The Elect

[LukeBritt]

I don't think they are consistent in their theology.
You can't be a dispensationalist and be a Calvinist.

 

[cygnusx1]

Still waiting for an answer, tell me about the Calvinists who are not anti-dispensationalists.

this is a brief quote from a overall view of the subject ....... you will notice if you read the whole article that not all Calvinists are anti-dispensationist (I never said all) but core Reformed beliefs are in disagreement ....

Differences – Literal Israel and the Church
Now, as we have said, eschatology is not the fundamental difference between Covenant Theology and dispensationalism, but eschatology is simply an implication of the fundamental difference. The fundamental difference is actually seen in the difference between Israel and the church.

Dispensationalism, and again, allow me to speak in generalities, if you have read books like Progressive Dispensationalism, by Darrell L. Bock, and Craig A. Blaising, who are professors at Dallas, or have been professors at Dallas. You will know that Dispensationalists themselves acknowledge that there are multiple systems of Dispensational Theology, and Blaising and Bock come up with three basic categories of dispensationalism. They say there is classic or historical dispensationalism. There is revised, or modified dispensationalism. And there is progressive dispensationalism. And each of those different forms of dispensationalism have a slightly different twist on how Israel and church relate.

Now, allow me to paint in broad brush, right now, not for the sake of tarring and feathering someone, but at least trying to get us to the nub of the issue. The fundamental difference between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism is this issue of Israel and the church. Dispensationalism stresses the literal fulfillment of prophecy about Israel and posits an essential difference between physical Israel and the church. If you have Dipensational friends who are discussing with you how you interpret Old Testament passages, and their fulfillment is seen in the New Covenant, almost always they will tell you something like this, “Well, I take the Bible literally and you are spiritualizing away these passages.” Now what they really mean by that is they take the term Israel, literally. Now, everybody has to acknowledge symbolic elements in prophecy. Anybody who has read dispensational interpretations of the book of Revelation will see that it is very clear that dispensationalists also have a very symbolic approach to the meaning of Scripture, but what they mean , whereas you think that these prophesies about Israel and Judah in the Old Testament are fulfilled in the church and in the coming in of the Gentiles into the church, we dispensationalists do not believe that the Church is prophesied about in the Old Testament. And we believe that the prophesies about Israel and Judah in the Old Testament are to be literally fulfilled in Israel in Judah in the New Covenant.

Now, again, allow me to overstate it like that for emphasis. Because as you have already learned from Poythress, there are some dispensationalists who would want to say it differently than that. But we can’t say everything at once, and we have got to start somewhere. So let me generalize like that. I don’t think that it is an unfair characterization.

Now, Covenant Theology on the other hand, sees the Church as the fulfillment of Israel in New Covenant prophecy. Covenant Theology is happy to acknowledge the uniqueness of the Church, especially in its post Pentecost phase. But Covenant Theology sees all believers in essential continuity. There are not two peoples of God. There is one people of God.

Covenant Theologians would agree that the forms, and especially the institutional forms of those people of God, was different under the Old and under the New Covenant. The form of the people of God under the Old Covenant was expressed primarily in Israel, which was an ethnic, ecclesiastical and national community, whereas in the New Covenant, the form of the people of God is, the institutional form of the people of God, is the Church. And the Church in the New Testament is trans ethnic and trans national and purely ecclesiastical as opposed to ecclesiastical and civil. There is no question that there was a blending of matters civil and ecclesiastical in the Old Covenant for the people of God, but hat is not the case in the New Covenant.

Dispensationalism, however, contends that God has two peoples with two destinies. And again, I am speaking of a classic form of dispensationalism. The two peoples of God, Israel and the Church, have two separate destinies. They see Israel, with the earthly millennial reign of David in the land of Israel restored to its Davidic and Solomonic boundaries. For the Church, there is heaven. So, for the dispensationalist, there are two peoples and two separate destinies, whereas Covenant Theology going back to its concept of the Church and God’s sovereign election from before the Creation, strenuously argues that there is only one people of God in all ages and there is only one destiny for all the people of God.

Now, you are beginning to see why I read Paul’s words in Romans 2:28-29, because Paul obviously had a great concern to address precisely these kinds of issues. And in that passage, Paul makes it clear that not all Israel is Israel. Okay. So he makes it clear that Israel was from the very beginning a spiritual entity, even though there was an external aspect to Israel; that circumcision was not simply a matter of an outward form and sign, but that there was an inward spiritual reality which was necessary for fellowship with God.

And that is one of the disputed points between the Covenant Theology perspective and the Dispensationsalists. The Covenant Theologian wants us to understand that Israel from the very beginning, had within her bounds, both the elect and the reprobate. And that God’s promises were not made, as it were, as a shell simply to the external Israel, but to those who had indeed embraced and appropriated the promises of the Covenant with Abraham. God’s plan is the same in the New Covenant as it was in the Old. And that is a disputed point between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism.

Differences – Only One Plan From Eternity for All of God’s People
Probably the greatest problem then, between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology concerns God’s saving purposes in the Old Testament. Some of the older Dispensationalists used to actually even argue that salvation was by works in the Old Testament and by faith in the New Testament. Now, Poythress is very careful to note that most Dispensationalists today don’t argue that particular point of view. But that was a very common point of view in some of the older Dispensational writings. And of course, Covenant Theologians point out that that would contradict the essential Reformation doctrine of sola gratia, or salvation by grace alone, if that were the case. Salvation is not only now, by grace alone, the Reformers argued, it has always been by grace alone since the Fall.

Now, more mainstream dispensationalism has suggested that Old Testament believers were not saved by works, but by faith, but they differ from Covenant Theologians in their description of the nature of that faith. Some modern dispensationalists generally argue that the saving faith of the Old Testament was substantially and materially different from the saving faith of the New Testament. They tend to argue that sinners in the Old Testament were not justified by faith in the Gospel of the Messiah as sin-bearer (Christ crucified), but rather their faith was in promises that were peculiar to their individual era in redemptive history. So they may have received occasional messianic prophecy, but that was not essential to their saving faith, per se.

Now, this isn’t just out of accord with Covenant Theology, but this is the area where dispensationalism has been most out of accord with Protestant theology. This is out of accord with all Calvinism, all Lutheranism, and even mainstream Anabaptist thought at the Reformation, who all taught that Old Testament believers were justified by faith in the coming Messiah as sin-bearer. These Old Testament believers all heard the Gospel, the Reformers argued. How? Through the prophecies and types. Therefore, the essential content of their faith was materially the same in all ages, including the NT. So though the New Covenant believer may have a firmer grasp on the Gospel, because the events of the Gospel are now retrospective for the New Covenant, yet the Gospel was set forth in shadows and in types to the Old Covenant believer. So that justifying faith in the Old Testament was in Messiah, was in Christ as sin bearer, and they were expecting His coming, whereas the New Covenant, looks back upon the finished work of Christ, the Messiah. That is a fundamentally Protestant point of view about saving faith in the Old Testament. And Dispensationalism tends to take issue with it.

So, the historic Protestant view is that the essential content of faith has been materially the same in all ages. Historical Protestant teaching is that no one has ever been justified except by faith in Christ crucified. That is the essence of the Reformation doctrine of sola fide, or salvation by faith alone. And so when classic forms of Dispensationalism disagree with that point, they are not just disagreeing with Covenant Theology, they are also disagreeing with Protestantism as a whole. And in that light, you see why it is impossible to harmonize the two systems. That fundamental difference is at the core. Calvinism has always held that the saints in both Old and in New Testament are all in Christ. They are part of the body of Christ, part of the bride of Christ, because of God’s election.

http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources/apologetics/Covenant%20Theology%20&%20Justification/Ligons_covtheology/09.htm

 

[Van]

Just two quick points, all Calvinists are amillennialists, just like all Calvinists are 5 point Calvinists. Sure there are folks without a rigorous theology that accept Calvinism and traditional dispensationalism, but their views do not, repeat do not, reflect reformed theology.

Second point, in the above article while progressive dispensationalism was mentioned, it was never addressed. Every problem with dispensationalism cited referred to traditional or historic dispensationalism. Scripture, literally interpreted, teaches progressive dispensationalism. Or so I believe.

 

[LukeBritt]

I like to think that Calvinists and Progressive Dispys are compatible, but I'm not so sure...

 

[Van]

Yes the doctrine could be adopted by those adhering to Reformed theology, but as of right now, Reformed is stuck with amillennialism. You see, once you start saying the verses do not mean what they say, they are only presenting a physical picture of a spiritual happening, katy bar the door. But you are right, the valid objections to traditional dispensationalism raised by the advocate of amillennialism, are resolved by progressive dispensationalism.

 

[cygnusx1]

it's not a question of ''start saying the verses do not mean what they say'' van , didn't you read the article i posted ,

''If you have Dipensational friends who are discussing with you how you interpret Old Testament passages, and their fulfillment is seen in the New Covenant, almost always they will tell you something like this, “Well, I take the Bible literally and you are spiritualizing away these passages.” Now what they really mean by that is they take the term Israel, literally. Now, everybody has to acknowledge symbolic elements in prophecy. Anybody who has read dispensational interpretations of the book of Revelation will see that it is very clear that dispensationalists also have a very symbolic approach to the meaning of Scripture, but what they mean , whereas you think that these prophesies about Israel and Judah in the Old Testament are fulfilled in the church and in the coming in of the Gentiles into the church, we dispensationalists do not believe that the Church is prophesied about in the Old Testament. And we believe that the prophesies about Israel and Judah in the Old Testament are to be literally fulfilled in Israel in Judah in the New Covenant. ''

 

[Van]

I do not think you know what you are talking about, for your copy and paste makes my case, not yours.

 

[cygnusx1]

I do not think you know what you are talking about, for your copy and paste makes my case, not yours.

I don't follow you at all van ............. the article I quoted shows that there is inconsistancy with Dispensational theology (that is why there are so many varients) and that the moral high ground is falsly claimed by men who insist they take scripture more literally than others ... WHEN IT SUITS THEM!


"Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect" 2Tim 2:10

 

[Van]

I follow your ad homenin, attacking dispensationalists rather than progressive dispensationalism. My point is you have shown no understanding of progressive dispensationalism, and your copy and paste blurb makes the case, for it addressing traditional dispensationalism. Note the real argument, since some passages are figurative, then it is fair game to claim anything at odds with your doctrine is figurative, and when someone complains - why those hypocrites, they say other passages are figurative so they are as bad as we are. Twaddle times two.