A Friendly Response to MacArthur’s Millennium Manifesto

Those who endorse dispensational premillennialism seem to adhere to it with a fanatical fervor that has long amazed me. That a man of Dr. MacArthur’s stature as a theologian and teacher should do the same is not just amazing, but intensely disturbing. There are glaring hermeneutical problems with the approach that far surpass those of any of the other interpretive approaches to the Revelation. That alone would seem to be a strong deterrent from taking this approach. -JB

from FIDE-O:

My Review:
Dr. Sam Waldron has written a very clear response to Dr. John MacArthur’s first message of the 2007 Shepherd’s Conference. Not only does Dr. Waldron give a comprehensive case against MacArthur’s Dispensationalism but also for a biblical Amillennialism. Furthermore, Dr. Waldron outlines and corrects the extreme misrepresentations of Amillennialism proposed by Dr. MacArthur. In fact, it was these misrepresentations that upset so many of us during that conference. We would not have minded so much if Dr. MacArthur had attempted to biblically defend his eschatalogical beliefs — it’s his conference, he could have done whatever he wanted! But to misrepresent the eschatological view that was held by most of the other preachers on the conference roster that year and the view that is held by the vast majority of Christians within Reformed churches, was what surprised so many of us.

Dr. MacArthur did not even champion Historic Premillenialism which has been held by many throughout church history, but instead he attempted to persuade us of the merits of Dispensational Premillenialism! His whole thesis was based on a false premise that Historic Premillenialism, Amillenialism and Postmillenialism subscribe to “replacement theology and supersessionism.”

Dr. Waldron deciphers Dr. MacArthur’s Dispensationalism, explains why Amillennialism is not Replacement Theology or Supersessionism, and explains why one cannot be both Dispensational and Reformed theologically at the same time.

With sufficient brevity, Dr. Waldron gives a helpful historical and hermeneutical arguments against Dr. MacArthur’s position. Furthermore, Dr. Waldron discusses biblical texts important to this discussion such as: Galatians 6:16, Romans 9:6, 1 Corinthians 10:18, 1 Corinthians 12:2, and Ephesians 2:12-19. His biblical arguments include many texts proving that the Church is the Israel of God, the seed of Abraham, and the heirs of God’s promises in both the Old and New Testaments.

In fact, one of the most refreshing sections is the one on hermeneutics. Reading this section reminded me of the first time I read Before Jerusalem Fell by Kenneth Gentry, Jr. This section really digs deep enough into this debate to reach the fault-line in the Dispensational position. The Dispensational hermeneutic is severely fallible and everything built upon it eventually collapses in theological confusion and biblical inconsistencies.

My Hope:
Who knows, MacArthur’s message and Waldron’s response may turn out one day to be viewed as the first signs of the end of the Dispensational Theology era. One can only hope — 150 years is too long for any divergence from biblical theology. The damage it has on the church will take many generations to fix. Among respectable theological institutions Scofield’s Classical Dispensationalism already seems to be dead, so does Blaising’s and Bock’s Progressive Dispensationalism. But Dispensational Premillennialism, which is what Dr. MacArthur adheres to, seems to be fighting for its life. It’s hermeneutic is faulty and its theological conclusions are very damaging to the church.

My Friend:
Much like Dr. Waldron’s sentiments, I consider Dr. MacArthur my friend and most importantly my Christian brother. In fact, in many ways he has served as a mentor and teacher. His biblical defense of “Lordship Salvation,” his relentless critique of liberalism and the church-growth movement, and his fearless defense of Calvinism has profoundly shaped my life and ministry. His commentaries and books and sermons are as valuable to me than an anything in my library. The compassion and generosity that he personally showed me when I was in a time of adversity affirmed to me and all my friends that Dr. MacArthur is more than just a biblical theologian, more than just an excellent expositor, he is a true man of God.

For the vast majority of theological issues that face the church today I completely agree with Dr. MacArthur. But, yes, this one theological difference that I know that I have with Dr. MacArthur is significant. And, yes, the nature and substance of this issue necessarily effects many other important theological issues. It is almost like the issue of infant-baptism, it doesn’t mean that paedobaptist are heretics; it just means that although their contributions to theology are vast, they are absolutely in error on this very significant issue! So, I continue to consider Dr. MacArthur one of the greats in our generation. Nevertheless, I hope that one day, in some dispensation not too long from now, all forms of Dispensationalism will cease to exists in our theological institutions, disappear from our theological curriculum, and never be heard from again in our pulpits.

To borrow from Dr. Waldron’s concern, it is interesting to note that the very modern age that marked the rise of Dispensational Premillennialism also marked the fall of Calvinism. Ironically, Dr. MacArthur should be duly noted as one who has fought hard for the revival of Calvinism. If he could reform his ecclessiology/eschatology then we might be able to declare “Revival has come!”


7 responses to this post.

  1. I am unclear why those who hold to reformed soteriology must by default be expected to be amillenial, apart from tradition, “the Reformers were amillenial,” as I have heard. I don’t see a biblical connection that would demand the link though between soteriology and eschatology.

    I have not heard MacArthur’s pastors conference message that ruffled so many in the reformed community, but I have listened through 112 + hours of Jim McClarty’s eschatology series which is pre-trib & premillenial. Jim is not afraid to look at the Amillenial position as he has over 12 hours of point by point response to the works of Riddlebarger and Hoekema.


  2. Posted by sheepfodder on September 1, 2008 at 7:47 pm

    I agree that most adherents of reformed theology are amillennial or postmillennial. However, I have not experienced anything that indicates to me that “those who hold to reformed soteriology must by default expected to be amillennial.” I have noted that there is much latitude given in Reformed circles insofar as eschatological views are concerned. Most will agree that there is virtually no interpretive approach or theological perspective that can be definitively proven Scripturally. As far as a Biblical connection – I think you’re quite right. There is none.
    Thanks for your comment – and I must apologize for my tardiness in responding. -JB


  3. Posted by digitalwise on November 25, 2008 at 8:04 pm

    As an Australian, we are not affected or corrupted as much as the American Eschatology is.

    Holding to a Calvinist stand is only half the picture.

    In Australia, I have sighted the following:

    My mentor being a Charismatic Baptist who later in minstry through Calvinist influence became fanscinated with ardent of study of eschatology. As he apporached retirement from ministry, the dispensationalist mess of Literalism used in Revelations began to unravel for him. He became eventually a-mill. He dropped the national importance of Israel to a corrected view of present Covenant progression. He even noted in his former belief how the covenant of old under dispensationalist logic of pre-mill re-instated the OLD covenant exception for Natural Israel to alow slavation.

    I make no apology here: Israel’s blindness that came upon them at the start of the church age [New Covenant] will be lifted by a sovereign act of God designated for the future call of consumation in God’s act of mercy on the nation.

    Has McArthur ever stated his postion on Rapture? If he has embraced some form of resurrection of the church in the time sequencing events of Revaltions with a DUALITY plan for the apocolypse and resurrection – what a messed up theology. Only in America.

    1,000 year literalism forsakes the New Covenant (Church age] at a future point in hisytory – confuses resurrections and judgements, creates a duality of purpose on the earth, recreates a fall after 1,000 years of bliss and perfection, reinstates OT sacrifices and creates a kind of probation for mankind who are still in rebellion.

    1,000 years due to literalism places in danger many who are actualy saved with God’s mercy and grace under the judgement of God into a a O.T. stylised Covenant revival and are to be thrown into the lake of fire along with the anti-messanic paharisees and the likes of Hitler. This makes the pobation period meaningless, and as stated before creates a SECOND FALL of man!!!!!!



  4. Posted by sheepfodder on December 4, 2008 at 7:33 pm

    Frankly, I’m still unclear of my own stand on the question of Israel as a nation – and although I’m sure MacArthur has stated his position on the rapture at some point, I’m not familiar with it.
    I have no use for the 1,000-year literalism, nor the Dispensationalist Premillenialism so popular here in America. I wholly agree that it’s a corrupt form of eschatology and should not be considered a valid position at all. sjb


  5. Posted by sheepfodder on December 4, 2008 at 8:34 pm

    An additional thought: Would you clarify your last paragraph and cite some Biblical support? Thank you. I will look forward to your response. sjb


  6. Posted by digitalwise on December 11, 2008 at 5:25 am

    Dishonesty – MacAuthur arrogance……….

    Dispensationalism teaches that the Church consists of only those saved from the Day of Pentecost until the time of the rapture. It is held that the Church consists of a small number of Israelites under the election of grace in the present dispensation along with a large number of Gentiles. (see Scofield bible notes on Rom. 11 and

    The Mac Arthur New Testament Commentary : Romans 9 – 16). During the 70th week of Daniel, God will deal specifically with the nation of Israel to bring it to national salvation, in which Israelites who have faith in Jesus Christ during that time will inherit the promised Theocratic Kingdom and the unconditional Covenants God made with Israel. Israel will fulfill its role as the Theocratic Covenanted Kingdom promised to the nation in Old Testament prophecy.

    As a side note the 70th week of Daniel is a MESSIANIC fulfillment – NOT specific to end time “clockwork” – its timing does NOT allow for gaps – the only allowable gap at stretch is non-COVENANTAL – the era of the church age till fulfillment at second coming – dispensationalist have changed the resurrection to rapture. The timing therefore being at the second coming – not an interlude of COVENANTS specific to national ISRAEL.

    Dispensationalism teaches that Israel in the New Testament refers to saved and unsaved Israelites who will receive the promises made to them in the Abrahamic Covenant, Davidic Covenant and New Covenant. (See The Millennial Kingdom by Dr. John F. Walvoord.) We reject this notion that ISRAEL is now a distinct enity requiring special treatments by interludes interrupting the New Covenant establsihed by Christ.

    Israel is no longer just Israel of birthright was expanded to the Gentile world through Christ – whilst the rejection was NEVER God but the Isrealites themsleves never the less God’s mercy is forver toward His original people as He is forever toward all nations of the earth. God never forbids any man to come. He even centers on certain on nations for revival through evangelism. These precidents are acceptable to the bounds of the historic evidence that God is still active in our world throughout all ages of the church.

    Dispensationalism takes its name from the idea that biblical history is best understood in light of a series of dispensations in the Bible. The number of dispensations that are generally held is, at the very least: the dispensation of Law, the dispensation of Grace and the dispensation of the Kingdom.

    These three are specifically stated in the Dallas Theological Seminary statement of faith. The Scofield Reference Bible notes additional dispensations to complete the list:
    Whilst it can be correctly held that there are PROGRESSIONS of God’s revelation in the O.T, this progressive revelation HALTS at the fulfillment of CHRIST. The mistake is compounded when we seek to pin point time tables in the N.T. narratives. This mistake carries over from Schofield. MacAuthur is also obviously a closet dispensationalist stretching its “cloth” over a misunderstanding of Calvinism as his compass point. It is obvious to me, he has NEVER read Calvin’s 70 weeks of Daniel. This is aside from the corrupted Dallas Seminary training which to be quite frank is pathetic.

    I am gravely concerned at the worsening stand southern dispensationalists are taking into their own personalized “apocolypse”. The gathering of guns, mistrust of government, conspiracy theories on Obama and plain open defiant attacks on the president elect are a source new fundamentalist militancy that could land them in severve conflict with their government by this cult behaviour.



  7. Posted by Brian on March 29, 2009 at 2:06 pm

    (All might be interested in the following web item which is now being featured on the “Powered by Christ Ministries” site in a “colorful, photographic” version! Brian)


    by Dave MacPherson

    When I began my research in 1970 into the exact beginnings of the pretribulation rapture belief still held by many evangelicals, I assumed that the rapture debate involved only “godly scholars with honest differences.” The paper you are now reading reveals why I gave up that assumption many years ago. With this introduction-of-sorts in mind, let’s take a long look at the pervasive dishonesty throughout the history of the 179-year-old pretrib rapture theory:

    Mid-1820’s – German scholar Max Weremchuk’s work “John Nelson Darby” (1992) included what Benjamin Newton revealed about John Darby in the mid-1820’s during his pre-Brethren days as an Anglican clergyman:
    “J. N. Darby was a very subtle man. He had been a lawyer, or at least educated for the law. Once he wanted his Archbishop to pursue a certain course, when he (J.N.D.) was a curate in his diocese. He wrote a letter, therefore, saying he had been educated for the law, knew what the legal course would properly be; and then having written that clearly, he mystified the remainder of the letter both in word and in handwriting, and ended up by saying: You see, my Lord, such being the legal aspect of the case it would unquestionably be the best course for you to pursue, etc. And the Archbishop couldn’t make out the legal part, but rested on Darby’s word and did as he advised. Darby afterwards laughed over it, and indeed he showed a copy of the letter to Tregelles. This is not mentioned in the Archbishop’s biography, but in it is the fact that he spoke of Darby as ‘the most subtle man in my diocese.'”
    This reminds me of an 1834 letter by Darby which spoke of the “Lord’s coming.” Darby added, concerning this coming, that “the thoughts are new” and that during any teaching of it “it would not be well to have it so clear.” Darby’s deviousness here was his usage of a centuries-old term – “Lord’s coming” – to cover up his desire to sneak the new pretrib idea into existing posttrib groups in very low-profile ways!
    1830 – In the spring of 1830 a young Scottish lassie, Margaret Macdonald, came up with the novel notion of a catching up [rapture] of Spirit-filled “church” members before Antichrist’s “trial” [tribulation] of non-Spirit-filled “church” members – the first instance I’ve found of clear “pretrib” teaching (which was part of a partial rapture scheme). In Sep. 1830 “The Morning Watch” (a journal produced by London preacher Edward Irving and his “Irvingite” followers, some of whom had visited Margaret a few weeks earlier) began repeating her original thoughts and even her wording but gave her no credit – the first plagiarism I’ve found in pretrib history. Darby was still defending posttrib in Dec. 1830.
    Pretrib promoters have long known the significance of her main point: a rapture of “church” members BEFORE the revealing of Antichrist. Which is why John Walvoord quoted nothing in her revelation, why Thomas Ice habitually skips over her main point but quotes lines BEFORE and AFTER it, and why Hal Lindsey muddies up her main point so he can (falsely) assert that she was NOT a pretribber! (Google “X-Raying Margaret” for info about her.)
    NOTE: The development of the 1800’s is thoroughly documented in my book “The Rapture Plot.” You’ll learn that Darby wasn’t original on any chief aspect of dispensationalism (but plagiarized the Irvingites); that pretrib was initially based on only OT and NT symbols and not clear Scripture; that the symbols included the Jewish feasts, the two witnesses, and the man child – symbols adopted by Darby during most of his career; that Darby’s later reminiscences exaggerated his earliest pretrib development, and that today’s defenders such as Thomas Ice have further overstated what Darby overstated; that Irvingism didn’t need later reminiscences to “clarify” its own early pretrib development; that ancient hymns and even the writings of the Reformers were subtly revised to make it appear they had taught pretrib; and that after Darby’s death a clever revisionist quietly made many changes in early Irvingite and Brethren documents in order to steal credit for pretrib away from the Irvingites (and their female inspiration!) and give it dishonestly to Darby! (Before continuing, Google the “Powered by Christ Ministries” site and read “America’s Pretrib Rapture Traffickers” – a sample of the current exciting internetism!)
    1920 – Charles Trumbull’s book “The Life Story of C. I. Scofield” told only the dispensationally-correct side of his life. Two recent books, Joseph Canfield’s “The Incredible Scofield and His Book” (1988) and David Lutzweiler’s “DispenSinsationalism: C. I. Scofield’s Life and Errors” (2006), reveal the other side including his being jailed as a forger, dishonestly giving himself a non-conferred “D.D.” etc. etc.!
    1967 – Brethren scholar Harold Rowdon’s “The Origins of the Brethren” quoted Darby associate Lord Congleton who was “disgusted with…the falseness” of Darby’s accounts of things. Rowdon also quoted historian William Neatby who said that others felt that “the time-honoured method of single combat” was as good as anything “to elicit the truth” from Darby. (In other words, knock it out of him!)
    1972 – Tim LaHaye’s “The Beginning of the End” (1972) plagiarized Hal Lindsey’s “The Late Great Planet Earth” (1970).
    1976 – Charles Ryrie”s “The Living End” (1976) plagiarized Lindsey’s “The Late Great Planet Earth” (1970) and “There’s A New World Coming” (1973).
    1976 – After John Walvoord’s “The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation” (1976) brutally twisted Robert Gundry’s “The Church and the Tribulation” (1973), Gundry composed and circulated a 35-page open letter to Walvoord which repeatedly charged the Dallas Seminary president with “misrepresentation,” “misrepresentations” (and variations)!
    1981 – “The Fundamentalist Phenomenon” (1981) by Jerry Falwell, Ed Dobson, and Ed Hindson heavily plagiarized George Dollar’s 1973 book “A History of Fundamentalism in America.”
    1984 – After a prof at Southeastern College of the Assemblies of God in Florida told me that the No. 2 man at the AG world headquarters in Missouri – Joseph Flower – had the label of posttrib, my wife and I had two hour-long chats with him. He verified what I had been told. But we were dumbstruck when he told us that although AG ministers are required to promote pretrib, privately they can believe any other rapture view! Flower said that his father, an AG co-founder, was also posttrib. We also learned while in Springfield that when the AG’s were organized in 1914, the initial group was divided between posttribs and pretribs – but that the pretribs shouted louder which resulted in that denomination officially adopting pretrib! (For details on this and other pretrib double-mindedness, Google “Pretrib Hypocrisy.”)
    1989 – Since 1989 Thomas Ice has referred to the “Mac-theory” (his reference to my research), giving the impression there’s no solid evidence that Macdonald was the real pretrib originator. But Ice carefully conceals the fact that no eminent church historian of the 1800’s – whether Plymouth Brethren or Irvingite – credited Darby with pretrib. Instead, they uniformly credited leading Irvingite sources, all of which upheld the Scottish lassie’s contribution! Moreover, I’m hardly the only modern scholar seeing significance in Irvingism’s territory. Others in recent years who have noted it, but who haven’t mined it as deeply as I have, include Fuller, Ladd, Bass, Rowdon, Sandeen, and Gundry.
    1989 – Greg Bahnsen and Kenneth Gentry produced evidence in 1989 that Lindsey’s book “The Road to Holocaust” (1989) plagiarized “Dominion Theology” (1988) by H. Wayne House and Thomas Ice.
    1990 – David Jeremiah’s and C. C. Carlson’s “Escape the Coming Night” (1990) massively plagiarized Lindsey’s 1973 book “There’s A New World Coming.” (For more info, type in “Thieves’ Marketing” on MSN or Google.)
    1991 – Paul Lee Tan’s “A Pictorial Guide to Bible Prophecy” (1991) plagiarized large amounts of Lindsey’s “The Late Great Planet Earth” (1970).
    1991 – Militant Darby defender R. A. Huebner claimed in 1991 to have found new evidence that Darby was pretrib as early as 1827 – three years before Macdonald. Halfway through his book Huebner suddenly admitted that his evidence could refer to something completely un-rapturesque. Even though Thomas Ice admitted to me that he knew that Huebner had “blown” his so-called evidence, prevaricator Ice continues to tell the world that Huebner has “positive evidence” that Darby was pretrib in 1827! Ice also conceals the fact that Darby, in his own 1827 paper, was looking for only “the restitution of all things” and “the times of refreshing” (Acts 3:19,21) – which Scofield doesn’t see fulfilled until AFTER a future tribulation!
    1992 – Tim LaHaye’s “No Fear of the Storm” (1992) plagiarized Walvoord’s “The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation” (1976).
    1992 – This was when the Los Angeles Times revealed that “The Magog Factor” (1992) by Hal Lindsey and Chuck Missler was a monstrous plagiarism of Prof. Edwin Yamauchi’s scholarly 1982 work “Foes from the Northern Frontier.” Four months after this exposure, Lindsey and Missler stated they had stopped publishing and promoting their book. But in 1996 Dr. Yamauchi learned that the dishonest duo had issued a 1995 book called “The Magog Invasion” which still had a substantial amount of the same plagiarism! (If Lindsey and Missler ever need hernia operations, I predict that the doctors will tell them not to lift anything for a long time!)
    1994 – In 1996 it was revealed that Lindsey’s “Planet Earth – 2000 A.D. (1994) had an embarrassing amount of plagiarism of a Texe Marrs book titled “Mystery Mark of the New Age” (1988).
    1995 – My book “The Rapture Plot” reveals the dishonesty in Darby’s reprinted works. It’s often hard to tell who wrote the footnotes and when. It’s easy to believe that the notes, and also unsigned phrases inside brackets within the text, were a devious attempt by someone (Darby? his editor?) to portray a Darby far more developed in pretrib thinking than he actually had been at the time. I found that some of the “additives” had been taken from Darby’s much later works, when he was more developed, and placed next to or inside his earliest works! One footnote by Darby’s editor, attached to Darby’s 1830 paper, actually stated that “it was not worth while either suppressing or changing” anything in this work! If his editor wasn’t open to such dishonesty, how can we explain such a statement?
    Post-1995 – Thomas Ice’s article “Inventor of False Pre-Trib Rapture History” states that my book “The Rapture Plot” is “only one of the latest in a series of revisions of his original discourse….” And David Reagan in his article “The Origin of the Concept of a Pre-Tribulation Rapture” repeats Ice’s falsehood by claiming that I have republished my first book “over the years under several different titles.”
    Although my book repeats a bit of the Macdonald origin of pretrib (for new readers), all of my books are packed with new material not found in my other works. For some clarification, “The Incredible Cover-Up” has photos of pertinent places in Ireland, Scotland, and England not found in my later books plus several chapters dealing with theological arguments; “The Great Rapture Hoax” quotes scholars throughout the Church Age, covers Scofield’s hidden side, a section on Powerscourt, the 1980 election, the Jupiter Effect, Gundry’s change, and more theological arguments; “The Rapture Plot” reveals for the first time the Great Evangelical Revisionism/Robbery and includes appendices on miscopying, plagiarism, etc.; and “The Three R’s” shows hypocritical evangelicals employing occultic beliefs they say they have long opposed!
    So Thomas Ice etc. are twisting truth when they claim I am only a revisionist. Do they really think that my publishers DON’T know what I’ve previously written?
    Re arguments, Google “Pretrib Rapture – Hidden Facts” and also obtain “The End Times Passover” and “Why Christians Will Suffer ‘Great Tribulation’ ” (AuthorHouse, 2006) by media personality Joe Ortiz.
    1997 – For years Harvest House Publishers has owned and been republishing Lindsey’s book “There’s A New World Coming.” During the same time Lindsey has been peddling his reportedly “new” book “Apocalyse Code” (1997), much of which is word-for-word the same as the Harvest House book – and there’s no notice of “simultaneous publishing” in either book! Talk about pretrib greed!
    1997 – This is the year I discovered that more than 50 pages of Dallas Seminary professor Merrill Unger’s book “Beyond the Crystal Ball” (Moody Press, 1973) constituted a colossal plagiarism of Lindsey’s “The Late Great Planet Earth” (1970). After Lindsey’s book came out, Unger had complained that Lindsey’s book had plagiarized his classroom lecture notes. It was evident that Unger felt that he too should cash in on his own lectures! (The detailed account of this Dallas Seminary dishonesty is revealed in my 1998 book “The Three R’s.”)
    1998 – Tim LaHaye’s “Understanding the Last Days” (1998) plagiarized Lindsey’s “There’s A New World Coming” (1973).
    1999 – More than 200 pages (out of 396 pages) in Lindsey’s 1999 book “Vanished Into Thin Air” are virtually carbon copies of pages in his 1983 book “The Rapture” – with no “updated” or “revised” notice included! Lindsey has done the same nervy thing with several of his books, something that has allowed him to live in million-dollar-plus homes and drive cars like Ferraris! (See my Google articles “Deceiving and Being Deceived” and “Thieves’ Marketing” for further evidence of this notably pretrib vice.)
    2000 – A Jack Van Impe article “The Moment After” (2000) plagiarized Grant Jeffrey’s book “Final Warning” (1995).
    2001 – Since 2001 my web article “Walvoord’s Posttrib ‘Varieties’ – Plus” has been exposing his devious muddying up of posttrib waters. In some of his books he invented four “distinct” and “contradictory” posttrib divisions, claiming that they are either “classic” or “semiclassic” or “futurist” or “dispensational” – distinctions that disappear when analyzed! His “futurist” group holds to a literal future tribulation and a literal millennium but doesn’t embrace “any day” imminency. But his “dispensational” group has the same non-imminency! Moreover, tribulational futurism is found in every group except the first one, and he somehow admitted that a literal millennium is in all four groups! On the other hand, it’s the pretribs who consistently disagree with each other over their chief points and subpoints – but somehow end up agreeing that there will be a pretrib rapture! (See my chapter “A House Divided” in my book “The Incredible Cover-Up.”)
    2001 – Since my “Deceiving and Being Deceived” web item which exposed the claims for Pseudo-Ephraem” and “Morgan Edwards” as teachers of pretrib, there has been a piranha-like frenzy on the part of pretrib bodyguards and their duped groupies to “discover” almost anything before 1830 walking upright on two legs that seemed to have at least a remote hint of pretrib! (An exemplary poster boy for such pretrib practice is Grant Jeffrey. To get your money’s worth, Google “Wily Jeffrey.”)

    FINALLY: Don’t take my word for any of the above. Read my 300-page book “The Rapture Plot” which has a jillion more documented details on the long-hidden but now-revealed history of the dishonest, 179-year-old, fringe-British-invented, American-merchandised-until-the-real-bad-stuff-happens pretribulation rapture fad. If this book of mine doesn’t “move” you, I will personally refund what you paid for it!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: