Pre-Trib Rapture; Scriptural or Dispensational Fiction

Well, I'm done with this one - no way to peaceably discuss the issue, it seems...

The author of the article I posted, in case anyone cares, was Dr. W. A. Criswell.

 

Criswell was seduced by those folks at the Dallas Theological Seminary.

 

OR wrote -

Pardon me, but that's just STUPID!

Dr. Criswell believed and taught that BEFORE he went to First Baptist, Dallas in 1944! Prior to that, he'd never even BEEN to Dallas!

As a matter of fact, early in his pastorate in Dallas, he had the church change their Statement of Faith to the premillenial, pre-tribulation rapture position. Some said, "Our former pastor of 47 years, Dr. George W. Truett, couldn't have signed this had we made this change when he was alive."

Dr. Criswell's response was "He can now."

This is why I'm done with this subject - people like you don't WANT to discuss it, you want to throw rocks. Your willful ignorance is showing...

 

Welcome to the Baptist Board.

Uh- you might accidentally find more than one subject actually discussed on the BB. :thumbsup: ;)

Ed

 

Uh, Criswell was the seducer at Dallas Theological Seminary.

 

But I usually avoid the strictly Calvin & Hobbes :) discussions.

 

The reason I stated that Criswell was seduced by the people at the Dallas Theological Seminary was the statement of a young pastor at our church some 30-35 years ago, a graduate of Southwestern Seminary. He stated that he hoped Criswell would not be influenced by the people at Dallas Seminary. If you have evidence that Criswell was seduced prior to coming to Dallas then produce it rather than respond in 60 point type [or whatever]. In any event you are telling me that Criswell caused the Church at Dallas to depart from the faith once for all delivered to the Saints.

I don't believe that Criswell was old enough to be seduced by Darby. Perhaps he was seduced, as so many have, by the Scofield Bible. In any event if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

By the way, you might be interested in my post #13 on the thread: #2 Second Coming of Messiah Yeshua. Perhaps you can double the size of the font on this one!:laugh: :smilewinkgrin:

 

OR wrote -

I just did. The source for it, among others, is McBeth's history of The First Baptist Church in Dallas.

Then you said -

He wasn't influenced by either - if you had actually read and attempted to understand his dissertation (even if you disagree), which I posted earlier, you would know that his position came from a diligent study of the Bible, NOT the teachings of men. You would also know that his Greek teacher was the renowned Dr. A. T. Roberston, who would have corrected him if he were wrong.

Suffice to say that Dr. Criswell got his eschatology from the Word of God, as should we all. Just because "we've always heard it that way" doesn't mean it's true - it has to be what the Bible actually SAYS, which, I believe is exactly what Dr. Criswell elucidated in the posts above where I quoted him.

Your reference to getting out of the kitchen goes both ways - if you don't like my use of the graphic interface supplied here, well....

 

Darn it! I almost guessed him but talked myself out of it. I even tried to read it in his distinctive voice.

Well after 4 days I guess my questions and comments regarding his article will go unanswered.

 

Surely you are not arguing that Dr. A. T. Robertson was a dispensationalist. If he were he could not have honestly taught at the Southern Seminary where they are required to sign the Abstract of Principles, definitely not dispensational error, which was developed by Jame P. Boyce one of Southern Seminary founders.:wavey:

You are incorrect. Scripture is the inerrant Word of God. It is as impossible to get dispensationalism from the Bible as it is to justify that Peter was the first pope!:laugh:

Next time use 100 point font for your entire post. Anyhow, it will be a cold day when an Okie from Musko.. er Sapulpa can run me out of the kitchen. By the way the use of caps is supposedly "hollering" you were screaming. I think you even woke up grasshopper.

 

Dipinsationalism is fun. You can come up with all kinds of strange stuff. I think its fiction.

 

Must be, fiction that is. How many books [Left Behind] did LeHaye and Jenkins? write? Eight or so. I am sure they are having fun spending all the money they made from writing that strange stuff. So that makes you correct on all counts!:thumbs:

 

Not to change the subject OldRegular but what do you think of the theology of Donald G. Barnhouse? Are any of his books safe to read?

Thanks,
Tom

 

Frankly I have not read anything by Barnhouse. I believe that he was dispensational which is contrary to Presbyterian polity even though he was pastor of the Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia. His successor there was James M. Boice [now deceased I believe] who was reformed or covenant theologian, also a prolific writer.

I think Barnhouse wrote a commentary on Romans that was well received but beyond that I cannot say. My thoughts on reading anything dealing with Scripture or the Christian Faith are as follows:

1. I believe that Christians should read books that deal with Scripture, commentaries or otherwise. I don't go much for books by the pop authors like Rick Warren.

2. No one should believe that he alone is a conduit for the Holy Spirit to interpret all Scripture. I have come across Scripture that I could not understand, read one or more view points and perhaps find one that I can accept until something better comes along. That something may be either through increased Bible study or perhaps the Holy Spirit takes pity on me. I always told my Sunday School class that God does not promise to open our skulls and pour knowledge in; we must study to show ourself approved.

3. I think all books dealing with Scripture should be read with a questioning mind. Again a point I always made to my Sunday School class. The writer is just as entitled to be wrong as we are. I will give you an example. About 30 years ago I bought a book Holy Scripture by Dutch theologian Berkouwer. I read a few pages and did not feel right about what I was reading though I could not put my finger on it. I read the section several times with the same result. Finally I laid the book aside. Sometime later I found out that Berkouwer did not believe in the inerrant Scripture. That was the problem but I could not recognize it. The book is gathering dust.

4. One of my favorite authors is John MacArthur even though he is dispensationalist. I do not own any of his commentaries but his books on the state of the Church today are outstanding. Also he writes so I can understand. Some authors are, I believe, deliberately difficult.

I apologize for rambling on and wish I could have told you more about Barnhouse.

 

I keep saying I'm done with this subject, but -

OR wrote:

No, I am not saying that at all - what I am saying is that Robertson never, as far as anyone knows, called his former student, W. A. Criswell, on his position on this subject. This indicates to me that Robertson at least believed Criswell's position was plausible. I also believe he would have corrected Criswell had he not felt that way.

You also wrote:

Not so - had you really READ Dr. Criswell's dissertation on the subject, you would see that it IS possible, even if you don't choose to agree with it.

Then you said -

I used the graphic options to make a point, not to shout (although, I admit, had you said that to me in person, my retort would have been rather loud). Thwne texting, be it here, in an email, or in a telephone (haven't figured out yet why people think sending a TEXT message over a PHONE is better than TALKING), it is difficult, at times, to get the idea you're tying to make across: things like tambre, voice inflections, etc., are hard to convey using mere text. Hence, the use of the graphics.

Sorry if I woke anyone up.

In summary, I wonder why those who have divergent views on non-salvific issues must be so terse at times with one another. I also wonder why it seems impossible for some to at least read and attempt to understand a different position on a topic, rather than react to it, something we're all prone to at times, I'm afraid.

 

Ro 11:25 that blindness in part is happened to Israel,

until


the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.


Shore nuff looks like "somethings" is coming to an "End", before the next "phase" starts,

What method would you used to differentiate between the period of time Israel wasn't blinded and the period of time they'll recover from blindness??

The "Dispensation" of the "fulness of the Gentiles"????

 

I actually read the article pointed out problems I had with it and asked questions. What did I get as a response? Nothing.

 

I wasn't talking about you.

I'm working on collecting the answers for you, as I said I would...

 

Please, OldRegular, don't judge all disp. by LaHaye. I never read a single one of his books. I didn't see "The Passion" either, for the same reason. I don't want man's images of what happened or might happen in my head.

 

Marcia those books are written to BE fictional regarding the 'details' and personal stories of what happens during the Tribulation beyond the scriptural outline already given to us. They use scripture as the outline to their story. Lahey work in this is not the fictional aspect but keeping the fiction from going outside of the scriptures outline for the Tribulation.