Progressive Dispensationalism

[A Man In ROANOKE]

I'm interested in discussing Progressive Dispensationalism. Perhaps someone here is familiar with Marvin Pate or Robert Saucy (I have not yet purchased any of their books). Presently, I do not agree with Bock and Blaising that Jesus has already assumed the Throne of David. I would also like to know if anyone else thinks Progressive Dispensationalism is compatible with Historic Premillennialism.

Thanks

 

[Jerrysch]

I'm interested in discussing Progressive Dispensationalism. Perhaps someone here is familiar with Marvin Pate or Robert Saucy (I have not yet purchased any of their books). Presently, I do not agree with Bock and Blaising that Jesus has already assumed the Throne of David. I would also like to know if anyone else thinks Progressive Dispensationalism is compatible with Historic Premillennialism.

Thanks

I do not believe that PD is compatable with premillennialism, it seems to me to be some sort of compromise between classic dispensationalism and covenant theology. C.T. is also by the way one step removed from the theology of Rome!

 

[JaseOnHorseback]

C.T. is also by the way one step removed from the theology of Rome!

Some have said this about dispensationalism and futurism. Didn't modern futurism and preterism both start with the Jesuits?

Have you not read the Westminster and Baptist Confessions of Faith all the way through?

 

[JaseOnHorseback]

From what I understand of it, progressive dispensationalism is a step closer to historical premillennialism. Historical premillennialism is held by many Covenant folks. Both systems see just one people of God.

 

[Tractor1]

From what I understand of it, progressive dispensationalism is a step closer to historical premillennialism. Historical premillennialism is held by many Covenant folks. Both systems see just one people of God.

If it's your contention that PD sees no distinction between Israel and the Church you're mistaken.

In Christ,
Tracey

 

[JaseOnHorseback]

No, I meant that's what HP and CT teach. I agree with their views

 

[Jerrysch]

From what I understand of it, progressive dispensationalism is a step closer to historical premillennialism. Historical premillennialism is held by many Covenant folks. Both systems see just one people of God.

And I think that is the major distinction between it and historic dispensationalism, in that historic dispensationalism see two people of God.

 

[lightninboy]

I would like to learn more about Progressive Dispensationalism.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

Presently, I do not agree with Bock and Blaising that Jesus has already assumed the Throne of David.

That really depends on your definition of the "Throne of David" and the definition of Christ's present reign as King. Many traditional dispensationalists understand the throne of David to be a literal, physical throne at Jerusalem when the millennial reign begins. If that is the definition, then progressives - including Bock and Blaising - certainly don't think Jesus is on the "throne of David."

There are other issues to this. Does Scripture refer to Christ as a present King? Are we presently the King's subjects? What exactly does the term "sit at my right hand" mean? Defining the terms and laying out the issues will make certain views more clear.

I would also like to know if anyone else thinks Progressive Dispensationalism is compatible with Historic Premillennialism.

Progressive dispensationalism and historic premillennialism are two different things entirely. There are no historic premil folks who hold to a pretrib view. Progressive dispensationalists are pretrib. Also historic premil believe that the church is the center of the millennial kingdom. PDs, like all dispensationalists, believe that Jesus will reign from Jerusalem with Israel at the center of the kingdom.


LDG

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

I would like to learn more about Progressive Dispensationalism.

Progressive dispensationalists hold to the great majority of beliefs that traditional dispensationalists hold:
1) Premillennial kingdom, with the rule of Christ centered in Jerusalem,
2) Pretribulation rapture,
3) Distinction between the church and Israel.

Progressives teach and worship at the same churches and schools as traditional dispensationalists - i.e., there are no separate "progressive" disp churches or organizations. The great majority of traditional dispensationalists regard progressives as dispensational. That includes Dr. Walvoord, Dr. Pentecost and many other well-known authors.

The major difference between traditional and progressive dispensationalists is found in the relationship between the dispensations. That is, traditional dispensationalists see the present age as a parenthesis or intercalation in God's program. This program with the Jews is taken up again after this age is over - which is when the church is raptured and the Tribulation begins. For progressive dispensationalists, we see the present age as a key link between the past and future dispensations. This is precisely where the name progressive comes from - the present dispensation is a progression of God's program rather than just a parenthesis.

There are a few other issues that tie into that, but the above is the major basic one.

Some accuse progressives of being "Covenant Theology" and other such things. These accusations are basically a parroting of what others have said rather than based on original research. I know this because just the bare minimum research on progressive views invalidates accusations such as being CT. Also certain facts fly in the face of these accusations: Blaising is squarely in the Wesleyan (Arminian) tradition, but some STILL want to make a Calvinistic Covenant Theologian out of Blaising.


LDG

 

[lightninboy]

LDG,

Are we operating under the Great Commission?

Was the Great Commission fulfilled?

Was the "kingdom" in the gospel of the kingdom a physical kingdom or a spiritual kingdom?

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

LDG,

Are we operating under the Great Commission?

Was the Great Commission fulfilled?

Yes, we are still operating under the Great Commission, as Jesus' commands were to His disciples. We too are His disciples, and are to take the gospel into all the world. All mainstream dispensationalists (progressive and traditional) believe this.

And no, the Great Commission has not been fulfilled.

Was the "kingdom" in the gospel of the kingdom a physical kingdom or a spiritual kingdom?

I'm not sure what you mean by "physical" and "spiritual." Would the future kingdom on earth - the millennial kingdom - be "physical" or "spiritual?" Or perhaps both?

In the gospels, the kingdom is multifaceted. A kingdom implies there is a king and subjects (people) in a kingdom. The Davidic king is also associated with ruling the promised land - especially from Jerusalem.

When Jesus first came, we had the presence of the king and some of His subjects, but the king was not ruling over the land. In this present age we have an increasing number of subjects of the kingdom - believers - but without the presence of the king and without the land. When Jesus comes a second time, we will have the presence of the king, the subjects, and the king ruling over the land.


LDG

 

[lightninboy]

How does historic premillennialism differ from dispensational premillennialism?

Is historic premillennialism right or wrong?

If it was the dominant view for the first 250 years of the church, it is logically the view that God intended?

 

[Iosias]

C.T. is also by the way one step removed from the theology of Rome!

What complete rot! Have you ever actually read the WCF chapter 25, Article 6?

VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.

I do not agree with the WCF here but CT is not "one step removed from" Rome!

 

[Iosias]

If it was the dominant view for the first 250 years of the church, it is logically the view that God intended?

It was not the dominant view but dispensationalism was unheard of in the Early Church because they held to the fact that the Church is the fulfilment of Israel! Just read Justin Martyr

Eg one chapter is titled "CHAPTER CXIX -- CHRISTIANS ARE THE HOLY PEOPLE PROMISED TO ABRAHAM. "

see: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html

 

[lightninboy]

It was not the dominant view but dispensationalism was unheard of in the Early Church because they held to the fact that the Church is the fulfilment of Israel! Just read Justin Martyr

Eg one chapter is titled "CHAPTER CXIX -- CHRISTIANS ARE THE HOLY PEOPLE PROMISED TO ABRAHAM. "

see: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html

Historic premillennialism is like a covenant theology premillennialism?

What was the dominant view, then?

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

How does historic premillennialism differ from dispensational premillennialism?

The difference shows up in how each sees the millennium. Historic premillennialists see the millennium as centered in a generic, worldwide church. There is no particular location that is important. Dispensationalists see the millennium as centered on the Jewish nation in the promised land, with Jerusalem as the capital.

Is historic premillennialism right or wrong?

Neither. I and other dispensationalists may disagree with the historic premil view, but it also falls within the range of historic Christianity. The same goes for the amil and postmil views - we can agree to disagree without necessarily judging one another.

If it was the dominant view for the first 250 years of the church, it is logically the view that God intended?

Historic premillennialism is like a covenant theology premillennialism?

What was the dominant view, then?[/quote]

From a dispensationalist perspective, historic premillennialism is like Covenant Theology in the sense that it doesn't provide a clear distinction between Israel and the Church. For historic premils like George Ladd, the Church actually has taken over the promises to Israel (i.e., replacement theology). They hold that the unbelieving "partially hardened" part of Israel no longer has any covenant promises. The only way they can get back into the promises is to become believers - i.e., become Christians.

For dispensationalists, discussions and/or comparisons with other belief systems start with looking for distinctions between Israel and the Church.

As for the dominant view in early church history, many of the early church fathers were premil, but not in the same sense as the modern day views of historic premil or disp premil. Justin Martyr said that while some advocated a premil view, other Christians believed something different and there wasn't a clear consensus by everyone. They agreed to disagree. Over time the premil view was associated with heretical views, so by Augustine premil is largely rejected and amil would dominate through most of church history.


LDG

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Does anybody know if there's been much interaction between progressive dispensationalism and new covenant theology? It seems like their leaders would have much to discuss.

 

[Iosias]

Historic premillennialism is like a covenant theology premillennialism?

Yes, one of the major modern teachers of this was George Eldon Ladd. Gill, Spurgeon and Toplady were also historic premills.

What was the dominant view, then?

There wasn't one to my knowledge.

 

[Iosias]

Justin Martyr said that while some advocated a premil view, other Christians believed something different and there wasn't a clear consensus by everyone. They agreed to disagree.

I have been trying to find that quote but have yet been successful. I know it exists because I have read it in the past!