I am not a blind premillennialist

One of the important things in theology is to admit when you (or your school of thought) lose a debate.  For example, I am not entirely sure Bahnsen won the debate against Tabash.  As much as I dislike Doug Wilson, he easily won the debate against James White.  Further, I think Dan Barker easily defeated Wilson (though Barker did shamelessly cheat at the end, on which Wilson should have called him out, but he didn’t).  Six or seven years ago, Southern Seminary hosted a symposium on Israel and the End Times.  It was a bunch of premillennialists vs. the token amil, Richard Gaffin.  Gaffin won.

I am not so much bothered that Gaffin won, but that it wasn’t even close.   The other participants are worthy and sharp scholars, but they pulled all their punches.

Albert Mohler (Historic Premil):   Mohler began interestingly enough with a “Covenantal Premil” position.  Incidentally, that is also how I view my position.   But Mohler didn’t offer anything remotely unique to premillennialism (or to modern eschatology in general).

Blaising:   Blaising simply stated how we should support Israel politically.  Well, maybe we should, but integrate that with a specific eschatological position.   Blaising has given one of the most cogent defenses of premillennialism ever (elsewhere) stated.  Yet he didn’t engage his indestructable case with the issue at hand.

Paige Patterson:  (Traditional Dispensationalism)  This was a surprisingly strong presentation.  I know people love to ridicule dispies, but Patterson avoided any simplistic neo-con (Kill em all!) rhetoric and he made some engaging points.  I say he and Gaffin dueled to a draw.

Richard Gaffin:  I don’t buy his amillennialism but he gave some strong reasons why one shouldn’t blindly support Israel.


4 comments on “I am not a blind premillennialist

  1. Terry says:

    What did Wilson and White debate about?

  2. Andrew says:

    They debated the validity of Roman Catholic baptism. Wilson says it is valid, White says it isn’t.

  3. veritas says:

    Hi Jacob, I do appreciate very much your ‘due diligence’ in seeking God’s thoughts/truth on a matter, that I think even the Bereans would be of good cheer in acknowledging!

    I have a few questions that I would appreciate your input.

    I believe you mentioned some time ago on your blog that you attended Moscow Idaho’s ‘cult’ ( my words:-), and stated that the “classical” approach in which you were indoctrinated may have had some deficiencies, and that your approach to this classical methodology would be better supplemented or expunged by X. I would truly appreciate what you would add or subtract to X from that particular methodology! I had thoughts of grandeur in starting a classical school back in the early ’90’s. I was a friend of David Hagopian’s (who was close friends with Doug Jones), and I attended St. Luke’s REC w/ Mike Horton and Kim Riddlebarger. Post St. Luke’s ( split!),I was considering going to Moscow back in ’93(?), but something in my gut

    • Hi Veritas,

      I never attended Moscow’s “cult.” I live on the opposite side of the county. I did briefly attend a rather well-known chuch that eventually ended up in the CREC.

      I vaguely remember what your talking about on classical education. Essentially what I was saying was that the language emphasis is good, but I don’t see how reading Ovid necessarily makes one smarter.

Comments are closed.