Calvinist Dispensationalists?

[Herald]

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. . .

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. . .

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?

The "lofty" Reformed may bristle at the term "Calvinist", but the word has meaning in the vernacular. Calvinism does not equal Reformed anymore than a thunder cloud equals an ocean. Call it what you will - Calvinism, or the doctrines of sovereign grace, it's a far cry from Armianism and semi-Pelagianism. For many, it's a starting point into the Reformed faith. We should encourage this first step among many who have been steeped in Finneyism.

 

[Nathan Riese]

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. . .

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. . .

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?

The "lofty" Reformed may bristle at the term "Calvinist", but the word has meaning in the vernacular. Calvinism does not equal Reformed anymore than a thunder cloud equals an ocean. Call it what you will - Calvinism, or the doctrines of sovereign grace, it's a far cry from Armianism and semi-Pelagianism. For many, it's a starting point into the Reformed faith. We should encourage this first step among many who have been steeped in Finneyism.

I agree, we should encourage this step for people to take to accept the Biblical doctrines of grace.

I agree that words can change in meaning. Movements can even change in meaning. Dispensationalism of 1830 is not Dispensationalism of 2009.

However, with a word such as "Calvinist" there is an objectivity to its definition that regardless of how people USE the word retains its original meaning. And that objective definition that cannot change is "One who follows the teachings of Calvin." And "Calvinism" is "the teachings of Calvin." This is NOT subject to modern vernacular as you have suggested. John Calvin is dead and his teachings do not and cannot change, my friend, regardless of how one would like to define it, the true, objective definition is not changeable.

Reformed theology might be able to be changed, perhaps. Covenant theology too. Calvinism NEVER, for it is the teachings of a dead person named John Calvin, and that is an absolute definition.

Now, whether someone can really be a "Calvinist" and a dispensationalist at the same time, I would have to say "No." For dispensationalists do not follow the teachings of Calvin. What they call "Calvinism" is not objectively "Calvinism" but the doctrines of grace known as TULIP. Whether someone can be called a Calvinist Dispensationalist and whether they are one, are two separate matters. This is my opinion and in no way am i authority on the matter.

 

[Herald]

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?

The "lofty" Reformed may bristle at the term "Calvinist", but the word has meaning in the vernacular. Calvinism does not equal Reformed anymore than a thunder cloud equals an ocean. Call it what you will - Calvinism, or the doctrines of sovereign grace, it's a far cry from Armianism and semi-Pelagianism. For many, it's a starting point into the Reformed faith. We should encourage this first step among many who have been steeped in Finneyism.

I agree, we should encourage this step for people to take to accept the Biblical doctrines of grace.

I agree that words can change in meaning. Movements can even change in meaning. Dispensationalism of 1830 is not Dispensationalism of 2009.

However, with a word such as "Calvinist" there is an objectivity to its definition that regardless of how people USE the word retains its original meaning. And that objective definition that cannot change is "One who follows the teachings of Calvin." And "Calvinism" is "the teachings of Calvin." This is NOT subject to modern vernacular as you have suggested. John Calvin is dead and his teachings do not and cannot change, my friend, regardless of how one would like to define it, the true, objective definition is not changeable.

Reformed theology might be able to be changed, perhaps. Covenant theology too. Calvinism NEVER, for it is the teachings of a dead person named John Calvin, and that is an absolute definition.

Now, whether someone can really be a "Calvinist" and a dispensationalist at the same time, I would have to say "No." For dispensationalists do not follow the teachings of Calvin. What they call "Calvinism" is not objectively "Calvinism" but the doctrines of grace known as TULIP. Whether someone can be called a Calvinist Dispensationalist and whether they are one, are two separate matters. This is my opinion and in no way am i authority on the matter.

Nathan, if we're using accepted standards of the case ending "ism", you're right; Calvinism is the systematic teaching of John Calvin. However, this term has been co-oped as part of the Christian vernacular at least as far back as the 19th century. It was Spurgeon who said, "Calvinism is nothing less than the gospel." What Spurgeon meant was the soteriological portion of Calvin's theology. You may not like the term being applied to dispensationalists who believe in the doctrines of grace, but it is what it is, and it's not likely to change anytime soon.

 

[bill]

It seems to me many in the Church today associate tulip with reformed theology. However that is just a part of reformed theology. True Reformed theology is also covenant theology, and is much more than just the 5 points.

Am I the only one frustrated with the broad category that others give to reformed theology?
Am I wrong?
Correct me if I am.

 

[Nathan Riese]

In today's vernacular, "Christian" can be applied to several groups of people.

It is an accepted term for those groups of people.

You see the point I'm making? You can be a "Calvinist" and not be one at all at the same time. Just because people accept the term's applying to certain people does not make the definition applicable to them. That is all the point I was making.

Just as "Christians" may very well not be Christians at all, so "Calvinist" dispensationalists are not really Calvinists.

Many words change in their applicability and meaning, but certain ones do not, for some words have objective definitions that are not fluid with culture's usage of them.

So, we can call certain people like MacArthur a "Calvinist Dispensationalist" and many know what we're talking about, but at the very same time he is not a Calvinist. I hope that makes sense, and I understand what you're getting at too, Herald.

 

[Herald]

Nathan, then let's call it an entrenched inconsistency. This is similar to the "are Reformed Baptists Reformed?" thread. The subject matters to the uber-Reformed types. They're the ones who get their knickers in a twist. The same could be said of Calvinism and Baptists. Even if the term has been stolen, mauled, and redefined; so what? Does it really matter, and if so, to whom? It didn't matter to Spurgeon. It doesn't matter to MacArthur, Piper, Dever, Begg, Mohler, Washer etc. It doesn't matter to me either. I'm more concerned about believers becoming more like Christ. The more I interact on this board the more I see a need for the pastoral to accompany the theological. And Nathan, this isn't about countering what you've said. You're correct from a historical perspective. You can't be faulted for your logic. It's just that the train has left the station on this issue, and it's not coming back.

 

[Claudiu]

I should change "Calvinism" to the "Sovereignty of God".
What I was trying to say is God is Sovereign. However, "Calvinist Dispensationalists" believe he is Sovereign too. It seems inconsistent to say that God is Sovereign, or be a Calvinist, in a Dispensational point of view because the framework suggestions that God messed up and had to modify his plan after what his creation did. On the other hand, the Dispensationalist can counter-argue that, which I have witnessed, and state that it was God's will all along to change his plans (resulting in all the different dispensations and the Israel/Church distinction).

What would be the argument against that statement (that God planned everything to happen in the Disp. framework)? Because both sides can say that it was "God's will to...(either Covenant or Dispensational)." So this has more to do with the will of God and his Sovereignty, as opposed to salvation.

 

[CharlieJ]

I should change "Calvinism" to the "Sovereignty of God".
What I was trying to say is God is Sovereign. However, "Calvinist Dispensationalists" believe he is Sovereign too. It seems inconsistent to say that God is Sovereign, or be a Calvinist, in a Dispensational point of view because the framework suggestions that God messed up and had to modify his plan after what his creation did. On the other hand, the Dispensationalist can counter-argue that, which I have witnessed, and state that it was God's will all along to change his plans (resulting in all the different dispensations and the Israel/Church distinction).

What would be the argument against that statement (that God planned everything to happen in the Disp. framework)? Because both sides can say that it was "God's will to...(either Covenant or Dispensational)." So this has more to do with the will of God and his Sovereignty, as opposed to salvation.

I don't think that that's entirely fair. When I was a dispensationalist I didn't know anyone who thought that God messed up and introduced Jesus' sacrifice as an afterthought. There are hard things to understand. God doesn't approve of sin, yet he wills it to his glory. God didn't approve of Israel's desire for a king, and knew that Saul was a bad choice, but he allowed them to crown him anyway. Obviously Israel took a detour from God's revealed will for their history, but it was according to God's hidden will.

Similarly, a Calvinist dispensationalist affirms that God really, truly offered the millennial kingdom to Israel, but they rejected it. God, knowing all along that they would reject the kingdom, prepared Christ for his sacrificial work. According to Thurman Wisdom, in A Royal Destiny, Jesus' sacrifice would have been necessary even if Israel had accepted the kingdom. Now, I'm not defending the postponement theory. I think it is the result of a significantly erroneous reading of OT prophecy and God's purposes for Israel. But, saying that Dispensationalism portrays God as messing up or using plan B is just hyperbole.

One other thing you should note: not all Dispensationalists believe in the postponement theory.

 

[Herald]

I should change "Calvinism" to the "Sovereignty of God".
What I was trying to say is God is Sovereign. However, "Calvinist Dispensationalists" believe he is Sovereign too. It seems inconsistent to say that God is Sovereign, or be a Calvinist, in a Dispensational point of view because the framework suggestions that God messed up and had to modify his plan after what his creation did. On the other hand, the Dispensationalist can counter-argue that, which I have witnessed, and state that it was God's will all along to change his plans (resulting in all the different dispensations and the Israel/Church distinction).

What would be the argument against that statement (that God planned everything to happen in the Disp. framework)? Because both sides can say that it was "God's will to...(either Covenant or Dispensational)." So this has more to do with the will of God and his Sovereignty, as opposed to salvation.

Claudiu,

What brand of Dispensationalism are you describing? As a former Scofield-type dispensationalist, I am not familiar with the teaching that "God messed up."

 

[Claudiu]

I should change "Calvinism" to the "Sovereignty of God".
What I was trying to say is God is Sovereign. However, "Calvinist Dispensationalists" believe he is Sovereign too. It seems inconsistent to say that God is Sovereign, or be a Calvinist, in a Dispensational point of view because the framework suggestions that God messed up and had to modify his plan after what his creation did. On the other hand, the Dispensationalist can counter-argue that, which I have witnessed, and state that it was God's will all along to change his plans (resulting in all the different dispensations and the Israel/Church distinction).

What would be the argument against that statement (that God planned everything to happen in the Disp. framework)? Because both sides can say that it was "God's will to...(either Covenant or Dispensational)." So this has more to do with the will of God and his Sovereignty, as opposed to salvation.

Claudiu,

What brand of Dispensationalism are you describing? As a former Scofield-type dispensationalist, I am not familiar with the teaching that "God messed up."

The type I'm talking about are from the Pentecostal churches I grew up in. Most believed that if Israel never disobeyed, God would never have brought salvation to the gentiles. Also, they would teach, and the people that were in the churches would affirm, that the dispensations were "God giving people a second chance." The problem may be that they say they were Dispensational when they really weren't consistent. These are Romanian Pentecostals that don't preach much theology but more story telling of the great holy spirit miracles God did in their lives back in Romania.

However, apart from them there are non-Reformed, five-point Calvinist Baptists that I have talked to who are staunch dispensationalists. When I brought up the Sovereignty of God they agreed with most of what I do except when it came to Cov. v Disp. talk. They would say that God planned the Dispensational framework and that Covenant theology is too simplified and "bends the scripture too much to make everything fit in such a simple way." One of the guys I talked to, and still am, is currently reading "Dispensationalism" by Charles Ryrie.

So I was thinking since we have Sovereignty of God as common ground I could make a case for Covenant theology and show why Dispensational theology is wrong. Thats why I was wondering if there are any contradictions/problems with holding to Calvinism, or Sovereignty of God, or whatever you want to call it, and Dispensationalism.

-----Added 12/16/2009 at 08:57:31 EST-----

So again:

What would be the argument against that statement (that God planned everything to happen in the Disp. framework)? Because both sides can say that it was "God's will to...(either Covenant or Dispensational)."

are there any quick points that can shed some light on the inconsistency (if there is any)?

 

[the particular baptist]

So I was thinking since we have Sovereignty of God as common ground I could make a case for Covenant theology and show why Dispensational theology is wrong. Thats why I was wondering if there are any contradictions/problems with holding to Calvinism, or Sovereignty of God, or whatever you want to call it, and Dispensationalism.

Yes ! One painless way that will leave them with their jaws open is to quote from Amos chapter 9 then go to Acts 15. Before you do they will have to at least concede that the New Testament is always the final and greater revelation and the interpreter of the Old.

Amos prophesies the complete destruction of the physical theocratic Jewish state, but in Amos chapter 9 he foretells the rebuilding/raising up of, the tent/tabernacle/house of David. David of course was a type of Christ. The prophecy is figurative not literal. How do we know ? Because James the half brother of Jesus in Acts 15 interprets (or re-interprets if you will)Amos's prophecy.



Amos 9:11-12 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up its ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old; that they may possess the remnant of Edom, and all the nations that are called by my name, saith Jehovah that doeth this.


So the scene in Acts 15 is a church full of hebrew believers talking about what they will do with the new gentile believers. The circumcision sect argued that to be a true christian the gentile must first become a jew by circumcising. James, Peter, Paul, Barnabas said not so fast, and our dear brother James quotes Amos, and not only that, but James infers that all the Old Testament prophets in general agree...


Acts 15:6-18 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.




God is rebuilding the tabernacle of David with His church, True Israel. The latter half of Ephesians 2 settles the issue anyway. Oh, and Romans 3,4, and 5, God teaches this everywhere in His book.



Inteleg cum te simti frate. Si mie imi vine sa-m bat capu de pereti cand vorbesc despre lucruriile astea cu Romani.

 

[CharlieJ]

are there any quick points that can shed some light on the inconsistency (if there is any)?

The basic difference that I have been able to discern between dispensational and covenant theology is their visions of the end, what God is really doing. To a covenant theologian, Israel was a temporary means to an eternal end, the glorification of God in the Church. The Dispensationalist has it backwards. He thinks the Church is a temporal (paranthetical) means to an eternal end, the glorification of God in a renewed Israel. So, in the Dispie version of the Millennial Kingdom, there is a temple with priests and animal sacrifices and food laws and so forth. So, I think a good approach is to point out the many places in the NT where the Church is acknowledged to be the fulfillment of God's plans for the ages.

Stress that, according to the way the apostles view the OT, the OT prophecies were about Christ and what he would accomplish through the Church. Consistent Dispensationalists like Robert Thomas actually say that though the apostles sometimes speak this way, we are not allowed to consider them as proper interpretive models for ourselves! At that point, a person has to choose between the apostolic model and one of their own creation.

However, I don't think there is any inherent logical inconsistency between the sovereignty of God and most forms of Dispensationalism. It may be better to find common ground on the inspiration and interpretive authority of the NT writers.

 

[the particular baptist]

are there any quick points that can shed some light on the inconsistency (if there is any)?

The basic difference that I have been able to discern between dispensational and covenant theology is their visions of the end, what God is really doing. To a covenant theologian, Israel was a temporary means to an eternal end, the glorification of God in the Church. The Dispensationalist has it backwards. He thinks the Church is a temporal (paranthetical) means to an eternal end, the glorification of God in a renewed Israel. So, in the Dispie version of the Millennial Kingdom, there is a temple with priests and animal sacrifices and food laws and so forth. So, I think a good approach is to point out the many places in the NT where the Church is acknowledged to be the fulfillment of God's plans for the ages.

Right on.

 

[Claudiu]

So I was thinking since we have Sovereignty of God as common ground I could make a case for Covenant theology and show why Dispensational theology is wrong. Thats why I was wondering if there are any contradictions/problems with holding to Calvinism, or Sovereignty of God, or whatever you want to call it, and Dispensationalism.

Yes ! One painless way that will leave them with their jaws open is to quote from Amos chapter 9 then go to Acts 15. Before you do they will have to at least concede that the New Testament is always the final and greater revelation and the interpreter of the Old.

Amos prophesies the complete destruction of the physical theocratic Jewish state, but in Amos chapter 9 he foretells the rebuilding/raising up of, the tent/tabernacle/house of David. David of course was a type of Christ. The prophecy is figurative not literal. How do we know ? Because James the half brother of Jesus in Acts 15 interprets (or re-interprets if you will)Amos's prophecy.



Amos 9:11-12 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up its ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old; that they may possess the remnant of Edom, and all the nations that are called by my name, saith Jehovah that doeth this.


So the scene in Acts 15 is a church full of hebrew believers talking about what they will do with the new gentile believers. The circumcision sect argued that to be a true christian the gentile must first become a jew by circumcising. James, Peter, Paul, Barnabas said not so fast, and our dear brother James quotes Amos, and not only that, but James infers that all the Old Testament prophets in general agree...


Acts 15:6-18 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.




God is rebuilding the tabernacle of David with His church, True Israel. The latter half of Ephesians 2 settles the issue anyway. Oh, and Romans 3,4, and 5, God teaches this everywhere in His book.



Inteleg cum te simti frate. Si mie imi vine sa-m bat capu de pereti cand vorbesc despre lucruriile astea cu Romani.

Thanks for the Bible passages, I found them helpful and will be sure to use them.

What made my day though is that you're Romanian too. Its awesome. I never really expected any other Romanians on here, except Steve Nemes. You understand where I'm coming from though. You really have to come from that culture and deal with the people to really understand where we are coming from. The Romanians I've meet over the years share some basic characteristics:
1. Super charismatic (in the Pentecostal church).
They are already superstitious as it is over there. Pentecostal/Charismatic teaching is an easy transition for them.
2. Post-communist thinking has left them with horrible views of a lot of stuff. Also, their mentality is still very communist, not in the actually sense of the ideology but the restrictions of things in the church (legalism).
3. Ignorant on many matters. Although they can be very smart in some things, they are also very ignorant on some major things. Organization skills, leadership skills, weak theology, etc.
4. Stubborn. Think they are always right. Also hold to the old way of thinking that nature is greater than nurture, so genes are more important in determining a persons character than anything else, such as environment maybe.
5. Envious.
All this coupled together mixed with some bad theology and it makes for a really frustrating argument.

Si cum ai spus...si mie imi vine sa-m bat capu de pereti

-----Added 12/17/2009 at 01:14:47 EST-----

are there any quick points that can shed some light on the inconsistency (if there is any)?

The basic difference that I have been able to discern between dispensational and covenant theology is their visions of the end, what God is really doing. To a covenant theologian, Israel was a temporary means to an eternal end, the glorification of God in the Church. The Dispensationalist has it backwards. He thinks the Church is a temporal (paranthetical) means to an eternal end, the glorification of God in a renewed Israel. So, in the Dispie version of the Millennial Kingdom, there is a temple with priests and animal sacrifices and food laws and so forth. So, I think a good approach is to point out the many places in the NT where the Church is acknowledged to be the fulfillment of God's plans for the ages.

Stress that, according to the way the apostles view the OT, the OT prophecies were about Christ and what he would accomplish through the Church. Consistent Dispensationalists like Robert Thomas actually say that though the apostles sometimes speak this way, we are not allowed to consider them as proper interpretive models for ourselves! At that point, a person has to choose between the apostolic model and one of their own creation.

However, I don't think there is any inherent logical inconsistency between the sovereignty of God and most forms of Dispensationalism. It may be better to find common ground on the inspiration and interpretive authority of the NT writers.

So my take on it is to use the Sovereignty of God as common ground and instead of arguing against the compatibility of Calvinism and Dispensationalim I should stress upon the flaws in:
1. reading the Bible literally all the time
2. interpreting the NT with the OT

-----Added 12/17/2009 at 01:17:47 EST-----

Those passages were helpful. Are there any other that prove that the NT interprets the OT and not the other way around? Or any resources?

 

[beej6]

I understand that "Calvinist" usually refers to soteriology. Properly, as Chris said above, "Calvinism" should be a synonym for "Reformed theology" including but certainly not limited to soteriology.
In my own mind, I tend to use the categories "Reformed," and "Reformed-friendly" rather than, say, "Calvinist" and "Calvinistic" to make a distinction between those systematic folks v. the folks who are not "fully Reformed."

Because I am a precisionist with respect to language, this seems similar to me to the use of the word "evangelical" which has also become terribly imprecise. I had a chaplain ask me years ago, about my previous (Westminsterian) church, whether it was evangelical. I asked him to "define evangelical." He replied, "Does it have the Holy Spirit?" I answered yes.

 

[Gryphonette]

What about the late Donald Grey Barnhouse, who wrote "The Invisible War"? I was surprised to read that he seemed to be dispensationalist. Or do I mean pre-mil? Never been quite sure of the difference between the two.

 

[the particular baptist]

Those passages were helpful. Are there any other that prove that the NT interprets the OT and not the other way around? Or any resources?

There are many. The whole book of Hebrews . Im thinking of Emmaus road
...

Luke 24:13-32 That very day two of them were going to a village named Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem, and they were talking with each other about all these things that had happened.

While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them. But their eyes were kept from recognizing him. And he said to them, "What is this conversation that you are holding with each other as you walk?"

And they stood still, looking sad. Then one of them, named Cleopas, answered him, "Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?" And he said to them, "What things?"

And they said to him, "Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, a man who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people,
and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him. But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things happened. Moreover, some women of our company amazed us. They were at the tomb early in the morning, and when they did not find his body, they came back saying that they had even seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive. Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see."

And he said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?"

And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

So they drew near to the village to which they were going. He acted as if he were going farther, but they urged him strongly, saying, "Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent." So he went in to stay with them.

When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them. And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And he vanished from their sight.

They said to each other, "Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?"



See the underlined, Jesus expounded the Old Testament scriptures to the men, and how all of the Old Testament spoke of Him, was a type and shadow of Him, was pointing to Him. Even the tabernacle pointed to Him. All the types of Christ like David pointed to Him.

The Dispensational romanian looks at the Old Testament and sees great men, even bigger miracles, national jews, etc...everything but Christ.


Lets see, some resources. In Arad there is a reformed baptist church, Biserica Baptista Logos, pastored by [video=youtube;IyGwRVwKhTs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyGwRVwKhTs[/video]. His mp3 sermons are available here.


A free online read is A.W. Pink's, A Study Of Dispensationalism. What is significant about Pink is he is wrote that as a former Dispensational. It is a must read.

Lastly from a historical covenantal baptist perpective is two treatments by Nehemiah Coxe and John Owen in a single volume put out by Reformed Baptist Academic Press called Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ.

-----Added 12/17/2009 at 10:49:27 EST-----

What about the late Donald Grey Barnhouse, who wrote \"The Invisible War\"? I was surprised to read that he seemed to be dispensationalist. Or do I mean pre-mil? Never been quite sure of the difference between the two.

I dont think Dr Barnhouse was Dispensational, i thought he was of the historic premil variety.

 

[Claudiu]

Awesome. Thank you so much Flavio. I will take some time tomorrow (as it is getting late) to read your response carefully and look at the other sources.

 

[A.J.]

Those passages were helpful. Are there any other that prove that the NT interprets the OT and not the other way around? Or any resources?

Some of the many books that give an introduction to Covenant Theology are:

Amazon.com: The Christ of the Covenants (9780875524184): O. Palmer Robertson: Books

Amazon.com: Introducing Covenant Theology (9780801071959): Michael Horton: Books

Websites with lots of online resources on Covenant Theology include the following:

Monergism :: Covenant Theology

Covenant Theology, Sacraments and other things

INDEX for Covenant Theology

An online work which you may find particularly helpful is What the Bible Says About the People of God. It is essentially a categorized Scripture list defending Covenant Theology against Dispensationalism. Robert Reymond's Five Argument for the Unity of the Covenant of Grace also gives a systematic defense of Covenant Theology and demonstrates the error of dispensationalists from many Scripture passages.

Blessings!

 

[Prufrock]

None of the Reformed, or at least none that I can think of right now, in the 16th and 17th century called themselves "Calvinists."

Dr. Clark, for what it's worth, I noted the other day that A. Burgess, in his lectures on the Law, did refer to the orthodox party as "Calvinists" on at least a few occasions. I generally dislike the term as well, and so would be curious to note any other authors who used it.