Thursday, April 26, 2007

Sam Waldron Continues His Response

Here, here and here, Waldron continues his response to MacArthur.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

So much could be said regarding this issue. I concur with Waldron whole-heartedly and I want to extend the maximum amount of charity to JM as allowable, given the situation, but I find it incredibly irresponsible to be so misinformed of your opponent’s position that in such a "message" JM so grossly misrepresented Amillennialism that said representation was unrecognizable by those he critiqued and caused many to question JM’s sincere attempts to defend TRUTH when he cannot or will not accurately present an opposing position.

That is what is so baffling about this, because I know that JM loves TRUTH, and that is one of the reasons why I was so disappointed in his message (not to mention the close ties you and I have with the situation Vinnie) but when a Christian appears to use worldly debate tactics like “poisoning the well”, then that causes great concern in my heart for the speaker’s genuine attempt to present truth. I don’t know if JM intended to “poison the well” against Amillennialism, but I know that if I knew nothing or very little about Amillennialism before the message, then I would have come away from it thinking that Amillennialism was heretical. Unfortunately it reminded me of the Bible Interpretation class (otherwise known as “How to be a Ryrie dispensationalist) I took at Piedmont Bible College where, because Dr. Bowman never bothered to inform us otherwise, I came away from that class thinking that Amillennialists were heritics and also that they were all Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, or liberal Protestants.

jAsOn