First Principles of Bible Study by Harold Camping. Published by Family Stations, Inc., 1986) . Reviewed and critiqued by Pastor McShaffrey.

The booklet, First Principles of Bible Study (Published by Family Stations, Inc., 1986), was written to provide students of the Bible with the basic principles needed to read and understand the Word of God.

The author, Harold Camping, is the President of Family Stations Inc.  and his ministry reaches into nearly every country of the world by means of radio, literature, television, and Internet.

Mr. Camping was once an Elder in the Christian Reformed Church and has held to many of the basic tenets of the Calvinist tradition.  In his teaching, the authority of the Bible, the depravity of man, and salvation by grace alone have been stressed.

His ministry has been blessed by God and many, including myself, have been brought to faith through his teaching.

Nevertheless, Mr. Camping is presently leading as many away from the Church as he had initially led to Christ.  His erroneous teachings are threatening the spiritual health and well-being of the blood bought Bride of Christ.

Rather than refuting specific errors, this review is intended to expose the root problem: Mr. Camping’s Hermeneutic (i.e., method of biblical interpretation).

This is the poison that is presently threatening the Church and, unfortunately, this booklet has been sent to millions and will continue to be sent free of charge.

As we examine and critique the hermeneutical principles set forth in Mr. Camping’s book, we shall find that many of them are orthodox while others reek of ancient Greek philosophy and vain speculation.  His book is divided into three sections:

  1. Biblical Interpretation
  2. The Bible is its Own Interpreter
  3. The Bible has More Than One Level of Meaning

We shall maintain that format while giving special attention to his various theses.

Biblical Interpretation

“We must remember that the Bible, in its entirety, is the holy word of God.  Every word, every phrase, is God-breathed…it is imperative that we remember that the Old Testament is just as holy and important and uniquely the Word of God as the New Testament” (p. 1).

This statement is as crucial as it is correct.  It is derived from 2 Timothy 3:16 and we agree that as long as the Bible student begins with the assumption that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” he is headed in the right direction.

Further, the equality of the two Testaments is also here asserted and this is as crucial as his first statement.

In these two premises, Mr. Camping is in total agreement with both the Bible and the historic Christian view of scripture (c.f., Belgic Confession 3 and WCF 1).

“The Bible alone and in its entirety is the Word of God.” (p. 10).

Again, nothing could be more accurate.  By virtue of its being the very Word of God, the holy Scriptures have absolute authority.

Mr. Camping’s interest here is to expose and reject all attempts either to broaden or narrow the ultimate authority of scripture.  Indeed, we agree with his premise that “there is no other source of divinely articulated or verbalized truth” (p. 10).

Mr. Camping employs Revelation 22:18 to prove that further revelation from God is impossible and rightly identifies revelatory thoughts, tongue, dreams, and visions as a threat to the true Gospel which is circumscribed by scripture alone.

The theological concept that the Bible “contains” the word of God is also rightly denounced. He refutes this attempt to nar-row the authority of scripture on the basis of Revelation 22:19.

“The New Testament interprets the Old Testament…for later revelation sheds more light on the earlier one, and it is the final word” (p. 13).

The necessary interrelation and interdependence of the two Testaments is here highlighted.  Mr. Camping rightly asserts that it is impossible to understand the OT unless we have carefully studied the NT.  However, this principle could (and should) also be reversed.

The NT, although a later revelation, should not be regarded as superior revelation.  The NT cannot be understood on its own anymore than the OT can, for “in the Old Testament the New is concealed; and in the New, the Old is revealed” (Augustine).

“The conclusion that allows us to set aside certain passages because they seem to be associated with a cultural problem of long ago and therefore said to have no application for our lives today, effectively, destroys the authority of the Bible.  It is a direct violation of II Timothy 3:16? (p. 16).

In his effort to establish the ultimate authority of scripture, Mr. Camping addresses this popular-but-absurd notion and quickly gets to the heart of the issue: Are we ready to be obedient to what the Bible teaches?

Those who are not conveniently dismiss entire portions of scripture as being so historically and culturally specific that there no longer remains any direct modern application.

While we must acknowledge the time-conditioned nature of scripture, we must also be careful not to abuse this principle; lest we lose the whole Bible (for every book and letter was directed to a particular audience at a particular point in history).

We therefore must agree with Mr. Camping (and more importantly with the Apostle Paul) that all scripture is not only given by inspiration by God, but is also “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness” so that even the modern man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

The Bible is its Own Interpreter

“One of the most puzzling phenomenon currently facing the Church is that theologians of various denominations are so far apart in their understanding of doctrines supposedly related to or derived from the Bible” (p. 19).

This is no current phenomenon.  Lack of agreement in understanding the Bible has always plagued the church.

One needs only consult any church history book in order to survey the various contentions and doctrinal disputes that have risen in past centuries.

In all actuality, the Christian church today enjoys far more doctrinal uniformity than any other in history.

For instance, the debate concerning the doctrine of the Trinity was not “settled” until the fourth century.  The canon was not agreed upon until the same era.  Likewise, the doctrine of justification by faith alone was not clearly articulated until the 16th century.

Granted, disputations still arise, but there are some basic Christian doctrines that are, for the most part, taken for granted (c.f., The Ecumenical Creeds).

Nevertheless, Mr. Camping is obviously less interested in essential doctrine than he is in eschatology; for this is the one example he cites to demonstrate this “puzzling phenomenon”.

Let it be noted: No church in history has ever reached full consensus on end time doctrines. Even the meticulous precisionists of the Westminster Assembly refused to be overly specific on such matters in WCF 33.

“The problem is that theologians and pastors are taught to come to the Bible from the perspective of the already established theological position of the church or denomination to which they belong” (p. 20).

This may be the case, but Mr. Camping over-generalizes here.  He faults Baptists for coming to the Bible with Baptist presuppositions, Lutherans with coming with Lutheran presuppositions, Reformed coming was Reformed presuppositions, etc.

The necessary consequence of such a process, he claims, is that no one ever leaves his tradition. We must ask the obvious: Did he not leave his?

Furthermore, if these “denominational perspectives” are the root of all evil, one would expect the multitude of modern non-denominational churches to embody Christian orthodoxy.

This, of course, is not the case because independent teachers who are exempt from all accountability are most often the least orthodox in their teaching.

Mr. Camping’s aversion to denominations is as immature as it is unrealistic.  Like-minded Christians will find one another and unite. This is inevitable.

This reality can even be observed among Family Radio listeners.  “Campingites” have adopted the presuppositions of their teacher in the same way as Baptists or Lutherans.

Mr. Camping’s over-generalizations on this manner are almost as absurd as his proposed solution:

“The solution to this problem is: we must go to the Bible with no prejudices and no presuppositions whatsoever” (p. 22)

Mr. Camping cannot mean what he writes here, for he either contradicts it or corrects it on the very next page saying that we may hold presuppositions; so long as they are these: The Bible is true, it is the infallible Word of God, and that is the only rule for doctrine and practice.

Mr. Camping, in a rather awkward manner, then tries to recommend a revelational epistemology.  He does not use these terms, but it seems this is what he is trying to say when he writes, “we cannot trust our minds…we must put every thought under the search light of the Word of God” (p. 23).

His final conclusion is that “If [our presuppositions] cannot be shown to be derived from the Bible, they should be corrected.  No presupposition should be retained if it is not in complete harmony with the Bible” (p. 23).

With this premise, we agree.  The inescapable question is this: Are Mr. Camping’s presuppositions in complete harmony with the Bible?

“When I was finally able to ferret out all the biblical teachings concerning the nature of salvation, to my utter delight I found that the five points of Calvinism were in agreement with everything that I had found in my independent studies of the Scriptures.  The Reformers of old had done their work well and accu-rately” (p. 24).

This is certainly a gracious statement!  Mr. Camping, in his own personal study, has found that Christ has indeed been Lord over his Church and that his Spirit has indeed been leading the Church into all truth for the past two thousand years!

Mr. Camping here stops to explain how he had been brought up in a Reformed Church, but was not taught how to prove its doctrines from Scripture.

This is indeed a lamentable fact, but it is not sufficient ground to dismiss or despise the Church’s historically received doctrinal standards.

If Mr. Camping wishes to start from scratch, he certainly may.  However, he ought not to spread this mentality in the Church.

It needs to be acknowledged that there are those who simply do not possess the necessary gifts to search the scriptures as intensely and accurately as the Reformers of old.

That is precisely why Christ gave teachers to his church (Ephesians 4:11).  May we not trust Christ in this regard and did he not promise to send learned shepherds to look over our souls?

Whether intentionally or not, Mr. Camping has propped up the postmodern idols of individualism and egalitarianism. In doing so, he has also laid a burden upon the sheep that they were never intended to bear.

The only curiosity is this: Why are his followers suspicious of all teachers but him?  This notion of “implicit trust in a leader” is more indicative of a cult than a church.

“… if all appears beautiful, complacent, and secure, then we can wonder, “Do we really have the truth?”  Remember that Jesus said, “Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you!” (p. 27)

This statement further illustrates the “suspicion mentality” that Mr. Camping’s teaching breeds.  It also represents his tendency to de-contextualize Bible passages in order to prove his point.

Rather than seeing the present and relative peace of the Church as a blessing from God, he sees it as the proverbial calm before the storm.

Such suspicion has devastating effects upon the believer.  Persecution rather than peace are seen as the predominant benefit of salvation.  This is as strange; for is it not the wicked who find no peace (Isaiah 48:22)?

“When bringing judgment, God first blinds theologians so that they begin to rewrite to rules of the Bible.  As a final judgment on the church prior to Judgment Day, He will allow the churches to be overcome by false gospels – gospels in which it is taught that there is more to divine revelation than the Bible alone” (p. 28)

Mr. Camping admits, “we have wandered beyond the scope of our study…”  Lest we do the same, suffice it to say that Mr. Camping’s heretical ecclesiology and eschatology are wreaking havoc in community of faith.

One must wonder how he comes to such erroneous conclu-sions when he says such wonderful things as this:

“Regardless of how clear a verse may appear to be, the doctrinal conclusion we derive from that verse should not be taught as Gospel truth unless it has been checked against anything and everything else in the Bible that might relate to that conclusion” (p. 31).

This statement seems legitimate in that it only requires our conclusions to be thoroughly biblical.  With this premise we shall not contend.

However, Mr. Camping has begun to introduce the notion that most of scripture is not clear.  This is contrary to both the internal testimony of scripture and the historic Reformed doctrine of the perspicuity (i.e., clarity) of scripture (c.f., WCF 1.7).

“If we wish to know the meaning of word in the Bible, we do not go to a dictionary of Greek or Hebrew… to do so would be useless (p. 33).

In this absurd statement, Mr. Camping asserts that the Bible is its own dictionary.

This is ridiculous, because more than once in his book Mr. Camping recommends Young’s Analytical Concordance and Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance as being able to “help immeasurably” in one’s study of scripture.

Both of these volumes utilize a dictionary format and are, in fact, a step removed from the more foundational linguistic tools of the Hebrew and Greek Lexica.

Again, Mr. Camping is trying to stress the awesome authority of the Bible.  This is admirable, but his argument is irrational.

In the case of hapax legomena (i.e., single occurrence of a word), he recommends leaving the word untranslated rather than consulting a secular witness.

“Ideally, the rules of grammar and the meanings of words should be derived entirely from the Bible, because the Bible alone must stand as the final authority in all matters of which it speaks” (p. 34).

Mr. Camping continues his fallacious argumentation by making the Bible its own grammar book as well.

In this, he fails to realize that Hebrew and Greek were not mystical heaven-languages, but the common languages of ancient civilizations.

In that these languages existed before and after the time of the divine inspiration of scripture, is it not conceivable that they may have developed an accurate dictionary or grammar book?

Further, this thesis contradicts itself.  Nowhere in the Bible does the Spirit speak concerning rules of grammar.

One need only consult his trusty Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance to find that grammatical terms such as tense, mood, syntax, etc. do not even appear in the text of the Bible.

Surely, Mr. Camping’s motives seem good, but such absurd assertions only discredit his argument.

“Consensus is never a basis for truth” (p. 34).

This presupposition is probably the most troubling in his whole book; for it lends credence to the separatist and individualistic tendencies of both Mr. Camping and his followers.

This premise also violates the second most important Bible verse related to the development of a biblical hermeneutic: 2 Peter 1:20.

Peter, through the Spirit, says that “no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation” with good reason.

Granted, consensus is no guarantee, but it is a great help in determining whether one has reached a true interpretation.

One must always be wary when departing from the traditional interpretation of any given passage, for the Bible was not given to individuals but to the Church as the Pillar and Ground of the Truth (1 Timothy 3:15).

What self-confidence and sinful audacity does that one manifest who accuses the entire historic church of being mistaken!

“One must understand that only the original autographs are to be considered infallible”  (p. 37)

This premise is another example of Mr. Camping’s lazy argumentation, for he fails to point out that these autographs no longer exist.

Fortunately, he does maintain that the copies we have are “virtually infallible” but gives no explanation of what exactly he means by this.

The biblical doctrine of the preservation of scripture (c.f., WCF 1.8), could have strengthened his argument here, but instead, he falls back on the tired Wescott-Hort rule that “the earlier the original was copied, the more faithful the copy” (p. 37).

His inconsistency here is particularly astounding in that Mr. Camping is a staunch TR/KJV advocate.

For all his desire to uphold the authority and perfection of scripture, he fails to defend his position.  The best he can say is that the Bibles we have today are “almost as infallible as the original texts”  (p. 38).

“God is infinitely wise.  He could have written the Bible simply, so that no one could misunderstand it.  God did not intend to write the Bible to be always easily understood”  (p. 38).

Mr. Camping had previously hinted at the fact that the Bible was not entirely clear and he now begins to develop that notion.

It will soon become evident that Mr. Camping has, wittingly or not, adopted the ancient Alexandrian Model of allegorical interpretation.

In order to establish that the Bible is not clear, he even uses the same proof texts as the ancient allegorical interpreters: Proverbs 25:2 and Proverbs 1:5-6.

We shall revisit and more fully demonstrate this connection in our consideration of the third section of his book.

“One must realize that the Word of God is to be accepted first by faith and not because one understands it” (p. 39).

This is an interesting but false dichotomy, for faith and reason are not natural enemies and the rationalists who give priority to reason are no better than the mystics who give priority to faith.

While faith may be above reason, it is not necessarily against it.  Faith and reason must be responsibly reconciled, lest all of life become unintelligible.

The Bible has more than One Level of Meaning

According to Mr. Camping (p. 43), these levels are:

  1. The historical setting
  2. The moral or spiritual teaching
  3. The salvation account

While Mr. Camping may not be aware of it, this threefold division of scripture comes from ancient Greek philosophy and not from the Holy Spirit.

It was Plato who taught that the human soul had three parts and illustrated their interrelation in Phaedrus.

In the 2nd and 3rd century, this idea was married to Christianity as interpreters like Clement of Alexandria began subjecting scripture to what had become known as the Allegorical Model of interpretation.

This method of interpretation valued the “deeper sense” of scripture as being more valuable than the plain or literal sense.

Then, having accepted Plato’s threefold division of the human soul and believing that scripture was given for the salvation of man’s soul, Origen (i.e., Clement’s disciple) developed and articulated the “threefold sense” of scripture in De Principiis.

His division (almost identical to Mr. Camping’s) was this:

  1. Literal
  2. Moral
  3. Allegorical

These early interpreters soon forgot that God’s revelation was both clear and accessible; and it took over a millennium for this basic principle to be rediscovered by the reformers.

WCF 1.9 states that scripture interprets scripture, difficult passages can be clarified by more simple passages, and the sense of the scripture is one.

Let it be noted that to say that the sense of scripture is one is not to deny the rich diversity of God’s revelation.  The Lord indeed employed parables, allegory, historical narrative, etc.

We are only asserting that the Holy Spirit speaks with a singular and specific intention in any given text.  Therefore, the plain meaning is the “deeper meaning”.

“God’s purpose for writing the Bible was not to give us a book on history or science.  It was to reveal His salvation plan, and God did this in an historical context.  His plan comes to fruition in history” (p. 45)

In a defense of his first level of meaning, Mr. Camping briefly defends the historical accuracy of the Bible.

He takes a few stabs at modern-day scientists, offers a few evidentialist arguments, and ultimately concludes that whatever the Bible speaks of is true.

However, he then admits that the Bible wasn’t intended to be history book.

It is indeed odd that he believes the Bible to be a sufficient dictionary and grammar book, but not a sufficient science or history book.  This is another example of gross inconsistency in his argumentation.

He claims that God recorded historical incidents and conversations so that the “salvation program” might shine through them.

Though he does affirm the historicity of the Bible, he somewhat undermines it here by making it almost irrelevant.  As a good allegorist, he affirms the usefulness of the literal but quickly turns to the more “important” aspects of the text.

“The Bible is the standard God established for the well-being of mankind.  The Bible records hundreds of historical situations which can be examined in light of these rules to discover the blessings that come with obedience and the curse the comes with disobedience” (p. 47).

Mr. Camping now explains the 2nd level of meaning: the moral.  This level highlights the many rules contained in Scripture.

Using 1 Corinthians 10:11, Mr. Camping sees the moral lessons of Scripture as being God’s means of showing the natural man his need while showing the regenerate the path of blessing.

We will not contend with his premise but only point out that he has little or no concept of the rich history of redemption that can be seen when one properly looks at inscripturated history in terms of providential and linear progression.

This is no surprise, for the allegorist seeks a meaning that transcends actual events and this perspective blinds him to anything but moralistic applications of any given text.

“The third level of meaning persistently shines through the Scriptures: the Bible is the presentation of the Gospel of grace.  Unquestionably, this is the most important purpose of the Bible” (p. 48).

Priority is here given to the 3rd level of meaning.  All Christians agree that the Bible is the presentation of God’s salvation plan, but Mr. Camping is saying something more here.

This author agrees that the Bible’s chief purpose is to make known the Gospel of Grace.  However, this revelation was developed and delivered through history and Mr. Camping has essentially made this rich and redemptive history irrelevant.

Mr. Camping has essentially reduced scripture to some redundant reiteration of one main idea.

In giving such priority to the 3rd level of meaning, Mr. Camping also diminishes the value of the other two levels.

For example, are we to read Genesis 1 to find out how the world was made or do we read it primarily to discover what it tells us about salvation?

If the 3rd level of meaning is the most important, then perhaps we can finally embrace those liberal interpreters who deny creation ex nihilo. “After all,” one might say, “It is the plan of salvation that matters most.”

“The Bible makes many statements that bear directly on the message of salvation, but the message is not always immediately apparent, sometimes it is hidden within the biblical language” (p. 50).

“Hidden” is classical allegorist terminology.  It is very true that every passage in scripture is not equally clear.  For this reason, most interpreters follow the basic principle that we allow “plain” passages to assist in the interpretation of more “obscure” ones. However, this is not what Mr. Camping means.

The message of salvation, as he explains, is sometimes hiding behind a text that seems to be teaching a less than purely salvific message.

This “hidden” language is admittedly alluring in that it suggests that understanding the Bible is some esoteric and mystical matter achieved only by the enlightened elect, rather than a gift from God intended for all his children.

Further, if one believes that the “spiritual” sense is the most important, we have to wonder what other gnostic tendencies they will eventually adopt.

“One major way in which God hid the salvation message is in the ceremonial laws” (p. 51).

Was it that God “hid” the message or “foreshadowed” it?  Mr. Camping may refuse such a distinction, but in this he departs from historic hermeneutical principles.

Types and shadows do play a significant role in scripture (especially in the OT).  They were intended to point toward the Christ and were made effectual, by the Holy Spirit, to build up the elect in faith.

The reason we recognize the ceremonial laws as being types is because God has told us that they were.  This is the most important principle in the interpretation of types and shadows.

The Spirit makes it clear in the New Testament which people, items, and events from the Old were intended as shadows.

Nevertheless, imaginative people can always find more than the Spirit has specifically named.  This is where one must be careful.

Can one improve upon God’s revelation?  Should one attempt to draw conclusions that the Spirit has not?

It is not a matter of motive (for the ancient allegorists used their model of interpretation for the defense of the orthodox faith), but it is a matter of principle: Can one be wiser than God?

Since it is God who chose the types and shadows, we must allow him to point them out as well.

Mr. Camping does give lip service to this concept when he states,  “When God indicates that He is speaking in parables… then it is safe to develop spiritual truth from these Scriptural accounts” (p. 52).  Unfortunately, two pages later, he contradicts and invalidates that statement, writing:

“Scripture says that Jesus always taught with parables…” (p. 54).

“The declaration of Mark 4:34, “without a parable spake he not unto them” applies to the whole Bible” (p. 54).

“Historical events are, in effect, historical parables”  (p. 54).

Through this line of reasoning, Mr. Camping turns the entire Bible into a parable.  It is a classic non sequitur.  Perhaps sensing the lack of logic here, Mr. Camping attempts to prove his conclusion on theological grounds.

His argument is this: Since Christ is the “Word of God” (John 1) and spoke through the OT prophets (1 Peter 1:11), then his statement about speaking only in parables (Mark 4:34) applies to the OT as well as the NT.  Further “proof” of this is Psalm 78:1-3 and Proverbs 1:5-6.

Having proved (?) that the entire Bible is one big parable, Mr. Camping has now freed his speculative mind to wander.

Parables are classically defined as “earthly stories with heavenly meanings” and while this is not a bad definition, it does determine a certain approach to interpretation.

It suggests that parables have a lesson to communicate and it also admits a certain distance between the event and the reality of that lesson.

One might then wonder: Of what value is history if it is recorded only to point us above?  Further, does the exaggeration often employed in parables compromise the accuracy of the supposed historical record?

For instance, Mr. Camping would never deny the historical accuracy of the creation account in Genesis 1.

He has indeed waxed eloquent upon the theme that “Let there be light” is really a promise that Jesus would be sent as the light of the world and be raised from the dead on the first day of the week.

This is what Calvin called “syllable-snatching”.  What warrant does he have to reason so?  Is the key word “light” or “first day” or both?

Really, it does not matter.  This arbitrary assignment of meaning to various aspects of a text is at the heart of Mr. Camping’s hermeneutic. Let us examine another example.

“If Boaz is a representation of Christ, it must be decided who Ruth and Naomi represent, and who or what is represented by the other kinsman, the cities, and the other historical elements in the written account” (p. 55).

The connection between Boaz and Christ is universally accepted on the basis of the inspired term “redeemer” (though Mr. Camping recognizes no such clue).

On what basis, then, will these other “necessary” connections be made?  Vain and fanciful speculation is the answer.

“When a statement in the Bible appears to have no direct bearing on salvation, we must look for a deeper spiritual meaning of that statement that relates to salvation” (p. 55).

This search for the deeper spiritual meaning is as unwarranted as it is inappropriate.

Mr. Camping admits that a student may spend hours with one verse and never find this deeper spiritual meaning.  He claims that this is God’s way of keeping us humble.

Could it be that such an enigmatic meaning is simply not there?  Could the dreadful words of Jesus explain why some never come to understand his words (Matthew 13:10-17)?

“In relation to the third level, any spiritual meaning found within a passage must be in agreement with these three principles:

1. The deeper, spiritual meaning must relate to the Gospel of salvation.

2. The spiritual identification of elements within the parable or historical account must have Biblical valida-tion.

3. The spiritual conclusion must be in total agreement with everything in the Bible that clearly relates to the nature of salvation” (p. 73).

The arbitrariness and speculative assignment of meaning to the different elements of a text is here somewhat bridled and for this we should be thankful.  At least the fantastical insights of Mr. Camping will not intentionally contradict the main message of the Bible.

Nevertheless, it is quite impossible to interpret every aspect of a text without violating one or more of these rules.

For instance, in his example of “Ruth as a parable”, Mr. Camping rightly designates Boaz as a type of Christ.  The text not only allows this, but even demands it.

However, and as previously stated, Mr. Camping would also have us assign “deeper meanings” to all aspects of this parable and this simply cannot be done without violating one or more of his rules.  Allow us to demonstrate:

If Boaz signifies Christ, then we must regard Ruth as a picture of the elect.  Now we have a problem, for was it not Ruth that came to Boaz?  Would this not suggest that we initiate sal-vation by coming to Christ?

This conundrum might be solved if we say that Naomi, who sent Ruth, is a picture of the Holy Spirit.

We then have another problem, for Naomi essentially speaks against God for his harsh dealings with her in Chapter 1.

What implications might that have for our understanding of the perfect agreement and interrelation between the Three Persons of the Godhead?

It becomes clear that one runs into a multitude of problems when trying to unravel every supposed and specific parabolic mystery of the Bible.

Mr. Camping has done a great disservice to the Church.  He has essentially turned “The Revelation of God” into “The Secret of God” and will have to answer for this in the Judgment.

Mr. Camping should take his own advice to heart:  “We who believe that we have been called to preach or teach have a grave responsibility to be as accurate as possible in the Word of God.  God declares in James 3:1: “My brethren, be not many masters [teachers], knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation” (p. 17).

May God have mercy on Harold Camping’s soul.