Unbelievable: Harold Camping is at it AGAIN…

Posted by Byron April 15, 2006 at 9:43 pm
Filed Under Life as a Jesus-follower | 651 Comments |

I’m just flabbergasted, I have to confess. Remember Harold Camping, the guy who gave us “88 Reasons Why Jesus Will Return in 1988″ (or something like that; actually, there were two different people who wrote similar books and decided that they had done the math and knew exactly when Jesus would return. One of them—and I don’t remember if it was Camping or not—actually wrote a book the following year explaining that he’d miscalculated by a year, but that he was pretty sure that 1989 was the year.)? Well, I’m in Barnes and Noble this evening, and I’m perusing the Christian books section (I use that term very loosely). And what to my wondering eyes should appear, but a book entitled Time Has an End, by none other than our good friend Mr. Camping.

Care to guess what Mr. Camping does in this book? Yep…you got it. It’s 2011 when Jesus is going to return—mercifully giving the Cubs five more years to win the World Series, I guess. I’m sorry, maybe that was a bad joke, but it’s hard not to chuckle/sigh/roll eyes when this is what we get. I’m going from memory, so don’t hold me precisely to this, but in about 45 seconds worth of thumbing through this fine piece of work, I learned that the church age had indeed ended in…drum roll, please…1988! Furthermore, we’re now living in the Great Tribulation (which began, if memory serves, on May 21, 1988). I suppose then that we’re in the middle of the famous 23-year tribulation period.

Look, could Jesus come back in 2011? Sure, and if He does, I’ll personally apologize to Mr. Camping when we get to Glory. But given the track record of this gentleman, you’ll pardon me if I continue to try to live as though Jesus could at any moment—instead of reckoning that we’ve got precisely five years to go.

 

  1. 651 Responses to “Unbelievable: Harold Camping is at it AGAIN…”

  2. Mr. Camp is a deceiver. His words are poison. He makes others twice the son of hell that he is.

    mark woods ~ Nov 7, 2007 at 11:34 am

  3. I agree and think that Harold is quite arrogant, controlling, and strange. Bottom line … if anyone considers themselves saved through Jesus Christ and has faith that He is going to return, they should not try to predict the date of His return.

    Susan ~ Nov 25, 2007 at 1:48 am

  4. “Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.”

    First of all Byron, please get your facts right: Camping DID NOT write either of the books you mention in your lead in. True, you admit to not knowing if it was he – but if you don’t know, don’t bring it up!

    Second, I do have to admit that I find the prospect of Harold telling you (and thousands of other thoughtless knee-jerk detractors) “I told you so!” for eternity rather amusing. :)

    Again, in your defense, you have offered in advance to apologize… more charitable than the others who have commented on your article. :)

    Of course, I can’t say I’m surprised at thought processes like these from someone who supports a presidential candidate that uses his Christianity as a trading card while describing at length in his platform how he intends to violate his oath of office to the constitution….

    creator ~ Dec 19, 2007 at 3:46 pm

  5. Creator, thanks for posting; I’d forgotten about this post. So…if you’ll point out the sin I’ve committed, I’ll be happy to apologize for that. If you mean, though, to suggest as so many professing Christians seem to believe (and I don’t mean to imply you DO, just to suggest the possibility) that any “judgment” of the words of another professing Christian violates “let him who is without sin”, or Matthew 7, sorry, but no sale. We are commanded in Scripture to be discerning; in fact, it is the lack of discernment, among many other things, that is so crippling American evangelical Christianity. My words are not an attempt to “throw stones”, amigo, but to point out false teaching, of which this, in my humble opinion, clearly qualifies.

    Now, as to what Camping wrote, as I said clearly (and you acknowledge), I didn’t know if he wrote the book of THAT title or not. But what I do KNOW is that he wrote a book with a similar title and practically identical THESIS, and so bringing it up is quite germane. I’ll concede I don’t know the title if you’ll concede that the substance of my argument is true at that point: Camping wrote a book essentially predicting the day and hour of Christ’s second advent. Fair enough? :)

    Now, again, if Camping is right, and we get raptured in three-plus years, I’ll be happy to join in on the good-natured ribbing that I’ll admit he’d have every right to inflict! And you can yuk it up as well, on me. ;)

    As to your comments regarding Huckabee, well, you’re entitled to that opinion, as silly as I find it personally…

    Byron ~ Dec 19, 2007 at 4:40 pm

  6. Hi Byron!

    Thanks for responding to my comment. :) First, I want to point out it’s “creator” — lowercase — (sincerely trying to be an imitator of “The Creator” in His marvelous attribute of creativity.)

    Your “sin”, if any, is to use “guilt by association” on Harold rather than addressing his arguments on their merits (or lack thereof). Once more in your defense, you admit that everything you know about what Camping actually says is based on the deep study of 45 seconds or so… Just how “discerning” is that? Be as discerning as you care to be, but apply it by debating his scholarship; otherwise, simply say “I don’t like his ideas.”

    I don’t profess to know which side of this debate will have eternal ribbing priviledges :) — and I’m really glad you admit to the possibility, no matter how small you may believe it to be — but what I do know is that God gives each one of us among those genuinely redeemed unique gifts and insights into His word and truth. There’s probably more to be learned from Harold Camping’s life of study than ought to be so casually dismissed. :)

    As to the “silliness” of my view on Huckabee, any of your readers can sit down with a constitution in one hand and Mike’s platform in the other, go through them point by point, and evaluate for themselves just how “silly” my assertion is. Read Mike’s lips: He’s telling us in advance that he will not follow the constitution.

    And as for your summary dismissal of other Republican candidates, you might (just for fun!) try reading my recent essay:

    Repeat After Me: “Ron Paul Is NOT Electable!“

    which you can find at: http://www.nolanchart.com/article579.html

    Nice to joust with you, brother! :)

    creator ~ Dec 19, 2007 at 5:12 pm

  7. And you as well, my friend. I do stand corrected on capitalizing your name, except for the fact that it was at the beginning of a sentence, so that’s just English, dude!

    As to being discerning relative to Mr. Camping, in one sense you’re right: I’ve not looked in detail at his arguments. In another way, you’re wrong, I believe, and that is that he has made such predictions before, and been gloriously wrong in them. Now, I don’t think he proclaimed himself a prophet, so I’m not ready to gather stones, but that said, when he tries to argue for a specific date/time of Christ’s return, knowing that he did so previously (at least once, if not twice; not sure) and was dead wrong (and that others have done the same, and been dead wrong as well), it’s just hard to take these arguments seriously. Yeah, I suppose I could study his work in greater detail, but you know, his credibility is pretty low IMHO, given his failed “prophecies” before.

    And I will read your article; just clicked the link. Candidly, if I thought Ron Paul had a chance, the libertarian in me might find him attractive, and he certainly has a lot of points with which I strongly agree. Methinks you’re coming down too harshly on Huck, though…but I’ll read your arguments!

    And thank you, friend! :)

    Byron ~ Dec 19, 2007 at 5:34 pm

  8. Hi Byron,

    Thanks for your gracious reply. :) Point well taken on sentence capitalization… I just don’t want anyone assuming that I’m in competiton with “the Big Guy.” :)

    Glad to hear there’s enough libertarian in you to find Dr. Paul appealing. :) I honestly believe him to be more “electable” than Huckabee for many reasons, not the least of which is that virtually all but “conservative Christians” will shun Huck because of their (probably somewhat justified) fear of any possibility of a theocracy. I personally shun him as much for his lack of fiscal restraint, but mostly for his platform’s deviation from constitutionally mandated limits.

    I also understand your tendency (shared by all, self included!) to put folks (like HC) into categories based on previous conclusions arrived at after perhaps considerable cost in terms of effort and study… every now and then, however, God may have a “surprise” up His sleeve – and IMHO Harold Camping and Ron Paul could conceiveably be two of them. I’ve looked deeply enough into their teachings to find both men perhaps of at least sufficient value to actually read some more source material and ponder a bit. :)

    Blessings! :)

    creator ~ Dec 19, 2007 at 8:24 pm

  9. I’ve known all about Camping since the early 1970s.An old friend of mine, Walter Bjorck used to do the Sat night Bible Question answer program after Walter Martin moved to Calif.They are both with the Lord now.Camping is so transparent I am amazed that anyone takes him seriously.Imagine the ego that allows one to think NOBODY else in the history of Christianity interprets the bible like me.I took some abuse on my radio program in 1994 by some of his followers.I politely asked them to call me back in October after the “big” disappointment set in.They never did.Camping craves attention.Look for more and more outlandish statements as we get closer to 2011.Probably Camping will be dead by then…..actually he died 20 years ago but forgot to lie down.I quote Harold “God wrote the bible to be easily misunderstood.” In his case he has succeeded. I warn all Campingites you will be greatly disappointed.Rev 22:19 AMP if anyone cancels or takes away from the statements of the book of this prophecy [these [f]predictions relating to Christ’s kingdom and its speedy triumph, together with the consolations and admonitions or warnings pertaining to them], God will cancel and take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the city of holiness (purity and hallowedness), which are described and promised in this book.
    “THOSE WHO IGNORE HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT.” Jesus loves you DON”T listen to this guy.
    Get married….live your life…ignore morons.
    agape,CR

    Pastor Charlie Rizzo ~ Jan 10, 2008 at 2:29 pm

  10. Byron U are a dear brother but do not cow tow to this guy who rebukes U for not using “caps” re a ref to the “Creator” whilst USING the word as his online name!
    Dear “creator”,
    Re HCs writing.
    He did write, “1994″ published by Vantage Press.I was there and talked with HC a few times.The arrognce was mind bending.Camping stated that the end of the world WOULD occur somewhere between September 5th and the 27th of 1994 (p. 531). Because scripture says “no man knows the day nor the hour” (Matt.24:36) but according to Camping we can certainly know the month and the year that Christ will return.He did not profess to know the exact day then but NOW HE KNOWS THE DAY!
    Jesus to return(The Rapture) on May 21, 2011!
    The universe will be destroyed on October,20, 2011!
    According to Camping, he knew over 20 years ago the world should end.Camping’s interpretation of John 21:1-14 displays his use when of gematria. Jesus tells the disciples who were about 200 cubits out in the Sea of Galilee to throw their net on the right side of the boat and the result was a catch of 153 fish. According to Camping the scriptures are teaching that the 200 cubits is about 2,000 years between the first and second coming of Christ (p. 503). Since Camping states that the most likely date for the birth of Christ is on October 4th, 7 BC when the Jubilee Trumpet allegedly sounded (p.418), one needs only to add 2,000 years minus one year for the year 0 and presto, 1994. The number 153 equals 3 times 3 times 17. Camping says, “the number three signifies the purpose of God whereas the number seventeen signifies heaven. Thus we can learn that purpose of God is to bring all believers that are ‘caught’ by the Gospel into heaven.” (p.504)
    Finally…..HC says U can’t really know if you are of the “elect” then claims TRUE BELIEVERS see the obvious REVELATION HE and I might add HE alone
    found through his UNIQUE and EXClUSIVE method of interpreting of the Bible.He is a liar and a meglomaniac.
    2nd Tim 2:15
    Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus,who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place,and they destroy the faith of some.(False teaching like HC is DANGEROUS not some accepted “VIEW.”
    Titus 1:10(partial)
    For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers,They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach.
    Titus 1:13 Amp
    Because it is [true], rebuke them sharply [deal sternly, even severely with them], so that they may be sound in the faith and free from error.
    Creator….every ministry has been removed by HC.
    You want facts?
    Go here….http://www.scionofzion.com/depart_out.htm

    Pastor Charlie Rizzo ~ Jan 10, 2008 at 10:22 pm

  11. Pastor Charlie,

    You know much more on the subject than do I, and I thank you for your posts!

    Byron ~ Jan 11, 2008 at 10:49 am

  12. Hello again Byron, Hello Charlie,

    I was surprised to see comments appear again on this thread. Charlie, I thank you for the website reference to http://www.scionofzion.com/depart_out.htm
    where I found much interesting information.

    By the way, are you not also “created” in the image of God? FYI, my handle “creator” is nothing more (and nothing less!) than a recognition that God has created me with a strong drive to emulate His creative nature – in word, in song, in invention.

    As far as Byron “kow-towing” to me, I will only say that I find his response and gracious interaction with me, based on the very little he knows about me, to be far more exemplary of Christ in his dealings with most people than the diatribes I have so far seen from you.

    My original post here was probably motivated more by a desire to prod Byron’s thinking because of what I believe to be a very misplaced support for Mike Huckabee – who truly is (as World Magazine has so aptly described him) “A Bush that can talk.” If you care for any of my further opinions on the presidential race, you can read to your heart’s content through the Nolan Chart website (linked from my name at the start of this reply.)

    I did not post here to begin with to be “an apologist” for Harold Camping; rather, it is my strong hope that all of us as believers would model our personal studies after the noble Bereans who were “examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.” – Acts 17:11

    If that level of scrutiny is warranted and commended for listeners to Paul and Silas, how much more for us today, listening to anyone – Harold Camping, Byron, Charlie Rizzo, myself?

    In the past I have learned a great deal from Harold Camping and a debt of gratitude for that remains to this day; however, I have paid only the slightest attention to him during the last fifteen years, and only in interacting with personal friends who have family members affected by his teaching and in responding to Byron’s original and somewhat inaccurate post here.

    I see from briefly perusing the website that Charlie has pointed out (thank you again) that much has transpired during those years, including the repudiation of Camping by many of his respected colleagues.

    The “bottom line” comment from me is this: the universally accepted canon of scripture is the be-all and end-all of our faith – the great “sola scriptura” affirmation of the reformation. If we are to be biblical and credible, let’s address arguments on their merit (or lack of merit) in the light of scripture, and not with (for example) the kind of name-calling condemnation of the first post in this series of responses.

    I would also like to see scripture used by all believers as a fundamental guide to evaluate candidates in the presidential race. My perception is that those carelessly supporting Mike Huckabee have sadly overlooked and discarded all respect for the “rule of law” embodied in the Constitution, which Huckabee’s published platform effectively shreds. A vote for Mike Huckabee is a choice for America to continue down the current broad road of profligate federal growth leading to utter destruction.

    creator ~ Jan 11, 2008 at 1:39 pm

  13. Creator,
    Glad U got THAT off your chest…re one of your statements… If we are to be biblical and credible, let’s address arguments on their merit (or lack of merit) in the light of scripture, and not with (for example) the kind of name-calling condemnation of the first post in this series of responses……I ask…..
    Is is not scriptural to SOMETIMES be harsh?
    I wish that everyone who is upsetting you would not only get circumcised, but would cut off much more! Gal 5:12
    Call NAMES?
    “The people of Crete always tell lies.
    They are greedy and lazy like wild animals.”
    That surely is a true saying. And you should be hard on such people, so you can help them grow stronger in their faith.Titus 1:12-13
    There are tons of others BUT I do agree with you that we catch more flies with honey….HOWEVER…Camping is what he is and he is dangerous.I don’t know how old U are BUT I went thru the whole 1994 thing.The broken families etc….heartbreaking.To think that he gets another pass and SELLS another book.Only in America.
    U don’t need to defend yourself to me I think Byron is a sweet brother.I simply thoght U went a bit over the top INSINUATING some lack of respect for God because of a typo.Correction is a good thing and I am no stranger to it.I can give it….and take it.So no offence…..Re your political stance I get it.I have become WAY too cynical of politicians.I was raised in a Marine Corps home so its needless to say I love our country….BUT….when I see our culture of entitlement and “stuff”, the condition of evangelical Christianity I hold little hope.Unless God in His mercy sends revival.
    I’ve been a Pastor since 1974 and have seen a wonderful revival become corrupted by inept Bible teaching showing lack of real respect for God’s Word….at any rate be blest.
    agape,Charlie

    Charlie Rizzo ~ Jan 11, 2008 at 3:19 pm

  14. Charlie,

    I’m heartened by the somewhat softer tone of your most recent reply, Thanks! :) And I do agree that there is a time and a place for very direct, perhaps even harsh, statements. Maybe Camping is there, and perhaps I will agree as I get “caught up” with the last fifteen years of what’s been happening in his teachings. As I mentioned, I have a personal friend who has been affected by Camping’s teachings in that he is very concerned for his sisters.

    Meanwhile, as a minor clarification, if you were to look back at my earlier comment to Byron re: “Creator” v “creator” I think you might be able to see that I was objecting to his captalizing of *my* handle – and he later pointed out that it is proper “English” to capitalize the first word in a sentence…. :) Well, my comment was entirely lest anyone think me to be claiming to be THE Creator, rather than a very humble reflection of His creativity…

    Yes, I survived 1994 myself… FYI I’m a grandfather who dotes on the children God has given me. They are one of the principle reasons I have become very active writing and striving to point out to my Christian brothers and sisters that we have an authentic, humble Christian man running for president right now. One who doesn’t use his Christianity as political coin. One who has kept his oath of office literally. That would be Dr. Ron Paul.

    It has been a growing hope of mine that the Lord might yet once more have mercy on this nation, as he so often did on Israel during the days of the judges, by raising up someone to help turn the tide of “our culture of entitlement and “stuff”" back to something far more like the nation our founders envisioned. We shall see, but that is my prayer. All other “major” candidates represent “more of the same” – big government, war, taxation, oppression.

    Thanks for your interaction, and Blessings! back at ya’ :)

    creator ~ Jan 11, 2008 at 5:31 pm

  15. Me to…..3 grandchildren…boys….15,10,7…I baptized the youngest ones this past summer.(BYRON IF U DO NOT WANT THIS POSTED ITS COOL)I am not PROMOTING THIS GUYS….but….tomorrow I do a live radio call in program,NOON -1 PM EST.Let It Grow,wwdj…the only reason I mention it is the program is podcast-LIVE I’ve been on the air over 30 years…Don’t have a heart attack BUT the very first guy I EVER heard after I got saved in 1970 was….HC! If you guys are free, feel welcome to call in….201-568-0406. The program is also podcast ALL week….AGAIN I am not promoting this but thought U guys might like to call in.No delay,no pre-answer.U can talk about any biblically related subject and creator U can talk about Ron Paul if U like.It covers ALL of NYC,much of NJ,and Conn….I am much sweeter live…..most the time.I hope our efforts re the culture will pay off one day……An earliar post said RP is not electable….interesting idea…..If someone really isn’t what do we do? Frankly I do not know who I am voting for yet.
    OK GUYS have a great weekend…..Im away Sunday until the 22nd…I won’t be able to post BUT Lord willing I’ll catch U later…..

    Take care how you live. Do not live like people who are not wise, but live like people who are wise. Make good use of time because people live in very wrong ways these days.so then, be wise and understand what the Lord wants.
    Eph 5:15-17 WE

    Suggested site-www.waltermartin.com-

    charlie rizzo ~ Jan 11, 2008 at 7:54 pm

  16. The new Harold Camping’s prediction of the rapture in May 2011 followed by destruction of physical world later in 2011 is omenous. He has a vast network of radiostations, and I am afraid to even think of all radical moves his followers may make when they found out they were not raptured on the predicted day… they are all going to think that they were not saved and left to be destroyed along with the world. This rebranded “2011 prophecy” of Harold Camping is *very* dangerous to say the least.

    Sol ~ Jan 16, 2008 at 1:12 am

  17. In as much as I agreed with some of Mr. Camping teachings, I am having problems with some of these:
    1. For example he made the “overcoming of the saints” in Rev.13: 17 look permanent and hopeless for the saints but if you compare it with Daniel 7: 21-22 you find out that there is hope for the saints of God. Satan will be given power to overcome the saints quite alright but that will be temporarily. They are called saints because they do not belong to Satan and that is why he is fighting them in the first place, he cannot fight against his own people. But Jesus Christ will give His saints victory in the end and deliver the kingdom into their hands. That is the hope of the church which Christ is the head, the author and finisher of our faith!

    2. I don’t agree that the days of miracles have ended, “Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13: 8). Jesus says in Mark 16:17-18 “And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover”. If you look at the statement of Jesus here there is no time limit for these signs to follow them that believe. Meaning that if you believe even today those signs shall follow you. I wonder why brother Camping singled miracles out in all that Jesus spoke of right from verses 15 to 18 of Mark 16 he can as well say that the era of preaching the gospel and baptism are over too.

    Bottom line is this: I do not believe that anyone has or will ever have a complete knowledge of the bible and this is one of my problems with Mr. Camping, he assume he knows all but he can’t. God and His word are too big for any individual who is in this body to fully understand. As long as we are in this body we know in part and it will remain this way until we be like HIM in glory. We as teachers of the word need to be careful as we handle the word and as we listen we should try the spirit behind the teaching.

    Joseph ~ Jan 19, 2008 at 6:28 pm

  18. In as much as I agreed with some of Mr. Camping teachings, I am having problems with some of these:
    1. For example he made the “overcoming of the saints” in Rev.13: 17 look permanent and hopeless for the saints but if you compare it with Daniel 7: 21-22 you find out that there is hope for the saints of God. Satan will be given power to overcome the saints quite alright but that will be temporarily. They are called saints because they do not belong to Satan and that is why he is fighting them in the first place, he cannot fight against his own people. But Jesus Christ will give His saints victory in the end and deliver the kingdom into their hands. That is the hope of the church which Christ is the head, the author and finisher of our faith!

    2. I don’t agree that the days of miracles have ended, “Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13: 8). Jesus says in Mark 16:17-18 “And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover”. If you look at the statement of Jesus here there is no time limit for these signs to follow them that believe. Meaning that if you believe even today those signs shall follow you. I wonder why brother Camping singled miracles out in all that Jesus spoke of right from verses 15 to 18 of Mark 16 he can as well say that the era of preaching the gospel and baptism are over too.

    Bottom line is this: I do not believe that anyone has or will ever have a complete knowledge of the bible and this is one of my problems with Mr. Camping, he assume he knows all but he can’t. God and His word are too big for any individual who is in this body to fully understand. As long as we are in this body we know in part and it will remain this way until we be like HIM in glory. We as teachers of the word need to be careful as we handle the word and as we listen we should try the spirit behind the teaching.

    3.No one not even Mr.Camping knows the day or the hour of Christ coming.God is going to shock him on 2011.Let God be true and all men liars. God will break Mr. Camping and his ministry instead of His word which says ‘No man know the day or the hour the son of man shall come’ can be broken.

    Joseph ~ Jan 19, 2008 at 6:36 pm

  19. Well, Joseph, if you “drink any deadly thing” today, you’re going to be hurt. If it’s antifreeze, you’re going to die. If you “take up serpents” like a mamba or king cobra, have your affairs in order because that will be the last thing your take up–except a hole in the ground. And if you can lay hands on the sick and have them all recover, what are you doing at your computer? Get thee to the nearest hospital where people are dying as we speak; heal them and remove their family’s grief. But, of course, that’s not the import of that verse, is it? Yes, Paul was bitten and wasn’t hurt, but that doesn’t apply generally, and we all know that. Jesus is the same as always, but He doesn’t multiply your food so as to feed your family for years with a couple cans of soup or a loaf of bread. What He did at one time was for that time–and for a particular purpose. We can’t expect those actions to continue for us now. And they don’t. If you doubt it, post you email address so I can reach you when my 91 year old mother becomes ill and is facing death. I’d prefer you to heal her when the time comes. If you think you can.

    Jack ~ Jan 26, 2008 at 3:55 pm

  20. Hi guys…..just getting back…..lost a good friend this week so Im a bit slow getting back on track.creator how are you? And Byron….how U B?
    As always the Bible needs to be balanced properly to be understood.Usually if a view is incorrect there may be 100 verses that seem to support it BUT 1 card off and the house comes down….re sickness…..Paul did not(could not) heal Timothy of his frequent illness’(1st Tim 5;23) In the OT Elisha(miracles thru him much like Jesus)died of an ILLNESS 2nd kings 13;14….these are only 2 verses from OT&NT…..BUT…..by his stripes we are healed…..healed from what? SIN not sickness.
    We are all dying after the age of 18-20……cells accelerate until a certain point then…..boom..begin decelerating….dead men walking.BUT….God does heal as a benefit NOT a guarantee of the atonement.Did Timothy lack faith? Elisha? Faith healers MUST blame someone to justify their error.
    Job’s problems were HIS fault….even though God declares he was innocent re the REASON of the trial.See last chp of Job…ACTS-Paul was bitten on the island of Malta….not a body part….hee,hee…he was used of God to heal by “laying on of hands”, casting out demons yep…previously unkown languages(dialects) spoken MIRACLE!There are NO records in Acts re drinking poison but if you ever had church coffee U’ve come close.Nobody has ever come close to performing the Apostolic miracles,not to say God WILL NOT allow it again.Not 1 real miracle has been verifed backing the claims of Benny Hinn and all the so called healers.The only verifed healings are provided by Walter Martin see his website….so miracles CAN happen but to honor God they must be proved.Ever wonder why any “healed” lepers had to go to the High Priest?
    Finally…..forgive my jumping around…..
    Praying “Thy will be done” is not a lack of faith(K Hagen,Copeland,Price etc…) Declaring it is ALWAYS God’s will to heal id denial of the worst kind….BUT GOD IS A GOOD GOD…yep…we ALL die of a disease….aging is the primary disease of mankind…illness is a result of the fall of man….sometimes the WAY we live kills us…..”why will U die BEFORE your time?” I apoologize its in Ecclesiastes but Im WAY too tired to open my Strongs concordance….Because we die does not make God…..BAD….more at a later time….go Giants! Are there miracles today? If they beat the Patriots you’ll know….God bless U all….Charlie

    Charlie Rizzo ~ Jan 26, 2008 at 8:04 pm

  21. Sorry Jack nice to meet U……CR

    Charlie Rizzo ~ Jan 26, 2008 at 8:12 pm

  22. Bitten on the island of Malta, not on a body part…bad, Charlie, BAD… ;)

    Byron ~ Jan 26, 2008 at 10:27 pm

  23. Heh Jack you are getting it all wrong, read your bible.Are you telling me that Jesus healed every sick person during His ministry on earth? or that the apostles healed every sick person during thier time? No,as God would save those He chooses to save as we preach the gospel to them so He heals those He chooses to heal as we pray for them. Jack,why haven’t you converted every sinner on the street?

    Joseph ~ Jan 27, 2008 at 7:28 pm

  24. Hello people
    The Bible is bigger than every one us we only know in part and it will remain that way. Be flexible then you can learn more to add to your knowledge.

    I invite everyone of you to my ministry’s website http://www.destinyachievers.org lets do the doing not talkig the talk.

    Joseph ~ Jan 28, 2008 at 5:24 pm

  25. Mr Camping did not write those books you mentioned… He wrote a book entitled “1994?” (the question mark indicating that he was not sure and 2011 was also a key date).

    He is however, pretty sure of May 21, 2011 as being the time of the rapture, and Oct. 21, 2011 as being the time of the end of all the universe.

    It’s pretty incredible how the Bible is revealing info of the end pretty quick. Time has an End may be slightly outdated now as his new book, “Are We There Yet?”. You should really check it out!

    Theodor ~ Feb 22, 2008 at 9:45 pm

  26. You’re right, Theodor, as was pointed out in a previous post; also in a previous post, I conceded that point, and yet at the same time, the argument is merely over the title of the book that Camping wrote, because as I said, he has written books which do the same thing, effectively: date-setting for the return of Christ.

    My question will be that, if Mr. Camping is wrong about 2011, will he concede that fact and stop making such predictions?

    Byron ~ Mar 4, 2008 at 10:35 pm

  27. Byron,

    I find it incredible that you challenge Harold Camping when you dont have a clue about anything he has written. His book, “1994?”, was a study designed to show how 2 possible dates, thus the question mark on the front page, consistently point to the return of Jesus Christ.

    He did NOT say 1994 was the absolute return date of Jesus Christ, he said it is one of two dates that the Bible points to.

    It is strange to me that you would degrade the man without knowing shizzle about what you are talking about. I have listened to Harold Camping many times, and I have listened to Billy Graham, Joel Osteen, Benny Hinn, and various others, and in my opinion, Harold Camping has an understanding of the Bible these guys could only dream of having.

    If you ever listen to him, you will hear a humble man, beyond any servant of God I have ever encounterd, that encourages people to read their Bibles and not take his word.

    I don’t know if 2011 is the end date, although my gut tells me we are very close. But i do chuckle at the errant teaching 99.9% of the churches teach on not knowing when the end shall come. The Bible does not say this, it says the opposite. Granted, it does say, the UNBELIEVERS shall be taken like a thief in the night, but the believers will know the day.

    Much of what Mr. Camping teaches is inflammatory to organized religion, and I think it is safe to say, most denominations and churches despise him. That in itself is enough evidence for me that he is correct. All i have to do is look at the very sad state of the churches and watch their disapproval of Mr. Camping, to know he is correct.

    Compare Mr. Camping to Religious leaders like Ronald Weinland, Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen, John Hagee and all the others. If you take the time, you will see Mr. Camping is so much more humble than these individuals, and always encourages people to study the Bible. Whether or not he is correct, I do not know, but ignorant comments without any point of reference make me angry.

    Do yourself a favor and send for free literature from Familyradio.com

    It is the least you can do if you want to ridicule the man.

    Jeff ~ Jun 19, 2008 at 1:13 am

  28. And for the record Byron, you and Pastor Rizzo have a very obvious arrogant attitude to your posts. Very unbecoming to men of the cloth.

    If people listen to you and Pastor Rizzo, more and more individuals will know Mr. Camping is correct from comparison. Both of you have the poison of a viper.

    Everyone watch his response. And feel the anger.

    Jeff ~ Jun 19, 2008 at 1:25 am

  29. One more thing. I think people are strong enough to not go “crazy” if Harold Campings prediction does not come true. The idea that people will do harm to themselves because Mr. Camping may be wrong, is ridiculous.

    You alarmists that say people will do this, or do that, are the ones doing the harm. Give people some credit. Family Radio is not a doomsday cult. It is a Bible study program. Stop slandering the man.

    Jeff ~ Jun 19, 2008 at 1:33 am

  30. One thing that everyone must understand, regardless of which servant of God is given advanced understanding of the Bible, everyone around them will not accept it.

    Byron, if God decided to use you as a tool to bring a higher understanding of the Bible to mankind, you would have people like Pastor Rizzo and probably the rest of organized religion callng you a false prophet. They would attack you and try to discredit you.

    Everyone would wonder, why did God choose Byron to bring this message?

    Why didnt God use one of the big, well-known religious leaders of our day?

    It just doesn’t make sense that God would use someone like Byron to bring such a powerful message.

    It doesn’t matter if it is Byron, Harold Camping or Pastor Rizzo, because everyone around these people are not going to accept the fact that God MAY have chosen one of them to bring knowledge that was not formerly known. I don’t care who it is. The overwhelming majority of people will scrutinize and discredit the individual.

    I have listened to Harold Camping. And I have read all of his books. I have listened and read almost all modern day religious leaders materials. I will refrain from saying what I believe, but I will say this, I think the religious community goes out of their way to discredit Harold Camping. I have seen Pastors print outright lies, or maybe they were just irresponsible in their writings, about Harold Camping. His writings anger religious leaders, and I have not seen any of them look objectively at his teachings.

    His main enemy, is the churches of today. And they go after him with a vengeance.

    I do not know if Mr. Camping is correct. But judging from the reactions I am seeing in the religious community, I am beginning to believe he is on to the truth.

    Don ~ Jun 19, 2008 at 2:22 am

  31. PS…..I agree…..Pastor Rizzo strikes me as an angry individual who thinks he has it figured out, and everyone else is wrong.

    Don ~ Jun 19, 2008 at 2:35 am

  32. Jeff/Don,

    Thanks for posting. I think you might read a little more carefully, though. I can’t speak for Pastor Rizzo, but I do believe you’ll notice that my words were directed at Mr. Camping’s “prophecies” (or whatever you want to call them) and not at Mr. Camping himself. I do believe he suffers from a severe lack of credibility because his date-setting in the past hasn’t panned out.

    As to arrogance, that’s a different issue; perhaps you see it as arrogant simply to question another person’s public statements, I don’t know. “The poison of a viper”…nice.

    Byron ~ Jun 19, 2008 at 9:14 am

  33. Byron,

    You don’t get it !!! Read his books and stop speculating !! He did NOT say 1994 was the absolute return of Jesus Christ.

    What do you think the question mark on the front of the book means?

    I have a tough time determining if you are knowingly misrepresenting his positions, which would make you a liar, or if you are just ignorant of the truth.

    In his book, 1994, he points to the years of 1994 and 2011 as the possible return dates of Jesus Christ. He does not give an absolute. You discredit him by saying he set a date. He did not ! He let his reader decide for themselves.

    Currently, he feels 2011 is indeed the year of Christs return. Im not sure which Bible you read, but the one I read, Jesus encourages his people to watch for his return, and tells them they will know the very day.

    I am not surprised that a church pastor tells his flock to not worry about when Jesus shall return, it is very indicative of the churches of today. You are part of the problem.

    Don ~ Jun 19, 2008 at 5:24 pm

  34. Well, thanks so much for your graciousness, Don…

    Ahem…so if we “will know the very day”, when is it?

    Byron ~ Jun 19, 2008 at 6:20 pm

  35. And fine, he didn’t say 1994 was definitely the date. You win. I’m certainly not misrepresenting his positions intentionally, so maybe I’m just ignorant. Sure. There’s a distinction between being definite and doing what Camping does. Good enough. But it does strike me as a distinction with a relatively small difference.

    As to the return of Christ, I teach my congregation to live as though it could happen at any moment, knowing it may happen before I finish typing this sentence, and it might be 1000 years off. But heavy speculating on such doesn’t help the cause of Christ, in my opinion, and he wouldn’t have written “1994?” if he didn’t feel there was strong reason to believe that was the date. I wonder if Christ doesn’t come in 2011–and of course He could, as I said, if Mr. Camping will cease his speculations.

    Byron ~ Jun 19, 2008 at 6:25 pm

  36. Byron,

    If you would take the time out to actually read or listen to Mr. Camping, you would know he encourages people to do their own studies and make their own decisions. This is not a Ronald Weinland type of individual who says, “Beleive Me”.

    I have heard him say 1000 times, “Dont trust me, only trust your bible.”

    Where is this man doing anything wrong that organized religion should come down on him so hard ?

    He isnt telling people to sell their houses or quit their jobs. He is telling them to pray for God’s mercy, as the time may be at hand.

    What is the harm of this ?

    He sincerely believes he has to tell as many people as he can about what he feels has been revealed to him through the BIBLE. He has not had a dream, God did not talk to him, or any other ridiculous thing of that nature.

    My goodness, you have Pat Robertson saying a Tsunami is going to wipe out Seattle and I did not hear anything from organized religion. Maybe you did, but I did not see it. You had Benny Hinn say Jesus Christ would join him on stage in physical person, I heard nothing from organized religion. Hal Lindsey changes his interpretations every 2 years, and so does Jack Van Impe, and I hear nothing from organized religion.

    But if someone like Harold Camping says 2011 COULD be the return date of Jesus Christ, organized religion attacks him non stop. There are other reasons why the churches attack him, and I am sure you are aware of them.

    The hipocracy i see from organized religion is amazing. Pastor Rizzo is right, Harold Camping will probably be dead soon. He is in his late 80′s and time will eventually run out for him. And I might add, Pastor Rizzo’s comment on his death, was angry and malicious in its nature.

    If Mr. Camping was advocating extreme measures to accompany his 2011 belief, I would be 100% on your side, however, he is not doing this. Stop slandering the man.

    Don ~ Jun 19, 2008 at 7:11 pm

  37. For the record, I’ve criticized both Robertson and Hinn (a total buffoon), and likely would have had I heard anything about a tsunami wiping out Seattle or Jesus joining Hinn onstage. Further, I’ve not heard anything from Lindsey or VanImpe, who’ve become, it seems to me, minor players, marginalized over the years.

    I’m not aware of any other reason Camping is “attacked”, for that matter; I simply believe that setting dates, whether or not he’s dogmatic (and I’ll take your word that he’s not), is counterproductive, and saying so isn’t slander. I’m glad he’s not advocating extreme measures; it just seems to me that he’s worthy of being lumped in with the VanImpes and Lindseys, if indeed they change their interpretations every two years, because as I said, I find his projecting of dates, even if he’s not dogmatic, to be at the very least silly.

    But like I said, if I’m wrong and Jesus comes back in 2011, I’ll apologize to Harold in glory, and we’ll have a good laugh about it, the joke of 2011 on me, and the joke of 1994 on him…

    Byron ~ Jun 20, 2008 at 12:31 am

  38. Byron,

    Your sarcasm shows your true colors. Try reading 1994?, before you make such ignorant statements. You say you understand that he never said 1994 was an absolute date, but only a possibility. Yet you continue to use sarcasm to ridicule him.

    You and Pastor Rizzo are birds of a feather. Arrogant and sarcastic. However, it is what I expect from the leaders of todays churches.

    Continue on in your anger and sarcasm. It gives you away.

    Casper ~ Jun 20, 2008 at 12:53 am

  39. Huh? What on earth are you TALKING about, Casper??? Sarcasm??? Anger? Chapter and verse, dude…Don took up for Camping; I said I hadn’t read 1994, that I’d accept Don’s word for it that he hadn’t made it a hard-and-fast; what are you reading that suggests anger and sarcasm??? I thought I’d conceded some points to him, while still saying, as I do, that I think it’s counterproductive to set dates. What’s your beef, dude???

    Byron ~ Jun 20, 2008 at 12:56 am

  40. Oh, and was that really YOU, Jasper/Casper? On the RW posts, you seem to appreciate the tone I’ve taken; on this post, if it’s really you posting, you sound like a different person altogether. I plead guilty to a little sarcasm on the original post: I continue to find it ridiculous that we’re in the middle of a 23-year tribulation, and that the “Church Age” ended in 1988. I think those things are preposterous. But as I said above, I’m a little flabbergasted that you find my tone sarcastic (in recent comments???), and I assure you, if you read anger into what I’m writing, read again, ’cause it ain’t there, dude. I can’t even figure out who you think I’m angry with…Jeff? Don? Camping? I promise, it ain’t any of those three.

    Though I might get a little miffed at you if you keep finding things that aren’t there…just kidding, man…

    Byron ~ Jun 20, 2008 at 10:39 am

  41. The argument is pointless if we’re just going to try to figure who’s credibility is the best. We all know that the Bible is 100% truth and the final authority. Let’s leave it at that. And according to Mr. Camping’s teaching about 2011, it’s clues from the bible including the clues before 1994. There are just so many clues pointing to the end time and narrowing at 2011 it’s just impossible to avoid.

    Read “We’re Almost There” by Mr. Camping, as it is a basic summary of 2011 and the end time. And argue the verses, not his teaching.

    Theodor ~ Jun 23, 2008 at 4:49 pm

  42. Byron,
    How are U brother? Its been awhile.I just read the various posts.Regardless of my faults it still remains that Camping is a false teacher.I am amazed by the ignorance of these who defend Harold.Suffice to say NOBODY in 2000 years has interpreted the bible like he does…..I mean NOBODY.
    If that isn’t warning enough consider the fact that Harold is not accountable to anyone.If you checkout the site I left in January you will see enormous data exposing this man…..he did say on Larry King he was 99.9% pos the world would end in 1994.
    As to the assault on my character I ref to Rom 2:1-3 & 1st Cor 3:1-5
    I do not hide my disgust at this person because I know firsthand what damage false teaching does.I also have the slight advantage of knowing about Harold since 1970.I have spoken with him many times on and off the air.I suggest you who think the end of the world is coming in 2011 refrain from your own “indignation” until the third week of May,2011.If the rapture does not occur or the world does not end 5 months later(it won’t)where will you guys be then? I took it on the chin from 1993 thru 1994 by many of Harold’s followers on my own radio program.I asked them to get back to me in 1995….not one of them did.Neither will U guys…organized religion is so easy to attack.Test and prove all things……Rizzo or Byron(who really is a tenderhearted brother)don’t mean a thing….all that matters is Jesus.Camping says “God wrote the bible so it can be readily misunderstood.” Really? In his case he has certainly succeeded.Remember Casper and Jeff etc….nobody in 2008 years has interpreted the bible like HC. If you guys are comfortable with that so be it.
    In closing,”My brothers and sisters,most of you should’nt want to be teachers.You know that those of us who teach will be held more accountable.”James 3:1
    I take that quite seriously as should you all.Don’t worry if I and the rest of those “organized” religion guys are so evil, God will recompense appropiately…..if you like that idea who is arrogant now?
    Love Ya Byron……keep on for Jesus!

    Charlie Rizzo ~ Jun 23, 2008 at 6:15 pm

  43. Hello,

    Here is the beginning of a possible Biblical solution to the Harold Camping controversy:

    In Acts 28:23 and 24 Paul gives us one excellent way to pursue the truth regarding the teachings of Harold Camping. This is what is written in these verses: “And when they had appointed him [Paul] a day, there came many to him into [his] lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and [out of] the prophets, from morning till evening. And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not.” I won’t disagree with Mr. Camping’s often spoken words that God must open our spiritual eyes to truth. However, that fact did not stop Paul from vigorously persuading men from morning till evening using the scripture and (I believe) using logical arguments based on scripture. After all, God created all truth. He created the laws of physics, the laws of mathematics, and the laws of logic. In finding truth we must not only avoid violating scripture, but we must also avoid violating the laws of logic and mathematics that God created (although God himself can set aside the laws of the universe). I have done extensive research regarding Mr. Camping, and find that he quotes the Bible extensively, but when he applies the Bible truth he violates God’s laws of reason and mathematics. Here is one example out of many that I have discovered. I even presented this example to him in person. Instead of answering the question he made a slanderous remark regarding me being a troubled and bitter person. Here is the question that I gave him.

    Question for Mr. Camping regarding the Biblical Calendar

    My question is this: How does having a “comparatively scarce” population on the Earth during a patriarch’s lifetime make it more difficult for him to have a descendant born in the year of his death?

    On page 58 of your book “Adam When? A Biblical Solution to the Timetable of Mankind” you wrote “At the beginning, men were comparatively scarce. Thus, it seems apparent that when Adam died, no one was born that year who was qualified to become the next reference patriarch. When Seth died 112 years later, the same situation prevailed.” You repeat this logic on page 59 where you wrote, “When Noah died 350 years after the flood, the same situation prevailed that existed when Adam died. Few people lived upon the earth and no one met the conditions required to become the next reference patriarch.” Then on page 63 where you summarize your calendar proof, you repeat the same logic when you write the following: “There were periods in history when the above rules for calendar keeping could not be strictly kept. Such was the situation at the beginning, when men first began to multiply on the earth. This was the situation at the flood of Noah’s day and the special time when God limited his people to the family of Abraham.”

    Isn’t your explanation in these statements mathematically incorrect? Doesn’t your calendar specify that any calendar patriarch must be directly descended from the previous calendar patriarch? How does having a “comparatively scarce” population on the Earth during a patriarch’s lifetime make it more difficult for him to have a descendant born in the year of his death? Isn’t it true that the “comparatively scarce” population of the Earth would have nothing to do with your claim that Adam did not have a direct descendant born in the year of his death. You assert that Adam’s 930 years was not enough time for him to have a direct descendant born in the year of his death because “men were comparatively scarce.” Isn’t your assertion wrong? Isn’t it true that the “comparatively scarce” population of the Earth would have nothing to do with your claim that Seth did not have a direct descendant born in the year of his death. You asserted that Seth’s 912 years was not enough time for a direct descendant to be born in the year of his death because, “men were comparatively scarce.” Isn’t your assertion wrong? Isn’t this especially strange logic since you teach, with no reservations, that Levi, Kohath, and Amram each had a direct descendant born in the year they died? And didn’t they all live to be less than 140 years old?

    Again, my question is: How does having a “comparatively scarce” population on the Earth during a patriarch’s lifetime make it more difficult for him to have a descendant born in the year of his death?

    Thank you for taking the time to explain how you arrived at your conclusion regarding the special times in history where the population was “comparatively scarce.”

    This is one of many, many, many, examples of Mr. Camping using flawed logic and flawed mathematics in his teaching. He disguises his errors by making his arguments so complex that few take the time to check his math. Adam’s descendants could easily have numbered over one million when he died at 930 years. Mr. Camping’s suggestion that one of his male descendants would not be born in the year he died seems highly unlikely. In addition, Mr. Camping’s explanation that a scarce human population somehow rationalizes his conclusion makes no logical sense. Even if there were 10 billion other people on the Earth when Adam was created, none of these people could produce a descendant of Adam, except Adam’s wife!

    I would be happy to provide you with many more examples of Mr. Camping violating God’s laws of logic and mathematics. Mr. Camping needs to be held accountable for teaching doctrines contrary to the Bible, and contrary to God’s mathematical and logical truths.

    Thanks for listening to this introduction to the solution of the Harold Camping controversy. I look forward to continuing this discussion.

    Marc

    Marc ~ Jun 28, 2008 at 6:38 pm

  44. Marc,
    Good stuff……I think the core of the problem is spiritual.The use of reason(intellect) can be greatly distorted by religious or spiritual bias. Bias is always a problem in our lives.There is a certain “bent” people have that predispose them to accept false doctrine. HC followers LIKE the idea of the world ending in 2011.
    The allegorical method of interpretation provides relief from everyday life. The Bible becomes a drug if you will. You hit the nail on the head re the violation of logic and grammar. I imagine the only response you would get(don’t hold your breath) is read the book. Perhaps you can figure it out by 2011 BUT only if you are elect. HC begins with a faulty, self imposed view of Gods word.
    “God wrote the Bible so it can be readily misunderstood.” That is an exact quote from HC. In other words God is not really saying what He means or means what He says. One thing you will never get on Open Forum is the love of God. If you listen carefully there is the constant reversal of texts. God so loved the world…..not really…..only the world of the elect. Today the elect comprises anyone who agrees with HC. The church is over. God revealed to HC and ONLY HC that the church age ended. No more pastors,deacons etc….. People who have been in ministry ALL their lives didn’t get a warning from ANYBODY else that a cosmic pink slip was on the way. God only revealed it to HC. Logic? To even consider this as normal reveals a complete inability to reason and an acute ignorance of the Bible.
    I have been rebuked for being too harsh. I confess my difficulty with HC and have laid it before the Lord. It is true that sometimes harshness is required. ” for this cause reprove them SEVERELY or HARSHLY” Titus 1:13 but I must admit I just don’t care for this guy. Marc you have done all of us a service. You are a bright guy. May God continue to bless you.
    agape,Charlie

    Charlie Rizzo ~ Jun 28, 2008 at 9:17 pm

  45. Thanks Pastor Rizzo,

    I appreciate your encouragement.

    I realize that bias affects the way we interpret the Bible. That is why I have tried to identify examples of Mr. Camping’s errors that are absolutely false, without any doubt. There is no gray. It is black and white.

    Mr. Camping supported his Biblical Calendar with evidence that violated basic mathematics and logic. He falsely taught that the scarce population of the Earth when Adam was created caused Adam to have fewer descendants at the time of his death 930 years later. He repeated this mathematical error several times in his defense of his Biblical Calendar.

    When I asked Mr. Camping in person for an explanation, he had no answer. Instead he slandered my character. That was his only defense, because this error is not open to interpretation. He was wrong. Period!

    (Well, on second thought I guess Mr. Camping could even spin this one by saying that if Adam was created in a populated Earth it would have given him the opportunity to marry multiple wives which would have given him more descendants. But I don’t think he would spin his argument in that direction. That would be a reach! And this possible argument would not work his other examples of Seth, Noah, and Abraham).

    I can show anyone interested many other black and white mathematical and logical errors Mr. Camping makes in his teaching. He and his supporters refuse to answer these errors that I and others have identified. Their only answer is to slander the messenger, or change the subject. Mr. Camping must be held accountable for his violation of scripture and his violation of God’s truths.

    Marc

    Marc ~ Jun 28, 2008 at 10:47 pm

  46. Hi Don and Jeff,

    Don you wrote, “You don’t get it !!! Read his books and stop speculating !! He did NOT say 1994 was the absolute return of Jesus Christ. What do you think the question mark on the front of the book means?”

    Jeff, you wrote: “His book, “1994?”, was a study designed to show how 2 possible dates, thus the question mark on the front page, consistently point to the return of Jesus Christ.
    He did NOT say 1994 was the absolute return date of Jesus Christ, he said it is one of two dates that the Bible points to.”
    I believe your statements are unintentionally inaccurate. Here is documentation that Mr. Camping made a bold prediction regarding 1994.
    Mr. Camping’s book 1994? taught with assurance that 1994 was the end of the world. That did not happen. You cannot spin that, by saying Christ came to usher in the Latter Rain. Here are the concluding words Mr. Camping gave in 1994? “If this study is accurate and I believe with all of my heart that it is, there will be no extensions in time. There will not be time for second guessing. When September 6, 1994, arrives, no one else can become saved. The end has come.” (page 533). In 1994? Mr.Camping mentioned other dates besides 1994. He mentioned that the Bible pointed to 1947, but that date had passed. He mentioned 2011, but gave a detailed explanation as to why this was not the year. The question mark in the title 1994? did not communicate that Mr. Camping was giving a tentative conclusion. Anyone who takes the time to read the book realizes that the book boldly proclaimed that 1994 was definitely the year. The question mark clearly communicated to the reader that the book was going to answer the question of whether 1994 was the year of the end of the world. The fact that Mr. Camping later claimed after the failed prediction that the question mark meant that he new all along that he may have been mistaken is a cause for alarm. Even if this were true, the book failed to make it clear that the question mark in the title referred to a tentative conclusion. Yes, he did say that there was a very slight possibility that he was wrong in the book. However, the book concludes with Mr. Camping saying that he believed “with all his heart” that September 6, 1994 was the end of the world. He had claimed that the research had been done with great care, and he taught clearly that he believed the Bible information explicitly taught that 1994 was the end of the world.
    Those who ask Mr. Camping why they should believe his new prediction of 2011, when his earlier prediction of 1994 did not happen are asking the obviously appropriate and fair question. They are not evil people picking on poor Mr. Camping. They are properly holding him accountable to the Bible. And when his answer to this obviously vital question lacks consistency with what he has taught in the past we must all object, and demand an honest and consistent answer.
    I don’t believe I am misrepresenting what Mr. Camping taught, and I even documented his statements so that you can confirm that I am not misrepresenting him. If you disagree with me please don’t attack me personally. Rather, explain to me what information I am not understanding properly. (Show me statements in the book 1994? that indicate that his prediction was only a possibility.)
    John 8:32 “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
    Marc

    Marc ~ Jun 29, 2008 at 2:13 am

  47. Charlie,
    Just curious, is there a site that has the video or something of Mr. Camping on Larry King? I looked for it with vain results.

    Theodor ~ Jun 30, 2008 at 11:52 pm

  48. Theodor,

    You wrote, “The argument is pointless if we’re just going to try to figure who’s credibility is the best.”

    I totally agree with you. That is my frustration exactly. Often, when I try to have a Biblical discussion with someone who agrees with the doctrines taught by Mr. Camping, I am discredited with a personal attack, rather than having a Biblical discussion.

    You encouraged us to, “Read “We’re Almost There” by Mr. Camping, as it is a basic summary of 2011 and the end time. And argue the verses, not his teaching.”

    One problem I have with the book We’re Almost There is that Mr. Camping assumes and does not prove that his Biblical Calendar is accurate.

    In chapter 2, page 8, of his book We Are Almost There
    (http://www.familyradio.com/graphical/literature/frame/) Mr. Camping writes, “As we carefully study the Bible, we discover that the world was created about 13,000 years ago.* The Bible is very precise, so when we harmonize the Biblical calendar with our modern calendar, we know that the year of creation was 11,013 B.C.”

    Do you see the asterisk Mr. Camping placed after the word “ago”. This is very important. This asterisk directs us to the bottom of the page where he refers us to his proof that the world is about 13,000 years old. This is what we find:

    “* You are invited to send to Family Radio for the free book Adam When that shows how the Bible provides this information.”

    Mr. Camping uses his Biblical Calendar of history to project future dates such as the final judgment. Unfortunately, his proof of the calendar in Adam When? contains mathematical and logical errors, and is therefore invalid.

    Since his original proof of the calendar is invalid, we know that his teachings that are based on this calendar, are also not to be trusted.

    I would be happy to discuss the mathematical and logical fallacies that are found in Mr. Camping’s proof of the Biblical Calendar. (I already explained one example of Mr. Camping defending his Biblical Calendar with a mathematical error.)

    Theodor, you have criticized others with rejecting Mr. Camping without carefully reading his books. Well, I do read Mr. Camping’s books, and believe that I can demonstrate clearly from the Bible several mathematical and logical errors. If I am wrong, I hope that you can explain from the Bible my errors, rather than, as you put it, “trying to figure out who’s credibility is best.”

    Marc

    Marc ~ Jul 1, 2008 at 10:52 am

  49. Theodor,

    You wrote regarding Mr. Camping that “He is however, pretty sure of May 21, 2011 as being the time of the rapture, and Oct. 21, 2011 as being the time of the end of all the universe.” When you say “pretty sure” do you mean that he claims proof?

    I have observed Mr. Camping does indeed claim proof that 2011 is the end. He writes in bold letter the following: “We indeed can be certain that the rapture will occur on May 21, 2011, and the final day of the history of the world is October 21, 2011″ (Page 63 of “We Are Almost There”).

    Do you agree that Mr. Camping claims Biblical proof for his 2011 predictions of the rapture and the end of the world?

    Marc

    Marc ~ Jul 1, 2008 at 1:05 pm

  50. Marc,

    I haven’t commented, but you’re carrying the water nicely for me, so I don’t really have to, and doing a far, far superior job than I ever could, as you know much more about Camping than do I. Thanks.

    Byron ~ Jul 1, 2008 at 1:31 pm

  51. Theodor,
    Try Larry King website perhaps they have an archive. Sometimes you tube has old stuff.Basically he said…..”I am 99.9% sure.”I don’t think U will find it on Family Radio. Actually it would be something if HC has a video of the interview. Why not ask him? Try calling him on the air and just ask him. agape,CR

    charlie Rizzo ~ Jul 1, 2008 at 3:03 pm

  52. From the above website

    Harold Camping is at it again. He is predicting that an eschatological “end” will take place in 2011.[1] After Edgar Whisenant’s 88 Reason Why the Rapture is in 1988 failed to deliver on its promise to predict the week of Jesus’ return, I thought that date setting had pretty much fallen out of favor with Christians. This is why I only mentioned Harold Camping’s 1994? in Last Days Madness as just another misguided attempt at date setting. Who in his right mind would take Camping seriously? What a miscalculation on my part. Never again will I underestimate the gullibility and ignorance of Christians when it comes to interpreting prophetic issues. Camping sold tens of thousands of copies of 1994? He appeared on “Larry King Live.” A two-day debate was held between Camping and two professors from Westminster Theological Seminary. I even debated Mr. Camping on a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, radio station. The media have given Camping’s view front-page coverage because of his calculated prediction that Jesus will return before October 1, 1994.

    Who is Harold Camping? He is the president of the California-based Family Radio Network, a world-wide conglomerate of radio stations broadcasting a conservative and somewhat idiosyncratic Christian message. On a daily basis, Camping hosts a live call-in program entitled “Open Forum.” Listeners are invited to call, toll-free, and ask questions concerning biblical doctrines. For twenty years Camping has been working on calculating the time of Jesus’ return. He believed the end would occur sometime between September 15–27, 1994.[2] He did not know the exact day because Scripture says “no man knows the day or the hour” (Matt. 24:36). While this is true, Camping asserts that we can certainly know the month and the year that Christ will return. Camping is an anomaly in prophecy circles because he is amillennial. Amillennialists are not known for setting dates.

    Camping the Kabbalist
    Camping’s prophetic methodology reads like the Kabbalah, a hermeneutical principle of finding hidden meanings in the text of Scripture. The human language of Scripture is examined and interpreted according to its numerical equivalents. By interchanging numerical equivalents, letters and words could be created, thereby allowing for new interpretations. The following example will illustrate that 1994? is a mixture of the Kabbalah, numerology, and an overactive imagination that is typical of Camping’s methodology. Camping’s methodology and preoccupation with numbers may have something to do with the fact that he earned a B.S. degree in Civil Engineering from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1942.[3]

    In John 21:1–14, we learn that Jesus’ disciples were about 200 cubits out from the Sea of Galilee engaged in their trade as fishermen. On this day the disciples catch 153 fish. According to Camping the Bible is teaching that the 200 cubits represent about 2,000 years between the first and second comings of Christ.[4] Since Jesus was born, according to Camping, on October 4, 7 B.C., one needs only to add 2,000 years minus one year for the year zero and “presto change-o,” out comes 1994! What about the 153 fish? The number 153 equals 3 times 3 times 17: “The number three signifies the purpose of God whereas the number seventeen signifies heaven. Thus we learn that [the] purpose of God is to bring all believers that are ‘caught’ by the Gospel into heaven.”[5]

    Lucky Thirteen
    Camping reconstructs the genealogies to fit his interpretive model—pinpointing Adam’s creation at 11,013 B.C. While his method is ingenious, there is no way of testing his conclusions.[6] While the exact year of creation is important to Camping’s overall system, it is his conclusion that the numbers 13, 130, and 13,000 have date-setting significance. He bases this on the following: Adam was 130 years of age when Eve gave birth to Seth (Gen. 5:3); Jacob was 130 years of age when he came to Egypt (Gen. 47:9); Jehoida was 130 years of age when he died (2 Chron. 24:15). Because of the 11,013 B.C. date for the creation of the world, Camping is stuck with the number 13,000 (11,000 years B.C. + 2000 years = 13,000 years; more about this later).

    Camping searches the Bible to find a way of making the number 13 and its multiples significant. He does this by trying to convince his readers that while there are apparently 12 tribes, there are actually 13 tribes. He does the same with the number of apostles. While there seem to be only 12 apostles,[7] there are in actuality 13 apostles. Camping then moves in for the kill. While there are apparently 12,000 years for the duration of the earth, there are actually 13,000 years.

    But we can play the numerology game as well as Camping: There are actually 14 tribes—the ten tribes + Joseph + Ephraim + Manassah + Levi = 14. Fourteen is the result of 2 X 7, the number of the church (2) and perfection (7), according to Camping.[8] Fourteen thousand years becomes the duration of man’s existence on earth. The same can be done with the number of apostles. Using Camping’s math, there are really 15 apostles: “The twelve,” including Judas (Luke 22:3), plus Matthias (Acts 1:26), Paul (1 Cor. 15:9), and Barnabas (Acts 14:14). But this will not do since neither 14 nor 15 fit with Camping’s belief in the soon return of Christ and the arbitrary 13,000-year marker.

    The supposed significance of the number thirteen is arbitrary. The numbers ten and twelve and their multiples are much more significant than the number 13.[9] Could not 12 and 120, the age of Moses when he died, really mean twelve thousand years? It certainly makes more sense than 13,000 years. Of course, if you divide 12,000 by 2—the number, according to Camping, that signifies the church[10]—you get 6,000. Bishop Ussher calculated that the world was created in 4,004 B.C. To get the number 6,000 for the duration of the earth, we can do the following: 4,004 B.C. + 1996 A.D.—one year from the change from B.C. to A.D. = 1995. Depending on what numbers we use, we can get the Bible to teaching almost anything.

    No Fooling
    You might think that I’m making this up, that I’m putting the worst possible spin on Camping’s 1994? I assure you that his entire book reads like this. Consider the following:

    Likewise, the Bible apparently assures us that there were to be 12,000 years in the duration of the earth. That is, creation occurred 11,000 years (remember 11,000 + 6 years) before Christ [Jesus was born in 7 B.C.]. And Revelation 20:1–3 teaches that Satan was to be bound a thousand years. Since it can be readily shown that Satan was bound at the cross so that Christ would not be frustrated in His program of salvation for the world [!], the duration of the earth should be 11,000 plus 1000 years for a total of 12,000 years.[11] Moreover, you recall that God told Noah in Genesis 6:3: “Then the LORD said, `My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.’“ While this 120 years could be the 120 years during which Noah constructed the ark, it apparently could also be a reference to the fullness of time for all mankind. The number twelve does signify the fullness of whatever God has in view. Then the 120 years could also signify 1200 years or 12,000 years or 120,000 years 9 for the duration of man’s existence on earth. Given all the other information in the Bible, we know that 12,000 years is the only number that can relate.[12]

    Of course, Camping has a problem. He is one thousand years short. He must now figure out a way of stretching 12,000 to 13,000. It is at this point that he hunts for the mystical 13: 12 tribes become 13 tribes and 12 apostles become 13 apostles, according to Camping’s numerics. “Now we should broach the question: Where does 13,000 years bring us? This is easily answered. Creation occurred in the year 11,013 B.C. Exactly 13,000 years later brings us to 1988. This was the thirteenth thousandth anniversary of the history of the world.” Camping’s calculations only take us to 1988, the end of the 13,000 years for the duration of the earth. “We see again how 13,000 years or the year 1988 stands out as the end of the world. Does that mean,” Camping argues, “that we could expect the year 1988 to be a candidate for the year of Christ’s return? Surely it must be a very important year, but we know it cannot be the year of the end of the world because we have already passed the year 1988.”[14]

    Did you follow this? Camping maintains that 12,000 years is the magic number, but this leaves him a thousand years short. The number 13 which becomes 13,000 becomes the missing component. But this only takes us to 1988. The reason 1988 is not the year Jesus will return is because Jesus did not return in 1988! Camping must now come up with six additional years to make 1994 the year Jesus will return. How does he do it? Camping goes to Daniel 8:14 and finds 2300 days that are to be, according to Camping, “the final tribulation period. . . . Therefore, six years later than 1988 (actually 2300 days), Christ would return and we would be at the end of this world’s existence. That is the year 1994.”[15]

    Conclusion
    As this brief analysis demonstrates, Camping’s methodology is subjective. He picks and chooses only those numbers that fit his system. Numbers that contradict his conclusions, Camping arbitrarily reformulates to give them the needed meaning to force compliance to his already developed methodology. Camping’s amillennial detractors have had difficulty dealing with him. Traditional amillennialists and the renegade amillennialist Camping refuse to deal with the very clear time indicators that set the parameters for interpretation. Until premillennialists and amillennialists deal with the time texts, we will see more books like 1994?

    Notes
    [1]Harold Camping, Time Has an End: A Biblical History of the World 11,013 B.C.–2011 A.D. (New York: Vantage Press, 2005).
    [2]Harold Camping, 1994? (New York: Vantage Press, 1992), 531.
    [3]http://www.atlasbooks.com/marktplc/01508.htm#summary
    Camping, 1994?, 503.
    [4]Camping, 1994?, 503.
    [5]Camping, 1994?, 504.
    [6]For an explanation, see James B. Jordan, “1994?—Not!,” Biblical Chronology (September 1993), 2.
    [7]Using Camping’s math, there are really 15 apostles: “The twelve,” including Judas (Luke 22:3), plus Matthias (Acts 1:26), Paul (1 Cor. 15:9), and Barnabas (Acts 14:14). The New Testament describes the number of apostles as “the twelve” (1 Cor. 15:5).
    [8]Camping, 1994?, 371.
    [9]Terry, Hartill, Lange, and Gunner, in their discussions of the interpretation of symbolic numbers, do not even list the number 13. They go from 12 to 40. See John J. Davis, Biblical Numerology: A Basic Study of the Use of Numbers in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, [1968] 1987), 122–123.
    [10]Camping, 1994?, 230.
    [11]Why isn’t 120,000 the key number? It’s larger than 13,000, therefore, Jesus’ coming could still be in the future. David Chilton writes: “Consider the promise in the law: ‘Know therefore that the LORD your God, He is God, the faithful God, who keeps His covenant and His lovingkindness to a thousandth generation with those who love Him and keep His commandments’ (Deut. 7:9). The God of the Old Covenant told His people that He would bless them to the thousandth generation of their descendants. That promise was made (in round figures) about 3,400 years ago. If we figure the Biblical generation at about 40 years, a thousand generations is forty thousand years. We’ve got 36,600 years to go before this promise is fulfilled!” (Paradise Restored: An Eschatology of Dominion (Powder Springs, GA: Dominion Press, [1985] 2007), 221. Using Camping’s numerics we come up with the following: 40,000 years X 3 (the purpose of God according to Camping, the Trinity, the number of days Jesus was entombed, the number of apostles and tribes divided by 4, the approximate age of Jesus, 30—when He began His ministry— divided by 10, the number of cities in Decopolis) = 120,000.
    [12]Camping, 1994?, 440–441.
    [13]Camping, 1994?, 441.
    [14]Camping, 1994?, 443.
    [15]Camping, 1994?, 444.

    Charlie Rizzo ~ Jul 1, 2008 at 3:25 pm

  53. This was the above website.
    http://74.255.56.30/blog/?p=18

    Theodor,
    I suggest you simply google,
    Larry King live Harold Camping
    I found tons of refs perhaps U can scout down a tape.
    agape,CR

    Charlie Rizzo ~ Jul 1, 2008 at 3:41 pm

  54. As I said, Pastor Rizzo and Pastor Byron are birds of a feather.

    Marc,

    You distort the truth. The question mark on the front of “1994?” means what it means. It is questioning if the year 1994 is the date or 2011, which is also given in the book. Please show me where I said the end shall come in 2011. I have not. I am simply pointing out how viciously you people attack someone who disagrees with you.

    Pastor Rizzo,

    Do you really believe that everyone is so weak that they are going to sell their homes and cars and quit their jobs because 2011 may be the end?

    Sorry the average man does not have the courage that you must possess, but we shall do our best to live on if this date proves incorrect. Mr. Camping advocates getting right with God.

    What is wrong with this?

    You and Byron are cowards and will not say the real reasons you dislike Mr. Camping. Anyone who has listened to him knows he is humble, and very level headed. I have never heard him give rash advice. So many of your assertions are personal attacks. And you Pastor Rizzo, you shall indeed get your just recompense. You are so transparent it is scary.

    Don ~ Jul 4, 2008 at 12:25 am

  55. OK, Don, you’re now officially on a short leash. I’m tired of name-calling; I’ve said exactly everything I plan to re Mr. Camping, and I have never said I “dislike” him. But next time you resort to name-calling, you’re done. Make your points without personal attacks, or you will not make your points at all.

    Byron ~ Jul 4, 2008 at 12:30 am

  56. Byron,

    I am sorry. I would take great offense being compared to Pastor Rizzo also. I apologize.

    Don ~ Jul 4, 2008 at 12:42 am

  57. Hi Byron,

    These are emotional issues. Isn’t Don’s reaction understandable, especially since the previous post called people who agree with Mr. Camping ignorant and gullible? I am thankful that Don read the information that was presented.

    Marc

    Marc ~ Jul 4, 2008 at 2:43 am

  58. What say we ALL agree to tone down the pejoratives, and argue the substance? Seems reasonable to me.

    Really, Don, my only issue with Camping, and I even backed off on this a bit in previous posts, is that I think it’s a bit foolhardy to set dates–yeah, I realize he didn’t apparently make it hard-and-fast. These other guys know a lot more about Camping than I know, or care to know, honestly; truthfully, my issue isn’t Camping at all, but just the idea that we get hung up on wanting to pin things like this down exactly, and then when things don’t pan out according to the way we frame them, I think we make a skeptical world roll its eyes once again (Christians have sure given ‘em enough to roll their eyes about in so many other ways), and the gospel is discredited.

    Like I said, if Camping is right, we’ll share a laugh about it in Heaven as I wipe the egg off my face. But as regards end-times events, it seems to me that a more profitable use of time is in helping people focus clearly on being watchful and ready. To the degree Camping or anybody does that, it’s good; to the degree that speculations of whatever kind lead us away from that, I think it’s counterproductive.

    Byron ~ Jul 4, 2008 at 9:06 am

  59. Byron,Marc,Don,
    I realize “ignorant” and “gullible” are loaded words but they are not in and of themselves offensive. Non-informed and naive are just as accurate. Disliking someone does not mean you hate them.
    I do not “hate” Mr Camping. Don……really……you need to simmer down and read the New Testament especially the epistles. Did some minister hurt you? Your anger towards me is pathological brother.
    Do you know what “projection” is? You call someone “bitter” and “angry” when in fact you are. I think HC is a false teacher but I do not wish him to go to hell. You seem to relish in the idea of me(sic) getting my comeupuns on judgment day. That is just sad. At any rate Don I apologize for offending you. Byron is appropiately the “moderator” of this site. I think you should listen to his counsel. I do…….Happy July 4th!
    agape,Charlie

    charlie rizzo ~ Jul 4, 2008 at 3:37 pm

  60. Pastor Rizzo,

    You are a perfect example of what is wrong with the churches of today. The leadership is leading its followers astray.

    Your words toward Mr. Camping are full of hatred. You try to excuse yourself by saying you don’t want him to go to hell.

    You say Mr. Camping is a false teacher. I say you are a false teacher. Mr. Camping has more humility in his little finger than you have in your entire body.

    There are deeper issues here that are not being brought out into the light.

    If someone advocates taking drastic actions along with their claims of an end date, then by all means, go after them. However, Mr. Camping is not doing this. He supports getting right with God. Your anger toward him stems from something else, and I am pretty sure I know what it is. If people give a close look to what he is saying, your religious welfare check will decrease tremendously.

    And finally Pastor Rizzo, you chastise me for the same comment you used earlier.

    God will recompense appropiately…..if you like that idea who is arrogant now?
    Love Ya Byron……keep on for Jesus!

    That is your comment. It appears you can make the reference to recompense, and it is ok. But if I make the reference, I am a judgmental man wanting to send people to hell. You should go back and read your former posts so you don’t look like a hypocrit.

    Don ~ Jul 4, 2008 at 4:45 pm

  61. To quote Shakespere….”Me think he doth protest too much.” You can have the last word Don.I apologized for offending you and offered an olive branch in agapic hope. I will await your biblical refutation of the site that refutes Campings teaching along with Marc’s criticism of HC’s teaching……that is if you can control yourself.

    charlie rizzo ~ Jul 4, 2008 at 5:20 pm

  62. Byron,
    Have you heard from “creator” lately?
    Hope all is well….CR

    charlie rizzo ~ Jul 4, 2008 at 5:44 pm

  63. No, creator hasn’t been around.

    Byron ~ Jul 5, 2008 at 12:35 am

  64. http://74.255.56.30/blog/?p=18

    Just wanted to repost the site that clearly exposes HC’s faulty interpretation. I would again commend Marc’s comments as well.I will be away for the rest of the summer.I did inform Byron by e-mail. HOWEVER in light of the recent tirades I did not want to simply disappear.Silence sometimes appears to mean aggreement.I have seen NO light from these HC groupies….only heat.
    When I was studying for the ministry many moons ago there was a great point re sermons….It bascically warns the preacher about falling into the error of emotional manipulation by trying to distract the hearer with gospel antics….I recall….”LOGIC very weak here SCREAM louder!” The point is obvious….if we really cannot defend something we simply yell.Byron you are doing a great job…..don’t lose heart. God willing I’ll check in the fall.Be well….CR

    Charlie Rizzo ~ Jul 8, 2008 at 11:19 pm

  65. I find it curious that Harold Camping is the target of ridicule and defamation and that people abuse him because of his appearance and his unique teaching methods and his outlandish revelations about the Bible. Harold Camping brings a message that is completely adverse to conventionally established Church teachings. Many seminary educated professional Pastors and Ministers and others who preside in leadership positions within today’s established Church structure have taken a position that Mr. Camping is some sort of a misfit. Some have called him a lunatic and a charlatan. If you read the Bible carefully you’ll be surprised to learn that God almost never selected seminary-trained people to deliver His message or to carry out His divine plan. God chose Moses to deliver the nation of Israel out of Egypt. Was Moses a qualified individual to accept such a task when compared to the standards of today’s established church leaders? When God selected the man to slay the giant Goliath, did He select a man that was fit to carry out the task by today’s church standards? When God selected a man to prepare the way for the Lord Jesus’ coming He picked a man who was considered a crazy evangelist who lived in the wilderness. This man was John the Baptist. Today’s church leaders can be compared to the Pharisees and the Sadducees of Jesus’ time. That is to say, unless you were seminary trained and unless you were well connected in the established church, established church leaders would ignore and ridicule you and call you a fraud. Is Mr. Camping a modern day prophet? Is Mr. Camping God’s choice to reveal new revelations about how to interpret the Bible? Is Mr. Camping a modern day John the Baptist? You must judge this for yourself. As for me, it sounds like Mr. Camping fits the bill when it comes to the way God has always chosen His messengers. God never seems to pick people who were qualified and good looking and great speakers and great leaders like we see in most pulpits today. On the contrary, God picks those who reply upon Him and trust Him and not upon themselves, as do so many professional and established church leaders.

    Tony ~ Jul 9, 2008 at 9:50 pm

  66. Tony,

    Don’t forget the apostle Paul was a well respected highly educated man, and God used him mightily as well. You are right that it is not necessary to be a seminary professor to be an excellent Bible teacher. However, a seminary education does not disqualify someone from being an excellent Bible teacher.

    In this forum we have discussed this issue and many have agreed that it is better not to evaluate Mr. Camping or anyone on the basis of their educational background, or possible wrong motives. We evaluate the teachings of Mr. Camping and others based on how faithful their teachings are to God’s truth found in the Bible.

    I don’t believe that explaining to others the many mathematical errors and errors of logic I have found in Mr.Camping’s teachings is abusing him. On previous posts, I have documented errors that Mr. Camping made in proving his Biblical Calendar. If you disagree with me, please do not attack me personally. Instead, explain to me from the Bible what my errors are. I would enjoy discussing this with you.

    Marc ~ Jul 11, 2008 at 10:21 pm

  67. I’d echo Marc; while it’s always wrong to attack the person, such as Camping, that does seem to be what you are yourself engaging in to some degree, Tony. Let’s focus on the teaching. Personally, I have no idea what the man looks like nor his educational credentials (or lack thereof). I merely object to date-setting, pure and simple.

    Byron ~ Jul 12, 2008 at 9:53 pm

  68. Wow – this Harold Camping certainly has some devoted followers. What I don’t get is, why? Paul taught that we shouldn’t follow, or identify ourselves with – teachers. It’s one thing to discuss whether or not HC knows what he’s talking about, but some of you are defending him on a personal level – or is this just another excuse to attack the church and church leaders?

    Marc has calmly and rationally presented good reasons for his belief that HC is in error, asking that if anyone disagrees with him they point out where he is wrong – he doesn’t get that though, instead, he is called “vicious” for disagreeing with HC. Byron has explained, over and over, that he has nothing personal against the man, but still he is called names.

    What I find interesting is that those who find HC credible have not offered a rational explanation as to why they believe his findings are correct, in fact, some have said they don’t know if he’s correct, but they are angrily defending him anyway!

    On one hand, they like to point at people like Hal Lindsey and Jack Van Impe for being wrong about things they think will happen, but then they’re very upset that someone points out that HC has been wrong about some things. It was pointed out that Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn, etc. have said outrageous things and “organized religion” said nothing. How would someone who doesn’t go to church know what has been said about these things? Just because we don’t broadcast it on CNN doesn’t mean we agree with those kinds of statements, but one of the mistakes that is made by people who hate the “church” is they lump all the groups together and hold us all accountable, which is not reasonable – each group, even though they stand under the “Christian” umbrella, doesn’t answer to the others. If it’s logical to do that, then I guess it’s okay if I lump them in with the Jehovah’s witnesses and all the other cults who separate themselves from the church.

    So can anyone offer a good explanation for trying to set a date on Christ’s return? And if someone does that, or appears to be doing that, and is wrong – is that no big deal? In the words of Ronald Weinland, should we just “suck it up”?

    Laurie ~ Jul 13, 2008 at 4:16 am

  69. With regard to the accuracy of Harold Camping’s predictions, I have not yet formed my opinion. For me, the jury is still out. I am merely suggesting that God has never demonstrated any strict rules about human qualifications for those whom He selects to be His messengers. The Bible is full of “misfits”, by human standards, whom God has sent to mankind to delivery messages and to warn of His Judgments. Noah made very accurate predictions that were from God. God sent Jonah and Nahum to warn Nineveh. God sent Jeremiah, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Joel, Micah and Isaiah to warn Judah, Amos and Hosea warned Israel. Obadiah was sent by God to warn Edom. God sent Ezekiel and Daniel to warn the exiles. Haggai and Malachi were sent by God to warn the remnant. Many of the Prophets, totally unqualified and regarded as irrelevant, have been sent by God to warn Israel of his judgment. We have seen time and again where mankind has ignored these divine messages and warnings and the Bible accurately records these judgment events fully and completely. Some of these predictions have yet to be fulfilled. The loudest critics of Harold Camping, I venture to say, have never fully read and fully studies “all” of his publications concerning His predictions. With regard to his suggestions in his book 1994?, Camping specifically points to the question mark contained in the title. He is not shy about being corrected, by God’s Word as he claims, for miscalculations. Again, is God using Harold Camping? If it is up to history of mankind to judge Camping’s divine commission, I believe they will be too late in their opinions and God’s wrath will have already taken place. Mankind will still be in deliberation about Camping, as they were with Noah, and the rain will have already started to fall.

    Tony ~ Jul 13, 2008 at 10:53 am

  70. I believe God’s prophets have given us all the information we “need to know” about end times. What we’re getting from these guys who are making predictions about the timing and such are the things people would “like to know”. Jesus and Paul said we should be look for the signs, and be waiting, watching and praying. God chose not to give us the time, but that’s not good enough for some people, they want us to believe they have figured out what no one else has been able to. The Bible, which has been around for thousands of years and tells us what we need to know, isn’t enough – now we need books written by someone few have heard of, or we risk what – God’s wrath because we never tuned in to this guy’s radio station, bought his books, spent time studying his findings?

    I’m not buying it.

    Laurie ~ Jul 13, 2008 at 11:42 am

  71. To say, “Seal up the Word” means, that the Word, God gave to some prophets, were to remain undisturbed, neither adding to nor taking away from. To be kept secret and not to be let known. To “Seal” means to shut or keep close. To keep secret.

    We see many references in the Bible to the phrase, “Seal up the Word”. Some of which are frequently mentioned in the book of Revelation. Verses like Revelation 5:1; Revelation 6:1; Revelation 7:3; Revelation 10:4; Revelation 22:10 give us examples.

    In Daniel 12:6-7 we read, “And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?

    And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.”

    In Daniel 8:26 we read, ” 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. References to the term “Seal” also appear in Revelation 5:1, Revelation 10:4; Isa.8:16; Daniel 12:4, Daniel 12:9; Matthew 10:27.

    “The words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.” Is that to say that the end has already happened, as many seminary trained Bible scholars and pastors suggest? No! The words that were sealed in Daniel’s era, are now being revealed today, the last days. How can we be sure? The Bible says time and again, The Generation that Jesus spoke of has just arrived. When? Could it be in 1948 at the rebirth of the nation of Israel in the promised land? You be the judge.

    As for Harold Camping and his Bible interpretations and calculations, I can not argue with any authority about Camping’s assertions because I have not completely read and digested all of his books on this specific subject. Until I do, I will not comment on his accuracy. I can only argue that the Bible, as given to mankind by God, has secrets that are still “sealed up” and are being revealed according to God’s time table. Yes, the writings are of old and were written many centuries ago. That, however, does not mean that God is allowing contemporary mankind 100 percent understanding of these ancient writings. His entire plan is now unfolding in the last days and I’m sure God is giving special divine understanding to His present day chosen prophets exactly like He did in those ancient times. Is Harold Camping a present day prophet? I’m not completely sure. I suggest at first glance that Camping, like many of God’s ancient messengers, is similarly unlikely and unqualified by human standards. Today’s world would sooner accept such outrageous revelations from the Pope than they would from the likes of Harold Camping.

    Tony ~ Jul 13, 2008 at 2:00 pm

  72. I agree that the Apostle Paul, “was a well respected highly educated man, and God used him mightily…”. However, Saul (Paul) was chosen by God to show mankind that He can choose a respected member of the established religious order of that day, the Jewish ruling council called the Sanhedrin, who persecuted the early Christian Church unmercifully, and He can covert this man on the road to Damascus. Saul, a respected Pharasee, became Paul, the opposite of all that he was taught and all that he stood for as a member of the Sanhedrin. Yes, God did use Paul (Saul) mightily as a converted Born-Again Christian, not as Saul the Pharisee. It would seem to me that, just when human beings say that we have God all figured out, then God throws a curve-ball and catches mankind with His third strike. Could God choose Harold Camping to reveal hidden truths about the Bible? Why not! He chose Saul, who absolutely hated Christ and Christians, to become Paul, a man who eventually was martyred for Christ’s sake and for the cause of Christianity. Camping does not claim to be adding anything to the Bible. He merely claims to be carefully studying the Bible, comparing scripture with scripture, and teaching what is being revealed to him of the things that have been sealed up in the Word for many centuries. Can God do this through Camping? Why not! God has been revealing His plan through the unlikely and unqualified prophets for many centuries. Why not now and why not Camping?

    Tony ~ Jul 13, 2008 at 5:12 pm

  73. Tony,

    One point you missed is that books that claim to know details of the end of the world are very popular. In addition, people are often interested in fantastic tales rather than in the mundane. In this respect you would expect Mr. Camping to be popular in this world, and he is not an unlikely leader.

    According to your analysis, I believe I am very qualified to teach Bible truths. I have never been to Bible school, never been to Seminary, never taught an adult Bible study, never been a pastor or deacon or elder. By your standards, I believe I am even more qualified to teach Bible truths. However, I do not have fantastic new Bible truths to share, so I do not have a following, like Mr. Camping.

    Since I am as equally unlikely and unqualified as Mr. Camping, how do we know who is right? By careful study. We must check out all teaching with our authority, the Bible. I have documented a significant mathematical error that Mr. Camping made in defense of his Biblical Calendar (see June 28). I can explain many, many, many more errors that he has made. Please, Tony, if I am not being faithful to the Bible, explain to me from the Bible what my errors are. And if you have any questions, don’t hesitate to ask. I am happy to discuss this issue with you.

    Marc ~ Jul 13, 2008 at 6:44 pm

  74. Tony,

    You know who accepts outrageous statements made by the Pope? Catholics. That’s it. None of the other churches are under his authority so they’re not obligated to believe him. Secular society doesn’t believe him either, and I venture to say if you perked up your ears you’d know nobody but Catholics take anything the man says seriously. He’s famous, so what he says sometimes gets on the news, but yawn…it’s interesting for about a minute. You say you don’t know if Harold Camping is a modern day prophet, but you’re spending a lot of time arguing the possibility. Has he made such a claim? If he hasn’t, then what’s the big deal if we believe him or not?

    You said the loudest critics of HC have never fully read or studied all of his publications; that doesn’t necessarily make them wrong. I’ve not read or studied all the publications put out by the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, but I am definitely a critic – I’ve read and studied enough to know they’re wrong, I don’t need to waste any more time reading everything so I can say I’m qualified to be a critic. Some Mormons came to my door one day, and they’re telling me I should read the Book of Mormon so I can get “closer” to God. I told them I can do that by reading the Bible – after some more discussion I asked them to tell me what the Book of Mormon says that I need to know – they could only come up with one thing; it would tell me the reason I was created, which is so that I can have joy. I let them know what I thought about that, of course, but it was interesting that they spent all that time trying to convince me I should read it, and ultimately there was nothing in it I really needed to know. This is exactly what I suspected, so I was glad I didn’t waste my time.

    Marc made a good point – I don’t think the issue here is that some are rejecting what HC is saying because they don’t think God would choose someone like him; it’s absolutely true that God can use whoever He wants, and you don’t have to be a pastor, or go to seminary, to study the Bible – I think it’s more about the fact that he is presenting ideas that attract attention and now some people think he has special knowledge when in fact it hasn’t been proven that he does.

    Laurie ~ Jul 13, 2008 at 9:40 pm

  75. Marc,

    Not only Mr. Camping but all of those who have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Savior are “prophets” and are commanded to go into all the world and preach the Gospel. Marc, I have wonderful news for you. If you have repented of your sins and have accepted Jesus as your Personal Savior, like the prophets of old, you too are a prophet regardless of your human qualities. The only ability God ever asked of us is “availability”. As a Christian, your primary reason for living is to worship and serve God. Nothing else of this world can ever come close to that commission for your life. Attacking Mr. Camping and his message is counter to how Christians should behave. If anything, Christians should be praying for one another and that also includes praying for Mr. Camping.

    Laurie,

    Mr. Camping, from my very limited knowledge of him, seems to not be asking you to believe in him and his predictions. He is only asking you to carefully and prayerfully read your Bible. Camping constantly seems to refer to the Bible as the final authority. Regarding Camping’s predictions, I believe he only goes so far as to ask you to “carefully” read his books and other research materials with an open mind and then, merely draw your own conclusions. I don’t believe Mr. Camping is trying to force anyone to believe in him. He only asks the reader to consider his predictions and then compare those predictions with what is written in God’s Word, the Bible. In fact, in my opinion, I don’t think Mr. Camping could care less what you believe. Mr. Camping has one agenda. To share God’s Word, the Bible, to all who would listen. If he is in error, God is faithful to correct that error. I believe that such correction is what happened with his book 1994?. Again, I can’t comment specifically on Mr. Campings predictions until carefully study all of them. My only point in this entire discussion is to say that we can’t put God in a box with regard to how he reveals the sealed-up secrets of old that are contained in His Holy Word as they apply to modern end time events.

    Tony ~ Jul 13, 2008 at 11:39 pm

  76. Tony,

    I haven’t gotten the impression that HC is asking me or anyone else to believe him; I’ve gotten that feeling from some of the people posting here. The outrage expressed because some do not agree with him has been fierce. It may be true that he doesn’t care what I or anyone else believes, but the fact that some here do not believe him seems to be making some people very angry.

    You made an interesting statement: “Attacking Mr. Camping and his message is counter to how Christians should behave. If anything, Christians should be praying for one another and that also includes praying for Mr. Camping.” I would echo that but change it a little bit – “Attacking the church and it’s message is counter to how Christians should behave…” I’m not trying to be funny here, I’m serious – Mr. Camping teaches that people should leave the church – that’s a full-on attack, and you’re saying WE are not behaving properly?

    I must say you have made a valiant effort to support and defend HC – one would think you have complete faith in him and his teachings, yet you say you’re not going to comment on his accuracy or whether or not he’s God’s present day prophet as you have not yet completely read all of his books. I don’t want to contradict you but it surely does sound like you have made up your mind he IS a prophet thru whom God is revealing end-time secrets – when you use phrases like “divine commission” and “teaching what is being revealed to him of things that have been sealed up…” – it just doesn’t sound like the jury is still out. I confess I don’t understand that…wouldn’t it make more sense for you to wait to defend him so staunchly until after you have read his books and determined these things? If you believe a critic of HC should have read all of his books, what about his defenders?

    Laurie ~ Jul 14, 2008 at 1:34 am

  77. I don’t see anything in Tony’s posts that indicate his staunch support for HC. On the contrary, Tony keeps saying that he has absolutely no opinion about HC’s writings, teachings and predictions. Tony is simply saying that God has proven, over many centuries, that He can choose whomever He wishes to deliver His messages and His revelations. This may, or may not, include HC. I get it!

    Mary ~ Jul 14, 2008 at 8:22 am

  78. Mary,

    Well, I guess we see things differently. For someone who has “no opinion” of HC’s writings, teachings and predictions, he’s got an awful lot to say about all the different prophets God has used – is he not trying to make the point that HC could be the prophet thru whom God is giving special divine revelation and revealing hidden truths about the Bible? I’m borrowing phrases from his posts – he says he’s not “completely” sure if this is the case, which means he’s at the very least partially sure. Can we at least agree that he’s arguing for, not against, the man?

    While it’s certainly true that we are prophets, priests and kings, we’re not all going around claiming we’re receiving revelations of things that have been sealed up – this is a serious claim. When someone says this, they’re saying God is giving them information – this is a prophet’s claim, which means he should be tested to see if he’s a true prophet. If he’s not, then he’s false and you should have nothing to do with him. This reminds me of Herbert W. Armstrong, who did not himself claim to be a prophet, but made prophecies, many of which failed – his followers called him a prophet then, and still do that now. I don’t know if he did this because it was his way of getting out of having to answer to the charge of being a false prophet, but that doesn’t work – if you’re making predictions saying God has revealed them to you, that makes you a prophet, and you should be tested to see if you’re God’s prophet or not.

    It sounds very impressive when people say you shouldn’t believe them, believe only the Bible, but when you say you have information from God that isn’t in the Bible that really doesn’t apply, does it? Now the pressure is on you to believe him.

    Laurie ~ Jul 14, 2008 at 10:01 am

  79. Laurie,

    Have you ever read through a familiar passage of scripture many times and, regardless of how many times in the past you have read it, it always speaks to you the exact same way? Then, one day, you read through the very same passage and somehow the words reveal a message to you that you had not seen nor considered before. That has happened to me many times. When I read my Bible, sometimes such “revelations” happen in the course of my reading and all of a sudden God’s Word becomes alive and speaks to me in a very personal way. Almost like God is now allowing me to understand something that He kept hidden from me in the past. Maybe I wasn’t ready for the deeper hidden truths before, maybe God wanted me to know something important at a specific time, I’m not sure. I believe that God speaks through His Word and only His Word. If we are faithful to study His Word, the mystery of the Holy Spirit (our Helper) comes into play and as time goes on, deeper and deeper truths are revealed to us as God determines when we are ready for such truths. The Bible is a living and breathing document meant to help us grow in faith and knowledge. The Bible is how God speaks to mankind. I can testify with all certainty that the Bible is how God reveals Himself to me an He never stops showing me more and more of His nature and His personality and most of all, His love for me.

    Mary ~ Jul 14, 2008 at 11:20 am

  80. Mary,

    I agree, and I have experienced those same things myself, but it is one thing to study the Bible on a personal level, quite another to teach others. When you teach, you are putting yourself in a position to influence others, and you’re accountable for that. The Bible tells us we should beware of false teachers and false prophets – we have a responsibility before God to test all things.

    Laurie ~ Jul 14, 2008 at 1:25 pm

  81. So I take it that those wonderful “revelations” that occur to me as I study my Bible should be kept to myself and not be shared? I believe a good old fashioned preacher would differ with that opinion. Preachers and pastors read their Bibles, just like you and me, and turn their “revelations” into sermons. Are you saying they should not do such things?

    Mary ~ Jul 14, 2008 at 2:30 pm

  82. Mary,

    I believe God does communicate with us thru His word – the Holy Spirit opens up our understanding, comforts, encourages, etc. Sometimes I feel that God is showing me something I hadn’t previously seen, like you said, but unless I was 100% percent sure it wasn’t just my own discernment, I would be careful how I shared that. I look at it like this – what if someone said that I had told them something, and not only did I not tell them that, but what they said was wrong – that would bother me, so I’m not going to handle God’s word that way.

    Let’s get Byron to weigh in and explain how he handles this. Byron, in preparing your messages, does God give you “revelations” and if so, how do you communicate them to your congregation?

    Laurie ~ Jul 14, 2008 at 3:42 pm

  83. Mary,

    When I got saved in 1973, it was from reading God’s Word with the help and prayers of faithful Christian friends and family. God revealed to me, in His Holy Word, the “revelation” that has saved my life and my soul. I could hardly keep this new revelation to myself. I remember wanting to shout it from the highest house top. I have been given the priceless and precious gift of salvation through Jesus Christ and to keep it a secret and to not shout it out to the world to God’s glory would be sin. I am reminded of the verse in Luke 19 which says, “I tell you, if they were to keep silent, the stones would cry out!” To this day, as I read my Bible, God continues to show me, through the help of His Holy Spirit, hidden truths about His ancient scriptures. When I am blessed with a better understanding of His Word, I can’t keep still. I must outwardly praise and glorify His Name. I must share His revelations with the world. If that is a wreckless way to handle God’s Word, then I’m guilty as charged. I might venture to guess that Mr. Camping might very well be similarly guilty of such wrecklessness as he shares with the world what God has revealed to him from the reading of His Holy Word.

    Tony ~ Jul 14, 2008 at 4:24 pm

  84. Tony,

    You wrote: “Attacking Mr. Camping and his message is counter to how Christians should behave.”

    If someone is teaching false doctrines we are commanded by God to rebuke them. A rebuke is not an attack, it is an act of love according to the Bible. Therefore, your statement is not Biblical.

    “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

    (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

    Proverbs 9:8
    Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.

    Proverbs 13:1
    A wise son heareth his father’s instruction: but a scorner heareth not rebuke.

    Proverbs 13:8
    The ransom of a man’s life are his riches: but the poor heareth not rebuke.

    Proverbs 24:25
    But to them that rebuke him shall be delight, and a good blessing shall come upon them.

    Proverbs 27:5
    Open rebuke is better than secret love.

    Ecclesiastes 7:5
    It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools.

    Marc

    Marc ~ Jul 14, 2008 at 5:21 pm

  85. Tony & Mary,

    The Gospel has been revealed to us; it’s no secret and should certainly be shared. As I said, the Holy Spirit opens up our understanding, but sometimes the interpretations we come up with can come from our own minds – that’s why we have to be careful. I guess we’d have to define what kind of revelation we’re talking about – when you first get saved, pretty much everything seems like a revelation – when you’re talking about “hidden truths”, it starts sounding like private interpretation.

    Laurie ~ Jul 14, 2008 at 5:23 pm

  86. Long day; I’ll try to weigh in tomorrow on the “revelation” thing…

    Byron ~ Jul 14, 2008 at 11:14 pm

  87. Marc,

    All wonderful references to the term “rebuke”. I am encouraged by your knowledge of you Bible and how you allowed the Spirit to help you reveal to us the truth of these passages. If you research came from long years of study and memorized references, my congratulations. That’s how I learned to hide God’s Word in my heart in Sunday School way back in the 40′s and 50′s. I still believe in teaching memory work by Godly volunteer teachers from a good old fashioned flannel board. Regarding the use of rebuke as it relates to Harold Camping, I’m almost never comfortable with harsh measures to get wayward and backslidden brothers and sisters back in the fold when more gentle and yet more powerful means are at our disposal. After all, “There but by the grace of God go I”. I’ve found that over the years if you demonstrate, as best you can, the fruit of the Spirit in your life, as the Apostle Paul wanted the Galatian church to keep in mind…

    love (agape);
    joy (chara);
    peace (eirene);
    patience (makrothumia);
    kindness (chrestotes);
    goodness (agathosune);
    faithfulness (pistis);
    gentleness (prautes);
    self-control (enkrateia)

    And prayerfully ask God to fulfill His divine will and reveal his power in the life of someone considered backslidden and wayward, as you suggest Harold Camping may be, God’s power is almost always released upon the situation. His timing is perfect. He’s always aware of the behavior of His children. I believe Camping is saved and is a born-again child of God. Is Camping wayward and backslidden? I don’t know. However, the one thing that I know for sure? God knows Harold Camping, lust like He knows you and me, down to his very soul. Will God correct His children without our help. There’s no doubt in my mind. It’s a Kingdom principle that is promised in God’s Word. I find peace in knowing that God is the author, controller and finisher of all things. Conclusion: Let those without sin cast the first rebuke.

    Tony ~ Jul 15, 2008 at 9:40 am

  88. I’m sorry folks, please forgive my spelling. I certainly didn’t mean to spell the word “lust”.

    Tony ~ Jul 15, 2008 at 9:43 am

  89. Laurie,

    I’m bless by you post. Yes indeed, God speaks to us through His Word the Bible. In my opinion, as I said before, the Bible (God’s Holy Word) is a living and breathing document. Many of the parallel translations of 2 Timothy 3:16 describe the Bible like this…

    All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

    All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

    Every Scripture passage is inspired by God. All of them are useful for teaching, pointing out errors, correcting people, and training them for a life that has God’s approval.

    All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

    All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

    Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.

    Every holy Writing which comes from God is of profit for teaching, for training, for guiding, for education in righteousness:

    All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice,

    Every scripture is divinely inspired, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;

    Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness:

    All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

    Every Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for convincing, for correction of error, and for instruction in right doing;

    Every Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness,

    every Writing is God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that is in righteousness,

    Laurie,
    I believe that the organized and established end time church of today in great danger of denying the power of God’s Word. Many established and accepted churches today are saying, directly from the pulpit, that the Bible is not relevant in our modern times. Many pastors and church leaders are teaching that we must be “very careful” about not taking the Bible too literally or figuratively and that those who claim that they have instruction and reproof from God’s Word are to be carefully investigated and, by majority, rebuked for bringing forth such instruction and training that has not been substantiated by human scrutiny. In my humble opinion, God told us about the end time church in Revelation. God revealed to John the Seven Churches in Asia Minor. The Church at Ephesus. The Church at Smyrna. The Church at Pergamum. The Church at Thyatira. The Church at Sardis. The Church at Philadelphia. The Church at Laodicea . Today’s organized church is described amongst these seven churches. Some of these churches were “very careful” with the scriptures. Careful to the point of denying the power of the God’s Word and the yet to be fulfilled messages, instructions and revelations contained therein. If we ere, I believe we should ere on the side of abundantly spreading the story of Jesus Christ as contained in God’s Word to all the world, both in purpose and in practice, rather than being “very careful” to possibly deny its power. God’s knows our hearts. I believe God reveals his secrets to those who fearlessly serve Him and who faithfully trust in the power of His Word. God promises that He will not allow His Word to return void. He merely asks us to tell the story of Jesus and abide in His Word as we wait upon His guidance and direction. We must remain constantly open to such guidance and direction through the reading and study of His Holy Word, the Bible.

    Tony ~ Jul 15, 2008 at 10:19 am

  90. Again, please forgive my atrocious spelling.

    Tony ~ Jul 15, 2008 at 10:25 am

  91. Here’s a simple closing thought about revelation from God’s Word as it applies to my life…

    When I sit down and open my Bible, I’ve been taught to prayerfully expect to learn something new. Something that God has decided that I’m ready to learn. Something from the scripture that, in spite of reading many times before, God chooses this particular time of reading it to show me something I didn’t see before.

    I don’t think faithful Christians, who regularly read their Bible, read it much differently that I do. That includes Marc and Laurie, and Mary and, yes, Harold Camping.

    Tony ~ Jul 15, 2008 at 10:41 am

  92. Tony,

    I believe the Bible is relevant, and should be taken literally unless it is clear it shouldn’t be. I have attended different churches over the years, but never one that believes otherwise. I have been present when people stood up in church and delivered “instruction and reproof from God’s Word” – sometimes it was accepted as being from the Lord, sometimes not. One example that comes to mind is a couple that was very weak in the Lord. The husband stood up during a mid-week service that the pastor had designated as time for anyone who felt they had a word from the Lord and announced he and his wife were leaving – he rebuked us for not having a loving attitude towards his wife; she was struggling and needed prayer and support and hadn’t received it. He went on to say how the Lord was disappointed in us, etc. I was momentarily shocked because I knew his wife was troubled and wondered if I/we had failed her, but then I thought, wait a minute, that’s not true – I had prayed with her many times, as had others; I had attempted to draw her into fellowship with the ladies (it was like pulling teeth because she kept pulling away); I had personally invited her to functions, ministry events – she even stayed in my room at the women’s retreat, which another lady paid for as she couldn’t afford it. The more I thought back, the more offended I was that he was standing there delivering a “rebuke” from the Lord! On the other hand, I have also heard people say things that were very positive and encouraging, as well as some who had a word of wisdom. I’m not against people saying the Lord told them something, but they should understand it is proper to test it – I believe if what they’re saying is truly from the Lord, they won’t have a problem with that – it’s when people expect me to believe it’s from God just because they say so that I have a problem.

    I’ve heard teachers, in church and out, who taught something the Lord revealed to them, usually it’s something different than is usually taught on that subject/passage and I always check it out. I’m not one of those people who wants to chase after every new and different idea someone puts out there as being from the Lord. When I say we should be careful with the scriptures, I’m talking about someone who says God showed them some “hidden truth” no one else knows, and is expecting people to believe it’s from God. Any word from the Lord MUST come under human scrutiny because it is being delivered to humans – they must have an opportunity to decide whether it’s from the Lord or not. I’m not saying a person shouldn’t share something they believe is from God, I’m saying they should be sure it is before they make that claim.

    Laurie ~ Jul 15, 2008 at 11:32 am

  93. Hi Tony,

    I still don’t understand why you state that the Bible prohibits me from offering a profitable rebuke of Harold Camping, with clear explanations from the Bible. And at the same time you do not seem concerned that Harold Camping himself often states that anyone who attends a church is serving Satan. He seems to be far more harsh and more judgmental than I, but you refuse to criticize him. Could you please explain this inconsistency. (Are you saying that he is justified, because he harshly condemns everyone that goes to church, and I am just offering a Biblical rebuke to one man?)

    You still haven’t addressed the evidence that I offered to show that Mr. Camping is not faithful to the Bible. Instead, you imply that I have no Biblical authority to present evidence that proves he is teaching false doctrines.

    Marc ~ Jul 15, 2008 at 12:12 pm

  94. Laurie,

    Point well taken. In spite of our minor differences regarding how God speaks to us through His Word, the Bible, I believe that we are conducting a reasonable dialog. Not hateful, not name calling, not angry, not threatening, not turbulent, not with malice or viciousness, but in love and all humility as, I believe, God would want.

    “Iron sharpens iron.” You are correct that we should exercise the wonderful gift of discernment as has been given to certain of God’s children. Discernment is one of the more important gifts of the Spirit that provides for a hedge against the wiles of the Devil. I congratulate you in your efforts to be a caretaker and protector of God’s Word. I am blessed to have you as my sister in Christ.

    Tony ~ Jul 15, 2008 at 12:20 pm

  95. A few thoughts whilst I have a moment:

    Laurie asked me about “revelations” I might receive in preparing messages to preach on Sundays to my congregation. It’s an interesting question; my answer might ramble, but bear with me, and if I’m unclear or phrase something poorly, ask a clarifying question, if you would.

    I’m not sure that the word “revelation” is the term I’d use. It may be semantic, I readily confess, but nonetheless that wouldn’t be my term. What happens when I’m studying for a message? Let’s back up…

    I begin with the conviction that the Bible is the God-breathed Word of God, inerrant in the original manuscripts, and faithfully transmitted through the ages to the point where we have a number of faithful translations of God’s perfect Word. Some are better; some are worse; some have strengths in one area and weaknesses in another. But I digress…

    The Bible was written in normal language, not symbolic, generally speaking. It can be read and (to a point) understood by the average man on the street. That’s not at all to deny the role of the Holy Spirit in illuminating His Word, nor to suggest that the “deep things of God” can be understood by the unconverted; they cannot, according to Scripture. But the important thing is this: the Bible means what it means. It never means one thing to one person and a different thing to another person. True, our applications may be different; “cast all your care upon Him, for He cares for you” will be applied differently by the college student sweating an exam than it will the grieving mother who has lost children in a fire. But it means what it means, and the role of the Bible student/teacher/preacher must be to attempt to uncover the original meaning of the text–what did God the Holy Spirit intend to convey through the instrument of Paul/whomever–in order that then we might go about the business of application. We might add, parenthetically, that context is critical; while the Bible was written for us, it was not written to us. We read, as it were, “over the shoulders” of the Ephesians, for instance, and before we claim some passage from Scripture as “our own”, we must understand it in the context it was written: “what did it mean to the original recipients?”

    That said, there is, as some of you have said, a depth to the Word of God such that we will sometimes come to understand a given text in deeper, fuller ways than previously, though we’ve read it many times. This may happen in several ways, one supernatural: the Holy Spirit’s illumination without any other “assistance”. It may also happen as I read other Bible scholars, who have a command of the original languages beyond mine, for instance, who can help me to understand that the “surface interpretation” I’ve had, perhaps for years, isn’t really what the text is saying.

    Now, are these “revelations”? Well, as I said, that’s not the term I’d use, but if you like the word, fine. My concern, of course, is to be faithful to what the text says and means, and however that comes to me, I’m cool with it. On those occasions when I’m not totally sure–such as a couple of issues this past week from Acts 21 (“did Paul sin in going to Jerusalem?”)–I try to explain the controversy and then give what to me seems most reasonable, labeling it as such. I think it’d be foolhardy to say, “God showed me that Paul was in sin to go to Jerusalem”.

    Does that help? Does that raise other questions? Does that not sound “supernatural” enough? I’ll try to field whatever questions my answers raise as I am able.

    Byron ~ Jul 15, 2008 at 12:23 pm

  96. Marc, not that I doubt you for a moment, but is there some reference to Camping saying that those who are part of a church are serving Satan? I just find that statement so incredibly irresponsible and unBiblical that I’m surprised that a guy who, for all of the things I think he may get wrong, I’d not call a “cultist”, to make. Give us a good reference, on the ‘net if possible, to substantiate that. I’d love to hear his “reasoning”.

    Byron ~ Jul 15, 2008 at 12:25 pm

  97. Marc,

    I don’t know how many times I have to say it, but I guess I’ll say it again…

    I do not have enough information about Harold Camping to form anything close to a reasonable opinion. I can’t debate his position because I would be going on pure speculation. Do I make myself clear?

    I don’t remember ever stating that the Bible prohibits you from rebuking anybody, including Mr. Camping. I merely stated that I won’t participate in that effort. If you feel that you need to rebuke Camping or, for that matter, me or anyone else, go right ahead. Relieve yourself of this consuming burden!

    I don’t remember ever agreeing with Mr. Camping that “anyone who attends a church is serving Satan.”

    Yes, I refuse to “criticize him” until I have studied his research materials.

    Why do you insist that I enter into a debate with you about Harold Camping when I have clearly stated that I am, in no way, prepared to do so?

    Tony ~ Jul 15, 2008 at 12:38 pm

  98. Tony,

    Thanks for your kind comments – I appreciate it.

    Byron,

    Thanks for the explanation; do you have audio messages on your website? I’d be interested to hear you teach.

    The following quote is taken from Harold Camping’s publication entitled “We are Almost There!”, which can be found on the Family Radio Worldwide website:

    We will discover that some time earlier than 1994, God was finished using the churches to represent the kingdom of God. Thus, the wonderful jubilee year 1994 was a horrible year for the churches. All over the world, God was again saving countless numbers of people, but the churches remained under the spiritual rule of Satan. Truly, God was forever finished using the churches to represent the kingdom of God. The situation was just as it was in 1877 B.C., when the land of Canaan came under the complete rulership of the heathen, and in the year 587 B.C., when the land of Judea came under the rule of the king of Babylon.

    Laurie ~ Jul 15, 2008 at 11:34 pm

  99. Yes, Laurie; the link is

    http://www.red-oak.org/listen/

    Thanks for the Camping reference. I just wonder where this guy gets this nonsense; does he pull it out of thin air? Does he even pretend to have any Scriptural rationale? Until reading this, my criticism of Camping was confined to what I consider the foolhardiness of date-setting. This is irresponsible on his part and moves him into a different arena of teacher. I’m thinking ole Charlie has for sure been onto something in his assessment of Camping (as well as Marc).

    Byron ~ Jul 15, 2008 at 11:44 pm

  100. Byron,

    In skimming thru this, the following chapter caught my eye:
    Bible Interpretation

    It is indeed sad that virtually each and every church throughout the world
    cannot understand many truths of the Bible. This is so because they do not obey the
    Bible’s instructions concerning Bible interpretation. Moreover, there is a good
    possibility that most Bible teachers do not understand that every word in the original
    languages of the Bible is from the mouth of God, and therefore, is super-important as
    well as super-accurate. The man-made, historical, grammatical hermeneutic method of Bible interpretation that is held by virtually every church, denomination, seminary, etc., is to be totally rejected. The true Biblical method of Bible interpretation is based on the fact that the Bible teaches that the Bible is a spiritual book written in an earthly way.
    Because it is written by God, every historical event, and every conversation, and every incident recorded in the Bible is absolutely true and trustworthy. However, because these literal, historical statements also must be understood spiritually, the true ultimate
    message that God is giving to mankind in the Bible will not be understood until the
    spiritual teaching of the verse being studied has been found.

    Jesus spoke of this hermeneutic principal in Mark 4:33-34, where we read:
    And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were
    able to hear it. But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when
    they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.

    Jesus is the very essence of the Word of God. We read in John 1:14 that the
    Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Thus, the principle of seeking the spiritual
    meaning of each word and phrase recorded in the Bible applies to the whole Bible
    inasmuch as Christ is identified with the whole Bible. The Bible is the Word of God.
    Christ is the Word of God. And because the Bible is God’s book, the Bible student
    must seek help from the Holy Spirit, God Himself. God alone can bring truth to our
    hearts (John 16:13). Any spiritual conclusion must be carefully tested by the Bible student to be certain that it is altogether harmonious with any and every other truth the Bible teaches.

    The foregoing principle that Christ spoke in parables, and without a parable He
    did not speak, appears to be the chief means by which God assists the true believers to further understand the Bible. But it also appears to be the chief means by which God blinds those who come to the Bible with their own preconceived ideas. This principle is set forth in Mark 4:11-12, where God says:
    And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the
    kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done
    in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they
    may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted,
    and their sins should be forgiven them.
    For example, anyone who follows the man-made, grammatical, historical
    hermeneutic, which is utilized throughout the church world, will not be able to
    correctly understand many very important truths of the Bible. This includes the Bible’s teachings concerning the end of the church age, and the fact that the true believers can know much about the timetable and details of the end of the world.

    I think you’re right – he pulls this nonsense out of thin air. Imagine thinking that everyone is wrong but you – someone mentioned his appearance, does he have an unusually large head? “Christ spoke in parables, and without a parable He did not speak” – whaaaat?

    Laurie ~ Jul 16, 2008 at 12:14 am

  101. Byron,

    Here is a reference that gives Mr. Camping’s explanation that all those who remain in a local congregation are serving Satan. He does not use that phrase, but describes that concept. http://forms.familyradio.org/dbqf/dbqf-sptext_00146.html I’ll continue to look for documentation that Mr. Camping actually teaches point blank anyone remaining in a local church is “serving Satan.” I heard him say this very recently on his Open Forum broadcast.

    Marc ~ Jul 16, 2008 at 12:50 am

  102. Tony,

    You stated, “I don’t remember ever stating that the Bible prohibits you from rebuking anybody, including Mr. Camping.” Good. Sorry I misunderstood you. Now we have the serious task of examining Mr. Camping’s teaching to see if he is faithful to the Bible. I hope you can continue participating in this discussion.

    Marc ~ Jul 16, 2008 at 1:17 am

  103. Camping’s hermeneutic opens the door to all sorts of fanciful “interpretations” of Scripture, making of the Bible a “magic” book rather than God’s Word. Thanks for the quote, because this tells us a lot about Camping’s methodology and why he gets off-base where he does.

    Byron ~ Jul 16, 2008 at 9:40 am

  104. Come to think of it, I wonder if some folks who posted comments to Weinland, critical of Weinland but also convinced that churches today are “synagogues of Satan”, might not be Camping disciples (“happy Campers”?).

    Here, by the way, is a little compendium of some of Camping’s controversial (unbiblical) teachings.

    Byron ~ Jul 16, 2008 at 9:43 am

  105. That’s exactly what occurred to me, as a lot that was said echoes Campings’ ideas. Interesting that his theology is similar to Jehovah’s Witness’, which is a cult. One of my close friends was raised JW, she had a difficult time getting out of it – no wonder some of these people are treating us like we’re the spawn of Satan!

    Laurie ~ Jul 16, 2008 at 10:14 am

  106. When Camping suggested date setting in his book, 1994?, most leaders and members in my church chalked it up as somewhat interesting, but nothing new since date setting, predicting the end of the world, has been popular for so called “end time prophets” since Jesus said He would return. The main difference concerning Campings most recent date setting prediction is that he has coupled it with his “flee the churches” statement. That made my pastor and many other local church leaders very upset and ready to go after Camping calling him a madman. My pastor said, “It’s one thing to be setting dates but it’s much more serious when you start messing around with my livelyhood.”

    Mary ~ Jul 16, 2008 at 2:17 pm

  107. Date setting in general is not a good idea – everything you see in scripture points to the date being unknown; when the dates come and go – they’re just plain wrong. Why do we need to know the exact day? It’s not like you need to put your affairs in order, or pack, or build a bomb shelter – the Bible says watch and pray – be ready spiritually all the time, looking forward to Jesus’ return, whenever it may be.

    Although it’s probable that some are so anxious they wish it would happen now, trying to put a date on it won’t make it happen – and it just ends up making them look like they don’t know what they’re talking about. For some it seems to be an ego trip – look at me, I’ve figured out what no one else could, I’m special, God picked me…

    I think we should challenge the date-setters, a la Gary Demar, to sign a contract turning over all their assets on the day after they claim the end time event is to occur. Then we’ll see how sure they really are.

    Laurie ~ Jul 16, 2008 at 5:43 pm

  108. I agree that date setting, with regard to Christ’s and predicting the end of the world is probably not such a good idea but rather than being so hostile toward Harold Camping, shouldn’t we be praying that God will either enlighten him or that He will enlighten us? I sort of agree with Camping and others on this blog that the book of Revelation holds mysteries that have been sealed up for centuries and are only to be revealed at the end of the age. It has only been recently that mankind has even scratched the surface of the mysterous images told in John’s account of Revelation. Take for instance Chapter 12, just recently it has been generally agreed that the “child” of this chapter is Jesus Christ. There’s still controversy about the identity of the “women” but most today agree it represents the nation of Israel and the “dragon” seems to represent Satan. As recent as 50 years ago, nobody could even guess the identities of any of the characters in Chapter 12. Centuries passed and these images were a mystery, now God is showing certain chosen people, of our present day, the meanings of these mysterious images. Why do we think God can’t chose Harold Camping to be one of God’s modern day messengers?

    Danny ~ Jul 18, 2008 at 3:00 pm

  109. Danny,

    I agree that 1000 years ago the book of Revelation was like reading a fairy tale in some parts and like reading a horror story in others. Back then nobody had a clue what the images meant. Most Christian pastors wouldn’t go anywhere near Revelation back then because it was so mysterious. This same mentality held true well into the future until recently. In recent years, while there are still pastors who are deathly afraid of Revelation as an area for sermon material, there are some who are making some very interesting correlations with regard to the ancient images and how they relate to current events. So here’s the question, who decides which correlations are of these mysterious scriptures are true and which correlations are false? Which “human authority” has the corner on the market of deciding about Biblical hermeneutics. Seminaries and seminarians claim such authority but aren’t they just human caretakers? Pastors and preachers run around claiming that “they” are the authority on Biblical hermeneutics and have their church members bullied into believing they are right and the rest of the world is wrong. Fact is, Biblical hermeneutics is merely a human effort. That all it is. Is existed in the times of the Pharisees and Sadducees and the Sanhedrin and it’s still going on today. Dreamed up and authored by humans. It’s just a substitute for the “all we need” that God promises in His triune being. The Father, The Son and the Holy Ghost! God promised that if we are faithful to His Word, His Holy Spirit will reveal His truth. He promises that, “that’s all we need”. Outside of that, everything else is generated by human effort the very same way they build the tower of Babel and just like the Ten Commandments which became thousands of commandments once it was in the care of humans beings. If we obey God’s commandment to prayerfully abide in His Word, He promises to reveal Himself and His truth. The gradual revealing of the book of Revelation in recent years is proof that God is opening up His secrets to mankind. Every day God reveals more and more of His Word. Regretfully, to the sad disappointment of pastors, preachers, seminarians and the established religious leaders of our modern times, the present day Pharisees, Sadducees and the Sanhedrin aren’t necessarily being chosen as God’s messengers. God may be fooling these leaders and their followers by selecting “madmen” and “crazy people” like he did when he selected John the Baptist.

    Tony ~ Jul 18, 2008 at 4:56 pm

  110. I’m amused when I think about the account in the old testament where Moses goes up on the mountain to meet God and to receive the Ten Commandments. I wonder what set of Biblical hermeneutic principles he was concerned about when he got back to deliver the stone tablets to the elders and the tribes? Do you think he was worried that someone might say, “Hey Moses, we have to be very careful to about such “revelations” that you claim are from God. We have to test all of this and be very sure that you didn’t just go up there a carve those stones yourself. After all Moses, you really haven’t been yourself lately. Fleeing out of Egypt where we were very comfortable and had food and shelter and telling us that God gave “you” a message to lead us all out into the wilderness. Come on Moses, do you expect us to believe God speaks to you directly?”

    When Moses came off that mountain, I’m sure there were those in the crowd who thought the man was off his rocker. The same way the Catholic church thought Martin Luther was off his rocker. Imagine, interpreting the scriptures all by yourself! Without the help and guidance of the Pope and the Catholic church. Everyone knows you need educated and ordained church leaders to do that! How could God possibly speak directly to a mere layman? It’s just not possible. Don’t you need a lot of letters after your name to receive God’s messages? Don’t you need to be a church professional? We really must be very careful! We really need Biblical hermeneutics, handed down through centuries of human caretakers, to sift through all these new messages that mere laymen are claiming to receive. Outrageous!

    Tony ~ Jul 20, 2008 at 9:17 am

  111. Tony,

    Biblical hermeneutics is the science or methodology of interpreting the Bible. In order to rightly divide and understand the word of God, one must decide which method best accomplishes that. HC is promoting the idea that the method used by the “church” is to be viewed as merely man-made and therefore should be rejected, and his method embraced as the “true” biblical method. This is based on what he views as the hermeneutical principle in Mark 4:33-34. He claims the true ultimate message that God is giving to mankind in the Bible will not be understood until the spiritual teaching of the verse being studied has been found, however, these verses don’t say that – this is his interpretation of what these verses mean. So in essence, he is using his own biblical hermeneutics to support the basis of his method. Make no mistake, my friend, his method is man-made too.

    In the case of Moses, I agree he probably wasn’t worried about hermeneutics when he delivered the Ten Commandments to the Hebrews. First of all, he had already proven himself to be God’s spokesperson – the plagues of Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea took care of that. Also, I don’t think Moses was expecting them to find the “spiritual teaching” behind the commandments – I think the message was clear – “obey”.

    The idea of disregarding the traditional views of interpreting the Bible in favor of a more “spiritual” method is attractive to some people; many have left the church to follow those who take this path. Teachers that come to mind are Jim Jones, David Koresh, Charles Taze Russell, Joseph Smith, Michael Travessor, Ronald Weinland. Call me crazy, but I know God doesn’t expect me to follow these “madmen”.

    You stated “Pastors and preachers run around claiming that “they” are the authority on Biblical hermeneutics and have their church members bullied into believing they are right and the rest of the world is wrong.” If the logic here is that anyone making the statement that their method is right and all others wrong, then HC is doing the very same thing.

    Tell me if we can agree on this – God has used a variety of men; some were educated, some not; some had prominent political positions, some didn’t; some were religious leaders, some weren’t – are you with me so far? The important question isn’t whether God COULD use someone, the question should be IS God using someone?

    Some of the men God used were highly educated, and some – gasp! – were religious leaders. Are we to believe anyone (laymen or not) claiming to have received information from God simply because they say so?

    Tony, I’m not trying to get you to change whatever it is you think about HC – I certainly wouldn’t want to “bully” you, and I myself refuse to be bullied – from what I’ve seen and read so far about him and what he teaches, I think you’re making a mistake if you listen to this man, but I’m just a layman – what do I know?

    Laurie ~ Jul 21, 2008 at 5:02 am

  112. Danny,

    Most of what has been prophesied about end times was given to us by Daniel, Jesus, Paul and John. The OT prophet Daniel was told to “seal the book” until the time of the end. We’ve been in the last days for 2,000 years; Jesus told His disciples to look for the signs – He spoke of the prophecies made by Daniel the prophet so apparently it was time to unseal the book. All four of these prophets give us many details of things leading up to, and things that happen during the tribulation, the Day of the Lord, the Second Coming, the new heavens and earth, judgment day, the millennium and eternity with Jesus.

    The apostles and the early church had no idea how any of this would come to pass, but they trusted what these prophets said. Over time, as we have seen things come together, we know that not only are these things possible, but events are heading in exactly the direction God said they would.

    Moses prophesied that God would send a Prophet, which was Jesus Christ. The Jews were looking for this Prophet; some recognized Him, some did not. In the NT, we see no instruction given to the church that they should be looking for a future prophet – Paul told us about the gift of prophecy that God was offering to the church, but that’s not the same thing as saying there will be an “End-Time Prophet”. There are, however, many warnings about false teachers and false prophets.

    IMHO, we’d be better off learning to identify false teachers/prophets than looking for end time prophets.

    Laurie ~ Jul 21, 2008 at 11:53 am

  113. Laurie,

    All due respect. Biblical hermeneutics is “cool aid”. It’s brewed up by humans who have decided that they, all by themselves, have some sort of God given authority to determine what we, as mere laymen, can and cannot trust when we read the scriptures. In my view, by brewing up this “cool aid” for their followers to drink, the so called “chosen” humans are scared to death that you and I will leave their congregations and take our tithe money with us leaving them, for the most part, unemployed. That’s why Camping is so feared by pastors around the world. Camping has brewed up a batch of cool aid that puts pastors out of business. No wonder they attack him so strongly. Your pastor and my pastor claim they are in ministry to share the gospel (their form of cool aid) and also earn a living. Camping threatens their income. Again, I have not formed a complete opinion yet about Camping other than to say, he doesn’t threaten me in any way. I’m not as afraid of him as some on this blog. I tend to be in the Martin Luther camp. Luther didn’t trust the Pope or anyone associated with the established Christian church of his time so, it seems, he disassociated himself and decided to trust God directly to brew his cool aid and not drink anything that was brewed up by someone else. For sure, Luther threatened the income of the Catholic church in terms of cutting off indulgences, which were nothing more than bribes. I find it interesting that Camping is telling Christians to do the same thing today. Isn’t Camping, like Luther, saying “flee the church”?

    Tony ~ Jul 22, 2008 at 2:39 pm

  114. Tony,

    For what purpose do you think HC is brewing his “cool-aid”? He is actively encouraging people to take action based on what he says is the correct way to interpret scripture; it is a hugely strong statement to say God is no longer using the church and that in fact Satan is ruling it – only someone who thinks they have the authority to say this would do so. If one were to believe him, wouldn’t one also be afraid not to do what he says and “flee the church”?

    I don’t believe all pastors (I think you referred to them as the so-called chosen humans) are scared to death of losing their congregations and tithes; some may be, but I think that’s too broad a generalization. I’ve known of many a pastor who worked a regular job until such time as their congregation could support them. Paul said it was right for those who dedicate their lives to serving God should be paid – they have to eat, too. A pastor who has to work and has a family will not have a lot of time and energy left over to study, to teach, to visit and pray for the sick, to counsel, to oversee the various ministries, etc.

    Is HC not getting paid? FRW’s website states their ministry depends on financial support from fellow believers – does he do this for free and not draw a salary? If people stopped listening and making donations, would it threaten his ministry? My point is; how is he different than anyone else? I think most pastors would be fearful for the souls of the people who are following HC because they believe he is a false teacher, not because they’re losing tithes.

    I don’t know if Martin Luther would appreciate being compared to HC – he was one of the leaders of the Protestant movement; he eliminated and condemned the beliefs and practices of the Catholic church that were in error and retained that which was good. Rather than leave the church, he tried to fix what he believed were the problems. That’s a lot different than saying the church age is over and Satan is now ruling it.

    Laurie ~ Jul 22, 2008 at 5:06 pm

  115. Camping is brewing his cool aid for the very same reason your pastor and my pastor and every other pastor and seminary student and professor around the world are brewing their cool aid. To sell their “version” of the truth. Their version of hermeneutics. It’s actually their demonstration of their denial of the power of the God’s Word and the mystery of how God, through the Holy Spirit, imparts wisdom to the reader. The problem is, man always wants to make it much harder than is really is. That’s why man continues to build higher and higher towers to reach into heaven but never quite get to a point of understanding. Man just doesn’t get it. God’s method of understanding His Word (our instruction manual) is way too simple. We are simply commanded to trust Him and obey His Word. That means in every area of our lives, especially in the constant abiding in His Word, the Bible. When man opens his/her heart to God’s Word, through the power of His Spirit, something of a mystery happens in that communion where, I believe, God honors our obedience and imparts the mystery of His wisdom. No seminary professor, pastor, preacher, Sunday School teacher, VBS teacher, or Harold Camping can accomplish that mystery. Only God, through the Holy Ghost! It’s just so simple it confounds the secular mind. Those who don’t understand the mystery of God’s economy, the simplicity of His Kingdom principles, are obviously not not reading their Bible and abiding in His Word and prayerfully awaiting His instructions for their lives.

    Tony ~ Jul 22, 2008 at 7:34 pm

  116. Tony,

    I was hoping you’d answer the questions about HC – how is he different than anyone else? Is he not claiming authority to decide what the true method of bible interpretation is when he says all other methods are wrong but his? Does his livelihood not depend upon the financial support of his fellow believers? You said yourself that HC, like all pastors, is “selling” his version of the truth, his version of hermeneutics – I don’t see it that way, but if you think he’s doing the same thing they are – why are they wrong and he’s right?

    I don’t disagree with everything you’re saying because I do think that understanding His word can be very simple if He is the one explaining it to us. What I have a problem with is someone who comes up with his own method of interpretation which allows him to make the scriptures say anything he wants them to – if all you have to say is, God showed me…anyone can do that – literally – laymen, pastors, demons; hey, just put “Thus saith the Lord” in front of it.

    What has so often blessed me is when I studied a passage of scripture that spoke of something that should be happening in the life of a believer, and it was happening to me – it just confirmed the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in my life because He was teaching me before I read it in His word. Once I was reading thru a chapter and came across something I didn’t understand, I was at work on my break and wishing I had some way to look it up – fifteen minutes later I relieved the receptionist so she could take her break – her radio was tuned to a Christian station and a pastor was teaching – guess what? The very thing I wanted so badly to understand. How does God orchestrate things like that? I have no idea, but I am familiar with how the Holy Spirit imparts wisdom. Yes, anytime God communicates with us there is an element of mystery because it’s done in a different way than we communicate. The problem is, God is not the only Being in the spirit realm that speaks to us – not only that, but people can, and do, have a light bulb moment and think it’s a revelation from God.

    The Bible speaks of doctrines of demons – this is not just a figure of speech – it literally means a doctrine revealed by a demon. When someone starts saying evvverybodyyy has been wrong but them – that’s the first question that comes to my mind – who revealed this to them? When you’re using a method of interpretation that has no rules – how can you test it? I think it makes you more vulnerable to human error and manipulation, and the lies of demons.

    Laurie ~ Jul 23, 2008 at 12:46 am

  117. I don’t believe HC has a direct line from God. I believe he is sincere in his interpretation of the Bible. Do we all need to subscribe in his beliefs? Drink his cool aid as Tony calls it? No, we don’t. But we don’t necessarily need to call him names and try to discredit him the way some have on this forum. If you don’t want to hear his teaching, turn off the radio. No need to fear him so much. After all, he’s only human, just like you. He has the right to be wrong, just like you. Some posts on this blog are full of hate and do not sound like they come from Christians, more like Crusaders.

    Mary ~ Jul 23, 2008 at 6:59 am

  118. Mary,

    I don’t know what names you think HC is being called, or what hateful things you think are being said about him; maybe you’re referring to things said in older posts – I know that when I started reading this blog it got pretty heated and when people were asked to tone it down and be civil, the ones who, in my opinion, were causing the ruckus, have not been back.

    Am I going to try to discredit someone who I believe is teaching something false? You bet. Tony is also doing everything he can to discredit the church and Christian pastors. Does that make us hateful? We’re having a discussion about something we feel strongly about and keeping it pretty civil, in my opinion. I notice you don’t take issue with the things Tony has said, which on occasion have been quite offensive. I realize that’s his view and as long as he’s not being nasty about it, I accept it as part of the discussion and I know some of the things I’m saying probably offend him, too. I don’t think, though, that either one of us is intentionally trying to be offensive – you can’t really have a discussion like this if you’re too sensitive.

    If we don’t like what’s being said here, sure, we can turn off the radio or find another blog; that’s always an option. Yes, we’re all human and we can all be wrong – I think we get that, but we take a position because we think it’s right, and we defend it because we think it’s worth defending. I’ve seen other blogs where the host will only allow posts that agree with what he thinks, and the people posting there like talking to others who are like-minded because they’re not challenged on what they believe nor do they have to defend it. Personally, I like getting the other point of view.

    Is it okay for HC to be wrong? Not when he’s saying you’re not saved if you don’t share his end-time views, when he says the church is being ruled by Satan, or when he claims to have special revelation from God.

    Laurie ~ Jul 23, 2008 at 12:03 pm

  119. Tony,

    You seem like a good and sincere guy, but some of the stuff you’ve written is just plain wrong, IMHO, and some of it seems pretty “out there”, to tell you the truth. Someone seems to have put in your mind some negative connotation to the word “hermeneutics”, and I think that’s unhelpful at the least, and dangerous. Before I respond to some of the things you’ve written, let me give a shot at the hermeneutics thing. To say it’s merely a human enterprise (my term; seems a reasonable characterization of your view) is meaningless, frankly. Hermeneutics is simply the science of interpretation. Everybody has a hermeneutic approach–everybody.

    There are basic principles of reading a text and understanding it that are nothing more than reasonable. For instance, I read a given text from the Bible, and I’m faced immediately with the task of understanding it. How will I go about this? I am faced with choices. Will I yank the text out of context, or will I attempt to understand it within its context? The choice I make is a hermeneutical decision, and everyone makes that choice when reading a text (and there is a right choice in that regard!). Prior to this, I am faced with the hermeneutical choice to decide the very nature of Scripture: do we read it as a mere work of man, or as God’s Word to us? This will determine, for instance, whether or not it might have mistakes in it. Back to the task at hand, I’m faced with the choice of reading the English words and taking them at face value, or digging deeper and trying to understand the words that were intended by the author. When John writes, in John 21, of the encounter between Jesus and Peter, which involves Jesus asking Peter, “do you love me”, reading the mere English, which has one word for “love”, isn’t sufficient to understand the text; to fully grasp what’s happening, we need to know that there were four words in Greek for our one word “love”, and that Jesus changes the word between his second and third asking. Hermeneutically, should we ignore this fact or take it into account? Again, an easy call.

    The point is that when you read the Bible, when I read the Bible, when Harold Camping reads the Bible, we each employ hermeneutics. The question is whether our hermeneutics are sound, or whether they are shoddy.

    OK, to some of your comments:

    Pastors and preachers run around claiming that “they” are the authority on Biblical hermeneutics and have their church members bullied into believing they are right and the rest of the world is wrong. It’s just a substitute for the “all we need” that God promises in His triune being. The Father, The Son and the Holy Ghost! God promised that if we are faithful to His Word, His Holy Spirit will reveal His truth. He promises that, “that’s all we need”. Outside of that, everything else is generated by human effort the very same way they build the tower of Babel and just like the Ten Commandments which became thousands of commandments once it was in the care of humans beings.

    Candidly, I have no idea what you’re talking about. I’ve never claimed I am the authority on hermeneutics, and I’ve never heard another pastor make that claim. You harm your credibility by saying things like this. Yes, I think I know some things about hermeneutics; if I didn’t, I’d hardly be in position to be a pastor. But I don’t claim to be an authority, or have it all figured out, by any stretch of the imagination. Further, I have no idea what you mean by pastors bullying their congregations into believing “they are right and the rest of the world is wrong”. No clue. I’d pay you a tidy sum if you could find one member of my congregation who would agree with that assessment of what I try to do in preaching the Bible. Just one, Tony. And yes, the Holy Spirit does reveal truth to God’s children; no argument there. But the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth, not giving one truth to one person and another truth to another from the very same Scripture.

    Biblical hermeneutics is “cool aid”. It’s brewed up by humans who have decided that they, all by themselves, have some sort of God given authority to determine what we, as mere laymen, can and cannot trust when we read the scriptures… In my view, by brewing up this “cool aid” for their followers to drink, the so called “chosen” humans are scared to death that you and I will leave their congregations and take our tithe money with us leaving them, for the most part, unemployed. That’s why Camping is so feared by pastors around the world.

    Where to start on this one…first, I have zero fear of Harold Camping. Zero. Second, you’ve just imputed nefarious motives to pastors who for the most part, from my experience, are fine men just trying to be faithful to God and love people. My goodness, Tony, do you really, honestly believe that pastors are a bunch of shysters who are in it for the money, trying to con as many people as possible into becoming (or staying) members of their congregations, willing to twist truth or what-have-you just to hold onto their power or incomes? Sorry, but that’s just a parallel universe to what I’ve experienced, which is just the opposite: men who, in some cases, put up with a truckload of crapola from people inside and outside of the church, many of whom live on a pittance, just trying to serve God and love people.

    Isn’t Camping, like Luther, saying “flee the church”?

    Check your history on this one, Tony; Luther wasn’t trying to get people to “flee the (Catholic) church”; he was trying with all his might to reform it.

    Camping is brewing his cool aid for the very same reason your pastor and my pastor and every other pastor and seminary student and professor around the world are brewing their cool aid. To sell their “version” of the truth. Their version of hermeneutics. It’s actually their demonstration of their denial of the power of the God’s Word and the mystery of how God, through the Holy Spirit, imparts wisdom to the reader.

    Again, I have no idea what to say here, except that this sounds like an utterly parallel universe, an alternate version of reality, to what I’ve experienced. Pastors (including yours? Why in the name of Ronald Weinland do you stay in a church led by such a scoundrel???) are running essentially some con, denying the power of the Holy Spirit? Please. PLEASE.

    Let me tell you what I tell my people with regularity: “if you ever hear me say something that doesn’t jibe with what the Bible says, you believe the Word of God and disregard what I have said.” Do those sound like the words of somebody trying to sell some kind of home-brewed Kool-Aid? Honestly?

    Finally, don’t read my words as anger, because they’re not, though they’re strong. I’ve been silent because Laurie, as usual, has done a pretty good job of saying the things I’d like to say. I admire your passion, Tony, but I really think that you’ve been listening to somebody’s off-base dissing of hermeneutics and not really grasping the necessary role of “rightly dividing the Word of truth” (simply another term for solid hermeneutics, it seems to me).

    Byron ~ Jul 23, 2008 at 10:43 pm

  120. When you say, “I have zero fear of Harold Camping. Zero.”

    In my view, that isn’t true. If you originated this thread about HC and you called it “The No Cool Aid Zone”, implying that HC’s teachings are nothing more than “cool aid” that you refuse to drink, that’s fear in a nutshell. Why else would you open this thread with such nasty comments about him in your first post? Then, for some strange reason, in a couple of your posts you are quick to throw in a disclaimer like, “Look, could Jesus come back in 2011? Sure, and if He does, I’ll personally apologize to Mr. Camping when we get to Glory. Look, could Jesus come back in 2011? Sure, and if He does, I’ll personally apologize to Mr. Camping when we get to Glory.” I don’t get it. If it’s “cool aid” that you say HC is teaching, then stay with your point. If your are going to attack him, then stick with the plan! Go on the attack and don’t back off until you have drawn blood and ruined his name and reputation.

    As I see it, the whole theme of this forum is hate. There’s not an ounce of Christ-like love associated with it or its originator. I’m shocked that a Christian pastor would author such slime. In my view, the sole purpose of this forum is to spread venom. It’s disgusting!

    Mary ~ Jul 24, 2008 at 7:11 am

  121. By the way, I went back to do some research about Martin Luther and found that he was credited with being the man who started the Protestand Reformation which is still ongoing to this very day. Luther was no friend of the Catholic church back then or now. Tony may be wrong about using the term “flee” in regard to what Luther encouraged people of the early 1500′s to do, however, the result is the same. When Christians leave the Catholic church, they usually become Protestants. That process is alive and well in the 21st century. So, it seems, it is a form of fleeing in my view.

    Mary ~ Jul 24, 2008 at 7:21 am

  122. Thanks. Charlie,

    You said “Theodor,
    Try Larry King website perhaps they have an archive. Sometimes you tube has old stuff.Basically he said…..”I am 99.9% sure.”I don’t think U will find it on Family Radio. Actually it would be something if HC has a video of the interview. Why not ask him? Try calling him on the air and just ask him. agape,CR”

    It was a while ago, but I haven’t the time to go on lately.

    Actually I could just ask him in person because I work here at Family Radio. :D I don’t want to ruin him radio show with nonbiblical questions like that. But I don’t think he’ll know where I can find it on the internet, but maybe he has a tape. :P

    Theodor ~ Jul 24, 2008 at 11:29 am

  123. Anybody thought of making a forum for family radio and bible discussions? This blog is getting incredibly long. :P

    Theodor ~ Jul 24, 2008 at 11:30 am

  124. I made a forum: frf.forumer.com

    Anyone is invited to discuss different biblical topics!
    After I get a few members, I’ll need a couple moderators to help out as well!

    Theodor ~ Jul 24, 2008 at 11:47 am

  125. Mary,

    You keep bringing up this charge of hate – let me ask you: is it hateful to accuse someone of lying? To attack their character and reputation? If so, why are you doing this to Byron? This is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. Let’s take a look at what you’re accusing him of and see if it’s legitimate.

    Byron identifies the meaning of the name of this website as follows:

    drink the Kool-Aid – to accept an argument or philosophy blindly.

    This phrase comes from the 1978 “Jonestown massacre” in which most members of the Peoples Temple cult, blindly following their leader Jim Jones, committed suicide by drinking cyanide-laced Kool-Aid.

    The name of this website, as you can see, was taken from the Jim Jones incident, not HC’s teachings. If there is any fear implied by this phrase, it is the fear demonstrated by the followers of a madman.

    The article entitled “Unbelievable, Harold Camping is at it Again” appears to have originated in Nov. of 2007 – it was not the first article on this website. Did it contain nasty comments? I didn’t think so, but I guess that would depend on the perspective of the reader – can you point out anything he said that was false?

    Did Byron ruin HC’s name and reputation? I think HC accomplished that all by himself. The following is taken from the article “Campings’ Folly: A Response to Harold Campings’ Erroneous Teaching on the Church”, which can be found on the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals website: “ There is a long history of Christians making big mistakes when they try to place themselves and their times in the final stages of the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. (Incidentally, this is one of the key components of almost all cults — the group sees itself as playing a major role in the end time scenario.) Camping, fresh off the colossal embarrassment of public failure in trying to predict what the Son of God himself explicitly said could not be predicted — namely, the timing of his second coming — is now back to help us understand what the Bible teaches about the church in the end times. Having missed what the Bible says about the Son, he is now going to teach us what it says about the Son’s bride — the church. Humility alone should have dictated to him that he should forever keep silent about such things after having already brought such chagrin to himself and confusion to believers.”

    HC’s failed prediction and erroneous teachings ruined his reputation and credibility, you can’t lay that at Byron’s door.

    The whole theme of this forum is hate? The sole purpose is to spread venom? You must be kidding. Your anger is causing you to make unsubstantiated claims.

    Laurie ~ Jul 24, 2008 at 3:33 pm

  126. Byron,

    I can not remember Harold Camping ever hosting a blog that calls Byron Harvey a false prophet. I’ll bet he doesn’t even know who your are.

    Why do you host a blog that calls Harold Camping a false prophet?

    I’m trying to figure out your motivation to originate this type of forum. For the life of me, I don’t understand why you would go after Harold Camping like this and try to incite others to do the same. This type of mentality happened many years ago when lynch mobs roamed the south. Is your motive out of anger, fear, have you been personally threatened by him, what?

    Tony ~ Jul 24, 2008 at 5:11 pm

  127. Mary,

    May I humbly suggest that the reason you don’t “get it” stems likely from the fact that you misunderstand the original post, and then base the rest of your reasoning on that misunderstanding. In my original post, I took issue (and still do, vigorously) with “date-setting”, in this case by Harold Camping, of course, but the point isn’t even remotely to “ruin” a man’s “name and reputation”, but rather to combat false and/or foolish teaching. This is a part of my calling as a pastor/preacher of the Word of God. Frankly, if you read through my posts on this thread, you’d learn that I know little of Harold Camping (much less “fear” him; I doubt I’d thought of the man more than once or twice in five years preceding my post, and then only in the narrow context of his foolish willingness to do his date-setting). Charlie, Laurie, and Marc have done a fine job of exposing some of his other aberrant teachings. I will neither back down from, nor apologize for, opposing false/misleading teaching in the name of Christ.

    But when I am accused, such as you’ve accused me, of being some kind of “slime spreader” or “hate-spewer”, or that I lack even an ounce of Christlike love, I’m going to have to ask you to substantiate those claims. Please illustrate your contentions by referencing hateful words directed against a person (as opposed to strong words directed against what I perceive to be dangerous teaching). If I have indeed engaged in ad hominem attacks–such as Laurie points out you did against me–I will apologize and retract those statements; I stand ready to hear substantive words of correction pointing out my lack of Christlike love. If, though, you are either unable or unwilling to point to specific instances (I’d encourage you to make use of the “time/date stamps” located at the bottom of each post to facilitate your claims), I’d call on you as a Christian to retract your words against me.

    There are a few more things that need to be said as well. I’ve found, since beginning this blog over four years ago, that there are a number of people who seem unable to distinguish between honest discussion and personal attacks. I do not know, Mary, if you fall into this camp; this is an observation. We are having a discussion/debate here. I tried, in my strong words to Tony, to point out what I see as the errors in his reasoning; I was careful not to attack him, but rather to offer some words of approval for his passion, etc. I hold nothing against Tony (or against Harold Camping personally, for that matter). And yet some folks see animosity (where none exists) in strong discussion. Interestingly enough, one of the most heated debates I’ve had on this blog in recent memory was several months back when a fellow named Don and I got into it hot/heavy over my libertarian political beliefs when it comes to organ donation. We went back and forth at it, on his blog and mine, for days. Oh…did I mention that Don has been, since I was in 9th grade some 30+ years ago, my best friend in the world (and that that debate didn’t change that fact one scintilla)? My suggestion to all who are unable to make that distinction would be that perhaps reading blogs, at least blogs willing to tackle controversial subjects, is not a good use of your time.

    Further, I’m concerned that some have taken this viewpoint that to have strong convictions, and to voice such convictions, is unChristlike (again, Mary, I do not assign you to this camp; that’s between you and God). I find this reasoning utterly wrong. We are commanded by Christ to “judge righteous judgment”, and to fail to do that is to fail to love Jesus and people as we ought. To not call a lie a lie is to fail Jesus and people, when I have it in my power to do so. Interestingly enough, some of Camping’s bigger problems, IMHO, have come to light as a result of this post; I can roll my eyes at his foolish date-setting, but for him to suggest that all churches are apostate (please, I’m paraphrasing here; he may not have used that term, but I refer to argumentation above vis a vis Camping’s stance toward churches today) is nonsensical, and I don’t for one second hesitate to say so. If someone considers that unloving, we’ll need to agree to disagree as to the definition of “loving”, because I would argue that the person who knowingly allows error to fester, lifting no voice to challenge it, is the one who is unloving.

    Finally, I must take issue with your understanding of Martin Luther. He was, as you suggest, one of the key leaders of the “Protestant Reformation”. Look at those words: he protested the awful things being done in the Roman Catholic Church, and set out as his goal to reform it. There is a difference in Luther’s intent–which is what I understood Tony to be addressing–and the actual result, which was, as you say, people leaving the Catholic church. But if you read that history long enough, you’ll understand that Luther’s intent in posting his 95 Theses on the door of the church at Wittenberg was not to call people to leave the Catholic church, but to call the church to account for its misdeeds that it might be reformed.

    Byron ~ Jul 24, 2008 at 5:15 pm

  128. While I was writing that last long-winded post, my friend Tony posted. Tony, I’ll ask you to do a few things for me:

    1. Find the post in which I called Harold Camping a “false prophet”. I don’t remember doing that, but if I did, I’m willing to deal with that. If you cannot find it, I’m going to ask you to man up and retract the statement.

    2. I’m going to ask you to give me the posts in which I encouraged other people to engage in some sort of “lynch mob” against Harold Camping, where I “incited” them to go on some kind of vendetta against the man. Please. Again, if you cannot find words of that sort, I’ll ask you to man up and retract.

    3. I’m going to ask you to answer some of the issues I posed for you in my previous post. You decided to respond to my post by acting as though it didn’t exist, referring back to my supposed labeling of Camping as a “false prophet”.

    Now, I’ll happily answer your questions regarding my actions and my motivations, although likely the post I just wrote does that quite nicely. I have no vendetta of any sort against Harold Camping. I’m not sure that applies to all the commenters here, but it sure does to me. Re-read the original post: I have a problem with date-setting. I have a problem with Scripture-twisting. I have a problem with people who mislead people in Jesus’ name (and interestingly enough, thanks to my friends Charlie, Marc, and Laurie, I now have a lot more evidence that this is what Camping is doing). Anger? Fear? No…love for Jesus? His Word? People, who many times are mislead in all sorts of ways by charismatic leaders? Guilty. I am motivated as well by a love for truth, the truth of God’s Word rightly-divided, the truth of Christ, the truth that pierces me in two as it does anyone who really pays attention to it.

    I don’t for one moment stand in judgment on Harold Camping personally; that’s not my place. I will vociferously stand in judgment against falsehood, whether that comes from Camping, or Ronald Weinland, or Joel Osteen, or Kenneth Copeland, or Joyce Meyer, or T.D. Jakes, or you-name-the-preacher…or Byron Harvey.

    Byron ~ Jul 24, 2008 at 5:33 pm

  129. P.S. Back to point 1, because I don’t remember every last word I post: I don’t remember referring to HC as a “false prophet”, as Tony alleges I’ve done. I’m not sure that’s terminology I’m comfortable with in referring to him–though I’m not sure I’m not, either. In any event, if this is the case, that I did use that term to refer to HC, I’m going to reserve the right to defend that terminology based upon whatever facts I was addressing at the time, and then we’ll go from there. If I called him that, then I’d imagine I did so believing that the discussion at the time offered proof that the label was apt. I try to stay away from pejoratives, except in the case of obvious false prophets like Ronald Weinland; I let those guys have it. I don’t place HC in the same category as RW at all.

    Byron ~ Jul 24, 2008 at 5:39 pm

  130. You just don’t get it, do you…

    The ENTIRE THEME of the blog thread is a personal indictment against Camping. The title, the posts, most of it is skewed to make Camping look like bad. For instance…

    “Care to guess what Mr. Camping does in this book? Yep…you got it. It’s 2011 when Jesus is going to return—mercifully giving the Cubs five more years to win the World Series, I guess. I’m sorry, maybe that was a bad joke, but it’s hard not to chuckle/sigh/roll eyes when this is what we get. I’m going from memory, so don’t hold me precisely to this, but in about 45 seconds worth of thumbing through this fine piece of work, I learned that the church age had indeed ended in…drum roll, please…1988! Furthermore, we’re now living in the Great Tribulation (which began, if memory serves, on May 21, 1988). I suppose then that we’re in the middle of the famous 23-year tribulation period.”

    Do those words sound like endearing terms about Camping, your brother in Christ?

    Then, here comes the disclaimer, just so you’ve got your butt covered…

    “Look, could Jesus come back in 2011? Sure, and if He does, I’ll personally apologize to Mr. Camping when we get to Glory. But given the track record of this gentleman, you’ll pardon me if I continue to try to live as though Jesus could at any moment—instead of reckoning that we’ve got precisely five years to go.”

    FYI, here’s how I found you “Cool Aid” blog. One evening recently I found myself listening to “The Open Forum”. It’s apparently a phone-in program that Camping hosts and I was quite surprised by all of the attacks Camping was enduring from some of his callers. One of the callers told Camping that he’s “doing nothing more than selling cool aid”. With that, I jumped on my computer and did a web search for “camping cool aid” and guess what popped up? If you use the search engine that begins with a “G” the absolute first hit you will get is YOUR COL AID BLOG! Imagine that! Your hateful “cool aid” blog was my first hit. Are you proud of that? Does that sound like an achievement that a respectable pastor would aspire to. Well, that was it for me. After reading your opening post and some of the other anti-Camping posts on this thread, I had to get in and defend this man even though I didn’t know anything about his theology. Sort of like when you see a street fight and some big bully is picking on a little kid. I had to get in and try to defend the kid and stand up to the bully. Byron, in my opinion, you are that bully. The theme of this entire blog thread is about nothing more than saying that Camping is teaching false doctrine. The main thrust here is to try to put Camping in a bad light by saying that he and his teachings are false. Anyone who reads these evil accusations and takes them seriously is sick.

    Congratulations! You have succeeded in raising the heat to hellish levels on this blog. I am ashamed that I let you bait me this far. I am ashamed that I continued this sick dialog. I am ashamed that there are vicious hateful pastors in this nation that have nothing better to do with their time than to spew their venom, completely unprovoked, in an effort to discredit an innocent man. You keep telling me to man up? Don’t you have a higher calling? Won’t you be held to a much higher standard when it all shakes out? Then, instead of telling me to man up, how about you PASTOR UP! Just like me, you too will have a whole lot to answer for when the BOOKS ARE FINALLY OPENED. Me? As a mere layman. You? As a pastor, a spiritual leader and an example of Christ amongst you congregation. I wonder how blogging pastors will fare at the coming Judgement?

    Tony ~ Jul 24, 2008 at 8:43 pm

  131. Sorry folks, I can only take so much. I must “try” to remain civilized and this is not the place where I can do that.

    Good bye!

    Tony ~ Jul 24, 2008 at 8:47 pm

  132. And goodbye to you, Tony. I’m sorry that you chose not to answer any of my questions, or to provide me with the proof that I asked for, but rather resorted to ad hominem attacks. I’m used to it; I suppose it comes with the territory; unfortunately, this sort of non-response is all too typical. I don’t know why you choose not to accept my clarifications as to my stance toward HC and his teachings; I don’t know what else I could do or say. But I do wish you well.

    For my part, I will continue to do as I suggest above: calling attention to untruths perpetrated in the name of Christ. I can do no other.

    Byron ~ Jul 24, 2008 at 10:35 pm

  133. Byron;

    I’m sorry to see Tony leave in frustration but I understand it. A breath of fresh air, to say the least. While you were asking Tony your (rapid fire, cut & paste style) questions in your “long-winded” and very hard to read posts, Tony asked you a very short and very simple question that you failed to answer. The question had to do with blog hosting. Something about calling HC a “false prophet” and why wasn’t HC hosting a blog to attack you personally about your falsehoods. Something like that. Are you saying that you have never used the word “false” when referring to HC? Are you saying that you never accused HC of teaching “false” doctrine? I’m positive that I can find your use of the exact phrase “false prophet” in some of the many things that you post on the Internet but what’s the difference. False prophet, falsehoods, false doctrine, false teachings, isn’t it all the same thing? Basically you are saying HC is teaching someting “false”. How dumb to try to pin Tony down to a specific syntax. We all know what you and the blog you host is saying! You are basically saying that HC is not being true to the Word of God. You are saying that he is not “rightly dividing the Word of truth”. You are saying that only you have that power and only you have the qualifications to “rightly divide the Word of truth”. Why don’t you just answer Tony’s “simple” question? Why are you attacking HC personally and why isn’t HC attacking you personally?

    Mary ~ Jul 25, 2008 at 7:58 am

  134. Sure, Mary, I’d be happy to answer that question. I believe that some of the things Harold Camping is teaching constitutes false doctrine. I have no problem whatever saying that. Whether I’d label him a “false prophet” or not is another issue altogether. A “false prophet” is a person who claims to be able to foretell a future event, having received that information from God–and then the “prophecy from God” turns out to be untrue. Ronald Weinland, to whom another post on this blog is devoted, is a “false prophet”. It is one thing to say a person is a false prophet; it’s quite a different one to say that he teaches an errant doctrine. Joel Osteen, for instance, is not a “false prophet”, because to my knowledge, he’s not made a “prophecy”; what he is, is a person standing in an ostensibly Christian church and preaching a message that is only vaguely Christian. What I and the “blog (I) host” is saying is that Harold Camping exercises poor judgment in attempting to nail down dates for the return of Christ; that’s not what I’d call “heresy”, but rather what I’d call “unwise”, and that alone would not earn him the label “false prophet”, IMHO. In addition, what I and the “blog (I) host” are saying is that Camping’s teaching is in error in calling Christians to leave churches, based on some teaching I find very dubious, with dangerous results. Yes, on those points, I believe that Camping is not being true to the Word of God. I have no problem coming right out and saying that; I thought I had, many times, and yes, in that sense, he is not “rightly dividing the Word of truth.”

    What I am not saying, suggesting, or even mildly hinting at, is the assertion you make that “only (I) have that power and only (I) have the qualifications to ‘rightly divide the Word of truth’”. For me to make a statement such as that, to imply it, to hint at it, would be preposterous! There are many, many people far better equipped to divide the Word of truth than am I. I’m sure I sometimes get it wrong myself, though I make every sincere effort to do the best I can to get it right. I’ll ask you again, since you seem to follow Tony’s lead in being willing to make sweeping summary statements, but then not be willing to back those up with actual things I’ve said, to give me the actual statements I’ve made that, to you, suggest such a crazy idea that I think I’m alone qualified to interpret Scripture. I’d be nuts to suggest that, and so if it’s come off that way to you, I’ll be happy to either explain any statements I’ve made that lead you to believe that, or if indeed I’ve said something to that effect and you can call it to my attention, I’ll be happy to apologize and stand corrected. I’ve said that on several occasions now; neither you nor Tony have taken me up on it.

    My simple answer to Tony’s question about “attacking HC personally” is the same I’ve given several times now: I am not attacking him personally. I have no desire to, not the slightest interest in it. I’m sure he gets many things right; I believe he is a born again individual, from what very little I know of him. I’m not attacking him at all, but rather I am exposing and commenting on some elements of his teaching that lead people astray. He is not attacking me at all because he doesn’t know me from Adam’s housecat; I don’t have a big radio ministry; he probably is more gracious than to make “personal attacks”, just as I’ve not made personal attacks against him. Mary, did you even read the third paragraph of my July 24/5:15 PM post?

    You ask, “what’s the difference?” “The difference” is that words mean things, Mary, and sometimes fine distinctions make all the difference in the world. It is not dumb at all to ask Tony to back up a broadbrush statement he made with evidence that I’ve said what he accused me of saying. It is wrong of Tony, or anyone, to put words in my mouth; that’s “bearing false witness”. If you’re going to make statements like he made, simple Christian integrity ought to demand that you back those statements up.

    Finally, I’m sorry, in one sense, that my posts are as long-winded as they are, but when people read into my words things that are not intended, make sweeping judgments on the basis of their misunderstandings, and then are not willing to back up their own words with clear examples of what they so willingly label my wrongdoings…well, it takes awhile to unravel all of that.

    Byron ~ Jul 25, 2008 at 9:32 am

  135. Thanks for your reply, I think? Although, in my opinion, your abundance of words really don’t say much. Jeez, I hope your sermons are a little bit better. I took a debating course in college and I find the tactics that I learned in school are very similar to the tactics you appear to be using in your posts on this blog. You evade a sticky point or a hard question by careful diversion. You appear to begin to sincerely address the issue at hand and then, gradually, you steer the listeners (readers) away. Eventually, you end up wearing them down with a flood or unrelated words and topics. It’s a very good method that creates confusion at first, then frustration. In not answering the initial question, your aim is to raise a host of unrelated questions and get the opponent off message. In the end it causes the boredom you seek and has the opponent and the audience saying, “Duh, what’d he say?” and walking away scratching their heads. Great diversionary tactic. I applaud you. Outstanding.

    Mary ~ Jul 25, 2008 at 10:46 am

  136. Byron,

    It’s not looking like either Mary or Tony intend to back up the claims they’ve made against you or provide the posts/exact comments they’ve referred to – I sure scratched my head over Mary’s last post – another accusation with no explanation as to what points you evaded, what questions you didn’t answer, what confusion you caused. I’ve been reading your posts, too, and I didn’t see any of that. It’s been my observation that when people complain about lengthy explanations and act like they’re confused, it’s because they don’t like what you said. It only takes a few sentences to fire questions at someone; it’s a lot harder and more time-consuming to answer them.

    What they don’t seem to be considering is that they’re losing credibility by not answering the questions they’ve been asked, and resorting to name-calling and baseless accusations. I commend you for not answering anger with anger.

    Laurie ~ Jul 25, 2008 at 11:44 am

  137. Try never to, Laurie. OK, here’s a SHORT post: what legitimate questions remain unanswered, Mary? I mean, not the several I asked Tony, but the ones he/you asked me. I’m all ears…

    Byron ~ Jul 25, 2008 at 12:00 pm

  138. By the way, Mary, I congratulate you on your ability to understand my motives (“boredom”). Although, since that’s not even close…are you a false prophet?

    And I guess it’s a shame I didn’t try to test out of debating class in college; I never took the class, but maybe I didn’t need to? :)

    Byron ~ Jul 25, 2008 at 12:02 pm

  139. An earlier Byron post on this blog, he mentions, “Mr. Camping’s “prophecies” (or whatever you want to call them)”.

    Isn’t that like calling Camping a prophet?

    Jeff/Don,

    Thanks for posting. I think you might read a little more carefully, though. I can’t speak for Pastor Rizzo, but I do believe you’ll notice that my words were directed at Mr. Camping’s “prophecies” (or whatever you want to call them) and not at Mr. Camping himself. I do believe he suffers from a severe lack of credibility because his date-setting in the past hasn’t panned out.

    As to arrogance, that’s a different issue; perhaps you see it as arrogant simply to question another person’s public statements, I don’t know. “The poison of a viper”…nice.

    Byron ~ Jun 19, 2008 at 9:14 am

    Lars ~ Jul 25, 2008 at 12:56 pm

  140. And you as well, my friend. I do stand corrected on capitalizing your name, except for the fact that it was at the beginning of a sentence, so that’s just English, dude!

    As to being discerning relative to Mr. Camping, in one sense you’re right: I’ve not looked in detail at his arguments. In another way, you’re wrong, I believe, and that is that he has made such predictions before, and been gloriously wrong in them. Now, I don’t think he proclaimed himself a prophet, so I’m not ready to gather stones, but that said, when he tries to argue for a specific date/time of Christ’s return, knowing that he did so previously (at least once, if not twice; not sure) and was dead wrong (and that others have done the same, and been dead wrong as well), it’s just hard to take these arguments seriously. Yeah, I suppose I could study his work in greater detail, but you know, his credibility is pretty low IMHO, given his failed “prophecies” before.

    And I will read your article; just clicked the link. Candidly, if I thought Ron Paul had a chance, the libertarian in me might find him attractive, and he certainly has a lot of points with which I strongly agree. Methinks you’re coming down too harshly on Huck, though…but I’ll read your arguments!

    And thank you, friend!

    Byron ~ Dec 19, 2007 at 5:34 pm

    ???

    Another reference to HC’s “prophecies”? Are you saying Camping is a prophet, or not?

    Lars ~ Jul 25, 2008 at 1:03 pm

  141. Lars,

    I realize you’re trying to pin Byron down on this question about whether he thinks HC is a prophet or not, and I’ll be interested to read his reply, but I have to tell you, I’d find it a little difficult to answer that question myself. As far as I know, HC hasn’t used the word prophet to describe himself, but he does claim that God is revealing information to him about end-times. He did try to predict the date Jesus would return, but was that a glorified guess or a bona fide prophecy? Either way, it was wrong, but since he hasn’t made the claim of prophet, how do you address it? Herbert W. Armstrong did the same thing – it seems to be the way they get out of having to answer to the charge of being a false prophet.

    Laurie ~ Jul 25, 2008 at 1:22 pm

  142. As I carefully read Tony’s post about his reference to “false prophet”, what he said was, “Why do you host a blog that calls Harold Camping a false prophet?”

    Let’s be very clear, although there’s plenty of posts on this blog calling HC a “false prophet”, I don’t think Tony ever said Byron accused HC of being a false prophet. At least not on this blog.

    I don’t think Tony ever personally called anyone a false prophet on this blog.

    QUESTION: Is it Byron that needs to “man up” and apologize to Tony for accusing him of saying something that he obviously didn’t?

    Me thinks this blog lost a good person when it lost Tony.

    Lars ~ Jul 25, 2008 at 1:25 pm

  143. Lars,

    Though I think you’re dwelling on teensy details, I’ll oblige. I think the reason I used quotation marks around the word “prophecies” is because they are in what I’d call a “gray area”; Laurie suggests that this is a good question. Early on, some folks corrected me by pointing out that Camping hadn’t come out and said “definitely, 1994″, and there was no “thus saith the Lord” attached to Camping’s words, nor did he himself claim the mantle “prophet”; in all of these ways, he distinguishes himself from a guy like Ronald Weinland. I used the term “prophecies”, in quotes, for lack of a better term, and to suggest that no, he hasn’t come out and said that these things will come to pass. In that sense, then, he’s not a prophet, nor a false one.

    As to Tony, he’s welcome to come back of course, Lars; why don’t you ask him why he won’t answer any of my questions, or substantiate the statements he makes about me? No, Tony did not call anyone a “false prophet” on this blog; I didn’t say he did. Now, you’re parsing it pretty finely, Lars; it’s obvious that what Tony does accuse me of, over and over, is “sick dialog”, being a “hateful pastor” (I have no idea who he thinks I “hate”), etc., and the implication seems to me to be that he thinks I’ve called HC a false prophet. If that is not what he meant to say, then sure, I apologize! But he had plenty of opportunity–still does, for that matter–to correct me on that one if I’ve read him wrong.

    Again, though, it seems to me though, Lars, that I’ve tried to answer every question as best I knew how, going into detail (which Mary somehow takes as some subterfuge shuck-and-jive), and then asking others to do the same, notably Tony and Mary, something they’ve been notably unwilling to do. I’ve also tried to answer your questions, Lars; I hope I’ve been clear in my response, and if not, kindly tell me how I could clear up any remaining questions, and I’ll again do that as best I can. But I think if I were you, now that I’ve tried to be accommodating and answer these questions, I’d be asking Mary and Tony to reciprocate on their side.

    Thanks!

    Byron ~ Jul 25, 2008 at 1:49 pm

  144. I’m certainly not trying to pin anyone down or be nitpicking. I’m just trying to keep it real. One this specific point, Tony said what he said, very clearly.

    “If that is not what he meant to say, then sure, I apologize!”

    After challenging Tony’s manhood, that isn’t much of an apology but, then again, it’s a reasonable attempt.

    Lars ~ Jul 25, 2008 at 2:21 pm

  145. Okay, it’s time to keep it real again.

    The term “sick dialog” is mentioned only once in the entire blog by Tony and it is found in his tearful farewell speech when he says, “I am ashamed that I continued this sick dialog.”

    I see it for what it is, as something that “he” is ashamed of doing. He’s saying that “he” is ashamed to that “he” continued this sick dialog. Although his post is addressed to you, he says nothing about you in the “sick dialog” reference. He’s not ashamed of you. He’s ashamed of himself.

    In the same post Tony mentions “hateful pastor” only once in the entire blog. Since I’m being accused of parsing terms, I’ll get nit-picky about this one and say that he never mentions your name personally but rather generalizes to include pastors “in this nation”.

    You say, with regard to these two references, “Tony does accuse me of, over and over”.

    Over and over? Really? I count one each. One for “sick dialog” and one for “hateful pastor” and it’s debatable whether either of these lone references actually refer to you personally.

    If you guys are going to fight, let’s at least fight fair, that is of course, if Tony will stop wallowing in self-pity and come back to share some more of his interesting insight.

    Lars ~ Jul 25, 2008 at 3:03 pm

  146. Yeah, you’re right on those points; fair enough. But at the same time, he said some other things I didn’t mention, right?

    - Heat raised to hellish levels–by me.

    - Spewing venom (I think it’s safe to say the reference is to me, right?).

    - Evil accusations.

    - I’m a “bully”.

    And so on. That’s what I mean by “over and over”, not the same words, but the same gist, you know? Hey, I don’t care to “fight” at all; I’d rather discuss issues. I just don’t like being accused of all manner of things, and then no real substance offered to back those things up.

    And since you have the decency to address actual comments, instead of flinging generalization after generalization out, I’ll rescind the “nit-picky” comment (and the one about “parsing” as well, for good measure).

    Oh, and did it come off that I was questioning his manhood when I asked him to “man up” and admit he was wrong if he couldn’t come up with solid evidence? Maybe “man up” is too strong a term, then, ’cause for all I know, Tony’s a 6’4″, 230 lb. linebacker-type…

    Byron ~ Jul 25, 2008 at 7:14 pm

  147. Many “opinions” have been expressed on this web log. Most participants will naturally assume that your posts are merely your opinions, like all of the others, and are not necessarily truth. After reading some of your stuff, you strike me as being a person who assumes that you set the standard, at least on this forum. Those with a differing opinion seem to automatically become your opponent. The “generalizations” you allude to, of which there are many and from many sources on this blog, are merely generalizations. Simply a broad-brush, if you will. You seem to think that every generalization is referring to you personally. All I can say to that is, “If the shoe fits…”.

    Here a tip my friend, of the ingredients in a blog, broad-brush statements is included and is a popular method. You seem to get all legal and stuff by demanding retractions and calling upon the better nature of those who participate by implying that nobody can join in the dialog unless they adhere to your lofty standards and specific rules. It’s a blog, dude! A filthy place among other filthy places on the internet. In my opinion, there are some important things you need to remember if you want to participate (or be a host) on a blog that is exposed to the entire world wide web (WWW). It can get harsh. It can get filthy. It can get ugly and most of all, it can get lawless.

    In my opinion, this blog is relatively tame and the participants, although differing in opinions, seem to be civil. I believe the “heat” that Tony was referring to comes from you. The discussion, before you got involved, seemed to be civil and cordial. As I was monitoring the posts, after you were invited in by Laurie, all of a sudden it seemed like the discussion got intense and bitter. It went from a difference of opinions and cordial banter, to a discussion of those who have sole access to the truth and those who don’t. In my view, statements in absolute terms are not always a great method to employ went participating on a blog.

    I know some church professionals who would never consider, for one moment, hosting a web log. They are ministers of the Gospel who realize that “out there” are people with keen debating skills that could rip them to shreds. They realize that, although they have a very strong message, a crafty person/s can always twist their words into different meanings. They realize that the potential to embarrass themselves and embarrass their ministry is very great. In my opinion, the WWW has become Satan’s greatest tool, in these last days, to subvert and distort the story and the truth of Jesus Christ. By hosting a web log, you are jumping into the ring with Satan and his many ministers world wide. Not that it’s a place Christians need to avoid but the WWW needs to be clearly understood as a very dangerous place.

    My suggestion (only my opinion) to you, lighten up. Toss the legalese! Accept the fact that you have ventured in a very dark and very dangerous back alley to spread your message. Rules don’t apply in some neighborhoods. The WWW is one of those neighborhoods. As I said before. It’s a lawless place and you need to be aware of that before you participate, much less, host a web log.

    Lars ~ Jul 26, 2008 at 10:27 am

  148. Lars,

    Duuuude…this is my blog; I wrote the original post. Nobody invited me in; I wrote the original post, which I do in 100% of the cases! :)

    My posts are my opinions…and you know what they say about those, don’t you?

    What do you mean by “set the standard”? Elucidate…

    I think I agree about statements made in “absolute terms”, at least generally speaking; perhaps I made such, I don’t know. I jumped into the conversation with Tony after he’d tackled a couple of issues that I thought deserved response: hermeneutics and pastors. I addressed those directly, using his own words, and then challenging them. My intent is never to offend or fight, but to get at issues, and to persuade (that’s what 100% of blog posters do, right?) I think he misunderstands the whole concept of hermeneutics (and he’s never answered my questions about that, seeming to confirm my belief), and there is, as you suggest, a worldwide audience for this/any blog. I don’t tend to allow “out-there” statements on a topic as important as hermeneutics to go unchallenged. Then, Tony attacked pastors in a broadbrush way. Maybe I’m a little oversensitive, ’cause I are one, but I don’t like hearing pastors dissed en masse. By the way, if you’ll re-read that post, I began with a compliment and ended with one as well (I don’t see that in any of Tony’s responses, do you?). I wasn’t trying to turn up the heat, but to offer a response to people who might be reading this who don’t know what to think about hermeneutics, and/or those who think that pastors are a bunch of charlatans or something. Yes, the conversation may well have been “civil and cordial” before I made that post…but I’m not going to allow civil and cordial lies to go unchallenged on issues that important. That make sense?

    I don’t care about retractions so much as I do care that if people are going to make broadbrush generalizations, that they be accurate, and that those broadbrushes not put words in my mouth I have no intention of saying or suggesting. If I said of you, Tony, Mary, whomever, “you-all just hate the truth, and don’t care about false teaching, and are compromisers” (or other such baloney!), then it would be incumbent on me to back up those statements (which I couldn’t). That’s really all I’m looking for. I never attacked Tony, remember; never called him by any names, nor did I do that to Mary. They have done that, though, speaking not only inaccurately about me, but also this blog. So what path should I take? Ignore the things that are being said that put words in my mouth, or ask the folks who say them to substantiate their words? I do ignore some stuff; read through my other threads and I think you’d find that. Sometimes, I can’t do that; I think these issues are important.

    Yeah, you’re right; it’s a dark world, but it’s also a great forum to express, as you say, opinions. And your next-to-last paragraph is very well-written, a great reminder, cogent and worthy of remembering! My main “rule”, though, that I am not willing to toss so easily is the idea that people can make unfounded statements, particularly ones which involve twisting/grossly misstating my words (or the words of others, for that matter), and that not be challenged. I had/have no desire to “fight” with anyone: Tony, Mary, yourself, whomever; I do desire to encourage people to think, to wrestle through issues, to not just repeat slogans but to work through their “opinions” in order to align them with Scriptural truth. I am perfectly willing to be challenged, to allow my own opinions to be so shaped as well! But the only thing I require is that my words be allowed to speak for me as I intended them (and to clarify where necessary), instead of someone else’s misunderstanding or misappropriation of those words. Isn’t that just reasonable?

    Thanks for your good words, Lars. Good to have you here.

    Byron ~ Jul 26, 2008 at 3:24 pm

  149. Best wishes…

    Adios amigo!

    Lars ~ Jul 26, 2008 at 8:18 pm

  150. You know, it sure is easy to make bold statements, to lash out at people, to ridicule and judge them – not so easy to support those statements, admit you lost your cool, address people with respect even when what they’re saying makes the hair stand up on the back of your neck.

    Someone mentioned the heat on this thread – I think part of that was due to the questions that were being asked, it seems they were getting harder to answer, so the frustration level started rising. I never took a debate class, what do you suppose they teach you to do when this happens?

    Laurie ~ Jul 28, 2008 at 6:06 pm

  151. Hi again,

    I would like offer some thoughts, and would enjoy discussing my view with others. And I would be happy to answer any questions. I am available to share my beliefs and the Biblical reasons for my beliefs regarding the teaching of Harold Camping.

    Mr. Camping’s teachings can be very confusing, and it is hard for some people to see that his evidence for his Biblical Calendar, and his evidence for the timing of end time events is not valid.

    An example of one of his most confusing and most convincing arguments is found in a chart on pages 469 and 470 [513-514 on the online edition
    ( http://www.timehasanend.org/ )] in his recent book Time Has An End. This chart is titled “Important Time Interval Relationships.” In this chart he lists 22 major Biblical events with the dates that they occurred according to his Biblical Calendar. In the bottom corner of the chart he lists the “spiritual numbers.” The “spiritual numbers” he lists are 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 100, 1000, 12, 13, 17, 23, 37, 40, and 43. Although he doesn’t list it here for some reason, Mr. Camping has also taught that 11 is a “spiritual number.” Mr. Camping also considers any number that is a product of “spiritual numbers” to be a “spiritual number.” For instance, the 344 years between Israel being divided and the end of Judah’s 70 year exile can be factored as 2x2x2x43. Thus, 344 is a “spiritually significant” number. Also, the number 5023 is considered a spiritually significant number that points us to the spiritually significant number 23.

    Mr. Camping will be pointing out that 47 time intervals are “spiritual numbers.” He teaches that this is evidence that his calendar is of God. He doesn’t understand that this evidence is not valid for many reasons:

    1. Many of his time intervals are miscalculated purposely. He claims God has authorized him to choose to calculate intervals between B.C. and A.D. dates by actual years or by actual years + 1 (which he labels inclusive (INCL)). This gives him double the possibility of arriving at a spiritually significant number for the time interval. If anyone is interested, I would be happy to explain why he claims he is authorized to do this, and why his claim that he is authorized to miscalculate time intervals is not biblical.
    2. 18 of the 47 significant intervals were based on dates chosen by Mr. Camping for the very reason that they would give spiritually significant time intervals (1988: the end of the church age; 1994: the beginning of the latter rain; and 2011 the projected end of the world.) It would not be logical to purposely select 1988, 1994, and 2011, because they would yield spiritual time intervals, and then claim that these time intervals are evidence that the calendar is marvelously ordained of God.
    3. Mr. Camping’s definition of a spiritual number is very broad and a high percent of total numbers. For instance, by Mr. Camping’s definition 71 out of the numbers 1 through 100 are significant numbers! We should not be amazed that many of the time intervals are also significant numbers. Finding such a time interval should not be considered a marvelous sign that God ordained the Biblical Calendar.
    4. The total possible time intervals on Mr. Camping’s chart can be calculated using basic mathematics as follows: 21+20+19+18+17+16+15+14+13+12+11+10+9+8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1. This is 231 possible time intervals! [Don’t be amazed that 231 (3x7x11) is a spiritual number!] Mr. Camping only listed 47 of the 231 intervals as yielding a spiritual number. That means that Mr. Camping has not identified 184 time intervals as spiritual numbers! Isn’t that evidence that God did not ordain the calendar? For instance, he focuses on the fact that from creation to the end in 2011 is 13023 years and from creation to the end of the church age in 1988 is 13000 years. But from creation to the birth of Christ, according Mr. Camping’s calendar is 11006 years (not a spiritually significant number!) and from creation to the crucifixion is 11045 years (also not a significant number!). I would think that one would consider the birth of Christ and the crucifixion to be key Biblical events! It puzzles me how Mr. Camping claims that the 47 time intervals that yield spiritual numbers provide abundant evidence for his calendar, but the many, many important time intervals that do not give a spiritually significant number are not considered to be evidence that the calendar is not of God.

    A person may think that Mr. Camping’s discovery of 47 significant time intervals within 22 Biblical events in his calendar is amazing. However, when we take the time to analyze the facts, we find this evidence does not support his claim that he has discovered a previously hidden Biblical Calendar. And when we carefully analyze the facts we find that this evidence does not support his prediction that 2011 is the end of the world.

    Marc

    Marc ~ Aug 2, 2008 at 12:23 am

  152. Laurie,

    Just so I don’t get accused of “accusing”, I’ll preface my post by saying, “this is only an opinion”. It seems that some really can’t determine an opinion from an accusation here. This is an amusing and, at times, weird blog. After reading many of the posts on this particular thread, I’ve come to the conclusion that you are related, in some way, to Byron. With regard to this blog, your support for him is absolute. You never post a discouraging word about him. You seem to imply undying devotion. Do you attend the same church together? Are you both employed by the same church? Are you married to each other? Do you help administer this blog? I ask just so we all can get a clear perspective on your relationship.

    MontreatFreak ~ Aug 3, 2008 at 10:45 am

  153. Montreat,

    Though I’d be happy to have Laurie as a family member, church member, or even staff member, all that I know of her is that she lives in Alabama and has a Calvary Chapel background. And I’d imagine that all she knows of me is this blog as well as possibly listening to one/some of my messages online.

    But hey, Montreat, what possibly could there be discouraging to say about sweet little me??? :)

    Byron ~ Aug 3, 2008 at 1:57 pm

  154. Wow, Marc,

    You’ve given us another good, cogent explanation of how Mr. Camping has erred. I appreciate it. As I’ve said on several occasions, my sole reason for posting this thread was to opine that date-setting, whether of the “hard-and-fast” variety (such as is employed by Ronald Weinland), or of the less-dogmatic but still significant variety, as employed by Camping, is unhelpful at the least and harmful, it seems to me.

    Did you already post on how he arrives at his idea that the church age is over? I didn’t know, when I posted this thread, that he believed that, but that’s also a hugely problematic teaching, dangerous to the body of Christ.

    Other than these things, I’m sure HC is just a swell guy…

    Byron ~ Aug 3, 2008 at 3:07 pm

  155. MontreatFreak,

    I don’t mind you asking; I have defended Byron on more than one occasion, and don’t mind explaining why. What he shared with you about me is correct. I stumbled onto this blog several months ago, was interested in the discussion, and in navigating thru this website realized he was the pastor of an Evangelical Free church, which I know a little about although I’ve never attended one.

    There are several reasons why I have spoken up on Byron’s behalf. First of all, we seem to have many similar beliefs, and so far I haven’t heard him say anything I completely disagreed with. Second, I was raised to show respect to pastors, and in fact my father was a pastor for many years; if anyone had spoken to him the way I’ve heard people speak to Byron you better believe I’d have something to say. I was also taught to respect teachers, and was never one of those bratty kids/immature adults who like to challenge and attack a teacher for their own amusement or to show everyone how smart they are. I can never sit silent for long when this is happening, particularly if the attack is unjust. Byron is a pastor and a teacher, but as far as I can tell, he’s not trying to act like this blog is his church; yet he has been attacked for being a pastor/teacher.

    Unfortunately, some of the people posting here have not been willing to follow the rules of common courtesy, nor have they followed the biblical guidelines for conducting a positive discussion of the scriptures. As Christians, we are not to have contentions, or divide over them; we are to work thru our differences and attempt to be like-minded. Some of the people posting here, in my opinion, have had issues with pastors in general and have made unjust attacks on Byron’s character and motives; when he asked them to support those accusations, they could/would not.

    One person pointed out that the internet is a dangerous and lawless place, and he shouldn’t be expecting anyone to answer for their rude behavior or unfounded accusations (or words to that effect). The fact is, the world is a dangerous and lawless place, but we still expect people to be civil and not slander each other.

    Hope that answered your questions.

    Laurie ~ Aug 3, 2008 at 4:12 pm

  156. Marc,

    Math is not my best subject; as I read your post, my eyes started glazing over and my brain started popping and sputtering – which is a sign it’s been over-loaded. I admire you for your ability to make sense of all that, and I’m thankful God doesn’t expect us all to be math-whizzes.

    I would like to know why he claims that he is authorized to miscalculate time intervals, and why it is not biblical. I would also like to know, if you have considered this question, if there is any biblical basis for believing we can and/or should know the year of Jesus’ return; from what I understand, in regard to Jesus’ statement that no one knew the day or the hour, He didn’t include the year.

    Another question that comes to my mind is, God – Who knows everything – surely knew there would be more than one calendar; does it make sense that He would expect us to know about this calendar HC came up with? Or is the whole point HC is making is that God only revealed it to him?

    Laurie ~ Aug 3, 2008 at 4:39 pm

  157. Thanks folks,

    I appreciate the reply. Keep up the good work. This blog is hilarious!

    MontreatFreak ~ Aug 3, 2008 at 6:16 pm

  158. Because I believe laughter to be one of God’s good gifts, I’m thrilled to be able to assist you in that endeavor, Montreat! :)

    Byron ~ Aug 3, 2008 at 7:08 pm

  159. Laurie,

    I don’t believe Mr. Camping would ever teach that God has revealed these things only to him. He has communicated that many true Christians have also come to the same conclusions.

    Mr. Camping does give a complicated explanation that gives a different interpretation to those verses that most would interpret as no one knowing the time of the end. His explanation is acceptable to some people. It is not acceptable to me. This is a topic worth discussing, and may encourage Christians not to get involved in Mr. Camping’s teachings. However, for those fully engulfed in his teaching I thought it might be important to deal with other aspects of his teaching, such as the time intervals. The time intervals are what some consider convincing proof that Mr. Camping’s Biblical Calendar is ordained of God. That is why I wanted to explain (and hopefully discuss) my point of view that Mr. Camping’s time interval evidence is not valid.

    Marc ~ Aug 3, 2008 at 9:56 pm

  160. Hi Laurie,

    I forgot to explain the reason that Mr. Camping believes he is authorized to purposely miscalculate the time intervals. On pages 373 to 380 of his book “1994?” he gives his explanation. In this passage Mr. Camping writes that creators of our calendar erred by not putting a year zero into our calendar. He calls this error “blatant” and “drastic”, and an error of “great magnituede.” He asserts that since God mysteriously allowed this error to be in our calendar we also can make an error when computing time intervals.

    Mr. Camping agrees with everyone that the correct way to measure a time interval from B.C. To A.D. is to add the dates and subtract one. He has called these intervals “actual years” in his books. He uses this correct method, especially when it yields a spiritual number. However, he also purposely miscalculates time intervals when that method yields a spiritual number. He does this by just adding the B.C. year to the A.D. year, purposely not subtracting one year, which is a mandatory step in the calculation! The result is that the time interval will be one year too high. He used to call the incorrect time interval “calendar years.” Now he calls the incorrect time intervals “inclusive.”

    What makes this newer label “inclusive” even more confusing is that there is an element of truth to this term. If one event happened at the very beginning of the year and the next event happened at the very end of the year his miscalculation of the time interval would actually be correct! However, that element of truth is not justification for his practice of miscalculating a time interval. When Mr. Camping assumes the first event happened at the beginning of the year and the second event happened at the end of the year he is being inconsistent. After all, he never deals with the opposite possibility that the first event could have been at the very end of the year and the second event could have happened at the very beginning of the year.

    The truth is that there are two honest ways to measure the timespan from a B.C. date to an A.D. date The first is to assume the dates are from the beginning of each year and add the years and subtract one. The second is to give a range. For instance, it is accurate to say that from the year 10 B.C. to 15 A.D. is 24 years (10+15-1). However, it is also accurate to say the time span is between 23 and 25 years depending on whether the event happened early or late in the year. Mr. Camping is not justified when he insists that an acceptable answer is simply 25 years.

    What about Mr. Camping’s claim that God allowed a “blatant,” “drastic,” error of “great magnitude” when he allowed our calendar to have no year zero? That is simply not true. It would be impossible to have a year zero. Zero is not a counting number. When we count our fingers we do not have finger number zero. We begin counting the first finger with the number one. When we count years we do not have year zero. We begin counting years with the number one. There is no other possibility. It is true that until the first year is completed zero total years have elapsed. However, the first year must be called year one, not year zero. The calendar is not in error when it leaves out the year zero, and of course this is not a signal from God that we are authorized to miscalculate time spans.

    Marc ~ Aug 4, 2008 at 1:39 am

  161. In my last post I wrote that it would be impossible to have a year zero. Technically it is possible to have a year zero, such as the calendar astronomers use. However, if we are talking about a calendar that uses both A.D. and B.C. dates it is impossible to have a year zero.

    In any event the absence of a year zero in our calendar is not a “blatant” “drastic, “obvious,” error of “great magnitude” as described by Mr. Camping.

    I realize this is a small point, but I want to be as accurate as possible.

    Marc

    Marc ~ Aug 5, 2008 at 1:29 am

  162. Is Harold Camping a Calvinist?

    Tubby ~ Aug 5, 2008 at 2:47 pm

  163. No idea, Tubby. Marc?

    Byron ~ Aug 5, 2008 at 3:32 pm

  164. Tubby,

    With regards to the doctrines of salvation, Harold Camping agrees with much of the five points of Calvinism. However, he is now saying that he doesn’t totally agree with one of the 5 points of Calvinism: total depravity. He is dogmatic that anyone who does not teach unconditional election and limited atonement is teaching a false gospel. He declares that teachers that teach freewill are teaching a “do it yourself” salvation.

    His method of interpreting the Bible is opposed to the method of interpretation used by John Calvin. Mr. Camping agrees with Calvin that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. However, John Calvin used conventional methods of interpreting the Bible. Calvin believed that the Bible was readily understandable. He also taught that we should try to understand the Bible in its historical context.

    Mr. Camping believes we interpret the Bible completely differently than any other written work because it is the word of God. He looks for mysterious hidden spiritual meanings in every passage, and has his own method of interpreting the Bible. He often ignores the historical context of Biblical passages.

    So the answer to your question is no, he is not a Calvinist. He has a Calvinist background, but does not use the methods of interpreting the Bible that John Calvin used.

    Marc ~ Aug 5, 2008 at 4:14 pm

  165. Can you briefly summarize the principles of “unconditional election and limited atonement”?

    Tubby ~ Aug 5, 2008 at 5:45 pm

  166. Tubby,

    Unconditional election means that God chose us apart from any good things we did. We are not saved by our good works. Mr. Camping takes it to the extreme and says that we are not saved by our believing in Christ because our believing in Christ is a work. Others who hold to the doctrine of unconditional election do not teach that our believing in Christ is a work.

    Limited atonement means that Christ only died for those that he had predestined (for ordained) to save. The other view is universal atonement that means that Christ paid for the sins of all mankind. However, universal atonement does not mean universal salvation.

    There are variations on specific beliefs within those who believe in limited atonement and unconditional election.

    I think that during the reformation the struggle for political power accented the tension between the various explanations of how God accomplishes salvation. Some of this division among Christians remains today. Doctrine is important, and it is hard to know when differing doctrines should be grounds for separation, or when a doctrinal difference is not critical and can be overlooked for the sake of unity. In the case of Mr. Camping, he seems to label anyone who doesn’t agree with his unusual views as following a false gospel, and I think that is wrong. In other words, he is throwing out the baby with the bath water by labeling all churches as being under the rulership of Satan.

    Marc

    Marc ~ Aug 5, 2008 at 7:26 pm

  167. Wow…and yet he denies total depravity? To me, that’s one of the less-controversial of the “five points”. Interesting.

    Byron ~ Aug 5, 2008 at 7:42 pm

  168. Thanks for your reply Marc,

    I’ve heard and read some of HC’s teachings. He has me somewhat confused. Regarding whether or God allows us the free will to make a decision to either accept or reject Jesus Christ as personal savior (for example the account of the two thieves at Calvary with Christ), do you think HC believes mankind has such free will?

    Tubby ~ Aug 5, 2008 at 8:15 pm

  169. Byron,

    I don’t know if he denies total depravity. I heard him say that he disagrees with the reformed position on total depravity the other day. I didn’t get to hear his full explanation, but I did hear him clearly say that he had always agreed with the 5 points of Calvinism, but now has a new understanding of one of the 5 points, and I’m almost sure it was the doctrine of total depravity. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

    Tubby,

    The freewill, predestination debate is an ongoing debate. One view is that we do not have a freewill to choose to believe, but God sovereignly gave us faith resulting in salvation. Others believe we are able to choose to believe, and God predestined us on the basis that he knew beforehand that we would believe of our own freewill. A third view I have heard is that God predestined us by his sovereignty (as opposed to foreknowledge) and yet did not take our freewill away. Mr. Camping not only holds to the first view (that we do not have a freewill, and God gave us grace apart from our will to choose), but he believes that the other views result in false gospels.

    Marc ~ Aug 6, 2008 at 1:17 am

  170. HC’s ministry appears to me to be actively involved in the work of evangelism wordwide. He often speaks of sending teams to foreign countries to hand out tracts and pamphlets to the local population. He is constantly seeking people with foreign language skills to advance his worldwide radio broadcast ministry. Here’s my confusion. If we have no free will to choose to believe and if our eternal destiny has been predetermined and can not be altered, why does he insist on continuing his evangelistic efforts?

    Tubby ~ Aug 6, 2008 at 7:53 am

  171. Tubby,

    Family Radio has a very large Radio ministry. They broadcast in about 29 out of the world’s thousands of languages. I believe the size of their tract ministry in foreign lands is relatively small. There is no contradiction in their evangelistic ministry and their doctrinal stance on freewill. They believe that God not only chooses his elect, but God chooses his elect unto works of evangelism. And they believe God chooses to use the Family Radio ministry as the means for the Holy Spirit to grant faith. They believe that God not only predestines and grants his chosen people saving faith, but he also predestines people to be used as a means for the Holy Spirit to give saving faith to his chosen. They believe that God not only predestines the end, but predestines the means.

    Marc ~ Aug 6, 2008 at 10:38 am

  172. If everything is predestined and mankind is merely responding like robots exactly the way God originally programmed, does Harold Camping suggest that Eve had no choice (no free will) in the garden when she was tempted by the serpent (Satan) to eat of the forbidden fruit? In that regard, does Camping imply that God predestined original sin? Does Camping imply that mankind was “programmed” to eat the forbidden fruit?

    Tubby ~ Aug 6, 2008 at 2:28 pm

  173. Tubby,

    I don’t think Mr. Camping or a Calvinist would claim that Eve did not have free will. I believe after sin entered the human race is when they would say our freewill was lost.

    I don’t know how Calvinists would answer your other questions. However, those that teach that we have a free will have an equally difficult questions to answer. How can God be sovereignly in control of everything, if we have a free will?

    My opinion is that the eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent God, who is not bound by time or space is impossible for us to comprehend. We shouldn’t be too dogmatic on our human explanations regarding how God accomplishes salvation.

    Many wonderful Christian teachers teach the Calvinists view, so I don’t think we should focus on this issue as being the major problem with the teaching of Harold Camping.

    Marc ~ Aug 6, 2008 at 5:04 pm

  174. Forgive me for trying to better understand the principles of HC’s theology. I think it’s important to pin-point the basics of his belief system so we can understand his teachings. As near as I can tell, he seems to subscribe to a form of Calvinism that I’m not familiar with. It does not appear to be the orthodox version if only because he’s telling church members to flee the church. I don’t remember “fleeing the church” as being included in the principles of Calvinism.

    When you say, “I don’t think Mr. Camping or a Calvinist would claim that Eve did not have free will. I believe after sin entered the human race is when they would say our freewill was lost.”

    If you are referring to HC or Calvinists in general, do they suggest scripture to back up their claim of the loss of the free will of the human race?

    Tubby ~ Aug 6, 2008 at 8:18 pm

  175. Tubby,

    Actually, I have noticed a lot of conservative reformed churches on the internet that are very similar to Mr. Camping in their doctrines of salvation. So I don’t think that is where our primary focus should be in bringing correction.

    Perhaps the judgmental way he looks at those that don’t agree with his explanation of salvation is the root problem. I don’t know. However, I think it is more effective for me to bring Biblical correction to him, by showing that his Biblical Calendar is not Biblical.

    Sorry, I didn’t address all your questions. But I have to focus on the topics that I feel qualified to comment on. I think you got me out of my field of expertise, and I hope you realize that in regards to Calvinism, I am not an authority.

    Marc ~ Aug 7, 2008 at 1:03 pm

  176. Tubby,

    A good place to do some research on Calvinism would be in the writings of Bible scholar R.C. Sproul. He presents the full-blown Calvinist position, which suggests, if I understand accurately and to try to answer your question, that our wills are fallen, and are “free” only in the sense of being able to choose sin, that we could/would never choose, as “dead men” (Ephesians 2) Christ except for God drawing us. I’m not an authority either, by any means, and I agree with Marc in that Camping’s problem here is (apparently, not being that acquainted with his teaching) a judgmental arrogance.

    Look, there are plenty of Scriptures that suggest that we are chosen by God (Ephesians 1 is a good place to start), and I personally find it difficult to come to a resolution of the question once and for all.

    Byron ~ Aug 7, 2008 at 3:25 pm

  177. I don’t argue that we are chosen by God for salvation from the foundation of the earth. After all, who can argue that God know the beginning and the end and knows who will ultimately be with Him in heaven. My only issue with Camping is that he implies that mankind is so “totally depraved” from the original sin in the garden that we have no ability to answer the door of our hearts when we hear God knocking.

    Tubby ~ Aug 8, 2008 at 8:05 pm

  178. Is it Camping who has the salvation plan so twisted or is it that Calvinism is just another cult religion and that it’s John Calvin who took the simple message of salvation, the message stated in John 3:14; 3:36; 6:40; 6:47; 20:31; etc., and polluted it in the first place? In my view, Camping seems to be just another twisted Calvinists cult worshiper who has added his false spin and is telling long time church members to flee their churches. Camping seems to have taken Calvin’s twisted message to higher levels.

    Tubby ~ Aug 9, 2008 at 9:01 am

  179. Tubby,

    I disagree with your suggestion that all Calvinists can be classified as members of another cult religion. Your suggestion mirrors Mr.Camping’s judgment of others. He condemns those who don’t agree with his explanation of how to reconcile the sovereignty of God with human responsibility. You are asking if we should condemn those who don’t agree with your explanation of how to reconcile the sovereignty of God with human responsibility.

    You are right that the message of salvation is simple. If we truly believe in the Christ of the Bible we are saved! And the Bible does give clear information regarding how to test to see if our faith is genuine.
    God does not require us to be able have the perfect Biblical explanation regarding how to reconcile all the Bible verses regarding God’s sovereignty and our responsibility. You are probably right that the Calvinist’s explanation is not perfect, but that does not necessarily mean a Calvinist is not a Christian.

    Marc ~ Aug 10, 2008 at 9:22 pm

  180. Yes, I’m guilty of painting with such a broad brush. I apologize for doing that. I just think John Calvin must have been the type of guy who just couldn’t get a date so he spent most of his evenings locked away in his bedroom inventing theology. A real strange bird. I guess that’s why I find Billy Graham a breath of fresh air. The simple message of the gospel where we are invited to come” just as we are”.

    Tubby ~ Aug 10, 2008 at 10:39 pm

  181. Tubby,

    You need to read “Institutes of the Christian Religion” by John Calvin.
    You will not find any inventions or speculations therein. He routinely indicates that his doctrinal views are supported by specific scriptures and conform to the views of early church fathers. He also carefully answers objections to his interpretaions and understandings. This book is voluminous
    but very well organized and easy to follow.

    I am a Calvinist – certainly not a follower of Harold Camping.

    William

    William Rhoad ~ Aug 13, 2008 at 4:10 pm

  182. William;

    There are two mains camps of theology within Christianity in America today: Arminianism and Calvinism.

    Do you agree with TULIP (The Five Points of Calvinism)?

    Total Depravity (known as Total Inability and Original Sin)
    Unconditional Election
    Limited Atonement (known as Particular Atonement)
    Irresistible Grace
    Perseverance of the Saints (known as Once Saved Always Saved)

    Tubby ~ Aug 13, 2008 at 5:26 pm

  183. Wow! I stumbled upon this website by accident, but it’s pretty interesting!

    I’m familiar with Harold Campings teachings and I must say, false profit or not the man is quit courageous to proclaim the things he proclaims. In fact, my hat is off to the man for providing some fresh insight into the bible where other organizations seem to just cling to what they have always been taught and never question it or address ANYthing new or insightful.

    In my observation (which admittedly, doesn’t account for much)… It’s interesting to note that where ever there is Truth, there is controversy. If there were no Truth to one side of an argument or another, there would be no controversy, or outrage, or anything.

    History DOES repeat itself… And when we look to the Bible, we find the ultimate example – When Jesus came and gave testimony to the Truth… It was so outrageous and unacceptable to the ‘powers that be’ (namely, the scribes & the pharacies), that they put Him to death. And yes, the fact that He said He was God helped to anger them, but it was more than that. It was Christ’s constant mocking (for lack of a better word) and challenging them – calling them hypocrites, healing on the Sabbath and so on… That outraged them more.

    Jesus challenged there so-called authority. They had it all wrong but they didn’t want to hear it. If there was no truth to Jesus’ words, do you think they would have been so upset? I think they would have ignored Him if he had no Truth.

    Now if HC is correct, and he in fact IS bringing Truth that challenges today’s ‘powers that be’ – can you see the parallel?

    It makes sense to me that since men are not perfect (and neither is HC, nor does he claim to be), we would eventually repeat the same mistakes that the nation of Israel made; Pride, arrogance and loving the Law, rather than loving God.

    Truth has NEVER been mainstream. Real Truth has always divided, tested and challenged believers of every kind. My feeling is that the ‘safer’ and more mainstream your beliefs are in todays world, the more likely you are to be one of those who say “Lord, Lord” and experience the weeping & gnashing of teeth.

    After all, who do you think God is referring to in those passages? These are people who “KNOW” the Bible well “Did we not prophesy and do many great works in thy name?” Sounds just like the scribes and the pharacies to me… People who had a position of greater authority.

    Furthermore, I never realized what TRUE persecution could be like as a Christian in today’s world. I mean, if everyone is ‘Christian’ (mainstream USA for example), whom would we be persecuted by?. Persecution by other religions does not nearly compare to the persecution one could experience from those of our own… It’s like someone in your own family stabbing you in the back!

    Think about it, Jesus said you will suffer persecution for my name’s sake – Although you could argue he was speaking to the disciples, they still faced persecution for believing doctrine’s taught by Christ that went AGAINST the common belief’s of the day. They in effect, were traitors for believing in Christ.

    On a similar note, anyone who believes in the teachings of HC are often painted as traitors as well. I’m not saying that I am for or against any argument here… I’m simply pointing out the obvious truths to controversial topics, and how we as people are quick to cling to thoughts/doctrines that are familiar to us, rather than examining what is being offered before it is accepted or rejected.

    Michael ~ Aug 14, 2008 at 3:02 pm

  184. Michael;

    If you review this thread, there were several posts earlier that compared HC to unlikely messengers like John the Baptist and like Noah and like Jonah. Funny how God never chose the established religionists of the day to spread His message. I think those who are professional religionists today think they have it all figured out and that’s why HC scares them so much. The folks who were making those comparisons were quickly shouted down by the anti-HC regulars. They turned up the heat. It was pretty funny. Regretfully, they don’t post anymore. Get ready Michael, the anti-HC regulars will be back soon to shout you down. Hope you have a think skin.

    Tubby ~ Aug 14, 2008 at 4:15 pm

  185. Hey Tubby,

    Thick skin or not, people will have their own point of view and that’s OK… It doesn’t effect me or my life so no worries!.

    The Truth is what the Truth is and NO ONE has it all figured out (or ever will). Granted HC does have a very opinionated and ‘authoritative’ posture when he speaks. But he does a good job of admitting when he’s been wrong in the past and is not afraid to correct himself when he is found to be mistaken (rare as that might be).

    I happen to think he’s right on the money about a great deal of topics that otherwise go contrary to popular belief.

    All throughout the Bible the Truth has been in the minority. Today is no different than yesterday.

    And as for HCs book 1994? (forgive me if this has been stated already as I haven’t read every post)… Although he was ‘moved’ enough (for lack of a better word) to write the book based upon several of his own findings… He was never 100% confident in his own findings as he cautiously (and purposely) put a question mark after the year 1994? And he also noted in the book that if Christ didn’t return that year, the only other possibility he could see at that time was the year 2011.

    This time around, he seems to have all the confidence in the world based upon all the ‘new’ evidence he has uncovered.

    All in all, I think he is extremely interesting to listen too and I admire his boldness to challenge the status quo.

    You can argue about all the minor details you want… but in the bigger picture he has done an excellent job of taking on subjects that no one else has dared to even go near. That in itself makes me want to listen to him all the more.

    Think about it… What main stream minister today would dare to tell people to come out of the churches? They would be stoned to death (so to speak). Most ministries are nothing more than businesses. They charge you for everything… “Buy my CD cassette series on God’s secrets for blessings in your life” blah, blah, blah… Hurry, Only $29.95! I could see Jesus turning over the money tables now… It makes me sick!

    Michael ~ Aug 14, 2008 at 5:44 pm

  186. I’m not really interested in shouting anyone down, the pro-HC people apparently didn’t like anyone offering a different opinion – they got angry and rude, and when they were asked to keep it civil, they didn’t come back. I guess you’d consider me anti-HC in the sense that I think he’s teaching some really wrong things, and the right things he teaches don’t make up for that.

    Sometimes people go from extreme to extreme – they accept what they’re taught without question – or they believe every new and exciting idea without question.

    When you say God never chose the “established religionists” to spread His message, I’m guessing you’re referring to the priests in the OT and the Pharisees in the NT? I believe it was the job of the rabbis to teach the scriptures, which is what our Christian pastors do today. God chose men from different walks of life to be prophets – kings, farmers, rich men, poor men, educated men, uneducated men – John the Baptist came from a line of priests, Paul was a Pharisee.

    God can use anyone He wants, I haven’t heard anyone say HC couldn’t be used by God, the question that’s been addressed is – IS he being used by God? Just because some of us aren’t impressed by his teachings doesn’t mean we’re “afraid” of him – using that logic would mean anyone who doesn’t agree with traditional Christianity, or Christian pastors is “afraid” of them. Personally, I’m not afraid of being challenged, I just ask that people use good logic and not allow their personal feelings to get the best of them.

    You guys can share anything you like about HC, but if you’re looking for a blog where everyone will agree with you, this ain’t it. I suspect most people haven’t heard of him, and those that have need to make up their own minds what they think about him and his message. I don’t know if you read back far enough, but this thread was started to discuss date-setting and it kind of spread to other subjects. Don’t mind hearing your point of view – hope you don’t mind hearing some that differ.

    Laurie ~ Aug 14, 2008 at 6:06 pm

  187. Michael,

    See what I mean!

    Tubby ~ Aug 14, 2008 at 7:28 pm

  188. HC is saying that Matthew 24:15-16 is one of many Bible passages that is proof that Christians should flee their churches. Other say this event has already been fulfilled with Antiochus Epiphanes and a little issue about forcing Jewish men to eat the pig meat in 167 BC. I agree with you when you say, “Think about it… What main stream minister today would dare to tell people to come out of the churches? They would be stoned to death (so to speak). Most ministries are nothing more than businesses. They charge you for everything… “Buy my CD cassette series on God’s secrets for blessings in your life” blah, blah, blah… Hurry, Only $29.95! I could see Jesus turning over the money tables now… It makes me sick!”

    Any way you look at it, it’s business!

    Tubby ~ Aug 14, 2008 at 7:45 pm

  189. Personally, I don’t agree with anything HC has to say mainly because he strikes me as a Calvinist. He keeps mentioning “election” which I have to assume he’s referring to Unconventional Election which is stated as…

    God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) without any consideration of merit within the individual. Nor does God look into the future to see who would pick Him. Also, as some are elected into salvation, others are not (Rom. 9:15, 21).

    Someone suggested that I should read “Institutes of the Christian Religion” by John Calvin.

    In my view, John Calvin’s teachings are false based merely on his teaching about Unconventional Election. I don’t need to read anything else by John Calvin.

    Tubby ~ Aug 14, 2008 at 7:57 pm

  190. Sorry, I meant to say, “Unconditional Election” and not Unconventional Election.

    Tubby ~ Aug 14, 2008 at 8:00 pm

  191. @Laurie: Well put, Laurie. I certainly don’t mind folks with differing opinions; I only mind folks that are unwilling to attempt to back up their words with evidence (and that’s what was happening with some of the folks here on this thread, I think). I am sure that a good bit of what HC teaches is good and valuable; though I don’t know him all that well, I certainly don’t question his salvation in Christ (as I would Ronald Weinland’s, for instance). That said, every teaching of any/every teacher must be evaluated in the light of the Word of God, not on the basis of “newness” or “oldness” or what have you. The Pharisees were correct in a lot of ways; a lot of their theology was on track, but they had, of course, allowed themselves to get prideful, created loopholes (well, attempted to!), etc. God’s sovereignty and God’s omnipotence and God’s omniscience are all pretty old doctrines, but I don’t think that we ought to welcome anybody questioning them because what they taught would be “new”, right?

    Byron ~ Aug 14, 2008 at 8:01 pm

  192. @Michael: Oh, and “what mainstream minister today would dare to tell people to come out of the churches?” I’ll give that a stab: an unfaithful one?

    Byron ~ Aug 14, 2008 at 8:04 pm

  193. Byron;

    I have to cry “foul” here…

    A couple of questions…

    1) How do you know that you are saved?
    2) How do you know other people know that you are saved?
    2) Isn’t it a bit presumptuous to appoint yourself an authority on the salvation of other people?
    3) Would you be offended if Ronald Weinland questioned your salvation?

    Lars ~ Aug 14, 2008 at 8:13 pm

  194. @Lars: Laugh with me on this one: your numbering is 1, 2, 2, and 3! :)

    OK, I’ll answer your “couple”:

    1. I know I’m saved because I have responded, according to the Bible’s call, in simple faith to the finished work of Jesus Christ on my behalf. I plead His blood only, His death and resurrection, as the sufficient payment for my sin. I do nothing to merit my salvation; only to His cross I cling.

    2. Can you rephrase the question? Not sure what you’re asking.

    2. That’s a fair question, but I’ll respond: I didn’t appoint myself an authority, but rather said that I “question” Ronald Weinland’s salvation. I stand by that comment 100%. To “question” means just that: the evidence I see in the life of Ronald Weinland, not only his aberrant theology as to Christ, but also his phony prophecies and manipulative tactics, do not appear to me to be consistent with salvation in Christ. I do not make the final call, of course; that said, Jesus told us that “by their fruit” we will know them. I’m examining fruit and to all appearances, it is lacking. Since, however, my hope is that all turn to Christ, and know Christ, I hope that the same would be true of Ronald Weinland.

    3. No, not in the least. I don’t give a rip what a false prophet thinks of me…but even beyond that, it wouldn’t “offend” me to have my salvation questioned (that’s happened a few times on this blog, particularly on this RW post!). I don’t get offended easily.

    Howzat?

    Byron ~ Aug 14, 2008 at 9:08 pm

  195. Byron,

    On the contrary, I would expect a mainstream preacher would require extreme faith to preach what he thought was the truth, which would be in direct opposition of the popular ideology of the day… DESPITE the obvious criticism he would subject himself too in the process.

    A faithful preacher would put his entire ministry on the line to preach the hard Truth, knowing full well that his message will offend others, and quit possibly destroy everything he’s built for over 45 years.

    The faithful preacher would risk being ex-communicated from the rest of the church world, his close friends and even his family to preach what he believes is the Truth.

    Unfaithful preachers are a dime a dozen… But the faithful one’s are easy targets because there are so few of them and there message usually offends someone.

    As for date setting… Again, the Bible does offer a lot of information indicating that the true believers will know more than the unbelievers (or unfaithful)… And it’s also interesting to note that God did give exact information in just about every other case where God brought his wrath upon the earth. So why would it be different now?

    I don’t find it hard to believe that the answers ARE in fact contained in the Bible if you look hard enough (which is what we are commanded to do).

    Michael ~ Aug 14, 2008 at 9:20 pm

  196. Good laugh! Yes, I do make mistakes. Sorry to have offended you.

    Let’s stay with my first question for now. In keeping with your quote…

    “I only mind folks that are unwilling to attempt to back up their words with evidence…”

    Could you offer solid evidence of your salvation?

    Lars ~ Aug 14, 2008 at 9:23 pm

  197. @Michael: Sure, Michael, if that’s what you mean, to preach unpopular truth would require guts, I certainly agree. Frankly, from what I’ve heard from enough people in my church to believe it’s true, what I do on Sunday morning message-wise is not much in vogue these days in evangelical churches. I don’t know that it takes “guts” for me to do that; it seems to me to be the most natural thing to try to open the Bible and preach what’s there, the stuff I like, the stuff I don’t like; the stuff I do a reasonably good job of living out, and the stuff I screw up royally. But regardless, what I do on Sunday morning is in a strict minority these days, or so I’m told…

    I was responding to the specific of teaching people to leave churches…that would be being unfaithful.

    Byron ~ Aug 14, 2008 at 9:31 pm

  198. @Byron: Lars, actually your question is another good one; I responded with the ground of my salvation, but you’re asking about the evidence. I believe that a changed life is the best evidence for the reality of one’s salvation, a life that is increasingly changing into the image of Christ (humbly recognizing that the gap between myself and Jesus is massive!). I believe God’s changing me; I hope that others sense the Spirit living in me and working through me.

    Byron ~ Aug 14, 2008 at 9:33 pm

  199. Here’s an example of why I don’t think much of HC as a teacher, the following two quotes are taken from his book “We Are Almost There” regarding salvation:
    (I capitalized for emphasis)

    First quote:
    …there are two kinds of people in the world who realize that this world will come to an end, at which time God will separate the saved from the unsaved. Both groups know that the unsaved will experience the full wrath of God, and that those who have become saved will be forever with Christ in the greatest happiness and glory.
    One group includes many people who believe they are saved, but in reality,
    they are not saved. THEY ARE NOT AWARE that in our day, God has revealed, in the
    Bible, a great amount of information that relates to the timeline of history, all the
    way to the end of the world, and they do not care to try to learn all that the Bible
    teaches. They are confident that they have become saved, and therefore, it really
    makes no difference when Christ will come. For them, He will come as a thief in the
    night. But sadly, these verses (I Thess. 5:2,3) teach that when Christ comes, “sudden destruction” will come upon them. BY THEIR LACK OF INTEREST IN WANTING TO KNOW AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE ABOUT WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES, THEY ARE DEMONSTRATING THAT THEY ARE NOT SAVED…..

    Second quote:
    In Hebrews 8:10-11, God instructs us:
    For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after
    those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write
    them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a
    people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man
    his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least
    to the greatest.”
    These verses are especially focusing on God’s salvation plan. Throughout the
    church age, the dominant teaching of most Biblical churches was to tell the brothers
    and sisters of the congregations how they might be sure they are saved or how they
    might become saved. A careful analysis of the teachings of these denominations
    invariably shows that they include the requirement that some contribution be made by the individual seeking salvation. These contributions could include actions such as
    water baptism, public profession of faith, the act of accepting Christ, the partaking of the Eucharist or communion table, or praying a certain kind of prayer. In virtually every case, there was a definite violation of the law of God, which clearly stipulates that all the work of saving a person was done by Christ, long before that person was born*.
    In Hebrews 8:10-11, quoted above, God emphasizes that once the full
    revelation of the Bible occurs, the teaching on salvation in the world will be altogether Biblical. Mankind will not be taught how they might become saved, but rather that salvation is entirely the work of God (Ephesians 2:8-9). GOD WILL BE SAVING A GREAT MULTITUDE WHO ACTUALLY MAY UNDERSTAND VERY LITTLE OF THE BIBLE.

    Okay, let me get this straight – you have to somehow become aware, and want to know as much as possible about what the Bible teaches about when Christ will return or you’re not saved – wait, no, salvation is entirely the work of God and God will be saving many who actually may understand very little of the Bible…is anyone else confused?

    Laurie ~ Aug 14, 2008 at 11:11 pm

  200. More on salvation from HC’s book:

    Quote: We will attempt to set forth a simple outline of the Biblical teaching
    concerning the salvation of the great multitude, which no man could number, who are
    being saved in our day. (I didn’t list them all)
    2. In God’s mysterious providence, many who know little or nothing about
    Bible truth will begin to realize the following:
    b. The Bible they are hearing about, and to which they have begun to listen,
    must be from God, and therefore, they begin to try to obey its commands.
    d. They begin to realize they can and must cry to God for mercy, hoping that
    MAYBE God will save them. (emphasis mine)
    When God saves an individual, He gives that person a brand new, eternal, resurrected soul. Therefore, they have an intense, ongoing desire to be obedient to the Bible.

    MAYBE God will save them? He follows up that statement by saying a saved person has an intense ongoing desire to be obedient to the Bible. In the following quote, he makes it clear that this is the evidence that you’re saved.

    In many other churches, the key to salvation that is taught is a personal acceptance of Jesus as Savior and water baptism. In these churches, these actions, together with faithfulness to the rules of the church, and living a decent moral life, appear to give them ample assurance of salvation. However, it is a salvation program designed by theologians rather than the correct salvation program given in the Bible, in which THE EVIDENCE OF SALVATION IS AN INTENSE, ONGOING DESIRE TO BE FAITHFUL TO EVERYTHING IN THE BIBLE.

    So, never mind the fruits of the Spirit or anything else the Bible says about this. And let’s not forget his other quote: GOD WILL BE SAVING A GREAT MULTITUDE WHO ACTUALLY MAY UNDERSTAND VERY LITTLE OF THE BIBLE.

    Laurie ~ Aug 15, 2008 at 12:04 am

  201. From previous posts, Byron seems to often want participants to prove what they are posting with “evidence” to back up their words.

    I guess what Lars is asking is, can salvation be proven by scientific method? Better yet, can the claims by the many modern religionists be proven by scientific method? All we hear are preachers claiming that only they have the truth. HC does it, Weinland does it, Byron does it, they all do it. None are producing “evidence”. None are backing up their words. They just shout you down and continue or get their silly braindead followers to shout you down and continue with closed minds.

    Tubby ~ Aug 15, 2008 at 6:59 am

  202. Laurie,

    I see your point about what HC is saying regarding “A great multitude who actually may understand very little of the Bible.” But he’s actually correct in saying that when you factor in all those people who have a) never heard of the Bible, b) are too young to understand the Bible (such as babies etc.) and /or elderly / mentally disabled people who also may be God’s elect.

    I think he’s talking more about the people who have heard the message and are ignoring it – as in the days of Noah etc. After all, there must have been a great number of people in Noah’s day who also claimed to be faithful to God, but ignored the warnings.

    The bottom line regarding salvation and ‘evidence’ is that no one can look at another man or woman and claim they are saved. That is between God and that individual and no one else can know. Heck, none of the other disciples knew that Satan had entered into Judas. Just like the wheat and tears – no one else can know the salvation of another and trying to ‘prove’ it with ‘evidence’ is kind of ridiculous. It’s like the disciples arguing among themselves who is the greatest. It’s a mute point. Don’t worry about someone else’s salvation, worry about your own.

    We are so preoccupied with this physical world and ‘seeing is believing’… It’s no wonder why so many churches are caught up with signs and wonders. “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things NOT seen.” [Hebrews 11:1]

    Michael ~ Aug 15, 2008 at 7:51 am

  203. By the way Byron,

    Are you that caught up in the theoretical approaches to the discipline of linguistic syntax? On a stupid blog? Are you kidding? Spelling errors? Petty minutia! Small crap? Get a life Byron. You really need to relax and switch to decaf. Lars made a simple syntax “faux pas” in his post. I post a whole bunch of them myself. Ain’t no big deal!

    You’ve exposed a real character flaw with your “laugh with me” comment.

    Tubby ~ Aug 15, 2008 at 8:25 am

  204. @Tubby: You’re KIDDING, right? Tell me you’re kidding. I’m trying to have a little fun–didn’t you see the smiley face???–and I have a “character flaw”? Lars seemed to take it in the playful spirit I intended.

    I never, never cease to be amazed… :) :) :)

    Byron ~ Aug 15, 2008 at 8:51 am

  205. @Tubby: What I’m referring to, when I speak about “evidence”, is that folks on this thread (and on the RW thread) wanted to put words in my mouth, to read into my words more than I meant to be there. Then, when I tried to clarify what I actually meant, they seemed to be certain that they knew better than I knew what I was actually, deep-down, trying to say. Therefore, I challenged them to point to what it was I had said that caused them to reach the conclusion that they did. They never did, but rather continued to bash me for things that they imagined I was saying, “between the lines”, I suppose. That’s what I was referring to when I was asking folks to give “evidence”: “back up what you’re alleging with my actual words that say that”. That’s all…

    I did not understand Lars to be asking the question you’re asking, Tubby, and I thank you for clarifying, although I’m still not sure that’s what he’s asking. Why you feel the need to be abusive, though, is beyond me, but I’ll try to answer that question, as I’ve tried to answer what I thought he was asking, previously (twice now).

    Can salvation be proven by scientific method? I don’t think so. “Evidence”? I’ll go with what the writer of Hebrews said in Hebrews 11, that faith constitutes the evidence. The fact is that every person on earth is a person of faith–myself, you, Weinland, HC, Richard Dawkins, Chris Hitchens, and the like. We all place faith in some explanation of the world/life, fundamentally, and then we all, on the basis of what we believe to be true at that fundamental level, try to understand things like life’s purpose, etc.

    I agree with sociologists who say that every person in life, at some point, ponders three great questions:
    1. Who am I?
    2. Why am I here?
    3. Where am I going?

    I am convinced that the evidence argues for an intelligent Creator, and that the Christian explanation of everything–eternal salvation included–is more plausible, fits the world better, makes more sense, than any other explanation (and that it’s not even close).

    Now, if what I’ve just written constitutes “shouting you down”, Tubby, then I’m not sure what else there is to say here, but I’ve tried to explain, in short, what I believe, and to answer the question. If you can continue the conversation without feeling the need to take pot shots, I’d be more than happy to!

    Byron ~ Aug 15, 2008 at 9:03 am

  206. @Michael: For the record, in case anyone has misunderstood what I meant by “questioning” someone else’s salvation, I totally agree with Michael’s comments about our inability to know for absolute certain another person is saved. I think we can make reasonable assumptions, sure, as long as we hold onto them lightly, but the wheat/tares illustration is apt.

    Byron ~ Aug 15, 2008 at 9:11 am

  207. Amen Byron!

    And I have just one more observation to bounce off of you regarding the date setting thing before I go.

    Isn’t it curious how most people react to a date setter? There are a few categories people fall into:

    a) disbelief and/or ridicule, mock, etc.
    b) anger and/or cry blasphemy
    c) fear/disappointment/despair
    d) curious / investigative
    e) acceptive – ready and willing to embrace the good news of Christs return

    In theory, (if we are a true child of God and we just ‘heard’ of a date being set by someone) – shouldn’t our first reaction be one of joy? Wouldn’t we WANT to run toward our savior and count down every minute?

    Shouldn’t our first reaction be to vigorously (and joyously) investigate that persons claims to see if there is even a glimpse of any solid truth?

    If this is not your reaction. Why not? Again (in theory), this should be the greatest news any Christian ever heard in there entire lives. Granted, the ‘wanting’ of His return should not supercede, influence or ‘force’ an inaccurate conclusion – but we are curious beings and there will always be those who seek to find the answers.

    I direct you all back to the very first post of this page and ask you which category it falls into. Sadly, category (a) where about 45 seconds worth of investigation yeilds the mocking of 45+ years of research to be totally inconclusive.

    Mind you, I’m not saying the length of study equals greater accuracy – but I’m certainly implying that 45 seconds would not qualify as due diligence before ruling out the claims of the author.

    This may be opinionated – But I believe people in category (a) have there own ideology that they are comfortable with and mock those who appose their point of view to elevate their own. The people in category (b) probably don’t want to see Christ return at all… (this is the same attitude the Rabbis had in Christs day) while people in category (c) are troubled because they love the world, more than they love God – and they are forced to ask themselves where they stand (not a bad place to be actually – if you are sincere in searching your heart)

    I would venture to say that those in categories (d) and (e) have the healthiest overall attitudes (and opened minds) that are in line with what we are commanded to be – Investigative and joyous… To keep a watchful eye on the Masters return. Sadly, I would say that the fewest people fall into one of these two categories.

    on that note… It was nice chatting with you folks! Remember, we ALL fall short of the glory of God! Keep the faith!

    Michael ~ Aug 15, 2008 at 10:58 am

  208. Michael,

    In the section where he makes the comment about those being saved who may understand very little of the Bible, he’s trying to make a point about why he feels the church is not teaching salvation correctly; that it’s not HOW you are saved, but the fact that salvation is entirely the work of God.

    His statement about the “lack of interest in wanting to know as much as possible about what the Bible teaches” in regard to the date Christ returns, and it demonstrating that they are not saved, doesn’t really jive with his comment that some who are being saved may actually understand very little of the Bible.

    He also said that the “evidence” of being saved is an ongoing, intense desire to be faithful to everything in the Bible – he states that several times throughout the book, but doesn’t talk about all the other evidences the Bible teaches about how a person can know he’s saved. The wheat and tares is a good analogy, and is a good reminder that a person can go thru the motions and not be genuine – that’s a statement intended to teach us not to spend a lot of time trying to figure out if someone else is saved, however, there are many scriptures that show us how we can examine ourselves and know if our lives are showing the evidence that we’re saved. This is something that we need to do on a regular basis, to make sure that continues to be true and that our repentance and conversion were genuine.

    Bottom line is he’s saying if you don’t think it’s important to know the exact date Christ returns, you’re not saved, and he’s basing that on one verse. He also says that salvation is entirely the work of God, not on anything you do – so, shouldn’t that include knowing the date Jesus will return?

    One more thing, I agree that we should look to Jesus return with joy – but here’s a thought – if you were expecting someone to visit you, and they didn’t tell you exactly when they were coming so you knew they could come at any time – wouldn’t you still look forward to seeing them? If someone else was trying to figure out exactly when they would arrive, would that prove they were looking forward to it more than you?

    Laurie ~ Aug 15, 2008 at 1:14 pm

  209. Michael;

    It’s just my opinion, but I tend to believe that there are “some” present day pastors who fall into category (c) because they have heaven right here on earth. Let’s face it, these folks aren’t carrying bags of cement all day. They have it pretty darn good. Many are given free housing on church grounds, a good salary, good health benefits, good pension benefits, spending accounts, credit card accounts, mileage accounts, cell phone accounts, etc. Somebody else pays the utility bills. Somebody else cuts their lawn. Somebody else fixes their roof, appliances, heater and A/C. If they want, they can get up late. They normally don’t punch a clock or otherwise account for their time. If they want, they may do a little visitation. If they want, they may do a counseling session or two. If they want, maybe they’ll do a wedding or a funeral once in a while, of course, for a few extra bucks. If they want, they may put together a Sunday sermon or maybe they’ll just grab one from past inventory or borrow one from a pastor friend or get one off the internet. Some spend way too much time blogging on the computer. To us folks who get up early, get home late and work real hard for a living in between, who travel great distances to work, who punch a real clock, who carry those bags of cement, who answer to a mean boss and must meet deadlines or suffer serious consequences if we don’t perform, church pastoring might be a great career change. Besides, why would these people hope that HC’s predictions come true and mess up a very good thing? They’d be insane to hope HC’s teachings are true.

    Tubby ~ Aug 15, 2008 at 1:56 pm

  210. LOL Tubby,

    It sounds like you have the spirit of resentment about you… If you ‘carry bags of cement’ – that’s your choice… No one ever said you HAD to carry bags of cement … AND, it’s even worse to assume that everyone else should carry bags of cement just because you do… OR to assume that just because they don’t carry bags of cement, that they have the ‘good life’ and you don’t.

    The good life is abundantly here all around us and you can have some too… All you have to do is choose to have it. Or to put it a better way (to be on topic) “Ask and ye shall receive, knock and the door shall be open unto you” :)

    Michael ~ Aug 15, 2008 at 3:52 pm

  211. Laurie,

    Yes, I get your point… But like I said before, HC is just a man, he isn’t perfect and as we all know, the Bible is an extremely complex matrix of the infinite mind of almighty GOD himself… How can we expect to get it ALL right??? To hone in on a few things HC says they may seem contradictory is a valid argument… But take a look at how many things the Bible itself says that appear to be contradictory! There are too many to count…

    The bottom line is that no one,… NO ONE has it all right… If you go in understanding that, it’s easier to accept and you have the choice to agree or disagree with what he teaches here and there… BUT, that doesn’t mean that ALL of what he teaches is incorrect. I don’t agree with everything he says either, but I also don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater when he says something I don’t agree with.

    As for the expected / unexpected guest. Yes, I would be excited either way – but I would also expect my guest to announce His arrival! :) And YES, if someone else were trying to figure out exactly when my guest was arriving (and I wasn’t) that WOULD indicate to me that they were looking forward to it more than me!

    Michael ~ Aug 15, 2008 at 4:19 pm

  212. Don’t be naive. There are difficult times ahead. As the end approaches, people are going to be self-absorbed, money-hungry, self-promoting, stuck-up, profane, contemptuous of parents, crude, coarse, dog-eat-dog, unbending, slanderers, impulsively wild, savage, cynical, treacherous, ruthless, bloated windbags, addicted to lust, and allergic to God. They’ll make a show of religion, but behind the scenes they’re animals. Stay clear of these people. These are the kind of people who smooth-talk themselves into the homes of unstable and needy women and take advantage of them; women who, depressed by their sinfulness, take up with every new religious fad that calls itself “truth.” They get exploited every time and never really learn. These men are like those old Egyptian frauds Jannes and Jambres, who challenged Moses. They were rejects from the faith, twisted in their thinking, defying truth itself. But nothing will come of these latest impostors. Everyone will see through them, just as people saw through that Egyptian hoax.

    Tubby ~ Aug 15, 2008 at 9:01 pm

  213. LOL Tubby,

    It sounds like you have the spirit of resentment about you… If you ‘carry bags of cement’ – that’s your choice… No one ever said you HAD to carry bags of cement … AND, it’s even worse to assume that everyone else should carry bags of cement just because you do… OR to assume that just because they don’t carry bags of cement, that they have the ‘good life’ and you don’t.

    The good life is abundantly here all around us and you can have some too… All you have to do is choose to have it. Or to put it a better way (to be on topic) “Ask and ye shall receive, knock and the door shall be open unto you”

    Michael ~ Aug 15, 2008 at 3:52 pm

    Duh…WHAT?

    Where the heck did that come from?

    Hey Mike! Pay attention, just a little, is that too hard to ask?

    Tubby ~ Aug 15, 2008 at 10:00 pm

  214. Michael,

    You shared your conclusion regarding those that try to set a date for Christ’s coming as more eager for Christ’s coming.

    I don’t think that is necessarily true. Being able to solve this mystery and convincing others that you have figured out this earthshaking information does not necessarily mean the person is more eager to meet Christ face to face. It could also mean that the person is seeking the esteem of men. Many have sought this secret information, and if they become convinced that someone has discovered this treasured information they will give that person tremendous allegiance and esteem.

    Michael, what is the topic of the best selling “Left Behind” book series that made millions of dollars for the author? The topic is the end of the World! Why? Because men have a natural curiosity to know details of the final events.

    Yes, a person may indeed be researching the timing of the end of the world out of an eagerness to meet Christ. But it is also possible that the person is researching this topic as a result of a natural curiosity or a desire to have the esteem of men as a result of making this incredible discovery.

    You wrote, “And it’s also interesting to note that God did give exact information in just about every other case where God brought his wrath upon the earth. So why would it be different now?”

    I’ll give some reasons we wouldn’t assume
    God will give us the specific details of the timing of Christ’s return: The Bible warns us that our lives are like a vapor and like a flower. It gives warning after warning regarding our need to be prepared. I don’t believe it is at all necessary or desirable to know the exact timing and circumstances of our death. Knowing the certainty that we will all die is sufficient information. Knowing all the gory details could be harmful and depressing, and prevent us from wisely using the precious time that God does give us on earth. Matthew 6:34 “Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”

    It is healthy to eagerly anticipate Christ’s return. However, suppose a four year old child in 1993 was taught that the Bible teaches that Christ is coming back in September, 1994, and God will judge anyone that he has not chosen. He is also taught that God will save only a very few individuals (if anyone) between the years of 1988 and 1994 (the great tribulation). He is taught that Satan has been loosed in the earth. What if the child is constantly being corrected and disciplined by his loving parents, and has not yet achieved excellent self control. This child may want to be saved, but is instructed that only God can save him. He sees his inability to achieve excellent self control as a sign that God has not saved him. I see this kind of teaching to be frightening and frustrating for a young child. And then when 1994 comes and goes, without the promised coming of Christ, it could result in the child becoming skeptical of the Bible.

    What about the parents who were raising children during the period of 1988 to 1994 and were taught by Mr. Camping that very very few would be saved during that period of time? They would have little hope of their children being saved. If a mother suffered a a miscarriage, or suffered the loss of a young child during that period of time she could not have much hope for the precious child. At times Mr. Camping taught that no one would be saved during the tribulation and at times he taught that a very few would be saved during that time. In either case, I think this was a harmful and irresponsible teaching. The proclamation that God was not saving individuals as he had before the tribulation was a frightening teaching for those that believed Mr. Camping. This hopeless teaching contrasted with the encouraging gospel message that offers deliverance. And then when the culmination of Mr. Camping’s tribulation period, the return of Christ in 1994, did not happen, it left these people confused.

    What about the young adult who God has blessed with the ability to become a doctor, and is faced with many years of sacrifice to fulfill this ministry? If they are convinced by a teacher that the Bible teaches that Christ will return in 2011, they may have difficulty maintaining their focus and the commitment required to achieve their goal of becoming a doctor. They may say to themselves that this medical training is worthless because I have no chance of becoming a doctor with only 3 years left before the end. It is possible that the date setting teachers harm and disrupt lives, and distract students who are faced with the difficulty of long term training for a profession.

    Another problem I have observed with the practice of date setting is that those that truly swallow the teaching may react fanatically. Some may sell all their family’s possessions, and are not prepared for the possibility that they might be wrong. This situation could leave a trail of disillusioned victims. I realize that in Mr. Camping’s case he does not ask his listeners to react to the teaching in this way. However, the fact is that many do base their decisions on their belief that Christ will return at a certain date, and these decisions could be unwise decisions. And more importantly this teaching could lead many astray, not wanting to trust the Bible anymore, if the 2011 event does not occur.

    Again, you wrote “And it’s also interesting to note that God did give exact information in just about every other case where God brought his wrath upon the earth. So why would it be different now?” In one sense I agree with you. God did give exact information when he warned of judgment. It should be the same now. The information should be exact. Several years ago Mr. Camping taught that 1988 began the final tribulation, where Satan would be loosed, and few would become saved, and that Christ would come in 1994. Now he is teaching that no one is being saved in the churches and that Christ will come back in 2011. Is this giving exact information regarding judgment, as the prophets did in the Bible? Absolutely not! We know Mr. Camping does not always give exact information, because his earlier prediction of 1994 was wrong.

    God warns us in his parables not to assume Christ will delay his return, and that we can live carelessly for a while, and then we will have time to repent. He will come as a thief in the night for those who delay their preparation to meet Christ. But in the parable of the 10 virgins, I think God is warning us that we cannot know the exact timing, and need to be prepared to wait longer, should God tarry. The virgins were eager to meet Christ at first, but did not bring enough oil in case his return was delayed beyond the time that they had foolishly predicted. I think this could be a warning that we should not predict the date of Christ’s return.

    Another problem that I see with declaring the date of Christ’s return is that such a prediction draws a lot of attention to the Bible teacher, and takes away the focus from Christ. John the Baptist was the greatest prophet (besides Christ), and yet he refused to take any focus away from his Lord, Jesus Christ. What a marvelous example!

    These are my opinions. I admit I am fallible, but still I think it is helpful for us to share our thoughts, and learn from each other.

    Marc ~ Aug 15, 2008 at 10:21 pm

  215. Marc,

    That was excellent! It is so true that you don’t have to know the date Jesus will return to look forward to seeing Him. I’ve been hearing about this since I was a kid, and I remember when I was a teenager and they would talk about the Rapture, I would get so scared, because I wasn’t saved. Sometimes I couldn’t sleep for fear that maybe my parents were gone and I would get up and creep to their room in the dark – once I heard them breathing I could go back to bed.

    After I became a Christian, there was no more fear, but a longing, and an excitement. I often look up at the sky, wondering what it will be like to meet Jesus and all the other believers. My heart is beating faster just thinking about it. Why would anyone assume that if you don’t know the exact date He is coming you must not care about it?

    Everything I see in the Bible on this subject tells me I should be looking forward to His return, and be spiritually ready – otherwise, I should carry on with whatever plan God has for my life. I pray all the time for God to help me be ready; to be found doing what He wanted me to do, to be in His will, to have reached out to my family and friends – I think part of the reason God doesn’t want us to know when Jesus will return is that some would wait until just before He got here to get ready – and that’s not what God wants.

    Laurie ~ Aug 16, 2008 at 12:25 am

  216. Michael,

    I realize that HC is just a man, and all the pastors that I have ever been taught by were just men, too – I don’t expect them to be right about everything, but salvation is one thing they cannot be wrong about – that’s a deal breaker. They cannot be wrong on major doctrinal points, and whatever they teach needs to be consistent and line up with all that scripture says on that subject. I shared one example of HC’s teaching that I think fails to do that, and there are others.

    The Bible may appear to have contradictions, but it really doesn’t – I think HC is teaching things that are contradictory because he’s got a skewed method of Bible interpretation, he claims to be offering “proofs” of timing of events not given in the Bible, some of which have been proven wrong (and Marc presented good evidence for his biblical calendar being in error) and he makes mistakes like taking a verse and building a doctrine on it, without making sure it lines up with the rest of scripture.

    I don’t follow teachers – there are some that I listen to and learn from because I have so far found their teaching to be sound, but the minute I hear them saying something that is seriously wrong, they’re done – I don’t love them more than I love God’s word. There are a lot of really bad Bible teachers out there, but there are also some that are really good – one of the gifts of the Spirit is teaching, and some people have it, but they are fallible, as you pointed out, so you need to always check to make sure they are still faithful and teaching accurately.

    Laurie ~ Aug 16, 2008 at 1:13 am

  217. Tubby,

    I’ve known of some pastors that were just like you described, and if they would rather stay here than be with the Lord, He’ll probably leave them here.

    I’ve also known some that were completely different. For some it is just a job, for others, a calling. Alot of the pastors I’ve personally known were not given free housing, did not get large salaries or any of the other perks – some didn’t even have benefits – they paid their own bills, mowed their own lawns, fixed their own roofs. It really depends on the size of the congregation – if the members can’t support him, he gets a job. My dad was a pastor for many years, he’s retired now, but I remember he often got late calls and got up out of bed to go pray for people in the middle of the night – I never knew him to say no to anyone who needed him no matter what time of the day or night or what day of the week.

    Some pastors do abuse their positions – we all know that, and it makes us all sick, but there are also thousands of pastors who don’t and they shouldn’t be lumped in with the abusers.

    If you were to take a survey, I think you’d find that all the “good” pastors are not only looking forward to Christ’s return, but they hope it happens sooner than 2012!

    Laurie ~ Aug 16, 2008 at 2:14 am

  218. Laurie;

    I’m glad somebody read my “cement” story correctly. Just to clarify for those like Mike who that didn’t quite get my “cement” story. Back when Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, there were a whole bunch of religious leaders (Pharasees and Sadducees) that had a pretty good thing going on and didn’t want anybody bringing in any kind of “New Kingdom”. They were getting all their needs met by the lowly peasants. They were completely supplied and all they had to do was to keep church members drinking their brand of kool aid and keep them from thinking out of the box too much. Back then, these religious leaders were so scared that they went so far as to crucify Jesus just so they could remove the threat. My analogy was to simply make the same comparison to “some” church leaders of today. My guess is that “some” church leaders have it pretty darn good and don’t want anybody upsetting the apple cart. Somehow Mike turned that around and accused me of having a “spirit of resentment”. Nice Mike! Real nice!

    Tubby ~ Aug 16, 2008 at 9:38 am

  219. Who’s running this asylum?

    Tubby ~ Aug 16, 2008 at 10:31 am

  220. Laurie;

    After reading some of your posts, it’s my opinion that maybe you are a bit too loyal and need to step out and learn to think for yourself and not let yourself be lead captive to the teachings of those who “claim” to be trustworthy keepers of the truth. Pastor worship is very popular in these last evil days especially by silly women. Maybe this link will help in that regard…

    http://www.stempublishing.com/authors/hole/Art/Evil%20Men.html

    Tubby ~ Aug 16, 2008 at 11:39 am

  221. Tubby,

    I got what you were saying the first time… And I agree these individuals fall into category (c) – But my point was that it doesn’t profit us to focus on these things or more importantly, to single out one profession over another. The truth is that 98% of the world falls into category (c)… (even those who carry cement.)

    It’s easy for us to sit back and judge others… But that doesn’t profit us anything in the end. There are more important things to concern ourselves with, like getting our own affairs in line and loving others (yes, even the sinners of the world) -rather than ‘comparing’ the evil doers to the ‘righteous’ cement carriers (sorry, that’s how I read your comments).

    Then you go on to say that “there will be difficult times ahead. As the end approaches, people are going to be self-absorbed, money-hungry, self-promoting, stuck-up, profane, contemptuous of parents, crude, coarse, dog-eat-dog, unbending, slanderers, impulsively wild, savage, cynical, treacherous, ruthless, bloated windbags, addicted to lust, and allergic to God. They’ll make a show of religion, but behind the scenes they’re animals.” – Wow, you put a lot of energy into this! These are your words, not mine. It’s as if are focussed on these individuals with anger (or resentment).

    As if this is some phenomenon that will only be in the end times? People have been this way all thru history. (and not just religious leaders – ALL OF US) It’s human nature and we are ALL infected with sin. These qualities are in ALL of us. You seem to have an “US vs. THEM” mentality when we really need to just look in the mirror. Like Jesus said “…first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” [Math 5:7]

    Trust me, I’m not defending this behavior – I’m just saying it’s a mute point. God has already provided a place for these individuals. And as for all those that they take advantage of, deceive etc… As haywire as it all seems… In the end – God is still in total control of it all… And we need not focus on these individuals. It only gives them more attention. If God plans on saving someone that has gone down one of these paths,.. HE WILL!

    Michael ~ Aug 16, 2008 at 12:17 pm

  222. Tubby,

    I think I’ve indicated that I’m aware of the failings of many pastors, I’d have to be blind not to. I’ve also stated I don’t follow teachers (or pastors) and would be out the door in a shot if any that I listen to start teaching things that aren’t right, that my loyalty is to God’s word. On the other hand, there are many good and right things that pastors do, and it’s not fair that those things be overlooked because of the abuses of some.

    I won’t take offense to your “silly women” remark because you don’t know me.

    Personally, I don’t think it’s wise to follow someone just because their teachings are “out of the box”. Most of the cults out there started because of the teachings of one man.

    Laurie ~ Aug 16, 2008 at 12:46 pm

  223. Laurie,

    Regarding Salvation and HCs views… I think he is 100% correct in saying that there is no ‘magic’ sentence or action to take to become saved (such as alter calls etc.) – it’s ALL by the grace of God. When he speculates about ‘how many’ and/or ‘who’ will be saved during particular times is where he skates on thin ice with me (and it sounds like with you also)… But that has nothing to do with ‘how’ we are saved – which is a divine mystery.

    I think it’s clear that “by Grace ye are saved, and that not of yourselves lest any man should boast.” Ephesians. God does all of the work – just like Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead (Lazarus contributed NOTHING to that miracle… Key-word ‘contributed’).

    Michael ~ Aug 16, 2008 at 1:39 pm

  224. Mike;

    Your comment…
    “It’s easy for us to sit back and judge others… But that doesn’t profit us anything in the end. There are more important things to concern ourselves with, like getting our own affairs in line and loving others (yes, even the sinners of the world) -rather than ‘comparing’ the evil doers to the ‘righteous’ cement carriers (sorry, that’s how I read your comments).”

    If nobody speaks up REAL LOUD and makes these charlatans accountable and forces them to be honest with us, they’ll keep brewing their kool aid and keep lulling us to sleep with their “fill the collection plate” sermons. I question absolutely everything. Obviously others enjoy the kool aid.

    Regarding…
    “Wow, you put a lot of energy into this! These are your words, not mine. It’s as if are focussed on these individuals with anger (or resentment).”

    Not my words…

    Read 2 Timothy 3 (The Message)

    Tubby ~ Aug 16, 2008 at 4:00 pm

  225. Laurie,

    If the shoe fits…

    Tubby ~ Aug 16, 2008 at 4:02 pm

  226. This thread is spent…

    It’s been a hoot…

    Moving on to greener pastures.

    Bye!

    Tubby ~ Aug 16, 2008 at 4:03 pm

  227. Michael,

    I wanted to ask some questions regarding your statements. Please don’t take this as a personal attack or someone else being disrespectful to you. Perhaps your staex wrote: “I think it’s clear that “by Grace ye are saved, and that not of yourselves lest any man should boast.” Ephesians. God does all of the work – just like Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead (Lazarus contributed NOTHING to that miracle… Key-word ‘contributed’).”
    When you referred to the verses in Ephesians, you left out the key words “through faith.”

    You leave in the part of the verse that supports your interpretation that salvation is accomplished solely by God. But you left out the means that God also predestined to use to give us this grace which is faith. Mr. Camping claims that we cannot reach out in faith. He says believing is a work. That is why I especially noticed that you left out the part of the verse that refers to faith.

    And then when you referred to the Bible event where Jesus raised Lazurus from the dead you gave a popular interpretation that is actually not in the Biblical text. You seem to say that the reason Jesus raised Lazurus from the dead was to illustrate that we can do nothing to secure eternal life. Does the Bible ever say that this is the reason Jesus raised Lazurus? I don’t think it does.

    However, several times in the passage Jesus explicitly tells us that the reason he performed the miracle is so that we might believe. Consider the following verses:
    John 11:14,15 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead. And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe: nevertheless let us go unto him. 25,26 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? 40 Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God? 42 And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me. 44,45 And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go. Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him.

    The passage explicitly gives evidence that Jesus is divine because he has power over death. The passage explicitly says that this evidence was presented as God’s means of giving people faith.

    The Bible explicitly says that Jesus raised Lazarus so that people would believe. I may be wrong, but when Mr. Camping uses this passage to say that we can do nothing for our salvation including believing in Christ, he is not only teaching something that the text does not explicitly say, but is contradicting what the text does explicitly say.

    Michael, I am not disagreeing that we are saved by grace apart from any good works. My concern is that it may be that Mr. Camping is distorting the clear Bible truth that the works of Jesus were recorded so that we might believe unto eternal life. Mr. Camping may be wrong when he claims that believing in Christ is a work. He may be wrong when he condemns those that teach the Bible truth that the words of the Bible were recorded so that we might believe. He may be wrong when he condemns those who present the Biblical truth that we may have eternal life if we believe.

    I observe that the doctrine of predestination is presented in the Bible to give us confidence that we have eternal life. The Bible teaches us that if we believe in Christ, God predestined us to believe, and will also continue to work in our lives until our ultimate salvation is enjoyed in heaven. The way Mr. Camping teaches predestination may be giving some a different message then the Bibles words of encouragement. He looks at predestination as a way of questioning a believers salvation if they don’t define predestination in the same way he does.

    The apostle Paul explains that we don’t have to be circumcised, and don’t have to perform rituals such as ceremonial washings, and other ceremonial Jewish practices to be saved. We are saved by faith. Mr. Camping does not focus on this topic the way the Bible does. His focus is that those who claim their faith in Christ saved them, are working for their salvation, and therefore following a false gospel. He quotes the inspired writings of Paul to prove his opinion but I don’t think he communicates the same principals that Paul is communicating because he takes the verses out of context. Paul is reassuring the Christians that their salvation is genuine and that their faith is sufficient, and that they do not need to observe Jewish rituals to be saved. Mr. Camping’s message is that we cannot be saved by our faith. We must realize that it is God’s faith. That is never an issue in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible do we see a problem with people wrongly claiming that their faith saved them, when in reality it was God’s faith. Mr. Camping makes a big deal out of this issue that is not at all the issue that Paul is dealing with when he distinguishes between those who trust God for their salvation, and those who are trying to earn their salvation through works.

    Michael, the Bible does warn us that many will claim to have believed in Christ, but their faith was not genuine. The Bible gives us much information regarding how to test to see if our faith is genuine. However, I do not believe that Mr. Camping is accurately representing the Bible when he emphasizes his test of sincere faith. His test of sincere faith is that we admit that it is not our faith it is Christ’s faith that saves us. That idea sounds very humble, and spiritual, but I don’t see Mr. Camping’s test of genuine faith in the bible.

    Michael these are my thoughts in response to what I have read in the inspired Word of God. I would appreciate hearing your view of what the Bible teaches us in regards to these issues.

    Marc ~ Aug 16, 2008 at 11:14 pm

  228. Marc,

    When you say to Michael, “My concern is that it may be that Mr. Camping is distorting the clear Bible truth that the works of Jesus were recorded so that we might believe unto eternal life. Mr. Camping may be wrong when he claims that believing in Christ is a work. He may be wrong when he condemns those that teach the Bible truth that the words of the Bible were recorded so that we might believe. He may be wrong when he condemns those who present the Biblical truth that we may have eternal life if we believe.”

    This is not a principle that HC dreamed up. As I believe Tubby mentioned in an earlier post, this principle is one of the foundations of Calvinism. Millions of Calvinists around the world apparently believe strongly this principle. Just like you, some call it a distortion. Why are you blaming HC for this common misconception?

    Lars ~ Aug 17, 2008 at 9:07 am

  229. Marc,

    Again, you mention, “Mr. Camping’s message is that we cannot be saved by our faith. We must realize that it is God’s faith. That is never an issue in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible do we see a problem with people wrongly claiming that their faith saved them, when in reality it was God’s faith. Mr. Camping makes a big deal out of this issue that is not at all the issue that Paul is dealing with when he distinguishes between those who trust God for their salvation, and those who are trying to earn their salvation through works.”

    I’m sorry to see Tubby leave. He was, at the very least, entertaining. I’d hate to be a job seeking pastor and have him on the church’s pastor nominating committee. That being said, when you cut through Tubby’s rather strong words, he does bring up a very good point about HC. Tubby mentioned that his only problem with HC is the hint of Calvinist leanings. When you strip away all of the other teachings HC promotes about the end times, one must focus on the basis for his fundamental belief system. If HC is a Calvinist, that should explain much of what he’s about. I’ll reiterate that HC didn’t invent the Calvinist principles that you so strongly criticize in your comments to Michael, he just seems to follow some of them as do millions of other Calvinists around the world.

    Lars ~ Aug 17, 2008 at 9:37 am

  230. Lars,

    I am not criticizing Calvinists principles! I have no problem with the Calvinists principles, although they are not perfect. However, if you read the Bible studies of Harold Camping and compare them with the Bible studies of knowledgeable Calvinists such as Charles Spurgeon, you will find little resemblance.

    Mr. Camping has admitted that he no longer subscribes to all the Calvinists principles. And, in my opinion, he derives all kinds of conclusions based on Calvinist’s principles that most Calvinists would disagree with. For instance, his concern about whose faith it is that saves us, is not a Biblical issue. He demands that the gospel found in the Bible be modified. For Harold Camping he would like to change the Bible as follows: What should one do to be saved? The Biblical answer is: “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.” Mr.Camping’s answer is that we must do absolutely nothing! Or if he admits that one must believe, he would answer as follows: One must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and admit that it is not his faith, but it is God’s faith. Again, that sounds humble, but his focus on this nit picky narrow issue is nowhere found in the Bible. This type of splitting hairs is divisive, and not Biblical or profitable. This unbiblical judgment of others gives support to his teaching that all churches are now ruled by Satan.

    I do think that the early Calvinists spoke and acted hatefully to those that did not agree with their understanding of the Bible. However, the political climate had much to do with this. I think in those days of the reformation the church often had much political power, which made religious differences part of the struggle for political power. Anyway, my opinion is that Calvinist’s have excellent scholarship, and good (not perfect) solid doctrine. However, I think they may have gone overboard over the years in their insistence that others are not saved because they have a slightly different Biblical understanding. Of course, we do need to reject heretical teachings. However, I believe that at times Calvinists would reject Christians who were for the most part accurately teaching the Bible.

    Lars, these are my thoughts. I would enjoy hearing your Biblical point of view.

    Marc ~ Aug 17, 2008 at 1:48 pm

  231. Marc,

    “Mr. Camping has admitted that he no longer subscribes to all the Calvinists principles.”

    Interesting…

    Can you provide references?

    Lars ~ Aug 17, 2008 at 1:57 pm

  232. Marc;

    Let’s try to keep it as simple as we can. Here’s the first and foremost point of Calvinism from which the other four points are derived. Tell me if you agree with this first point and then tell me where HC disagrees…

    Total Depravity:
    Sin has affected all parts of man. The heart, emotions, will, mind, and body are all affected by sin. We are completely sinful. We are not as sinful as we could be, but we are completely affected by sin.
    The doctrine of Total Depravity is derived from scriptures that reveal human character: Man’s heart is evil (Mark 7:21-23) and sick (Jer. 17:9). Man is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:20). He does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12). He cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). He is at enmity with God (Eph. 2:15). And, is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3). The Calvinist asks the question, “In light of the scriptures that declare man’s true nature as being utterly lost and incapable, how is it possible for anyone to choose or desire God?” The answer is, “He cannot. Therefore God must predestine.”
    Calvinism also maintains that because of our fallen nature we are born again not by our own will but God’s will (John 1:12-13); God grants that we believe (Phil. 1:29); faith is the work of God (John 6:28-29); God appoints people to believe (Acts 13:48); and God predestines (Eph. 1:1-11; Rom. 8:29; 9:9-23).

    Lars ~ Aug 17, 2008 at 2:10 pm

  233. Lars,

    Regarding Mr. Camping stating that he no longer subscibes to all 5 points of Calvinism: I heard him say this on the Open Forum recently. I did not hear his full explanation. However, I am not surprised. He criticizes the Calvinist reformers for teaching the idea of the perspicuity (clarity) of scriptures. This is the doctrine that teaches that we can readily understand the Bible. Mr. Camping teaches that the Bible is a very difficult mysterious book to understand, and that God must open our eyes to discover the hidden spiritual truths. Mr. Camping repeatedly criticizes those who refer to the creeds of the reformation to support their views. He states that we must rely solely on the Bible. Sorry, I cannot document what I clearly heard Mr. Camping say: that he does not completely agree with one of the 5 points of Calvinism. I will keep looking for documentation. And you are right to require documentation before you accept my statement.

    Here is an example of Mr. Camping going beyond what I believe most Calvinists teach. Many Calvinists teach that if we have faith and believe in Jesus Christ this faith was a gift of God. I don’t see anything out of line with that teaching.

    However, Mr. Camping goes beyond that. He declares that it is wrong to say that “I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ” unless we carefully explain that it is not our faith, but Christ’s faith. He declares that belief is a work. He accuses any Christian who claims salvation as a result of them believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, as following a do-it-yourself false gospel. I think Mr. Camping goes beyond what the Calvinist would teach when the Calvinist teaches that our faith is a gift of God.

    In addition, I think many Calvinists now realize that subscribing to strict Calvinists principles is not a prerequisite to salvation (wouldn’t that be a work). I admit that many Calvinists still reject non Calvinist Christians. I disagree with that, but I understand their desire to maintain doctrinal purity. On the other hand, Harold Camping condemns those that do not subscribe to his principles, including requiring his followers to leave any organized church. (Of course, he would deny that they are his principles and insist that they are not his principles, but God’s principles that he is declaring).

    Lars, I am not sure exactly how Mr. Camping would disagree with the doctrine of Total Depravity. I do know that he applies this doctrine differently than the Bible does. The Bible uses this doctrine as an encouragement to believers: You know that if you believe it was a result of God predestining you to be his child, not because there was something good in you. Knowing that God predestined you to be his child comforts you to know you will persevere, and remain in the faith, because it is God working in you. Mr. Camping applies this doctrine in a negative way: If you believe, you better acknowledge that you did not do this without God’s gift. If you don’t admit this you are following a false do-it-yourself gospel.

    The reformers strongly proclaimed to all men that they are commanded to repent and believe so that they might have eternal life. Article 3 of the “Canons of Dort” states, “And that men may be brought to believe, God mercifully sends the messengers of these most joyful tidings to whom He will and at what time He pleases: by whose ministry men are called to repentance and faith in Christ cucified.” I don’t hear Mr. Camping teaching his listeners to repent and believe. I hear Mr. Camping instructing his listeners to cry out for mercy and wait to see if God will save them.

    Again, I cannot explain every single way that Mr. Camping disagrees with Calvinism. However, I do see that the way he applies Calvinism is different than the way the reformers applied it, and different from the way the Paul applied these truths when he wrote his epistles.

    Lars, I have shared some thoughts with you, and hope that you will continue to express your views. These topics are difficult, and I thank you for your patience in looking into these issues.

    Marc ~ Aug 17, 2008 at 5:38 pm

  234. @Marc: Exceptional reply, Marc; no way I could have said it as well.

    Byron ~ Aug 17, 2008 at 9:31 pm

  235. @Lars: No, if I were a job-seeking pastor and Tubby were on the nominating committee, it’d probably make the call pretty easy… :)

    Byron ~ Aug 17, 2008 at 9:36 pm

  236. Byron,

    Based on what HC believes about who is ruling the churches, you must be one of Satan’s minions. Did you notice the change in Tubby when you joined the discussion? Have to hand it to him though, his exit was a lot more graceful than some others have been.

    Laurie ~ Aug 17, 2008 at 10:55 pm

  237. Marc,

    Thanks for your comprehensive reply. You pack a lot into your post. Allow me to take small bites. Let’s start with, “This is the doctrine that teaches that we can readily understand the Bible. Mr. Camping teaches that the Bible is a very difficult mysterious book to understand, and that God must open our eyes to discover the hidden spiritual truths.”

    I believe that Camping points to Daniel 12:4 regarding hidden spiritual truths. What are your thoughts related to comment about “hidden spiriual truths” and Daniel 12:4?

    Lars ~ Aug 18, 2008 at 9:41 am

  238. @Laurie: Yep, sure give him credit for that. And this is a great exchange between Marc and Lars, isn’t it? I’m enjoying this. Good work, guys; keep it up. Much better than the “flames” that some folks want to throw when end-times events are discussed!

    Byron ~ Aug 18, 2008 at 11:31 am

  239. Lars,

    Thanks for your reply.

    My point was not that Mr. Camping is wrong in his interpretation of Daniel 12:4 (I was avoiding that topic). My point is that he openly criticizes the Calvinist reformers for teaching and emphasizing the doctrine of the perspicuity (clarity) of scriptures. I don’t think that Mr. Camping technically can be considered a Calvinist, or a reformed teacher because he follows a different method of interpreting the Bible.

    You ask me to comment on a verse in Daniel. This brings up another point regarding Mr. Camping. He instructs his listeners not to read Bible commentaries, but to read the Bible alone. However, he doesn’t discourage his listeners from listening to his commentary. And you are asking for my commentary on this verse. I think that Mr. Camping is being inconsistent when he warns his listeners not to read Bible commentaries and yet encourages them to listen to his commentary.

    You could research this verse by using the Bible alone. But if it is okay to listen to commentary by Mr. Camping, and it is okay to ask me for commentary, what would be so wrong in reading the commentaries by others who have carefully analyzed this verse? (Pro 11:14 “Where no counsel [is], the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors [there is] safety.”)

    I don’t want to offer my opinion regarding Daniel 12:4, because I don’t feel qualified to do so. I feel qualified to clearly demonstrate many errors that Mr. Camping makes in proving his Biblical Calendar. And his Biblical Calendar is what he uses to project the end time event dates.

    In his early days of ministry Mr. Camping used the commentary on Revelation called “More Than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation” by William Hendriksen (Baker, 1939). William Hendriksen wrote many commentaries on the Bible from a reformed (Calvinist) perspective. He was fluent in both Hebrew and Greek, and not only a Bible expert, but an expert in literature that related to the Bible. The Bibliography that Hendriksen provides in “More than Conquerors ” is massive. Here is what Hendriksen wrote regarding interpreting the book of Revelation (pages 38-39):

    “But the question arises, what do these pictures mean? How shall we interpret them? In order to answer that question, let us make a little detour.

    “You remember, of course, the parable of the good Samaritan in Luke 10. Now there are some who would interpret this beautiful story in the following manner: ‘The man who is on his way from Jerusalem to Jericho represents Adam, the head of the human race. He left the heavenly city and is travelling down to the city of earth, the profane city. But, having turned his desires towards the earth, he falls into the hands of robbers; that is, he is overpowered by Satan and his evil angels. These robbers strip him of the garment of original righteousness.They also beat him, ,leaving him full of wounds, half-dead (half-dead in sins and trespasses!). The priest and the Levite represent the law and the sacrifices. They cannot save the sinner. They are powerless to help But the good Samaritan, namely, Jesus Christ, is travelling that way and helps the poor sinner. This good Samaritan dresses his wounds with the oil of the Holy Spirit and with wine, namely, the blood of His passion. He then puts the poor man on His own mule, that is, on the merits of His own righteousness. He takes the poor man to an inn, that is , to church. The next day, the good Samaritan gives his host two shillings, that is, the Word and the Sacraments, in order that with these he may provide for the spiritual needs of the poor sinner. Then this good Samaritan departs but promises to return later.’

    “Now, if the reader has the type of mentality that enjoys such spiritualizing explanations, he might as well close this book. He will never really understand the parables of our Lord. Neither will he ever be able truly understand the book of Revelation. Let us emphasize the fact that the explanation just given is wrong from start to finish. It is altogether wrong to ask what is meant by the poor man who fell among the robbers, what is meant by the robbers, the priest, the Levite, the good Samaritan, the wine, the oil, the mule , the inn, and two shillings. Not one of these things has any ‘deeper’ spiritual meaning whatever! If the mule must be spiritualized, who is going to determine exactly what is its meaning? And what about the two shillings? Do they represent the two sacraments, the Word and the Sacraments, or the two testaments? Who is going to determine this? The context in which the parable occurs says nothing about it , and because the context says nothing, we should say nothing.” (Mr. Hendriksen then explains his opinion of the correct way to interpret the parable).

    I think that it is fascinating to know that in 1939 Mr. Hendriksen warned the church that many people enjoy spiritualizing Biblical passages. This isn’t something new with Mr. Camping. And I was surprised to learn that Mr. Camping used to teach the book of Revelations using this commentary that provided a warning to spiritualizing the Bible.

    Lars, I know I was unable to answer your specific question, but I hope you will consider the thoughts I did share.

    Marc ~ Aug 18, 2008 at 2:34 pm

  240. Hey guys, I think we can cease all this speculation about HC or Ronald Weinland; we now have the definitive answer to when Christ will return:

    http://www.byron-harvey.com/2008/08/yeehaaaa-a-whole-new-prophecy/

    This new one sure takes the pressure off. I’ve got 11 more years to get my house in order!

    Byron ~ Aug 18, 2008 at 5:32 pm

  241. Byron,
    Hope U had a nice summer….I have been reading the posts I missed.Wow! Marc keeps plodding along nicely….I commend you for your ongoing attempts to be fair.I am happy you found another date for the end….if that does’nt occur don’t worry….its not the end of the world….be well.agape,Charlie
    PS
    I have visited umpteen sites re HC The “Zone” is my favorite.

    Charlie Rizzo ~ Sep 10, 2008 at 6:32 pm

  242. A complete list of date setters from 53 AD to 2060.
    Provides an interesting perspective re all this.

    http://www.raptureready.com/rr-date-setters.html

    Charlie Rizzo ~ Sep 13, 2008 at 7:24 pm

  243. Wow – that’s a lot of failed date-setters. Todd makes a good point – look at the harm that’s been done by people who falsely claimed to know when Jesus would return, yet there are some who will not only believe a date-setter but continue to listen to them even after they’ve been wrong – that’s the real kicker.

    Laurie ~ Sep 13, 2008 at 10:52 pm

  244. Laurie,
    Appreciated your posts……Im” Campinged” out.Getting too old I guess….You guys are doing a great job.It is true the hits just keep on coming.I really think people are predisposed to an escapist mentality and have an axe to grind with so-called organized religion. I think U commented re the absurdity of 1 person-already proved wrong- being the ONLY guy since Pentecost to get the REAL truth.I mean at least meet the required 2-3 witnesses to substantiate a claim. Byron et al have done a great job allowing this to be exposed.Keep on for Jesus sister……agape,Charlie

    Charlie Rizzo ~ Sep 20, 2008 at 7:54 pm

  245. I found this today……..verify it at http://www.truthradio.com/CampingPuzzle.phpHarold Camping, President of Family Stations, Inc., has puzzled thousands of listeners to his group of radio stations. You can learn more of his ministry at http://www.familyradio.com. Harold Camping, Lloyd Lindquist, and myself, Richard Palmquist (your host here at Truth Radio), formed the corporation Family Stations, Inc., in 1958. It is a long story, unimportant to the point of this page.
    Years ago Camping distributed a book entitled “1994?” suggesting that the world would end in September of that year. He named the exact day he expected it to happen. It was to be a Tuesday. The Saturday before, I interviewed Mr. Camping on my Saturday radio program, “To Free America,” on KDNO, Delano, California. I wanted my listeners to meet the most sincere Bible student I have ever met, and I knew the result of the interview would be that any careful listener would conclude from the interview that the most brilliant and sincere of men cannot have more than an ant-like status before the Living God. This is especially true regarding the art of forecasting future events.

    Since that interview, Mr. Camping has revised his study of the Bible. He now predicts the end of the world will happen sometime in 2011. Not content to live day by day trusting the Lord, Mr. Camping seems to risk his very manhood upon analytical conclusions he has reached during his extensive study of the details of the Bible. I was the person who started the Family Radio network. I wrote the Articles of Incorporation. I managed it for the first five years of its life. Mr. Camping’s behavior is an embarrassment to me. Humanly speaking, there is no possibility I can persuade him to change his views; however, it is my prayer that if you have listened to him and you find yourself confused, that this brief statement will help you.

    Camping is correct that the Bible is entirely trustworthy, true and can be viewed as the very Word of God. He is also correct in his teaching that man is imperfect and wretchedly sinful, capable of salvation only by the grace of God. Where Camping strays from reality is that he views himself, an imperfect vessel, as a trustworthy source of Truth on issues the plain Words of the Bible do not make clear. He takes upon himself the authority of accurate Biblical analysis — a job no imperfect human can claim.
    The secret to being open to illumination from the Holy Spirit so that you can understand the Bible correctly is to study the Bible in a “literal, historical-grammatical” way, taking the Word of God seriously for what the words clearly say, not reading your own meanings into those words. Then, when you come to a tough passage, view that passage in its historical context, applying what the grammar was originally intended to tell you.

    Let’s state it simply:

    1. The Bible is the Word of God. Those words when spoken or read are Truth.
    2. The readers of the Word of God (Camping, you and me) are imperfect and we are not able to think perfect thoughts as we analyze the details of what the Bible says.
    3. In Romans 3:4 The Apostle Paul writes: “let God be true, but every man a liar.”

    What Paul is telling us is that a full understanding of Truth is outside the reach of even the most sincere, intelligent and capable thinker on earth. We can desperately want to understand and to draw out new light from the mind of God, but when we have finished studying, if we try to insert our own meanings into scripture, our conclusions could be so far from the ultimate transcendent omniscience of our Lord that we will fall into a trap: a lie.

    Family Radio’s ministry of music is peerless, as is its emphasis upon the reading of the Bible, and it is worthy of your support. Be praying for Mr. Camping. He was born in 1921. His problems with logic are not the product of his advanced age, however. He has always been as fixed in opinion as he is today. My prayer for you, if you have listened to him, is that your spiritual life will not be stumbled because of his wrong conclusions.

    The heart of Camping’s problem is that whereas he admits he is imperfect, he will not admit that his “careful reading” of the Word of God can be the result of imperfect reasoning. How can an imperfect man possess perfectly trustworthy reasoning skills?

    –Richard Palmquist
    Incorporator and former member of the Board of Directors of Family Stations, Inc.
    Posted September 20, 2004 Updated April 6, 2005

    Charlie Rizzo ~ Sep 22, 2008 at 4:55 pm

  246. Charlie,

    If Mr. Camping is correct then he should be commended. Even though his teachings has caused great divisions within the church, within the homes, and within the Christian community he must be commended, if he is correct.

    On the other hand, if Mr. Camping is in error, his teaching has caused great damage to the Christian community. Many have withdrawn support from small conservative churches and missionary works throughout the world because of Mr. Camping’s teaching that the church age is over. This has hindered many small conservative Christian outreaches all over the world. And the sad truth is that those who stop supporting their church and missionaries, often give to Family Radio which allows FR to expand this false teaching resulting in more people withdrawing support from small struggling conservative Christian ministries.

    I agree with Mr. Palmquist that Mr. Camping is wrong. I disagree that Mr. Camping is a sincere Bible student, because of his careless handling of the word. I can document many careless mathematical errors that he continues to endorse. And I disagree that Family Radio is worthy of our support. The conservative music and Bible reading give the impression of a faithful conservative Christian ministry. However, this outward display of holiness, leads many into the snare of the false teaching of Harold Camping.

    Again, I believe if Mr. Camping is correct he is to be commended. However, if he is giving false teaching he should be held accountable for the destruction he has caused. The discussion should be whether or not his teaching is Biblical. This discussion should be respectful. However, it is wrong to say that his teaching is wrong, but the damage is minimal. Truth matters, and if Harold Camping is teaching lies these lies are terribly destructive.

    Marc ~ Sep 26, 2008 at 1:06 am

  247. Albert Einstein once said “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”. Could this quote be applied to date-setting….?

    Laurie ~ Sep 26, 2008 at 5:32 pm

  248. To All Concerned,
    I think something is up at WFME….last night Camping sounded VERY bad.Perhaps he has a cold BUT I think he is in bad shape.There is sound but no video.At any rate I agree with you Marc re being repectful but consider Titus 1:10-16 and give particular attention to the greek word for “sharply”.The intent of such harshness is remedial to be sure “so that they will be sound”.Perhaps respect is really the intention.I don’t see Paul respecting false doctrine at all.If Camping is correct 99.9% of Christianity past and present is wrong.I leave you with this thought when the false prophet Hananiah did his thing(Jer 28)”Jeremiah responded to Hananiah as they stood in front of all the priests and people at the Temple.He said, “Amen! May your prophecies come true! I hope the Lord does everything you say. I hope he does bring back from Babylon the treasures of this Temple and all the captives.But listen now to the solemn words I speak to you in the presence of all these people. The ancient prophets who preceded you and me spoke against many nations, always warning of war, disaster, and disease. So a prophet who predicts peace must show he is right. Only when his predictions come true can we know that he is really from the Lord.”
    Jer 28:5-9 NLT Perhaps this is the best way to respond? Marc,Thanks for all your hard work ….LAURIE….The insane ones are those who justify their errors by REINTERPRETING the results.The really insane ones are those who allow and encourage it to continue.Just wait and see what happens when Camping dies.I see the vultures beginning to circle….THOSE WHO IGNORE HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT.
    God bless you all……….have a blessed Christmas.agape,Charlie Rizzo

    Charlie Rizzo ~ Oct 24, 2008 at 7:26 pm

  249. Hello everyone,

    I am glad to see people talking about all of this. with so many different views, we must all look at the Bible verses being offered for Judgment Day.

    2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
    2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
    2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
    2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
    2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
    2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

    Gary ~ Oct 26, 2008 at 10:29 am

  250. One of the heaviest evidences of 5/21/2011 is according to the timeline of History Mr Camping has compiled by many years of study that runs right through to 1994-2011.

    Gen 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

    2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
    2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
    2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

    7 days Noah-Gen 7:10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
    Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

    2 month 17day 4990 B.C- 5/21/2011 7000 yrs.

    I believe Mr. Camping made a statementin his book1994? That that date was so seemingly strongly the year because of the verse:
    Mat 24:22 And except those days *(the great tribulation) should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened.
    Mr C thought that instead of 1988-2011 being exactly 23 years (a number used to represent judgment)to be the day of Judgment, he believed this verse to mean the tribulation was shrtened.

    Gary ~ Oct 26, 2008 at 10:37 am

  251. Gary,

    So what is your view on this passage?

    Laurie ~ Oct 26, 2008 at 11:39 am

  252. To be honest with you,I used to think it had to do with the increase of technology and the world’s population to gather God’s elect for the end.

    But What i have learned from this, 1994 was the date (during the Great Tribulation in Mat 24 which is 1988-2011) when there was a silence in heaven for about a 1/2 hour 1988-1994.

    Rev 8:1 And when He opened the seventh seal, a silence occurred in Heaven, about a half hour.

    I have learned that 1994 was a Jubilee year.

    Lev 25:10 and you shall make the fiftieth year holy, one year. And you shall proclaim liberty in the land to those living in it; it shall be a jubilee to you. And you shall return every man to his possession; yea, you shall turn back each to his family.

    1988-1994 6 years: Silence in heaven
    1994-2011 17 years: The great harvest of believers before the end. this is why Mr C says to get out of the church. Judgment has come on the church, so we should not be there- unless we want to disobey God’s Word.

    Much more info, but not enough space! lol

    Gary ~ Oct 26, 2008 at 12:29 pm

  253. @Gary: Thanks for posting, I mean that, but I think Camping reaches his conclusions by using some real spotty hermeneutics. Some of our other posters have talked in detail about Camping’s poor and speculative approaches to the Word, and I’d encourage you to read what they have to say. And the idea of leaving the church is just beyond the pale, I believe; Harold Camping will have a lot of ‘splainin’ to do when he faces God, I really believe. .

    Byron ~ Oct 26, 2008 at 5:12 pm

  254. HI Byron,

    Thanks for your site! I love to read what other people read about Judgment Day. It is going to hit the world unawares. We all have to face God, and our opinions do not mean aanything- we cannot find human logic in scripture- God’s thoughts are higher than ours.

    Psa 50:21 These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.

    Gary ~ Oct 26, 2008 at 6:17 pm

  255. Gary,

    When people post on a blog, they obviously think their opinion has value. God gave us a mind with which to reason and make choices; we are to love Him with all of our minds. It seems clear that you’ve come to value HC’s opinions highly, and if you’ve read thru this thread you know that some of us who post here regularly do not agree with his teachings, hermeneutics or end time views.

    The subject of this thread is the failed dates set by HC, and his continued practice of date-setting. God’s thoughts are apparently too high for HC, as they are for all of us. Many have attempted to set dates – all have failed, thus confirming what the Bible says about this.

    You seem to sincerely want to understand God’s word; stick with that and don’t trust in anyone’s private interpretations or depend on numerology – it doesn’t work.

    Laurie ~ Oct 26, 2008 at 7:39 pm

  256. Hi laurie,

    Thanks for your comment.

    Gary ~ Oct 26, 2008 at 8:02 pm

  257. Gary,

    You wrote: “One of the heaviest evidences of 5/21/2011 is according to the timeline of History Mr Camping has compiled by many years of study that runs right through to 1994-2011.” I agree with you that the timeline of history that Mr. Camping has taught is possibly the most important pillar of Mr. Camping’s teaching. That is why I carefully checked out his proof of the Biblical calendar found in his book “Adam When?” published in 1974. I found his proof to be full of mathematical and logical errors. Are you sure you have carefully checked his proof of the timeline of history? I would be happy to discuss this proof with you. For instance, are you aware of the Biblical “key’ that, according to Mr. Camping, unlocked the previously hidden Biblical Calendar?

    Marc ~ Oct 28, 2008 at 12:45 am

  258. Hello Marc,

    It seems that you have done research carefully and have found errors with Mr. Camping’s studies. We should not pursue an endless debate about Harold Camping, and we should not focus on any man more than the Bible. But if what you prove is true, then what do you believe as far as Judgment Day? Can believers know the timing of the end, and what verses do you have to support your doctrine?

    Thanks,

    Gary ~ Oct 30, 2008 at 8:04 pm

  259. Hi Gary;

    I follow HC’s teachings to some degree. I’m aware that not many people got too upset with his book entitled 1994? (Vantage Press, 1992). I got the impression that his critics dismissed him and “just another date-setter”. He would still be considered as merely being an eccentric old man had he just kept his teachings to date-setting but he didn’t. He ramped it up a bit! His more recent teachings say that Satan is in control of the world’s churches and that believers should flee their church because God has abandoned the “church” concept as His way to evangelize the world. That’s when all of the trouble began. In my region, church leaders got real upset. Many went public (radio and TV) to attack what HC was teaching about Satan controlling the churches and about church attenders not able to receive the teaching necessary to eventually lead to salvation. Many of HC’s critics will point to date-setting as the main reason for his error but, as I see it, it’s really more about his strong indictment of the world church. You can dismiss him as a demented wacko when he just sets dates for the end of the world, that’s not much of a threat to the local churches. However, when he calls on believers to flee the “established” church, especially churches that rely heavily on regular tithe and gift income and churches that are heavily invested in secular activities (stock and bond investments, real estate holdings, trust funds, trust income, etc.), well now you are talking about a completely different threat. Hope this helps.

    Lars ~ Oct 31, 2008 at 4:20 pm

  260. Hey Lars,

    Thanks for your comment. I’ll be available early morning 11/2/08 to have more discussion on this!!

    I do not read and listen to the Bible enough. I can honestly say I do not study my Bible enough. I cannot worry about anyone else’s relationship w/ GOD. I have been reading and studying about the topic of the End of the church and the end of the world, and there are so many examples of this in the Bible.

    The First church in the BiBle:
    Exo 12:3 Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying, On the tenth of this month, they shall each take for themselves an animal of the flock for a father’s house, a flock animal for a house.

    The end of that church:
    Both Israel and Judah were destoyed by either Assyria or Babylon- hard to believe for some, because propehts like Jeremiah was ignored-willingly. have you read Jer. 42 carefully? How does this help us in our day?

    Jer 42:5 Then they said to Jeremiah, The LORD be a true and faithful witness between us, if we do not even according to all things for the which the LORD thy God shall send thee to us. This is what the people told Jeremiah once Babylon left only a small remnant after a bloody seige:

    Jer 42:6 Whether it be good, or whether it be evil, we will obey the voice of the LORD our God, to whom we send thee; that it may be well with us, when we obey the voice of the LORD our God.

    Then Jeremiah gave them the word from God:
    Jer 42:19 The LORD hath said concerning you, O ye remnant of Judah; Go ye not into Egypt: know certainly that I have admonished you this day.

    The people trusted their own hearts and thinking…..

    Jer 43:2 Then spake Azariah the son of Hoshaiah, and Johanan the son of Kareah, and all the proud men,(emphasize the “proud men”) saying unto Jeremiah, Thou speakest falsely: the LORD our God hath not sent thee to say, Go not into Egypt to sojourn there:

    How different is this from the teachings to get out of the church??

    In fact this is what they said:

    Jer 44:15 Then all the men which knew that their wives had burned incense unto other gods, and all the women that stood by, a great multitude, even all the people that dwelt in the land of Egypt, in Pathros, answered Jeremiah, saying,
    Jer 44:16 As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the LORD, we will not hearken unto thee.

    BTW
    There are people whom I have met and heard of outside of North America who have never heard of Harold Camping that have abandoned their church due to apostasy, and understand that the soul that sinneth will die and not suffer in Hell tormented forever as we have been taught in seminary or church- let’s get some more Bible verses in to support our views- I think it helps us keep our feelings out of it…

    Gary

    Gary ~ Nov 1, 2008 at 7:54 am

  261. Gary,

    Just wanted to give you some input on some of the verses you’ve shared. I think you’re confused about when the church started. In Matthew 16:18-19, Jesus commissions Peter to start the church, which even Hades cannot prevail against.

    At the Last Supper, Jesus spoke to His disciples about the New Covenant, which makes the Old Covenant obsolete – you can find this in Matthew 26:28 and Hebrews 8:7-13. This is why we believe we are still in the “Church Age” and that it will not be overcome, even by Satan himself.

    The covenant God made with His chosen people Israel was based on the law, which could not save them – this is why Jesus had to die on the cross, and why He made a New Covenant, with the church. He gave them the land of Israel – forever. As a result of their rebellion, He allowed them to be taken out of the land, but promised He would bring them back into it.

    The prophet Jeremiah speaks of God being angry with both the house of Judah and the house of Israel when He allowed Jerusalem to be taken captive by the king of Babylon in 586 BC. This is 135 years after the house of Israel was taken captive by Assyria – so even though it appeared they had disappeared from the scene, God knew where they were and had every intention of returning them to Israel, in keeping with His promise. In chapter 33, Jeremiah said God would cause the captives of both Judah and Israel to return and rebuild – and would forgive them for all of their sins.

    The prophet Zechariah made a prophetic statement concerning the future city of Jerusalem – that although once a curse among the nations, God would save both the house of Judah and the house of Israel, and make them a blessing.

    In the New Testament, James addresses his letter to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad. This shows us that even though scattered, God knew where they were – in 1948 we saw the fulfillment of His promise in restoring their land to them.

    God will keep His promises, both to Israel and to the church.

    Have a great day!

    Laurie ~ Nov 1, 2008 at 12:42 pm

  262. thanks for those verses Laurie!!

    I would like to bring up a point about when the church began. I believe you said it began with Peter. There are many types and figures in the Bible. The Old and New Covenants represent many things, but mostly the Law and grace.

    What does Aaron’s rod represent? or better yet, can you explain Samson’s riddle???

    Without an understanding a riddle/parable, how can we understand these issues? We need the Lord Jesus Christ to open my blind stubborn eyes…

    Mar 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
    Mar 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
    Mar 4:13 And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?

    The Bible speaks of parables. When did parables begin in scripture? Form studying the scriptures, we find that the whole Bible is a parable, and we need the Holy Spirit to reveal His truth to us. This is why the understanding of the church is hard to understand. The Bible (every word of it) has Spiritual life and a deeper meaning.

    Num 12:8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?

    What are dark speeches? They are parables.

    Psa 78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old:
    Psa 78:3 Which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us.

    To understand the End of Church or even the End of the World, the Holy Spirit will be working to reveal this information….

    Gary ~ Nov 1, 2008 at 4:45 pm

  263. BTW, (addendum)

    It was the same way the fig tree coming in leaf, which you have astutely eluded to being a parable, has a heavy, End time meaning!!!!!

    By God’s mercy, I would like to hear your explanation of what parables mean in relation to the church, as God uses the scriptures to represent spirtual things

    Gary ~ Nov 1, 2008 at 4:50 pm

  264. Gary,

    A parable is a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.

    Jesus often used them – in Mark chapter 4, when He explained the parable of the soils, He said that to “those who are outside”, i.e. unbelievers, all things come in parables. An unbeliever, who does not have the Holy Spirit, cannot understand the things of the Spirit, so to him the mystery of the kingdom of God has not been revealed. Jesus also stated, in verse 34, that “without a parable He did not speak to them.” Some have misunderstood this statement to mean that Jesus never taught except in parables. In studying the things Jesus taught, we know this is not so, therefore it must mean that on that particular day, He spoke to the crowd only in parables.

    The verse from Numbers tells us God spoke to Moses plainly, not in riddles. In Psalm chapter 78, God is speaking to Israel using their history as a parable to teach them to set their hope on God, to not forget the works of God and not to be like their fathers (vs. 7-8).

    None of these verses support the idea that all scripture is a parable. 2 Tim. 3:16-17 tells us that “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” It does contain parables, but it also contains historical accounts, poetry, psalms, proverbs, prophecy, etc.

    The idea that all scripture is a parable encourages private interpretation, which is unscriptural. Not every passage addressing a particular subject will necessarily include everything you need to know about that subject to have a clear understanding of it, i.e., just because some verses say God/Jesus spoke in parables that doesn’t mean They spoke in parables all the time. A prophecy is not a parable. History (although it can be used as one) is not a parable. The Law is not a parable.

    Your question about what parables mean in relation to the church is a little too broad; if there is a particular parable you’re thinking of, I’d be happy to take a look at it.

    Laurie ~ Nov 2, 2008 at 1:34 am

  265. Hello Laurie, thanks for repsonding. I hope you are having a blessed Lord’s Day!
    Please carefully look at these verses.

    2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

    Isa 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.

    * I believe this implies that doctrine is the God-given hidden meaning*

    Mar 4:2 And he (christ) taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine,

    Laurie, I do not know much about the Bible-

    But there is one thing I know. the Bible is a parable.

    Please read Proverbs Chapter 7. I believe it is a parable concerning our church today. I would like to hear your view point on it!

    Thanks,
    Gary

    Gary ~ Nov 2, 2008 at 9:31 am

  266. I’m no expert either, Gary. However, I do believe you are on the right track. A questioning mind is not always popular with established church leaders today. They don’t want you brewing up your own brand of kool-aid as the thread title suggests. That may threaten their comfortable gig. Although I don’t subscribe to all of HC’s teachings, I tend to also view God’s Word as a parable the same way he does. It’s like a batter standing in the batters box waiting for a pitch to be delivered. If you always expect a fast ball, you will usually strike out. There are times when God’s Word delivers a curve ball or a change-up or some other pitch we didn’t expect. Sometimes what we think we understand is not necessarily what God wants us to understand. The Pharisees and Scribes of Jesus day were expecting their messiah to appear as a conquering king to deliver Israel and set up His Heavenly Kingdom on earth. They could point to scripture and they could show you verse by verse how perfect their teachings were about this topic. Never did they expect such a lowly individual as Jesus who would ride into Jerusalem on a donkey. Hence, they rejected and crucified him as an impostor. That’s a prime example of expecting the fast ball and not getting it. Are those who claim to have all of the answers, the contemporary church, making the same mistake today? Could church leaders of today be looking for the wrong signs? Just because the world church believes something in the Bible as truth, is it really truth? For many centuries, the Catholic Church kept the scriptures hidden from the lay people. They believed that God ordained the Pope, and only the Pope, to deliver His message. It was not until the 16th century that this tradition was broken and the Bible was interpreted for the masses and they had access to a Bible of their very own and in their own language. Is the current world church suggesting that the Bible is only for seminary trained people? Is the current world church suggesting that God only disseminates His truth through “seminary qualified” people? Because the world church says that HC is not “qualified”, are they saying that he can’t possibly be chosen of God to be the guy that expects the curve ball? Critics of HC will almost always use a disclaimer. They will almost always say that they are not 100 percent sure HC is wrong. It curious why they do that. Could it be that they are not completely comfortable with their own version of the truth?

    Lars ~ Nov 2, 2008 at 10:52 am

  267. Gary,

    You asked what a parable was and I provided the definition – it is a short allegorical story. There are many, many things in the Bible that are not allegorical, eg., the creation account, the history of the Jews, the Law, the covenants, the supernatural birth, works of Christ, death and resurrection, salvation, I could go on and on. These are actual events, not stories used to teach truths. Most of the parables Jesus used were based on everyday situations that the people could relate to, not actual events.

    Isaiah chapter 28 is addressed to Ephraim – the context in terms of God speaking to them is that they wouldn’t listen – they preferred to believe lies so to them the things God said were just rules – they had rejected His counsel and wisdom. This actually, in my opinion, is an example of what Jesus said about unbelievers – that to them, all things come in parables. That is something we can learn from – based on this statement, if the whole of scripture seems to be a parable, that could be a sign of unbelief.

    While it would be correct to say that a parable could be based on an actual event, and the Bible supports that – it is not correct to say the entire Bible is a parable because the Bible does not support that. In the passage we discussed from Exodus, God stated He did NOT speak to Moses in dark sayings or riddles – that is strong evidence that God doesn’t always speak in parables.

    While I am reading Proverbs 7, please share with me why you think this is a parable concerning the church.

    Thanks, and have a blessed day!

    Laurie ~ Nov 2, 2008 at 1:30 pm

  268. Gary,

    Another question I have regarding Proverbs 7 and your belief that it is a parable concerning the church – did you come to that conclusion based on your own reading and understanding of that chapter, or did you read/hear it from someone else? The sources that we use to base our conclusions on are important – this is why I ask.

    Laurie ~ Nov 2, 2008 at 1:35 pm

  269. Laurie,

    Thanks for your message. Proverbs 7 is a wonderful story. It speaks of someone void of understanding. As you work on this chapter, that will be my emphasis as I would try to explain it by looking at as many scriptures pertaining..

    sa 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

    You stated that the creation account has no parabolic or deeper spiritual meaning.

    Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth;

    No spiritual meaning?
    Look at these verses then.

    Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
    Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

    The Son made the universe and all creation!

    Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
    Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

    Here is the tie in to the creation of Genesis 1:

    Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
    Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

    Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
    Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
    Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

    Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

    Faith is a noun. Faith is Christ.

    Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

    In order to please God we must worship Him in Spirit and in truth, unless you find verses otherwise….

    Please look at these verses:
    1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
    1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

    I was helped by family Radio teachers and HC about Principles of Bible Study. I have learned so much about salvation, and how most churches give a very unbiblical teaching of accepting Christ into one’s heart. I have no intellect on my own. I thank God for His word!

    Gary ~ Nov 2, 2008 at 1:56 pm

  270. Hey Lars,

    Thanks for your comment.

    I was raised in an environment where Bible interpretation is open and dangerously misinterpreted. Dreams, visions, signs and wonders are coming from everywhere. Truly, we are in the Great Tribulation!!

    Gary ~ Nov 2, 2008 at 2:15 pm

  271. Gary,

    America’s founding fathers were to be admired for their penchant toward dissent. Just because England ruled the colonies didn’t mean that intelligent men and women can not think for themselves. They revolted against the oppression of free thinking. The same held true for the Catholic church up until the 16th century. I happen to subscribe to such freedoms, especially my freedom to read and think. After seeing the havoc that has been brought upon this nation by those in non-thinking lock-step with the policies of our leaders in Washington for the past eight years, we can see how dangerous it is for people to be brain-washed and denied our basic freedoms. Especially our freedom to think and ask hard questions. I admire your spirit of dissent and I admire your courage to ask hard questions of those who may be so deluded as to think that they in sole possession of truth, Biblical or otherwise. You are a refreshing addition to this thread.

    Lars ~ Nov 2, 2008 at 3:44 pm

  272. Hey, Lars,

    I’d be curious to know what you mean by the “world church”, and who it is that believes they are “in sole possession of the truth”. That’d be interesting to me. Thanks.

    Byron ~ Nov 2, 2008 at 6:13 pm

  273. Hey Lars,

    I can see what you mean.

    Psa 37:1 Fret not thyself because of evildoers, neither be thou envious against the workers of iniquity.
    Psa 37:2 For they shall soon be cut down like the grass, and wither as the green herb.
    Psa 37:3 Trust in the LORD, and do good; so shalt thou dwell in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed.
    Psa 37:4 Delight thyself also in the LORD; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart.
    Psa 37:5 Commit thy way unto the LORD; trust also in him; and he shall bring it to pass.
    Psa 37:6 And he shall bring forth thy righteousness as the light, and thy judgment as the noonday.
    Psa 37:7 Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for him: fret not thyself because of him who prospereth in his way, because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass.

    Gary ~ Nov 2, 2008 at 6:33 pm

  274. Byron,

    Here we go again.

    Laurie ~ Nov 3, 2008 at 11:13 am

  275. Gary,

    Interesting interchange. I have many Christian friends and acquaintances, but none of them communicate with me that way – if they did I would ask them a simple question – why are you doing that? I love scripture, and I’ve heard people share it that way before, but something I would like to do is give you my thoughts on whether this is the best way to do it.

    God tells us to “reason together” (Is. 1:18). You were doing fine communicating your ideas, engaging in a dialogue which allowed us to share our views – then you suddenly started using scripture in place of conversation. In the past, whenever someone objected to this practice, they were immediately accused of hating or refusing to listen to God’s word – let’s stop that before it starts. This is not about that so if you will refrain from making these accusations I will in turn not attempt to judge your motives. I do, however, want to address this in general.

    I’m trying to do this in a spirit of gentleness, let’s see how well I do.

    As you have pointed out, not all of God’s word is easily understood. Various things need to be taken into consideration to understand it correctly – context, setting, audience, etc. Although there are many things in the Bible that are very clear and to be taken literally, there are also things that are not so clear and should not be taken so literally. On top of that, there are sometimes layers of deeper meaning that can be extracted – keeping in mind that it should line up with the rest of scripture. Sometimes in considering an issue, many verses come to mind, but although it may make perfect sense in my head, I know it would probably not make sense to just write them all down and expect someone else to figure out what my thought process was.

    When I read a passage of scripture in the Bible, if not easy to understand I will take the time to look at the context, setting, audience, etc. – I may cross reference and look at commentaries. When someone uses scripture instead of conversing, without explaining the point(s) they’re trying to make – I’m not going to take the time to do that – just because someone is quoting scripture doesn’t mean they’re doing the best job communicating. This is not, in my opinion, reasoning together.

    Sometimes it seems one is hiding behind scripture so as not to take responsibility for the often harsh and judgmental things that these verses contain, other times it just sounds like frustration. I always agree with God’s word, but I don’t always agree with the person who is using it or the way they are understanding it.

    I hope you receive this in the spirit in which it is intended; you’re not the only person who does this, but the host of this site has asked people to explain their points and not just throw scripture out there.

    Laurie ~ Nov 3, 2008 at 3:35 pm

  276. Wow Laurie,

    I thank you for your statement.

    Gary ~ Nov 3, 2008 at 8:51 pm

  277. Gary,

    You asserted that Mr. Camping’s time line of history gave strong evidence of his prediction that 5/21/2011 was judgment day. I agreed that the time line was foundational to Mr. Camping’s conclusions. However, I have found Mr. Camping’s proof of his Biblical Calendar (time line) to be full of errors and invalid. I invited you to discuss this topic. I asked you if you knew what Mr. Camping’s key that unlocked the previously hidden Biblical Calendar was. You refused to answer, which tells me that you might be just taking Mr. Camping’s word for the calendar and not checking out his proof to make sure that it is in harmony with the Bible. Instead of answering my question, you asked me some questions in order to change the topic. You asked me whether we could know the time of the final judgment. I purposely assumed that you were right and it was possible to know the time of the final judgment. Just because it might be possible to discover the date of the final judgment does not mean that Mr. Camping’s prediction is Biblical. That is why the question is not whether the Bible permits Mr. Camping to identify the date. The question is whether or not Mr. Camping’s Biblical proof of the date is valid. And that is why I want to discuss Mr. Camping’s proof of the Biblical Calendar which you admitted was foundational to his end time predictions. And that is why I ask you again if you know what Mr. Camping asserts is the key that unlocked the previously hidden Biblical Calendar. This key is found in chapter 4 of his book Adam When?

    Marc ~ Nov 4, 2008 at 1:14 am

  278. Gary,

    The Book of Proverbs is a wonderful piece of Wisdom Literature; before reading chapter 7 I noted that the 2 prominent themes are wisdom and folly. Wisdom, which includes knowledge, understanding, instruction, discernment and obedience, is rooted in the fear of the LORD and the Word of God – folly is everything that opposes this. Solomon is imparting wisdom to the young – it is primarily addressed to “my son” and “my children”. In these pithy sayings we find instruction for godly living.

    Chapter 7 is a warning to young men regarding the seductress. It’s fairly self-explanatory – I don’t see, however, any connection to the church – not anything that jumps out at me, anyway.

    Please share with me why you believe this is about the church, and how you came to that conclusion.

    Laurie ~ Nov 4, 2008 at 1:21 pm

  279. I’ve been doing some reading on HC’s views concerning the church; obviously his instruction to “flee the church” isn’t popular among churches. I’ve noticed that as soon as someone tries to defend the church, HC followers immediately say, “See? They do get upset because HC says leave the church.” This should not come as a surprise, and it certainly doesn’t prove that HC is right. Mormons and JW’s both believe that persecution proves they have the truth – it doesn’t.

    HC followers also like to say that churches/pastors don’t want people to leave because they don’t want to lose their tithes. I’ve attended several churches over the years, and I’ve never yet had one chase after me when I leave – worried about losing my offerings. The Bible says it is God Who adds to the church daily – the pastor’s job is to equip the saints for ministry by teaching the word. It is also the pastor’s job to care for the flock, to pray for them and be concerned about their salvation. Jesus, the Shepherd of our souls, called us His sheep, and has appointed pastors to look out for us. That being said, it is reasonable to believe the reason pastors are upset about HC telling people to leave the church is concern for their souls – remember the parable of the lost sheep? Unless you can say you know what is in every pastor’s heart – you can’t say it’s a fact that all pastors are only concerned about losing tithes.

    I also hear HC followers say the churches don’t like it when people ask questions. There are churches like that, but not all. None of the churches I’ve attended discouraged questions; one of them even offered apologetics classes where questions were greatly encouraged. The host of this site, who is a pastor, does not discourage questions. Most of the people posting here who do not agree with HC’s teachings on the church have engaged in discussions with HC followers, sharing their observations and answering questions– in fact, it often seems that it is HC followers who are reluctant to answer questions. What the church is not willing to do, nor should any Christian, is be carried about with every wind of doctrine – HC’s teachings SHOULD be questioned – and tested. If the HC follower believes the church shouldn’t be upset by questions, they should not be upset that we question HC.

    Not only are these charges questionable at best – they don’t validate HC’s teachings in any way.

    Laurie ~ Nov 5, 2008 at 11:56 pm

  280. Hey Laurie,

    I do not think the questioning ir the tithing becomes an issue with leaving the church, but the doctrine.

    These are the real issues- Bible interpretation.

    How have you been taught how someone gets saved by Christ? through Free will, or by sovereign election?

    Jer 4:9 And it will be on that day, says Jehovah, the king’s heart and the heart of the rulers shall perish. And the priests shall be amazed; and the prophets shall be astounded.
    Jer 4:10 Then I said, Ah, Lord Jehovah! Surely You have greatly deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, You shall have peace, but the sword reaches to the soul.

    Gary ~ Nov 9, 2008 at 12:37 pm

  281. Oh,

    Also Proverbs 7 to me by God’s mercy represents Christ warning his believers not to be taken by false doctrines (adultery)which is so prevalent today. the book of Proverbs has many stories of 2 types of women. A wise woman, ( in some insances it can Christ or a believer) and a harlot (the unsaved/or Satan. The harlot has slain many (Satan)always taking the simple or without understanding (Lack of Christ’s truth).

    These items placed on the bed of fornicaion:
    Pro 7:16 I have spread my couch with coverings, with striped cloths of Egyptian linen.
    Pro 7:17 I have sprinkled my bed with myrrh, aloes and cinnamon.

    They all represent false gospels which will destry unsaved man as they believe the good man will not come now, but sometime far away. And I believe this is th nature of the church today.

    Gary ~ Nov 9, 2008 at 2:19 pm

  282. Hi Gary,

    I agree with you that we need to be careful not to be taken in by false doctrines. And that’s why we need to take a close look at Mr. Camping’s doctrines to make sure they are in harmony with everything we read in the Bible. I don’t think you have done this in a thorough manner. I may be wrong, but it appears that you are relying on your feelings and emotions in your agreeing with Mr. Camping rather than really checking the facts. Why do I say this? Consider this:

    You and I agreed that Mr. Camping’s time line of history was a foundational doctrine in Mr. Camping’s teaching. Mr. Camping stated plainly that the Biblical Calendar was just an assumption that needed Biblical proof. Mr. Camping claims he found a key in the Bible that unlocked (proved) this previously hidden Biblical Calendar. He gave a long, complicated, Biblical teaching that proved his key to the calendar. I did not ask you to repeat Mr. Camping’s complicated proof of his Calendar key. I just asked you what that relatively simple key was. You have been unable to tell me what the calendar key is. If you cannot tell me what the key that unlocks the Biblical Calendar is, it seems obvious that you accepted Mr. Camping’s proof of the calendar without taking the time to understand it. It seems that you made a judgment that Mr. Camping’s Biblical Calendar was true based on your emotional desire to have this knowledge, rather than a thorough study of the calendar proof to make sure it harmonizes with the Bible. Maybe I am wrong and you have carefully checked Mr. Camping’s calendar proof and found it to be in harmony with the Bible. Please prove me wrong. Please identify the Biblical key that unlocked the previously hidden Biblical Calendar, according to Mr. Camping.

    Marc ~ Nov 9, 2008 at 6:16 pm

  283. Gary,

    Although raised in a Christian home, I did not become a Christian until long after I was an adult. As a teenager, I had a lot of questions about God and the Bible, but didn’t feel like I was getting good answers – I left the church my family attends at 19, lived as I pleased for many years until God began to draw me. Since becoming a Christian, I’ve attended several churches – some denominational, some not – I prefer to think of myself as a follower of Jesus Christ rather than be affiliated with a particular church, although I do have my preference.

    When I made the decision to follow Jesus, I asked Him to help me understand His word and keep me from deception and I believe He has done just that. I have been reading and studying the Bible for the last 11 years, keeping in mind that Paul said we shouldn’t follow teachers, we should follow Christ, so I make it a point to listen to various teachers and not focus on just one. Although teaching is one of the gifts of the spirit and there are many good teachers that are faithful to God’s word, I’m thankful that I have the Holy Spirit to help me discern truth from error.

    Your question was – do I believe a person gets saved by Christ thru free will or sovereign election. This is not only a fascinating subject but a controversial one – both sides make good points. Here’s what I see – Peter tells us that God “…is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” John says He loved the world so much He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

    Although I respect the different opinions I’ve heard on this subject – I like to keep it simple.

    Laurie ~ Nov 9, 2008 at 6:45 pm

  284. Gary,

    The Bible does warn us, very clearly, about false prophets, teachers and doctrines – which can be found in and out of the church. I have to say I don’t share your understanding of Proverbs 7, though, as I see no reason for believing the harlot spoken of here represents the church – the context is clearly a warning against sexual immorality. In Revelation, I do believe the great harlot represents the false religious system that will exist during the tribulation, and it’s very clear that in this context fornication is not sexual immorality but idolatry. I do not believe that in either case the meaning is interchangeable.

    Why do you believe the items of fornication represent false gospels, and that “they” believe the “good man” will not come now but sometime far away? Can you explain this statement? It would help me understand why you think this is the nature of the church today.

    Laurie ~ Nov 9, 2008 at 8:32 pm

  285. @Gary: Hi, Gary, not sure where you’re quoting from, but it’s not Jeremiah 4. Also not sure how it’s relevant; explain? Thanks.

    Byron ~ Nov 9, 2008 at 8:37 pm

  286. Gary,

    In reviewing HC’s views concerning the church, I’m noticing some inconsistencies. One of the statements he makes is that Satan was bound “during the complete period of the church age, which was symbolically described as a period of 1,000 years (Revelation 20:1-3). The 1,000 years must be understood as a symbolical or spiritual number that signifies “completeness.” The actual period he was bound was 1,955 years (from A.D. 33 to 1988).”

    To that I say, ‘why must I understand it that way?’ – the answer is – I don’t. Unless he can support that idea elsewhere in scripture there’s no reason to.

    He follows this up by saying “But the fact that Satan was bound did not preclude him from going about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he might devour (I Peter 5:8). That is, while the church age was altogether God’s plan by which the Gospel was to reach into all the world, it would be greatly hindered in its spiritual effectiveness by Satan. He would hinder the effectiveness of the churches by sowing tares or weeds within them.”

    Hmmm. I see something very different. Rev. 20:3 says the angel cast him (Satan) into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. Rev. 20:7-8 says “Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea.” Clearly John is telling us Satan will NOT be deceiving anyone during the 1,000 he is bound, and when he is released, he will deceive NATIONS, not the church.

    Any comment?

    Laurie ~ Nov 10, 2008 at 1:32 am

  287. Gary,

    Here’s another interesting observation HC makes – “In Revelation 6:4, he (Satan) is pictured as a rider on a red horse carrying a great sword, which is the Sword of the Spirit, the Bible, by which he would take peace from the earth. In other words, he would use words from the Bible to try to give authority to his false teachings.”

    Let’s take a look at what Rev. 6:4 says – “Another horse, fiery red, went out. And it was granted to the one who sat on it to take peace from the earth, and that people should kill one another; and there was given to him a great sword.”

    Rev. chapter six describes the opening of six of the seven seals. As each one is opened, it unleashes a new demonstration of God’s judgment on the earth in the tribulation: the first one – conquest of the earth; the second – conflict on earth; the third – scarcity on earth; the fourth – widespread death on the earth; the fifth – martyrdom; the sixth – cosmic disturbances. With the exception of the fifth (those who were slain for the word of God), these judgments are clearly against the earth, not the church. The context of verse 4 is that peace is taken from the earth, resulting in people killing one another – the sword here appears to be a symbol of war or violence, not the Sword of the Spirit.

    Laurie ~ Nov 10, 2008 at 2:18 am

  288. Gary,

    Here’s another one. HC said “We read in Isaiah 5 that God portrays the church age as a vineyard that has been carefully and lovingly planted by God Himself. But this vineyard did not produce good fruit. It produced wild grapes. Spiritually, wild grapes identify with those who have designed their own gospel instead of meticulously following the Gospel of the Bible. Later on in this study, we will see that it was God’s plan that because of this wickedness, God eventually would destroy the vineyard.”

    When I read this chapter, I see that Isaiah clearly identifies who the “vineyard” represents – verse 7 says “For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah are His pleasant plant…”

    HC goes on to say “It should be noted that in many chapters of the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, etc., God indicates His intense anger against the nations of Israel and Judah because of their continuous wickedness. Indeed, finally, they were destroyed. Israel was destroyed in 709 B.C. by the Assyrians, and Judah in 587 B.C. by the Babylonians. God used Israel and Judah, which in their day externally represented the kingdom of God, as examples of all the local churches that have externally represented the kingdom of God throughout the time of the church age. As we study these Old Testament books of the Bible, we are actually reading what God has anticipated for the church age, and more particularly, for the end of the church age.”

    And this is based on…..? HC is making an assumption without showing us where he sees scripture that supports this idea. I looked thru the rest of his study and saw nothing further to indicate why or how he thinks this vineyard ties in with the church.

    Not only that, to say that the judgment of God on Israel and Judah by the Assyrians and Babylonians is what God has anticipated for the church age and its end fails to take into account the prophecies of Jeremiah and Zechariah. In chapter 33, Jeremiah said God would cause the captives of both Judah and Israel to return and rebuild – and would forgive them for all of their sins; the prophet Zechariah made a prophetic statement concerning the future city of Jerusalem – that although once a curse among the nations, God would save both the house of Judah and the house of Israel, and make them a blessing.

    HC’s teaching that both Israel and the church have been destroyed do not line up with God’s promises to them.

    Laurie ~ Nov 10, 2008 at 3:41 am

  289. This is all great!!!

    I will surely have to get back to you guys tonight with some answers!

    Take care,

    Gary ~ Nov 10, 2008 at 7:26 am

  290. Gary,

    HC said that in Isaiah 9:1-4, God prophesied that the church age would not be a great success story. In these verses, God speaks of the light shining on the land beyond Jordan as “Galilee of the nations” (see also Matthew 4:15-16). That is, all the nations of the world were to be under the light of the Gospel. It would be a light that would bring into existence, throughout the world, a great company of people who would externally appear to have become true believers in Christ, as Isaiah 9:3 declares, “Thou hast multiplied the nation.”

    “However, in the same verse, God prophesies that He has not increased the joy of harvest. The joy of harvest is the joy that comes when a person has been given eternal life so that he has become a true believer (Luke 15:10). If the joy of harvest is lacking, it can only mean that the harvest of true believers is very small. The fact is, as we are noting, this sad anticipation of the lack of a great harvest of people being saved and coming into the kingdom of God is prophesied in many places in the Bible.”

    Okay – the first issue is HC saying that the light would bring into existence a great company of people who would “externally appear to have become true believers in Christ” because of Isaiah’s statement – “You have multiplied the nation.” Whereas it is reasonable to see this as a confirmation of God’s covenant with Abraham to multiply his physical descendants, there is nothing in this statement that could be seen as referring to people who “appear” to have become true believers.

    He goes on to say that God has prophesied, in the statement that He has not increased the joy of harvest, that the harvest of true believers is very small. My translation reads “and increased its joy”, with the notation that other translations read “not increased joy” and “most of the people You brought down in Your joy”. In the translation used by HC, the next statement reads “they joy before thee according to the joy in harvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the spoil.” – this would explain why some translators believe it is better understood as saying “and increased its joy” rather than “not increased the joy”.

    That being said, verse 4 puts this in context – it tells us the reason for this joy “For You have broken the yoke of his burden and the staff of his shoulder and the rod of his oppressor” – this is a reference to Israel being freed from foreign rule.

    The context of verses 1-7 is the government that the Promised Son will set up at the Second Coming. HC says the fact is this sad anticipation of the lack of a great harvest of people being saved and coming into the kingdom of God is prophesied in many places in the Bible – I don’t see this as a fact at all – in every case I’m finding that he is reading things into the text that are simply not there.

    Laurie ~ Nov 10, 2008 at 11:37 am

  291. Hey Laurie,

    what detailed explanations! i havent seen or I havent remembered those quotes from HC, but I have to look at those verses for myself and check it out. Do you have the reference?

    Gary ~ Nov 10, 2008 at 2:21 pm

  292. Gary,

    Satan Bound for 1,000 Years – HC references Rev. 20:1-3 and I Peter 5:8. My reference is Rev. 20:7-8.

    Rider on Red Horse carrying Sword – HC references Rev. 6:4; my suggestion is to read the entire chapter.

    Vineyard – HC references Isaiah chapter 5, I pointed out Isaiah 5:7.

    Israel & Judah Destroyed – HC refers to “many chapters” in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. My references are Jeremiah 33:7-8; Zechariah 8:13.

    Laurie ~ Nov 10, 2008 at 3:43 pm

  293. Thanks Laurie.

    I have read the verses you have given.

    I am feeling like we are talking about HC from bits and pieces that I cannot attain to. How about this. Can we make some kind of checklist? Put an x by what you disagree with:

    Speaking in Tongues___

    Being slain in the “spirit”___

    Dreams, Prophesy,visions in or day__

    Women Pastors and Teachers of men___

    Believers being able to know the “exact day of Judgment”

    Gary ~ Nov 10, 2008 at 8:41 pm

  294. Gary,

    Were you asking for the Bible references or where I was getting HC’s quotes? I found them in his book “We Are Almost There”. They are in the chapters titled “The Bible Anticipates a Defective Church” and “The Problem of Satan Within the Churches”. Like you said, I gave pretty detailed explanations of why I think he’s taking things out of context and reading things into the text.

    I would still like to hear why you think the “items of fornication” in Proverbs 7 represent false gospels and an explanation of your statement regarding the nature of the church.

    What is your “checklist” all about, exactly? I would need to know the context and relevance before I could answer.

    Laurie ~ Nov 10, 2008 at 11:06 pm

  295. Laurie,

    I am glad that you have the book “Were Almost There.” Your detailed explanation from your point of view I can see where you are coming from, as many disagree with the Bible’s teaching on the End! Who in the church wants to be told our world is coming to an end and Satan infiltrates their house of worship by the scriptures? however, I will have to respectfully disagree based on foundational Bible interpretation (That’s why I have the checklist- if we disagree on election, tongus, etc, we will soon have to part ways and not judge or argue with each other) and patterns God uses in the Bible.

    As far as Proverbs 7 is concened, i will start as best I can by God’s mercy. How about 2 or three verses a day?

    BTW, Byron, I like to use J.P Green’s literal translation of the Bible for Bible references.

    Pro 7:1 My son, keep my words and store up my commands within you.

    The son here represents all true believers to keep,(obey/LOVE)God His commandments. “Thy word have I hid in my heart…” and I also believe that Christ used the Word of God in hours of temptation to assist Him during the crucifixion.

    Luk 22:43 And an angel from Heaven appeared to Him, strengthening Him.

    Pro 7:2 Keep my commands and live, and my law as the pupil of your eye.
    Pro 7:3 Tie them on your fingers; write them on the tablet of your heart.

    Commands given by God through Moses, to tie the law on our fingers…. I believe we are a forgetful and sinful people needing the mercy of God.

    More tomorrow!!

    Gary ~ Nov 11, 2008 at 7:03 am

  296. Gary,

    I don’t disagree with the Bible’s teaching on the End – I believe we are in the last days and in fact I look forward to Jesus’ return. What I do disagree with is HC’s method of interpretation.

    A special report compiled by the Western Classis Reformed Church (HC came out of the Reformed Church) makes the following observation: The real issue that we face with Mr. Camping is one of authority. Through the use of his method, which includes assertion, proof texts ripped out of context, and allegory; the authority of Scripture is undermined and the authority of the interpreter and teacher is exalted. Apologist James White’s observations are worth repeating: Allegorical interpretation destroys biblical authority. It replaces the divine message with the imaginations of the interpreter, and as such opens the door wide for every kind of abuse of the text. False teachers, seeking to draw away disciples after themselves (Acts 20:30), utilize such means to release themselves from the unchanging standards of God’s Word and insert, under the guise of “thus sayeth the Lord,” their own pet doctrines and teachings. The Christian who is untaught and unstable, a novice in the Word, can easily be taken in by such a teacher who exudes confidence and often hides the false teachings behind a veneer of self-professed orthodoxy.

    The Bible clearly teaches we should not follow teachers; if only people would be obedient to this we would not have so many cults and division among believers.

    You responded to my comments about HC’s teaching on Satan being bound for 1,000 years, the Rider w/sword, the Vineyard and Israel/Judah being destroyed saying you respectfully disagree – that’s fine, I would have been interested to hear your analysis, but it appears you agree with HC simply because he says so.

    In regard to your checklist, why don’t you go first – explain what your view is so I can determine what context you’re putting them in.

    Laurie ~ Nov 11, 2008 at 10:58 am

  297. Gary,

    It sounds as if you’re saying the subjects on your checklist are “salvation issues”, i.e., doctrines on which we must agree because they are important for salvation.

    I once shared a flight from Dallas to Los Angeles with a group of college students that were on a mission trip. One of them asked to sit in the empty seat beside me, striking up a conversation by asking if he could share some things from the Bible. He began to take me thru some verses, not saying upfront what he was leading up to – I took out my own Bible so I could follow along.

    He had a checklist – the first item on it was that it was a sin to play instruments in church. He took me thru some verses, explaining his point of view, and I shared some verses with him, explaining why I disagreed. To my surprise, they considered this a salvation issue. After much discussion, he acknowledged he had not convinced me and that I had given him something to think about.

    My main point was simply this, you can’t tell someone something is a sin unless you can prove it scripturally, showing them where it is clearly stated – not what your interpretation of it is. The Bible tells us there are areas in which we can disagree without dividing – with the stipulations that we attempt to be like-minded by reasoning together, not being contentious and arguing over doubtful things, or despising those who don’t agree with us.

    If you consider the items on your checklist salvation issues, please explain why.

    Thanks!

    Laurie ~ Nov 11, 2008 at 1:07 pm

  298. HI Laurie,

    Yes, doctrine is not a necessity to show if someone is saved – neither should we be looking at others when we ourselves need to be examined. But we should always be checking our doctrines over and over to see if they are in line with the Bible. That’s what people who love the Bible do!

    Mar 7:7 and in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.” Isa. 29:13

    Lev 10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in them; and they put incense on it and brought strange fire before Jehovah, which He had not commanded them.

    This represents false gospels- This is happening at the churches of today. God accepted their sacrifice by consuming them in fire. Never more to exist again.

    Gary ~ Nov 11, 2008 at 9:17 pm

  299. Gary,

    Exactly what is the gospel you think the churches should be teaching that they aren’t? And where did you hear it?

    Laurie ~ Nov 11, 2008 at 11:19 pm

  300. The Bible is the gospel of Christ.

    I am no authority. God is showing me through the Scriptures that the church is Spiritually destroyed, and the doctrines i stated earlier are being misinterpreted as Christ is no longer there.

    The Bible gives us evidenve that Jerusalem spiritualli is called Sodom and Egypt. What is Sodom most known for?????

    Fornication.

    Spiritual fornication- the same fornication in Proverbs 7 which people of churc leadership are being warned of sexual immorality and are unable to see the truth do to Christ no lomger being there!

    Please read these verses and tell me if you think they have ANY relation to Proverbs 7.

    This is so crucial!\\Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice out of Heaven saying, My people, come out of her, that you may not share in her sins, and that you may not receive of her plagues;
    Rev 18:5 because her sins joined together, even up to Heaven, and God remembered her unjust deeds.
    Rev 18:6 Give back to her as also she gave back to you, and double to her double, according to her works. In the cup which she mixed, mix to her double.
    Rev 18:7 By what things she glorified herself, and luxuriated, by so much give back to her torment and mourning. Because she says in her heart, I sit as a queen, and I am not a widow; and I do not see mourning at all.
    Rev 18:8 Because of this, in one day her plagues shall come: death, and mourning, and famine; and she will be consumed with fire, for the Lord God judging her is strong.
    Rev 18:9 And the kings of the earth will weep for her, and will wail over her, those having fornicated and having luxuriated with her, when they see the smoke of her burning;
    Rev 18:10 standing from afar because of the fear of her torment, saying, Woe! Woe to the great city, Babylon, the strong city! For in one hour your judgment came.
    Rev 18:11 And the merchants of the earth weep and mourn over her, because no one buys their cargo any more,
    Rev 18:12 cargo of gold, and silver, and of precious stone, and of pearls, and of fine linen, and of purple, and of silk, and of scarlet, and all thyine wood, and every ivory vessel, and every vessel of very precious wood, and of bronze, and of iron, and of marble,
    Rev 18:13 and cinnamon, and incenses, and ointment, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine meal, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and of bodies and souls of men

    Where did I hear what? The gospel I think churches should be teaching? Certainly the Bible and not HC. I disagree with HC on issues of scripture, because we are all different and we understand things differently.

    Gary ~ Nov 12, 2008 at 6:38 am

  301. Gary,

    So…you think the churches aren’t teaching the Bible? That’s a little too vague – have you ever been to a church? I’m asking because I don’t know anything about you – I can tell you that they ARE (well, some of them anyway) teaching the Bible – maybe not according to what you believe, but they are teaching it.

    Looking at Rev. 18 – as I said before, I believe the great harlot, Babylon, is a false religious system that will exist during the tribulation. No matter what it calls itself, it is not the church. I agree that Christ won’t be in it, however, I don’t believe we’re in that time yet. You think things are bad now? Just wait, they’re gonna get worse. When I read about the judgments God will bring against the earth – the seals, the trumpets, the bowls – nothing even close to that has happened yet.

    Do I think this is tied in with Prov. 7? No – as I stated, I believe the context of fornication in Prov. 7 is sexual immorality, not idolatry – nothing in that chapter suggests this; in Rev., the context of fornication in connection with the great harlot is idolatry, not sexual immorality. I don’t see the pattern you’re speaking of – you can’t just say that because sometimes a word is used different ways in different scriptures you can apply it any way you want to. Also, you never explained why you think the articles of fornication represent false gospels.

    I was interested to hear the following comments you made – “I am no authority. God is showing me through the Scriptures that the church is Spiritually destroyed, and the doctrines I stated earlier are being misinterpreted as Christ is no longer there.”

    And – “Where did I hear what? The gospel I think churches should be teaching? Certainly the Bible and not HC. I disagree with HC on issues of scripture, because we are all different and we understand things differently.”

    So, God is showing you thru the scriptures that the church is spiritually destroyed, Christ is no longer there, and you didn’t get this understanding from a church or HC – apparently you’re an island unto yourself. You say we are all different and understand things differently – I would agree with that, but I don’t believe God tells us different things.

    You said you disagree with HC on issues of scripture – which ones? Are you using his method of interpretation? I’m not asking these things merely to challenge you, although because of the nature of our discussion and strongly held beliefs it’s important to know if what you believe can hold up under scrutiny – I’m sincerely interested to know how you arrived where you’re at.

    Laurie ~ Nov 12, 2008 at 12:31 pm

  302. Hey Laurie,

    I am a pastor’s son, and a grandson of a Bishop. i left the church when I was 20 years old after seeing enough speaking in tongues, exorcisms, women pastors, healings and dreams and visions- some of which did come to pass. I grew a strong interest in denouncing false gospels, even to my parent’s faces, which I now regret due to my lack of gentleness.

    Anyways, you have so many questions- I cannot answer them all! lol

    However, one of your statements intruiged me. Proverbs 7 has only a practical meaning?

    The tie in to Proverbs 7is in Rev 18.

    do you remember the harlot saying to the young man:

    Pro 7:16 I have spread my couch with coverings, with striped cloths of Egyptian linen.
    Pro 7:17 I have sprinkled my bed with myrrh, aloes and cinnamon.

    On the bed of fornication are these items. By searching the scriptures, we know these represent false gospels.

    According to rev 18, Babylon the harlot has these items to sell, and the merchants can no longer buy nor sell:

    Rev 18:12 cargo of gold, and silver, and of precious stone, and of pearls, and of fine linen, and of purple, and of silk, and of scarlet, and all thyine wood, and every ivory vessel, and every vessel of very precious wood, and of bronze, and of iron, and of marble,
    Rev 18:13 and cinnamon, and incenses, and ointment, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine meal, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and of bodies and souls of men.

    Here is a tie in to what is happening in the church.

    Mat 21:12 And Jesus entered into the temple of God and threw out all those selling and buying in the temple. And He overthrew the tables of the money changers and the seats of those selling the doves.
    Mat 21:13 And He said to them, It has been written, “My house shall be called a house of prayer,” but you have “made it a den of plunderers.” Isa. 56:7; Jer. 7:11

    This was going on in Christ’s day. It will continue to the end. But as we see homosexual ministers, charasmatic gospels circulate the world, women pastors, the sins cry up to heaven as Satan apears as an angel of light coming as a pseudo-Christ with a gospel so deceiving it could snare the elect- if it were possible.

    May God save us from Judgment Day on 5/21/2011.

    Gary ~ Nov 12, 2008 at 11:53 pm

  303. Gary,

    I can relate to your experience – my father was a pastor, too. The church I was raised in was charismatic, so I saw some of the things you’re talking about. I too, have an interest in cults and false teaching, which is why I’m cautious about anyone teaching something “new”.

    Although I agree there are many churches that have serious problems – I don’t agree with homosexual ministers or women pastors either – not all of them are like that.

    I appreciate you explaining about the items in Prov. 7 and how you think it ties in with Rev. 18 and Jesus overturning the money changers tables. As I said before, I do believe there can be layers of deeper meaning in scripture, but we can’t make that assumption just because it makes verses support what we want to believe – we have to understand what the scripture clearly says, first – then we can look to see if there’s more we can glean from it.

    What we need to understand about Babylon in Rev. 18 is that it’s not only a false religious system, it’s the center of the worldwide commercial system as well. This is another way we know this is not the church. When it’s destroyed, the kings and merchants mourn over the loss of riches – this happens toward the end of the tribulation, shortly before Christ arrives and confronts the armies of the beast and the kings of the earth. The luxury items described here are not items of idolatry – this is the type of merchandise they traded in. If you look at Ezekiel chapter 27, you’ll find a listing of items that is very similar to what you see here, and it’s not symbolic of idolatry or fornication there either – the merchandise it speaks of is simply that – merchandise.

    Not everything is intended to have a symbolic meaning. When Jesus got angry at the money changers, it wasn’t because of idolatry or fornication – it was because they were taking advantage of people – at the temple, no less!

    So you agree with HC’s date setting – what are the scriptural issues you don’t agree with him on?

    Laurie ~ Nov 13, 2008 at 12:53 am

  304. If I may horn in with a quick question, for Gary, Lars, whomever will take it up and attempt to answer: “the churches” are all the devil’s household, or whatever you guys want to call “the churches”, I guess because false doctrine is taught in them, etc. I’ve asked Lars to identify, but he wasn’t willing to; maybe I’ll get further with Gary. When one says “the church” or “all the churches”, one is lumping together an impossible number of entities, from the heretic and apostate to those which, I believe, faithfully communicate the gospel of Christ. That’s the real question, and that’s the rub: can Gary, or Lars, or whomever answer this for me: what is the gospel? No, don’t say “the Bible”, because of course the gospel is the subject of the Bible, but specifically, if a person approached you and asked, “how can I be right with God? How can I know that I will live forever with God?”, what would you answer? Wouldn’t that be a great starting point to get either agreement (which would be hoped for) or clarity upon disagreement? Just one of you guys, or maybe both, take a stab at articulating that, and perhaps we could move this discussion along…thanks.

    Byron ~ Nov 13, 2008 at 3:22 pm

  305. Hi Byron,

    The answer is “The Bible.”

    We do not like the answer, but God intended it that way.

    This verse helps me explain that the Bible is the gospel.

    Luk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

    The gospel focuses on Christ- beginning to end.

    Gary ~ Nov 13, 2008 at 7:33 pm

  306. Hi Marc,

    i am sorry for not getting back to you sooner. The secret key in the Bible is Christ opening up understanding in the Bible in our time.

    I do not understand the Biblical calendar of history as HC or even you the critic, but I understand the teaching of the End of God using the external church, which is a figure of the kingdom of heaven.

    God says in scripture, “no man knows the day or the hour….” most people know this verse just as “For God so loved the world..”

    2011 is scary. If we are hones with ourselves, we say we want the Lord to come if it is so, but God knows our hearts.

    1Th 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
    1Th 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

    Gary ~ Nov 13, 2008 at 11:00 pm

  307. Byron,

    I read thru HC’s online teaching on salvation – the title says it all – “I Hope God Saves Me”.

    First of all, HC says none of the churches are teaching the gospel – apparently only he understands the Bible well enough to tell people what the Bible really teaches about salvation. Having said that, he goes into a long, drawn-out explanation of sinful man, his need to be saved, how Jesus died to pay for our sin, how being born again works, etc. Some of it is no different than what most churches teach.

    Where he really goes off track, in my opinion, is how he presents God’s election – he takes the saving work of Christ to a new level when he says there is nothing anyone can do to be saved – not even choose. The only requirement is that they hear the gospel, and since God chose His elect before the foundation of the world, He’s already decided who will be saved, so we really don’t have a choice. An unsaved person, whose conscience has convicted him of sin, has believed and accepted Christ, shows the fruit of a changed life by his attempts to obey God – may not be saved – not because he was not genuinely repentant or living a double life, but because God didn’t choose him. Belief and repentance are works, according to HC, and we can’t be saved by works.

    So no one has any assurance of salvation – you won’t know until you die whether you were one of the elect. This is why you hear HC followers talk about God’s mercy so much – it’s their only hope. They can read the Bible, study, pray, try to obey God, etc., but they cannot know if they are saved. As if that wasn’t bad enough, HC also teaches that there is NO MERCY FOR THOSE WHO THINK THAT THEY CAN INITIATE OR ASSIST IN ANY WAY IN THEIR SALVATION. I capitalized it because that’s how HC shows it.

    HC uses a lot of scriptures to try to prove this – unfortunately, when he comes to the ones that contradict what he believes, he argues against them. Gen. 15:6, which says righteousness was imputed to Abraham because he believed God – HC says this is an impossibility – based, of course, on his assertion that belief is a “work”. He attempts to change the meaning of the verse by saying there’s a translation problem – conveniently, it works in his favor. The verse that says we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law (Gal. 2:16) – HC says according to Greek grammar, “might be justified” indicates “an intention with a good probability that it might happen”.

    He says the prayer of the unsaved suppliant must be, “Oh, God, have mercy on me. I do not deserve salvation. I am thankful that as I diligently strive to do thy will, I know that only God can qualify me so that I will be seeking God with all my heart and soul, and this can be true only when I have been given a new heart, that is, when God has already saved me.”

    Laurie ~ Nov 14, 2008 at 1:18 am

  308. Gary,

    No, Gary. Mr. Camping explained the key that unlocked the previously hidden Biblical Calendar, and this key was not Christ opening up our understanding of the Bible.

    Mr. Camping’s instructs you to trust the Bible alone, and not to trust him. The way Mr. Camping arrived at the year 2011 was by using his Biblical timeline of history and projecting the date of the final judgment. Therefore, you must examine the Bible to make sure his Biblical proof of the timeline of history is in harmony with everything we read in the Bible. I would have assumed that you would have done that.

    In his recent book “We Are Almost There,” Mr. Camping does not offer Biblical proof for his Biblical Calendar (Biblical Timeline). Instead he references his early book “Adam When?” for this proof. In the chapter 4 of “Adam When?” Mr. Camping gives his Biblical proof of his calendar. He offers the “key” that unlocks the previously hidden Biblical Calendar. My point is that none of Mr. Camping’s followers, including you, can articulate what this key is. Not even being able to identify this key proves that you are not checking this key out to make sure that this key to the calendar is in harmony with everything we read in the Bible.

    Mr. Camping’s Biblical Timeline of History is foundational to his unusual doctrines and predictions. Mr. Camping’s followers do not even know what Mr. Camping identified was the Biblical key that proved his Biblical Calendar. Therefore, it is obvious that they are not checking to make sure that Mr. Camping’s Calendar key is in harmony with everything we read in the Bible. They are trusting in Mr. Camping rather than trusting in the Bible.

    Marc ~ Nov 14, 2008 at 2:47 am

  309. Hello Marc,

    May God give us wisdom to look at the whole Bible carefully.

    Gary ~ Nov 14, 2008 at 7:00 am

  310. On your definition of the gospel, can’t agree with you, Gary, although to say that sounds like I’m dissing the Bible! And I sure am not. I’d put it this way (and this would be in line with Luke 24): the core message of the Bible is the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Bible isn’t the point; Jesus is, right? And so if somebody asked me about the gospel, I’d point them to the Bible, because its message points to Christ, of course–but the Bible itself isn’t the gospel; the message of Christ’s death and resurrection for us, which is testified to in the whole Bible, is the gospel.

    Byron ~ Nov 14, 2008 at 11:20 am

  311. @Laurie: The picture I’m getting–and even though I authored the original post, of course, I know a lot less about HC and his teaching than do you and Marc (thanks for posting, guys!)–is that HC wants to put a lot of words into the mouths of those whom he opposes; wants to broadbrush anybody that doesn’t agree with his particular take on things (“the churches”); wants to redefine “belief” in such a way as the Bible itself doesn’t even define it (and then tar his opponents with teaching things that they do not, at least in many cases, teach). I agree with HC (I guess) that it is God Who initiates, that God elects (Ephesians 1 makes that clear, although there seems to me to be some room for different shades of understanding with regard to that), and that there’s nothing we can do to in any way merit our salvation. I have come to accept the idea that our faith itself is a gift from God, not something that we work up of our own volition. But simply accepting what God offers, as He gives us faith to do so, is not a “work” in any sense of the term, and to suggest that it is is to really screw up Scripture pretty severely, it seems to me.

    Byron ~ Nov 14, 2008 at 11:29 am

  312. Hey Byron,

    Thanks 4 your message. Are we to assume that the whole Bible is not the gospel oF Christ?

    Only certain books contain the gospel? This is a seriously important principle-

    The gospel is the Bible- Genesis to Revelation.

    Please read Hebrews 11.

    Gary ~ Nov 14, 2008 at 1:19 pm

  313. @Gary: Your phraseology is not one which I would choose, so let me explain what I believe. The central theme of the Bible, the plot line around which everything revolves, the purpose for which the Bible was written, is the unfolding story of the redemption of sinful man through the substitutionary death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is the gospel. Every part of the Bible in some way plays into that unfolding story line. Some books/passages are quite explicit; others are more “secondary”, for lack of a better term, but all play a supportive role. But there is a core message contained within the Word, the “nutshell”, and that is the gospel, the message of salvation through the grace of God alone by faith alone in Christ alone. Without understanding that basic gospel message, man cannot be saved. On the other hand, not having a firm grasp on the Old Testament genealogies doesn’t endanger one’s standing before God. That’s not to say that those don’t have their level of importance, or that they do not in some way help us more fully understand God’s redemptive work in Christ; it is to say that they are not, per se, the “gospel”, and so no, I would not agree that “the gospel is the Bible”, but rather that the Bible elucidates, as its pre-eminent theme, the unfolding story of God’s redemption; i.e., the gospel of Jesus Christ. Even saying that, the Bible is all “good news”, if we want to speak in broad categories, but I think that to say “the gospel is the Bible” is overbroad and needlessly confusing.

    And so when I ask “what is the gospel”, with a view toward helping another individual understand and find Christ, to simply answer “the Bible” isn’t particularly helpful. That in no way whatever diminishes the importance of reading/studying/trying to understand the Bible; quite the contrary. But when we’re told in I Peter to be “ready to give a reason for the hope that is in” us, it doesn’t serve us all that well to simply say, “the Bible”. No, I need to be able to articulate, to the best of my understanding, what the Bible teaches is the core of that message: the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Song of Solomon in some way amplifies that, but I wouldn’t say to a person, “go read Song of Solomon, and you’ll have the gospel”, or even, for that matter, the entire Old Testament, because while the coming of the Messiah, etc., is