Classic Dispensationalism Verses Progressive Dispensationalism

Classic Dispensationalism Verses Progressive Dispensationalism
Introduction
Never has there been a more urgent need for God’s people to be clear on the subject of Dispensationalism (i.e., Classic Dispensationalism). You recall this view, the one that places a historical, grammatical hermeneutic in the study of God’s Word. “Classic Dispensationalism is a result of consistent application of the basic hermeneutical principle of literal, normal, or plain interpretation. No other system of theology can claim this.[1]
Dispensationalists are those who believe the following things:
The Bible is God’s inspired, inerrant (i.e., without any errors) revelation to man.
Scripture provides the framework through which to interpret history (past and future).God’s written Word tells us of His plan for His creation and this will surely come to past.
Since the Bible is God’s literal Word of His plan for history, it should be interpreted literally and historically (past and future).
Since the Bible reveals God’s plan for history, then it follows that there is an ebb and flow to His plan. Therefore, God’s plan includes different dispensations, ages, or epochs of history through which His creatures (man and angels) are tested. Therefore, God is instructing His creatures through the progress of history, as His creation progresses from a garden to a city.
Since all humanity fell into sin, each person must individually receive God’s provision of salvation through the death of Christ by believing the gospel. Thus, Jesus Christ is the only way to a relationship with God.
Because of mankind’s fall into sin, Scripture teaches that all humanity is naturally
rebellious to God and the things of God. This is why only genuine believers in Christ are open to the teachings of the Bible. Thus, salvation through Christ is a prerequisite to properly understanding God’s Word.
· God’s plan for history includes a purpose for the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—that is Israel. This plan for Israel includes promises that they will have the land of Israel, will have a seed, and will be a worldwide blessing to the nations. Many of the promises to national Israel are yet future; therefore, God is not finished with Israel.
· God’s plan from all eternity also includes a purpose for the church; however, this is a temporary phase that will end with rapture. After the rapture, God will complete His plan for Israel and the Gentiles.
· The main purpose in God’s master plan for history is to glorify Himself through Jesus Christ. Therefore, Jesus Christ is the goal and hero of history.
I. DISPENSATIONALISM AND HERMENEUTICS
A. Hermeneutics is the science and art of Bible interpretation. The goal of Dispensationalism is to correctly interpret the Scriptures by correctly and consistently applying the proper principles of hermeneutics. The system of interpretation known as Dispensationalism is built upon at least five basic principles.
1. Dispensationalism interprets the Scriptures by the literal, grammatical-historical method. It follows a single hermeneutic.
Literal words have their normal, ordinary, customary meaning.
Grammatical terms and sentences are interpreted in keeping with normal, accepted grammatical rules.
Historical terms and phrases have their usual historical usage.
Contextual each word and phrase must be interpreted according to its use in the context.
a. THE GOLDEN RULE OF INTERPRETATION: When the plain literal sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense. (When the literal sense of Scripture makes good sense, seek no figurative sense).
b. The literal method of interpretation does not rule out figures of speech, symbols, allegories, etc., which are a common part of all languages.
c. Advantages of Literal Interpretation.
n It grounds the interpretation in fact.
n It exercises a control over interpretation.
n It gives a basic authority by which interpretation can be tested.
n It delivers from mysticism and rationalism as the means of interpretation. One does not have to depend upon intellectual abilities or training, or upon the development of mystical perception.
n It prevents violation of accepted rules of grammar.
d. Procedures in studying the Bible.
–Observe the facts (what the writer has said).
–Interpret the meaning (what the writer meant by what he said).
–Correlate the information (in an orderly, understandable form).
–Apply the lesson (the truths to your own life).
e. Look for:
· WHO? persons involve ed.
· WHEN? time of events
· WHERE? places of events
· WHAT? facts, events
· HOW? way, manner, method
· WHY? reasons, relationships
2. The second basic principle of Dispensationalism is that of revelation is progressive.
God does not reveal all of the truth about a given subject at once. He reveals a little and adds to it later. Furthermore, what God says to a people on a given occasion or time does not necessarily apply to all people at all times.
Harold G. Mackay wrote, “The Bible is a progressive revelation from God to man, extending from Eden to Eternity, and revealing the divine purpose for man. That purpose is worked out in various successive, progressive stages. Those stages are the different dispensations with their distinctive revelations from God, responsibilities for man, and administrations by God. Together they form God’s unified program of the ages” (Countdown to Eternity, p. 14).
II. Definitions
Dispensation:
a. C. I. Scofield –“A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect to his obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God.”
b. Nathan Morgan –“An economy or period of administration during which God deals with a specific group of mankind as to their obedience to definite revelations of His will and judges them accordingly. It will be seen that a dispensation is a definite period related to the progressive revelation of God’s will, expressly adapted to the needs of a particular people or period of time.”
c. Clarence E. Mason, Jr. – “An dispensation is a divinely established stewardship of a particular revelation of God’s mind and will, which is instituted in the first instance with a new age and which brings added responsibility to the whole race of men or that portion of the race to whom the revelation is particularly given by God.”
d. Charles C. Ryrie – “Dispensationalism views the world as a household run by God. Ion this household-world, God is dispensing or administering its affairs according to His own will and in various stages of revelation in the process of time.” The different economies in the outworking of God’s total purpose are the dispensations.”
e. Carlton Long – “In the administrative rule of God over the human race, there have been different periods of stewardship for man in which God has tested him according to the progressive revelation of His will. These periods of stewardship are called dispensations.”
Classic Dispensationalism: The system of theology which (1) follows a consistently literal or normal interpretation of Scripture: (2) see distinctions between God’s program with Israel and His program with the church: and (3) see distinguishable economies or rules of life in the outworking of God’s primary purposes in the world which is to bring glory to Himself.
Progressive Dispensationalism: Introduced around 1986 by the leaders this new proposal were Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock, both professors at Dallas Theological Seminary at the time (Blaising has since moved to Southern Baptist Theological Seminary). Robert Saucy from the Talbot School of Theology in California also joined them in leading this emphasis. Three books were written or edited by this trio to help explain the new approach: Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church edited by Blaising and Bock (1992), The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism (1993) by Saucy, and Progressive Dispensationalism (1993) by Blaising and Bock. This “new dispensationalism” sees itself as an attempt to glean the best of traditional dispensationalism and the best of covenant theology. Saucy’s subtitle declares progressive dispensationalism to be “the interface between dispensational and non-dispensational theology.” [2] The gradual unfolding of God’s truth throughout history recorded in Scripture.
Progressive Dispensationalism: “(1) 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; (2) this is based on a complementary hermeneutic that allows the New Testament to introduce changes and additions to Old Testament revelation; and (3) the overall purpose of God is Christological, holistic redemption being the focus and goal of history”[3]
Complementary Hermeneutics: While not denying the grammatical-historical hermeneutic, which has been a hallmark of classic dispensationalism progressive dispensationalism has introduced what is called “complementary hermeneutics”; “The 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. The enhancement is not at the expense of the original promise. Old Testament promise has not been replaced; it has been opened up, clarified, expanded, and periodized in the progress of apostolic reflection on Jesus’ teaching and actions” (Blaising and Bock, eds., Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, 392-93, 59).
Dr. Robert Lightner states: “Complementary Hermeneutics is the very core issue with progressive dispensationalism. This is the bottom line. It starts here. I asked Darrell Bock, who is my friend and he was in my office, how he arrived at his complimentary hermeneutic. He was talking about Acts 2 and how he believes that since Peter quotes from Psalm 110 and Psalm 132, elsewhere, that that proves the Davidic Kingdom has been inaugurated, the Davidic Covenant has already begun, I said to him, Darrell, surely you didn’t get that hermeneutic from Acts 2, did you? Your view of that does not come from within that passage?” He replied, “No, I brought the hermeneutic to the passage. It doesn’t come out of the passage.” So, at least by his own admission, his complementary hermeneutic, wherever else he got it, doesn’t come from Acts 2. But, he simply is applying it as an illustration in Acts. . .” Basic hermeneutical principles dictate that you take your interpretation to come out of the Bible, within the context you have e under study. You cannot superimpose your ideas on God’s Word.
A DESCRIPTION OF PROGRESSIVE DISPENSATIONALISM
The first tenet of progressive dispensationalism is that it rejects an essentialist approach to the definition of dispensationalism. To the progressive there are no core tenets or essential principles which are held by all dispensationalists of all times. The best one can do with a definition of dispensationalism is to assert a descriptive list of concerns which have been common to most modern dispensationalists. One of the reasons that lead progressives to this conclusion is the disagreement over various issues that can be found among dispensationalists throughout history from John Nelson Darby to Charles Ryrie. A list of concerns containing truths like (1) inerrancy of the Bible, (2) premillennialism, (3) the pretribulational rapture of the Church, (4) a literal future kingdom for national, political, and ethnic Israel, and (5) the universal body of Christ, loosely binds the various dispensationalists together in a common tradition.
This approach to the definition of dispensationalism is different than the more traditional approach given by Charles Ryrie in his important work Dispensationalism Today (1965). Ryrie posited three essential principles which distinguish a dispensationalist from a non-dispensationalist:
· Dispensationalism holds to a distinction between Israel and the Church.
· Dispensationalism practices (or should practice) consistent literal interpretation of the Bible. Prophetic passages are to be interpreted like the rest of the Bible following a grammatical-historical approach.
· Dispensationalism teaches that the overall purpose of biblical history is the glory of God, not the salvation of man. This teaching is in opposition to the emphasis in covenant theology on individual redemption. In covenant theology, the focus on individual redemption via the doctrine of election, in the mind of Ryrie, caused the covenant theologian to overlook the elements in God’s overall plan which focused on national and community promises with respect to the nation of Israel.
Second, in light of the rejection of Ryrie’s essential principles, progressive dispensationalists do not see literal interpretation of the Bible as part of the debate between dispensationalism and non-dispensationalism. This was not so fifty years ago. At that time, both sides agreed that literal interpretation was the divisive issue. Dispensationalists contended that prophetic passages, especially in the OT, were to be taken literally at face value. Non-dispensationalists insisted that they had the right to allegorize prophecy. But as the climate of evangelicalism changed over the years along with advanced sophistication of hermeneutical ideas, non-dispensationalists came to believe that they were also practicing literal interpretation in prophetic passages. Progressive dispensationalists agree with these non-dispensationalists. They believe that both sides practice literal interpretation at the level of exegesis if literal interpretation is to be understood as grammatical-historical interpretation. According to progressives, the differences between competing views, rather than stemming from commitment to certain exegetical rules of interpretation, actually depend upon how one integrates various texts from different parts of the Bible.
Third, progressive dispensationalists have developed an approach to integration or synthesis of some biblical texts called complementary hermeneutics. This concept refers to the fact that some OT promises can be expanded by the NT. However, this expansion is never viewed as replacing or undoing the implications of that OT promise to its original audience, Israel. For example, the Church’s participation in the New Covenant taught in the NT can add the Church to the list of recipients of the New Covenant promises made in the OT. However, such participation does not rule out the future fulfillment of the OT New Covenant promises to Israel at the beginning of the Millennium. Thus, the promise can have a coinciding or overlapping fulfillment through NT expansions of the promise. Usually the Church is being added to some form of blessing in the present age while Israel still awaits its fulfillment in the age to come. This concept helps form the basis of an “already, not yet” approach to various texts in the Bible.
Traditionalists have often accused progressives of copying the “already, not yet” approach described by George Ladd (The Gospel of the Kingdom, 1959). To be sure there are some affinities between the two. Some of the discussions and charts in progressive writings seem to mirror Ladd’s discussion especially as it relates to the present age. However, there are substantial differences between the two presentations. Ladd starts the eschatological kingdom in the Gospels. Progressives start the kingdom with the ascension of Christ. The most significant difference, however, is that Ladd treats the Church as a kind of “New Israel” in his commentary on Revelation. Progressive dispensationalism in no way advocates that the Church replaces Israel as in Ladd and in a more developed way in Covenant Theology (including brands of covenant premillennialism).
Fourth, progressive dispensationalists teach that we are already living in the Messianic Age. Progressive dispensationalists apply the complementary hermeneutic to the Davidic Covenant. Jesus is now ruling from the throne of David at the right hand of God the Father. The eschatological kingdom began with the ascension and exaltation of Christ as indicated in Acts 1 and 2. The Church is the beginning of the fulfillment of the promises made to David in the OT concerning the coming kingdom. The present age is the inauguration of the Davidic kingdom. The millennium will be the consummation of the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant as Israel receives its share of the blessings. It is this view in progressive dispensationalism that creates most of the reaction by traditionalists.
Fifth, progressive dispensationalists do not consider the doctrine of the pretribulational rapture to have great significance. To borrow Saucy’s expression, the timing of the rapture of the Church is not “a determining touchstone of dispensationalism.” This does not mean that progressives have abandoned the pretribulational rapture. To this point they hold to it on exegetical grounds. However, they view the whole issue as minor in comparison to traditionalists who often consider it crucial to the outline of God’s purposes.
CONCLUSION
The above points have attempted to summarize some of the major features of the new movement known as progressive dispensationalism and to list in summary fashion some of the concerns of more traditional dispensationalists like this present writer. Much dialogue between the two groups needs to take place. Traditionalists need to hear about the significance of the present age which is the focus of progressive dispensationalists. Progressives and others need to hear the traditional contribution of dispensationalism which reminds us that we live today in the light of the coming kingdom. Perhaps in our Baptist circles, with our focus on the local church, we have already attained a balance between the two. Hopefully, the dialogue will be a friendly discussion about the significant issues that have come to divide the progressives from the traditionalists. As the discussion takes place, let us remember the great tradition that stretches from Darby to Ryrie.[4]