Posted by Georg S. Adamsen on July 28, 2008
This post continues Carl E. Olson, Will Catholics Be “Left Behind”? (1)
Part Two
I do support the Roman Catholic ecclesiology. However, Olson offers a decent presentation of the dispensational ecclesiology. Classic dispensationalism is characterised by a radical distinction between Israel and the Church and their purposes (or destinies, cf. Vern S. Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists). Modified dispensationalism has abandoned this distinction and thus undermined the entire dispensational system.
Chapter 7
In Chapter 7, Olson argues that the Church is the New Israel (pp. 215-217). On the basis of an analysis of the Biblical and of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the church, Olson critiques the dispensational distinction between Israel and the Church in four points: It fails hermeneutically, it ignores that the New Covenant fulfils the Old Testament promises and thus establishes a New Israel, the Church. Dispensationalism subverts the Biblical ecclesiology. It also ignores that there is only one people of God throughout history (pp. 220-221).
I am not sure, however, that Olson is correct in claiming that this people is built “through a series of covenants.” The people of God is built by God’s promises that create the faith that justifies (see Romans 4). In fact, I would argue that the most important problem is that dispensationalism (as well as Roman Catholicism) decenters the doctrine of justification.
Olson correctly critiques the view of classic dispensationalism that the church is a mysterious parenthesis that does not fulfil any OT promises (pp. 221-226) and shows that the church is a continuation of the Old Testament Israel (pp. 226-232). Dispensationalism claims that Christ “does not rule as King” (Ryrie, Basic Theology, 1986, p. 259, quoted pp. 234f). Olson shows that this is contrary to the teaching of the New Testament (pp. 235ff) and to the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church (pp. 238-240).
Chapter 8
In Chapter 8, Olson scrutinises the dispensational hermeneutics, which he rightly criticises. However, a large part of this chapter is, in reality, a defense of Roman Catholicism. Olson rejects Sola Scriptura as a non-Biblical and protestant belief and claims that the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church “has the final say in interpreting Scripture … because of the authority and guidance given by Jesus Christ” (p. 276).
Olson discusses the dispensational “literalness” in the view of the Four senses of medieval exegesis (pp. 276-282) and explains – with a concept from the Roman Catholic Dei Verbum – the character of the Old Testament prophecies as “pedagogy” (pp. 282-285).
Chapter 9
Chapter 9 is devoted to the notion of rapture. Dispensationalists such as Walvoord and Ryrie admit that the idea of the rapture is derived from the radical distinction between Israel and the Church (p. 293). Olson asserts – in my view correctly – that “there is a striking absence of proof for the pretribulational Raputre” (296) i.e. the dispensational idea that the Church will be removed from earth before the Tribulation. Finally, Olson argues that the Second coming is not “imminent,” but will take place at an unknown time (pp. 297-302).
Olson emphasises how the notion of the Day of the Lord is a challenge for dispensationalism.
One serious problem for the dispensationalists is the reference to 1 Thessalonians 5 “the day of the Lord”. This term, also rendered as “the day of judgment”, is used in the New Testament to refer to the Second Coming and the end of time. (p. 297f)
Indeed. In fact, I think it is an obstacle to all sorts of premillennalism.
Olson argues against the idea that the church will escape the Tribulation (pp. 302-315) and discusses whether 2 Thessalonians 2 supports the idea of the pretribulational rapture (pp. 315ff). Here Olson quote a quite remarkable claim by Walvoord: “That the Spirit indwells all believers in the Tribulation is nowhere taught” (p. 316).
Olson sketches the two approaches that dispensationalists take to the historical fact that a pretribulational rapture is not taught before around 1800: denial of the importance of history or denial of the historical fact itself (pp. 325-330). He also discusses LaHaye’s fourteen arguments for the pretribulational rapture (pp. 331-335). Finally, Olson discusses the appeal that dispensationalism has (pp. 335-340).
Chapter 10 and the back matters
The concluding Chapter 10 is about “the Catholic vision.” The bibliography is categorised, which helps to overview the literature, but otherwise it is not as userfriendly as one might wish. The index is quite detailed. The short List of key persons consists mainly of dispensationalists.
Concluding remarks
Olson’s Will the Catholics Be “Left Behind” is a broad presentation of dispensationalism. Although I do not agree with the distinctive Roman Catholic arguments of the author, I think that he has shown that dispensationalism is not a sound theology. This is a sad conclusion in view of the fact that dispensationalism is as popular as it is.
The many overviews, quotes and notes makes this volume a helpful introduction, even for those who are not Roman Catholics.
Posted by Georg S. Adamsen on July 27, 2008
Olson, Carl E. Will Catholics Be “Left Behind”? A Catholic Critique of the Rapture and Today’s Prophecy Preachers. Modern Apologetics Library. San Francisco, California: Ignatius Press, 2003. 424 pp.
Table of Contents
Will Catholics Be “Left Behind”? An Introduction (p. 11-22)
Part One – The Story of the Rapture … and So Much More
1 The Parousia, the Rapture, and the End Times (pp. 25-49)
2 Catholics and the Left Behind Phenomenon (pp. 50-68)
3 A Book of Confusion or Revelation (pp. 69-112)
4 The Millennium: How Long Is a Thousand Years (pp. 113-140)
5 Millenarianism: Early Church to John Nelson Darby (pp. 141-165)
6 Dispensationalism and the Rapture in America (pp. 166-203)
Part Two – A Catholic Critique of Dispensationalism
7 The Kingdom, the Church, and Israel (pp. 207-240)
8 “Bible Prophecy” and Interpreting Scripture (pp. 241-285)
9 Unwrapping the Rapture (pp. 286-340)
10 Conclusion: The Catholic Vision (pp. 341-357)
Glossary of Key Terms (pp. 359-366)
List of Key Persons (pp. 367-371)
Selected Bibliography (pp. 373-390)
Abbreviations (pp. 391-392)
Acknowledgement of Sources Cited (pp. 393-395)
Index (pp. 397-424)
Introductory remarks
I have decided to include Carl E. Olson’s Will Catholics Be “Left Behind,” even though I do not agree with those hermeneutical and doctrinal arguments that are distinctively Roman Catholic. As a Roman Catholic, Olson makes frequent use of Roman-Catholic teaching, especially on hermeneutics and eschatology.
Carl E. Olson, a Master in Theological Studies (2000), was raised as a Fundamentalist and dispensationalist, but converted to the Roman Catholic Church in 1997 (see more here).
Olson writes in a clear, journalistic and – sometimes quite broad – style (for a succinct analysis and challenge of the dispensational hermeneutics, see Vern S. Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists).
In Part One Olson gives an account of the historical and theological context of the dispensational phenomenon of our time. In Part Two we find a (more) systematic assessment (although Olson does offer some evaluations in Part One). In this post I concentrate on Part One (see here on Part Two).
In general, Olson gives a decent introduction to the history of dispensationalism, to the more important dispensational authors, and to their religious thinking. He also introduces many pieces of secondary literature, which is very helpful for those who will go more deeply into the whole subject. Olson quotes extensively, except from LaHaye and Jenkins’s Tribulation Force, which subtly attacks Roman Catholicism; Olson did not get permission to quote; p. 57 n. 12). Olson’s book is heavily annotated.
Part One
Chapter 3
In my view, Chapter 3, which attempts to outline an interpretation acceptable to Roman Catholics, would benefit from a rewrite. Too much material seems irrelevant to the main argument of Olson’s book. To me it seems more like Olson’s essay on a Catholic interpretation of Revelation.
Even in this chapter, Olson launches severe criticism of the world view of the dispensationalism, comparing it to what David Chilton sees as pessimism. In fact, Olson cites David Chilton many times, which surprised me because Chilton is a postmillennialist, not an amillennialist, nor a Roman Catholic. Many non-dispensationalists disagree with Chilton’s “optimistic” postmillennialism as well as his theonomic ethics. It may very well be that (some popular) dispensationalists tend “toward a kind of gnosticism in its communication of truth,” as Mark Noll asserts in a passage that Olson quotes (p. 95 n. 56). Whether or not the world view of the ancient Jewish apocalyptists is really similar is another matter. To me, however, it seems fair to describe the dispensational perspective as follows:
These [apocalyptic] elements bear a remarkable similarity to the popular dispensationalist perspective, which asserts that only dispensationalists can understand the book of Revelation, that life on earth is mostly pessimistic, and that there is little reason for working within history to better the earth and the state of humanity. (p. 95).
Chapter 4
Chapter 4 surveys the three main millennial views, but I would suggest other introductions (e.g., Bock [ed.], Three Views on the Millennium). I do not not agree that “ecclesiology is the cornerstone for eschatology” (p. 140). More important is Christology and soteriology.
Chapter 5 and 6
Chapters 5 and 6 are very informative. The phenomenon of dispensationalism is quite strange. Fear and money are two aspects that play a significant role. Fear plays an enormous role in the dispensational communication. And the many books and films etc. is big business.
Olson’s summary of Part One
Concluding Chapter 6, Olson summarises the core features and tendencies of dispensationalism as follows: Dispensationalism is “a reactionary and defensive movement,” motivated by “fear of apostasy, dislike of liberal methods of biblical interpretation, and conviction of impending doom.” Olson and others argue that the dispensationalists also desire “to escape the world and its troubles”. Nevertheless, people are convinced that the dispensational teaching is biblically correct: “a pretribulational Rapture, a seven-year Tribulation, and a thousand-year millennial Kingdom on earth.” Most dispensationalists are resistant to “reasonable dialogue,” according to Olson. Seemingly, dispensationlism makes sense of what is happening in the world, confirms the prophecies of the Bible, and it introduces a certain indifference to culture and politics (pp. 201-203).
