Posts
by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com
Dispensationalism is a new, innovative, naive, peculiar, cumbersome, complicated, contradictory, and incoherent system of theology. Other than these problems, however, it is apparently quite compelling. It is compelling to tens of millions of Christians who themselves are often "innovative, naive, peculiar, cumbersome, complicated, contradictory, and incoherent" and who are usually captured when they are "new" to the Christian faith as recent converts. I know that was true for me as a young convert to Christ — until I raptured out of the system so that it was "left behind."
Let me explain what I mean in declaring dispensationalism to be such.
The Significance of Definition
Dispensationalism is big on definitions. And rightly so. Complicated and convoluted systems require definitions in an attempt to explain them to the uninitiated.
In chapters 2 and 3 of Charles Ryrie’s important and classic work Dispensationalism (1995), he discusses at length the whole question of definition. In fact, he opens chapter 2 with this sentence: "There is no more primary problem in the whole matter of dispensationalism than that of definition" (p. 23). Unfortunately, he must admit in the first sentence of the very next paragraph: "To say that there is a great lack of clear thinking on this matter of definition is an understatement. Both dispensationalist and non-dispensationalists are often guilty of lack of clarity."
Even the Foreword by Frank E. Gaebelein agrees that oftentimes dispensationalism’s own followers are confused: "dispensationalism has at times been the victim of its adherent who have pressed unwisely certain of its features." If the system is confusing to its enthusiastic followers, this surely explains why it is even more so to its concerned opponents. Definition, then, is crucial.
Yet even while defining the issues, dispensationalism begins to stumble — showing that the system is indeed cumbersome, complicated, contradictory, and incoherent. In this blog I will note that even in its own definition dispensationalism involves the system in dialectical tension that causes it to collapse from within. I will show this by focusing on the leading advocate of normative dispensationalism, Dr. Charles C. Ryrie.
But first let me briefly note:
The Significance of Ryrie
Dr. Ryrie was formerly professor of systematic theology and dean of doctoral studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and is a very important figure in the most popular form of dispensationalism. The Twentieth-Century Dictionary of Christian Biography (1995, p. 300) calls Ryrie "one of the key theologians supporting dispensationalism." The Dictionary of Premillennial Theology (p. 385) declares that "he has made an inestimable contribution to the Christian world," noting that his "writings have consistently been on the theological cutting edge." In a recent festschrift in Ryrie’s honor, titled Dispensationalism Tomorrow and Beyond (2008, p. i), Dr. Christopher Cone presents him as "tremendously influential in the grounding of dispensational theology."
Ryrie published his most important and theologically influential book, Dispensationalism Today in 1966. This book was continuously in print in that edition until updated, revised, and given a new name in 1995: Dispensationalism. It has remained the standard for explaining and defending dispensationalism, being called a "classic text" in Dictionary of Premillennial Theology (p. 385). Dr. Craig Blaising of Dallas Theological Seminary notes that "the importance of this work for the self-understanding of late twentieth-century dispensationalism cannot be overstated."
So then, my demonstrating Ryrie’s confusion in defining the system cannot be written off with a cavalier: "Oh, that’s just Jack Van Impe rambling away because he heard about an earthquake somewhere!" When its leading spokesman stumbles at the very level of definition, this is a serious problem for dispensationalism as a system.
(Please note: unless otherwise noted all page references below are to Ryrie’s Dispensationalism.)
The Significance of Errors
The very name "dispensationalism" raises the important question: "What is a ‘dispensation’?" If you are committed to a system called "dispensationalism," you certainly need to know what a "dispensation" is. Otherwise you would be as confused as a person who thinks he is a capitalist because he lives in the capital of Cuba.
Ryrie is no lightweight. He possesses great understanding of the system as such and exercises enormous influence as a proponent of it. According to him a "a concise definition of a dispensation is this: "A dispensation is a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God’s purpose" (p. 28). This is a succinct and widely-held definition that no dispensationalist could reject and still remain a dispensationalist.
But before I move on, I must mention a second crucial matter of definition. According to dispensationalists theologians dispensational distinctions are God-revealed distinctions — thus, they are God-imposed historical realities. Ryrie notes that "distinguishing the dispensations is God’s, not man’s work" (p. 29). Regarding the relationship between two particular dispensations, Ryrie observes that "God himself through John make[s] these distinctions" (p. 36).
The revealed character of dispensations is extremely important. After all, it results in the elements defining each dispensation, which involve a "distinctive revelation, responsibility, testing, failure, and judgment" (p. 28). Note in this quotation that each dispensation involves a "distinctive revelation"— that is, a distinctive revelation from God. And this revelation obligates man to a particular "responsibility"during that specific dispensation — to God. And it results in a particular form of "testing" distinctive to that dispensation — which testing is designed by God for those people in their dispensational settings. Thus, the dispensational structure of history is revealed by God in his word, according to dispensationalists.
But as we can see in Ryrie’s attempt to explain dispensationalism serious problems arise. The claim to distinguishable dispensations as a revelation from God undermines the system as it is defined and presented.
It is crucial that we note the vital word "distinguishable." Each dispensation is distinguishable from the other. Therefore, however many dispensations there are, they must be distinguishable — by definition! The word "distinguishable" is important to Ryrie as we see how frequently it occurs in his discussion (29, 32, 34, 37, 38, etc.).
Indeed, Ryrie even notes that dispensations are "distinguishably different" (p. 29) because they involve "distinguishing features" (p. 29). Every dispensations’ features "are distinctive to each dispensation and mark them off from each other as different dispensations" (p. 29). Thus, they result in "definite and distinguishable distinctions" (p. 32), each of which individually "distinguishes each [dispensation] from the other" (p. 33). Ryrie notes of certain dispensations that "here is unquestionably a distinguishable and different way of running the affairs of the world" (p. 34). Do you get the impression that the quality of distinguishableness is significant?
With these words in his chapters on definition, Ryrie has just shot himself in the foot. And all dispensationalism is limping because of it. But how so? Let me point out the following destructive tendencies in these definitional issues which (necessarily) involve "distinguishable" distinctions.
First, though the dispensations involve a "distinctive revelation" (p. 28), Ryrie admits of his own (and the majority view) that "a sevenfold scheme of dispensations is neither inspired nor nonnegotiable" (p. 51). How can this be if dispensations are: (1) "distinguishable" and (2) God-revealed? Why are not the distinct dispensations God-revealed if each has a "distinctive revelation"?
Second, Ryrie notes that the number of dispensations is not even a crucial matter in the debate: "Is the essence of dispensationalism the number of dispensations? No, for this is in no way a major issue in the system" (p. 38). Well, why not if God reveals distinguishable dispensations? This is like saying the number of persons in the Trinity is not crucial to the concept of the Trinity. If the dispensations are distinguishable, they ought then to be countable — and their number ought to be known and secure.
Third, Ryrie goes even further when he states: "the number of dispensations in a dispensational scheme and even the names of the dispensations are relatively minor matters. Presumably one could have four, five, seven, or eight dispensations and be a consistent dispensationalist" (p. 45). And in the final analysis he can say that his view of the number of dispensations is only "likely seven in number" (p. 56).
But now: what happens to their God-revealed character as distinguishable economies? And what of the obligations within each distinctive dispensation which devolve upon those living within their particular dispensation (rather than in another dispensation)? And what of dispensations being defined by particular testings from God peculiar to that and only that dispensation? This does not make sense. The number of dispensations, by the very nature of the case, must be significant, set, and secure — if the definition and God-revealed character of dispensationalism is true.
Fourth, Ryrie confesses that "most dispensationalists see seven dispensations in God’s plan (though throughout the history of dispensationalism they have not always been the same seven). Occasionally a dispensationalist may hold as few as four, and some hold as many as eight" (p. 46). How can this be? If there are four dispensations, then the revelation of God and the tests upon man will be different from a situation in which there are seven dispensations.
In fact, in a festschrift in honor of Ryrie, the editor himself argues for twelve dispensations! Christopher Cone in Dispensationalism Tomorrow & Beyond: A Theological Collection in Honor of Charles C. Ryrie (2008): "A synthetic overview accounting for God’s doxological purpose seems to unveil no less than 12 dispensational divisions in Scripture" (Cone, p. 150). This is incredible! Did God "reveal" four, seven, or twelve distinguishable dispensations? Dispensationalists are not sure!
Fifth, Ryrie argues all of this in the same book in which he warns: "the distinguishable yet progressive character of dispensational distinctions prohibits that they should be intermingled or confused as they are chronologically successive" (p. 37). He is quite logical when he demands that since the dispensations are "distinguishable" they cannot be "intermingled or confused" — otherwise they would not be distinguishable.
Yet, Ryrie admits that the number of dispensations remains uncertain — which means that some dispensationalists are intermingling or confusing the matter despite their own definition. And Ryrie himself even allows the prospect of various numbers of dispensations — despite his claim that they cannot be mingled or confused. I am confused!
Sixth, we find that, having gotten into his own hand-crafted coffin, Ryrie deftly drives in the final nail carefully securing it shut. And he does not use a thin-shank finish nail: this is one of those nails known as a HurriQuake Disaster Resistant Fastener. It cannot be pulled out once driven in. Here Ryrie commits a huge self-destructive error when he states: "The understanding of God’s differing economies is essential to a proper interpretation of His revelation within each of those various economies." This is a significant enough statement that is also cited on p. 82 of The Popular Encyclopedia of the Bible. But where is the problem?
This statement introduces dialectical tension into Ryrie’s whole argument: If we must understand God’s differing economies in order to properly interpret the revelation within each of those economies, should we not know exactly what each of those economies is? Should we not have a clear understanding that there are in fact seven — or four or twelve — specific dispensations? How can the system allow any number of dispensations if you must interpret the revelation within those economies?
Furthermore, Ryrie’s statement requires you to presuppose dispensationalism as a system before you can interpret the Scripture. We should think, though, that you must understand Scripture first, then draw out Scripture’s system. But this is not the case with dispensationalism, for Ryrie clearly states: "The understanding of God’s differing economies is essential to a proper interpretation of His revelation within each of those various economies."
Conclusion
Somehow dispensationalism keeps surviving one failed Antichrist prediction after another. It endures one failed rapture date after another. And what is worse, its best theologians have created an unduly complex system that is so burdensome that it incorporates internal contradictions. I don’t know how they do it and continue on. That is why I am "against Dispensationalism" (as per our blogsite name).
(By the way, to increase my books sales: I believe the Antichrist is a guy named Larry Cleveland and that the rapture will be on March 4 [(but I am not sure in what year].)
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Prophecy and Literalism Revisited
Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com
Dispensationalists have a strong commitment to a literalistic hermeneutic. In fact, the leading dispensational theologian of the last part of the Twentieth Century, Dr. Charles C. Ryrie, declared “consistent literalism” to be one of the three sine qua non of dispensationalism. Dispensationalists often speak of literalism as “plain interpretation.” Consequently, the average dispensationalist-in-the-pew reflexively (mindlessly) dismisses postmillennial and preterist interpretations due to their own naive commitment to (supposed) literalism. How shall we respond?
I would like to make three hermeneutical assertions that the Bible student should bear in mind in discussions with dispensationalists:
First, “consistent literalism” and grammatical-historical interpretation. The alleged “consistent literalism” of the dispensationalist is not the functional equivalent of “grammatical-historical” exegesis. The literalism principle is a sub-species of the grammatical-historical method, as even more recent dispensational theologians are beginning to admit. See works by former Dallas Theological Seminary professors Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock, as well as other noted dispensationalists, such as Robert L. Saucy and John S. Feinberg. Blaising and Bock show that the claim to consistent literalism was never attainable in dispensationalism, but was really more-or-less a goal. Literalism is, in fact, an aberration of otherwise fundamentally sound principles. [1] We must drive this point home to our dispensational friends. While they write us off on interpretive issues, their own theologians are moving in our direction.
Dispensationalist theologians are now even forsaking so-called literalism. For instance, John S. Feinberg, a noted contemporary dispensationalist, complains of one of Ice’s mentors: “Ryrie is too simplistic” in his literalism. [2] Craig A. Blaising of Dallas Theological Seminary warns that: “consistently literal exegesis is inadequate to describe the essential distinctive of dispensationalism. Development is taking place on how to characterize a proper hermeneutic for dispensationalists.” [3]
As Carson observes in his exposition of Matthew 24 (which forms the backdrop to John’s Revelation): “Untutored Christians are prone to think of prophecy and fulfillment as something not very different from straightforward propositional prediction and fulfillment. A close reading of the NT reveals that prophecy is more complex than that.” [4] In his comments on Matthew 24 renowned Baptist Greek scholar A. T. Robertson agrees that “literalism is not appropriate in this apocalyptic eschatology.” [5] Moody Bible Institute dispensationalist scholars Pate and Haines warn: “It is in the failure to grasp the interplay between prose and poetry that doomsday prophets make a major mistake, overemphasizing the literal meaning to the neglect of the symbolic.” [6]
Second, the distinction between figurative and spiritual language. We must be careful to distinguish between a “figurative” use of language (a legitimate function of the grammatical-historical method) and a “spiritual” interpretive methodology. Misunderstanding this distinction is a major source of confusion among dispensationalists. Their misconception allows them an easy way out: they simply write off all non-dispensational interpretations as inherently liberal.
Dispensationalists must be shown that figurative expressions portray historical events. They do not discount objective history. Figurative language paints actual historical events by means of colorful, dramatic, and overdrawn descriptions.
Spiritual interpretation is different, however. It is a system of hermeneutics that evacuates all historical sense from a text in order to replace it with an abstract spiritual reality. Charges of “spiritualization,” though common in such debates as ours, are far afield when one is merely interpreting figurative language. As premillennialist commentator Robert Mounce notes: “That the language of prophecy is highly figurative has nothing to do with the reality of the events predicted. Symbolism is not a denial of historicity but a matter of literary genre.” [7]
Third, the Old Testament hermeneutical backdrop. We must be alert to the Old Testament warrant for occasional figurative interpretation. As noted New Testament commentator William Lane notes of the Olivet Discourse: “The OT plays an essential part in the structure and imagery of the prophetic discourse.” [8] The Old Testament prophets frequently use figurative language dramatically to portray future events. Christ, who is “the prophet” par excellence, employs their method in his Olivet Discourse.
All of this is especially important when we approach the Book of Revelation. Only the most naive of interpreters would claim that we must interpret Revelation in a “consistent literal” fashion. Unfortunately, there are millions of naive interpreters in the American pews today.
A dispensational objection. Some dispensationalists will object: “You say something is symbolic. But as I read the text, the Bible clearly states the matter. Therefore, you are imposing your view on Scripture.” How shall we respond? Are we at a stand-off? I think not. Notice the following:
(1) Actually all texts require interpretation. To say that “a text must be symbolic” is no more an imposition on the text by man that to say “a text must be literal.” The problem remains: Which man’s approach do you believe?
(2) We must ask: Can God speak symbolically? Is he confined to literalism as the only method of communication? After all, we speak symbolically often enough: “My love is a red, red rose”; “My world is falling in on me.”
(3) Consider the vision in Revelation 5: In 5:6 we read “I saw a lamb standing.” Is that an actual animal that we know as a lamb, a ruminant animal of the genus Ovis? Or does it represent symbolically something else, Jesus Christ? When we read the text, it becomes very clear that he is speaking of Jesus as if he were a lamb: 5:8-10 have angels singing to him of the salvation he has wrought. 5:12 ascribe honor and glory to the “lamb.” 5:13 puts the “lamb” on equality with God. 5:14 engages in heavenly worship of the “lamb.” In Rev. 14:1’ the “lamb” is in heaven with the redeemed. In 14:4 the saved follow the “lamb,” having been saved for God and the “lamb.”
END NOTES
[1] Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism: An Up-to-Date Handbook of Contemporary Dispensational Thought (Wheaton, Ill.: Bridgepoint, 1993), 36-37. In fact, such an attempt is evidence of “conceptual naivete.” Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, eds., Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 29.
[2] John S. Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity,” in Feinberg, ed., Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway, 1988), 73.
[3] Craig A. Blaising, “Development of Dispensationalism,” Bibliotheca Sacra (579), 272.
[4] D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 8:27.
[5] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1930), 1:193.
[6] C. Marvin Pate and Calvin B. Haines, Jr., Doomsday Delusions: What’s Wrong with Predictions About the End of the World (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1995), 27.
[7] Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation (NICNT) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 218.
[8] William L. Lane, Gospel According to Mark (NICNT) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 449.
Dispensationalists have a strong commitment to a literalistic hermeneutic. In fact, the leading dispensational theologian of the last part of the Twentieth Century, Dr. Charles C. Ryrie, declared “consistent literalism” to be one of the three sine qua non of dispensationalism. Dispensationalists often speak of literalism as “plain interpretation.” Consequently, the average dispensationalist-in-the-pew reflexively (mindlessly) dismisses postmillennial and preterist interpretations due to their own naive commitment to (supposed) literalism. How shall we respond?
I would like to make three hermeneutical assertions that the Bible student should bear in mind in discussions with dispensationalists:
First, “consistent literalism” and grammatical-historical interpretation. The alleged “consistent literalism” of the dispensationalist is not the functional equivalent of “grammatical-historical” exegesis. The literalism principle is a sub-species of the grammatical-historical method, as even more recent dispensational theologians are beginning to admit. See works by former Dallas Theological Seminary professors Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock, as well as other noted dispensationalists, such as Robert L. Saucy and John S. Feinberg. Blaising and Bock show that the claim to consistent literalism was never attainable in dispensationalism, but was really more-or-less a goal. Literalism is, in fact, an aberration of otherwise fundamentally sound principles. [1] We must drive this point home to our dispensational friends. While they write us off on interpretive issues, their own theologians are moving in our direction.
Dispensationalist theologians are now even forsaking so-called literalism. For instance, John S. Feinberg, a noted contemporary dispensationalist, complains of one of Ice’s mentors: “Ryrie is too simplistic” in his literalism. [2] Craig A. Blaising of Dallas Theological Seminary warns that: “consistently literal exegesis is inadequate to describe the essential distinctive of dispensationalism. Development is taking place on how to characterize a proper hermeneutic for dispensationalists.” [3]
As Carson observes in his exposition of Matthew 24 (which forms the backdrop to John’s Revelation): “Untutored Christians are prone to think of prophecy and fulfillment as something not very different from straightforward propositional prediction and fulfillment. A close reading of the NT reveals that prophecy is more complex than that.” [4] In his comments on Matthew 24 renowned Baptist Greek scholar A. T. Robertson agrees that “literalism is not appropriate in this apocalyptic eschatology.” [5] Moody Bible Institute dispensationalist scholars Pate and Haines warn: “It is in the failure to grasp the interplay between prose and poetry that doomsday prophets make a major mistake, overemphasizing the literal meaning to the neglect of the symbolic.” [6]
Second, the distinction between figurative and spiritual language. We must be careful to distinguish between a “figurative” use of language (a legitimate function of the grammatical-historical method) and a “spiritual” interpretive methodology. Misunderstanding this distinction is a major source of confusion among dispensationalists. Their misconception allows them an easy way out: they simply write off all non-dispensational interpretations as inherently liberal.
Dispensationalists must be shown that figurative expressions portray historical events. They do not discount objective history. Figurative language paints actual historical events by means of colorful, dramatic, and overdrawn descriptions.
Spiritual interpretation is different, however. It is a system of hermeneutics that evacuates all historical sense from a text in order to replace it with an abstract spiritual reality. Charges of “spiritualization,” though common in such debates as ours, are far afield when one is merely interpreting figurative language. As premillennialist commentator Robert Mounce notes: “That the language of prophecy is highly figurative has nothing to do with the reality of the events predicted. Symbolism is not a denial of historicity but a matter of literary genre.” [7]
Third, the Old Testament hermeneutical backdrop. We must be alert to the Old Testament warrant for occasional figurative interpretation. As noted New Testament commentator William Lane notes of the Olivet Discourse: “The OT plays an essential part in the structure and imagery of the prophetic discourse.” [8] The Old Testament prophets frequently use figurative language dramatically to portray future events. Christ, who is “the prophet” par excellence, employs their method in his Olivet Discourse.
All of this is especially important when we approach the Book of Revelation. Only the most naive of interpreters would claim that we must interpret Revelation in a “consistent literal” fashion. Unfortunately, there are millions of naive interpreters in the American pews today.
A dispensational objection. Some dispensationalists will object: “You say something is symbolic. But as I read the text, the Bible clearly states the matter. Therefore, you are imposing your view on Scripture.” How shall we respond? Are we at a stand-off? I think not. Notice the following:
(1) Actually all texts require interpretation. To say that “a text must be symbolic” is no more an imposition on the text by man that to say “a text must be literal.” The problem remains: Which man’s approach do you believe?
(2) We must ask: Can God speak symbolically? Is he confined to literalism as the only method of communication? After all, we speak symbolically often enough: “My love is a red, red rose”; “My world is falling in on me.”
(3) Consider the vision in Revelation 5: In 5:6 we read “I saw a lamb standing.” Is that an actual animal that we know as a lamb, a ruminant animal of the genus Ovis? Or does it represent symbolically something else, Jesus Christ? When we read the text, it becomes very clear that he is speaking of Jesus as if he were a lamb: 5:8-10 have angels singing to him of the salvation he has wrought. 5:12 ascribe honor and glory to the “lamb.” 5:13 puts the “lamb” on equality with God. 5:14 engages in heavenly worship of the “lamb.” In Rev. 14:1’ the “lamb” is in heaven with the redeemed. In 14:4 the saved follow the “lamb,” having been saved for God and the “lamb.”
END NOTES
[1] Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism: An Up-to-Date Handbook of Contemporary Dispensational Thought (Wheaton, Ill.: Bridgepoint, 1993), 36-37. In fact, such an attempt is evidence of “conceptual naivete.” Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, eds., Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 29.
[2] John S. Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity,” in Feinberg, ed., Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway, 1988), 73.
[3] Craig A. Blaising, “Development of Dispensationalism,” Bibliotheca Sacra (579), 272.
[4] D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 8:27.
[5] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1930), 1:193.
[6] C. Marvin Pate and Calvin B. Haines, Jr., Doomsday Delusions: What’s Wrong with Predictions About the End of the World (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1995), 27.
[7] Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation (NICNT) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 218.
[8] William L. Lane, Gospel According to Mark (NICNT) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 449.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Even Their Scholars Descend into Absurdity
by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director of NiceneCouncil.com
I have long made the distinction between scholarly dispensationalists (e.g., Charles Ryrie, John Walvoord, and sometimes Dwight Pentecost) and the populist dispensationalists (e.g., Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye, and anyone else with book sales over 15 billion copies). I did this out of respect for the more thoughtful presentations in the scholars' writings. But now I don’t know what possessed me to do this. Let me explain and illustrate the blurring of the lines separating populist dispensationalists from the “scholarly” ones.
Generally the “scholarly” dispensationalists present the more theological and exegetical foundations for the system. Whereas the populists run grinning and skipping full-bore into date-setting, rapture-predicting, Antichrist-portending, Armageddon military-operation-plan describing (OPLANs), newspaper-exegeting, system-contradicting inane, vacuous, absurd, silly, vapid, pointless, fatuous, insubstantial slop. They do this for the mere pleasure of fleecing the sheep of untold millions of dollars of their non-invested, discretionary funds.
However, I have begun to question this distinction between populist and scholar in dispensationalism. And I even wonder why I ever allowed such a distinction. Though it is true that the populists never attempt any scholarly-sounding, exegetically-rigorous, theologically-astute presentations of their system, it is most certainly not true that the “scholars” are not lured into crass money-making publications. Consider the following books by the more reputable dispensationalist “scholars” Ryrie and Walvoord. (I believe that Pentecost also wrote one, but fortunately I have lost it.)
Walvoord published his newspaper-exegesis book Armageddon, Oil and the Middle East Crisis: What the Bible Says about the Future of the Middle East and the End of Western Civilization in 1974 and again in 1976. Then when the first Gulf War broke out, he revised and re-released it in 1990 whereupon it became a multi-million bestseller, making him so much money that he had to invest it in long-term real estate ventures.
Walvoord not only provides devotional readings from the newspapers, avoids indexing the book, and resists footnotes (as do populists), but he provides a table of “Prophetic Events in History Beginning with the Babylonian Captivity” (on pp. 107–08). And what are some of these “prophecies” (none of which should be occurring in the church age while awaiting the signless, imminent rapture)? Here are a few that may surprise you (I know they surprised the aluminum storm door salesman that came by my house yesterday):
• "1945: Rise of Russia and Communism to power."
(Gentry comment and analysis: Who would have known this would occur in 1945? This is an amazing prophecy. Of course, once you break the number down you will see obvious clues: 1 stands for the first commandment; 9 for number of centuries lived by Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Jared, Methuselah, Noah, Peleg (Gen 5; 9:29; 11:19); 4 for the number of Jacob’s sons whose name starts with the letter “j” [Judah and Joseph] multiplied by 2; 5 is a number often thought of while milking four-uddered cows.)
• "1946: Beginning of world government: United Nations formed."
(Gentry comment and analysis: Notice prophecy’s strange silence about “cheese.”)
• "1948: Israel established as a nation in the land: third return."
(Gentry comment and analysis: This date was necessary to get us into the age of television which would give rise to tele-evangelism.)
• "1956: Israel extends territory."
(Gentry comment and analysis: Carefully notice how this is but eight years after 1948. Need I say more?)
• "1967: Israel regains territory."
(Gentry comment and analysis: This is not the year of the invention of aluminum foil. Though on January 5 of this year Spain and Romania sign in Paris an agreement establishing full consular and commercial relations, though, sadly, not diplomatic ones.)
• "1975: Egypt reopens the Suez Canal."
(Gentry comment and analysis: Though apparently there is no clear prophecy discussing the original dredging of the Suez and the actual building of this particular canal.)
• "1979: Camp David Accords: peace with Egypt."
(Gentry comment and analysis: Little did Jimmy Carter know he was the subject of biblical prophecy, though obviously before he occurred in history peanuts had to be invented. This co-ordination of events then becomes a remarkable demonstration of God’s providence. Sadly though, peanut butter was invented before peanuts themselves, then had to await the later arrival of its main ingredient. Consequently, it originally sold very poorly as a jar of brown butter.)
• "1982: Israel attacks PLO in Lebanon."
(Gentry comment and analysis: I wish he had given the Bible verse backing up this one. I know the letters “p,” “l,” and “o” occur in Scripture, but they appear to be randomly placed rather than carefully articulated. Of course, their “gap theory” may account for this for we note that all three of these letters occur in their proper order in Gen 2:9: “And out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that is Pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of Life also in the midst Of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” This cannot be sheer chance. Unless of course you suppose that 1,000,000 monkies typing on 1,000,000 typewriters for 1,000,000 years produced The Late Great Planet Earth -- a view I confess to holding when I was a cartoon character.)
• "1990: Saddam Hussein, in preparation to attack Israel, seizes Kuwait."
(Gentry comment and analysis: Hussein’s name is difficult to find in biblical prophecy [though not impossible if you are double-jointed]. However, “Kuwait” is found all over both the Old Testament and the New Testament. I think.)
And what of Charles Ryrie, perhaps the most important, articulate, and prominent of dispensationalism’s “scholars”? In 1976 he presented the waiting world with The Living End, which was described on the cover as: “Enlightening and astonishing disclosures about the coming last days of earth.” In 1982 he released The Bible and Tomorrow’s News. Then during the first Gulf War he re-released it as The Final Countdown and enjoyed reprints in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, and beyond (I quit buying it after the fourth reprint so I don’t know how many more followed. And I am too tired to look it up.)
I will provide just one more disappointing evidence of absurdity among these “scholars.” In Walvoord’s Prophecy in the New Millennium (2001) we read the following discussion of the massive New Jerusalem:
“Clearly, the New Jerusalem could not rest on the earth because it is described as such a huge city that it would blot out the whole Promised Land, making impossible the fulfillment of other elements of the millennial kingdom. . . . It would have to be a satellite city, situated in space. . . . It may be that those who have been resurrected or translated will live in this satellite city over the earth.”
Consequently, though I will tip my hat to the likes of Ryrie and Walvoord in their attempts to establish secure foundations for the dispensational system, I will not be as quick to point to them as scholars who are immune from the lures of populism and absurdity. Such temptations are endemic to the whole system which reads like a rejected script from television’s Hee-Haw. Junior Samples refused to lower himself to such far-fetched scenarios. He was afraid it would hurt his used car business.
I have long made the distinction between scholarly dispensationalists (e.g., Charles Ryrie, John Walvoord, and sometimes Dwight Pentecost) and the populist dispensationalists (e.g., Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye, and anyone else with book sales over 15 billion copies). I did this out of respect for the more thoughtful presentations in the scholars' writings. But now I don’t know what possessed me to do this. Let me explain and illustrate the blurring of the lines separating populist dispensationalists from the “scholarly” ones.
Generally the “scholarly” dispensationalists present the more theological and exegetical foundations for the system. Whereas the populists run grinning and skipping full-bore into date-setting, rapture-predicting, Antichrist-portending, Armageddon military-operation-plan describing (OPLANs), newspaper-exegeting, system-contradicting inane, vacuous, absurd, silly, vapid, pointless, fatuous, insubstantial slop. They do this for the mere pleasure of fleecing the sheep of untold millions of dollars of their non-invested, discretionary funds.
However, I have begun to question this distinction between populist and scholar in dispensationalism. And I even wonder why I ever allowed such a distinction. Though it is true that the populists never attempt any scholarly-sounding, exegetically-rigorous, theologically-astute presentations of their system, it is most certainly not true that the “scholars” are not lured into crass money-making publications. Consider the following books by the more reputable dispensationalist “scholars” Ryrie and Walvoord. (I believe that Pentecost also wrote one, but fortunately I have lost it.)
Walvoord published his newspaper-exegesis book Armageddon, Oil and the Middle East Crisis: What the Bible Says about the Future of the Middle East and the End of Western Civilization in 1974 and again in 1976. Then when the first Gulf War broke out, he revised and re-released it in 1990 whereupon it became a multi-million bestseller, making him so much money that he had to invest it in long-term real estate ventures.
Walvoord not only provides devotional readings from the newspapers, avoids indexing the book, and resists footnotes (as do populists), but he provides a table of “Prophetic Events in History Beginning with the Babylonian Captivity” (on pp. 107–08). And what are some of these “prophecies” (none of which should be occurring in the church age while awaiting the signless, imminent rapture)? Here are a few that may surprise you (I know they surprised the aluminum storm door salesman that came by my house yesterday):
• "1945: Rise of Russia and Communism to power."
(Gentry comment and analysis: Who would have known this would occur in 1945? This is an amazing prophecy. Of course, once you break the number down you will see obvious clues: 1 stands for the first commandment; 9 for number of centuries lived by Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Jared, Methuselah, Noah, Peleg (Gen 5; 9:29; 11:19); 4 for the number of Jacob’s sons whose name starts with the letter “j” [Judah and Joseph] multiplied by 2; 5 is a number often thought of while milking four-uddered cows.)
• "1946: Beginning of world government: United Nations formed."
(Gentry comment and analysis: Notice prophecy’s strange silence about “cheese.”)
• "1948: Israel established as a nation in the land: third return."
(Gentry comment and analysis: This date was necessary to get us into the age of television which would give rise to tele-evangelism.)
• "1956: Israel extends territory."
(Gentry comment and analysis: Carefully notice how this is but eight years after 1948. Need I say more?)
• "1967: Israel regains territory."
(Gentry comment and analysis: This is not the year of the invention of aluminum foil. Though on January 5 of this year Spain and Romania sign in Paris an agreement establishing full consular and commercial relations, though, sadly, not diplomatic ones.)
• "1975: Egypt reopens the Suez Canal."
(Gentry comment and analysis: Though apparently there is no clear prophecy discussing the original dredging of the Suez and the actual building of this particular canal.)
• "1979: Camp David Accords: peace with Egypt."
(Gentry comment and analysis: Little did Jimmy Carter know he was the subject of biblical prophecy, though obviously before he occurred in history peanuts had to be invented. This co-ordination of events then becomes a remarkable demonstration of God’s providence. Sadly though, peanut butter was invented before peanuts themselves, then had to await the later arrival of its main ingredient. Consequently, it originally sold very poorly as a jar of brown butter.)
• "1982: Israel attacks PLO in Lebanon."
(Gentry comment and analysis: I wish he had given the Bible verse backing up this one. I know the letters “p,” “l,” and “o” occur in Scripture, but they appear to be randomly placed rather than carefully articulated. Of course, their “gap theory” may account for this for we note that all three of these letters occur in their proper order in Gen 2:9: “And out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that is Pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of Life also in the midst Of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” This cannot be sheer chance. Unless of course you suppose that 1,000,000 monkies typing on 1,000,000 typewriters for 1,000,000 years produced The Late Great Planet Earth -- a view I confess to holding when I was a cartoon character.)
• "1990: Saddam Hussein, in preparation to attack Israel, seizes Kuwait."
(Gentry comment and analysis: Hussein’s name is difficult to find in biblical prophecy [though not impossible if you are double-jointed]. However, “Kuwait” is found all over both the Old Testament and the New Testament. I think.)
And what of Charles Ryrie, perhaps the most important, articulate, and prominent of dispensationalism’s “scholars”? In 1976 he presented the waiting world with The Living End, which was described on the cover as: “Enlightening and astonishing disclosures about the coming last days of earth.” In 1982 he released The Bible and Tomorrow’s News. Then during the first Gulf War he re-released it as The Final Countdown and enjoyed reprints in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, and beyond (I quit buying it after the fourth reprint so I don’t know how many more followed. And I am too tired to look it up.)
I will provide just one more disappointing evidence of absurdity among these “scholars.” In Walvoord’s Prophecy in the New Millennium (2001) we read the following discussion of the massive New Jerusalem:
“Clearly, the New Jerusalem could not rest on the earth because it is described as such a huge city that it would blot out the whole Promised Land, making impossible the fulfillment of other elements of the millennial kingdom. . . . It would have to be a satellite city, situated in space. . . . It may be that those who have been resurrected or translated will live in this satellite city over the earth.”
Consequently, though I will tip my hat to the likes of Ryrie and Walvoord in their attempts to establish secure foundations for the dispensational system, I will not be as quick to point to them as scholars who are immune from the lures of populism and absurdity. Such temptations are endemic to the whole system which reads like a rejected script from television’s Hee-Haw. Junior Samples refused to lower himself to such far-fetched scenarios. He was afraid it would hurt his used car business.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Defending Christianity?
by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director NiceneCouncil.com
The header to our blogsite is: AgainstDispensationalism.com: Defending Christianity.” One of our blog readers, Rick Warden, a missionary and strongly conservative Christian, responded to my last blog (“Dispensationalism’s Progress Death” Part 2) and complained about our blog’s header. As a committed dispensationalist he is disturbed about several aspects of our blog heading, as well as its mission and content.
We welcome Mr. Warden’s concerns and would like to respond to them, partly to clarify our mission and partly to defend it. Our response may help others who have similar questions. Warden is not the first person on “planet Earth” (see: we can speak dispensationalese) to raise questions about our mission.
Our Purpose
Mr. Warden’s first comment against our website regards its header or title. He complains: “Your blog title states ‘defending Christianity’ as if dispensationalism is non-Christian. Can you prove that or at least make an attempt to back it up?”
In reply I would begin by noting that we do not believe dispensationalism is “non-Christian” at all. All those associated with NiceneCouncil.com (the sponsor of the blog) were at one time dispensationalists ourselves. Thus, we know quite well that dispensationalists are strongly evangelical Christians, just as we were while in the movement.
However, though recognizing dispensationalism as a form of evangelical Christianity, we believe that it is a seriously defective, misguided, embarrassing, and naive form. Perhaps our brief header is too brief. Actually our header “Defending Christianity” means: “Defending the integrity of Christianity against one of its most embarrassing advocates, dispensationalism.” But that is too long a title, and as Warden complains our blog is already “long-winded.” Consequently, it would not make an effective title. Besides, our title served its purpose: it pulled Warden in to see what is going on.
Our Rationale
But now what do I mean by stating that we are defending the integrity of Christianity? Simply put: dispensationalism is a humiliating embarrassment to the integrity and majesty of the full-fledged Christian worldview is embodied in Scripture. Dispensationalism leaves the impression that the Christian faith is a naive and incompetent faith commitment. Scores of scholarly works point to dispensationalism as evidence of the naivete of the Christian faith itself. Just consider a few works as samples of scholarly criticisms that highlight dispensationalism: Paul Boyer’s, When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture. Daniel Wojcik, The End of the World As We Know It: Faith, Fatalism, and Apocalypse in America. Bernard McGinn’s Antichrist: Two Thousand Years of the Human Fascination with Evil. Examples could be multiplied ad nauseum. In fact, I am not feeling good right now and will have to finish this posting later....
There. Now I am back. Where was I? Oh, yes:
And why should these secular scholars not write-off the Christian faith (as dominated by multi-million bestselling dispensationalist works) as a serious philosophy of life? Think of Edgar C. Whisenant’s Why the Rapture Could Be in 1988 and Hal Lindsey’s 1980’s: Countdown to Armageddon. Think of the book titles that flooded the market before the year 2000:
• Faird, Gorbachev! Has the Real Antichrist Come? (1988)
• Lindsey, Planet Earth -- 2000: Will Mankind Survive? (1994).
• Sumrall, I Predict 2000 (1987).
• Lewis, Prophecy 2000: Rushing to Armageddon (1990).
• Terrell, The 90’s: Decade of the Apocalypse (1992).
• Hunt, How Close Are We?: Compelling Evidence for the Soon Return of Christ (1993).
• Graham, Storm Warning (1992).
• Ryrie, The Final Countdown (1991).
• Jeffries, Armageddon: Appointment with Destiny (1988).
• McKeever, The Rapture Book: Victory in the End Times (1987).
• McAlvanny, et al., Earth’s Final Days (1994).
• Marrs, et al., Storming Toward Armageddon: Essays in Apocalypse (1992).
• Liardon, Final Approach: The Opportunity and Adventure of End-Times Living (1993).
• Webber and Hutchins, Is This the Last Century? (1979).
Even fellow premillennialists bemoan dispensationalism’s tendencies in this direction. One premillennialist admits: “The premillenarians’ credibility is at a low ebb because they succumbed to the temptation to exploit every conceivably possible prophetic fulfillment. . . . It is not likely that the situation will change greatly.” (Dwight Wilson, Armageddon Now!, 218).
Premillennialist Craig L. Blomberg bemoans that “a frightening percentage of the evangelical Christian public seems always to suffer a collective amnesia, forgetting how the same kinds of publications just a decade or two earlier turned out to include a considerable amount of false prophecy. The one statistic that remains unvarying is that to date, 100 percent of all such scenarios have proved wrong,” because of engaging in “the next round of speculation.” (Blomberg and Chung, Historic Premillennialism, 70.)
Warden continues stating his reasons for disappointment with our blog: “From what I’ve read of your blog, it is long-winded, filled with hyperbole and lacking in clear points regarding dispensationalism. When people freely throw around hyperbole it is a sign that evidence is lacking. ”
This complaint involves two unfortunate statements. First, he is dealing with only “what I’ve read of your blog,” which shows he has not read all of our blogs, and is basing his surmise on partial evidence. Who knows what he has read on our blog? He doesn’t say.
Second, he complains that is “lacking in clear points regarding dispensationalism.” But this flows out of his first problem: a partial reading of our blog. It also shows that he expects too much from a blog. We have several published books and video projects that provide deep and serious treatments of dispensationalism, as you can see by checking our webstore at NiceneCouncil.com. We also post a number of focused articles critiquing dispensationalism at NiceneCouncil.com. But then, Mr. Warden expresses a concern about our being “long-winded.” So I am not sure our books would work for him. Anti-dispensationalism is hard to reduce to a bumper sticker.
Finally, Mr. Warden complains: “Dispensationalism is not dying and neither are the prophecies.” We must understand that for any very large entity to die can take time. Massive red giant stars will eventually collapse in on themselves and explode into a supernova. And they are considered short-lived stars to begin with (due to their massive weight which accelerates their eruption). But even still they don’t die overnight. Their enormous size creates strong, internal countervailing internal forces within the star’s nucleus that balance out the gravitational weight problem. For awhile.
This is like dispensationalism: it is such a large behemoth that its death will take a long time. Furthermore, given its inherent naivete — which allows its adherents to tolerate one failed Antichrist prediction after another and which can endure one erroneous rapture prediction after another — we can’t expect the system to die quickly. Dispensationalists are adept at grinning and bearing it.
Nevertheless, it is dying. And as we have pointed out: it dying from a brain-drain. Many of its scholars are opting out; others are radically transforming the system into what it has never been. Read the dominant dispensationalist’s vehement attacks on progressive dispensationalism. Fear is in their words: their beloved system is collapsing within.
We agree that the prophecies of the Bible do not fail of their purposes. But the prophecies of dispensationalists constantly fail. Again, review the titles listed above. As we have said many times: Dispensationalism is embarrassing itself to death.
The header to our blogsite is: AgainstDispensationalism.com: Defending Christianity.” One of our blog readers, Rick Warden, a missionary and strongly conservative Christian, responded to my last blog (“Dispensationalism’s Progress Death” Part 2) and complained about our blog’s header. As a committed dispensationalist he is disturbed about several aspects of our blog heading, as well as its mission and content.
We welcome Mr. Warden’s concerns and would like to respond to them, partly to clarify our mission and partly to defend it. Our response may help others who have similar questions. Warden is not the first person on “planet Earth” (see: we can speak dispensationalese) to raise questions about our mission.
Our Purpose
Mr. Warden’s first comment against our website regards its header or title. He complains: “Your blog title states ‘defending Christianity’ as if dispensationalism is non-Christian. Can you prove that or at least make an attempt to back it up?”
In reply I would begin by noting that we do not believe dispensationalism is “non-Christian” at all. All those associated with NiceneCouncil.com (the sponsor of the blog) were at one time dispensationalists ourselves. Thus, we know quite well that dispensationalists are strongly evangelical Christians, just as we were while in the movement.
However, though recognizing dispensationalism as a form of evangelical Christianity, we believe that it is a seriously defective, misguided, embarrassing, and naive form. Perhaps our brief header is too brief. Actually our header “Defending Christianity” means: “Defending the integrity of Christianity against one of its most embarrassing advocates, dispensationalism.” But that is too long a title, and as Warden complains our blog is already “long-winded.” Consequently, it would not make an effective title. Besides, our title served its purpose: it pulled Warden in to see what is going on.
Our Rationale
But now what do I mean by stating that we are defending the integrity of Christianity? Simply put: dispensationalism is a humiliating embarrassment to the integrity and majesty of the full-fledged Christian worldview is embodied in Scripture. Dispensationalism leaves the impression that the Christian faith is a naive and incompetent faith commitment. Scores of scholarly works point to dispensationalism as evidence of the naivete of the Christian faith itself. Just consider a few works as samples of scholarly criticisms that highlight dispensationalism: Paul Boyer’s, When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture. Daniel Wojcik, The End of the World As We Know It: Faith, Fatalism, and Apocalypse in America. Bernard McGinn’s Antichrist: Two Thousand Years of the Human Fascination with Evil. Examples could be multiplied ad nauseum. In fact, I am not feeling good right now and will have to finish this posting later....
There. Now I am back. Where was I? Oh, yes:
And why should these secular scholars not write-off the Christian faith (as dominated by multi-million bestselling dispensationalist works) as a serious philosophy of life? Think of Edgar C. Whisenant’s Why the Rapture Could Be in 1988 and Hal Lindsey’s 1980’s: Countdown to Armageddon. Think of the book titles that flooded the market before the year 2000:
• Faird, Gorbachev! Has the Real Antichrist Come? (1988)
• Lindsey, Planet Earth -- 2000: Will Mankind Survive? (1994).
• Sumrall, I Predict 2000 (1987).
• Lewis, Prophecy 2000: Rushing to Armageddon (1990).
• Terrell, The 90’s: Decade of the Apocalypse (1992).
• Hunt, How Close Are We?: Compelling Evidence for the Soon Return of Christ (1993).
• Graham, Storm Warning (1992).
• Ryrie, The Final Countdown (1991).
• Jeffries, Armageddon: Appointment with Destiny (1988).
• McKeever, The Rapture Book: Victory in the End Times (1987).
• McAlvanny, et al., Earth’s Final Days (1994).
• Marrs, et al., Storming Toward Armageddon: Essays in Apocalypse (1992).
• Liardon, Final Approach: The Opportunity and Adventure of End-Times Living (1993).
• Webber and Hutchins, Is This the Last Century? (1979).
Even fellow premillennialists bemoan dispensationalism’s tendencies in this direction. One premillennialist admits: “The premillenarians’ credibility is at a low ebb because they succumbed to the temptation to exploit every conceivably possible prophetic fulfillment. . . . It is not likely that the situation will change greatly.” (Dwight Wilson, Armageddon Now!, 218).
Premillennialist Craig L. Blomberg bemoans that “a frightening percentage of the evangelical Christian public seems always to suffer a collective amnesia, forgetting how the same kinds of publications just a decade or two earlier turned out to include a considerable amount of false prophecy. The one statistic that remains unvarying is that to date, 100 percent of all such scenarios have proved wrong,” because of engaging in “the next round of speculation.” (Blomberg and Chung, Historic Premillennialism, 70.)
Warden continues stating his reasons for disappointment with our blog: “From what I’ve read of your blog, it is long-winded, filled with hyperbole and lacking in clear points regarding dispensationalism. When people freely throw around hyperbole it is a sign that evidence is lacking. ”
This complaint involves two unfortunate statements. First, he is dealing with only “what I’ve read of your blog,” which shows he has not read all of our blogs, and is basing his surmise on partial evidence. Who knows what he has read on our blog? He doesn’t say.
Second, he complains that is “lacking in clear points regarding dispensationalism.” But this flows out of his first problem: a partial reading of our blog. It also shows that he expects too much from a blog. We have several published books and video projects that provide deep and serious treatments of dispensationalism, as you can see by checking our webstore at NiceneCouncil.com. We also post a number of focused articles critiquing dispensationalism at NiceneCouncil.com. But then, Mr. Warden expresses a concern about our being “long-winded.” So I am not sure our books would work for him. Anti-dispensationalism is hard to reduce to a bumper sticker.
Finally, Mr. Warden complains: “Dispensationalism is not dying and neither are the prophecies.” We must understand that for any very large entity to die can take time. Massive red giant stars will eventually collapse in on themselves and explode into a supernova. And they are considered short-lived stars to begin with (due to their massive weight which accelerates their eruption). But even still they don’t die overnight. Their enormous size creates strong, internal countervailing internal forces within the star’s nucleus that balance out the gravitational weight problem. For awhile.
This is like dispensationalism: it is such a large behemoth that its death will take a long time. Furthermore, given its inherent naivete — which allows its adherents to tolerate one failed Antichrist prediction after another and which can endure one erroneous rapture prediction after another — we can’t expect the system to die quickly. Dispensationalists are adept at grinning and bearing it.
Nevertheless, it is dying. And as we have pointed out: it dying from a brain-drain. Many of its scholars are opting out; others are radically transforming the system into what it has never been. Read the dominant dispensationalist’s vehement attacks on progressive dispensationalism. Fear is in their words: their beloved system is collapsing within.
We agree that the prophecies of the Bible do not fail of their purposes. But the prophecies of dispensationalists constantly fail. Again, review the titles listed above. As we have said many times: Dispensationalism is embarrassing itself to death.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Dispensationalism’s Progressive Death (Part 2)
Dispensationalism’s Progressive Death (Part 2)
by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com
My previous blog post reviewed an article by progressive dispensationalist, Dr. Robert Chisholm of Dallas Theological Seminary. In that review I noted that Chisholm’s observations effectively drive a stake in the heart of dispensationalism. But I did not give a complete review of his article. Consequently, one Anonymous respondent wondered if my blog failed of its purpose.
In this follow-up blog I will present a related observation regarding the interpretation of prophecy that serves as the second of the one-two punch Chisholm lands on his own theology. This still falls under the category of “progressive dispensationalism” in that Chisholm favorably cited this material in his own article, though he did not press home the point.
I am referring to the chapter by Dr. Richard L. Pratt, Jr. that appears in J. I. Packer and Sven K. Soderlund, eds., The Way of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of Bruce K. Waltke (2000) on pages 180-203.. That chapter is titled: “Historical Contingencies and Biblical Predictions.” So now I will offer a brief summary and review of Reformed theologian Pratt’s article which was endorsed by progressive dispensationalist theologian Chisholm. This article takes an additional important step for undermining the dispensational method of prophetic interpretation regarding Israel’s future.
Pratt’s Point
In Pratt’s article he opens with a lament regarding the naive and reckless enthusiasm of dispensational populists (whom he obliquely refers to as “North American evangelicals”). He complains that their “enthusiasm” for prophecy has caused them to “become monomaniacal in their interpretation of biblical prophecy” (p. 180).
Basically he argues that historical contingencies affect the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. As does Chisholm in his article, he points out that many biblical prophecies do not find fulfillment in the expected literalistic fashion that we often expect. He argues that this “failure” of prophecy to occur according to our expectations does not undermine “the immutability of God’s character and eternal decrees” (p. 181). That is, this “failure” does not prove God a liar nor does it dismiss the eternal nature of his decrees.
He argues from Scripture that “divine providence provides a perspective that complements divine immutability” (p. 183). That is, God is behind both the eternal decree and historical providence, and that one does not contradict, but rather complements the other. He continues:
“Old Testament prophets revealed the word of the unchanging Yahweh, but they spoke for God in space and time, not before the foundations of the world. By definition, therefore, they did not utter immutable decrees but providential declarations. For this reason, we should not be surprised to find that intervening historical contingencies, especially human reactions, had significant effects on the way predictions were realized. In fact, we will see that Yahweh often spoke through his prophets, watched the reactions of people, and then determined how to carry through with his declarations.”
Three Kinds of Predictions
Pratt then outlines and discusses “three kinds of predictions: (1) predictions qualified by conditions, (2) predictions qualified by assurances, and (3) predictions with out qualifications” (p. 183).
1. Predictions qualified by conditions. Of course, everyone recognizes that when a prophecy expressly mentions conditions, those conditions will affect the outcome of the prophecy. Pratt surveys several conditional prophecies, such as Isa 1:19–20; 7:9; Jer 7:5–7; 22:4–5). For instance, Isaiah 7:9 declares: “If you are not faithful, then you will not stand at all.” This is clearly conditional and affects the historical outcome of the prophecy. Of course, the problem for many populist prophecy-enthusiasts (who usually designate themselves “prophecy experts”) is: they almost never admit this truth about prophecy.
2. Predictions qualified by assurances. These prophecies include announcements of inescapable doom or of God’s refusal to reverse himself or of oath-bound prophecies. Samples include: Jeremiah 7:15–16; 11:11, 14; 14:10; Ezekiel 5:11; 14:16, 18, 20; 20:3; 33:27; Amos 1:3, 6, 9, 13; 2:1, 4, 6. Pratt observes that “we must remember that these kinds of predictions are few in number and usually not very specific in their descriptions of the future” (p. 187). The very existence of these few prophecies clearly indicate “that not all predictions shared this heightened certainty,” otherwise these assurances would have been wholly unnecessary to state.
3. Predictions without qualifications. Pratt notes that “the OT abounds with examples of unqualified predictions of events that did not take place” (p. 187). He lists a few samples, such as Jonah 3:10; 2 Chr 12:5–8; 3 Kings 22:16–20. For instance, “what caused these turns of events? Each text explicitly sights [sic] human responses as the grounds for the deviations. The people of Nineveh (Jonah 3:6), the leaders of Judah (2 Chr 12:6), Josiah (2 Kgs 22:18–19), and Hezekiah (Jer 26:19) repented or prayed upon hearing the prophetic word” (pp. 187–88). This shows that prophecies contained implied conditions. This also is not admitted by traditional dispensationalists.
Pratt then cites Calvin’s Institutes (1:17:14): “Even though [the prophets] make a simple affirmation, it is to be understood from the outcome that these nonetheless contain a tacit condition” (p. 188). Pratt then points to the lesson we learned from the image of God as the potter. He argues that “the universal perspective of Jer 18:1–12 strongly suggests that all unqualified predictions were subject to implicit conditions” (p. 189).
Historical Contingencies and Expectations
In his next section (pp. 191–95) Pratt asks the question: “If human responses could affect the way Yahweh directed history afer a prediction, how did prophets or their listeners have any secure expectations for the future?” (p. 191).
To answer this question he points out that “the covenantal parameters surrounding Yahweh and his people provided a basis for many expectations, but they did not settle every question. They set limits, but much latitude existed within these boundaries” (p. 192). Regarding any given prophecy: “Latitude remained. . . . When? How? By whom? How long? These more specific questions remained unanswered for the prophets and their audiences” (p. 193).
I would point out in this regard that when we come to the New Testament and the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel, we discover that “how” God blesses Israel is different from the way that the Jews (and dispensationalists) expected. He blesses her through the salvation of a remnant and by re-constituting Israel by making even Gentiles “Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:29). The Church of Jesus Christ is “the Israel of God” (Gal 6:16).
Therefore we must understand what the last great old covenant prophet John the Baptist (Matt 3:9) stated when he warned Israel: “Do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.” And ultimately Israel’s salvation comes on the same terms and in the same manner as the salvation of Gentiles, rather than through their exaltation (as per dispensational theology).
by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com
My previous blog post reviewed an article by progressive dispensationalist, Dr. Robert Chisholm of Dallas Theological Seminary. In that review I noted that Chisholm’s observations effectively drive a stake in the heart of dispensationalism. But I did not give a complete review of his article. Consequently, one Anonymous respondent wondered if my blog failed of its purpose.
In this follow-up blog I will present a related observation regarding the interpretation of prophecy that serves as the second of the one-two punch Chisholm lands on his own theology. This still falls under the category of “progressive dispensationalism” in that Chisholm favorably cited this material in his own article, though he did not press home the point.
I am referring to the chapter by Dr. Richard L. Pratt, Jr. that appears in J. I. Packer and Sven K. Soderlund, eds., The Way of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of Bruce K. Waltke (2000) on pages 180-203.. That chapter is titled: “Historical Contingencies and Biblical Predictions.” So now I will offer a brief summary and review of Reformed theologian Pratt’s article which was endorsed by progressive dispensationalist theologian Chisholm. This article takes an additional important step for undermining the dispensational method of prophetic interpretation regarding Israel’s future.
Pratt’s Point
In Pratt’s article he opens with a lament regarding the naive and reckless enthusiasm of dispensational populists (whom he obliquely refers to as “North American evangelicals”). He complains that their “enthusiasm” for prophecy has caused them to “become monomaniacal in their interpretation of biblical prophecy” (p. 180).
Basically he argues that historical contingencies affect the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. As does Chisholm in his article, he points out that many biblical prophecies do not find fulfillment in the expected literalistic fashion that we often expect. He argues that this “failure” of prophecy to occur according to our expectations does not undermine “the immutability of God’s character and eternal decrees” (p. 181). That is, this “failure” does not prove God a liar nor does it dismiss the eternal nature of his decrees.
He argues from Scripture that “divine providence provides a perspective that complements divine immutability” (p. 183). That is, God is behind both the eternal decree and historical providence, and that one does not contradict, but rather complements the other. He continues:
“Old Testament prophets revealed the word of the unchanging Yahweh, but they spoke for God in space and time, not before the foundations of the world. By definition, therefore, they did not utter immutable decrees but providential declarations. For this reason, we should not be surprised to find that intervening historical contingencies, especially human reactions, had significant effects on the way predictions were realized. In fact, we will see that Yahweh often spoke through his prophets, watched the reactions of people, and then determined how to carry through with his declarations.”
Three Kinds of Predictions
Pratt then outlines and discusses “three kinds of predictions: (1) predictions qualified by conditions, (2) predictions qualified by assurances, and (3) predictions with out qualifications” (p. 183).
1. Predictions qualified by conditions. Of course, everyone recognizes that when a prophecy expressly mentions conditions, those conditions will affect the outcome of the prophecy. Pratt surveys several conditional prophecies, such as Isa 1:19–20; 7:9; Jer 7:5–7; 22:4–5). For instance, Isaiah 7:9 declares: “If you are not faithful, then you will not stand at all.” This is clearly conditional and affects the historical outcome of the prophecy. Of course, the problem for many populist prophecy-enthusiasts (who usually designate themselves “prophecy experts”) is: they almost never admit this truth about prophecy.
2. Predictions qualified by assurances. These prophecies include announcements of inescapable doom or of God’s refusal to reverse himself or of oath-bound prophecies. Samples include: Jeremiah 7:15–16; 11:11, 14; 14:10; Ezekiel 5:11; 14:16, 18, 20; 20:3; 33:27; Amos 1:3, 6, 9, 13; 2:1, 4, 6. Pratt observes that “we must remember that these kinds of predictions are few in number and usually not very specific in their descriptions of the future” (p. 187). The very existence of these few prophecies clearly indicate “that not all predictions shared this heightened certainty,” otherwise these assurances would have been wholly unnecessary to state.
3. Predictions without qualifications. Pratt notes that “the OT abounds with examples of unqualified predictions of events that did not take place” (p. 187). He lists a few samples, such as Jonah 3:10; 2 Chr 12:5–8; 3 Kings 22:16–20. For instance, “what caused these turns of events? Each text explicitly sights [sic] human responses as the grounds for the deviations. The people of Nineveh (Jonah 3:6), the leaders of Judah (2 Chr 12:6), Josiah (2 Kgs 22:18–19), and Hezekiah (Jer 26:19) repented or prayed upon hearing the prophetic word” (pp. 187–88). This shows that prophecies contained implied conditions. This also is not admitted by traditional dispensationalists.
Pratt then cites Calvin’s Institutes (1:17:14): “Even though [the prophets] make a simple affirmation, it is to be understood from the outcome that these nonetheless contain a tacit condition” (p. 188). Pratt then points to the lesson we learned from the image of God as the potter. He argues that “the universal perspective of Jer 18:1–12 strongly suggests that all unqualified predictions were subject to implicit conditions” (p. 189).
Historical Contingencies and Expectations
In his next section (pp. 191–95) Pratt asks the question: “If human responses could affect the way Yahweh directed history afer a prediction, how did prophets or their listeners have any secure expectations for the future?” (p. 191).
To answer this question he points out that “the covenantal parameters surrounding Yahweh and his people provided a basis for many expectations, but they did not settle every question. They set limits, but much latitude existed within these boundaries” (p. 192). Regarding any given prophecy: “Latitude remained. . . . When? How? By whom? How long? These more specific questions remained unanswered for the prophets and their audiences” (p. 193).
I would point out in this regard that when we come to the New Testament and the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel, we discover that “how” God blesses Israel is different from the way that the Jews (and dispensationalists) expected. He blesses her through the salvation of a remnant and by re-constituting Israel by making even Gentiles “Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:29). The Church of Jesus Christ is “the Israel of God” (Gal 6:16).
Therefore we must understand what the last great old covenant prophet John the Baptist (Matt 3:9) stated when he warned Israel: “Do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.” And ultimately Israel’s salvation comes on the same terms and in the same manner as the salvation of Gentiles, rather than through their exaltation (as per dispensational theology).
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Dispensationalism’s Progressive Death
by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com
Dispensationalism is changing. And as it does so, it is dying; death is the most radical form of change for a living entity. Just think of the death of the prehistoric creature known as the Freborg. They no longer exist anywhere in the world. (The Freborg had the wings of an eagle, the body of a lion, and the head of an accountant. A terrifying image.)
In this blog article I will show that dispensationalism’s death is being effected by suicide. Apparently no amount of embarrassment and humiliation has been able to discomfit dispensational pew-sitters. Like the Eloi in “The Time Machine” they mindlessly wander about to their doom. They drift into Christian bookstores and pick up the latest mind-numbing, apocalyptic drivel. Neither wrong rapture dates nor wrong Antichrist spottings phase erstwhile dispensationalists. Their motto is: “Grin and Bear It.” But now we see that suicide might just do the trick. But first let me give a brief history lesson.
A Brief History Lesson
In the early 1990s Darrell L. Bock and Craig A. Blaising led the establishment of what is known as “progressive dispensationalism.” In presenting the changes they effected in the dispensational system, they described three major phases of dispensationalism:
(1) Classic dispensationalism, which was promoted by J. N. Darby through C. I. Scofield to L. S. Chafer. Key components of its success can be traced to Larkin’s charts and Scofield’s Bible.
(2) Revised dispensationalism, which was promoted by Charles C. Ryrie, John F. Walvoord, J. Dwight Pentecost, and the New York Times Bestseller List. It is called “revised” because of the major revision of the Scofield Reference Bible, which was revised in 1967 to become the “New Scofield Reference Bible.”
(3) Progressive dispensationalism, which is being promoted by Craig Blaising, Darrell Bock, Robert Saucey, and others. It is called “progressive” because it no longer sees the seven dispensations as discrete, impermeable units of time. Rather dispensations are gradually unfolding, progressing stages of historical development. That is, older forms of dispensationalism kept each dispensation separate as self-contained, never-merged units, whereas “progressive” dispensationalism sees the seeds of the next dispensation already forming in the preceding one and anticipating the changes to come. Progressives are under vigorous attack by the Revised dispensationalists who have published numerous articles, chapters, and books raising the alarm about the radical changes the progressives are effecting.
But now: Why do I believe dispensationalism is committing suicide? In the first place I should note that dispensationalism has suffered a “brain drain.” And as is so often the case, living without a brain is difficult — if not downright tedious. The leaders of the older form of dispensationalism are now populist, sensationalist, televangelist types such as Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye, and the other guys whose books crowd the shelves of Christian bookstores with excited alarms of the approaching end. But the progressive dispensationalists are producing many academic studies — even outside the field of eschatology. They are showing themselves to be noteworthy and impressive scholars.
This leads me to my second point, which is really my main point: Progressive dispensationalists are not only moving dispensationalism in a more covenantal direction, but are establishing principles that wreck the dispensational system. By way of illustration I will give a brief review of a remarkable article in the latest Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (September 2010, pp. 561-578): “When Prophecy Appears to Fail, Check Your Hermeneutic.” Dr. Chisholm is chair and professor of Old Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. I even went to seminary with him at Grace Theological Seminary — when I was a dispensationalist. You really need to order this article through your local public library’s inter-library loan department. You will thank me for this tidbit.
Jerry Johnson and I are currently working on the script for Late Great Planet Church, volume 2. This article came at just the right time since we will be exposing some of the key errors in dispensationalism (particularly their naive hermeneutic and their love affair with Israel).
In this blog I will not provide a full review of “When Prophecy Fails.” I will simply highlight a few of its key observations which will provide forensic evidence proving suicide. This evidence will show how this dispensationalist is driving a stake through dispensationalism’s heart.
Before I even do that, though, you must bear in mind the following theological truth: Israel is the center of the dispensationalist eschatological system. In fact, an exalted future for Israel in the millennium is the main reason progressive dispensationalists are still dispensationalists. They see a future for Israel restored to the land and offering sacrifices, which makes them differ from historic premillennialists (though they differ from the more popular dispensationalists by not publishing full-color wall charts or playing “Name the Antichrist” or “Guess the Latest Date for the Rapture” games).
Now for the overview (I simply must get back to working on the Late Great Planet Church script; so I will have to be brief.) Note that parenthetical page references are to the JETS article by Chisholm.
Article Overview
Dr. Chisolm begins his article by pointing out something that most Christians do not realize: “A close analysis of OT prophecy reveals that many prophecies were not fulfilled either in part or in whole” (p. 561). He quickly dismisses “two extremes” in responding to this problem: (1) The liberal view which denies supernatural revelatory prophecy. (2) The popular evangelical view which assigns all such unfulfilled prophecy to the final days of history, the eschaton.
Chisholm then makes the following observation which is a two-pronged stake in the heart of dispensationalism: “Prophecy can appear to ‘fail’ if we approach it with a faulty hermeneutic that treats it as inherently unconditional and demands precise fulfillment of any and all details” (p. 561). The two deadly prongs here are: (1) This undermines revised dispensationalism’s second sine qua non: interpretive literalism. (2) This also destroys dispensationalism’s first sine qua non regarding Israel. That is, it removes one of dispensationalism’s strongest arguments for a future for Israel in returning to the land to rule the world and kill sheep: If prophecy is conditional (not “unconditional”) and if it does not demand “precise fulfillment of any and all details” then Israel’s future may not be what dispensationalists depend on it being.
Wow! In one statement Chisholm has driven the stake in the heart of dispensationalism. And he has done so by using a ten ton vibratory pile hammer operating by an intricate system of counter-rotating eccentric weights, powered by hydraulic motors which reduce horizontal vibrations so that its full power may be transmitted vertically into the pile. Well done!
The article shows that prophecy is dynamic, intending either to change or encourage the hearers rather than simply to record the future in advance. Chisholm notes that prophecy “announces God’s intentions conditionally and is intended to motivate a positive response” so that “the prophecy’s predictive element is designed to prevent (in the case of judgment announcement) or facilitate (in the case of a salvation announcement) its fulfillment” (p. 563). That is, prophecy has a hortatory dimension, which means that it seeks to encourage good behavior by promising (conditionally!) blessings in the future or to warn against bad behavior by threatening judgment.
In a section titled “The Contingent Nature of Prophetic Language” Chisholm proves his point by several lines of evidence from the Old Testament.
His first point presents Jeremiah 18 as the key illustration of the matter. He demonstrates that the potter (God) improvises his plan for the clay (Israel) which shows that he can change his (apparent) plan for her. Citing Richard L. Pratt (author of another excellent article in this regard): “The universal perspective of Jer 18:1-12 strongly suggests that all unqualified predictions were subject to implicit conditions” (p. 564). The classic illustration of the implied condition in prophecy is Jonah’s prophecy threatening that Nineveh will be destroyed in forty days (Jon 3:4). Though no conditions were mentioned, the prophecy did not come to pass. Because the implied condition allowed for repentance to remove the judgment threat.
Secondly, Chisholm argues that Micah 3:12 is “the clearest example of God’s relenting from a conditional announcement of judgment” (p. 566). There Micah announces that Zion will be destroyed (Mic 3:1-11). Hezekiah understood this prophecy as threatening imminent doom (Jer 26:18-19). But in Jeremiah 26:17-19 Hezekiah repents, which leads the Lord to withdraw the threat. Micah’s prophecy does not come to pass.
Third, in 2 Kings 22:15-20 Huldah prophesies that Josiah would die in peace and not witness Jerusalem’s destruction. But in 2 Kings 23:29-30 Josiah is killed in battle — hardly an example of dying in peace!
Chisholm provides several other clear evidences of prophecy functioning as a goad to either repentance from sin or continuance in righteousness. This is prophecy’s main point: to either dynamically alter or effectively reinforce a people’s moral/spiritual condition, not to foretell the future for political pundits.
Dispensationalism’s Ultimate Death
I believe Chisholm is correct in his view of the conditional nature and dynamic purpose of prophecy. And if he is correct, dispensationalism is no longer theologically viable.
On Chisholm’s principles we can argue that the future of Israel is not necessarily to involve a return to the land to rule the world and re-establish the temple sacrificial system. The dynamic purpose of Old Testament prophecies of Israel’s future glory were intended to encourage faithfulness. But Israel rejected all of her prophets and then when God finally sent his Son, they said: “This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and seize his inheritance” (Matt 21:38). As a result, God gave them a final forty years after Christ to repent and turn to him.
Tragically, Israel did not repent and her temple was destroyed in AD 70. As a result, Israel’s prophetic hope of future world-dominion will not be fulfilled in the literal terms of the Old Testament hope. We should not be surprised at this for Jesus himself taught:
“I say to you, that many shall come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt 811-12).
“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it.” (Matt 21:43).
Dispensationalism is changing. And as it does so, it is dying; death is the most radical form of change for a living entity. Just think of the death of the prehistoric creature known as the Freborg. They no longer exist anywhere in the world. (The Freborg had the wings of an eagle, the body of a lion, and the head of an accountant. A terrifying image.)
In this blog article I will show that dispensationalism’s death is being effected by suicide. Apparently no amount of embarrassment and humiliation has been able to discomfit dispensational pew-sitters. Like the Eloi in “The Time Machine” they mindlessly wander about to their doom. They drift into Christian bookstores and pick up the latest mind-numbing, apocalyptic drivel. Neither wrong rapture dates nor wrong Antichrist spottings phase erstwhile dispensationalists. Their motto is: “Grin and Bear It.” But now we see that suicide might just do the trick. But first let me give a brief history lesson.
A Brief History Lesson
In the early 1990s Darrell L. Bock and Craig A. Blaising led the establishment of what is known as “progressive dispensationalism.” In presenting the changes they effected in the dispensational system, they described three major phases of dispensationalism:
(1) Classic dispensationalism, which was promoted by J. N. Darby through C. I. Scofield to L. S. Chafer. Key components of its success can be traced to Larkin’s charts and Scofield’s Bible.
(2) Revised dispensationalism, which was promoted by Charles C. Ryrie, John F. Walvoord, J. Dwight Pentecost, and the New York Times Bestseller List. It is called “revised” because of the major revision of the Scofield Reference Bible, which was revised in 1967 to become the “New Scofield Reference Bible.”
(3) Progressive dispensationalism, which is being promoted by Craig Blaising, Darrell Bock, Robert Saucey, and others. It is called “progressive” because it no longer sees the seven dispensations as discrete, impermeable units of time. Rather dispensations are gradually unfolding, progressing stages of historical development. That is, older forms of dispensationalism kept each dispensation separate as self-contained, never-merged units, whereas “progressive” dispensationalism sees the seeds of the next dispensation already forming in the preceding one and anticipating the changes to come. Progressives are under vigorous attack by the Revised dispensationalists who have published numerous articles, chapters, and books raising the alarm about the radical changes the progressives are effecting.
But now: Why do I believe dispensationalism is committing suicide? In the first place I should note that dispensationalism has suffered a “brain drain.” And as is so often the case, living without a brain is difficult — if not downright tedious. The leaders of the older form of dispensationalism are now populist, sensationalist, televangelist types such as Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye, and the other guys whose books crowd the shelves of Christian bookstores with excited alarms of the approaching end. But the progressive dispensationalists are producing many academic studies — even outside the field of eschatology. They are showing themselves to be noteworthy and impressive scholars.
This leads me to my second point, which is really my main point: Progressive dispensationalists are not only moving dispensationalism in a more covenantal direction, but are establishing principles that wreck the dispensational system. By way of illustration I will give a brief review of a remarkable article in the latest Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (September 2010, pp. 561-578): “When Prophecy Appears to Fail, Check Your Hermeneutic.” Dr. Chisholm is chair and professor of Old Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. I even went to seminary with him at Grace Theological Seminary — when I was a dispensationalist. You really need to order this article through your local public library’s inter-library loan department. You will thank me for this tidbit.
Jerry Johnson and I are currently working on the script for Late Great Planet Church, volume 2. This article came at just the right time since we will be exposing some of the key errors in dispensationalism (particularly their naive hermeneutic and their love affair with Israel).
In this blog I will not provide a full review of “When Prophecy Fails.” I will simply highlight a few of its key observations which will provide forensic evidence proving suicide. This evidence will show how this dispensationalist is driving a stake through dispensationalism’s heart.
Before I even do that, though, you must bear in mind the following theological truth: Israel is the center of the dispensationalist eschatological system. In fact, an exalted future for Israel in the millennium is the main reason progressive dispensationalists are still dispensationalists. They see a future for Israel restored to the land and offering sacrifices, which makes them differ from historic premillennialists (though they differ from the more popular dispensationalists by not publishing full-color wall charts or playing “Name the Antichrist” or “Guess the Latest Date for the Rapture” games).
Now for the overview (I simply must get back to working on the Late Great Planet Church script; so I will have to be brief.) Note that parenthetical page references are to the JETS article by Chisholm.
Article Overview
Dr. Chisolm begins his article by pointing out something that most Christians do not realize: “A close analysis of OT prophecy reveals that many prophecies were not fulfilled either in part or in whole” (p. 561). He quickly dismisses “two extremes” in responding to this problem: (1) The liberal view which denies supernatural revelatory prophecy. (2) The popular evangelical view which assigns all such unfulfilled prophecy to the final days of history, the eschaton.
Chisholm then makes the following observation which is a two-pronged stake in the heart of dispensationalism: “Prophecy can appear to ‘fail’ if we approach it with a faulty hermeneutic that treats it as inherently unconditional and demands precise fulfillment of any and all details” (p. 561). The two deadly prongs here are: (1) This undermines revised dispensationalism’s second sine qua non: interpretive literalism. (2) This also destroys dispensationalism’s first sine qua non regarding Israel. That is, it removes one of dispensationalism’s strongest arguments for a future for Israel in returning to the land to rule the world and kill sheep: If prophecy is conditional (not “unconditional”) and if it does not demand “precise fulfillment of any and all details” then Israel’s future may not be what dispensationalists depend on it being.
Wow! In one statement Chisholm has driven the stake in the heart of dispensationalism. And he has done so by using a ten ton vibratory pile hammer operating by an intricate system of counter-rotating eccentric weights, powered by hydraulic motors which reduce horizontal vibrations so that its full power may be transmitted vertically into the pile. Well done!
The article shows that prophecy is dynamic, intending either to change or encourage the hearers rather than simply to record the future in advance. Chisholm notes that prophecy “announces God’s intentions conditionally and is intended to motivate a positive response” so that “the prophecy’s predictive element is designed to prevent (in the case of judgment announcement) or facilitate (in the case of a salvation announcement) its fulfillment” (p. 563). That is, prophecy has a hortatory dimension, which means that it seeks to encourage good behavior by promising (conditionally!) blessings in the future or to warn against bad behavior by threatening judgment.
In a section titled “The Contingent Nature of Prophetic Language” Chisholm proves his point by several lines of evidence from the Old Testament.
His first point presents Jeremiah 18 as the key illustration of the matter. He demonstrates that the potter (God) improvises his plan for the clay (Israel) which shows that he can change his (apparent) plan for her. Citing Richard L. Pratt (author of another excellent article in this regard): “The universal perspective of Jer 18:1-12 strongly suggests that all unqualified predictions were subject to implicit conditions” (p. 564). The classic illustration of the implied condition in prophecy is Jonah’s prophecy threatening that Nineveh will be destroyed in forty days (Jon 3:4). Though no conditions were mentioned, the prophecy did not come to pass. Because the implied condition allowed for repentance to remove the judgment threat.
Secondly, Chisholm argues that Micah 3:12 is “the clearest example of God’s relenting from a conditional announcement of judgment” (p. 566). There Micah announces that Zion will be destroyed (Mic 3:1-11). Hezekiah understood this prophecy as threatening imminent doom (Jer 26:18-19). But in Jeremiah 26:17-19 Hezekiah repents, which leads the Lord to withdraw the threat. Micah’s prophecy does not come to pass.
Third, in 2 Kings 22:15-20 Huldah prophesies that Josiah would die in peace and not witness Jerusalem’s destruction. But in 2 Kings 23:29-30 Josiah is killed in battle — hardly an example of dying in peace!
Chisholm provides several other clear evidences of prophecy functioning as a goad to either repentance from sin or continuance in righteousness. This is prophecy’s main point: to either dynamically alter or effectively reinforce a people’s moral/spiritual condition, not to foretell the future for political pundits.
Dispensationalism’s Ultimate Death
I believe Chisholm is correct in his view of the conditional nature and dynamic purpose of prophecy. And if he is correct, dispensationalism is no longer theologically viable.
On Chisholm’s principles we can argue that the future of Israel is not necessarily to involve a return to the land to rule the world and re-establish the temple sacrificial system. The dynamic purpose of Old Testament prophecies of Israel’s future glory were intended to encourage faithfulness. But Israel rejected all of her prophets and then when God finally sent his Son, they said: “This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and seize his inheritance” (Matt 21:38). As a result, God gave them a final forty years after Christ to repent and turn to him.
Tragically, Israel did not repent and her temple was destroyed in AD 70. As a result, Israel’s prophetic hope of future world-dominion will not be fulfilled in the literal terms of the Old Testament hope. We should not be surprised at this for Jesus himself taught:
“I say to you, that many shall come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt 811-12).
“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it.” (Matt 21:43).
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Millennial Absurdity
by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., Director, NiceneCouncil.com
Though dispensationalism appears to be more interested in the Great Tribulation than in the Milllenial Reign of Christ (judging from the number of books on these topics and their multi-million sales), this really might be a good strategy for dispensationalists. For once someone looks into the Millennium proposed by the system, so many red flags start popping out all over that one would think you were at a University of Alabama football game at home.
One of the more bizzare elements of the Millennium is that for 1000 years resurrected saints will dwell among unresurrected sinners and saints. And to top it all off: at the end of the thousand years the unresurrected sinners will rebel against the 1000 year old, never-dying resurrected saints.
Another strange factor of the dispensationalist Millennium -- the one we will be focusing on -- is the inherent racism controlling it. Despite the fact that the new covenant established by Christ made Jew and Gentile equal in God's eyes (Gal 3:28; Col 3:11), the most glorious era of history will remove that equality. What is more, it will place the saved, living Gentile nations on the lowest level of the Millennium where they will be the servants of the Jews.
In the following quotes we find evidence of this racial inequality, of this elevation of the Jew, and the denigration of the Gentile.
"God has two distinct purposes — one for Israel and one for the Church."1
"Israel, regathered and turned to the Lord in salvation, will be exalted, blessed, and favored through this period."2
"The Gentiles will be Israel’s servants during that age. . . . The nations which usurped authority over Israel in past ages find that downtrodden people exalted and themselves in subjection in their kingdom. And these are not unsaved Gentiles: The Gentiles that are in the millennium will have experienced conversion prior to admission."3
"The redeemed living nation of Israel, regenerated and regathered to the land will be head over all the nations of the earth. . . . So he exalts them above the Gentile nations. . . . On the lowest level there are the saved, living, Gentile nations."4
"God will keep his original promises to the fathers and will one day convert and place Israel as the head of the nations."5
"Israel will be a glorious nation, protected from her enemies, exalted above the Gentiles. . . . In contrast to the present church age in which Jew and Gentile are on an equal plane of privilege, the millennium is clearly a period of time in which Israel is in prominence and blessing. . . . Israel as a nation will be exalted."6
"In the millennium Israel as a nation will rule over the Gentiles."7
"The whole point of this passage [Ro 11] revolves around Israel’s being restored to a position of preeminence as a believing nation."8
"The biblical teaching [is] that the coming millennial kingdom will have its headquarters in Jerusalem with the Messiah ruling the world from the throne of David and with national Israel restored to its place of supremacy over the nations."9
The ACLU will have their hands full if this proposal sticks. No! I take that back. Since those on the lowest level are the saved, living Gentile nations, this may work just fine for that august union. This effectively puts Christians beneath Jews.
Footnotes:
1. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 85.
2. Ryrie, Basis of the Premillennial Faith, 149.
3. Pentecost, Things to Come, 508.
4. Hoyt, "Dispensational Premillennialism," in Clouse, Meaning of the Millennium, 81.
5. House and Ice, Dominion Theology, 175.
6. Walvoord, Millennial Kingdom, 136, 302–303.
7. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, "Israelology, Doctrine of," Popular Encyclopeida of Bible Prophecy, 201.
8. Lindsey, Road to Holocaust, 176.
9. Hunt, Whatever Happened to Heaven?, 246.
Though dispensationalism appears to be more interested in the Great Tribulation than in the Milllenial Reign of Christ (judging from the number of books on these topics and their multi-million sales), this really might be a good strategy for dispensationalists. For once someone looks into the Millennium proposed by the system, so many red flags start popping out all over that one would think you were at a University of Alabama football game at home.
One of the more bizzare elements of the Millennium is that for 1000 years resurrected saints will dwell among unresurrected sinners and saints. And to top it all off: at the end of the thousand years the unresurrected sinners will rebel against the 1000 year old, never-dying resurrected saints.
Another strange factor of the dispensationalist Millennium -- the one we will be focusing on -- is the inherent racism controlling it. Despite the fact that the new covenant established by Christ made Jew and Gentile equal in God's eyes (Gal 3:28; Col 3:11), the most glorious era of history will remove that equality. What is more, it will place the saved, living Gentile nations on the lowest level of the Millennium where they will be the servants of the Jews.
In the following quotes we find evidence of this racial inequality, of this elevation of the Jew, and the denigration of the Gentile.
"God has two distinct purposes — one for Israel and one for the Church."1
"Israel, regathered and turned to the Lord in salvation, will be exalted, blessed, and favored through this period."2
"The Gentiles will be Israel’s servants during that age. . . . The nations which usurped authority over Israel in past ages find that downtrodden people exalted and themselves in subjection in their kingdom. And these are not unsaved Gentiles: The Gentiles that are in the millennium will have experienced conversion prior to admission."3
"The redeemed living nation of Israel, regenerated and regathered to the land will be head over all the nations of the earth. . . . So he exalts them above the Gentile nations. . . . On the lowest level there are the saved, living, Gentile nations."4
"God will keep his original promises to the fathers and will one day convert and place Israel as the head of the nations."5
"Israel will be a glorious nation, protected from her enemies, exalted above the Gentiles. . . . In contrast to the present church age in which Jew and Gentile are on an equal plane of privilege, the millennium is clearly a period of time in which Israel is in prominence and blessing. . . . Israel as a nation will be exalted."6
"In the millennium Israel as a nation will rule over the Gentiles."7
"The whole point of this passage [Ro 11] revolves around Israel’s being restored to a position of preeminence as a believing nation."8
"The biblical teaching [is] that the coming millennial kingdom will have its headquarters in Jerusalem with the Messiah ruling the world from the throne of David and with national Israel restored to its place of supremacy over the nations."9
The ACLU will have their hands full if this proposal sticks. No! I take that back. Since those on the lowest level are the saved, living Gentile nations, this may work just fine for that august union. This effectively puts Christians beneath Jews.
Footnotes:
1. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 85.
2. Ryrie, Basis of the Premillennial Faith, 149.
3. Pentecost, Things to Come, 508.
4. Hoyt, "Dispensational Premillennialism," in Clouse, Meaning of the Millennium, 81.
5. House and Ice, Dominion Theology, 175.
6. Walvoord, Millennial Kingdom, 136, 302–303.
7. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, "Israelology, Doctrine of," Popular Encyclopeida of Bible Prophecy, 201.
8. Lindsey, Road to Holocaust, 176.
9. Hunt, Whatever Happened to Heaven?, 246.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
