Featured Progressive Dispensationalism?

The problem with this is that Paul tells us you are not a Jew by being circumcised (Romans 2), and not all Israel is Israel (Romans 9).
Paul ties this all together in Romans 11, showing us that the chosen people of God are made up of both ethnic Jew and Gentile, which makes up the Israel of God. This means your verse actually goes against dispensationalism rather than supporting it.

"I want you to understand this mystery, dear brothers and sisters, so that you will not feel proud about yourselves. Some of the people of Israel have hard hearts, but this will last only until the full number of Gentiles comes to Christ. And so all Israel will be saved. As the Scriptures say, “The one who rescues will come from Jerusalem, and he will turn Israel away from ungodliness. And this is my covenant with them, that I will take away their sins.” Many of the people of Israel are now enemies of the Good News, and this benefits you Gentiles. Yet they are still the people he loves because he chose their ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For God’s gifts and his call can never be withdrawn. Once, you Gentiles were rebels against God, but when the people of Israel rebelled against him, God was merciful to you instead. Now they are the rebels, and God’s mercy has come to you so that they, too, will share in God’s mercy. For God has imprisoned everyone in disobedience so he could have mercy on everyone. Oh, how great are God’s riches and wisdom and knowledge! How impossible it is for us to understand his decisions and his ways!"
(Romans 11:25-33)

 

Interesting, as you can read, I was steeped in dispensationalism and it left me with a disjointed and disconnected view of the Bible. It was the biblical principle of the church being the "Israel" of God from Adam, onward (covenant theology), that connected the entire Bible together as one. It is what makes the book of Revelation and incredible, encouraging book for present believers rather than just a futurist novel of things to come. I found dispensationalism simply attempting to create different schemes and scenarios in order to make their system work with the Bible.

In addition, I cannot reconcile supporting a present day, utterly Godless and disobedient nation of Israel in the name of calling them God's people, when the vast majority are openly atheist or haters of the Anointed One, Jesus. In scripture we see God vomiting Israel out of the land. We see Jesus prophesying the nations destruction. We see the leaders calling down a curse upon themselves and their children due to rejecting the Anointed One who was promised from Adam, onward. When we read Paul speaking in Romans 11 we see him stating that the Jewish people were cut off from the line of faith (see Hebrews 11) until the fullness of the line of faith from every nation, tribe, and tongue is grafted into the line of faith. Jews will be grafted back in to the line of faith, but the Mosaic Covenant is utterly finished and useless because of the cross. Jesus said "It is finished." The Mosaic Covenant was over. The veil in the temple was torn.

Why would anyone believer promote the return of a finished and dead Mosaic Covenant with a fleshly Jewish nation trying to revive what God has declared "finished?" Why would believers be encouraging such legalism and old sacrificial systems when Jesus has died once and for all?

The strawman of "replacement theology" is just ignorance of the redemptive process that can only happen through Christ Jesus alone. The Church is the bride of Christ, not the ancestral nation of Israel. The Church has always been the bride of Christ from Adam in down to today. There is and has only ever been one way by which one can be saved. Jesus say, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." That starts with Adam and ends with the last chosen one coming to faith in Christ Jesus.

 

Stefan, the writer of Hebrews disagrees and shows you that such sacrifices are no longer. Your statement presents accommodating a system that cannot save. There is one sacrifice, once and for all. There is no "commemorative" sacrifices of bulls and sheep. Jesus died, once and for all.

Hebrews 10:1-7,10

The old system under the law of Moses was only a shadow, a dim preview of the good things to come, not the good things themselves. The sacrifices under that system were repeated again and again, year after year, but they were never able to provide perfect cleansing for those who came to worship. If they could have provided perfect cleansing, the sacrifices would have stopped, for the worshipers would have been purified once for all time, and their feelings of guilt would have disappeared. But instead, those sacrifices actually reminded them of their sins year after year. For it is not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. That is why, when Christ came into the world, he said to God, “You did not want animal sacrifices or sin offerings. But you have given me a body to offer. You were not pleased with burnt offerings or other offerings for sin.

Then I said, ‘Look, I have come to do your will, O God— as is written about me in the Scriptures.’” For God’s will was for us to be made holy by the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all time.

The claims of dispensationalists, that animal sacrifices will take place, happens because they struggle to understand the temple as described in Ezekiel. They take it, and the measurements as being literal. But, Ezekiel wrote poetically and John, in Revelation, shows us that Ezekiel was not being literal in his description of the new Temple. He is describing the true Temple, which is Christ Jesus, who also is our High Priest and the once for all sacrificial Lamb.

Everything points to Jesus. He is personified in the description of the temple. He is the once and for all sacrifice.

Your comment shows that the systematic theology of dispensationalism cannot fit God into its literalism and the box it creates. Therefore it creates contradictions and it seeks outlandish explanations to try reconcile the contradictions. Covenant theology has no need to create such wild explanations. The whole of the Bible points to Jesus. Jesus shows this when he walked with his disciples on the road to Emmaus and revealed himself from all of the scriptures.

May God guide us both into the fullness of His truth as presented in His Word.

 

Far more than the Mosaic Covenant, which was conditional, Dispensationalism is influenced by the Davidic Covenant, which promises that David's seed (the Messiah) will one day sit on the Davidic Throne. That will happen, of course, at the Second Coming, which will begin the 1000 year reign of Christ. The Davidic (and Abrahamic) Covenant was unconditional, which means it is still in operation. So the reason God still watches over the Jewish people (not modern Israel in particular) is that He promised Abraham He would, and He never lies and never changes His Word.

This a large difference between normative Dispensationalism and Progressive Dispensationalism. With their "already/not yet" hermeneutic, the PDers say that "Christ has already inaugurated the Davidic covenant and is now reigning in heaven on the throne of David (right hand of the father = the throne of David)." (Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 2007, p. 79).

There are other significant differences that make me say that PG is not really Dispensationalism after all, but a completely new theology: the completely different dispensational scheme, the different definition of a dispensation, their hermeneutic that says there are different level of fulfillment (already/not yet), etc.

 

Just a brief corrective note here. You've referred a couple of times to Dispensational theology as a "systematic" theology. You may be getting that from your required reading of Chafer's systematic theology, I don't know. But even Chafer's ST has Dispensationalism as only one part of it.

For that matter, reformed systematic theologies don't have the whole theology as covenant theology, which is just part of the picture. For example, in Berkhof you have a good deal of covenant theology in Section 2, but there is a whole lot more to Berkhof than that.

 

John, you are correct in stating earlier that Progressive Dispensationalism tries to stay within Dispensationalism while recognizing dispensationalism cannot reconcile the covenants in its system.
Covenant theology recognizes that the Davidic Covenant is fulfilled in Jesus, as is the Mosaic Covenant, the Abrahamic Covenant, the Adamic Covenant, and the New Covenant.

The 1000 year binding of Satan is presently occuring (Revelation 20) as Satan is not presently being allowed to attack Christians on a world-wide scale even as we go through the tribulation. The numbers in Revelation (just as the numbers for the Temple in Ezekiel) are not intended to be taken literally (the internal evidence of Revelation makes this clear).

One of the things that was extremely hard to reconcile was the interpretation that Futurists (dispensations) bring to the book of Revelation. It seemed convoluted and of no practical value for everyday life. Then I read Mounce's commentary on Revelation and started listening to sermons on Revelation by Eric Alexander, John Piper, Voddie Baucham, Alistair Begg and Sinclair Ferguson that presented the Amillennial view. Their understanding made great sense and turned the book of Revelation into an amazingly relevant and encouraging book from first verse to last verse for us believers today. It tied the entire Bible together with great clarity. I had to let go of dispensationalism as it failed to connect all scripture into a coherent narrative.

I understand you have spent your life in the system and you think it makes sense, but I found it quite contradictory and lacking cohesive argumentation. The longer I look at it and compare it with covenant theology the more I find myself shaking my head and wondering how I could ever have believed it as a system of theology.

This being said, I have many friends in dispensational theology who are wonderfully Godly brothers and sisters with whom I will spend eternity. I don't break fellowship over our differences, just as RC Sproul and John MacArthur didn't break fellowship over their differences.

 

Covenant theology is not primarily about the covenants delineated clearly in Scripture which you have listed, but about two (or three, depending on the theologian) made up covenants about which the theologians widely disagree. You do know this, do you not?

Dispensationalists do not try to reconcile the covenants of covenant theology because they are theological constructs, not Biblical records.

Okay. That's your view and I'm sure you are sticking to it.

I have no trouble with interpreting Revelation as a dispensationalist, and see Dispensationalism as coherently interpreting all of the Bible.

Please stop thinking you know what my theological journey has been. I did not grow up dispensationalist, but historic premil. In fact, my famous grandfather taught directly against the theology, and included the OT saints in the church. I do not remember my pastor father ever teaching dispensationalism, since he followed my grandfather in his theology.

I came to be a dispensationalist on the mission field on my own, well up into my 30s.

Glad to read this.

 

Gentle BB denizens, just so you know what the covenants of covenant theology are, to which the progressive dispensationalists are seeking reproachment, here are some quotes from leading theologians. And be advised again that the covenants of covenant theology are not those clearly seen in the Bible.

First of all, the covenant of works: “According to Covenant Theology, the Covenant of Works was established between the triune God and Adam. In this covenant, God made Adam the representative head of the human race so that Adam could act for all his descendants” (Renald Showers, There Really Is a Difference, 1990, p. 10).

Then, the covenant of redemption: "The Covenant of Redemption was established in eternity past. God knew that man would fall away from Him; thus, in eternity past God determined to provide redemption during the course of history for the elect" (Ibid., 9)

Then, the covenant of grace: “The covenant of Grace may be defined as that gracious agreement between the offended God and the offending but elect sinner, in which God promises salvation through faith in Christ, and the sinner accepts this believingly, promising a life of faith and obedience” Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 1941, p. 277; italics in original).

Various covenant theologians disagree greatly on the number of their covenants and the meaning of each.

 

There is Biblical dispensationalism. And there are Biblical eschatological distinctives and order. For example, Post Tribulational Pre Wrath Pre Milliniumism Futureism.

 

That is why I cannot support it either.

 

- "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."

When Adam and Eve were living in the garden, before they ate the forbidden fruit, we they already saved and then lost their salvation through sin? Sounds like they were operating under a different dispensation.

Did the OT saints go the heaven or Abraham's bosom when they physically died? Sounds like they were operating under a different dispensation.

If we look through a microscope we can see differing aspects of things that look like the same thing when viewed telescopically.

Salvation by grace through faith is the telescopic view, but the pathway that led to life was somewhat different for differing dispensations.