End Times: "Left Behind" and other misguided conceptions

[Edwin1961]

PhilVaz:

Left Behind is absolutely true, and Tim LaHaye is a prophet. That is exactly how it will happen when the world ends and the Antichrist shows up in September 2028. Thought I’d give a different opinion.

On second thought, I’ll just wait for the Carl Olson vs. Thomas Ice debate to make up my mind

Pre-Trib Research

Phil P

September 2028, Hmmm!
I’ll be 67 and hopefully a Radical for the Catholic Church. Bring ont he perscutions!

---

Glory be to Jesus Christ! Glory to Him Forever!

 

[Fidelis]

For Catholics, the best books on this subject are probably Paul Thigpen’s “The Rapture Trap” and Carl Olsen’s “Will Catholics Be Left Behind?” I’d also recommend Scott Hahn’s “The Lambs Supper” and his massive tape series on the Book of Revelation, “The End.” Tim Staples also has a great tape series available from St Joseph’s Communications called “The Rapture Files.”

These, however, might not convince dyed-in-the-wool Protestants. For them I would recommend “End Times Fiction” by Protestant Gary Demars, with a foreword by RC Sproul.

IMHO, the best and most comprehensive book (and it’s a big one) for Catholics OR Protestants is “Rapture” by Former Protestant David Curie, published by Sophia Press (he also has a tape series available from St Joseph’s Communications with the same title). If someone can become or remain a pre-millinial dispensationalist after reading this, they’re probably too far gone.

 

[centuri0n]

Even if it represents some premillenialists’ view of the End Times, it is fiction. And it’s really very good fiction.

Don’t base your theology on fiction.

 

[Fidelis]

centuri0n:

Even if it represents some premillenialists’ view of the End Times, it is fiction. And it’s really very good fiction.

Don’t base your theology on fiction.

I had to force myself to finish the first book. IMHO it is very poor fiction, in addition to being really very poor theology.

YOU * know not to base your theology on fiction and I * know not to base my theology on fiction, but there are many, many people who don’t, not having the tools nor the inclination to look any deeper than books like these and the Da Vinci Code. It is these types who need to be warned off by those who know better.

 

[twf]

Tyler: Has the Church defined that the Tribulation will not involve any Exodus-type judgements from God?

 

[cmom]

nope.

 

[nicthepresby]

Perhaps one should view the books as a good way to draw complete non-believers of Christianity into the faith. Perhaps the authors purposely wrote them to be easy to read and more like a suspense novel than a religious text. I have read all of the books and, if you look closely, almost all denominations are criticized or “attacked” at some point - especially Judaism.

I’m a Presbetryian and I disagreed with quite a few of the views. However, the books struck me as an ideal thing to recommend to a non-believer as a way of getting him or her at least into reading a little scripture. As you progress through the books, they quote more and more scripture and contain less and less writing - even though its the “dreaded” King James Version and other more modern versions which I know are not preferred by the Catholic Church.

There are so many Catholics and Catholic commentators and Catholic “experts” who criticize these books because they are anti-Catholic. To me, the books are PRO-CHRISTIAN. How are you going to get someone to be a Catholic if they do not first accept the very basic things about Christianity - like the validity of the Bible, the reality of Jesus as the son of God, the reality of the crucifixion of Christ and the importance of becoming a Christian in order to have everlasting life? From my limited experience, converting to Catholicisim is quite a detailed process. All of the readings, the Saints, things like Rosaries and Caplets and Communion and Eucharist and Sacraments will sound like Greek to someone who has never been exposed to them. But think about someone who has never been exposed to Christianity at all! That person must first believe in some very impossible (to them) sounding things - resurrection of the body, miracles, turning water into wine, etc. etc. etc. BUT if the books can at least get them to that point, i.e., actually believing in what the Bible says, in its most simplistic version: John 3:16 - have they not performed an invaulable service?

THEN you can get to work on converting them to Catholicism.

Frankly, and I know I’m going to catch you know what for this - I haven’t been posting here long at all - but I have never seen such a overly sensitive group of people. You believe what you believe and yes, it is your duty to bring others into your fold if you can. But, to be honest, and this is the same feeling I had when I attended my first and probably last Mass just this year on Palm Sunday, I just get feelings of negativity, exclusion, anger, and self-righteousness more than anything.

If I am a non-believer searching for something to grasp on to - I would be looking for open arms - a disciple not a dictator. Jesus was never a dictator - he began everything with “if” not “you must.”

(I have to give credit to the last paragraph to My Utmost for His Highest, the updated version, edited by James Reimann, orginally compiled into a book in 1927 consisting of the writings and talks of Oswald Chambers.)

Just my thoughts - and now I shall prepare myself for the onslaught of criticism.

 

[fanntumb]

Nic - thanks for stopping by and I think you make a valid point. Our faith IS attacked by many. But our Lord Jesus was attacked by the world - why would we expect anything else from this world? So having sound defense and reasoned explanation is good, but we should lead with love and charity.

As for the rapture topic I think both the Paul Thigpen book and the Scott Hahn book (The Lamb’s Supper) can give one good “defense” material as well as topics to support a positive approach to explaining our faith.

 

[Kathy_Perry]

Hananiah:

The Catholic Church teaches that there will be one rapture for everyone at the end of time. Christians will not get a special secret rapture, but will rather endure the tribulation just like everyone else, Antichrist and all.

The Catholic Church doesn’t even believe in the “Rapture”. Thats a notion that popped up about 150 years ago and never heard of before then. When the End of the World comes, it will be for ALL, and at the same time!!! NO ONE knows when that will be !!!

 

[Kathy_Perry]

PhilVaz:

Left Behind is absolutely true, and Tim LaHaye is a prophet. That is exactly how it will happen when the world ends and the Antichrist shows up in September 2028. Thought I’d give a different opinion.

On second thought, I’ll just wait for the Carl Olson vs. Thomas Ice debate to make up my mind

Pre-Trib Research

Phil P

On third thought, why don’t you wait and let God make up your mind.

 

[chosunhoon]

Edwin1961:

What is your perception?

I suppose much of what I’m about to share might sound completely irrelevant and bizarre, but please do read if you’re interested in my thoughts on this.

I was raised in a fundamentalist church and was really big on the end times. Eventually, I came across one of 4 major interpretations of Revelation: Preterism.

After much careful study, I embraced preterism wholeheartedly despite my frustrations with the hope of wanting to be rapture. As I studied preterism further, I stumbled upon Scott Hahn (because he was a Catholic preterist) and this eventually led to my conversion to Catholicism.

While there aren’t that many preterists within Catholicism, I totally embrace it. Interestingly, Gary DeMar and R.C. Sproul both have books on preterism. And I have to admit I still agree with their view on the end times since it’s far more conservative than Tim Lahaye’s fiction.

I would recommend a deeper understanding of preterism as it led me to appreciate Catholicism all the more. Scott Hahn’s book on the Lamb’s Supper discusses it, and David Currie’s book on the rapture also has some preteristic influence.

I honestly believe the preterist interpretation is the most consistent with scripture and the Early Church Fathers. And it effectively deals with the end times, by looking at the end times in the context of the first century. It demystified so much of what modern dispensationalists teach.

By the way, Scott Hahn’s tape series on ‘The End’ is a real gem! He does a fantastic job explaining how preterism fits so neatly in context to the Mass and the Catholic Church as it has so much to do with God’s covenant in relation to salvation history. Many often call preterism: covenant eschatology, as in the end of the old covenant age where the new covenant replaces it.

So ultimately when Jesus said he would come in the lifetime of the apostles (Matt 16:27-28), and that the high priest would live to witness his coming (Matt 26:64-65), I now believe it already happened.

Jesus also said his coming would happen within the generation he was living in (Matt 24:30,34). And so I actually believe all of Matthew 24 happened in the past. Sounds unbelievable doesn’t it (especially verse 14, and 29)?

But the more I studied it, the more I realized what all this meant: His coming was to judge the city of Jerusalem in 70AD (which Hahn and many other scholars argue is the whore of Babylon).

And the judgment of Jerusalem which is prophesied in Matthew 21:43-45 and all Matthew 23 makes sense out of Gal 4:24-31, which talks about two different Jerusalems, one which is the Jerusalem of the old covenant order, and a Jerusalem which is from above (Gal 4:26), which I believe is the heavenly Jerusalem (Hebrews 12:22) as in the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:2), the bride of Christ: The Catholic Church.

So my take on the end times is that it has absolutely nothing to do with the end of the physical cosmos or any other doomsday related prophesies. I don’t even believe the earth will destroyed despite passages like Matt 24:29.

Rather, I have a completely different view (that requires a paradigm shift on the end times): End times refers to the end of the old covenant age, and the beginning of the everlasting new covenant age (Is 9:7, Dan 2:44, Heb 13:20). And 2000 years of Catholic history is a testimony to God’s Church slowly doing away with evil.

I hope some of this actually makes some sense.

 

[Kathy_Perry]

nicthepresby:

Perhaps one should view the books as a good way to draw complete non-believers of Christianity into the faith. Perhaps the authors purposely wrote them to be easy to read and more like a suspense novel than a religious text. I have read all of the books and, if you look closely, almost all denominations are criticized or “attacked” at some point - especially Judaism.

I’m a Presbetryian and I disagreed with quite a few of the views. However, the books struck me as an ideal thing to recommend to a non-believer as a way of getting him or her at least into reading a little scripture. As you progress through the books, they quote more and more scripture and contain less and less writing - even though its the “dreaded” King James Version and other more modern versions which I know are not preferred by the Catholic Church.

There are so many Catholics and Catholic commentators and Catholic “experts” who criticize these books because they are anti-Catholic. To me, the books are PRO-CHRISTIAN. How are you going to get someone to be a Catholic if they do not first accept the very basic things about Christianity - like the validity of the Bible, the reality of Jesus as the son of God, the reality of the crucifixion of Christ and the importance of becoming a Christian in order to have everlasting life? From my limited experience, converting to Catholicisim is quite a detailed process. All of the readings, the Saints, things like Rosaries and Caplets and Communion and Eucharist and Sacraments will sound like Greek to someone who has never been exposed to them. But think about someone who has never been exposed to Christianity at all! That person must first believe in some very impossible (to them) sounding things - resurrection of the body, miracles, turning water into wine, etc. etc. etc. BUT if the books can at least get them to that point, i.e., actually believing in what the Bible says, in its most simplistic version: John 3:16 - have they not performed an invaulable service?

THEN you can get to work on converting them to Catholicism.

Frankly, and I know I’m going to catch you know what for this - I haven’t been posting here long at all - but I have never seen such a overly sensitive group of people. You believe what you believe and yes, it is your duty to bring others into your fold if you can. But, to be honest, and this is the same feeling I had when I attended my first and probably last Mass just this year on Palm Sunday, I just get feelings of negativity, exclusion, anger, and self-righteousness more than anything.

If I am a non-believer searching for something to grasp on to - I would be looking for open arms - a disciple not a dictator. Jesus was never a dictator - he began everything with “if” not “you must.”

(I have to give credit to the last paragraph to My Utmost for His Highest, the updated version, edited by James Reimann, orginally compiled into a book in 1927 consisting of the writings and talks of Oswald Chambers.)

Just my thoughts - and now I shall prepare myself for the onslaught of criticism.

Jesus said, "I am the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE. So we must seek the TRUTH. Filling our head, (or someone elses) with fiction is NOT the way to to Jesus. Left Behind is pure FICTION and very harmfull to Christianity. But the books, tapes etc, makes the fellows who wrote them very rich and thats what they wanted. The devil works in many ways to put across his lies. Jesus told us he is the FATHER OF LIES.

 

[chosunhoon]

Kathy Perry:

The Catholic Church doesn’t even believe in the “Rapture”. Thats a notion that popped up about 150 years ago and never heard of before then.

Many protestants argue that the idea of being left behind comes from Matthew 24:37-41. But if you notice carefully, Jesus makes it clear those who were left behind were actually saved by God’s grace. And those who are ‘taken’ are killed. This is something many dispensationalists don’t seem to notice when they read scripture. In other words, to Jesus’s original audience, the average believe would LOOK FORWARD to being ‘left behind!’

When the End of the World comes, it will be for ALL, and at the same time!!! NO ONE knows when that will be !!!

I beg to differ. I don’t believe in any end of the world whatsoever. And here’s my reasoning. The following passages imply or explicitly state a perpetual cosmos:

Psalms 72:17; 78:69; 89:36-37; 93:1; 96:10; 104:5; 119:90; 145:13; 148:4,6; Ecc 1:4, Dan. 2:44; 4:3,34; 7:14,18,27; Lk. 1:33; Eph. 3:21; Heb. 7:24-25

While Matthew 24:29 looks like a distinct contradiction to what I’m trying to argue, I like how Catholic study bibles usually have footnotes on Matthew 24:29 saying it refers to Isaiah 13:10, or Isaiah 34:4 and Ezekiel 32:7. This stuff isn’t really mentioned in protestant Bibles. I wonder if there’s a reason for that…but anyway…

Here’s a quick comparison of the passages:

Concering the judgment of the Babylonians (Isaiah 13:1)…

The stars of heaven and their constellations
will not show their light.
The rising sun will be darkened
and the moon will not give its light. (Isaiah 13:10)

Concerning the judgment of the Edomites (Isaiah 34:6)…

All the stars of the heavens will be dissolved
and the sky rolled up like a scroll;
all the starry host will fall
like withered leaves from the vine,
like shriveled figs from the fig tree. (Isaiah 34:4)

Concerning the judgment of the Egyptians (Ezekiel 32:1)…

When I snuff you out, I will cover the heavens
and darken their stars;
I will cover the sun with a cloud,
and the moon will not give its light. (Ezekiel 32:7)

In each of these 3 passages, the sun, moon and stars didn’t dissolve 3 times in history. Rather, I believe it’s figurative language referring to judgment that would fall upon whomever God was addressing. So this should be taken in consideration when interpreting Matthew 24:29

Concerning the fall of Jerusalem (Matt 24:2)

Immediately after the distress of those days
"'the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken (Matt 24:29)

Jesus is almost quoting those passage verbatim! And so I believe there is no end of the world (based on all the passages I listed above).

Does any of this make sense?

 

[PKK]

BobCatholic:

Paul Thigpen wrote a book called “The Rapture Trap” - I haven’t read it but I think it would be a good read.

I have read this book, it is a very good read. Simple and easy to understand.

 

[pkmksk]

Nicthepresby,
your reasoning seems to make sense and there lies the danger of the statement. Books such as those don’t give an accurate account of Catholic faith, they mislead others into personal interpretation of scripture. For every person who finds Catholicism through a regular bible church, there are many others who despise what they are taught the Catholic church is.
The biggest problem facing the Catholic Church is the subtle defacing of what we stand for. The misguided interpretations of a few spreading out into society.
In it’s simplest form Nic, we are no more or less rigid in our beliefs now than the early Christians were 1500-1900 years ago. The tennants of our faith are the same, it is the people who change and not the doctrines of the Church. I don’t believe that a bible church’s idea of Christianity in any way is helpful to the salvation of that persons soul. Instead it usually is detremental to Catholicism because most non-catholic churchs are very anti-catholic. Maybe not in there actions, but always in their interpretation of scripture.
We don’t make up the rules, we just follow the ones that were laid out over 1950 years ago.

 

[beng]

Kathy Perry:

The Catholic Church doesn’t even believe in the “Rapture”. Thats a notion that popped up about 150 years ago and never heard of before then. When the End of the World comes, it will be for ALL, and at the same time!!! NO ONE knows when that will be !!!

No. There is a rapture. Catholic can believe a rapture. But not the Protestant type.

Listen to the link I gave (It’s an audio link) above.

 

[nicthepresby]

pkmksk:

Nicthepresby,
your reasoning seems to make sense and there lies the danger of the statement. Books such as those don’t give an accurate account of Catholic faith, they mislead others into personal interpretation of scripture. For every person who finds Catholicism through a regular bible church, there are many others who despise what they are taught the Catholic church is.
The biggest problem facing the Catholic Church is the subtle defacing of what we stand for. The misguided interpretations of a few spreading out into society.
In it’s simplest form Nic, we are no more or less rigid in our beliefs now than the early Christians were 1500-1900 years ago. The tennants of our faith are the same, it is the people who change and not the doctrines of the Church. I don’t believe that a bible church’s idea of Christianity in any way is helpful to the salvation of that persons soul. Instead it usually is detremental to Catholicism because most non-catholic churchs are very anti-catholic. Maybe not in there actions, but always in their interpretation of scripture.
We don’t make up the rules, we just follow the ones that were laid out over 1950 years ago.

I may be misinterpreting what you are saying, but it seems as if your chief concern is what people think about the Catholic church as opposed to spreading the word of God and the message of salvation to those who do not know it yet. It is almost as if you are saying that if you don’t believe in the Catholic views of the Bible, you will not have salvation. Please tell me that is not what you are saying.

And all this anti-catholic stuff is very new and foreign to me. I’ve been a protestant my entire life and I know a lot of Catholics and I’ve never felt that our core beliefs differ that greatly. And I have NEVER held any animosity aganst the beliefs of the Catholic church. But then again, I don’t necessarily believe that the Hindus or Muslims or Buddhists or Jews are banned from salvation. As I grow older and observe what goes on in this violent world we live in, I become more convinced that God, in giving Adam and Eve the choice of whether to commit sin, intended so much more for man than to limit him to one set of beliefs in order to “get into Heaven.” I would like to believe that every religion has its own set of rules and doctrines and symbols and practices and that, as long as all of those things are based in a belief of a God that commands you to treat others with love, to not harm or kill others, to honor your elders, and everything else that we Christians refer to as “commandments”, there is a Heaven for those religions or denominations as well. It has always struck me as a bit insulting to God to believe that he would be so limited in his views of man and creation of this world. God created us in his image and gives man choices but those choices differ from country to country and society to society. I think God has more respect for man than to say - “it’s this way or the highway buddy” - I believe God finds joy in the different ways the people of his world create to worship him. And maybe, “to worship him” means to obey the basic tenants or commandments or whatever a particular religion or denomination might choose to call the rules by which they live - to love, to not harm, to be chaste, to take care of yourself and your family, to not kill, to not lie, etc., etc.

Honestly, that is one thing I’ve never understood about the Catholic church - and maybe I’m wrong - but, in the Catholic church, if a man rapes and kills 50 women but then goes to confession and confesses, is that an automatic ticket into heaven? What about child molesters? And, if that’s true, then abortion doctors can get to heaven too - right? But if a Hindu is born and lives a life of charity and giving and never harms anyone or lies or cheats or mistreats his body and helps others and teaches others to follow these basic rules, he is going to Hell? (I guess that’s more a questioning of Christianity as a whole than Catholicism).

Also, to what rules are you referring from 1950 years ago - are you talking about the Bible? What form of the Bible do Catholics use? (There are so many now).

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Honestly, that is one thing I’ve never understood about the Catholic church - and maybe I’m wrong - but, in the Catholic church, if a man rapes and kills 50 women but then goes to confession and confesses, is that an automatic ticket into heaven? What about child molesters? And, if that’s true, then abortion doctors can get to heaven too - right?

Isn’t this how it works in the Protestant churches too, except you guys don’t even have to go through the motions of confessing and doing penance? You’re basically not accountable to anyone?

But if a Hindu is born and lives a life of charity and giving and never harms anyone or lies or cheats or mistreats his body and helps others and teaches others to follow these basic rules, he is going to Hell? (I guess that’s more a questioning of Christianity as a whole than Catholicism).

No. While the Catholic Church teaches that “There is no Salvation Outside the Church,” we also believe that those who follow God, to the best of their consciences, are somehow united mystically to the Church, and by virtue of this union can be saved. However, good works by themselves won’t get anyone to heaven. If Hindu leads a so-called “holy life,” like you mentioned, but made no serious search for the true religion, and if he is personally at fault for not accepting the true religion (i.e. Catholic Christianity), then he will not be saved. Of course, only God can judge the heart.

That having been said, Catholics believe that they have more channels of grace open to them: knowledge of the true faith, true knowledge of God, the sacraments, sacramentals, intercession of saints, etc. And so they have more means at their disposal for receiving grace, and thus being saved.

What form of the Bible do Catholics use? (There are so many now).

There are several Bibles that are Church-approved. Go here for a listing.

 

[nicthepresby]

Quote:
No. While the Catholic Church teaches that “There is no Salvation Outside the Church,” we also believe that those who follow God, to the best of their consciences, are somehow united mystically to the Church, and by virtue of this union can be saved. However, good works by themselves won’t get anyone to heaven. If Hindu leads a so-called “holy life,” like you mentioned, but made no serious search for the true religion, and if he is personally at fault for not accepting the true religion (i.e. Catholic Christianity), then he will not be saved. Of course, only God can judge the heart.

So, are you saying that, as a Catholic, it is your belief that only Catholic Christians are guaranteed salvation? In other words, I may not have salvation because I am a Presbetryian Christian?

]That having been said, Catholics believe that they have more channels of grace open to them: knowledge of the true faith, true knowledge of God, the sacraments, sacramentals, intercession of saints, etc. And so they have more means at their disposal for receiving grace, and thus being saved.

That statement really leads to a lot of my questions about Catholicism - where is all of this laid out in the Bible - the Word of our Lord? Where does it say that the sacraments, sacramentals, intercession of saints, etc. are (1) exclusively reserved for Catholics and (2) give you another means of receiving grace. And that leads me to another question, where, in the Bible - whichever one you would like to quote, does it reserve the right of Holy Communion to Catholics? Please don’t take my questions offensively - these are just things I am very curious about. I attended my first Mass on Palm Sunday. It was not at all what Ii expected and I did not know I would not be able to receive Communion. Had I known that, I would have gone to a protestant church. I was very dissapointed and felt quite excluded - as if I were not a “good enough” Christian to receive the body and blood of my Lord. I just can’t grasp the notion that Jesus would discriminate between anyone who wished to receive Communion and believed that, in doing so, they were taking into themselves the body and blood of Christ. But I had to sit down and watch everyone do it. It actually kind of hurt! I would just like to know where all these “privileges” (not being a smart alek - just couldn’t think of another word) are granted to Catholics only in the Bible.

 

[Salmon]

A most worthwhile exchange between Carl Olson and Tim LaHaye may be found at:

Rapture Rumble

Tim L. suffers a dislocated ego near the end, but he is expected to fully recover when the next check from his publisher arrives.

Peace in Christ…Salmon