On Dog Whistle Raptures & Other Trivia

Months ago I was asked to help admin a pretrib prophecy forum. Being an admin was never on my short bucket list of things to do, and it hasn't always been fun. I must hand it to the others for their composure through tiresomely predictable diatribes from well-intended, concerned folk. These are often so formulaic that one might think these people were handed the same work sheets to go out and conquer with.

I wish I had a dollar for every Margaret MacDonald-vision-rapture claim we've had. Don't use it unless you've actually read something other than MacPherson or can provide a pretrib quote from MacDonald. That insinuation is pure gossip and sloppy criticism at best.

When you engage these people, they often come back with the sanctimonious: "My motive is to warn pretribulationists that they're vulnerable because of this false teaching....."

A few days after my blogging on this topic, we got that one again. We ask these people how they are specifically better prepared than a pretribber, but rarely get cogent replies. I know one vocal posttribulationist who finally responded that his geographical location was on the other-side-of-the-world of the future conflagration, which he believes is confined to the Middle East. Apparently he's content to avoid the future "purification" of the church in that area and he's comfortable where he is.

On that note, both pretribbers and non-pretribbers may consider the following books: John MacArthur has a great one called Slave. See also Edwin Yamauchi's article Slaves of God. MacArthur also penned The Power of Suffering, Hard to Believe and, of course, The Gospel According to Jesus. Dale Johnsen wrote What To Do Until Christ Comes. I also enjoyed Alistair Begg's The Hand of God.

Anyway, I've recently come across two instances where pretrib has been referred to as a Dog Whistle Rapture. One blogger quotes Riddlebarger's book on amillennialism where he refers to it as a "cosmic dog whistle" (page 143).

Perhaps amils allegorize so much Scripture that they've become super-sensitive and self-conscious of this condition. And so they feel inclined to accuse dispies of inconsistency because they don't really believe in multi-headed dragons running around terrorizing a future world. This gives them an excuse to justify allegorizing stuff like the resurrection in Rev 20:4. After all, you can't have dead saints regenerated after a real physical resurrection. That's plain silly. And we just know there's no 1000 year millennium. So that resurrection must be symbolic. Case closed.

I know, I know, the Dog Whistle thingy makes up for the long-chain taunts dispies have fired at the amil version of Satan's er...imprisonment. Sorry, guys, we'll quietly ignore the fact that Riddlebarger squeezes the entire Church Age into the last half of Daniel's 70th week, if he allows that Scripture doesn't preclude Christ's return for His church before the tribulation.

Then there's the premil non-pretribber who also used the Dog Whistle allusion. He may have been reading Riddlebarger's notes. I suspect he's also taken a glance at MacPherson's gossip column because he's referred to pretrib as "Strange Trib". He thinks it's an irony that pretribulationist John MacArthur is a cessationist when he's adopted: "the very view that, it is argued, finds its origins in the utterances of charismatic-visionary Margaret MacDonald or possibly the charismatic Edward Irving (early 19th century)."

I've already expressed my feelings regarding these unsubstantiated taunts. Irving and MacDonald were arguably historicists, and the latter envisioned a church under trial from the Antichrist.

My premil Dog Whistle friend has published his first book and I commend it to anyone who wants to know more about his late 20th century view. I laud its overall irenic tone which contrasts to his blog's polemics. It avoids the bitterness I detected in Rosenthal's book, and it shuns the smugness and annoyingly repetitive axioms in Van Kampen's work. It will delight devoted prewrathers; however it doesn't address problems others have noted about the system.

He doesn't fess up to those multiple comings of Christ in his own system. I'm not sure if all these comings involve the same "shout" and "trumpet" but he uses all the Parousia-Rapture texts to assert that there's a Single Parousia. Yet he consoles his readers by telling them that - after the tribulation - they will be in heaven...standing before the throne and before the Lamb (p 98). If the Lamb (Christ) is in heaven after the rapture, then He has to return to the earth again in, at least, one more er...different yet same coming. It certainly can't be a Dog Whistle coming - right?

On page 173 we're told Jesus' Parousia won't be an instantaneous event; that it will be a "multi-phase, complex whole in which God will fulfill His divine purposes..." That statement is designed to accommodate a system which teaches multiple comings. It also seeks to resolve a contradiction regarding 2 Thess 2:8 where Christ does not destroy the Antichrist at His initial appearing.

All this seems inconsistent given the dog whistle rapture jibe.

As an aside I found it interesting that he draws a connection between Matt 24:31 and the resurrection in Dan 12:2 as one proof that the former is the rapture (p 91). Posttribbers would nod their heads in assent. Missing from the discussion are the OT texts speaking of Israel's gathering.

Another problem is that Daniel's resurrection is implied to be at the end of the 1,335 days (Dan 12:13). There's a whole other study which could be done just on that. If you identify the church with Daniel's people (or those texts) then - to be consistent - you should also note the duration and purpose of this period (Jer 30:7; Dan 7:25, 12:6-7; Hos 5:15; Matt 23:37-39). Yet his entire system hinges on the premise that this purification period (p 54) is cut short for the church (pp 59, 60, 91).

I may review various other points of the book in future blogs.

False Prophet Follow-Up

On the same day I wrote about the incident where my friend was accused of being a false prophet because he taught pretribulationism, I came across another interesting interaction in another forum. A budding apologist provided a link to an article on his website where he took Patrick Heron to task for arguing that the apostasia in 2 Thess referred to the rapture.

To be fair to Heron; Ken Wuest and Thomas Ice agree with him on that point. However, most pretribulational scholars do not.

The problem was that this article linked anti-pretrib items, two of which were produced by proponents of the view the apologist actually leaned to. While admitting that all rapture views had major issues, this individual was overtly anti-pretrib. Somewhere in the ensuing discussion his view was challenged, yet while asserting that he was aware of all the arguments, the little interaction he offered suggested otherwise. Personally, I think he underestimated the level of competence on that pretrib site.

In response, he threw out his seminary qualifications employing the word exegesis in his narrative. Where have I seen this approach before? He implied that if others had the benefit of his experience, they wouldn’t be so adamant about debating the rapture. But didn’t he just initiate that debate? He didn’t seem to recognize his own anti-pretrib bias or that proponents of his view are adamant they are right.

Later on he posted another link to an article by better-known apologist Greg Koukl. In that article, Koukl, who obviously isn’t pretrib, took a scattergun approach to pop-beliefs in the church including the prosperity industry. Right there in the mix was the seven year tribulation and the pretrib rapture. Koukl should stick to apologetics because he’s very good at it - eschatology, not so much.

That same week someone provided a link to “Believer’s Journey” where blogger Sarah notes that the pretrib rapture was unknown before 1840. How tiresome this canard is! She then mentions Margaret MacDonald:

“Whether true or untrue the story goes that a young teenage Plymouth Brethren girl (this is in Great Britain) is reported to have either had a dream of given a prophetic word or had a vision. It was then interpreted. This interpretation was circulated and Pastor John Darby then relayed it to C. I. Scofield who bought into it as revealed truth. Scofield placed this pre-tribulation rapture notion as a footnote in his popular Bible, hence this teaching became very widespread.”

Had Sarah actually read the link she provided after her article – or even done some simple research – she would have realized that “Irvingite” MacDonald had a vision of the church under persecution by the Antichrist, hence she was most likely posttribulational. Moreover, Sarah’s adopted rapture view only became widespread after Van Kampen formulated and promoted it via Rosenthal in the nineties.

Things that make me go hmmm

I received another comment from a spammer suggesting readers go Google a site containing MacPherson’s anti-Darby propaganda. The comment began with “Just ran across your interesting blog…” That person had already posted the same diatribe here before but they must have lost track of blogs they’d spammed. They also suggested that I owed Dave MacPherson and Joe Ortiz an apology regarding one of my posts.

Ortiz has an activist blog that’s dedicated to promoting MacPherson’s agenda. Not that long ago he posted a segment of a sentence from Margaret MacDonald’s vision that he claimed was new data from MacPherson proving she had a pre-trib vision. I was alerted to this by another spammer who was promoting Ortiz’s blog.

One tiny problem - there wasn’t any new data.

That portion of sentence was lifted from MacDonald’s vision which has been available for years. Taken in a section it’s ambiguous but taken in context it isn’t pretribulational. Furthermore, statements in the rest of the vision clearly show that MacDonald believed the Church would be tested by the Antichrist. Ortiz must have known that and yet he still deceitfully contrived to only show that portion of the vision while disregarding the statements that unmistakably contradicted his allegations.

I was reading at a forum where one of the contributors called pre-trib a satanic doctrine from Hell. This person owns a blog that’s peppered with this same sort of vitriol against pretribbers. A more recent post contains the following insightful remarks:

“Here's some more bad news for the pre-tribulation rapture cult that is losing its popularity as more people are having their eyes opened that I ran across by accident that will make satan's (sic) little helpers shake in their boots. These deluded people, refuse to believe the truth of God's Word, and think they are the elites of all of Christianity, believing they will be secretly removed from the earth before the great tribulation to escape the persecution promised the saints of God all through the Bible, except, of course, for "them”…God doesn't keep His children in darkness; that is satan's (sic) plan. Actually, nothing happens by accident for a Bible believing Christian and the Lord must have wanted this little gem to get more exposure. ”

Pardon me while I quake in my “pre-tribulation rapture cult” boots.

The article she references is from a pre-wrath blog and is a gibe at KJB only pretribulationists. The inference is that if the author of that Bible’s margin note on Matt 24:31 (linking it to rapture passages) was a translator and the KJB only translators and translation are divinely inspired, then the rapture occurs at that verse.

Of course, the KJB only guys would probably argue that the inspiration was limited to translation and not doctrine if that doctrine disagreed with their view. Also, Matt 24:31 occurs at the end of Daniel’s 70th week, not three quarters of the way through it.

About four years ago I was given a link to a non pre-trib website and encouraged to study that rapture view. The web mistress has a section addressing some pre-trib “problems”. At the end she welcomes comments and questions from pretribbers.

Later on I learned that Jason Hommel of Silver Stock Report sent a detailed response which can be read online. I contacted him to ask whether she got back to him. She hadn’t. He suggested I try as well.

I answered her questions and then I pointed out what I deemed to be problem areas in her system which I felt needed clarifying. There was no reply. That website still invites comments and one might conclude that pretribbers have no adequate answers to her probing issues. One might be wrong.

On one prophecy forum someone once asked why pretribbers were so adamant that they were right. Judging by his insistence regarding his own view, one might have asked the same question of himself, but it seems the irony was lost on him.

Like I said; things that make me go hmmm.

Note: I should point out that most disp. pretribulationists do not believe that the rapture is only for "them".

The Rapture Plot

Manuel Lacunza Conspiracy?

The King James Only Debate

Satanic Deception?

One of the things I find annoying about the rapture debate is that people commonly accuse Darby of deriving his idea from Margaret MacDonald’s vision, yet never supply evidence. As a result they often call pretribulationism a “satanic deception”.

John Darby says he got the concept from studying Scripture. If he really got it from MacDonald’s vision then he’s a liar. However, if Darby is correct then his detractors are encouraging lies and bearing false witness. It’s as simple as that.

Quote: Tregelles, was a Greek scholar, also of the Plymouth Brethren, who adamantly opposed John Darby's new theology. Apparently, there was a local charismatic church where there was some sort of utterance concerning a secret rapture of the church. John Darby took it and popularized it, but not without stirring quite a controversy.

The above quote is a statement taken from someone who is arguing for a different rapture view. He evidently felt it necessary to indirectly promote the idea of a Darby/MacDonald connection to bolster his argument. I can guess where he got his information from but it’s a pity he didn’t bother doing his own research because Margaret’s vision clearly wasn’t about a pretribulational rapture.

According to Margaret:

Now will THE WICKED be revealed, with all power and signs and lying wonders, so that if it
were possible the very elect will be deceived - This is the fiery trial which is to try us.

The trial of the Church is from Antichrist. It is by being filled with the Spirit that we shall be kept.

What many people don’t realize is that Tregelles had personal issues with Darby revolving around Tregelle’s cousin, Newton. Dr Paul Wilkinson goes into the details in his book.

Hand in hand with the Darby canard goes the charge of newness. To counter pretribulationism, several early Church fathers are usually cited to demonstrate that they were posttribulational. This is interesting because the person I quoted above believes in a system that was discovered and became popularized in the nineties and it, also, created a controversy. It adds new facets to that posttribulationism and shortens it.

So when he picks an 1830 date for pre-trib I can point to a late 20th century date for his system, and via a specific person and book. Before that time and that book, that view was virtually unknown. Defenses for that system have sometimes incorporated the excuse that it was still under refinement. Presumably the early Church fathers don’t help in that area.

The newness issue is specifically related to the idea that the Church will avoid the tribulation and/or the wrath of God. James Stitzinger shows that the early Church fathers had a less than sophisticated eschatology. In fact an examination of a number of beliefs regarding the relationship between the Church and Israel (Justin Martyr etc) and even subjects like baptism preparation reveals that the Church had already been departing from apostolic tenets.

Tied in with the erroneous idea of satanic deception is the claim that pretribbers believe out of fear and are woefully unprepared for the Tribulation. I agree that believing in pretribulationism out of fear is silly. It should be an academic issue. But I think it’s telling that preterists and non-Premillennialists aren’t targeted. Aren’t they also unprepared?

I’ve been through all this before in previous posts. How does one prepare for the Tribulation? If you think you can you’re probably kidding yourself. Our focus and faith should be in Christ’s ability to see us through, not our own power. In that respect, sincere pretribbers are at no disadvantage.

Years ago I participated in a group event where we did a static line jump from a light aircraft. One of the organizers was an A type fearless personality who breezed through her training. It was thoroughly drilled into us that once we were able to make visual contact with the grounds-man, we had to keep our eyes on him and follow his directions. Despite all that preparation and confidence she panicked at the last moment, failed to heed instructions and dropped too quickly. Fortunately she only sustained fractures in her foot.

How do you prepare for Tribulation?

Parousia, Apokalypse, and Epiphany - One Event?

In regards to language and the argument against plural comings of the Lord, if I make multiple trips to another country, there will be descriptions of that event which will be similar for each visit. Within each coming, I may do different things and not all people may see me. It is the differences within each visit which are important and may highlight that I’ve made multiple trips. There are similarities and differences in Thess and Matt 24. This may be due to some omissions in describing a single occurrence (as in harmonizing the Gospels) or there really may be more than one event. As far as I’m concerned, only posttribulationists can legitimately claim to believe in a single Second-Advent.

Aricle by Dr Ron Bigalke.

Excerpt:

As a futurist posttribulationist, Ladd wrote, “The parousia, the apokalypse, and the epiphany appear to be a single event. Any division of Christ’s coming into two parts is an unproven inference.” Ladd believed the words “parousia, the apokalypse, and the epiphany” refer to the same, single event, and therefore are not to be differentiated. Ladd is incorrect, however, in his assertion. The first word, parousia, is translated “coming” in 1 Thessalonians 4:15, and in that passage refers rather specifically to the rapture of the church. The same Greek word, parousia, is used in Matthew 24:27 and is accurately translated “coming” with regard to the Lord’s return to earth. Since the same Greek word is used in Matthew 24:27 and 1 Thessalonians 4:15, posttribulationists believe the texts refer to the same, single event. Pretribulationists disagree, and understand parousia to describe two separate events: the rapture and the second coming...First Thessalonians 4 and the Rapture PART 1


How often have you come across the name Manuel Lacunza? I bet more often than not it was in some spam comment on a blog...such as occurs here from time to time. Often the name Lacunza and MacPherson are linked. Well, here's an interesting post by Fred Butler on his blog Biblical Premillennialism:

The Manuel Lacunza Conspiracy