Are all dispensationalists of an Arminian persuasion ?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Robert J Hutton:
In my studies of various theological beliefs I have had the impression that those who hold to Dispensational theology tend to be Arminian. However, I would be interested to know if this is always the case. Is it possible to believe in Disp. theology and still hold strongly to sovereign, uncon- ditional election? I would value your comments.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a common but flawed understanding, especially for those of us who are strong dispensationalists and strong calvinists. There are a couple of us here now and there will be a lot more of us in heaven. Everyone will be converted by then. After all, they will have no choice in the matter.

There is no necessary connection between dispenationalism and Arminian. After all the strongest dispensationalists were calvinists (cf. Jesus, Paul, Peter ).

Seriously, they often co-exist but not of necessity.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Everyone will be converted by then. After all, they will have no choice in the matter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



ROFL!

 

[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]

 

Robert (wow, I love that name) - ROFL stands for Rolling on Floor Laughing, and is also seen as ROTFL (rolling on the floor laughing). I'm not sure it this is a sign that you are English or that you are old. All the young people seem to know all this stuff, but I'm just now learning them.

In my experience I have seen the adoption of Calvinistic theology tend to lead away from dispensationalism. I don't necessarily think it is because they can't co-exist. I think it is more because these people begin to read more old writers who were amillennial and become exposed to it where they had not been before. Just my experience, not worth all that much...

another robert

 

Although there have been and are Calvinistic dispensationalists (Donald Grey Barnhouse, James M. Boice, John MacArthur, etc) I would say that most Calvinists are not dispensational, as they see DT to be inconsistent with God's purpose of sovereign grace throughout all of redemptive history.

(I'm not trying to begin a DT/CT debate here; that belongs on the Theology forum. Just making a personal observation.)

[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

 

[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
Although there have been and are Calvinistic dispensationalists (Donald Grey Barnhouse, James M. Boice, John MacArthur, etc) I would say that most Calvinists are not dispensational, as they see DT to be inconsistent with God's purpose of sovereign grace throughout all of redemptive history.

(I'm not trying to begin a DT/CT debate here; that belongs on the Theology forum. Just making a personal observation.)

[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately it is an inadequate observation being as that there is no inconsistency between the glory of God and dispensationalism.

[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

Unfortunately it is an inadequate observation being as that there is no inconsistency between the glory of God and dispensationalism.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In your opinion ...

There are a whole buncha Reformed theologians of whom you and I are unfit to loose their sandals, who disagree with you ...

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
There are a whole buncha Reformed theologians of whom you and I are unfit to loose their sandals, who disagree with you ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The fact that the DT and the glory of God are consistent is not really my opinion. It has been well established by dispensational scholars of equal stature to the reformed scholars to whom you refer. You might disagree with my conclusions but surely cannot say it is simply my opinion. The question is which position best account for the whole of biblical revelation. I think that DT does.

 

And remember, it's not that we like these Reformed theologians for their dispensational views; we like them in spite of their views

 

I'm a dispensational 4-pointer, willing to become a 5-pointer depending on where I land on limited atonement.

Chris, could you explain where you see dispensationalism and Calvinism as inconsistent? I've heard that charge made, but I've never seen an explanation that is relevant to "contemporary dispensationalism."

By that term I mean to distinguish myself from the Scofield/Chaferian dispensationalism that I think a lot of Reformed theologians use as a straw man. I believe modern dispensationalism is much more consistent, both internally and with the doxological view of God's purpose on earth.

 

As I've said, I don't want to turn Calvinism thread into a dispensational one. But I do recommend Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism (Second Edition) by John Gerstner
_____________________________

Additional comments by the moderator.

I am adding to this as the moderator to keep this response immediately connected to the post Chris made. Gerstner's book has been shown on numerous occasions to be very poorly researched, very misrepresentative, and overall, a very poor attempt at discussing the issues involved. It is a very poor resource on the issue. It has been convincing only to those who do not need to be convinced. Rather than reinventing the wheel and taking up entirely too much space, the following two articles do a good job at addressing some of the issues. I would disagree with the reviewer at the end of the second article regarding the Lordship of Christ, which goes even farther towards showing Gerstner’s misrepresentation of dispensationalism. These articles total about 30 pages or so and point out a number of the problems with Gerstner’s approach.

Witmer, John A. “Part 1: A Review of Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth.” Bibliotheca Sacra 149 (Apr 92): 131-145.

Witmer, John A. “Part 2: A Review of Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth.” Bibliotheca Sacra 149 (Jul 92): 259-276.

Additionally of interest, vol 10 #2 of the Grace Theological Journal (Fall 1989) continues the papers and proceedings of the Dispensational Study Group that meets prior to the ETS. This volume addresses Poythress’s book Understanding Dispensationalists and contains Poythress’s responses to the papers presented. Again, this will prove a good resource for those interested in finding out more about the differences between DT and CT.

[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Would you mind just explaining the inconsistency as you see it? I promise not to argue with you about it (fingers crossed behind my back).

Seriously, if I respond I'll start a new thread in the theology forum if you don't feel this is the appropriate place.

 

Additional comments on Pastor Larry's assessment of Gerstner's book: It must be noted that Dallas Theological Seminary and Grace Theological Seminary are dispensational institutions. Naturally, their journals will not be friendly to Gerstner's conclusions.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
Additional comments on Pastor Larry's assessment of Gerstner's book: It must be noted that Dallas Theological Seminary and Grace Theological Seminary are dispensational institutions. Naturally, their journals will not be friendly to Gerstner's conclusions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks Tom.

It was also the first edition which contained errors (relatively minor ones, none of the "horrendous" errors that dispensationalists like to claim), not the second edition. The second is expanded and updated with an added appendix of Gerstner answering the very criticisms that Pastor Larry mentioned. Those answers by Gerstner have never been answered by the dispensational camp.

 

A fundamental Baptist seminary known for their position as a strongly dispensational, and strongly Calvinist school is Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary. They have a well indexed Theological Journal with several back issues online in PDF format. This seminary is routinely ridiculed amongst many fundamental baptists for their strong Calvinist stand and for their repudiation of the KJV only position. Their dispensationism is that of Rolland McCune, and goes pretty far in my opinion. I would be more of a dispensationalist of the Blaising/Bock variety.

Chick

 

I think it would be fair to say that McCune is in the Alva McClain tradition. I'm guessing his name is more widely known than McCune's.

 

Good point Siegfried, I actually took a course in Dispensationalism from McCune and came out more like Blaising/Bock -- go figure! I certainly enjoyed the class, as I enjoyed the other DBTS faculty (Compton, Combs, Priest), but in my opinion, Hyper-dispensationalism goes too far. It tends to separate arbitrarily everything in Scripture into too neatly defined categories.

Best wishes,
Chick