# Is it possible (pt2)



## Joseph Scibbe (Jul 28, 2009)

Is it possible to be both Reformed and............. dispensational (I know it is a dirty word here)?


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 28, 2009)

This, too, is a no-brainer.


----------



## jawyman (Jul 28, 2009)

Absolutely not.


----------



## Confessor (Jul 28, 2009)

Last time they tried it, this happened.






Same joke as last thread, I know, I know.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jul 28, 2009)

*Definitions*

The answer is yes, if and only if one defines "Reformed" in a way that does not exclude "Dispensationalism." The answer is no, if and only if one defines "Reformed" in a way that excludes Dispensationalism.

Oh, wait. We're back where we started. If only someone had proposed a definition of either of those terms...


----------



## Jake (Jul 28, 2009)

What about MacArthur?


----------



## Jon Peters (Jul 28, 2009)

Not a chance. Dispensationalism guts the Reformed system. Other than basic theology like the Trinity and such, I'm not sure on what points the two systems have any agreement.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 28, 2009)

Jake said:


> What about MacArthur?



He is not reformed. Calvinistic, yes, but not reformed.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jul 28, 2009)

Iff you define Reformed as many on this board do, I am not even "Reformed" (I am a Baptist).
Iff you define Reformed as a 5pt Calvinist on soteriology, then yes (e.g., MacArthur).

Dr. Clark is famous for objecting to Baptists being included in the definition since, for him (and many here), it involves more than TULIP. It implies covenant theology (i.e., opposite of dispensational hermeneutics), a view of the sacraments (opposite most Baptists), and an understanding of church government that is NON congregational.

Even MacArthur calls himself a "leaky dispensationalist."

Insofar as the Reformed system of thinking involves an approach to the Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace, relationship between Israel and the church, etc. that differs from dispensational hermeneutics it would not be very possible to be a Reformed dispensationalist. Many dispensationalists claim to be 4 or 5 pt Calvinists soteriologically (e.g., S. Lewis Johnson of Dallas Seminary fame). A careful study will reveal either that they have modified nnormative dispensationalism or normative Reformed thinking.

Incidentally, "progressive dispensationalists" operate with a more nuanced view of Israel and the church and could have an easier time affirming many (but not all) Reformed tenets. Most "Reformed dispensationalists" are congregational paedobaptists who believe some things most dispensationalists do not and not some things that most Reformed people do.


----------



## Jon Peters (Jul 28, 2009)

Jake said:


> What about MacArthur?



He's not Reformed. He might be a Calvinist but the five points of Calvinism are not the Reformed system, they are a small part of it. My old pastor (Pastor Lewis at Covenant OPC in Berkeley) used to call the Shorter Catechism the 107 Points of Calvinism.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 28, 2009)

You know,
Wannabee is somewhat dispensational. He might call himself "reformed."

He's not going to mean _exactly_ the same thing as the strictly historical/ confessional definition of "Reformed."

So, is it possible to believe quite a bit of our common, confessionally defined reformed faith, simply as a fellow committed to the Bible? Is it possible to be a predestinarian, and believe much cardinal doctrine, to be a MacArthurite, and fit in here OK? I think so.

But the PB isn't a place to promote dispensationalism, because the Confessions are constructed in a frame of covenant-theology. Covenant theology _of some kind_ is assumed as the foundation of those formulations.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Jul 28, 2009)

Without reading every reply above, I will simply say that any definition of Reformed necessarily includes adherence to Covenant Theology. The basic tenets of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology are mutually exclusive. Therefore the strict answer to the OP is No.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 28, 2009)

CharlieJ said:


> The answer is yes, if and only if one defines "Reformed" in a way that does not exclude "Dispensationalism." The answer is no, if and only if one defines "Reformed" in a way that excludes Dispensationalism.
> 
> Oh, wait. We're back where we started. If only someone had proposed a definition of either of those terms...



We can't play Humpty-Dumpty games with the term "Reformed" just as we can't do so with terms like "justification" and "sanctification". Reformed has a historical definition that is what it is... just because some want to equate "Reformed" with affirming TULIP (actually that's too restrictive for some people) and others want to include progressive dispensationalists in the "Reformed" label does not mean that this is legitimate wordsmithing.

I cannot fathom how "Reformed" means anything other than affirming and practicing the points of doctrine and practice outlined in the continental reformed tradition (e.g. the TFU) or the Westminsterian tradition... "Reformed" can't be abstracted from these confessional traditions, as anyone who ever was called "Reformed" at the time these confessional documents were written held to them - and people who did not, were not so referred to. 

As has already been noted, the term Reformed in this sense can't be applied to those who affirm the London Baptist Confession - and this is no insult - it's just a recognition of a historical fact. Similarly, as Calvinistic as John MacArthur and John Piper are, they are not Reformed. They affirm the Doctrines of grace, indeed... but that is not equivalent. Again - it's no insult to them or their ministries... it's just a label they are not legitimately able to apply to themselves.


----------



## Scott1 (Jul 28, 2009)

_What is reformed theology?_ by Dr. RC Sproul may be helpful in understanding this.

At a minimum, reformed theology is:

*doctrines of grace "five points" + covenant theology + confession*

Even allowing for some variations within "covenant theology," it is not reformed theology without it. Further, since none of the confessions are dispensational (at all) then one one would not have an (historic) Confession either. What they might have is a "Calvinist" interpretation of the essential doctrines of grace.

There are some of us who would like to add more to the minimums for reformed theology, e.g. a "spiritual" view of the Lord's Supper, church discipline, infant baptism and the "high" view of the church these represent. But without a covenantal framework of Scripture one also loses the analogy of faith in understanding all of God's revealed will through His Word.

It took me a long time to understand that, but then reformed theology is deep and profound- we owe a debt of gratitude to our forefathers in the faith for developing it.

I'm sure some think themselves "reformed" because they truly do not understand the theology. That's reasonable because it is truly difficult to understand and takes a lot of study and engagement in Scripture.

In a way, it must be flattering so many would want to usurp the title "reformed theology," whether the reasons are simply misunderstanding it or intending to misrepresent it. Look at all the communions that would presume this title on themselves:

1) Charismatic/pentecostals who teach or assume in practice revelation equal or above that of Scripture as an "ordinary means of grace."

2) Liberal mainline denominations that have abandoned the authority of Scripture almost altogether and would promote things clearly contrary to it.

3) Churches that come to a basic understanding of the "five points" and are so overwhelmed by the profound truth, neglect to bind other substantive doctrine with a confession of faith, though reformed theology unity is based on doctrinal agreement.

4) Churches that do not understand that the whole of Scripture interprets itself, both in matters of salvation and in unfolding God's greater plan of redemption through History.


There are many dear brothers and sisters in one of these phases right now- and probably have been varieties of this throughout church history.

But reformed theology is what it is... and it is refreshing that we don't have to re-invent the wheel in every generation. We can aspire to conform and reform Christian faith and practice toward that of Scripture, for His Honor and His Glory.


----------

