Welcome to Gospel Themes Press

Home  |  Love Quiz  |  Song of Solomon FAQ  |  Spouse Abuse FAQ  |  Adultery & Sexual Addiction  |  Purchase  |  Cart / Checkout
 Hell  |  Last Things & Eschatology FAQ  |  Resurrection--I Cor. 15 |  Books  |  Booklets  |  Audio  |  Free! 

 

A Response to Peter McPherson's Refutation
of Sam Dawson's Teaching on Hell, the Nature of Man,
and the Resurrection

Samuel G. Dawson
Peter McPherson, a gospel preacher in Peterborough, Ontario, and editor of Proclaimer, recently wrote a refutation of Sam Dawson's material on the resurrection and hell. McPherson gave permission for his article to be reproduced here along with Dawson's rebuttal.

To my readers,

Peter's article is given as published below with excerpts in red, with my responses following each paragraph in green. Since Peter doesn't refer to any of my material in detail nor provide a way for his readers to read it and consider it for themselves, interested readers may want to consult my essays on Hell; Lazarus, the Rich Man & the Afterlife; and my material on the resurrection. This is the material Peter is attempting to refute in his article. They can be found in full at:

Thanks for reading, and considering,

Sam Dawson

PROCLAIMER

"Proclaim(ing)...The Whole Counsel of God"

- Acts 20:20,27- NKJB
Editor, Peter McPherson
Material This Time:
REFUTATION OF SAM DAWSON'S TEACHING
Web Site: http://www.peterboroughbibleproclaimer.ca
Mail Address: petermc11@nexicom

NOTE: This material is longer than usual, BUT you really need to read it. GREAT comments by McGarvey near the end.

A BRIEF REFUTATION CONCERNING THE MATERISTIC ERRORS ON
EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT, THE SOUL OF MAN, AND THE GENERAL RESURRECTION
AS TAUGHT BY SAM DAWSON and the 70 A.D. DOCTRINE

I Have just finished digesting from the web-site of this very brilliant brother regarding material on the above (and more). I say "brilliant" because I want to acknowledge his ability. He is brilliant, for example, as John Calvin was brilliant. And just like Calvinism with its TULIP doctrine (one false doctrine follows another), this is what Sam does. He starts out on a wrong spiritual footing and that leads him to take further false steps. Without following him on every point (which would make a large book) I will briefly expose his materialistic and non-biblical views. Obviously he has spent many years digging out what he believes have been orthodox theological errors while replacing them with new views that he truly believes, upsets the apple cart.

"This is what Sam does" -- That I've done what Calvin did is merely an assertion with no evidence given. I think folks who are used to reading my material critically are going to require more than mere assertions.

Surely, Peter has enough confidence in his readers that he would supply a link to my web site so they could investigate what I've taught for themselves. I don't know Peter at all, and our differences are not personal, but his digesting my teaching for his readers, and not encouraging them to check it out for themselves reminds me of the religious leader in the cartoon below, one I'm sure Peter has probably used himself:



After all, no one should make up his mind on any subject just having heard one side of the issue, should he? Didn't someone say, "He that answers a matter before he hears it, the same is a shame and folly unto him"? (Prov. 18.13)

He admits that his conversion from many of the basic and accepted Christian views has taken him many decades (he actually cites the various dates at which he moved from one new view to another). Beginning with his views that Mathew 24 only speak of the destruction of Jerusalem (to which I say, "so what" if that be true), he then moves on to believe that the only Judgment by God was to the Jews when Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed by the Romans in A.D. 70 and that Hell/Gehenna as used in the N.T. Was not used in any symbolic way but it refers to the literal Valley of Hinnom (Gehenna) outside the gates of Jerusalem and that Hell was only for the Jews of Jerusalem whose bodies were to be cast into that burning garbage dump at the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.; and next Sam accepts raw materialism when he believes that we do not possess a soul, only like the animals we are souls; the next step he takes it to deny that 1 Corinthians 15 refers to a universal resurrection of mankind. Believe it or not, this is what Sam says about 1 Cor. 15. And the resurrection, and I quote: " The Old Testament foretold the resurrection quite a number of times, not the popular view of fleshly bodies coming out of holes in the ground, but a lot about the resurrection of Israel: how Israel would die, be planted like a seed, be resurrected and transformed, etc. This is why Paul could quote his conclusion in I Corinthians 15 from Isaiah 25 and Hosea 13, which we'll soon see, were to be imminently fulfilled when Jersualem (sic) and the temple were destroyed." That statement is about the silliest thing I have ever read from a so-called "gospel preacher."

1. "The only judgment by God was to the Jews when Jerusalem was destroyed" -- I've never thought this was true, either before the destruction of Jerusalem or after. I do argue that the judgment Jesus spoke of in the gospels was imminent and was reflected at the destruction of Jerusalem.

2. "Hell/Gehenna was not used in any symbolic way" -- Peter didn't give one argument as evidence that it should be used symbolically. Later on, he quotes Alexander Campbell believing it was used symbolically, but Campbell offered no evidence, either.

3. "Sam accepts raw materialism...believes that we do not possess a soul" -- Don't believe I've said anything such thing. Evidence?

4. "Is about the silliest thing I have ever read" on my quotation on the resurrection -- Peter didn't take up one passage of my argument. Not one syllable refuted. This is just his pronouncement. Reader, is that sufficient for you? Foy Wallace thought wristwatches were silly, and said, "Any preacher who wore one probably also wore lace panties." If we're going to be guided by men's opinions without evidence, let's all take our wristwatches off.

To get that from 1 Cor. 15 indeed one could prove that the moon is made of green cheese. His evolution of theology reminds us of the Jehovah's Witnesses who when trapped by their changes, tell us that they have "new light." Sam claims his new light is from his own personal study and growth, but he admits that he had lengthy discussions and consultations with others of the same persuasion. Now, going the full heretical route, he is a confirmed 70 A.D. Doctrine teacher. He pays no attention to the warning: "Do not remove the ancient landmarks, which your fathers have set" (Prov. 22:28).

1. "Personal study, growth, and discussions and consultations" -- Aw-aw, that's a sure route to heresy, isn't it! Tell me, Peter, have you ever done personal study, growth, discussions, and consultations? If so, does that make you a heretic, too?

2. He pays no attention to the warning: "Do not remove the ancient landmarks, which your fathers have set" -- Not true at all, Peter. The ancient landmarks didn't contain the Roman Catholic doctrine of man created with an immortal soul. The ancient landmarks didn't contain the Roman Catholic doctrine of hell-Adam never heard of it. Neither did Job, Moses, David, Abraham, or any of the prophets. The ancient landmarks also don't have Peter's concept of the resurrection, which cannot be found in Moses and the prophets, which is where Paul said he got it. I don't charge Peter with not caring about the warning, I just charge that what he thinks are landmarks are not, and never were.

As stated above, denying that there will be any universal Judgment leads him to deny that humans possess a soul. He seems to think he is enlightening us about the fact that fish and animals are referred to as "souls" (Gen.1:30). Of course in some passages they are referred to as living souls or creatures But he fails to refer us to W.E.Vine's great work on New Testament Words where he lists a number of different uses of the word soul as used in the Bible, one of which is that there it is "the immaterial, invisible part of man." It appears that a lack of honesty is manifested here also as he knows full well about Vine's and other lexicographers definitions (and the Scriptural references that back up their conclusions). In keeping with false teachers, Sam does not inform us that it is only of man it is said he is created "in the image of God" (James 3:9; Gen. 1:26). Sam side-steps the authorities also when it comes to the word "destroy" in Matthew 10:28. Vine tells us that it can mean "loss of well-being" not mere annihilation as Sam teaches. In "hell" there will be a "loss of well-being."

1. Again, Peter charges that I deny humans possess a soul, with no evidence given.

2. "It appears that a lack of honesty is manifested here" -- because I didn't refer to Vine's Dictionary? I do argue that Adam wasn't created immortal, but he didn't address that argument in the least. Rather than assaulting my honesty, he would have been better off assaulting my argument so his readers could see it for themselves.

3. "In keeping with false teachers, Sam does not inform us that it is only of man it is said he is created 'in the image of God'" -- This isn't an argument, Peter, it's just name-calling. Discerning readers may wonder if you didn't resort to such tactics because you didn't have an argument. Likewise, they may refer to what I actually said in the Essay on Luke 16 at www.gospelthemes.com/luke16.htm.

4. "Mere annihilation as Sam teaches" -- I've not used the word "annihilation," but concerning the dead, I have used these words: "there is no wisdom, no knowledge, no thought, no memory of God, and no thanks of God for the dead." Furthermore, "he is destroyed, and is no more" (Eccl. 9.5, 10, Ps. 6.5, 34.16, 37.20, 35-38). Were the men who penned these words annihilationists? Note that I didn't quote Vine or Alexander Campbell, merely the pages of inspiration.

As our friend knows, it only takes one passage to set forth a truth, e.g., Acts 20:7 with regard to the "day" to partake of the Lord's Supper. And it only takes one passage to refute the notion that there will not be a final Judgment for all of mankind. Here is the passage from the lips of Jesus: "But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you" (Mt. 11:24). Sodom had been judged by God many years before (Gen. 19:24), "but," said Jesus, because of the greater light shown to the Jews of His day, "it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment.." There will be another final judgment for Sodom. If not, what Jesus said here makes no sense whatever. It is in that context of another coming final judgment, that Jesus also said to Capernaum, you "will be brought down to hades" (Mt.11:23).

1. "It only takes one passage to refute the notion that there will not be a final judgment for all mankind" -- This may be true, Peter, but in your one-verse prooftexting, you haven't given the passage! I agree that Sodom had another judgment coming, and it would include both the Jews of Jesus' generation and all the OT wicked. You've just got the time element wrong. Instead of listening to the creeds, Peter, listen to Jesus on the time element of their coming judgment:

2. Matthew 16:27-28

"For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and will then recompense every man according to his deeds. "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

Did you catch the time element Jesus set for the judgment, Peter? While some of his disciples were still alive!

Now let's see if Sodom was in on that imminent judgment. Jesus, in Mt. 23.33-36, said:

Ye serpents, ye offspring of vipers, how shall ye escape the judgment of hell? Therefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: some of them shall ye kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city: that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

Going into the next chapter, Jesus tells specifically when he would come and execute this judgment:

Mt. 24.34 - "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away until all these things shall be accomplished.

So, the judgment of Gehenna was coming upon that generation and in that generation. Then all the righteous blood from Abel to Zechariah would be avenged. Peter, do you suppose the sins of Sodom against the righteous would be included in that judgment? Sounds like Jesus thought it would be. How's about Tyre, Sidon, Chorazin? Mt. 11.20-24 said they would all be involved in the day of judgment. Were they? Jesus said yes, but you assign them to another time, don't you? Jesus said the judgment would be while some of his disciples were still alive, and in his generation! No, I don't think they were judged in the environs of Jerusalem, as were the disobedient Jews who were alive, but they were certainly included in the judgment, according to Jesus.

Also, in verses 20-23 Jesus was discussing the judgment of the cities of "Chorazin, Bethsaida, Capernaum, Tyre and Sidon, cities in Galilee, not in Judea and not in Jerusalem. "Tyre and Sidon" were even Gentile cities located in Phoenicia. How could the coming judgment of them be the casting of their bodies in the literal Valley of Hinnom located just outside the walls of Jerusalem more than 100 miles away? Also, as Titus with his armies marched across Palestine in A.D. 70 their forces were met with Jewish opposition all along the way and thousands of Jews were killed "The first line of defence was to be Galilee...by the fall of 67 A.D….Galilee had been subdued…the Jewish army had been completely destroyed" ( Art Ogden's Commentary on Revelation. P. 89).). Those thousands of Jews who were killed were not dumped in the literal Valleyof Hinnom as Max's theology demands that they would have to be. (Interesting it is too that most of the teaching Jesus on Hell was done in Galilee, far from the literal Valley of Hinnom.)

"Those thousands of Jews who were killed were not dumped in the literal Valley of Hinnom as Max's theology demands that they would have to be"

1. Peter, "Jesus I know, and Paul I know," but who is Max?

2. I may have given too brief a view of the judgment being limited to Jerusalem. However, Chorazin, Bethsaida, Capernaum, Tyre and Sidon, certainly figured in the destruction of the Jews by Rome, showing that concocting another future judgment (not in the lifetime of the disciples, Mt. 16.27-28), is entirely unnecessary.

Josephus, Wars, Bk 10, chapter 3: paragraph 9 describes the slaughter of Jews on Genneseret Lake at Capernaum/Chorazin. This was perhaps the only "naval battle" of the war, and it didn't turn out too well for the Jews.

When one fails to understand the development of words, he will miss the truth. In Alexander Campbell's debate with Universalist, Dolphus Skinner (1840), Mr. Campbell noted that all words have "a literal and local meaning." Campbell then cited words like "heaven" and "paradise" to show that those words have a literal and local meaning but also that in one sense they came to mean more: Like heaven where God abides and paradise to the abode of happy spirits in the future world. After relating all the horrible atrocities that took place in the literal O.T. Valley of Hinnom such as the sacrifice of children, Campbell says "there was not, in all its wealth and fullness, any one term more fit to express a place of punishment." Further regarding Gehenna Campbell said: "That it literally denoted a place of punishment, will not be controverted ..; but that, like heaven, paradise and many other important words, it began to be used figuratively as the doctrine of a future life was opened to the human understanding." Campbell forcefully makes the claim that sometimes Gehenna or Hell is used of a future punishment.

"Campbell forcefully makes the claim that sometimes Gehenna or Hell is used of a future punishment"

As seen above, since Jesus himself said that the judgment of hell was coming upon his generation in his generation, if Campbell claimed it was used of a future punishment, then Campbell had the time wrong, did he not? It ought to be a clear choice between Jesus' words and Campbell's words, but we can't have both! I think I know whose words I'll go with. How about you?

Peter, I don't doubt that Campbell held to your teaching. I did too, until I studied, grew, and discussed my way out of it. I recommend that same course to you, even if some of your brethren do call you heretic, dishonest, and false teacher for doing it.

Much more could be cited from the debate, but space forbids it; I suggest that you get the book and read it. I will just cite one reference from the O.T. that is an unanswerable argument. Campbell cites Psalms 9:17: "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all nations that forget God." Then he reasons, "Can anyone of an unbiased judgment imagine that here it simply means the grave? Then what is the difference between saying, 'The wicked,' etc., and the righteous shall be turned into hell and all nations who remember God"! For of course we all, the wicked and the righteous, will die and go to the grave!

"Unanswerable argument on Ps. 9.17" -- Peter, you seem to think that the Psalmist used "hell" like you do. I think you know that gehenna is not even in this passage, nor is it in the entire Greek Old Testament. Think of it--neither Moses, Abraham, David, nor any of the prophets ever heard of your concept of hell! You and Campbell read these verses out of the KJV knowing the mixup the translators made on this subject. They had to, for they were all big names in the Church of England. You, Campbell, and they were teaching good Church of England doctrine, which they took with them when King Henry VIII stole the Roman Catholic Church (who concocted your doctrine) in England from the Pope. It's a good thing Peter and Campbell had their KJV (essentially an English Catholic translation) in their hands or neither one of them would have ever thought to make an argument on hell from Ps. 9.17.

You surely know the word there is Sheol, the unseen, which sometimes (though not here) is used of the grave. You also are familiar with Hebrew parallelism, aren't you, where the same idea is expressed two different ways for clarity or emphasis? Every verse in this psalm contains such a parallelism. Here the psalmist is simply saying 1. the wicked shall be turned into sheol (the unseen-i.e., they're going to vanish), then 2. all the nations that forget God-those are the wicked the first statement is talking about. How Campbell read "the righteous" into the verse, I know not. They're not even mentioned nor are they under consideration! Campbell was a great man, and I respect how far-seeing he was in attempting to work his way out of denominational allegiance, but we still shouldn't let him read "the righteous" into verses that aren't even dealing with them. If your readers don't already know this, they're going to be particularly interested in my material on hell at www.gospelthemes.com/hell.htm.

"Can anyone of an unbiased judgment imagine that here it simply means the grave?" -- Peter, I know how much fun it is to kick a straw man over, but your attempt here is a complete misfire, because I never imagined Sheol simply means the grave. In my material on Hell, I specifically denied it. Yet, without quoting from my material, you give your readers the impression you really dealt with my material, didn't you? No, you simply referred to it, misrepresented it, then sent the straw flying. Yep, fun, and it works well if you're rehearsing the creed, but it won't work with folks who are independent students of the Bible.

Our intelligent but confused brother takes many O.T. literal passages and fails to consider them in the light of the N.T. uses and interpretations. The inspired N.T. writers made application of many O.T. passages that do not adhere to the literal application or context in which they are found: Example is Hosea 11:1 "Out of Egypt I have called My Son." Who will deny that this had literal reference to the physical nation of Israel that God called out of Egypt. But Matthew applies it to Jesus' parent taking Him out of Egypt (Mt. 2:13-14). A list could be multiplied. Be sure to read the next paragraph by the learned J.W. McGarvey.

"Our intelligent but confused brother takes many O. T. literal passages and fails to consider them in the light of the N. T. uses and interpretations" -- Peter, you make another charge with not a scintilla of evidence to back it up. I have no problem with the example you gave. I appreciate every syllable McGarvey wrote on OT quotations in the NT, but to apply the charge to me with no evidence is simply bad aim on your part.

The following is good, please read it. I am glad I came across it many years ago. It is from McGarvey's Commentary on Matthew. He notes that there are "three distinct classes of quotations which are found in the New Testament, and which especially abound in Matthew. The FIRST, concerning the birth-place of Jesus, is strictly a prediction, for it refers directly to the event. The SECOND, concerning the call out of Egypt, is an example of words used with a double reference, having both a primary and secondary reference and fulfillment. Such predictions are sometimes called typical, because they are originally spoken concerning a type and find another fulfillment in the antitype. THIRD, concerning the weeping at Bethlehem, is an example in which the event fulfills the meaning of words used by a prophet, though the words had originally no reference at all to this event. It is a verbal fulfillment, and not a real fulfillment, as in the other two cases." I suspect this later sense e is how Paul uses the two passages from Isaiah and Hosea in 1 Corinthians, which Sam unwisely takes literally.

"I suspect this later sense is how Paul uses the two passages from Isaiah and Hosea in 1 Corinthians, which Sam unwisely takes literally" -- and, Peter, I suspect that discerning readers are going to suspect that you didn't deal with those two passages at all. Now you've elevated your suspicions to refutation! You didn't quote the passages. Didn't give the context of them. Didn't tell when Isaiah and Hosea preached, who they preached to, the state of Israel at the time, yet you think you've dealt with them, and I suspect some readers will think you have. I suspect you are like me, Peter, not even knowing those two quotations from Hosea and Isaiah were there until you had preached the popular position for decades. I hope I'm wrong and congratulate you if I am.

If Sam would have been better read, he may not have fallen so deeply in his errors. But no, he takes the O.T. and interprets the N.T.! He forces the literal wording of passages in the O.T. into the spiritual teaching of the apostles in the N.T. That is not how a student or a scholar is to handle the word of God. Finally, Jesus "brought life and immortality to light through the gospel" (2 Tim.1:11). To use the O.T. as Sam does regarding his new-found convictions is, to borrow Paul's words, to "be entangled again in the yoke of bondage" (Gal.5:1-3).

"If Sam would have been better read" -- When I realized Paul's preaching on the resurrection was based on Moses and the prophets and was essentially Old Testament doctrine, I thought reading Moses and the Prophets on the resurrection to better understand Paul's teaching in I Corinthians 15 was the proper course to take. I have to wonder if Peter has started doing that yet.

"But no, he takes the O. T. and interprets the N. T.!" -- Peter, you seem to think we can take our modern concept of the resurrection and read it back into the prophets, if we deal with the prophets at all. Consider how the admirable Berean Jews treated Paul's teaching in Ac. 17.11:

Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of the mind, examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so.

The "scriptures" these Berean Jews used to examine and test Paul's teaching by were the Old Testament scriptures, were they not? As they compared Paul's teaching to the Old Testament, they concluded that Paul's teaching was true, not vice versa as you suggest. They did not read our modern popular concept of Paul's teaching on the resurrection back into their Old Testaments. Had they done so, their approach would have been just exactly backward, just like yours, Peter!

Consider a second example. Many passages in Acts tell us Paul went into the synagogues every sabbath and persuaded the Jews from the scriptures (Ac. 14.19, 17.4, 18.4, 19.26, etc.). What would have happened had they asked, "Paul, how can you give meanings to Hosea, Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc., that they simply did not give us?" Had Paul responded, "The Holy Spirit gave me this fresher, fuller meaning that isn't in the prophets!" do you think his Jewish audience would have accepted Paul's new teaching? Of course not! They would have sent him down the road or killed him. On the other hand, discerning Berean students checked out OT teaching to see if Paul's teaching squared with it. The ones who didn't, wouldn't deal with Paul's arguments, quickly got ugly, and tried to kill him. They still do.

We'll see momentarily that Paul told the Jews that he taught nothing on the resurrection but what Moses and the prophets said would come to pass. Nothing. How could he have said that if he was giving newer revelation on the resurrection than what their Old Testament scriptures contained?

Until we realize how Paul and the Berean Jews used the Old Testament scriptures, we can't understand the chapter like Paul did, and we won't teach on the subject like Paul did, which you, Peter, do not do.

Trying to read the popular teaching of today back into Moses and the prophets couldn't be more backwards from what the Bereans did. Think about that, Peter, the next time you're urging people to be Bereans, and see how you can make it lather.

One final word. According to Sam Dawson and the 70 A.D. doctrine, man has no soul, there will not be a future Judgment Day of humankind, there will be no future resurrection of God's people to heaven. Then just what in the name of reason can he preach? Nothing but messages about the good life here and now; which is totally contrary to the main message of what the N.T. teaches (Mark 10:29-30; 2 Cor. 5:10-11; Titus 1:2; John 5:24-29 etc.). And which could be preached from a number of "good" books off the shelf in a Secular Book Store! Questions: Why "go into all the world and preach the gospel" if there is nothing to be "saved" from and if unbelievers are not to be "condemned" and if there is no eternal heaven for the faithful after this life (Mk.16:15-16; Col. 3:1-4; Phil 3:20-21, etc.).

"Then just what in the name of reason can he preach?" -- On Hell, Peter, we can all preach what Jesus did. Use the 12 gehenna passages in the NT, teach nothing they didn't teach and everything they did, then just be quiet. That's all I've done. While you're at it, strip out all the Roman Catholicism (which is where the whole system came from, which they incorporated from Egyptians, Greek, and Jewish sources between the testaments). And for goodness' sake, stop reading all that debris back into the OT, which doesn't contain your concept at all.

On the resurrection, why not preach what Paul preached? On this very topic, he said he preached "nothing but what Moses and the prophets said should come to pass." Your concept of the resurrection has no basis whatsoever in the prophets. Until you learn what the prophets taught about it, you can't be like the Bereans and compare Paul's teaching with the prophets to ascertain that he truly taught the same thing they did. I'd suggest you start with Daniel 9 & 12, which link the resurrection with the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple. Then move on to Hosea and Isaiah, which Paul quoted in his conclusion to I Corinthians 15.

It surely isn't as easy as prooftexting, Peter, and you'll lose some friends over it. However, if you're really after the truth, you'll still get what you want. Above all, don't try to figure out all the results, get scared, and quit studying the basic texts. After all, we're talking about Bible study here, not creed rehearsal.

Fellow students, I'll admit Peter's paragraph above sounds pretty bad, and it's pure misrepresentation, but I trust the independent Bible students among you will use the links above to examine my teaching for yourself. Peter is arguing from consequences he fears rather than from his own study, always a poor method of approaching the scriptures. How is Peter's approach any different from studying baptism with someone who says, "Why, that can't be right, because that would condemn my grandma who was sprinkled as a baby into our denomination?"

CONCLUSION

To all, thanks for reading and considering. I wish you well in your studying, growing, and discussing this subject! I pray that this discussion between Peter and myself will help provoke curiosity and a determination to study for yourself without denominational or preacher allegiances.

Sam Dawson

Peter McPherson
323 Lindan Ave.
Peterborough, ON K9L 1K9
Canada
705 742-5349
petermc11@nexicom.net

Send this site to a friend! (click here)

 
Read Sam's Last Things & Covenant Eschatology FAQ

Once we start studying the Old Testament and how it is quoted in the New Testament, we begin to see that our generalized ignorance has done it to us again in trying to understand the last days. This collection of questions and essays shares some of the information that has been helpful to me in my personal study. This FAQ page will continue to grow as I continue to study this subject even more, so check back often. ~ Samuel G. Dawson


 

$18.95
Add to Shopping Cart
Read Sam's FREE CHAPTERS from his book The Teaching of Jesus: From Mount Sinai to Gehenna: A Faithful Rabbi Urgently Warns Rebellious Israel

Click here to read about The Teaching of Jesus

 


 

$18.95
Add to Shopping Cart
You'll enjoy Sam's FREE CHAPTERS from How to Study the Bible: A Practical Guide to Independent Bible Study

Click here to read about How to Study the Bible

 


Save 13%

Samuel G. Dawson's Tradition-Challenging Specials

Save 13% on 3 of Sam Dawson's books! Get all 3 for $41.50.
(a $47.85 value--save $6.35)

 

Add 3-Book Special for $41.50 to Shopping Cart

Save 13% on Sam Dawson's 2 books! Get both for $32.90.
(a $37.90 value--save $5.00)

Add 2-Book Special for $32.90 to Shopping Cart

Save 13% on 6 of Sam Dawson's books! Get all 6 for $89.35.
($102.70 value--save $13.35)

Add 6-Book Special for $89.35 to Shopping Cart
Subscribe to free newsletter and receive information about
  • New publications
  • New free online materials
  • Special offers and discounts

Note: Gospel Themes Press rarely sends out notifications more than once a month. We do not sell or share our lists.

Please enter your name:
and your e-mail address:

Feedback Form:

Thanks for your input

Return to top.

Would you like to see more of Samuel G. Dawson's publications? Visit our Bookstore.

Send this site to a friend! (click here)

Top  |  Authors  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  |  Rights & Disclaimer  |  Purchase  |  Cart / Checkout
Gospel Themes Press Home

GospelThemes.com
Copyright © 2009 Gospel Themes Press, 2028 South Austin Suite 906, Amarillo, TX 79109-1960, USA. All rights reserved.