James White/Harold Camping

[chbrooking]

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

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.

 

[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]

Harold Camping

Is he really 88??? lol

I've never heard of him...

 

[TeachingTulip]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

A head banging smiley just doesn't cut it.

Something like this?