Featured Progressive Dispensationalism?

Nope you quoted word for word a small portion and then tried to place it out of context.

 

The "Administration of salvation" has nothing to do with effecting grace by faith. It has to do with how the gospel was made known. In the video he asserts that in the OT the gospel was made known via the law. That changed in the NT. That is a dispensational change. Now if someone wants to disagree with that such a disagreement is legitimate. Creating straw men over salvation by faith lacks integrity.

 

Here's the direct quote from your first video:
""God has administered his salvation in different ways in different times in the biblical story."

That is the man's direct definition of dispensationalism.

 

There's nothing 'new' about any of the spiritual tenets of the 'new' covenant, it's new only because the first has been made old. God doesn't change, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and to-day, yea and for ever. The Spirit has always blown where He wills, God has never been a respecter of persons, and in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, has been acceptable to him.

The first covenant was ADDED (casting a shadow of the good things of the Everlasting Covenant behind it):

What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made.....Gal 3:19,

And then it was removed:

And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that have been made, that those things which are not shaken may remain. Heb 12:7

These 'new' things of the New Covenant are 'new' only because they were mysteries that had not hitherto before been revealed. The 'new' is actually not 'new', it is revealed mystery.

 

Well said

 

Exactly and you worked to present that as if it is believed by progressive dispensationalists as coming any other way than faith. That is not what is meant by what is said. If you had taken time to listen beyond that you would understand that. If you did listen beyond that well then there are just no words to express the level of dishonesty.

 

This is exactly what normative dispensationalism believes. I teach the subject in a Bible college, and believe exactly this.

As a dispensationalist I agree with this.

This is exactly right. As a dispensationalist I agree completely.

So far you have not demonstrated that you understand the theology of dispensationalism at all. So this is only your uneducated opinion.

Have you actually read anything by a dispensationalist, or only stuff by anti-dispensationalists? Anything by Ryrie, Chafer, McClain, Pentecost?

 

To get the thread back on track, I'm going to post here my lecture notes on progressive dispensationalism. I will demonstrate that it is quite different from normative dispensationalism, and is really a completely new theology. It was literally invented for the purpose of compromising with covenant theology so they can say, "Can't we all just get along???"

Here is the introduction:

Progressive Dispensationalism

INTRODUCTION: In recent years a new variety of dispensationalism has appeared that leans more toward covenant theology. This is called progressive dispensationalism, and is taught chiefly in a 1993 book with that name by Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock, professors at the time at Dallas Theological Seminary. The term “progressive” refers to the idea that the Old Testament covenants are being fulfilled progressively throughout the dispensations.

This theology is complicated, ambiguous, and difficult to follow, but we will give a brief synopsis in this lecture.

 

Note that the footnotes are at the very end of this section of the outline. The numbers are not links, and will not take you to the footnotes.

I. The Genesis of Progressive Dispensationalism

A. “The roots of progressive dispensationalism as a movement can be traced to the early 1970s if not earlier. The movement was born in the spirit of evangelical ecumenicity and theological rapprochement. A desire was growing, among some dispensationalists, to find amicable, middle ground in the old theological skirmishes between dispensationalists and covenant theologians.”[1]

B. In describing the first meetings of the “Dispensational Study Group” at the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), Darrell Bock wrote, “The group was consciously committed not only to having discussion among themselves but also to having others participate as speakers who did not identify with dispensationalism but with other theological traditions. Talking to one another, not about one another, was and is a major goal of our meetings.”[2]

C. According to the ETS website, “The DSG is the oldest study group of the ETS, having begun in 1986 under the leadership of Darrell L. Bock and Craig A. Blaising. From 1986-2000 the main focus was to seek rapprochement between traditional Dispensational and Covenantal theologies, especially over matters related to hermeneutics and eschatology.”[3] This was open compromise with covenant theology.

D. Thus, rather than being a distinct theology birthed from direct study of the Scriptures, this view was developed out of compromise and out of hopes that covenant theologians would then recognize this new theology as worthy of consideration.

E. However, compromise in spiritual things never brings blessing. “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3).

[1] Roy Beacham. “Progressive Dispensationalism,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 9 (2004: 5-32): 6.
[2] Darrell L. Bock, “Why I Am A Dispensationalist With A Small ‘d,’” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41/3 (September 1998): 383.
[3] “Dispensational Study Group,” at Dispensational Study Group | The Evangelical Theological Society. Accessed on 1/14/22.

 

I. The Teachings of Progressive Dispensationalism

A. Progressive dispensationalists have adapted their hermeneutics to literary criticism and covenant theology. “What emerges is what we will call the ‘historical-grammatical-literary-theological’ method. This fourfold description of hermeneutics is really what most mean when they speak simply of the historical-grammatical method.”[1] (This is actually a false statement.)

B. To the progressive dispensationalist, “present blessings are a partial, not ‘allegorical,’ fulfillment of those promises. They look forward to complete fulfillment at the return of Christ.”[2] This is the result of what is called “already/not yet” interpretation, which suggests that prophecies can have fulfillment at not just one, but multiple times in history.

C. Progressive dispensationalism does not believe that the present dispensation started at Pentecost, but at Christ’s resurrection. “We also see how a new arrangement, a new dispensation, is inaugurated when Jesus, having died to provide for the forgiveness of sins, is vindicated by God and brought to God’s right hand to mediate the giving of the Spirit that places God’s law on the heart.”[3]

D. Progressive dispensationalists do not believe that the church is peculiar to the age of grace. Blaising and Bock wrote, “One of the most 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.”[4] In other words, they consider the church to be a permanent fixture carrying on through the events of the next dispensation. “The only thing that makes the ‘church’ distinct in this era, according to progressive dispensationalism is the extent of salvation blessings: the present church is unable to receive all of the blessing of the covenants since kingdom blessings have only been inaugurated with Christ’s first advent.”[5]

E. This approach puts great emphasis on Old Testament covenants (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic) being progressively fulfilled down through the various dispensations.

F. The progressive dispensationalism approach has three dispensations, or possibly four. Blaising and Bock list the three in an ambiguous way in their chart:[6]

1. Past Dispensations: Political-Theocratic, and Personal, Social, Prophetic

2. Present Dispensation: Christ Ascended (Political-Theocratic); Personal, Social, Evangelistic

3. Future Dispensation: Christ Descended; Political—Theocratic: Israel, Gentile nations; Personal, Social: Evangelistic, Fulfillment

G. Strangely, Blaising and Bock once again list four dispensations later in the same book in a more simple and direct way: Patriarchal, Mosaic, Ecclesial (sic), and Zionic.[7]

H. The truth is that once they strayed from the normal hermeneutical principles of normal dispensationalism, the progressive dispensationalists are lost at sea, with no definite views on the dispensations; not all of their dispensations are truly stewardships from God. Compromise in theology never produces good results.

[1] Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 77.
[2] Ibid., 53.
[3] Darrell Bock, “God’s Plan for History: The First Coning of Christ, in Dispensationalism and the History of Redemption, ed. by D. Jeffrey Bingham and Glenn R. Kreider (Chicago: Moody, 2015), 163.
[4] Blaising and Bock, 49.
[5] Beacham, 29; emphasis in the original.
[6] Blaising and Bock, 51.
[7] Ibid., 123.

 

I. The Errors of Progressive Dispensationalism

A. The main error of this view is that it has compromised enough that it no longer looks much like dispensationalism. “Progressive dispensationalism, with its new hermeneutical method, its inaugurated eschatology, its emphasis on redemptive history, holistic salvation, and the single redeemed people of God in the present and future ages, displays so much similarity with the position of covenant premillennialism that non-dispensationalists also search for uniqueness in this movement.”[1]

B. Another error is that in their ecclesiology, progressive dispensationalists misunderstand the purpose and task of the local church, along with many New Evangelicals. They say that “progressive dispensationalists need to explore the meaning of holiness in the social life of the church. This requires recognizing that the church is a society. Its structural relationships can be analyzed sociologically. The plural, communal nature of the church constitutes the church’s social reality. The issue here is that Christ intends to redeem humankind socially as well as individually. The social redemption of humanity begins in the church.”[2]

C. Finally, here are the hermeneutical errors of the view.

1. They have an “already, not yet” approach for a broad range of prophecies. In other words there may be multiple fulfillments of a given prophecy. However, studying how the prophecies of the Messiah were fulfilled to the letter shows this approach to be in error.

2. They take a “reader response” approach, in which they say it is very difficult to understand what the Scripture says without knowing the exact culture of the writer. “In one sense, we can never understand the ancient world exactly as ancient people did.”[3] This approach may limit a proper understanding of the doctrine of revelation.

3. The hermeneutics of this method make prophecy ambiguous, though the prophecies of Christ’s first coming were specific and literal. For example, concerning the identity of the city of seven hills in Revelation 17-18, they say, “Those who associate it with Rome are right because Rome was the current manifestation of that beast in the time of John the writer. And yet the beast’s imagery reminds us that its real existence is from long ago. So Rome and Babylon both apply, and yet the beast is more than either national identification. But neither Rome nor Babylon is likely to be the final location of this worldwide opposition.”[4] However, a first century Roman citizen would immediately identify a city of seven hills as none other than Rome: Palatine, Capitoline, Aventine, Caelian (or Caelius), Esquiline, Viminal, Quirinal.

4. The hermeneutics of progressive dispensationalism minimize the doctrine of revelation (perhaps not intentionally) by saying that there are various levels to interpretation.[5]


CONCLUSION: As we have seen, progressive dispensationalism is a compromise with covenant theology. Furthermore, it is new and difficult to understand. It remains to be seen how well it will catch on among dispensationalists.

Having said these things, what is more important is to ask if it is a correct approach to the Bible or not. Clearly it is not. It is actually a new theology which strays a long way away from what dispensationalists have long taught. It is thus to be avoided.

[1] Beacham, 31; emphasis in the original.
[2] Blaising and Bock, 286; emphasis in the original).
[3] Ibid., 78.
[4] Ibid., 95.
[5] Ibid., 100-102.

 

If I may comment on Revmitchell's post, the two videos are by Blaising and Bock, the two inventers of progressive dispensationalism. So by watching the videos, you do not understand what normative dispensationalism is (@taisto). These guys have invented a new theology to replace normative dispensationalism. They are quite far from men like Ryrie.

The third link is to a scholarly article by Thomas Ice, who is a normal dispensationalist. The Theopedia article has some blunders in it, and I am always put off by anonymous articles. My students are not allowed to use such sources in their research papers.

 

To answer the bold.
Chafer's Systematic Theology was our required purchase for my 3 years of theology class. So yes, I have the seven volume set (the last volume being the index). My first Bible was a KJV Scofield and my second an NASB Ryrie. Pentecosts "Things to Come" was another required textbook. So, your condescension aside, I think you can see that the answer is, yes.

This being cleared up, my assertions regarding dispensationalism, despite your attempts, are accurate and they explain why the so-called "systematic theology" is continually being tweaked, adjusted, and revised.

Ultimately it has led to terrible understanding of the meta narrative of the Bible since the attempt to force God into the system simply doesn't work.

Now, feel free to keep copying and pasting dispensational commentaries as I will endeavor to step aside as you, the master dispensationalist, holds class.

 

I did not intend to seem condescending, so I apologize. But I am glad to know you've read Chafer, and Pentecost.

Since I agreed with you in a number of areas where you were criticizing dispensationalism, and I'm a died in the wool dispensationalist, surely you can see that most of your accusations about the salvation scheme of the theology were inaccurate. Perhaps it has been too long since you read Chafer in seminary.

That's your opinion, and I'm sure you are going to stick to it.

Please pay attention. I did not copy and paste a single commentary, but rather posted my own lecture notes on the subject, which quoted various theologians but not a single commentary.

Now who's being condescending?? Or maybe just scornful, I'm not sure which.

Now I expect you will bow out of the thread (perhaps after venting some more spleen my way), since the subject is progressive dispensationalism, not normative dispensationalism.

 

I understand that the system of understanding the Bible you have staked your career upon has been attacked by me and that offends you since you have clearly studied your method for years and you honestly think it is correct.

I have made my point and if I was in your course I would stand my ground against you as the more I study the Bible, the more I see the massive flaws of dispensationalism. There is a reason that covenant theology has over 2000 years of teaching by Christians and dispensationalism is no more than 200 years old.

I will drop out since this thread is an inquiry into a theory that I think is untenable.

 

Actually, I haven't staked my career on dispensationalism. I had a wonderful ministry for 33 years as a missionary to Japan. I suppose you could call that a career. We retired from the mission field and now I'm very blessed in retirement from Japan to teach the Word of God. But my career does not depend in any way, shape or form on Dispensationalism. Also, when I was approved by my mission board, I was not a Dispensationalist. So my missionary career also did not depend on the theology.

I'm happy to discuss theology with you. But yes, being attacked is offensive. I like a nice debate on the Word of God, but personal attacks are always offensive.

I'm very surprised that you think covenant theology goes back 2000 years, since the method of interpretation it utilizes only goes back to Origen in the 3rd century, who convinced nobody except Augustine (354-430). (I won't mention here that I also teach Survey of Church History, since you apparently feel that to say what I teach is condescending. ) But in deference to the OP, we need not discuss that further.

I agree completely that Progressive Dispensationalism is untenable.

Thanks for a nice follow-up post. See you elsewhere on the BB, perhaps.

 

Hi, StefanM.

I pretty much agree with what you wrote. What Ryrie called the sine qua non of Dispensationalism is accepting all of the promises to the Jewish nation as still in force, not coopted by the church.

Christ will rule from the Davidic throne during the Millennium, as you say, or many prophecies will go unfulfilled. Progressive Dispensationalism does accept that Christ will rule on the Davidic Throne, but they say that He already does so at the right hand of God.

 

Excellent point.