I don't think it's that easy. I can't cite any sources, but I've been told that 1st century Jews viewed the term 'heart' much more broadly than we Westerners do. To them a 'heart' implied all the desires, will, and unspoken thoughts of a person (plus more, but my memory's not doing too well on this).

I wish I had a citation, but without one I guess I'll need to leave it up to you and others to corroborate or not. In any case, if this meaning of 'heart' to contemporaries of Jesus was so broad, then the hair splitting idea that God changes our desires, but doesn't violate our will doesn't quite hold up.
Greg Vaughn | 09.23.03 - 10:53 am | #

Two comments.

First, all the dispensationalists that I have ever known have all been strong Calvinists: all five points. What ever others issues we might have with that theology, this is not one of them. See Sperry Chafer's volumes on Systematic Theology.

Second, the issues of election and sovereignty dwell in the eternal nature of God. By this we can say that once we have made a choice, it was pre-destined. However, we live in the domain of time and our choices are real. And so as we walk through life, we come to a door with a sign that reads, "All who will may enter." We choose and enter. On the other side, the door reads "Chosen from before the foundation of the world."

It's not a case of either-or but both-and.
Don Curtis | Homepage | 09.23.03 - 11:17 am | #

Don,

Allowing that those dispensationalists who say they are Calvinists actually are, it is nevertheless clear that some famous proponents are overtly non-Calvinistic. Among those would be Pentecost, Walvoord, and most especially Norman Geisler, who solves the problem neatly by labeling classic Calvinists (all of them, not just Gerstner) as hyper Calvinists.

And, setting aside which view is correct, I will point out that the "Calvinist" dispensationalists almost always teach a foreknowledge type view of predestination which is very different from classic Calvinism. As is their view on total depravity and limited atonement. In other words, they say they adhere to the five points, but what they mean by those five points is very different from what I believe they mean.
David Heddle | Homepage | 09.23.03 - 11:43 am | #

Coincidently, I ran across this in Calvin's Institutes just last night. Here's Calvin paraphrasing Augustine:

"Elsewhere he says that will is not taken away by grace, but is changed from evil into good...man is not borne along without any motion of the heart, as if by an outside force; rather he is so affected within that he objeys from the heart." (Institutes, II.iii.14)
Jim | 09.23.03 - 12:49 pm | #

I can neither agree nor disagree about the names you post. I know who Walvoord, Pentecost, and Geisler are, but I not read any of their writings.

But I have read the Systematic Theology of Lewis Sperry Chafer who was one of the founders and first president of Dallas Theological Seminary, the "mecca" of Dispensationalism. That volume contained a good strong message Calvinism, including limited atonement. All of the professors and graduates from DTS that I have personally known have had strong Calvinistic positions. By that I mean they taught that God elected those who are saved, he did not foreknow who would accept him.

I have attended reformed and dispensational churches and have benefited from both. The primary difference between the two groups, as I see it and as you have hilighted in your postings, is more hermeneutical. The reason that this is important regarding a position of Calvinism is that that doctrine comes from passages in which the hermeneutical principles do not clash.
Don Curtis | Homepage | 09.23.03 - 12:52 pm | #

I will be posting more -- it will be interesting to read your comments.
David Heddle | Homepage | 09.23.03 - 1:10 pm | #

You wouldn't believe how long I was mixing up Norman Geisler and John Gerstner (and probably Norman Shepherd as well) ...
Tom Round | 09.24.03 - 2:24 am | #

David, I am certainly not as well informed on different schools of Theology as you are but I have to see that in my limited experience I have to agree with Don Curtis. I have been attending a dispensational church for about 10 years It's teaching on the five points of Calvanism is the same as yours. The only area I see any difference in is eschatology. (I hope I spelled that right) I have never heard The foreknowledge view of predestination proclaimed as anything but an Armenian attempt to reconcile the Biblical teaching with their theology. Just my two cents worth.
David White | Homepage | 09.24.03 - 8:24 am | #

David and Don,

Hold those thoughts, but here is an early tidbit:

In my Ryrie study bible, Uber dispensationalist Ryrie comments on Ephesians 1:5:
God has determined before hand that those who believe in Christ shall be adopted into His family.

This is, at best, a distorted view of unconditional election. Election is God's sovereign will decreeing that the elect will believe in Him, not a cooperation with those who somehow acquire faith.


Things get much, much worse with Norman Geisler.
David Heddle | Homepage | 09.24.03 - 9:43 am | #

"All this is true, but then I sloppily concluded that God "violates" the will when He regenerates."
Could you pleas explain what you mean by violates here?
Bob | 09.24.03 - 11:19 am | #

Hello, All:

I think that the focus on the will and the possible "violation" thereof is misplaced. We should first agree on what Scripture says about God's action in our salvation---then the question of our will can be fitted in.

Jesus said "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out." (John 6:37)

Furthermore "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:44)

Then, in John 10 Jesus says that His sheep hear His voice and they follow Him and they will never perish.

So it seems clear that---
1) God the Father has given some number of folks to the Lord Jesus (they are His sheep)
2) Those sheep will come to Christ
3) God the Father will draw them to Christ---they cannot come if God the Father does not draw them.
4) Those whom the Father draws will not be cast out.
5) They will never perish.
6) Jesus will raise them up on the last day.

This is God's sovereign work of salvation. In the same way that God takes responsibility for what we call birth "defects"---as He told Moses, I am the one who gives sight to some and makes others blind, etc.---so He takes responsibility for calling His sheep.

Does Scripture teach both God's sovereignty in salvation and human responsibility for rejecting the gospel? Yes it does. See the account of Paul and Barnabas at Antioch---it was necessary to proclaim the gospel to you (Jews) first, but since you judge yourselves unworthy of salvation---behold we are turning to the Gentiles---and as many (of the Gentiles) as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

What to do?
1) Preach the Gospel in the assurance that every one whom the Father has given to Christ will believe.
2) Know that every person is responsible before God for His sin---including the sin of unbelief.

How does this fit together?

Beats me. I've only been following our Lord for 50 years.

May the Lord bless us and use us for His glory.

Dave
Dave Holsclaw | 09.29.03 - 6:11 pm | #

David, I just went back and read my Ryrie Study Bible notes on Ephesians 1:5. It seems to me that that verse is speaking specifically about our adoptions as Sons wrt our being predestined. Ryries comment is that those who have accepted Christ are predestined for adoption as sons, which the verse clearly states. In 1:4, which Ryrie unfortunately does not comment on, Paul states that we were chosen before the foundation of the world. Is it possible that Ryrie's comment pertained to our adoption as sons while fully realizing Gods Sovereign unconditional chosing of us as spoken of in verse four? To further bolster my point, in the back of my Study Bible under the heading of the doctrine of salvation he (Ryrie)defines election as "Gods unconditioned and pretemporal choice of those individuals whom he would save". That doesn't sound like the foreknowledge view to me. I have no idea about Norman Geisler though.
David White | Homepage | 09.29.03 - 10:15 pm | #

David White,

It is a possible conclusion, based on that single comment, but I find it curious. Anyone who held the classic Calvinistic view on predestination would have included a comment on v4 to that effect here. And don't forget that Ryrie places the condition that "those who believe" will be adopted without mentioning, as you would expect, that those who believe are the unconditionally elect and nobody else.

As for his definition of election, almost all foreknowledge proponents affirm election and predestination. We pressed, however, they will say things likes like: being outside of time, His foreknowledge was already in His consciousness when he made his decision (before the foundations of time).

I guess I concede that this single comment of Ryrie's only "smells" like it comes from a proponent of the foreknowledge view. Other writings by Rryie indicate that he believes that election applies to classes of people (believers) not individuals.
David Heddle | Homepage | 10.01.03 - 6:16 am | #

Don, David White,

Dallas Theological Seminary most certainly does not teach five-point Calvinism. I graduated from Tim (Left Behind) LaHaye's college, and our Bible profs and the successor pastor, David Jeremiah, were Dallas men. The Bible majors all had dreams of pursuing their Master's degrees at DTS. Then I attended a church in CO that adheres to Dallas theology, and the same theology was present. Dallas teaches a form of Christmas Calvinism (No "L") that emphasizes eternal security but is a little hazy on how everything else comes together. Tim LaHaye said that Dave Hunt's "What Love is This?: Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God" travesty "may well be the most important book written in the 21st century." That pretty much sums it up.
Randy Brandt | Homepage | 10.07.03 - 1:57 pm | #