Dispensationalism and Calvinism

[theend0218]

In following several threads on Calvinism I began to notice certain lines of thought that sounded familiar. It took me a while, but I have begun to suspect that a few of those posting there either attended or have been influenced by Dallas Theological Seminary - dispensationalists and "corrected" Calvinists. Do any of you know whether this is so or not? Any thoughts on the influence of this Seminary? I was introduced to Calvinism years ago by one of my ministers who was into L S Chaffer's Systematic Theology. His Calvinism got me into reading in the Puritan Reformed Tradition, but I could not accept the dispensationalists stuff. What do you all think?

[reformedfan]

dispensationalist Calvinists are rare indeed 'round my neck o' the woods, thankfully.

[Imblessed]

I was a dispensationalist before coming into Calvinism, but I've rejected in the light of my new beliefs.

I know we have a couple of dispensationalists in here, but they seem to be pretty rational dispy's---as apposed to a few I've met on the boards--extreme dispy's......

[ksen]

I'm a Calvinist and a dispensationalist.

DrSteve is another, he also graduated from Dallas.

[Antman_05]

I'm not a full dispensationalist, but i hold to some of it, i'm more a covernment fan myself.

[theend0218]

Ksen, did you attend DTS as well?

[ksen]

Ksen, did you attend DTS as well?

No, I graduated from Pensacola Theological Seminary, affiliated with Pensacola Christian College.

[theend0218]

Ksen, thanks. I am not as familiar with the Pensacola TS as I am with a few others. How did you like their program there? The location is hard to beat! I have been across the bay there a few times - is it Gulf Breeze? I cannot recall just now. I remember being there one night with a full moon and the beaches were white. A beautiful place. Do you still live in that area?

[ksen]

Ksen, thanks. I am not as familiar with the Pensacola TS as I am with a few others. How did you like their program there? The location is hard to beat! I have been across the bay there a few times - is it Gulf Breeze? I cannot recall just now. I remember being there one night with a full moon and the beaches were white. A beautiful place. Do you still live in that area?

PTS is still relatively new, maybe 7 or 8 years old. I really enjoyed their program even though they are very unCalvinist. Although during my last year there they had just brought on a Calvinist professor who graduated from Dallas. So I think in time their stance may soften a bit.

It is very nice in Pensacola. I never lived there, except for the week I was there during class. I live on the space coast of Florida, which is also very nice......except during recent hurricane seasons.

[theend0218]

Ksen, thanks. My brief experience with Fla was that it was all good. See you around the boards.

[cygnusx1]

I'm not a full dispensationalist, but i hold to some of it, i'm more a covernment fan myself.

:thumbsup: same here ....... there has been a 'change in The Law' but all Old Testament Saints are part of the Church the body of Christ. There just isn't TWO "brides".

[Jon_]

Our new pastor graduated from DTS. I was talking to him about me potentially going to seminary and was asking him about DTS. I told him that I had heard it was only a "four-point" school, to which he replied, "Yeah, well, it's a Dispensational school," in an almost apologetic manner. I wasn't sure if he knew I would thusly be uninterested in his alma mater or if he was distancing himself from that particular hermeneutic.

In any case, I remain ambivalent about Dispensationalism because I really do not know much about it. I am a diehard Covenantist and a five-point Calvinist. If these doctrinal issues are incompatible with Dispensationalism, then I suppose I know where I stand.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[Elderone]

In any case, I remain ambivalent about Dispensationalism because I really do not know much about it.
Soli Deo Gloria
Jon

Do a Google on "Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth"

[Lockheed]

Do a Google on "Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth"

Also a good rebuttal to Dispy stuff: http://www.opc.org/cce/QandA/11.html (scroll down)

[Jon_]

Also a good rebuttal to Dispy stuff: http://www.opc.org/cce/QandA/11.html (scroll down)
"The core of dispensationalism, however, continues to be that the OT people of God are distinct from the NT church."
(Taken from the link above.)

I deny that there is a distinction between the OT and NT saints. They are one in the same.

I guess that means I'm not a Dispensationalist (no surprise there).

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[drstevej]

Hi,

Dallas Seminary when I arttended 72-76 had several Calvinists on the faculty, most notably Dr. S. Lewis Johnson. At the time Sr. S Lewis was also a teaching elder at Believers Chapel which is a bretheren influenced church that afirms the Canons of Dort and dispensationalism. That church has had quite an influence over the years on students.

S. Lewis Johnson once told us, "Men, read a little Augustine, read a little Luther, read a little Calvin.... Read a LOT of Calvin!"

I am an Amyraldian and a Classic dispensationalist. I was so both before and after doing a doctorate at Westminster Seminary in Philly. Inrterestingly, Dr. S. Lewis Johnson gave the commencement address at my graduation at Westminster.

[Jon_]

Do a Google on "Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth"
My copy just arrived yesterday.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[5solas]

I would like to recommend this highly interesting book:

Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God?
by Keith A. Mathison

have a look here (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0875523595/qid=1104502127/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-7145121-6819865?v=glance&s=books)

A comment from one reviewer:
Just like that book R.C. Sproul did on The Last Days According to Jesus, one of his associates, Mr. Keith Maithson, wrote another awesome and educational resource, to help the church better understand this unbiblical doctrine and its beliefs.


This book breaks down the Dispensationalist doctrine and exposes each part of it as unbiblical heresy. This book was another eye opener for me, as I read from its pages.

The church needs to get back to the Bible and stop trying to let some Tim LaHaye, Hal Lindsey and Jack Van Impe type trick them into thinking that we will not be here during the tribulation.

After all, this writer, myself. Mr. Sproul and from countless research, the historal church didn't and still doesn't support that unbiblical view.

Anyone that would promte the unbiblical doctrine of Dispensationalism, needs to read from their Bible again and get this wonderful and educational resource. I would highly recommend it, for those wanting to learn more about this doctrine and how so many are being tricked and deceived by its false teachings.

[5solas]

I'm a Calvinist and a dispensationalist.

sounds like: I am a square circle ^_^
:scratch:

[Zorobabel]

I spent some time in a Dispensationalist Bible institution. I arrived there fully as a Dispensationalist, but as the time passed I slowly began to distance myself from that theology. I didn't mind my time there, but it just wasn't a pleasant experience. I was later called "disrespectful" for the questions I had regarding what I perceived as being inconsistencies in certain doctrines I learned. Another student finally informed me that what I spoke about with him was called Calvinism. I studied it, and sure enough, he was right.

They generally claimed to be “four-point Calvinists” there, but to me that just doesn’t make any sense. And while you might think that there is a lot of commonality between four-pointers and five pointers, that’s not the case. With that as there basis, they delineated so much that it was really impossible put the title of Calvinism on anything they taught.

That’s just my experience, though. I regret to say that from my experience I do hold a certain amount of bias in my heart in regard to all Dispensationalists. I personally cannot reconcile the Word of God and the doctrines taught by Dispensationalism.

[Jon_]

I spent some time in a Dispensationalist Bible institution. I arrived there fully as a Dispensationalist, but as the time passed I slowly began to distance myself from that theology. I didn't mind my time there, but it just wasn't a pleasant experience. I was later called "disrespectful" for the questions I had regarding what I perceived as being inconsistencies in certain doctrines I learned. Another student finally informed me that what I spoke about with him was called Calvinism. I studied it, and sure enough, he was right.

They generally claimed to be “four-point Calvinists” there, but to me that just doesn’t make any sense. And while you might think that there is a lot of commonality between four-pointers and five pointers, that’s not the case. With that as there basis, they delineated so much that it was really impossible put the title of Calvinism on anything they taught.

That’s just my experience, though. I regret to say that from my experience I do hold a certain amount of bias in my heart in regard to all Dispensationalists. I personally cannot reconcile the Word of God and the doctrines taught by Dispensationalism.
Dispensational soteriology is most definitely Arminian and has nothing in common with Calvinism other than the fact that Dispensationals have decided to take the moniker for their system.

I am glad that you saw through the deceptions, brother. Praise God for bestowing his gracious wisdom upon you.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[oftenbuzzard]

I spent some time in a Dispensationalist Bible institution. I arrived there fully as a Dispensationalist, but as the time passed I slowly began to distance myself from that theology. I didn't mind my time there, but it just wasn't a pleasant experience. I was later called "disrespectful" for the questions I had regarding what I perceived as being inconsistencies in certain doctrines I learned. Another student finally informed me that what I spoke about with him was called Calvinism. I studied it, and sure enough, he was right.

They generally claimed to be “four-point Calvinists” there, but to me that just doesn’t make any sense. And while you might think that there is a lot of commonality between four-pointers and five pointers, that’s not the case. With that as there basis, they delineated so much that it was really impossible put the title of Calvinism on anything they taught.

That’s just my experience, though. I regret to say that from my experience I do hold a certain amount of bias in my heart in regard to all Dispensationalists. I personally cannot reconcile the Word of God and the doctrines taught by Dispensationalism.

My experience is quite different from yours. I have degrees from both Dallas (Dispensationalist) and Westminster (Calvinist-Reformed). I entered Dallas as a dispensationalist and graduated as one. I entered Westminster as a dispensationalist and graduated as one.

As to soteriology, I am a firm 4 pointer (as ksen and rnmom can confirm) and have no problem with the logic of definite atonement but remain a four pointer for exegetical reasons.

Now, I would agree that some who use the label 4 pointer redefine some of the points they profess to hold. But this need not be the case.

BTW, it was at Dallas Seminary that I was introduced to Calvinism by about two dozen fellow 5 point Calvinist students and a 5 point Calvinist professor, Dr. S Lewis Johnson.

~ NEHI (Amyraldians don't get no respect--but that's OK by me)

[oftenbuzzard]

Dispensational soteriology is most definitely Arminian and has nothing in common with Calvinism other than the fact that Dispensationals have decided to take the moniker for their system.
Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Calvinistic Soteriology and Dispensational Eschatology are neither mutually exclusive or inherently linked.


For my own part, I soberly think Article XVII to be as wise, perhaps I might
say the wisest and best condensed human statement of the view it contains
that I am acquainted with. I am fully content to take it in its literal and
grammatical sense. I believe that predestination to life is the eternal purpose
of God, by which, before the foundations of the world were laid, He firmly
decreed, by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and destruction
those whom He had chosen in Christ out of the human race, and to bring
them, through Christ, as vessels made to honour, to eternal salvation.

--- JN Darby, Collected Writings III:3


Also...

This enthusiasm came largely from clergymen with strong Calvinistic views, principally Presbyterians and Baptists in the northern United States. The evident basis for this affinity was that in most respects Darby was himself an unrelenting Calvinist. His interpretation of the Bible and of history rested firmly on the massive pillar of divine sovereignty, placing as little value as possible on human ability.

George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), p. 46.

~ NEHI (Hmmmmmm.....)

[Jon_]

Calvinistic Soteriology and Dispensational Eschatology are neither mutually exclusive or inherently linked.
I cannot disagree with this. Calvinism and premillennialism are not mutually exclusive. But I never intended to single out premillennialism. I mean Dispensationalism as a hermeneutical system.

George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), p. 46.
I also cannot disagree that many well-meaning Dispensationalists firmly believe that an Amyraldian-esque system is faithful to the original teachings of John Calvin. Most Reformed theologians agree that faltering on one point of Calvinist soteriology consequentially results in the logical denial of all the points of Calvinism. Of course, this issue is hotly debated because many exegetes believe that the Word teaches precisely the opposite of Limited Atonement. In this case, they prefer their interpretation of the Scriptures over (presumably) logical deduction.

Perhaps that is the key difference between Dispensational and Reformed theology. Reformed theology is not afraid to carry out the Calvinist soteriology to its logical end, whereas Dispensationalism stops short in favor of painting a different picture of God (one who extends the offer of Christ to all).

I am hoping you might clear up one question for me, Dr. Steve. I know that in the Amyraldian system the nature of the atonement is intended originally as a universal plan that was later effected only for the elect, but I do not know if the Amyraldan insists that God desires the repentance and salvation of all men. Could you help me with that?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[oftenbuzzard]

My replies are in red.

I cannot disagree with this. Calvinism and premillennialism are not mutually exclusive. But I never intended to single out premillennialism. I mean Dispensationalism as a hermeneutical system. Agreed here


I also cannot disagree that many well-meaning Dispensationalists firmly believe that an Amyraldian-esque system is faithful to the original teachings of John Calvin. Actually, I believe the extent of the atonement ws not an issue specifically addressed by Calvin, it was a later issue. Most Reformed theologians agree that faltering on one point of Calvinist soteriology consequentially results in the logical denial of all the points of Calvinism. Of course, this issue is hotly debated because many exegetes believe that the Word teaches precisely the opposite of Limited Atonement. In this case, they prefer their interpretation of the Scriptures over (presumably) logical deduction. I agree with this last statement.

Perhaps that is the key difference between Dispensational and Reformed theology. Reformed theology is not afraid to carry out the Calvinist soteriology to its logical end, whereas Dispensationalism stops short in favor of painting a different picture of God (one who extends the offer of Christ to all). Lots of calvinists believe in the free offer of the gospel.

I am hoping you might clear up one question for me, Dr. Steve. I know that in the Amyraldian system the nature of the atonement is intended originally as a universal plan that was later effected only for the elect, but I do not know if the Amyraldan insists that God desires the repentance and salvation of all men. Could you help me with that?

I believe that in 1 Peter 3:9 the all refers to all of the elect as indicated by the context. I do not believe the word "all" here means all of mankind. The focus is believers' concerns about the delay of the Lord's return in light of contemporary skeptic ciritcism. The answer to the delay is that the Lord desires all of the elect to come to repentance -- that being done He will return.

Soli Deo Gloria

God is glorified in the salvation of the elect and the administration of Divine justice to the non-elect.

Jon

[ksen]

I cannot disagree with this. Calvinism and premillennialism are not mutually exclusive. But I never intended to single out premillennialism. I mean Dispensationalism as a hermeneutical system.

Why is the Dispensational hermeneutical system mutually exclusive, in your view, with a Calvinistic soteriology?

[Jon_]

Why is the Dispensational hermeneutical system mutually exclusive, in your view, with a Calvinistic soteriology?
Ah, the answer to that begins with a question: What is the definition and purpose of a dispensation? (I must ask this question here because Dispensationalism is rather amorphous on the answer. I want to make sure I am addressing the same understanding of a dispensation as you are.)

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[ksen]

Ah, the answer to that begins with a question: What is the definition and purpose of a dispensation? (I must ask this question here because Dispensationalism is rather amorphous on the answer. I want to make sure I am addressing the same understanding of a dispensation as you are.)

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

That's not as easy a question as you'd think.

Here is an excerpt from Ryrie about the definition of "Dispensation":

Definitions

As far as the use of the word in Scripture is concerned, a dispensation may be defined as a stewardship, administration, oversight, or management of others' property. As we have seen, this involves responsibility, accountability, and faithfulness on the part of the steward.

The theological definition of the word is based on the biblical usage and characteristics. Scofield's definition has been quoted: "A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God." As has been seen, the usual criticism leveled against this definition is that it is not true to the meaning of oikonomia since it says nothing about a stewardship but emphasizes the period of time aspect. Yet note that Fuller admits the validity of practically the same definition, namely that the word may be used "to denote a period of time during which God deals with man in a certain way "[14] However, there is a certain justification to the criticism, for a dispensation is primarily a stewardship arrangement and not a period of time (though obviously the arrangement will exist during a period of time). Age and dispensation are not synonymous in meaning, even though they may exactly coincide in the historical outworking. A dispensation is basically the arrangement involved, not the time involved; and a proper definition will take this into account. However, there is no reason for great alarm if a definition does ascribe time to a dispensation.

A concise definition of a dispensation is this: A dispensation is a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God's purpose. If one were describing a dispensation, he would include other things, such as the ideas of distinctive revelation, responsibility, testing, failure, and judgment. But at this point we are seeking a definition, not a description. In using the word economy as the core of the definition, the emphasis is put on the biblical meaning of the word itself. Economy also suggests that certain features of different dispensations might be the same or similar. Differing political and economic economies are not completely different, yet they are distinguishably different. Communistic and capitalistic economies are basically different, and yet there are functions, features, and items in these opposing economies that are the same. Likewise, in the different economies of God's running the affairs of this world certain features are similar. However, the word distinguishable in the definition points out that some features are distinctive to each dispensation and mark them off from each other as different dispensations. These are contained in the particular revelation distinctive to each dispensation.

The phrase "the outworking of God's purpose" in the definition reminds us that the viewpoint in distinguishing the dispensations is God's, not man's. The dispensations are economies instituted and brought to their purposeful conclusion by God. The distinguishing features are introduced by God; the similar features are retained by God; and the overall combined purpose of the whole program is the glory of God. Erich Sauer states it this way:


A new period always begins only when from the side of God a change is introduced in the composition of the principles valid up to that time; that is, when from the side of God three things concur:


1. A continuance of certain ordinances valid until then;
2. An annulment of other regulations until then valid;
3. A fresh introduction of new principles not before valid.[15]


To summarize: Dispensationalism views the world as a household run by God. In His householdworld God is dispensing or administering its affairs according to His own will and in various stages of revelation in the passage of time. These various stages mark off the distinguishably different economies in the outworking of His total purpose, and these different economies constitute the dispensations. The understanding of God's differing economies is essential to a proper interpretation of His revelation within those various economies.


Before leaving the subject of definitions, it may be helpful to append several other useful definitions of a dispensation. W Graham Scroggie, a noted Scottish writer and pastor, gave this helpful definition:


The word oikonomia bears one significance, and means "an administration," whether of a house, or property of a state, or a nation, or as in the present study the administration of the human race or any part of it, at any given time. Just as a parent would govern his household in different ways, according to varying necessity yet ever for one good end, so God has at different times dealt with men in different ways, according to the necessity of the case, but throughout for one great, grand end.[16]



Harry Ironside, prince of dispensational preachers, defined it this way: "An economy is an ordered condition of things. . . . There are various economies running through the Word of God. A dispensation, an economy then, is that particular order or condition of things prevailing in one special age which does not necessarily prevail in another."[17]


Clarence E. Mason, Jr., dean for many years at Philadelphia College of Bible, includes descriptive features of dispensations in his definition:


The word dispensation means literally a stewardship or administration or economy. Therefore, in its Biblical usage, a dispensation is a divinely established stewardship of a particular revelation of God's mind and will which brings added responsibility to the whole race of men or that portion of the race to whom the revelation is particularly given by God.

Associated with the revelation, on the one hand, are promises of reward or blessing for those responding to the obedience of faith, while on the other hand there are warnings of judgment upon those who do not respond in the obedience of faith to that particular revelation.
However, though the time period (age) ends, certain principles of the revelation (dispensation or stewardship) are often carried over into succeeding ages, because God's truth does not cease to be truth, and these principles become part of the cumulative body of truth for which man is responsible in the progressive unfolding revelation of God's redemptive purpose.[18]


Another definition also includes descriptive elements:



A dispensation is God's distinctive method of governing mankind or a group of men during a period of human history, marked by a crucial event, test, failure, and judgment. From the divine standpoint, it is a stewardship, a rule of life, or a responsibility for managing God's affairs in His house. From the historical standpoint, it is a stage in the progress of revelation.[19]



The differentiation of viewpoints in this definition is a helpful distinction. A dispensation is from God's viewpoint an economy; from man's, a responsibility; and in relation to progressive revelation, a stage in it.


The more recent movement that calls itself progressive dispensationalism includes some important differences from normative dispensationalIsm. Though its adherents do not wish to be restricted by a sine qua non, they acknowledge the straightforward meaning of the word; namely, "The word dispensation refers to a particular arrangement by which God regulates the way human beings relate to Him."[20] However, they distance themselves from classic dispensationalists by describing themselves as understanding "the dispensations not simply as different arrangements between God and humankind, but as successive arrangements in the progressive revelation and accomplishment of redemption."[21] These differences will be discussed in chapter 9.

This works for me.

Oh, here's the link to the entire article/chapter - http://www.gospelpedlar.com/dis_dispensation.html

[Jon_]

Actually, I believe the extent of the atonement was not an issue specifically addressed by Calvin, it was a later issue.
Indeed, this is a common position. Many attribute the classical TULIP structure to Beza and more specificially, the Canons of Dordt.

My opinion is that definite atonement is a logically necessary deduction of the other four points. Because of the soundness (especially in Scripture) of the other four points, I believe that the weight of their truth should be a major contributing factor in the interpretation of verses that seem to disprove definite atonement (1 Peter 3:9, 1 John 2:2, etc.). Because I think the necessary logical conclusion of these four points is the fifth point, I think that denial of the fifth point is a denial of the other four, at least from my understanding of the classical Reformed understanding of them. That is, the four points of Dispensationalism are not four of the five points of Calvinism. They are different doctrines altogether. But that's my own opinion.

Lots of calvinists believe in the free offer of the gospel.
Yes, this is true; however, I have to respectfully disagree with them and side with Dr. John Gerstner among others who state that the offer of the gospel is for the regenerate, or, "as many as the Lord God will call" (irresistably).

I suppose that I cannot understand that God would extend a legitmate invitation to all of mankind if he knew that they would reject it. I cannot understand how God would desire the repentance of all men if he did not effect it (cf. Job 23:13, Ps. 115:3; 135:6). It would seem intrisically dishonest if he were to extend an offer that could not possibly be accepted. This is why I think that the Gospel offer of grace is intended only for the elect (cf. John 10:26-27).

I believe that in 1 Peter 3:9 the all refers to all of the elect as indicated by the context. I do not believe the word "all" here means all of mankind. The focus is believers' concerns about the delay of the Lord's return in light of contemporary skeptic ciritcism. The answer to the delay is that the Lord desires all of the elect to come to repentance -- that being done He will return.
We are in agreement here.

God is glorified in the salvation of the elect and the administration of Divine justice to the non-elect.
Amen.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[Jon_]

That's not as easy a question as you'd think. Here is an excerpt from Ryrie about the definition of "Dispensation." This works for me.
Heh, no I had no such assumption that it would be an easy question to answer. Indeed the very definition and description seems to be very broad. I am not sure if that is by consequence or by design, but it does present us some difficulty.

So, I suppose we will go with,
a dispensation may be defined as a stewardship, administration, oversight, or management of others' property. As we have seen, this involves responsibility, accountability, and faithfulness on the part of the steward.
That being our definition, could you relate the purpose of this arrangement to me?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[ksen]

[/color]
Indeed, this is a common position. Many attribute the classical TULIP structure to Beza and more specificially, the Canons of Dordt.

I've always heard credit given to Dordt for TULIP.

My opinion is that definite atonement is a logically necessary deduction of the other four points. Because of the soundness (especially in Scripture) of the other four points, I believe that the weight of their truth should be a major contributing factor in the interpretation of verses that seem to disprove definite atonement (1 Peter 3:9, 1 John 2:2, etc.). Because I think the necessary logical conclusion of these four points is the fifth point, I think that denial of the fifth point is a denial of the other four, at least from my understanding of the classical Reformed understanding of them. That is, the four points of Dispensationalism are not four of the five points of Calvinism. They are different doctrines altogether. But that's my own opinion.

I've never heard of the "four points of Dispensationalism." What are they? :scratch:


Yes, this is true; however, I have to respectfully disagree with them and side with Dr. John Gerstner among others who state that the offer of the gospel is for the regenerate, or, "as many as the Lord God will call" (irresistably).

I suppose that I cannot understand that God would extend a legitmate invitation to all of mankind if he knew that they would reject it. I cannot understand how God would desire the repentance of all men if he did not effect it (cf. Job 23:13, Ps. 115:3; 135:6). It would seem intrisically dishonest if he were to extend an offer that could not possibly be accepted. This is why I think that the Gospel offer of grace is intended only for the elect (cf. John 10:26-27).

It would seem just as dishonest to me if God were to condemn people for rejecting the Gospel if He did not freely offer it to everyone. The rejection of the Gospel is on them (even though their rejection was ordained by God).

[Jon_]

I've never heard of the "four points of Dispensationalism." What are they? :scratch:
The four points of Dispensational "Calvinism" is what I meant. I hesitate to call it Amyraldianism because I see disparities between the two doctrines. Of course, it is hard to really nail down a definite position for either because Dispensationalism appears inconsistent on the surface. Perhaps I am not being perceptive enough, but I find it hard to identify agreement even between Dispensationalists on definite issues such as soteriology. (Many Dispensationalists are Arminian. Billy Graham is a perfect example.)

It would seem just as dishonest to me if God were to condemn people for rejecting the Gospel if He did not freely offer it to everyone. The rejection of the Gospel is on them (even though their rejection was ordained by God).
I would agree. But God does not condemn people for rejecting the Gospel. He condemns them for their sins.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[ksen]

I would agree. But God does not condemn people for rejecting the Gospel. He condemns them for their sins.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. - John 3:18 (KJV)
It soundsd like not believing the Gospel brings some amount of condemnation.

[ksen]

So, I suppose we will go with,a dispensation may be defined as a stewardship, administration, oversight, or management of others' property. As we have seen, this involves responsibility, accountability, and faithfulness on the part of the steward.


That being our definition, could you relate the purpose of this arrangement to me?


Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

I'm not sure what you are asking me for. :eek: :scratch:

[Jon_]

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. - John 3:18 (KJV)
It soundsd like not believing the Gospel brings some amount of condemnation.
Actually, what is being expressed is really simple. All men are sinners, of course. Because of our sins, we are condemned. To be saved, one must believe in Jesus Christ as one's personal Lord and Savior. If one does not believe, then one remains condemned. This might be what is mean by "condemned already." It could also be a simple anachronistic observation, i.e. because they do not believe they will be condemned, so their eventual end being already determined, it is anachronistically (a better word might be eternally) accurate to say they are currently condemned. In either case, the condemnation is resultant of sin.

What this verse supports is the Lordship of Christ. He is the only name under heaven by which one is saved (Acts 4:12). Therefore, if one does not believe in him, one has no expectation but judgment and condemnation.

Remember, Jesus did not come to condemn the world, but to save it. And that is precisely the what verse that preceeds the one you have quoted says:
(John 3:17 KJV) For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

The Gospel is a message of hope and salvation unto the elect, not a message of condemnation unto the reprobate. The reprobate are already condemned. They are condemned from birth, being born in inquity (Ps. 51:5). Indeed we all were once inmates on death row until Jesus came and took our place for no more reason than the love, mercy, and grace of his Father, and his willingness to fulfill his will. This is the message of the Gospel. However, it is also true that one must "repent or burn." But it is not the rejection of the Gospel that condemns, but sin itself.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[Jon_]

I'm not sure what you are asking me for. :eek: :scratch:
Why divide the Word into dispensations? What purpose do these dispensations serve? What do we learn from them? What do we observe in them? And most importantly, how does this affect how we look at the Word?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[ksen]

Why divide the Word into dispensations? What purpose do these dispensations serve? What do we learn from them? What do we observe in them? And most importantly, how does this affect how we look at the Word?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Even Covenant theologians have at least two dispensations: Works and Grace.

Charles Hodge divided the Covenant of Grace into three dispensations: the Patriarchal, the Mosaic, and the Christian.

"The Covenant of Grace - The Identity of the Covenant of Grace under all Dispensations"
http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/articles/full.asp?id=13|65|365

Would you ask the same questions of Hodge?

[ksen]

Why divide the Word into dispensations?

Because the Word divides itself into dispensations, i.e. Pre-Fall, Post-Fall (and that's at the most basic level).

What purpose do these dispensations serve? What do we learn from them? What do we observe in them? And most importantly, how does this affect how we look at the Word?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Whoah, those questions are going to take some time to answer. Please bear with me.

[Jon_]

Because the Word divides itself into dispensations, i.e. Pre-Fall, Post-Fall (and that's at the most basic level). Whoah, those questions are going to take some time to answer. Please bear with me.
I guess what I'd like to know is, What do we learn from the Dispensational system of dispensations?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[Jon_]

Even Covenant theologians have at least two dispensations: Works and Grace.
Correct. Three is more correct: redemption, works, and grace.

Charles Hodge divided the Covenant of Grace into three dispensations: the Patriarchal, the Mosaic, and the Christian.
Indeed, though their relation is universal, which sets this dispensational system apart from Dispensationalism.

Would you ask the same questions of Hodge?
No, I understand Hodge's theology. I do not understand Dispensational theology.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[drstevej]

Jon,

Ever read O Palmer Robertson's The Christ of the Covenants? He was a prof of mine at Westminster. I thought his was an interesting analysis.

I think the watershed issues are:

[1] Is the Mosaic covenant a covenant of grace?
[2] Are the Church and Israel distinct and viewed by God as such?
[3] Do we apply a normal hermeneutic to the land promises to Abraham?

NOTE: Normally I would post this as Nehi -- so pretend NEHI posted this...

[Jon_]

Jon,

Ever read O Palmer Robertson's The Christ of the Covenants? He was a prof of mine at Westminster. I thought his was an interesting analysis.

I think the watershed issues are:

[1] Is the Mosaic covenant a covenant of grace?
[2] Are the Church and Israel distinct and viewed by God as such?
[3] Do we apply a normal hermeneutic to the land promises to Abraham?

NOTE: Normally I would post this as Nehi -- so pretend NEHI posted this...
(Pretending to respond to Nehi... ;))

No, I have not read Robertson's book, but at the suggestion of the work, I read a review of it on A Purtian's Mind: http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McMahonOverviewRobertsonsBookChrist.htm.

It looks like a fair read.

On your questions, I need just a little bit more detail (specifics) as to the exact subject. Precisely which part or aspect of the Mosaic covenant are we trying to determine is grace-bound? We know that the law itself was not gracious. The law entered so that sin might abound. The purpose of the law was to show mankind that he is sinful. This was done so that grace could abound much more. But even before the law was enscripted it existed in the hearts of men. And God's grace was there too.

A keystone doctrine of Covenant theology is that Israel and the church are one in the same. Or, perhaps more accurately, the church is a type of Israel. In either case, they are the seed of Abraham that receive Christ in faith. And, of course, not all decendants of Abraham are of Isaac (not all children of the promise).

I am not sure what is meant by a "normal hermeneutic," either. Do you mean a literal interpretation?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[drstevej]

(Pretending to respond to Nehi... ;))

No, I have not read Robertson's book, but at the suggestion of the work, I read a review of it on A Purtian's Mind: http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McMahonOverviewRobertsonsBookChrist.htm.

It looks like a fair read. (It is a good read. Also his book The Final Word is awesome on the finality of revelation versus modern claims to revelation.)

On your questions, I need just a little bit more detail (specifics) as to the exact subject. Precisely which part or aspect of the Mosaic covenant are we trying to determine is grace-bound? We know that the law itself was not gracious. The law entered so that sin might abound. The purpose of the law was to show mankind that he is sinful. This was done so that grace could abound much more. But even before the law was enscripted it existed in the hearts of men. And God's grace was there too. Covenant Theology sees the Mosaic Covenant as an expression of the covenant of Grace. Dispensationalists see it as a Covenant of Works.


A keystone doctrine of Covenant theology is that Israel and the church are one in the same. Or, perhaps more accurately, the church is a type of Israel. I think you mean Israel is a type of the Church? In either case, they are the seed of Abraham that receive Christ in faith. And, of course, not all decendants of Abraham are of Isaac (not all children of the promise). Dispensationalists reject replacement theology and sees the role of the Church, which was begun at Pentecost, as an entity that provokes Israel to jealousy to the end that the receive their Messiah.

I am not sure what is meant by a "normal hermeneutic," either. Do you mean a literal interpretation? Normal hermeneutic means to interpret literally when the intent is literal and figuratively when the intent is figurative; but do not make figurative that which was intended as literal. Dispensationalists see the land promise to Abraham as literal because it was literal land that was promised to Him and His descendants.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

~NEHI (through his buddy drstevej)

[frumanchu]

Covenant Theology sees the Mosaic Covenant as an expression of the covenant of Grace. Dispensationalists see it as a Covenant of Works.

Actually, I think it would be more accurate to say that Covenant Theology sees the Mosaic Covenant as a covenant of works expressing the Covenant of Grace.

Dispensationalists reject replacement theology and sees the role of the Church, which was begun at Pentecost, as an entity that provokes Israel to jealousy to the end that the receive their Messiah.

Pentecost was the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel TO ISRAEL. There were no Gentiles there in Acts 2. The Church is born out of Israel...it does not replace it.

Dispensationalists see the land promise to Abraham as literal because it was literal land that was promised to Him and His descendants.

There was certainly a literal aspect to the promises given Abraham, but Scripture is clear that he was looking foward to a city build without hands, with foundations whose designer and builder is God (Heb 11:10), because he desired a better, heavenly country (Heb 11:16).

[JM]

The more I study the Bible, the less dispensational I am and the more Reformed I become...Semper Reformanda! (http://www.christianforums.com/f366-semper-reformanda-reformed.html)

[5solas]

The more I study the Bible, the less dispensational I am and the more Reformed I become...Semper Reformanda! (http://www.christianforums.com/f366-semper-reformanda-reformed.html)

Welcome to the club! The same happened to me as well :thumbsup:

I can hardly believe today that I believed that d. was biblical teaching..... :blush:

[JM]

:wave: Hey guys.

JN Darby on freewill:

THIS fresh breaking out of the doctrine of the free-will ministers to the pretension of the natural man not to be entirely lost, for that is just what it amounts to. All who have never been deeply convicted of sin, all those with whom this conviction is based on gross and outward sins, believe more or less in free-will. You know that it is the dogma of the Wesleyans and all reasoners, of all philosophers; but it completely changes the whole idea of Christianity and entirely perverts it.

If Christ came to save that which is lost, free-will had no more place. Not that God prevents man from receiving Christ, far from it. But when God employs all possible motives, everything that is capable of exerting influence over the heart of man, it only serves to prove that man will have none of it, that his heart is so corrupt, and his will so determined not to submit to God (however much it may be of the devil who encourages him in sin), that nothing can induce him to receive the Lord, and to forsake sin. If, by liberty of man, they mean that no one forces him to reject the Lord, this liberty exists in full. But if it is implied that, on account of the dominion of sin of which he is the slave, and that voluntarily, he cannot escape from his condition, and choose the good—even while acknowledging it to be good, and approving of it—then he has no liberty whatever. He is not subject to the law, neither indeed can be, so that, they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

And this is where we touch most closely on the root of the question. Is it the old man that is changed, instructed and sanctified, or do we, in order to be saved receive a new nature? The universal character of the unbelief of the present day is this: not formally denying Christianity, as in former times, or rejecting Christ openly, but receiving Him as a Person—they will even say divine, inspired (but as a matter of degree)—who re-establishes man in his position as a child of God. The Wesleyans as far as taught of God, do not say that; faith makes them feel that without Christ they are lost, and that it is a question of salvation. Only their fear with regard to pure grace, their desire to gain men, a mixture of charity and of the spirit of man, in a word their confidence in their own strength makes confusion in their teaching, and leads them not to recognize the total ruin of man.

As for me, I see in the Word, and I recognize in myself, the total ruin of man. I see that the cross is the end of all the means that God had employed to gain the heart of man, and consequently, that it proves the thing to be impossible. God has exhausted all His resources; man has shown that he was wicked beyond recovery; the Cross of Christ condemns man—sin in the flesh. But this condemnation having been expressed in that another has undergone it, it is the absolute salvation of those who believe, for condemnation, the judgment of sin is behind us; life came out of it in resurrection. We are dead to sin, and alive to God, in Jesus Christ our Lord. Redemption, the very word, loses its force when we entertain these ideas of the old man. It becomes an amelioration, a practical deliverance from a moral state, and not a redeeming by the finished work of another. Christianity teaches the death of the old man and his just condemnation, then redemption accomplished by Christ, and a new life, eternal life, come down from heaven in His Person, and which is communicated to us when Christ enters into us by the Word. Arminianism, or rather Pelagianism, pretends that man can choose, and that thus the old man is ameliorated by the thing that it has accepted. The first step is made without grace, and it is the first step which truly costs in this case.

I believe that we ought to keep to the Word; but philosophically and morally speaking, free-will is a false and absurd theory. Free-will is a state of sin. Man ought not to have to choose, as being outside of good. Why is he in that state? He ought not to have a will, any choice to make—he ought to obey, and enjoy in peace. If he has to choose good, then he has not got it yet. He is without that which is good in himself, at any rate, since he is not decided. But, in fact, man is disposed to follow that which is evil. What cruelty to propose a duty to man who is already turned to evil. Moreover, philosophically speaking, to choose, he must be indifferent, otherwise he has already chosen as to his will—he must then be absolutely indifferent. Now, if he is absolutely indifferent, what is to decide his choice? A creature must have a motive; but he has none, since he is indifferent; if he is not, he has chosen.

But in fact, it is not so; man has a conscience, but he has a will and lusts, and they lead him. Man was free in paradise, but then he was in the enjoyment of good. He made use of his free-will, and consequently he is a sinner. To leave him to his free-will, now that he is disposed to do evil, would be cruelty. God has presented to him the choice, but it was to convince the conscience of the fact that, in any case, man would have neither good nor God. That people should believe that God loves the world is all right; but that they should not believe that man is in himself wicked beyond remedy (and notwithstanding the remedy) is very bad. They know not themselves and they know not God.

The Lord is coming, the time for the world is passing away. What a blessing! May God find us watching, and thinking only of one thing—of Him about whom God thinks—Jesus, our precious Saviour."