Thursday, March 12, 2009

Pauline Soterilogy Interviews: Doug Campbell (Part 1)

In the coming weeks I shall be interviewing Douglas Campbell Associate Professor of New Testament at Duke Divinity School and Michael Gorman of St. Mary's Seminary about their forthcoming books on Pauline soteriology (both with Eerdmans).

I first met Doug at SBL in 2005 (Philadelphia). I had just brought his book The Quest for Paul's Gospel, walked about 30m down the book exhibit, and then bumped into him. So I got him to sign it for me and we had a brief chat. Doug is great because he confirms my prejudice that the best biblical scholars in the world are antipodian! Doug is also the most prominent champion of the subjective genitive interpretation of the pistis christou construction in Paul's letters these days. Anyways, here is the first installment of my interview with Doug Campbell on his forthcoming book The Deliverance of God.

1. Can you tell us about your intellectual journey in Pauline soteriology? What were the major moments in your research and what has influenced you the most?

That’s an excellent question to begin with. (Incidentally, I explain all this in more detail in the Preface to The Deliverance of God—hereafter DOG.)

My doctoral work took place in the 80s in Toronto, mostly under the aegis of Dick Longenecker, but influenced by John Hurd, Schuyler Brown, and Peter Richardson as well—all wonderful scholars in their own ways. Longenecker was writing his Word commentary on Galatians at the time, as well as lecturing on Romans, so that conjunction of events really shaped the future of my life. He was heavily engaged with Sanders’s work. (Sanders began his teaching career in Canada and so the two scholars knew each other quite well; moreover, Longenecker had anticipated many of Sanders’s celebrated claims about Judaism in his earlier book Paul, Apostle of Liberty). Longenecker was a strong advocate of participatory approaches to Pauline soteriology in ultimate dependence on Deissmann; of the correctness of the faithfulness of Christ reading of Romans 3:22 etc.; of a positive approach to Paul’s Jewish background; and of the broader importance of Jewish martyrological thinking for Paul’s development. So my work is clearly just a fairly direct continuation of his agenda!

The difficulty I was left with after my doctoral work—during which I focused eventually on Romans 3:21-26—was that Longenecker left most of these dynamic interpretative trends unresolved in relation to one another. One didn’t need to be too stringent interpreting a proto-Rabbi in his view. And this didn’t really satisfy me.

The next event that really changed my life occurred during my first teaching job, at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand. The local Presbyterian seminary had just appointed a very young and brilliant theologian, Alan Torrance, to its theology chair (son of J.B., and nephew of T.F.). Alan and I became great friends, and during the course of our many conversations about fishing, music, sport, and university politics, I received an excellent theological education. His father’s work on the role of contractualism in Scottish Presbyterianism over against an unconditional covenantalism was especially important for me at this time—something I learned about after Alan had passed on this material to me (and explained it!). I noticed that it coordinated and articulated with enviable clarity many of the debates that we were struggling with in Pauline studies—concerning the role of Jews and Judaism, the atonement, faith, and so on, that is, many of the very questions that Longenecker’s teaching had left me with. The application of James Torrance’s categories to the concerns and texts of the Pauline interpreter seemed to promise an exciting moment of clarification and theological progress—although this was a task that proved harder to fulfill in detail than to envisage in broad prospect!

In 1996 I accepted a lecturing position in New Testament at King’s College London, partly to continue to work alongside Alan, who had left NZ in the interim, and partly to learn how to do rigorous NT work from scholars like Graham Stanton and Francis Watson. (Graham moved shortly after to the chair in Cambridge, and was replaced by the equally adept Judith Lieu; I also learned a lot at this time from my long-time friend and colleague at Kings, Eddie Adams.) But conditions were very difficult in UK universities in the late 90s and I struggled to make real progress on my project. A year in Germany got it going, but there was still a long way to go. So I moved to Duke in 2003, and finally got the support I needed to get the treatment finished. But this move also enriched the analysis in some additional ways.

I learned in particular from Stanley Hauerwas—who was admittedly in certain respects reinforcing many of the things I had learned at King’s from Colin Gunton—that I needed to incorporate explicitly the political and ethical dimensions in the reading strategy that I was criticising. Putting things at their bluntest, there was an important connection between exegesis and execution that I had not really grasped. But how could I overlook it when I had moved, partly unawares, to a state that still killed criminals, supported all the while by its surrounding, heavily churchgoing populace? Articulating these connections slowed me down and expanded the project still more, but seemed important. I also continued to press against any thought-act and being-act dichotomies in interpretation, and away from universality and “principles” toward particularities. These concerns continued to open up both the primary text and the secondary literature in some surprising ways.

So that’s basically how I ended up writing The Deliverance of God in the broader setting of my academic career. It’s been a long journey, but hopefully it will have been worth the wait.

2. In your last book, The Quest for Paul's Gospel, you championed an approach that you abbreviated PPME. What is PPME and how does it differ from the justification by faith model and salvation-history model?

PPME is just a teaching rubric I use that expands on Sanders’s formula for the heart of Paul’s soteriology for the purposes of greater precision. He—quite rightly in my opinion—viewed the centre of Paul’s gospel in terms of “participationist eschatology,” so in my abbreviation, PE. (He was drawing to a degree on W. D. Davies at this point.) But I have a couple of difficulties with leaving things at this level. I worried in particular that some of my students might be prone to misunderstanding or overlooking some key issues. So paying the price of complexity, I expanded this formula in two ways.

First, I added a P to the P already denoting participationist/participatory to indicate that this all-important process was effected by none other than the Holy Spirit. Our participation in Christ is, in other words, irreducibly and non-negotiably pneumatological. No other sort of participation makes sense, yet this form of participation leads us to the heart of Christian reality. That is, by adding this further P, I was intimating that the very structure of Paul’s soteriological thinking was Trinitarian—not admittedly in a fully developed or articulated form, but irreducibly and inherently so. And recall that consternation about just how participation works or is effected is one of the main criticisms leveled against this particular construal of Paul’s gospel. It is, after all, fundamentally a miracle that we can participate in the new creation of the age to come.

I also worried that an emphasis on participationist eschatology was too oriented toward the resurrection and Christian triumphalism—positions that Paul spent much of his time combatting. So I introduced an M before E, denoting “martyrological,” to indicate that the Christ event in which Christians participated—pneumatologically!—had two critical trajectories spanning the cross as well as the resurrection. The M denotes, in short, Paul’s theology of the cross. And in flagging this up I was also creating a space for the narrative of Jesus’s crucifixion to be told, as elaborated in Phil. 2:5-11 and related texts, that allowed in turn an appropriate emphasis at some point on the way Christ’s fidelity and submission created the space in and through which others are saved. So I was creating a door through which JF terminology could be coherently integrated with what I was already arguing in relation to the heart of Paul’s concerns in PE terms so to speak.

The price paid for these qualifications was of course a degree of complexity. Perhaps it has been a mistake in retrospect, and I should have stuck with a mere name. But the formula PPME was intended primarily to be a teaching rubric, not a scholarly contribution. And I think it has worked pretty well in those terms for me at Duke. Scholars who already know all this should of course feel free to ignore it and to use simpler, more traditional names like “participation,” remaining aware that in any discussion with me I am going to want to supplement that descriptor early on with further qualifications in terms of pneumatology, martyrology—or, perhaps better, cruciformity in Mike Gorman’s insightful word—and eschatology!

Now to address the second part of your question—an equally important set of queries.

The PPME model differs from both Justification and Salvation-historical construals of Paul’s gospel in certain absolutely crucial ways. But before detailing those, let me first note that I use rubrics for these approaches as well in Quest to avoid providing extensive subliminal reinforcement for what I view as deeply problematic translation decisions—especially in relation to “justification by faith.” So I will speak in what follows of the JF and SH models.

The key point to grasp is that these two models—JF and SH—are both variants on classical theological foundationalism, which is to say that, in Sanders’s charming phrase (more or less), they “work” or “think forward.” What he means by this is that their epistemology is established prior to the Christian state, from the ground up so to speak, by human reflection of some sort. The specifics of their reflections and resulting (theological) epistemologies are rather different, but their basic modality is therefore the same. Essentially a phase of human reasoning takes place prior to the proclamation of the gospel to “ground” that proclamation in terms of truths and criteria that have already been clearly established. And this ultimately generates all sorts of problems.

(1) In the entire history of human thought, it has consistently proved untrue. That is, the opening phase that supposedly establishes axioms and criteria that are universally agreed upon invariably fails, creating a question-begging or even deceptive set of preliminary claims.

(2) Those claims tend to turn out instead to be self-reifying (usually in tandem with a sinister othering project). That is, instead of resting on universally demonstrable or perceptible claims, the key axioms and criteria in any foundationalist project invariably turn out to privilege the person or group making those claims in terms of their social and historical location(s)—so the JF model says precious little about regimes in which white, elite, men have (for example) enslaved black, foreign men, women, and children (and so on); it turns rather a blind eye to such situations. (Note Charles Marsh’s devastating account of Douglas Hudgins in God’s Long Summer at this point.) Moreover, Christian foundationalist projects have invariably constructed their notions of soteriological success out of prior “objective” failures in Judaism, generating “necessarily and objectively true claims” about the stupidity and/or immorality of Jews—clearly not a good thing. I am of course painting with a broad brush at this point, but careful and detailed examination of foundationalist projects invariably reveals these sinister tendencies, whether to a greater or lesser extent.

(3) These stringent, if false and self-serving, prior criteria tend to function as a tremendous obstacle to the new categories and truths introduced by the gospel, overruling any attempted evangelical corrections. So, for example, if a conception of the gospel that seems deeply grounded in the nature of Christ, and in the nature of God as revealed by Christ, challenges prior criteria, it tends to get overruled or ignored, or even branded as heretical! (Some of the recent disputes over the atonement spring to mind at this point.)

(4) Of particular relevance to Pauline interpretation is a fourth major point that these models or construals that work forward must intrinsically exist in diametric tension with those construals that work backward. You cannot think forward and backward at the same time—in terms of the derivation of your key theological criteria (i.e., not psychologically)—without being in a terrible muddle. Moreover, the very nature of the axioms and criteria generated foundationally will tend to contradict the very nature of the axioms and criteria revealed through Christ retrospectively. So it does not take much time to detect that the JF and SH models tend to contradict the PPME model at every level, in relation to every major issue—epistemological, theological (i.e., the basic attributes of God), Christological, soteriological, pneumatological, anthropological, ecclesial, ethical, and so on. So we are not talking here about superficial or secondary points of tension, but major faultlines running through the middle of the most important things that Paul says. If Paul thinks both forward and backward at the same time then he is largely useless to the church for theological reconstruction (i.e., in historical terms) because he is so deeply contradictory; different answers could be generated to every major question in terms of the different systems supposedly operative in his work. And at this point I have clearly segued into my suggested solution, that I pursue down one important avenue in DOG, having sketched it out programmatically in Quest—the need to find one basic construal of the gospel, preferably retrospective, that can explain the bulk of Paul responsibly and in a way that eliminates fundamental dependence on basic prospective models.

We need to show in detail and responsibly that Paul primarily thought backward. And this means pushing back against the JF and SH models, in favour of a PPME approach. Enormously important issues are at stake in this comparatively simple set of recommendations.


Irv said...

[guess what I saw on the web. this.]


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!

Andy Rowell said...

Here are the three parts of the Douglas Campbell interview:
Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Andy Rowell said...

I have listed selections from all of the early reviews of Campbell's book at:
Reviews of Douglas Campbell's The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul