Rapture Debate Held on October 9, 1999 at Irving Bible Church, Irving, Texas. About 600-700 in Attendance. Moderator: Kirby Anderson.
My observations about the debate are below. But if I were to sum up the debate right now, I would say: Send it to all of your pretrib friends!
This is the first time that this Rapture debate has been made available on the internet. The following are the four parts of the debate with a rebuttal period following after each one. Click here to be taken to the audio files.
Part 1: Pretribulationism – Mal Couch and Yaacov Ramsel
Part 2: Prewrath – Charles Cooper and Roger Best
Part 3: Postribulationism – Ken Kline and Monte Judah
Part 4: Question & Answer
A few of my observations from the debate:
1. Mal Couch’s pretrib presentation was actually not a presentation at all. He made assertions about Matthew 24 but with no support to back up his assertions, except for an odd reference to Deuteronomy, which Roger Best pointed out the inconsistency.
Further, rather than Couch arguing for his position during his time to do so, he became fixated on personalities such as Van Kampen and Rosenthal. There is a reason why pretribs cannot make a positive presentation of their view: there simply are not any Biblical texts that teach that the rapture happens before the Antichrist’s Great Tribulation. And therefore, their recourse is to argue against other positions, as if that is a meaningful argument for their own view.
2. After Charles Cooper gave his excellent Prewrath presentation, it was time for the rebuttal from the others. Mal Couch was the first to respond. Would he respond Biblically and rebut (hence, rebuttal period) the points that Cooper made in his presentation? Nope. He completely blundered. As is consistent in pretribulational books writing against prewrath, Couch would make a personal attack on Cooper with his very first remark saying something along the lines of he would make a good salesman.
Immediately after this ad hominem from Couch, he began to respond in a conspicuous almost angry-hostile manner. It was obvious that the success of Cooper’s presentation and the positive effect it had on the audience put Couch in this posture. At this point, in my opinion, the debate was over. But there was more.
3. In the Part 3 post-trib presentation the speaker began saying, “I am not so much post-trib as I am prewrath“! Wow…I knew that prewrath and postrib had affinities, but this was great to hear.
4. Further, in the Post-trib rebuttal, Cooper pointed out some important inconsistencies within the Postrib view concerning the sheep and goats judgment and their timing of the rapture. In addition, toward the end of this rebuttal Cooper corrected the Pretrib Mal Couch on his errors by demonstrating that the Day of the Lord’s wrath indeed is announced by the sixth seal cosmic disturbances.
5. After the debate was over, Mal Couch unhappily exited the building choosing not to take questions–and Charles Cooper and Roger Best received applause and a warm welcome after the debate with people gathering around them wanting to learn more about the Prewrath position (including the post-trib participant!).
6. I am convinced that when the Prewrath and Pretrib position is examined side-by-side, or they are cross-examined in a public moderated debate, the Prewrath will be shown to be the Biblical position.
Though I am not a big fan of multiple party debates, and though there was no formal cross-examination in this debate, I thought it went well given the amount of time with some important points that Cooper and Best made in support of key Prewrath issues. In addition, I was pleased to listen to them demonstrate inconsistencies in the opposing views, in particular the Pretrib position.
That said, I believe though the most effective format for debate are two individuals with opposing views each having time periods of an opening, rebuttals, cross-examination, and closing. Just to emphasize, you cannot have a real debate without cross-examination; it is the soul of the debate. Otherwise, all you will really have is two monologues, not a dialogue. Further, the moderator is very important to a debate in managaing and enforcing the protocol. If a debate functions as such, I believe that God’s people are edified by witnessing a genuine engagment and accountability between theological perspectives. And most of all, God is glorified in this effective manner of communication and seeking Biblical truth.
We have contacted and challenged national noted pretrib speakers such as Thomas Ice, Dave Hunt, and others, but they have all turned down the challenge to defend their position under cross-examination in a public moderated debate.
