Question about Reformed/ Presbyterian

[daveleau]

Hi everybody!

I picked up a book at the local bookstore a few weeks ago and have really enjoyed it so far. It is Ryken's (Presbyterian preacher)"Written In Stone". I like Ryken's style and his beliefs regarding the separation of the Law into 3 classes (ceremonial, state and moral). I have believed this, but this is the first writer I've seen who had the same belief.

Anyway, the reason I am posting...could someone explain what "reformed" is in relation to "evangelical"? I seem to get conflicting ideas regarding whether reformed is closer to arminianism or calvinism/ covenantal or dispensational.

Thanks and God bless you,
Dave

 

[Jon_]

Hi everybody!

I picked up a book at the local bookstore a few weeks ago and have really enjoyed it so far. It is Ryken's (Presbyterian preacher)"Written In Stone". I like Ryken's style and his beliefs regarding the separation of the Law into 3 classes (ceremonial, state and moral). I have believed this, but this is the first writer I've seen who had the same belief.

Anyway, the reason I am posting...could someone explain what "reformed" is in relation to "evangelical"? I seem to get conflicting ideas regarding whether reformed is closer to arminianism or calvinism/ covenantal or dispensational.

Thanks and God bless you,
Dave

Reformed is Calvinistic/Covenantal. Furthermore, the original meaning of "evangelical" was "reformed." Evangelical was the term taken up by the Reformers of the 16th century. Its original association was with the Protestant Reformation, which was predominantly Calvinistic and wholly convenantalist (Dispensationalism not yet being invented).

And I'm with you, Ryken is a great author. I recently finished his City on a Hill, which is an excellent book about reclaiming the modern church from all the false doctrines and secular influences that are infiltrating it. He also did an excellent job finishing up Dr. Boice's The Doctrines of Grace.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[daveleau]

Interesting. I always thought of strict covenantalism as a Arminian concept. To what level do Reformed hold to covenentalism?
Do you think the OT passages relating to Israel will be placed on the Church at some point?
Do you believe in the progressive revelation of God (first w/o law, then w/ law then w/ Jesus' teachings)?

I have some covenental leanings, such as I believe that while those before Christ were bound to the Law, they were saved by Grace.

But, do you believe that the Law still applies?

A ton of questions, I know. I appreciate any help in understanding.

God bless you,
Dave

 

[Jon_]

Interesting. I always thought of strict covenantalism as a Arminian concept.

I can see how you would think that. Dispensationalists lay a strong claim to the Calvinist moniker, but it is undeserved. A four-point system is not a Calvinist system, after all. It should be mentioned that Arminianism was pretty much the accepted soteriological view until Augustine. Of course, back then it wasn't called Arminianism and there hadn't been a lot of debate on the subject. The early church was too busy fighting off gnosticism, pantheism, paganism, etc., to develop the thorough and biblically precise theological system of soteriology that Augustine did. The influence of Greek philosophy on the early church was probably a cause of early "Arminian" theology as well. The Greeks were quite enamored with the concept of freedom and self-determination, and all manner of other humanistic concepts that glorified the human over the divine. This shows very strongly in the writings of the early church fathers, such as Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Clement of Rome, and Origen. Origin was especially involved in the mystical aspects of Greek philosophy and he was among the first to teach an allegorical hermeneutic for the Word.

Other aspects of early church theology reeked of Greco-influence as well. It is especially apparent in the core doctrines of the church, viz. Christology and the Trinity. It is very telling to note that all of the early church fathers were thoroughly convinced of the infallibility and inspiration of the Scriptures, though, and that they unanimously agreed that the system which we now call Covenant Theology was the correct interpretation of the Scriptures. No one embodied this commitment to claiming the whole of the Word for the church than Justin Martyr who, in continuing correspondence with Tryppo the Jew, advocated the rightness and truthfulness of the view that all of the Bible is about Christ and for his bride.

To what level do Reformed hold to covenentalism?

My opinion is that covenantalism is a prerequisite to use of the moniker Reformed. Reformed Dispensationalists by definition are contradictory.

Do you think the OT passages relating to Israel will be placed on the Church at some point?

I'm going to have to ask which passages you mean. Essentially, all of the Old Testament texts, with the exception of the law, are made to Israel and the church as a type of Israel. The church is the "children of the promise" mentioned by Paul in Romans. The church is the "seed of Abraham"; therefore, all promises made to God's elect in the Old Testament, all promises made to the sons of Abraham are also promises made to the bride of Christ: God's elect.

Do you believe in the progressive revelation of God (first w/o law, then w/ law then w/ Jesus' teachings)?

Yes; however, I also believe that the progress of revelation has been stopped until the second coming of our Lord. That is, with the closing of the canon came the implicit halting of new revelation. All present work and revelation of the Holy Spirit is contained and was prophesied in the Scriptures. "There is nothing new in the earth," to quote the preacher out of context.

I have some covenental leanings, such as I believe that while those before Christ were bound to the Law, they were saved by Grace.

This is well. This is precisely what the Scriptures teach. I praise God that he, in his grace has enabled you through his Holy Spirit to accept this vital truth. Unless we acknowledge the truth of what you say, how else can we understand Psalm 65:4?

Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts: we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, even of thy holy temple. (KJV)

​

But, do you believe that the Law still applies?

This is an harder question. That this very question has been a struggle for Christians in the past as well is very evident in Paul's letter to the Galatians; however, at that point, we can also see that Paul's letter provides the answer to that question.

Let's have a cursory look at some key verses in Galatians.

(Gal. 2:3 KJV) But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:

​

Here we see that the practice of the apostles was not the circumcision of the uncircumcised. From the beginning they knew and understood that the law was manifest only that the "sin should abound" (Rom. 5:20). But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more (Rom. 5:21). Therefore, being freed from the law of sin and death, we are made alive in Christ, for sin shall have no dominion over us. We are not under the law, but under grace (Rom. 6:14).

This is why Titus was not compelled to be circumcised. His outwardly adherence to the law had no meaning now that Christ had completed the work that the law could not; "for what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom. 8:3).

Now let's look at a key passage. This is the oft-noted passage in which Paul confronts Peter for showing disfavor toward the Gentiles in the presence of Jews:

(Gal 2:11-21 KJV) But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12) For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13) And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14) But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? 15) We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16) Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. 17) But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. 18) For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19) For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. 20) I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. 21) I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

​

Here Paul confronts Peter for his deference toward the Gentiles. You see, to the Jews it was considered to be unclean to associate with the Gentiles. The Gentiles were an "unclean" people. They were still adhering to the law. Paul reprimanded Peter because he should have known better. In v. 19, Paul makes it clear that we are dead to the law that we might live unto God. The law cannot save us. Its worth lies only in the value that it made sinfulness known. It worth was in the systematical structuring of God's commandments toward his people in faith.

The whole of Galatians is written as a response to the Galatian church's regression into adherence to the law. Paul reproves them and corrects their poor doctrine and their "fall from grace." You see, that passage (5:1-4) is not at all about committing sin and losing your salvation. It is about returning to the following of the law of losing the gift and joy of knowing you are under grace. It's a temporal consequence, not an eternal one.

You won't jeopardize your salvation by fulfilling the Jewish law, but you will adversely affect your walk and, at least in part, deny the true Gospel of Christ.

A ton of questions, I know. I appreciate any help in understanding.

God bless you,
Dave

Only too happy to be able to discuss it with you, brother.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Antman_05]

Jon_ your my hero, i say this beacuse you didn't cut and past that from the web, you took time to write it out.

 

[Jon_]

Jon_ your my hero, i say this beacuse you didn't cut and past that from the web, you took time to write it out.

Not my glory, Andrew; but His.

Who am I but a worm and an unprofitable servant? Praise the God of heaven who has chosen us to salvation in his son Jesus Christ. Praise his mercy and grace that he has found us when we were lost, strengthed us when we were weak, and saved us when we were condemned. His name above all. Amen.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[daveleau]

Thank you, very much, Jon. I appreciate the time you took to write that.

On the Law question, I totally agree. Ryken is the first theologian I have read that divides the Law into 3 parts. (This is what I had been taught, but never seen another write like this) Ceremonial law, moral law and state law. We are still bound by the moral law because it did not change in Christ, but the other two types are cut off.

I consider myself a 3-point Calvinist, which I agree is not a fully Calvinistic system. I'm a TLP guy.

I was kind of embarased when a fellow seminary student came up to me and told me he was reformed...I had no idea what he meant. This helps a lot. I've had a varied past regarding churches I have attended, but they are all on the dispensational/ limited Calvinistic side of theology.

 

[Jon_]

Thank you, very much, Jon. I appreciate the time you took to write that.

My pleasure, my friend.

On the Law question, I totally agree. Ryken is the first theologian I have read that divides the Law into 3 parts. (This is what I had been taught, but never seen another write like this) Ceremonial law, moral law and state law. We are still bound by the moral law because it did not change in Christ, but the other two types are cut off.

That sounds like a good book. I should pick it up, myself.

I consider myself a 3-point Calvinist, which I agree is not a fully Calvinistic system. I'm a TLP guy.

That's an interesting configuration. I think you're honestly the first person I've met that was a three-pointer on those particular three points.

Hmm, are you a Baptist?

I was kind of embarased when a fellow seminary student came up to me and told me he was reformed...I had no idea what he meant. This helps a lot.

Being Reformed also includes a couple of other doctrinal distinctions over just Calvinism and Covenantalism. I think the best way to think of Reformed theology is to think of orthodox Prebyterianism. Apart from explicitly "Reformed" churches, the Presbyterians are really the last ones fighting to uphold the 16th and 17th century historic doctrines of the Reformers. This includes the Reformed view of the sacraments. They baptize by sprinkling, not immersion. Infant baptism is strongly encouraged for children of two baptized believers (they call these "covenant children"). Reformed eschatology has historically been amillennial, though postmillennialism is rampant now. Church services are usually very traditional. That I know, there are no alters or alter calls, either. Of course, I haven't been to every "Reformed" church, so I can't speak for them all. I think best of all is the extremely rigid and challenging process one must go through to be a Presbyterian minister. They truly test you and make sure that you will be a loving teacher of sound doctrine. Most other churches just sit down with you in a one hour meeting and if you say what they want to hear, you're hired. In the Presbyterian church, you have to enter into a residency program for a minimum of a year before you're considered for your own congregation.

I've had a varied past regarding churches I have attended, but they are all on the dispensational/ limited Calvinistic side of theology.

That's understandable. Dispensationalism and its four-point Calvinistic system are very popular right now. In part, this expansion of the doctrine can be traced back about a hundred years ago. The Dispensationalists have always been great believers in the inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures. Many of them started opening schools around the turn of the century. Some of these were simple "Bible-schools" that were opened to teach parishoners their complex system of theology. Other schools were opened for instruction of pastors. Because the schools originally opened by the Puritans, Presbyterian, and other sects were not expanding and were all in the northeast, these regional Dispensational school (Dallas Theological Seminary is a great example) began to pick up the many people who would have liked to attend seminary, but could not. As these student graduated, they brought with them their zeal for Dispensationalism and their passion for advancing the doctrine. There was a veritable explosion of Dispensational schools, which brings us to this day. I don't know how many Dispensational schools there are now, but it's a lot. Hence, the Dispensationalists ingratiated their doctrine through seminary teaching.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[daveleau]

I consider myself a 3-point Calvinist, which I agree is not a fully Calvinistic system. I'm a TLP guy.

That's an interesting configuration. I think you're honestly the first person I've met that was a three-pointer on those particular three points.

Hmm, are you a Baptist?

I'm currently in a Baptist church and attending a Baptist seminary. I have a distaste for labels other than Christian for myself, though.
I don't see Scripture calling only a few (U) and I don't see all who are called as following (I).
I'm kind of surprised regarding infant Baptism. Do Reformed believe that Baptism has salvific capabilities?

 

[Jon_]

I'm currently in a Baptist church and attending a Baptist seminary. I have a distaste for labels other than Christian for myself, though.
I don't see Scripture calling only a few (U) and I don't see all who are called as following (I).

I understand your aversion to labels and I agree with the spirit of it. It is very sad that Christianity is so fragmented and polarized. When I look at the landscape of the Christian religion today, I see something that is not embodied in the Gospel of Jesus Christ; however, I also understand that all has transpired according to God's sovereign will. In that sense, I understanding that the factionalism that Christianity suffers from today was divine appointed. In light of that, I actually come to appreciate labels because they help me to identify with the groups that share my understanding of the truth. For instance, the Reformed moniker is a very important one to defend for me because Reformed means so many things that are near and dear to my heart, doctrinally speaking. I do not want to see the Reformed sect inflitrated by non-Reformed doctrines. Even though I do not have the privilege of attending a Reformed church, I love my church and my pastor and know they both the institution and the leadership are committed to preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Being Reformed is not a requirement of being Christian, but being Reformed is a requirement of being Reformed. I joyfully acknowledge my church as a Christian, bible-believing church, but if they wanted to take up the label of Reformed, I would take issue with that.

I'm kind of surprised regarding infant Baptism. Do Reformed believe that Baptism has salvific capabilities?

No, baptism is not salvific. To understand the Reformed view of baptism, you really need to understand the Old Testament sacrament of circumcision. Circumcision was the seal of the covenant for the Jews. Baptism is the seal of the covenant for Christians.

In the Old Testament, a child who was born to Jewish parents was circumcised as a sign of the child being a covenant child. That is, it was acknowledged that the child, born to two Israelites, was to be granted a piece of the promise land as ordained by God. The Lord made his covenant with and his promise to the Israelite nation. He instituted circumcision as an outwardly sign of the seal of the covenant. That is, as a reminder of God's promise to the Jews and the Jews' obligation under that promise.

Now, when you view this dynamic through the looking glass of Covenant Theology, you begin to understand the practice of infant baptism. We baptize the children of two believers because they too are covenant children. Their baptism is a seal of the covenant in Jesus Christ. Baptism is actually the completion of the sacrament of circumcision. Under the law, the Jews were circumcised as a seal of the covenant, but they also baptized (washed) themselves with water when they broke the law and did something unclean. You see, to wash with water was an extremely important act for the Jews. It signified as cleansing, a washing away of sins. This is typological of the washing away of sins in baptism. That is, no sins are really washed away in baptism, but it is symbolical of our sins being washed away. In this sense, baptism is both the sealing of the covenant and the symbol of Jesus washing away our sins.

John Calvin wrote very extensively on this practice. He was very much assured of the rightness of paedobaptism and the necessity of it. There is also a recent book called The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, which elaborates on the subject in much greater detail and articulation than I could here. You might also consider this little article by Dr. Riddlebarger of Christ Reformed Church (part of the United Reformed Churches in North America), which covers the subject: http://www.christreformed.org/resources/sermons_lectures/00000060.shtml?main

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[daveleau]

Thanks for the link. I appreciate all that you've written so far. I have come to realize that while I have a diverse background (Pentecostal, Episcopalian, non-Denom, Baptist), I know virtually nothing about Reformed groups. I think the key to healing the rifts in Christianity are 1) prayer and 2) full understanding of the different groups and why they think the way they think.
Methodist and Presbyterian (Presb. being the largest resident Reformed group in my area) are two I know little about.
Thanks again and God bless you,
Dave