Thursday, May 19, 2011


Ed Stetzer writes on How to Offer Criticism.

Criticism hardly ever goes well when you do it in a hurry. To do criticism in grace may cause you to miss the moment in blogtown, but it is better to take the time and do it well.

This is a point well worth considering. Perhaps I will offer some criticism … tomorrow. This this is part three of this series. It is worth reading.

Russell Moore writes on the Pre Tribulational Rapture.

Dispensationalists still hold to a distinction between the church and Israel, but the idea of two peoples and two programs, is almost wholly abandoned by contemporary dispensationalist theologians, evacuating the primary theological reason for a pretribulational rapture.

Interestingly, my systematic prof (Dr. McCune) was saying this fifteen years ago when I was sitting in his class.

Overall, my belief in a pre-trib rapture is not shaken by Moore’s writing. The arguments offered by Moore have been pretty well answered, IMO. They are not persuasive to me. At the end of the day (or the age), if I am wrong, I will gladly change my position. At the end of the day, if Russ Moore is wrong, it will be too late to change his .


Anonymous said...

The whole dispensational scheme seems so contorted to me -- it seems like dispy need to prove their position not just avoid having it shaken. They need to establish it not just avoid having it attacked. But, I'm not expecting my non dispensationalist position shaken any time soon.

I do have some questions for you though:

Why will it be too late for Moore to change his position if he's wrong? I'm sure you aren't saying that an incorrect view on the timing of the "rapture" means one won't be raptured. So, what do you mean? Why won't he be able to change his mind as he's flying up to the clouds?

Also, could you point me to where Moore's arguments have been answered?

And, are you saying that McCune was not a pretriber?



Larry said...

Thanks Keith.

I think the Dispensational position has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. There are still tough questions to be sure, but less questions for the dispenationalist than the covenantalist, IMO. But I know people differ on that, which is fine.

The changing the position thing was a little joke. The point is that if the PreTrib position is incorrect, I can change it during the Tribulation. The posttrib position can't change because the rapture will happen first. So yes, he could change it as he is flying up through the clouds, but by then, it's already happened. But nevertheless, it was just an old joke.

Moore's arguments are old and have been answered in all the dispensational literature. You have probably heard the answers and are just unconvinced because of where you start from, just like me.

And McCune is a pretribber. My point was only my interest in seeing what McCune said years ago now being said by someone else.

He said in class that once you adopt progressive dispensationalism, you give up the ground that the pretrib rapture stands on. There is no longer any reason to hold on to a pretrib position.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Larry,

Actually, I don't think I've heard answers to Moore's arguments before.

In the moderately dispensationalist world in which I grew up (like almost all evangelicals and fundamentalists) things like pretrib rapture, the promises to Israel having nothing to do with the church, etc, were just assumed by most people.

There was no need to present arguments to support the system -- in that world it was taken as a given that all those who believe the Bible think this way. It was only the other positions (which most seemed to be completely ignorant of) that would need arguments to defend them.

Even your brief comment on McCune seems to reveal this mindset -- the concern is holding on to a pretrib rapture as if that's the driving concern.

I didn't start by coming from a covenantalist perspective. I arrived there because when looking at it alongside dispensationalism, it looked more biblical. I know people differ, and that's fine.