Dispensationalism and Calvinism

Jon_

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,998
91
42
California
✟18,616.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Zorobabel said:
I spent some time in a Dispensationalist Bible institution. I arrived there fully as a Dispensationalist, but as the time passed I slowly began to distance myself from that theology. I didn't mind my time there, but it just wasn't a pleasant experience. I was later called "disrespectful" for the questions I had regarding what I perceived as being inconsistencies in certain doctrines I learned. Another student finally informed me that what I spoke about with him was called Calvinism. I studied it, and sure enough, he was right.

They generally claimed to be “four-point Calvinists” there, but to me that just doesn’t make any sense. And while you might think that there is a lot of commonality between four-pointers and five pointers, that’s not the case. With that as there basis, they delineated so much that it was really impossible put the title of Calvinism on anything they taught.

That’s just my experience, though. I regret to say that from my experience I do hold a certain amount of bias in my heart in regard to all Dispensationalists. I personally cannot reconcile the Word of God and the doctrines taught by Dispensationalism.
Dispensational soteriology is most definitely Arminian and has nothing in common with Calvinism other than the fact that Dispensationals have decided to take the moniker for their system.

I am glad that you saw through the deceptions, brother. Praise God for bestowing his gracious wisdom upon you.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon
 
Upvote 0
Zorobabel said:
I spent some time in a Dispensationalist Bible institution. I arrived there fully as a Dispensationalist, but as the time passed I slowly began to distance myself from that theology. I didn't mind my time there, but it just wasn't a pleasant experience. I was later called "disrespectful" for the questions I had regarding what I perceived as being inconsistencies in certain doctrines I learned. Another student finally informed me that what I spoke about with him was called Calvinism. I studied it, and sure enough, he was right.

They generally claimed to be “four-point Calvinists” there, but to me that just doesn’t make any sense. And while you might think that there is a lot of commonality between four-pointers and five pointers, that’s not the case. With that as there basis, they delineated so much that it was really impossible put the title of Calvinism on anything they taught.

That’s just my experience, though. I regret to say that from my experience I do hold a certain amount of bias in my heart in regard to all Dispensationalists. I personally cannot reconcile the Word of God and the doctrines taught by Dispensationalism.

My experience is quite different from yours. I have degrees from both Dallas (Dispensationalist) and Westminster (Calvinist-Reformed). I entered Dallas as a dispensationalist and graduated as one. I entered Westminster as a dispensationalist and graduated as one.

As to soteriology, I am a firm 4 pointer (as ksen and rnmom can confirm) and have no problem with the logic of definite atonement but remain a four pointer for exegetical reasons.

Now, I would agree that some who use the label 4 pointer redefine some of the points they profess to hold. But this need not be the case.

BTW, it was at Dallas Seminary that I was introduced to Calvinism by about two dozen fellow 5 point Calvinist students and a 5 point Calvinist professor, Dr. S Lewis Johnson.

~ NEHI (Amyraldians don't get no respect--but that's OK by me)
 
Upvote 0
Jon_ said:
Dispensational soteriology is most definitely Arminian and has nothing in common with Calvinism other than the fact that Dispensationals have decided to take the moniker for their system.
Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Calvinistic Soteriology and Dispensational Eschatology are neither mutually exclusive or inherently linked.

John Nelson Darby said:
For my own part, I soberly think Article XVII to be as wise, perhaps I might
say the wisest and best condensed human statement of the view it contains
that I am acquainted with. I am fully content to take it in its literal and
grammatical sense. 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.

--- JN Darby, Collected Writings III:3

Also...

George Marsden said:
This enthusiasm came largely from clergymen with strong Calvinistic views, principally Presbyterians and Baptists in the northern United States. The evident basis for this affinity was that in most respects Darby was himself an unrelenting Calvinist. His interpretation of the Bible and of history rested firmly on the massive pillar of divine sovereignty, placing as little value as possible on human ability.


George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), p. 46.

~ NEHI (Hmmmmmm.....)
 
Upvote 0

Jon_

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,998
91
42
California
✟18,616.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Nehi said:
Calvinistic Soteriology and Dispensational Eschatology are neither mutually exclusive or inherently linked.
I cannot disagree with this. Calvinism and premillennialism are not mutually exclusive. But I never intended to single out premillennialism. I mean Dispensationalism as a hermeneutical system.

Nehi said:
George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), p. 46.
I also cannot disagree that many well-meaning Dispensationalists firmly believe that an Amyraldian-esque system is faithful to the original teachings of John Calvin. Most Reformed theologians agree that faltering on one point of Calvinist soteriology consequentially results in the logical denial of all the points of Calvinism. Of course, this issue is hotly debated because many exegetes believe that the Word teaches precisely the opposite of Limited Atonement. In this case, they prefer their interpretation of the Scriptures over (presumably) logical deduction.

Perhaps that is the key difference between Dispensational and Reformed theology. Reformed theology is not afraid to carry out the Calvinist soteriology to its logical end, whereas Dispensationalism stops short in favor of painting a different picture of God (one who extends the offer of Christ to all).

I am hoping you might clear up one question for me, Dr. Steve. I know that in the Amyraldian system the nature of the atonement is intended originally as a universal plan that was later effected only for the elect, but I do not know if the Amyraldan insists that God desires the repentance and salvation of all men. Could you help me with that?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon
 
Upvote 0
My replies are in red.

Jon_ said:
I cannot disagree with this. Calvinism and premillennialism are not mutually exclusive. But I never intended to single out premillennialism. I mean Dispensationalism as a hermeneutical system. Agreed here


I also cannot disagree that many well-meaning Dispensationalists firmly believe that an Amyraldian-esque system is faithful to the original teachings of John Calvin. Actually, I believe the extent of the atonement ws not an issue specifically addressed by Calvin, it was a later issue. Most Reformed theologians agree that faltering on one point of Calvinist soteriology consequentially results in the logical denial of all the points of Calvinism. Of course, this issue is hotly debated because many exegetes believe that the Word teaches precisely the opposite of Limited Atonement. In this case, they prefer their interpretation of the Scriptures over (presumably) logical deduction. I agree with this last statement.

Perhaps that is the key difference between Dispensational and Reformed theology. Reformed theology is not afraid to carry out the Calvinist soteriology to its logical end, whereas Dispensationalism stops short in favor of painting a different picture of God (one who extends the offer of Christ to all). Lots of calvinists believe in the free offer of the gospel.

I am hoping you might clear up one question for me, Dr. Steve. I know that in the Amyraldian system the nature of the atonement is intended originally as a universal plan that was later effected only for the elect, but I do not know if the Amyraldan insists that God desires the repentance and salvation of all men. Could you help me with that?

I believe that in 1 Peter 3:9 the all refers to all of the elect as indicated by the context. I do not believe the word "all" here means all of mankind. The focus is believers' concerns about the delay of the Lord's return in light of contemporary skeptic ciritcism. The answer to the delay is that the Lord desires all of the elect to come to repentance -- that being done He will return.

Soli Deo Gloria

God is glorified in the salvation of the elect and the administration of Divine justice to the non-elect.

Jon
 
Upvote 0

ksen

Wiki on Garth!
Mar 24, 2003
7,053
427
56
Florida
Visit site
✟20,679.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Jon_ said:
I cannot disagree with this. Calvinism and premillennialism are not mutually exclusive. But I never intended to single out premillennialism. I mean Dispensationalism as a hermeneutical system.

Why is the Dispensational hermeneutical system mutually exclusive, in your view, with a Calvinistic soteriology?
 
Upvote 0

Jon_

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,998
91
42
California
✟18,616.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
ksen said:
Why is the Dispensational hermeneutical system mutually exclusive, in your view, with a Calvinistic soteriology?
Ah, the answer to that begins with a question: What is the definition and purpose of a dispensation? (I must ask this question here because Dispensationalism is rather amorphous on the answer. I want to make sure I am addressing the same understanding of a dispensation as you are.)

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon
 
Upvote 0

ksen

Wiki on Garth!
Mar 24, 2003
7,053
427
56
Florida
Visit site
✟20,679.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Jon_ said:
Ah, the answer to that begins with a question: What is the definition and purpose of a dispensation? (I must ask this question here because Dispensationalism is rather amorphous on the answer. I want to make sure I am addressing the same understanding of a dispensation as you are.)

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

That's not as easy a question as you'd think.

Here is an excerpt from Ryrie about the definition of "Dispensation":
Definitions

As far as the use of the word in Scripture is concerned, a dispensation may be defined as a stewardship, administration, oversight, or management of others' property. As we have seen, this involves responsibility, accountability, and faithfulness on the part of the steward.

The theological definition of the word is based on the biblical usage and characteristics. Scofield's definition has been quoted: "A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God." As has been seen, the usual criticism leveled against this definition is that it is not true to the meaning of oikonomia since it says nothing about a stewardship but emphasizes the period of time aspect. Yet note that Fuller admits the validity of practically the same definition, namely that the word may be used "to denote a period of time during which God deals with man in a certain way "[14] However, there is a certain justification to the criticism, for a dispensation is primarily a stewardship arrangement and not a period of time (though obviously the arrangement will exist during a period of time). Age and dispensation are not synonymous in meaning, even though they may exactly coincide in the historical outworking. A dispensation is basically the arrangement involved, not the time involved; and a proper definition will take this into account. However, there is no reason for great alarm if a definition does ascribe time to a dispensation.

A concise definition of a dispensation is this: A dispensation is a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God's purpose. If one were describing a dispensation, he would include other things, such as the ideas of distinctive revelation, responsibility, testing, failure, and judgment. But at this point we are seeking a definition, not a description. In using the word economy as the core of the definition, the emphasis is put on the biblical meaning of the word itself. Economy also suggests that certain features of different dispensations might be the same or similar. Differing political and economic economies are not completely different, yet they are distinguishably different. Communistic and capitalistic economies are basically different, and yet there are functions, features, and items in these opposing economies that are the same. Likewise, in the different economies of God's running the affairs of this world certain features are similar. However, the word distinguishable in the definition points out that some features are distinctive to each dispensation and mark them off from each other as different dispensations. These are contained in the particular revelation distinctive to each dispensation.

The phrase "the outworking of God's purpose" in the definition reminds us that the viewpoint in distinguishing the dispensations is God's, not man's. The dispensations are economies instituted and brought to their purposeful conclusion by God. The distinguishing features are introduced by God; the similar features are retained by God; and the overall combined purpose of the whole program is the glory of God. Erich Sauer states it this way:


A new period always begins only when from the side of God a change is introduced in the composition of the principles valid up to that time; that is, when from the side of God three things concur:


1. A continuance of certain ordinances valid until then;
2. An annulment of other regulations until then valid;
3. A fresh introduction of new principles not before valid.[15]


To summarize: Dispensationalism views the world as a household run by God. In His householdworld God is dispensing or administering its affairs according to His own will and in various stages of revelation in the passage of time. These various stages mark off the distinguishably different economies in the outworking of His total purpose, and these different economies constitute the dispensations. The understanding of God's differing economies is essential to a proper interpretation of His revelation within those various economies.


Before leaving the subject of definitions, it may be helpful to append several other useful definitions of a dispensation. W Graham Scroggie, a noted Scottish writer and pastor, gave this helpful definition:


The word oikonomia bears one significance, and means "an administration," whether of a house, or property of a state, or a nation, or as in the present study the administration of the human race or any part of it, at any given time. Just as a parent would govern his household in different ways, according to varying necessity yet ever for one good end, so God has at different times dealt with men in different ways, according to the necessity of the case, but throughout for one great, grand end.[16]



Harry Ironside, prince of dispensational preachers, defined it this way: "An economy is an ordered condition of things. . . . There are various economies running through the Word of God. A dispensation, an economy then, is that particular order or condition of things prevailing in one special age which does not necessarily prevail in another."[17]


Clarence E. Mason, Jr., dean for many years at Philadelphia College of Bible, includes descriptive features of dispensations in his definition:


The word dispensation means literally a stewardship or administration or economy. Therefore, in its Biblical usage, a dispensation is a divinely established stewardship of a particular revelation of God's mind and will which brings added responsibility to the whole race of men or that portion of the race to whom the revelation is particularly given by God.

Associated with the revelation, on the one hand, are promises of reward or blessing for those responding to the obedience of faith, while on the other hand there are warnings of judgment upon those who do not respond in the obedience of faith to that particular revelation.
However, though the time period (age) ends, certain principles of the revelation (dispensation or stewardship) are often carried over into succeeding ages, because God's truth does not cease to be truth, and these principles become part of the cumulative body of truth for which man is responsible in the progressive unfolding revelation of God's redemptive purpose.[18]


Another definition also includes descriptive elements:



A dispensation is God's distinctive method of governing mankind or a group of men during a period of human history, marked by a crucial event, test, failure, and judgment. From the divine standpoint, it is a stewardship, a rule of life, or a responsibility for managing God's affairs in His house. From the historical standpoint, it is a stage in the progress of revelation.[19]



The differentiation of viewpoints in this definition is a helpful distinction. A dispensation is from God's viewpoint an economy; from man's, a responsibility; and in relation to progressive revelation, a stage in it.


The more recent movement that calls itself progressive dispensationalism includes some important differences from normative dispensationalIsm. Though its adherents do not wish to be restricted by a sine qua non, they acknowledge the straightforward meaning of the word; namely, "The word dispensation refers to a particular arrangement by which God regulates the way human beings relate to Him."[20] However, they distance themselves from classic dispensationalists by describing themselves as understanding "the dispensations not simply as different arrangements between God and humankind, but as successive arrangements in the progressive revelation and accomplishment of redemption."[21] These differences will be discussed in chapter 9.

This works for me.

Oh, here's the link to the entire article/chapter - http://www.gospelpedlar.com/dis_dispensation.html
 
Upvote 0

Jon_

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,998
91
42
California
✟18,616.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Nehi said:
Actually, I believe the extent of the atonement was not an issue specifically addressed by Calvin, it was a later issue.

Indeed, this is a common position. Many attribute the classical TULIP structure to Beza and more specificially, the Canons of Dordt.

My opinion is that definite atonement is a logically necessary deduction of the other four points. Because of the soundness (especially in Scripture) of the other four points, I believe that the weight of their truth should be a major contributing factor in the interpretation of verses that seem to disprove definite atonement (1 Peter 3:9, 1 John 2:2, etc.). Because I think the necessary logical conclusion of these four points is the fifth point, I think that denial of the fifth point is a denial of the other four, at least from my understanding of the classical Reformed understanding of them. That is, the four points of Dispensationalism are not four of the five points of Calvinism. They are different doctrines altogether. But that's my own opinion.

Nehi said:
Lots of calvinists believe in the free offer of the gospel.
Yes, this is true; however, I have to respectfully disagree with them and side with Dr. John Gerstner among others who state that the offer of the gospel is for the regenerate, or, "as many as the Lord God will call" (irresistably).

I suppose that I cannot understand that God would extend a legitmate invitation to all of mankind if he knew that they would reject it. I cannot understand how God would desire the repentance of all men if he did not effect it (cf. Job 23:13, Ps. 115:3; 135:6). It would seem intrisically dishonest if he were to extend an offer that could not possibly be accepted. This is why I think that the Gospel offer of grace is intended only for the elect (cf. John 10:26-27).

Nehi said:
I believe that in 1 Peter 3:9 the all refers to all of the elect as indicated by the context. I do not believe the word "all" here means all of mankind. The focus is believers' concerns about the delay of the Lord's return in light of contemporary skeptic ciritcism. The answer to the delay is that the Lord desires all of the elect to come to repentance -- that being done He will return.
We are in agreement here.

Nehi said:
God is glorified in the salvation of the elect and the administration of Divine justice to the non-elect.

Amen.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon
 
Upvote 0

Jon_

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,998
91
42
California
✟18,616.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
ksen said:
That's not as easy a question as you'd think. Here is an excerpt from Ryrie about the definition of "Dispensation." This works for me.
Heh, no I had no such assumption that it would be an easy question to answer. Indeed the very definition and description seems to be very broad. I am not sure if that is by consequence or by design, but it does present us some difficulty.

So, I suppose we will go with,
a dispensation may be defined as a stewardship, administration, oversight, or management of others' property. As we have seen, this involves responsibility, accountability, and faithfulness on the part of the steward.
That being our definition, could you relate the purpose of this arrangement to me?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon
 
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

ksen

Wiki on Garth!
Mar 24, 2003
7,053
427
56
Florida
Visit site
✟20,679.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Jon_ said:
[/color]
Indeed, this is a common position. Many attribute the classical TULIP structure to Beza and more specificially, the Canons of Dordt.

I've always heard credit given to Dordt for TULIP.

My opinion is that definite atonement is a logically necessary deduction of the other four points. Because of the soundness (especially in Scripture) of the other four points, I believe that the weight of their truth should be a major contributing factor in the interpretation of verses that seem to disprove definite atonement (1 Peter 3:9, 1 John 2:2, etc.). Because I think the necessary logical conclusion of these four points is the fifth point, I think that denial of the fifth point is a denial of the other four, at least from my understanding of the classical Reformed understanding of them. That is, the four points of Dispensationalism are not four of the five points of Calvinism. They are different doctrines altogether. But that's my own opinion.

I've never heard of the "four points of Dispensationalism." What are they? :scratch:


Yes, this is true; however, I have to respectfully disagree with them and side with Dr. John Gerstner among others who state that the offer of the gospel is for the regenerate, or, "as many as the Lord God will call" (irresistably).
I suppose that I cannot understand that God would extend a legitmate invitation to all of mankind if he knew that they would reject it. I cannot understand how God would desire the repentance of all men if he did not effect it (cf. Job 23:13, Ps. 115:3; 135:6). It would seem intrisically dishonest if he were to extend an offer that could not possibly be accepted. This is why I think that the Gospel offer of grace is intended only for the elect (cf. John 10:26-27).

It would seem just as dishonest to me if God were to condemn people for rejecting the Gospel if He did not freely offer it to everyone. The rejection of the Gospel is on them (even though their rejection was ordained by God).
 
Upvote 0

Jon_

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,998
91
42
California
✟18,616.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
ksen said:
I've never heard of the "four points of Dispensationalism." What are they? :scratch:
The four points of Dispensational "Calvinism" is what I meant. I hesitate to call it Amyraldianism because I see disparities between the two doctrines. Of course, it is hard to really nail down a definite position for either because Dispensationalism appears inconsistent on the surface. Perhaps I am not being perceptive enough, but I find it hard to identify agreement even between Dispensationalists on definite issues such as soteriology. (Many Dispensationalists are Arminian. Billy Graham is a perfect example.)

ksen said:
It would seem just as dishonest to me if God were to condemn people for rejecting the Gospel if He did not freely offer it to everyone. The rejection of the Gospel is on them (even though their rejection was ordained by God).
I would agree. But God does not condemn people for rejecting the Gospel. He condemns them for their sins.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon
 
Upvote 0

ksen

Wiki on Garth!
Mar 24, 2003
7,053
427
56
Florida
Visit site
✟20,679.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Jon_ said:
I would agree. But God does not condemn people for rejecting the Gospel. He condemns them for their sins.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon
  • He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. - John 3:18 (KJV)
It soundsd like not believing the Gospel brings some amount of condemnation.
 
Upvote 0

ksen

Wiki on Garth!
Mar 24, 2003
7,053
427
56
Florida
Visit site
✟20,679.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Jon_ said:
So, I suppose we will go with,
a dispensation may be defined as a stewardship, administration, oversight, or management of others' property. As we have seen, this involves responsibility, accountability, and faithfulness on the part of the steward.


That being our definition, could you relate the purpose of this arrangement to me?


Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

I'm not sure what you are asking me for. :eek: :scratch:
 
Upvote 0

Jon_

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,998
91
42
California
✟18,616.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
ksen said:
  • He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. - John 3:18 (KJV)
It soundsd like not believing the Gospel brings some amount of condemnation.
Actually, what is being expressed is really simple. All men are sinners, of course. Because of our sins, we are condemned. To be saved, one must believe in Jesus Christ as one's personal Lord and Savior. If one does not believe, then one remains condemned. This might be what is mean by "condemned already." It could also be a simple anachronistic observation, i.e. because they do not believe they will be condemned, so their eventual end being already determined, it is anachronistically (a better word might be eternally) accurate to say they are currently condemned. In either case, the condemnation is resultant of sin.

What this verse supports is the Lordship of Christ. He is the only name under heaven by which one is saved (Acts 4:12). Therefore, if one does not believe in him, one has no expectation but judgment and condemnation.

Remember, Jesus did not come to condemn the world, but to save it. And that is precisely the what verse that preceeds the one you have quoted says:
(John 3:17 KJV) For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

The Gospel is a message of hope and salvation unto the elect, not a message of condemnation unto the reprobate. The reprobate are already condemned. They are condemned from birth, being born in inquity (Ps. 51:5). Indeed we all were once inmates on death row until Jesus came and took our place for no more reason than the love, mercy, and grace of his Father, and his willingness to fulfill his will. This is the message of the Gospel. However, it is also true that one must "repent or burn." But it is not the rejection of the Gospel that condemns, but sin itself.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon
 
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

Jon_

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,998
91
42
California
✟18,616.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
ksen said:
I'm not sure what you are asking me for. :eek: :scratch:
Why divide the Word into dispensations? What purpose do these dispensations serve? What do we learn from them? What do we observe in them? And most importantly, how does this affect how we look at the Word?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon
 
Upvote 0

ksen

Wiki on Garth!
Mar 24, 2003
7,053
427
56
Florida
Visit site
✟20,679.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Jon_ said:
Why divide the Word into dispensations? What purpose do these dispensations serve? What do we learn from them? What do we observe in them? And most importantly, how does this affect how we look at the Word?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Even Covenant theologians have at least two dispensations: Works and Grace.

Charles Hodge divided the Covenant of Grace into three dispensations: the Patriarchal, the Mosaic, and the Christian.

"The Covenant of Grace - The Identity of the Covenant of Grace under all Dispensations"
http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/articles/full.asp?id=13|65|365

Would you ask the same questions of Hodge?
 
Upvote 0

ksen

Wiki on Garth!
Mar 24, 2003
7,053
427
56
Florida
Visit site
✟20,679.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Jon_ said:
Why divide the Word into dispensations?

Because the Word divides itself into dispensations, i.e. Pre-Fall, Post-Fall (and that's at the most basic level).

What purpose do these dispensations serve? What do we learn from them? What do we observe in them? And most importantly, how does this affect how we look at the Word?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Whoah, those questions are going to take some time to answer. Please bear with me.
 
Upvote 0

Jon_

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,998
91
42
California
✟18,616.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
ksen said:
Because the Word divides itself into dispensations, i.e. Pre-Fall, Post-Fall (and that's at the most basic level). Whoah, those questions are going to take some time to answer. Please bear with me.
I guess what I'd like to know is, What do we learn from the Dispensational system of dispensations?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon
 
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

Jon_

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,998
91
42
California
✟18,616.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
ksen said:
Even Covenant theologians have at least two dispensations: Works and Grace.
Correct. Three is more correct: redemption, works, and grace.

ksen said:
Charles Hodge divided the Covenant of Grace into three dispensations: the Patriarchal, the Mosaic, and the Christian.
Indeed, though their relation is universal, which sets this dispensational system apart from Dispensationalism.

ksen said:
Would you ask the same questions of Hodge?
No, I understand Hodge's theology. I do not understand Dispensational theology.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon
 
Upvote 0