James takes on Harbinger Seven, The Erez Tree

On page 100, in his Chapter 10, The Ancient Mystery: The Nine Harbingers, David James has arrived at The Erez Tree. This is Harbinger Number Seven so I'm passing over the earlier ones for now.

He opens the topic with:

FACT CONCERNING ISRAEL: Israel planted valuable cedars of Lebanon to replace sycamores in defiance of the Assyrians who cut them down and in defiance of God who had sent them to judge the nation. *

Well, perhaps they did eventually plant them, but Isaiah 9:10, which is the focus of The Harbinger, only says they INTENDED to plant them. The point about that verse is always the intent, the heart attitude, the defiance of God in the making of plans to overcome the effects of God's judgment.

He continues:

CLAIM CONCERNING AMERICA: A Norway spruce was planted at Ground Zero to replace the sycamore to give hope to a hurting nation. *

I'm wondering WHOSE claim he has in mind here. It's not Jonathan Cahn's claim, which is that all the harbingers represent America's defiance of God just as Israel's intention to rebuild and replant was defiance of God. Few Americans recognized 9/11 as God's judgment and did all kinds of foolish things in their desire to "recover" from the attack, to rebuild and replant just as Israel determined to do, and they did call the Norway Spruce The Tree of Hope because that was the whole tenor of America's response to 9/11, rather than a recognition of being out of God's will and a call to the nation to repent. But anyone who thought of 9/11 as God's judgment could only see such actions as a foolish refusal to submit to God and to seek our hope in Him rather than merely human plans.

Some interpret Isaiah 9:10 to suggest that Israel KNEW they were defying God's judgment by their plans to rebuild. I'm not sure where they get that -- from the preceding verse that describes their plan as coming from the pride and arrogance of their hearts? But we don't have to consciously intend to defy God to express that sort of arrogance, it's implicit in the very lack of acknowledgement of Him, the lack of submission to Him, as if He simply doesn't exist. America just "doesn't think that way," we don't think in terms of God's judgments, we're "modern" people who see only our human enemies in an event like 9/11, only chance in natural disasters, hurricanes, floods and so on. But by God's standards this IS the same arrogance of heart as Isaiah 9:9 describes of Israel. America WAS once a Christian nation, did once call upon God AS A NATION too, even observed days of repentance and prayer AS A NATION, called to it by our own Presidents. We've fallen a long way since then. We've forgotten God altogether. Now we do it ourselves and as an afterthought ask God to bless our efforts. The sad thing is that this call for God to bless America is mistaken even by David James as acknowledging God rather than defying Him, so that he himself expresses the unwittingly defiant attitude of America in this way, which I can demonstrate in many places in his book.

James goes on to point out that in The Harbinger the similarity that makes a match of the Norway Spruce to the Erez tree of Isaiah is a botanical similarity, while the match between the sycamores is a match of names only as botanically they are different trees, similar in appearance but botanically different. James says "He can't have it both ways." I'm not sure why not. I simply see similarities here, I'm not sure the different basis for the similarities is important, but let's say for now it's something to think about.

A SELF-CONTRADICTION?
But now he is going to object to the botanical basis for the similarity of the spruce to the erez tree anyway. Cahn, he says,

...mishandles the scientific evidence, but even more important, his argument goes beyond a lack of biblical evidence. It contradicts the biblical evidence. In addition, he again fails to accurately convey the historical context of the events.

First, Cahn tries to persuade the reader that the spruce that replaced the sycamore at Ground Zero exactly matched the cedars in Isaiah 9:10 when The Prophet says, 'It is a particular kind of cone-bearing evergreen.'[TH p. 90] But he then immediately reverses direction by arguing that the match is due to the fact that cedar and spruce trees are both part of the same broad category. He cites a commentary for support: 'The Hebrew erez rendered 'cedar' in all English versions, is most likely a generic word for the pine family.'[Revell Dictionary p. 198].

OK, that's a big enough bite to start with. James is first of all saying that Cahn is contradicting himself even practically in the same breath, by supposedly first saying there is an exact perfect match and then seeming to take it back by making the match within a class of trees of a similar kind.

James does this sort of thing a lot in this book. He finds what superficially seems like a contradiction to him, although a moment's hesitation should have told him that Cahn could not possibly have committed such a contradiction within a sentence or two and therefore must have meant something else than James first took him to mean. Benefit of the doubt at least: you'd have to be a bit demented to create such a contradiction and not notice it. So, in this case shouldn't it be understood that by "particular kind" Cahn MEANS what James calls the "broad category," or the "pine family?" This is simply a matter of words being taken in the wrong sense. The pine family IS a "particular kind" of tree; there are other "particular kinds" of conifers as well. Again, the identifying of such supposed self-contradictions is a recurring theme in James' book, and in all of them it seems to me it's the same kind of confusion on James' part that could have been avoided by a little generosity of spirit. (I'll allow that perhaps Cahn could have expressed his meaning more exactly in some places, but even given that possibility a reviewer ought to be able to tell a lack of precision from a contradiction.)

He goes on from there to quote part of a dialogue from The Harbinger showing that Cahn is equating the erez tree with the pine family or the pinacea family, having The Prophet say

Yes. The most botanically precise translation of the vow would be, 'But we will plant pinacea trees in their place" [TH p. 90].

Which prompts James to emphasize the supposed self-contradiction:

So, which is it? Does the spruce match the erez tree because it is a particular kind of tree? Or does it match because erez refers only to a broad category?

And again, they are one and the same thing, the category IS the particular kind Cahn has in mind. Obvious, really.

But now he does go on to seemingly score a point against The Harbinger, (or does he?):

The remainder of Cahn's argument hinges on erez referring only to the broad category of Pinacea familyk, or pine tree. But that is not the way erez is used in the Bible.

AHA! EREZ MEANS CEDAR AND ONLY CEDAR

Well, this is true. In the Bible, in all the English translations, erez is rendered "cedar." There are even other members of the Pinacea family specifically referred to in the Bible translated from other Hebrew words, such as the fir and the pine. there isn't a single exception to this. There isn't a pine or a fir translated from erez, and there isn't any other Hebrew word translated "cedar." So did Cahn just make up the meaning Pinacea Family off the top of his head?

Stay tuned.

====================
*
Have received information that the asterisked quotes had escaped the author's edits and that they are now being corrected for the next edition.

Lord, Expose, Reprove, Deliver many from the Christian Counterfeits

O Lord, open the eyes of your sleeping Church to the enemy's work. Bring millions out of his deceptions to true salvation by faith alone in Christ alone by grace alone. Expose the works of darkness that are leading Your people astray. Bring it all to the light. Turn those who are deceived to the truth. Thank You for those who are exposing all these things and raise up more workers to do this. Strengthen them, strengthen their work, open doors for their work to edify the Body of Christ. Amen.

First the Catholic Antichrist. Open the eyes of nominal "Protestants" to the truth and make us TRUE Protestants against the pure evil of the Harlot Church of Rome. Bring millions out of her.

The Liberal Churches that compromise Your word and promote worldliness and false faith in a false God.

Also the Charismatic movement that is mistaking either fleshly or demonic phenomena for Your Spirit. Also the Word of Faith. Give them the necessary understanding to lead them out of this pagan darkness into Your Light. Cast down the false teachers, the wolves in sheep's clothing.

Today's movements within the churches that are compromising Your Word, leaning to Rome, leaning to mysticism, leaning to a worldly focus, on good deeds and social justice over Your supernatural salvation. Such as the Emergent Church, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, so many others I haven't been keeping up with.

The false histories of America such as by David Barton, I think also the earlier ones that came out a few decades ago, I'll have to look them up. Thank you for exposing this, bring us the true history of America.

The Cults that think they are biblical, such as Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses.

Also please open eyes about the Bible versions. The eyes of pastors who are unwittingly supporting what is really the work of the evil one, to undermine the faith of Your people through corrupt manuscripts, false history, a babel of "translations" and all the rest of it. Bless Chris Pinto's new film about all this, Tares Among the Wheat.

Cast light on the deceptions of the false science of Evolution that has ensnared so many and turned them away from You. Expose, Reprove, Deliver, Lord.

I also pray that You would show the churches what You REALLY mean in First Corinthians 11:2-16. This is another deception that undermines Your Creation Order, Your government, scandalizes angels and affects the whole tenor of Your churches and has most probably fed the destructive Liberalism that has already destroyed many churches.

There are false teachers and false teachings in every part of the Church, all of them, Baptist, Fundamental, Reformed, Holiness, all of them, I pray for them all to be exposed and convicted or cast out.

Lord, Reform Your Church. Expose, Reprove, Deliver. Bring Your people out of the darkness of this world that is getting darker every day.

Thank you for so many who are doing this work these days. Strengthen the ministers of Your light and correct them as needed.

Give us a new Protestant Reformation.

Amen.

Charismatic Deceptions, Hinduism, Kundalini, Kriyas etc.

The most important influence in causing me to pull back from defending the Harbinger is the charismatic connections of its author, Jonathan Cahn. I learned years ago that many of the teachers he seems to be accepting in some way or another are deceived men and women who are leading other Christians astray. While I haven't been able to find such influences in the Harbinger itself I have to be alert to the possibility that there is some such influence that's outside my ability to detect, and if I want to find out one way or the other I'm going to have to suspend all judgment about it altogether for a while.

Meanwhile I want to take a tour through the charismatic deceptions as a sort of foundation for whatever I need to know about all this. So this morning I was listening to one of Brannon Howse's broadcasts about a prayer rally that's to be held tomorrow in which some charismatic leaders I KNOW are deceivers have apparently succeeded in deceiving some political leaders on the Right, such as Michele Bachman and Phyllis Schlafly. Here's the blurb from Howse's show:

Brannon’s guest is Justin Peters. Topic: Several well-known New Religious right leaders that include Michele Bachman, Jim Garlow, Rick Scarborough, David Barton, Tom Minnery of Focus on the family and others are listed as speakers at a prayer rally at the church of Rodney Howard-Browne. Do these people not have search engines on their computers? Hear audio clips of Rodney Howard-Browne and learn how he brought the idea of being “drunk in the spirit”, “holy laughter” and other manifestations into churches in the early 1990s. What is the source of these manifestations? What does it tell us about the condition of modern-day evangelicalism when a man with the theology of Browne can see members of the New Religious Right take part in a prayer rally at his church? Topic: Hear an audio clip by John MacArthur on how many of the NAR and WOF proponents are committing blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Topic: We take your calls and we hear from a caller that was part of this movement and is thankful we are exposing it as not being Biblical.

I've written on some of these manifestations in charismatic churches on this blog, but Howse pointed out a You Tube video that really brings it home how false they are, how they are EXACTLY what goes on in the pagan religion of Hinduism in the form of "Kundalini Yoga." I've heard many times how similar it all is without ever having witnessed it. In this case Andrew Strom, an ex-charismatic "prophet" who has been exposing this movement for years now, has put up footage of the same manifestations occurring in a Hindu context, and there is no doubt that this is satanic stuff.

Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, who set up shop in Oregon for a few years in the 80s and led many Americans to demon-possession, whose followers dressed in red, is shown in this film administering "shaktipat" to one of his disciples. Rajneesh is what he used to be called anyway, although as I recall he changed his name to something like Oshi(?) after his criminal activities in America got him deported. "Shaktipat" is most probably the touch of a demon-possessed person being given to another person to "impart" the demonic phenomena to the recipient, the "kriyas" or the jerkings and laughing and shakings and barkings and falling down and so on. The Hindu understanding is that it's "awakening" the "Kundalini," which is supposedly some sort of "energy" that's latent in the body, built into the human frame. In either case it's clearly something that goes on in pagan religions and doesn't belong in Christian churches.

I wonder if the presence of so many Hindu "gurus" in America back in the 60s through the 80s was somehow the origin of the demonic phenomena in the charismatic churches. The fact that the "spirit" can be passed from one person to another by touch suggests many ways this could have happened.

They are doing exactly the same thing in the "Christian" churches only not calling it "Shaktipat" or the phenomena "kriyas" but promoting it as "the power of the Holy Spirit."

There are at least two parts to this video at You Tube. Here's the first part. This video should be shown in all the charismatic churches, in ALL the churches for that matter.

It should bring all TRUE Christians out of the charismatic movement.

==============
Here's a description of "kriyas" by a Kundalini teacher.

Kriyas ( pronounced kree-yuhz) are automatic movements, vocalizations or actions that are part of the process of Kundalini clearing the karma held in the energy body. They may take almost infinite forms, from a simple urge to put the body into yoga postures, even if you have never studied yoga- to elaborate songs, chanting and dances, possibly in a language you are unfamiliar with.

Yoga postures, twitching and shaking are the most common types of kriyas. Kurt Keutzer's FAQ contains a simple analogy of what is actually happening: Imagine a garden hose, coiled up and kinked. Turn the water on (Kundalini energy) and the hose tends to thrash around until the water pressure causes it to straighten enough for the water to flow easily. Kriyas most often occur when the body's instinctive guidance is in the process of moving a blockage to the flow of spiritual life energy.

Most kriyas are simple tremors or twitches as tension held in the body, releases. However, they can be quite complex movements, breathing patterns, (pranayama) vocalizations, visions,... the body will do whatever it needs to do, to facilitate the blockage being cleared, and it has all the wisdom of the Collective consciousness, to draw upon. So, a Kriya may take the form of an African Dance, a Sanskrit song, an Aboriginal drum chant, or anything. Energy clearing techniques that have been used by different cultures for thousands of years, tend to have a higher resonance in the Collective, and the body-mind guidance will make use of that unconscious information, bring it forth.

That is why people who may never have studied Hatha Yoga, find their bodies wanting to assume Yoga postures, or why people who do not speak a foreign language may find themselves spontaneously chanting in Sanskrit.

Obviously obviously obviously this is the same stuff we're seeing in these "revivals," at Brownsville, in Toronto, at Lakeland and so on. It includes even "speaking in tongues" and the "[un]holy laughter" but most commonly the jerkings and spasmodic movements of the head and body. Whether it is a release of what Jessie Penn-Lewis and Watchman Nee call "soul power" or is demonically inspired, or both, I don't know for sure, but it's NOT the Holy Spirit.

What if I'm deceived about the Harbinger?

I am now seriously grappling with the possibility of having been deceived about the Harbinger.

One thing that keeps hitting me is that deception is VERY subtle. The devil knows exactly where to get us. Being moved by the message of the Harbinger COULD even be a deception, I'm not saying it is, but it COULD be. I already had a commitment to 9/11 as God's judgment on the nation and the Harbinger fit right in, and any time our favorite positions are confirmed COULD be an avenue to deception. Especially these days.

I remember from the time I had to face the possibility that I was being deceived in the charismatic movement just how HARD it was to recognize and accept my wrong judgment. It takes a real scouring soul-searching to begin to see and accept one's own deceptions. I have been unable to see any serious errors in the Harbinger itself, but my inability to see them doesn't prove anything I'm afraid. It could simply prove the subtlety of deception. It COULD. I'm willing to try to face this possibility.

So I'm going to pull back from taking any position on it for a while. As long as I commit to ANY position, if it should be a deception, the Lord won't show me where I'm wrong, I'm sure of that.

I know I have to be completely open to whatever the truth is, and that means being willing to abandon EVERYTHING I've thought if necessary. And that means a struggle with myself. If I've been right in defending the Harbinger and am willing to be completely wrong instead, THEN I can count on being shown the truth, but not while I'm committed to defending it -- or committed to ANY position for that matter.

I KNOW I MUST BE WILLING TO BE COMPLETELY WRONG BY THE LORD'S LIGHT, HUMBLED TO THE DUST, AND THAT'S A CRUCIFIXION OF THE FLESH THAT'S VERY HARD TO BEAR. BUT THE FRUIT OF IT COULD ONLY BE GLORIOUS.

Deception is afoot these days in so many ways, any of us can be deceived, we need to be willing to subject ourselves to a rigorous assessment of our motives. Try me O Lord and see if there is any wicked way in me. And there always is, you know, SOME wicked way in us. We're always easily deceived by our wicked hearts, but whether that will turn out to show that I've been deceived over the Harbinger or not I don't yet know.

I would hope that Jonathan Cahn himself would be willing to subject himself to such a scouring for his own sake. His being at all in favor of some of the charismatic teachers that I learned the hard way are seriously out of the Lord's will makes him especially vulnerable to deception.

It's possible I'll end up being more sure than ever that the Harbinger is from God, but I can't predict at the moment. All I know is that my inner turmoil about these things means I've got to pull back at least for a while.

When is an illusion not an illusion; and a poem about Harbinger Soup

I'm taking a break from the book by David James because there's just too much in it to answer, too many issues he raises. Most of them I do want to answer, because they seem to me either to be completely artifacts of his dispensationalist assumptions or forced in one way or another. I think all that does need to be answered but it would take a lot of time to get to it and through it. He does make the occasional point I can agree with, but not many.

But I wanted to sketch out one of his main arguments that happens to be on my mind: He judges all the harbingers, the signs that occurred in America that the book presents as uncanny symbols that echo the various parts of Isaiah 9:10 as "illusions." Coincidences that persuade there is more to them because of a "wow" factor.

But what does he base the conclusion that they are illusions on? He actually argues that since the bricks that fell in Israel represented the entire city that there is no correspondence between that destruction and the falling of a few buildings in New York City, AND of course those buildings weren't made of clay bricks either. Then they intended to rebuild the entire city with hewn stones but all Cahn can point to is the one gigantic hewn cornerstone for the New Freedom Tower that didn't even get used! The sycamore that was uprooted was only one tree, not the groves that were destroyed in Israel, and it isn't even the same kind of tree! The tree that was brought in to replace it isn't a cedar of Lebanon, which the leaders of Israel intended to plant to replace their sycamores.

Excuse me if I say that this is just silly. I know it needs some references and quotes and so on which I'll try to supply when I'm up to it again, but the basic idea is just silly.

What, only if a whole town built of clay bricks were destroyed, along with groves of Middle Eastern sycamores, which don't grow here, and only if stone masons were to be the builders of a new skyscraper, and a grove of cedars of Lebanon were planted, would James accept that the harbingers are not an illusion?

I don't even know what to call this kind of thinking.

=======================================
You know this is getting to me when I write something like the following:


HARBINGER SOUP
Or, The Theology of Straining out Gnats

Nine chickens we took from the biblical coop
To make harbinger harbinger harbinger soup.

A couple escaped and we chased with a whoop
So we could have plenty of harbinger soup.

We caught them and tied them by making a loop
Out of twine that had come from the John B sloop.

And broke we their necks -- they'd no longer us dupe
And botch up the planned hermeneutical soup.

We made it with arguments bound as a group
To spice up our fine exegetical soup.

The critics then thrust in their finely-meshed scoop
And, horrified, cried There are flies in your soup!

By the hundreds, they shouted, a fat sassy troop,
Along with their Musca Domestica poop!

Well, sad we all were at the thought of such goop
Befouling our fine theological soup.

But in through the window there came with a swoop
A fly-eating bird, a redoubtable snoop,

Who hungrily spied out the flies in the scoop
and pronounced that in fact they were

Gnats,

Not flies,

And only three of them,

And flew off in a huff.

So now I have told you of how we made soup
Out of chickens that came from the biblical coop
Oh it was truly a wonderful soup
A humble American harbinger soup.

Though now we may need some more time to regroup
And consider perhaps just how lowly to stoop
To be sure we make positive biblical soup

With no flies in it.

Or gnats either.

We're not sure what happened to the camel.

O harbinger harbinger harbinger soup.

Notes from Cyberia, or Bloggin on Bloggin while the world unravels. Or something like that.

Thanks largely to Google I've been hearing from people on both sides of this Harbinger controversy for months now. The only other issue to have attracted my blogs so much attention is the "heaven" stories. For some reason the former mostly brings me emails, the latter brings comments on my posts.

I've been used to doing my own thing out here in cyberspace not expecting much attention, mostly because my topics tend to be on the less popular side -- and I suppose also because I have the habit of writing at a length that stretches people's patience. I decided early on that I have to write as I'm inspired to write whether I get readers or not.

There is every sort of blogging style out there. Some make a point of touring the Blogosphere in search of a network of contacts in order to build up a community of like-minded people. Some already have a network to get them going, or a business or a ministry or a project. Some start out cold and write into the void. That's pretty much my style. I've tried to interest friends and relatives but I'm a black sheep there so I stay a black sheep here.

I've posted on other blogs but that doesn't usually win me friends. In fact, many of my blog posts here have been prompted by the reaction to my opinions I've encountered on other blogs. I could even say that my main bloggus operandi as it were is responding to disagreements, even hostility, I've encountered elsewhere in cyberspace.

The origin of my posts about the stories of children's visits to heaven was such a disagreement at another blog, in fact I got quite a pounding there. Just a little research made it pretty clear to my mind that those stories should not be accepted by Christians, and of course I said so, which was not the going opinion at that blog to put it mildly.

The same thing happened with my opinion that Christians should not support Glenn Beck now that he's made his stance religious rather than political. I was amazed that people who consider themselves Christians seem to have so little discernment. I suppose that sounds like bragging but what can I say, I can only argue for what I believe is true. I'm sure I have my own blindnesses but that doesn't preclude being able to see some things clearly nevertheless.

The same thing happens of course any time I've said elsewhere that Catholicism is not Christian. Or Mormonism. Outrage, even from people I think really are Christians. I get some of the same reaction here as well, most especially to the heaven stories so far. After some years on the internet I got used to being trounced by atheists, leftists and evolutionists for all the understandable reasons but getting trounced by Christians and conservatives was unexpected.

My other blogs aren't popular topics either. The woman's head covering? You might as well consign yourself to cyber-Siberia if you're going to try to argue that one (I like that so much I have to make it the title of this post). And the Bible versions conflict too. Some of the best-known and most influential Christian leaders are against me on both those topics.

You might think I'm just a stubborn contrarian I suppose. I think I sincerely study the issues -- with prayer, a LOT of prayer in some cases -- and come to a sincere and objective opinion, but the Lord knows for sure what we're all really doing in our heart of hearts, which He can read but we often can't.

I'm out on a limb many times with my Creationism blog as well. It's amazing to me how many people who seem to be sincere Christians will allow their inadequate understanding of science to dictate their reading of the first chapters of Genesis. I suspect that whole questionable hermeneutical systems have been embraced by some because they can't tolerate the tension between their understanding of "science" and their reading of the Bible. And then there are the out-and-out casualties who completely abandon their Christian allegiance because "science" has a greater grip on them. Again, this is their OWN inadequate grasp of science calling the shots here --influenced also of course by ridicule from the defenders of evolution. How easily we forget the Word's admonitions about not being conformed to this world, about not being taken in by worldly philosophies, about leaning not to our own understanding, about expecting that if they hate us it's because they hate our Lord, about expecting tribulation in this world, about being willing to suffer as He did -- the mockery, the rejection -- NO MATTER WHAT. We are SUPPOSED TO BE fools for Christ! He trusted Genesis! HE AUTHORED GENESIS!

The main focus of my blogs is Christian discernment, which ought to put me in alignment with the discernment ministries out there and to a great extent it does. Those are the ministries I follow most regularly and those are the ones weighing in most heavily on either side of the Harbinger controversy, such as The Berean Call, Worldview Weekend, Understanding the Times, Take a Stand Ministries... The first two oppose the Harbinger, the latter two support it.

People who agree with me on one or two of my topics are very likely to be adamantly opposed to me on others so although I've found support for my views of Cahn's book I can't expect support for some of my other opinions from the same people. And I have to admit that the charismatic arena, from which the book gets so much of its support, sometimes causes me to reconsider defending the book, although I haven't found charismatic or doctrinal problems in the book itself.

So I'm never just happily in tune with any point of view out there. There are always areas of agreement and disagreement. I suppose that's true of all of us but it would be SO nice to agree COMPLETELY with somebody for a change.

A major area of disagreement I have with both supporters and critics of The Harbinger concerns the role of Israel vis a vis the Church in the last days, and I've done some posts on this topic. I have not yet arrived at an end-times theology that answers enough of the relevant questions for me so I remain suspended in a general sort of way on these issues, although I know at least I'm not a Preterist or an Amillennialist. I do strongly believe, however, that the Church is the fulfillment of God's plan of redemption, traceable through scripture from Eden, that the Church is the Elect or the Chosen People and was always God's Chosen ("Not all Israel is Israel"), which includes all believing faithful Jews from Abraham to the present. Many of the ministries I may otherwise agree with consider this point of view to be "replacement theology" as if it's an unfair usurpation of the role of Israel or the Jews, but I believe scripture is clear that the Church IS the true Israel, the inheritor of God's covenant with Abraham, and was always God's plan to be realized through the death of the Messiah, and that unsaved people who reject Christ, the Messiah promised from Eden, simply cannot be God's Chosen. I've heard this view called "unbiblical" though it's completely based on the Bible.

Nevertheless just watching history unfold, just recognizing the reestablishment of Israel on their ancient land after almost 2000 years, just watching the world grow in hatred toward Israel and support of the bogus "nation" of Palestine, suggests to me that God isn't finished with Israel. Developments too neatly fit the pattern of humanity's "enmity with God" and against God's will. Although Israel is in rejection of God by rejecting His Messiah, if they didn't somehow represent Him and His plans I wouldn't expect the world to hate them as they do. So I find it hard to deny that God MUST have some plans left for national Israel of some kind and such plans fit with a lot of scripture that deals with the last days.

I haven't studied the relevant scriptures well enough to apply them to the situation but there are some Old Testament verses that are particularly hard to apply to the Church. Those who deny national Israel ANY Biblical role at all find ways to apply them to the Church, I know, but as I'm not up on the arguments I can only point to the current world situation and, knowing that God is in charge of all things, suspect He's going to make Israel the centerpiece of His final conquest of Planet Earth, not the redemption of mankind which comes through the Church, but some kind of earthly finale out of which enormous numbers of Jews will be saved. He IS going to return to the Mount of Olives, and I just can't spiritualize such a solidly earthly location to make it mean something else. Scripture is a bit ambiguous on all these things, however, that's why I haven't arrived at a definite position though so many others do who've studied it all in more depth. Still, even the best exegetes disagree with each other anyway. But history is also God's work.

Just believing that God still has a plan for earthly Israel puts me in the category of "Progressive Dispensationalist" according to one authority I consulted, although I don't recognize myself in much of the descriptions of that view I've found online. And according to Chris Pinto what I believe is what the Protestant Reformers believed so there must be a Reformed category it belongs in rather than dispensationalism.

Maybe I'm all wrong, of course. I guess I won't know until I see the Lord.

Waiting around for David James' book to arrive somehow prompted all the above a couple weeks ago but I didn't leave it up. The book arrived and I've spent most of my time on that since then. Now I'm burnt out, need a break. So the above is getting posted after all for a different reason.

The Romanizing Oxford Movement and the true history of the role of Jesuits in promoting Arminianism over Calvinism, also Preterism.

More historical stuff I'd never hear if it weren't for Chris Pinto. The link is to yesterday's radio show on the Oxford Movement in England, which was a Jesuit-inspired movement to return England back to Catholicism.

A reference he gives: Walter Walsh, the Secret History of the Oxford Movement.

Pinto also gets into the history of Arminianism versus Calvinism (from about 5:15 on the counter), Calvinism representing the Protestant Reformation and Arminianism being a Roman Catholic attempt, again through Jesuits, to undermine Protestantism in the churches by reintroducing some Catholic doctrines in a supposedly evangelical context.

The hatred of Calvinism often encountered in the churches has struck me as very odd ever since I read Calvin's Institutes for myself, some twenty years ago now, and discovered that he seemed to be saying the same things I'd read earlier in Luther. Standard Protestant doctrine. Which is something that Pinto also points out. So the attack on it by Arminius was an attack on Protestantism itself. And there is even some idea that Arminius was a Jesuit although apparently that can't be proved, and all that can be said is that the Romanizers certainly love what Armninianism does to Protestantism.

Arminianism as Pinto reports was a very aggressive, even violent, even Inquisitional, movement against Protestantism. William Laud, a High Church Anglican who was really a closet Romanist, is paraphrased as saying something like: We have sown the sovereign drug Arminianism into the churches to correct their errors.

The Five Points of Calvinism were developed in order to answer this Romanizing movement through Arminianism.

The attacks on Calvin derive ultimately from Romanist propaganda, which would no doubt come as a huge surprise to someone like Dave Hunt who spent much effort in exposing the Roman Catholic Antichrist, but also vehemently attacked Calvinism.

Pinto also says the "neo-Calvinists" aren't the same as true Calvinists. Main difference is apparently their view of prophecy, as the Reformers did believe in a future destiny for the Jewish people. He references a book, The Puritan Hope, Ian H. Murray. that shows that the Puritans believed in a future for Israel. But today's Calvinists have been "subverted" by Preterism, which sees most prophecy as fulfilled in the past. (Since so much of prophecy identifies Rome as the Antichrist the source of Preterism may be easily enough guessed.)

Good stuff. Again, I wish Pinto would write a book or that somebody would, that would sketch out this whole history of Romanist plots against Protestantism, which apparently have had a lot more success than most "Protestants" have any idea.

Pinto does have lots of articles on these things at his site though.

It must make the Jesuits very happy to hear how many supposedly Protestant Christians denounce Calvin and support the romanizing doctrine of Arminianism.