Is Hal Lindsey a Heretic?

etexas · #1 (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 04:00 PM

FIRSTLY I MUST STATE: I ask this with no malice! I ask because I have been reading a book my Pastor loaned me by Riddlebarger on the Amil position, in the book Kim, has some VERY NASTY qoutes about how Linsey "really feels" about the Reformed views of End-Time issues, our buddy Hal uses phrases like

emonic, Doctrines of Demons, Heretical, Anti-Semetic, and Evil, to to describe the various Reformed positions, as I said no malice to my question, the reason I ask is this: The sword cuts both ways, if Hal is wrong about us (the Reformed) and is wrong in his own beliefs, what does that make him???

Blueridge Baptist · #2 (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by etexas

FIRSTLY I MUST STATE: I ask this with no malice! I ask because I have been reading a book my Pastor loaned me by Riddlebarger on the Amil position, in the book Kim, has some VERY NASTY qoutes about how Linsey "really feels" about the Reformed views of End-Time issues, our buddy Hal uses phrases like

emonic, Doctrines of Demons, Heretical, Anti-Semetic, and Evil, to to describe the various Reformed positions, as I said no malice to my question, the reason I ask is this: The sword cuts both ways, if Hal is wrong about us (the Reformed) and is wrong in his own beliefs, what does that make him???

Hal is a false prophet. That's the long and the short of it. He's made so many predictions that have not come to pass its amazing that anyone would give him the time of day. Don't you find it strange that he accuses us of propagating "doctrines of devils" while at the same time he praised pope John Paul II to high heaven. He is a bonafide bible blockhead. I say that with charity of course.

Blueridge Baptist · #3 (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 04:21 PM

Hal Lindsey is Making Predictions–Again

Hal Lindsey is Making Predictions–Again
By Gary DeMar

Hal Lindsey is once again making predictions about the end times using Israel as the prophetic time piece. In his latest article on the subject, he claims that the reestablishment of the Sanhedrin is prophetically significant. Here’s how he explains it: “These religious authorities [in Israel] believe it was necessary to re-establish the Sanhedrin because only this properly ordained body of sages can authenticate a Messiah when he comes. There is a growing expectation of the long-awaited Messiah to appear among devout Jews. The rebirth of the Jewish state and recapture of Jerusalem has increasingly influenced this conviction.”1 So Jesus was not the Messiah, and the NT is a fraud. That’s the logic of Lindsey’s position since the Sanhedrin did not authenticate Jesus as the Messiah. If the Sanhedrin of the first century was wrong, as the NT says it was, what makes Lindsey think that the Sanhedrin of the twenty-first century is going to be right?

Operating from a false premise, Lindsey then makes this observation: “The religious sages began to consider the rebuilding of the Temple and reinstitution of ancient animal sacrifices as prescribed in the Law of Moses.” So what? What verse in the NT mentions anything about rebuilding the temple and reinstituting animal sacrifices? There aren’t any. Not a single verse in the NT even intimates that the temple needs to be rebuilt. The NT doesn’t give any prophetic significance to the temple and the sacrificial system. Jesus does predict the temple’s destruction (Matt. 24:1–34), but nothing is ever said about it being rebuilt. Jesus Himself is the true temple (John 2:19–21) as are believers by redemptive extension (Eph. 2:19–22). The NT couldn’t be any more clear on these points. For those of you who doubt me on this because you’ve heard that the OT predicts that the temple will be rebuilt, let me point out that the temple where Jesus was presented in accordance with the law (Luke 2:21–38), the temple He cleansed (Matt. 21:12–17), and the temple He predicted would be destroyed within a generation (Matt. 24:1–34) is the temple the OT predicted would be rebuilt.

Lindsey believes that these events are “extremely important to students of Bible prophecy.” He believes “that we are very near the final climactic events that end with the Second Coming of Christ.” We’ve heard this before. Let me take you back to 1970 and the book that made Lindsey a prophecy star, The Late Great Planet Earth: “The most important sign in Matthew has to be the restoration of the Jews to the land in the rebirth of Israel. Even the figure of speech ‘fig tree’ has been a historic symbol of national Israel. When the Jewish people, after nearly 2,000 years of exile, under relentless persecution, became a nation again on 14 May 1948 the ‘fig tree’ put forth its first leaves. Jesus said that this would indicate that He was ‘at the door,’ ready to return. Then He said, ‘Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place’ (Matthew 24:34, NASB). What generation? Obviously, in context, the generation that would see the signs—chief among them the rebirth of Israel. A generation in the Bible is something like forty years. If this is a correct deduction, then within forty years or so of 1948, all these things could take place. Many scholars who have studied Bible prophecy all their lives believe that this is so.”2

You do the math: 1948 + 40 = 1988. Seventeen years have passed, and Hal Lindsey is still considered a “prophecy expert.” In an interview that appeared in the April 15, 1977 issue of Christianity Today, Ward Gasque asked Lindsey about his infamous “generation” quotation:

“But what if you’re wrong?” Lindsey replied: “Well, there’s just a split second’s difference between a hero and a bum. I didn’t ask to be a hero, but I guess I have become one in the Christian community. So I accept it. But if I’m wrong about this, I guess I’ll become a bum.”3

This was Lindsey’s assessment of himself. He set the standard for his own work. The 1980s came and went without his end-time scenario coming to pass. This should have made him a “bum” and led to the end of his prophecy career. It didn’t happen. So why is his latest claim that “we are very near the final climactic events that end with the Second Coming of Christ” taken seriously by anyone?

etexas · #4 (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist

Hal Lindsey is Making Predictions–Again

Hal Lindsey is Making Predictions–Again
By Gary DeMar

Hal Lindsey is once again making predictions about the end times using Israel as the prophetic time piece. In his latest article on the subject, he claims that the reestablishment of the Sanhedrin is prophetically significant. Here’s how he explains it: “These religious authorities [in Israel] believe it was necessary to re-establish the Sanhedrin because only this properly ordained body of sages can authenticate a Messiah when he comes. There is a growing expectation of the long-awaited Messiah to appear among devout Jews. The rebirth of the Jewish state and recapture of Jerusalem has increasingly influenced this conviction.”1 So Jesus was not the Messiah, and the NT is a fraud. That’s the logic of Lindsey’s position since the Sanhedrin did not authenticate Jesus as the Messiah. If the Sanhedrin of the first century was wrong, as the NT says it was, what makes Lindsey think that the Sanhedrin of the twenty-first century is going to be right?

Operating from a false premise, Lindsey then makes this observation: “The religious sages began to consider the rebuilding of the Temple and reinstitution of ancient animal sacrifices as prescribed in the Law of Moses.” So what? What verse in the NT mentions anything about rebuilding the temple and reinstituting animal sacrifices? There aren’t any. Not a single verse in the NT even intimates that the temple needs to be rebuilt. The NT doesn’t give any prophetic significance to the temple and the sacrificial system. Jesus does predict the temple’s destruction (Matt. 24:1–34), but nothing is ever said about it being rebuilt. Jesus Himself is the true temple (John 2:19–21) as are believers by redemptive extension (Eph. 2:19–22). The NT couldn’t be any more clear on these points. For those of you who doubt me on this because you’ve heard that the OT predicts that the temple will be rebuilt, let me point out that the temple where Jesus was presented in accordance with the law (Luke 2:21–38), the temple He cleansed (Matt. 21:12–17), and the temple He predicted would be destroyed within a generation (Matt. 24:1–34) is the temple the OT predicted would be rebuilt.

Lindsey believes that these events are “extremely important to students of Bible prophecy.” He believes “that we are very near the final climactic events that end with the Second Coming of Christ.” We’ve heard this before. Let me take you back to 1970 and the book that made Lindsey a prophecy star, The Late Great Planet Earth: “The most important sign in Matthew has to be the restoration of the Jews to the land in the rebirth of Israel. Even the figure of speech ‘fig tree’ has been a historic symbol of national Israel. When the Jewish people, after nearly 2,000 years of exile, under relentless persecution, became a nation again on 14 May 1948 the ‘fig tree’ put forth its first leaves. Jesus said that this would indicate that He was ‘at the door,’ ready to return. Then He said, ‘Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place’ (Matthew 24:34, NASB). What generation? Obviously, in context, the generation that would see the signs—chief among them the rebirth of Israel. A generation in the Bible is something like forty years. If this is a correct deduction, then within forty years or so of 1948, all these things could take place. Many scholars who have studied Bible prophecy all their lives believe that this is so.”2

You do the math: 1948 + 40 = 1988. Seventeen years have passed, and Hal Lindsey is still considered a “prophecy expert.” In an interview that appeared in the April 15, 1977 issue of Christianity Today, Ward Gasque asked Lindsey about his infamous “generation” quotation:

“But what if you’re wrong?” Lindsey replied: “Well, there’s just a split second’s difference between a hero and a bum. I didn’t ask to be a hero, but I guess I have become one in the Christian community. So I accept it. But if I’m wrong about this, I guess I’ll become a bum.”3

This was Lindsey’s assessment of himself. He set the standard for his own work. The 1980s came and went without his end-time scenario coming to pass. This should have made him a “bum” and led to the end of his prophecy career. It didn’t happen. So why is his latest claim that “we are very near the final climactic events that end with the Second Coming of Christ” taken seriously by anyone?

Yet people listen to him! Forgive my ignorance, I did not know about his praises for John Paul 2! I thought most dispies would dislike Rome esp. given both their interpretation of the End-Times and the "general" low regard towards toward Israel (which I thought was a sacred Cow to people like Lindsey)???

Blue Tick · #5 (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 04:53 PM

I can't pass judgement on the man and say that he's a heretic without researching what he actually believes. However, with the brief knowledge that I do have regarding his teachings, his eschatology is in serious error. If he was a member in a confessional church more than likely he would be brought up on charges.

Stephen · #6 (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 05:03 PM

We can certainly say he is an adulterer.

DMcFadden · #7 (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 05:30 PM

Here is my take on Hal . . .

1. I heard him during his Jesus Power and Light Company days working for Campus Crusade in the 60s. He was making cocky and confident statements back then that put the terminus ad quem for the Second Coming at 1988 (for reasons already cited in #3 above). His first book only put it in writing.

2. Hal has the same gift that John MacArthur has: the ability to sound convincing and absolutely authoritative, even if he were reading the telephone book. This means that differentiation between true and false, right and wrong, prophetic and pathetic get lost in the shuffle sometimes. The man is able to convince a crowd.

3. I pastored a church just a couple of miles from where he had his ministry back in the 80s/90s. The man is a celebrity in every sense of the term. At this point, he is famous for being famous, not for being right. This has allowed him to get away with manifestly wrong calendarizing, multiple marriages/divorces (3 or 4?), and a pretty "brusque" leadership style. His disparaging comments about Reformed theology are not much different from those of Tim LaHaye, another celebrity preacher.

Daniel Ritchie · #8 (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen

We can certainly say he is an adulterer.

In Rapture Fiction, Gary North says that Hal Lindsey is more interested in collecting wives than properly representing his opponents.

servantofmosthigh · #9 (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by etexas

FIRSTLY I MUST STATE: I ask this with no malice! I ask because I have been reading a book my Pastor loaned me by Riddlebarger on the Amil position, in the book Kim, has some VERY NASTY qoutes about how Linsey "really feels" about the Reformed views of End-Time issues, our buddy Hal uses phrases like

emonic, Doctrines of Demons, Heretical, Anti-Semetic, and Evil, to to describe the various Reformed positions, as I said no malice to my question, the reason I ask is this: The sword cuts both ways, if Hal is wrong about us (the Reformed) and is wrong in his own beliefs, what does that make him???

Or is he merely "unorthodox?"

TimV · #10 (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 07:07 PM

If any of you have access to August 1990 Chalcedon Report (can't find mine) I did a book review of The Road to Holocaust where I detail the Mother Of All Misquotes where he does something beyond belief to Rushdoony.

Galatians220 · #11 (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by etexas

Yet people listen to him! Forgive my ignorance, I did not know about his praises for John Paul 2! I thought most dispies would dislike Rome esp. given both their interpretation of the End-Times and the "general" low regard towards toward Israel (which I thought was a sacred Cow to people like Lindsey)???

Dispies I've had contact with in the last couple of years are tripping over themselves, extending the hand of fellowship to RCs in follow-up to ECT, Hal Lindsey and other monstrous departures from the Way, the Truth and the Life...

Yesterday, our minister told us about the time that Ian Paisley had said, "If you can be regenerated by baptism alone, why don't we just turn firehoses on these people?"

And yet even HE has turned coat, so to speak. It's disappointing, but we are warned about this type of thing in Scripture.

Hal Lindsay et alia: "All false roads lead to Rome." So he's one more of them.

Margaret

Narnian · #12 (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 09:50 PM

I must confess that Lindsey's book, "The Late Great Planet Earth" played a part in my becoming a Christian.

However it was his showing of OT prophesies that Jesus fulfilled that helped convinced me (with a little help from the Holy Spirit

), definitely not his eschatology.

etexas · #13 (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue Tick

I can't pass judgement on the man and say that he's a heretic without researching what he actually believes. However, with the brief knowledge that I do have regarding his teachings, his eschatology is in serious error. If he was a member in a confessional church more than likely he would be brought up on charges.

Brother, it is not my wish to judge Lindsey either, I am "working" this like a math equation if you will: HL says the Reformed view is a Doctrine of Demons, the Classic reformed view says he is dead wrong, only one can be right. One party is in SERIOUS error, indeed Heresy. I seek simply to clearly define the lines in this. Pax.

jwithnell · #14 (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 11:02 PM

Perhaps it would be helpful to define terms here? A person could be seriously wrong in his understanding of scripture, but that would not make him a heretic, right? To be labeled a heretic, you would have and teach errors that misconstrue the means of salvation -- In other words, a freewill Baptist could not be considered heretic but a Mormon would be.

Grymir · #15 (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 11:23 PM

In a word...weird. A mainstream dispensational kinda person. Not off the deep end in salvation, but his end times is wacked. (can I say wacked?)

bookslover · #16 (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 11:38 PM

Is Hal Lindsey a heretic?

Is the sun hot? Is the moon cold? Are pizzas round? Is Kobe Bryant tall? Is sex fun? Are baseballs round? Are your stapes bones smaller than your femur bones? Are cats furry? Is the Puritan Board cool? Is Lawrence Welk dead? Is 2 smaller than 5? Is Burger King better than McDonald's? Is...

bookslover · #17 (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Hal has the same gift that John MacArthur has: the ability to sound convincing and absolutely authoritative, even if he were reading the telephone book.

That's gotta be a first - equating Lindsey with MacArthur. Sounds like you don't care much for Johnny Mac, either...

DMcFadden · #18 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bookslover

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Hal has the same gift that John MacArthur has: the ability to sound convincing and absolutely authoritative, even if he were reading the telephone book.

That's gotta be a first - equating Lindsey with MacArthur. Sounds like you don't care much for Johnny Mac, either...

It was a comparison, not an equation! And, actually I do like MacArthur and have 96 of his books and study guides. I was simply trying to come up with someone else who had that ability to sound authoritative regardless of what he is saying. Now that Big John is a leaky dispensationalist, I find him convincing. Unfortunately, the same was pretty much true when he was a traditional dispensationalist too.

The man just has that ability to sound authoritative.

Actually, that was my ONLY point of comparison. Like him or not, MacArthur is as real as they come. What you see is what you get. The man appears (and friends who know him confirm) to be the same guy in and out of the pulpit with a very high commitment to integrity and faithfulness to his wife.

etexas · #19 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Quote:

Originally Posted by bookslover

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Hal has the same gift that John MacArthur has: the ability to sound convincing and absolutely authoritative, even if he were reading the telephone book.

That's gotta be a first - equating Lindsey with MacArthur. Sounds like you don't care much for Johnny Mac, either...

It was a comparison, not an equation! And, actually I do like MacArthur and have 96 of his books and study guides. I was simply trying to come up with someone else who had that ability to sound authoritative regardless of what he is saying. Now that Big John is a leaky dispensationalist, I find him convincing. Unfortunately, the same was pretty much true when he was a traditional dispensationalist too.

The man just has that ability to sound authoritative.

Actually, that was my ONLY point of comparison. Like him or not, MacArthur is as real as they come. What you see is what you get. The man appears (and friends who know him confirm) to be the same guy in and out of the pulpit with a very high commitment to integrity and faithfulness to his wife.

I am glad you added some clarity, I admit (while not agreeing with the "Macster" on a number of points, he is a Godly man and I rather like him myself.

BobVigneault · #20 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 09:37 AM

So is he, Richard?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bookslover

Is Hal Lind