Some hard hitting observations on John Hagee's Blood Moons theory and his erroneous views on Israel:
False Prophets
Showing posts with label false prophets. Show all posts
Showing posts with label false prophets. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Saturday, December 10, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, January 18, 2010
False Prophets
When I first embarked on a study of eschatology I learned that some people were preterists; some were amillennialists and some were premillennialists etc. At that time I also came across the term dispensationalism. I slowly learned that those who weren’t premillennial or dispensational considered those who were, to be false prophets.
In those days I considered myself mostly post-trib. What excited me was that I might be living in the last days and I strongly doubted that I would be whisked away prior to the proverbial manure hitting the fan. My focus was on premillennialism and I simply skipped over any chapters dealing with the rapture.
My interest in the rapture was first piqued when I visited a certain prophecy website that claimed prophecy was being fulfilled now. On the one hand I was excited that perhaps we really were on the verge of entering into the 70th week of Daniel and that the anti-Christ was about to be revealed - that meant the Lord would be on His way! On the other hand I was a little perturbed by the comments on that site towards pretribulationalists I had been reading. The website owner believed the Church would be here to experience the anti-Christ. I began looking into his rapture view.
As I researched, I discovered a depth of condescension towards pretribulationism and pretribulationists that surprised me. Hal Lindsey was and is one of the favorite whipping boys but Thomas Ice and Tim LaHaye hold honorary places of mention in the pantheon. One layman even wrote a small book that was really a letter to LaHaye. Other than the fact that LaHaye was involved in the Left Behind books, I’m not sure why he got the brunt of that book given there are so many other capable pretribulational/dispensational scholars out there that could have been engaged.
Hal apparently gets special mention as false prophet on the pretext that he allegedly predicted the rapture/second coming would occur in the eighties. While commenting on Lindsey, one person even mentioned that false prophets were stoned in the OT! But what Lindsey actually did was postulate the possibility of everything coming together within that timeframe based on, then, current events and his understanding of Israel and the fig tree. He was wrong - simple as that. On observation, however, I suspect he’s been branded a false prophet for his pre-trib view rather than his failed chronology.
When I started my first blog, I compared Hal with those who fervently believed and practically taught that the signing of the ENP began the seven year Tribulation in Jan 2007, along with identifying the person who could be the AC. We now have less than six months to mid-point and it becomes increasingly unlikely that sacrifices will be established for an anti-Christ to put a stop to, or a Temple built in time for him to defile. Will these people be branded false prophets? I doubt it, and furthermore they shouldn’t be.
Modres has more to say about this false prophet phenomenon HERE
Another thing that intrigues me is that I often read where someone claims the Holy Spirit showed them that the pre-trib rapture is wrong and the rapture view they’ve come to adopt is correct. Here’s the dilemma; I’ve heard that claim from pre-trib, mid-trib, pre-wrath and post-trib believers. Can you see an issue there? Is the Holy Spirit fickle?
Here’s Modres again:
The Holy Spirit Taught Me…
In those days I considered myself mostly post-trib. What excited me was that I might be living in the last days and I strongly doubted that I would be whisked away prior to the proverbial manure hitting the fan. My focus was on premillennialism and I simply skipped over any chapters dealing with the rapture.
My interest in the rapture was first piqued when I visited a certain prophecy website that claimed prophecy was being fulfilled now. On the one hand I was excited that perhaps we really were on the verge of entering into the 70th week of Daniel and that the anti-Christ was about to be revealed - that meant the Lord would be on His way! On the other hand I was a little perturbed by the comments on that site towards pretribulationalists I had been reading. The website owner believed the Church would be here to experience the anti-Christ. I began looking into his rapture view.
As I researched, I discovered a depth of condescension towards pretribulationism and pretribulationists that surprised me. Hal Lindsey was and is one of the favorite whipping boys but Thomas Ice and Tim LaHaye hold honorary places of mention in the pantheon. One layman even wrote a small book that was really a letter to LaHaye. Other than the fact that LaHaye was involved in the Left Behind books, I’m not sure why he got the brunt of that book given there are so many other capable pretribulational/dispensational scholars out there that could have been engaged.
Hal apparently gets special mention as false prophet on the pretext that he allegedly predicted the rapture/second coming would occur in the eighties. While commenting on Lindsey, one person even mentioned that false prophets were stoned in the OT! But what Lindsey actually did was postulate the possibility of everything coming together within that timeframe based on, then, current events and his understanding of Israel and the fig tree. He was wrong - simple as that. On observation, however, I suspect he’s been branded a false prophet for his pre-trib view rather than his failed chronology.
When I started my first blog, I compared Hal with those who fervently believed and practically taught that the signing of the ENP began the seven year Tribulation in Jan 2007, along with identifying the person who could be the AC. We now have less than six months to mid-point and it becomes increasingly unlikely that sacrifices will be established for an anti-Christ to put a stop to, or a Temple built in time for him to defile. Will these people be branded false prophets? I doubt it, and furthermore they shouldn’t be.
Modres has more to say about this false prophet phenomenon HERE
Another thing that intrigues me is that I often read where someone claims the Holy Spirit showed them that the pre-trib rapture is wrong and the rapture view they’ve come to adopt is correct. Here’s the dilemma; I’ve heard that claim from pre-trib, mid-trib, pre-wrath and post-trib believers. Can you see an issue there? Is the Holy Spirit fickle?
Here’s Modres again:
The Holy Spirit Taught Me…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
