Dispensationalists ignore the fact that Hal Lindsey.....

[BlackCalvinist]

Hagee's a nutjob, though. It's unfair to lump ALL dispensationalists in with him, the Lalondes, Hal Lindsey, etc.... folks like MacArthur decry this type of nonsense, and they hold to Dispensational eschatology.

Just leveling the playing field. Too often I hear my wonderful reformed brethren bashing dispensationalism down their nose, but we have our own hypercalvinists to deal with. It would be unfair to lump them in with 'all Calvinists' when discussing predestination (like the folks at Calvary Chapel do). Let's lead by example.

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by OS_X
Hagee's a nutjob, though. It's unfair to lump ALL dispensationalists in with him, the Lalondes, Hal Lindsey, etc.... folks like MacArthur decry this type of nonsense, and they hold to Dispensational eschatology.

Just leveling the playing field. Too often I hear my wonderful reformed brethren bashing dispensationalism down their nose, but we have our own hypercalvinists to deal with. It would be unfair to lump them in with 'all Calvinists' when discussing predestination (like the folks at Calvary Chapel do). Let's lead by example.

But unlike the hyper-calvinist camp, it is the "nutjobs" within the dispensational camp that make the headlines. They are the ones writing the books that are being bought (Left Behind??). They are the ones running the "prophecy conferences." They are the ones on television and radio pushing their extreme dispie views.

They appear to be in control of the message.

MacArthur may have the correct message, but he is in the dispie minority. In fact he gotten slammed pretty hard by his fellow Dispensationalists on a number of issues.

 

[ReformedWretch]

Originally posted by tcalbrecht

Originally posted by OS_X
Hagee's a nutjob, though. It's unfair to lump ALL dispensationalists in with him, the Lalondes, Hal Lindsey, etc.... folks like MacArthur decry this type of nonsense, and they hold to Dispensational eschatology.

Just leveling the playing field. Too often I hear my wonderful reformed brethren bashing dispensationalism down their nose, but we have our own hypercalvinists to deal with. It would be unfair to lump them in with 'all Calvinists' when discussing predestination (like the folks at Calvary Chapel do). Let's lead by example.

But unlike the hyper-calvinist camp, it is the "nutjobs" within the dispensational camp that make the headlines. They are the ones writing the books that are being bought (Left Behind??). They are the ones running the "prophecy conferences." They are the ones on television and radio pushing their extreme dispie views.

They appear to be in control of the message.

MacArthur may have the correct message, but he is in the dispie minority. In fact he gotten slammed pretty hard by his fellow Dispensationalists on a number of issues.

EXACTLY!

Every single dispensationalists I know personally (talking hundreds here, maybe thousands if you include aquaintances) believes what I have discussed here.

Hagee, LaHaye, Jeffery, Lindsey, etc. are the leaders within the dispensational camp as far as I can tell. If they are "nut jobs" then those who are not are not doing a very good job of over coming them.

I was a dispensationalist for over 20 years. I am as well versed in what they believe as most are in reformed theology here. I ate, slept, and drank dispensational theology since I was 12 years old. I owned over 200 books on dispensational eschatology. I tried to argue it's points with Paul Manata here on the board and believed he was insane for about a month, and told him so!

The difference I have encountered is that when I was taken to scripture and shown something, or asked to show something, I listened, studied, and prayed about it. When I do that to my dispensational friends or family I am dismissed. They know what's true and there is no need for discusion.

If I point out a verse such as

So the Lord gave Israel all the land which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they possessed it and lived in it. (Josh. 21:43)

I am told something like;

"Well I don't know but I am sure it doesn't mean that dispensationalism is wrong.

 

[BlackCalvinist]

Then what you have going on is NOT dispensationalism, but a corrupted form.

Again, if the hypercalvinist bunch were out in the front promoting hypercalvinism (which wouldn't happen.... ) and they were the ones putting on theology conferences, selling books, etc.... in reformed circles, would it be fair to charachterize that as 'normative' calvinism ?

Maybe we just roll in different circles. My old pastor sat under Ryrie when he used to teach at Philadephia Bible College some years back. And while some of the lunacy regarding Israel is part and parcel of the Lalondes and the Hagees, they are not historically nor theologically part of dispensationalism.

 

[ReformedWretch]

they are not historically nor theologically part of dispensationalism.

Well, that has not been my experience at all. Kerry, you are a Progressive Dispie right? in my opinion, from what I've read of that, it may as well be Covenant Theology.

 

[blhowes]

Though people may enjoy reading books by the 'greats' of dispensationalism, like Hal Lindsey and others that had unstable/multiple marriages, etc., wouldn't you agree that their influence is not as great as the influence of the local pastors, who in most cases probably are nothing like the 'greats' in many ways. All of the dispensational pastors I've had were godly men who loved the Lord, were married once and faithful to their families, and wonderful examples to follow in many ways. When you see such godly fruit in a local pastor, its probably difficult for many to think that his teachings may be wrong.

 

[ReformedWretch]

GREAT point Bob!

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by OS_X
Again, if the hypercalvinist bunch were out in the front promoting hypercalvinism (which wouldn't happen.... ) and they were the ones putting on theology conferences, selling books, etc.... in reformed circles, would it be fair to charachterize that as 'normative' calvinism ?

Maybe we just roll in different circles. My old pastor sat under Ryrie when he used to teach at Philadephia Bible College some years back. And while some of the lunacy regarding Israel is part and parcel of the Lalondes and the Hagees, they are not historically nor theologically part of dispensationalism.

That's an interesting point. Of course within Calvinism we have confessions and creeds that define the faith. These confessions and creeds have been received by the Reformed churches as a true statement of Calvinism. Thus the Reformed churches have the tools to determine what is true Calvinism and what is not.

Unfortunately dispensationalism does not have the same luxury. These is no "creed of dispensationalism". There is no one in dispensational circles who can say what is authentic and what is not. Dispensationalism, by its very nature, is ad hoc.

Hagee, Lalonde, Lindsey, and Van Impe has just as much of a right to be called a dispensationalist as Ryrie or Chafer. You have no objective standard by which to decide who is a real dispensationalist and who isn't.

 

[LadyFlynt]

NO, but they have the Charasmatic and Fundemental camps. Much of their differences are in practice. Because of that, their view of eschatology, though lumped together under the dispensational name, can be as different as night and day. Having been raised a fundelmentalist, if I were still in those churches, I would be insulted that you would so easily throw those nutjob charasmatics into the same group as my self.

The reason that the fundamentalists aren't on the front page and tv is because they are not, and abhore, such sensationalism. Many of them are truely after God's word and holiness, albeit they may error in certain aspects (don't we all?). They are not after raising money, except for missionaries, or for building 30million dollar "prayer chapels", etc. They don't go out and write a bunch of books either. Needless to say they are very conservative and low-key. So please recognize the difference.

 

[BlackCalvinist]

Thank you for recognizing the difference, Colleen. In the haste to bash the 'evil system of dispensationalism', it's very easy to simply 'lump' the nuts in with the ones who actually articulate their points intelligently and still (after all is said and done), respectfully disagree with Covenant Theology. It is truly unfair and in my opinion, folks like Gentry, Bahnsen, Gerstner, Mathison and others from the postmill camp only make it worse in their polemical but non-charitable works critiquing dispensationalism.

I would disagree with the 'no objective standard' statement. While many won't treat it like the reformed treat creeds and confessions, Ryrie's books (for both contemporary and revised), Larkin (for the 'classic' period) and Blaising and Bock's books (for Progressive Dispensationalism) would serve the same purpose. Most Dispensationalists are working from a different paradigm than the reformed and calvinistic. You CAN, however, sample random traditionally dispensational churches for their doctrinal statements and find that they agree 98-100% of the time on what Ryrie, Chafer and others call the 'fundamentals' of dispensationalism. Something's "The Same" among Dispensational folks so that, somewhere, they're finding some 'objective standard' that's producing all of these same doctrinal statements at churches from California to Maryland.

 

[bigheavyq]

back to the scofield question.
Scofield and His Book by canfield? points out his horrid past.
Not only was he divorced in an age where it wasn't accepted, but he was a con man who had been arrested twice for that offense. Later he proved that he had no knowledge of even the basic greek and hebrew even though he said he did. Before, he started preaching his doctrines, he was involved with a zionist group who later paid him to write and preach his rapturist views in the churches. This is for two reasons, one to get more support for a jewish homeland and to get conservative christians out of politics and culture. It definitely did both of those things.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Is there someplace online that I could read about this?

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by OS_X
Thank you for recognizing the difference, Colleen. In the haste to bash the 'evil system of dispensationalism', it's very easy to simply 'lump' the nuts in with the ones who actually articulate their points intelligently ...

Who within the dispie camp recognizes the differences?

Are Lindsey, Van Impe, Lalonde, and LaHaye all charismatic "nutjobs"?

The fact remains that the "rational" Dispensationalists are slow to criticize the Dispensationalists who actually sell the mass market books and show up on TV.

Isn't it Tim LaHaye -- author of several poorly written but nevertheless best selling fiction books -- also the same Tim LaHaye that founded something called the "Pre Trib Research Center" where allegedly scholary research takes place?

I think you overestimate the impact of Ryrie, Chafer, Larkin, et al on the masses, even ministers. They get their theology from Left Behind not from Ryrie. It's an easier read. If a fundmentalist minster wants to keep his job he has to give them what they want.

What are people buying? I realize it's not scientific, but let's see how some dispie titles are doing on Amazon.com:

LaHaye Are We Living in the End Times? #11,395
LaHaye Charting the End Times: A Visual Guide to Bible Prophecy & Its Fulfillment #12,722
Lindsey The Late Great Planet Earth #17,220
Ryrie's Dispensationalism #130,843
Blaising and Bock Progressive Dispensationalism #225,942
Blaising and Bock Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church #269,325
Chafer's Systematic Theology #292,530
Saucy The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism #308,791

Originally posted by OS_XI would disagree with the 'no objective standard' statement.

There are no "fundamentals" of dispensationalism, at least not any more. Just compare the classics with the progressives. Are there any progressives that take Clarence Larkin's charts seriously?

If you could articulate the details of this 98-100% agreement, I'd like to see it.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Just because you know none, Tom, doesn't mean that they don't exists. I happen to know that pastors of the local IFBs (and most other IFBs) still use Ryrie and little regard for LeHaye. Throwing out accusations like that doesn't make something true or prove your point.

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Just because you know none, Tom, doesn't mean that they don't exists. I happen to know that pastors of the local IFBs (and most other IFBs) still use Ryrie and little regard for LeHaye. Throwing out accusations like that doesn't make something true or prove your point.

Thanks. I don't think I was making any "accusations", and what's an IFB?

 

[LadyFlynt]

Independant Fundamental (hell fire preaching, KJV only, non-drinking, non-smoking, non-cussing, glory-bound, etc) Baptist (can I throw in theology incorrect?)

 

[LadyFlynt]

Originally posted by tcalbrecht

The fact remains that the "rational" Dispensationalists are slow to criticize the Dispensationalists who actually sell the mass market books and show up on TV.

I think you overestimate the impact of Ryrie, Chafer, Larkin, et al on the masses, even ministers. They get their theology from Left Behind not from Ryrie. It's an easier read. If a fundmentalist minster wants to keep his job he has to give them what they want.

There are no "fundamentals" of dispensationalism, at least not any more. Just compare the classics with the progressives. Are there any progressives that take Clarence Larkin's charts seriously?

Your accusations above....

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by OS_X
It is truly unfair and in my opinion, folks like Gentry, Bahnsen, Gerstner, Mathison and others from the postmill camp only make it worse in their polemical but non-charitable works critiquing dispensationalism.

I'm wondering, I believe both the OPC and PCA (via the RPCES) have made pronouncements against dispensationalism, noting it is a serious error, and, I believe, recognizing that officers in those denominations may not be hold to dispensationalism. (There is also a 1944 report from the old PCUS.)

Do you believe the assessment of dispensationalism by those denominations amounts to a non-charitable polemic against it?

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by LadyFlynt

Originally posted by tcalbrecht

The fact remains that the "rational" Dispensationalists are slow to criticize the Dispensationalists who actually sell the mass market books and show up on TV.

I think you overestimate the impact of Ryrie, Chafer, Larkin, et al on the masses, even ministers. They get their theology from Left Behind not from Ryrie. It's an easier read. If a fundmentalist minster wants to keep his job he has to give them what they want.

There are no "fundamentals" of dispensationalism, at least not any more. Just compare the classics with the progressives. Are there any progressives that take Clarence Larkin's charts seriously?

Your accusations above....

OK. Fair enough.

Can you point me to any available critiques of Lindsey, LaHaye, et al by other dispensationalists?

Can you point me to any contrary information on the other issues I raised?

 

[LadyFlynt]

I agree, it is a serious error. That was not the point of what I was saying though. There are those within the Dispensational group that don't even hold to true Dispensational teaching (the charismatics) and take ANYTHING that is thrown around as acceptable. There are others (the fundamentals) that at least try to weigh things out (from a Dispensational view of course). Both are wrong and have issues. But I think the difference needs to be recognized. I myself am having to relearn. If you just start throwing some of what you say at the wrong person, then you are attacking their beliefs based on the wrong premise. You need to correct them based upon how they are coming at it. Granted their conclusions are the same, but the basis may be different.

 

[LadyFlynt]

I only know what was preached from the pulpit when I was growing up. Sorry. Just know that you need to approach the fundamentalists with logic, thinking, and scripture. Saying they get their theology from Left Behind is wrong. They have obviously believed that way for a longer time than the series has been around.

Again, like I said...I only accepted Covenant Theology a year ago...I have a lot to learn yet to be able to speak against what I was raised with.

 

[SmokingFlax]

BigHeavy,

Where did you get this from?

"Scofield and His Book by canfield? points out his horrid past.
Not only was he divorced in an age where it wasn't accepted, but he was a con man who had been arrested twice for that offense. Later he proved that he had no knowledge of even the basic greek and hebrew even though he said he did. Before, he started preaching his doctrines, he was involved with a zionist group who later paid him to write and preach his rapturist views in the churches. This is for two reasons, one to get more support for a jewish homeland and to get conservative christians out of politics and culture. It definitely did both of those things. "

 

[bigheavyq]

it was published by chalcedon. The person who wrote it started off admiring scofield and wanted an accurate biography, the more material he collected the more he saw what he truly was, a fraud.

 

[bigheavyq]

to ladyflynt,
not all charismatics are dispensational.
I know that a growing number of them are embracing covenantal partial preterism.

There has been a calvinstic movement in the last 30 years in the charismatic churches. Of course, I as a charismatic, have problems with what goes on in most of the charismatic churches.

 

[LadyFlynt]

I think the term charismatic is becoming more loosely used as well....I am refering to the ppl making false prophies (I'll raise the dead....here's your arm back), snake charming, clucking like chickens-dh has actually seen this, benny hinn, joycie meyers, God wants you to have loads of money, etc....type of charismatic.

 

[BlackCalvinist]

Originally posted by tcalbrecht

Can you point me to any available critiques of Lindsey, LaHaye, et al by other dispensationalists?

MacArthur chides Lindsey, the Lalondes and dozens of folks in that camp in The Second Coming.

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by OS_X

Originally posted by tcalbrecht

Can you point me to any available critiques of Lindsey, LaHaye, et al by other dispensationalists?

MacArthur chides Lindsey, the Lalondes and dozens of folks in that camp in The Second Coming.

That's one. (And MacArthur gets his share of criticism from the rest of dispie-ism for some of his views, e.g., Lordship stuff.)

Would you agree with me that there does not seem to be enough of a critique of the hard core "nutjob" wing within the dispie camp? For example, I've not seen the Lindsey/LaHaye/Chuck Smith brand of "date-suggesting" taken to task by the academia within dispie-ism.

Is progressive dispie-ism into trying to read the tea leaves of world events to see whan Jesus is coming back ala Lindsey and LaHaye?

 

[BlackCalvinist]

Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Saying they get their theology from Left Behind is wrong. They have obviously believed that way for a longer time than the series has been around.

So true..... thanks again, Colleen.