LASTDAYSofDF

[Hitch]

Are we seeing the slow but unrelelting death of DF (Dspensational/Futurism) as a vialbe systematic theology today?


Take care

Hitch

[Trout]

Are we seeing the slow but unrelelting death of DF (Dspensational/Futurism) as a vialbe systematic theology today?


Take care

Hitch

I have to say I think it's gaining in membership.

[mossrose]

Are we seeing the slow but unrelelting death of DF (Dspensational/Futurism) as a vialbe systematic theology today?


Take care

Hitch
No.

[TuckEverlasting]

Are we seeing the slow but unrelelting death of DF (Dspensational/Futurism) as a vialbe systematic theology today?


Take care

Hitch

I don't think so... In my experience nobody outside of internet theology sites even knows that there *is* anything else besides futurism.

[Xavier]

I don't think so... In my experience nobody outside of internet theology sites even knows that there *is* anything else besides futurism.
I can verify this one... I recently had to break the news to my Bible Study group and it got some very strange looks.

[Hitch]

I don't think so... In my experience nobody outside of internet theology sites even knows that there *is* anything else besides futurism. It does seem that way sometimes, but I think it would be safe to say most of the folks involved ,and self described as DF would also be the same ones pointing toward the newspaper headlines and loudly proclaiming 'bible prophecies being fulfilled before our eyes'.

Which as you know is contrary to classical DF teaching.

[Hitch]

No.
Do you know of any DF seminary professor still teaching that the inclusion of the Decalogue, in church creeds, is 'tragic' ?

[dizzle]

I do think that DF is waning not gaining but not necessarily towards a view I would subscribe to but towards "progressive dispensationalism" -

[Ted]

We have to be careful. There are at least two threads of DF thought. In academic circles the problems of classic DF positions are being slowly addressed through what is called "Progressive Dispensationalism." But this hasn't made it to the street.

"Street Dispensationalism" was popularized by Hal Lindsay with The Late Great Planet Earth. His sensationalism and active newspaper exegesis tickled itching ears in the pews. Since then LaHaye has taken the lead. Since little serious study is done by butts in pews, novels are their source of Bible knowledge. Most preachers learn missiology or soteriology, but their hermeneutical skills are seriously lacking, so they follow the herd.

Finally, the Christian broadcast media has been seriously dishonest on this front. Multiple speakers have made false predictions. When the dates pass, the fact that they made the prediction is conveniently forgotten, and they are invited back to spew out another error. Critics are never acknowledged. "If it bleeds, it leads" rules the day. Sensationalism comes from newspapers mixed with Street Dispensationalism, so that's what most Christian media presents.

Unfortunately, serious scriptural material just doesn't get ratings. And it doesn't sell in the bookstores. God's people perish from lack of knowledge. They have lost their first love, and have become lukewarm Lazydoceans.

Ted

[Hitch]

I do think that DF is waning not gaining but not necessarily towards a view I would subscribe to but towards "progressive dispensationalism" - LOL When you remove planks like 'leaven is always evil' , the KOG/KOH seperation, the imminecy of the rapture. (lost ot contemporary prophecy fulfillments), the Genisis 1;1-1;2 GAP and a host of others whats left is the sanitized version. Or as you said Progressive Dispensationalism.

As clear a case for the abandonment of classical DF thinks as any one could hope to find. These things will inevitebly lead to the declaration of God's judicial blessing/judgement ( by Progressives) incontemporary times. The virtual end of the strict Law vs Grace distinction. And the begining of the end of the 'distinguishments ' of the dispensations (sic) themselves.

take care

H

[Hitch]

We have to be careful. There are at least two threads of DF thought. In academic circles the problems of classic DF positions are being slowly addressed through what is called "Progressive Dispensationalism." But this hasn't made it to the street.

"Street Dispensationalism" was popularized by Hal Lindsay with The Late Great Planet Earth. His sensationalism and active newspaper exegesis tickled itching ears in the pews. Since then LaHaye has taken the lead. Since little serious study is done by butts in pews, novels are their source of Bible knowledge. Most preachers learn missiology or soteriology, but their hermeneutical skills are seriously lacking, so they follow the herd.

Finally, the Christian broadcast media has been seriously dishonest on this front. Multiple speakers have made false predictions. When the dates pass, the fact that they made the prediction is conveniently forgotten, and they are invited back to spew out another error. Critics are never acknowledged. "If it bleeds, it leads" rules the day. Sensationalism comes from newspapers mixed with Street Dispensationalism, so that's what most Christian media presents.

Unfortunately, serious scriptural material just doesn't get ratings. And it doesn't sell in the bookstores. God's people perish from lack of knowledge. They have lost their first love, and have become lukewarm Lazydoceans.

TedExactly right Ted.North said the 'head dies first',,, that leaves the GITP (guy in the pew) out here on the forum defending the version he;s heard most of his life, that is no longer being taught at the school his pastor graduated from.



"Street Dispensationalism" was popularized by Hal Lindsay with The Late Great Planet Earth. His sensationalism and active newspaper exegesis tickled itching ears in the pews. Since then LaHaye has taken the lead. Since little serious study is done by butts in pews, novels are their source of Bible knowledge. Most preachers learn missiology or soteriology, but their hermeneutical skills are seriously lacking, so they follow the herd. Right again. And to add to the weakness, the 'Street ' version has been adopted at the highest levels.

[Bill the Cat]

Are we seeing the slow but unrelelting death of DF (Dspensational/Futurism) as a vialbe systematic theology today?


Take care

Hitch

no

[mossrose]

no
Hey! That's exactly what I said, Bill!

:woohoo:

[studyhound]

no Hey! That's exactly what I said, Bill!
And with that kind of agument one wonders why the whole world is not DF

[mossrose]

And with that kind of agument one wonders why the whole world is not DF
A simple question was asked, requiring a simple answer.

[redifrick]

Hi HItch,

I remember some discussions you had with some DF's on another board. You presented it all well. I like your humor in the posting as well. In answer I thought they were slowing down a bit.

The one I remember is when you included that old song..

"My grandfather Tonto and me"

We took on the sloop John Dee

He's not sunk, but he soon will be"

roe dee hoe doh!!!!!!

Take care,

redifrick

[Hitch]

I feel so break up


lemmme go home...

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Are we seeing the slow but unrelelting death of DF (Dspensational/Futurism) as a vialbe systematic theology today?
Yes.

It is beyond me why anybody said "no." The fact ios - Yes. It is an observable, testable fact. I think "No" just means "I don't want it to happen."

It's not quite true that outside of "internet theology sites" most DF folk don' know about the alternatives. But even if it were, it is becoming more and more normal for people to use the internet, which will only help to expose them to people outside of their little bubble.

It is said by saome that "progressive" dispensationalism is a way of addressing dispensationalism's problems. But the reality is, it's a way for people who are steeped in dispensationalism to abandon ship while keeping the name so it looks like the ship is still afloat. Let's face it, traditional dispensationalism has been all but left for dead in serious biblical and theological scholarship. There are some of a previous generation still alive who still carry the torch lit by Darby, Scofield and co (and later by fringe writers like Lahaye), but in a generation or two, it will be virtuially a memory. Some form of futurism will still be very popular though. I guess it's a more "exciting" way to look at eschatology, in addition to whatever case people might make for it from Scripture.

[Hitch]

It's not quite true that outside of "internet theology sites" most DF folk don' know about the alternatives. But even if it were, it is becoming more and more normal for people to use the internet, which will only help to expose them to people outside of their little bubble
Its sad but these are the folks paying the price for decades of official DF 'head in the sand' policy. Academic integrity cannot be ignored and patched over (because the rapture will come before anyone notices anywas) forever. There are only two ways out. Fess up and move on or follow the mormon example and alter history.



It is said by some that "progressive" dispensationalism is a way of addressing dispensationalism's problems. But the reality is, it's a way for people who are steeped in dispensationalism to abandon ship while keeping the name so it looks like the ship is still afloat
I wonder if you have heard this quote, in a day or two I'll give the reference if nobody knows who it was,

By the year 2000, Dallas Theological Seminary will no longer be dispensational. Prophessional priorities are elsewhere than the defense of systematic dispensationalism from external criticism'