Discussions with Calvinist Dispensationalists

[Stephen L Smith]

I have relatives who studied at the Masters Seminary. They are five point Calvinists and also dispensational.

It seems to me a five point Calvinist who is not Covenantal in his theology has a weaker Calvinist theology.

How do you answer Calvinist Dispensationalists. One assumes they like the Calvinistic heritage of the Canons of Dordt but fail to realise that the framers of the Canons were Covenantal in their theology.

I have told one relative that Calvinism is inextrabicly linked to Covenant theology. He told me I was imposing a man made theology on the Bible.

Interested in your thoughts, especially the problem of having a five point Calvinism which is not Covenantal.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

Once they state that God deals with His ppl through dispensations and not covenants, you know they have a huge problem. The Bible is replete with covenants: Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, &c. The only way to explain this to them is to explain that God has only one plan for His ppl, not a plan for His gentile ppl and a plan for His Jewish ppl. Christ is not the head of two distinct bodies, but one.

 

[arapahoepark]

That's a tough one. As I have stated in the past what brought me out of the leaky kind of dispensationalism was making sense of key texts like Daniel 7, 9 Galatians 6:16, etc. I realized the interpretative gymnastics, especially how in the world the 70th week of Daniel could be referring to Revelation, couldn't possibly fit.
From there it was fairly simple to see how the OT allusions and quotes in the NT aren't somehow just taken out of context and random cases of inspired sensus plenior (many dispensationalists seem like the flip side of Enns in this area) but, in many or most cases refer to Christ and his Body as what actually prophesied.
But again, that's how I came out of it.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

I was never a hardline Dispensationalist, but I did come to faith in those circles. One of the biggest things that showed me the weakness of their position, before I even really understood it, was how they handled NT quotations of the OT. They can't and don't interpret the OT like the Apostles did, and that's a huge problem.

 

[cthorn14]

I doubt there's a neat "one size fits all" approach to conversing with dispensationalists. There's a pretty vast spectrum of views within the broad umbrella (DTS, TMS, and old school each seem to have their own flavor). This makes criticizing their hermeneutic to be something of a headache, since there's no definite confession of faith.

For this reason, I would recommend presenting them with an accurate summary of covenant theology instead. Many of these brothers have only heard a caricature of covenant theology, which can make presenting a positive case for CT more effective.

Discussing passages like Galatians 3, Hebrews 12, and Romans 4, which convincingly show the continuity of the covenant of grace is my best suggestion. Those are the passages that helped me to make the switch.

Vern Poythress also has a book Understanding Dispensationalists which could be helpful. It is a little dated at this point though.

 

[TheInquirer]

One of the biggest things that showed me the weakness of their position, before I even really understood it, was how they handled NT quotations of the OT. They can't and don't interpret the OT like the Apostles did, and that's a huge problem.

That was the main out of MacArthurism for me as well, simply reading through the Bible over and over again and noticing big inconsistencies with the hermeneutics I was taught.

I have told one relative that Calvinism is inextrabicly linked to Covenant theology. He told me I was imposing a man made theology on the Bible.

That’s one of the ignorant, nonsensical replies they like to put forward since many of them believe the MacArthur camp is the pinnacle of Bible interpretation for all ages. Most I have interacted with know little of historical theology and don’t seem to care much and don’t realize that MacArthur-dispensationalism is a man made system itself posing as the purist form of interpretation known to man.

If the people you are talking to are truly devoted to God and His word, you have a chance to convince them with the Spirit’s help opening their eyes and showing them how the Bible quotes itself. If all they do is quote MacArthur in response, I wouldn’t personally waste my time.

 

[MilitaryBrat2007]

Christ's bride is the Church and the Church alone.

Israel was compared to God's unloyal bride in Hosea.

Israel rejected God. God chose the Church.

The Church is, and forever will be, Christ's bride. To say that there is a people of God that is not the Church is heresy. Jesus does not have two wives, only one.

 

[dsanch1120]

The charge of “imposing a system on the text” is interesting. I think an issue with dispensationals is that they act like they interpret in an “unbiased” way or the “obvious” way of interpreting the text. In reality they have their own hermeneutical and interpretative traditions that they hold very strongly to. They impose a system on the text just as much (if not more) than anyone else. There is no such thing as an “unbiased” reading.
For me, I just say that the 5-points are not the summary of Calvinism, and explain that Calvinism/reformed theology is covenant theology, and encourage them to read the reformers, reformed theologians, and the confessions/catechisms. I remember opening up institutes for the first time as a MacArthur-esque 5-pointer. I expected the whole book to be about predestination and was shocked when he spent a whole chapter arguing against making an image of Christ.
If you’re going to identify yourself with the old-paths, take a stroll in them.

 

[dsanch1120]

One assumes they like the Calvinistic heritage of the Canons of Dordt but fail to realise that the framers of the Canons were Covenantal in their theology.

Not to sound snarky, but I actually think that most in this camp are unaware of the Canons of Dordt, let alone the 3 forms of unity. Most, I think, haven’t read or engaged with Protestant history. I say this because I was in this camp myself and have interacted with others in this position. I think most just assume that Calvin and Luther were leaky-dispensationals. Personally I was floored when I found out that virtually all the reformers were paedobaptist

 

[mpinckard]

Israel was compared to God's unloyal bride in Hosea.

Israel rejected God. God chose the Church.

I wouldn't put it in these terms; it sounds very much like the "replacement theology" that we're erroneously accused of believing. God never rejected Israel, even though she rejected him. Romans 11:1-2, "I ask, then, has God rejected his people? Absolutely not! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew."

So God did not choose the church in place of Israel. Rather, the church expands and fulfills Israel; the NT church is what Israel was intended to be from the beginning, because God's plan of redemption was never just about saving Israel. Hence why Paul's metaphor for the inclusion of the Gentiles (and exclusion of unbelieving Jews) is the one olive tree, from which the dead natural branches are lopped off and into which the wild branches are grafted.

But, of course, that still means you're right to insist on Christ's having only one bride.

 

[Polanus1561]

No idea how you can read Luke 1 and not see a continuity. Israel's story continues with the remnant. Mary Zacharias John the Baptist etc. Disciples like Peter. From that foundation comes the church of Jew and Gentiles.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

Christ's bride is the Church and the Church alone.

Israel was compared to God's unloyal bride in Hosea.

Israel rejected God. God chose the Church.

The Church is, and forever will be, Christ's bride. To say that there is a people of God that is not the Church is heresy. Jesus does not have two wives, only one.

The church, as in the body of Christ, was not implemented around AD 30, but has been around as long as mankind has been post-fall. The church is not the building at the corner of Maple and Elm streets, but the members of that local church (and all those who have been saved down through time). So, when you stated "Israel rejected God. God chose the Church," that's not entirely true. Israel rejected Christ and they were severed from the vine, of which is Christ. The church has ever been God's chosen ppl.

 

[Sam Jer]

I do not have a single passage that got me out of it. It was a constant struggle with the OT (and NT), added to that were various Presbyterian and Particular Baptist critiques, until finally, when I accepted the idea that the bible did not teach the complex eschatological system of Macarthur, I gave covenantal understandings (which I already knew about from my struggles after becoming a lower case C calvinist) a fair hearing.

One question I asked myself for years before that, and never had an answer to, was "is God polygemous?"
Eventually I came to the conclusion that it must be that the bride is equal go the Romans 11 olive tree.
I had no idea how big that was until years later.

Full Macarthurite eschatology is so convoluted. Picking one single aspect of it in pieces, or exegeting a random one of it's proof texts, will either destroy it or make the dispie tie himself in even more knots, making it easier for tge system to collapse later.

 

[JvMill]

Full Macarthurite eschatology is so convoluted. Picking one single aspect of it in pieces, or exegeting a random one of it's proof texts, will either destroy it or make the dispie tie himself in even more knots, making it easier for tge system to collapse later.

It reminds me of conspiracy theories.

 

[jwright82]

I don't know how the best way to deal with any dispensationalists, I've had mixed results. You may try to look up Schofield's personal history and say something like "if I have to pick Reformed covenant theologian's interpretation of scripture over a con-artist who abandoned his family and was made fun of for never sending enough money even when he was rich to support them, I pick covenant theologian's". All of his story is on the internet.

 

[Sam Jer]

I don't know how the best way to deal with any dispensationalists, I've had mixed results. You may try to look up Schofield's personal history and say something like "if I have to pick Reformed covenant theologian's interpretation of scripture over a con-artist who abandoned his family and was made fun of for never sending enough money even when he was rich to support them, I pick covenant theologian's". All of his story is on the internet.

This sort of attitude would have repelled me when I was a dispensationalist.

 

[cthorn14]

So God did not choose the church in place of Israel. Rather, the church expands and fulfills Israel; the NT church is what Israel was intended to be from the beginning, because God's plan of redemption was never just about saving Israel. Hence why Paul's metaphor for the inclusion of the Gentiles (and exclusion of unbelieving Jews) is the one olive tree, from which the dead natural branches are lopped off and into which the wild branches are grafted.

Good point. The charge of 'replacement theology' is the standard rallying cry against CT.

We can also see this by comparing 1 Peter 2:9 and Exodus 19:6. Calvin comments,

There is in the royal priesthood a striking inversion of the words of Moses; for he says, "a priestly kingdom," but the same thing is meant. So what Peter intimated was this, "Moses called your fathers a sacred kingdom, because the whole people enjoyed as it were a royal liberty, and from their body were chosen the priests; both dignities were therefore joined together: but now ye are royal priests, and, indeed, in a more excellent way, because ye are, each of you, consecrated in Christ, that ye may be the associates of his kingdom, and partakers of his priesthood. Though, then, the fathers had something like to what you have; yet ye far excel them. For after the wall of partition has been pulled down by Christ, we are now gathered from every nation, and the Lord bestows these high titles on all whom he makes his people."

 

[jwright82]

This sort of attitude would have repelled me when I was a dispensationalist.

Yeah it's appalling everything he did. You can look it up online. I don't know how to link websites with my phone, so sorry or I would. But apparently he was a criminal before being saved and he also plagiarized for his study bible. My elder whom I meet with weekly for discipleship for brunch, who is one of the most godly and wise men I've ever had the pleasure of calling my friend, leans a premillennial direction a little too close to a left behind type view for me, was floored after I told I had discovered it.
Now he does not publicly nor privately endorse Dispensationalism, only his view is much closer to a left behind view than I'm comfortable with. But he's never tried to convince me of it. He and his wife are amazing people. She refers to me as their adopted son. So I'm not trashing this amazing man's view, his heart for evangelism is one I've never encountered before and his wisdom has benefited me endlessly. He is an elder in good standing in a PCA church but he never knew that about Schofield's character and maybe the same tactic might work for the OP's family.
It can't hurt.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Going back to my OP I was wondering if my my argument that there is an inextrabicle link between Calvinist theology and Covenant Theology is a solid one. It seems to me that Calvinistic Dispensationalists has done a half pie job of borrowing from Reformed theology. I notice they will talk about the ordo salutus. But they do not have a pactum salutus or a historia salutus. Is this not inconsistent?

Also the 5 points of Calvinism were developed at the Synod of Dordt. This means Calvinistic Dispensationalists should love the Canons of Dordt. For those of you who are knowledgeable of the history of the Canons, can one argue that the Canons are proof of the inextrabicle link between Calvinistic theology and Covenant Theology?

In other words, Calvinistic Dispensationalists often use Reformed language to describe the order of salvation but they stop short of talking about the order of salvation in a covenantal language.

 

[cthorn14]

Also the 5 points of Calvinism were developed at the Synod of Dordt. This means Calvinistic Dispensationalists should love the Canons of Dordt. For those of you who are knowledgeable of the history of the Canons, can one argue that the Canons are proof of the inextrabicle link between Calvinistic theology and Covenant Theology?

I'm not an expert on the history, but these are the sections that I think would be most pertinent to draw that link from.

Article 8 under Head 1:

There are not various decrees of election, but one and the same decree respecting all those who shall be saved, both under the Old and New Testament; since the Scripture declares the good pleasure, purpose and counsel of the divine will to be one, according to which He hath chosen us from eternity, both to grace and glory, to salvation and the way of salvation, which He hath ordained that we should walk therein.

Article 17 under Head 1:

Since we are to judge of the will of God from His Word which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they, together with the parents, are comprehended, godly parents have no reason to doubt of the election and salvation of their children whom it pleaseth God to call out of this life in their infancy.

and Article 7 Under Heads 3/4:

This mystery of His will God discovered to but a small number under the Old Testament; under the New (the distinction between various peoples having been removed), He reveals Himself to many without any distinction of people. The cause of this dispensation is not to be ascribed to the superior worth of one nation above another, nor to their making a better use of the light of nature, but results wholly from the sovereign good pleasure and unmerited love of God. Hence they, to whom so great and so gracious a blessing is communicated above their desert, or rather notwithstanding their demerits, are bound to acknowledge it with humble and grateful hearts, and with the apostle to adore, not curiously to pry into the severity and justice of God's judgments displayed to others, to whom this grace is not given.

 

[MilitaryBrat2007]

I wouldn't put it in these terms; it sounds very much like the "replacement theology" that we're erroneously accused of believing. God never rejected Israel, even though she rejected him. Romans 11:1-2, "I ask, then, has God rejected his people? Absolutely not! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew."

So God did not choose the church in place of Israel. Rather, the church expands and fulfills Israel; the NT church is what Israel was intended to be from the beginning, because God's plan of redemption was never just about saving Israel. Hence why Paul's metaphor for the inclusion of the Gentiles (and exclusion of unbelieving Jews) is the one olive tree, from which the dead natural branches are lopped off and into which the wild branches are grafted.

But, of course, that still means you're right to insist on Christ's having only one bride.

Indeed, you put it way better.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Some Calvinistic Dispensationalists have made the argument that Calvin was a very important Reformer but he did not complete the Reformation. They argue that Dispensationalism completed the Reformation by bringing a literal hermeneutic back into the church.

Clearly post Reformation church history refutes this. Three post Reformation movements- the English Puritans, the Scottish Covenanters, and the Dutch Second Reformation all developed Covenant Theology. Brakel, Witsius, Samuel Rutherford, Alexander Henderson, as well as the Puritan Francis Roberts (and other scholars), took the post Reformation in a covenantal direction. They did so because the scriptures teach this, and also because it was the logical outcome of Calvin's theology.

 

[dsanch1120]

Some Calvinistic Dispensationalists have made the argument that Calvin was a very important Reformer but he did not complete the Reformation. They argue that Dispensationalism completed the Reformation by bringing a literal hermeneutic back into the church.

This definitely seems to be the case. Listened to MacArthur’s half of Ligonier’s baptism debate and this mindset seemed very prominent throughout.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

Some Calvinistic Dispensationalists have made the argument that Calvin was a very important Reformer but he did not complete the Reformation. They argue that Dispensationalism completed the Reformation by bringing a literal hermeneutic back into the church.

I'm curious if they say they are bringing this hermeneutic "back" into the church; where do they identify their hermeneutic in earlier Church history? Certainly an excess of allegorical interpretation developed in the medieval period, but I can't think of any time where many theologians interpreted the Bible in a way that matches the rigid historical-grammatical method they advocate.

 

[dsanch1120]

I'm curious if they say they are bringing this hermeneutic "back" into the church; where do they identify their hermeneutic in earlier Church history? Certainly an excess of allegorical interpretation developed in the medieval period, but I can't think of any time where many theologians interpreted the Bible in a way that matches the rigid historical-grammatical method they advocate.

I've seen 2 ways of thinking in the more dispensational circles. First is the "I don't care about church history/tradition, only what the Bible says" crowd. They tend to not know a ton about church history, including the reformation, and in my opinion tend to view the reformers as dispensational out of ignorance. The second camp tends to assume that the patristic era was dispensational, but very quickly lost its way. They'll cherry pick church father quotes (usually out of context) that seem to agree with them. Not saying this is all dispensationals, but has been my experience.
I've had a growing frustration with the system, which is that there seems to be tendency for dispensationalism to act like it's the only system in the room. This leads to most of church history either getting discarded or misread. You really can't look at church or reformation history and find dispensationalism.

 

[mpinckard]

I'm curious if they say they are bringing this hermeneutic "back" into the church; where do they identify their hermeneutic in earlier Church history? Certainly an excess of allegorical interpretation developed in the medieval period, but I can't think of any time where many theologians interpreted the Bible in a way that matches the rigid historical-grammatical method they advocate.

I've heard of at least one dispensationalist who connected reformed hermeneutics to the Alexandrian allegorical hermeneutic while arguing that the dispensational hermeneutic follows the same logic as the more grammatico-historical Antiochene hermeneutic. Of course, that analysis is badly flawed, and it doesn't seem possible to me that such a conclusion can be arrived at via an honest, good-faith examination of the historical data and of reformed hermeneutics, but that idea is out there.

But I think Dan is right that there seem to be two dispensationlist camps, one that cares little, if at all, about church history, and another that knows they should care at least a little about church history and ends up reading it badly in an attempt to find historical support for their system where none actually exists. There are some more honest dispensationalists who care about church history but will admit that dispensationalism as such is a new thing, but then just kind of shrug their shoulders and wonder how the church lost what they see as the apostolic teaching for so long.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Certainly an excess of allegorical interpretation developed in the medieval period, but I can't think of any time where many theologians interpreted the Bible in a way that matches the rigid historical-grammatical method they advocate.

I've heard of at least one dispensationalist who connected reformed hermeneutics to the Alexandrian allegorical hermeneutic while arguing that the dispensational hermeneutic follows the same logic as the more grammatico-historical Antiochene hermeneutic. Of course, that analysis is badly flawed,

The Reformed hermeneutic is historical-grammatical, historic-redemptive. We do take the Bible literally. But that includes historic redemptive considerations. For example we take the book of Hebrews literally where it says that Christ's sacrifice is perfect and complete. Thus it is impossible to have future animal sacrifices in a future millennium, contra dispensationalism.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

This leads to most of church history either getting discarded or misread. You really can't look at church or reformation history and find dispensationalism.

There are some more honest dispensationalists who care about church history but will admit that dispensationalism as such is a new thing, but then just kind of shrug their shoulders and wonder how the church lost what they see as the apostolic teaching for so long.

Calvinistic Dispensationalists should take Reformation Church history seriously. After all five point Calvinism, which they hold to, developed in a historical context. There is no getting around the fact that five point Calvinism developed within a covenantal framework.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

The Reformed hermeneutic is historical-grammatical, historic-redemptive. We do take the Bible literally. But that includes historic redemptive considerations. For example we take the book of Hebrews literally where it says that Christ's sacrifice is perfect and complete. Thus it is impossible to have future animal sacrifices in a future millennium, contra dispensationalism.

I agree, my intention was to distinguish from a healthy Reformed view, which is why I called it a “rigid” version of that hermeneutic. I see how that may have been unclear though!

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Here is an excellent example of a Calvinist Dispensationalist defending dispensationalism. Abner Chou is the President of the Masters University, and senior editor of the LSB. He works closely with John MacArthur. What I find interesting about his defense is that he does not realise that Covenant Theology nicely ties in God's great plan of Redemption into a coherent whole. He mentions God's great plan of Redemption then goes on to the dispensational defense of the Israel Church distinction.

Interested in your thoughts.