Comments

What a horrible shame. I hope this doesn't signal a move within the broader evangelical community back towards a fundamentalism that is incapable of dealing with the reality of the scriptures God gave us.

Enns I&I has been a literal “God send” for many of us Evangelicals struggling with the implications of scriptural hermeneutics. His Incarnational analogy is as fruitful as it is simple. In many ways I believe it is calling us back to an orthodox view of scripture, an approach that acknowledges scriptures’ divinity & its humanity, an approach somewhat at odds with Evangelicalism sometimes Docetic view.

More likely it signals a move by WTS away from evangelicalism and back to it's more "militantly reform" inception.

Wow! I finally find an evangelical book that is intellectually honest, that I can comfortably use in my classes and he is suspended. That's beyond understanding. My questions to the board: 1. Have they actually read the book? 2. Are they in any way qualified to read a book with serious theological and biblical content?

I'm wondering if this would be case for which Dr. Duane Litfin's excellent 2004 book, Conceiving the Christian College, might shed some light. I confess I am only marginally aware of all the issues surrounding this case. Dr. Litfin states that the only way institutions like Westminster can stay true to their founding principles, they must employ a voluntary principle. If Dr. Enns finds himself out of step with Westminster's statement of beliefs, perhaps it is time to separate ways.

Is GK Beale's treatment really published? What a shame. He should have the sense to know that he cannot interact with the material that Enns is working with. He simply cannot and has not read the ancient Near Eastern literature. He does not read Akkadian or Sumerian, nor does he even understand the script. It is not lamentable that he cannot read the primary sources (after all, not everyone is NELC trained), but that he's too dishonest to state upfront: "I cannot read the data that he's commenting. Thus, my arguments will be superficial and rely on secondary literature." G.K. Beale is a smart man, but even smart men act like ignorant fundamentalists when they try to interact with trained Near Eastern scholars.

To be fair, he does list some truly competant Near Eastern scholars, but none have training at a critical institution in both Biblical Studies.

This made me go out and but Dr. Enns' book. This does not reflect poorly on Enns, but on Westminster. What are they so afraid of? Are they afraid that the truth cannot withstand a challenge, even such a moderate one as Enns' book seem to pose?

Although I haven't raed professor Enns book,If it is in any way connected to the heresy of the emergent cult movement spreading like a cancer throughout the faith, I say praise God for the leadership at the seminary.I was going to attend Fuller seminary when I read a reprot indicating they would be taking this approach to the Holy scriptures. For those who are uncomfortable with the convicting nature of the message of the cross and Gospel,I would say praise God! it's doing just what it should. If your not happy with the message find a God who will allow you to pull him off the thrown at the right hand of the father and be your Homie.

Admittedly, I don't know all the details, but evangelical leadership across the board seems to be getting fidgety and fearful over small differences of viewpoint. Decision are more and more based, not in faith, but in fear.

Heh, heh, heh...sounds like the ol' Catholics vs. the Lutheranians, only without emphasis on the Bible. You just wait another 350-500 years ... we will be surprised to see the Enns Church of Faith Community, Founder: Peter Enns. Imprimater: Jack White and the Westminster Seminary Board.
Blessings,
GMMelby, Pastor

If this guy is teaching heresy, could expelling him be considered unloving? We need to pay much closer attention to the truth and less to our evangellifish feelings.

I read this book some months ago. It was interesting and thought provoking. Some of it I agreed with, some not and as to some the jury is still out. I found nothing in it which was heretical or so misguided that it would warrant censure or reprimand. Apparently the pc thought police are at work in theological circles as well. Certain ideas may not be uttered. Since it is clear that Enns has a strong faith in Christ and a right view of him, this kind of knee jerk reaction is simply wrong. One wonders whether the members who voted to suspend Enns actually read his book or whether they just relied on what they may have been told about it.

Thank you, Ted Olson, for this excellent,terse report with links to the varied evaluations of the writing of Enns. The valuable links establish that, far from this being simply an intra-WTS matter(as some pundits are urging), there exists a growing polarization of opinion across evangelicalism as to what a belief in biblical inspiration entails. If there once was a consensus that belief in inspiration presupposed or entailed a certain commitment to maintaining the integrity of Scripture, this consensus now no longer exists. WTS' action suggests that it means to continue its past,very public allegiance to this important principle of Scripture's integrity.

As a first year student at Westminster this issue has taken up a considerable amount of time and energy for both myself as well as many others on campus. A common theme on campus has been the need to ask for God's guidance as well as forgiveness. Please join with myself and many others in prayer for the faculty members, their spouses and children, current students especially those in the PhD program, and the preservation of what has been a long history of cutting edge biblical studies grounded in a rich reformed heritage.

WTS was well within its rights. Just as Enns was to express his viewpoint, WTS was free to take issue with it and dismiss him. Academic freedom means being willing to accept the consequences of its exercise.

Those who embrace the Alexandrian text will be infected by Alexandrian mysticism. Return to the faith of your fathers, embrace the Received Text and the "fundamentalism" that leads to the Cross and not to this cesspool of confusion called "evangelicalism" and "emergent christianity". This article and the comments are nothing but Laodicea in full bloom.

While I don't begrudge Westminster the right to select its own faculty, this news saddens me considerably. Peter Enns did a great service to evangelicals and other conservative Christians by publishing Inspiration and Incarnation, as I opined in my review of I&I for Restoration Quarterly 48.2 (2006). I would have taken certain issues farther than Enns did (but then, I do not think of myself as an evangelical), but I was greatly encouraged by Enns's ability to combine a high view of scripture with critical honesty. I confess that my opinion of Westminster has gone down a notch as a result of this action.

Andrew: You stated, "If this guy is teaching heresy, could expelling him be considered unloving? We need to pay much closer attention to the truth and less to our evangellifish feelings."

The big problem is your first "if." The faculty voted that Peter Enns was not teaching heresy. Perhaps you should pay more attention to the facts and less to your own feelings which are not based on knowledge of the situation at hand.

I am amazed at the comments that are made on this site about this issue. Some people feel free to weigh in with very little background. I can just say that this is another example of the tensions that are going on in evangalicalism and the culture as well.

Kudos to the WTS board and their resolve to preserve the theological integrity of the school. Surely the command to contend earnestly for the faith means something, and they are right to act accordingly. Pete may be very sincere, but his views are mistaken, and, worse, they begin a dangerous path. Of course in a move like this the board will be criticized. Somehow today any stand for truth is smeared as fundamentalist extremism. Well, again, the command to contend for the faith lays a certain demand on us, and the WTS board should be congratulated for acting accordingly. They have not only made a move to keep the school in Machen's path; they have done what is right. I do pray that they will be emboldened to stay the course.

I am shocked at this decision. I thought WTS was heading in the right direction. Here is my thoughts on the matter...

http://cdero.wordpress.com/2008/03/29/bible-monopoly/

It is important to keep in mind that the only vote regarding Peter Enns's orthodoxy was the December vote of the faculty, who voted in favor of Enns by a 12-8 vote.

The decision of the board, as read in their public statement, was based on the disunity of the faculty.

It should be clarified, kept in mind, and shouted from the rooftops that the Board's decision is not to be equated with confirming Dr. Enns's heterodoxy. Their decision was based on disunity, not on whether or not Dr. Enns is to be considered within the bounds of the Westminster Confession of Faith.

As stated in the Board's document, the IPC will present a report in May concerning "the appropriate process for the Board to consider whether Professor Enns should be terminated from his employment at the Seminary."

As of this moment in history, the Board has not "officially" said anything regarding the work of Peter Enns. They have only made a decision based on faculty disunity.

Art, thanks for the helpful clarification, but as a former WTS student, I must wonder how the board decision will result in faculty unity. Spurned majorities are not normally known to become placid so easily.

I used Enns's book in a course on OT that I taught at an evangelical Christian college a year ago and the students found it refreshing and immensely helpful. I didn't agree with everything in it, but what book is there that one agrees with completely? However, there is absolutely nothing in the book that in heterodox. The book actually strengthened my faith in the authority of Scripture and the wisdom of God.

I find it amazing that several of the posts which are questionable of enns or use words like "teaching heresy" also admit to having never read his book, or know anything about the issues. Read the book before making mild implications to "the emergent church" "evangellifish" and "heresy." To do otherwise is a sin of gossip.

I'm neither a member of WTS's denomination nor an evangelical, so I realize that this issue is ultimately a matter for those communities to decide. As a biblical studies grad student at a major program (sorry for the cowardly pseudonym), though, I have seen several brilliant colleagues and friends take positions at conservative institutions such as WTS. They take, and seek, such jobs (when, frankly, many could have attained jobs at better institutions) largely because of a desire to serve their churches and their communities, yet these schools reserve the right to fire them at any time (and whatever else a statement of faith is, it also is a "we can fire you for any reason at any time" statement as well - and I have seen one colleague come out on the wrong side of this already). It's hard for me not to think that schools like WTS take advantage of young professors' pious motives here. I in no way want to suggest that WTS admin hires cynically, but these kinds of institutions surely enjoy the fruits of the prestige that well-trained and -published faculty bring them. It's clear that WTS doesn't want certain kinds of faculty -- accordingly, I think that an institution that behaves like this deserves precisely the kind of uncurious, indoctrinated, and non-innovative faculty they want.

This is a real shame as Enns' book is one of the most honest attempts to both enhance our respect for the inspired text of Scripture as well as grapple with the genuine realities about the Scripture, to which so many have proverbially "buried their heads in the sand."

It is one thing to disagree with particulars of Enns points and engage in respectful controversy over those matters. It is another to take this action. The lack of academic freedom to pursue questions with integrity; to open up all possibilities and solutions; is an absolute blow to the pursuit of truth. This is a disastrous decision for Christian academia, in my view, and certainly exposes Westminster (or those who put pressure on the school to take this action) as a rather closed-minded, reactionary lot.

Larry,
And others. I have read the book.
1. It has nothing to do with what you call the "emergent church cult." (Whether the emergent church movement is a cult is another question, but Enns' book has nothing to do with it.)
2. The book is not heretical. Enns defends the authority of scripture. He is trying to deal with the historical reality of scripture.
3. I would also say, one does not have to be an expert in ANE literature and languages to appreciate and read Inspiration and Incarnation. There are reliable translations of the relevant texts; primarily the 3-volume "Context of Scripture".

One does not need to be able to read the Akkadian script in order to appreciate Akkadian literature; in the same way that you don't have to read cursiva romana to understand and appreciate Virgil and Cicero.

I do think it is essential that we have scholars in our seminaries who are trained in ANE literature and languages. Professor Enns is dealing with issues that are real and are not going away.

Dr. Enn’s book is only getting much needed, and entirely unwarranted, advertising through all the hubbub. It is a shame that such sloppy thinkers tend to dominate discussions, create controversy due to their incoherence, and leave us in the end un-edified. Arguments, such as Bryan's, March 28, 2008, totally beg the question, since expertise in ANE languages is not a prerequisite for evaluating a scholar's views on scripture. The real issue here is simply the need for honesty from those that no longer hold to a full inerrancy position. Indeed, Dr. Enns’ departure from what many of us would call an orthodox view of scripture and inerrancy occurred over twenty years ago, and all the noise is only the rumble of his troubled wake as he belatedly departs from WTS for the more historical-critical-friendly shores that abound. Indeed, Dr. Enns sadly seems to be a “fall guy,” since the rest of the OT department might be hard-pressed to claim any greater restraint on their historical-critical hermeneutics, since they all follow and emulate the deceased Raymond Dillard whose motto was “Plundering the [historical-critical] Egyptians.” Imagine a seminary professor (esp. WTS) so butchering (i.e., spiritualizing) an OT text to rationalize his employment of historical-critical methods! As Eta Linneman replied to him once on this point, “For shame, for shame . . . remember what the Israelites made of the plunder!”

I read the book (a while back) and some of the reviews (including that of G. Beale). It was clear to me (it is not fresh in my mind) at that time that Enns writes as a believer in Christ who is struggling with some of the most difficult passages from the Bible (including Genesis 1-11). He did raise some questions and interpretations that would certainly make uncomfortable certain evangelicals (including me).

However- I got the feeling that his writing did not intend to present a final position on these texts - but rather to start a conversation WITHIN the evangelical community. The intention was very good - as most of the people in ministry know that the questions about Genesis are some of the most difficult to answer when people from the congregation have the guts and honesty to pose them. I appreciate his book a lot - though (of course) I do not agree with everything.

As far as his suspension goes - I agree with one of the writers above: he should suspend himself if he finds himself out of step with Westminster's statement of beliefs.

Of course - his suspension will not answer some of the questions that he poses in his book - and which are not given (in my opinion) a satisfactory answer by the more orthodox (?) representatives of evangelicalism.

This is yet another case of conservative evangelicalism burying it's head in the sand. For WTS to react in this way and avoid the discussion of serious, honest questions in a thoughtful and considered way is a very sad commentary on the institution. It is particularly this sort of reactionary posture that makes people in general look sideways at Christianity.
This position comes out of fear and hysteria, pure and simple, dressed up as orthodox guardianship. It is intellectually dishonest, disowning the God who endowed us with brains.
Enns' future, I believe, is a bright one. I cannot say the same for WTS, it's leadership, and most unfortunately, its students.

Paradoxed in PA:

That Lineman point doesn't make sense. The use of "plundering the Egyptians" is supposed to represent that the Israelites took the Egyptian plunder and used the VAST MAJORITY of it to build the tabernacle.

The israelites used a bunch of earrings (which may not have even been plunder) to build the calf. In any case, God wanted them to have the plunder, and they did need to be careful with it.

As usual, when orthodoxy and truth collide - orthodoxy wins every time.

-evan

During the Civil Rights Movement era, my then small university greatly benefited from plucking up refugee professors fleeing from conservative Jim Crow/Bible Belt universities...a forced brain drain from areas that seemed to need some conscientiously active gray matter. What lucky colleges and seminaries are benefiting from conservative evangelical/Catholic institutional purges today?

Reading I&I was a refreshing time. I've never come across anything like it written from an evangelical perspective. The book tacked significant issues head on. I don't believe that Enns said all that there is to say (as he clearly indicates); and I don't take his conclusions as final (and he seems to think of some of them as provisional as well.) But he does honestly present material and problems that any thinking Christian must come to terms with -- for this I'm grateful. And you can't condemn a man for being honest and thoughtful.

Gregory:
Well, Biblical Seminary (long thought to be WTS's little sister) just nabbed Steve Taylor from WTS over (presumably) the Enns issue. I pray they get Enns as well.

Amen Shaun!
As a Biblical grad I've enjoyed the healthy dialogue and innovation taking place there. I wonder if Biblical and Westminster would ever get together to have a conversation about their educational philosophies, approach to theology and culture, etc.? That could be a really fascinating discussion.

In other news that I have not yet heard covered anywhere.

Brent Sandy, Skip Forbes, and Bernon Lee, the only full-time members of the Religious Studies faculty, were fired from Grace College this fall.

They were fired for three reasons.
(1) They were part of a process a few years ago to change the name of the department to "Religious Studies" (voted on the by the faculty and approved by the administration). The name has now been changed to "School of Ministry Studies."
http://www.grace.edu/academics/undergrad/so_ministry.php

(2) There was a concern that they were questioning premillennial, pretribulational eschatology adhered to by The Fellowship of Grace Brethren Churches, which is associated with the school.

Quote below from the FGBC statement of faith:
http://www.fgbc.org/whoarewe/covenant-and-statement-of-faith.cfm

SECOND COMING. The personal, visible, and imminent return of Christ to remove His church from the earth (1 Thess. 4:16-17) before the tribulation (1 Thess. 1:10; Rev. 3:10), and afterward to descend with the Church to establish His millennial kingdom upon the earth (Rev. 19:11-20:6).

(3) Invited John Sanders to speak about open theism though there were faculty responses that critiqued Sanders's approach.

Related stories:
Wheaton College fires Joshua Hochschild for becoming a Roman Catholic (2005)
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB113659805227040466-lMyQjAxMDE2MzE2MDUxOTA4Wj.html

Southwestern Seminary fires Sheri Klouda for being a woman and teaching Hebrew (2006)
http://www.abpnews.com/3093.article

I have had both Enns and G. Beale as seminary teachers, having received degrees from both WTS and GCTS (Beale taught there for a long time). Both are reformed. Both love the Bible and know it inside and out. I found both to be excellent teachers. I got to know Enns more than Beale, and can say that he is truly a godly guy morally and one who prayed over me and encouraged me in my faith while sitting in his office on multiple occasions. It really hurts to see all that has happened. Beale can be over-bearing and perhaps a bit too strong in his views. I can't imagine, however, that he really wanted this to happen to Enns. Enns' teaching on this matter follows within the same trajectory of a long line of WTS professors who remain revered (Conn, MacCartney, Stonehouse) and others who have had a major impact on the institution (Dillard, Longman, Silva). That a few conclude that Enns is a heretic; this is just ridiculous talk. I do not believe that fair-minded Christians will make such conclusions. What is the problem? I believe it is a small segment in Reformed circles who love the taste of blood and take secret pleasure in seeing it spilt. That is my conclusion having had multiple years of interaction with part of the constituency of WTS.

Wheaten was right to fire Josh for becoming Catholic; Grace College was wrong for firing people for questioning pretrib rapture (something of a new novelty, no offense).

The author uvazhuha! Here's how to write blogs must! Everyone stands to learn, boys!

I am a Lutheran pastor and radio broadcaster who was privileged to know Pete Enns as a first-rate German instructor and human being. I am not a part of the theological controversy surrounding Enns, Westminster, and the Presbyterian denomination, but write to testify about Dr. Enns in terms of his pedagogical abilities and his genuine concern for his students. I did not complete my program at Westminster because of financial duress and my wife's catastrophic health problems during our residency at the school. Dr. Enns maintained a consistent concern for my/our situation that will always be appreciated. If my circumstances eventually permit my return for another semester, to finish, it will be due in no small measure to the good Doctor's example as one dedicated to his tasks, his students, and finishing the good race.

[Most intriguing, if I may say. I happened recently upon this paper which is part of the "Powered by Christ Ministries" site in a head-turning colourful and photographic format. Malcolm]

PRETRIB RAPTURE DISHONESTY

by Dave MacPherson

When I began my research in 1970 into the exact beginnings of the pretribulation rapture belief still held by many evangelicals, I assumed that the rapture debate involved only "godly scholars with honest differences." The paper you are now reading reveals why I gave up that assumption many years ago. With this introduction-of-sorts in mind, let's take a long look at the pervasive dishonesty throughout the history of the 179-year-old pretrib rapture theory:

Mid-1820's - German scholar Max Weremchuk's work "John Nelson Darby" (1992) included what Benjamin Newton revealed about John Darby in the mid-1820's during his pre-Brethren days as an Anglican clergyman:
"J. N. Darby was a very subtle man. He had been a lawyer, or at least educated for the law. Once he wanted his Archbishop to pursue a certain course, when he (J.N.D.) was a curate in his diocese. He wrote a letter, therefore, saying he had been educated for the law, knew what the legal course would properly be; and then having written that clearly, he mystified the remainder of the letter both in word and in handwriting, and ended up by saying: You see, my Lord, such being the legal aspect of the case it would unquestionably be the best course for you to pursue, etc. And the Archbishop couldn't make out the legal part, but rested on Darby's word and did as he advised. Darby afterwards laughed over it, and indeed he showed a copy of the letter to Tregelles. This is not mentioned in the Archbishop's biography, but in it is the fact that he spoke of Darby as 'the most subtle man in my diocese.'"
This reminds me of an 1834 letter by Darby which spoke of the "Lord's coming." Darby added, concerning this coming, that "the thoughts are new" and that during any teaching of it "it would not be well to have it so clear." Darby's deviousness here was his usage of a centuries-old term - "Lord's coming" - to cover up his desire to sneak the new pretrib idea into existing posttrib groups in very low-profile ways!
1830 - In the spring of 1830 a young Scottish lassie, Margaret Macdonald, came up with the novel notion of a catching up [rapture] of Spirit-filled "church" members before Antichrist's "trial" [tribulation] of non-Spirit-filled "church" members - the first instance I've found of clear "pretrib" teaching (which was part of a partial rapture scheme). In Sep. 1830 "The Morning Watch" (a journal produced by London preacher Edward Irving and his "Irvingite" followers, some of whom had visited Margaret a few weeks earlier) began repeating her original thoughts and even her wording but gave her no credit - the first plagiarism I've found in pretrib history. Darby was still defending posttrib in Dec. 1830.
Pretrib promoters have long known the significance of her main point: a rapture of "church" members BEFORE the revealing of Antichrist. Which is why John Walvoord quoted nothing in her revelation, why Thomas Ice habitually skips over her main point but quotes lines BEFORE and AFTER it, and why Hal Lindsey muddies up her main point so he can (falsely) assert that she was NOT a pretribber! (Google "X-Raying Margaret" for info about her.)
NOTE: The development of the 1800's is thoroughly documented in my book "The Rapture Plot." You'll learn that Darby wasn't original on any chief aspect of dispensationalism (but plagiarized the Irvingites); that pretrib was initially based on only OT and NT symbols and not clear Scripture; that the symbols included the Jewish feasts, the two witnesses, and the man child - symbols adopted by Darby during most of his career; that Darby's later reminiscences exaggerated his earliest pretrib development, and that today's defenders such as Thomas Ice have further overstated what Darby overstated; that Irvingism didn't need later reminiscences to "clarify" its own early pretrib development; that ancient hymns and even the writings of the Reformers were subtly revised to make it appear they had taught pretrib; and that after Darby's death a clever revisionist quietly made many changes in early Irvingite and Brethren documents in order to steal credit for pretrib away from the Irvingites (and their female inspiration!) and give it dishonestly to Darby! (Before continuing, Google the "Powered by Christ Ministries" site and read "America's Pretrib Rapture Traffickers" - a sample of the current exciting internetism!)
1920 - Charles Trumbull's book "The Life Story of C. I. Scofield" told only the dispensationally-correct side of his life. Two recent books, Joseph Canfield's "The Incredible Scofield and His Book" (1988) and David Lutzweiler's "DispenSinsationalism: C. I. Scofield's Life and Errors" (2006), reveal the other side including his being jailed as a forger, dishonestly giving himself a non-conferred "D.D." etc. etc.!
1967 - Brethren scholar Harold Rowdon's "The Origins of the Brethren" quoted Darby associate Lord Congleton who was "disgusted with...the falseness" of Darby's accounts of things. Rowdon also quoted historian William Neatby who said that others felt that "the time-honoured method of single combat" was as good as anything "to elicit the truth" from Darby. (In other words, knock it out of him!)
1972 - Tim LaHaye's "The Beginning of the End" (1972) plagiarized Hal Lindsey's "The Late Great Planet Earth" (1970).
1976 - Charles Ryrie"s "The Living End" (1976) plagiarized Lindsey's "The Late Great Planet Earth" (1970) and "There's A New World Coming" (1973).
1976 - After John Walvoord's "The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation" (1976) brutally twisted Robert Gundry's "The Church and the Tribulation" (1973), Gundry composed and circulated a 35-page open letter to Walvoord which repeatedly charged the Dallas Seminary president with "misrepresentation," "misrepresentations" (and variations)!
1981 - "The Fundamentalist Phenomenon" (1981) by Jerry Falwell, Ed Dobson, and Ed Hindson heavily plagiarized George Dollar's 1973 book "A History of Fundamentalism in America."
1984 - After a prof at Southeastern College of the Assemblies of God in Florida told me that the No. 2 man at the AG world headquarters in Missouri - Joseph Flower - had the label of posttrib, my wife and I had two hour-long chats with him. He verified what I had been told. But we were dumbstruck when he told us that although AG ministers are required to promote pretrib, privately they can believe any other rapture view! Flower said that his father, an AG co-founder, was also posttrib. We also learned while in Springfield that when the AG's were organized in 1914, the initial group was divided between posttribs and pretribs - but that the pretribs shouted louder which resulted in that denomination officially adopting pretrib! (For details on this and other pretrib double-mindedness, Google "Pretrib Hypocrisy.")
1989 - Since 1989 Thomas Ice has referred to the "Mac-theory" (his reference to my research), giving the impression there's no solid evidence that Macdonald was the real pretrib originator. But Ice carefully conceals the fact that no eminent church historian of the 1800's - whether Plymouth Brethren or Irvingite - credited Darby with pretrib. Instead, they uniformly credited leading Irvingite sources, all of which upheld the Scottish lassie's contribution! Moreover, I'm hardly the only modern scholar seeing significance in Irvingism's territory. Others in recent years who have noted it, but who haven't mined it as deeply as I have, include Fuller, Ladd, Bass, Rowdon, Sandeen, and Gundry.
1989 - Greg Bahnsen and Kenneth Gentry produced evidence in 1989 that Lindsey's book "The Road to Holocaust" (1989) plagiarized "Dominion Theology" (1988) by H. Wayne House and Thomas Ice.
1990 - David Jeremiah's and C. C. Carlson's "Escape the Coming Night" (1990) massively plagiarized Lindsey's 1973 book "There's A New World Coming." (For more info, type in "Thieves' Marketing" on MSN or Google.)
1991 - Paul Lee Tan's "A Pictorial Guide to Bible Prophecy" (1991) plagiarized large amounts of Lindsey's "The Late Great Planet Earth" (1970).
1991 - Militant Darby defender R. A. Huebner claimed in 1991 to have found new evidence that Darby was pretrib as early as 1827 - three years before Macdonald. Halfway through his book Huebner suddenly admitted that his evidence could refer to something completely un-rapturesque. Even though Thomas Ice admitted to me that he knew that Huebner had "blown" his so-called evidence, prevaricator Ice continues to tell the world that Huebner has "positive evidence" that Darby was pretrib in 1827! Ice also conceals the fact that Darby, in his own 1827 paper, was looking for only "the restitution of all things" and "the times of refreshing" (Acts 3:19,21) - which Scofield doesn't see fulfilled until AFTER a future tribulation!
1992 - Tim LaHaye's "No Fear of the Storm" (1992) plagiarized Walvoord's "The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation" (1976).
1992 - This was when the Los Angeles Times revealed that "The Magog Factor" (1992) by Hal Lindsey and Chuck Missler was a monstrous plagiarism of Prof. Edwin Yamauchi's scholarly 1982 work "Foes from the Northern Frontier." Four months after this exposure, Lindsey and Missler stated they had stopped publishing and promoting their book. But in 1996 Dr. Yamauchi learned that the dishonest duo had issued a 1995 book called "The Magog Invasion" which still had a substantial amount of the same plagiarism! (If Lindsey and Missler ever need hernia operations, I predict that the doctors will tell them not to lift anything for a long time!)
1994 - In 1996 it was revealed that Lindsey's "Planet Earth - 2000 A.D. (1994) had an embarrassing amount of plagiarism of a Texe Marrs book titled "Mystery Mark of the New Age" (1988).
1995 - My book "The Rapture Plot" reveals the dishonesty in Darby's reprinted works. It's often hard to tell who wrote the footnotes and when. It's easy to believe that the notes, and also unsigned phrases inside brackets within the text, were a devious attempt by someone (Darby? his editor?) to portray a Darby far more developed in pretrib thinking than he actually had been at the time. I found that some of the "additives" had been taken from Darby's much later works, when he was more developed, and placed next to or inside his earliest works! One footnote by Darby's editor, attached to Darby's 1830 paper, actually stated that "it was not worth while either suppressing or changing" anything in this work! If his editor wasn't open to such dishonesty, how can we explain such a statement?
Post-1995 - Thomas Ice's article "Inventor of False Pre-Trib Rapture History" states that my book "The Rapture Plot" is "only one of the latest in a series of revisions of his original discourse...." And David Reagan in his article "The Origin of the Concept of a Pre-Tribulation Rapture" repeats Ice's falsehood by claiming that I have republished my first book "over the years under several different titles."
Although my book repeats a bit of the Macdonald origin of pretrib (for new readers), all of my books are packed with new material not found in my other works. For some clarification, "The Incredible Cover-Up" has photos of pertinent places in Ireland, Scotland, and England not found in my later books plus several chapters dealing with theological arguments; "The Great Rapture Hoax" quotes scholars throughout the Church Age, covers Scofield's hidden side, a section on Powerscourt, the 1980 election, the Jupiter Effect, Gundry's change, and more theological arguments; "The Rapture Plot" reveals for the first time the Great Evangelical Revisionism/Robbery and includes appendices on miscopying, plagiarism, etc.; and "The Three R's" shows hypocritical evangelicals employing occultic beliefs they say they have long opposed!
So Thomas Ice etc. are twisting truth when they claim I am only a revisionist. Do they really think that my publishers DON'T know what I've previously written?
Re arguments, Google "Pretrib Rapture - Hidden Facts" and also obtain "The End Times Passover" and "Why Christians Will Suffer 'Great Tribulation' " (AuthorHouse, 2006) by media personality Joe Ortiz.
1997 - For years Harvest House Publishers has owned and been republishing Lindsey's book "There's A New World Coming." During the same time Lindsey has been peddling his reportedly "new" book "Apocalyse Code" (1997), much of which is word-for-word the same as the Harvest House book - and there's no notice of "simultaneous publishing" in either book! Talk about pretrib greed!
1997 - This is the year I discovered that more than 50 pages of Dallas Seminary professor Merrill Unger's book "Beyond the Crystal Ball" (Moody Press, 1973) constituted a colossal plagiarism of Lindsey's "The Late Great Planet Earth" (1970). After Lindsey's book came out, Unger had complained that Lindsey's book had plagiarized his classroom lecture notes. It was evident that Unger felt that he too should cash in on his own lectures! (The detailed account of this Dallas Seminary dishonesty is revealed in my 1998 book "The Three R's.")
1998 - Tim LaHaye's "Understanding the Last Days" (1998) plagiarized Lindsey's "There's A New World Coming" (1973).
1999 - More than 200 pages (out of 396 pages) in Lindsey's 1999 book "Vanished Into Thin Air" are virtually carbon copies of pages in his 1983 book "The Rapture" - with no "updated" or "revised" notice included! Lindsey has done the same nervy thing with several of his books, something that has allowed him to live in million-dollar-plus homes and drive cars like Ferraris! (See my Google articles "Deceiving and Being Deceived" and "Thieves' Marketing" for further evidence of this notably pretrib vice.)
2000 - A Jack Van Impe article "The Moment After" (2000) plagiarized Grant Jeffrey's book "Final Warning" (1995).
2001 - Since 2001 my web article "Walvoord's Posttrib 'Varieties' - Plus" has been exposing his devious muddying up of posttrib waters. In some of his books he invented four "distinct" and "contradictory" posttrib divisions, claiming that they are either "classic" or "semiclassic" or "futurist" or "dispensational" - distinctions that disappear when analyzed! His "futurist" group holds to a literal future tribulation and a literal millennium but doesn't embrace "any day" imminency. But his "dispensational" group has the same non-imminency! Moreover, tribulational futurism is found in every group except the first one, and he somehow admitted that a literal millennium is in all four groups! On the other hand, it's the pretribs who consistently disagree with each other over their chief points and subpoints - but somehow end up agreeing that there will be a pretrib rapture! (See my chapter "A House Divided" in my book "The Incredible Cover-Up.")
2001 - Since my "Deceiving and Being Deceived" web item which exposed the claims for Pseudo-Ephraem" and "Morgan Edwards" as teachers of pretrib, there has been a piranha-like frenzy on the part of pretrib bodyguards and their duped groupies to "discover" almost anything before 1830 walking upright on two legs that seemed to have at least a remote hint of pretrib! (An exemplary poster boy for such pretrib practice is Grant Jeffrey. To get your money's worth, Google "Wily Jeffrey.")

FINALLY: Don't take my word for any of the above. Read my 300-page book "The Rapture Plot" which has a jillion more documented details on the long-hidden but now-revealed history of the dishonest, 179-year-old, fringe-British-invented, American-merchandised-until-the-real-bad-stuff-happens pretribulation rapture fad. If this book of mine doesn't "move" you, I will personally refund what you paid for it!

I just finished the book and agree with the categorization of its content as disquieting in the least, explosive or even heterodox in the extreme. However, the wonderful thing about such endeavors is that they force those of us who sincerely follow Christ to reexamine our own personal matrixes, frameworks, predispositions, etc. when it comes to understanding God's word. That Enns is firm in his profession of Christ's dual nature, the value of Scripture as a gift from the loving God to His people, and his sincere faith in Christ's salvific work, should give support to his basic premise as at least worthy of consideration and challenge to our preconceptions. I am saddened to read the vitriol of those whose faith is so weak as not to stand challenge. The church's history is filled with attack from without and within, by those not committed to Christ above all. Are Enns' critics such wolves-in-sheep's clothing? Who can say? All we can say from the truths that ARE clearly identified in Scripture is that we know one another by our fruit. Specifically, "outdo one another in brotherly love" comes before Paul's appeal to legal authority in Romans 13, the principle being in line with the whole of God's word - love God and neighbor as the summation of the law. To do otherwise is to run counter to one's claims of being a Christian - a little Christ, as the Antiochans so derisively termed those crazy people who lived sacrificially and pursued death to the flesh in the hopes of an eternity of bliss with the All Mighty Creator God.

We will disagree in the Church, but our fellowship is more important than the things that divide those purchased by Christ’s blood. That fact, and not our fancy didactic reasoning or apologetic gymnastics, will convince the world that we belong to Him. How sad that the Church is so bad at doing that most clear of all commands.

Just my two cents, from a Political Science professor deeply committed to Christ and His glory.