the church.
The ordinary means of grace belong to its continuation.

Today I want to suggest that one of the most consistent patterns throughout Scripture is that covenant people repeatedly drift from God’s truth while still maintaining outward religion that does not reflect the truth, and in our case it’s the truth of the gospel today.

That pattern begins long before the New Testament church and continues all through redemptive history.

Israel had the covenants.
The temple.
The priesthood.
The sacrifices.
The Scriptures.
The prophets.

And yet again and again, the nation drifted into compromise while still claiming covenant identity.

That typology becomes important when thinking about the modern church because the New Testament repeatedly warns that visible covenant communities can outwardly continue while inwardly departing from truth.

This is not merely an Old Testament problem, it’s a problem for today, because we are going headlong into the very same moment in time.

When Israel drifted into apostasy, the problem was rarely outright atheism at first.

The problem was ‘mixture, compromise and corruption.’

Adding surrounding cultural ideas into the worship of God while still maintaining religious identity.

That is exactly what happened repeatedly under the kings.

Baal worship entered Israel gradually.
False prophets multiplied. Truth became blended with emotion, spectacle, nationalism, and outward religion.

The prophets continually confronted this reality.

“They honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.”

That pattern reaches its climax in Christ’s confrontation with the religious leadership of His own day.

Outwardly, first-century Israel still possessed: the temple, sacrifices, priesthood, Scriptures, the traditions,
and covenant language.

Yet Jesus repeatedly says they had lost the heart of God’s revelation while maintaining religious appearance.

That covenantal pattern is enormously apparent in its repetition when we step back and view the modern church in its present state and diversity of beliefs, theology, and practices.

The New Testament was repeatedly warned that the churches themselves could and would drift from apostolic truth while still retaining Christian language and outward structure.

Paul warns the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:

“From among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.”

Likewise, Paul tells Timothy:

“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching…”

Noticeably, the danger comes from inside the visible church, not from pagan, non Christian influences outside the church, but from those very same people coming inside dressed as wolves, and both Christian’s and the Apostles warned us because they don’t know they are wolves! They think they are regenerated. And Paul’s comment, they. Left us because they were not one of us is the evidence of the warning. And I would suggest that those who left truely believe they were Christians during their time in the church.

So we can see that the issue is not pagans attacking Christianity externally.

It is professing believers no longer tolerating doctrinal truth internally.

This becomes important when examining much of modern evangelical culture.

The concern many people raise is not simply stylistic preference between “high church” and “low church.”

The deeper concern is whether modern evangelicalism has often replaced doctrinal depth with emotionalism, entertainment, personality culture, and experience-driven spirituality.

In many cases, churches become centered around:
music,
charisma,
platform personalities,
experiences,
personal empowerment,
or signs and wonders,
while systematic theology, church history, catechesis, repentance, and doctrinal precision gradually disappear.

That mirrors Israel’s recurring problem remarkably closely.

Israel constantly wanted visible excitement, immediate power, and religious experiences detached from covenant faithfulness.

The golden calf incident is one of the clearest examples.

The people did not suddenly abandon Yahweh for atheism. They attempted to reshape worship around visible experience and emotional immediacy.

That same temptation exists constantly in church history.

And this is where the discussion about tongues and modern charismatic theology connects directly into the broader issue of doctrinal drift.

Acts presents tongues as covenantal signs attached to apostolic revelation and the once-for-all expansion of the Gospel into new covenant territory.

But much modern evangelical and charismatic theology detaches those signs from their redemptive-historical purpose and recenters them around personal spiritual identity and emotional experience.

The focus subtly shifts:
from Christ’s finished work,
to personal encounter;
from doctrine,
to sensation;
from covenant fulfillment,
to repeated experiences.

That does not mean every evangelical or charismatic believer is insincere.

Far from it.

Many genuinely love Christ.

But Scripture repeatedly shows sincere religious people can still drift doctrinally when experience begins governing interpretation instead of the Word of God.

Israel sincerely believed many things while wandering into idolatry. The Pharisees sincerely believed they defended God while rejecting His Messiah.

That is why the New Testament constantly calls believers back to apostolic doctrine.

Paul repeatedly emphasizes “sound teaching.”

John warns believers to “test the spirits.”

Jude urges Christians to “contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints.”

Even Revelation’s letters to the churches focus heavily on doctrinal compromise, false teaching, corruption, and spiritual adultery inside visible churches themselves.

That covenantal language intentionally echoes Old Testament Israel.

The church inherits the same warning Israel received: that is outward religion without covenant faithfulness leads to corruption.

This is also why covenant theology often produces a far more stable ecclesiology than modern revivalistic evangelicalism.

The ordinary means of grace become central again:
the preached Word,
the sacraments,
prayer,
discipleship,
and steady sanctification through Scripture.

The Christian life becomes less about chasing spiritual highs and more about enduring faithfulness under Christ’s present reign, and yes: He is reigning now, seated next to the father bringing all His enemies unto Himself as He brings us to Himself, until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled.

That means the Spirit is working primarily through the means Christ Himself established rather than through endless pursuit of visible manifestations.

Israel repeatedly chased signs while neglecting obedience, the Pharisees said, show us a sign, and then said His signs were from Satan.

Jesus even says:

“An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign.”

As a warning to falling into apostasy.

One of the great dangers in modern evangelicalism is that Christianity can slowly become shaped more by revival culture, personality-driven movements, emotional experiences, and entertainment structures than by careful submission to apostolic doctrine.

And once doctrine weakens, almost everything else eventually follows:
anthropocentric worship,
shallow repentance,
confusion about sin,
therapeutic preaching,
celebrity pastors,
prosperity theology,
mysticism,
and unstable eschatology.

That is not fundamentally different from Israel’s recurring covenant problem.

The forms change.
The human heart does not.

Which is exactly why the New Testament repeatedly calls the church to perseverance in truth until Christ returns.

Today I want to suggest that one of the most consistent patterns throughout Scripture is that covenant people repeatedly drift from God’s truth while still maintaining outward religion that does not reflect the truth, and in our case it’s the truth of the gospel today.

That pattern begins long before the New Testament church and continues all through redemptive history.

Israel had the covenants.
The temple.
The priesthood.
The sacrifices.
The Scriptures.
The prophets.

And yet again and again, the nation drifted into compromise while still claiming covenant identity.

That typology becomes important when thinking about the modern church because the New Testament repeatedly warns that visible covenant communities can outwardly continue while inwardly departing from truth.

This is not merely an Old Testament problem, it’s a problem for today, because we are going headlong into the very same moment in time.

When Israel drifted into apostasy, the problem was rarely outright atheism at first.

The problem was ‘mixture, compromise and corruption.’

Adding surrounding cultural ideas into the worship of God while still maintaining religious identity.

That is exactly what happened repeatedly under the kings.

Baal worship entered Israel gradually.
False prophets multiplied. Truth became blended with emotion, spectacle, nationalism, and outward religion.

The prophets continually confronted this reality.

“They honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.”

That pattern reaches its climax in Christ’s confrontation with the religious leadership of His own day.

Outwardly, first-century Israel still possessed: the temple, sacrifices, priesthood, Scriptures, the traditions,
and covenant language.

Yet Jesus repeatedly says they had lost the heart of God’s revelation while maintaining religious appearance.

That covenantal pattern is enormously apparent in its repetition when we step back and view the modern church in its present state and diversity of beliefs, theology, and practices.

The New Testament was repeatedly warned that the churches themselves could and would drift from apostolic truth while still retaining Christian language and outward structure.

Paul warns the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:

“From among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.”

Likewise, Paul tells Timothy:

“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching…”

Noticeably, the danger comes from inside the visible church, not from pagan, non Christian influences outside the church, but from those very same people coming inside dressed as wolves, and both Christian’s and the Apostles warned us because they don’t know they are wolves! They think they are regenerated. And Paul’s comment, they. Left us because they were not one of us is the evidence of the warning. And I would suggest that those who left truely believe they were Christians during their time in the church.

So we can see that the issue is not pagans attacking Christianity externally.

It is professing believers no longer tolerating doctrinal truth internally.

This becomes important when examining much of modern evangelical culture.

The concern many people raise is not simply stylistic preference between “high church” and “low church.”

The deeper concern is whether modern evangelicalism has often replaced doctrinal depth with emotionalism, entertainment, personality culture, and experience-driven spirituality.

In many cases, churches become centered around:
music,
charisma,
platform personalities,
experiences,
personal empowerment,
or signs and wonders,
while systematic theology, church history, catechesis, repentance, and doctrinal precision gradually disappear.

That mirrors Israel’s recurring problem remarkably closely.

Israel constantly wanted visible excitement, immediate power, and religious experiences detached from covenant faithfulness.

The golden calf incident is one of the clearest examples.

The people did not suddenly abandon Yahweh for atheism. They attempted to reshape worship around visible experience and emotional immediacy.

That same temptation exists constantly in church history.

And this is where the discussion about tongues and modern charismatic theology connects directly into the broader issue of doctrinal drift.

Acts presents tongues as covenantal signs attached to apostolic revelation and the once-for-all expansion of the Gospel into new covenant territory.

But much modern evangelical and charismatic theology detaches those signs from their redemptive-historical purpose and recenters them around personal spiritual identity and emotional experience.

The focus subtly shifts:
from Christ’s finished work,
to personal encounter;
from doctrine,
to sensation;
from covenant fulfillment,
to repeated experiences.

That does not mean every evangelical or charismatic believer is insincere.

Far from it.

Many genuinely love Christ.

But Scripture repeatedly shows sincere religious people can still drift doctrinally when experience begins governing interpretation instead of the Word of God.

Israel sincerely believed many things while wandering into idolatry. The Pharisees sincerely believed they defended God while rejecting His Messiah.

That is why the New Testament constantly calls believers back to apostolic doctrine.

Paul repeatedly emphasizes “sound teaching.”

John warns believers to “test the spirits.”

Jude urges Christians to “contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints.”

Even Revelation’s letters to the churches focus heavily on doctrinal compromise, false teaching, corruption, and spiritual adultery inside visible churches themselves.

That covenantal language intentionally echoes Old Testament Israel.

The church inherits the same warning Israel received: that is outward religion without covenant faithfulness leads to corruption.

This is also why covenant theology often produces a far more stable ecclesiology than modern revivalistic evangelicalism.

The ordinary means of grace become central again:
the preached Word,
the sacraments,
prayer,
discipleship,
and steady sanctification through Scripture.

The Christian life becomes less about chasing spiritual highs and more about enduring faithfulness under Christ’s present reign, and yes: He is reigning now, seated next to the father bringing all His enemies unto Himself as He brings us to Himself, until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled.

That means the Spirit is working primarily through the means Christ Himself established rather than through endless pursuit of visible manifestations.

Israel repeatedly chased signs while neglecting obedience, the Pharisees said, show us a sign, and then said His signs were from Satan.

Jesus even says:

“An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign.”

As a warning to falling into apostasy.

One of the great dangers in modern evangelicalism is that Christianity can slowly become shaped more by revival culture, personality-driven movements, emotional experiences, and entertainment structures than by careful submission to apostolic doctrine.

And once doctrine weakens, almost everything else eventually follows:
anthropocentric worship,
shallow repentance,
confusion about sin,
therapeutic preaching,
celebrity pastors,
prosperity theology,
mysticism,
and unstable eschatology.

That is not fundamentally different from Israel’s recurring covenant problem.

The forms change.
The human heart does not.

Which is exactly why the New Testament repeatedly calls the church to perseverance in truth until Christ returns.

I think Protestants would first push back on the assumption that “oneness” in John 17 means institutional uniformity. That’s usually where the discussion turns.

Jesus prays:

“that they may all be one… just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you” (John 17:21)

But the New Testament presents unity primarily as union in Christ, not necessarily one worldwide earthly institution. Even in the apostolic age there were different congregations, different elders, different disputes, and different practices, yet Paul still speaks of “one body” because their unity rested in Christ and the Gospel.

This is where the Protestant distinction between the visible and invisible church becomes important.

The invisible church is the true body of Christ, the regenerate elect known perfectly by God alone. The visible church is the outward church on earth, containing both true believers and false professors mixed together. Wheat and tares growing side by side until the end.

That distinction exists because the visible church often assumes it is the invisible church simply because it possesses outward continuity, structure, or historical authority. But Scripture repeatedly warns that outward association with the covenant community does not guarantee true spiritual union with Christ.

So most Protestants would say the “one” church already exists now spiritually. Christ has one bride, one people, one body across the world even while the visible church remains fractured and imperfect in history.

That’s also why many Protestants are cautious about end-times ideas of visible worldwide unity if truth becomes secondary to institutional peace. The New Testament warns not only about division, but also about apostasy, compromise, and false teaching arising from within the visible church itself.

When we pray “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” an Amillennial Protestant would usually understand that as Christ progressively extending His reign through the Gospel during this present age until its final consummation at His return. The kingdom is already here, but not yet fully revealed.

So the expectation is not necessarily that all denominations merge into one earthly institution before Christ returns. Unless of course someone is looking at the modern Pentecostal and Charismatic movements and noticing how rapidly they have blurred denominational lines over the last century.

Because in many ways, that movement already functions as a kind of trans denominational system. Baptists, Catholics, Anglicans, independents, prosperity churches, seeker sensitive churches and even groups with completely contradictory theology can all unite under shared spiritual experiences, worship culture, manifestations, modern prophecy, tongues, signs and revival language.

That type of unity is very different from the old Protestant model where doctrine, confessions and careful division over truth were central.

Historically Protestantism fragmented because people believed doctrine was important enough to separate over. The modern Charismatic world often moves in the opposite direction. Experience becomes the centre, and doctrinal boundaries become secondary to spiritual atmosphere and visible unity.

And that creates an interesting question.

If someone believes there will eventually be a broad visible Christian unification before the return of Christ, the modern Pentecostal and Charismatic movement probably resembles that trajectory far more than historic Protestant ecclesiology does.

Especially when you look at its recent development:
• the collapse of denominational distinctions
• ecumenical revival culture
• global worship movements
• celebrity leadership structures
• experiential authority replacing confessional authority
• “anointed” unity language overriding theological precision

From a Protestant and especially Reformed perspective, that raises concerns because the New Testament warns not only about division, but also about doctrinal drift and false unity. Scripture presents the visible church as mixed until Christ returns, not progressively purified into one flawless global institution through revival movements.

So Protestants generally place the final visible unity of the church at the resurrection and return of Christ, not necessarily in a worldwide institutional merger beforehand.

The invisible church is already one in Christ. The visible church remains mixed, fractured and vulnerable to error until the end of the age.

Just wanted to welcome u/Upper-Homework-4899 onto the moderation team at r/Amillennialism.

Some of you may already know he was actually the original creator of the sub before passing it on to me through circumstances unavoidable.

We both have a great passion for this sub and it’s style and direction, I believe we both share the same desire for the sub to remain grounded in Scripture, Christ’s present reign, and a non-sensational approach to prophecy. Although you just may see a few more Memes come across your feed.

Please pray for us as moderators, that we would handle the community with wisdom, humility, patience, and truth, rightly dividing the word of God and encouraging good, thoughtful discussion amongst believers.

“Let all that you do be done in love.”
1 Corinthians 16:14 ❤️

: Or laughter😂 May God bless the people of this subreddit.

Assuming symbolic interpretation means “making the Bible not mean what it says,” but that only works if Scripture itself never uses symbolism, typology, apocalyptic imagery, or prophetic patterns inside historical narrative.

The issue isn’t whether God literally gave prophets visions. Of course He did. The issue is whether every prophetic image should automatically be woodenly literalised in the exact way modern readers imagine.

Scripture itself interprets symbols symbolically all the time.

Jesus calls Herod a fox. Satan is a dragon. Israel is a vine. The churches are lampstands. Daniel’s beasts are kingdoms. Revelation explicitly tells you the lampstands are churches and the stars are angels. Even in the Old Testament, sun, moon, and stars regularly symbolize rulers and nations.

That is not “explaining away Scripture.” That is letting Scripture establish its own language.

And honestly, your “if you have to ask if it’s metaphor, it isn’t” standard falls apart immediately because the disciples themselves constantly misunderstood Jesus by over-literalising Him.

“Destroy this temple.”
“You must be born again.”
“Beware the leaven of the Pharisees.”
“Eat my flesh and drink my blood.”

The problem was not that Jesus was unclear. The problem was that they kept forcing physical literalism onto spiritual and prophetic language.

As for the Gospel test, the Gospel is not:
“Correctly decode Revelation.”
“Agree with my eschatology.”
“Pass my prophetic system.”

The Gospel is that sinners stand guilty before a holy God, unable to save themselves, and that Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, took on flesh, lived righteously, died for sins, rose bodily from the dead, and reigns as Lord. Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ, not by human merit, law keeping, or theological cleverness.

What must a person do to be saved?

Repent and believe the Gospel.

Trust in Christ alone for the forgiveness of sins.

That is the consistent apostolic answer from Acts onward.

.

Climate change, and earthquakes?

View Poll

There’s a question that keeps coming up for me when I read Jesus saying, “this generation will not pass away until all these things have been fulfilled” (Matthew 24:34).

Because if you just let that sit there without rushing past it, you’re left asking something pretty simple, was that generation nearly 2000 years ago?

Most likely… yes.

So then the next question comes, how do we make sense of that without forcing everything into either the past or the future?

And this is where I’ve believe the scriptures revealed, And I don’t think the answer is choosing one generation over the other.

I believe the answer is that Scripture is speaking into both. One in 70AD the other in the very near future between now and soon!

Let me explain what I mean.

When Jesus speaks about “this generation,” He is speaking to real people, in a real moment, about things that were about to unfold in their lifetime.

And when you look at what happened in 70 AD, with Jerusalem surrounded, the temple destroyed, and the whole old covenant system brought to its visible end, and having stayed that way for the last 2000 years, it’s very hard to say that 70AD had nothing to do with what He was warning about.

The Siege of Jerusalem

That moment wasn’t just political or historical. It was Covenantal, it was the end of God individually dealing with his chosen people, through the temple system, including, His final sacrifice through Christ bringing an end to the old order of things. A fulfilment just as Jesus said.

However, the problem for most people with this is that we then have to believe that one of the “Covenants between the Jewish people known as the Israelites was also completed.” And that is the theological stumbling block.

I no longer believe they are specifically selected as his chosen people. And that is an extremely difficult concept for many to believe.

The law as a functioning system, came to its end in history, the way was opened to the Gentiles and lines up with how the New Testament speaks.

Hebrews says the old covenant was “becoming obsolete and growing old… ready to vanish away” (Hebrews 8:13).

Jesus says He did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfil it (Matthew 5:17).

So the cross, and everything that followed, wasn’t the destruction of the law, it was its fulfilment. Its completion. Its purpose brought to its end.

And 70 AD stands there as the visible confirmation of that. The sacrificial system didn’t just fade out quietly, it was brought to an end in a way that could never be nor would be, rebuilt.

So yes, I do believe that was a real fulfilment. Not symbolic, not stretched, but something that actually happened in that generation, just as Jesus said.

But I don’t think that’s the whole story.

Because when you keep reading, the New Testament also speaks about a future that hasn’t happened yet. A return of Christ that is not described as covenantal language only, but as something seen, something final.

“This Jesus… will come in the same way as you saw Him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11).

“The Lord himself will descend from heaven” (1 Thessalonians 4:16).

“The dead will be raised” (1 Corinthians 15:52).

That doesn’t read like something confined to the first century. So instead of forcing one reading over the other, I’ve come to see this as what you might call a dual fulfilment, not in a vague or hand wavy way, but in a layered way.

There is a fulfilment looking back and one looking forward. Christ completed the work of the old covenant. The law, the sacrificial system, the temple, all of it reached its end in Him, and that end showed itself in history with the fall of Jerusalem.

BUT or HOWEVER, whichever way you wanna say it, I believe this is also Covenantal, and the covenant I’m referring to is the new covenant of Grace and this covenant will also come to an end, in our generation.

And very soon bringing the fulfilment ahead of us and it will be God bringing the new covenant to an end. He will end His offer of Grace, He will end his current offer of salvation individually dealing with his chosen people, as they become spirit filled Christians, coming to them through the Holy Spirit as is a fulfilment still ahead.

Not another covenant shift, not another system to replace, but the final bringing together of what Christ has already secured.

The gospel doesn’t get replaced, it reaches its completion. What is already true in heaven is made fully visible on earth.

So I’m not reading Jesus’ words as if they failed, or as if they were delayed, I’m reading them as something that began in that generation, was confirmed in that generation, in 70AD and yet still carries forward to its final completion, most likely you and I.

That’s how I read which generation it is, it’s both.

I can look back and say, yes (this generation), something decisive has already happened. And I can look forward and say, yes (this generation), we are not at the end yet.

And somehow Scripture itself keeps both of those in place without forcing me to choose. His message was to those who faced destruction in 70AD and those who face destruction in the soon to be end of Grace when we go to be with them. That generation soon, and very soon.

….. the church makes that distinction because Scripture forces it.

This is the first question posted to my new subreddit r/truerepentance

If you’re interested in the topic, something you’ve thought about, or want to talk about, then please join and post.

My hope is simple. That it helps people the way it has helped me.

‘not everything that gets called repentance actually is true repentance.’

….. the church makes that distinction because Scripture forces it.

This is the first question posted to my new subreddit r/truerepentance

If you’re interested in the topic, something you’ve thought about, or want to talk about, then please join and post.

My hope is simple. That it helps people the way it has helped me.

‘not everything that gets called repentance actually is true repentance.’

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how big the biblical story really is.

For many of us, we were taught the gospel in very personal terms, which is beautiful and true. Christ saves sinners. He reconciles us to God. He brings us home.

But sometimes we were not shown how wide the story stretches.

One of the scholars who helped many believers see the wider contours of Scripture was Michael Heiser. Whether someone agrees with every conclusion he reached or not, his contribution was this: he pushed people back into the text itself, especially the Old Testament, and asked us to read it in its own ancient context.

He reminded the church that the Bible speaks not only about salvation in individual terms, but about a cosmic conflict, an unseen realm, spiritual powers, divine council language, and the reality that redemption is larger than we often imagine.

The Unseen Realm

In his book The Unseen Realm, Heiser explored passages many Christians quietly skip over.

Psalm 82.

Deuteronomy 32.

Daniel’s references to spiritual princes.

Paul’s language about rulers and authorities in heavenly places.

Instead of dismissing those texts or flattening them, he asked, “What did the original audience understand when they heard this?”

That question alone has helped many believers read their Bibles more carefully.

Why This Matters for the Church

For some, talk of the unseen realm feels unsettling. We are rightly cautious about sensationalism or speculative theology. The church has seen enough of that.

But recovering the biblical language about spiritual powers does not weaken the gospel. It can actually strengthen it.

When Paul says Christ disarmed the rulers and authorities, he means something real.

When Revelation speaks of cosmic victory, it is not abstract poetry.

When the Old Testament speaks of the nations being allotted and then reclaimed, that storyline feeds directly into the Great Commission.

Seeing this doesn’t replace the central truth that Christ is reigning now. It deepens it.

Christ is not merely saving isolated individuals. He is reclaiming the nations. He is restoring what was fractured. He is bringing heaven and earth back into alignment.

That is not fringe theology. That is the storyline of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation.

Opening Discussion, Not Dividing

It is healthy for the church to have thoughtful conversations about passages that are often overlooked. We do not need to agree on every interpretive detail to benefit from studying them.

What matters is this:

Does it drive us back to Scripture?

Does it magnify Christ?

Does it remind us that our struggle is not against flesh and blood?

If the answer is yes, then the discussion is worth having.

The unseen realm language in Scripture is not there to create fear or mysticism. It is there to show the scale of Christ’s victory.

And for those of us who believe He is reigning now, that matters deeply.

The cross was not a small event.

The resurrection was not a private triumph.

The ascension was not symbolic.

It was the decisive turning point of history, seen and unseen.

If engaging Heiser’s work helps believers read their Bibles more carefully and worship Christ more fully, then it has served the church well.

I’d genuinely love to hear how others have processed these themes. Have they strengthened your understanding of Scripture? Raised questions? Deepened your awe?

Let’s talk carefully, biblically, and with Christ at the centre.