Would Both Scofield/Ryrie Been Seen as Calvinist Bibles?

Neither are Reformed in their doctrines...

 

No, they would not. They would be considered classically dispensational, scolfield much moreso. Few today hold to their views on Dispensationalism, the view is so modified that it barely resembles Scolfield's or Ryrie's view. Their theology was very short-lived and thus, even their brand of soteriology will be seen as mostly a cultural development of the 20th Century.

 

I believe they can't, but I know some who disagree with me.

Progressive Dispensationalism is a very broad term. I think there are more dispensational people who do not fit into that category like John MacArthur. However you want to term it, very few people hold to classical dispensationalism anymore.

 

I believe the DOG is an entire worldview and hermeneutic, thus it is far more encompassing than just Soteriology. Of which, I cannot reconcile many classical dispensational viewpoints, like the rejections of the analogy of faith, with reformed theology.

 

I am with you on this. Very difficult to balance both classical dispensational doctrines with Calvinism, but some have probably tried. Just goes to show that merely holding a particular doctrine on this or that does not make for a coherent overall package. For that, biblical (revealed!) balance is required, not excursions into existentialism, pietism, or emotionalism.

 

The analogy of faith is more not an eschatalogical theology, though it has implications on eschatology. A person who holds to Reformed Theology in Soteriology only does not understand reformed theology completely.

 

Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary is both dispensational and Calvinist.

 

Is it classically dispensational or progressive? I would think they are not either purely reformed or purely classically dispensational. As noted, the analogy of faith is a huge distinguishing hermeneutic that reformed theology must embrace and classical dispensationalists must reject.

 

So which is it?

:BangHead:

 

To the best of my knowledge they teach classical dispensationalism there.

 

Most dispensationalists give the doctrine of foreknowledge a very key role in their system, whereas true calvinists believe that foreknowledge is simply a natural attribute of God.

Many American dispensationalists draw their views directly from Dallas Seminary. We have many pastors directly from Dallas, including our group seminary in Ontario. The founding pastors, however, came out of Toronto Baptist Seminary (Dr. T.T. Shields) and are amillennial and truly calvinists.

Cheers,

Jim

 

While there are people who hold to what they call TULIP, most in reformed circles would admit this is merely an outworking of a larger scope of issues. If you merely hold to TULIP and you also reject, as in this case, the analogy of faith in order to hold to dispensationalism, then you have not thought through either system very well. They are opposite in their view.

As well, to call the system "Presbyterian" is inaccurate. I know of no Baptist Theologian in church history before the 20th Century who would have rejected the Analogy of Faith, Calvinistic or otherwise. This is not Presbyterian, but is held by a myriad of people in history.

 

Jerome,

TULIP was a response to the Remonstrance, they were major area of contentions. However, they were not the sum of our beliefs, they were merely the areas of debate. Thus, when people relegate it to merely soteriology they are taking a specific debate and embracing certain debate points without embracing the entire system of theology. While we can have a disagreement on certain areas, I do not think you can consistently hold to certain theologies and to Calvinism.

I have mentioned the differences between Classical Dispensationalism and Calvinism on the issue of the Analogy of Faith. Another key is that Classical Dispensationalism believe that the Church is a parenthesis, but I contend that Calvinism must view the church as God's focal plan all along to fit within their theological system.

Thus, a classical dispensationalist must either compromise Calvinism or Dispensationalism.

To relegate Calvinism/Reformed theology to merely 5 points is an abuse to the Dordt, who only meant them to be major points of contention against one system.