What do you think?
Rate this book
Counterpoints
Three Views on the Rapture: Pretribulation, Prewrath, or Posttribulation
The rapture, or the belief that, at some point, Jesus’ living followers will join him forever while others do not, is an important but contested doctrine among evangelicals. Scholars generally hold one of three perspectives on the timing of and circumstances surrounding the rapture, all of which are presented in Three Views on the Rapture. The recent prominence of a Pre-Wrath understanding of the rapture calls for a fresh examination of this important but contested Christian belief. Alan D. Hultberg (PhD, Trinity International University and professor of New Testament at Talbot School of Theology) explains the Pre-Wrath view; Craig Blaising (PhD, Dallas Theological Seminary and president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary) defends the Pre-Tribulation view; and Douglas Moo (PhD, University of St. Andrews and professor of New Testament at Wheaton College) sets forth the Post-Tribulation view. Each author provides a substantive explanation of his position, which is critiqued by the other two authors. A thorough introduction gives a historical overview of the doctrine of the rapture and its effects on the church. The interactive and fair-minded format of the Counterpoints series allows readers to consider the strengths and weaknesses of each view and draw informed, personal conclusions.
301 pages, Kindle Edition
First published December 14, 2010
92 people are currently reading
221 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
December 8, 2012
Blaising, Craig, Alan Hultberg, and Douglas Moo, Three Views on the Rapture: Pretribulation, Prewrath, or Posttribulation. 2nd ed. Counterpoints. Edited by Stanley N. Gundry. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010.
This second edition of Three Views on the Rapture is a fine work in the multiple views genre. The quality of argumentation in this book is also high. Moo, who contributed to both the first and second editions, comments several times that he found his opponents' argumentation superior in this volume in comparison to the arguments found in the first edition.
Summary
Blaising's case for the pretribulation rapture can be summarized as follows: 1 Thessalonians 4-5 teaches that Christians will be spared from the wrath of God poured out on the earth during the day of the Lord. The rapture is the stated means by which believers are spared. Furthermore, by harmonizing the teaching of Daniel about the end and the Olivet Discourse, it becomes clear that the ultimate day of the Lord equals Daniel's seventieth week, which equals the period described in the Olivet Discourse. The book of Revelation supports this view by correlating the tribulations it describes with the OT day of the Lord. Revelation 3:10 supports the pretribulation rapture by promising the Philadelphian Christians (as representative of the church) that they will be spared from the hour of trial which shall come on the whole earth. By adopting this view, one is able to explain why some texts present the parousia as unexpected and preceded by no signs while other passages say the parousia is preceded by signs. The pretribulationalist understands the parousia to be a complex event. The rapture will occur first and will not be preceded by sings, but the return of Christ to earth to begin his reign will be preceded by signs. The pretribulationalist is also better able to account for the conversion of a remnant after the rapture and resurrection who will be able to populate the Millennium as mortals.
Hultberg says that "the prewrath position rests on two major theses: that the church will enter the last half of Daniel's seventieth week and that between the rapture of the church and the return of Christ to earth will be a significant period of extraordinary divine wrath" (109). The following points support the first thesis: (1) the Olivet discourse is addressed to the disciples as representative Christians, who will see the abomination of desolation, (2) Parallel language connects 1 Thessalonians 4:15-16 and Matthew 24:31 together as rapture passages; (3) 2 Thessalonians 2:3 indicates the rapture is preceded by the abomination of desolation; (4) Revelation presents the church entering the tribulation since the letters to the seven churches are both letters to first century churches and eschatological predictions—and letters to Smyrna and Thyatira indicate the church will enter the tribulation; (5) the rapture occurs at Rev. 7:9 and Revelation 14. In support of the second thesis: (1) Paul is clear that Christians will not experience God's wrath (Rom. 5:9; 1 Thess. 1:10; 5:9), and in some texts this wrath is clearly connected to the parousia; (2) The parousia must be a complex event rather than an instantaneous event to make sense of all Scripture says about it; (3) Revelation displays rapture, wrath, return sequences.
Moo begins his essay by emphasizing that the church will face tribulation throughout history. Though he does not deny there is a final tribulation, he consistently minimizes it. His main point is that the end time is not something distinctively future. It is a time the church has been living in since its inception. Similarly, Moo understands Daniel's seventieth week to run through the entire church age. Moo also disassociates the final tribulation from the day of the Lord (a point to which he returns repeatedly throughout his essay). This allows him to minimize the wrath of God during the tribulation and emphasize the persecution of God's people. Moo does not, however, deny that God pours out his wrath at the very end in a way that affects the whole earth. But he argues that this sword cuts two ways since there are some of God's people on earth during the tribulation under anyone's scheme. He resolves this problem by noting that believers in the OT were often affected by judgments directed toward others. Much of the rest of Moo's articles argues that there is no clear evidence for a rapture distinct from Christ's return to earth. He notes the words used to describe the second coming do not distinguish comings. Nor do the main rapture passages (John 4:3; 1 Cor. 15:51-52; 1 Thess. 4:13-18) indicate the second coming happens in two stages. In fact, a number of passages disassociate the day of the Lord from the tribulation and tie it to the descent of Christ. Thus when 2 Thessalonians 2 places events of the tribulation before the day of the Lord, it is placing the tribulation before the rapture. Moo finds confirmation for his view in the Olivet Discourse (which he thinks refers largely to the church age) and it's one return of Christ in Matt 24:31, 40-41. Likewise, Revelation (which also largely refers to the entire church age) never refers to a rapture, though it does place the first resurrection in close connection to the return of Christ to set up the millennium. Since there is a resurrection in connection with the rapture, and since this is the first resurrection, the rapture cannot precede this point in time.
Evaluation
Evaluation of this topic is exceedingly complex. Rapture positions are determined by correlating facts from a wide variety of passages. This in itself makes the topic complex, but the complexity is compounded by interpretational difficulties encountered in the key texts. This means that the debate is not merely over how key facts are systematized; the debate extends to the level of what facts can be deduced from a series of debated texts.
Strengths of Moo's position
1. Moo has the simplest position. All parousia and rapture texts refer to the same event.
2. The absence of any clear mention of the Rapture in Revelation favors Moo's position.
3. Moo's rejoinder that all positions have believers on earth when God pours out his wrath, coupled with his observation that the Bible often indicates that believers can be indirectly affected by judgments directed toward others.
Weaknesses of Moo's position
1. Moo repeatedly appeals to inaugurated eschatology in support of his position. But inaugurated eschatology would indicate that there are initial fulfillments to be followed by fuller final fulfillments. Moo doesn't seem to fully reckon with these fuller, final fulfillments. He grants there will be a final tribulation, but he routinely minimizes it to emphasize that the church has always gone through tribulation. This seems to evade the issue under discussion.
2. In connection with the appeals to inaugurated eschatology, Moo applies Daniel's seventieth seven, much of the Olivet discourse, and much of Revelation to the church age. Regarding Daniel, since the previous 69 sevens referred to periods of seven years, it would seem that the final seven should be understood as a period of seven years rather than as an undefined period of time. With the Olivet Discourse, even if the abomination of desolation did refer to the destruction of the temple (itself a debated interpretation), it would seem that event was typological of a final fulfillment in connection with Antichrist given the context of the prophecy in Daniel. Overall approaches to Revelation are debated, but I find a generally futurist approach (see Grant Osborne's BECNT commentary) more compelling than generally idealist approaches (see Greg Beale's NIGTC commentary); Moo opts for the latter.
3. Moo's consistent downplaying of the tribulation as a time of God's wrath and his relegation of the day of the Lord to Christ's actual return to earth disregards compelling data to the contrary presented by both Blaising and Hultberg. Moo even grants in his rejoinder that the Old Testament evidence may stand against his position. Replying that the New Testament alone should determine the matter is hardly a sufficient reply.
4. Moo also has trouble with some particular texts. His attempt to understand Revelation 3:10 in light of John 17:11-12, 15 fails on the grounds that Revelation speaks of being kept from a time period rather than from the evil one. Moo's understanding of Revelation 20:4 also runs into problems. Moo understands first resurrection in an absolute sense as the first resurrection since the resurrection of Christ. This not only fails to reckon with the resurrection recounted in Matthew 27:52-53 but also requires displacing 20:4 chronologically (since the resurrection mentioned there is post-parousia). This is unlikely since 19:11-20:10 is best understood as a single vision with the subject of ἐκάθισαν being the armies that returned with Christ to earth (see Svigel, TrnJ, 22.1, pp. 51-52).
I find evidence for an extended day of the Lord / parousia persuasive. I also remain convinced that promises that the church (in general) will be spared the wrath of God during this time period, and since I find Moo downplaying events that he concedes will happen (e.g., a final tribulation), I end the end find his view less than persuasive.
Strengths of Hultberg's position
1. The discussions of and warnings about tribulation events in the Olivet discourse, Thessalonians, and Revelation could indicate that Christians will experience some tribulation events (though it does not necessitate this).
2. His arguments for the parousia as a complex event connected with the outpouring of God's wrath.
Weaknesses of Hultberg's position
1. It is difficult to find the Rapture in Revelation 7:9, and Revelation 14:16 seems too ambiguous to bear the weight of the position.
2. I find it unlikely that the first five seals opened in are not the outpouring of God's wrath. Hultberg argues that simply because God is the opener of the seals does not mean that the seals are outpourings of God's wrath because God is in control of all things. But this minimizes the symbolism of the sealed scroll. This was a scroll that only the Lamb who had been slain was worthy to take and open. There is much more going on here than sovereign control over the affairs of earth.
3. Though the exegesis of 1 Thessalonians 2:3 is tricky, I’m convinced that the text is saying that the day of the Lord is not present unless two other things are also present, The first of these is the apostasy and the second is the revelation of the man of lawlessness. I’m not convinced that the verse is saying these two things must precede the day of the Lord.
Hultberg's arguments for the rapture of the church before the outpouring of God's wrath mirror Blaising's own argumentation. His arguments that this wrath occurs during only part of the seventieth week are more inferential and rest on more debatable texts.
Strengths of Blaising's position
1. Blaising makes an impressive case for correlating Daniel's seventieth seven, the tribulation, and the day of the Lord.
2. Blaising makes a solid case that the church will be spared from God's wrath in the final day of the Lord. Though some texts are debatable, his argumentation on texts such as Revelation 3:10 and 2 Thessalonians 2 was sound.
Weaknesses of Blaising's position
1. Blaising's interpretation of the Olivet Discourse struck me as unique. It is a complex passage, and Blaising may well be right, but the uniqueness of his approach struck me as a potential weakness.
2. Blaising does have to deal with the problem of tribulation saints (whom he regards as part of the church, rightly in my estimation) being on earth during the outpouring of God's wrath during the day of the Lord.
Blaising has constructed the most convincing pretribulation argument that I have encountered. He has abandoned many of the less convincing arguments that are often proposed in support of pretribulationalism. I found Blaising's argumentation overall more convincing than Hultberg’s or Moo’s. He seemed to best understand the significance of the Day of the Lord prophecies and their connection to the parousia as a complex event. He also rightly recognized that God promised the church deliverance from this time period of special judgment. The most damaging objection is the presence of the saints in the tribulation period. I think that Moo provides the best theological explanation for the presence of these saints in a period of God's wrath. But this theological explanation does not counteract God's promises that he will, in general, remove his people from the day of his wrath. The tribulation saints are an anomaly because they were saved after the rapture of the church (on the pretribulation view), and the presence of an anomaly does not entirely overthrow Blaising's position.
Overall this second edition has greatly improved upon the first. This may now be the best introductory resource to the topic of the rapture.
This second edition of Three Views on the Rapture is a fine work in the multiple views genre. The quality of argumentation in this book is also high. Moo, who contributed to both the first and second editions, comments several times that he found his opponents' argumentation superior in this volume in comparison to the arguments found in the first edition.
Summary
Blaising's case for the pretribulation rapture can be summarized as follows: 1 Thessalonians 4-5 teaches that Christians will be spared from the wrath of God poured out on the earth during the day of the Lord. The rapture is the stated means by which believers are spared. Furthermore, by harmonizing the teaching of Daniel about the end and the Olivet Discourse, it becomes clear that the ultimate day of the Lord equals Daniel's seventieth week, which equals the period described in the Olivet Discourse. The book of Revelation supports this view by correlating the tribulations it describes with the OT day of the Lord. Revelation 3:10 supports the pretribulation rapture by promising the Philadelphian Christians (as representative of the church) that they will be spared from the hour of trial which shall come on the whole earth. By adopting this view, one is able to explain why some texts present the parousia as unexpected and preceded by no signs while other passages say the parousia is preceded by signs. The pretribulationalist understands the parousia to be a complex event. The rapture will occur first and will not be preceded by sings, but the return of Christ to earth to begin his reign will be preceded by signs. The pretribulationalist is also better able to account for the conversion of a remnant after the rapture and resurrection who will be able to populate the Millennium as mortals.
Hultberg says that "the prewrath position rests on two major theses: that the church will enter the last half of Daniel's seventieth week and that between the rapture of the church and the return of Christ to earth will be a significant period of extraordinary divine wrath" (109). The following points support the first thesis: (1) the Olivet discourse is addressed to the disciples as representative Christians, who will see the abomination of desolation, (2) Parallel language connects 1 Thessalonians 4:15-16 and Matthew 24:31 together as rapture passages; (3) 2 Thessalonians 2:3 indicates the rapture is preceded by the abomination of desolation; (4) Revelation presents the church entering the tribulation since the letters to the seven churches are both letters to first century churches and eschatological predictions—and letters to Smyrna and Thyatira indicate the church will enter the tribulation; (5) the rapture occurs at Rev. 7:9 and Revelation 14. In support of the second thesis: (1) Paul is clear that Christians will not experience God's wrath (Rom. 5:9; 1 Thess. 1:10; 5:9), and in some texts this wrath is clearly connected to the parousia; (2) The parousia must be a complex event rather than an instantaneous event to make sense of all Scripture says about it; (3) Revelation displays rapture, wrath, return sequences.
Moo begins his essay by emphasizing that the church will face tribulation throughout history. Though he does not deny there is a final tribulation, he consistently minimizes it. His main point is that the end time is not something distinctively future. It is a time the church has been living in since its inception. Similarly, Moo understands Daniel's seventieth week to run through the entire church age. Moo also disassociates the final tribulation from the day of the Lord (a point to which he returns repeatedly throughout his essay). This allows him to minimize the wrath of God during the tribulation and emphasize the persecution of God's people. Moo does not, however, deny that God pours out his wrath at the very end in a way that affects the whole earth. But he argues that this sword cuts two ways since there are some of God's people on earth during the tribulation under anyone's scheme. He resolves this problem by noting that believers in the OT were often affected by judgments directed toward others. Much of the rest of Moo's articles argues that there is no clear evidence for a rapture distinct from Christ's return to earth. He notes the words used to describe the second coming do not distinguish comings. Nor do the main rapture passages (John 4:3; 1 Cor. 15:51-52; 1 Thess. 4:13-18) indicate the second coming happens in two stages. In fact, a number of passages disassociate the day of the Lord from the tribulation and tie it to the descent of Christ. Thus when 2 Thessalonians 2 places events of the tribulation before the day of the Lord, it is placing the tribulation before the rapture. Moo finds confirmation for his view in the Olivet Discourse (which he thinks refers largely to the church age) and it's one return of Christ in Matt 24:31, 40-41. Likewise, Revelation (which also largely refers to the entire church age) never refers to a rapture, though it does place the first resurrection in close connection to the return of Christ to set up the millennium. Since there is a resurrection in connection with the rapture, and since this is the first resurrection, the rapture cannot precede this point in time.
Evaluation
Evaluation of this topic is exceedingly complex. Rapture positions are determined by correlating facts from a wide variety of passages. This in itself makes the topic complex, but the complexity is compounded by interpretational difficulties encountered in the key texts. This means that the debate is not merely over how key facts are systematized; the debate extends to the level of what facts can be deduced from a series of debated texts.
Strengths of Moo's position
1. Moo has the simplest position. All parousia and rapture texts refer to the same event.
2. The absence of any clear mention of the Rapture in Revelation favors Moo's position.
3. Moo's rejoinder that all positions have believers on earth when God pours out his wrath, coupled with his observation that the Bible often indicates that believers can be indirectly affected by judgments directed toward others.
Weaknesses of Moo's position
1. Moo repeatedly appeals to inaugurated eschatology in support of his position. But inaugurated eschatology would indicate that there are initial fulfillments to be followed by fuller final fulfillments. Moo doesn't seem to fully reckon with these fuller, final fulfillments. He grants there will be a final tribulation, but he routinely minimizes it to emphasize that the church has always gone through tribulation. This seems to evade the issue under discussion.
2. In connection with the appeals to inaugurated eschatology, Moo applies Daniel's seventieth seven, much of the Olivet discourse, and much of Revelation to the church age. Regarding Daniel, since the previous 69 sevens referred to periods of seven years, it would seem that the final seven should be understood as a period of seven years rather than as an undefined period of time. With the Olivet Discourse, even if the abomination of desolation did refer to the destruction of the temple (itself a debated interpretation), it would seem that event was typological of a final fulfillment in connection with Antichrist given the context of the prophecy in Daniel. Overall approaches to Revelation are debated, but I find a generally futurist approach (see Grant Osborne's BECNT commentary) more compelling than generally idealist approaches (see Greg Beale's NIGTC commentary); Moo opts for the latter.
3. Moo's consistent downplaying of the tribulation as a time of God's wrath and his relegation of the day of the Lord to Christ's actual return to earth disregards compelling data to the contrary presented by both Blaising and Hultberg. Moo even grants in his rejoinder that the Old Testament evidence may stand against his position. Replying that the New Testament alone should determine the matter is hardly a sufficient reply.
4. Moo also has trouble with some particular texts. His attempt to understand Revelation 3:10 in light of John 17:11-12, 15 fails on the grounds that Revelation speaks of being kept from a time period rather than from the evil one. Moo's understanding of Revelation 20:4 also runs into problems. Moo understands first resurrection in an absolute sense as the first resurrection since the resurrection of Christ. This not only fails to reckon with the resurrection recounted in Matthew 27:52-53 but also requires displacing 20:4 chronologically (since the resurrection mentioned there is post-parousia). This is unlikely since 19:11-20:10 is best understood as a single vision with the subject of ἐκάθισαν being the armies that returned with Christ to earth (see Svigel, TrnJ, 22.1, pp. 51-52).
I find evidence for an extended day of the Lord / parousia persuasive. I also remain convinced that promises that the church (in general) will be spared the wrath of God during this time period, and since I find Moo downplaying events that he concedes will happen (e.g., a final tribulation), I end the end find his view less than persuasive.
Strengths of Hultberg's position
1. The discussions of and warnings about tribulation events in the Olivet discourse, Thessalonians, and Revelation could indicate that Christians will experience some tribulation events (though it does not necessitate this).
2. His arguments for the parousia as a complex event connected with the outpouring of God's wrath.
Weaknesses of Hultberg's position
1. It is difficult to find the Rapture in Revelation 7:9, and Revelation 14:16 seems too ambiguous to bear the weight of the position.
2. I find it unlikely that the first five seals opened in are not the outpouring of God's wrath. Hultberg argues that simply because God is the opener of the seals does not mean that the seals are outpourings of God's wrath because God is in control of all things. But this minimizes the symbolism of the sealed scroll. This was a scroll that only the Lamb who had been slain was worthy to take and open. There is much more going on here than sovereign control over the affairs of earth.
3. Though the exegesis of 1 Thessalonians 2:3 is tricky, I’m convinced that the text is saying that the day of the Lord is not present unless two other things are also present, The first of these is the apostasy and the second is the revelation of the man of lawlessness. I’m not convinced that the verse is saying these two things must precede the day of the Lord.
Hultberg's arguments for the rapture of the church before the outpouring of God's wrath mirror Blaising's own argumentation. His arguments that this wrath occurs during only part of the seventieth week are more inferential and rest on more debatable texts.
Strengths of Blaising's position
1. Blaising makes an impressive case for correlating Daniel's seventieth seven, the tribulation, and the day of the Lord.
2. Blaising makes a solid case that the church will be spared from God's wrath in the final day of the Lord. Though some texts are debatable, his argumentation on texts such as Revelation 3:10 and 2 Thessalonians 2 was sound.
Weaknesses of Blaising's position
1. Blaising's interpretation of the Olivet Discourse struck me as unique. It is a complex passage, and Blaising may well be right, but the uniqueness of his approach struck me as a potential weakness.
2. Blaising does have to deal with the problem of tribulation saints (whom he regards as part of the church, rightly in my estimation) being on earth during the outpouring of God's wrath during the day of the Lord.
Blaising has constructed the most convincing pretribulation argument that I have encountered. He has abandoned many of the less convincing arguments that are often proposed in support of pretribulationalism. I found Blaising's argumentation overall more convincing than Hultberg’s or Moo’s. He seemed to best understand the significance of the Day of the Lord prophecies and their connection to the parousia as a complex event. He also rightly recognized that God promised the church deliverance from this time period of special judgment. The most damaging objection is the presence of the saints in the tribulation period. I think that Moo provides the best theological explanation for the presence of these saints in a period of God's wrath. But this theological explanation does not counteract God's promises that he will, in general, remove his people from the day of his wrath. The tribulation saints are an anomaly because they were saved after the rapture of the church (on the pretribulation view), and the presence of an anomaly does not entirely overthrow Blaising's position.
Overall this second edition has greatly improved upon the first. This may now be the best introductory resource to the topic of the rapture.
April 12, 2023
read for bible class
this sucked and midtribulationists make zero sense bc ur basically a posttribulationist with less proof
this sucked and midtribulationists make zero sense bc ur basically a posttribulationist with less proof
October 4, 2020
Excellent resource to navigate the various positions on the rapture; excellent dialogue between the various authors.
June 8, 2021
It is so hard to read a book like this when one is totally convinced of his position! However, after reading a book on amillenialism, it was refreshing to read three authors who agree that a rapture is a Biblical reality and that a Millennium will occur (though Moo is less dogmatic on this). It was also refreshing to read differing opinions without a snarky comment on the other's opinions. The authors disagree but do do as loving believers should. Whether the rapture occurs pre Tribulation, pre Wrath (essentially mid Tribulation), or post Tribulation, it IS our blessed Hope because it is the appearance of Christ. I found none of the authors fully convincing, though I agree fully with Blaising's beliefs on Pretribulationism. Hulbert was too technical and Moo engaged in some sleight of hand a bit on the Scriptures and words he defined. For example, he failed to mention that he was one of the contributors to the TNIV, the version he used to "prove" a word usage that supported his position. Not a damning criticism but slightly uncareful. Perhaps the style of writing was a bit too academic for me. I did not enjoy reading the book, even what challenged me or the sections I agreed with. But it is a useful book for those debating the positions.
June 6, 2021
I find books written in a debate format to be unsatisfying as both sides are limited in the ability to completely explain their stance or get their points across with the necessary details to be clear. In this book with three authors and three view points I found this to be very much the case. However, I thought with the limited space all three authors did a decent job of explaining their stances of the three major views of the rapture and leaned much on Scripture to substantiate their points. All three authors were fair in cordial in their rebuttals and if nothing else the reader will get a very good understanding of the Pre-Trib, Pre-wrath, or Post Tribulation rapture views. I found the book easy to follow and loaded with great context and Scripture citing for all three views. Good read!
December 20, 2017
I was fascinated to read a book with such a debate, where I'm already unpersuaded by the foundational premises of every position in the debate. It was very interesting and engaging to see the proponents of each view speak for themselves (up to now, I've only read critiques of these positions from outside their own camps). Every contributor did a fine job representing his position, but I found Douglas Moo's post-trib arguments to be the most convincing from the text of Scripture.
June 18, 2025
Though I don’t agree with all his eschatological conclusions, Doug Moo’s chapter and overall correspondence was the unquestionable strength of this book (I do agree with his main argument that the return or coming of Christ is a future public triumphant event at the end of history to bless and gather his people and judge his enemies). Clear, persuasive, thoughtful, and irenic on a topic that requires humility.
August 28, 2018
An excellent resource for those premillennialists who are seeking clarity about finer points of eschatology. The three contributors are skilled exegetes. What is refreshing to me is their gentlemanly approach to their many areas of agreement and their few areas of disagreement.
Read
March 8, 2024Again, the ROI on studying eschatology seems extremely poor. It'd take me 30-35 hours to pour over this book and understand each argument in detail and at the end, I may still not feel confident in a position about a thing that will not effect my Christian walk at all.
January 4, 2021
Probably a fine book and I was just the wrong audience for it.
September 29, 2023
This is an amazing book by humble scholars who love God and His Word. Very important in the rapture debate.
February 27, 2025
The juice is not quite worth the squeeze with this book. I find each author unimpressive and the material not presented in the most efficient or effective manner. Not sure I would recommend this.
June 3, 2013
Had to read this as part of my required texts during my seminary days... underwhelmed... but back then, I do remember finding it fascinating and scandalous... amazing what a decade and a half will do to you by way of perspective for such type of books.
December 13, 2012
Whew, a tough read...have your Bible by your side. Still it did a great job of presenting the various positions...I really like the format.
April 20, 2017
This book was okay. Personally, I believe pretribulationalism was the strongest position. Posttribulationalism was difficult to grasp as concept, mainly because the contributor spent the entirety of his essay attempting to prove why pretribulationalism was incorrect. He even accused pretribulationalism of having failed to provide evidence when he himself admitted to having made assumptions in his own view (p. 218).
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews