A RESPONSE TO ANDREW ROBINSON & DR. DAVID REAGAN

Introduction

An article entitled, “The Error of Amillennialism” by Andrew D. Robinson was featured in the November-December 2011 issue of The Lamplighter Magazine. This magazine published by Lamb & Lion Ministries, which is an end-times prophecy ministry that was founded by Premillennialist Dr. David Reagan in 1980.

Dr. Reagan prefaced Andrew Robinson’s article with an editor’s note establishing that Amillennialism is a belief that is “held by the vast majority of professing Christians, both Protestant and Catholic.” If we are looking at the full spectrum of Christendom, I would be inclined to agree with Dr. Reagan. However, when speaking of the Evangelical segment of Christianity in today’s times, I would say Premillennialism would be the predominate eschatology.

I think we need to keep in mind that there is difference between someone who is either uninformed or misinformed about their denomination’s eschatological position, than someone who has pro-actively adopted an eschatological position. I suspect there are quite a few Roman Catholics and Mainline Protestants who may not even be aware that their denomination is Amillennial. Of those who do have some degree of eschatological awareness, it seems to me that most of them are not as dogmatic about it and do not put a whole lot of emphasis on the end times as their Evangelical Premillennial counter-parts do.

Dr. Reagan closed his editor’s note by stating that Pastor Robinson’s article was originally published in the “journal of the Prophetic Witness Movement International” and that he was re-publishing an abbreviated edition of his article with permission. So, having said that, please note that the abbreviated re-printed edition of the article consisting of about 3,500 words and 16 footnotes is what I will be reviewing.

All In The Family

I have always believed that eschatology is a subject where there is room for disagreement within the ranks of the Christian community. Unlike abortion, same sex marriages, evolution or other similar subjects where we Christians usually debate those outside our community, eschatology is what I would consider to be an intramural matter. Judging from the tone of Pastor Robinson’s article, his attitude was anything but cordial. He characterized his eschatological opponents with phrases such as, St. Augustine being the “Charles Darwin of the church,” “doctrine of demons,” “cowboy exegesis,” and of course the usual charge of, “anti-semitism.” Pastor Robinson is not the first Premillennialist to play the “anti-semitic” card against those whom do not agree with him on eschatology. I did not sense any kind of, “we are all brothers in Christ and we can agree to disagree” attitude from Pastor Robinson’s article.

What Is Pastor Robinson’s Standard?

When I read an article written by a Christian who is criticizing a belief system held by another group of Christians, I would expect the author to use the Scriptures as his/her standard when criticizing the opposing view point in question. For example, I would expect the critique process to go something like this: This is what they believe… Here is what the Scriptures teach about that… Here is how they are either misinterpreting the Scriptures or ignoring what the Scriptures teach… and so on. Pastor Robinson did not follow that process. Instead, he criticized Amillennialism based on his biased and subjective Premillennial worldview as opposed to objectively using the Scriptures.

The only Scripture that was cited by Pastor Robinson was the following:
Thus says the Lord, “Behold, I will take the sons of Israel from among the nations where they have gone and I will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land; and I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king will be king for all of them; and they will no longer be two nations and no longer divided into two kingdoms …And they will be my people, and I will be their God” (Ezekiel 37:21-23).

Pastor Robinson follows up this Scripture with the following commentary before he charges his opponents with, “cowboy exegesis”:
“Writing from the depths of exile, Ezekiel foresaw the glorious day when the divided kingdoms of Judah and Israel would be reunited in their ancient homeland, under the Kingship of the Lord . . . “

“History teaches us that Israel and Judah were never restored to their predicted nationhood in Bible times, and this has led some scholars to conclude that Ezekiel’s prophecy failed. But we must look beyond the biblical horizon to the present day, some 2500 years later, to see the fulfillment of God’s Word.”

“In our day, the world has witnessed scenes of unprecedented historical significance, as Jews in their hundreds of thousands have returned to the land of Israel. They have made aliyah (the Hebrew term for emigrating to Israel) from over one hundred nations . . . Judah and Israel, the “twin sticks” of Ezekiel’s prophecy (Ezekiel 37:15-23), are fast becoming one in God’s hand, and it is only a matter of time before Messiah makes His own aliyah and establishes His throne in their midst in Jerusalem.”

A History Lesson For Pastor Robinson

Where Pastor Robinson went wrong in his commentary was that he errantly arrived at the conclusion that Ezekiel’s prophecy has not yet been fulfilled based on his perception of History. This passage of Scripture simply stated that there will be a united Israel that will no longer be divided. Ezekiel never said that Israel would be restored to their previous size and proportion as they were in David and Solomon’s time. Ezekiel’s reunification prophecy was fulfilled in the context of remnant proportions. The reason this prophecy was actually was fulfilled at the time the Jews began their return from their exile in Babylon in 538 BC is because that would have been the only time in History that this prophecy could have been fulfilled.

In 722 BC, the Assyrian Empire conquered the 10 northern tribes of Israel.
These deportations from the Promised Land actually began under the Assyrians as early as 733. These were deported to Ninevah. More deportations to Babylon occurred in 605, 597 and 582. Many of the Israelites had chosen to flee voluntarily and had settled in Syria, Egypt and Turkey. This was a very dark period in the history of Israel. There was no king and no temple. (See Psalm 137) 1

By the time the remnant of Judah began returning from their Babylonian exile beginning in 538 BC, the remnants of the 10 northern tribes could have quite easily migrated to Judean territory. The return of Judah was only 184 years and 4 to 5 generations after Israel’s exile by the Assyrians. Here are some Scriptures that would suggest that this very scenario actually played out:
…in company with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum and Baanah): The list of the men of the people of Israel: Ezra 2: 2

The priests, the Levites, the singers, the gatekeepers and the temple servants settled in their own towns, along with some of the other people, and the rest of the Israelites settled in their towns. When the seventh month came and the Israelites had settled in their towns, the people assembled as one man in Jerusalem. Ezra 2: 70/3: 1

The Wycliffe Bible Commentary stated the following on the two previous passages of Scripture:
It is certain that all twelve tribes were represented in this expedition, for refugees from the northern tribes had been pouring into Judah for centuries before the Babylonian captivity. 2

Some of the Israelites, including priests, Levites, singers, gatekeepers and temple servants, also came up to Jerusalem in the seventh year of King Artaxerxes. Ezra 7: 7

Now I decree that any of the Israelites in my kingdom, including priests and Levites, who wish to go to Jerusalem with you, may go. You are sent by the king and his seven advisers to enquire about Judah and Jerusalem with regard to the Law of your God, which is in your hand. Ezra 7: 13 & 14

Then the exiles who had returned from captivity sacrificed burnt offerings to the God of Israel: twelve bulls for all Israel, ninety-six rams, seventy-seven male lambs and, as a sin offering, twelve male goats. All this was a burnt offering to the LORD. Ezra 8: 35

According to Pastor Robinson’s perception of History, the unification of Israel and Judah happened during the formation of modern day Israel beginning in 1948. This is totally ridiculous. The Jews as we know of them today are more of a remnant now than they were back in 538 BC. Back then, tribal identity and distinctions could still be made. This would be impossible to do today.

1. Halley's Bible Handbook, Zondervan, 2000 and William Neil's One Volume Bible Commentary, Hodder & Stoughton, 1962
2. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Moody Press, Chicago, 17th printing 1979), page 425.

Historical Grudges

Pastor Robinson spent a fair amount of verbiage going down the path of digging up grudges that go as far back as 1,600 years. He cited a few historical events starting around the 5th century all the way to the reformation era where the Premillennialists supposedly received a raw deal from the Amillennialists.

At the Council of Ephesus in AD 431 AD, the Amillennial debate team made a stronger case for their side than their Premillennial counter-parts and subsequently, the judges declared the Amillennial debate team to be the winner. Apparently, Pastor Robinson is still smarting from Premillennial debate team’s bitter defeat. To make matters even worse, not only did the judges declare the Amillennial debate team to be the winners, but Pastor Robinson claims that they “condemned Premillennialism as superstitious.”

I can understand Pastor Robinson’s disappointment over the Premillennial debate team’s very poor performance at the Council of Ephesus. However, he then jumped forward all the way to 1646 and complained that the Westminster Confession of Faith is has a, “zero tolerance for Premillennialism.” What? Among the 12,000 plus words contained in The Westminster Confession of Faith, there are no sections or clauses in this document that declares a specific eschatological position, whether it be Amillennial, Postmillennial or Premillennial.

The closest the Westminster Confession comes to addressing the end times is in the 33rd and final chapter entitled, “Of the Last Judgment.” The scope of the chapter deals with how there will be an appointed day when Christ will judge the world. If I am not mistaken, I think the Premillennialists believe in an appointed judgment day. The chapter does not go into any detail in describing or predicting any events that will transpire before or after the appointed day of Christ’s judgment. I cannot imagine the Premillennialists objecting to the final phrase of the Westminster Confession of Faith which reads:
because they know not at what hour the Lord will come; and may be ever prepared to say, Come Lord Jesus, come quickly, Amen.

The Nicene and Athanasian Creeds do not specify any millennial positions either. Why doesn’t Pastor Robinson complain about that? The only way you can make a case that any creed has a “zero tolerance” for any kind of belief system is if it explicitly says so by denunciation or it explicitly endorses the opposite belief. Although most of (if not all) the framers of The Westminster Confession of Faith were not Premillenial, it’s a far stretch to accuse them of having a “zero tolerance” for Premillennialism when they never declared a millennial position in the first place.

The KJV Grudge

After Pastor Robinson accused the Amillennialist of “cowboy exegesis” he goes on to make an issue with the publishers of the earlier editions of the 1611 King James Version of the Bible. He further demonstrates his fixation with this Church-Israel distinction by making an issue with 3 chapter heading in the book of Isaiah:
Isaiah 30: “God’s mercies towards His Church.”
Isaiah 33: “God’s judgments against the enemies of the Church.”
Isaiah 43 & 44: “God comforteth the Church with His promises.”

Keep in mind these are just, CHAPTER HEADINGS that Pastor Robinson is taking issue with. We are not talking about the actual text in the chapters themselves. Even though most if not all the publishers of the KJV have since removed or replaced these headings, Pastor Robinson uses this to make the case that those chapter headings were a part of Amillennialist conspiracy to influence people away from Israel and toward the Church.

It is common knowledge among Bible Scholars that the word, “Church” is also a general macro term that comes from the Greek word, Ekklēsia and the Hebrew word, qāhāl that is defined as an assembly, congregation or gathering. This concept was around long before the birth of the New Testament Church on the Day of Pentecost.
The term ekklēsia describes an actual assembly, a gathering of people together. The same is true of the Old Testament term qāhāl that is translated by ekklēsia in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. The words themselves do not have the restricted meaning of the word, ‘church’. Yet, when Jesus said, ‘I will build my church’…, he was not simply saying, ‘I will bring together a gathering of people’. Rather, he was using a well-known term that described the people of God. The ‘assembly in the desert’ (Acts 7:38) was the definitive assembly for Israel, the covenant-making assembly when God claimed his redeemed people as his own’ (Dt. 4:10 LXX; 9:10; 10:4; 18:16). 3

Dr. Reagan inserted an editor’s note in this section of the article emphasizing that the “Church had not even been established when these chapters were written.” (Duh!) And that, “they are addressed to Israel, not the Church (Here, Dr. Reagan is talking about the post Pentecost NT era Church, another duh!) — unless, of course, you spiritualize them by applying them to the Church.” Does Dr. Reagan and Pastor Robinson actually think that anyone with half a brain who read those chapter headings thought that the NT Church had not been established when the book of Isaiah was written? Or, that the book of Isaiah was not addressing Israel? If both Pastor Robinson and Dr. Reagan understood the broader definition of “Church” based on the original Greek and Hebrew definitions, they would have known that those chapter headings were not talking about the NT Church. This is a no brainer. What if the earlier editors of the KJV had inserted, “Assembly” or “Congregation” in those chapter headings as opposed to, “Church”? Do you think Pastor Robinson and Dr. Reagan would have made an issue out of that?

3. Edmund P. Clowney, “The Biblical Theology of the Church,” The Church in the Bible and the World: An International Study, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1987), 17. (This research was compiled by Gary DeMar, 10 Popular Prophecy Myths Exposed, The Last Days Might Not Be as Near as You Think (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision Press, 2nd printing 2010), page 16)

Premillennial Misconceptions

Another area where Pastor Robinson has gone wrong is that he criticizes Amillennialism based on Premillennial misconceptions. The paragraph from Pastor Robinson’s piece illustrates this point:
Although it (the Church being the new Israel) is hotly denied by Amillennialists, there is no question that Amillennialism is rooted in the soil of Augustinian Roman Catholicism, and as such has a tendency towards anti-Semitism. The Jewish people have been twice robbed by the Amillennial Church: first of their prophetic Scriptures, and then of their land. If Amillennialists want to protest their innocence, then I invite them to tell the Jewish community that the biblical Land promises still apply to Israel. (Emphasis mine)

So, according to Pastor Robinson, if you don’t believe that the Biblical land promises still apply to Israel in today’s times, you are anti-Semitic or have, “a tendency toward anti-Semitism.” I have some questions for Pastor Robinson and Dr. Reagan:
1. Where in the Scriptures does it indicate that the formation of modern day Israel has anything to do with a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy?
2. While I stand with them in their support of statehood for modern day Israel, how far beyond that would they like to go with this whole Zionist cause?
3. Do they advocate Israel gaining full control of the temple mount in Jerusalem and building a 3rd temple?
4. If so, where in the Scriptures does it say that a 3rd temple will be built?
5. If they advocate the building of a 3rd temple, do they also advocate the Jews reinstituting the sacrificing of animals?
6. Do they believe that God wants to govern the Church and the Jews under two different redemptive standards?
7. Do they believe that two-thirds of the Jews living in Israel will be killed after the rapture?

Pastor Robinson has made it quite clear that he has a problem with the idea of the Church being the, “New Israel of God.” Of course that phrase was coined at a time in History when the Jews were scattered all over the world and Israel did not exist as a geo-political entity. Pastor Robinson went on to characterize the belief of the Church being the torch bearer for God as opposed to Israel as, “replacement theology” on two occasions. The term, “replacement theology” is a term contrived by the Premillinialists who subscribe to a Church-Israel distinction. Those non Premillennialists who don’t make a distinction between the Church and Israel don’t characterize their belief as replacement theology. I think a better label would be inclusion or attachment theology. Gary DeMar explains it this way:
As anyone who is familiar with the Bible knows, Christianity does not “supersede Judaism.” The genealogies found in Matthew and Luke clearly show that Jesus is “the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matt. 1:1). The first New Covenant believers were from the nation of Israel (Luke 1–2) with hints of a later expanded redemptive role for Samaritans (John 4:7–45), Greeks (John 12:20–22), the nations (Luke 2:32), and the world (John 3:16; 4:42). At Pentecost, we see that “to the Jew first” (Rom. 1:16) predominates—“Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men, from every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5)—but later extends “also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16) as Peter’s encounter with Cornelius shows (Acts 10). Notice Peter’s evaluation of these events and the response of his fellow Jews:
“And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life” (Acts 11:15–18).
“The Gentiles also.” Gentile believers were grafted into the Jewish assembly of believers and were given “the same gift,” the Holy Spirit (see Acts 1:8; 2:38). 4
If Pastor Robinson wants to correctly use the phrase, “replacement theology” in its proper context, I would advise him to remember what it is that is being replaced and by whom. Christ himself is inherently replacement agent, because it is His work on the cross that has enabled Him to replace the OT sacrificial and ceremonial laws. I think that’s a pretty good replacement.

4. Gary DeMar, 10 Popular Prophecy Myths Exposed, The Last Days Might Not Be as Near as You Think (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision Press, 2nd printing 2010), 82.

First Take The Plank Out of Your Own Eye

Pastor Robinson’s criticism of Amillennial theology well illustrates what Jesus taught in Matthew 7: 2-5. The following is another excerpt from his article:
Amillennialism is a laundered system, which has bleached out the plain meaning of Scripture. The doctrine cannot be deduced from Bible study but must be taught. It is my belief that anyone reading the Scriptures for the first time, without tutoring, would never arrive at an Amillennial position. Conversely, I know people who came to the Bible for the first time, and instantly understood God’s purposes for Israel.

To the contrary, I would replace Amillennial(ism) with Premillennial(ism) in the previous paragraph and it would be spot on. The Premillennialist have the biggest eschatological “tutoring” program going on in this day and time. Have you ever heard an Amillennialist or Postmillennialist teach their view points on Christian radio or TV? How many Amillennialists do you know of that:
• Have made false predictions concerning the Lord’s return? (I am not suggesting that an Amillennialist has never done this. If so, I will bet there are far fewer false predicting Amillennialists than Premillennialist.)
• Believe and have predicted that two-thirds of the Jews in Israel will be killed after the rapture? (If that is not anti-semitism, I don’t know what is. What kind of “tutoring” do you think one would have to go through to arrive at that conclusion?)
• Supports a belief system that condones and enables the re-instituting the animal sacrifices for the remission of sin? (What kind of “tutoring” do you think one would have to go through to arrive at that conclusion?)

I don’t hear the Amillennialist fervently insisting that Jesus is coming “soon” and then not say what exactly they meant by “soon” when you ask them to give you a general time frame. Take Dr. Reagan for example, the following is on his Lamb & Lion Ministries web site:
“The Ministry was established for the purpose of proclaiming the soon return of Jesus. We do not believe it is possible to know the date when Jesus will return. But we do believe it is possible to know the season of the Lord's return, and it is our conviction that we are living in that season.”

Dr. Reagan and I go back a ways because I used to listen to his daily 15 minute radio broadcasts throughout the 80s and I remember him uttering the above quote many times. Now that Dr. Reagan has been proclaiming the “soon” coming of Jesus for over 30 years now, I would be curious to know what his definition of “soon” is. I always get amused when the Premillennialist throw around words such as, “soon,” “near,” and “eminent” without associating any kind of time frame to them.

Suppose an employee would say, “soon.” when his employer asked when he will receive the upcoming quarterly report. If the employer was unsure what his employee meant by “soon” and asked for a specific time frame, suppose the employee would say, “Well, I do not believe it is possible to know the date you will get the report. But I do believe it is possible to know the season of the arrival of that report, and it is my conviction that we are living in that season.” How far do you think the employee preparing that report will get with that company? When using the word soon in everyday life situations, most people using that term don’t have a problem associating a specific time frame to the word when asked. However, why do Premillennialists not apply this same rule when discussing eschatology?

How many Premillennialists have made false predictions? Here are just a few examples:
• In 1975, Jack Van Impe wrote an article entitled, “Messiah 1975? The Tribulation 1976? While he insisted that, “We do not believe in setting dates concerning the return of Christ.” He went on to assert that Christ’s coming is “near” based on the “signs.” 5 (Van Impe is the same guy who predicted that the Soviet flag would be flying over Independence Hall in Philadelphia by 1976.) 6
• In 1980, Hal Lindsey wrote, “We are in the last generation that will see the end times … and the return of Christ.” 7
• In 1987, Lester Sumrall wrote in his book I Predict 2000 A.D, “I predict the absolute fullness of man’s operation on planet Earth by the year 2000 A.D. Then Jesus Christ shall reign from Jerusalem for 1000 years.” 8
• In 1988, Edgar C. Whisenant wrote a book entitled, “88 Reasons Why the Rapture Is in 1988. 9
• In 1992 of December 27, Jerry Falwell said in a television broadcast: “I do not believe that there will be another millennium…or another century.” 10

5. Jack Van Impe, “Messiah 1975? The Tribulation 1976” The Jack Van Impe Crusade Newsletter (April 1975), 1. *
6. Ed Hindson, “The End Is Near … Or Is It?,” World (24 November 1990), 12. *
7. Back-cover copy of Hal Lindsey, The 1980s: Countdown to Armageddon (King of Prussia, PA: Westgate Press, 1980). *
8. Quoted in Ron Rhodes, “Millennial Madness,” Christian Research Journal (Fall 1990), 39 and in Lester Sumrall’s book I predict 2000 A.D. *
9. Edgar C. Whisenant, 88 Reasons Why the Rapture Is in 1988 (Nashville, TN: World Bible Society, 1988)
10. Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness, Obsession of the Modern Church (Atlanta, GA: American Vision 1997), 24. www.americanvision.org
(An asterisk (*) at the end of a footnote denotes that the research was compiled by Gary DeMar of American Vision and published in his book, Last Days Madness, Obsession of the Modern Church.)

Redefining Orthodoxy

Pastor Robinson’s article also consisted of a parade of 10 supposed Premillennial Champions whose lives ranged from the 16th century to the early 20th century. Two of them in particular were Sir Henry Finch (1558 -1625), and Thomas Fuller (1608-1661) who were supposedly unjustly persecuted for their advocacy of Israel and Jewish restoration. Another interesting name that Pastor Robinson dropped was that of J. C. Ryle (1816-1900) who was credited for writing a creedal statement concerning the end times entitled, “The Chief Articles of My Prophetical Creed.” This creed that Pastor Robinson raved about has eleven articles and I find it interesting that he only emphasized articles 7 and 8.
Articles 7:“I believe that the Jews shall ultimately be gathered again as a separate nation, restored to their own land, and converted to the faith of Christ, after going through great tribulation.”
Article 8: “I believe that the literal sense of the Old Testament prophecies has been far too much neglected by the Churches . . . and that under the mistaken system of spiritualizing and accommodating Biblical language, Christians have too often completely missed its meaning.”

Anyone familiar with Premillennial eschatology would know that those two articles pretty much tout the Premillennial party line. However, I did not read anything in the entire work that said anything about two-thirds of the Jews living in Israel being killed during the so called “great tribulation,” or the building of the 3rd temple and the re-instituting of animal sacrificing.

I find Article 10 of this creed to be interesting. It reads:
“I believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the great predicted apostasy from the faith, and is Babylon and Antichrist, although I think it highly probable that a more complete development of Antichrist will yet be exhibited to the world (2 Thess. 2: 3-11; 1 Tim. 4: 1-3).”

This has been somewhat of a Historically held Premillennial belief. However, I am not so sure that today’s Premillennialist are as fixated with the Pope being the Antichrist as the earlier Premillennialists were.

Pastor Robinson stated that this 755 word creed is “worth reciting.” Where exactly does Pastor Robinson think that this creed should be recited? The Roman Catholics and most of the mainline Protestants recite the Apostles (114 words) and/or Nicene (226 words) Creeds in their church services. Those Historic creeds center around the basic tenants of the Christian faith and nature of who Jesus is. I wonder if Pastor Robinson thinks they are worth reciting? Whereas, J. C. Ryles’s creed centers around the end times and does not address the central themes of Christianity. Since Pastor Robinson pastors a church, does this mean that J. C. Ryle’s creed is recited in his services? If so, does his church recite J. C. Ryle’s creed in addition to or instead of one of the Historic creeds?

Conclusion

Pastor Robinson in particular failed to provide a consistent Biblical argument against Amillennialism or in favor of Premillennialism. Holding historical grudges and citing supposed past injustices against Premillennialists at the hands of Amillennialists does not pass for a valid Biblical argument. Even if the supposed unjust events that Pastor Robinson cited were true, that in and of itself does not necessarily make Amillennialism an errant belief system.

Premillennialists are in no position to be criticizing other eschatological systems when their own house is built on very shaky unbiblical ground. Instead of running down the Amillennialists, I think Pastor Robinson would have been better off making a Biblical argument for some of the Premillennial distinctive such as:
• A 3rd temple in Jerusalem;
• A 7 year tribulation period and that the church will be raptured prior to that tribulation period;
• A supposed antichrist will make a covenant with the Jews at the beginning of that 7 year tribulation period and then break that same covenant later in that same 7 year tribulation period.

If Pastor Robinson and Dr. Reagan really want to take on the Amillennialists (and even the Postmillennialists), why don’t they engage them in an actual live debate? They both can talk a big game when they are unopposed. However, how many times has either of them gone head to head against their eschatological opponents?