Posts
by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com
In this blog I will review Mark Hitchcock’s What Jesus Says About Earth’s Final Days (2003). I do this in order to illustrate the confusion that reigns in dispensationalism, a confusion that appears simultaneously with their enormous sales among their disoriented adherents. That such a system could control the evangelical market never ceases to amaze me.
The Marketing Juggernaut
Dispensationalism is not only an eschatological orientation (pre-tribulational premillennialism), it is a whole theological system complete with its own redemptive-historical structure (the seven, discrete dispensations). Not only so, but despite its enormous complexity (with multiple programs, peoples of God, several comings of Christ, various resurrection programs [though lacking one for those unresurrected saints in the millennium who die], back-and-forth movements in and out of heaven, manifold program judgments, unexpected chronological gaps [necessary for making the system work], and so forth), dispensationalism is also a commercial product capable of creating a marketing juggernaut in a single bound (paperback bound, might I add). And surprisingly, it creates enormous sales of its products despite the confusing and contradictory nature of the system which is simply glossed over in its popular writings.
More than any other eschatological system, dispensationalism is run by a well-oiled, heavy duty commercial behemoth that is controlled by its enormously successful marketing plan. Dispensationalism is offered up for sale in the evangelical world, and its enormous audience gladly digs deeply into their pockets to buy its many soon-to-be-outdated products (such as, Lindsey's 1980s: Countdown to Armageddon and Planet Earth 2000: Will Mankind Survive?). In this regard, it differs remarkably from non-dispensational eschatological systems. Let us see how this is so.
For instance, in postmillennial circles you simply do not see 4 foot by 12 foot full color, water-resistant, wrinkle-free, non-fade, hemmed-edge, reinforced grommet, braid-on-braid nylon rope-hung canvas wall charts. Nor do we publish entire books containing collections of ornate graphs, pie charts, line charts, bar charts, flow charts, cartograms, scatterplots, diagrams, outlines, timelines, road maps, blueprints, tables, box plots, nomograms, and histograms. (Edward Rolf Tufte becomes green with envy when he picks up the latest dispensational book.)
Nor do postmillennialists and amillennialists market “study” Bibles bulging with full-color illustrations that rival anything the Jehovah’s Witnesses have ever produced (see: LaHaye, Prophecy Study Bible). Nor among amillennialists do you have televangelists dominating the airwaves and declaring themselves “prophecy experts.” (One such amillennialist who did try to mimic dispensationalism’s sensationalistic marketing plan failed miserably — just as dispensationalists themselves always do: Harold Camping, author of the doomed book, 1994?)
Nor do non-dispensational systems manufacture and distribute genuine imitation gold, Made in China, lapel pins with the American flag crossed with the Israeli flag. Nor do they offer “America and Israel Together Forever” low-profile, durable, washed-twill, matching-visor, adjustable ball caps that fit any sized head. (The only ideal fashion-wear accessory for the postmillennialist or amillennialist is a leather Bible. Though sometimes their Bibles may contain multi-ribbon place markers, but these are usually only in several basic colors with no imprinted cliches on the ribbons. On one occasion I must confess, however, to sporting a multi-ribbon Bible marker that did display the statement: "Genuine Nylon.")
Nor do non-dispensational adherents send money to support non-Christian religions in building a place of worship, as many dispensationalists do with the proposed rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem. Hitchcock himself is delighted that “there are some amazing preparations going on in Jerusalem today for the rebuilding of the third Jewish temple” (p. 71).
Nor can you pick out a postmillennialist from a crowd while blindfolded simply by listening for code words that are culled from prophetic novels. For instance, Hitchcock speaks fluent Dispensationalese. He uses numerous dispensational cliches, code words, and trivializations, such as “snatched” (the Rapture), “maranatha” (p. 12), “prophetic clock," and prophetic “blueprint” (ch. 2). To distance himself from standard, serious prophetic studies he refers to events that “burst on the scene” (p. 47), the false prophet as the Antichrist’s “right-hand man” (p. 68), the Antichrist being “hot on their heels” (p. 70), and so forth, and so on, ad infinitum.
Dispensationalists can often be heard calling each other the “foremost evangelical authority” on this or that topic, such as does Hitchcock regarding Randy Price (p. 71). Such back-patting is socially acceptable behavior in their circles (removing fleas is not). Nor do postmills or amills have action figures in the expansive toy section of Christian bookstores (who would buy a twelve inch tall plastic Charles Hodge doll with an 1860 Henry Lever Action Repeating Rifle and coon skin cap? Unless they were on sale, of course.) And where are the amillennial bumper stickers (when have you ever seen a bumper sticker urging: “In case of Bible study, pull out Berkhof”)?
The vast majority of dispensational books are marketing tools for promoting the movement’s enormous, growing product line among its large installed base. In this regard, let’s consider a sample of their promotional literature by dipping into Hitchcock’s What Jesus Says About Earth’s Final Days. In this book we see a continual sales pitch for the system, even while providing naive, trite, and confusing information. Let’s get started. He expects the Rapture soon, and I would not want to miss the opportunity to post this blog.
A Sample Sales Pitch
You know you have bought dispensational sales literature when you open a book and in the first couple of paragraphs you already begin hearing the phrase “planet earth.” Dispensationalists seldom mention simply “the world” or “the earth.” They generally remind their readership that this is a planet --- a planet that has a particular name: “planet earth.” (Keep in mind: they did this long before Pluto was kicked out of the “planet” category. They are not simply holding a grudge because they are miffed at the International Astronomical Union’s deposing Pluto from planet status to a mere Trans-Neptunian Object, one of a host of debris orbiting in the Kuiper Belt. But if Pluto is ever declared an object from the Oort Cloud, they will raise a ruckus.) Hitchcock does not disappoint. Paragraph two in his book closes with this very phrase —and it is sprinkled liberally throughout the book, providing a welcoming, homey feel to any dispensationalist reader — even though they have read hundreds of books just like this one before.
If you are going to sell anything in the dispensational market, you must learn to speak the language. Hitchcock is articulate in the native tongue, Dispensationalese (a non-standard dialect spoken only by a few hundred million dispensationalists at Rapture Parties). But he is also innovative: he creates new terms for their lexicon (that will surely be picked up on by erstwhile dispensationalists clamoring to prove themselves articulate). For instance, Hitchcock writes: “as the end of the age draws near, creation will begin to groan and clear its throat in anticipation of the King’s coming.” The earth will “clear its throat”? This has got to stop before someone speaks of the earth’s burping as a sign of the end. (Uh oh! I am afraid I just suggested a new prophetic term. Drat!)
As is typical of slick sales literature, this book presents the dispensational system without any realization at all of its mind-boggling complexity and head-spinning contradictions. Consider a few examples of this unconcern for coherence.
On p. 10 Hitchcock writes that Christians “will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air and will go with Him back up to heaven. Then they will return again with Him, back to earth, at least seven years later at His second coming.” We will be in and out of this world as programs change and people groups are shifted here and there. It is all so dizzying. I fear we may all get decompression sickness through all of this up-and-down activity. Nitrogen is already building up in my bloodstream as I think about it!
Hitchcock illustrates the internal confusion in the system, when he states that “the Tribulation is the final seven years of this age” (p. 10). How can the Tribulation be the final years of “this age” if the Church has been raptured and this age is called the Church Age? Actually, in his system the Rapture ends “this age,” the Church Age.
He also believes in a literal, earthly, Jewish millennial kingdom (pp. 93, 98, 99). Yet in one of his many tables he lists Matt. 8:11–12 as a verse mentioning “Christ’s kingdom.” Yet when we look at that verse we see Gentiles coming into his kingdom “from east and west” (i.e., from outside of Israel) while “the sons of the kingdom [the Jews] shall be cast out.” Hitchcock's system states that "at the end of the Tribulation, Jesus will gather them [the Jews] to enter into the Messianic kingdom" (p. 99). Who do we believe: Jesus or Hitchcock? And why did not Hitchcock know these verses state the opposite of what he claims?
Despite Jesus teaching that he himself did not know when he would return, Hitchcock speaks of “Signs of His Coming” (p. 15), a favorite marketing phrase in Dispensationalese. What is more, consider the following conundrum this creates in the dispensational system — even in his own book: (1) Dispensationalists believe that the Rapture is the next event on the prophetic “calendar.” No other prophetic event is to occur until the “prophetic clock” begins ticking (p. 47). (2) The Rapture is absolutely “signless” (pp. 9, 105, 107), thus no one will expect it when it occurs. Hitchcock explains Jesus’ analogy of the coming “birth pangs” that start the events immediately upon the Rapture: “They come without any warning. All of a sudden, out of nowhere they begin” (p. 45; cp. 46). (3) Jesus informs us that even he did not know when he would return (Matt 24:36).
Nevertheless, (4) according to Hitchcock (and every best-selling dispensationalist) “many today are oblivious of the signs of His second coming”! Well, no wonder they are “oblivious,” Jesus said they would be! And the next event is the signless Rapture which comes “without any warning,” “all of the sudden, out of nowhere.” How could there be signs of the Second Advent, when another prophetic event must precede it and no prophetic signs can occur until that previous event happens, so as to get the prophetic time-clock (I can’t believe I am using this language) ticking again?
In chapter 2 Hitchcock follows the typical populist-dispensationalist game plan: He has Jesus providing us with a “blueprint of the end” (p. 28). Yet apparently one of their famous gaps occurs in this blueprint. (Thank goodness actual architects do not allow gaps in their blueprints. Would you go up in the Empire State Building if an architect left off the four-inch concrete slab to support it? I rather doubt it.) Let’s note the gap in this “blueprint of the end.”
Hitchcock is dealing with the “end-time prophecy” in Matt. 24–25. He writes: “Jesus distilled the end times down to their most basic elements.” Yet you look in vain for the Rapture in Matthew 24–25. Remarkably, the Rapture is a suppressed premise among these “most basic elements.” It is all about the Great Tribulation which immediately follows the Rapture. Is not the Rapture the key that opens up the next prophetic stage of events? If this is a “blueprint of the end” and the Church is not present during the Great Tribulation, where does this blueprint passage mention the Church’s all-important exit strategy?
Furthermore, Hitchcock states of Matt. 24–25: “there is no place in the Bible that gives a clearer, more concise overview of what’s going to happen during earth’s final days” (pp. 28–29, cp. 41, 108, 121). He argues that “Jesus follows an orderly chronological sequence in unfolding the major events of earth’s final days” (p. 39). But Hitchcock’s view has Jesus overlooking the unique event that starts the prophetic time clock ticking so as to open up the Great Tribulation: the Rapture. That is a rather glaring omission for an "overview" and "chronology" of such events! That is like describing the Daytona 500 without mentioning it actually starting.
To make matters worse, Hitchcock also teaches that this prophecy speaks of “earth’s final days” (see also p. 39). (I commend him for avoiding the phrase “planet earth” at this juncture; temptation can be avoided.) But on his own system the earth continues for another 1000 years! Ten whole centuries! The Great Tribulation is hardly the earth’s “final days.”
Another contradiction in Hitchcock’s presentation is found on p. 31: He speaks of the preterist view of Matt. 24, then he claims that preterists “ignore the other parts of the question” where the disciples ask: “What will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” (p. 31). This is remarkable for two reasons:
(1) Hitchcock has already noted on that very page that preterists “contend that all the events in Matthew 24:4–31 were fulfilled in A.D. 70” (p. 31). Thus, he is aware that we believe that the events after Matt. 24:31 begin speaking of the Second Advent (particularly Matt. 24:36ff). So then, we do see the end of the age occurring in the Olivet Discourse. He is not only confused about our view but about his own presentation which recognizes our view! (2) He then makes the absurd claim that Jesus himself ignores the disciples’ question: “So, Jesus basically ignores the first part of their question and tells them about the sign of His coming and the end of the age, knowing that that’s what they really wanted to know about” (p. 32). How can he complain that preterists “ignore the other parts of the question” when he claims Jesus himself “ignores” part of their question? This does not make sense as a complaint against preterism.
On p. 37 he proudly declares that “at the end of the future Tribulation, the Jewish people will repent and their Messiah will return to rescue them from Antichrist (Zechariah 12:10).” But tucked away much later in the book (p. 77) is the admission that Zech. 13:8 teaches “that as many as two-thirds of the world’s Jewish population will be slain during Antichrist’s reign.” The Jews are hardly rescued in this scenario — for two-thirds of them are horribly destroyed.
On p. 47 Hitchcock informs us that the Antichrist’s covenant of peace with Israel “is the very first birth pang.” But then just four pages later he writes: “the first birth pang is the rise of false Christs” (p. 51). Well, which is it? For a system boldly waving graphs, charts, diagrams, outlines, blueprints, timelines, road maps, and tables, this still remains too confusing.
Oddly enough, Hitchcock parrots the dispensationalist line that the Great Tribulation is “worse than any other time of trouble in world history” (Jesus' statement in Matt. 24:21 is a sample of common prophetic hyperbole). He even provides two arguments supporting this claim: “First, the terror and destruction of the Great Tribulation will not be limited to a few locations. The entire world will be engulfed. Second, most of the trouble in the world up to this point is the result of the wrath of man and the wrath of Satan. However, in the Great Tribulation, God Himself will be pouring out His unmitigated wrath on a sinful, rebellious world.” These two arguments do not prove his point. Note the following:
Dispensationalists somehow overlook Noah’s Flood which was absolutely worldwide (only one family lived through it) and it was directly from God. Peter even emphasizes the enormity of the catastrophe: “in which a few, that is, eight person’s, were brought safely through the water” (1 Pet. 3:20; cp. 2 Pet. 2:5). And they overlook this in their arguments despite two facts: (1) Jesus himself mentions Noah’s Flood (Matt. 24:37–38) while talking about the Great Tribulation (Matt. 24:21). (2) Hitchcock even mentions Noah’s Flood elsewhere in his book (pp. 102–03). To make matters worse, Jesus’ own teaching only urges men to flee from Judea (Matt. 24:16). This is not a worldwide event.
What is really odd is that Hitchcock boldly presents a statement from the Dallas Morning News: “Twenty percent of Americans said they believe the Second Coming will occur sometimes around the year 2000” (p. 79). Hitchcock’s book was written three years after 2000, and now it is nine years after. It won’t be long before it is 100 years after. They have no shame. They simply do not shy away from constantly being wrong about the date of the Second Coming.
Hitchcock apparently does not understand his own system (who could?). In dispensationalism the Second Coming of Christ is at the end of the Great Tribulation and results in the establishing of the Millennium (p. 93). Dispensationalism has long taught (as one of its many absurdities) that many people will move from the Great Tribulation era into the Millennium with unresurrected bodies. They will bear children, many of whom later will revolt against Christ at the end of the Millennium. But what does Hitchcock say about Christ’s Second Coming and its consequences?
Hitchcock cites Rev. 19:19–21 as one of the texts showing that “Jesus will return as King of kings and Lord of lords. He is coming back to take over!” (p. 88). By this (rather trite) representation he is speaking of Christ coming to establish the Millennium after the Tribulation (pp. 92–93; and see chart on p. 98). But two pages later (and under the very next heading) he states: “When Christ returns there will be an immediate, eternal separation and division of the redeemed from the lost. . . . The fate of all men on earth at that time will be sealed at that moment” (p. 90). But every dispensationalist theologian states that those who survive Armageddon will enter the Millennium in unresurrected bodies — and many of these will later be converted. It would be strikingly odd if many Gentiles would be saved during the Great Tribulation (p. 100), but those who were not saved in those horrible days could not be saved after they enter the glorious Millennium. The system is so complicated that one of its leading (populist) lights cannot get it straight.
What is worse: They effectively write off all evangelicals who do not hold to one of their several Rapture theories: “All people who believe the Bible believe in a Rapture” (p. 96). Then he gives a “chart and timeline [that] should help in giving a broad overview of where people are on this issue” (p. 96). The chart on page 97 lists only dispensational options. Dispensationalists live in a world to themselves.
After speaking of the "imminence" of Christ’s coming as found in the dispensational view of the New Testament (p. 103), Hitchcock notes that the Parable of the Ten Virgins teaches that Christ “may delay His coming longer than we think” (p. 114). He even comments that “the long period of time He is gone away pictures the interadvent age, or the time between Christ’s ascension to heaven and His return” (p. 117). Then: “Christ predicted He would be gone for a ‘long time’ (v. 19). It’s now been almost two thousand years” (p. 118). Which is it: Did Christ teach he could return at “any moment”? Or did he teach that “He would be gone for a ‘long time’”?
Well there you go. Dispensationalism is as complicated and contradictory as it is popular. The dispensationalist marketing plan could sell bikinis to Eskimos. In fact, I would not be surprised if they do have a bikini store in Fairbanks, Alaska. After all, a bikini has just enough room to display a lapel pin sporting an Israeli flag over against the American flag.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Identifying Dispensationalists
by Ken Gentry, Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com
In that my post on "Witnessing to Dispensationalists" was so popular, I thought we might re-visit the humor department. Not that dispensationalism is laughable -- it actually causes me to cry a lot. Normally, my crying doesn't occur until I look at the New York Times best-seller list and see it crowded with dispensational fiction books. Indeed, that is why I stopped subscribing to the NY Times -- in addition to the fact that I live 800 miles away from New York (the "movie showings" section was not helpful to me at all).
Several blog readers sent me emails suggesting that I give some insights into how to recognize a dispensationalist. This, they thought, might help them in their quest to seek them out for an "intellectual" (I use the term loosely) encounter. Attempting an intellectual discussion with a dispensationalist is a lot like saddling a giraffe: It is a whole lot of trouble and there's not much point in it. (This is why you never see me riding a giraffe through the neighborhood.)
So then how can you recognize a dispensationalist? Jeff Foxworthy has developed one of the most useful psychological profiling systems for determining a person's identity. So I will follow his well-argued principles and apply them to the task at hand. I will even apply them personally to you, my reader, just in case you fear you may be succumbing yourself (out of saddness that you are never invited to Rapture parties).
In that my post on "Witnessing to Dispensationalists" was so popular, I thought we might re-visit the humor department. Not that dispensationalism is laughable -- it actually causes me to cry a lot. Normally, my crying doesn't occur until I look at the New York Times best-seller list and see it crowded with dispensational fiction books. Indeed, that is why I stopped subscribing to the NY Times -- in addition to the fact that I live 800 miles away from New York (the "movie showings" section was not helpful to me at all).
Several blog readers sent me emails suggesting that I give some insights into how to recognize a dispensationalist. This, they thought, might help them in their quest to seek them out for an "intellectual" (I use the term loosely) encounter. Attempting an intellectual discussion with a dispensationalist is a lot like saddling a giraffe: It is a whole lot of trouble and there's not much point in it. (This is why you never see me riding a giraffe through the neighborhood.)
So then how can you recognize a dispensationalist? Jeff Foxworthy has developed one of the most useful psychological profiling systems for determining a person's identity. So I will follow his well-argued principles and apply them to the task at hand. I will even apply them personally to you, my reader, just in case you fear you may be succumbing yourself (out of saddness that you are never invited to Rapture parties).
You Might Be a Dispensationalist IF:
If you like to chew gum constantly so that your ears won’t pop in case of the Rapture.
If you subscribe to the newspaper simply to keep up with biblical prophecy.
If you always leave the top down on your convertible — just in case.
If bar code scanners make you nervous.
If you have been a Christian for less than one year and you have already studied through the Book of Revelation twelve times.
If you attend a church that sings as a Christian hymn the 1960s pop song "Up, Up and Away."
If you think general revelation is the Commander-in-Chief of the armies of Armageddon.
If you can name more dispensations than commandments.
If you forget your wife’s birthday, but you know the latest predicted date for the Rapture.
If you have already forgotten the last date predicted for the Rapture but you are excited about the most recent prediction, confident that "this is it!"
If you are a book collector and you long to locate a copy of The Late Great Planet Earth in the original Greek.
If you believe that the term "Early Church Fathers" refers to J. N. Darby, C. I. Scofield and Lewis Sperry Chafer.
If you would like a copy of Hal Lindsey's personal study Bible with penciled in corrections.
If you have on your den wall a framed, aerial photograph of Jerry Falwell.
If in casual conversation with friends and fellow employees at work you begin every sentence with: "According to biblical prophecy...."
If more than one of your children is named Ryrie, Chafer or Darby. (However, you may deduct this from your overall score if you have a child name Calvin.)
If you get excited when you see a sentence with a parenthesis.
If your license plate reads: "IM PR TRB." (You get extra credit if you have a friend who actually knows what it means -- and wishes he had one.)
If you believe the musical "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers" contains an apocalyptic message. (You get extra credit if on the basis of the coded message you have sold your house and cashed out your retirement investments and moved to the top of some mountain -- on the side facing towards Jerusalem.)
If you ever thought you sealed a victory in a theological argument by introducing your rebutal by stating: "Nevertheless, as Tim LaHaye has saliently argued...."
If there are more underlined sentences in your copy of Late Great Planet Earth than in your Bible. (You get extra credit if you have a thumb-indexed edition of Late Great Planet Earth.)
If your Pastor gives a sermon exclusively from the Scofield Reference Bible study notes. (You get extra credit if he doesn't realize he has done so.)
If you own a leather-bound, red-letter edition of the Left Behind series.
If you have to have a full-color foldout chart before you can understand salvation by grace through faith.
If you’ve ever had more than three candidates for the AntiChrist at one time. (You get extra credit if you justified it by arguing from the doctrine of the Trinity.)
If you can read Stephen King novels and chuckle, but you see 666 on a cash register receipt and you run screaming out of the store, crying out: "I told you so!"
If you took Hal Lindsey’s advice forty years ago not to make any long term plans and are now broke, uneducated and in a dead-end job. (You get extra credit if your sanctification is such that you are not miffed at his raking in millions and investing them in long-term real estate ventures.)
If you always make sure there’s at least one non-Christian pilot on every flight you take. (You get extra credit if you discount the argument that: "If God had meant for us to fly he would have given us tickets." You must deduct points, however, if you are convinced Matt. 28:20 is a compelling argument against Christians' flying, because you understand that in this passage Jesus warns that: "Low, I am with you always.")
If you believe the concern about "population explosion" refers to Muslims blowing themselves up on a daily basis to make a salient theological point, and you are convinced there must be a verse in Revelation that mentions it (because explosions produce fire, fire occurs often in Revelation, and Revelation contains the letters "M," "U," "S," "L," "I," "M" scattered throughout the text).
If you still hold a lingering suspicion about Gorbachev’s birthmark on his forehead. (You get extra credit if you never confuse the shape of his birthmark with a map of Texas.)
If you believe that Grant Jeffrey, Dave Hunt, Hal Lindsey, or John Hagee is a theologian.
If you know the location of the European Central Bank because you believe you have properly exegeted Revelation 13:17 from the original Belgium version.
If you count trampoline aerobics as "Rapture Practice" in your 4:00 am devotions each morning. (You get extra credit if you believe the neighbors who live in the apartment below you are non-Christians and are persecuting you because they complain.)
If you think Texe Marrs’ books belong in the "Reference Works" section of your local Christian bookstore. (You get extra credit if you think they belong in your Christian bookstore at all.)
If you look for Chick Tracts in the "Theology" section of your local Christian bookstore. (You get extra credit if you shop at a Christian bookstore that actually has a "Theology" section. Note: The WWJD supply section is not considered a "Theology" section.)
If you ever stand on your head out of the fear that the Rapture will occur when Jesus returns over China, because you are confident of your exegesis of Rev. 9:16 regarding the battle involving 250,000,000 million Chinese soldiers. (You get three extra points if you can name each one of the 250,000,000 million soldiers without making the sound of a spoon hitting the floor.)
If your baby’s stroller has a break-away sun bonnet. (You get extra credit if it also has a bumper sticker on it stating: "In case of Rapture this vehicle will be unbabied.")
If you have five children, but refuse to buy life insurance on yourself because "I won't be needing it."
If your personal hymn favorite is: "My hope is built on nothing less, than Scofield's notes and Moody Press."
If Clarence Larkin is your favorite artist and you scoff at Norman Rockwell's meager artistic attempts.
If you think there are only two millennial positions: Pre-Trib and Liberal.
If your favorite party game is "Pin the horns on the Beast."
If your favorite Christian TV game show is: "Name that Antichrist."
If after reading the Left Behind series you file formal legal papers leaving your body to science fiction. (You must deduct points, though, if you realize the error of reading too many dispensationalist books and you donate your eyes as an organ donor before you die.)
A final note on this profiling technique.
I believe that if you master this YMBI ("You might be, if") Analysis you will be able effectively to ward off early-onset dispensationalism (some medical researchers call it by its more technical designation, Senile Dementia of the Alzheimer Type [SDAT].) Be aware, that after thirty-two years of intensive research by scores of left-handed scientists working in tandem, it was proven that that there was once someone who had heard of Reformed theology, but who became a dispensationalist nonetheless. No one is safe as long as there are newspapers to exegete.
Furthermore, you will be better equipped to identify chart-carrying dispensationalists even when they accidentally leave their charts at home. Admittedly, this doesn't happen often, but it can happen and you must prepared.
I hope you will use this YMBI Analysis tool often. You don't want to fail in your Christian life because you failed to take into account the biblical warning that states: "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge."
Once you are secure in your non-dispensationalism (having passed the YMBI Analysis), you may enjoy playing the game of Spin-the-Dispensationalist. To play the game, simply ask a dispensationalist the question: "Why do your Rapture predictions always fail, but you continue to adopt new ones with even greater enthusiasm?" Then step back and watch him spin the facts to account for his gullability. (Be careful though: Stand back when playing the game, because if he spins too quickly, inertial forces may cause his WWJD necklace to slap you in the face thereby causing a bruise that looks like "666.")
This game is more fun than watching Aardvarks fight. Or at least, that's what an ant friend of mine has told me. (Although I am not sure I should trust this ant. This ant and some of his friends were recently accused of dressing up as rice and robbing a Chinese restaurant. His character is now under suspicion. But I did appreciate his giving me a free Chinese Fortune Cookie.)
If you like to chew gum constantly so that your ears won’t pop in case of the Rapture.
If you subscribe to the newspaper simply to keep up with biblical prophecy.
If you always leave the top down on your convertible — just in case.
If bar code scanners make you nervous.
If you have been a Christian for less than one year and you have already studied through the Book of Revelation twelve times.
If you attend a church that sings as a Christian hymn the 1960s pop song "Up, Up and Away."
If you think general revelation is the Commander-in-Chief of the armies of Armageddon.
If you can name more dispensations than commandments.
If you forget your wife’s birthday, but you know the latest predicted date for the Rapture.
If you have already forgotten the last date predicted for the Rapture but you are excited about the most recent prediction, confident that "this is it!"
If you are a book collector and you long to locate a copy of The Late Great Planet Earth in the original Greek.
If you believe that the term "Early Church Fathers" refers to J. N. Darby, C. I. Scofield and Lewis Sperry Chafer.
If you would like a copy of Hal Lindsey's personal study Bible with penciled in corrections.
If you have on your den wall a framed, aerial photograph of Jerry Falwell.
If in casual conversation with friends and fellow employees at work you begin every sentence with: "According to biblical prophecy...."
If more than one of your children is named Ryrie, Chafer or Darby. (However, you may deduct this from your overall score if you have a child name Calvin.)
If you get excited when you see a sentence with a parenthesis.
If your license plate reads: "IM PR TRB." (You get extra credit if you have a friend who actually knows what it means -- and wishes he had one.)
If you believe the musical "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers" contains an apocalyptic message. (You get extra credit if on the basis of the coded message you have sold your house and cashed out your retirement investments and moved to the top of some mountain -- on the side facing towards Jerusalem.)
If you ever thought you sealed a victory in a theological argument by introducing your rebutal by stating: "Nevertheless, as Tim LaHaye has saliently argued...."
If there are more underlined sentences in your copy of Late Great Planet Earth than in your Bible. (You get extra credit if you have a thumb-indexed edition of Late Great Planet Earth.)
If your Pastor gives a sermon exclusively from the Scofield Reference Bible study notes. (You get extra credit if he doesn't realize he has done so.)
If you own a leather-bound, red-letter edition of the Left Behind series.
If you have to have a full-color foldout chart before you can understand salvation by grace through faith.
If you’ve ever had more than three candidates for the AntiChrist at one time. (You get extra credit if you justified it by arguing from the doctrine of the Trinity.)
If you can read Stephen King novels and chuckle, but you see 666 on a cash register receipt and you run screaming out of the store, crying out: "I told you so!"
If you took Hal Lindsey’s advice forty years ago not to make any long term plans and are now broke, uneducated and in a dead-end job. (You get extra credit if your sanctification is such that you are not miffed at his raking in millions and investing them in long-term real estate ventures.)
If you always make sure there’s at least one non-Christian pilot on every flight you take. (You get extra credit if you discount the argument that: "If God had meant for us to fly he would have given us tickets." You must deduct points, however, if you are convinced Matt. 28:20 is a compelling argument against Christians' flying, because you understand that in this passage Jesus warns that: "Low, I am with you always.")
If you believe the concern about "population explosion" refers to Muslims blowing themselves up on a daily basis to make a salient theological point, and you are convinced there must be a verse in Revelation that mentions it (because explosions produce fire, fire occurs often in Revelation, and Revelation contains the letters "M," "U," "S," "L," "I," "M" scattered throughout the text).
If you still hold a lingering suspicion about Gorbachev’s birthmark on his forehead. (You get extra credit if you never confuse the shape of his birthmark with a map of Texas.)
If you believe that Grant Jeffrey, Dave Hunt, Hal Lindsey, or John Hagee is a theologian.
If you know the location of the European Central Bank because you believe you have properly exegeted Revelation 13:17 from the original Belgium version.
If you count trampoline aerobics as "Rapture Practice" in your 4:00 am devotions each morning. (You get extra credit if you believe the neighbors who live in the apartment below you are non-Christians and are persecuting you because they complain.)
If you think Texe Marrs’ books belong in the "Reference Works" section of your local Christian bookstore. (You get extra credit if you think they belong in your Christian bookstore at all.)
If you look for Chick Tracts in the "Theology" section of your local Christian bookstore. (You get extra credit if you shop at a Christian bookstore that actually has a "Theology" section. Note: The WWJD supply section is not considered a "Theology" section.)
If you ever stand on your head out of the fear that the Rapture will occur when Jesus returns over China, because you are confident of your exegesis of Rev. 9:16 regarding the battle involving 250,000,000 million Chinese soldiers. (You get three extra points if you can name each one of the 250,000,000 million soldiers without making the sound of a spoon hitting the floor.)
If your baby’s stroller has a break-away sun bonnet. (You get extra credit if it also has a bumper sticker on it stating: "In case of Rapture this vehicle will be unbabied.")
If you have five children, but refuse to buy life insurance on yourself because "I won't be needing it."
If your personal hymn favorite is: "My hope is built on nothing less, than Scofield's notes and Moody Press."
If Clarence Larkin is your favorite artist and you scoff at Norman Rockwell's meager artistic attempts.
If you think there are only two millennial positions: Pre-Trib and Liberal.
If your favorite party game is "Pin the horns on the Beast."
If your favorite Christian TV game show is: "Name that Antichrist."
If after reading the Left Behind series you file formal legal papers leaving your body to science fiction. (You must deduct points, though, if you realize the error of reading too many dispensationalist books and you donate your eyes as an organ donor before you die.)
A final note on this profiling technique.
I believe that if you master this YMBI ("You might be, if") Analysis you will be able effectively to ward off early-onset dispensationalism (some medical researchers call it by its more technical designation, Senile Dementia of the Alzheimer Type [SDAT].) Be aware, that after thirty-two years of intensive research by scores of left-handed scientists working in tandem, it was proven that that there was once someone who had heard of Reformed theology, but who became a dispensationalist nonetheless. No one is safe as long as there are newspapers to exegete.
Furthermore, you will be better equipped to identify chart-carrying dispensationalists even when they accidentally leave their charts at home. Admittedly, this doesn't happen often, but it can happen and you must prepared.
I hope you will use this YMBI Analysis tool often. You don't want to fail in your Christian life because you failed to take into account the biblical warning that states: "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge."
Once you are secure in your non-dispensationalism (having passed the YMBI Analysis), you may enjoy playing the game of Spin-the-Dispensationalist. To play the game, simply ask a dispensationalist the question: "Why do your Rapture predictions always fail, but you continue to adopt new ones with even greater enthusiasm?" Then step back and watch him spin the facts to account for his gullability. (Be careful though: Stand back when playing the game, because if he spins too quickly, inertial forces may cause his WWJD necklace to slap you in the face thereby causing a bruise that looks like "666.")
This game is more fun than watching Aardvarks fight. Or at least, that's what an ant friend of mine has told me. (Although I am not sure I should trust this ant. This ant and some of his friends were recently accused of dressing up as rice and robbing a Chinese restaurant. His character is now under suspicion. But I did appreciate his giving me a free Chinese Fortune Cookie.)
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Witnessing to Dispensationalists
by Ken Gentry, Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com
My Background Training
When I was a student at a dispensationalist college in Tennessee, the faculty continually emphasized that proper methods are essential for successfully witnessing to unbelievers. Because of their commitment to methodology, in the view of the administration and faculty the most important early church father was evangelist Charles G. Finney. (They noted that he was not real, real early, but that he was certainly earlier than any of the faculty — most of whom were fathers.) Finney’s important contribution to evangelism lies in the fact that he invented the "anxious bench" that was so vital for helping the sinner to convert himself.
We also learned from John R. Oats the importance of using a piano rather than an organ in evangelistic services. He pointed out that the slow building crescendo of a note on an organ was not as effective as the staccato, piercing sound of the piano. He emphasized how urgency was better promoted by a piano than an organ.(Dr. Oats even pointed out exegetically that no verse in all of the Bible mentions the electric organ.)
Tragically some students went out immediately and started smashing organs as "instruments of the devil." One was even electrocuted because he used an iron crowbar that conducted electricity when it penetrated the electronic components within the organ. Needless to say, at his funeral we heard only the piano as we were all urged to come forward. Many of the students were born-again once again as they crowded the church aisles. And this was all because of this well-orchestrated funeral service. This student truly laid down his life for his friends.
My Personal Challenge
With these practical matters in mind, I have developed a helpful approach for witnessing to dispensationalists. I have seen too many erstwhile Reformed theologues stumble away from a fruitless encounter with a dispensationalist. They slink away with the profound realization regarding their dispensationalist friend: "the lights are on, but nobody's home."
My method helps soften up the resistance, so as not to turn off the dispensationalist as he scours the newspaper for material for next Sunday’s message. I hope that these ideas might prove helpful to you as you seek to minister to dispensationalists in the highways and byways. And in the Christian bookstores, and trinket shops. And at prophecy conferences and church camps. And on church basketball teams, and baseball teams, and bowling leagues, and badminton leagues. And so forth, and so on.
You can say one thing for dispensationalists: they certainly have been fruitful and multiplied. Perhaps the methods I suggest below might even be helpful for you to start an effective church slimming seminar. I know these have certainly worked for me.
My Recommended Method
When witnessing to dispensationalists, you will find the following recommendations quite effective.
(1) When approaching a dispensationalist, never — never! — walk up from behind. They are always looking up, absorbed in contemplation, eagerly awaiting the Rapture. Thus, any sudden movement from behind might scare them, turning them off as potential converts. Plus it may result in their mercilessly stabbing you with their gold-plated Bible marker.
(2) In fact, if you really want to be successful in your witness to dispensationalists, buy a convertible and let them actually see you drive up in it. They will realize how seriously you take the any-moment Rapture and how prepared you are for it. (Be aware though: They will immediately look to your bumper to make sure you have a bumper sticker that says: "In case of Rapture this car will be unmanned." You must always have the proper bumper sticker prominently displayed. And don’t buy defective bumper stickers, such as the one that says: "In case of rupture this car will be un-manned.")
(3) If you are earnest in your desire to effectively witness to dispensationalists, you should always have a Scofield Reference version of the King James Bible with you. As you approach them, be sure to have the Bible out in front of you with the cover clearly visible. When they see the gold lettering "Scofield Reference Bible," they will at once find perfect peace.
(4) I highly recommend also that you carefully fray the pages of the Book of Revelation. The dispensationalists will see this and believe that you are diligent student of Revelation and one of them. This will cause them to be warmed and filled. They might even spontaneously erupt with their favorite greeting: "Maranatha!"
(5) Though some Reformed evangelists discourage this in our litigious society, I believe that it is always a good idea to accidentally bump dispensationalists when first approaching. This proves to them that you are literal, and not some spiritual interpretation. This will make them believe you are on the same wave-length. (Some may believe in the corpuscular theory of light, but statistics show that the average dispensationalist believes in the wave theory --- after all, it is easier to think about. Always, always, always go with the law of averages.)
(6) Before you open your mouth to speak, let them see the colorful charts you have carefully placed in your shirt pocket. (Wearing pocketless tee-shirts is not recommended; when you go hunting, dress for the hunt. You wouldn’t want someone to miss the Rapture because you chose to wear some tee-shirt with a cheesy slogan on it, would you? I didn’t think so.) Once they see the colorful graphics they will surmise that you are either a dispensationalist or a Jehovah’s Witness, giving you a 50/50 chance to engage them in conversation.
(7) When you first begin speaking to the unwary dispensationalist, end each sentence with a confident sounding: "according to biblical prophecy." They will hear this and be intrigued. I would recommend also that you do something that strikes people as Jewish. But be careful, don’t over do it. Many dispensationalists don’t trust people with biblical looking beards. (This is an odd inconsistency in their worldview that I don’t have space here to discuss. Besides, I am tired.)
(8) A good conversation starter would be something on the order of:
"Hey, did you hear the latest date predicting the Rapture? This is not some ‘off-the-wall’ stuff. I actually heard it from a televangelist!"
Or perhaps:
"Did you read in the news there was another earthquake? How many does that make this year? Don’t you enjoy living like a person who doesn’t expect to be around much longer? I know I do."
A dispensationalist finds it impossible to turn away from such salient and intriguing information. In fact, they may pull out their own Scofield Reference Bible and take some notes based on your comments. You have primed the pump. I often drop into conversations that I lived in California for several years, consequently, I have personally felt earthquakes.
(9) You are now ready to engage them properly. But, darn. I forgot what I was going to say. I hate it when that happens. One time my mind wandered all the way to Venus and ordered a meal I couldn’t afford. Don’t you hate it when that happens?
My Background Training
Super church pastor Jack Hills spoke frequently in our chapel services. He emphasized how very important it was for soul-winners to use mouthwash, so as not to turn off the unbeliever who opens the door when you come knocking. He pointed out that it would be a tragedy if on Judgment Day some poor sinner was denied entry into heaven because you ate cabbage-wrapped bockwurst the day he met you. Because there were so many eager students gathered on one campus, many debates broke out regarding the best brand of mouth wash to use. This was never fully resolved in that the school year lasted only nine months.
We also learned from John R. Oats the importance of using a piano rather than an organ in evangelistic services. He pointed out that the slow building crescendo of a note on an organ was not as effective as the staccato, piercing sound of the piano. He emphasized how urgency was better promoted by a piano than an organ.(Dr. Oats even pointed out exegetically that no verse in all of the Bible mentions the electric organ.)
Tragically some students went out immediately and started smashing organs as "instruments of the devil." One was even electrocuted because he used an iron crowbar that conducted electricity when it penetrated the electronic components within the organ. Needless to say, at his funeral we heard only the piano as we were all urged to come forward. Many of the students were born-again once again as they crowded the church aisles. And this was all because of this well-orchestrated funeral service. This student truly laid down his life for his friends.
My Personal Challenge
With these practical matters in mind, I have developed a helpful approach for witnessing to dispensationalists. I have seen too many erstwhile Reformed theologues stumble away from a fruitless encounter with a dispensationalist. They slink away with the profound realization regarding their dispensationalist friend: "the lights are on, but nobody's home."
My method helps soften up the resistance, so as not to turn off the dispensationalist as he scours the newspaper for material for next Sunday’s message. I hope that these ideas might prove helpful to you as you seek to minister to dispensationalists in the highways and byways. And in the Christian bookstores, and trinket shops. And at prophecy conferences and church camps. And on church basketball teams, and baseball teams, and bowling leagues, and badminton leagues. And so forth, and so on.
You can say one thing for dispensationalists: they certainly have been fruitful and multiplied. Perhaps the methods I suggest below might even be helpful for you to start an effective church slimming seminar. I know these have certainly worked for me.
My Recommended Method
When witnessing to dispensationalists, you will find the following recommendations quite effective.
(1) When approaching a dispensationalist, never — never! — walk up from behind. They are always looking up, absorbed in contemplation, eagerly awaiting the Rapture. Thus, any sudden movement from behind might scare them, turning them off as potential converts. Plus it may result in their mercilessly stabbing you with their gold-plated Bible marker.
(2) In fact, if you really want to be successful in your witness to dispensationalists, buy a convertible and let them actually see you drive up in it. They will realize how seriously you take the any-moment Rapture and how prepared you are for it. (Be aware though: They will immediately look to your bumper to make sure you have a bumper sticker that says: "In case of Rapture this car will be unmanned." You must always have the proper bumper sticker prominently displayed. And don’t buy defective bumper stickers, such as the one that says: "In case of rupture this car will be un-manned.")
(3) If you are earnest in your desire to effectively witness to dispensationalists, you should always have a Scofield Reference version of the King James Bible with you. As you approach them, be sure to have the Bible out in front of you with the cover clearly visible. When they see the gold lettering "Scofield Reference Bible," they will at once find perfect peace.
(4) I highly recommend also that you carefully fray the pages of the Book of Revelation. The dispensationalists will see this and believe that you are diligent student of Revelation and one of them. This will cause them to be warmed and filled. They might even spontaneously erupt with their favorite greeting: "Maranatha!"
(5) Though some Reformed evangelists discourage this in our litigious society, I believe that it is always a good idea to accidentally bump dispensationalists when first approaching. This proves to them that you are literal, and not some spiritual interpretation. This will make them believe you are on the same wave-length. (Some may believe in the corpuscular theory of light, but statistics show that the average dispensationalist believes in the wave theory --- after all, it is easier to think about. Always, always, always go with the law of averages.)
(6) Before you open your mouth to speak, let them see the colorful charts you have carefully placed in your shirt pocket. (Wearing pocketless tee-shirts is not recommended; when you go hunting, dress for the hunt. You wouldn’t want someone to miss the Rapture because you chose to wear some tee-shirt with a cheesy slogan on it, would you? I didn’t think so.) Once they see the colorful graphics they will surmise that you are either a dispensationalist or a Jehovah’s Witness, giving you a 50/50 chance to engage them in conversation.
(7) When you first begin speaking to the unwary dispensationalist, end each sentence with a confident sounding: "according to biblical prophecy." They will hear this and be intrigued. I would recommend also that you do something that strikes people as Jewish. But be careful, don’t over do it. Many dispensationalists don’t trust people with biblical looking beards. (This is an odd inconsistency in their worldview that I don’t have space here to discuss. Besides, I am tired.)
(8) A good conversation starter would be something on the order of:
"Hey, did you hear the latest date predicting the Rapture? This is not some ‘off-the-wall’ stuff. I actually heard it from a televangelist!"
Or perhaps:
"Did you read in the news there was another earthquake? How many does that make this year? Don’t you enjoy living like a person who doesn’t expect to be around much longer? I know I do."
A dispensationalist finds it impossible to turn away from such salient and intriguing information. In fact, they may pull out their own Scofield Reference Bible and take some notes based on your comments. You have primed the pump. I often drop into conversations that I lived in California for several years, consequently, I have personally felt earthquakes.
(9) You are now ready to engage them properly. But, darn. I forgot what I was going to say. I hate it when that happens. One time my mind wandered all the way to Venus and ordered a meal I couldn’t afford. Don’t you hate it when that happens?
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Revising Simplicity
by Ken Gentry, Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com
NiceneCouncil.com will soon be publishing a new biography on Scofield, titled: The Praise of Folly: The Enigmatic Life & Theology of C. I. Scofield. This work is a much needed follow-up to Joseph C. Canfield’s The Incredible Scofield and His Book. It corrects some mistakes in Canfield and introduces some newly discovered materials on Scofield.
Lutzweiler writes with authority as a former long-time dispensationalist. He was a graduate of Moody Bible Institute (1956) and Wheaton College (B.A. in Bible and Theology, 1960). He served on the editorial staff of The Alliance Witness (now Alliance Life), official organ of The Christian and Missionary Alliance, from 1962 to 1964, at the invitation of Dr. A. W. Tozer. From 1964–72 he was Administrative Assistant to Dr. Spiros Zodhiates at AMG International.
In his careful and compelling detective work, Lutzweiler exposes some of the more shady sides of Scofield. Dispensationalist readers will be disappointed in Scofield’s life, just as non-dispensationalist readers are disappointed in his doctrine.
One aspect of Lutzweiler’s study shows some of the doctrinal errors in the Scofield Reference Bible. Before he does so, he reminds his reader that the first biography of Scofield was by Charles G. Trumbull, a personal friend of Scofield. In his work Trumbull wrote the famous, oft-quoted line that the Scofield Reference Bible was "God-planned, God-guided, God-illuminated, and God-energized" (Trumbull, The Life Story of C. I. Scofield, p. 114).
Furthermore, as noted in previous blogs, dispensationalism prides itself in its "plain and simple" method of interpretation. Consequently, when you combine the (alleged) plain and simple approach to interpretation with Trumbull’s declaration that the Scofield Reference Bible was "God-planned, God-guided, God-illuminated, and God-energized," you should have a reference Bible with a clear and abiding presentation of the dispensational system.
Nevertheless, somehow the "God-planned" and "God-guided" work built on the "plain and simple" method of interpretation has had to endure several revisions. How is it this reference Bible presenting something so "plain and simple" should produce a need for revision? And especially if the whole work was "God-planned" and "God-guided"? Perhaps things are not as "plain and simple" as we are led to believe. Even more, it appears that the Scofield Reference Bible — so cherished by millions — was not as "God-planned" and "God-guided" as so many have believed.
To make matters worse, historically we find on-going revisions in the system of theology itself — not just in its major presentation in the Scofield Reference Bible. Initially we have what dispensationalist theologian Craig L. Blaising classifies as "classic dispensationalism." This is the original system created by J. N. Darby, picked up, popularized, and promoted by C. I. Scofield, and given careful theological systematization by L. S. Chafer.
Yet this "plain and simple" system undergoes serious emendation to become C. C. Ryrie’s "revised dispensationalism." (This name derives from the 1967 New Scofield Reference Bible, which greatly revised the previous edition.) This is generally the system held by televangelists, every prophet-of-the-month, and the leading, best-selling newspaper exegetes, as well as Joe Dispensationalists in the pew. Ryrie’s system prevailed for about thirty years (mid-1950s through mid-1980s). Then arose "progressive dispensationalism," spearheaded by Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. They even declare Ryrie’s plain and simple hermeneutic to be "naive" and "simplistic."
Progressive dispensationalism has not taken the market by storm, but it has undermined the theological structure of the prevailing system. In fact, it has moved much closer to historic covenantal thought. And for these two things, we can be thankful.
To make matters worse still, dispensationalism is one of the most complex and ornate systems of theology available to evangelicals. It has two different peoples of God, two different programs, seven different dispensations (each having its own revelation, test, and failure), several literal comings of Christ, assorted judgments, and more. How could a plain and simple hermeneutic lead to such a complex system of thought? The mind boggles.
The popular brand of dispensationalism boasts of its "plain and simple" system, but then has to revise itself frequently. This should be disconcerting to dispensationalists. Unfortunately, the average dispensationalist would rather die than think. In fact, he does.
NiceneCouncil.com will soon be publishing a new biography on Scofield, titled: The Praise of Folly: The Enigmatic Life & Theology of C. I. Scofield. This work is a much needed follow-up to Joseph C. Canfield’s The Incredible Scofield and His Book. It corrects some mistakes in Canfield and introduces some newly discovered materials on Scofield.
Lutzweiler writes with authority as a former long-time dispensationalist. He was a graduate of Moody Bible Institute (1956) and Wheaton College (B.A. in Bible and Theology, 1960). He served on the editorial staff of The Alliance Witness (now Alliance Life), official organ of The Christian and Missionary Alliance, from 1962 to 1964, at the invitation of Dr. A. W. Tozer. From 1964–72 he was Administrative Assistant to Dr. Spiros Zodhiates at AMG International.
In his careful and compelling detective work, Lutzweiler exposes some of the more shady sides of Scofield. Dispensationalist readers will be disappointed in Scofield’s life, just as non-dispensationalist readers are disappointed in his doctrine.
One aspect of Lutzweiler’s study shows some of the doctrinal errors in the Scofield Reference Bible. Before he does so, he reminds his reader that the first biography of Scofield was by Charles G. Trumbull, a personal friend of Scofield. In his work Trumbull wrote the famous, oft-quoted line that the Scofield Reference Bible was "God-planned, God-guided, God-illuminated, and God-energized" (Trumbull, The Life Story of C. I. Scofield, p. 114).
Furthermore, as noted in previous blogs, dispensationalism prides itself in its "plain and simple" method of interpretation. Consequently, when you combine the (alleged) plain and simple approach to interpretation with Trumbull’s declaration that the Scofield Reference Bible was "God-planned, God-guided, God-illuminated, and God-energized," you should have a reference Bible with a clear and abiding presentation of the dispensational system.
Nevertheless, somehow the "God-planned" and "God-guided" work built on the "plain and simple" method of interpretation has had to endure several revisions. How is it this reference Bible presenting something so "plain and simple" should produce a need for revision? And especially if the whole work was "God-planned" and "God-guided"? Perhaps things are not as "plain and simple" as we are led to believe. Even more, it appears that the Scofield Reference Bible — so cherished by millions — was not as "God-planned" and "God-guided" as so many have believed.
To make matters worse, historically we find on-going revisions in the system of theology itself — not just in its major presentation in the Scofield Reference Bible. Initially we have what dispensationalist theologian Craig L. Blaising classifies as "classic dispensationalism." This is the original system created by J. N. Darby, picked up, popularized, and promoted by C. I. Scofield, and given careful theological systematization by L. S. Chafer.
Yet this "plain and simple" system undergoes serious emendation to become C. C. Ryrie’s "revised dispensationalism." (This name derives from the 1967 New Scofield Reference Bible, which greatly revised the previous edition.) This is generally the system held by televangelists, every prophet-of-the-month, and the leading, best-selling newspaper exegetes, as well as Joe Dispensationalists in the pew. Ryrie’s system prevailed for about thirty years (mid-1950s through mid-1980s). Then arose "progressive dispensationalism," spearheaded by Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. They even declare Ryrie’s plain and simple hermeneutic to be "naive" and "simplistic."
Progressive dispensationalism has not taken the market by storm, but it has undermined the theological structure of the prevailing system. In fact, it has moved much closer to historic covenantal thought. And for these two things, we can be thankful.
To make matters worse still, dispensationalism is one of the most complex and ornate systems of theology available to evangelicals. It has two different peoples of God, two different programs, seven different dispensations (each having its own revelation, test, and failure), several literal comings of Christ, assorted judgments, and more. How could a plain and simple hermeneutic lead to such a complex system of thought? The mind boggles.
The popular brand of dispensationalism boasts of its "plain and simple" system, but then has to revise itself frequently. This should be disconcerting to dispensationalists. Unfortunately, the average dispensationalist would rather die than think. In fact, he does.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Dispensationalism’s Circular Absurdity
By Ken Gentry, Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com
Dispensationalism is not only exegetically tenuous, but systemically flawed and philosophically absurd. At the very foundation of dispensationalism lies circularity and confusion. Indeed, the very definition and function of a "dispensation" in the system actually undermines the system. Let me explain.
In this blog I will employ Charles C. Ryrie’s respected and authoritative book, titled Dispensationalism (Moody, 1995). Page numbers below will refer to this work. This is the revised and updated version of his definitive 1966 Dispensationalism Today. This work is approvingly cited and affirmed in The Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy.
The problem I will be reflecting on is one of many systemic problems that explains why so many leave dispensationalism. Bruce Waltke, a former dispensationalist, stated in 1991 that dispensationalism has "no future as a system" (cited in Ryrie, p. 15). He is correct. That is why we are witnessing the unraveling of dispensationalism — at the academic level. (Admittedly, it may take four or five hundred more years for the average dispensationalist-in-the-pew to catch on, though.)
Let’s consider three foundational absurdities.
First absurdity: dispensationalists claim that dispensations are fundamental to understanding Scripture. But then they declare that dispensations are not necessary to understanding dispensationalism!
While studying for his Ph.D. at the University of Edinburgh, Ryrie became convinced "that dispensational premillennialism was the only way to understand the Bible" (p. 10). Furthermore, he writes that "in relation to understanding the Scriptures [they must be] interpreted plainly and thus dispensationally."
Yet, Ryrie presents a three-fold sine qua non of dispensationalism, which omits any reference to dispensations! He writes: "Theoretically, the sine qua non ought to lie in the recognition of the fact that God has distinguishably different economies in governing the affairs of the world." But they do not! Indeed, he then asks: "Is the essence of dispensationalism in the number of dispensations? No, for this is in no way a major issue in the system" (p. 38). One would think a "dispensation" would be crucial to a system called "dispensationalism," but it is not.
Second absurdity: dispensations are God-ordained, distinguishable economies in the outworking of redemptive and world history. Yet dispensationalists disagree over the number of dispensations, allegedly without affecting the system!
Note that dispensations are supposedly God-ordained and "distinguishable":
"Dispensations are not stages in the revelation of the covenant of grace but are God’s distinctive and different administrations in directing the affairs of the world" (p. 17).
"The particular manifestations of the will of God in each dispensation are given their full, yet distinctive, place in the progress of the Revelation of God throughout the ages" (p. 19).
"A concise definition of a dispensation is this: A dispensation is a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God’s purpose." He adds that a full description of a dispensation should include "the ideas of distinctive revelation, responsibility, testing, failure, and judgment" (p. 28).
Over and over again, on p. 29 he highlights the distinctive, distinguishable character of each of the specific dispensations. Dispensations are: "distinguishably different," "the word distinguishable in the definition points out that some features are distinctive to each dispensation and mark them off from each other as different dispensations"; "distinguishing the dispensations is God’s, not man’s" work; "the distinguishing features are introduced by God"; and "these various stages mark off the distinguishably different economies."
On p. 32 he writes that "dispensational theology" recognizes "distinguishable distinctions." On p. 33 he asks: "what marks off the various economies in the outworking of God’s purpose and distinguished each from the other?" He answers: "(1) the different governing relationship with the world into God enters in each economy; and (2) the resulting responsibility on mankind in each of these different relationships." On p. 34 he speaks of a particular dispensation as "a distinguishable and different way of running the affairs of the world."
This matter is so important that on p. 37 he argues: "The distinguishable yet progressive character of dispensational distinctions prohibits that they should be intermingled or confused as they are chronologically successive."
Yet, despite all of these asseverations he states: "It makes little difference at this point in the discussion whether there are seven dispensations or not; the point is that dispensations answer the need for distinctions" (p. 17). Later on p. 45 he writes: "The number of dispensations in a dispensational scheme . . . are relatively minor matters. Presumably one could have four, five, seven, or eight dispensations and be a consistent dispensationalist." On p. 46: "Occasionally a dispensationalist may hold as few as four, and some hold as many as eight" dispensations.
But if dispensations are God-ordained and distinguishable, how can the system allow for a fluctuating number of dispensations? Would not a four dispensation system be considered intermingling and confusing chronologically successive dispensations from the seven dispensation system (despite Ryrie, see above quote from p. 37)?
Ryrie believes he has explained this complication by stating: "the difference of opinion as to number is not due to a defect in the dispensational scheme but rather is due to lack of detailed revelation concerning the earliest periods of biblical history. . . . (p. 47). What happened to "distinguishable differences" ordained by God in Scripture? On p. 29 he states that "distinguishing the dispensations is God’s, not man’s" work and "the distinguishing features are introduced by God."
Third absurdity: dispensationalism is viciously circular. p. 29: "The understanding of God’s differing economies is essential to a proper interpretation of His revelation within those various economies." This leads to the bizarre conclusion that you cannot understand the revelation without the feature, but you cannot find the feature without the revelation! The PEBP (p. 82) approvingly quotes and affirms this statement.
This "plain and simple" system of theological is downright complicated and confusing.
Dispensationalism is not only exegetically tenuous, but systemically flawed and philosophically absurd. At the very foundation of dispensationalism lies circularity and confusion. Indeed, the very definition and function of a "dispensation" in the system actually undermines the system. Let me explain.
In this blog I will employ Charles C. Ryrie’s respected and authoritative book, titled Dispensationalism (Moody, 1995). Page numbers below will refer to this work. This is the revised and updated version of his definitive 1966 Dispensationalism Today. This work is approvingly cited and affirmed in The Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy.
The problem I will be reflecting on is one of many systemic problems that explains why so many leave dispensationalism. Bruce Waltke, a former dispensationalist, stated in 1991 that dispensationalism has "no future as a system" (cited in Ryrie, p. 15). He is correct. That is why we are witnessing the unraveling of dispensationalism — at the academic level. (Admittedly, it may take four or five hundred more years for the average dispensationalist-in-the-pew to catch on, though.)
Let’s consider three foundational absurdities.
First absurdity: dispensationalists claim that dispensations are fundamental to understanding Scripture. But then they declare that dispensations are not necessary to understanding dispensationalism!
While studying for his Ph.D. at the University of Edinburgh, Ryrie became convinced "that dispensational premillennialism was the only way to understand the Bible" (p. 10). Furthermore, he writes that "in relation to understanding the Scriptures [they must be] interpreted plainly and thus dispensationally."
Yet, Ryrie presents a three-fold sine qua non of dispensationalism, which omits any reference to dispensations! He writes: "Theoretically, the sine qua non ought to lie in the recognition of the fact that God has distinguishably different economies in governing the affairs of the world." But they do not! Indeed, he then asks: "Is the essence of dispensationalism in the number of dispensations? No, for this is in no way a major issue in the system" (p. 38). One would think a "dispensation" would be crucial to a system called "dispensationalism," but it is not.
Second absurdity: dispensations are God-ordained, distinguishable economies in the outworking of redemptive and world history. Yet dispensationalists disagree over the number of dispensations, allegedly without affecting the system!
Note that dispensations are supposedly God-ordained and "distinguishable":
"Dispensations are not stages in the revelation of the covenant of grace but are God’s distinctive and different administrations in directing the affairs of the world" (p. 17).
"The particular manifestations of the will of God in each dispensation are given their full, yet distinctive, place in the progress of the Revelation of God throughout the ages" (p. 19).
"A concise definition of a dispensation is this: A dispensation is a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God’s purpose." He adds that a full description of a dispensation should include "the ideas of distinctive revelation, responsibility, testing, failure, and judgment" (p. 28).
Over and over again, on p. 29 he highlights the distinctive, distinguishable character of each of the specific dispensations. Dispensations are: "distinguishably different," "the word distinguishable in the definition points out that some features are distinctive to each dispensation and mark them off from each other as different dispensations"; "distinguishing the dispensations is God’s, not man’s" work; "the distinguishing features are introduced by God"; and "these various stages mark off the distinguishably different economies."
On p. 32 he writes that "dispensational theology" recognizes "distinguishable distinctions." On p. 33 he asks: "what marks off the various economies in the outworking of God’s purpose and distinguished each from the other?" He answers: "(1) the different governing relationship with the world into God enters in each economy; and (2) the resulting responsibility on mankind in each of these different relationships." On p. 34 he speaks of a particular dispensation as "a distinguishable and different way of running the affairs of the world."
This matter is so important that on p. 37 he argues: "The distinguishable yet progressive character of dispensational distinctions prohibits that they should be intermingled or confused as they are chronologically successive."
Yet, despite all of these asseverations he states: "It makes little difference at this point in the discussion whether there are seven dispensations or not; the point is that dispensations answer the need for distinctions" (p. 17). Later on p. 45 he writes: "The number of dispensations in a dispensational scheme . . . are relatively minor matters. Presumably one could have four, five, seven, or eight dispensations and be a consistent dispensationalist." On p. 46: "Occasionally a dispensationalist may hold as few as four, and some hold as many as eight" dispensations.
But if dispensations are God-ordained and distinguishable, how can the system allow for a fluctuating number of dispensations? Would not a four dispensation system be considered intermingling and confusing chronologically successive dispensations from the seven dispensation system (despite Ryrie, see above quote from p. 37)?
Ryrie believes he has explained this complication by stating: "the difference of opinion as to number is not due to a defect in the dispensational scheme but rather is due to lack of detailed revelation concerning the earliest periods of biblical history. . . . (p. 47). What happened to "distinguishable differences" ordained by God in Scripture? On p. 29 he states that "distinguishing the dispensations is God’s, not man’s" work and "the distinguishing features are introduced by God."
Third absurdity: dispensationalism is viciously circular. p. 29: "The understanding of God’s differing economies is essential to a proper interpretation of His revelation within those various economies." This leads to the bizarre conclusion that you cannot understand the revelation without the feature, but you cannot find the feature without the revelation! The PEBP (p. 82) approvingly quotes and affirms this statement.
This "plain and simple" system of theological is downright complicated and confusing.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Premillennialism and the Early Church
by Ken Gentry, Director of NiceneCouncil.com
Dispensationalists are fond of proclaiming premillennialism to be the historic faith of the Church. Though I don’t see how this is helpful to them, since they admit that their dispensational variety is not; and even strongly criticize historic premillennialists (such as G. E. Ladd). Nevertheless, it seems to bring them a great measure of satisfaction, when they take time off from predicting the Rapture.
Wayne House and Thomas Ice state that "the early church was solidly chiliastic until the time of Augustine" (Dominion Theology, 200). Paul Enns boldly asserts that "the church from the beginning was premillennial in belief" (Moody Handbook of Theology, 389). J. Dwight Pentecost states that "a premillennial belief was the universal belief in the church for two hundred and fifty years after the death of Christ" (Things to Come, 374). Such claims commonly appear in eschatological literature today.
Frequently the false historical data arises from the seriously flawed, long-discredited claims of George N. H. Peters in his work The Theocratic Kingdom. Peters writes: "Now let the student reflect: here are two centuries . . . in which positively no direct opposition whatever arises against our doctrine" (Theocratic Kingdom, 1:494 –496). His claims are quite erroneous, though still persisting and highly regarded by some, such as Mal Couch in Dictionary of Premillennial Theology (see pp. 264, 302). (This Dictionary is a real must not read book.) The errors in Peters’ analysis and others like it have been exposed by a number of scholars. One of the best recent studies demonstrating the error is Charles E. Hill’s, Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity.
Premillennialist D. H. Kromminga carefully examines the sub-apostolic writings, including: Clement of Rome’s 1 Clement, the pseudo-Clementine 2 Clement, The Didache, the Ignatian epistles, Polycarp’s Epistle, The Letter of the Church at Smyrna on the Martyrdom of Polycarp, Barnabas, Hermas, Diognetus, Fragments of Papias, and Reliques of the Elders. He convincingly shows that only Papias among the sub-apostolic fathers is premillennial. He concludes that "an inquiry into the extent of ancient chiliasm will serve to show the untenableness of the claim that this doctrine was held with practical unanimity by the Church of the first few centuries" (The Millennium in the Church, 30, 41, 42).
Charles E. Hill presents detailed evidence of "the nonadvocacy, and sometimes outspoken repudiation, of chiliasm" in several Apostolic Fathers including Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Hermas and Second Clement, as well as the Apologists, Epistle to Diognetus, Melito of Sardis, Athenagora, the Christian Pseudepigrapha, early martyrologies, and others (Regnum Caelorum, 76; see all of Part II).
W. G. T. Shedd observes that "early millennialism was held mostly among Jewish converts. A few Apostolic Fathers held it as individuals, but those who do not mention the millennium had greater weight of authority and influence: Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp" (History of Christian Doctrine, 2:390–391). In fact, according to church historian Jaroslav Pelikan: "It would seem that very early in the post-apostolic era millenarianism was regarded as a mark neither of orthodoxy nor of heresy, but as one permissible opinion among others within the range of permissible opinions" (The Christian Traditions, 1:125).
This is borne out by premillennialism’s failure to receive creedal status. Dallas Seminary theologian Robert P. Lightner recognizes that "None of the major creeds of the church include premillennialism in their statements" (Last Days Handbook, 158). Historic premillennialist Craig L. Blomberg admits that "the classic orthodox creeds of the patristic period, like the major confessions of faith from the Protestant Reformation, never required more than this," i.e., the basic elements of biblical eschatology: a future second advent, a bodily resurrection, and a final judgment (Historic Premillennialism, 69).
Alan Patrick Boyd (a dispensationalist at the time) powerfully analyzes and conclusively rebuts Peters’ claims in his 1977 Dallas Theological Seminary master’s thesis. According to Boyd, he "originally undertook the thesis to bolster the [dispensational] system by patristic research, but the evidence of the original sources simply disallowed this." He ends up lamenting that "this writer believes that the Church rapidly fell from New Testament truth, and this is very evident in the realm of eschatology. Only in modern times has New Testament eschatological truth been recovered" ("A Dispensational Premillennial Analysis," 91n.). As a consequence of his research, Boyd urges his fellow dispensationalists to "avoid reliance on men like Geo. N. H. Peters . . . whose historical conclusions regarding premillennialism . . . in the early church have been proven to be largely in error" (p. 92).
Boyd goes on to admit that "it would seem wise for the modern [i.e., dispensational] system to abandon the claim that it is the historical faith of the Church" (p. 92). Of Ryrie’s bold statement that "Premillennialism is the historic faith of the Church," he states: "It is the conclusion of this thesis that Dr. Ryrie’s statement is historically invalid within the chronological framework of this thesis" (p. 89). Boyd even states: "This validates the claim of L. Berkhof. . . . ‘It is not correct to say, as Premillenarians do, that it (millennialism) was generally accepted in the first three centuries. The truth of the matter is that the adherents of this doctrine were a rather limited number’" (p. 92).
Clearly, the ancient advocates of premillennialism faced opposition from orthodox non-millennialists. For instance, consider Justin Martyr’s response to Trypho regarding the hope of "a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built." Justin (d. AD 165) replies: "I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, 80). Note the reference to "many" who "think otherwise." No unanimity regarding the millennium exists in the early church.
Another premillennialist, Irenaeus (ca. AD 180), observes that "some who are reckoned among the orthodox" do not hold to his premillennial views (Against Heresies 5:31:1). Eusebius (ca. AD 325) points to premillennialist Papias (AD 60–130) in explaining the spread of premillennialism: "But it was due to him that so many [not "all"!] of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man" (Ecclesiastical History 3:39). The fact that premillennialism was in no way approaching "universal" in extent is evident also in that Dionysius (AD 190–264) successfully dealt with "this doctrine" in a certain area where it prevailed and split "entire churches." He won the day in that Egyptian district and turns the majority away from premillennialism (Ecclesiastical History 7:24). Later, Epiphanius (AD 315–403) writes: "There is indeed a millennium mentioned by St. John; but the most, and those pious men, look upon those words as true indeed, but to be taken in a spiritual sense" (Epiphanius, Heresies, 77:26).
Unfortunately, when you are trying to decode the most recent name of the Antichrist and trying to predict the Rapture, you don’t really have time to fool with historical studies. That’s why the ghost of George N. H. Peters still haunts dispensational literature.
For more information on this and other errors in dispensationalism, see my recently released, third edition of He Shall Have Dominion (available at NiceneCouncil.com).
Dispensationalists are fond of proclaiming premillennialism to be the historic faith of the Church. Though I don’t see how this is helpful to them, since they admit that their dispensational variety is not; and even strongly criticize historic premillennialists (such as G. E. Ladd). Nevertheless, it seems to bring them a great measure of satisfaction, when they take time off from predicting the Rapture.
Wayne House and Thomas Ice state that "the early church was solidly chiliastic until the time of Augustine" (Dominion Theology, 200). Paul Enns boldly asserts that "the church from the beginning was premillennial in belief" (Moody Handbook of Theology, 389). J. Dwight Pentecost states that "a premillennial belief was the universal belief in the church for two hundred and fifty years after the death of Christ" (Things to Come, 374). Such claims commonly appear in eschatological literature today.
Frequently the false historical data arises from the seriously flawed, long-discredited claims of George N. H. Peters in his work The Theocratic Kingdom. Peters writes: "Now let the student reflect: here are two centuries . . . in which positively no direct opposition whatever arises against our doctrine" (Theocratic Kingdom, 1:494 –496). His claims are quite erroneous, though still persisting and highly regarded by some, such as Mal Couch in Dictionary of Premillennial Theology (see pp. 264, 302). (This Dictionary is a real must not read book.) The errors in Peters’ analysis and others like it have been exposed by a number of scholars. One of the best recent studies demonstrating the error is Charles E. Hill’s, Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity.
Premillennialist D. H. Kromminga carefully examines the sub-apostolic writings, including: Clement of Rome’s 1 Clement, the pseudo-Clementine 2 Clement, The Didache, the Ignatian epistles, Polycarp’s Epistle, The Letter of the Church at Smyrna on the Martyrdom of Polycarp, Barnabas, Hermas, Diognetus, Fragments of Papias, and Reliques of the Elders. He convincingly shows that only Papias among the sub-apostolic fathers is premillennial. He concludes that "an inquiry into the extent of ancient chiliasm will serve to show the untenableness of the claim that this doctrine was held with practical unanimity by the Church of the first few centuries" (The Millennium in the Church, 30, 41, 42).
Charles E. Hill presents detailed evidence of "the nonadvocacy, and sometimes outspoken repudiation, of chiliasm" in several Apostolic Fathers including Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Hermas and Second Clement, as well as the Apologists, Epistle to Diognetus, Melito of Sardis, Athenagora, the Christian Pseudepigrapha, early martyrologies, and others (Regnum Caelorum, 76; see all of Part II).
W. G. T. Shedd observes that "early millennialism was held mostly among Jewish converts. A few Apostolic Fathers held it as individuals, but those who do not mention the millennium had greater weight of authority and influence: Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp" (History of Christian Doctrine, 2:390–391). In fact, according to church historian Jaroslav Pelikan: "It would seem that very early in the post-apostolic era millenarianism was regarded as a mark neither of orthodoxy nor of heresy, but as one permissible opinion among others within the range of permissible opinions" (The Christian Traditions, 1:125).
This is borne out by premillennialism’s failure to receive creedal status. Dallas Seminary theologian Robert P. Lightner recognizes that "None of the major creeds of the church include premillennialism in their statements" (Last Days Handbook, 158). Historic premillennialist Craig L. Blomberg admits that "the classic orthodox creeds of the patristic period, like the major confessions of faith from the Protestant Reformation, never required more than this," i.e., the basic elements of biblical eschatology: a future second advent, a bodily resurrection, and a final judgment (Historic Premillennialism, 69).
Alan Patrick Boyd (a dispensationalist at the time) powerfully analyzes and conclusively rebuts Peters’ claims in his 1977 Dallas Theological Seminary master’s thesis. According to Boyd, he "originally undertook the thesis to bolster the [dispensational] system by patristic research, but the evidence of the original sources simply disallowed this." He ends up lamenting that "this writer believes that the Church rapidly fell from New Testament truth, and this is very evident in the realm of eschatology. Only in modern times has New Testament eschatological truth been recovered" ("A Dispensational Premillennial Analysis," 91n.). As a consequence of his research, Boyd urges his fellow dispensationalists to "avoid reliance on men like Geo. N. H. Peters . . . whose historical conclusions regarding premillennialism . . . in the early church have been proven to be largely in error" (p. 92).
Boyd goes on to admit that "it would seem wise for the modern [i.e., dispensational] system to abandon the claim that it is the historical faith of the Church" (p. 92). Of Ryrie’s bold statement that "Premillennialism is the historic faith of the Church," he states: "It is the conclusion of this thesis that Dr. Ryrie’s statement is historically invalid within the chronological framework of this thesis" (p. 89). Boyd even states: "This validates the claim of L. Berkhof. . . . ‘It is not correct to say, as Premillenarians do, that it (millennialism) was generally accepted in the first three centuries. The truth of the matter is that the adherents of this doctrine were a rather limited number’" (p. 92).
Clearly, the ancient advocates of premillennialism faced opposition from orthodox non-millennialists. For instance, consider Justin Martyr’s response to Trypho regarding the hope of "a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built." Justin (d. AD 165) replies: "I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, 80). Note the reference to "many" who "think otherwise." No unanimity regarding the millennium exists in the early church.
Another premillennialist, Irenaeus (ca. AD 180), observes that "some who are reckoned among the orthodox" do not hold to his premillennial views (Against Heresies 5:31:1). Eusebius (ca. AD 325) points to premillennialist Papias (AD 60–130) in explaining the spread of premillennialism: "But it was due to him that so many [not "all"!] of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man" (Ecclesiastical History 3:39). The fact that premillennialism was in no way approaching "universal" in extent is evident also in that Dionysius (AD 190–264) successfully dealt with "this doctrine" in a certain area where it prevailed and split "entire churches." He won the day in that Egyptian district and turns the majority away from premillennialism (Ecclesiastical History 7:24). Later, Epiphanius (AD 315–403) writes: "There is indeed a millennium mentioned by St. John; but the most, and those pious men, look upon those words as true indeed, but to be taken in a spiritual sense" (Epiphanius, Heresies, 77:26).
Unfortunately, when you are trying to decode the most recent name of the Antichrist and trying to predict the Rapture, you don’t really have time to fool with historical studies. That’s why the ghost of George N. H. Peters still haunts dispensational literature.
For more information on this and other errors in dispensationalism, see my recently released, third edition of He Shall Have Dominion (available at NiceneCouncil.com).
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Literalism's Absurdities
by Ken Gentry, Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com
Especially since the rise to prominence of dispensationalism in the late nineteenth century, interpretive principles have become a major focus of eschatological discussion. One of the classic dispensationalist’s leading arguments is the claim to consistent interpretive literalism. Charles C. Ryrie sets forth interpretive literalism as a sine qua non of this leading branch of dispensationalism: "Dispensationalists claim that their principle of hermeneutics is that of literal interpretation. . . . The dispensationalist claims to use the normal principle of interpretation consistently in all his study of the Bible." Thomas D. Ice declares: "Futurism . . . is the only approach that can consistently apply literal interpretation." Earl Radmacher states: "It is so utterly fundamental to under-stand that the foundational premise of dispensationalism is not theological but herme-neutical." Paul N. Benware calls it a "face value" form of interpretation.
Since Ryrie is perhaps the most prominent and respected classical dispensationalist, a few examples of literalism from his writings serve as illustrations of the classic dispensational approach to hermeneutics. For instance, he chides Mickelsen for suggesting that the ancient weapons and chariots of Ezekiel 39 (which both Ryrie and Mickelsen deem to be in the future) are symbolic equivalents of modern weaponry: "If specific details are not interpreted literally when given as specific details, then there can be no end to the variety of the meanings of a text."6 Here the principle of consistent literalism is so vigorously held that we are left with what non-dispensational evangelicals consider an absurdity, despite attempts at formal explanations.
But Ryrie is not alone in this bizarre line of reasoning; after all, it is endemic to the whole system. Thomas even goes so far as to place Jesus and the armies of heaven on literal horses at his second advent from out of heaven — and suggests a special creative act for explaining horses in heaven (which would apparently also cover their ability to survive the high altitude temperatures and rarified air involved in the second advent). Of Revelation 19:14 he argues: "These are real armies and horses, not imaginary ones. . . . The origin of the horses need not create a problem as they conceivably are a special creation of ‘The Word of God’ for the purposes of this occasion."
Elsewhere, Ryrie writes: "Jerusalem will be exalted (Zec 14:10), and there is no reason to doubt but that this will be literal and that the city by means of certain physical changes shall be exalted above the sur-rounding hills"! Walvoord concurs: "topological changes will take place which apparently will elevate Jerusalem so that waters flowing from Jerusalem will go half to the eastern sea, or the Sea of Galilee, and half to the western sea, or the Mediterranean." Their literalism on this issue even appears in the most symbolic book in Scripture. Of Revelation 16:20 Thomas writes: "These words speak of literal topographical changes, not figuratively of political turmoil. A literal understanding is no obstacle."
But consider the physical problems associated with such an elevation of Jerusalem: Were Jerusalem raised up to be the highest mountain, it would involve such tectonic upheaval that it would absolutely destroy the city. Earthquakes are destructive natural phenomena, but this up-thrusting is even worse. It involves full-scale mountain building, which would absolutely destroy an already built city. Furthermore, if it were raised above the highest mountains, it would be uninhabitable for it would be higher than Mt. Everest. This would give it an intolerably freezing climate. Surely this prophecy is speaking symbolically of the exaltation and dominance of God’s kingdom, not its physical elevation.
What is more, Paul Lee Tan inadvertently exposes literalism’s absurdity when he argues that the New Jerusalem is a city that "will be 1,323 miles in all directions" that could hold a staggering 72 billion inhabitants." The Space Shuttle flies around 200 miles high; this city extends over 1000 miles higher! The earth’s diameter is about 8000 miles at the equator; the city will extend out a full sixteen percent further in one small 1300 mile square spot on the earth’s 196,935,000 square mile surface. Robert L. Thomas explains that its size "is no more unimaginable than a pearl large enough to serve as a city-gate." His explanation only complicates the problem: I cannot imagine an oyster large enough to produce such a pearl. If I could, I would never swim in the ocean again!
In the final analysis, though, the New Testament applies this imagery non-literally. For instance, Luke applies Isaiah 40:4 to John Baptist’s ministry: "Every ravine shall be filled up, / And every mountain and hill shall be brought low" (Lk 3:5a). Unless the dispensationalist argues that in the third decade of the first century John flattened all mountains on the earth, their literalistic approach to mountain building and mountain destroying passages fails.
Can anyone accept such views as reasonable, especially since we may easily understand these elements as figures of exaltation and influence? Dispensationalism has painted itself into a corner with its bold claims (I don't mean that "literally"; Sherwin-Williams cannot be blamed for dispensationalism's problems.)
Especially since the rise to prominence of dispensationalism in the late nineteenth century, interpretive principles have become a major focus of eschatological discussion. One of the classic dispensationalist’s leading arguments is the claim to consistent interpretive literalism. Charles C. Ryrie sets forth interpretive literalism as a sine qua non of this leading branch of dispensationalism: "Dispensationalists claim that their principle of hermeneutics is that of literal interpretation. . . . The dispensationalist claims to use the normal principle of interpretation consistently in all his study of the Bible." Thomas D. Ice declares: "Futurism . . . is the only approach that can consistently apply literal interpretation." Earl Radmacher states: "It is so utterly fundamental to under-stand that the foundational premise of dispensationalism is not theological but herme-neutical." Paul N. Benware calls it a "face value" form of interpretation.
Since Ryrie is perhaps the most prominent and respected classical dispensationalist, a few examples of literalism from his writings serve as illustrations of the classic dispensational approach to hermeneutics. For instance, he chides Mickelsen for suggesting that the ancient weapons and chariots of Ezekiel 39 (which both Ryrie and Mickelsen deem to be in the future) are symbolic equivalents of modern weaponry: "If specific details are not interpreted literally when given as specific details, then there can be no end to the variety of the meanings of a text."6 Here the principle of consistent literalism is so vigorously held that we are left with what non-dispensational evangelicals consider an absurdity, despite attempts at formal explanations.
But Ryrie is not alone in this bizarre line of reasoning; after all, it is endemic to the whole system. Thomas even goes so far as to place Jesus and the armies of heaven on literal horses at his second advent from out of heaven — and suggests a special creative act for explaining horses in heaven (which would apparently also cover their ability to survive the high altitude temperatures and rarified air involved in the second advent). Of Revelation 19:14 he argues: "These are real armies and horses, not imaginary ones. . . . The origin of the horses need not create a problem as they conceivably are a special creation of ‘The Word of God’ for the purposes of this occasion."
Elsewhere, Ryrie writes: "Jerusalem will be exalted (Zec 14:10), and there is no reason to doubt but that this will be literal and that the city by means of certain physical changes shall be exalted above the sur-rounding hills"! Walvoord concurs: "topological changes will take place which apparently will elevate Jerusalem so that waters flowing from Jerusalem will go half to the eastern sea, or the Sea of Galilee, and half to the western sea, or the Mediterranean." Their literalism on this issue even appears in the most symbolic book in Scripture. Of Revelation 16:20 Thomas writes: "These words speak of literal topographical changes, not figuratively of political turmoil. A literal understanding is no obstacle."
But consider the physical problems associated with such an elevation of Jerusalem: Were Jerusalem raised up to be the highest mountain, it would involve such tectonic upheaval that it would absolutely destroy the city. Earthquakes are destructive natural phenomena, but this up-thrusting is even worse. It involves full-scale mountain building, which would absolutely destroy an already built city. Furthermore, if it were raised above the highest mountains, it would be uninhabitable for it would be higher than Mt. Everest. This would give it an intolerably freezing climate. Surely this prophecy is speaking symbolically of the exaltation and dominance of God’s kingdom, not its physical elevation.
What is more, Paul Lee Tan inadvertently exposes literalism’s absurdity when he argues that the New Jerusalem is a city that "will be 1,323 miles in all directions" that could hold a staggering 72 billion inhabitants." The Space Shuttle flies around 200 miles high; this city extends over 1000 miles higher! The earth’s diameter is about 8000 miles at the equator; the city will extend out a full sixteen percent further in one small 1300 mile square spot on the earth’s 196,935,000 square mile surface. Robert L. Thomas explains that its size "is no more unimaginable than a pearl large enough to serve as a city-gate." His explanation only complicates the problem: I cannot imagine an oyster large enough to produce such a pearl. If I could, I would never swim in the ocean again!
In the final analysis, though, the New Testament applies this imagery non-literally. For instance, Luke applies Isaiah 40:4 to John Baptist’s ministry: "Every ravine shall be filled up, / And every mountain and hill shall be brought low" (Lk 3:5a). Unless the dispensationalist argues that in the third decade of the first century John flattened all mountains on the earth, their literalistic approach to mountain building and mountain destroying passages fails.
Can anyone accept such views as reasonable, especially since we may easily understand these elements as figures of exaltation and influence? Dispensationalism has painted itself into a corner with its bold claims (I don't mean that "literally"; Sherwin-Williams cannot be blamed for dispensationalism's problems.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
