By far the greatest hits I get on this blog is an article I wrote about Adventist Steve Wohlberg. In my experience as an admin on several prophecy related forums, young Adventists have had a significant presence. Seventh-day Adventism is still very popular.
Grace to You's Phil Johnson is an ex Adventist. He was recently interviewed re SDA HERE. And here's another link.
Showing posts with label Steve Wohlberg. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Steve Wohlberg. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 8, 2020
Monday, December 26, 2011
Israel & Armageddon - Fact & Fiction?
As mentioned before, there’s a tendency for proponents of replacement theology to claim that those who support a prophetic future for Israel have a dangerous influence on politics. This is an all-too-common canard. Israel’s very presence in the land offends its neighbors, regardless of its actions. Moreover, any insinuation that God has further plans for Israel apparently offends some Christians.
Steve Wohlberg writes:
“The belief that God will ultimately defend Middle East Jews at Armageddon is so strongly embedded within the 21st century evangelical psyche that it has spilled over into politics and even influences U.S. foreign policy toward the Jewish State...”
The following is a portion of a rather convoluted article that he’s posted on his website. These “explanations” become convoluted when people attempt to make Scripture say something other than what it means. In this case, Wohlberg wants to excise Israel (the nation) from prophecy:
“What about "Armageddon"? Surprisingly, this exact word is used only once in the Bible, in Revelation 16:16. The Word says, "And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue, Armageddon." Honestly, there is no literal "place" anywhere on Earth bearing this exact name. It's true, there is a valley north of Jerusalem which was called "Megiddo" (Judges 5:19) in Bible days. It was a place where the armies of Israel often met foreign enemies in bloody battles. Because "Megiddo," sounds like, "Armageddon," millions assume this same place will be the location of a final showdown against the Jews. But is this right?”
I wonder how many times something needs to be mentioned in Scripture to make it valid. Wohlberg assumes that it isn’t Megiddo, not because of Scripture but because it doesn’t fit into his Adventist tradition. He then constructs a number of arguments to work his way around the problem of certain biblical texts which happen to be specific about who is involved and the location. He continues:
“A careful study of "the Revelation of Jesus Christ" proves that Christianity's massive "God-Is-Behind-Modern-Israel" theology is just not true. Not that God doesn't love Modern Israel, the Israeli people, and Jewish people. But as we have seen, Revelation's focus is not on "Israel after the flesh" (Israel one), but on "the Israel of God" (Israel Two) composed of both Jews and non-Jews (including Arabs) centered in Jesus Christ.”
To be specific, “Israel Two” would be Sabbath observing Adventist church saints as opposed to the Sunday worshipping earth dwellers of the RC Antichrist system, although Wohlberg leaves those pertinent details out of his narrative. He either writes for Adventists in the know or his readers will “get it” later down the track as they get more involved in Adventist thought.
More importantly, Revelation doesn’t support any of his contentions – not even once. That is what he believes despite the plain references to Israel and the 12 tribes in the following passages - Matt 19:28; Luke 22:30; Acts 1:3-7; Acts 26:6-7; James 1:1; Rev 7:4; Rev 21:12.
Michael Rydelnik once brought up Zechariah 14 in his radio discussion/debate with Gary Burge. Dr Burge suggested that it had an historical context. To which Dr Rydelnik rightly pointed out that the last time he’d visited the region, the Mount of Olives was still intact.
Readers of Wohlberg’s materials should undertake a careful reading and comparison of Zech 14 and Revelation 16. See also Joel 3:2; 11-16 and Zech12:1-3 and the verses cited above. Connect the dots as to whether there is a literal gathering of nations in a specific place (Megiddo) that is near a literal nation called Israel, or whether this is “fiction”.
What does Scripture say sans the circular reasoning?
Steve Wohlberg writes:
“The belief that God will ultimately defend Middle East Jews at Armageddon is so strongly embedded within the 21st century evangelical psyche that it has spilled over into politics and even influences U.S. foreign policy toward the Jewish State...”
The following is a portion of a rather convoluted article that he’s posted on his website. These “explanations” become convoluted when people attempt to make Scripture say something other than what it means. In this case, Wohlberg wants to excise Israel (the nation) from prophecy:
“What about "Armageddon"? Surprisingly, this exact word is used only once in the Bible, in Revelation 16:16. The Word says, "And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue, Armageddon." Honestly, there is no literal "place" anywhere on Earth bearing this exact name. It's true, there is a valley north of Jerusalem which was called "Megiddo" (Judges 5:19) in Bible days. It was a place where the armies of Israel often met foreign enemies in bloody battles. Because "Megiddo," sounds like, "Armageddon," millions assume this same place will be the location of a final showdown against the Jews. But is this right?”
I wonder how many times something needs to be mentioned in Scripture to make it valid. Wohlberg assumes that it isn’t Megiddo, not because of Scripture but because it doesn’t fit into his Adventist tradition. He then constructs a number of arguments to work his way around the problem of certain biblical texts which happen to be specific about who is involved and the location. He continues:
“A careful study of "the Revelation of Jesus Christ" proves that Christianity's massive "God-Is-Behind-Modern-Israel" theology is just not true. Not that God doesn't love Modern Israel, the Israeli people, and Jewish people. But as we have seen, Revelation's focus is not on "Israel after the flesh" (Israel one), but on "the Israel of God" (Israel Two) composed of both Jews and non-Jews (including Arabs) centered in Jesus Christ.”
To be specific, “Israel Two” would be Sabbath observing Adventist church saints as opposed to the Sunday worshipping earth dwellers of the RC Antichrist system, although Wohlberg leaves those pertinent details out of his narrative. He either writes for Adventists in the know or his readers will “get it” later down the track as they get more involved in Adventist thought.
More importantly, Revelation doesn’t support any of his contentions – not even once. That is what he believes despite the plain references to Israel and the 12 tribes in the following passages - Matt 19:28; Luke 22:30; Acts 1:3-7; Acts 26:6-7; James 1:1; Rev 7:4; Rev 21:12.
Michael Rydelnik once brought up Zechariah 14 in his radio discussion/debate with Gary Burge. Dr Burge suggested that it had an historical context. To which Dr Rydelnik rightly pointed out that the last time he’d visited the region, the Mount of Olives was still intact.
Readers of Wohlberg’s materials should undertake a careful reading and comparison of Zech 14 and Revelation 16. See also Joel 3:2; 11-16 and Zech12:1-3 and the verses cited above. Connect the dots as to whether there is a literal gathering of nations in a specific place (Megiddo) that is near a literal nation called Israel, or whether this is “fiction”.
What does Scripture say sans the circular reasoning?
Friday, September 23, 2011
Gen 12, Israel & the Land
And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed. Gen 12:3
Christian Zionists often quote this verse and apply it to the nation Israel. Note that this shouldn’t suppose that Israel is free to do whatever it wills and that Christians must indiscriminately support it. Among other things, we should acknowledge that Israel’s major failing as a secular nation is its lack of recognition of Christ as its Messiah.
But anti-Zionists (for want of a better word) will invariably take the above verse and re-route it to ONLY point to Christ and ultimately the church. Steve Wohlberg’s article is one example of how replacement theologians might strategize a response to Zionists:
Notice, the direct "bless-curse" line concerned Abraham alone, not Israel, and "all the families of the earth" were to be blessed in Abraham, which meant through "his seed," which was Jesus Christ (see Galatians 3:16). In order to receive that very blessing, individuals must be willing to be "turned away" from their sins by God's grace (see Acts 3:25,26).
Wohlberg, and others, invariably ignore Gen 27:29 where Isaac blesses Jacob-Israel. Note the blessing and curse.
May peoples serve you, And nations bow down to you; Be master of your brothers, And may your mother's sons bow down to you. Cursed be those who curse you, And blessed be those who bless you.
Acts actually confirms Israel’s election and that the covenant is still valid. Peter is addressing the Jews (Acts 3:13-15):
It is you who are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, 'AND IN YOUR SEED ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH SHALL BE BLESSED.' "For you first, God raised up His Servant and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways. Act 3:25-26
And Romans:
For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree? For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery-- so that you will not be wise in your own estimation-- that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB." "THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS. Rom 11:24-27
Those verses counter the idea that, because God is “no respecter of persons” (Rom 2:8-11), it somehow negates Israel’s future land promises. The Abrahamic Covenant was unconditional, as distinct to the Mosaic Covenant.
Referring to Deut 28 yet leaving out Deut 30 (keeping in mind Romans 11:24-27) simply doesn’t do the matter justice. Lev 26 is often appealed to by those who argue that Israel hast lost rights to the land but verses 44-46 are almost always ignored. Other verses routinely ignored are Deut 4:25-31; Eze 36:22-38; Zec 2:8 and Zec 14:1-21. There are a host of others.
Often those who deny Israel’s right to the land also deny they hold to replacement theology. They prefer to describe their views in other terms – such as “Fulfilled” - and appeal to a redefinition of the promises. Paul Henebury (Dr Reluctant) is sorting that matter out on his blog and I strongly recommend that people find out what he has to say about it.
More later.
What Does Christ as “True Israel” Mean for the Nation Israel?
Read Barry Horner's "Future Israel - Why Christian Anti-Judaism Must be Challenged" HERE
Christian Zionists often quote this verse and apply it to the nation Israel. Note that this shouldn’t suppose that Israel is free to do whatever it wills and that Christians must indiscriminately support it. Among other things, we should acknowledge that Israel’s major failing as a secular nation is its lack of recognition of Christ as its Messiah.
But anti-Zionists (for want of a better word) will invariably take the above verse and re-route it to ONLY point to Christ and ultimately the church. Steve Wohlberg’s article is one example of how replacement theologians might strategize a response to Zionists:
Notice, the direct "bless-curse" line concerned Abraham alone, not Israel, and "all the families of the earth" were to be blessed in Abraham, which meant through "his seed," which was Jesus Christ (see Galatians 3:16). In order to receive that very blessing, individuals must be willing to be "turned away" from their sins by God's grace (see Acts 3:25,26).
Wohlberg, and others, invariably ignore Gen 27:29 where Isaac blesses Jacob-Israel. Note the blessing and curse.
May peoples serve you, And nations bow down to you; Be master of your brothers, And may your mother's sons bow down to you. Cursed be those who curse you, And blessed be those who bless you.
Acts actually confirms Israel’s election and that the covenant is still valid. Peter is addressing the Jews (Acts 3:13-15):
It is you who are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, 'AND IN YOUR SEED ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH SHALL BE BLESSED.' "For you first, God raised up His Servant and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways. Act 3:25-26
And Romans:
For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree? For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery-- so that you will not be wise in your own estimation-- that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB." "THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS. Rom 11:24-27
Those verses counter the idea that, because God is “no respecter of persons” (Rom 2:8-11), it somehow negates Israel’s future land promises. The Abrahamic Covenant was unconditional, as distinct to the Mosaic Covenant.
Referring to Deut 28 yet leaving out Deut 30 (keeping in mind Romans 11:24-27) simply doesn’t do the matter justice. Lev 26 is often appealed to by those who argue that Israel hast lost rights to the land but verses 44-46 are almost always ignored. Other verses routinely ignored are Deut 4:25-31; Eze 36:22-38; Zec 2:8 and Zec 14:1-21. There are a host of others.
Often those who deny Israel’s right to the land also deny they hold to replacement theology. They prefer to describe their views in other terms – such as “Fulfilled” - and appeal to a redefinition of the promises. Paul Henebury (Dr Reluctant) is sorting that matter out on his blog and I strongly recommend that people find out what he has to say about it.
More later.
What Does Christ as “True Israel” Mean for the Nation Israel?
Read Barry Horner's "Future Israel - Why Christian Anti-Judaism Must be Challenged" HERE
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Steve Wohlberg's End Time Delusions Revisit
See also Zeteo 3:16
While I've had some positive feedback, another reader has taken exception to a previous post on Seventh-day Adventist author Steve Wohlberg.
While I've had some positive feedback, another reader has taken exception to a previous post on Seventh-day Adventist author Steve Wohlberg.
So, once again, here are my thoughts…
Wohlberg has written numerous polemics targeting dispensationalism and national
His critiques are peppered with pejoratives. The words deception and delusion are found in the titles of his books: The Left Behind Deception; The Rapture Delusions; End Time Delusions; Exploding The Israel Deception etc. Considering that he’s expended substantial energy criticizing the disp system, some responses are inevitable. These rejoinders are not personal attacks.
My reader said she was thrilled to discover that Wohlberg was an Adventist and noted “after only skimming the book” that he was sharing truth with his reader. However, the truth is that he misrepresents dispensational thought, intention and revises history. See HERE and HERE for some of these errors.
Wohlberg informs his readers that pretribulationism was influenced by Margaret MacDonald. Yet he merely parrots journalist Dave MacPherson, who happens to write a glowing review for the book. We can read Margaret’s vision HERE to see that she was, in fact, posttribulational.
He infers that, because this idea is (allegedly) new, it is also unscriptural. Yet he employs a double standard. Ironically, Adventism began in the 1840s and its tenets owe much to the failed 1843 & 1844 prophecies regarding Christ’s return (see Investigative Judgment etc), and the writings of Ellen G White. If you live in a glass house it is unwise to throw stones.
In “Delusions” Wohlberg cautioned his readers about leaning on any person to expound Scripture for them. He listed a set of disp teachers and included himself in the mix. What about Ellen G White?
In fact Adventists are more amenable to consider that the Bible contains human errors rather than admit to Ellen G White’s numerous contradictions. Whereas dispensationalism uses a literal hermeneutic, Adventism understands Scripture through the filter of White’s lens, which is why they so desperately defend her.
On his website Wohlberg misrepresents disp teaching on Salvation: “First of all, the notion that God saved Old Testament Jews by law, but now saves New Testament Christians by grace, is not only subtly anti-Jewish itself, but it's entirely unbiblical.”
He might have done better to study and research a PRIMARY SOURCE instead of Wiki. Disp teaches that Salvation has ALWAYS been by Grace through Faith. He further infers that the literal disp understanding of Zech 13:8 is somehow anti-Semitic. Yet his own Adventist view asserts that all of
In “Delusions” Wohlberg claims the word “covenant” (briyth) in Dan 9:27 is never used apart from a Messianic context. Adventists need this verse to be Messianic to support their eschatological assumptions. Yet a straightforward word search of the OT on briyth reveals that it is used in multiple non-Messianic contexts.
He takes dispies to task for alleged eisegesis but then he spends a significant amount of time explaining problematic issues like why the 144,000 aren’t really Jews, contrary to the plain meaning of Rev 7; and that the armies gathering at Armageddon isn’t really what Scripture means, contrary to a literal reading of Rev 16:16.
His view teaches that the Antichrist is a system (RCC) even though the Antichrist is unambiguously portrayed as an individual in Revelation. The mark of the Beast morphs into Sunday worship despite abundantly clear statements indicating that the process involves worshiping the Antichrist and accepting a physical mark on the hand or forehead. The Great Seal is Sabbath worship though we are sealed by the Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13). The saints reign in heaven despite Rev 5:10.
Adventists claim that Satan is forced to wander a desolate earth’s surface - which is the abyss during the thousand years of the Millennium - so that he cannot deceive the nations. Yet a study of the abyss in Revelation has the locale BELOW the earth’s surface. See Rev 9:1; Rev 9:2; Rev 9:11; Rev 11:7; Rev 17:8 and Rev 20:1-3. Luke 8:31 and Romans 10:7 also testify that its location is below the earth.
Logic demands that the abyss cannot be the earth’s surface. Satan cannot deceive nations which have already been destroyed at the Lord’s coming. Adventists teach Soul Sleep; therefore the nations cannot hear Satan, regardless of his locale. Not only can the nations not hear him but even if they did, they couldn’t do anything about it. Furthermore, according to Adventists, Satan is going to deceive them again anyway.
They employ “Types and Shadows” arguments. Key sections of Revelation and OT prophecies are redefined, re-interpreted and virtually changed. They shuffle primary events around in contrast to the natural chronological order of Revelation. They claim that John’s style was to write something, recapitulate and elaborate. That’s true. John gives a chronological block of events and then adds a narrative BUT he never mixes the order within a set of contextual occurrences, which is what Adventists must do to support their end-times scheme (especially Rev 20 & 21).
Finally, my reader made some statements about the Law, the Sabbath, and the Catholic system which she claims most of Christendom follows. Adventists often see themselves as the true Church, with all the rest in error or apostate – especially the RCC. The Sabbath teaching is a vital distinction for them - in particular from an eschatological viewpoint.
That being the case, I criticized Wohlberg’s “Delusions” for avoiding the issue in the chapter discussing the commandments when he should have been open and direct regarding his Adventism and the importance of the Sabbath to his system. The only clue to Wohlberg’s affiliation is a reference to his website at the back of his book. This stealth approach appears to be the modus operandi for many SDA websites and Revelation Seminars.
The questions regarding the Sabbath and the Law are beyond the intended scope of this essay. I’m aware of the standard arguments used by Adventists to defend their doctrine.
The post-Pentecost disciples had numerous opportunities to invoke obligatory Sabbath observance. If it was so important, why didn’t they? In fact, Col 2:16 plainly contradicts it. Instead, like the previous examples, Adventists will reason around that verse – even going so far as appealing to Luke 23:56 for support. That verse doesn’t help them because, at that point, the disciples didn’t even fully understand that Christ was to be resurrected let alone anything about a New Covenant. Yet faced with the implications of Acts 1:6 some Adventists will cite disciple pre-Pentecost ignorance. Note here that Christ did not correct their assumptions.
In conclusion, there’s a fair degree of irony in that Wohlberg calls dispensational teaching the “the third frog of false prophecy” and refers to it as delusional when his own system fails to take Scripture at face value and even relies on a “modern prophet” to interpret it.
Further resources:
For further studies on the Law, Covenants and the Sabbath go to: Ariel Ministries Resources
A great book that refutes both Replacement Theology and obligatory Sabbath observance is Dr Arnold Fruchtenbaum’s ISRAELOLOGY
Dr Randall Price’s resources on Various Subjects e.g. the 70 weeks
Another worthwhile book is Dr Fruchtenbaum’s Footsteps Of The Messiah and read Richard’s comment towards the end of this ARTICLE
Sunday, October 3, 2010
More on Steve Wohlberg's "End Time Delusions"
Some time ago I wrote about Adventist Steve Wohlberg's book "End Time Delusions". Mr Wohlberg has dedicated a fair amount of resources attacking the "futurist/premillennial" view and in particular, dispensationalism and pretribulationalism. His book can still be found circulating in Christian book shops.
The Berean Call makes a few succinct comments on some of the book's problems HERE
The Berean Call makes a few succinct comments on some of the book's problems HERE
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Exploding the Replacing Israel Deception
See also this article.
That was a cheeky heading. I used that title because I’m drawing attention to Steve Wohlberg’s Replacement Theology inspired book, “Exploding the Israel Deception”. A blurb on his website states:
Exploding the Israel Deception is like dropping an atomic bomb upon the prophetic ideas of the majority of the Christian world. Steve Wohlberg proves that the book of Revelation swirls around "the Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16), not "Israel after the flesh" (1 Cor. 10:18).
If you’ve read the book “End Time Delusions” which covers a good portion of “Exploding the Israel Deception” don’t bother buying the latter. Just go to his website and read the supplementary articles on Israel. His arguments are pure rehashed Replacement Theology.
In End Time Delusions (p 15) we’re informed that, “…when it comes to what the majority thinks is going to happen during earth’s last days and what the Bible says will occur, the difference is seismic.”
There’s also a seismic difference between Wohlberg’s understanding of eschatology and a literal reading of the Bible.
Wohlberg adopts a flexible hermeneutic. Wherever it’s expedient for him to take a literal approach he will but where Scripture contradicts his eschatology, he opts for allegory. For example, Revelation chapter seven clearly tells us that the 144,000 are called from the twelve tribes of Israel, but within a few paragraphs he’s morphed them into the (Sabbath keeping) church. He “personally” feels that the 144,000 figure is symbolic. He reasons that it must be symbolic because he expects there will be more than 144,000 (SDA) church members at that time. Of course, if the 144,000 figure is symbolic then what about all the other numbers?
He also allegorizes the gathering of the armies at Armageddon in End Time Delusions. He reasons that the gathering isn’t centered in Har-Megiddo (Armageddon) despite it being plainly so in Rev 16 – to him it’s more of a global affair. There’s a reason for Wohlberg to think that way. It isn’t a biblical one but it’s a very good reason if you want your church to be the true Israel.
Unfortunately for him, the Old Testament prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Joel etc) prophesied that the nations would surround Israel and Jerusalem, and this is exactly what we read in Revelation.
A major problem for RT end time watchers is that what is occurring today is exactly what the Bible said would happen. The nations are all against Israel. Anyone keeping an objective eye on Middle East affairs and another on the Bible cannot fail to spot the connection to prophecy.
There isn’t a single biblical reference to God’s changing His program for Israel even though it was suspended after they rejected their Messiah. The “if” statements in Leviticus 26 are a warning of the consequences of disobedience - they are not an annulment of God’s promises to Israel.
Isaiah 46 tells us that God knows the end from the beginning. The atonement was first promised in Genesis and the OT sacrificial rituals foreshadow Christ’s work on the cross. Moreover, Israel’s rejection of the Messiah was prophesied in Isaiah 53. Jeremiah prophesied later than Isaiah, yet Jer 31 gives iron-clad promises for Israel’s restoration in the Messianic kingdom.
So the logical conclusion is; if Israel’s rejection was known beforehand then Jeremiah’s prophecy would be a wasted exercise, as would Ezekiel’s detailed measurements of the future Messianic Temple. The simple answer is that Israel will be restored as a non-allegorical approach to Scripture attests.
God hasn’t cast out Israel (Rom 11:1). The promises are irrevocable (Rom 11:29). The church has not become the Caretaker of Israel; it has become a PARTAKER of the blessings found in the olive tree (Rom 11:8; 11:17; 15:27). The context of Romans is that the Gentiles are sharing in the Abrahamic promise of salvation. There is nothing there about sharing land promises or a withdrawal of the material promises to a future believing Israel.
When Paul says there is neither Jew nor Gentile in Gal 3:28, he also tells us that that there is neither male nor female. Yet we still have different genders. Once again the context is salvation. He is not saying that membership in the church makes one a Jew. Gal 6:16 does not call the church Israel. The Israel of God refers to the Jewish believers. 1 Cor:10 does not refer to the Gentiles as Jews – Paul was referring to his forefathers, not to the Gentiles.
Some resources for exploding the Israel Replacement deception:
Judeo-Centric Eschatology
Future Israel Ministries
Israel and the Church
There Really Is A Difference
The Coming Apocalypse
ISRAELOLOGY: The Missing Link In Systematic Theology
Israelology is a seven hundred plus page doctrinal thesis that explores every conceivable verse that is used to argue for Replacement or Expansionist Theology.
Galatians, Dr. S. Lewis Johnson
See especially Gal 16
Romans Chapter 9--Israel's Past
Romans Chapter 10--Israel's Present
Romans Chapter 11--Israel's Future
The Use of the Term "Israel" in the N.T.
A Comparison and Contrast Between Israel and the Church
A Compilation of Bible Prophecies Demonstrating that Israel Has a Glorious Future in the Plan and Purpose of God
That was a cheeky heading. I used that title because I’m drawing attention to Steve Wohlberg’s Replacement Theology inspired book, “Exploding the Israel Deception”. A blurb on his website states:
Exploding the Israel Deception is like dropping an atomic bomb upon the prophetic ideas of the majority of the Christian world. Steve Wohlberg proves that the book of Revelation swirls around "the Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16), not "Israel after the flesh" (1 Cor. 10:18).
If you’ve read the book “End Time Delusions” which covers a good portion of “Exploding the Israel Deception” don’t bother buying the latter. Just go to his website and read the supplementary articles on Israel. His arguments are pure rehashed Replacement Theology.
In End Time Delusions (p 15) we’re informed that, “…when it comes to what the majority thinks is going to happen during earth’s last days and what the Bible says will occur, the difference is seismic.”
There’s also a seismic difference between Wohlberg’s understanding of eschatology and a literal reading of the Bible.
Wohlberg adopts a flexible hermeneutic. Wherever it’s expedient for him to take a literal approach he will but where Scripture contradicts his eschatology, he opts for allegory. For example, Revelation chapter seven clearly tells us that the 144,000 are called from the twelve tribes of Israel, but within a few paragraphs he’s morphed them into the (Sabbath keeping) church. He “personally” feels that the 144,000 figure is symbolic. He reasons that it must be symbolic because he expects there will be more than 144,000 (SDA) church members at that time. Of course, if the 144,000 figure is symbolic then what about all the other numbers?
He also allegorizes the gathering of the armies at Armageddon in End Time Delusions. He reasons that the gathering isn’t centered in Har-Megiddo (Armageddon) despite it being plainly so in Rev 16 – to him it’s more of a global affair. There’s a reason for Wohlberg to think that way. It isn’t a biblical one but it’s a very good reason if you want your church to be the true Israel.
Unfortunately for him, the Old Testament prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Joel etc) prophesied that the nations would surround Israel and Jerusalem, and this is exactly what we read in Revelation.
A major problem for RT end time watchers is that what is occurring today is exactly what the Bible said would happen. The nations are all against Israel. Anyone keeping an objective eye on Middle East affairs and another on the Bible cannot fail to spot the connection to prophecy.
There isn’t a single biblical reference to God’s changing His program for Israel even though it was suspended after they rejected their Messiah. The “if” statements in Leviticus 26 are a warning of the consequences of disobedience - they are not an annulment of God’s promises to Israel.
Isaiah 46 tells us that God knows the end from the beginning. The atonement was first promised in Genesis and the OT sacrificial rituals foreshadow Christ’s work on the cross. Moreover, Israel’s rejection of the Messiah was prophesied in Isaiah 53. Jeremiah prophesied later than Isaiah, yet Jer 31 gives iron-clad promises for Israel’s restoration in the Messianic kingdom.
So the logical conclusion is; if Israel’s rejection was known beforehand then Jeremiah’s prophecy would be a wasted exercise, as would Ezekiel’s detailed measurements of the future Messianic Temple. The simple answer is that Israel will be restored as a non-allegorical approach to Scripture attests.
God hasn’t cast out Israel (Rom 11:1). The promises are irrevocable (Rom 11:29). The church has not become the Caretaker of Israel; it has become a PARTAKER of the blessings found in the olive tree (Rom 11:8; 11:17; 15:27). The context of Romans is that the Gentiles are sharing in the Abrahamic promise of salvation. There is nothing there about sharing land promises or a withdrawal of the material promises to a future believing Israel.
When Paul says there is neither Jew nor Gentile in Gal 3:28, he also tells us that that there is neither male nor female. Yet we still have different genders. Once again the context is salvation. He is not saying that membership in the church makes one a Jew. Gal 6:16 does not call the church Israel. The Israel of God refers to the Jewish believers. 1 Cor:10 does not refer to the Gentiles as Jews – Paul was referring to his forefathers, not to the Gentiles.
Some resources for exploding the Israel Replacement deception:
Judeo-Centric Eschatology
Future Israel Ministries
Israel and the Church
There Really Is A Difference
The Coming Apocalypse
ISRAELOLOGY: The Missing Link In Systematic Theology
Israelology is a seven hundred plus page doctrinal thesis that explores every conceivable verse that is used to argue for Replacement or Expansionist Theology.
Galatians, Dr. S. Lewis Johnson
See especially Gal 16
Romans Chapter 9--Israel's Past
Romans Chapter 10--Israel's Present
Romans Chapter 11--Israel's Future
The Use of the Term "Israel" in the N.T.
A Comparison and Contrast Between Israel and the Church
A Compilation of Bible Prophecies Demonstrating that Israel Has a Glorious Future in the Plan and Purpose of God
Sunday, March 21, 2010
The true Israel of God
“The doctrine of the remnant means that, within the Jewish nation as a whole, there are always some who believe and all those who believe among Israel comprise the Remnant of Israel. The remnant at any point of history may be large or small but there is never a time when it is non-existent. Only believers comprise the remnant, but not all believers are part of the remnant for the remnant is a Jewish remnant and is, therefore, comprised of Jewish believers. Furthermore, the remnant is always part of the nation as a whole and not detached from the nation as a separate entity. The remnant is distinct, but distinct within the nation.”
Arnold Fruchtenbaum: Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology
Romans chapters 9-11 have a significant place in the overall argument of the apostle Paul in the book of Romans. These chapters deal with the important issue of the apparent failure of God’s Word concerning His people Israel. This passage of Scripture is permeated with the doctrine of the “Remnant of Israel,” describing its current implications for believers as well as its eschatological implications for the nation of Israel. The present study will focus on a contextual and grammatical analysis of Romans 9-11 in order to provide a consistent interpretation of the different aspects of God’s plan for the salvation of Israel. Special attention will be focused on Romans 11:25-26 regarding the eventual salvation of Israel on a national scale...The Doctrine of the Remnant and the Salvation of Israel in Romans 9-11
The last verse of Romans chapter 10 points clearly to Israel’s rejection of God and rejection of God’s gospel. The Israelites have rejected God (Rom. 10:21). Thus, the logical question is this: HAS GOD REJECTED THEM? "Has God cast away His people?" The answer is a strong NO: God forbid! May such a thought never enter our minds! Perish the thought!...God has not cast away His people, the Israelites
Exposition of the New Covenant and its relationship to the church has traditionally proven to be a “sore spot” for dispensational interpreters. Because dispensationalism has all too frequently emphasized Scripture’s discontinuity at the expense of its continuity, dispensationalists have often had difficulty explaining the New Testament verses that seemingly apply Israel’s New Covenant to the church age. This paper will attempt to demonstrate how the New Covenant relates to the church in a way that maintains the continuity as well as the discontinuity between God’s programs for Israel and the church. In pursuance of this end, the following three areas will be explored: the Old Testament’s presentation of the New Covenant, what the New Testament presents regarding the New Covenant’s ratification and relation to the church, and inadequate views some interpreters have offered concerning how the New Covenant relates to the church...WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE CHURCH TO THE NEW COVENANT?
Theologians of all kinds focus on Christ as the key to understanding the biblical covenants. Two significant characteristics of the New Covenant promised to Israel are its newness in replacing the Mosaic Covenant and its everlasting and irrevocable nature. For Israel the New Covenant promises her transformation through providing her a new heart, her final and permanent forgiveness, and the consummation of her relationship with the Lord. Through Israel God will also bless the Gentiles because of this covenant. As mediator of the New Covenant, theMessiah will be identified with Israel as God’s Son, Servant, covenant, and Abraham’s seed. Though the Messiah is not yet identified nationally with Israel, He is already identified with the church. Terminology and provisions spelled out in the NT indicate that Christ inaugurated the New Covenant at His first advent. Though the New Covenant will not be fulfilled with Israel until her future repentance, the church through Spirit baptism into Christ participates in that covenant...THE NEW COVENANT
Covenant and reformed theologians believe that New Testament believers, including saved Gentiles, are the true Israel of God. Is it really Biblical to refer to Gentile believers as Israelites? Has God created a “new Israel” that is composed of believing Jews and Gentiles of this present age?....How is the Term Israel Used in the New Testament?
We’re not dispensationalists here....We believe that the church is essentially Israel. We believe that the answer to, “What about the Jews?” is, “Here we are.” We deny that the church is God’s “plan B.” We deny that we are living in God’s redemptive parenthesis...Is R. C. Sproul Jr. Really A Jew?
Arnold Fruchtenbaum: Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology
Romans chapters 9-11 have a significant place in the overall argument of the apostle Paul in the book of Romans. These chapters deal with the important issue of the apparent failure of God’s Word concerning His people Israel. This passage of Scripture is permeated with the doctrine of the “Remnant of Israel,” describing its current implications for believers as well as its eschatological implications for the nation of Israel. The present study will focus on a contextual and grammatical analysis of Romans 9-11 in order to provide a consistent interpretation of the different aspects of God’s plan for the salvation of Israel. Special attention will be focused on Romans 11:25-26 regarding the eventual salvation of Israel on a national scale...The Doctrine of the Remnant and the Salvation of Israel in Romans 9-11
The last verse of Romans chapter 10 points clearly to Israel’s rejection of God and rejection of God’s gospel. The Israelites have rejected God (Rom. 10:21). Thus, the logical question is this: HAS GOD REJECTED THEM? "Has God cast away His people?" The answer is a strong NO: God forbid! May such a thought never enter our minds! Perish the thought!...God has not cast away His people, the Israelites
Exposition of the New Covenant and its relationship to the church has traditionally proven to be a “sore spot” for dispensational interpreters. Because dispensationalism has all too frequently emphasized Scripture’s discontinuity at the expense of its continuity, dispensationalists have often had difficulty explaining the New Testament verses that seemingly apply Israel’s New Covenant to the church age. This paper will attempt to demonstrate how the New Covenant relates to the church in a way that maintains the continuity as well as the discontinuity between God’s programs for Israel and the church. In pursuance of this end, the following three areas will be explored: the Old Testament’s presentation of the New Covenant, what the New Testament presents regarding the New Covenant’s ratification and relation to the church, and inadequate views some interpreters have offered concerning how the New Covenant relates to the church...WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE CHURCH TO THE NEW COVENANT?
Theologians of all kinds focus on Christ as the key to understanding the biblical covenants. Two significant characteristics of the New Covenant promised to Israel are its newness in replacing the Mosaic Covenant and its everlasting and irrevocable nature. For Israel the New Covenant promises her transformation through providing her a new heart, her final and permanent forgiveness, and the consummation of her relationship with the Lord. Through Israel God will also bless the Gentiles because of this covenant. As mediator of the New Covenant, theMessiah will be identified with Israel as God’s Son, Servant, covenant, and Abraham’s seed. Though the Messiah is not yet identified nationally with Israel, He is already identified with the church. Terminology and provisions spelled out in the NT indicate that Christ inaugurated the New Covenant at His first advent. Though the New Covenant will not be fulfilled with Israel until her future repentance, the church through Spirit baptism into Christ participates in that covenant...THE NEW COVENANT
Covenant and reformed theologians believe that New Testament believers, including saved Gentiles, are the true Israel of God. Is it really Biblical to refer to Gentile believers as Israelites? Has God created a “new Israel” that is composed of believing Jews and Gentiles of this present age?....How is the Term Israel Used in the New Testament?
We’re not dispensationalists here....We believe that the church is essentially Israel. We believe that the answer to, “What about the Jews?” is, “Here we are.” We deny that the church is God’s “plan B.” We deny that we are living in God’s redemptive parenthesis...Is R. C. Sproul Jr. Really A Jew?
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Dispensational Delusions
For those wanting a thorough understanding of Dispensationalism in an easy to understand format, I strongly recommend Fred DeRuvo's book:
Many think they know Dispensationalism and many believe it to be heretical, with some even viewing it as a cult.
What is the truth about normative Dispensationalism? This book addresses some of the charges against it, in question and short answer format.
Dispensationalism: Separating Fact from Fiction
It’s a shame when authors writing to particular markets make claims about opposing systems that are patently incorrect or badly researched. This is what Wohlberg does HERE. Among other blunders, he infers that Dispensationalism teaches two ways of salvation. That he’s capable of research is demonstrated by the fact that he cites John Walvoord on Zec 13:8 when it is convenient for him to do so. That he is selective in that research is attested to by his statements and the fact that he chooses to cite Wiki over Ryrie.
Wohlberg:
Generally speaking, Dispensationalism teaches that God has worked throughout fallen human history in distinct phases, epochs, or "dispensations." In Old Testament times, He worked through "Israel" and required Jews to keep "the law," whereas in these New Testament times He operates through "the Church" and proclaims "salvation by grace"—that is, until an event called "the Rapture" whisks "the Church" up to heaven….
First of all, the notion that God saved Old Testament Jews by law, but now saves New Testament Christians by grace, is not only subtly anti-Jewish itself, but it's entirely unbiblical. Grace began with the fall of Adam and the first entrance of sin (see Romans 5:20b), or humanity would have been wiped out immediately….
In other words, everyone who reaches heaven will arrive there solely because of Jesus Christ and His sacrifice-that is, by His grace. Thus when Dispensationalists teach that Old Testament Jews achieved salvation in any way through the law, or that they were denied the gospel, whether they realize it or not, they are teaching a subtly anti-Jewish false doctrine.
Just to set the record straight once again, here are some sources that correct Wohlberg’s blunder. Middletown Bible Church answers a series of false charges leveled at Dispensationialists – including the so-called “secret” rapture.
Dr. Renald Showers, in his book, There Really is a Difference--A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology, makes the following clarification: "The different dispensations are different ways of God's administering His rule over the world, they are not different ways of salvation. Throughout history God has employed several dispensations but only one way of salvation. Salvation has always been by the grace of God through faith in the Word of God, and God has based salvation on the work of Jesus Christ" (page 31).
Dispensationalist William MacDonald (known especially for his one excellent one volume commentary, Believers Bible Commentary), in his book Here's the Difference, wrote the following: "While there are differences among the various ages, there is one thing that never changes, and that is the gospel. Salvation always has been, is now, and always will be by faith in the Lord. And the basis of salvation for every age is the finished work of Christ on Calvary's cross. People in the Old Testament were saved by believing whatever revelation the Lord gave them...We must guard against any idea that people in the Dispensation of Law were saved by keeping the Law" (page 98)…Read More
I’ve linked this article before. Here’s an excerpt:
Let it be stated categorically that Dispensationalism has not and does not believe that the Law of Moses was a means of salvation. This concept is rejected because it would make salvation by means of works. Salvation was and always is by grace through faith. While the content of faith has changed from age to age, depending on progressive revelation, the means of salvation never changes. The law was not given to serve as a means of salvation (Rom. 3:20, 28; Gal. 2:16; 3:11, 21)…Does Dispensationalism Teach Two Ways of Salvation?
As mentioned in a previous post by me, Wohlberg and the SDA believe that Sabbath observation is still a requirement for salvation, even if they will not openly admit it. Given this fact, he needs to re-address and reconsider his statements about grace and Dispensationalism.
Just one last observation - he cites Wiki on pretribulationism’s debt to Darby and stresses the alleged newness of pretribulationism. Constantly citing Wiki is hardly great research. But, if age is a criterion for authenticity, then what can we say about Seventh Day Adventism as a package, let alone dogmas like Investigative Judgment? SDA owes a debt to both Miller and White of 1844 and later vintage.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Steve Wohlberg's End Time Delusions
More on this at Zeteo 3:16.
A few years ago I came across a book called End Time Delusions written by Steve Wohlberg. The book aggressively goes after the Left Behind novels and the theology behind them. The most obvious target in Wohlberg’s sight is the pretribulational rapture because that forms the basis of the LB series. But, essentially, he is opposed to all the standard premillennial positions. This includes mid-trib, pre-wrath and post-trib. I like reading opposing viewpoints so I checked it out. However, once having discovered Wohlberg was a Seventh Day Adventist, I promptly lost interest in the book.
He recently appeared on Jan Markell's Radio Show talking about the popular Twilight series although, at the time, Jan hadn’t realized who he was and what his beliefs were. Jan is a pre-trib Messianic Jew who believes God hasn’t finished with Israel. Wohlberg’s beliefs are the antithesis of all these things and he actively teaches against them through various mediums, with ever-increasing exposure. When the subject of End Time Delusions came up again on another blog, it prompted me to take another look at him.
Wohlberg flies under the radar - you can read his many articles at whitehorsemedia.com without discovering his SDA affiliation. The one reference I could find to that is HERE .
As I researched him and connected the dots, I found a large number of SDA sites all linked to each other. But in each case I had to dig deep to see the SDA connection. The dead giveaway was either references to Wohlberg’s books or Ellen G White.
So what’s the big deal? Who cares if he’s SDA if what he is teaching is biblical? My response is, why conceal the fact that you’re SDA? Incidentally, Herbert W Armstrong’s organization used the same tactic many years ago, and offshoots of that org still do. I was once a member of that organization.
On page 30 of ET Delusions, Wohlberg makes the following statement:
“We don’t need to depend on scholars to find the answer. In fact, it is never safe to lean completely on any man, no matter how smart or educated they may be. Christians should never be taught to rely solely on Tim LaHaye, John Walvoord, Thomas Ice, Jack Van Impe, Grant Jeffrey, Chuck Smith, John Hagee, or any other popular teacher, including Steve Wohlberg. We should all open our Bibles, pick up our own concordances, and find out for ourselves what truth is.....”
I might add that guys like Chuck Missler encourage people not to believe them and to search out Scripture. Ironically, Wohlberg immediately goes on to inform his readers what he thinks about Matt 24 etc, thus telling them what they should believe. In fact in so many cases, Wohlberg actually twists Scripture to convince his readers that what a particular verse is saying may actually mean something else.
But Wohlberg is being dishonest. Does he really want his readers to search the Scriptures for themselves or does he want to lead them down a particular path? Would he add Ellen G White to that list?
The SDA Biblical Research Institute has an online essay called Is the Bible Our Final Authority? It's a rambling article full of semantics and I suggest people read it thoroughly. The author refers to alleged Scripture problems and contradictions and raises the subject of hermeneutics. In reality there aren’t any Scriptural problems. All contradictions have been adequately addressed by scholars and it’s interesting that these supposed difficulties are entertained by the author in the first place.
Already Adventists have begun to work on these problems. Several carefully reasoned articles and a number of book-length essays and collections of essays have appeared. We have the BRI volume, Gerhard Hasel's Biblical Interpretation Today, which particularly addresses methods; George Rice's Was Luke a Plagiarist? and the BRI publications on prophetic interpretation. We should note as well Alden Thompson's Who's Afraid of the Old Testament God? which has implications for hermeneutics. The publication of several of Ellen White's writings on the nature of the Bible and workings of inspiration has proved invaluable. Indeed they set us on a path that offers at least partial resolution of the tensions.
The reference to Rice’s book “Was Luke a Plagiarist” may be a subtle defense of the fact that Ellen G White was found to have plagiarized many of her writings word for word. In other words, if Luke borrowed data from the disciples then why can’t White do the same? It gets more interesting:
To this point Ellen White's guidance has received only passing notice. We have noted her ringing endorsement of the truthfulness and authority of Scripture. A more careful study makes clear that for her the Scriptures remain the final authority, not only where they touch religious matters, but in their report of events as well.
However Mrs. White is not where Evangelicals are. While affirming the Bible's authority, she recognizes in far higher profile the human element in Scriptures. We review in brief excerpts what she has to say about the language and thought patterns in the Bible:
"Don't you think there might have been some mistake in the copyist or in the translators?" This is all probable. . . . All the mistakes will not cause trouble to one soul, or cause any feet to stumble.-Selected Messages, Bk. 1, 16.
The writers of the Bible had to express their ideas in human language.-Ibid. 19.
There is not always perfect order or apparent unity in the Scriptures.-Ibid. 20.
The Bible must be given in the language of men. Everything that is human is imperfect.-Ibid.20.
The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented.-Ibid. 21.
The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen.-Ibid.
It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts.-Ibid.
With the immense advantage of the gift of prophecy in modern times, Adventists are prepared for a genuinely integrated understanding of revelation, inspiration, and preservation of authority in the Word while others explore box canyons in search of understanding. But we will fall short of God's plan unless we allow the Holy Spirit to both interpret the Word and move it into proclamation.
Any SDA statement of faith will readily attest that Scripture is the inspired word of God. However, in my opinion, the gist of what the above article is saying is that, because of all the human problems associated with the Bible, the SDA especially benefits from prophets like Ellen G White to set things straight. Other sources confirm this fact and this is a major problem with that group. See page 12 "Writings of Ellen G. White".
Getting back to Wohlberg, my problem isn’t just the fact that he maligns pretribbers and Dispenationalists with condescending phrases. I could still be a posttribber and still be concerned about this guy. This issue goes beyond rapture timing differences. Wohlberg’s book isn’t just a “biblical” attack on the LB series per se; it’s a veiled introduction to SDA eschatology and everything that it entails. His mission is to undermine all elements of the LB series, not just the pre-trib rapture, and covertly introduce his own agenda.
A little bit of history:
SDA William Miller, using a series of erroneous calculations from Daniel, predicted that Christ’s second coming would occur in 1844. When it failed - instead of re-examining Miller’s error - SDA officials proposed several solutions finally settling on the doctrine of the Sanctuary, which was subsequently endorsed by Ellen G White. So the story was changed. Instead of returning, Christ moved from the First Compartment to the Second Compartment of the Sanctuary. This has major ramifications for the one-time Blood Atonement, Salvation by Grace and the exposition of the book of Hebrews, and it introduces the “Investigative Judgment” doctrine. But it was how Miller derived his original conclusion that locks Wohlberg into his calculations and arguments because the IJ doctrine is contingent to the same rationale and cannot be discarded.
The arguments that motivate Wohlberg to deny that the covenant in Dan 9:27 is made by the Antichrist are all tied to how SDA interpret the days into 1260 years and how they relate them to historical Papal Rome. He then needs to deny the single Antichrist we see in Revelation because, for Wohlberg and the SDA, the Great Seal of God in the End Time is not the Holy Spirit, it is actually Sabbath observance. To do this he also needs to allegorize Rev 13:15-18 and make it say something different. Thus the true Mark of the Beast now becomes enforced Sunday worship.
Up until recently I presumed the SDA chose Sabbath observance because it seemed the better day traditionally. I was wrong. Sabbath observance and the teachings of E G White lie at the heart of Adventism. To the SDA, Sabbath observance is critical to salvation. We only get a hint of this in ET Delusions in the chapter called “Thunder From Heaven’s Temple”. Here he discusses and emphasizes the Big Ten - The Ten Commandments. While he never states it; Wohlberg is really highlighting the Sabbath. Here is the perfect opportunity for him to speak plainly about Sabbath salvation in the End Time, yet incredibly, he only mentions the Sabbath once in connection with the other commandments. Why?
Wohlberg also believes the SDA is the true church and the true Remnant of Revelation. This includes the 144,000 of Rev 7 despite the clear teaching of those verses. SDA also becomes the true Israel and this apparently gives him license for allegorizing away the location of the battle of Armageddon in “Frogs, Fables and Armageddon” (pp 193-194):
“…(Rev 16:16) This is the only time the only time the exact word Armageddon is used in the Bible. The truth is, there is no literal place called “Armageddon” anywhere in the world….”
He then goes on to suggest that Armageddon - having being derived from Megiddo - could literally mean a mountain of slaughter upon which God’s enemies are cut off. To prop up his contention, he appeals to the mountain that fills up the whole earth in Daniel 2. Referring to Rev 16:16-20 he says:
“Contrary to the all-pervasive teaching of the third frog, these words clearly describe divine wrath upon spiritual Babylon and a global slaughter that reaches far beyond the Middle East”
“…Who is the gathering at Armageddon really against? Literal Jews? No! It is a gathering of the world forces of Mystery Babylon against the Warrior on the horse and against His army.”
Note: According to Wohlberg (p 192), “The third frog of false prophecy is now teaching a secret rapture, seven year tribulation, futurist antichrist (sic), literal drying up of a literal Euphrates, and a literal Middle-East Armageddon involving literal armies attacking literal Jews. Dear friend this is all false prophecy….”
Add to the "third frog" list the belief in a Tribulation Temple and the Antichrist persecuting Israel - as Wohlberg states elsewhere - and it pretty much covers every rapture view.
Back to the Sabbath issue; a couple of weeks ago I e-mailed an official SDA site asking about Sabbath observance and salvation. Here’s the response I got:
I think the correct answer to your question, which is really something of a personal dilemma for you, is to say that the real issue revolves around the question of the Sabbath. Which day is the true Sabbath? Which day does Scripture and History support? To find the answers to these questions may involve some reading and reflection. In the end we are all individually responsible to God for discovering what is right and true and for allowing Him to lead us into His truth. You will remember that Jesus said, “ Do not think that I came to destroy the Law and the Prophets. I did not come to destroy, but to fulfil”, Matt 5: 17 and “If you love me keep my commandments”, Jn 14 :15. I can only advise that you seek to understand this important question both from the Bible and from what has happened to the Sabbath through history ( which includes how the keeping of Sunday began in the church after the apostolic era), and then make up your own mind on the basis of all the evidence. As to the matter of salvation, a good question to ask oneself about any spiritual matter, is “ Can a person be saved if he/she persists in living out of harmony with God’s will, once His will is known? “ It may take some time for you to work through these matters in your own life, but I believe you will feel more satisfied with this course of action.
Not satisfied, I asked him for clarification, “If I’m reading this correctly, I will lose my salvation if I continue to willfully worship on Sunday. Correct?”
To which he responded:
Dear Friend,
I can see that you are a thinking person who really wants to do what is right. But I cannot speak for God. Only He knows who will be saved and who will not, because He can read the heart, and knows the end from the beginning. Tomorrow (Saturday) is the day He set aside at creation for man to keep holy and the day that Jesus kept when He was on earth. I think you know that now. So it’s really over to you. I will be praying for you.
He meant YES, by the way. He just couldn’t bring himself to say it just as Wohlberg couldn’t let on because they both want to be considered normal Evangelical Christians. Yet they are NOT. They openly agree to free Grace salvation by faith but privately teach that salvation depends (and will depend) on Sabbath worship. It is legalistic and undermines Grace, and the doctrine of Investigative Judgment also undermines Christ’s work on the Cross. Their hermeneutical methodology is heavily dependant on White’s interpretation of Scripture.
Here's an excerpt from Hohmann's article, Sabbath Refutations
The crux of the matter boils down to this in the end: Does one need to keep the sabbath in order to be saved, or maintain their salvation status with God? Many a Sabbatarian will state that it is by grace apart from law they are saved, but turn around and claim one puts their salvation at risk should they sin habitually, and they define one of these sins as not keeping the sabbath. So they do indeed claim one has to keep the sabbath in order to be saved, disguising this belief in semantics.
Further reading:
See especially the videos of Dr Walter Martin in the following link. After initially refusing to classify SDA as a cult in his book, he began to have strong reservations.
EX Adventist Outreach
Ellen G. White - Prophet or Pretender?
Writings of Ellen G. White
The 2300-day Dilemma
Seventh-day AdventismBy Dr. James Bjornstad
Dr. Ford and Glacier View
THE 1844 INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT DOCTRINE
Seventh-day Adventism RENOUNCED
by D. M. Canright
Article list
Bible Contradictions and Other Bible Difficulties
Addendum:
Steve Wohlberg has told us what he believes the “third frog” of false prophecy teaches. Compare that to what we read in Revelation:
Rev 16:13 And I saw coming out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits like frogs; for they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them together for the war of the great day of God, the Almighty.Rev 22:18-19 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
A few years ago I came across a book called End Time Delusions written by Steve Wohlberg. The book aggressively goes after the Left Behind novels and the theology behind them. The most obvious target in Wohlberg’s sight is the pretribulational rapture because that forms the basis of the LB series. But, essentially, he is opposed to all the standard premillennial positions. This includes mid-trib, pre-wrath and post-trib. I like reading opposing viewpoints so I checked it out. However, once having discovered Wohlberg was a Seventh Day Adventist, I promptly lost interest in the book.
He recently appeared on Jan Markell's Radio Show talking about the popular Twilight series although, at the time, Jan hadn’t realized who he was and what his beliefs were. Jan is a pre-trib Messianic Jew who believes God hasn’t finished with Israel. Wohlberg’s beliefs are the antithesis of all these things and he actively teaches against them through various mediums, with ever-increasing exposure. When the subject of End Time Delusions came up again on another blog, it prompted me to take another look at him.
Wohlberg flies under the radar - you can read his many articles at whitehorsemedia.com without discovering his SDA affiliation. The one reference I could find to that is HERE .
As I researched him and connected the dots, I found a large number of SDA sites all linked to each other. But in each case I had to dig deep to see the SDA connection. The dead giveaway was either references to Wohlberg’s books or Ellen G White.
So what’s the big deal? Who cares if he’s SDA if what he is teaching is biblical? My response is, why conceal the fact that you’re SDA? Incidentally, Herbert W Armstrong’s organization used the same tactic many years ago, and offshoots of that org still do. I was once a member of that organization.
On page 30 of ET Delusions, Wohlberg makes the following statement:
“We don’t need to depend on scholars to find the answer. In fact, it is never safe to lean completely on any man, no matter how smart or educated they may be. Christians should never be taught to rely solely on Tim LaHaye, John Walvoord, Thomas Ice, Jack Van Impe, Grant Jeffrey, Chuck Smith, John Hagee, or any other popular teacher, including Steve Wohlberg. We should all open our Bibles, pick up our own concordances, and find out for ourselves what truth is.....”
I might add that guys like Chuck Missler encourage people not to believe them and to search out Scripture. Ironically, Wohlberg immediately goes on to inform his readers what he thinks about Matt 24 etc, thus telling them what they should believe. In fact in so many cases, Wohlberg actually twists Scripture to convince his readers that what a particular verse is saying may actually mean something else.
But Wohlberg is being dishonest. Does he really want his readers to search the Scriptures for themselves or does he want to lead them down a particular path? Would he add Ellen G White to that list?
The SDA Biblical Research Institute has an online essay called Is the Bible Our Final Authority? It's a rambling article full of semantics and I suggest people read it thoroughly. The author refers to alleged Scripture problems and contradictions and raises the subject of hermeneutics. In reality there aren’t any Scriptural problems. All contradictions have been adequately addressed by scholars and it’s interesting that these supposed difficulties are entertained by the author in the first place.
Already Adventists have begun to work on these problems. Several carefully reasoned articles and a number of book-length essays and collections of essays have appeared. We have the BRI volume, Gerhard Hasel's Biblical Interpretation Today, which particularly addresses methods; George Rice's Was Luke a Plagiarist? and the BRI publications on prophetic interpretation. We should note as well Alden Thompson's Who's Afraid of the Old Testament God? which has implications for hermeneutics. The publication of several of Ellen White's writings on the nature of the Bible and workings of inspiration has proved invaluable. Indeed they set us on a path that offers at least partial resolution of the tensions.
The reference to Rice’s book “Was Luke a Plagiarist” may be a subtle defense of the fact that Ellen G White was found to have plagiarized many of her writings word for word. In other words, if Luke borrowed data from the disciples then why can’t White do the same? It gets more interesting:
To this point Ellen White's guidance has received only passing notice. We have noted her ringing endorsement of the truthfulness and authority of Scripture. A more careful study makes clear that for her the Scriptures remain the final authority, not only where they touch religious matters, but in their report of events as well.
However Mrs. White is not where Evangelicals are. While affirming the Bible's authority, she recognizes in far higher profile the human element in Scriptures. We review in brief excerpts what she has to say about the language and thought patterns in the Bible:
"Don't you think there might have been some mistake in the copyist or in the translators?" This is all probable. . . . All the mistakes will not cause trouble to one soul, or cause any feet to stumble.-Selected Messages, Bk. 1, 16.
The writers of the Bible had to express their ideas in human language.-Ibid. 19.
There is not always perfect order or apparent unity in the Scriptures.-Ibid. 20.
The Bible must be given in the language of men. Everything that is human is imperfect.-Ibid.20.
The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented.-Ibid. 21.
The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen.-Ibid.
It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts.-Ibid.
With the immense advantage of the gift of prophecy in modern times, Adventists are prepared for a genuinely integrated understanding of revelation, inspiration, and preservation of authority in the Word while others explore box canyons in search of understanding. But we will fall short of God's plan unless we allow the Holy Spirit to both interpret the Word and move it into proclamation.
Any SDA statement of faith will readily attest that Scripture is the inspired word of God. However, in my opinion, the gist of what the above article is saying is that, because of all the human problems associated with the Bible, the SDA especially benefits from prophets like Ellen G White to set things straight. Other sources confirm this fact and this is a major problem with that group. See page 12 "Writings of Ellen G. White".
Getting back to Wohlberg, my problem isn’t just the fact that he maligns pretribbers and Dispenationalists with condescending phrases. I could still be a posttribber and still be concerned about this guy. This issue goes beyond rapture timing differences. Wohlberg’s book isn’t just a “biblical” attack on the LB series per se; it’s a veiled introduction to SDA eschatology and everything that it entails. His mission is to undermine all elements of the LB series, not just the pre-trib rapture, and covertly introduce his own agenda.
A little bit of history:
SDA William Miller, using a series of erroneous calculations from Daniel, predicted that Christ’s second coming would occur in 1844. When it failed - instead of re-examining Miller’s error - SDA officials proposed several solutions finally settling on the doctrine of the Sanctuary, which was subsequently endorsed by Ellen G White. So the story was changed. Instead of returning, Christ moved from the First Compartment to the Second Compartment of the Sanctuary. This has major ramifications for the one-time Blood Atonement, Salvation by Grace and the exposition of the book of Hebrews, and it introduces the “Investigative Judgment” doctrine. But it was how Miller derived his original conclusion that locks Wohlberg into his calculations and arguments because the IJ doctrine is contingent to the same rationale and cannot be discarded.
The arguments that motivate Wohlberg to deny that the covenant in Dan 9:27 is made by the Antichrist are all tied to how SDA interpret the days into 1260 years and how they relate them to historical Papal Rome. He then needs to deny the single Antichrist we see in Revelation because, for Wohlberg and the SDA, the Great Seal of God in the End Time is not the Holy Spirit, it is actually Sabbath observance. To do this he also needs to allegorize Rev 13:15-18 and make it say something different. Thus the true Mark of the Beast now becomes enforced Sunday worship.
Up until recently I presumed the SDA chose Sabbath observance because it seemed the better day traditionally. I was wrong. Sabbath observance and the teachings of E G White lie at the heart of Adventism. To the SDA, Sabbath observance is critical to salvation. We only get a hint of this in ET Delusions in the chapter called “Thunder From Heaven’s Temple”. Here he discusses and emphasizes the Big Ten - The Ten Commandments. While he never states it; Wohlberg is really highlighting the Sabbath. Here is the perfect opportunity for him to speak plainly about Sabbath salvation in the End Time, yet incredibly, he only mentions the Sabbath once in connection with the other commandments. Why?
Wohlberg also believes the SDA is the true church and the true Remnant of Revelation. This includes the 144,000 of Rev 7 despite the clear teaching of those verses. SDA also becomes the true Israel and this apparently gives him license for allegorizing away the location of the battle of Armageddon in “Frogs, Fables and Armageddon” (pp 193-194):
“…(Rev 16:16) This is the only time the only time the exact word Armageddon is used in the Bible. The truth is, there is no literal place called “Armageddon” anywhere in the world….”
He then goes on to suggest that Armageddon - having being derived from Megiddo - could literally mean a mountain of slaughter upon which God’s enemies are cut off. To prop up his contention, he appeals to the mountain that fills up the whole earth in Daniel 2. Referring to Rev 16:16-20 he says:
“Contrary to the all-pervasive teaching of the third frog, these words clearly describe divine wrath upon spiritual Babylon and a global slaughter that reaches far beyond the Middle East”
“…Who is the gathering at Armageddon really against? Literal Jews? No! It is a gathering of the world forces of Mystery Babylon against the Warrior on the horse and against His army.”
Note: According to Wohlberg (p 192), “The third frog of false prophecy is now teaching a secret rapture, seven year tribulation, futurist antichrist (sic), literal drying up of a literal Euphrates, and a literal Middle-East Armageddon involving literal armies attacking literal Jews. Dear friend this is all false prophecy….”
Add to the "third frog" list the belief in a Tribulation Temple and the Antichrist persecuting Israel - as Wohlberg states elsewhere - and it pretty much covers every rapture view.
Back to the Sabbath issue; a couple of weeks ago I e-mailed an official SDA site asking about Sabbath observance and salvation. Here’s the response I got:
I think the correct answer to your question, which is really something of a personal dilemma for you, is to say that the real issue revolves around the question of the Sabbath. Which day is the true Sabbath? Which day does Scripture and History support? To find the answers to these questions may involve some reading and reflection. In the end we are all individually responsible to God for discovering what is right and true and for allowing Him to lead us into His truth. You will remember that Jesus said, “ Do not think that I came to destroy the Law and the Prophets. I did not come to destroy, but to fulfil”, Matt 5: 17 and “If you love me keep my commandments”, Jn 14 :15. I can only advise that you seek to understand this important question both from the Bible and from what has happened to the Sabbath through history ( which includes how the keeping of Sunday began in the church after the apostolic era), and then make up your own mind on the basis of all the evidence. As to the matter of salvation, a good question to ask oneself about any spiritual matter, is “ Can a person be saved if he/she persists in living out of harmony with God’s will, once His will is known? “ It may take some time for you to work through these matters in your own life, but I believe you will feel more satisfied with this course of action.
Not satisfied, I asked him for clarification, “If I’m reading this correctly, I will lose my salvation if I continue to willfully worship on Sunday. Correct?”
To which he responded:
Dear Friend,
I can see that you are a thinking person who really wants to do what is right. But I cannot speak for God. Only He knows who will be saved and who will not, because He can read the heart, and knows the end from the beginning. Tomorrow (Saturday) is the day He set aside at creation for man to keep holy and the day that Jesus kept when He was on earth. I think you know that now. So it’s really over to you. I will be praying for you.
He meant YES, by the way. He just couldn’t bring himself to say it just as Wohlberg couldn’t let on because they both want to be considered normal Evangelical Christians. Yet they are NOT. They openly agree to free Grace salvation by faith but privately teach that salvation depends (and will depend) on Sabbath worship. It is legalistic and undermines Grace, and the doctrine of Investigative Judgment also undermines Christ’s work on the Cross. Their hermeneutical methodology is heavily dependant on White’s interpretation of Scripture.
Here's an excerpt from Hohmann's article, Sabbath Refutations
The crux of the matter boils down to this in the end: Does one need to keep the sabbath in order to be saved, or maintain their salvation status with God? Many a Sabbatarian will state that it is by grace apart from law they are saved, but turn around and claim one puts their salvation at risk should they sin habitually, and they define one of these sins as not keeping the sabbath. So they do indeed claim one has to keep the sabbath in order to be saved, disguising this belief in semantics.
Further reading:
See especially the videos of Dr Walter Martin in the following link. After initially refusing to classify SDA as a cult in his book, he began to have strong reservations.
EX Adventist Outreach
Ellen G. White - Prophet or Pretender?
Writings of Ellen G. White
The 2300-day Dilemma
Seventh-day AdventismBy Dr. James Bjornstad
Dr. Ford and Glacier View
THE 1844 INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT DOCTRINE
Seventh-day Adventism RENOUNCED
by D. M. Canright
Article list
Bible Contradictions and Other Bible Difficulties
Addendum:
Steve Wohlberg has told us what he believes the “third frog” of false prophecy teaches. Compare that to what we read in Revelation:
Rev 16:13 And I saw coming out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits like frogs; for they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them together for the war of the great day of God, the Almighty.Rev 22:18-19 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
