Is Dispensationalism a Cult?

[Jack Hampton]

[Chip Van Emmerik] What I was wondering is how you understand Jesus to have died on behalf of those who never receive Him as Savior - taste death for every man? IOW, what does the verse mean when it says that Jesus tasted death on behalf of every man, particularly in relation to those who never get saved?

The events in Egypt when the passover lambs were killed provides the answer.

The passover lamb was killed on behalf of all those in a family. But until the blood of that passover lamb was sprinkled on the doorposts of their home through faith no one received any benefit from that death. The Lord Jesus tasted death on behalf of every men but it is not until a person believes the gospel that he receives the benefits of that death.

Sweet.

Jack, this is a personal commendation. Though I found disagreement with you on another matter and maybe more, it is never my assumption that this means I will not find agreement on other matters. Your exegesis certainly cannot be faulted here so far and your demand that others respond, themselves, with their arguments here is not only reasonable expected when one interacts on a thread, particularly when making assertions and posturing as a defendant of an argument contrary to the one being made.

And you have done a marvelous job, not just here but in another thread, in dealing with one of the many dysfunctions and failings of Calvinism when it faces elementary hermeneutics or advanced exegesis because its varying tenets simply cannot be sustained (though volumes have been published hoping to do so). I appreciate your candor and your pursuit.

But to this comment right here. Notice something missing? That’s right, the Calvinist response that you are wrong and the argument to support it. The Passover Lamb could not be a better theological reference. And I realize that it is not the only one, but an excellent portion of Scripture in which to point to order to observe the dynamic of tasting death for all yet not receiving its benefits if one did not apply it to their doorpost just as our rescue from death, our salvation, is obtained by faith though he, our Lord, tasted death for all.

Keep up the good work and I appreciate that where you do not agree with the Doctrinal Statement of SI you have not forced any arguments to the contrary resulting in your being able to continue posting. I realize the post was somewhat personal, so to the powers that be, forgive me, but I don’t imagine commendations are strictly forbidden seeing I have read many, many commendations contained within comments.

is

[Jack Hampton] In a book entitled Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth Calvinst author John H. Gerstner accuses dispensationalism of departing from the truth in its doctrine of salvation. He then says, “To depart from the essential salvation pattern is inevitably to depart from Christianity. We define a cult as a religion which claims to be Christian while emptying Christianity of that which is essential to it” (John H. Gerstner, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth [Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, Second Edition, 2000] , 169).

This book is endorsed by many of the leading Calvinists of our day so they too must believe that Dispensationalism is a cult. One of the major disagreements is on the subject of “regeneration.”

SNIP

My bold and italics.

So the question to my mind which being asked is not what is “the essential salvation pattern.” The question is if I disagree with Dr. Gerstner, am I a cultist.

Sorry Jack, I just don’t allow my blood pressure to rise when a former CTer of all people accuses DTers of being cult.

James

With regret, I fear I must stop being diplomatic about this issue.

To my Reformed brethren, the issue isn’t soteriology. It is “are DTs a cult?”

17th century European history is an interest. While Baptists in 16xx Germany weren’t being judicial killed for their faith, they also weren’t allowed residency in certain areas. Without residency, they could be tossed out in the middle of winter. Reformed commentators need to remember the “cult” argument is what suported the actions in the previous sentence.

Further if we are cultists, are we really children of God? Are we truly saved? Those are the questions you need to address.

Personally, I don’t think it is possible to take a supernatural and miraculous work of God like salvation, slap it down on a steel table, perform an autopsy and declare our findings as unassailable. No matter how much I study and often I meditate, my mind just about explodes as I consider regeneration, sanctification, imputation, justification, faith, grace, mercy, justice- all wrapped up in this thing we call ‘salvation’.

IMO, dispensationalism is a way of attempting to rightly divide the Word of Truth, but unless taken to unhealthy extremes, it in no way affects the basic Gospel message or the work of the Spirit in someone’s life to produce Godly fruit. Folks can get saved and grow in grace without ever knowing whether or not the person that led them to the Lord and discipled them is a dispy or a Calvinist or Irish. So “No”- dispensationalism is not a cult, and someone saying so doesn’t make it so, not to mention that Mr. Gerstner invented his own definition of ‘cult’ for his premise. Foul ball.

with Susan. I compare the order of Salvation with quantum physics. I know what’s all involved but after a certain point my human words fail to describe it. We must needs remember God exists outside time. So, while there is an order it can (many times) occur so fast it is unmeasurable by man. I liken it to a parallel circuit.

Gerstner is very well-written and is most certainly now more covenental than ever before. ;^} However, he was wrong when he called DT a cult. While I agree with the man much more than I disagree, he saw a trend in DT towards semi-pelageanism and erroneously accused all of DT of all being cultic. (Whomever said above that DT is mainly an eschatological and ecclesiastical construct was correct although with unfortunate tentacles that affect most major doctrines negatively.) Although wrong in their theology, they are clearly not automatically semi-pelagean.

That said, those who believe that man has the power to believe without God first regenerating him cause a rift in Scripture that cannot be united. The reader is left to either believe that contradictions exist or that “it’s all just beyond us.” But God has provided His Word in such a way that it is comprehendable, unified and logical. As compared with other theological constructs, only the CT position unifies the Scriptures. All others leave gaping contradictions. The worst that can be said about CT by an honest student is that it leaves fewer problems to resolve than does the Arminian, non-CT, or semi-pelagean theologies.

On top of that, DT is unscriptural. :O

Thanks Dennis. That was extremely helpful.

As compared with other theological constructs, only the CT position unifies the Scriptures.

I found this to be extremely helpful. Now I can just put down my bible and open up a CT systematic theology book to know what I need to superimpose upon the Scripture. After all, the primary goal of Scripture is to unify it under covenants not mentioned in scripture. Obviously the importance of those unifying covenants is just so high, the authors of scripture never bothered to waste ink explaining them. It took men a millenia and a half to find it in the white portions of the pages of scripture. You are on to something here. I wonder what else I will learn from the white portions. I suppose the sky is the limit in that endeavor.

Tell me Dennis, what was Adam going to get for not eating the fruit and how long did he have to prove himself? I know the scriptures don’t answer that, but you are a CTer, so you are smart enough to not need the scriptures for that answer.

The chicago way lives.

[Dennis Clemons] Gerstner is very well-written and is most certainly now more covenental than ever before. ;^} However, he was wrong when he called DT a cult. While I agree with the man much more than I disagree, he saw a trend in DT towards semi-pelageanism and erroneously accused all of DT of all being cultic. (Whomever said above that DT is mainly an eschatological and ecclesiastical construct was correct although with unfortunate tentacles that affect most major doctrines negatively.) Although wrong in their theology, they are clearly not automatically semi-pelagean.SNIP

So far, this is the only comment besides mine that addresses the crux of the OP.

[Dennis Clemons] The worst that can be said about CT by an honest student is that it leaves fewer problems to resolve than does the Arminian, non-CT, or semi-pelagean theologies.

So if I don’t believe CT “leaves fewer problems to resolve than does” other theologies, I’m not being an honest student?

That’s good to know.

Rob, the premise of the OP is incorrect.

The Dispensationalist view on this subject is the correct view because it is based on what the Scriptures actually say. The Calvinist view is based on a denial of what John wrote.

There is no such thing as the Dispensationalist view on the subject. Further, calvinists don’t even all agree on it. I won’t interact with the OP other than to say it demonstrates a real ignorance of what people really believe. I am sure he read a book or something about this and got all fired up.

[James K] Rob, the premise of the OP is incorrect.

The Dispensationalist view on this subject is the correct view because it is based on what the Scriptures actually say. The Calvinist view is based on a denial of what John wrote.

There is no such thing as the Dispensationalist view on the subject. Further, Calvinists don’t even all agree on it. I won’t interact with the OP other than to say it demonstrates a real ignorance of what people really believe. I am sure he read a book or something about this and got all fired up.

To me, the premise of the OP is the concern over the labeling of DTers as cultists. Anything beyond the labeling is better handled in another thread. I guess I spend too much time dealing with matter in 163x Germany when and where religious debates were a blood sport.

[Jack Hampton]

[Rob Fall] So far, this is the only comment besides mine that addresses the crux of the OP.

Rob,

Earlier I said the following and I was wondering if you had any comments on what I said:

I agree with the thoughts which you express. To answer one of your questions, most people say that those in a cult are not saved. Gerstner did not address this qustion in his book. But one sign of a true cult is their teaching that they have a monopoly on the truth and because of this everyone else is going straight to hell.

It is strange that much of Gerstner’s criticism is against other Calvinists, Calvinists who are not five point. These men who are criticized teach salvation by grace through faith alone but yet they are called a cult. That being the case then according to Gerstner’s standards then practically all persuasions who differ from Five Point Calvinism are cults. Gerstner’s teaching on this is more in line with the teachings of cults than is those who he accuses of being a cult.

I think I need to be charitable of some one who’s home with the Lord. Back in the day, when a preacher got on a roll and made a statement as curious as this one it was said, “Brother XYZ was just waxing evangelisticly.”

Jack, that may be so, but it would demonstrate how ignorant Gerstner really was. He saw dispensationalism as a monolithic movement as though they all agree on all his points of criticism. Since he couldn’t figure out what it really was, his calling it a cult isn’t worth any time, IMHBAO.

[James K] Jack, that may be so, but it would demonstrate how ignorant Gerstner really was. He saw dispensationalism as a monolithic movement as though they all agree on all his points of criticism. Since he couldn’t figure out what it really was, his calling it a cult isn’t worth any time, IMHBAO.

However, “how ignorant Gerstner really was” wasn’t addressed in most of the posts above. If it had been adressed, this thread wouldn’t be 70+ posts long.