Progressive Dispensationalism

I tried to read through the book, Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism, edited by Herbert Bateman. The book is basically a debate between traditional dispensationalists and their progressive brethren. Now I consider myself fairly well read theologically for a layman but I could not follow the arguments in this book. Maybe I’m just not familiar enough with the “deep things” of Dispensationalism. At any rate, I will offer some general observations.

1. I am a mild dispensationalist. In other words, I agree that the promises to Israel will be fulfilled more or less literally to Israel, not the Church. I’m pre-mil, pre-trib, and believe in a literal millennium. On the other hand, I don’t have a lot of use for the 7 dispensations. I also have problems with some aspects of classic dispensational thinking; for example, I could not sign the Dallas Seminary statement of faith because it appears to me to be saying there was one way to be saved in the OT and another way to be saved in the NT.

2. My impression is that Progressive Dispensationalism is much closer to Covenant Theology than what they let on, specifically in the Israel/Church distinction.

3. Maybe we should interpret all portions of Scripture independently from some overriding system. I understand that systems help us to interpret without introducing contradictions but sometimes I think that filtering all interpretation through a particular system also prevents us from proper understanding, especially if our system is not as unified as we think.


In general I would say that classic Dispensationalism needs reform but I’m not sure if the progressive view is it.

I don’t think I’ve been much help. Maybe the thing to do is discuss a specific issue within the debate.

Andy

 

Progressive Dispensationalism is much like today's evolution. Dispendsationalism has been challenged and another has taken its place. Kind of like the evolutionists. Not many today believe in the old 17th century German rationalism that was popularized in the English speaking world through Scottish Common Sense Realism.

Progressive seems to kind of sound like Mormonism. They received a new revelation.

 

Informative! Even though I do not (yet) hold to any view regarding the millennium, I have studied Progressive Dispensationalism enough to see some of their major weaknesses. It would be informative also from someone (maybe who started this thread) to list some of the weaknesses of PD.

God bless you

Felix

 

I lean toward the PD position in most areas. The one tenant with which I disagree is the concept that Christ is now upon the throne of David. Christ is at the right hand of the Father and intercedes for us, thereby occupying the position of a priest, not a king.

The strongest part of the PD argument, IMHO, is that they are actually exegeting the OT passages which contain the covenants (Abrahamic, Mosaic, New, etc) and are laying the foundation for dispensationalism on that basis. I often read opinions stating that PD is closer to Covenant theology. People who say that seem not to have actually read PD material, as PD writers critique CT extensively.

 

Felix, I am the one who started this thread and I wish I could provide a list, but unfortunately I am just learning about this system myself. I was hoping that someone who holds this position might be able to educate us about it. </font>[/QUOTE]Dear Mesly

Here are a few informative sites I found:

Consequences of Premillennialism

A Very Good Comprehensive Chart

Dispensationalism

Discussion on this issue

 

Thanks Felix, those were some VERY interesting and educational websites. I especially liked the "Very Good Comprehensive Chart". That should be required reading before there is any discussion about these ideas. It would save a lot of misunderstanding.