Which is more dangerous, Dispensational Calvinists or Continuationalist Calvinists?

[Bill The Baptist]

In my estimation, one of the biggest issues with these Calvinist pastors who espouse continuationism is that it seems to be self-serving. You would not likely find anyone speaking in tongues or healing in these churches, and so it seems that the spiritual gifts in these churches manifest themselves solely in the respective pastors ability to receive a "prophetic word."

 

[stephen2]

Two altogether separate questions are being discussed here. First, dispensationalism vs. reformed continuists. Second, MacArthur vs. Driscoll. I think many of us who have very grave concerns about Mr. Driscoll and who deeply respect Pastor MacArthur would say on the other hand (and at the same time) that dispensationalism is a far more dangerous and damaging position than that of the reformed continuists. My reasoning is simple: dispensationalists are always partly antinomian. There is not a single dispensationalist who remembers the Sabbath to keep it holy. Rather dispensationalists live (preach and teach) as if there were no Sabbath command. It seems to me that the same is true of the 2nd commandment. So, on the one hand you have a system that reduces the commandments from 10 to 9 (or even 8). On the other hand you have a system that theoretically at least upholds God's law while wandering into other errors.

Which is more damaging to the Church? The Old Testament teaches me to believe that the desecration of God's law by priest and people has absolutely devastating consequences for the Church and nation and far more damaging than an error on the gifts of the Spirit for example.

I have brothers who subscribe to the Westminster standards and take the continuist position. It is impossible, however, to be dispensational and subscribe to the Westminster standards. Dispensationalism is a system that touches the law and the gospel and so proves damaging to the very fundamentals of our faith.

 

[Pilgrim]

Two altogether separate questions are being discussed here. First, dispensationalism vs. reformed continuists. Second, MacArthur vs. Driscoll. I think many of us who have very grave concerns about Mr. Driscoll and who deeply respect Pastor MacArthur would say on the other hand (and at the same time) that dispensationalism is a far more dangerous and damaging position than that of the reformed continuists. My reasoning is simple: dispensationalists are always partly antinomian. There is not a single dispensationalist who remembers the Sabbath to keep it holy. Rather dispensationalists live (preach and teach) as if there were no Sabbath command. It seems to me that the same is true of the 2nd commandment. So, on the one hand you have a system that reduces the commandments from 10 to 9 (or even 8). On the other hand you have a system that theoretically at least upholds God's law while wandering into other errors.

Which is more damaging to the Church? The Old Testament teaches me to believe that the desecration of God's law by priest and people has absolutely devastating consequences for the Church and nation and far more damaging than an error on the gifts of the Spirit for example.

I have brothers who subscribe to the Westminster standards and take the continuist position. It is impossible, however, to be dispensational and subscribe to the Westminster standards. Dispensationalism is a system that touches the law and the gospel and so proves damaging to the very fundamentals of our faith.

I don't think I've ever met a person who fully subscribes to the Puritan view of the Sabbath who is a continuationist. That's a "your mileage may vary" kind of thing, evidently. More would hold to the third use of the law, but some effectively reject it even among those who "affirm" a Reformed confession. Many explicitly reject it. As I understand it, the OP is in reference to Baptists, and the movement described there is more antinomian in practice than MacArthur is and has a view of the moral law that is virtually indistinguishable from the dispensational view on that question. Ditto for Tullian Tchvidjian and the sonship types (which is a big influence on him, along with certain Lutheran theologians), in my opinion. It seems to me that that has a lot more in common with the view of outright old school "Dallas dispensationalism" on that specific issue (e.g. Ryrie, Walvoord, Lightner) than many recognize even if they use different terminology. M'cheyne said that for every time you look at yourself you should take 10 looks at Christ. But many today evidently believe that the Christian should NEVER examine himself. The theologians like Tullian who subscribe to a Reformed confession will usually formally affirm the third use but that's not the message the people get.

Also, as Bill notes, many of the "continuationsts" are basically of the "open but cautious" camp that simply cannot affirm the kind of Warfieldian position taken by MacArthur (for example) but are generally opposed to basically all manifestations of charismaticism that I can conceive of. For example, the ones I know would look askance at someone who says "God told me..." whether it's a preacher or layman. They would reject many of the things that Piper gives a pass to, much less Driscoll's pornographic visions or even Grudem's distinction between OT and NT prophecy. In some cases it comes down to arguing over whether or not some things Spurgeon said is real prophecy or if it is what some Puritans referred to as "extraordinary providences." Those I'm describing here aren't the "Driscoll types" but the Calvinistic megachurch pastors (who are sometimes hypothetical universalists (or 4.5 pointers) at best) obviously have a much bigger platform and have a much bigger influence on "ordinary" people who listen to their sermons and read a few books here and there. And isn't that really the most important thing with regard to dangerous influence? On the other hand, many of the people who were pretty much in MacArthur's camp regarding "Strange Fire" are not dispensationalists.

 

[stephen2]

Chris what's a your mileage may vary kind of thing? I guess one of the points I wanted to make is that a continuist can subscribe to the Westminster standards whereas a dispensationalist cannot. The fact that there are continuists of all different stripes does certainly complicate this. Its kind of hard to lump Carson, Piper, Driscoll and the truly reformed in one continuist camp. It may be that continuists are typically more antimonian, but it needn't be so; whereas being dispensational by very definition implies antimonianism of a sort.

 

[Pilgrim]

Chris what's a your mileage may vary kind of thing? I guess one of the points I wanted to make is that a continuist can subscribe to the Westminster standards whereas a dispensationalist cannot. The fact that there are continuists of all different stripes does certainly complicate this. Its kind of hard to lump Carson, Piper, Driscoll and the truly reformed in one continuist camp. It may be that continuists are typically more antimonian, but it needn't be so; whereas being dispensational by very definition implies antimonianism of a sort.

your mileage may vary=Your mileage may vary. In other words, anecdotal evidence. None of us knows what everybody out there believes, etc. In my case, in my "mileage" those you describe are outliers at best, especially among strict subscriptionists. Admittedly however I am not very well acquainted with "broadly Reformed" or "barely Reformed" evangelicals in the PCA or other NAPARC denominations although I do have somewhat more knowledge of the EPC. But that's what I had in mind with the TULIP+paedobaptism+Presbyterian government="subscription" statement in an earlier post. For what it's worth, I do know that some PCA TE's who are otherwise quite conservative (meaning more or less confessional otherwise) will do things like invite visitors out to eat lunch after Sunday worship. I'm sure there all kinds of exceptions men take to the standards beyond the usual ones. But how many PCA or ARP presbyteries would say that a continuationist (or much more, a practicing charismatic) doesn't even have to take an exception? How many would say it is not even an issue? On the other hand, how many candidates and credentials committees would reject such a one altogether, especially a tongue speaking charismatic?

There are hundreds of posts on this board arguing over whether or not a continuationist can affirm the WCF (Article I in particular) with most of the participants in the threads I've seen taking the position that they cannot. (I simply direct you to those posts to see the argumentation unless someone else wants to take that up now.) A good many would argue that continuationism violates the system of doctrine found in the standards and thus flunks the test of system subscription along with "truly reformed" strict subscription. Back to your mileage may vary, I don't know of anybody (which includes online acquaintances) who would be considered a TR strict subscriptionist who is continuationist. An exception might be a few who would cite some alleged charismatic occurences among the covenanters. But however many would be in that camp is maybe 1% of the number of "Young Restless and Reformed" Calvinistic Baptists who could not affirm the 2nd London Baptist Confession.

My point with regard to the continuationist camp the OP seems to have in view is that the overwhelming majority of them outright reject covenant theology and the Reformed confessions and so by definition reject Reformed teaching on sanctification and the 4th Commandment every bit as much as MacArthur type dispensationalists do. (See my last post about what MacArthur types (whether Dispensational or no) believe about sanctification in practice vs. some others as well.) Those who reject covenant theology and the confessions include Carson, Piper, Driscoll, Schreiner (and evidently most of the SBTS faculty, for example, especially in the theology dept), Mahaney, most likely everyone affiliated with Acts 29, etc. I mention all of those names simply because, off the top of my head, it pretty much covers the bases from an academic and/or leadership standpoint.

Another big factor in the recent popularity of Calvinistic soteriology in evangelicalism is modern praise or CCM music, with a good many of the artists today being both Calvinistic in theology and charismatic in theory or practice. This is seen with the Passion conferences, for example, as well as Reformed rap, although I don't know how much the latter is employed in stated worship. The RPW is nonsense and "legalism" or "fundamentalism" to most of them whether they crank up the electric guitars or not. Thus, some might say that most of what is today referred to as the "New Calvinism" is Calvinistic soteriology married to some form of seeker sensitive worship and outlook (generally speaking) as opposed to "ordinary means" ministry.

 

[Matthew1344]

So, if not dispensationalism, then what? Please be easy on me... i want to learn.

 

[JimmyH]

So, if not dispensationalism, then what? Please be easy on me... i want to learn.

Covenant theology is the alternative that many on this board adhere to As far as I know.

What does John Piper believe about dispensationalism, covenant theology, and new covenant theology? | Desiring God

 

[Matthew1344]

Great! From my understanding, that is the one i think i fall into mostly.

I believe that his plan has always been grace through faith.

But here is my hangup... sorry if this does not make sense. And, sorry if this seems off topic.

Is the idea that goes with covenant theology "God's concepts never change"?

Because if so, what about God's idea of how to populate the earth?
He tells Adam and Moses to do it in an incestial way right?
But, then he God later says that it is sin.

And, same thing about eating animals.
At first he tells Adam that the plants will be his food.
Then, later, he tells Noah that just like the plants, now man can eat animals.

Why is it ok? Then not ok?

And again, sorry if my question is confusing, out of nowhere, or doesn't pertain. Im just trying to understand all this.

Thanks