Prequel to “Responding to Dispensationalism”, Installation #16: Historical Definitions

In the Reformed, and even in the non-Reformed segments of Christian scholarship which are Calvinistic, most of us are jealous to defend the historical definition of Calvinism as it is applied to those topics of debate related to it today; and I use the word debate informally here. Those of us who have embraced the theology and anthropology proclaimed by the Reformers, laid out in the Synod of Dort, and reiterated in the subsequent confessions of Presbyterianism and historic Baptist theology, are ready to remind those with whom we debate the issues of God’s sovereignty over the human will and salvation, that the term Calvinism has a definite and absolute meaning which is rooted in history and can be objectively observed and either adopted or rejected in the context of contemporary theological debates. This is necessary because there are some who would wrongly attempt to adopt the title of Calvinist or Calvinism (due to motivations beyond my knowledge) by distorting the historical definition of the terms and applying only a warped shell of their proper meaning. One such person in this generation is Norm Geisler, co-founder of Southern Evangelical Seminary. I don’t doubt that Dr. Geisler has made many great contributions to the Church, but his book, Chosen but Free is not one such contribution; in it he calls himself a “moderate Calvinist” (not a term first applied by Dr. Geisler), but is only able to do so by taking the five points commonly and historically associated with Calvinism and redefining each of them to suit his palate. Not only is this a fallacious engagement, but it is confusing and does nothing to promote truth and edification among the audiences of these debates. Men like Geisler, Gordon Olson, R. T. Kendall, and the Amyraldian proponents of the 17th century attempt to hold such a moderate position, and in an effort to co-opt the terms at hand, the three men mentioned have failed in their attempt to show that John Calvin “wasn’t even a Calvinist at the point of limited atonement” (a point that modern Calvinists assert must be affirmed in order for one to refer to himself as a Calvinist) therefore they too have a right to claim the term Calvinist for themselves. Again, I’m not sure of their motivation behind their desire to call themselves any form of Calvinist anyway, and this entire portion of the dialogue seems to me to be a red herring fallacy which is only distracting persons from the core theological issues which have given rise to the debate in the first place, which is the theology summed up in the acrostic explicated at Dort: total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints, and perhaps the doctrine at the crux of the whole matter is this, that regeneration precedes faith; it is out of this doctrine that the other five points flow, and it is this doctrine that the men mentioned above must prove that John Calvin didn’t believe in order to prove that he wasn’t a “Calvinist”. Certainly Calvin believed more things about the Bible than just the five points of theology attributed to him in essence at Dort, and the differences between Reformed and non-Reformed theology is obviously more than just a debate over the five points of Calvinism, but the point I have tried to make here is that (understanding that language is fluid), at least regarding the definitions of theological ideas, I among many others think it is paramount to the protection of the Church of God to protect the historical definitions of theological concepts from major shifts; the etymology of the word Calvinism is not the only issue here, like it is in the migration of the meanings of words as they transverse time and culture, in the definition of theological notions, the meaning of entire systems of ideas are at stake. Take for instance the definition of the word evangelical, it has evolved so greatly that it is nearly as broad as the word, conservative. Imagine if the word trinity, which Christians use to describe the idea behind the Godhead; one in essence and three in person, if it were to have moved in the same degree as the word evangelical, then the same destructive confusion would result regarding the doctrine of the triune God.

At this point I am sure you think that I have mistakenly or inappropriately titled this article, but I will now proceed to tie these two issues together. Some of the same persons who are so jealous to protect the term Calvinism are not so diligent in guarding other theological terms used to describe systems of belief. The term Dispensationalism has been plagued by just such an abusive history. If you have read many of my former posts, you will be aware by now that I am not a Dispensationalist but I, like all those who have addressed the hermeneutical debates, have also had to deal with the difficulty of pinning down just what it is my opponents believe; so the question arises, what type of Dispensationalism are you criticizing anyway? This is a legitimate question to ask, and it is important to answer if my monologue in this discussion is to be understood in context and useful in cultivating an appreciation for the many difficult distinctions between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology, and furthering even my own understanding of the distinctions within Dispensational theology.

My plan in one or more later articles is to describe the major differences in Classic/Historical Dispensationalism, Ryrie Dispensationalism, and Progressive Dispensationalism, and why I believe that the later (and perhaps even the Ryrie type of Dispensationalism) has so departed from the historical definition that, for the same reason that Dr. Geisler cannot call himself a Calvinist of any stripe, Progressive Dispensationalist should likewise refrain from calling themselves any type of Dispensationalist.