July 28, 2009

The Trinity, the Church, and God’s Eternal Purpose

Well, Mr. Camping, we could. Shall I begin, then?

Yeah.

Eight years and a few days ago, the eyes of others could have gone. We have a great amount of information concerning understanding out of the Bible.

Yeah, five minutes, Mr. Camping. And by the way, before James starts, I want to let you both know, at 30, we can carry...

I certainly am. That's up to Mr. Camping.

Great. Well, if you can stay on until 4 .30, that'd be great, Mr. Camping, because we could have this full hour of broad day.

Okay.

All right. Well, Mr. White, Dr. White, you have a question.

Thank you. The Scripture teaches that the triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, did in eternity past covenant together to bring about the glory of the triune majesty by means of the creation of the universe and the redemption of a particular people.

In that council in eternity past, it was determined that the Father would decree the glory of the Trinity, the Son would accomplish the means of redemption through the Incarnation, His cross work outside of Jerusalem, and His resurrection from the dead.

The Spirit would bring the eternally decreed salvation purchased by the Son to fruition in the hearts of undeserving rebels, raising them to spiritual life and making them sons of God by adoption through faith in Jesus Christ.

These redeemed sinners are united to Christ, placed in His body, the Church. The plain teaching of Scripture, believed and accepted by God's people down through the ages, is that the Church is central to God's purpose in this world.

Though many imposters have arisen calling themselves the Church, Christ has in fact been busy in every generation building His Church, so that the gates of Hades would not be able to withstand the onslaught of God's Spirit-led people.

The universal fellowship of true believers has been, by God's wise design, revealed to the world through the local fellowships led by elders and ministered to by deacons. When Paul wrote to Timothy, he spoke of the local fellowships and referred to them as the Church, the Living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

While individual local fellowships can cease to exist as God's blessings move to and fro across the earth, nations rise and fall in God's providence, Christ's Church goes on, His redeemed people joining together for the preaching of the Word, the observance of the ordinances of baptism and Lord's Supper, and fellowship in the Spirit of God.

Today I have the privilege of responding to the claims of Harold Camping of Family Radio, who has abandoned his former beliefs and is now promoting a whole host of novel doctrines. The central assertion that brings us together is his insistence that the churches of Jesus Christ are now under the wrath of God.

The Spirit has withdrawn from all churches and no one can find salvation therein any longer. Mr. Camping has taken the amazing position of insisting that his interpretations of the Bible, based upon allegory and numerology, are sufficient to allow him to claim that God is revealing new things today, never known to anyone the history of the Church.

This claim is the foundation stone of all of Mr. Camping's idiosyncratic teachings, such as his assertion that Jesus died twice, that the death of Christ on the cross outside of Jerusalem was not relevant to the forgiveness of sins, his annihilationism, and his teaching that the world will end May 21, 2011.

Indeed, as I listened to Mr. Camping throughout the Doctrine of the Trinity, just last week on his open forum radio program, identifying Christ as the Father, resurrecting one of the earliest heresies of the Church, I was reminded yet again what happens when the sound exegesis of the text of inspired scripture gives way to personal revelation and spiritualization.

This encounter is about rescuing the Bible's trustworthiness. It is about demonstrating that the Bible is not the playground of any person who decides he has new spiritual insights no one else has ever had.

It is about defending Christ's Church, his bride, and the local fellowships to which the Spirit of God joins all who are truly united with Christ. As we will see, no matter what element of this teaching comes up, the fundamental issue will be this.

Harold Camping refuses to use any kind of meaningful, exegetical, or hermeneutical set of principles in his handling of the Bible. There are no rules when Mr. Camping opens the Bible. He is the final authority when it comes to his system of interpretation, if that word can even be used as a complex system of allegory and numerology that he utilizes to make the Bible speak.

I believe firmly that the only way to profess that the Bible truly is God's Word, God speaking, is to expend every possible effort to avoid inserting my desires and my thoughts into the reading of the Bible.

That is why sound exegetes unanimously avoid all of the errors that Harold Camping's entire set of teachings illustrates in glowing colors. Sound exegesis seeks to understand the meaning of the original writers in their original language, in their original context, first and foremost.

And that is the exact methodology rejected by Harold Camping. In fact, given that he says that no one has seen what he now sees, and given that he makes connections across all sorts of contradictory and differing contexts without the first thought of concern as to what the original authors actually intended, there is no way that Harold Camping can claim that what he is teaching is in any logical or rational way the teaching of the Bible.

It is the teaching of Harold Camping expressed in the words of Scripture wrongfully ripped from their proper and original context. And so the issue that we need to address today is not just the individual teachings, saying that Christ died twice and things like this, and the allegation against the church, but it's the foundational issue.

How do we rightly handle the Word of God so that it remains the Word of God and not merely something that we are inserting our thoughts into? How do you handle the Bible? That's what this discussion has to be about.

Harold Camping, the founder and president of Family Radio, and he's on the theme.

When we start talking about hermeneutics, hermeneutics, and I've never been able to find in the Bible hermeneutics. Where do you find that in the Bible? How is he not speaking? In other words, Christ is saying he spoke in parables, and he did it for us.

And hearing that God gave hermeneutics, we spoke in parables. You know, like a lamb.

I'm sorry, Mr. Camping, your three minutes are up.

Hebrews 10 and the Meaning of Meeting Together

Thank you very much. Let me give an example of what happens when we do not go first to what the original authors meant in their original context, what they intended to communicate to their audiences. Obviously, we know that not all the Scripture is written in parables.

Only certain portions are. Jesus taught directly in non-parabolic form. But Paul's letters are not written as parables. We have to recognize the different kinds of literature we find in Scripture. Let me give you an example.

I was listening to the open forum just this morning, and a caller called in and asked about Hebrews chapter 10, verses 24 through 25. And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the day drawing near.

Now, if we read the book of Hebrews in its original context, original language, this is talking about gathering together in the church. And it is talking about stirring one another up. The King James says provoking one another to do what?

To do love and good works. So it's a positive thing. And so when we read this, it's talking about gathering together in the fellowship of the body of the church and provoking one another to doing godly things.

As soon as Mr. Camping started reading this, he got to the word provoke, and he said, well, this proves that this is actually talking about that period of time when the church age has ended, because to provoke means to create dissension.

And so whenever you preach that the church has come to an end, you bring about dissension. And so this proves that this is about meeting outside of the church and no longer meeting in the church. Now, the writer of the Hebrews never would have had that idea.

His audience never would have had that idea. That ignores the context where the term itself is being used in a positive sense of stirring one another up, stimulating one another to love and good works.

And so the original words inspired under the direction of the Holy Spirit of God, their meaning is completely lost and instead a completely foreign concept. Now, there have been all sorts of folks down through the history of the church who have attacked the church who could have used this very same text in the same way that Harold Camping used it.

The Montanists could have done that, and Joseph Smith could have done. All sorts of people could have done that. But does anyone seriously suggest that that was the actual intention of the Spirit of God in penning these words?

No. These words had a meaning to the person who wrote them. They had a meaning to the persons who received them. And we are first and foremost to discover that and then live in the light of the principles that are laid down by the Word of God.

If we don't do that, then we cannot claim that our teaching of the Scriptures is reflective of the Word of God itself. We simply cannot do it, because we are not accurately representing what the original intention of those inspired writings actually was.

And now, Mr. Camping.

No, the Bible is not subject to private interpretation. I want to understand that we can find all the other places. One, in Hebrews 10, was only used in one place. On the next mission place, it is used.

And it is indicating there was one place in Hebrews 10. How do you understand that people came to him again and again and again? There will be no second place, because he was working there. And that gives us the meaning now of Hebrews 13.

He was told,.

Just a couple of things to recognize in what was just said. First of all, the text from Peter, I think, was being misapplied when it says it is not of any private interpretation. If you look carefully at that text, what Peter is saying is that no prophecy of Scripture ever came about by the prophet's own interpretation.

It instead comes from God. Men spoke from God as they are carried along by the Holy Spirit. So that is a misapplication of that text. But secondly, I hope everyone heard what was just said. And that is, we were just told that the actual meaning of Hebrews 10, 24 -25 could not have been understood by anyone until a few years ago.

Every age of Christians, whatever they thought that text meant, they were in darkness. They had no concept of what that was actually about. They must have been misled to do all sorts of things by this cryptic text that no one could understand until just a few years ago when Mr. Camping determines that the book in Revelation is actually the Bible.

There is no reason to believe that, but that is what he asserts. And so, here you have the author does not know what he is writing. His recipients do not know what he is writing. The words in their own context, he mentioned that word is only used twice.

It is actually used four times in the Bible. It is used twice in the Greek Septuagint. And yes, it can mean dissension as it is used in Acts 15 -39, but that is not what it means in Hebrews 10 -24. In Hebrews 10 -24, it is a positive thing.

It is to stir one another up to love and good deeds within the community of the faith, which is the church. And so, to just simply say, well, it had this meaning over here. That means it can have this meaning here.

What if we interpreted Harold Camping's books in that way? What if we took the words that he uses in the English language, and we could find any use anyplace else of the same word and import it into his?

His context does not matter anymore, because what he is telling us is the context of the Bible writers does not matter. We could turn him into someone who teaches anything that we want. We could read anything into his voluminous writings, based upon ignoring the original context of the authors, the original context of those who initially received these opinions.

But what about the epistles? The epistle to the Hebrews was written to keep Christians who were being pressured to go back to the old ways. And so, when he says, how can you understand there is no forgiveness?

Hebrews 10. He is talking about those people who would go back and offer sacrifice, and therefore, do disrespect the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. He is talking about the same people 1 John talks about. And John says, I do not even say that you should pray for such a one.

He is talking about those people who deny Jesus Christ, and that was the issue in the early church, and we need to understand that first, and then make application to our day. There is no reason to say that these words never had any meaning until our modern period.

None whatsoever.

Quick announcement. For those of you who are listening, MP3 cut in Eastern.

Well, you know, you still haven't worded it. And the Bible says that the issue of Bible section remains no more sacrifice. Every theologian has tried to answer that. There are many verses like Nicodemus for some kind of an answer, but now we can understand the gates of hell shall not prevail.

What a Roman Catholic Church.

Identification, and we will recite the next three minutes. For those of you who are tuning in very late, or perhaps tuning into here.

Yes, indeed. Thank you very much, Chris. Where did the historical grammatical hermeneutic come from? Well, every time that Paul writes to, for example, the church at Corinth, does he expect them to understand what he is saying?

Does he expect them to interpret his letter in such a way that his words mean what his words mean, in the context that his audience would have understood? Does he not hold people accountable for their behavior in light of what he has written to them in a historical and grammatical way?

The answer is, of course, he does. And what if the Judaizers in Galatia had decided to interpret the book of Galatians in the way that Mr. Camping interprets the text that says the church is going to continue?

And said, well, you need to understand, Paul is writing spiritual things here, and what he really means when he says we're anathema, is that we find this other use of this word over here in the Old Testament, and that actually means we should have the preeminence in the church.

Now, how would that work? No, his words had a meaning when they were written in the form they were written. When the apostles and Jesus interpret the Old Testament, do they interpret it in the way that Mr. Camping is interpreting it?

Where they say, well, you need to look at this word here, and then we can connect it over here, and there are 153 fishes, and that's 3 times 3 times 17, and they took numerology apart, and they connected things together.

Is that how they used the Old Testament? The answer is, no, it is not. And so, why should we follow that methodology? Because you can do anything with it. Mr. Camping has done much with the 153 fishes that are pulled out of the sea.

And I would just point out, well, there are so many people being saved, we can't get them into the church anymore, and things like that. Why can't I point out that those 153 fishes were dragged up on the shore and died, and that this is therefore the end of the fishes?

I can interpret anything, any way I want to, when the original intention of the authors, and the original language, and their original audiences is ignored. You can't claim to be accurately representing Harold Camping if you don't interpret Harold Camping in the context in which he intended to write his words.

The same thing is true with the Word of God. You cannot say you're accurately representing the Word of God when you do that. Now, again, what I said about Hebrews chapter 10, very clearly, you have to know what the book of Hebrews is about, and this pressure upon the people to go back to the old ways.

And there's no question about that. When you come up against a difficulty of interpretation, do you just simply throw out exegesis? That's the easy way to do it, to have this overarching system that you just force onto every text, but that's not a way that honors God's Word.

And what is the result of all this? Even though Paul taught that God would be glorified in the church throughout all ages, we're being told by Mr. Camping, flee the churches, the Holy Spirit of God that forms the churches is no longer in the churches, he's no longer saving people in those churches.

That's what happens when you ignore the original context.

Thank you very much. Those of you who just tuned in,.

That God made Abraham, that he would be given, that he could see, that means to him, how could he understand, in the wilderness, acquired the atoning blood of the Bible, for he should not further living there.

They could not understand the Bible, because nothing has ever been added to the Bible, once it was completed a thousand years ago. Without it to happen, people become saved. The Bible says, three minutes are up.

There is no question that the Bible contains many different types of literature. It also contains ceremonial laws. It contains types and shadows in the Old Testament. But these are fulfilled in the New Testament.

And the problem is, Mr. Camping does not see that distinction. He blurs that and turns even the New Testament writings into something that is but a type and a shadow, that then allows him to fit it into his modern viewpoint of eschatology.

This ends up turning what is didactic teaching, what is straightforward teaching, that is not in any way shape or form expressed as future promises, into the foundation of such things as saying that Jesus died twice, or identifying Christ as the Father, or saying that the church by which God is going to be glorified, can be destroyed completely.

That the church, which is the body of Christ, can experience the very wrath of God. That is why you have this tremendous confusion, because you are not allowing the Bible to speak for itself. You come up with a system and then you force it upon the Bible.

He says, who is the Bible for anyways? Is it just for those people back then? No, it is for all believers through all times. And yet, it is Mr. Camping who is saying otherwise, when he says, no one has understood, until now, what the Bible is actually saying in places like Hebrews 10 .24, or other texts where he assigns a new meaning that no one in all of church history has ever understood.

Why should we believe that the book mentioned by Daniel is the Bible? What is the basis for that? Does the book of Revelation make that connection when it talks about the opening of the seals? It does not.

Just because the term book is used, there are all sorts of places where words are used, the Bible. And again, you have to make a meaningful argument that they should be taken together, that the original author intended for those things to be taken together.

Because if you don't, again, you can do with Mr. Camping's words what he is doing with the Bible. And you can connect all sorts of things together that he never intended to be connected, and make him contradict himself all over the place.

Why is it that the Bible is liable to this kind of treatment, but Mr. Camping's material is not? Instead, we go to the New Testament, and we ask ourselves a simple question. Did any of the apostles of Jesus Christ teach that the Christian church would cease to exist before Christ returned?

The answer is, no, they did not. You have to claim modern day revelation. You have to claim some type of spiritual insight that nobody else has ever had to be able to force these things upon the scriptures.

Jesus himself gave us the Lord's Supper, and said that we are to do this until he returns. I ask Mr. Camping, are you partaking in the Lord's Supper? Has Christ returned? If he has not, then clearly you are violating his own command in not doing.

Well, you know, you mentioned the Lord's Supper.

It's very interesting. They decided if they could keep them faithfully enough, and we read in Romans 9, they came to an end because of unbelief. The fact is, when God introduced the New Testament, he arrived the next day, and we put in place salvation, ceremonial laws, and this is some few years ago.

In other words, what did we do to him? And God said, and they did. I, the Lord, sanctify thee. And that means that any kind, it would represent any work of any kind in becoming safe. And then we find as we examine what they do, that you now are safe in the arms of Christ, and the fact on him.

Harold Camping just said that every one of the churches say that they have works that you have to do to demonstrate you're safe in the arms of Christ. That's just simply not true. I know my church is very clear in teaching that salvation is completely of the Lord, that there is nothing we can do to save ourselves in any way, shape, or form.

What was just presented to us, just simply, I'm sorry, doesn't make any sense. We were told that the Lord's Supper is a ceremonial law. No, it's not. It is part and parcel of the New Covenant in the blood of Jesus Christ.

And what we need to understand is, there is no covenant beyond the New Covenant. The New Covenant is the last covenant. It is a perfect covenant. The law is written upon the hearts of those who are in the New Covenant.

And the Lord's Supper is a part of that New Covenant. And Jesus said, you do this in remembrance of me, and we do this until he returns. This is our proclamation as members of the New Covenant, that we have faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and that it alone avails for our salvation.

There are many churches, there are many people listening today, there are many pastors listening right now, who are preaching that God alone can save in Jesus Christ, and that he saved upon the cross of Calvary.

Not some mythical, pre-incarnational death, but as the Bible has always taught, and as all Christians have always believed, it is the blood of the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ by which our sins are forgiven.

Not something from before that period of time. Certainly the cross was certain from God's perspective, but Jesus became incarnate in the person of Jesus of Bethlehem at a particular point in time. He died under Pontius Pilate.

That is when the blood is shed, and the forgiveness of sins is wrought. So that is the New Covenant. And so here you have, I don't know of anyone, any sound biblical Christian who believes the Lord's Supper initiates or starts our salvation, as was just alleged.

That's not what Reformed churches believe. That's not what we have been teaching. Those things are part of our proclamation of the death of Jesus Christ, because we recognize that it is only by that single, one-time sacrifice, that any of us can have the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to us.

That is why the cross is so central. That is why the incarnation is so central. That is why the resurrection is so central. And I would just like to point out that the doctrines of the deity of Christ, the trinity, the incarnation, the cross, the resurrection, justification by faith, were not hammered out and defended by Harold Camping's method of interpretation.

And it is that method of interpretation that has always been used by those who have undercut these beliefs. That is why I am so concerned about this, because I believe that we must honor the Bible for what it actually states.

Read in...

He is a mediator of a better... If it had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. And then he says, and finding fault with them. He finds fault with both of them. And then he tells about a covenant, the covenant that now is in action.

My laws into their mind and write them in their hearts. Remand his brothers to saving directly, not through a church, not through elders and deacons, or t-shirts he's collecting people to show. Until the beginning of the great truth, Daniel, that we're saying to them, there's a church that is a congregation.

I want to point out that Mr. Camping has just misrepresented Hebrews chapter 8. And this is a good example of what happens when you do not do exegesis of the text directly. In verse 8, he said, for he finds fault with them when he says, he identified them as the covenants.

Read what it says. He goes on to quote Jeremiah 31. He's finding fault with the people under the first covenant. That's why you have the new covenant that is then enunciated in the verses that follow.

The them is not the two covenants. There's not some third one or something that's coming. That's not what Hebrews chapter 8 is talking about in any way, shape or form. That does not follow the argument of the book of Hebrews.

That's again where you just, he said, well, and we see elsewhere. No, you have to find out what the original text is saying before you run off to another text. One is exegesis, allowing the text to speak for itself.

The other is eisegesis, reading into the text meanings that the original author and the original audiences would have had no idea of. Now, there were many people who were saved in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit of God.

I'm not sure what the idea of, well, there weren't many people saved during Jesus' preaching. Well, that may be true, but there were 120 in the upper room and when the church began to expand, there were thousands very quickly.

So, when the Spirit came and it was the Spirit's time to draw those people, He drew them. That's what the Spirit can do. Revelation chapter 5, talking about this book that is sealed, the question is asked, who's worthy to open it?

Is Harold Camping the one who's worthy to open it?

No.

It is, of course, the Lord Jesus. Is this the Bible? Is that what anyone reading John's words would have understood? Again, we need to understand, if you take this perspective that is being presented by Mr. Camping, then John wrote this book and Christians read this book and Christians died protecting this book.

Christians gave their blood protecting this book and preaching this book and they never had the slightest idea what it was talking about until 1900 years later when someone in Alameda, California, has the book open to them and then can begin teaching this.

I'm sorry, but the very teaching of the Scripture is that it's given to us for our edification. It is given to us to build us up and that's why the Scriptures were given to us and there have been many people down through the history of the Church who have come along and said, oh, I have the special insight, I have the spiritual insight that no one else has ever had.

They've all come and they've all gone and the only thing left is the Church of Jesus Christ and he asked, what churches are still teaching? Mr. Camping, there are faithful Christians sitting in prison cells in Muslim lands today who have never heard of you or your message but they stand firm for the name of Jesus Christ.

They will not give up their confession of faith in Jesus Christ and you cannot say that they are not true believers even though they don't believe what you are teaching.

Mr. Camping, that and Mr. Camping, the other thing that has any authority and Christ is the foundation and the Bible is not what John said but it's what God said. What God said. Holy men have all spoken.

And in Jeremiah 36, God shows us. He gives us a detail. He dictated the book of Jeremiah to his book and that is illustrious beside the issue. It is what God wanted to give us and as we read in Mark 4, you unbelieve in the lives of those who, you know, have you ever preached before?

Let's look at that again because that really, when I discovered that years ago,.

I was,.

Unto you it is given, unto you is given the mystery they may see and not perceive and hearing they may hear. Time be converted from the mouth of God and that shows that God's intention was that we understood but as we learn the rules.

And now,.

Wonderfully, it's time of the end, May 21, the Bible that shows us that we've done our homework and we're ready.

1 Timothy 3:15, the Local Church, and the Pillar of Truth

Okay, Mr. Camping White, you may resume.

I would like to ask Mr. Camping to respond either today or tomorrow to one of the most key issues for me and that was a statement I heard him make where he identified Christ as the Father. I would very much like to find out if he has abandoned the historic doctrine of the Trinity at that point and embraced a form of modalism.

I think that's extremely important but we just had a statement made that I somehow was misrepresenting 1 Timothy 3 .15. Let me read it to you but in case I am delayed, Paul writing to Timothy, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth, the pillar and the bulwark of the truth.

Probably a better way of rendering hadrioma there. So that is the statement that Paul makes and the context is right after he's been discussing the qualifications of elders and deacons. So we're talking about the local church.

So he's writing to Timothy so that he might know how people must behave in the local church which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. It does not require us to believe that the church rules over scripture.

Scripture is the speaking of God. The church listens to the voice of her spouse speaking in scripture. There's no question about that. I have defended sola scriptura against the leading Roman Catholic apologists out there.

But it does not follow then that what is being said here should not be believed. That it is God's purpose that that which holds up, that which protects the truth is the local body of believers with elders and deacons.

That was what Paul wrote to Timothy. Now if you want to explain to me from the text, not jumping to another text, but looking at 1 Timothy 3 .15, how do you understand that to teach anything other than that the local church is the pillar and foundation, the pillar and support, the pillar and bulwark of the truth?

That it is God's purpose that in the ministry of the word of God, in the gathering of the saints, the instruction of the word of God, the worship that comes from that, when we enter into that place of worship, and I have seen people saved, Mr. Camping, in the years since you started teaching this, wonderfully changed in the fellowship of the church, the Holy Spirit of God has applied the word of God to their hearts and lives and has changed their lives.

That has happened since you have been teaching that the Holy Spirit is no longer in the church. One of us can go to the word of God and explain why that is. I do not believe that you can simply stay in 1 Timothy 3 .15 and explain what's being said there in context, in light of Paul's intention, and what Timothy would have understood, and explain how your system of denying the church exists is consistent with that which is found in the inspired word of God.

And they were so much like the wheat, and incidentally, this is parabolic language again, much like a true believer, that you cannot distinguish the wheat, the wheat representing, there again,.

Parabolic,.

Representing those, because you're going to be throwing out the wheat, wheat from the tares. But mankind can't see the heart, you can't see the heart of any people that claim that they're saved and their life is saved.

Nobody can see that. What about these tares that come in, that Bible teachers and whatever in Timothy chapter 3,.

You know,.

God, this is not in the language. The church grammatically will write is the ground going to try to prove. Now you can do that. Glory, glory goes to God. Trinity is concerned. And yet, when he told you, you have been with me, you have seen the Father, and you have been with me.

Oh, wait, we will be able to go another three minutes?

Yes, yes.

Oh, okay. Well, thank you very much. Again, in answer to a number of the things that were just brought up, the pillar and support of the truth is in apposition to the subject of the preceding phrase, which is the church of the living God.

To make God the description of that is, again, to just completely miss the point that Paul is attempting to communicate there. Next, I wish I could, maybe tomorrow we can understand this a little bit more fully, but I don't understand Mr. Camping's response just now.

He has identified Christ as the Father. He has just used classical terms that modalists use. Does he believe that the Son has existed as a divine person from eternity past? Or, at least, the second person of the Trinity, has he existed as a divine person from eternity past in communication with the Father so that there are three divine persons who have eternally existed?

I realize that he says that the Son had a beginning at the resurrection or something like that, but he actually uses the word Christ for the pre-incarnate Jesus. It's very confusing, but I would like to maybe tomorrow get some clarification on that because I think that is extremely, extremely important.

But once again, I hope the people in the audience can hear. I would like to offer to Mr. Camping and to Family Radio that on May 22, 2011, I will do the Open Forum broadcast for a month to explain to people how to do biblical interpretation to avoid what has happened because on May 12, 2011, when these things don't happen, then there's going to be a lot of people who are going to need to have their trust in the Bible re-established because they've been told over and over again, the Bible taught this, the Bible taught this, and just like in 1975 when Jehovah's Witnesses predicted the end of the world and it didn't happen, over a million people left the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society over the next few years.