Progressvie dispensationalism

Hi Barry,

I have been reading about it. It does seem like a cross between Covenant and Traditional Dispensational (TD) theology. Interestingly, there is a new (?) theological movement from the Covenant side called, New Covenant Theology (NCT). NCT seems to be moving more towards Dispensationalism while PD seems to be moving towards Covenant Theology.

There are some issues with TD that PD seems to be addressing. That doesn't mean that PD has all of the answers, but it does provide more continuity between Israel and the Church.

I am no expert on this, but I would certainly enjoy discussing PD with you. What are your views on it?

 

PD and NCT are very close. Their main difference might simply be their eschotology and PD belief in a future politcal state of Isreal (while many NCT believe in a future inbring of "all" Jews into the church).

PD basically moves away from the classic dispensatinoal thinking by stating that some OT prophecies are being partically fullfulled in the Church, though they still wait their complete consumation (sp?) in the millenium. Classic Dispy wouldn't allow any such continuity with the Church and Isreal. PD also assert the Christ is now reigning on the throne of David (though it won't hit full consumation until he is on the earthly thrown in the millenium) while classic Dispy deny this vehemently.

Which PD book are you reading? I read "Progessive Dispensationalism" by Blaising and Bock. They only present PD without contrasting it with Classic Dispy, or with CT, or NCT so it was hard to see the differences (this is because I didn't have enough knowledge of other systems to really compare). I then read "Dispensationalism" by Ryrie and that helped clear up some of the disagreements. I am now reading NCT by Wells and Zaspel but they are more contrasting themsevles with CT then Disp. so once again I will have to really pay attention to see differences.

 

Here is a good resources that I have found on the web that explains PD very well:

The Last Trumpet (he is Post Trib., but that isn't a factor in PD):

http://www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet_2000/

Look on the left hand side under "Dispensationalism". He has a good PD 101 series.

You might find the teachings here easier to digest that the book you are reading.

Interesting enough, the timing of the rapture and whether or not Jesus is on the Thone of David now is not really an issue with PD (some believe and some don't). After reviewing the above site, I would appreciate hearing your comments.

 

I haven't read measly's link yet but I have a few thoughts to respond to barry. NCT is a Calvinist system. My understanding was the most if not all PD believers are usually calvinist too.

Blaising and Bock are still pretrib believers, as I believe most PD's are. It is Ryrie's contention though that it is only a matter of time before PD followers start switching over to post-trib and just becoming historic premillinielists.

I don't know if there is a future millenium either. I am rather torn on the subject.

 

The link isn't working in my netscape browser, so I will have to wait til tonight.

 

Ryrie might be correct. If the account in Matthew about the end-times is for the church, then it validates the post-trib position. If, on the other hand, the Gospel of Matthew is NOT for the church, but rather the Nation of Israel (i.e. the position of traditional dispensationalism), then you can easily come to a pre-trib position. PD includes the Gospels as for the church, so its easy to see why Ryrie makes that statement.

Although I have subscribed to traditional dispensational theology, I have always struggled with the problem of what to do with the Gospels. PD seems to resolve this problem for me, but this brings up many issues that need to be re-thought, including the pre/post trib position.

 

Barry, I agree with you. Are you finding much difference between what Tim Warner (Last Trumpet) and what Blaising/Block have written?

I am surprised to see that there are only two (possibly three) books on Amazon.com written about PD. When you figure in that PD has been around as a formal theology for about 12 to 15 years, you would think that you could find more books about it.

Overall, I think that Tim Warner has done an excellent job by "making it simple".

 

Progressive Dispensationalism was greatly influenced from it conception by Historic Premillenialists like George Ladd. You should look him up, he wrote many books on prophecy and systematic theology.

The two are not identical, but to the casual reader it will almost seem that way. The Progressive Dispensationalist does not maintain the radical distinction between New Testament Saints and Israel.

I am still in the process of trying to find the exact differences between PDs and my camp historic premillenialists.

IFBReformer

 

Ryrie has stated that he doesn't think it will be too long before PD's join your camp. I would like to take a guess though at a current difference. From Tim's website, it would appear he believes that only Jewish Christians from this age will be ressurected into the millenium, and that they still have special benefits of being ethnically Jewish. It would appear from your article IFB that you believe both gentile and jewish Christians will reign during the millenium. So perhaps that is one difference.

 

Pete,

Good observation!

I will have to look into that - some year after me you and Gunther get done discussing Assurance ha ha.

IFBReformer

 

I think both views have serious glitches too and have resolved myself to land somewhere in the PD, historic premill, or NCT camp. But after reading Ryrie's book, and talking and discussing CT with many Presbyterian brothers over on the Puritan Board, I see that both systems can be consistent as long as you understand passages in ways I have never thought of. This to say I no longer think people are utter fools for keeping to any of the systems and am SOOOOO glad my salvation rests on this understanding ZERO!

 

Barry2,

Please check your private messages.

Thanks,
Michael

 

Barry2,

I don't know Barry, I am a Calvinist, as well as Bock who wrote that book your reading. I wouldn't exactly called it made up. I call it simply reading the text for what it says.

I don't wish to enter into a Calvinist debate on this thread, but I must ask, if you think Bock is totally out in left field for being a calvinist why would you trust any of his exergesis on progressive dispensationalism?

 

Or better, if you are not a calvinist, what makes your exegesis on anything valid?