Audio and Video from “An Evening of Eschatology”

It was my privilege and honor to participate in “An Evening of Eschatology” at Bethlehem Baptist Church, hosted by the Bethlehem College and Seminary, with John Piper, Sam Storms, and Doug Wilson.

The Audio and Video of the event are available, with an introduction from John Piper, here.

May the Lord be glorified and his word understood.

16 Responses to Audio and Video from “An Evening of Eschatology”

  1. michael October 6, 2009 at 7:46 pm #

    I just watched it and thought you all did a good job. You didn’t convince me to your position, but well done.

    By the way, you kept saying that Sam’s position flattened out everything. I think that his view and the recapitulation of the visions in Revelation actually give it more depth, contours, and demension instead of “flattening it all out” as you say for it provides for us different camera angles of the same events.

    • William October 7, 2009 at 12:44 pm #

      It may seem “Deeper” and that’s the trap of Reformed Eschatology, but it isn’t faithful to the text.

      Jim,
      The question about unbelievers entering the Millennial kingdom was a softball!! I couldn’t believe you bunted!
      Jesus said in Matt 24 that those who endure to the end will be saved (speaking of flesh that wouldn’t be saved if the time was not shortened for the elect’s sake) and believers who did not take the mark of the beast and survive the tribulation end up entering the kingdom and repopulating it with unregenerate children.

      There ya go…

      • michael October 7, 2009 at 3:00 pm #

        William,
        Jim is not dispensational as you appear to be. I doubt he holds to your understanding of the 70 weeks and the dispensational notion of a “seven-year tribulation period”

      • Dan Phillips October 8, 2009 at 8:11 am #

        …that’s the trap of Reformed Eschatology, but it isn’t faithful to the text

        Bingo.

  2. williamdudding1977 October 6, 2009 at 9:37 pm #

    Amazing how the guys you were debating with who are so smart, are so clueless. They have no framework for to guide their interpretation of eschatology. I mean, Sam Storms was taking a few statements by Paul and then distorting every other scripture to make it fit.

    It’s easy, Daniel sets the framework, and the 70th week is fleshed out in the Olivet Discourse, and Revelation fleshes out what Jesus explained in the Olivet Discourse. We have to interpret scripture from beginning to end progressively. I didn’t see that at all with Doug and Sam. They have no clear reference points to guide them.

    • TLG October 7, 2009 at 9:02 pm #

      Please read Storm’s ‘Problems with Premil.’ paper. It is not just one text. Blessings.

    • jonathan bennett December 9, 2010 at 5:54 pm #

      hello brother,
      you may be right about Storms having a ‘clear point of reference to guide’ him, but not about Wilson. i believe Wilson has the clearest of all, because his interpretation of the 70 weeks, Matt. 24, and Revelation are rooted something that happened in history, the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. with the other approaches of interpretation (futurist, historicist, idealist), you have nothing to ground your interpretation, nothing to sink your teeth into.

      thoughts?

      Grace and Peace,
      j
      i actually agree that there is a connection b

    • Rick January 8, 2011 at 8:16 pm #

      I don’t agree that Storms did this the whole time. He went to Rev and explained his take on it. God job to Jim and Sam.

  3. Kyle October 7, 2009 at 11:23 am #

    I have to say, it gave me something of a giddy joy to watch you battle (with love) tooth & nail with guys like Storms and Wilson. Watching the video also reminded me how much I miss being under your tutelage. The students at Southern are blessed.

    Job well done.

  4. Shane October 9, 2009 at 2:22 pm #

    Dr. Hamilton,
    You’re obviously a very intelligent man…but so are Dr. Storms and Pastor Wilson. I was appalled at your demeanor towards the end of the debate. Constantly interrupting the other two men by shouting Bible verses at them isn’t beneificial. Unfortunately you came across like a petulant, know-it-all child debating a couple of mature grown men. I don’t know you, but I assume you’re a great man of God. I can’t imagine Southern Seminary having anyone who wasn’t. So I’ll give the benefit of the doubt and assume you got caught up in winning the argument. But I hope if you have such an opportunity again, you’ll show a little more courtesy towards your brothers in Christ.

    • Jim Hamilton October 9, 2009 at 2:42 pm #

      Shane,

      Thanks for your note. I apologize for offending you, and I hope you’ll forgive me. I know that I stumble in many ways, and I am so thankful for the death of Christ on the cross. I want to repent of all the sin in my life, so thanks for bringing this to my attention.

      Under eternal mercy,

      JMH

      • Shane October 9, 2009 at 3:08 pm #

        Dr. Hamilton,
        No apology towards me is necessary, but you are very gracious to offer one. Your humility is inspiring. God Bless you.

    • Dan Phillips October 9, 2009 at 2:46 pm #

      Dr. Hamilton…I was appalled at your demeanor

      Personally, I think you misspelled “Storms” and “hubris.”

      Honestly — “If my interpretation of Revelation 20 is wrong, and John means something other than what I think he means, then the Bible is in error!”

      Mercy.

      • Shane October 9, 2009 at 3:21 pm #

        Dan,
        You’re needlessly changing the subject. I agree with you anyway. I think Dr. Storms exaggerated more than he needed to. Dr. Hamilton’s reply to me was very gracious (see above).

      • Dan Phillips October 9, 2009 at 3:32 pm #

        Yes, Shane. Dr. Hamilton was very gracious.

        And you were off-target.

    • Rick January 8, 2011 at 8:18 pm #

      I would say it wasn’t that serious, Shane. The interruptions simmered down.

Leave a Reply