Finally, a Presidential Penny Policy.

Seventeen years ago, I noted that minting pennies was a drain on the Treasury, and forecast an end to the practice within the next decade. Like most of my predictions, I was over a decade ahead of the game, as it is only now that President Trump has indicated that US Pennies will no longer be produced.

To my nineteen followers, and the thousands of others who read this blog

Well, the handwriting is on the wall. Google had already taken over this platform when I started this blog in 2004, but it took a few years for the new paradigm to take effect. Then, overnight, I dropped from 25 hits a day to 12, and from second or third hit on a search to second or third page.
I always use Bing for searches now, and I've recently noticed that a lot of my lost hits from Google are being replaced by Bing; for one recent search, my website was the fifth one down the page.
So for now, I'll limp along, and maybe even see a brief resurgence; but sooner or later the powers that be will see fit to shut me down. By then I hope to have transferred these hundreds of pages of content back down to my computer, so they won't be lost forever. I may even end up making a book out of some of them; fat chance, though, of Amazon letting me use them to sell it.

Or maybe, just maybe, this may turn out to be another one of my famous failed prophecies. We hope.

Aslan is on the move!

After one hundred years of always winter and never Christmas (as unlikely as such a situation is to conceive, without total starvation), things seemed as grim as they could get. Of the four humans sent into Narnia for some unknown purpose, one had already defected to the White Witch, and the other three were being hunted for their very lives. The beaver's home had been raided and his comrades turned to stone. How much worse could it get? Yet it was being whispered that despite all the bad tidings, a fundamental shift was taking place: Aslan was on the move!

Things are pretty discouraging right now on the front of religious liberty in the Western Hemisphere.  Whispers come at us from every direction. Whispers of Ken Miller being threatened with more hard time for refusing to testify against Philip. Whispers of Timo Miller being dragged off his bicycle on a Nicaraguan street into a waiting van and hauled off to who-know-where--perhaps the notorious Chipote Prison? Whispers of Interpol being involved, but no one willing to confirm anything officially. It's looking pretty grim.

Aslan is on the move. Yes, there is yet no outward evidence of it--only those whose undying loyalty he holds can sense it. But as the cycles of time wheel around to line up in their ultimate configuration, the current regime under which the whole world groans is developing unseen cracks. It's going down.

At first it may only look like a thaw, but Spring is coming; nothing can hold it back.

Take heart. Stand firm. Aslan is on the move.

UPDATE August 17: To those of you, especially in Nicaragua, coming here for an update on Timo Miller, I'm not going to be sharing everything I know. You probably have access to pretty much the same sources I do, and things are too up in the air to be drawing any conclusions from the data that is available. The main point is that while we may not know what is going on, God does. I will say I expect that when the kidnapping trial opens in Buffalo in the coming weeks, Timo will be present.

The False Prophet and the True Prophet

Well, I'm still not dead, so here is the first in a series of sermons. The other is forthcoming sometime in the next three months.

THE TRUE PROPHET and THE FALSE PROPHET

There are two kinds of prophets we read about in the Bible. The first is the true prophet—everything that he speaks of the Word of the LORD comes to pass.

The second is the false prophet—now, not everything a false prophet says is untrue, because if it was, he wouldn’t truly be a false prophet. Let me demonstrate.

Imagine that in front of you are two doors. They are identical; there is no way of distinguishing one from the other. But you know that only one of these doors leads to life; the other leads to death. In front of each of these doors is a twin, identical to the other; there is no way of distinguishing between them. But you know that one of these twins always lies, and the other one always tells the truth. Suppose that you have to choose which door to go through, but before you do, you are allowed to pick one of the twins-doesn’t matter which, and ask him just one question. Which question could you ask that would be guaranteed to give you the information you need?

***

It is this: Ask either of the twins, “If I asked the other twin which door led to death, which one would he point to?”

If you asked the lying twin, he would lie and say that the truthful twin would point to the door which was actually the door to life—and you would go through that door.

If you asked the truthful twin, he would truthfully say that the lying twin would point to the door which was actually the door to life—and you would go through that door.

Or, you could ask either twin which door the other twin would say was the door to life---the question wouldn’t matter, as long as you always took it the opposite way.

A false prophet who always lied would be so reliable, his prophecy would be as dependable as that of a true prophet—as long as you knew to always take the opposite of what he said. No, a false prophet is much worse than one who always lies—because he mixes lies with the truth, to the extent that you can never know, just by listening to him, which is which.

So, today we are going to hear about a true prophet, whose prophecies all came true—even long after he was dead!

And also a false prophet, who could be depended on to lie some of the time—but not all of the time.

1Ki 12:26 And Jeroboam said in his heart, Now the kingdom shall return to the house of David!

1Ki 12:27 If this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of Jehovah at Jerusalem, then shall the heart of this people turn again to their lord, to Rehoboam king of Judah, and they shall kill me and go again to Rehoboam king of Judah.

1Ki 12:28 And the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold and said to them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem. Behold your gods, O, Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!

1Ki 12:29 And he set the one in Bethel, and he put the other in Dan.

1Ki 12:30 And this thing became a sin, for the people went to worship before the one, even to Dan.

1Ki 12:31 And he made a house of high places, and made priests of the lowest of the people, who were not the sons of Levi.

1Ki 12:32 And Jeroboam ordered a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like the feast that is in Judah. And he offered on the altar. So he did in Bethel, sacrificing to the calves that he had made. And he placed in Bethel the priests of the high places which he had made.

1Ki 12:33 And he offered on the altar which he had made in Bethel the fifteenth day of the eighth month, in the month which he had devised out of his own heart. And he ordered a feast for the sons of Israel. And he offered on the altar, and burned incense.

The King has started up a new religion---but he’s not calling it a new religion. He’s calling it the old religion. The old religion had fallen into disrepair, and he’s reviving it—or is he? Solomon worshiped other Gods, but Jeroboam claims to be worshiping the true God—but by an ancient means, the golden calf. Here comes the True Prophet, and he’s going to show three ways that he’s God’s man, with God’s message—a message of judgment. His first prophecy won’t be fulfilled for another three hundred years, plus, so God gives him a second prophecy that is fulfilled right on the spot, to prove that the first can be counted on to come true eventually. Along the way, the recipient of the prophecy gets an extra sign, free of charge—and unlike the proverbial woman who only got three wishes, he gets a fourth to undo the effects of the third.

1Ki 13:1 And behold, a man of God came out of Judah, by the Word of Jehovah, to Bethel. And Jeroboam stood by the altar to burn incense.

1Ki 13:2 And he cried against the altar in the Word of Jehovah and said, O, altar, altar, so says Jehovah. Behold, a son shall be born to the house of David, Josiah by name, and on you he shall offer the priests of the high places who burn incense on you, and men's bones shall be burned on you.

1Ki 13:3 And he gave a sign the same day, saying, This is the sign which Jehovah has spoken. Behold, the altar shall be torn apart, and the ashes that are on it shall be poured out.

1Ki 13:4 And it happened when King Jeroboam heard the saying of the man of God who had cried against the altar in Bethel, he put forth his hand from the altar, saying, Lay hold on him! And his hand, which he put forth against him withered up so that he could not pull it in again to himself.

1Ki 13:5 The altar also was torn apart, and the ashes poured out from the altar according to the sign which the man of God had given by the Word of Jehovah.

Well, the True Prophet sure did make his point. His prophecy would come true, just as he said. Now the king may not want to heed God’s warning, and he may have a hard time believing that the far-off prophecy could ever come true, but he still recognized God’s power in this man and asked him for a favour: he wanted his withered arm restored.

1Ki 13:6 And the king answered and said to the man of God, Touch now the face of Jehovah your God, and pray for me, and my hand may be given back to me again. And the man of God prayed to Jehovah, and the king's hand was given back to him again, and became as at the beginning.

1Ki 13:7 And the king said to the man of God, Come home with me and refresh yourself, and I will give you a reward.

1Ki 13:8 And the man of God said to the king, If you will give me half your house, I will not go in with you, nor will I eat bread nor drink water in this place.

1Ki 13:9 For so was it commanded me by the Word of Jehovah, saying, Eat no bread nor drink water, nor return again by the same way that you came.

Now the True Prophet shows himself again to be God’s man on the scene, as he carefully follows God’s specific instructions as to how he should conduct himself while delivering God’s message to King Jeroboam.

1Ki 13:10 And he went another way, and did not return by the way he came to Bethel.

1Ki 13:11 And a certain old prophet was living in Bethel, and his son came and told him all the works that the man of God had done that day in Bethel. The words which he had spoken to the king they also told to their father.

1Ki 13:12 And their father said to them, Where is this man? What way did he go? For his sons had seen what way the man of God, who came from Judah, had gone.

1Ki 13:13 And he said to his sons, Saddle me the ass. And they saddled the ass for him, and he rode on it,

1Ki 13:14 and went after the man of God, and found him sitting under an oak. And he said to him, Are you the man of God who came from Judah? And he said, I am.

Now, Bethel wasn’t far from Judah—it was actually the first town north of the border between Israel and Judah, only about ten miles from Jerusalem. So the prophet could have made the journey up and back in a single day. But still, that would have been a hard walk, made all the harder by the lack of food and even water—and he was probably taking the long way back. Tired as he was, the prophet did something very unwise—he stopped to rest not very far out of town. Now understand, he wasn’t disobeying God’s direct command. He turned down the king’s meat, and the king’s drink. He headed home by a different way. Unlike Little Red Robin Hood's mother, God had never said, “Don’t stop along the way, or talk to any strangers.” So as far as he was concerned, he was still in obedience. But his sitting down to rest was the first step on a path that led to destruction—and, prophet of God though he was, he never saw it coming.

1Ki 13:15 And he said to him, Come home with me and eat bread.

1Ki 13:16 And he said, I may not return with you nor go in with you, nor will I eat bread or drink water with you in this place.

1Ki 13:17 For a word was to me by the Word of Jehovah, You shall eat no bread nor drink water there, nor turn again to go by the way that you came.

1Ki 13:18 And he said to him, I am a prophet also as you are. And an angel spoke to me by the Word of Jehovah, saying, Bring him back with you into your house, so that he may eat bread and drink water. But he lied to him.

Isn’t this amazing? True prophets may never lie about what’s coming, but neither do they always know what’s ahead. True prophets can sometimes be just as surprised at what happens as anyone else—and they can even be deceived by a false prophet just like anyone else. All it took was what sounded like another Word from The LORD to update the one he had originally received—and boy, would some bread and water sure hit the spot, now that he had worked so hard to obey the Word from God in every detail.

1Ki 13:19 So he went back with him and ate bread in his house, and drank water.

And so it was that the prophet disobeyed God without even realizing he was doing it. But should he have realized it? Yes, without a doubt. The carelessness he had outwardly shown in sitting down on the job revealed an inner carelessness that kept him from realizing the obvious: that in returning to Bethel, he was going directly against the previously revealed Word of God. What had God said, in Deuteronomy thirteen?

Deu 13:3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For Jehovah your God is testing you to know whether you love Jehovah your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

God was testing this true prophet—not to see if he was a true prophet; that had already been demonstrated when he healed the king. God was testing to see if he loved Him with all his heart and soul, or if he’d be willing to sell it all for a table spread with food and drink. And He was using a false prophet to test him. Why? Because the true prophet couldn’t have been fooled by anyone less. He was so used to hearing and following the Word of God that he had forgotten that there is an enemy who excels at imitating the Word of God so well that only a very cautious person would be able to tell the difference. How do you know to distinguish which is the door to life, and which is the door to death? The only way to know is by taking into account the existence of the liar, and his tendency to lie. Satan is a liar, and the father of lies. You can count on him to lie every time he gets the chance—but you have to really watch it, because so many times, his lies sound like the truth. Just look at how he tempted Jesus:

Mat 4:1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit up into the wilderness, to be tempted by the Devil.

Mat 4:2 And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He was afterwards hungry.

Mat 4:3 And when the tempter came to Him, he said, If You are the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.

Mat 4:4 But He answered and said, It is written, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God."

Mat 4:5 Then the Devil took Him up into the holy city and set Him upon a pinnacle of the Temple.

Mat 4:6 And he said to Him, If you are the Son of God, cast yourself down. For it is written, "He shall give His angels charge concerning You, and in their hands they shall bear You up, lest at any time You dash Your foot against a stone."

Mat 4:7 Jesus said to him, It is written again, "You shall not tempt the Lord your God."

Mat 4:8 Again, the Devil took Him up into a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.

Mat 4:9 And he said to Him, All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.

Mat 4:10 Then Jesus said to him, Go, Satan! For it is written, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve."

Mat 4:11 Then the Devil left him. And behold, angels came and ministered to Him.

So Jesus also had traveled to where God led him to go, and had gone without meat or drink according to the command of God. So what did the Devil tempt him with? Food. Now, in all three of these temptations, the devil spoke the truth: Jesus was the Son of God, he could turn stones into bread, He was the Son of God, he could jump safely off the peak of the temple. Jesus never told Satan that he was lying, or that he didn’t really have rule over the kingdoms of the world—he just kept coming back to the Word of God to show that Satan wasn’t really giving the true picture. And so God used Satan himself to prove that Jesus really did love him over food, over fame, and over earthly power and glory. Jesus passed the test because he was able to see Satan for the liar that he was, even when what he said was technically true.

So, back to the true prophet and the false prophet. How do we know this old man is a false prophet? Well, it’s easy—it says right here, that he lied about what an Angel of God had said. True prophets may become careless, they may even be deceived, but they never, ever, lie about the Word of the Lord.

1Ki 13:20 And it happened as they sat at the table, the Word of Jehovah came to the prophet whom he had brought back.

1Ki 13:21 And it proclaimed to the man of God who came from Judah, saying, So says Jehovah, Because you have not obeyed the mouth of Jehovah and have not kept the command which Jehovah your God commanded you,

1Ki 13:22 but came back and have eaten bread and have drunk water in the place which He said to you, You shall not eat bread nor drink water, your body shall not come to the tomb of your fathers.

A great clamor,” says Dr. Kennicott, “has been raised against this part of the history, on account of God’s denouncing sentence on the true prophet by the mouth of the false prophet: but if we examine with attention the original words here, they will be found to signify either he who brought him back; or, whom he had brought back; for the very same words, אשר השיבו asher heshibo, occur again in 1Ki_13:23, where they are now translated, whom he had brought back; and where they cannot be translated otherwise. This being the case, we are at liberty to consider the word of the Lord as delivered to the true prophet thus brought back; and then the sentence is pronounced by God himself, calling to him out of heaven, as in Gen_22:11. And that this doom was thus pronounced by God, not by the false prophet, we are assured in 1Ki_13:26 : ‘The Lord hath delivered him unto the lion, according to the word of the Lord which He spake unto him.’ Josephus expressly asserts that the sentence was declared by God to the true prophet.” The Arabic asserts the same.

So, God Himself intervenes to show the true prophet that he had failed the test, and that he would pay for it with his life. Now look at what happens: the two men carry on as if God had never spoken. The reaction of the True Prophet to God’s prophecy is no different than that of the False Prophet! They both sit around finishing up the meal!

1Ki 13:23 And after he had eaten bread, and after he had drunk, it happened that he saddled the ass for him, for the prophet whom he had brought back.

The False Prophet maybe feels a little guilty. Here he has just been responsible for this man’s death sentence—so the least he can do is give him a ride home in comfort: he loans him the use of one of his donkeys. And even though he is no longer so hungry, or thirsty, or tired, the True Prophet accepts the offer. It’s as if he knows his prophetic career is over, so he may as well ride of into the sunset in comfort. Where is the anguish of King Jeroboam, who pleaded for God to reverse the catastrophe of his withered arm? Where is the pleading of Esau, who begged to get back his stolen blessing? We see none of that—just a man who knows that God has spoken, who realizes too late that he allowed himself to be deceived and has no one but himself to blame for his fate—a man who quietly goes out to meet it unprotesting—may the will of the LORD be done to his servant. A true prophet to the very end, he never doubted the Word of the LORD.

Who else have we seen with that attitude—well, it was another True Prophet, the Apostle Paul, in Acts twenty-one. Paul had done something foolish, we might say—after repudiating the power of the Law of Moses over the believer, he had gone back under the Law and taken a vow. Nothing sinful about this—God never said to stop taking vows, or not to get your head shaved—but it was unwise. Paul should have fled from The Law the way the young prophet should have fled from Bethel. But he didn’t, and all his attempts to obey the Law were only to backfire on him and lead to his arrest and imprisonment. Paul even knew this would happen, for God repeatedly sent true prophets to him to warn him that if he returned to Jerusalem, he would never leave the city as a free man. Paul knew it, but he kept going anyway. “The will of the LORD be done,” he said—even if it meant his death. And he carried right on as if he’d never heard the warning.

Acts 21 And entering the house of Philip the evangelist, he being of the seven, we stayed with him.

Act 21:9 And there were four virgin daughters to this one, who prophesied.

Act 21:10 And as we stayed more days, a certain prophet from Judea named Agabus came down.

Act 21:11 And coming to us, and taking Paul's belt, and binding his hands and feet, he said, The Holy Spirit says these things: So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man whose belt this is, and will deliver him into the hands of the nations.

Act 21:12 And when we heard these things, both we and those of the place begged him not to go up to Jerusalem.

Act 21:13 Then Paul answered, What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.

Act 21:14 And he not being persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done.

Well, God’s prophecies all came true for Paul, just as they had for the young prophet in our story today.

1Ki 13:24 And he left, and a lion met him by the way and killed him. And his dead body was thrown in the highway, and the ass stood by it, and the lion also stood by the body.

1Ki 13:25 And behold, men passed by and saw the body thrown in the way, and the lion standing by the body. And they came and told it in the city where the old prophet lived.

1Ki 13:26 And when the prophet who brought him back from the way heard, he said, It is the man of God who did not obey the Word of Jehovah. And Jehovah has delivered him to the lion, which has torn him and killed him, according to the Word of Jehovah which He spoke to him.

1Ki 13:27 And he spoke to his sons, saying, Saddle the ass for me. And they saddled it.

1Ki 13:28 And he went and found his body thrown in the way, and the ass and the lion standing by the body. The lion had not eaten the body nor torn the ass.

Here is yet one more sign from God that even in death, this is a true prophet, who never lies. The lion was clearly not just out looking for some lunch, but had been sent from God and would not leave his post until the final detail of God’s latest prophecy came true, that this young man would never be buried in his family tomb.

1Ki 13:29 And the prophet took up the dead body of the man of God, and laid it on the ass and brought it back. And the prophet came to the city to mourn and to bury him.

1Ki 13:30 And he laid his body in his own grave. And they mourned over him, saying, Alas, my brother!

1Ki 13:31 And it happened after he had buried him, he spoke to his sons, saying, When I am dead, then bury me in the tomb in which the man of God is buried. Lay my bones beside his bones,

1Ki 13:32 for the saying which he cried by the Word of Jehovah against the altar in Bethel, and against all the houses of the high places in the cities of Samaria, shall surely come to pass.

Here we have the False Prophet speaking the truth—although it’s not his truth, but just a repetition of what the True Prophet had already said. But he believed it—not only because of the fulfilled prophecy from the prophet himself, but now because of the prophecy from the Mouth of God which he had heard himself—in fact, he set out to fulfill it himself. God had said that the prophet would never be buried in his family tomb—and to make sure that happened, the False Prophet buried him in his own tomb, and raised up a monument to it—a monument that was still there, over 300 years later, when a son of David, King Josiah by name, began ransacking the surrounding tombs to use to desecrate King Jeroboam’s altar, just as the young prophet had predicted. When he saw the monument, he said, “Let it alone. Let no one move his bones.” And so it was that the bones of the False Prophet were protected from being desecrated, along with the bones of the True Prophet. The False Prophet had faith—faith that the final prophecy would someday be fulfilled, and in that faith he took the steps to protect his own bones from desecration when all would be fulfilled.

Okay, here we are today. We have the Word of God—which we know we can trust, because it has proven always to be true. It says some things about the future that we can trust just as well, even if we don’t know when they will take place. And one of those things we are told is that in the last days, False Prophets will abound—that they will not only prophecy falsely in Christ’s name, but that even the elect will be in danger of being deceived.

Mat 24:23 Then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ! Or, There! Do not believe it.

Mat 24:24 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders; so much so that, if it were possible, they would deceive even the elect.

Mat 24:25 Behold, I have told you beforehand.

We don’t dare sit down to rest, my people. God has warned us of these false prophets, warned us of their signs and wonders, warned us of their power to deceive. We must not become careless like the young prophet did. We must not be tempted to stray from the path by offers of meat, or drink, or an easy ride. We must press on until we’re all the way home, and leave Satan’s agents to their own destruction. We must take into account Satan’s tendency to lie, and be on our guard for it—never believe a prophet who says, “Well, I must have been mistaken. I thought I was hearing from the LORD, but I must not have." FALSE PROPHET ALERT! A true prophet may be careless, he may be unwise, he may even be deceived—but he NEVER, NEVER makes a prediction in the name of the Lord that does not come true, exactly as he predicted it. A true prophet just can’t, even when his life depends upon it. False prophets, however, do. They have to. They will. And they’ll always have an excuse for it. Stand a true prophet next to a false prophet, and no matter which one you ask, you’ll always get the same answer to the question, “If I were to ask that man next to you if he’s a false prophet, would he answer in the affirmative?” No matter which one you ask, the answer will always be “No.”

What were our Lord’s words to the church of Thyatira?

Rev 2:20 But I have a few things against you because you allow that woman Jezebel to teach, she saying herself to be a prophetess, and to cause My servants to go astray, and to commit fornication, and to eat idol-sacrifices.

Rev 2:21 And I gave her time that she might repent of her fornication, and she did not repent.

Rev 2:22 Behold, I am throwing her into a bed, and those who commit adultery with her into great affliction, unless they repent of their deeds.

Rev 2:23 And I will kill her children with death. And all the churches will know that I am He who searches the reins and hearts, and I will give to every one of you according to your works.

We have been warned. We MUST heed that warning—our life depends upon it.

Publishing Peurile Prognisications

The White Man is neither a prophet, nor the son of a prophet. Yet this is not a non-prophet publication, as I often pass on predictions, both prophetic and prognosticatory. In the latter category, no doubt, would fall my own predictions, none of which seem to have turned out as I expected.

I have, over the past decade, miserably predicted the following:
2005: A coming inflation crisis.
2006: The fall of the Danish flag.
2007: The extinction of the Parsees.
2008: The demise of the penny.
2009: A Pandemic of Piracy.
2010: An immanent war with Iran
2011: 1) No military drawdown. 2) Higher oil prices. 3) A big drop in Christmas tours to Bethlehem.
2012: No more life sentences.
Apparently I've learned since then to keep my prognostications private.

As for some well-placed Americans being held hostage in a rogue state for years, I was almost right. Lowly Americans had been held for years by North Korea, but are now all free.

Some of my predictions may yet come to pass, whilst others already have, but just not quite as soon as, or to quite the extent that, I thought they would. For example, I predicted in 2006 that Free Speech was On its Way Out.  And in 2008 that the Deficit would Double, and that Social Security numbers would become mandatory for medical treatment by January 20, 2013. Oh, I was SO close on that one. That heath insurance my children were covered by in 2008? It was canceled in October of 2013, and there's no possibility of replacing it without assigning them all SSN's.

If I can't do any better than one out of ten--at best--I'd better quit while I still have my head.

Indiana Revival Report: Days 29 & 31

In my last post, I mentioned that there wasn't much to report on the Amish Bishops Meeting of Day 29 (2/9). Since then, I've received a bit of secondhand information on what went on--which isn't enough to form a clear picture, but way more that what has been shared so far from up front in the meetings. Since it isn't being reported anywhere else, I guess I'll go ahead, for the sake of my readers, and disclose an outline of what I've heard so far--subject to correction from eyewitnesses.

To begin with, no Amish bishops actually attended--despite every one in the area having received a written invitation. Although some concerned ex-Amish who hadn't been invited showed up, the only actual Amish who came were those already involved in Revive Indiana [CORRECTION: one uninvolved Amish minister came]. The building instead was half-filled with pastors from Revive-associated churches; I don't know what they were thinking, to stack the deck so much that even if 10% of the invited Amish leaders had showed up, they would have been outnumbered by the English.

A Black pastor in attendance publicly rebuked the Time to Revive leadership for the style of music which has characterized the meetings so far--electronic worship music with a heavy beat, right in the style of the sponsoring megachurches, but totally incompatible with the Amish lifestyle and conservative values. There has been no attempt to tone it down over the course of the first 5 weeks, and Day 31 even featured an electronically backed-up "Christian rapper" on the stage.

There's no questioning that the musical component so far appears to be attracting far more than it is repelling--Wednesday night's turnout at Maple City Chapel was over 3000, with another 400 watching from a satellite location in Topeka, usually used to tune in to services of Nappanee Missionary Church. But it's just possible that this was the week that Revive Indiana jumped the shark. Or, the significance of the Monday meeting may turn out to be that it began to change the direction of the revival to the prophesied new level of praise and worship.


This list of prophecies delivered at Maple City Chapel in 2014 was published during Week Two:
1. Many people will ask, "What is going on?"
2. Cities will be stirred up.
3. Churches will be cleansed and realigned with the will of the Father
4. The Holy Spirit will glorify Jesus by His supernatural works, and the gospel will be furthered
5. Some will be offended by the move of God.
6. Praise and worship will go to another level.

A group will be skipping Saturday night's meeting to pray for the revival [UPDATE: Saturday night's meeting was more or less canceled due to a snow emergency].

There's been a lot of interest in this post, and word continues to filter in about what happened. On Day 41, Kyle finally admitted that only 2 ministers had shown up (one of whom, we know, has been involved with REVIVE all along). But it also turns out that 3 people showed up who hadn't been invited: two ex-Amish, and a missionary to the Amish who started a church of Amish who were excommunicated for fellowshipping with him (the very charge for which Dennis Miller, the instigator of the whole Revive INDIANA project, was finally excommunicated). Their presence there seems to be more significant than that of the two Amish, neither of whom spoke; two of the non-invitees, however, spoke at length.

Review of: “The Prima Facie Acceptability of Postmillennialism” by Greg L. Bahnsen (Journal of Christian Reconstruction, Vol 3 No 2, 1977)

You thought Postmillennialism had died out a century past? Well, it’s back. Greg Bahnsen has written an eloquent defense of the return to Postmillennialism, available here. What follows is my initial thoughts. I will probably continue to 'refine and polish' this review, so bear that in mind if the initial comments don't seem to reflect the final version.

Excerpts of Bahnsen’s article follow, interspersed with my comments.

“In this article I discuss the recent decline in the espousal of postmillennialism, defend it as a basic system of theological thought against certain misguided criticisms, elaborate its key tenet in contrast to amillennialism and premillennialism, and supply a general defense of its acceptability in the light of the history of Reformed theology.”

First of all, in even using the terms Postmillennialism, Amillennialism, and Premillennialism, Bahnsen tilts the field in his favour. I cannot entirely fault him for this, as these are the theological terms in common use. But note that they all refer to something called a ‘millennium.’ This millennium is that thousand-year period referred to in Revelation chapter twenty (cilia eth in Greek and mille annum in Latin), which neither postmillennialists nor amillennialists actually expect to ever occur. No, their millennium is simply “a period of great happiness or human perfection” (Webster’s) of indefinite length.

Now note, that there is absolutely nothing of either great happiness or human perfection in Revelation chapter twenty, but these must nonetheless wrest from those fifteen verses a couple of words and insert them into their very names. Premillennialism—we may as well simply call it Millennialism (indeed, early opponents called its proponents Millenaries or Millenarians)--naturally follows from a belief that the thousand-year period that features so prominently in Revelation 20 is actually of a thousand year’s duration. Thus what is being contrasted is a literal interpretation of the scriptures, versus anything else—and whilst there is but one right interpretation, there are an infinite number of wrong ones. There are therefore not three competing eschatological perspectives, but only two: belief, and unbelief. Postmillennialism and amillennialism are but two sides of the same coin.

Secondly, Bahnsen puts the cart before the horse. He starts right in by claiming that “the years shortly after the turn of the twentieth century witnessed a general decline in the published advocacy of postmillennial eschatology (he actually traces the roots of this decline back to the late seventeenth century).” For an article with 123 footnotes—none to be found anywhere in the introductory pages—this tome is conspicuously lacking support for several of its key assertions, this being the first. From this unsupported assertion, he jumps to concluding that “these combined elements in turn produced the secularization of conservative, supernaturalistic, biblical postmillennialism.” Note that he has so far given no evidence whatsoever for “the earlier belief in a progressive triumph of Christ’s kingdom in the world.” He is simply begging the question.

Without having ever laid the foundation of showing that orthodox postmillennialism even existed prior to this long decline, his conclusion of its list of causes is rather ironic: “The overall outcome was the discrediting of Scripture’s historical accuracy and the undermining of the objectivity of its theology.” Discrediting the Scriptures is the very cause attributed to the doctrine of postmillennialism by its detractors, and Bahnsen’s failure to provide an alternative origin to the doctrine leaves his position wide open to that very attack.

At this point, we will jump to the next section of Bahnsen’s essay, as what should have been his concluding paragraph actually occurs near the beginning of the article—we, however, shall address it last. In this section, he attempts to characterize “the three fundamental theological positions” of eschatology, comparing and contrasting them to each other. Alas, here, right when he is attempting to give the opposition’s view on things, the footnotes experience another hiatus, and we are left with his word on what others claim to believe.

“People . . . take important exegetical issues pertaining to the millennial question and attempt to use them to delineate the three fundamental theological positions; however, these particular exegetical issues are not decisive for the central and general claims of the school of thought.”

Again, Bahnsen begs the question, as there are not three fundamental theological positions, but only two: a straightforward interpretation of what the Bible actually says, or theological wresting of the words of Scripture into a framework devised by Man. Increase the level of wresting, and you begin to slide down the scale from one end of the continuum to the other, with many possible stops along the way. It is no more logical to limit the number of stops to three, as to five, adding pre-wrathism and posttribulationism to the “fundamental theological positions” of eschatology.

But further: there is no such thing as a doctrinal framework of “premillennialism.” The term has no meaning whatsoever, except as an acceptance of the literal reality of the thousand-year reign of Christ. Having accepted the fact that he will reign on earth, it’s impossible to believe that his return to Earth will occur after that reign, or that no such reign will in fact occur—so both postmillennialism and amillenialism are rejected as a matter of course, without going any further to develop a timeline as to that return. Once you adopt a framework into which that timeline fits, “premillennialism” conveys nothing further toward any theological position—unlike postmillennialism and amillenialism, each with distinctive positions attached to those titles, details varying as they may.

Now, as Bahnsen describes the “three fundamental theological positions,” he admits that not every proponent of each position adheres to everything described therein; but it is interesting how he emphasizes that the two opposing positions hold out a bleak outlook for the success of Christ’s disciples in fulfilling the Great Commission—to “make disciples of all nations, teaching them to do all that I have commanded you.” Instead, in each of these competing frameworks, the nations grow farther and farther from obedience to God, despite the gospel being preached throughout the entire globe (as if that in itself could fulfill Christ’s commission). In Bahnsen’s view, only postmillennialists have any hope of actually being able to obey Christ’s final command.

In fact, pretribulationists are, at worse, ambivalent about the likely success of the Great Commission prior to the Rapture; but they are united in believing that it will be fulfilled before the Second Coming. Jesus said, “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.” The doctrine of immanence alone forbids this from being necessarily fulfilled before the Rapture; in any case, it will be fulfilled by the end of the Tribulation period (which Bahnsen, unlike any of its actual proponents, locates “at the very end of the church age.”)

“Finally then, over the long range the world will experience a period of extraordinary righteousness and prosperity as the church triumphs in the preaching of the gospel and discipling the nations through the supernatural agency of the Holy Spirit; however, the release of Satan at the very end of the age will bring apostasy from these blessed conditions.”

So Bahnsen wraps up his overview of the “three” positions. But note, he gives postmillennialism credit for what could just as easily happen under pretribulationism, with one small adjustment:

“Over the long range the world will experience a period of extraordinary righteousness and prosperity as the church triumphs in the preaching of the gospel and discipling the nations through the supernatural agency of the Holy Spirit; however, the removal of the Holy Spirit at the very end of the church age will bring apostasy from these blessed conditions.”

Under postmillennialism, the last 2000 years of Satan being bound on the one hand, and the Holy Spirit being active on the other, has very little to show for it in the way of a global golden age; yet things must needs get much better, without any change to the one factor or the other. A pretribulationist, however, can look back on 2000 years of progress, with an average of over one tribe or nation a year sending forward a representative to sing around God’s heavenly throne, and most of that progress having been made only in the last 10 per cent of this present age. In short, a pretribulationist view is much better at explaining the present reality than a postmillennialist one.

“Premillenarians believe the world is growing increasingly worse, and that it will be at its very worst when Jesus returns. Amillenarians agree with the premillenarians on this point.” So Bahnsen quotes the amillenarian Cox, of half a century ago. But this premillenarian of Cox is a straw man. There is no correlation between the amillennialist’s and the pretribulationist’s depiction of the world at the time of Christ’s return. For the postribulationist, the world is under such a travail of destruction and judgment that Christ’s return in glory must be hastened for the elects’ sake, that there be still some of them left to enter God’s earthly kingdom. For the amillennialist, as least as Bahnsen describes the position, this period is God’s kingdom on earth. There is nothing to shorten for the elects’ sake; the elect don’t need saving from anything, as they are all on the verge of going into eternity anyway.

“It becomes apparent that the essential distinctive of postmillennialism is its scripturally derived, sure expectation of gospel prosperity for the church during the present age.” So Bahnsen, but this conclusion is woefully lacking in every way. In the first place, we all have the same scriptures—so if anything is to be derived from them, there’s no reason why it should serve to distinguish one system from another. No, what distinguishes the various eschatological systems is the extent to which they derive from outside of the Scriptures.

Furthermore—but I repeat myself—there is nothing in pretribulationism to keep it from deriving an expectation, either from Scripture or from simple observation, that every tribe and nation be evangelized by the end of the present age. Scripture indicates that it will happen before the Second Coming; observation may yet allow it to happen even before the Rapture. Yet Bahnsen must have millennialists reject this hope along with the amillennialists.

“In short, postmillennialism is set apart from the other two schools of thought by its essential optimism for the kingdom in the present age. This confident attitude in the power of Christ’s kingdom, the power of its gospel, the powerful presence of the Holy Spirit, the power of prayer, and the progress of the great commission, sets postmillennialism apart from the essential pessimism of amillennialism and premillennialism.”

To which I say, “Absolutely not!” It was pretribulationists who predicted that the hope of world Jewry for a restoration of the state of Israel would be fulfilled as part of the outworking of scriptural prophecy; amillennialists and postmillennialists alike must dismiss this unprecedented national revival as both prophetically and eschatologically insignificant. It has largely been pretribulationists, along with their fellow millennialists, who have reaped the bulk of the global harvest of souls from an exponentially increasing number of tribes and nations; it has been primarily millennial missionaries who have focused on evangelism and discipleship, while amillennialists and postmillennialists focused on the social gospel; and it is millennialists who believe in the power of prayer to hasten the return of Christ, rather than focusing on good works or political activism to hasten the arrival of a golden age, or to merely bide time until the number of the elect finally reaches its fill.

It is true that both perspectives have a ‘back-up plan.’ Should things head south, pretribulationists have only to contend that all lost ground will be made up, and more, by the efforts of Tribulation Saints. Postmillennialists have only to expect that their generation is not the last one, and present reverses will eventually be themselves reversed. But how have their respective Plan A’s turned out?

Postmillennialism’s Plan A was to conquer the heathen nations by the edge of the sword, failing the success of primary education efforts. Thus Elliot’s evangelization of the Algonquins was considered a success, either by assimilating the tribesmen totally into the English culture as it conquered New England, or it killing off all those who still held to the ways of their forefathers. England’s military might was seen as a way to ensure the dominion of the gospel from the rising of the sun, until the going down of the same. But what did England’s military might avail? England now goes to war, when it does, as an ally of Muslim nations, while Muslims thronging from her former dominions fervently transform her own churches into mosques. And what of Postmillennialism’s numerous predictions that Jews would turn to the gospel? Well, this has finally begun to come in just in the present generation, but in spite of Israel’s official opposition. In fact, the growth of the church has largely been, these past two centuries, under governments that do all they can to either suppress it, or supplant it. This was never in view of the postmillennialists.

Pretribulationists, however, have from their beginning two centuries ago, predicted the restoration of Israel, but in unbelief: an army of dry bones. Indeed, premillennialism has prospered in proportion to the fortunes of Israel, as their ancient land was first populated by Zionists, then wrested from a millennium and a half of Muslim control, then declared independent by the offscouring of Europe following the devastation of the Holocaust. Pretribulationists have been quite adamant that the national conversion of Israel cannot happen until after the Rapture, when believing Jews make up the critical mass of Tribulation Saints.

To contrast the preeminent difference between the two, postmillennialists saw Israel converted, but without any nation of their own to rule; pretribulationists saw Israel first restored as a nation, and only in the following dispensation turning en mass to Christ. The course of history has so far favored the predictions of pretribulationism, rather than postmillennialism.

I should say something more about pessimism. I grant that Bahnsen wrote this essay in 1976, at a time when pretribulationists were fixated on the year 1981 as the likely start of the tribulation (in order to have Christ return by 1988, ‘one generation’ after the rebirth of Israel). China was only beginning to emerge from the Cultural Revolution; the Soviet Union showed no signs of decline; and the emerging nations of Africa were embroiled in civil war. Global cooling was being forecast, and pollution was a big concern; the nuclear arms race showed no signs of abating; and peace in the Middle East seemed beyond reach. It was a pessimistic time, so it’s no wonder that pretribulationists showed an inordinate eagerness for Christ soon removing them from this world of grief.

Ironically, the same turnaround in the world’s fortunes that revived postmillennialism also went a long ways toward erasing a major distinction between it and pretribulationism: as one ‘prophetic’ deadline after another passed without the Rapture occurring, pretribulationists awoke from their long slumber and realized that not only did ‘immanent’ not mean ‘soon,’ it didn’t even mean ‘likely to happen in this generation.’ “Coming events cast their shadows before them” seemed to be less and less useful in application. Pretribulationists started to respond more like postmillennialists, endeavoring to reach every tribe and nation, and thus hasten the return of Christ.

But History has a lesson to tell us. Great revival tends to both follow, and be followed by, great apostasy. Take the area of Asia Minor, which was the most Christianized part of the world at the turn of the second century. During the early twentieth century, visible Christianity in that entire region was reduced to a single congregation, in ancient Smyrna. Christianity found a foothold in the North of Korea first, but the communist invasion reduced it to a tiny remnant, while the Christians taking refuge in the less evangelized south of the peninsula saw that region become a major sending base for world missions within their own lifetimes.

In short, evangelizing an entire nation is not the same as evangelizing the entire world. The church in England, from which sprang the modern missions movement, is in its dying throes. In Asia, the continent to which those first modern missionaries were sent, the church is growing exponentially. The course of history is much more favorable to the pretribulationist model—in which heaven will be filled with martyrs from every tribe and nation—than the postmillennial model—in which the whole world will become not only evangelized, but discipled. And it is the populace of India, China, and Korea that is embracing the gospel first—not their governments (as if Constantine’s example were one to emulate).

Samuel Hopkins saw an essential connection among revival, missions, and the millennium. In 1793 he demonstrated from Scripture that Christ’s church must come in this world to a state of prosperity. Hopkins interpreted Revelation 20 figuratively and said that the millennium will be characterized by peace, holiness, benevolence, knowledge, and joy. Science and technology will develop remarkably and commerce improve. Financial prosperity and general health will see an upswing. Agriculture, as well as the mechanical arts, crafts, or trades will all see vast improvement. More leisure will allow the pursuit of education and understanding; books will spread rapidly. Mankind will be unified under God’s blessing, and the church will rid itself of schisms as discipline becomes charitable and pure. That is, widespread cultural transformation will company the global conversion of mankind. Thus, the mission effort of the church “will serve to promote and hasten on the happy day when the Heathen shall be given to Christ for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession.” So Bahnsen.

Hopkins’ secular predictions have all come true, although he (along with every other postmillennialist of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries) did not think through the implications of scientific wonders being applied to the art of war, so that each successive global conflagration of the twentieth century killed more than all the previous recorded wars combined.

Now before we get any further, it’s important that we examine the doctrine of pretribulationism, which Bahnsen cites as the final 19th-century nail in the coffin of “historic” postmillennialism (he needs to do this, as it wouldn’t do to admit that orthodox postmillennialism still existed at the time modernist postmillennialism was in its 20th-century dying throes). Bahnsen claims, with little support, that dispensationalism, with its embedded doctrine of a pretribulational rapture, first found wide diffusion in the Scofield Reference Bible, Scofield having received the doctrine from Darby, and Darby from Irving, the translator into English of Lacunza’s book in 1826. To this book Bahnsen would have us trace the beginnings of the modern pretribulationist doctrine.

Now, pretribulationism is of course not overtly taught in Scripture, else it would not have taken nearly two millennia for it to emerge. But it could have emerged at any time, once someone accepted as literal and attempted to reconcile the scriptural prophecies concerning the End Times. Pretribulationism’s doctrine of immanence emerged from an attempt to reconcile the four times Christ states in Revelation, “I come quickly” with the fact that hundreds—now thousands—of years had passed without his appearance. There are certainly other reasons why a pretribulationist understanding would emerge from a literal reading of the Scriptures, but this, I believe, was the original impetus to the doctrine. According to this interpretation,“soon,” which had been the the expectation of the apostles (James 5:8, 1 Thes. 4:17, John 21:23) becomes “immanently,” as unexpected as a thief in the night (Matt. 24:43, 1 Thes. 5:2, 2 Pet. 3:10). And, since all of the three verses just cited are thought to refer to the whole end-times package of rapture, tribulation, second coming, millennium, and final judgment, the rapture is therefore seen as the very first sign that the End Times have begun. Millennialism goes so far as to accept both a literal reign of the Beast, and a literal reign of the Christ. Pretribulationism goes even farther, accepting a literal judgment of Christ upon all the ungodly at his return. In none of these systems is there any place for setting a date of Christ’s return ahead of time, as he himself sternly warned that this could not be done (Mark 13:32). Yet millennialism has been haunted throughout its history by those who have done that very thing. To judge the system, however, by those who abuse it to its face, is wrong.

Given Christ’s prohibition on date-setting, there is nothing inherent in pretribulationist doctrine that requires one to expect Christ’s return within his own lifetime, or even allows him to order his life in any other way whatsoever than if Christ’s return was known not to be due for another millennium. Yet Bahnsen implies rather strongly that pretribulationism, as a system, teaches otherwise. He does start providing footnotes about the time he makes this assertion, and though it’s not entirely clear from the sources cited, he appears to rely heavily on secondary sources, namely the opponents of pretribulationism. Not a single pretribulationist, so cited, is quoted as writing in his own work anything along the lines that “the imminent return of Christ totally forbids all working for earthly objects distant in time.” For an assertion so provocative, this is an unacceptable omission and implies that no such sources actually exist. In researching this review, I’ve not had access to many of Bahnsen’s cited sources, but I have read, as the foundation for my understanding of the various views, direct and often extensive quotations from the published works of their respective proponents. I’ll say here that if (in one of his many unfootnoted quotes) by F. W. Newton he refers to P. W. Newton, author of Five Letters on Events Predicted In Scripture as Antecedent to the Coming of The Lord (London, 1847), then not only did this Newton write in opposition to Darby’s pretribulationism, but his testimony (now known to us secondhand), as a hostile witness eschatologically, yet a longtime associate of Darby, also utterly cleared Darby of the charge that he based his doctrine in any way on Irving’s teaching. Irving’s movement itself set an 1833 date for the Rapture, as reported by Robert Baxter, one of their own apostles.

Bahnsen takes umbrage at a long list of authors who dismiss postmillennialism as a dead issue (it is here that he finally starts providing footnotes with regularity). “The fact that an era of gospel prosperity and world peace has not yet arrived would no more disprove the Bible’s teaching that such an era shall be realized (in the power of God’s spirit and the faithfulness of Christ’s church to its great commission) than the fact that Christ has not yet returned disproves the Bible’s teaching that such an event shall take place!” But what is being mocked by these authors, and rightly so, is Millennial Dawnism: “For the Darkness shall turn to Dawning, and the Dawning to Noonday Bright, and Christ’s Great Kingdom shall come on Earth, a Kingdom of Love and Light.” When Ernest Nichol penned those words, postmillennialism did in fact push a gradual emergence of progress toward the millennial ideal. Bahnsen still hasn’t demonstrated that the postmillennialism that he is pushing has any history before the middle of the last century. He can hardly fault writers for not giving it its due if they never heard of it. Nothing can prove him wrong, for however many centuries that this goes on, until Christ does in fact rapture out his saints.

Bahnsen also scoffs at the idea of immanency: “Indeed, it was the error of the foolish virgins to expect the imminent coming of the bridegroom.” Here he reveals his ignorance. While it was undoubtedly the opinion of the earliest Christians that Christ would return in their lifetimes, as well as being the hope of every pretribulationist, that is not what immanency means. Immanence simply refers to the fact that Christ could return at any time, because the Rapture is the very next item in the prophetic timetable. The parable of the virgins illustrates this beautifully: All the virgins realized that the return of the bridegroom was the next item on the agenda, and that it could occur at any time, so they had to remain ready until it did. But the foolish virgins assumed, as have foolish pretribulationists from the beginning, that ‘immanent’ necessarily meant ‘soon,’ and therefore did not bring extra oil for their lamps in the event that the bridegroom’s coming was delayed. The wise virgins, however, did not lose their belief in a literal return of the bridegroom when the oil in their lamps ran low, but simply went with Plan B and re-filled their lamps from the supply they had brought along just in case.

Bahnsen concludes, “Current day writers have offered no good prima facie reason for ignoring or rejecting postmillennialism as an important theological option for biblical believers. It has been unwarrantedly dismissed in the past fifty years on the basis of newspaper exegesis, misrepresentation, two-edged criticisms, and premature or unfounded charges. Postmillennialism deserves to be taken seriously and considered in the light of Scripture; quick dismissal or ignoring of it in recent years has no good justification.” I will grant Bahnsen this: his eloquent defense has deprived us of a reason for ignoring postmillennialism—thus this review. But the prima facie reason for rejecting postmillennialism is the same as ever it was: it’s incompatible with the teachings of the Scriptures, unless they are wrested all out of shape and crammed into the box Bahnsen’s predecessors have prepared for them. No further reason was needed at the time this was done, nor is one needed now.

Now, postmillennialists will say that I have misrepresented Bahnsen, and they are probably right. I have spent way more time and space on this review than I intended, but not enough to make it fit for publication in a journal. I leave myself open to the same review that I have made of Bahnsen, and am quite willing to stand corrected where I have misrepresented anyone. My only interest is the truth.

Update: Bahnsen's position is much more thoroughly refuted in this book, published at the height of pretribulational disappointment in 1988.