Thread: Present Day Reformed Churchs On Who Is Israel
Admin
Present Day Reformed Churchs On Who Is Israel
Posted : 3 Jun, 2012 05:13 AM
On a large Christian forum, not part of a dating service, which I probably should not name, one of
the members said the last few days that: "The NT Church is understood to be the �New Israel.�
The Reformed covenant position recognizes a strict continuity between the OT people of God, Israel, and the NT people of God, the Church, the Body of Christ. According to Romans 4:11, 12 and Galatians 3:15-29, Christians are considered the true spiritual seed of Abraham. Reformed writers, Crenshaw and Gunn state,
Paul argues in Galatians 3 that God intentionally used seed as a collective noun that has both a singular and plural reference so that the singular reference could refer to Christ and the plural reference could refer to those who are in Christ. Paul�s point is that the Abrahamic promises were made to Abraham and to his seed (vs. 16), that the seed of Abraham is Christ (vs. 16) and all who are in Christ (vs. 29), and that therefore the promise given to Abraham belongs to all who are in Christ (vs. 29), � When Paul was explaining the Old Testament promise that belongs to the Christian, he was referring specifically to the land promise � [Crenshaw and Gunn, 234, 235]
Their comment builds upon John Calvin�s views of these passages, who wrote,
In a word, he gives the appellation of the Israel of God to those whom he formally denominated the children of Abraham by faith (Gal. 3:29), and thus includes all believers, whether Jews or gentiles, who were united into one Church. [Calvin, 186]"
The traditional Reformed teaching did not clearly say that Isreal reborn in Jesus Christ, after Christ, the dresser in the parable of the fig tree of Luke 13: 6-9, cut down Israel to himself alone and then his Apostles and after the Cross to the three thousand born again following Peter's preaching in Acts 2:41, is still the Israel of God, but made a spiritual house (I Peter 2: 5-9). But Calvinism prior to the 19th century start of the falling away did not follow the Catholics in saying that the capital C "church" replaced Israel, nor did the Calvinists say anything like 19th century dispensationalism taught, that God now has two peoples, the Jews and the 'church."
Now, after the falling away of II Thessalonians 2: 3-4 is well under way, it appears the Reformed chuches will not accept the position of the Remnant that physical Israel was transformed into israel reborn in Christ, that physical Israel is not the chosen people, but the believers are, and the implications of all this. The Reformed churches will stick to their capital C church identity as a body of Christ, not just a meeting, assembly or conregation of Israel as a spiritual house. In their formal docrines they may not go as far as to say that God now has two peoples, the Jews and the church. And they may not teach against the idea that physical Israel remains the chosen people.
"Paul in Romans 4: 13-14 and Galatians 3: 16-29 teaches that all who are in Christ are now the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith. He does not spoon feed us. We have to figure out by what he says that physical descent from Abraham is no longer the way to become the chosen of God. And the problem and importance here is that the teaching that believers, or the elect, are the spiritual heirs of Abraham by faith, and by being in Christ is a part of the Gospel. Contradicting this teaching is not of faith and points to another Gospel and another Christ.
Scripture does not contradict itself. If it appears to do so, there is something wrong with your interpretation of scripture."
"But Isreal is HATED for the gospel. but LOVED for the promises, because gods GIFTS are irrevocable. God promised that through abraham all the nations would be blessed. and recieve the heavenly promised land. He also promised the physical decedents would recieve the physical land of canaan as a promise forever.
Even if I lived in that promised land, I too would rather have the heavenly, But it does nt mean Gods promise to them is not valid.
If God renigs on his promise, he lied to abraham, and us."
The above is what a different guy on this same forum wrote in the last few days.
Here is the opposition between two polarities, one holding to the Gospel of the New Covenant and the New Testament, and the other holding on to the Old Covenant chosen people belief based upon physical descent from Abraham. There should be no consensus using the dialectic between these two opposites. And those holding to the first position, to the Gospel of Christ, and to the transformation of physical Israel into Israel as a spiritual house, reborn in Christ, must not use the dialectic in continual wrestling with the opposite position, because in that process you can began to be processed into the dialectic yourself.
Part of the opposing position is the desire to have their version of Christ and at the same time to hold on to the belief that the chosen people status by physical descent continues after Christ died to transform physical Israel into Israel reborn in him. Revelation 2: 9 says "I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan."
Arguing, in effect, that physical Israel remains the chosen people because of their physical descent from Abraham when Christ came to the lost sheep of the house of Israel and died on the Cross to transform them into a spiritual house reborn in him, or actually a remnant of them, is like saying one is a Jew but is not a real Jew as Paul defines a real Jew in Romans 2: 29.
Those of the Gospel of Christ should just state that position as clearly as they can, and when the opposite side rejects it, leave the argument. Leave the conflict to the Lord. Remember II John 9-10, "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:"
My response had nothing to do with Calvinism...which futher shows my point that you don't understand what Calvinism is.
Actually it does because when you accepted that theology you then rejected the word of God in preferring the word of men and it is difficult to say the least for your light then became the word of men.
When you walk together the two are in agreement, I understand fully.
Some of the best examples of man's free will is those that say man does not have a free will.
I am a newcomer to this thread and have read the back and forth interaction. Rest assured that plenty of onlookers see right through P.J. and others like him. Let him post a logical and biblical argument for his position. He can NOT! Therefore, he is reduced to ad hominem attacks.
The word "calvinist" is never used in the Bible. Very few of Calvin's critics have ever read any of his writings. Yet, they consider themselves to be experts on his teachings.
As soon as P.J. has written his own Commentary on the Bible and his own Institutes on the Christian faith, you and I will not be able to compare and contrast his view against Calvin's.
Until he has done so, he is merely another incompetent windbag.
As soon as P.J. has written his own Commentary on the Bible and his own Institutes on the Christian faith, you and I will not be able to compare and contrast his view against Calvin's.
Should Read:
As soon as P.J. has written his own Commentary on the Bible and his own Institutes on the Christian faith, you and I will be able to compare and contrast his view against Calvin's.
This is true. For a time I gave up trying to engage in any kind of meaningful biblical discussion with him. I believe it's time to go back to that until he can prove himself.
As soon as P.J. has written his own Commentary on the Bible and his own Institutes on the Christian faith, you and I will not be able to compare and contrast his view against Calvin's.
Should Read:
As soon as P.J. has written his own Commentary on the Bible and his own Institutes on the Christian faith, you and I will be able to compare and contrast his view against Calvin's.
View Profile
History
Present Day Reformed Churchs On Who Is Israel
Posted : Posted : 8 Jun, 2012 02:39 PM
This is true. For a time I gave up trying to engage in any kind of meaningful biblical discussion with him. I believe it's time to go back to that until he can prove himself.
These responses indicate as some believe they are entitled to their opinion, while you can have your opinion, it has nothing to do what the word of God declares.
The immature response and trying to put the burden on any man, as in this case shows no regard for the word of God.
Calvinist continually deny the word of God and justify it by their so called interpretation, which is in and of itself against the word of God.
No man is responsible to prove the word of god that statement is heresy in and of itself and intellectual response, at enmity with the word of God.
Scripture:
Mt 21:32 For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.
The basis for the dead flower is that man can not believe, after the fall.
Jesus says othwerwise continually, here is an example after the fall.
Gen 4:1 � And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
Gen 4:2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
Gen 4:3 � And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
Gen 4:4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
Gen 4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
Heb 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
You don't find it your burden to come up with a sufficient defense against Calvinism?...since you believe me lost for agreeing with the doctrines of grace you would think you would be able to defend that belief. Instead... you constantly just give us your opinion or post verses which are irrelevant to the discussion.
