Calvin the Soulwinner - What He Said

Thank you for your reply, grame.

The purpose of the article was to address a particular flawed claim that is often levied against those who in general would be called "Calvinists." Within the Body of Christ there are different views and understandings on many doctrines under the umbrella of Christian theology, and quite often we all find ourselves falling under the label(s) of those systems that represent the distinctive differences between us. Quite often, those distinctives are lumped under a generalized term, often the name of an individual whose writings or teachings most accurately reflected those distinct views, and thus it is an all too common (and fallacious) practice to attack that individual as a means of undermining the distinctives they represent rather than simply dealing with the distinctives themselves.

As was repeatedly stated in this thread, Calvinists do not hold John Calvin to be infallible or even authoritative. Having participated in these threads for a good many years, I can tell you that the majority of the discussions concerning "Calvinism" have been focused on the Scriptures themselves and the distinctives relevant to the term as commonly used. Calvin's works are never quoted authoritatively except in cases where they ARE authoritative: namely, discussions of what Calvin in particular and Genevan Reformers in general believed and practiced.

My point is that I as a Calvinist only identify myself as such secondarily to my identification as a Christian, and only insofar as discussions related to the distinctives between Calvinism or Reformed theology and other paradigms or views are concerned. There is a time and place where threads and discussions such as this one are appropriate. I would much prefer to focus the bulk of discussion on the Scriptures themselves, but occasionally it is useful to discuss aspects of Christian history, including the actual views of such an influential figure as John Calvin.

Again, thanks for taking the time to respond.

Historic premillennialism and chiliasm (a form of pre-mil) both rejected two very distinct qualities of dispensationalism:

Firstly, historic pre-millennial eschatology operated within a theological system similar (and often the same) as covenant theology. The big defining factor (and Spurgeon is a great example of this) is that historic pre-mil rejects outright a definite distinction between the Church and Israel. This is especially true in that there was never, in any of the early pre-millennialism, a focus on national Israel nor an expectation of a restoration of national Israel. To the historic pre-millennial, the relationship of Israel and the church is exactly like the amillennial view. This is why C.H. Spurgeon rejected dispensationalism vehemently.

Secondly, as a detail of the end-times, historic pre-millennialism never taught a rapture of believers to leave the rest to suffer tribulation. In fact, it expected that all would experience tribulation followed by Christ's return, then a "Golden Age" of a literal 1000 year rule of Christ on earth, followed by the Last Judgement. Historic pre-mil is decidedly post-tribulational and treats the rapture very similarly to how an a-mil treats the rapture - that is that the rapture is part of the Second (and final) Coming of Christ (historic pre-mil says 1000 years of reign on earth after that event, a-mil says that the 1000 will be over when the event happens and the Judgement will immediately follow).

This is the reason that a post-mil or an a-mil will have no problem with an historic pre-mil (even if they don't agree on the details of the Final Things) in the same way that an a-mil will have no problem with a post-mil. The reason being that none believe the other have an over realized eschatology that seriously and negatively affects their ecclesiology.

Pinging Lee N. to see if their is anything else to offer to further clarify.

Firstly, historic pre-millennial eschatology operated within a theological system similar (and often the same) as covenant theology.

I can't find any indication of Covenant Theology prior to Origen. The inherent problem with Covenant Theology is it requires Romans 9-11 to be twisted all out of shape. It's rise in popularity coincided with the emergence of a dominant state church not a clear reading of Scripture.

Secondly, as a detail of the end-times, historic pre-millennialism never taught a rapture of believers to leave the rest to suffer tribulation.

I believe both Justin Martyr and Ireaneus thought there were dispensations and believed in a premillenial rapture based on their reading of Scripture.

I can't find any indication of Covenant Theology prior to Origen.

Perhaps, but I did say similar. The defining point being that there is no sharp distinction made between the Church and Israel. In fact, some might call the early pre-millennialists adherents to Replacement Theology:

If, therefore, God proclaimed a new covenant which was to be instituted, and this for a light of the nations, we see and are persuaded that men approach God, leaving their idols and other unrighteousness, through the name of Him who was crucified, Jesus Christ, and abide by their confession even unto death, and maintain piety. Moreover, by the works and by the attendant miracles, it is possible for all to understand that He is the new law, and the new covenant, and the expectation of those who out of every people wait for the good things of God. For the true spiritual Israel, and descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham (who in uncircumcision was approved of and blessed by God on account of his faith, and called the father of many nations), are we who have been led to God through this crucified Christ, as shall be demonstrated while we proceed. (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. XI - this is how he closes the chapter, I recommend further reading)

>
I believe both Justin Martyr and Ireaneus thought there were dispensations...

I hope so, otherwise it would be impossible to explain the different administrations of the God's Grace through the various covenants made in the Old Testament.

There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations. (Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch.7, Para. 6)

You would be hard pressed to show that the early understanding dispensations is at all comparable to modern Dispensationalism. Given Justin Martyr's position on "true spiritual Israel," I'm pretty sure his dispensations would not have the same eschatological effect as yours.

believed in a premillenial rapture based on their reading of Scripture

Yeah, but like I said, they did not teach the rapture as a separate event from the Second Coming. AND, they were decidedly post-trib. (See Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. CX and Ireaneus' Against Heresies, Book 5, Ch. 26 - I'm out of time, sorry).

The defining point being that there is no sharp distinction made between the Church and Israel. In fact, some might call the early pre-millennialists adherents to Replacement Theology:

They would be wrong.

If we use Scripture as the basis of our discussion and not historical interpretations that benefited Rome you can see there are distinctions between the Body of Christ and Israel. Look at how The Way existed prior to Paul and how Christianity existed after Paul. Israel has been partially blinded until the fullness of the Gentiles is brought in, but after that God will open their eyes.

IOW, if God is not done with Israel Christians can't have replaced them.

You would be hard pressed to show that the early understanding dispensations is at all comparable to modern Dispensationalism.

That may be, my interest is in what Scripture reveals and teaches. Covenant theology fails on several counts. It has to twist Scripture beyond recognition to reconcile Romans 9-11 and in Revelation I don't see the Church in chapters 4-19.

If we use Scripture as the basis of our discussion and not historical interpretations that benefited Rome you can see there are distinctions between the Body of Christ and Israel.

Ummmm... two things:

Firstly, I wasn't making an argument against dispensationalism. I could, but I wasn't. What I was showing was that your conflation of historic pre-millennialism with dispensationalism was incorrect. You said:

It should be pointed out that during the Apostolic Era and the century following premillenialism (dispensationalism) was a view held by many

I explained that that conflation was incorrect. You said:I can't find any indication of Covenant Theology prior to Origen. The inherent problem with Covenant Theology is it requires Romans 9-11 to be twisted all out of shape...

I believe both Justin Martyr and Ireaneus thought there were dispensations and believed in a premillenial rapture...
I showed that an attempt to fit Justin Martyr's and Ireaneus' pre-milliannialism into dispensationalism was incorrect - specifically by showing that Justin Martyr's view of the Church was directly at odds with interpretation that defines dispensationalism.

Secondly, don't think for a minute that I would support any sort of Papist view. In fact, just the opposite. Besides, your history would be all wrong. The preeminence of any bishop wasn't an issue at the time of Justin Martyr. The preeminence of Rome wasn't an issue until the time of the Nicene council, and Roman papal authority over the other bishops wasn't an issue until some seventy years after that. So, Justin Martyr's understanding of the "true spiritual Israel" doesn't even play a role.

That may be, my interest is in what Scripture reveals and teaches. Covenant theology fails on several counts. It has to twist Scripture beyond recognition to reconcile Romans 9-11 and in Revelation I don't see the Church in chapters 4-19.

Yeah, yeah whatever. Just to make this clear, I'm not arguing this here, and neither were you. You changed the bar. You made a specious claim based on a poor understanding of history. All I was attempting to do was correct your error concerning the historical church. You can disagree with historical premillennialism, that's fine, but it's at the very least an error and at worst dishonest to conflate it with dispensationalism.

You know, when I've learned that I was incorrect about something - that is, when I have been shown to be in error about something - say a misinformed claim about the position of 2nd century Christians - I thank the brother or sister that corrected my error, and I discontinue that error - lest I intentionally make dishonest and fallacious arguments.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.