Why Dispensationalism is not Consistent with Calvinism:
It has been rightly said that Covenant Theology flows from the trinitarian life and work of God. God’s covenant communion with us is modeled on and a reflection of the intra-trinitarian relationships. The shared life, the fellowship of the persons of the Holy Trinity, what theologians call perichoresis or circumincessio, is the archetype of the relationship the gracious covenant God shares with His elect and redeemed people. God’s commitments in the eternal covenant of redemptive find space-time realization in the covenant of grace. [1. J. Ligon Duncan III, PhD, Senior Minister, First Presbyterian Church, Jackson, MS.]
Any theological system that does not flow from the life and nature of God is illegitimate because it is man-centered. For example, notice how that much of what happens within the Dispensational system of theology is predicated on what man does and not who God is.
Jason Robertson is the pastor of Murrieta Valley Church in Murrieta, California which he planted in 2001. He is theologically Christian, Evangelical, Baptist, and Reformed. He is married with three children. He loves riding motorcycles, fine cigars, and college football. He has a Masters of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and teaches Church Planting at California Baptist University.
My pastor is Calvinistic but also dispensational. What’s a good way to introduce him to covenant theology?
I have notice that the first thing that pastors do when they are confronted with CT is to stop studying the writings of CT’ers and begin reading the critiques of CT written by Dispy’s. It is a terrible thing because it is the “poison the well” with false information before someone has time to really understand.
So, Doug, be careful. Find out if your pastor already respects a certain author or preacher who is CT, but they like him for other reasons. For example, he may like Mark Dever because of a variety of reasons but doesn’t realize that Dever is CT. Or maybe he likes Dr. Samuel E. Waldron. If your pastor is Baptist, it would probably be easier if you avoid Presbyterians at first so that you don’t have to deal with the who paedobaptism error of Presbyterianism.
Once you find that author/preacher, then ask your pastor to consider studying that man’s CT. Ask your pastor to not read the Dispensational websites that attack CT and give it a fair chance. If you get that far, let me know and we will go from there.
Let’s take this statement and apply it to John MacArthur:
John MacArthur’s theological system does not flow from the life and nature of God and is illegitimate because it is man-centered. For example, notice how that much of what MacArhtur teaches within his Dispensational system of theology is predicated on what man does and not who God is.
Let’s apply this to S. Lewis Johnson or John S. Feinberg as well – both Calvinistic dispensationalists. It doesn’t tatse too good in the mouth. I think it is okay to disagree and debate, but you poison the waters with statements that can’t be taken seriously. Anyone who knows the ministry of John MacArthur could not accuse his theology of being man-centered. If that were the case, he would never stand in the same podium with men like Sproul, Piper, Mohler, Dever, etc…
Scott, your argument is respected for its intent. But it is an emotional response, thus is isn’t helpful theologically. I dare say that Dr. MacArthur would not want you to determine truth on whether or not he believes it or not. Besides it may be encouraging for you to study the theological changes made by the likes of MacArthur and Johnson and Piper. They have shown through the years a willingness to allow the Bible to transform their thinking and they adjust their theology to the Bible. So, again, your statement above is emotional and even, dare I say, “man-centered”
So I encourage you to set aside the personalities for a moment and consider the theology.
Or for that matter, Ligon Duncan.
Excellent! This is perhaps the best summation of what’s wrong with Dispensationalism.
Jason, is this quote from Duncan part of a longer article? If so, do you have a link or source? Thanks!
I believe this quote can be found in this series of lectures.
Here are some questions: when Christ died on the Cross did he die for anyone in particular? Who? The elect? Who is that: is it Israel or the Church? If these two are not the same then what is your definition of the elect and is it unconditional? If these two are the same and election is unconditional then welcome to Calvinism and realize there is no way that Dispensationalism is consistently Calvinistic.
Furthermore, if God’s grace is irresistible and effectual then what is this talk of Israel being replaced by the Church like Dispensationalism teaches. It seems to me from reading John 6 and the Book of Acts that all True Israelites come into the fold just like all elect Gentile. Maybe this is what Paul meant in the first few chapters of Romans, whether you have the law or not, salvation is still by grace. Welcome to Calvinism; say goodbye to any theological system that teaches that God’s grace has been rejected by His chosen people. Such theology makes man sovereign.
I think my point is quite effective and cannot be argued against. You make so many broad-brushed and unsubstantiated statements about dispensationalism that anyone who knows anything about it doesn’t take you serious Jason. You may fool those who are uninformed but you can’t fool those who know better. That is why the most serious students of dispensationalism in the blogosphere don’t even bother to interact with you anymore.
For example I know of no careful dispensationalist today that believes the Church replaced Israel. This is called straw man argumentation. It would be better if you actually quoted at length what respected dispensational scholars have written (not just CTer’s) and then interact with their statements. You might garner a little more respect if you did. At least we’d know you read a bona fide Bible student instead of Haggee or LaHaye whom nobody respects. For example I’d love to see your interaction with men like Vlach, Bock, Saucy, Hoch, Larsen, Culver, Feinberg (any of the 3), Sauer, etc… or even fellow bloggers like Matt Waymeyer, Dan Philips or Fred Butler (who all have written a lot of excellent material I know you are familiar with).
Well, that didn’t take long. Dispys are very quick tempered. Rather than engage in conversation or even debate, they pull the ol “nobody takes you serious” jab or the ” serious students” are smarter than you line. lol. But nevertheless, there are less and less dispensationalists among the Reformed.
And even though I shouldn’t even respect your emotional meltdown with a response, I will give you a quote from John MacArthur. For you claim the following:
Yet, John MacArthur defines his Dispensationalism as meaning: Dispensationalists note that Israel was the focus of God’s redemptive plan in one dispensation. The church, consisting of redeemed people including Jews and Gentiles, is the focus in another.
And elsewhere he says: If the Bible says that God is going to give a kingdom to Israel, I believe He means Israel and not the church.
So, what we have in MacArthur’s Dispensationalism is the Church replacing Israel and in the future Israel replacing the Church. And the irony is that MacArthur says that it is CT that believes that God is finished with Israel. MacArthur defines CT this way: a “Covenant Theologian” that is, believing that there is one covenant and the Church is the new Israel, and Israel is gone, and there is no future for Israel.
The only problem with MacArthur’s definition of CT is that it is completely twisted. CT’ers do not believe that the Church is the new Israel or that Israel is gone or that there is no future for Israel. THREE false statements in one sentence about CT! No wonder it is impossible to have a decent conversation with you guys.
CT uses a consistent hermeneutic as it biblically proves that the Church is the Israel of God, is eternal, and has a glorious future. CT uses both OT and NT to prove that God’s promises are to His chosen people which includes the elect from all nations. CT uses both OT and NT to prove that the Abrahamic Covenant does not divide the elect of God but unites them. Whereas Dispy sees a distinction between the Church and Israel, CT sees a distinction between Israel of the flesh and Israel of the Spirit (to use the Apostle Paul’s descriptions of the distinction).
So anyways, I could give you more quotes, but really I would ask you to refrain from the sophomoric emotional outbursts as you had in your comments above.
Now I’ll take a quick stab at you questions. Christ died for the elect and the elect only. The elect includes all those God chose prior to Christ’s death and all those subsequent to his death. That includes any OT saint whether part of the covenant people known as Israel or those outside of Israel (e.g. Job). It includes all those who form the wild branches in the olive tree (i.e. Gentiles in the Church) as well as a remnant of Jews (also in the Church) at the present time (Rom. 11). The rest of the Jews have been hardened by God in the present time and rejected. Once the fulness of the Gentiles has come into the Church then God will save Israel who will be re-gathered to her Messiah whom she pierced (Zech. 12:10). Salvation for both Jew and Gentile whether in the Church or part of Israel is due to the promise God gave to Abraham and mediated subsequent to the death of Christ through the New Covenant which He established and inagurated. No elect individual or entity is left out from God’s absolute and irrevocable sovereign choice. The rebrobate have no hope.
Dispensationalism is totally based upon the believe that God’s elect is divided between elect Jews and elect Gentiles. Dispy ignores the fact the both Christ and the Apostle Paul addressed this issue and explained that there is no distinction. (See Gospel of John, Acts, Romans, and Galatians)
Furthermore, Dispy then divides Israel according Jews who lived during the times of the Old Testament and Jews who are in the Church (for proof see Scott C.’s comments above). So if you are following closely the elect is divided into OT Jews, Jews in the Church and Gentiles Church.
Then Dispys take the promises of God and divide them between the three groups.
I contend that all of this is inconsistent with Calvinism that affirms that God has one united elect, unconditionally elected, all of whom are in Christ as members of His body (also called the Church), effectually called, and none of them have been lost or ever will be lost.
Jason,
Thanks for your suggestions. My pastor does like Dever and we have had a phone conference with Matt Schmucker of 9Marks. I believe that my pastor is unaware of Dever’s theology. Didn’t you at one time post a list of several pastors/teachers which categorized them in either disp., covenant, or new covenant theology? If so, any chance on guiding me to that list again?
Scott,
you cracked me up with this statement: “…the most serious students of dispensationalism in the blogosphere don’t even bother to interact with you anymore..” I have to ask why are you bothering to interact with Jason? Are you less than serious about disp. theology?
Doug, your comment above had me LOL.
Concerning the list, I will be posting it afresh and updated on this new blog very soon. So please check back. In fact, I will try to post it this week.
You are truly incorrigble.
Scott says that I am incorrigble. (sic)
That is so ironic because the term means: not reformable.
Is that not funny or what?
It reminds me of when Dr. MacArthur said that if Calvin were still alive he would be Dispensational. (as he said in his SC sermon: Why Every Calvinist Should Be a Premillennialist)
So here we go again, if someone is not Dispensational then they aren’t reformed — and not even “reformable.”
Would it not be easier to say that Jesus is the True Israel, the only son of God and all those found in Him are a part of true Israel which is the Church for all time including the saints of Hebrews 11 and all who trust God in the same way, trusting in God’s promises to redeem and that that redeemer is Jesus who is the Christ? And that after Christ came we now have the privilege of worshiping the Messiah by name. Jesus!
Chris, that was well said.
I found the plug Scott left in a comment above. Not to get into this discussion here, but I have been doing a series on the subject of eschatology that can be read HERE if anyone is interested. Scroll down to early posts interacting with Sam Waldron’s book “MacArthur’s Millennial Madness…” I mean “Manifesto.”
Fred, It’s good to here from you. According to Scott you must not be a very serious student of dispensationalism since you are reading FIDE-O.
Thanks for the link to your series. I read the article as was struck by the fact that you seem to be saying that we should not take the descriptions of Heaven as given Revelation as a big “golden city” as too literal. Hey! Right on. You are speaking CT Hermeneutics now!
Fred, thanks for the heads up about Johnson’s critique of Waldron’s book. It was less than I expected but nevertheless, here is a quote from Johnson that I find theologically impossible:
Fred, do you stand by that? Do you believe that God made a covenant with unbelievers? Do you believe that God’s eternal covenant is with an ethnic group and not the elect?
And I ask all, if what Johnson says is so (which is the Dispy position) then is Dispy consistent with Calvinism?
Thanks for the link to your series. I read the article as was struck by the fact that you seem to be saying that we should not take the descriptions of Heaven as given Revelation as a big “golden city” as too literal. Hey! Right on. You are speaking CT Hermeneutics now!
Ahhh, but I don’t equate the millennium with the age of the church. If what you are saying is true, then welcome to premillennialism.
At any rate, about that Johnson review,
Well, first off, you are presupposing an “eternal covenant” which I take to mean a covenant of grace of some sort. I would reject that as unbiblical. Certainly it is necessary to maintain a system, but unbiblical none the less.
Johnson is correct in that when God made a covenant with Israel, it included all Israel, those who were a remnant and those who were not. In other words, a national body of people, faithful covenant keepers and unfaithful covenant keepers alike. When God judged Israel, He judged them all. The same is when He blessed them.
Hence, when God fulfills his promise of an eschatological kingdom, it is with a national people, Israel. They don’t lose their salvation, as it were, which if I recall, is an Arminian concept. Once God determined to fulfill a promise to them, He does so in the manner He said He would: National and ethical. That’s what Romans 11 states quite clearly.
Fred says:
No, I am referring to the fact that many Dispy’s deride CT’ers for not using a “literal” interpretation of every passage. In your article you talk about the fallacy of viewing Heaven as a “golden city” in the clouds. Yet, Dispy is famous for its “golden city” view of Heaven as opposed to CT’s view of Heaven being a renewed earth (which is derived from a literary hermeneutic that only interprets a passage literally when the literature requires it rather than just interpreting every passage literally.)
Dispensationalism has promoted a “golden city” theology (even producing Triumphalism) to a way greater extent than Augustine ever did.
I encourage you to re-read even some of Vlach’s article, especially the beginning, and think about how much Dispensationalism is based on a belief that earth is bad and heaven is good and our only hope is to be rescued by the rapture. Secondly, compare CT’s undestanding of the Kingdom of Christ on the earth as compared to the 1000 Year Millinnium as defined by Dispy. Then ask yourself, which is more like Greek Philosophy, which is more like Platonism.
And thanks for the rest of your comments above (including that you believe God’s covenant is with an ethnicity), it is textbook Dispy and helps readers who may find Scott C’s comments above to be confusing.
Yet, Dispy is famous for its “golden city” view of Heaven as opposed to CT’s view of Heaven being a renewed earth (which is derived from a literary hermeneutic that only interprets a passage literally when the literature requires it rather than just interpreting every passage literally.)
Can you provide some references you have in mind when you say dispensational theology had in mind “a golden city” in the sky?
If what you are saying here about what CT is advocating, then your position is no different from what Craig Blaising advocated in his article on premillennialism. It is the same position as Robert Duncan Culver and R.K. McGregor-Wright, both ardent premillennialists, as well as classic premillennialists like Nathanael West. So it makes me wonder if your only interaction with dispensationalism is limited to a narrow group of classic dispensationalists with a political bent who wrote before 1945.
Fred says, “So it makes me wonder if your only interaction with dispensationalism is limited to a narrow group of classic dispensationalists with a political bent who wrote before 1945.”
The answer is no, not at all. This is a common question asked by dispys because they are afraid to be associated with the early history of dispy. But do not worry, I am only engaging with recent dispensationalism. (barring the fact that it is constantly morphing
)
I take my words back. A more serious student than myself has decided to interact with you. Thanks Fred.
Jason,
Thought you’d like this link I just received today from Michael Vlach. It is his his list of the 40 best Dispensational articles/ books he finds helpful in understanding dispensationalism:
http://www.theologicalstudies.citymax.com/40sourcesonDispensationalism.html
You continue to say that dispensationalism is incompatible with Calvinism. If you mean the CT brand of Calvinism you are right. But if you are talking about the classic 5 points of Calvinism as defined by the synod of Dort I don’t see it. Many dispy’s are full fledged 5-point Calvinists and find nothing incompatible here. Your earlier question seemed to be addressing Limited Atonement/ Particular Redemption as if dispy’s reject this. The Calivinistic dispy’s I know fully embrace LA/ PR. Furthermore, I agree that to reject LA/ PR is to abandon 5-point Calvinism alotogether. If you are broadening your definition of Calvinism that is fine. You would not be a true Calvinist either, since you are not a paedo-baptist.
I agree with Fred that “Israel” is ethnic Israel. I would further define Israel as a geo-political-ethnic entity. This focuses particualrly upon the territoritorial, national and ethnic distinctions of Israel that was under covenant with God in the OT. The NT use of “Israel” is not defined differently in the NT by dispy’s, thus she is distinct from the Church though containing a remmant of Jews (i.e. ethnic only here, not “Israel” as defined by the OT). Nonetheless, I believe most modern dispy’s would see the Church as a sort of servant that gets to eat at the banquet table of the broader promises made to Israel. Thus the church participates in key promises made to Israel under the Abrahamic and New Covenants. I believe she also will enjoy the benefits of the Davidic Covenant as well, but the Davidic Covenant has more direct application to geo-political-ethnic Israel (Luke 1:31-33; Acts 1:6-7).
BTW, the incorrig[i]ble coment was not meant that you are unwilling to be reformed as a dispy, I know that. Rather you seem to thrive on misprepresentating dispy’s and don’t receive correction very well. This is why it makes me think you don’t read much dispy work. Rather you are always painting dispensationalism in the worst possible light and attributing it to all dispy’s. The fact is, you have rarely written anything that you claim dispensationalism believes that I or most dispy’s I know believe. I just want to encourage you represent dispenastionalism in a way that most of your dispy opponents would agree with. I doubt many fans of Hagee or Lahaye read this blog.
Scott said:
Scott C., if you think that Calvinism teaches paedo-baptism then “Houston we may have a problem.”
Brother, you have a lot of explaining to do. And as far as me giving my credentials for critiquing Dispensationalism, the subject has been discussed at length on the original FIDE-O blog when other Dispy’s like yourself thought that their best defense was to attack me personally or attack my intellect or my academic credentials rather than keep the discussion about the Scriptures.
In short, I not only was a Dispensationalists, I preached it for nearly the first twenty years of my ministry. For a long time, one could hear my exposition of Revelation on sermonaudio.com. My hermeneutical approach was the exact same as Robert Thomas. I was educated theologically at Liberty University and New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. I studied the writings of nearly every major Dispensationalist that Dallas Seminary produced and studied the hermeneutics and theology of the Master’s Seminary profs.
I could write pages on this stuff and give every detail, but it needless. No matter what I say or who I am, many Dispensationalists will continue to fight till their last breath trying to prop up a crumbling theological system. They will ridicule their opponents and deride dead theologians all in attempts to keep new believers from even considering for a moment that anything but Dispensationalism is true.
Hey Jason,
I found the 3 systems comparison chart at one of your old blog pages (http://fide-o.blogspot.com/2007/03/3-systems-of-theology.html) but a section of the chart is not visible on the page. Looking forward to the updated chart.
Thanks.
Done (go here) and I will be moving a lot of those old articles here to the new site.
Oh, how I wish I could hear the Apostle Paul address that in light of his writings in Romans and Galatians. And how I wish I could here Peter address that in light of his vision in Acts 10. And if James could respond afresh today in light of what he said in Acts 15 as he quoted Amos at the Jerusalem Council.
Well, we really don’t need anything new. What they wrote then is still sufficient today.
Just found this thread today, but I have been following your blog for some time. I’m not a dispensationalist, but have recently started interacting with amillennialism. Jason, I was wondering if you could give me your take on Romans 11, especially when it says that all Israel will be saved.
Jeremy, I am grateful that you follow FIDE-O. Blogging here has been a true blessing, allowing me the venue to work through my theological studies in an environment that keeps me challenged and honest.
I was a Dispy for most of my life, including nearly twenty years of ministry. I was never “caught up” in all of the end times frenzy that so many are caught up in, but I preached the same type of sermons everybody else did. For a long time, my sermon series through the Book of Revelation was posted on Sermonaudio — it was identical to Dr. MacArthur’s because I relied heavily on the same sources as he does (e.g. Robert Thomas).
But there came a time in my studies that I left Dispensationalism, studied Amil, and became solid Postmil. It was a difficult journey, but worth everything.
Concering Romans 11, I have written some on it on the original FIDE-O, and have studied it even more since those days. Soon (and very soon) I will post my undated notes on this text.
(You may have already seen the following which I discovered on the web. Bill)
FAMOUS RAPTURE WATCHERS – Addendum
by Dave MacPherson
(The statements in my “Famous Rapture Watchers” web article appeared in my 1983 book “The Great Rapture Hoax” and quoted only past leaders. Here are the other leaders who were quoted in that original printing.)
Oswald J. Smith: “…I am absolutely convinced that there will be no rapture before the Tribulation, but that the Church will undoubtedly be called upon to face the Antichrist…” (Tribulation or Rapture – Which?, p. 2).
Paul B. Smith: “You are perfectly free to quote me as believing rather emphatically in the post-tribulation teaching of the Bible” (letter dated June 9, 1976).
S. I. McMillen: “…Christians will suffer in the Great Tribulation” (Discern These Times, p. 55).
Norman F. Douty: “…all of the evidence of history runs one way – in favor of Post-tribulationism” (Has Christ’s Return Two Stages?, p. 113).
Leonard Ravenhill: “There is a cowardly Christianity which…still comforts its fainting heart with the hope that there will be a rapture – perhaps today – to catch us away from coming tribulation” (Sodom Had No Bible, p. 94).
William Hendriksen: “…the one and only second coming of Christ to judgment” (Israel in Prophecy, p. 29).
Loraine Boettner: “Hence we conclude that nowhere in Scripture does it teach a secret or pre-tribulation Rapture” (The Millennium, p. 168).
J. Sidlow Baxter: “…believers of the last days (there is only one small part of the total Church on earth at any given moment) will be on earth during the so-called ‘Great Tribulation’ ” (Explore the Book, Vol. 6, p. 345).
Merrill C. Tenney: “There is no convincing reason why the seer’s being ‘in the Spirit’ and being called into heaven [Revelation 4:1-2] typifies the rapture of the church…” (Interpreting Revelation, p. 141).
James R. Graham: “…there is not a line of the N.T. that declares a pre-tribulation rapture, so its advocates are compelled to read it into certain indeterminate texts…” (Watchman, What of the Night?, p. 79).
Ralph Earle: “The teaching of a pre-tribulation rapture seems first to have been emphasized widely about 100 years ago by John Darby of the Plymouth Brethren” (Behold, I Come, p. 74).
Clarence B. Bass: “…I most strongly believe dispensationalism to be a departure from the historic faith…” (Backgrounds to Dispensationalism, p. 155).
William C. Thomas: “The return of Jesus Christ, described by parousia, revelation, and epiphany, is one single, glorious, triumphant event for which we all wait with great eagerness!” (The Blessed Hope in the Thessalonian Epistles of Paul, p. 42).
Harold J. Ockenga: “No exegetical justification exists for the arbitrary separation of the ‘coming of Christ’ and the ‘day of the Lord.’ It is one ‘day of the Lord Jesus Christ’ ” (Christian Life, February, 1955).
Duane Edward Spencer: “Paul makes it very clear that the Church will pass through the Great Tribulation” (“Rapture-Tribulation” cassette).
J. C. Maris: “Nowhere the Bible teaches that the Church of Jesus Christ is heading for world dominion. On the contrary – there will be no place for her, save in ‘the wilderness,’ where God will take care of her (Rev. 12:13-17)” (I.C.C.C. leaflet “The Danger of the Ecumenical Movement,” p. 2).
F. F. Bruce: “To meet the Lord [I Thessalonians 4:17]…on the final stage of…[Christ's] journey…to the earth…” (New Bible Commentary: Revised, p. 1159).
G. Christian Weiss: “Some people say that this ['gospel of the kingdom' in Matthew 24:14] is not the gospel of grace but is a special aspect of the gospel to be preached some time in the future. But there is nothing in the context to indicate this” (“Back to the Bible” broadcast, February 9, 1976).
Pat Brooks: “Soon we, in the Body of Christ, will be confronted by millions of people disillusioned by such false teaching [Pre-Tribism]” (Hear, O Israel, p. 186).
Herman Hoeksema: “…the time of Antichrist, when days so terrible are still to arrive for the church…” (Behold, He Cometh!, p. 131).
Ray Summers: “Because they [Philadelphia] have been faithful, he promises his sustaining grace in the tribulation…” (Worthy Is the Lamb, p. 123).
George E. Ladd: “[Pretribulationism] may be guilty of the positive danger of leaving the Church unprepared for tribulation when Antichrist appears…” (The Blessed Hope, p. 164).
Peter Beyerhaus: “The Christian Church on earth [will face] the final, almost superhuman test of being confronted with the apocalyptical temptation by Antichrist” (Christianity Today, April 13, 1973).
Leon Morris: “The early Christians…looked for the Christ to come as Judge” (Apocalyptic, p. 84).
Dale Moody: “There is not a passage in the New Testament to support Scofield. The call to John to ‘come up hither’ has reference to mystical ecstasy, not to a pretribulation rapture” (Spirit of the Living God, p. 203).
John R. W. Stott: “He would not spare them from the suffering [Revelation 3:10]; but He would uphold them in it” (What Christ Thinks of the Church, p. 104).
G. R. Beasley-Murray: “…the woman, i.e., the Church…flees for refuge into the wilderness [Revelation 12:14]…” (The New Bible Commentary, p. 1184).
Bernard L. Ramm: “…as the Church moves to meet her Lord at the parousia world history is also moving to meet its Judge at the same parousia” (Leo Eddleman’s Last Things, p. 41).
J. Barton Payne: “…the twentieth century has indeed witnessed a progressively rising revolt against pre-tribulationism” (The Imminent Appearing of Christ, p. 38).
Robert H. Gundry: “Divine wrath does not blanket the entire seventieth week…but concentrates at the close” (The Church and the Tribulation, p. 63).
C. S. Lovett: “Frankly I favor a post-trib rapture…I no longer teach Christians that they will NOT have to go through the tribulation” (PC, January, 1974).
Walter R. Martin: “Walter Martin finally said…’Yes, I’m a post-trib’ ” (Lovett’s PC, December, 1976).
Jay Adams: “Today’s trend is…from pre- to posttribulationism” (The Time Is at Hand, p. 2).
Jim McKeever: “Nowhere do the Scriptures say that the Rapture will precede the Tribulation” (Christians Will Go Through the Tribulation, p. 55).
Arthur Katz: “I think it fair to tell you that I do not subscribe to the happy and convenient theology which says that God’s people are going to be raptured and lifted up when a time of tribulation and trial comes” (Reality, p. 8).
Billy Graham: “Perhaps the Holy Spirit is getting His Church ready for a trial and tribulation such as the world has never known” (Sam Shoemaker’s Under New Management, p. 72).
W. J. Grier: “The Scofield Bible makes a rather desperate effort…it tries to get in the ‘rapture’ of the saints before the appearing of Antichrist” (The Momentous Event, p. 58).
Pat Robertson: “Jesus Christ is going to come back to earth again to deliver Israel and at the same time to rapture His Church; it’s going to be one moment, but it’s going to be a glorious time” (“700 Club” telecast, May 14, 1975).
Ben Kinchlow: “Any wrath [during the Tribulation] that comes upon us – any difficulty – will not be induced by God, but it’ll be like the people are saying, ‘The cause of our problems are those Christians in our midst; we need to get rid of them’ ” (“700 Club” telecast, August 28, 1979).
Daniel P. Fuller: “It is thus concluded that Dispensationalism fails to pass the test of an adequate system of Biblical Interpretation” (The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism, p. 369).
Corrie ten Boom: “The Bible prophesies that the time will come when we cannot buy or sell, unless we bear the sign of the Antichrist…” (Tramp for the Lord, p. 187).
[In light of II Tim. 3:14 which says that we can't know too much about Bible teachers (Dave MacVersion), I invite you to read my article "Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty" which can be found on the "Powered by Christ Ministries" site. If you are into other issues, look up "David Letterman's Hate, Etc." on search engines!]
Jason,I am busy preparing a four part teaching on the Rapture,Anti-Christ,Tribulation,How then shall we live,to borrow a phrase from FA Schaeffer.What I am looking for is an analysis of the Dispensational doctrine of “Rightly Dividing the Word”.Also if you know where I can source the following “When is Jesus Coming Again” J Barton Payne,”The Church and the Tribulation” Robert H Grundy,”The Approaching Advent Of Christ” Alexander Reese,”Has Christ’s Return Two Stages” F Doutys
My belief is that the pre-trib rapture is a fantasy and that the historic view of the Church is that we will go through the tribulation.More than that, I believe that is what Scripture teaches us.My need at the moment is for an analysis of the dispensational teaching of “rightly dividing the word”.Where they decide that certain of the Gospels are for Isreal and not the church,and so carve up scripture to suit their assumptions.