Are anti-preterists all Dispensationalists?

[Lodic]

Absolutely. We'll hammer out our differences with honesty. First priority is God's word, however.

Amen, Brother. If God's Word is not our standard, and Christ is not our Foundation, we can't even begin.

 

[John of Japan]

I should clarify that statement. I had seen the term before, but never paid any attention to it. I first started digging into the preterist view around 2008. To back up, I'd been having doubts about the dispensationalist / futurist view since the Persian Gulf War (1990-1991). Books by "end times experts" turned out to be disappointing. Already skeptical - due in large part to Tim LaHaye, Harold Camping, etc., I wasn't sure how to interpret Biblical prophecy, but I was sure that I had not been interpreting it correctly.

I'm disappointed that you were influenced negatively by guys like Tim LaHaye and especially Camping. Neither were scholars, and neither (especially Camping) presented the premil view correctly much less dispensationalism. I would have told you to read Alva McClain and J. Dwight Pentecost.

A very balanced view is given in the recent "Four Views" and "Counterpoints" books, always with the opposing views of genuine scholars. The Meaning of the Millennium, ed. by Robert Clouse, is a good example of this method, though it is somewhat out of date.

One day I researching something on the American Vision when I ran across an article by Gary DeMar. The article was about the "end times", and I was intrigued. Skeptical at first, I prayed, studied, and researched this "preterist" view that I'd only seen passing references to before. I bought DeMar's book "Last Days Madness - Obsession of the Modern Church". In this book, DeMar did a thorough study of the Olivet Discourse in a way that I'd never seen before - and it all began to make sense. Later, I bought Sproul's "The Last Days According to Jesus" and Ken Gentry's "Before Jerusalem Fell", where he makes a very strong case to show that Revelation was written in the late 60s, not the mid 90s.

Okay, these are the usual "culprits." Personally, though, I don't think much of Demars in particular. His reconstructionism is totally non-Baptist, and his Ph.D. is from Whitefield, which I consider to be a degree mill. (His M.Div. is genuine.)

I only learned something of Russell later on, and I still haven't read "The Parousia". Honestly, I'm not sure I ever will get around to it. As much as eschatology does interest me, I also love apologetics and other Christian topics. I've got several books by Lee Strobel that I still haven't even started on yet. (When we buy books, we also assume we will have time to read them. I find this to be a myth. )

I'm with you there. Love books, can't read them all. I have to read a lot for my ministry as a Bible college teacher, though, and can even get some free books that way when I tell the college I need them.

So, you can see that I love to read. However, I take the Berean approach, and compare what I read (or hear) to Scripture. No conflicts from the guys that I've mentioned, but I did reject some of the findings of Full Preterists such as Don Preston and Charles Meek.

Glad to know you have avoided the full preterist view. As a fundamentalist, I consider that view to be totally unacceptable. The original Fundamentals series of books was very strong on the literal 2nd coming of Christ.

 

[Calminian]

Tim LaHaye's a good guy. And scholars are overrated, frankly. Never go by that. Scholars can be right on the money or complete heretics. They do lots of good or lots of harm. Some handle the Word great, other terribly. I remember Obama's pastor (Mr. GD America) was a scholar. It's meaningless in and of itself.

And LaHaye, to his credit has energized an entire generation toward end times. I know people who were saved through his novels. I have no problems with this views.

I've really enjoyed Ron Rhodes and Mark Hitchcock as of late. I recommend them, if you insist the the scholarly types. John Ankerberg has a great bible study series called The Last Words of Jesus featuring those two and Ed Hindson. Great study through the book of Revelation.

 

[Lodic]

I'm disappointed that you were influenced negatively by guys like Tim LaHaye and especially Camping. Neither were scholars, and neither (especially Camping) presented the premil view correctly much less dispensationalism. I would have told you to read Alva McClain and J. Dwight Pentecost.

A very balanced view is given in the recent "Four Views" and "Counterpoints" books, always with the opposing views of genuine scholars. The Meaning of the Millennium, ed. by Robert Clouse, is a good example of this method, though it is somewhat out of date.

Truthfully, I wasn't much of a Biblical scholar back then. I guess I was a typical target audience for their material. Someone else recently mentioned the "Four Views" book, so I'm taking that as a "sign". I've just added it to my Amazon "wish list", so I will actually buy it soon. To be honest, I really don't see ever changing back to any kind of "futurist" view, but I'll read it for comparison.

DeMar is actually one of my favorite authors. He strikes me as a really smart guy, and what he says makes sense.

One of my ideas of Heaven is to have all the time in the world to read all the books I've ever wanted.

Glad to know you have avoided the full preterist view. As a fundamentalist, I consider that view to be totally unacceptable. The original Fundamentals series of books was very strong on the literal 2nd coming of Christ.

I've come to realize that lately myself - thanks to another book, of course.

 

[Lodic]

Tim LaHaye's a good guy. And scholars are overrated, frankly. Never go by that. Scholars can be right on the money or complete heretics. They do lots of good or lots of harm. Some handle the Word great, other terribly. I remember Obama's pastor (Mr. GD America) was a scholar. It's meaningless in and of itself.

And LaHaye, to his credit has energized an entire generation toward end times. I know people who were saved through his novels. I have no problems with this views.

I've really enjoyed Ron Rhodes and Mark Hitchcock as of late. I recommend them, if you insist the the scholarly types. John Ankerberg has a great bible study series called The Last Words of Jesus featuring those two and Ed Hindson. Great study through the book of Revelation.

Just remembered that LaHaye passed away a couple of years ago. While I never agreed with his version of eschatology, his "Left Behind" series was extremely popular. As you say, they were influential in leading people to Christ. Gosh, I hadn't thought of Rhodes or Hitchcock in years. I'd almost forgotten about John Ankerberg's show. As Bob Hope would say, "thanks for the memory".

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 8:30 PM Pacific.

 

[John of Japan]

Tim LaHaye's a good guy. And scholars are overrated, frankly. Never go by that. Scholars can be right on the money or complete heretics. They do lots of good or lots of harm. Some handle the Word great, other terribly. I remember Obama's pastor (Mr. GD America) was a scholar. It's meaningless in and of itself.

Well, first of all, I never said Tim LaHaye was not a good guy, nor that he didn't have a good ministry. Bit frankly, I think LaHaye and company went too far with their entertainment approach.

As for your view of scholarship, it has absoluely nothing to do with what I said. I was speaking of dispensationalist scholars, who are by definition conservative Bible believers. Obama's pastor being a liberal scholar has absolutely nothing to do with eschatology or dispensationalism.

For my part, as a Bible college prof, I must deal with scholarship all the time, and I know the bad from the good. But also, I have quite a few friends who are conservative scholars. Dr. James Price is an awesome Bible translation Hebrew scholar and a humble, soul-winning fundamentalist. Dr. David Alan Black, the mentor for my son's Ph.D., wrote the Greek textbook I teach from, but for many years went on mission trips every year, mostly to China and Ethiopia. (Haven't heard lately about his trips. It's been tough since he lost his precious wife.) Dr. Maurice Robinson has done some awesome things in conservative textual criticism. One of my mentors was fundamentalist scholar and evangelist Dr. Monroe Parker, who taught me much about ecclesiology and missiology. I could go on.

For that matter, my son has a top drawer Ph.D., and is a rising scholar with two books published, some things on 1 Peter published in Logos, and a bunch of articles published in peer-reviewed journals. He's an awesome fundamentalist scholar. He's also a dispensationalist, but I teach that class here.

And LaHaye, to his credit has energized an entire generation toward end times. I know people who were saved through his novels. I have no problems with this views.

I never said I had any problems with his views. You jumped to several conclusions here without asking me about anything.

I've really enjoyed Ron Rhodes and Mark Hitchcock as of late. I recommend them, if you insist the the scholarly types. John Ankerberg has a great bible study series called The Last Words of Jesus featuring those two and Ed Hindson. Great study through the book of Revelation.

Great, thank you. I'll check out their work.

 

[John of Japan]

I just checked out Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor. First of all, he's a far left liberal. The United Church of Christ churches are extremely liberal. Secondly, his master's in theology was from incredibly liberal U. of Chicago. It was liberal as far back as the 1920's when my Grandfather studied for an M.A. there. As for him being a scholar, I don't see it. His D.Min. is not a normally a degree for top scholars. (I'm currently studying for mine.) And I don't know of any scholarly works he has published. So how in the world does this guy have anything to do with the thread we are on, or any view I have of conservative dispensational scholars? Brother!

 

[Calminian]

Well, first of all, I never said Tim LaHaye was not a good guy, nor that he didn't have a good ministry. Bit frankly, I think LaHaye and company went too far with their entertainment approach.

I'm totally fine with his approach, in fact I applaud it. God used him in a powerful way.

Scholars run the gamut. Look at scholarship on Genesis and how badly the modern scholars have distorted origins.

Jesus, Evangelical Scholars, and the Age of the Earth
by Dr. Terry Mortenson on August 1, 2007

Look at the nonsense John Walton teaches over a Wheaton. What we have about 12 seminaries nationwide who don't compromise on Genesis?

If you ask me, modern conservative Christian scholarship in America is a bust. Not that there aren't good guys, but most of the nonsense out there today is from the scholars and seminaries. Again, don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of some.

In essence, I don't think this is the group God designated to run the Church. They are running into the ground, just like the European church was run into the ground. I think the common man that studies the Bible for years is the best teacher. If we don't get back to that soon, and stop relying on the highfalutin scholars we're in trouble.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 8:30 PM Pacific.