Rapture Fever
by Gary North by Gary North
Conclusion 203 supposedly based on universal principles of natural law - than the Church. They have trusted the moral authority of the humanist State far more than they have trusted the moral authority of the Church. And why not? The humanist State is a winner in history. The Church is a loser. So say the theologians. The result is easily predictable: a Church filled with people who are unskillful in the word of righteousness, God’s revealed law. No better statement of this ethical position can be found than Norman Geisler’s 1992 affirmation. Dr. Geisler received his Ph.D. in philosophy from a Jesuit university. He defends neutral natural law. He has devoted a large portion of his academic career to a public rejection of biblical law. Geisler is a dispensationalist: formerly a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary and formerly a professor at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University. He writes: “The religious right is at least as dangerous as the secular left. Religious theonomy (divine law) as the basis for human dignity can be as frightening as secular anarchy.” 1 He assures us that “Theonomy is an unworkable ethical basis for government in a religiously pluralistic society, whether it be Muslim or Christian in form.”2 He insists: “Sooner or later the question arises: whose religious book will be the basis for the civil laws? It is sheer religious bigotry to answer: ‘Mine.’ “3 Conclusion: it is not sheer religious bigohy for secular humanists to answe~ “Ours.” Dr. Geisler believes in the legitimacy of secular humanism’s claim that civil law can be religiously neutral and morally valid. Dr. Geisler is a consistent dispensationalist: he prefers to live under the civil banner of religious pluralism rather than under the civil banner ofJesus Christ. So do his colleagues. 1. Norman Geisler, “Human Life:’ In Search of a National Morality: A Man$esto fm Evangelical and Catholics, edited by William Bentley Ball (Grand Rapids, Michigan Baker Book House, 1992), p. 114. Mr. Ball is a Roman Catholic lawyer who specializes in defending Christian schools. Baker Book House is a Protestant publishing firm with a Calvinist slant. It publishes mainly amillennial books. 2. Idem. 3. Idem.
204 RAPTURE FEVER A Covenant of Historical Despair There are five reasons why modern Christians take this grim view of their condition: history’s losers. These reasons imitate perversely the Bible’s five-point covenant model: First, the strength of God obviously cannot be trusted in history, for God brings defeat for His Church in history. The Arminians have explained the guaranteed defeat of the gospel in history as the outcome of man’s free will. The evil in most men’s hearts will not be overcome, we are told. Covenantbreakers will generally remain covenant-breakers until the final judgment. The Calvinists offer another explanation: God predestined the gospel to cultural failure before the world began. So, Christians have seen God as either unwilling to do what it takes to win in history or else determined to lose in history. Dealing with such a God is a fearful thing. It means that the Church of Jesus Christ is filled with people who are religiously committed to their own cultural impotence in history. Who would trust such people with authority or power? No rational person would. So, Christians do not trust the judgments of local church officers. When rulings go against them, they transfer membership to another local church. Because they cannot escape judgment this easily in civil affairs, Christians demand the separation of Christianity from the State. They much prefer to live under the civil jurisdiction of God’s enemies rather than under other Christians. They agree with Norman Geisler. Third, they do not trust the Bible-revealed law of a God who has chosen them to be crushed in history. Who can trust the law-order of a God who will not bring victory to His Church in terms of that law-order? Christians have been told by their leaders for almost two millennia that the Old Testament is a discarded first draft, a judicial mistake. God used to judge history in terms of His law (Lev. 26; Deut. 28), but no longer. 4. Ray R. Sutton, Thut lbu May Prosper: Domtnion By Covenunt (2nd cd.; Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1992).
- 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
- 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 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.
- Page 254 and 255: Conclusion 217 nationalism, openly
- Page 256 and 257: Conclusion 219 to what you are doin
- Page 258 and 259: Conclusion 221 surely the situation
- Page 260 and 261: Bibliography 223 Works Defending Po
- Page 262 and 263: Bibliography 225 Eschatology. Tyler
- Page 264 and 265: Bibliograph~ 227 Vos, Geerhardus. R
- Page 266 and 267: Bibliography 229 thorough critical
- Page 268 and 269: Bibliography 231 Mauro, Philip. The
- Page 270 and 271: history and the U.S. Constitution.
- Page 272 and 273: 236 RAPTURE FEVER llO:lf 78-79 Prov
- Page 274 and 275: abortion, xxxii, XXXV, 13, 141, 160
- Page 276 and 277: 240 RAPTURE FEVER dispensationalism
- Page 278 and 279: 242 RAPTURE FEVER dispensationalism
- Page 280 and 281: 244 RAPTURE FEVER intellectual, xxx
- Page 282 and 283: 246 RAPTURE FEVER Solzhenitsyn, A.,
- Page 284 and 285: A THREE-YEAR STRATEGY FOR PASTORS I
- Page 286 and 287: ABOUT THE AUTHOR Gary North receive
- Page 288: .- -. . . . . 1980 . . -’r -: .,,
Conclusion 203<br />
supposedly based on universal principles of natural law - than<br />
the Church. They have trusted the moral authority of the humanist<br />
State far more than they have trusted the moral authority<br />
of the Church. And why not? The humanist State is a winner<br />
in history. The Church is a loser. So say the theologians.<br />
The result is easily predictable: a Church filled with people who<br />
are unskillful in the word of righteousness, God’s revealed law.<br />
No better statement of this ethical position can be found<br />
than Norman Geisler’s 1992 affirmation. Dr. Geisler received<br />
his Ph.D. in philosophy from a Jesuit university. He defends<br />
neutral natural law. He has devoted a large portion of his academic<br />
career to a public rejection of biblical law. Geisler is a<br />
dispensationalist: formerly a professor at Dallas Theological<br />
Seminary and formerly a professor at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty<br />
University. He writes: “The religious right is at least as dangerous<br />
as the secular left. Religious theonomy (divine law) as<br />
the basis for human dignity can be as frightening as secular<br />
anarchy.” 1 He assures us that “Theonomy is an unworkable<br />
ethical basis for government in a religiously pluralistic society,<br />
whether it be Muslim or Christian in form.”2 He insists: “Sooner<br />
or later the question arises: whose religious book will be the<br />
basis for the civil laws? It is sheer religious bigotry to answer:<br />
‘Mine.’ “3 Conclusion: it is not sheer religious bigohy for secular<br />
humanists to answe~ “Ours.” Dr. Geisler believes in the legitimacy<br />
of secular humanism’s claim that civil law can be religiously<br />
neutral and morally valid. Dr. Geisler is a consistent dispensationalist:<br />
he prefers to live under the civil banner of religious pluralism<br />
rather than under the civil banner ofJesus Christ. So do his colleagues.<br />
1. Norman Geisler, “Human Life:’ In Search of a National Morality: A Man$esto fm<br />
Evangelical and Catholics, edited by William Bentley Ball (Grand Rapids, Michigan<br />
Baker Book House, 1992), p. 114. Mr. Ball is a Roman Catholic lawyer who specializes<br />
in defending Christian schools. Baker Book House is a Protestant publishing firm<br />
with a Calvinist slant. It publishes mainly amillennial books.<br />
2. Idem.<br />
3. Idem.