Someone has said every writer has biases, but only some admit to it. It is not our intention here to provide an unbiased tour of a wide variety of views concerning the Apocalypse. There are many other works which the reader could refer to which fill that function. Here, we will practice a policy of inoculation in regard to alternate views. That is, we intend to set forth enough information concerning the alternative view for readers to be aware of its major features. We also provide information refuting aspects of the view which we find most problematic. Neither the alternate view nor the refutation will proceed in great detail, but will include suitable references for those who wish to pursue the subject in greater depth. It is our hope that in the same way that an inoculation injects a small amount of a deadly disease into the human body so that it may build up its natural defenses, an understanding of aspects of alternate views will help the reader understand the problems accompanying them and so avoid the mistake of endorsing questionable ideas mainly because they are new or different.1
Some of the matters we discuss are not simply differences in view within Evangelical ranks, but touch on basic issues concerning the nature of the Scriptureswhich have been undermined by many who purport to lead others into a deeper understanding of Scripture. Teachers who endorse questionable views concerning the inspiration, inerrancy, and authorship of Holy Scripture are adept at dressing their skepticism within the garb of inference, making it less obvious to the inexperienced student of Scripture. We hope to make these implicit teachings more explicit where needed.
1 Here we might pause to observe that many who have defected from solid doctrinal positions based upon the Word of God have done so because they never truly understood the position they initially endorsed. Having ridden on a straw horse, it became all too easy for others to push them off and lead them elsewhere.