Wrong again about Chuck Smith.
Chuck Smith said that he could be wrong but that it was a heartfelt opinion of his that Jesus would return within a generation of 1948 start of the nation of Israel.
That is not by any means the picture that’s normally painted:
Prophet in flowing robes, Chuck Smith, stood in the nation’s capital and said, “Thus saith the Lord, I will return to rapture my church by 1981.” (1948 +40 = 1988 - 7 = 1981 (pre-trib rapture)
First, it was clearly stated “I COULD BE WRONG.”
He CAREFULLY pointed out something he clearly explained as HIS OPINION of scritural research and analysis. He said, “I Could Be Wrong.”
So, unless prepared to give all the facts, then quit with the disinformation campaign.
Smith says he never taught his personal opinion as scriptural doctrine.
There are any number of people unwilling to speculate on scriptural ideas and possibilities. I’m not one of them. With Smith, I will CAREFULLY point out that I mean one thing when I say, “The Scripture Says.” and I mean another when I say, “My opinion....this is Xzins, do with it what you like...is XYZ.”
I could only wish you guys would be that exuberant about correctly stating my views on AD70 vs. the Second Coming.
Smith's words stand for all to read and assess. Was he misunderstood? Perhaps. Was Smith repeating the oft heard claims of those days regarding the timing of Jesus' return? Without question. It's clear that Smith was using the same faulty dispensational math as folks like Lindsey and Whisenant to get from 1948 to 1988. Perhaps he was just being sloppy in his biblical analysis. Perhaps he really did believe that a biblical generation would get him from 1948 to 1988.
Yes, Chuck admitted, “I could be wrong,” but he added, “but it's a deep conviction within my heart, and all my plans are predicated on that belief.” Now, image you are one of the faithful 30 years ago listening to or reading Chuck on the subject. What line are you going to take away from the message, “I could be wrong”? I doubt it.
As I said, Chuck was using faulty dispensational math based on the birth of secular Israel, what he calls a “rebirth”, in 1948.
So, is anyone ready to admit that all the math based on a dispensational generation beginning in 1948 was just a bunch of bunk, and that Smith, et al should have kept their mouths shut?
Smith's claim to not be a date-setter may or may not stand up in a court of law after all the evidence is examined. I just wonder what all those folks who were with Smith at the end of 1981 thought.