Reply to Thomas15.
Van, good analysis.
Allow me to fill in a few blanks. My understanding of progressive vs. classic dispesationalism, the main point is that progressive borrows the covenant a-mil term (not the concept) "already, not yet" to explain some of the kingdom blessings that the church now enjoys as a partial fufillment of end times prophecy. A classic dispensationalist looks at the same blessings and attributes them to Jehovah's simply showing his love and giving a preview of things to come. Of course the a-mil thinks that the individual believer, once born again enters the millennial kingdom administered by the church. The progressive dispensationalist does not hold the firm future Israel that the classic does and as such is a little more comfortable with the reformed crowd when involved in end times discussions. Progressives, taking the lead from John Piper stop reading Romans at the end of ch 9 leaving out Romans ch 11.
I lean more toward the classic camp. When I read the Gen 13, 15 and 17 and take in the Abrahamic covenant, I note that Jehovah first spells out the terms of the covenant (land promises and all), then he ratifies the covenant in blood (Gen 15 vs 9 thru 18) but the fufillment is future. This is the same way treaties are worked out in modern times. Overlay this with the New Covenant terms (Jer ch 31) which is ratified at the cross but still not fufilled in any literal sense.
This is consistant with classic dispensationalism, the Patriarchs received the terms and ratification of the covenants and some of the blessings, the cross was the the ratification of the New Covenant and some of the blessings are given to the church but in either case biblically speaking it is hard to argue that the Patriarchs, Israel or the Church are fully obedient to the will of God and or living in the theocratic kingdom which David spoke of as future and the Apostles asked Jesus if he would give it to them.
When Jesus ratified the New Covenant in the upper room, there was no mention of the church and in fact Jesus tasked the church with one job, spreading the gospel. To say that the new covenant of Jer 31 and Eze 36 is either history or a part of the church is not supported by the Bible, which Jesus told us cannot be broken.
This rebuttal supporting traditional dispensationalism against progressive dispensation makes general assertions but contains only vague references to biblical support.
Yes, we say some of the blessings now reflect "partial fulfillment" of promises made to Israel. This in now way conflicts with the "preview" perspective.
Yes, a progressive does not hold to the view of a separate future Israel, but to a future Israel that includes Jews and Gentiles, i.e. everyone born again.
No, progressives read Romans 11 which is fully consistent with our view.
Lets breeze through the chapter and make some notes, shall we?
1) Combining believing Jews and Gentiles does not reject the OT chosen people. "Israel" were chosen corporately, descendants of Abraham, but to become a child of the promise a descendant had to be a believer.
2) Notice how God conditionally chose 7000 to be a remnant who had not bowed their knees. In the OT the blood line got you to the door, and exposure or knowledge of the promises, but only believers were chosen and placed in "Israel."
3) Paul then says today, i.e. first century, a remnant also exists, "chosen" not by bloodline" but by grace.
4) Notice that some of "Israel" were chosen based on belief in God, but the rest were hardened temporarily to facilitate spreading the gospel to Gentiles.
Therefore the church neither replaced. nor set aside the chosen Israel. Also notice that after this temporary hardening, Israel will enjoy "fullness" or full inclusion, i.e. will get the same dispensation without specific hardening that the Gentiles were enjoying.
5) Progressives are not "arrogant" toward the natural branches, Jews, thinking of the them as separate, but rather seeing them as brothers in Christ.
Now at verse 17 and following lets slow down a tad and see if a problem with progressive dispensation appears to exist?
6) Progressives do not think the Jews were broken off to make room for us to be grafted in, an either or situation, rather we accept that we were added after the wall of separation was torn down. Traditional dispensations seem to think the wall still exists in altered form.
7) God did not spare the unbelieving natural branches and He will not spare the unbelieving wild branches either.
8) According to "once saved, always saved" doctrine, once a person is born again, God will protect their faith such that they will endure to the end. Thus the warning about being broken off refers to those who perhaps have not fully committed to Christ, i.e. they do not believe from the heart with their whole heart.
9) An interesting and important point, even if you reject Christ, all is not lost because if you subsequently come to your senses and fall on your knees before God, He will certainly graft you back in. This is a good memory verse for those who "rededicate" their lives to Christ.
10) I understand the partial hardening ended when the Gentiles "fullness of the Gentiles" had come in. This means once the gospel had taken hold among the Gentiles, leaders trained and churches planted, then the temporary hardening ended, and our evangelism should be focused everywhere including among Jew.
11) In verse 28 we see the hardened first century Jews as enemies of God,
but this condition will not last, in fact Paul says that they may receive mercy, so it seems like once Paul had planted churches among the Gentiles, God inspired him to tell us to be progressives.
