Several years ago, I wrote a “Talkin' Rapture” column called “The Arrogance of Prophecy,” calling for greater humility and civility in the prophecy movement. Unfortunately, that same call needs to continue to go out today.

There is a fine line between “standing for truth” and arrogance. There is a passion among proponents of all views-including, unfortunately, the prewrath view-that can quickly morph into a condescending and insulting tone, especially when that view is questioned. That condescending tone can quickly turn to biting insults. I cannot tell you how many times I've heard people justify their viscous words against their brethren based on Jesus' attacks on the Pharisees. That we, humble servants of the Lord who are called to “esteem one another greater than ourselves” could turn so quickly on one another like a pack of hyenas pains me deeply.

Recently, I had a dialog with the proponent of another view that took this unfortunate turn. I will not identify the view or the person involved, but I wanted to share the exchange as a warning for the rest of us. Let us not follow this example.

The exchange started when I read this individual referring to critics of this position as “the enemies of Truth”-capital “T.” I immediately sent the author an email. The exchange follows.

H. L.: I know that your heart is to spread [view] as a valid interpretation of the end-times scriptures. When you call non-[view] "the enemies of truth," however, you work strongly against your goal. Those who hold other interpretations may be critical of your view, but all are fellow workers striving for the gospel. "Enemies of truth" are those who work against the gospel, and when you characterize your brethren, your fellow workers in the field, as "enemies of truth" simply because they disagree with your end-times interpretation, this is terribly short-sighted. In itself, this can create resistance to your message. Show respect for diversity of opinion of your brethren, your fellow laborers in the work of Christ, and your message will shine through more clearly.

Author: I was specifically referring to those critics of [view] who wrote articles in . . . They are the ones who called us names worse than “enemies of the truth.” They called us damnable heretics and other such derogatory and inflammatory names. They are indeed enemies of the truth.

People such as yourself are (obviously) not enemies of the truth. You simply need to re-read the context of my statements to discern who I was talking about. Jesus used pretty stiff language against the scribes and Pharisees and Sadducees of his day, who were enemies of the truth. Apostle Paul called the High Priest at his trial a “whitewashed wall.” If they are guilty as charged, and the label fits, then it is not inappropriate to give them the label. It should not be done lightly or flippantly or without biblical justification.

H. L.: I suppose one must define "truth" in the phrase "enemies of truth." If "truth" is defined exclusively, in this context, as eschatological truth, then I understand the use of the phrase. But the phrase is not qualified, and when it is not qualified, the implication is "enemies of gospel truth." I know what you intend. But it comes across differently. Whether these men use inappropriate language against those of your view, I don't know, but we aren't to return evil for evil.

It struck me how you say that you strive for [view] to be seen as a viable option for end-times interpretation. Yet, it seems that, if scholars disagree, they are enemies of truth. Is there a double standard here? Or is there a willingness to see all of the major views as valid options. We simply stand on our own view and defend it, while still respecting that other views are valid, as well. We simply don't agree with them.

If [view] strives to be accepted as conservative and mainstream, I wonder if the key proponents offer the same respect to the holders of other views the way they desire to be given?

Author: We defenders of [view]have bent over backwards and stood on our heads to gain a hearing for the eschatological truth, only to be stabbed in the back, called every blasphemous name in the book, and excommunicated at their first opportunity. Yes, we have given them their due respect, and they have not reciprocated.

H. L.: I'm really sorry to hear that. Fellow believers should not treat one another so shamefully. I assume that you do not believe that this justifies similar treatment in return? After all, isn't persecution to be expected? (Philippians 1:29)

Author: Of course! We believe in following the example of Jesus and Paul in regard to the proper response to those who have proven themselves to be champions of error. Jesus called them “hypocrites” and “vipers” and “blind guides” and “sons of your father the devil,” and Paul called the High Priest presiding at his trial “whitewashed wall.”

If religious leaders get caught up in defending error and blind tradition, then they deserve such labels. It is simply telling it as it is. To go along with it and pretend there is nothing wrong is nothing more than compromise and pandering to error.

Our world needs straight shooters, not wimps and compromisers. The Reformation did not have a bunch of wimps and compromisers leading the reform. Reformers need to be uncompromising for the Truth of Scripture. What kind of servants of Christ are we? Are we fearless leaders for the truth of Scripture or wimpy compromisers who speak soothing-words (soothsayers)? Like the people in the Old Testament days said to their prophets who condemned the leaders of their day, “Speak to us pleasant words [soothing words.” They did not want to hear the straight truth. It did not keep them in their comfort zone. The prophets of the Old Testament did not pander to them.

We need to re-read the twelve minor prophets (especially Hosea and Amos). Then we need to get the log out of our own eyes so that we will be able to see more clearly to help someone else get the speck out of their eyes. :-)

H. L.: I understand your position completely, but Jesus called the religious leaders of his day "hypocrites" and "whitewashed cups" because they rejected HIM - they rejected the Son of God and Messiah. That is not the group you are addressing.

You are addressing a group of fellow believers, fellow laborers for the gospel - your brethren in the family of Christ. To this group, we are commanded to speak in love and respect, even when they revile us:

"Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. . . the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness" (James 3:13-17).

When I read your writings, I sense the very attitude that Paul warns us against: "With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be." (James 3:9-10)

Just because your critics threw the stones first doesn't mean that you should be throwing them back. We fight darkness with light, right?

I say this not to criticize, but to raise a red flag in case you are not aware of the tone that is coming across. We contend for sound doctrine, but we are first and foremost disciples and lights of Christ. End-times doctrine, as important as it is, is secondary to the light of the gospel and the character of those who follow the Son.

Author: Your tone is pretty self-righteous itself. You do not know all the facts in the case, nor are you aware of all the wicked things they have said and done against us. Nor do you know of all the ways we have indeed turned the other cheek and tried to oblige [name] and his bunch of hyper-critics, all to no avail.

And you are totally out of place as a female telling male leaders in the church what to do and how to do it, especially when you do not know all the facts (and may not even understand eschatological truth either). So I would encourage you to exercise restraint like a godly woman is supposed to do in relation to the biblically authorized male leadership in the church. Women are not to teach or exercise authority over men, but to remain quiet and submissive and direct their questions and comments through their own husbands or godly men who will cover for them.

#          #          #

Thus ends the discussion, with the exception of me asking to be removed from the email list. It may be easy to criticize this author, but the reason I bring to light this discussion is that it is too easy for us to sound just like him.

What Are Readers Reading?

Last month's top seller: Revelation Unsealed, by Don Salerno

January 2009 reader selections:

All Books Ordered:

Before God's Wrath: The Bible's Answer to the Timing of the Rapture, Revised and Expanded Edition    
Fight, Flight, or Faith: How to Survive the Great Tribulation    
Hidden Light: Science Secrets of the Bible    
Rapture Question Answered, The: Plain and Simple    
Revelation Unsealed    
Revelation Unsealed    
Right Turns: From Liberal Activist to Conservative Champion in 35 Unconventional Lessons    
Search the Scriptures: A Study Guide to the Bible : New NIV Edition
State of Fear    
The 10 Big Lies About America: Combating Destructive Distortions About Our Nation    
The Hope of Christ's Second Coming    
The Secret Rapture: Is It Scriptural?    
Who Will Be Left Behind and When?    

DVDs ordered:

 Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Remember, if you want to look into one of these books, please click through one of our Amazon.com purchase links (such as from our main titles page). This supports our website at no cost to you!


Responses to Reader Questions: What Is "Classic" Prewrath?

Q: This is part of Mr. Underwood's website of the Seventh Trumpet Rapture that came around in the mid 1990's that has the wrath of God starting with the seven bowls. But, the presentation of the wrath of God being in the seven bowls was not first introduced by Underwood, and neither the phrase, "Pre-wrath Rapture" by Mr. Rosenthal nor by Mr. Van Kampen. It was first introduced by C. S. Lovett in his book, "Latest Word On The Last Days" in 1980. He was actually the first one who coined the term "Pre-Wrath" relating to the rapture of the church ten years before Rosenthal did! And, what is his pre-wrath version? Mr. Lovett places the rapture right before the wrath of God begins with the seven bowls! He views the "last trumpet" of 1 Cor. 15 to be the seventh trumpet of Revelation 11. So, the seventh trumpet rapture (pre-wrath classic version) is actually more classical than the seventh seal rapture (prewrath modern version) by ten years! Mr. Lovett calls himself a "Pre-Wrather" believer, not Pretribulation, Midtribulation, nor a Posttribulation believer like Mr. Rosenthal does. I guess it would be important to distinguish between a classic pre-wrather and a modern pre-wrather in these days since we have two versions of the pre-wrath rapture now. But, which is classic, and which is modern? I believe the modern version is more popular than the classic version. But, the classic version is more Scriptural than the modern version in accordance with the context of Scripture. Just like the pre-trib rapture is more popular among other rapture views, it does not make it true with the Scriptures. So, the classic version would actually be the seventh trumpet (pre-wrath) rapture, not the seventh seal (prewrath) rapture.

I thought I will let you know about this since neither Mr. Underwood nor myself came up with this pre-wrath version of the seventh trumpet on our own, but of the context of the Scriptures like Mr. Lovett has already discovered before us.

A: "Classic" in this case doesn't mean "first." It means the widely accepted, standard definition or identification of something. The "classic" prewrath position refers to a specific position first outlined by Rosenthal and Van Kampen. This position has become identified with the term "prewrath," so when we say "classic prewrath," we are using that term to refer to this specific position. That Lovett used the term 10 years earlier doesn't make this the "classic" version. It makes him the forerunner of the seventh-trumpet rapture position.