Dr. Walvoord's claim, that "in the early church fathers there was no clear agreement that a specific seven year period as is indicated in Daniel 9:27 had to occur before the Lord could return" is very misleading. If he means that they were not unanimous in their agreement, well, who is today? There was a dispute in the early Church over whether the Millennial hope was literal. Those inclined toward allegorical interpretation also thought the 70th week was past. These were Clement of Alexandria, Origin, and Julius Africanus. All were affiliated with the North African Alexandrian school, known for its allegorical interpretation, unorthodox views, and combining Christianity with Greek and Eastern philosophy. The other exception was Tertullian of Carthage (North Africa). While Tertullian viewed Daniel 9:27 as past, he was still a "futurist," looking for a literal "tribulation," and the persecution of the Church by Antichrist just prior to the Lord's coming. Unfortunately, Tertullian was involved in the Montanist heresy.

In the orthodox (pre-millennial) writers, there is clear agreement. Irenaeus and Hippolytus taught that the 70th week would be the last seven years of this age in which the two witnesses would prophesy for the first 42 months, the "abomination of desolation" being in the middle, and the Beast would persecute the Church for the last 42 months, then Christ would return (a clear "seven year" tribulation with a post-trib rapture). Other early writers, including Barnabas, Justin, Hermas, Cyprian, Lactantius, and Victorinus, did not refer to Daniel 9:27, and so no specific mention is made of the tribulation being "seven years." But it is clear that they were expecting a future tribulation at the end of the age, and a literal Antichrist who would persecute the Church. These writers saw the Antichrist's reign as 3.5 years. And the ministry of the two witnesses as also 3.5 years. This implies a seven year tribulation.

Walvoord's claim that they thought they were in the tribulation, is equally false. The early Church Fathers consistently placed the Great Tribulation, the Antichrist, and the 2 witnesses in the future. Not one believed the tribulation was in progress. Some thought that the beginning of the tribulation was imminent, expecting the Antichrist to be revealed in their lifetimes. But Walvoord completely misrepresents the Church Fathers when he says they did not understand the 70th week, or thought it was in progress.

Both Walvoord and Pentecost are wrong when they claim the Early Christians expected an "any moment" coming of Christ. The Early Church Fathers looked for intervening events to take place before Christ would return. In the following quotations we will prove decisively that the Dallas Doctors' Departure Distortions have no basis in fact, and totally misrepresented the writings of the Church Fathers.

We will demonstrate that the orthodox Early Church Fathers:
1. Understood the 70th week as future, and would be literally seven years
2. Understood that the tribulation events of Revelation would occur within the 70th week, just prior to Christ's coming
3. Certain intervening events must come before Antichrist would appear. Therefore they did NOT hold to the idea that Jesus' coming was 'imminent.' Rather, they expected the entire sequence of events - tribulation, Antichrist, second coming - to occur soon.

And let's not forget that this is exactly what post-trib / pre-mills teach today, and is the position of The Last Trumpet website. So, Walvoord's claim above, that modern post-tribbers do not hold to the same basic scenario as the Early Church Fathers, is another misrepresentation of the facts.

Irenaeus, while reproving certain Christians for too much speculation, by trying to figure out the name of Antichrist based on the Greek letters for the number 666, wrote that believers should wait for the Roman empire to break up into ten regions ruled by ten kings, then Antichrist would be made known, and Christians could recognize him by the number 666.

Irenaeus instructed believers to wait for the fulfillment of distinct prophetic events that would precede the coming of Christ. The division of the Roman Empire into ten regions, in fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy, and the appearance of Antichrist, must occur before Christians could expect to see the return of Christ. This is not a belief in "imminence" by any stretch of the imagination. Nor is it a belief that they were presently in the tribulation. Here is another quote from Irenaeus.

Notice, Irenaeus used the future tense throughout when speaking of the tribulation events. All of these things were in the future from his perspective.

The orthodox Early Christians also had a clear understanding of the 70th week, that it consisted of the last seven years before Christ's second coming, and that it was entirely future. And, they placed the ministry of the two witnesses, as well as the Antichrist, within the 70th week.

Had Dr. Walvoord simply mischaracterized the early Christians, one might suppose that he was just misinformed. But, there are also examples of his quoting excerpts from these documents, and omitting certain statements in the immediate context which show that the early Christians could not possibly have held to imminence! Robert Gundry, in his 1973 book, The Church and the Tribulation [p. 175], illustrated this with the following quote from the first century "Didache" [The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles].