I have a friend that is Calvinist and at the same time holds to Dispensational theology. At first I couldn't understand how that is possible. But there are other figures, such as John MacArthur who are also both. Although I didn't get how the two could connect, I did see only one way in which they can be combined: in the idea that God foreordained the different dispensations to take place. Thats the only way the two could be united and still make somewhat sense. However, in my opinion it still doesn't do justice to the Sovereignty of God. What are some basic counter-arguments that can be make to a Calvinist Dispensationalist that would show that that line of thinking in combining the two is not correct.
Calvinist Dispensationalists?
- Thread starter Claudiu
- Start date
- Status
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
It's deeper theology.
For many, Calvinism comes before covenant theology (as a system contrast to dispensationalism).
It's not exactly this way but it might be compared to someone thinking they are "three point Calvinist." I would say it is not biblically or logically possible.
In a similar way, dispensationalism militates against "Calvinism." (Dispensationalism was not even on the radar screen in Mr. Calvin's day so his systematic theology was in no way part of it).
You may find helpful, a hard-hitting book, "Wrongly Dividing the Truth" by John Gerstner.Amazon.com: Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism (Second Edition) (9781573580687): John H. Gerstner, Don Kistler: Books
For many, Calvinism comes before covenant theology (as a system contrast to dispensationalism).
It's not exactly this way but it might be compared to someone thinking they are "three point Calvinist." I would say it is not biblically or logically possible.
In a similar way, dispensationalism militates against "Calvinism." (Dispensationalism was not even on the radar screen in Mr. Calvin's day so his systematic theology was in no way part of it).
You may find helpful, a hard-hitting book, "Wrongly Dividing the Truth" by John Gerstner.Amazon.com: Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism (Second Edition) (9781573580687): John H. Gerstner, Don Kistler: Books
Just for the record he is a 5-point Calvinist.
-----Added 12/4/2009 at 05:11:47 EST-----
I don't know if I'm reading this right. But the issue I'm debating with him is more than Salvation. Calvinism is the only common ground we have.
I think the issue is in hermeneutics. He reads the Bible literally and so the only conclusion he can come to is disp.
-----Added 12/4/2009 at 05:11:47 EST-----
I don't know if I'm reading this right. But the issue I'm debating with him is more than Salvation. Calvinism is the only common ground we have.
I think the issue is in hermeneutics. He reads the Bible literally and so the only conclusion he can come to is disp.
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
This is why a shaking presentation such as the book may challenge him.
The literal hermeneutic claimed is not always literal- he will say when Jesus says:
(Matthew 26:26) that it is not literal.
He likely will also say Revelation 9:7
is about helicopters at the Battle of Armageddon.
This needs to be approached very carefully (the book, with reflection on it, can help). They think they are "literal" and you are "spiritualizing away" the plain meaning of Scriptures.
The key is different parts of Scripture are interpreted according to their context.
Dr. Sproul has done some excellent teaching on letting Scripture interpret Scripture and how we read the Bible.
CharlieJ
Puritan Board Junior
Compatible
There is no logical inconsistency in believing in Dispensationalism (most forms) and "the five points of Calvinism." John Darby remained a Calvinist his whole life. Dallas Theological seminary these days contains many soteriological Calvinists. Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary produces almost exclusively Calvinist (and Amyraldian) Dispensationalists. Most Fundamentalists who are Calvinist are also Dispensationalist.
Despite repeated and largely derivative assertions that Dispensationalists are de facto non-Calvinist, I have never seen an actual proof of incompatibility, except in extreme cases of Dispensationalism that actually compromise sola gratia in certain dispensations.
I'm all ears, though, if someone wants to make a case.
There is no logical inconsistency in believing in Dispensationalism (most forms) and "the five points of Calvinism." John Darby remained a Calvinist his whole life. Dallas Theological seminary these days contains many soteriological Calvinists. Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary produces almost exclusively Calvinist (and Amyraldian) Dispensationalists. Most Fundamentalists who are Calvinist are also Dispensationalist.
Despite repeated and largely derivative assertions that Dispensationalists are de facto non-Calvinist, I have never seen an actual proof of incompatibility, except in extreme cases of Dispensationalism that actually compromise sola gratia in certain dispensations.
I'm all ears, though, if someone wants to make a case.
Christusregnat
Puritan Board Professor
If Calvinism is minimized to mean strictly and only the five points, then, as originally delivered by the reverend Synod, no you can't be a Calvinist and a Dispensationalist (read the findings of the Synod at Dordt, and you will find covenant theology spun throughout; for example, the mentions of infant baptism as merely one instance).
If Calvinism is considered broadly as a Reformed worldview, then no, a Calvinist cannot be a Dispensational.
If Calvinism is even further minimalized to the TULIP, without reference to the findings of Dordt, then yes, someone may be this sort of "Calvinist" and a Dispensational. In all fairness, I think this is a gross misrepresentation of Calvinism in its character as a system of theology.
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
We might say one cannot be consistent with the systematic theology Mr. Calvin developed and take a dispensational view of Scripture. So, in that sense, one cannot be "Calvinist" and "dispensational." And one certainly cannot hold reformed theology and be dispensational.
Even further, since dispensationalism involves different means of redemption at different time periods and a different plan of redemption between "Israel" and "the church" it becomes inconsistent even with the basic, 5 point, Calvinist soteriology.
It took a long time for me to understand this, and if one has been taught dispensationalism for a long time, or it has been assumed, then one needs to understand something of both dispensationalism and covenant theology to understand their implications.
Reformed theology at a minimum is:
Doctrines of grace (Calvinism) + covenant theology + confession
Even further, since dispensationalism involves different means of redemption at different time periods and a different plan of redemption between "Israel" and "the church" it becomes inconsistent even with the basic, 5 point, Calvinist soteriology.
It took a long time for me to understand this, and if one has been taught dispensationalism for a long time, or it has been assumed, then one needs to understand something of both dispensationalism and covenant theology to understand their implications.
Reformed theology at a minimum is:
Doctrines of grace (Calvinism) + covenant theology + confession
This is what I was trying to get at.
A Calvinist viewpoint within Covenant Theology points to a God who always had the plan to save his elect. In dispensational theology it would seem that the Calvinist position changes a little and God' plan is divided between literal Israel and Church. Also within that is the idea that there was, and will be, a different type of salvation with literal Israel. Is this correct?
Nathan Riese
Puritan Board Freshman
No that's not true. I go to a Fundamental Dispensational Independent Baptist college and I'm a Bible major and their soteriology is that people are saved by faith, whether it was OT or NT or future, it always has been and always will be by faith. Total Depravity, Unconditional Predestination, Effectual grace, and Preservation and Perseverance of the Saints. Universal atonement in scope but limited in intent. Basically Amyraldian.
Dispensationalism has gone/is going through refinement continually. They used to believe that it was works for Israel but faith for Church, but they've changed that (and by they, i mean the mainstream proponents i.e. Ryrie, Walvoord, MacArthur, DallasTS). They no longer believe in different ways of salvation.
There COULD be calvinist dispensationalists (if by calvinist you mean TULIP, otherwise NO)
All of the dispensationalists at my school only know calvinism to be TULIP (or some thing predestination = calvinism...it's SAD) and some believe it and some do not, but it does not affect their dispensationalism.
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
A huge topic.
You may want to search some past threads on dispensationalism.
Dispensationalism has mostly retreated from its original position (late 1800's) which implied different means of redemption at different time periods. But if you read Darby and Schofield this is implicit, even explicit in a few places.
Starting in the 1950's, when the system first really began to be challenged, people like Mr. Dwight Pentecost began to retreat from that, acknowledging that salvation was by grace through faith, even in the Old Testament. One might ask what the "dispensations" (seven originally) are for then!
In this generation, it focuses on a separate plan of redemption for those who have some Jewish ancestry and the church. Contradictions galore- the church is the Body of Christ- how can there be redemption outside of the Body of Christ?
One of the biggest interpretative differences:
Dispensationalists interpret the New Testament in light of the Old (but only for prophecy).
Covenant theology interprets the Old Testament in light of the New.
Many, in both views are not aware of this- but it leads to different interpretations. Covenant theology sees fulfillment in Christ, Dispensationalism ignores Christ's fulfillment in His life, and resurrection and jumps ahead to "earthly promises for an earthly people" (as opposed to "spiritual promises for a spiritual people," the church).
In the 1950's, dispensationalism still held eternal separation of people with some Jewish ancestry from the Body of Christ.
Now, dispensationalism has retreated and says the two will get together, eventually in the future state of Glory. One might ask why are they separated?
Covenant theology says they have, are and forever will be together, in Christ. They are together right now, by grace, through faith in Christ's righteousness alone.
You will want to read Kim Riddlebarger's, A Case for Amillennialism, which is written from his background as a former dispensationalist.
Jimmy the Greek
Puritan Board Senior
To the OP. Your common ground may be TULIP. But as mentioned above, dispensationalism is diametrically contrary to covenant theology.
See the following chart for a point-by-point compariason of DT vs CT:
DISPENSATIONALISM AND COVENANT THEOLOGY
See the following chart for a point-by-point compariason of DT vs CT:
DISPENSATIONALISM AND COVENANT THEOLOGY
Last edited:
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
This thread also illustrates the limits of calling Reformed theology "Calvinism." Muller and others are probably right when they say that we should stop using this modifier.
It was imposed on us by the gnesio ("genuine") Lutherans. None of the Reformed, or at least none that I can think of right now, in the 16th and 17th century called themselves "Calvinists."
Further, as I argued in response to John Macarthur's claim that Calvin, were he alive today, would be a dispensationalist/premillennialist, Calvin was an ardent opponent of "chiliasm." The main chiliasts in his day were the Anabaptists and he had no end of scorn for them. He was thoroughly convinced that the Israelite theocracy was a temporary arrangement never to be reconstituted. He was thoroughly convinced that Christ is the center of God's redemptive plan and that the Israelite national covenant was a temporary, typological arrangement.
Strictly speak, no dispensationalist can be a "Calvinist."
Dispensationalism, in all forms, is utterly contrary to the faith and the system of doctrine confessed by the Reformed churches in their confessional documents.
Here are more resources on these topics. There is also a certain book I would mention, if I hadn't promised not to mention it, that deals with this topic (of defining "Reformed").
What Did Calvin Say? (re-post) Heidelblog
What Would Calvin Say? (re-post) Heidelblog
French Bakery or Winchells? Heidelblog
Dismantling the “Rapture” Heidelblog
It was imposed on us by the gnesio ("genuine") Lutherans. None of the Reformed, or at least none that I can think of right now, in the 16th and 17th century called themselves "Calvinists."
Further, as I argued in response to John Macarthur's claim that Calvin, were he alive today, would be a dispensationalist/premillennialist, Calvin was an ardent opponent of "chiliasm." The main chiliasts in his day were the Anabaptists and he had no end of scorn for them. He was thoroughly convinced that the Israelite theocracy was a temporary arrangement never to be reconstituted. He was thoroughly convinced that Christ is the center of God's redemptive plan and that the Israelite national covenant was a temporary, typological arrangement.
Strictly speak, no dispensationalist can be a "Calvinist."
Dispensationalism, in all forms, is utterly contrary to the faith and the system of doctrine confessed by the Reformed churches in their confessional documents.
Here are more resources on these topics. There is also a certain book I would mention, if I hadn't promised not to mention it, that deals with this topic (of defining "Reformed").
What Did Calvin Say? (re-post) Heidelblog
What Would Calvin Say? (re-post) Heidelblog
French Bakery or Winchells? Heidelblog
Dismantling the “Rapture” Heidelblog
Last edited:
Another problem that comes about is that God, in dispensationalism, would have two elect people instead of one. This means that God makes a difference between his elect (the Christian elect and the Israel elect). On the other hand, in Covenant theology there is only one elect that God always had.
Osage Bluestem
Puritan Board Junior
ubermadchen
Puritanboard <strong>Outlaw</strong>
Oh gee! I really wish you would; I'm sure I would find it to be very helpful. If only there was a book out there for me that discussed confessional reformed theology in a way that would inform my own theology, piety, and practice...
CharlieJ
Puritan Board Junior
That's not true of most Dispensationalists, although it may accurately describe certain older ones. Those who are Calvinist (by which I mean hold to the commonly accepted 5-points, historically robust or not) would delineate different kinds of election. Ultimately, there is one elect group (in Christ) from two different administrative groups, Israel and the Church. On the soteriological side, there's not a big difference. Reformed theology recognizes different kinds of election, including the national election of the Jews as God's people under the Mosaic Covenant.
The bottom line, without historical and semantic wrangling, is that most schemes of Dispensationalism are indeed compatible with five-point Calvinism.
Jimmy the Greek
Puritan Board Senior
The fact is, the term "Calvinism" is often used as a synonym for TULIP and limited to those soteriological points. You say this is wrong. I agree. But that doesn't really change things. Nor do I believe a few books on the subject will change the common notion outside confessional Reformed folk.
Hence, we are stuck with prefatory comments like "True Calvinism is broader than the five points", etc. And the purpose is what? To ask someone (like a dispensationalist) to quit referring to himself as a Calvinist?
How's that working out?
Christusregnat
Puritan Board Professor
He probably calls himself a "Calvinist Dispensationalist" because he believes in the doctrines of grace and at the same time believes in dispensationism.
Reepicheep
Puritan Board Freshman
For what it's worth, I went to Moody Bible Institute- an historically Dispensational school, to this day- most of my teachers were Calvinists as it relates to the "five points".
TrueConvert
Puritan Board Freshman
My Trek (by God's Grace)
United Pentecostal Church (Oneness Cult)---->Catholic High School---->5% Islam (Sect of Islam known to follow teachings of Elijah Muhammad)---->Rabid Charismania---->Less Maniacal Charismatic (believing in the order spoken of in 1 Corinthians)---->Doctrines of Grace (for the last 4 years, under leadership of MacArthur's Masters Sem grads; therefore dispensational, yet Calvinistic in soteriology.)---->Now covenantal, and wrestling through the baptism issue for the last several months. This all started in 1989 when I was 14 and I'm arriving at a more and more "Reformed" theology as time elapses. God is MAGNIFICENTLY GRACIOUS!!!
United Pentecostal Church (Oneness Cult)---->Catholic High School---->5% Islam (Sect of Islam known to follow teachings of Elijah Muhammad)---->Rabid Charismania---->Less Maniacal Charismatic (believing in the order spoken of in 1 Corinthians)---->Doctrines of Grace (for the last 4 years, under leadership of MacArthur's Masters Sem grads; therefore dispensational, yet Calvinistic in soteriology.)---->Now covenantal, and wrestling through the baptism issue for the last several months. This all started in 1989 when I was 14 and I'm arriving at a more and more "Reformed" theology as time elapses. God is MAGNIFICENTLY GRACIOUS!!!
Devo
Puritan Board Freshman
I don't think dispensationalism makes sense, whether it's connected to Calvinism or not.
- Status
