Rapture Fever

162 RAPTURE FEVER
mortal wounds on dispensational theology in 1945. Bahnsen
and Gentry merely acted as public coroners. Their autopsy
report is now on record. Ladies and gentlemen, the cadaver is
surely dead; rigor mortis has set in. It is time to give it a decent
Christian burial.
If I am wrong, then it will be easy for the defenders to prove
me wrong. All they need to do is agree with each other on what
dispensationalism is - what its fundamental, “non-negotiable”
doctrines are - and then publtih a consistent systematic theology. It
must be an extension of the original dispensational system. It
must answer O. T. Allis, Ray Sutton, Greg Bahnsen, and Ken
Gentry. It really ought to answer Princeton Seminary’s Geerhardus
Vos, whose book, The ~auline Z3schatology, has also been
conveniently ignored by dispensational scholars since its publication
in 1930.
A modern dispensational systematic theology must discuss at
least the following points:
1. The distinction between Israel and the Church
2. The distinction (if any) between the kingdom of God
and the kingdom of heaven
3. The meaning of leaven (always evil or not?)
4. Biblical law and sanctification (law and grace)
5. The neutrality of “natural law” and Church Age politics
6. Where the Rapture is in Matthew 13 (continuity)
7. When the clock of prophecy starts ticking
8. How Hebrews 8- Christ’s priestly office - fits with the
idea of reinstated sacrifices in the millennium
9. When the Church began: Acts 2, Acts 9, or Acts 28
10. How the gospel is a fulfillment of God’s promise to
rebuild David’s tabernacle (Acts 15: 14-16)
11. How liberalism applies to stars falling to earth (Rev.
6:13)
12. How Revelation 12 can be fiture, given verse 11