Progressive Dispensationalism (PD)
I think that there are two important questions which must be answered as one attempts to distinguish Progressive Dispensationalism from any other form:
1. Have progressive dispensationalists jettisoned the “sine quo non” of Dispensationalism, the separation of Israel and the Church?
2. Why do they consider themselves “progressive”?
The answer to number two is quite simply stated here, “The label progressive dispensationalism is being suggested because of the way in which this dispensationalism views the interrelationship of divine dispensations in history, their overall orientation to the eternal kingdom of God (which is the final, eternal dispensation embracing God and humanity), and the reflection of these historical and eschatological relations in the literary features of Scripture.” So it is not the case that PDs (Blaising and Bock at least) believe that they have progressed beyond the Ryrie sort of Dispensationalism, but instead they use the word progressive to modify their particular understanding of the relationship between the dispensations themselves. I’m sure they do believe that their understanding of what dispensational theology should be and how it should be represented is superior to the former (why else would they endeavor to describe revisions) but they are not intending to make that assertion in the simple title, “Progressive Dispensationalism”.
As one being presently educated in the realm of Covenant Theology, I would largely agree with what Blaising and Bock have to say in the definition above (not just that I agree with their interpretation of their own system); unless they mean by the progression of dispensations that there is no overlapping of the promises, fulfillment, stipulations and elements, I could say that I have no disagreement with what that definition says about biblical dispensations or ages.
Ryrie Dispensationalism Critiques Progressive Dispensationalism
It is actually quite common to hear classic/historical dispensationalists calling PDs non-dispensationalist because they have forsaken what is essentially dispensational. In an attempt to answer the same question I have asked as #1, in an article called What Is Progressive Dispensationalism? Thomas Ice says this,
“Israel and the Church: PD [Progressive Dispensationalism] blunts distinctions between Israel and the Church, while the older forms of dispensationalism highlight distinctions. Even though some distinctions are maintained by PD I wonder how long it will be before this new form of “dispensationalism” will become the highway leading one totally away from most, if not all, of the distinctions of dispensationalism? Blaising explains that their search for a new dispensationalism has led many dispensationalists to abandon the transcendental distinction of heavenly verse earthly peoples in favor of a historical distinction in the divine purpose. The unity of divine revelation, of the various dispensations, is found in the goal of history, the kingdom of God. (33)
One of the few distinctions which PD has maintained from older dispensationalism is their rejection of replacement theology. If a full replacement of Israel for the church were to start to happen, then no one could successfully argue that this could be a valid form of dispensationalism. PD current commitment to a futurist eschatology keeps them from totally commingling the church and Israel. But the[re] is no question about their overall tendency to stress unity of the dispensations at the expense of diversity when compared to older dispensationalism.”
For Ice, it is clear that the Israel/Church distinction is very, very important but in his opinion, as long as PDs maintain a “futurist eschatology” they may remain in the club.
Progressive Dispensationalism Critiques Ryrie Dispensationalism
What I have found is that, PDs consider themselves to be in the dispensational camp for these (probably among other) reasons: they believe in a series of dispensations which mark “differences” in God’s dealings with mankind, they believe in a future period of great tribulation which is followed by the second coming of Christ at which time He will set up His earthly millennial kingdom, they believe that the land promises made in the Old Testament will be fulfilled by the nation of Israel obtaining it through God’s grace and finally, they interpret Scripture according to a literal hermeneutic. Though PDs claim a “literal” hermeneutic, they do make this observation:
Of Ryrie, Blaising says, “He is quite insistent that the difference between a dispensational and a nondispensational hermeneutic is that the former is consistent in the employment of literal or normal interpretation. The presence of spiritual or allegorical interpretation to any extent “in a system of interpretation is indicative of a nondispensational approach.”
“The issue is not a distinct hermeneutic but debate about how to apply the hermeneutic that we share. The question most simply put is, how does “new” revelation impact “old” revelation and expression?”
Most Ryrie Dispensationalists view the church age as a “parentheses” in the plan of God as He deals with His people Israel and the two (as dispensations and elect peoples) are completely and totally separate from one another, now and in eternity. In an article by Tim Warner called Progressive Dispensationalism 101, he has this to say,
“Progressive dispensationalists however believe the 'church age' is the fulfillment of certain promises in the Old Testament, regarding the new covenant, and salvation of Gentiles. Rather than being unrelated to God's program for Israel, the Church is an integral part of that program, and is currently participating in the new covenant promises in this dispensation. Progressive dispensationalists believe the New Covenant was inaugurated by Jesus Himself, by shedding His blood”
Tim Warner goes on in his article to list 5 major problems with Classic/Historical Dispensationalism he believes Progressive Dispensationalism has solved. Please remember as you read that these are Warner’s (and PDs’ by association) objections and not necessarily my own:
1. “Old Testament Prophecy applied to the Church by New Testament writers.”
“If the present dispensation is a 'parenthesis' in God's plan for Israel, and the Church is not related to OT prophecy, we would not expect New Testament writers to apply Old Testament prophecy to the Church. Yet, there are many examples of this very thing.” (Warner)
2. “The New Covenant, promised to Israel, is now in force.”
“Paul wrote to the church in Corinth regarding their observance of the Lord's Supper, as a reminder of Jesus' establishment of the New Covenant… This would hardly be appropriate had the New Covenant not been inaugurated, or if it applied exclusively to physical Israel. Paul also saw himself as having a role in the spread of the New Covenant among the Gentiles… Jesus was the "mediator of a better covenant, which was established [past tense] on better promises" [Heb. 8:6-13]. The writer then quoted Jeremiah 31:31-34 and applied the prophecy of the New Covenant to the Church. This is not to say that everything related to the New Covenant has been completely fulfilled. Jeremiah's prophecy said "after those days ... all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them." The universal acceptance of the New Covenant by Israel will only occur after the partial blindness is removed.” (Warner)
3. “God Continues to Deal with Israel in this Dispensation.”
“Certain things have and are occurring in Israel's history since the Day of Pentecost that are the direct fulfillment of prophecy. This makes the traditional dispensational 'parenthetical' theory untenable.
a. The destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 was the direct fulfillment of Daniel 9:26.
b. The regathering of Israel into their land is the likely fulfillment of Ezekiel 37.
c. God is also using the salvation of the Gentiles to provoke (unbelieving) Israel to jealousy. [Rom. 10:18,19 & 11:11].” (Warner)
4. “Only a Remnant of Old Testament Israel is Saved.”
“Dispensationalists speak of "Israel" and the "Church" as two distinct peoples of God. While all true members of the "Church" are saved, and will be resurrected at the resurrection of the just, this is not the case with Israel. Traditional Dispensationalists are comparing apples to oranges here, when they refer to two different peoples of God. Israel is a "nation," not a spiritual entity. Dispensationalists fail to address the fact that the Old Testament promises to Israel will be fulfilled literally in the Millennium, but ONLY by the righteous remnant who are raised at the resurrection of the Just… Dispensationalists speak of "Israel" as a nation, yet they fail to clearly distinguish the believers from the unbelievers within Israel. Consequently, they speak of the Old Testament promises being fulfilled for "Israel" in the Millennium, yet imply that this is merely all the Jews still alive after the tribulation. They have forgotten about all of the saints of Hebrews 11 from the Old Testament, who will receive the literal fulfillment of those promises to Israel in the Millennium, in resurrected bodies.” (Warner)
5. “Multiple Plans of Salvation”
“Many traditional dispensationalists have devised different plans of salvation for Israel and the Church. Pre-tribulationists usually claim that during the tribulation, the plan of salvation will incorporate the Old Covenant in some way. Salvation for the Old Testament saints is seen as having to do with works along with faith. Progressive dispensationalists see only one means of eternal salvation, through the blood of Christ. All saints are united in Christ by the blood of Christ, regardless of whether they lived before or after the cross.” (Warner)
What is a Dispensation?
According to the PD, a dispensation is defined in a very similar way to the way it is defined by Ryrie. The difference is more between the way each of the dispensations relate to one another, and the possible overlap of certain elements which Ryrie and Classic/Historical Dispensationalism would maintain strict separation, such as the fulfillment of the promises God made to the nation of Israel.
What are the Distinctives of Dispensationalism?
As listed by Jack Brooks, here are the distinct differences between PD and other forms of Dispensationalism:
1. One plan of salvation.
It seams to me that many sources that claim the progressive dispensational label also criticize (at least the classic/historical form) former expressions of dispensationalism as teaching two ways of salvation, one under law and one under grace, so it is not just the covenant theologian who has made this appraisal.
2. Four dispensations:
Patriarchal, Mosaic, Ecclesial, and Zionic (which would include an earthly millennial reign and the eternal state)
3. One people of God.
“The Christian Church is quite distinct from Israel, but not radically distinct.” (Jack Brooks in, Progressive Dispensationalism: What is it?”
4. Complimentary hermeneutics.
“The old claim that a consistent grammatical-historical method of interpretation will always produce traditional dispensationalists is demonstrably untrue. The NT doesn’t follow Charles Ryrie’s definition of “consistent literalism” in the way that it handles OT prophecy… The NT adds onto the OT prophecies in a way complementary to their original context.” (Brooks)
5. An “already/not” yet view of the kingdom
“The Kingdom of God’s blessings are mostly reserved for Christ’s second advent, but parts of it are manifested today through the Holy Spirit. The geo-political aspects will occur in the future.” (Brooks)
6. Some degree of present Davidic reign.
“Christ’s Davidic reign began in part when He ascended to the right hand of the Father. Some of the Davidic promises have been fulfilled, many others must wait until Christ returns. Salvation blessings are mediated to us through Jesus, who fulfilled Psalm 110:1-2. “Christ” and “Son of God” were both Davidic titles. Jesus’ priesthood is that of Melchizedek, an office originally given to David. Jesus’ Davidic kingship was the method by which God would fulfill all of His promises to Abraham (Luke 1:55)” (Brooks)
Brooks goes on to compliment the professional contributions that progressive dispensationalists have made, and to describe why he still does consider himself a dispensationalist.
“However, I am not a covenant theologian! I am still dispensational, because I still believe:
• The Christian Church began on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2.)
• There will be a real 1,000 year reign of Christ some day in the future.
• The geo-political prophecies of the Old Testament will all be literally fulfilled.
• Ethnic Israel will be nationally converted in the end-times (Zech. 12.)
• Christians are not under the Law, including the Fourth Commandment.
• The Kingdom is not exhaustively experienced in the earthly church.
• Christ’s kingship is not fulfilled until He sits on David’s throne in Jerusalem.”
According to Brooks Dispensationalism is defined by several nonnegotiable items:
1. The Church began at Pentecost.
2. A future Kingdom, realized in a real 1ooo year period, in which ethnic Israel will be converted, they will be in the “Land”, worshipping in a literal temple with Christ as their King seated on the literal throne of David in literal Jerusalem.
Conclusions
In this study I have found a few things that seem to have bound all sorts of dispensationalists together since Darby; I do realize that I have left out considerable (valid or not) historical contributions that have been made to broaden this debate, men in other dispensational camps such as, E.W. Bullinger’s dispensationalism (classified as ‘ultra’) and Miles Stanford’s Pauline Dispensationalism.
After this brief and incomprehensive survey, I would say that the primary distinctions of Dispensationalism are these:
1. Tenacism - If an Old Testament prophesy is ever “expanded” in the New Testament that expansion can never negate, trump or “explain away” the grammatical/historical understanding of those prophesies. This is a primary distinction and I call it “Tenacism” because hold tenaciously to an exclusively grammatical/historical interpretation of Old Testament prophesies.
a. As a necessary consequence of (1), Israel and the Church cannot be confused in a comprehensive group of elect persons referred to as “God’s people” and the promises to each group must remain separated. This is a common distinction within the history of Dispensationalism.
i. Millennialism - As a consequence of (1a), a literal, millennial, earthy reign of Christ on David’s throne is also a common distinction.
ii. Temporalism - As a consequence of (1a), a literal temple (as described in Ezekiel’s prophesy) will be constructed in the millennial period, which would include the sacrificial system of the Mosaic Covenant sanctioned by God as a memorial of Christ’s death and part of the “rule of life” for the believers in that dispensation. This is also a common distinction.
So far as I can tell, there really is only one primary distinction of Dispensationalism. The subsequent ones are common, but not primary, and the latter distinctions all have the former as a prerequisite; even though the primary distinction does not force the common distinctions practically and in every case, they do seem to logically issue forth from Tenacism as their root.
I think that there are two important questions which must be answered as one attempts to distinguish Progressive Dispensationalism from any other form:
1. Have progressive dispensationalists jettisoned the “sine quo non” of Dispensationalism, the separation of Israel and the Church?
2. Why do they consider themselves “progressive”?
The answer to number two is quite simply stated here, “The label progressive dispensationalism is being suggested because of the way in which this dispensationalism views the interrelationship of divine dispensations in history, their overall orientation to the eternal kingdom of God (which is the final, eternal dispensation embracing God and humanity), and the reflection of these historical and eschatological relations in the literary features of Scripture.” So it is not the case that PDs (Blaising and Bock at least) believe that they have progressed beyond the Ryrie sort of Dispensationalism, but instead they use the word progressive to modify their particular understanding of the relationship between the dispensations themselves. I’m sure they do believe that their understanding of what dispensational theology should be and how it should be represented is superior to the former (why else would they endeavor to describe revisions) but they are not intending to make that assertion in the simple title, “Progressive Dispensationalism”.
As one being presently educated in the realm of Covenant Theology, I would largely agree with what Blaising and Bock have to say in the definition above (not just that I agree with their interpretation of their own system); unless they mean by the progression of dispensations that there is no overlapping of the promises, fulfillment, stipulations and elements, I could say that I have no disagreement with what that definition says about biblical dispensations or ages.
Ryrie Dispensationalism Critiques Progressive Dispensationalism
It is actually quite common to hear classic/historical dispensationalists calling PDs non-dispensationalist because they have forsaken what is essentially dispensational. In an attempt to answer the same question I have asked as #1, in an article called What Is Progressive Dispensationalism? Thomas Ice says this,
“Israel and the Church: PD [Progressive Dispensationalism] blunts distinctions between Israel and the Church, while the older forms of dispensationalism highlight distinctions. Even though some distinctions are maintained by PD I wonder how long it will be before this new form of “dispensationalism” will become the highway leading one totally away from most, if not all, of the distinctions of dispensationalism? Blaising explains that their search for a new dispensationalism has led many dispensationalists to abandon the transcendental distinction of heavenly verse earthly peoples in favor of a historical distinction in the divine purpose. The unity of divine revelation, of the various dispensations, is found in the goal of history, the kingdom of God. (33)
One of the few distinctions which PD has maintained from older dispensationalism is their rejection of replacement theology. If a full replacement of Israel for the church were to start to happen, then no one could successfully argue that this could be a valid form of dispensationalism. PD current commitment to a futurist eschatology keeps them from totally commingling the church and Israel. But the[re] is no question about their overall tendency to stress unity of the dispensations at the expense of diversity when compared to older dispensationalism.”
For Ice, it is clear that the Israel/Church distinction is very, very important but in his opinion, as long as PDs maintain a “futurist eschatology” they may remain in the club.
Progressive Dispensationalism Critiques Ryrie Dispensationalism
What I have found is that, PDs consider themselves to be in the dispensational camp for these (probably among other) reasons: they believe in a series of dispensations which mark “differences” in God’s dealings with mankind, they believe in a future period of great tribulation which is followed by the second coming of Christ at which time He will set up His earthly millennial kingdom, they believe that the land promises made in the Old Testament will be fulfilled by the nation of Israel obtaining it through God’s grace and finally, they interpret Scripture according to a literal hermeneutic. Though PDs claim a “literal” hermeneutic, they do make this observation:
Of Ryrie, Blaising says, “He is quite insistent that the difference between a dispensational and a nondispensational hermeneutic is that the former is consistent in the employment of literal or normal interpretation. The presence of spiritual or allegorical interpretation to any extent “in a system of interpretation is indicative of a nondispensational approach.”
“The issue is not a distinct hermeneutic but debate about how to apply the hermeneutic that we share. The question most simply put is, how does “new” revelation impact “old” revelation and expression?”
Most Ryrie Dispensationalists view the church age as a “parentheses” in the plan of God as He deals with His people Israel and the two (as dispensations and elect peoples) are completely and totally separate from one another, now and in eternity. In an article by Tim Warner called Progressive Dispensationalism 101, he has this to say,
“Progressive dispensationalists however believe the 'church age' is the fulfillment of certain promises in the Old Testament, regarding the new covenant, and salvation of Gentiles. Rather than being unrelated to God's program for Israel, the Church is an integral part of that program, and is currently participating in the new covenant promises in this dispensation. Progressive dispensationalists believe the New Covenant was inaugurated by Jesus Himself, by shedding His blood”
Tim Warner goes on in his article to list 5 major problems with Classic/Historical Dispensationalism he believes Progressive Dispensationalism has solved. Please remember as you read that these are Warner’s (and PDs’ by association) objections and not necessarily my own:
1. “Old Testament Prophecy applied to the Church by New Testament writers.”
“If the present dispensation is a 'parenthesis' in God's plan for Israel, and the Church is not related to OT prophecy, we would not expect New Testament writers to apply Old Testament prophecy to the Church. Yet, there are many examples of this very thing.” (Warner)
2. “The New Covenant, promised to Israel, is now in force.”
“Paul wrote to the church in Corinth regarding their observance of the Lord's Supper, as a reminder of Jesus' establishment of the New Covenant… This would hardly be appropriate had the New Covenant not been inaugurated, or if it applied exclusively to physical Israel. Paul also saw himself as having a role in the spread of the New Covenant among the Gentiles… Jesus was the "mediator of a better covenant, which was established [past tense] on better promises" [Heb. 8:6-13]. The writer then quoted Jeremiah 31:31-34 and applied the prophecy of the New Covenant to the Church. This is not to say that everything related to the New Covenant has been completely fulfilled. Jeremiah's prophecy said "after those days ... all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them." The universal acceptance of the New Covenant by Israel will only occur after the partial blindness is removed.” (Warner)
3. “God Continues to Deal with Israel in this Dispensation.”
“Certain things have and are occurring in Israel's history since the Day of Pentecost that are the direct fulfillment of prophecy. This makes the traditional dispensational 'parenthetical' theory untenable.
a. The destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 was the direct fulfillment of Daniel 9:26.
b. The regathering of Israel into their land is the likely fulfillment of Ezekiel 37.
c. God is also using the salvation of the Gentiles to provoke (unbelieving) Israel to jealousy. [Rom. 10:18,19 & 11:11].” (Warner)
4. “Only a Remnant of Old Testament Israel is Saved.”
“Dispensationalists speak of "Israel" and the "Church" as two distinct peoples of God. While all true members of the "Church" are saved, and will be resurrected at the resurrection of the just, this is not the case with Israel. Traditional Dispensationalists are comparing apples to oranges here, when they refer to two different peoples of God. Israel is a "nation," not a spiritual entity. Dispensationalists fail to address the fact that the Old Testament promises to Israel will be fulfilled literally in the Millennium, but ONLY by the righteous remnant who are raised at the resurrection of the Just… Dispensationalists speak of "Israel" as a nation, yet they fail to clearly distinguish the believers from the unbelievers within Israel. Consequently, they speak of the Old Testament promises being fulfilled for "Israel" in the Millennium, yet imply that this is merely all the Jews still alive after the tribulation. They have forgotten about all of the saints of Hebrews 11 from the Old Testament, who will receive the literal fulfillment of those promises to Israel in the Millennium, in resurrected bodies.” (Warner)
5. “Multiple Plans of Salvation”
“Many traditional dispensationalists have devised different plans of salvation for Israel and the Church. Pre-tribulationists usually claim that during the tribulation, the plan of salvation will incorporate the Old Covenant in some way. Salvation for the Old Testament saints is seen as having to do with works along with faith. Progressive dispensationalists see only one means of eternal salvation, through the blood of Christ. All saints are united in Christ by the blood of Christ, regardless of whether they lived before or after the cross.” (Warner)
What is a Dispensation?
According to the PD, a dispensation is defined in a very similar way to the way it is defined by Ryrie. The difference is more between the way each of the dispensations relate to one another, and the possible overlap of certain elements which Ryrie and Classic/Historical Dispensationalism would maintain strict separation, such as the fulfillment of the promises God made to the nation of Israel.
What are the Distinctives of Dispensationalism?
As listed by Jack Brooks, here are the distinct differences between PD and other forms of Dispensationalism:
1. One plan of salvation.
It seams to me that many sources that claim the progressive dispensational label also criticize (at least the classic/historical form) former expressions of dispensationalism as teaching two ways of salvation, one under law and one under grace, so it is not just the covenant theologian who has made this appraisal.
2. Four dispensations:
Patriarchal, Mosaic, Ecclesial, and Zionic (which would include an earthly millennial reign and the eternal state)
3. One people of God.
“The Christian Church is quite distinct from Israel, but not radically distinct.” (Jack Brooks in, Progressive Dispensationalism: What is it?”
4. Complimentary hermeneutics.
“The old claim that a consistent grammatical-historical method of interpretation will always produce traditional dispensationalists is demonstrably untrue. The NT doesn’t follow Charles Ryrie’s definition of “consistent literalism” in the way that it handles OT prophecy… The NT adds onto the OT prophecies in a way complementary to their original context.” (Brooks)
5. An “already/not” yet view of the kingdom
“The Kingdom of God’s blessings are mostly reserved for Christ’s second advent, but parts of it are manifested today through the Holy Spirit. The geo-political aspects will occur in the future.” (Brooks)
6. Some degree of present Davidic reign.
“Christ’s Davidic reign began in part when He ascended to the right hand of the Father. Some of the Davidic promises have been fulfilled, many others must wait until Christ returns. Salvation blessings are mediated to us through Jesus, who fulfilled Psalm 110:1-2. “Christ” and “Son of God” were both Davidic titles. Jesus’ priesthood is that of Melchizedek, an office originally given to David. Jesus’ Davidic kingship was the method by which God would fulfill all of His promises to Abraham (Luke 1:55)” (Brooks)
Brooks goes on to compliment the professional contributions that progressive dispensationalists have made, and to describe why he still does consider himself a dispensationalist.
“However, I am not a covenant theologian! I am still dispensational, because I still believe:
• The Christian Church began on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2.)
• There will be a real 1,000 year reign of Christ some day in the future.
• The geo-political prophecies of the Old Testament will all be literally fulfilled.
• Ethnic Israel will be nationally converted in the end-times (Zech. 12.)
• Christians are not under the Law, including the Fourth Commandment.
• The Kingdom is not exhaustively experienced in the earthly church.
• Christ’s kingship is not fulfilled until He sits on David’s throne in Jerusalem.”
According to Brooks Dispensationalism is defined by several nonnegotiable items:
1. The Church began at Pentecost.
2. A future Kingdom, realized in a real 1ooo year period, in which ethnic Israel will be converted, they will be in the “Land”, worshipping in a literal temple with Christ as their King seated on the literal throne of David in literal Jerusalem.
Conclusions
In this study I have found a few things that seem to have bound all sorts of dispensationalists together since Darby; I do realize that I have left out considerable (valid or not) historical contributions that have been made to broaden this debate, men in other dispensational camps such as, E.W. Bullinger’s dispensationalism (classified as ‘ultra’) and Miles Stanford’s Pauline Dispensationalism.
After this brief and incomprehensive survey, I would say that the primary distinctions of Dispensationalism are these:
1. Tenacism - If an Old Testament prophesy is ever “expanded” in the New Testament that expansion can never negate, trump or “explain away” the grammatical/historical understanding of those prophesies. This is a primary distinction and I call it “Tenacism” because hold tenaciously to an exclusively grammatical/historical interpretation of Old Testament prophesies.
a. As a necessary consequence of (1), Israel and the Church cannot be confused in a comprehensive group of elect persons referred to as “God’s people” and the promises to each group must remain separated. This is a common distinction within the history of Dispensationalism.
i. Millennialism - As a consequence of (1a), a literal, millennial, earthy reign of Christ on David’s throne is also a common distinction.
ii. Temporalism - As a consequence of (1a), a literal temple (as described in Ezekiel’s prophesy) will be constructed in the millennial period, which would include the sacrificial system of the Mosaic Covenant sanctioned by God as a memorial of Christ’s death and part of the “rule of life” for the believers in that dispensation. This is also a common distinction.
So far as I can tell, there really is only one primary distinction of Dispensationalism. The subsequent ones are common, but not primary, and the latter distinctions all have the former as a prerequisite; even though the primary distinction does not force the common distinctions practically and in every case, they do seem to logically issue forth from Tenacism as their root.
No comments:
Post a Comment