Dispensationalism

[Ed Edwards]

I still find it strange that folks like to talk to the points of professional Dispies who are NOT here and ignore the points. By contrast the points of our friendly local POSTERS who do NOT get paid for thier Dispenstaional thoughs -- they are ignored.

Well, I'm on record saying:

There are times when the National Israeli/Jew is to be separated from the mostly Gentile Church Age (Time of the Gentiles) -- and there is a time they are together as one. People who can tell from scripture which is which have the Spiritual Gift of Discernment. People who can not tell from scripture are confused (not lost).

 

[OldRegular]

No. The reference, if you would read it in context to the what the book is saying, is that they keep them seperate always. Never the two becoming one. Thus the purposes of each have nothing to do with the other and will not come together, ever. Please keep the context of what the writer is saying.

Assuming you have the reference I suggest you read the section, The Distinctiveness of the Church, page 174. If you do not have the reference then you are disputing my posts simply to be contentious. In that case further discussion is irrelevant.

Incidentally that section contains the following statement: "A corollary of this new view erases the idea of two purposes of God -- one for the church and one for Israel."

 

[Allan]

Assuming you have the reference I suggest you read the section, The Distinctiveness of the Church, page 174. If you do not have the reference then you are disputing my posts simply to be contentious. In that case further discussion is irrelevant.

Incidentally that section contains the following statement: "A corollary of this new view erases the idea of two purposes of God -- one for the church and one for Israel."

Here is what you posted from Ryrie:

"The concept of the Church as completely distinct from Israel and as a mystery unrevealed in the Old Testament needs revising, making the idea of two purposes and two peoples of God invalid."

The point from that section regards Progressives view (which is largely undefined and sort of a nebulous of ideas) is that what understand regarding the purpose and peoples of God makes void the very argument the claim to agree with. That being the Church and Israel are distinct groups but still one people.

Their view, Ryrie says, needs revising because it actaully invalidates their own position on the Church and Israel because they say they are 'completely seperate' groups and thus two seperate people, instead of 'distinct' groups yet one people.


You do know don't you that progressives and Classics alike view the Church as distinct from Israel, correct?

 

[OldRegular]

You do know don't you that progressives and Classics alike view the Church as distinct from Israel, correct?

Allan You Are Wrong Again! Boring isn't it!

Progressive Dispensationalism: What is it?

by Rev. Jack Brooks
*
Within dispensational circles, a theological controversy has been brewing since the late 1980’s. A special study-group of dispensational scholars began gathering prior to meetings of the Evangelical Theological Society. Their purpose was to discuss and re-think various issues pertaining to dispensational doctrine – to respond to covenant theology critiques of Dispensationalism, and to fix perceived weaknesses in traditional dispensational thought. Slowly, a series of new ways of thinking about a set of key dispensational topics emerged. Journal articles appeared. Eventually books were written and published. One of those books was Progressive Dispensationalism, courtesy of Dr. Craig Blaising and Dr. Darrell Bock. It is primarily this book that I am evaluating here.
*
*
Revising Revised Dispensationalism
*
Dispensationalism was originated by the Rev. John Nelson Darby (early leader in the Plymouth Brethren movement.) It was codified in L.S. Chafer’s systematic theology books, and popularized by the Scofield Reference Bible. Dispensational theology was revised in the late 1960’s by “second-wave” dispensational theologians like John Walvoord and Charles Ryrie. Further tinkering occurred during the 1970’s.
*
But PD (Progressive Dispensationalism) changes several important features of even Revised Dispensationalism. Therefore if qualifies as a truly new phase in Dispensationalism and not just more tinkering. PD addresses itself to issues:
*
·******** How does the plan of salvation relate to the distinctions made in the New Testament between Israel and the Christian Church?
·******** Just how distinct is the distinction between Israel and the Christian Church?
·******** Granting that there are distinct periods in history during which God administrates His people in particular ways, how many periods are there and what are they?
·******** Are Old Testament prophecies interpreted and applied in the New Testament in exactly the same sense that they were originally given, or are they ever expanded?
·******** Is God’s Kingdom in any way present in this current dispensation? If so, how, and how much?
·******** In the same vein, is Christ’s reign as the Davidic King in any way happening now? Or are all of the Davidic prophecies reserved for the second advent?


Summary of PD Positions
*
1.***** One plan of salvation:* There is only one plan of redemption, not one for Israel and a different one for Christians. There is only one New Covenant, not two. The redemptive plan is revealed through God’s covenants. It begins with Abraham’s covenant, which combines physical and spiritual promises. David’s covenant, as developed by the later prophets also has redemptive application, since the Savior would be the Son of David. The New Covenant obtains redemption in fulfillment of the Abrahamic and Davidic. The redemptive plan is holistic, not manifold.
2.***** Four dispensations: There are four dispensations:
• Patriarchal
• Mosaic
• Ecclesial (Church)
• Zionic (subdivided into millennial and eternal-kingdom phases.)
3.****** One people of God:* The Christian Church is quite distinct from Israel, but not radically distinct. The Church is not a mere “parenthesis” in an otherwise-Jewish divine plan. The Church is not “Plan B”. It is not a separate category of humanity, in the way the Bible speaks of Jews or Greeks. There is continuity between the Church and Israel, not discontinuity alone. All believers from all dispensations are united in one general assembly in heaven (Hebrews 12.)
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 often expands upon the OT prophecies, without contradicting their original contexts. Implications are developed from words which were not developed in the OT. PD calls this a “complementary” hermeneutic: The NT adds onto the OT prophecies in a way complementary to their original context.
5.***** Already/Not Yet:* 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. The Church is grafted into some key aspects of the New Covenant (justification, the gift of the Spirit, resurrection hope), but the geo-political features for Israel have not yet happened.
6.***** Davidic Reign Now:* 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)


Comments & Observations
*
Dispensationalism is a reaction against covenant theology. Reaction is not always a bad thing. Pastors and theologians of the past came to see deep flaws in covenant theology. Transferring all of Israel’s as-yet-unfulfilled millennial promises to the visible Church is one of its major errors. A failure to grasp all the historical changes and developments from Eden to Revelation 22 is a flaw. A chronic inability to completely shake free from bondage to the Mosaic Covenant is yet another critical flaw.
*
But reaction often blinds us too. We are so driven by a pre-determination to not slide back into covenant theology that we can’t see when they are correct. We build our beliefs on the basis of a “slippery slope” argument: any doctrinal changes which adjust toward covenant theology is condemned as wrong, ipso facto. But that assumption itself is wrong.
*
Speaking for myself, I find Progressive Dispensationalism appealing. In fact, I discovered that what the PD theologians did professionally, I’d already amateurishly half-done on my own, since I graduated from a dispensational Bible college in 1982.
*
·******** Israel and the Church have as much in common as they differ from each other.
·******** There is only one redemptive plan of God, not one for Israel and one for the Church.
·******** The pillars of God’s redemptive plan are the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New covenants. The covenants are the scriptural foci of redemption, not the dispensations.
·******** There is only one true nation of God in heaven as well as on earth, not two (Rom. 11)
·******** Four dispensations (Patriarchs, Law, Church, Kingdom) make more sense to me than six or seven. Less is better.
·******** The New Testament does not use a dispensational hermeneutic with OT prophecies. The Apostles often expanded on, or re-applied the original prophecies.
·******** The blessings and powers of the Kingdom are partly spilling backward into our current dispensation, on the grounds of Christ’s atonement, by means of the Holy Spirit.
·******** Christ is the Davidic King now, and the conversion of Gentiles represents the beginning of the re-building of David’s tent (Acts 15:12-18.)

http://www.endtimes.org/progressive_dispensationalism.html
*

 

[Allan]

Allan You Are Wrong Again! Boring isn't it!

Actually once again you proved me RIGHT. yes, it does get boring.
I have continually stated over and over that classical and progressive BOTH hold that the church and Israel are distinct. Everything below proves that point!

That is what all this is bantering has been about. You think they don't but they in fact DO!

Progressive Dispensationalism: What is it?

by Rev. Jack Brooks
*
Within dispensational circles, a theological controversy has been brewing since the late 1980’s. A special study-group of dispensational scholars began gathering prior to meetings of the Evangelical Theological Society. Their purpose was to discuss and re-think various issues pertaining to dispensational doctrine – to respond to covenant theology critiques of Dispensationalism, and to fix perceived weaknesses in traditional dispensational thought. Slowly, a series of new ways of thinking about a set of key dispensational topics emerged. Journal articles appeared. Eventually books were written and published. One of those books was Progressive Dispensationalism, courtesy of Dr. Craig Blaising and Dr. Darrell Bock. It is primarily this book that I am evaluating here.
*
*
Revising Revised Dispensationalism
*
Dispensationalism was originated by the Rev. John Nelson Darby (early leader in the Plymouth Brethren movement.) It was codified in L.S. Chafer’s systematic theology books, and popularized by the Scofield Reference Bible. Dispensational theology was revised in the late 1960’s by “second-wave” dispensational theologians like John Walvoord and Charles Ryrie. Further tinkering occurred during the 1970’s.
*
But PD (Progressive Dispensationalism) changes several important features of even Revised Dispensationalism. Therefore if qualifies as a truly new phase in Dispensationalism and not just more tinkering. PD addresses itself to issues:
*
·******** How does the plan of salvation relate to the distinctions made in the New Testament between Israel and the Christian Church?
·******** Just how distinct is the distinction between Israel and the Christian Church?
·******** Granting that there are distinct periods in history during which God administrates His people in particular ways, how many periods are there and what are they?
·******** Are Old Testament prophecies interpreted and applied in the New Testament in exactly the same sense that they were originally given, or are they ever expanded?
·******** Is God’s Kingdom in any way present in this current dispensation? If so, how, and how much?
·******** In the same vein, is Christ’s reign as the Davidic King in any way happening now? Or are all of the Davidic prophecies reserved for the second advent?


Summary of PD Positions
*
1.***** One plan of salvation:* There is only one plan of redemption, not one for Israel and a different one for Christians. There is only one New Covenant, not two. The redemptive plan is revealed through God’s covenants. It begins with Abraham’s covenant, which combines physical and spiritual promises. David’s covenant, as developed by the later prophets also has redemptive application, since the Savior would be the Son of David. The New Covenant obtains redemption in fulfillment of the Abrahamic and Davidic. The redemptive plan is holistic, not manifold.
2.***** Four dispensations: There are four dispensations:
• Patriarchal
• Mosaic
• Ecclesial (Church)
• Zionic (subdivided into millennial and eternal-kingdom phases.)
3.****** One people of God:* The Christian Church is quite distinct from Israel, but not radically distinct. The Church is not a mere “parenthesis” in an otherwise-Jewish divine plan. The Church is not “Plan B”. It is not a separate category of humanity, in the way the Bible speaks of Jews or Greeks. There is continuity between the Church and Israel, not discontinuity alone. All believers from all dispensations are united in one general assembly in heaven (Hebrews 12.)
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 often expands upon the OT prophecies, without contradicting their original contexts. Implications are developed from words which were not developed in the OT. PD calls this a “complementary” hermeneutic: The NT adds onto the OT prophecies in a way complementary to their original context.
5.***** Already/Not Yet:* 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. The Church is grafted into some key aspects of the New Covenant (justification, the gift of the Spirit, resurrection hope), but the geo-political features for Israel have not yet happened.
6.***** Davidic Reign Now:* 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)


Comments & Observations
*
Dispensationalism is a reaction against covenant theology. Reaction is not always a bad thing. Pastors and theologians of the past came to see deep flaws in covenant theology. Transferring all of Israel’s as-yet-unfulfilled millennial promises to the visible Church is one of its major errors. A failure to grasp all the historical changes and developments from Eden to Revelation 22 is a flaw. A chronic inability to completely shake free from bondage to the Mosaic Covenant is yet another critical flaw.
*
But reaction often blinds us too. We are so driven by a pre-determination to not slide back into covenant theology that we can’t see when they are correct. We build our beliefs on the basis of a “slippery slope” argument: any doctrinal changes which adjust toward covenant theology is condemned as wrong, ipso facto. But that assumption itself is wrong.
*
Speaking for myself, I find Progressive Dispensationalism appealing. In fact, I discovered that what the PD theologians did professionally, I’d already amateurishly half-done on my own, since I graduated from a dispensational Bible college in 1982.
*
·******** Israel and the Church have as much in common as they differ from each other.
·******** There is only one redemptive plan of God, not one for Israel and one for the Church.
·******** The pillars of God’s redemptive plan are the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New covenants. The covenants are the scriptural foci of redemption, not the dispensations.
·******** There is only one true nation of God in heaven as well as on earth, not two (Rom. 11)
·******** Four dispensations (Patriarchs, Law, Church, Kingdom) make more sense to me than six or seven. Less is better.
·******** The New Testament does not use a dispensational hermeneutic with OT prophecies. The Apostles often expanded on, or re-applied the original prophecies.
·******** The blessings and powers of the Kingdom are partly spilling backward into our current dispensation, on the grounds of Christ’s atonement, by means of the Holy Spirit.
·******** Christ is the Davidic King now, and the conversion of Gentiles represents the beginning of the re-building of David’s tent (Acts 15:12-18.)

http://www.endtimes.org/progressive_dispensationalism.html
*

Whoever this guy is that you choose to quote has a very poor understanding of the classical view and a very skewed understanding of Progressive, because 5 out of 6 of his summations of PD are actaully classically held. However that aside, it still says what I have been saying and proved my point. Just admit it - classical and Progressive BOTH distinquish between the church and Israel. From your above:

·******** Just how distinct is the distinction between Israel and the Christian Church?

Case closed in my favor

 

[OldRegular]

Case closed in my favor

Allan

Like most dispensationalists you refuse to face the truth even when someone hits you in the face with it.

I really don't understand why you get so upset over the progressive dispensational movement. Here you have a group of people who see the weakness of the classic dispensational doctrine and are trying to move toward and understand the truth. You should rejoice.

 

[OldRegular]

Following is a review of a book on Pregressive Dispensationalism by a classical dispensationalist. From [ http://withchrist.org/MJS/regressive.htm] it is obvious that Miles J. Stanford disagrees viciously with Progressive Dispensationalism. He titles his review as REGRESSIVE DISPENSATIONALISM.

Quotations from the book by Bock and Blaising are Bold.


PROGRESSIVE DISPENSATIONALISM* by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock (Victor Books, 1993, 336 pages.)

The dust jacket of this book includes a subtitle: "An Up-to-date Handbook of Contemporary Dispensational Thought."

Also included is the report that Dr. Bock "was recently awarded an Alexander von Humboldt scholarship from the German government to do a year's research on the historical Jesus."* What the two authors--and hence the book--lack is research on the glorified Lord Jesus Christ!

The jacket and facing page of the book contain 12 recommendations from several contemporary dispensationalists, and one Covenant theologian.* Dr. Donald K. Campbell, past-president of Dallas Theological Seminary, wrote:

This book will bring the reader up to date on progressive dispensationalism, a significant current topic of theological discussion in [neo] evangelical circles.* Progressive Dispensationalism is a handy summary of where the movement it describes fits on the dispensational map and how it got there. * Some readers will not agree with everything in this book, but they will all be forced to acknowledge that dispensationalists are willing to subject their system to the scrutiny of Scripture.

Bock and Blaising have subjected their system to the scrutiny of Old Testament, Synoptic, and Kingdom Scripture, rather than Pauline Scripture!

This anti-heavenly-Church, pro-earthly-Kingdom movement emerged from the ivory closets of Dallas Theological Seminary and Talbot School of Theology, Biola University, in 1992, via the publication of Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church, edited by Bock and Blaising (Zondervan 1992, 402 pages). * The following is their summary description of the Progressive Dispensational movement:

The dispensationalism of this book distinguishes itself from the immediately preceding dispensationalism [contemporary] and Scofieldism [classical] by the fact that instead of being anthropologically centered in two peoples, it is Christologically centered.* The movement from the past to the present and then to the future dispensations is not due to a plan from two different kinds of people but rather is due to the history of Christ's fulfilling the plan of holistic redemption in progressive [continual] phases (dispensations).

Ephesians 2 is clear that the barrier between Jews and Gentiles is removed for all time [in the Church, but not otherwise].* This is one of the transdispensational features of Christ's work. * Millennial saints will be Christians [!] and their identity in Christ will transcend their racial distinctions, just as it should be in the current era of the church.* Nonetheless, just as one can see the church today is basically Gentile, the community of the future will see the renewal of Jewish inclusion (pp. 383, 387).

Progressive Dispensationalism destroys the all-essential distinction between the heavenly Church and earthly Israel, substituting a "holistic" redemption of all peoples.

 

[gb93433]

Following is a review of a book on Pregressive Dispensationalism by a classical dispensationalist. From [ http://withchrist.org/MJS/regressive.htm] it is obvious that Miles J. Stanford disagrees viciously with Progressive Dispensationalism. He titles his review as REGRESSIVE DISPENSATIONALISM.

The link you gave shows the page to not be found.

 

[OldRegular]

The link you gave shows the page to not be found.

If you cut and paste the address, rather than click on it you should find the page. I just did. Also do a search on Regressive Dispensationalism and you should find the article.

 

[OldRegular]

Miles J. Stanford in his critigue of Progressive Dispensationalism which he calls REGRESSIVE DISPENSATIONALISM, http://withchrist.org/MJS/regressive.htm , draws the following conclusion:

Progressive Dispensationalism destroys the all-essential distinction between the heavenly Church and earthly Israel, substituting a "holistic" redemption of all peoples.

Ryrie and Chafer state the following about classic dispensationalism:

Charles C. Ryrie in his book Dispensationalism, page 39, quotes the following statement statement by Chafer: "The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity" [Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism ]. Charles C. Ryrie writes about the above statement [page 39]: "This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive. The one who fails to distinguish Israel and the Church consistently will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctives; and the one who does will."

So we see that Progressive Dispensationalism has abandoned basic premise of Classic Dispensationalism, what Ryrie calls the sine qua non of Dispensationalism.

 

[OldRegular]

The link you gave shows the page to not be found.

Click on the web site in post #70 and you should get the referenced site. Apparently the brackets in the original post created a problem.

 

[Allan]

Miles J. Stanford in his critigue of Progressive Dispensationalism which he calls REGRESSIVE DISPENSATIONALISM, http://withchrist.org/MJS/regressive.htm , draws the following conclusion:

Progressive Dispensationalism destroys the all-essential distinction between the heavenly Church and earthly Israel, substituting a "holistic" redemption of all peoples.

Ryrie and Chafer state the following about classic dispensationalism:

Charles C. Ryrie in his book Dispensationalism, page 39, quotes the following statement statement by Chafer: "The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity" [Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism ]. Charles C. Ryrie writes about the above statement [page 39]: "This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive. The one who fails to distinguish Israel and the Church consistently will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctives; and the one who does will."

So we see that Progressive Dispensationalism has abandoned basic premise of Classic Dispensationalism, what Ryrie calls the sine qua non of Dispensationalism.

You have a gross propensity for mis-stating the quotes you use when speaking on Dispensationalism.
They are not saying that PD 'does not' distinquish but that their theology does not comport to what they claim they believe. This is why PD is typically called a 'mess' and the most likely reason they have a hard time trying to establish what they believe and why. Keep your facts straight or at least understand better what is you are trying to tear down.
Not once in any of your posts do you show Chafer or Ryrie stating PD specifcially states it 'does not' believe in a distinction between the Church and Israel but in fact you keep showing the very opposite.

From theologicalstudies.org, written by Michael J. Vlach Ph.D writting about Distinctions regarding Dispensational views. And he is an ardent Covanent Theologian:

3. Progressive Dispensationalism (1986—present) What does “progressive” mean? The title “progressive dispensationalism” refers to the “progressive” relationship of the successive dispensations to one another.12 Charles Ryrie notes that, “The adjective ‘progressive’ refers to a central tenet that the Abrahamic, Davidic, and new covenants are being progressively fulfilled today (as well as having fulfillments in the millennial kingdom).” 13


“One of the striking differences between progressive and earlier dispensationalists, is that progressives do not view the church as an anthropological category in the same class as terms like Israel, Gentile Nations, Jews, and Gentile people. The church is neither a separate race of humanity (in contrast to Jews and Gentiles) nor a competing nation alongside Israel and Gentile nations. . . . The church is precisely redeemed humanity itself (both Jews and Gentiles) as it exists in this dispensation prior to the coming of Christ.”14

Progressive dispensationalists see more continuity between Israel and the church than the other two variations within dispensationalism. They stress that both Israel and the church compose the “people of God” and both are related to the blessings of the New Covenant. This spiritual equality, however, does not mean that there are not functional distinctions between the groups. Progressive dispensationalists do not equate the church as Israel in this age and they still see a future distinct identity and function for ethnic Israel in the coming millennial kingdom. Progressive dispensationalists like Blaising and Bock see an already/not yet aspect to the Davidic reign of Christ, seeing the Davidic reign as being inaugurated during the present church age. The full fulfillment of this reign awaits Israel in the millennium.

Stop misrepresenting what is written by both Chafer and Ryrie. The above and other authors (as seen in the citaition credits) agree with C. Ryries sine qua non of Dispensationalism. And say so here:
John S. Feinberg (Wheaton: Crossway, 1988) 67-85. At this point we acknowledge the well-known sine qua non of Dispensationalism as put forth by Charles C. Ryrie. According to Ryrie, Dispensationalism is based on the three following characteristics: (1) a distinction between Israel and the church; (2) literal hermeneutics; and (3) A view which sees the glory of God as the underlying purpose of God in the world. See Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995) 38-40.

And even they acknowledge what you apparently do not. That Progressive Dispensationalists do in fact differentiate between the Church and Israel. Even though as Ryrie point out, what they 'say' does not conside with their theology actaully alludes to. But my point and the very fact remains they themselves see a distinction in the Church and Israel is my point and it is made again, and again, and again.

 

[OldRegular]

Allan

I don't know anyone with half a brain that doesn't distinguish between the Church and national Israel [if it still exists]. Covenant Theologians generally believe in the continuity of Spiritual Israel [the believing remnant in National Israel] with the Church is clearly demonstrated by Paul in the parable of the olive trees in Romans 11.

Classic dispensationalists such as Chafer and Ryrie teach that God has two peoples, an earthly people, the Jews and a heavenly people, the Christians. The information I have posted about Progressive dispensationalism shows that they reject this error. Why can you not be man enough to admit it?

Miles J. Stanford in his critigue of Progressive Dispensationalism which he calls REGRESSIVE DISPENSATIONALISM, http://withchrist.org/MJS/regressive.htm , draws the following conclusion:

Progressive Dispensationalism destroys the all-essential distinction between the heavenly Church and earthly Israel, substituting a "holistic" redemption of all peoples.

One final word. For you to state that I have misrepresented anything in my remarks about the classic dispensational view of the Church and national Israel or the Progressive dispensationalist view of the Church and national Israel is a lie. In general I have quoted what others said. Furthermore, you know that is true.

 

[Allan]

Allan

I don't know anyone with half a brain that doesn't distinguish between the Church and national Israel [if it still exists].

Keep up with the facts, we are discussing to distinctions between God's people Israel and the Church, thus we are speaking of them regarding their positional standing as people of God, distinct and yet one.

I have already showed you that Ryrie acknowledges PD's hold to such a disctinction and so does Michael J. Vlach Ph.D and all those whom he references in his writing (which also agree with Ryrie). Wiki shows this same thing:

Progressive and traditional dispensationalists hold to many common beliefs, including views that are uniquely dispensational. Both hold to a distinction between Israel and the Church[6], a future pre-tribulation rapture [7], a seven-year tribulation, and a millennial kingdom [8] in which the rule of Jesus Christ will be centered in Jerusalem.

Which is from the book "Progressive Dispensationalism" by both Blaising and Bock who practically founded PD! (and is found in their book on pages 49-51 )

Classic dispensationalists such as Chafer and Ryrie teach that God has two peoples, an earthly people, the Jews and a heavenly people, the Christians. The information I have posted about Progressive dispensationalism shows that they reject this error. ...

Because you are intentionally misreprenting the facts. You have not proved anything other than Ryrie stating their claims seem to contradict their view.

Miles J. Stanford in his critigue of Progressive Dispensationalism which he calls REGRESSIVE DISPENSATIONALISM, http://withchrist.org/MJS/regressive.htm , draws the following conclusion:

Progressive Dispensationalism destroys the all-essential distinction between the heavenly Church and earthly Israel, substituting a "holistic" redemption of all peoples.

Regarding 'all-essential distinction', you might want to look at not just what is being spoken of here but 'when' it happens, it would help you greatly.
Secondly, grief man do you read the sites you are posting. You make the assumption he is speaking with regard for you opinion but in reality he isn't saying PD denies a distinction between the Church and Israel by any means but that even though they see them as becoming one they are still dispensational because they also remain disctinct. He specifically states later on in his article that Israel and the Church though one people will still be distinquished even in the Mil reign - which I will show you later in the post. Actaully take time to read his article! Let me show what he DOES say about their view in his article of the Church and Israel. Here is his Blaising quote from his book:

Ephesians 2 is clear that the barrier between Jews and Gentiles is removed for all time [in the Church, but not otherwise]. This is one of the transdispensational features of Christ's work. Millennial saints will be Christians [!] and their identity in Christ will transcend their racial distinctions, just as it should be in the current era of the church. Nonetheless, just as one can see the church today is basically Gentile, the community of the future will see the renewal of Jewish inclusion (pp. 383, 387).

Thus God is will bring National Israel into the Church community at the Millenial reign. Thus as a Nation God will save them as a people. Notice Church era (Gentile age) and then afterwards the inclusion of the Jews, speaking specifically of the Nation of Israel. Two seperate and distinct groups seen being saved at different times.

It is according to what the PD's teach that holds them still to title of Dispensationists. (and what is the sine qua non of Dispensationalism?)
This is plainly seen in his article as in the first part he praises them for an apparent disconnect with dispensationalism and the bashes them for their continuance of adherance to a dispensational construct. However what one should take note of is that Miles and the others he quotes in the first section FAIL to tell their readers is WHEN National Israel and the Church become one which is at the Mil reign NOT before. Thus Israel is still being a people of God (just set aside) will be brought into the Church at the Mil reign to become one people of God. We see this predominantly in their view stated as the New Covenant but that Covenant is not yet given according to them as cited by Miles from the book Progressive Dispensationalism:

The new covenant which is presently in effect through Jesus Christ is not one which is like that predicted by Jeremiah and Ezekiel, but it is the very same covenant which they prophesied which is in effect today (p. 202).

In keeping with the Abrahamic promise to "bless all peoples in you," believing Gentiles along with believing Jews are blessed with the new covenant blessings of spiritual renewal. This is the key action which brings into existence the redeemed peoples of the eschatological kingdom, all living in peace, filled with the knowledge of God. The "new man" is this eschatological humanity (p. 259)

Again, refering to Israel coming into the Church at the Mil reign - by Blaising from Progressive Dispensationalism book quoted by your man Miles:

In keeping with the Abrahamic promise to "bless all peoples in you," believing Gentiles along with believing Jews are blessed with the new covenant blessings of spiritual renewal. This is the key action which brings into existence the redeemed peoples of the eschatological kingdom, all living in peace, filled with the knowledge of God. The "new man" is this eschatological humanity (p. 259).

A Jew who becomes a Christian today does not lose his or her relationship to Israel's future promises. Jewish Christians will join the OT remnant of faith in the inheritance of Israel. Gentile Christians will be joined by saved Gentiles of earlier dispensations (p. 50).

See, what did I tell ya. They 'will' become one in the Mil reign but they will still be distinct from one another and this is seem more clearly in the next quote:

Instead, they reworked the dualism in more of an organizational sense. There were simply two groups of people. Not heavenly versus earthly, but those represented by Israel and the church. These two groups contain different people (a person can only be in one group or the other, not in both at the same time). They are structured differently, with different dispensational prerogatives and responsibilities.

But the salvation they receive--the eternal life--is the same for both, with the one exception that some belong to one group and others to another. There will be an eternal distinction between Israel and the church, not metaphysically distinctive kinds of salvation, but in name--the church is always the church, Israel is always Israel. There will be no difference in the kind of eternal life experienced by saved humanity, whether it be Israel or the church (p. 32).

One final word. For you to state that I have misrepresented anything in my remarks about the classic dispensational view of the Church and national Israel or the Progressive dispensationalist view of the Church and national Israel is a lie. In general I have quoted what others said. Furthermore, you know that is true.

I have proved it once again and once again using your own cited article.

 

[OldRegular]

Allan

Progressive Dispensationalists are attempting to rid themselves of the gross doctrinal errors of Darby/Scofield. You should rejoice that these people are moving toward a Biblical doctrine of the Church abandoning the Darby/Scofield error. Instead you disingenuously attempt to paint these people as frauds. It is tragic indeed. Furthermore, you continue to misrepresent the information I present which, to an objective person, clearly shows the difference between Progressive Dispensationalism and the Darby/Scofield brand as even Ryrie admits.

 

[hillclimber1]

Why? How come they will be saved then and not now?

Those left, after the rapture, that do not take the mark of the beast, and accept Christ, will enter the millennial Kingdom... God removes the curses he imposed on the earth and on man. He reigns on David's throne.. Sin will be held in abeyance, and people will procreate in unprecedented numbers. Think of a thousand years of being able to reproduce, and the offspring adding their children... Abundant food, formerly wild animals playing with children, etc. A woman of childbearing age, entering the millennial kingdom at the beginning, could, and probably will have more than a thousand children....
This is an opinion, I share with others, that I believe the Bible supports.

See Rev. 3:12 and chapter 21.

 

[OldRegular]

Those left, after the rapture, that do not take the mark of the beast, and accept Christ, will enter the millennial Kingdom... God removes the curses he imposed on the earth and on man. He reigns on David's throne.. Sin will be held in abeyance, and people will procreate in unprecedented numbers. Think of a thousand years of being able to reproduce, and the offspring adding their children... Abundant food, formerly wild animals playing with children, etc. A woman of childbearing age, entering the millennial kingdom at the beginning, could, and probably will have more than a thousand children....
This is an opinion, I share with others, that I believe the Bible supports.

See Rev. 3:12 and chapter 21.

The Bible neither supports a pre trib rapture or an earthly millennial reign.

 

[Allan]

Allan

Progressive Dispensationalists are attempting to rid themselves of the gross doctrinal errors of Darby/Scofield. You should rejoice that these people are moving toward a Biblical doctrine of the Church abandoning the Darby/Scofield error. Instead you disingenuously attempt to paint these people as frauds. It is tragic indeed. Furthermore, you continue to misrepresent the information I present which, to an objective person, clearly shows the difference between Progressive Dispensationalism and the Darby/Scofield brand as even Ryrie admits.

If by doctrine of the "Church" you mean the Roman Catholic Church then you correct that is a possible tendenancy for them which the Amils have staunchly fought for. But I would not call it biblical (as in biblically correct) though, nor did the first 3 centuries of of the Church who held to an earthly Kingdom of Christ/God for a literal 1000 years. Whether or not pre or mid rapture is fact can be debated but the fact that there will be an earthly Kingdom of Christ/God is not.


Secondly, I never stated in ANY of my posts there was not a distinction between Progressive Dispy's and Classicals. I said they both held to a distinction between the Church and Israel which is why there are still classified as Dispensationalists.
Thus I never painted them as 'frauds' but spoke directly and repeatedly toward error that PD's did not distinquish between the Church and Israel.

 

[OldRegular]

If by doctrine of the "Church" you mean the Roman Catholic Church .

[b[Pathetic![/b]