Trout
October 21st 2007, 07:04 PM
Review of Rapture: The End-Times Error That Leaves the Bible Behind by David B. Currie
by Darth Xena
[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 David Currie himself descends into tinfoil hat territory in this effort by stating things such as, "by denying the present existence of God's Kingdom, the 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 about and thus unable 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 in 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 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: "The 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 slides off the horse and falls onto his head. I will demonstrate this by letting 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 ... 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 data? The question isn't if one thinks postmillennialism is true, it is if that statement is factually 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. Ironically, Currie's book does not have a Scripture index either.
Next on to his second inflammatory characterization, are we called 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 of his 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 is 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 held in any great numbers over roughly the past that twenty years, that is, a belief that the millennium is a discreet period of time yet in our future. I do not know of any mainstream current postmillennial author that holds that view. 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 the Christian worldview? Of course. There are some people who claim to be Catholic who hold things which would be abominable to Currie. If I were to simply point them out in a book intended to be a basic and accurate summary of the major sects within Christendom, 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 in their understanding of that period. In an appendix he further explains that even Justin Martyr believed that the church was in fact the New Israel and that kingdom blessings were applicable to the present time. However, that does not make him amillennial, it simply makes him definitely non-dispensational.
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 further has 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, he presents 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 two 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."
Daniel
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 first 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 here it may seem unconvincing, but I do recommend the reader to refer to Currie's presentation in pages 119 through 128.
Now, my fellow Protestants, its time for a snicker moment. 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?
The Olivet Discourse
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 (his only current "preterist" author cited in the endnotes is hyperpreterist John Noe.) Mr. Currie (quite ignorantly) claims that "this generation" in Matthew 24:34must mean the generation then living because, in part, Jesus just used that same phrase in Matthew 23:36and "no one tries to reinterpret the meaning of this word on that occasion." O Rly? Well Mr. Currie, meet fellow amillennialist 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) understood their questions as involving one event. As I stated in "It's Not the End of the World!" http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/warrenend.html:
-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-==-=--=-=-
The remainder of the review will be continued in the following post below:
by Darth Xena
[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 David Currie himself descends into tinfoil hat territory in this effort by stating things such as, "by denying the present existence of God's Kingdom, the 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 about and thus unable 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 in 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 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: "The 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 slides off the horse and falls onto his head. I will demonstrate this by letting 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 ... 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 data? The question isn't if one thinks postmillennialism is true, it is if that statement is factually 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. Ironically, Currie's book does not have a Scripture index either.
Next on to his second inflammatory characterization, are we called 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 of his 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 is 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 held in any great numbers over roughly the past that twenty years, that is, a belief that the millennium is a discreet period of time yet in our future. I do not know of any mainstream current postmillennial author that holds that view. 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 the Christian worldview? Of course. There are some people who claim to be Catholic who hold things which would be abominable to Currie. If I were to simply point them out in a book intended to be a basic and accurate summary of the major sects within Christendom, 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 in their understanding of that period. In an appendix he further explains that even Justin Martyr believed that the church was in fact the New Israel and that kingdom blessings were applicable to the present time. However, that does not make him amillennial, it simply makes him definitely non-dispensational.
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 further has 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, he presents 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 two 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."
Daniel
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 first 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 here it may seem unconvincing, but I do recommend the reader to refer to Currie's presentation in pages 119 through 128.
Now, my fellow Protestants, its time for a snicker moment. 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?
The Olivet Discourse
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 (his only current "preterist" author cited in the endnotes is hyperpreterist John Noe.) Mr. Currie (quite ignorantly) claims that "this generation" in Matthew 24:34must mean the generation then living because, in part, Jesus just used that same phrase in Matthew 23:36and "no one tries to reinterpret the meaning of this word on that occasion." O Rly? Well Mr. Currie, meet fellow amillennialist 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) understood their questions as involving one event. As I stated in "It's Not the End of the World!" http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/warrenend.html:
-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-==-=--=-=-
The remainder of the review will be continued in the following post below: