Rapture Fever
by Gary North by Gary North
Revising Dhpensationalism to Death 147 Chafer’s clothing. It is not that the dispensational Emperor has no clothes; it is that the few presentable clothes that he has were stolen from hk long-term rival’s wardrobe. Ryrie’s Tactic It should also be noted that Charles Ryrie played a similar academic game in Dispensationalism Today back in 1965. He used arguments very similar to O. T. Allis’ covenant theology to defend traditional dispensationalism against the discontinuitybased attacks by ultradispensationalists (e.g., E. W. Bullinger, C. R. Stare, J. C. O’Hair). I refer here to the devastating and utterly irrefutable (for a Scofield dispensationalist) argument of the ultradispensationalists that Acts 2 (Pentecost) was clearly a fulfillment of Joel 2. Peter specifically referred to the prophecy in Joel 2 in Acts 2:16-20. This means that an Old Testament prophet forecasted the events of Acts 2. This poses a horrendous problem for Scofieldism. Dispensational theology has always taught that the so-called “Church Age” - also called “the great parenthesis” - was completely unknown in the Old Testament and not predicted by any prophet. But Peter said that Pentecost was known to an Old Testament prophet, Joel. The conclusion is inescapable: the Church could not have begun at ‘ Pentecost; it must have started later. This is exactly what the ultradispensationalists argue - a heretical idea, clearly, but absolutely consistent with the dispensational view of the Church as the great parenthesis. To escape this problem of radical discontinuity, i.e., New Testament Church vs. Old Testament prophecy, Ryrie appealed to Erich Sauer, but in fact Sauer’s argument rests squarely on the arguments of postmillennial Calvintit O. T Allis. The Church was indeed founded at Pentecost; the events of Pentecost were merely transitional. No radical discontinuity should be assumed here, Ryrie insisted. So did Allis.8 Ryrie also used Stare-type 8. Ryrie cites Sauer’s argument that the “mystery” of Ephesians 3:1-12- the
148 RAPTURE FEVER arguments - insisting on a radical discontinuity, Church vs. Israel - against Allis. This theological juggling act was not a successful intellectual defense of traditional dispensationalism; it was nothing less than abject surrender Ryrie in effect picked up a white flag and identified it as dispensationalism’s regimental colors. He publicly gave away the farm. Theologians inside the dispensational camp apparently recognized what Ryrie had done in the name of defending the traditional system. I think this is the reason why there was no subsequent attempted academic defense of dispensationalism until House and Ice, a generation later, wrote Donzinion Theology. But they no longer defend original Scofieldism. Neither do their published colleagues at Dallas Seminary. (Professor Robert Lightner still carries the old white flag in the classroom at Dallas, but the Christian book-buying public has never heard of him.) A “New, Improved” tipemationalism Quite frankly, no one is sure just what the “new, improved” dispensational theology looks like. There has been no public presentation of the final version of this revised system, although a book by Robert Saucy of Talbot Seminary is about to be released by Zondervan. The old theological system is bleeding to death, drop by drop, by a thousand qualifications, but nothing has taken its place. There has been an embarrassed silence about this mo~bund condition for at least two decades. House and Ice have therefore opened a very dangerous can of worms. House and Ice appeared to be on the offensive in their book, but in fact they were on the defensive. Like a duck gliding rapidly across a lake, everything appears calm on top of the gentiles as fellow-heirs with the Jews in salvation - was not a radically new idea, but only comparatively new, i.e., no radicat discontinuity Ryrie, Dispsrssationulism Toduy (Chicagm Moody Press, 1965), p. 201. This is of course Allis’ argument against all dispensationalism: Prophecy and the Church (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1945), pp. 91-102.
- 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 182 and 183: 8 REVISING DISPENSATIONALISM TO DEA
- 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
- Page 232 and 233: 13 THE STRANGE DISAPPEARANCE OF DIS
Revising Dhpensationalism to Death 147<br />
Chafer’s clothing. It is not that the dispensational Emperor has<br />
no clothes; it is that the few presentable clothes that he has<br />
were stolen from hk long-term rival’s wardrobe.<br />
Ryrie’s Tactic<br />
It should also be noted that Charles Ryrie played a similar<br />
academic game in Dispensationalism Today back in 1965. He used<br />
arguments very similar to O. T. Allis’ covenant theology to<br />
defend traditional dispensationalism against the discontinuitybased<br />
attacks by ultradispensationalists (e.g., E. W. Bullinger, C.<br />
R. Stare, J. C. O’Hair). I refer here to the devastating and<br />
utterly irrefutable (for a Scofield dispensationalist) argument of<br />
the ultradispensationalists that Acts 2 (Pentecost) was clearly a<br />
fulfillment of Joel 2. Peter specifically referred to the prophecy<br />
in Joel 2 in Acts 2:16-20. This means that an Old Testament<br />
prophet forecasted the events of Acts 2. This poses a horrendous<br />
problem for Scofieldism. Dispensational theology has<br />
always taught that the so-called “Church Age” - also called “the<br />
great parenthesis” - was completely unknown in the Old Testament<br />
and not predicted by any prophet. But Peter said that<br />
Pentecost was known to an Old Testament prophet, Joel. The<br />
conclusion is inescapable: the Church could not have begun at ‘<br />
Pentecost; it must have started later. This is exactly what the ultradispensationalists<br />
argue - a heretical idea, clearly, but absolutely<br />
consistent with the dispensational view of the Church as the<br />
great parenthesis.<br />
To escape this problem of radical discontinuity, i.e., New<br />
Testament Church vs. Old Testament prophecy, Ryrie appealed<br />
to Erich Sauer, but in fact Sauer’s argument rests squarely on the<br />
arguments of postmillennial Calvintit O. T Allis. The Church was<br />
indeed founded at Pentecost; the events of Pentecost were<br />
merely transitional. No radical discontinuity should be assumed<br />
here, Ryrie insisted. So did Allis.8 Ryrie also used Stare-type<br />
8. Ryrie cites Sauer’s argument that the “mystery” of Ephesians 3:1-12- the