Comments on: Jim Hamilton with Piper, Storms, and Wilson on Eschatology

By: Darius T

Darius T — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:20:36 +0000

God DOES address everything in His Word, though some things much more implicitly or indirectly than others. Does He say “don’t have an abortion”? Not really, but it doesn’t take one long to figure out that abortion isn’t supported by the Bible. I am certain Piper believes the Bible addresses everything as I have described above. Does it address playing video games? Of course not, but it does talk about being useful with one’s time and making the most of it.

“Why would you even use the phrase ‘in all that it address’ if you are then going to say that it addresses everything?”

People do that sort of thing all the time.

By: russware

russware — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:47:18 +0000

“…in all that it addresses. And it addresses everything”

I found this statement in Piper’s opening prayer to be perplexing. I didn’t mention it before, but now that Jason’s comment has drawn my attention back to this post, it occurs to me that I’ve thought of it several times since watching this video, and so it is perhaps worth mentioning.

While I probably wouldn’t use all of the exact words Piper did leading up the above quote in describing the scriptures, I certainly do not disagree with him. And after the phrase “in all that it addresses” I though it to be a very well stated description.

But then Piper adds (with emphasis on the last work of the sentence), “And it addresses everything.”

What!?

Why would you even use the phrase ‘in all that it address’ if you are then going to say that it addresses everything?

I don’t think the Bible addresses everything. And I have a hard time believing that Piper does either. So, what is he trying to communicate?

I’m not trying to be nit-picky here, but it is little statements like these that form the minds of followers. And I would suggest that this type of statement is a plank in the “Biblidolater’s” platform.

By: Jason

Jason — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:33:27 +0000

I love Hamilton….but he was quite rude with his badgering questions and refusing to wait for responses before interrupting.

It was also a little disingenuous to say “let’s just read the text” and then spend the entire time not actually reading the text but providing commentary and then not allowing responses without interruption.

Overall, an interesting dialogue…but not super helpful.

I think all of us will find the guy representing our view was the most convincing.

By: Darius T

Darius T — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:18:57 +0000

John B, you’re correct. Hamilton was just plain rude. Wilson stayed on task way better than the other two, and thus pretty easily made the most convincing argument of the three men.

By: John Blythe

John Blythe — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:32:38 +0000

I thought Dr. Hamilton was just flat out rude and ultimately the least helpful in the discussion as a result.

Wilson carried himself best out of all three panelists by far. Storms seemed to be (understandably) annoyed by Hamilton’s constant badgering, but his reaction (especially the remark about innerancy!!) was no more mature than Hamilton’s proddings.

All in all, it was helpful. I only wish it could have been more so had there been more sensitivity for those viewing and trying to learn rather than each man’s particular view.

By: D.J. Williams

D.J. Williams — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 11:48:02 +0000

I’m really close. My amillennialism has always had a more earthly aspect to it (as opposed to Storms’ argument that it is a heavenly reality). I’ve felt quite comfortable saying we, on earth, are in the millennium right now. The whole “conquering gospel” has always been my hangup, but after hearing Wilson in the forum and studying Revelation 19 in more detail last week, I’m almost there.

By: Darius T

Darius T — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 04:10:27 +0000

Yeah, check out post-mil, that’s where it’s at, DJ!

By: D.J. Williams

D.J. Williams — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 02:34:32 +0000

Just watched the video – good discussion. Found myself more with Wilson than with Storms because I share his partial preterism. I consider myself an amillennialist, but after that, I’m going to have to give post-mil a fresh look. Good food for thought.

By: My Brother. « Eyes That See

My Brother. « Eyes That See — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 01:11:19 +0000

[...] My Brother. Boy, I’m proud of my brother. Dr. Denny Burk posted the video of “An Evening of Eschatology,” where Pastor John Piper moderated a discussion between Sam Storms, Douglas Wilson, and my brother Jim Hamilton on their views of eschatology. You can watch the video here. [...]

By: Peter Eddy

Peter Eddy — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:44:54 +0000

I tend to agree with the others. I will concede that I am an amillennialist, which may colour my view, but I was surprised how aggressive Dr. Hamilton was the whole discussion.

I think that Dr. Storms could have been more charitable when Dr. Hamilton was making the Judas’ death illustration, though.

I was disappointed that I didn’t get to here more of the Bible behind Dr. Wilson’s postmillennial semi-preterism. I think that we mostly got the implications of his system, like how “it’s fun.”

Dr. Burk, you should link again to your panel discussion on premillennialism Just kidding, I know that it was supposed to be on varying millennial views.