The gospel has nothing to do with God's covenant

[Iconoclast]

Yes....shocking as this statement is...according to DHK the gospel has nothing to do with God's Covenant. Let's examine how he comes to this conclusion.
I will post the whole post so you can see how he arrives at this place.

What do you think? What does scripture declare on this?:type:

 

[Iconoclast]

Here is the exchange;
DHK
Moderator



Originally Posted by Iconoclast ;
I said Calvin.....the man Calvin.....not calvinism.

And so?
Calvin--Calvinism;
Augustine--Augustianism. No difference.

The difference would be some speak about Calvin the man, what he did ,or did not do.

Calvinism ; would be-here from wikipedia

Calvinism is a misleading term because the religious tradition it denotes is and has always been diverse, with a wide range of influences rather than a single founder. The movement was first called "Calvinism" by Lutherans who opposed it, and many within the tradition would prefer to use the word "Reformed" rather than "Calvinist."[3][4] Since the Arminian controversy, the Reformed (as a branch of Protestantism distinguished from Lutheranism) are divided into Arminians and Calvinists, however it is now rare to call Arminians Reformed, as many see these two schools of thought as opposed, making the terms Calvinist and Reformed synonymous.[5][6]

That is the difference DHK.....it is teaching, doctrine.....{ but we have bigger fish to fry} so lets get to it!

Iconoclast said;
The good news is about God's covenant salvation made known to the Church. Calvinism is the accurate teaching of that salvation....that is good news to me my friend!

If this is your idea about salvation and telling the plan of salvation or evangelizing others, I would never be able to work with you. My purpose is to tell the unsaved about the Christ that can save; but you want to tell them about a "covenant salvation"!!

Yes...I do. I might not use severe theological terms, however i would relate as much of God's truth as was needful.

Christ did not teach that; neither did Paul.

Yes they did as that is the biblical teaching...but let us go to scripture to see what it says.

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Two good verses for sure.If you went up to a stranger and told him this he would say.....

Believe what? Who is Jesus Christ? Why should I believe Him? Saved from what? What does it mean to call upon the Name of the Lord?

When Paul teaches these verses they are the conclusion of lengthy teaching unfolding many portions of the OT , scriptures. You claim to be a teacher of the bible, say that I believe heresy and so on...then you post this instead?

It does not say:
For whosoever shall enter into a covenant shall be saved

No....this verse does not say those words.Do you know why? Perhaps if we use our bible instead of your anti-cal rhetoric we can see it...let's look-
In romans 8 ;29-30 we have the golden chain.....you know....all those calvinistic words that the calvinists like to use
28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

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.

31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

foreknown, called, elect...al those calvinistic terms...leading Paul to praise God for His Love found IN CHRIST.

There is more DHK....as we look to chapter 9, what do we find????

4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

So Paul in leading up to the verses you offer...not only explains the Covenant and promises......he includes all who God has purposed to graft in.

right here DHK.....
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

So gentiles are called by the same promises made to Abraham....quoting Hosea to establish the Covenant promises..

Your misguided idea is not working to well is it DHK. I said in the other thread when you boasted that;

Quote:
The gospel I preach has nothing to do with Calvinism, and neither is it defective

I said it was defective for this very reason....I said this-
If it has nothing to do with God's covenant love and mercy that is Calvinisms root teaching,it is greatly defective. Thankfully God is sovereign and can use many means to have his word save sinner.

Your next astounding claim-

If this is the "Calvinistic gospel" it is not true. It won't save. It doesn't have the good news of salvation.

Again...do we need to go to Calvins institutes for an answer....no.....Let's see what we find in
beginning of the gospel of Luke;
Lk1
54 He hath helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;

55 As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.
Oh wait...he did not say covenant ............yet....lets look further-
7 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,

68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,

69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;

70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:

71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;

72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;

73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,

74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,

75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.

The angels said this was good news...you say teaching of the Covenant has nothing to do with the good news...
10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

You say;

If this is the "Calvinistic gospel" it is not true. It won't save. It doesn't have the good news of salvation. [

I said to you-
salvation is written about in all 66 books...not just the 4 spiritual laws tract, or the romans road.

Yes, I can use all 66 books as well. Whatever gave you the idea I was confined to a tract? Don't post in arrogance and ignorance. Oh? Did someone else already say that?

What gave me the idea was your simplistic idea using two isolated verses and saying the Covenant has nothing to do with the gospel, and then to say that anyone who would frame out the gospel as the scripture does.....is teaching heresy...is the real absurdity.

Yes, I can use all 66 books as well

Okay..that is a good start....especially since the bible and Paul you quote tells us this;
7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.


How could the scripture say.....preached before the GOSPEL TO ABRAHAM?
according to you and your definition.....Abraham did not hear Romans 10:9, or Acts 16:31...yet he heard the gospel.....In the Covenant promise

So before you charge Calvinists, Both Reformed Baptists,and our padeo brothers with heresy.....you might want to expand your view of what does it mean for a sinner to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.

The gospel has nothing to do with God's covenant. One does not have to be a covenant theologian or be in that camp in order to be saved. That is absurd.

What is absurd...is this statement.....maybe you can retract it, before anyone reads it...I will not tell.

see part 2

 

[Iconoclast]

part 2
If that is your root teaching then it is a false teaching.
You wrote this, not me.you are not a novice..after 28000 posts...you rail against calvinist teaching and then post this defective fragmented teaching.

having a defect or flaw; faulty; imperfect:imperfect in form or function : faulty

The root teaching of the gospel is that he died for sinners like me, took the penalty of my sin upon himself, and because he was fully man and fully God at the same time was able to satisfy fully the demands of God. Conquering sin, hell, and death he rose again after being buried for three days and three nights, he now sits on the right hand of the God the Father. All who come to him as a sinner. believing in that propitiatory sacrifice, calling upon His name as Savior, shall be saved and granted eternal life and forgiveness of sin.
That is the gospel

.

This is what Calvinism teaches DHK. Only Calvinism teaches it from everywhere in the Bible. it includes the Covenant of promise. I am glad that you teach people this much as there is enough saving truth here to be used of God to save a soul. Every Calvinistic sermon teaches and ties these truths into all the scripture.

it has nothing to do with Calvinism; nothing whatsoever.

Sometimes I get chided for coming across a bit rough. But those who make that claim here on BB....are free to claim we are into heresy, rude and arrogant for posting links that show error being posted in here daily. then you make your claims being quite obnoxious at times...but it turns out the Calvinist is somehow arrogant for offering verses or sermons.


1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
Quote:
To believe what millions have believed and do believe is not heresy.as you and your friend Dave Hunt say...that is insulting...but I do not get hung up on weak arguments from silence.
You think you have won the day...so what do you offer;

God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance

.

Another out of context mis-use of a verse...twisting or as peter says wresting the scripture.....putting it on a torture rack...out of context completely.
god is very willing to send multitudes into the second death at the white throne.

And he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world.

yes,,,,,,because the Covenant promise mentioned in Lk 1...goes world wide...not to Israel only. Every believing sinners ..sins have been propitiated.

--Those are not Hunt's words, but the inspired words of God

.

and Calvinists believe and teach them rightly.

Christ died for all, that all would be saved

.

The only ALL Jesus died for was the ALL the Father Gave to Him...

All have a free will,

A false philosophical term...free moral agents make choices...their will is bound by their nature.

that is the ability to make the choice to be saved or not

.

That Choice belongs to God alone..

Otherwise God would be lying wouldn't he?

No...God does not lie.

He gives man the choice to believe or not to believe

.
No...man is not given ...a choice.....God has commanded all men everywhere to repent. they are responsible

Calvin arrived on the scene more than 1500 years after that was written.

Calvinism was in scripture before Calvin laid eyes on it. You still do not get it...It is the scriptural teaching whatever name you call it. Herald offered that good quote from Spurgeon.


Quote the whole thing:

John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

yes go down to verse 44also while you were at it, or all the way to 65 calvinism everywhere
John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
--Nope I don't see it there either

.

it is there even if you do not see it yet....it is right there

Jesus clearly declares his omniscience. That has nothing to do with Calvinism

.

No..it is not His omniscience here.....It is the eternal Covenant of Redemption that Jesus declares in Jn 6.

Every Christian believes in these basic attributes of God: omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence. What? You think you have a claim on the attributes of God?

?

Here is your red herring

Then verse 65 follows up starting with therefore. Jesus would know who would come to him and who would not. As a man he limited his omniscience. As a man he depended upon his Father who he willingly submitted himself. Funny, how you guys ignore context.
Quote:

Nice try......No man Can come to me...unless the Father who sent me.....draw Him...that is the context.....he knew because it was the Fathers will..
he knew because he was part of the Covenant of Redemption.

8 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
As you look at the passage you see irrresistable grace...not the false philosophical idea of free will....which denies the fall.

The concept of irresistable grace ignores the totality of the entire teaching of Scriptures. You have nothing to boast of.

You miss the passage completely.

Quote:
I go to a baptist church because I am a baptist.
Then post like one.
Quote:

Many baptists understand and believe in the Covenant theology taught in scripture. Because we do does not mean we are not baptists.that is another wrong idea that someone taught you.

 

[saturneptune]

The original thread, the line between heresy and opinion, was never meant to be a debate about Calvinism, which you managed to accomplish. Now, as if that is not enough, you want to transform this into the added element of covenant theology. You are attempting to align Calvinism and covenant theology, which is not true. In the world of opinion, there are Calvinists who believe in covenant and dispy theology. The same goes for free wil

I am not going to make a 10,000 word copy and paste, but covenant theology views the Bible with One unity of purpose of the Lord, that being Jesus Christ. The focus of dispy is Israel. God works different ways at different times. They look at interpretation of the Bible differently such as the 1000 year reign of Christ. Covenant would tend to say that it is allegorical.

It seems to me that you take man made theologies, man defined theologies, and depend on them. For example, there are some very good elements of covenant theology, those established by Genesis 17:7. But their interpretation of the Bible like Pilgrims Progress is not so good. There are good elements of both. It is the same concept as the man made system of Calvinism. You are defining your posts by others opinions and definitons of systems of theology, not Scripture. The truth is a mix and match of those imperfect systems. Now, on top of all that, you are attempting to link Covenant (man made) to Calvinism (man made), into a super man made view of Scripture.

The purpose of the OT is preperation for the arrival of Jesus Christ. The purpose of the NT is the revelation of Jesus Christ. They have a unity of purpose. That is all one can say. You can take your dead theologeans, their writings and their opinions and make rolls of toliet paper for all I care.

You accuse others of leaving out facts, yet, as often as you call on the name of Calvin, since you like to take in entire man made systems, never comment on his promotion of sprinking infants or writing for the seperation church and state while running a theocracy.

The pattern emerges, why you like creeds of Presbyterians, it is because man wrote them.

 

[Iconoclast]

Sn

You can take your dead theologeans, their writings and their opinions and make rolls of toliet paper for all I care.

This is a tragic view of biblical teaching offered by God given teachers.you are welcome to your view.I do not share it. You claim to get all your teaching directly from the Holy Spirit??? You do not listen to your pastors sermons?
if you do...why do you...?

When scripture speaks of teaching one another....how does that happen?

it seems as if when you post...you use your own words quite often....this is okay?
but if i quote a godly puritan who wrote and taught about scripture, that is not valid?

It seems to me that you are painting yourself into a corner with your line of reasoning.

You accuse others of leaving out facts, yet, as often as you call on the name of Calvin,

can you show any thread where i quote Calvin....SN???

 

[saturneptune]

part 2
If that is your root teaching then it is a false teaching.
You wrote this, not me.you are not a novice..after 28000 posts...you rail against calvinist teaching and then post this defective fragmented teaching.

having a defect or flaw; faulty; imperfect:imperfect in form or function : faulty

Here is a great example, you could have used the above words, left out the phrases "it is a false teaching" and gotten a lot further in a discussion, in a civil manner. That phrase served no purpose other than to demean. Why did you bring out the fact that DHK has over 28,000 posts, other than to inflame. It adds nothing to the discussion, other than your purpose of belittling a fellow Christian. You are saying, how long does it take for you to agree with me? It has nothing to do with the issue at hand, it is a personal attack.

Instead, why not say "I believe there is a more complete picture of the situation, instead of another copy and paste of a definition?

The focus of all this is Jesus Christ, not a showcase of how much you have learned.

 

[Iconoclast]

It seems to me that you take man made theologies, man defined theologies, and depend on them

Covenant theology is revealed by God. I know what it is.If you read the response to DHK you will see some verses on it.

If you offer good links..as time permits..I will read them. To not seek out truth in every way possible is a sinful neglect of being a good steward of the gospel.

 

[saturneptune]

Sn




This is a tragic view of biblical teaching offered by God given teachers.you are welcome to your view.I do not share it. You claim to get all your teaching directly from the Holy Spirit??? You do not listen to your pastors sermons?
if you do...why do you...?

When scripture speaks of teaching one another....how does that happen?

it seems as if when you post...you use your own words quite often....this is okay?
but if i quote a godly puritan who wrote and taught about scripture, that is not valid?

It seems to me that you are painting yourself into a corner with your line of reasoning.



can you show any thread where i quote Calvin....SN???

Again, you ignore post after post where I said, and others have said, of course we listen to our pastor, other Chrisitans, Scripture, etc. It is one thing to quote a "godly puritan" but it is quite another to call it false doctrine or the other poster believes false doctrine when they do not agree with them. Again the pattern emerges, there is a difference in reading opinions and using them as inspired writings.

 

[saturneptune]

Covenant theology is revealed by God. I know what it is.If you read the response to DHK you will see some verses on it.

If you offer good links..as time permits..I will read them. To not seek out truth in every way possible is a sinful neglect of being a good steward of the gospel.

You just put your foot in your mouth as often as a second hand going around a clock. I seek out every possible truth. Your phrase "to not seek out truth" is another implied personal attack for which you have no evidence, therefore your charge of "sinful neglect" is bearing false witness.

 

[Iconoclast]

saturneptune;1


Here is a great example, you could have used the above words, left out the phrases "it is a false teaching" and gotten a lot further in a discussion, in a civil manner. That phrase served no purpose other than to demean. Why did you bring out the fact that DHK has over 28,000 posts, other than to inflame. It adds nothing to the discussion, other than your purpose of belittling a fellow Christian. You are saying, how long does it take for you to agree with me? It has nothing to do with the issue at hand, it is a personal attack.

Instead, why not say "I believe there is a more complete picture of the situation, instead of another copy and paste of a definition?

The focus of all this is Jesus Christ, not a showcase of how much you have learned.[/QUOTE]

The bolded phrase...

If that is your root teaching then it is a false teaching.

that phrase was offered by DHK ..SN

So..are you going to offer that advice to Him.I had to split the post because it was too long. he said it not me.

Why did you bring out the fact that DHK has over 28,000 posts, other than to inflame

The reason is...he is not a novice trying to learn and question in a healthy way..he says he teaches the bible,and yet attacks calvinists as heresy.

That inflames things a bit...don't you think? i know that you want to be critical of me SN...but try and be accurate when you read.:thumbs:

It adds nothing to the discussion, other than your purpose of belittling a fellow Christian

You did not voice this concern when Pinoybaptist called luke 2427 a male anatomical part. I am not here to"belittle fellow christians", but I will refute the gainsayers.

You are saying, how long does it take for you to agree with me? It has nothing to do with the issue at hand, it is a personal attack.

again....I point him and anyone else to scripture. I post what i have found to be right. Do you post what you post because you believe it to be wrong?

You and others attempt to ascribe evil motives to me. I do not do that to you, unless you show it by a direct attack.

What DHK posted is astounding to me. should i praise him for His open attack? which part of DHK's post was meant to be helpful to Calvinists.

he believing calvinism is heresy thinks he offers help by speaking badly about any calvinist anywhere.....look where it leads him.

Instead, why not say "I believe there is a more complete picture of the situation, instead of another copy and paste of a definition?

those things i copy and paste ...i cannot say better than what they have said...so why should I offer less than the best?

Can you say better what chapter 1 of the 1689 conf.states about scripture, offering better verses or a more concise definition than they offer?
then please do so. If not, explain again why they should not be used?

 

[thomas15]

What do you think?

Since you asked Icon, I think you need to get a life.

 

[saturneptune]

You did not voice this concern when Pinoybaptist called luke 2427 a male anatomical part. I am not here to"belittle fellow christians", but I will refute the gainsayers.

The main reason is that I did not read that quote, and secondly, I do not see my name in that conflict. Refute gainsayers???????? Of course.

Now, as far as the name Calvin, which seems to constantly come back. Herald, in another thread, and I were discussing the person in a CIVIL manner. He made a very good point. Why is it that people like John Knox, Martin Luther, John Wesley, and others who lead the Reformation are not so controversial? John Knox was certainly a strong believer in sovereignty. Maybe it is because of the character of the life they lead, or at least, they did not make a spectacle of themselves.

 

[preachinjesus]

It isn't often when you see error across an entire post, but when I do I must respond. Saturn, I enjoy your posts and presence here, but this is just wrong.

You are attempting to align Calvinism and covenant theology, which is not true. In the world of opinion, there are Calvinists who believe in covenant and dispy theology. The same goes for free wil

No reasonable Calvinist can be dispensational. It simply doesn't work. Calvin wasn't dispensational. Calvin rooted his theology in the covenant. Of course Americans believe they can parcel out whatever theological system they choose and not have to worry about coherency. We are a sad lot for it.

I am not going to make a 10,000 word copy and paste, but covenant theology views the Bible with One unity of purpose of the Lord, that being Jesus Christ. The focus of dispy is Israel. God works different ways at different times. They look at interpretation of the Bible differently such as the 1000 year reign of Christ. Covenant would tend to say that it is allegorical.

This is a limited understanding of the differences between covenant theology and dispensational theology. I'd encourage you to read up in all the areas (including prog dispensational and new covenant theology.)

The purpose of the OT is preperation for the arrival of Jesus Christ. The purpose of the NT is the revelation of Jesus Christ. They have a unity of purpose. That is all one can say. You can take your dead theologeans, their writings and their opinions and make rolls of toliet paper for all I care.

Wow, that is quite the paragraph right there. Not only do you overly generalize the purposes of the testaments, you also make yourself a fool with that last, unfortunate, sentence. I'd reconsider this whole thing.

 

[thomas15]

preachinjusus, not that I go around defending anyone but saturneptune is trying to make a point that anyone who has been following the barage of threads on this subject knows all about. His point is well taken although as blunt as I tend to get I wouldn't have chosen the same wording.

As far as dispensationalist being allowed to be calvinist you are simply wrong. The dispensational rule book does not insist that one shun DoG as some like to call it. True, in my personal situation as a dispensationalist I find it hard to be a hard core calvinist but that is partly a reaction to the childish behavor of some covenant theologians who think they are the one who get to decide who is a calvinist and who is not.

Have a nice day preachinjesus

 

[DHK]

I haven't made a thorough investigation, so I am just asking.
Isn't MacArthur rather dispensational in his teaching?
He does believe in a future Millennial Kingdom, the coming rapture, a Tribulation Period, that the period we now live in is an age of grace, etc.
He is definitely a Calvinist. But the above beliefs would also make him a dispensationalist, would they not?

 

[Bronconagurski]

I haven't made a thorough investigation, so I am just asking.
Isn't MacArthur rather dispensational in his teaching?
He does believe in a future Millennial Kingdom, the coming rapture, a Tribulation Period, that the period we now live in is an age of grace, etc.
He is definitely a Calvinist. But the above beliefs would also make him a dispensationalist, would they not?

You did not ask me, but I find him to be very dispensational, which is only a little surprising since I know Calvanists that are as well.

 

[DHK]

Covenant theology is revealed by God. I know what it is.If you read the response to DHK you will see some verses on it.

It is revealed by God in the OT to the nation of Israel. Various covenants were made to individuals in the OT before Israel (Adam, Noah), and to Israel (Abraham and his descendents). God called out a nation in the OT. God is calling out a nation in the NT, specifically in this age of grace. He is not doing it through a covenant. If you truly believe that you need to be either a Presbyterian or even a Lutheran. Eventually you will end up believing that one should end up entering the covenant through baptism which takes the place of circumcision at infancy, and thus baptismal regeneration. That is the logical end of covenant theology if taken all the way.
God is calling out his nation now through a relationship with Jesus Christ via the operation of the Holy Spirit. It is not patterned after the OT. We become children of God; heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ. This is not a covenant. It is an adoption. The time of covenants has finished. It will only resume once again when Jesus comes again and restores Israel to its rightful place. Then he fulfill the covenant that he made long ago with Israel. That has nothing to do with us. We are already part of the family of God.

If you offer good links..as time permits..I will read them. To not seek out truth in every way possible is a sinful neglect of being a good steward of the gospel.

I don't have links to offer you. I don't need them. My links are the Bible.
I have a library of 2,000 plus books.
I have at least 1,000 more on my computer, and that includes Calvin's Institutes, his commentaries, the writings of the ECF, and many other reference materials which I consider of greater value. I have what I need. I don't need links. Even if I could give you access to the material just on my computer you would not have the time to read it all.

In addition to the above I have been preaching and teaching for 30 plus years. In those years I have put together my own commentaries. I have developed curriculum and teaching materials for various courses in the college that I teach in. Most of the commentaries I consult are my own. Again, I don't need "links." You won't get them from me.

 

[preachinjesus]

preachinjusus, not that I go around defending anyone but saturneptune is trying to make a point that anyone who has been following the barage of threads on this subject knows all about. His point is well taken although as blunt as I tend to get I wouldn't have chosen the same wording.

A fair point. I generally don't involve myself in these Calvinist vs Whateverist threads since the critique Calvinism is misunderstood and poorly articulated are here. I'm not Reformed nor Calvinist.

As far as dispensationalist being allowed to be calvinist you are simply wrong. The dispensational rule book does not insist that one shun DoG as some like to call it. True, in my personal situation as a dispensationalist I find it hard to be a hard core calvinist but that is partly a reaction to the childish behavor of some covenant theologians who think they are the one who get to decide who is a calvinist and who is not.

Well here is a where we need to properly understand Calvinism as opposed to Reformed theology. Calvinism varies from Reformed theology in some important ways. Not the least of which is that Calvinism is confined to the theological exercise of its namesake which is explicated in his text The Institutes of Christian Religion.

One of my general criticisms of all sides is that everyone seems delighfully content to talk about the topic but most folks have never read Calvin's stuff. Given that Calvin's system revolves around his understanding of the covenantal system and is confined to a historical premillennial position (which can be modified to amillennialism) it is difficult to see how dispensationalism works itself out.

Now if someone wanted to say "Well I'm a Reformed Dispensational" then there are ways to make that work. (Difficult issues abound, but that goes for everything.) I just don't see how, in knowing Calvin's theology, one can adopt his moniker and then disagree with a central, binding principle of his work.

Have a nice day preachinjesus

You as well. :wavey:

 

[DHK]

A fair point. I generally don't involve myself in these Calvinist vs Whateverist threads since the critique Calvinism is misunderstood and poorly articulated are here. I'm not Reformed nor Calvinist.

Well here is a where we need to properly understand Calvinism as opposed to Reformed theology. Calvinism varies from Reformed theology in some important ways. Not the least of which is that Calvinism is confined to the theological exercise of its namesake which is explicated in his text The Institutes of Christian Religion.

I wish there were others that could make that differentiation.
Reformed and Calvinism, per se, are not the same.

 

[preachinjesus]

Yes, one of the key differences is seen when one sits and reads Calvin's Institutes followed by Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics and then Barth's Church Dogmatics (yes, the whole thing, all 14 volumes) you see a wide range of difference from Calvinist to Reformed perspectives.

I still think it is challenging for anyone to claim Reformed or Calvinist leanings and be dispensational. Alas, this is our western, American theological crisis.