It's not uncommon for a sincere Christian to make a change or adjustment to their eschatological view. Don't rely on the views of one person. Put your faith in what the Bible clearly teaches about the end times.
Article XX of the The Abstract of Principles (1858) says it well:
XX. The Judgment.
God hath appointed a day, wherein he will judge the world by Jesus Christ, when every one shall receive according to his deeds; the wicked shall go into everlasting punishment; the righteous, into everlasting life.
Zola Levitt reneges on presenting a defense of Progressive Dispensationalism
Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Paul33, May 7, 2005.
Page 2 of 2
-
Sorry folks for a statement that is apparently misleading.
Levitt believes in classic dispensationalism but refuses to follow through on publishing a defense of progressive dispensationalism. That's why I said he is a disgrace to classic dispensationalism.
GB,
I kind of agree with you. When I left classic dispensationalism, it was because of the Scriptures and realizing that dispensationalism wasn't handling the Word of God in an accurate manner.
So I was surprised to find a term "progressive dispensationalism" that reflected my interpretation of Scripture.
Is it disingenious? I don't know. Why not just call themselves historic premillenialists? Probably because they came out of dispensationalism and want to remain pre-trib.
But post-trib progressive dispensationalsim is very close to post-trib historic premillenialism. -
Hmm, Can we get one more angel on the head of this pin?
Oops, guess I've done that myself
HankD -
http://www.ifbreformation.org/Prophecy_Historic_timeline.aspx
http://www.ifbreformation.org/Prophecy_Israel_Church.aspx
IFBReformer -
I thought Ladd was 'post trib.' Guess I'm mixed up.
-
He is. PD's do not have to be pre-trib.
-
From what I know Historic Premillennialists(myself being one) we are all post trib.
One of the things PDs and Historic Premillennialists share in common is a very similar view of the relationship of Israel and the Church - true Israel(believing Jews) was the Church, then believing Gentiles were grafted in.
Paul33,
I am not disagreeing with you about some PD's still being Pre-Trib, but I have not read any that are - could you give me some examples? -
Most PD's are pre-trib! They can't seem to shake their dispensational background (Biola, Talbot, etc.).
A PD would say that Israel is Israel in the OT and not synonymous with the church. However, at Pentecost, God expanded the people of God to include not only the remnant of Israel (true Israel) but also Gentile believers and called this advance in his program the "church."
The promises made to Israel will find fulfillment in "true Israel." Grafted in Gentiles benefit by being associated with "true Israel" in the "church."
So there is a slight but very real difference with historic premillenialists in how PDs see the church and Israel.
Israel = true Israel and unbelieving Israel
Gentiles = believing and unbelieving
Church = true Israel and believing Gentiles
Israel and the Church are not synonymous, but true Israel is in the church, the people of God.
Page 2 of 2