-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Progressive Dispensationalism?
- Thread starter StefanM
- Start date
Yes, I agree with Progressive Dispensationalism, or at least my understanding of it.
Dispensationalism is a theological term used to describe a method of interpreting the Bible. Progressive Dispensation is one version of many that differs from Traditional Dispensationalism. Dispensationalists believe Christ will govern upon David’s throne here on earth for one thousand years, or in other words they take those passages literally. Therefore Dispensationalists like to excoriate the “Reformed, Replacement Theology, Amillennialists” as not interpreting the Bible literally and therefore we stand on higher ground. And so it goes in theological debate.
Sadly the first thing to grasp is that the main difference between Covenant Theology (errant Amillennialists) and we, the virtuous Dispensationalists, has little to do with the idea that God governs man in differing ways. Both schools of thought agree God deals with man in different ways. No the chief difference is in our views of an End Times dispensation. Basically both schools agree on: 1) Dispensation of Innocence or how God dealt with man before the fall; 2) Dispensation of Conscious or how God deals with man without the Law; 3) Dispensation of the Law or how God deals with man with the Law; 4) Dispensation of Grace or how God deals with man in Christ Jesus before the Second Coming; 5) the Millennial Kingdom or how God deals with all Israel on earth after the Second Coming; and 6) the Eternal Kingdom or how God deals with his children in eternity. Now the chief difference is that the Amillennialists believe the fifth age is going on right now in heaven so the Second Coming will inaugurate the sixth dispensation. Hence, Amillennialists are against the idea of a thousand year reign of Christ on earth. Rather, they hold to the idea that the Church replaced Israel (Replacement Theology) and the promises to Israel have been transferred to the Church and are being fulfilled in heaven during the dispensation of grace.
Let me say here that the above represents my understanding of the issue and I am quite sure I have missed the mark in the details, but I believe the above properly represents the general idea. But now to the heart of the post, what is the difference between a traditional dispensationalist and a progressive dispensationalist?
“Traditional dispensationalists typically see the 'church age' as an interruption or parenthetical period in God's dealing with Israel. The church is seen as unrelated to Israel and the new covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34.” (Tim Warner)
Progressive dispensationalists see the Church Age as a progression where God deals with the faithful in a new covenant enabled by the blood of Christ, and this Dispensation of Grace is available to those with the Law (Jews) and those without the Law (Gentiles who have heard the gospel in light of the Old Testament). Some but not all Old Testament promises apply to the church now, and are not being held in abeyance pending the Second Coming. Thus I can read Galatians 3 and it matches my theology perfectly. Same for Romans 9-11.
Another area where I fundamentally disagree with many is that I believe God is using multiple dispensations at the same time. Therefore today, three dispensations are in effect, God is dealing with those without the Law, who have not heard the gospel presented in light of an understanding of the Old Testament (Dispensation of Conscience); God is dealing with those who have the Law which includes Jews and non Jews who have heard the gospel in light of the Old Testament but have not accepted the gospel and have not been born again (Dispensation of the Law); and three, God is dealing with born again believers, the Dispensation of Grace.
Sadly the first thing to grasp is that the main difference between Covenant Theology (errant Amillennialists) and we, the virtuous Dispensationalists, has little to do with the idea that God governs man in differing ways. Both schools of thought agree God deals with man in different ways. No the chief difference is in our views of an End Times dispensation. Basically both schools agree on: 1) Dispensation of Innocence or how God dealt with man before the fall; 2) Dispensation of Conscious or how God deals with man without the Law; 3) Dispensation of the Law or how God deals with man with the Law; 4) Dispensation of Grace or how God deals with man in Christ Jesus before the Second Coming; 5) the Millennial Kingdom or how God deals with all Israel on earth after the Second Coming; and 6) the Eternal Kingdom or how God deals with his children in eternity. Now the chief difference is that the Amillennialists believe the fifth age is going on right now in heaven so the Second Coming will inaugurate the sixth dispensation. Hence, Amillennialists are against the idea of a thousand year reign of Christ on earth. Rather, they hold to the idea that the Church replaced Israel (Replacement Theology) and the promises to Israel have been transferred to the Church and are being fulfilled in heaven during the dispensation of grace.
Let me say here that the above represents my understanding of the issue and I am quite sure I have missed the mark in the details, but I believe the above properly represents the general idea. But now to the heart of the post, what is the difference between a traditional dispensationalist and a progressive dispensationalist?
“Traditional dispensationalists typically see the 'church age' as an interruption or parenthetical period in God's dealing with Israel. The church is seen as unrelated to Israel and the new covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34.” (Tim Warner)
Progressive dispensationalists see the Church Age as a progression where God deals with the faithful in a new covenant enabled by the blood of Christ, and this Dispensation of Grace is available to those with the Law (Jews) and those without the Law (Gentiles who have heard the gospel in light of the Old Testament). Some but not all Old Testament promises apply to the church now, and are not being held in abeyance pending the Second Coming. Thus I can read Galatians 3 and it matches my theology perfectly. Same for Romans 9-11.
Another area where I fundamentally disagree with many is that I believe God is using multiple dispensations at the same time. Therefore today, three dispensations are in effect, God is dealing with those without the Law, who have not heard the gospel presented in light of an understanding of the Old Testament (Dispensation of Conscience); God is dealing with those who have the Law which includes Jews and non Jews who have heard the gospel in light of the Old Testament but have not accepted the gospel and have not been born again (Dispensation of the Law); and three, God is dealing with born again believers, the Dispensation of Grace.
Here is one link to Tim Warner's take on Progressive Dispensationalism:
PFRS Progressive Dispensationalism - Introduction
PFRS Progressive Dispensationalism - Introduction
From the first video: Explanation of dispensationalism - "God has administered his salvation in different ways in different times in the biblical story."
The problem here is that God has always, from the very beginning to the end, administered salvation by grace through faith. There is no other salvation except through faith in the redeeming anointed one, Jesus Christ. This has always been the case and it has been taught from Genesis 3 onward.
Therefore, dispensationalism (whether progressive or not) is false in its base assumption and thus holds no valid argument.
6 For I, Jehovah, change not; therefore ye, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed. Mal 3
8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and to-day, yea and for ever. Heb 13
17 Wherein God, being minded to show more abundantly unto the heirs of the promise the immutability of his counsel, interposed with an oath; Heb 6
No the problem is that you likely watched the video until you found something you believed you could pounce on even though you didn't really understand what he was saying and then you characterized it in a way that is completely false and weaponized that to oppose it. Why? Likely because regardless of the truth of the matter and what he said you want to oppose it anyway. Since you failed to understand what he said and then posted to misrepresent it your post lack integrity.
It all depends on how you define "administered his salvation." It's clear that God works differently under the New Covenant because the Holy Spirit now continuously indwells believers when he did not do so previously. I wouldn't claim that salvation came by any means other than grace through faith, but other details associated with salvation can and do differ. One example is explicit faith in Christ. It wouldn't be possible to have explicit faith in Christ prior to the incarnation, even if one's faith looked forward to the Messiah. Now, not only is it possible; it's required.
God's immutability as an attribute isn't really determinative here, though. Although God's essential nature doesn't change, the implementation of the New Covenant marks a significant departure from the Mosaic Covenant.
Also, we can't hold too rigidly to "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever" (Heb. 13:8, LSB). Why not? Well, we have Luke 2:52 (LSB) "And Jesus was advancing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men." Jesus obviously experienced changes (growth) in his human nature, even as his divine nature remained unchanged.
Salvation and how one is saved has always been by grace through faith. This is why we have Hebrews 11 and the Hall of Faith.
The Mosaic (Old) Covenant had nothing to do with salvation. No one could be saved under that covenant. The apostle Paul tells us that it could only reveal our condemnation in failing to keep the law.
From Job to John the Baptist, the person's being saved were saved by their persistent faith in the coming Anointed One to Redeem them. After the cross, we who are being saved, are saved by our persistent faith in the Anointed One who has redeemed us at the cross.
Salvation has always been the same.
Dispensations are man-made, artificial, delineations that have nothing to do with salvation and everything to do with how the line to get to the Messiah's first coming took place and now how the line to the Messiah's second coming is taking place. It has absolutely nothing to do with the means by which God saves men. That means has always been by grace through faith, which is the gift of God. This is precisely why not all Israel is Israel.
For me, then, dispensationalism, whether progressive or not, starts with a false premise and thus gets the vast majority of prophetic revelation in the Bible wrong. Desperately wrong.
I quoted him word for word.
I disagree with your assertion that the Mosaic Covenant had nothing to do with salvation. One could not be saved by the law, but obedience to the law (I'm not saying perfection was possible, to be clear) was something expected of saved people. God's expectations for the saved are simply not the same under the New Covenant as under the Mosaic Covenant. That's not a man-made distinction. Even if you believe some of the Mosaic Covenant is still in force, we know at a minimum that Mosaic dietary laws are not binding. That's a change.
You didn't address my comment about the change in the work of the Holy Spirit. Salvation was by grace through faith under the Mosaic Covenant, but until Pentecost, the Holy Spirit didn't continually indwell believers. That's not a man-made distinction, either.
First, the people were already chosen by God before they ever received the Mosaic Covenant and laws. Paul tells us that the laws, which are good, served to condemn and kill us because sin took advantage of the law so we could never be saved by the law. Paul has an 11 chapter treatise on justification by faith alone, showing why the law could not save.
Since this is the message of the Bible, why would we ever claim different means of salvation in different dispensations?
For both the Mosaic Covenant and us under the New Covenant, we are all called to obey God. The difference is that Jesus, the Lamb of God, gave himself once and for all for our redemption. He is both the sacrificial Lamb and the High Priest who offered himself on our behalf. We stand before God, in Christ, and therefore without blemish.
The Mosaic Covenant was an image to point us to Christ.
The Spirit has always been working in conjunction with the Father and Son to redeem a chosen people. Even today we are told to pray for the Holy Spirit.
(Luke 11:13)
So if you sinful people know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him.”
This implies that the Spirit of God must be sought in our lives and prayed for so that we will sustain our faith in perseverance. It is disingenuous of us to think we simply have the Holy Spirit working in us just because we prayed a sinners prayer like Billy Graham taught.
I, personally, find no value in dispensationalism. It misses the meta narrative of the Bible.
I will step aside so you and others who hold to this view can talk. I simply shared as a counter balance to dispensationalism.
timtofly
Well-Known Member
Are you against dispensations or just replacing one theology with another theology?
A dispensation is not really based on salvation by grace through faith, even if that was an understanding since Cain slew Abel.
Paul defines the differences: Romans 5:12-16
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."
Paul pointed out before the Law, sin was not imputed. I don't really think the current definitions are all that well defined in dispensationalism.
Innocence? Nope they new more about God than we ever will in this life. There were sons of God created on the 6th day in charge of human affairs. They knew exactly what was right and what was wrong. Eventually the sons of God realized there was no changing a sinner, and literally gave into wickedness themselves. Not the first few generations, but certainly multiple generations that were destroyed in the Flood by God, with no mercy nor grace extended to those sons of God. Not imputed does not mean innocent. They obviously were guilty, but there was no law to hold them to that guilt.
What grace is provided when the Law points to your guilt? Giving constant sacrifices was an easier appeasement of guilt than trying to live the law, which no man could because of sin. God had no pleasure in sacrifices either, but that is how the economy of the Law worked. Grace replaces the Law, but certainly does not prevent sin and the constant breaking of the Law, even after the Cross. Should we continue in sin, that grace may abound? Paul says no, but we certainly do continue in sin, because that is still our nature. Now instead of constant sacrifice, it is constant confession.
So just dismissing dispensations because of one's view of God's salvation is totally missing what actually did happen historically.
You are going to feel really out of place in the next dispensation, when there is no sin at all, like it was prior to Adam's disobedience. Where no one is born a sinner with a sin nature, but the law can only be obeyed. When disobedience is unnatural, there will be no need for salvation, nor grace. All will have a permanent incorruptible physical body. Instead of disobedience allowing sin into the world, like with Adam, it will mean instant death, and that will be it. One act of disobedience and it will be the end of the road for that soul. No second chance, no rehab, and no grace of salvation.
uh no you took out only a portion of what he said then added your own interpretation, it lacks integrity
Dispensations are man-made labels around the timeline of the Bible. God never established them in scripture, but systematic theology has created them in an attempt to understand God. Theologians then attempt to squeeze God into their categories, which is precisely the method of dispensationalism. However, dispensationalist start creating new categories because their structure has a flaw. Therefore you have some adding more and more dispensations. Then, such as in this thread, you find others who label their categorization as Progressive in order to distinguish against what has been labeled in the past.
Since it is impossible to force God into categories, dispensationalism finds an ever changing need to rearrange and restructure in order to make God fit in their system.
I find this system to be eternally flawed and ultimately dangerous to understanding the meta narrative of the Bible.
Now, I will attempt to step aside since the OP wants to know who embraces progressive dispensationalism, which you all can clearly see, I do not.
Carry on.
Was I supposed to provide a transcript of the video and then oppose the video?
I quoted word for word and then explained my disagreement. If that lacks integrity to you, then I dust off my sandals and walk away.