I watched a program on TV last night in which a popular end-times preacher gave his proofs for a pre-tribulation rapture.
I felt many of his proof-texts lacked the bridges needed in order to first prove their relevance to the topic.
For example, he used verses in Isaiah and Daniel to prove his pre-tribulation view and stated that those verses are about "the Antichrist" and about "the [future] Great Tribulation" - but he didn't prove why those verses must be about a future tribulation - and those verses don't in themselves make it immediately obvious.
It seemed therefore that he was relying on one interpretive model in order to prove another interpretive model.
It was as if he was thinking he'd proved that B=C by merely stating that A also =C. But the argument is inadequate without first proving that A=B!
(I'm not hereby stating my view. I'm just pointing-out that the popular view relies more heavily on unsubstantiated bridging statements, assumptions and circular reasoning than perhaps the view's own proponents realize!)
No comments:
Post a Comment