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.
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. ;-)
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:
. 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?