Must I now Embrace Dispensationalism?

[0isez]

Must I now embrace the improbable and disjointed doctrine of Dispensationalism just because I believe that God still has a plan for Israel (and he didn’t share it with us humans)? I must start by saying I don’t buy the role of Israel the Dispensationalist put out there, however, I believe that the Jews are still relevant and somehow in the big scheme of things today. How? I don’t know, I can’t explain it, but to deny it would be to betray my very own eyes and ears. Because of this stand, am I betraying the doctrine that I heartily believe (Covenant Theology (C.T) except for the part that the church replaced Israel in every context known to man)? Do I have to tear up my reformist card and join the recklessness of Arminiaism? Did I lose my footing and can no longer consider myself a true Covenant Man? Am I obligated to lock step with one or the other or not at all? Please indulge me a bit as I digress into a parallel subject.
During the Vietnam war, Although I didn’t not take part in any demonstrations of any kind and I heartily disapproved of the riots and violence of those who did, I still was against the Vietnam war. When I made my objections known to my friends they would misunderstand my motives and where my heart lie and invite me to entertain other various kinds of hateful, un-American propaganda vilifying the country that I loved .I still remember the icy figurative arm of Karl Marx being thrown across my shoulder and how I recoiled in disgust from it. Just because I was not in favor of the war didn’t mean I should don the Red Star and start calling people comrade.
Same thing here; How far is my obligation to show or remain loyal to C.T. without crossing swords with my foundational belief in Reformed Theology, Calvinism and the church? To me there’s nowhere else to go, this is my home for theology bar none, but…
I cannot abandon the notion that there’s still something special about Israel. I know that this is considered unacceptable in reformed theology, I hope this does not classify me as persona non grata but like I said, this is what is in my heart I openly would welcome your input brothers and sisters but this, to me is not an intellectual area, it's more of a heartfelt sense of awareness that I cannot shake. I have read extensively and studied the church vs Israel. In my heart it’s close but doesn’t quite fit. Kinda like a puzzle piece that just will not lock perfectly in place.

 

[Charles Johnson]

I cannot abandon the notion that there’s still something special about Israel. I know that this is considered unacceptable in reformed theology

It might be helpful if you clarified in what way you think they're special. One can think Italy is special for having great food and beautiful landscapes, or that the USA is special for valuing personal freedom, without contradicting Reformed theology. And in the same way, one can think Israel is special in any number of ways.
We just can't posit, as dispensationalism does, that there remains "a dividing wall of hostility" (Eph. 2:14) between Jew and Gentile. On the contrary, there must be one way of salvation, one baptism, and one catholic church (Eph. 4:4-6), outside of which there is no ordinary hope of salvation.
I would say that Israel (that is, the Jewish people) is "beloved for the fathers' sakes" (Rom. 11:28). So that's special, in a way.

 

[riverman]

Have your feelings been affected by current events?

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

I cannot abandon the notion that there’s still something special about Israel. I know that this is considered unacceptable in reformed theology,

This was a widespread view among Reformed and Puritan divines, arguably even the view in the Larger Catechism (see the q on Thy Kingdom Come). So it is very far from unacceptable in Reformed theology, and not dispensational.

General explanatory article:
https://www.fpchurch.org.uk/publica...mercy-and-the-jews-future-rev-j-l-goldby-585/

Witsius on Restoration of the Jews:

The Restoration of the Jews | Monergism

by Herman WitsiusThe gospel did not reach to the Gentiles till after it was rejected and despised by the Jews. 'Through their fall salvation came to the

www.monergism.com

Thomas Boston on importance of praying for conversion of the Jews:

http://www.digitalpuritan.net/Digital%20Puritan%20Resources/Boston,%20Thomas/Works%20(vol.3)%20Ind%20Titles/[TB]%20Encouragement%20to%20Pray%20for%20the%20Conversion%20of%20the%20Jews.pdf

 

[iainduguid]

The church has not "replaced" Israel. That's what Dispensationalists erroneously think Reformed people believe. Rather, Jesus is himself the new Israel, the fulfillment of everything Israel stood for. So now as we (as Jews and Gentiles) are grafted into Christ, we become part of the new, spiritual Israel of God (see John 15). There are different understandings within Reformed theology of whether we may anticipate seeing a larger number of the physical descendants of Abraham becoming part of the true Israel, the church. As Alex has pointed out, that was certainly the majority view in the past, a view that triggered an outpouring of Jewish evangelism in Europe in the 19th century. It is certainly a view that is still widespread in Reformed circles, though not all share that view.

What this has to do with the present secular nation state of Israel is a distinct and somewhat separate question. Just as we wouldn't (I hope) conflate our expectations of God's plan for the church with his purposes toward America or the UK, so too there isn't a straight line necessarily between his purposes for the children of Abraham and his purposes for the present day nation of Israel. After all, many of those Reformed writers historically who argued for a future turning of the Jews to Christ lived long before the founding of the nation state.

 

[davejonescue]

This is my take from my reading of the Bible to date. There is a story in the Bible about God bringing judgment on Israel, he mentions so many will die of pestilence, famine, and the sword. I cant remember which book it is now. But, in the midst of that, he also says to sow a thread, I believe in the hem of a garment. This thread is the remnant. God has not forgotten about Israel. They are his chosen people, the apple of his eye. We are grafted into them, and not them into us. Yet, the remnant will not be saved apart from Christ. When the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled, God will open the eyes of Israel, and those whom God has predestined among them, will believe upon the Son.

I think the difference with Dispensationalism is they believe that there are special promises that ONLY apply to ethnic Israel. God still loves Israel, but the ingrafting of the Gentiles is to spur the Jews to jealousy, until the time the scales are lifted from their eyes; which seems biblically, to be the last great revival.

I am not well versed in this area, so forgive me if I dont have all the facts straight.

 

[RamistThomist]

and he didn’t share it with us humans

Then how can you know that plan?

 

[0isez]

This is my take from my reading of the Bible to date. There is a story in the Bible about God bringing judgment on Israel, he mentions so many will die of pestilence, famine, and the sword. I cant remember which book it is now. But, in the midst of that, he also says to sow a thread, I believe in the hem of a garment. This thread is the remnant. God has not forgotten about Israel. They are his chosen people, the apple of his eye. We are grafted into them, and not them into us. Yet, the remnant will not be saved apart from Christ. When the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled, God will open the eyes of Israel, and those whom God has predestined among them, will believe upon the Son.

I think the difference with Dispensationalism is they believe that there are special promises that ONLY apply to ethnic Israel. God still loves Israel, but the ingrafting of the Gentiles is to spur the Jews to jealousy, until the time the scales are lifted from their eyes; which seems biblically, to be the last great revival.

I am not well versed in this area, so forgive me if I dont have all the facts straight.

Davejones (to the)rescue...Thanks, you articulated well what I think I was getting at. Whilst I know that not all of Israel will be saved there will be a remnant there and just as here in the U.S. as in Israel He knows who's His and has taken great lengths to protect His own.

 

[0isez]

Then how can you know that plan?

We don't Jacob. Not all things are revealed to man and I think this Israel business is one of them...Respectfully...Ken

 

[RamistThomist]

Israel He knows who's His and has taken great lengths to protect His own.

That's true, but he also knows who is His among the Palestinians and has taken great lengths to protect his own.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I cannot abandon the notion that there’s still something special about Israel. I know that this is considered unacceptable in reformed theology,

It's not at all considered unacceptable in Reformed theology.. I think Presbyerianism held to the future calling and ingrafting (back in) of the Jews up until more modern times; and the Free Church Continuing is one denomination whose ministers still hold to this confessional belief, and all of them preach it.

 

[iainduguid]

It's not at all considered unacceptable in Reformed theology.. I think Presbyerianism held to the future calling and ingrafting (back in) of the Jews up until more modern times; and the Free Church Continuing is one denomination whose ministers still hold to this confessional belief, and all of them preach it.

By "Confessional Belief", Jeri, I presume you are referring to WLC 191:

191. What do we pray for in the second petition?
In the second petition, (which is, Thy Kingdom come) acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate; that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of His second coming, and our reigning with Him forever: and that He would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of His power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.

I'm not sure that this demands the view that there will be a large number of Abraham's offspring saved in the last day (though it is my personal opinion, and certainly isn't opposed to it). The proof text cited is Romans 10:1: "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved." Is someone who is eager to see Jews become Christians but isn't convinced that in the last days that conversion rate will dramatically increase not able to subscribe to this answer? Maybe it is part of the larger (and not wholly unrelated) question of whether you have to be postmillennial to subscribe.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

If believing that there is something eschatologically significant to the fact that there is a geopolitical nation-state called 'Israel' which exists after having not existed for millennia makes me dispensational, go ahead and call me a dispensationalist. If it makes me guilty of newspaper eschatology, that's fine by me, too. I'd prefer to be called a historic premillennialist. I'd prefer to be called a watchman on the wall. But we can hardly tame our own tongues, let alone the tongues of others! So let folks say what they like, I suppose.

I, for one, think we're living in unprecedented times and are closer than ever to the Second Coming.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

By "Confessional Belief", Jeri, I presume you are referring to WLC 191:

191. What do we pray for in the second petition?
In the second petition, (which is, Thy Kingdom come) acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate; that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of His second coming, and our reigning with Him forever: and that He would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of His power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.

I'm not sure that this demands the view that there will be a large number of Abraham's offspring saved in the last day (though it is my personal opinion, and certainly isn't opposed to it). The proof text cited is Romans 10:1: "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved." Is someone who is eager to see Jews become Christians but isn't convinced that in the last days that conversion rate will dramatically increase not able to subscribe to this answer? Maybe it is part of the larger (and not wholly unrelated) question of whether you have to be postmillennial to subscribe.

I only recently came to a settled position on a future large-scale conversion of the Jews, convinced that it's what the text teaches through study and the help of preaching through Romans 9-11. I feel less educated on how one's eschatology would affect; is there a disconnect between being premillennial or amillennial and holding to a future conversion of the Jews?

 

[Stephen L Smith]

It's not at all considered unacceptable in Reformed theology.. I think Presbyerianism held to the future calling and ingrafting (back in) of the Jews up until more modern times; and the Free Church Continuing is one denomination whose ministers still hold to this confessional belief, and all of them preach it.

Many Scottish Presbyterians have been strong on a future calling and evangelism of the Jews. You find this in the writings of Andrew Boner, Robert M M'Cheyne and others.

I only recently came to a settled position on a future large-scale conversion of the Jews, convinced that it's what the text teaches through study and the help of preaching through Romans 9-11. I feel less educated on how one's eschatology would affect; is there a disconnect between being premillennial or amillennial and holding to a future conversion of the Jews?

By Premillennial do you mean Historic or Dispensational Premillennial.? Andrew Boner was Historic Premillennial but I am pretty sure he subscribed to the WFC. A dispensationalist is unable to subscribe to the Westminster Standards.

Jeri, you might find Iain Murrays book very helpful "The Puritan Hope: Revival and the interpretation of Prophecy". Iain has a chapter (ch 8) on the Scottish conviction of a large-scale conversion of the Jews.

Iain Murray is one of my favourite authors. There is a balance of wisdom, spiritual edification and theology in his writings.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

except for the part that the church replaced Israel in every context known to man)?

If you hold to a robust covenant theology you will not believe that the church replaced Israel. There is ONE covenant of grace, ONE people of God (WCF ch 7; 1689 Confession ch 7).

 

[ZackF]

The Church *IS* Israel rather than has replaced or substitutes for Israel is more correct.

 

[MyCrows]

Israel was a church under age. Under the tutelage of the Mosaic law.

 

[John The Baptist]

I, for one, think we're living in unprecedented times and are closer than ever to the Second Coming.

Now this is true of every moment isn’t it

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

John Owen taught not only the conversion of Israel to the Messiah, but if their return to the Holy Land. He also says these views are practically universal in his day. And he’s very much NOT a dispensationalist.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Many Scottish Presbyterians have been strong on a future calling and evangelism of the Jews. You find this in the writings of Andrew Boner, Robert M M'Cheyne and others.

By Premillennial do you mean Historic or Dispensational Premillennial.? Andrew Boner was Historic Premillennial but I am pretty sure he subscribed to the WFC. A dispensationalist is unable to subscribe to the Westminster Standards.

Jeri, you might find Iain Murrays book very helpful "The Puritan Hope: Revival and the interpretation of Prophecy". Iain has a chapter (ch 8) on the Scottish conviction of a large-scale conversion of the Jews.

Iain Murray is one of my favourite authors. There is a balance of wisdom, spiritual edification and theology in his writings.

Yes! I appreciate, of course, the Scottish Presbyterians And by premil I meant historic premil. I'm just wondering if anything in the premil or amil systems lessens the likelihood of holding to a future widespread conversion of the Jews. One reason for not holding the view that Christ could return at any moment is that He won't return before we see this glorious ingathering. So I don't know how that impacts the view of a premillenialist, especially.

And I've been wanting to read Murray's book! My poor book budget, though.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

While I agree that the Westminster Standards speak of the future conversion of the Jews, they do not require one to be a postmillennialist. One may believe in a conversion of the Jews before the end of the world and be an amillennialist or a premillennialist. Of course, believing that the bulk of the Jews will be converted does not necessarily mean that they will be restored to their previous homeland. (That opinion is a separate issue.) And it certainly does not commit one to embrace modern Zionism.

 

[Polanus1561]

Large conversion of Jews =/= Postmillennialism.

 

[JP Wallace]

We don't Jacob. Not all things are revealed to man and I think this Israel business is one of them...Respectfully...Ken

Ken

I think if fact God's plan for Israel has been revealed....to the extent we need it to be revealed. It is clear from OT prophecy and from such passages as Romans 11 and Revelation that God is not "finished" with those of the blood line of Abraham. What has not been revealed is how he is going to execute the plan, when, etc.

The plan is that God will accomplish eternal glory for eternity for himself, his Son and his Spirit through the redemption of the elect of all nations Jew and Gentile, and that at some stage the root of the Church in the Jews themselves will be revitalized. Will this inclue poitical boundaries, the whole nation or part? Those are questions we may have, but the answers I think are not revealed. There is talk of mystery in relation to the subject of the makeup of the Church, Jews and Gentiles, but it's not about whether the Jews are included, but whether the Gentiles can be!

Ephesians 3:1-6 ESV “1 For this reason I, Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles— 2 assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you, 3 how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. 4 When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. 6 This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.”

You opening question as Dr. Duiguid explains reveals a degree of misunderstanding of what the theology of the Reformed in the main has been. There is a good degree of agreement on much of it.

Don't let the unknowables of the subject cause you to turn away from what is knowable. We don't need to know all truth to known truth.

 

[0isez]

Ken

I think if fact God's plan for Israel has been revealed....to the extent we need it to be revealed. It is clear from OT prophecy and from such passages as Romans 11 and Revelation that God is not "finished" with those of the blood line of Abraham. What has not been revealed is how he is going to execute the plan, when, etc.

The plan is that God will accomplish eternal glory for eternity for himself, his Son and his Spirit through the redemption of the elect of all nations Jew and Gentile, and that at some stage the root of the Church in the Jews themselves will be revitalized. Will this inclue poitical boundaries, the whole nation or part? Those are questions we may have, but the answers I think are not revealed. There is talk of mystery in relation to the subject of the makeup of the Church, Jews and Gentiles, but it's not about whether the Jews are included, but whether the Gentiles can be!

Ephesians 3:1-6 ESV “1 For this reason I, Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles— 2 assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you, 3 how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. 4 When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. 6 This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.”

You opening question as Dr. Duiguid explains reveals a degree of misunderstanding of what the theology of the Reformed in the main has been. There is a good degree of agreement on much of it.

Don't let the unknowables of the subject cause you to turn away from what is knowable. We don't need to know all truth to known truth.

Pastor Wallace,
As I read the responses originating from my original post concerning this subject it is now becoming clear to me that my original notion of the "All or Nothing" approach to the eschatology of Israel as being the only singular reformed stance has been narrow and even extreme. I am taking great comfort from people like you and the other gracious brothers and sisters who have revealed to me just how skewered my outlook was and how historically different this subject was from my original notion that there may have been planted a seed of pride/jealousy and a bit of anti-semitism rampant in Europe at the time couched in Covenant Theology (which is man's doctrine not divinely inspired). You've changed not so much my mind but my heart. Blessings to all. In Him...Ken

 

[alexanderjames]

Hi Ken, I'm encouraged from reading your comments.

.. a seed of pride/jealousy and a bit of anti-semitism rampant in Europe at the time couched in Covenant Theology (which is man's doctrine not divinely inspired).

To be clear I think what others are highlighting is that Covenant Theology is commonly mischaracterized as 'Replacement Theology'.

In my estimation historical Covenant theology actually supports a revival among the physical descendents of Abraham before the Lord's return since God's covenant with Israel still stands. And how wonderful it is that the scope of God's covenant with Abraham is far more encompassing that his bloodline alone, extending to the ends of the earth, which led the apostle to exclaim "Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!"

 

[JP Wallace]

Ken

nd a bit of anti-semitism rampant in Europe at the time couched in Covenant Theology

In regard to what you write above - there is a bit of evidence that there was a degree of vehement opposition to Jews - not really grounded in covenant theology - but earlier Lutheranism - Luther himself wrote rather bluntly (and erroneously) I believe about the Jews in "The Jews and Their Lies" 1543, but even his attitude varied from time to time - we are all men with feet of clay.

Regardless - I hope you see your affection for the Jews as a people is not wrong-headed - after all Paul wrote the following
Romans 9:3 ESV “or I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh," - and you certainly don't need to investigate the nonsense that is rampant in Dispensational theology on this matter. Some good books have been suggested above and they will be good directions for you to go towards.

How nice to see a humble question and a humble response to the answers!

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Yes! I appreciate, of course, the Scottish Presbyterians

I am a New Zealand born Scot. I worship in a confessional Dutch Reformed Church. I once reminded a zealous Dutchman that Scotland, and not the Netherlands, is known as the land of the Covenant

In recent years I have come to appreciate the link between the best of Scottish Presbyterianism and the Covenanters

I'm just wondering if anything in the premil or amil systems lessens the likelihood of holding to a future widespread conversion of the Jews.

The Amillennialists who believe in Revival (eg Martyn Lloyd-Jones) and probably most Postmills tend to have an optimistic view of widespread conversion of the Jews. I appreciate there may be nuances in these views.

And I've been wanting to read Murray's book! My poor book budget, though.

Sorry about your book budget but add to the list Iain Murray's "A Scottish Christian heritage" Seriously Iain Murray's book "The Puritan Hope: Revival and the interpretation of Prophecy" will answer your question in more detail, I believe. He goes into quite a bit of detail on Scottish Presbyterianism, the future of the conversion of the Jews, and how ones eschatology impacts on this.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Large conversion of Jews =/= Postmillennialism.

Perhaps. Martyn LLoyd-Jones was Amill and believed in a widespread conversion of the Jews before the end of the age. See

God's Plan for the Jews - a sermon from Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones

The world will end one day. It is more than a movie plot; it is God’s plan. But what happens? Will all of Israel be saved? Will Jesus come at any time, or are there signs that will precede His coming? In this sermon on God’s plan for the Jews, Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones begins with a warning against...

www.mljtrust.org