Nuking Edom & The Garden of Edom - Home of Gentiles after Rapture
On the one hand he has some very good exigesis of the prophecies that seems to be spot on. However, he is clearly a seventh day adventist For example he pushes keeping the Sabbath and the dietary regulations of the OT as a requirement for salvation. Some of this is so difficult to not laugh. For example 15 minutes in he points out that Peter's vision to "rise Peter kill and eat" was not referring to eating unclean animals but rather to preaching the gospel to the nations. But then he uses Isaiah 66 to condemn those that eat unclean animals to eternal damnation. So on one hand he points out that when God says to "eat" he is not actually referring to eating but preaching the gospel, but in the other verse where God says to eat he is talking about eating.
I think the idea that we must keep the laws which are against the Gentiles (what is the implication for someone who was born and raised eating unclean animals? Can they be saved? Does the blood wash them from their sins? What happens if they get baptized and then go home and eat with their family. The kitchen isn't kosher, does that then annul their salvation? Paul makes it very clear in Galatians that these kind of rules are Judaizer rules. Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, Peter got the vision to remove the dietary regulations, and Paul got the vision that the reality of circumcision is the cross of Christ). If this were true, then Peter violated his salvation when he went into Cornelius house to eat because that kitchen was not kosher. Paul rebukes everyone for that kind of teaching calling them "judaizers" and "the concision".
On the one hand he has some very good exigesis of the prophecies that seems to be spot on. However, he is clearly a seventh day adventist For example he pushes keeping the Sabbath and the dietary regulations of the OT as a requirement for salvation. Some of this is so difficult to not laugh. For example 15 minutes in he points out that Peter's vision to "rise Peter kill and eat" was not referring to eating unclean animals but rather to preaching the gospel to the nations. But then he uses Isaiah 66 to condemn those that eat unclean animals to eternal damnation. So on one hand he points out that when God says to "eat" he is not actually referring to eating but preaching the gospel, but in the other verse where God says to eat he is talking about eating.
I think the idea that we must keep the laws which are against the Gentiles (what is the implication for someone who was born and raised eating unclean animals? Can they be saved? Does the blood wash them from their sins? What happens if they get baptized and then go home and eat with their family. The kitchen isn't kosher, does that then annul their salvation? Paul makes it very clear in Galatians that these kind of rules are Judaizer rules. Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, Peter got the vision to remove the dietary regulations, and Paul got the vision that the reality of circumcision is the cross of Christ). If this were true, then Peter violated his salvation when he went into Cornelius house to eat because that kitchen was not kosher. Paul rebukes everyone for that kind of teaching calling them "judaizers" and "the concision".