Dispensationalism and Soteriology

[msortwell]

At this risk of being declared to be in the wrong forum . . .

It seems that (athough there clearly are exceptions) there is a tendency for Dispensationalists to be Arminians rather than Calvinistic. Is there something about Dispensationalism that lends itself toward an Arminian view (or vise versa)?

 

[A Brother In Christ]

I am dispensationalist but neither of those man deviding doctrines that bring half truths with half lies

 

[JDS]

At this risk of being declared to be in the wrong forum . . .

It seems that (athough there clearly are exceptions) there is a tendency for Dispensationalists to be Arminians rather than Calvinistic. Is there something about Dispensationalism that lends itself toward an Arminian view (or vise versa)?

Yes! Hermeneutics!

 

[msortwell]

JDS,

But "hermeneutics" does not seem to be a sufficient answer. It may well be part of the answer. However, the approach taken by the "conservative" Reformed and the "conservative" Dispensationalist carry the same label. Each, to my understanding, employs an Historical-Grammatical method. Each recognizes that the Scriptures must be understood with appropriate application of the rules of grammar. Each understands that the texti is interpreted within its historical context. Each understands that the text employs the use of symbological language. Neither accepts all text as absolutely "literal."

The key text in my studies of hermeneutics was Biblical Hermeneutics by Milton Terry. Is anyone aware of a dispensational critique of that text? I would be interested in where a dispensationalist would find flaws in the approach espoused by Mr. Terry.

It seems to me that, much like the Scripture itself, the two camps approach the same hermeneutical technique differently.

Blessings,

Mike

 

[Benefactor]

At this risk of being declared to be in the wrong forum . . .

There is a brand of Calvinism that is strong Dispensationalist. One is John McArthor a Lordship Salvation person

Another Dispensationalist who is a Calvinist - not a 5 point Calvinist, is Dr. David Jeremiah.

Dr. David Jeremiah's brand of Calvinism is more acceptable in the Larger Evangelical Christian Circles verses that of the RT / Calvinist which tend to cause division, in my opinion.

Dallas Seminary tends to produce Calvinist that are Dispensationalist in that Dallas has been a school that has been one of the leading intuitions teaching Dispensationalism. I believe if you were to survey all Conservative Baptist churches you would find that the majority is Dispensational – some Calvinist and most not but neither are they Arminian. I would say that Calvinist in the SBC lean more to the RT camp verses the Dallas camp but I don't have any hard facts to back that opinion up other than it has been my personal experience.

The Calvinist wants everyone to believe that if you are not a Calvinist then you are Arminian, which is absolutely not true.

So from the Calvinist side I would agree that if you place all Calvinist who are Dispensational up against those that are Amillenial the Amillenial would be the majority that would be the norm in that Amillenial theology has a broad range of interpretation of Scripture. They are more accustom to allegorize God’s word and this is a primary reason for being Amillenial and Calvinistic for it takes both to manage to come up with their brand of theology and where allegorizing is not to their best interest they take a very wooden literal approach verses a normal literal approach.

Churches that are in the Charismatic Movement” are Arminian in their view concerning salvation and most are Dispensationalist in Eschatology, meaning they believe in a rapture, 7 year tribulation and a 1000 year kingdom starting at the second coming..

I received my College education from mainly Dallas thinking and a few others and so I speak from my experience 30 plus years ago. For me personally I agree with Ryrie's understanding of Dispensationalism.

One other thought on this that may be related. Amillenialism as a whole leans to the liberal side of the theological spectrum. While there are exception as in all cases Churches that embrace Amillenialism and thus allegorize Scripture over time drift into a more liberal approach to life or become withdrawn in the sense that they do not go outside their established group to bring others in, what we would call anti missions in the manner of soul winning or leading others to Christ.

The churches that are experiencing growth are those that are not Calvinistic, not to say that Calvinistic churches do not grow but generally as a manner of proselytizing or seeing believers move from Evangelical Churches to Reform Churches having changed their views after salvation. We see the proselytizing emphasis on the Christian forums where the RT / Calvinist are obsessed with the need to convert other believers to their way of thinking which is allegorizing and wood literalism.

 

[JDS]

At this risk of being declared to be in the wrong forum . . .

There is a brand of Calvinism that is strong Dispensationalist. One is John McArthor a Lordship Salvation person

Another Dispensationalist who is a Calvinist - not a 5 point Calvinist, is Dr. David Jeremiah.

Dr. David Jeremiah's brand of Calvinism is more acceptable in the Larger Evangelical Christian Circles verses that of the RT / Calvinist which tend to cause division, in my opinion.

Dallas Seminary tends to produce Calvinist that are Dispensationalist in that Dallas has been a school that has been one of the leading intuitions teaching Dispensationalism. I believe if you were to survey all Conservative Baptist churches you would find that the majority is Dispensational – some Calvinist and most not but neither are they Arminian. I would say that Calvinist in the SBC lean more to the RT camp verses the Dallas camp but I don't have any hard facts to back that opinion up other than it has been my personal experience.

The Calvinist wants everyone to believe that if you are not a Calvinist then you are Arminian, which is absolutely not true.

So from the Calvinist side I would agree that if you place all Calvinist who are Dispensational up against those that are Amillenial the Amillenial would be the majority that would be the norm in that Amillenial theology has a broad range of interpretation of Scripture. They are more accustom to allegorize God’s word and this is a primary reason for being Amillenial and Calvinistic for it takes both to manage to come up with their brand of theology and where allegorizing is not to their best interest they take a very wooden literal approach verses a normal literal approach.

Churches that are in the Charismatic Movement” are Arminian in their view concerning salvation and most are Dispensationalist in Eschatology, meaning they believe in a rapture, 7 year tribulation and a 1000 year kingdom starting at the second coming..

I received my College education from mainly Dallas thinking and a few others and so I speak from my experience 30 plus years ago. For me personally I agree with Ryrie's understanding of Dispensationalism.

One other thought on this that may be related. Amillenialism as a whole leans to the liberal side of the theological spectrum. While there are exception as in all cases Churches that embrace Amillenialism and thus allegorize Scripture over time drift into a more liberal approach to life or become withdrawn in the sense that they do not go outside their established group to bring others in, what we would call anti missions in the manner of soul winning or leading others to Christ.

The churches that are experiencing growth are those that are not Calvinistic, not to say that Calvinistic churches do not grow but generally as a manner of proselytizing or seeing believers move from Evangelical Churches to Reform Churches having changed their views after salvation. We see the proselytizing emphasis on the Christian forums where the RT / Calvinist are obsessed with the need to convert other believers to their way of thinking which is allegorizing and wood literalism.

Good comments, Benefactor

It seems to me that if one embraces Calvinism and dispensationalism, the dispensationalism is always a very moderate type. I have not seen any yet who will defend dispenationalism with near the same passion they defend Calvinism. The hermeneutics of dispensationalists and Calvinists does not seem to match.

It is my opinion that all 5 point Calvinists are hyper and that all serious Calvinists are 5 pointers. This is just my opinion from my observation, it may not be true at all.

 

[msortwell]

. . . We see the proselytizing emphasis on the Christian forums where the RT / Calvinist are obsessed with the need to convert other believers to their way of thinking which is allegorizing and wood literalism.

Now it seems just a tad biased to accuse one party in a debate with "proselytizing" while judging those holding to the opposing view (in the same debate) as innocent of any similar motives.

And I was a bit confused by your closing statement. Did you make reference to the Calvinist's hermeneutic as being comprised of allegorizing and wooden literalism?

Those two characteristics seem diametrically opposed. Perhaps I misunderstood. Please explain.

I believe both dispensationalists and the conservative reformed claim to employ an historical - grammatical hermeneutic.

Many among the Reformed see Biblical Hermeneutics by Milton Terry as a reliable text. Are you aware of a hermeneutics text respected among dispensationalists (e.g., at DTS)? I would be interested in making a comparison.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

I believe both dispensationalists and the conservative reformed claim to employ an historical - grammatical hermeneutic.

Yes, this is true. And both DO use historical-grammatical methods of interpretation. Dispensationalists were heavily involved in the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics.

The differences are not in the hermeneutical principles per se, but in the presuppositions. Every person holds presuppositions and preunderstandings which heavily influence how they approach Scripture. A key presupposition for dispensationalists is progressive revelation. While progressive revelation is held by all Evangelicals, the understanding or concept that a person has can be very different. Dispensationalists emphasize progressive revelation in a historical sense which preserves earlier promises from God while allowing newer promises to be added. This leads to OT promises retained for a future role of Israel in a premillennial reign, etc.

Covenant Theologians view progressive revelation differently in the sense that later revelation adds light or even replaces earlier revelation. This leads to a more continuous view of Scripture than what is found in dispensationalism.

Also as Benefactor pointed out, there isn't a distinct dispensational soteriology. Instead dispensational presuppositions lead to a specific eschatological set of options. The more more narrow eschatological options do not preclude the different strands of dispensationalists from holding a wide variety of other views. The soteriological options for dispensationalists are within the same range as that of Evangelicalism in general.

In fact the historical background for classic dispensationalists - including Darby, Scofield and others - was originally Calvinist. At Dallas Seminary in the 1940s, all but 1 of the professors were Presbyterian (and Calvinist). In the early 1900s, dispensationalism was widely adopted by many Pentecostals, whose roots are Wesleyan/Arminian. So different strands of dispensationalism have different historical backgrounds.

Many among the Reformed see Biblical Hermeneutics by Milton Terry as a reliable text. Are you aware of a hermeneutics text respected among dispensationalists (e.g., at DTS)? I would be interested in making a comparison.

Yes, I can list more than a few. The books - and principles - aren't really any different from those of other Evangelical groups. The blue are authors who are dispensationalists.

1. Walter C Kaiser, An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 1994).
2. Roy B Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation (Wheaton, Ill: Victor Books, 1991).
3. Bob Smith, Basics of Bible interpretation, A Discovery Bible study book (Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1978).
4. John Haralson Hayes and Carl R Holladay, Biblical Exegesis: A Beginner's Handbook (Westminster John Knox Press, 2007).
5. Gerhard Maier, Biblical Hermeneutics (Crossway Books, 1994).
6. Milton Terry, Biblical hermeneutics : a treatise on the interpretation of the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids Mich.: Zondervan Pub. House, 1974).
7. Bruce Corley, Steve Lemke, and Grant Lovejoy, Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting Scripture (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman, 2002).
8. Kevin J Vanhoozer et al., Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (London: SPCK, 2005).
9. Elliott Johnson, Expository hermeneutics : an introduction (Grand Rapids Mich.: Academie Books).
10. David S Dockery, K. A Mathews, and Robert Bryan Sloan, Foundations for Biblical Interpretation: A Complete Library of Tools and Resources (Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2004).
11. Daniel Doriani, Getting the message : a plan for interpreting and applying the Bible (Phillipsburg N.J.: P&R Pub., 1996).
12. Henry A Virkler and Karelynne Gerber Ayayo, Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007).
13. A. Berkeley Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bible (Eerdmans, 1963).
14. Darrell L Bock and Buist M Fanning, Interpreting the New Testament Text: Introduction to the Art and Science of Exegesis (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2006).
15. Walter C Kaiser and Moisés Silva, Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning, Rev. and expanded ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2007).
16. William W. William Wade Klein et al., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Dallas, Tex.: Word Pub, 1993).
17. Howard G. Hendricks, Living by the Book (Chicago: Moody Press, 1991).
18. Robert Traina, Methodical Bible study : a new approach to hermeneutics. (Ridgefield Park? N.J. ;;New York: [distributed by] Biblical Seminary in New York, 1952).
19. Anthony C Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics (Zondervan Pub. House, 1992).
20. Grant R Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (InterVarsity Press, 2006).
21. Oletta Wald, The joy of discovery in Bible study, in Bible teaching., Rev. ed. (Minneapolis: Bible Banner Press, 1956).
22. Oletta Wald, The new joy of discovery in Bible study, Newly rev. (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2002).
23. Gordon D Fee, To What End Exegesis?: Essays Textual, Exegetical, and Theological (Grand Rapids, Mich. ; Cambridge, U.K: W.B. Eerdmans, 2001).
24. Walter C Kaiser, Toward an Exegetical Theology: Biblical Exegesis for Preaching and Teaching, 1st ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 1998).

LDG

 

[msortwell]

The differences are not in the hermeneutical principles per se, but in the presuppositions. Every person holds presuppositions and preunderstandings which heavily influence how they approach Scripture.

. . . Dispensationalists emphasize progressive revelation in a historical sense which preserves earlier promises from God while allowing newer promises to be added. This leads to OT promises retained for a future role of Israel in a premillennial reign, etc.

Covenant Theologians view progressive revelation differently in the sense that later revelation adds light or even replaces earlier revelation. This leads to a more continuous view of Scripture than what is found in dispensationalism.

Thank you for the references.

Additionally, can you elaborate on your description of the presuppositions and "preunderstandings" that you identified for the two groups?

Blessings.

 

[Biblewriter]

LamorakDesGalis always posts scholarly and well researched comments.


The early (I call them classical) dispensationalists were indeed from Calvanist backgrounds, but had rejected Calvanism as a system of doctrine. But neither were they Arminians. They maintained that the Calvanists erred in stressing the soverignity of God to the point that they neglected personal responsibility, and that the Arminians erred in steressing personal responsibility to the point that they neglected the soverignity of God.

 

[JDS]

The past theologians are not a good standard for understanding scripture. Religion that was expressed as Christianity was so corrupt that some within its hold were constrained to depart from it in a movement away that we know as the reformation. The corruption did not take place over a few years, but centuries, and most of the so called religious scholars were from that persuasion. Augustine was the prime example. He is said to be the father of allegorizing the prophetic words of God and because of his great influence on Calvin and many of the reformers, that method of dealing with the truths of God's words have been adopted by those who follow his teaching on the doctrine of salvation.

Some have broken away from these traditions that the reformers brought with them out of the Roman church. They approach the scriptures quite differently and with much more freedom than their forefathers. They have reversed the tendency of the reformers to judge the word of God by their foundational writings like the cathechisms, the confessions, the counsels, and their scholars and they have instead judged these things to be the wrong appoach to the word of God. They determined that God's word was to be taken literally and that it can be understood by reading and studying it. This has made them dispensationalists because of the everlasting promises to Israel in his covenants he made with them.

It really does not matter what those before us taught if we have the preserved words of God in our possession. The word of God is the lone standard for truth. Men of the past was not more spiritual or more knowledgable than we are today. They did not have nearly the tools we have to study the word. We have more history that confirms the promises God made to Israel in his covenants, especially the land covenant in Deut 30 that promises God will bring them from dispersion in the nations back to their land and will eventually save them there. We have the privilege of witnessing one of God's greatest miracles in this modern history. Surely this is a testimony against allegory!

 

[msortwell]

The past theologians are not a good standard for understanding scripture. Religion that was expressed as Christianity was so corrupt that some within its hold were constrained to depart from it in a movement away that we know as the reformation. The corruption did not take place over a few years, but centuries, and most of the so called religious scholars were from that persuasion. Augustine was the prime example. He is said to be the father of allegorizing the prophetic words of God and because of his great influence on Calvin and many of the reformers, that method of dealing with the truths of God's words have been adopted by those who follow his teaching on the doctrine of salvation.

Some have broken away from these traditions that the reformers brought with them out of the Roman church. They approach the scriptures quite differently and with much more freedom than their forefathers. They have reversed the tendency of the reformers to judge the word of God by their foundational writings like the cathechisms, the confessions, the counsels, and their scholars and they have instead judged these things to be the wrong appoach to the word of God. They determined that God's word was to be taken literally and that it can be understood by reading and studying it. This has made them dispensationalists because of the everlasting promises to Israel in his covenants he made with them.

It really does not matter what those before us taught if we have the preserved words of God in our possession. The word of God is the lone standard for truth. Men of the past was not more spiritual or more knowledgable than we are today. They did not have nearly the tools we have to study the word. We have more history that confirms the promises God made to Israel in his covenants, especially the land covenant in Deut 30 that promises God will bring them from dispersion in the nations back to their land and will eventually save them there. We have the privilege of witnessing one of God's greatest miracles in this modern history. Surely this is a testimony against allegory!

Sorry but, no. The dispensationalists and CTers employ the same basic hermeneutic. The difference relative to being "literal" is merely a matter of degrees. Milton Terry, in his book Biblical Hermeneutics, warns his readers severely about the dangers of allegorizing. The dispensationalist's claim to being literal is a red herring (No, its not actually a brightly colored fish - it's merely a “figure of speech.” ask your reformed friend what it means ) that puffs up some dispensationalists and influences unsuspecting neophytes.

The differing understanding between dispy’s and CTers regarding who “the seed of Abraham” is, seems to have its roots in presuppositions that affect how they weigh OT vs. NT text and how each reflects upon the true sense of the other.

What I am trying to get at is . . . Is this the case? Is it a case of presuppositions, and if so, what are some of the key presuppositions from each group?

This question of presuppositions is the focus of a thread that I started in the Covenant Theology forum, but alas, the ‘well was dry.’

 

[Jadis40]

I've done some research on my own on the question, but I consider myself to be an amillennialist more than anything else. The pastor of my church did a recent sermon series on the end times, and amillennialism was his position as well. Please note, I came to my own conclusions long before he preached on this topic.

Also, I haven't read any of the Left Behind books, simply because I believe that they take a flawed view of the end times as detailed in scripture.

 

[JDS]

Sorry but, no. The dispensationalists and CTers employ the same basic hermeneutic. The difference relative to being "literal" is merely a matter of degrees. Milton Terry, in his book Biblical Hermeneutics, warns his readers severely about the dangers of allegorizing. The dispensationalist's claim to being literal is a red herring (No, its not actually a brightly colored fish - it's merely a “figure of speech.” ask your reformed friend what it means ) that puffs up some dispensationalists and influences unsuspecting neophytes.

The differing understanding between dispy’s and CTers regarding who “the seed of Abraham” is, seems to have its roots in presuppositions that affect how they weigh OT vs. NT text and how each reflects upon the true sense of the other.

What I am trying to get at is . . . Is this the case? Is it a case of presuppositions, and if so, what are some of the key presuppositions from each group?

This question of presuppositions is the focus of a thread that I started in the Covenant Theology forum, but alas, the ‘well was dry.’

I disagree that both approach the scriptures from a historical-grammatical hermeneutic. At least, the Calvinist is not consistent with this hermeneutic. This can be easily demonstrated in almost any passage in scripture. I will choose excerpts from John 6 as an example.

Jesus, speaking to the Jews, said this;

Joh 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but (labour) for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

The dispensationalists would read this passage and see a contradiction with the Calvinist interpretation of Jn 6:44 and would attempt to reconcile it in the contexts. After all, they have a direct command from Jesus Christ to labour for the bread that he will give them. The Calvinist would have already decided this passage was an appeal only to a limited few who had been predetermined to come and would not look critically at the text.

However, the answer to what Jesus meant by labouring is in the text, and the Jews understood it;

Joh 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

They equated labouring with doing something, effort.

Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Jesus said that God had done the work by sending the life giving bread from heaven and all they need do is understand it as the true manna and eat. The only effort that was needed of them was to believe. The historical-grammatical hermeneutic demands that the labouring spoken of by Jesus is "believing".

The manna in the wilderness was recognized by every Israelite as food that would sustain them and they all gathered it and ate it and all who did lived.

30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

Jesus had spoken now of the work of the Father of sending bread from heaven, himself, and the work that they were to do, labour for the bread, and now they wanted a work of Jesus for a sign.

This is iroinic because the day before they had seen him feed 5000 men plus women and children with 5 loaves and two small fishes and because of this was the reason they were there.

Joh 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

Here is what they said:

Joh 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

IOW, they could not believe until they saw a sign! Since the subject was food, they remembered that Moses had fed the Children of Israel in the desert with manna and they brought it up.

Here is Jesus' response:

32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is = he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. (This word is Kosmos - the inhabitants of the earth)
34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

They are admitting they do not have this bread!

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

He is saying that coming to him and believing on him are the same things.

Jesus then says this to them about their condition!

Joh 6:36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

He did not say; "but I say unto you". He said; "but I said unto you". He is referring back to verse 6

Joh 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

This is a far different reason for seeking him than for the multitude who wound up on the mountain with nothing to eat.

Joh 6:2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.

The issue now is established concerning the bread from God that gives eternal life. The issue is believing in his person. It is a spiritual issue and not physical. It is everlasting and not terporal.

Here is a comparison of the two attitudes that were present in the crowd that day:

Joh 6:36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
Joh 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The subject is still life giving bread when these words are spoken:

Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

He did not say that all the Father giveth unto me, "must" come to me. He says all that are given to him "shall" come to him. They are coming to him for the bread!

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given (all that come to him - that believe in him) me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. (Because this bread can sustain them forever).

The Jews answered thus:

41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

These two verses are the most instructive verses in the whole chapter for our understanding of what it means for the Father to draw to the son for life.


This is the response from Jesus Christ to these words:

43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.

IOW, Jesus answer in the manner he did because they said those words!

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

The reason they were not drawn to Jesus by the Father is because they did not believe the writings of Moses and the prophets which were the testimony of the Father! They exercised human reaoning to arrive at their decision of who Jesus Is. They ignored all the scriptureal evidence and was concerned only with his humanity. His father and his mother they knew. Therefore, he could not be the Messiah.


46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.


The only way a man can eat the bread is to come to Jesus. The only way a man will come to Jesus for life is to believe he was sent from God. The only way a man will believe he is sent from God is to believe God's testimony, his word. This is what this passage is teaching. It does not teach that some cannot come. It teaches that some will not come.

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

This passage confirms the truths he gave them in Jn 5:

Joh 5:17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
Joh 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
Joh 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

Joh 5:20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. 21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

Joh 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Joh 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Jn 5:41 I receive not honour from men.
42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
43 I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?


Joh 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?


I know this is not what you had in mind to discuss but it illustrates that it does not matter what men say about the scriptures, but what the scriptures say. You would never be convinced of anything contrary to your hermeneutic of choice by quoting what Uncle Natush said but it might be shown you have a heart for God if the scriptures were rightly divided and applied contexually and you would allow them to correct you.

Most of these arguments on these forums seem to me to be a vehicle to express the learned scholarship of the poster. It lends itself to much pride and no one really seems to care whether God is glorified and his word exalted and people are edified or not.

The hermeneutic of the reformed is to isolate verses from texts that are necessary to advance their soterilogical views that God saves prechosen people only. This is the reason not many are dispensational. It causes to many conflicts.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

I'm confused....my church promotes OSAS...is this a strictly Calvinist belief? But my church also is a proponent of a pre-trib rapture eschatology, which is definately associated with dispensational theology....where is my church categorized within the context of this discussion?

thanks.

 

[Ghost air]

At this risk of being declared to be in the wrong forum . . .

It seems that (athough there clearly are exceptions) there is a tendency for Dispensationalists to be Arminians rather than Calvinistic. Is there something about Dispensationalism that lends itself toward an Arminian view (or vise versa)?

IT also seems that there is a tendency for Calvinists to be amillennial... so is there something about Calvinism which lends itself toward an amillennial viewpoint ?

I personally can't imagine how people could actually believe that THIS present time is the millennial kingdom of Christ... but this is what the majority of Calvinists seem to believe.

 

[JDS]

I'm confused....my church promotes OSAS...is this a strictly Calvinist belief?

No! I do not think Calvinists have a doctrine of eternal security. They have the "P" in TULIP that defines their security. Google Perserverence of the saints and you will see what they teach if you choose a credible source.

It always amazes me that Jesus Christ can promise eternal life in the present tense and some "church" can redefine eternal life as a gift to mean conditioned on works life and otherwise intelligent people succumbs to that kind of logic. ...but, to each his own, I suppose!

Personally I have never met anyone who says they have been saved more than once!

But my church also is a proponent of a pre-trib rapture eschatology, which is definately associated with dispensational theology....where is my church categorized within the context of this discussion?

thanks.

I am going to say your church 1) doesn't have a statement of faith that members are required to adhere to for membership. or 2) They do not require members to adhere to it, under which case you became a member while obviously defining Christianity differently than they, or 3) You were not honest when you became a member.

There is however not enough info about your church to answer your question.

 

[msortwell]

I disagree that both approach the scriptures from a historical-grammatical hermeneutic. At least, the Calvinist is not consistent with this hermeneutic. This can be easily demonstrated in almost any passage in scripture. I will choose excerpts from John 6 as an example.

For the sake of clarity - would you please highlight what specifically in your explanation of the referenced text is contrary to how a Calvinist (because he is a Calvinist using a Calvinist's hermeneutic) would interpret it? I may have missed it.

 

[JDS]

For the sake of clarity - would you please highlight what specifically in your explanation of the referenced text is contrary to how a Calvinist (because he is a Calvinist using a Calvinist's hermeneutic) would interpret it? I may have missed it.

There are several things Calvinists would not agree with but lets begin with the command of Christ to "labour" for the meat that endureth unto eternal life. He was obviously commanding men who did not have eternal life. Calvinists would not agree they could come to him and eat of the bread if they were not drawn by the Father. In other words, if they were not pre-elected.

They would not agree that the Father draws through his word and anyone who has learned of the Father can, ands most likely will, come to him.

The things that I outlined are things the text clearly teaches if one takes the grammatical-historical hermeneutic consistently through the text as the means to understand it. The entire chapter is about bread and the we are taught that no limit is imposed on who can come to him and eat and live.

I did not point it out in my comments but our hermeneutic would demand we understand this passage as a strictly Jewish context. I do not think Calvinists would accept that idea.

 

[msortwell]

There are several things Calvinists would not agree with but lets begin with the command of Christ to "labour" for the meat that endureth unto eternal life. He was obviously commanding men who did not have eternal life.

Christ never asserts that all within His hearing are capable of responding positively to His command. God’s standards of righteousness and His provision of salvation by grace through Christ are to be proclaimed to all men. The vast majority of Calvinists (even the vast majority of “5-pointers) hold this as true.

Chapter XXXIII of the Westminster Confession states, in part, “As Christ would have us to be certainly persuaded that there shall be a day of judgment, both to deter all men from sin, and for the greater consolation of the godly in their adversity . . .” Both the elect and the reprobate are to be exhorted toward obedience to God’s moral law.

Calvinists would not agree they could come to him and eat of the bread if they were not drawn by the Father. In other words, if they were not pre-elected.

Here you may be accurately reflecting our beliefs. Still, you would have to reconcile what you just wrote with several of the verses from the text you selected. It seems that none will come to Christ unless the Father draw them.

“No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.” (Joh 6:44 AV)

If they are not drawn by the Father, they will not come to Christ for salvation. They may come for a free meal. They may come to see miracles performed. But they will not come to Him as the Messiah.

I find it difficult to understand how an historical-grammatical interpretation of John 6:44 brings you to the conclusion that men could come to Christ if they were not drawn by the Father.

They would not agree that the Father draws through his word. . .

Patently untrue. Rather, it is precisely what reformed teaching espouses. Consider . . .

Chapter X of the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) states, in part, “All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ: enlightening their minds, spiritually and savingly, to understand the things of God . . .”

Relative to those who have learned of the Father coming to Christ . . . If they have truly learned of the Father, then they simply must come to Christ.

“29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and my Father are one.” (Joh 10:29-30 AV)

“1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;” (Heb 1:1-3 AV)

. . . and anyone who has learned of the Father can, ands most likely will, come to him.

Again, if they truly learned of the Father, they will certainly accept the Son.

The things that I outlined are things the text clearly teaches if one takes the grammatical-historical hermeneutic consistently through the text as the means to understand it. The entire chapter is about bread and the we are taught that no limit is imposed on who can come to him and eat and live.

True there is no limit imposed on any person regarding whether he can come. Whosoever desires to come will be welcomed. However, we cannot forget.

“No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.” (Joh 6:44 AV)

No man can come unless the Father draw him. Because, unless the Father draw him, he doesn't want to come. But if the Father draws him to the bread of life, he definitely shall come. Even as it indicates in the following.

“All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.” (Joh 6:37 AV)

I did not point it out in my comments but our hermeneutic would demand we understand this passage as a strictly Jewish context. I do not think Calvinists would accept that idea.

Would Calvinists deny that Christ was speaking to Jews? It doesn’t seem likely. However, similar exhortation to pursue those things that honor and please God was certainly instructed in the Pauline epistles. So it seems clear that the message has application to non-Hebrews also.

“1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. 2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” (Ro 12:1-2 AV)

“1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved 6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: 7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” (Eph 2:1-10 AV)