To the Dispy here/Are You Classic or progressive One?

[DaChaser1]

and the main biblcal reasons why?

 

[kyredneck]

So are you going to spell out the differences between 'classic' and 'progressive'? (for those who might not know)

 

[OldRegular]

So are you going to spell out the differences between 'classic' and 'progressive'? (for those who might not know)

Ask a and get :tonofbricks:.

 

[DaChaser1]

So are you going to spell out the differences between 'classic' and 'progressive'? (for those who might not know)

Basically, classic Dispy view distinct differences between isreal and the Church, promises made seperate to each, with Isreal under an Old Coventant based on the law, Church under new Covenant of Grace!


progressive dispy see there is but one people of God, both isreal/Jewish people saved by grace as Church/gentiles, the Church received/fulfilled some of the promises made to isreal by God in OT....

Still see some specific promises to isreal to still be fulfilled....

Biggest difference would be how viewed isreal and Church, totally seperated by God or not?

 

[thomas15]

While Bock makes some convincing arguments, I fall into the classic dispensationalist camp. And the reason is it seems to be the most Biblical of the various views.

 

[AresMan]

Basically, classic Dispy view distinct differences between isreal and the Church, promises made seperate to each, with Isreal under an Old Coventant based on the law, Church under new Covenant of Grace!

Actually, classic dispies see both the Old and New Covenant for national Israel. They would say that the "church" partakes of the "spiritual blessings" of the New Covenant until the rapture. Then, after the tribulation and beginning with the millennium, the New Covenant will be inaugurated. They would believe that the New Covenant was "ratified" with the death and resurrection of Christ, but it will not be in full effect until the millennial reign of Christ on earth.

progressive dispy see there is but one people of God, both isreal/Jewish people saved by grace as Church/gentiles, the Church received/fulfilled some of the promises made to isreal by God in OT....

Still see some specific promises to isreal to still be fulfilled....

Biggest difference would be how viewed isreal and Church, totally seperated by God or not?

Yes, the progressives reject the classic view of the eternal dualism of Israel and the Church. They would see them essentially one people of God, but in different manifestations of prominence. Before Pentecost (or even Paul's ministry), it was geopolitical in nature with Jewish prominence. Now, with the church, it is individualistic/assembly-oriented with Gentile prominence. After the rapture, it will again be geopolitical with Jewish prominence for the millennium.

By the way, although I used to be moderately dispensational, I have shed it in favor of a form of "new covenant theology" (or "covenant theology" with the understanding that all ordinances of the Law including the Sabbath were fulfilled in Christ).

 

[DaChaser1]

Actually, classic dispies see both the Old and New Covenant for national Israel. They would say that the "church" partakes of the "spiritual blessings" of the New Covenant until the rapture. Then, after the tribulation and beginning with the millennium, the New Covenant will be inaugurated. They would believe that the New Covenant was "ratified" with the death and resurrection of Christ, but it will not be in full effect until the millennial reign of Christ on earth.

Yes, the progressives reject the classic view of the eternal dualism of Israel and the Church. They would see them essentially one people of God, but in different manifestations of prominence. Before Pentecost (or even Paul's ministry), it was geopolitical in nature with Jewish prominence. Now, with the church, it is individualistic/assembly-oriented with Gentile prominence. After the rapture, it will again be geopolitical with Jewish prominence for the millennium.

By the way, although I used to be moderately dispensational, I have shed it in favor of a form of "new covenant theology" (or "covenant theology" with the understanding that all ordinances of the Law including the Sabbath were fulfilled in Christ).

Does that mean that you would see the Church as being "Spiritual isreal" today?

 

[DaChaser1]

While Bock makes some convincing arguments, I fall into the classic dispensationalist camp. And the reason is it seems to be the most Biblical of the various views.

Do you see the progressive Dispy, new Covenant theolgy as means by with the "moderates" of Dispy/Covt theology trying to find a common/mediating stance now?

 

[thomas15]

Do you see the progressive Dispy, new Covenant theolgy as means by with the "moderates" of Dispy/Covt theology trying to find a common/mediating stance now?

My guess is that would be at least some part of it. I rarely if ever see a classic dispie talking about the "already, not yet" concept of the kingdom. The progressive dispies do and of course it is central to covenant A-Mil theology however the progressive assign a different meaning to it as compared to the covenant reformed.

But alas, for me it all comes back to basic understanding of the Bible. In my mind I don't see an absolute relationship between salvation of sinners soul's (Jew and Gentile) and the promised Davidic Kingdom. If all men, even on OT times are saved by grace based on the shed blood of Christ then why speak of the kingdom as future even in the first century?

I see Jesus shed blood on the cross as a ratification of the new covenant promise, not fufillment. This is taking the Bible literally on this point. Abraham did not see the covenant promised to him fufilled in his lifetime, why couldn't it be any different with NT believers? When we read the details of the New Covenant in Jer 31:31... there is nothing about eternal life granted to the sinner saved by grace, there is no mention of the gentiles being promised the kingdom. No, it's addressed to the house of Israel and the house of Judah.

 

[DaChaser1]

My guess is that would be at least some part of it. I rarely if ever see a classic dispie talking about the "already, not yet" concept of the kingdom. The progressive dispies do and of course it is central to covenant A-Mil theology however the progressive assign a different meaning to it as compared to the covenant reformed.

But alas, for me it all comes back to basic understanding of the Bible. In my mind I don't see an absolute relationship between salvation of sinners soul's (Jew and Gentile) and the promised Davidic Kingdom. If all men, even on OT times are saved by grace based on the shed blood of Christ then why speak of the kingdom as future even in the first century?

I see Jesus shed blood on the cross as a ratification of the new covenant promise, not fufillment. This is taking the Bible literally on this point. Abraham did not see the covenant promised to him fufilled in his lifetime, why couldn't it be any different with NT believers? When we read the details of the New Covenant in Jer 31:31... there is nothing about eternal life granted to the sinner saved by grace, there is no mention of the gentiles being promised the kingdom. No, it's addressed to the house of Israel and the house of Judah.

Do you see the Kingdom of God as the rule of God right now over His saved in His church body here on earth, and thatwhen Christ returns the Kingdom will be extended to rule over all the earth at that time?

Jesus as the King bringing fulness of His kingdom with him, then will in heaven actually done on earth?

Church part of it, NOT all of the Kingdom?

 

[thomas15]

Do you see the Kingdom of God as the rule of God right now over His saved in His church body here on earth, and thatwhen Christ returns the Kingdom will be extended to rule over all the earth at that time?

Jesus as the King bringing fulness of His kingdom with him, then will in heaven actually done on earth?

Church part of it, NOT all of the Kingdom?

You are really giving me a workout today!

I haven't studied and worked out all of the details. Allow me to say this, Jesus is the second person of the triune Godhead, is fully and totally God in all aspects. Jesus is the sustainer and creator of all things. He is fully in control of the universe.

However, is God's complete will manifest in the saved assembly of NT believers? Is Jesus ruling in totality the affairs of His church? Are we living in a theocratic kingdom and acknowledging Christ as our ruler? Do believers really know "all things" and have no need of explanation in the things of God?

I would answer those questions with a negative. The classic dispie thoughts on the kingdom would in my mind say that the church is blessed in ways that are in keeping with the blessings promised to the future kingdom but we are in no way in the kingdom for the reasons stated above.