Here’s a post I originally wrote back in 2005, when I was an ardent Progressive Dispensationalist. This post should be read in tandem with this one. Here we go:
For those unaware, dispensationalism (the belief that God has had many different “economies” established with men through salvation history) has experienced development and “progression” from its initial stages first 
articulated by characters such as: John Nelson Darby, Scofield, Lewis Sperry Chafer, etc. My goal is to briefly point out a primary distinction between “old school” (classic) dispensationalism, and “new school” (progressive) dispensationalism. This distinction is a pivotal one that has significance relative to understanding the difference between classic and progressive dispensationalism.
J. Dwight Pentecost, a pre-eminent bible scholar, and noted classical dispensationalist articulator has this to say about God’s plan for the implementation of the “church”, note:
“The existence of an entirely new age, which only interrupts temporarily God’s program for Israel, is one of our strongest arguments for the premillenial position. It is necessary for one who rejects that interpretation to prove that the church itself is the consummation of God’s program. To do so he must prove that there is no new revealed program of God in this present age.” (Quote taken from: J. Dwight Pentecost, “Things to Come,” 136)
In other words, Pentecost believes that the church age is in fact a totally new, and different plan of salvation than that underscored and covenanted with the Jewish nation. Notice the language he uses, “interrupts temporarily . . .,” this language makes the church age sound like an after-thought of God. Some dispensationalists, Pentecost himself, calls the church age, a “parenthesis” in God’s ultimate plan of salvation for the nation of Israel. Notice the strong “discontinuity” this implies between God’s plan for “Israel” and the “Church”.
Contrary to this heavy discontinuity Progressive Dispensationalists (PD) see more continuity between “Israel” and the “Church”; as it relates to God’s plan of salvation for both the Jews and the Nations. PD’s do believe that placing this wedge between Israel and the Church is an unnecessary faulty dilemma that the scriptures do not require or teach. Rather, the PD might say, there is continuity in God’s plan and application of salvation for all, but discontinuity when it comes to the various expressions and role distinctions found within the “whole” body of Christ (i.e. different historical expressions of Yahweh’s salvation manifested—Jew’s will be gathered together in Israel [millennial age] as a facet of the larger body of Christ). Note Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock’s (stalwart and able proponents of the Progressive Dispensational framework) understanding of PD and how it relates and differs from Classical Dispensationalism, they say:
“Progressive dispensationalists agree with revised (and classical) dispensationalists that God’s work with Israel and Gentile nations in the past dispensation looks forward to the redemption of humanity in its political and cultural aspects. Consequently, there is a place for Israel and for other nations in the eternal plan of God. . . .”
“. . . On the other hand, progressive dispensationalists believe that the church is a vital part of this very same plan of redemption. The appearance of the church does not signal a secondary [Pentecost’s interruption] redemption plan, either to be fulfilled in heaven apart from the new earth or in an elite class of Jews and Gentiles who are forever distinguished from the rest of redeemed humanity. Instead, the church today is a revelation of spiritual blessings which all the redeemed will share in spite of their ethnic and national differences.”(parenthesis in the quote are mine) (Quote taken from: Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock, “Progressive Dispensationalism,” 47)
This is a huge distinction between Classical (Revised) Dispensationalism and Progressive Dispensationalism. As noted by Blaising/Bock the rise of the church does not need to be seen as an interruption or secondary plan of salvation relative to Israel. Rather the nation of Israel provided the historic and ethnic vehicle through which the Messiah—Jesus would come and bring salvation to ALL NATIONS, including, Jews. The PD differs with classical dispensationalists most clairvoyantly at this juncture. There is not one plan of salvation for Jews and one for Gentiles—there is one plan of salvation for all.
BUT, here’s the caveat, unlike amillennialists, who believe in total continuity between Israel and the Church, PD still maintains a “functional role distinction” between Israel and the Church. In other words, both Israel and the Church have partaken of the same salvation—and part of this salvation is yet to be realized as God fulfills His promise to Israel (His Covenant people) to bring a believing remnant (ethnic Christian Jews) into Jerusalem where Jesus will literally rule the nations upon the earth (with His church, both Jew and Gentile) for a thousand years (see Revelation 20).
*I’ll probably write a follow up post to these explaining where I stand today on such things.
Russell Moore almost convinced me of PD back in 2007. Ultimately, I try to do theology within the broader confines of the church’s teaching on eschatology (which is admittedly vague, and one suspects deliberately so).
My only thoughts on the “future Israel.” I have no problem saying that “all Israel will be saved” probably refers to an ethnic dimension of the Jewish people (though “ethnic Jew” is extremely problematic post-Khazar). At the same time, I have trouble writing a blank check to the Talmudic mindset of Judaism today, especially Israel. I am not sure what PD’s thought on that is.
Bobby,
Note, after reading my Greek NT, with the help of the NET Bible..I have gone back full-circle to the Classic Dispensational position. Which really like the Rapture (1 Cor. 15: 51-51, etc.), is a Pauline mystery revealed! Note eschatology is a “progressive” revelation or understanding itself! (Dan. 12: 4) Btw, see my own blog under End Time Eschatology. 🙂 And note btw, 2 Thess. 2:1 in the NET…”the arrival” (return) of the Lord Jesus..etc. It is inclusive of both the Rapture & the Coming of Christ! Not the “timing” there, but the fact of the rapture at least. In 2:1, it is the whole “arrival-return” of Christ, and the rapture is subjected therein.. the second clause. I hope you get my point?
@Jacob,
I would think that there is a mixed bag on PD’s question of attitudes in Israel today. But I don’t think most would give them a blank check militarily or anything. I see most PD’s simply operating at a pretty basic level on geo-political policies in regards to Israel, or you could say “conservative.” Meaning that this is the ideology of most identifying PD’s, and thus they might believe that the nation of Israel has the right to defend herself as any other sovereign state in the world. So do you think you’re historic premil then?
@Fr Robert,
Thanks for sharing your position. I like that you are being clear and firm on this. I remember the first time you and I ever talked in the sphere (it wasn’t pretty 😉 ); you were frustrated with a post I had written on deconstructing classic dispy through the analogy of the Incarnation. So I’m glad to see that you’ve come full circle on this 🙂 . So it looks like you’re now embracing pre-trib as well then?
@Bobby,
Yes, and it is much less so-called “theological”, as it is just biblical. It seems to be revelatory from the Text! I can’t really explain it better than that? I think you get my drift.
Yest I do get that Fr Robert. It’s the “literal” point of interpretation. How do you flesh that out in regards to its development within the enlightenment context of development; I mean the LGH hermeneutic? I don’t think that speaks for or against its ability to be a valid hermeneutical model; I’m just wondering how you think that through? Esp. since I know that you really don’t like “Modern” thought forms and development.
Fr Robert,
When you say “rapture” do you simply mean that Christ will come again (once) at the end of history, which is what the Church has always meant by the Return, or do the more secret rapture which is the second of likely multiple comings?
To say that a position is biblical or from the text or Pauline is to preach to the choir. It might very well be biblical, but it does assume what is to be proven. Few people, to draw from an N. T. Wright quote, consciously think their position is unbiblical and wrong.
Ansgar Olav,
Indeed the “Parousia”- Coming of Christ is an “event”, which is both the Rapture or Catching-Away, and the full “arrival” and manifestation of Christ to the world! The “timing” of the so-called Rapture appears to be always imminent (Pre-trib), but the fulness of the Parousia as an “arrival” or return is connected with “signs”…2 Thess. chap’s 1 & 2.
* I know this is quick, but see the NET Bible (One-line, also btw… but I have my own leather copy). And note, 2 Thess. 2:1…as above! 🙂
Fr Robert,
That’s not precisely what I was asking. Most of Church History did see the timing of the return as imminent, but they did not hold to the Ryrie schema. To say that the timing is soon is not to imply multiple returns of Christ, nor does it entail the dispensational system.
Blessed Augustine, Seraphim Rose, the entire Russian Church tradition all held to a fairly bleak and imminent eschatological system, but they weren’t pre-trib.
Ansgar Olav,
Certainly the so-called “theological” understanding of dispensational-pre-tribulationalism is rather a new understanding in the long history of the church, but that alone does not negate its biblical truth. Note, Daniel 12:4.. Indeed we must not be slaves to our past Fathers, but be seeking the constant study of the Holy Scripture itself in..’Spirit & Truth’. Btw, I was raised R. Catholic, and even spent a few years in the English Benedictines in my later 20’s (I am 61 at present). And at one time I was also close to the EO. But thanks be to God, I am just a simple “biblicist” now! I am semi-retired as an Anglican priest/presbyter.
I am not a “slave” to the Fathers (using perjorative terms like “slave to the fathers” isn’t helpful) but I also don’t–or try not to–do theology outside the church, and am wary of systems that posit 3 or 4 returns of Christ.
You’ve mentioned your background to me a few times. I’m not entirely clear on how that advances the argument. I could reply that I have read over several hundred eschatology books and essays in seminary, and am reasonably familiar with the systems–even email correspondence with leading dispensational authors–but I am not touting my own accolades, either.
When your interpretation disagrees with mine, who gets to be the arbiter? Saying the “bible” isn’t helpful for that is the issue under contention.
AO,
I was not aware we had spoken before, and it is always important to have some experience and history over these subjects. I try not to speak with mere theory, but we are all left to the Text itself, but often in prophetic subjects we should also look at the whole life and history of Israel. But another question must arise, is the Church itself.. at least as Paul presents it in Ephesians, a subject itself of prophecy? Note I am not talking here about the apostasy of the mere visible church!
Btw, to just keep saying..3 or 4 returns of Christ is simply ad hoc, and not to the truth of Dispensational Doctrine. There is one Second Coming or Return “Arrival” of Christ, with one Rapture or “gathering to Him”. (2 Thess. 2:1) But the Second Coming of Christ is also connected to the so-called Day of the Lord, which is a large event that covers judgment, and even the Millennial Kingdom, and it’s end or movement into the Eternal Day. So we must be careful in making general and sweeping statements that often occurs in Covenant Theology.
So I’m going to ask a simple question here, but first some background. I grew up in 4 different churches that all claimed to be dispensational. I turn 40 this year (just for a time frame, mind you) I never heard any of them teach that salvation was different for a Jew than for a Gentile. They always went to Romans 4 and pointed out that salvation was the same for Abram as it was for David, as it was for Paul, as it is for me. By faith in the Christ, the promised Messiah. Israel looked forward, we look back; but salvation has always been the same. They would point to prophecy for Israel that has not been fulfilled yet, along with the last part of Romans 11 and say that God is not finished with the nation of Israel. In essence, God’s “forever” promised to Israel are indeed forever. Just because we don’t see them happening now doesn’t mean He is finished with the nation for good. He will still fulfill those promises. (not me saying this, but what I was taught growing up.)
Since they put salvation on the same ground Jew or Gentile, were they then Progressive Dispensational?
I honestly don’t know where I stand with eschatology right now. Still studying.
Craig
Craig,
Classic Dispies believe in one way of salvation too (there is the charge against Scofield that he taught two, one by Law, one by Grace — but that’s even unfounded with him). The distinction comes in in the sense that the nation of Israel is seen as THE purpose of salvation/prophetic history. Since they rejected their Messiah, God decided (on second thought it would seem) to create the “Church age.” So the Church becomes a “parenthesis” in God’s “original” plan of salvation, which was strictly for the Nation of Israel. This all means that for classics, the New Covenant and Davidic Covenant is strictly for God’s “earthly people,” the Jews. That’s why the Kingdom doesn’t start until the millennial kingdom when Jesus the Son of David finally fulfills in the earthly millennial kingdom. That’s why the Church is taken out of this age prior to that time. We come back to rule and reign with Christ during the millennial kingdom. So two different people of God. The object of saving faith is the same, but we are part of different dispensations which ultimately carry over into the eternal state (conceivably, classic dispies don’t talk about that part so much i.e. the part after the millennium and how Israel and the Church relate at that point). So your churches were probably not Progressive Dispy. Most churches that are self-consciously dispy are more “Classic” or “Revised” (per Ryrie), they’re not Progressive. Most Progressive Dispies I would say are present as faculty at Evangelical Seminaries and Bible Colleges (like mine at Multnomah, or Dallas Theological Seminary, or Talbot School of Theology to name but a few). Does that help?
PS. Classic dispies believe that the OT saints are still in Hades (vs. Heaven) or Abraham’s Bosom (Lk 16); they won’t be released or resurrected until the second coming of Christ (since they aren’t part of the “Church” age).
Craig,
You should read Ryries’ Dispensationalism (find it on Amazon), or even an older classic book J. Dwight Pentecost’s Things To Come (which I would imagine you could find on Amazon too), or even get your hands on Ryrie’s Basic Theology (I have an autographed copy which he signed when he visited our school 😉 ), and check out his eschatology section (it’s a nice concise version of what you’ll get more exhaustively in Pentecost’s book). These are the “Classic” or “Ryriean” (Revised) dispy books I would recommend to you.
Pingback: Elsewhere (06.08.2011) « Near Emmaus
Nice job Bobby!
Yes, I am much closer to the full Classic! “Ryriean”…sweet, never heard it put that way! Btw, Bobby, what do you think of the NET Bible? And also, I have a signed first edition of ‘Things To Come’, by Dwight Pentecost. Long story how I got that, I believe it was 1977? Or there abouts. I had a cousin who went to Dallas on some student deal (he’s a English Baptist), and a few years older than me. Yeah we Darb’s do get around! 🙂
Fr Robert,
Thanks. When you say “never heard it put that way,” do you mean the term “Ryriean,” or do you mean the way I explained it? Just curious. It was Pentecost’s book, when I first read it, that really made me realize what classic dispy taught (esp. the paranthesis idea) — or the first time that it made a definite impact on me in a “critical” way — which from that point on turned me away from classic to at that point progressive dispy and now historic premil. Anyway, I still like to think through some of this stuff — and the old school of my heritage. I’ve read probably all of H.A. Ironside’s commentarys as well as classic dispy biblical theologian Erich Sauer. I was a dyed in the wool classic dispy by birth and even lineage 😉 .
I even took a class in undergrad called “Dispensationalism.” We spent 1/3rd reading and discussing Ryrie’s “Dispensationalism,” 1/3rd reading Blaising & Bock’s “Progressive Dispensationalism,” and 1/3rd read and discussing O. Palmer Robertson’s “Christ of the Covenants” (for the amil bib theological perspective). That was a good class! 🙂
Kenny Chmiel was in that class with me. He was an amil then, and I think an amil now 🙂 .
Bobby: You certainly have more “theological” training in the history of Dispensationalism than I do. Of course in my theological time of education (England).. Dispensationalism was looked down upon. But I knew F.F. Bruce, who also had a “Brethren” background somewhat. My personal history there goes back to ‘the Brethren’, and my early time with my greatgram. But I got to hear and read some of the stuff from “Brethrenism” dispensationally in those days, and of course with the writings of Darby and Kelly. William Kelly btw, might be the PB’s best in biblical theological dispensationalism! His works are seen in the old Bible Treasury. Kinda hard to find, but still out there with some PB printers and publishers. And Kelly also translated the whole N.T., and that is in a hardback issue I believe next to the Darby’s NT translation? I have seen it in hardback, hopefully still in print?
Of course “the Brethren” were and are “biblicists”, simply! But Darby and Kelly were both very educated men. Both went to Trinity University in Dublin, and both graduated with honors!
And your quote to “Ryriean”, the term was what I meant! I have liked Charles Ryrie for many years! I loved, and have his old ‘Ryrie Study Bible’, NASB, Moody Press! One of my fav’s certainly! Both he and Walvoord, are no doubt my most read classic dispy’s, as you say it! 🙂 Yeah, I have covered some “dispensational” ground myself, though again, not as quote “theological” as you. 🙂
And you and Kenny must have rammed some theological heads! 😉
Fr Robert,
Yes, I’m steeped in dispy 😉 . I’ve hear of Kelly, Pentecost refers to him. I have a couple of profs from undergrad who are Plymouth Brethren. Yes Walvoord is definitely another voice. I’ve read his “Rapture Question.”
Yeah, me and Kenny used to go at it sometimes 😉 .
Here’s a link I found where you can read chapter two of Gentry & Wellum’s “Kingdom Through Covenant” where they compare and contrast the three primary varieties of Dispensationalism (classic, revised, progressive).
http://g.christianbook.com/netstorage/pdf/sample/514647.pdf
Hi dgreen,
Thanks for the link. I don’t really like Gentry, at all, though 🙂 … I mean his theology and trajectory, but thanks for the link.