Progressive Covenentalism

[Craig Betts]

OK..Here's another one for y'all.

My pastor says that he believes in Progressive Covenantalism. He tried to explain it to me at one point, but it was confusing. What is it? I was raised as a Dispensationalist, so I only understand a few of the differences as they relate to eschatology. But if he is a progressive conveantalist, then what exactly does he believe? And how does this affect his preaching style if at all?

 

[Reformed1689]

I've never heard of Progressive Cevenantalism

 

[Craig Betts]

I've never heard of Progressive Cevenantalism

According to my pastor, it is something between dispensationalism and full blown covenantalism.

 

[Reformed1689]

According to my pastor, it is something between dispensationalism and full blown covenantalism.

Interesting. I HAVE heard of Progressive Dispensational, which is how I would describe myself if I have to give my theology a label though I do not even fully align there. Mainly my issues are whether or not there is a purpose for national Israel or ethnic Israel in the plan of God today. I firmly believe there is based on Paul's writings in Romans as well as John's writings in Revelation.

 

[Reformed1689]

Found this graphic made by Phil Gons of Logos Bible Software.

 

[Craig Betts]

Interesting. I HAVE heard of Progressive Dispensational, which is how I would describe myself if I have to give my theology a label though I do not even fully align there. Mainly my issues are whether or not there is a purpose for national Israel or ethnic Israel in the plan of God today. I firmly believe there is based on Paul's writings in Romans as well as John's writings in Revelation.

Our pastor is not sure if there is a millenium. He does not believe that there is a rapture, however. Like I said in the previous post, I am confused with all of it. I know what I was taught growing up, and we never talked about any covenants except the Abrahamic, the Mosaic, the Davidic, and of course the new covenant after Christ came. I've always understood that salvation came in different dispensations and looked different in the OT as compared to the NT. The one thing I do know is that even from the beginning, it was always by faith, not by works. Other than that, the rest is very new to me. I am embarrassed to say this after walking with the Lord for over 40 years, but only in recent years did I become more serious about the deeper points of theology and eschatology.

 

[Reformed1689]

Our pastor is not sure if there is a millenium. He does not believe that there is a rapture, however. Like I said in the previous post, I am confused with all of it. I know what I was taught growing up, and we never talked about any covenants except the Abrahamic, the Mosaic, the Davidic, and of course the new covenant after Christ came. I've always understood that salvation came in different dispensations and looked different in the OT as compared to the NT. The one thing I do know is that even from the beginning, it was always by faith, not by works. Other than that, the rest is very new to me. I am embarrassed to say this after walking with the Lord for over 40 years, but only in recent years did I become more serious about the deeper points of theology and eschatology.

Salvation was not different in the OT than the NT. It was always by grace through faith. The difference was looking forward in the OT vs backward in NT.

That being said, there are good points to Covenental Theology and Dispensational, but I believe you need parts of both to be faithful to Scripture.

 

[Craig Betts]

Salvation was not different in the OT than the NT. It was always by grace through faith. The difference was looking forward in the OT vs backward in NT.

That being said, there are good points to Covenental Theology and Dispensational, but I believe you need parts of both to be faithful to Scripture.

Yes, I agree with you.

 

[agedman]

There MUST be a rapture for the saints to celebrate the reunion supper of the Lamb prior to the physical return for the established Kingdom to rule during the millennium.

You need to remember that at this time “my kingdom is not of this world” but that does not exclude the vast number of prophecies concerning the Kingdom being brought to the world, conquering all matters so that lambs and lions abide in peace, that we “reign with him” ....

You may want to have your pastor try to convince you that the last chapters of the Revelation were written by an Apostle who was suffering dementia, or recant of his thinking and take seriously the timeline presentation John lays out in those specific passages.

Tell him it is best to be a progressive dispensation person than a progressive covenant person, because more scripture is taken with veracity than allegory.

 

[Craig Betts]

There MUST be a rapture for the saints to celebrate the reunion supper of the Lamb prior to the physical return for the established Kingdom to rule during the millennium.

You need to remember that at this time “my kingdom is not of this world” but that does not exclude the vast number of prophecies concerning the Kingdom being brought to the world, conquering all matters so that lambs and lions abide in peace, that we “reign with him” ....

You may want to have your pastor try to convince you that the last chapters of the Revelation were written by an Apostle who was suffering dementia, or recant of his thinking and take seriously the timeline presentation John lays out in those specific passages.

Tell him it is best to be a progressive dispensation person than a progressive covenant person, because more scripture is taken with veracity than allegory.

Thank you for mentioning the allegory aspect. I think that this is a significant part of the picture. I am not 100% sure exactly why he believes this, but he claims that it has something to do with reading Revelation and the timing of the events. He mentioned something about how Daniel's time line affects it and that you can't see it from that perspective of a rapture because of how Daniel plays it out.... I have no idea about this stuff. I just know that I have always very clearly read about a rapture in which the church will be taken out first. I don't see how you can read Revelation and not see that clearly...

 

[agedman]

Thank you for mentioning the allegory aspect. I think that this is a significant part of the picture. I am not 100% sure exactly why he believes this, but he claims that it has something to do with reading Revelation and the timing of the events. He mentioned something about how Daniel's time line affects it and that you can't see it from that perspective of a rapture because of how Daniel plays it out.... I have no idea about this stuff. I just know that I have always very clearly read about a rapture in which the church will be taken out first. I don't see how you can read Revelation and not see that clearly...

Unfortunately, more often folks look at the Revelation as if reading a child’s story connected with “and then” thinking.

It is not.

John is writing as if from a single lens camera giving multiple viewpoints from the same promontory. His guide moves him about with “come” look at this type statements.

The rapture occurs, the marriage supper is eaten and the Lord and saints return.

do not look for the “and then” when reading. Be still and capture all that
John writes from each promontory he is taken, too.

 

[John of Japan]

OK..Here's another one for y'all.

My pastor says that he believes in Progressive Covenantalism. He tried to explain it to me at one point, but it was confusing. What is it? I was raised as a Dispensationalist, so I only understand a few of the differences as they relate to eschatology. But if he is a progressive conveantalist, then what exactly does he believe? And how does this affect his preaching style if at all?

PC is an attempt to bring dispensational and covenant theology together. The primary resource for understanding it is a book of essays edited by Stephen Wellum and Brent Parker, Progressive Covenantalism (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016). The subtitle is, "Charting a Course between Dispensational and Covenant Theologies." In this regard it is similar to progressive dispensationalism.

In my mind, PC is doomed to failure. It is a compromise theology, trying to please both sides. Compromise in theology never ends well.

 

[Reformed1689]

PC is an attempt to bring dispensational and covenant theology together. The primary resource for understanding it is a book of essays edited by Stephen Wellum and Brent Parker, Progressive Covenantalism (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016). The subtitle is, "Charting a Course between Dispensational and Covenant Theologies." In this regard it is similar to progressive dispensationalism.

In my mind, PC is doomed to failure. It is a compromise theology, trying to please both sides. Compromise in theology never ends well.

Do you not agree that you actually do have to have a little of both sides in order to be biblical? I sure do.

 

[Particular]

Well, I'm not sure what progressive covenantalism is. I know that I have moved away from dispensationalism simply because it chops up the covenants of God.
I see the progressive work of God through the covenants God established. With each covenant we see fulfillment of God's work in providing the promised one (Jesus) as the Redeemer of God's elect.
As I read more scripture, God's use of the term "the day of the Lord" has moved me toward an ammillenial view of scripture. Essentially, Christ will return without any warning when the last of the elect comes to faith. Then, God's judgment will fall upon the earth.

 

[Shoostie]

OK..Here's another one for y'all.

My pastor says that he believes in Progressive Covenantalism. He tried to explain it to me at one point, but it was confusing. What is it? I was raised as a Dispensationalist, so I only understand a few of the differences as they relate to eschatology. But if he is a progressive conveantalist, then what exactly does he believe? And how does this affect his preaching style if at all?

Your pastor might just be wanting to avoid offending both sides (the right side and the wrong side, lol), so he's taking the middle of the road, but leaning toward covenantalism.

A dispensationalist believes Israel and the Church are completely separate. A covenantionalist, often derided as "replacement theology", believes the Church and Israel is the same. After that, things get muddy. The only way to know what your pastor really believes is to ask him a few questions. Even, then, he might be very coy with a clear answer, not wanting to offend anyone.

 

[Van]

Found this graphic made by Phil Gons of Logos Bible Software.

Thanks for the graphic. It would appear the two "progressives" are similar. Progressive Dispensationalism embraces Galatians 3 so All Israel and the Bride of Christ both refer to the same group, with no difference in Christ.

On the other hand, it appears the progressive Covenantal folks do not believe in the 1000 year reign on earth but the progressive Dispy folks do..

 

[John of Japan]

Do you not agree that you actually do have to have a little of both sides in order to be biblical? I sure do.

The difference is clear: historical grammatical interpretation vs. allegorical interpretation (covenant theology, named after covenants that are not mentioned in the Bible).

 

[Reformed1689]

The difference is clear: historical grammatical interpretation vs. allegorical interpretation (covenant theology, named after covenants that are not mentioned in the Bible).

This is true.

 

[Craig Betts]

The difference is clear: historical grammatical interpretation vs. allegorical interpretation (covenant theology, named after covenants that are not mentioned in the Bible).

You should read my other thread that I started on Historical Redemptive preaching style. I don't know if that style is related to being a progressive covenantelist or not, but our pastor is definitely in the Historical Redemptive mode. See my other thread if you are interested, because I am trying to get some answers as to why my pastor preaches in such an unusual style....

 

[Particular]

The difference is clear: historical grammatical interpretation vs. allegorical interpretation (covenant theology, named after covenants that are not mentioned in the Bible).

I think you confuse covenant theology with allegorical interpretation. They are not one in the same. I embrace covenant theology because it looks at the literal work of God without allegory.
That being said, you can find many who hold to covenant theology who interpret future prophecy using allegory. I don't do this. I work to let the text say what the text says.