Interview with Tony Garland on his upcoming commentary on Daniel etc
No, this isn't a hit piece.
There are people who I respect who have also disappointed me when it comes to unfairly trashing John MacArthur. This often comes from the dispensationalist camp: i.e., the Lordship Salvation issue. I probably should leave this alone but want to revisit it later. Let me affirm here, again, that no man should be placed on a pedestal. Recent events highlighting fallen Christian leaders ought to attest to that. All the men I've profited from, and mention on my blog, are fallible. We all are. We'll all have to give an account one day.
The video below is a response to people like Julie Roys and Servus Christi who clearly (at least from my observations) have had standing vendettas against MacArthur. I've mentioned Servus Christi (Josh Chavez) before. His ministry is of the self-exulting attack kind. As for Roys, it's fair to say that she has exposed improprieties and cover-ups over the years. However she seems to be becoming a person who digs for scandals. And John MacArthur is in her sights. Shame on anyone who thoughtlessly distributes her J Mac polemics.
PS: A UK blogger (Treena Gisborn) has a link to Roys being interviewed HERE. Someone I know linked to it on Social media. I've become familiar with Gisborn over the years. Note the title of her blog. Like Roys she's set herself up as a guardian of truth, especially eschatology. Gisborn's blog is another example of a crash and burn "discernment ministry."
There has been some eschatological chatter on Twitter since John MacArthur dropped a zinger re posmillennialism during an otherwise great sermon. You can read my thoughts HERE
Since then there have been the odd tweets in support of amil and postmil. I prefer not to debate eschatology on Twitter. I like most of the folk I disagree with on eschatology and get a lot from them in other areas. I'm used to seeing generalizations and pejoratives flung at premillennialism and dispensationalism. But it turns out my amil/postmil friends can get pretty defensive.
One comment I've seen more than once is this...
"The positions are all named in reference to the Millennium which is only mentioned one time in the Bible. Revelation 20...It's ironic because it's a notoriously difficult passage in a difficult chapter in a difficult book."
Personally, I don't find the passage notoriously difficult. But then I'm not trying to force it to say something different to what it appears to mean. I also don't get how frequency relates to anything being biblically correct. How many times is the Covenant of Grace mentioned - only once or...? Or the Trinity for that matter. Now there's irony if you like! Then you get the odd dismissive (and irritating) lecture about genres and types, whatever: as if premillennialists get their eschatology from the Left Behind novels or Hal Lindsey books and don't know any better.
So this is another excuse for me to post some helpful links:
The Parameters of Meaning
A conversation with Mike Pilavachi & Michael Reeves
Fear is one of the strongest human emotions and one that often baffles Christians. In the Bible the picture can seem equally confusing: Is fear a good thing or a bad thing? And what does it mean to “fear the Lord”? In Rejoice and Tremble, Michael Reeves clears the clouds of confusion and shows that the fear of the Lord is not a negative thing at all, but an intensely delighted wondering at God, our Creator and Redeemer...click here
BTW, I'm currently reading Michael Reeves' book "Rejoice and Tremble" and recommend it. Reeves has often been helpful to me.
