While I was in Oxford the other day I was encouraged to see a man witnessing to a nice young couple (Michael and Iona) in the main street. Michael is a student at Oxford but thinks he hasn't got soul. So much for modern education.
Having admired John Thistlewaite's bold witness I was immediately brought back to earth with a bump as firstly he was from Worcester not Oxford and had come up for the day, which is so often the case with street evangelists. It's not wrong, it just makes me wonder why.
The other thing was his raptures (unintentional pun) over some pre-millennialist scheme he'd been sold and that he was eager for me to hear about. I told him I was a minister and pretty much a-mill (although I'm quite eclectic and basically believe everything is getting better - and worse). I tried to explain why I think the Devil is now bound but he couldn't see it. So John went from hero to zero in about 10 minutes with me. There we are.
Then this morning a minister I know (Martin S) who is mildly Calvinistic and pretty pre-mill 'phoned to ask me about the availability of pastoral training. Although he was keen to avoid anything to a-mill he didn't try to argue me into his pre-mill view but took our difference as a given. That seemed a better approach to me.
Last Wednesday I also met a very pro-modern Israel Jewish believer who goes door to door in our church's name. Again we are miles apart on some of these eschatological issues but we can work together. Once more, a better pattern surely?
5 comments:
Where are all these premils coming from? I agree that millennial views are a secondary issue that should not divide us. Let's all be nice etc. But why are Reformed folks embracing premillennialism? Is it due to the influence of MacArthur or something? In my experience premils tend to be a lot less tolerant of other views than Amils or postmils. Or maybe I just wind them up?
BTW, I think I've wangled it for PTS to send me a review copy of your book. I feel duty bound to counteract Andrew Roycroft's blatant propaganda, unless that is you send me a nice crisp £20 note.
I think you're right about the intolerance, Guy. I can get on with premils except when they pray a long prayer about Jesus reigning in Jerusalem next week and I honestly can't say Amen to what I don't believe!
I'm not sure where this fellow John got his dispensationalism. He mentioned a Dr Germanname but it rang no bells with me. I mentioned the Brethren and he seemed to have been in those circles.
PS If we needed any more evidence of spiralling inflation it is there in Guy's reference to £20. AR was happy with a tenner! ;-)
I think that Guy hits the nail on the head regarding MacArthur's influence and pre-millennialism. For a number of years MacArthur's eschatology was minimised, and his Reformed view of soteriology emphasised - thus allowing him considerable influence in Reformed circles. It was a fascinating turn of events last year to read of his opening blast at the Shepherd's Conference with regard to pre-millennialism, and then to read reports of his ministry at the Banner conference. Confusing indeed.
I come from a background of pre-millenialism, but my views changed as I read Scripture for myself and came into contact with Reformed literature. Leaving my earlier pre-mil views behind changed things for me immensely, not least in that I felt I had regained the OT as Christian literature.
I remember discussing where pre-mil vitriol comes from with a friend on one occasion. He had listened to a message by Al Martin on the topic, who had stated that for pre-mil Christians the notion of reading texts with a spiritual understanding can be misunderstood as denying their veracity or literal truth. It's difficult to understand that from the outside of pre-millennialism, but I think it's a true representation of their fears.
This is reflected in the introduction to MacArthur's latest book on the subject (The Time is Near) which shows no serious engagement with any other eschatological view (I don't think he'll be sending me $50 if I review his book!).
Sorry for the long comment, I just find this whole area interesting.
You never know what might get folk talking. I'm sure you're right Andrew when you identify taking the text seriously as the key motive for premils. We can sound very wishy washy when we try to explain our approach.
Post a Comment