Danger of Progressive Dispensationalsim to Pre-Millennial Theology: Reflections of a Pre-Progressive Dispensationalist
Dr. H.Wayne House
Inmy years as a professor of systematic theology at Dallas Theological Seminary Isaw the gradual introduction of progressive dispensationalism into theseminary, and into the evangelical community at large. Though I did not agreewith this change in the theology of the seminary while there, in fact, this wasa position I held before the term "progressive dispensationalism" was coined. Ihad dabbled with such a view in the late 1970s. At that time I was readingextensively in New Testament works while working on my Doctor of Theologydegree at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, and teaching courses at LeTourneauCollege, in Longview, Texas. The writings of C.H. Dodd and George Ladd wereamong books that I read, in which various aspects of current progressivedispensationalism were presented. The idea of now/not yet, found in both Doddand Ladd, and now Progressive Dispensationalism seemed to fit the model ofJesus' and apostolic preaching. The thinking of Richard Longenecker onapostolic exegesis seemed to me to be the proper hermeneutical method in NewTestament analysis. The concept of one salvation, based on the death of Christand through faith, forming one people of God made sense. I remember discussingthese views with Elliott Johnson of Dallas Seminary and Paul Fowler of ReformedSeminary on a plane to an ETS meeting back east. This view seemed to bridge thegap. This suggestion of the continuity of redemption seemed to answer thebaseless charge that dispensationalists were advocating another way ofjustification in the era of the church from what, in fact, Abraham and otherOld Testament saints knew. That dispensationalists taught a different gospelwas answered.
Thisfour to six year sidestep from traditional dispensationalism was corrected dueto a doctoral independent study in hermeneutics with Dr. Elliott Johnson andthe study of E.D. Hirsch (at least at the initiation), in which I rejected NewHermeneutics and gave closer attention to the biblical text than I had beengiving prior to that. It became apparent to me that it is a hermeneutical andlogical fallacy to understand what is similar as being the same. That is, thereare similarities throughout the dispensations taught in Scriptures, even ideaswhich traverse the dispensations, but these do not discount the differencesthat also exist which distinguish these progressive revelations of God.Moreover, the importance of a natural, and plain sense of the text, in whichthe text is not forced into a theological grid, I found, became representativeof classical dispensationalism, unlike the artificial theological covenants ofcovenant theological and the partial literalism of progressivedispensationalism with what is called complementary hermeneutics.
Anotherreason why my intrigue with pre-progressive dispensationalism was short-livedwas due to the clear biblical presentation of several peoples of God, equallyredeemed by the work of Christ, with different purposes in God's world. ThoughI was willing to admit that in some sense there was only one people of Godredemptively in the Bible-some people are not saved by works while others byfaith--(pre-Mosaic, Mosaic, and post-Mosaic), it appeared to me that thestatus, responsibilities and destinies of different groups were obfuscated ortotally lost within my pre-progressive dispensational scheme.
Ithas become apparent to me that though progressive dispensationalists who were"bred" on traditional dispensationalism might retain much of the system,younger scholars taught by them will not be so tied to these dispensationalcomponents and eventually many will move toward historical premillennialism or,at times, outright amillennialism. This concern of mine has been realized indifferent ways.
Oneof my best students, and a research assistant to me at DTS, had told me in themid-1990s that he had accepted progressive dispensationalism. My next meetingwith him at the Dallas Seminary bookstore just two years ago I discovered thathe had embraced amillennialism and covenant theology. When I asked him aboutthis he commented to me that it was an easy move to make from progressivedispensationalism to amillennialism.
Afterhe said this, I remembered my thoughts after reading the now/not yet argumentsof George Ladd, who built on the thinking of C.H. Dodd in this area. Thinkingback on Ladd, I often wondered why he remained a pre-millennialist, albeit apost-tribulational one, relying so heavily on Revelation 20, as he did, whichcould be explained satisfactorily in other ways if one abandoned the broaderhermeneutical dispensational framework. It is my understanding from talking tosome, though this has not been confirmed, even a current DTS faculty member nolonger holds to pre-millennialism. Since then I have wondered how one couldsign each year the doctrinal statement required of each board member andfaculty member[1] and yetargue for progressive dispensationalism, which reads,
We believe that different administrative responsibilities of thischaracter are manifest in the biblical record, that they span the entirehistory of mankind, and that each ends in the failure of man under therespective test and in an ensuing judgment from God. We believe that three ofthese dispensations or rules of life are the subject of extended revelation inthe Scriptures, viz., the dispensation of the Mosaic Law, the presentdispensation of grace, and the future dispensation of the millennial kingdom.We believe that these are distinct and are not to be intermingled or confused,as they are chronologically successive.[2]
Theability to sign this as a progressive dispensationalist puts deconstructionismpracticed in the legal arena by liberal federal judges to shame.
Consequentto accepting this invitation to address this year's pre-trib study group, Ihave come across several examples of why I believe that leaving traditionaldispensationalism naturally, if not logically, leads to a rejection ofpre-tribulational pre-millennialism, as will be seen from the arguments of someprogressive dispensationalists, if not an embracing of covenant theology andamillennialism, that some have done. I in no wise cast aspersion on friends,and others, who have moved to progressive dispensationalism and yet claim tohold to dispensational distinctives, particularly the future of Israel withinan earthly kingdom. They seem to believe they may do this and still maintain aliteral hermeneutic, but in my opinion this is not possible to do withconsistency.
The limitation of space for this paper will notallow me to examine in any depth different aspects of progressivedispensationalism which indicate that, allowing for best intentions on the partof these conservative scholars to interact with the biblical text and dialogwith covenant theologians, they have in fact have not progresseddispensationalism toward a better refinement but have in fact created anaberration which is neither truly dispensationalism nor covenant theology. NowI am friends with many of these Christians and believe them to be serious aboutdealing with the biblical text, but I believe they have ceased to truly bedispensationalists except by using an elastic sense of the word
Unlike my other works that many of you may haveread on other topics, this paper is not intended to be a detailed interactionthat has scores of footnotes and intricate argumentation; I do not purpose toanalyze with exactitude or thoroughness why I believe progressivedispensationalists have erred. In this presentation I only desire to give youmy reflections based on having followed this question for a number of yearsbased on knowing many progressive dispensationalists, heard their talks, readtheir works, and having once myself imbibed at their theological stream.
I.Perspectives of Non-Dispensationalists on Progressive Dispensationalists
Inspeaking of progressive dispensationalists amillennialist Keith Mathison says,
In my opinion . . . progressive dispensationalistshave moved closer to Reformed theology on a number of doctrines. They nowacknowledge that the kingdom has been inaugurated and that there is a presentas well as a future aspect of the kingdom. They have also recognized thetwo-peoples-of-God theory to be unbiblical, which, ironically, brings us to thenegative side of progressive dispensationalism.
If the defining doctrine ofdispensationalism is the two-peoples-of-God theory, then to reject that theoryis to reject dispensationalism itself.[5]
Mathisonthen logically moves to the question as to how someone can be a progressivedispensationalist by definition. I take it that he understands progressivedispensationalism to be somewhat like being partially pregnant, as when someonemight claim to be a progressive Baptist yet believe in infant baptism and modesof baptism other than immersion. Or a progressive premillennialist who believesin a return of Jesus after the millennial, or in progressive inerrantist, whoaccepts the gradual accuracy of the biblical text.[6]
Hethen concludes, "The church suffers far too much when people do not identifywhat they really believe. For the sake of accuracy, honesty, and understanding,'progressive dispensationalists' should no longer claim to be dispensational."
Inpostmillennialist Kenneth Gentry's evaluation of dispensationalism, hequestions even the nomenclature of "dispensationalism" since "[p]rogressivedispensationalism is no longer committed to the 'concrete dispensationalizing'of history."[8] In factGentry believes that advocates of progressive dispensationalism should abandonthe term dispensationalism and use the word "covenantalism" instead since theview "comes close to a more covenantal understanding of development of God'spurpose in redemptive history."[9]
DavidWhite, former traditional dispensationalist, attributes his reading of Ladd andGundry, among others, in helping him move from dispensationalism to covenanttheology and amillennialism.[10]
TimWarner, a progressive dispensationalist, believes that the historicpremillennial understanding, with its post-tribulational perspective, reflectsthe thinking of the early church and is the natural position of progressivedispensationalism.[11]
Otherexamples could be given but these are sufficient to demonstrate that in someinstances progressive dispensationalism and other non-traditionaldispensational perspectives may have deleterious effect on one's acceptance ofdispensationalism. It is another matter, however, to argue that, in fact,progressive dispensationalism necessarily, or logically, produces such results.Could it not be that these afore mentioned reviewers of progressive dispensationalistshave not properly understood this new form of dispensationalism, and the ideaof "initial fulfillment" of the kingdom (to use Bock's term)?
II. What Exactly is Dispensationalism?
Oneof the difficulties in dealing with the the legitimacy of progressivedispensationalism as a form of dispensationalism is the issue of definition.Mathisen makes much of this when he provides a definition by Stanley Toussaint:"Stanley Toussaint defines dispensationalism as the theological system that'recognizes various administrations or economies in [the] outworking of God'splan in history.'"[13]I suspect that Toussaint elsewhere defines dispensationalism in fuller terms,but the point to be made is the importance of giving a definition that trulydistinguishes dispensationalism from other systems which share points in commonwith it. Mathisen continues:
This definition omits anythingthat is unique to dispensationalism. Virtually every system of Christiantheology recognizes various administrations or economies within God's plan, yetit would be inaccurate to claim that all of these systems are dispensational.Dispensationalism must be defined in terms of its unique essence, namely thatwhich distinguishes is from other systems of theology.[14]
This need of uniqueness,as will be seen below, is the problem of progressive dispensationalism. May itshare enough in common with traditional dispensationalism in its essence toclearly distinguish it from nondispensational systems?
TimWarner takes exception with those who argue from the classical dispensationalcamp that progressive dispensationalists are not really dispensationalists atall. He says,
Progressive dispensationalistsare often accused of not beingtrue 'dispensationalists.' This begs the question - what is a dispensationalist? Is a dispensationalistone who sees a series of 'dispensations' in God's dealings with mankind? Is a dispensationalistone who sees a future tribulation,followed by Christ's second coming to the earth to establish His Millennial Kingdom, with Israel inheriting theland promised her, and being headof the nations? Is a dispensationalist one who interprets Scripture literally? If these are whatcharacterize dispensational beliefs, then surely progressive dispensationalists are true 'dispensationalists,'since we firmly hold to all ofthese things. Progressive dispensationalists therefore cannot rightly be charged with"replacement theology" - the belief that God is finished with Israel, and the Churchhas usurped all of the promises at Israel's expense.[15]
Warner'sseems to say that one is a dispensationalist if he believes in a series ofdispensations, or a future tribulation and millennial kingdom, or in Israel havinga national future, or interprets Scripture literally. Yet, being adispensationalist is not that a person holds some of these ideas to be true, asis seen from the fact that covenant theologians and dispensationalists alikebelieve in at least two dispensations, if not three. Non-dispensationalpre-millennialists believe in a tribulation and a millennium. Evenamillennialists claim to interpret the Scripture literally, and some haveexpressed belief in a national history for the Jews. Something more must beinvolved. There must be a center to dispensational belief that clearlydistinguishes a person as a dispensationalist. Progressive dispensationalistsbelieve that they advocate the same views of dispensationalism that classicaldispensationalists do, but are merely revising dispensationalism similar towhat has been done in the past by Ryrie, Walvoord, and others. But, to me,Warner's charts and explanations of progressive dispensationalism make itabundantly clear that we are not speaking of nuanced developments withindispensational thought, but radical changes, to the degree that his overallperspective reflects progressive dispensationalism.[16]This is so much so that covenant theologians have publicly stated the obvious,"The newer dispensationalism looks so much like non-dispensationalpre-millennialism that one struggles to see any real difference."
Historicallyfor a theological position accurately to be labeled dispensationalism it shouldhave some essential and evident traits, generally three in number. There aresome components which classical dispensationalists have disagreed on which donot necessarily disturb the system, such as whether or not the kingdom waspostponed, whether the new covenant is predicted for both the church andIsrael, or whether the church receives is through the blessings of Abraham, andwhether there is a distinction of kingdom of God and kingdom of heaven. Thenecessary components are a consistent literal hermeneutic in the interpretationof Scripture, particularly prophecy in this discussion, holding a cleardistinction between Israel and the Church in the purposes of God, and adoxological, in contrast to a redemptive, focus in the understanding ofScripture, as well as the ultimate purpose of God within His world.
These important features of the dispensational system arearticulated by several dispensational scholars, and though given a nod byprogressive dispensationalists, are revealing of the concern as to whetherprogressive dispensationalism may rightly be called dispensationalism, eventhough it is not a pure covenant view either. In each of the above three areas,when one reads progressive dispensationalist along with covenant theologians,there is little disagreement in the articulation of the views. In order todemonstrate this, let us turn to a contrast between traditionaldispensationalism with progressive dispensationalism and covenant theology.
CharlesRyrie is clear that distinction of Israel and the Church is a necessary element of true dispensationalism:
This is probably the most basictheological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist, and it isundoubtedly the most practical and conclusive. The one who fails to distinguishIsrael and the church consistently will inevitably not hold to dispensationaldistinctions; and one who does will.[19]
Ryriethen continues, "Progressive dispensationalists seem to be blurring thisdistinction by saying that the concept is not in the same class as what isconveyed by the concepts of Gentiles, Israel, and Jews."[20]
IfIsrael and the church are not distinct, then why did the church cease to beunder the law while Israel was always under it? If Israel and the church arenot distinct, then one must ask why those who had embraced the faith of Israel,such as John's disciples needed to be baptized in the name of Jesus and receivethe Spirit, or why the faithful at Pentecost had to identify with this newtruth?[21]The church seems to be a new reality. To be fair progressive dispensationalistshave created a hybrid, for they do not mean that the nation of Israel and thechurch are identical, or that the church is spiritual Israel, as will be seenbelow, only that the faithful of Israel and the Gentiles make up the church.
Progressive dispensationalists consider the church to be acontinuation of the people of Israel in the Old Testament who were believers.They have been united by Christ into one new body, and will all participate inthe same resurrection and future reign in the Davidic kingdom during themillennium.[22] This viewbecomes plain, if I have understood them, in the works of standard progressivedispensationalists such as Bock, Blaising, Saucy, but none have probably saidit any plainer than Warner:
The 'Church' consists of thebelieving remnant of Israel, along with the believing remnants of all theGentile nations, united in one body. Israel and the Church are not identical.However, they overlap where the Jewish remnant is concerned. The term 'Israel'is not used of the Church in general in Scripture, nor is the term 'Church'used of the whole nation of Israel.[23]
Hecontinues by posing the problems that a classical dispensationalist wouldallegedly have difficulty with, such as how Joel's prophecy has been fulfilledin the church,[24] how thechurch has become a participate in the new covenant of Jeremiah according tothe writer of Hebrews, how the Old Testament saints became retroactivelyreceivers of the eternal inheritance implying a unified redemption program, howthe church has been included in the new covenant in Galatians 4:21-31,
Thesecond sine qua non of dispensationalism is the consistent use of a literalhermeneutic.[27] Ryrie saysabout this, ". . . the second aspect of sine qua non of dispensationalism isthe matter of historical-grammatical hermeneutics,"[28]and
Consistently literal, or plain,interpretation indicates a dispensational approach to the interpretation ofScripture. And it is this very consistency-the strength of dispensationalinterpretation-that seems to irk the nondispensationalist and becomes theobject of his ridicule.[29]
Yet, do progressive dispensationalists trulyfollow literal, grammatical, historical interpretation? They really prefer onlythe terms grammatical and historical, since, supposedly, it is difficult toknow what is meant by literal. It is said that arguably everyone holds toliteral interpretation some of the time, and it is argued, everyone, includingclassical dispensationalists depart from it some of the time. But most of usknow what literal means in hermeneutics. This has been taught in the standardhermeneutics texts of the past, and practiced regularly by us. The obfuscationof this term so that it becomes merely the opposite of figurative isunnecessary. We all know how some can obscure the meaning of even the word"is". What does "is" mean? Or the recent meeting of theEvangelical Theological Society, in which a considerable part of theorganization of scholars have difficulty knowing what is meant by the wordinerrancy? As Hirsch has taught us, words have shareability of meaning. If wedon't know what they mean, then there is little possibility of humancommunication and no possibly of nuances of meaning within communication.When the Scripture speaks of the lion lying down with the lamb, isit speaking of some deeper meaning or higher truth like peace in the world, ordoes it mean in fact that the lion and the lamb will exist without hostility?When the Scripture says that the prophet Elijah will return in the last daysbefore the coming of the Messiah, was this fulfilled with John the Baptist, orshould we expect the actual prophet to come? When the text tells us that theMessiah will actually descend to the Mount of Olives and that it will splitinto, north and south, is this speaking of a higher principle of the Messiah'smajesty or will the real mountain east of Jerusalem move apart? When Zechariah the prophet spoke of a riverflowing at the temple which goes into both the Mediterranean and Dead Seas,complete with descriptions and boundaries, does this refer merely to somespiritual truth? Is Ezekiel's temple only a weak description of Jesus thetemple of God? How we approach ideas such as these will reveal our commitmentto natural interpretation of a text under a correspondence theory of truth.
Indealing with literal interpretation, we speak of how a reader approaching atext would normally read the text, understanding the conventions of languagesuch as idiom and figure, without added outside theology that could besuperimposed on the text. This imposition is exactly what progressivedispensationalism does, in my view, with complementary hermeneutics, in which fuller meaning found in the NewTestament becomes the means by which to add to the meaning found in the OldTestament text. In speaking of how progressive dispensationalists
"This is a serious thing tome. If the same hermeneutic was applied to other areas of prophecy, like it isapplied to the Davidic covenant, you could never be sure of anything in theScripture until it was either fulfilled or the canon was closed. Then, ofcourse, you know there is not going to be any further revelation, 'change.'Until that time, all prophecy is open to complementation."
Whatabout the offer of the kingdom that Jesus makes to Israel? Certainly hishearers, his opponents, and his disciples (pre and post resurrection)understood this as a offer of an earthly Davidic rule. Progressivedispensationalists do not believe this, and for that matter some classicaldispensationalists, not to mention nondispensationalists, but I have wonderedlong why of us have not pursued this argument, along with Peter's sermon, alittle more forcefully.[33]We should also not let the argument that it would be an insincere offer becauseJesus, or the Father, knew they would reject it, so why make it. This is trueof all of God's offers to humans, including salvation. Divine omniscience isnot separated from human responsibility nor God's mercy and justice.
Lightneralso offers in his article an interesting twist on understanding whether the kingdomwas in fact offered to Israel, rather than only an offer of salvation:
I can understand that. In fact, it would be foolish,they would cut their own theological throat if they said it was a genuine offerof the Davidic kingdom. What kind of God would put in a contingency for thekingdom's establishment, and then, when this contingency to repent was not met,establish the kingdom, in part, anyway? Everybody knows that Israel didn'trepent, evidenced by the crucifixion. So, God says, well okay, I'll introduceit in part. I won't really introduce it, set it up, but I'll just get itstarted a little bit. What kind of God is that? No, no, he said repent, it's athand. They didn't repent, and the kingdom didn't come at all in any sense, atHis death or His resurrection or His ascension, and it's not operative noweither.[34]
C. Doxology as the Mitte of TheologicalTruthThisthird element, God's underlying purpose in His world Scripture, is not discussed regarding a necessary element ofdispensationalism as is the others, but it becomes especially important indetermining the degree to which progressive dispensationalism looks more andmore like Reformed theology than dispensationalism. Ryrie acknowledges thatcovenant theologians have a strong theology of the glory of God, but to thedispensationalist the glory of God is the focus,[35]not a focus, and the salvation of mankind is a means to that end, not the enditself. Covenant theologians, in contrast, have redemption as God's purpose inthe world. He goes on to explain:
To the normativedispensationalist, the soteriological, or saving, program of God is not theonly program but one of the means God is using in the total program ofglorifying Himself. Scripture is not man-centered as though salvation were themain theme, but it is God-centered because His glory is the center.
Oftenthe point is made that progressive dispensationalism has simply followed theleading of men like Pentecost, Walvoord, and Ryrie in refining or revising the positionrather than making a break with dispensationalism. For example,dispensationalists of the past have sometimes distinguished the kingdom ofheaven and the kingdom of God, a position few would hold today. Or, formerdispensationalists believed that there were two new covenants, a position thatonly a minority today would espouse. Moreover, the legitimate offer of thekingdom to Israel, and it consequent postponement isrejected in some dispensational circles. Is not, then, additional movementswithin progressive dispensationalism camps such as the initiation of theDavidic kingdom at Pentecost, the joining of Gentiles alongside Israelas one people, or seeing redemption as the primarypurpose of God's acts in history, merely further refinement. Prima facie thismay seem the case, but we find out upon subsequent investigation that thedifferences among traditional dispensationalists of the past are far differentthan the current substantive and disparate views of progressivedispensationalists.
Ryriehas made the distinction of development and change, making much the same pointas I intend here.[37]When methodology and conclusions are at variance with the essential elements ofa position, then one would do well to acknowledge the abandonment of theposition.
III. My Concernsthat Progressive Dispensationalists Have Crossed the Theological Rubicon toCovenant Theology
D.Matthew Allen has presented an historical view of the movement of the ancientchurch from premillennialism to amillennialism. He argues that the church firstbegan to lose the understanding of Israel as a special people of God withspecific promises of God that had not yet been fulfilled.[38]As I have argued elsewhere, this is likely to have happened due to the rapidgrowth of the Gentile church having inadequate grounding in the Jewishness ofthe Old Testament, due to the ostensible final rejection of the Jewish nationbased on the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and the expulsion of the Jewsby Hadrian in A.D. 135, due to very strong anti-Christian rhetoric and actionsof those Jewish leaders from Yavneh on who reformulated Judaism, excludingimportant Messianic elements that were embraced by Jewish and GentileChristians alike, and due to the anti-Semitism present in the Mediterraneanworld, among possibly other reasons.[39]Certainly the earliest leaders of the first and second century A.D. were Jews,and even the earliest apologists and writers of the Christian church favoredthe future of the Jewish people, but such a view rapidly fell out of favor asthe church strived against persecution toward the triumphalism of the third andfourth century.[40]
Whenthe distinct peoples of God (albeit all saved by the death of Christ andthrough faith) are not distinguished (and here I include those believers beforenational Israel), then the function of these peoples within the plan of Godbecome difficult to explain. Why did Old Testament saints before the law ofMoses not keep the law, and why does not the church? Why were some givenspecific land promises while others general blessings? Why were the sacrificesdifferent for the various groups? Why did the baptism in the Holy Spirit onlybegin at Pentecost and not for the saints in the Old Testament? Why is the bodymetaphor only true of the church? Why did Jesus offer a kingdom to the Jewishnation, and why did His disciples consistently understand the offer that waybefore and after the resurrection, even after Pentecost? These and many otherquestions need to be answered if there is only one people of God.
Thesecond factor leading to amillennialism was the abandonment of literalinterpretation of the Scripture to find different levels of meaning. Thismulti-leveled understanding we now know as allegorism. Allen says, "Theearly apostolic fathers interpreted Scripture according to a 'functionalhermeneutic,' meaning that they applied the text to their own situation, oftenwithout regard for its original context."[41]
Weshould not understand that the apostolic fathers and early apologists, such asJustin, were amillennialists; far from it. But eventually other Christiansbecame amillennialists who did not have some of the same theologicalorientation as they did. Departing from literal, contextual, grammatical,historical exegesis leads eventually to innovative and inventive interpretationand theology. Progressive dispensationalists such as Bock and Blasing truly doendeavor to understand Scripture faithfully, and I don't believe they seethemselves as substantially deviating from classical dispensationalism, but infact the approach has that effect, particularly on those who follow theseinnovators. The complementary method of Bock is somewhat similar to themulti-leveled method of those who eventually moved toward amillennialism.
Last,and unmentioned by Allen, is the move from a doxological to a redemptive modelin progressive dispensationalism. Now progressive dispensationalists will averbelief in the importance of the glory of God to theology, as will covenanttheologians (pre and a), but this is not the issue. The glory of God must bethe focus and controlling factor, the mitte, or center, of our theology. Redemption is notthe most important goal of the Bible or God's work in the world. It is a meansto an end, not the end. The Bible is not centered in salvation history, asGerhard Hasel showed years ago in his biblical theological works: it centers inGod Himself. God does everything after His own counsel and for the praise ofHis glory. This must continue to be heralded by all Christians and particularlydispensationalists.
Thefailure to maintain a clear distinction between the people of Israel and thechurch leads to the kind of blurring of theology which gave rise to theamillennialism of the fourth century of the Church, the fruits of which arebeginning to show signs in the early 21st century in evangelicalschools and churches.
IV. Challenge toProgressive Dispensationalists to Explain How they are Still Dispensationalists
Inconclusion, I am not suggesting that progressive dispensationalists are lessChristian or serious in their theological endeavor than are classicaldispensationalists. I should not be understood to be saying that they do not infact believe what they say they do about the future of Israel, or many othermatters in which they speak. These are friends of mine that I respect. I merelydesire to ask them to reconsider whether influences other than the compulsionof Scripture has not caused them to adopt a view which seems, to me, to be outof harmony with the important distinctions that the Bible makes between theredeemed peoples of God, consistent literal hermeneutics and seeing all things,as Paul did having their beginning, means, and ends in God. I am concerned thatto do otherwise is to lead them and their students away from dispensationalismaltogether.
[1] DoctrinalStatement, Dallas Theological Seminary http://www.dts.edu/aboutdts/whatmakesdallasdifferent/missiondoctrinalstatement.aspx.
[2] DoctrinalStatement, Dallas Theological Seminary,http://www.dts.edu/aboutdts/fulldoctrinalstatement.aspx.
[3] See mychapter on judicial interpretation in H. Wayne House, ed., "ConstitutionalInterpretation and the Question of Lawful Authority," Restoring theConstitution (Probe, 1987), 193-211.
[4] I grantthough that they may truly believe they are only revising, not changingdispensationalism.
[5]KeithA. Mathison, Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God?, Appendix A, Progressive Dispensationalism?, 135.
[6] Ibid., 136.
[7] Ibid.,136-137.
[8] Kenneth L.Gentry, Jr., "The Progressive Nature of Progressive Dispensationalism," in Dispensationalismin Transition, Vol. LX, No. 8 (August,1995), 2.
[9] Ibid.
[10] David L.White, My Shift to Covenant Theology and Amillennialism (unpublished paper).
[11] Tim Warner,Progressive Dispensationalism: Introduction,http://www.pfrs.org/pd/index.html.
[12] DarrellBock, "The Son of God and the Saints' Task: The Hermeneutics of InitialFulfillment," Bibliotheca Sacra 150/600(October-December 1993) 440-457.
[13] Mathison,3. See appendix A for custom understanding of dispensations. I use a chart byRandall Price and Thomas Ice by permission.
[14] Ibid., 3-4.
[15] Tim Warner,Progressive Dispensationalism 101, http://www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet_2000/prodisp.html.
[16] Tim Warner,Progressive Dispensationalism 102,
[17] Walter A.Elwell, Christianity Today (September12, 1994), 28.
[18] See thechart by Mike Stallard in appendix C, used by permission. Also see chart 45, p.78 entitled "A Comparison of Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism," andchart 51, entitled "Three Stages of Dispensationalism," p. 85 in H. Wayne Houseand Randall Price, Charts of Bible Prophecy(Zondervan, 2003).
[19] Charles C.Ryrie, Dispensationalism, rev. &expanded (Chicago: Moody Press, 1966, 1995), 39.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Thesefactors were suggested to me in a conversation with Dr. Gary Derickson onDecember 3, 2003.
[22] For aclassical dispensational understanding of the relationship of the covenants seeappendix D for charts by Randall Price which explain the Abrahamic Covenant inits relation to sub-covenants, and how these may be graphically displayed inreference to the Gentiles, Israel, and the Church. Used by permission.
[23] Tim Warner,Dichotomy or Continuity Between the Present and Past Dispensations OpeningArgument,http://www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet_2000/debate_1a.html
[24] Fordiscussion of views on Joel's prophecy see chart 34, entitled "Two Views ofJoel 2," and chart 35, entitled "Views on the Relationship of Joel 2:28-32 andActs 2:14-21," in H. Wayne House and Randall Price, Charts of Bible Prophecy (Zondervan, 2003).
[25] Fordiscussion of views on the New Covenant, see chart 9, entitled "Views on theNew Covenant," in H. Wayne House and Randall Price, Charts of Bible Prophecy (Zondervan, 2003).
[26] Ibid.
[27] Fordiscussion on views of interpretation of prophecy, see chart 15, entitled "AComparison of Christian Approaches to the Interpretation of Prophecy," andchart 17, entitled "A Summary of Basic Principles for the Interpretation ofProphecy: Seventeen Characteristics," in H. Wayne House and Randall Price, Chartsof Bible Prophecy (Zondervan, 2003).
[28] Ibid., 40.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Anexception I have found is Tim Warner, who understands that Jesus assumes HisDavidic throne at this coming, and Robert Saucy, who believes that Jesus hasassumed the throne but reigns when all enemies have been subdued.
[31] See theworks of Robert L. Thomas, The Hermeneutics of Progressive Dispensationalism," TMSJ 6/2 (Spring 1995) 79-95; CharlesZimmerman, "To This Agree the Words of the Prophets": A CriticalMonograph on Acts 15:14-17," Grace Journal 3 (Fall 63): 28-40; Manfred Kober, TheProblematic Development of Progressive Dispensationalism, http://www.faith.edu/pulpits/97_04.htm;Mike Stallard, Literal Hermeneutics, Theological Method, and theEssence of Dispensationalism (unpublishedpaper).
[32] RobertLightner, Progressive Dispensationalism,http://216.147.82.42/journals/04_11_journal/2000v4n11_id03.htm.
[33] Severalfine articles deal with this question of postponement, and with whether Jesusis reigning on David's throne in the current era. See John A. McLean, "DidJesus Correct the Disciples' View of the Kingdom? Bibliotheca Sacra 151 (April-June 1994): 215-227; Stephen J. Nichols,"The Dispensational View of the Davidic Kingdom: A Response to ProgressiveDispensationalism," The Master's Seminary Journal 7/2 (Fall 1996) 213-239; Cleon L. Rogers, Jr.,"The Davidic Covenant in Acts-Revelation," BibliothecaSacra 151 (January-March 1994): 71-84;Elliott E. Johnson, "Hermeneutical Principles and the Interpretation ofPsalm 110," BibliothecaSacra 149: 596 (1992): 428-437; Mal Couch, ProgressiveDispensationalism: Is Christ Now on the Throne of David?-Part 1,
[34] Lightner,http://216.147.82.42/journals/04_11_journal/2000v4n11_id03.htm.
[35] Ibid., 40.
[36] Ibid.
[37] Charles C.Ryrie, "Update on Dispensationalism," Issues in Dispensationalism, Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master, gen. ed.(Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), 15-16.
[38] D. MatthewAllen, Theology Adrift: The Early Church Fathers and Their Views ofEschatology,http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/esch/ecesch.htm.
[39] See H.Wayne House, gen. ed., "The Church's Appropriation of Israel'sBlessings," Israel, the Land and the People (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998), 77-110.
[40] See ingeneral article by Allen, and my chapter on "The Church's Appropriation ofIsrael's Blessings," for discussion of these points.
[41] Allen,http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/esch/ecesch.htm.