Was Mark Confused? Birth Narratives? etc

The title of this post was taken from James White's Dividing Line, 18th Aug 2016 segment. It's longish at nearly two hours, as are many of White's videos. I wish he'd practice an economy of words. Nevertheless he hits some important issues which have bothered me lately.

What do you do about apologists who slap an inerrancy badge on their chests but seem to have a different definition of it than others do? I know one popular "inerrantist-writer" (not Licona) who spends a significant amount of blogging time telling readers why we can't believe the biblical account on a number of points. Is he really an inrrerantist, or is he compelled to claim that in order to be still considered in the evangelical camp (whatever that is)?

From White's website:

Was Mark Confused? Birth Narratives? Original Readings?

Did more than a Jumbo, but less than a Mega, today (1:45), responding to video clips posted by Yahya Snow mainly from the comments of Dr. Mike Licona wherein he said Mark was confused as to the location of the feeding of the five thousand, etc.  Lots of discussion of inspiration, inerrancy, synoptic issues, allegations of contradiction, etc.  Not an easy program to listen to while jogging I’m afraid, but important stuff!..click here

Also of interest is White's previous segment which spent some time addressing William Lane Craig's interaction with Catholics. As an ex Catholic I was particularly interested. White refers to a Catholic prayer which partly states:

O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of every grace that God grants us in our misery; it is for this cause that He hath made thee so powerful, so rich, so kind, that thou mightest assist us in our miseries. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners, if they but come unto thee; come once more to my assistance, for I commend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation; to thee I entrust my soul...yes, for if thou protect me, I shall fear nothing; not my sins, for thou wilt obtain for me their pardon and remission; not the evil spirits, for thou art mightier than all the powers of hell; not even Jesus, my Judge, for He is appeased by a single prayer from thee.

Catholics apologists are defensive of aspects of their Mariology. The prayer speaks for itself. Listen to or watch White's program HERE

Pope Francis & God's Magic Wand

The pope recently made statements about evolution that raised eyebrows in the media. Yet the RCC has held these views for some fifty years. I remember grappling with the evolutionary implications to the Gospel as a teenager, and being dissatisfied with the answers I received from my priest.

When we read in Genesis the account of Creation, we risk imagining God as a magus, with a magic wand able to make everything. But that is not so. He created beings and allowed them to develop according to the internal laws that He gave to each one, so that they were able to develop and arrive at their fullness of being. … And so creation continued for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia, until it became which we know today, precisely because God is not a demiurge or conjurer, but the Creator who gives being to all things. The beginning of the world is not the work of chaos that owes its origin to another, but derives directly from a supreme Origin that creates out of love. The Big Bang, which nowadays is posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creating, but rather requires it. The evolution of nature does not contrast with the notion of Creation, as evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve. ~ Pope Francis (Emphasis mine)

One wonders what the pope means by "magus" and "magic wand." Is he really placing limitations on a God who created the universe ex nihilo? What does that say about the other dogmas supported by the R.C.C.?

One serious problem I've had with the R.C.C. - and especially this pope - is in comprehending its expansive and ambiguous language. At least one cardinal has recently admitted that:

"I'm sure he's [Pope Francis] not confused, himself. It's confusing for a lot of people, including myself at times. For someone who appreciates clarity I would like to get a few things clear so I can cooperate."

Creation Ministries International has responded to the pope HERE

In light of all this I found the following C.M.I. review of Fr. Victor P. Warkulwiz's book on creation fascinating. Here is an excerpt:

Blending this diversity of fields, Fr Warkulwiz has written a 519 page book not only on the scientific arguments for young-earth creationism, but also he has added a lot of history, philosophy, and theology. The book consists of 16 doctrines derived from Genesis 1–11, such as God created the world from nothing, God created each thing in the world immediately, God created each living creature according to its kind, God created the world in six natural days, God created the world several thousand years ago, the whole human species descended form the first man and woman and God destroyed the world that was with a worldwide Flood. He quotes extensively from the early and medieval fathers of the church, especially Augustine, Aquinas and Bonaventure. He drives home the main point that traditional Catholic teaching has always been young-earth creationism. It is only under the influence of the so-called Enlightenment that Catholic theologians and scholars have strayed. The influence of evolution culminated in the teachings of Jesuit priest, Pièrre Teilhard de Chardin, who mesmerized numerous Catholics to believe in evolution with his ‘theological fiction’.

Read it HERE

Blasphemous Theology?

Science and religion have often appeared at loggerheads, but Papal astronomer Brother Guy Consolmagno says there is no need for conflict.

Brother Consolmagno said while literal readings of the Bible suggested the world was young, the perpetration of that belief, despite the scientific evidence to the contrary, was simply "bad theology".

"It's almost blasphemous theology," he told Fairfax Media during a visit to Brisbane on Wednesday.

"It's certainly not the tradition of Catholicism and never has been and it misunderstands what the Bible is and it misunderstands what science is."

And that was why Brother Consolmagno, a decorated planetary scientist, struggled when asked how he reconciled his faith with his science...keep reading

(Hat tip to Eric W.)

Further reading:

Abandon YEC and reconcile the Bible to evolution?

Augustine: young earth creationist

Carl Olson's Rapture Myths

In a previous post I indicated an intention to further pursue Carl Olson's comments on premillennial dispensationalism and the "rapturists". Specifically, I had in mind those he makes in his article Five Myths About the Rapture. However, I got tied up with a bunch of other commitments and ended up with a virus which has dogged me these past few weeks.  In the article, Olson gives his reason for writing his book. He wants to:

"...thoroughly examine premillennial dispensationalism, the unique apocalyptic belief system presented, in fictional format, within those books...[which] teaches that the "Rapture" and the Second Coming are two events separated by a time of tribulation and that there will be a future millennial reign of Christ on earth." 

These Myths according to Olson are:

1: "The Left Behind books represent a fringe belief system that very few people take seriously."

2: "Catholic beliefs about the end times are quite similar to those of Fundamentalists such as Tim LaHaye."

3: "The Rapture is a biblical and orthodox belief."

4: "The early Church Fathers believed in the Rapture and the millennial kingdom on earth."

5: "The Left Behind books are harmless entertainment that encourage Christians in their faith and help them better understand the Book of Revelation."

I don't want to labor point by point against Olson's so-called myths. It would be too tedious and result in a drawn out saga that nobody wants to read anyhow. But as an ex Catholic I do want to share some thoughts.

I left Catholicism as a teenager because I had questions it couldn't answer over a number of issues. The priests I dialogued with had no adequate responses to the problem of accepting evolution and the biblical implications thereof. The problem with Catholcism is that it doesn't derive its strength from Scripture - they eschew the idea of Sola Scriptura. In fact, like other apologists, Olson constantly refers his readers to the Catechism in his Rapture Myths article as an adjunct to Scripture.

An example of inconsistency in this matter is Paul Thigpen who warns his readers about "prickly debates over the true meaning of biblical Greek" (The Rapture Trap p 21) then over the page recommends Gundry's two books. Gundry relied heavily on his understanding of Greek Grammar to try to refute the pretrib use of Rev 3:10. And Patrick Madrid has resorted to comparing the Greek meaning of "until" in Mat 1:25 - out of context to other places where it is used - in his attempt to defend the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity.

Olson is correct that Catholicism's amillennialism is incompatible with the Left Behind theology. It's an irony, however, that David Currie (p 437 The Rapture) sees otherwise-hidden Eucharistic references in Revelation and misses its overt premillennialism and earthly kingdom teaching!

Regarding the Israel, the church and the millennium issue, Ron Diprose's "Israel and the Church" is prescribed reading (among others). On page 161 he notes that Augustine explained why he gave up a belief in a future earthly reign of Christ. On Rev 20:4-6 and referring to saints reigning with Christ on earth for a thousand years Augustine says:

"...this opinion would not be objectionable if it were believed that the joys of the saints in that Sabbath will be spiritual...But, as they assert that those who then rise again shall enjoy the leisure of immoderate carnal banquets...such assertions can only be believed by the carnal."

Olson asserts that nowhere in Scripture are two comings of Christ taught. Yet verses like Matt 24:21, 37-39; 1 Thess 5: 2-3; Rev 6:1-17 and Rev 19: 11 are contradictions that can best be resolved by a dual-phase future coming. How can anyone live casually in "peace & safety" prior to Rev 19 and Matt 24:31 if one takes Matt 24: 21-22 and the seal judgments literally and futuristic?

Furthermore, we see problems with a single-phase future Advent when we compare verses like Hos 5:15, Matt 23:37-39, Matt 24:36, 44, 50; 25:13; Luke 12:39-40 and Rev 1:7. How can Jesus' second coming be contingent on Israel's pleading for His return, and yet no one knows the hour and are taken by surprise by it? See especially Matt 24:36-39.

But the fact that Olson hasn't thoroughly examined premillennial dispensationalism is obvious by his statements. He asserts:

"LaHaye and others [point]...to passages such as 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18, 1 Corinthians 15:51-53, and Matthew 24 as clear evidence for the pretribulation Rapture (those passages make several appearances, for instance, in the Left Behind novels)." 

As noted before, Tim LaHaye (Ryrie included) did not teach the pretrib rapture from Matt 24 (some pretribbers do). Had Olson paid closer attention to LaHaye's "The Rapture" (p 92) he would have noted the context to be the Glorious Appearing at the end of the 70th week, not the rapture. In "Revelation Unveiled" LaHaye spells it out more clearly on page 103 where he explicitly states that Matt 24:27-31 is related to the Glorious Appearing, as distinct to the rapture.

A stunning gaffe by Olson is the following assertion:

"More importantly, dispensationalists give little attention to the rich Old Testament allusions or the first-century context of the Book of Revelation."

When I first became interested in eschatology my focus was on the premillennial-preterist debate. Contrary to Olson's claim, there is a wealth of material by dispensationalists addressing futurism, historicism and preterism. I have several books where a number of dispensationalists have responded to the likes of Chilton, DeMar and Gentry. In fact Mark Hitchcock debated Han Hanegraaff on the dating of Revelation and has written his doctrinal dissertation on the subject.

On the accusation that dispies fail to acknowledge "rich Old Testament allusions", one only has to read Arnold Fruchtenbaum's "Footsteps of the Messiah" to see that Olson is wrong. Dr Frucht draws from Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Zechariah, Daniel on some of the Minor Prophets and shows that these contribute to elements of the book of Revelation. Tony Garland's "A Testimony of Jesus Christ" is another great resource (which can be read online) as is Robert L Thomas' 2 Volume Exegetical Commentary of Revelation. Furthermore, Randall Price offers a feast of study resources on his World of the Bible website.

Olson's concern that the Left Behind genre is hurting Catholicism is misplaced. I don't want to go into a tirade against the RCC but I think one major factor is that, while they do recognize Scripture, they give pre-eminence to Sacred Tradition; the Magisterium and their Catechism. They need to do this because various doctrinal dogmas have crept into the RCC that are not found in the Bible and cannot be justified by it (e.g. Mary's sinless state, perpetual virginity, Limbo, Purgatory etc).

It's saddening that my Catholic relatives will routinely offer prayers to Mary, various saints and sometimes deceased relatives before praying to the Father. It's also a pity that someone like Olson can co-author such a worthy response to Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code" yet misrepresents dispensationalism so badly.

Further reading:

THE USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE BOOK OF REVELATION 

Recycled Left Behind & the Magisterium

Catholic apologist Carl Olson has noted that the first Rapture film was called "A Thief in the Night" and was produced around 40 years ago. His premise - which is somewhat compelling at face-value - is that LaHaye & Jenkins borrowed some ideas from Salem Kirban's earlier novel. Essentially, Olson wants to throw a little mud at the system that undergirds the LB novels.

I'm very interested in how Catholic apologists justify their beliefs because I was born into the system and eventually left it. Likewise I'm especially interested when a "born again Catholic" or a so-called former dispensationalist has something to say against his old system. What I look for is an exposition of Scripture; what I generally find is polemics. Carl Olson co-authored a book with Sandra Miesel called "The Da Vinci Hoax". Out of all the rebuttals that came out debunking Dan Brown, I felt theirs was the best - even better than Witherington's effort. He also penned the book "Will Catholics Be "Left Behind"?" and written articles such as "Five Myths About The Rapture".

Several other authors have responded to the popularity of the LaHaye-Jenkins novels. The formats are similar - point to people like Hal Lindsey or Tim LaHaye as if they're representative of the dispensational system and note their personal shortcomings. Then allude to the Margaret MacDonald, John Darby and Cyrus Scofield symbiosis - and especially note dispensationalism's "newness". But never engage in a text by text rebuttal of higher dispensational scholarship.

Olson is no different. His book appears academic at first glance. To a large extent that's because of its prolific references and anti-dispensational citations; not because of any textual exposition. Olson classifies himself as an ex avid-prophecy student. On page 13 of his "Rapture" book he states:

"From an early age I learned the principles of this theological system, called dispensationalism, developing a keen interest in the signs of the "end times" and those passages of scripture that I believed unlocked the door to the future."

Despite this diligence he states:

"The film brings to life the dispensational view of Matthew 24:36-44—one will be taken and one will be left—assuming the Rapture of believers takes place before seven years of tribulation … coming without warning, like a thief in the … well, you know..." [That would be "night".]

Aside from John Hart, Arnold Fruchtenbaum and perhaps a handful of other pretribbers, most dispensationalists believe that the "ones taken and ones left" portion refers to judgment. Olson's tone was mostly irenic in his book but allows cynicism and scorn free reign in his article:

"Beginning in the 1830s with John Nelson Darby (the father of the Rapture), dispensationalists like William Blackstone, Scofield, Dwight L. Moody, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Charles Ryrie, Lindsey, and Kirban have been claiming that the Rapture will occur in their lifetimes or within "this generation" (Lindsey's favorite phrase). However, if readers learned a bit of the history of the Rapture, they might not be so prone to fall for it in all its various forms — especially as recycled, warmed-up, Left Behind leftovers. While "Bible prophecy "experts" like LaHaye continue to miss the mark about the future, the Left Behind books have, in a way, fulfilled the words of Scripture in Ecclesiastes 1:9: "What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; and there is nothing new under the sun.""

Whenever polemicists line up Hagee, Falwell or Van Impe, I picture a smug bully who always picks on the weakest kids on the block then boasts how tough he is. It's ironic that, while Olson demonstrates a capacity for understanding the Old Testament literally, he never expounds the classical passages used by dispensationalists. On page 215 he states:

"Many dispensationalists focus upon the nation of Israel, viewing its reemergence as a prophetic sign. Yet Scripture is not so concerned, in the end, with Israel as a nation as it is with Israel as a people - a people following after God and having his law written on their heart (Jer 31:33)."

Yet a little further from vs 33, we read:

Thus says the LORD, Who gives the sun for light by day, And the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar; The LORD of hosts is His name:  "If this fixed order departs From before Me," declares the LORD, "Then the offspring of Israel also shall cease From being a nation before Me forever." Jer 31:35-36 (See also Amos 9:14-15 etc)

Scripture does, indeed, focus strongly on Israel as a future nation. God has an invested interest in that nation, contrary to Olson's assertions. He rests upon "magisterial documents" citing, for example, the Lumen Gentium (p 220) and a few supersessionist texts that are typically taken out of context (e.g. Rom 9:67; Rom 10:12 & Gal 6:16).

Olson's logic often confuses but perhaps that's just me. On page 256 he says:

"However, as we have seen, Augustine did not teach that the Church is the Kingdom of God "in an allegorical sense", but in a very literal way: the Church is the Kingdom of God."

The inevitable track of Olson's argument is: never mind that Augustine doesn't believe there will be a literal physical expression of the Kingdom of God in the millennium as outlined in numerous Old Testament texts. It is now being "literally" fulfilled in the church, hence, this isn't allegory! Actually, it is a literal allegorization of the physical aspects of the kingdom. This sort of circular reasoning is rife throughout these books.

Most Catholics who I've dialogued with seem more familiar with dogma or their Catechism than Scripture, and appear to have little exposure to rebuttals. Apologists like David Currie, Carl Olson, Scott Hahn and Paul Thigpen claim to have high regard for Scripture and even accuse dispensationalists of neglecting it - yet they insist that Scripture cannot stand alone. Olson argues that believers need Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium to navigate the confusing landscape of Scripture and its interpretational pitfalls. Thigpen especially admonishes Catholics to consult their Catechisms.

Their view is that the Catholic Church is the Apostolic Successor, ever-present throughout the centuries in an unbroken line. On the other hand, the protestant churches have doctrinal differences because of the Reformation Breakaway. So Catholics may read their Bibles but they should default to the Catechism, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium for the final word.

Olson notes that: "While sola scriptura is appealing, especially in our individualistic culture, it is practically flawed and theologically lacking. (p 274)" Over the next page he cites "Catholic Dossier" where Madrid writes: "Scripture alone, as the tragic history of Protestantism has shown, becomes the private play toy of any self-styled 'exegete' who wishes to interpret God's Word to suit his own purposes. The history of Protestantism, laboring under sola scriptura, is an unending kaleidoscope of fragmentation and splintering."

On the same page, Olson cites Acts 17:10-12 and insists that it confirms the Catholic position because the process is that believers first receive the word (from an authorized source) and then go to Scripture. This assumes Catholic Apostolic Authority, but that's not the context of the verses and he misses the point. He notes the New Testament wasn't in existence but fails to realize that this has implications for Luke 24:25-27 and Acts 1:6-7. The disciples were expected to understand a literal reading of the OT prophecies sans the benefit of the RCC. The Bereans checked the spoken word with the Scriptures available to them to see if it tallied up.

In Scott Hahn's Forward to David Currie's "Rapture" book, he chides fundamentalists for their tendency to "read each text in isolation from other texts and from the larger context of Sacred Tradition, including the ancient Israelite prophetic traditions." Currie later states that he wants to primarily examine the Bible's teachings on eschatology. He affirms that: "Scripture remains a completely reliable authority for faith and practice (p XV)". Yet he admits that Revelation was only accepted into the canon by some of the church fathers once Augustine "conclusively" demonstrated that it did not have a millenarian slant (p 451).

Some of Olson's responses to Charles Ryrie's "The Basis of the Premillennial Faith" and "Dispensationalism" are odd. When Ryrie points to the premillennialism of some early church fathers, Olson notes their "unanimous teachings about the nature of the Eucharist" and a host of other teachings. I'd add that most also adopted the error of Replacement Theology (p 121) which is one reason why "historic premillennialists" who insist on using the ECF to debunk the pretrib rapture should be wary. At one point Olson makes the astounding observation that: "Early Church Fathers of the premillennialist persuasion believed that the Church would go through the tribulation" (p 123). If anything this demonstrates that there wasn't a sophisticated consensus on eschatology.

Yet if the ECF were so unanimous in doctrine while being the beneficiaries of Apostolic Succession and Magisterium then why were some of them premillennialists; why was amillennialism eventually (and uniformly) adopted by the church and what influenced it?  Well, I'd suggest reading Dr Ron Diprose's "Israel and the Church - The Origin and Effects of Replacement Theology".

I agree with those who say the Reformation didn't go far enough. One reason why "Protestantism" has so many doctrinal differences is because they retained Catholicism's hermeneutical baggage after removing the Magisterial Harness. This is why so many supersessionist posmtil and amil scholars cannot interact in a face-value fashion with OT texts that speak of a future for Israel in a millennial setting. See Alva McClain's "The Greatness of the Kingdom".

Dispensationalism doesn't stand or fall on Olson's inferences about the origin of the sub-plots in the Left Behind books, or Lacunza, Darby and anyone else he might care to mention. The edifice rests on Scripture, not tradition. Catholic apologists need to get back to Sola Scriptura regarding Israel, the church and the millennium before they can attempt to seriously refute a pretribulational rapture. As it stands, the rapture is merely used as a scapegoat by these people for defending Catholic dogmas.

More later.

David B Currie - Born again Catholic

As an ex Catholic I’ve been reading David Currie’s “Born Fundamentalist – Born Again Catholic” and “Rapture – The End Times Error That Leaves the Bible Behind” with a good deal of interest.

The first thing I want to say is that I strongly disagree with those Evangelicals who hold the position that Catholics are destined to hell. My Catholic mother passed away last September at the age of ninety. She wasn’t well-educated and disagreed with much of the Catholic Church’s teaching but she didn’t have other options. Yet she read her Bible and many of the “fundamentalist” books I passed onto her. She put her faith and trust in Christ for her salvation (John 3:16) and was determined to spread that message wherever she went. In fact, as she lay in her bed waiting for her impending death, she took it upon herself to interrogate my brother and me as to whether we had “faith in the Lord”.

Having said that, so far from what I’ve read of Currie has me really puzzled. Without going into detail now (perhaps in future posts), the reasons he gives for leaving “fundamentalism” and converting to Catholicism just don’t gel with me. This is especially true of his acceptance and arguments for Catholic Marian dogmas. His commentary on scriptural authority involves circular reasoning and is strategic to his arguments for legitimizing Magisterial Authority - which is paramount to Catholicism.

His critiques of dispensationalism and premillennialism are also fraught with error. One of many examples is a statement he makes about John Walvoord (which he doesn’t cite) and the 70 years of Israel’s captivity, in the book of Daniel. He claims that Walvoord admits the 70 years were not literal 70 years etc. This is simply not true. John Walvoord’s Daniel can be read online as can Robert Culver’s book on Daniel.

Walvoord's "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" can be read HERE

See also Tony Garland's A Testimony of Jesus Christ

The real issue, of course, is that Currie’s eschatology is amillennial and, as such, much of OT prophecy and Revelation are literal sticking points for him. It requires a lot of “finesse” and/or equivocation to handle plain biblical statements that contradict one’s viewpoint.

Gary Gilley’s review of Currie’s book can be read HERE

Here are some articles on Catholicism by Mike Stallard, courtesy of Sharper Iron.

Part one

Part Two

Part Three