Replying to a Reply re: Dispensationalism

My friend Dave Lester, whose blog had compelled me to write this, responded on his own blog to my rambling discussion. Not only does he write fairly, but he is able to deftly handle the pertinent issues. Below is my response to his response originally left as a comment on Facebook.

-------------------------------------------------------

Dave - excellent post, a much better response than my post warranted.
Let me just say this up front, my Progressive Dispensational views only have like 10% relevance to my end times views...PD is much much larger than defining what will happen in the End of Days. And I'm not sure being PD requires one to be pre-trib, just pre-mill (I think).

We virtually agree on everything regarding Revelation/prophecy - thanks Dr. Sandy! I'd probably be a preterist and a futurist. It related to their day and a day still to come. And the whole point is we must be faithful and trust God's sovereignty.

I do feel like one of the big misconceptions of end times theology is this default to "no one knows the day or hour". I agree that is true - Jesus said it after all - and Paul does say in 1 Thess. 5:3 that it will come like 'a Thief in the Night' (bad movie reference #2). But we also read in THE VERY NEXT VERSE, 1 Thess. 5:4, that this return of Christ WILL NOT SURPRISE those who are faithful and 'not in darkness'. In other words, those who are faithful during those days will see it coming. Not in a specific way where we can set our watches by it, but there will be clear signs that the end is near. I believe this is also the point of 2 Thess. 1 and 2. Thus all of those who lazily say "I don't hold a view, it will all pan out in the end" risk falling short of Scriptures exhortation to be sober-minded and anticipate Christ's return.

A couple minor quibbles with your post:
- I'd quibble just a bit that the 7 yr trib is not in the Bible at all - not in Revelation yes. But this is where we dispensationalists start referencing Daniel and the 70th 'week'. But that's really not important to your point.
- In the end, you just connect some dots differently than I do - saying that if there is a 7 yr trib, than that contradicts Jesus' words that 'no one will know the day or hour'. Other than my above point, I'd add we pre-trib folks mostly believe that relates to the rapture (Jesus referring to the general Day of the Lord arriving, further revelation specifies it as the rapture). So Jesus' statement still stands (again qualified by my above point) that no one will know the day or the hour as it pertains to the rapture.

I guess this could have been a separate blog post after all. Didn't think I needed to, but I may just copy and paste this to make it an official reply to your reply.
- Lee

In Defense of Dispensationalism

Earlier this week I read a couple of blog commentaries regarding the theology behind the current box-office flop Left Behind. [Ed. note - the author of first blog was a college and seminary classmate of mine who I consider a friend, though one I don't interact with much because we live in opposite parts of the country]

Both criticized the movie and the dispensational view the movie and it's source material best-selling books were based on.

Though I'm not planning on watching the movie, I have read several of the original books and did watch the original film starring Kirk Cameron - so I'm quite familiar with what we're dealing with. And if we're forming a line to make fun of the movie and book series, I will happily be first in line to offer my criticisms. But that does not mean I'm swearing off dispensationalism as well.

Let me explain my position with a (hopefully) brief response to those critiques and defend a progressive version of dispensationalism. 

• While the discussions of the origin of a pre-tribulation rapture are accurate andvalid, both commentators failed to identify the reasons behind Darby's conclusions and why dispensationalism took hold. This view developed because of the shift towards a more-literal biblical hermeneutic. To make a very-long-and-complicated-story short, by the 1700's, the Lutheran and Catholic faiths were the predominant religions of Europe. These 'faiths' were as much political parties concerned with holding and consolidating power as religions. To a lesser extent this was true of the Reformed churches as well. Once the printing press took hold and the common people had easy access to education and Scripture, the predominant allegorical approaches to interpreting and teaching the Bible were countered by Anabaptists who sought to teach and apply the Bible using a more literal and historical hermeneutic. Admittedly, this eventually worked itself out to the point where LaHaye and Jenkins authored a story that featured locusts with armor and scorpion tails (Rev.9). Yes classical dispensationalism has its flaws. One of the major flaws being the tendency to ignore genre and prophetic/apocalyptic language - using what one scholar called a 'flat-earth hermeneutic'. But that error is not any worse than the allegorical interpretation that will cheapen a book like the Song of Songs to make it a picture of Christ and the Church. [Anyone who's read and studied that book realizes it is too graphic to be an analogy or spiritual metaphor] Instead, I appreciate what Progressive Dispensationalism has done to find middle ground. It recognizes the major interpretive factors that come into play with different genres as it applies its literal/historical/grammatical interpretation. I don't believe there will be actual armor-plated locusts with scorpions tails, but I do believe the tribulation judgments will be horrible.
• Dispensationalism also defined the historical periods of time that many other perspectives still adopt. While the founding fathers of this movement seemed to go overboard with how they treated each age and in how they separated Israel and the Church, they deserve credit for the framework that has been plagiarized by everyone from Brian McLaren to Answers in Genesis. Progressive Dispensational scholars like Darrell Bock have provided sound support for tracing the Christo-centric nature of God's sovereign control of history. And as these studies have continued over the past century, the progressive camp has been able to reconcile the previously disregarded NT passages that equated Israel and the Church (though it probably doesn't totally satisfy our Reformed brothers). 
• Though you wouldn't know it from those blogs, there is significant Scriptural support for a pre-trib, pre-millennial return of Christ. Those posts had concerns about length, no doubt, but as I review ALL the pieces of the puzzle Scripture gives us - Daniel, Jesus' statements in the Gospels, Paul's letters, Revelation - I've come to the conclusion that the pre-trib, pre-mill view fits the best with all of the relevant passages. The Gospel Coalition blog seemed to emphasize the Gospels (Matthew) the most. My friend Dave remarked that it was his study of Revelation that led him to change his mind. There must be fair attention given to all of the pieces, though that is tough work. That said, I'm going to be preaching through Revelation using newer sources that take an unusual approach - so I could end up with different conclusions in 6 months. Stay tuned.

Two other minor points:

• The Gospel Coalition blog kept using the term 'secret rapture'. I've never heard that term before in my life. No one I've ever heard of or read - not even the most literal of classical dispensationalists - has ever taken the stance that the rapture will be secret. I have no idea why that term was used, other than to paint the view with additional absurdity.
• To all those who default to "Pan-millenialism", as in, "Jesus is coming back at some point and it will all 'pan-out' " - I say - stop being so lazy! It is intellectual cowardice to pass on doing in-depth Bible study on a subject that comes up so often in Scripture. What do you do when you start reading/studying 1 Thessalonians 4? Do you just skip whole books of the Bible in your teaching? To refuse to take a position is 'weak-sauce' to use a non-theological term.  Yes, it is confusing. Yes, it is complicated. Yes, many godly people take different positions. But you don't have to find perfect clarity. And it is worth knowing why you favor one position over another. Be informed, not ignorant. And of course - apply the clear Scriptural end-times mandate to be faithful to God and worship Christ as He deserves.

Let me end by sharing how thankful I am to serve in a non-dispensational denomination which is gracious enough to allow differing points of view to be held on these non-essential issues. Healthy discussion and debate are good things and I hope this post has been respectful and clear that we don't have to throw the baby (dispensationalism) out with the bath-water (the Left Behind movie).