Re: Post written by Rainy. Important Information.

Whoa! I'm not one of those PhDs ya know. You're the one with the degree in theology, which is a lot more than I've got. No, I don't think of myself as being especially intelligent, and that isn't false modesty either. At best, I am distinctly average, but I try to make the best of what I've got.

I agree with you in the main, with maybe a couple of caveats. By your own admission, you claim to be agnostic regarding the major schools of prophetic interpretation, yet all your posts that touch on the subject fall well within the orbit of either the rapture cult or chiliasm in general. That betrays a distinct bias on your part that does not sit well with your claim to being a disinterested observer of the debate. You were raised in a country that has made this kinda sensationalist eschatology practically a test of orthodoxy. Indeed, your own Hal Lindsey has labelled my 'school' as heresy, which is quite ironic if you know anything at all about the history of his particular brand of eschatology. So it's hardly surprising then that you yourself have been heavily influenced - perhaps at a subconscious level - by your own religious environment. Despite your protestations to the contrary, therefore, I seriously doubt that you are sitting on any eschatological fence, or possibly even know where it may be found. 

Secondly, yes, of course it's entirely possible that you might yet prove to be right, and I wrong. I think it highly improbable based on what I believe to be sound principles of Biblical interpretation, especially with reference to the OT 'kingdom prophecies', and the track record of all rapturist/tribulationist/ millennialist 'prophets' to date. Nevertheless, I will still concede the possibility that I might be wrong. If papa Francis turns out to be the false prophet, I will obviously hafta go back to the drawing board and reevaluate my hermeneutical principles, which, btw, give full weight to the manner in which the Apostles interpreted those same prophecies. That is one of the central themes of this debate that is almost universally ignored by your 'prophets', and why I feel I can claim with a fair degree of certainty that they are all false prophets.

Now consider the alternative scenario. You claim you posted this link as a warning to believers who might otherwise be deceived by the false prophet and end up, almost inadvertantly it seems, losing their souls. Leaving aside the soteriological implications of such a view of our redemption, what will you do if this prophecy should fail? Will you then post another warning at some indeterminate point in the future when another prophet comes along with similar dire warnings? And if they also fail to materialize, perhaps yet another one after that? Where does it end?

Ever heard the story of the boy who cried wolf? Then here's a prediction for you. When you either tire of issuing such warnings, or the church militant tires of hearing them, then the end will come. That, I submit, is a much more likely scenario for the future than any warnings from a false prophet:

When they say, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction will come upon them, as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and there will be no escape!

1 Thess. 5:3 (NRSV)

.