You are here: Home / Apologetics

A Sobering Message to Comet Elenin 9/29 Date Setters – Repent

09/26/2011 34 Comments

First, I want to assure you that I long for the Lord’s appearance and I believe it is near. I also think there are good arguments to support the idea. Unfortunately, there are also some really bad ones. I think it is neat that the constellations are lining up as Revelation 12 describes on 9/29 because I think it is the real birthday of Jesus but I would never use that as predictor for Christ’s return. I confess that I used to get excited by many of the various date setting schemes. However, I was convicted by the Spirit of God when I saw that they always fail and lead to great error and confusion. I repented and I refuse to set dates or make predictions. To say the time is near is enough. John the Baptist came as a prophet declaring the Day of the Lord. His message was “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand”(Mt 3:2). Will you listen?

Harold Camping recently set a date and when it passed, he simply moved it forward. This is not new behavior as he did the same thing back in 1994.

Harold Camping, in his book Are You Ready?, predicted the Lord would return in September 1994. The book was full of numerology that added up to 1994 as the date of Christ’s return.  (rapture ready.com)

The only reason someone does not repent when they have advocated a date and it passes is pride. Pride is the root of sinfulness. CS Lewis famously wrote:

Unchastity, anger, greed, drunkenness, and all that, are mere fleabites in comparison: it was through Pride that the devil became the devil: Pride leads to every other vice: it is the complete anti-God state of mind. (Lewis, Mere Christianity, 122)

If you are right and Jesus returns then Hallelujah but I hope you are prepared to humble yourself when nothing happens. So what are you going to do if nothing happens on 9/29?  Will you be like Harold Camping make excuses and change the date or will you admit you are wrong and repent of date setting? Repent means you completely turn from it. What I would like to suggest is that you simply learn your lesson and never engage in it again. I pray you will swallow your pride, turn to Jesus and repent. Also, do as I am doing and teach others not to do it. It is your duty as a disciple. This sort of thing has caused so many problems for Christians, it is not harmless, it ruins lives!

For the past month, reports have been pouring out of Vietnam that an unknown number of Hmong Christians have been killed, attacked, or arrested by military forces.  The Vietnamese government has closed off outside access to the Muong Nhe District in Dien Bien, where an estimated 10,000 Hmong Christians from the Central Highlands and Dien Bien have been congregating since late April.  Insiders who are able to leak information past government forces and media controls have reported that as many as 70 Hmong have been killed so far, though exact numbers cannot be confirmed.  These Hmong have also been brutally attacked and arrested by the Vietnamese government, while most are fleeing into hiding to spare their lives.  Meanwhile the outside world is unable to send in help.

But why did this even take place?  What led 10,000 Hmong Christians to come together in peace yet face such a brutal and violent end?  Answer: Harold Camping.  Worldwide media have reported on the gathering of Hmong in this region, and ICC sources have confirmed the underlying premise of these gatherings to be primarily due to Mr. Camping’s influence.

Persecution.org

Knowing that date setting leads to this sort of thing should pierce your heart and lead to repentance.

See, I have told you beforehand. So, if they say to you, ‘Look, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out. If they say, ‘Look, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

(Mt 24:25-27)

Please see the Date Setter’s Diary at Rapture Ready.com

 

Filed Under Apologetics Tagged With 9/11. Prophecy, 9/29/11, Comet Elenin, Date Setting, Rapture, Revelation 12, Second Coming, tribulation

Was Jesus a Failed Apocalyptic Prophet?

09/22/2011 59 Comments

By Cris D. Putnam

A popular view amongst skeptics is that Jesus was failed apocalyptic prophet.  Their argument centers on the Olivet discourse in Mark 13:30 where Jesus says, “Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” They contend that this means Jesus predicted his return in power prior to the death of the disciples and that since this failed to happen, Jesus is proven a false prophet.  Atheist websites galore use this as a proof text. Even a few serious scholars do as well.  For instance, Bart Ehrman argues:

Jesus appears to have anticipated that the coming judgment of God, to be brought by the Son of Man in a cosmic act of destruction and salvation, was imminent. It could happen at any time. But it would certainly happen within his generation.[1]

Albert Schweitzer held a similar position:

At the end of His career Jesus establishes a connection between the Messianic conception, in its final transformation, and the Kingdom, which had retained its eschatological character; He goes to His death for the Messiahship in its new significance, but He goes on believing in His speedy return as the Son of Man.[2]

These are established scholars and we must take them seriously. However, are they really being honest with the data? More so, are they accounting for all of the data or merely pulling a verse from its context because it seems to infer an error on Jesus’ part.

I was listening to Gary Habermas’ lecture on the historical Jesus and an interesting question surfaced concerning Mark 13:32,

But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father (Mk 13:32).

Habermas uses this verse to demonstrate that Jesus’ messianic title “Son of Man” (cf. Dan 7:13) was not added later (no one would claim Jesus was God and then add a verse claiming he did not know something).  Theologically, this verse is an embarrassing detail so it has an air of authenticity.[3] But more importantly, this verse appears directly after Jesus’ alleged prediction that he would return in his own generation. Doesn’t it seem odd that Jesus would predict his return within a very narrow time frame (his own generation) and then immediately say that he did not know when it would be? Actually, it seems incoherent for a reason. The skeptics have it wrong.

Jesus did not really teach that his return would be imminent. In fact, he provided hints it would not be. In Jesus’ parable about the ten talents, which is clearly about him leaving and then returning, he includes a pertinent detail, “Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them” (Mt 25:19). The parable of the Ten Virgins is another one which is centered on Jesus’ return and it provides a similar clue, “As the bridegroom was delayed, they all became drowsy and slept” (Mt 25:5). Craig Blomberg asks why Jesus would bother addressing so many worldly matters if he really believed as the critics suggest:

the majority of Jesus’ teaching presupposes a significant interval before the end of the world, because Christ spends much time instructing his disciples on such mundane matters as paying taxes, marriage and divorce, dealing with one’s enemies, stewardship of wealth, and so on.[4]

Jesus also implied an extended period of world evangelization, “And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come”( Mt 24:14). It seems absurd to argue that Jesus and the apostles would have expected world evangelization in their lifetime. This begs the question what did Jesus mean by this generation.

From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place (Mk 13:28-30).

The “these things” of v. 30 must be the same as the “these things” of v. 29, which clearly refer to signs preceding Christ’s second coming. Jesus was teaching that the generation who witnessed the signs he had previously outlined in chapter 13 would see his return. There has been no other generation in history prior to our own that has seen these signs in such abundance.

Get a signed copy of Pandemonium’s Engine here for $10.00

[1] Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA, 1999),160.

[2] Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus (Joseph Kreifels).

[3] If you are interested in how Jesus can be God and not know something, the solution lies in his two natures human and divine. Look into the two minds view here.

[4] Craig Blomberg, in Michael J. Wilkins, Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1996), 31.

Filed Under Apologetics Tagged With Albert Schweitzer, Apocalypse, Bart Ehrman, End Times, Jesus, Mark 13:30, Olivet Discourse

Thinking About Moral Relativism

09/13/2011 Leave a Comment

Highly recommended reading on relativism

Is morality merely a matter of opinion? Many in our culture today believe that it is. They believe issues like same sex marriage and abortion are up to each individual to decide. Moral relativism is the view that when it comes to moral issues there are no universally objective answers on ethics, no inappropriate judgments, no rational means to make moral distinctions that apply every time, in all situations, for all people.[1]  Thus, morals are subjective opinions in the same way as someone’s taste in music, art or ice cream. A subjective truth claim makes the claimant the subject of the truth. For instance, if I say “I like butter pecan ice cream” the statement is about me not the ice cream. However, if I say “this ice cream has melted” then the ice cream is the subject. This second statement is an objective claim because it can be checked by anyone who examines the ice cream. Accordingly, if it is a runny mess then my claim is true, if it is still frozen my claim is false. Similarly, moral relativism is the position that morality is akin to taste in ice cream. But is this really the case? Aren’t there moral issues that seem genuinely objective?

 

I believe it is demonstrable that morality is objective, even if it is not always easy to discover. Obvious examples can be found in the extremes. Historical atrocities like the holocaust are universally believed to be truly evil. Child abuse and rape are universally believed to be immoral. If someone disagrees, we generally refer them to a mental health professional. C.S. Lewis is famous for observing that to understand that a line is crooked then we must have some sort of idea of what a straight line looks like. Thus, it follows that when we clearly see these things as evil, we are judging them against a similar standard of how things ought to be.  We do not invent this standard we discover it, just as we don’t invent mathematical or logical truths, we simply observe them.  Relativism denies the existence of these standards and argues that there is morally neutral ground, so we should not judge others.

Yet there is a profound incoherence in this foundational principle of the moral relativist. By saying we ought not to judge others they have imposed their own absolute moral rule. In fact, they are judging those who they perceive as judgmental, making them the worst sort of hypocrites.  Indeed, there is no morally neutral ground and moral relativism promotes intolerance of anyone who does not agree with it.  To elevate tolerance is in itself a moral ought. In fact, given relativism, there is no basis to complain about evil, fairness, justice or accuse others of wrongdoing. Relativism is ultimately contradictory and self-refuting. We do not each have our own individual moral truths; everyone instinctively recognizes a large body of moral standards. People begin with moral propositions.

The burden of proof is not on the person who holds to moral absolutes rather it is on the one who claims they do not exist. The proposition that “it is always wrong to torture innocent children for fun” needs no defense. In fact, anyone who disagrees is diagnosed a psychopath and we routinely lock such folks away in prison for life. If moral relativism were true, we would have no ground to stand on. We would be in the position to say, “While I disagree with torturing innocent children for fun, it may be fine for you.” But this is barbaric and against the foundational concepts of civilization. No one can really live this way, which explains the hypocrisy noted above. The best explanation for the objective morality that we instinctively observe is that the very fabric of reality was created by a rational moral agent.  As Christians, we argue that this agent is the God of the Bible and objective morality is a reflection of His holy nature.

 


[1] Francis J. Beckwith and Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1998), 12.

Filed Under Apologetics Tagged With Greg Koukl, moral argument, Moral Relativism, postmodernism

Glen Beck’s Incoherent Inclusivism

09/02/2011 2 Comments

Glenn Beck: “For as long as man has known God, he has come here to Jerusalem to touch the mantle of the Divine. Three faiths, three paths to God…”

Islam: “O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector.” (Surah 4:171)

Judaism:  Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy. What is your judgment?” They answered, “He deserves death.” Then they spit in his face and struck him. And some slapped him, saying, “Prophesy to us, you Christ! Who is it that struck you?”(Mt 26:65–68)

Peter: “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”(Ac 4:12)

Paul: “How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?”(Ro 10:14)

Jesus: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”(Jn 14:6)

“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.(Mt 7:13–14)

 

Filed Under Apologetics Tagged With Christianity, Coexist, Glen Beck, Inclusivism, Islam, Judaism, Pluralism

The New Apostolic Reformation and the Remarkable Reprise of Müntzer

08/30/2011 Leave a Comment

Thomas Müntzer

The New Apostolic Reformation claims to be “the most radical change in the way of doing church since the Protestant Reformation.”[1]  In fact, I think there is a remarkable truth to be found in that statement by C. Peter Wagner. I have been studying the Protestant Reformation and a remarkable event has come to my attention. This is in the context of the Lutheran reformation but finds an amazing correspondence to the New Apostolic Reformation’s seven mountains dominionism,

“Although Luther himself refused to extend the application of his teachings to the political realm in terms of revolution, there were others who disagreed with him on that point. Foremost among these was Thomas Müntzer, a native of Zwickau, whose early teachings were similar to those of the “prophets” from his village who created such a stir in Wittenberg. Müntzer claimed that what was most important was not the written word of Scripture, but the present revelation of the Spirit. In his case such spiritualist doctrine had political consequences, for he felt that those who had been born again by the Spirit should join in a theocratic community, to bring about the Kingdom of God. ” [2] (emphasis added)

Solomon was right nothing new under the sun because apparently the NAR is recycling Müntzer’s error. First, notice that Müntzer’s group also called themselves “prophets.” Corresponding to Wagner who argues:

Prophets are prominent in the Bible, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. As we just saw above, apostles are first and prophets are second. Every apostle needs alignment with prophets and every prophet needs apostolic alignment.One of the reasons why both should be active in our churches today is that the Bible says, “Surely God does nothing unless He reveals His secret to His servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7). And also: “Believe in the Lord your God and you shall be established; believe His prophets and you shall prosper” (2 Chronicles 20:20). I want to prosper and I want you to prosper.[3]

First, he uses the Old Testament as his rationale so he must conform to its standard for a prophet, 100% accuracy (Deu 18:22). Second, a big red flag goes up in that the term “apostle” properly means one who witnessed the resurrected Christ. Paul was the last apostle, there are no apostles today.  This supported by a standard academic theological dictionary:

apostle. Derived from the Greek term apostolos, an apostle is basically a “sent one.” From his many followers Christ chose twelve whom he designated as “apostles” (Mt 10:2–4; Mk 3:14; Lk 6:14–16). These twelve, along with the apostle Paul as one “abnormally born” (1 Cor 15:8), became foundational in the establishment of the church and functioned as authority figures in the early church.[4]

Paul was “abnormally born” because Christ appeared to him on the Damascus road and commissioned him post ascension. Since Paul was the last apostle, the modern claims are necessarily false. As apostles and prophets, the NAR promote “Kingdom Now” or Dominion Theology just like Müntzer’s “theocratic community, to bring about the Kingdom of God.” The self-appointed apostle C. Peter Wagner has written,

“He [God] expects His kingdom-minded people to take whatever action is needed to push back the long-standing kingdom of Satan and bring the peace and prosperity of His kingdom here on earth.”[5]

“Whatever action is needed” sounds pretty scary. How does Wagner know this is from God? Well as a self-proclaimed modern day Apostle and Prophet, of course he gets it straight from God.  This is remarkably similar to the discussion in my history text, “Müntzer claimed that what was most important was not the written word of Scripture, but the present revelation of the Spirit.” Wagner presents an argument for this sort of revelation as follows:

C. Peter Wagner

Extra-biblical revelation. Some object to the notion that God communicates directly with us, supposing that everything that God wanted to reveal He revealed in the Bible. This cannot be true, however, because there is nothing in the Bible that says it has 66 books. It actually took God a couple of hundred years to reveal to the church which writings should be included in the Bible and which should not. That is extra-biblical revelation. Even so, Catholics and Protestants still disagree on the number. Beyond that, I believe that prayer is two way, we speak to God and expect Him to speak with us. We can hear God’s voice. He also reveals new things to prophets as we have seen. The one major rule governing any new revelation from God is that it cannot contradict what has already been written in the Bible. It may supplement it, however.[6]

One marvels at this level of argumentation coming from a trained theologian. A number of points can be made here. First, while the canon is largely accepted, it was never a unanimous decision. He even acknowledges that this issue is still disputed today. Is God’s voice really that weak? Does he only whisper? No. What we see in the Bible is that when God really speaks to the prophets, it’s not vague. Next, cannon formation was organic and discovered rather than from the brute authority of magisterial councils. In Carson & Moo’s NT introduction a scholar named Barton is cited. Barton used data on the number of times the early church Fathers quoted the various books and there is a clear distinction in frequency of usage between the New Testament books and the non-Canonical works.[7]  In other words, it was pretty self-evident which books were authoritative right from the beginning.  So Wagner’s argument from the canon completely fails.

Is Wagner’s theology revealed directly to him by God?

NAR dominionism is based on a faulty post millennial eschatology. I have addressed it as an eschatological system here. But Wagner says it is revealed by God directly to him as an Apostle. Remember, he teaches that it is the church’s job to subdue the world by “whatever action is needed” to create the kingdom of God.  In sharp contrast, the biblical teaching says things go from bad to worse.  When Jesus was asked what it would be like before his return he said things like:

“Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake. And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another.”(Mt 24:9–10)

“Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?”(Lk 18:8)

The true Apostle’s Peter and Paul taught a consistent doctrine:

“Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,(2 Th 2:3)

“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions,(2 Ti 4:3)

“knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires.(2 Pe 3:3)

“But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy,(2 Ti 3:1–2)

In fact, dominionism has more in common with Rev 13:12ff than anything else in the Bible. Jesus defeats the evil world system, Jesus defeats the antichrist, Jesus defeats the devil. Dominion theology usurps Jesus’ job description.

He used the Old Testament as his justification for his prophet status but does he meet its standard (Deu 18:22)? Also recalling C Peter’s Wagner’s own statement, “The one major rule governing any new revelation from God is that it cannot contradict what has already been written in the Bible.” So we must ask, “does Kingdom Now contradict what has been written?” And the answer is clearly yes. Thus, we should not trust any of his claims. He is misguided at best and that is being charitable.

What got me started on all of this was the remarkable correspondence to Thomas Müntzer. Since past performance is a pretty good predictor of future events, it begs the question, “how did it work out for Müntzer?”

Later, when the rebellion was drowned in blood, he [Luther] urged the victorious princes to be merciful. But his words were not heeded, and it is said that more than 100,000 peasants were killed.[8]

The 16th century Kingdom Now prophet, Thomas Müntzer,  was captured in the decisive Battle of Frankenhausen, tortured into recanting his heretical doctrines and beheaded. Indeed, the NAR really is “the most radical change in the way of doing church since the Protestant Reformation.” After all, Edmund Burke is famous for saying, “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.”

Müntzer was a such celebrated figure in communism, that he was on a East German 5 mark note.

Get a signed copy of Pandemonium’s Engine here for $10.00

[1] C Peter Wagner, “An Urgent Message From Peter,” hyperlink (accessed 8/27/2011).

[2] Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity: Volume Two – The Reformation to the Present Day (San Francisco: HarperOne, 1985), ebook location 111.9 / 943.

[3] C Peter Wagner, “An Urgent Message From Peter,” hyperlink (accessed 8/27/2011).

[4]Stanley Grenz, David Guretzki and Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 14.

[5] C Peter Wagner, “An Urgent Message From Peter,” hyperlink (accessed 8/27/2011).

[6] Ibid.

[7]D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, Second Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 733.

[8] Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity: ebook location 112.6 / 943.

Filed Under Apologetics Tagged With Battle of Frankenhausen, C. Peter Wagner, Dominion Theology, Dominionism, Kingdom Now, New Apostolic Reformation, Thomas Müntzer
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »