A Good Reason Why Hal Lindsey and/or Jack Van Impe Should Follow Frank Beckwith to Rome
Tuesday, May 15, 2007 at 09:28AM 
I saw this headline and immediately thought that this might be great incentive for one or more of the "end-times prognosticator" club to make the jump to Rome.
"Vatican Denies Hiding the Full Truth About the End of the World" (Click here: Vatican denies hiding the full truth about the end of the world-Comment-Faith-TimesOnline)
Since things in the Middle East and with the ten nations of the European Confederacy (the revived Roman empire) haven't panned out as predicted, this might give Lindsey, Van Impe and others a whole new angle.
According to the article:
"The Vatican tried yesterday to draw a line under a conspiracy theory that has dogged the Catholic Church for decades – that it was harbouring details of the predicted apocalypse. The Pope’s second-in-command, Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, denied that the Church was suppressing a vision of the end of the world said to have been revealed by the Virgin Mary to three shepherd children on a hillside at Fatima in Portugal exactly 90 years ago. The three `Secrets of Fatima' were written down by one of the children, Lucia Dos Santos – who became a Carmelite nun – and sent to the Vatican in a sealed envelope. Two of the `secrets' were made public, apparently predicting the inferno of 20th-century world war and totalitarianism and the eventual reconversion of Communist Russia to Christianity. Pope John Paul II suggested that the third `secret' predicted the 1981 attempt on his life. He failed to satisfy conspiracy theorists however, with many accusing the Vatican of disclosing only part of the last Fatima secret."
Think of the fun Lindsey and Van Impe could have with the "third secret." A whole series of books and novels, DVDs and TV specials . . . But they'd have to follow Beckwith to Rome.
Reader Comments (20)
Or not. I've seen John Loeffler (http://www.steelonsteel.com -- associated in some way w/ Chuck Missler) speculating on Fatima.
BTW, I have heard about Catholic end times fiction, and actually seen Mormon ETF. Read it? HA! Like I've got time.
You can do much better than this. As an academic you must hold higher standards. As a reasonable and rational person, one whom I deeply respect, you can and must point out legitimate differences with the Reformed Confession of Faith and Catholicism.
But it is unreasonable to state Pope John Paul, Sister Lucia herself and current Vatican officials are blatantly, knowingly and intentionally lying. If you have a problem with the Marian dogmas or approved apparitions let's reasonably discuss these matters. I would recommend you read Mary in the Plan of God and in the Communion of Saints: Toward a Common Christian Understanding (Paperback)
And your attempt to lump Hal Lindsey and Jack Van Impe on the Catholic Church is absolutely ludicrous. Not to mention you are being very unfair to Dr. Beckwith, not to mention, unprofessional towards him. You might legitimately disagree with his reasons for returning to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church but to slander him in this manner is below you. Your time would be better spent pointing out the fallacy or errors of his thinking. You can hold an honest and reasonable dialog about that, but in all fairness you must accurately deal with reasons for his returning to the Holy Mother Church.
My point being here to stop creating paper towers only to knock them down. Let's hold a rational and reasonable discussion on all of these matters.
This post is pure sarcasm--a regular theme here. You may not find my tongue in cheek style funny. Too bad. Get over yourself.
Kim - Sarcasm has its place. I grant you this. So I ask you again can we have a reasonable and rational discussion on the publically stated reasons why Dr. Beckwith returned to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church realizing he is writing a major paper or book in the near future on this very topic but we have enough to begin a dialog right now? Can we hold a rational dialog about the communion of saints and miracles? Can we hold a reasonable discussion about the Marian dogmas? I suggest we follow the model of the book which you contributed to entitled Roman Catholicism which was edited by Dr. John Armstrong or of the book entitled Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences edited by Norman Geisler & Ralph MacKenzie. These two books serve are examples of a reasonable and rational dialog for us to follow.
Dr. Armstrong himself has matured over the years on this topic but still remains a firm Calvinist. He is not afraid to hold a rational discussion on these topics or to have Eastern Orthodox or Catholic friends. Even Dr. R.C. Sproul is reasonable enough to recognize the truths of Catholicism where he finds them but carefully and prudently points out where he differs with it as well. Both of these men serve as models for us to follow.
We can hold this dialog in public on this blog and/or privately in person over a meal. I live and work right here in LA. I respect your freedom to choose what you desire to do with this invitation of a real not just virtual friendship.
Chad said...
As an Protestant evangelical who is about to begin a PhD at a Catholic University in Nouvelle Theologie and ecumenism, you can imagine my interest in the developments surrounding Dr. Beckwith's move to Catholicism. What is great about this is that it brings to the surface people's true views on the Protestant evangelical-Catholic relationship. And what I'm finding is that it's much like racism in the South (where I am from) - many people who speak in general terms about integrating black and white suddenly have a problem when it's their daughter dating a black guy. We can talk in broad terms about ecumenism, but when one of your own actually makes a move, it becomes a real problem.
What is most unfortunate about the situation is that it could have been a concrete opportunity to reflect the progress we have made in the evangelical-Catholic relationship. There is nothing in ETS's statement that would exclude Catholics from participating in ETS. Here is the statement: "The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory." In fact, Dr. Peter Kreeft at Boston College remarked when asked if he could sign on to this statement: "Of course I affirm your statement. You Protestants affirm it only because we Catholics defined it first. Not only the canon of scripture but also the doctrine that it is inerrant and that it is the only inerrant written Word of God, were first formulated and taught, and still are, by the Catholic Church. The same goes for the Trinity" (Southern Baptist Theological Journal, 8.4 [2004]: 74-81) (you can read the article online at http://www.uu.edu/personal/rvannest/Professional/ets.htm).
Here, then, is an opportunity to reflect ecumenism if Dr. Beckwith stays with ETS; it shows that there are, in fact, many places where we agree and can work together as evangelicals (whether Protestant or Catholic). Yet, Dr. Beckwith leaves. Why? Because he is now Catholic. He does so because he realizes the controversy that will result in his remaining at ETS. Although I have some problems with the way Dr. Beckwith perceives his own situation (I will gladly expound on that if need be), it is true that many Protestant evangelicals will have serious issues with him if he stays on at ETS (as partially evidenced by all the negative comments on the blogosphere). But again, there is nothing in the ETS statement that would necessarily exclude a Catholic. So, in my opinion, the result is that once again a Protestant evangelical organization is defining itself by what it is not, rather than what it is. It is not, above anything else, Catholic. But what if they agree with everything in the statement? It doesn't matter - we're not Catholic, they are, and so they can't be a part of what we are doing. We are still protesting, but now we're protesting about a point that both Catholics and Protestants agree on (I am refering to the ETS statement). This, then, is foolish and ignorant protesting (in my opinion); this is the kind of evangelicalism that drives me to study Catholic theology, to take better stock of the Church's Tradition, to (by God's mercy and grace) help remove some of the ignorance.
My suggestion, or maybe my hope, is that we would not let this pass too quickly. I feel this is an opportunity to lay some cards on the table. I, in all honestly, feel it's an opportunity for Protestant evangelicals to take stock as to where they are now, where they are going, and how much of their vision of Christianity lines-up with the broader Tradition of the Church. I'm afraid in many ways it doesn't, and in many circles it isn't getting any better. But all is not lost, especially if we embrace situations like this as an opportunity to grow.
---
Speaking as a Protestant, I'd like to divert some of the criticism in the Beckwith incident away from Protestant evangelicalism to Beckwith himself (if I may). First, let me say I respect Dr. Beckwith and believe his conversion was thoughtful and honest. My criticisms flow from that fundamental presupposition. As I interpret the situation, I find nothing explicitly doctrinal that would necessitate Beckwith's leaving the ETS (as I posted earlier, Catholics have explicitly stated that they could agree to the ETS doctrinal statement). Beckwith has given several reasons for his leaving ETS, none of which, in my opinion, are weighty enough to counter the positive that could have come from his staying. In a real, concrete way, we could have witnessed the fruit of the many years of laboring that has occurred between Protestants and Catholics, especially through past theologians such as Barth, Congar, Bouyer, Tavard, and Cullmann, and present ones such as those who have worked on the ECT committee, in which we have realized (or so I thought) that there are things more common to us than is usually stereotyped. But instead, Beckwith resigns. He resigns from a Protestant organization. But, as I read the Catholic Catechism, Protestants - at least those who have not willingly left the Catholic Church - are considered in some way a part of the Catholic Church. So, for Beckwith, there is no reason to leave ETS just because it’s Protestant. In fact, he should be even more willing to stay, since, at least as I read the Catechism, ETS is part of the Catholic Church. And there is no reason to leave because of ETS's doctrinal statement, as I've already stated. He leaves for social reasons. But, I ask, do we actually think we'll be able to take any significant steps toward unity without ruffling some social feathers? What bothers me is why the feathers would be ruffled on the Protestants side...for all I can gather, it's just because he's Catholic. What an opportunity, as I see it, to bring some enlightenment to those Protestants - to see that Catholics and Protestants are in agreement, not just on social issues, but doctrinal issues, as well! But instead, Beckwith leaves. And what does he say by leaving? What does he declare by walking away from the ETS? This leaves me asking, how important is ecumenism to Beckwith? If this is the move from a Catholic convert - an unnecessary move doctrinally and theologically - how much does the Catholic Church REALLY care about us "estranged brethren", to engage us even when it may ruffle some social feathers, to teach us where we may have ignorance? But instead, Beckwith leaves (or runs away as his statements sometimes suggest). And he leaves making a profound statement, as I read it, that Protestants and Catholics have not progressed as far as we sometimes think. I don't think this is actually the case - or at least my faith doesn't allow me to think such is the case. And that is why I see Beckwith's actions as problematic - he may have converted to Catholicism, but he does not seem to embody the Catholic spirit by his departure so willingly from ETS.
Did you not read the first blog where Pastor Kim was more then fair at giving the links to read the full articles as to why Beckwith chose Catholic Church? He was more then fair. So what if he has sarcasm and jokes on his blog. Pastor Kim reports the news as well, and in a fair manner giving links so we can see the actual reports. Being Reformed does not mean being stuffy. Yeal, you can have fun in a Reformed church or on the blog.
A whole series of books and novels, DVDs and TV specials. Pastors please don’t give them any ideas. The Left Behind Series is still going after twelve books. Hal and Van Impe don't need any encouraging as they love to be on TV.
Your comments are reasonable. Yes of course Kim should be able to joke and have fun on this blog and in life in general. And should he do it at the expense of insulting or offending people of other faiths? Is this being reasonable or Christian?
The million dollar question though is he really joking about his differences with Dr. Beckwith or Catholicism in general? If not then he should approach this topic a little more seriously.
Why doesn't he seriously deal with the issue of the Early Church (Anti-Nicean) Fathers being b-C Catholic, little c Catholic, or Protestant?
Why doesn't he seriously deal with possibility of how the Holy Spirit might allow miracles to occur in our day? Why doesn't he seriously deal with the issue of communion of saints? After-all his expertise is in eschatology and the communion of saints deal directly with our role in Heaven, between the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant.
Why doesn't he seriously deal with Dr. Beckwith's comments on justification? Is the matter of justification a joke now for Kim or any of those that follow this blog? I'm just wondering out loud.
True colors do come out eventually.
You must be new to Kim's blog and perhaps unaware of Dr. Riddlebarger's position on the doctrine of justification, et al.
Instead of seeking the church of Rome to explain church history you should drink from the well at the church of Geneva.
You seem to not be tracking why historic Protestants did what they did.
Protestantism is really about the Reformation and contemporary protestants are ignorant and confused about the Reformation and its battle with Rome. How ironic!
In courtesy and truth, Chad's analogy is wrong. The difference is NOT about color; it is more like a daughter dating another woman! (A worse problem.) The spiritual adulteries of Rome are no different than perversions seen in other Christian (including Evangelical) heresies. The entire Old Testament presents ample data to what that works like. (You'd be better served studying this than RC catechisms, btw.) The Roman church commits the "same" errors as the Pharisees. If you don't know how this works, then you're not really a protestant!
David, if you would truly like to get answers to the pleathora of questions you pose, please come visit Christ Reformed Church. All those questions (as far as I know) have been effectively addressed. We heartly welcome those sincerely working-out questions as such.
Christ is in our midst!
Thank you for your invitation. I would love to come and visit Christ Reformed Church to meet you, Kim and so many other good people there.
The work of Keith A. Mathison (his article in Tabletalk & his book - Given for You: Reclaiming Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper) have been very helpful to me.
I look forward to the day when I am able to read the books on worship by Michael Horton, R.C. Sproul and D.G. Hart.
Reading only goes so far though. One must experience it!
"So, as a Christian I can start a blog and say whatever I want in the name of sarcasm?"
I don't recall Pastor Riddlebarger (PR) saying whatever he wants in the name of sarcasm. Unless you can state a specific instance in which PR has misused sarcasm, your statement has no validity.
True colors indeed.
I encourage you on your quest to make sense of "The Faith, once delivered."
Forgive my jitters at the phrase "experience it"...I know what you mean, though: real, human engagement.
Books are thoughts and it's important to get our thinking correct when it comes to "experiences" - which is why God reveals himself in a Book!
When our thinking gets in line with God's Word, what an experience that is!
Ephesians 4:11-16
"And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love."
See? Beckwith or the ETS aren't God's means for unifying Christ's church.
This means there is HOPE!
while we confessionalists are regularly charged with making too much of our forms (usually evangies) to interpret scripture, i think the case could be made that evangies make too much of their parachuch organizations to interpret the church. of course, our confessionalism is misunderstood. evangy takes on the church (read: parachurch) are way off base.
also, experience gets way short-shrift anymore, but let's not let those who abuse experience keep us from it. intellect and experience are NOT mutually exclusive. the church is not a glorified lecture hall any more than she is a glorified ampitheater. seems like godly understandings like this sift between our fingers so very easily.
zrim
http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2007/05/lutheran_profes.html
http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2007/05/more_details.html
Some news from the front:
I met a Seventh Day Adventist pastor well on his way to Rome; was participating in pilgrimages (to imitate Christ) and even presented a quasi-mystic RC sermon last St. Patrick's day in honor of St. Patrick - all in a SDA pulpit on their sabbath. (I was there to see this.)
I got to know the fellow a bit. He explained his present position was due to disillusionment, disgust and grief over the eschatology and superficial theology of his denom. No problems with "justification" btw. He got permission to give the program that day and mentioned leaving the SDA soon so he could be totally free to express what he'd been learning from RC; Celtic mysticism and "history" - deeper forms of worship.
As Pastor Kim likes to remind us: "Never underestimate the attraction of Rome!"