Featured Progressive Dispensationalism

If what I said was an attack... then you telling me to man up is full of implications and insinuations. That, sir, is hypocrisy. Will you own that I wonder? "man up"

There is no winning with you. You are so one-tracked in your thinking and close minded that it is pointless. I'll give it one more go, but I'm not expecting much success (the whole pearls and swine thing).

I never claimed PDism denies a literal 1k future reign. Alls I am saying is that PDism is very close to Covenant Premillism. I.e. it has very many similar tenets to a form of covenant theology. And Covenant Premillism has many similarities to Covenant Amillism, the obvious connection via covenant theology. Ergo, PDism is a step in the right direction towards a biblical view of the progression of the biblical story. The present reign of Jesus (David's throne or no, makes little dif) is a similarity that PDism has w/ Amillism but not w/ Dispyism. There are many similarities like that. Deal with it, maje.

If you can't reckon the logic there, then you need to :sleeping_2:

"ice up, son"

 

Historic Premillennialism.

That would be what I tentatively hold to right now. Though I probably hold to a more "hopeful" than typical view, as I really do believe the Gospel will reach every nation and people group. The church will not fail. Historic premill is also divided regarding the "tribulation period" I do not believe there will be a 7 year tribulation. Some do, and others believe it's only 3 1/2 years.

:thumbsup: Great summary. I think you are spot on there.

 

:BangHead:

The Rapture is not held to be the "Second Coming." Clearly, Jesus does not return to Earth in the Rapture, but meets the church in the air. But this is not a debate about traditional premillennial dispensationalism, so we need to move on.

 

I agree with you that the rature and the second coming are two distinct events, but do see many Pre mils, such as my own pastor, seeing the two as desribing the same actual event!

 

The Bible seems to teach that right now, every since Acts, we are under the New Covenant, and BOTH jews/Gentiles under that for salvation, but that God will still deal with national Israel in the last days, in order to get them ready to greet Jesus as their true Messiah!

Still hold to second cming as being literal/physical established here on earth when he returns, but not rock steady sure on timing aspects as once was! Still see the rapture, but also can see it being mid trib view...

 

No pretribulationist who actually understands the doctrine will dare say the two are the same event, given it is clear from Scripture the Rapture occurs before the Tribulation, and the Second Coming at its end. I believe you are referring to the views of posttribulationalists.

 

Think that you are correct, as that view is also called the "Historical Premil" view held by some Calvinists such as Spurgeon himself!

 

Double post, sorry.

 

Well you continue to deny your attack so you failed to man up.

Next, you try to justify your malfeasance by pointing out mine. Two wrongs do not make a right. Compare yourself to Christ.

Next, you launch yet another attack. You are a prize.

And yes, I know you are denying the linkage where you connected PD with Amilennialism. But a kissing cousin to something inches away from amilennialism makes a clear suggestion which is bogus.

Finally you said something valid, those that believe Jesus is reigning in heaven as partial fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant share a view with the amilennialists. But then you poured in those who do not believe the Davidic Covenant has been inaugurated, i.e. your "or no" inclusion.

In summary, we have had bogus characterizations of Progressive Dispensationalism presented from those holding more closely to Traditional Dispensationalism, and from those holding more closely to the dreaded Amillennialism.

To clarify, PD has some proponents to believe the Davidic Covenant has already been inaugurated, and the traditional dispensationalists cite this flawed thinking as indicating the whole view is bogus. And from both sides it has been suggested and denied that progressive dispensationalism does not adhere to the 1000 year reign of Jesus on Earth in the future.

However, the Progressive Dispensationalism 101 link provided by others, demonstrates both of those objections are bogus.

 

Think that it tries too hard to reconcile the two viewpoints though, and Greektim is right in that it appears to be sloping towards becoming some part of Covenant theology!

 

I think you missed that he said preMIL not preTRIB. There are quite a few Premil folks who are not pretrib. Posttrib, premil is historic premil.

 

The charge that Progressive Dispensationalism, as presented in the Link Progressive Dispensationalism 101 is a kissing cousin from something inches away from amillennialism is false.

Progressive Dispensationalism agrees with all scripture, especially a literal understanding of Galatians 3 and Romans 9-11. Some, perhaps many, proponents deny that the Davidic Covenant has been inaugurated during the present dispensations.

Now if we want to put the shoe on the other foot, Covenant theology spiritualizes the Davidic Covenant, and denies the millennial reign of Jesus for 1000 years on earth, and the traditional dispensationalists, deny that Gentile believers in Christ are children of Father Abraham, and fellow heirs to the promises.

Bottom line, Progressive Dispensationalism is sound doctrine, and in accordance with all scripture interpreted using the literal, historical, grammatical hermeneutic as seen through the NT writers interpretation of OT promises.

 

I just realized that as I read his post. You're right. I'm finding it inadvisable to post without having my reading glasses on. :laugh:

Sorry about that, Yeshua. :thumbsup:

 

Having read all of Bock, Blaising, and Saucy on the issue; I'm comfortable in my assessment. I don't need your internet PD 101.

And back at you, maje. You didn't man up either. Lick your wounds. You're wrong. I'm not backtracking at all. PD is close to Covenant Theology thus it is very near Amillism. Most who have gone to PD are now Amills b/c of the surge of biblical theology (let the readers understand the discipline as opposed to systematic). Why? B/c PD was the initial step in the right direction. You'll get there, Van. Well... maybe not. You're pretty close minded.

"Ice up, son!"

 

Interesting, that's not how the fathers of PDism explain their hermeneutic. You left out literary and theological. Shocker... I know your view better than you do. But then I have published articles against PDism while I was a dispie (I of course have changed my views since then). But I have done the reading and research. I'm no slouch when it comes to PDism.

And the way the NT writers used the OT was far from "literal, historical, grammatical". Typological and messianic, yes. That might include literal, historical, grammatical. But the defining feature was typology and messianic understanding of the OT.

 

ROFLOL, the guy who suggested PD was inches away from amillennialism is an expert. Give me a break.

And, a mind reader to boot, knowing what I know. He wins the prize. And he claims to know that most who went into PD are now amillennialists. It never ends.

 

:applause: Yes exactly. The NT writers frequently would look back and view everything in the OT through Christ, literarily not necessarily literally. Dispensationalism (and Covenant Theology often times as well) is guilty of looking at the New Testament through Old Testament lenses, instead of the other way around.

 

Hurts to be wrong, doesn't it Van.

Ice up, son!

 

Van will never admit that he is wrong. He wants desperately for others to think he makes no mistakes. However, a cursory investigation of his posts reveals an individual who habitually demonizes Calvinists and engages in deliberate distortion with no evidence that he has a conscience.

 

Think that the point is valid, in that PD tends to blur the distinction between national israel and the Church, moving away from classic Dispy pretrib rapture views, so now basically historical pre mil, "kissing cousin" to Amil indeed!