Rome Says: Premillennialism "Cannot Safely Be Taught" ?

Here's one from the Catholic Answers Forums, surprisingly critical of a Catholic Answers tract:

Today, 1:59 am

Regular Member Book Club Member Join Date: November 13, 2004 Location: Diocese of Portland in Oregon Posts: 5,937 Religion: Catholic (Latin Rite)

Sloppy scholarship in a Catholic Answers tract - can anyone fill in the blanks? Another thread asked a question about the Church's teaching regarding a point of eschatology. There have been several similar threads. I have consistently replied that the Church has taught almost NOTHING about the "end-times" apart from what we can read in Scripture (but interpret at our own peril). I'm not talking about the usual death/judgement/heven/hell thing (which comprises Catholic doctrine, and is much simpler, and easily found in the Catechism), but about the "rapture" and the "reign of Jesus," around which much mythology has evolved. I would have asserted that the Church teaches NOTHING about end-time theology, except that I had found a Catholic Answers Tract a long time ago, The Rapture. The author of this tract is not credited. According to this tract, Quote: In the 1940s the Holy Office judged that premillennialism "cannot safely be taught," though the Church has not dogmatically defined this issue. Two things strike me as "wrong" (meaning uncharacteristically sloppy scholarship) about this assertion. First of all, it cites a DECADE, not a year or a date. I realize this is a tract, and is intended to be brief, but it would have been more brief (while being more specific) to say "in 1945" rather than "in the 1940s" (more brief by eight characters, if we count a space as a character). Second, there is no such thing as "THE Holy Office," apart from the Pope himself. THE Holy Office of Peter belongs to the Pope alone. There are Vatican Offices which speak on behalf of the Holy See, but nobody except the Pope represents THE Holy Office. Other Offices are vicars only. This tract asserts a teaching which is unfamiliar to me (and to Google, to the best of my ability to utilize it). Can someone cite any "Holy Office" that taught this idea "in the 1940's" to fill in the blanks left by this tract?

I can't answer the questions this person has raised, however, I would speculate the tract may have been one of the early tracts written by Karl Keating and was originally titled, "Are You Pre, Mid, or Post?" Item Number: T002. Another person says "the Vatican website" "describes the 'Holy Office' as "the former name of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith."

In regard to the "1940's" statement, the Catholic Answers tract says:

What’s the Catholic Position?

As far as the millennium goes, we tend to agree with Augustine and, derivatively, with the amillennialists. The Catholic position has thus historically been "amillennial" (as has been the majority Christian position in general, including that of the Protestant Reformers), though Catholics do not typically use this term. The Church has rejected the premillennial position, sometimes called "millenarianism" (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church 676). In the 1940s the Holy Office judged that premillennialism "cannot safely be taught," though the Church has not dogmatically defined this issue. 

With respect to the rapture, Catholics certainly believe that the event of our gathering together to be with Christ will take place, though they do not generally use the word "rapture" to refer to this event (somewhat ironically, since the term "rapture" is derived from the text of the Latin Vulgate of 1 Thess. 4:17—"we will be caught up," [Latin: rapiemur]). 

The comment from the 1940's was probably some sort of reaction to dispensationalism. What I think is interesting is that in my sparse studies of eschatology, there appears to have been a time in which premillenialism was safely taught:

During the first three centuries of the Christian era, premillennialism  appears to have been the dominant eschatological interpretation. Among its adherents were Papias, Iranaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Methodius, Commodianus, and Lactantius" (Robert Clouse, The Meaning of the Millennium (Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1977), p.9)

So, if the defenders of Rome want to claim the early church, they should be premillennial.

Addendum
A Catholic Answers participant states: "A quick wikiwalk leads me to p 212 of Acta Apostolica Sedis 1944, where the phrase in question (and in Latin) is: systema Millenarismi mitigati tuto doceri non posase The date is 21 July 1944."

The Wiki article states:

After Adolf Hitler's unsuccessful attempt to implement a thousand-year-reign, the Vatican issued an official statement that millennial claims could not be safely taught and that the related scriptures in Revelation (also called the Apocalypse) should be understood spiritually. Catholic author Bernard LeFrois wrote:

Millenium [sic]: Since the Holy Office decreed (July 21, 1944) that it cannot safely be taught that Christ at His Second Coming will reign visibly with only some of His saints (risen from the dead) for a period of time before the final and universal judgment, a spiritual millennium is seen in Apoc. 20:4–6. St. John gives a spiritual recapitulation of the activity of Satan, and the spiritual reign of the saints with Christ in heaven and in His Church on earth.

Harold Camping's Most Dedicated Followers Predict the End: October 7, 2015

Back when Mr. Camping was predicting the end of the world, a group called eBible fellowship was right in step with his eschatological conclusions. One of the eBible folks was actually a featured speaker on Family Radio during the end of the world countdown.

 I still visit their site from time to time.  These folks are convinced that on May 21, 2011, God "shut the door of Heaven" and since then no one else can be saved. And therefore: "There is a strong likelihood that the spiritual judgment now upon the world will continue for 1600 days and then conclude with the literal destruction of all unsaved people and the end of the world on October 7, 2015." (source)

Nicolas Cage Gets "Left Behind"?

What's this? A new low for Nicolas Cage?

Jimmy Akin Dates the Book of Revelation, Without the Help of the Magisterium

Roman apologist Jimmy Akin has an article on the dating of the book of Revelation, dating it before 70 A.D. Dating Revelation previous to 70 A.D. is all the rage these days, particularly with the rise of preterism.  It would be very interesting to call Catholic Answers and ask Mr. Akin which Protestant sources he read to arrive at this view.

The McDurmon Preston Debate on 70 AD (1)

Back in July (2012) there was a formal debate between Hyper-Preterist (HP) Don Preston and Partial-Preterist (PP) Joel McDurmon. I've been waiting to find a reasonably priced offering of this debate. I recall it was broadcast live for an outrageous price, so no thanks, and Preston's website offers it for around the $35 (also, no thanks). I recently discovered McDurmon's organization is offering the audio along with an e-book, and the total that I was billed was $18.71. While still a bit too much for a few mp3's, along with the e-book I figured the price was getting closer to the realm of sanity.

So last night I put the debate on, sat back and listened to Mr. Preston's opening presentation.  He speaks quickly and throws out a lot of Bible verses, so unless you're actively listening and attempting to keep up, the presentation quickly turns into a guy speaking fast that throws out a lot of Bible verses, none of which will appear to make any sense (this presentation reminds me of this old comment from Gerstner).

So this morning I put Preston's presentation back on, and have tried to slow it down a bit to at least try to figure out what he's talking about. I just stopped the mp3 at about 3 minutes in to look up a passage he used, Acts 24:14. Preston says the verse states, "I believe all things that are written in the law and the prophets that there is literally about to be the resurrection of the just and unjust" (emphasis mine). Popular translations however render this passage:

[NIV]14 However, I admit that I worship the God of our ancestors as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets, 15 and I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.

[NAS]14 But this I admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve [a]the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets; 15 having a hope in God, which these men cherish themselves, that there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.

However, Young's Literal Translation does render the passage, "there is about to be a rising again of the dead, both of righteous and unrighteous."

Rather than reinvent the wheel, Ken Gentry has put together an explanation of the grammar of this text in response to the Hyper-Preterists: Acts 24:15 and the Alleged Nearness of the Resurrection and his revised entry here (the revised entry is more extensive). Gentry states, "Hyperpreterism seizes upon the word mellein (from the Greek: mello) and argues that it should be translated 'about to.' " He counter-argues, "...syntactically when mello appears in conjunction with a future infinitive (as here in Acts 24:15) it indicates certainty." He presents far more argumentation than this, but this suffices.

I'm going to attempt to work through this debate, time allowing. Seeing that I'm only 3 minutes in, I calculate the entire process should take at least 7 years, which I'm going to refer to my own personal tribulation (with no rapture in sight).

How to Preach from an Amillennial Perspective

This past Sunday the senior pastor of my church preached on Micah 4:1-5. The sermon was entitled, "In The Last Days." The sermon never mentions the word amillennial, nor does it focus on the end of the world, nor does it meander through various eschatological views.  The sermon was though, purely amillennial.

For those of you who are up-and-coming Reformed preachers, this sermon is a great example of how to use theology to preach Christ without delving into complicated end-times theological distinctions.

The sermon can be found here.

Stuff You Don't See on Catholic Answers or CTC

http://www.cukierski.net/three-days-darkness-package-p-126.html

"A Miracle similar to that at Fatima, a great wonder to convince many, predicted to take place on the Feast Day of a "young martyr" of the "Eucharist" but NOT on a holy day of Our Lady. The miracle will last for about a quarter of an hour and will be visible from Garabandal, Spain, and the surrounding mountains. Our Holy Father will see it no matter where he is at the time. This miracle will take place on a date which will be "announced" eight days BEFORE. Afterwards, God will leave a sign in memory of it."

The Roman Catholic Harold Camping

Sure, Roman Catholics don't have problems with end-times fanatics... sure... (yawn). This came in my e-mail today from my dear friends at Sophia Institute Press:

-- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE --

Mystery book on
'End Times' reappears
--- Beloved by St. Thérèse of Lisieux!

It's one of those books that come out of nowhere --- almost literally --- just when the world needs it most.

Is it all correct --- what it reveals about the future, both for the world and the soul? From the vantage point of earth, who can say? It is written by a human. But a great saint --- Thérèse of Lisieux --- was so taken by this book that it spurred her entry into the convent.

"Reading this book was one of the greatest graces of my life," she says. "The impression I received from it is too intimate and too sweet for me to express. All the great truths of religion, the mysteries of eternity, plunged into my soul a happiness not of this earth." (It was while reading this book that Thérèse asked her father's permission to enter the convent.)

*
Completed in 1881 by Fr. Charles Arminjon, an aged French priest, Fin du Monde Présent et Mystères de la Vie Future surfaced just long enough to draw Thérèse into the convent and then, for more than a century, plunged back into obscurity.

Now, with the help of a pious devotee of St. Thérèse who spent decades searching for the original French edition, and then years translating it, we have the honor of placing before you the very first English translation of this urgent, hope-filled, and chilling work:

With pious audacity, Fr. Arminjon devotes the first chapter to the end --- the end of the world:

"Although Christ chose to leave us ignorant of the exact time of the end of the world," Fr. Arminjon says, "He deemed it fitting to give us detailed information on the matter and circumstances of this great event." "The end of the world, Christ says, will come at time when the human race, sunk in the outermost depths of indifference, will be far from thinking about punishment and justice. It will be as in the days of Noah, when men lived without a care, built luxurious houses, and mocked Noah as he built his ark. 'Madman! Dreamer!' they cried. Then the flood came and engulfed the whole earth." "So," writes Fr. Arminjon, "Christ warns us that the final catastrophe will take place when the world is at its most secure: civilization will be at its zenith, markets will be overflowing with money, and government stocks will never have been higher." "Mankind, wallowing in an unprecedented material prosperity, will have ceased to hope for heaven. Crudely attached to the pleasures of life, man, like the miser in the gospel, will say "My soul, you possess goods to last for many years. Eat, drink and be merry."

*
"Unprecedented material prosperity"?
We've enjoyed it for decades, building the "luxurious houses"
Fr. Arminjon speaks of. The world's "markets have been overflowing with money" --- until the crisis slammed us last year like a tsunami come from nowhere, its full force yet to be felt.

Is this the end?

Fr. Arminjon claims no special knowledge, nor is he a sensation-monger. On the contrary, he insists that we "steer clear of every perilous opinion, relying neither upon dubious revelations nor upon apocryphal prophecies, and making no assertion that is not justified by the doctrine of the Fathers and of Tradition."

Which is precisely what makes this book so chilling for the sober-minded among us: Fr. Arminjon's conclusions are grounded in the Fathers of the Church, Tradition, and the Bible.

He always speaks with thoughtfulness and prayerful prudence: which is why these pages moved Thérèse so completely, and why they will lead you, too, to share so many of his conclusions about the end of the present world and the mysteries of the future life that Father so ably illuminates here.

*
Finally, you'll be grateful that Fr. Arminjon does not merely sketch the darkness ahead; he paints as well a vivid picture of the sweet means Jesus has given us to fill that darkness with light; and of the rich bounty He has in store for all who stay faithful.

It is the sweetness of this book that caught St. Thérèse up in a fervent love of God and nourished what her biographer describes as her "impatience for the joys of Heaven and her paramount esteem for a life wholly consecrated to Divine Love."

The End of the Present World and the Mysteries of the Future Life: the book our world desperately needs, not only to show us how to read the signs of the times, but also to equip us to bear ourselves as Christians, no matter what the future brings.

The End of the Present World
and the Mysteries of the Future Life
by Fr. Charles Arminjon.
336 pgs ppbk $19.95

It Only Takes a Few Weeks to Recover From Teaching Falsely

Here's the recent musings from the main end times group that splintered off Family Radio:

March 10: Years ago I have felt extremely sorrowful over the many false teachings of the churches. We first began as a ministry with the desire of being as faithful as possible to what the Bible says. I have never wanted to teach anything contrary to the Bible. There is enough error out there to last us all many lifetimes. EBible Fellowship existed to teach truth. And yet, without knowing how or where to make correction regarding a doctrine that impacts so much of the Bible itself I do not think it is possible to continue teaching at this time."

Well, that "time" has passed:

April 1, 2012
Starting today, April 1, 2012 EBible Fellowship is resuming Sunday fellowship gatherings. There will be Scripture reading, a few hymns, prayer, and a short Bible study.

Why I May Give Up Interpreting Matthew 24

My friend Ken and I have had some discussion about Preterism and the interpretation of Matthew 24.

Since becoming Reformed, I've never had any strong eschatological convictions, other than: Dispensationalism is wrong. Since that time, I've more or less parked myself in amillenialism, but not in any sort of dogmatic way.

Like many of my Reformed friends, I picked up R.C. Sproul's The Last Days According to Jesus when it came out. At the time, I was very intrigued and almost persuaded by the argumentation. Unfortunately, I was a bit uneasy about committing to partial-preterism because at the time, the majority of those who were spokesmen for this view were post-millennial. Now I know that's not a valid reason to not embrace something... simply because it may lead to something else.  I read some of the books by DeMar and Gentry as well. I always found their views interesting, but I never could commit to it.

I think I've mentioned this here on the blog before: an old friend of mine recently lost his fairly well-paid senior  pastor gig at a Dispensational church because he went full-Preterist. If I recall the story correctly, during the Harold Camping May 21 controversy, the elders of his church asked him to preach some messages on end-times. He hadn't studied end times in a while. A few months later, he was a convinced hyper-Preterist. He was then abruptly fired. I keep tabs on him through his websites, watching him move up the ranks in the hyper-Preterist community.

I read this comment from Ken Gentry some time ago that hyper-Preterists were best described as people without jobs with access to the Internet. When I read that, I thought it was fairly accurate.  What I didn't realize at the time is that the only thing hyper-Preterism really needs to gain momentum is a few gifted speakers. The views they espouse are not as easy to refute as one may think. Sure, some of the hyper-Preterists are wacky. But some of them are good communicators and good at defending their views. I'm not as quick to write off the impact these folks may eventually have on the church. Their targets are typically Dispensationalists. I've heard a few debates between Dispensationalists and Preterists. In each case, the Dispensationalists did poorly. The more people become disenchanted with Dispensationalism, I think the more opportunity for such people to become some sort of Preterist.        

As I've been looking into hyper-Preterism, the entire key to their theology is Matthew 24 (as it is in partial Preterism). That is, if they've got ten minutes to convince you of their view, the first passage of the Bible they will turn to is Matthew 24. The entire world of the Bible seems to rest on Matthew 24 for these folks. It's like that as well sometimes with the partial-Preterists. Here's where I think one of the problems is. The partial-Preterists appear to me to be very arbitrary in how they divide up the chapter to some verses being past and others being future. I'm leaning towards saying that the partial crowd simply isn't being consistent with their hermeneutic, while the hyper folks are. So, I'm even a bit more hesitant now about partial-Preterism.

But I think I may have had a breakthrough on interpreting Matthew 24. Ken asked me if I thought any of it applied to A.D. 70. I took some time to go through Kim Riddelbarger's chapter on Matthew 24 tonight in his book, A Case for Amillennialism. Frankly, I got lost in it a few times, attempting to follow what was supposed to be A.D. 70, what's supposed to be future, what may have double fulfillment, etc. I think what I'll actually have to do is map out exactly what Riddelbarger is saying precisely in the chapter (certain books require that sort of work). I think the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 must be in view- although I was out with Alan Kurschner the other night, and he's convinced the entire chapter is future (by the way, he'll be debating partial-preterist Dee Dee Warren on Matthew 24).

Here's though where I had some sort of Matthew 24 breakthrough tonight.  I read Matthew 24 a few times, keeping in mind something Riddlebarger pointed out. Kim mentioned something that I took for granted. After Jesus shockingly predicts the destruction of the temple, His disciples ask him three questions: "Tell us" they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age"?

I went back and read Matthew 24 keeping these three questions in mind.  Now, let's remember that there were times when the disciples asked the wrong question, or didn't understand the answer they were given. I'm tempted to say in Matthew 24, Jesus answered the three questions posed to him in Mt. 24:3. He answered their wrong questions that didn't distinguish the different time periods of the events Himself by not distinguishing the events of AD 70 to those at the end of history. In other words, he answered the imprecise questions they asked him. Suppose He simply described both events, not clearly distinguishing one from the other? If the three questions are understood to be referring to two (or perhaps three) different periods of time (and the disciples of course, didn't realize this), Jesus simply described all the events at the same time, mixed together. It's not the fault of Jesus that He answered all three questions at the same time not distinguishing one time period from the other. That's the way they asked the questions! It's the fault of the disciples for assuming all the events were to occur at the same time. I don't claim to be able to read the mind of the Lord. But  it is possible he did most certainly answer their three questions by answering them all at once.

Now I'm not any sort of rocket scientist when it comes to exegesis. Matthew 24 is a very difficult passage. But based on previous answers the Lord gave to His disciples, it wouldn't surprise me at all that He answered their questions in a way that they didn't expect or completely understand. In this case, if one rules out hyper-Preterism, I think it's at least a possibility that He did indeed answer their imprecise questions leaving out many of  the same distinctions about the timing of the events that they did. What concerns me about all those who try to say of Matthew 24, "This is A.D. 70... this part is future... this part is both..." etc., is that they may have missed exactly why the answers Jesus gave were in the form they were in.

I don't normally speculate on the Biblical text like this. I certainly don't hold any of this dogmatically. I'm simply speculating on the text.  In other words, I don't at all have any sort of problem with being wrong or way off on this.

Hyper-Preterists and Roman Catholics Together

It's funny how one little word can mean so much to an argument. For me, one of the signs of desperation is the "until" argument.

Compare and Contrast:

Hyper-Preterism: The Lord's Supper (Don Preston)
Question: If the Lord did come in A.D. 70, then should we partake of the Lord's Supper? Paul said that "As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you do shew forth the Lord's death until he come" (1 Corinthians 11:26). So, according to this, we should not take the Supper if the Lord came in A. D. 70.

Answer: I believe that this common argument misunderstands the nature of the Supper and the meaning of "until" in Corinthians. First, the word "until" does frequently mean something like "up to the point of," and indicates a terminus or change. However, it frequently does not always mean this. Paul said "death reigned from Adam until Moses" (Romans 5:14). Surely it is acknowledged that the introduction of the Mosaic Law did not end or defeat death! Similarly, Paul told Timothy, "until I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, and to doctrine" (1 Timothy 4:14). I know of no one that would argue that Timothy was to stop reading the Scriptures when Paul arrived! There are many examples of this usage of the word "until."

Roman Catholicism: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary (Tim Staples)
Scripture’s statement that Joseph "knew [Mary] not until she brought forth her firstborn" would not necessarily mean they did "know" each other after she brought forth Jesus. Until is often used in Scripture as part of an idiomatic expression similar to our own usage in English. I may say to you, "Until we meet again, God bless you." Does that necessarily mean after we meet again, God curse you? By no means. A phrase like this is used to emphasize what is being described before the until is fulfilled. It is not intended to say anything about the future beyond that point. Here are some biblical examples:

2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)
1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)
1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, "he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.")

The World Did Not End During Purim Because...

...From the splinter Family Radio doomsday group that said the world was supposed to end a few days ago:

"As I review (and have reviewed) all the Bible’s information, concerning May 21, and now Purim. I see things that were wrong (again, no literal earthquake, no physical five months of torment on earth, no end of the world in October, and no end of the world and rapture of God’s people during the feast of Purim); but my problem is that I do not see why they were wrong. Based on the Bible’s evidence I do not see why the world did not end. Therefore I do not know where to make correction.

Years ago I have felt extremely sorrowful over the many false teachings of the churches. We first began as a ministry with the desire of being as faithful as possible to what the Bible says. I have never wanted to teach anything contrary to the Bible. There is enough error out there to last us all many lifetimes. EBible Fellowship existed to teach truth. And yet, without knowing how or where to make correction regarding a doctrine that impacts so much of the Bible itself I do not think it is possible to continue teaching at this time."

Why did Harold Camping Say He Was Wrong About May 21?

The recent "I was wrong" letter from Harold Camping is indeed an encouraging development. I think though that perhaps the above picture is part of the reason for its motivation. There is a group of Camping's followers that are still at it, predicting the end of this world March 2012, coinciding with Purim (which began March 7, and ends March 8). The main voice from this group is Chris McCann. He was actually a featured speaker on Family Radio previously when the world ended, closely connected with Mr. Camping during the whole thing. Chris has stated the following about Mr. Camping's letter:

From: chris
Subject: [TimeandJudgment_May212011] Mr. Camping's letter
To: TimeandJudgment_May212011@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, March 3, 2012, 12:07 PM

 Dear Time and Judgment,

Some of you may have heard, or certainly soon will hear that Mr.Camping has written a letter in which he makes the statement that he now believes 'no man knows' the day or hour of Christ's return.

The Time and Judgment group will not post this letter in this group, as we do not wish to partake in spreading this type of message which the Bible does not support.

Please allow me to make a suggestion regarding how we should react to this information: I believe we should listen to see if there are any Bible verses being offered as proof texts to this. The note itself just quoted the same verses we have been hearing for years which state 'no man knows the day or hour'. Since we have been addressing these very same verses for years and explaining to people (in the churches mostly) that you must compare these statements with all that the Bible has to say about the matter, the quoting of the very same verses as proof texts is simply not good enough.

So far, nothing new has been presented to prove 'no man knows'. Therefore the letter (as it stands)carries no weight with the child of God.

I would like to suggest that God has allowed (and fostered) this situation intentionally for His own purposes. I believe that the Lord has certainly heard over the years the many accusations against God's people that we follow a man (Mr.Camping)and not the Bible. Of course, this was never true for the elect. Mr. Camping followed the Word of God in a most faithful way for years, and as Mr. Camping followed the Word of God and taught it, the elect followed him (but really the faithful teaching of the Word of God). This is a difficult thing to draw a distinction between, therefore the accusations that God's people were following a man were often made. Once again, I think that God has developed this present situation in order to test His people and at the same time demonstrate to all the critics out there that God's people have always followed the Word of God and not man. What a better way to do it than to have the very same man, a man that has been more faithful and diligent than anyone alive, a man beloved by the people of God, and a man that taught himself all sorts of wonderful things never before understood from the Bible including the timeline of history, to have this same man make a statement contrary to the Bible in order to prove that the people of God have never really followed the man himself, by himself. But rather, have always followed the man as he had followed the Bible.

May the Lord grant us His Wisdom,
Chris

I'm only speculating about this new date being the possible reason for Mr. Camping's letter. I've been following this group for a bit. Perhaps this sort of connection might appear to take away some of the sincerity behind Mr. Camping's apology. That is, the shenanigans of this group provoked Mr. Camping and Family Radio to once and for all distance themselves from date setting. Perhaps. Personally, it doesn't really bother me if indeed this was one of the reasons. Sometimes people need to be pushed a little bit to do the right thing.

March 2012 is the End of the World...Harold Camping's Ideas Lives On

I still check in on some of the Harold Camping-related groups. The picture above is from one of the groups that has been closest to (but just far enough away from) Mr. Camping, eBible fellowship. The main voice from this website is Chris McCann. He was actually a featured speaker on Family Radio previously when the world ended. It appears these Camping followers are a liitle more careful now... notice the question mark in the graphic? They appear to be carrying  the numerology-date-setting torch now. On their website they provide this thirty second video teaser:







Their recent calculations for March 2012 go as follows:

In this study we are going to discuss some things related to the five months of torment that we had thought would take place between May 21 and October 21, 2011. As we do so, we will find that we were correct in our understanding that God intended to judge the world for a period of five months. But we will also learn that we were incorrect regarding one of our assumptions about the dating of the five months period of torment. In this study we will attempt to correct this misunderstanding, and afterwards also see how God’s timeline extends from:
1.May 21, 2011 (the beginning of Judgment Day) until the last day of Judgment Day.
2.Five months of torment from May 21 until a date in October 2011, during the feast of tabernacles.
3.From the end of the five months in October 2011 until the feast of Purim in March, 2012

This other video lays out their position:







If you're curious at all to see how these folks work through all this stuff, they have an active message board: Time and Judgement.

Charles Spurgeon and the Hyper-Preterists

This is a follow-up to my earlier entry, Charles Spurgeon, Full-Preterism, and Figurative Language. In that entry I discussed a Spurgeon quote I found being used by some full-preterists (henceforth referred to as "hyper-preterists"). That Spurgeon quote states:

(On the New Heavens and Earth)
"Did you ever regret the absence of the burnt-offering, or the red heifer, of any one of the sacrifices and rites of the Jews? Did you ever pine for the feast of tabernacles, or the dedication? No, because, though these were like THE OLD HEAVENS AND EARTH to the Jewish believers, THEY HAVE PASSED AWAY, and WE NOW LIVE UNDER A NEW HEAVEN AND NEW EARTH, so far as the dispensation of divine teaching is concerned. The substance is come, and the shadow has gone: and we do not remember it." (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, vol. xxxvii, p. 354)."

I had thought perhaps this quote was simply a one-time oddity. I was amazed though to hear it being brought up in an old debate between hyper-preterist Don Preston and dispensationalist Tommy Ice on the Voice of Reason radio Show. Here's a brief mp3 clip of the exchange on the Spurgeon quote. You'll notice that neither men had any idea what was was being put forth by Spurgeon in the quote. How could they? Without a context, the quote can mean whatever someone wishes it to.

I also found Spurgeon being cited on a new hyper-preterist Facebook page. Another Spurgeon quote was cited inferring a future restoration of the Jews and this comment was added, "Seems strange to hear him say this after what he says about the New Heavens and Earth." So I asked what was meant by this, and if you scroll into the comments you'll notice the very same Spurgeon quote was brought forth, along with the following commentary:

Some would say that a preterist has pulled this out of it's context. The greater context they are speaking of would be his larger body of thought. The only thing bringing in his larger context is that he is simply inconsistent. So this may not be the best preterist proof text from Spurgeon. If it does anything, it simply calls into question his humanity...James - thoughts on the Spurgeon quote?

My response:

Yes, I have a few comments on that Spurgeon quote you posted from the Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, vol. xxxvii, p. 354. I am in no way any sort of expert on Charles Spurgeon, nor would I even go so far as to claim I've read enough of his writings to really say I'm familiar with him like I am other authors.

I noticed Frank had posted the same Spurgeon quote a few days ago . I would take a guess that Frank posted the quote simply to highlight Spurgeon's use of figurative language as a polemic against dispensational theology. If not, he can correct me. I would also guess Frank took the quote not from any sort of deep study into Spurgeon's writings, but rather snagged it off a secondary webpage (like the one on the Preterist Archive that used the same two Spurgeon quotes Frank used, documented exactly in the same way). As to your usage, it appears to me you see some sort of disconnect between the two quotes from Spurgeon. That is, in some way they contradict each other. If I've misinterpreted your intentions, my apologies. Same to Frank- If I misinterpreted you or your intentions, my apologies.

The sermon is on Isaiah 65:17-19 ("Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind"). The sermon is entitled, God Rejoicing in the New Creation (no. 2211). It can be found in the Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Vol. 37 beginning on page 442. Spurgeon begins:

"THIS passage, like the rest of Isaiah’s closing chapters, will have completest fulfillment in the latter days when Christ shall come, when the whole company of his elect ones shall have been gathered out from the world, when the whole creation shall have been renewed, when new heavens and a new earth shall be the product of the Savior’s power, when, for ever and for ever, perfected saints of God shall behold his face, and joy and rejoice in him" (p.442).

One can see that Spurgeon begins saying the New heavens and earth are future. He goes on to say:

"There is to be a literal new creation, but that new creation has commenced already; and I think, therefore, that even now we ought to manifest a part of the joy. If we are called upon to be glad and rejoice in the completion of the work, let us rejoice even in the commencement of it" (p. 443).
"He has commenced it thus — by putting new hearts into as many as he has called by his Spirit, regenerating them, and making them to become new creatures in Christ Jesus. These the apostle tells us are a kind of firstfruits of this now creation" (p.443).

Spurgeon then goes on to speak of how people should see God in the current world and rejoice in God as creator. Christians should most rejoice in their being a new creation. Spurgeon continues on this theme of Christians being the begining of the new creation, as people who look forward to the new creation coming in its fullness. Then comes the quote you cited. From the context, Spurgeon's figurative language is simply describing the Old Testament rituals and practices that looked forward to Christ. Since Christ has come, he's begun to usher in the new heavens and earth, beginning this work in the hearts of believers, in regeneration.
There certainly isn't any sort of disconnect between the two Spurgeon quotes you cited.

Here was the response:

Notice Chuck’s take on Rev 21:1…
(Rev 21:1 NASB) “And I saw A NEW HEAVEN AND A NEW EARTH; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is NO LONGER ANY SEA.”
"Scarcely could we rejoice at the thought of losing the glorious old ocean: the new heavens and the new earth are none the fairer to our imagination, if, indeed, LITERALLY there is to be no great and wide sea, with its gleaming waves and shelly shores. IS NOT THIS TEXT TO BE READ AS A METAPHOR, tinged with the prejudice with which the Eastern mind universally regarded the sea in the olden times? A real physical world without a sea it is mournful to imagine, it would be an iron ring without the sapphire which made it precious. THERE MUST BE A SPIRITUAL MEANING HERE. In the new dispensation THERE WILL BE no division…


…the sea separates nations and sunders peoples from each other. To John in Patmos the deep waters were like prison walls, shutting him out from his brethren and his work: there shall be no such barriers IN THE WORLD TO COME (I.E. THE NEW HEAVENS & EARTH). Leagues of rolling billows lie between us and many a kinsman whom to-night we prayerfully remember, but in THE BRIGHT WORLD (New H&E) TO WHICH WE GO there SHALL BE unbroken fellowship for all the redeemed family; IN THIS SENSE THERE SHALL BE NO MORE SEA." ~ "Morning and Evening" (1834-1892)


JAMES: Here Chuck clearly FUTURIZES the New Heaven & Earth and interprets the eradication of the sea as NON-LITERAL (Metaphor - a thing MANY if not all futurists would deplore - but which all Preterists would celebrate).The point here is Chuck’s inconsistency. He wants it both ways. Here is the initial quote again…


"Did you ever regret the absence of the burnt-offering, or the red heifer, of any one of the sacrifices and rites of the Jews? Did you ever pine for the feast of tabernacles, or the dedication?”


An obvious reference to the Old Covenant System under Judaism. He continues…


“No, because, though these things were like THE OLD HEAVENS AND EARTH to the Jewish believers, THEY HAVE PASSED AWAY, and WE NOW LIVE UNDER A NEW HEAVEN AND NEW EARTH, so far as the dispensation of divine teaching is concerned. The substance is come, and the shadow has gone: and we do not remember it."


Now here, C.H. clearly accepts a NON-LITERAL interpretation of the New H&E (not a new material creation but a new covenant) and then he proceeds to tell his congregation that they (Christians) are ALREADY (NOW) living in the New H&E!


Well which is it? Is it a FUTURE happening – a thing TO COME or is it a PAST event – a thing that came?


To hold a view that says “BOTH are true; we live in the New H&E Currently and it is also to be realized in a more fashion at a future material consummation is in my humble opinion, pure conjecture.


Mr. S’s handling the LANGUAGE and the TIMING of the New H&E in Isaiah are contradictory of his handling of IDENTICAL language in Rev 21:1. There is no SCRIPTURAL JUSTIFICATION for holding that the Apostle John in Rev 21 was speaking of a FUTURE MATERIAL CONSTRUCT (“New H&E”) - but when Isaiah uses the IDENTICAL TERM in Ch 65:17 he is metaphorically speaking of the New Covenant in Christ - unless one is prepared to say that there are MULTIPLE New Heavens and earths.


For my money - The Hebrew Prophet Isaiah prophesied the EXACT SAME New H&E as the Hebrew Prophet John - only Isaiah said it is far off and John says it near – to arrive upon the consummation of the Old Covenant era – “end of the age” (Mt 24:3; 1 Cor 10:11; Heb 9:26).

And my response:
Thanks for your explanation. Just so I'm understanding you and we're not speaking past each other, these were my previous concerns: Mr. Loomis posted two Spurgeon quotes that appear to be contradictory according to his own writings. I don't think they are at all, and even a cursory reading of the sermons in question don't amount to "The only thing bringing in his larger context is that he is simply inconsistent."

It is my understanding that Rev. Spurgeon was a historic premillennialist. Within that view, as far as I understand it, Spurgeon's use of figurative language in the quotes cited by Mr. Loomis are consistent with historic premillennialism (for a helpful overview of that view, see: George Eldon Ladd, "Historic Premillennialism" in Robert G. Clouse, ed., The Meaning of the Millennium (WI: Intervarsity Press, 1977) pp. 17-40).

In regards to your further citations of Spurgeon, the historic premillennial view has some similarities with the amillennial paradigm of "already and not yet." While you may disagree with this paradigm (either used by amillennialists or historic premillennialists), all of the Spurgeon quotes you've posted are harmonious with it. That is, Charles Spurgeon is not being inconsistent with the historic premillennial view. Swanson's article http://www.spurgeon.org/​eschat.htm does a fine job going through the Spurgeon eschatology maze.

It appears to me your concerns are geared toward whether or not Spurgeon's historic premillennial view is a consistently biblical view. The point of Mr. Loomis appears to me to be that Spurgeon contradicted himself within his own writings. My response has been to the later and not the former. While I'm not fluent in Spurgeon's writings, I do have the desire to see the study of any person in church history as an exercise in the love of God and neighbor. How do we love our neighbor in the study of church history? There probably are many ways, but the one that applies here is in our words. If we bear false witness against our neighbor, we are not loving him. I don't think Mr. Loomis intended to say anything unloving towards Charles Spurgeon, but I certainly think Spurgeon's eschatological thought was not portrayed fairly or correctly here on this Facebook page.

Full-Preterism on Acts 1:9-11

Acts 1:9-11
9 And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. 11 They also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”

An old friend of mine has recently embraced full-preterism. This has provoked me to look at this issue, which I have been doing, off and on for the last few months. I recently came across this article by Keith Mathison: Acts 1:9–11 and the Hyper-Preterism Debate. What's interesting to me about this article is not Mathison's historical or exegetical explanation of this passage. Rather, his overview of full-preterist interpretations of this text are facinating. It's amazing the extent that some will go to read into a passage (very reminiscent of Mr. Camping).

Tim LaHaye on the Reformation

The previous post documenting the Watchtower holding that Luther was one of the stars in Jesus' hand (Rev. 3:7) reminded me of a similar (yet very different!) interpretation of the Reformation. Below are some snippets from Tim LaHaye's Revelation Unveiled. Where the Watchtower saw Luther as a hero, Tim LaHaye comes to a much different conclusion.

John Wycliffe on the End of the World, Almost

With the recent close call with the end of the world, I've been thumbing through some of my prophecy books. I don't make it very far. Way back when, I could read a book and not get bogged down by footnotes and tedium. 

Some of my fresh readings just turn out now to be nitpicking. For example.  I do appreciate Gary DeMar's Last Days Madness, but his footnotes have stalled any sort of progress in re-reading his book. On page 17 Gary states,

My immediate question was, "Where did Wycliffe say this?" Gary's note #4 refers to "Wycliffe's England: A Time of Turmoil," Christian History, Issue 3 (1983), 8. Note #5 refers to the same source and page. The way DeMar has the paragraph set up,  it appears Wycliffe himself is being cited via Christian History magazine. Note the quote within the quote of "covetousness, sensuality, and fraud."  Here is what Christian History Issue 3, 1983 states:

Although some people turned to superstition for security, most felt it was God's anger against wickedness of the people of that day. Wycliffe seemed to have yielded to a popular apprehension that the final judgment was approaching. He describes the "covetousness, sensuality, and fraud" of the clergy as infecting all of humanity, thus causing the chastisement under which Europe mourned.

Although the nation was shaken by the loss of life and by the fear of the unknown evil, penitence was lacking. Shortage of labor hastened economic changes and social unrest. Substitution of wages for services accelerated. Distinction between the classes became less rigid. The arts reflected the melancholy and morbid. Exaggerated forms of religious mysticism developed. Lack of educated clergy reduced the church's intellectual vigor.

I did find it curious that Christian History cautiously stated, "Wycliffe seemed to have yielded to a popular apprehension that the final judgment was approaching," while DeMar more forcefully concludes Wycliffe thought it was indeed the last days.

In the above section from Christan History, only four words are attributed to Wycliffe: "covetousness, sensuality, and fraud." Christian History does not document these four words.  Doing a quick Google search, I'm very tempted to say these aren't Wycliffe's words at all, but are rather a summary statement from Robert Vaughan book, The Life and Opinions of John de Wycliffe Vol I. After describing Wycliffe's belief that the close of the 14 century would be the end of the world (after four periods of tribulation), Vaughan states:

The modern reader will probably smile at these speculations, and it is no less probable that some future race will look with equal self-complacency on many of our gravest conclusions, with regard to the future, whether relating to science, religion, or the world. It is worthy of observation, that while the writers who record the sufferings of the period under review, attribute them principally, to the vanity of the people, especially as evinced in the costly caprice of their apparel, and the general disposition to luxurious indulgence; Wycliffe traces the malady to a higher source, describing the clergy as so addicted to covetousness, sensuality, and fraud, as to have infected every portion of the community, with the same vices, and thus to have been the main cause of that chastisement, under which Europe had been called to mourn." [source]

My guess is Christian History probably lifted their Wycliffe information from Vaughn.

Unfortunately, the documentation here is likewise vague. Vaughn goes on to cite "On Prelates, C. i. iv." That source is probably this. He also cites "M.S. on the Seven Deadly Sins" which can probably be found here. But previous to the quote Vaughn also mentions Wycliffe's "The Last Age of the Church." Which source? I have no idea. I am though very tempted to say, Wycliffe was not cited at all by either DeMar, Christian History, or Robert Vaughan.

Tim LaHaye vs. Harold Camping

I came across this from Tim LaHaye: Is Harold Camping Right This Time? LaHaye states,

www.WeCanKnow.com has well advertised their claim that Jesus Christ will come to rapture believers on May 21, 2011 -- this is not only wrong but dangerous. They also claim that God will destroy this world on October 21, 2011-- this is not only bizarre but 100% wrong!

-snip-

You can be sure the rapture will not occur when anyone sets a date because God wants us all to live every day as though Christ could come today. A great motto for daily living is PERHAPS TODAY. For one day it will happen and we don't know when, but we don't want you to be left behind!

Now before anyone begins high-fiving Tim LaHaye, keep this in mind. To my understanding, Mr. Camping did not look around at current events and declare the end of the world. In fact, after one of the last big earthquakes /tsunamis a few weeks ago, I heard Mr. Camping say it had nothing to do with the forthcoming end of the world.   Mr. Camping used his theomatics and quadriga-esque interpretation rather than correlating the news to the Bible.

On the other hand, make no mistake about it, Tim LaHaye is watching the signs of the times to be prepared for the rapture and end of the world.  From the same website (as the link posted above), is this article, Three Signs of the End By Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins:

In our book Are We Living in the End Times? we list many of the signs of the times apparent in our generation. We believe that while no one knows the day or the hour when Christ will return, we have more reason to believe He could come in our lifetime than any generation before us.
Many leading politicians look to the potential of a world government as the panacea that would bring global peace. That is why the United Nations was formed, yet even with its 60-year incapability to bring about peace, it remains the dream of many world planners.
World government is only one leg of the prophesied three-legged stool of end times globalism. The other two are a one-world economy and a one-world religion. The worldwide interchange of goods and services today, along with the current economic chaos, seems a clear signal that the prophecies of Revelation 13 and 18 may be coming true.
The one-world religion is beginning to form but will really come together right after the Rapture when Christ calls His church to heaven to be with Him in His Father’s house (John 14:1-3). Even today Christianity is one main impediment to the forming of a global religion, which will (according to Revelation 17) be destroyed at the end of the Tribulation period.
God in His mercy may wait one more day, which in His economy of time is a thousand of our years. But we are instructed to watch and wait for Christ’s imminent return, as if it could be today. Because it could!
We believe every Christian and church should share the Gospel faithfully with as many as possible. Our driving passion is that we don’t want anyone to be left behind.

LaHaye is troubled Camping picked a date. LaHaye though, while not picking a date, has no problem interpreting history and the Bible in such a way as to prove "we have more reason to believe He could come in our lifetime than any generation before us."

Apples and oranges.

Pope Gregory: The End of the World is not Far Off

Yesterday I posted an out of context Tertullian quote from Gary DeMar's Last Day Madness.  I thought it would be interesting to take a look at the next quote from page 19:

In the sixth century, Pope Gregory assured the world that the return of Christ could not be far off since he claimed that so many prophecies were being fulfilled in his day.


Of all the signs described by our Lord as presaging the end of the world some we see already accomplished…. For we now see that nation arises against nation and that they press and weigh upon the land in our own times as never before in the annals of the past. Earthquakes overwhelm countless cities, as we often hear from other parts of the world. Pestilence we endure without interruption. It is true that we do not behold signs in the sun and moon and stars but that these are not far off we may infer from the changes of the atmosphere.[Quoted in T. Francis Glasson, His Appearing and His Kingdom (London: Epworth, 1953), 45].

This quote, in context, indeed says what Gary DeMar says it does. While it was written long ago, it stands as a pertinent testimony that one cannot know the day or the hour of the end of the world. You may "'feel" like it is based on the current state of things, but there's no absolutely certain way to know for sure. Read Gregory's words, and see how similar his sentiment is to our current doomsday experts:

Gregory to Leander, bishop of Seville:
With all my heart I have wished to answer you better, but the burden of my pastoral calls so overpowers me that I would rather weep than speak, as your reverence undoubtedly gathers from the very character of my correspondence when I am remiss in addressing one whom I warmly love. In fact, so beaten about am I by the billows in this corner of the world, that I can in no wise bring to harbor the ancient, rolling ship at whose helm I stand through God's mysterious dispensation.


Now the waves break over us from the front, now at the side the foaming mountains of the sea swell high, now in the rear the tempest pursues us. Beset by all these perils, I am forced first to steer directly in the face of the storm, again to swerve the vessel and to receive obliquely the onset of the waters. I groan, because I know that if I am negligent the bilge water of vice is deepening, and that if the storm assails us furiously at that instant the decaying planks forebode shipwreck. Fearful, I remember that I have lost my quiet shore of peace, and sighing I gaze toward the land which, while the wind of circumstances blows contrarily, I cannot gain. So, dearest brother, if you love me, stretch forth the hand of prayer to me amid these floods, and, as you aid me in my troubles, thus as a reward shall you come forth more valiantly from yours. . . .

[Of all the signs described by our Lord as presaging the end of the world], some we see already accomplished; the others we dread as close upon us. For we now see that nation rises against nation, and that they press and weigh upon the land in our own times as never before in the annals of the past. Earthquakes overwhelm countless cities, as we often hear from other parts of the world. Pestilence we endure without interruption. It is true that as yet we do not behold signs in the sun and moon and stars; but that these are not far off we may infer from the changes in the atmosphere. Before Italy was given over to be desolated by the sword of a heathen foe, we beheld fiery ranks in heaven, and even the streaming blood of the human race as it was afterwards spilt. [source]

One point of tedium: the phrase "Of all the signs described by our Lord as presaging the end of the world" as cited by DeMar is placed in brackets in the context above. I have yet to locate a better primary source to determine if the phrase is original to Gregory.