Replies

Many "prophecy teachers," especially in the last three decades, have taken passages of Scripture and applied them to current events and people with little or no regard for historical context or original meaning of the texts. This has resulted, for example, in the Antichrist being identified as the Pope, Hitler, Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan, Saddam Hussein, and other, lesser-known people.
The puzzling and sometimes shocking images of Revelation are interpreted in clever, bizarre, and often laughable ways. The mark of the beast (Rev. 13:16-18) is seen in bar codes, credit cards, computer chips and laser beams. Most Catholics who encounter such misinterpretations usually scratch their heads and steer clear of the biblical books that deal with apocalyptic themes, Daniel and Revelation. They are content to let their non-Catholic friends battle over these confusing matters.

It might be interesting, if I had "Abundant Free Time", to go and look at dispensational end times literature from generations past, and see who the identified players were.

The details of the model mutate constantly, as technologies come and go, Antichrist candidates get old, and retire and/or die, and governments come and go.

Many of them believe the Catholic Church will play a central role in a coming one world apostate religion.

Yes and no. I checked various editions of the Scofield Reference Bible once, on the subject. They vary, as to whether the RCC is the Whore 'o Babylon or not.

Moreover, many Catholics who leave the Church are drawn towards groups that teach dispensationalism in some form or another. The belief in the Rapture is often what attracts these straying Catholics.

Which is kind of strange to me. Why in the world would that be? The reason they should be would be soteriology and worship.

I am a died in the wool Protestant, whose not finding a whole lot to quibble with in this article.

"This 'family of God' is gradually formed and takes shape during the stages of human history, in keeping with the Father's plan. In fact, 'already present in figure at the beginning of the world, this Church was prepared in marvelous fashion in the history of the people of Israel . . . . Established in this last age of the world and made manifest in the outpouring of the Spirit, it will be brought to glorious completion at the end of time'"

Compare and contrast this classic Protestant catechism:"Q. 54.What believest thou concerning the "holy catholic church" of Christ?

"A.That the Son of God from the beginning to the end of the world, gathers, defends, and preserves to himself by his Spirit and word, out of the whole human race, a church chosen to everlasting life, agreeing in true faith; and that I am and forever shall remain, a living member thereof. "

It is true that some of the early Church Fathers before the fourth century believed in an earthly, millennial reign of Christ.

Not universally, and millenarianism tended to be coupled with a view of the intermediate state that modern Christians would find unusual. The old guys didn't fit modern categories.

A common misconception is that Catholics interpret Scripture — especially the book of Revelation — "symbolically," while Evangelicals interpret it "literally."

G. K. Beale has a lecture here (Preaching Apocalyptic Texts, Third Bible and Ministry Conference, Calvin Theological Seminary) where he argues for exegetical reasons that the Apocalypse must be interpreted symbolically.

Many "prophecy teachers," especially in the last three decades, have taken passages of Scripture and applied them to current events and people with little or no regard for historical context or original meaning of the texts.

I taught a SS class today on chapter 9 of James Sire's book, The Universe Next Door. The topic was postmodernism and I was struck by how futurist dispensationalism exhibits a distinctively postmodern approach to theology (eschatology). Postmodernist architecture was an attempt to break up the utilitarian lines of the modernists by adding frills and flourishes from that past without any regard to the original context. A column here, an arch there. Add it in just for the sake of being different. Ignore the original purpose. It isn't important.

Dispensationalism was built on a break from the past. The confessions and creeds of the historic church were ignored. Making a connection with church fathers was not important. Only recently has there been an attempt to make a link to the past in order to legitimize their errant views. But is is like adding a column to a building for no apparent purpose other than to be different. It does not work for folks that understand what is really going on.