Rapture Fever
by Gary North by Gary North
Dispensationalism us. Six-Day Creationism 167 without solving the really difficult exegetical problem for anyone who accepted uniformitarianism’s geologic time frame: the age of the eatih in relution to the age of the sun. Henry M. Morris has called attention to the harm that Scofield’s notes on the creation produced: While anti-evolutionism was strong among the fundamentalists, almost none of their leaders questioned Lyellian uniformitarianism and the geological-age system. The Scofield Reference Bible, originally published in 1909, had actually incorporated both these theories in its notes, while at the same time ignoring the critically important question of the universality of the Flood, and it had a tremendous impact on fundamentalists in many denominations: Scofield Lives! In the New Scojield Reference Bible (196’7), the editors kept all of the worst features of the Scofield notes on creation. Note 4 retains at least part of the original edition’s note 2, ‘ { The first creative act refers to the dateless past.” It drops the words, “and gives scope for all the geologic ages.” This does not indicate any change in opinion on the part of the editors; it only covers up one of Scofield’s more blatant concessions to uniformitarian geology. In note 2, they insist, “Scripture gives no data for determining how long ago the universe was created.” It refers the reader to a note for Genesis 5:3: “Scripture does not reveal the exact date of Adam’s creation.” It then refers the reader to a note for Genesis 11:10: “Scripture does not provide data by which the date of the flood can be discovered.” Here is the game all the chronology compromisers play. First, they tell us that Scripture cannot give us the exact date of the creation, Adam, or the flood. Second, they sit passively while the evolutionists drive a chronological truck through this 6. Henry M. Morris, Histov of Modern Creatimism (San Diego, California Master Book Publishers, 1984), pp. 58-59.
168 RAPTURE FEVER gap that carries acosmic time scale oflJbiUOnyears, give or take five billion. In fact, the compromisers deliberately invented this tactic of “insufficient Scriptural exactness” in order to allow the evolutionists to drive their truck right through the Church. They are like children playing a game of dodge-a-truck on a freeway, yelling, “Nyah, Nyah, you can’t hit us!” This game always produces piles of dead bodies - personal, ecclesiastical, and educational - that are scattered all over the landscape. In a 1982 book published by dispensationalist Moody Press, a group of dispensational scholars paid tribute to John Walvoord, the long-time president of Dallas Theological Seminary. Frederick R. Howe contributed an essay, “Creation and Evolution: The Continuing Confrontation.” He listed four features of the biblical account of creation: (1) creation by a sovereign, triune God; (2) creation by divine fiat; (3) creation with boundaries (e.g., the concept of kind); (4) the accomplished work of creation, i.e., creation distinguished from providence.’ All well and good, but hardly complete. The gaping hole (“gap”) in his list is the doctrine of the six-day creationism. The intellectual leaders of the dispensationalist movement continue to pay ultimate tribute to its major American distributor, lawyer Scofield, who naively sold out the movement to the evolutionists in 1909. Should we be surprised to learn that Moody Press refised to publish Morris and Whitcomb’s The Genesis Flood (1961) because it insisted on a six-literal-day creation scheme? 8 Should we be surprised that Dallas Theological Seminary has never offered a course defending the six-literal-day creation? Seminary professors are embarrassed by Genesis 1. None has built a curriculum around this crucial doctrine. Dallas is no worse than the others, but no better. Its financial supporters should demand much 7. Donald K. Campbell (cd.), Walvoord: A Ttibzde (Chicago: Moody Press, 1982), pp. 146-47. 8. Morris, History of Modem Creation, p. 154.
- 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 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 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
- Page 244 and 245: Conclusion 207 The dispensationalis
- Page 246 and 247: Conclusion 209 nobody believes in i
- Page 248 and 249: Conclusion 211 repeatedly that “p
- Page 250 and 251: Conclusion 213 original creed again
- Page 252 and 253: Conclusion 215 struction. Sort of.
168 RAPTURE FEVER<br />
gap that carries acosmic time scale oflJbiUOnyears, give or<br />
take five billion. In fact, the compromisers deliberately invented<br />
this tactic of “insufficient Scriptural exactness” in order to allow<br />
the evolutionists to drive their truck right through the Church.<br />
They are like children playing a game of dodge-a-truck on a<br />
freeway, yelling, “Nyah, Nyah, you can’t hit us!” This game<br />
always produces piles of dead bodies - personal, ecclesiastical,<br />
and educational - that are scattered all over the landscape.<br />
In a 1982 book published by dispensationalist Moody Press,<br />
a group of dispensational scholars paid tribute to John Walvoord,<br />
the long-time president of Dallas Theological Seminary.<br />
Frederick R. Howe contributed an essay, “Creation and Evolution:<br />
The Continuing Confrontation.” He listed four features of<br />
the biblical account of creation: (1) creation by a sovereign,<br />
triune God; (2) creation by divine fiat; (3) creation with boundaries<br />
(e.g., the concept of kind); (4) the accomplished work of<br />
creation, i.e., creation distinguished from providence.’<br />
All well and good, but hardly complete. The gaping hole<br />
(“gap”) in his list is the doctrine of the six-day creationism. The<br />
intellectual leaders of the dispensationalist movement continue<br />
to pay ultimate tribute to its major American distributor, lawyer<br />
Scofield, who naively sold out the movement to the evolutionists<br />
in 1909.<br />
Should we be surprised to learn that Moody Press refised to<br />
publish Morris and Whitcomb’s The Genesis Flood (1961) because<br />
it insisted on a six-literal-day creation scheme? 8<br />
Should we be<br />
surprised that Dallas Theological Seminary has never offered a<br />
course defending the six-literal-day creation? Seminary professors<br />
are embarrassed by Genesis 1. None has built a curriculum<br />
around this crucial doctrine. Dallas is no worse than the others,<br />
but no better. Its financial supporters should demand much<br />
7. Donald K. Campbell (cd.), Walvoord: A Ttibzde (Chicago: Moody Press, 1982),<br />
pp. 146-47.<br />
8. Morris, History of Modem Creation, p. 154.