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.

So, once again, here are my thoughts…

Wohlberg has written numerous polemics targeting dispensationalism and national Israel’s future relevance. He’s also produced a number of videos attempting to debunk these and maintains a website of articles doing so while promoting his books.

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 Israel’s land promises are now forfeit (Exploding The Israel Deception) and the nation is prophetically irrelevant.

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

Ex Adventist Outreach

The writings of Ellen G White

PRESENT TRIBULATION VS. FUTURE TRIBULATION

Great article by Dr Thomas Ice:

Over the years I have noticed an argument against pretribulationism which goes something like the following: “The New Testament teaches that we will suffer persecution and tribulation as followers of Christ, therefore, I believe the Church will go through the tribulation.” The New Testament does teach that Believers will suffer persecution and tribulation, but it does not follow that because of this the Church will go through the tribulation...keep reading

I like the conclusion:

I have often heard Dr. Ed Hindson make an excellent analogy concerning this issue. He says that having the Church, which is pictured in the New Testament as the Bride of Christ, go through the tribulation is like a man taking a girl to whom he is engaged and beating her to the point of near death and then saying, “Hey babe, let’s get married.” Such behavior would rightly be thought to be crazy. The New Testament clearly teaches that Christ marries the Bride in heaven (Rev. 19:110) before she accompanies Him to earth. She is already in heaven since she was raptured before the tribulation in order to experience the judgment seat of Christ during the tribulation. Therefore she is ready, married and victoriously returning to earth at the second coming with Christ (Rev. 19:1121). Only the pre-trib scenario makes sense of the details, thus demonstrating that the belief that the Church needs to go through the wrath of the tribulation a false conclusion. Maranatha!

Matthew 24 & 6th seal Cosmic Signs

Most of us have read Matt 24:29 and Rev 6:12 and noted similarities. Upon close inspection there is a difference. In Matthew the moon doesn’t give its light whereas in Revelation the moon is blood red. If the moon doesn’t give its light then it cannot be red. Can these verses describe the same event?

That these events are one and the same is vital to both the pre-wrath and post-trib views.

One advice is that we shouldn’t apply a woodenly literal interpretation in this instance. For example, there are three gospel accounts of the calming of the wind and three slight variations of Jesus’ words where He rebuked the disciples for their lack of faith. However, in those accounts Jesus essentially expressed the same question about the disciples’ faith. It’s possible that He may have even uttered all the phrases for emphasis and the gospel writers each recorded one aspect.

But, whatever the case, Matt 24:29 is exactly corroborated by Mark 13:24. In both gospel accounts the moon doesn’t give its light. Why is there a difference in the 6th seal if the primary source of the three accounts is the same person? Had Jesus intended to convey darkness at Mark 13 and Matt 24, He would have expressed it precisely the way He did. Therefore, it’s natural to allow that He meant exactly what He said. It’s not a case of being too literal but recognizing what has been stated without presupposing an alternate meaning.

The suggestion that we not take the differences too literally is also inconsistent. When dealing with concepts like wrath, tribulation, parousia, the day of the Lord etc, people will typically invoke the exact Greek technical terms in Scripture to argue their points.

What about context?

If you’re post-trib you expect a correlation between the 6th seal and Matt 24:29, 31 to coincide with the end of the great tribulation, the rapture and the beginning of God’s wrath. You then argue for a parallel or concurrent execution of the seals etc that ties everything together.

If you’re pre-wrath you have very similar expectations. The main differences being that you take a chronological view of the events and you appeal to Matt 24:22 for an end to the GT and the rapture before the end of the week. You’re also likely to present the great multitude’s identity (Rev 7) being the raptured Church as contextual evidence that Matt 24:29-31 is tied in with the 6th seal. This identification of the great multitude needs to stand on its own merit, yet people often resort to Matt 24:22, 29, 31 as contextual confirmation that it is, and vice versa. In adopting this methodology, evidence for these points is restricted because they are co-dependant for context.

I believe it’s a mistake to insist in a division between the wrath of God and the Great Tribulation. As I’ve shown elsewhere, the arguments for God’s wrath being poured throughout the seals are more compelling than the objections. We read “After the tribulation…” and immediately conclude that the wrath of God must then follow because it's assumed that tribulation and God’s wrath cannot coexist. God’s wrath is evident throughout the week and tribulation is one result of God’s wrath (Rom 2:5-9).

The language in Matt 24:21-22 is too strong for a worse period to follow. If that period continues, no flesh would be saved. Logically, then, if a worse period follows then no flesh can be saved. So how can the day of the Lord come after the tribulation? It is the same period progressively worsening to such a point that God must intervene or no flesh will be saved.

The rapture cannot be what ends this period because the reasons given for the period’s termination do not match a Church context if it is to be raptured. Christ isn’t saying that the tribulation will be cut short in order that some people remain alive so they can be raptured. It only makes sense if the intent is to keep the “elect” alive for the Millennium to be populated.

2 Thess 2:8 indicates that the “lawless one” is slain at Christ’s appearing. Some people want the term to mean “hand cuffed” (it doesn’t) because they believe this occurs before the end of the week. But he cannot be handcuffed when he’s been given authority for 42 months (which is the length of the GT); is still able to behead saints (Rev 20:4) and muster the nations at the 6th bowl. Therefore 2 Thess 2:8 correlates to Rev 19.

There are different moon signs in Joel 2:10, 31. Joel 3:15 matches 2:10 in describing darkness and 2:31 has a red moon. Is this really just two ways of saying the same thing or is there something more complex here to consider?

Isaiah 2 suggests that some aspect of the day of the Lord is already present when people are scrambling to find shelter in caves. This matches the 6th seal. Darrel Cline draws upon Matt 24, Revelation, Joel and elements of Isaiah 34 to suggest that the 6th seal is an “inclusio”. Here’s what he says:

“…Matthew 24 is a presentation of the final event of the Day of the Lord when Jesus descends to summon the nation to her land according to the promise of Deuteronomy 30:4. In this day, the moon does not give her light. But, the "Day of the Lord" is an extended period of time, not just one day. So, in Revelation 6, the sixth seal, being like the rest of the seals in giving an overview of the period, gives both the prelude event to which Joel refers as "before the Day" at which time the moon appears as deep red, as well as the final event which includes the rolling up of the heavens as a scroll so that the inhabitants of the earth can visibly see the anger of the One on the throne in Heaven as well as that of the Lamb as He descends to the earth. The sixth seal is an inclusio that takes in the beginning as well as the ending. Its function as a seal is to characterize the scroll's contents as a revelation of the entire period of Daniel's seventieth week, just like the other seals do in their own way. The conclusion is that the seventieth week is the period of the warfare of the wrath of the Day of the Lord as well as the period of Satan's final conflict with God before the establishment of His kingdom on the earth (the first two seals) and the overall results of this massive conflict over this earth are famine and death to a fourth of the population of the earth (this does not include the deaths that are the result of specific judgments that are distinct from the general impact of war, famine, death, and wild beasts). These results are seals 3 and 4. Then seal 5 gives the justification from the earth side of the issue where the hatefulness is so severe against the truth that those who promote it are martyred over all of human history. Then seal 6 gives the justification from the heavenly side of the issue, which has its roots in the wrath of the Father and the Son. The seventh seal is opened to allow the remaining part of the front of the scroll to be read as well as the entire back side.”

Read the full account HERE. But note that he’s critiquing Robert Van Kampen’s “The Rapture Question Answered Plain and Simple” and he pulls no punches.

Alan D Cole provides further thoughts HERE.

I think Cline and Cole make some interesting and challenging arguments. I don’t have the answers. However, I’m convinced that we do a great injustice to the differences between Matt 24:29, Mark 13:24 and Rev 6:12 if we simply assume they’re the same event.

No Fourth Seal Wrath?

For thus says the Lord GOD: How much more when I send upon Jerusalem my four disastrous acts of judgment, sword, famine, wild beasts, and pestilence, to cut off from it man and beast! (Eze 14:21 ESV)

And I looked, and behold, a pale horse! And its rider's name was Death, and Hades followed him. And they were given authority over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by wild beasts of the earth. (Rev 6:8 ESV)

I’ve often argued that the wrath of God occurs before the opening of the 7th seal by pointing out the similarity of the language between Rev 6:8 and Ezekiel 14:21. Going over some of my study records I noticed this comment by Dr Charles Cooper in response to a critique by Dr Arnold Fruchtenbaum:

“Fruchtenbaum fails to notice that these words are spoken against Jerusalem and not one fourth of the world as indicated in the fourth seal of Revelation 6:7. Rosenthal does not say that God has not used these judgments in the past as Fruchtenbaum indirectly intimates. The issue is whether Scripture indicates that God will use these judgments in the future against one fourth of the world. There is no prophecy in the Old Testament that God is going to use these judgments against the world during the "great tribulation." Not one!”

Dr Cooper is well within his rights to defend his system even though there are articles on his website that dish criticism out.

However, he seems to miss the obvious point. The issue isn’t who Ez 14 is addressed to in the OT but what the judgments were composed of and the fact that they were called judgments.

That they were called judgments in the OT and the same effects are released by the Lamb - who is the only one with the authority to open the seal - is compelling evidence that this is God’s wrath. Those who disagree must provide viable evidence to the contrary.

Tribulation? Elect? No problems!

Lately I’ve been immersing myself in studying the Atonement. Of particular interest to me is the doctrine of Limited Atonement which is the L in the Calvinistic acronym T.U.L.I.P. In a nutshell, Limited Atonement holds that Christ died to redeem ONLY the ELECT.

If you’re a Reformed 5 pointer, a more “efficient” rendering of John 3:16 might conceivably read as follows:

"For God so loved the ELECT, which He predestined to salvation, that he gave his only Son, that whoever (of the ELECT, though they have no choice) believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16 ESV (with some additions)

The elect were sovereignly chosen by God for salvation in eternity past. They were predestined. In fact they really had no choice in it due to Irresistible Grace. Once you are chosen you are saved and the best part is that you won’t lose that salvation because of what’s called Perseverance.

If you’re not one of the ELECT/CHOSEN, well…see, there’s this thing about Total Depravity. Sorry about that.

I realize I’m being somewhat flippant here. This is a serious issue.

But the subject got me to thinking – how does this affect pre-Millennial eschatology? Specifically, being prepared for the Great Tribulation and the possibility of taking the mark of the Beast if you’re a miscalculating pretribber?

Remember that you’re one of the ELECT! Your salvation has been sovereignly determined in eternity past. You were regenerated even before you could have faith. There was nothing you could do to gain salvation – and nothing to lose it.

Right?

The odd thing is that pretribulationism is sometimes frowned upon by the Reformed, pre-mil, 5 pointers who fret over the pretribulationist’s capacity to endure the Great Tribulation with their souls intact. Here’s a typical example:

“…who will be more prepared for this test? the person who is taught that this test will be applied to the Church and thus must have faith to endure; or, the person who is taught that the Church will be swept away in bed's of ease before the Antichrist uses the mark as a test of loyalty?”

So pretribulationists are being cautioned to "test their election", that they are not deceived and left wanting during the tribulation. Isn’t this contradictory…or am I missing something?

What endurance and what test?

Remember T.U.L.I.P.?

How can unsaved individuals - who weren’t Predestined - prepare for the “test of loyalty” if there’s nothing they can do to contribute to their salvation? On the other side of the coin, if you’re one of the ELECT then there’s nothing you can do to lose that salvation.

If you’re a consistent proponent of T.U.L.I.P., then, logically, it’s all been predetermined.

******

Man says:

" ...the conversion of a sinner being not owing to a man's self determination, but to God's determination, and eternal election, which is absolute, and depending on the sovereign Will of God, and not on the free will of man; as is evident from what has been said : and it being very evident from the Scriptures, that the eternal election of saints to the faith and holiness, is also an election of them to eternal salvation; hence their appointment to salvation must also be absolute, and not depending on their contingent, self-determining Will." Jonathan Edwards

God says:

1 John 2:2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

And John 3:16 (without man's redefinition):

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

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

The Hermeneutic of Reinterpretation

It’s no wonder we have so many differences in understanding Scripture. Take these quotes for example:

The Old Testament must be interpreted by the New Testament. In principle it is quite possible that the prophecies addressed originally to literal Israel describing physical blessings have their fulfillment exclusively in the spiritual blessings enjoyed by the church. It is also possible that the Old Testament expectation of a kingdom on earth could be reinterpreted by the New Testament altogether of blessings in the spiritual realm. (Historic premillennialist George Ladd)

But eschatological themes are reinterpreted in the New Testament, where we are told these Old Testament images are types and shadows of the glorious realities that are fulfilled in Jesus Christ…This [literal interpretation of the Bible] leaves dispensationalists frequently stuck in the awkward position of insisting on an Old Testament interpretation of a prophetic theme that has been reinterpreted in the New Testament in the light of the messianic age which dawned in Jesus Christ. (Amillennialist Kim Riddlebarger)

Jesus and the apostles reinterpreted the Old Testament…Their selective and dualistic hermeneutic leads Christian Zionists to ignore how Jesus and the apostles reinterpreted the Old Testament. (Anti-Zionist Stephen Sizer)

Jesus spent His whole ministry redefining what the kingdom meant. He refused to give up the symbolic language of the kingdom, but filled it with such a new content that, as we have seen, he powerfully subverted Jewish expectations. (Theologian N. T. Wright)

Redefining? Re-interpreting? These “theologians” are dead serious! I’ve been reading self-proclaimed ex-dispie Kim Riddlebarger’s “A Case for Amillennialism” and have a potential bald spot from where I’ve been scratching my head re his methodology.

The OT has some specific and detailed statements that address the future of Israel. If the NT redefines or re-interprets these then it is nothing more than abrogation.

If Ladd is correct that the NT reinterprets the OT, his hermeneutic does raise some serious questions. How can the integrity of the OT text be maintained? In what sense can the OT really be called a revelation in its original meaning? (Paul Feinberg)

If NT reinterpretation reverses, cancels, or seriously modifies OT promises to Israel, one wonders how to define the word "progressive.‟ God‟s faithfulness to His promises to Israel must also be explained… It appears exceedingly doubtful that the NT reinterprets the OT. . . . This comes perilously close to conflicting with such NT passages as Matt 5:18 and John 10:35b. (David L Turner)

The quotes above have been taken from an article at Mike Vlach’s website. You can read it HERE.

Dr Paul Henebury makes some observations of his own. Here’s one of them:

By assuming, without sufficient warrant, that the New Testament must be used to [re]interpret the Old Testament, CT in practice denies to the OT its own perspicuity, its own integrity as inspired revelation, and creates a “canon within a canon.”

Read the rest of Dr Henebury's post HERE.