I
inkaneer
Guest
Does the book have an imprimatur? If yes then I will read it. However, if not, then I have to ask why not? I would think that if you teach at a Catholic graduate school you are familiar with the process.
- Status
A
approaching_arm
Guest
I had to laugh when I read your question. Of course it doesn’t have an imprimatur! It is a book defending historical Protestant eschatology!
That said, the mere fact that it doesn’t have an imprimatur doesn’t mean that mean that you risk damaging your faith or morals by reading it. After all, I didn’t pursue an imprimatur (I’m Protestant and wouldn’t bother), and it isn’t what you read that damages your faith or morals… it is how you receive it. If you have good judgment, you can distinguish the good from the bad and benefit in unique ways from reading almost anyone.
Cheers,
Dan
A
approaching_arm
Guest
–This is a bit tricky our categories of ‘amillennial’ verses ‘postmillennial,’ etc., came after (I’m fairly sure) the early Reformers. So we run the risk of being a bit anachronistic to categorize them.
On the one hand, you’re absolutely right: Reformed thinkers believe that the reign of Christ that began in Acts will continue without any changes in ordinances, etc., until His second coming, and His second coming will come after the millennium and immediately before the final state. The trick, though, is understanding what we mean by ‘the millennium.’ No historically reformed thinker believes the millennium is some sort of “new dispensation” in which the Christian religion undergoes some sort of radical changes in its ordinances, order, or anything else essential or quasi-essential to it. Nevertheless, many of the Reformed had a very optimistic eschatology and believed that there would be a prolonged period of time at the end of this final age in which the Church has enormous worldwide success. Some of them would call this final period alone the “millennium,” and they’re called postmillennialists. Others, though, prefer to call the whole period from Pentecost to the final judgment the ‘millennium,’ whether or not they expect the church to have enormous success in the end. Those who believe the church will have enormous success while believing the millennium began at Pentecost are called ‘optimistic amillennialists.’ In many important respects, the difference between postmillenialists and optimistic amillennialists is a matter of semantics. That isn’t to say that conversations can’t get heated on the topic–they do. It is just to say that (i) they are often blown out of proportion and, I suspect, (ii) anachronistic in their estimation of “the teaching” of the early Reformers.
In a nutshell, it is clearly compatible with Roman Catholic teaching to be an “optimistic ammillennialist,” and it is my opinion that everyone within the historically Reformed camp on this issue is within their rights to refer to their eschatalogy as an optimistic ammillennialist eschatology. Even the most “radical” Reformed defenders of “postmillennialist” think the familiar Baptist view of the millennium is heretical because these Baptists believe the church will return to offering literal temple sacrifices in Jerusalem, etc.–which is blatant Judaizing.
Cheers,
Dan
R
ryanoneil
Guest
We can pray for some sort of golden age in Christianity but I doubt the word will be even relatively Christianized before the Second Coming. The wicked and the righteous will co-exist until the end (Mt 13:24-43)
I
inkaneer
Guest
No problem with damaging my faith. I can’t accept any form of protestantism as it is fundamentally unscriptural. For instance, in another topic on these forums you wrote the following:I had to laugh when I read your question. Of course it doesn’t have an imprimatur! It is a book defending historical Protestant eschatology!
That said, the mere fact that it doesn’t have an imprimatur doesn’t mean that mean that you risk damaging your faith or morals by reading it. After all, I didn’t pursue an imprimatur (I’m Protestant and wouldn’t bother), and it isn’t what you read that damages your faith or morals… it is how you receive it. If you have good judgment, you can distinguish the good from the bad and benefit in unique ways from reading almost anyone.
Cheers,
Dan
*"There is a venerable tradition of interpretation in classical Protestantism according to which the pope is the Antichrist. This claim has surprisingly strong Biblical support, and I just published a book in which I explain and defend the claim. (If you’re interested, it is entitled Approaching Armageddon: Disaster, War and Persecution. You’d be especially interested in chapters 3, 4 and 5.) Either way, historical Protestants believed that the Catholic Church is and was a real Christian church, but they also believed that it was a sin to be a member of this church due to its backsliding from the truth. It seems that later Protestants were unable to understand how the pope could be the Antichrist and the Roman Catholic Church could be a real church.
I agree with the classical Protestant position. The pope is the Antichrist and we shouldn’t be members of the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, it is a Christian church with a valid baptism."* [see *Catholicism not Christian? post #16]
That being the case, can you then explain how the Catholic Church, if it was the church established by Christ as it claims to be, could possibly “backslide” when Jesus ,made several promises about His church. He promised that His church would be guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit [John 16:13]. He said his church would have the power to bind and loose on earth as well as in heaven [Mt 16:19 and 18:18]]. He said that hell would never prevail over it [Mt 16:18]. Jesus also said he would remain with His church until the end of the Age and scripture says that it is the church that is the pillar and bulwark of Truth [1Ti 3:15]. Now if you say that the Catholic Church is not that same church established by Jesus then kindly point out the one that is so we can all join it.
This idea that the church backslid is rebuked by scripture and amounts to nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of protestants. It is part of their “traditions of men”. So I won’t be buying your book defending something that scripture says is not of God.
A
approaching_arm
Guest
I’ll offer a quick response to your question.
Roughly, you asked the following: Can I explain how the Catholic Church, if it was the church established by Christ as it claims to be, could possibly “backslide” when Jesus made several promises about His Church?
The Catholic Church is not the same church established by Jesus, and presently the true church is a small remnant of people scattered around the world who hold to the historic Reformed faith. (I realize that you, like the Jews in Haggai’s day, will despise the day of small things. You do this to your own hurt.) You should join us–even if you have to worship at home to do so. Scripture uses the symbol of a temple to represent the church (Eph. 2:18-22, and as the church fathers attest). Yet, Scripture often warns of a widespread apostasy in the church (see 2 Thessalonians 2:3ff and 1 Timothy 4:1ff), and Revelation 11:1-3 explicitly teaches that the greater part of the ‘temple’ of God (the outer court) would be filled with wicked Gentiles, while a small part of the ‘temple’ of God (the inner court) represents the true converts. In other words, Scripture forewarns us to expect the larger part of the church will be apostate and opposed to the small remnant of God’s people. You’re in the outer court, my friend.
As for the promises: Christ has and will keep every one of those promises as they are properly understood. First, he promised His Spirit to guide the apostles into all truth. They deposited that truth to us in the sacred Scriptures and in their oral teachings in the apostolic age. Wicked men, however, are capable of wresting the Scriptures, and so, when wicked men gain the ascendancy in the church, it backslides.
Second, the church has the power to bind and loose insofar as it exercises ecclesiastical discipline, resolves theological controversies through authoritative judgments, etc. When it does this in accordance with the truth, then its decisions and acts are bound in heaven. If, however, an evildoer or crew of evildoers presumptuously act as though they have legitimate authority in the church and try to bind the church to their teachings, the only thing bound in heaven is the certainty of divine judgment against those evildoers and those who believe their lies.
Third, hell won’t finally prevail against the church. In fact, in a few short years, we will be reigning over the world and the Roman Catholic Church won’t even exist. (Read the book.)
Fourth, the church is the pillar and ground of truth–just not the Roman Catholic Church. It is the faithful remnant–“two witnesses”–who testify against the sins of the world that uphold the truth against the majority.
–Dan
G
gtrenewed
Guest
Can you expound on the two witneses, specifically, how are the two witnesses the remnant?
Thanks
I
inkaneer
Guest
You do not disappoint. That is exactly what I expected from you and all it is is your opinion. All protestantism has is opinions. You call them interpretations. This is why protestantism is so divided and why protestantism is called the big tent of christianity because no one has the authority to say another’s doctrine is wrong. So you accept everyone as a brother and it matters not what they believe. That my friend would never happen in the early church. Protestantism has been liken to a river that is a mile wide and an inch deep. You cover a lot but you have no depth. A Jewish acquaintence once told me that where ever there are two Jews it is possible to get three opinions. I told him that where ever there are three protestants you get at least two opinions and one new denomination.
By the way, about that apostasy in the Church that you mentioned, its called protestantism. And those ‘wicked men’ that you say are ‘capable or wresting the scriptures’ we know all about them. Men like Arius, Nestorious, Luther, Calvin, Zwinglii and a bunch of others, And let us not forget that mainstay of protestant fiction the so called invisible church made up of a small remnant of true believers. That church is and was so small it never existed except, of course, in the minds of protestants.
The fact is that Jesus established a church with authority and guided by the Holy Spirit. That is why In Acts 15:28 the apostles could claim a direct inspiration from the Holy Spirit and not consult scripture when they said:
“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:” [Acts 15:28] [RSV]
No appeal was made to scripture. They had the audacity to claim they spoke on behalf of the Holy Spirit. Interestingly this dispute that was decided by the apostles involved the Judiacizers who were the sola scripturists of their day. It was the Judiacizers who wanted the Gentiles to observe the works of the Law as written in the OT. Paul opposed them and he certainly did not go “Big Tent” with them.
T
thomasf
Guest
After reading this, I definitely am not interested in your interpretation of revelation. I asked for catholic beliefs and interpretation of that book. And after reading this, I’m not sure how you teach at a catholic school.
For the most part, seeing how much in error protestant churches are in general, I don’t want to learn about the errors of their teachings of the bible. Nor learn from their teachers that teach in error.
Knowing that the catholic church is the church Jesus established and left us for salvation, and gave the magesterium the ability to gaurd the truth, I’d like to know how the church views this book of the bible.
As I wrote in the beginning, for the most part I try not to worry much about the end times stuff. As Jesus said, no one knows the time of His return. IMO we shouldn’t be looking for signs, interpreting events, hoping for things to come to an end, forcing things to come to an end, etc. Just live as He told us to and be faithful to Him and stay in His grace. If you do that, you’ll be fine, whether you live to see that day or pass away before this.
That being said, it is a book of the bible, and I should try to understand it. From the catholic perspective. Not wishful thinking of the protestants.
A
approaching_arm
Guest
I don’t believe in a big tent that everyone belongs to, but I wouldn’t expect you to know anything about historical Protestantism. All you’ve ever encountered is the lame and godless version of it that abounds today. My book counsels people to get out of Protestant churches* because they embrace a big tent model*. Jesus Christ established a single, visible church. Right now, it is very small and scattered. We were warned that this would happen. It won’t be small forever, though.
In the future, if you reply to my comments, try not to categorize me as a standard, contemporary Protestant. Chapter 6 of my book calls the greater part of Protestant churches spiritual “harlots,” and I spend thirty pages in an appendix trying to persuade people to leave Protestant churches that teach that it is permissible to go to any old church. The view is stupid and dishonors Jesus Christ. I openly testify against it whenever I can. So to call me a “big tent” guy is not only presumptuous, but it is also absurd and insulting.
–Dan
F
FCEGM
Guest
Dan, I’ve read the late David Chilton’s book on Revelation; if you are familiar with that work, how would you differ - if you do - from his thought?
P
PUP
Guest
Bellarmine Theological Forum has a great study bible called The Apocalypse of St John. It is the most thorough, detailed, line by line exegesis you will find of the Catholic interpretation of Revelation from the Church Fathers and Magesterium. They are located at www.catholicintl.com
I
inkaneer
Guest
Well I read my prior post and it appears what I posted came out uncharitably. That was not my intention I assure you. However, this idea of a small invisible church remnant that protestantism speaks of is contrary to historical fact. Did this invisible church give us the doctrine of the Trinity which every non unitarian Christian believes in or was that the Catholic Church? Did this small invisible church remnant determine which writings were inspired and give us the first Bible or was that the Catholic Church? The list goes on and on with no evidence of this small invisible church doing anything to contribute to the beliefs held today by anyone. And that brings up another question. If this small remnant of a church is invisible how do protestants know about it? This idea is a protestant fairy tale and related to the idea that the early church was autonomous with no central authority to unite them. Apparently the church in Antioch did not think so or else the Council of Jerusalem spoken of in the Book of Acts would never have occurred. Antioch would solve their own problem and not look to the Apostles in Jerusalem. Likewise the church in Corinth would solve itsproblem and not seek the counsel of Clement, the bishop of Rome. Yet they did so despite the fact that there was at least one of the Apostles still alive and residing in Ephesus. That would be John and it was only later that he would be banished to Patmos. Clement was the third successor to Peter in Rome and already in the first century the church looked to a central authority and that authority was the bishop of Rome. Clearly the first century church had no problem seeing this alleged invisible church. Apparently they weren’t equipped with the blinders that protestants would develope fourteen centuries later.
I am glad you do not subscribe to the “Big Tent” concept. But one can readily see how such an idea could develop. With no claim of doctrinal authority except that of how one interprets the scriptures. No protestant denomination can claim any other denomination’s beliefs are heretical without being samely and rightfully accused. Protestantism then becomes a form of the Rodney King idea of “Can’t we all just get along?” And nowhere is this more apparent in the beliefs concerning Baptism. Is it a sacrament or an ordinance, necessary or not, water or desire, remits sin or not, infant or adult? This is the result when you toss out the magisterial authority delegated by Jesus to His church as protestantism has done. Instead of having one pope with universal authority you now make everyone a pope with no authority. Individual protestants become an authority only unto themselves and no one can say to another, “Thus sayeth the Lord…” as the prophets in the OT or declare doctrine as the Catholic Church does now.
Here is something for you to ponder. Let’s say that the doctrine of the Trinity was not formally defined by the Catholic Church before the age of protestantism but after. How many protestant groups do you think would have the same concept of the Trinity that they do now? I doubt if many would. They certainly could not get the concepts of person and substance from scripture alone. These concepts were foreign to the scriptures. They were Greek philosophical terms by which the doctrine of the Trinity was defined. Think about it.
I
inkaneer
Guest
Good point. You notice that he does not name the school where he teaches. If he did you can bet I would be firing a letter to the bishop of that diocese to initiate an investigation into this institution to determine if it is indeed Catholic. This is a prime example of what Pope Paul VI referred to when he said that the smoke of hell has entered the church. The time has come to clean out the church just as Jesus did with the Temple. We start with the priesthood and then the laity. Colleges and universities as well as hospitals and other institutions will have to determine if they want to be Catholic or not. No more fence sitting. No more identifying yourself as Catholic while you remain a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Protestants may be our separated brethern but they are still separated. They left the Church to go their own way, let them then return to the Father’s house as did the prodigal son.
T
thomasf
Guest
Today I was listening to the CA show with Carl Olson about the rapture today. I learned something I did not know or realize.
Carl was explaining about what John D’Arby believed about dualism of the people of Heaven and the people of earth. D’Arby considered that christians were the people of heaven. Jews were the people of earth. D’Arby came to believe that when Jesus came, He was so soundly rejected by the Jews that God went a plan B. That the original plan was to come and be a messiah to the Jews, to form a Davidic Kingdom on earth where He would rule with the Jews. But that because so many Jews rejected Him, they scrapped that and went to a plan B with the Christians. And that some day Jesus would return to finish His mission of creating a Davidic Kingdom on earth and fulfill completely all the rituals and promises of Judaism. This is what led D’Arby to believe in the rapture, where all the Christians would be taken to Heaven to live with God while Jesus formed this Kingdom on earth with the Jews and finish the original plan for the Jews.
This to me explains a lot about protestants and their beliefs about judaism, and another thread I started here earlier. And explains a lot about the protestant beliefs about the end time. D’Arby’s dispensationism basically still holds a place for judaism to be ‘finished’ and lived out and for those chosen people to have a special place with God’s Kingdom. And the Christians need to be snatched away and taken to Heaven so this can happen.
Carl was explaining about what John D’Arby believed about dualism of the people of Heaven and the people of earth. D’Arby considered that christians were the people of heaven. Jews were the people of earth. D’Arby came to believe that when Jesus came, He was so soundly rejected by the Jews that God went a plan B. That the original plan was to come and be a messiah to the Jews, to form a Davidic Kingdom on earth where He would rule with the Jews. But that because so many Jews rejected Him, they scrapped that and went to a plan B with the Christians. And that some day Jesus would return to finish His mission of creating a Davidic Kingdom on earth and fulfill completely all the rituals and promises of Judaism. This is what led D’Arby to believe in the rapture, where all the Christians would be taken to Heaven to live with God while Jesus formed this Kingdom on earth with the Jews and finish the original plan for the Jews.
This to me explains a lot about protestants and their beliefs about judaism, and another thread I started here earlier. And explains a lot about the protestant beliefs about the end time. D’Arby’s dispensationism basically still holds a place for judaism to be ‘finished’ and lived out and for those chosen people to have a special place with God’s Kingdom. And the Christians need to be snatched away and taken to Heaven so this can happen.
T
thomasf
Guest
BTW, I’m watching more of these cable tv shows about religion. They had a special about inside the vatican earlier, and now they’re animating Christ based on the images from the shroud. I love how these shows always have to come up with some ancient unknown scripture buried in the desert and rejected by the church because it contradicts something, blah blah. They brought out the gospel of Mary, and had some woman insinutating that the church got rid of it because it was written by a woman.
The basis of this animated Jesus show is that something else MUST have happened during the 40 days after the resurrection and before the ascension. Since there is so little written about it, the church must be hiding something, right?
The basis of this animated Jesus show is that something else MUST have happened during the 40 days after the resurrection and before the ascension. Since there is so little written about it, the church must be hiding something, right?
R
retired464
Guest
A tough one!
It would appear that the Book of Revelation was just an apocalyptic writing of the time. There were many. It is a somewhat disguised warning against Rome and Caeser Nero (“the beast”).
Don’t get misled into thinking it is prophetic of future situations. It was a book of its time and must be understood in its own context (as are all the early writings).
It would appear that the Book of Revelation was just an apocalyptic writing of the time. There were many. It is a somewhat disguised warning against Rome and Caeser Nero (“the beast”).
Don’t get misled into thinking it is prophetic of future situations. It was a book of its time and must be understood in its own context (as are all the early writings).
I
inkaneer
Guest
But the book postdated Nero. In that sense it drew on the peoples’ knowledge of the times and it looked to the future when a ‘new’ Nero would emerge. Nero was not the last Roman emperor to persecute the church. Even after the Edict of Milan there were persecutions in various parts of the Roman Empire. But the empire was in decline and Rome was not able to exert the control it once did. Constantine’s moving the capital from Rome to Byzantium/Constantinople/Instanbul was an attempt to centralize the empire on a smaller scale. Following this move the western part of the empire withered on the vine and succumbed to the barbarian attacks utimately resulting in the Dark Ages of Western Europe.
That being said there is the fact that the book is prophetic and does depict end times. The problem comes in when we start applying the prophetic vision to our own times. This has been done time and time again down through the centuries and everytime those envolved have been proved wrong. There will be more too. But it does sell books.
T
thirddec
Guest
I am a simple man and reading all this; one thing seems strange to me. One one hand you are saying most if not all protestants are wrong and all the Catholics are wrong and we should all just leave our churches and join the true churcg of Christ. Out of interest where exactly is it? has it a name ? how do we find the other members? what you say is all very vague 
I
inkaneer
Guest
Invisible chiurch = stealth church. You can’t see it, feel it, hear it, taste it, or smell it. All because it doesn’t exist except in the minds of those who cannot admit that the history of the christian church for 2,000 years is the history of Catholicism.I am a simple man and reading all this; one thing seems strange to me. One one hand you are saying most if not all protestants are wrong and all the Catholics are wrong and we should all just leave our churches and join the true churcg of Christ. Out of interest where exactly is it? has it a name ? how do we find the other members? what you say is all very vague
- Status