Rapture Fever

by Gary North by Gary North

12.07.2013 Views

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.

146 RAPTURE FEVER<br />

co-author, along with Peter Leithart, of The Reductwn of Chri.stiani$y<br />

(1988), which was a response to Hunt’s Beyond Seductwn<br />

(1987). Also in 1988, then-Dallas Seminary professor H. Wayne<br />

House and Rev. Ice wrote Dominion Theology: Blessing or Cume?<br />

A year later, the Institute for Christian Economics published a<br />

rebuttal, House Divided: The Break- Up of Dispensational Theology.4<br />

All of this writing and publishing took place within a period of<br />

two years.<br />

House Divided publicly buried an expired theological system.<br />

What is even more significant about this burial is that dispensationalism’s<br />

official defenders have been almost as active in gathering<br />

dirt to shovel on the casket as its theonomic critics are.5<br />

The Academic Game of Quiet Revising<br />

House and Ice quietly revised the fundamental doctrines of<br />

traditional dispensational theology. They no longer believe that<br />

the old dispensational theology can be successfully defended, a<br />

suspicion obviously shared by Dallas Theological Seminary<br />

Professor Craig Blaising, as revealed by the citation which<br />

begins this chapter. For example, they (i.e., House) argue that<br />

the death penalty is still valid in New Testament times because<br />

this was part of Noah’s covenant (Gen. 9:5-6) - a pre-Mosaic<br />

covenant.G This was Calvinist theologian John Murray’s argument<br />

a generation ago.’ It is a bit odd to see dispensationalists<br />

appealing to traditional covenant theology when defending dispensationalism<br />

against theonomy. Professor House in this case<br />

has dressed John Murray’s covenant theology in Lewis Sperry<br />

4. Available from the ICE; $25, hardback.<br />

5. See, for example, John Macktlum Jr., The Gospel According to Jesus (Grand<br />

Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Academie, 1988), which documents the antinomianism<br />

of conventional dispensationalism. See Chapter 10, below.<br />

6. House and Ice, Dominion Theolo~: Biasing or Curse? (Portland, Oregon:<br />

Multnomah Press, 1988), p. 130.<br />

7. John Murray, Principla of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics (Grand Rapids,<br />

Michigan: Eerdmans, 1957), p. 118.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!