Progressive dispensationalism.

[Daniels]

What is Progressive dispensationalism?

your thoughts.

 

[eph3Nine]

What is Progressive dispensationalism?

your thoughts.

This entire forum is a STUDY on what progressive REVELATION is. Dispensationalism is Gods HOUSE RULES for a given audience. God didnt reveal ALL of His good news at once. He had a SECRET which He kept HID IN GOD until due time .

Your question cannot be answered in one or two sentences but is a way of STUDYING the scripture that we find in 2 Tim 2:15


You might want to read some of the threads here, and you will find your questions will be answered.

Or..purchase the book called "Things that Differ" by Cornelius Stam at www.bereanbiblesociety.org.

 

[Dispy]

This entire forum is a STUDY on what progressive REVELATION is. Dispensationalism is Gods HOUSE RULES for a given audience. God didnt reveal ALL of His good news at once. He had a SECRET which He kept HID IN GOD until due time .

Your question cannot be answered in one or two sentences but is a way of STUDYING the scripture that we find in 2 Tim 2:15


You might want to read some of the threads here, and you will find your questions will be answered.

Or..purchase the book called "Things that Differ" by Cornelius Stam at www.bereanbiblesociety.org.

This book can be read on line at http://www.welcometograce.com/things_that_differ.html

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

 

[DeaconDean]

Or..purchase the book called "Things that Differ" by Cornelius Stam at www.bereanbiblesociety.org.

Or how about "Rightly Dividing the People of God" by Keith Mathison

@http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=23595&event=CF

 

[timlamb]

This entire forum is a STUDY on what progressive REVELATION is. Dispensationalism is Gods HOUSE RULES for a given audience. God didnt reveal ALL of His good news at once. He had a SECRET which He kept HID IN GOD until due time .

Your question cannot be answered in one or two sentences but is a way of STUDYING the scripture that we find in 2 Tim 2:15


You might want to read some of the threads here, and you will find your questions will be answered.

Or..purchase the book called "Things that Differ" by Cornelius Stam at www.bereanbiblesociety.org.

Becareful about asking questions around this forum, alot of false teaching going on.

They set up little threads like this to create avenues for their own discussions and peddle their doctrine of "salvation by Paul"

and this looks like another one!

 

[biblebeliever123]

Progressive revelation simply means that God did not 'download' (if you'll permit that term all information at once. He has given us the complete revelation of Himself to us in the whole Bible; laying out his eternal purpose; giving us the start of time at creation and telling us what He did for us before time even began
He has given us information for time past, for BUT NOW, and for ages to come....progressive revelation, now complete.

The good news of our salvation is that the Lord Jesus Christ became sin for us. Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again for our justification. Any person who places their trust in that wonderful good news is saved by grace through faith apart from works.

1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;1 Corinthians 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:Romans 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

( I have given what I believed for my salvation because if there are any who do not know what a dispensationalist believes about salvation....It's all OF CHRIST...it's all HIS WORK...the believer is COMPLETE IN HIM...the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.)

 

[TheScottsMen]

What is Progressive dispensationalism?

your thoughts.

I believe your asking what IS the theology known as "Progressive Dispensationalsm." Progressive Dispensationalism differs from Pauline or Acts 2 Theology -- for instance, they believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that Christ is ruling in Heaven from the throne of David at this time....

For more information regarding Progressive Dispensationalism:

http://withchrist.org/MJS/paulvsprog.htm

http://dmoz.org/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Christianity/Theology/Dispensationalism/Progressive/

 

[Tractor1]

What is Progressive dispensationalism?

your thoughts.

It's a poor attempt by some to move from a dispensational study of Scripture towards covenant theology.

In Christ,
Tracey

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

What is Progressive dispensationalism?

your thoughts.

Daniels,
I am a progressive dispensationalist.

The major difference between traditional and progressive dispensationalism is that we progressives view the present dispensation as a key link or "progression" in God's plan, while traditional dispensationalists view the present dispensation as a "parenthesis" in God's plan. Hence the name "progressive" dispensationalism.

Progressive dispensationalists holds much in common with traditional dispensationalists, including a distinction between Israel and the Church, a future rapture, a 7 year tribulation, and the rule of Christ over the earth centered in Jerusalem during the millennial kingdom.

The clear distinction between Israel and the Church means God has provided the nation of Israel with specific promises such as possession of the land, promises which will be fulfilled in the future. Both Progressive and traditional dispensationalists do recognize some "membership" overlap between the Israel and the Church: Jewish Christians such Paul, Peter, and John are both Jewish (of Israel) and Christian (members of the church).

Both progressive and traditional dispensationalists hold to a distinctly "dispensational" end-time view with a pretribulation rapture and a millennial kingdom with Jesus physically reigning from Jerusalem. This is what clearly distinguishes progressive dispensationalism from historical premillennialism.

The reasons for progressives holding to a progression of dispensations as opposed to a parenthesis is related to: 1) the relationship between the covenants, and 2) hermeneutics.

1) Relationship between the covenants
One of the most crucial covenants which highlight the differences between progressive and traditional dispensationalists is the new covenant. In the past dispensationalists have had a surprising variety of views with regard to the new covenant. Some dispensationalists (Charles Ryrie, Walvoord in the 1950s) argued for two new covenants: one new covenant for the church and another new covenant for Israel. Other dispensationalists (Darby and John Master) argued for one new covenant applied only to Israel. And still other dispensationalists (Scofield and John McGahey 1950s) have argued for one new covenant for 1) believing Israel today and an ongoing partial fulfillment, and for 2) a future believing Israel when Jesus returns for a complete fulfillment.

Progressive dispensationalists, like Scofield and McGahey, argue for one new covenant with an ongoing partial fulfillment and a future complete fulfillment for Israel. Progressives hold that the new covenant was inaugurated by Christ at the last supper. Progressives hold that while there are aspects of the new covenant currently being fulfilled, there is yet to be a final and complete fulfillment of the new covenant in the future. This concept is sometimes referred to as an already-but not yet fulfillment.

2) Hermeneutics
Both traditional and progressive dispensationalists share the same historical-grammatical hermeneutic. As with all dispensationalists, progressive revelation is emphasized so that the dispensationalist interprets the Old Testament in such a way as to retain the original meaning and audience. Thus progressives, like traditionalists, place great emphasis on the original meaning and audience of the text.

The primary differences in hermeneutics between traditionalists and progressives are that 1) progressives are more apt to see partial or ongoing fulfillment, and 2) progressives are more apt to utilize Complementary hermeneutics.

These differences between traditionalists and progressives show up in how one views the Old Testament texts and promises in the New Testament and how they are handled by the New Testament writers.

For traditionalists who perceive the present dispensation as a parenthesis, the standard approach has been to view Old Testament quotations in the New Testament as applications rather than fulfillment. If an Old Testament quotation is said to have a fulfillment role in the New Testament, then that may imply that the present dispensation is no longer a parenthesis, but has a relationship or connection with the prior dispensation.

In contrast, progressives, instead of approaching all Old Testament quotations in the New Testament as application, attempt to take into account the context and grammatical-historical features of both OT and New Testament texts. An Old Testament quote in the New Testament might turn out to be an application, but it also might be a partial fulfillment or a complete fulfillment or even something else.

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 NT 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 called complementary hermeneutics.

Lamorak Des Galis

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

It's a poor attempt by some to move from a dispensational study of Scripture towards covenant theology.

In Christ,
Tracey

Once one examines the actual beliefs of progressives instead of relying on 3rd hand hearsay, one can see the charges of "moving" toward covenant theology are simply false. For example, one of the leading writers of progressive dispensationalism is Wesleyan. How does one shoehorn a Wesleyan into becoming a Calvinist Covenant Theologian?

Lamorak Des Galis

 

[eph3Nine]

LOL...good question.

Much of what folks believe about dispensational theology is 3rd person heresay. Thats why people are admonished by God to STUDY for themselves and not take a denomination or a pastor or anyones word for it. Study will show dispensational theology to be sound and the ONLY way to understand Gods overall BIG picture...and yet they fight it tooth and nail.

Human nature hasnt changed much over the centuries, has it Lemorak? WINK

 

[Daniels]

Thank you one and all for sharing your thoughts .

I am not convinced yet.

 

[eph3Nine]

You will ONLY be convinced by a study of Gods word rightly divided; that is, by acknowledging that while ALL the Bible is for your learning, NOT all of it is written TO you or ABOUT you. The majority of scripture is written to and ABOUT Gods agreement with a NATION...it is only Romans thru Philemon that has SPECIFIC instructions to we , the church, which is His Body.

We send out FREE a scriptural study on this material, called God HAD a Secret. It tells about the difference between PROPHECY and the preaching of Jesus Christ ACCORDING to the MYSTERY...and we would be happy to mail it to you so that you can study this out on your own.

Or....you could read several of the threads in here that have comparitive lists between what Peter taught and what Paul taught so that you can see the DIFFERENCE for yourself.

We are here to help: but ONE question and ONE answer isnt going to do the trick. One must STUDY the issue out to find that God indeed didnt give all His good news in ONE bite to ONE audience.

His LAST revelation to mankind was given to PAUL. It was NEW information, for a NEW program having to do with GRACE and NOT law, for a NEW audience (the NEW man consisting of a NEW CREATION...which WAS the creation of the Body of Christ which didnt exist before Paul)

Its a fascinating study. We hope you stick around to learn with us.

 

[biblebeliever123]

Just a couple of verses of encouragement

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
*we all should want to be UNashamed workman when we stand before the Lord and here he gives us his wisdom on how to accomplish that

2 Timothy 2:7 Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.

It would be a good idea to read through Romans through Philemon (Please note!! I am not saying don't read and study the WHOLE BIBLE....STUDY OF THE WHOLE BIBLE IS VERY MUCH ENCOURAGED ! It is ALL for our learning.)
I suggest Romans through Philemon (approx. 100 pages)
to help you see the distinctive message, ministry, and apostleship of Paul. To him was given this mystery message FIRST and he in turn taught it to others and we have it handed down to us in the written, completed form. Happy reading! Happy studying!

 

[Tychicum]

Progressive dispensationalists, like Scofield and McGahey, argue for one new covenant with an ongoing partial fulfillment and a future complete fulfillment for Israel.

You imply that Scofield would be a "progressive" or that the turning-point between "progressive" and/or other dispensationalists might be simply the "one new covenant".

I don't believe either is accurate. There are many more distinctives ...

Eph linked to the MJS article and it is worth noting ... for those interested it is a good primer ...

http://withchrist.org/MJS/paulvsprog.htm

I liken "progressive dispensationalism" to that of dispensational person taking refuge from attacks by covenant folks in leaky boat. A refuge which holds out promise but in the end is just gets you all wet.

No offense intended ...

While "progressive" rationalizes to make some things fit ... the fact remains it is a human rationalization. As such it is a slippery slope and opens up the argument of inconsistency when dealing with the covenants.

Israel is not Christian and Christian is not Israel. While we might get benefits of the results of a covenant we are not a party to the covenants. The more complicated the approach to that distinction really undoes the dispensational approach to hermeneutics.

Like a loose thread on a article of clothing. If you were to pull and pull on that thread ... the result is unraveling.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

You imply that Scofield would be a "progressive" or that the turning-point between "progressive" and/or other dispensationalists might be simply the "one new covenant".

No, I never said Scofield was a progressive. I simply pointed out that there are traditional dispensationalists who also hold to one new covenant, like progressives do today. The key difference between progressives and traditional dispensationalists - as I said in the post - is the relationship between the dispensations.

Eph linked to the MJS article and it is worth noting ... for those interested it is a good primer ...

http://withchrist.org/MJS/paulvsprog.htm

The article is full of fallacies and misrepresents progressives. Its really just a polemic for Pauline dispensationalism, as it fails to distinguish between progressive and traditional dispensationalism. I'll address it in a second post...

I liken "progressive dispensationalism" to that of dispensational person taking refuge from attacks by covenant folks in leaky boat. A refuge which holds out promise but in the end is just gets you all wet.

No offense intended ...

No offense taken, as I know you are simply echoing your opinions based on what you've heard and read. You put forth your conclusions without any evidence.

The same is true of the anti-dispensationalists who post in this forum. They post their own distorted understanding of dispensationalism. Rarely do they ever have any real in-depth analysis to give - they just simply put forth their conclusions without any real evidence.

I'm not trying to offend you, I'm just challenging you to examine the real evidence. I don't care if people agree with my particular view or not. What I do care about is having my point of view accurately represented. There are those who accuse progressive disp of being anti-semitism, as well as being Covenant Theology in disguise and other things. Accurate or not? I say bring on whatever evidence you have to prove your accusations. Otherwise...

Few ever take up the challenge to try and truly understand a position they don't agree with, much less make the effort to try and accurately represent it.


Lamorak Des Galis

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

PAULINE VERSUS PROGRESSIVE
DISPENSATIONALISM

Miles J. Stanford

This Paper has to do with the distinction between Pauline and Progressive Dispensationalism, including that between Israel and the Church. Quotes in italics are taken from Bock and Blaising's PROGRESSIVE DISPENSATIONALISM (Victor Books, 1993, 336 pages), as compared to our publication, titled PAULINE DISPENSATIONALISM (1993).

I - PROGRESSIVE

It is indisputable that the NT views the new covenant predicted by Jeremiah and Ezekiel with some of its promised blessings now being granted to Jews and Gentiles who are believers in Jesus.

These are not blessings which are like those predicted by Jeremiah and Ezekiel. They are the very same blessings which those prophets predicted. For the new covenant which is presently in effect through Jesus Christ is not one which is like that predicted by Jeremiah and Ezekiel, but it is that very same covenant which they prophesied which is in effect today (p. 202).

PAULINE -- Since Scripture makes it clear that Israel's New Covenant was promised to "the house of Israel," and "the house of Judah" for their future Millennial Kingdom, Pauline Dispensationalism relates none of Israel's New Covenant blessings to the heavenly Church.

While not "under" it, Pauline Dispensationalism unequivocably complies with Dallas Theological Seminary's Doctrinal Statement:

Article V - The Dispensations -- We believe that three of these dispensations or rules of life are the subject of extended revelation in the Scriptures, viz., the dispensation of the Mosaic law, the present dispensation of grace, and the future dispensation of the millennial kingdom.

We believe that these are distinct and are not to be intermingled or confused, as they are chronologically successive (emphases ours).

Pauline dispensationalists on the faculty of any dispensational school would back their signing of such a Doctrinal Statement by freely teaching the complete separation of Israel and the Church. At the same time they would warn against anything less, including the errors of Covenant theology's inclusivism.

This criticism of Standford's is a non-sequitur. It is stated that progressives hold there is one new covenant. Then progressives are accused of not holding to Article V of the Dallas Seminary Doctrinal Statement concerning the three basic dispensations. The two don't follow. First, progressives aren't the only ones who hold to one new covenant. There are a number of traditional dispensationalists, like Scofield and McGahey, who hold to one new covenant and are not progressives. Second, the idea of distinct dispensations doesn't depend on a one new covenant view. Progressives have clearly stated that the new covenant was inaugurated in this present dispensation, meaning this present dispensation is distinct from past dispensations. Progressives have also clearly stated a belief in a future dispensation, distinct from this present one. Anyone reading Bock and Blaising's book Progressive Dispensationalism can see a chart on page 51 which shows that progressives hold the dispensations as distinct, not intermingled or confused, and that they are chronologically successive.

II - PROGRESSIVE

Christ has already begun to act institutionally as King by granting to those who believe in Him the new covenant blessings of forgiveness of sins and the indwelling renewing presence of the Holy Spirit (the baptism of the Spirit of which He has spoken). These are in fact blessings of the eschatological kingdom (p. 280).

PAULINE -- Pauline Dispensationalism teaches that the indwelling of the Spirit of Israel's New Covenant is in no way similar to the baptism of the Spirit at Pentecost, which constituted the birth of the Church.

This criticism of Stanford's is a paper tiger because he simply contrasts the progressive dispensationalism view with Pauline dispensationalism, and cites Scripture which only supports his view. He did not even address the cited Scripture references in Bock and Blaising's book supporting the progressive point of view. Did he actually read it, or did he pull random quotes from it? Here I will cite three specific Scripture references which are contrary to Pauline Dispensationalism and which support the progressive point of view that there is a connection between Israel's new covenant and Spirit-indwelt Christians in this present dispensation. Here Jesus spoke to His disciples at the Last Supper:

Luke 22:20 - In the same way, after the supper, He [Jesus] took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

Jesus is the mediator of this new covenant, inaugurated by His death:
Hebrews 9:15 For this reason, Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance - now that He has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

Here Paul spoke of Himself as a minister of this new covenant:
2 Corinthians 3:6 - He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant - not of the letter, but of the Spirit; for the letter kills but the Spirit gives life.

III - PROGRESSIVE

Progressive Dispensationalism advocates a holistic and unified view of eternal salvation. God will save humankind in its ethical and national plurality. But He will bless it with the same salvation given to all without distinction; the same, not only in justification and regeneration, but also in sanctification by the indwelling Spirit. These blessings will come to all without distinction through Jesus Christ, the King of Israel and of all nations of redeemed humanity (pp. 47,48).

PAULINE -- To say that Israel and the Church are without distinction in the realm of salvation, i.e., justification, regeneration, and sanctification, while signing a Doctrinal Statement that they are "completely distinct," is quite a falsified feat!

This is another non-sequitur by Stanford, and a pretty bad one at that. Notice Bock/Blaising doesn't define the Church/Israel in the quote. Instead Stanford Stanford "read into" the statement while completely ignoring how Bock and Blaising actually defined Israel and the Church throughout the book - or even just a few pages later! They state on page 49:

"The church is precisely redeemed humanity itself (both Jews and Gentiles) as it exists in this dispensation prior to the coming of Christ."

"A Jew who becomes a Christian today does not lose his or her relationship to Israel's future promises."

Again, the chart on page 51 is very clear in how it defined the Church, but it was totally ignored. Israel consists of believing Jews and unbelieving Jews. The church consists of believing Gentiles and believing Jews in this present dispensation. This is also how many traditional dispensationalists define Israel and the Church. Only Pauline dispensationalists - ultradispensationalists - make a radical mutually exclusive heavenly/earthly contrast between Israel and the Church. There is a reason why the Dallas Seminary Doctrinal Statement does not say "mutually exclusive" - else the statement would reflect ultradispensationalism and not mainstream dispensationalism, which includes traditional and progressive positions.

IV - PROGRESSIVE

When we relate to Him today we are relating to the Son of David who is immortal, who has a destiny, who is coming here to rule the nations. All His present work should be interpreted in this light. He is reconciling a people to Himself--Jews and Gentiles, which will be that eschatological humanity of the prophecies (p. 30).

PAULINE -- The heavenly mystery Church is not a part of the "eschatological humanity of the prophecies"! Pauline Dispensationalism maintains complete distinction between Israel and the Church eschatologically, as well as soteriologically. Christ's present work is that of reconciling believing Jews and Gentiles to God to form the heavenly Church. The OT prophecies reveal nothing of the Church, but set forth Christ as coming King reconciling the Jewish nation and the Gentile nations to God to constitute His Millennial Kingdom.

Stanford is merely contrasting mainstream dispensationalism with Pauline dispensationalism. Progressives and traditional dispensationalists hold much in common. Traditional dispensationalists also believe that the nations are being blessed today by Christ through the covenant of Abraham, just as was predicted. Traditional dispensationalists also believe that Jesus will return to earth and rule the nations in a millennial kingdom. Traditional dispensationalists also do not maintain a mutually exclusive distinction between Israel and the Church.

V - PROGRESSIVE

The termination of the Mosaic covenant was in view of the establishment of a new covenant in which God would write His law into the hearts of His people (Jer. 31:33) and cause them to walk in his ways (Ezek. 36:27).

So, although Paul teaches that Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4, that is, law in the form of the Mosaic covenant), he also says that believers are "not ... without the law of God but under the law of Christ (1 Cor. 9:21; cf. Gal. 6:2; this is law in the form of the new covenant).

He also speaks of this new covenant law as the "law of the Spirit" (Rom. 8:2), since the Spirit is the characteristic feature of the new covenant. James refers to it as the "royal law" (James 2:8,12) connecting it again to the Christ, the anointed King.

The progressive dispensationalism of NT theology is not antinomian. For while it teaches that Mosaic covenant law has ended dispensationally, it also teaches that it has been replaced by new covenant law.... (p. 199).

PAULINE -- Pauline Dispensationalism not only keeps Israel and the Church from being "mingled and confused," but it also keeps the law "completely distinct" from grace.

First lets finish the sentence of the last reference on page 199:
"The progressive dispensationalism of NT theology is not antinomian. For while it teaches that Mosaic covenant law has ended dispensationally, it also teaches that it has been replaced by new covenant law, and it presents this dispensational change as integral to God's plan of redemption which affirms and fulfills the divine demand for righteousness and holiness even as it saves and eternally blesses the redeemed."

Stanford set up a false dilemma. The complete sentence is an accurate representation of progressive thought, not one he quoted which was chopped off before the most important explanation. Besides, progressives and traditional dispensationalists share the same views on the law, and this mainstream dispensational understanding is in contrast to the Covenant Theology understanding of the law. Stanford defines "law" and "gospel" in ultradispensationalist terms, but these terms are not shared by traditional dispensationalists at all.


In conclusion, Stanford's criticisms contain many logical fallacies, such as non-sequiturs, paper tigers, and false dilemmas. Its clear that some of the criticisms are of views held by both progressives and traditional dispensationalists. This shows that Stanford obviously did not understand the progressive dispensational position, much less came close to representing it accurately.


Lamorak Des Galis

Lamorak Des Galis

 

[Tychicum]

In conclusion, Stanford's criticisms contain many logical fallacies, such as non-sequiturs, paper tigers, and false dilemmas. Its clear that some of the criticisms are of views held by both progressives and traditional dispensationalists. This shows that Stanford obviously did not understand the progressive dispensational position, much less came close to representing it accurately. [/b]

Or that he thinks both camps are fraught with errors ...

So I will admit that I think of the progressive camp as "lapsed dispensationalists" ...

What is with this Bock and Blaising's book? You quote from it ... Stanford quotes from it ... please tell me it ain't written on iron plates ...

Does the whole matter turn on the upper room discourse? I believe that to be a problem as it is prophetic of a future event and to the Jews.

So are the progressives attempting to force fit the "new covenant"?

Gentiles simply have no "privity" in the new covenant. We are beneficiaries. Rights which belong to a third-party.

In contract law the relationship is between two parties ... in this case Jer 31:31 states it is between God and Israel.

Privity of contract occurs only between the parties to the contract, commonly as in a contract of sale of goods or services. If a third party gets a benefit under a contract, it does not have the right to go against the parties to the contract beyond its entitlement to a benefit.

They are beneficiaries ...

There. That it is really that simple.

Now what was the issue ... ?

 

[Tychicum]

Just want to say that the sum total of my first hand knowledge of "progressive" dispensationalism could be written on a matchbook cover.

And that you are the first live one I have ever met ...

 

[Tychicum]

Stanford defines "law" and "gospel" in ultradispensationalist terms, but these terms are not shared by traditional dispensationalists at all.

I find "traditional" dispensationalists either don't really exist or are very good at hiding.

I haven't met many of them either ...