Three Strands of Dispensationalism.

[Mikey]

So I've been trying better to understand Dispensation Theology. There are 3 strands of Dispensationalism Classical, Revised and Progressive and I'm trying to understand the differences between the 3. I read the intro to Progressive Dispensationalism by Bock and Blaising, and to be honest it went over my head, and the internet is full of misinformation.

So can someone helpfully explain the differences of the strands of Dispensationalism?

(This thread is not to debate Dispensationalism. Thank you)

 

[Yeshua1]

So I've been trying better to understand Dispensation Theology. There are 3 strands of Dispensationalism Classical, Revised and Progressive and I'm trying to understand the differences between the 3. I read the intro to Progressive Dispensationalism by Bock and Blaising, and to be honest it went over my head, and the internet is full of misinformation.

So can someone helpfully explain the differences of the strands of Dispensationalism?

(This thread is not to debate Dispensationalism. Thank you)

Classical stream would be the old Scofield type, clear disction between Israel and the Church, Jews saved under Old Covenant by obedience to the law that was revealed to them bu God, and we under the New by Grace of God. The law was just to national israel, and does not really apply at all to us now under the NC. Pre tribulation pre Mil the assumed Eschatology.

Revised, such as under Charles Ryrie and John MacArthur, the Jews were saved by Grace of God, but did not have the Holy Spirit as we do today indwelling us, as the Church was not yet here until pentacost. Main difference between first 2 is view on how OT saints were really saved, on what basis.

Progressive More of a blurring between Israel/Church, as there is one people of god, and manyof them are moving away from pre trib to more of a historical premil position.

 

[John of Japan]

So I've been trying better to understand Dispensation Theology. There are 3 strands of Dispensationalism Classical, Revised and Progressive and I'm trying to understand the differences between the 3. I read the intro to Progressive Dispensationalism by Bock and Blaising, and to be honest it went over my head, and the internet is full of misinformation.

So can someone helpfully explain the differences of the strands of Dispensationalism?

(This thread is not to debate Dispensationalism. Thank you)

Yeshua1 did a fairly good job, but I'd like to qualify a couple of his statements.

First of all, revised dispensationalism seeks to clarify points which were not clear in Scofield's version, classic dispensationalism. First of all, Scofield defined a dispensation as a period of time, but the revised version defines it as "a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God's purpose" (Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism, p. 33). In other words, it is a responsibility given by God to Mankind to fulfill.

Secondly, Scofield seemed to say in one place in his notes that people in the OT were saved by the works of the law, but revised dispensationalism corrects that. Indeed, most of the revised theologians think Scofield simply misspoke himself and didn't mean that folks were saved by the law exactly. (He only says something like that in one place.

Virtually no one is a classic dispensationalist nowadays except for someone who read Scofield and never got any further.

On the other hand, progressive disp. was invented in recent decades for the deliberate purpose of compromise between revised disp. and covenant theology. So the progressive version is quite different from other types, and I personally don't think it is even really dispensationalism. It only has about 3 dispensations (the adherents are not clear), and seems to have a different definition of disepensationalism than other versions.

Then there is ultra- (or hyper-) dispensationalism. It's fairly rare nowadays, but there is a group of churches that follow it. It teaches that the new dispensation began with Paul and not at Pentecost, so that the Gospels and much of the book of Acts is not for the church age.

 

[Deacon]

...I read the intro to Progressive Dispensationalism by Bock and Blaising, and to be honest it went over my head...

I'd encourage you to continue to read the chapters noting the distinctions between the different forms of dispensationalism. It is probably the best book at defining the differences. And yes, it is a bit difficult to grasp but it is certainly worthwhile.

It is the Church and its eschatology that define dispensationalism.
Dispensationalism is nonsupersessionist—dispensationalists do not believe that the Church replaced Israel; this distinction emphasizes a future hope for Israel.

Progressive dispensationalists (PD) also hold to a distinction between the Church and Israel, but there’s a higher emphasis on soteriological unity,

...on how both are part of God’s overall kingdom program,
...on how the church is not simply a parenthesis,
...hence the term “progressive”– there is a progress which occurs in God’s plan .​

In particular, PD utilizes an already/not yet view of eschatology (other prominent dispensationalists, [Walvoord and Pentecost in particular] rejected this idea).

For the progressive dispensationalist, the hermeneutical key to Revelation (and for that matter, the New Testament in general) is the “already/not yet” eschatological tension (see the introduction of this book for the background of such a concept). That is to say, with the first coming of Jesus Christ the age to come already dawned, but it is not yet complete; it awaits the Parousia for its consummation.
C. Marvin Pate, “A Progressive Dispensationalist View of Revelation,” in Four Views on the Book of Revelation, ed. Stanley N. Gundry and C. Marvin Pate, Zondervan Counterpoints Collection (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 135–136.​

This distinction alters the hermeneutical understanding of many NT verses (particularly those dealing with Christ and his kingdom), and allows a more natural, literal understanding of Scripture.

The more I study the bible, the more I tend to lean towards progressive dispensationalism.

Rob

 

[David Kent]

Then there is ultra- (or hyper-) dispensationalism. It's fairly rare nowadays, but there is a group of churches that follow it. It teaches that the new dispensation began with Paul and not at Pentecost, so that the Gospels and much of the book of Acts is not for the church age.

I think they are both wrong. The new dispensation began when Jesus said,

• Matthew 26:26 ¶ And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
• 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

 

[John of Japan]

I think they are both wrong. The new dispensation began when Jesus said,

• Matthew 26:26 ¶ And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
• 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Fair enough. It's difficult to prove you wrong. I go with Acts 2 myself. A number of events and teachings of Christ occurred before this to prepare, though.

 

[1689Dave]

Do the three strands of Dispensationalism ever contradict each other? That is, claim they were wrong in any of their former conclusions?

 

[Mikey]

I'd encourage you to continue to read the chapters noting the distinctions between the different forms of dispensationalism. It is probably the best book at defining the differences. And yes, it is a bit difficult to grasp but it is certainly worthwhile.

The more I study the bible, the more I tend to lean towards progressive dispensationalism.

Rob

Thanks, I will take another crack at the PD book when I have time.

 

[Yeshua1]

I'd encourage you to continue to read the chapters noting the distinctions between the different forms of dispensationalism. It is probably the best book at defining the differences. And yes, it is a bit difficult to grasp but it is certainly worthwhile.

It is the Church and its eschatology that define dispensationalism.
Dispensationalism is nonsupersessionist—dispensationalists do not believe that the Church replaced Israel; this distinction emphasizes a future hope for Israel.

Progressive dispensationalists (PD) also hold to a distinction between the Church and Israel, but there’s a higher emphasis on soteriological unity,

...on how both are part of God’s overall kingdom program,
...on how the church is not simply a parenthesis,
...hence the term “progressive”– there is a progress which occurs in God’s plan .​

In particular, PD utilizes an already/not yet view of eschatology (other prominent dispensationalists, [Walvoord and Pentecost in particular] rejected this idea).

For the progressive dispensationalist, the hermeneutical key to Revelation (and for that matter, the New Testament in general) is the “already/not yet” eschatological tension (see the introduction of this book for the background of such a concept). That is to say, with the first coming of Jesus Christ the age to come already dawned, but it is not yet complete; it awaits the Parousia for its consummation.
C. Marvin Pate, “A Progressive Dispensationalist View of Revelation,” in Four Views on the Book of Revelation, ed. Stanley N. Gundry and C. Marvin Pate, Zondervan Counterpoints Collection (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 135–136.​

This distinction alters the hermeneutical understanding of many NT verses (particularly those dealing with Christ and his kingdom), and allows a more natural, literal understanding of Scripture.

The more I study the bible, the more I tend to lean towards progressive dispensationalism.

Rob

The progressive view seems to be heading towards a historical premil approach, and will end up right there with us Covenant premils!

 

[Yeshua1]

I think they are both wrong. The new dispensation began when Jesus said,

• Matthew 26:26 ¶ And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
• 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

It began with his death/resurrection, and the church formed at pentacost!

 

[John of Japan]

Thanks, I will take another crack at the PD book when I have time.

Dispensationalism by Charles Ryrie, if you have it, would give you a quicker, easier overview of the PD doctrine. It's the most commonly used college textbook on dispensational theology.

 

[Mikey]

on a slight digression, Is Progressive Dispensationalism and New Covenant Theology similar in their Theology? Obviously they use different language one covenants the other dispensations.

 

[John of Japan]

on a slight digression, Is Progressive Dispensationalism and New Covenant Theology similar in their Theology? Obviously they use different language one covenants the other dispensations.

No, PD is a compromise with covenant theology, but New Covenant Theology is a different ball game. It is not a reboot of covenant theology.

 

[Mikey]

Dispensationalism by Charles Ryrie, if you have it, would give you a quicker, easier overview of the PD doctrine. It's the most commonly used college textbook on dispensational theology.

I already have the PD book so will probably keep with this. Is 'Dispensationalism Today' also by Ryrie similar to his 'Dispesationalism' book?

 

[John of Japan]

I already have the PD book so will probably keep with this. Is 'Dispensationalism Today' also by Ryrie similar to his 'Dispesationalism' book?

Dispensationalism (1995, 2007) is the revision of Dispensationalism Today (1965). The revision has material the original volume does not have, including a whole chapter on PD.

 

[Yeshua1]

on a slight digression, Is Progressive Dispensationalism and New Covenant Theology similar in their Theology? Obviously they use different language one covenants the other dispensations.

Not really, maybe only on them getting both to more of a historical premil outlook!

 

[Yeshua1]

No, PD is a compromise with covenant theology, but New Covenant Theology is a different ball game. It is not a reboot of covenant theology.

Reformed Christians on a whole do not accept their theological conclusions, especially in regards to how they view the Law and Christians!

 

[DMorgan56]

You might find this series of videos informative:

This series is from Dr. Randy White, Pastor of First Baptist Taos, NM
Home - Randy White Ministries