May 26, 1988 James C. Kopp Interview, Part 1

Editor’s note: About 10 years prior to James Kopp performing a post natal termination procedure of an abortionist in 1998, I had a chance to sit down with him for about an hour and a half for an interview. I recently, found the cassette tape of that interview while rummaging through my old cassettes a few weeks ago. After I listened to the tape, I was reminded of the deep wisdom and insight that James shared. I was so amazed at what he said, I decided to transcribe the interview and share it with you. This interview is quite long, so I will present it in several parts. Here is part 1.


MJ: There are a lot of things I don’t know about you just form a personal perspective. Could you tell us about who you are and where you are from and some basic background information before we start talking about rescue missions (sit-ins at abortion mills)?

JK: I was born in Pasadena, CA in 1954. I come from a family of five and I have one sister in heaven, and I guess part of my background includes the fact that my own immediate family has three single mothers. So to me, pro-life is very personal and the cost that mothers have to pay is something that I as a male could understand. I went to school in California, and I studied Darwinistic Biology as an under graduate many years ago, and was saved overseas in Francis Schaffer’s ministry and at the same time, through over Darwinism. But, I decided to finish up grad school even though by that time I started to think about pro-life and so I finished my Masters which was in embryology and fertilization. That started to get me into pro-life.

MJ: What year was this?

JK: I finished my Masters in I think about ’82. One of the reasons I got into pro-life was that… At one point during the Masters, I thought I might be interested in med school, so I became a pre-med, and I had some clinical experience. And, one day I was standing in the morgue of the Stanford Hospital and I assisted and observed autopsies there because I was in the pathology department and did my little bit of research at night. They brought in a baby that was 8 months from conception that had been aborted, for having Down’s syndrome. The Pathologist was particularly pleased to show me this baby because she knew that I was pro-life. She knew that I was in the morgue and she sent the baby in and she said, “You see enough of this kind of garbage and you really start to believe in abortion.” Those were the words she said to me, and I don’t think I will ever forget it. Up until then, I had some pro-life involvement intellectually, but it wasn’t until I saw that baby right in front of me, which was an absolutely beautiful baby that had been killed because it had Down’s syndrome. And, I heard those words and they just chilled me through my bones, “You see enough of this kind of garbage and you really start to believe in abortion.” Oh, and she also said, ”You pro-lifers really make me sick.” I was so stunned that I could not think of much to say but what happened is that I made a promise to God in my heart that I would try and do more. Up until then I had done political work in pro-life and my family has been involved in California politics for decades.

MJ: What year was this when you saw the aborted baby?

JK: That was 1982 also. The first rescue I did was in ’83 or ’84 and the first Crisis Pregnancy Center (CPC) that I opened was in ’84. So, it was after then I got on the pathway of CPCs and rescues.

MJ: You said you had your conversion overseas. Was this in Switzerland?

JK: Yes.

MJ: What was the name of the town?

JK: The name of the town was Huémoz-sur-Ollon. But the name of the ministry was L’Abri.

MJ: How many rescues have you done to date?

JK: I really don’t know the exact number, but it is somewhere between 15 to 20 I think. In terms of really big national type rescues with 100 or more people maybe 4 or 5 of those. And probably half a dozen lock-in rescues… maybe more.

MJ: Do you know how many arrests you’ve had?

JK: Well, let’s see... That’s right, some of the rescues did not involve arrests, so I have probably been arrested about 15 times. Not a lot.

MJ: Not a lot? (laughing) One of the things about you that is going against the grain of society is that a lot of people are soft and we have a lot of conveniences. And here, we have someone like you who has literally sold out everything for pro-life. I understand that you even took a vow of poverty at one time.

JK: (laughing) I don’t know about a vow.

MJ: That’s what John Witte told me.

JK: Well the hardest part was when I sold my trumpet. I used to be in the union and I put myself through college, or shall I say the Lord put me through college being in the union. And the hardest thing was when I sold my trumpet, which was an extremely good trumpet. That was how I made my living which was the culmination of my career as a professional musician. So that part hurt me, but ever since then it’s been downhill. I mean, in the sense that, once you…. I mean everyone has a trumpet if you know what I mean. Everyone’s got that one thing. You know, they will give up everything else, you know what I mean? And that trumpet meant probably more to me than anything else in terms of material things. I have already been moving in the direction of what I called, being judgment proof. You know, having no assets so that if N.O.W. (National Organization for Women) sues me, I would have nothing to fear. Which is the place I want to be in. So, I had been moving in that direction for a long time.

MJ: I could just see N.O.W. going after that trumpet. “We got to get Kopp’s trumpet!”

JK: (Laughing)

MJ: We read about Samuel Rutherford, Dietrich Bonheoffer, Corrie Ten Boom, then we look at people in our day and age… and I ask where are our heroes? And we have Joan Andrews and a handful of others. But our generation desperately needs some heroes that will sell everything out and just be radical. In our day and age this concept is very foreign and I just feel that we have a lot of soft Christians now days.

JK: Yeah, I think I see where you are going, and I definitely agree. In fact, any time the Lord has asked me to make a sacrifice… and of course, I cannot make a sacrifice in my own strength. If I were to form the resolution that I should sell my trumpet, that would be no big deal. That doesn’t mean anything if it is in the flesh. But, if you were to pray about it and you are sure that is what the Lord wants, and if you go to him and say, “okay Lord.” Then you are offering it up to God and He’s doing it. I definitely think that we don’t offer up enough things to the Lord, we are hanging on to too many things. That, I don’t think too many people would argue with you, especially in the United States. In my opinion, part of the core of this whole problem is that there has never been a country in the entire History of the planet that has had such a very large number of people with such an average high level of freedom from war, poverty, disease, coldness, hunger and pretty soon when you get that isolated and that independent, God is just an idea after a while. God is out there working on the fine things like do I feel good. If you go into most churches these days, people are concerned with feeling good. They are not thinking about, am I starving? Or, is that guy starving? Have I heard the Gospel? Or, has that guy heard the Gospel? You can say the same thing about missions. There are very few people in this country who will do missions, same thing with pro-life. So I certainly agree… Oh, I know what I was going to say, I ramble.

MJ: That’s okay.

JK: The other thing I was going to say too is, long ago could have done what I call an arrest cycle. I have done two of them now. Or, one or two, I can’t remember exactly. But anyway, its where I come into a town and keep doing rescues until they give me a hard time. And during the hard time I assess and say to the Lord, “do you want me to continue in this town, or do you want me to go to another one? Okay? That is what I would call and arrest cycle

MJ: Okay.

JK: In St. Louis, (laughing) they rotated me out to another position before I got in jail for a hard time because in St. Louis you can get arrested 100 times and never see the inside of a jail cell for more than 6 or 8 hours, it’s really incredible in St. Louis. But, the reason I have not done perpetual arrest cycles, in other words, keep going until you get arrested more and more, is that I sense that the Lord has asked me along the way to stop and take the time to open up Pearson Centers. Or, Crisis Pregnancy Centers. If my whole goal in life, and this is not my whole goal, but if my entire 100% goal in life was to save as many babies as I could, that I physically could myself, I would do nothing but open Crisis Pregnancy Centers. I think there is more at stake than just, how many babies can Jim Kopp save. There is a slightly bigger picture, not much bigger. But anyone who sets themselves a goal, I want to save as many babies as I can. That’s not a bad goal, and I certainly would certainly never fault that, but I think there is a little bit more to it. Something that the Lord has been showing lately is that there is more involved than babies. In China for example, if you go and do a rescue in mainland China, you will be in jail for 25 years, and you will be a martyr and the Lord would certainly honor all your prayers, who knows on a mystical level?

JK: (cont’d) But practically speaking, you can’t do anything in China to really help save the babies until you do something about communism. And you can’t do something about communism without being good Christians in general. You have to have a body working together and part of the body working together is exhortation and a word of knowledge and all these things that are… You see what I mean? There is slightly more to the picture than physically, just how many babies can Jim Kopp save with the hours that I’ve got left in my life. That’s why I take the time out, or I dare say the Lord has asked me to take the time out in Delaware and maybe in Texas, California, New Jersey, New York state or wherever he sends me, to leave a trail of these CPCs and they become focal points for pro-life work. And they become stepping stones for people who want to step up into rescues. Most people can’t take that step straight from political work to rescues. They just can’t do it, they need a stepping stone in the middle. A place where they can meet the girls, get a hands on view of how terrible it is out there, how badly these women are being lied to, and pushed around by their boyfriends, and pushed around by the abortionists…

MJ: Isn’t that the truth. All in the name of pro-choice.

JK: Exactly! Get a real solid picture. Demythologize the pro-choice deal, and then they start to get mad. It’s like when I saw that baby in the Stanford morgue, I got mad. If you come to me after that and start talking about trumpets, I would say… Hey! forget trumpets! We are on another level. You know? And I’ll tell you something, most national leaders that I know, that I have had the privileged of meeting… it’s a funny thing, but they have had a similar kind of experience. Not the exact same experience, but something like it.

Matthew A. Jackson, Pro-Life Activist Profile

Matthew A. Jackson, Pro-Life Activist (1984 to 1992):

·         Participated and/or organized several dozen pickets of abortion mills;

·         Participated and/or organized pickets of the homes of 8 abortionist;

·         Sidewalk counseled 2 mothers approaching an abortion not to go through with their scheduled abortions and took them to a CPC;

·         Was the 1st Pro-Lifer to devise the concept of the lock and block rescue;

·         Directly participated in 8 rescue missions (sit-ins) risking arrest:

- 4 with Randall Terry/Operation Rescue, New York City, May 1988;

- 3 with Don Tresman/Rescue America, Hou., TX, Sep ’86, *Jan ’88 & *Mar ‘89 (* lock & block)

- 1 with James C. Kopp, Houston, TX, Jun ’88 (assisted lock & block);

·         Arrested 8 times:

- 3 class B misdemeanor arrests resulting in convictions and one jail sentence;

- 5 class C misdemeanor arrests.

·         Indirectly participated in 8 rescue missions in a support and training (lock & block) role;

·         Assisted Robert H. Ruff in raiding the Houston Planned Parenthood dumpster in November of 1986.  The intention was to look for the dead babies that PP recently killed.  Instead, they found a few dozen discarded file boxes that had files containing more than two years worth of classified documents.  Some of them were financial statements that revealed how PP was funded and how they misused and embezzled tax dollars.  This discovery is known to be the greatest amount of inside information ever to be gathered on PP.  Robert went on to decipher all the information that he acquired on PP and in 1990, he published his findings in a book that he wrote entitled, Aborting Planned Parenthood.

·         Was the 1st Pro-Lifer in Harris County, TX to serve a jail sentence (8 days) for participating in a rescue mission;

A Response To Dr. Andy Woods' Concept of the Rapture

Dr. Andy Woods of Sugar Land Bible Church published a three part series of articles entitled, “The Rapture,” on the Bible Prophecy Blog: Part 1, February 16, 2012; Part 2, March 4, 2012; Part 3, April 19, 2012.

He started his series with this statement in part 1 of his article:
“I remain astonished at the number of emails I receive from individuals who do not believe that the rapture is a biblical doctrine. Such people seem to have the idea that the whole rapture concept is manufactured by popular, sensationalistic prophecy teachers in their attempt to sell books and make money. Thus, they contend that this rapture doctrine has no biblical justification whatsoever. In order to demonstrate the rapture is truly a biblical doctrine, I am commencing a series of articles on the "Doctrine of the Rapture of the Church."

If Dr. Woods says that he has received a “number” of emails from individuals who “do not believe that the rapture is a biblical doctrine,” then, I will take him at his word. Although, I would be curious to know exactly how many emails he has received and the full context they were written in. (On a side note, I wonder how all these dissenters contacted Dr. Woods by email. His direct email address is not available on any of the web sites on him that I have searched.) Suffice it to say, I don’t know any mature and Biblically grounded Christian who does not believe in the rapture or think it’s not an important doctrine. I think any issue one would have over the rapture would have more to do with all the speculation over other end time events that will supposedly transpire after the rapture, and less to do with the actual rapture itself.

One point Dr. Woods made early on in both parts 1 and 2 his articles was that there were “ten truths” about the rapture and they can be found in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and 1 Corinthians 15:50-58. However, he did not itemize what those “ten truths” are. Dr. Woods said that 4 of the 10 can be found in 1 Thess. 4:13-18. I think Dr. Woods could have better served his readers by numerically listing his perceived ten rapture truths, and make them more plain and obvious. As the article is written now, the curious reader who really wants to know what these “ten truths” is forced to cull through 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and 1 Corinthians 15:50-58 and dig them out.

In part one of his series, Dr. Woods addressed what the rapture is and in part two he addressed when the rapture will be in terms of its relationship with other end time events. To Dr. Woods’ credit, he did not speculate or predict a specific date for the rapture. However, he ended part two of his article by making the case that the Rapture and the Second Advent of Christ are two separate and distinct end time events.

Dr. Woods bases his argument on two trains of thought. His first train of thought has to do Christ’s dual role during His first coming. Dr. Woods wrote:
“Some may think it strange to divide the Second Coming of Jesus Christ into two distinct phases. Interestingly, when we go back into the Old Testament and we study various truths and prophecies related to His First Coming, we very quickly get the idea that different prophecies are saying different things. For example, Isaiah 53 describes the Messiah suffering and dying. On the other hand, Isaiah 9:6-7 describes the Messiah ruling and reigning. How could He come and suffer, and how could He come and rule and reign at the same time?”

For whatever reason, Dr. Woods thinks that those two passages of Scriptures in Isaiah need to be “harmonized.” The answer to Dr. Woods’ question is quite simple. Christ’s suffering is a pre-requisite to Him ruling and reigning. He managed to accomplish the suffering and dying part over a 3 day weekend during His first advent. Dr. Woods is assuming that Christ has to come again to rule and reign and he is assuming that Christ’s second advent will be in two phases as well when he wrote:
"The only way to harmonize these passages is to conclude that there must be two comings of Christ. There must be one coming when He comes and dies to pay the penalty for the sins of the world and another coming of Jesus to rule and to reign. So we can conclude by studying the Old Testament that the coming of Christ takes place in phases. In essence, this same approach leads one to the teaching of the rapture. The New Testament describes the Second Coming of Christ in two different ways. Thus, the only conclusion we can come to is that the Second Coming of Jesus Christ will also take place in two phases."

The ruling and reigning part has already begun from the moment the suffering and dying part was accomplished. The Lord can just as effectively rule and reign from heaven as He can here on earth on earth. After all, He is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient and is capable of multi-tasking.

Dr. Woods’ second train of thought for a future two-phase coming of Christ is his proof-texting of sixteen scriptures that were sub-divided into two categories, the rapture and the second advent. Here are the four Scripture references he cited to support his notion of a first phase rapture: Jn. 14:1 – 4; 1Th. 1:8 – 10; 1Th. 4:15 – 18; Tit. 2:12 – 13.

And, here are the twelve Scripture references he cited to support his notion of a second phase second advent: Job 19:25; Is. 11:4; Zec. 14:4; Mt. 23:37 – 39; Mt. 24:31; Mt. 25:31 – 46; Ac. 1:9 – 12; 2Th. 1:7 – 8; 2Th. 2:8; Jude 14; Re. 1:7; Re. 19:14 – 15.

The only assertion Dr. Woods made without referencing a scripture was when he wrote in the fourth paragraph of part two: “By contrast (to the rapture), at the Second Advent of Christ there will not be an instantaneous resurrection.”

Dr. Woods is a Pre-Tribulational, Premillennial Dispensationalist and the cornerstone of his eschatology is the belief that the sequence of end time events will begin with the rapture of the Church, followed by a seven year tribulation, followed by the second coming of Christ with the Church followed by Christ’s millennial reign in Jerusalem. On the surface, Dr. Woods made a seemingly compelling argument by backing up most of his assertions with a Scripture reference. However, NONE of the Scriptures that he cited validate support the notion of the rapture being followed by a seven year tribulation, and then a thousand year reign of Christ here on earth.

The key thing to remember here is that Dr. Woods’ two-phase coming of Christ argument is only as strong as his Dispensational eschatology. If he cannot make an air tight argument in favor of a seven year tribulation period followed by Christ’s physical thousand year reign in Jerusalem, then his two-phase coming of Christ argument does not mean anything. Making an argument for just a two-phase coming alone will not cut it. What if Christ does return in two-phases with an exclusive rapture appearance for just the Church in the first phase, and a full appearance for everyone else in the second just as Dr. Woods asserted? But, the two-phases are only a few hours or a day a part as opposed to seven years apart? And, there is no anti-christ, Armageddon or rebuilt temple in Jerusalem? Then what?

Dr. Woods has taken a deductive approach to proving is case for a two-phase coming. It is quite obvious that he did not take into account the contexts the of the Scripture references that he cited. Take for example the three passages of Scripture he use from the Olivet discourse (Mt. 23:37 – 39; Mt. 24:31; Mt. 25:31 – 46;). If one were to read those three passages in a vacuum, one might be convinced that Jesus was talking about an event that will occur way off in the distant future. However, the two passages of Scripture that Dr. Woods conveniently did not cite were:
Mt. 23:36 I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.
Mt. 24:34 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

On two separate occasions during the Olivet discourse, Jesus emphasized that the audience whom he was talking to would see the events that he was talking about. He was not describing events that a generation 2,000 years into the future would see.

Dr. Woods used Rev. 1:7 to make the case for the Second Advent and how it will be visible to the entire world. Yet, he conveniently ignored the two Scriptures prior to verse 7 that read:
Re. 1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,
Re. 1:3 Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.

Do the phrases, “soon to take place,” and “time is near” sound like an event that will be taking place more than 2,000 years into the future?

Dr. Woods cited Acts 1:9 - 12 to support Christ’s second advent. Acts 1:9 reads: 1:9 “After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.” Acts 1:11 reads:
“Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”

Then, Dr. Woods goes on to cite Rev. 19:14 for the same reason and reads as follows: “The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean.”

If Acts 1:11 says that Jesus will come back “in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.” Then that begs a question. Is Acts 1:9 and Rev. 19:14 talking about the same event? Where in Acts 1:9 does it say anything about “armies of Heaven,” following Jesus while riding on “white horses” dressed in fine “white and clean” linen when Jesus taken up in a cloud?

Dr. Woods dedicated most of part three of his series defending the notion that an idea can still be Biblical from a conceptual standpoint even if the Bible does not convey the idea literally. The word, “rapture” falls into this kind of scenario. Even though the word, “rapture” is not mentioned in the Bible, the general idea of the rapture can be supported conceptually. Dr. Woods also use the concept of the Trinity to further illustrate his point. The word, “Trinity” also is not mentioned in the Bible, yet the idea can be supported conceptually.

I do not disagree with Dr. Woods’ assertion that an idea can be Biblical even if it is not literally articulated in the Bible as long as that idea can be supported conceptually. However, I challenge him to make a conceptual argument for a seven year tribulation. The Bible literally does not mention a seven year tribulation period, much less that the rapture will precede it. So where is the conceptual argument for that? I would like to read an article from Dr. Woods making the case for a seven year tribulation period. If Dr. Woods cannot make a Biblical case for a post rapture, seven year tribulation period, then its game over for his three articles on the rapture. Those three articles containing over 2,500 words would be nothing more than a meaningless red herring.

If Dr. Woods is really interested in refuting objections of those who have an issue with his brand of eschatology, I would suggest that he engage in a live formal debate with someone who holds a different eschatological view. This should not be a problem for one who (in addition to being a Pastor), is an Associate Professor at the College of Biblical Studies in Houston, Texas and has earned a BA, JD, ThM, and PhD. Ideas that are not worth defending are not worth believing and one cannot defend an idea with any credibility by erecting and knocking down a straw man.

My Response To Dr. Andy Woods

On January 12, 2012, Dr Andy Woods of Sugar Land Bible Church published an article on Bible Prophecy Blog entitled, “Israel-Church Differences.” He began his article by stating:
“One of the rules of basic Bible interpretation is to recognize that the church and Israel represent separate programs of God. They are two trains running on separate railroad tracks.”

Dr. Woods did not cite any specific source for this so called “rules of basic Bible interpretation.” He just declared it as if it were a fact. Since Dr. Woods used the train and tracks analogy to illustrate the Israel-Church distinction, here is how I would use that same analogy. There has been only one train from the start. After Christ’s finished work, we now have a longer train with additional cars, and a new and improved engine that is running on more tracks.

Dr. Woods’ goes on to support his “two trains running on separate railroad tracks” premise by citing twenty differences between the Church and Israel. Here is how he referenced his source on these twenty differences:
“Theologian and founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, Lewis Sperry Chafer, noted twenty-four differences between Israel and the church. [1] Here are a few.” (emphasis mine)

Dr. Woods’ footnote: [1] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 8 vols. (Dallas: Dallas Seminary, 1948; reprint, [8 vols. in 4], Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1993), 4:47-53.

The thing that aroused my curiosity over the twenty differences, is that Dr. Woods quantified them as just “a few” of Dr. Chafer’s twenty-four differences. To me, twenty out of twenty-four does not seem like “a few.” However, I realized why Dr. Woods might have written “a few” when I compared the twenty differences to Dr. Chafer’s original twenty-four. The twenty differences cited by Dr. Woods are about 45% of the size of Dr. Chafer’s twenty-four. The twenty differences cited by Dr. Woods were “a few” from a proportional standpoint in terms of total word volume as opposed to an item by item comparison.

Dr. Woods gave his readers the impression that the twenty differences that he cited were copied directly from Dr. Chafer’s twenty-four, and that those twenty differences were written by Dr. Chafer himself. Come to find out, Dr. Woods was the author of those twenty differences. Dr. Woods reduced and rewrote Dr. Chafer’s twenty-four differences and even mixed in a few original concepts of his own. I don’t fault Dr. Woods for doing this. However, I do fault Dr. Woods for not being more forthright with his readers and telling them that those were HIS twenty differences and that they were BASED ON Dr. Chafer’s twenty-four.

Dr. Woods’ twenty differences between the Church and Israel can be divided into different categories. The first category of differences is what I would consider to be improvement differences.
• Second, Israel gave birth to Christ (Rev 12:1-5) whereas Christ gave birth to the church (Matt 16:18).
• Fourth, king-subject imagery is used to depict God's relationship to Israel (Isa 33:22) while head and groom imagery is used to depict Christ's relationship with His church (Eph 5:22-33).
• Fifth, God's program through Israel began in Genesis 12, and His program through the church began in Acts 2 (Matt 16:18; 1 Cor 12:13; Acts 1:5; 11:15-16).
• Eighth, Israel is a nation (Ps 147:20). As such, she is always biblically portrayed as an independent nation with borders and a capital. Even today Israel is among the nations of the earth, just like Japan, Argentina, Canada, or any other country. By contrast, the church is not a nation (Rom 10:19) but rather is comprised of people from all nations (Gal 3:28; Eph 2:11-22; 3:6, 15). Rather than taking her seat among the nations of the earth, the church is a mere pilgrim in the world system (1 Pet 2:11).
• Ninth, while Israel fought physical wars with various enemies such as the Philistines, the church is engaged in spiritual warfare with angelic enemies (Eph 6:10-20).
• Tenth, the Scripture assigns numerous a quo and ad quem statements to Israel (Gen 15:13-16; Jer 25:11; 29:10; Ezek 4:5-7; Dan 9:24-27). These are timing statements with a specific beginning and ending point for each period. One searches the New Testament in vain to find comparable timing statements for the church.
• Eleventh, Israel had a priesthood with all her priests coming from the tribe of Levi and the line of Aaron. By contrast, the church does not have a priesthood because it is a priesthood (Rev 1:6). The New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers (1 Pet 2:5, 9). Every Church Age believer is a priest with direct access to God the Father through God the Son.
• Fourteenth, although the gates of the New Jerusalem are named after the twelve tribes (Rev 21:12), who were the foundations of Israel, the foundations of the eternal city are named after the twelve apostles (Rev 21:14) who are the foundations of the church (Eph 2:20).
• Fifteenth, people become members of the commonwealth of Israel through physical birth. By contrast, membership in the church is only attained by spiritual birth (John 3:1-9; Titus 3:5).
• Seventeenth, the Holy Spirit indwelt and filled Old Testament Jews selectively (Joel 2:28), temporarily (1 Sam 16:14; Ps 51:11), and subsequent to salvation to enable for a special purpose (Exod 31:3). By contrast, the Holy Spirit indwells all Church-Age believers (1 Cor 12:13) permanently (John 14:16) and at the point of salvation (Rom 8:9). Thus, the Spirit's work in and through Israel cannot be used as a pattern to depict the believer's normative experience with the Holy Spirit in the present age (John 7:37-39; 14:16-17; Acts 1:5).
As you can see, all of those differences marked notable improvements from the Israel era to the Church era. None of those differences validate the “two trains running on separate railroad tracks” theory. I can just as easily make the claim that they validate the improved and expanded train from one track to several tracks theory.

The second category of differences is what I would call the Scriptural Governance category:
• Sixth, while four-fifths of the Bible pertains to Israel, only one-fifth of it deals with the church.
• Sixteenth, Israel was directly governed by the Mosaic Law (Ps 147:19-20). By contrast, the controlling authority for the church is New Testament revelation. While all Scripture is for the church (2 Tim 3:16; Rom 15:4), only the New Testament's epistolary literature is directly about the church.
• Twentieth, while Israel's program is revealed in the Old Testament, the church's program was unknown in Old Testament times. Because the church is a New Testament mystery (Eph 3:3-6), or something previously hidden and now unveiled (Rom 16:25-26), Church Age doctrine comes exclusively from the New Testament (Matt 16:18; John 13‒17) rather than the Old Testament. Noting such differences should caution us against taking prophecies and promises that are specifically aimed at Israel and misapplying them to the present dispensation of the Church Age.
Dr. Woods acknowledged that the all Scripture (including the Old Testament) is for the Church. However, the New Testament as we know of today was not formulated and recognized as an official part of the cannon until 325 A. D. So, from the day of Pentecost in 33 A. D. until the Council of Nicaea in 325 A. D. (about 292 years), the only official Scripture that the Church had was the Old Testament. When Paul wrote 2 Tim 3:16 and Rom 15:4, he was speaking specifically about the Old Testament because the New Testament did not exist at that time. Dr. Woods seems to think that OT prophecies and promises do not apply to the Church. What about Acts 2:14 -21 where Peter credits the events on the Day of Pentecost as being a fulfillment of Joel 28-32?

The third category of differences that I consider to be ad hominem differences:
• Third, Christ will return to rescue Israel upon her national conversion at the end of the Tribulation period (Matt 23:37-39). Conversely, He will return to rescue the church at the rapture (John 14:1-3).
• Twelfth, while Israel will be resurrected at the beginning of the millennial kingdom (Dan 12:2; John 11:23-24; Rev 20:4-5), Church-Age believers receive their resurrected bodies at the point of the rapture (1 Thess 4:13-18; 1 Cor 15:50-58).
• Thirteenth, Israel's judgment will take place on earth, at the end of the Tribulation period, in the wilderness (Ezek 20:33-44). By contrast, the only judgment the New Testament reveals for the church is the Bema Seat judgment of rewards in heaven following the rapture (Rom 14:10; 1 Cor 3:10-15; 2 Cor 5:10).
In order to accept these set of differences as being factual and true, you would first have to buy into the pre-tribulational/premillennial eschatological system and accept it as being factual and true. As Christians, we can all agree that Jesus will come again, and there are Scriptures that support this notion. However, going beyond that and predicting a sequence of events that will transpire before the Lord’s return is a matter of interpretation and speculation. So, that makes these differences a matter of speculation as well.

The fourth category of differences are the miscellaneous, what’s that got to do with anything differences:
• Seventh, although Israel was a direct party to the biblical covenants (Jer 31:31-32), the church was not a party to these covenants since the church was not yet in existence when these covenants were made. The church's relationship to these covenants can best be described as one of a third-party beneficiary rather than a direct party to them. Therefore, the church benefits from the covenants as opposed to being a direct party to them.
• Eighteenth, while Christ's farewell address to Israel (Matt 24:15; 20) is recorded in the Olivet Discourse (Matt 24‒25), His farewell address to the church (John 16:12-13) is found in the Upper Room Discourse (John 13‒17).
• Nineteenth, although Israel is referred to as God's first-born son (Exod 4:22), the church is never given this same designation or title.
Whether or not these differences are factual and true is irrelevant. The fact is, none of them make the case for Israel and the Church being “two trains running on separate railroad tracks” just as all the other differences don’t.

The fifth category of differences is the non-difference, difference:
• First, Israel is the wife of Jehovah (Isa 54) while the church is the bride of Christ (Eph 5:22-33).
If anything, this phase illustrates what Israel and the Church have in common. What is the difference between a wife and a bride? What is the difference between Jehovah and Christ? Isn’t Christ a manifestation of Jehovah?

Whether it’s Dr. Woods’ twenty differences or Dr. Chafer’s twenty-four, these differences in and of themselves do not make the case that Israel and the Church are “two trains running on separate railroad tracks.” The differences written by Dr. Woods and Chafer are nothing more than a bunch of dispensational red-herrings. So, do not buy into this smoke and mirrors trick.

I am glad there are differences between Israel and the Church and the two do not have to be “two trains running on separate railroad tracks” in order for these differences to exist. Here is one big OBVIOUS difference between Israel and the Church that neither Dr. Woods or Chafer cited: Israel needed to sacrifice and shed the innocent blood of animals on an ongoing basis in order to achieve atonement for their sins; The Church has the gift of the ultimate and final sacrifice of Jesus and His shed blood that has atoned for our sins forever. The gift is available to anyone (including the Jews) who wants to receive it.

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?

How Many Times Have You Voted?

Every so often when an election is held, I will go to an early voting location in order to avoid the rush and hassle of voting on the actual election day. These early voting locations combine several precincts into one location and they too can have some heavy voter traffic as well. While standing in line waiting, I would hear an election clerk sing out, “First time voter! First time voter!” anytime a time a first time voter came up to check in with the election clerk. Then, most of the people standing in line would applaud upon hearing this announcement. This happened on about four or five occasions while I was waiting in line. After hearing these goofy first time voter announcements for the second or third time, I began to ask myself, what’s the big deal about being a first time voter? The ones who have voted on multiple occasions are the ones who are making our democracy work, not the first timers. What about the 25th, 50th, 75th and 100th time voters? Why aren’t they get any props and recognition.

As I began to ponder this situation further, I realized that it is fairly easy for election clerks to spot a first time voter whereas it would be impossible for them to know the voting history of one who has voted on multiple occasions. That prompted me to wonder how many times I have voted. So I called my county election office and asked. Unfortunately, they did not start keeping records on a voter’s individual history until 1994. So they emailed me a copy of my voting history as far back as 1994 and it was up to me to reconstruct my voting history prior to 1994. So according to my best estimate from the time I became of voting age to the date of this article, I have voted 58 times.

ARTICLE REVIEW: A Response To Andy Woods

Introduction

Dr. Andy Woods is an Associate Professor at the College of Biblical Studies in Houston, Texas. He holds a BA from Univ. of Redlands, a J D from Whittier Law School, and a ThM, and PhD from Dallas Theological Seminary. In the Spring of 2008, Dr. Woods published a 12,300 word article with 134 footnotes and a bibliography with 62 listings and 8 tables or illustrations in the Chafer Theological Seminary Journal (No. 13, 2-26) entitled, “A Case For The Futurist Interpretation of the Book of Revelation.” Dr. Woods subscribes to the premillennial/dispensational point of view on eschatology. For the Premillennialist, the futurist interpretation on the scriptures they use to construct their position is everything. They have nothing to hang their eschatology on if they can’t sell the futurist interpretation angle.

A Case For Futurism Or Against Preterism?

Given Dr. Woods position in the Christian academic community, it makes perfect sense that he would write a piece in defense of his position. However, Dr. Woods defends his position by repudiating his eschatological opponents who are identified as preterist. I think the title of Dr. Woods’ paper, is misleading. A more appropriate title would have been, “A Case Against The Preterist Interpretation of the Book of Revelation.” Most of Dr. Woods’ paper is devoted to refuting preterism as opposed to making a case for futurism. He mentions preterist, preterists or preterism 75 times and futurist, futurists, futuristic, or futurism just 21 times. Also, in the body of his work, Dr. Woods mentioned his preterist opponents by name 25 times and he only mentioned his futurist colleagues by name 5 times.

Dr. Woods’ identified five of his preterist opponents in his opening footnote. Of those five, he cited the works of three of them 53 times in subsequent footnotes. The three that were cited were: Dr. David Chilton, Hank Hanegraaff and Dr. Kenneth Gentry. Of those three, Dr. Gentry was cited the most with 39 footnoted references. Dr. Woods mentioned Dr. Gentry by name 22 times throughout the body of his work where the other two were mentioned a combined total of 3 times. Being that Dr. Gentry was the foremost singled out preterist, it is quite obvious who Dr. Woods had in his cross-hairs when he wrote this paper. Evidently, Dr. Woods would prefer to grind his axe with the preterists as opposed to making a case for his futurist position.

For whatever reason, the scope of Dr. Woods’ paper is limited to the Book of Revelation, even though the whole futurist/preterist debate covers other prophetic Scriptures like the Olivet discourse in Matthew 24 for example. Being that Dr. Woods was so eager to refute preterism, he could have addressed Matthew 24:34 where Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.” This verse is one of the main defenses for the preterists. They believe that, “this generation” means those whom Jesus was addressing at that time he gave the discourse and not some generation way off in the distant future. If Dr. Woods really wanted to debunk preterism, he could have given his readers the futurist position of “this generation.”

Who Is Dr. Woods’ Audience?

Another enigma about Dr. Woods’ paper is his audience. To whom was Dr. Woods trying to make his case to? This article was originally published in a journal where most (if not all) of those who actually read it already subscribe to premillennial/dispensational eschatology and the futurist interpretation. If you go online to Chafer Theological Seminary’s web site, you will find that their official eschatological position is pre-tribulational/premillennial. Furthermore, most of the average rank and file Evangelical Christians in general already subscribe to his view on eschatology.

Dr. Gentry himself was not even aware that Dr. Woods wrote this paper until October of 2011 (1) Why was Dr. Gentry not afforded a fair opportunity to respond to Dr. Woods’ critique at the time this paper was published? How much of an effort did Dr. Woods make in presenting his work to an audience who does not agree with his position? Or, at the very least, to those who might be on the eschatological fence? What is the point in preparing a lengthy and annotated paper if you are just going to preach to the choir?

1. On October 22, 2011, I emailed Dr. Woods’ paper in pdf to Dr. Gentry.

Dispensationalism’s Short History

Dr. Woods began his paper with this sentence:
While previous generations of dispensational interpreters may have enjoyed the luxury of the widespread assumption that the Book of Revelation primarily concerns future events, such a “golden age” has now come to an end.

How many previous generations of dispensationalist does Dr. Woods think there are? Gary DeMar wrote the following concerning dispensationalism’s short history:
Everybody prior to around 1830 was a non-dispensationalist, so I don’t see why being a “non-dispensationalist” today carries with it such negative connotations. Furthermore, until the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909, there was no agreed upon dispensational system among even a minority of Christians. (2) It’s rather surprising that notes written by one man who had no real theological training would end up creating a brand new prophetic movement wherein the notes more often than not supplant the text of Scripture. (3)

When considering almost 2,000 years of church history, 181 years is not all that much of a time frame for any kind of theological system. How did the Church survive almost 1,800 years without the wisdom and insight of the premillennial dispensationalist? Did all the believers living before 1830 have skewed theologies because they did not interpret the Scripture they way they do?

2. Dispensationalists like to claim that the mere use of the word “dispensation” makes someone a dispensationalist. This is hardly
the case. See Ronald M. Henzel, Darby, Dualism, and the Decline of Dispensationalism: Reassessing the Nineteenth-Century Roots of a Twentieth-Century Prophetic Movement for the Twenty-First Century (Tucson: Fenestra Books, 2003), 25–29. (This footnote was originally referenced by Gary DeMar.)
3. 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), 3.

Dr. David Chilton & Preterism

Dr. Woods correctly defines the term “preterists” for his readers. Unlike a futurist who believes a prophetic Scripture is yet to be fulfilled, a preterist believes a prophetic Scripture has already been fulfilled. To Dr. Woods’ credit, he did make the distinction between a full preterist and a partial preterist. (The problem with the full preterists is that they don’t believe in the upcoming 2nd advent of Christ as stipulated in the orthodox creeds.) In the third paragraph of page 6, Dr. Woods wrote this:
the designations “partial preterist” and “full preterist” are misnomers. Rather, partial preterists should be labeled “inconsistent preterists” while full preterists should be referred to as “consistent preterists.” This inconsistency is evident even to some partial preterists, such as David Chilton, who abandoned his partial preterist system in favor of full preterism.

It is true that Dr. David Chilton changed from partial to full or hyper preterism, none of his colleagues that I know of have ever denied that. But, here are some facts about Dr. Chilton that Dr. Woods conveniently left out of his paper as he unfairly characterized Dr. Chilton’s change to full preterism: (4)
• Dr. Chilton died in 1997, which means that he had been dead for more than ten years at the time Dr. Woods published his paper;
• Dr. Chilton changed to full preterism AFTER he suffered a massive heart-attack in 1994 that left him in a coma for six weeks where he was brain dead for a portion of that time;
• Dr. Chilton miraculously recovered from his coma blind and with a total loss of his memory.

I certainly don’t condone or excuse heresy and straying from the orthodox tenants of the faith. However, I do think that the circumstances surrounding Dr. Chilton’s health in the last three years of his life are a legitimate reason to afford him a little bit of latitude. Before Dr. Chilton changed his position on preterism, he first had to re-learn what preterism was. At the time Dr. Chilton changed is position, he was not even half of what he was before his heart-attack. If one of Dr. Woods’ colleagues were to suffer the same misfortune as Dr. Chilton, and then stray off the reservation, I would imagine that Dr. Woods would want his opponents to take those mitigating circumstances into consideration before passing judgment.

If a formerly brain dead guy who was ailing for three years before he died is the best example of a partial to full preterist that Dr. Woods can come up with to illustrate his point, then I would say that his point is quite weak. Apparently there are not very many partial to full preterist converts available for Dr. Woods to use as an example. In the end, the premillennial dispensationalist are also partial preterist to a small extent. I have never heard any of them try to recycle Isaiah 53 or any other prophecy about the coming of the Messiah.

4. Here my internet sources that I used for documenting Dr. Chilton’s declining health before he died:
http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=2378; http://vftonline.org/xmaspiracy/1/northvschilton.htm and Wikipedia.

The Temple

Being that I support the statehood of modern day Israel, I suppose that would make me a Zionist sympathizer. However, the premillennial dispensationalist go way beyond that. Just as there are distinctions between partial and full preterism, I make the distinction between partial and full Zionism. For example, the premillenialists support modern day Israel and their retaking of the temple mount so they can build a 3rd temple. Remember the 1st temple that was built by King Solomon was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 B. C. Then, the 2nd temple was built in 515 B.C. only to be destroyed by the Romans in 70. A. D. So, the Jews have been without a temple for over 1,900 some odd years. Even though the Jews have maintained their religion, culture and identity over the centuries, they have not been able to fully practice their religion because they are without a temple.

The building of a 3rd temple on the temple mount in Jerusalem is a big part of premillennial eschatology. Dr. Woods devotes a segment of his paper repudiating the idea of the temple referred to in Revelation 11 as being the 2nd temple as the preterist argue, but rather, a future 3rd temple. I think this is where Dr. Woods’ zeal to repudiate his preterist opponents (mainly Dr. Gentry) got the best of him. He was so pre-occupied with disproving his opponents case that he failed to prove his own. There is a dispute among the futurist and preterist as to when the Book of Revelation was written. The preterist contend that it was written prior to 70 A.D., while the futurists contend that it was written sometime in the 90s. Even if the futurists can conclusively prove that the Book of Revelation was written on their time table, they cannot provide a verse in the Book of Revelation or in the New Testament for that matter where it explicitly states that a 3rd temple will be built.

It is possible for one to make a theological argument stick without having a Scripture verse that explicitly supports it, as long as you can support your argument from a conceptual standpoint. Take the Trinity for example. The word “Trinity is not in the Bible. There are no verses in the Bible that explicitly says there is a Trinity. However, there are many Scriptures that support the concept of the Trinity. Therefore we orthodox Christians accept the Trinity as a part of our theology. The reason the futurist argument concerning the construction of a 3rd falls completely apart is because there is no Biblical support for it from a conceptual or literally explicit standpoint. Here are just four Old Testament verses that explicitly supported the rebuilding of 2nd post-exilic temple:
2 Chron. 36: 23: 23. “This is what Cyrus king of Persia says: “`The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. Anyone of his people among you — may the LORD his God be with him, and let him go up.’“
Ezra 6: 3: 3. In the first year of King Cyrus, the king issued a decree concerning the temple of God in Jerusalem: Let the temple be rebuilt as a place to present sacrifices, and let its foundations be laid. It is to be ninety feet high and ninety feet wide,….
Ezra 6: 7–8: 7. Do not interfere with the work on this temple of God. Let the governor of the Jews and the Jewish elders rebuild this house of God on its site. 8. Moreover, I hereby decree what you are to do for these elders of the Jews in the construction of this house of God:
Ezra 6: 14–15: 14. So the elders of the Jews continued to build and prosper under the preaching of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah, a descendant of Iddo. They finished building the temple according to the command of the God of Israel and the decrees of Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes, kings of Persia. 15. The temple was completed on the third day of the month Adar, in the sixth year of the reign of King Darius.

If the construction of a 3rd temple is as legitimate of a concept as the premillennialist would have us believe, why are they not able to produce any explicit Scriptures on it when it can be done on the 2nd temple? The preterists on the other hand, have at least one Scripture that I know of that would support literally or explicitly support their case in Matthew 24:34. However, there are a lot of New Testament Scriptures available to make the conceptual argument as to why there is no need for a 3rd temple. Here are just five of them:
Matt. 21: 42: Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: “`The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; [Or cornerstone] the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes’? [Psalm 118:22,23]
Matt. 24: 1–2: 1. Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2. “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; everyone will be thrown down.”
John 2: 19–21: 19. Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” 20. The Jews replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21. But the temple he had spoken of was his body.
Eph. 2: 20-21: 20. built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.
Rev. 21: 22: I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.

Animal Sacrifices

Another thing Dr. Woods totally ignored concerning the temple is the purpose for having the temple in the first place. Under the Old Testament Mosaic code, the temple was established in order to facilitate a provisional animal sacrificial system for the remission of sins. Given that fact, I pose this question: If Jesus’ work on the cross made him the ultimate and final sacrifice for our sins and has rendered the Old Testament sacrificial system obsolete, what exactly would we be using this 3rd temple for?

To the orthodox Jews, re-building the temple and re-instituting the animal sacrificial rites is one in the same thing. The orthodox Jews do not take the Gospels as gospel as we Christians do. The Jews did not stop sacrificing animals sometime in the late 60s of the first century because of Jesus’ finished work on the cross. They stopped sacrificing because they were ran out of Jerusalem and the Romans demolished the temple in 70 A.D.

When I talk about eschatology with my premillennial brothers and sisters, one question that I always ask is, “How far do you want to go with the Zionist cause?” Most of them will not go so far to support the concept of reinstating the sacrificing of animals. Some of them have said that there just needs to be a temple because Jesus needs a place to reign from and be worshipped. For those who are pro-temple, but anti sacrificing, I would call them partial Zionist. For those who are pro-temple and pro-sacrificing, I would call them full Zionist.

Now that I have established the difference between a partial and full Zionist, I would like to know how far does Dr. Woods want to go with the Zionist cause? Is he a partial or full Zionist? Are the premillennial dispensationalist and the orthodox Jews on the same page on the issue of re-building the temple? Is Dr. Woods and his premillennial colleagues okay with the continuance of an obsolete sacrificial system that orthodox Christians do not observe? Here are just five New Testament verses that explicitly supported the concept of Jesus being the ultimate and final sacrifice and therefore rendering the old sacrificial system obsolete:
John 1: 29: The next day John saw Jesus coming towards him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
Ro. 3: 24-25: 24. and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished —
1Co. 5: 7: Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast — as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.
He. 7: 27: Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.
1Jn. 2: 2: He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

Why would Dr. Woods want to be associated with any kind of theology that enables or condones an obsolete sacrificial system? In the first paragraph of page 7, Dr. Woods wrote this:
….. “in order for partial preterists to be consistent, they also must believe that the Second Advent and final judgment have already taken place. Such a belief is at odds with the great ecumenical church creeds, which teach a future bodily appearing of Christ. Denying the Second Advent takes one outside the pale of orthodoxy and into the camp of heterodoxy or heresy. Thus, the partial preterist understanding of Revelation’s timing texts flirts dangerously with unorthodoxy.”

Now, if Dr. Woods want to play the, “flirts dangerously with unorthodoxy” card, fine. But remember, two can play that game. Let’s take Dr. Woods quote and replace partial and full preterist and its related concepts with partial and full Zionist and its related concepts and see how it reads:
….. “in order for partial Zionist to be consistent, they also must believe that the sacrificing of animals under the Mosaic Las needs to take place. Such a belief is at odds with the great ecumenical church creeds, which teach that Christ is the ultimate and final sacrifice. Denying Christ as the final and ultimate sacrifice takes one outside the pale of orthodoxy and into the camp of heterodoxy or heresy. Thus, the partial Zionist understanding of Biblical texts concerning the temple flirts dangerously with unorthodoxy.”

Conclusion

My review of Dr. Woods’ paper, was not intended to give a point by point rebuttal to everything that was critical of Dr. Gentry’s positions or preterists in general. I will leave it to Dr. Gentry and the preterists to fight their own battles if they so choose. However, if I were Dr. Woods’ Professor, and he turned this paper in to me for a grade, I would have given him a failing grade, simply because he failed to make his case for futurism. Dr. Woods reminds me of the negative campaigning politician who would rather run down his opponent as opposed to telling the voters why they should vote for him.

It’s unfortunate that Dr. Woods had a fixation for refuting preterism as opposed to making a case for futurism. Premillenial dispensationalism has a lot of inconsistencies of its own that need addressing. Had Dr. Woods stayed on point, perhaps he could have explained how a futurist interpretation helped the premillennial dispensationalist arrive at the conclusion that that there will be a rapture followed by a 7 year tribulation period. And, that the antichrist will make a covenant with the Jews and then break that same covenant later. I for one would like to know where those texts are found and interpreted in the Book of Revelation.

I don’t have a problem with Dr. Woods writing a paper refuting preterism per se. However, if he chooses to take that path, then he needs to state that in his premise in the beginning and then go from there. Of course, if Dr. Woods really wants to refute preterism, I would suggest that he debate a preterist in a formal debate setting in front of his students. What would be a better way for him to educate his students?

Post Log

On November 14, 2011, Dr. Gentry sent me an email stating the following:
Good work! Thanks for keeping me posted. Due to my ridiculous time constraints, along with the relative obscurity of the paper to which you respond, I won't be able to give time to rebutting it. But I am thankful you have done a nice job on it.

.