# Tolerance for Error in Evangelicalism: Arminianism and Dispensationalism



## TheInquirer (Aug 17, 2021)

In the last few years I have become much less tolerant for non-Reformed teaching after seeing first hand how error can cause all kinds of problems in the church from disunity to poisoning the minds of the saints. I have wondered why so many who claim to hold to Calvinism do not regard Arminianism and Dispensationalism in particular as more serious threats to the health of the church and are too tolerant. Arminianism was viewed as serious poison by Reformed theologians in the past and yet today I rarely hear it refuted with such vigor. 

Similarly, I think Dispensationalism is too highly tolerated, especially when it is blended with Calvinism as in the case of John MacArthur. After starting my Christian life in a MacArthur influenced church, I can speak firsthand that Dispensationalism damaged my soul and closed off much of the OT to me and diminished my view of Christ and the glories of His church.

What do you think - do you view these popular teachings as serious dangers to the spiritual health of the church or do you view them as less serious errors that shouldn't be attacked for the sake of "unity" and peace?

Reactions: Like 4 | Love 1


----------



## dnlcnwy (Aug 17, 2021)

I think you may be floating a false question. I view both these teachings as serious errors and attack them vigorously, especially when I am talking to a brother who espouses them. That does not prevent me from closing ranks and presenting a united front when talking to an unbeliever while in the company of an Arminian/Dispensationalist, we just keep to things we have in common.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jwithnell (Aug 17, 2021)

I have spent much of the past ~72 hours just shy of tears watching the horrors of a truly evil philosophy engulfing Afghanistan and praying for the Christians who likely even now are paying with their lives for their faith. They may be Methodist, Eastern Orthodox, and even dispensationalists, but as long as they affirm the historic creeds, they are my brothers in Christ. Who exactly is "tolerating" dispensationalists? Are we to chastise people over whom we have no authority? Is it happening in a congregation we're shepherding or in our own denomination? That's a different situation with recourse available according to the government of the church.

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 17, 2021)

What counts as "toleration?" I see something like "allowing dispensationalists to be elders in a Reformed church" to be "tolerating." Most evangelicals in my area are Dispensationalists. Do I tolerate them? How do we even gauge that?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## dnlcnwy (Aug 17, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> What counts as "toleration?" I see something like "allowing dispensationalists to be elders in a Reformed church" to be "tolerating." Most evangelicals in my area are Dispensationalists. Do I tolerate them? How do we even gauge that?


No. Allowing dispensationalists to be elders in a Reformed church goes too far by my lights. I would define toleration as allowing them to be members.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Aug 17, 2021)

There are many MacArthur fanbois at our church, including the pastors, which jars heavily with the Reformed theology that is taught from the pulpit. It strikes me as enormously inconsistent to admire so much someone who's understanding of the Church, Covenants, the OT, and the end times is so far removed from our historic confession.
It breeds confusion, since only the pastors and perhaps three others can divide the good from the bad in MacArthur, and everybody else just gets more and more befuddled.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 17, 2021)

Given that he is one of the few people nowadays with any backbone, I cannot help but deeply admire John MacArthur.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 4


----------



## TheInquirer (Aug 17, 2021)

jwithnell said:


> I have spent much of the past ~72 hours just shy of tears watching the horrors of a truly evil philosophy engulfing Afghanistan and praying for the Christians who likely even now are paying with their lives for their faith. They may be Methodist, Eastern Orthodox, and even dispensationalists, but as long as they affirm the historic creeds, they are my brothers in Christ. Who exactly is "tolerating" dispensationalists? Are we to chastise people over whom we have no authority? Is it happening in a congregation we're shepherding or in our own denomination? That's a different situation with recourse available according to the government of the church.


I said "Dispensationalism" and "Arminianism" and tried to be clear it is the teaching I was focusing on (with the exception of one teacher I mentioned). My non-confessional, broad-evangelical and MacArthur church background is obviously different from yours and perhaps much more mixed than yours. And after serving as an elder in one such congregation and seeing the damage of various teachings and the toleration of them, I certainly did have authority and responsibility over it to a degree but not a lot of freedom since the rest of the leadership did not share my convictions (I am currently in another congregation).



dnlcnwy said:


> I think you may be floating a false question.



You seemed to understand the question well enough because the answer you gave is right along the lines of what I was asking. 



BayouHuguenot said:


> What counts as "toleration?" I see something like "allowing dispensationalists to be elders in a Reformed church" to be "tolerating." Most evangelicals in my area are Dispensationalists. Do I tolerate them? How do we even gauge that?



Depends on your church situation but the last church I was in was not confessional at all so there was a broad toleration for divergent teachings from Calvinism for the sake of unity and gospel-centrality. It just didn't seem that there was any concern that these teachings were harmful and it wasn't a big deal that members held to them.



Reformed Covenanter said:


> Given that he is one of the few people nowadays with any backbone, I cannot help but deeply admire John MacArthur.


Do you admire Doug Wilson? He has quite a bit of backbone. I admire MacArthur for some things but I have seen and experienced the damage his teaching has caused. For me he's a mixed bag. He's also got quite a backbone in attacking aspects of Reformed theology (covenant theology, non-premillenialism, etc.). It is far more than his end-times views that are different - I wish more would see that.

Obviously my church experience is different from many of yours. I was asking what your experience has been like and if in your circles, Dispensationalism and Arminianism (the teachings, not the people) are viewed as serious errors or not or have we become so comfortable with their vast prevalence that we don't recognize the dangers as theologians of the past have (maybe in your circles you do, that is what I am wondering).

It was an honest and well-meant question about the seriousness of these types of non-Reformed teachings and how it is viewed in your circles. Not sure why a few of you read into my question aspects that I wasn't really saying - especially on a confessionally Reformed forum. If you take your confessions seriously and with conviction, would you not be deeply concerned by these teachings?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 17, 2021)

@TheInquirer - Jim, what church circles are you moving in at present? I will try to address the other points in your post later.


----------



## TheInquirer (Aug 17, 2021)

Daniel, small and young church that broke off from Mars Hill church planting network during the Driscoll fallout. Pastor is the only one in our area that subscribes to the 1689 LBCF that I know of. However, I would not say the teachings of that confession have permeated the church culture deeply since the church is so young and many are from a lot of different backgrounds. From my perspective, we are trying to transition from "church start up" to developing foundations to build from.

There is not a strong Reformed presence in our area. Being relatively close to Moscow, ID, many seem to associate "Reformed" with Doug Wilson or have no idea what Reformed theology is (including the Calvinistic Baptists who say they are Reformed). The two churches I had been a part of for the last 26 years were first MacArthur brand and then a Baptist, "gospel-centered" church heavily influenced by Moore Theological College in Sydney Australia (Conservative Anglican).

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## VictorBravo (Aug 18, 2021)

TheInquirer said:


> There is not a strong Reformed presence in our area. Being relatively close to Moscow, ID, many seemed to associate "Reformed" with Doug Wilson. The two churches I had been a part of for the last 26 years were first MacArthur brand and then a gospel-centered church heavily influenced by Moore Theological College in Sydney Australia.


I just noticed you are two hours north of us. You are right, "Reformed" is rare in these parts. We in Lewiston are fully LBCF confessional and have been since it began long before I came here. Sometimes Moscow refugees settle in and then move on for work reasons. We remain pretty small but still plod along.

I'd be happy to chat or visit with you sometime. I get up to Spokane maybe 3 times a year.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 18, 2021)

There are a number of things I admire about John MacArthur - his backbone, spiritual discernment, and his Calvinistic Theology. His books 'The Gospel according to Jesus' and 'The Gospel according to the apostles' showed he proclaimed a clear gospel and identified with some important areas of Reformed Theology.

The problem is that he has a Calvinistic Theology without a corresponding Covenant Theology. This means his Calvinistic Theology rests on a weak foundation. I see this confusion with Masters Seminary graduates. They hold to some areas of Reformed Theology but are very confused about other fundamental areas of Reformed Theology. MacArthur and the Masters Seminary graduates potentially could abandon all Reformed doctrines because they don't have a Covenant Theology to build their theology on.

If you want a fine example of a robust Baptist Covenant Theology read 'Living by Revealed Truth' by Tom Nettles. It shows that Spurgeon built his Calvinistic convictions on a robust Covenant Theology.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 18, 2021)

TheInquirer said:


> Do you admire Doug Wilson? He has quite a bit of backbone.


There is an important difference - MacArthur's gospel is sound. Wilson's is not. As I have argued in another post MacArthur's Reformation theology rests on inadequate foundations, but I am thankful for his gospel message.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## TheInquirer (Aug 18, 2021)

Stephen L Smith said:


> There is an important difference - MacArthur's gospel is sound. Wilson's is not.



Agree. I was pointing out that the admiration of one's backbone must coupled with the truth upon which that backbone sets forth.


----------



## TheInquirer (Aug 18, 2021)

VictorBravo said:


> I just noticed you are two hours north of us. You are right, "Reformed" is rare in these parts. We in Lewiston are fully LBCF confessional and have been since it began long before I came here. Sometimes Moscow refugees settle in and then move on for work reasons. We remain pretty small but still plod along.
> 
> I'd be happy to chat or visit with you sometime. I get up to Spokane maybe 3 times a year.



Vic, I checked out your church's website when we were shopping for churches a couple years ago as you (and I think another in your area) were the closest RB confessional churches in our area. I think we chatted over PM as well.

Would love to meet you and talk. Let me know when you are coming into town and have some free time.


----------



## Christopher Robin (Aug 18, 2021)

I share your grief, "Inquirer." And it surprised me very starkly when a very respected elder in my old Reformed Baptist church (before we moved out of state) cut off a discussion of the different eschatological views with a hostile attitude saying,"I believe whatever John MacArthur says and so does any decent Reformed Christian!" That was just weird.

But it matters a great deal because Dispensationalism strikes at the very heart of the gospel with it's two peoples of God with two separate plans of salvation, it's rebuilt temple (and I can think of nothing more offensive than for Christ to preside over restored animal sacrifices as if His work wasn't good enough) and it's fear of men. To this day, Mrs. Christopher Robin cannot talk of last things or listen to any discussion of them without experiencing the feelings of panic that were always provoked in her childhood when her ministers warned of the impending Russian invasion of Israel and UN troopers going door to door killing Christians who refuse to recant. Really.

"Escape the horrors that the Antichrist will bring," was the emphasis, rather than "Escape the wrath of God's justice." We were taught to fear man rather than God. Today I find it immensely offensive - perhaps more so since I married Mrs. Christopher Robin because of her sense of dread whenever the subject is raised - that the return of our Lord is not anticipated with great joy instead of dread and fear of being "left behind."

I'm also still learning more and more about Covenant Theology and I find real unity and harmony between the Testaments that "wasn't there" before.

While I can admire John MacArthur from a distance for many things, I still cringe and change stations when his broadcast comes on RefNet (Ligonier's internet radio app). And I'm far less "tolerant" of error than I was only a few months ago.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 18, 2021)

Christopher Robin said:


> But it matters a great deal because Dispensationalism strikes at the very heart of the gospel with it's two peoples of God with two separate plans of salvation


I cannot see how John MacArthurs gospel is defective. When I read 'The Gospel according to Jesus' and 'The Gospel according to the Apostles' I was convinced his view of the gospel itself was sound.

I stated in an earlier post that there are serious problems with dispensationalism, but I also argued that MacArthur proclaimed the Biblical gospel. He certainly does NOT preach there are two separate plans of salvation.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Osnah (Aug 18, 2021)

In my experience where I live (small rural community) there are so many churches that really don't know sound theology. Dispensationalism and Arminianism runs rampant because nobody in the area really knows what it is. It becomes very hard to teach against this in certain settings. Add to this that we are seeing bad theology entering churches (not Reformed) through music groups like Elevation, Bethel, Hillsong, etc. 

If you were a Reformed Church and you had members believing this, it should be corrected. In that setting you have elders and a pastor to defend against the false teaching. But if you talk to those in the community in passing, this is a losing battle to try to correct their error. There really isn't enough time to devote to showing them their error, unless they are willing to sit down with you. 

The problem comes down to most people not really knowing how to properly read, study, and interpret the Bible. That is sadly not being taught in most churches (in my area at least) today. With a proper foundation upon which to interpret Scripture, you can show the error of Arminianism and Dispensationalism. However, I am afraid that until that happens, you are fighting a losing battle. 

I try to correct those around me when they take the latest headline to interpret Scripture (mark of the beast, secret rapture, etc.). I will make a comment about that being a bad way to interpret the Bible, but I am just brushed off. Therefore, I don't argue long with them. The same goes for discussions of soteriology. It's a losing battle unless someone is willing to learn and spend time on the subject. So I wouldn't say that I tolerate it in a sense that I agree with just 'getting along'. I would love to correct those in error, but experience shows that the majority are not willing to listen.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Santos (Aug 18, 2021)

I guess that I may be a bit nit picky or even a little hypocritical with regard to these two topics. While I do completely reject and loathe Arminianism and Dispensationalism, I very much admire John MacArthur and his Gospel stance and backbone like some of my brothers here. I say hypocritical because I will not tolerate an Arminian preacher/teacher for a moment. For this reason I rarely listen to a radio preacher/teacher because I see very little in common between the "Reformed Gospel/Calvinism" and the "Finny/Wesley/Arminian gospel". 

That being said, I think the reason for my love for John MacArthur is three fold.

1. His ability to articulate the Gospel and the Doctrines of Grace in such a way that I fall more and more in love with Christ.

2. His courage and backbone in this time of wishy washy, mealy mothed, and woke socialism that is being embraced in much of Evangelicalism, including the Reformed circles, which I believe to be much more dangerous and much less talked about.

3. Though I hold to Covenant Theology, I do not have a concrete position on eschatology. I lean Amill. Let me be clear that I do know that Dispensationalism can not be true.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 18, 2021)

TheInquirer said:


> Daniel, small and young church that broke off from Mars Hill church planting network during the Driscoll fallout. Pastor is the only one in our area that subscribes to the 1689 LBCF that I know of. However, I would not say the teachings of that confession have permeated the church culture deeply since the church is so young and many are from a lot of different backgrounds. From my perspective, we are trying to transition from "church start up" to developing foundations to build from.
> 
> There is not a strong Reformed presence in our area. Being relatively close to Moscow, ID, many seem to associate "Reformed" with Doug Wilson or have no idea what Reformed theology is (including the Calvinistic Baptists who say they are Reformed). The two churches I had been a part of for the last 26 years were first MacArthur brand and then a Baptist, "gospel-centered" church heavily influenced by Moore Theological College in Sydney Australia (Conservative Anglican).



That seems like a complex situation. Obviously, if it were somewhere more confessional, there would be serious problems with tolerating MacArthurite influences. In this context, it is a bit more tricky as the people are not coming from a confessional background in the first place. 

I am reasonably familiar with Moore College. My current assistant minister trained there, our former associate pastor's father is the former principal, and I have another friend currently training with them. Generally speaking, its influence seems pretty good, though there is a bit too much "Salvation Onlyism" among them for my liking.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Aug 18, 2021)

TheInquirer said:


> What do you think - do you view these popular teachings as serious dangers to the spiritual health of the church or do you view them as less serious errors that shouldn't be attacked for the sake of "unity" and peace?


The church situation you’re in reflects the current disorder and thus consternation that prevails in the visible church. We were in a similar situation several years ago, a Baptist church with a non-confessional but Calvinistic (and non-dispensational) pastor, and the church made up of many Arminian and dispensational (but many of them so sweet) members. I think those errors are serious dangers to the spiritual health of the church but also think of course that one shouldn’t attack them in one’s church; the ‘unity’ and ‘peace’ of a church may be based on other things than sound doctrine and love, but it’s still not the place of a private member of course to cause disruption. Have you considered making a move to get to a Reformed and seriously confessional church? If you can do so at all, I think that if you’re humble and prayerful, you’d find you can do more good for the church than staying where you have issues related to conscience in worship, teaching, etc.
Edit: I went back and read and see that you WERE in a church situation like that, but no longer. So what I wrote I imagine was your experience also in leaving that church.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TheInquirer (Aug 18, 2021)

Thanks for the suggestions. Not looking for a new church or city at this time. There is a lot of work to promote Reformed theology here and I have a high degree of likemindedness with our current pastor.

The purpose of my post was to get a sense of the 'zeitgeist' toward these teachings. My hunch is that in light of more serious issues at hand, there has been a tolerance toward these harmful teachings which is why they have taken such strong root in the church or afforded a level of toleration (however you define that) for the sake of some kind of unity (or speaking venues at various conferences....). As I read older theologians (Turretin, Van Mastricht, Bavinck, etc.) they vigorously oppose Arminianism and have a tone toward it I haven't heard much today. Additionally, I hear little out of the Reformed world about Dispensationalism besides a few books here and there (Poythress, Gentry, etc.). Perhaps many feel there are more important battles to fight or that those battles have already been fought. However, real people at the ground level are being affected negatively.

MacArthur is an interesting case study in my opinion because he does vigorously defend some important doctrines we hold dear. However, I do think a blind eye has been turned toward his errors and I get a sense that there are many afraid or intimidated to speak out against him (especially if you are at all connected to the MacArthur network) besides a few cases like Riddlebarger, Waldron, and probably some here and there I missed.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 18, 2021)

TheInquirer said:


> MacArthur is an interesting case study in my opinion because he does vigorously defend some important doctrines we hold dear.


In this regard I have wondered how to position Steve Lawson and Paul Washer. Lawson is strong on promoting the doctrines of grace and expository preaching. He says many things that are helpful. Yet it seems to me he is a MacArthur dispensationist. I understand Washer subscribes to the 1689 Baptist Confession. Yet he associates a lot with MacArthur dispensationalists.


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Aug 18, 2021)

TheInquirer said:


> closed off much of the OT to me and diminished my view of Christ and the glories of His church.



A lot of theological frameworks that stress a strong discontinuity between the testaments are guilty. This is very true for my experiences as well even though my former church wasn't classified as dispensational. God has opened up a door of deeper spirituality and richness because of the Old Testament. This didn't occur until I fully adopted Covenant Theology. I don't want to go as far as saying that Dispensationalists are not Christian but I do feel the doctrine as being spiritually stifling. 

For example, it tends to force a discontinuity between testaments developing out anti-Sabbatarian views. In some cases it creates a subjectivity to law keeping in general.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 18, 2021)

TheInquirer said:


> As I read older theologians (Turretin, Van Mastricht, Bavinck, etc.) they vigorously oppose Arminianism and have a tone toward it I haven't heard much today.



One point to consider here is the difference between old school Remonstrant Arminianism and later Methodist style Evangelical Arminianism. The emergence of the latter seemed to lead to a softening of the tone against Arminianism. From what I have read in Francis Turretin, he seemed to regard the Arminians as little more than sly Socinians.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Enzo (Aug 18, 2021)

Christopher Robin said:


> I share your grief, "Inquirer." And it surprised me very starkly when a very respected elder in my old Reformed Baptist church (before we moved out of state) cut off a discussion of the different eschatological views with a hostile attitude saying,"I believe whatever John MacArthur says and so does any decent Reformed Christian!" That was just weird.
> 
> But it matters a great deal because Dispensationalism strikes at the very heart of the gospel with it's two peoples of God with two separate plans of salvation, it's rebuilt temple (and I can think of nothing more offensive than for Christ to preside over restored animal sacrifices as if His work wasn't good enough) and it's fear of men. To this day, Mrs. Christopher Robin cannot talk of last things or listen to any discussion of them without experiencing the feelings of panic that were always provoked in her childhood when her ministers warned of the impending Russian invasion of Israel and UN troopers going door to door killing Christians who refuse to recant. Really.
> 
> ...


One of the points which most shock me in dispensationalists is their belief in a rebuilt millennial temple, with literal sacrifices done by literal Levites.
I mean, if that ain't heresy, what else is?

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 1


----------



## Andrew35 (Aug 18, 2021)

Enzo said:


> One of the points which most shock me in dispensationalists is their belief in a rebuilt millennial temple, with literal sacrifices done by literal Levites.
> I mean, if that ain't heresy, what else is?


It depends on how they frame it, honestly.

I had a dispensational prof who said any sacrifices performed would simply be memorials to honor the finished work of Christ; i.e., they would have no sacramental or spiritual function.

I mean, I found it sketchy. But the point is, they have workarounds whereby they remain orthodox. Especially in the DTS camp.

Remember, their highest commitment is to what they consider a "strictly literal" hermeneutic -- except where such is obviously impossible or absurd.

I and most here would find this highly artificial. But they don't.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## White Robe (Aug 18, 2021)

TheInquirer said:


> In the last few years I have become much less tolerant for non-Reformed teaching after seeing first hand how error can cause all kinds of problems in the church from disunity to poisoning the minds of the saints. I have wondered why so many who claim to hold to Calvinism do not regard Arminianism and Dispensationalism in particular as more serious threats to the health of the church and are too tolerant. Arminianism was viewed as serious poison by Reformed theologians in the past and yet today I rarely hear it refuted with such vigor.
> 
> Similarly, I think Dispensationalism is too highly tolerated, especially when it is blended with Calvinism as in the case of John MacArthur. After starting my Christian life in a MacArthur influenced church, I can speak firsthand that Dispensationalism damaged my soul and closed off much of the OT to me and diminished my view of Christ and the glories of His church.
> 
> What do you think - do you view these popular teachings as serious dangers to the spiritual health of the church or do you view them as less serious errors that shouldn't be attacked for the sake of "unity" and peace?


In my journey to Reformed Theology, I was working for a Mega Church, and I did not know at the time what views it was holding. However, in a Bible Study night, the Senior Pastor out of the blue, mentioned that it was the free will of men to choose Christ. I asked for bible references and more questions with no satisfactory answers. It forced me to inquire, research, and pray. Finally, when I found out that I was a Calvinist but I did not know it, I run away from that church, like running from the devil. But I am confused with Reformed people that do not see it to be a big deal. I drive 45 minutes to a Reformed Church when I am surrounded by all kinds of denominations teaching dispensationalism and Arminianism. That's how much I tolerate it! Am I wrong?

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Christopher Robin (Aug 19, 2021)

I too had become Reformed without knowing it, and when someone said "that sounds like Calvinism" I actually got scared. I had been warned about "those cold-hearted, head-knowledge-only Calvinists" before, and now here I was becoming one?!

Yet I couldn't deny what the Scripture clearly teaches. It wasn't long before we were driving to a different town every Lord's Day just for sound teaching. My poor family... I dragged them from a big, exciting Pentecostal "church" to a tiny, "boring" little Puritan one without a choir, a children's program, a praise band, or a drama ministry, and for a time they resented it. But confronted by the Scriptures over several months time, they came around.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Santos (Aug 19, 2021)

Enzo said:


> One of the points which most shock me in dispensationalists is their belief in a rebuilt millennial temple, with literal sacrifices done by literal Levites.
> I mean, if that ain't heresy, what else is?


The inconsistency of this belief with the rest of scripture is what led me out of dispensationalism and into covenant theology.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## White Robe (Aug 19, 2021)




----------



## arapahoepark (Aug 20, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> ...though there is a bit too much "Salvation Onlyism" among them for my liking.


Meaning what exactly? No ecclesiology?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 20, 2021)

arapahoepark said:


> Meaning what exactly? No ecclesiology?



Among other things, yes. 

I would have thought that the descriptor Salvation Onlyism was fairly self-explanatory.


----------



## Schoolman (Aug 20, 2021)

In practice, Dispensationalism used to refer to eschatology. But when a leading brand of Dispensationalists moved their eschatology toward Historical Premillennialism, they also moved their theology to NCT. That happened about a decade ago. For years the theological move was mostly in stealth, but lately they have become strident in attacks on the law and covenants and have removed the Old Testament from Christians in effect. It seems some still call themselves Calvinist because they recognize Dort, but some are increasingly attacking Reformed theology because it is structured by the covenants and because it upholds God’s law. This is all new to me, but I see it in a church where I grew up and it is spreading through that church’s seminary rapidly. For them, Dispensationalism has become a codeword for NCT and antinomianism. I recently was surprised when a “Calvinist” Dispensationalist there denounced Calvin angrily because he taught the covenants.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 23, 2021)

TheInquirer said:


> Additionally, I hear little out of the Reformed world about Dispensationalism besides a few books here and there (Poythress, Gentry, etc.). Perhaps many feel there are more important battles to fight or that those battles have already been fought. However, real people at the ground level are being affected negatively.


There are reams of material by Reformed men (and Calvinistic men) combating dispensationalism. Perhaps you are simply unfamiliar with some of it. Some of it is older. But Riddlebarger, Waldron, DeMar, and Storms are some off the top of my head that have been published in the last 20 years. Mathison wrote a little book as well. Not many major Dispensational works that have been published in that span either. Most of the popular preachers who teach dispensationalism are in their 70s or 80s. (I suppose that Adrian Rogers and J. Vernon McGee still "teach" it too!)

At least when it comes to publishing, dispensationalism is so unfashionable these days that most dispensational works are either self-published or published by very small publishers. Apparently even Moody has little interest. (They seem to have sort of gone "missional" and now "woke.") Perhaps the one exception is if MacArthur is the author. But some at Master's Seminary, such as Michael Vlach, have had to go with smaller publishers that are largely unknown.

If you have very many people under 40 or even under 50 in your church who are ardent dispensationalists, I'd be surprised unless maybe they came out of independent fundamentalism or something similar. Even among Southern Baptists it is waning. True, that is moreso the case in the pulpit than in the pews, but I've found that many in the pews are open to other understandings or at least won't regard anything but dispensationalism as liberalism as might have been the case 25-30 years ago. Usually the pews will follow the pulpit eventually.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Taylor (Aug 23, 2021)

Pilgrim said:


> (I suppose that Adrian Rogers and J. Vernon McGee still "teach" it too!)


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 23, 2021)

Taylor said:


>


Those are broadcasts that are carried on hundreds of stations. They "still" teach it because McGee died in 1988 and Rogers died in 2005. If the Lord tarries, MacArthur will be teaching long after he has gone as well. The teaching will not disappear. But even some charismatics are moving away from pre-trib.


----------



## Taylor (Aug 23, 2021)

Pilgrim said:


> Those are broadcasts that are carried on hundreds of stations. They "still" teach it because McGee died in 1988 and Rogers died in 2005. If the Lord tarries, MacArthur will be teaching long after he has gone as well. The teaching will not disappear. But even some charismatics are moving away from pre-trib.


Ah, I understand. I don't know why I didn't catch the quotes.


----------



## deuteronomist (Aug 27, 2021)

I've really grown frustrated, other than the mess going on right now in the visible church. since the latter half of last year, I started really noticing that Arminians are much more likely to be inconsistent in their thinking. I read a paper which surveyed reformed and non-reformed Baptists in Appalachia and the author found that reformed Baptists were much more likely to value hard work and be less sympathetic to government intervention than free will or other varieties of Baptist. It's very noticeable even without direct data points though.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 29, 2021)

This is why the integrity of our local church is so significant. We do not have control over the doings of other churches. If we are part of a denomination that is going off from the top down, that can be a problem, despite our being in a "local church".

I am taking my time – researching, prayerfully – seeking a sound church, even if that means re-locating to another state (moving to Cyprus to help in a church I planted may be out of the picture for us).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ed Walsh (Aug 29, 2021)

Osnah said:


> I would love to correct those in error, but experience shows that the majority are not willing to listen.



Greetings this Lord's Day morn,

This was God's experience too in the years prior to the Babylonian Captivity.
And people wonder why I am so sure that God is in the progress of judging our nation--perhaps the whole world
(For the few that may be interested, do a search of the PB for the word 'judgment' by user Ed Walsh)

It is the visible Church that God always comes for first.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jeremiah 5:1–31 (ESV)
*
Jerusalem Refused to Repent*
5 Run to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, 
look and take note! 
Search her squares to see 
if you can find a man, 
one who does justice 
and seeks truth, 
that I may pardon her. 
2 Though they say, “As the LORD lives,” 
yet they swear falsely. 
3 O LORD, do not your eyes look for truth? 
You have struck them down, 
but they felt no anguish; 
you have consumed them, 
but they refused to take correction. 
They have made their faces harder than rock; 
they have refused to repent. 

4 Then I said, “These are only the poor; 
they have no sense; 
for they do not know the way of the LORD, 
the justice of their God. 
5 I will go to the great 
and will speak to them, 
for they know the way of the LORD, 
the justice of their God.” 
But they all alike had broken the yoke; 
they had burst the bonds. 

6 Therefore a lion from the forest shall strike them down; 
a wolf from the desert shall devastate them. 
A leopard is watching their cities; 
everyone who goes out of them shall be torn in pieces, 
because their transgressions are many, 
their apostasies are great. 

7 “How can I pardon you? 
Your children have forsaken me 
and have sworn by those who are no gods. 
When I fed them to the full, 
they committed adultery 
and trooped to the houses of whores. 
8 They were well-fed, lusty stallions, 
each neighing for his neighbor’s wife. 
9 Shall I not punish them for these things? 
declares the LORD; 
and shall I not avenge myself 
on a nation such as this? 

10 “Go up through her vine rows and destroy, 
but make not a full end; 
strip away her branches, 
for they are not the LORD’s. 
11 For the house of Israel and the house of Judah 
have been utterly treacherous to me, 
declares the LORD. 
12 They have spoken falsely of the LORD 
and have said, ‘He will do nothing; 
no disaster will come upon us, 
nor shall we see sword or famine. 
13 The prophets will become wind; 
the word is not in them. 
Thus shall it be done to them!’ ” 

*The LORD Proclaims Judgment*
14 Therefore thus says the LORD, the God of hosts: 
“Because you have spoken this word, 
behold, I am making my words in your mouth a fire, 
and this people wood, and the fire shall consume them. 
15 Behold, I am bringing against you 
a nation from afar, O house of Israel, 
declares the LORD. 
It is an enduring nation; 
it is an ancient nation, 
a nation whose language you do not know, 
nor can you understand what they say. 
16 Their quiver is like an open tomb; 
they are all mighty warriors. 
17 They shall eat up your harvest and your food; 
they shall eat up your sons and your daughters; 
they shall eat up your flocks and your herds; 
they shall eat up your vines and your fig trees; 
your fortified cities in which you trust 
they shall beat down with the sword.” 

18 “But even in those days, declares the LORD, I will not make a full end of you. 19 And when your people say, ‘Why has the LORD our God done all these things to us?’ you shall say to them, ‘As you have forsaken me and served foreign gods in your land, so you shall serve foreigners in a land that is not yours.’ ” 

20 Declare this in the house of Jacob; 
proclaim it in Judah: 
21 “Hear this, O foolish and senseless people, 
who have eyes, but see not, 
who have ears, but hear not. 
22 Do you not fear me? declares the LORD. 
Do you not tremble before me? 
I placed the sand as the boundary for the sea, 
a perpetual barrier that it cannot pass; 
though the waves toss, they cannot prevail; 
though they roar, they cannot pass over it. 
23 But this people has a stubborn and rebellious heart; 
they have turned aside and gone away. 
24 They do not say in their hearts, 
‘Let us fear the LORD our God, 
who gives the rain in its season, 
the autumn rain and the spring rain, 
and keeps for us 
the weeks appointed for the harvest.’ 
25 Your iniquities have turned these away, 
and your sins have kept good from you. 
26 For wicked men are found among my people; 
they lurk like fowlers lying in wait. 
They set a trap; 
they catch men. 
27 Like a cage full of birds, 
their houses are full of deceit; 
therefore they have become great and rich; 
28 they have grown fat and sleek. 
They know no bounds in deeds of evil; 
they judge not with justice 
the cause of the fatherless, to make it prosper, 
and they do not defend the rights of the needy. 
29 Shall I not punish them for these things? 
declares the LORD, 
and shall I not avenge myself 
on a nation such as this?” 

30 An appalling and horrible thing 
has happened in the land: 
31 the prophets prophesy falsely, 
and the priests rule at their direction; 
my people love to have it so, 
but what will you do when the end comes?

Reactions: Like 2


----------

