David Wilkerson see's a catastrophe coming

[EricH]

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

I am sorry if I have been less than clear. I am arguing for the process of evaluation. Paul commanded the leadership of the church to evaluate the use of this spiritual gift. Since Dr. Wikerson made his statements on internet for all churches to see, this gives local church leadership the responsibility to evaluate it. That is what we are doing here. It is a healthy thing, and required by the text. As leaders we must engage in that evaluation and healthy discussion (since the post was made public, we have engaged in that discussion in public). This is in obedience to the passage I cited earlier in 1 Corinthians. The question, Is this from God?, and, What should we do with it? has to occur. That is the process in which I was trying to engage (probaby poorly). Part of that discussion is understanding what other men of God are saying about it. Thats is why I posted the links.

In terms of the Acts passages, I understand that in Agabus' case, the others who were listening heard Agabus'prophecy and made the unjustified leap that Paul should not go to Jerulsalem. The text specifically says that. But the prophecy made in Acts 21:4 (in a different place and by different people) specifically states that the disciples in the Spirit told Paul not to go to Jerusalem. I don't know of any other way to interpret that, other than they believed the Spirit was telling them Paul should not go. Help me understand how we could understand that any differently, given what the text specifically says? This chapter actually paints a great picture of the nature of the NT gift of prophecy. Sometimes it is accurate, and sometimes it is not. I believe that is whay Paul commanded church leadership to make these evaluations in 1 Corintians. What do you see as the reason for those instructions in 1 Corinthians?

The Bible certainly predicts tribulation near the end. But as you have maintained, Dr. Wilkerson is not making a case that his vision is tied to the end. Someone corrected the authors I cited for making that connection. So I don't see how the sciptures prediction of clamity near the end, substantiates Dr. Wilkerson's visions of a pending (soon) catastrophe in NY (or even makes it any more likely). Since we do not know when the end will come, how does the Bible's prediction tribulation, substantiate the "soon" the Multiplex will experience calamity, so soon that he building up stores?

[EricH]

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?

Yes, and you are making the exact argument that I have been for the nature of the gift prophecy as practiced in the NT. It is subject to the interpretation of the one receiving it. These men believed they had received this message through the Spirit. That is what the passage says clearly. But they were off. That is exactly why it is important that we heed Paul's command to undergo evaluation of each utterance.

Dr. Wilkerson is no different. He has reported what he believes God told him. But he is subject to error as well. That is why an evaluation by the community of faith is so essential. That is the process which I have been pushing for here.

Agabus's case was different. He got most of the details right (with a few minor exceptions) in his prophecy. It was his listeners that made the jump in logic that Paul should not go (notice the text does not say they did so through the Spirt. Just that they concluded this as a result of what Agabus said). They took the prophecy and drew unwarranted conclusions as to the action required (which Agabus did not state in his prophecy).

On a side note, notice that when Peter described the encoding of scripture, he made no such provision for evaluation. He indicated God did something more:

First of all, you should know this: no prophecy of Scripture comes from one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the will of man; instead, moved by the Holy Spirit, men spoke from God. (2Peter 1:20-21 CSB)

[EricH]

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.

Yes, and this could have been an example where the speaker heard correctly. Again, this is not a question of the vailidity of the NT gift of prophecy. It is the exercise we are commanded to go through to evaluate each utterance. I am arguing for the process of evaluation, and trying to engage in it. Not the validity of the gift.

As part of that process, we need to hear what other leaders are saying and thinking. It is healthy and good. I believe this process should include 2 questions:

1. Is this from God?

2. What should we do with it?

On a practical note, this process is much simpler when the gift is used in the context of a local body. It is much easier to understand and evaluate. When a proclamation is made on a large scale like this, it involves evaluation from the leadership of a multitude of local bodies. Unless the Spirit is speaking very loudly and clearly, it will be hard to have a consensus on either of the 2 questions.

I don't think the NT gift of prophecy was given so that we can wait and see if it comes true, then rejoice if it does. It was given to give a particular word to a paritcular people for particular action. This means it will require evaluation before its fulfillment. I take that process of evaluation very seriously.

[nebula]

one difference I see here, Eric, is that you (I presume) are evaluating this from a strictly intellectual perspective, whereas as I and Dave (maybe others, I don't know) are mixing intellectual with experience. Experience has a way of making one see the reading in a different light.

[EricH]

one difference I see here, Eric, is that you (I presume) are evaluating this from a strictly intellectual perspective, whereas as I and Dave (maybe others, I don't know) are mixing intellectual with experience. Experience has a way of making one see the reading in a different light.

That is a wrong assumption. In addition, our experience should never be used to dictate the meaning of a passage. The meaning of the passage should inform our interpretation of our experience

[EricH]

I have prayed over this the last few days regarding whether or not to bring this article to light. A friend sent this to me the other day. I think it is important to post this, because folks have been basing thier opinions that Pastor Wilkerson's current prophecy is true in part becuase of a prophecy that allegedly caused sandwiches to be made prior to 9/11. It appears that the sequence of events was reported inaccurately:

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE...mp;pageId=91996

[nebula]

In addition, our experience should never be used to dictate the meaning of a passage. The meaning of the passage should inform our interpretation of our experience

Consider this.

Several accounts in the Bible relate to the land of Israel and cultural practices. Without knowing the Land and knowing the cultural practices, one tends to interpret those passages based on assumptions.

But, having been to Israel, people testify all the time of how it changed their understanding (thus interpretation) of what was written.

For example, when the Bible says "go up to Jerusalem," that literally means "go up." No matter where you come from, to get to Jerusalem you have to go up in elevation. (I heard this from one friend who found this completely amazing.)

[EricH]

In addition, our experience should never be used to dictate the meaning of a passage. The meaning of the passage should inform our interpretation of our experience

Consider this.

Several accounts in the Bible relate to the land of Israel and cultural practices. Without knowing the Land and knowing the cultural practices, one tends to interpret those passages based on assumptions.

But, having been to Israel, people testify all the time of how it changed their understanding (thus interpretation) of what was written.

For example, when the Bible says "go up to Jerusalem," that literally means "go up." No matter where you come from, to get to Jerusalem you have to go up in elevation. (I heard this from one friend who found this completely amazing.)

Context (seeing the history, geopgraphy etc. in which a passage was written) and our personal feelings and experiences are 2 different things.

[Guest yod]

In addition, our experience should never be used to dictate the meaning of a passage. The meaning of the passage should inform our interpretation of our experience

Consider this.

Several accounts in the Bible relate to the land of Israel and cultural practices. Without knowing the Land and knowing the cultural practices, one tends to interpret those passages based on assumptions.

But, having been to Israel, people testify all the time of how it changed their understanding (thus interpretation) of what was written.

For example, when the Bible says "go up to Jerusalem," that literally means "go up." No matter where you come from, to get to Jerusalem you have to go up in elevation. (I heard this from one friend who found this completely amazing.)

Context (seeing the history, geopgraphy etc. in which a passage was written) and our personal feelings and experiences are 2 different things.

Of course that is true...but it is also true that our personal experiences can add to the context if they historically accurate. For instance, when I read about how the pigs were driven into the sea, in my mind I am looking at the actual ledge they jumped from. There is only place where that is possible on the mountains of the northeastern side of the Galilee where it happened.

In my mind's eye, I can see modern day Tiberias behind Yeshua as he gives the Beatitudes because there is only one natural ampitheatre on the northern shores of the Galilee at Kefar Nahum, the Village of the Prophet Nahum (aka Capernium) where it could have happened.

I agree that projecting personal experience upon the biblical story can produce false results if we aren't careful to distinguish between theory and fact though. For instance, Mt Sinai isn't in Eygypt as most people think...it's the west coast of Saudi Arabia where the Torah was given. But because a mystic woman's son was Emperor Constantine, Helene of Trier was the ONE PERSON who decided where all the "traditional" christian sites of the Bible are located. She didn't even get the Continent right on that one and yet there are still millions of Bibles being printed with that information given.

Did you know there are THREE Garden Tombs in Jerusalem?

She puts the garden tomb on the other side of the city where I've seen a Garden Tomb that was much more highly likely. It might be wrong too though.

Nevertheless, context can be made more accurate by some kinds of personal experiences

[Openly Curious]

I have been to David Wilkerson church in Time Square in N.Y. and am glad to have had the opportunity to go to his church. I also have read many of his books. I also have had interaction with several of the homes of the Teen Challenge Ministries which is a great ministry to those in need of help in so many areas of their lives that has in many cases left them mangled and torn. But each individual home is run by whomever get's the director's position and each home is different from the others. The Teen Challenge Ministries operate on their own seperate from any church so the Teen Challenge Ministries are not accountable for the things they do as I believe each ministry should be under the leadership of a church as it would be a safe guard to the ministry. Now my personal opinions has nothing to do with the ministry that is taking place.

I have always seen Wilkerson as both alarmist and futureist there are those who can observe the things going on around them and they base their prophecy on the things they observe and it is not founded by the Word and many are deceived by those who do this. Then you have those who take disasters and use it to put fear on people like they'll take an approaching storm that is soon to hit and they will prophesy that there is an approaching storm coming and if the storm comes people will believe them as a prophet. I think the most of us can look ahead and see the end coming and it is not the message that those in the world without God needs to be hearing but they need the salvation message as putting fear in people's heart is not salvation and we need to evaluate our motives in what we are doing.

I remember telling my husband a long time back their is only going to be more and more of homosexuality on TV and here we are as homosexuality is about in every sitcoms, movies and so forth. Now just because I observed that does not make me a prophet as I've been told by alot of different people that I'm very observant but just because I might can fix a problem by observing things still will not make me a prophet.

There are alot of alarmist who would feel you so full of fear by prophesying from disasters that have already happened. And there are so many futureist who have ideas of their own about future things that are going to come to pass placing fear upon people and most of these kind of prophets do not prophesy any thing from the Word of God.

People I think will do with the messages what they will no matter the one who brings any kind of message at all to them.

But if they ain't prophesying "THE MORE SURE WORD OF PROPHECY" then they want Lord Willing take my faith from the Word of God that will never steer us wrong.

OC