Would Both Scofield/Ryrie Been Seen as Calvinist Bibles?

We are discussing both issues in another thread. Yet, I found this quotation interesting but true:

Essentially, Scripture must interpret scripture.

Sovereignty is defined that God controls all things.

 

Wouldn't bother me in the least. I'm not semi-Pelagian, I simple believe the bible without the added confusion of Calvinism.

You are wrong by not holding to a strong dispensational view!

 

But you sound to the left of even Norm Geisler.

I think if you could get past your hatred of Calvinism long enough to actually study --you would have some theological clarity.

A whole bunch of Christians through most of Church History have not held to dispensationailsm. It's a fairly modern innovation. Are you going to condemn them for what you see as their errant views?

 

What a circular argument that is totally unrelated to the discussion. Next time, add something substanative to the argument. Yes, I am not a dispensationalist. While I once was one, I did reject it. This, "You are wrong, we are right" comments are shallow.

Let's get to the issues, not merely telling others they are wrong. Add substance to your posts that shows thought and insight. Otherwise, this could resort into a "You are wrong", "No, you are wrong" argument.

 

There are presuppositional aspects to Calvinism that you must embrace to logically get to reformed soteriology. I mentioned several of those issues including Analogy of Faith, Sola Scriptura, and Sovereignty of God. If someone can reject any of these, they really do not hold to reformed theology.

If you would show me someone who rejects any of these three but claim to hold to TULIP, I would gladly address that specific instance. Otherwise, I cannot answer and address a case that is speculative. In this case of classical dispensationalism, I think I addressed why I believe they could not be Reformed. Their rejection of God's Sovereignty in the 1st advent and the rejection of the analogy of faith clearly places them outside the scope of reformed teaching.

I would be glad to address the specifics of a specific person. Otherwise, I can only reiterate what I have already stated.

 

MacArthur's eschatology is closer to Walvoord/Ryrie than it is to Bock et. al. He doesn't emphasize 7 dispensations, but otherwise his views are closer to normative dispensationalism, despite the disagreement over Lordship Salvation. Several of the faculty at TMS emphatically reject PD, and none that I know of (including JM) embrace the kind of inaugurated eschatology that is usually associated with Progressive Dispensationalism.

 

Pilgrim,

He is nowhere close to Ryrie. In fact, many dispensationalists a few years ago in his denomination brought MacArthur up on charges that he no longer held to dispensationalism. He addressed this issue as well. Now, I disagree with MacArthur's view and generally agree with Dr. Waldron's critique of MacArthur's dispensationalism, but I think Ryrie would not relate well with MacArthur. MacArthur calls himself a "leaky dispensationalist" to show the distinction.

 

4-Point Calvinism is not Calvinism. It seems irrational. Gerstner has a great critique of this idea in his book "Wrongfully Dividing the Word of Truth."

 

wow, talking about getting off topic, now what was the question again:sleeping_2:

 

Jesus,

Again, reformed theology is a confessional and historic entity. For people to take a 20th Century redefining of this view is exactly the type of revisionist history that Calvinism/Reformed theology has stood against.

As well, if you can read any major reformed theologian or confession in history that relegates this to merely 5 points, you are radically misreading them.

This revisionist history is just plain irrational. Since this is an historic doctrine, let's define it historically and not modernly; let us not engage in revisionist history.

 

You keep saying that but offered no evidence supporting your belief. I cited the Canons of Dort, they even disagree with you. If you read Sproul, Owens, Beeke Calvin, Dever, Duncan, Spurgeon and even MacArthur, they all disagree with you. Thus, you make a statement that goes against these (and many other theologians) and offer no citation on anyone in history that agrees with you. From my reading, yours is a distinctly 20th Century belief, not an historic belief. Thus, you are engaging in revisionist history.

This is far more than a soteriological system. To believe it is only soteriology shows that you neither understand Calvinism/reformed theology but you don't understand our history. Taking a narrow view of doctrine is exactly the issue that we have been fighting against for the last couple hundred of years.

 

I agree with you on all points save one... "Calvinism" is a term applied to the actions of the Synod of Dort and the TULIP. Reformed is a broader category that includes a systematic theological system that goes beyond soteriology. The two, plus Doctrines of Grace are now used at times synonymously to mean either one and the same thing or different things with an equivocal view toward making them one and the same depending on whom is using the terms and for what reason, pro or con.

 

Neither it true. Calvinism is applied to the teachings of John Calvin, especially as put forth in the Institutes. Reformed Theology is related to the Reformation and may only include that may include the reformers. There are few differences in the two. The Canons of Dort even said that their system is only a summary and cited that they were only the major points of contention in Dort, not the entirety of the disagreements or the only points.

Again, the minimalization of Calvinism is a recent trend. Throughout history it has related to more than just 5 points, until the 20th Century. Again, I can cite many in history who believe it is more than the 5 points, but that the 5 points in Dort are Calvinistic, but the 5 points are not the sum of the 5 points.

 

While I agree that many have applied the term "Calvinism" to the complete corpus of work that John Calvin did (oh, that so many more would actually read his work instead of what others say about it!), that term did not actually fit what Calvin did during his life. It was applied by others later.

You are correct about Dort and Calvin had many other points, some of which agree with Dort and some of which do not, hence my distinction. Like all movements of the Reformation, what the original movers wrote was often modified and contorted by those who came after. So it was with Calvin.