"For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Luke 21:22)
Here's an opportunity, boys and girls, to add some books to your collection. Make sure you post your MacArthur responses here.
Posted on 04/30/2007 7:31:54 AM PDT by topcat54
If you want to know when an event in the Bible is to happen, look for time indicators. Some of them are very specific: after three days, in 40 days, after 40 years, at the completion of 70 years. There are less specific time indicators like “near,” “shortly,” “quickly,” and “at hand.” These time words are at the heart of the debate between those who claim that certain prophetic events have already taken place and those who maintain they are yet to be fulfilled. The division between these two views is deep and wide, and yet the implications for interpretive accuracy are fundamental. If prophetic events described in the Bible are said to be “near,” and “near” is interpreted in a fluid way so that it has no specificity in terms of time, then how is it ever possible to nail down the fulfillment of prophetic events? A study of these time words in the NT will show that they always refer to events that were on the near horizon. Get a concordance and check it out for yourself.
Modern-day prophetic speculation lives and breathes off the promise that prophetic events are always near. They take prophecies that the Bible says were soon to be fulfilled for first-century readers and reshape them to fit contemporary headlines. As a result, we are always living on the precipice of some near end-time event. This is why modern-day prophecy books sell by the millions. Few people want to know what happened prophetically two thousand years ago, but they do want to know what’s going to happen in the next few days. And it doesn’t seem to matter that prophecy books are revised every few years to fit the latest headlines. The latest example is the revision of John Walvoord’s Armageddon, Oil, and the Middle East Crisis. Even though Walvoord died in 2002, his book is being given new life with a slightly revised title by its new co-author Mark Hitchcock—Armageddon, Oil, and Terror. The book was first published in 1974 in an attempt to explain what the latest in “prophetic events,” the OPEC oil crisis. Walvoord wrote, “Each day’s headlines raise new questions concerning what the future holds.”1 The book was reprinted in 1976 and then sank without a trace until a revised edition appeared in late 1990 when the six-month build-up for the Gulf War was in its final stages. The new edition reflected changing world events:
The world today is like a stage being set for a great drama. The major actors are already in the wings waiting for their moment in history. The main stage props are already in place. The prophetic play is about to begin. . . . Our present world is well prepared for the beginning of the prophetic drama that will lead to Armageddon. Since the stage is set for this dramatic climax of the age, it must mean that Christ’s coming for his own is very near.2
When the Gulf War ended abruptly, the book was being remaindered for twenty-five cents a copy, if it was bought by the case! Once again, Walvoord’s prophetic speculation proved inaccurate. This did not stop Tyndale House Publishers from releasing this third edition with the revised title and content to reflect a change in headlines. The promotion material assures us that its content “is as current as today’s news . . . and every prediction rings true.” Where have we heard this before?
Walvoord claimed in 1990 that “Christ’s coming for his own is very near.” The New Testament, written nearly 2000 years ago, said that Christ’s coming was “near” (James 5:8–9; Rev. 1:3). In his September 16, 2001, International Intelligence Briefing Report, aired on the Trinity Broadcasting Network, Hal Lindsey told viewers: “Tuesday, September 11, 2001, the end began. . . . The events, even of this week, show us that we’re very near the end. The whole predicted scenario is fulfilled right before our eyes. All the pieces of that predicted puzzle that would indicate Christ’s coming was just around the corner are in place. . . . I believe that, right now, we need to focus on the great hope that we have that Jesus Christ is soon coming and [is] going to translate [rapture] us from mortal to immortal.” This is the same Hal Lindsey who assured his readers in the 1970 publication of Late Great Planet Earth that Jesus would rapture His church before 1988. He’s the same “prophecy expert” who claimed in his The 1980’s: Countdown to Armageddon that “The decade of the 1980’s could very well be the last decade of history as we know it.” You would think that these errors in predicting the end would have been enough for Christians to rethink the basic tenets of dispensationalism.
Notice how Lindsey, like Walvoord, uses the time words “near,” “around the corner,” and “soon” to describe events that will take place shortly. Every person who reads their choice of time words knows exactly what “near,” “soon,” and “just around the corner.” Yet when these same time words are used in the Bible, all of a sudden they take on a mystical, non-literal meaning. John writes, “for the time is near” (Rev. 1:3). Why doesn’t John’s “near” mean the same as Walvoord and Lindsey’s “near”? Why didn’t the use of “the Judge is standing right at the door” (James 5:8–9) mean the same as Lindsey’s “just around the corner” to those who first read James’ letter?
The latest entry into prophetic speculation is John MacArthur’s Because the Time is Near. He writes in the Introduction:
As noted on page 332, the book of Revelation deserves immediate proclamation because the end is near. As the angel told John in the final chapter of Revelation, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book for the time is near.” (22:10). And so we study Christ’s future return—a return Jesus Himself says is imminent (22:7, 12, 20).3
Does MacArthur’s “near” mean the same as the Bible’s “near”? Remember that John received the Revelation in the first century. What did its first readers understand by “near”? These would be good questions to ask him. Drop MacArthur a line and let me know if he responds. For the first ten people who get a response, I’ll send you some free books.
1. John F. Walvoord and John E. Walvoord, Armageddon, Oil and the Middle East Crisis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1974), 7.
2. John W. Walvoord, Armageddon, Oil and the Middle East Crisis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990), 228.
3. John MacArthur, Because the Time is Near: John MacArthur Explains the Book of Revelation (Chicago: Moody Press, 2007), 14.
"For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Luke 21:22)
Here's an opportunity, boys and girls, to add some books to your collection. Make sure you post your MacArthur responses here.
Dang man, you really have it in for this guy.
I like John. But he’s not Jesus. He can be and often is wrong with some of his theological observations. Nothing wrong with pointing out apparent inconsistencies.
We worship God not men.
I think it is not so much an issue of being wrong, as it is being in disagreement. Scholars have disagreed over theological issues for centuries...even from the beginning. "Wrong" implies that you are "right" - do you know that for a fact?
Actually, not necessarily. We could both be wrong. But we can't both be right.
do you know that for a fact?
We are not dealing with facts, but with interpretation of God’s revelation.
When someone like a MacArthur stands up in front of a bunch of pastors and upbraids them for not being self-described leaky dispensationalists, you get the sense that this is more than just a “disagreement” for him. You don’t make the sorts of comments that he did unless you believe you are right and your opponents are wrong.
Could MacArthur be "right"? Sure he could, as could Pelegius, Charles Finney, and the Jehovah's Witnesses. They all based their teachings on the Bible. If I must say that he could be right then they all could be right.
Do NOT paint John with the same brush! There is absolutely no way that they are in the same league with him. John is one of the most solidly biblical preachers living today. Frankly, when someone disagrees with John, I look for what is wrong with the other's position.
BTW - we really are going round in circles on this. Believe what you will, I am solidly in John's camp...and will remain there.
Since most of these guys are not living today, that has little bearing on the subject. But is John any more resistant to error than Charles Finney? What makes him so special?
Frankly, when someone disagrees with John, I look for what is wrong with the other's position.
And there you have it. This is theology by appealing to experts. But we know that “every man is a liar” (Belgic Confession, Article 7) and no one is capable of getting every point of doctrine right. You, me, or MacArthur.
Just cuz John does a good job most of the time in the pulpit does not give him an pass on any subject. Even Paul had the Bereans searching the Scripture.
So in this area I think he is just plain wrong, and so do many other Bible scholars who are the theological equal of MacArthur.
BTW - we really are going round in circles on this. Believe what you will, I am solidly in John's camp...and will remain there.
I could make some sly remark like, “I’m in the Bible’s camp” but that would not be right.
GREAT LINE!
Ping for this afternoon.
What say ye?
What say ye?
Dispensationalists look for exactly the same thing Israel looked for and that caused them to miss, and deny, Christ. That is my opinion, and that being said, I have the greatest respect for JM.
That position makes the most sense to me.
In Daniel 9 we are told "Seventy weeks are determined For your people and for your holy city, … To seal up vision and prophecy, …”
The “seventy weeks” time period of Daniel’s prophecy concluded long before the traditional AD96 date for the Book of Revelation. The last week is the time of the sacrifice of Messiah Jesus for the sins of his people, and the “determination” of the consummation and desolation of the city.
Revelation had to be given within this time period because of the sealing of vision and prophecy that was foretold.
that is correct. If you recall Steven was stoned to death because he said that Jesus was going to destroy Jerusalem
Pretty good plan. I predict he answers no one.
His strengths are quite near his weaknesses. So we have to value his strengths and not stumble over his weaknesses. And I am not taking a position on this subject because I would have to brush up on the topic before I could compete. But I have been where you are on other issues. He's a good man who is very strong in his own convictions. We need that on the core doctrines.
Im up for some ebooks. I have read quite a bit of JM’s stuff from his web site. He provides some great spiritual brain food.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.