There is probably a very simple answer to this question and I am just not seeing it. Thus, this will probably be a short thread...

What is it about dispensationalism that tends to link it to Amyraldianism?

I know that there are five-pointers like MacArthur who hold to "leaky-dispensationalism," but it seems that he is a bit of a rarity in that regard.

Thanks.

__________________
Daniel Franzen
Church Creek Presbyterian (PCA)
Charleston, SC

S. Lewis Johnson was a 5-point Calvinist and dispensationalist. There are others, also. So I would suggest that there is nothing in dispensational theology that necessitates rejecting limited atonement. However, I believe Lewis Sperry Chafer's Systematic Theology does so and it is the unofficial stance at Dallas Seminary to reject limited atonement.

__________________
Jim
1689 LBCF
Independent Bible Church
North Texas, USA

My partially articulated theory based on some comments from Dr. Horton as he talked about how covenant theology is the matrix for Reformed theology and how even the five points look different without CT, as well as comments from other students has led me to think that it's related to the lack of covenantal thinking caused by dispensationalism.

Obviously, dispensationalists don't (these days?) deny that we're in the NC, but their dispensationalism causes them to not take into full account the implications of the covenant bit in the New Covenant.

Well, that's my theory, anyway, and it's still percolating.

ETA: I should also add that this is also based on comments from my former profs at Master's (the college, not the seminary) -- where nearly the entire Bible department is made up of four-pointers. Just off-hand comments and certain phrasings from my Theology professor, mostly. As a result, though, I could be skewed a bit since I know more dispensational four-pointers than dispensational five-pointers.

__________________
Jennifer Petrik
Member, Grace Reformation Church
Attending, Escondido Reformed Baptist Church
Student, Westminster Seminary California (M.A.H.T.)
Woodland/Escondido, CA
per caliginem

Also, I might add, Dallas Seminary's doctrinal statement specifically says one of the activities of the Holy Spirit is to "regenerate believers" -- which to me essentally makes regeneration a reward for a saving faith exercized by the unregenerate man. Even Moises Amyraut did not depart from the Reformed faith in this regard.

Perhaps it goes with the somewhat negative outlook of redemptive history and the idea of God putting man under different "tests", which man inevitably fails. This would not be real relevant to Progressive Dispensationalists. I think they have pretty much jettisoned the whole idea of a dispensation as a test of man's obedience.
I guess I'd have to spend more time thinking that through. It just seems to me that, if you believe the church age is basically going to end in man's failure, like every other dispensation, it lends itself to a view of the atonement in which it doesn't accomplish exactly that for which it was intended. I don't think this is the intended implication of the Dispensational view, but it maybe lends itself more to a general view of atonement. In other words, God provided atonement for sin and salvation by grace, but the success or failure lies mostly in man's response.

__________________
Mike Shingler
Pastor: Steep Hollow Baptist Church (SBC)
Bryan, TX

I did my undergrad at BJU, where most of the professors are 4-points and Progressive Dispensationalists.

They have a slight skepticism toward systematic theology as being less thoroughly biblical or perhaps extended beyond the boundaries of the Bible. In general, they don't like the idea of "necessary" consequence, suspecting that it might involve a little too much man-think to be authoritative.

Also, the hermeneutics of Dispensationalism as articulated by Ryrie lead to a sort of "easy" approach to Bible study. By taking the "plain" reading of the text, one often does not consider how differently the text may have struck its original audience.

So, when the modern day person reads "He is the propitiation for ... the sins of the whole world," he naturally thinks "each and every person." However, someone steeped in Johannine theology and the world of the first century would very easily place that saying with the theological framework of God's distinguishing love (John 6, 10) and the first-century theological controversy of the relationship of God's saving work to Jews and Gentiles.

Conclusion:
1. Unwillingness to engage in a fully systematic theology
2. Reductionist hermeneutics

__________________
Charlie Johnson
Heritage Bible Church (non-denom)
Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, student

Mr. Johnson,

Do you think their 4 points are the same as our 4 points?

__________________
YX
Husband of Yele, Father of Anna (07/17/08)
Greenville Presbyterian Church, FCC (Continuing)

"He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city." Proverbs 16:32

I'm not Mr. Johnson, but I went to BJU as well. Some of the professors believe four of the "5 points" of Calvinism. The one they don't hold to is Limited Atonement, or Particular Redemption.

The way my former fundy pastor put it: "Two of the points are straight from scripture; two of the points are logical outworkings of scripture; but limited atonement is not biblical."

__________________
Kim G
Non-denom church (holds to the WCF)
Zion Community Church, Greenville, SC

Teach me Your way, O LORD;
I will walk in Your truth;
Unite my heart to fear Your name.
Psalm 86:11

Theologians have a term for everything. I had to look up "Amyraldianism" to determine that it means a philosophy that says it holds to four points, but not the limited atonement point of "Calvinism."

As you fully study the "five points of Calvinism," and particularly the biblical basis of "total depravity" you will find the five points are systematically and necessarily related to each other. They build on each other and all five points logically require each other.

Usually, when someone objects to the particular atonement of our Lord (limited atonement) they do so out of a misunderstanding of God's sovereignty. Dispensationalism tends to focus on man's response more during different of (man's) time periods. Covenant theology focuses on God first- redemption, works, grace.

__________________
Scott
PCA
North Carolina

Mr. Scott,

I agree with you. Limited atonement is so important that Jesus actually saves, without it, it becomes Jesus does not actually saves, thus the power of the atonement is limited.

In order to provide solution for a possible salvation, total depravity is not held, election by God alone cannot be held (instead, election by foreseen faith), and the irristable grace cannot be held either, the only thing they actually hold is probably the last one.

In men's heart, I believe many of them would believe that Jesus actually saves, but their reasoning were under the damage of those false teaching, but hearts are preserved by God.

When I was in fundamentalism, I couldn't understand limited atonement. I began to understand it when someone mentioned that Christ died to redeem his people, not just "make men redeemable."

Amen to God's preservation. My whole family is in fundamentalism still, but the Lord is gracious to them in spite of the contradictions of their theology.

From a Reformed perspective, wouldn't we say that Christ in his death purchased saving faith for those for whom he died? This position can't be accepted by Amyraldians or 4-point Dispies.

On the other hand, John Davenant, and the dual-reference atonement crowd, accept this fact but still maintain that substantive benefits of the atonement (as an atonement) apply to the reprobate.

Therefore, I personally see a progressive doctrinal degeneration from a proper view of the atonement, a la John Owen and Francis Turretin, to Davenant, then to Amyraldianism, then to 4-point Dispies, who are essentially Arminian in this regard.

This is true. What I learned growing up (fundy dispy) is that Christ died to purchase a generic reservoir of forgiveness for everyone, and the non-elect's rejection of the benefits of that reservoir was the sin that sent them to hell.

I would argue that the arminian has to hold to limited atonement as well.

I say this because arminian theology teaches that God's election is based on his foreknowledge of those who would willingly come to faith in Christ (conditional election).

Therefore if God in his foreknowledge elected those who would choose him wouldn't it follow that Christ would still only redeem those elect who came by faith and not those who would willingly reject him?

__________________
Michael
Pastoral Intern, IFCA
Lafayette, IN

Awesomeness: When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome again. True story.

It's not the lack of covenantal thinking, dispensationalism is a completely new system. It takes out the idea of "covenant" all together and replaces it with dispensations.

__________________
Andrew Cunningham
Reno, NV(Soon to ship out to Camp Pendleton...USMC)
Attending:Community Bible Church (Reformed-ish, Non-denom)
"by His scourging we are healed" Isaiah 53:5
"Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin" Psalm 51:2

I don't know if i would agree with that. Is this found in scripture? Scripture tells us that Christ has purchased US... people, not an outcome of regeneration.

Of all the many things I don't comprehend is the rejection of particular redemption (limited atonement) by those who accept the other four points. Maybe I'm missing something, but each of the five points stands or falls with all of them.

Most dispensationalists of my acquaintance (and I was one of them) reject not only particular redemption but also unconditional election and irresistable grace.

Bill

__________________
William G. Moore, Pastor
Carolina Commentary
Cornerstone Baptist Church
Clinton, SC

I was just presuming this to be the case, at least in effect. Here are a couple of quotes while waiting for others to respond:

R.L. Dabney: "Christ's sacrifice has purchased and provided for the effectual calling of the elect, with all the graces which insure their faith, repentance, justification, perseverance, and glorification. Now, since the sacrifice actually results in all these different consequences, they are all included in God's design. This view satisfies all those texts quoted against us."

John Piper: " . . . But if the mercy by which we are brought to faith (irresistible grace) is not part of what Christ purchased on the cross, then we are left to save ourselves from the bondage of sin, the hardness of heart, the blindness of corruption, and the wrath of God."

Also John Owen’s Argument 9 against unlimited atonement was based on the claim that Christ Purchased Faith. His argument:

P1: Christ purchased faith for whom He died for
P2: not all have faith
C1: Therefore, Christ died not for all

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/deathofdeath.i.ix.iv.html


Peace

I agree with Andrew. Christ satisfied the wrath of God in the elect's place on the cross, thereby redeeming us (Rom. 5:9). Saving faith, on the other hand, is a gift of God's grace given to the elect following the regeneration of the heart (Eph. 2:8-9). Faith is the necessary response of the elect to the saving work of Christ (Rom. 4:24-25).

__________________
Ben Castaneda
Faith Presbyterian Church (PCA)
San Antonio, TX

"Now he had not run far from his own door, but his wife and children perceiving it began to cry after him to return: but the man put his fingers in his ears, and ran on crying, 'Life, life, eternal life.'"
From Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan

He "entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption" ( Hebrews 9:12).

By using the word "purchased" I mean no more than "obtained by his death". If he obtained redemption, then that includes all the saving graces that go with it, which includes calling, regeneration, and faith.

He purchased (or obtained) actual redemption in his death, he did not merely make it possible or obtain it subject to conditions, such as faith. That's all I'm saying.

O.K.

Hmm..

May be this should be for another discussion, but wouldn't putting redemption and characteristics of regeneration be a categorical error? It seems as if you are putting them in the same category:I might be reading you wrong, but please correct me if I am.

I think this is right, Jim. I believe this view is the result of the prominence of Dallas Seminary.

Dr Michael Vlach of the Master's Seminary has a little book on Dispensationalism that was recently published. He says that fundamentally dispensationalism deals with eschatology and ecclesiology, not soteriology.

The "no lordship" view also has nothing to do with dispensationalism but is the result of Chafer being influenced by Keswick ideas. From the beginning there were dispensationalists who taught "Lordship Salvation," including W.H. Griffith Thomas, who would have been professor of Systematic Theology at DTS had he not passed away prior to the school opening.

__________________
Chris
Member at Grace Community Baptist Church, Mandeville, LA

Beware of a religion without holdfasts. But if I get a grip upon a doctrine they call me a bigot. Let them do so. Bigotry is a hateful thing, and yet that which is now abused as bigotry is a great virtue, and greatly needed in these frivolous times. I have been inclined lately to start a new denomination, and call it "the Church of the Bigoted." Spurgeon