Audio Interview with Carl Olson: Will Catholics Be “Left Behind”?

[tizzidale]

Part One (http://catholichack.blogspot.com/2007/12/catholic-hack-episode-no-27-carl-olsen.html)

Part Two (http://catholichack.blogspot.com/2007/12/catholic-hack-episode-no-28-carl-olson.html)

I haven't listened, but I do read Mr. Olson's blog so I can attest to his Catholicity thought I'd pass it on.

[gharfish]

You haven't listened, but you are just being helpful and passing it on ?? Do you know who Olson is ?! I'll bet you do. Everybody who's up on the subject of eschatology here quite likely does know what he opposes. It's dispensationalism...because it's "anti-RCC."

Let me pass on something too; an actual ad from ardent supporters of this particuar Catholic cause. Just Google search the simplest key words that apply; you will find Envoy Magazine all over it (Olson's book).

PS: Carl is RC now, but came to it from the 'other side'--a convert.

[dizzle]

I hope he does a better job than Currie.

[tizzidale]

I do know who Olson is . . . considering I read his blog every day. And I'm aware of his opposition to dispensationalism.


I hope he does a better job than Currie.

wouldn't know. gonna listen today i hope

[dizzle]

Let me know what you think. You saw the deficiencies that Currie had. If they are good, I might list them on my site.

[gharfish]

I do know who Olson is . . . considering I read his blog every day. And I'm aware of his opposition to dispensationalism.



Then now your intent is clearer. I feel sure you also know there is bad blood between the two men: Olson and LaHaye (who coined the term "left behind"). The reader of your OP deserves to be made aware of that aspect of his objection. Has Carl 'told you' about the scandalous "Rapture Rumble" in his daily blog ? For Carl O. it's become too person specific. LaHaye is vocally "anti Catholic." Those hard feelings between the men accelerates Olson in his opposition to the "ism" that affirms the rapture event (we say) Paul taught.....which simply by the math leaves NON-CHRISTIANS only behind on earth.

[tizzidale]

LA, I can't make heads or tails of what you're saying. I'm not sure why I would have to include a history of Olson's enmity with LaHaye in my OP, as I'm only vaguely aware of the details. He does bring up LaHaye in the interview and mentions a contentious email debate he had with him.
________________________

All-in-all, DeeDee, the interview deals specifically with premill. dispensationalism, and does not delve into postmill at all. So I'm not sure if his book suffers from some of the same shortcoming of the one you reviewed. He is quick to point out that the majority of Protestants throughout history have not held the premil/dispensational position. He also mentions something that I hadn't considered before. He cals Darby's influence over modern Christianity equally important as Luther's was in his era.

rusty

[spauline]

The Fundamentalist form of Dispensationalism is admittedly false. But problem is, Olson, like Currie, just wants to respond to the right with the left, that is, preterism, which is only a little better. Problem with Olson and Currie is, they simply want to say that what is revealed in Scripture and Tradition about the general age of the Church between pagan Rome and the end of world AC, is just a vague Millennium.

That's a mushy left position. You mean to tell me that the world that was converted to RCC and then gradually departed from her because of CHristian Division, is chastised for its apostasy and then brought back for an age of peace, this all to occur before the final apostasy, but that nevertheless, Scripture has nothing to say about it?

Therefore, Olson and Currie are not Catholic ENOUGH.

They need to open their eyes to spiritual historicism, the middle approach, the true meat of the book.

[tizzidale]

Spauline, I'm not sure that being preterist to some degree (which admittedly Olson is - as are most people I know) is the same as being an optimistic amillennialist (what some people like to call postmillennialism :smile:). I haven't read the book, but all that I gather from Olson is that he's fully in the Catholic 'camp' concerning eschatology (if the 'camp' can be defined so narrowly).

rusty

[gharfish]

LA, I can't make heads or tails of what you're saying. I'm not sure why I would have to include a history of Olson's enmity with LaHaye in my OP, as I'm only vaguely aware of the details. He does bring up LaHaye in the interview and mentions a contentious email debate he had with him.
"Can't make head nor tails.." you say ? You do know the title of his book, right ?!

If a person is a Christian they will not be "Left Behind." Isn't that so, "as the story" (Paul's) goes" ? So what does DF have to do with Catholicism, I ask you ?

You must at least know this: that Olson sees a problem he wants to talk about regarding opposition from fundamental conservative evangelical Protestantism towards RC. He protests.