New Age Healing

In these Last Days, it is imperative that each and every Christian seek God at every turn, avoiding the things that will place us on the path AWAY from Him. Just because it sounds good, does not necessarily mean that it is beneficial.

Problems with C H Fisher’s Pretribulational Book, Part 4

As we continue on through chapters three and four of Pretribulational Rapture, we learn more of what C H Fisher considers to be the problem with the pretribulational view of the rapture.

Fisher opens his chapter three with the words, “The common reaction by most pretribbers to the shocking truth that the theory of pretribulation rapture is a false doctrine is to become angry and defiant. I have met only a few pretribbers who reacted with curiosity when told that the PTR was a false doctrine, and were willing to listen to the evidence.  Many of them responded by trying to defend the Rapture, not the resurrection of the dead or the coming of Christ, and misquoting scriptures.  Recently, some of the (sic) have reacted by presenting extrabiblical arguments originating from material promoting PTR. This is an indication as to their focus, which, in a way, is a subliminal smoke screen. They set about to prove that rejection of the PTR is the same as denying the rapture altogether.“1

That particular argument is like asking which came first, the chicken or the egg.  Whether or not the pretrib rapturist normally tends to defend his position by using extrabiblical arguments is really moot.  The real problem is the amount of arrogance in evidence throughout his book.  As we have discussed previously, the problem – if any – with the pretribulational rapture position has nothing to do with an individual’s salvation.  It has to do with the way people understand the Scriptures.  Whether the rapture occurs before, during or after, is an issue that takes place within the scope of Eschatology (study of End Times), and has no bearing on an individual’s salvation.

As also noted, Fisher does not see it this way.  To him, the pretribulational rapture position is one that goes to the very heart of salvation.  He charges without hesitation that the doctrine itself is akin to blasphemy.

The real problem with Fisher’s book is that instead of addressing the issue based on Scripture, he spends a lion’s share of the time involving extrabiblical arguments to negate the position; something he maligns the pretribulational rapturist for as well.  Instead of going back to Scripture, all he really does is attempt to justify his position against the pretribulation rapture by reviewing the history surrounding it.  Unfortunately, what we are left with is a very apparent lack of knowledge regarding history.

Fisher attempts to show that the Rapture occurring prior to the Tribulation is a new doctrine.  Because of that, it should be avoided like the plague.  The difficulty here though is that it can be easily proven from actual history that the Roman Catholic Church has been guilty of covering over much of what was originally taught by the early church.  It is difficult, if not impossible to deny this.  In fact, we understand that this is why the Reformation took place, due to the falsity of Catholicism’s claims regarding salvation itself.  By the time the Reformation was over, or at least winding down, salvation had been – for the most part – extricated from the hands of Roman Catholicism.

But when did the Reformation end?  It is generally acknowledged that it ended with the Peace of Westphalia, in 1648.  The Rapture, according to those like Fisher who believe it, supposedly came into origin through Darby (and ultimately disseminated through Scofield), around 1830.  Here, we see a difference of less than 200 years, yet to hear folks like Fisher tell it, the Rapture is extremely new on the scene, therefore should be rejected.  What does that say about salvation by faith without works?

Fisher also makes declarative statements that the early church was posttribulational in belief, yet it seems clear enough from church history that premillennialism and amillennialism were both part of the church’s landscape.  Amillennialism does not accept or believe in a posttribulational rapture position, yet Fisher assures us this was the case.

However, it is clear that St. Augustine, was the individual whom the Roman Catholic Church points to as the one who adopted and systematized Eschatology, under the Amillennial banner.  Roman Catholicism not only adopted his view of Eschatology, but widely disseminated it and beyond that, either downplayed or covered over completely any opposing view.   So, any authentic look at church history cannot ignore the fact that Roman Catholicism’s dominance not only caused the beginning and growth of spurious doctrines, but genuine biblical positions diametrically opposed were shelved.

Yet, this extremely cogent and important point is not even touched on by Fisher, who only sees the supposed fallacy of the pretribulation rapture position, as if it alone, has caused the major departure of those who were once within the faith.  The reality though, is quite the opposite.

Actually, continuing to rebut Fisher’s book is becoming an exercise in redundancy.  It is apparent that Fisher believes Charismatics and Pentecostals are heretical, as well as those who understand the Bible to be teaching a pretribulational rapture position.

In chapter three, he quotes Bernard Ramm, yet it is apparent that by the time Ramm wrote the book Fisher quotes from, Ramm had nearly adopted Barth’s theological viewpoints without exception.  Yet, to Fisher, Ramm at this stage is the parenthetical theological hero. Why?  Because to Fisher, as he states further on in chapter three, Barth was a brillian theologian.

But Fisher continues his rambling comments as seen here, “ I am not saying that Christians should accept Roman Catholicism or that Protestantism is wrong, I am simply trying to prove that PTR is a new doctrine and that it does not have its roots in the Early Church. In my opinion, Roman Catholicism is a diabolical institution of man and has little if any resemblance to the Early Church. The fact is that before Protestantism godly men were forced to join that ungodly institution or face torture and execution. Roman Catholicism’s long time dominance of true Christians does not make it true Christianity. Nor does the fact that there have been men in the Roman Catholic church that promoted truth make it a valid institution. It is also important to note that because of the Roman Catholic church’s persecution of Christianity and domination of literature, it is impossible to know what Christianity might have been if that pompous entity had not existed.“

So on one hand, he seems to apologize that people “had” to accept Roman Catholicism “or face torture and execution,” yet he firmly believes that in spite of Roman Catholicism’s absolute control over the then-known world, and their creation of many aberrant doctrines and theologies, Fisher’s main hangup is that the pretribulation rapture doctrine is “new.”  He attempts to bolster his argument with this statement, “However, the redefining of eschatology came centuries after Martin Luther when John Nelson Darby sculpted a dispensational system that included the pretribulation rapture.“

As we have seen, Darby espoused the pretrib rapture position less than 200 years after the end of the Reformation.  It is also clear that the only area of doctrinal concern for the reformers was that of salvation.  They had no inclination to deal with anything else because to them, salvation is the most important aspect of Christianity, because it ties in directly with the Godhead, the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, His sinless life, His death and resurrection, His ascension and His absolute fulfillment of all prophecies concerning Him, as stated in the Old Testament.

Without salvation, God is still God, He is sill sovereign, His is still triune, sinless, eternal and everything else associated with Him.  Nothing impacts humanity as does salvation.

For all of Fisher’s rambling and perjorative statements, regarding those who espouse a pretribulation rapture position.  His uneven handling of history as it pertains to the church leaves the reader either fully believing everything he says, because he tends to sound authoritative, or the reader easily sees through his facade.  The excruciatingly sad part of the entire thing is that Fisher himself does not see his own myriad of inconsistencies.

In fact, as we continue traveling through the winding, convoluted, impediment-ridden treatise, it is very much like following Alice down the rabbit hole.  This is being kind.  It has become unerringly apparent, that C. H. Fisher knows little of church history, little of Scripture, and little of creating arguments that bear up under their own weight.

While on one hand, he supports his own lack of formal education and training with respect to theology, but castigates Chafer for his.  The contradictions come fast and furiously in Fisher’s book.

The trouble with the entire doctrine related to the pretribulational rapture position is that Fisher starts from an untenable position, and then attempts to prove that all who are not in line with his thinking are heretical.  Folks like C. H. Fisher sadden me greatly.  They fully believe they are doing the Lord’s work, yet in reality, what they are doing is creating a smoke screen.

Pray for C. H. Fisher and those who believe with all their heart that the Pretribulational Rapture position is heretical.  It is not, according to Scripture.  Moreover, the travesty here is that the emphasis, as opposed to being placed on God’s work, and the fact that every day should be viewed and lived as if it is our last, is placed on the back burner, all because someone believes that immanency does not mean could happen at any moment and that the pretribulational rapture position allegedly (according to Fisher) creates unprepared, unspiritual Christians.

For those interested in reading the rest of Fisher’s book, it can be found at this link: http://truthkeepers.com/toc.htm

Read it on your own and make your own decision.  It’s time for me to move on and deal with something that has some meat to it.

1 http://truthkeepers.com/chapter_three.htm

The PreTribulational Rapture – What If It Isn’t True? A Review/Rebuttal of C. H. Fisher’s Book Part 3

Fisher stoically believes that the ramifications of the possibility of falsehood should be considered, with respect to the PreTrib Rapture. Any damage that results from it being a false doctrine could spell disaster for countless souls. From here, Fisher lists a number of what he considers to be problems, directly related to any falsehood of the PreTrib Rapture:

C. H. Fisher’s Pretribulation Rapture ebook, Part 2…Coming Soon

C. H. Fisher’s Pretribulational Rapture eBook, Chapter Two…a review and rebuttal.

If the PreTrib Rapture Creates Spiritually Immature Christians, then What Does the Possibility of Your Last Day on Earth Do?

All these people who think they’ve got it all figured out, really have nothing figured out, because they do not know, nor can they tell, when they are going to die, leaving this earth, heading into eternity. No one knows. I may die today, and the Tribulation/Great Tribulation might be 20 years away! I may live another ten years, or 14, or 38 – who knows?! Only God knows and He’s not telling me. I thank Him for that. Nonetheless, I am STILL required to live EVERY day as if it is my LAST day on this earth.

C H Fisher’s Pretribulational Rapture ebook – a Rebuttal, Part 1

Right out of the starting gate, Fisher makes no attempt to hide his contempt for those who believe and/or espouse the PreTrib Rapture position.

Pretribulational Rapture: What If It Isn’t True?

Frankly stated, if Scofield, Chafer and others were alive today, they would have every right to sue him for defamation of character, since everything he presents in his book amounts to little more than heresay. However, this works out fine for Fisher, since he is a Posttribulationalist.

Does Imminency Mean SOON?

We can argue all we want about a Pre-Trib, a Posttrib, a Pre-Wrath, a Mid-Trib, a No-Trib, or a Who Cares-Trib Rapture, but the reality is that even if there IS a PreTrib Rapture, how many people living today will be alive to experience it? We do NOT know when the last day that God has appointed for us, will arrive. In that sense, the end of our life is also imminent.

Deleting the PreTrib Rapture…

After having read so many articles and books by Dave MacPherson and others, I felt it was time to add my voice to the situation.  Why not?  After all, everyone has an opinion, and in spite of what they say about opinions, my opinion is certainly as valuable as any other opinion that’s out there.  So here is the cover of my next book, of which I have been enjoying the writing process immensely, in spite of the fact that so much of what I have had to wade through is vitriolic in nature.

As I have researched and studied, I have become amazed at a number of things, which I bring out in this book:

1. the fact that people actually believe everything that Dave MacPherson says, without question
2. the fact that people actually believe that for those who espouse the PreTrib Rapture position, there is an excellent chance that hell awaits
3. the fact that while some accuse the PreTrib Rapturist of responding with “arrogance and insults,” it would actually appear that this is the other way around, with the Posttribulationalists and others, responding in that manner

This is only one statement from an individual who sent me an email:  “The typical “pretrib” promoter is filled with arrogance and insults toward anyone who disagrees with them, just as the founder of the PTR doctrine, J. N Darby (who had the audacity to excommunicate the godly George Muller). They hate correction and the voice of the prophet and will not hesitate to attack when their heresy is exposed.”

I might as well be talking to Dave MacPherson, since it is obvious that the individual quoted takes his cues from him (e.g. “Pretrib promoters”).  When one views someone else as a heretic, it becomes exceedingly easy to treat them as if they are Satan himself.  The problem is that true heresy involves a number of things – none of which include matters related to Eschatology:

• a denial of the deity of Christ
• a denial of the bodily resurrection of Christ
• a denial that Jesus came in the flesh
• a denial of the Triune God
• a denial that salvation is by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone

Notice also that Christ essentially states that there is only one sin that is “unforgiveable” and that is grieving the Holy Spirit (cf. Matthew 12; Mark 3).  While many theologians disagree over the nature of this sin (what else can we expect?), it certainly seems to be either in the realm of ascribing acts of God to Satan and/or continuing to disbelieve God, even to physical death.

Now, in the matters of Eschatology, there is a good deal of wiggle room.  I, at one point in my Christian life, believed that Preterists, Covenant Theologians and Replacement Theologians were all heretics; in serious danger of not truly being saved.  This was an absolute appallingly judgmental position to place myself in, and I am extremely grateful that the Lord has opened my eyes.  While I seriously disagree with what I believe to be the error that they espouse, they are brothers and sisters in the Lord.  They love God immensely and desire nothing more than to see His will accomplished in and through them, in order that He will be glorified.

So, heresy – while the word is easily and quickly tossed from one camp to the next – primarily deals with the doctrines surrounding God and His salvation.  There is a certain amount of seeming ambiguity within Scripture, and that ambiguity exists only because WE do not have knowledge of all the circumstances which existed when the Bible was written.  Any ambiguity that seems to exist, exists because of US, not because of God Himself.

A friend of mine – a brother in the Lord – made a dramatic statement that helped open my eyes to the entire problem that faces Christendom today, with respect to the many verbal squabbles and altercations that exist.  He said (related to areas that are peripheral to that of salvation), it is not what we disagree on, but HOW we treat each other DURING our disagreements.  Nothing more truthful could have been stated, in my opinion.

Here’s another example of an attitude severely lacking in love:

“(Grant) Jeffrey boldly manipulated these authors in an attempt to portray them as pretribulationists. His treatment of this issue is the most blatant pretribulationist revisionism I have ever seen.”

The above comment was in response to Jeffrey’s quoting of aspects of the Didache, to which the “gentleman” quoted above had nothing good to say about it.  Unfortunately, the person quoted thoroughly believes that the verbiage left out by Jeffrey drastically changes the content, so that it appears to be PreTrib, when it is not.  The trouble with his opinion is that it only APPEARS to change the content, because the person quoted is a Posttribulationist, and he understands the PreTrib Rapture position only through the template of Posttribulationism.  In point of fact, the verbiage left off by Jeffrey does not change the content of the passage.  I’ll spend some time dealing with this idiocy in my book.

Again though, when someone can label another Christian as a heretic, then all bets are off, and all is fair in love and war.  Rather than individuals like MacPherson taking cues from his father, Norman, the younger prefers to attack those with whom he disagrees.  Instead of simply putting forth his opinion on the subject, he feels the need to castigate others.  Ryrie does not do this.  Walvoord does not do this.  Many PreTrib Rapturists and Dispensationalists do not do this.  Why can’t MacPherson write as Vern Poythress, or George Eldon Ladd, or a few other non-PreTrib Rapturists write?  It is extremely easy to fall into the trap of responding with sarcasm, but that serves no purpose at all.  It closes doors, it denigrates and it puffs up the person responding in such a way.  I’ve been on the receiving end of this type of response from atheists (“I have no patience or time to deal with people who know absolutely nothing, and believe the fairy tales that God somehow exists!” or some other comment).  This says nothing about me, and everything about them.

I am not a heretic.  I fully believe that Jesus Christ died for my sins and that there is and has been, only one way of salvation, from Adam and Eve, until the coming end of human history.  The same way that Abram was counted righteous by God (for BELIEVING in Him), is the exact same way that the thief on the cross, you and I receive salvation; it is through believing in God and the salvation He has provided.

I believe in the Triune God.  I believe in the full deity of Jesus Christ, and His full humanity.  I believe that Christ always existed as the Eternal Son of God.  I believe the Holy Spirit to be equal with the other two members of the Godhead.  I believe in a literal creation of 6 24-hour days, with God resting on the 7th.  I believe in the verbal, plenary inspired Word of God and that it was perfect in its original autographs.

I also happen to believe that Jesus has NOT yet come a Second time, but will do so at the end of the Great Tribulation, whereupon He will establish His physical rule over all the earth, from David’s re-established throne, in Jerusalem.  I believe during the 1,000 year Millennial reign of Christ, the Remnant of Israel will go in and take possession of the Land that was promised to them through Abraham.  I believe at the end of the 1,000 year reign, the (wicked) dead will be raised and jugded in the Great White Throne judgment.  I believe that Satan, will then be cast into the Lake of Fire, along with hell and death and every individual under heaven who has unfortunately, rejected Christ.

I believe after this, God will completely destroy the earth and the heavens which have surrounded it, and will create a brand new earth and heavens.  I believe at that time, the Eternal Order future will begin and all who are in Christ, will go into that Eternal Order, to be forever with the Lord.

Now, can I be WRONG about some of the things I have mentioned above?  Absolutely.  But, I am NOT wrong about Christ’s deity, His full humanity, the Godhead and aspects associated with those particular doctrines.  There IS wiggle room in areas that are peripheral to salvation, and that includes Eschatology.  Does it make me a sinner, or heretic to believe as the Preterists do IF that is not what is actually taught in Scripture?  No, it does not.  Does it make me a sinner, or heretic to believe and espouse a PreTrib Rapture position IF that is not what is taught in Scripture?  No, it does not.

What makes me a sinner, is the fact that I have inherited a sin nature from my “father,” Adam.  Because of that, I am born with the propensity to sin, and I DO sin.  It is because of that sin nature, resulting in sin, that I need the salvation that only Christ offers.  When I was thirteen years of age, I realized my need for a Savior, and received Jesus as such.  Since that time, while my life has had ups and downs, I believe He has been and continues to create His character within me.

By God’s grace, I am not arrogant to believe that I know everything.  In fact, I am not stupid enough to believe that ANYONE in this life has it ALL correct.  I believe that it is an impossibility.  Yet, we read and hear statements stating just the exact opposite like these:

“BTW, I have never lost a debate with a “pretribber” and neither has (name omitted) or any other qualified individual.  If you continue to seek an argument, eventually you will meet the bitter end of your logical road, which is the revelation that you are wrong and there is no recourse but surrender to the truth or harbor angry and bitter resentment.   I hope that is clear enough for you to not find some stray word to hang a misrepresentation of my statement on.”

or this one:

“There is a spirit of deception that has taken subtle control of Evangelicals and Fundamentalists in that regard. That is why I state that belief in a pretribulation rapture is a major contribution to the Great Apostasy. I have neither time nor impetus to engage in frivolous debating with people who believe that they are correct. I already know how it will end. Bereft of a defense, every pretribulationist has turn to ad hominem to solve his or her dilemma…”

When I asked who and how it had been decided who the winner was of his debates, there was silence.  Apparently though, he prides himself on winning the debate. That is his reward, then.  Such examples of arrogance and pride do nothing to further the gospel of Christ, nor do they allow His character to be recreated within, in spite of what this or any other individual truly believes.  From my experience, it has not been the PreTrib Rapturist who turns to ad hominem attacks.  It is the individual who disagrees with the PreTrib Rapturist who resorts to that kind of verbal assault.  MacPherson seems to master in this, as do his followers.

The real problem with the visible Church today lies in the fact that the Emergent Church has gained a tremendous foothold.  It is the one which is leading people away from Jesus of the Bible, to another Jesus; another gospel, which, as Paul would say, is really not a gospel at all.  However, those opposed to PreTrib Rapturists, are unable to see that.  They are too concerned with defeating and hopefully deleting a doctrine that they simply do not like.

The Great Pre-Trib Rapture Cover-up!

The fact that a large portion of the church’s population can actually BELIEVE (without cracking a smile) that Darby and Scofield were two of the best schemers going, is beyond credulity! It appears to me that the one who has done the bamboozling is Dave MacPherson.