Progressive Covenentalism

9Rock9 · Jul 10, 2025

Hello!

I am exploring eschatology to have a better understanding. I see arguments for both premillennialism and amillennialism, though I admit to being biased towards the former due to my denomination and upbringing.

One view I am considering is progressive covenentalism. It seems pretty compelling from a biblical standpoint and I think it fits the best with the New Testament. I do think it's pretty obvious, based on the text, that Jesus is the true Israel and all who are grafted in are heirs to the promise, including the promise of the land.

However, I am on the fence between progressive covenentalism and progressive dispensationalism.

My issue is that I do think there is some kind of significance to the return of the Jewish people to their land and I anticipate a future Messianic kingdom like in Acts 1:6, but I think dispensationalists can go too far with the separation between Israel and the Church. So, I don't want to say that Israel and the Jewish people have no significance at all to God's greater plan, and some verses do seem to teach that the Jewish people will be restored.

What are your thoughts?

FireDragon76 · Jul 10, 2025

Have you read/watched any N.T. Wright?

The New Testament has various tensions in its eschatological visions that can't be easily reduced to one, unified, flat narrative. Many American Evangelicals also struggle with Realized Eschatology, even though it's a prominent part of the Gospel of John, and also present quietly in Paul's epistles (though American Evangelicals aren't necessarily used to noticing it- Paul's eschatology has often been read in ways that are compatible with American premillenialism).

keras · Jul 11, 2025

9Rock9 said:
My issue is that I do think there is some kind of significance to the return of the Jewish people to their land and I anticipate a future Messianic kingdom like in Acts 1:6, but I think dispensationalists can go too far with the separation between Israel and the Church. So, I don't want to say that Israel and the Jewish people have no significance at all to God's greater plan, and some verses do seem to teach that the Jewish people will be restored.

A careful reading of the Prophesies about the House of Judah, the Jews, shows that they face Judgment and punishment for their continued rejection of Jesus and their reliance on their own strength. It is made clear that only a remnant will survive, to rejoin with their brethren. Jeremiah 50:4-5 They won't say much; Ezekiel 16:63
Their brethren are the faithful Christian peoples, who consist mainly of those people who have descended from the ten Northern tribes of Israel and who have accepted the Salvation offered by Jesus.

RandyPNW · Jul 11, 2025

9Rock9 said:
Hello!

I am exploring eschatology to have a better understanding. I see arguments for both premillennialism and amillennialism, though I admit to being biased towards the former due to my denomination and upbringing.

One view I am considering is progressive covenentalism. It seems pretty compelling from a biblical standpoint and I think it fits the best with the New Testament. I do think it's pretty obvious, based on the text, that Jesus is the true Israel and all who are grafted in are heirs to the promise, including the promise of the land.

However, I am on the fence between progressive covenentalism and progressive dispensationalism.

My issue is that I do think there is some kind of significance to the return of the Jewish people to their land and I anticipate a future Messianic kingdom like in Acts 1:6, but I think dispensationalists can go too far with the separation between Israel and the Church. So, I don't want to say that Israel and the Jewish people have no significance at all to God's greater plan, and some verses do seem to teach that the Jewish people will be restored.

What are your thoughts?

I do best by simply explaining what I believe, and utilize the various schools as needed. With Dispensentionalism I agree that Israel's future hope as a Christian nation is real. With Premillennialism, I think Israel's future national hope will be in the Millennium after Christ returns.

I think the way God dealt with Israel under the Law was different from the way He deals with nations under the New Covenant precisely because the Law preceded Christ's redemption. So the major difference is that God's Law impacts Christians today with no sense of participating in rituals meant to look forward to that event.

I disagree with Covenant Theology and its sense of Replacement Theology, viewing the Church as the New Israel and viewing Kingdom Hope as realized in our current Salvation. Theocracies only survive in the present and past eras on a partial basis, since countries are mixed and are weak to the forces of sin. A country corrupts until failure is inevitable.

Israel failed under the Law only because it was the first theocracy to exist, and the Law merely showed the process of sin in degrading a country until its inevitable failure. In the NT era nations that are Christian, or theocracies, fail the same way Israel did.

Christ comes to usher in the Kingdom of God in the Millennium by refining nations who had been called to faith, including Israel and the Christian nations. Other nations will simply be defeated and made subject to international Christian Law.

What Christians experience today of the Kingdom of God, or Realized Eschatology, is not eschatological, but only the impact of the Kingdom on the current process of Salvation. It is, in effect, a downpayment on our future inheritance, lived out in a world in which Sin is still allowed a choice and to hold sway.

Maria Billingsley · Jul 11, 2025

9Rock9 said:
Hello!

I am exploring eschatology to have a better understanding. I see arguments for both premillennialism and amillennialism, though I admit to being biased towards the former due to my denomination and upbringing.

One view I am considering is progressive covenentalism. It seems pretty compelling from a biblical standpoint and I think it fits the best with the New Testament. I do think it's pretty obvious, based on the text, that Jesus is the true Israel and all who are grafted in are heirs to the promise, including the promise of the land.

However, I am on the fence between progressive covenentalism and progressive dispensationalism.

My issue is that I do think there is some kind of significance to the return of the Jewish people to their land and I anticipate a future Messianic kingdom like in Acts 1:6, but I think dispensationalists can go too far with the separation between Israel and the Church. So, I don't want to say that Israel and the Jewish people have no significance at all to God's greater plan, and some verses do seem to teach that the Jewish people will be restored.

What are your thoughts?

Lets look at the scripture you pointed to in its full context.

Acts 1:6-8
Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 And He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority. 8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

Notice that the power Jesus Christ of Nazareth is speaking of comes through His Holy Spirit and it is to be used to spread His Gospel throughout the entire world. The Apostles still did not get it but soon they will when they receive His Holy Spirit. This is His command. There is absolutely nothing about establishing a kingdom in Israel as a matter of fact, the opposite occurred in 70AD which Jesus Christ of Nazareth prophesied to His flock.

God's greater plan is for all to come to know Him. He made it clear that His Kingdom is not of this world. To promote a kingdom in today's geopolitical Israel is in deep error and I am affraid for those who continue to persist on this agenda.

Remember His words......

John 18:35-37
35 Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered You to me. What have You done?”
36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.”

Jesus Christ of Nazareth is the " true vine" and those who are in Him are the true branches. This is Israel.

Blessings

keras · Jul 11, 2025

Maria Billingsley said:
Jesus Christ of Nazareth is the " true vine" and those who are in Him are the true branches. This is Israel.

Therefore: those who follow Jesus are Israelites; the Overcomers for God.

Re; the Millennium,
Scriptures like Isaiah 2:1-5 & Zechariah 14:16-21, plus the clearly worded Prophecies in Revelation 20, make it perfectly clear that here will come a time when Jesus will be King over all the world. Isaiah 53:12, Daniel 7:13-14

YeshuaFan · Aug 12, 2025

FireDragon76 said:
Have you read/watched any N.T. Wright?

The New Testament has various tensions in its eschatological visions that can't be easily reduced to one, unified, flat narrative. Many American Evangelicals also struggle with Realized Eschatology, even though it's a prominent part of the Gospel of John, and also present quietly in Paul's epistles (though American Evangelicals aren't necessarily used to noticing it- Paul's eschatology has often been read in ways that are compatible with American premillenialism).

NTWright is really good regrading the physically resurrection of Jesus, but is NT Wrong in regards to Justification and eschatology

YeshuaFan · Aug 12, 2025

RandyPNW said:
I do best by simply explaining what I believe, and utilize the various schools as needed. With Dispensentionalism I agree that Israel's future hope as a Christian nation is real. With Premillennialism, I think Israel's future national hope will be in the Millennium after Christ returns.

I think the way God dealt with Israel under the Law was different from the way He deals with nations under the New Covenant precisely because the Law preceded Christ's redemption. So the major difference is that God's Law impacts Christians today with no sense of participating in rituals meant to look forward to that event.

I disagree with Covenant Theology and its sense of Replacement Theology, viewing the Church as the New Israel and viewing Kingdom Hope as realized in our current Salvation. Theocracies only survive in the present and past eras on a partial basis, since countries are mixed and are weak to the forces of sin. A country corrupts until failure is inevitable.

Israel failed under the Law only because it was the first theocracy to exist, and the Law merely showed the process of sin in degrading a country until its inevitable failure. In the NT era nations that are Christian, or theocracies, fail the same way Israel did.

Christ comes to usher in the Kingdom of God in the Millennium by refining nations who had been called to faith, including Israel and the Christian nations. Other nations will simply be defeated and made subject to international Christian Law.

What Christians experience today of the Kingdom of God, or Realized Eschatology, is not eschatological, but only the impact of the Kingdom on the current process of Salvation. It is, in effect, a downpayment on our future inheritance, lived out in a world in which Sin is still allowed a choice and to hold sway.

As GE Ladd stated very well, the Kingdom is here in part, but at the Second Coming will then be in full

RandyPNW · Aug 12, 2025

YeshuaFan said:
As GE Ladd stated very well, the Kingdom is here in part, but at the Second Coming will then be in full

Ladd is a favorite of mine. I was reading him back in the 70s. In fact, I sent a letter to him and received a note back indicating that he had died.

I started reading him as I struggled over the debate between pretribism and postribism. I picked up a book by him and a book by Gundry. Ladd amazed me with his theology of the Kingdom--a sort of eschatological future being already present, which sounds like Realized Eschatology.

But he also had an actual future eschatology, as well. I don't completely agree with the confusion over a future history being already present, but he is an extremely gifted processor of various concepts of God's Kingdom.

Ladd also seemed very fair in presenting positions he did not favor. God bless his memory.

FireDragon76 · Aug 12, 2025

YeshuaFan said:
NTWright is really good regrading the physically resurrection of Jesus, but is NT Wrong in regards to Justification and eschatology

How exactly is he "wrong"? He's reading the Gospels and Epistles in their historical context, not filtered through confessionalism.

YeshuaFan · Aug 13, 2025

FireDragon76 said:
How exactly is he "wrong"? He's reading the Gospels and Epistles in their historical context, not filtered through confessionalism.

he denied Pauline Justification and seems to be more into a Catholic work view based justification

YeshuaFan · Aug 13, 2025

RandyPNW said:
Ladd is a favorite of mine. I was reading him back in the 70s. In fact, I sent a letter to him and received a note back indicating that he had died.

I started reading him as I struggled over the debate between pretribism and postribism. I picked up a book by him and a book by Gundry. Ladd amazed me with his theology of the Kingdom--a sort of eschatological future being already present, which sounds like Realized Eschatology.

But he also had an actual future eschatology, as well. I don't completely agree with the confusion over a future history being already present, but he is an extremely gifted processor of various concepts of God's Kingdom.

Ladd also seemed very fair in presenting positions he did not favor. God bless his memory.

H was a historical premil in his eschatology, same way I currently am

FireDragon76 · Aug 13, 2025

YeshuaFan said:
he denied Pauline Justification and seems to be more into a Catholic work view based justification

That's an oversimplification. It's definitely a rebuke to American Evangelicalism's shallow understanding of justification and sanctification, but in many ways, Wright’s view is similar to other Reformed thinkers prior to the rise of Princeton theology in the late 19th century, reflecting a wider Reformed tradition than the narrower stream that later shaped American Fundamentalism.

What might be the sticking point is the participatory view of salvation he seems to gesture towards, but that isn't an anomaly. Similar ideas are found in both Luther and Calvin. It's even possible to find elements of this participatory view of salvation in Jonathan Edwards, whose ideas were foundational in American Evangelicalism prior to Fundamentalism.

Wright tends to prioritize the biblical narrative over metaphysical system-building, partly because he’s writing in a postmodern context. The participatory elements in his soteriology are drawn out of that narrative arc rather than formalized in scholastic terms—which is why they may look less defined than in, say, Calvin or Edwards, but they’re still very much present.

YeshuaFan · Aug 14, 2025

FireDragon76 said:
That's an oversimplification. It's definitely a rebuke to American Evangelicalism's shallow understanding of justification and sanctification, but in many ways, Wright’s view is similar to other Reformed thinkers prior to the rise of Princeton theology in the late 19th century, reflecting a wider Reformed tradition than the narrower stream that later shaped American Fundamentalism.

What might be the sticking point is the participatory view of salvation he seems to gesture towards, but that isn't an anomaly. Similar ideas are found in both Luther and Calvin. It's even possible to find elements of this participatory view of salvation in Jonathan Edwards, whose ideas were foundational in American Evangelicalism prior to Fundamentalism.

Wright tends to prioritize the biblical narrative over metaphysical system-building, partly because he’s writing in a postmodern context. The participatory elements in his soteriology are drawn out of that narrative arc rather than formalized in scholastic terms—which is why they may look less defined than in, say, Calvin or Edwards, but they’re still very much present.

he comes across though as someone whose real desire is to unite the Christiandom back under Rome, and who honestly denies Pauline Justification in the Reformed/Baptist definition, due to him denying the Penal Substitutionary view of the Cross of Christ

FireDragon76 · Aug 14, 2025

YeshuaFan said:
he comes across though as someone whose real desire is to unite the Christiandom back under Rome, and who honestly denies Pauline Justification in the Reformed/Baptist definition, due to him denying the Penal Substitutionary view of the Cross of Christ

N.T. Wright's desire is truth, letting the chips fall where they may. He refuses undue anti-Roman polemics because frankly, a lack of charity is itself sinful if it means disregarding ones personal and academic integrity in favor of polemicism.

When we start assigning hidden motives to people instead of dealing with what they’ve actually said, we’ve left the realm of honest debate. That turns the discussion into suspicion instead of substance. If we care about truth, we have to represent each other fairly, even when we strongly disagree. Otherwise, the conversation stops being about ideas and becomes about caricatures—and nothing good grows from that.

YeshuaFan · Aug 15, 2025

FireDragon76 said:
N.T. Wright's desire is truth, letting the chips fall where they may. He refuses undue anti-Roman polemics because frankly, a lack of charity is itself sinful if it means disregarding ones personal and academic integrity in favor of polemicism.

When we start assigning hidden motives to people instead of dealing with what they’ve actually said, we’ve left the realm of honest debate. That turns the discussion into suspicion instead of substance. If we care about truth, we have to represent each other fairly, even when we strongly disagree. Otherwise, the conversation stops being about ideas and becomes about caricatures—and nothing good grows from that.

Problem is that NT wright wants to be seem as reformed and Evangelical, and yet he dies Pauline Justification and Substitution atonement viewpoints

FireDragon76 · Aug 15, 2025

YeshuaFan said:
Problem is that NT wright wants to be seem as reformed and Evangelical, and yet he dies Pauline Justification and Substitution atonement viewpoints

He doesn't at all deny Pauline views on justification and atonement. He tries to understand those things within their historical context, not through later man-made interpretations shaped by religious polemics and assumptions.

YeshuaFan · Monday at 12:05 PM

FireDragon76 said:
He doesn't at all deny Pauline views on justification and atonement. He tries to understand those things within their historical context, not through later man-made interpretations shaped by religious polemics and assumptions.

He denies Reformed doctrine of Pauline Justification

FireDragon76 · Monday at 9:28 PM

YeshuaFan said:
He denies Reformed doctrine of Pauline Justification

In most historic Reformed churches, the historic confessions don't operate in that manner, they describe what is historically true, as testaments of faith, but they don't close off newer biblical scholarship.

YeshuaFan · Tuesday at 9:00 AM

FireDragon76 said:
In most historic Reformed churches, the historic confessions don't operate in that manner, they describe what is historically true, as testaments of faith, but they don't close off newer biblical scholarship.

All of the Confessions of the Faith, regardless if Reformed or Baptist though refer to Justification as individual salvation, not as a corporate version as Wright supposes it to be

Progressive Covenentalism

Sinner in need of grace.

Well-Known Member

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads