Reformed Question

[DiscipleOfIAm]

I had a pastor once say that the reformed theology teaches that God has no future for Israel and something about Sunday the Sabbath day being key issues.

What is that all about? Can one be a reformer and believe in election / grace, eternal security, etc and that God does have future plans for Israel?

Confused!

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

As a general rule:
We believe God has only one covenant people. Reformed Christians see the Church of the New Covenant as the Israel of God. We believe that unbelieving Israelites were cut off from the covenant people of God and believing Gentiles were grafted in to the Covenant people of God.

Jews who deny Christ are not part of the covenant people, Jews and Gentiles who are believers in Christ are part of the Covenant people. I believe modern Jews will one day believe and be grafted back into the covenant people of God.

Dispensationalism, which only began in the 1820's, is a radical departure from orthodoxy and holds that there are two peoples of God.

Hope that helps,
Kenith

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Disciple,

These links to earlier threads here on SR may help answer your question:
Israel/Church: One people of God

How many New Covenants? A Reformed Look at a Dispensational error

How Many New Covenants? Dispies say 2.

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[cubanito]

Cajun, your attempt to simplify a complex situation is too simple.

"Reformed" theology, which is ironically not Luther's, has various threads. One of them, with which Luther agreed, but which Lutherans later abandoned, is summarized by the TULIP.

A second is Covenant hermeneutics.

It is entirely possible to hold a full TULIP and be dispensational, as illustrated by John McArthur.

As to dispensationalism, it comes in many flavors. While there are many dispensationalists who do indeed hold that there are for eternity 2 separate people of God, not all do (I do not). It is a relatively new hermeneutics, as you pointed out. However, the Covenant hermeneutics which briefly flourished under the Alexandrian school flamed out with the Nestorian heresy and was not resurrected until 500 years ago, so in fact it dosen't have a long pedigree either.

Still I acknowledge it is a complicated subject.

JR

 

[DiscipleOfIAm]

Here's a link to a local church near me where the pastor has written a compelling article about "Progressive Dispensationalism". Your thoughts?

http://www.highlandpc.com/studies/progdisp.php

 

[cubanito]

Here's a link to a local church near me where the pastor has written a compelling article about "Progressive Dispensationalism". Your thoughts?

http://www.highlandpc.com/studies/progdisp.php

A pretty good summary of the kind of dispy I am. I would add that there is a point past even beyond Jesus's Millenial Kingdom, where He sits on David's Throne. At that last dispensation, all flesh is resurrected, the universe recast into a perfect state, and all the people of God, Jew and Gentile, shall be one people on the earth.

IMO, the wholly unorthodox part of classical dispy doctrine is the idea that God has different ways of being saved. This is wholly false. There ever has been, is and will be but one manner of salvation for all but one man: Grace alone.

The One Exception, the only man ever saved by works, is Jesus Christ, and He got condemned for us.

JR

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Cajun, your attempt to simplify a complex situation is too simple.

"Reformed" theology, which is ironically not Luther's, has various threads. One of them, with which Luther agreed, but which Lutherans later abandoned, is summarized by the TULIP.

A second is Covenant hermeneutics.

It is entirely possible to hold a full TULIP and be dispensational, as illustrated by John McArthur.

As to dispensationalism, it comes in many flavors. While there are many dispensationalists who do indeed hold that there are for eternity 2 separate people of God, not all do (I do not). It is a relatively new hermeneutics, as you pointed out. However, the Covenant hermeneutics which briefly flourished under the Alexandrian school flamed out with the Nestorian heresy and was not resurrected until 500 years ago, so in fact it dosen't have a long pedigree either.

Still I acknowledge it is a complicated subject.

JR

Cubanito,

Thanks for the comments about my posts above. I agree that there are distinctions in Reform theology that are fairly new, but that is not what I was trying to point out.

The whole church up until very recent history saw itself as the Israel of God and having been grafted into the place where unbelieving Jews were cast out. This is not a distinction of Reformed thought, it is ancient orthodoxy.

Beginning with John Darby, Dispensationalism gave a heterodox alternative to this teaching. There are various stripes of Dispensationalists. They are not all the same and I used to be in one of the milder camps, though long ago left that camp.

I think the Progressive school of dispensationalism has come along way at bringing dispensationalism back toward a more orthodox position on this issue.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[cubanito]

Agreed, though I remain in one of these milder camps, it is a new idea. In general it is best to be especially wary of any new idea, though not necessarily discard it automatically.

It was often said during the reformation that the idea that Apostolic succession did not grant all manner of powers inherent in the office was novel. It could also be argued that many other ideas, such as a state without an official religion, is also very novel.

JR

 

[Iosias]

I had a pastor once say that the reformed theology teaches that God has no future for Israel and something about Sunday the Sabbath day being key issues.

What is that all about? Can one be a reformer and believe in election / grace, eternal security, etc and that God does have future plans for Israel?

Confused!

It depends what you mean by "God does have future plans for Israel". If you mean the dispensational thing then NO...however Charles Hodge, Jonathan Edwards and other Puritans held that all Israel meant the nation of Israel and that God does have future plans for Israel...they will be brought en mass into the church at some future point.

 

[DiscipleOfIAm]

It depends what you mean by "God does have future plans for Israel". If you mean the dispensational thing then NO...however Charles Hodge, Jonathan Edwards and other Puritans held that all Israel meant the nation of Israel and that God does have future plans for Israel...they will be brought en mass into the church at some future point.

Could that future point be referring to the 144,000 in the Tribulation?

 

[Iosias]

Could that future point be referring to the 144,000 in the Tribulation?

Depends what you mean by the Tribulation...but that is usually dispensationalist theology which they would have rejected.

 

[heymikey80]

I had a pastor once say that the reformed theology teaches that God has no future for Israel and something about Sunday the Sabbath day being key issues.

What is that all about? Can one be a reformer and believe in election / grace, eternal security, etc and that God does have future plans for Israel?

Confused!

Whew, not you, your pastor. While both departures appear in later Puritan and Presbyterian theology, neither is essential to those theologies, nor are they a part of Reformed Theology in general.

Calvin himself points to a special place for Israel on the basis of Romans 11:

But though in this prophecy deliverance to the spiritual people of God is promised, among whom even Gentiles are included; yet as the Jews are the first-born, what the Prophet declares must be fulfilled, especially in them: for that Scripture calls all the people of God Israelites, is to be ascribed to the pre-eminence of that nation, whom God had preferred to all other nations. And then, from a regard to the ancient covenant, he says expressly, that a Redeemer shall come to Sion; and he adds, that he will redeem those in Jacob who shall return from their transgression.By these words God distinctly claims for himself a certain seed, so that his redemption may be effectual in his elect and peculiar nation. Rom 11:26
​

Again, Calvin's Geneva Catechism on the Sabbath:

M. Does he order us to labor on six days, that we may rest on the seventh?
S. Not absolutely; but allowing man six days for labor, he excepts the seventh, that it may be devoted to rest.
M. Does he interdict us from all kind of labor?
S. This commandment has a separate and peculiar reason. As the observance of rest is part of the old ceremonies, it was abolished by the advent of Christ.
M. Do you mean that this commandment properly refers to the Jews, and was therefore merely temporary
S. I do, in as far as it is ceremonial.
* * *

M. What, moreover, is the method of thus keeping holiday [in the Sabbath]?
S. By crucifying our flesh, — that is, renouncing our own inclination, that we may be governed by the Spirit of God.
M. Is it sufficient to do so on the seventh day?
S. Nay, continually. After we have once begun, we must continue during the whole course of life.
M. Why, then, is a certain day appointed to figure it?
S. There is no necessity that the reality should agree with the figure in every respect, provided it be suitable in so far as is required for the purpose of figuring. Geneva Catechism
​