# Tim Lahaye Interview at beliefnet



## RamistThomist (Jun 3, 2005)

Check it ou! See here


----------



## Joseph Ringling (Jun 3, 2005)

My favorite part.



> *And yet the Rapture isn't considered orthodox Christian theology? "¦ *
> I think that is an erroneous conclusion propagated by the amillennialist and reform church movements. The truth is, Christianity is divided between those who take the Bible literally and those who take it figuratively. Those who take it literally are far more in the majority, if you're talking about evangelical Christians--Southern Baptists, Assemblies of God and independent churches, like the Brethren. There are a lot of denominational groups that accept this, so I don't think it's fair to say [it's a minority view]. Lets face it, we've sold more than five million copies of Left Behind books, and they say every copy is read by 10 people. Five million times 10 is a lot of people.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 3, 2005)

He's a heretic. On Bill O'Reilley a while back he and his buddy were backed into a corner by Bill and they basically admitted that anyone who doesn't hear the gospel or know of Jesus isn't responsible to repent and believe in the gospel and they'll get a second chance.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 4, 2005)

I originally posted this as a joke but upon further reflection I found out that it is not funny. Maybe funny in a sick, sad sort of way.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 4, 2005)

I interpret the Bible figuratively! For example, when Revelation says these things must soon take place, I believe they took place soon after it was written. Oh wait, that's interpreting the Bible literally. My bad!


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jun 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> He's a heretic. On Bill O'Reilley a while back he and his buddy were backed into a corner by Bill and they basically admitted that anyone who doesn't hear the gospel or know of Jesus isn't responsible to repent and believe in the gospel and they'll get a second chance.



Calling them heretics is a little over the top, friend. As one who was raised in a dispensational system, however, I can say that they DO overstate ( and misstate) their position regarding "literalness." To their credit, they do have a very high view of scripture.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



No, it isn't. He had a chance to defend the gospel on international television and he curled up, compromised (or not, maybe he really believes this deeply) and embraced universalism.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 4, 2005)

Universalism isn't heresy?


----------



## turmeric (Jun 4, 2005)

Denying Christ, as Peter did, is BIG-TIME heresy, if the person persists and doesn't repent.

BTW, if you'd had the misfortune to read any of the Left Behind books, you'd know he isn't a universalist, whatever other faults he has.

[Edited on 6-4-2005 by turmeric]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 4, 2005)

I gladly welcome and await his repentance and recanting for his grievous error.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jun 4, 2005)

If he did think that those who haven't heard the gospel preached have a chance at salvation through some other way, I don't think that could really be called universalism, could it? Isn't that more like inclusivism?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 4, 2005)

Let's hold off on the universalism charges at the moment. There is something else that he is guilty of: He has crippled the American church. If half as many people have read his books as he claims (understanding that some have read the books only to make fun of him), then quite a few Americans have a defeatist mind-set. I literally cry when people come up to me and say that it can only get worse.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> If he did think that those who haven't heard the gospel preached have a chance at salvation through some other way, I don't think that could really be called universalism, could it? Isn't that more like inclusivism?



Exactly - you beat me to it. Universalism claims that no one will perish. Inclusivism claims that people can attain salvation _through Christ_ apart from ever _hearing_ the Gospel or the name of Christ in their lifetimes. Gabe, from how you initially describes LaHaye's interview with O'Reilley, it sounds like what Evie noted above is accurate. So while LaHaye's message at large to the American people is sad as illustrated by the BeliefNet interview, we don't exactly have grounds for claiming heresy on his part.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> ...



I, for one, am not calling him a heretic, but why not return the compliment? Check the back cover of that great theological tome, What Love is This, and brother Lahaye is calling Calvinism the greatest error to ever plague the church. 

As apologetes we are called to wage war with divine weapons (2 Cor. 10:5) not only against non-Christian worldviews, but also against compromising Christian worldviews.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> ...



Fully agreed. He even said that Hunt's book against Calvinism may well "be the most important book written in the 21st century for all evangelical Christians to read." 

Continuing discussion about the BeliefNet interview, when asked, "In Luke's gospel, Jesus predicts catastrophic events, but says they will happen 'before this generation passes away.' Some say that means he was talking about and to the Jews in the first century. How do you explain that verse?" LaHaye began his response by saying, "The question is how to decide what generation he's talking about--the disciples or the one seeing the signs?" That is ridiculous, since it would make the prophecy in Luke a meaningless babble. In essence, with LaHaye's interpretation, Jesus would have been saying, "These events will happen before the generation that is to witness them passes away." It's kind of like saying, "If this couple will get married, it will happen before one of them dies."


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 4, 2005)

He is also using the argument elsewhere that a whole of people believe his stuff, ergo, true. Kind of like, 1 million frenchmen can't be wrong.


----------



## Preach (Jun 4, 2005)

We don't determine truth by counting noses.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 4, 2005)

Good thing my math is bad


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 4, 2005)

I have no problem with calling Tim Lahaye a heretic, but not for being a dispensationalist. He is a heretic because of his hatred for the doctrines of grace, and his avid support and teaching of Arminianism.

Arthur Pink was a dispensationalist for a while before his Calvinism turned him from it. 

That being said, I do not find any good in this HUGE emphasis being placed on the end times, and rapture theories when a person does not have a grasp of the true gospel. 

How can one get Revelation down before he has Romans and Galatians?

Inclusivism is also VERY dangerous (I think that everyone would agree). It does border on universalism in many cases. If you are like Billy Graham, a person can be saved without ever hearing the name Christ. Why preach the gospel then? 

Rom 10:14 But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 4, 2005)

I think a Spurgeon quote is in order!

A man once came to Charles Spurgeon and said, "œIf I believed like you, Mr. SpurÂ­geon, that God saved some and passed by others, I would give up preaching." To this Spurgeon replied, "œGod has called me to preach his word and if I knew that all the elect had a yellow stripe painted down their backs, then I would give up preaching the gospel and go lift up shirt tails!"


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 4, 2005)

Arminianism is heresy. Inclusivism/Universalism is a false gospel message. He is a heretic until he proves otherwise, in my book. I'm sorry if that "offends" anyone here, but the gospel and God's glory are serious matters.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jun 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...



I find that hard to believe. What exactly did he say?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 4, 2005)

Bill asked them "What about people on islands somewhere that have never heard of Jesus, does God send THEM to hell? That doesn't seem fair or loving." He replied, "Well, the Bible says that only those who have read or heard of the Bible are responsible." or something very similar to that. I'm sure you can find a transcript for it.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jun 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Let's hold off on the universalism charges at the moment. There is something else that he is guilty of: He has crippled the American church. If half as many people have read his books as he claims (understanding that some have read the books only to make fun of him), then quite a few Americans have a defeatist mind-set. I literally cry when people come up to me and say that it can only get worse.



You're giving him too much credit. We can blame C.I. Scofield for the near universal (in this country) acceptance of dispensationalism. LaHaye is just riding the gravy train.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jun 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Arminianism is heresy. Inclusivism/Universalism is a false gospel message. He is a heretic until he proves otherwise, in my book. I'm sorry if that "offends" anyone here, but the gospel and God's glory are serious matters.



In my humble opinion, we tend to be a little too gratuitous with the "H-word." A little more charity might be in order. Like it or not, we will be spending eternity with a lot of Arminians (who will then have their theology straightened out!).


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Arminianism is heresy. Inclusivism/Universalism is a false gospel message. He is a heretic until he proves otherwise, in my book. I'm sorry if that "offends" anyone here, but the gospel and God's glory are serious matters.



Just to clarify, in what sense are you using the word "heresy"? Are you defining heresy to be all damning error, or are you making the dichotomy between damning and non-damning heresy? If the former (which I personally use), do you then believe that no one can possess saving faith in Christ while believing that the Spirit regenerates and converts some people in non-evangelized countries (Inclusivism)? It is a great error, but I do not see how belief in it would automatically render false someone's own trust in Christ through the preached Gospel. Furthermore, most people today who espouse "Arminianism" and oppose Calvinism are not full Arminians in the old, original sense.

[Edited on 6-4-2005 by Me Died Blue]


----------



## Poimen (Jun 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Let's hold off on the universalism charges at the moment. There is something else that he is guilty of: He has crippled the American church. If half as many people have read his books as he claims (understanding that some have read the books only to make fun of him), then quite a few Americans have a defeatist mind-set. I literally cry when people come up to me and say that it can only get worse.



Wow you cry? I thought you were one of those tough guys!?


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 4, 2005)

From another thread



> _Originally posted by Webmaster_
> This goes back to the question - "What is the Gospel?"
> 
> Its not Arminianism.
> ...



All I can say is 

That is why I appreciate Matt's website so much, and the Puritanboard too for that matter. It is important not to go overboard in the judgment of these matters, but it is equally important to remember the past, and what fruit true Arminianism produces.


----------



## bigheavyq (Jun 6, 2005)

he has a deep hatred for reformed doctrine, whether it is soteriology, the law of God, or eschatology. 

As far as "this generation goes" if lahaye is right and this is for the future, then one must conclude that Jesus is a false prophet and not God. Also one must conclude those time references in john make him a false apostle and make all of his writings false and the whole bible untrue.

Of course a more preterist view would make Jesus who he says he is, God.
Also John would not be wrong and the Bible is truly God's Word.


----------



## bigheavyq (Jun 6, 2005)

btw 
Dr lahaye was walking down a sidewalk on the Dallas theological school campus one day, when he spotted a boy with a wagon full of puppies. 
"hello son, what kind of puppies do you have"
the boy replied, "why they're dispensational arminians, sir"
" oh that's wonderful" Lahaye replied

a few weeks later Dr. lahaye was walking down that same sidewalk with dave hunt. As he spotted the same boy with his wagon he told mr. hunt to watch.
"hello son, what kind of puppies do you have"
the boy replied, "why they're postmillenial calvinists, sir"
"WHAT! didn't you tell me they were dispensational arminians a few weeks ago?"
"well, sir, they were, but that's before their eyes were open."



joke written and copywrited by 
jonathan qualls


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 6, 2005)

That is funny!


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



Maybe so, we do tend to use heresy a little too often. Lahaye's answer, however, while not universalism, was the next best thing. He practically gutted missions.


----------



## Robin (Jun 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Let's hold off on the universalism charges at the moment. There is something else that he is guilty of: He has crippled the American church. If half as many people have read his books as he claims (understanding that some have read the books only to make fun of him), then quite a few Americans have a defeatist mind-set. I literally cry when people come up to me and say that it can only get worse.



Jacob, my brother....things can get worse without true believers having a defeatist attitude! Why? Read the book of Revelation....in it, there's lots of fighting...but in the End - we win!

We hope for things unseen....that is faith.

R.


----------



## Robin (Jun 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I interpret the Bible figuratively! For example, when Revelation says these things must soon take place, I believe they took place soon after it was written. Oh wait, that's interpreting the Bible literally. My bad!



 Go Gabe...

And...those locusts are really UH-1D Huey helicopters, is _literal_, isn't it? OOps!

r.

[Edited on 6-7-2005 by Robin]


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> \
> 
> Why? Read the book of Revelation....in it, there's lots of fighting...but in the End - we win!
> ...



Yes, in 70 AD


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



I was actually referring to the mentality that looks at the world and says, "Aww, let's tank it here! Nothing good gonna come out of this. Let's learn how to play a guitar and wait for Jesus to come back."

[Edited on 6--7-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Yes, in 70 AD


----------



## Robin (Jun 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Robin_
> ...





r.


----------



## Poimen (Jun 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...





I'm a little tired of amillenialism being characterized as 'pessimistic' (and conversely postmillenialism being labelled as 'optimistic) Maybe some amillenialists are but I think that amillenialism is full of hope and joy because we know that the new heavens and earth are where we are going (which enables us to work here now cf. 2 Peter 3:13-15) Nothing here we do or experience will ever compare with that!


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Robin_
> ...



I was referring to Premillennialism then.


----------



## Poimen (Jun 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by poimen_
> ...



No problem. My post was a general observation not a response to any particular post (other than Robin's).


----------



## nonconformist (Jun 7, 2005)

Lahaye


> I believe we've been silent too long about the mercy of God and overexaggerating the wrath of God.


 Does anyone know any churches have done this? I do not, I only wish I could hear about the wrath once in a while. American churches have abused the love of god and redefined it. 


> Unconditional love


 If love was unconditional wouldnt homosexuals go to heaven?


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jun 8, 2005)

A few passing thoughts on this thread....

Most have already  'd the whole 'let's be charitable' thing. AMEN.

Gabe, don't take this the wrong way (and you probably will, but I hope not), but head over to Phil Johnson's blog and take a nice read at the 'Quick and Dirty Calvinism' article. A lot of the vitriol you toss out at anyone whose 'Reformed Faith' doesn't look like yours (whether it be on the topic of worship, musical instruments in church, eschatology, 'why are dispensationalists even allowed to post on this board', etc....) makes you sound a lot more like Marc Carpenter and the Outside the Camp folks than mainline Calvinism. 

I been prayin' for you (and some others on this board), that God would soften your heart a bit and that you learn to deal with your *dispensational brothers in Christ* as well as other folk a bit more charitably. As I mentioned ages ago in a thread where you posted the question of 'why are dispensationalists even allowed to post on this board' - the body of Christ is a lot bigger and more diverse than the denomination you're in and the viewpoints you hold. 

Anyway, a lot of you have been a bit more charitable toward Tim, though he does have major issues (and I agree that a fixation on Eschatology is a sign of immaturity as far as spiritual growth goes....), his books actually do get enough of the gospel right that it has borne fruit - fruit that will last - for the kingdom. God even uses the imperfect machinitions of men - whether it be Wesley's Hymns, LaHaye's Novels, Scofield's Bible or Geisler's Innerrancy - to further His kingdom. And all of the above listed have been positives in the Kingdom, in spite of their shortcomings.

On another note, I'm kinda bummed out by folks constantly classifying premillennialism as pessimistic.... as one person defending the amill view said above - there's a lot of fighting, but we DO win in the end. That's ALWAYS been the premill viewpoint, regardless of whether is Dispensational, historic or historicist. I'm optimistic....because God wins. 

[Edited on 6-9-2005 by OS_X]


----------

