There is no real love, no real repentance, nothing apart from faith in Christ. Jesus told His disciples that “apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5, ESV), and that is just as true about us today. Without looking in faith at Christ on the cross bleeding for us and providing our only redemption, without that faith, we can have no fruit. If you wish to be fruitful in your Christian life—spiritually vibrant, full of love and kindness and joy and the other fruits of the Spirit—there is no other way than the way of faith: looking to Christ alone and clinging to His perfect work on the cross.
Praise God for the magnificent salvation He has provided us in His Son!
Reasons for the Popularity of Testimonies
Why, then, are personal testimonies so popular? One reason could be that many people see personal experience as the chief determinant of spiritual beliefs. I cannot count all the times I’ve heard people defend a particular practice, belief or interpretation of Scripture by referring to personal experience and nothing else, as if what they have seen, felt, heard and thought constituted the final word on the matter. Many a time I have heard people actually ignore a pertinent biblical text and fall back on their personal experience to support their view. Instead of establishing what is true based on something impersonal and objective—the biblical text—truth is often determined by what is personal and subjective. Unfortunately, this mind-set has been carried over into the use of personal testimonies in evangelism. Just listen to my testimony, so the thinking goes, and my personal experience will convince you of the gospel.
The root cause of this could lie in our natural, fallen nature, which predisposes us to shape our religion based upon the dictates of our own hearts rather than divine revelation. That is recorded in Romans 1: God has revealed Himself to all of humanity, but humanity has responded by rejecting that revelation and worshiping gods of their own making. This tendency to reject revelation in favor of our own thoughts and desires is as dangerous as it is sinful, and we as fallen human beings must always watch out for it. Could it be that the heavy reliance on personal testimonies today is the result of this tendency? If so, are we not drifting away from the Word of God?
Another reason for their popularity could be that they are easy. It is much easier to tell one’s own story than it is to become well-versed in the truths of the gospel. Although this was mentioned in Part 1, it is worth repeating here: The best training for evangelism is theological study. This does not have to be lengthy, expensive seminary training but a basic—and solid—grounding in the truths that comprise the gospel message, such as what God is like, who Jesus is, the resurrection, the virgin birth, what faith is, what repentance is, how sin is atoned for, and so on. This takes some work, but what child of God would not take delight in learning them and sharing them with others? If we value personal testimonies because they are easier than studying the theological content of the gospel message, are we not drifting away from the Word of God?
Personal testimonies are also easy because they are risk-free to a great extent. They are safe. My own personal story is far less likely to draw antagonism and hostility than the story about Christ. Why? because my personal story will come across as just one more personal account out of countless others, no better than anyone else’s. It is purely subjective. Why should the unbeliever regard my subjective experience as superior to that of a non-Christian? Another reason is that there is nothing about my personal testimony that commands people to believe in Jesus Christ and repent of their sins. It simply conveys that I have believed in Christ and repented, and it implies that the hearer would benefit by doing the same. It is more like a television commercial trying to get someone to “buy” the gospel, with the testimony-bearer saying something like, “I used to be unhappy, lonely and depressed, but since I accepted Jesus, my life is so much better. So give Jesus a try—you won’t be sorry.” That is easy and safe because it presents no terrible consequence if one does not believe and repent. It simply offers something positive that will satisfy our natural desires.
The story of Christ, on the other hand, can be greatly offensive precisely because it has supreme authority: Because God the Son took on flesh, bore the sin of the world and rose from the dead, all of mankind has a duty to respond to that ultimate sacrifice in faith and repentance. The gospel is not a slick commercial that tries to appeal to a person’s desires and lusts; it is the authoritative command to repent of sin and believe in Christ because of what God did at Calvary. It is the story that tells people that there is only one way of salvation that God has given mankind, and woe to us if we neglect so great a salvation. The gospel presents a somber ultimatum to the world: Repent or perish! Now that is a story that can definitely draw hostility. If our reason for relying on personal testimonies is to avoid the hostility that can and will result from sharing the gospel, are we not drifting away from the Word of God?
Problems with Testimonies
In addition to the problems already mentioned, there are others to be concerned about. For one thing, a personal testimony is not divine revelation, but divine revelation is the only way a person can know anything about God. Had God not revealed Himself to us through creation, Jesus Christ and Scripture, we would have no way of knowing a single truth about Him. We are unable to arrive at a single bit of knowledge of God apart from God condescending to us, making Himself known to us on our level. We cannot rise up to God to learn about Him on our own. If God did not stoop down to our level, we would have never learned a single thing about him. The gospel is part of God’s revelation and therefore absolutely indispensable for anyone to come to a saving knowledge of Christ. Do you see, then, the extreme importance of divine revelation for the unbeliever? If we give priority to something that is not divine revelation, however, while putting the revelation of the gospel on the back burner, are we not drifting away from the Word of God?
Another problem is that personal testimony is subject to human error, such as forgetting details over time, or unintentional (or intentional) embellishment. The more time has elapsed since an event, the more unclear its memory becomes, and consequently the easier it is to inadvertently embellish it or leave out details. Even worse, there is also the risk of deliberately embellishing one’s testimony to make it more dramatic. One might feel that one’s conversion experience lacks the excitement of such dramatic conversions as Paul’s, who was rescued from a background of heinous sin, and consequently might spice up his testimony to make it more interesting.
Finally, people of other religions also can come up with positive, uplifting personal testimonies of their own. They can easily describe how their particular religion enhanced their lives, making them happy and content. They can extol their religion by recounting, for example, how they had been on a long and dark search for the truth, but when they discovered their religion, it seemed to them that all their darkness and confusion vanished.
As with friendship evangelism and the sinner’s prayer, the massive popularity of the use of personal testimonies in evangelism is inversely proportional to the amount of biblical support for it. In other words, the use of testimonies for evangelistic purposes is enormous, but biblical support for that purpose is minuscule.
Of course, sharing the circumstances of how you came to Christ is not wrong. In some cases there may be a place for it, such as in a small group gathering of other Christians or at church before the congregation. Even then, however, their use should be limited because the gospel message is what the church needs to hear over and over again. Even those who have been followers of Christ for many years must still hear the gospel preached, not to be saved over and over again but to continue in faithful service to Christ and ongoing repentance. Ultimately we must always remember that God’s testimony is greater than our own, and the story that matters most is the story about Christ, the gospel message. We should be eager to point people away from ourselves and toward Christ, just as John the Baptist always did.
“If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater” (1 John 5:9, NASB). In writing these words, the apostle John was obviously elevating the testimony of God about His Son, Jesus Christ, above that of man. There is no higher testimony than God’s.
Nevertheless, this does not seem to be the view of many today. It is beginning to look as if man’s testimony is being regarded as greater than God’s.
One of the sweeping trends in Christendom today is the use of the personal testimony. Like other Christian neo-traditions, such as the sinner’s prayer and friendship evangelism, personal testimonies have become so ingrained in Christian practice that they have practically been canonized. They are now assumed to be valid rather than scrutinized carefully with the only perfect measuring rod we have: the Bible.
In fact, the personal testimony has become so integral a part of Christian practice today that sometimes it is actually given a formula of sorts. Some churches give detailed instructions on how to write a testimony, in much the same way a writing teacher might instruct students how to craft an essay. This might follow a particular structure, beginning with a description of one’s life before salvation, followed by an account of how one came to faith in Christ, and concluding with a description of one’s life after salvation.
Writing and sharing a personal testimony are not necessarily wrong. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with telling others the great things that God has done in your life. What is wrong, though, is believing that a story about us is just as important as—or greater than—the story about Christ. The question is not whether personal testimonies are wrong; they are not. The real issue is that in many places the testimony of man seems to be elevated to a place that is equal to the gospel and the Word of God not only in importance but also in power. If that is true, we need to ask ourselves: Are we not drifting away from the Word of God?
Although many would never say that they regard their personal testimonies as equal to the gospel in importance, the great emphasis on it and time spent preparing them say otherwise. Why not spend all that time preparing a systematic explanation of the gospel message, talking about God, man and sin, Jesus Christ, faith, and repentance? Why not invest time in studying the precious truths and doctrines of the gospel message so that they can be articulated clearly and responsibly? Building a strong understanding of the truths of the gospel should be our chief preparation for evangelism since those truths must be conveyed clearly and accurately for genuine saving faith to occur. If we downplay these truths or neglect them in favor of presenting our personal stories, are we not drifting away from the Word of God?
Reasons Given for Testimonies
One reason people sometimes give for placing so much weight on a personal testimony is that it can make the gospel relevant. It is thought that if we present our own personal story of how we came to faith in Christ, people can better relate to the gospel. Notice how this explanation subtly attributes quite a bit of spiritual power to the personal testimony. For those who give this explanation, the testimony is not merely a story about oneself but also a potent catalyst for creating a spiritual connection between the hearer and the gospel message. In other words, it is seen as an effective conduit that brings the truth of the gospel home to the hearer, a support to the gospel message that leads the hearer to believe it.
Is this view biblical? Hardly. It is the Holy Spirit who makes the gospel relevant, not we, and He does so by convicting hearers of sin, not through our personal testimonies but in conjunction with the preached message of the gospel, which is “living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12, NASB). Are our personal testimonies really “living and active”? If we begin to think that they are, are we not drifting away from the Word of God?
Sadly, it seems to be so. One site I visited actually instructs people to use a maximum of two Bible verses in their testimonies. Why such a strict limit? Could it be that the Bible is held in such low regard that, instead of being the main course, so to speak, it has become a mere seasoning to sprinkle on? Another site actually said the following:
Skeptics may debate the validity of Scripture or argue the existence of God, but no one can deny your personal experiences with him. When you tell your story of how God has worked a miracle in your life, or how he has blessed you, transformed you, lifted and encouraged you, perhaps even broken and healed you, no one can argue or debate it. You go beyond the realm of knowledge into the realm of relationship with God. (http://christianity.about.com/od/testimonies/a/howtotestimony.htm)
This explanation is quite alarming. Notice how it makes Scripture inferior to human words by pointing out that Scripture itself can be resisted and debated but your own testimony—mere uninspired words—cannot. The author of this quoted explanation clearly thinks that a personal testimony carries more power than the inspired Word of God. But why? The answer lies in the last sentence cited above: “You go beyond the realm of knowledge into the realm of relationship with God.” The author sees relationship and personal experience as having more authority than biblical truth. This is appalling because it makes Scripture inferior to our words, thus putting the cart before the horse. A relationship with God cannot happen without knowledge of the gospel message. That is indisputable, for Scripture plainly says, “How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?” (Romans 10:14, NASB). Nevertheless, this elevation of personal experience and relationship over the authority of biblical truth is not uncommon in our culture. Are we not drifting away from the Word of God when we begin to think this way?
Aside from that, the argument itself is simply invalid. People can certainly debate your personal account of salvation. One person once doubted my conversion story, asserting that I was probably going through a difficult period in my life at the time and so my mind was looking for an escape of some kind. Essentially, this person considered my conversion experience to be a natural coping mechanism of my mind rather than a supernatural act of God. He thought my “getting religion” was just a crutch that I used to make it through a difficult time. That very same objection could be reasonably leveled against any personal testimony.
Moreover, the very fact that it cannot be debated against might be grounds for some to dismiss it immediately. A person could argue, “Your experience is personal and subjective, so it is not a valid argument.” Finally, a relativist could have a field day with your testimony, saying, “Well, I’m glad you had such a wonderful experience. My experiences, however, are just as fine, and I’m happy with them.” Even Scripture records an instance in which a Christian’s personal testimony was rejected and argued against. After Paul gave his testimony before King Agrippa, Festus said to him, “Paul, you are out of your mind! Your great learning is driving you mad” (Acts 26:24b). Make no mistake about it: A personal testimony can be argued against even more than the Bible.
I can relate to what the author said in the above quote at least in this way: It is truly wonderful when someone does not debate the gospel but receives it without an argument. The way to that point, though, is not through a device of our own making but through preaching of the gospel that is accompanied by the Holy Spirit’s convicting work. When a person is being drawn by God to Christ, he or she will not argue and debate against Scripture. Quite to the contrary, he or she will gladly hear it and absorb it. Paul described the Thessalonians’ acceptance of his preaching in a similar way, saying, “[W]hen you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe” (1 Thessalonians 2:13, NASB). When conversion happens, it is because God and His Word are working in that person’s heart. A personal story of one’s conversion can do nothing to help that. This is not surprising given the fact that “the testimony of God is greater” than the testimony of men (1 John 5:9, NASB).
Another reason sometimes given for the use of personal testimonies is that they can open the door to a gospel presentation by creating interest in the hearer. One has to wonder: If a person has no concern about his or her own spiritual condition, why would the story of yours be interesting? More important, if the story about Christ—the gospel—is not appealing to him or her, how can yours be? Is the story about the disciple somehow more appealing than the story about the Master? Are we not drifting from the Word of God when we begin to think this way?
Some do attempt to use the Bible as a defense for personal testimonies, but these attempts involve incorrect interpretations. One is Revelation 12:11a: “And they overcame him [Satan] because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony” (NASB). There is no indication in the text that the word testimony means what many today suppose: a personal account of how one came to Christ. If it did, then think of what the meaning of the text would be: that those people overcame Satan simply by telling their personal stories! That is absurd. The text refers to their testimony about Christ, not about themselves. The word in Greek is marturia, which means witness, martyr or testimony. The idea is that these people witnessed to the reality of Christ and were slain for it. They were not slain because they told their personal conversion stories; they were slain because they testified to who Christ is. The point is that they focused on Christ, not on themselves. This is made even clearer by the use of the word in other places in Revelation. For example, Rev. 1:2 states that John “testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw” (NASB). The language here is unmistakable: The idea behind the word is John’s declaration of his witness of Christ. It is a pointing away from oneself and toward Christ. This same idea is repeated in v. 9: “I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.” In both cases, it is not the testimony of John but the testimony of Jesus. John talked about Christ, not about himself.
Another biblical passage often used to defend personal testimonies is Acts 26, in which Paul tells King Agrippa an account of his conversion. This, however, was a special circumstance: The apostle was on trial and was defending himself against his accusers. There is no evidence in the New Testament that Paul or any of the other apostles used personal testimonies on a regular basis.
Continued in Part 2.
It’s probably no surprise that street evangelism is unappealing to most Christians because you don’t see much of a return on your efforts. For one thing, strangers you encounter on the street are highly unlikely to cross your path a second time. In addition, people on the street are often apathetic and sometimes hostile to Christian outreach. Finally, there is often no visible fruit, so it is often like sitting in a fishing boat for hours without getting a single bite. Simply put: Public evangelism can be discouraging and disappointing. I have felt this myself at times.
The truth, though, is that our discouragement and disappointment in evangelism are not justifiable. Although we naturally want to see positive results from our labor and desire to be liked by others, could it be that these expectations reflect an unwillingness to suffer for the name of Christ? Are we more interested in seeing positive results from our efforts than being obedient and faithful even to the point of suffering? Will we settle for nothing less than mass conversions, acceptance by non-Christians and cheerful responses to the gospel? Do we want the glory without the cross? If so, we need to replace those misguided expectations with a willingness to suffer for our Lord because the reality is that, more likely than not, our evangelism will be met with stern opposition. Jesus said to His disciples, “Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours” (John 15:20). Paul wrote these sobering words to Timothy: “Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Timothy 3:12). Dare we think that we are so high above Christ that we are exempt from persecution?
There is something else to consider, though: Avoiding evangelism because of unpleasant responses falls short of the agape love that God demands that we show the world. It is the kind of love that blesses others even when they don’t want it, don’t ask for it, or are hostile to it. That is the kind of love that God has shown mankind—and continues to show—by condescending to people to reveal Himself, whether through general revelation (creation) or special revelation (Scripture), in spite of the fact that all people have rejected that revelation. It’s the kind of love that God showed the world when He gave up His Only Son to die for sinners: Nobody asked Him, much less wanted Him, to do that; yet He did it anyway. We must be honest with ourselves and candidly admit that if we withhold the gospel from those who desperately need to hear it because we want to avoid unpleasant responses, then we are falling far short of the love that God demands of us.
Christ served others regardless of what it cost Him. He once said that He “did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28, NIV). In spite of the suffering that He knew awaited Him, He “set his face to go to Jerusalem” (Luke 9:51), and when the time came for Him to give up His life for sinners, He “endured the cross, despising the shame” (Hebrews 12:2). (See also Philippians 2:5–11.)
What is our motive for serving? Do we serve only as long as it is pain-free, or are we willing to serve even if it means suffering and rejection? If our motive is love, we will serve others regardless of what it costs us. There are many people who don’t know even the basics of the gospel message and desperately need Christians to bring God’s revelation to them. Many of them will probably hate us for it, but that doesn’t mean they need it any less. Dare we withhold that from them simply because it might bring discomfort to us?
Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Matthew 7:1 is arguably one of the most abused Bible passages in the entire history of Christianity. If you don’t know that reference, the text itself is likely familiar to you: “Judge not, that you be not judged” (ESV). In our society today, you are very likely to hear that verse quoted at you if you try to tell someone they are doing something wrong or that they are believing something wrong. But is that how Jesus meant His words to be used? Hardly. I say that for two reasons.
First, when the verse is used in that way, it is taken out of context. Here is the statement along with Christ’s explanation of it:
Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. (Matthew 7:1–5, ESV)
Clearly the Lord was teaching against hypocrisy. That is indisputable since He clearly refers to criticizing others for little faults (“the speck that is in your brother’s eye”) while failing to see one’s own major faults (“the log that is in your own eye”). It is also indisputable that He is speaking against hypocrisy because He plainly says, “You hypocrite, … ” His final admonition in v. 5 should put to rest the kind of abuse of this passage I described earlier, where Christ said, “[F]irst take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” Obviously the Lord was not prohibiting all criticism but specifically the hypocritical kind whereby one delights in finding fault with others without concern about changing oneself first.
Second, if Christ really meant this verse to mean that we should never criticize at all, isn’t it odd that He calls people “pigs” and “dogs” in v. 6? Look what He said:
“Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.”
I heard someone once say, “A text taken out of context becomes a pretext for a proof-text.” How true.
The sign I use in street evangelism
Now it shouldn’t—and didn’t—surprise me that this verse was misapplied. It happens often nowadays. What amazed me, though, was that the woman who said this was a professing Christian. Before she went into her message of religious pluralism, she declared confidently that she had accepted Jesus as her Lord and Savior and that she prays every day. Let me say it again: This amazed me. Why? Because it was a blatant denial of the value of Christ’s blood coming from someone who claimed to follow Him! Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross is pointless if people who don’t believe in Him will get into heaven anyway. The truth is that the One who said “Judge not” also said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6, ESV).
I listened to Harold Camping’s Open Forum radio program last night and found myself shaking my head and chuckling to myself repeatedly, not only at Mr. Camping’s own words but also at some of the comments made by callers. One caller actually still supported Camping and even indicated that it was possible a spiritual judgment actually happened on May 21. He essentially asked, “Why not?” It was incredible to hear.
More importantly, what I noticed was a distinct pattern in Mr. Camping’s responses to callers. Repeatedly he answered callers with a statement to the effect that God is still opening our spiritual eyes, we are still learning, and the like. So that is Mr. Camping’s explanation for his errors: We’re still working on it, we’re getting there, we’re learning, and so on. Our eyes aren’t fully opened to all of this, but we can still see more than the rest of Christianity.
But that creates a pesky little problem: If he’s right, how can anyone know for sure that the next prediction he makes—or anything he teaches from now on, for that matter—will be correct? If he is still learning and God is still opening his “spiritual eyes,” then anything he teaches has a big question mark over it.
The fact of the matter is that a true prophet who is faithfully speaking what God has said would never have to back-peddle in such a way because he would have gotten it right the first time. He wouldn’t have to explain his way out of anything. The prediction would have happened exactly as foretold because it would have come from God. The only exception to that would be if God decided to relent from what He had said He was going to do, as in the case of Nineveh after Jonah preached there (Jonah 3:10). If Mr. Camping wants to claim that, however, he would have to substantiate that authoritatively from Scripture, but what Scripture says that on May 21, God relented from the destruction Camping said was going to happen? None at all.
Mr. Camping’s prediction, then, did not come from God. It came from his own mind and an erroneous interpretation of Scripture.
For example, Mr. Camping’s proof-text for his method of interpreting the Bible allegorically comes from Matthew 13:34, which says, “All these things Jesus said to the crowds in parables; indeed, he said nothing to them without a parable.” He takes this verse and applies it to everything in the Bible even though the text in Matthew 13 clearly has in mind Christ’s words to the crowds, not the words of the Bible. This is made even clearer when we see a parallel passage, Mark 4:33–34 (ESV, emphasis added): “With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it. He did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.” Thus, Mr. Camping ignores the context in order to cling tenaciously to his hermeneutical approach.
Mr. Camping also needs to consider this: If everything in the Bible were a parable, then the very text quoted above—”he said nothing to them without a parable”—would itself be a parable and therefore would also have to be taken figuratively.
Perhaps Mr. Camping’s eyes have not been opened to that, either.
Harold Camping is now defending his erroneous prediction by claiming that Judgment Day indeed happened on May 21—only spiritually, not physically.
This kind of response is nothing less than outrageous. In this International Business Times article, he is reported as saying that Judgment Day did come, but “it was spiritual.” That kind of rationalization should not surprise us, seeing how Mr. Camping has often used spiritualization and allegorization to get around objections from people or Bible verses that don’t fit his theories. Now he is using the same technique to get around the stark reality that his prediction failed to come true on May 21. On top of that, he still claims that the end will come on October 21. Will he use the same evasive maneuver when that does not come true?
Mr. Camping is also reported as saying, “We don’t always hit the nail on the head the first time.” No true prophet would ever have to make such an excuse because genuine prophets always “hit the nail on the head” the first time, every time:
And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?’— when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him. (Deuteronomy 18:21–22, ESV, emphasis added)
Camping is also recorded as saying, “All I am is a humble teacher.” No, that is not true. He is a false prophet who says things that God never said. The above quoted passage from God’s inspired word declares that authoritatively to be true.
Regarding his recent failed prediction that the end of the world would happen this past Saturday, Harold Camping has told a reporter, “I’m looking for answers … But now I have nothing else to say.” (For the full story, click here.)
I, too, scratch my head, though not for the same reasons as Mr. Camping. I wonder how a man who has studied the Bible for so long could actually believe that he could reduce the awesome mystery of the time of Christ’s return to a simple mathematical formula, and that based on arbitrary, subjective interpretation. I also scratch my head in wonder how so many people could hang on his words so devoutly. No doubt I will continue to wonder.
“I’m looking for answers … But now I have nothing else to say.” That is what he should have said all along instead of making brash, overconfident predictions which he had no authority whatsoever to make. My hope is that he will humbly admit his error and repent. It would not undo what he has done, but it would at least be comforting to know that he is willing to turn from the error of his ways. I would even go so far as to say that he should step down from his position and turn over the reins of Family Radio to a responsible teacher of the Bible.
That might be hoping for too much, but I will say it here very emphatically anyway: Mr. Camping needs to step down. If he were a qualified, divinely called teacher of the Bible who was placed in his teaching position through the proper biblical process, he would have never made the horrible errors he has made, and it would not have taken a failed prediction—and all the unpleasant consequences that went along with it—to bring him to say, “I’m looking for answers.” He would have taken that attitude all along because he would have been under the authority of elders in a local church, humbly submitting his teaching to their scrutiny to keep him from going off the deep end. But this is what happens when people set themselves up as Bible teachers without submitting to any authority in the church.
I do pity Mr. Camping. I sympathize with him—believe it or not—because of the inner anguish I know he must be dealing with right now. But my sympathy can’t change the fact that he must step down. He must stop plaguing the church with his false teachings. He must stop leading others astray. He must stop trifling with Scripture and treating it as his plaything to do with as he pleases. MR. CAMPING: PLEASE STEP DOWN FROM YOUR POSITION.
First of all, hopefully Harold Camping has learned not to trifle with the word of God as he has done for so long. He was wrong about September 1994, and he was wrong about May 21, 2011. How many wrong predictions does a man have to make before he and his followers realize that his predictions never entered the mind of God?
That leads me to the next lesson that I hope has been learned from all of this: I hope that those who have followed him—believed him, hung on his every word as though he had the secret key to unlock the mysteries of Christ’s return, given up so much to follow a false prophet’s false message—that they will turn from this man and support him no longer.
Having said that, I must admit that all of this May 21 teaching has actually taught me something, too. It has made me realize that I have been guilty of forgetting about the Second Coming of Christ almost completely over the years. It was not until recently, with all this May 21 Judgment Day talk, that I have actually thought about end times and Christ’s return more than I have in a long time. That does not justify Harold Camping’s irresponsible method of interpreting the Bible and leading so many astray—not by a long shot—but it certainly does make me ask myself: Have I pushed the Second Coming of Christ so far from my mind that it takes a false prophet who sets a wrong date for Christ’s return to make me think about the end? Apparently so. And shame on me for that.
It is certainly easy to do. It is easy to reason, “Well, Jesus didn’t come back last month, so he won’t come back next month. And Christ did not return last year, so he probably won’t return next year, either. For that matter, he has not returned in the past decade, so he probably won’t come back in the next decade, either….” That is no excuse, though. Christ plainly and strongly commanded his disciples to watch and to be ready. That means living for the kingdom of God faithfully and looking eagerly for Christ’s return, as is made clear by the following passage:
”Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his master has set over his household, to give them their food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions. But if that wicked servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed,’ and begins to beat his fellow servants and eats and drinks with drunkards, the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know and will cut him in pieces and put him with the hypocrites. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 24:45–51, ESV)
Clearly, then, followers of Christ are to be serving Him faithfully and consistently and avoiding the pitfall of complacency. What a danger there is in growing lackadaisical and complacent. Such an attitude can cause us to lapse into a life of sin like the wicked servant in this passage. Woe to us if that happens because, just as with the wicked servant, the Lord might take us by surprise, exposing us as hypocrites whom He never knew.
But this has also made me realize something else: I haven’t heard the return of Christ preached much in church pulpits. The topic of the end times seems to be rarely addressed in church sermons, at least in my experience. But why? Has the emphasis been placed so much on our “best life now” that we don’t think about end times anymore? Have sermons been so focused on improving our present lives and solving our current problems that there has been no room for looking forward to the end? If that is the case, we need to take Paul’s exhortation to the Colossians very seriously:
If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory. (Colossians 1–4, ESV)
What is ironic is that focusing on the end times can have a dramatic impact on our present lives. Peter wrote to Christians it was their very knowledge of the end of the world that should have an impact on their lives in the present, spurring them on to great holiness in light of the dire events that will occur at the end:
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.
Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. (2 Peter 3:10–13, ESV, emphasis added)
Camping was wrong, but the frenzy of concern about the end that he stirred up should make us examine what place the return of Christ really has in our hearts. Shouldn’t we be lovingly expecting his return, anticipating it greatly and eagerly? Indeed we should, and shame on us if we have not been doing so. We should be living every day with the same fervent expectation of Christ’s return as Camping’s followers did on May 21. Every day for Christians should be a sort of “May 21, 2011.”
Jesus’ teaching about the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit proves that not all will be saved:
Matthew 12:31-32 (NASB): “Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.”
Mark 3:28-29 (NASB): “Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.”
Luke 12:10 (NASB): “And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him.”
In the passage in Mark, Jesus sharply contrasts pardonable sins with the unpardonable sin—blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The use of the Greek word “de,” meaning “but,” shows this contrast. Christ goes on to say that the one committing this sin is guilty of an “eternal sin.” The adjective aiwnios is used to modify the noun “sin.” The contrast would make no sense if aiwnios described the sin as merely “temporary,” for that would place it in the category of forgivable sins mentioned just before. In that case, though, we would end up with this nonsensical translation:
“Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit has forgiveness, but is guilty of a temporary sin.”
The Lord’s point here, which cannot be overlooked, is that the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit belongs to a particular category of sin that is unpardonable. As such, it is an eternal sin.
The passage from Luke brings out the same contrast: Forgivable sins are diametrically opposed to the sin that will not be forgiven: “…but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him.”
Again, if this sin were to be forgiven at some point in the future, then the contrast in the passage would be completely overturned, and we would end up with this nonsensical translation: “And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will be forgiven him.”
If they were all in the same category, how could there be a contrast?
This text clearly affirms that not all will be saved. It is an unpleasant truth, but its unpleasantness does not make it any less true.
The passage in Matthew is somewhat different but no less interesting. Again there is a clear contrast (using the Greek particle “de,” meaning “but”) between the types of sins that can be forgiven and the type of sin that cannot be forgiven, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. As in the Mark passage, if this sin could one day be forgiven, then the contrast between the two types of sins becomes meaningless.
What is even more illuminating, however, is that Christ goes on to say that this sin will not be forgiven “either in this age or in the age to come.” This has significant impact upon other passages in Scripture that refer to a period of future punishment. If the sin is eternal—and again, the sharp contrast between this sin and pardonable sins shows that it is—then the “age to come,” to which Christ refers, cannot be a temporary one but must indicate an age without end.
We see the same use of the word “age” in another passage in Mark—chapter 10, verses 29–30:
“Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospel’s sake, but that he will receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age (aiwni) to come, eternal (aiwnion) life.”
Note what the Lord says the reward will be in the age to come: eternal life. If there is eternal life in this future age, then the age itself must be without end. On the other hand, if that age to come is not without end but only temporary, then the life that is rewarded to these believers would also be temporary. That, however, contradicts the Lord’s statement in this passage.
As appealing as universalism is to many, it never entered the mind of God. Scripture clearly teaches that not all will be saved.
About the Author
The author of this blog, Jeremy (Jehanne), is a Catholic who strives to think God's thoughts after Him and obey Christ's exhortation to take up the cross daily and follow Him on the way to Golgotha. He likes reading theology, evangelizing, and, of course, writing.
Recent Comments