WHY BE A REFORMED/CALVINISTIC, EVANGELICAL, DISPENSATIONALIST? This is a question that I have been asked on numerous occasions, even as of recent. First, let me say quickly that I am not an antagonist towards those who are a little less Calvinistic than I am. I am opposed to Open Theism as being an Unorthodox and heretical view. But I am not one who would classify the less Calvinistic expressions of the faith automatically as a departure from the gospel if such expressions are accurate with the doctrine of justification by faith alone. In fact, some theologians who I greatly admire are a little less Calvinistic than I am (dispensationalists like Dr. Paige Patterson, Dr. Norm Geisler, and Dr. William Luck). I have learned so much from those three Dispensationalists that I cannot but praise God for them. Each of them are dedicated to historic Orthodoxy and yet each of them have a different level of Calvinistic emphasis. I myself would even depart company from some who are too Calvinistic, i.e. Cold Calvinists who do not pray for the lost to be saved or who deny that Christ loves each and every person in the human race. There are degrees within the Calvinistic continuum. Dr. W.A. Criswell, a Calvinistic, Evangelical, Dispensationalist would be a good 20th century representative of the persuasion I am presenting here. Dr. Danny Akin, also a Calvinistic Dispensationalist, would be a good 21st century representative of this persuasion being presented. But, secondly, why am I comfortable with these three descriptive terms? I will start with the term Reformed/Calvinistic. (1) There are some key markers of the Reformed faith I find to be biblical. These five classical markers, (a) scripture alone, (b) Christ alone, (c) faith alone, (d) grace alone, and (e) to Gods glory alone I find to be healthy principles for a Christ honoring life and theological model. (2) I find the Bible teaches with great emphasis the omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence of God in all areas (see Daniel 4:34-35 and Eph. 1:11). Dr. Tommy Ice, professor of Systematic Theology at Tyndale Theological Seminary gives a good word on this subject when he says: Dispensationalism was developed and spread during its first 100 years by those within a Reformed, Calvinistic tradition. . . .Dispensationalism was birthed within the biblical mindset of a clear theocentric theology and by those who held strongly to soteriological Calvinism. The purpose of this article is to remind modern Dispensationalists and Calvinists of the historical roots of Dispensationalism. It is precisely because Dispensationalism has penetrated almost every form of Protestantism that many today may be surprised to learn of its heritage. In our day of Postmodern irrationalism, where it is considered a virtue to NOT connect the dots of ones theology, we need to be reminded that the theology of the Bible is a seamless garment. It all hangs together. If one starts pulling at a single thread, the whole cloth is in danger of unraveling. I personally think that if systematic Dispensationalism is rightly understood then it still logically makes sense only within a theocentric and soteriologically Calvinists theology. After all, Dispensationalism teaches that it is GOD who is ruling His household, as administered through the various dispensations of history. However, the reality is that Dispensationalism, or elements of Dispensationalism (i.e., pretribulationism, futurism, etc.), have been disseminated throughout a wide diversity of Protestant traditions. Dispensationalism is best seen as a system of theology that sees views God as the Sovereign ruler of heaven and earth; man as a rebellious vice-regent (along with some angels); Jesus Christ is the hero of history as He is saves some by His Grace; history as a lesson in the outworking of Gods glory being displayed to both heaven and earth. Dispensationalism is a theology that I believe is properly derived from biblical study and lets God be God (raptureready/featured/ice/TheCalvinisticHeritageofDispensationalism.html ) Now, as to the term Evangelical. Why use that term and not the term fundamentalist. I affirm without hesitation that the gospel is of utmost importance to all that we do (Proverbs 11:30; Matthew 28:18-20). I find that the urgency of the gospel is of paramount importance to all else. Evangelism, discipleship, and praying others into the Kingdom of God are absolutely vital for a healthy life in Christ. In light of that too, I am decisively in opposition to any formulation or doctrinal construct of Calvinism that curtails the red-hot passion for missions by proclamation of Christs death for all of humanity (Hebrews 2:9; 1 John 2:2). Though Calvinistic, I am a firm believer that any doctrinal system that does not make the heart hot for the lost is lacking in something somewhere in a holistic understanding of Scripture. Furthermore, I am an Evangelical because I embrace the ranking of doctrines in what has sometimes been called a Theological Triage, i.e. some doctrines are more important than other doctrines (see Matt. 2234-40; 23:23; 1 Cor. 13:13; Gal. 5:6). Clearly love (among other truths) stands as a supreme truth. Also, misunderstanding about who Christ Jesus is has more drastic ramifications eternally than if one misunderstands the timing of the rapture and/or millennial kingdom. Some, who often claim to be fundamentalists, make each and every doctrine of equal weight and importance, which in the end seems to cause numerous divisions and schisms in the body of Christ. Lastly, as to the term Dispensational. I clearly find the three aspects that Ryrie taught us to be biblical: (A) Normal/Plain hermeneutics, (B) Distinct plan and role for both Israel and the Body of Christ where God shall fulfill his promises to both groups, and (C) the ultimate theme of Scripture is Gods glory. I do not see how anyone can read their Bible and be totally honest with it when they alter the promises God made to the ethnic nation Israel. God sovereignly elected the nation and that election cannot be altered or changed. Additionally, I do not see how we can interpret the OT and NT texts on the kingdom of Christ with an allegorical interpretive method without severe consequences to the intended meaning of the biblical authors. If that method were used on other doctrines it would destroy key historic doctrines that all Orthodox believers affirm (examine the last half of the book of Ezekiel, Zechariah 14; Romans 10-11, and Revelation 21-22). Clearly the promises made by God to Abraham in Genesis 12, 15, and 17 have yet to be fulfilled as promised. And the NT states these covenants and promises are still for the Jewish people (Rom. 3:1-2; 9:1-5; 11:25-29). Therefore, in summary I find myself comfortable with these descriptive terms to clarify how I function within the overall Christian faith. Of course, even within this persuasion of thought I still find that there exists degrees of variation and nuances of how best to articulate each element of it. Luther and Calvin did not affirm what is often labeled today as Limited Atonement. They both affirmed an atonement that benefited more than just the elect. That issue was even hotly debated at the Synod of Dort with three distinct views of the atonement present among the convention. Two of the three groups thought the atonement extended beyond the elect and the Synod never resolved that tension. That is to be expected and in a sense can be healthy for the body of Christ as each member helps to sharpen another. But overall, and for simplistic purposes to define a thrust of thought, I believe the sovereignty of God (Reformed element), the paramount importance of an urgent proclamation of the love of Christ in the gospel (Evangelical element), and the plain meaning of Scripture that reveals Gods plan for Israel and the body of Christ (Dispensational element) gives a basic and healthy summary of biblical data from Genesis to Revelation. Dr. Sherlin
Posted on: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 15:42:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015