Some Personal Reflections on the "Depart Out" Issue
This article, as the title suggests, is an attempt to bring some personal reflections by way of biblical criticism upon a fairly recent teaching that is being propagated by Family Radio's President, Mr. Harold Camping. This teaching calls for all Christians now to forsake any relationship or involvement with the local church; the time has come for all believers to depart out of the church! While informal fellowships can exist around Family Radio teachings, there is no longer to be any church, elders, or deacons. God has now brought His Judgment upon the corporate church; ALL churches are now in a state of apostasy, according to Mr. Camping. This teaching is not an incidental one heard "in a corner" here and there, but is propagated prominently on Family Radio's website and particularily the Bible studies over the air on Family Radio.
My hope is to demonstrate, from several different Biblical perspectives, that the "Depart Out" teaching is a false, unbiblical teaching. As such, no sound Christian is under any compelling to obey a commandment of men which is not a commandment from God! While the arguments that will be offered here will probably have little sway over the zealots for Mr. Camping (those who buy into all of his teachings and methods of Bible interpretation without any investigation or questioning), it is hoped that the sound reader will examine the arguments offered here and will reject the "Depart Out" teachings even as I do. In any event, I'll offer my examination and leave the results to God. Even for those not directly involved with these issues (they've never listened to or heard of Family Radio or Mr. Camping), it is hoped that underlying principles involving sound Bible interpretation or "rightly dividing the Word of Truth" will be of help.
Mr. Camping has recently written a new book on the subject which is entitled The End of the Church Age...and After. [To see the book in its entirety, click on this link from Family Radio's own website...]
The End of the Church Age...and After
The essence of the "Depart Out" teaching stems from an interpretion of Luke 21:20-21 which is as follows: "Jerusalem" and "Judaea" represent all of the various local churches and congregations of our day as being now overrun by Satan (encompassed with armies); those in "Judaea" (i.e.-the local churches and congregations) are now to flee and depart out. Here is the passage in view (Luke 21:20-21)...
20 ¶ And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
Obviously, many other passages of Scripture are brought to bear by Mr. Camping in order to persuade his readers/listeners to embrace his teaching that the Church Age is now over. I certainly don't wish to imply here that only the Luke 21 passage is utilized to propagate the "Depart Out" doctrines, but it is a key passage to the teachings. Again, anyone wishing to verify (or refute) my understanding as to what Mr. Camping is teaching should click the link above to his book The End of the Church Age...and After (certainly the title itself seems clear...). I do not wish to distort or twist anything he lays out so as to set up "straw man" arguments, but I also don't wish to "paste" portions of his work here on this website. Thus, the reader is asked to go to the Family Radio Website where his book is posted to "see if these things be so"...(again, see link above)
In short, the mandate now is for believers everywhere to depart out from all local churches and congregations. Ominous "truths", to be sure! But, are they true? I hope to answer this in the negative from various perspectives. The first one will involve a more careful examination of this Luke 21 passage by itself and then comparing it with other related Biblical passages.
A Look at Luke 21: What About "Jerusalem" or "Judaea"?
Now, looking more carefully at this Luke 21 passage, we find this terminology of "Jerusalem being compassed with armies" and the edict of our Lord to "depart out" of Judaea! Ominous language, to be sure! Whatever Jerusalem or Judaea represent, it certainly seems clear from the Lord Jesus Christ that the believers being addressed here are to flee! I have no issue with our Lord's statement in itself-a group IS being admonished to "depart out" of Judaea and Jerusalem (in Luke 21:20-21). The question being raised here, however, is this; DOES Judaea or Jerusalem represent the New Testament Corporate churches or congregations becoming TOTALLY apostate during a time far into the future for the disciples being addressed in Luke 21 (not to occur until around the year 2000 A.D.)? To answer this question we must not go to our own opinions or feelings, nor to the "exalted ideas of men" (which Mr. Camping refers to as "high places", which are to be found in the church but not in Family Radio...so we're told). No, we answer this question with another...what saith the Scriptures? Now we should take a look at Luke 21:5-21 so as to pick up a fuller context-comments will be offered along the way. Luke 21:5-21 go like this...
5 ¶ And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said,
6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
The "some" here that are speaking of the physical, earthly temple at Jerusalem are some of Jesus' disciples who happen to be accompanying Him. Christ's ominous comment to them in verse 6 here seems to be obviously referring quite literally to the physical, earthly temple that they're observing-"these things which ye behold" cannot be referring to the New Testament churches which were about to be destroyed or judged-the New Testament church didn't exist as of yet at the time these disciples are being addressed. Thus, they DIDN'T behold that event-they did, however, behold this earthly temple at Jerusalem which no longer exists today! Also, there's no cause from this passage (or the parallel passages found in Matthew 24 or Mark 13) to assume that Christ is speaking metaphorically here concerning the New Testament churches (which aren't even established as of yet in this context!), but is clearly speaking of the earthly, physical temple at Jerusalem.
7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?
Note here that the disciples present here are asking our Lord two questions...
1) When shall these things be (when will they take place)?
2) What sign will there be when things things come to pass?
8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.
9 But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by.
10 Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom:
11 And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven.
Hopefully, there'd be no dispute concerning vs. 8-11-we'd agree that this would take place throughout the whole New Testament Era. Christ's coming brought a clear distinction between His Kingdom vs. the Kingdom of Satan (the intensifying of demonic activity during Christ's earthly ministry highlights this truth). Indeed, He came "not to bring peace, but a sword"(Matt. 10:34)! In any event, these verses cover a wide span of time and are not referring to a specific, "end time" period.
12 But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake.
13 And it shall turn to you for a testimony.
Vs. 12 and 13 would begin to be fulfilled even as we read through the book of Acts-we find both Peter and Paul being brought before the Jewish rulers, and Paul being brought before the Roman officials for the Faith. But, the principle continues on throughout the whole New Testament Era-the tension between those following the Gospel of Grace alone (to be found in Christ Alone) and those following after gospels of men-those of Abel, and those of Cain! The initial stage of conflict for the Christians would be the direct, outward opposition of Christianity by Judaism as it still functioned for a time under an Old Testament construct (the seventh day Sabbaths were still in force, as were the feast days and so on). Stage two would then involve enemies eroding at the church from within-false doctrines, heresies, etc..
14 Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer:
15 For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.
16 And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death.
17 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake.
18 But there shall not an hair of your head perish.
19 In your patience possess ye your souls.
We'd agree that true Christians throughout time will be "hated of all men" for Christ's sake, but we can rest in God's Sovereignty and His Love for the believers that are in Christ.
20 ¶ And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
Here are the verses concerning "Jerusalem being encompassed with armies"-vs. 21 does give a sobering command-whatever Jerusalem or Judaea represents, we're told not only to flee to the mountains here, but are also told "not to enter thereinto"! Actually, there are three categories or groups being addressed here...
1st group-those in Judaea are told to "flee to the mountains"
2nd group-those in the "midst" (presumably Jerusalem) are simply to "depart out", but aren't told to "flee to the mountains"
3rd group-those in the "countries" are simply told "not to enter into Jerusalem or Judaea"; they're also not told to "flee to the mountains"
If Judaea or Jerusalem represent some other entity, what do these three different groups of people represent? What do the mountains represent? What do the countries represent? If these verses are to be interpreted in an allegorical fashion, all of these terms have to be defined and must have Scriptural support for these definitions. Further on, a few of these terms will be examined that will show the "Depart Out" teaching to be false. For now, we should continue to look at this Luke 21 account for a bit longer...
22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
"Wrath upon THIS people..."-"This people" has to be referring to the Nation of Israel of which Christ says in John 1:11..."He came unto his own, and his own received him not." Other New Testament passages could be brought in to show that National Israel is in view as an entity to be under God's Wrath, except for a remnant chosen by Grace.
24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
Whatever this terminology means-Jerusalem being "trodden down of the Gentiles"-it will remain so until the times of the Gentiles are to be fulfilled. IF Jerusalem here represents the local, corporate churches in their entirety being destroyed (with the very next event presumably being Christ's eschatological Return on the Last Day), how will that reconcile with the "times of the Gentiles" encompassing the whole New Testament Era? This "times of the Gentiles" surely cannot be referring to the brief time span whereby the last of God's elect are being reached primarily through Family Radio Ministries! One would be sorely challenged to find this "truth" in Scripture!
25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
Of course, not all of the events of Luke 21 are to be necessarily viewed as occuring in the remote past (what is called a Preterite view). Certainly, the ultimate Return of Christ on the Last Day has yet to occur...that will usher in the end of human history and transition into eternity! One cannot "metaphorize" the ultimate consummation of human history (Christ's Glorious Return) as simply a representation of a localized judgment upon one nation by another nation (in this case, Israel's destruction by the Romans in 70 A.D.). The Return of Christ is not a metaphor for the gradual ushering in of Christianity by human efforts (the "Christianizing" of nations...); Christ Himself Will appear in Glory! On the other hand, this destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D. does serve both as a type of the ultimate Judgment to come upon those who refuse to believe Christ's warnings and serves as a proof of our Lord's Prophetic Office-what He declares will come to pass does come to pass!
In the event that someone might wish to label me as a preterist (because I hold to the destruction of the temple as having been literally accomplished by the Romans in 70 A.D.-a past event), it should be pointed out here that Mr. Camping's "Depart Out" teaching is also a preterist viewpoint...the "desolation of all corporate New Testament churches" supposedly took place "waay back in 1994" (go to pg. 125 of this link to The End of the Church Age...and After)-that's a past event! In that sense, both viewpoints are a preterist view...the issue is whether a real, literal destruction of a corporate entity took place (in 70 A.D.) or whether a nebulous, nonspecific destruction of all New Testament churches took place in 1994 A.D. (I use the terms "nonspecific" and "nebulous" deliberately, since Mr. Camping didn't receive this "revelation" until about seven years after the fact-this teaching surfaced in 2001 A.D.)! Of course, the logical issue then arises: why did it take the Holy Spirit about seven years to "get around" to telling the believers to abandon an apostate system that should have been abandoned back in 1994? That'd be like Jonah going to Ninevah with the message of being destroyed in 40 days, but God gives Jonah this message 10 days late (thus really leaving them 30 days). What kind of God would do this?
Without getting into all of the various eschatological viewpoints of the Luke 21 passage, it is hoped that at least the Jerusalem and Judaea of Luke 21:20-21 have been shown from the immediate context of the passage to be referring quite literally to a geographical region of Palestine and not a representation or an allegory representing the New Testament church worldwide under a state of total spiritual ruin.
What about other New Testament passages concerning Judaea or Jerusalem?
Granting that the Luke 21 passage alone might not prove that Judaea and Jerusalem refer to the physical region in Palestine or that the temple here refers to the physical temple of Jerusalem in Christ's day, do other New Testament passages that refer to these terms (Judaea, Jerusalem, or the temple) show them to represent the entire New Testament church in a state of apostasy and under God's Judgment? Let us see...
I) Luke 19:28-44:
28 ¶ And when he had thus spoken, he went before, ascending up to Jerusalem.
[This "Jerusalem" must be pointing to the earthly, physical one of Jesus' day. In Luke 19:11, it states that "he (Jesus) added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem (this can only refer to the earthly, literal Jerusalem), and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear]
29 And it came to pass, when he was come nigh to Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount called the mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples,
30 Saying, Go ye into the village over against you; in the which at your entering ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither.
31 And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him.
32 And they that were sent went their way, and found even as he had said unto them.
33 And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt?
34 And they said, The Lord hath need of him.
35 And they brought him to Jesus: and they cast their garments upon the colt, and they set Jesus thereon.
36 And as he went, they spread their clothes in the way.
37 And when he was come nigh, even now at the descent of the mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen;
38 Saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest.
39 And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples.
40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
41 ¶ And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
(Again, Jesus is coming near the physical, earthly Jerusalem...)
42 Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
43 For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
44 And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.
(Note the similarity of language here to that of Luke 21-Christ HERE is speaking quite literally of this earthly, physical Jerusalem as they reject Him as the Messiah. Some have asserted that this Luke 19 account concerning Jerusalem's soon to come ruin is not the same one being spoken of in Luke 21; that they're two separate events. There's no real way to validate that view.)
II) Matthew 23:1-Matthew 24:2:
A lengthy passage, to be sure! I included it so as to pick up some context leading up to our Lord's Olivet Discourse which begins with Matthew 24:1-2 and harmonizes with the Luke 21 account...
1 ¶ Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
13 ¶ But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?
18 And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.
19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?
20 Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.
21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.
22 And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.
23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
In vs. 1-33, our Lord is condemning in the first instance the hypocrisy of the religious leaders that existed in His day-the Jewish scribes and Pharisees.
34 ¶ Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
One only has to read the book of Acts to see this literally fulfilled as Paul and Peter go forth with the Gospel, along with others.
35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
Can there be any doubt here that Christ is addressing the literal, physical nation of Israel that existed at that day? Vs. 38 gives the Judgment that is to fall upon that nation for its unbelief, for its rejection of the Messiah-utter desolation and ruin!
39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.
1 ¶ And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
Note how the context of Matthew 24:1-2 and the discourse that is to follow stems from the whole discussion which took place in Matthew 23. Christ, having "went out, and departed from the (physical, literal, earthly) temple" of that day, is about to give further explanation to His disciples concerning this event as well as other events to transpire before His Return.
III) Galatians 4:21-27:
Does THIS passage, which speaks of a "Jerusalem above" and a "Jerusalem below", teach or support this "dead church doctrine" (that ALL New Testament churches now are defunct)? Let us see...
21 ¶ Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
Note right off the bat, as it were, that this verse is speaking in the first instance to those in the churches of Galatia who were enamored with the Mosaic Old Testament Law as set forth under Judaism of that day; it still existed for a time until 70 AD, when God through Roman instrumentality would abolish that system. I'll grant that the principle would still apply today to anyone who wishes to follow a works gospel or even add works to grace. But, can it be said honestly that every person still in the church ipso facto desires to be under the law? Just because they haven't left the church? Could this very teaching of "You must abide with Family Radio and leave the church, else you cannot be saved." in itself be a desire to add works to Grace, even as the Judaizers wished to add circumcision to Grace? Make no mistake; this is what the teaching has come to. [anyone wishing to verify my statements just made can click this link to pg. 195...Is Everyone Presently In A Church Doomed? ]
Assuming that the reader examined those statements made by Mr. Camping (by going to the link just mentioned), they seem pretty plain-get out of the church, or it could be a strong evidence you're not saved. Who's the one adding a "work" to Grace? In other words, could the "Depart Out disciples" really be the ones that desire to be under the law? Regardless of any of this, the "dead church doctrine" isn't to be found here in Galatians 4-nothing here or in the epistle of Galatians links this desire of being under the law with New Testament church involvement. Vs. 21 does NOT state "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, because you're still in the church, etc."-it simply refers to those within the church (in the first instance, the churches of Galatia) that had a desire to be under the law of Jewish carnal ordinances. In fact, the context of the book of Galatians is dealing with those adding CIRCUMCISION to Grace, not CHURCH ATTENDANCE!
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
The discussion by Paul here (under Divine inspiration) involves those under one of two covenants-one covenant stemming from Mt. Sinai, and the other being the covenant of Grace as fulfilled in Christ. The "Jerusalems" being referred to here are as follows...
Jerusalem which now is- Refers to the Jewish religious system still in existence at that time which was following after Moses, but had rejected Christ. It still practiced circumcision (read Galatians to get the overall context) and other ceremonial laws which pointed to Christ but now have been done away with. This system was in bondage even at the time Paul is writing the book of Galatians. It cannot be referring to the New Testament corporate churches which start out faithful and then end up apostate or in bondage (according to the Depart Out teachings), because this bondage was already occuring in Paul's time. Also, the New Testament church was never established from Mt. Sinai under Moses-it was established by Christ Himself. Lastly, nothing in the book of Galatians could logically or biblically link church involvement in itself with being the Jerusalem that now is, which is in bondage. Again, the context of the book of Galatians deals with those desiring to add circumcision to the gospel, not church involvement or membership!
Jerusalem which is above- Refers to the true body of believers, the elect in Christ, as found during both Old Testament and New Testament times. It is free-its never to come under a state of bondage. While this group is not comprised of all people found in the local church or assembly, many of them are found there. To be fair, some are also found outside of the church. After all, as Romans 9:16 states, "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.". Salvation, or being a citizen of the "Jerusalem above", is all of Grace!
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
So much for this passage teaching the "dead church doctrine". Neither Jerusalem mentioned can be applied IN FULL to the corporate church-they can, however, be applied in part. Also, they can be applied in part to the "Depart Out disciples". There are those in the church or involved with Family Radio who desire to add works to Grace and are under the cursings warned of in the book of Galatians because they abandon the simplicity that is in Christ! There are those in the church or involved with Family Radio who are, nevertheless, elect of God and covered by Christ's blood-they're part of the "Jerusalem above" in spite of their flaws or imperfections. There are those that are neither in the church or involved with Family Radio that are part of either Jerusalem. Thus, the "dead church dogma" is too neat or idealistic to be practically applied to simply everyone who won't "bow the knee" to Family Radio! No one can say that everyone in the church is lost or that everyone who adheres to the "Depart Out" dogma is saved-that's too simplistic and unbiblical. In any group there will always be a mix of the "wheat and the tares"-our Lord Himself said so.
What about the "Holy Place" of Matthew 24:15...does this point to the Corporate Church of the New Testament Age?
Matthew 24:15-18, which parallel the Luke 21 account, read thus...
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
[Luke 21:20 says "Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. This verse somewhat parallels this vs. of Matthew 24:15. Thus, the "holy place" can be synonymous with "Jerusalem".]
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
Why is this brought up? If this verse IS parallel with the Luke 21 account (I believe it is...), then seeing how this term "holy place" is used elsewhere in the New Testament should either support the "dead church" doctrine or else refute it. This phrase "holy place" is comprised of two Greek words
(Holy is #40 in Strong's Concordance, and Place is #5117 in Strong's Concordance). Its interesting where they're found in the New Testament...
I) Acts 6:8-14 (when Stephen is confronted by the Jewish Leaders...)
8 ¶ And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.
9 Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen.
10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.
11 Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God.
12 And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council,
13 And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:
14 For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us.
(Here, the "Holy Place" refers to the synagogue at Jerusalem as the disciples haven't been dispersed as of yet...)
II) Acts 21:27-31 (Paul and others are at Jerusalem...)
27 ¶ And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him,
28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.
29 (For they had seen before with him in the city Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.)
30 And all the city was moved, and the people ran together: and they took Paul, and drew him out of the temple: and forthwith the doors were shut.
31 And as they went about to kill him, tidings came unto the chief captain of the band, that all Jerusalem was in an uproar.
(Again, the "holy place" refers quite literally to Jerusalem...)
Those are the only places in the New Testament where these two Greek words (#40 and #5117) are used together, and all of them refer to the physical, literal Jerusalem or the literal temple. No other references for this phrase are to be found in the New Testament that would link "holy place" with the New Testament churches corporately.
While one could go on with more instances of proof that would show the "Depart Out" teaching to be without Biblical support, it would be more profitable to address the heart of the "Depart Out" problem: an incorrect method of Bible interpretation.
How do we study the Bible? What about "allegorical interpretation"?
This by far will be the most difficult section for me to address, but the most necessary. The reasons are many. First, I am not a scholar or seminary graduate, so I don't have the higher learning that those who've labored in the fields of Bible study or Bible translation have. Being simply a layman, I beg the forgiveness of those who have surpassed me in learning and ask their patience as I appear to be "rude in speech". Secondly, I myself was a Family Radio supporter and arguably on the side of Mr. Camping for about eleven years (from 1990 until 2001 when this "Depart Out" teaching surfaced). As such, I was a strong advocate of the methods of Bible interpretation that Mr. Camping and his followers espouse. Thus, I'm forced to adopt a posture of humility as I address this subject since I would have defended Mr. Camping a few short years ago (I defended him on the 1994? issue and believed it myself at that time.). Also, I have dear friends on both sides of this "Depart Out" issue, so I don't wish to be overly harsh or antagonistic in my tone. While I'm compelled to stand against Mr. Camping's "Depart Out" teachings, I still trust that Mr. Camping and many of those who stand with him are numbered among God's elect and are brethren in the Lord! This isn't a personal issue with either Mr. Camping or any of his supporters-it is strictly an examination of a teaching which, like any other teaching, is to be subjected to the test of Scripture to see whether it can stand or not. Lastly, the whole subject of Bible interpretation is subject to some debate even among learned men and scholars, both past and present. This being the case, any comments from me will hardly be the last word on the subject. But, to be silent on this issue would be far worse, especially in light of the methods of interpretation being used to support this "Depart Out" teaching. Without denying legitimate observation of "types or shadows" found in the Scriptures, what about "allegorical interpretation" of the WHOLE of Scripture? Is it a sound method of interpretation?
Some clarification needs to be made as to what is meant by the "allegorical method of interpretation". In the late second and early third centuries-the early days of the church-an Egyptian by the name of Origen postulated a "threefold method" of Bible interpretation...
* "He [Origen] wrote many commentaries on the Scriptures. Believing the Scriptures to be the word of God, he held that nothing in them was to be believed which is unworthy of God. He saw in the Scriptures three levels of meaning: first, the common or historical sense which is on the surface for even the simple-minded; second, the soul of the Scriptures which edifies those who perceive it; and third, for the perfect, a meaning hidden under what superficially is repugnant to the conscience or the intellect but which, discerned, can be expressed by allegory."
*[taken from pgs 149-150 of A History of Christianity, Volume I-Beginnings To 1500, Kenneth Scott Latourette, Copyright 1953, 1975 by Harper San Francisco]
What kind of results stemmed from Origen's allegorical methods of interpretation? Here are a few...
* "Origen taught that ultimately all the spirits who have fallen away from God will be restored to full harmony with Him. This can come about only with their cooperation, for they have freedom to accept or reject the redemption wrought in Christ. Before their full restoration they will suffer punishment, but the punishment is intended to be educative, to purge them from the imperfections brought by their sin. After the end of the present age and its world another age and world will come, so Origen believed, in which those who have been born again will continue to grow and the unrepentant will be given further opportunity for repentance. Eventually all, even the devils, through repentance, learning, and growth, will be fully saved. Origen's conception of the drama of creation and redemption was breath-taking in its vast sweep and in its confident hope."
*[page 151 of A History of Christianity, Volume I-Beginnings To 1500, Kenneth Scott Latourette, Copyright 1953, 1975 by Harper San Francisco]
If one was to compare Camping's allegorical conception of the drama of redemption as it applies in the church age, one could say that its "breath-taking in its vast sweep and in its pessimistic despair (NO ONE is being saved through the ministry of the church)"!
That comment aside, it is fairly safe to say that Origen's teachings as seen above will simply not square with a sound exegesis of the Scriptures. Where do the Scriptures teach purgatory, the salvation of the fallen devils, or the unending possibilities for salvation even in eternity? This isn't to deny Origen's brilliance or some of his contributions to early Christianity, but simply to call into question a method of interpretation which would lead to some of these kinds of teachings. No one reading the plain texts of Scripture could come up with these doctrines; only someone reading INTO the texts of Scripture can come up with these teachings.
What, ultimately, is the problem with allegorical interpretation (seeking a "hidden" meaning which cannot be read FROM the text itself)? There's no way to verify its truth or falsity. Why? Because the "meaning" isn't derived FROM THE TEXT ITSELF, but FROM THE MIND OF THE INTERPRETER! Here is Origen's third principle once again...
"third, for the perfect, a meaning hidden under what superficially is repugnant to the conscience or the intellect but which, discerned, can be expressed by allegory".
In other words, the plain text of Scripture is not to be discerned by the intellect or by reason through plain hearing or reading of the text. Thus, the TEXTS of Scripture do not say the same thing to all people, in all places, at all times. According to the "latter-day-lights", certain "truths" are sealed up until we reach an "endtime setting" and then God reveals doctrines never before seen or understood by the Godly in times past. I seriously question this view of things, especially as it relates to the subject of eschatology. There's more confusion than ever these days on the doctrine of "Last things" as evidenced by the Left Behind series of books, by the films coming out of Hollywood, by the books written concerning Dispensationalism. We have the secret Rapture of believers, to be followed by the millennial Kingdom in Israel, to be followed by the real Return of Christ and the age to come. According to Mr. Camping (and Family Radio), we have, not the secret Rapture of the church, but the secret destruction and Judgment of the church followed by a "Golden Gospel Age" of Family Radio being the main means of propagating the Gospel before Christ's Return! What would this view be called-the "Sensational-Dispensational View"? The main point of all this is to raise the question-does the Bible teach all of these conflicting views of eschatology, or does it really teach a more fundamental scheme which is "CHRIST-centered" and not centered on Israel, let alone Family Radio? Does the Bible teach an eschatology that men of all ages in all places could relate to and understand, or an eschatology that only an "enlightened minority" of Christianity could understand (those living today and involved in Family Radio, but not the church)? In both of these, I choose the former and not the latter. While application of the texts of Scripture may differ according to one's circumstances, the truths or principles of the texts apply at all times and all places. Man is always totally depraved, Christ Alone is always the only way of escape, and the wages of sin is always death. Augustine understood this, Calvin understood this, and believers today understand this. Psalm 119:18 says "Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things OUT of thy law." (It DOESN'T say "Open thou mine eyes, that I may INSERT wondrous things INTO thy law"!). To put it the other way, if a "novel doctrine" was never seen before by either the apostles, or men such as Calvin or Luthor or Knox or Jonathan Edwards or Spurgeon, then it was INSERTED or thrust upon the texts of Scripture and is not a doctrine coming OUT of the texts of Scripture. One should beware of anyone who "pulls a rabbit out of the hat" in terms of the Scriptures; they probably put the rabbit IN the hat in the first place (a rabbit doesn't actually come from a hat)! A.W. Tozer, in a chapter entitled "How to Try the Spirits", makes these statements concerning those who espouse these "latter-day-light theories"...
*"Beware of any man who claims to be wiser than the apostles or holier than the martyrs of the Early Church. The best way to deal with him is to rise and leave his presence. You cannot help him and he surely cannot help you."
*[Pg. 126 of Man: The Dwelling Place Of God , A.W. Tozer, Christian Publications, 3825 Hartzdale Drive, Camp Hill, PA 17011, Copyright 1966]
All of these principles apply to the "Depart Out" teaching of Mr. Camping. Apart from listening to him or being exposed to his teachings, would anyone else have EVER come to this position simply by prayerful reading of the Scriptures? Absolutely not! First, they had to be exposed to it by Mr. Camping and buy into the concept, THEN read (into) the Scriptures more "proofs" to support this position! I can personally attest to the fact that I had never heard of this kind of teaching concerning the "Depart Out" doctrines until Mr. Camping began teaching them in 2001! After that, all kinds of people were then "seeing them for themselves". This kind of testimony would be thrown out of a courtroom, even as two or three witnesses corroborating with each other to concoct a uniform but false account of events would be deemed as false witnesses! No wonder the Scriptures tell us that "in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established" (II Cor. 13:1).
Perhaps an illustration will help-Hebrews 10:25 speaks of "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching" This verse is used to support the notion that believers now are to still assemble together in informal fellowships outside of the scope of the church, huddled under Family Radio teachers [I say "Family Radio teachers" because these followers should have weaned themselves from pastors who are still part of an apostate system (the church) that have not "repented" as of yet. Its no different than, say, a Mormon who becomes a Christian and comes to understand that Mormonism is a cult and is erroneous-he or she wouldn't abandon that system while still listening to teachers coming with their Mormon bias, would he/she?]. At any rate, where IN THE TEXT OF HEBREWS can this kind of doctrine be found (to depart out of the church)? Wasn't this verse in the first instance addressed to Christians of that first century who were definitely in the context of a church? What are we to do with Hebrews 13:7 which reads as follows...
7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
Isn't this speaking of pastors and elders-those who speak the Word of God to those within a congregation? It can't be referring to "Depart Out teachers" who have no spiritual authority over those listening to or sitting under their teachings. These individuals to be remembered are those having RULE over the flock.
Also, what about Hebrews 13:17?
17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
Again, this is clearly speaking of pastors and elders and how the believers are supposed to submit to them as they minister the Word of God. This cannot be referring to the civil authorities as this verse states how they "watch for your souls"-this is only true of spiritual authorities as they govern within a local congregation or assembly.
If the "Depart Out Devotees" are going to argue that these verses no longer apply today as the church is now defunct, then I argue back the following: Hebrews 10:25 no longer applies today-there's no command to "not forsake the assembling of ourselves together"! Its every man for himself nowadays! Or, as one friend of mine put it, "My unsaved neighbors had it right all along". There's no logical or Biblical way to divorce Hebrews 10:25 from Hebrews 13:7 and Hebrews 13:17. Either they BOTH apply or NEITHER apply-its that simple!
These kinds of inconsistencies in the "Depart Out" teaching run throughout the whole New Testament. There's no logical way to separate some verses that appear to support a "dead church doctrine" without running into these other kinds of verses which teach the pastoral functioning which is to still take place within the local body.
How DO we "rightly divide the Word of truth"? What are correct methods of Bible Interpretation?
This is the crux of the issue in terms of Bible study-to come to a right understanding as to how to interpret or handle the Scriptures. What principles can be laid down?
1) Read the Bible just as one would read any other text or literature-Scholars refer to this principle as the "historical-grammatical method of interpretation". The Bible was written and translated in known human languages which can be read and studied following the ordinary grammatical rules of interpretation (reading words within a sentence or verse, sentences or verses within a paragraph or chapter, chapters within a book). In reading any other document one ordinarily follows basic rules of grammar-one tries to understand what the author wishes to convey in a text. The Bible was also written within a historical context which needs to be first understood before one moves onward to applications to be applied directly or indirectly. The idea or concept of somehow applying a different set of principles in understanding the TEXT of Scripture as opposed to understanding any other text (Shakespeare's works, etc.) is compelling among many of the pious. After all, it is argued, since the Bible IS the Word of God and authored by God Himself, how can we treat it like any other book without denigrating God? It IS a spiritual book; surely there must be some different spiritual method of interpreting its contents? The answer to that is as follows: the fundamental difference between the Bible and any other piece of literature isn't to be found in terms of METHOD of handling the texts, but of IMPORTANCE placed upon the texts of Scripture. Since the Scriptures ARE the Word of God, the issue is how men regard this Word. Some merely view it as another great piece of human literature coming from many various human authors (it certainly is that), but don't view it as authoritative. Some see it for what it is-God's Word-and give allegience and reverence to it. I Thessalonians 2:13 states thus...
13 ¶ For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
The apostle Paul, along with Silvanus and Timothy, had preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ to some Thessalonians who came to believe on Christ. Did they preach "allegorically" or in some secret code whereby some of them were given "eyes to unlock this mysterious code" while others heard gibberish? Not at all! They preached in a known human tongue that could be understood-they uttered words within sentences, and sentences within phrases. For some to have taken it simply as the word of men meant that it was conveyed in the same fashion as any other communication from human beings. These individuals understood Paul's speech, but simply regarded it as coming from Paul. Others, however, understood Paul's words or speech as having originated from God and believed unto salvation! The difference didn't lie in the METHOD of interpreting Paul's words (both groups heard a human language and understood the propositions on an intellectual level-both groups heard the "words of men"). No; the difference lied in the IMPORTANCE placed upon these words (some merely heard Paul, others heard God speaking THROUGH Paul).
Paul, in dealing with the Corinthian church, makes this commentary on his preaching (from II Corinthians 3:1-II Cor. 4:1-5)...
1 ¶ Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?
2 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:
3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:
5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
6 ¶ Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
12 ¶ Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
(No "allegorical spins" being spoken of here...)
13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
It is true that the Old Testament (signified by Moses) contained the Gospel in a veiled form (in types and pictures), which was to be removed with the New Testament revelation of Jesus Christ! Because of the manifestation of Christ, the vail has now been taken away (although a vail remains over the hearts of those who believe not the Gospel as the Jews by and large did not believe).
But, to suggest that the New Testament truths are also vailed, only to be clarified by the "greater truth" that Family Radio is to be the one true means of bringing the Gospel to the world (that vail is now "done away in Camping") is absurd!
16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.
1 ¶ Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;
2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
(Again, no "reading into" the Scriptures was done, but rather plain declaration of Scripture)
3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.
Here's the problem with man-our eyes are blinded by the "god of this world"-Satan-and are not blinded due to God's Word being deceptive. The Scriptures themselves give light and don't blind folks. Men are blinded because of their own deceptions and love for darkness. Again, because of the New Testament, God has no "vail" over His Word ("the New is in the Old contained, the Old is in the New EXPLAINED"). But, men have a "vail" over their own hearts-because men don't like what the Scriptures declare concerning their own depravity, Hell, and God's Right to Rule over them they concoct theories and "fudge" with the Scriptures in order to come up with doctrines which suit them (free will, Christ as a social radical, annihilation of the wicked, etc.). This could also be said of the "Depart Out" devotees-because they don't like what the New Testament teaches concerning the function of pastors and elders, they "fudge" with the Scriptures to concoct a "dead church doctrine" which suits them as they try to put a vail over the New Testament. Its all for naught-the vail is only over their own hearts and minds!
But, a question can be anticipated-don't the Scriptures speak of the necessity for God to "open the eyes of understanding" so that one can perceive Truth? This isn't to be denied. But, what is meant by this? Does this mean that the Holy Spirit causes the elect to understand truth "hidden between the lines" of Scripture via some "hidden code" while others simply read the plain text of Scripture and glean only the "surface" teachings? Are these "surface teachings" insignificant? Romans 3:10-19 give a "surface teaching" that is highly significant; the absolute and total depravity of the human race outside of Christ! Can most people understand this passage intellectually? Yes. Do most people acknowledge and embrace the truths contained here? No. They understand the propositions laid out on an intellectual level, but they don't believe them (that there's none righteous, no, not one, etc.).
Here's how God defines "wisdom and understanding"-Proverbs 9:10 states..."The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding." To take God at His Word plainly and believe it-that is true understanding. To believe what God declares concerning His Attributes, His Sovereignty, Man's sin and depravity, and his need for a Saviour! That's true understanding. After all, the devils have greater light than mankind concerning some of the realities concerning God (they had some understanding as to the timing of Christ's coming Crucifixion as evidenced by their question "Are you come to torment us before the time?"-Matt. 8:29). But, they lack the "wisdom and understanding" that comes with Salvation-a fear of the Lord and a submission to His Will.
What about historical "types and shadows" found in the Old Testament which point to Gospel truths found in the New Testament? The answer to that lies in the latter part of the previous sentence..."Gospel truths FOUND IN THE NEW TESTAMENT". The historical types and shadows serve two purposes...
A) They do provide an accurate and literal account of historical events (the six days of Creation, the Flood, the Exodus, etc.) and are not simply allegories or mere fables or parables. The six days of Creation were a literal six days and not merely a metaphorical expression of deeper truths.
As such, these accounts in and of themselves are "profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness" (II Timothy 3:16). The real historical accounts give us clear moral instruction.
B) They also serve as illustrations of Gospel truths concerning Christ as our Substitute, our Passover Lamb, our High Priest, our King, or some other aspect of Redemption. Boaz as a kinsman-redeemer (from the book of Ruth) serves as an illustration in some respects to our Great Kinsman-Redeemer which is Christ! The Passover Lamb of the Exodus serves as an illustration of our Lamb "slain from before the foundation of the world"-Christ! And on it goes. BUT, these illustrations of Gospel truths are also CLEARLY TAUGHT in some fashion in the New Testament! Christ is certainly spoken of CLEARLY in the New Testament as our Redeemer, He's CLEARLY spoken of in the New Testament as our "Lamb", and on it goes. The point is this-the New Testament (or Old Testament) accounts and doctrinal teachings are NOT to be themselves treated as "types and shadows" of supposedly "greater truths" like the preeminence of Family Radio as the one true means being used of God to get the Gospel out or the absolute and total apostasy of all churches and anyone not under the "umbrella" of Family Radio! Neither the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24, Luke 21) or the book of Revelation or any other New Testament writings can be tortured so as to teach this "Dead Church Doctrine". This is my contention-the "Depart Out" doctrines are NOWHERE CLEARLY TAUGHT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT OR THE OLD TESTAMENT! Where in the Scriptures do we read clearly concerning the "rules" governing these new fellowships (Who's qualified to teach? Women? What about Sundays? How is discipline administered? How many admonishings is an "unrepentant church attendee" given before he/she is "written off as a heretic"?)?
2) The Bible interprets Itself-We are to "compare Scripture with Scripture", but that has to be "rightly divided". We cannot simply take one part of Scripture and force it unlawfully into another passage of Scripture. That's how cults and sects operate-they take a verse here, force it into another passage there or "duct tape" it unlawfully to another verse not directly related to the first verse, and thats how heresies and false teachings are concocted. While one passage does relate to some other passages, it doesn't relate directly to every single other verse or passage of the Bible. For example, the latter portion of Deuterenomy 28 warns of the cursings to come upon the Nation of Israel if they rejected Jehovah God and walked contrary to Him. The context of these cursings addresses a people who ultimately never came under the Covenant of Grace-they're under a conditional arrangement (if they obey,blessings-if they disobey, cursings). Their ultimate sin was unbelief. In contrast, Psalm 89 gives a scenario concerning a people under a Covenant of Grace and not under the Law-while there would be chastisements "with the rod of men", God's Lovingkindness would never be removed from His Seed (Christ) because Christ met the conditions for this group. It would be wrong to directly relate these two passages to the same group of people since they portray two different classes of men-one under the "severity of God", and the other under the "goodness of God". Thus, immediate context is important (comparing Scripture with the immediate Scriptures surrounding it or them...comparing Matthew 24:2 with Matthew 24:1 and Matthew 24:3, and so on...). But, extended context is important also-comparing a passage or verse with other portions of Scripture so as to have a balanced understanding. God ultimately won't contradict Himself!
Also, this principle of internal consistency (using Scripture to interpret Scripture) is helpful in terms of unraveling some of the more difficult passages of Scripture. There's no doubting the fact that SOME passages of Scripture are not easily understood (I certainly don't pretend to understand many passages fully). Even so, whatever they happen to be teaching will not contradict other plain passages of Scripture. For example, the II Thessalonians 2 passage concerning the "man of sin taking his seat in the temple" is certainly an ominous passage concerning a great falling away that was to occur sometime after the Apostle Paul was writing this to the church at Thessalonica. Not all commentators agree as to when this would be fulfilled historically-some saw the Catholic church during the Dark Ages as a manifestation of this; others see our day as a manifestation. Yet others see it as still future. But, does that passage teach that the entire New Testament church is to become dead; that there is to no longer be elders or pastors-the church is to disband? What about the clearer passages of Scripture concerning the Lord's Supper ("showing forth the Lord's death TILL HE COME")? What about qualifications for elders or deacons or bishops (if anyone desires the office of a bishop, he desires a good work)? There's no indications that "desiring a good work of bishop UNTIL THE END OF THE CHURCH AGE" are in view. The point is, the key to unlocking these more difficult passages of Scripture (which aren't difficult due to there being a "hidden meaning" under the text, but are difficult in that WE don't fully comprehend what God has clearly spoken through the text) is by casting the clearer light of other passages of Scripture upon them.
3) The Bible is ultimately about Jesus Christ-The real solution to man's need is found in the Lord Jesus Christ. Another way to test a teaching or doctrine is to see where the emphasis is laid-if the emphasis is upon Israel or the church or man in general, it isn't of God. For example, the problem set before us by the "Depart Out" teaching is this; there's sin and corruption in the church. Without denying any of this, is the solution really to flee the church and put one's trust in Family Radio, in its teachers (don't Family Radio fellowships have all of these same problems as the church-some incorrect doctrines, a mixture of "sheep" and "goats", etc.?)? No; the solution ultimately is to put one's trust in Christ Alone and not merely in the means of Grace, whether it be the church or Family Radio. On the Last Day, all human scaffolding is to come down, whether it be a local church or Family Radio Ministries. Only Christ will matter then!
More could be said, but these three principles should lay a good beginning groundwork for Bible study and interpretation. God ultimately is not deceitful or a "trickster"-His Word is "plain to those who understand" (Proverbs 8:9). I'll close this section by simply giving some Scripture passages which speak on the clarity of God's Word.
2 And the LORD answered me, and said, Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it.
3 For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry. (Habakkuk 2:2-3)
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. (Jeremiah 31:33-34)
There aren't "two classes of Christians"-those who can supposedly unlock the hidden "morse code" of passages so as to be able to "parabolize" them while the "rest of us dumb folk" simply read the Scriptures and glean the "surface teachings" concerning sin, Hell, Judgment, and man's need for Jesus Christ (what else is there, really?). All believers, to some degree or another, understand the issues of sin, Judgment, and Redemption in Christ!
5 O ye simple, understand wisdom: and, ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart.
6 Hear; for I will speak of excellent things; and the opening of my lips shall be right things.
7 For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips.
8 All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them.
9 They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.
(Proverbs 8:5-9)
18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. (Isaiah 1:18)
The Bible does NOT defy rational reasoning-once illuminated, the believing mind understands the logic and necessity for Christ's Sacrifice; He understands the Attributes of God's Justice and His Mercy as being inconsistent, apart from Christ's Sacrifice (righeousness and peace have kissed each other-Psalm 85:10)
Obviously, more Scriptures could be given if time and space permitted. But, these should suffice.
Questions and Answers:
Lastly, I'll endeavor to anticipate some objections or questions in regard to my criticisms of the "Depart Out" teaching by way of questions and answers...
QUESTION: What about Amos 8:11, which reads thus..."Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:". Doesn't this apply to churches today: even if they preach faithfully from the Word, the Holy Spirit is no longer operative in the church to APPLY the Word to the hearts of the hearers so that Salvation might occur? The ones listening to the preaching aren't "hearing" unto Salvation now that the corporate church has come under Judgment.
ANSWER: This isn't hard to answer at all-one only has to "compare Scripture with Scripture" which, in this case, means comparing Amos 8:11 with Amos 8:12..."And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it." In this case, the reason for the "famine of hearing the Word" lies not with the Holy Spirit failing to apply what appears to be plentiful preaching of the Word-as if there's "plenty to go around", but no one in the church can partake of the Word due to lack of appetite. No, the reason for the famine here is that the WORD ITSELF IS SCARCE...it isn't to be found! This happened quite literally to National Israel after the Cross-by their rejection of the Messiah, God abandoned them to what the apostle Paul called "the Jews' religion". God was no longer SPEAKING to National Israel except through the Preaching of Christ that was going out to the Gentiles. Any Jew that was (and is today) going to be saved must stand on the same ground as the Gentiles-they're to abandon any "Messianic Jew" theology and come in via the New Testament Church. Because they by and large will not (and did not), God no longer speaks to them via Judaism. Thus, while they "seek the word of the LORD, they shall not find it". [ Also, God didn't speak to National Israel for about a 400 year period-between the time of the minor prophets and the time of the first coming of Christ.]
When this verse is "factored in" with Amos 8:11, its easy to see that there's absolutely "no Biblical validation" for the "Depart Out" position of having the anomoly of men "faithfully" preaching the Word (although they're under judgment simply for being pastors in this time of the "dead church") while the Holy Spirit will not bless that preaching at all, except within the confines of Family Radio Ministries! This is one inconsistency of this teaching.
QUESTION: In regard to the issue of the clarity or plainness of God's Word; didn't our Lord speak in parables? Didn't He often use parables so as to further blind those who were in unbelief while shedding light upon those did believe? So much for the "clarity" of God's Word...
ANSWER: While it is true that our Lord often spoke in parables..."without a parable spake he not unto them" (Matt. 13:34), does this mean that EVERYTHING our Lord spoke was a parable (this idea is applied to the whole of Scripture...that ALL Scripture is a parable)? Also, was every parable given so as to hide the meaning, even from Christ's enemies? The answer to both questions is: not necessarily. In another exchange between Christ and His adversaries, the religious leaders of Israel, He relates this parable of the vineyard as we read in Matthew 21:33-46...
33 ¶ Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:
34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.
35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.
36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.
37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.
38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.
39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.
40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.
46 But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.
Note vs. 45 as underlined above...the chief priests and Pharisees understood clearly that Christ was speaking of them. The parable was designed to elicit a just response to the situation of the wicked husbandmen of the vineyard while confronting them with their own wickedness in acting the same toward Christ and His servants. Thus, this parable is clear.
What about the cases where our Lord spoke in parables so as to further blind those who fostered unbelief? Matthew 13:1-15 immediately comes to mind...
1 ¶ The same day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the sea side.
2 And great multitudes were gathered together unto him, so that he went into a ship, and sat; and the whole multitude stood on the shore.
3 And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;
4 And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:
5 Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:
6 And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.
7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:
8 But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.
9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Here's the section in question; why did Christ speak to them in parables?
10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
The problem isn't that Christ only spoke in parables so that no one could understand what He was saying; they "heard" and "saw", according to Jesus. Had their hearts been inclined to desire truth, Christ would have expounded even His "dark sayings" to them. We are confronted once again with the absolute sovereignty of God as He chooses to whom understanding is given to as well as to whom it is withheld. Is God unfair? Let's read on...
15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
"Their eyes THEY have closed"-whose fault is it here for their blindness? Their own. The fundamental problem with mankind is that, even when God clearly declares His truths, men understand them but don't WANT to believe them. John 9, which gives an account of Jesus healing a blind man who later on is questioned by the religious leaders, demonstrates the dullness of unregenerate men. The Pharisees kept asking this blind man over and over and over again as to how he was healed. This blind man over and over and over kept telling them that Christ did this healing; he told them "if this man were not of God, he could do nothing" (John 9:33). Did they need to keep hearing this account over and over because they weren't grasping what this blind man was saying? Not at all; they wanted him to keep telling the account until they would hear what they wanted to hear (that Christ was a sinner, that He was acting on His own authority, that He was a devil). Men trip all over "limited Atonement" and "total depravity". Why? Does the Bible not explain or teach those doctrines clearly enough? No; the problem is that men don't LIKE those teachings so they keep "fudging" with Scripture over and over and over again until they can "prove" that Christ made potential universal Atonement for everyone, or that men aren't REALLY totally depraved. On the other hand, Christ makes this promise to the sincere of heart in John 7:17..."If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." Those who really want to know truth will come to know truth. Those who do not will believe the lie due to their own inclinations. I'll illustrate this from my own past. I used to be a drunk, and would spend hours in a college library reading up on literature concerning alcoholism. Why? Because I had the sincere desire to embrace the truth concerning myself (that I was a helpless drunk), seeking to be delivered from this? No-I wanted to find information that would "prove" to myself that I didn't really have a drinking problem. For me to accept the truth that I was alcoholic meant one thing: put down the drink! At that time, a lifetime without a drink was akin to facing "one dry Sahara Desert" and was unappealing to me! The information in the textbooks wasn't unclear or deceptive; my own lusts toward the drink made it so. So it is with man and Scripture-ultimately, man's own lusts or wishful thinking deceive him and not the Scriptures.
QUESTION: Reference was made to the parable of the vineyard of Matthew 21. Isaiah 6 also gives a parable of another vineyard, and this vineyard is destroyed while the Matthew 21 vineyard is "let out to others". Doesn't the Isaiah 6 account of that vineyard really teach the destruction of the New Testament corporate church at the end of the church age? After all, that one is destroyed while the Matt. 21 vineyard is not.
ANSWER: To deal with that question, we should first look at the vineyard of Isaiah 5:1-7...
1 ¶ Now will I sing to my wellbeloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My wellbeloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill:
2 And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes.
3 And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard.
4 What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?
5 And now go to; I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down:
6 And I will lay it waste: it shall not be pruned, nor digged; but there shall come up briers and thorns: I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it.
7 For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant: and he looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry.
Who, in this parable, does the "vineyard" represent? Who does the "choice vine" represent? The answer, of course, is found in vs. 7 above (which is underlined)...
vineyard = house of Israel
pleasant plant = men of Judah
God Himself gives us the answer to the parable by telling us plainly in vs. 7 who the "players" are, so to speak. They are the house of Israel and the men of Judah. Upon what basis here in this parable are we to assume that this "house of Israel" or these "men of Judah" are REALLY speaking of the New Testament corporate churches of our day? Isaiah 5:7 doesn't say that, so GOD didn't say it! What right does a MAN have to "parabolize" this parable when God has already identified the parties represented? Then why is this vineyard destroyed if it represents National Israel while the vineyard of Matthew 21 isn't destroyed? Wouldn't there appear to be a contradiction if one vineyard is destroyed while the other one isn't-how can they both relate to National Israel? To answer that, another look should be taken at Matthew 21:33-43...
33 ¶ Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:
34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.
35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.
36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.
37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.
38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.
39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.
40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
In this parable, there are three main parties involved...
vineyard = kingdom of God (vs. 43 compared with vs. 41)...taken away from 1st group of husbandmen and given to 2nd group of husbandmen (Gentile believers, which become the New Testament church)
first group of husbandmen = National Israel (vs. 40-41, vs. 43)..."those wicked men" are destroyed
second group of husbandmen = Gentile believers out of every tribe and nation (vs. 41 & 43)
Hopefully, this can be seen...the Isaiah 5 parable has two main parties involved (vineyard and plant) while this Matthew 21 parable has three main parties involved (vineyard, first group of husbandmen, and second group of husbandmen). The Isaiah 5 parable simply foretells the destruction of Natl. Israel while this second parable also foretells this same destruction while adding another element to it-that the Kingdom of God in Christ (the vineyard) would also be stripped from them (1st group of husbandmen or Israel) and given to the Gentiles (2nd group of husbandmen), of whom many would come to believe on Christ! Thus, there's consistency with God-both parables clearly point out the coming destruction of National Israel for its unbelief and rejection of God. Its just that, in one parable, Israel is represented by a vineyard (Isaiah 5) while Israel is represented in this second parable of Matt. 21 by the first group of husbandmen with this vineyard representing the Kingdom of God. There's no need or any call to "allegorize" the Isaiah 5 parable as really representing the New Testament Corporate church in a state of total apostasy. These are the kinds of "proof texts" for the "Depart Out" position that can ultimately be disassembled by the kind of Biblical comparison as offered above. There's no real "genius" required on anyone's part; a simple careful reading and comparison of these two texts should lead any honest reader to come to the same conclusions as I have.
QUESTION: Okay, so maybe the Bible doesn't have crystal clear teaching on this "Depart Out" issue. But, what about "history repeating itself"? After all, National Israel WAS destroyed for its unbelief and for its "high places". Certainly, one can't argue that "all is well" in the New Testament churches today. If God did destroy Israel as a whole for its "high places", isn't He going to do the same with the New Testament Church?
ANSWER: Without addressing the similarities and differences between the Old Testament church (Natl. Israel) and the New Testament church, there is a sense whereby history often repeats itself. Why? Because men fundamentally don't change-men were totally depraved by nature in the days of ancient Israel, and men are totally depraved by nature today. Of course, merely being in a church doesn't change these realities. Also, being involved in Family Radio doesn't change these realities. Men ultimately need Christ! The New Testament does give ominous warnings to the church (believers) concerning the consequences of departing from Christ and remaining in unbelief. One outstanding passage can be found in Romans 11:1-23...
1 ¶ I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
Its certainly very easy in this day of ours (which appears to be a great falling away from truth) for the sincere believer to develop the "Elijah Complex"-to seriously wonder if God has any church left on this earth. All of the sincere of heart from time to time wrestle with these thoughts-whether in or out of a church. But, what did God tell Elijah? He has His "7000 men which have not bowed the knee to Baal". While Elijah couldn't discern a people of God, yet God declared that He still had a people within National Israel. Even so, God still has a church today, even if it is barely discernable to the eyes of the sincere. There are faithful pastors and churches, even if few and far between.
5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
We're told here to "continue in his goodness" (God's Goodness) or be cut off and come under God's Severity! The issue here is to consider that God deals with men in one of two ways-some come under His Severity while others come under His Goodness! One could argue this issue; should God deal with the New Testament churches in the same fashion as He did with Ancient Israel-by bringing His Wrath upon them all? Yes; all churches have some sin involved in their activities, and sin must be punished! No one could fault God if He did exercise His Severity upon every church, for "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). Of course, the argument could be extended to Family Radio Ministries-should God, if He's going to be severe towards the church, "wink at" Family Radio for its sins and "high places" [The teaching of 1994? as being the end of the world has been proven to be wrong simply by history-we're still here. The attempts to "rewrite history" so as to reinterpret the 1994? data as "really being, not the end of the WORLD, but the CHURCH" are also a "high place" (a doctrine out of the lofty mind of Mr. Camping and not out of the Scriptures)]! Why should God allow these sins to go unpunished while bringing His Fury only upon the church? ALL sin must be punished, and God is NOT a respecter of persons (Romans 2:11). Obviously, these arguments could be extended to every individual on earth-why should any human being escape the Severity of God? If we look at man, we cannot come up with any good reason-Titus 3:3 gives a dismal portrait concerning all mankind...
3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.
This is man's natural condition-"hateful, and hating one another"! The "hating one another" part is self-explanatory and obvious as we simply observe our world. The "hateful" part can be thought of two ways:
1) We're filled with hate.
2) We're hateful in that GOD doesn't find anything in man that is noble or praiseworthy or admirable as He examines man; He sees nothing good in us-He ought to HATE all of us!
Thus, each and every human being (whether in or out of the church OR in or out of Family Radio), by every right, should fall under the Severity of God!
Thank God, however, that this is not the end of the tale-Titus 3:4-7 give us some wonderful news concerning the "Goodness of God"...
4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
The difference is astounding when GRACE enters the picture-that God, out of His mere Goodness, extends Free Mercy toward a people who are undeserving of it based on the merits of His Dear Son-the Lord Jesus Christ! The real problem with embracing the "Depart Out" teaching isn't so much in the unwillingness or inability to acknowledge that there's much sin in the church today-not at all! Many in the church readily acknowledge the carnality of the church today. The real issue lies in the attempt to remove GRACE from the church-to imply that God no longer shows any goodness toward his church, any forgiveness or patience toward its faults! To suggest that Grace can only be found now in Family Radio (a flawed, imperfect ministry) and not the church is to make God a respecter of persons, which He most certainly is not! This isn't to suggest that every church or denomination that calls itself a church of Christ has His approbation-not at all! Some churches have, indeed, fallen away from truth and could be classed as "synagogues of Satan". But, every church?
The Westminster Confession of Faith (Chapter XXV-Of the Church) makes these excellent statements concerning the church...
IV. This catholic Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.
V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.
Another issue to consider is this-when God finds sin and rebellion in His elect (whether individually or corporately), does He deal with them in the same strict fashion as He does when He deals with the rest of mankind who remain in unbelief? Psalm 89:30-37 relate to us this principle:
30 If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments;
31 If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments;
32 Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes.
33 Nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail.
34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.
35 Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.
36 His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me.
37 It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah.
In the first instance this promise refers to David and his son Solomon-when Solomon's heart was drawn away from God by his many wives in his later years, God raised up adversaries against Solomon. But, God didn't remove Solomon's kingdom from him-that occured after his death when ten of the tribes were taken from Solomon's son Rehoboam and given to Jeroboam. Also, the Lord loved Solomon (II Samuel 12:24). Secondly, the principle applies to all of the elect in Christ-when they break God's statutes and forsake God's law, God brings the rod and stripes upon them, but not His Wrath and His Judgment! Its as if God uses the "flat side of the sword" to chasten His own while using the sharp blade to cut down His enemies in His Wrath!
Ancient Israel as a whole, except for a small remnant, came under the curse of God because of their unbelief. They were a "vessel fitted for wrath and destruction", to come under God's Severity! He is the Potter and we are the clay. Through them, God was glorified in His strict Justice and punishments upon sin-ultimately, that "the wages of sin is death". The apostle Paul gives us this amazing commentary on National Israel through inspiration of the Holy Spirit in I Thessalonians 2:14-16...
14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:
15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:
16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.
The "brethren" here are those of the church of Thessalonica-what a sad commentary on the Jews he gives us here...they:
1) killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets
2) persecuted the apostle Paul and his co-laborers
3) please not God
4) are contrary to all men
5) forbid Paul and others to speak to the Gentiles so that they might be saved
6) fill up their sins always (talk about being under severity)
& 7) the wrath (of God) is come upon them to the uttermost
The question remains; does God deal with the New Testament church as a whole in this same, strict, severe fashion? We're told in the "Depart Out" teachings that the seven churches of Revelation were ultimately judged and destroyed of God for their apostasy. Is that true? First of all, there's no real historical evidence that they went apostate-that region of Turkey was overrun by Islam in the seventh century, and being overrun by an superior force is different than deliberately departing from the Living God. Apart from the historical information, what is the language that Christ Himself uses in regard to these seven churches of Revelation 2 and 3? First of all, two of the churches didn't receive any rebuke from our Lord (Smyrna and Philadelphia); they're simply told to "be faithful unto death" and to hold fast to what they have. What about Pergamos? Revelation 2:12-17 give us the dynamic...
12 ¶ And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges;
13 I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.
14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.
Christ here admonishes the church for having THEM that hold the doctrine of Balaam-He distinguishes between the THEE (His church) and the THEM (His enemies within the church). Wheat and tares!
15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.
16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.
Out of His Love for His church, He admonishes them to repent, or else! Or else what? Or else He'll fight against the whole church? No, He'll fight against THEM (only those within the church that hold the doctrine of Balaam) with the sword of His mouth, against the heretics! Christ makes a distinction between His sheep within the church and the wolves which pass themselves off as sheep while seeking to destroy and devour!
17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.
What about the church of Laodicea, what one could call the "worst case scenario"? Revelation 3:14-19 tell us...
14 ¶ And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
Our Lord's rebuke of this church of Laodicea is very sobering-He indicates that He'll "spue them out of His mouth" for their lukewarmness. BUT, does He indicate that He's going to do this, regardless of what actions they're going to take? [I heard Mr. Camping on the "Open Forum" program that aired June 11 (around 9:00 PM) tell a caller concerning churches that "Whether they're more faithful or less faithful no longer matters; they're all under judgment.".] Is that kind of language found here? No, even in this state, Christ rebukes and chastens the Laodicean church out of His Goodness and Love and admonishes them to repent! If they do so, He'll not bring the judgment-if not, He will bring it! What did this church end up doing-we're not sure. The point here is that Christ didn't simply declare that judgment would take place on the church of Laodicea and was now irrevocable-in Habakkuk 1, God told Habakkuk that the Babylonians would come upon Israel to bring destruction, and no "if you repent" clause was given to Israel-it was already too late! Here, Christ warned the Laodicean church out of Love and gave them opportunity to repent! Christ's dealings with each church are very personal and not identical in each case-thus, one cannot simply "lump them all together" and assert that they all fall under the Severity of God-some still come under His Goodness! We ought to rejoice in that God still does extend His Goodness-if He didn't, not only would the church fall, but so would Family Radio and each individual believer. For this reason, even though I hold the "Depart Out" teaching to be a heresy, I sincerely hope that Mr. Camping and many of his supporters still fall under the "goodness of God"-I trust that their sins are covered. Since I do believe that the "Depart Out" teachings are a "forsaking of God's law" in that GOD did not instruct Mr. Camping, through the TEXTS of Scripture, to propagate this teaching, God will bring the "rod" and "stripes" upon Family Radio for this wrong (He already has, to some degree)! My hope is that repentance would take place so that Family Radio might still be spared, but who can tell? We all ought to "be not highminded, but fear", lest we fail to continue in God's Goodness (to be found in Christ ALONE) and come under His Severity. A good closing set of verses on this can be found here in Psalm 130:3-4
3 If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?
4 But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared.
Conclusion:
I hope that it has been shown, from various perspectives, that the "Depart Out" teachings are unbiblical and are to be rejected. To those who've read this study and are still convinced that Mr. Camping is right, I really have nothing further to say; engaging in endless striving is not profitable. To those wrestling with the "Depart Out" issues with a sincere desire to know truth, I hope that this study might be of help. I trust that the considerations offered line up with Biblical truth-may God forgive me for where there is error. Again, I don't wish in this study to attack the motives or character of either Mr. Camping or those who adhere to him-I truly hope that they still fall under the Grace of God and count them Christian brothers on many levels-we're agreed on the Authority of Scripture, the Deity of Christ, the necessity for Salvation in Christ Alone, the Judgment of the wicked in Hell, and the future Glory which awaits the saints in Christ! My only real purpose in this study was to examine a publicly proclaimed teaching to see whether or not it can stand the test of Scripture-my conclusion is that it simply cannot! In that sense, while my response was sharp, I hope and trust that love is behind it and not malice. Certainly this study is not the last word on the "Depart Out" issue; others more qualified than I and more able than I are laboring or have labored in setting forth a more able defense of the church of Christ! As for the results of this study, I leave that in the Hands of God.
*[Anyone who wishes to copy or post on the internet any part or all of this study is free to do so, whether in agreement or disagreement with it. I ask only that no editorial changes of it take place.]