Rapture Fever
by Gary North by Gary North
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
- 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 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 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
- Page 234 and 235: The Strange Disappearance of Dispen
- Page 236 and 237: The Strange Disappearance of D&pens
- Page 238 and 239: The Strange Disappearance of Dtipen
- Page 240 and 241: Conclusion 203 supposedly based on
- Page 242 and 243: Conclusion 205 Fourth, because God
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