Featured
This particular exchange offers one central contrast. Both speakers are Reformed. Both affirm the authority of Scripture. And neither believes the Kingdom has fully come. But one sees a future golden age led by the Church; the other sees history devolving to a scant representation of true Christianity.
But what if both are missing something?
We’ll walk through the structure of the debate, highlight the major points of tension, assess the argumentation, and then finish with a Scripture-based evaluation of each topic; not just what was said, but what the Bible actually teaches.
Title: Amillennialism vs. Postmillennialism
Participants: Alexei Kokoulin (Amillennialism) vs. Joe Harper (Postmillennialism)
Date: July 2025 (online discussion)
Format: Timed discussion, no formal proposition or cross-examination
Video Link: YouTube
“He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him…” - Revelation 1:7
In a thousand church pews, this verse conjures images of a breaking sky and a glowing Christ descending like Superman through the atmosphere. The imagery is vivid, and in the popular imagination, unquestioned. But does Scripture actually describe Jesus’ “coming on the clouds” as a literal sky event? Or has our theology been shaped more by movies and tradition than by biblical precedent?
Lessons on tone, audience, and pastoral framing from a messy exchange
Setting the Scene
The MythVision episode titled Full Preterism Resurrection Debate: Did the Resurrection Really Happen in AD 70? was billed as a theological face-off. On paper, it paired Don K. Preston, a long-time advocate of Covenant Eschatology, against Tristan Gabriel, introduced as an agnostic critic of Full Preterism.
From the outset, though, it was clear this would not be a normal intra-Christian exchange. Gabriel was introduced as an agnostic and spoke from a non-believing perspective, making it clear through his remarks that he does not hold to the Bible’s resurrection claims, and had, in the past, embraced a version of Preterism before walking away from faith entirely. His approach to this debate was shaped as much by personal grievance as by theological disagreement.
That framing changes everything: what unfolded was less a mutual exploration of Scripture, and more a collision between detailed exegesis and a ridicule-heavy skepticism.