# James White/Harold Camping



## Iconoclast

Iron Sharpens Iron

James White will debate Harold Camping July 28/29 on the Iron sharpens Iron Program.


----------



## rbcbob

Iconoclast said:


> Iron Sharpens Iron
> 
> James White will debate Harold Camping July 28/29 on the Iron sharpens Iron Program.



*I thought I saw a notice that Camping left the planet some years back.*


----------



## Herald

*sigh* I used to listen to Harold Camping on WFME in Northern New Jersey. I enjoyed Family Radio back in the 80's. Of course, times have changed. To say that Mr. Camping has wandered off the reservation is to be kind. I fear that James White will have to take great pains not to embarrass Mr. Camping. I'm not sure the latter is firing on all cylinders these days.


----------



## Iconoclast

rbcbob said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iron Sharpens Iron
> 
> James White will debate Harold Camping July 28/29 on the Iron sharpens Iron Program.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I thought I saw a notice that Camping left the planet some years back.*
Click to expand...


He planned to in 1994, but like the Millerites before him it did not happen.

-----Added 7/25/2009 at 12:38:24 EST-----



Herald said:


> *sigh* I used to listen to Harold Camping on WFME in Northern New Jersey. I enjoyed Family Radio back in the 80's. Of course, times have changed. To say that Mr. Camping has wandered off the reservation is to be kind. I fear that James White will have to take great pains not to embarrass Mr. Camping. I'm not sure the latter is firing on all cylinders these days.



Yes Bill I also would listen to conference echoes then open forum. Ironically Camping now disagrees with himself if you listen he opposes his own long held views. I do not think he is doing well mentally.


----------



## VictorBravo

Moved thread. For some reason it was in FAQ and Rules.


----------



## Southern Twang

As my good friend refers to him "our hometown heretic". (Camping lives in the Bay Area)


----------



## Iconoclast

victorbravo said:


> Moved thread. For some reason it was in FAQ and Rules.



Thank you Vic, the some reason was my computer inefficency


----------



## Blue Tick

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Camping"]Harold Camping[/ame]


----------



## William Price

This should be extremely one-sided. White should, with compassion of course, blow Camping right out of his dingy.


----------



## dudley

*I look forward to the debate and recommend his blog*

I just read an excellent article by James White on his Alpha & Omega Ministries Apologetics Blog. It is titled "Mariolatry Comparable to Indian Idolatry?" as an ex Roman catholic and convert to the Reformed faith and now a Presbyterian I was very interested to read the article. 

I will be looking forward to hear the debate. In the meantime if you have not read or visited his blog on Apologetics I recommend it.

He quotes the following Perhaps then you will hear what Tertullian ("the Father of Latin Christianity") had to say. 

He explained that it was the mark of a Christian man not to wear a crown: 
crowning would have been most suitable if it were worthy of God. But if these things were figures of us (for we are temples of God, and altars, and lights, and sacred vessels), this too they in figure set forth, that the people of God ought not to be crowned. The reality must always correspond with the image. If, perhaps, you object that Christ Himself was crowned, to that you will get the brief reply: Be you too crowned, as He was; you have full permission. Yet even that crown of insolent ungodliness was not of any decree of the Jewish people. It was a device of the Roman soldiers, taken from the practice of the world—a practice which the people of God never allowed either on the occasion of public rejoicing or to gratify innate luxury: so they returned from the Babylonish captivity with timbrels, and flutes, and psalteries, more suitably than with crowns; and after eating and drinking, uncrowned, they rose up to play. Neither would the account of the rejoicing nor the exposure of the luxury have been silent touching the honour or dishonour of the crown. Thus too Isaiah, as he says, "With timbrels, and psalteries, and flutes they drink wine," [Isaiah 5:12] would have added "with crowns," if this practice had ever had place in the things of God.- Tertullian, On the Crown, Chapter 10

In grace,
Dudley

-----Added 7/26/2009 at 05:59:05 EST-----

From what I have read about Camping's theology it is said by some to be based on Calvinism. However I do not consider him a Reformed Protestant any longer. He departed from Calvinist Doctrine, and teaches relative free will of humanity, and that humans are not totally depraved. However, he still from what I have read subscribes to the idea that salvation is unmerited, cannot be achieved by good works or prayer, and is a pure act of God's grace. I guess on that base he is still at least Protestant.

He also no longer believes in a place called Hell, instead Camping teaches annihilationism; that life will end and existence will cease for the unsaved soul. On that basis he obviously also departs from the Westminster standards.

In faith and grace,
Dudley


----------



## baron

I do not know a lot about Mr. Camping, but heard him say this evening on the radio that the Rapture will be May 21, 2011. I guess it's nice to know the date so we can be prepaired.


----------



## rbcbob

baron said:


> I do not know a lot about Mr. Camping, but heard him say this evening on the radio that the Rapture will be May 21, 2011. I guess it's nice to know the date so we can be prepaired.



As the wise Southern theologian Gomer Pyle once said, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice shame on me".


----------



## KSon

Pyle's Systematic (the 18 episode first-season Andy Griffith DVD) is one of my "go-to" resources when the chips are down.


----------



## D. Paul

Won't this be fun!!!! I can't wait.


----------



## matthew11v25

James should do well.

Camping is pretty strong willed and not afraid to interrupt anyone if he does not agree...so it should be a lively debate. 

My only concern is if the conversation gets bogged down in dates and times, and other gymnastics.


----------



## Herald

rbcbob said:


> baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not know a lot about Mr. Camping, but heard him say this evening on the radio that the Rapture will be May 21, 2011. I guess it's nice to know the date so we can be prepaired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As the wise Southern theologian Gomer Pyle once said, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice shame on me".
Click to expand...


I thought that was Mr. Scott on Star Trek; the "Trouble with Tribbles" episode.


----------



## rbcbob

Herald said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not know a lot about Mr. Camping, but heard him say this evening on the radio that the Rapture will be May 21, 2011. I guess it's nice to know the date so we can be prepaired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As the wise Southern theologian Gomer Pyle once said, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice shame on me".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought that was Mr. Scott on Star Trek; the "Trouble with Tribbles" episode.
Click to expand...


Actually Scotty was in agreement with Camping, believing as he did that the earth ended in 2011.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

I hope Dr. White cleans Camping's clock!

-Rob


----------



## TeachingTulip

The entire Harold Camping saga grieves me greatly.

During the past 35 years or so, myself and our family have known Mr. Camping, often been blessed by his biblical knowledge and Reformed teachings, and benefited from the many fine Christian teachings that has been made available on Family Radio. It was a good work for a long time.

However, we have had to witness Mr. Camping's slide into numerology (idolatry?) which in large part has produced his hapless prophecies, and now during this present time, this rapid, but still public, decline.

I take no pleasure in what has happened to him, his family, his church, his life's work, his associates, etc. It is one of the greatest tragedies I have ever seen a Christian man experience.

Therefore, I take no pleasure in his being ridiculed and being made the subject of less than charitable thoughts.

No, I am not one of his followers or supporters. Before the Lord, my husband and I distanced ourselves from Mr. Camping many years ago, so my comments are not meant as a defense of the bad teachings being put forth.

But we do not wish him ill, but rather, are praying that God will have mercy upon his soul and pull him back from this cliff he has jumped off.

It is my opinion that we all should be praying for wisdom and discernment for James White, with the hope that he will be used by God to penetrate Camping's thinking and that a spiritual miracle might still occur in the heart of a once respected saint. Might God bring good out of this debate. May those of us who observe the event, listen in love, and desire good results; not a further shaming of Mr. Camping.

For after all, he claims the name of Jesus Christ. Despite what we make of his wrong teachings, we must pray for Camping's (spiritual/mental) health and for repentance . . .not just for a spectacle.

My


----------



## rbcbob

The Scriptures do not shy away from exposing false teachers who tear down the Church of Jesus Christ and lead astray His blood bought sheep. That their folly is exposed to ridicule is nothing compared to the judgment to come.

2 Timothy 3:6 For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, 7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith; 9 but they will progress no further, for their folly will be manifest to all, as theirs also was.

See also 2 Peter chapter 2.


----------



## Gesetveemet

rbcbob said:


> The Scriptures do not shy away from exposing false teachers who tear down the Church of Jesus Christ and lead astray His blood bought sheep. That their folly is exposed to ridicule is nothing compared to the judgment to come.



Ridiculed by who? Exposing false teachers is one thing but a child of God should not make Camping an object of laughter, insults, or deliberate belittling. The previous post said we should rather pray that God will have mercy upon his soul and pull him back from this cliff he has jumped off. 

Have a good day,
William


----------



## rbcbob

Gesetveemet said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Scriptures do not shy away from exposing false teachers who tear down the Church of Jesus Christ and lead astray His blood bought sheep. That their folly is exposed to ridicule is nothing compared to the judgment to come.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ridiculed by who? Exposing false teachers is one thing but a child of God should not make Camping an object of laughter, insults, or deliberate belittling. The previous post said we should rather pray that God will have mercy upon his soul and pull him back from this cliff he has jumped off.
> 
> Have a good day,
> William
Click to expand...


1 Kings 18:25 Now Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, "Choose one bull for yourselves and prepare it first, for you are many; and call on the name of your god, but put no fire under it." 26 So they took the bull which was given them, and they prepared it, and called on the name of Baal from morning even till noon, saying, "O Baal, hear us!" But there was no voice; no one answered. Then they leaped about the altar which they had made. 27* And so it was, at noon, that Elijah mocked them and said, "Cry aloud, for he is a god; either he is meditating, or he is busy, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is sleeping and must be awakened."* 28 So they cried aloud, and cut themselves, as was their custom, with knives and lances, until the blood gushed out on them. 29 And when midday was past, they prophesied until the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice. But there was no voice; no one answered, no one paid attention.

We can and should pray for the repentance of those who are undermining the Church. But exposing their madness is not thereby excluded. These two undertakings are not mutually exclusive. No doubt there were some Baal advocates whose sensitivities were bruised by this taunt of the prophet of the LORD.

Have you never read the Reformers? They were not so delicate as the political correct sensitivity police of our society today.


----------



## steven-nemes

The apostles also calling unregenerates irrational beasts and so on also says something of the sort of rhetoric that might be permissible in Christian debate...


----------



## ReformedChapin

I don't even understand why people would take Camping seriously. When people make sensationalistic claims as this they should be ignored. I'm surprised White didn't just laugh this of. How many people are being decieved by baseless claims like these?


----------



## brianeschen

KSon said:


> Pyle's Systematic (the 18 episode first-season Andy Griffith DVD) is one of my "go-to" resources when the chips are down.


Perhaps one of my most used resources as well.


----------



## Gesetveemet

rbcbob said:


> We can and should pray for the repentance of those who are undermining the Church. But exposing their madness is not thereby excluded. These two undertakings are not mutually exclusive. No doubt there were some Baal advocates whose sensitivities were bruised by this taunt of the prophet of the LORD.
> 
> Have you never read the Reformers? They were not so delicate as the political correct sensitivity police of our society today.



OK Bob, if that's the way you _FEEL_ about Harold Camping fine. Nevertheless he was quite sound at one time and I believe there is hope for his never dying soul. The Lord has a way of bringing back them that are truly His.

-----Added 7/27/2009 at 09:09:37 EST-----



steven-nemes said:


> The apostles also calling unregenerates irrational beasts and so on also says something of the sort of rhetoric that might be permissible in Christian debate...



Steven,

It may be permissible for an apostle but it's a fruit that I would rather not have. That is why I deleted my post. With that said, may the Lord bless all that you do that pleases Him.


----------



## rbcbob

Gesetveemet said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can and should pray for the repentance of those who are undermining the Church. But exposing their madness is not thereby excluded. These two undertakings are not mutually exclusive. No doubt there were some Baal advocates whose sensitivities were bruised by this taunt of the prophet of the LORD.
> 
> Have you never read the Reformers? They were not so delicate as the political correct sensitivity police of our society today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK Bob, if that's the way you _FEEL_ about Harold Camping fine. Nevertheless he was quite sound at one time and I believe there is hope for his never dying soul. The Lord has a way of bringing back them that are truly His.
Click to expand...


I agree that the Lord can save him and I would rejoice over it. For now though he is doing considerable harm to our Lord's Church (even teaching that the Lord has given up on His Church) and must be vigorously opposed.


----------



## Edward

TeachingTulip said:


> The entire Harold Camping saga grieves me greatly.
> 
> During the past 35 years or so, myself and our family have known Mr. Camping, often been blessed by his biblical knowledge and Reformed teachings, and benefited from the many fine Christian teachings that has been made available on Family Radio. It was a good work for a long time.
> 
> However...



I appreciate your charitable nature - a virtue in which I can be found lacking. 

However, you should be open to the idea that a public humiliation could be used to draw this man back into the fold of orthodoxy.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Edward said:


> I appreciate your charitable nature - a virtue in which I can be found lacking.
> 
> However, you should be open to the idea that a public humiliation could be used to draw this man back into the fold of orthodoxy.


I agree. I still listen occasionally to the Open Forum, no doubt out of sinful pride, attempting to see if I would answer the caller's questions as Camping does. The man's knowledge of Scripture is impressive, and I am sorrowed by how much he has slipped into allegorical interpretations of Scripture without warrant.

I don't know what led him to his current positions, but I pray that he will be led back to proper biblical teachings. My hope is that James White will avoid his usual polemics in the upcoming "debate" and will demonstrate a charitable posture.

AMR


----------



## jason d

You can get the audio here from the debate that happened today.

This is what James White posted on it:



> We wanted to get this up as soon as possible. We had major problems at first, but we got everything set up and still got a full hour or more in of meaningful exchange. As I expected, the focus was the proper one: Harold Camping's incoherent hermeneutical methodology. I am looking forward to tomorrow's exchange! Click here to listen to the program.


----------



## chbrooking

Thank you,
I wanted to catch the program, but missed it due to other commitments. Thanks for the link.



jason d said:


> You can get the audio here from the debate that happened today.
> 
> This is what James White posted on it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We wanted to get this up as soon as possible. We had major problems at first, but we got everything set up and still got a full hour or more in of meaningful exchange. As I expected, the focus was the proper one: Harold Camping's incoherent hermeneutical methodology. I am looking forward to tomorrow's exchange! Click here to listen to the program.
Click to expand...


----------



## KSon




----------



## Jake

I listened live. The first thirty minutes were wasted trying to get the sound working, but the time was extended. I didn't think Camping was really debating. It was painful to listen to.


----------



## Rich Koster

I would love to hear Camping make a broadcast repenting of his false teaching and failed prophecies and humbly pass the mic to a reliable teacher, therefore reforming Family Radio.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

In 1988, I was the station manager of Family Radio Station's WCTF Vernon/Hartford, CT (1170 AM). 

Back in those days, Mr. Camping was touting this same type of spiritualizing of the text of all of the Bible based upon Mark 4:34. "Without a parable He did not speak to them..." then became the key for Mr. Camping to look past what the actual words of Scripture say and give the texts of Scripture whatever meaning he determined they should have. He had no ear for the admonition that his hermeneutic was flawed back then.

It wasn't long after I left Family Radio that Mr. Camping began making predictions about the coming of Christ and the end of the Church age. He was wrong in 1992 about 1994, and he is wrong about 2011. His teachings have changed and morphed and flip-flopped over the years, and though the last time I spent anytime listening to Mr. Camping at all was in 1993, it does not suprise me to see where his hermeneutic has taken him.

Dr. White has rightly said of this debate that "...the focus was the proper one: Harold Camping's incoherent hermeneutical methodology..." At least in this, Camping remains consistent, consistently wrong, consistently incoherent, but consistent none-the -less!


----------



## Exiled_2_God

Blue Tick said:


> Harold Camping



Is he really 88??? lol

I've never heard of him...


----------



## TeachingTulip

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> In 1988, I was the station manager of Family Radio Station's WCTF Vernon/Hartford, CT (1170 AM).
> 
> Back in those days, Mr. Camping was touting this same type of spiritualizing of the text of all of the Bible based upon Mark 4:34. "Without a parable He did not speak to them..." then became the key for Mr. Camping to look past what the actual words of Scripture say and give the texts of Scripture whatever meaning he determined they should have. He had no ear for the admonition that his hermeneutic was flawed back then.



So what was your motivation for being involved with Family Stations, in the early years?

And are you against all forms of finding spiritual application from the Word of God? Are you a literalist?





> It wasn't long after I left Family Radio that Mr. Camping began making predictions about the coming of Christ and the end of the Church age.



Hopefully it was not your departure that caused Camping to go awry?!!! 



> He was wrong in 1992 about 1994, and he is wrong about 2011.



Are you willing to admit that Mr. Camping admitted he might be wrong about the 1994 date? Do you remember, even back then, that Camping admitted future dating might be more accurate? (Not attempting to defend any of his dating, but he was not dogmatic about 1994 predictions, as many claim he was.)





> His teachings have changed and morphed and flip-flopped over the years, and though the last time I spent anytime listening to Mr. Camping at all was in 1993, it does not suprise me to see where his hermeneutic has taken him.



We truly do not believe it is Camping's practice of making spiritual applications of the literal Scriptures that is in error . . .but it is his dependence upon and emphasizing numerology that has led him afield of orthodoxy. 



> Dr. White has rightly said of this debate that "...the focus was the proper one: Harold Camping's incoherent hermeneutical methodology..." At least in this, Camping remains consistent, consistently wrong, consistently incoherent, but consistent none-the -less!



Well, White still must prove that a purely literal interpretation of the word of God (which dispensationalists also insist upon and depend upon, to apologize for their wrong views) using isolated exegesis of Scripture passages, apart from the entire revelation of God, indeed is the only correct hermenuetic, and indeed tells the whole tale . . .

Regardless of this debate with Camping.


----------



## Mushroom

I used to listen to Family Radio as well, and had great respect for Camping. I can see the desire to have compassion for the man, but I also think compassion for the MANY people whp are led astray by his blatant heresies is warranted as well. He and his organization are aggressively pursuing the weaker lambs among the flock of God, and that makes them wolves, regardless of any past faithfulness to the truth.



> 1Ti 5:24 Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after.
> 1Ti 5:25 Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid.


----------



## john_Mark

I was just stunned that Camping was able to grasp what was being said. Please don't take that as being mean. He's old, yes, but that doesn't always mean anything. He just seems a little ....off, but he was able to keep up during this debate.

If you check the Iron Sharpen's Iron post about today's show you will see some of Campings supporters have come out. There are 125 comments as I post this.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

*The Analogy of Faith, Grammatical, Historical, Theological Method Defended*

Hi All:

I listened to the web debate, and, I believe, that Dr. White did a good job of showing just how subjectively Mr. Camping has used the Analogy of Faith. This especially came out when Dr. White was discussing the word "provoke" in the two passages cited. It would have been interesting to see Dr. White interpret the Acts passage based on the Hebrews text. Using Mr. Camping's method we may interpret Acts in this fashion:

Acts 15:39 - So, we don't really know what the word "contention" means here, but the Greek word is also used in Hebrews 10:24, and it evidently teaches that we are to "provoke" one another to love. Therefore, Barnabas and Paul were "provoking one another to love."

Mr. Camping has issued a challenge to the Reformed understanding of the interpretation of Scriptures - requiring Biblical evidence for the Grammatical, Historical, Theological method of interpretation. It may be a shock to Mr. Camping that his own hermeneutical practice touches upon the premises of the Reformed method of interpreting the Scriptures.

*The Analogy of Faith*

The Reformed have always stated that Scripture is to interpret Scripture. Mr. Camping departs from the Biblical teaching when he naively supposes that *all* Scripture is to be understood in this fashion. In other words, one cannot understand any passage in the Scripture *unless* one refers to another passage in the Scriptures. The use of the Analogy of Faith is intended for those passages which are "hard to be understood," 2 Pet 3:We can look at one passage in the Scriptures:

Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

I would ask Mr. Camping - is this passage coherent to both believers and unbelievers? I would say that many unbelievers (especially evolutionists) understand this passage very well - and reject it.

Quoting Scripture does not mean that one is quoting rightly. We have the example of Satan tempting Jesus, and he is quoting Scripture to validate his assertions. The Analogy of Faith is an excellent hermeneutical tool, but it does not stand alone.

*Grammatical:*

By "Grammatical" here the Reformed understand that we must interpret the very words of Scripture in their fullest meaning - this would include: Hyperbole, Metonomy, Metaphor, Simile, and Literal statements, to name simply a few. Here are some Biblical examples:

Hyperbole - Is an implied exaggeration. "The descendents of Abraham will be like the sand in the seashore."

Metonomy - Is using an effect to denote a cause, or, the cause for the effect, or when the subject is used to refer to the object. "My _arrow_ is incurable (Job 34:6) - meaning that his wounds (4:4) are a bitter affliction to him. Or, "According to the mouth of Pharaoh" - "mouth" here refers to command (Dt 17:6). Or, "They shall take away all thy labour, and leave thee naked," (Ez 23:29) - here "labour" refers to their "earnings" or the result of their labor.

Metaphor - Takes the literal meaning of a word and turns it to something unpredicted. "I will make my arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh," (Dt 32:42). "Arrows" here are personified as living things drunk with blood.

Simile - Takes the literal meaning of a word in order to impress upon the mind a resemblance or likeness. "Is not my word even as the fire, saith Jehovah, and as a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces?" (Jer 23:29). God's "Word" is likened to "Fire" and a "Hammer" though a "word" is neither.

Literal utterances - Despite Mr. Camping's insistence to the contrary there are literal statements in the Bible. There are many examples of these:

1) Mt 16:20 - Jesus plainly commands His disciples that they should not tell anybody that He is the Christ.

2) Mt 9:2 - Jesus states plainly, "Your sins are forgiven."

3) Mt 20:16 - In interpreting a parable Jesus makes a clear statment.

4) Mt 27:19 - Joseph wrapped Jesus' body in a clean linen cloth.

5) Micah 5:2 - Many prophecies in the Old Testament were fulfilled literally - Mathew 2:5.

The Grammatical method of interpreting the Scriptures does not preclude the use of parables - in fact - it presupposes such a thing. What it seeks to do is to read the words of Scripture within their proper grammatical context.

This brings us to Mr. Camping's misuse of Mt 13:34. In this passage Mr. Camping entirely glosses over the phrase, "unto the multitude." The passage clearly says that Jesus spoke only parables to the multitude of people who were currently standing in front of him:

*All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them.*

The word "them" here refers to the multitude. But we are also told in verse 53 that after he finished speaking in parables he departed from them. Matthew 13:34 does not teach what Mr. Camping wants it to say. In fact, Mr. Camping is taking these words literally, and he is not spiritualizing the text itself! Every passage in the Bible is spiritualized by Mr. Camping except for this one!

*Historical:*

We are not to read our contemporary understanding of life back into the Bible. Paul did not know about the Internet, Amazing Grace, or Existentialism. To read these things into his writings would destroy the very meaning of his words. For example, when Paul writes:

*Speaking to yourselves in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs...*

He is not thinking about "Amazing Grace" as a "hymn." The word "hymn" may have meant something entirely different to him than it does to us today.

Without a sound historical understanding of the context of the Bible one runs the danger of reading one's contemporary prejudice into the Scriptures.

*Theological:*

This has basically been covered in the Analogy of Faith. But a true interpretation of the Scriptures does not contradict any other doctrine of the Bible. Scripture does interpret Scripture. But Biblical Doctrine also dictates the interpretation of a passage as well. Paul especially encourages one to sound doctrine, Tit 1:9; 2:1.

I am glad that Mr. Camping is challenging us to prove the Biblical hermeneutic in the Bible. I am sad that he does not hold to it, and, in doing so, has embraced and teaches many heresies.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Semper Fidelis

TeachingTulip said:


> Well, White still must prove that a purely literal interpretation of the word of God (which dispensationalists also insist upon and depend upon, to apologize for their wrong views) using isolated exegesis of Scripture passages, apart from the entire revelation of God, indeed is the only correct hermenuetic, and indeed tells the whole tale . . .


This paragraph is extremely irksome to me.

Prove to who? Where has Dr. White ever suggested that his hermeneutic was so facile and infantile? Did you listen to the debate? If so, I'm baffled that you came to that conclusion about Dr. White's understanding of Scripture where he repeatedly affirms that there are differing types of literature in the Scriptures.

The principle heresy of Camping arises out of insisting that didactic passages of the NT need to be taken in allegorical fashion. He even compares the fullness of NT revelation in Christ and makes it just another type and shadow rather than the fulfillment.


----------



## Jon Peters

I was 20 years old and was coming out of the Vineyard SF and went to Camping's "church" because I was told it was the only Reformed church in the area (East Bay/SF area). I attended the church for a few months, went to Camping's home on several occasions (where is was re-writing the Belgic Confession (no joke)) and was able to hear first-hand on many, many occasions just what he thought of his 1994 date (the year was 1991 or 1992). He was very clear that 1994 date was THE date. However, like any good heretic date-setter, he left himself an out. He would say that he was 99.999% sure of the date. That means that there was a .001% chance that the date was wrong. That was his out! Doesn't sound like much of one to me. In private and in church he was quite dogmatic. I didn't know about any of this when I started at his "chruch." I read 1994. I thought it was interesting but false. Then I heard him, from the pulpit, proclaim that post-mils are going to hell. That was my last Sunday at his "church." Camping is an enemy of the church and has been for a long time.


----------



## TeachingTulip

Semper Fidelis said:


> TeachingTulip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, White still must prove that a purely literal interpretation of the word of God (which dispensationalists also insist upon and depend upon, to apologize for their wrong views) using isolated exegesis of Scripture passages, apart from the entire revelation of God, indeed is the only correct hermenuetic, and indeed tells the whole tale . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This paragraph is extremely irksome to me.
> 
> Prove to who?
Click to expand...


To Camping. My remarks are made in context of the debate, and were not meant to be taken generally or to suggest I am taking sides. 




> Where has Dr. White ever suggested that his hermeneutic was so facile and infantile? Did you listen to the debate? If so, I'm baffled that you came to that conclusion about Dr. White's understanding of Scripture where he repeatedly affirms that there are differing types of literature in the Scriptures.



Yes, I listened to the debate. This thread is about the debate. Camping made a point and I wonder if White choosing hermeneutics was the wisest and strongest debate position to take.




> The principle heresy of Camping arises out of insisting that didactic passages of the NT need to be taken in allegorical fashion.



The principle heresy of Camping is getting caught up in numerology. It is my opinion that he resorts to allegory simply to make his numbers fit his presupposed conclusions. That is his weakest spot, and if I were debating Camping, that is where I would challenge him.




> He even compares the fullness of NT revelation in Christ and makes it just another type and shadow rather than the fulfillment.



Camping has wandered into heterodoxy because he has always been anti-creedal. Another weak spot that White could and should take advantage of.

Two things I say to you to defend myself: I am not smart enough to argue hermeneutics very far (Rob's overview and summary was very helpful to me) . . . and, my posts are not meant to defend Harold Camping or side against James White. 

I am simply an observer.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Ronda,

Camping's numerology is a _kind_ of his allegorical approach. He claims that the hermeneutical approach of Christ is primarily allegorical (parables) and that the entire NT is intended to be unclear such that only the Holy Spirit can reveal to the reader what the true intent is even of clear, didactic passages.

Dr. White _has_ repeatedly demonstrated, using the principle of the Analogy of the Faith and necessary inference, that the Apostolic writings have to be understood according to how the Apostles themselves taught it. He provided many examples including how the Judaizers could have taking Paul's rebuke in Galatians and done precisely what Camping is doing.

Demonstrating something to be the case is different than _persuading_ the opponent of the same. All the evidence in the world will not cause a man to embrace Truth if he does not want to be persuaded of it. Dr. White does not have to convince Camping because Camping is convinced that he's getting insights from the Holy Spirit as to the "real" meaning of passages that clearly and didactically teach the opposite. It is impossible to dissuade Camping of his error because the Scriptures already testify that Camping should not be trusting his heart in this matter and that the Spirit never testifies in opposition to the testimony of the Word. As Scott Clark has noted, every heretic in Church history says they're just quoting the Scriptures.

Dr. White succeeds not in persuading Camping but by revealing his method as essentially heretical and counter-Scriptural. This he is ably accomplishing for those that have ears to hear. The goal of a debate isn't to convince the convinced but to defend the Truth.


----------



## TeachingTulip

Semper Fidelis said:


> Ronda,
> 
> Camping's numerology is a _kind_ of his allegorical approach. He claims that the hermeneutical approach of Christ is primarily allegorical (parables) and that the entire NT is intended to be unclear such that only the Holy Spirit can reveal to the reader what the true intent is even of clear, didactic passages.
> 
> Dr. White _has_ repeatedly demonstrated, using the principle of the Analogy of the Faith and necessary inference, that the Apostolic writings have to be understood according to how the Apostles themselves taught it. He provided many examples including how the Judaizers could have taking Paul's rebuke in Galatians and done precisely what Camping is doing.
> 
> Demonstrating something to be the case is different than _persuading_ the opponent of the same. All the evidence in the world will not cause a man to embrace Truth if he does not want to be persuaded of it. Dr. White does not have to convince Camping because Camping is convinced that he's getting insights from the Holy Spirit as to the "real" meaning of passages that clearly and didactically teach the opposite. It is impossible to dissuade Camping of his error because the Scriptures already testify that Camping should not be trusting his heart in this matter and that the Spirit never testifies in opposition to the testimony of the Word. As Scott Clark has noted, every heretic in Church history says they're just quoting the Scriptures.
> 
> Dr. White succeeds not in persuading Camping but by revealing his method as essentially heretical and counter-Scriptural. This he is ably accomplishing for those that have ears to hear. The goal of a debate isn't to convince the convinced but to defend the Truth.



Dr. White did not need to produce any counter-points, persuade, convince, or expose Harold Camping in today's debate, for Camping defaulted from any further debate, discussion, or interaction with Dr. White; doing a good job of exposing his heretical errors all by himself.

The webcast time was disingenuously used by Camping simply to propagandize, and in my opinion, the hour spent listening to him do so was disappointing. 

I thought Dr. White was very patient and courteous, while pointing out several times, that no debate was occurring.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

TeachingTulip said:


> Dr. White did not need to produce any counter-points, persuade, convince, or expose Harold Camping in today's debate, for Camping defaulted from any further debate, discussion, or interaction with Dr. White; doing a good job of exposing his heretical errors all by himself.
> 
> The webcast time was disingenuously used by Camping simply to propagandize, and in my opinion, the hour spent listening to him do so was disappointing.
> 
> I thought Dr. White was very patient and courteous, while pointing out several times, that no debate was occurring.



Indeed! In Part two of the debate, Mr. Camping did not directly engage in debate. It was as though he was delivering a monologue. He did not answer any direct questions put to him, nor did he interact with Dr. White.

Dr. White observed that Camping was not engaging. Harold (it seems to me, as I listened) had a scripted polemic in which he attempted to defend his July 21, 2011 date and it didn't seem to matter what Dr. White had to say. All in all, the first day of the debate (the audio problems notwithstanding) was far better than today's installment.

Dr. White is to be commended for his patience in light of Camping's disingenuous approach.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Apparently, Camping will be answering calls to the Iron Sharpens Iron station for this Friday's program and James White will be doing the same the day prior.

AMR


----------



## rpavich

I haven't heard the second hour yet but the first hour was really disappointing. As posters have said, evidently Mr. Camping didn't come to debate. 


Thanks for the tip on the Q and A


----------



## john_Mark

Camping's was one of the wackiest presentations I've heard. I wish I weren't working when listening to I call in with a good question. It was clear too that he is his own ultimate authority. He seemed to say that he found "x" while studying making it up as he went along and that was good enough. It was just...weird.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Listened to the first 20 minutes today. It was amazing. James White would describe Harold Camping's method and why it was flawed and then Harold Camping would proceed to give an immediate demonstration of the same confirming his crazy notion.

"Well, you know, God told me that the Flood occured in 4990 BC and the Lord said Noah to get into the ark because 7 days later the flood would come and...."

A head banging smiley just doesn't cut it.


----------



## JoeRe4mer

Does anyone know what the official debate subject is? At any rate I hope it is fruitful and Mr.Camping repents of his false prophesies.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist

Semper Fidelis said:


> A head banging smiley just doesn't cut it.



Something like this?


----------

