August 24, 2008

The Prewrath Rapture Guys Responding to Mal Couch - Part 2

I continue to respond to Mal Couch.

"And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming." - 2Th 2:8

Couch writes,

"[W]hat they try to do is connect Christ's appearance and His coming for the saints at the rapture with the fact that the antichrist will be around, and thus the church is here during the first part of the tribulation....[In 2 Thess. 2:8 they] camp on the words "appearance" and "coming" (parousia). Since many rapture passages use these words this proves that 2 Thessalonaians 2:8 is a rapture verse in their minds. But they are clearly wrong by the context. And it is true the word "coming" (parousia) can be used in both rapture and second coming verses."

Since rapture passages use these exact same terms and since the apostle Paul does not anywhere distinguish this "appearance" from another one, the burden of proof for Couch and other pretribulationists is to provide evidence that Paul has a completely different "appearance" and a different "coming" of Christ in mind.

Further, notice the context of verse 8 starting in verse 1, "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him." Every pretribber agrees that "our being gathered to him" is speaking of the rapture. But they are inconsistent by not applying it to the remaining context which includes verse 8. They build a brick wall between verse 1 and verse 8. My question to Couch is: between verse 1 and verse 8 where does Paul indicate that he is speaking of a completely different subject? We are not told by Couch.

Not only the context teaches us that the rapture is in view but other important passages connect the appearing of Christ with his coming,

"Now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming [parousia]" 1John 2:28. (cf. Titus 2:13; 1Tim. 6:14; 2Tim. 4:8; Col. 3:4; 1Peter 5:4; 1John 3:2)

But Couch's pretribulation tradition forces him not to see the context as the rapture. He cannot be consistent since that would require him to see that Paul is teaching in 2 Thess. 2 that the Church will encounter the Antichrist. Incidentally, the 2 Thess. 2 passage has caused more individuals to abandon their pretrib tradition than any other Bible passage.

Notice the amazing statement he makes next,

"Only rarely can you make doctrinal connections simply by the use of the same word(s). The most compelling key to interpretation is Context, Context, Context! And the context of this passage is clearly not a rapture context!"

Surely verse 1 is not missing in Mr. Couch's Bible. Notice three parts of this verse, "Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers," - 2Th 2:1

1) The verse begins with the word "Concerning." Even a fifth grader understands that word introduces . . . context. So what context or subject matter is Paul introducing here?

2) Paul introduces a discussion of "the coming of the Lord and our being gathered to him."

3) Who is he directing his teaching too? Is it "tribulation saints"? It is unbelieving Jews? Who is this discussion and exhortation relevant too? Paul says at the end of the verse, "we ask you, brothers."

Context, Context, Context.

Couch writes,

"In the verses (2:1-7) leading up to 2:8 one must read carefully as to what Paul is saying. The Thessalonian church thought they might be in the tribulation, the Day of the Lord, because of the suffering they were undergoing. But Paul makes it clear that this was not so".

How this is even relevant to his assertion that verse 8 does not apply to the Church we are not told; he gives no explanation, maybe only hoping it sounds good. It seems that the remaining part of his article dissipates into a handful of assertions without any effort to support them hoping that his readers will invest ultimate authority into his own word -- not to mention his understanding of the Prewrath chronology of Revelation is so flawed beyond worth mentioning here.

I must note one more thing he says,

"Also what smashes their deficient view is the fact that the "restrainer" is taken out of the way before the antichrist is revealed (vs. 6-7). It is a settled issue that the restrainer is the Holy Spirit. I will not go into all the arguments on that issue here."

I would flunk anyone who made mere assertions and then tried to back up their claim with the argument, "It is a settled issue." I would be laughed off any debate stage if I got up there and provided nothing but, "It is a settled issue." Pretribs can repeat "The Holy Spirit is the Restrainer" as many times they want, but it does not make it any more plausible.

Moreover, Couch is sadly ignorant of showing no familiarity with the literature on the issue of the "Restrainer." It has been cogently argued that the Holy Spirit is not the Restrainer but in fact is Michael the Archangel.

In the April 2000 volume of The Journal of Theological Studies, C. R. Nicholl published a seminal article, "Michael, The Restrainer Removed (2 Thess. 2:6-7)," demonstrating that Michael is the Restrainer, which would prove to put an end to the "Who is the Restrainer" debate given his convincing argumentation. Since its publication, subsequent major Thessalonian commentaries are agreeing with Dr. Nicholl's findings (not to mention noted Jewish scholars). His article has been published in his important monograph as well, From Hope to Despair in Thessalonica: Situating 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Robert Van Kampen has argued very well for Michael in his book The Sign. It has been my observation that pretribbers are not too eager to respond as even noted by Couch above, "I will not go into all the arguments on that issue here."

In short, Couch has shown no willingness to represent the other side accurately, let alone seriously engage Scripture and the Prewrath's interpretation of it. Why is this? I am convinced that the reason for this is that it is much easier to distort, ignore, and give superficial interpretations, than it is to engage God's Word and fellow believers with maturity and competence. This should not be the case, but sadly it is when Tradition has a grasp on individuals for many years.

It is unfortunate that Couch ends his article with a personal attack against a brother in Christ. He writes,

"Van Kampen's ultimate motive was from the fact that he just plain did not like dispensationalism and the pretribulational biblically proven rapture."

Is there any need for presuming "ultimate motives"? No. this is uncalled for.

Robert Van Kampen was motivated by a love for God's truth. And if another believer disagrees with his interpretation that is no reason to question his heart and thus attempt to somehow discredit him in the arena of the motives of his heart rather than the arena of proper exegesis of God's Word. This type of fallacy only reveals Mal Couch's bankrupt method of argumentation, and thus his pretribulational position.

August 15, 2008

A Primer on the Georgia-Russia Conflict: Why You Should Care

The Georgia-Russia Conflict

August 14, 2008

John Piper on "Revival," Truth, and the Antichrist

John Piper writes:

Lee Grady, the editor of Charisma, one of the main charismatic magazines, has written a lament and critique of the Lakeland "revival" which is now in a tailspin over the leader's announced separation from his wife. Grady's summons to pray for the church and our nation is right, and among his commendable questions and observations are these:

"Many of us would rather watch a noisy demonstration of miracles, signs and wonders than have a quiet Bible study. Yet we are faced today with the sad reality that our untempered zeal is a sign of immaturity. Our adolescent craving for the wild and crazy makes us do stupid things. It's way past time for us to grow up."

"True revival will be accompanied by brokenness, humility, reverence and repentance--not the arrogance, showmanship and empty hype that often was on display in Lakeland."

"A prominent Pentecostal evangelist called me this week after Bentley's news hit the fan. He said to me: 'I'm now convinced that a large segment of the charismatic church will follow the anti-Christ when he shows up because they have no discernment.' Ouch. Hopefully we'll learn our lesson this time and apply the necessary caution when an imposter shows up."

Charismatics will not be the only ones who follow the Antichrist when he rises. So will the mass of those who today in thousands of evangelical churches belittle the truth of biblical doctrine as God's agent to set us free (John 8:32).

Discernment is not created in God's people by brokenness, humility, reverence, and repentance. It is created by biblical truth and the application of truth by the power of the Holy Spirit to our hearts and minds. When that happens, then the brokenness, humility, reverence, and repentance will have the strong fiber of the full counsel of God in them. They will be profoundly Christian and not merely religious and emotional and psychological.

The common denominator of those who follow the Antichrist will not be "charismatic." It will be, as Paul says, "they refused to love the truth."

The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12)

Our test for every Lakeland that comes along should first be doctrinal and expositional. Is this awakening carried along by a "love for the truth" and a passion to hear the whole counsel of God proclaimed?

August 13, 2008

Pastor Ryan Habbena is Interviewed on the Prewrath Position

Pastor Ryan Habbena of Twin City Fellowship church in St. Louis Park, Minnesota was recently interviewed on the Prewrath view. I have not heard of Habbena before, but I listened to the two-part interview and found it instructive and beneficial to post it here.

Part 1
Part 2

August 3, 2008

Ruminate on these Words from A. W. Tozer

"[A] reason for the absence of real yearning for Christ's Return is that Christians are so comfortable in this world that they have little desire to leave it."

August 2, 2008

Indonesia: When Sharia Law Thrives

Muslims storm Protestant school in Jakarta, injuring 265 students

by Benteng Reges
Over the week-end Muslim fanatics target a Christian school in the capital's east side. Police evacuate the institute to protect students. Hundreds of police agents are now guarding it to prevent further violence.

Jakarta (AsiaNews) - Police evacuated the Christian Theological Arastamar Institute (STT SETIA) which is located in an eastern district of the Indonesian capital after it suffered damages during clashes between Christians and Muslims over the week-end. At least 1,500 students were moved to nearby police headquarters and a local Christian-based political party. The situation remains critical and further violence between opposite factions cannot be ruled out.

"The school foundation urged us to intervene to protect people," said East Jakarta District Police Chief Senior Superintendent. "For this reason we moved everyone out."

Last night hundreds of residents from the village of Kampung Pulo had taken up arms threatening to storm the school after being instigated by an imam at a local mosque who claimed that a bunch of Christian gangsters were coming to "protect" the school after it was attacked on Saturday by a Muslim mob, causing damage to the building and hurting hundreds.
(h.t. J.W.)

August 1, 2008

Hal Lindsey, a Paragon of False Prognosticators

I admit, I do not have much respect for WorldNetDaily for frequently catering to pretribulational prognosticators. After Hal Lindsey's failed prediction of the Second Coming of Jesus in 1988, one wonders why any news outlet would consider him a credible source on the Bible, let alone the future. To this day, Hal Lindsey is unrepentant for leading God's people astray with his failed predictions.

The most recent example is Lindsey attempting to make some analogy between Obama's enthusiastic welcome from Europe and what will be the supernatural inducements that will engender the Antichrist's reception by the world in chapter thirteen of Revelation. It is a disparate attempt at comparison.

For those who are repelled to study Biblical eschatology because of the abuses of Lindsey and his ilk, remember, abusus non tollit usum (abuse does not nullify proper use).

July 26, 2008

An Encapsulated Dynamic from Three Millennial Perspectives

The Millennial Maze, pp. 139-41 (To be sure, the author of this "comparison" book is Amill and his bias comes out in various places; nevertheless, Grenz does have a keen, nuanced eye when describing the dynamic between millennial positions.)

Historic premillennialists have attempted to carve out a distinctive position between dispensationalism on the one side, and amillennialism on the other. Over against the distinction between Israel and the church posited by the dispensationalism from which many of them came, these thinkers agree with the amillennial emphasis on the church as the spiritual Israel. They employ a "spiritualizing" hermeneutic that transfers to the experience of the church the prophetic expectations of a future glorious age for Israel.

At the same time, historic premillennialists are unwilling to employ universally the spiritualizing hermeneutic. They do not resign Israel to oblivion, but agree with their dispensationalist cousins that there remains yet some future role for Israel in the divine economy, albeit only as the nation turns to Christ and thereby becomes a vehicles of blessing to the world. And they stubbornly cling to the literalist hermeneutic when the meaning of the thousand years of Revelation 20 is in question. Not all prophecy can be spiritualized, they argue, and not every dimension of the future hope for the people of Gd may be relegated to the eternal state beyond the culmination of history.

Because they are caught in the middle, as it were, contemporary adherents of historic premillennialism find themselves fighting on two fronts. When engaging in discussions with dispensationalists, especially adherents of its classical expression, they direct their polemic against the literalist hermeneutic and the emphasis on Israel that arises out of it. But they defend a literal approach to the Bible and the physical, earthly dimensions of God's future purposes when confronting amillennialists.

As a result of the double direction characteristic of their apologetic, critics from both the dispensationalist and the amillennialist persuasions charge historical premillennialists with inconsistency. Both assert, for example, that the historic premillennialist hermeneutic is inconsistent, Dispensationalists complain that they are not consistently literal in approaching Scripture. Amillennialists, in contrast, see them as too literalistic. They wonder why historic premillennialists demand a fulfillment within history of the glorious blessings promised to God's people.

Critics from both persuasions claim that historic premillennialists are likewise inconsistent in their understanding of Israel. Many amillennialists challenge them to consistency in seeing the church as the spiritual Israel. Historical premillennialists readily apply to the church various Old Testament promises originally given to Israel. Such promises find their fulfillment in the blessings the church will enjoy in the millennial era. But amillennialist critics wonder why these "spiritualized" promises require a future age for their "literal" fulfillment. Dispensationalists, in contrast, wonder why historic premillennialists cannot see that their acknowledgment of some distinction between Israel and the church naturally leads to a greater emphasis on the future fulfillment of God's promises to the nation.

In short, dispensationalists complain that historic premillennialists have set out on the road to amillennialism. Amillennialists, in turn, encourage them to make the complete break with premillennialism demanded by their rejection of dispensationalism.

July 25, 2008

What Did Calvary and the Tomb Look Like? An Interview with Leen Ritmeyer

Excellent Biblical study nuggets:

What Did Calvary Look Like? An Interview with Leen Ritmeyer (Part 1)

What Did Jesus' Tomb Look Like? An Interview with Leen Ritmeyer (Part 2)

July 22, 2008

The 1611 King James Bible Agrees with the Prewrath Position

If you are a Pretribulationist King James Version Only Advocate this post may be disturbing news. Today when I was examining a facsimile of the original King James Version -- the actual 1611 edition -- I was looking at instances of textual variant notes found in the King James Version; there are 2,193 instances. (Yes, the 17th century Anglican King James translators made textual critical choices when they translated it.)

During my research of textual variant notes, I came across something else that is very interesting. As you know, pretribulationists assert that Matthew 24 does not describe the event of the rapture/resurrection. They claim that Matthew 24:31 describing the "gathering of the elect" is referring to some group of believing Jews and not the rapture/resurrection of the Church. This is to avoid the implication of the rapture/resurrection following after the Antichrist's Great Tribulation; and in the pretrib system they cannot have the Church being persecuted during this time -- it would, as well, undermine their doctrine of imminency since it would have the rapture following after prophesied events.

Observe the asterisk at the beginning of verse 31 and the two verses it cross-references to in the margin: 1 Cor 15:52 and 1 Thess. 4:16. The former verse is the twinkling of an eye rapture/resurrection passage, and the latter is the classic rapture/resurrection passage! Here the KJV translators understand that Matthew 24:31 is describing the same event of the rapture/resurrection, contra pretribulationism.

So for those pretribbers who invest ultimate authority into the textual critical decisions of 17th century Anglican churchmen, I thought I would highlight that these translators' understanding of Matthew 24:31 agrees with Prewrath -- and negates the notion of Pretribulationism.

For a larger image, click here.