Pretrib teacher Dr. Doug Stauffer was recently interviewed on View from the Bunker with host Derek Gilbert. His argumentation was deeply flawed and simply bad. Not to mention that—not surprisingly—he grossly misrepresents the prewrath position. Either Mr. Stauffer has not read primary prewrath literature, is incompetent, or being dishonest.
He claims the prewrath position is “the most indefensible.” Mr. Stauffer, I challenge you to defend your claim in a public moderated debate. If as you claim that prewrath is the “most indefensible” then surely it should be easy for you to refute my prewrath position in a debate, yes?
Actions are louder than words.
Conveniently, these pretrib teachers are so confident behind microphones and keyboards, but they refuse to defend their pretribulationism in a public moderated debate with a prewrather. That speaks volumes.
Meaningful interaction is a good thing and it is beneficial for God’s people, holding Christians accountable for their theological claims. It is glorifying to God.
In a prewrath vs pretrib debate, the audience would benefit from actual dialogues and not just monologues, since it often brings out more substantive discussions than behind a keyboard.
Debates are a God-glorifying medium of interaction for truth-lovers. Meaningful interaction is a good thing, holding Christians accountable for their errors and traditions.
“The first to state his case seems right, until his opponent begins to cross–examine him.” (Proverbs 18:17)