Calvinistic dispensationalists claming not to be Calvinist?

[anime4christ]

To return the topic.

Calvinistic dispensationalists claming not to be Calvinist?

John Nelson Darby, the father of dispensationalism was a Calvinist, so you could say that dispensationalism came out of Calvinism, but what sort, I wouldn't like to say.

Yeah, I would say these guys then are knocking their own system without knowing it. They just happen to disagree with Calvin on Covenant Theology.

[John81]

Yeah, I would say these guys then are knocking their own system without knowing it. They just happen to disagree with Calvin on Covenant Theology.

If anyone is interested and knows enough about the subject, I would be interested in a thread on Covenant Theology. Are all in agreement with what Covenant Theology is or are there difffering groups within this? I know a little about CT but I would like to have a better understanding of what CT really believes and what they don't believe.

[Invicta]

If anyone is interested and knows enough about the subject, I would be interested in a thread on Covenant Theology. Are all in agreement with what Covenant Theology is or are there difffering groups within this? I know a little about CT but I would like to have a better understanding of what CT really believes and what they don't believe.

I don't know, but Covenanter should know.

[anime4christ]

If anyone is interested and knows enough about the subject, I would be interested in a thread on Covenant Theology. Are all in agreement with what Covenant Theology is or are there difffering groups within this? I know a little about CT but I would like to have a better understanding of what CT really believes and what they don't believe.

I'm not an expert on the subject, but I lean somewhere between Covenant Theology and New Covenant Theology, but I don't adhere strictly to any of the three systems (dispensationalism being the third and the furthest which I am from). Unlike most CT and NCT people, I am premillennial though.

[John81]

I'm not an expert on the subject, but I lean somewhere between Covenant Theology and New Covenant Theology, but I don't adhere strictly to any of the three systems (dispensationalism being the third and the furthest which I am from). Unlike most CT and NCT people, I am premillennial though.

What's the difference between Covenant Theology and New Covenant Theology? I don't know if I've heard of the new one or not.

Did Andrew Murray believe in Covenant Theology?

[Wilchbla]

To return the topic.

Calvinistic dispensationalists claming not to be Calvinist?

John Nelson Darby, the father of dispensationalism was a Calvinist, so you could say that dispensationalism came out of Calvinism, but what sort, I wouldn't like to say.

Your logic is faulty here. Just because Darby was a Calvinist doesn't mean dispensationalism is a Calvinist doctrine or "came out" of Calvism. Anyone and everyone knows that Calvin's Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism are not compatable because of the Calvinists belief in Replacement Theology.

Also, it's a misnomer to say that Darby was the "father of dispensationalism". There were others that taught it before him which when I get around to it I'll post the list. Where Darby is important is that he's the first to organize it all in a sytematic form. So in that sense I guess you could say he's the "father".

[Wilchbla]

What's the difference between Covenant Theology and New Covenant Theology? I don't know if I've heard of the new one or not.

Did Andrew Murray believe in Covenant Theology?

New Covenant doesn't believe that the OT is for the church and it believes in soul-winning. Coral Ridge Presbyterian would be an example of this. The failure of setting up a literal kingdom of God on earth like Calvin tried in Geneva and the Puritans tried in New England lead to a revision of Covenant Theology.

[anime4christ]

What's the difference between Covenant Theology and New Covenant Theology? I don't know if I've heard of the new one or not.

Did Andrew Murray believe in Covenant Theology?

New Covenant doesn't believe that the OT is for the church and it believes in soul-winning. Coral Ridge Presbyterian would be an example of this. The failure of setting up a literal kingdom of God on earth like Calvin tried in Geneva and the Puritans tried in New England lead to a revision of Covenant Theology.

Actually, CT and NCT are completely different systems. NCT is not a revision of CT at all. NCT looks more at the individual covenants written about in the Bible instead of the implied covenants in CT (which I do believe are there, though I'm not sure I would call them covenants since they aren't called so in the Bible). Also, NCT doesn't adhere to replacement theology but does acknowledge that some places in the Bible talking about Israel are talking about spiritual Israel instead of ethnic Israel. Edited August 12, 2010 by anime4christ

[anime4christ]

Here's a comparison of the three systems: http://www.angelfire.com/ca/DeafPreterist/compare.html
I don't adhere strictly to any of them.

[Wilchbla]

Actually, CT and NCT are completely different systems. NCT is not a revision of CT at all. NCT looks more at the individual covenants written about in the Bible instead of the implied covenants in CT (which I do believe are there, though I'm not sure I would call them covenants since they aren't called so in the Bible). Also, NCT doesn't adhere to replacement theology but does acknowledge that some places in the Bible talking about Israel are talking about spiritual Israel instead of ethnic Israel.

Yes, "spiritual Israel" in their eyes are Christians. They still reject the biblical teaching of the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants and their literal fulfillment. Anotherwards, there will be no future kingdom of heaven in Israel. Once a Jew (the remnant) gets saved they cease to be Jews and become part of the church. Though this man be true now in a sense this doesn't preclude the future restoration of the kingdom of Israel. Therefore what they teach is still a form of replacement theology.

Yes, it is a revision because it "came out" of traditonal Covenant theology. Edited August 12, 2010 by Wilchbla

[Invicta]

New Covenant doesn't believe that the OT is for the church and it believes in soul-winning. Coral Ridge Presbyterian would be an example of this. The failure of setting up a literal kingdom of God on earth like Calvin tried in Geneva and the Puritans tried in New England lead to a revision of Covenant Theology.

In England, there were those at the time of the revolution who tried to set up the kingdom. they were call fifth monarchists, Cromwell seemed to have sympathy with them but then saw it was wrong and rejected their teaching, an the leaders rebelled against him, callin him "the little horn." Cromwell put the leaders into prison on the I.O.W, Carisbrooke Castle and the tower, but offered them freedom if they rejected the teaching. When the monarchy was restored and the did the same against Charles IInd, they were hung, drawn and quartered.

[Invicta]

Here's a comparison of the three systems: http://www.angelfire.com/ca/DeafPreterist/compare.html
I don't adhere strictly to any of them.

I don't understand most of these.

As far as I understand, there are three systems.

Historicism. A teaching held by the church from the earliest times. From about 1200 it recognized the papacy as the antichrist and was included in all the great confessions of faith.

Preterism. When the above teaching was causing grief to the Papacy, they invented this and the following system, to deflect the teaching of the reformers and Baptists,

Futureism. Again invented by Rome. There are various forms of this including Newtonism and Darbyism. Newto considered Darby a Roman agent. "I never heard anything in his teaching that a Papist might not teach."

I have just been reading a book by Philip Mauro, written about 1923. In it he says that there were people alive than who could remember when there was no dispensationalism. That must have been in the US, as Darbyism was founded earlier in Darby's Plymouth Brethren. Actually the PB (My wife used to be a Brethren and she called it Peeb) seemed to have been founded by B. W. Newton, who opposed Darby's teaching.

In Ireland Lady Powerscourt held meetings on Prophecy. In Albury, London, the Irvingites held similar meetings. Lady Powersscourt attended the Irvingite meetings and brought their teaching to Ireland and the Brethren. In the beginning only the pre-tribulation rapture was taught, Darby invented all the dispensationist stuff. Of course it needed bible to teach this and the US came up trumps with Cyrus Scofield, an adulterer, crooked lawyer and convicted fraud.

There have been attempts to show that some early writers voiced views that seemed to teach a pre tribulation rapture, but they have actually been historicists.

[Invicta]

I don't understand most of these.

As far as I understand, there are three systems.

Historicism. A teaching held by the church from the earliest times. From about 1200 it recognized the papacy as the antichrist and was included in all the great confessions of faith.

Preterism. When the above teaching was causing grief to the Papacy, they invented Preterism and the following system, to deflect the teaching of the reformers and Baptists,

Futurism. Again invented by Rome. There are various forms of this including Newtonism and Darbyism. Newto considered Darby a Roman agent. "I never heard anything in his teaching that a Papist might not teach."

I have just been reading a book by Philip Mauro, written about 1923. In it he says that there were people alive than who could remember when there was no dispensationalism. That must have been in the US, as Darbyism was founded earlier in Darby's Plymouth Brethren. Actually the PB (My wife used to be a Brethren and she called it Peeb) seemed to have been founded by B. W. Newton, who opposed Darby's teaching, but Darby ejected him and he became a Baptist..

In Ireland Lady Powerscourt held meetings on Prophecy. In Albury, London, the Irvingites held similar meetings. Lady Powersscourt attended the Irvingite meetings and brought their teaching to Ireland and the Brethren. In the beginning only the pre-tribulation rapture was taught, Darby invented all the dispensationist stuff. Of course it needed a new bible to teach this and the US came up trumps with Cyrus Scofield, an adulterer, crooked lawyer and convicted fraud.

There have been attempts to show that some early writers voiced views that seemed to teach a pre tribulation rapture, but they have actually been historicists.

[John81]

I don't understand most of these.

As far as I understand, there are three systems.

Historicism. A teaching held by the church from the earliest times. From about 1200 it recognized the papacy as the antichrist and was included in all the great confessions of faith.

Preterism. When the above teaching was causing grief to the Papacy, they invented this and the following system, to deflect the teaching of the reformers and Baptists,

Futureism. Again invented by Rome. There are various forms of this including Newtonism and Darbyism. Newto considered Darby a Roman agent. "I never heard anything in his teaching that a Papist might not teach."

I have just been reading a book by Philip Mauro, written about 1923. In it he says that there were people alive than who could remember when there was no dispensationalism. That must have been in the US, as Darbyism was founded earlier in Darby's Plymouth Brethren. Actually the PB (My wife used to be a Brethren and she called it Peeb) seemed to have been founded by B. W. Newton, who opposed Darby's teaching.

In Ireland Lady Powerscourt held meetings on Prophecy. In Albury, London, the Irvingites held similar meetings. Lady Powersscourt attended the Irvingite meetings and brought their teaching to Ireland and the Brethren. In the beginning only the pre-tribulation rapture was taught, Darby invented all the dispensationist stuff. Of course it needed bible to teach this and the US came up trumps with Cyrus Scofield, an adulterer, crooked lawyer and convicted fraud.

There have been attempts to show that some early writers voiced views that seemed to teach a pre tribulation rapture, but they have actually been historicists.

Some of this I'm familiar with, some not so much. Do you have any more to go with this, as in background and such? Do you have links which might show how this is provable?

I know of some of the prOBlems with C. I. Scofield and I've never understood why so many IFBs carry a Bible with his name when he had so many prOBlems, including some unscriptural ideas he put into his commentaries.

[Invicta]

No I don't have any links, although I have read many books over the years. The only book I have on the subject is "The Origin of the Brethren" by Harold Rowden, actually a Brethren member. From that it is easy to see how the teaching came from their early interation with Irving and the Irvingites, in fact some of the early Brethren became Irvingite churches.

I have a number of books on Irving, some pro and some not. It is easy to see how he got the teaching from translating the Book The Coming of The Messiah in Power and Glory by Juan Josephat ben Ezra, a converted Jew. Actually a Jesuit priest called Lacunza. An Irvingite girl in Scotland, Mary McDonald picked up some of his teaching and so did some of his prophets in London, including ROBert Baxter, a lawyer from Doncaster, who shortly after, left the movement due to their teachings on the Humanity of Christ, and rejected his former teaching.