Review of Rapture: The End-Times Error That Leaves the Bible Behind by David B. Currie

[dizzle]

I am going to be posting this on my site (http:www.preteristsite.com) when I am done, but I thought I would post what I have so far, I am up to page 124 in the book which is a total of 486 pages. I will also be e-mailing the author, since he kindly gives his e-mail address at the end of the book to alert him to both my praise and my criticism. I was referred to this book by some of our Catholic members here at TheologyWeb.

Review of Rapture: The End-Times Error That Leaves the Bible Behind by David B. Currie

[all emphasis added]

This was an interesting book for me in that it dealt with eschatology from a Roman Catholic perspective. Although, this should not be surprising since the first systematizer of preterism was a Catholic (Alcazar), I have not run across many popular-level books presenting preterism from this perspective. The difficulty level of this work is "popular," meaning that it is not scholarly treatise but rather for Catholic laity, and surprisingly, it is used as an outreach conversion tool to reach Protestants who are tired of sensational and hyperliteral rapture theories. However he himself descends into tinfoil hat territory in this effort by stating things such as, "by denying the present existence of God's Kingdom, rapturist builds a firewall against Catholicism in his congregation's soul." [page 81] And in speaking of the gap that rapturists insert into prophecy, the illuminati, I mean Currie claims, "In fact, this gap does great violence to the text, to the fundamental message of the vision -- all for the purpose of protecting rapturists from the idea that the Catholic Church might have to be examined as a possible candidate for the present-day Kingdom of Heaven." [page 82] In some respects, this book was a very accurate and very fair (the author makes a point in his introduction to state that his goal is to present other views fairly); however, when it deviated from accuracy and fairness, it completely went off the cliff. This bothers me, not just because accuracy is important, but that it fosters a distrust in the author regarding items about which I am not personally knowledgeable in able to vouch for his representations. I will note the good, the bad, and the ugly in this review. Additionally, this review will be unapologetically Protestant and preterist and it's presuppositions.

There was a great quote in this book attributed to Jean Cardinal Danielou: "Prophecy is the typological interpretation of history." [Page ix] In that one sentence is one of the keys to understanding the proper interpretation of New Testament prophecy as well as the New Testament's authors' hermeneutics when dealing with the Old Testament. Specifically with regards to our subject matter, Currie states: "To be destruction that God brought down on the Temple was a fulfillment of prophecy, but it was also itself a prophecy." BINGO!! The past fulfillment of specific prophecy does not negate future application as prophecy and especially when it is specifically applied with regard to Christological redemption and consummation. This is where many preterists fall off the cliff headlong into the hyperpreterist heresy - it is prophetic myopia gone wild.

Beginning in chapter 3 Currie states that he will provide some simple summaries of the three millennial positions. And this is where he goes off the horse and falls onto his head. I will demonstrate this by leading his own words speak for themselves:

Another prominent characteristic of premillennialism is found in its treatment of the Bible. Unlike postmillennialism, it truly seeks faithfully to answer the biblical data.

[Excuse me while I vomit from that second sentence... okay I'm back]

Postmillennialism

Postmillennialists believe that the second advent of Christ will follow the Millennium of peace and Justice -- the opposite of what the premillennialists leave. Postmillennialists teach that it is the duty of the Christian community to improve the world to such a point that Christ deems it ready for His return. They believe man can establish the "utopian kingdom" on earth. Unlike the pessimistic premillennialist, the postmillennialists espouses a very optimistic view of man. [Yeah, those wily Calvinists - which the vast majority of postmillennialists are - are just using reverse psychology on us with that "total depravity" shtick, we all know they have an optimistic view of man. I think my tongue just got stuck in my cheek.]

For a modern rationalist, this idea is much easier to believe then an imminent supernatural second advent. It found fertile ground in the rationalistic mindset that enveloped Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries and still appeals to those whose theology is of a modernist, anti-supernaturalist bent. In postmillennialism, any supernatural invasion of our world by a victorious Christ is roughly a thousand years away.

[pages 46-48]

I have wonder from the sheer and reprehensible misrepresentations above if Currie has even read any recent postmillennial work before he decided to slander. He Shall Have Dominion by Kenneth Gentry perhaps? Is it true that postmillennialism doesn't seek to faithfully answer the Biblical date? The question isn't if one thinks postmillennialism is true, it is if that statement is correct. Wait a second while I retrieve the Gentry book, which is one of the mainstay foundations of modern postmillennialism, and see if Currie is even in orbit in this solar system. As a matter of fact just for poops and grins I also grabbed Paradise Restored by David Chilton and Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope by Keith Mathison. Heck, just to be thorough with I also grabbed The Millennium by old-school postmillennialist Loraine Boettner. Gentry's book contains 10 pages of only selected Scriptures that he references in his book, Mathison's book also contains 10 pages, and Chilton's book has 14 pages. Boettner does not have the Scripture index but in randomly cruising through the book Scripture is often mentioned.

Next on to his second inflammatory characterization, are we call to to be obedient to Christ? Of course we are. Do we expect our obedience to potentially have an effect on culture? I know Catholics believe that thus there are many notable works against abortion. So, Currie sneers at the idea that it is the duty of the Christian to improve the world - or perhaps he only means in conjunction with preparing the world so that Christ deems it ready for His return. Good thing that such a crass characterization is not what postmillennialists believe. Postmillennialists believe that it is the duty of Christians to evangelize the world from which will flow cultural changes as hearts are changed. I don't believe that anyone can disagree with this without castrating the transforming power of the Holy Spirit. Now Currie may disagree that such worldwide evangelism will be successful to the degree that postmillennialists hope for, but that is not the point is criticism which is patently false. Postmillennialists also believe that the Scripture teaches that Christ will put all of his enemies under His feet in time and in history. In direct contradiction to Currie's assertion, they believe that this is not within the capacity of some inherent goodness in man but a work of Christ. There is absolutely no way that Currie could both have read mainstream representations of modern postmillennialism and be telling the truth.

Further, it appears that the only postmillennialism that Currie is familiar with is a system that hasn't been helped in any great numbers were roughly the past that the years, that is, a belief that the millennium is a discrete period of time yet in our future. I do not know of any mainstream current author that holds that view, certainly not any of the modern authors. To suggest that postmillennialism is somehow anti-supernaturalist is also recklessly deficient. Postmillennialists in fact are highly super-naturalist for they believe that the world will be transformed by the power of Christ, which in light of the moral decadence of America is quite a supernatural claim.

Now are there perhaps people who were in fact "Christian humanists" who might have identified themselves as postmillennial but in fact were completely outside of Christian worldview? Of course. There are some people who claim to be Catholic that hold things which would be abominable to Currie. If I were to simply point them out in a book section intended to be a basic an accurate summary of the major sects within Christiandom, I would be rightly denounced - perhaps even hated as much as James White - I certainly would be labeled with the slur of "anti-catholic" with the express intention of dislodging any credibility.

Enough with my rant about this portion of the book but, as a postmillennialist, I don't appreciate being misrepresented and theologically slandered.

Currie claims that the prevalence of premillennialism in the earliest church writers is debatable. In fact, he makes the astounding (and I would say irresponsibly outrageous) claim that "early Christian writers could have talked about a thousand-year reign of Christ and still have been amillennial." [page49] In isolation that statement is correct, amillennialists (and modern postmillennialists) both believe in a thousand-year reign of Christ, they disagree with the premillennialists on the meaning of "thousand-year reign." However, in context, Currie is speaking of the same early church fathers, such as Justin Martyr, who made more than the simple statements about a "thousand years," but in fact were more explicit and definitely not amillennial.

As a bit of a sidetrack, I note that Currie clarified that the Roman Catholic Church has been silent on an authoritative interpretation of the vast majority of Biblical texts. Therefore, it appears to me, that the soundbite criticism of alleged private interpretation that is lobbed against Protestants is hypocritical. The alleged "authoritative interpreter" has not interpreted much at all and declared as de fide, doctrines that are not found in Scripture such as The Immaculate Conception and the bodily assumption of Mary.

Beginning on page 54, various some excellent material on ground rules for interpreting eschatological Scripture which are summarized as follows:

Prophecy inspired by God can foretell events in advance of any possible human foresight.

Numbers in prophecy denote a symbolic meaning that trumps any empirical value.

An event can be a prophecy of a still-future, final fulfillment, and when it is, we should consider the entire historical context of the events to gain a fuller understanding.

Apocalyptic visions may use one image to symbolize to realities.

Apocalyptic literature uses dramatic imagery of cataclysmic disruptions to describe changes within the human political sphere.

Physical objects can signify spiritual realities; for example, clouds can signify the glory of God the The judge.

Physical-resurrection language can symbolize spiritual renewal.

Chronological order is not always observed and apocalyptic visions.

Christ's first advent catapulted humanity into "the last days."

His discussion on Daniel, and most particularly for me, Daniel 9, was very good. There was a great deal of food for thought on the common assumption that the 70 weeks of Daniel reckon one day for one year and that the three blocks of time (seven weeks, sixty two weeks, and one week) run consecutively. The summary of his argument is that the seven sevens denote the forty nine decades from 457 B.C. (the decree of King Artaxerxes recorded in Ezra 7:11-26) to 32 A.D. The second block of time, the sixty-two sevens, began when the rebuilding of Jerusalem actually began which he places in 444 B.C. (Nehemiah chapters 1 and 2). This block of time would end in 10 B.C., the time he states that Herod's temple, without the additional annexes and adjoining buildings, was completed. The last week he places as beginning with Christ's birth in 4 B.C. and ending seven decades later at 67 to 70 A.D. this was a completely new concept to me and from the short summary it may seem unconvincing, but I do recommend the reader to refer to Currie's presentation in pages 119 through 128.

*** okay more to be posted when I finish more of the material

[spauline]

Hi, Darth Zena,

I wish to apologize, you and postmillers in general have been misrepresented. I in fact would have cried outrage, and I am not even Protestant nor postmillennial. For I absolutely understand that where Protestants are definitely right is that peace on earth, and righteouness of worth in God's eyes, is absolutely impossible without saving help and life from Christ, and the Trinity, Amen!

As you know, if you haven't noticed already, I am espousing a "millennial" position that is not fully reconcilable with any of three traditional ones. In effect, I mix them altogether. And solution is really rather simple.

Chiliasm is ALMOST right, it just needs a "little allegory." Specifically, let us consider the three views: chiliasm, in effect, teaches "two end of the worlds." The end of the world at time of Antichrist, when Christ returns to the literal. Then, after a literal reign of Christ on earth with literal resurrected saints, there is "second" end of the world, followed by the great fire, and then the eternal New Creation.

So, in effect, the chiliast distinguishes THREE great stages of darkness: pagan Rome, the great Apostasy and Antichrist, and then the "Gog and Magog ordeal."

Amillennialism reduces the stages of darkness to "two": pagan Rome and the great apostasy and Antichrist. It is also pessimistic, in that, "because there are wheat and tares", there can never be a near full Christianization of the world.

and if I have this correctly, postmillennialism eliminates the final darkness altogether, as if not only will the near entirety of humanity be Christianized and embrace love, but that when Christ returns, most of the world will receive him with loving arms.

Again, I think there are deficiencies in all the views, but elements of truth to all of them.

here's what I suggest, and I can't beleive that nobody seems to think of this.:

Chiliasm is ALMOST correct. Chiliasm is pure wine. But pure wine is too strong. There's gotta be a little water, doesn't there?

So here goes. The general sense of "THREE primary darknesses" of chiliasm IS correct, but not quite, because, obviously, Christ cannot reign literally on the old earth WITHIN human history. After all, "he shall come to judge the living and the dead". So then, in the total age of the Church, there WILL be three primary darknesses, and the Millennium IS that period between the second and third. But Christ doesn't LITERALLY return until the THIRD, hence preserving orthodoxy. BUT, there is truly an INTERMEDIATE darkness, not to be allegorized away as with amill. And, to put in a chip for postmillers, the Millennium IS in fact the greatest glory of human history, the near total Catholicization of humanity, a world that walks in the will of God, and in which there is truly peace because there is spiritual peace. But unlike postmillennialism, it does not LAST, for behold, “the mystery of iniquity is already at work, mind you, provided that he who is restraining, does still restrain, until he is gotten out of the way.” Hence, the Holy Spirit is eventually gotten out of the way, and that occurs when the world falls away from the Gospel the second time.

So herein is what I propose:

The first darkness is obviously pagan Rome. The second darkness is the MINOR apostasy, ie. NOW. The third darkness is the great apostasy and Antichrist. Christ returns at the close of the third darkness to end the world, which is when EVERBODY is resurrected and the New Eternal Creation.

Why is the Millennium a period of peace, in which Christ does not literally reign but spiritually reigns? Because in the second darkness, the world almost comes to an end. Look at the psychology: in the first conversion of the world, Catholics give scandal, hence causing great divisions. Then Catholics kill Orthodox, Catholics kill heretics, Catholics kill Protestants, Protestants kill Catholics, and Protestants divide into countless factions, many of whom mutually excommunicate the others to hell, kill one another as well.

So then man says, is this what Jesus wanted? Did Jesus come to stir up fanatics who kill one another over how to determine “Supernatural Revelation?” BS! There fore, the whole notion of supernatural revelation and intervention is wishful thinking. So now that we have science and great materialistic dominion, we obviously don’t need religion.

God says, “I sympathize with you, but if you don’t come back to me, you’ll almost destroy yourselves.” Man says, “Yeah whatever!” So then they don’t listen and do almost destroy themselves (the minor chastisement). But in the chastisement, they are shocked into their sins and rediscover their dependence on God. (Hello, hello, TYPOLOGY: same thing happened with Jews in the exile!) Hence, there is a glorious restoration, all Christians come home to Rome (like Jews returned from foreign lands to the Promised Land), and having gotten an apocalyptic @#!-whipping, with a very soar butt, they will behave for a great time. Having learned the hard way, they rejoice in the RE-discovery of the Gospel, and embrace it with great ferventness. THAT is the Millenium.

But lo, the dragon comes out a final time, which is the incurable SECOND apostasy, the GREAT apostasy. I mean, after all this, what more can God do? God will then say, “Your world almost ended once! What more can I do for you?” And so the final apostasy is unforgivable, incurable, for (Hebrews 6) ‘having [fully] tasted of the powers of the age to come, it is impossible to bring them back!”

And then the world finally ends. And from TYPOLOGY, this is PERFECT, folks:

How many ages did the Jews go through? That is, ages that are first darkness and then light? Answer: 3! How many ages will the Church go through? 3!

Coincidence of TYPOLOGY? Maybe. I don’t think so.

Jews go through purgation, they are delivered (Egypt, Exodus). Church goes through purgation and is liberated (Pagan Rome, Catholic Christendom).

Jews fall away from Old Covenant, are Chastised by Babylon and restored. Gentiles fall away from Catholicism, are chastised and restored (the minor apostasy, the Millennium).

Jews go through OT Antichrist Antiochus, and then Jesus comes the first time. Catholics go through NT Antichrist and then Jesus comes the Second Time.

I really think that when Jesus said, “It will all be fulfilled”, he wasn’t kidding!

:)

[dizzle]

Hi, Darth Zena,

I wish to apologize, you and postmillers in general have been misrepresented. I in fact would have cried outrage, and I am not even Protestant nor postmillennial. For I absolutely understand that where Protestants are definitely right is that peace on earth, and righteouness of worth in God's eyes, is absolutely impossible without saving help and life from Christ, and the Trinity, Amen!

Thank you, it was a pretty grotesque misrepresentation. I haven't looked much into the modern Catholic apologists, but so far, I am not at all impressed from several incidents I have come across of bad tactics.

[tizzidale]

I would encourage to write the guy. Maybe he really hasn't Kept up with the postmill. authors you've recommended. I think the easiest thing to do is to assume that tactics are involved, especially when what you hold dear is seemingly misrepresented. I knowI're felt the same way when reading contra-Catholicism work.

By the way, another Catholic author (I am not familiar at all with this fellow you've referenced) who has written on Eschatology is Dr. Brant Pitre who wrote *Jesus, the Tribulation and the End of the Exile*. He has a website, BrantPitre.com. Also Michael Barber who wrote, *Coming Soon: Unlocking the Book of Revelation* I'm familiar with both these guys and would recommend them both. I intend to read these books myself, especially Mr. Barber's.

rusty

[tizzidale]

Just spent a little time reading about Mr. Currie. I understand that he's a convert from a premill tradition. I wonder if that background doesn't color his misperceptions of the postmill position. coming from a similar background, I can kinda understand how he may think he understands the postmill position, yet hasn't kept up with a position that has seemingly evolved.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I don't think there's any excuse lurking behind the fact that postmillennialism has evolved. I can't imagine that old school postmils like Jonathan Edwards or B. B. Warfield would every have endorsed the representation of postmillennialism that was reproduced in the OP.

[tizzidale]

regardless, I'd be interested to hear his response to DeeDee's criticism, which I feel has merit.

[dizzle]

I would encourage to write the guy. Maybe he really hasn't Kept up with the postmill. authors you've recommended. I think the easiest thing to do is to assume that tactics are involved, especially when what you hold dear is seemingly misrepresented. I knowI're felt the same way when reading contra-Catholicism work.

By the way, another Catholic author (I am not familiar at all with this fellow you've referenced) who has written on Eschatology is Dr. Brant Pitre who wrote *Jesus, the Tribulation and the End of the Exile*. He has a website, BrantPitre.com. Also Michael Barber who wrote, *Coming Soon: Unlocking the Book of Revelation* I'm familiar with both these guys and would recommend them both. I intend to read these books myself, especially Mr. Barber's.

rusty

I will put that book on my list Tizzi thanks. I think it was you that alerted me to this book which I likely would never have found on my own. I do intend to write him, especially since he does give his email address at the one. My very strong reaction to the bad parts is caused in some measure by the fact that some of the book is quite excellent. It is just such an extreme. I did find the Daniel 9 material and the "ground rules" sections very interesting and good.

[dizzle]

Just spent a little time reading about Mr. Currie. I understand that he's a convert from a premill tradition. I wonder if that background doesn't color his misperceptions of the postmill position. coming from a similar background, I can kinda understand how he may think he understands the postmill position, yet hasn't kept up with a position that has seemingly evolved.

I looked in the book to see what his age was, but it is not listed. Unless he is very old, postmill has not done any major evolution during the time frame when I think he should have been reading current works. Especially if one is a published author on a subject - if one presumes to write a work purportedly to educate its readers on the basics of a certain subject, the author has a burden to insure that he knows the basics.

[dizzle]

I will add to my review above when it is finalized, the publication dates of the postmill books I referred to. And FYI, Currie's book doesn't have a Scripture index. He does reference Scripture, I am just pointing that out for sake of irony.

[dizzle]

I don't think there's any excuse lurking behind the fact that postmillennialism has evolved. I can't imagine that old school postmils like Jonathan Edwards or B. B. Warfield would every have endorsed the representation of postmillennialism that was reproduced in the OP.

I agree - the only thing that would differ is whether the thousand years is a discreet future period of time. It would be difficult to say that Edwards or Warfield didn't honestly try to conform to the Scriptures. I would be almost willing to bet that Currie has never read anything substantive from any postmill writer. He used to be a premill, he was fed certain lines as a premill, rejected premill but didn't reject the gross micharacterizations that some premills make of postmill.

[tizzidale]

but didn't reject the gross micharacterizations that some premills make of postmill.

that's probably closer to the truth than not. I wonder if inviting him to this thread would be desirable. It wouldn't hurt. He may be far to busy or uninitiated in online discussion, but he does give his email account.

rusty

[dizzle]

I will invite him then. I had wanted to wait until I was done with the book so that I could be completely educated in its strength and weaknesses. It takes me a long time because I do take notes and use useful information in my commentary and work.

[dizzle]

I wrote him this morning. I am adding a bit of his work to my Matthew 24 commentary, and will be posting excerpts on the PreteristSite from his excellent section on "ground rules."

[dizzle]

Mr. Currie wrote back that he will have a look but is likely too busy this year to respond (and I sure understand how that can be - I didn't write him to burden him, just thought it was fair to let him know). His closing signature line of "In Christ and His mother" really bothered me though.... so now we are "in Mary" the same way we are "in Christ"?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I looked in the book to see what his age was, but it is not listed. Unless he is very old, postmill has not done any major evolution during the time frame when I think he should have been reading current works. Especially if one is a published author on a subject - if one presumes to write a work purportedly to educate its readers on the basics of a certain subject, the author has a burden to insure that he knows the basics.That's true. The only real shift that has taken place is from old school postmil (and as you know, it's the view I consider to be "proper" postmillennialism) and the neo-postmill view with an amil view of the millennium. The last defence of the old school view that I am aware of was in 1977 by Lorraine Boettner, in the world edited by Clouse. But even this big shift is somewhat irelevant to Currie's comments, as his comments apply neither to the old view nor the new view.

I agree with your ssessment, though. He's probably not basing his assessment on his own familiarity with postmillennial works. Much like critics of James White (:hehe:) Currie has probably heard of and read some critics of the position he opposes (and opposed as a futurist), and gained his less-than-complete-or-accurate knowledge of the position from that. It's a bit like rejecting Theonomy because one has read Thomas Ice and Wayne House, Doinion Theology: Blessing or Curse?

I suppose it could be worse, though. I had the unpleasant experience of reviewing Engelsma's book on preterism and postmillennialism, where it looks crystal clear that he was informed of his misrepresentation by the people he attacked, and then still went ahead and wrote the book!

[Geek Eclectic]

It's a bit like rejecting Theonomy because one has read Thomas Ice and Wayne House, Doinion Theology: Blessing or Curse?Ice's treatment of Preterism, and specifically Hank Hanegraaf's "The Apocalypse Code," is likewise disgraceful.

[gharfish]

Disgraceful treatment of preterism ? ...and disgracefully attacking Hanegraaf--what, the man himself (?) Or, has Ice actually attacked Hanegraaf's view, which is a new defense of preterism ? And what adjective shall one give to Hanegraff's treatment of dispensationalism in that same book ? ...and "treatment" of at least two men who already had long disagreed with the general view he (H.H.) would come to embrace, publically ? Lindsey and LaHaye are ID'ed by name as purveyors of false doctrine right away in the "The Apocalypse Code"'s book jacket notes; no need to wonder if they will be further criticized personally within.

I see cause to fault Hagee for his actions, but otherwise this is nothing more remarkable than the expected sparks and noise from the grinding of large heavy diametrically opposed "isms."

Hanegraaf is a very competent scholar and is right on track, impressively, on many things of the holy scripture. He is obviously a man who is sincerely serving the Lord Jesus. He certainly has a heart for Jesus' gospel being spread. This is tremendous and I regularly cheer him on for it when I hear his radio broadcasts. But he cannot so surely have the answers to this HUGE Bible 'question.'

Really, both sides need to be alot more humble. It will be hotly contested from now on. A lack of humility before God; now that is disgraceful.

[Geek Eclectic]

Disgraceful treatment of preterism ? ...and disgracefully attacking Hanegraaf--what, the man himself (?)No, not the man himself. Note the apostrophe-s that denotes a possessive. Hank Hanegraaff's "The Apocalypse Code." Ice wrote an article in response to this book in which he handled Preterism in general, as well as specific points brought up in the book, poorly. He attempted to refute things that Preterists do not claim, and that Hanegraaff did not claim in his book. Ice burned strawmen. That is what I meant by disgraceful.Or, has Ice actually attacked Hanegraaf's view, which is a new defense of preterism ?Hanegraaff's view is hardly a new defense of Preterism, though it is a remarkably good entry level work as DDW has pointed out. My problem is that Ice more often than not attacks views he claims that Hanegraaff and Preterists in general espouse that they simply don't. He attempts to attack the view, but ends up attacking a false version of the view instead.And what adjective shall one give to Hanegraff's treatment of dispensationalism in that same book ? ...and "treatment" of at least two men who already had long disagreed with the general view he (H.H.) would come to embrace, publically ? Lindsey and LaHaye are ID'ed by name as purveyors of false doctrine right away in the "The Apocalypse Code"'s book jacket notes; no need to wonder if they will be further criticized personally within.I would claim honest. He made it very clear that he was focusing on those particular people because they are the most prominent figures out promoting the dispensational view. This is great because they are the ones most people at the entry level are going to be encountering the most. While his list is not exhaustive, Hanegraaff does present a number of valid methods of Biblical hermeneutics, and he shows some of the conclusions one must draw if those hermeneutical methods are properly employed. Then he goes on to show how prominent dispensationalists do not properly employ good exegetical methods.

But the important thing is that he does not attack strawmen. He shows dispensationalism as it actually is, points out inevitable conclusions that many dispensationalists don't even understand(such as the antisemitism inherent in dispensationalism, however unintentional it may be). He keeps the people he uses for his examples' quotes in context when he opposes them.I see cause to fault Hagee for his actions, but otherwise this is nothing more remarkable than the expected sparks and noise from the grinding of large heavy diametrically opposed "isms."I don't even know what this means. If Hagee is wrong, and if Hanegraaff says he is wrong, doesn't take him out of context, and provides examples and scholarship to back his point, then Hanegraaff did nothing wrong.Hanegraaf is a very competent scholar and is right on track, impressively, on many things of the holy scripture. He is obviously a man who is sincerely serving the Lord Jesus. He certainly has a heart for Jesus' gospel being spread. This is tremendous and I regularly cheer him on for it when I hear his radio broadcasts. But he cannot so surely have the answers to this HUGE Bible 'question.'It wasn't really a big question prior to Darby. Oh, eschatological concerns existed, but before then, people tended to focus on other theological questions much more. However, with dispensationalism becoming so prominent in the US, and with certain concrete acts happening because of it, it is considered of more importance now(and rightly so!). The results of dispensationalism show that one's eschatology matters far more now than it used to, and scholars such as Hanegraaff are right to address it and voice their concerns.Really, both sides need to be alot more humble. It will be hotly contested from now on. A lack of humility before God; now that is disgraceful.Both sides need to come to the discussion openly and honestly and leave their personal feelings at home. If one is wrong, and if the evidence points to that being the case, then they need to work it out on the field of scholarship and debate. What I find most people mean by "X needs to be more humble" is "I can't find actual fault with X's argument, but X needs to back off anyway." If you can't trump them with reason and facts, trump them with spirituality, right?

[spauline]

but can we not see that neither futurism nor preterism address the traditional meaning of the apocalypse? Knowing that there were 10 Roman Emperors and 7 Herodian Kings in the Early Church is just as useless as knowing that when the world ends, Europe will have ten subdivisions.

The apocalypse is about the major spiritual process of the Redemption of the entire human race, and, as such, then comprises the major spiritual ages of salvation from the Fall to the End, and the psychological meaning of these, discerning how humanity will become incurable in the very end.

Obviously, also, ecclesiology is absolutely at the heart of these issues. But mostly only middle of the road hard core old Protestants interpret the book with ecclesiology in mind. But since in fact the Scriptures are Catholic, only a Catholic can fully understand the ecclesiology that is there.

But how many modern Catholics even look into these questions. Virtually none. Maybe it's time somebody stepped up and really started delving into the meat of the apocalypse, because Currie, Olson, Thigpen, and Hahn, everybody's favorite, don't seem to want to. They prefer to remain in preterism.

[dizzle]

That's true. The only real shift that has taken place is from old school postmil (and as you know, it's the view I consider to be "proper" postmillennialism) and the neo-postmill view with an amil view of the millennium. The last defence of the old school view that I am aware of was in 1977 by Lorraine Boettner, in the world edited by Clouse. But even this big shift is somewhat irelevant to Currie's comments, as his comments apply neither to the old view nor the new view.

I agree with your ssessment, though. He's probably not basing his assessment on his own familiarity with postmillennial works. Much like critics of James White (:hehe:) Currie has probably heard of and read some critics of the position he opposes (and opposed as a futurist), and gained his less-than-complete-or-accurate knowledge of the position from that. It's a bit like rejecting Theonomy because one has read Thomas Ice and Wayne House, Doinion Theology: Blessing or Curse?

I suppose it could be worse, though. I had the unpleasant experience of reviewing Engelsma's book on preterism and postmillennialism, where it looks crystal clear that he was informed of his misrepresentation by the people he attacked, and then still went ahead and wrote the book!

I scanned through his bibliography last night and think my assessment is now almost certainly right. There are NO (count them none) reference works listed from any postmill writer, and actually nothing from any modern preterist writer also (with the exception of hyperpreterist John Noe, and two dissertion papers from TEDS) - but no Gentry, DeMar, Chilton... nothing. I think having more reference to those works would have fleshed out his work in some places I will be critiquing later.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

but can we not see that neither futurism nor preterism address the traditional meaning of the apocalypse? Knowing that there were 10 Roman Emperors and 7 Herodian Kings in the Early Church is just as useless as knowing that when the world ends, Europe will have ten subdivisions. Useless to whom? I reject the assumption that every peice of information has to have direct importance for my lifetime or else it is useless.
Obviously, also, ecclesiology is absolutely at the heart of these issues. But mostly only middle of the road hard core old Protestants interpret the book with ecclesiology in mind. But since in fact the Scriptures are Catholic, only a Catholic can fully understand the ecclesiology that is there. :ahem: :ahem:

[gharfish]

No, not the man himself. Note the apostrophe-s that denotes a possessive. Hank Hanegraaff's "The Apocalypse Code." Ice wrote an article in response to this book in which he handled Preterism in general, as well as specific points brought up in the book, poorly. He attempted to refute things that Preterists do not claim, and that Hanegraaff did not claim in his book. Ice burned strawmen. That is what I meant by disgraceful.Yes, I provided the link to that article for you originally, and then you critiqued Ice's critique of "The Apocalypse Code."

You said that Thomas Ice treated preterism, itself, in a disgraceful way; not just Hanegraaf's book alone. It was likewise mistreated--misrepresented. This cry of "unfair" goes up on both sides every time a new book comes out. No need to get excited. If Hanegraaf didn't personally come under fire, then Ice would have been again simply mishandling *disgracefully so* the view (Hank) holds to: partial preterism. Right ?

Now, I have to disagee; I think Ice does know what orthodox preterists do believe, certainly just as well as does Hanegraaf understand what orthodox dispensationalists (not "prog.") do believe. Talk of Ice disgracefully "burning strawmen" is sort of flimsy, like straw itself. "Poorly" is one thing, but "disgracefully" is another. It's a rather condemning word, implying some measure of dishonesty.

I read that particular review of "The Apocalypse Code" before I posted the link to it, on the thread which in the OP requested negative reviews of it. (Hey, maybe it's more likely that you and me don't understand the other's eschatology well enough to properly judge, here, the two men's 'tactics' (?)

[spauline]

Useless to whom? I reject the assumption that every peice of information has to have direct importance for my lifetime or else it is useless.
:ahem: :ahem:

First, I mean useless to the general questions of the apoc. Most preterist and futurist data is not the issue. The spiritual meaning and psychology of salvaiton history is the essence of what the apoc addresses.

Secondly, how is it you mock ecclesiology? Are you rolling your eyes because you think the apoc has little to do with ecclesiology or are you rolling your eyes because you object to the Catholic claim, or both, or neither? Please explain.

[gharfish]

"..........Hanegraaff's view is hardly a new defense of Preterism, though it is a remarkably good entry level work as DDW has pointed out.I meant that it was a book in defense of (what is being called by some as) the 'ordinary' partial preterism view, that is simply new to the marketplace. That's all.My problem is that Ice more often than not attacks views he claims that Hanegraaff and Preterists in general espouse that they simply don't. He attempts to attack the view, but ends up attacking a false version of the view instead.Are we talking about the review that is at Preterist Archives ? I don't see the strawmen being burned. I went back and read again that review.I would claim honest. He made it very clear that he was focusing on those particular people because they are the most prominent figures out promoting the dispensational view. This is great because they are the ones most people at the entry level are going to be encountering the most.Ice claims that Hanegraaf regards dispensationalism to be dangerous and cult-like, doesn't he ? It's an "embarrassment to the Church," he claims right there on the book jacket. Thomas Ice claims that Hanegraaf in his "The Apocalypse Code" accuses LaHaye of being a racist (on pp. 20-23) and one who blasphemes (on pp. 189 and 225). I have not read Hank's book so I can't comment except to say that I don't like the "sound" of that.



I know that Norman Geisler also reviewed "The Apocalypse Code." It can be found at Geisler's home page among his various articles on file. That same article is also cataloged on the Preterist Archive website.

His review of The Apocalypse Code is here: http://www.ses.edu/NormGeisler/ReviewApocalypseCode.html

Geisler also reviews Hanegraaf's The Last Disciple here:
http://www.ses.edu/NormGeisler/lastdisciple.htm

Additionally, Geisler responds to [someone named] Steve Gregg's defense of Hank Hanegraaff's position on eschatology. That link is at the top of the "...Last Disciple" reviewing article.

It would seem that the two men are actually long-time friends. Geisler says so. Geisler looks to be more than fair in reviewing (both) of Hanegraaf's preterist books. Little Shepherd, I think you will find an excellent dispensationalist response in Geisler's reviews. The links are there if you are interested. I see not a hint of disgracefulness anywhere in there at all.

I could end my post here, but.....




Now, later, I simply 'googled' Geisler's name and the title of the new book and came up with this and only this kind of press. This is what popped up, alone, with "The Apocalypse Code"--what it got, right or wrong.

It looks to me now that Hanegraaf has indeed been a bit of a bad boy in that second book. I found these reviews. If proven later to be true info., I will definitely lose some of my respect for Hanegraaf.

~ From John Ankerberg's research staff:
http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/biblical-prophecy/BP1W0707HH.pdf

~and:
http://www.ircontent.wordpress.com/2007/04/19/response-to-hank-hanegraaffs-apocalypse-code-interview-on-the-bible-answer-man

Perhaps it's Hanegraaf who has been the more disgraceful in his and Ice's clash, as well as the stinker in the too public of goings on since with LaHaye (as a result of that book). I see some surprising unfairness documented, that Hank may have pulled-off.....an unfortunate failing which is not typical.



Hmph. :hmph:

[dizzle]

I would like to keep this thread on the subject in the OP please.

[Geek Eclectic]

Sorry, Dee Dee.

La G, I remember those same statements you made in the previous thread, and I addressed them there. I now bow out of this thread until -- and unless -- I have something completely On-Topic to contribute. :outtie:

[spauline]

Currie says a Catholic cannot be a faithful one if they are not amill. Umm, that is not entirely true. One can espouse a view slightly different from amill and yet still acknowledge that Christ's Kingdom exists from Pentecost until the Second Coming in the form of the Catholic Church. He is committing a logical fallacy here, perhaps in ignorance, since he is apparently only concerned with the three main prevalent views of the Millennium. Indeed, the Woman of Revelation 12 is in its primary sense the Church. Hence, already at the Ascension in Revelation 12, the woman is present. But behold, whereas the Kingdom is already present in the Church right after the Ascension, the dragon is in no wise chained in the abyss. For in the first age he is making war in heaven (fighting to stop the conversion of pagans). Then he is defeated partially by being thrown to earth, but he is not done yet. He creates problems for the Church, hence, the illuminative phase of Church, and in its climax he actually raises an apostasy (Revelation 13). But the deception gives way to chastisement (the Vials), and then the beast is cast into the fire, and THEN the dragon is chained in the abyss (the unitive phase, the glorious spiritual triumph of the Church over the minor apostasy, and the great age of peace), and THEN finally he is let loose to raise the beast a final time (Revelation 13 and the Vials all over again) after the Millennium, in the great apostasy and Antichrist, and then the real Second Coming occurs, and, that is, the General Judgement, Resurrection and New Creation. All of this is possible in Catholic theology, and yet the Millennium is not the whole era of the Church, it is the special unitive phase of Church history, the sabbath-like rest from sin in human history that follows the dark night of the soul.

[dizzle]

Okay, continuing in my lengthy review:

Now, my fellow Protestants, its time for a snicker moment. Mr. Currie states [page 145] in conclusion of his correct demonstration that the "secret rapture" has no Biblical support: "Without any biblical support, why believe it?" [chortle, choke, choke - You mean like the MARIAN DOGMAS????? Well then Mr. Currie, I agree with you. Why DO you believe that Mary, for instance, was bodily assumed into heaven when there isn't any Biblical support. Without any Biblical support, why believe it?

Moving into his treatment of the Olivet Discourse, Mr. Currie could really have benefited from referring to some of the extensive works already done on this subject by notable modern preterist authors (again, his only current "preterist" author cited in the endnotes is hyperpreterist John Noe.) Mr. Currie (quite ignorantly) claims that "this generation" in Matthew 24:34 must mean the generation then living because, in part, Jesus just used that same phrase in Matthew 23:36 and "no one tries to reintepret the meaning of this word on that occasion." O Rly? Well Mr. Currie, meet fellow amillenialist Tony Warren:

Is all those people standing there (the physical generation) guilty of the blood of all the Prophets, and will be judged of God for it? God Forbid! The Apostles and all believers there won't have the Blood of the Prophets required of them. That is quite obvious to anyone who knows scripture. God says every man is responsible only for his own sin, not the sins of others (Deuteronomy 24:16). Which is why The Blood of these prophets will be required of 'that generation.' ..How? Because Those who killed the Prophets, though they lived hundreds of years before, were part of 'that Generation.' They are part of the family of Satan their father, for the generation of evil spans time.

"This couldn't either logically, rationally, or Biblically mean everyone physically there at the time, so what it does mean should be evident with a little thought. It is a kinship of evil. Those of the lineage of Satan. Jesus called them, 'Children of the Devil.'" (http://members.aol.com/twarren14/generation.html)

Tony is not unusual in this as anyone decently well-read with eschatological debate would surely know. I am not disagreeing with Mr. Currie's position that such is what it DOES mean, but he is wrong that no one denies this (and I am not counting some fringe nutbars but mainstream views). This simply strengthens my early impression that Mr. Currie has been published on this subject a bit prematurely.

Mr. Currie takes the position that the Olivet Discourse divides primarily after verse 34 with the subject switching to the Second Coming. A major premise of his argument is that the disciples asked two questions of Jesus which would have been cognizantly distinct questions in their minds. The theory that two separate questions that were understood by the disciples is not unusual, but it is untenable. I agree with Mr. Currie that the questions were understood by the disciples, but I posit that they properly (and in their own understanding) connected the events. As I stated in "It's Not the End of the World!" http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/warrenend.html

In Mark and Luke any references to "coming" are missing. That is strange if this passage were talking about the Second Coming ~ that would mean Mark and Luke entirely omitted the Main Eventtm. If we line up Matthew, Mark, and Luke we appear to have these equivalent phrases.

Matthew: What will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?

Mark: What will be the sign when all these things will be fulfilled?

Luke: And what sign will there be when these things are about to take place?

Interesting. The narratives equate "these things" with "Your coming and of the end of the age?"

We have to ask at this point (and there is a BIG hint above) why did Matthew include a reference to Christ's "coming" when, as we have seen, there is nothing in the context so far that refers to Christ's Second Coming (or even a First Going), and the other Gospel authors didn't record the disciples even asking a thing about that event? Doesn't that seem odd to you?

More to come as I continue reading and digesting my notes.

[dizzle]

Ack!!! The back cover blurb says, "In these remarkable pages - which constitute the world's most careful and thorough study of the rapture...."

[emphasis added]
Humility is a virtue. However, though I do think the book is very good in a lot of parts, as I have and will continue to demonstrate, it is certainly NOT as accurate or thorough as it could have been. And I am the world's most careful and thorough reviewer.

[dizzle]

I modified a paragraph:

We have to ask at this point (and there is a BIG hint above) why did Matthew include a reference to Christ's "coming" when, as we have seen, there is nothing in the context so far that refers to Christ's Second Coming (or even a First Going), and the other Gospel authors didn't record the disciples even asking a thing about that event? Doesn't that seem odd to you? Even stranger still, Currie supposes that Jesus went on a rabbit trail in the middle of the Discourse about Jerusalem to contrast His Second Advent with the false messiahs because "Jesus needed to assure His disciples that they need not worry about missing His second advent." Huh? First, Currie argues elsewhere that the Second Advent would not be preceeded by any signs - and that the destruction of Jerusalem, with many precursory signs, happened forty years later, and result in the expansion of the Kingdom. Thus.... if one connects the dots, the disciples would not even be alive at the time of the second advent to be in danger of "missing" it.

Currie postulates that the disciples intended their question to mean, "What signs can You give us that history is coming to its eschatological climax with the second advent." [page 155] I believe the Biblical context shows that a "second advent" was the last thing from their minds. However, in general, I find his exegesis of the Olivet Discourse very good in most parts despite his inconsistencies. He also referenced several master thesis papers that I have since obtained and am grateful for the lead on additional resources.

[dizzle]

I have added some more

The Epistles

Currie nails the resurrection down in a quite satisfactory manner in his treatment of 1 Corinthians 15. In my own journey, that was the passage that shoved me out of premillennialism and led me down the road of rejecting dispensationalism. The other passages he brings into play regarding the resurrection are Phil. 3:20-21; Colossians 3:4; 1 and Thessalonians 4:13-5:3. There is one potentially (though inadvertantly) dissonant argument with regards to the fact that the general resurrection is one coherent event - not multiple events separated by years or a millennia - beginning with a "secret rapture." The argument proceeded as follows:

"If there were two stages to the second advent, we would be able to find one passage that speaks of them together, teaching us in one place of the differences. That we are not able to do so is a terrible handicap to rapturists. It is evidence of their deceptive double vision. Of course, we have not been able to find a passage that unequivocably teaches about a secret rapture at all, much less a passage that speaks of it side-by-side with the second coming."

[emphasis added] The problem is that we cannot consistently hold that position. Why? There is no one passage that clearly defines the Trinity and Jehovah's Witnesses, at least the clever ones, capitalize on this fact. The stronger point that Currie should have relied upon is that the doctrine simply isn't taught at all, even if the multiple references to the second coming are taken holistically.

[dizzle]

Since this is so obviously fascinating to you guys as evidenced by your stunned silence, I have added some more (going a little bit out of order in writing part of the conclusion now):

In conclusion, Protestant readers will find much to disagree with in his Catholicizing of many events and passages, but that is to be expected. I would expect though that some Catholic readers would also be dismayed at some of his shallow apologetics for the Catholic position. For instance:

"As an aside, rapturists sometimes claim that Hebrews criticizes Catholic belief in the sacrifice of the Mass. Out of the other side of their mouths, they try to claim that belief in the Mass as an unbloody sacrifice did not appear in the Church until as later as the Middle Ages. Of course, they cannot have it both ways! How could the author of Hebrews be criticizing the sacrifice of the Mass if it was not believed to be a sacrifice yet?"

Does Currie actually believe that is a good and fair argument? Or an accurate representation of what his opponents believe. First, one should never assume an understanding of another's argument in such a way that would make them as dumb as a rock. Skeptics do the exact same thing when they accuse Solomon of contradicting himself in ignorant bliss when he first says "Do not answer a fool according to his folly," and in the very next verse says, "Answer a fool according to his folly." Opponents of Catholicism are NOT stating that the writer of Hebrews was speaking exactly and specifically of the Mass - but rather was articulating a principle that is applied to the Mass - and frankly, the shoe fits. In the same way, when I state that hyperpreterists are guilty of the Hymenaean heresy, I am NOT claiming that Hymenaeus was precisely a hyperpreterist and denied the resurrection in precisely the same way in every respect, but that the commonalities make the connection.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

:popcorn:

[gharfish]

.

[dizzle]

I am done with the book. I will be posting the complete review on my site, I will post the link here when it is done. There is a lot of formating to do. Here is the final portion.


The Apocalypse

With the very important and strong exception of the parts where he waxes wild with Catholic theology, his treatment of Revelation is very informative and well-said. He does a very good job of showing the intent of John to track and parallel certain parts of Daniel, a conclusion with which I totally agree, in fact, I find little to disagree with in this section. He further derives this interesting theory:

"The theme of The Apocalypse is identical to that of Daniel: 'The mystery of Christ's Kingdom: proof that Christ is coming again.' The only difference is generated by the six hundred years of events that transpire between the two books. While Daniel envisions the time from the re-establishment of the earthly Jerusalem to the first advent, St. John envisions the time from the establishment of the New Jerusalem to the second advent."

In this section I found another spot where Currie appeared to potentially be a bit conflicting - earlier in the Olivet Discourse, he applied most dogmatically the verse about the flashing of the lightning from east to west to the Second Advent; yet here in Revelation (page 316), he notes that the approach of the kings of the east referred to the coming of the troops of Titus from the east. It seems to me lacking that he did not at least mention this possibility in his treatment of the Olivet verse. He offered a perspective that I cannot recall hearing before - that is the cities on seven hills in Revelation is not Rome, but rather Jerusalem, noting that Jospehus even gave the name of the seven hills of Jerusalem (page 322.)

Why the Rapture is Appealing and What is an Honest Christian to Do?

I do believe Currie has nailed some of the escapist appeal of Rapture theology, but he also is out of his tree in one of his charges. He actually claims similarity between Rapture theology and the Health and Wealth Gospel. This is a scandalously inaccurate charge based upon the flimsy reed that since Rapturists believe that we will escape the Great Tribulation that such means we are entitled to escape all suffering. That is simply and blatantly false. He goes on to point out that both "too high" and "too low" a view of Scripture contribute to the issue. While I would disagree with his terminology and the RCC spin, I do actually agree with him in essence. However, what is perceived by some in the Rapturist camp as being a "high" view of Scripture is simply an ignorant one that disregards historical contexts and rich meaning in favour of hyperliteralism. As far as Currie's claim that he as an RCC has further resources to draw upon, I would point that the fact he feels the need to argue his preterist position means it simply is not settled infallibly, and that Protestants have thus the exact same resources at their disposal, unless Currie would like to point me to the Infallible Interpreter's commentary on the book of Revelation - which would make Currie's book unnecessary.

Appendixes

Curries includes five appendixes: Early Church Fathers, The Masoretic Silluk in Daniel, Zechariah, The Authorship and Dating of Revelation, and A Response to Hyperpreterism. Out of these, only two were, in my opinion, worthwhile - The Authorship and Dating of Revelation and Zechariah. The "Response to Hyperpreterism" frankly sucked unfortunately. The two worthwhile ones were, thankfully, very very good. I believe that he should have reduced the appendixes to just one - The Authorship and Dating of Revelation, and move his very excellent treatment of Zechariah to the main portion of the book. Though not partial to charts, he has an excellent chart showing the hopscotch absurdity of dispensational interpretations of Zechariah switching back and forth over millennia within verses and chapters. I would recommend his section on the dating of Revelation for people to get a quick handle on a great many of the major arguments for the early date position. However, there is one absolute stinker of an argument - and one which I mentioned that Gary DeMar also used, and it stinks just as badly the second time. That is that the Seven Letters to Seven Churches is evidence of an early date because it is unlikely that "seven" was a symbolic representation of all the churches, which numbered more than seven - but that there actually were only literally seven churches prior to AD70.


In conclusion, Protestant readers will find much to disagree with in his Catholicizing of many events and passages, but that is to be expected. I would expect though that some Catholic readers would also be dismayed at some of his shallow apologetics for the Catholic position. For instance:

"As an aside, rapturists sometimes claim that Hebrews criticizes Catholic belief in the sacrifice of the Mass. Out of the other side of their mouths, they try to claim that belief in the Mass as an unbloody sacrifice did not appear in the Church until as later as the Middle Ages. Of course, they cannot have it both ways! How could the author of Hebrews be criticizing the sacrifice of the Mass if it was not believed to be a sacrifice yet?"

Does Currie actually believe that is a good and fair argument? Or an accurate representation of what his opponents believe. First, one should never assume an understanding of another's argument in such a way that would make them as dumb as a rock. Skeptics do the exact same thing when they accuse Solomon of contradicting himself in ignorant bliss when he first says "Do not answer a fool according to his folly," and in the very next verse says, "Answer a fool according to his folly." Opponents of Catholicism are NOT stating that the writer of Hebrews was speaking exactly and specifically of the Mass - but rather was articulating a principle that is applied to the Mass - and frankly, the shoe fits. In the same way, when I state that hyperpreterists are guilty of the Hymenaean heresy, I am NOT claiming that Hymenaeus was precisely a hyperpreterist and denied the resurrection in precisely the same way.

And there is something for everyone! Currie breaks the cardinal rule of preterism - "we don't need no stinkin' charts" - and scatters multiple visual references for his timelines throughout..

EDITORIAL NITS: On page 177 there is an endnote reference of "OTP"; however, no such entry exists in the endnotes. Further, on page 317 the word "know" is used rather than "known."

Ack!!! The back cover blurb says, "In these remarkable pages - which constitute the world's most careful and thorough study of the rapture...."

[emphasis added]
Humility is a virtue. However, though I do think the book is very good in a lot of parts, as I have and will continue to demonstrate, it is certainly NOT as accurate or thorough as it could have been. And I am the world's most careful and thorough reviewer.

[dizzle]

Okay it is up on my blog

http://preteristsite.com/wordpress/?p=315

Next week I will be posting it as an article as well, but everything will remain the same. Once I have it up as an actual article, I will email the author again.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

The plural of appendix is appendices.

[dizzle]

According to dictionary.com both are acceptable (and I was using the wording that Currie used)

–noun, plural -dix·es, -di·ces

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Egad... that just looks so profane to me! But alas, Oxford confirms it. There are people in the world who use that word! http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/index?view=uk Apparently my spelling is especially used in "technical usage." Who'da thought?

[Geek Eclectic]

I always assumed that appendixes was used in reference to the organ, and appendices was used in reference to book chapters that, for whatever reason, the author didn't want to enumerate.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I always assumed that appendixes was used in reference to the organ, and appendices was used in reference to book chapters that, for whatever reason, the author didn't want to enumerate.Hmm, apparently not, I just read a book that had a section called "appendixes" at the back. Mind you, it was an American book.... maybe it's more common to say that over there?