What do you think?
Rate this book
End Time Delusions: The Rapture, the Antichrist, Israel, and the End of the World
Will Christians vanish in a rapture? Will seven years of apocalyptic terror overtake those left behind? Will one future Mr. Diabolical - the antichrist - rise to control the world? Will he enter a rebuilt Jewish temple, claiming to be God? Will Earth's nations attack Israel at Armageddon? Best-selling books like Left Behind and popular apocalyptic movies predict such things. Are they correct? No area of Christianity has been subject to more misguided interpretation than prophecy. Millions of Christians sense we are nearing Jesus Christ's return. Yet when it comes to what the majority thinks will happen during Earth's last days, and what the Bible actually says will occur, the difference is seismic. With clarity and biblical accuracy, End Time Delusions exposes massive errors now flooding through media and in much of today's sensational prophecy writing. This book closely examines tightly meshed yet speculative theories about the rapture, seven-year tribulation, antichrist, and the modern Jewish state. This book is no novelty. Buttressed with solid teachings from many of Christianity's most illustrious scholars, it lets the Bible speak for itself about the past, present, and future.
224 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 2004
24 people are currently reading
84 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
June 23, 2014
Oh boy. I started reading this because my pastor was teaching a series that was based on some of the information in this book. When I heard what was said, I was skeptical, so I decided to read it, and what I read was very disturbing.
I’m (sadly) used to preachers with poor writing, so the fact that his writing is horrible doesn’t bother me as much as it used to, even though I think it’s shameful. But his interpretations of Scripture are also very bad. A couple of things you should know are these: he disagrees with Futurism eschatology (most popular in the USA, and is the "end times" preaching found in the Left Behind series), he believes that the Catholic papacy is the antichrist, and most important of all--a fact that is not mentioned in his book--he is either a Seventh Day Adventist, or he strongly adheres to SDA teaching and/or eschatology. This seems to be the general consensus and main criticism of his book. And the fact that this ideology is not mentioned in his book is telling: he either isn't SDA but believes some things and doesn't want to admit it, or he full-fledged SDA and he won't admit it because of the stigma that it would have on the reception of his book. SDA is very much on the fringe of orthodoxy, and I think that's a very generous judgment. A lot of the beliefs of SDA are strange, but central to their beliefs are the prophecies and eschatology of Ellen White. She strongly believed that Catholicism was the antichrist and that Sunday worship started with them and was the mark of the beast. To be clear, I don’t know all that much about SDA other than what I've found online, so I’m not really making a judgment call on that in general, but it appears that many other christians have problems with SDA beliefs.
Also, another clarification: Wohlberg's book is on more than just anti-papism, but over a third of the book is dedicated to this, and this is where my biggest contention originates, so I'll be talking mostly about that.
Wohlberg's book, in an effort to bring some literary gravitas, even begins with a quote from G.K. Chesterton who was openly Catholic. I found that laughable and oddly conflicting in a book apparently about how Catholicism is the antichrist. I don't necessarily disagree with all of his eschatology, since I think there is some merit to his criticisms of Futurism, but I think his arguments are really bad, and he makes glaring errors in his interpretations of Scripture. His foundational arguments are HORRIBLE. In order to really make a strong argument, you have to have foundational arguments that are sound. But his foundation is so obviously bad that unless you gloss over this, it's hard to take him seriously. There are many problems with his arguments about the antichrist coming from within the church, his belief that Judas is a typology for the antichrist or man of perdition, his notion that the temple of God referred to is a person and not an actual temple, and his appeal to authority from certain historical figures who also believed that Catholicism was the antichrist. It's obvious from history and Scripture that potions of Scripture that mention the antichrist being "among you" (found in 1 John) are references to gnosticism, not Catholicism. As for Judas his only evidence for his typology is one mention of the phrase. For his beliefs about the temple, he makes a point to say that we have to interpret Paul with Paul to really see the true understanding of the word "temple", and since he only used it metaphorically to describe our bodies and the Church, then he must not be talking about a physical temple in Thessalonians, right??? I think you can see how flimsy that argument is, and how awful is the holistic biblical exposition. After mentioning that this "temple" is talking about a person, he goes one to say that the "seated in the temple" phrase used in Scripture obviously isn't talking about PHYSICALLY sitting in a PHYSICAL temple, since, you know, it's already talking about a person; no, this just means a position of authority. Again, if you just take a simple look at Scripture, it's obvious that it's physically sitting in a physical temple. But if you already have a presupposition that Catholicism is evil, that the papacy is the antichrist, and that the man of perdition will come out of the Church (I guess a reflection of the rise of Catholicism), then you are going to build your argument from the roof down. He also mentions that many men and women of God who we venerate in the faith also believed this way. But most of his examples are all from the Protestant Reformation, and I think you can understand the personal and historical context of why they believed that Catholicism and the papacy were antichrist. I don't want to go into a lot of critical analysis in this review, but the points I just made are enough to discredit his book.
He also does a really poor job at his scholarship and documentation of his points. I’m not one who is the source police, but the way he spins his view really makes it come off as a conspiracy theory rather than legitimate theology. This is why his quotation of Chesterton is problematic. It’s another strike against him for not really doing his homework, and when you see someone who clearly has something against catholicism keep a quotation from a Catholic source, it seems like he should have known better.
He tries to mitigate the damage of what he says by qualifying that he isn't against INDIVIDUAL Catholics. But another problem arises when you think, "What if that individual was the Pope? Would you still not have a problem then?" It seems that in order to believe this way, it's all or nothing. This may be why some SDAs are openly antagonistic toward ANY Catholics. And I think this ties into the biggest issue I have with this book: I fear what the implications from what an anti-papist belief could mean. I don’t really see anything positive coming from this--unless it were actually true. That’s a big “if” because the author does a horrible job at proving this. If he’s wrong, though, then what he’s preaching is that we should be divided against other Christian brothers and sisters. That really bothers me. I think that pastors would be out of line and wrong for preaching this in their church without really doing further research. People will just swallow this without even reading the book for themselves and will start to believe that Catholicism is EVIL rather than Catholicism being in ERROR (as we Protestants suppose). There’s a huge difference between evil and error. I also think that Jesus himself commands us to be a lot more cautious about this type of thinking. The bible obviously warns us to be discerning and judge what he hear, and it also teaches us to love our brothers and sisters in Christ. There’s just something about this implies the opposite, and I don’t like that at all.
I’m (sadly) used to preachers with poor writing, so the fact that his writing is horrible doesn’t bother me as much as it used to, even though I think it’s shameful. But his interpretations of Scripture are also very bad. A couple of things you should know are these: he disagrees with Futurism eschatology (most popular in the USA, and is the "end times" preaching found in the Left Behind series), he believes that the Catholic papacy is the antichrist, and most important of all--a fact that is not mentioned in his book--he is either a Seventh Day Adventist, or he strongly adheres to SDA teaching and/or eschatology. This seems to be the general consensus and main criticism of his book. And the fact that this ideology is not mentioned in his book is telling: he either isn't SDA but believes some things and doesn't want to admit it, or he full-fledged SDA and he won't admit it because of the stigma that it would have on the reception of his book. SDA is very much on the fringe of orthodoxy, and I think that's a very generous judgment. A lot of the beliefs of SDA are strange, but central to their beliefs are the prophecies and eschatology of Ellen White. She strongly believed that Catholicism was the antichrist and that Sunday worship started with them and was the mark of the beast. To be clear, I don’t know all that much about SDA other than what I've found online, so I’m not really making a judgment call on that in general, but it appears that many other christians have problems with SDA beliefs.
Also, another clarification: Wohlberg's book is on more than just anti-papism, but over a third of the book is dedicated to this, and this is where my biggest contention originates, so I'll be talking mostly about that.
Wohlberg's book, in an effort to bring some literary gravitas, even begins with a quote from G.K. Chesterton who was openly Catholic. I found that laughable and oddly conflicting in a book apparently about how Catholicism is the antichrist. I don't necessarily disagree with all of his eschatology, since I think there is some merit to his criticisms of Futurism, but I think his arguments are really bad, and he makes glaring errors in his interpretations of Scripture. His foundational arguments are HORRIBLE. In order to really make a strong argument, you have to have foundational arguments that are sound. But his foundation is so obviously bad that unless you gloss over this, it's hard to take him seriously. There are many problems with his arguments about the antichrist coming from within the church, his belief that Judas is a typology for the antichrist or man of perdition, his notion that the temple of God referred to is a person and not an actual temple, and his appeal to authority from certain historical figures who also believed that Catholicism was the antichrist. It's obvious from history and Scripture that potions of Scripture that mention the antichrist being "among you" (found in 1 John) are references to gnosticism, not Catholicism. As for Judas his only evidence for his typology is one mention of the phrase. For his beliefs about the temple, he makes a point to say that we have to interpret Paul with Paul to really see the true understanding of the word "temple", and since he only used it metaphorically to describe our bodies and the Church, then he must not be talking about a physical temple in Thessalonians, right??? I think you can see how flimsy that argument is, and how awful is the holistic biblical exposition. After mentioning that this "temple" is talking about a person, he goes one to say that the "seated in the temple" phrase used in Scripture obviously isn't talking about PHYSICALLY sitting in a PHYSICAL temple, since, you know, it's already talking about a person; no, this just means a position of authority. Again, if you just take a simple look at Scripture, it's obvious that it's physically sitting in a physical temple. But if you already have a presupposition that Catholicism is evil, that the papacy is the antichrist, and that the man of perdition will come out of the Church (I guess a reflection of the rise of Catholicism), then you are going to build your argument from the roof down. He also mentions that many men and women of God who we venerate in the faith also believed this way. But most of his examples are all from the Protestant Reformation, and I think you can understand the personal and historical context of why they believed that Catholicism and the papacy were antichrist. I don't want to go into a lot of critical analysis in this review, but the points I just made are enough to discredit his book.
He also does a really poor job at his scholarship and documentation of his points. I’m not one who is the source police, but the way he spins his view really makes it come off as a conspiracy theory rather than legitimate theology. This is why his quotation of Chesterton is problematic. It’s another strike against him for not really doing his homework, and when you see someone who clearly has something against catholicism keep a quotation from a Catholic source, it seems like he should have known better.
He tries to mitigate the damage of what he says by qualifying that he isn't against INDIVIDUAL Catholics. But another problem arises when you think, "What if that individual was the Pope? Would you still not have a problem then?" It seems that in order to believe this way, it's all or nothing. This may be why some SDAs are openly antagonistic toward ANY Catholics. And I think this ties into the biggest issue I have with this book: I fear what the implications from what an anti-papist belief could mean. I don’t really see anything positive coming from this--unless it were actually true. That’s a big “if” because the author does a horrible job at proving this. If he’s wrong, though, then what he’s preaching is that we should be divided against other Christian brothers and sisters. That really bothers me. I think that pastors would be out of line and wrong for preaching this in their church without really doing further research. People will just swallow this without even reading the book for themselves and will start to believe that Catholicism is EVIL rather than Catholicism being in ERROR (as we Protestants suppose). There’s a huge difference between evil and error. I also think that Jesus himself commands us to be a lot more cautious about this type of thinking. The bible obviously warns us to be discerning and judge what he hear, and it also teaches us to love our brothers and sisters in Christ. There’s just something about this implies the opposite, and I don’t like that at all.
October 19, 2010
For many Christians today, the idea that they will be taken out of the world before the really big stuff happens in the Tribulation is held right up there with the virgin birth as to correct doctrine that cannot be questioned.
This "Left Behind" theology, however, is actually an idea only recently come up with, and it's one that cannot withstand the scriptural analysis it's often said can. The Bible says we are to give strict scrutiny to what we cling to, and "Left Behind" Christians should scrutinize their beliefs to make sure they are actually matching scripture, and not the novelization of Tim LaHaye's interpretation of scripture.
"End Time Delusions" is one of the simpler discussions of an alternative view about what will happen in the End, covering what the Bible says about the rapture, who the antichrist is, what's meant by "Israel", and so on.
Even if you study the ideas presented in this book and remain a believer in "Left Behind" theology, you'll enjoy better understanding all the arguments put forward about this most important topic.
This "Left Behind" theology, however, is actually an idea only recently come up with, and it's one that cannot withstand the scriptural analysis it's often said can. The Bible says we are to give strict scrutiny to what we cling to, and "Left Behind" Christians should scrutinize their beliefs to make sure they are actually matching scripture, and not the novelization of Tim LaHaye's interpretation of scripture.
"End Time Delusions" is one of the simpler discussions of an alternative view about what will happen in the End, covering what the Bible says about the rapture, who the antichrist is, what's meant by "Israel", and so on.
Even if you study the ideas presented in this book and remain a believer in "Left Behind" theology, you'll enjoy better understanding all the arguments put forward about this most important topic.
February 21, 2009
it's a shame. Wohlberg seemed to be spot-on for the first several chapters. he soon became an obvious conspiracy theorist and anti-Papist. where a solid theologian and teacher would say their theories are founded by this verse or that verse in Scripture, they will usually state that there are other theories that are out there that run counter to their own theories. Wohlberg suggests that his theories are "irrefutable proof" (p. 85). The man is unlearned. It's unfortunate.
August 21, 2017
Brilliant. Come to Jehovah and Jesus .come out of Babylon the great.
Great teaching a bout. The Two Israelis
Also the rapture before Armageddon also exposed as the had lots lie
Thanks
Great teaching a bout. The Two Israelis
Also the rapture before Armageddon also exposed as the had lots lie
Thanks
March 9, 2023
Ones choices in what to believe is restricted by the known options. Most readers of Revelation are only familiar with a futurist view and are completely unaware of opposing eschatological views like preterism and historism. End Time Delusions makes a compelling case for historism being the best and most logical interpretation of Revelation.
Although the author subscribes to the popular yet 100% unbibical* belief that Jesus (Messiah) is God, I find the insights offered make this a profitable book to have in ones library.
*See Isaiah 44:6, John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:4-6, 1 Timothy 2:5, Revelation 3:12 et al.
Although the author subscribes to the popular yet 100% unbibical* belief that Jesus (Messiah) is God, I find the insights offered make this a profitable book to have in ones library.
*See Isaiah 44:6, John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:4-6, 1 Timothy 2:5, Revelation 3:12 et al.
March 27, 2023
Arrogant and shallow. It started off great and then he turns to esoteric parts of the Bible to conclude the Pope as anti-Christ. He considers futurism and preterism as Jesuit deception in the church.
Whatever Protestants feel about Roman Catholicism, she is our mother. If Rome is a whore, than we are sons of whores.
Whatever Protestants feel about Roman Catholicism, she is our mother. If Rome is a whore, than we are sons of whores.
December 3, 2019
interesting
February 3, 2020
Steve does a wonderful job exposing the false theology of evangelical futurism.
November 27, 2021
Get to know last-day prophecies!
March 21, 2017
Good read
I enjoyed the book and I recommend it. It was a very good night and it's been a very good morning read also
I enjoyed the book and I recommend it. It was a very good night and it's been a very good morning read also
July 30, 2016
I liked this book on Biblical prophecy quite a bit. The first part of the book looks at many popular beliefs and points out problems with them such as the idea of a pre-tribulation Rapture, the Antichrist as a single evil entity, and the Great Tribulation lasting 7 years. The next part of the book looks at problems with Catholicism and preterism and the exact view of the author becomes more clear--historicist. I thought the first part of the book was great and well-argued in pointing out the problems with many popular views but when it came to proving the author's view I didn't feel too convinced or that it is that well argued and supported. I loved that this book provided a lot of historical context for what different schools of thought believe and where these ideas came from. I'm glad I read it even though I don't fully agree with the author's view.
February 24, 2009
The chapter on the tribulation opened my eyes to new ideas, that really make sense. In context the verses people quote in Daniel to show a future 7-year tribulation with an Antichrist who will stop the sacrifice is actually referring to Christ's sacrifice stopping the temple sacrifice. Each section of the book brings to light truth.
January 16, 2016
Great book on Escapology,of end times and t6he return of Christ.
A must read
December 6, 2011
An opposing voice to the Left Behind series. Anthony Hoekema's work is a more scholarly approach.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews