Progressive Dispensationalism

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok Kerry,
I scanned the articles for the moment--I have limited time. It appears more biblical than DISP, thus much harder to refute, at the same time it claims a lot less than DISP. GIve me a while to mull over it and I will ask some leading questions--not cross-examination in a debate, just stuff to iron out.

Thanks
 
Thank you for dealing fairly with an opposing view (in this thread), Jacob. :)

(I had another reply halfway finished and Firefox crashed on me.... :( ).

Consice definition (borrowing partially from Ryrie's summary of PD):

0. The dispensations are not simply 'different arrangements' between God and humankind, but successive arrangements in the progressive revelation and accomplishment of redemption. (Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 163)

1. A holistic and unified view of eternal salvation. Simply put, all the redeemed will receive the same salvation with respect to justification and sanctification. Ryrie rightly notes "One wonders if this is not similar to the concept and purpose of the covenant of grace in covenant theology." (p. 163) Salvation encompasses all areas of the human life - personal, societal, cultural and political.

2. The blessings of the Abrahamic, Davidic and New Covenants are given today in parially inaugurated form. Thus (as written above) 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). PD can see Jesus presently reigning on the Throne of David as King of His kingdom and what we presently have simply being (to quote one of my favorite hymns) 'a foretaste of glory Divine'. The fullness of the Kingdom will be realized in stages - first, spiritually during the church age, more fully during the millennial kingdom and completely during the eternal state.

3. 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.

4. PD is generally pretribulational, but most PD advocates work hard to not make it THE defining doctrine of the system, focusing more on soteriology. Apparently, there are a few posttrib PD advocates (see the link on page 1 to Progressive Dispensationalism 101).

5. A complementary hermeneutic must be used alongside the 'literal' hermeneutic. This means that the New Testament makes complementary changes to Old Testament promises without jettisoning those original changes. (Ryrie, 164)
 
PD

Correct me if I'm wrong, Kerry, but doesn't Ryrie somewhere state that he doesn't see PD as truly dispensational? I seem to remember reading a quote from him to that effect. I know some of the knowledgable classic dispensationalists I have talked to would say that. They see PD as a Covenant Theology Trojan horse.
 
They see PD as a Covenant Theology Trojan horse.
Click to expand...

That is how I am seeing it with respect to the DISP camp, correct me if I am wrong. Is it safe to say that it is CT with a rapture and non-Paedobaptism?
 
That is correct, Fernando. Ryrie and other normative Dispensationalists are quite heated (again, just look at some of the quotes above from the pages I linked to) about PD and believe it is simply a few hairs away from Futurist Covenant Premillennialism .
 
Originally posted by houseparent
Are there any books out dealing with this? For example, John MacArthur's form of dispie thought. Has anyone refuted it at length?
Click to expand...

"A Case for Amillenialism" by Kim Riddlebarger fairly states dispensationalism and the other views As he makes his case for Amill, there are many points that completely unhinge Dispensationalism. (It's not often that an author will soundly represent opposing sides.)

BTW, the Bible refutes it - one example is in Galations 3. Read the whole chapter in context. It's best to defeat Disp. on the basis of justification and the Abrahamic covenant. (Dispensationalism confuses Moses and Abraham covenants.) Basically, the D view makes faith into a "work". Paul's writings are clear - he was NOT a Dispensationalist.

R.

Robin
 
I don't think I have too many problems with PD, other than on eschatology. I still don't think I agree in all areas, but it's hard to tell yet. I'll keep reading. Premil is too easy to refute, but as long as you have your other ducks in a row, we can disagree on eschatology all day long and still have a beer together. :D
 
Hints to all:

Refuting this will be different from that of regular premillennialism. PD makes the attempt to think in biblical categories and so avoids much of the inanity. That being said, I do have my disagreements with it, of which I shall post more later.



Kerry,
Nice signature
 
Thanks Jacob. :) I use this sig on a secular board I post on as well. I figure it's the easiest way to advertise.

That, and I also refuse to use TULIP anymore because of all the negative connotations that have become associated with it over the years. I think GRACE is a better acronym. :)

[Edited on 3-7-2005 by OS_X]
 
Originally posted by Robin
Originally posted by houseparent
Are there any books out dealing with this? For example, John MacArthur's form of dispie thought. Has anyone refuted it at length?
Click to expand...

"A Case for Amillenialism" by Kim Riddlebarger fairly states dispensationalism and the other views As he makes his case for Amill, there are many points that completely unhinge Dispensationalism. (It's not often that an author will soundly represent opposing sides.)

BTW, the Bible refutes it - one example is in Galations 3. Read the whole chapter in context. It's best to defeat Disp. on the basis of justification and the Abrahamic covenant. (Dispensationalism confuses Moses and Abraham covenants.) Basically, the D view makes faith into a "work". Paul's writings are clear - he was NOT a Dispensationalist.

R.

Robin
Click to expand...

Bottom line: If PD got Galatians 3 correct it would be covenant theology and the issue would be resolved.
 
Thanks for the "plug" Tom....I wondered if anyone was listening....

Kerry - one important item on your list with CT is wrong --- and this is a big deal.....

CT does NOT confuse the Kingdom with the Church. Though Christ reigns in the heart of His people - and His people make-up the Church - the Church is not the Kingdom. (A vital distinction.)

:worms:

Robin
 
Originally posted by Robin
Thanks for the "plug" Tom....I wondered if anyone was listening....

Kerry - one important item on your list with CT is wrong --- and this is a big deal.....

CT does NOT confuse the Kingdom with the Church. Though Christ reigns in the heart of His people - and His people make-up the Church - the Church is not the Kingdom. (A vital distinction.)

:worms:

Robin
Click to expand...

Part of this confusion may be over the language in the WCF where it says, "The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation."

The language is related to the matter of the keys of the kingdom that were entrusted to the officers of the church (cf. XXX:2). I don't think it was intended to renounce any jurisdiction of Jesus Christ over the nations of the world as an expression of His present kingdom. Indeed, Matt. 28:19 is the positive statement about Christ's authority in this very area.

The kingdom of God is not limited to any one political kingdom, but encompasses all.

"I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed." (Dan. 7:13,14)

Just to add on. The reason dispensationalists (progressive or otherwise) think CT confuses the church and the kingdom is due to the fact that they have the relationship all wrong.

Classic dispensationalism pushes the kingdom out to the exclusive domain of the future millennium. While not able to deny it fully, the earlier dispensationalists got around the implications by inventing an arbitrary distinction between the kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God. I suppose that to a certain degree all modern dispensationalists suffer from this errant view of the offered/delayed kingdom and the "hidden" church.

[Edited on 3-7-2005 by tcalbrecht]
 
Originally posted by Robin
Thanks for the "plug" Tom....I wondered if anyone was listening....

Kerry - one important item on your list with CT is wrong --- and this is a big deal.....

CT does NOT confuse the Kingdom with the Church. Though Christ reigns in the heart of His people - and His people make-up the Church - the Church is not the Kingdom. (A vital distinction.)

:worms:

Robin
Click to expand...

Minor point of contention - it's not my list. It's PastorWay's list. ;)

What exactly do you mean regarding PD 'getting Gal. 3 right' , Tom ?
 
Originally posted by tcalbrecht
Originally posted by Robin
Thanks for the "plug" Tom....I wondered if anyone was listening....

Kerry - one important item on your list with CT is wrong --- and this is a big deal.....

CT does NOT confuse the Kingdom with the Church. Though Christ reigns in the heart of His people - and His people make-up the Church - the Church is not the Kingdom. (A vital distinction.)

:worms:

Robin
Click to expand...

Part of this confusion may be over the language in the WCF where it says, "The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation."

The language is related to the matter of the keys of the kingdom that were entrusted to the officers of the church (cf. XXX:2). I don't think it was intended to renounce any jurisdiction of Jesus Christ over the nations of the world as an expression of His present kingdom. Indeed, Matt. 28:19 is the positive statement about Christ's authority in this very area.

The kingdom of God is not limited to any one political kingdom, but encompasses all.

"I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed." (Dan. 7:13,14)

Just to add on. The reason dispensationalists (progressive or otherwise) think CT confuses the church and the kingdom is due to the fact that they have the relationship all wrong.

Classic dispensationalism pushes the kingdom out to the exclusive domain of the future millennium. While not able to deny it fully, the earlier dispensationalists got around the implications by inventing an arbitrary distinction between the kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God. I suppose that to a certain degree all modern dispensationalists suffer from this errant view of the offered/delayed kingdom and the "hidden" church.

[Edited on 3-7-2005 by tcalbrecht]
Click to expand...

See.... this proves my point completely that you don't read everything, Tom.

I never said CT confuses anything in this thread. That list and that particular statement was put forth by PastorWay. The list (minus my corrections above) is HIS. You can simply click back one page and see the same post for yourself. So if you think his statement in his list implies that CT 'confuses' anything, you need to blame that on him.

Methinks, in your haste to bash dispensationalism, you misread. :D

Further proof..... :lol:

[Edited on 3-8-2005 by OS_X]
 
Originally posted by OS_X

See.... this proves my point completely that you don't read everything, Tom.

I never said CT confuses anything in this thread. ...
Click to expand...

Hey, Kerry, if you read very carefully you'll see I never mentioned you in my comment.

You need to not be so paranoid. We don't talk about you all the time ... at least I don't. :bigsmile:

BTW, isn't the charge made by classics against progressives that y'all confuse the church and the kingdom?
 
Hi Kerry

According to progressive dispensationalism, what Old Testament covenant promises has Christ not yet fulfilled?

Thanks
 
We are seeing partial fulfillment of the OT promises now in the church (i.e.- Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2), but will also see complete fulfillment of the literal OT promises to literal Israel in a literal millennium (not a 'spiritual' one). It's not an 'either/or' (dispensational vs covenant), but a 'both/and'.

Already/Not Yet.

Pick up the '4 Views on Revelation' book and read C. Marvin Pate's chapter. A short summary of it from Bible.org -

Both the progressive and classical dispensationalists are in the futurist camp, believing that most of Revelation, especially from chapter 4 forward, will yet be fulfilled in the future.

I won´t attempt to summarize the views here. I think that these "œfour views" formats are very helpful, and it would be well worth your time to read them. I found particularly interesting the differences between the two dispensational camps. The progressive camp tends to make use of the already/not yet tension in its hermeneutic. For example, Pate says:

The classical dispensationalist relegates the events of Revelation 4-5 to the distant future. The progressive dispensationalist, however, perceives the overlapping of the two ages to be operative in John´s vision of the exaltation of Christ to the throne of God. On the one hand, the age to come has dawned in heaven. This is nothing less than the beginning of the fulfillment of the reign of the Davidic Messiah"¦On the other hand, Christ´s David-like kingdom has not yet fully descended to the earth. Chapters 6-19 detail the process by which that messianic kingdom will manifest itself on earth. Thus at the time of the events of Revelation 4-5, the age to come had not yet been completed (page 144).

In other words, this approach interprets chapters 6-19 through the lens of the already/not yet tension. In what follows, we divide this hermeneutic into its two constituent parts: (1) the already aspect"”the fulfillment of the prophecies of Revelation 6-19 in John´s day; (2) the not yet aspect"”the final accomplishment of those prophecies in the period immediately prior to the Parousia (page 146).

Pate sees a parallel structure between the first half of Jesus´ Olivet Discourse (Matt 24) and the seal judgments of Revelation 6. Thus the fall of Jerusalem "œis part of the "˜already´ aspect of the age to come, while the return of Christ constitutes its "˜not yet´ aspect"¦(and while) the signs of the times began with Jesus and his generation, especially the fall of Jerusalem, (they) will not be complete until the return of Christ" (page 148). So you see some overlap with the preterist view.

In response, Thomas states that progressive dispensationalism "œrepresents a significant change in principles of interpretation , so that the name "˜dispensationalism´ does not apply to that system" (page 180). So there appears to be a very sharp division between the two dispensationalist camps.
Click to expand...
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1627
 
Kerry,

What would you point to in the New Testament to prove that:

a) Every Old Testament covenant promise mentioned in the New Testament has been only "partially" fulfilled.

b) These same promises await a greater, fuller realization than that which the New Testament writers attribute to Christ already.

I want to understand why, from the New Testament, progressive dispensationalism thinks that now (in Christ) is NOT the "not yet" that they're waiting for in the future. This seems to be exactly what the New Testament teaches, that "now" all the promises in Christ are "yes". Why does "yes" mean "almost yes"?

Thanks again
 
Originally posted by Peters
Kerry,

What would you point to in the New Testament to prove that:

a) Every Old Testament covenant promise mentioned in the New Testament has been only "partially" fulfilled.

b) These same promises await a greater, fuller realization than that which the New Testament writers attribute to Christ already.

I want to understand why, from the New Testament, progressive dispensationalism thinks that now (in Christ) is NOT the "not yet" that they're waiting for in the future. This seems to be exactly what the New Testament teaches, that "now" all the promises in Christ are "yes". Why does "yes" mean "almost yes"?

Thanks again
Click to expand...

I think these three articles can answer all of your questions. I'm in the midst of a huge blog entry dealing with some exegetical bizz against traditional dispensationalism. :)

http://geocities.com/~lasttrumpet/prodisp.html
http://geocities.com/~lasttrumpet/prodisp2.html
http://geocities.com/~lasttrumpet/israel.html
 
I took your advice and read the article link"¦ here are some thoughts after reading the excerpt below:

Paragraph from Link:
THE DAVIDIC COVENANT AND THE MILLENNIAL KINGDOM
Some progressive dispensationalists believe the Davidic Covenant is also partially fulfilled during this dispensation, with Christ seated on David's throne at the right hand of the Father. This in no way diminishes His future reigning in the Millennium. However, this is NOT a crucial issue within progressive dispensationalism. Other progressive dispensationalists, including this author, agree with traditional dispensationalists that this covenant will only be inaugurated upon the second coming. On Palm Sunday, the crowds cried, "Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord" [Matt. 21:9]. This was the crowd's acknowledgment that Jesus was the one to fulfill the Davidic Covenant, and they expected Him to assume the throne immediately, [see: Luke 19:11]. However, when the scribes and priests heard the crowd call Jesus the "Son of David" they were "sore displeased." A few days later, after Jesus' scathing denouncement of the Scribes and Pharisees, He said, "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." [Matt. 23:38,39]. Jesus implied that taking His seat as King of Israel, in fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant, was suspended until Israel repents as a nation. This will only occur at the second coming of Jesus, when they "look on Him whom they have pierced" [Zech. 12:10], and then "all Israel shall be saved," [Rom. 11:26]. That the Davidic Covenant will only be inaugurated when Israel is restored is clearly stated in Jeremiah 23:5-8.

This quote is from http://geocities.com/~lasttrumpet/prodisp.html by Tim Warner

My Response:
Is it not a stretch to make the assumptions above??? Is this the Jewish sinners prayer when they unanimously acknowledge " He that comes in the name of the Lord"¦" As a response to this I should point out that Jesus says in John 3, speaking to Nicodemus you must be born again to see the kingdom, to discern spiritual things"¦. If a person is regenerated and sealed with the Sprit whether Jew or Gentile, living then or now, that person ought to have the capacity to say as Christ intimates in Matt 23 "blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord""¦.

Ok"¦ another issue: Seems prog. dispie assuming only OT prophecies related to Christ apply to Jews as with Zech 12:10 mentioned above???? Huhhhh this is rhetoric in my mind. How does Zech 12:10 get made into a future event beyond Advent of Christ?

Now lets move on to the issue w Rom 11:26..."All Israel Saved". To assume all means all in this statement and Israel means ethinic Iseal which exludes Gentile contradicts limited atonement and Pauline theology by declaring universalism for all ethnic Israel. The all statement makes sense if it implies that Israel is the "elect in Christ" which would include Gentiles (Grafted into the tree). Perhaps Dispensationalists have a problem understanding the "all passages".????
Now w Jer 23:5-6 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this [is] his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. ( now as an adherent to Covenant Theology, I agree that this verse refers to Christ which is the root and branch of the Tree, which fulfills the Covenant of Grace (aka Covenant of David per Progressive dispie Tim Warner) but This is spiritual not physical kingdom"¦ Christ states he is not establishing an earthly Kingdom"¦.. I am confused how this verse helps the dispie close his argument in the paragraph listed above.

Any comments are welcome as I am wearing my flame suit.
:worms:
 
Originally posted by govols
Here is an article about "all Israel" found in Romans 11:26:
All Israel

Here is an article in which I believe Johnny Mac would agree with:
Am I A Dispensationalist
Click to expand...

Am I missing something, or does the author ever define what he means by "Israel"?

I think this is the primary defect in the dispensational system. It treats "Israel" as an ethnic entity rather than as a covenantal entity (unless it makes a distinction between "Israel" and "Jews", which it does not appear to do). They believe (erroneously) that the promises to Abraham were to his physical seed, rather than to Jesus Christ. But this is contrary to Galatians 3. And if the promises are to Abraham's physical and yet need to be fulfilled in the future, they have no way to account for all the converts to Judaism from the gentiles throughout history. Do gentiles who convert get a "piece of the action"?

Likewise they have no way to account for all the Jewish converts to Christianty. Do they speculate on the place of centuries of Jewish converts to Christianity during the dispensational version of the "thousand years"? Do they live in "Israel" with their "tribe" or do they live somewhere else with the rest of the gentiles? In other words,, are they in the Church or Israel?
 
Tom, I hear you brother, in addition to your comments I would add few thoughts :

From what I have read so far about the ThM thesis, the fellow who wrote this makes some rather drastic claims, which seem reckless to me. For example he says" where Wright goes astray, however, is in his belief that these OT promises are presently seeing fulfillment". pg 37 Weymeyer ThM Thesis (all Israel paper * see link above) This comes across to me as a sweeping judgment with no basis or back up. Sorry if its hard to get my point with such a small quotation. The PDF file will not let me copy paste.

While reading the thesis, I noticed Weymeyer makes many such comments suggesting that with a difficult passage such and such theologian is wrong because it is "clearly" ( a favorite word of Weymeyer) evident from Weymeyers exegesis to be ... As if Weymeyer can "clearly" understand a difficult passage that Calvin or NT Wright couldn't??? I don't think Calvin, Wright or Palmer are the sine qua non of Exegesis, but one should not dismiss them so lightly.

I am not impressed by this paper
 
In my blog entry "Baptist in Crisis" I made the following statement:

"So herein lies the crux of my quandary. I am a "Baptist in crisis" because my beliefs are in conflict with the popular view of modern day Baptist teaching. I am certainly not alone in this "crisis." There is a growing minority of Baptist theologians that have gone through a similar change in their thinking. They have adopted the biblical view of God's sovereignty. But modern day Baptist teachings are opposed to more than just Calvinism. Dispensationalism is as much a hallmark of modern day Baptist teaching as the sacrament of baptism itself. It is in this area that I struggle. I used to be a dyed-in-the-wool dispensationalist. I cannot fall on my sword for that system anymore. While I have not embraced covenant theology, I have distanced myself from dispensationalism in order to study what I truly believe. There is no doubt that my acceptance of the biblical view of God's sovereignty (often labeled as Calvinism) has thrown doubt upon my once strong dispensational position. I do not know where it will eventually lead me. I trust in God on that question."

The above being said, I am reading this thread with a pinch of amusement and great deal of interest.
 
Originally posted by houseparent
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.
Click to expand...

I believe a couple of Professors at Dallas Theological Seminary have written articles, and maybe even a book dealing with Progressive Dispensationalism. I can't for the life of me remember their names,but a Friend of mine who graduated from DTS,who is now in the Reformed Episcopal Church,mentioned it to me in a discussion we where having regarding PD.

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by Denny]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

David Taylor
  • Locked
Progressive Dispensationalism
Replies
7
Views
3K
RamistThomist
RamistThomist
N
  • Locked
Progressive Dispensationalism
Replies
13
Views
9K
Wannabee
Wannabee
Unoriginalname
  • Locked
classical dispensationalism vs progressive dispensationalism
Replies
3
Views
12K
MICWARFIELD
MICWARFIELD
tcalbrecht
  • Locked
Progressive vs. classic dispensationalism
Replies
1
Views
7K
VanVos
V
RamistThomist
  • Locked
Audio by adherents of Progressive Dispensationalism?
Replies
3
Views
4K
rbcbob
rbcbob
Back
Top