Rapture Fever

by Gary North by Gary North

12.07.2013 Views

Revising Dispensationaltim to Death 157 unless accompanied by a full-scale book-publishing program, is that it affects only those few people who are directly under your control. Also, it cannot defend itself against hiring men who sign a statement which they no longer care to defend in public. This eventually produces a faculty full of time-servers who dabble in biblical scholarship, if at all, only in areas that are academically peripheral to the doubtful distinctive of the institution’s mandatory statement of faith. These people bide their time until a quiet transformation of the school becomes institutionally possible. That day came for Talbot. It seems to have come for Grace. It is coming for Dallas. Dispensationalism’s torch is burning low. The flame-out approaches. When it comes, no one who is holding that once-bright torch will admit in public that the original oil is gone. That way, the seminary’s naive donors will continue to send in money, despite the fact that they are no longer getting their money’s worth. Such is the price of Rapture fever. It eventually blinds all those whom it afflicts. The Terrible Price of Evasion Donors who finance a seminary believe they are buying several things. First, they think they are buying a supply of future ministers who will meet the needs of churches. Second, they hope they are financing academic specialists who will promote and defend the particular theological system that the seminary was established to promote and defend. Third, they think they are buying a supply of future scholars who can and will promote and defend the theology. When a seminary faculty takes money on any other basis, the school should publicly announce any exceptions to these three tasks. Seminaries never do, but they should. Thus, if they are no longer willing to promote the seminary’s theology openly and forcefully, they should say so. If they decide that their personal intellectual reputations will be sacrificed if they public-

158 RAPTURE FEVER ly defend the system, they should say so. They never do, of course, but they should. The faculties of Tdbot Seminary Grace Seminary and Dallas Seminary have been unwilling for many decades to reply to O. T Allis’ book, l%o@ecy and the Church (1945). This refusal was entirely self-serving. Allis was the most prominent defender of the integrity of the Old Testament’s text in his generation, the author of The Five Books of Moses (1943). He could not be dismissed as some crackpot or theological amateur. He was in fact a master theologian. His comprehensive criticism of dispensationalism’s eschatology remains the most powerful ever offered. Yet almost half a century later, no dispensational scholar has written a book of equal length and detail to refite Allis. Charles Ryrie’s thin book, Dispensationalism Today (1965), was devoted only in part to Allis. Their failure to respond indicates an inability of dispensationalism’s academic defenders to defend the system. If they were willing to announce publicly that they are incapable of answering a particular critic, this would be honest, but to do so would be a kind of intellectual suicide. The fact is, a fhilure to respond is intellectual suicide, but it is death by slow poison in private rather than a quick end to one’s misery in public. When I decided to challenge dispensationalism publicly, beginning with my book, 75 Bible Qmtion.s Xn.w Professors Pray You Won’t Ask (1984), I committed myself to respond immediately to any counter-attack. I stand ready to publish a rapid reply to any academic critic who writes a book, and also popular critics who have a large readership. Thus, when Dave Hunt devoted a few pages to Christian Reconstruction in his Seduction of Christianity (1987), I hired Gary DeMar and Peter Leithart to write The Reduction of Christtinity (1988). That book appeared within 12 months of Hunt’s effort. I do my best to reduce to a minimum the time elapsed between the criticism and our response. When Hunt and Tommy Ice took on Gary DeMar and me in April of 1988, I had DeMar’s The Debate Over Christian

158 RAPTURE FEVER<br />

ly defend the system, they should say so. They never do, of<br />

course, but they should.<br />

The faculties of Tdbot Seminary Grace Seminary and Dallas<br />

Seminary have been unwilling for many decades to reply to<br />

O. T Allis’ book, l%o@ecy and the Church (1945). This refusal<br />

was entirely self-serving. Allis was the most prominent defender<br />

of the integrity of the Old Testament’s text in his generation,<br />

the author of The Five Books of Moses (1943). He could not be<br />

dismissed as some crackpot or theological amateur. He was in<br />

fact a master theologian. His comprehensive criticism of dispensationalism’s<br />

eschatology remains the most powerful ever<br />

offered. Yet almost half a century later, no dispensational scholar<br />

has written a book of equal length and detail to refite Allis.<br />

Charles Ryrie’s thin book, Dispensationalism Today (1965), was<br />

devoted only in part to Allis.<br />

Their failure to respond indicates an inability of dispensationalism’s<br />

academic defenders to defend the system. If they<br />

were willing to announce publicly that they are incapable of<br />

answering a particular critic, this would be honest, but to do so<br />

would be a kind of intellectual suicide. The fact is, a fhilure to<br />

respond is intellectual suicide, but it is death by slow poison in<br />

private rather than a quick end to one’s misery in public.<br />

When I decided to challenge dispensationalism publicly,<br />

beginning with my book, 75 Bible Qmtion.s Xn.w Professors Pray<br />

You Won’t Ask (1984), I committed myself to respond immediately<br />

to any counter-attack. I stand ready to publish a rapid<br />

reply to any academic critic who writes a book, and also popular<br />

critics who have a large readership. Thus, when Dave Hunt<br />

devoted a few pages to Christian Reconstruction in his Seduction<br />

of Christianity (1987), I hired Gary DeMar and Peter Leithart to<br />

write The Reduction of Christtinity (1988). That book appeared<br />

within 12 months of Hunt’s effort. I do my best to reduce to a<br />

minimum the time elapsed between the criticism and our response.<br />

When Hunt and Tommy Ice took on Gary DeMar and<br />

me in April of 1988, I had DeMar’s The Debate Over Christian

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!