tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13422678.post582040185424462514..comments2007-03-09T17:55:07.309-05:00Nathan Whitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14146269563760139652noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13422678.post-35338998437716500152007-03-09T17:55:00.000-05:002007-03-09T17:55:00.000-05:00davide, I am sure its the formerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13422678.post-42143248805829494652007-03-09T07:00:00.000-05:002007-03-09T07:00:00.000-05:00Got a link to an mp3 of the sermon? None of this should surprise anyone. Years ago he got real upset that he attended a conference where an A-mil preacher spoke before him. He then used it in a sermon to demonstrate how the church, as a whole, was falling into error and not being sound (by having a pre-mil and a-mil at the same conference). <BR/><BR/>I am with you though in love for the man. God definitely used him in my life greatly, just as in yours. It probably sounded a lot like Dan's post too:) You can usually tell when the argument has not weight to it: when people have to result to calling a-mils "arminian" or "open theists" and mind you he may not have said we are, but the link is very clearly made in the mind of the pre-mils (of which most were probably dispensationalists) at the conference.Timhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07501824179760999458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13422678.post-7771985858422975702007-03-08T20:02:00.000-05:002007-03-08T20:02:00.000-05:00Anonymous said: <I>seems clear Mac believes a 'literal' reading of the Scriptures trumps an allegorical position...that alone will keep one from much error. </I><BR/><BR/>This is precisely the straw man I was speaking of. Nobody is advocating any type of 'allegorical' reading of scripture, that is simply a misrepresentation meant to poison the well and divert the real issues at hand. This type of accusation almost always comes from those who do not understand the Amillennial position.Nathan Whitehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14146269563760139652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13422678.post-69250818802889745542007-03-08T12:31:00.000-05:002007-03-08T12:31:00.000-05:00BTW,<BR/><BR/>The overwhelmingly vast majority of all Calvinists throughout all centuries were staunch amil/postmillinarians. Is this theological phenomenon just coincidence?davidenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13422678.post-23942116923783770382007-03-08T12:10:00.000-05:002007-03-08T12:10:00.000-05:00Wow! I just read the critique on the sermon, and I have a hard time believing it! "Amil is for Arminians???" What??? No doubt God has greatly used Macarthur, and endowed him with a measure of wisdom, but I thought this sermon was absolutely ridiculous. <BR/><BR/>I've come to one of two conclusions:<BR/><BR/>1. MacArthur truly does not understand the nature and arguements of covenental eschatology, <BR/><BR/>or, <BR/><BR/>2. He purposfully misrepresents and twists Covenental Eschatology.<BR/><BR/>I hope its the former.davidenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13422678.post-15267844151008501622007-03-08T11:33:00.000-05:002007-03-08T11:33:00.000-05:00QUICK NOTE:<BR/>After reading Challies remarks, I am surprised he didn't mention Amil linkage with open theists. So before this is discussed upon, let me make sure I heard MacArthur accurately. <BR/>Better yet, if someone else can contribute, who is at the conference, that would be great too. I want to make sure my ears heard what my brain is telling :-)Kevin Griggsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13422678.post-6561619046210190282007-03-08T11:23:00.000-05:002007-03-08T11:23:00.000-05:00Hey Nathan and CONGRATS to your new addtion. She is beautiful!<BR/><BR/>As you know I am here in L.A. as well, and I must say I was taken back at MacArthur's diatribe against Amill and of course Postmill. <BR/>As you said, more detail info can be found at the links you provided, but here are some of my thoughts:<BR/>1. I didn't agree with the way he linked open theists with the Amilinnial view. He pretty much said leave the Amil view for the open theists; it is consistent with their theology. <BR/>2. He quotes John Stott's remarks when he was asked a question at a conference. The question was seeking an answer on the biblical significance of the political state of Israel. MacArthur quotes Stott in the manner as he would a heretic, like the Pope when Stott responded, "There is no spiritual/biblical (I can't remember exactly which term he used.)significance in the state of Israel." <BR/><BR/>Listen, I realize we are all made from the same lump of clay. I realize that men such as Edwards and Stott (both of whom MacArthur critqued) can err in their doctrine. We must fight to preserve truth. We must fight to preserve the gospel. And we must stand in our biblical convictions. But it seems that the way we call into question dear brothers in the faith should differ, at least in nature, from the way we question heretics (i.e., those who do not preserve the gospel and preach the gospel.).Kevin Griggsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13422678.post-70356007672256161162007-03-08T09:34:00.000-05:002007-03-08T09:34:00.000-05:00seems clear Mac believes a 'literal' reading of the Scriptures trumps an allegorical position...<BR/><BR/>that alone will keep one from much errorAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com