Posted on 08/25/2006 6:09:27 AM PDT by xzins
General Information
In recent years there has been a rise in what has become known as Progressive Dispensationalism (PD) (Other labels for PD include "revised," "reconstructed," or "new" dispensationalism.). Adherents to PD see themselves as being in the line of normative or traditional dispensationalism, but at the same time, have made several changes and/or modifications to the traditional dispensational system. Thus, PD adherents view themselves as furthering the continual development of dispensational theology. It is also true that progressive dispensationalists seek a mediating position between traditional dispensationalism and nondispensational systems.
According to Charles Ryrie, the adjective 'progressive' refers to a central tenet that the Abrahamic, Davidic, and new covenants are being progressively fulfilled today (as well as having fulfillments in the millennial kingdom). According to Craig Blaising, The name progressive dispensationalism is linked to the progressive& relationship of the successive dispensations to one another.
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. His address was called, False Dichotomies Between the Testaments.
Craig Blaising, Darrell Bock, Robert Saucy, Kenneth Barker, David Turner, John Martin. NOTE: It should not be thought that all who have associated themselves with PD in some way are agreed on all issues. Blaising and Bock have been the most prolific in promoting PD so it is their views that will mostly be examined.
According to traditional dispensationalism, Jesus is currently exalted at the right hand of the Father, but He is not sitting on David's throne nor has His messianic kingdom reign begun yet. Progressive dispensationalism, however, teaches that the Lord Jesus is now reigning as David's king in heaven at the right hand of the Father in an 'already' fulfillment aspect of the Davidic kingdom and that He will also reign on earth in the Millennium in the 'not yet' aspect. Thus, according to PD, the Davidic throne and the heavenly throne of Jesus at the right hand of the Father are one and the same. The use of Psalm 110 and 132 in Acts 2 are used to support this claim that Jesus is currently reigning as Davidic King. HOWEVER, This view is suspect for a number of reasons:
Thus, when Jesus said the kingdom of heaven is near this meant the kingdom had actually arrived. HOWEVER:
As Blaising states, "One of the most striking differences between progressive and earlier dispensationalists, is that progressives do not view the church as an anthropological category in the same class as terms like Israel, Gentile Nations, Jews, and Gentile people. . . .The church is precisely redeemed humanity itself (both Jews and Gentiles) as it exists in this dispensation prior to the coming of Christ" HOWEVER: It is hard to discern what Blaising means by this but this view seems to blur the distinctions between Israel and the church. One PD advocate, John Turner, for example, refers to the church as the "new Israel". ALSO: Paul does treat the church as an anthropological entity distinct from Israel and the Gentiles when he writes, "Give no offense either to Jews, or to Greeks or to the church of God" (1 Cor. 10:32). If the church is kept distinct from Israel (even believing Israel) how can the church not be a distinct anthropological group?
NOTE: This appears to be another area where Saucy disagrees with Blaising and Bock. Saucy argues strongly for a clear distinction between Israel and the church. As he states, "The biblical teaching about the roles of Israel and the church in history reveals that although they have much in common, they remain distinctively different". Saucy, however, does use confusing "one people of God" terminology. By this he means that Israel and the church are saved in the same way, which is correct. But if Israel and the church are "distinctively different," why refer to them as "one people of God"? The one people of God concept can easily be interpreted in the covenant theology sense of no essential distinction between Israel and the church.
Saucy writes, "Contrary to the former [traditional dispensationalists], the contents of both mysteries-i.e., the equal participation of Jew and Gentile in the body of Christ (Eph 3) and his indwelling in his people (Col 1)-are best understood as fulfillments of Old Testament prophecies". While traditional dispensationalists have taken the NT mysteries to be truths now being revealed that were absolutely not found in the OT, PD's take the mysteries of Eph. 3 and Col. 1 to be truths that were partially hidden in the OT that are now being fully revealed in the NT. The big difference is that PD's see the NT mysteries as being found in some manner in the OT. HOWEVER: though it is true that the ideas of Gentile salvation and Gentile participation in the covenants were found in the OT, the body concept including Jew and Gentiles and the "Christ in you" concept were not found in the OT.
PD's see a partial fulfillment of the spiritual promises of the covenants (Abrahamic, Davidic and New) but see a future fulfillment of the physical promises in the millennium. ON THE OTHER HAND: Traditional dispensationalists do not see the Davidic covenant as being partially fulfilled in any sense in this age. They are also reluctant to say that the New covenant is fulfilled in any way in this age, though they do believe that some spiritual benefits of the New covenant are being applied to the church. As Homer Kent states, "There is one new covenant to be fulfilled eschatologically with Israel, but participated in soteriologically by the church today. This view recognizes that Christ's death provided the basis for instituting the new covenant, and also accepts the unconditional character of Jeremiah's prophecy which leaves no room for Israel's forfeiture. At the same time it also notes that the New Testament passages definitely relate New Testament Christians to this covenant".
God's divine plan is holistic encompassing all peoples and every area of life: personal, cultural, societal and political.
PD's, for the most part, accept the pre-tribulational view of the Rapture though most of their writings ignore the issue altogether.
The foundational difference between PD and traditional dispensationalism is hermeneutical. With PD's desire for cordial relations has come a hermeneutical shift away from literal interpretation, also called the grammatical-historical method, which has been one of the ongoing hallmarks of dispensationalism.
Blaising and Bock believe the meaning of biblical texts can change. "Meaning of events in texts has a dynamic, not a static, quality." "Once a text is produced, commentary on it can follow in subsequent texts. Connection to the original passage exists, but not in a way that is limited to the understanding of the original human author." "Does the expansion of meaning entail a change of meaning? . . .The answer is both yes and no. On the one hand, to add to the revelation of a promise is to introduce 'change' to it through addition."
The PD emphasis on "preunderstanding" as part of the interpretive process is confusing. If all they mean by it is that the interpreter should be aware of one's predetermined ideas so that he can suppress them and come up with the intended meaning of the text, it is a good thing. They do not say this, though. The implication of their writings is that we all have presuppositions and preunderstandings that influence our understanding of Scripture but they say nothing on how to deal with these. What are they getting at? Does this mean all our interpretations are the product of our preunderstandings? Is it not possible with the help of the Holy Spirit to lay aside our biases and come up with the intended meaning of the text? This is one area where PD advocates are too vague. What they say, in and of itself is not wrong, but it could lead to faulty conclusions.
Part of the confusion over PD is that its adherents claim to hold to the grammatical-historical method of interpretation but by it they mean something different. Historically, the grammatical-historical method meant that biblical texts had only one meaning that could not change. This meaning was what the biblical author intended. This meaning could be found as the believer put aside his biases, with the help of the Holy Spirit, and sought the author's meaning by looking at the grammar of the text and taking into account the historical situation facing the biblical author. PD advocates, though, say the meaning of texts can change and we cannot be sure of our findings because of our "preunderstandings." This approach places PD outside the realm of dispensationalism.
The hermeneutical doors that PD has opened make very possible the eventual shift to covenant theology. As a covenant theologian, Vern Poythress is appreciative of the moves PD's have been making. But he also says, "However, their position is inherently unstable. I do not think that they will find it possible in the long run to create a safe haven theologically between classical dispensationalism and covenantal premillennialism. The forces that their own observations have set in motion will most likely lead to covenantal premillennialism after the pattern of George Ladd." Walter A. Elwell: "the newer dispensationalism looks so much like nondispensationalist premillennialism that one struggles to see any real difference" Commenting on the one people of God concept of PD, Bruce Waltke states, "That position is closer to covenant theology than to dispensationalism".
"One expects that there will be further revisions and changes in progressive dispensationalism as time passes. Where it will all lead and whether or not it will be understood and received by those who have embraced normative dispensationalism, no one knows. But already progressive dispensationalism certainly appears to be more than a development with normative dispensational teaching. Some so-called developments are too radical not to be called changes" (Ryrie).
M Vlach
Bibliography
C Ryrie, Dispensationalism; C Blaising and D Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (1993); R L Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism (1993); Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church (1992) edited by C Blaising and D Bock; R L Saucy, The Presence of the Kingdom in the Life of the Church; V Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists; H Kent, The Epistle to the Hebrews; W A Elwell, "Dispensationalists of the Third Kind," Christianity Today, 9/12, 1994, p. 28; R L Thomas, "A Critique of Progressive Dispensational Hermeneutics," When the Trumpet Sounds, p. 415; E. Johnson, "Prophetic Fulfillment: The Already and Not Yet," Issues in Dispensationalism; C Ryrie, "Update on Dispensationalism," Issues in Dispensationalism; D Bock, "The Reign of the Lord Christ," DIC, pp. 37-67; B Waltke, DIC, p. 348.
I'm dealing with groups rather than individuals in the parable. I agree that God reserves the right to prune His tree of individual branches for the sin of unbelief.
Oh, sorry, I didn't realize that you'd still be exercising the spiritual gift of surliness after this long. Farewell to thee, then.
However, there is no desire here to get in a food fight with those having other millennial views (amil, postmil, preterist, etc.)
Well, I practice the doctrine of separation with respect to such chaps. And I know there are even more extreme brothers who consider anyone who goes amillennial, etc as being on step 1 of becoming ecumenical-apostate-liberal LOL. But it is interesting - if you look at the people surrounding pre-tribbers, there are inevitably no modernists or liberals (well, SDA isn't pre-trib, and those "Heavens" cults deny imminency), but postmillennial or amillennial people have plenty of apostates surrounding them holding to the same stance. Something that will make you go umm...
Anyway, back to topic. My stance over PD is not as extreme as Zola Levitt, but I agree that it is not something in the right direction. Perhaps it is a milder form of NAE softening stance towards amillennialism. I agree with what the following article takes on PD:
You are welcome, sister. Let's pray that it be a constructive discussion. I hope it will center on Israel of the flesh and its future place in God's plan for this earth.
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.
I think that today's nation of Israel is not all of Israel of the flesh. However, I believe that that nation in that land is certainly a curiosity that should be watched. The promise was that David's descendant would sit on the throne of David for forever. Assuming the inception of that with Jesus, then it makes sense for some to assume that "now" is part of "forever." There is nothing at fault logically with such an assumption.
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.
And He could likewise be on the throne of David for eternity.
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.
I've always been blessed with the verse "eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor hath entered into the hearts of man, the things that God has prepared for those who love Him." I've always been one to permit speculation and dreaming when discussing doctrine. As long as we are anchored to the Word of God, a shelter in a time of storm, a safe harbor, a rock in a weary land, we will be able to compare our speculations and ideas with the Word He has left us.
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.
24 is definitely a repeated theme in Revelation, as is multiples of 12. Not all of the church is Israel of the flesh. Nor is all of Israel of the flesh part of the church. If we are right about the rapture, then those Jewish Christians will be withdrawn with the church.
From those who remain, I believe will come a mighty remnant.
If progressive dispensationalists combine Israel and the Church for their entire eschatological framework, then there will have to be changes in the question of "Who populates the earth during the tribulation period?"
. Non-dispensationalists are certainly invited to offer FRIENDLY, non-disruptive observations.
[shrug]. Your thread.
An honest question, offered in an irenic spirit: Back in the 80s Vern Poythress spent a sabattical at Dallas seminary interacting with you-all. His little book Understanding Dispensationalists came out of that. I'm currently somewhere in the middle, reading through it.
If you've read that book, how accurate from your vantage point is his coverage of dispensationalism?
I don't know the book. Sorry.
I'm not even a Dallas grad. Believe it or not, I came out of amil/post-mil Asbury Seminary.
I guess I'm not good at learning my lessons. :>)
Is your link a good summary of the book?
As Buggman has so ably pointed out, if Israel = Church in Romans 9-11, then replace the word Israel with the word church and stop when it becomes painfully obvious that it doesn't work.
I concur Alamo girl, and what a lovely post!
I think your post was brilliant Buggman.
Great Introduction to Dispensationalism, November 27, 2002 Reviewer: A reader Poythress provides a very thoughtful, honest look at dispensationalism from a reformed perspective. It is a short and easy to read book, and should be required for all dispensationalist (or anyone who has fallen in love the Left Behind series). Before I read this book I read Keith Mathison's book Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the Word of God? and couldn't help but think that he used huge over-generalizations and was more content to attack dispensationalist that open a dialog with them. Poythress avoids this trap with a fair interpretation. He points out that dispensationalism has a very high degree of internal coherence. While many reformed theologians point out the problems with dispensationalism, they do so from within the reformed mindset. As Poythress points out, dispensationalism makes complete sense when viewed within a dispensationalist theology. He does, however, point out why the dispensational theology is flawed and, ultimately, incorrect. Finally, he is careful to observe the distinction between classic and progressive dispensationalism. Since there are, as Poythress points out, many areas of agreement between reformed and progressive dispensationalists, he directs most of his critique towards to more radical classic dispensationalism.
It is good to know that we are found to be internally coherent. I would, of course, go beyond that to say that dispensationalism is biblically coherent.
Any reading of the bible cannot miss the promises to national Israel, and there is no way to read Romans 9-11 while replacing the word "Israel" with the word "church." It just doesn't work; illogical and incoherent.
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.