30 reasons, I am not a Calvinist

[stilllearning]

Normally I stay away from this issue, because I thought maybe Calvinists, are just regular people, who have a few unbiblical ideas.

But, I found this chart, that points out how they are unbiblical in almost every area.

http://www.the-highway.com/covenant-vs-dispensational.html

--------------------------------------------------
Note: These names at the top of the “mostly Biblical list”.....“Lewis S. Chafer, John Walvoord, Tim LaHaye, John Nelson Darby, C.I. Scofield”:

Some might say, that I have be brainwashed by some or all of these men, but I have read absolutely NOTHING, that any of these “men” have written, nor heard ANY of their messages.

My study has been exclusively Bible based.
Can any Calvinist, say the same?

 

[Ron Wood]

Do a search of the history of Dispensationalism and you will find that it is a fairly recent, as in just a 100 years or so, theology. It was started by John Nelson Darby, spread by C I Scofield, and defended by Woolvard and Ryrie. Many today, if not most, are Dispensational. The problem with it is that it has a woodenly literal interpretation of the Scriptures, which is exactly what the Pharisees had and missed Christ because of it, and sets up a 2 kingdom system and in essence 2 ways of salvation.

 

[Iconoclast]

This chart has almost nothing to do with calvinism directly,although those on the right side of the chart have the most biblical truth.
I would use this chart to say 30 reasons I am no longer a dispensationalist.
A simple glance shows the right side is right.
Do you understand calvinism? Could you explain it in your own words offering a few verses for it? To be honest.....I do not think you can.

ps.I have read these men, had a scofield bible, and listened to tapes fron Dallas Theological....this whole system is flawed and been shown to be false.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Normally I stay away from this issue, because I thought maybe Calvinists, are just regular people, who have a few unbiblical ideas.

But, I found this chart, that points out how they are unbiblical in almost every area.

My study has been exclusively Bible based.
Can any Calvinist, say the same?

That chart has nothing to do with calvinism. It is about dispenationalism vs covenant theology. I am a 5 point calvinist and am more in the dispensational camp. I am a lot like John Macarthur in my outlook. He is a 5 point calvinist and a partial dispensationalist.

If you want to learn the five points of calvinism and see that they are biblical please check out this short link:

http://calvinistcorner.com/tulip

If you want to study further and go into more detail please read this book:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0875528279/?tag=baptis04-20

 

[glfredrick]

Calvinism and Dispensationalism are not one and the same. They do not really even dovetail. One can be an Arminian and a Dispensationalist. One can be a Calvinist and a Dispensationalist. One can disavow both systems and be a Dispensationalist (and it is likely that this is the primary category for those who hold a dispensational view).

It is probably time for a teaching thread where we lay out some of these theological points of view and define them as they are commonly used. I'm seeing so much misinformation around the board, largely based on this or that guy's website that may or may not actually reflect the total picture or the truth of any given issue.

The chart is somewhat accurate in what it states -- not really accurate at all in what it implies -- but that worth debating. As has been said above, the entire dispensational theology is somewhat recent, and largely hatched out of some need to preserve some form of sanity regarding the Scriptures, but also largely uninformed in the same tradition as Landmarkism, radical separatism, etc.

 

[Allan]

Normally I stay away from this issue, because I thought maybe Calvinists, are just regular people, who have a few unbiblical ideas.

But, I found this chart, that points out how they are unbiblical in almost every area.

http://www.the-highway.com/covenant-vs-dispensational.html

--------------------------------------------------
Note: These names at the top of the “mostly Biblical list”.....“Lewis S. Chafer, John Walvoord, Tim LaHaye, John Nelson Darby, C.I. Scofield”:

Some might say, that I have be brainwashed by some or all of these men, but I have read absolutely NOTHING, that any of these “men” have written, nor heard ANY of their messages.

My study has been exclusively Bible based.
Can any Calvinist, say the same?

This list on the Dispy view is not even half way correct. Actually, very little is correctly stated in that listing

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Calvinism and Dispensationalism are not one and the same. They do not really even dovetail. One can be an Arminian and a Dispensationalist. One can be a Calvinist and a Dispensationalist. One can disavow both systems and be a Dispensationalist (and it is likely that this is the primary category for those who hold a dispensational view).

It is probably time for a teaching thread where we lay out some of these theological points of view and define them as they are commonly used. I'm seeing so much misinformation around the board, largely based on this or that guy's website that may or may not actually reflect the total picture or the truth of any given issue.

I do not see how he got an attack on calvinism as a soteriology out of a comparison chart between dispensationalism and covenant theology.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi Ron Wood

As I have said here before, I was a Dispensationist, long before I even knew that it was called Dispensationalism.
Because of my study of God’s Word.

I have NEVER, heard a message preached on it, nor had I read anything about it, until I discovered it, and realized...“this is exactly what the Bible teaches”!
--------------------------------------------------
As for holding to a “woodenly literal interpretation” of the Bible; I probably do.
But this was not the problem, the Pharisees had; They(most of them), were hypocrites!

 

[stilllearning]

Hello Iconoclast

You might be right. I may owe all the Calvinists here an apology; Based upon the 3 or 4 posts, that follow yours.

Just one question for all of you Calvinists:
How many of the 30 points on the right, do you agree with?

For me, after a quick read of the list on the left, I agree(the Bible agrees), with 28 of them.
--------------------------------------------------
You asked me.......

“Do you understand calvinism?”

Does anyone?
What I mean is, Calvinism is a man-made idea, therefore to fully understand it you must read EVERYTHING that man has to say about it.

No, I don’t fully understand Calvinism; But the more I learn about it, the less Bible based I see it is.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said......

“ps.I have read these men, had a scofield bible, and listened to tapes fron Dallas Theological....this whole system is flawed and been shown to be false.”

Here we have the source of our differences: All of my theology, is based upon what I have found in God’s Word.

I don’t get very much from these Johnny-come-latelys.

 

[stilllearning]

I must apologize to everyone.
My “attitude” in this thread, has been wrong.

Please forgive me

 

[glfredrick]

I do not see how he got an attack on calvinism as a soteriology out of a comparison chart between dispensationalism and covenant theology.

Because of that little line at the top as the chart even begins.

If he sees Covenantal Theology as a problem and identifies it with Calvinism, then he has a problem...

DISPENSATIONAL THEOLOGY

(Lewis S. Chafer, John Walvoord, Tim LaHaye, John Nelson Darby, C.I. Scofield)

1. May be Arminian or modified Calvinist. Almost never 5-point Calvinist.

COVENANT THEOLOGY

(Charles Hodge, Loraine Boettner, Louis Berkhof, John Murray, B.B. Warfield)

1.Always Calvinist. Usually 5-point.

What we should be discussing are the problems with both views and where the current state of affairs exists in this realm of theology.

Dispensationalism has largely been set aside as untenable, but it still gathers a lot of support by pastors in individual churches. In fact, I've never heard a pastor preach a sermon other than dispensational in regards to end time events. They all walk with LaHaye and "Left Behind" even though privately these same pastors may have reservations and issues with reconciling Scripture to the tenets of that theology.

Covenantalism has largely been contained within the Calvinistic denominations, but it too has problems, for instance, the two covenants (works and grace) that are not really covenants at all.

I find a theology of election to be a better way of understanding the flow of salvation history than either covenantal or dispensational theology.

 

[Allan]

For me, after a quick read of the list on the left, I agree(the Bible agrees), with 28 of them.

If that is true then you don't hold to mainstream dispensationalism.
Half of that list does not even reflect the Dispy at all.

like -
OT sinners were saved by works and not faith?
or that -
The O.T. sacrifices were not recognized as the Gospel or types of the Messiah as sin-bearer, but only seen as such in retrospect.
or that -
Israel was rash to accept God's covenant on Mt. Sinia
or that -
The Law has been abolished
...as opposed to - The Law has 3 uses: to restrain sin in society, to lead to Christ, and to instruct Christians in godliness. The ceremonial Laws have been abolished; the civil laws have been abolished except for their general equity; the moral laws continue.


or that -
The Church is a parenthesis in God’s program for the ages.
(so to speak.. His fall back plan)

and on and on..

None of these are dispensational views.
It actually looks like someone from the Covenant view wrote this because it is very misinformed on much of the Dispy view.

In particular one I found quite funny was that Dispy interpret scripture by a 'ridged' literal view. When in fact what he places for the Covenant view is actually the Dispy hermeneutic. "Accepts ‘normal’ interpretation of the Bible text (allows both literal and figurative)"

Where as the Covenant view actually place emphasis on the spiritualizing of many passages and promises of God. This however not something done across the board on all things but primarily regarding promises made to the nation of Israel, and that the physical promises are to be spiritually understood.

 

[Ed B]

...My study has been exclusively Bible based.
Can any Calvinist, say the same?

I can.

The reason I have drifted toward what is labeled Calvinism is because I quit denying what I was reading in the pages of the Bible.

 

[jbh28]

I must apologize to everyone.
My “attitude” in this thread, has been wrong.

Please forgive me

:thumbsup:


While Calvinists tend to also be Covenant in theology, not all are. I'm not Covenant. MacArthur isn't...
It's also like there are Presbyterian Calvinists and Baptist Calvinists.

Good attitude here in coming back and apologizing!

 

[annsni]

My study has been exclusively Bible based.
Can any Calvinist, say the same?

I became a Calvinist just by reading Scripture. I didn't even know it had a name until a few years later.

 

[Iconoclast]

Hello Iconoclast

You might be right. I may owe all the Calvinists here an apology; Based upon the 3 or 4 posts, that follow yours.

Just one question for all of you Calvinists:
How many of the 30 points on the right, do you agree with?

For me, after a quick read of the list on the left, I agree(the Bible agrees), with 28 of them.
--------------------------------------------------
You asked me.......


Does anyone?
What I mean is, Calvinism is a man-made idea, therefore to fully understand it you must read EVERYTHING that man has to say about it.

No, I don’t fully understand Calvinism; But the more I learn about it, the less Bible based I see it is.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said......


Here we have the source of our differences: All of my theology, is based upon what I have found in God’s Word.

I don’t get very much from these Johnny-come-latelys.

still learning......you said;

Here we have the source of our differences: All of my theology, is based upon what I have found in God’s Word.

If you are a member of a church,and after a thousand posts on here some of your theology has already been influenced by someone other than biblical writers. Your pastor has read and taught you dispensatioal ideas.
You have heard enough to know something called calvinism exists even though you do not know what it is.

I must apologize to everyone.
My “attitude” in this thread, has been wrong.

Please forgive me

okay.....take some time to learn the views accurately...do not twist the view[as much is possible] get some of the best writers on the view being discussed. See and read the verses offered. Consider what and how the verses are being used.

Stilllearning.......all of us want the truth of scripture. A calvinist is a calvinist because of scripture.....not because of Calvin. I think if you read our responses you will see who is using the whole bible...and who hardly uses any verses at all in any post.
I do not take personal offence when people oppose the truth, I try to help them see the verses clearly,as they are God given truth.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi Allan

And thank you very much for your post.

As I said, I just made a “quick read”(skimmed) this list, and only found two objections:
But it is clear now, that I should have looked closer.
--------------------------------------------------
You pointed out..........

“OT sinners were saved by works and not faith?”

Ah, #19. This makes the 3rd objection I have to this list.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you pointed out........

“21. The O.T. sacrifices were not recognized as the Gospel or types of the Messiah as sin-bearer, but only seen as such in retrospect.”

This is an interesting question.
When God killed those animals to make coats for Adam and Eve, which was a foreshadowing of the cross, did Adam & Eve recognize that this had a deeper meaning?

Or when the Jews, brought sacrifices to the Temple, did they know what this was pointing to, or were they simply being obedient?

From what I read in the New Testament, the deeper meanings of the ceremonial law, were being hidden from them. (But I could be wrong!)
--------------------------------------------------
You also pointed out........

“16. Israel was rash to accept the Covenant at Mt. Sinai.”

Another interesting question.

Here is the record of what happened.......
Exodus 19:7-8
V.7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him.
V.8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.

Does their quick response seem rash to you?
It does to me, especially in light of how they disobeyed it at every turn.

But again I may be wrong.
--------------------------------------------------
I don’t know how I missed the next one you point out..........

“25. The Law has been abolished.”

I clearly disagree with this statement; I wish now, that I had done more than skim this list!
--------------------------------------------------
You make another interesting point; In disagreeing with.......

“11. The Church is a parenthesis in God’s program for the ages.”

Certainly, the Church was in God’s plan all along; But the fact that the Bible lists 43 books, before the Church is created, does seem to make it kind of a parenthesis in God’s program.
But I never thought of it that way, until it was stated here.
--------------------------------------------------
As you said, it goes on and on; You are right.

And as I have said, I am sorry, for starting this thread; But live and learn!

 

[Amy.G]

The O.T. sacrifices were not recognized as the Gospel or types of the Messiah as sin-bearer, but only seen as such in retrospect.

This is a subject I have wondered about. Did the OT Jews understand that the sacrifice was until Messiah came? Did they understand that Messiah would be the true sacrifice? I don't recall reading where they did. It seems they were just following the Law.
And as Still Learning said, the NT says that until Christ came, it was a mystery kept hidden from them.

Thoughts?

 

[Robert Snow]

I can.

The reason I have drifted toward what is labeled Calvinism is because I quit denying what I was reading in the pages of the Bible.

I don't see this as valid, at least not in my eyes. Reading the bible shows me the error of Calvinism. The more I read it, the more problems I see with this system called Calvinism.

 

[Amy.G]

Some of the things I've heard/read Calvinists on this board say many times are: "I stopped denying it", "I stopped fighting it"..."I finally gave in to it"....ect.

Why was it so hard to accept if it's true?