Dispensational Publishing House Launches - Paul Scharf, Editor in Chief

Paul Scharf (M.Div.) will be the editor in chief for the publishing house. Scharf has extensive experience as a writer and editor, and also as a pastor and Bible teacher.

The Greatest Book on “Dispensational Truth” in the World

I have this book, by the way

If Larkin said it (or drew a really cool chart depicting it), I BELIEVE it!

No, I’m not serious …

an interesting venture.

[TylerR]

If Larkin said it (or drew a really cool chart depicting it), I BELIEVE it!

No, I’m not serious …

The Marvel Comics version of Dispensationalism. Appealed to me in my youth.

http://www.preservedwords.com/charts.htm

http://www.larkinestate.com/Charts/chartlist.htm

This is where he got weird

You’ve heard of the rise of the Young, Restless, & Reformed … . .

Prepare for the next great fad: Young, Restless, & Dispensational.

Is that sort of like the rebel alliance rising up to take down the dark side & Darth Vader? :-)!

Mmartin, “Young, Restless, and Dispensational” would be a GREAT fad!

I wonder if they will consider me in their camp, since I am technically a Progressive Dispensaitonal. Sadly, Progressive Dispensationalists are often accused of being Covenant— which is far from true. I am pretrib, believe in a future Millennial temple, with sacrifices, the future exaltation of the Jewish Nation, and the distinct nature of the church which began at Pentecost. What makes me a PD is that I believe that just as the literal Tabernacle had a spiritual signficance in Christ and the Church — but the literal still happened, so I believe that the promises in the literal millennium will be kept literally, but are pre-shadowed in a spiritual sense in the church.

So many of us PDs clearly consider ourselves in the Dispensational Camp.

Some PDs might be closer to Covenant on some points, just as some traditional dispensationalists are closer to Covenant on some points. Think of the great Presbyterian dispensationalists who still sprinkled infants and considered that baptism.

[Ed Vasicek]

Think of the great Presbyterian dispensationalists who still sprinkled infants and considered that baptism.

Heard this somewhere a while ago:

A Presbyterian and a Baptist were discussing baptism. The Presbyterian asked the Baptist, “So, if the person goes into the water up to their neck, is that alright?”

The Baptist replied, “No.”

The Presbyterian pressed on, “How about up to their forehead, then?”

The Baptist reiterated, “No, no, no!”

“Aha,” cried the Presbyterian, “So you admit that it’s the water on top of the head that really counts!”

I was excited to hear about the venture, and then disappointed to find one of their points was for “every resource at DPH … will hold to these distinctives,” and then finding one of those being “a conviction that the church will be raptured prior to the coming tribulation.”

I consider myself a Dispensationalist, but am not convinced that this timing of the rapture is a correct biblical interpretation, nor by any means a “theological necessity” with respect to dispensational closure.

I would have preferred the publishing house to have allowed more freedom of discussion regarding that point through their offerings. Still, I trust the work will be beneficial in other ways.

Scott, I agree with you. We need to separate the pretrib rapture from dispensationalism. I am a pretrib man myself, but it is nothing to separate over; it is certainly not as abundantly clear as God’s determination to keep His Word to Israel. I think some people leave dispensationalism precisely because it is so often aligned with pretribulationalism.

Thanks to SharperIron for running this information, and thanks to everyone for their kind (and other interesting :-)) thoughts.

As far as progressive dispensationalism goes, that is covered in our Core Principles: http://dispensationalpublishing.com/about-us/

We are not ruling out publishing the work of a PD on a specific topic, or in a debate book, etc. Also, we are not running a secret club that only some can join. So you may see the writings of some who are not “as dispensational” as others :-) But our purpose is to promote traditional dispensationalism.

As far as the pre-trib issue goes, I would argue that someone who is “dispensational” but not pre-trib is really not dispensational at all in terms of his theological system, regardless of how similar he might be in many areas. We are certainly willing to allow freedom of discussion, but this is where we are coming from in terms of our purpose and the basic requirement for major authors.

Ed, I want to meet that guy who left the dispensational movement because he has “had it up to here” with the pre-trib rapture. I guess he wants to go into the tribulation really bad!! :-)

Thanks Paul,

Perhaps you need to clarify how you define “traditional dispensationalism” when you follow-up saying

I would argue that someone who is “dispensational” but not pre-trib is really not dispensational at all in terms of his theological system

Ryrie in Dispensationalism (2007) does not have pretrib rapture as one of the three sin qua non’s (see pages 46-48). He does consider it an outgrowth of one of those, the first, the Distinction between Israel and the Church, and thus “has become a part of normative dispensational eschatology” and “a regular feature of classic dispensational premillennialism” (173), but it is still not a sin qua non. That is precisely the point of my contention. I believe a distinction between the Israel and the Church does not necessarily warrant a pretrib rapture, and I also contend that a more literal reading of Scripture (which is his second sin qua non; though it should have been first in my opinion) leans away from it—but that is where the discussion resides among dispensationalists.

To Ryrie, I would add Stallard’s clarifying point about theological method, that dispensationalists interpret the NT in light of the OT, or as he stated it in “Literal Interpretation, Theological Method, and the Essence of Dispensationalism” Journal of Ministry and Theology 1 (1997):5-35 (here specifically p.34):

The preservation of the literal interpretation of the Old Testament at all points of theologizing in the light of progressive revelation

Essentially, I believe Stallard has hit on a distinctive point of Dispensationalism with respect to refining the point of “literal interpretation.”

At any rate, whether one accepts Stallard’s revised sin qua non or not, the pretrib rapture is, in my mind, open for discussion within the sin qua non categories, and thus while it may be “regular” and currently “normative” as a dispensational understanding, I believe it should not be, as you stated, a defining factor necessary to a dispensational theological system.

I only state the above, again, as a disappointment about the guidelines. You are certainly free to keep the standards as you have set, and again, I believe much good for dispensational theology will still come, despite not allowing “major authors” to have a differing view on the rapture.

Thanks Scott,

I appreciate your thoughtful response.

I am with Ryrie and Stallard — and am not trying to say anything different than they are on the points they are addressing.

Ryrie hits the nail on the head — the pre-trib rapture is a primary outgrowth of the essentials of dispensational thought.

Also, we could say it in this additional way: At this late stage of the game, dispensational theology is a real thing… and the pre-trib rapture is a big part of it — whether one likes that or not. Thus, both philosophically and pragmatically, I believe I can question whether someone who denies the pre-trib rapture is truly a traditional dispensationalist.

Along the same lines — practically speaking — who and where are these non-pre-trib traditional dispensationalists?! As they say, he may not be in a class by himself, but it would not take long to call the roll… :-)

You ask:

who and where are these non-pre-trib traditional dispensationalists?!

John F. Walvoord in “Posttribulationism Today: Part V: Dispensational Posttribulational Interpretation,” Bibliotheca Sacra 133 (1976), categorized Robert Gundry as “first of all, a dispensationalist who distinguishes Israel from the church” (18), even though he attempted to hold a dispensational posttribulational rapture view.

In his The Pre-wrath Rapture of the Church (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990), Marvin Rosenthal acknowledges his “heroes” of the rapture before shifting his view were Walvoord, Ryrie, and Pentecost (25); he was approaching the rapture differently, but still from traditional dispensational understandings.

Gleason Archer is recognized by some as a dispensational premillennialist, yet argued for a mid-tribulation view in chapter 3 of Three Views on the Rapture (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996).

Perhaps not all would agree that these three men are essentially traditional dispensational in their approach to Scripture. Again, it does boil down to what one thinks is essential to being a traditional dispensationalist. But assuming one does not define a traditional dispensationalist as necessarily holding pre-trib rapture (i.e. making it a sin qua non), but rather the actual sin qua non points, then an argument can be made for these three men, and others who hold positions akin in some way to them, as falling within the confines of traditional dispensational views otherwise.

I take it from reading through the website that this will be a fundamentalist take on dispensationalism. In other words, you envision your primary audience to be fundamentalist pastors?