Skip to comments.Chuck Smith’s Prophetic Pronouncements Under the Microscope
Posted on 11/19/2007 9:57:14 AM PST by topcat54
click here to read article
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.
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 --
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)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.
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)
"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.
Then why come bargin' in?
***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!
I guess I should have my tea. It’s so easy to be obnoxious so early in the morning without it.
Then why come bargin’ in?
= = =
OH HO HO HO!
More raging consistency from the Repalcementarian position!
Just one nation -- the one that returns from the Diaspora.
What nation do Preterists think it is????
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.
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, its 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.
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 dont get it.
As Michael Corleone said, "It's not personal. It's strictly business."
Does this have something to do with their gap theory? Or do they justify misreading the tenses by misapplying 2 Peter 3:8?
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.
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 Im wrong.
Well you need to pick your threads more carefully then before you jump in.
The good thing is you don’t get to choose which threads I pick and which ones I don’t. Nor do I get to choose what you get involved with. ‘Tis why it is an open forum.
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.
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.
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
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.
Thanks for the PTT.
Can you point me to any specific statement where Smith repented of his date setting ways in the '70s/'80s?