Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism

Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Let me first ask that we maintain a Berean Spirit, a love for one another as brothers and sister in Christ. Please understand, I am not wanting to stir anything up, neither desire to arouse bickering, keep it civil.

With that said, please explain how CT and Disp are not and cannot be complimentary or compatible, and how or if CT refutes Disp?

Also as a secondary, I would like to know how they effect or contact other biblical doctrines.

Keep in mind, I am not an expert in either, and for a long time I have been curious about this "issue". Please try to make it simple as possible, I would like to learn. Thank you, and God bless. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: JM
P

prov1810

Guest
All quotations below are from Dispensationalism, by Charles Ryrie:

[In Covenant Theology,] the covenant of grace is the governing category by which all Scripture is to be understood.

The unifying principle of normative dispensationalism is doxological, or the glory of God, for the dispensations reveal the glory of God as He manifests His character in the differing stewardships given to man.

Salvation, for all of its wonder, is but one facet of the multifaceted diamond of the glory of God.

But covenant theology makes the all-encompassing means of manifesting the glory of God the plan of redemption. Thus, for all practical purposes, covenant theology uses redemption as its unifying principle.

God does have various ways to manifest His glory, redemption being one—a principal one but not the only one. The various economies with their stewardship responsibilities are not so many compartments completely separated from each other but are stages in the progress of the revelation of the various ways in which God is glorified. And further, dispensationalism not only sees the various dispensations as successive manifestations of God’s purpose but also as progressive manifestations of it. The entire program culminates, not in eternity but in history, in the millennial kingdom of the Lord Christ. This millennial culmination is the climax of history and the great goal of God’s program for the ages.
 
Upvote 0
P

prov1810

Guest
"Dispensationalism was essentially Reformed in its nineteenth-century origins and had in later nineteenth-century America spread most among revival-oriented Calvinists."
George M. Marsden, "Introduction: Reformed and American," in David F. Wells, ed., Reformed Theology in America: A History of Its Modern Development (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), p. 8. Cited here.

C. I. Scofield (1843-1921), Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871-1952), and Dallas Theological Seminary (est. 1924) were great vehicles for the spread of dispensationalism in America and throughout the world. Both Scofield and Chafer were ordained Presbyterian ministers.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
For those interested, I'd like to add some history behind each, I think it's helpful to consider these in historical context.

Covenant Theology history from Wikipedia:

"Concepts foundational to covenant theology can be found in the writings of Church Fathers such as Irenaeus and Augustine. Huldrych Zwingli and Johannes Oecolampadius were among the first reformers to speak of God's salvation economy under the categories of a covenant of works and a covenant of grace. John Calvin (Institutes 2:9-11), like Heinrich Bullinger (A Brief Exposition of the One and Eternal Testament or Covenant of God), focussed on the continuity of the covenant of grace, but taught the substance of what became classic covenant theology in terms of Law and Gospel. Early post-reformation writings, including Zacharius Ursinus (1534–1583) in Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism (published posthumously, 1591), Caspar Olevianus (1536–1587) in Concerning the Substance of the Covenant of Grace between God and the Elect (De substantia foederis gratuiti inter deum et electos, 1585), and Scottish Theologian Robert Rollock (1555–1599) in A Treatise of our Effectual Calling (Tractatus de vocatione efficaci, 1597), developed the covenant of works and covenant of grace scheme along the lines of the law-gospel distinction.

The interpretation of how the Reformed scholastics treated the relationship between covenant and contract is one that has been much debated, especially concerning the continental development of federal theology. Lyle Bierma has challenged the notion in contemporary scholarship that Genevan Reformers taught a unilateral and unconditional covenant relationship whilst the Rhineland Reformers taught a bilateral contractual relationship. He argued that Leonard Trinterud’s identification of the apparent polarisation between Calvin and Olevianus on the one hand and Luther and Bullinger on the other hand is a faulty reading of history.[6] Revisiting the possible cross-fertilization of thought between the continental reformers and English reformers such as William Tyndale, it seems that they were developing a similar approach to federalism, namely that the covenant relationship incorporates both a unilateral and a bilateral dimension.

Classical statements of covenant theology can be found in the British Westminster Confession of Faith (particularly chap. 7, 8, 19), as well as in the writings of English theologians such as John Owen (1616–1683), Biblical Theology, and An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The classical statements among 17th century continental theologians include Johannes Cocceius (c. 1603-1669) in The Doctrine of the Covenant and Testament of God (Summa doctrinae de foedere et testamento dei, 1648), Francis Turretin (1623–1687) in his Institutes of Elenctic Theology, and Hermann Witsius (1636–1708) in The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man. It may also be seen in the writings of Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758) in Collected Writings of Jonathan Edwards (Vol 2, Banner of Truth edition, p. 950).

In the United States, the Princeton theologians (Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge, B. B. Warfield, Geerhardus Vos, and J. Gresham Machen) and, in the Netherlands, Herman Bavinck followed the main lines of the classic view, teaching the Covenant of Redemption, the Covenant of Works (Law), and the Covenant of Grace (Gospel).

Recent well-known covenant theologians in the United States include Michael Horton, J. Ligon Duncan III, Meredith G. Kline, J. I. Packer, Richard L. Pratt, Jr., O. Palmer Robertson and R. C. Sproul. This system is taught at schools such as Covenant Theological Seminary, Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Knox Theological Seminary, Reformed Theological Seminary, Westminster Theological Seminary, and Westminster Seminary California."

Dispensationalism history from Wikipedia:

"John Nelson Darby is recognized as the father of dispensationalism,[1]:10,293 later made popular in the United States by Cyrus Scofield's Scofield Reference Bible. Charles Henry Mackintosh, 1820–1896, with his popular style spread Darby's teachings to humbler elements in society and may be regarded as the journalist of the Brethren Movement. Mackintosh popularized Darby more than any other Brethren author.

As there was no Christian teaching of a "rapture" before Darby began preaching about it in the 1830s, he is sometimes credited with originating the "secret rapture" theory wherein Christ will suddenly remove his bride, the Church, from this world before the judgments of the tribulation. Dispensationalist beliefs about the fate of the Jews and the re-establishment of the Kingdom of Israel put dispensationalists at the forefront of Christian Zionism, because "God is able to graft them in again", and they believe that in his grace he will do so according to their understanding of Old Testament prophecy. They believe that, while the methodologies of God may change, his purposes to bless Israel will never be forgotten, just as he has shown unmerited favour to the Church, he will do so to a remnant of Israel to fulfill all the promises made to the genetic seed of Abraham.

Dispensationalism was first introduced to North America by James Inglis (1813–1872), through a monthly magazine called Waymarks in the Wilderness (published intermittently between 1854 and 1872). In 1866 Inglis organized the Believers' Meeting for Bible Study, which introduced dispensationalist ideas to a small but influential circle of American evangelicals. After Inglis' death, James H. Brookes (1830–1898), a pastor in St. Louis, organized the Niagara Bible Conference to continue the dissemination of dispensationalist ideas. Dispensationalism was boosted after Dwight L. Moody (1837–1899) learned of "dispensational truth" from an unidentified member of the Brethren in 1872. Moody became close to Brookes and other dispensationalists, and encouraged the spread of dispensationalism, but apparently never learned the nuances of the dispensationalist system.

Dispensationalism began to evolve during this time, most significantly when a significant body of dispensationalists proposed the "pre-tribulation" rapture. Dispensationalist leaders in Moody's circle include Reuben Archer Torrey (1856–1928), James M. Gray (1851–1925), Cyrus I. Scofield (1843–1921), William J. Erdman (1833–1923), A. C. Dixon (1854–1925), A. J. Gordon (1836–1895) and William Eugene Blackstone, author of the bestselling book of the 1800s titled, "Jesus is Coming" (endorsed by Torrey and Erdman). These men were activist evangelists who promoted a host of Bible conferences and other missionary and evangelistic efforts.

They also gave the dispensationalist movement institutional permanence by assuming leadership of the new independent Bible institutes such as the Moody Bible Institute in 1886, the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (now Biola University) in 1908, and the Philadelphia College of the Bible (now Philadelphia Biblical University) in 1913. The network of related institutes that soon sprang up became the nucleus for the spread of American dispensationalism.

The efforts of C. I. Scofield and his associates introduced dispensationalism to a wider audience in America through his Scofield Reference Bible. The publication of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909 by the Oxford University Press for the first time displayed overtly dispensationalist notes to the pages of the Biblical text. The Scofield Reference Bible became a popular Bible used by independent Evangelicals and Fundamentalists in the United States. Evangelist and Bible teacher Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871–1952), who was influenced by C. I. Scofield, founded Dallas Theological Seminary in 1924, which has become the flagship of dispensationalism in America. More recently, the Baptist Bible Seminary in Clark Summit, Pennsylvania became another dispensational school.

The Grace Movement, which began in the 1930s with the teaching ministries of J. C. O'Hair, Cornelius R. Stam, Henry Hudson and Charles Baker has been labeled "ultra" or "hyper" dispensationalism. The term serves to distinguish a theological system that has applied the tenets of dispensationalism far more consistently than the Acts 2 position. Thus it has also been designated at times as "consistent" dispensationalism.
The contrasts between law and grace, prophecy and mystery, Israel and the Church, the body of Christ were promoted by Scofield, Barnhouse and Ironside, then studied and taught by O'Hair, Stam and other "grace" teachers. It is however contended by dispensational teachers such as Charles Caldwell Ryrie, J. Dwight Pentecost and Arnold Fruchtenbaum that ultradispensationalism is removed enough from dispensationalism to not any longer be dispensationalism at all. Nevertheless, ultradispensationalism continues to be forcefully advocated by many. One reason is that the Acts 2 position does not take the time to properly and fully understand the Mid-Acts position and challenge it in any way other than superficially if at all. Mostly, the consistent dispensationalists are ignored. Until consistent dispensationalism is taken seriously, such dismissals by Acts 2 proponents can not be taken seriously. Ultradispensationalists are serious dispensationalists and hold to the tenets of dispensationalism far more strictly and far more precisely than the far more popular Acts 2 position.

Dispensationalism has become very popular with American evangelicalism, especially among nondenominational Bible churches, Baptists, Pentecostal, and Charismatic groups."

Something not related to Scripture or interpretation which has concerned me about dispensationalism is the late appearance in history. I wonder how many dispensationalists are aware of the history, and if it irritates them. Anyway, the history behind them is interesting.
 
Upvote 0
P

prov1810

Guest
Something not related to Scripture or interpretation which has concerned me about dispensationalism is the late appearance in history. I wonder how many dispensationalists are aware of the history, and if it irritates them. Anyway, the history behind them is interesting.

Everyone assumes that dispensationalism went straight from Darby to Scofield but it's not quite that simple. Compare the dispensational systems of Darby and Isaac Watts (1674–1748 Yes, that Watts - the hymn writer). Unlike Darby's, Watts' system is exactly like Scofield's, except he did not consider the millennium to be a dispensation.

Another quotation from Ryrie:

"That the systematizing of dispensationalism is recent should not be surprising. It would not be unexpected that a subject whose primary distinctions have to do with eschatology should not have been systematized until eschatology began to be refined seriously by the church. Most agree that the history of dogma has followed a certain pattern of unfolding development and discussion. [James] Orr, in his classic work The Progress of Dogma, shows how the doctrines taken up for theological study by the church throughout her history chronologically correspond with the general order followed in most systematic theologies. In chronological order the doctrinal discussions were on apologetics, theology proper, anthropology, Christology, soteriology, and after the Reformation, eschatology."
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
:thumbsup: Thank you for these quotes, good start here.

All quotations below are from Dispensationalism, by Charles Ryrie:

[In Covenant Theology,] the covenant of grace is the governing category by which all Scripture is to be understood.

Salvation, for all of its wonder, is but one facet of the multifaceted diamond of the glory of God.

But covenant theology makes the all-encompassing means of manifesting the glory of God the plan of redemption. Thus, for all practical purposes, covenant theology uses redemption as its unifying principle.

:thumbsup: These are good, and I agree.

God does have various ways to manifest His glory, redemption being one—a principal one but not the only one. The various economies with their stewardship responsibilities are not so many compartments completely separated from each other but are stages in the progress of the revelation of the various ways in which God is glorified. And further, dispensationalism not only sees the various dispensations as successive manifestations of God’s purpose but also as progressive manifestations of it. The entire program culminates, not in eternity but in history, in the millennial kingdom of the Lord Christ. This millennial culmination is the climax of history and the great goal of God’s program for the ages.

The unifying principle of normative dispensationalism is doxological, or the glory of God, for the dispensations reveal the glory of God as He manifests His character in the differing stewardships given to man.

Here is where I am left scratching my head, while I agree with the premise, "God does have various ways to manifest His glory", I am not sure what to make of the rest. Where he say's "not in eternity", how can any shred of knowledge evade the omniscience of God from eternity? I assume he means the actual unfolding in time, rather than conceptual from eternity. I am lost in the terminology with the last quote. I do not think these quotes though touch on the more controversial aspects. But I will try to be patient.
 
Upvote 0
P

prov1810

Guest
Where he say's "not in eternity", how can any shred of knowledge evade the omniscience of God from eternity? I assume he means the actual unfolding in time, rather than conceptual from eternity.
Yes, earthly history culminates in the millennial kingdom, here on Earth.

One thing that turned me to Premillennialism is Luke 1:32

And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David.

David's throne was not in heaven, and he wasn't the king of heaven. It's an earthly throne. This doesn't mean that the eternal Son is any less sovereign now, of course, and there's more to His kingship than the throne of David. But I do take that verse literally.
 
Upvote 0

DanielRB

Slave of Allah
Jul 16, 2004
1,958
137
New Mexico
✟18,922.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
I guess what I've considered one of the key differences is that in Dispensationalism, there are two eternal people of God: (1) Israel and (2) the Church. Covenant (and New Covenant) theology holds that there is but One people of God.

I also see a different hermeneutical approach between the two. Dispensationalists tend to take the Old Testament promises of a future kingdom in a very literal way (being fulfilled in the Millennium) and by necessity conclude that the Temple would be restored as part of that Kingdom. Covenant (and New Covenant) theology tends to take the New Testament as a interpretive lens through which to re-interpret these promises as promises to the Church in eternity (or, in a spiritual sense, today.)

My own biases may be clear: I think the interpretive methods of the apostles should be normative for our understanding of the Old Testament, rather than a literal hermeneutic that would insist on a restored Temple (which in my opinion would directly contradict the argument in the Book of Hebrews.)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JM

Coram Deo.
Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,337
3,604
Canada
✟738,496.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
We need to be careful when reading the theology of historic figures like Watts. There is a difference between Dispensationalism and use of the term dispensation. Covenant theologians use the term and distinction of dispensations and mean simply a period of time. What Ryrie did was read into Watts what isn't there. Darby essentially created Dispensationalism by separating the church and Israel. He used this idea as his driving hermeneutic for understanding all of scripture.

I'll try to respond with a few quotes from Ryrie latter today.

jm
 
Upvote 0
P

prov1810

Guest
We need to be careful when reading the theology of historic figures like Watts. There is a difference between Dispensationalism and use of the term dispensation. Covenant theologians use the term and distinction of dispensations and mean simply a period of time. What Ryrie did was read into Watts what isn't there. Darby essentially created Dispensationalism by separating the church and Israel. He used this idea as his driving hermeneutic for understanding all of scripture.

I'll try to respond with a few quotes from Ryrie latter today.

jm

Isaac Watts:

"The public dispensations of God towards men, are those wise and holy constitutions of his will and government, revealed or some way manifested to them, in the several successive periods or ages of the world, wherein are contained the duties which he expects from men, and the blessings which he promises, or encourages them to expect from him, here and hereafter; together with the sins which he forbids, and the punishments which he threatens to inflict on such sinners, or the dispensations of God may be described more briefly, as the appointed moral rules of God’s dealings with mankind, considered as reasonable creatures, and as accountable to him for their behaviour, both in this world and in that which is to come. Each of these dispensations of God, may be represented as different religions, or at least, as different forms of religion, appointed for men in the several successive ages of the world."

Watts’ Works, 2:625 (Leeds ed.); 2:543 (London ed.).

His dispensational outline is as follows:

I. The Dispensation of Innocency, or the Religion of Adam at first
II. The Adamical Dispensation of the Covenant of Grace, or the Religion of Adam after his Fall
III. The Noahical Dispensation, or the Religion of Noah
IV. The Abrahamical Dispensation, or the Religion of Abraham
V. The Mosaical Dispensation, or the Jewish Religion
VI. The Christian Dispensation

Except for the exclusion of the Millennium (he did not consider it a dispensation), this outline is exactly like that in the Scofield Reference Bible, and it is Watts’s outline, not Darby’s.

Darby's dispensational scheme:

I. Paradisaical state to the Flood
II. Noah
III. Abraham
IV. Israel A. Under the law B. Under the priesthood C. Under the kings
V. Gentiles
VI. The Spirit
VII. The Millennium
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
P

prov1810

Guest
The Calvinistic Heritage of Dispensationalism

Scofield and Chafer were two of the greatest American dispensationalists and both developed their theology from out of a Reformed background. Scofield is known for his study bible and Chafer for his Seminary and systematic theology. Jeffrey Richards describes Chafer's theological characteristics as having "much in common with the entire Reformed tradition. Excluding eschatology, Chafer is similar theologically to such Princeton divines as Warfield, Hodge, and Machen. He claims such doctrines as the sovereignty of God, . . . total depravity of humanity, election, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints." C. Fred Lincoln describes Chafer's 8 volume Systematic Theology as "unabridged, Calvinistic, premillennial, and dispensational."

Since its founding in 1924 as The Evangelical Theological College (changed to Dallas Theological Seminary in 1936), it has exerted a global impact on behalf of dispensationalism. Dallas Seminary' s primary founder was Chafer, but William Pettingill and W. H. Griffith-Thomas also played a leading role. Pettingill, like Chafer was Presbyterian. Griffith-Thomas, an Anglican, wrote one of the best commentaries on the Thirty-nine Articles of the Anglican Church, which is still widely used by conservative Anglicans and Episcopalians today. The Thirty-nine Articles are staunchly Calvinistic. Both men were clearly Calvinists. The Seminary, especially before World War II, considered itself Calvinistic. Chafer once characterized the school in a publicity brochure as "in full agreement with the Reformed Faith and its theology is strictly Calvinistic." In a letter to Allan MacRae of Westminster Theological Seminary, Chafer said, "You probably know that we are definitely Calvinistic in our theology." "Speaking of the faculty, Chafer noted in 1925 that they were 'almost wholly drawn from the Southern and Northern Presbyterian Churches." Further, Chafer wrote to a Presbyterian minister the following: "I am pleased to state that there is no institution to my knowledge which is more thoroughly Calvinistic nor more completely adjusted to this system of doctrine, held by the Presbyterian Church."

Since so many early Dallas graduates entered the Presbyterian ministry, there began to be a reaction to their dispensational premillennialism in the 1930s. This was not an issue as to whether they were Calvinistic in their soteriology, but an issue over their eschatology. In the late 1930s, "Dallas Theological Seminary, though strongly professing to be a Presbyterian institution, was being severed from the conservative Presbyterian splinter movement." In 1944, Southern Presbyterians issued a report from a committee investigating the compatibility of dispensationalism with the Westminster Confession of Faith. The committee ruled dispensationalism was not in harmony with the Church's Confession. This "report of 1944 was a crippling blow to any future that dispensational premillennialism might have within Southern Presbyterianism." This ruling effectively moved Dallas graduates away from ministry within Reformed denominations toward the independent Bible Church movement.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JM

Coram Deo.
Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,337
3,604
Canada
✟738,496.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Isaac Watts:

"The public dispensations of God towards men, are those wise and holy constitutions of his will and government, revealed or some way manifested to them, in the several successive periods or ages of the world, wherein are contained the duties which he expects from men, and the blessings which he promises, or encourages them to expect from him, here and hereafter; together with the sins which he forbids, and the punishments which he threatens to inflict on such sinners, or the dispensations of God may be described more briefly, as the appointed moral rules of God’s dealings with mankind, considered as reasonable creatures, and as accountable to him for their behaviour, both in this world and in that which is to come. Each of these dispensations of God, may be represented as different religions, or at least, as different forms of religion, appointed for men in the several successive ages of the world."

Watts’ Works, 2:625 (Leeds ed.); 2:543 (London ed.).

I understand God deals with people differently at different times, Reformed theology does not deny it, but you must demonstrate that Watts is a proto-Dispey. What you have posted doesn't prove Watts was a Dispey but that he recognized God dealing with His elect according to the light given them by revelation.

Discussing dispensations or even articulating a detailed dispensational scheme does not make one a dispensationalist, however, a pointthat most dispensationalists recognize. For example, Walvoord observes that Charles Hodge, a postmillennialist, described four biblical dispensations, which leads him to the conclusion that “acknowledging the presence of dispensations is not limited to a single theological system.” Moreover, Ryrie himself admits that “Covenant Theologians hold that there are various dispensations (and even use the word) within the outworking of the covenant of grace,”and even Watts notes a common naming of dispensations by other covenantal theologians in his day. Bass points out that such dispensational divisions,rather than proving the presence of other dispensational distinctives,may rather be simply a natural practice of dividing biblical history intoages.

And as Dale Sumner DeWitt correctly notes, “Age schemes area almost as old as the Christian Church.” Investigation into whether Watts may be accurately described as aproto-dispensationalist must, therefore, explore more deeply into Watts’s writings to arrive at a convincing conclusion. This exploration will rely on Charles Ryrie’s “sine qua non” of dispensationalism as a helpful framework through which to evaluate Watts’s understanding:


1. The hermeneutical principle of literal interpretation,
2. A clear distinction between Israel and the church, and
3. Belief that the underlying purpose of God in the world is the glory
of God.

Source: http://scottaniol.com/wp-content/uploads/Aniol2.pdf

The articles goes on to explain how Watts is not a Dispensationalist by examining how Watts interpreted the Bible.

As to their Calvinism...they were four pointers at best Hypo-Calvinsts or Amyraldian but not five point Calvinists. Have a look at Darby's commentary on Leviticus 16 or Scofields notes.

Yours in the Lord,

jm
 
Upvote 0

JM

Coram Deo.
Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,337
3,604
Canada
✟738,496.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
In a nutshell, Dispy is dependent on Man, while Amillenial view is closer to Scripture and God is Sovereign.

That would be my understanding as well. They can't work together because one is anthropological and the other is theocentric.

Some differences between Chafer's Dispensationalism (train under Scofield) and Hodge:

DISPENSATIONALISM AND COVENANT THEOLOGY

A quote from what seems to be a pro-Dispey site:
Keith A. Mathison said, “Dispensationalism has adopted a semi-Pelagian, Arminian doctrine not based on Scripture.” Gerstner viewed dispensationalism as inherently “anti-Calvinistic” and accused dispensationalism of denying all five points of Calvinism. He also says, “In its views of the creation of man, the Fall, the Atonement, soteriology, and eschatology, this system is a variation of the Arminian system.” J. I. Packer appears impressed with Gerstner’s assertionswhen he states, “He [Gerstner] sets out to show that Calvinism and Dispensationalism are radically opposed, and he proves his
point.”

The quotes were taken from pretty solid fellas in the church, guys that have proven to be reliable, I think it's true. Arminianism is inherently Arminian. The answer to the above statement can be found on the link.

A. W. Pink's work was helpful to me.

Monergism ::

Yours in the Lord,

jm


 
Upvote 0
P

prov1810

Guest
As to their Calvinism...they were four pointers at best Hypo-Calvinsts or Amyraldian but not five point Calvinists. Have a look at Darby's commentary on Leviticus 16 or Scofields notes.

I don't know which Scofield notes you're referring to.

Darby on Leviticus 16. Are you referring to this statement? "Thus, in virtue of the sprinkling of His blood, Christ will reconcile all things, having made peace through the blood of His cross." He's quoting Colossians 1. Were you referring to something else?

Darby on Predestination: "I believe that predestination to life is the eternal purpose of God, by which, before the foundations of the world were laid, He firmly decreed, by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and destruction those whom He had chosen in Christ out of the human race, and to bring them, through Christ, as vessels made to honour, to eternal salvation.... Hence we may estimate the value of the quotation of Dr. Lawrence* from Bucer, appended to his own views of the subject. "He who doubts about this (namely, about predestination), cannot believe himself to be called and justified, that is, cannot be a Christian. It is to be assumed, therefore, as a first principle of faith, that we all are foreknown, foredetermined, and separated from the rest, and selected for this, that we should be eternally saved; and that this purpose of God cannot be changed."

Chafer:

God Has by Election Chosen Some to Salvation, But Not All. This truth, too often resisted for want of an understanding of the nature of God, or of the position He occupies in relation to His creatures, is reasonable; but it is distinctly a revelation. This, as before stated, cannot be doubted by those who are amenable to the Word of God. It is disclosed concerning individuals that they were chosen in the Lord (Rom. 16:13), chosen to salvation (2 Thess. 2:13), chosen in Him before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4), predestined to the adoption of sons (Eph. 1:5), elect according to the foreknowledge of God (1 Pet. 1:2), vessels of mercy which He hath before prepared unto glory (Rom. 9:23). There can be no question raised but that these passages contemplate an act of God by which some are chosen, but not all. The idea of election, or selection, cannot be applied to an entire class as unrelated to any others. Hidden in the word election is the implied truth, which is unavoidably a part of it, that others are not chosen, or are passed by. This suggests again the distinction, already particularized when discussing the divine decrees, that predestination points either to election or retribution, and that election cannot be understood in any other light than that others—the nonelect—are passed by. The thought expressed by the word election cannot be modified. It asserts an express intention on the part of God to confer salvation on certain persons, but not all. It is not a mere purpose to give salvation to those who may believe; it rather determines who will believe.

Election Does Not Rest Merely on Foreknowledge. The obvious distinction between foreknowledge and foreordination, or predestination, has been the occasion for much discussion, there being those who assert that God, by His foreknowledge, discriminated between those who by their own choice would accept salvation and those who would not, and, being thus informed, God was able to predestinate those He knew would believe. The superficial character of this notion is seen (1) in the fact that foreknowledge and foreordination, or predestination, could not be placed in a sequence. Nothing could be foreknown as certain that had not been made certain by foreordination, nor could anything be foreordained that was not foreknown. Of three passages bearing on the relationship between these two divine activities, two mention foreknowledge first in order, while the other reverses this arrangement. In Romans 8:29 it is written, “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate”; and in 1 Peter 1:2 believers are addressed as “elect according to the foreknowledge of God.” But in Acts 2:23, where the divine purpose in Christ’s death is in view, it is said: “him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.” (2) The Scriptures declare that that which cometh to pass is foreordained of God and not merely foreknown. Salvation is by grace apart from works. Men are not saved because of good works whether anticipated or realized. Election is according to grace and not according to works. If salvation be by grace, it is no more of works, and if it be by works, it is no more of grace (Rom. 11:5–6). In the light of this revelation, it is impossible to build a foreseen structure of works as the ground of any person’s salvation. Similarly, there is divine authority for denying that faith and personal holiness, even foreseen, determine divine election. The Bible reverses this order by declaring that election is unto faith and holiness. It is no slight error to confuse these issues and make faith and holiness the cause and election the effect. Faith can serve no greater purpose than to be the means by which that which God has determined may be realized. Referring again to passages already cited, it will be seen that God chose from the beginning those to be saved, and predestinated them to “belief of the truth” (2 Thess. 2:13); and He chose some before the foundation of the world that they should be holy and without blame before Him in love (Eph. 1:4). Thus it is revealed that men are not first holy and then elect; but they are first elect and that election is unto holiness. As an illustration of this order in the truth, the Apostle refers to the divine choice of Jacob over Esau before they were born and before they had done either good or evil. All this, it is said, is to the end that the divine election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth (Rom. 9:10–13). It may be added that acceptable works and qualities are not resident in any fallen human being, except these characteristics are wrought in the human heart by divine energy. It would therefore be folly to expect that God would foresee in men what could never exist. Doubtless, multitudes of people cling to a conditional election lest they be forced to recognize the depravity of man.

Divine Election is Immutable. Not only will that which was determined in past ages be brought to fruition, but it is immutable. It is claimed by those who give an undue emphasis to the ability of the human will, that God’s purposes in salvation may be frustrated, that the elect of today may, because of human determination, become the nonelect of tomorrow. It is implied that God can do no more than to adjust Himself to the will of man, and His determination concerning His creatures may change. In reply to this idea, it may be remarked that God has never created a human will as an instrument to defeat His own purpose. He creates them that they may serve His immutable will. Since God is the Creator of all things, it is absurd to suppose that He who creates cannot determine the choice and destiny of that which He has wrought. Referring to those who had erred and by their unbelief had “overthrown the faith of some,” the Apostle declares in assuring terms, “Nevertheless the foundation of God [His eternal purpose] standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his” (2 Tim. 2:18-19). Human language cannot express a more positive assertion than that which appears in Romans 8:30: “Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” The text, in harmony with all the Bible, states that all who are predestinated are called, that all who are called are justified, and that all who are justified are glorified. There could not be one more or one less, else God has failed in the realization of His good pleasure.​

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. Originally published: Dallas, Tex. : Dallas Seminary Press, 1947-1948., Vol. 3, Page 172-174. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1993.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
P

prov1810

Guest
Gerstner viewed dispensationalism as inherently “anti-Calvinistic” and accused dispensationalism of denying all five points of Calvinism. He also says, “In its views of the creation of man, the Fall, the Atonement, soteriology, and eschatology, this system is a variation of the Arminian system.”

That book is awful. He calls dispensationalism an unChristian doctrine and repeats the lie about "two ways of salvation."

Dispensationalism denies all 5 points? Do you agree with this?

Arminianism is inherently Arminian.
A doctrinal system compatible with Calvinist soteriology, and developed by Calvinists, is Arminian? Friend, this is called "eating their own."
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JM

Coram Deo.
Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,337
3,604
Canada
✟738,496.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Darby, Scofield and Chafer all deny limited atonement. A few choice quotes do not do these wordy ramblers justice. Darby is at times aimless and he, being my fav of those listed, is probably closest to 5 point Calvinism. He makes a distinction in other parts of his writings between the intent of the cross and the extent of the cross.

As I posted before, these fellas are 4 point Amyraldians.

Yours in The Lord,

jm


PS: I think I might try to read Darby again.
 
Upvote 0