Prophecy Pundits are at it Again

American Vision ^ | February 23, 2009 | Gary DeMar

[topcat54]

Calvary Chapel of Chino California held “ The Southern California Prophecy Conference” last week (Feb. 20–22, 2009). I wonder if those who came to hear speakers like Tim LaHaye, Mark Hitchcock, Paul McGuire, David Hocking, David Reagan, and Ed Hindson were aware that Chuck Smith, the founder of the Calvary Chapel network of churches, made some very definite predictions about when the “rapture” was going to take place.

While cleaning up my office, I came across a cassette tape of a sermon Chuck Smith preached on December 31, 1979. He told his very accepting audience on that day that the rapture would take place in 1981. The former Soviet Republic going into Afghanistan in August of 1978 was the prelude to what Smith considered to be a full-force invasion of the Middle East. It would not be long before “Russia” would invade Israel, Smith told his audience. All of this was said to have been “predicted” by Ezekiel 2600 years ago.

Smith went on to claim in his end-of-the-year message of 30 years ago that because of ozone depletion Revelation 16:8 would be fulfilled during the soon-coming Great Tribulation: “And the fourth angel poured out his bowl upon the sun; and it was given to it to scorch men with fire.” According to Smith, Halley’s Comet would pass near the earth in 1986 and would wreck atmospheric havoc for those left behind as debris from its million-mile tail pummeled the earth. Halley’s Comet did appear in 1986 with no damage done to our planet. (A similar prelude to the end had been predicted based on the so-called Jupiter Effect.[1]) ...

[Joya]

I like you WO.

BTW, we both have John 10 on our FReeper “About” page.

Great minds and all.

[Nosterrex]

One thing that all these “prophets” have in common; they are all wrong. We have been living in the last days for nearly two thousand years. If doesn't matter how many times people such as Hal Lindsey and others are wrong, for people will continue to follow them. It seems that for some Christians the Antichrist gets more attention than Christ. Forget all this fascination with trying to discern the “end times,” and focus on what God is doing through Christ Jesus.

[JesusBmyGod]

WATCH AND BE READY.

These are two very specific things. There is the Watching part, which includes understanding the times and seasons we are living in. And there is the Ready part. I often wonder what the body of Christ would look like if we put as much effort into being Ready as we do to Watching.

Scripture states that we are to be a kingdom of priests before the Lord. There are very specific guidelines to being a priest of the Lord. We are to be without Spot, Wrinkle, or Blemish. We are also described as the Bride of Christ. The Bride must be made ready to enter into the marriage. Are we ready? (Esther and the Song of Solomon speak volumes regarding the Bride.)

Too often (in my experience) Christians do not desire to enter into the deeper things of God. It's almost as if Salvation is the end and the final prize. But it's not. Our salvation (free and by grace alone) is only the beginning of our relationship with the Lord.

Look at the exodus. The Jews were in bondage in Egypt. They were saved in Egypt by the blood of the passover lamb. They were lead out of bondage and baptized (of sorts) through the crossing of the Red Sea.

Was that the end of their journey with the Lord? Salvation was attained, freedom granted. But God had so much more for them. He brought them to Sinai and gave them instructions on how to live a life with Him.

Our journey does not end but begins with our salvation. The Scriptures say that the Lord will write His Torah on our hearts and by his grace we will desire to be obedient. If we as Christians are not following after and in the footsteps of our Master and Lord, than who do we really belong to? We cannot serve two, but One alone.

Truly, may we WATCH and be READY.

[Quix]

EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT POINTS.

THANKS.

[JesusBmyGod]

[Stifling GOITTM—Guffaws Of Incredulity To The Max]

LOLOLOL - Awesome post

[Quix]

THANKS BIG.

OF COURSE, ANY usefulness in it for The Kingdom comes from Above.

BLESSED BE THE NAME OF THE LORD.

[Marysecretary]

I agree with what was said. I felt that way about Obama myself. Not the anti-Christ but a precurser, showing us how easy we are deceived. Let it be a warning.

[Peter ODonnell]

I’ll stick to my original concept, and suggest that Satan might operate more to divide than to unite the core believers at this point. Do you really think Jesus is going to have this as his main agenda, to reward the people in “right group A” and punish the people in “wrong group B” when both A and B were essentially doing the works commanded, and the world around them was evil and destructive, and plotting the utter destruction of both groups? If so, then you believe in a different Jesus.

Sure, there will be time for judgement of the churches, but we as individuals in those churches (and synagogues) need to understand what the times portend, and what we need to be doing now in these circumstances. I am, for example, not a Mormon but I admire the principled stand they took in California and I am in solidarity with them in their current difficulties with the forces of antichrist who have risen up against them. I am not a Roman Catholic but I admire the current Pope and the previous incumbent.

I find the tendencies of the priestly class still among us, to debate the finer points of theology and ritual, when such huge issues loom over us in the world, to be just like the attitudes of the scribes and Pharisees, in fact sometimes I wonder if there is any essential difference between the two periods of history at all.

[Cvengr]

Through faith alone in Christ alone.

And so how does that help you decide whether antichrist is alive and well on planet earth? Or that modern Israel is the fulfillment of specific Bible prophecies? Or, how would that cause a pastor to make a comment like, "I'm convinced that the Lord is coming for His Church before the end of 1981." based largely on his views about modern Israel?

By daily intake of Bible Doctrine, and remaining in fellowship with Him, placing faith in Him and allowing Him to guide us in our discernment in all things. Eschatology is an advanced study, requiring the prerequisites of many Bible Doctrines for Him to grow us to be at the right place, at the right time, to perform His Will.

[Cvengr]

Nice post. Very well stated.

[Cvengr]

For all the accusations against Hal Lindsey, I must admit that every time I have ever watched and listened to his show, I never have found him to go over the edge on date setting.

I observe him dutifully watching, and when he interprets current events based upon His Word, and then expresses joy in events leading to the Second Coming, I really don;t find any fault in his positions.

On the contrary, with the resources available to him, if he didn’t share with his watchers/listeners the observations he makes, one could accuse him of not performing with the spiritual gifts God may have given him.

[Quix]

I find the tendencies of the priestly class still among us, to debate the finer points of theology and ritual, when such huge issues loom over us in the world, to be just like the attitudes of the scribes and Pharisees, in fact sometimes I wonder if there is any essential difference between the two periods of history at all.

---

INDEED.

[Quix]

THANKS.

BLESSED BE THE NAME OF THE LORD.

I didn’t realize there were so many typos in it! Ah well. Shows I’m still quite human! LOL.

[Quix]

I wholesale agree.

He spoke to the staff at a Baptist church where I was interning at a counseling center in San Diego, once.

He was exceedingly reasonable and not near as puffed up with himself as I was expecting.

That was 1974/75 era . . . I think he’s been humbled more since then.

I agree. He has a calling as a watchman. It is his Godly duty to speak up.

And, as you note, he has lots of resources and connections in high place. God has enabled him in many ways and Hal must follow through or be accountable TO GOD.

Compared to God’s opinion of Hal’s doings, Sylvester can go masticate rocks.

[topcat54]

For all the accusations against Hal Lindsey, I must admit that every time I have ever watched and listened to his show, I never have found him to go over the edge on date setting.

To the casual observer, there is no doubt that Hal’s rhetoric has become somewhat more subdued since the debacle of the 70s and 80s. But Hal is still using current events, mainly in the middle east, to predict (albeit less specifically) the return of Jesus “real soon now”. That’s why a more appropriate label for him today is “date-suggester”. Indeed, most of the prophecy pundits have gotten more sophisticated in their approach to predicting Jesus’ return since those heady days of late 70s and early 80s.

It’s interesting to note that many of the great date-setters of the 19th century had significant followings even after their predictions failed to come true. Two notable ones are William Miller and Charles Taze Russell. Miller was a Baptist preacher who predicted Jesus would return around 1844, and was the founder of the Adventist movement. Even after Miller’s failed prediction, other Adventist faithful continued in the belief that Jesus would still return “real soon now”. Russell believed and taught that Jesus was going to return in 1878, and when that prediction failed, he modified his teaching and went on to found an organization that eventually morphed into the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The zeal of his followers never waned in spite of his earlier missteps. It seems they could rationalize just about anything, including the true nature of Christ’s return.

Has Lindsey ever confessed “I was wrong” about the 1981/1988 prediction, and give an explanation as to why he was wrong? Where exactly did he fail in his interpretation of Bible prophecy? I suspect many of his listeners today do not know of the earlier failed predictions, nor do they care as to why his methodology (futurist literalism, which he still holds to) failed so miserably back in the 70s.

Most Christians are just not critical enough when they listen to or watch these pop prophecy preachers. They take every word as gospel, and often lack the tools to do hard Bible study on their own. Cf. Acts 17:10,11. So if Johnny T.V. Preacher says that Hesitations 4:19 is speaking about events in modern Israel, well then, that just must be true. Why should they doubt Johnny T.V. Preacher? What will folks think of Lindsey, Smith, and Co. in a hundred years? Will they be watching the 22nd century version of YouTube and wondering “What were these guys thinking?”

Ignorance of the Bible and Church history are killing the Church today. Theology is too important to be left to “experts”.

[topcat54]

Eschatology is an advanced study,

Beg to differ with you, but it is not. It only becomes “advanced study” when it takes an Evelyn Woods speed reading course to get through every new and unusual theory that makes its way into the local Christian books store.

The reason why eschatology is hard for most folks is that they overall knowledge of the Bible is so deficient. Eschatology is not special. It’s no harder than general theology or soteriology or ecclesiology or any other of the –ologies.

The reason that it is so hard for folks is that they believe they must be reading the daily newspaper with their Bible to have an understanding of all these “exciting end times events”. They are trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. I’ll admit that’s hard, but that is not what the study of eschatology is all about.

The bottom line of biblical eschatology can be summed up in a few verses, e.g.,

21 Then Martha said to Jesus, "Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died. 22 But even now I know that whatever You ask of God, God will give You." 23 Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." 24 Martha said to Him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." 25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?" (John 11)

When Israel or antichrist rather than Jesus Christ becomes the focus of all the eschatology talk, you know you have a problem.

[raynearhood]

**Good eschatology requires good hermeneutics.**

Now you didn't learn that from scripture...You learned that from someone who doesn't like what the scripture says in plain language...

Incorrect. I learned that from many people that adore what the Bible says in plain language... as opposed to those who want to apply what they think the authors were trying to convey according to an historically ignorant understanding of Scripture.

Naw, but thanks anyway...I'll skip Herman Utics and trying to figure out what the scripture means...I'll just read it and believe what it says instead...

Respectfully friend, you'll read it and believe what you think it says according to poor interpretation based on historical ignorance of the meaning of terms used in the Bible instead of what the Scripture actually says.

Hermeneutics is not some special interpretation method conjured up to interpret the Bible in a special way in order to defend a set of beliefs against another. It is a textual criticism device that is applied to all historical works in order to better understand what the author of work was trying to convey when he or she wrote it. There are many different hermenuetical tools, what I was applying was Historical Hermeneutics. This tool is used most often in historical works as words and term usage changes rapidly within and across languages. I give you the Flinstone's Example on application of hermeneutics:

The last three lines of the Flinstone's theme song:
We'll have a doo time
a Yabba Doo time
We'll have a gay old time

Applying your "I'll just read it and believe what it says" method of interpretation I come to the conclusion that I would never let my children watch the immoral cartoon. No doubt, when the song writer wrote "we'll have a gay old time" he plainly wrote that Flinstones and the Rubbles were intending to have homosexual escapades...

...OR....

I can apply historical hermeneutics to the song. Let's see:

The Flinstones cartoon started in 1960. A quick etymological study of the word "gay" shows me that although it was used by homosexuals to describe themselves as far back as 1893, it's most common usage (and dictionary definition) in 1960 was

1. having or showing a merry, lively mood: gay spirits; gay music.
2. bright or showy: gay colors; gay ornaments.
3. given to or abounding in social or other pleasures: a gay social season.
4. licentious; dissipated; wanton: The baron is a gay old rogue with an eye for the ladies.

Soooo... I can safely (and rightly) interpret "we'll have a gay old time" as

we'll have a merry time, full of a lively mood

Whew! Good thing too, lest Dobson links Spongebob to Barney Rubble.

To not use hermeneutics and other tools of interpretation leads to silly interpretations based on ignorant methods of "just reading it and believing what it says instead."

[topcat54]

To not use hermeneutics and other tools of interpretation leads to silly interpretations based on ignorant methods of "just reading it and believing what it says instead."

I found this idea on one site:

Literal: The plain and simple meaning of the text. Jesus supported the literal method, among others. …

If you are a Christian that believes in a literal 1000 year reign of Christ it should be interesting for you to know that this truth was basically hidden for over a thousand years before the reformation because of a decision made early on not to interpret Bible prophecy literally.

The author is trying to make a point of the (unsupportable) conclusion that the Church used the “literal method” to interpret the Bible until the 2nd or 3rd centuries when the “allegorical” method took over.

The irony in this author’s comments is that while the author decries the “allegorical method” because it requires a “secret meaning that only the super spiritual can understand,” he fails to realize that this dispensational way of interpreting the Bible requires it own gnosis, or secret meaning. After all, the secret pre-tribulational “rapture” that is so prominent in futurist thinking, is unknown in the Church until the 19th century. Even then it took decades for it to permeate out into a larger community. It has never been universally recognized by the Church, but is largely relegated to “Bible colleges” and independent churches of the “no creed but Christ” genre.

The author tries to link the rise of dispensationalism to the Protestant reformation, but the fact is that almost every Protestant church or denomination with legitimate, direct ties to the reformation (from Lutheran to Reformed to Presbyterian) has rejected and warned its members about the many, pernicious errors of dispensationalism.

The bottom line is that the “literal method” (as presently expressed) was not the method of Jesus, nor of the apostles, nor of the early Church fathers. The literal method was the method of various heretical groups, like the Ebionites and Arians.

If you wish to understand the relationship between futurist dispensationalism and the “literal method” I suggest you read Dispensationalism: Consistent Literalism by Grover Gunn, or The Myth of "Consistent Literalism" by Jack Van Deventer.

Van Deventer concludes his article with this statement:

These inconsistencies have caused many to distance themselves from dispensational literalism. Various "progressive dispensationalists" have rejected "as inadequate the strict literalist hermeneutic of earlier thinkers [and] no longer adhere to the sharp distinction between Israel and the church, but place both under the one program of God for the world. . . ." Others have rejected as "too simplistic" the literalism of their predecessors. This confusion over literalism has dispensationalists debating among themselves, searching for definition, and questioning the essentials of their system.

[Iscool]

No doubt, when the song writer wrote "we'll have a gay old time" he plainly wrote that Flinstones and the Rubbles were intending to have homosexual escapades...

I don't know when queers started calling themselves gay but my Grandmother never heard of it...In the 60's and 70's she used the term often and it never meant queer...

So hermeneutics taught you that the bible is valid for history and not much else??? Hermeneutics teaches you which verses to take literally and which one not to???

[raynearhood]

So hermeneutics taught you that the bible is valid for history and not much else???

I have absolutely no idea how you get this from anything I've said. Especially when, on my blog, which you referenced earlier, I wrote:

The Bible is an historical book. Although the lessons and message of the Bible is timeless and applicable to all eras, it was written to specific audiences, at specific times, in specific cultures, with specific understandings of the languages in which it is written. Thus, in order to best understand what is written we must understand its historical background and context. Just like the language study, no passage of Scripture can be separated from its historical context in order to develop a modern application.

On top of that, I quote the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which, among other things, states:

Although Holy Scripture is nowhere culture-bound in the sense that its teaching lacks universal validity, it is sometimes culturally conditioned by the customs and conventional views of a particular period, so that the application of its principles today calls for a different sort of action.

Your question is a misrepresentation of everything I've said.

Hermeneutics teaches you which verses to take literally and which one not to???

No. Systematic theology as an entire discipline helps with that. As far as literalism is concerned, I defer to topcat54's reply #198.

But, that is neither here nor there in this line of discussion. I agree with accepting the "plain and simple meaning" of the text in this instance. There is no hard to read symbolism. But the simple symbolism is understood only if one understands the historical context of the Scripture. "Thief in the night," means swift, unexpected destruction. Plain and simple.