Progressive Dispensationalism

[Van]

Don't take it personal, but, thank God for this age of the internet search engine that we live in, I'm like a pig in slop....

PROGRESSIVE DISPENSATIONALISM 101

Excellent and useful post, kyredneck. Thanks

 

[Van]

PDism is basically "kissing cousins" w/ Covenantal Premillism. And that is just inches away from full blown amillennialism (once they work out their metanarrative biblical theology).

I honestly think there is some who teach at DTS who are PD so they can keep their job. Were it not for that, they would abandon the "dispie" moniker all together. Only speculation though.

More generalization, i.e. a doctrine is defined as a "kissing cousin" to something it has almost nothing in common with, and while PD is full-blown millennialism, it is claimed to be the opposite.

 

[Yeshua1]

PDism is basically "kissing cousins" w/ Covenantal Premillism. And that is just inches away from full blown amillennialism (once they work out their metanarrative biblical theology).

I honestly think there is some who teach at DTS who are PD so they can keep their job. Were it not for that, they would abandon the "dispie" moniker all together. Only speculation though.

That will not happen unless those holding to PD do away totally with the concept of God still having dealings to come with national Israel, and to still have the Kingdom coming here on earth in a literal/physical sense!

What some here call PD, I just see as historical premil views, just taking the rapture out, and keeping only second coming proper itself!

 

[Van]

More disinformation, progressive dispensation does not deny the rapture.

“While not denying the pretribulation Rapture or the literal tribulation period, revisionists do not give much attention to these aspects of eschatology. Blaising and Bock do not take obvious opportunities to mention the Rapture, and in one place (discussing I Thess. 5) they say only that the Rapture `would appear to be pretribulational’” (C. C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, p177).

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

You wrongly suggested Progressive Dispensationalists do not believe in the 1000 year reign of Christ on David's throne here on earth.

That proves you didn't read it, because that's not what I said.

Where it is most obvious is the issue of David's throne. Progressives claim that Christ, at this moment, sits on the throne of David. Traditionalists state that, although God promised that there would never cease to be one of David's descendants on the throne, there were, in fact, many times when there were not literal descendants reigning over Israel, even before His Incarnation. Further, traditionalists hold to the idea that the throne of Christ at the right hand of the Father is not the throne of David. This points to the differences of interpretation regarding the thousand-year reign.

Traditionalists believe it is a literal 1,000-year reign in the Temple of post-Tribulational Israel. Progressives, because they believe Christ already sits on the Davidic Throne, believe the 1,000 years is allegorical for a very long period of time.

In short, if you believe in a literal thousand year reign that has not already begun in heaven, you don't believe a key tenet of progressive dispensationalism. Progressives are essentially adherents to a form of Covenant Theology. They leave Israel out of God's plans, an enormous error in theology of any kind.[/FONT][/SIZE]

 

[Greektim]

More generalization, i.e. a doctrine is defined as a "kissing cousin" to something it has almost nothing in common with, and while PD is full-blown millennialism, it is claimed to be the opposite.

Did you read what I posted? I said that it was cousins w/ Covenant or Historic Premillism. PREMILLism! There are so many similar views arrived at by similar arguments that they are nearly identical.

 

[evangelist6589]

That proves you didn't read it, because that's not what I said.In short, if you believe in a literal thousand year reign that has not already begun in heaven, you don't believe a key tenet of progressive dispensationalism. Progressives are essentially adherents to a form of Covenant Theology. They leave Israel out of God's plans, an enormous error in theology of any kind.

Look in the mirror please! Its not like you read other peoples posts. The debt thread for example you DID NOT READ or wanted to read what you wanted to hear and wanted to believe about me.

 

[Van]

Hi Greektim, me thinks you protest too much. Here is your quote: "And that is just inches away from full blown amillennialism" You were 100% off target.

Hi TND, me thinks you protest too much. Here is your quote: "if you believe in a literal thousand year reign that has not already begun in heaven, you don't believe a key tenet of progressive dispensationalism."

Progressive dispensationalism believes in the literal 1000 year reign on earth and it has not yet begun.

Is a dispensationalist one who sees a future tribulation, followed by Christ's second coming to the earth to establish His Millennial Kingdom, with Israel inheriting the land promised her, and being head of the nations? Is a dispensationalist one who interprets Scripture literally? If these are what characterize dispensational beliefs, then surely progressive dispensationalists are true 'dispensationalists,' since we firmly hold to all of these things.

 

[Van]

One charge against PD is that we believe the NT writers expanded and enlarged the prophecies of the OT. And that charge is valid. We believe the writings of the NT sometimes compliment the revelation given in the OT. So, today, we look at the OT as explained in the NT. This view is sometimes called complimentary hermeneutics as if it was unsound.

Complementary hermeneutics means that previous revelation (such as the Old Testament) has an added or expanded meaning alongside the original meaning. For example in Jeremiah 31:31–34, the original recipients of the new covenant were Jews—i.e., "the house of Israel and the house of Judah." Progressives hold that in Acts 2, believing Jews first participated in the new covenant based on Jer 31:31–34. Gentiles were not named as original participants. However, additional revelation came in Acts 9–10 concerning believing Gentiles where God (through Peter and Cornelius) formally accepted believing Gentiles as co-heirs with the Jews. In other words God used additional New Testament revelation to further expand the participants of the new covenant to include believing Gentiles. God did not replace the original recipients or change the original meaning of the new covenant, He simply expanded it. This expansion of meaning while keeping the original intact is what is called complementary hermeneutics.

 

[Greektim]

Hi Greektim, me thinks you protest too much. Here is your quote: "And that is just inches away from full blown amillennialism" You were 100% off target.

Hi TND, me thinks you protest too much. Here is your quote: "if you believe in a literal thousand year reign that has not already begun in heaven, you don't believe a key tenet of progressive dispensationalism."

Progressive dispensationalism believes in the literal 1000 year reign on earth and it has not yet begun.

Covenant Premill is not inches away from Amill? We'll have to agree to disagree then. B/c I made the transition from Classical Dispie to Amill. I know the incline of the slope. It is also a slippery turrain as well.

And people on this thread are only protesting b/c you are not reading their post. Methinks you are too emotional to this system to rationally discuss it much less heed the other posts.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Hi TND, me thinks you protest too much. Here is your quote: "if you believe in a literal thousand year reign that has not already begun in heaven, you don't believe a key tenet of progressive dispensationalism."

Progressive dispensationalism believes in the literal 1000 year reign on earth and it has not yet begun.

Is a dispensationalist one who sees a future tribulation, followed by Christ's second coming to the earth to establish His Millennial Kingdom, with Israel inheriting the land promised her, and being head of the nations? Is a dispensationalist one who interprets Scripture literally? If these are what characterize dispensational beliefs, then surely progressive dispensationalists are true 'dispensationalists,'since we firmly hold to all of these things.

This is the problem with Progressive Dispensationalism itself -- none of its adherents seem to know what it espouses. I don't know if Warner is "PD" or not, but he doesn't agree with Dr. Norman Gulley, an expert on the subject. (Note: I've added paragraphs and spaces, no words, to the quote below to make it an easier read, as it was a cut-and-paste from an online PDF file.)

Gulley: Progressive Dispensationalismhttp://www.auss.info/auss_publication_file.php?pub_id=876&journal=1&type=pdfhttp://www.auss.info/auss_publication_file.php?pub_id=876&journal=1&type=pdf

A key change which these Progressive Dispensationalist scholars have set forth is the concept of OT prophecies/promises being fulfilled in the church age, and thus it rejects the traditional Dispensationalist futurism (see 46-51, 224). This concept of progressive fulfillment of OT prophecies/promises during the Christian era involves, in turn, several other significant matters:

(1) It includes an acceptance of the Christian church as implicit in the OT and recognition of the moral law Fxod 20) and the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7) as being applicable in the church age rather than simply relegated to Israel in the millennium (253-254).
(2) It also includes acceptance of the concept that OT prophecy can have multiple fulfillments during the church age, such as in the case of Joel 2 at Pentecost (Acts 2) and in the future (58).
(3) Progressive fulfillment involves, as well, an acceptance of an inaugurated eschatology that includes a rejection of the idea that the church age is only a "parenthesis" between the time of Israel in the OT and Israel during the millennium (39-43). In other words, the era of the present Christian church is not merely an intermission between God's past and future dealings with Israel.
(4) Progressive fulfillment entails rejection of the idea of a "postponed kingdom" and postponed rule of Christ, focusing rather on his present rule from heaven's throne over all on planet Earth (46-55).
(5) It rejects also the notion that there are two new covenants-one for Israel and the other for the church (91). What it does set forth is that there is one new covenant that is sequentially fulfilled-at present spiritually in the church age; and later, physically to Israel in the millennium (93-97).
(6) Progressive fulfillment rejects, as well, the concept of a final differentiation or separation between the earthly people of God (Israel) and the heavenly people of God (the church), opting rather for their dwelling together in the New Earth (303).

So, Van ... where was I wrong? Or more accurately, where are you wrong?

Let me explain it: These six points counter very basic teaching in Traditional Dispensationalism. There is little of Progressive teaching to recommend it to a Traditionalist such as myself. It is nothing more than Covenant Theology couched in language designed to make it more palatable. It is not.

 

[Van]

Hi TND, you went wrong when you asserted PD does not hold to a literal 1000 year reign of Jesus on earth.

But you are correct, you can find PD proponents differing on matters, such as whether the throne at the right hand of God can be thought of as David's throne.

1) The Law of Christ is applicable to those under the dispensation of grace.

2) Yes, an OT prophecy can have a short term fulfillment, applicable to the audience at the time it was stated, and an end times fulfillment.

3) Yes, PD rejects the traditional dispensation view of the "church age" as being parenthetical.

4) No, your source is wrong, PD accepts that Christ will rule His kingdom here are earth in the future for a literal 1000 years.

5) Yes, PD rejects the notion of two "new covenants, one for Jews, another for Gentiles." PD affirms their is only one new covenant applicable to both Jews and Gentiles.

6) Yes, PD asserts there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles in Christ, we are all children of the promise. Again, see Galatians chapter 3.

 

[Van]

Covenant Premill is not inches away from Amill? We'll have to agree to disagree then. B/c I made the transition from Classical Dispie to Amill. I know the incline of the slope. It is also a slippery turrain as well.

And people on this thread are only protesting b/c you are not reading their post. Methinks you are too emotional to this system to rationally discuss it much less heed the other posts.

Hi Greektim, the assertion I objected to was quoted in full, where PDism was asserted to be a kissing cousin, i.e. closely related, of Covenant Premill, and therefore close to Amillennialism. Now you are attempting to walk that back, as if you meant something else.

As far as your repeated ad homenims, they are fallacies, calculated to obscure your mistaken positions. No sale.

 

[Greektim]

Hi Greektim, the assertion I objected to was quoted in full, where PDism was asserted to be a kissing cousin, i.e. closely related, of Covenant Premill, and therefore close to Amillennialism. Now you are attempting to walk that back, as if you meant something else.

As far as your repeated ad homenims, they are fallacies, calculated to obscure your mistaken positions. No sale.

I've not made one ad homenim remark to you. I'm not backtracking. I"m comparing the route that PDism is taking. With its already/not yet view of the kingdom, same as Covenant Premill, it is getting closer to Amill, which speaks of the already/not yet in terms of here but more to come at the consumation. And so it is a step in the right direction.

Your last line takes the cake though. Not only have I not used ad hominems, but you pontificate. Are you the final arbiter of "mistaken positions"? You sure sound like it.

 

[RLBosley]

Hi TND, you went wrong when you asserted PD does not hold to a literal 1000 year reign of Jesus on earth.

But you are correct, you can find PD proponents differing on matters, such as whether the throne at the right hand of God can be thought of as David's throne.

1) The Law of Christ is applicable to those under the dispensation of grace.

2) Yes, an OT prophecy can have a short term fulfillment, applicable to the audience at the time it was stated, and an end times fulfillment.

3) Yes, PD rejects the traditional dispensation view of the "church age" as being parenthetical.

4) No, your source is wrong, PD accepts that Christ will rule His kingdom here are earth in the future for a literal 1000 years.

5) Yes, PD rejects the notion of two "new covenants, one for Jews, another for Gentiles." PD affirms their is only one new covenant applicable to both Jews and Gentiles.

6) Yes, PD asserts there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles in Christ, we are all children of the promise. Again, see Galatians chapter 3.

How would PD define the Law of Christ?

If all this is indeed the case then PD is better than I thought, and very different from Classic Dispy.

 

[Yeshua1]

How would PD define the Law of Christ?

If all this is indeed the case then PD is better than I thought, and very different from Classic Dispy.

Seems that PD close to what I currently hold, that there is but but ONE Covenant, New, for all people of God, Jews/Gentiles to get saved under now, but that there is also still a time when jesus will come back to earth to reign and restore Kingdom to Israel at His second coming, when all earth shall have his literally Kingdom established!

So ALl Jews must be saved now under new covenant, but national Israel shall be restored when Kingdom Age gets here when jeus returns!

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Hi TND, you went wrong when you asserted PD does not hold to a literal 1000 year reign of Jesus on earth.

Then how would you explain that Gulley and others state unequivocally that it does not? And by the way, everything expressed in that post is quoted from Dr. Gulley, not me. Hence, the "quote" box. As I said, I cut-and-pasted from an online PDF he posted.

Perhaps you do hold to a literal reign, but the doctrine of Progressives is that the throne Jesus sits on in heaven is the Throne of David, and He reigns now in a metaphorical millennial reign. Everything you can find online states that to be the case. Therefore, I must conclude that you believe something the rest of the Progressives do not.

 

[RLBosley]

Seems that PD close to what I currently hold, that there is but but ONE Covenant, New, for all people of God, Jews/Gentiles to get saved under now, but that there is also still a time when jesus will come back to earth to reign and restore Kingdom to Israel at His second coming, when all earth shall have his literally Kingdom established!

So ALl Jews must be saved now under new covenant, but national Israel shall be restored when Kingdom Age gets here when jeus returns!

I understood that.... But dude. Grammar and the shift key - use them.

Anyway, I'm pretty close too. Though I would deny the "Jewishness" of the Millennium. And the idea of time broken into "dispensations." God deals through covenants, not supposed dispensations. But it seems PD has practically abandoned that framework anyway, but still holds onto the name.

I'm a step or two toward Covenant theology - New Covenant Theology or Progressive Covenantalism.

 

[Van]

I've not made one ad homenim remark to you. I'm not backtracking. I"m comparing the route that PDism is taking. With its already/not yet view of the kingdom, same as Covenant Premill, it is getting closer to Amill, which speaks of the already/not yet in terms of here but more to come at the consumation. And so it is a step in the right direction.

Your last line takes the cake though. Not only have I not used ad hominems, but you pontificate. Are you the final arbiter of "mistaken positions"? You sure sound like it.

Attacking the person rather than the position is an ad homenim. Greektim wrote this: " Methinks you are too emotional to this system to rationally discuss it much less heed the other posts." Then posts he has not used ad hominems. LOL

As for mistaken positions, suggesting PD is a kissing cousin to something inches away from amillennialism is a mistaken position.

 

[Van]

How would PD define the Law of Christ?

If all this is indeed the case then PD is better than I thought, and very different from Classic Dispy.

The Law of Christ applies to anyone, Jew or Gentile, who has been spiritually born anew in Christ. Jesus taught how we are to live, recall the "teaching them (disciples) all I have commanded you.

Many times Christ endorsed tenets of the Law of Moses, but only that which Christ taught applies to us. We are under the dispensation of grace, and not under the dispensation of the Law.