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.

On The Dating of Revelation

“No can do.”

That’s what David B Currie informs us in “Rapture – The End-Times Error That Leaves the Bible Behind” (p 456). He’s talking about Rev 22:10 where “rapturists attempt to place the fulfillment [of the time is near] twenty centuries later!” Currie argues that most of the events of Matthew 24 and Revelation have already taken place. However, he doesn’t believe that the second coming of Christ occurred at 70 AD. In fact he takes hyperpreterism to task for teaching that (p 465).

His issue is with the word “tachos” in Rev 1:1 regarding the “things which must ‘soon’ take place”. Perhaps the real problem is that Currie wants to place the events of the seals back to 70 AD to defend his adopted Roman Catholic eschatology. Yet his own argument is precarious because a similar expression is used in Rev 3:11 (tachu) and other places where the Lord warns the churches that He is coming quickly. We know that the Lord didn’t come then – or the early church fathers would have noted it – now it’s “twenty centuries later” and He still hasn’t come.

So, we actually “can do”.

Tony Garland provides insight into this alleged quandary in his excellent commentary on Revelation HERE. Robert L Thomas also addresses the issue in his exegetical commentary on Revelation 1-7 (pp 54-56). Dr Thomas cites Henry Alford (among others) and his expository can be read HERE. Alford uses Luke 18:7-8 as one example where similar expressions imply “long delay”.

One of Currie’s contentions is that Revelation was written around 68 AD. If he can support that conclusion then he can gain some traction in arguing that most of the Olivet Discourse and Revelation events were fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. If John wrote Revelation later than 70 AD then Currie’s eschatological assumptions suffer a fatal blow.

Currie somehow sees internal evidence for an early date in the fact that only seven churches were addressed by the Lord. On page 457, he says: “By 96 A.D., there would have been many more than seven Churches to address.” He rejects the suggestion that the seven “encompass the entire scope of St. John’s concern”. However, we need only look at Paul’s Epistles to realize that, in fact, there were many more churches prior to 68 AD that weren’t mentioned in Revelation. It should seem obvious that there were instructive reasons for the Lord to single out those churches that were mentioned.

In “Ancient Witnesses” (p 460) he rejects the argument that John was imprisoned by Domitian between 81 and 96 AD (as per Irenaeus). Currie appeals to Epiphanius who states that John was first imprisoned under Claudius who reigned from 41 to 54 AD. Claudius was another name for Nero...so one can see where the argument is heading. He then cites Dr Robert Young (Young’s Analytical Concordance) to discount Irenaeus’ witness. According to Currie (p 462):“Dr Young held that the original word Domitianou was later ‘stupidly mistaken’ (his words) as Domitianakos...” So if Domitianou refers to Nero and Domitianakos refers to Domitian then Currie has his early date.

Irenaeus (130-202 AD) wrote: "We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For [he] was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.”

That last statement fits the later 96 AD date rather than the mid to late 60s.

For various reasons, Nero doesn’t fit the Antichrist’s credentials despite the fact that one can force the number 666 to equal his name (p 457). Nero committed suicide in 68 AD. There was no wound that he was miraculously healed of (Rev13: 3, 12, 14), no miraculous signs and wonders (Rev 13:14) and he didn’t sit in the Temple at Jerusalem proclaiming himself to be God (2 Thess 2:3-4). One can only conceivably fit Nero into the role if one takes great liberties with the texts - which flies in the face of Scott Hahn’s assertion in his Forward to Currie’s book that, “The Fundamentalist tendency is to read each biblical context in isolation from the other texts and from the larger context.....”(p viii).

Of course, given Irenaeus’ observations, he also seemed to have missed the alleged connection between Nero and the Antichrist.

One example of Currie’s circular reasoning occurs on page 451. Consider that he believes that the Roman Catholic Church (the Magisterium) has equal authority with Scripture in the sense that it can proclaim doctrine that hasn’t been taught in the Bible. His premise is that some early church fathers doubted John’s authorship of Revelation because of its perceived “millenarianism”. He notes that “an apostle would never have held the millenarian position that they thought was integral to The Apocalypse.” They objected to the “Jewish” concepts in Revelation. Currie’s solution is that Augustine came along and “conclusively showed that the book does not have a millenarian slant (unless the reader brings it with him).”

To that I would add that only if one does NOT take Revelation at face-value (Rev 20: 1-14) can one then discount millenarianism (Rev 22:18-19).

Dr Mark Hitchcock has written an in-depth 229 page dissertation defending the Domitianic date of Revelation. You can read it HERE

He has also debated Hank Hanegraaff, who can’t seem to be able to decide whether he is a preterist or not. You can watch it HERE

Dan Phillips of Pyromaniacs has a great article on Henry Alford HERE

Henry Alford’s commentaries can also be accessed via Precept Austin HERE


Further reading:

Millennial Series

Theology Adrift: The Early Church Fathers and Their Views of Eschatology

The Reign of Christ and the Great White Throne (Rev 20:1-15)

The Danger of Teaching that All or Most Prophecies Were Fulfilled in 70 A.D.