The California Collection/TheCaliforniaCollection.cdr/his094/hunt5.arj/HUNT5.89

Text File | 1989-06-21 | 14.2 KB | 247 lines

          C.I.B. BULLETIN May 1989 Vol. 5, No. 5

          A Ministry of Christian Information Bureau

Dear Praying Friends:

For several months now, we have been calling attention to the alarming
fact that even among evangelicals, in apparent fulfillment of Paul's
warning concerning the last days, sound doctrine is being set aside in
favor of myths.  These are being foisted on the church by some of the
most respected church leaders -- and being embraced by millions of
Christians, who seemingly have insufficient discernment to recognize
today's deceptions.  Most of these myths derive from "Christian
psychology."  This month we will consider one that does not:  the
seductive and dangerous idea of the "Gospel in the Stars."

This theory was popular in the late 1800's.  Some of the books
published then have lately been brought back into print, among them
E.W. Bullinger's Witness of the Stars and Joseph A. Seiss's The Gospel
in the Stars, both by Kregel.  It is asserted that the signs of the
zodiac were originally designed by God to communicate the "gospel";
that this "Gospel of the Stars" was known to those living before the
flood; that it was later corrupted into astrology; and that the
alleged recovery of the "Gospel interpretation" of the zodiac is a
great "witness" to God and His Word.

Not one shred of historical evidence can be offered in support of this
theory.  It is based not upon fact but speculation.  Seiss even admits
that the insights leading to his thesis came "in connection with his
studies of the marvelous wisdom embodied in the Great Pyramid of
Gizeh." (p.5)  The alleged "Gospel in the Stars" is simply a
"Christian" interpretation of astrology and occultism, in the same
class as pyramidology -- and equally dangerous.

It is claimed that "by way of the Bible itself we reach the idea of
the GOSPEL in the STARS" (Seiss,p.13).  Not so!  While the Bible
frequently states that the heavens are given for "signs," it never
implies, much less states, that these "signs" present the gospel.  The
Bible indicates that creation reveals God's glory and power, which are
"clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made" (Rom.
1:20) and that "there is no speech nor language where their voice is
not heard" (Psalms 19:3).  Never does it say that the heavens or any
other part of creation declare the gospel.  That is presented only by
God's Word and preaching -- and that not even by angels, but only by
men.

The idea of "The Gospel in the Stars" puts an alleged witness from
creation on a par with the revelations contained in the Bible.  If this
thesis is correct, then there are many places (Psalm 19:1-4, Rom.
1:19-24, Heb. 1:1-2, 2 Peter 1:21, etc.) where the Bible could have,
and should have, told us that the "gospel is in the stars" -- but it
does not.  Heb. 1:1 for example, tells us that God "spake in times past
unto the fathers by the prophets" but fails to say that He also spoke
in the stars.  Why does the Bible never propose this idea?  Obviously
because creation witnesses to one thing, prophets to something else.
The creation witnesses to God's eternal existence and power and
wisdom; the Bible takes it from there and explains the gospel.  This
distinction is destroyed by asserting that the gospel is contained in
the stars.

Actually, those who promote this myth admit that the gospel can't be
seen in the stars themselves, but that it comes from a "Christianized"
interpretation of the fanciful "signs" of the zodiac assigned by the
ancients to certain constellations.  Nor can these figures be seen in
the natural formations of the stars, but are the arbitrary product of
human imagination.  D. James Kennedy, one of those who promote Seiss's
thesis, admits in his sermon The Gospel in the Stars:  "You can look at
the stars in Virgo until you are green in the face and they would
never look like a woman!"  And even if they did, one would not know
from that "sign" that the Son of God and Savior of the world was to be
born of a virgin -- much less that He would die in our place and offer
pardon for sin as a free gift of God's grace.  One simply cannot derive
the "gospel" from the starry heavens, or from any other part of
creation!

Therefore, in no way can the alleged "Gospel in the Stars" be equated
with what the Bible says the "heavens declare" -- a message that Paul
reminds us is "CLEARLY SEEN" (Rom. 1:20) and understood by all those
who observe God's creation, no matter what their language (Ps. 19:3).
That this is not the case with the "Gospel in the Stars," is obvious.
In fact, the very idea that the "Gospel" is in the stars would never
have entered the average Christian's (much less pagan's!) head from
looking up at the starry heavens.  Yet, in complete contradiction both
of Scripture and common sense, it is declared that the gospel "in all
its length and breadth, stands written upon the stars..." (Seiss,
p.14)  The truth is that the alleged "Gospel in the Stars" is not
contained in the stars at all.  It is found only in the books that tell
us about this supposed wonder of the heavens and pretend to give us
the original meanings allegedly conveyed in ancient oral traditions --
for which there can be found no historical evidence today.

Even the Southern Cross, which is the only constellation that really
forms a somewhat recognizable figure (and thus is "Exhibit A" for
those who promote this myth), fails on at least two counts.  First of
all, the "gospel" is not clear from looking at a cross.  One can only
wonder that evangelicals, who would reject the notion that the gospel
is preached by a cross in a church, would suggest that it is preached
by a much less clearly formed "cross" in the sky!  Even the physical
meaning of such a symbol was unknown before Roman times; and to this
day the spiritual meaning of the cross is unknown to those who have
never read the Bible or heard the gospel preached by men.  Secondly,
the fact that the Old Testament doesn't even mention the cross is
reason enough to reject any suggestion that an oral tradition
interpreting the stars presented that truth before Christ's advent.
David's statement in Psalm 22 ("they pierced my hands and my feet")
was only understood after its meaning had been revealed through its
fulfillment in Christ.  So even a "cross" clearly depicted in the stars
could not possibly have conveyed the "gospel," which was not revealed
until after Christ's crucifixion.  How much less, then, could any other
symbol do so -- then or now!

To suggest that there was an oral tradition connected to the stars
that presented the gospel, when even the Old Testament did not present
it, puts oral tradition above Scripture and thus undermines God's
Word.  In the Genesis 3 statement by God that "the seed of the woman
will bruise the serpent's head," the gospel is contained only in
embryo and in mystery, and was not understood until the New Testament
revealed it.  Without the Bible, and with only the stars themselves to
look at, even were the "signs of the zodiac" distinct, which they are
not, no one could understand the gospel from them.  In fact, the
symbols of the zodiac have universally served to support occultism and
astrology since the earliest times.  To suggest that the "gospel" was
their "original meaning" promotes a deadly delusion.

The word "gospel" is used 101 times in 95 verses in the Bible (all New
Testament) and it is never associated with the stars or the witness of
creation.  The gospel is always preached by men and must be made
perfectly clear for it to be of any effect.  The alleged "Gospel in the
Stars" fails on both counts.  Moreover, Matt. 24:14, Mk. 13:10 etc.
indicate that the gospel must yet be preached to all nations, and thus
it clearly had not been preached in the stars -- certainly not in "all
its length and breadth..." as Seiss et al enthusiastically but
erroneously declare.

The Bible indicates that the gospel began to be preached with the
advent of Christ (2 Tim. 1:10).  Paul refers to "the beginning of the
gospel" (Phil. 4:15) and states that it had been a mystery until then
"kept secret since the world began" (Rom. 16:25)  It is a contradiction
of Scripture to suggest that for thousands of years before it was made
clear in the Bible, the gospel had been proclaimed in an oral
tradition associated with the stars.  Yet Seiss claims that "men who
lived almost a thousand years [i.e. those before the flood]" were
taught the "gospel" by God from the stars.  Then why did Christ, during
His time in Hades, preach the gospel to those who had lived before the
flood (see 1 Peter 3:19-20) -- and why didn't Noah, in his preaching
to these people before they died, present the "gospel" that was in the
stars?

It just doesn't add up from any angle.  Yet Seiss, for example, swept
up in an enthusiasm that carried him far beyond facts and reason,
expansively declared:  "...all the great doctrines of the Christian
faith were known, believed, cherished, and recorded [in the stars]
from the earliest generations of our race, proving that God has spoken
to man, and verily given him a revelation of truths and hopes
precisely as written in our Scriptures, and so fondly cherished by all
Christian believers." (p. 15)  That is blatantly false.  And such
speculation, far from supporting the Bible, actually undermines it and
gives mankind an excuse to look to oral traditions instead of only
God's written Word.

If the "gospel in the stars" is factual and so valuable for us to know
about, why doesn't the Bible even once refer to it?  Why didn't the
prophets mention it for support and build upon it?  Why didn't Peter on
the day of Pentecost, who referred to signs in the sky (Acts 2:19),
use this great "sign"?  One would think that such a witness would have
had a powerful effect upon Jews "who require a sign."  Why didn't Paul,
in reasoning with the Greeks at Athens (or in his many debates with
unbelievers elsewhere), along with referring to what their "own poets
have said" (Acts 17) mention this great "sign" in the heavens?  Why
didn't Jesus, who quoted so often the Old Testament and continually
used illustrations, make at least one reference to the gospel in the
stars?

Such total silence throughout Scripture upon a topic that we are now
told is of great value disproves this thesis.  Notice that Paul, in
reasoning with his audience from creation, did not go beyond what
creation declares plainly to all and that which is known by all in
their consciences.  The very claim that the "gospel" is in the stars is
inconsistent with the knowledge that Scripture attributes to creation
and with the manner in which Christ and His Apostles referred to
creation for a witness.  When it came to the gospel, Paul based what he
said upon Scripture and Christ's life, death and resurrection -- not
upon the signs of the zodiac!

Why devote a newsletter to the "Gospel in the Stars"?  We do so because
this currently popular myth encourages a deadly mixture of humanism
and Christianity -- the very ecumenical/syncretistic delusion that is
growing in our own day.  It is similar to the "All truth is God's
truth" myth that makes Freud, Jung and other godless humanists -- or
Buddha, Krishna, Mary Baker Eddy, et al -- legitimate sources of God's
Truth.  Preaching the gospel from the signs of the zodiac is like
presenting it from Star Wars or other occultic stories, which some
have done.  Seiss himself fell into that trap.

In his chapter titled, "The Suffering Redeemer," Seiss declares (p.
38):  "In the divine triad of Brahmanic deities the second, the Son,
the One who became incarnate in the man-god Krishna, sits upon his
throne cross-legged, holding the cross in his right hand; and is the
god of deliverance...It is the same story of deliverance and salvation
through the Cross-bearer, the divine Son of the Virgin."  This is the
kind of syncretistic folly presented by such cults as Unity and
Science of Mind, and which is now coming even into the evangelical
church in so many ways.  Though its promoters may be sincere, the
"Gospel in the Stars" is just one more means of causing similar deadly
confusion.  Let's devote ourselves to the study of God's Word as our
only and sufficient source of Truth!

In Christ's love, Dave Hunt

Christian Information Bureau
P.O. Box 3120
Camarillo, California 93011

News Briefs from C.I.B. ministry May 1989

On April 2 Robert Schuller presented his 1,000th broadcast of Hour of
Power.  It is now the most-watched Sunday morning religious program
with an estimated audience in excess of 1,600,000.  The April 2 program
presented film clips of Schuller fans, from Bob Hope and Sammy Davis,
Jr. to Norman Vincent Peale and Mother Theresa -- including President
Bush and all four of the living ex-presidents -- praising Schuller for
the unbiblical message he brings to the world.  Ronald Reagan declared:
"Your Possibility Thinking messages have helped build faith and self-
esteem in people whose lives will forever be enriched by your good
works.  Nancy [who doesn't even pretend to be a Christian but relies
upon astrology etc.] joins me in congratulating you, Bob, on this
great achievement.  God bless you."

Billy Graham, who has also praised Norman Vincent Peale and the Pope,
told how he was the one who, back in 1969, suggested to Schuller,
"Bob, why don't you think of telecasting your services?"  Graham went
on to say, that as a result of his encouragement "...the Hour of Power
was born [in 1970]."  He concluded his praise of Schuller and his
Possibility Thinking message with these words:  "Bob, I want to thank
you and say, 'God bless you, your family, your staff, the congregation
and everybody that stands behind you.'  And may you have many more
years of ministry with the Hour of Power."  Can Graham be ignorant of
the heresies that Schuller promotes?  Or does he endorse those who
undermine the very gospel he preaches because he believes such
distinctions no longer matter?  Graham was recently quoted in U.S. News
& World Report (12/19/88):  "World travel and getting to know clergy of
all denominations has helped mold me into an ecumenical being.  We're
separated by theology and, in some instances, culture and race, but
all of that means nothing to me any more."