Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Nuclear deal? Ridiculous

I'm glad that Joel Rosenberg agrees. "Ridiculous" was my first impression of the "deal" that has been put forth by Iran and Turkey; two allies aligned in a common hatred of Israel. Does anyone really believe that Iran is willing to halt their nuclear ambitions because of UN pressure? Of course not. Joel Rosenberg has a timely piece on this situation:

"Iran's Nuclear Deal With Turkey Raises Chances Of War With Israel"

Iran’s nuclear deal to store much of its low-grade enriched uranium in Turkey for a year while avoiding U.N. econoimc sanctions is ridiculous on its face. It would allow Iran to continue enriching uranium to weapons-grade levels while the world does nothing. It would allow Iran to recall its uranium from Turkey at any time.

It would do nothing to stop Iran from actually building nuclear bombs.

International support for the deal would actually raise the chances of a war between Iran and Israel. Why? Because Israeli leaders could very well conclude that the world had now completely abandoned any meaningful efforts to stop Iran from getting the Bomb before it’s too late.

As a Wall Street Journal editorial noted Tuesday morning: “The deal will, however, make it nearly impossible to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program short of military action. The U.N. is certainly a dead end. After 16 months of his extended hand and after downplaying support for Iran’s democratic opposition, Mr. Obama now faces an Iran much closer to a bomb and less diplomatically isolated than when President Bush left office.

Israel will have to seriously consider its military options. Such a confrontation is far more likely thanks to the diplomatic double-cross of Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Brazil’s Lula, and especially to a U.S. President whose diplomacy has succeeded mainly in persuading the world’s rogues that he lacks the determination to stop their destructive ambitions.”

And from the Washington Post:

"Iran creates illusion of progress in nuclear negotiations"

In the long-running diplomatic battle between Iran and the West, Iran appears to have scored a victory on Monday. By striking a deal to ship some of its low-enriched uranium abroad, Iran has created the illusion of progress in nuclear negotiations with the West, without offering any real compromise to the United States and its allies, who have demanded substantive negotiations on Tehran’s broader program….The Obama administration now faces the uncomfortable prospect of rejecting a proposal it offered in the first place — or seeing months of effort to enact new sanctions derailed.”

Ironically, the swap proposal has nothing to do with the sanctions under consideration by the U.N. Security Council, which relate to Iran building another nuclear facility in secret and failing to heed previous demands to stop enriching uranium.

The text gives Iran the right to terminate the deal at any point. It also says the new fuel must be delivered within a year, which might be a technical impossibility.

And from the Wall Street Journal:

"Iran's Nuclear Coup"

What a fiasco. That's the first word that comes to mind watching Mahmoud Ahmadinejad raise his arms yesterday with the leaders of Turkey and Brazil to celebrate a new atomic pact that instantly made irrelevant 16 months of President Obama's "diplomacy." The deal is a political coup for Tehran and possibly delivers the coup de grace to the West's half-hearted efforts to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb.

Full credit for this debacle goes to the Obama Administration and its hapless diplomatic strategy. Last October, nine months into its engagement with Tehran, the White House concocted a plan to transfer some of Iran's uranium stock abroad for enrichment. If the West couldn't stop Iran's program, the thinking was that maybe this scheme would delay it.

So instead of the U.S. and Europe backing Iran into a corner this spring, Mr. Ahmadinejad has backed Mr. Obama into one. America's discomfort is obvious. In its statement yesterday, the White House strained to "acknowledge the efforts" by Turkey and Brazil while noting "Iran's repeated failure to live up to its own commitments."

If the West accepts this deal, Iran would be allowed to keep enriching uranium in contravention of previous U.N. resolutions. Removing 1,200 kilograms will leave Iran with still enough low-enriched stock to make a bomb, and once uranium is enriched up to 20% it is technically easier to get to bomb-capable enrichment levels.

The deal will, however, make it nearly impossible to disrupt Iran's nuclear program short of military action

Israel will have to seriously consider its military options. Such a confrontation is far more likely thanks to the diplomatic double-cross of Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Brazil's Lula, and especially to a U.S. President whose diplomacy has succeeded mainly in persuading the world's rogues that he lacks the determination to stop their destructive ambitions.

The bottom line on this situation is worth repeating, as stated from Joel Rosenberg's commentary:

International support for the deal would actually raise the chances of a war between Iran and Israel. Why? Because Israeli leaders could very well conclude that the world had now completely abandoned any meaningful efforts to stop Iran from getting the Bomb before it’s too late.

So once again, we see the world leaders drop the ball on this situation - all while half-heartedly "attempting" to impose sanctions on Iran - but the effort has only served to enhance Iran's ability to create a WMD for the purpose of destroying Israel.

But ultimately, none of this matters. Why?

Because God has a plan for all events of significance in the Middle East, and the nations are aligning against Israel precisely as biblical prophecy would dictate. The world will turn against Israel, and that same anti-Israeli position will ultimately destroy those nations.

Israel will have God to protect them - and that trumps everything else: Nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, massive invasions, missiles, etc. It doesn't matter. The enemies of Israel will ultimately have to face God Himself.

They have no idea what is on the horizon. Its too bad (for them) because the information is available in almost any bookstore: The information isn't a secret. It is all contained in that book we call "The Holy Bible".

And it tells us that God is in control and His plan will be carried out to perfection. The destruction of Israel isn't part of that plan - but the destruction of Israel's adversaries is very much a part of that plan.

And it may be soon.


Joe Agnello said...


I have to believe that either the world leaders actually want Iran to destroy Israel, or we are watching the full extension of this passage from 2 Timothy:

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables." 2 Timothy 4:3, 4 (NKJV).

The main thrust of this passage is that many "Christians" of the world will eventually turn away from the Gospel truth. I think it's clear that we have already seen that throughout the entire Christian world.

The natural extension though is that without a true Christian worldview, these same people will no longer endure sound reasoning in general. It's apparant that those involved with the Russian/Iranian/Israeli situation either want to allow Iran to go after Israel, or they have completely abandoned logic in dealing with Iran.

Either way, it will be in furtherance of fulfilling God's word. I pray that the craziness turns unbelievers to the sound doctrine of Christ!

Thanks again for your blog Scott.

Joe Agnello

Scott said...

Thanks for the comments. Its always hard to see into the underlying rationale.

I think its part "political correctness", part fear of actually taking definitive action (based on a spineless administration), hoping that it takes long enough for Iran to develop nukes so that another administration has to deal with it, part not wanting to upset Hamas/Hezbollah, etc.....I think its a blend of many things

Having said that - for some reason - as I was typing that last post - the verse from Ezekiel 38:4 kept banging around in my head - unremittingly:

"I will turn you around and put hooks in your jaws and bring you out with your whole army..."

And the common wisdom had always been, that somehow, the terrorist states (Iran, etc) would bring Russia into this battle.

But a closer reading clarifies that God Himself will place the hooks into Russia's jaws - and God Himself will bring Russia into this conflict.

To me, that is just more evidence of how God is involved in this specific conflict -- as He was in may Old Testament events. (another of many reasons I feel that the Rapture occurs before any of these direct actions by God )

I guess I am saying that it is possible that God is having more and more of a direct influence in these events in the ME - to bring His plan to completion.

Maybe, maybe not - just some food for thought.

Thanks again, Joe

God Bless

Anonymous said...

It is absolutely amazing to me how quickly this is moving. I have never seen a President so completely deluded about what he is doing and to watch our country just let it all happen without so much as a whimper is mind-boggling. Sad days...Sorrow.

As I don't believe in a pre-trib Rapture, I'm beginning to make plans for the Tribulation period for myself, my family and my pre-trib friends who won't be prepared when the real trials begin to hit. I believe the pre-trib rapture may very well be one of the cunningly devised fables foretold.

Joe Agnello said...

Anonymous, I hope you're wrong! I agree, the prophetic events sure seem to be moving fast. After 10 years of searching the Scriptures and praying to settle my mind about it, I do believe in a Pre-Trib Rapture though - as confident anyway as one could be with a doctrine only implicitly taught in Scripture.

If however you are the one who is right, I'm trying my best to prepare for it too - like we could ever truly prepare for such a thing. I'm just trusting God, whatever position is correct, I know that He knows my fate and my family's fate. I actually think that's a comforting thought, even if I were to go through the Tribulation.

All that said, being a believer in the Pre-Trib position, these things seem so exciting actually. On the one hand it's terrifying because we know that many people will die when Ezekiel 38 is fulfilled, most of whom will likely end up in Hell. But it is exciting because we are watching God's word come to life!

Scott, to comment on what you said, I agree with you completely. The positions world leaders are taking in regards to Iran are so illogical, that it really does seem clear that God is pulling the strings and drawing Russia against Israel.

I think that part of the Western leadership mindset is that they would love for the whole Israeli problem to just go away. I think that many leaders only like Israel because they are a democratic outpost in the ME. I think they would love for a quick war to solve the problems over Jerusalem and put an end to the "mess."

The thing is, because the West has largely abandoned God, He has turned our countries over to our own wickedness, and our leaders are no longer able to think clearly. In that fog, God is working out His plan in a way that it seems obvious to us who have had our eyes opened through being saved.

I just pray that those alive on this earth after these events take place read the blogs like this one, realize what has happened, and then repent and turn to Christ.

We are living in exciting but frightening times.

Joe Agnello

Scott said...


You captured my thoughts exactly.

As far as being prepared etc., I stay prepared after going through a major hurricane and now power x2 weeks..

I am 99.999% sure of a pre-trib rapture for all of the reasons previously stated, And I'll re-state - untill someone can give me a better explanation of :

1 Thess 10
Rev 3:10
1 Thess 5

and explain where the rapture is described either
1) during the Trib or 2) after the Trib in the detailed book of Revelation

and explain why the church isn't mentioned in Rev 6-18

explain john 14:1-3 if its not a pre-trib reference


I have yet to receive an adequate (alternative) explanation for the above. Until then - I am squarely pre-trib

Plus - the Trib is God's judgment on earth and the bible tells us that Jesus already took God's judgment for the Church...Why would we have to experience what Jesus saved us from?

Expected Imminently said...

The pre-trib a cunningly devised fable?

That means the apostle Paul helped to devise it as he and his hearers were expecting an imminent Rapture as he used the personal pronouns of WE, US, OUR, YOU.

1Cor.1:15.51-52 “Behold, I shew you a mystery; WE shall not all sleep, but WE shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and WE shall be changed.
1Thess.1:9-10” For they themselves shew of US what manner of entering in WE had unto YOU, and how YE turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God; and to WAIT for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered US from the wrath to come”.
1Thess.2:19. “his coming? For what is OUR hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even YE in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at…”.
1Thess.4:15. ‘For this WE say unto you by the word of the Lord, that WE which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep’
1Thess.1:4:17 “Then WE which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall WE ever be with the Lord”.
2Thess.2:1 “Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by OUR gathering together unto him…”.

As Paul is guilty of deceiving us; that must be why he failed to leave instructions for the church to make stores as preparation to help her survive the 7 year Tribulation? Hmm How careless or cruel is that!

It would seem we cannot trust Paul for the truth – so not even the Bible can be relied upon!

:D That was just for fun - I am 100% totally certain that SCRIPTURE teaches a PRE-Trib Rapture without one shadow of a doubt.
MARANATHA (Only PRE can say that and mean it)
Sue x

Joe Agnello said...

I couldn't agree more - I would say that I'm only 99.999% sure though. It seems really clear to me today, but 10 years ago when I started the journey to figuring out what Scripture says about it, it was far from clear.

Joe Agnello

Expected Imminently said...

Scott and Joe

I am so glad we agree.

The problem is that there is a good deal of nit picking over what constitutes ‘wrath’. Posties maintain it is GOD’s wrath we are not appointed to, and place this when the Trib is ended at the 2nd coming of Jesus. They see the cosmic signs at His return as God’s wrath, thus believing the church does go through the 7 yrs, but are removed before their wrongly perceived ‘wrath of God’.

Posties maintain the church are ‘the elect’ mentioned in Revelation; failing to recognise that God’s people throughout history are always called either ‘saint’s or ‘elect’ (Yet they do not see the ‘elect’ angels as part of Israel or the church).

They also maintain the church is Israel in the N.T. and Israel is the church in the O.T. so because they see Israel in the Trib, by extension they also see the church. This comes from the ambiguous, muddled interpretation of Covenant Theology’s allegorical interpretation of Scripture rather than the Biblical 'Literal'stance.

Like the plagues of Israel, Pharaoh would not accept that they were from the God of Israel until the death of the first born. Likewise, Posties are in denial that the Trib wraths of famine, death, plague, wild animals are delivered at the behest of God throughout history, rather they attribute them to man or Satan, not appreciating that none can occur without God’s sanction anyway.

1Thess.5:9 “For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ…”.

“… not appointed to wrath…” – that means however and by whatever means it is delivered, the Church is not appointed to it! Jesus bore her wrath on the Cross declaring her ‘not guilty’. The Tribulation wrath is poured out “to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy”. Dan.9:24”. None of which applies to the Blood bought Church of Jesus Christ.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, I am not as inclined to slam a brother or sister in Christ as you seem to be.

I will not respond to the criticism except to say--I also believe in the rapture.

I do find it interesting how ANY questioning of a pre-trib rapture brings such virulence....

I will simply continue praying for my pre-trib rapture friends but I IMPLORE those of you who still have an open heart on the issue to truly research the other views of the rapture as you will quickly see that the pre-trib rapture is in fact a false doctrine of the Church.

Anonymous said...

I must say that my comment regarding virulence was directed to Expect Imminently.

Scott's reply was firm but loving and I appreciate it.

Scott, if you would like to discuss specifics of your view, I would be more than willing to do so. I believe this forum is not appropriate for it.

Expected Imminently said...

Slam you? Criticise you? My friend, by stating what Scripture say’s on the subject of the Rapture is neither a ‘slam’; nor a personal critique against your good self.

This attitude is a trait I have noticed before (among Posties in particular) that I find extremely bewildering. To disagree with them is seen as an ‘attack’ (slam?) which is an unwarranted position to take as Scripture was being presented as evidence for Pretrib, not derogatory language used against a person’s character.

As you have now disagreed with my Pretrib position, should I not also see that as a personal ‘slam’ against myself? By your measure, I may well be affronted for your daring to challenge me – I may – but I don’t because I accept anyone’s right to disagree with me. This is how democratic governments arrive at a consensus of opinion, by dialogue and discussion of the pertinent facts.

Scott is running this blog with the background of Pretrib, which is why I am here. Those that oppose that position are best to stay away if they are not prepared to be challenged when they state their alternative view; and that view presented only as a ‘belief’ with no Biblical support given.
As it is, there should be no reason for not taking part in the end time news events that affect us all whatever our eschatological position.

This is a public forum for anyone to voice their opinion on another’s comment; however the addressee’s of my post were Scott and Joe and why we are Pretrib. What position you take whether Mid, Pre-Wrath or Post, I have no notion as you haven’t said which. By your reaction I suspect Post; but I could be wrong and in any event, my remarks were not directed to you Anonymous.

Last but by no means least; if Scott, Joe and the other bloggers determine that my comments were offensive and a personal attack against you, I will apologise with every ounce of my being as that was not my meaning or my intention.

Thank you, and may God bless you for your prayers for us Pretribs and your genuine concerns for us based upon your understanding of events.

Your sister in Christ Jesus

Expected Imminently said...

Scott and Joe
It may be that the expressed concern for the ‘deceptive’ label hung onto the Pretrib view comes from the inaccurate, poorly researched journalism of one Dave MacPherson.

He has a sad story concerning his late mother’s death which he pins onto a certain group of Pretribbers. As a result, it has become his mission over the years to ridicule the Pretrib position in any way he can by foul means for lack of finding fair means.

Mr MacPherson discovered a ‘prophecy’ written by a pubescent girl named Margaret MacDonald and made claim that the ‘prophecy’ contained the very first idea of the Pretrib Rapture. Coupled with the child’s name he links the great Irish scholar John Darby who, due to illness, used the time he was ‘laid aside’ to use his Greek and Hebrew skills to further research the Bible. To do this, John Darby went back to the source scrolls filed away in the Vatican and the British Museum. The result’s of his scholarship was a fresh, reliably accurate translation of the Bible still in use today.

During his studies, John Darby re-discovered the N.T. Church’s belief in the Pretrib Rapture and taught it whenever he could. There is a large question mark over Mr MacPherson’s claim that Margaret MacDonald left Scotland to attend one of Darby’s meetings in London, and gave him the prophecy which MacPherson claims is how Darby came by the idea to teach a Pretrib Rapture. My memory fails me to note the dates concerned, but it is known for certain that Darby began teaching Pretrib around two years before the doubtful meeting with M.M.

It must be remembered that nineteenth century travel had none of the speed or convenience of today’s tourism industry. For a young girl, even with her family present, it would not be something to enter into lightly on a whim, just to hear a Bible teacher preach. The journey from M.M’s. home in Scotland to London would be very long, arduous and even dangerous; although not impossible, it is considered by historians to be a doubtful undertaking.

Not withstanding, Mr MacPherson is insistent that he knows better, that the meeting did occur and Darby, a mature man, well educated and a skilled Biblical scholar took advice from this child’s ‘prophecy’of a Pretrib Rapture and proceeded to deceive the Church with it to this day.

Even if this unlikely scenario did take place, even if we give it the benefit of much doubt, what the readers of Dave MacPherson do not do is to acquaint themselves with the easily accessible document containing M.M’s ‘prophecy’ still available to read today. It makes me wonder if Mr MacPherson relies upon this lack by his readers who unwaveringly buy his many books based on this theory, because what they would discover, IF they read the ‘prophecy’ for themselves, is that it does not contain even an inkling of a Pretrib Rapture. I found it to be strangely muddled somewhere between a partial Rapture and a Post-Tribulation Rapture, with nothing even remotely suggesting a Pretrib Rapture!

Someone once said that if a lie is repeated often enough, people will eventually believe it to be true, and such is the case with Dave MacPherson and his lucrative agenda to promote this fable in order to disparage the Biblical assertion of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture.


Expected Imminently said...

For your convenience.
What follows is the version of Margaret Macdonald's revelation as published in ‘The Restoration of Apostles and Prophets’ in the ‘Catholic Apostolic Church’(1861).

Part 1.

MARGARET'S REVELATION "It was first the awful state of the land that was pressed upon me. I saw the blindness and infatuation of the people to be very great. I felt the cry of Liberty just to be the hiss of the serpent, to drown them in perdition. It was just 'no God.' I repeated the words, Now there is distress of nations, with perplexity, the seas and the waves roaring, men's hearts failing them for fear. Now look out for the sign of the Son of Man. Here I was made to stop and cry out, O it is not known what the sign of the Son of Man is; the people of God think they are waiting, but they know not what it is. I felt this needed to be revealed, and that there was great darkness and error about it; but suddenly what it was burst upon me with a glorious light. I saw it was just the Lord himself descending from Heaven with a shout, just the glorified man, even Jesus; but that all must, as Stephen was, be filled with the Holy Ghost, that they might look up, and see the brightness of the Father's glory. I saw the error to be, that men think that it will be something seen by the natural eye; but 'tis spiritual discernment that is needed, the eye of God in his people. Many passages were revealed, in a light in which I had not before seen them. I repeated, 'Now is the kingdom of Heaven like unto ten virgins, who went forth to meet the Bridegroom, five wise and five foolish; they that were foolish took their lamps, but took no oil with them; but they that were wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.' 'But be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is; and be not drunk with wine wherein is excess, but be filled with the Spirit.' This was the oil the wise virgins took in their vessels - this is the light to be kept burning - the light of God - that we may discern that which cometh not with observation to the natural eye. Only those who have the light of God within them will see the sign of his appearance. No need to follow them who say, see here, or see there, for his day shall be as the lightning to those in whom the living Christ is.

Expected Imminently said...

Part2 MM prophecy.

'Tis Christ in us that will lift us up - he is the light - 'tis only those that are alive in him that will be caught up to meet him in the air. I saw that we must be in the Spirit, that we might see spiritual things. John was in the Spirit, when he saw a throne set in Heaven. But I saw that the glory of the ministration of the Spirit had not been known. I repeated frequently, but the spiritual temple must and shall be reared, and the fullness of Christ be poured into his body, and then shall we be caught up to meet him. Oh none will be counted worthy of this calling but his body, which is the church, and which must be a candlestick all of gold. I often said, Oh the glorious inbreaking of God which is now about to burst on this earth; Oh the glorious temple which is now about to be reared, the bride adorned for her husband; and Oh what a holy, holy bride she must he, to be prepared for such a glorious bridegroom. I said, Now shall the people of God have to do with realities - now shall the glorious mystery of God in our nature be known - now shall it be known what it is for man to be glorified. I felt that the revelation of Jesus Christ had yet to be opened up - it is not knowledge about God that it contains, but it is an entering into God - I saw that there was a glorious breaking in of God to be. I felt as Elijah, surrounded with chariots of fire. I saw as it were, the spiritual temple reared, and the Head Stone brought forth with shoutings of grace, grace, unto it. It was a glorious light above the brightness of the sun that shone round about me. I felt that those who were filled with the Spirit could see spiritual things, and feel walking in the midst of them, while those who had not the Spirit could see nothing - so that two shall be in one bed, the one taken and the other left, because the one has the light of God within while the other cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven. I saw the people of God in an awfully dangerous situation, surrounded by nets and entanglements, about to be tried, and many about to be deceived and fall. Now will THE WICKED be revealed, with all power and signs and lying wonders, so that it it were possible the very elect will be deceived - This is the fiery trial which is to try us. - It will be for the purging and purifying of the real members of the body of Jesus; but Oh it will be a fiery trial. Every soul will he shaken to the very centre. The enemy will try to shake in every thing we have believed - but the trial of real faith will be found to honour and praise and glory. Nothing but what is of God will stand. The stony-ground hearers will be made manifest - the love of many will wax cold

Expected Imminently said...

Part 3 MM prophecy.

I frequently said that night, and often since, now shall the awful sight of a false Christ be seen on this earth, and nothing but the living Christ in us can detect this awful attempt of the enemy to deceive - for it is with all deceivableness of unrighteousness he will work - he will have a counterpart for every part of God's truth, and an imitation for every work of the Spirit. The Spirit must and will be poured out on the church, that she may be purified and filled with God - and just in proportion as the Spirit of God works, so will he - when our Lord anoints men with power, so will he. This is particularly the nature of the trial, through which those are to pass who will be counted worthy to stand before the Son of man. There will he outward trial too, but 'tis principally temptation. It is brought on by the outpouring of the Spirit, and will just increase in proportion as the Spirit is poured out. The trial of the Church is from Antichrist. It is by being filled with the Spirit that we shall be kept. I frequently said, Oh be filled with the Spirit - have the light of God in you, that you may detect Satan - be full of eyes within -be clay in the hands of the potter -submit to be filled, filled with God. This will build the temple. It is not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord. This will fit us to enter into the marriage supper of the Lamb. I saw it to be the will of God that all should be filled. But what hindered the real life of God from being received by his people, was their turning from Jesus, who is the way to the Father. They were not entering in by the door. For he is faithful who hath said, by me if any man enters in he shall find pasture. They were bypassing the cross, through which every drop of the Spirit of God flows to us. All power that comes not through the blood of Christ is not of God.
When I say, they are looking from the cross, I feel that there is much in it - they turn from the blood of the Lamb, by which we overcome, and in which our robes are washed and made white. There are low views of God's holiness, and a ceasing to condemn sin in the flesh, and a looking from him who humbled himself, and made himself of no reputation. Oh! it is needed, much needed at present, a leading back to the cross. I saw that night, and often since, that there will be an outpouring of the Spirit on the body, such as has not been, a baptism of fire, that all the dross may be put away. Oh there must and will be such an indwelling of the living God as has not been - the servants of God sealed in their foreheads - great conformity to Jesus - his holy holy image seen in his people - just the bride made comely by his comeliness put upon her. This is what we are at present made to pray much for, that speedily we may all be made ready to meet our Lord in the air - and it will be. Jesus wants his bride. His desire is toward us. He that shall come, will come, and will not tarry. Amen and Amen Even so come Lord Jesus.''

What do you think? Have I missed something?

If you want the opinion of a superb and valued research writer on this subject, please go to the archives of Tricia Tillin (who describes herself as ‘loosely’ pre-wrath) at Banner Ministries.



Scott said...

I agree with all of that regarding MacPherson..In fact not many folks know that whole story. From my understanding, his father's church split over the issue of a pre-trib rapture or not (how tragic IMO) - and as a kid MacPherson witnessed this, and it somehow affected his family (the split of the church)

I find his writings difficult - as it is so heavily biased by the MM issue - in fact his main book shooting down the pre-trib view uses 2/3 of the book to explain the MM issue, which isn't even germane.

As stated, Darby didn;t even know MM and his only reference to her was to disagree with her speaking in tongues. Darby was writing about the pre-trib rapture well before MM's visions.

Its a straw-man argument.

But when I see an author such as MacPherson primarily using a false, straw-man argument, I have a hard time seeing any of his work as legit.

Having said all of that -- I rarely argue this issue anymore (as I once did). Mainly, I just got tired of the arguments - both sides make the same points in all of these arguments and it gets old.

When confronted by a pre-wrath, post-tribber or mid-triber, I just say "We'll see". And leave it at that. I got frustrated making the same points over and over. "agree to disagree' has become my mantra.

I have had people show up to my bible studies or sermons - just waiting to engage in a hearty discussion of pre vs post or whatever, and I politely decline. Every time. Just not worth it. Plus, people always get POed at some point and I just don't go there anymore. Not that I am opposed to vigorous debate - this issue included - I just decided to sit out the arguments :)

But I see little "hope and comfort" offered in a post-trib scenario.

I also would suggest a reading of Showers book "the Pre-Wrath" rapture - it is an excellent summary.

God Bless

Joe Agnello said...


I read a little of Dave MacPherson's writing about the Rapture recently, and I have to say that I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. My biggest complaint is the manner in which he attacks eschatological views that differ from his.

Although I believe very strongly in the Pre-Trib Rapture, I recognize that my belief in that position has nothing to do with my salvation. I have no problem with anyone who takes a different view, particularly the Pre-Wrath view, which I think has some arguable points. I don't agree it's what Scripture teaches, but I do agree that it's an arguable position.

However, I pray that Dave MacPherson and people like him that feel so bent on destroying the Pre-Trib belief will simply turn their energy towards spreading the Gospel. If he's my brother-in-Christ, I can rejoice over that regardless of his Eschatological views.

Bottom line is that I believe Daniel and Revelation both teach that they will make more sense to the people living during the end time events themselves. Those are the people who will have real understanding, not us. That makes the timing of the Pre-Trib Rapture viewpoint coming into existence moot. Those living closer to the events will understand it better than those living in the OT or early Church. Nevertheless, it wasn't invented by John Nelson Darby and Margaret MacDonald, because there were some who held the view both in the OT and in the early Church.

I think God revealed it implicitly though so that we would be busy engaging the unbelieving world in the Great Commission, expecting Christ's imminent return, and not disengaging ourselves and simply waiting for the Rapture. Let's pray that believers don't divide over such a nonessential issue, and that those wishing for division have their eyes opened.


Expected Imminently said...

Scott and Joe

We agree! Virtually on every point. Our Salvation unites us regardless, while teaching it to others.

Even so, such a blatant untruth needs to be shown up for what it is; after all people are literally paying to be deceived and I would have thought it a criminal act to take money under false pretences? This may not be what Anonymous was referring to, but experience reveals it is usually the case.

I fear my posts must have come across as ‘now let me tell you’; in reality, I was aiming at exposing why the Pretrib Rapture is considered as deceptive. In point of fact, dear souls such as Anonymous have been deceived by this totally false and forced ‘history’ conceived by a man ensnared by a ‘root of bitterness’. For that I pity him as it appears to consume his every waking hour, what a waste of life.

Yes Scott, R.Showers The Pre-Wrath Rapture is a superb book.

Anonymous said...

I have absolutely no idea of what you just wrote as NONE of it has anything to do with pre-trib or post-trib rapture.

The fact is believers have to be raptured because they can't endure wrath, correct?

Why then do the 144,000 witnesses and their converts have to endure it (the wrath)? The answer is, they don't. Why? Because they are raptured with the rest of us at the end of Revelation Chapter 11--you know, at the 7th and final trump (1Cor15:52). Also, check your Scripture as to when the dead in Christ are raised. It's on the LAST DAY and yet you're saying it occurs before the tribulation!

I will make one last argument (but I have another 100 of them)...

It is one of the arguments John Piper makes (desiringgod.org) as to why he believes in the post trib rapture which is:

Why would Paul respond to the believers in 2Thes2 who thought they had missed the Day of the Lord telling them that they hadn't missed it? Had Paul believed in the pre-trib rapture, he would have simply stated, before Christ's second return, you would have already been raptured. Instead he states, that there would be a falling away first and that the son of perdition would be revealed. Do you think Paul accidentally forgot about the rapture?

They were concerned they had missed the second coming, and he doesn't mention the rapture--isn't that a little strange?


The Pre-trib rapture is a doctrine derived from a selfish westernized culture that likes to have its ears tickled and those that teach this doctrine will be held accountable. I once believed in it too--but it has no basis in anything. Why would the Lord remove his Church in the last days? His entire heart and will is that all might be saved and yet you all suggest that He will leave it up to 144,000 folks to witness to 4 Billion people? Really? You believe that?

Revelation 3:10 as a foundational verse for the rapture? Really? Please pray about this and read the verse again in its context.

Expected Imminently, I have no ill will against you but you're coarse words toward me are hurtful and frankly, I will not return to this website again as a result.

Scott said...

I hate to get pulled in but.

(First of all, I so agree with what Joe said. So don't see this as an "argument" but a clarification)

-The 144,000 Jews experience the Trib, because they had not reached salvation at the time of the rapture.

- Rev. 11 says nothing at all about the rapture

- 1 Cor 15:52 referencing the final trumpet isn't referencing the trumpet blasts in Rev. When Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, Revelation hadn't been written yet, so he wouldn't have used that as a reference. Its a reference to the trumpet blasts that sounded at the exodus, and when they were moving the encampment there were a series of trumpet blasts, the last of which meant "we're moving out" !

- The 144,000 won't be the only ones to witness during the Tribulation. God will also use the two prophets of Rev 11, who will be seen by the entire world. Also the book of Revelation informs us that god will use Angels to proclaim the gospel. And last, we know that millions will come to Christ during the Tribulation - and they too will serve as witnesses.

- Rev 3:10 is not the "foundational" basis of the pre-trib doctrine. Its a vast array of scriptures.

We can agree to disagree. Its not a matter of salvation. I'm just a stickler for the facts.

FWIW- I also agree with Joe that the pre-wrath has SOME elements of agreement, but it can't get around the doctrine of imminency. If there is a "pre-wrath" rapture - then it couldn't happen today (for instance) - as it can only happen during the Trib. The Trib hasn't started yet.

We know that this "coming" is an imminent event. That fact alone destroys the pre-wrath view.

God Bless.


Expected Imminently said...


You and Joe must have the last word on this as it is a fruitless task trying to reason with someone who is so very angry. Apparently that anger is down to me and my ‘course, hurtful words’?

As I have no idea what words are being referred to, and thus far no one has yet chosen to enlighten me, including my accuser, I can only give Anonymous a half hearted apology of regret for causing distress where none was intended.

For my part, I hold no animosity against Anonymous for what I see as a false accusation levelled against me, life is too short and mine is getting shorter by the second.

Apart from this event Scott, I have enjoyed and so appreciate the work and effort you put into this blog by keeping up with current events related to prophecy. This you do skilfully and faithfully, with good grace while giving a worthwhile read. Thank you.
May God continue to bless your efforts!

Scott said...

Thanks Sue

I would also highly recommend Hal Lindsey's "Vanished", as this book is an expose on the different views and he addresses almost every one of the false accusations leveled against the literal view of a pre-trib rapture. its a very good read.

As far as the anger, I can't speak to the poster on this thread --- but generally speaking, that has been my experience when I give various talks, bible studies, sermons etc.

I don't understand why they are so upset. Do we disagree - so what? I don't understand the anger, I really don't.

I once had a bible study that went on for several weeks, and one guy sat in the back and never said a word, When I ended with the Rapture study, after we were done, he approached me and blurted out "I am post-trib and you shouldn't be teaching this false pre-trin (or whatever) and he immediately started referencing MacPherson et al. and the usual arguments around MM etc...And then the ever-present "argument" of "What if you are wrong? Milliosn will lose their faith as a result...."

Sigh....Thats so absurd, on so many levels...But I digress....His anger was palpable.

One thing Hal points out....I rarely see pre-tribbers going after the other points of view. But as soon as something comes up regarding pre-trib, the post-tribbers, preterists, and mid-tribbers come out of the wood-work to argue, while venting palpable anger.

I don't understand it. If people have those views, its not worth my time; I don't care that much. In fact, now, with time growing SO SHORT, its a waste of time....But for some reason, they are obsessed with attacking the pre-trib POV....Its HARD if not impossible to find any of their earlier writings - its as if they exist for the sole purpose of stealing the "hope and comfort" afforded by the pre-trib view.

I don't get that either.

I don't get any of it - but especially the anger that they bring. I wish it wasn't this way, but it is.

Oh well, I am comfortable enough in my views that I can let the the argument go...We'll see soon enough.

The sad thing is. I can't be an "I told you so" in heaven.....Just kidding....

Expected Imminently said...


Through narrowed eyes, and a hushed, sinister voice Expected Imminently sidled over to Scott and in low tones whispered “You may well live to regret asking me my opinion on Mr Tony Blair AND his missus, old liar, liar, pants on fire”.

I was in my kitchen ironing me smalls while the t.v. was on. Up pops Blair giving his first speech after winning the election for NEW Labour (decidedly shifty imo) To begin with I was only half listening, but as he droned on, certain familiar phrases kept cropping up until I stood motionless, one arm raised still holding the steaming iron aloft with my bottom lip well nigh resting on the ironing board caused by a slack jaw. One false move and me mouth would have been welded to me husbands best Calvin Kline underpants for eternity!

It’s not a jot of good asking me what he said, but it was deep with meaning that took my thoughts back to the Bible. When it was all over, and me iron had run dry, I plonked it back down onto the iron rest, wiped the steam off me glasses and said “Lord, is it; is it HIM?”

From that moment on I watched, and listened to what he wasn’t saying with growing suspicion. With indignation I announced to whoever was handy and proclaimed “He’s not a Protestant, he’s a Roman Catholic and he could be the A/c”.

When I was at school, we had been taught that our Monarch and Prime minister must never be a Roman Catholic. Blair was lying about his faith in order to fit the bill of being a Protestant in order to become Prime minister. To my mind he did not have the courage of his own convictions, and if he was prepared to deceive the public over his faith, then he was someone not to be trusted across the board. Of course others were in a position to challenge him, but he always denied the charges of being a secret R.C.

He was hauled over the coals by the then Archbishop of Canterbury for going to Mass with his R.C. wife and children. THAT is against Church of England policy! Still he had the gall to deny the charges – well he had to, didn’t he, otherwise he would be branded a cheat and a liar in order to get the Prime job!

Too much time passed with him at the helm building up the kingdom for the A/c; until he at last gave over the reigns to Gordon Brown and left Parliament. Shortly after leaving, the stinker announced he was going to ‘convert’ to R.C. Gasp! Oh my! What a surprise! Who ever would have believed it! I had been right all along – but then, I knew I was but at least those who thought me ‘over the top’ had to acknowledge the truth.

There is one thing I have to thank T.B. (nasty chest infection) for, and that is my ability to use a computer. He set up free courses throughout the country to teach the population how to be computer literate. So with other oldies, I became a ‘silver surfer’. Yet I cannot be entirely gracious about that as I am convinced it suited his agenda to have the people entertained and kept passive by this modern ‘game of the Coliseum’ such as the Romans did when Rome began its decline.

I am as sure as I can be that T.B. was set by the powers that be to become the first E.U. President. However the E.U. had a problem to deal with. T.B. was to be questioned about his decision making at the Iraq War Inquiry. With that hovering over him, Blair could be seen as an accident waiting to happen.

The E.U. could wait no longer for the natural course of events to pan out; they were desperate to present the world with their new leader. As a result they brought in an uncharismatic, unknown to start the proceedings off choosing the unelected Von Rompney sp? to keep the seat warm until Blair could sit in it later?

So Blair is still high on my list of suspects, it is a delay not a denial – of course I could be wrong, I probably am if truth be told, but in any event there has always been something highly suspicious about Blair and I wouldn’t trust him any further than I can spit – and I am out of practice.

Expected Imminently said...

Sorry for the confusion Scott, I posted the above in the wrong place.

Thank you for recommending Hal's book 'Vanished', that's one I haven't heard of and would love to read.
God bless