Rapture Fever
by Gary North by Gary North
8 REVISING DISPENSATIONALISM TO DEATH Dispen.nationalists should be open to, sensitive to, and ready to entertain any future developnumt of theology based on a proper theological method, @’ving primmy consideration to the ongoing work of interpreting the Sctipture. Many dtipensationalist.s are encouraging thti, and that is why cb-uelopmt can be seen within the system. Craig A. Blaising (1988)1 By the year 2000, Dallas Theolop”cal Semina~ mull no longer be dispensational. [Professional priorities are elsewhere than the defense of systematic dispensationalism from external criticism. Thomas D. Ice (1989) 2 In April of 1988, the year the Rapture did not happen, four decades after the formation of the State of Israel, Rev. Thomas Ice and Dave Hunt debated Gary DeMar and me in a public meeting in a Dallas hotels In response, DeMar wrote The Debate Over Christian Reconstruction (1988). DeMar was already the 1. Craig A. Blaising, “Development of Dispensationalism by Contemporary Dispensationalists,’’ llibhotheca Sacra (July-September 1988), p. 255. 2. Interview with Martin Selbrede, Counsel of Chalzedon (Dec. 1989). 3. Audiotapes and a videotape of this debate are available from the ICE.
146 RAPTURE FEVER co-author, along with Peter Leithart, of The Reductwn of Chri.stiani$y (1988), which was a response to Hunt’s Beyond Seductwn (1987). Also in 1988, then-Dallas Seminary professor H. Wayne House and Rev. Ice wrote Dominion Theology: Blessing or Cume? A year later, the Institute for Christian Economics published a rebuttal, House Divided: The Break- Up of Dispensational Theology.4 All of this writing and publishing took place within a period of two years. House Divided publicly buried an expired theological system. What is even more significant about this burial is that dispensationalism’s official defenders have been almost as active in gathering dirt to shovel on the casket as its theonomic critics are.5 The Academic Game of Quiet Revising House and Ice quietly revised the fundamental doctrines of traditional dispensational theology. They no longer believe that the old dispensational theology can be successfully defended, a suspicion obviously shared by Dallas Theological Seminary Professor Craig Blaising, as revealed by the citation which begins this chapter. For example, they (i.e., House) argue that the death penalty is still valid in New Testament times because this was part of Noah’s covenant (Gen. 9:5-6) - a pre-Mosaic covenant.G This was Calvinist theologian John Murray’s argument a generation ago.’ It is a bit odd to see dispensationalists appealing to traditional covenant theology when defending dispensationalism against theonomy. Professor House in this case has dressed John Murray’s covenant theology in Lewis Sperry 4. Available from the ICE; $25, hardback. 5. See, for example, John Macktlum Jr., The Gospel According to Jesus (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Academie, 1988), which documents the antinomianism of conventional dispensationalism. See Chapter 10, below. 6. House and Ice, Dominion Theolo~: Biasing or Curse? (Portland, Oregon: Multnomah Press, 1988), p. 130. 7. John Murray, Principla of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1957), p. 118.
- Page 132 and 133: A Commitment to Cultural Irrelevanc
- Page 134 and 135: A Commitment to Cultural Irrelevanc
- Page 136 and 137: A Commitment to Cultural Irrelevanc
- Page 138 and 139: A Commitment to Cultural Imelevance
- Page 140 and 141: A Commitment to Cultural Irrelevanc
- Page 142 and 143: A Commitment to Cultural Iwelevance
- Page 144 and 145: A Commitment to Cultural Irrelevanc
- Page 146 and 147: A Commitment to Cultural Irrelevanc
- Page 148 and 149: A Ghetto Eschatology 111 clom is ac
- Page 150 and 151: A Ghetto Eschatologj 113 testified
- Page 152 and 153: A Ghetto Eschatology 115 cause of m
- Page 154 and 155: A Ghetto Eschatology 11’7 actions
- Page 156 and 157: A Ghetto Eschatology 119 When Chris
- Page 158 and 159: A Ghetto Eschatology 121 preach God
- Page 160 and 161: A Ghetto Eschatology 123 antiquaria
- Page 162 and 163: A Ghetto Eschatolog~ 125 an acciden
- Page 164 and 165: A Ghtto Eschutology 127 all, the si
- Page 166 and 167: 7 HOUSE OF SEVEN GARBLES [In respon
- Page 168 and 169: House of Seven Garbles 131 A Fig Tr
- Page 170 and 171: House of Seven Garbles 133 And let
- Page 172 and 173: House of Seven Garbles 135 in point
- Page 174 and 175: House of Seven Garbles 137 As I sai
- Page 176 and 177: House of Seven Garbles 139 This she
- Page 178 and 179: House of Seven Garbles 141 legislat
- Page 180 and 181: House of Seven Garbles 143 the rain
- Page 184 and 185: Revising Dhpensationalism to Death
- Page 186 and 187: Reuising Disfiensationalism to Deat
- Page 188 and 189: Revising Dtipensationaltim to Death
- Page 190 and 191: Revising Dispensationali.sm to Dea!
- Page 192 and 193: Revising Dispen.nationalism to Deat
- Page 194 and 195: Revising Dispensationaltim to Death
- Page 196 and 197: Revising Dis@nsationalism to Death
- Page 198 and 199: Revising D@ensationalkm to Death 16
- Page 200 and 201: 9 DISPENSATIONALISM VS. SIX-DAY CRE
- Page 202 and 203: Di.spensationalism vs. Six-Day Crea
- Page 204 and 205: Dispensationalism us. Six-Day Creat
- Page 206 and 207: Dispensationaltim vs. Six-Day Creat
- Page 208 and 209: Dispensationalism vs. Six-Day Creat
- Page 210 and 211: D@ensationalism vs. Sanctification
- Page 212 and 213: Dispensationalism vs. Sanctificatio
- Page 214 and 215: Dis$ensationalism vs. Sanctificatio
- Page 216 and 217: Dispensationali.sm vs. Sancttjicati
- Page 218 and 219: Theological Schizophrenia 181 again
- Page 220 and 221: Theological Schiwphrenia 183 1980.
- Page 222 and 223: Theological Schizophrenia 185 What
- Page 224 and 225: Theological Schizophrenia 187 nal,
- Page 226 and 227: When “Babylon” Fell, So Did Dis
- Page 228 and 229: When “Babylon” Fell, So Did Dis
- Page 230 and 231: When “Babylon” Fell, So Did Dis
8<br />
REVISING DISPENSATIONALISM<br />
TO DEATH<br />
Dispen.nationalists should be open to, sensitive to, and ready to entertain<br />
any future developnumt of theology based on a proper theological<br />
method, @’ving primmy consideration to the ongoing work of interpreting<br />
the Sctipture. Many dtipensationalist.s are encouraging thti, and that is<br />
why cb-uelopmt can be seen within the system.<br />
Craig A. Blaising (1988)1<br />
By the year 2000, Dallas Theolop”cal Semina~ mull no longer be<br />
dispensational. [Professional priorities are elsewhere than the defense of<br />
systematic dispensationalism from external criticism.<br />
Thomas D. Ice (1989) 2<br />
In April of 1988, the year the <strong>Rapture</strong> did not happen, four<br />
decades after the formation of the State of Israel, Rev. Thomas<br />
Ice and Dave Hunt debated Gary DeMar and me in a public<br />
meeting in a Dallas hotels In response, DeMar wrote The Debate<br />
Over Christian Reconstruction (1988). DeMar was already the<br />
1. Craig A. Blaising, “Development of Dispensationalism by Contemporary<br />
Dispensationalists,’’ llibhotheca Sacra (July-September 1988), p. 255.<br />
2. Interview with Martin Selbrede, Counsel of Chalzedon (Dec. 1989).<br />
3. Audiotapes and a videotape of this debate are available from the ICE.