David Wilkerson see's a catastrophe coming

[EricH]

Brother Eric,

In league with what nebula has posted regarding Agabus, please explain how David Wilkersons Prophetic warning differed.

Very clearly you are drawing the line at a couple of places and so are the men you've quoted in the links. You are saying that it could cause panic and fear and draw the Faithful and others away from the central message of the Gospel. I don't see it the same way at all.

I see it more with regard to the section of Acts now quoted.

You appear to be saying that because it is a warning of disaster to come and not the general disaster due to come upon the world that it's not valid. I believe that Dr. Seif and the other fellow that you have quoted have taken it into the realm of this general consensus as well. I also believe that Dr. Seif see's it as a discussion of the situation in this Nation and the Politics of our Leaders and thast is why he is discounting it. He clearly feels that folks like the two he noted are upset because of who's been Elected when clearly that has nothing to do with what Wilkerson said.

We see that Agabus had the prophetic gifting in Acts 21 as well when he spoke to Paul about what would befall him in Jerusalem. I do not believe that Agabus in Acts 21 was trying to prevent Paul from going to Jerusalem, rather he was telling him what would come to pass. Paul himself asked the people not to weep but to understand that this was Gods Will.

We see Agabus in Chapter 11 doing the same thing, revealing what would and did indeed come to pass.

Dave Wilkersons pattern is quite similar so please explain where it departs from Scripture? I believe that this is where you have sister Nebula confused as well.

I don't see Wilkerson trying to scare anyone. In fact he is imploring them to be prepared just like the Church did in the days of Agabus. Agabus told no one to be prepared, at least as far as scripture states, but it is clear that in examining the Prophecy the Church determined it to hold fast. They then sent preparations for the disaster. I don't really see the difference in Wilkerson urging people to be prepared. Agabuses prophecy would have to pass the same tests you are applying to Dave Wilkersons prophecy. The Church saw fit in that day to tell the people concerned and to prepare them.

Peace,

Dave

Clearly we disagree. That is fine. Please don't feel like I am attacking him or you. I am going through the process I believe Paul asked us to go through when anyone makes a statement claiming to be speaking for God. The NT seems to me to be pretty clear that the NT gift of peophecy was not binding and was to be evaluated. I don't believe this should be a discussion of the motives of the men involved, or a contest on which of them is "Godliest". iIt is simply a question if the church believes this is a genuine word of God for them or not. As I have prayed and evaluated, I do not believe that it is. That does not mean I am right (I am not inerrant). This is a freedom and responsibility God has given to the leadership of the church.

[EricH]

The question is have they heard God accurately? Is it your belief that the NT gift of prophecy is inerrant and should not be evaluated?

And since you are a pastor, that would and should be your foremost apprehension.

I suppose the only answer to your question in this specific case is that there are many who trust that Pastor Wilkerson has shown himself to be faithful in handling the Word over these last 50 years. Many people trust him not to say something as if "from the Lord" unless he is VERY sure that it is.

I've got friends under his ministry that produce a LOT of fruit. They have known and trust Pastor Wilkerson for many years. They are getting prepared. I don't see anything wrong with being prepared. Pastor Wilkerson seemed to balance being an alarmist with being a realist (if indeed this really happens)

It seems to me that this one has been judged by the "kehilah" (Assembly or church, if you will) or at least by those who are getting prepared....

I am not questioning his integrity at all. But I think it is possible for people to be sincere and be wrong. there are folks in the ministries of the men who disagree with him that are producing a lot of fruit. That is not the question here. We all accept that Pastor Wilkerson is a good and Godly man. So are the other guys. But that does not guarantee that he (or they) will hear God correctly in every case. If we want a guarantee of 100 percent truth, the Word is the only place we can go for that. That is why I think Paul asked us to evaluate each instance of the use of the NT gift of prophecy. After praying over it, I have no sense that it is God's word for me. Is my sense inerrant? No. So again, this discussion is good. It is the exact process Paul told us to go through.

[EricH]

We see that Agabus had the prophetic gifting in Acts 21 as well when he spoke to Paul about what would befall him in Jerusalem. I do not believe that Agabus in Acts 21 was trying to prevent Paul from going to Jerusalem, rather he was telling him what would come to pass. Paul himself asked the people not to weep but to understand that this was Gods Will.

I was referring to this verse where clearly they were:

So we found some disciples and stayed there seven days. They said to Paul through the Spirit not to go to Jerusalem.

(Acts 21:4 CSB)

Paul did not listen to this. Clearly he felt free to do so. We have a pretty clear statment in the Corinthians passage regarding how the NT gift of prophecy is supposed to operate and that it is open to evaluation. So I am not sure what the issue really is.

[EricH]

Brother Eric,

In league with what nebula has posted regarding Agabus, please explain how David Wilkersons Prophetic warning differed.

It substance they are both predictions. That is the common thread. Whether Pastor Wilkerson's is accurate, we will not know until after the fact. But they are both open for evaluation by the church. And since there is nothing in scripture that says a disaster will befall the metroplex "soon", there is nothing the prophecy can appeal to for substantiation.

Therefore the church leadership is free to pray and evaluate all the details of what was said and determine if the Spirit is authenticating it for them. Clearly the Spirit has not lead all to believe this. Just as Paul did not believe that the Spirit was telling him not to go to Jerulsalem (as opposed to Acts 21:4)

Acts 21 is actually a great example about the hit and miss nature of the gift of NT prophecy. The disciples in Tyre (Acts 21:4) believed the Spirit was telling them to warn Paul not to go to Jerusalem. Paul evidently believe the warning was not from God. Agabus, gave no such warning. he simply described what would happen to Paul when he went to Jerusalem. Since Paul was an Apostle and leader of the church, he was free to evaluate what was said (and did so). he decided the warning was not from God, but what Agabus said probably was, but not a reason for him not to go.

Some in the Church have decided that Dr. Wilkerson's prophecy is not a word from God. Others have decided it was. Both are within their rights according to Paul in 1 Corinthians.

[EricH]

Very clearly you are drawing the line at a couple of places and so are the men you've quoted in the links. You are saying that it could cause panic and fear and draw the Faithful and others away from the central message of the Gospel. I don't see it the same way at all.

I don't believe I made this generalization. Here is what I said:

So for me personally, I don't spend much time trying to guess when apocalytipc events are going to occur. They simply get me off mission. Maybe for others they view these warnings of impending catastrophe as part of the way they fulfill that mission. And as John Piper said in his atricle, if some get scared as a result and check out the faith, that is good.

I said that spending the time to evaluate apocalytic extra-biblical prophecies is not worth it for me. I also conceded that would not be true for everyone.

[nebula]

The disciples in Tyre (Acts 21:4) believed the Spirit was telling them to warn Paul not to go to Jerusalem. Paul evidently believe the warning was not from God. Agabus, gave no such warning. he simply described what would happen to Paul when he went to Jerusalem. Since Paul was an Apostle and leader of the church, he was free to evaluate what was said (and did so). he decided the warning was not from God, but what Agabus said probably was, but not a reason for him not to go.

From my experience with prophecy, my evaluation of the situation was that through the Spirit the disciples in Tyre knew that bad things would happen to Paul in Jerusalem, and thus they warned him not to go there.

What I am saying is that often times people (being the humans that we are) put our own interpretations into the words and visions the Lord gives us.

Thus, from their persepctive, the Spirit was telling them these things about Paul to warn him not to go. But Paul instead took the revelation as preparation for what he must endure for the sake of the Lord.

Make sense?

[nebula]

Something else I was thinking of.

Sometime in November of 2000, I was at a church where the head pastor spoke that the Lord had revealed to him there would be a terrorist attack on US soil in less than a year's time, and there would be great mourning for the loved ones that had been lost (something to that effect).

The very beginning of Sept. 2001, another man spoke that the Lord had told him their would be a terrorist attack on US soil in less than a year. (Now why the Lord would have revealed less than a year rather than less than a month, I don't know - but that's what he said.)

I am sure we all know those words did take place.

[Matthitjah]

Brother Eric,

I never felt attacked and neither do I need to defend Pastor Wilkerson. You have now stated that we will have to see. That is what I have been stating all along.

I believe that the misunderstanding in Acts had more to do with the flesh of certain believers than it did with the Prophectic visions that they had received. Just like Agabus with Paul. Agabus never said not to go, the Brethren pleaded with Paul and cried because they misunderstood the will of God in the Prophecy. You have stated that there is no Biblical prophecy concerning the Metroplex in the Bible and this is True. The same holds for Agabuses prophecy concerning the famine across the world. Yes, scripture states that there will be famine at various times and especially at the end, but no specific one for Claudiuses reign.

The Bible also states that there is a curse upon those who curse Israel and that there will be many and varied events and tribulations at the time of the end and throughout history too. Thus lending credibility to Wilkersons utterance.

I guess I'm having a hard time capturing your stance.

However, we can agree that we will know in the course of time, which is what I have been saying all along.

Peace,

Dave

[kross]

I can see it. I see because of the Christian church. I see it because of our leaders taking an active role in dividing Israel's land. I can see it as a result of this insane ecconomic mess and bail outs. I can see it because of taxes.

I do not think the catastrophy in NY is a riot. I do think the ensuing riots will happen as a result of what happens in NY.

I can see it.

[kross]

IF it is prophesy, then it is going to happen. IF it is not prophecy, then it might happen or it might not. Either way, until it does happen there is little that can be done other than leaving NY city and the surrounding area. Don't think anyone will do that.