In Part 2, I first addressed his misunderstanding of the structure of Matthew 24 explaining that vv. 9–14 is developed in vv. 15–31. In other words, vv. 9–14 does not describe what will happen during the first half of the seven year period, but what will begin to happen starting at the midpoint. Then I briefly responded to his presupposition that the Olivet Discourse is only for Jews, not the church.
Next, I responded to his pre-trib assertion that Daniel 9:24–27 teaches that the church cannot enter into the 70th week of Daniel. This is a very common pretribulational presupposition, so I spent some time on this point. I explained that God will work with both Jews and the church during the seven year period. I also gave a brief comment about his interpretation of “Jacob’s Trouble.” Mr. Reagan’s classical dispensationalism does not allow him to see the biblical data for what it is. His theological system is biased against the natural reading of Scripture.
Next, I corrected his characterization of prewrath thinking that we believe that the great tribulation is some sort of “purgatory” where believers must be somehow 100% sinless before they can meet Jesus. This is completely false. I explained that one of God’s purposes for eschatological persecution is to refine the faith of believers, sanctifying them so they can become faithful overcomers during this awful time of the Antichrist’s great tribulation.
Finally, I refuted Mr. Reagan’s assertion that the seals are God’s wrath. He did not provide any reasons for this except to cite Revelation 6:16–17. I demonstrated that this is a gross misreading of this text and in fact the narrative depicts just the opposite, that the wicked are expecting God’s wrath, not looking back on it.
Mr. Reagan’s so-called critique of prewrath is surface-level, riddled with baseless assertions. Next week I will finish up with my critique of Mr. Reagan’s pretribulational article.
Links mentioned in the program: