Why are some atheists-evolutionists so threatened by publications questioning their faith? Go to Amazon and check out Stephen Meyer's two books:
Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design
Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design
Go to the reviews that gave Meyer's books a high rating and then check the comments. You'll find the usual suspects relentlessly hunting down those who gave Meyer a pat on the back. Some of the behavior is tantamount to cyber harassment, especially when it's obvious that many haven't even read the books.
For those who are interested, Jason Lisle (Ultimate Proof of Creation) has a blog where he has interacted with the odd gunslinger. It's obvious that this sort of interaction is high maintenance so I hope Lisle keeps the blog alive. I've benefited from reading it.
Jason Lisle's Blog
Meyer's responses to critical reviews of Darwin's Doubt
Meyer's responses to critical reviews of Signature in the Cell
Friday, January 3, 2014
Thursday, January 2, 2014
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.
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.
Sunday, December 22, 2013
Merry Christmas from the E.L.C.A.
The ELCA must worship a God that has no power. A God that can not do miracles. A God that has to make up a birth story of His Son to make people believe He is special. A God that can not create a child in the womb of a virgin. That is the powerless, lying god of the ELCA.
Here is what the ELCA and many ELCA leaders are saying about the details of the birth of Christ...keep reading
Here is what the ELCA and many ELCA leaders are saying about the details of the birth of Christ...keep reading
Saturday, December 21, 2013
Christian Slaughter
I suggest that Christian slaughter and persecution should be a hot topic for the upcoming Christ At the Checkpoint Conference in 2014. It won't - but it should be! It would also be nice if Vicar Sizer added the topic to his impressive and growing list of audio & literary efforts.
Two of the most tragic Islamic attacks on Christians, killing several women and children, took place in the month of October, one in Syria another in Egypt...On October 21 in Syria, the U.S.-supported Islamic rebels invaded and occupied the ancient Christian settlement of Sadad for over a week, till ousted by the military. During that week, “the largest massacre of Christians in Syria,” in the words of Orthodox Archbishop Alnemeh, took place. Among other things, 45 Christians—including women and children—were killed, several tortured to death; mass graves were discovered; all of Sadad’s 14 churches, some ancient, were ransacked and destroyed; the bodies of six people from one family, ranging from ages 16 to 90, were found buried at the bottom of a well (an increasingly common fate for “subhuman” Christians)...keep reading
Two of the most tragic Islamic attacks on Christians, killing several women and children, took place in the month of October, one in Syria another in Egypt...On October 21 in Syria, the U.S.-supported Islamic rebels invaded and occupied the ancient Christian settlement of Sadad for over a week, till ousted by the military. During that week, “the largest massacre of Christians in Syria,” in the words of Orthodox Archbishop Alnemeh, took place. Among other things, 45 Christians—including women and children—were killed, several tortured to death; mass graves were discovered; all of Sadad’s 14 churches, some ancient, were ransacked and destroyed; the bodies of six people from one family, ranging from ages 16 to 90, were found buried at the bottom of a well (an increasingly common fate for “subhuman” Christians)...keep reading
Sunday, December 8, 2013
Pre-Trib Research Center Latest Conference
The 22nd Annual Pre-Trib Study Group Conference Papers are now available HERE
This year's focus is on Israel, Zionism and Replacement Theology.
This year's focus is on Israel, Zionism and Replacement Theology.
Friday, December 6, 2013
Inadequacy: The Surprising Secret to Being Useful to God
Here's a person I disagree with eschatologically. But what a passion for the gospel he has! Love the man's preaching!
Q & A with Alistair Begg and David Guzik
Q & A with Alistair Begg and David Guzik
Sunday, December 1, 2013
Prepping for the Tribulation
John MacArthur has been embroiled in a controversy. No, I'm not talking about the Strange Fire Conference. MacArthur was outed by Brannon Howse for a response he gave to a question which centered on whether someone could repent and be saved after accepting the Mark of the Beast. MacArthur responded that it was possible. Howse referred to it because it supported Jimmy DeYoung's position.
And so there ensued a collective outcry from horrified pretrib skeptics. This confirmed their suspicions that teaching pretribulationism was downright dangerous. Pretribbers are in danger of taking the Mark of the Beast when the Antichrist shows up before Jesus. Another all-time favorite - pretribulationists have been spoon fed a diet of "easy believism" and are inadequately prepared for the Tribulation.
It's an irony, then, that I first learned of the MacArthur "scandal" from pretribulationists. They were all shocked and appalled that John MacArthur and Jimmy DeYoung could possibly hold to such a position. Personally, I'm shocked that otherwise gullible pretribulationists were actually shocked. Are we all shocked now? I hope so.
Anyway, my non-pretribber friends may want to scratch the deception thingy from their handy little Reasons to Harass Pretribulationists workbooks. Maybe also get a clue in the process.
Some non-pretribulational-non-Calvinists (have I lost you yet?) soon jumped on the heresy bandwagon. One "watchman on some wall" plopped John MacArthur among his personal list of heretics, which included Joel Osteen. John MacArthur in the same lineup as Osteen? Sigh. Words fail me.
The heresy outcry eventually brought Calvinism into the picture, and prompted the following response from Eschatos Ministries:
...many of these same blog posts are also calling MacArthur a heretic because he is a “Calvinist.” Trust me, the vast majority of these people have no earthly clue what Calvinism actually teaches—they only know a caricature. And prewrathers who are calling him a heretic because he is a Calvinist, I want to remind them that the pioneers of the prewrath position are Calvinists...including myself.
MacArthur's problem isn't his Calvinism, it's his pretribulationism. Sadly, that ministry habitually spins a familiar line:
One can begin to see how pretribulationism is a false teaching. It has dire ramifications. It is setting up believers to become vulnerable during the Antichrist’s great tribulation...Eschatology matters.
And so this brings me to my next little rant - what does Calvinism teach? How can one be a consistent Calvinist and yet claim the "unprepared pretribulationist" risks eternal damnation as a consequence of taking the Mark?
Here are the issues as I understand them (and I'm open to correction). T.U.L.I.P. holds that God sovereignly chooses and predestines the elect; that they cannot respond to the gospel of their own power (Total Depravity); that they are compelled to positively respond to God's Irresistible Grace and once having being saved, cannot lose that salvation (Eternal Security). It affirms that:
All who were chosen by God, redeemed by Christ, and given faith by the Spirit are eternally saved. They are kept in faith by the power of Almighty God and thus persevere to the end.
As James White writes:
So it is clear that each of the Divine Persons is vitally involved in the work of salvation. The Father sovereignly and unilaterally chooses us for salvation. He gives us to the Son, who, in obedience to the Father’s will, saves those who are joined to Him by the Father, and raises us up to eternal life. The Spirit of God is placed in our lives to empower and seal us as God’s own possession. Salvation, then, is of God - God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Since salvation is of God, and is God’s work, its eternal character is simply the reflection of the nature of its author - God Himself. Each of the three Persons is intimately involved in bringing about the salvation of the elect, and that salvation is eternal and secure.
So what am I missing? Isn't MacArthur more consistent in his Calvinism (Phil Johnson too, for that matter)?
Mind you, I disagree with MacArthur's response. Revelation gives an emphatic warning. He should have stressed something like - if someone can be eternally damned for taking the Mark of the Beast, then an elect person wouldn't accept it to begin with. Or, if a person accepts the Mark, then they weren't Christ's from the beginning.
But why are professing Calvinists concerned about the elect possibly taking the Mark of the Beast as a result of their belief in a pretribulational rapture? Don't they take their own doctrines seriously? Or is the 70th week of Daniel a special period where those tenets cease to function? You know, like a different dispensation?
Of course, there are those pious non-Calvinist-non-pretribbers who take the position that one can lose one's salvation. They suppose that the expectation of being in The Tribulation and facing the Antichrist affords them some advantage over the pretribulationist (or the amil, postmil, preterist etc).
How does that work, exactly? I've never seen it clearly explained. Is there some profound spiritual (or even physical) protocol that's superior to living each day abiding in Christ? How are these people spiritually better prepared than someone who expects to face Christ at any given moment, and lives it? Please write me, I'd be keen to get started on that program.
Are you trusting in your own strength and resources, or placing your trust in Christ? If it's the former, you could be in deep do-do.
For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Rom 8:38-39
That pretty much covers everything for me. I find it very comforting.
Further reading:
The 'Comings' of Christ in Rev 2-3
P.S. The "pioneers of the prewrath position are Calvinists"? Pioneers? Think about it!
And so there ensued a collective outcry from horrified pretrib skeptics. This confirmed their suspicions that teaching pretribulationism was downright dangerous. Pretribbers are in danger of taking the Mark of the Beast when the Antichrist shows up before Jesus. Another all-time favorite - pretribulationists have been spoon fed a diet of "easy believism" and are inadequately prepared for the Tribulation.
It's an irony, then, that I first learned of the MacArthur "scandal" from pretribulationists. They were all shocked and appalled that John MacArthur and Jimmy DeYoung could possibly hold to such a position. Personally, I'm shocked that otherwise gullible pretribulationists were actually shocked. Are we all shocked now? I hope so.
Anyway, my non-pretribber friends may want to scratch the deception thingy from their handy little Reasons to Harass Pretribulationists workbooks. Maybe also get a clue in the process.
Some non-pretribulational-non-Calvinists (have I lost you yet?) soon jumped on the heresy bandwagon. One "watchman on some wall" plopped John MacArthur among his personal list of heretics, which included Joel Osteen. John MacArthur in the same lineup as Osteen? Sigh. Words fail me.
The heresy outcry eventually brought Calvinism into the picture, and prompted the following response from Eschatos Ministries:
...many of these same blog posts are also calling MacArthur a heretic because he is a “Calvinist.” Trust me, the vast majority of these people have no earthly clue what Calvinism actually teaches—they only know a caricature. And prewrathers who are calling him a heretic because he is a Calvinist, I want to remind them that the pioneers of the prewrath position are Calvinists...including myself.
MacArthur's problem isn't his Calvinism, it's his pretribulationism. Sadly, that ministry habitually spins a familiar line:
One can begin to see how pretribulationism is a false teaching. It has dire ramifications. It is setting up believers to become vulnerable during the Antichrist’s great tribulation...Eschatology matters.
And so this brings me to my next little rant - what does Calvinism teach? How can one be a consistent Calvinist and yet claim the "unprepared pretribulationist" risks eternal damnation as a consequence of taking the Mark?
Here are the issues as I understand them (and I'm open to correction). T.U.L.I.P. holds that God sovereignly chooses and predestines the elect; that they cannot respond to the gospel of their own power (Total Depravity); that they are compelled to positively respond to God's Irresistible Grace and once having being saved, cannot lose that salvation (Eternal Security). It affirms that:
All who were chosen by God, redeemed by Christ, and given faith by the Spirit are eternally saved. They are kept in faith by the power of Almighty God and thus persevere to the end.
As James White writes:
So it is clear that each of the Divine Persons is vitally involved in the work of salvation. The Father sovereignly and unilaterally chooses us for salvation. He gives us to the Son, who, in obedience to the Father’s will, saves those who are joined to Him by the Father, and raises us up to eternal life. The Spirit of God is placed in our lives to empower and seal us as God’s own possession. Salvation, then, is of God - God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Since salvation is of God, and is God’s work, its eternal character is simply the reflection of the nature of its author - God Himself. Each of the three Persons is intimately involved in bringing about the salvation of the elect, and that salvation is eternal and secure.
So what am I missing? Isn't MacArthur more consistent in his Calvinism (Phil Johnson too, for that matter)?
Mind you, I disagree with MacArthur's response. Revelation gives an emphatic warning. He should have stressed something like - if someone can be eternally damned for taking the Mark of the Beast, then an elect person wouldn't accept it to begin with. Or, if a person accepts the Mark, then they weren't Christ's from the beginning.
But why are professing Calvinists concerned about the elect possibly taking the Mark of the Beast as a result of their belief in a pretribulational rapture? Don't they take their own doctrines seriously? Or is the 70th week of Daniel a special period where those tenets cease to function? You know, like a different dispensation?
Of course, there are those pious non-Calvinist-non-pretribbers who take the position that one can lose one's salvation. They suppose that the expectation of being in The Tribulation and facing the Antichrist affords them some advantage over the pretribulationist (or the amil, postmil, preterist etc).
How does that work, exactly? I've never seen it clearly explained. Is there some profound spiritual (or even physical) protocol that's superior to living each day abiding in Christ? How are these people spiritually better prepared than someone who expects to face Christ at any given moment, and lives it? Please write me, I'd be keen to get started on that program.
Are you trusting in your own strength and resources, or placing your trust in Christ? If it's the former, you could be in deep do-do.
For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Rom 8:38-39
That pretty much covers everything for me. I find it very comforting.
Further reading:
The 'Comings' of Christ in Rev 2-3
P.S. The "pioneers of the prewrath position are Calvinists"? Pioneers? Think about it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
