I intend to give a review of sorts another day of the shallow rapture debate between Kent Hovind and Gary DeMar that took place yesterday (see the video below, but read this first). To be honest, I rather would not since I should spend my time doing more profitable things. But I want to comment on some issues in a further post. But let me just say the following for now.
In short, there is no question that DeMar intentionally prefers to debate low-hanging fruit futurists. No disrespect to Hovind; I am just saying that eschatology is not his area of specialty and DeMar knows this and takes advantage of that. However, for DeMar his argumentation for preterism was incredibly shallow and is easily refuted by a competent futurist.
For Hovind, he continues to dishonestly use the label “prewrath” to describe his position. Kent Hovind is not prewrath and his term “postrib prewrath” is even more misleading and confusing. Hovind is a young-earth creation apologist, who happens to be an idiosyncratic posttribber appropriating the popular term “prewrath.” His eschatology is a jumbled mess of confusion.
While Gary DeMar has had plenty of opportunities to debate competent and scholarly futurists such as Dr. Brock Hollet or myself, he has used excuses every time to turn us down. I have written a standard treatment on prewrath, while Hollet has written the most popular book answering preterism. Yet for some odd reason this does not warrant a debate in DeMar’s mind. Go figure! Evidently, he prefers to be stuck in 1972 with Hal Lindsey.
