My View of Dispensationalism: Progressive Covenantalism
I am a dispensationalist . . . I think. Below is my explanation of my view. While the term “Progressive Covenantalism” suggests a hybrid between Covenant Theology and Progressive Dispensationalism, it is not really meant to. My view is simply Progressive Dispensationalism with two changes: 1) The emphasis is on the continuity brought about by the single covenant of redemption, not made between the members of the Trinity (as in Covenant Theology), but between God and mankind, represented by Adam. 2) The change of name. I don’t like the word “dispensationalism.” Sadly, it has lost its effectiveness due to the increadible amount of misrepresentation due to ignorance of its history and development. Therefore, I think it should be superseded (oh yeah, how was that for a play on words my young replacement theologians?). Anyway, here is a brief video clip describing what Progressive Covenantalism is. I have inserted the charts so that you can see them better.
Dan Lioy has written on this in Theological-Research. His article is helpful.
Our ministry is a partner based ministry. This means that the majority of our support comes from people like you. Please consider supporting Reclaiming the Mind Ministries as we make theology accessible. Donate today.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
- My View of Dispensationalism: Progressive Covenantalism
- An Emerging Understanding of “Orthodox” - Part 3: The Maturing of Orthodoxy
- Charles Ryrie on Dispensationalism
- What Comes to Mind When You Hear the Word “Dispensationalism� (Part 2)
- An Emerging Understanding of “Orthodox” - Part 1: Introduction
stevemoore on 31 Aug 2007 at 2:23 pm #
I like it… I’ve read Dan’s paper too, and think that this idea does address numerous continuity/discontinuity issues I’ve felt that neither system handled too well.
So - when does your paper come out on it? When does your book come out? ;^)
I’d like to know more, more details, etc…
-steve
stevemoore on 31 Aug 2007 at 3:10 pm #
Michael,
In this view, how were OC saints saved and empowered to live holy lives?
Or, more specifically, what was different about the OC saint and the NC saint? Did the OC saint have all the same spiritual resources as the NC saint within this view?
Thanks,
-steve
C Michael Patton on 31 Aug 2007 at 7:40 pm #
Steve, all systems must see some advancement in the church age as the Holy Spirit came in a particular way with the establishment of the church. According to Jeremiah 31:31, this time introduces a time when God’s law would not come as an outside force of rules and regulations, but because of a change of heart. The Holy Spirit plays an important and distinct role as the other “comforter” who comes as a representative of Christ.
Yet at the same time Christ clearly says that regeneration is the same in the Old Testament and the New Testament in John three, “unless one is born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.” Therefore, all OC saints had to be born of the Spirit.
It would seem that the indwelling power of the Spirit is functional in a more effective way under the NC.
These issues are very difficult, but I would not see any of them as discontinuous but an advancement in God’s covenant of redemption.
Both dispensationalism and CT are coming closer together on these issues. Both would say that people under the OC and NC are saved by grace through faith through the blood of Christ. The content of that faith would obviously be different since prior to Christ, people did not know about His death burial and resurrection.
djohn on 31 Aug 2007 at 7:41 pm #
“stevemoore on 31 Aug 2007 at 3:10 pm #
Michael,
In this view, how were OC saints saved and empowered to live holy lives?
Or, more specifically, what was different about the OC saint and the NC saint? Did the OC saint have all the same spiritual resources as the NC saint within this view?”
I think some of this answer lies here in romans 1:20
“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,”
I believe the oc saints recognized Gods devine nature, His faithfulness, kindness, and graciousness. These things are what lead them to live holy lives.
I don’t believe there is much difference between the oc/nc saint aside from JC Himself, who confirms them with what they already believe.
They both have the same resource in my opinion.
djohn
stevemoore on 31 Aug 2007 at 8:52 pm #
Michael,
Thanks for the follow up - you touched on the issue that I’ve been chewing on for some time:
I don’t see evidence in the Scriptures that Old Covenant saints were enabled to live consistently holy lives as compared to their New Covenant counterparts. (Just look at the hero’s of the old testament and see how few of them would even qualify as New Testament leaders). However, to assert that they had faith but were not regenerate is to contradict the reformed ordo salutis. I’m struggling to reconcile the two.
From reading Dr. Hamilton’s book regarding the Holy Spirit, he describes a viewpoint that agrees the OC saints were saved by faith, but would not consider them regenerate (a new, circumcised heart like in the new covenant). (If you’ve read the book, this is viewpoint #4 in chapter 2 and I believe that Dr. Bock holds this view?) What I’m wondering is what would the ordo salutis be for an Old Covenant saint according to this viewpoint? Is it possible for faith to precede regeneration, while still holding to election? Would they view the Old Testament ‘circumcision of the heart’ passages as references to the future New Testament, New Covenant experience of regeneration/new creation, rather than being an Old Covenant parallel to this experience? Did Old Covenant saints have the real, actual ability to “reckon themselves dead to sin” as Paul says is true of NC believers in Romans 6?
I’m trying to work my way through the Old Testament canonically. One of the things that have struck me is the lack of ability to resist sin these Old Covenant saints seemed to have. I’m reminded of Moses in Deut. 29 telling the people that God has still not given them a heart to know or see. Then there is Joshua, telling the next generation that they too won’t keep the covenant (chapter 24). Then Judges, even David, the exiles, and so on. There are some positive exceptions, but not many.
To me the evidence seems to better fit that they did not have circumcised hearts, both from the explicit references in the text and from observing what is recorded about their behavior. Obviously others have come to a different conclusion and I’m looking to understand, where I have gone wrong in my assessment of the Old Covenant saints?
Thanks,
-steve
kolabok21 on 01 Sep 2007 at 6:09 am #
If I may suggest, that it was counted to Abraham for his faith†He believed God and that was if you will an insurance of his salvation. Knowing this was before the law, it begs the question did the other entire OT saints do like wise, believe in gods promises. I can not help to wonder if when Jesus gave up the ghost in John and the spirits (the OT saints) where flowing thru the city, if this has something to do with there release if you will of there belief and thus became saved only to await us of the New Covenant to join them.
Chad Winters on 01 Sep 2007 at 4:36 pm #
I just finished Hamilton’s book and I thought he argued that OT and NT saints were regenerated in the same way “circumcision of the heart” to allow for faith, but only NT saints were subsequently indwelt by the Spirit
I’m not well educated on the Covenental Theology thing. I just picked up Michael Horton’s “God of Promise, an Introduction to Covenental Theology” I’ll see what happens.
Also Michael will enlighten me with Ecclesiology and Eschatology in the The Theology Program this fall!!
stevemoore on 01 Sep 2007 at 5:15 pm #
Chad,
He does indeed argue that view. And, though I thoroughly enjoyed the book, I felt the argument for the OT saints was based on scant evidence. (not Dr. Hamilton’s fault, I just don’t think there is much if any.) For example, I still cannot find a single OC saint that is referred to as having a circumcised heart in either the old or new testament. When I went looking through the evidences, it seemed to indicate the contrary in fact.
For example:
The book listed several passages, the first being Jeremiah 9:25-26:
9:25 The Lord says, “Watch out! The time is soon coming when I will punish all those who are circumcised only in the flesh. 9:26 That is, I will punish the Egyptians, the Judeans, the Edomites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, and all the desert people who cut their hair short at the temples. I will do so because none of the people of those nations are really circumcised in the Lord’s sight. Moreover, none of the people of Israel are circumcised when it comes to their hearts.â€
http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=jer&chapter=9#n52
In reading this, it would seem that it indicates the opposite – there were no Jews within the Old Covenant that had circumcised hearts.
Now, I’ve not made my mind up about this - I am wanting to let the Biblical evidences drive my conclusions. I’m just having trouble finding any. ;^) The bigger problem then is if I assume the OC saints were not saved in the same manner then it contradicts the reformed view of salvation. I clearly think people were saved by grace through faith under both covenants, but I have problems saying the OC saints were regenerate based on the lack of supporting evidence and the explicit evidences to the contrary. So I cant seem to get out of this contradiction. I also wonder as I’ve asked various people is if I get the “systematic” answer - meaning a CT will answer this one way and a Disp. will answer it another way, merely based on their systems rather than the Scriptural evidence. Thus, I am still trying to get to a better understanding…
-steve
socrates on 06 Sep 2007 at 4:53 pm #
So are you saying that God did not know that Adam would sin? Is he not all
knowing and soveriegn? To say that God did not know Adam would sin is to
Limit God’s power. If God knew that Adam would sin doesn’t it mean that
God would have had a plan for redemtion already in place? We need to not
limit the soverienty of God by thinkining that He is there correcting mans
errors by redirecting man with new covenents. The object of creation is for
the glorification of God through His deminstrating His nature. So we need to
see God’s justice and mercy as the deminstration of his Glory. The cross is
solely to glorify God not to save man.
C Michael Patton on 06 Sep 2007 at 4:56 pm #
Who? I never suggested such. Of course God knew. I am not open theist.
steve moore on 07 Sep 2007 at 8:01 am #
Socrates,
I don’t know if you were responding to me or to Michael but I would echo Michael’s sentiments. If it was to me, I think that my question and comments have been misunderstood - if that’s the case, I can try again.
Am I the only one who I sees (or understands my questions -posts #5, #8)? It’s possible it’s all in my head, but for me it’s a glaring question that is nagging at me.
-steve
Vangelicmonk on 24 Sep 2007 at 2:18 am #
I am not of the view that dispensationalist should be a bygone word. I don’t
mind using the word. It is like those who say don’t use the word “evangelical”
because it has lost it’s meaning in general or the word “Christian” etc.
I think this is crazy. Soon we will run out of words to use and just go with
a sign like Prince did. I am fish sign, dove insignia follower. This only serves to
complicate the issue more to those lay followers more. Just my view.