30 reasons, I am not a Calvinist

Do a search of the history of Dispensationalism and you will find that it is a fairly recent, as in just a 100 years or so, theology. It was started by John Nelson Darby, spread by C I Scofield, and defended by Woolvard and Ryrie. Many today, if not most, are Dispensational. The problem with it is that it has a woodenly literal interpretation of the Scriptures, which is exactly what the Pharisees had and missed Christ because of it, and sets up a 2 kingdom system and in essence 2 ways of salvation.

 

This chart has almost nothing to do with calvinism directly,although those on the right side of the chart have the most biblical truth.
I would use this chart to say 30 reasons I am no longer a dispensationalist.
A simple glance shows the right side is right.
Do you understand calvinism? Could you explain it in your own words offering a few verses for it? To be honest.....I do not think you can.

ps.I have read these men, had a scofield bible, and listened to tapes fron Dallas Theological....this whole system is flawed and been shown to be false.

 

That chart has nothing to do with calvinism. It is about dispenationalism vs covenant theology. I am a 5 point calvinist and am more in the dispensational camp. I am a lot like John Macarthur in my outlook. He is a 5 point calvinist and a partial dispensationalist.

If you want to learn the five points of calvinism and see that they are biblical please check out this short link:

http://calvinistcorner.com/tulip

If you want to study further and go into more detail please read this book:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0875528279/?tag=baptis04-20

 

Calvinism and Dispensationalism are not one and the same. They do not really even dovetail. One can be an Arminian and a Dispensationalist. One can be a Calvinist and a Dispensationalist. One can disavow both systems and be a Dispensationalist (and it is likely that this is the primary category for those who hold a dispensational view).

It is probably time for a teaching thread where we lay out some of these theological points of view and define them as they are commonly used. I'm seeing so much misinformation around the board, largely based on this or that guy's website that may or may not actually reflect the total picture or the truth of any given issue.

The chart is somewhat accurate in what it states -- not really accurate at all in what it implies -- but that worth debating. As has been said above, the entire dispensational theology is somewhat recent, and largely hatched out of some need to preserve some form of sanity regarding the Scriptures, but also largely uninformed in the same tradition as Landmarkism, radical separatism, etc.

 

This list on the Dispy view is not even half way correct. Actually, very little is correctly stated in that listing

 

I do not see how he got an attack on calvinism as a soteriology out of a comparison chart between dispensationalism and covenant theology.

 

Because of that little line at the top as the chart even begins.

If he sees Covenantal Theology as a problem and identifies it with Calvinism, then he has a problem...

What we should be discussing are the problems with both views and where the current state of affairs exists in this realm of theology.

Dispensationalism has largely been set aside as untenable, but it still gathers a lot of support by pastors in individual churches. In fact, I've never heard a pastor preach a sermon other than dispensational in regards to end time events. They all walk with LaHaye and "Left Behind" even though privately these same pastors may have reservations and issues with reconciling Scripture to the tenets of that theology.

Covenantalism has largely been contained within the Calvinistic denominations, but it too has problems, for instance, the two covenants (works and grace) that are not really covenants at all.

I find a theology of election to be a better way of understanding the flow of salvation history than either covenantal or dispensational theology.

 

If that is true then you don't hold to mainstream dispensationalism.
Half of that list does not even reflect the Dispy at all.

like -
OT sinners were saved by works and not faith?
or that -
The O.T. sacrifices were not recognized as the Gospel or types of the Messiah as sin-bearer, but only seen as such in retrospect.
or that -
Israel was rash to accept God's covenant on Mt. Sinia
or that -
The Law has been abolished
...as opposed to - The Law has 3 uses: to restrain sin in society, to lead to Christ, and to instruct Christians in godliness. The ceremonial Laws have been abolished; the civil laws have been abolished except for their general equity; the moral laws continue.


or that -
The Church is a parenthesis in God’s program for the ages.
(so to speak.. His fall back plan)

and on and on..

None of these are dispensational views.
It actually looks like someone from the Covenant view wrote this because it is very misinformed on much of the Dispy view.

In particular one I found quite funny was that Dispy interpret scripture by a 'ridged' literal view. When in fact what he places for the Covenant view is actually the Dispy hermeneutic. "Accepts ‘normal’ interpretation of the Bible text (allows both literal and figurative)"

Where as the Covenant view actually place emphasis on the spiritualizing of many passages and promises of God. This however not something done across the board on all things but primarily regarding promises made to the nation of Israel, and that the physical promises are to be spiritually understood.

 

I can.

The reason I have drifted toward what is labeled Calvinism is because I quit denying what I was reading in the pages of the Bible.

 

:thumbsup:


While Calvinists tend to also be Covenant in theology, not all are. I'm not Covenant. MacArthur isn't...
It's also like there are Presbyterian Calvinists and Baptist Calvinists.

Good attitude here in coming back and apologizing!

 

still learning......you said;

If you are a member of a church,and after a thousand posts on here some of your theology has already been influenced by someone other than biblical writers. Your pastor has read and taught you dispensatioal ideas.
You have heard enough to know something called calvinism exists even though you do not know what it is.

okay.....take some time to learn the views accurately...do not twist the view[as much is possible] get some of the best writers on the view being discussed. See and read the verses offered. Consider what and how the verses are being used.

Stilllearning.......all of us want the truth of scripture. A calvinist is a calvinist because of scripture.....not because of Calvin. I think if you read our responses you will see who is using the whole bible...and who hardly uses any verses at all in any post.
I do not take personal offence when people oppose the truth, I try to help them see the verses clearly,as they are God given truth.

 

This is a subject I have wondered about. Did the OT Jews understand that the sacrifice was until Messiah came? Did they understand that Messiah would be the true sacrifice? I don't recall reading where they did. It seems they were just following the Law.
And as Still Learning said, the NT says that until Christ came, it was a mystery kept hidden from them.

Thoughts?

 

I don't see this as valid, at least not in my eyes. Reading the bible shows me the error of Calvinism. The more I read it, the more problems I see with this system called Calvinism.

 

Some of the things I've heard/read Calvinists on this board say many times are: "I stopped denying it", "I stopped fighting it"..."I finally gave in to it"....ect.

Why was it so hard to accept if it's true?