Posted on 08/25/2006 6:09:27 AM PDT by xzins
I'm interested in other dispensationalist's viewpoints. Non-dispensationalists are certainly invited to offer FRIENDLY, non-disruptive observations. However, there is no desire here to get in a food fight with those having other millennial views (amil, postmil, preterist, etc.)
the intent of the caucus is to list the BIBLICAL strengths/weaknesses of Progressive Dispensationalism (PD.)
I understand it came out of Dallas Seminary, has a bit of a following there, and there is also a following at Moody Bible Institute.
I've not heard of Progressive Dispensationalism before, but is it related to God's progressive revelation?
(I'll read the article in a bit to see.)
It starts from the premise that prophecy is being progressively fulfilled now and that the kingdom of God is both already and not yet.
Without reading any replies, I'll say:
A. I agree with the article, at least basically. And
B. It's really going to irritate the guilty consciences of devotees of the "shrug+'whatever'" approach to blurring 2/3 of the Bible.
Dan
BTW, the joke around Talbot was:
Q: When is a dispensationalist not a dispensationalist?
A: When he's Bob Saucy.
Nor had I. I was expecting some new version of dispensationalism to pop up, filling the void created by Hal Lindsey's 1988 rapture predictions (40 years after the foundation of modern Israel) not coming to pass. This appears to be one of the contenders....
The public debut of PD was made on November 20, 1986, in the Dispensational Study Group in connection with the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Atlanta, Georgia. . . . Actually, the label 'progressive dispensationalism' was introduced at the 1991 meeting, since 'significant revisions' in dispensationalism had taken place by that time. Some view Kenneth Barker's presidential address at the 33rd annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society on December 29, 1981 as the precursor to some of the views of PD.
My major concern is the blurring the distinction between national Israel and the Church. I am convinced that the bible teaches a role for national Israel.
If this were simply a dispute over "how many" dispensations there are, and these folks are in favor of 2 basic covenants in this era (Old Covenant/New Covenant), one called the millennium, and then one called the "new heaven and new earth," then I'm not going to think there's any real concern here.
But the national Israel issue is the major consideration.
Oh yeah, among any who know anything about it, the number of dispensations has never been the big deal. That's why the label isn't the best; it focuses on what really isn't the distinguishing factor of the system.
Zola Levitt and others in his ministry had/have a running argument with the PD advocates. He took up the subject often in his monthly newsletters.
http://www.levitt.com/essays/progdisp.html
I took it to mean that they saw a matrix with Jew/Gentile on one axis and Christian/Non-Christian on the other axis. (Jew/Christian; Jew/Non-Christian; Gentile/Christian; Gentirle/Non-Christian.) I assumed they meant that the first category Jew/Christian placed that particular Jew BOTH in the Church and in national Israel.
If that were the case, I had no problem. It would mean that currently non-Christian Jews have a separate future mapped out for them that means eternal death for some, and a point in time (tribulation?) when a "remnant" would be restored.
I'm not sure now that's what they meant.
Read later
Does Acts 1:6–7 Teach the Restoration of the Nation Israel?:
A Comparison of Supersessionist
and Nonsupersessionist Interpretations
by Michael J. Vlach, Ph.D.
Acts 1:6–7 reads: “And so when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, ‘Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?’ He said to them, ‘It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority.’”
This text is important in the debate over whether national Israel will undergo a national restoration. Nonsupersessionists, who believe in a restoration of national Israel, claim this text, which describes Jesus’ final interchange with his apostles, affirms the idea of a restoration of the nation Israel.[i] They usually do so by asserting two points: (1) the disciples expected a restoration of national Israel; and (2) this nationalistic expectation of the disciples was correct.
Concerning the first issue, John A. McLean holds that the disciples clearly expected a future restoration of the Davidic kingdom to national Israel:
The terms “Israel” and “Israelite” occur 32 times in Luke-Acts. In each occurrence the terms refer to the people of Israel as a national entity. Therefore it seems correct to understand that the disciples’ question in Acts 1:6 referred to a restoration of a kingdom to the nation of Israel. They were asking Jesus about the timing of the future restoration of the Davidic kingdom of Israel as described and defined in the Old Testament.[ii]
The second issue concerns whether the disciples were correct in having nationalistic views concerning Israel’s restoration. Nonsupersessionists argue that the belief of the disciples was valid and not misguided. Two reasons are given to support this view. First, Acts 1:3 states that Jesus met with the disciples for a period of forty days after his resurrection “speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God.” To nonsupersessionists, it seems unlikely that the disciples could be misguided in their perceptions of the kingdom for Israel after having received forty days of instruction about the kingdom from the risen Lord. As McLean argues:
These disciples, however, were the same ones to whom Jesus had explained the Scriptures (Luke 24:32), whose minds He had opened to understand the Scriptures (v. 45), and with whom He had spent 40 days speaking about the kingdom of God (Acts 1:3). Therefore it is highly unlikely they would have thought He meant to alter the meaning of the kingdom by excluding its national, political character. Therefore rather than correcting the disciples’ understanding of a kingdom He led them to expect a kingdom at some undisclosed time period.[iii]
Larry Helyer, too, argues against the possibility that the disciples were wrong about their conceptions of the kingdom based on the belief that Jesus had many opportunities to correct any misconceptions they may have had:
The disciples have had the benefit of forty days of postresurrection instruction about the kingdom of God (1:3). Luke specifies that the question about the time of restoration was immediately prior to the ascension. In other words it was their last question. It seems psychologically improbable that the issue of national restoration had not come up for discussion prior to that moment. According to Luke, as late as the last supper the disciples had been quarreling about who was to be the greatest in the kingdom (22:24). This must have involved leadership in the new commonwealth. Therefore if Christ never intended to restore Israel nationally he surely would have addressed that burning issue. Yet we have this question in 1:6. I conclude that the point of the question could hardly have been whether there would be a restoration but, rather, when it would occur.[iv]
According to John Michael Penney, “The disciples’ question here (1.6) is hardly to be construed as a nationalistic misunderstanding. It echoes Gabriel’s language from the opening chapter of the Gospel.”[v]
Nonsupersessionists also believe that the lack of correction from Jesus in Acts 1:7 is validation that the disciples were correct in their beliefs about Israel’s restoration. If the disciples were wrong about their idea of a future restoration of the kingdom to Israel, they assert, Jesus probably would have corrected their misconception like he did on other occasions. But Jesus’ lack of correction is viewed as affirmation of their idea. As McLean asserts:
The ministry of Jesus focused, in part, on correcting false doctrine and rebuking errant teachers. However, it is noteworthy that Jesus did not correct the disciples’ question about the restoration of the kingdom to Israel. Therefore in view of the consistent ministry of Jesus to correct the disciples when they were in error, it seems correct to conclude that in their question in Acts 1:6 they properly anticipated a future restoration of the kingdom for Israel.[vi]
Robert Saucy acknowledges that “the disciples had difficulty with some of the spiritual teaching about the kingdom,”[vii] but he also believes the idea that they were totally wrong about the kingdom’s relationship to national Israel is hard to substantiate:
To charge them with a total misunderstanding of the kingdom hope of Israel based on an alleged reinterpretation of this hope is difficult to substantiate in Scripture. Just before the disciples asked about Israel and the kingdom, Luke records that Jesus had been teaching them “about the kingdom of God” (v. 3). If after all this instruction from Jesus their question had still been wrong-headed, we would certainly expect to find a rebuke and a correction in Jesus’ reply. After all, he was about to leave and send them out as his witnesses. But though some disagree, we find nothing like a rebuke in Jesus’ words.[viii]
According to nonsupersessionists, Jesus refused to address the timing of the kingdom, but he offered no correction to their idea that a restoration of national Israel would take place. As J. Bradley Chance writes, “In short, Jesus’ response challenges the hope for an immediate restoration of Israel. It does not challenge the hope of such a restoration itself.”[ix]
Nonsupersessionists assert that Acts 1:6 shows that the disciples of Jesus correctly expected a future restoration of national Israel, but supersessionists, who deny a restoration of national Israel, disagree. While supersessionists have often acknowledged that the disciples at this point had nationalistic expectations on their minds,[x] they disagree with the idea that Acts 1:6 is evidence for the idea of a future national restoration of Israel. Supersessionists have offered two alternative explanations for the meaning of Acts 1:6. First, some have claimed that the disciples were simply misguided in their understanding of the kingdom or that they had not grasped the true meaning of Jesus’ kingdom message.[xi] Raymond O. Zorn states that Acts 1:6 indicates “the last flicker on the apostles’ part . . . concerning their hope that national Israel would once again be a political theocracy.”[xii]
Second, others like Robertson hold that Israel would indeed be restored, but it would be restored in a way different from the nationalistic expectations of the apostles. As he states, “The kingdom of God would be restored to Israel in the rule of the Messiah, which would be realized by the working of the Holy Spirit through the disciples of Christ as they extended their witness to the ends of the earth.”[xiii] Thus, as the kingdom message was carried to the world through the Holy Spirit, Israel’s kingdom was being restored. To support this view, Robertson ties the question of the disciples in Acts 1:6 with Jesus’ statement in 1:8 that the disciples would receive the power of the Holy Spirit and they would be Jesus’ witnesses throughout the earth: “This statement [in 1:8] should not be regarded as peripheral to the question asked by the disciples. Instead, it is germane to the whole issue of the restoration of the kingdom to Israel.”[xiv]
In spite of these explanations, however, Acts 1:6 seems to be significant evidence for the nonsupersessionist view. The fact that these disciples had immediately experienced forty days of kingdom instruction from the risen Jesus (see Acts 1:3) makes it unlikely they could be so wrong about the nature of the kingdom and national Israel’s relationship to it. Plus, Jesus’ answer, although not an explicit affirmation of their hope, appears to assume the correctness of their expectation. As Scot McKnight states:
Since Jesus was such a good teacher, we have every right to think that the impulsive hopes of his audience were on target. This is not to say that they, at times, drew incorrect references or came to inaccurate conclusions about time or about content, but it is to admit that Jesus believed in an imminent realization of the kingdom to restore Israel and that he taught this with clarity.[xv]
We thus conclude with Paul W. Walaskay that Jesus said nothing that “dampened the hope of his disciples for a national kingdom.”[xvi] Acts 1:6–7, therefore, is evidence for the restoration of the nation Israel.
[i] The following people view this text as affirming a future restoration of national Israel: Scot McKnight, A New Vision for Israel: The Teaching of Jesus in National Context (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 130–01; Paul W. Walaskay, ‘And So We Came to Rome’: The Political Perspective of St Luke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 17; John A. McLean, “Did Jesus Correct the Disciples’ View of the Kingdom?” Bibliotheca Sacra 151:602 (1994): 222; Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, 268; Larry Helyer, “Luke and the Restoration of Israel,” 327; John Michael Penny, The Missionary Emphasis of Lukan Pneumatology (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 69; Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 237;David L. Tiede, “The Exaltation of Jesus and the Restoration of Israel in Acts 1,” Harvard Theological Review 79:1–3 (1986): 278; David Larsen, Jews, Gentiles and the Church: A New Perspective on History and Prophecy (Grand Rapids: Discovery House, 1995), 35; Fruchtenbaum, Israelology, 104–05.
My initial reaction is that the Jer 31:33-37 and Romans 11:18-28 are speaking to the nation of Israel which is to say the descendants of Jacob, not the geopolitical "nation" we call "Israel". God's promise is not broken, Jesus sits on the throne of David - He is also the Alpha and Omega. Interestingly, Revelation refers to both Jesus and the Father as Alpha and Omega.
Because I see Jesus in timelessness, I would say He exists in that position regardless of our timeline (sense of an "arrow of time") - just as He is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, that He is always our crucified Lord and always our risen Lord, always the Logos, etc.
But I would also say that the descendants of Jacob have not yet realized the promise because they are "time-bound" as are all of us "in" this Creation, this heaven and earth. The new heaven and earth of Revelation may not have a sense of time passing according to other Jewish interpretations discussed on a previous thread.
The millennial reign does not end Christ's authority on the seat of David (or in any other respect) - it is more like a prologue to the new heaven and the new earth.
In sum, I see the "sheep" of Eze 34 encompassing both the nation of Israel, and the "other" fold of John 10 (we who are grafted in) - but that we are ultimately one fold with one Shepherd - hence the 24 thrones in Revelation.
I'm not sure where that puts me in this "progressive dispensationalism" issue - I wouldn't care anyway because I eschew such labels. LOL!
On the other hand, I don't find the "now/not yet" aspect of the Kingdom to be at all objectionable. Certainly, the Kingdom is not yet comprised of Yeshua's visible rule on the earth, but we are yet "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvellous light" (1 Pt. 2:9). Since we are subjects of a King, we are by definition a Kingdom, especially since said King rules in our hearts by way of His Spirit.
Those terms, by the way, were all originally used of Israel, which at the very least suggests a parallel kinship between Israel and the Church--more on this in a moment.
Acknowledging the "now" aspect of the Kingdom does not require in any way surrendering or softening our hope for the day when the Messiah King visibly and bodily rules over the earth from Jerusalem on the throne of David.
Neither do I find it objectionable that the mysteries of the New Covenant were there, but veiled from human understanding, in the Tanakh (the OT). After all, when the Jerusalem council decided against forcing Gentile believers to become Jewish (circumcise), they quoted Amos' promise that there would be a gathering of "all the Gentiles, upon whom My name is called" (Acts 15:17, quoting Amos 9:12).
The mystery that Sha'ul was the recipient of was not simply that there would be Gentiles in God's Assembly (or Ekklesia), but that these Gentiles would be "fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of His promise in the Messiah by the gospel" (Eph. 3:6) rather than second-class citizens, slaves to Israel as Israel was in the first century slaves to Rome.
In fact, there are a number of passages which speak of a time during which God would temporarily glorify a Gentile remnant over Israel, and speak to Israel through the Gentiles instead of to the Gentiles through Israel.
They have moved Me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked Me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation. (Deu. 32:21, quoted in Rom. 10:19)Here, of course, we find the defense against "blurring" the distinction between Israel and the Church, as the latter is called "those which are not a people, a foolish (or unlearned) nation," and "a nation that was not called by My name." But by the same token, there is no denying that we wild branches are grafted into the cultivated olive tree of Israel. How then do we embrace our Israeli/Jewish root without succumbing to either Replacement theology or the foolish desire many of my Gentile (born and raised) Messianic brethren have to prove that they are "really" Jewish?I am sought of them that asked not for Me ; I am found of them that sought Me not: I said, "Behold Me, behold Me," unto a nation that was not called by My name. (Isa. 65:1, quoted in Rom. 10: 20)
I think an example may be shown from adoption. Imagine that a loving Father has an oftimes rebelleous son, named Y'hudah. Y'hudah was born in the Father's household as an heir, but the Father decides that He wants more children, and adopts a scruffy, unmannered kid off the streets. We'll call him Kirk. This adoption causes immense jealousy in Y'hudah, especially when the Father does not require Kirk to learn and keep all of the household rules as a prerequisite to his adoption, so Y'hudah leaves the house.
Now, because Y'hudah has rebelled against the Father, does this in any way change the fact that he was born into the household and into the family name? Especially when the Father has promised to bring Y'hudah home? And just because our friend Kirk was adopted into the household and family name when Y'hudah rebelled, does this make him a replacement for the elder son? Does Kirk become Y'hudah? Obviously, the answer is no to all of the above.
The error of the Church in this matter has been to assume that Y'hudah has been cast out, and that to return he would have to place himself under Kirk. On the contrary, when the Father brings Y'hudah home, it will be to restore him to his rightful place as the firstborn son (Exo. 4:22f). Neither does Kirk's adopted status make him any less loved or any less a member of the family--on the contrary, as I can say from personal experience (my youngest brother being adopted), he is just as much the Father's son.
(And yes, I'm leaving Yeshua without a specific symbol in this parable. Consider Him One with the Father. I'm also ignoring the remnant of Israel which has always believed in the Messiah and stayed within the house. Call it Occam's Razor of parables.)
I'm not sure that blurring the distinction between the Church and Israel is so much the problem as is a failure to understand that adoption does not equal replacement. Of course, for the sake of being clear, we should probably continue to use separate terms for the adopted son (the Church) and the firstborn (Israel) when discussing ecclesiology or eschatology, especially since every time we start to blend those terms, someone inevitably denies the particular promises to the natural seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob!
Of course, to me the most telling point of those who claim to be Israel in replacement of the Jews is that they refuse to keep the commandments God gave Israel. A Dispensationalist who believes that there is a distinction between--and therefore distinctive commandments for--Israel and the Church is at least being consistant on this point (though I would argue against any perceived shift from Law to Grace: Salvation has always been by Grace, and the Torah is reinforced, not done away with, by the New Covenant). As Ryrie points out, if you worship on Sunday instead of on Saturday, you are a Dispensationalist, and the rest is just dickering on the details of the Dispensations.
That being the case, I'm probably the least Dispensational Christian on FR (or at least tied with the other Messianics here). Hopefully you won't hold that against me or my post. ;-)
Haven't I asked you not to ping me?
Nationally, the promises of the Father are still to Yehuda. On an individual basis, each "Yehuda" still has to decide to return to the house of the Father (be born again, place his faith in Jesus Christ for salvation), or he will be cut off eternally.
Historic Premil, as I understand it, also believes that from the time of Jesus' ascension various prophecies started being fulfilled in "history" and will continue to be fulfilled until the end. In order to get fulfilled prophecies, there is a penchant for deeply symbolizing some of them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.