tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30394392.post3933365254720915430..comments2023-09-18T11:51:24.170-04:00Comments on mikescape: Driscoll on the Chucks - (3) Hell and the Rapturemike maconhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14035677013054063302noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30394392.post-20803213459987906682006-11-16T14:45:00.000-05:002006-11-16T14:45:00.000-05:00Oh, sure, the PTR is admitedly definitional of Cal...Oh, sure, the PTR is admitedly <b><i>definitional</i></b> of Calvary Chapel. But Driscoll's assertion is that Calvary places it in the category of being <i>essential</i> - as in, being definitional of <i>Christianity</i>. <b>This</b> assertion I categorically reject.<br /><br />And my point that Driscoll's taking Chuck Sr. to task for insisting on a pretrib position for churches in fellowship with CCCM is more than a wee tad disingenuous still stands; A29 might have "four-pointers," but "four-pointers" are still considered Calvinists by all but the more dogmatic of their Reformed brethren... and it's still true that (for instance) <i><b>I</b></i> can't be a part of Acts 29 because I'm self-consciously <i>not</i> a Calvinist...<br /><br />...so again, concerning Driscoll's point: Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.<br /><br />Why is Driscoll, Mars Hill (Seattle), Acts 29, Westminster Theological Seminary, John Piper, the Church of Scotland, and all the king's horses and all the king's men allowed to make a non-foundational piont of doctrinal interpretation (i.e., Calvinism) self-consciously definitional of the parameters of their respective spheres of close fellowship, but Calvary Chapel <i>isn't</i>, I wonder...?<br /><br />...does it perhaps have more to do with the fact that Driscoll is Laddian in eschatology and so just gets the <i>heebie-jeebies</i> when walking within a ten-meter radius of a Tim LaHaye book, then anything else?<br /><br />I'm copasetic with Driscoll's allegiance to Genevan soteriology. Wonderful. He's probably foreordained to be a predestinarian. I'm kosher-kool with Mars Hill (Seattle) and A29 also insisting on adherence to the Canons of Dort as being necessary positions to hold to be considered part of either group.<br /><br />...but I <i><b>demand</b></i> the same courtesy be given to my <i>own</i> movement, as well.<br /><br />Rock on, love what the Lord's doing there at Seven Hills, enjoy reading your <a href="http://michaelfoster.typepad.com/queen_city_mission/">blog</a>, bro...mike maconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14035677013054063302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30394392.post-52916304589248430152006-11-16T14:27:00.000-05:002006-11-16T14:27:00.000-05:00Mike, come now, we both know that pre-trib is a hu...Mike, come now, we both know that pre-trib is a huge, huge, huge deal in Calvary...its' huger than Calvinism is in A29 and I say that as someone who has been on both sides. A29 have so-called "4 pointers" in their church planter mix.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30394392.post-50971720582169977272006-10-31T08:09:00.000-05:002006-10-31T08:09:00.000-05:00MacPherson's research is a bit... ah... suspect. ...MacPherson's research is a bit... ah... <b><i>suspect</i></b>. His <i>Rapture Plot</i>, for instance, is rather easily shot through with holes - laying aside entirely the fact that the doctrine of the Rapture didn't originate with Darby, or Irving, or MacDonald, or Tertullian, or Pseudoephraim, or anyone else like that... it originated with Paul on back. The strongest argument that many Laddites (and A- and Post-millennarians and Roman Catholics, and lions and tigers and bears) use to try to shout down the Blessed Hope is that it's a fairly recent development in church history. <i>My</i> contention is that it's indeed a fairly recently <i>recovered</i> doctrine in church history, but be wary of that particular slippery slope - Calvinism, the greater Reformed traditions, the priesthood of the believer, salvation by grace alone, <i>sola scriptura</i>, and a whole truckload of other cherished doctrines are <b>also</b> relatively recently recovered doctrines. The point is: We don't go to <i>church history</i> for our doctrine, but the <i><b>Word</b></i>. And I've never heard a really good argument from the non-dispie camps as to why Paul really isn't saying what he seems to think he says when he talks about the Blessed Hope, sooooo... I'd recommend a great book, <i>The Rapture Question</i> by the late Dr. John Walvoord for a great treatment of this doctrine (in light of millennarian controversy, but it certainly applies to johnny-come-latelys like MacPherson <i>et. al</i>).mike maconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14035677013054063302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30394392.post-52098869145085029432006-10-30T10:52:00.000-05:002006-10-30T10:52:00.000-05:00Great blog for thinkers! Speaking of MacPherson, I...Great blog for thinkers! Speaking of MacPherson, I have all of his books and view his "Rapture Plot" as his best one. It has to do with the never-before-told story of how William Kelly, Darby's editor, subtly made many changes around 1890 in early Irvingite and Brethren documents to steal credit for pretrib away from the little-known Irvingites and falsely give it to Darby after Darby's death. Typing in "Scholars Weigh My Research" on Google etc. includes endorsements from Bruce, Payne, Gundry and other evangelical scholars while "Pretrib Rapture Diehards" on engines is Mac's best little summary of pretrib history. Just my two cents (after taxes!) on this incendiary topic. IrvAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com