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]) ...

[topcat54]

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

Result of faulty hermeneutics, no doubt.

[Cvengr]

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.

Just like the Catholic Church has warned all of its members about the many, pernicious errors of the Reformed Church and the Orthodox Jews have warned all of its members about the many, pernicious errors of Christianity.

Considering most dispensational theologians from DTS for the first century were themselves Presbyterian ordained ministers, I think I see a trend here.

[topcat54]

Has the leopard changed his spots? Here are some quotes from recent columns by Hal Lindsey in WND.

An EMP attack by Iran on Israel, the U.S. and EU would overnight send the most technically developed nations on earth back to the middle of the 19th century. All our electrical grids would be destroyed. There would be no communications by satellite, TV, radios, telephones; no transportation as we know it, no water, no fuel, no electricity, no food, no stoves, no heat, no air-conditioning, no functioning hospitals, no elevators, no law and order, no computers, no banks, very little work force. In addition, there would be very few military weapons systems that would work. ...

I never thought I would say this, but just maybe this is the reason that in chapter 38 of Ezekiel he predicts that the armies that invade Israel in the last days are all riding horses . Could it be that Ezekiel's prophecy is more literal than any of us dared to believe? (February 20, 2009)

Of all the generations in history, it is to this generation that the prophecies of the last days are addressed. Previous generations looked for the signs given by Scripture, but only this generation can truly see them all come together at one time – which is itself a key fulfillment of prophecy. {Lindsey used to believe “this generation” started in 1948 and would end around 1988. Has he ever redefined what he means by this phrase in light of his earlier misstatements?}

The Prophet Daniel predicted these conditions: "And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? And he said, 'Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.'" (Daniel 12:8-9) We are witnessing the "unsealing" of the end-times prophecies . (February 06, 2009)

If the present economic crisis continues to spiral downward into a world depression, as experts reluctantly admit will happen, it can indeed be the "transformational crisis" that forces the world to accept a totally centralized control of a cashless society . All that remains, then, is for the anointed leader the Bible calls the antichrist to step forward and take over.

The Apostle John, under the inspiration of God's Spirit, predicted these things 2,000 years ago on the small island of Patmos. Now what seemed impossible for nearly 20 centuries is developing right before our eyes. (January 30, 2009)

Lindsey's well-established pattern is to comment on current event items and then make a tenuous yet tortured connection to the Bible. A careful examination of the Scripture in each of these cases will demonstrate that they do not back up Lindsey's assertions. E.g., the is no picture of a “cashless society” in the book of Revelation. One must already have that idea in mind when approaching the text to find it there. Same thing with EMP weapons and invaders on horses. EMP weapons would not make modern soldiers prefer swords over small arms ala Ezekiel 38.

Only the most biblically illiterate person would take Lindsey's commentaries seriously.

[topcat54]

Just like the Catholic Church has warned all of its members about the many,

You missed the point. The author attempts to connect futurist dispensationalism with the Protestant reformation. There is no such connection.

Considering most dispensational theologians from DTS for the first century were themselves Presbyterian ordained ministers, I think I see a trend here.

Only in your imagination. The denominations that those men came from all denounced their dispensational views. Besides, most of the Reformers were former Roman Catholics. So what is your point?

[Cvengr]

A careful examination of the Scripture in each of these cases will demonstrate that they do not back up Lindsey's assertions. E.g., the is no picture of a “cashless society” in the book of Revelation.

Rev 13:17 (17) And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Looks pretty consistent to watch for such things as a sign of the times.

[Lee N. Field]

Rev 13:17 (17) And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Nothing there about "cashless", just that you got to have ID.

[Iscool]

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,”

Here, you're mistaken again...There is no 'secret meaning' that only the super spiritual (whatever that is) can understand...If you follow Origen, the author of allegorical interpretation, you'll see that he and his ilk did NOT have a meaning for everything he called allegorical...He just pretended for the most part that it didn't exist...He was clueless, OR, he didn't like what he read and convinced that Church to ignore those scriptures...

he fails to realize that this dispensational way of interpreting the Bible requires it own gnosis, or secret meaning.

Absolutely,,,NOT...Dispensationalism is the only way everything fits...With your method (whatever that is) you have to claim God was mistaken when He said a millennium is a thousand years...Or He just pitched out a meaningless number...And then you have to throw out Romans 11...

With Dispensationalism, you can read the plain speaking in Romans 11 and see that God will turn back to Israel...And when does this happen??? Well in the millennium, of course...It all fits...

And you know what??? It ain't no secret...It's right there in your face, to accept, or reject...

You remember reading that Jesus said, Don't be ignorant...A day is equal to a thousand years??? Jesus knows exactly what a thousand years is...And when He says a thousand years is a thousand years, you can take that to the bank...

[topcat54]

Rev 13:17 (17) And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Looks pretty consistent to watch for such things as a sign of the times.

But this is not a reference to a “cashless society” as Lindsey suggests. It says nothing at all about being cashless. (Of course Lindsey real problem is the unwarranted literalism he tries to apply to the passage.)

Besides, we read elsewhere in Revelation words like this:

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four living creatures saying, "A quart of wheat for a denarius, and three quarts of barley for a denarius; and do not harm the oil and the wine." (Rev. 6:6)

Note the reference to a denarius, a common form of money back in the 1st century. How does on get a “cashless society” is denarii are still being used?

The denarius stopped being minted back in the 3rd century AD. This is yet another reason to think that if you are not reading Revelation in a preterist manner you are really missing the story big time.

I also find it amusing to read Lindsey's take on the passage in Daniel 12, "Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end." He claims we are living in the time of the unsealing. Yet what does Mr. Lindsey make of a similar passage in Rev. 22, "Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand." The meaning of that verse is undeniable. John was not to seal the prophecy because the very thing of which it was speaking was just about to take place. You can't have it both ways, Hal.

Lindsey is still clueless. His ideas on eschatology are worthless, biblically speaking.

[topcat54]

You remember reading that Jesus said, Don't be ignorant...A day is equal to a thousand years???

That was Peter, but I'll let it slide. That has to be one of the most abused verses in the Bible. Rarely does a futurist interpret it correctly.

But, you're on a roll and I don't want to get in your way.

[Cvengr]

Besides, most of the Reformers were former Roman Catholics. So what is your point?

As theology is advanced, faith upon faith, we have growth in the Body of Christ, the Church. The same topic has been observed by James Orr in The Progress of Dogma, pp. 21-31.

Has it ever struck you...what a singular parallel there is between the historical course of dogma, in the one hand, and the scientific order of the text-books on a systematic theology on the other? The history of dogma, as you speedily discover is simply the system of theology spread out over the centuries...and this not only as regards its general subject-matter, but even as respects the definite succession of its parts. ...One thing, I think it shows unmistakenly, viz., that neither arrangement is arbitrary--that there is law and reason underlying it; and another thing which forces itself upon us is, that the law of these two developments--the logical and the historical is the same.

....the second century in the history of the Church--what was that? The age of Apologetics and of the vindication of the fundamental ideas of all religion--of the Christian especially--in conflict with Paganism and with the Gnostics.

We pass to the next stage in the development, and what do we find there? Just what comes next in the theological system--Theology Proper--the Christian doctrine of God, and specially the doctrine of the Trinity. This period is covered by the Monarchian, Arian, and Macedonian contraversies of the third and fourth centuries. ...What comes next? As in the logical system theology is succeeded by Anthropology, so in the history of dogma the controversies I have named are followed in the beginning of the fifth century by the Augustinian and Pelagian controversies, in which ...the centre of interest shifts from God to man. ...From the time of Augustine's death we see the Church entering on that long and distracting series of controversies known as Christological---Nestorian, Eutychian, Monophysite, Monothelite--which kept it in continual ferment, and rent it with the most unchristlike passions during the fifth and sixth, on even till near the end of the seventh, centuries. Theology, Anthropology, Christology have each had its day--in the order of the theological system, which the history still carefully follows, [but] it was not the turn of Soteriology...[until] the next step, that taken by the Reformers in te development of doctrine of the Application of Redemption. This ...is the next great division in the theological system. What now shall I say of the remaining branch of the theological system, the Eschatological? An Eschatology, indeed, there was in the early Church, but it was not theologically conceived; and a Mythical Eschatology there was in the Mediaevil Church--an Eschatology of Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory...but the Reformation swept this away, and, with its sharply contrasted states of bliss and woe, can hardly be said to have put anything in its place or even to have faced the very distinctly the difficulties with the problem. ...Probably I am not mistaken in thinking that, besides the necessary revision of the theological system as a whole, which could not properly be undertaken till the historical development I have sketched had run its course, the modern mind has given itself with special earnestness to eschatological questions, moved thereto, perhaps, by the solemn impression that on it the ends of the world have come, and tht some great crisis in the history of human affairs in approaching."

[Iscool]

That was Peter, but I'll let it slide. That has to be one of the most abused verses in the Bible. Rarely does a futurist interpret it correctly.

How do you know I was quoting Peter???

But again, you are mistaken...I DON'T interpret the verse...I believe what it says, as it is written...Apparently you're the one who wants the verse to say something other than what it says...

[topcat54]

As theology is advanced, faith upon faith, we have growth in the Body of Christ, the Church. The same topic has been observed by James Orr in The Progress of Dogma, pp. 21-31.

It's an interesting theory, but it still does not demonstrate that futurist dispensationalism is on the right path. There are competing eschatologies that are getting as much if not more airtime in the conservative/evangelical churches, esp. among those who are self-identified with the Protestant reformation. Also, the rise of progressive dispensationalism makes it clear that many folks are not satisfied with the implications of the futurist system as taught by folks like Ryrie and Walvoord, not to mention the sensationalist proponents like Lindsey and Hagee.

[topcat54]

How do you know I was quoting Peter???

Other than the fact that he was the only one who mentioned that phrase in the NT? Peter was hinting at Psalms 90:4.

I DON'T interpret the verse

Of course you don't. No one does.

I believe what it says, as it is written

What does it say and what does it mean?

[topcat54]

With Dispensationalism, you can read the plain speaking in Romans 11 and see that God will turn back to Israel...And when does this happen??? Well in the millennium, of course...It all fits...

Elsewhere you claimed, "you are mistaken...I DON'T interpret the verse...I believe what it says, as it is written.".

I would just point out that there is no way you get the millennium into Romans 11 without blindly appling the presuppositions of futurism. Everyone has their own method of interpretation.

[Iscool]

I would just point out that there is no way you get the millennium into Romans 11 without blindly appling the presuppositions of futurism.

Nothing blindly at all...Romans 11 says something is going to happen in the future with the Jews, AFTER He is done with us Gentiles...So we know that hasn't happened yet...

There's far, far too much scripture in both Testaments that allude to the reign of Jesus Christ on earth to deny it...

You guys claim that scripture doesn't mean what it says but yet you can't tell us what it does mean (with any definition that's reasonable or believable, or lines up with any other scripture or history)...

[topcat54]

Nothing blindly at all...Romans 11 says something is going to happen in the future with the Jews, AFTER He is done with us Gentiles...So we know that hasn't happened yet...

Actually, it doesn't say that at all. Some people interpret the phrase “until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in” to be a reference to the millennium or some such era, but the text does not plainly or literally say that. Some people interpret this to speak of some time in the future, but, again, that is purely an interpretation based partly on some preconceived ideas of what ought to happen to Jews in the future.

There's far, far too much scripture in both Testaments that allude to the reign of Jesus Christ on earth to deny it...

There is a lot of symbolic language that some folks falsely interpret literally to refer to Jesus reigning in body on the earth. Problem is there is absolutely nothing in the NT to support that idea. Jesus and His apostles were not literalists, in the modern sense. They interpreted most of the OT prophecies about Messiah symbolically to refer to the present reign of Christ over the nations. Cf. 1 Cor. 15:23-25.

You guys claim that scripture doesn't mean what it says ...

And you guys claim it says what it doesn't plainly or literally say. You have to drink the futurist dispensational kool aid to get to where you guys end up.

[safisoft]

You can't expect someone with a theology that has the spiritual nutritional value of a Pixy Stix to understand the difference.

Stunning. Let's hope that you were being sarcastic, but following these threads makes me wonder what is really going on...

[safisoft]

In case you have not noticed, God doesn’t need to remove one people from the earth to reconcile. He is quite capable of doing both, as is evidenced from the entire NT when Jews and gentiles came together with the salvation of God to form one new man, the Church.

"one new man, the Church??? Yikes. I know that is what your English Bible says, but surely you know that ekklesia is not a new entity in Acts. Surely, you are well-enough trained in church tradition, and in the actual text to know that what you reference is tradition, as opposed to what the text actually says? Surely, you have read the LXX and know the word ekklesia is used to refer to the people of Israel. Surely, you know the word ekklesia is used by Stephen to refer to Israel? Surely, you know the word ekklesia is used by Jesus not "prophetically" in Matthew 16 (Calvinists hate prophecy don't you know), but rather was refering to His congregation - the people of Israel? Surely you know that Jesus says that "Salvation is of the Jews" and apart from Israel, you don't have a hope? Surely you know that Paul says the same thing - without hope, stranger to the covenants of promise...Surely, you know that "one new man" is the antenicean code phrase for "Gentiles only"?

Surely, you know all of that? Or are you still wearing Justin Martyr's anti-Israel glasses?

[topcat54]

"one new man, the Church??? Yikes. I know that is what your English Bible says, but surely you know that ekklesia is not a new entity in Acts.

Notice I said "new man" not new entity. I was quoting Paul in Ephesians 2. I'm well aware of the etymology of the word ekklesia and its reference to the old covenant assembly.

Church is ekklesia. The new man is Jews and Greeks on equal ground within the ekklesia (Gal. 3:28,29). This is the true commonwealth of Israel, the household of God. The NT distinctive is that race no longer playa any part in the makeup of the new covenant ekklesia.

Surely, you know all of that? Or are you still wearing Justin Martyr's anti-Israel glasses?

What part exactly did Justin get wrong?

[topcat54]

Stunning. Let's hope that you were being sarcastic, but following these threads makes me wonder what is really going on...

Indeed. With some of the no-content responses from a certain quarter, it makes me wonder sometimes too. Inch deep and mile wide comes to mind.