Customer Reviews

Rapture Fever: Why Dispensationalism Is Paralyzed

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Gary Kilgore North (born 1942) is head of the Institute for Christian Economics, and a prominent Christian Reconstructionist, who has written widely on many topics (including postmillennial eschatology).

He states in the Foreword to this 1993 book, "This book presents the case against just this aspect of dispensationalism: the deliberate evasion of responsibility through the invention of a false doctrine: the 'secret' Rapture. This evasion of responsibility comes at a very high cost: the public denial of God's earthly blessings on His people."

Here are some quotations from the book:

"Dozens of paperback prophecy books were published in the U.S. from 1981 to 1991. None of the pre-1989 books forecasted the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989; none of the 1990 and 1991 books forecasted the failed Soviet coup of 1991. Were these two events significant prophetically? If the answer is 'yes,' the paperback prophets should have foreseen both events. If the answer is 'no,' why were Communism and Russia said for decades to be relevant prophetically? These 'experts' never foresee accurately. They bury their previous prophecies in unmarked graves." (Pg. 32)
"The intellectual leaders of postmillennialism in the United States are all six-literal-day creationists. Is Dallas Seminary's faculty? No." (Pg. 72)
"Here, admittedly, all dispensationalist pastors become embarrassingly inconsistent. They want big church buildings. Perhaps they can justify this 'worldly orientation' by building it with a mountain of long-term debt, just as Dallas Seminary financed its expansion of the 1970's. They are tempted to view the Rapture as a personal and institutional means of escape from bill-collection agencies." (Pg. 87)
"I regard (Hal) Lindsey as an intellectual fraud who is more interested in collecting new wives than in correcting past injustices. I am aware of no scholar who takes him seriously. Dallas Seminary has never invited him to lecture on prophecy or eschatology." (Pg. 159)

This is a great book, buy it!

Many make claims about North and those in the Covenant camp as using a "non-literal" hermeneutic. This is a great way of saying "I don't really have an argument, so I will use some big words to make you think that I am smarter than you so that you will trust what I say." Dispensationalists say that a literal meaning is the wooden straight forward meaning. But only when is fits their system. Matt. 24:34 is not given the literal meaning by Dispensationalists. Neither is Daniel 9:24-27. Dispensationalists look at symbols in the bible and try to come up with a meaning that fits their existing system of belief. Honest Bible readers look at the symbols in the N.T. then try to find similar language somewhere else in the Bible to compare and then realize that if it meant one thing in one place, it means the same thing in another. Finding a "literal" meaning is the meaning in relation to the kind of "LITER-ATURE" it is written in. When the Bible says 1/3 of the stars fall from heaven and hit the Earth, Dispensationalists say "not really stars, but meteorites, and not really 1/3 of the number of stars the earth would be destroyed." So where is the literal hermeneutic?? It is thrown out if it does not fit. However, if you look to the O.T. (Isa. 13:9-10; Ezek. 32:7-8; Isa. 34:4-5; Amos 5:18; 8:9) the same language is used and it is symbolic of rulers loosing their place of prominence. That is the "literal" interpretation! Don't be fooled by dogmatic statements, ask someone who makes a statement like "Only a grammatical-historical hermeneutic can fully understand the Scriptures" to explain what they mean and to give you some examples. To claim total literalism you would have to say that David not Christ will sit and reign over the millennium. You have got to get the meaning out of scripture and not guess or bring your own meaning to the text "Das ist der beste Lehrer, der seine Meinung nicht in die sondern aus der Schrift bringt." Scripture must interpret scripture, not preconceptions. If you interprit the Bible in a wooden literal way, you get nonsense, if you interpret the Bible totally symbolically, you get soup for the soul. If you take the historical meaning of a text by comparing it to the O.T. then you get the gospel, not Dispensationalism which was NEVER EVER a belief of ANYONE in all of church history until the 18th century!!!

No one does it quite like North does it here. His examination of the sociological implications of dispensational premillennialism is both on-point and damning. If his opponents actually read this stuff, they might not convert, but they'd darn sure lose some sleep. Powerful and entertaining at the same time.

Every once in a while you come across a book that you wonder why anyone would print. Then you realize that you are part of the differing theological perspective being written about. Then it helps you to realize exactly why people are out to "slam" your position.

North's treatment of Dispensationalism is like that. He makes all of the classic criticisms of dispensationalism that Gerstner, Poythress and others have made over the years, and has yet to convince many dispensationalists to change their positions (or lose sleep over).

North makes the general claims that dispensationalism is antinomian, that they believe in more than one way of salvation. Even a quick reading of Ryrie's Dispensationalism would explain otherwise.

The criticism about lack of social action amongst dispensationalists is hardly the knock-out punch he was looking for. If he is looking for social action, he need not move far, and join the progressive dispensational movement. The debate is not even over dispensationalism in particular, but over the timing of the Kingdom to be exact. North makes little argument to explain why we are currently living in the Kingdom of God, and thereby must be involve in social action.

Unfortunately, North cannot adaquately explain away dispensationalism's chief argument, that of the time prior to Genesis 3:15. If covenant theology's main theme is restoring grace to fallen mankind (redemption), what do they do before the fall? Was creation designed to redeem man? Man hadn't even fallen! This is just one of the key arguments against covenant theology.

Another huge problem with covenant theology is their use of a non-literal hermeneutic which does not take into full-account the authorial intent of the Scriptures. Only a grammatical-historical hermeneutic can fully understand the Scriptures. It just so happens that this hermeneutic leads to dispensationalism, not convenant theology. Covenant theology will never depart from placing their own meaning on texts to prove their previous presuppositions.

If you want to read a good critique of dispensationalism, read Poythress' book. But first, to actually understand dispensationalism, read some of their literature. Read Ryrie's book, Shower's book, and others.