Zola Levitt reneges on presenting a defense of Progressive Dispensationalism

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Paul33, May 7, 2005.

  1. Paul33

    Paul33
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Levitt is a disgrace to classic dispensationalism. After taunting PDs to present their case in his newsletter, he then backs down when Warner and Haris present the Progressive Dispensationalist case.

    http://www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet_2000/pd/levitt_mccall.html

    How can anyone maintain the parenthetical approach to the church after reading the case for PD. I think this is why Levitt backed down.

    For the record, I too, like Warner, came to the PD position on my own before ever hearing of Saucy, Block, and Blaising. I knew what I believed and was shocked that PD described my position. I came to this position through personal study of the Bible after graduating from seminary!

    Israel wasn't set aside. The New Covenant was made with the Jewish disciples of Jesus, the remnant! Many were cut off, but not all! Gentiles were grafted in and partake of the NC with True Israel. This alone proves that traditional dispensationalism is in error when it teaches the parenthetical dispensation of the "church" to the exclusion of Israel!

    Let the war begin!
     
  2. Deafmidweeker

    Deafmidweeker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    I couldn't believe that Levitt quit Classic Dispenstaion and join Progressive Dispensationism. Progressive Dispensation is a hersey which is a Denial of Pauline Dispensation which teaches that the Body of Christ start at Pentecost (Acts 2) and the Body of Christ is seated in heavenly places in Christ (Ephesians 1-2). It also teaches that the Body of Christ will be raptured at NOON on the Day of Christ before the Day of the LORD start with the sun going down at NOON and the invasion of Jerusalem by the AntiChrist which will occurs in the 4th Year of the 70th Week. That is Midweek, Pre-Tribulational Rapture (it should be called Pre-Day of the LORD Rapture).

    Deafmidweeker
     
  3. Gregory Perry Sr.

    Gregory Perry Sr.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    0
    :eek: :rolleyes: Oh Boy OH Boy OH!I bet this thread is gonna turn into a mess!

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    Greg Sr. [​IMG]
     
  4. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    I guess this is what I get for being sick and staying home from church?

    You said:
    Levitt is a disgrace to classic dispensationalism. After taunting PDs to present their case in his newsletter, he then backs down when Warner and Haris present the Progressive Dispensationalist case.

    ==I think Zola also wrote a book on this subject a few years ago, did he not? In this book, if I recall correctly, he named major seminaries that had profs teaching progressive dispensationalism. If he has backed down that is ashame. Dallas Theological Seminary was one of his main targets because of Dr Bock (etc) who hold to prog. dispensationalism (thus Walvoord's letter).
    __________________________________

    You said:
    How can anyone maintain the parenthetical approach to the church after reading the case for PD. I think this is why Levitt backed down.

    ==I must admit that I have not been keeping up on my eschatology in the past year or so like I should. I have been focusing more on historical apologetics and the Gospels (historical Jesus, reliability of the Gospels, etc). When I finish seminary at the end of the summer I do plan to do some extra study on this subject. However I have always held to classical, pre-millennial, pre-tribulational, dispensationalism. At this moment I am very uncomfortable with progressive dispensationalism (at least what I remember of it). There must be a clear distinction between the church and national Israel and in my view, which is always subject to change as the Holy Spirit leads, progressive dispensationalism fogs up that distinction. I am not comfortable with the idea of the church as merely parenthetical. In my view that mis-represents orthodox dispensationalism. The term, "parenthetical", implies that the church is an after-thought or some secondary movement. That is not the case. Both the church and Israel are important parts of the over all plan of God in time. Though I disagree with progressive dispensationalism I don't believe that progressive dispensationalism is heresy. This is one of those issues upon which Godly men will disagree.

    In Christ,
    Martin.
     
  5. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    There is an old saying: "Be careful what you promise it may come back to haunt you." On earlier threads I have debated vigorously, at least I thought so, with classic and hyper dispensationalists. In frustration I promised not to enter into debate with known dispensationalists and I will adher to that promise.

    That being said I believe I noted in those discussions that progressive dispensationalism was a welcome change from classic or hyper dispensationalism and would eventually replace those doctrines. From my understanding of this doctrine it is very similar to historic premillennialism, particularly in its understanding of the Church. I believe that the classic/hyper dispensationalist doctrine of the Church to be its greatest doctrinal error.

    And that is all I can contribute to this discussion.
     
  6. Paul33

    Paul33
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Martin said:

    There must be a clear distinction between the church and national Israel and in my view, which is always subject to change as the Holy Spirit leads, progressive dispensationalism fogs up that distinction. I am not comfortable with the idea of the church as merely parenthetical.

    -------------------------------------------------

    How does PD fog up that distinction?

    PD reflects the Scriptures that teach that believing Jews and Gentiles make up the church.

    PD also rightly understands the Scriptures that teach that the New Covenant was made with Israel. As believing Gentiles we have been grafted in to the olive tree. Not all of Israel has been cut off!

    PD also believes that Israel will be the head of the nations during the millenium (Zech. 14).

    It is classic dispensationalism that fogs up the nature of the New Covenant, disciples, and apostles! God has one people, not two. One plan, not two.

    Ethnic Israel has been cut off, but after the rapture (pre or post), Israel will become the head of the nations when 1/3 converts when looking upon the one they have pierced (Zech 12:10, 13:9).

    Where's the problem with PD? There isn't any! The problem is with classic dispensationalism's refusal to deal "literally" with the text of Scripture (Matt. 24, 1 Thess 1:7-10, etc.).
     
  7. exscentric

    exscentric
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,253
    Likes Received:
    16
    "Israel wasn't set aside. The New Covenant was made with the Jewish disciples of Jesus, the remnant! Many were cut off, but not all! Gentiles were grafted in and partake of the NC with True Israel. This alone proves that traditional dispensationalism is in error when it teaches the parenthetical dispensation of the "church" to the exclusion of Israel!"

    Just how does the statement of your mind disprove anything? This is rather like "You are wrong because I say so." :)
     
  8. carlaimpinge

    carlaimpinge
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    376
    Likes Received:
    0
    Progressive dispensationalism is just another heresy presented by those who don't accept Pauline dispensationalism.

    Israel was set aside ACCORDING to Paul. (Rom.11)

    The New COVENANT is "not" in effect at this time FOR it concerns the NATION OF ISRAEL, which has not been CONVERTED under the NEW TESTAMENT. (Heb.8,10, 2 Cor.3)

    These "children" CORRUPT the words of the Lord by referring to the NEW COVENANT as the NEW TESTAMENT.

    Gentiles DO NOT partake of the NEW COVENANT. That's a pipedream. It's ONLY made with the houses of Israel and Judah, the TWO political divisions of the NATION OF ISRAEL. (Jer.31)

    There is a PARENTHETICAL DISPENSATION which began at Pentecost UNKNOWN to the 12, but REVEALED unto Paul. (Eph.3)
     
  9. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,428
    Likes Received:
    72
    Wow, I see the term "heresy" thrown around a lot on this board!
     
  10. Paul33

    Paul33
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Carl,

    Unknown to Jesus too, right?
     
  11. ituttut

    ituttut
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Messages:
    2,674
    Likes Received:
    0
    But the problems are glaring. I deal “literally” with scripture in verse 14. I don't know if you do, but if you do, has the Holy Spirit given you His interpretation, which follows. ”And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.” This will actually happen, but it will not happen until after the rapture. The “great commission” of the kingdom gospel will again be preached by the 144,000 to all nations, and then the end comes. ituttut
     
  12. carlaimpinge

    carlaimpinge
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    376
    Likes Received:
    0
    Unknown HISTORICALLY through the gospels until it was revealed by the ASCENDED and GLORIFIED LORD JESUS CHRIST to Paul. (Eph.3)
     
  13. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,154
    Likes Received:
    322
    Brother Carl, I'm not sure what you are saying here.

    This a question simply to understand your position:

    Do you have "communion" at your local church
    and if so, why?

    Luke 22
    19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake [it], and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
    20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup [is] the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

    HankD
     
  14. carlaimpinge

    carlaimpinge
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    376
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brother Carl, I'm not sure what you are saying here.

    This a question simply to understand your position:

    Do you have "communion" at your local church
    and if so, why?

    Luke 22
    19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake [it], and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
    20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup [is] the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

    HankD
    </font>[/QUOTE]Bro. Hank,

    The cup of communion concerns the NT, not the NC. Yes, of course, we observe it. It shows his death UNTIL HE COMES. (1 Cor.11)

    Israel's SINS as a nation concerns the covenant. Individual sins concern the testament. The covenant is ONE OF MANY PROMISES which will be fulfilled completely for the nation after the tribulation. (Rom.9-11)

    It is only realized by the TESTAMENT.

    In Christ Jesus,
    Carl
     
  15. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,154
    Likes Received:
    322
    OK, I see. You make a distinction between the NT and the NC. I was not aware of that.

    HankD
     
  16. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exodus 24:8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

    Hebrews 9:19-20
    19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
    20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

    I'm not sure the Holy Spirit puts as much distinction between them as you, brother Carl.
     
  17. ituttut

    ituttut
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Messages:
    2,674
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brother Carl, I'm not sure what you are saying here.

    This a question simply to understand your position:

    Do you have "communion" at your local church
    and if so, why?

    Luke 22
    19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake [it], and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
    20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup [is] the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

    HankD
    </font>[/QUOTE]Bro. Hank,

    The cup of communion concerns the NT, not the NC. Yes, of course, we observe it. It shows his death UNTIL HE COMES. (1 Cor.11)

    Israel's SINS as a nation concerns the covenant. Individual sins concern the testament. The covenant is ONE OF MANY PROMISES which will be fulfilled completely for the nation after the tribulation. (Rom.9-11)

    It is only realized by the TESTAMENT.

    In Christ Jesus,
    Carl
    </font>[/QUOTE]Correctly dividing His Word. Christian faith, ituttut
     
  18. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    V. Problems of Traditional Dispensationalism Resolved in Progressive Dispensationalism

    If the foundation crumbles everything else built on top falls.

    Anyone know of any writings declaring the virues of dispensationalism before J.N. Darby?

    Today we have the PD folks who declare the old dispensationalists are wrong. That is a clear declaration that dispensationalism is wrong. Doesn't that sound much like progressive revelation that the Mormons subscribe to. The PD's just have new writers. They have been challenged by the scripture and non-dispensationalists so now they are trying to get it right without leaving dispensationalism instead of saying they were wrong.

    Phil. 3:1, "Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things again is no trouble to me, and it is a safeguard for you. Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision; for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh, although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh."
     
  19. carlaimpinge

    carlaimpinge
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    376
    Likes Received:
    0
    He uses them in the correct manner ALWAYS, giving the correct DISTINCTION. There are MANY covenants found within the OT (2 Cor.3, SCRIPTURES), but there is ONLY ONE Old Testament, JUST as there is "only one" NEW TESTAMENT.

    The NEW COVENANT is found "within" the OT, but will not be REALIZED until THE NATION OF ISRAEL is "under the NEW TESTAMENT". Read the verses. (2 Cor.3, Heb.8,10, Jer.31) They ARE NOT under the NT OR the NC.

    The blood of the testament IS THAT of "animal blood" AS WAS ADAM'S (Gen.3), where it was ORIGINALLY INSTITUTED for individuals. Paul speaks of the NATIONAL BASIS of that SAME BLOOD UNDER THE OT.

    The "other blood" (Heb.13) HAS BEEN SHED, but it hasn't been RECEIVED! (Rom.9-11)

    Yes, the Holy Spirit sho duz kno' how to write himself a Book!
     
  20. carlaimpinge

    carlaimpinge
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    376
    Likes Received:
    0
    The foundation for dispensationalism is the Holy Scriptures through the apostle Paul. (Eph.3, Col.1, 1 Cor.9)

    Finetuning in belief is needed sometimes. (Acts 18:26)

    Illumination of the scriptures and RESTORATION of biblical truth (two scriptural facts) is not EQUAL to Mormon heresy.

    PD is just another ruse to OVERTHROW Pauline dispensationalism, which characterizes the Old Dispensationalists.

    Darby, Scofield, and Larkin HELD UP Paul's teachings, ALTHOUGH they didn't exposit them consistently and accurately. That's the problem which is being debated.
     

Share This Page

Loading...