Posted on 10/12/2009 10:54:17 PM PDT by delacoert
| A solidly written, theologically sound devotional book which encourages Christian growth may sell fairly well at your average Christian bookstore, but we all know the big bucks can be found in writing about the "end times." The more outlandish the theory and the more willing an author is to predict actual dates and times, the better for the bottom line of the author and publisher. Even though the Scriptures admonish us not to go around setting dates and times (even Jesus in his earthly ministry didn't know the exact date and hour) some people think that the Father will reveal to them what he wouldn't even reveal to his Incarnate Son! Even books like the Left Behind series, written as fiction, present a certain end times theology as fact, which can be dangerous. The end times have become a multi-million (billion?) dollar industry while driving theology further and further from the traditional Christian understanding. I think we need to restore some sanity to the issue. This may not sell books, but it is necessary. Read on. Many catholic minded people, myself included, have regarded these books as more amusing than dangerous, more of an annoyance than diabolical. It's not hard to argue against this type of ridiculousness. After all, although Edgar Whisenaut gave 88 reasons why the world would end in 1988, any child can give one well-reasoned answer why it didn't: it's 2003. I am sure that books like the Left Behind series have done some good for the cause of Christ and as long as people read them as fiction, they are fine. Yet, these books, combined with numerous end times best sellers, create a warped eschatology (view of the end times) that is foreign to historic, orthodox Christianity. In many ways, these new views of the end times do a great disservice to Christ and the Church. First, they make Christians look silly. Who do you think will get more media coverage, a calm reassuring Roman Catholic scholar saying we don't know when the world will end, or a fringe preacher promoting his newest book explaining why the world will end in 20 days? In the age of reality TV the answer is obvious. The scholar's comments will make the Discovery Channel, the preacher will make the evening news. A good example of this is the whole Y2K "crisis." Although the vast, vast majority of worldwide Christians had faith that 1999 would calmly turn to 2000, the media coverage was largely filled with fringe groups preaching gloom and doom. It sells magazines, but it harms the cause of Christianity, since it reinforces the incorrect stereotype that Christians are weird, conspiracy theorists. Secondly, even innocuous end times theology can mutate into dangerous sectarianism that threatens its adherents and the world around it (think David Koresh). When was the last time a person advocating a symbolic interpretation of Revelation ever used that as justification to stockpile weapons and go down in a blaze of glory? From a historical point, many of the unusual religious sects today had their origins in the 19th century millenarian craze (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses). Thirdly, these "prophets" are always wrong. Until Christ actually does return in glory, everyone making predictions will be wrong. There have been hundreds of failed predictions by famous religious leaders. The Jehovah's Witnesses alone have been wrong at least 8 times since 1914 (1). That isn't a track record that inspires confidence. But even more "mainstream" leaders such as Pat Robertson and Hal Lindsey have incorrectly predicted the world's end. With each successive well publicized, but incorrect prediction, more and more Christians become demoralized and more and more non-Christians regard Christianity with contempt. I can understand the appeal of books on the end times: we live in a very difficult world. In times of trouble it's natural to look for the end of world, and, among the more fantastically inclined, to try to make prophecy in Scripture line up with current events. Yet, we don't live in more difficult times than our ancestors. I imagine even with the current war on terror, life was much more terrible and hellish in previous periods. In earlier times, a mother and child both surviving childbirth was cause for great rejoicing. And if a person lived through the wars, famines, and plagues, he was an old man at 40. I don't want to downplay the pains and tragedies of the third millennium AD, but I want us to keep it all in perspective with regard to end times speculation. Many people predicting the imminent end of the world often (not always purposefully) exploit and increase people's fears during difficult times. Although it comes as a shock to some, the Bible does not interpret itself, and Revelation is one of the most difficult to interpret because it is (intentionally so) the most cryptic. Due to the prevalence of end-times speculation, most people assume that Revelation must be interpreted as if everything will happen in the future. Disagreement of interpretation, in this view, differs only in regard to how it will happen in the future, but it is always assumed the events will occur in the future. However, when rigidly applied, this view makes the book of Revelation relevant only for the last generation about whom it supposedly refers. How could a book have meaning for the early Christians if its contents referred to nuclear weapons and Saddam Hussein? This interpretation of Revelation, known as the "futurist" position, has had a few proponents throughout church history, but believe it or not, it has been the minority interpretation. Not until the 19th century, did "futurism" as a doctrine explode in popularity. Most of the earliest Christians, including St. Paul, seemed to expect the return of Jesus in their lifetimes. Yet, this did not happen, and as the first generation of Christians started to die, the theology of the imminent return of Christ was modified slightly. Although still expecting the eventual return of Christ, early Christians became less willing to say exactly when it would come. Consequently, some early Christians interpreted Revelation as referring completely to an event in the future. The majority, however, regarded Revelation as either mostly referring to events during the apostolic period (sometimes called "partial preterism") or primarily as an ideal way of expressing God's victory over evil (sometimes called "idealism"). Above all, Revelation was meant as a book of hope, not a resource for endless speculation. Also, most early Fathers tied Christ's apocalyptic sayings (esp. Matthew 24) to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. And, I might add, the early church Fathers knew nothing of the "rapture." In fact, we can date the belief in the rapture to the early-mid 1800s (well past even the Reformation), a period of millenarian fanaticism that gave birth to many fringe groups. One unintended consequence of end-times speculation is the tendency to focus on future events to the detriment of the present. Christians have always recognized a future, otherworldly aspect to our lives. For example, our citizenship in heaven and our future resurrection helped to form the resolute courage of the martyrs to die like their Lord. Yet, focusing too much on the end-times often obscures the work of the present. The Scriptures refer to the kingdom of God as drawing near or being at hand (Gr. engidzo or fthano). So, even though the final consummation remains in the future, the Kingdom of God is at hand, among us. To defer the kingdom of God to a future time (even the near future) misses the point of our earthly calling. So, what is the Catholic view of the end times? At the most basic level, the Church believes what she confesses in the Nicene Creed on every Sunday and major feast day: "he will come in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end." This view is also summed up in the liturgical affirmation: "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again." The Catechism notes (#680, #681, #682):
and
and
So, those are the basic summaries of what Catholics believe. There is nothing about the rapture, who the Antichrist will be, a particular date, or anything else. We know that Christ is Lord and King now, not at a future date. We know that he has vanquished the evil one and destroyed death now, not in a future time. We do, of course, still await the final triumph of Christ's kingdom when he will come again in glory and all the things of the world will be fully subject to him. But to focus on the details of that event, beyond the creeds, the catechism, and the liturgy, often leads to ridiculous speculation and division among Christians. As a Catholic, I make an appeal for us to resist the modern urge to have it "all figured out" and instead to find comfort in our belief in Christ's eventual return, while allowing the details of the event itself to be a mystery. This may not generate millions of dollars, but for those who seek it, sound, Catholic theology is priceless. |
That cryptic book of Revelation has 7 churches named and what each has as their doctrine. And when Christ said 'Feed my Sheep' He was NOT commanding 'soup kitchens' to be government establishments.
and On Judgment Day at the end of the world, Christ will come in glory to achieve the definitive triumph of good over evil which, like the wheat and the tares, have grown up together in the course of history.
Christ instructed us to discern the difference from their fruits.
and When he comes at the end of time to judge the living and the dead, the glorious Christ will reveal the secret disposition of hearts and will render to each man according to his works, and according to his acceptance or refusal of grace.
End of what 'time'? What does refusal of 'grace' mean?
God didn't write the scriptures for scholars...
Then and now Revelation is consigned to a dusty back shelf and is never used liturgically in Eastern Christian churches.
Sorry to be the one to inform you but, if your religion excludes Revelation from the rest of the scriptures, your religious leaders do not understand the scriptures...
“if your religion excludes Revelation from the rest of the scriptures, your religious leaders do not understand the scriptures...”
Well, we don’t exclude Revelation, we just never, ever, use it. As for not understanding the scriptures, well, we put together what you read for scriptures so, with all due respect, that dog won’t hunt, my friend. The Church, we and the Latins, have been around the scriptures at least 4 times as long as your folks and during that time, we’ve come to know and understand the scriptures quite well. Remember, I, the NT is a creation of The Church, not the other way around.
K, that passage was from a Pauline epistle - one of the earliest ones.
Ping for later
Indeed, but the article as written is about Revelation. And +Paul, bless him, turned out to be very wrong...just like everyone else who predicts and has predicted the imminent end of the world.
You want to watch for stuff like that. People make mistakes interpreting the actions and will and intentions of "Ο ΩΝ". That's why its so important to see what The Church teaches in conformity with the consesus patrum. If you don't, next thing you know, you'll start believing that bats are birds!
I liked the article but it neglected one important command. Christ said to watch. Christ condemned the religious leaders of His day because they weren’t aware that it was the right time for the visitation. The wise men from the east knew that the hour had come and journeyed to see Him. They were watching for the sign of His coming. Likewise so should we be watching because He will come as a thief in the night. If Christ didn’t want us to know the signs to watch for, He never would have given them in the first place. Many Catholics are wonderful people but they need to pay attention to all of the words of Christ and not just the ones they choose to chant.
You mean like Luther and Zwingli?
Both took a very dim view of the Book of Revelation and considered it to be non canonical.
But don't worry. The Catholic Council of Trent came to the rescue and defended the integrity of the New Testament.
You're welcome.
However, there's no need to offer effusive thanks. A modest reduction in the number of your silly "Catholics don't know Scripture" posts will suffice.
**I suppose it’s because the failed to read the Scriptures.**
Catholics DO read the Scriptures. I am helping to lead a Scripture study right now on Galatians and Romans.
Where are you getting this misleading information??
No reason to continue your mantra about Catholics not reading the Scriptures.
Scripture clearly tells us about the end times. No one, but God knows the day, time, year! So be prepared now and repent!
**Sorry to be the one to inform you but, if your religion excludes Revelation from the rest of the scriptures, your religious leaders do not understand the scriptures...**
LOL! I have also co-led a Scripture Study on Revelation. So there is no anti-Catholic point to be made here.
Your source for such outlandish statements, please? Are you qouting someone, something?
Probably as much of a mark as the bird left that flew over the cuckoo's nest. :)
In basketball, a chucker is one who shoots for points whenever he touches the ball, no matter how impossible the basket might be, and no matter how poor a shot he is.
Just food for thought. ;O)
When we near that time and The Lord does come, really is he going to ask who is a Catholic, Methodist or Baptist. I believe He is the Son of Man and that He died for our Sins. When my time is near I want the Lord, to take me by the hand and we will walk to heaven. I say this as a Catholic.
And the dead in Christ will rise first.
This follows the resurrection of the dead and immediately precedes the General Judgement on the Last Day.
The fathers knew the Scriptures better than either you or I do. In some cases, they personally knew the human authors of Scripture.
Awesome. :-)
It was meant to be a joke.
The lake probably tastes like Natural Ice. :(
Jesus clearly told us that only God has the ability and mercy to give us eternal life. Mark 10: 17-27
This happens to be Sundays gospel.
No where does God command us to search scriptures in order to discern “eternal life”. I wonder where your interpretation of the scriptures came from?
He asks us to love Him and each other, and to serve Him with humility. When I hear my brothers claim to know who will “be saved”, I get chills. Only God knows man’s heart and has the wisdom to make those determinations.
What do you think is more offensive to God? Lack of scriptural knowledge, or playing the role of the pharisees who used their knowledge to sanctimoniously claim superiority?
Jesus clearly told us that only God has the ability and mercy to give us eternal life. Mark 10: 17-27
This happens to be Sundays gospel.
No where does God command us to search scriptures in order to discern “eternal life”. I wonder where your interpretation of the scriptures came from?
He asks us to love Him and each other, and to serve Him with humility. When I hear my brothers claim to know who will “be saved”, I get chills. Only God knows man’s heart and has the wisdom to make those determinations.
What do you think is more offensive to God? Lack of scriptural knowledge, or playing the role of the pharisees who used their knowledge to sanctimoniously claim superiority?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.