- Sep 22, 2004
- 2,198
- 235
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
There are a number of books and articles that criticize dispensationalism. Most are vitrolic, extremely misleading (to put it mildly) and contain outlandish claims. Its not simply the "uneducated" who participate in this. For example, one professor recently wrote a book charging dispensationalists as Gnostics. 
These types of outlandish claims so completely distort the dispensationalist view that it needs a label of its own. The great majority of dispensationalists do not hold to any form of the criticized view they present. This is similar to the great majority of people who believe the world is round, not flat. Hence what these writers are addressing is Flat-Earth Dispensationalism, something nobody actually holds.
Its just not that difficult to refute their claims or show the numerous errors they commit or the holes in their logic. That is, if a dispensationalist gets through the easy-to-see emotive language running through many of their arguments. For whatever reason, their emotions concerning dispensationalism completely override any sense of desire for an accurate representation of dispensationalism. The unfortunate effect of these books is the same as that of propaganda. People believe what these guys write - hook, line and sinker - and never look beyond that. The problem is that these people think we dispensationalists hold to a Flat-Earth Theory, when we actually believe the earth is round. So conversations and dialogues nearly always have to begin with "But that isn't what we believe..."
Many people think those who were "formerly" something - say dispensationalist - and now critique it, are supposed to be the most accurate critics. However I've found that the "former" dispensationalist writers are actually the least accurate and the worst in making very outlandish claims.
John Gerstner, for example, claimed to be a former dispensationalist. He wrote a book called Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism. Gerstner said that dispensationalism is "spurious calvinism and dubious evangelicalism." Gerstner denied that dispensationalism taught the "true gospel" - even though Gerstner admitted that he himself was led to Christ by dispensationalists. Gerstner underscored his claims with numerous factual errors and faulty logic. To find out more, just google for book reviews.
Other former dispensationalists writing badly distorted critiques of dispensationalism include Keith A. Mathison, Curtis Crenshaw, and Grover Gunn. These three did better than Gerstner and actually attended DTS at one point. But that didn't help them portray dispensationalism any more accurately. In fact, here is a book review of Gerstner's book Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism by Curtis Crenshaw. In this review Crenshaw lauds Gerstner and says he said the same thing as Gerstner did in his book.
If anyone actually reads or scans the review by Crenshaw, then I'd be interested in feedback.
LDG
These types of outlandish claims so completely distort the dispensationalist view that it needs a label of its own. The great majority of dispensationalists do not hold to any form of the criticized view they present. This is similar to the great majority of people who believe the world is round, not flat. Hence what these writers are addressing is Flat-Earth Dispensationalism, something nobody actually holds.
Its just not that difficult to refute their claims or show the numerous errors they commit or the holes in their logic. That is, if a dispensationalist gets through the easy-to-see emotive language running through many of their arguments. For whatever reason, their emotions concerning dispensationalism completely override any sense of desire for an accurate representation of dispensationalism. The unfortunate effect of these books is the same as that of propaganda. People believe what these guys write - hook, line and sinker - and never look beyond that. The problem is that these people think we dispensationalists hold to a Flat-Earth Theory, when we actually believe the earth is round. So conversations and dialogues nearly always have to begin with "But that isn't what we believe..."
Many people think those who were "formerly" something - say dispensationalist - and now critique it, are supposed to be the most accurate critics. However I've found that the "former" dispensationalist writers are actually the least accurate and the worst in making very outlandish claims.
John Gerstner, for example, claimed to be a former dispensationalist. He wrote a book called Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism. Gerstner said that dispensationalism is "spurious calvinism and dubious evangelicalism." Gerstner denied that dispensationalism taught the "true gospel" - even though Gerstner admitted that he himself was led to Christ by dispensationalists.
Gerstner underscored his claims with numerous factual errors and faulty logic. To find out more, just google for book reviews.Other former dispensationalists writing badly distorted critiques of dispensationalism include Keith A. Mathison, Curtis Crenshaw, and Grover Gunn. These three did better than Gerstner and actually attended DTS at one point. But that didn't help them portray dispensationalism any more accurately. In fact, here is a book review of Gerstner's book Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism by Curtis Crenshaw. In this review Crenshaw lauds Gerstner and says he said the same thing as Gerstner did in his book.
If anyone actually reads or scans the review by Crenshaw, then I'd be interested in feedback.
LDG
So I think the labels don't make the difference. It's when the concepts reach points of departure, that we have to consider departing -- relying on your own knowledge; wanting the future to be what your theology says it'll be "to show them"; trying to force the theology as if it's salvation.
