Calvinists Have Great Antipathy for Dispensationalists and Vice Versa

Status
Not open for further replies.

Wings Like Eagles

Well-Known Member
This is contrary to the teachings of Our Lord Himself in Mark 9:38-41. The reasons for this are: a) carnal--which is a lack of maturity (see 1 Cor. 3:1-3) b) worldly considerations--"What would others think if I admitted that I had changed my thinking?" (James 4:1-4) and c) failing to resist the temptation to pride--we are "proud" members of our tribes and this should not be present in the churches of Christ (1 Cor. 1:10-17)

NONE OF US knows all of the teachings of Christ so thoroughly that we dare condemn the teaching of others based on their interpretation of the word. Jesus told us that we would know false teachers by the fruit that they produce. (Matthew 7:15-20). The Adversary of God must delight in those who seek to uncharitably grind up others for the sake of "doctrinal purity". As long as we are kindly holding up the inerrancy of Scripture, and using it as our standard for judging truth, then I for one, am confident that truth always wins out in the end. Heretical teaching comes from disregarding the word. Often that happens when we are so convinced of the rightness of our own dogma over the love that we are supposed to have for one another. John Wesley (even though he was a great saint and teacher of the word) set up the seeds of the current mess that is Methodist liberalism because of his inflexibility and legalism. He once said that he would not hire a preacher who failed to fast a certain number of times per week (among other bits of fanaticism). When people ask me if I am a "dispensationalist" or a "Calvinist" I am apt to say, "Neither--I am a Christian who is trying to sort her way through the teachings of Christ, just like everyone else." What do you all think?
 
Last edited:

Andy C

Well-Known Member
This is contrary to the teachings of Our Lord Himself in Mark 9:38-41. The reasons for this are: a) carnal--which is a lack of maturity (see 1 Cor. 3:1-3) b) worldly considerations--"What would others think if I admitted that I had changed my thinking?" (James 4:1-4) and c) failing to resist the temptation to pride--we are "proud" members of our tribes and this should not be present in the churches of Christ (1 Cor. 1:10-17)

NONE OF US knows all of the teachings of Christ so thoroughly that we dare condemn the teaching of others based on their interpretation of the word. Jesus told us that we would know false teachers by the fruit that they produce. (Matthew 7:15-20). The Adversary of God must delight in those who seek to uncharitably grind up others for the sake of "doctrinal purity". As long as we are kindly holding up the inerrancy of Scripture, and using it as our standard for judging truth, then I for one, am confident that truth always wins out in the end. Heretical teaching comes from disregarding the word. Often that happens when we are so convinced of the rightness of our own dogma over the love that we are supposed to have for one another. John Wesley (even though he was a great saint and teacher of the word) set up the seeds of the current mess that is Methodist liberalism because of his inflexibility and legalism. He once said that he would not hire a preacher who failed to fast a certain number of times per week (among other bits of fanaticism). When people ask me if I am a "dispensationalist" or a "Calvinist" I am apt to say, "Neither--I am just a Christian who is trying to sort her way through the teachings of Christ, just like everyone else." What do you all think?
Im not sure of the point you are making?
 

Andy C

Well-Known Member
That all who hold to the absolute truth of Scripture are NOT against us--regardless of denominational labels.
I dont agree with any point of calvinism, and when someone posts a link for a teacher who is a calvinist, I will point that out, and usually without further comment.

Calvinism is poison to the body.

I agree, those who hold to the truth of scripture, are definitely in the Body. I personally could care less what denomination someone identifies with, whats important is Who they identify with - Him.
 

Wings Like Eagles

Well-Known Member
I dont agree with any point of calvinism, and when someone posts a link for a teacher who is a calvinist, I will point that out, and usually without further comment.

Calvinism is poison to the body.

I agree, those who hold to the truth of scripture, are definitely in the Body. I personally could care less what denomination someone identifies with, whats important is Who they identify with - Him.
But some who have been labeled cannot be neatly categorized. That is my point. I don't agree with Reformed/Covenant theology at all--but I am unwilling to reject anyone who upholds the authority of Scripture. Most all who teach and preach as traditional Baptists are into neither Reformed nor Covenant theology. Dallas Theological--the hub of dispensational theology in the past--with a great tradition of John Walvoord, Charles Ryrie, Dwight Pentecost and others would not disrespect the contributions of those with whom they disagreed, on matters of doctrine--as long as they held to the inerrancy of Scripture. The Lord prayed for our unity in the Spirit and in truth, saying, "...Make them holy by your truth; teach them your word which is truth." (John 17: 17). To be holy is to be separated from the world, not from each other. We all name the name of Christ and are one in the Spirit and in truth. *admin edit*
 

Wings Like Eagles

Well-Known Member
I dont agree with any point of calvinism...
Then I guess you believe that you can lose your salvation--because the "P" in classic "TULIP" Calvinism stands for the Perseverance of the Saints--that you CANNOT lose your salvation. When one says that they do not agree with the systematic theology of Calvinism (Reformed/Covenant theology), that is not the same as saying that the Calvinists don't get ANYTHING right.
 

Andy C

Well-Known Member
Then I guess you believe that you can lose your salvation--because the "P" in classic "TULIP" Calvinism stands for the Perseverance of the Saints--that you CANNOT lose your salvation. When one says that they do not agree with the systematic theology of Calvinism (Reformed/Covenant theology), that is not the same as saying that the Calvinists don't get ANYTHING right.
Their version of Perseverance of the saints is not the same as what we call OSAS - nice try though :biggrin2
 

Andy C

Well-Known Member
Here is a quick link I found from a site I dont know, but agree with their answer.

Question: What’s the difference between eternal security, or OSAS (once saved, always saved), and perseverance of the saints (POTS)? Aren’t they the same thing?

A. Well, they are often taken to be the same doctrine, but they shouldn’t be. I admit that some people use the terms interchangeably. But I think we should be more precise and distinguish between them. For example, here are five differences that I see between POTS and OSAS.

First, the doctrine of POTS is part of Calvinism, while OSAS is not (at least, not necessarily). Many OSAS advocates reject Calvinism, such as Baptist Traditionalists and those who hold to Free Grace theology.

Second, POTS and OSAS have different foundations. POTS is founded on the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election. God predestines some individuals to eternal salvation, and the elect are guaranteed to persevere because God chose them to be saved. By contrast, OSAS is not based on any doctrine of election, but on Jesus’ promise of everlasting life. Jesus promised what whoever believes in Him has everlasting life, shall not perish, shall not hunger, shall not thirst, shall not be cast out, shall not come into judgment, etc. (John 3:16, 36; 5:24; 6:35, 37). In short, believers are eternally secure. (See my book Chosen to Serve for a defense of the idea that election is to service, not to eternal life.)

Third, POTS and OSAS have different views of the condition of salvation. This comes out clearly when POTS advocates say that people who fall away into error or unbelief never truly believed to begin with. In effect, POTS advocates typically teach that you are born again or justified by a continuous faith that must be the“gift” faith that God only gives to the elect. Essentially, salvation does not only depend on what you believe, but how you believe it. By contrast, OSAS says there is only one kind of faith (persuasion that something is true) and that what matters is what you believe, not how you believe. Salvation requires a single act of faith in Jesus for eternal life (John 3:16, 36; 5:24; 6:47).

Fourth, POTS and OSAS take different perspectives on sanctification. According to POTS, sanctification is unconditional. Since the elect are predestined to salvation, and God causes them to be sanctified, they will never fall into major sin or unbelief in this life but will persevere in faith and good works until death. By contrast, OSAS sees sanctification as conditional. You have to choose to be a doer of the word to be sanctified, and there is no guarantee that you will progress from a carnal state to a spiritual one. But believers are eternally secure whether they experience practical sanctification or not.

Fifth, POTS and OSAS have different effects on assurance. Under POTS, you cannot be sure of your salvation because you cannot be sure if you are one of the electwith special gift faith who will persevere in faith and good works until death. By contrast, for OSAS, assurance is not only possible, it is the essence of saving faith. Jesus promised believers everlasting life (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47; 11:25-26). Hence, you cannot believe that promise without believing the life He gives is everlasting.
https://faithalone.org/blog/five-di...severance-of-the-saints-and-eternal-security/
 

Andy C

Well-Known Member
Then I guess you believe that you can lose your salvation--because the "P" in classic "TULIP" Calvinism stands for the Perseverance of the Saints--that you CANNOT lose your salvation. When one says that they do not agree with the systematic theology of Calvinism (Reformed/Covenant theology), that is not the same as saying that the Calvinists don't get ANYTHING right.
Name one point on TULIP they get right:tappingfoot

There is a reason that this forum bans the promotion of calvinism - Its unbiblical.
 

Chris

Administrator
Staff member
But some who have been labeled cannot be neatly categorized. That is my point. I don't agree with Reformed/Covenant theology at all--but I am unwilling to reject anyone who upholds the authority of Scripture. Most all who teach and preach as traditional Baptists are into neither Reformed nor Covenant theology. Dallas Theological--the hub of dispensational theology in the past--with a great tradition of John Walvoord, Charles Ryrie, Dwight Pentecost and others would not disrespect the contributions of those with whom they disagreed, on matters of doctrine--as long as they held to the inerrancy of Scripture. The Lord prayed for our unity in the Spirit and in truth, saying, "...Make them holy by your truth; teach them your word which is truth." (John 17: 17). To be holy is to be separated from the world, not from each other. We all name the name of Christ and are one in the Spirit and in truth. *admin edit*

I didn't see Andy say anything about this fellow in his post. :scratch

I said this in the closed thread:

I'm sorry but we do not allow Calvinist preachers or Bible teachers to be promoted on RF per the forum rules.

Please do not bring them up on the forums.

Thank you.

Given the bolded above where I ask for Calvinists not to be brought up on the forums, why are you mentioning this fellow? :scratch
 

Wings Like Eagles

Well-Known Member
I didn't see Andy say anything about this fellow in his post. :scratch

I said this in the closed thread:



Given the bolded above where I ask for Calvinists not to be brought up on the forums, why are you mentioning this fellow? :scratch
Because I do not believe that *admin edit* fits into the category in which he was placed. He went to a Jesuit Catholic University also--but that doesn't make him a Catholic--let alone a Jesuit. No two systematic theologies could be further apart than Jesuit Catholicism and Calvinism (or, for that matter, the Dispensationalism of DTS). When I recommended *admin edit* book, I was not recommending Calvinism (since I don't believe that he is one--although he might be sympathetic to Calvinism--you'd have to ask him). I merely thought he did a good job in defending the word of God from doubters.
 

Wings Like Eagles

Well-Known Member
Here is a quick link I found from a site I dont know, but agree with their answer.

Question: What’s the difference between eternal security, or OSAS (once saved, always saved), and perseverance of the saints (POTS)? Aren’t they the same thing?

A. Well, they are often taken to be the same doctrine, but they shouldn’t be. I admit that some people use the terms interchangeably. But I think we should be more precise and distinguish between them. For example, here are five differences that I see between POTS and OSAS.

First, the doctrine of POTS is part of Calvinism, while OSAS is not (at least, not necessarily). Many OSAS advocates reject Calvinism, such as Baptist Traditionalists and those who hold to Free Grace theology.

Second, POTS and OSAS have different foundations. POTS is founded on the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election. God predestines some individuals to eternal salvation, and the elect are guaranteed to persevere because God chose them to be saved. By contrast, OSAS is not based on any doctrine of election, but on Jesus’ promise of everlasting life. Jesus promised what whoever believes in Him has everlasting life, shall not perish, shall not hunger, shall not thirst, shall not be cast out, shall not come into judgment, etc. (John 3:16, 36; 5:24; 6:35, 37). In short, believers are eternally secure. (See my book Chosen to Serve for a defense of the idea that election is to service, not to eternal life.)

Third, POTS and OSAS have different views of the condition of salvation. This comes out clearly when POTS advocates say that people who fall away into error or unbelief never truly believed to begin with. In effect, POTS advocates typically teach that you are born again or justified by a continuous faith that must be the“gift” faith that God only gives to the elect. Essentially, salvation does not only depend on what you believe, but how you believe it. By contrast, OSAS says there is only one kind of faith (persuasion that something is true) and that what matters is what you believe, not how you believe. Salvation requires a single act of faith in Jesus for eternal life (John 3:16, 36; 5:24; 6:47).

Fourth, POTS and OSAS take different perspectives on sanctification. According to POTS, sanctification is unconditional. Since the elect are predestined to salvation, and God causes them to be sanctified, they will never fall into major sin or unbelief in this life but will persevere in faith and good works until death. By contrast, OSAS sees sanctification as conditional. You have to choose to be a doer of the word to be sanctified, and there is no guarantee that you will progress from a carnal state to a spiritual one. But believers are eternally secure whether they experience practical sanctification or not.

Fifth, POTS and OSAS have different effects on assurance. Under POTS, you cannot be sure of your salvation because you cannot be sure if you are one of the electwith special gift faith who will persevere in faith and good works until death. By contrast, for OSAS, assurance is not only possible, it is the essence of saving faith. Jesus promised believers everlasting life (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47; 11:25-26). Hence, you cannot believe that promise without believing the life He gives is everlasting.
https://faithalone.org/blog/five-di...severance-of-the-saints-and-eternal-security/
I think this is a reasonably good summary of the differences but, I honestly have to say that some of the points are a bit of hair-splitting. (Split enough hairs and one can end up in a church of one.) We have our "proof texts" but they have theirs as well. In any case, I think some of the points that the writer makes are arguing against points that Calvinism doesn't make. His fourth point--is actually not what I have ever heard an ordinary Calvinist say--that one who is truly saved cannot fall into major sin or even unbelief. Maybe a "hyper-Calvinist" would say it---don't know because there aren't that many of them around. The last point is the most critical and one that makes Calvinism troubling. I have argued plenty with Calvinists over the years, but I believe it is important to be "Irenic" in our positions. Our culture is great at demonizing those who hold opposing views but, I hope, as Christians, we can show a different way. That was my point in posting this thread.
 

Wings Like Eagles

Well-Known Member
Name one point on TULIP they get right:tappingfoot

There is a reason that this forum bans the promotion of calvinism - Its unbiblical.
Show me where I EVER promoted Calvinism?? I have posted a thread that is VERY critical of Calvinism--because I believe that much of what they teach is fruit from the poisoned tree.
 

Chris

Administrator
Staff member
Because I do not believe that Lutzer fits into the category in which he was placed. He went to a Jesuit Catholic University also--but that doesn't make him a Catholic--let alone a Jesuit. No two systematic theologies could be further apart than Jesuit Catholicism and Calvinism (or, for that matter, the Dispensationalism of DTS). When I recommended Lutzer's book, I was not recommending Calvinism (since I don't believe that he is one--although he might be sympathetic to Calvinism--you'd have to ask him). I merely thought he did a good job in defending the word of God from doubters.

Please do not start anymore threads or make posts on Calvinism. Please do not bring up Calvinism teachers or preachers on the forums.

I do not want the forums used to to promote Calvinism, to minimize the errors of Calvinism, or to promote individuals who teach and/or preach with Calvinism leanings, etc. This is against the forum rules. I don't want to give these people any publicity that causes someone else to possibly fall or stumble into their teachings, etc. We have too many others good teachers and/or preachers we can use on the forums without promoting or giving publicity to the questionable ones.

Thank you for understanding.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top