Just a quick reply, I don't think Dual convent theology can be avoided with such a system...that is what turned me against it so strongly. It is based on Scofield's principles of "rightly dividing" the Word of God for a reason...that's it...
I'm done, good luck.
Believe it or not, I agree. There is only one source of salvation, and that is Jesus Christ. The OT and NT are in perfect harmony. Your word "progressive" describes it very well. Romans to me makes it clear that there in no Jew or Greek in Jesus Christ. How that effects the sequence of end time events, not quite sure. For years, I bought into the Hal Lindsey theories.
Jerry Falwell and John Hagee have been accused of dual covenant theology. Falwell flat out denies it, and Hagee does so to a degree.
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/13819/hagee-falwell-deny-endorsing-dual-covenant
It surprises me that the debate of dispy and covenant has not had more threads like the ever present ad nauseam Calvinist-free will debates. The differences are just as sharp. In fact, I read an article the other day that the Calvin debate transcends the covenant debate. That is, some who hold to Calvinism are dispy, and some covenant. The same exists for the free will side, some hold to dispy, and some covenant.
Dispensationalism is also an odd cat in many ways. It lends itself in many ways to Calvinism, yet is reject by most Reformed churches. It would seem to not fit well with Arminianism, yet is popular among the Pentecostal/charismatic bunch.
I remember a few years back John MacArthur mustered as much brass as he could and gave a lecture to a room full of Covenantal Calvinists titled, ‘Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Dispensationalist.’ The response was strong, with some Calvinists writing online articles against him and others writing complete books against him.
But I think MacArthur’s main point has merit to his claim.
Dispensationalism as a system of theology holds to a view of predestination matched only by that of Calvinism, at least in so far as Israel is concerned. It teaches that all Israel will be saved. Every last one. Every descendant of Abraham. Every blood relative. No matter how they lived on earth. In the end, they will someway, somehow, be saved. Why? Because they are the elect of God. Israel.
Calvinism and Dispensationalism are a perfect match when discussing election.
Calvinism and Dispensationalism are also a good match when discussing ethics.
See, Calvinism is also an odd cat in some ways. It is a biblical system to a great extent. But soon after laying it’s biblical and hermeneutical foundation it is forced to fill in the blanks and draw many unbiblical conclusions, compelled by logic. Putting aside for a moment it’s logical conclusions about God’s character (which is a devastating conclusion that most Calvinists would rather not acknowledge), Calvinism of all stripes seem to agree (as far as I am aware) that regeneration (born again) comes before faith and repentance which flatly contradicts the testimony of the scriptures (John 3:5, 16; Acts 2:28).
In it’s fear of anything that smacks of works-based salvation it creates problems with the concept of faith (which is a verb) and repentance (another verb) or anything, really, the might hint at not being “all of grace.”
In this regard Calvinism makes for another great bedfellow with Dispensationalism. This is because Dispensationalism teaches that the Sermon on the Mount is not a part of the gospel of Jesus, defined as salvation by grace alone through faith alone.
Charles Ryrie, avowed Dispensationalist and Calvinist says it bluntly enough. In responding to the claim that the Sermon on the Mount is “pure gospel,” he writes:
“Granted, the discourse contains several pointed invitations, but invitations to what? To believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose again? Impossible to prove. To repent? Definitely. Who were to repent? The Jewish people to whom He was speaking. About what were they to repent? About their disobedience to God’s law. What law? The law of Moses… If the Sermon is ‘pure gospel,’ is it not presenting a works-salvation gospel?” (Dispensationalism, p. 110-111)
That paragraph is so packed with erroneous assumptions; erroneous assumptions about Israel, about the mission of Christ, about salvation, about the gospel. But it is, or seems to be, a natural conclusion to draw if one were a Calvinist who feared anything that smacked of works based salvation.
But what I find extremely odd about all of this talk is the fact that Pentecostals and Charismatics have jumped on board with Dispensationalism (accept, of course, the newly embraced Charismatic and Pentecostal Calvinists like C.J. Mahaney, Joshua Harris and James Smith, which is not odd at all!). Traditionally Pentecostal theology has been Wesleyan, which happens to be a branch of Arminianism. Since Arminian theology sees faith as a gracious gift of God, not a work unto salvation, and since it places faith in its proper place, prior to or simultaneous with the new birth. Since Arminian theology does not require a knee-jerk reaction or ostentatious fear of works being snuck in through the back door. And since Arminians reject the kind of election that Calvinists subscribe to. Dispensationalism and Arminianism make bad bedfellows.
snips from I remember a few years back John MacArthur mustered as much brass as he could and gave a lecture to a room full of Covenantal Calvinists titled, ‘Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Dispensationalist.’ The response was strong, with some Calvinists writing online articles against him and others writing complete books against him.
But I think MacArthur’s main point has merit to his claim.
Dispensationalism as a system of theology holds to a view of predestination matched only by that of Calvinism, at least in so far as Israel is concerned. It teaches that all Israel will be saved. Every last one. Every descendant of Abraham. Every blood relative. No matter how they lived on earth. In the end, they will someway, somehow, be saved. Why? Because they are the elect of God. Israel.
Calvinism and Dispensationalism are a perfect match when discussing election.
Calvinism and Dispensationalism are also a good match when discussing ethics.
See, Calvinism is also an odd cat in some ways. It is a biblical system to a great extent. But soon after laying it’s biblical and hermeneutical foundation it is forced to fill in the blanks and draw many unbiblical conclusions, compelled by logic. Putting aside for a moment it’s logical conclusions about God’s character (which is a devastating conclusion that most Calvinists would rather not acknowledge), Calvinism of all stripes seem to agree (as far as I am aware) that regeneration (born again) comes before faith and repentance which flatly contradicts the testimony of the scriptures (John 3:5, 16; Acts 2:28).
In it’s fear of anything that smacks of works-based salvation it creates problems with the concept of faith (which is a verb) and repentance (another verb) or anything, really, the might hint at not being “all of grace.”
In this regard Calvinism makes for another great bedfellow with Dispensationalism. This is because Dispensationalism teaches that the Sermon on the Mount is not a part of the gospel of Jesus, defined as salvation by grace alone through faith alone.
Charles Ryrie, avowed Dispensationalist and Calvinist says it bluntly enough. In responding to the claim that the Sermon on the Mount is “pure gospel,” he writes:
“Granted, the discourse contains several pointed invitations, but invitations to what? To believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose again? Impossible to prove. To repent? Definitely. Who were to repent? The Jewish people to whom He was speaking. About what were they to repent? About their disobedience to God’s law. What law? The law of Moses… If the Sermon is ‘pure gospel,’ is it not presenting a works-salvation gospel?” (Dispensationalism, p. 110-111)
That paragraph is so packed with erroneous assumptions; erroneous assumptions about Israel, about the mission of Christ, about salvation, about the gospel. But it is, or seems to be, a natural conclusion to draw if one were a Calvinist who feared anything that smacked of works based salvation.
But what I find extremely odd about all of this talk is the fact that Pentecostals and Charismatics have jumped on board with Dispensationalism (accept, of course, the newly embraced Charismatic and Pentecostal Calvinists like C.J. Mahaney, Joshua Harris and James Smith, which is not odd at all!). Traditionally Pentecostal theology has been Wesleyan, which happens to be a branch of Arminianism. Since Arminian theology sees faith as a gracious gift of God, not a work unto salvation, and since it places faith in its proper place, prior to or simultaneous with the new birth. Since Arminian theology does not require a knee-jerk reaction or ostentatious fear of works being snuck in through the back door. And since Arminians reject the kind of election that Calvinists subscribe to. Dispensationalism and Arminianism make bad bedfellows.
http://covenantoflove.net/theology/should-every-self-respecting-calvinist-be-a-dispy/ snips from
Because of the above examples, it would be fascinating to study famous theologians who were Reformed, both dispy and covenant, and Ariminian, who also are dispy and covenant. It seems to me from what little has been said, many Calvinists hold to covenant (not dual) theology on this board. In certain ways however, dispy and Calvinism agree.
Benjamin, I know you said above you did not care to debate this subject, but would appreciate your views on how Calvinism and Arminianism line up with covenant and dispy.
