Dealing With the Best Arguments

One thing I find frustrating re eschatology debates is when someone attacks another system's worst proponents and/or arguments. Along the same lines is the broad-brush questioning of motives for belief in a particular view. Obviously in this case I have the pretribulational rapture in mind.

One of my favorite pastor-writers (Sinclair Ferguson) had a woeful chapter on Christ's return in his otherwise reasonably good book "Ichthus." It was dismissive at best. Dr Ferguson ought to have dedicated more time and engaged his friend John MacArthur's eschatological arguments, rather than scooping from the bottom of the barrel. Or at best, left the matter alone.

It's tempting for all of us to take shots at other views on eschatology by attacking the worst examples of its defenses. It's far better to engage the best arguments while not being dogmatic. And let's not blithely impute motives to people who disagree with us. Some of us have studied the different views. We tentatively hold to what we believe (e.g., the rapture) because that is our best understanding of how Scripture informs us -  not because we "fear tribulation."