Featured Progressive Dispensationalism

Excellent and useful post, kyredneck. Thanks

 

More generalization, i.e. a doctrine is defined as a "kissing cousin" to something it has almost nothing in common with, and while PD is full-blown millennialism, it is claimed to be the opposite.

 

That will not happen unless those holding to PD do away totally with the concept of God still having dealings to come with national Israel, and to still have the Kingdom coming here on earth in a literal/physical sense!

What some here call PD, I just see as historical premil views, just taking the rapture out, and keeping only second coming proper itself!

 

More disinformation, progressive dispensation does not deny the rapture.

 

That proves you didn't read it, because that's not what I said.

In short, if you believe in a literal thousand year reign that has not already begun in heaven, you don't believe a key tenet of progressive dispensationalism. Progressives are essentially adherents to a form of Covenant Theology. They leave Israel out of God's plans, an enormous error in theology of any kind.[/FONT][/SIZE]

 

Did you read what I posted? I said that it was cousins w/ Covenant or Historic Premillism. PREMILLism! There are so many similar views arrived at by similar arguments that they are nearly identical.

 

Hi Greektim, me thinks you protest too much. Here is your quote: "And that is just inches away from full blown amillennialism" You were 100% off target.

Hi TND, me thinks you protest too much. Here is your quote: "if you believe in a literal thousand year reign that has not already begun in heaven, you don't believe a key tenet of progressive dispensationalism."

Progressive dispensationalism believes in the literal 1000 year reign on earth and it has not yet begun.

 

One charge against PD is that we believe the NT writers expanded and enlarged the prophecies of the OT. And that charge is valid. We believe the writings of the NT sometimes compliment the revelation given in the OT. So, today, we look at the OT as explained in the NT. This view is sometimes called complimentary hermeneutics as if it was unsound.

 

Covenant Premill is not inches away from Amill? We'll have to agree to disagree then. B/c I made the transition from Classical Dispie to Amill. I know the incline of the slope. It is also a slippery turrain as well.

And people on this thread are only protesting b/c you are not reading their post. Methinks you are too emotional to this system to rationally discuss it much less heed the other posts.

 

This is the problem with Progressive Dispensationalism itself -- none of its adherents seem to know what it espouses. I don't know if Warner is "PD" or not, but he doesn't agree with Dr. Norman Gulley, an expert on the subject. (Note: I've added paragraphs and spaces, no words, to the quote below to make it an easier read, as it was a cut-and-paste from an online PDF file.)

So, Van ... where was I wrong? Or more accurately, where are you wrong?

Let me explain it: These six points counter very basic teaching in Traditional Dispensationalism. There is little of Progressive teaching to recommend it to a Traditionalist such as myself. It is nothing more than Covenant Theology couched in language designed to make it more palatable. It is not.

 

Hi TND, you went wrong when you asserted PD does not hold to a literal 1000 year reign of Jesus on earth.

But you are correct, you can find PD proponents differing on matters, such as whether the throne at the right hand of God can be thought of as David's throne.

1) The Law of Christ is applicable to those under the dispensation of grace.

2) Yes, an OT prophecy can have a short term fulfillment, applicable to the audience at the time it was stated, and an end times fulfillment.

3) Yes, PD rejects the traditional dispensation view of the "church age" as being parenthetical.

4) No, your source is wrong, PD accepts that Christ will rule His kingdom here are earth in the future for a literal 1000 years.

5) Yes, PD rejects the notion of two "new covenants, one for Jews, another for Gentiles." PD affirms their is only one new covenant applicable to both Jews and Gentiles.

6) Yes, PD asserts there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles in Christ, we are all children of the promise. Again, see Galatians chapter 3.

 

Hi Greektim, the assertion I objected to was quoted in full, where PDism was asserted to be a kissing cousin, i.e. closely related, of Covenant Premill, and therefore close to Amillennialism. Now you are attempting to walk that back, as if you meant something else.

As far as your repeated ad homenims, they are fallacies, calculated to obscure your mistaken positions. No sale.

 

I've not made one ad homenim remark to you. I'm not backtracking. I"m comparing the route that PDism is taking. With its already/not yet view of the kingdom, same as Covenant Premill, it is getting closer to Amill, which speaks of the already/not yet in terms of here but more to come at the consumation. And so it is a step in the right direction.

Your last line takes the cake though. Not only have I not used ad hominems, but you pontificate. Are you the final arbiter of "mistaken positions"? You sure sound like it.

 

How would PD define the Law of Christ?

If all this is indeed the case then PD is better than I thought, and very different from Classic Dispy.

 

Seems that PD close to what I currently hold, that there is but but ONE Covenant, New, for all people of God, Jews/Gentiles to get saved under now, but that there is also still a time when jesus will come back to earth to reign and restore Kingdom to Israel at His second coming, when all earth shall have his literally Kingdom established!

So ALl Jews must be saved now under new covenant, but national Israel shall be restored when Kingdom Age gets here when jeus returns!

 

Then how would you explain that Gulley and others state unequivocally that it does not? And by the way, everything expressed in that post is quoted from Dr. Gulley, not me. Hence, the "quote" box. As I said, I cut-and-pasted from an online PDF he posted.

Perhaps you do hold to a literal reign, but the doctrine of Progressives is that the throne Jesus sits on in heaven is the Throne of David, and He reigns now in a metaphorical millennial reign. Everything you can find online states that to be the case. Therefore, I must conclude that you believe something the rest of the Progressives do not.

 

I understood that.... But dude. Grammar and the shift key - use them.

Anyway, I'm pretty close too. Though I would deny the "Jewishness" of the Millennium. And the idea of time broken into "dispensations." God deals through covenants, not supposed dispensations. But it seems PD has practically abandoned that framework anyway, but still holds onto the name.

I'm a step or two toward Covenant theology - New Covenant Theology or Progressive Covenantalism.

 

Attacking the person rather than the position is an ad homenim. Greektim wrote this: " Methinks you are too emotional to this system to rationally discuss it much less heed the other posts." Then posts he has not used ad hominems. LOL

As for mistaken positions, suggesting PD is a kissing cousin to something inches away from amillennialism is a mistaken position.

 

The Law of Christ applies to anyone, Jew or Gentile, who has been spiritually born anew in Christ. Jesus taught how we are to live, recall the "teaching them (disciples) all I have commanded you.

Many times Christ endorsed tenets of the Law of Moses, but only that which Christ taught applies to us. We are under the dispensation of grace, and not under the dispensation of the Law.