Chuck Smith’s Prophetic Pronouncements Under the Microscope

Chuck Smith, founder of Calvary Chapel and senior pastor of Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa, California, has authored another prophecy book: The Final Act: Setting the Stage of the End Times Drama. The book carries the ringing endorsement of Tim LaHaye, co-author with Jerry Jenkins of the widely popular Left Behind series of prophetic novels. LaHaye offers the following complimentary words: “This unique dramatic treatment is both true to the Scripture and practical—both hallmarks of all Pastor Chuck’s teaching! I found it very interesting.” In addition to his new prophecy book, Smith has written the Foreword to Breaking the Apocalypse Code co-authored by Mark Hitchcock and Thomas Ice. Breaking the Apocalypse Code is said to be a “point-by-point” critique of Hank Hanegraaff’s The Apocalypse Code (2007).

I found it ironic that LaHaye would write that Smith’s teaching is “true to the Scripture” on the subject of prophecy when Smith has been so wrong on the subject for more than 30 years. I was surprised that Ice would want Smith to publish¹ and write the Foreword to a book on prophecy when Ice has written “Why the Bible Still Prohibits Date Setting.”² Has Smith read Ice’s paper, and has Ice read Smith’s prophecy books? Norman Geisler’s claim that Breaking the Apocalypse Code is “an excellent point-by-point critique of the fallacious claims . . . [of the] preterist interpolation of the End Times” stunned me since Smith has had a long history of making “fallacious claims” in his “interpolation of the end times.” Dr. Geisler is the dean of Southern Evangelical Seminary and the founder and president of the International Society of Christian Apologetics. He is applying a hermeneutical double standard, critiquing the interpretive methodology of Hanegraaff’s Apocalypse Code (a legitimate academic exercise) but saying nothing of the date-setting methodology of Chuck Smith.

In his 1978 book End Times, Chuck Smith wrote the following: “If I understand Scripture correctly, Jesus taught us that the generation which sees the ‘budding of the fig tree,’ the birth of the nation of Israel, will be the generation that sees the Lord’s return. I believe that the generation of 1948 is the last generation. Since a generation of judgment is forty years and the Tribulation period lasts seven years, I believe the Lord could come back for His Church any time before the Tribulation starts, which would mean any time before 1981. (1948 + 40 – 7 = 1981).”³ If this prophetic math sounds familiar, it’s because the same end-time logic was used by Hal Lindsey in The Late Great Planet Earth (1970).

In order to cover himself against charges of date setting, Smith wrote that “it is possible that Jesus is dating the beginning of the generation from 1967, when Jerusalem was again under Israeli control for the first time since 587 B.C. We don’t know for sure which year actually marks the beginning of the last generation.”⁴ A 1967 starting point to begin calculations and a 40-year generation would mean the rapture should have taken place before 2000. While it sounds like Smith is simply engaging in conjecture, in his book Future Survival, which was first published in 1978 and updated in 1980, his prophetic dogmatism is retained:

Keep in mind that it’s not only important to show where Smith was wrong in his predictions, it’s crucial that we understand that he is using an interpretive model that leads him to make these predictions. We could easily turn Geisler’s criticism around and point it at Smith and much of the date-setting rhetoric of futurists: “This is an excellent point-by-point critique of the fallacious claims . . . [of the] futurist interpolation of the End Times”.

Smith wrote in 1980 that from his “understanding of biblical prophecies, he was “convinced that the Lord [would come] for His Church before the end of 1981.” He did add that he “could be wrong” but went on to say in the same sentence that “it’s a deep conviction in my heart, and all my plans are predicated upon that belief.”⁵ Notice the last statement. He may have voiced some doubts, but actions speak louder than words. He made plans based on his beliefs that were founded on his “understanding of biblical prophecies.” Remember, LaHaye wrote that Smith’s teaching is “true to the Scripture” which is a hallmark “of all of Pastor Chuck’s teaching.” On these and other prophetic claims, the test of time has proved Smith to be wrong.

On December 31, 1979, Smith told his church audience that the rapture would take place before the end of 1981. He went on to say that because of ozone depletion Revelation 16:8 would be fulfilled during the tribulation period: “And the fourth angel poured out his bowl upon the sun; and it was given to it to scorch men with fire.”⁶ In addition, Halley’s Comet would pass near the Earth in 1986 and would wreak havoc on the earth for those left behind as debris from its million-mile-long tail pummeled the earth.⁷ Here’s how Smith explained the prophetic scenario in his book Future Survival which is nearly identical to what appears on the taped message:

Nothing significant happened in 1986 related to Halley’s Comet, and there is no reason why it should have since it’s been a predictable phenomenon for more than two millennia that can be seen every 75 to 76 years. In fact, Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) was a better prophet than Smith. Clemens was born on November 30, 1835, two weeks after the comet’s appearance. In his biography, he said, “I came in with Halley’s Comet in 1835. It is coming again next year (1910), and I expect to go out with it. It will be the greatest disappointment of my life if I don’t go out with Halley’s Comet. The Almighty has said, no doubt: ‘Now here are these two unaccountable freaks; they came in together, they must go out together.’” Clemens died on April 21, 1910, the day following the comet’s appearance.⁹

To be fair, in a March 30, 1989 interview with William Alnor, Smith admitted that he “was guilty of coming close” to “date setting,” and this was wrong.¹⁰ But when we look back over Smith’s statements about the timing of specific prophetic events, we can see that he did more than come close to date setting. He wrote, “We’re the generation that saw the fig tree bud forth, as Israel became a nation again in 1948.” We are nearly 60 years removed from the 1948 founding of Israel. The interpretive methodology used by Smith, Lindsey, Dave Hunt, and others making the 1948–1988 connection was fundamental to their claim that they were following a literal hermeneutic. If a literal hermeneutic results in near certainty of when prophetic events will take place but ends in a colossal miscalculation on a key element of their system, how should the interpretive methodology that brought them to that calculation be evaluated? To paraphrase Jesus, An interpretive tree is known by its fruit, and the 1948–1988 timetable has turned out to be rotten fruit no matter how you slice it.

You need to read more carefully. That says "the heavenly Jerusalem" which is different from this Jerusalem:

How do you know that? Hebrews was written after Zechariah, after all the facts were known about God's entire salvation program. In fact the entire book of Hebrews is devoted to teaching that all the types here on earth were mere pictures of the reality in heaven. E.g.,

1 Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this One also have something to offer. 4 For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law; 5 who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, "See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain." (Heb. 8)

By empathizing the earthly Jerusalem you are only concerned about the copy, which was temporary and carnal (Gal. 4). The proof is obvious, just look to the NT to find any suggestion that earthly Jerusalem has an eschatological future.

All you have succeeded in doing is demonstrating the failure of the dispensational system to take all of the Bible into account when interpreting passages.

1 4 For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law; 5 who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, "See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain." (Heb. 8) By empathizing the earthly Jerusalem you are only concerned about the copy, which was temporary and carnal (Gal. 4). The proof is obvious, just look to the NT to find any suggestion that earthly Jerusalem has an eschatological future. All you have succeeded in doing is demonstrating the failure of the dispensational system to take all of the Bible into account when interpreting passages.

Well once again all that you have succeeded in doing is demonstrating your inability to read and understand words properly, especially those in Hebrews. The author of Hebrews is talking about "the priests and things in the tabernacle that are a copy and shadow". He is not talking about Jerusalem which was not built after the heavenly Jerusalem. The City of David was not built as a copy or shadow of the heavenly Jerusalem above.

You really need to quit stretching things --

It will be this nation returned from its 2000 year Diaspora.

How one can misinterpret the Bible so badly in the face of all the evidence just amazes me. What you need to twist and turn to deny the obvious.

First of all, this quaint theory that Peter was writing strictly to Jews and that "holy nation" is somehow speaking of events thousands of years in the future is pure fantasy.

It is also contradicted by just reading all of 1 Peter.

1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied. (1 Peter 1)
4 Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 2)
1 The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: 2 Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; 3 nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; 4 and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away. (1 Peter 5)

Peter was an apostle of the church, not earthly Israel. He was called by Jesus Christ to lead the Church, not earthly Israel. He was an elder "of the flock of God" which is the Church, not earthly Israel. He speaks of grace and the gospel, not things which dispensationalists relate to earthly Israel.

"The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits of it." [Mt 21:43]

What are you saying here? That there are two (or more) sets of the Jewish nation? Is that another item to add to my list of dispensational slice and dice results; two Jewish nations?

This view gets more bizarre all the time.

***22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. (Hebrews 12)***

You know what is interesting about this passage is that it comes in the midst of a present tense exhortation to the saints so that they don’t become wearied and faint in their minds. Evidently, some pretty stressful things were happening to the Hebrews.

Then, the writer comes to this passage that I have cited. What is interesting here is that the tense in the phrase “but you have come...” is a perfect tense. It carries with it the idea that the action was completed in the past and need not be repeated. IOW, in the midst of a present tense discussion about the suffering and chastisment of the saints it is pointed out as an event which already occured and need not be repeated that we have come to Zion, to the city of the living God.

And, the discussion continues a little while further down by noting that we are receiving a kingdom, present tense. Now, I know that the Dispensationalists will straight away get out his tense shifter cards and presume that all these things speak about future events, but they do so by running over the fact that the context of the discussion is the current chastisement of the saints:

Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset [us], and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of [our] faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.

***What are you saying here? That there are two (or more) sets of the Jewish nation? Is that another item to add to my list of dispensational slice and dice results; two Jewish nations?***

Chip’s assertions seem to be that whenever he sees “nation” in his NT it must refer always to a geographic entity composed of a pure blood people. Thus when you noted that we are a royal priesthood and a holy nation, that must refer to the physical local of Israel.

You see, rather than looking at the context for meaning, you presume a fixed definition and read that into the passage. And, even if the passage is using present tense verbs, you always assume that it is a future event.

There you go again.

Flaunting your discernment publicly!

I thought we were supposed . . . as in supposed to . . .

leave the cheekiness to the Replacementarians.

Such sharp quick discernment might leave them with an epidemic of insecurity complexes!

We have to be compassionate. Maybe in the millenium.

Oh, that’s now . . . in the realm of Replacementarian Fantasies.

Thankfully, WE don’t have to live THERE!

LOL.

I guess I should have my tea. It’s so easy to be obnoxious so early in the morning without it.

What nation do Preterists think it is????

Well, interpreting Scripture with Scripture one can only conclude it is the "holy nation" that Peter references. "But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation," (1 Peter 2:9). Not future tense. Present tense. The only "holy nation" at that time was the Church, what Paul in Ephesians 2 describes as the commonwealth made up of Jews and gentiles.

BTW, it’s not just preterist that interpret this correctly, but most if not all non-dispensationalists. Perhaps all non-hyper-dispensationalists, since I have never heard a dispensationalist try to argue that the "holy nation" of 1 Peter 2 is not the Church. That is a new one on me.

You aren’t making sense. You said you were curious. I said you weren’t. You said “then why come bargin’ in?” So, I guess I am to take that because Topcat54 has absolutely no interest in actually listening to what dispensationalists have to say, that means they shouldn’t say it. Gee, that almost sounds like a democrat.

Now that makes no sense. I was really curious why you would come around, post a bit, then complain about the tenor of the messages from the get-go, pout, and go marching home.

I have a great interest in what dispensationalists say when it makes sense from the Bible. But when they are pressed to actually defend their views from the Bible, or it is pointed out how one statement is inconsistent with the Bible, they tend to take it personally. I don’t get it.

As Michael Corleone said, "It's not personal. It's strictly business."

First, I haven’t gone anywhere. Second, my first post was not a complaint. It was a clarification. The second one was calling someone out on using the term “dispies” to non-dispensationalists. Third, I’m not pouting. I’m simply calling it as I have seen it on multiple threads. There is NO interest in our biblical arguments. Our biblical arguments are dismissed. If there were truly a good-faith interest, we could look at the Scriptures, say “ I can see where you could see that, but I believe it really teaches this...” and agree to disagree. There is NONE of that around here, at least not in our conversations.

Take Chuck Smith for instance. He is ridiculed and painted as a heretic in this article and the corresponding commentary that you posted. In reality, he is currently in the middle of a split in the Calvary chapels over far more insidious heresies than any eschatological views he may or may not have. He is standing against the emergent church, which is destroying churches across this land. But, he will never get any sort of credit for any good that he believes because people are too interested in demonizing him.

As to this thread,the insults started before a single dispensationalist had said a thing. There is no interest in discussing things. There is an interest in belittling and feeling superior.

When I was in seminary, I was one of a handful of folks that took a pre-trib, pre-mill view of Scripture. Most of my profs were post-trib, and a few Amill. Nobody was a preterist. Yet, we could discuss our points of view and still respect one another because of our approach to the Scriptures.

You and I would agree on a great number of things. First of all, I’m a 5 point Calvinist. But, we will never get that far because of the ugliness that surrounds these threads. I wish it weren’t that way. But the political nature of this site has seemed to make it acceptable to use the same level of discourse when talking with brothers and sisters in Christ.

And Michael Corleone may have said, “It’s not personal. It’s strictly business.” But is that the excuse that you want to give before the judgment seat of Christ? It’s not one I will want to raise? Truly, our sins were judged on the cross. But the works which we have done, in terms of reward, have yet to be examined. All of this supposed contending for truth on these threads...all of the insults...all of the name calling; how is that going to stack up when motivation is examined. “Sorry Lord, it wasn’t personal. It was business.” I don’t want to be in those shoes. Not saying I’m perfect. Not saying that my motivations are always pure. They aren’t. But we should all take stock in what we are saying and why we are saying it.

Second, my first post was not a complaint. It was a clarification.

Was that the one removed by the moderator?

There is NO interest in our biblical arguments. Our biblical arguments are dismissed.

Your arguments are dismissed when they are compared to the Bible and found incomplete or contradictory to all that the Bible teaches. Your response is that we must adopt dispensational ways in order to appreciate the truth and complexity of the system. We must see the light, as it were.

Take Chuck Smith for instance. He is ridiculed and painted as a heretic in this article and the corresponding commentary

Is that a use of hyperbole? I do not know how you are using the term "heresy".

Smith was wrong three decades ago. The same methodology that gave him his wrong answer three decades ago is still in place as best as we can tell. That is the sum substance of the beef with Smith in this article. It is the system that is flawed. The system pushes men like Smith and Van Impe (and they are not alone) to make predictions. The system pushes people to claim that Jesus will return almost for sure in the next 100 years.

But we should all take stock in what we are saying and why we are saying it.

There is a difference between attacking ideas and attacking people. The thrust of this article, and the intent of my comments is to attack ideas that do not square with the word of God. Dangerous ideas, IMO. Just as apparently Smith is justified in attacking what he perceives to be a threat from the emergents to his own denomination.

Can we do it in a civil fashion? Absolutely. Sometime I just refuse to respond to people who cannot communicate in a civil fashion, and never seem to be able to articulate a single meaningful thought from the Bible. But I do not use that as an excuse for not responding to hard questions about my ideas. That seems to be what you are doing in this case. I hope I’m wrong.

Second, my first post was not a complaint. It was a clarification. Was that the one removed by the moderator?
Dont' know why the post was removed. I don't recall saying anything in particular in that post other than that they shouldn't have painted over the "Jesus is coming soon."

Your arguments are dismissed when they are compared to the Bible and found incomplete or contradictory to all that the Bible teaches. Your response is that we must adopt dispensational ways in order to appreciate the truth and complexity of the system. We must see the light, as it were.
This isn't the way it goes, Topcat, and you know it. You do not have one ounce of interest in possibly discerning whether or not dispensationalism contains truth. I have had lonnnnngg discussions with you about it before. I have laid out multiple scriptures and disagree vehemently that they contradict anything. And, truly, I do not see where you get your theology without dismissing the Old Testament promises of God to Israel regarding her land. It just doesn't mesh.

Smith was wrong three decades ago. The same methodology that gave him his wrong answer three decades ago is still in place as best as we can tell. That is the sum substance of the beef with Smith in this article. It is the system that is flawed. The system pushes men like Smith and Van Impe (and they are not alone) to make predictions. The system pushes people to claim that Jesus will return almost for sure in the next 100 years.
A biblical dispensationalist will not set dates. When they do, most dispensationalists shake their heads and say "here we go again." This does not mean that we don't believe in Christ's imminent personal return. And yes, it could be today. It could be 100 years. It could 1000 years. We don't know. That was my point with 100 years. Not setting a date. Yet, you tried to make it out like I was date setting. That is not a good-faith discussion if you ask me.

There is a difference between attacking ideas and attacking people. The thrust of this article, and the intent of my comments is to attack ideas that do not square with the word of God. Dangerous ideas, IMO. Just as apparently Smith is justified in attacking what he perceives to be a threat from the emergents to his own denomination.
Uhhhhh. Reread this thread. Starting with the term "dispies." There has been plenty of people attacking going on.

Can we do it in a civil fashion? Absolutely. Sometime I just refuse to respond to people who cannot communicate in a civil fashion, and never seem to be able to articulate a single meaningful thought from the Bible. But I do not use that as an excuse for not responding to hard questions about my ideas. That seems to be what you are doing in this case. I hope I’m wrong.
I'm only avoiding answering your questions because I know where it got me before. Nowhere. During the last thread we had a conversation about the Rapture, you weren't the slightest interested in discussing anything. Lee N. Field was at least cordial. I did not fall off of a turnip truck. I have a college (and beyond college) education. I know the difference between an exchange of ideas and a catfight. That is why I won't engage you. I've been there before.

God bless you with His revelation of seeing you as He sees you. You are so treasured and beloved by our great glorious God. He has blessed you with intelligence, gifts of communication, writing, technology and a heart to reach out.

I pray God uses His gifts for His glory to bless Him so that you will be eternally blessed in following after the example of our precious Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Mat 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Rom 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.

Please Daddy God bless Topcat54 Gary Demar to use the gifts You've abundantly blessed him with to use them for Your glory and good pleasure. Please LORD soften his heart and bless him to understand experiencing Your great mercy and grace that Your love would be His great joy and freedom from anything holding him. Please LORD bless him to see You clearly and seek You that You would reveal Yourself to him in the way he can understand and easily accept and feel safe to respond to Your love by accepting Your mercy & grace through believing in Jesus Christ and sharing Your mercy and grace to bless You and build up people believers and non believers alike to draw all closer to You dear LORD our Daddy God. In Jesus’ name I pray. Amen.

Thank you.

Jesus loves you so much that He gave His life for you in complete obedience to our glorious heavenly Daddy God so you might believe in Him and be saved from eternal separation in hell. Please give our LORD a chance to shower His grace and mercy upon you.

In Christ,
Sunny

FREE CONCERTS Somebody Loves You Crusade JUNE 27-29, 2008L.A. Convention Center (South Hall)

FRI 7:30PM open 6:30PM Special Armed Forces Tribute
Salvador, Jackie Velasquez, Somebody Loves You Praise Band, Oden Fong
SAT EXIT LA Youth Night 5:00PM. Concert 7:00PM
P.O.D., Phil Wickham, Rebirth, Anointed S
SUN 7:30PM. open 6:30PM
Paul Baloche, Somebody Loves You Praise Band, Somebody Loves You Choir

somebodylovesyou.org
Phone: 909-859-6599

This whole article is pointless, Chuch Smith has repented of his “date setting”, and I have personally heard him repent of it on his radio program “Pastor’s Perspective.” I agree, date setting is unbiblical, and now, he agrees with that as well.

Where is the grace for someone who has changed? If he were still saying these things, I would understand your argument, but he’s long since repented of that, and I even heard him say that he would be “Leary of anyone who sets a time or a date”.

You just want a bone to pick with someone, and want to be argumentative. At least pick someone who actually is involved in date setting and get your facts straight.

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.