Progressive Dispensationalism

Discussion in 'Dispensationalism' started by ReformedWretch, Jan 13, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ReformedWretch

    ReformedWretch Puritan Board Doctor

    Are there any books out dealing with this? For example, John MacArthur's form of dispie thought. Has anyone refuted it at length? It makes some signigant changes from the traditional stuff.
  2. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    Poythress' Understanding Dispensationalists
  3. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    Is Gerstner not a good resource on Dispensationalism? I have heard that he takes the old form to task but doesn't really deal with the new stuff. Still, I think I can find his Primer on Dispensationalism cheap.
  4. ReformedWretch

    ReformedWretch Puritan Board Doctor

    I have a few books on the old dispie views but nothing on the new stuff. Unless House Divided: The Break Up Dispensationalism does so. I just got noticed that it has been shipped and should arrive shortly.
  5. ReformedWretch

    ReformedWretch Puritan Board Doctor

    Here is the kind of answers I get other places that makes me want to understand the opposite view better. This reply just sounds confusing to me.

  6. BlackCalvinist

    BlackCalvinist Puritan Board Senior

    :lol: @ you guys. MacArthur isn't a Progressive Dispy.

    In fact, none of the books recommended deal with Progressive Dispensationalism. If you want to 'critique' it, go read Blaising and Bock's Progressive Dispensationalism and develop your own. You might also want to look up Robert Saucy's The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism. A good side-by-side comparison can be seen in the 'Four Views On Revelation' book. Idealist, Preterist, Classic Dispensationalist and Progressive Dispensationalist views are all laid out. Thus far, not too many Covenant writers have had issues with least not in print.

    The PD viewpoint is laid out at Tim Warner's website briefly: - be sure to read PD 101 AND PD 102.

    You may actually find yourself agreeing with a lot of it, since PD is actually a 'mediating' point between Covenant Theology and Classic Dispensationalism. It's pretty close to Covenant Premillennialism. It's still 'evolving' in some areas (ie. there is room for disagreement in the PD camp about whether Christ is reigning now or will reign in the future during the millennium), but looking more and more like covenant premillennialism every day.
  7. WrittenFromUtopia

    WrittenFromUtopia Puritan Board Graduate

    Genesis - Revelation ;)
  8. jfschultz

    jfschultz Puritan Board Junior

    Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God? -- by Keith A. Mathison, has a appendix on Progressive Dispensationalism. His take is that it departs so far from classic Dispensationalism that is is not Dispensationalism. He defines Dispensationalism by the hard division between Israel and the Church which Progressive Dispensationalism denies.
  9. BlackCalvinist

    BlackCalvinist Puritan Board Senior

    I wouldn't. Even in the last paragraph of his appendix (Appendix A), all he does is say that he's chosen NOT to interact with PD at length because it is still in flux.

    And contrary to his assertion, P. 7 of progressive dispensationalism does NOT deny what he says it does. Chapter 8 of Saucy's 'The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism' is probably the best place for you to get an ACCURATE view. It's easy to read what people we agree with say about those we don't agree with.... it's altogether different to actually interact with what those who disagree with us say about themselves and their views.
  10. ANT

    ANT Puritan Board Junior

    I agree! The best way to get a faithful critique is by reading the material put out by their own authors, then read the books critiquing them, you will have a better understanding of both views (and how they originate) when you weigh them against the Word of God.


    [Edited on 1-22-2005 by ANT]
  11. BlackCalvinist

    BlackCalvinist Puritan Board Senior

    And no Ant... life never slows down. :lol:

    I just started re-reading Saucy's book in light of this discussion. PD softens the distinction of Israel/Church, but still never calls one the other. I'll post some quotes in time.
  12. john_Mark

    john_Mark Puritan Board Freshman

    Kerry..what is Mac then?

    You said MacArthur isn't a PD, so where does he fall? :candle:
  13. Shane

    Shane Puritan Board Freshman

    I would like t know as well?
    As I have never really done a study on eschatology could you give me an idea of what the most poplar positions/views are on the Puritan Board with regards to "End Times"?
  14. heartoflesh

    heartoflesh Puritan Board Junior

    Charles Ryrie takes on PD in his latest edition of "Dispensationalism", but it probably isn;t the kind of critique you guys are looking for! ;)
  15. BlackCalvinist

    BlackCalvinist Puritan Board Senior

    Johnny Mac, Robert Thomas and company are simply 'classic' (modified) dispensationalists. Let me splain - they are from the Ryrie-Walvoord era, but in light of their Calvinism and simply studying the scriptures, they are 'modified'. They aren't PD (I think Thomas did an article a while ago on the hermeneutics of Progressive Dispensationalism in TMJ.... go look it up). Ryrie and MacArthur agree on eschatology, disagree on Lordship Salvation.

    How about you guys simply going to the links I posted above or go pick up Saucy's book The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism ? It's available on Amazon AND you can read part of the introduction online.

    and you are correct Rick - Ryrie does take on PD in the revised version of 'Dispensationalism'.
  16. VirginiaHuguenot

    VirginiaHuguenot Puritanboard Librarian

    This thread may be helpful:
  17. Shane

    Shane Puritan Board Freshman

    Thanks Andrew:)
  18. Shane

    Shane Puritan Board Freshman

    Now I jus got to find out what it all means?:p:p:book2:
  19. BlackCalvinist

    BlackCalvinist Puritan Board Senior

  20. ConfederateTheocrat

    ConfederateTheocrat Puritan Board Freshman

  21. BlackCalvinist

    BlackCalvinist Puritan Board Senior

    How exactly does Genesis-Revelation 'defeat' dispensationalism ?
  22. WrittenFromUtopia

    WrittenFromUtopia Puritan Board Graduate

    Kerry, would you mind giving us your opinion on a basic "rundown" of what PD teaches in comparison to CT? Just a brief summary, from your viewpoint.
  23. BlackCalvinist

    BlackCalvinist Puritan Board Senior

    There's a chart floating around here somewhere with the basic differences between these two.... if not, I'll post one tonight.

    Now, back to my question - how does Genesis - Revelation defeat dispensationalism ?
  24. WrittenFromUtopia

    WrittenFromUtopia Puritan Board Graduate

    How does the Bible defeat dispensationalism? That's an easy question/answer. Progressive dispensationalism? I'm probably going to have to figure out exactly what they believe. Everyone that I know who is one believes different things. It seems like a chaotic movement at the moment, but I'm sure there's some people who are more established in what it teaches, systematically, perhaps like yourself? That's why I asked you for your take on it.
  25. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritan Board Doctor

    Ask and ye shall receive:
  26. BlackCalvinist

    BlackCalvinist Puritan Board Senior

    Thanks, Scott, but I found another chart (it was posted on my site by a member) similar to this with some other info. That's the one I was thinking of, not Pastor Way's. But since it's here, there are a few items that need to be corrected:

    2. Interpretation of the Scriptures

    DISP - Literal Interpretation
    PD - Same as DISP
    CT - Literal or Figurative, depending on context
    NCT - Same as CT

    * Incorrect. PD's hermeneutic is a combination of grammatical-historical-redemptive. So, for example, C. Marvin Pate can see the 'already' of Rev. being fulfilled as a 'shadow' of what is to come in 70 A.D. (ala partial preterism), yet see the 'not yet' of the same passages as being fulfilled in a future period (similar to traditional dispensationalism).

    3. "Analogy of Faith"

    DISP - Does not accept AoF
    PD - Same as DISP
    CT - Usually accepts AoF
    NCT - Same as CT

    *incorrect again. See Saucy's book on the subject, esp. pp. 29-31 where he talks about typology and other hermeneutical considerations.

    4. Israel

    DISP - Physical descendants of Jacob
    PD - Same as CT
    CT - Physical descendants of Jacob, or spiritual descendants of Abraham, depending on context
    NCT - Same as CT

    * incorrect. Actually PD *does* see the church as a sort of Spiritual Israel in the sense that they are the only Covenant people of God presently and that the church represents a continuation of God's redemptive plan for humanity, not a parenthesis or intercalation. PD also recognizes that the NT specifically treats 'Israel' as literal/ethnic Israel and does not use it interchangably with 'Church' (ala CT and NCT). PD also recognizes a literal future salvation for all the physical descendants of Jacob.

    6. Israel and the Church

    DISP - Two distinct groups of God's people with separate destinies
    PD - Same as CT
    CT - God's elect are "one people", the Universal Church has always existed
    NCT - In OT, believers are called simply "the elect of Israel", not the Church. NCT doesn't recognize a Church in the OT, such as in the NT. In Matt 16:18, Jesus said that He will build His Church. There is but one people of God of whom natural Israel was the typical foreshadowing. So, the Church is the "New Israel."

    *most classic and some revised DISP believe in separate destinies (temporal, not eternal) for Israel and the Church - others do not (ala MacArthur and Thomas).

    edited: I re-read. PD does agree with CT here. My bad.

    9. Israel in OT Prophecy

    DISP - All OT prophesies for Israel are for the nation and have nothing to do with the Church
    PD - Same as CT
    CT - Some OT prophecies are for the nation of Israel, others for spiritual Israel
    NCT - Same as CT

    *for DISP, it depends on the teacher. I find it interesting that several dispensational teachers I've sat under use the Hebrews 8/Jeremiah 31 argument to show that the new covenant mentioned in Jer. 31 is fulfilled in Christ (whereas normative disp. supposedly doesn't relate the two).

    10. God's Main Purpose in History

    DISP - Physical Israel
    PD - "that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth -- in Him"
    CT - Christ, and by extension the Church
    NCT - Same as CT

    *for DISP, this is just plain dishonest and a wrong presentation. The fundamental tenets of DISP are that 'all things in history are for God's glory'. See Ryrie's original edition of Dispensationalism Today (p. 46, 98-104).

    13. Covenant of Redemption within the Trinity

    DISP - There is no such covenant
    PD - Same as DISP
    CT - This covenant effected election
    NCT - No such covenant, but there was an eternal decree for redemption within the Trinity (a determination and plan to save)

    *Calvinistic and even some Arminian Dispensationalists would agree with NCT here.

    18. God's Program and "Dispensations"

    DISP - God works through separate dispensations
    PD - Same as DISP
    CT - God works through separate but related covenants
    NCT - God works through separate but related covenants, but the New Covenant fulfills or brings to their ultimate realization all others because they are all realized/fulfilled in Christ

    *technically, they ALL agree here. All of them would view God as working out His plan for His glory in history. They just disagree on the details and the administration of how that is done.

    19. Salvation of OT Saints

    DISP - Some saved by works
    PD - Same as CT
    CT - All who are saved are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone
    NCT - Same as CT

    *ABSOLUTELY WRONG ON DISP!!!! I posted quotes from both Ryrie AND Chafer directly contradicting such nonsense ages ago.

    20. Faith is Christ as a Sin-Bearer

    DISP - No
    PD - Same as CT
    CT - All who are saved are saved by faith in Christ as Sin-Bearer
    NCT - Same as CT

    *wrong again on DISP.....

    22. Indwelling of the Holy Spirit

    DISP - Indwells believers only in the Dispensation of Grace, not in the OT or after the rapture
    PD - Same as DISP
    CT - Indwells all believers in all ages, never withdrawn
    NCT - Believe that the indwelling wasn't the same as in the Church time. In John 13:16-18, Jesus said that He would send the comforter that He may "abide" (live) with them forever. If the Holy Spirit was already "abiding" with them, as with the Church after Pentecost, then that promise means nothing.

    *DISP agrees with CT. See Paul Enns 'Moody Handbook of Theology' (I forget the page number and I can't search the online version....). I think our defenition of 'Indwells' is the problem. If by this do you mean that the Spirit of God indwells all believers, regenerates, stays with them, etc.... DISP agrees. Usually, when DISP says that the Holy Spirit didn't indwell OT believers (or ALL OT believers) permanently, they are talking about empowerment for service (i.e.- the Spirit coming upon David while writing the Psalms, wrestling a Lion, etc...), not salvation.

    24. OT Believers and the Body/Bride of Christ

    DISP - OT believers were not in Christ, and therefore not part of the Body/Bride
    PD - Same as CT
    CT - Believers in all ages are in Christ and part of the Body/Bride
    NCT - Same as CT, except they do not see the church in existence until Pentecost.

    *DISP - it depends. I've seen it taught by some DISP teachers that OT saints AND the dead saints AND current saints are part of 'the church'. This one's an area of disagreement.

    25. OT Law

    DISP - The OT Law has been abolished for the Church. Physical Israel will be under the Law after the rapture.
    PD - Same as DISP
    CT - OT Law serves 3 purposes: 1) restraining sin in society, 2) leading to Christ, and 3) for instruction in godliness. The ceremonial law and civic law is abolished. The moral law continues to be in force.
    NCT - OT Law is binding only as interpreted, applied, and in some cases even expanded in the NT. The OT Law is there to serve as a tutor, exposing our sinfulness and our need for the Savior. Christ is affirmed as being "The New Law-Giver", as opposed to Moses who was "The Old Law-Giver".

    *where do you get that 'Physical Israel will be under the law after the rapture' when a simple reading of any of the 'Left Behind' books :lol: shows that folks are called to be believers in Christ by grace through faith in Him alone for salvation ?

    27. The Kingdom of God

    DISP - The Millennial Reign is the Kingdom of God
    PD - Same as DISP
    CT - The Church is the Kingdom of God
    NCT - The Church since Pentecost is the Kingdom of God

    *PD agrees with both CT AND DISP. The Kingdom of God/Heaven is a present reality (already) and will be fully realized in stages - more fully in the millennial kingdom and completely in the eternal state.

    28. Millennial Reign

    DISP - Literal thousand years on earth - pre-mil
    PD - Same as DISP
    CT - Millennial reign is figurative for the current age - amil, some post-mil, a few historic pre-mil
    NCT - Same as CT

    *just as a note, you might want to mention (with CT) that hist-premill agrees with PD and DISP. :) I know, I know... it gives DISP some credibility and makes it harder for you to dismantle.

    32. David's Throne

    DISP - Jesus will sit on David's throne during the Millennium, the saints ruling with Him
    PD - Jesus is sitting on David's throne now at the right hand of the Father
    CT - Christ sits on the Throne of Heaven. Saints rule under Him in spirit
    NCT - Same as CT

    *PD sees the Throne of David as the Throne of Heaven, if I'm reading Saucy, Blaising and Bock correctly.

    [Edited on 3-3-2005 by OS_X]
  27. Puritanhead

    Puritanhead Puritan Board Professor

    Any progressive covenant theologians around?
  28. WrittenFromUtopia

    WrittenFromUtopia Puritan Board Graduate

    Well, if that isn't confusing.
  29. BlackCalvinist

    BlackCalvinist Puritan Board Senior

    How about taking the time to actually go read one of the works I suggested above ?

    It's easy to call yourself being against something based on what someone else said, but the fair way to go about discussing something is to actually read opinions of folks who hold views opposite your own (i.e.- go read some PD works), instead of simply lampooning them based on what someone else said about them.

    Boettner, God rest his soul, got some things wrong in his discussion of Roman Catholicism (mainly wrong references).

    I'm still working my way through PD. Some things I agree with, some I don't. I peg myself as being essentially PD with leaninigs toward CT in some areas.

    Any person who simply lampoons an opposing view based off tidbits of information (I thought folks on this board actually liked to READ ???!?!?!?? and not go off hearsay ? ) or old stereotypes is a fool.
  30. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    some of the trouble that some of us are having is we haven't been given a good, precise definition of what it is. I think I know what it is not: Disp, CT, NCT--althoguh even that isn't helpful all the time. I have read over your analysis of the chart several times. I am formulating a view on it--noticved I stopped lampooning it. I do realize that it is furhter away from regular dispensationalism. It does appear to be much more biblical, but....

    That is where I am having trouble. Could you give me a concise, working defintion of it?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page