Featured ANY other Dispy cals that post here on the Baptist Board?

Guess not lol. I really enjoy McAurthur but I don't know that I agree with everything, still working through some stuff

 

Dispy Cal.....what's that?

 

Another way to segregate members of the board, so we can find more ways to argue with each other?....

 

Another way to segregate members of the board, so we can find more ways to argue with each other?....

...and I was asked, "What fight"?

 

I'm dispensational, not strictly Calvinistic, leaning in that direction but rejecting limited atonement and the non-Cavlinistic concept (from Calvin's writings) that man has absolutely no role in his salvation. It is severely limited, but it is there.

Having said that, I get to the point for which I write:

Yeshua1, I object to the term "Dispy." Just, as I am sure, many Calvinism espousers don't care for the term "Cal." Thanks in advance for not using either term again.

 

An absolute contradiction.

 

This thread has prompted me to reflect on my own odyssey through soteriology and eschatology.

The first teaching I ever heard on eschatology was from a dispensational perspective. It was reinforced by all the Hal Lindsey books on the subject, the Left Behind movies--and undergirded by the firm confidence that my pastor would never teach or preach anything that was not Biblical.

It was during this same time that I began to explore the subject of election and predestination. To make a long story short, I embraced the doctrines of grace. So, I became one of those Dispy Calvinists.

That pastor left for another church, and the new pastor came along. And one Sunday he preached on eschatology, and it was from a historical pre-mil perspective. No pre-trib rapture. Immediately after the service, several of us headed down the aisle to challenge what he had preached. He held up his hand and said, "guys, we're not going to debate this right now. Here's your assignment: Go to the scriptures and find me one (or more) which clearly, unmistakably, not-subject-to-any-other-interpretation, teach a pre-trib rapture. Bring 'em back and we'll talk."

Shoot, this should be easy, I thought. It wasn't. i couldn't find one

I became a historical pre-millenialist, and hold that view three decades later.

So, this question: what is the connection between Calvinism and my eschatology? Why are Calvinism and dispensationalism incompatible?

 

Because Calvin...the theological progenitor of Calvinism...was not a dispensationalist. He was no where near dispensationalist thought.

Perhaps my only question for all the "Calvinists" on the board: can you honestly say whether or not you've read Calvin's Institutes and his commentaries?

 

That doesn't answer the question. In fact, it raises a ton more questions. If you actually knew Calvin's personal theology, you likely would not call yourself a Calvinist.

 

Well it does answer the question. If you knew anything about Calvin's actual theology you'd encounter the massive contribution to federal thought, or covenant theology, contained within the Institutes.

Eschatologically his development of a covenantal position linked with historical premillennialism removes any attempt to link dispensationalism with the system that bears his name.

I'm not a Calvinist.

 

...similar to a mug wump....

 

There is no requirement that different doctrines match each other. If one tries to pair up, for example, Calvinism vs Arminianism, along side of covenant vs dispensationalism, there is no hard and fast rule to do so. It would seem logical to call Calvinists more likely to go along with covenant theology, and Arminians with dispy theology. However, there are theologians who are Calvinists and dispy, and Arminians who are covenant.

In addition, there is the added element of differing views within the dispy camp, ie, pre trib, post trib, mid trib, along with pre mil, post mil, and amil. Doctrine and Scripture is not a cookie cutter mold. As we go through life, no doubt many of us change our opinions.

We all stand united that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, our Creator and Savior, and all honor and glory goes to him. He is our only hope of salvation and eternal life. All the other is fascinating to talk about, but this is the foundation on which all of us stand.

 

Well, one would think that the goal of any "-ism" would be to reflect the theological paradigm of its founder.

Anything else...isn't that "-ism."

Calvinism cannot stand with dispensationalism for the simple reality of how the soteriological system works in with the covenants that dispensationalism (classic and perhaps a bit of prog) approaches the relationship between the Church and Israel, via the OT, entirely differently than Calvinism allows for in its system.

 

Definition of MUGWUMP

1
: a bolter from the Republican party in 1884

2
: a person who is independent (as in politics) or who remains undecided or neutral.. Merriam webster

 

I know his actual theology, which included infant baptism, sacramental equality with Scripture, and baptismal regeneration. I'd be very careful, if I were Calvinist, about openly proclaiming the whole of his teachings as solid biblical theology.

 

One definition I heard is that a mugwump cannot make up his mind.

He straddles the fence. His mug is on one side, his wump on the other.

 

I am a modified disp. and hold to the basic thinking of what some would call Calvin.

Calvin and I wouldn't get along if we were peers, and frankly, I wish that the folks would adopt a different naming - like the doctrines of grace.

Am I in "lock step" with all Calvinistic teaching? Anyone reading my posts would see that I am not.

Am I in agreement with all the modern dispy stuff, certainly not.

I do think that a large number of folks who were pre-millennial would not object to also being associated with a modified dispensational view, and in fact over the years, I have read a number who were historically dispensational in much of their teaching.

I also disagree that a Calvinist by default must totally reject the Dispensational theology, because it just isn't the truth.

Since the 1960's, the dispensational teaching moved from theology to who can discover the next great verse to puff up some teacher as more authoritative than some other.

And, just as I predicted decades ago, I think that the modern shallow trendy teaching will eventually lead to a saturation point in the assemblies at which the teaching will also be a part in the great falling away of true faith.

Mind you, not historic dispensational taught as theology for centuries (though not called that) but the modern chase after fluff teaching.

 

We've got to always remember that the writings of Calvin are somewhat less than inspired, inerrant and infallible!!!:type::type:

 

Absolutely!

In fact, I don't know very many "calvinists" who have actually read the "institutes."

They (like myself) arrived at a certain level of understanding what the Scriptures hold as true and accepted it only to find out later that there was a person who had similar thinking called Calvin.

I posted earlier, had I been peer with Calvin, he and I wouldn't have gotten along - too many differences.

But then, at my age, I have a hard time getting along with myself - always in rebellion and have to be killed daily.