Featured Going going gone ..

What does this mean, and how does it answer my question?

 

Again, are you asserting that DTS is generally, soteriologicaly Calvinistic?

I asked this:

thatbrian said: ↑
Are you saying that DTS, in general, holds to a Calvinistic soteriology?

I don't find your answer addressing my question.

 

Why not look at this and find your answer? Doctrinal Statement | Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS)

I was around DTS and students for some years, and for the most part they are far more holding to the doctrines of Grace than most SBC schools, and many Independent Schools.

For those too lazy to click on the link and discern here is just one paragraph concerning "Total Depravity."

"We believe that man was originally created in the image and after the likeness of God, and that he fell through sin, and, as a consequence of his sin, lost his spiritual life, becoming dead in trespasses and sins, and that he became subject to the power of the devil. We also believe that this spiritual death, or total depravity of human nature, has been transmitted to the entire human race of man, the Man Christ Jesus alone being excepted; and hence that every child of Adam is born into the world with a nature which not only possesses no spark of divine life, but is essentially and unchangeably bad apart from divine grace (Gen. 1:26; 2:17; 6:5; Pss. 14:1–3; 51:5; Jer. 17:9; John 3:6; 5:40; 6:35; Rom. 3:10–19; 8:6–7; Eph. 2:1–3; 1 Tim. 5:6; 1 John 3:8)." (bold emphasis added by me)​

 

It now goes hand in hand, almost exclusively, with Arminianism/semi-Pelagianism, so how was the baby thrown out with the bathwater by these folks?

 

Many 5 pointers are also premillenialist thinking.

They may also use some dispensation thinking as a way to quickly outline, show a pattern, or give a statement of economy/stewardship to their writing.

 

How to you make sense of the fact that the majority of Dispensationalists are not Calvinists? In fact most are hostile toward the DoG.

 

I'm awake.

 

I wear the label of dispensationalist and although I dont see eye to eye with the DoG teachings I am not hostile to it/them.

 

However true that might be, Hank, you agree with every side of an issue.

 

Not every side, some sides, a few sides and no sides depending on a few things about the sides.

 

“Do you believe that the relationship between God and man changed when Adam was expelled from Eden? Then I guess we are all dispensationalists to some degree!” - Charles Sproul

 

Hello James, this post is in response to your opening post, and does not address any the follow-on posts.
First, you need to define Dispensationalism, because some folks believe in Traditional Dispensationalism where the promises to Israel are not also promises to the Church. OTOH, Progressive Dispensationalists believe the church members become children of Abraham and receive the promises to Israel.

Both groups believe in the literal 1000 year reign of Christ on David's throne on earth, which differs from the deniers.

What do those who reject dispensationalism reject, the 1000 year reign or that the church is not grafted into "all Israel."

 

Dispensationalism is one of the most cluttered theological body of beliefs in Christendom so its difficult for one to come up with a systematic theology unless of course one accepts (as an example) Chafer's Systematic Theology page for page, sentence for sentence (which I don't).

However I do enjoy rummaging around in the Dispensational bone yard which contrary to public opinion goes back to the ECF although the essential segments were not called "dispensation" but more likely "ages" or "economies".

 

Hi Hank please rummage around the two issues (1) 1000 year literal reign on earth and (2) the church is grafted into "all Israel.: