Buildings and Trees Update: The Critics Demand a Perfect Match; how close does it have to be?

In his book criticizing The Harbinger, David James objects that the fallen bricks and the hewn stones that were their intended replacement in ancient Israel are not matched at all by the fallen Trade Center and the one quarried stone brought in to be the cornerstone of the new Freedom Tower.  To his mind that cancels out any claim to their being harbingers or signs at all that reflect Isaiah 9:10. 

He also says the sycamore tree that was destroyed by the falling World Trade Center is not enough of a match to the sycamore trees destroyed by the Assyrians as reported in Isaiah 9:10 to qualify as the harbinger Cahn makes of it;  nor that the Norway spruce brought in to replace the sycamore in New York was enough of a match to the cedars of Lebanon with which the leaders of Israel intended to replace their sycamores.

Because the American building materials don't match those of ancient Israel, and the American trees are not similar enough to Israel's, not a close enough match in James' mind, they don't qualify as harbingers at all. 

THE BUILDING MATERIALS

We don't build with clay bricks or quarried stones any more, especially not skyscrapers. So it ought to be regarded as uncanny indeed that anything at all could have been found in New York City in the 21st century to suggest or imitate those materials that are described in Isaiah 9:10.   Even the description of the rubble of the WTC as "a pile of bricks" makes the connection, as does the fact that a quarried stone WAS brought in with the intention of making it the cornerstone of the new Freedom Tower.

Remember the verse doesn't say they actually built anything, what it says is that they intended to, and that is what has reappeared in America, that intention to rebuild that is the expression of defiance of God.

THE TREES:

When scripture is applied to situations in the present it's going to be adapted to the conditions of those situations. That ought to be obvious.

It occurred to me to look up the various trees that grow in the US to see if a better match could have been found for either the sycamore or the conifer and I've concluded that it couldn't.

The fig-mulberry tree does not grow natively in North America and is not a desirable enough tree to be transplanted here, but we have a tree we named after that Middle Eastern tree because of its general similarity of appearance.

Likewise the cedar of Lebanon, which turns out to be an endangered species, requires specialized conditions to grow well and is not a desirable candidate for transplant in North America. 

Both the Middle Eastern ficus sycomorus and the cedar of Lebanon are cultivated here in special nurseries*

The North American tree named after the Middle Eastern sycamore or fig-mulberry tree is the absolute closest match that could have been found, a "perfect" match.  It's the tree that would have been planted in a churchyard in New York City and along Wall Street.  But of course, beyond that, its choice was made ultimately by God Himself which is why it IS a harbinger that echoes the sycamores of Isaiah 9:10. 

As for the Norway spruce, the criterion for an appropriate match ought to be what is most likely to be planted in America and this tree is probably the most popular.  It IS an "erez" tree as Jonathan Cahn points out, making it enough of a match to satisfy all but the obsessed critics, but beyond that the best match has to be the one most suited to its particular location.  The choice of a conifer at all to replace the sycamore of 9/11 is uncanny, something only God could have done, but in America the conifer of choice would have been the Norway spruce.  In my own neighborhood I'm aware of two Norway spruces in people's yards.  I conclude that the Norway spruce is the PERFECT match, the perfect AMERICAN match for the cedars of Isaiah 9:10 to replace our AMERICAN version of the sycamore.

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about the Norway spruce:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picea_abies

The Norway Spruce is one of the most widely planted spruces, both in and outside of its native range, and one of the most economically important coniferous species in Europe.^[7] It is used in forestry for timber and paper production, and as an ornamental tree in parks and gardens. It is esteemed as a source of tonewood^[8] It is also widely planted for use as a Christmas tree. Every Christmas, the Norwegian capital city, Oslo, provides the cities of New York, London (the Trafalgar Square Christmas tree), Edinburgh and Washington D.C. with a Norway Spruce, which is placed at the most central square of each city. This is mainly a sign of gratitude for the aid these countries gave during the Second World War.  

It is naturalised in some parts of North America, though not so extensively as to be considered an invasive weed tree. It can grow fast when young, up to 1 m per year for the first 25 years under good conditions, but becomes slower once over around 20 m tall.^[9]

A very likely tree of choice if you're going to choose a conifer in North America.

I suppose it MIGHT have been a "white cedar" which is really a cypress and is also used for ornamental plantings and is native to North America, especially the northeast:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuja_occidentalis
but I don't see anything that would make it preferred over the Norway spruce.

HOW CLOSE DOES IT HAVE TO BE?

The best match between elements of different cultures, times and climates -- in fact the PERFECT match -- is the equivalent match, not exact identity.  You can't have perfect identity and to demand it is to impose an impossible standard and make it impossible to understand The Harbinger at all.

It has to be close enough to be situationally equivalent with the buildings and trees of Isaiah 9:10 so that we can see that God IS talking to America through Isaiah 9:10.  Equivalence we've got, and that does amount to perfect matches.

======================
*Notes on Trees in America:
There is a place that grows cedars of Lebanon, Trees of Joy: http://www.treesofjoy.com/content/about-us
They call it "the RARE cedar of Lebanon" tree.

http://www.treesofjoy.com/content/cedar-lebanon'''
http://www.treesofjoy.com/content/cedar-lebanon-tree

They also have a page on the Middle Eastern sycamore, Ficus Sycamorus: http://www.treesofjoy.com/content/sycamore-fig-ficus-sycamorus

Pictures of Ficus Sycomorus: http://www.flickriver.com/photos/tags/ficussycomorus/interesting/

"North American Sycamore grows in NY": http://forestry.about.com/od/hardwoods/ss/sycamore.htm

Brannon Howse gets it wrong again

I appreciate most of Brannon Howse's work in calling out false teachers and movements within the Church, but when it comes to The Harbinger he's just wrong over and over and over. 

His program of October 1st is a comment on Jan Markell's Understanding the Times show of Saturday the 29th,  It's Not Too Late for America, in which she interviews Jonathan Cahn again and presents some clips in support of The Harbinger as well as clips teaching that judgment is coming to America.

Brannon Howse has been a major promoter of the criticisms of The Harbinger and today he feels he's found confirmation of a major criticism of the book in something Jonathan Cahn said on Jan Markell's program.

First let me say I also heard Jan Markell's show and thought it a good presentation of the case for The Harbinger overall.  It can be heard at the link above. She is hosting a big conference this coming weekend, the 5th and 6th, which includes Jonathan Cahn, and that is the occasion for Howse's presentation of first the Douma criticism (discussed in previous posts) and today his discussion of last weekend's show by Jan Markell -- to poison the atmosphere for the conference?  Intentionally or not that's what it does, although the actual motivation is no doubt to warn the church of a false teacher.  Sad that there can be SUCH a difference among true Bible believers, even discernment ministries, who usually agree on who the false teachers are.  This is truly an amazing divide among true Christians. 
In her latest emailing, Jan included links to two articles defending The Harbinger, from the site Rapture Ready, one by Terry James and one by  Grant Phillips.  Both strong defenses of the book.  Thank God for sane people!

I had a disagreement of my own on a peripheral point in her last show, and a question on top of that, that I'd really like to see answered, which I'll put in a footnote at the bottom of the post.* 

As for Brannon Howse's response to Markell's broadcast, there is one major argument he is determined to make:  that The Harbinger promotes the idea of extra-biblical revelation through prophets today, which is considered by most orthodox Christians to be false doctrine as the Biblical canon is closed, and the supernatural gifts are believed to have ceased with the apostolic generation. 

Cahn himself is not a cessationist, believing that the supernatural gifts continue to operate.  But as far as the book The Harbinger goes, Howse is wrong:  It does NOT promote any idea of extra-biblical revelation.

But here's Howse:  He's concerned about the character of The Prophet in the book, "Is he forthtelling or foretelling?"  He suspects he's foretelling, which is the big no-no.   All who preach the Bible "forthtell" the truth and that is today's form of prophecy.  We don't "foretell" any more.  That's what the Biblical prophets did.

[5:00]  And that was my concern, that this book, which I have read, has a prophet in it and I thought 'Maybe he is a prophet that is foretelling.'  Well, that office is closed.  We don't have people getting extra-biblical revelation.  But you heard him [Cahn] say the book is written as a fiction but it 8is true ...  But listen to what Mr. Cahn says himself: [he keeps repeating the clip of Cahn saying the following] 

[7:18] I put a narrative of a man, a man who's called a prophet.  He's really representing the Old Testament revelation  of the prophets of judgment giving warning to a nation. 

I've strongly emphasized Cahn's statement because Howse repeated the clip a number of times and it's what he hangs his comments on. 

[6:39]  Notice that Cahn in this interview from last week says that the prophet in his book is one like the Old testament.  Well, an Old Testament prophet, folks, could do signs and wonders, an Old Testament prophet got extra-biblical revelation.  That is what ...I thought might be represented in this book to begin with [7:04] but could never really get it nailed down.  Listen to his words again [and he repeats the clip]. 

So where is that revelation coming from, folks?  [7:39]  It's coming from God.  Would that not then be, if you have a prophet in the modern age ... as the book is set [in the modern age] a prophet much like the Old Testament prophets, isn't that again confirming what we've been saying all along?  Remember the book is a fiction...but...it is true.  Is this not affirming the idea that people receive revelation, like an Old Testament prophet, to uncover these mysteries ....

In his blurb describing the show at his website Howse tries to defend his point of view this way:

Brannon believes this clearly involves extra-Biblical revelations or mysteries and thus opens up a serious theological issue. While some would say the "prophet" is revealing the revelation given in the Old Testament; that would not be an accurate assumption if the "prophet" is also revealing new mysteries that are for us today. There is nothing in the text of Isaiah 9:10 that would suggest it forms a repeating pattern of judgment or a mystery that could be applied millennia later. That is completely new revelation.

A mystery is something that was in the mind of God that was not revealed in the Old Testament but was revealed in the New Testament through the writers of the Bible. Thus, if Cahn’s prophet is revealing mysteries then that puts him in the category of the kind of prophet that we see in the Bible.

Howse goes on emphasizing this point for a few more sentences. Well, is he succeeding at making a case that The Harbinger teaches extra-biblical revelation through Old Testament type prophets even today?  He himself is apparently completely convinced that this one statement by Cahn is smoking-gun proof, confirmation of what he's suspected all along.

My answer is of course a resounding No, he has proved no such thing. 

What in Howse's mind is the "new revelation," the "extra-biblical revelation?"  Is it the message of Isaiah 9:10?  But that's Biblical, that's not extra-biblical.  He mentions this in his blurb but goes on to say it isn't accurate

...if the 'prophet' is also revealing new mysteries that are for us today.

So, what new mysteries has this prophet revealed for us today?   Is it the message of Isaiah 9:10 as applied to America?  But again, even in being applied to America it's not new revelation, it's the Bible itself being applied, an ancient text written by the true prophet Isaiah. 

He insists it is new revelation because 

There is nothing in the text of Isaiah 9:10 that would suggest it forms a repeating pattern of judgment or a mystery that could be applied millennia later. That is completely new revelation

THIS is his "new revelation."  But this is nothing but his misuse of the word "pattern" that so many of the critics have been misusing, which I discuss in my response to Douma below.  Cahn never suggested a "repeating pattern of judgment."  He merely referred to Isaiah 9:10 as the pattern for America, and why?  Because it so well describes America's response to 9/11.  That is what makes it a "pattern," as any scripture that is applied to another time than it was written for becomes the pattern for that future time.  It COULD be repeating if it applies to more than one future situation as most scripture usually does, but in this case it's a pattern just because it applies so America.

THE SUPPOSED "NEW" or "EXTRA-BIBLICAL" REVELATION IS NOTHING OTHER THAN THE PERFECTLY STANDARD APPLICATION OF AN OLD TESTAMENT VERSE TO OUR OWN TIME.

Nothing the Prophet has said is either new or extra-biblical, it's merely the transmission of the message of Isaiah which can be found IN the Bible as Howse himself recognizes --or should.  The "revelation" in the message of Isaiah 9:10 is the revelation that since the verse describes America's attitude toward God's judgment in the attack of 9/11 the nation is under judgment just as Israel was when that passage was written to them.  It's the verse being APPLIED to America.  What's extra-biblical about THAT? 

Howse is letting words trip him up by insisting on definitional or formulaic meanings or meanings of his own that have nothing to do with anything in the book.  He's concerned that The Prophet is revealing "mysteries."  But WHAT mysteries is The Prophet revealing?  Nothing more than the BIBLICAL message of Isaiah 9:10 as it is being played out in America.  A standard application of an Old Testament verse to a current situation.  The Prophet didn't make it play out in America, he OBSERVED it playing out.  The Prophet is merely bringing that fact to the attention of the character Nouriel. 

Jonathan Cahn says The Prophet "represents" the Old Testament prophets, he doesn't say he is LIKE them, as Howse misrepresents his statement, or that he does what they do.  He is STANDING FOR them, for THEIR messages, for BIBLICAL truth, and this is borne out in simply READING THE BOOK, where it is clear that the only prophecy is the one in the Bible and the only mystery is the one in the Bible and the only revelation is the Bible's application to our time.  The little clay seals all refer to elements in the Bible, so they also direct the reader back to the BIBLE, not to some new revelation, except, again, the revelation of the APPLICATION of that verse in today's America.  

So in what sense does The Prophet "represent the Old Testament prophets of judgment giving warning to a nation" in Cahn's words?   By passing on the message of judgment given by one of those prophets in the spirit of all the prophets of judgment who gave warning.   He is passing on THEIR message, he is not giving a NEW message from God that he received himself.

• There is nothing extra-biblical going on here, it is ALL biblical. 
• There is no  new revelation, what is revealed is the meaning in applicaton to America of a passage in the Bible. 
• There is no new mystery that is being revealed, only this same meaning in its application to America.

 The Prophet is not presented as receiving anything the way the Old Testament prophets did, by direct impartation from God.  ALL he is doing is passing on KNOWN BIBLICAL TRUTHS and showing their application to America in our time.  What he passes on of their application is something that theoretically anyone could have observed because it's all out there to be observed, though it did take someone to draw our attention to it.  That's the function of the book and The Prophet is the character who presents the information.

How to explain this complete misrepresentation of the book by Howse?  Clearly he is jumping to conclusions on the flimsiest of evidence.  A lack of care to really think it through?  A lack of prayer to protect against such obvious error?   Too much eagerness to have his own opinion vindicated?  An allergy to certain words that makes him along with his fellow critics itch to falsely brand a fellow Christian as a purveyor of false doctrine?

===========================
*  The disagreement I had with Jan Markell's show was about their insistence that the American founders, especially George Washington, were true Christians.  One reference given was to a Prayer Diary attributed to Washington that expresses the very Christian concept of being washed in the blood of the lamb.  The problem is that Washington's authorship of that diary is in dispute.  Beyond that, what IS known about Washington's beliefs is rather scanty because he was extremely reticent to talk about his beliefs, an attitude amply testified by his contemporaries.  This in itself ought to raise some doubts just because there is no reason for such reticence in someone who holds true Christian beliefs, in a nation which was as predominantly Christian as America was at that time.   And there is also the equally well testified fact that Washington refused to take Communion at his Anglican Church but would walk out at that point in the service, and when chided by the pastor for setting a poor example for others his response was simply not to attend church at all on Communion Sunday after that.  

The Religious Beliefs of America's Founders, A recently published book by Gregg L. Frazer, a scholar connected with John MacArthur's Masters College, concludes that the big name founders were neither Christians nor Deists but something Frazer dubbed Theistic Rationalists.  They believed in Providence, in a God who oversees His world, who answers prayer, which is not the Deist concept of God as having created the world and then left it to operate on its own, but they all denied the deity of Christ, which certainly defines them as nonChristians.  It's easy to find statements by Adams, Jefferson, Franklin and Paine against the deity of Christ, some quite blasphemous statements as a matter of fact as they ridicule the concept, while Washington's belief in this regard is generally hard to pin down.  But I checked in the book by Frazer at Amazon and found in his chapter on Washington a description of him as denying the deity of Christ as well.

The nonChristian and in fact even anti-Christian beliefs of the American Founders has been a bitter pill for many to swallow and it is still denied by many although the evidence has been mounting.  I found it hard to accept when I first encountered the idea too, but the evidence is just too strong to ignore.  So my position now is that we need to get these facts straight no matter how bitter the news.  The nation is still nevertheless founded on a very strong Christian base, we just have to look further back to our Pilgrim and Puritan forebears, and the Christian influences in the nation all along until the last half century or so had been very strong in all areas of the nation's life.

The beliefs of the founders comes up in relation to The Harbinger because the book puts some weight on Washington's prayer for the nation in the chapel that happens to be located right at Ground Zero, as one of the founding markers of the nation as dedicated to God.  That's a whole discussion in itself and all I'll say here is that I believe God would have honored our first President's dedication of the nation just because he was our first President, the "father of the nation," but I'd also suppose that there must have been true Christians praying along with him as the nation WAS overall a Christian nation in those days, despite the Enlightenment thinking of the major Founders.  In any case Cahn also refers back to the first generation of Pilgrim and Puritan settlers where the Christian foundation is uncompromised.

That was my disagreement with one position stated on Jan Markell's broadcast.  The question I also had is about the fact that they claim that The Harbinger is bringing people to salvation, and they mentioned that even Catholics and Mormons are coming to salvation.  Nothing could make me happier if so, but I have to confess scepticism about that.  I can certainly see that Catholics and Mormons might be drawn to the message of the book and to a renewal of their belief, but since I know that converting either of those groups is far from easy I have my doubts that they are converting FROM their respective churches to true Christianity.  I hope it is so, but the evidence one way or the other has not been given, and it should not have been implied that they are in fact converting without such evidence.

New Criticism of The Harbinger: Douma, Pt. 4 The Shemitah

The other point I wanted to get to but didn't in the last post is Douma's remarks about the concept of the Shemitah as as it is used in The Harbinger.  There's a lot to say about this concept that I'm not going to get to, I just want to respond to Douma's main point.

First as usual we encounter the Dispensationalist framework which is what is making an ungodly and unbiblical confusion out of the whole discussion, when Douma objects to Cahn's applying the concept of the Shemitah to America at all, since according to that system of Bible-mangling it was

meant only for Israel.

He condemns Cahn for applying it to America, quoting page 159 of The Harbinger:

The sign of the Shemitah, given to a nation that has driven God out of its life

 Interesting that he doesn't quote the earlier part of that dialogue:

Yes, but what does it have to do with America.  Ameica has never had a Sabbath Year. 

That's correct.  It was only commanded for one nation.  But the issue here isn't the literal observance of the Shemitah or any requirement to keep it....  The issue here... is its dynamic, its effect and its consequence.... The issue is The Shemitah as a sign.

Cahn, in other words, is clearly not applying the Shemitah to America in the same sense it was given to Israel.  I don't want to get into that here except to say that I think he observed -- emphasis on OBSERVED -- somethng interesting about a pattern of seven years that actually OCCURRED in America that led to the connection with the biblical concept of the Shemitah. That is, it isn't something he took from the Bible to make it fit America, it was the other way around.

Be that as it may, for another discussion another time, Douma, having found Cahn at fault for applying the Shemitah to America at all, says 

Are you and I bound to sabbatical rest laws?  Isn't he saying as Peter did that we Gentiles have to start living like Jews?  [41:59]  How is that not a distortion of the goepsl?  Where is the criticism of that?  How is Cahn not trying to build up a wall that was taken down by Christ in Ephesians 2, the wall of separation, the Mosaic law that separated Jews and Gentiles.  Is not Cahn rebuilding that wall once again?  Of course he is.  So this is a gospel issue.  He's resstablishing the Mosaic Law and now it applies to you and I [sic].  [42:28]

No, I'm free from that in Christ.

Here can be seen one major confusion that needs to be untangled.  Douma fails to distinguish between the inheritance of freedom in Christ that we have AS BELIEVERS and the condition of the unbeliever, but also between individuals and nations.  The Harbinger is about the nation of America.  It is the NATION that is coming under judgment by God.  That will certainly affect individuals, both believers and unbelievers, but the judgment as such is about the nation and not the individuals. 

God deals with individuals individually.  That is a different thing altogether from His judgment of nations as nations. 

9/11 should have been recognized as judgment on America by anyone with any biblical sense at all, and I have to say most of the nation has no biblical sense so it's no wonder it was missed.  America as a nation is corporately in defiance of God, only too well described in Isaiah 9:10 but also given a special confirmation and emphasis by the existence of the harbingers as described in Cahn's book, and it all relates specifically to 9/11. 

But this does not in any way imply anything about the individuals who were killed on that day.  We have no way of knowing how God dealt with them and it's none of our business.  Some were no doubt believers, some weren't.  We can say that God showed a great deal of mercy in the midst of that judgment, in that relatively so few were killed when so many thousands more could have been killed.  There are miracle stories galore about that day. 

Judgment on a nation is NOT at all the same thing as judgment on individuals.

So when we think about elements of the Old Testament coming to apply to America today we have to keep the nation separate in our thinking from individuals, either believers or unbelievers.

Yes, we BELIEVERS are free from the Law in Christ, but unbelievers are not but "abide under the wrath of God" as scripture says, and nations are still corporately dealt with by the Law in the fashion laid down in scripture for Israel.  The Mosaic law is really a revelation of The Law that runs this universe.   It's no arbitrary thing.  It inexorably rules, it inexorably judges.  That is why we NEED the gospel to rescue us from it as individuals, and we can ONLY be rescued AS individuals. 

But outside the gospel The Law goes right on ruling and judging.  The Mosaic Law was the basis for Blackstone's Commentaries on the law that used to be the foundation for English and American law.  No more of course since the Bible as any kind of authority in our world has been brought down by the powers of evil.  But once upon a time The Mosaic Law was taken to be the foundation for all civilized laws in this fallen world.

THAT IS AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE THING FROM THE GOSPEL.

Cahn is NOT reestablishing the wall of separation, he is simply doing what sane intelligent Christians, unhampered by idiotic Dispensationalist presuppositions, have ALWAYS done, apply the Law to NATIONS.

The confusion in the critical attacks on The Harbinger is truly dangerous -- again, far beyond The Harbinger.  Maybe it's because of this truly unbiblical system of theology that so many pastors in this nation had no clue that 9/11 was God's judgment in the first place.   These critics, even when they think the nation deserves judgment for all the sins they can enumerate that all conservative Christians agree about, seem to be strangely unable to be SURE of it.  Well, we MAY be coming under judgment they say, or maybe we're GOING TO BE some time in the near future.  This is a terrible blindness and it's sad to think it might be theologically induced blindness.

New Criticism of the Harbinger: Douma, Pt. 3 Patterns and Signs

I want to respond to just a couple of points here made by Douma that typify the strange forced pedantic thinking of all the critics.

First, again, they're all clearly dispensationalists who disallow the application of Old Testament messages to Israel to any other nation.  At least when Cahn does it.  They're all in favor of Pastor Lutzer's doing it.  I haven't yet sorted out what they think the difference is.

That benighted theological system dispensationalism underlies everything they say about the book in one way or another.  Douma makes much of Cahn's supposed misuse of the idea of a "pattern" in Isaiah that applies to America.  Cahn has already objected to the critics' strange inability to grasp this idea, pointing out that they are failing to distinguish between the interpretation of a passage as it was given to Israel, and its application to other contexts, such as America in this case, and that is true.  But Douma agrees in the abstract with that statement while also failing to notice that very error in his own argument.

Around 29:40 on the counter Douma says Cahn distorts BOTH interpretation and application.  He goes on to make the damning remark that this pattern

"exists only in Cahn's mind.  It is not a pattern that is revealed by Isaiah nor any other prophet.  It is just simply not there."

Later [31:05] he embellishes this with 

Cahn is replacing inspiration with his imagination.

Side note:  Do these critics have any idea just HOW damning their statements are?  Does one normally accuse other Christians of this degree of error?  Well, perhaps they doubt that Cahn is actually a Christian?  These remarks are scorchingly condemnatory no matter how politely or matter-of-factly  they are spoken.

Aside from that, the expectation that a pattern in order to be a pattern must have been revealed by the prophet himself, is missing the way Cahn means it is a pattern.  It is a pattern BECAUSE it applies to America.  Once you see that it DOES apply to America (and even without the harbingers it applies to America) THEN it can be seen as the pattern for America.  America WAS and IS in defiance of God about 9/11 as God's judgment and Isaiah 9:10 HAPPENS TO DESCRIBE AMERICA'S DEFIANT ATTITUDE ALL TOO WELL.  Once that is recognized what is the problem in referring to the original description of Israel's defiant attitude as the PATTERN for America's?

He goes on to claim [30:35]  that Cahn is "distorting an actual biblical pattern" as well, which turns out to mean that the prophecies in Isaiah can't refer to America because they all refer to the Day of the Lord.   Now, this piece of wild nonsense just about makes me want to throw in the towel on this boxing match.  When the terms of the argument get this bizarre what can you do?  You're dealing with an opponent who doesn't recognize any of the known rules that I'm aware of, and he's actually got people cheering him on.  Brannon Howse??  Would Erwin Lutzer agree with him about this?  What on earth are these people thinking?  Supposedly the prophecies refer ONLY to the Day of the Lord, therefore Cahn is "distorting an actual biblical pattern?"  Since when are we not allowed to apply an Old Testament passage to our own time, situation, nation or whatever no matter WHAT ELSE it applies to?  Please, someone tell me there's a way out of this Twilight Zone.  Is this to be put down to dispensationalism, and if so, where does THEIR usual application of Old Testament principles of judgment to America come in anyway?

The condemnatory terms just go on escalating: 

"The "pattern" is reader-derived, that is, by Cahn, not author-derived, and so herefore he is like a postmodern who says the Bible can mean whatever I say it means and to me that is a great danger."

Now Cahn is Postmodern?   Basically because Douma insists on his own pedantic formulaic misreading of the word "pattern" and not because there is anything the slightest postmodern about Cahn or The Harbinger.  Cahn is applying perfectly standard reasonable rules of interpretation in his use of Isaiah.  I'm beginning to think the only "danger" is with this sort of irresponsible criticism.  THIS is what needs to be condemned, in no uncertain terms. 

I have to suppose that the critics believe their own stuff, that is, they are sincere, but they are so hideously destructively WRONG they shouldn't be allowed a platform to do the damage they are doing.  Not just to The Harbinger but to normal standards of Bible interpretation, and to the poor beleaguered human beings who have to try to make sense out of this stuff and may actually take it as authoritative and pass it on.  Somebody who has some clout in the Christian world, which is certainly not I, needs to give them a helpfully abrupt hand down from their soapbox before they do more damage. 

Douma gets pedantic about the meaning of "signs" as well, as he objects to Cuah's claiming that the elements of Isaiah 9:8-11 are harbingers or signs to Israel as well as to America.  

God's not saying these are signs of judgment, they're just judgment.

Actually I'd say it's a description of how God brought a first judgment, then of how Israel defied that judgment by determining they'd rebuild what was destroyed without acknowledging the destructon as judgment, followed by God's saying THEREFORE He's going to bring even MORE judgment (verse 11.)  The elements that Cahn identifies as signs or harbingers are events that the Israelites SHOULD have recognized as God's hand in judgment and since they didn't but defied them, then, along with their statements of defiance as well, they become signs of the threat of future judgment to anyone who knows how to think biblically -- or think at all. 

Cahn is NOT using the concept of the harbingers or omens or signs in the sense Douma points to in Isaiah 7:14 and the births of the oddly-named children of Isaiah, all of which are clearly called signs to Israel.  Douma insists on his pedantic definitions of words and misses the context completely and this kind of misbegotten thinking becomes the basis for another excoriating attack on Jonathan Cahn and The Harbinger.

I'll have to save the other topic for the next post. 

Blessings in the Lord to those who RIGHTLY DIVIDE THE WORD OF TRUTH.

Lord, please bring sanity to this dispute.

New Criticism of The Harbinger: Douma Pt. 2

Usually I'm up for taking on the critics but this one makes me really really tired.  Maybe it's no worse than the others, maybe it's just my current frame of mind, but I listen to this stuff, I read the notes, and it's such a muddled mess both logically and theologically the task of hacking my way through it just makes me weary. 

And there's Brannon Howse saying if this one doesn't convince us there's something doctrinally, theologically and biblically wrong with The Harbinger that's some kind of final proof of our failure of discernment.  Deep deep Sigh.  Is there any hope of showing someone with that wrongheaded a perspective on all this that HE's the one with the discernment failure here?  And that thought makes me really really REALLY tired.

Well, where to start.  I think I'll start by saying that this whole excuse for a critique is so ABSTRACT it reminds me of a Marxist treatise.  Really.  Ever read one of those?  Never touches down to earth, just flies along about ten feet off the ground trailing paragraphs of Terminology, words that have no anchor in reality, just in Theory.  Very sophisticated-sounding Word Salad.  You don't dare ask what it MEANS because then you'll REALLY be lost.  Here we have a wonderful display of those words I called somewhere back a ways  "trigger words," that apparently awaken red-alert Suspiciousness in certain theological camps and launch virtual nuclear warheads of this earnestly "concerned" undecipherable gobbledygook.  

Oh I HOPE I'll be up to responding PROPERLY to this eventually.  I've got LOTS of notes.  I'll just publish this much anyway and add to it later.  Lord willing.

A New Criticism of The Harbinger: Douma

Apparently the criticism of The Harbinger isn't going to stop soon. Here comes another attack on the book, aired by Brannon Howse on his Worldview Weekend program.

Today Brannon plays a powerful presentation by Pastor Eric Douma of Twin City Fellowship. Days before Jonathan Cahn appears in the Twin Cities, Pastor Douma is warning of the dangerous theological issue with Cahn’s book. Pastor Douma has done his Biblical homework and lays out point by point the serious theological errors of Cahn’s book. After listening to this program if someone can still defend Cahn’s book and theology then I think we have to seriously question their discernment and commitment to the authority of Scripture not to mention their lack of ability to study the Bible in context. Be sure to listen and post to your Facebook page.

Here's the whole sermon, Can The Bible Ever Mean What It Never Meant? / Case Study: The Harbinger, at the site of Eric Douma's church Twin City Fellowship.

I'm only halfway through it and I feel like screaming and tearing my hair out.  I know this is REALLY unhelpful, but take it as a sign that I hope to come back and do my best to show the absolute nonsense of this unfortunately all too typical critique of The Harbinger.

It's like they're all focused on the minutiae of words, taking them apart under a microscope with a tweezers to find errors that don't exist. OK, yes, I know that's unhelpful. Sorry. I hope I can do something more persuasive later.

Good grief, the devil is busy these days, inventing problems with this book, but he's also been tripping me up.  It's my own fault, I haven't been watchful enough.  The Lord says we must lose our lives and I've been trying hard to save mine.  Not my physical life I hasten to add, though perhaps my physical wellbeing, plus inconveniences and ego stuff I end up having to apologize for.  Devil knows I'm susceptible to all that but I can't blame him, just have to be more watchful and prayerful.  Watch, pray, stand.  If you don't watch and pray you don't stand.

CATHOLIC PRIEST CALLS FOR AN END TO THE VATICAN AS CONTRARY TO THE TRUE FAITH

Chris Pinto covered this article by a priest on his radio show today and I reported it on my other blog about Catholicism. Seemed worth a headline here as well.   Distinguishing between the power structure of Rome and the average Catholic's faith has got to be a good start.  Then when they go on to get the true gospel of salvation by faith alone figured out, HALLELUJAH!