I have never really thought of it before, but it seems odd to me that the idea of premillenial dispensationalism is so much more popular with Arminians but not so much w/ Calvinists. Granted that there certainly are Calvinists who do hold to the premillenial dispensationalist view, as well as Arminians that do not. But in my experience I would be willing to bet money that an American Arminian is also a dispensationalist and that an American Calvinist is not. Perhaps this is incorrect, and if anyone has evidence to the contrary feel free to correct me.
In any case, this observance seems odd to me because the idea of premillenial dispensationalism, or at least the treatment of national Israel in that system, is simply an application of the five points of Calvinism applied to a nation instead of an individual.
For those unfamiliar with Calvinism, those five points are usually abbreviated as TULIP, and are as follows:
Total Depravity: Basically, this is the teaching that after the fall into sin, there is no inherent good in a person. The same could certainly be said of Abraham and his fleshly descendants. The history of Israel as detailed in the Bible certainly confirm that they were a depraved nation who constantly turned away from God, and God continually called them back. Without God's grace, there was no good in Israel.
Unconditional Election: This teaching states that God elects certain people to salvation without any condition that needs to be fulfilled on their part. The decision is completely up to God, and man has nothing to do with it. It goes without saying that dispensationalists see Israel as being unconditionally elected to be God's chosen people throughout eternity.
Limited Atonement: This teaching of Calvinism states that the atonement Jesus won was only won for the elect of God. Although dispensationalist do not state that Jesus atonement was only for Israel, they certainly state that Israel will receive certain blessings from God that are not for all of humanity in Christ. Dispensationalist hold a view of "Limited Favor" in which God has certain favors or blessings which are limited to Israel only. Even though speaking of different things, atonment vs. blessings or favor in genera, the concept is at least similar.
Irresistible Grace: The teaching that God's grace is effective on those whom he has elected, and that the elect are not capable of rejecting it. The dispensationalist believe that God's grace will be effective on the nation of Israel, and that the will not be able to reject that grace. They believe that "all Israel will be saved" and that they will not be able to reject that salvation, this is irresistable grace.
Perseverance Of The Saints: This teaching is basically "once saved always saved" with the condition that those who seemed to be saved but fell away were never really saved, or elect, to begin with. This too is applied to Israel by dispensationalists who stat that once Israel became God's chosen people, they will remain God's chosen people for eternity, they will persevere.
It is therefore interesting to me that the majority of those who believe in some form of dispensationalism are not Calvinists, but Arminians. Why is it that the very ideas which these people find to be absolutely repugnant in speaking of a person's relationship to God are completely accepted in speaking of a large group of people's relationship to God? Is there some sort of disconnect there, or am I misunderstanding something?
Alternatively, is there a disconnect here for calvinists who do not accept the teachings of dispensationalism?
Friday, May 02, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The merger seems mostly to be in Arminianism which appeals directly to the will of man and “Calvinist” per se and in a broad since who are mostly Baptist who on the one hand are closet arminians coming BACK around in the Sacraments. Dispensationalism plays well with the idea of faith that is “ginned” up and “proving itself”, like a mobster to the mob boss proving and gaining his boss’s affirmation/love (faith as a work). Because its heavy on being faithful from within myself as opposed to having faith rise into being from being GIVEN Christ first. Dispensationalism steers very hard away from true suffering and that now not yet suffering tension of true saving faith that both is in tension and rests on the naked Gospel in a passive way. Theirs is an ‘active faith’ as opposed to a ‘passive faith’. Passive faith sees more clearly that things will indeed get worse but the hope and power for faith lay not in ‘ginning up’ something from within me, active faith, but that Word of the Cross (Word, Sacraments) where Christ is GIVEN to you AND THAT is ALL you have.
The appeal to the will by naked Arminians and non-sacramental Calvinist, particularly Baptist IS the driving force behind Dispensationalism, even if the drive is by the “law”, “don’t loose faith or else”, driven by fear of punishment or hope of reward – that’s the ROOT of dispensationalism. Amil. Says, “You may have NOTHING else in the future to hold on to, not even your active faith, in fact it will appear God is gone and abandoned you at the most basic level – YET, HERE IS CHRIST GIVEN TO YOU WORD, WATER, BREAD AND WINE, it may seem to be nothing but it is in fact the Gospel TO and FOR you no matter what all the hell else is breaking loose all around you.
Blessings,
Larry
Funny, I've had the same thought. It seems, according to the dispensational narrative, that national Israel does absolutely nothing in the future to deserve "salvation." Therefore they are just predestined elect...they don't even have to "believe." This would fit well with Calvinism. But traditionally the Calvinists, like most of Christianity, were postmillennial...and somehow they held on to that tradition without buying into Darby's dispensational schtick. But Calvinism and postmillennialism make for odd bedfellows, as do Arminianism and premillennial dispensationalism.
Not sure you understand the five points. The way you describe unconditional election is not the way it was taught to me.
JK
Hello Christian Friends,
I am a huge fan of Luther - esp. his sacramental theology - even though I'm a born and bred reformed boy. I should correct one small misinterpretation of yours in connection with Calvin and "his" so-called "limited atonement". You apply the term "Calvinism" to the religious heirs of the Dutch "Canons of Dort" churches. I thinks it is fair to say that Calvin believed in unlimited atonement; I'll let you judge for yourself after reading the following quotes. There is an infinitely small group of sacramental Calvinists who are so called four-pointers, i.e. they believe in unlimited atonement. They're called Amyraldians. Thought you might find it interesting. Here are the quotes:
John Calvin writes: "He has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term world which He formerly used [God so loved the world]; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet He shows Himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when He invites all men without exception -not merely 'without distinction'- to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life."
Regarding Roman 5:18 ("Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.") Calvin says: "He makes this favor common to all, because it is propoundable to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive Him."
John 3:17 "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."
Regarding this verse John Calvin says: "God is unwilling that we should be overwhelmed with everlasting destruction, because He has appointed His Son to be the salvation of the world." also, "The word 'world' is again repeated, that no man may think himself wholly excluded, if he only keeps the road of faith." We are not to conclude that "the world" that is convicted of unbelief is the world of the elect, are we? (If so, then Satan, the "prince of this world" [v. 11, same context], must be the "prince of the elect.")
Calvin says of this passage that "under the term world are, I think, included not only those who would be truly converted to Christ, but hypocrites and reprobate." CL:the Canons consider this an impossibility:CL
One must keep in mind that earlier in Matthew Jesus had said that few find eternal life (Matt. 7:14) and few are chosen (22:14). But Christ did not say His blood was poured out for a few, but for many. Calvin thus declares of this verse: "By the word 'many' He means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race."
Grace and Peace of God the Father through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,
Crypto-Lutheran (in the name of fairness).
Post a Comment