How is DT Inherently Arminian?

Status
Not open for further replies.

JM

Puritan Board Doctor
I've often heard it said that Dispensationalism is inherently Arminian. Without much thought I just accepted it, probably due to the overwhelming majority of its proponents being Arminian or worse.

How is Dispensationalism inherently Arminian? Any online articles that deal with this subject?

Thank you.

j
 
I would say that most Dispensationalists are also Arminian, but certainly not all. A great number of Baptists are Calvinist and Dispensational, ala John Macarthur. I have always found it curious, though, that so many Dispensationalists can clearly see election in the OT with Israel, but not in the NT.
 
Maybe a good question would be, Is there some inherent tension in being Dispensational and Calvinist? Like, say, a particular church being Congregational and paedo-baptist.
 
I believe the charge is due to the fact that rather than seeing God's revelation/interactions/covenants throughout time all deriving from a common purpose towards a common goal, dispensationalism sees God as fundamentally "changing course" each time a dispensation "doesn't work." In other words, dispensationalism sees God's work in the world as being fundamentally reactionary to human choice to conform to or reject the terms of the given dispensation.
 
I would say that most Dispensationalists are also Arminian, but certainly not all. A great number of Baptists are Calvinist and Dispensational, ala John Macarthur. I have always found it curious, though, that so many Dispensationalists can clearly see election in the OT with Israel, but not in the NT.

It's also strange that so many who believe in believer's baptism, see God as having a covenant which involves unbelieving Jews - indeed with all the children of Abraham, and all who become Jews, including their infants - and yet they believe that God has no place for the children of believers I. His Church or CoG.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
It's also strange that so many who believe in believer's baptism, see God as having a covenant which involves unbelieving Jews - indeed with all the children of Abraham, and all who become Jews, including their infants - and yet they believe that God has no place for the children of believers I. His Church or CoG.

The Bible teaches that there is only one people of God, and this is determined by faith in Christ and not genealogy, so I am ok in still holding to believer's baptism :p
 
...dispensationalism sees God as fundamentally "changing course" each time a dispensation "doesn't work".

That is what I was going to say; but with an added twist. The "twist" is that God has keep coming up with a new dispensation as man keeps messing things up. This would seem inherently Arminian because the burden of covenant keeping would then rest upon the recipient of grace rather than Trinity who made the covenant that secures our obedience in the first place. Is that an accurate assessment of dispensationalism? Maybe I don't understand dispensationalism very well. Maybe it is not supposed make any good sense anyway.
 
How relevant is Dispensationalism these days? Isn't it a kind of dying breed?
 
I've often heard it said that Dispensationalism is inherently Arminian.

Darby apparently defended the Calvinism of the Thirty Nine Articles.

Dispensationalism of itself weakens the practical implications of Calvinism to any of those areas which have their foundation in the Old Testament Scriptures, especially the idea of institutional religion. It first emerged as a reaction to the British Church-State relationship, and later progressed in the context of fundamentalist distrust in an increasingly secularised State.
 
There is a link, but it takes some study.
There are reasons that Arminain influence tends to go with dispensationalism and it has to do with systematic biblical theology.
"Wrongly Dividing the Truth," by John Gerstner may be helpful in understanding this.
 
Originally Posted by SolaScriptura
...dispensationalism sees God as fundamentally "changing course" each time a dispensation "doesn't work".
That is what I was going to say; but with an added twist. The "twist" is that God has keep coming up with a new dispensation as man keeps messing things up. This would seem inherently Arminian because the burden of covenant keeping would then rest upon the recipient of grace rather than Trinity who made the covenant that secures our obedience in the first place. Is that an accurate assessment of dispensationalism? Maybe I don't understand dispensationalism very well. Maybe it is not supposed make any good sense anyway.

I was raised in a dispensational church, attended a Calvinistic, dispensational church and a couple of hyper-dispensational churches - all before coming to Christ.

I can't speak for other churches, but the church of my childhood and the Calvinistic dispensational church had high views of God's sovereignty. Neither presented dispensationalism as God changing His mind; they did not incorporate open theism, either. They both indicated that God's ways are not man's ways and that God was immutable, omnipotent and unchangeable. According to them, God just adjusted how He dealt with mankind during the different dispensations - these changes were part of His plan all along.

They both presented the "church age" as the mystery which Paul refers to. It was in God's plan, but hidden from mankind's understanding. The one pastor liked to say he was an Arminian up to the cross and a Calvinist after the cross (so, an Arminian.) The other was Calvinistic through and through.

The hyper-dispensational churches I attended did not hold the same high view of God's sovereignty. In fact, it was an assistant pastor's attack on God's sovereignty in a sermon on Romans 8:28 that drove me from that church - to my Bible and to the church where I soon humbled myself before God as a believer. Though I didn't know God yet, I had heard enough scripture through the years to recognize open theism as false teaching.

The hyper-dispensationalists went so far as to say scripture was "for us, but not TO us," so it didn't apply. For them, this wound up being most of the Bible! :rolleyes:
 
As far as I understand it, the 5 main streams of dispensationalism (Progressive, Revised, Classical, Mid-Acts View, and Hyper/Ultra/Acts 28 View) all attempt to answer the following questions. The further to the left one goes, the closer their answers agree with Covenant Theology. The further to the right, the closer they come to Dual-Covenant Theology (Jews saved by law, Christians by grace):

Is Jesus currently reigning as King from heaven? (Historically, they answer no. Exception is Progressive Dispensational)
Did the "kingdom of heaven" arrive at the 1st coming? (Historically, they answer no. Exception is Progressive Dispensational)
Is the church is a distinct anthropological group? (Historically, they answer yes. Exception is the confusion of Blaising/Block's version of Progressive Dispensational)
The mysteries of the NT have been revealed in some manner in the OT? (Historically, they answer no. Exception is Progressive Dispensational)
Have the biblical covenants been inaugurated and today are we experiencing a "partial" fulfillment of their promises? (Historically, they answer no. Exception is Progressive Dispensational)

So, can one hold to the 5 points of Calvinism and agree with Dispensationalists on all of these? I think "yes"
Can one be "Reformed" or hold to the 3 Forms, Westminster Standards or LBC and hold to these? "No."

Are the dispensational answers to these questions inherently Arminian? Hmmm... historically we might be able to see some connection between the Arminianism of that day and the illogical invention of dispensationalism due to some more hermaneutic? (I'd love to hear someone's take on this). Logically, I'm not sure I see any direct contradition. It seems they can always claim "God planned it sovereignly this way all along." Even cutting up the Bible and saying the OT and NT up to Acts 28 is all for the Jews only and Acts 28 to the end is for the Christians doesn't seem at direct odds with holding to the 5 points of Calvinism.

So I think one can be "Calvinistic" but certainly NOT "Reformed" :)
 
Even cutting up the Bible and saying the OT and NT up to Acts 28 is all for the Jews only and Acts 28 to the end is for the Christians doesn't seem at direct odds with holding to the 5 points of Calvinism.

From my limited experience, the hyper-dispensationalists I know would not allow that the NT was to Christians. They have trouble, particularly with Hebrews, James, I & II Peter.

So, can one hold to the 5 points of Calvinism and agree with Dispensationalists on all of these? I think "yes"
Can one be "Reformed" or hold to the 3 Forms, Westminster Standards or LBC and hold to these? "No."

This seems spot-on.

The further to the right, the closer they come to Dual-Covenant Theology (Jews saved by law, Christians by grace):

The hypers I know definitely agree with this. They have gone so far as to suggest I John 1:9 is not 'for' believers and that believers should not confess sin. Don't even get them started on James and faith without works. Their mix of hyper-dispensationalism, Arminianism, open theism and antinomianism is so far removed from historical, biblical Christianity that as a not yet believer I could see how wrong it was. They are also strongly opposed to baptism (one baptism - of the Spirit) and the congregation I was in rarely celebrated the Lord's Supper.

Are the dispensational answers to these questions inherently Arminian? Hmmm... historically yes. Logically, I'm not sure. It seems they can always claim "God planned it sovereignly this way all along."

It seems there is quite a bit of variance within the dispensational camp. I've experienced both ends of that spectrum. The first two churches truly honored the sovereignty of God, while the hyper d's tore it to shreds in a man-centered attempt to explain the God they believe is surprised at how things have turned out.
 
Last edited:
Who was the Pastor that said, a consistent Calvinist should be Dispensational and not Amil.
The reason is that a Dispensationalist believes in God's election of Israel, while an Amil rejects Israels election.
Maybe it was John MacAthur.
 
This is a big topic. A few thoughts below.

As far as I understand it, the 5 main streams of dispensationalism (Progressive, Revised, Classical, Mid-Acts View, and Hyper/Ultra/Acts 28 View) all attempt to answer the following questions. The further to the left one goes, the closer their answers agree with Covenant Theology. The further to the right, the closer they come to Dual-Covenant Theology (Jews saved by law, Christians by grace):

All variations of the wrong biblical theme which is, wrongly, that there is a separate plan of redemption for those with some Jewish blood (how much?) vs. "the church." And the wrong theme that redemption was done substantially differently in the Old Testament than the new (hence the term "dispensational.")

Is Jesus currently reigning as King from heaven? (Historically, they answer no. Exception is Progressive Dispensational)
Did the "kingdom of heaven" arrive at the 1st coming? (Historically, they answer no. Exception is Progressive Dispensational)
Is the church is a distinct anthropological group? (Historically, they answer yes. Exception is the confusion of Blaising/Block's version of Progressive Dispensational)
The mysteries of the NT have been revealed in some manner in the OT? (Historically, they answer no. Exception is Progressive Dispensational)
Have the biblical covenants been inaugurated and today are we experiencing a "partial" fulfillment of their promises? (Historically, they answer no. Exception is Progressive Dispensational)
They all, protests to the contrary, deny the present reality of "the kingdom." "Progressive" does so implicitly, while denying that it does.

So, can one hold to the 5 points of Calvinism and agree with Dispensationalists on all of these? I think "yes"

Mr. Gerstner, "Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth" makes the case one cannot. It takes a lot of understanding to come to this position. Not for casual study.

Can one be "Reformed" or hold to the 3 Forms, Westminster Standards or LBC and hold to these? "No."

There would certainly be differences with the standards, express and implied that strike at the vitals of the system. It is really contrary to covenant theology.

Are the dispensational answers to these questions inherently Arminian? Hmmm... historically we might be able to see some connection between the Arminianism of that day and the illogical invention of dispensationalism due to some more hermaneutic? (I'd love to hear someone's take on this). Logically, I'm not sure I see any direct contradition. It seems they can always claim "God planned it sovereignly this way all along." Even cutting up the Bible and saying the OT and NT up to Acts 28 is all for the Jews only and Acts 28 to the end is for the Christians doesn't seem at direct odds with holding to the 5 points of Calvinism.

One of the basic errors of dispensationalism is that it does not use the whole of Scripture to interpret Scripture. Dispensationalism tends to intepret prophesy "literally" and without reference to the context of the whole of Scripture and tends to interpret the New Testament in light of the Old- the opposite of a rational hermeneutic.


So I think one can be "Calvinistic" but certainly NOT "Reformed"


:)

I think that is true in the superficial popular thinking of our time.

It has almost become "cool" to be (without knowing what it is).

Even a former President, in a lifestyle pattern of adultery, who no longer regularly attends any church called himself Calvinist. Curiously, no one challenged the assertion.

And, as I think you are saying it is possible to be Calvnist leaning, but not reformed.
Reformed is, and always has been more than that.
 
All variations of the wrong biblical theme which is, wrongly, that there is a separate plan of redemption for those with some Jewish blood (how much?) vs. "the church." And the wrong theme that redemption was done substantially differently in the Old Testament than the new (hence the term "dispensational.")

Not all dispensational churches teach this. The Calvary Chapel (Pastor Ed Taylor) which I currently attend teaches that salvation has ALWAYS been by grace, through faith. They never teach about specific dispensational time periods, as the church I grew up in did. But I believe it would still be considered a dispensational church. Our pastor reads widely, and this includes reformed theologians. Perhaps this has an influence on his teaching.

The comment about the different means of salvation is very helpful for me. It helps me understand WHY the theology I grew up under is not correct.

Would it be correct to say that if a church (Protestant) is not reformed, it is dispensational (today)?
 
Who was the Pastor that said, a consistent Calvinist should be Dispensational and not Amil.
The reason is that a Dispensationalist believes in God's election of Israel, while an Amil rejects Israels election.
Maybe it was John MacAthur.

Yes, MacArthur and he was incorrect.
However, isn't this exactly the charge Dispensational's throw at Covenants? "Amil rejects Israels election" but I don't believe this is true AT all. As far as I understand it, MOST Covenants DO hold that TRUE ELECT bloodline Israel are elected and because of this, many (not all bloodline) may be restored towards the end. However, we don't hold that ALL bloodline Israel are elect and that ALL bloodline Israel will be saved by the end (as Dispensationalists do). So, we totally DO affirm that "Elect" Israel is elect. :p And many do hold that a "large portion of bloodline Israel" (those who are elect) may return to God before the end (Rom 11:25-27). Every Dispensationalists I have met has rejected Covenant because they think we teach Israel is cast aside and will never return to God. And so they inaccurately slander us by calling us "Replacement Theologists/Supersessionism).

I was under the impression most historical Reformers believe a majority of bloodline Israel will be brought to salvation through faith by grace towards the end and that there will be a restoration. I read somewhere that only a few Reformers (during a specific period in the late Puritan era?) where the only ones who held bloodline Israel would not be restored in any way.

I saw Herman Witsius wrote a book on this very subject but I haven't read it, so I don't know what his view was: The Restoration of the Jews
 
Who was the Pastor that said, a consistent Calvinist should be Dispensational and not Amil.
The reason is that a Dispensationalist believes in God's election of Israel, while an Amil rejects Israels election.
Maybe it was John MacAthur.

Yes, MacArthur and he was incorrect.
However, isn't this exactly the charge Dispensational's throw at Covenants? "Amil rejects Israels election" but I don't believe this is true AT all. As far as I understand it, MOST Covenants DO hold that TRUE ELECT bloodline Israel are elected and because of this, many (not all bloodline) may be restored towards the end. However, we don't hold that ALL bloodline Israel are elect and that ALL bloodline Israel will be saved by the end (as Dispensationalists do). So, we totally DO affirm that "Elect" Israel is elect. :p And many do hold that a "large portion of bloodline Israel" (those who are elect) may return to God before the end (Rom 11:25-27). Every Dispensationalists I have met has rejected Covenant because they think we teach Israel is cast aside and will never return to God. And so they inaccurately slander us by calling us "Replacement Theologists/Supersessionism).

I was under the impression most historical Reformers believe a majority of bloodline Israel will be brought to salvation through faith by grace towards the end and that there will be a restoration. I read somewhere that only a few Reformers (during a specific period in the late Puritan era?) where the only ones who held bloodline Israel would not be restored in any way.

I saw Herman Witsius wrote a book on this very subject but I haven't read it, so I don't know what his view was: The Restoration of the Jews

I hear you on that.
They also make the difference with Elect Israel being a Physical, National People, whereas the Church is a Spiritual People.
This would pose a problem with accepting Covenant Theology.
Some will say that the Isrealites were saved by grace through faith, and others will say the they were saved by keeping the Law, but the ones that were saved in the Old Testament are not part of the Church. They teach a 'Replacement Theology' to an extent that the promises to Abraham were just land promises and not fulfilled in Yeshua. They may say that at the end of the great trib, the Jews will see and accept Yeshua, but that would not make them part of the Church.
I don't think this has anything to do with the subject...lol.
Many Dispensational's I know use the term Sovereignty, but it is their definition of the term that should be noted.
 
see comments.
All variations of the wrong biblical theme which is, wrongly, that there is a separate plan of redemption for those with some Jewish blood (how much?) vs. "the church." And the wrong theme that redemption was done substantially differently in the Old Testament than the new (hence the term "dispensational.")

Not all dispensational churches teach this. The Calvary Chapel (Pastor Ed Taylor) which I currently attend teaches that salvation has ALWAYS been by grace, through faith. They never teach about specific dispensational time periods, as the church I grew up in did. But I believe it would still be considered a dispensational church. Our pastor reads widely, and this includes reformed theologians. Perhaps this has an influence on his teaching.

The term dispensationalism comes from "dispensations," a term which has been watered down and is almost explained away in what is called "dispensationalism" in our generation.

But coming from Mr. Darby in the mid 1800's, popularized by Mr. Schofield's Bible notes around WWI, there were seven dispensations, thought to be a biblically significant number (seven). After all, seven of anything must mean something, so the popular presentation implied.

The first and second generations of dispensationalism went largely unchallenged in biblical scholarship. It stood for two major propositions:

1) God had a different plan of redemption for "Israel" and "the church."
2) God accomplished redemption in a substantially different way at different times of (man's) history.

Starting after WWII and with books like "Things to Come," by Dwight Pentecost the second part was pretty much unwound. That is, its proponents came to accept that salvation is and was, in the Old Testament, by grace through faith in Christ's righteousness alone. Not perfectly, but at least implicitly, dispensationalism began to not promote its earlier basis, though it retained the name.

So, now in this generation, "dispensationalism" means mostly the first point.

And that has changed under the scrutiny of a little Biblical scholarship as well-
Not long ago "Israel" and the "church" were separated eternally.
Now, its pretty much only for a time, but they are all united.

Reformed theology (and Scripture) has always said Jews and Gentiles were united in redemption, by the same means, now and until the end of the world.

Otherwise commendable Bible teachers, like Mr. MacArthur does not believe in the "dispensations" but does believe in the separate plan of redemption.... I'm not sure for how long.


The comment about the different means of salvation is very helpful for me. It helps me understand WHY the theology I grew up under is not correct.

Your questions illustrates another point, what a Pastor teaches. In reformed theology, there is an historic confession of the doctrine confessed. In "broad evangelicalism, there is not. It's pretty much the beliefs of leadership at a given point in time.

There is no accountability to a creed, or only to a minimalist statement. So, neither the confession, denomination or its teachers are accountable. As they mature, they tend to split, because there is no basis for unity.

This is one of the hallmarks of "reformed theology" (as opposed to broad evangelicalism)- a confession so one knows what the church is at least supposed to believe. And that is it confession before an unbelieving world.


Would it be correct to say that if a church (Protestant) is not reformed, it is dispensational (today)?

"Dispensationalism" has been re-defined by just a little Bible scrutiny and is in full retreat in our generation. Yet, the systematic biblical theology is lacking, poorly taught or understood in most communions that hold it.

The truth is, many hold it as a "default" position, with no systematic bibical theology binding the communion. So it's unclear what they hold, or where leadership might take doctrine....

It's difficult to discern the times in which we live, we tend to know history only from the day we were born, and we are so limited as creatures, but maybe one observation about our generation, at least in the West, in the church:

A few communions that held to a dispensational framework of Scripture are abandoning it in favor of the bibical view, covenant theology.
But most are abandoning it to liberalism,
following less and less the Word of God as authority for doctrine or practice.

As the authority of Scripture receeds, distinctions like covenant theology v. dispensationalism lose focus. Unchallenged, it has led , in our time to:

1)prosperity gospel,
2)market oriented churches,
3)seeking of special revelation outside of Scripture,
4)"end times" speculation as a cottage industry.

What Scripture would have us see is what the Reformers restored to the church,
the five solas,
the centrality of Scripture for faith and practice, and all of life.
And the unity of God's people and all true churches around that.

God help us.

 
Last edited:
Yes, MacArthur and he was incorrect.

And not to distract the thread about this particular Bible teacher,
but the esteemed Pastor has been dead wrong on things in the past, and to his credit, has changed (and had publishers change his earlier writings).

He is a good illustration of the earlier posts, being "Calvinist" (or at least Calvinist leaning) but NOT reformed (no covenant theology and no binding confession of faith).

Last I heard he described himself holding a "leaky dispensationism," or at least that was the descriptor others were attaching to his (changing) beliefs.
I'm not exactly sure where he is now, but I've gleaned from him recently that one of "leaks" is that "Israel" and the "church" are not eternally separated as dispensationalism originally at least implied. Perhaps he is doubting the separate plan of redemption itself.

From a biblical standpoint, he ought be.
 
Last edited:
It's also strange that so many who believe in believer's baptism, see God as having a covenant which involves unbelieving Jews - indeed with all the children of Abraham, and all who become Jews, including their infants - and yet they believe that God has no place for the children of believers I. His Church or CoG.

The Bible teaches that there is only one people of God, and this is determined by faith in Christ and not genealogy, so I am ok in still holding to believer's baptism :p

Since I believe that the Jewish nation -Israel after the flesh - is beloved because of the Patriarchs and because Christ is of that people, and since I am also a paedobaptist, I am also consistent in the opposite direction :p

You're right of course; there is only one people of God, the glorious Israel of God, Jews and Gentiles who believe in Jesus. I don't see how that is inconsistent with the Lord having a plan for the Jews or other nations.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
Last edited:
"Dispensationalism" has been re-defined by just a little Bible scrutiny and is in full retreat in our generation. Yet, the systematic biblical theology is lacking, poorly taught or understood in most communions that hold it.

The truth is, many hold it as a "default" position, with no systematic bibical theology binding the communion. So it's unclear what they hold, or where leadership might take doctrine....

It's difficult to discern the times in which we live, we tend to know history only from the day we were born, and we are so limited as creatures, but maybe one observation about our generation, at least in the West, in the church:

A few communions that held to a dispensational framework of Scripture are abandoning it in favor of the bibical view, covenant theology.
But most are abandoning it to liberalism,
following less and less the Word of God as authority for doctrine or practice.

As the authority of Scripture receeds, distinctions like covenant theology v. dispensationalism lose focus. Unchallenged, it has led , in our time to:

1)prosperity gospel,
2)market oriented churches,
3)seeking of special revelation outside of Scripture,
4)"end times" speculation as a cottage industry.

What Scripture would have us see is what the Reformers restored to the church,
the five solas,
the centrality of Scripture for faith and practice, and all of life.
And the unity of God's people and all true churches around that.

God help us.

This is very helpful. Thank you for sharing.

Although, I'm not sure that dispensationalism is a forerunner of the prosperity gospel. It seems a very man-centered Arminian oriented false teaching.

Your questions illustrates another point, what a Pastor teaches. In reformed theology, there is an historic confession of the doctrine confessed. In "broad evangelicalism, there is not. It's pretty much the beliefs of leadership at a given point in time.

There is no accountability to a creed, or only to a minimalist statement. So, neither the confession, denomination or its teachers are accountable. As they mature, they tend to split, because there is no basis for unity.

This is one of the hallmarks of "reformed theology" (as opposed to broad evangelicalism)- a confession so one knows what the church is at least supposed to believe. And that is it confession before an unbelieving world.

Also very good points.

So, perhaps it would be more correct to say that if not reformed or off the charts liberal, Protestant groups are dispensational by default, if not intention?

Not all dispensational churches teach this. The Calvary Chapel (Pastor Ed Taylor) which I currently attend teaches that salvation has ALWAYS been by grace, through faith. They never teach about specific dispensational time periods, as the church I grew up in did. But I believe it would still be considered a dispensational church. Our pastor reads widely, and this includes reformed theologians. Perhaps this has an influence on his teaching.

The term dispensationalism comes from "dispensations," a term which has been watered down and is almost explained away in what is called "dispensationalism" in our generation.

But coming from Mr. Darby in the mid 1800's, popularized by Mr. Schofield's Bible notes around WWI, there were seven dispensations, thought to be a biblically significant number (seven). After all, seven of anything must mean something, so the popular presentation implied.

The church I'm in now has never mentioned the word dispensation, am I incorrect to think that it is still a dispensational church, by default?

I'm familiar with Darby, and the timelines and the Scofield Bible. In my humble opinion, it seems like there are not that many churches today that emphasize this teaching, though they would hold some of the classic beliefs if pressed. The church I grew up in pushed this theology. The pastor loved to draw timelines on a chalkboard for us to copy in our notes.

Then there was the hyper-dispensational church. Seven is way too small a number for them. Scripture is carved up so that no one ever need be accountable before a holy, righteous and just God. It is evident that all kinds of other errors have come with this teaching.
 
Last edited:
You're right of course; there is only one people of God, the glorious Israel of God, Jews and Gentiles who believe in Jesus. I don't see how that is inconsistent with the Lord having a plan for the Jews or other nations.

I don't either, I was just giving you a hard time.
 
With regard to Dispensationalism, the election of Israel, and the sovereign decree securing the souls of the elect therein (remember, “they are not all Israel, which are of Israel” Rom 9:5), I think this thread shows that Arminianism may not be inherent in all the versions of Deut. (Also note that Paul wrote when the ethnic nation of Israel still existed, so he could still use the name as applied to the Messiah-denying apostates. But when the nation as a nation was destroyed, the Israel of God still existed.)

A key to understanding the issue of Israel is, What – today – is Israel? Is it the Jewish state that has co-opted that ancient name? Or the “ethnicity” of world Jewry, i.e. “bloodline” Jewry?

When the name was first given it was given by God to a man, Jacob, as a blessing: for God said to him, “Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.” Calvin said of this, “with the name He gives the thing itself which the name implies.” (Commentary Upon The Book Of Genesis, by John Calvin, on Genesis 32:28) The name was also given to those of his posterity who, by faith, were worthy of that name and possessors of the same blessing. The name was also taken from those who but nominally (in name only) held it while in truth had no such blessing from the LORD. Often this was done judicially through the process of “cutting off,” as seen in Exodus 12:15, 19; 30:33, 38, and Isaiah 9:13-17; 48:16-19, and shown in the expressions, “that soul shall be cut off from Israel,” “…shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel,” “…shall even be cut off from his people,” “…destroyed from among you,” and “…destroyed from before Me.”

Christ’s apostle, Peter, quoting Moses in Deuteronomy 18:18-19, as he addressed the people of Israel after Pentecost, rendered Moses' saying, “And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that Prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people” (Acts 3:22-23). Simply put, God openly cleft all those who refused His word through His Christ from the people of Israel, like a butcher cuts away gristle: as with a great cleaver He divided the nation, those who were His, and those who were not, even as aged Simeon prophesied over the infant Jesus in the temple, “Behold, this child is set for the falling and rising again of many in Israel…” (Luke 2:34; Cf. Isaiah 8:14, 15).

All that to say, only those who cleave to God’s anointed King over Israel have right to that name, for they are united with Him in irrevocable intimacy, adopted into Sonship as God’s children. All other Jews are dispossessed of the right.

So this is not the so-called “replacement theology”, for God’s true Israel has not been – nor ever will be – replaced by the church of Christ, rather the church, the ecclesia (the called-out ones), is simply another name given to God’s Israel.

There is a sector of the true church, Independent Fundamentalist Baptists, many of whom are fervent Dispensationalists and equally fervent Arminians. I appreciate some of these IFBs for their scholarly and courageous stand for the preserved Bible of the Reformation, at the same time opposing them in their vilifying Reformed theology, which they also call “that satanic Calvinism”. Whether or not DT is inherently Arminian (and from this thread it seems there are Dispensationalists who are not Arminian as concerns soteriology), the IFB DT generally is. And they seem to be the most vociferous proponents of it today.

I have on many occasions defended the IFBs who support the Reformation Bible, as well as their passion to herald the Gospel to the lost (though their Gospel is flawed), yet I have to stand against them in the matters of total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints, as well as their botching the identity of Israel and the resulting wide-spread confusion as to what Biblical eschatology really is.

They are a source of strength and light, and feebleness and darkness.
 
Who was the Pastor that said, a consistent Calvinist should be Dispensational and not Amil.
The reason is that a Dispensationalist believes in God's election of Israel, while an Amil rejects Israels election.
Maybe it was John MacAthur.

MacArthur said it on March 7, 2007 at one of his Shepherd's Conferences.
You can read a PDF of MacArthur saying it or listen to the audio here: Why Every Calvinist Should Be a Premillennialist
Riddlebarger's response: Riddleblog - A Reply to John MacArthur
Sam Waldron's response in book length form: MacArthur's Millennial Manifesto: Samuel E. Waldron: 9780980217926: Amazon.com: Books

They are all worth listening to/reading. Riddlebarger is the more concise.

Ironically, I think that my beagle, Mr. Calvin, is a pretribulationalist. He has an incredible need to be with his humans (crying whenever he cannot be with us). He seems pathologically afraid of being . . . left behind. (bada bing)
 
I would say that most Dispensationalists are also Arminian, but certainly not all. A great number of Baptists are Calvinist and Dispensational, ala John Macarthur. I have always found it curious, though, that so many Dispensationalists can clearly see election in the OT with Israel, but not in the NT.

It's also strange that so many who believe in believer's baptism, see God as having a covenant which involves unbelieving Jews - indeed with all the children of Abraham, and all who become Jews, including their infants - and yet they believe that God has no place for the children of believers I. His Church or CoG.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

Not strange at all! Paul himself says that God is not finished with Israel and that once "the full number of the Gentiles" has been gathered in Israel will turn to God once more.
 
I would say that most Dispensationalists are also Arminian, but certainly not all. A great number of Baptists are Calvinist and Dispensational, ala John Macarthur. I have always found it curious, though, that so many Dispensationalists can clearly see election in the OT with Israel, but not in the NT.

It's also strange that so many who believe in believer's baptism, see God as having a covenant which involves unbelieving Jews - indeed with all the children of Abraham, and all who become Jews, including their infants - and yet they believe that God has no place for the children of believers I. His Church or CoG.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

Not strange at all! Paul himself says that God is not finished with Israel and that once "the full number of the Gentiles" has been gathered in Israel will turn to God once more.

It is strange and incongruous, that Baptists, who believe that the Lord has no particular relationship to the unconverted children of believers, and that only someone who is truly converted is in a covenant relationship to God, should believe that the Lord has a relationship with unconverted Jews, including unconverted Jewish babes.

Being a Paedobaptist, I believe that the unconverted children of believers are in such a special relationship. I also believe from Romans 9-11 that the Jewish nation as a whole, including both converted and unconverted natural branches are being dealt with by God in a special way.

This doesn't justify the errors and excesses of Dispensationalism and "Christian Zionism".

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
Although, I'm not sure that dispensationalism is a forerunner of the prosperity gospel. It seems a very man-centered Arminian oriented false teaching.

Correct.
Dispensationalism is not necessarily followed by or a pre-requisite for "prosperity gospel." Decline of the authority of Scripture (apostasy) is.

So, perhaps it would be more correct to say that if not reformed or off the charts liberal, Protestant groups are dispensational by default, if not intention?

This is one of the strengths of reformed theology. A Confession of Faith defines the accountable doctrine of the communion. In "broad evangelicalism" there is no confession or only a minimalist "statement of faith" does not address many, or most doctrine. So doctrine is what the leadership believes at a given point in time. If the leader(s) mature, it leads to difference, or split. But there is no (time tested) confession before an unbelieving world that is accountable.

Dispensationalism is the common, assumed background for broadly evangelical communions- even if its teachers or laity is not clear on what it is.

Then there was the hyper-dispensational church. Seven is way too small a number for them. Scripture is carved up so that no one ever need be accountable before a holy, righteous and just God. It is evident that all kinds of other errors have come with this teaching.

While seven (the biblical number of perfection, so the inference went....) is the standard, there are dispensationalists who have "found" eight, or even three or four. As the framework has unraveled from the standpoint of biblical defensibility, a lot of Christian teaching time has been wasted, theories abound, books written, tapes recorded, seminars held. The "end times prophecy" speculation industry is directly based on this.

The theme for that is that a physical kingdom for "Israel" comes at the seventh or last dispensation, etc.

What's wrong with this?

Instead of teaching the deeper truths of biblical worship of our Triune God, holiness, obedience conformed to the new nature God has given, the themes of redemption and assurance,
we get "87 reasons for the rapture in 87," and it consumes God's people (many are beleivers, many prove out they are not).


Or,
market driven churches
prosperity gospel
focus on gaining special revelation OUTSIDE of Scripture.
 
Last edited:
This is one of the strengths of reformed theology. A Confession of Faith defines the accountable doctrine of the communion. In "broad evangelicalism" there is no confession or only a minimalist "statement of faith" does not address many, or most doctrine. So doctrine is what the leadership believes at a given point in time. If the leader(s) mature, it leads to difference, or split. But there is no (time tested) confession before an unbelieving world that is accountable.

Thank you. I have seen this play out in some churches I was once a part of. The classic Dispensational church I was raised in is now an apostate new age loving, emergent haven. As they had no confession and the pastor retired, new leaders came in to take it in a direction the former pastor would never have gone. I hear from family still in that area that all of the faithful believers have left that church as it now panders to a new generation's itching ears.


Originally Posted by CuriousNdenver
Then there was the hyper-dispensational church. Seven is way too small a number for them. Scripture is carved up so that no one ever need be accountable before a holy, righteous and just God. It is evident that all kinds of other errors have come with this teaching.
While seven (the biblical number of perfection, so the inference went....) is the standard, there are dispensationalists who have "found" eight, or even three or four. As the framework has unraveled from the standpoint of biblical defensibility, a lot of Christian teaching time has been wasted, theories abound, books written, tapes recorded, seminars held. The "end times prophecy" speculation industry is directly based on this.

The theme for that is that a physical kingdom for "Israel" comes at the seventh or last dispensation, etc.

What's wrong with this?

Instead of teaching the deeper truths of biblical worship of our Triune God, holiness, obedience conformed to the new nature God has given, the themes of redemption and assurance, we get "87 reasons for the rapture in 87," and it consumes God's people (many are beleivers, many prove out they are not).

Or, market driven churches prosperity gospel focus on gaining special revelation OUTSIDE of Scripture.

Amen. The focus on the end times takes the focus off of Christ and scripture. It plays to popular culture's desire to sensationalize things. Instead of growing in grace and the knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ in the sanctification process, some believers spend time focused on the future while they live their lives in antinomian abandon here on earth. Our pastor encourages us to live each day as though it were our last and to submit ourselves to God daily.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top