I found this discussion of the millennial question really helpful, both because of the passion with which they express their different viewpoints and the unity that they clearly have in the gospel. Put aside a couple of hours and watch it.
The discussion is chaired by John Piper whose does a good job although his premillennial view is clear to see.
The premillennial position is presented by Jim Hamilton, not someone I had heard before but he does a great job. In my opinion, he is the most biblically compelling in his argumentation and he impressed me a lot. His debate near the end with Sam Storms is fascinating and, for me, convincing.
Doug Wilson, like most postmillennialists has a beard 
I’ve never “got” this view and didn’t get it here either. (Maybe its because I can’t grow a big fluffy one.) Seriously, I just don’t see how it squares with our current experience of suffering and persecution. Nevertheless, Doug presents the view well and in a very godly and spiritually sensitive way.
If you are from Gerrard Street, you may recognise Sam Storms who presents the case for amillennialism. Sam spoke at our “Reformed and Renewed” conference a couple of years ago. Sam gives a slightly different perspective on amillennialism from the unsual suggesting that the millenium is equivalent to the “intermediate state” (the state of believers who die before Jesus returns). Hmmm.
Have fun!
16 November, 2009 at 11:06 pm |
That was really great! I love that they end with seeking common ground and repeatedly reaffirm their commitment to each other, to unity and most of all to the gospel and Christ.
I found some of what the postmill guy said winsome and compelling, but I still stutter over some issues. This is probably because I find amillennialism more compelling. It seems to reflect the book of Rev as a whole and my understanding and appreciation of the gospel and what it means for us now and forever.
I find premillenniasm the least attractive, I’m sorry to say, Matthew. Whatever i have read, or my background of dispensational premillennialism has frustrated me; I cannot understand the point of an historical millennium after the return of Christ populated by resurrected saints and unregenerate peoples, despite the argument that it’s the natural literal interpretation of the text.
But then, what do I know? It’s good for debate…. But it’s a relief that their common ground is the assurance that Christ will return and that God will bless the preaching of the gospel.