Progressive
Dispensationalism
This particular study
is a focus on understanding a theological development that occurred about maybe
30 years ago, 25-30 years ago in dispensationalism called Òprogressive
dispensationalism.Ó This is also a wrap-up of the study that weÕve done for the
last ten months. Some may be aware of this, but some may have never heard the
term Òprogressive dispensationalism.Ó This study may cause some to go into the
deep end instead of the shallow end of the pool, because this gets a little
more technical in terms of a theological study. But for most of you who have
gone through some of my series with me, this is basically the notes of what I
teach every other year when I go over to Kiev and teach the students at the
Word of God Bible Institute. It can easily be converted into a seminary class
on dispensations, and weÕll be using this some with students who want to get
credit in a course on dispensationalism at Chafer Seminary.
So as part of that we should
definitely include a little bit on this development that basically came out of
Dallas Seminary and was developed sadly by Dallas Seminary graduates back in
the 1980s. Progressive Dispensationalism is the name. I will go into why it is
called that in just a minute. It was a development that grew out of a
dispensational study group. These are small different groups. You have Old
Testament theology study groups, and New Testament theology study groups,
textual criticism study groups, all kinds of breakout sessions and study groups
that they have at the Evangelical Theological Society, which is the largest
professional association of evangelical theologians in the country. If you are
teaching in academics, if you are in Bible college, Bible institutes, seminary,
any of those, then you are pretty much required to be a member. The only thing
that you have to agree on is the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture.
So there are a lot of
people from full bore Armenians to ultra-Calvinists, five-point Calvinists, and
everything in between: dispensationalists, covenant theologians, Lutherans,
everything but Roman Catholics. Although I say that with an asterisks because
about three or four years ago the president of the Evangelical Theological
Society went back to the Roman Catholic church in the middle of his term as the
president of the Evangelical Theological Society, which was quite a scandal,
and he was forced to resign. So we live in a very strange world today. In 1986
this dispensational study group, which had been meeting and discussing issues
related to dispensationalism for several years, met in Atlanta, Georgia that
year. This was approximately the same time that I had moved back to Dallas to
work on my doctorate in theological studies. And they really came out with this
new system which was designed to find some sort of middle ground between
dispensational theology on the one hand and covenant theology on the other
hand.
In my opinion it
wasnÕt very successful at all and in the opinion of many covenant theologians
it wasnÕt very successful, except they looked at these guys who were
dispensationalists who were teaching this new system. And they said they are
not willing to admit that they are no longer dispensationalists. There were
numerous theologians who said that. The three men who were most responsible for
this were Craig Blaizing, who I think now teaches at Southwestern Baptist
Theological Seminary, Darrell Bock—a local Houston boy, who is a Jewish
background believer, went to Kincaid and went to Dallas Seminary out of Spring
Branch Community Church. He was about two or three years ahead of me at Dallas
Seminary; and then someone from an older generation—Dr. Robert Saucy from
Talbot Seminary. These men were
the three main architects of this new theology. Gary Brashear, who taught at
Western Conservative Baptist Seminary at that time, wrote regarding this ETS
meeting that Òit seems that both moderate dispensationalists and moderate
covenant theologians are moving toward each other in rapprochment.Ó*
In other words they
are trying to find a compromise, and one of my criticisms of this movement is
that it was a desire to find a middle ground between two theological systems.
It wasnÕt motivated by a desire to understand the text more fully and more
completely in order to base their theology on a text. In my opinion they ended
up having to twist their hermeneutics, their system of interpretation, in order
to fit a system that is really neither fish nor fowl. So it was that desire to
find a middle ground that was their chief motivation and not to find an
exegetically correct and Biblically correct theological system. Ryrie, in his
book on dispensationalism, devotes a chapter to progressive dispensationalism.
He says that the term became an official title for their system in 1991. Now
that may be when he nails it in some publication, but when I was in a doctrinal
program in 1987, we were already calling it progressive dispensationalism at
that time. But maybe they hadnÕt settled on a term.
Bob Lightner, who was
a professor at Dallas Seminary for many years, said that there had been other
titles like reconstructive dispensationalism, modified dispensationalism, new
dispensationalism, neo-dispensationalism, revised dispensationalism, kingdom
dispensationalism, and even changed dispensationalism. Now the idea of
progressive, weÕll get into this a little more, but just so you understand this
at the beginning, this term progressive emphasizes their idea of the Old Testament
covenants. These would be the unconditional covenants that weÕve talked
about. First the Abrahamic
covenant, and what were the three elements of the Abrahamic covenant? Land,
seed, and blessing. The land promise is developed in what covenant? Land
covenant, real estate covenant. Older
theologians call it the Palestinian covenant. The seed promise was developed in
what covenant? The Davidic covenant. And then the blessing covenant was
developed in what? The New covenant.
So in their view all
of those covenants were inaugurated. ThatÕs a key term to kind of listen to. If
you hear a pastor say that he believes that the New covenant was inaugurated
at the cross or inaugurated
at Pentecost, right away you can pigeon hole him that he is not a traditional
dispensationalist. So their view is that these were inaugurated either at the cross or
Pentecost and in some sense are fulfilled today, but not completely; and so during
this age weÕre progressively moving toward a complete fulfillment which comes
in the future. They apply this development to the Abrahamic covenant and
primarily to the blessing in the New covenant and the seed or the Davidic
covenant. But they fail to address how in any sense this applies to the New
covenant. If it is going to apply
to the Davidic covenant and to the New covenant, then it would also have to
apply to the Land covenant. But that would mean that Israel already had the
land and would be progressively coming into it, and that just doesnÕt fit. It
doesnÕt fit history at all.
So thatÕs the idea,
using this terminology of inaugurated eschatology, another two dollar term they throw around;
and that is the idea that weÕre somehow already living in the early stage. The
church age under this system becomes almost a front door or entry hall to the kingdom.
So in some sense the New covenant has already been inaugurated. The kingdom has already
been inaugurated
and itÕs progressively coming in. So it minimizes the significance of the
church age. It minimizes the significance of the church and makes the church
and the church age sort of a prelude to the millennial kingdom. Now as they
analyzed the history of dispensationalism, in their attempts to justify their
shifts, they talked about the fact that there were basically three stages in
the development of dispensational thinking. And this takes us back to a little
bit of an understanding of the history of dispensationalism, because their
argument was that just as some of the later dispensational theologians like
Walvoord, Ryrie, and Dwight Pentecost changed or modified what Darby had taught
and what the early Dispensationalists taught in the 19th century,
that that was just the same thing that they are doing.
But when you
understand what they are doing, what happened with sort of the second
generation or second era of dispensationalists after Chafer, is that they were
tightening the screws, and tightening the bolts, and they were straightening a
few things out sort of like you get a house and it needs a new paint job. The
furniture needs to be recovered. It needs new carpet. Maybe you need to take
out the old cabinets and put in some new cabinets, but it is still the same
house. But they were basically going next door and taking some of the old
furniture out and putting it into a new house next door. They were really
changing things. And so they talk about the stages in the development of
dispensationalism.
So weÕll start with a timeline beginning around 1830. It was roughly around
1836-1837 that John Nelson Darby first articulates the doctrine of the Rapture.
John Nelson Darby was an Irishman, a theologian that had been ordained as an
Anglican. He left the Anglican Church and went through a period of time because
of an injury where he was forced to get out of the ministry in order to
recover.
During that time he
read his Bible a lot. As a result of that time of Bible reading he came up with
a revision of his understanding of Scripture. He left the Anglican Church. He
became part of a movement that had already started. He wasnÕt a founder of the
Plymouth Brethren movement, but he became part of it, and he was the first to
really systematize and articulate dispensationalism. So we had John Nelson Darby
whose dates are 1800-1882; and from the 1850s on he made a number of trips to
the United States where he spoke in conferences and churches all over the
United States and had a tremendous impact especially within Presbyterian
circles. A lot of people donÕt realize that a lot of the roots for
dispensational theology come out of Calvinism because a lot of reform
theologians and Presbyterians, Anglicans in England, Presbyterians in the
United States, were shifting to pre-millennialism. And so in the context of some
of the Bible conference movements in the late 19th century they were
shifting toward dispensationalism.
Remember, C.I.
Scofield was ordained as a Congregationalist. He had pastored a church that was
a Congregational church in Dallas, which is now called Scofield Memorial
Church. Lewis Sperry Chafer was ordained as a Southern Presbyterian, and I
believe ordained as a Congregationalist. So they came out of that kind of a
background. So you have Darby; you have C.I. Scofield, whose dates are
1843-1921. ItÕs between 1913 and 1917 that he publishes what many have believed
is the foundational work for dispensationalists, which was the Scofield Study
Bible. And I know many of you still have copies of the Scofield Reference Bible on your
bookshelves. And then one of his most noted protŽgŽs was Lewis Sperry Chafer
whose dates were 1871-1952. ** And then John Walvoord. Chafer founded Dallas
Theological Seminary. Dr. Walvoord was his successor as the president of Dallas
Theological Seminary.
So you had this era that
they call classic dispensationalism from Darby through Lewis Sperry Chafer. And
then what they developed called essentialist or normative dispensationalism,
which covered the period from roughly 1950 up to the present. The basic
architects, they would say, of normative or essentialist dispensationalism
would be Alva J. McClain, who you probably arenÕt familiar with, was at Grace
Theological Seminary, John Walvoord, Dwight Pentecost, who just went to be with
the Lord this last year, and Charles Ryrie, who is still alive. He is 89 years
old and was at the Pre-Trib Conference I think for the banquet this last year.
They call it essentialist because Ryrie in his book Dispensationalism Today that came out in
the 1960s and was revised later to be called Dispensationalism, said that there are
three essentials. Remember this, three essentials for dispensationalism
theology and what are they?
1. Literal
interpretation of Scripture. 2. Distinction between Israel and the church. 3.
The overriding purpose for history is the glory of God
This is in contrast to
covenant theology, which uses allegorical or spiritual interpretation,
especially when it comes to prophecy.
Covenant theology does not hold to a distinction between Israel and the church.
They see Israel as the church in the Old Testament and church today is the New
Israel. We are the ÒtrueÓ Israel of God. So they donÕt see a distinction
between Israel and the church, and GodÕs ultimate purpose in history is not
doxological, itÕs not His glory; it is redemptive. Now think about that. WhatÕs
the problem with that? Do angels get redeemed? No. Angels are left out of that
whole scenario, which is one reason that you have had very little if anything
written about the Angelic Conflict or Angelology coming out of the reformed
camp because itÕs not central to their understanding of the overall framework
of Scripture.
Then in the mid 1980s
you have the development of Progressive Dispensationalism. Now in classical
dispensationalism, in the early years with Darby, there were some real
differences. I just finished doing some study on Darby. Darby did not think the
first dispensation began until Noah. That everything before Noah was not a
dispensation. Not only that, this will surprise you, he didnÕt think the church
age was a dispensation. But a lot of DarbyÕs views were not consistent with his
basic definition of what a dispensation was. So he had basic terminology and
ideas down, but they really needed to be refined and things needed to become
consistent. So you have that development that occurs in basically most of the
1900s and its expansion, which was enormous. One of the impacts of
dispensationalism in the 19th century was missions and missionaries.
Missions to Jews was especially a huge by-product of dispensationalism because
in dispensationalism, with their understanding of the distinction between
Israel and the church, they understood the future role that God had for Israel
and that they would be restored to their land and that the kingdom would come
in the Millennium.
So Dispensationalists
are necessarily all pre-millennial, although all pre-millennialists are not
necessarily dispensationalists. So going over what we talked about a minute
ago, RyrieÕs Essentials:
1. The literal,
grammatical, historical hermeneutic. 2 The distinction between Israel and the
church. 3. The unifying principle of history is the glory of God.
One of the questions I
have for Ryrie is that he doesnÕt list them in this order. Ryrie puts the
distinction between Israel and the church first. IÕve always reversed one and
two because I think our understanding of the distinction between Israel and the
church comes out of a literal hermeneutic. That needs to be number one. What we
will see in this basic a flyover on Progressive Dispensationalism is that the
real issue here is on hermeneutics, how you interpret the Scripture. So letÕs
just look at some of the characteristics of Progressive Dispensationalism:
1. It teaches that
Christ is already reigning in heaven on the throne of David, thus merging the
church with a present phase of the already inaugurated Davidic covenant and kingdom. So
they change the terminology. This is a big issue. Their interpretation is on
the basis of Old Testament passages. It was clear that the Messiah would reign
on DavidÕs throne in Jerusalem over Israel so they add to those prophecies
something new that wasnÕt there in the Old Testament. When you press them for
where that is – you ask Darrell Bock a question – well whatÕs your
exegetical support? He will cite Acts 2 and PeterÕs citation of Psalm 2 and
Psalm 110. And you say, ÒWell where is that?Ó and heÕll say, ÒWell it is
ÒimpliedÓ there.Ó
2. It is based on what
they call a complementary hermeneutic. Now what is our hermeneutic? This is
your final exam – literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic. They
changed that definition and itÕs no longer literal, grammatical, historical to
the literal, grammatical, historical, literary, theological. They add two
categories. Literary you have to interpret on the basis of genre or the kind or
category of Scripture and on the basis of theology. But see hermeneutics leads
to theology. Your theology doesnÕt develop your hermeneutics.
3. They see the
overall purpose of God in history is Christological and that holistic
redemption is the focus and goal of history. That also has some serious
problems because of the way they are playing with the term Christological. ItÕs
Christological because they want to put Christ on DavidÕs throne now. ThatÕs
what the distinction is. So they play somewhat of a word game.
These
three elements are in direct contrast to what Ryrie said. Remember, Ryrie says
itÕs a literal-grammatical-historical hermeneutic. And they say no, itÕs a
complementary hermeneutic. Walvoord says the emphasis is on the distinction between
Israel and the church; and they say no, this kind of gets blurred because Jesus
is now reigning on DavidÕs throne in heaven; and then as Ryrie pointed out, the
purpose is the glory of God and they would say, no, the purpose is
Christological. Just a couple of comments from covenant theologians: Willem
VanGemeren, who is a covenant theologian, said that ÒBock agrees with covenant
theology that the eschatological kingdom was inaugurated in the ministry of
Jesus.Ó This is what covenant theologians are saying. They understand that and
Bruce Waltke, who was a professor who had the Old Testament department at
Dallas Seminary, had a brilliant teaching assistant back in the late 1960s by
the name of Charlie Clough.
IÕve seen
Waltke stand up in front of class and somebody ask him a question and heÕll
kind of stare off into space and heÕll say well, according to footnote 22 on
page 37 in chapter 4, and then a two paragraph footnote heÕll just recall it
from memory. Absolutely brilliant. He was offered a full professorship at
Harvard when he got his PhD from Harvard in Semitic languages. But like a lot
of people like that – they canÕt think theologically. They are what I
call grammatical technicians. TheyÕre excellent in the language, but theyÕre
not theologians. And after Waltke left Dallas he went off; first he was
Plymouth Brethren, then he went to Westminster and became covenant and A-Mil,
and heÕs just been all over the place. But he said that the Òposition of
progressives is closer to covenant theology than to dispensationalism.Ó
And
then this last quote I have is from Vern Poythress, who also taught at
Westminster I believe. And he wrote a book that was a nasty critique filled
with ad hominem
arguments and strong man arguments and misrepresentations of dispensationalism.
But he said regarding Progressive dispensationalism that it Òis inherently
unstable. I do not think that they will find it possible in the long run to
create a safe haven theologically between classic dispensationalism and
covenantal premillennialism. The forces that their own observations have set in
motion will most likely lead to covenantal premillennialism after the pattern
of George Eldon Ladd.Ó Ladd taught at Fuller. Ladd is a big figure in the study
of eschatology because he came up with this idea of I referred to earlier, inaugurated
eschatology, otherwise known as the Òalready not yet viewÓ of the kingdom. That
itÕs already established, but itÕs not yet fully here. So weÕre already in the
kingdom, but yet fully here.
And
remember, part of the signs of the kingdom is what? Joel 2, Òyour young men
will see dreams and your old men will see visions,Ó and the whole idea of
direct revelation again. This was the foundation for the whole development of the
Vineyard Movement *** and the Third Wave that because weÕve got this
inaugurated eschatology today weÕre already in the kingdom. We can expect these
manifestations to the spirit today, speaking in tongues, and seeing dreams and
visions, and God speaking to us today. And so according to the view of
Progressive dispensationalism, they completely bought into this Òalready not
yet viewÓ of the kingdom. I remember running into Darrell (Bock) in the stacks
of the library at Dallas Seminary and IÕm not sure, but I think Tommy Ice was
with me; and I was doing doctrinal research on the Vineyard Movement and I
said, ÒDarrell, can you give me one exegetical or theological reason why the
Vineyard Movement is wrong on their use of Òalready not yetÓ and why you shouldnÕt
approve of them because of your view of the Òalready not yetÓ view of the
kingdom?Ó And he couldnÕt give me one. He just said, Òbecause it isnÕt.Ó I said
that was not a very good answer. So this is what happens.
Now,
as stated earlier, the real foundation and the real battle that we see in our
culture today is over hermeneutics. We see this most clearly at the Supreme
Court level. ItÕs how do you interpret the Constitution? Is it a living
document that takes on new meaning with each generation? Or is the meaning
inherent in the will and the intent of the authors? And does it have objective
solid meaning that doesnÕt change with the generations? And so this becomes the
issue. When you get into an era of subjectivity in a culture, then the battle
is no longer on objective truth because youÕve rejected that. Our culture has
completely rejected objective truth and objective meaning. It doesnÕt exist.
And so thatÕs where the battle is. How do you know anything? How do you know
what something means? Is it inherent in what you read? Is it in the will of the
author or the one who produced the work? Or is it in the mind of the one who is
perceiving it? Ever since Immanuel Kant came along, weÕve seen this huge shift
to where itÕs in the mind of the person who is perceiving it. He assigns
meaning to whatever it is heÕs reading or listening to or looking at in the
case of art.
Complementary
Hermeneutics – ÒProgressive
dispensationalism replaces the literal, historical, grammatical, single meaning
of the text hermeneutic (that is what we believe), with the literal,
historical, grammatical, literary, theological method.Ó They add two things.
How do you understand what a text means? Well you have to understand (this
really comes in to play in prophecy) that thereÕs a genre called the
apocalyptic. But apocalyptic was non biblical. Apocalyptic was what happened in
the Apocrypha and the Psuedepigrapha. Apocalyptic had to do with Jewish
mysticism in the intertestamental period. It doesnÕt have to do with prophecy.
Just because there are symbols doesnÕt mean its apocalyptic. But they confuse
all of this. This is a huge battle that goes on at the seminary level. I
remember Andy Woods, who is the pastor of Sugarland Bible Church, had a
doctrinal course at Dallas Seminary just on this. He was the only guy in the
class who understood it. There were just battles royal over these issues, that
prophecy is prophecy. That is a biblical category.
Apocalyptic
literature is a non-biblical category. You canÕt read that back into the Bible.
ItÕs the old question: What comes first the chicken or the egg? God created the
chicken first. God created first the truth of GodÕs Word; it precedes all other
systems and all other religions. ThereÕs simply a pale distorted consequence of
manÕs rejection of truth. So you canÕt come along and look at apocalyptic
literature and say thatÕs what influenced the Bible. No, apocalyptic literature
is a perversion of the prophetic literature thatÕs in Scripture. But
apocalyptic is another big word that you hear. Inaugurated, youÕre already not yet,
apocalyptic literature, just right away you know this isnÕt anybody we want to
listen to. Regarding their interpretation Darrell Bock said, ÒThe New Testament
does introduce change and advance; it does not merely repeat Old Testament
revelation. In making complementary additions, however, it does not jettison
old promises.Ó What he is basically saying is that there are new things that
are added but these new things that are added do change the meaning of what was
there in the Old Testament. It doesnÕt just enhance it. So you go back to Old Testament
prophecies, you would never get out of those Old Testament prophecies what they
say is being read into this. So it is really important to understand this.
I
have another statement here from the progressives. They say that, Progressive
dispensationalists are not rejecting literal interpretation completely. They
are rejecting consistent traditional historical-grammatical interpretation. I
believe this is from Robert Thomas, ÒTraditional dispensationalists have always
employed a consistent and literal interpretation of the Scripture from Genesis
to Revelation. Today a new compromised hermeneutic of the former is being
employed by progressive dispensationalists called a complementary hermeneutic.Ó
So this is the view that Darrell Bock is promoting. So what he means by this is
that the New Testament adds new and different meaning to Old Testament passages
that were not part of the meaning of the Old Testament passage. This is what
Robert Thomas said. You remember Robert Thomas who was here about six or seven
years ago. He taught on hermeneutics. HeÕs got a whole chapter in his book on Evangelical
Hermeneutics on progressive dispensationalism. He says that Òit,Ó that is
progressive dispensationalism, Òhas replaced grammatical-historical interpretation
with a system of hermeneutics called historical, grammatical, literary,
theological. Several comparisons that illustrated the differences between the
two hermeneutical systems relate to the function of the interpreter, the
historical dimension, the Òsingle-meaningÓ principleÉ.Ó
See,
what Òthe function of the interpreterÓ means is that meaning is now assigned by
the interpreter. Another phrase that they use is that you have a
pre-understanding when you come to the text. And that pre-understanding shapes
your understanding of the text. This is a very postmodern idea. We all have
preconceptions when we come to the text of the Bible. But we let the Bible
change our preconceptions. How do you think so many people who werenÕt
dispensationalists became dispensationalists? Not because they had already been
taught dispensationalism or came to it with that pre-understanding, but because
the Word of God changed their views; and it works in the other direction as
well. But for them it is that pre-understanding. The reason you are a
dispensationalist, Robby, is because you have that pre-understanding. If youÕd
just open your mind youÕd see covenant theology there. So Òsingle meaningÓ
principle is a classic historical principle of hermeneutics that a text means
only one thing. It may have several applications but it has only one meaning.
The author, human and divine, only intended to communicate one thing.
The
issue of sensus plenior and Òthe
importance of thoroughnessÓ is a whole other issue I am not going to get into
for this particular study; but Òthe bottom line,Ó he says, Òis that the choice
between dispensationalism and progressive dispensationalism amounts to a choice
of which system of hermeneutics an interpreter chooses to follow.Ó ThatÕs the
issue. ItÕs how you are going to understand what the text says. Then my good
friend Tommy Ice says this, ÒThe complementary approach put forth by Blaising
and Bock is claimed to be a synthesis combining the answer of older
dispensationalism, which demonstrates a greater sensitivity to Òthe historical
interpretation of the Old Testament,Ó while adopting covenant theologyÕs view
that includes the Òadding of new revelation.Ó Bock has suggested in the process
of interpreting PeterÕs use of Joel in Acts 2 that the Òeschaton has begun.Ó
ThatÕs a fancy way of saying the end times has already begun; the millennial
kingdom has already begun. The Òeschaton has begun; the movement toward the
culmination of the eschaton has started, as have the benefits associated with
the coming of the Day of the Lord.Ó
According
to him, weÕre already in the entryway of the millennial kingdom. You just
didnÕt know that. ThatÕs so Amillennial or even Post-millennial. WeÕre on the
entry, the doorstep of the millennial kingdom. ThatÕs why Tommy always says, ÒIf
this is in anyway the millennial Kingdom I must be living in a millennial
ghetto.Ó And they admit that they shifted away because the old system literal,
grammatical, historical just wasnÕt good enough. Craig Blaising wrote,
ÒHermeneutics has become much more complex today than when Charles Ryrie
affirmed literal interpretation.Ó It almost sounds like youÕre reading a
democrat talk about the Constitution doesnÕt it? You know interpreting the
Constitution is justÉ. The world is just so much more complex today. But truth
is truth and absolutes are absolutes. It is a lot Òmore complex today than then
Charles Ryrie affirmed literal interpretation as a Ôclear, plain, normalÕ
method of interpretationÉ. Literary interpretation has developed so that some
things which earlier interpreters thought they ÔclearlyÕ saw in Scripture are
not ÔclearlyÕ seen today at all.Ó
For
them it is just ambiguous. Usually I think that when people think the Bible is
ambiguous, it is because they donÕt like what it says. Then Blaising and Bock
wrote, IÕm not going to read that whole quote, but basically they are saying
that in the 1950s and 1960s evangelicals were shying away from typology, but
unfortunately as they were developing more biblical ideas it showed the lack of
capabilities in their limited literal, historical, grammatical interpretation.
And then one other quote just because this is important: McQuilkin and Mullen
wrote a great critique of evangelical hermeneutics and how subjective itÕs
become in a postmodern society. See, the world is constantly getting into the
church. And people are thinking subjectively. Postmodernism basically means
that anything can mean what you want it to mean. You look at something and you
read it and you can read whatever you want to in it and you can assign the
meaning to it yourself because what they intended is irrelevant and probably
unknowable.
They
wrote in a book on hermeneutics ÒIt,Ó that is post modern thinking, Òis said by
some to be the logical development of modernism toward ever greater relativity,
not only in the perception of truth but also of reality itself. On this view,
postmodernism would be the logical outcome of Enlightenment thinking.Ó
Enlightenment thinking cut the anchor to authority, i.e. God. So once you slip
your anchor you can just drift and drift and drift, and weÕve drifted so far
away now that nobody knows anything no matter how educated they are. They go on
to say, ÒOn this view postmodernism would be the logical outcome of
Enlightenment thinking, the final step of recognizing that meaning is created
in part, at least, by my personal perceptionsÉ. The role of the interpreter,
the knowing subject, is being redefined not merely for how meaning is to be
understood and communicated but actually for how the interpreter participates
in the creation of meaning and even, for some, the creation of whatever reality
there is.Ó
So
where this applies to progressive dispensationalism is their idea that the
pre-understanding of the interpreter shapes his interpretation of Scripture. In
other words, thereÕs an inherent rejection of the idea that the interpreter can
have any level of objectivity. So the reason you are a Dispensationalist is
because that is what you were taught. But that ends up in a fallacious circular
argument. So as a result of this hermeneutic Jesus is currently reigning from
DavidÕs throne in heaven, which adds a totally new dimension to the Old Testament
predictions. The Old Testament predictions are that DavidÕs throne is on earth.
Now weÕve got this whole new thing that is added to the Old Testament prophets.
Again, itÕs just significantly changing what dispensationalists have taught
today. The whole idea of complementary hermeneutics is such that if it was
applied unilaterally to all of Scripture the original recipients of the
revelation could not know definitely and precisely what the text meant. ThatÕs
amillennial. You canÕt really know what God promised Abraham in terms of the land until you get into the New Testament. Because then,
according to their view, when you get into the New Testament you discover the
land isnÕt in a piece of real estate between the Mediterranean and the
Jordon River; itÕs heaven! Right?
I
know some of you are great Stonewall Jackson fans. What happened when Stonewall
Jackson died? He wanted to be crossed over the river. What river was that? The
Jordon. ThatÕs what he is thinking because thatÕs how Presbyterians thought.
When you died you crossed the Jordon. The Jordon wasnÕt a literal river; it was
going from this life to heaven. And when you crossed into the Promised Land, it
wasnÕt a physical land; it was heaven! They are not literal. So thatÕs what
happens. Abraham couldnÕt understand GodÕs promise because he thought he was
talking about physical real estate. But you get into the New Testament and all
of a sudden you find out that it was heaven that God was promising Abraham! You
didnÕt know that did you? Someone
commented, ÒHe couldnÕt walk it.Ó ThatÕs right. How could he walk the breadth
of the land?
How
did Progressive dispensationalists view dispensations? Well they see it as they
have four dispensations:
1.
The Patriarchal dispensation, which goes from Creation to Sinai.
2.
The Mosaic dispensation, which goes from Sinai to ChristÕs Ascension.
3. An Ecclesial
dispensation, which goes from the Ascension to the Second Coming.
4. The Zionic
dispensation, which has two parts, the millennial kingdom and then on into
Eternity.
So the progressive
dispensationalists understand dispensations not as different administrative
arrangements between God and the human race, but as successive arrangements in
progressive revelation. It removes objectivity from it. ItÕs not God changing
the way He administers human history from one period to the next. It is just a
shift in progressive revelation. This is what is happening in Genesis 1.
Genesis 1 isnÕt talking about six literal days. Those literal days are just
literary structures. ThatÕs basically what they are saying; this is just how
the literature is organized. ItÕs not really about a change in administration.
So thatÕs one problem.
Another problem is
that in doing this they are emphasizing what all these administrations have in
common, which is what theologians call continuity, and they are ignoring the
differences. But it is the differences that are significant. Just as Maurice
Chevalier in Gigi,
ÒViva la difference!Ó ItÕs not what men and women have in common. ItÕs the
difference thatÕs so important! ThatÕs the issue in dispensationalism. ItÕs the
difference between these eras that is important. ItÕs not what they have in
common. NobodyÕs arguing about things that they have in common. So at best this
leads to a dilution of the uniqueness of the church age, and at worst it leads
to a complete destruction and obliteration of the church age. It becomes sort
of a second or third class dispensation. Going along with that they deny that
the present church age was a mystery in the Old Testament. The word ÒmysteryÓ
means something that has not been revealed. But in progressive
dispensationalism they just say the church age wasnÕt realized.
What does that mean?
That the church age is just a progressive stage in the revelation of the
kingdom. It really minimizes its significance. So when we look at their
dispensational chart itÕs difficult to understand why progressives begin with
the patriarchal dispensation. They donÕt talk about what goes on before the
fall. And when they lump everything together in one dispensation it ignores the
major events such as the fall and the flood and the new major revelations given
by God in Genesis 3 and in Genesis 9. Ryrie says this about that, Òto lump post
Fall conditions in the Abrahamic covenant under common stewardship arrangement
or dispensation is artificial to say the least.Ó HeÕs such a gentleman.
The second thing is
that thereÕs not a problem beginning the Mosaic dispensation at Sinai, but
there is no biblical reason to end at ChristÕs Ascension. ChristÕs death on the
cross was the end of the Law, not the Day of Pentecost. So that just doesnÕt
make sense at all. The Bible clearly makes the dividing point the death of
Christ in passages like Romans 3:20, Galatians 3:18-25, and Colossians 2:14.
The only reason to end it at ChristÕs Ascension is because of their Òalready
not yetÓ presupposition. See, their pre-understanding is shaping their
interpretation of Scripture. So this just shows how their theology is shaping
their hermeneutic. TheyÕre consistent with their view. So for them the New
covenant was inaugurated
at the cross, whereas traditional dispensationalists would say it was ratified at
the cross, but it doesnÕt go into effect until Jesus returns because the New
covenant is between the house of Israel and the house of Judah.
Another confusing
thing is calling the church age the Ecclesial dispensation. This is because it doesnÕt show a
distinction of what happens at the Rapture when the church leaves at the
beginning of the Tribulation. But in the early days of its development, it was
believed the Pre-Trib Rapture was not an important issue for progressive
dispensationalists. However, a couple of years ago a book came out for people
to understand different positions called Four Views on the Rapture. And in this book
Craig Blaising wrote the chapter on the pre-Trib Rapture, which was really
good. He did a great job defending it, which really was surprising considering
his positions as a progressive dispensationalist. So this basically breaks
things down in terms of distinctions of the church today, which impacts their
views on the distinction with church and Israel.
So this lesson should
give you an idea of progressive dispensationalism and why it is a problem. It
comes down to first of all their hermeneutic and that itÕs not a literal,
historical, grammatical hermeneutic; and how that impacts their understanding
of the church. It impacts their understanding of the baptism of the Holy Spirit
and the coming of the Holy Spirit because they will say itÕs some kind of
indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament. I remember Craig Blaising
trying to float trial balloons in that study I was in. He was trying to say
that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was in the Old Testament and regeneration
didnÕt begin until the church age, which is a very odd idea because Romans 6 is
talking about baptism of the Holy Spirit that is essentially identification
with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. How can you have that in
the Old Testament? Further, it frees us from the sin nature. But this is
appealing to an eclectic mindset that dominates our culture today. We donÕt
want to make distinctions. We want to just have a big tent and have everybody
together and just wrap your arms around each other and weÕre all just going to
be happy in Jesus forever. And letÕs not think too deeply or too precisely.
I donÕt mean to
ridicule these men. They are brilliant. Most of these men have two or three
PhDs. It is their system though that is not consistent because it is shaped by
their presuppositions, which is we need to find a theological synthesis between
covenant theology and dispensationalism, which in my opinion is self defeating.
A student during this
lesson said, Òit seems to me there is a lot of subtlety in progressive
dispensationalism.Ó And my response was, Òyes, there is a lot of subtlety.
ThatÕs why people get sucked into things that are deceptive – because the
serpent was the most subtle creature in the Garden.Ó
This student goes on
to say, ÒCraig Blaising gave a lecture at South Houston Baptist Theological
Seminary last semester as part of a conference on eschatology. Having listened
to BlaisingÕs lecture on 1 Thessalonians 4 and the Rapture, had I not known his
position in progressive dispensationalism I would not have guessed it. How does
the Rapture fit into the progressive dispensationalist scheme if it is really
more akin to covenant Pre-mil theology?Ó
Answer: Blaising is orthodox
and heÕs pretty solid on the Pre-Trib Rapture. The question was how does the
Pre-Trib Rapture fit within progressive dispensationalism? And in the early
years, I would say from the mid 80s up until 2000 it was not something that
they really addressed. So the thinking that we had at that time was that
progressive dispensationalists were just going to dump the Rapture. But like I said in this lesson, Craig did a fabulous job
defending the Pre-Trib Rapture. It is just that within their system it is not
something that most progressive dispensationalists make a big deal about. It is
not something that they think is critical. And that flows out of their
minimalization of the significance of the church age. Although there may be
some exceptions, to date most progressive dispensationalist like the founders
Darrell Bock, Craig Blaising, Bob Saucy, many of the others that were
foundational architects of this, did not dump the Pre-Trib Rapture. It just
wasnÕt as significant for them.
This now should wrap
up this series on dispensationalism.
* http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/problems-with-progressive-dispensationalism
** http://www.theopedia.com/Lewis_Sperry_Chafer