In reply to:
[color:"blue"]Whenever people on this board talk about Covenantalists, they talk about Covenantal scholars.

I haven't seen enough talk of Covenantalists to verify that claim. But I can say that when someone is referred to as a "Calvinist," it doesn't matter whether they are scholars: the term indicates that they adhere to the Five Points. I call myself a Calvinist though I am neither scholar nor seminarian.

In reply to:
[color:"blue"]Of course not, because when, at this site, we talk about Reformed people, we are really talking about the scholars and the seminaries, aren't we?!

No. I daresay most of the people who post here are Reformed, and surely not all of them are scholars or seminarians. When we speak of Reformed scholars, writers, theologians, etc., we speak of scholars, writers, and theologians as groups within the Reformed tradition, not definitive of the Reformed tradition. That there are a lot of unreformed individuals attending ostensibly Reformed churches has no bearing. In the same way, when I refer to dispensationalists, I am referring to people who hold to a particular ecclesiology, i.e., that the nation of Israel and the Christian Church are discontinuous entities for whom God has separate plans in salvific history. Most people and churches who hold to this notion, though not all, have basically an Arminian theology.

In reply to:
[color:"blue"]I bring this up, because I presume that would be your argument, that most Dispensationalists you know are Arminian.

Most I know and most within American evangelicalism are, in fact, Arminian.

In reply to:
[color:"blue"]But the scholars and seminaries, in general, aren't....unless we redefine Arminianism as anything but 5 point Calvinism.

I gave a logical explanation before as to why anything but five-point Calvinism essentially ends up either universalist or Arminian. You have yet to address that.


I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.