A Friday Edition of "Who Said That?"

Who Said That?

"The God of Calvinism scares me; I'm not sure how to distinguish him from the devil. If you've come under the influence of Calvinism, think about its ramifications for the character of God. God is great but also good. In light of all the evil and innocent suffering in the world, he must have limited himself."

Since this was just posted elsewhere, you'll probably figure it out.  But it is worth considering anyway.   Please leave your guesses in the comments section below.  No cheating or google searches (but this exhortation never seems to work for some of you!) 

Update on Sunday, September 9, 2007 at 06:52PM by Kim Riddlebarger

Our favorite "Arminian" Roger Olson is at it again.  These words were penned in response to the recent bridge disaster in Minneapolis.  When John Piper tried to comfort those afflicted by this terrible tragedy with the doctrine of God's sovereignty, Olson replied with the words quoted above.

Nothing scares me any more than the living in a world where Olson's "god" is in charge--well, almost in charge.  Try as he will to stop bad things from happening, they do.  Click here: Baylor University || The Lariat Online

If My Covenant Responsibilities Include . . .

Most Christian husbands know that their covenantal responsibilities to their wives include providing and protecting.  Protection often includes killing spiders and other pests that invade the household.  I've killed black widows, caught crickets, and sprayed for ants countless times.  This is part of my duty in protecting and providing for my wife.  I'm sure she appreciates it.

But if I ever run into a spider's web like this anywhere near my home, my wife's on her own.  And we're moving . . . 

Here is the original story (Click here: Star-Telegram.com | 08/29/2007 | Giant web creates bug buzz)

Who Said That?

Who Said That?

"We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls. . . . We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity . . .in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people."

Leave your guess in the comments section below.  Please no google searches . . .  This one may surprise you! 

Update on Sunday, August 26, 2007 at 06:04PM by Kim Riddlebarger

Yup, politicians will say just about anything to get elected.  This comes from a speech Adolf Hitler gave in Passau, on October 27, 1928.  Amazing, isn't it.  

I wonder if anyone has ever done a study on the things such despots say before and then after they come to power. 

Gird Up Your Loins!

All you TBN fans might be interested in this bit of news.  Juanita Bynum was assaulted by her husband yesterday, Bishop Thomas Weeks III.  Mr. and Mrs. Weeks, of course, lead marriage seminars around the country.

I once saw Juanita Bynum preach a sermon on TBN in which she issued a call to men to exercise headship.  She kept yelling (screaming?) over and over again (with a voice that could melt glass) "gird up your loins!"  Its a wonder she could even speak afterward.

Bynum, who calls herself a "prophetess," is a former hairdresser and flight attendant, the perfect resume to be a regular preacher/prophetess on TBN.  Her lavish (dare I say it, garish) wedding to Bishop Thomas Weeks III was broadcast live on TBN back in 2002.  That tells you all you need to know about her role in certain Pentecostal circles.

Sadly, Bishop Weeks was arrested outside a hotel in Atlanta for assaulting her.  They are currently separated (Click here: Bishop charged with attacking evangelist wife | ajc.com).  While there is never any justification whatsoever for domestic violence and the good Bishop belongs in the slammer if he assaulted her, I cannot help but wonder if the breaking point for Weeks is that he finally had enough of being told to "gird up his loins."  

Meanwhile, Reformed Chicks Blabbling tells the whole sordid tale far better than I ever could (Click here: Reformed Chicks Blabbing: Juanita Bynum was attacked by her husband)  . . .

Life Is Good!

Got to take in last night's Angels - Yankees game at Anaheim Stadium.  Not only did the Yankees win the game (its a good thing we didn't go on Tuesday when the Yanks got crushed), but we got to see a couple of our favorite pitchers (Andy Pettitte and Mariano Rivera--both Christians, by the way).  Joe Torre passed Casey Stengel for second place on the all-time Yankees win list (a huge milestone) and we also got to see the Yankees' rookie phenom Joba Chamberlain strike out the side, including Vlad Guerrero on three pitches, one a very nasty slider.

I say "we" because my son David took me to the game for my birthday present!  This is a real milestone in my life.  David scored the tickets on his own (Yankees tickets are tough to get in Anaheim), and he paid for parking!  He even offered to buy me a hot dog!  Nice to watch your sons grow into honorable men. 

Meanwhile, my youngest son (now 17) has been paying close attention to my hints about what else I want for my birthday (like the Dream Theater official bootleg album in which they play the Deep Purple "Made in Japan" set).  So I'll make out all the way around . . .

Life is good!  Now, if only the Yankees can muster enough starting pitching over the next 30 games to make the playoffs! 

Eschatology Q & A

Eschatology Q & A

A couple of you have asked questions recently about my book on the Antichrist, The Man of Sin.  You can read more about it here, if you are not familiar with it. (Click here: Riddleblog - Man of Sin - Uncovering the Truth About Antichrist). 

In light of my recent review of Hank Hanegraaff's Apocalypse Code (Click here: Riddleblog - The Latest Post - Hanegraaff's "The Apocalypse Code") , I thought this might be a good time to answer them.

___________________________ 

Scotty asks (August 20)

Hi Kim,

Having just read your excellent book "The Man of Sin: Uncovering the Truth About the Antichrist", your position is that a final "Man of Sin" is yet to appear in God's Temple (the Church) at the very end and in concurrence with the "falling away" (if I read correctly).

My question regarding your position is this: How do you see this unfolding in such a divided worldwide Church made up of hundreds if not thousands of denominations, affiliations, and beliefs?

In other words, no one entity currently has such mass influence over all Christians worldwide to bring about such apostasy. The only platform I can see any possibility of this occurring in is the Roman Catholic Church (through the Pope). Is this what you're alluding to or is there another scenario you envision?

Thanks.

My Answer: 

Scotty, I do believe that Scripture teaches that immediately before the end of the age and the return of the Lord, there will be a mass apostasy within the church (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4; Revelation 20:7-10).  When I speak of the church here, I am speaking of the visible church around the world.  This would be all those church bodies which formally confess the content of the Apostle's Creed.

As you note, I believe that in the Thessalonian letter Paul is not speaking of the Jerusalem temple, but of the church. That this is not fulfilled by the events preceding the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 A.D. is very clear in verse 8 of 2 Thessalonians 2, where Paul ties the revelation of this "man of lawlessness" specifically to the time of final judgment (I would recommend that you read G. K. Beale's fine commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians for the exegetical specifics of this).

Since the Roman church at the time of the Reformation fit the bill in many ways, I think the Reformers were largely correct to make the identification between the man of lawlessness and his particular blasphemy with the papacy. But in God's providential timing, the restraining power associated with the recovery of the gospel, prevented the Roman church from succeeding in snuffing out the Reformation and subsequent success of the gospel of free justification sola fide. 

In other words, the papacy of that age manifested many of the signs mentioned by Paul, but was prevented (restrained) from overcoming the gospel through the use of church authority and state-sponsored military power (Spain, France, and Austria, specifically).

I'm with Geerhardus Vos on this one. There is a certain sense in which the only way we will know what is entailed here, is when it actually happens before our eyes. Therefore, we need to be very cautious about speculation in this regard, lest we become Reformed versions of Jack Van Impe and Hal Lindsey.

That being said, if the "composite photograph" I discuss in my book is a faithful summary of biblical teaching, this final apostasy could involve a resurgent Roman Catholic persecution of Protestants (but this is not likely), or some form of apostasy wherein professing believers bow the knee to a political leader (the false prophet, who directs the world to worship the beast, which is the God-hating civil government), bent on wiping out the church, having been empowered by the dragon (Satan) to do that very thing.  This could be a secular state, trying to wipe out all religion.  It could be an Islamic state trying to wipe out Christianity . . . who knows?  I sure don't.  But if I'm alive when it happens, I am sure that I (as well as all other believers) will know what is going on!

I really don't think we can say any more than this. But we certainly don't want to say less, either.

________________________

Jeff asks (June 2, 2007)

Dr. Riddlebarger-

Just finished "Man of Sin" and found it very helpful. Thanks for all the work and study.

My question is this...why would the great "Abomination" refer to the desecration of the Jerusalem Temple if (due to Christ's sacrifice) the temple was no longer a place of true religious ceremony? Wouldn't that make the temple's religious significance disappear,and then mean that to "desecrate" it would be no different from mistreating any other place? Maybe it is just semantics.

Thanks, Jeff

My Answer: 

Let me put it this way. When Christ died on the cross, the temple veil is dramatically torn from top to bottom. This dramatic opening of the most holy place to the light of day is filled with important symbolism, not the least of which is that the sacrifices in the temple and the work of the high priest are from that moment on, rendered obsolete in light of Christ's final (once for all) sacrifice for sin. Therefore, whatever sacrifices occur in the temple and whatever role the high priest attempts to play after Christ has died, is no longer an act of worship, but an act of blasphemy.

Once Christ dies for our sins, the temple becomes Ichabod and its activities an "abomination" to the Lord. All of this culminates in the tragic Diaspora of the Jewish people and the eventual destruction of the temple by the armies of Titus in 70 A.D.

To put it another way, Christ's sacrifice does away with the temple's role in redemptive history, making way for that horrible complex of events in which Gaius (Caligula) sets up an image of himself in A.D. 40, and when the temple becomes the place where those zealots resisting the armies of Titus in the inner and outer court are mercilessly slaughtered as described by Josephus. 

The point is not so much when the "Abomination" occurs (the exact moment), but that it does occur, as seen in the culmination all of these events.  The temple of YHWH is rendered desolate and an abomination to God.

Hope that helps!

Who Said That?

Who Said That?

 "Fact is, as we continue to study these matters, our conclusions are confirmed again and again. We find more and more evidence of the likelihood that 2011 could well be the end-time year. Thus, we are greatly stimulated to send forth the Gospel so that as many people as possible can hear the Gospel in the shortest possible time.  If this world is still in existence after the end of 2011, we will know that there is still much more we can learn from the Bible. Before that time, or at that time, we surely will receive correction from the Bible concerning any conclusions which prove to be in error."

Place your guesses in the comments section below.  Please, no google searches or cheating.   

Update on Monday, August 20, 2007 at 05:27PM by Kim Riddlebarger

He's at it again . . .  This comes from Harold Camping's book The Time Is At Hand? (page xxii).  How can anybody still listen to this guy?  He's either a kook, senile or a false prophet.

A Reply to John MacArthur's 2007 Shepherd's Conference Lecture on Self-Respecting Calvinists and Premillennialism

“John MacArthur on Calvinism, Dispensationalism, Israel and Hermeneutics: A Few Comments”

In April 2007, I made my way through Dr. MacArthur’s controversial lecture, “Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist Is a Premillennialist” (given at the Shepherd’s Conference at Grace Community Church, on March 7, 2007). The lecture can be ordered here (Click here: MacArthur: Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Premillennialist « Faith by Hearing).

Regrettably, I am just now getting around to completing my response–my day job kept getting in the way.  Better late than never, perhaps?

As we have come to expect of him, Dr. MacArthur spoke with great passion, covered much ground quickly, and had a great deal to say. No question, Dr. MacArthur commands authority. One can easily see why Dr. MacArthur is so widely-respected. When it comes to the gospel, he’s on the side of the angels. When it comes to eschatology, however, I must beg to differ.

As a Reformed amillennarian (who was raised a dispensationalist) I had a powerful gut-level reaction to Dr. MacArthur’s lecture.  While this lecture was well-received by the friendly and largely dispensational home court audience to whom it was delivered, surely Dr. MacArthur knew that his words would amount to picking a fight with those Reformed amillennarians who may have been present. This was not the playful jab that conference speakers often take at one another at such events. No, this was a warning of sorts–a shot fired across the bow.

My take is that this was MacArthur’s attempt to go from being on defense to switching over to offense. Despite the self-assurance with which the lecture was delivered, in many ways, the lecture seemed like a rather desperate attempt to stem the rising tide of interest in Reformed amillennialism in the Reformed-evangelical conference circuit, where many are now openly rejecting MacArthur’s beloved dispensationalism. At least that’s how it seemed to me.

As I worked my way through the specific points raised by Dr. MacArthur, it was very hard not to become exasperated. The lecture seemed out of place at such a conference and would have been a much better fit at a conference devoted to dispensational eschatology. At least the audience would have known what was coming in advance.

More to the point, “Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist Is a Premillennialist” was a rather strident attack upon something that I as a Reformed amillennarian don’t believe. In fact, it was hard to recognize my own position as Dr. MacArthur made his case. Sadly, this was clearly an attack upon something that Dr. MacArthur truly believes that Reformed amillennarians believe. The same circumstance was true, no doubt, for those historic premillennarians, who likewise embrace Calvinism and arrived at the “Shepherd’s Conference” only to be told that in order to be consistent to Scripture and God's sovereignty, they too must embrace MacArthur’s dispensationalism in addition to being premillennial.

That Dr. MacArthur is a premillennial dispensationalist comes as no surprise. He has every right to state and defend his position, especially before his home church. But I am sure that many in the audience gathered for the Shepherd’s Conference were taken aback by the fact that he picked this particular forum--especially when a number of Reformed amillennarians were present and when several well-known amillenarians were invited to speak at the conference–to make the point that unless you adopt the dispensational hermeneutic you are unable to understand much of the Bible (certainly the eschatological portions).

With a rather striking measure of audacity, Dr. MacArthur went on to argue that unless you are a dispensationalist, you cannot be a “consistent Calvinist.” Under such circumstances, it is no wonder that as soon as live-blogger Tim Challies posted his initial report about MacArthur’s lecture, emails began to fly and the blogosphere went nuts! “Did you hear what MacArthur said about Calvinism?” “Did you hear what MacArthur said about amillennialism?” “Did you hear what he said about Calvin?” Thankfully, things have now calmed down a bit and we can look at these matters more objectively.

To read the rest of this response, Click here: Riddleblog - A Reply to John MacArthur 

Let's Just Call the God of the Bible `Allah'

Bishop Martinus "Tiny" Muskens--a retiring Dutch bishop having either a senior moment or revealing his universalism--is proposing that people of all faiths simply refer to God as "Allah."  While many of Muskens' fellow Catholics are appalled (no surprise), the people at CAIR are thrilled (no surprise either).

According to a recent news article (Click here: FOXNews.com - Roman Catholic Bishop Wants Everyone to Call God 'Allah' - International News | News of the World |):

_______________________________________ 

"A proposal by a Roman Catholic bishop in the Netherlands that people of all faiths refer to God as `Allah' is not sitting well with the Catholic community.  Tiny Muskens, an outgoing bishop who is retiring in a few weeks from the southern diocese of Breda, said God doesn't care what he is called.

`Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn't we all say that from now on we will name God Allah? ... What does God care what we call him? It is our problem,' Muskens told Dutch television.

`I'm sure his intentions are good but his theology needs a little fine-tuning,' said Father Jonathan Morris, a Roman Catholic priest based in Rome. Morris, a news analyst for FOX News Channel, also called the idea impractical.  `Words and names mean things,' Morris said. `Referring to God as Allah means something.'"

______________________________

Foolish me.  I thought that a bishop’s theology was supposedly above the need for such fine tuning.  Meanwhile, CAIR's response (below) is predictable.

_______________________________

"Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington, D.C.-based Islamic civil liberties and advocacy group, backs the idea as a way to help interfaith understanding.

`It reinforces the fact that Muslims, Christians and Jews all worship the same God,' Hooper told FOXNews.com. `I don't think the name is as important as the belief in God and following God's moral principles. I think that's true for all faiths.'  Christians who are Arabic speakers speak of Allah when they speak of God, Hooper added. `There's not a theological leap to make on the part of Christians,' Hooper said. 

The Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago supports the idea.  `I think it will open up doors,' said Janaan Hashim, a spokeswoman for the group representing more than 400,000 Muslim Americans in the Chicago area. `Language is a man-made limitation. I think what God cares about is how we fulfill our purpose in life.'

The nation’s largest Catholic civil rights group says Catholics won't get behind the proposal.  `Bishop Martinus `Tiny' Muskens can pray to `Allah' all he wants, but only addlepated Catholics will follow his lead,' Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, said in a statement. `It is not a good sign when members of the Catholic hierarchy indulge in a fawning exchange with Muslims, or those of any other religion.'

Muskens spent eight years in Indonesia, where he said priests used the word `Allah' during Mass.  Muskens also has drawn attention for other ideas such as encouraging the hungry to steal bread and offering condoms to combat HIV and AIDS."

___________________________________

As for the reason why the God of the Bible cannot be addressed by the name "Allah," check out my sermon on article eight of the Belgic Confession  (Click here: http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/a-commentary-on-the-belgic-con/8%20edited%20they%20are%20all%20three%20one%). 

Even through the Arabic word for God is "Allah," Christians worship the Triune God who is supremely revealed in the person of Jesus Christ.  We do not worship the generic "god" of the world's religions, nor the false God of Islam, known as "Allah."

You'd think a bishop would know better . . .

Hanegraaff's "The Apocalypse Code"

Several of you have asked me about my take on Hank Hanegraaff's recent book, The Apocalypse Code (Click here: Amazon.com: The Apocalypse Code: Find Out What the Bible REALLY Says About the End Times . . . and Why It Matters).  So, here goes.

On the one hand, Hanegraaff does a very good job debunking the popular dispensational end-times scenarios set out by the likes of John Hagee and Tim LaHaye.  Hanegraaff exposes the embarrassing problem faced by dispensationalists who claim to interpret the Bible literally, and who cannot make good on that promise.  While John (Revelation 1:3; 22:10) tells us that the things recorded in his apocalyptic vision are soon to come to pass, dispensationalists are forced to tell us that "near" and "soon" don't really mean "near" and "soon."  Instead, dispensationalists tell us, these things don't come to pass until the end of the age--a rather embarrassing problem given their insistence that they take the Bible (especially prophecy) "literally."

Hanegraaff also does a very good job debunking the Israel-centered hermeneutic of popular dispensational writers.  Hanegraaff capably demonstrates that Jesus Christ is the true hermeneutical center of all of Scripture and that many of the things dispensationalists assign to the future and the end of the age (i.e., in the millennium), are already fulfilled in Christ!  This includes the land promise of the Abrahamic covenant, the fact that Christ is the true temple, and so on. Hanegraaff also effectively replies to the common dispensational rant that non-dispensationalists are intrinsically anti-Semitic. 

In all of these regards, Hanegraaff's book offers an effective rebuttal to dispensational claims.  Would that all those who read Lindsey, LaHaye, and Hagee, and think their stuff is gospel, would also read Hanegraaff and consider well the biblical evidence he adduces which undoes the dispensational system.

On the other hand, Hanegraaff's The Apocalypse Code, has several serious weaknesses.  I hate to criticize Hank personally, since he was so gracious to me when I was a guest on the Bible Answer Man several years ago.  Hank was still working through his position on these matters and gave me two full hours on national radio to make my case.  He had read my first book (A Case for Amillennialism) from cover to cover, was thoroughly conversant with all of the key issues and was very nice to my teenage son who went to the studio with me.  Dads remember such things and I am grateful.

That being said, here are what I see as the main problems with The Apocalypse Code, and which detract from its overall impact and import. 

First, the use of neo-logisms ("I coined the phrase Exegetical Eschatology -- e2", implying that dispensationalists don't do exegesis), the use of mnemonic devices (LIGHTS), and guilt by association arguments (LaHaye is juxtaposed with Bill Maher and Bill Clinton, among others) seriously undercuts the very point that Hanegraaff is trying to make--which is that LaHaye, Hagee, et al., can't be taken seriously.  Inventing your own self-designation ("Exegetical Eschatology") requires that you do serious exegesis, not stoop to the sensationalist genre of those whom you are endeavoring to refute. 

Refuting sensationalist eschatology with sensationalism might sell books, but this approach seriously detracts from Hanegraaff's overall case.  The result is, in my opinion, Hanegraaff's book has a "snotty," condescending and sensationalist tone to it.  This would make me reluctant to give The Apocalypse Code to a dispensational friend who was not yet at the point of re-thinking their entire eschatology.

Second, Hanegraaff adopts the partial preterist interpretation of the eschatological language of the New Testament.  That's fine by me, since I too believe that the Olivet Discourse is primarily aimed to the disciples and that the events predicted there (with the exception of the Second Advent), are largely fulfilled by the events of A.D. 70.  But Hanegraaff's "partial" preterism leads to the usual (and in my estimation, flawed) interpretation of a number of key points.

Preterists of all stripes are forced to argue for a pre-70 A.D. date for the Book of Revelation.  I think the internal evidence points strongly for a date much closer to 95 A.D--although the dating of Revelation ultimately does not effect my overall eschatological position, which is Reformed amillennialism.  I get the sense from writers like Hanegraaff (and Ken Gentry), that once you make the leap to some form of preterism, you've got to make the case for an early date for Revelation.  You now have to "prove" this early date, not objectively examine evidence as to when John might have been given his vision.

Because of this preterist presupposition demanding an early date for the apocalypse, you get all kinds of far-fetched interpretations from Hanegraaff:  Babylon (Revelation 17-18) is apostate Israel, not Rome; Nero and the current Roman Caesars fulfill in its entirety the beast motif (Revelation 13); and that the Jerusalem Temple was still standing when John was given his vision (based upon a misinterpretation of Revelation 11:1-3). 

It is also highly problematic to argue that Christ returned (in a some form of parousia) with the events of 70 A. D.  No doubt, the destruction of the temple marks the end of the Jewish era (not the end of "this age,") and it clearly led to the diaspora and the curse upon apostate Israel being tragically realized as foretold by Jesus in Matthew 23:37-39.  But such does not constitute a "coming of Jesus."  How many second comings are there?  One or two?  And isn't one of the criticisms of dispensationalists that they teach a "real coming" at the Rapture which no one sees?

Hanegraaff's The Apocalypse Code has enough weaknesses that I would be hesitant to give it to a dispensationalist who was not at the point of jettisoning their dispensationalism.  I would give it (and therefore recommend it) to someone who was widely-read in this field, had thought about these issues for some time, and who understood most of the nuances and differences associated with these issues.  The Apocalypse Code might just give that person the final shove they need.

Since this is my blog and I'm therefore entitled to make shameless appeals to those who read it, let me just say that I too have written a book which covers much of the same ground, and which I think is more exegetically based.  Reformed amillennialism (i.e., Horton, Vos, Kline, Hoekema, Venema, Johnson, Beale) is not only able to deal with the "time is near" language of the Book of Revelation, it also does not strip the New Testament of those eschatological events which are yet to be fulfilled in the future.

You can find more information about my book, The Man of Sin, here:  Click here: Riddleblog - Man of Sin - Uncovering the Truth About Antichrist