This reviewer read "No Fear of the Storm" in 1993 after reading "The Pre Wrath Rapture of the Church" by Marvin Rosenthal. The contrasting tenor of both book is astounding. Rosenthal is firm, but gracious. LaHaye is simply vitriolic.

Beginning on page 95 (chapter 8), LaHaye demonstrates that the pre-trib position is, to him, nearly as important as the virgin birth. He calls Nelson Publishing a "formerly reliable publisher of pre-Trib material", as if they have betrayed a core doctrine Christianity.

He claims that the Pre-wrath position is the "most confusing interpretation of end-time events...that no one...would come to on his own..." LaHaye, over the last 11 years, has been proven wrong time and again as people have come forth saying the pre-Wrath view fills in the blanks, and answers the questions pre-Trib theologians have been neglecting to answer forthrightly for years.

Rosenthal is misrepresented on page 103 as having midtribulational presuppositions (read chapter 2 of Ryrie's "Basic Theology" for the simplest handling of presuppositions). The fact is well known that Rosenthal was a pretribulationalist with strong resistance to alternative views. One might say, tongue in cheek, "his hope was built on nothing less than Scofield's notes and Moody Press." And LaHaye knows it.

Page 146 contains a harsh paragraph that should concern Christians: "What has [neutralized Christians] is the pietistic movement's error that politics is evil and that heavenly minded Christians should not be involved in changing society through government." This is a grave error by LaHaye. The fact is, Christians were never called by Christ to change society through Government. The political system *is* evil because it is not of God: it is a kingdom in conflict with the kingdom Christ is building. It is a man-made structure set up for accomplishing man's goals. In a word, it is Babel. Society is composed of human souls, and changing those souls cannot, and never will be, done through government. A reading of John MacArthur's "Why Government Can't Save You" explains this with ease.

LaHaye literally "predicted" on page 113, to wit: "I predict it [the pre-Wrath view] will prove to be an aberrant brainstorm that, despite its deep-pocketed two-year promotional campaign, will fade away before it becomes a fad."

I have waited ten years since my original reading to write these words: LaHaye is wrong, and his "prediction" smells of bad fruit.

Speaking of deep-pocketed promotional campaigns (which, from LaHaye's quote above, must be a common denominator of false teaching), we are reminded that this is the same LaHaye who is author of the fictional "Left Behind" series which, in this reviewer's strong opinion, is a clear violation of Rev. 22:18-19. LaHaye has camped so strongly on his position that he has added chronological characteristics, fictional characters, subordinate plots, and dramatic nuances to the inspired and revealed Word of God -- a bit of "help" I am confident God did not ask for from LaHaye. Won't it be interesting if LaHaye finds himself thrust into tribulational pressure he did not expect to encounter, face-to-face with the plagues he had no fear of, and in direct fulfillment of John's warning in Revelation which said, "Don't add anything to this book."

"No fear" is the beginning of LaHaye's downgrade, where he embraced personal goals over sound doctrine. Matt. 24:4: "See to it that no one misleads you." (NASB) This book is misleading.

This book is a wonderful defense of the Pre-Trib view of prophecy. Mr. LaHaye goes into all the Scriptural justifications for holding this view, while at the same time defending it from the attacks of those who DON'T hold it, particularly Dave McPherson, whose books attacking the Pre-Trib Rapture view have a number of flaws in their arguments. At the same time, Mr LaHaye reviews, and Scripturally refutes, the other views of eschatology (end-times prophecy). I recommend this book.

Most people who read this book have already read the first 2 in the series as well. That being the assumption, this book tends to recap a little bit too much on the previous stories. I understand the need to explain to readers who didn't start with the first book, but for those of us who did....I found myself skipping several pages at a time on more than one occasion to get past it. Overall though, a decent read though. 3 books down in the series....lots to go!!

this book had its ups and downs. the author had good description but i didn't find this book to be as big of a thriller as the other ones were.

I was expecting more from this 21 pg. tract/booklet. Several very Imp. thoughts about sin/deterioration were criminally left out. Still, it's worth a read.

This is an excellent book to help parents put the act in its Christianperspective. I appreciated that unhealthy practices are labeled as such. TheLaHayes are very clear, yet modest writers. Bless them!

As God created sex to be performed only in the act of marriage, this book teaches clear Biblical principals. It offers a great timeline of when to speak to your kids about the changes that will occur in them and talks about the dangers than can lead to sexual sin. It is an excellent book for Christian parents who desire for their children to enjoy sex in the sanctity of marriage the way God intended.

This book says it all as a guide for parents on telling them that Pre-marital sex is a sin. The Bible DOES say to abstain from sexual immorality. This book is a guide on how to teach your children the PROPER methods of dating, courtship, and abstinence. I cannot see why this book got such poor reviews.

Some of the things other reviewers said about this book are lies.

It is VERY important for Christian parents to give their children a proper Christian upbringing

If there was a book like this 20 years ago, and it was made required reading in all Christian schools and encouraged reading at public schools, teenage pregnancy would likely be nonexistant today in civilized US society

It was hard for me to read this book because of the huge amount of errors within. Not only do these prophecy "experts" misrepresent preterism in many ways, but their arguments for their own position are very weak. Many times the authors contradict themselves and Ice continues to use arguments which he has been shown in the past to be faulty. In this book the authors attack partial preterism because they believe that if they can refute partial preterism then full preterism will automatically be done away with. Full and partial preterism are alike in many ways but in many ways they are not. Full preterism answers many of the problems caused by partial preterism. Even though this book has been written by the authors as a defense for dispensationalism, it may cause them more problems then good. Many Christians have been greatly blessed by discovering the truths of preterism in the scriptures, but the majority of believers have never even heard of preterism. Because the authors of this book are so well known they have basically placed preterism in a position for many to see. When we run into language in the Bible that is hard to understand (like sun and moon going black, hills melting, etc), we must go to the Old Testament and see where that type of language is used and what it is used for. If you want to know what preterists believe don't listen to the many misrepresentations of this book, instead read some full preterists books by authors like Ed Stevens and John Noe. I recommend John Noe's book "Beyond the End Times" (I don't agree with John's interpretation of Heb 9:28, I believe it is referring to the resurrection) to learn the basics of preterism and Ed Stevens book "Expectations Demand a Rapture" to learn when the rapture really took place.

The thump thump thump you hear from below must be the tail wagging the dog. I cannot believe by how much this book misses the mark in so many areas.

The book contradicts itself on more than one occasion.

The book quotes authors of other works which, when you actually read those works, contradict the claims made by this book.

There are often cases in which the book claims that it will address certain arguments of the preterists and then fails to do so.

The book makes the ludicrous claim that if one of the Church Fathers does not hold to some arbitrarily chosen definition of preterism set forth by the authors of the book, that no statement by a Church Father which supports the preterist view can actually be taken as support for it. I don't know what fallacy this might be, but I am sure it is one. If the early church father does not support the full preterist package as defined by the authors of this book, no SINGLE statement by that church father regarding how some SINGLE passage should be interpreted or understood (typically, as having already been) fulfilled) can serve as evidence in favor of preterism.

The book often resorts to straw-men, red-herrings, non-sequiturs and either-or fallacies.

The book contains a complete chapter on what the authors mean by a "literal" hermeneutic, but then when you go on to read the following chapters it becomes crystal clear that their hermeneutic is not what they claim.

The book often presents only one side of the argument, so that you never really get to find out why preterism is such an issue that these authors felt the need to write a book against it. In other words, for a book that is supposed to be a refutation of preterism, it sure spends a great amount of material avoiding addressing itself to preterism.

Possibly the greatest flaw in the book is that it starts out with a faulty premise. The authors for some reason believe that if they can dismantle "partial-preterism" that "full-preterism" and all other forms of preterism are shown to be false. The authors chose to address themselves ONLY to partial-preterism. The error here is that full-preterism is a much more consistent and therefore a more robust form of preterism, not susceptible to many of the arguments that the authors employ against partial-preterism. The result is that the authors do not even address themselves to the strongest arguments of their opponents. This in itself is enough to discredit the book.

This book is by no means a "stake in the heart" of the preterists. You will NOT come away from this book with the tools that you need to combat preterism. ...

"Left Behind" theology is losing its grip on many people, since although they are not professional theologians, they are beginning to see how this brand of theology is inconsistent with the Bible on so many points. This book is an attempt to salvage this view of eschatology being challenged by many scholars. For a critical review of this book, please search for Gary DeMar's web site (his organization is American Vision). I noticed a 2-part review posted there.

There is one thing, and one thing only, that results from teaching your own pet theory of Christ's return is the only correct one - division.

Churches (usually rural, unsophistocated congregations with little theological expertise or personal maturity) rip apart as factions put books like this on par with Scripture. Ministries sever apart as individuals refuse to deal with godly men any longer simply because they don't agree with their end-times doctrine. Relationships end. People are hurt.

Why? Why on earth do Christians feel the need to fight about this stuff? Nobody really knows how the world will end. I'm a post-tribulational Amillennialist. I highly doubt the PreTrib position because 2 Thes. 2:3 says the Anti-Christ comes first, period. I also highly doubt the post-millennial position of Calvinists because of the exact same verse (no matter how you slice it, a supernatural opponent of Christ is actively reigning at the time Jesus returns for the Final Battle - Utopian hopes are deluded, and the fact that America, which is spiritually exhausted and possibly doomed, was founded in large part by post-millennial utopians sadly underscores this point). But am I willing to separate from people in my church if they don't agree with me? NO! "In the essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, but in all things love." I have news for Tim LaHaye and the legions who follow him - your beliefs are not "essentials!" Get over it, and stop trying to destroy and divide church after church!

This paperback has been reformated under;
The Rapture: Who Will Face the Tribulation (Tim Lahaye Prophecy Library)

This is a good primer on the Pretribulationist position. But since I am of this view point...it is like singing to the choir for me.
The gem hidden for Pretribulationist in this book is the section "No Fear of Misguided Attacks" and covers...
* The Pre-wrath Myth (Dealing with VanKampen and Rosenthal)
* McPherson's Vendetta (Dealing with his hatred of the Pre-trib doctrine)
* The Most Absurd Charge of All (Dealing with Robert L. Price attacks calling belief in the Pre-Trib Rapture "cultish")
* A Case Against Slander (Dealing with attacks against Dr. Ironside's)
*Target Number One (Attacks against J.N. Darby)
*Why Do They Do That (Deals with possible reasons opponent attack the Pre-Trib Rapture)
The opponents say frequently that the pretribulation rapture did not start until 1830 from J.N. Darby, of whom was influenced by Irving and the vision of Margaret Mc Donald.
I would start with the chapter Target Number One. The truth is that Darby in his own words said he started his dispensational view (that lead to forming pretribulation rapture doctrine) in 1827 when he was recovering from a broken leg while riding his horse.
From that time he left the Church of England and joined with the Plymouth Brethern. But Darby made enemies because of his forceful personality. In 1844 he and B.W. Newton had bitter strife over the issue concerning the status of the church during the Great Tribulation. Eventually Newton was excommunicated for heresy for his faulty view of the person of Christ.
In 1855, Newton and his brother in law S. P. Tregelles attacked pretributionism as from "Judizers" and in 1865 changed it to a spirit utterance in Mr. Irving's Church.
It is from this poisoned well that McPherson drew to attack pretribulationism. In turn other opponents like Vankampen and Rosenthal quote from McPherson slanted research without question as being true.
These chapters will answer these charges and show them as biased and lacking credibility. From these chapters you can do your own research and come to your own conclusions.

Tim Lahaye's book is thoroughly based on scripture. He takes a literal interpretation of God's word on end time events. There are many dissenting views as opposed to the pre-trib rapture view, but they are not biblically sound. The scriptures back up and support a pre-trib view. If you have your bible, read it for yourself! So many times in his book, Lahaye shows that the church will be saved from the wrath to come. The believers in Christ will be raptured and taken out of this world, and he backs this all up with scripture. If you want to know and understand the book of Revelation to a greater degree, and you want to know what will happen when Jesus comes for his bride(the church), then this is the book for you. Tim Lahaye helps to explain God's near-future plan!

This reviewer read "No Fear of the Storm" in 1993 after reading "The Pre Wrath Rapture of the Church" by Marvin Rosenthal. The contrasting tenor of both books is astounding. Rosenthal is firm, but gracious. LaHaye is simply vitriolic.

This book is a reprint of that 1992 work. Any changes in this latest edition that might have been made from the original are not evident after two readings.

LaHaye claims that the Pre-wrath position is the "most confusing interpretation of end-time events...that no one...would come to on his own..." LaHaye, over the last 11 years, has been proven wrong time and again as people have come forth saying the pre-Wrath view fills in the blanks, and answers the questions pre-Trib theologians have been neglecting to answer forthrightly for years.

The book retains the harsh paragraph that should concern Christians: "What has [neutralized Christians] is the pietistic movement's error that politics is evil and that heavenly minded Christians should not be involved in changing society through government." This is a grave error by LaHaye. The fact is, Christians were never called by Christ to change society through government. The political system *is* evil because it is not of God: it is a kingdom in conflict with the kingdom Christ is building. It is a man-made structure set up for accomplishing man's goals. In a word, it is Babel. Society is composed of human souls, and changing those souls cannot, and never will be, done through government. A reading of John MacArthur's "Why Government Can't Save You" explains this with ease.

LaHaye literally "predicted" in the original book, and again in this one, to wit: "I predict it [the pre-Wrath view] will prove to be an aberrant brainstorm that, despite its deep-pocketed two-year promotional campaign, will fade away before it becomes a fad." Here it is 11 years later, and this latest book retains a prediction that isn't coming true. His "prediction" smells of bad fruit.

Speaking of deep-pocketed promotional campaigns (which, from LaHaye's quote above, must be a common denominator of false teaching), we are reminded that this is the same LaHaye who is author of the fictional "Left Behind" series which, in this reviewer's strong opinion, is a clear violation of Rev. 22:18-19. LaHaye has camped so strongly on his position that he has added chronological characteristics, fictional characters, subordinate plots, and dramatic nuances to the inspired and revealed Word of God -- a bit of "help" I am confident God did not ask for from LaHaye.

For example, in books 8 & 9 of the "Left Behind" series, LaHaye and Jenkins teach that recipients of the mark of the beast can still be saved. In "The Mark", "the Chang scenario" is developed, whereby a character receives both the mark of the beast and the sealing of the Lord. This is absolutely contrary to scripture.

Won't it be tragic if LaHaye finds himself thrust into tribulational pressure he did not expect to encounter, face-to-face with the plagues he had "no fear of", and in direct fulfillment of John's warning in Revelation which said, "Don't add anything to this book."

"No fear of the Storm" was the beginning of LaHaye's downgrade; this latest edition continues to promote his personal goals over sound doctrine. Matt. 24:4: "See to it that no one misleads you." (NASB) This book is misleading.

"No Fear of the Storm" came out in 1992 by LaHaye. In 1998 "Rapture Under Attack" was published, which in fact was simply a reprint of "No Fear of the Storm", but with a different title. Now, in 2002, "The Rapture" has been published, which is again another reprint of "No Fear of the Storm", with a different title, different cover,...only available at this time in hardback... as if it's a new book. If you have read "No Fear of the Storm" or "Rapture Under Attack" you will be very disappointed to find that this is the SAME book, even though it's not make clear that it is. Save your money.

Because it's the same book, I will give the same review that I gave for the last one by LaHaye.

"If Christ does not rapture His church before the tribulation begins, much of the hope is destroyed, and thus it becomes a blasted hope." (Rapture Under Attack, pg. 69)

Blasted hope? This statement scares me. If Tim Lehaye is wrong in his theology, he has just called Christ's return a blasted hope. Remember, Mr. Lehaye and his fellow pre-tribulation scholars tell us Jesus will be unseen by the world at the rapture and then seen only later at His glorious appearance. This "blessed hope" Tim Lehaye refers to throughout his "Rapture Under Attack" book is found in Titus.

Titus 2:13 NIV ....while we wait for the blessed hope-the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,....

I thought he said the rapture was the blessed hope. I thought it was unseen. We can't have it both ways, so we better find out what the truth is. Feel free to read this book, but please study your bible along with it to see for yourself...

"The Rapture" by Tim LaHaye was an excellent book. I grew up in a Christian family and church, which for many years taught the post-tribulation rapture. To tell the truth, I never found encouragement in knowing I would possibly live through the Tribulation and the huge chance I wouldn't make it to see Christ return. When the Left Behind series emerged, I questioned my church's beliefs and began studying prophecy to strengthen what I was brought up in. I found "The Rapture" by Dr. LaHaye and read it along with the KJV, NKJV, NIV, NRSV, NLT, and NASV translations and I am now convinced and re-energized by the knowlege that Christ promised to come back for us. I have switched views! The anticipation and renewed surge in me to live my best for Christ is incredible thanks the Holy Spirit and Dr. LaHaye's book(s). I recommend this book to anyone who believes in a pre-tribultation rapture to strengthen your faith. To those who hold to the mid- or post-tribulation views, I encourage you to study it with your bible (or in my case, various translations) and let the Holy Spirit guide you. If you change your mind after studying, you haven't lost a thing, but gained a lot. If it doesn't change your mind and it strengthens your belief and faith, more power to you. You also have not lost a thing and gained a greater strength in Christ. Give Dr. La Haye's study a chance and let the Word of God speak for Himself. GREAT BOOK!

In short, this book is not the answer for everyone. I wish it was. The premise in this book is that everyone has difficulties, and that depression is basically choosing to have self-pity about one's difficulties. I agree that a depressed person (like myself) is often self-consumed. But while depression can definitely be caused or contributed to by self-pity, there are other causes.

Depression can be very complex and can stem from truly *damaged* emotional and mental processes. If a person has been in a difficult situation for years, especially formative years, they may have picked up many wounds and harmful mental processes along the way. It can take years of counseling to learn to think and feel in a healthy way. In other words, a wound is a wound. Being wounded is not a sin. Wounds need *medicine*, and the more severe the wound, the more medicine it may need. The medicine for depression can be spiritual counseling, psychological counseling, medication, or a combination.

We cannot fix a damaged arm by confessing that the damage is a sin. We cannot fix wounded mental processes, crippled self-image by focusing more on our sinfulness. If you know that you're a sinner and you have a growing relationship with God, and you still deal with wounds and depression, I suggest trying a book by Henry Cloud. He is realistic in helping people deal with past wounds, experience fully God's love and acceptance, and move on.

This book does not really live up to its title; it's not about the crucifixion. But let me start with the smaller problems.

The author wastes a chapter talking about the ACLU and others' efforts to remove the cross as an emblem in America. I would rather have seen that space devoted to talking about Jesus' life, the significance of the crucifixion, or something else. The cross is inadvertently reduced to a symbol, not an event. (He has chapters on why people wear crosses, chapters on the wisdom of God and the foolishness of secular humanism, and stuff like that, but none on the crucifixion itself.)

Women readers will have a hard time identifying with the book. For the most part, women in this book are somebody's "beautiful wife" rather than people. The worst example is the chapter dealing with homosexuality. It gives half a dozen stories and alludes to dozens more, but except for one use of the word "lesbian," all references are to men. (It even says many former homosexuals later become husbands and fathers.) That's a minor point, but it's a definite blind spot that will limit the audience.

Compelling as many of the personal stories are--the book's one true strength--the way they are used reduces Christianity to a means. I'm reminded of the facetious question, "If Jesus is the answer, what's the question?" because one chapter shows that prisoners who accept Christ stay out of prison, and other chapters similarly show Christ (or, rather, "the cross") as the only reliable cure for alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, and homosexuality. Each person "bows at the cross" and finds his life changed--but since the book has not dealt adequately with the crucifixion, its meaning has been trivialized into a quick cure for whatever I can't solve any other way. Probably God will use this book to bring people to salvation, but I wouldn't feel comfortable giving it to an unbeliever because of the way it turns "the cross" into a magic cure-all for deep-rooted problems rather than the method for reconciliation with a holy God.

The stories are powerful. But the book itself could have been strong if handled differently, and it's not.