Full Version: President Bush and Jack Van Impe
I was surfing at my favorite weird news site, www.fark.com, and came across this disturbing question and answer session on Jack Van Impe's website: JVI Question of the Week
For those of you unfamiliar with Jack Van Impe, perhaps you have seen him on your local all Christian channel, or you can view his homepage here: Jack Van Impe Ministries. His ministry is particularly obsessed with "prophecies" and the a literal belief in the Book of Revelations. His website also declares:
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Getting back to the question and answer session...
Minister (Mr.?) Van Impe states:
First question to debate (easy part): Can anyone validate this claim by Van Impe?
Second question: If this is true, should our President consider Biblical prophecies when forming foreign policy?
For those of you unfamiliar with Jack Van Impe, perhaps you have seen him on your local all Christian channel, or you can view his homepage here: Jack Van Impe Ministries. His ministry is particularly obsessed with "prophecies" and the a literal belief in the Book of Revelations. His website also declares:
QUOTE
Current international events reflect exactly the conditions and happenings predicted throughout the Bible for the last days of this age.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Getting back to the question and answer session...
Minister (Mr.?) Van Impe states:
QUOTE
I am not sure whether he [President Bush] knows all of the prophecies and how deep of a student he has been in God's Word, but I was contacted a few weeks ago by the Office of Public Liaison for the White House and by the National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to make an outline. And I’ve spent hours preparing it. I will release this information to the public in September, but it’s in his hands.
First question to debate (easy part): Can anyone validate this claim by Van Impe?
Second question: If this is true, should our President consider Biblical prophecies when forming foreign policy?
[SIZE=14]NO[SIZE=1] We're not in a film, prophcy is rarely right and when it is quite often that colourful interpretation is to blame. Religion and government should not mix. The constitution spells it out.
Bush should be doing things for the best interest of the US and not trying to fulfill Biblical prophecies. Following the Christian faith and finding a moral ground through your religion is a good thing, but it's wrong to try to be the hand of God. If the prophecies of the book of Revelation are true, God will allow them to come to pass, He doesn't need Dubaya's help. 
It's as real as the people involved in the Middle East make it.
The Reverend Dr. Jack Van Impe (I think he holds an LLD) represents the escatological teaching called "dispensationalism" and holds to the "pre-millenial rapturist" point of view. This is a very popular, mainly Protestant teaching, and I'll explain it.
Van Impe bases his understanding of Biblical prophecy on mainly the Old Testament book of Daniel, where Daniel describes to Nebuchadnezzar an image with a head of gold on down to a pair of feet made from iron and clay mixed together. The gold head was interpreted as that king's reign, and the other metals were to be the kingdoms following his right down to the last reign of mankind. The iron and clay mixed together signified a reign of both strength and weakness that would not work for long.
He then uses New Testament books, the Gospels, the letters of the apostles, and the book of Revelation to explain that since Israel has become a nation, it is that period of time when the Son of God will return for the believers and there will be a "snatching away" called the Rapture. At this time THE Antichrist will be revealed. He is to reign for seven years. The first half of that time will be a time of peace and prosperity, but the remaining 3 1/2 years will be war, famine, disease and death for the peoples of earth. The Antichrist is believed by Van Impe and Hal Lindsey to rule via the EU and initiate a one-world government.
At the end of that time, Christ is to appear and vanquish the Antichrist, his prophet and the devil. They are to be bound for one thousand years when Christ reigns "with a rod of iron" on earth.
Christian Zionists seem to be the same as pre-millenialists. That's why they are so gung-ho on having Israel possess everything that it did in the Bible before the Romans destroyed the temple in 70 A.D. and dispersed the Jewish people.
It is the people who are determined to set things into motion who pose a danger to the Middle East peace process, because they have already determined from the Bible prophecies that there will never be a lasting peace in Palestine until Christ returns and sets up shop. They are fatalists.
I don't really know how much of this to believe. In my first marriage my husband and I were fundamentalist Christians and hung on to every word regarding pre-millenialism. That was back in the 70's.
I agree with Billy Jean. The job of Bush and his administration is to work honestly and earnestly for peace in the Middle East as well as elsewhere with the well-being of America as his primary objective.
God is perfectly capable of fulfilling prophecy, and since it is hard to understand anyway, it should be left up to God. We don't need to "help things along."
The Reverend Dr. Jack Van Impe (I think he holds an LLD) represents the escatological teaching called "dispensationalism" and holds to the "pre-millenial rapturist" point of view. This is a very popular, mainly Protestant teaching, and I'll explain it.
Van Impe bases his understanding of Biblical prophecy on mainly the Old Testament book of Daniel, where Daniel describes to Nebuchadnezzar an image with a head of gold on down to a pair of feet made from iron and clay mixed together. The gold head was interpreted as that king's reign, and the other metals were to be the kingdoms following his right down to the last reign of mankind. The iron and clay mixed together signified a reign of both strength and weakness that would not work for long.
He then uses New Testament books, the Gospels, the letters of the apostles, and the book of Revelation to explain that since Israel has become a nation, it is that period of time when the Son of God will return for the believers and there will be a "snatching away" called the Rapture. At this time THE Antichrist will be revealed. He is to reign for seven years. The first half of that time will be a time of peace and prosperity, but the remaining 3 1/2 years will be war, famine, disease and death for the peoples of earth. The Antichrist is believed by Van Impe and Hal Lindsey to rule via the EU and initiate a one-world government.
At the end of that time, Christ is to appear and vanquish the Antichrist, his prophet and the devil. They are to be bound for one thousand years when Christ reigns "with a rod of iron" on earth.
Christian Zionists seem to be the same as pre-millenialists. That's why they are so gung-ho on having Israel possess everything that it did in the Bible before the Romans destroyed the temple in 70 A.D. and dispersed the Jewish people.
It is the people who are determined to set things into motion who pose a danger to the Middle East peace process, because they have already determined from the Bible prophecies that there will never be a lasting peace in Palestine until Christ returns and sets up shop. They are fatalists.
I don't really know how much of this to believe. In my first marriage my husband and I were fundamentalist Christians and hung on to every word regarding pre-millenialism. That was back in the 70's.
I agree with Billy Jean. The job of Bush and his administration is to work honestly and earnestly for peace in the Middle East as well as elsewhere with the well-being of America as his primary objective.
God is perfectly capable of fulfilling prophecy, and since it is hard to understand anyway, it should be left up to God. We don't need to "help things along."
First off, fark is a real joke of a website.
Presidents have been crazy about prophecy for a long time now. Does anyone remeber when Reagan declared that Russia was Gog, a country supposedly aligned with the Antichrist that was going to bring about the end of the world? His rationale? "What other powerful nation is to the north of Israel? None." He was also convinced that Armaggedon was going to happen pretty soon. Here's a few quotes:
As you can see, the guy is clearly off his rocker.
However, this pretty much had nothing to do with what he actually did, policy wise. Bush isn't going to go to war over some biblical prophecy, his handlers are too smart for that. Let him meet with Jack Van Impe, he's just going to make himself look like a fool. He can call his wars a crusade or whatever, but in the end no President is going to go to war unless it's going to benefit some powerful people.
Presidents have been crazy about prophecy for a long time now. Does anyone remeber when Reagan declared that Russia was Gog, a country supposedly aligned with the Antichrist that was going to bring about the end of the world? His rationale? "What other powerful nation is to the north of Israel? None." He was also convinced that Armaggedon was going to happen pretty soon. Here's a few quotes:
QUOTE
"For the first time ever, everything is in place for the battle of Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ. It can't be too long now. Ezekiel says that fire and brimstone will be rained upon the enemies of God's people. That must mean that they will be destroyed by nuclear weapons."
"[T]heologians had been studying the ancient prophecies -- what would portend the coming of Armageddon-- and have said that never, in the time between the prophecies up untiI now, has there ever been a time in which so many of the prophecies are coming together. There have been times in the past when people thought the end of the world was coming, and so forth, but never anything like this."
"In the 38th chapter of Ezekiel, it says that the land of Israel will come under attack by the armies of the ungodly nations, and it says that Libya will be among them. Do you understand the significance of that? Libya has now gone Communist, and that's a sign that the day of Armageddon isn't far off."
"[T]heologians had been studying the ancient prophecies -- what would portend the coming of Armageddon-- and have said that never, in the time between the prophecies up untiI now, has there ever been a time in which so many of the prophecies are coming together. There have been times in the past when people thought the end of the world was coming, and so forth, but never anything like this."
"In the 38th chapter of Ezekiel, it says that the land of Israel will come under attack by the armies of the ungodly nations, and it says that Libya will be among them. Do you understand the significance of that? Libya has now gone Communist, and that's a sign that the day of Armageddon isn't far off."
As you can see, the guy is clearly off his rocker.
However, this pretty much had nothing to do with what he actually did, policy wise. Bush isn't going to go to war over some biblical prophecy, his handlers are too smart for that. Let him meet with Jack Van Impe, he's just going to make himself look like a fool. He can call his wars a crusade or whatever, but in the end no President is going to go to war unless it's going to benefit some powerful people.
You and I have some similar religious backgrounds in some areas Paladin. This was precisely the reason I posted "Should the Jews be given a homeland" post in foriegn policy. When I look at happenings in the Middle east as been tampered with by the recent republican party, I wonder if the influence of the Christian right doesn't extend a ways back in our history. I couldn't see any rational reason for being given the homeland in that area except Christian prophecy. I still hear alot of talk among fundalmentalists in and around my family of tearing down the temple on the mount so the Jews can rebuild the temple, and as you know, some radical Jewish groups in Isreal want that as well.
It wouldn't suprise me a bit if Bush 1 and 2 had some leanings in that direction. You had to be a fundalmentalist to realize there is not much difference in a christian fundalmentalist and a muslim fundalmentalist. What is really scary is when someone like Reagan or possibly now Bush 2 actually believes and wants and works for that stuff to come true.
It wouldn't suprise me a bit if Bush 1 and 2 had some leanings in that direction. You had to be a fundalmentalist to realize there is not much difference in a christian fundalmentalist and a muslim fundalmentalist. What is really scary is when someone like Reagan or possibly now Bush 2 actually believes and wants and works for that stuff to come true.
THIS TOPIC IS NOT ABOUT RELIGION
POSTS DEBATING RELIGION WILL BE DELETED
Please read the question to debate!
First question to debate (easy part): Can anyone validate this claim by Van Impe?
Second question: If this is true, should our President consider Biblical prophecies when forming foreign policy?
The claim validation would be whether or not Van Impe was in fact contacted by those mentioned in the article.
The second question is to be answered WITHOUT BRINGING RELIGION INTO THE TOPIC.
We know everyone is missing the Religion forum, but taking over another topic to discuss religious beliefs when the question relates to POLICY DECISIONS is non-constructive.
Mike
POSTS DEBATING RELIGION WILL BE DELETED
Please read the question to debate!
First question to debate (easy part): Can anyone validate this claim by Van Impe?
Second question: If this is true, should our President consider Biblical prophecies when forming foreign policy?
The claim validation would be whether or not Van Impe was in fact contacted by those mentioned in the article.
The second question is to be answered WITHOUT BRINGING RELIGION INTO THE TOPIC.
We know everyone is missing the Religion forum, but taking over another topic to discuss religious beliefs when the question relates to POLICY DECISIONS is non-constructive.
Mike
OK, Fark might be a joke, but the quote is from Jack van Impe's own website. If we're going to impugn sources, let's at least impugn the right ones. 
Probably nobody here. It does seem fairly credible, though. Bush is well known to be a religious man, though his particular brand of Christianity might seem like heresy to some. I should probably add that it's exactly the same brand of Christianity as that espoused by the majority of my own family, and it's not quite a coincidence that I have little contact with them nowadays. There's nothing unusual, or even improper, about a president consulting someone like van Impe if they feel like it. Reagan even consulted with astrologers, didn't he?
Absolutely not. As a private citizen he may consult whomever he likes, but when it comes to policy (foreign or domestic) he should not be consulting Biblical (or Hindu, or Zoroastrian) prophecy. Those matters must be decided by reference to observable fact, not faith. Remember that little thing about separating church and state?
The part of this account, if it turns out to be accurate, that most bothers me is that Bush is using government resources to do this consultation. If he were doing this on his own, or even using his personal administrative staff (he is a busy man, after all) I would have little problem with this. Yeah, maybe it would reinforce my impression of the man as a counter-rational kook, but the action in and of itself would be inoffensive. When he uses the OPL and NSC to do the legwork, though, I think that's essentially theft of government resources. It's like when Al Gore was using White House phones for Democratic fundraising. There is no way that government resources should be used to solicit advice on national security from someone like van Impe, whether that advice is being used privately or officially by Bush.
QUOTE
Can anyone validate this claim by Van Impe?
Probably nobody here. It does seem fairly credible, though. Bush is well known to be a religious man, though his particular brand of Christianity might seem like heresy to some. I should probably add that it's exactly the same brand of Christianity as that espoused by the majority of my own family, and it's not quite a coincidence that I have little contact with them nowadays. There's nothing unusual, or even improper, about a president consulting someone like van Impe if they feel like it. Reagan even consulted with astrologers, didn't he?
QUOTE
If this is true, should our President consider Biblical prophecies when forming foreign policy?
Absolutely not. As a private citizen he may consult whomever he likes, but when it comes to policy (foreign or domestic) he should not be consulting Biblical (or Hindu, or Zoroastrian) prophecy. Those matters must be decided by reference to observable fact, not faith. Remember that little thing about separating church and state?
The part of this account, if it turns out to be accurate, that most bothers me is that Bush is using government resources to do this consultation. If he were doing this on his own, or even using his personal administrative staff (he is a busy man, after all) I would have little problem with this. Yeah, maybe it would reinforce my impression of the man as a counter-rational kook, but the action in and of itself would be inoffensive. When he uses the OPL and NSC to do the legwork, though, I think that's essentially theft of government resources. It's like when Al Gore was using White House phones for Democratic fundraising. There is no way that government resources should be used to solicit advice on national security from someone like van Impe, whether that advice is being used privately or officially by Bush.
QUOTE(Platypus @ Aug 12 2003, 10:43 AM)
Reagan even consulted with astrologers, didn't he?
You mean she consulted, Nancy Reagan that is...
.I don't think the President has any need of prophecy in decideing policy. I agree with Platypus that such judgements need to be based upon observable facts...
To answer the questions directly, I have no doubt that Jack Van Impe has been in touch with Bush I and Bush II about his take on Biblical prophecy. Jack Van Impe is a zealot; he is also a man of his word.
Question Two: No, Biblical prophecy, such as it is, should not be a determining factor in our Middle Eastern negotiations. It would be construed by the Muslims as being pro-Israeli, and it is.
Edited out moderator contact.
Question Two: No, Biblical prophecy, such as it is, should not be a determining factor in our Middle Eastern negotiations. It would be construed by the Muslims as being pro-Israeli, and it is.
Edited out moderator contact.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Aug 12 2003, 03:33 PM)
QUOTE(Platypus @ Aug 12 2003, 10:43 AM)
Reagan even consulted with astrologers, didn't he?
You mean she consulted, Nancy Reagan that is...
.I don't think the President has any need of prophecy in decideing policy. I agree with Platypus that such judgements need to be based upon observable facts...
Actually, while Nancy started seeing the astrologer, Ronnie did start talking to her and she started telling him what to do.
You are right though, no matter if it's Biblical prophecy or astrology, the American people shouldn't put up with a President who makes policy based on anything but reality.
First question to debate (easy part): Can anyone validate this claim by Van Impe?
I absolutely do not believe this person was contacted by anyone associated with the White House to come up with an "outline" regarding biblical prophecies. I am tempted to write my congressman and ask them to look into this.
Second question: If this is true, should our President consider Biblical prophecies when forming foreign policy?
Of COURSE not!! If he is, he should be thrown out of office immediately!
I absolutely do not believe this person was contacted by anyone associated with the White House to come up with an "outline" regarding biblical prophecies. I am tempted to write my congressman and ask them to look into this.
Second question: If this is true, should our President consider Biblical prophecies when forming foreign policy?
Of COURSE not!! If he is, he should be thrown out of office immediately!
It could explain a lot, according to Van Impe's interpretation, the person that emerges as the leader of the EU will be the Antichrist. Perhaps in the White House view that is Jacques Chirac.
tony
tony
We knew he was religious before he was ever elected. And "considering" things is not a big deal to me, depending on how much weight they are having on decisions. I think its fascinating to see this though. And you can't tell the president not to pray, or where to get his inspiration.
Yes, but i find it scary that such inspiration could be why an army invades here, or why conscious thought is not applied there. We are talking about a person whose decision regulates the lives of people are all over the world, not only that has the power to nuke someone.
If he is really using such a tool for the base of his thoughts in any form, i would seriously call that an improper use of his position, after all i don’t think many people would like the idea of a Satanist or a person who believes in Zeus to rely on that for inspiration in his position, its just silly.
If he is really using such a tool for the base of his thoughts in any form, i would seriously call that an improper use of his position, after all i don’t think many people would like the idea of a Satanist or a person who believes in Zeus to rely on that for inspiration in his position, its just silly.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.