Rapture Fever
by Gary North by Gary North
246 RAPTURE FEVER Solzhenitsyn, A., 212 Soviet Union, 27, 188-89,212 (see also Russia) stars, 71 State, 203 State of Israel evangelism in 35-38 Russia &, 27-29, 31, 190-91, 211 state universities, xxv-xxvii stick men, 132 Strauss, Lehman, 82 success, 185-86 suicide squads, 122 Sutton, Ray, 133-34, 156,204 technology, 5 temple, 44, 48, 50 ten commandments, 83 terminal generation, XXXV, 84, 104 Thieme, Bob, 177 Tiberius, 111-12 time, 47, 61, 86-88, 94, 115, 126 Ton, Josef, 208-9 Truman, Harry, 125 trust & obey, xvi utopia, 63, 70, 126 Van Tll, Cornelius, 93 victory, xix-xxi, 202, 206 Vos, Geerhardus, 162 wagons, 9 Waltke, Bruce, 131 Walvoord, John anti-reform, 63 clock of prophecy, 21, 24 House Divided review, 215-17 Iraq, 20, 25-26 ‘lust wait,” 216 millennial saints, 136 moral law, 66-67 pessimism, 68 postmillennialism & liberzdism, 72 Rapture before he dies, 109 “realist,” 68, 75, 82, 98 rescue mission, 67 reviews Wilson, 20 Soviet Union, 191 Westminster Seminary, 159-60 Wheaton College, 208 Whisenant, Edgar, 54,56, 104, 189-90, 191, 211 Whitby, Daniel, 138, 151-52 Whitcomb, John, 169, 196 white flag, 66 Wilson, Dwight, 19-20, 32 Wilson, James, 165 wisdom, xvii, xviii, 140-41
MY CHALLENGE TO DALIJM SEMINARY Gentlemen, your institution has not produced a systematic theology since your founder, Lewis Sperry Chafer, wrote his in 1948. Even so, he failed to answer O. T Allis’ book, f’m@ecy and the Church (1945). You refused to keep Chafer in print after 1988. Your continuing silence is the symbol of your dilemma. So is the inability of each generation to produce a detailed systematic theology which answers, your many critics. It is time for you as a faculty to produce a systematic theology. It is my opinion that there is insufficient agreement at Dallas Seminary for such a project to be completed. So, I now offer you this challenge. You are required to sign a statement of faith annually. The faculty needs to pay two or three members to write an 800-page defense of that statement. Make it clear to your students, the seminary’s donors, and the Board of Trustees that this statement of faith can be defended in a scholarly, biblical manner This will make it clear to pastors and laymen that somebody, somewhere is able to defend the dispensational system. As you know, I don’t think anyone is. I predict that you will not accept this challenge because you dare not do it. You are not agreed on what dispensationalism teaches. If you become specific, you will blow up the seminary. If you remain silent, you will forfeit whatever leadership you retain in the dispensational community. So, you can no longer afford to remain silent, yet you dare not become specific. And so I leave it at this: there is no longer anyone who will go into print with a comprehensive dispensational systematic theology. The reason is simple: the dispensational system is so flawed that its defenders are embarrassed by it. It is time for its mute defenders to quit pretending otherwise. Intellectual talent is scarce in evangelical Protestantism. We need theologians who are willing to commit all their intellectual gifts to the defense of the faith. If you cannot in good conscience and with all your strength commit to dispensationalism, it is time to adopt another position – one you can commit to.
- 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.
- 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 284 and 285: A THREE-YEAR STRATEGY FOR PASTORS I
- Page 286 and 287: ABOUT THE AUTHOR Gary North receive
- Page 288: .- -. . . . . 1980 . . -’r -: .,,
MY CHALLENGE TO DALIJM SEMINARY<br />
Gentlemen, your institution has not produced a systematic<br />
theology since your founder, Lewis Sperry Chafer, wrote his in<br />
1948. Even so, he failed to answer O. T Allis’ book, f’m@ecy<br />
and the Church (1945). You refused to keep Chafer in print after<br />
1988. Your continuing silence is the symbol of your dilemma.<br />
So is the inability of each generation to produce a detailed<br />
systematic theology which answers, your many critics.<br />
It is time for you as a faculty to produce a systematic theology.<br />
It is my opinion that there is insufficient agreement at<br />
Dallas Seminary for such a project to be completed. So, I now<br />
offer you this challenge. You are required to sign a statement<br />
of faith annually. The faculty needs to pay two or three members<br />
to write an 800-page defense of that statement. Make it<br />
clear to your students, the seminary’s donors, and the Board of<br />
Trustees that this statement of faith can be defended in a scholarly,<br />
biblical manner This will make it clear to pastors and<br />
laymen that somebody, somewhere is able to defend the dispensational<br />
system. As you know, I don’t think anyone is.<br />
I predict that you will not accept this challenge because you<br />
dare not do it. You are not agreed on what dispensationalism<br />
teaches. If you become specific, you will blow up the seminary.<br />
If you remain silent, you will forfeit whatever leadership you<br />
retain in the dispensational community. So, you can no longer<br />
afford to remain silent, yet you dare not become specific.<br />
And so I leave it at this: there is no longer anyone who will<br />
go into print with a comprehensive dispensational systematic<br />
theology. The reason is simple: the dispensational system is so<br />
flawed that its defenders are embarrassed by it. It is time for its<br />
mute defenders to quit pretending otherwise.<br />
Intellectual talent is scarce in evangelical Protestantism. We<br />
need theologians who are willing to commit all their intellectual<br />
gifts to the defense of the faith. If you cannot in good conscience<br />
and with all your strength commit to dispensationalism,<br />
it is time to adopt another position – one you can commit to.
Change language