Father Joseph Ianuzzi's book:
"The
Triumph of God's Kingdom in the Millennium and End Times"
is also excellent.
Chris K. | 11.18.02 - 1:25 pm | #

I am in the weird position of agreeing with Dreher that dispensationism is not biblical, and yet still convinced that he gets in over his head when he writes about Protestantism. I comment on this here.
David Heddle | Homepage | 11.18.02 - 2:33 pm | #

The Catholic world needs a similiar dissection of nutty catholic visions of the end, such as the Three Days of Darkness nonsense which is also relatively recent. (Medieval ideas of the Angelic Pope and the Last Emperor held sway until after WWII.) Isn't it interesting that this theory wants the bad people taken away by demons while the Prottie one wants the good people taken away by angels?
Sandra Miesel | 11.18.02 - 3:48 pm | #

David, I think you protest too much in the comments you make on your blog. I said in my NRO piece today that dispensationalist views on the Rapture are not "explicitly" taught in the Bible. Which is true, and not the same thing as saying that they aren't taught at all in the Bible. It's a distinction with a difference. Furthermore, when I said that the Rapture is not a doctrine "widely held by Christians," you took it to mean that I was reading Rapture believers out of Christianity. It seems plain to me that I was speaking broadly of Christian believers, past and present. IOW, those Christians who believe in the premillenial Rapture are a relatively small number. Finally, you are correct to note that I erred in saying that dispensationalists support Israel because of their views on Bible prophecy. I should have said "in part because of their views on Bible prophecy."
Rod Dreher | Homepage | 11.18.02 - 3:55 pm | #

Incidentally, Sandra, Paul Thigpen also critically addresses the Catholic End Times crazies in The Rapture Trap, though he only devotes a relatively small part of his book to them, inasmuch as his chief subject is the Rapture.
Rod Dreher | Homepage | 11.18.02 - 3:56 pm | #

"Being a dispensationalist evangelist means never having to say you're sorry."

Bingo! Well-said, Rod, I confess to having had that same thought myself.

I wonder if anyone has quoted the OT at Lindsey regarding a prophet whose prophesies fail to come to pass ...?


peace,

Zach
Zach Frey | Homepage | 11.18.02 - 4:15 pm | #

Rod,

Keep in mind that I obviously agree that the dispensationalist's end-time views are neither explicitly or implicitly taught. However, the point is that dispensationalists would heartily disagree, and would be prepared to back it up. After all, their main source of pride is their literalistic hermeneutic. They would claim that not only is their end times view taught explicitly, but that it is the only eschatology that can claim the high ground of a literal interpretation of prophecy. And in a sense they are correct, their mistake (in my opinion) is that the prophetic text is not meant to be taken literally.

David Heddle | Homepage | 11.18.02 - 4:28 pm | #

Seems to me that the criticism and misunderstanding of some of the words Rod uses provides a great illustration of the inherent problem with Sola Scriptura. Good thing Rod's still around to explain what he means (although he may want to seriously consider establishing his own authoritative teaching hierarchy -- wouldn't want any "Rodestants").
Roger H. | Homepage | 11.18.02 - 8:24 pm | #

Here are some other, good, and more "highbrow"/scholarly, books on Revelation, if anyone's also interested in further reading: Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy and The Theology of the Book of Revelation; Collins, The Apocalypse; Giblin, The Book of Revelation. Then, there was my 1998 Catholic Biblical Quarterly article, "The Nuptial Eschatology of Revelation 19-22."
Kevin Miller | Homepage | 11.18.02 - 8:26 pm | #

People want a crystal ball to tell them the future, they choose Hal Lindsey; they want prophesy to give them God's revelation, they choose the Church.

The one is an issue of time, the other of timelessness. Quite opposite one from another.

The honorable thing I found about Lindsay in the last book of his I read a decade almost ago was his admission that he had not been able to interpret some of the symbols. To me, having taken to Church teaching enthusiastically, realized that the whole thing is a time issue -- this is why they call Lindsay's thing "millenialism", or "time"-ism.

Also, for those who can add and subtract, I recommend reading the founder's of millenialism, which was done about a century or so ago. There is no way that their chronologies add up as they say. They are defeated by their own calculations, which are mathematically corrupt, and slight of hand in method of rhetoric, to say the least.

The real key to understanding this involves prayer and the Sacraments.

When you get to this point, then you may understand why the arguments on evolution versus creation are less interesting than issues like abortion, starvation, famine, pestilance, disease, the threatening elimination of nature ... oh, did I already mention creation? This is the issue, the creation of God versus the intention of man. Consider the "Three Temptations of Christ" for an overview of the situation. The Protestants preach and teach these things, but they can't connect the dots inerrantly.

John L. Sillasen | 11.18.02 - 10:58 pm | #

Glad to know Paul Thigpen mentions the catholic crazies, too. They do deserve their own book for they are legion and some of their ideas very nutty indeed. (e.g. M.J. Evan's Triangles of Refuge revelations showing places to which we can flee and be safe during the Tribulation. The Eastern one goes right up to Ohio but stops just short of Steubenville.)
For those who want to know the former catholic take on the End Times, try Bernard McGinn's VISIONS OF THE END. For Older Protestant millenialism, JEC Harrison's THE SECOND COMING, for their newer ideas, Paul Boyer's WHEN TIME SHALL BE NO MORE.
Sandra Miesel | 11.20.02 - 12:20 am | #

What in creation are you looking for that you would spend time musing over "triangles of escape"?

Last year in the lunch room I had to listen to some middle age woman boast of her high dollar friends and allow her to present her portfolio on crop circles.

Her other antics were like watching a college coed strut her stuff ... but this woman had long since seen her college days.

I mean, if you want all the stuff that occupies the mysterious minded, then go to Art Bell; he has it all compiled for your examination.

If, however, you want real mystery, then seek it in prayer. Many are the saints who will supply it; but, if you dare, then try praying to St. Pio (Padre Pio).

Trust me, one who has put aside cynicism, sarcasm, and irony: Go to the sources. Yes, we also like to schmooze with secondary, thirdary, fourthary, and so forth sources ... rather, resources ... but the real stuff is strongest at its font.

And, don't worry that your mouth and keyboard will go out of action upon reveling in the true mysteries of Christ; after all, we laity don't have the mandatory rule of silence.

Sure, there are such "powers" as some sort of triangles of escape, but so what? And obviously there are crop circles, as demonstrated by the many photos of them ... but, again, so what? There're lots of astounding things we haven't yet or ever will see. If you want a thrill, do an act of charity.

Your pay for doing an act of charity will be more than what you'd get from studying about it from the best resources you can grasp.

You see, this is where the Old Mass and the New Mass differ. The old gives you the access to contemplation, if only for a moment, of the deepest mysteries of God and creation; whereas, the new Mass is hard pressed to give you this "space" (as any solid new ager would say). Instead, the new Mass gives you a hoard of faithful who will all reveal to you bits of this mystery. It's good for the publishing industry. It's good for blog sites, and coffee breaks. Its conveyance is complicated, to where perhaps it transforms into a trickle down effect.

Yes, I'm borrowing an economic concept here, but what I mean is "watered down". It becomes weak fare when so many eyes and elbows at Mass shuck and jive for position and status. No need for any religious habit here, no. But in the old Mass where one needs to have some privacy with Christ, the structure like a religious habit secures it from one's neighbors.

I'm more and more amazed by the diversity of opinion I find in my Latin Mass community. Compared to what I find in the new Mass, which is a kind of blase' and uniform array of opinion, and which is relatively slow in its operation, reminiscent of the dense urban life of our modern congested technological and scientific times replete with myriad labor saving devices, the old Mass personalities are quick with the conveyance of vast auras of spiritual matters. Today, yes, the rhetoric suffers, and one can hear illogical rhetoric yet conveying the gold of our religion -- why?

I used to think it a matter of intellect, but now don't think such to be the explanation. There's something lost with the older liturgy. Prayer entertains the speed of light; media is much slower. Prayer is as compactly zipped as God chooses; media is relatively unwieldy in its volumes. And the poor and starving and war brutalized throngs? Are there more now with the change of liturgy, or less?
John L. Sillasen | 11.20.02 - 12:25 pm | #

For an interesting, good, and (I believe) orthodox Catholic apocalyptic novel, try Robert Hugh Benson's Lord of the World.
Geoff Horton | 11.20.02 - 2:14 pm | #