Found here. Our comments in bold.
-----------------
We discuss our version of the end times here.
This is the worst kind of behavior from the doctrinal police. Ms. Prata's certainty goes way beyond personal conviction into the arena of the cultish.
She began by writing a wordy article about pets and the rapture, eventually concluding that she doesn't know what happens with pets. She then tacks this little gem on the end of the article:
*Editor’s Note: For some reason, likely satan in order to steal future hope, the doctrine of the Rapture has become controversial. People say they don’t believe it will happen, in effect saying that Jesus plans to drag His Bride through the mud in wrath and judgment. I am not going to allow debate on the topic. I studied eschatology for ten years and have come to a settled conclusion that the order of events facing humankind is next the rapture, then the Tribulation, then Jesus returns in His Second Coming, the 1000 year kingdom on earth AKA Millennial Kingdom) then final judgment of all humankind then eternal state on a New Earth. If you do not believe in the rapture then this essay is not for you, why read it? Just go your way in peace. If you are not sure about the end of all things (eschatology doctrines) then I am happy to share from the Bible what it says on this topic. Not “I think”, not “I believe” but a conversation based on biblical fact. I’m open to that. Thank you.
We first note that Ms. Prata completely misrepresents the debate. Thoughtful people on all sides have been considering eschatology for centuries. There's more to it than rapture vs. no rapture, there's also a variety of perspective regarding the timing of the rapture, the thousand year reign, and the anti-christ. All these and more are subject to a variety of considered opinions, and most all of it is contained within the margins of orthodoxy.
But what does Ms. Prata proclaim? People who question her doctrine are likely satanic and don't believe in the rapture, which means they believe Jesus will drag His bride through the mud.
She then brandishes her bonafides. 10 years of study has yielded an unassailable doctrine, and no debate is allowed. It's not even a matter of opinion for her, it is "biblical fact." Yes, she's open to debating ideas, but only those that are "biblical fact," that is, only if you already agree. If you don't agree, it is demonic.
The arrogance and smug self-assurance is astounding. We are truly amazed that a person can be so convinced of their superior doctrine as to dismiss any and all dissent. And this from a person who represents herself as a teacher of the word and a defender of the truth.
So by way of refutation, we would first say that the issue of the rapture is really about the timing of events. Yes, certainly there are some people who do not believe in a rapture at all, but it's not a binary "yes rapture"/"no rapture" equation. The timing of the rapture is also debated.
Second, varieties of eschatology are not satanic. It is cultic to believe that varieties of understanding is satanic.
Third, Ms. Prata is a pre-tribber, which means she believes people will become Christians after the rapture and during the tribulation. So the question about dragging His bride through the mud is already a part of her doctrine. As an aside, we really wonder why so many per-tribbers are adamant about themselves escaping the tribulation via the pre-trib rapture without having any concern at all about those post-rapture Christians who will go through the tribulation.
Fourth, we shall trump Ms. Prat's credentials with our own. We have studied eschatology for 40 years, having begun as pre-trib dispensationalists. We eventually abandoned it as substantially flawed. Despite this, we consider pre-tribbers to still be Christians and are happy to dialogue with them about any aspect of their eschatology.
Fifth, the questionable origins of the doctrine. It seems to find its roots in the ecstatic utterances of a sickly young girl named Margaret McDonald, who had visions and prophecies. Those visions and prophecies heavily influenced both Edward Irving and John Nelson Darby in the 1830s. Darby began teaching the doctrine and was met by widespread opposition for teaching heresy. It wasn't until DL Moody began to accept the previously heretical doctrine that it began to gain traction.
So, Ms. Prata is a cessationist, who doesn't believe in ecstatic utterances. But her hill to die on is the pre-trib rapture, which has its origins in something she doesn't believe. Hmm.
We have adopted what we consider a sensible and biblical eschatology: We live in the Last Days, a period of time which commenced at Pentecost and will end on the Last Day, the day Jesus comes on the clouds and every eye will see Him. We who are Christians shall be caught up up in the air to meet Him, and He shall continue to the earth to execute judgment on the Nations. Then comes the new heaven and earth, and we shall be with Him always.
We also believe that there has always been tribulation and persecution, and that will intensify as the Last Day approaches. Jesus promises His church to deliver them from wrath, not deliver them from the trouble. There's a difference. He says we will be protected and brought through these times.
What about all of the obsessive details pre-tribbers focus on in their pursuit of perfect doctrine? All of that can be easily fit into the framework we just provided.
What, you say? It doesn't all get explained and fit together into a hopelessly intricate explanation of disparate Scriptures? Then it isn't important. And that's the bottom line. Nothing you believe about the end times is relevant to the need to repent and be saved, to grow up in faith, to worship, to obey His commands, to serve, to be generous, etc, etc. Not one thing about your faith is changed by changing your eschatology. Nothing.
So our counsel is, give up the endless parsing of doctrine and start living a holy and fruitful life. You'll be better off and the Kingdom will be better off.
No comments:
Post a Comment