Exorcising the poltergeist of classical dispensationalism

I've noticed what seems to be a common denominator in the new inerrancy wars. I'm alluding to prominent members of the Geisler faction. 

Perhaps this is just coincidental, but there are so many suggestive connections that it's worth tracing or tracking.  To some extent (although by no means entirely), the current inerrancy debate seems to be haunted by the angry, noisy ghost of classical dispensationalism. 

For starters, I wonder if the Master's Seminary is to Talbot Seminary what Westminster is to Princeton. After Princeton went liberal, Machen founded Westminster. Westminster existed to continue the legacy that Princeton relinquished. 

Talbot used to be a dispensational seminary. Charles Lee Feinberg was the first dean of Talbot. Not only was Feinberg a dispensationalist, but a classic dispensationalist–in contrast to progressive dispensationalism. 

What's more, Feinberg was a teacher and mentor of John MacArthur. In addition, Robert Thomas (another classical dispensationalist) taught at Talbot, before switching to TMS, right after MacArthur started TMS. 

Although Talbot still has a dispensationalist on the faculty, Saucy is a leader of the progressive dispensationalists. So I wonder if this doesn't reflect a split or rivalry between the two competing institutions. 

Back in 1998, Robert Thomas and David Farnell edited The Jesus Crisis. It's a precursor to Defending Inerrancy, by Norm Geisler and William Roach. Farnell is another TMS prof. And The Jesus Crisis had a forward by MacArthur. 

In addition, from what I've read, Geisler is another critic of progressive dispensationalism. 

Darrell Bock is a target of the Geisler faction. And Bock just so happens to be a leader of the progressive dispensationallists. Dan Wallace is yet another target of the Geisler faction. Both Bock and Wallace teach at Dallas Theological Seminary. So I wonder if this doesn't reflect rivalry between DTS and TMS. Competing visions of dispensationalism. 

On another front, why does the Geisler faction continue to pound Robert Gundry? He's retired. He's in his 80s. His notorious commentary on Matthew was published over 30 years ago. Why keep fanning the embers of that old smoldering controversy?

Liberal Bible scholars are a dime a dozen. Why focus so much continued attention on Gundry? Surely there are comparable targets. What not train their guns on Charles Talbert, a liberal SBC survivor who found refuge at Baylor?

Perhaps it's just because Gundry was Geisler's prize trophy. His head is mounted over the mantelpiece of Geisler's living room. 

However, there may be another explanation. Although Gundry is best known in some circles for his commentary on Matthew, he was also an influential critic of pretribulational dispensationalism. When it was published, The Church and the Tribulation was a bombshell in dispensational circles. And Gundry published a sequel: First the Antichrist: Why Christ Won’t Come Before the Antichrist Does.

The Church and the Tribulation came out nine years before his commentary on Matthew. His critique of pretribulational dispensationalism may explain the obsession of the Geisler faction with Gundry. 

George Eldon Ladd is another target of the Geisler faction. A current target. Yet Ladd died over 30 years ago. So why keep him in the crosshairs? 

Yes, he taught at Fuller, the bête noire of evangelical seminaries. But he wasn't especially liberal. If you're going to target dead Fuller faculty, why not go after David Hubbard or William LaSor? From what I can tell, LaSor was more liberal than Ladd, and in some ways a more formidable scholar. 

For that matter, why go after dead Fuller faculty when living Fuller faculty like Daniel Kirk are such inviting targets? 

Maybe because, in his heyday, Ladd was evangelicalism's most influential critic of dispensationalism. Ladd rehabilitated historical premillennialism. 

By the same token, Craig Blomberg is another long-time target of the Geisler faction. And Blomberg is a fellow premil. But he's the wrong kind of premil. He's a classic premil rather than a dispensationalisr. And the wrong kind of premil is more dangerous than an amil, since the more two positions are alike, the more competitive they are. 

Blomberg contributed to a book (A Case for Historic Premillennialism: An Alternative to "Left Behind" Eschatology) that critiques the pop pretribulational dispensationalism of Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye, and Jerry Jenkins. 

Conversely, LaHaye and Jenkins endorsed MacArthur's Because the Time is Near (on a dustjacket blurb).

Now, I'm not suggesting that all the targets of the Geisler faction are opponents of their brand of dispensationalism. But there seems to be a pattern. They may think consistent inerrancy requires classical dispensational hermeneutics. That's their standard of comparison.

For those of us who defend inerrancy, but don't share their eschatological commitments, it's necessary to exorcise the poltergeist of classical dispensationalism. If we're busy ducking furniture which the angry ghost of classical dispensationalism hurls at us, that distracts us from the real threat.