Theology/Bible

Jim Hamilton with Piper, Storms, and Wilson on Eschatology

Southern Seminary professor Dr. Jim Hamilton made the case for premillennialism at a debate on eschatology last week at Bethlehem College and Seminary. Pastor John Piper moderated the discussion. Doug Wilson and Sam Storms represent the postmillennial and amillennial views respectively.

The discussion lasts two hours, and I think the second hour is the most important. In it, they have a spirited discussion about the interpretation of Revelation 20. Of the three debaters, Jim Hamilton presents the most biblically compelling case. This is an outstanding resource, and I hope you will take time to listen to it.

16 Comments

  • Will Martin

    Hey Dr. Burk,
    I am in the deep woods with VERY slow internet…any way I could download this video so I can watch it without loosing my mind…I really want to check it out!!!

  • russware

    This is a good discussion… Dr. Hamilton’s arrogance and annoying propensity for interruption notwithstanding. Good grief… do they teach that at Southern along with premillennialism, or does that come in a different course?

  • James

    Great post. I was however annoyed by the amount of times one of the panelists interrupted the others when they were laying out their case. It had the effect of detracting from his position. I think that the main reason I was annoyed is because I have this tendency within myself! Because of this it was helpful in strengthening my own views of eschatology and personal sanctification.

  • Peter Eddy

    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 πŸ˜‰ Just kidding, I know that it was supposed to be on varying millennial views.

  • D.J. Williams

    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.

  • D.J. Williams

    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.

  • John Blythe

    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.

  • Darius T

    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.

  • Jason

    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.

  • russware

    “…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.

  • Darius T

    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 Γ’β‚¬Λœin all that it addressÒ€ℒ if you are then going to say that it addresses everything?”

    People do that sort of thing all the time.

  • Rick

    Thank you for the post. I would like to say that Storms was pretty convincing in presenting his case. I side with premil but Storms brought up points that show how some things are still a bit dim until the comsummation.

Leave a Reply to John Blythe Cancel reply