Raymond Arthur Waugh, Sr. A Journey in Writing
Return to START PAGE for a full listing . . .

 

Why All Church-Age Endtime  Prophets are False Ray Waugh, Sr. 1915-1995 Part VII Some Confusing False Prophecy Ray Waugh, Sr. Start Page

Part I Introduction Part II EARLY PROPHETS SPOKE FALSELY Part III LATER PROPHETS SPOKE FALSELY Part IV DRAMATIC FALSE PROPHETS Part V Famed False Prophets Part VI Some Academic False Prophets Part VII Some Confusing False Prophecy Part VIII FALSE PROPHETS DISCUSS RUSSIA Part IX A NEW TWIST ON PROPHECY Part X SOME ACTIVE FALSE PROPHETS Part XI SOME WHO SPOKE WISELY OF PROPHECY? Part XII FINAL WORDS ABOUT FALSE PROPHETS

Just how is it possible that seemingly sensible men could find themselves indulging in such fiction and deeming it to be truth? And how could those same men convince another host of men that they would be wise to become addicted to this sort of unscriptural intellectual fantasy? It may be that one by the name of Louis Lavalee who holds his degree from "The Reformed Theological Seminary" may have provided us with such information. He explains:

In Philip Schaff's extensive three volumes, "The Creeds of Christendom," the first creed mentioning the six creation days was the Irish Articles. These Articles of the Irish Episcopal Church were adopted in 1615 and later became the model for the Westminster Confession. Article 18 reads: 'In the beginning of time, when no creature had any being, God, by his word alone, in the space of six days, created all things ... .' The Articles were drafted by James Ussher, then head of the theological faculty of Trinity College, Dublin. The Inclusion of the six days reflected his interest in the true, Biblical history of the earth in the face of contrary philosophies.

In 1632 the Mennonites, meeting in Holland, wrote their Dordrecht Confession, the first article addressing creation: '. . . In this one God, who worketh all in all, we believe. Him we confess as the Creator of all things, visible and invisible; who in six days created and prepared heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein.' This confession was also adopted later in the century by the Amish, and remains authoritative in many of these churches (Louis Lavallee, "Impact," January 1993, "Acts & Facts" Institute for Creation and Research, p. ii.).

If we are going to be honest, however, we probably need to take note of the fact that prior to this 1615 fiction of Archbishop James Ussher, one who is spoken of as "Barnabas" in that which is called "The Apocryphal New Testament" provides us a few very interesting words. In what we know as His "Chapter XIII," we find these details:

And even in the beginning of the creation he makes mention of the Sabbath. And God made in six days the works of his hands; and he finished them on the seventh day, and he rested the seventh day, and sanctified it. Consider, my children, what that signifies, he finished them in six days. The meaning of it is this; that in six thousand years the Lord God will bring all things to an end. For with him one day is a thousand years; as himself testifieth, saying, Behold this day shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, children in six days, that is, in six thousand years, shall all things be accomplished (The Apocryphal New Testament, Gebbie & Co., Publishers, Philadelphia. copyrighted but no date is given. pp. 160-161).

We note particularly that the author of that which we know as "Barnabas" does not become involved in any specific discussion of "creation days of 24 hours" each. So, the wisdom of Lavalee regarding 24-hour creation days being an invention of Archbishop Ussher in the year of 1615 would seem to be intact. We do notice, however, that there is a reference to the days being 1,000 years in length, and that this provides some supposed insight into the length of time that the creation will continue. Since this "Apocryphal New Testament" was published originally in England, it may be that Archbishop Ussher may have had access to these speculative and unscriptural thoughts of one who is referenced as Barnabas. Needless to say, it is a work of fiction designed to give the impression that it is a Word of God.

It is obvious, then, that even for this one who is referenced as "Barnabas" creation days were periods of time rather than 24-hour creation days. Another, it seems to me, has wisely spoken to the fact that the days of creation of necessity were periods of time rather than 24-hour days. He says:

It is precisely here that the Period theory emphasizes that the seventh day, which follows the work of the six days as God's 'day of rest,' must indubitably not be understood as a day of twenty-four hours, but as a day in God's sense. Moreover God's resting from His work of creation continues until the present. Since the creation of man no new kinds of living beings have been formed ... It is further maintained that the statement in the Epistle to the Hebrews concerning the 'Sabbath rest' of God and the 'Sabbath rest' which remains for the people of God proves that this Sabbath rest cannot imply a day of twenty-four hours (Heb. 4:9,10).......(Erich Sauer, The King of The Earth, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI. 1962. p. 218).

In the work of J. A. Seiss, we have earlier observed the fiction regarding the Seven Churches in the book of Revelation being "prophetic." Now, we have noted that Archbishop Ussher has provided us the fiction that the creation which according to him was accomplished in 4,004 B. C. supposedly took place in six 24-hour days, and this despite the fact that we obviously -- even from the perspective of his own thinking -- are still in the sixth day. Then, on the basis of this fiction of "six 24-hour days," our speculative designers of prophetic fiction have concluded that all of time will be brought to a conclusion in six 1,000-year periods or in 6,000 years. It is upon this sort of fiction drawn from an apparently-fertile imagination that we are provided with "seven-dispensations" from the commencing, continuing, and concluding of God's Creation. Even this rather obviously-limited interpretation must likewise be categorized or noted as unscriptural speculation.

If we will but relate "a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day" (2 Pet. 3:8) with "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts that your thoughts" (Isa. 55:8-9), we should be able to realize that God is making a very specific distinction. That is, He is explaining to us that He -- being eternal -- does not even deal with time as we mortals must.

We must think in terms of our beginnings and our endings, with no assurance that we shall have another day of our mortality. This is something of which our God knows nothing except as He observes those angels, those dying creatures, the chaotic universe, and sinful, dying man. Therefore, we must err grievously when we attempt to impose our mortal thinking upon God. It is evident that we are not thinking rightly when we presume that God is thinking as we, or when we attempt to bind Him or limit Him -- eternal God -- within the context of our mortal limitations.

How very pervasive were the imaginative fictions that arose from the mind of that Anglican Divine who was called Archbishop James Ussher! So pervasive was his folly that today his foolishness is deemed to be Biblical truth by some who are calling themselves scientific creationists. They commit their lives to his nonsense and suppose that they are indulging in truth! Hear one who writes today for the INSTITUTE for CREATION RESEARCH of El Cajon, California, nearby San Diego.

In his scientific expression that he calls, THE EARTH'S MAGNETIC FIELD IS YOUNG, Ph. D. Russell Humphreys concludes with some shocking details. After he elaborates intellectually, "The Field Is Decaying Rapidly," "Evolutionary Theories Haven't Worked," "The Field Has Reversed Direction Many Times," "A Creationist Theory for Reversals and Fluctuations," "Are There Any Loopholes in the Logic?" he concludes:

At present, the only working theory for the origin, fluctuations, rapid reversals, and decay of the field is a creationist theory -- a theory that fits all the data. Thus, according to the best theory and data we have, the earth's magnetic field certain is less than 100,000 years old; very likely less than 10,000 years old, and fits in well with the face-value Biblical age of 6,000 years (Russell Humphreys, "The Earth's Magnetic Field is Young," IMPACT, August, 1993. p. iv. an insertion in ACTS & FACTS, Vol. 22, No. 8, August 1993).

That "4,004 Creation Date" that Archbishop Ussher pulled from his obviously very fertile imagination, that some translators included in some of the 17th century editions of the King James Versions of the Bible, and that Scofield included in his 1917 edition has been deemed to be "scientific truth" for this 20th century. Sadly, tragically, and unfortunately, if I may, Ussher's unscriptural fiction that was the delight of J. A. Seiss and C. I. Scofield has been declared to be Scriptural Truth in some of the latter moments of this 20th century. Surely, "the devil roars about seeking whom he may devour" (I Peter 5:8), and multitudes of those who are called Christian today spend their lives and commit their ministries to bidding this arch-enemy of God "god speed" as he pursues his nefarious ends.

It was, then, a very, very dark day for the cause of our Lord Jesus Christ when C. I. Scofield appended his fictional prophetic notes to Revelation 1:20 to that which we call the Bible, the Scriptures, or the Word of God. One who later corrected himself very unwisely previously had declared that C. I. Scofield's insight was "a divinely inspired foreview of the overall history of Christianity"! This very esteemed editor of some of the better religious publications of our time has later said, "In an hour when ye think not the Son of Man cometh. ... the main thrust of the 'signs of the times' deals with Israel's future, not the church, not the saints." Jesus explained, thankfully, in very clear and in absolute terms that men would not know when He would return, that angels would not know when He would return, and that He Himself would not know when He would return. Jesus specifically noted that His Return is wholly and forever in the Father's hands, and in His Hands alone.

How can a Christian, so conclude?
How can others hold such unbelief?

As we have earlier noted, one dear Brother who has been convinced of the truth of the Scofield Notes throughout his more than 40 years of ministry gave us a beginning date in the 1960's for "The Laodicean Period." Much more recently, one of the most famed of the worldwide ministers and evangelists of our time interestingly says, "From the beginning of the Laodicean age in 1905, theology began to criticize the Bible historically, scientifically and philosophically by introducing rationalism and higher criticism ... God is using the Full-gospel movement to help the Church regain its faith by opening its eyes" (Paul Yonggi Cho, "Revelation," 1991. pp. 47-48). C. I. Scofield, as we have earlier noted had "the Laodicean Period" beginning in the middle of the 19th century. Clarence Larkin has "the Laodicean Period" beginning in 1900. All of these obviously are out of touch with the Truth of God's Word and God's Word as Truth.

There’d be, no Gospel in an Apostasy!
Men would be under the "Anti-Christ's"!

Subsequently, probably thousands and perhaps millions will presume that "Christ Forecasts the History of Christianity" and assume that they have received a message from Almighty God. In reality and in truth, however, men who are truly cognizant of the Scriptures and knowledgeable in the truths of the Word of God will realize that CHRIST DID NOT FORECAST THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY. On the contrary, He simply indicated that He would "build His Church" and then PROMISED IT PERPETUITY without any reference whatever either to "apostolic succession" or to "baptismal succession," as some would like to presume.

Historically, we can know that there never has been any consistent "Apostolic Succession." The personal animosities of mortal men have confused the issue of "Apostolic Succession" time and time again. Similarly, we can know that there never has been any consistent "Baptismal Succession." In fact, the confusion concerning "sprinkling," "pouring," "effusing," and "dipping" along with the arguments regarding "pedo-baptism" and "infant baptism" has resulted in a never-ending sectarian battle, and it rages even now. Those from all of the succession perspectives have demonstrated time and time again that they were neither honest nor Scriptural. Unscripturally and dishonestly, they have claimed for themselves and for their particular religious groups a continuity that our God did not inspire and in which our God has not been involved.

All who have claimed such perpetuity have failed to understand what Jesus was saying in that distant day. Thereby, we can know that all who look for such definitive human perpetuity are out of touch with Jesus who promised perpetuity without providing any specific means as to how He would effect or accomplish that perpetuity. By His Omnipotent and His Omniscient Word, Jesus, the Son of God, simply declared concerning The Church that He would be building, that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Across the centuries, in a thousand and one different ways, Jesus has established His Churches in the midst of men. Similarly, in words that are as distinct and as absolute as words can be, Jesus declared for all of time concerning His Return to His Church, "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only" (Mt. 24:36).

Some make Jesus to be a liar!
Then conspire to deceive men

It is evident that this false teaching of C. I. Scofield, and others, is far more important to these deceived ones than the Holy Word of God has ever been or ever will be. Perhaps, we should better say, "The Scofield Notes" really have become THE TRADITION to which all who are involved in following this way of thinking will be expected to conform. When "The Scofield Tradition" has reached the place that men can speak of it as "a divinely inspired foreview of the overall history of Christianity from the Apostolic Age until the Advent of Christ," we can know that the teaching of Jesus is really out of the picture. Beyond any question, we can know that a great host of believers -- those who truly are born again, having believed that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God -- whose delight really is in that which has been shown to be false prophecy have chosen to follow mortal men such as Ussher, Seiss, Darby, Scofield, and Larkin. Resultantly, almost as one voice, these have concluded that Jesus did not know what He was talking about when He provided us with that heavenly wisdom that we find in the Scripture, Matthew 24:36.

Fundamentalists as Authoritarian!
And Biblical freedom is outlawed!