9. They thought that the other side was for Israel and this side was for the church.

8. Charles Ryrie was still on this side of the road, why cross?

7. It is pointless since Jesus is just going to bring them back after 7 years.

6. Like the OT prophets and the church age, they were unable to see the other side.

5. They counted and it would take 18 steps. That divided by 3 is 6. 666. Therefore, crossing the road might be taking the mark of the beast.

4. By taking a consistently literal approach, they thought that “cross the road” meant something about the crucifixion.

3. Dallas Theological Seminary has yet published anything telling us how to do it.

2. It was crossing from HWY 69 to HWY 70. That road is meant only for Israel.

1. They thought we would be raptured before we got there anyway.Similar Posts:

• Top Eleven Reasons Why the Reformed Theologian Did not Cross the Road
• Top Ten Reasons the Evangelical Did Not Cross the Road
• Top Eleven Reasons the Arminian Did Not Cross the Road
• Top Ten Reasons Why the Emerger Did Not Cross the Road?
• Where I Stand on Dispensationalism

I think the “official” definition of a mega-church is any church with over 2000 members.

Click here for a complete listSimilar Posts:

• Mega Churches in America Chart
• Two New Charts
• In Defense of Seeker Churches
• Theology Unplugged: What is the “True” Church #1
• Theology Unplugged: What is the “True” Church #4

If you are not familiar with this issue, let me attempt to help. There are two theological camps out there called “dispenationalists” and “covanentalists.” While there are many prophetic implications (how you view the end times, millennium, rapture, anti-Christ, etc), the primary issue has to do with how you see the nation of Israel in relation to the church. Are they distinct or one? Is their a future for the nation of Israel? Is there a distinct future for the nation of Israel? Has the Abrahamic covenant been fulfilled, forfeited, or transferred? If fulfilled, is the fulfillment literal or spiritual?

There. Clear as mud?

Let me try again.

Dispensationalist believe that there is still a future for the nation of Israel (the literal descendants of Abraham) due to their understanding that the Abrahamic covenant has yet to be completely fulfilled.

Covanentalists believe that the church has assumed the Abrahamic covenant and is the “spiritual” Israel. In Christ, there is no distinction between true (faithful) Israel and the church.

Though I graduated from the Mecca of Dispenationalism, I am honest enough to admit that both sides have good arguments and good people representing these arguments. Everyone should be able to have a great deal of understanding and empathy as to why each side believes the way they do. If they don’t, then I suspect they have not really studied the issue. 

Confusing this even more is all the variations that construct an ever growing spectrum of belief between the two. Dispensationalists come in many varieties (with “Progressive Dispensationalism” holding the scholarly consensus among Dispensationalists these days). So does Covanentalism. As well, there is more to each than a simple side by side comparison. Sometimes they are not alternative parallel rival views about a particular issue, but would be better understood as comparing apples and oranges.

Theologically speaking, it is important for us to understand that this issue should be seen as a secondary issue. In other words, this should certainly not cause anyone to break fellowship. It is a non-cardinal issue that does not have any bearing whatsoever on one’s orthodoxy (much less one’s salvation).

However, being non-essential does not mean that it is non-important. I think it is important for us to wrestle with these things and take them seriously, even if we are unwilling to elevate them in an imbalanced manner.

My purpose with here is to briefly present my position which could be thought of as a mediating position between two extremes. I introduced this in 2002 during the filming of The Theology Program. It is called “Progressive Covanentalism” and represents my tentative flag in the ground concerning the Israel-Church-future thing.

Progressive Covenantalism: God made one covenant of redemption to man that has been progressively fulfilled and understood throughout the ages by way of “installments.” The first “installment” was made to Adam and Even in Eden when God vaguely promised to fix what they broke (protoevangelion; Gen. 3:15). This was a covenant of redemption made by God to man. It was the first promise concerning redemption. All successive covenants are further installments to this covenant, representing extensions of the first, making it progressively more clear how this was going to play out.

Sense this does take from the best of dispensationalism, it is only fitting that I have a chart:

Each covenant extends God’s purpose and blessing from the beginning. While there are “dispensations” (ways of relating to God) that form the historical backdrop to this progress, the one covenant of redemption is the central focus, not the dispensations.

The Edenic Covenant of redemption was extended first in the Abrahamic Covenant in that God’s promises to Abraham provided an avenue through which the covenant of redemption would be accomplished. God promised that Abraham (and by extension his physical descendants) would be a blessing to the nations (Gen. 12:1-3).

The Mosaic Covenant was an extension of the Abrahamic Covenant. The nation of Israel (Abraham’s decedents) were to be a “kingdom of priests” (Ex. 19:6), representing God to the nations. While this Covenant could only be fulfilled in Christ it served multiple purposes in the broader scheme and served as a tutor for God’s people (Gal. 3:24). Christ became the ultimate priest to the nations (Heb. 6:20).

The Davidic Covenant (2 Sam. 7:8-16) progressed even further giving details about the royal line of redemption and restoration. The eternal peace that is promised is a redemption from the toil of the curse (2 Sam. 7:11).

The New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34) represents an internalization of the previous for a “matured” or “tutored” people. In the Church, the New Covenant begins to find its fulfillment through the new creation in Christ. This “new creation” is a correction of the fall and therefore a final stage in the fulfillment of the first covenant.

 The New Covenant was not simply for Israel, but for Israel as it extended its purpose of representing the people of God into the nations. The church itself is a progressive extension of the covenant made to Israel. Therefore, as far as the covenant goes, the Church is the umbrella of God’s protection and restoration that he used Israel to create. Redemned Israel rests under it along with all the nations of the earth.

The Kingdom Age (or millennium) is a fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. But, remember, the Abrahamic Covenant is an extension of the Edenic Covenant. Therefore, the millennium is not simply for the nation of Israel, but for all those who are under the umbrella. The Church has assumed the promises of Abraham (Gal. 3:29), but this does not mean that the physical descendants of Abraham are not assumed into the church and destined to become partakers of this kingdom in and with the church. Therefore, there is not a distinct future for the physical descendants of Abraham, but there are promises yet to be fulfilled that require the physical blood of Abraham (the natural branches) to be assumed back into the tree or (as I have put it) the umbrella  (Rom. 11:17-26).

In the end, there is only one people of God, one New Covenant, and one heaven. The millennial fulfillment is not simply for Israel, but to all people whom have taken part in the extension of God’s covenant of redemption. There is no eternal distinction between the church and Israel. However, the natural branches must to be grafted back into the olive tree. If this is the case, they are distinct only to the degree that they have yet to be assumed into the church. There is a definite future for the nation of Israel. God will bring Israel into the church which they birthed. The church has not replaced Israel as a nation. They remain united and distinct.

I remain a dispensationalist simply because I continue to see that God is not done with the nation of Israel. However, the dispensations themselves are very secondary. All traditions, technically speaking, believe in dispensations. This is not the issue. Therefore, I drop the term. The covenant of redemption is the issue. It has been progressively revealed throughout Scripture starting in Eden. Therefore, I am a “Progressive Covanentalist.”Similar Posts:

• My View of Dispensationalism: Progressive Covenantalism
• What Comes to Mind When You Hear the Word “Dispensationalism”? (Part 2)
• What Comes to Mind When You Hear the Word “Dispensationalism”? (Part 1)
• Would Christ have died had he not been killed? (2)
• The Forgotten Gospel of the End Times

Dan Lioy has written on this in Theological-Research. His article is helpful.

Similar Posts:

• Where I Stand on Dispensationalism
• What Comes to Mind When You Hear the Word “Dispensationalism”? (Part 2)
• An Emerging Understanding of “Orthodox” – Part 3: The Maturing of Orthodoxy
• The Forgotten Gospel of the End Times
• Help! My Pastor Says Theology Makes People Feel Dumb

Twelve years ago this month I was digging trenches at an archaeological site in Israel. Unfortunately, I dug myself into a theological hole with my fellow excavators before we were even close to removing all the dirt from our square. One old-school professor at an East Coast college was particularly troubled by my admission of dispensational leanings. He gave me the predictable rundown of objections. “Doc, have you read Progressive Dispensationalism by Blaising and Bock?” I asked. “You might be surprised by some of the things that they say,” I quickly added. His response, which I’ll never forget, was both witty and warped: “I’m not interested in progressing in dispensationalism!”

I give the man props for his clever rhetoric. But if a guy chooses to ignore changes in the script, then it’s probably time to step off the stage. Of course, no one is obligated to get up to speed with current trends in dispensational thought. But I don’t think it’s out of line to say that folks who adopt a “talk to the hand” stance should be the last ones to dig in their heels.

Whew. This little series is proving rather cathartic. On to the business at hand…

Review: Three Brands of Dispensationalism

In Part 1 we introduced the three following schools of dispensational thought:

1. “Classic Dispensationalism” (CD)

2. “Revised” Dispensationalism (RD)

3. “Progressive” Dispensationalism (PD)

We then briefly compared the schools’ historical roots, primary distinctives, and well-known adherents. This was done with the sole intention of showing that the quip “birds of a feather…” won’t stick to dispensationalists—no matter how much they’re tarred!

In this second entry, I want to briefly compare CD, RD, and PD with respect to their hermeneutics, the dispensations, and biblical covenants.

Hermeneutic

We noted earlier that the CD scheme is driven by the belief that God is redeeming two distinct groups of people that will remain separate throughout eternity. Likewise, CD employs a two-pronged hermeneutic. On the one hand, CD adherents interpret the Old Testament literally to determine a text’s earthly purpose. On the other hand, they interpret the Old Testament spiritually to determine a text’s spiritual purpose. It is this “spiritual” reading of an Old Testament text that past popularizers of CD meant by the word “typology.”

RD rejects the spiritual interpretive method referred to as “typology” by CD adherents. Thus, RD does not employ a two-pronged hermeneutic. Instead, RD uses what it calls a “literal,” “plain,” or “normal” interpretation of Scripture. “Literal if possible” has become the mantra of most RD adherents.

Formally speaking, the PD hermeneutic (a.k.a., “complementary” hermeneutic) has been heavily influenced by studies in literary genre, literary form, and rhetorical structure. It is marked by an emphasis upon typology—not the spiritualizing version of “typology” employed by earlier CD adherents, but one that locates patterns of similarity between earlier and later historical persons or events. Practically speaking, the PD hermeneutic lets key Old Testament promises stand as originally given to their original recipients, while allowing New Testament revelation to “complement” those promises by broadening their application. More specifically, PD adherents believe that God leaves intact key Old Testament promises originally given to Israel, but he adds subsequent “riders” that extend the benefits of those promises to redeemed Gentiles.

Dispensations

CD views each dispensation as a period of time during which the human race is tested according to the specifically revealed will of God. The failure of mankind in any given dispensation results in the divine establishment of a new economy distinguishable from the one preceding it. Each distinguishable economy is self‑contained and mutually exclusive from other economies. Of present schemes, CD places the most emphasis upon the number of dispensations in Scripture (usually seven).

RD adherents generally maintain the dispensational scheme found in CD, but with two subtle revisions: (1) individual dispensations are not necessarily seen as watertight compartments (the distinctions between ages are not as sharp); and (2) the emphasis on the number of dispensations is significantly lessened.

PD adherents do not view the various dispensations as different arrangements, but rather as successive arrangements in progressive revelation. Any differences are primarily a matter of emphasis. The dispensations are to be seen as multifaceted expressions of redemption, all culminating in one redemptive plan that finally encompasses both political and spiritual elements.

Biblical Covenants

CD views the Abrahamic Covenant as foundational to all other covenants. It is interpreted literally to derive an earthly application and spiritually to derive a heavenly application. The Mosaic, Palestinian, and Davidic Covenants are all agreed to be earthly, but the New Covenant is viewed from different perspectives. Chafer saw a new covenant in the New Testament that was different from the New Covenant of Jeremiah, while Scofield applied his two-pronged hermeneutic to arrive at a simultaneously literal and spiritual application of Jeremiah’s New Covenant. According to CD adherents, all covenants find their fulfillment in the Millennium.

RD retains the CD notion of a foundational Abrahamic Covenant, as well as earthly Mosaic, Palestinian, and Davidic Covenants. However, it looks from the cheap seats like RD adherents have, in some sense, returned to the spiritual hermeneutic of CD in their handling of the New Covenant. I don’t know how else to make sense of the fact that many RD proponents view the New Covenant as being spiritually fulfilled today while awaiting literal fulfillment in the Millennium.

PD also views the Abrahamic covenant as foundational, though the later Mosaic, Palestinian, Davidic, and New Covenants are seen as merely expounding upon it. For example, in this present age, the New Covenant is the form of the Abrahamic Covenant expressed, whereas the Davidic Covenant is the means of its expression. Belief in the successive, interconnected nature of biblical covenants leads PD adherents to find the inauguration of covenants in the present age, while looking for their consummation in the future. You have likely heard the phrase “already/not yet” used to describe this tension.

Looking Ahead

We’ve “already” seen significant differences between the interpretive approaches represented by CD, RD, and PD. But we’ve “not yet” touched upon the ramifications of these approaches where we feel them most. In our next (and final) installment, we’ll see what each school has to say about the Church, the Kingdom, and salvation. I’ll wrap things up with a quick review and suggest some further reading.Similar Posts:

• Where I Stand on Dispensationalism
• My View of Dispensationalism: Progressive Covenantalism
• What Comes to Mind When You Hear the Word “Dispensationalism”? (Part 1)
• The Forgotten Gospel of the End Times
• What Do You Mean When You Say God is Sovereign?

Introduction: A dispensationalist’s (small “d” intended) Gripe

At Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, we’re unabashedly committed to irenic theology. This means that even when we vehemently disagree with a particular theological stance, we do our very best to describe that stance fairly and squarely. And there’s only one sure-fire way of knowing that we’ve met this objective: anyone who’s adopted the position we’ve put on the table could pull up a chair and say, “It looks good to me!”

Before getting to our main course, let me say that I’ve had more than my fill of current eschatological fare. In fact, these days, my stomach turns every time I catch wind of a new book someone is cooking up to satisfy our urge to know what the Bible really teaches about the end times. It’s not eschatology in itself that I find disagreeable (it is, after all, part of the whole counsel of God); it’s the smug smell rising from so many contemporary popular works on the subject. And nothing stinks more than works that caricature other positions.

Let’s be honest: no eschatological camp is entirely innocent of constructing and collapsing a house of cards (representing an opposing position) every now and then. It’s easy to take the path of least resistance through an opposing camp and wave a victory flag when we’re done. Oftentimes, this impresses the socks off of folks who proudly display our stripes. But it always makes us look xenophobic, theologically speaking, to those on the outside who see the broader landscape.

Dispensationalism is getting a bad rap these days. Much of that rap is deserved. As someone reared theologically in this tradition, I readily admit that dispensationalists of old have made many careless, some outlandish, and even a few heretical statements. Exposing these blunders is like shooting fat carp in a slim barrel. Unfortunately, those bent on ridding the doctrinal waters of dispensational pests are so impressed with each hit (especially when they’re the ones pulling the trigger!) that they never bother to see—or simply choose to ignore—bigger fish that aren’t as easy to fry.

I confess that I’m weary of witnessing assaults on dispensationalism in books and blogs where it’s defined in antiquated, simplistic, myopic terms. Now let me be clear: I’m not married to dispensational thought and I don’t have problems with critiques of it per se (I’ve written a few of my own!). But 9 times out of 10 when I find dispensationalism defined prior to an attempted dismantling, I’m put off by the description. It almost never “looks good to me.”

The reason for this is simple: dispensationalism is not monolithic. It’s not a one-size-fits-all system, as so many would have us think. Different brands of dispensationalists believe quite different things, and it’s time that popular dispie-busters get a clue on this front. Then again, maybe that’s too much to expect. I mean, this discussion has only been going on in print for the last few decades.

Why the sarcasm? Let’s just say that I finally received one too many e-mails essentially asking, “How can someone who seems so smart be so naïve as to believe that God has two plans of salvation, two distinct peoples, and two eternal destinies for those who are saved?” In my less charitable moments, I’m tempted to retort, “How can someone who seems so interested in dispensationalism be two decades behind in the discussion?” By God’s grace, I haven’t responded that way—yet.

Rather than merely cry foul, I want to give readers of Parchment and Pen a simple snapshot of three major schools of dispensational thought, with the hope that folks will see just how far removed many current dispensationalists are from the caricatures (which, if true, would make just about every dispensationalist with whom I rub shoulders drop the label like a bad habit!) that so readily find their ways to my inbox. So without further ado…

Three Brands of Dispensationalism

There are three primary schools of dispensational thought existing today. The different schools can be labeled as follows:

1. “Classic” Dispensationalism (CD)

2. “Revised” Dispensationalism (RD)

3. “Progressive” Dispensationalism (PD)

In the remainder of this entry I want to briefly compare these schools by noting their historical roots, primary distinctives, and well-known adherents. [What follows barely skims the surface. I can recommend further reading if people want to unpack things.]

Historical Roots

CD is descriptive of early British and American dispensationalism, most widely promoted during the period of time beginning with John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) and ending with Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871-1952). Cyrus Ingerson Scofield (1843-1921) is largely credited as the key representative of this model, and his Scofield Study Bible of 1909 is used as the initial reference point for the term dispensationalism. The influence of CD has dwindled significantly over the years.

RD arose as a revision of CD in the 1950’s and 1960’s and found its clearest expression in the 1966 edition of Charles C. Ryrie’s Dispensationalism Today. RD still enjoys a large following, more so outside of academia than within.

PD is the result of dialog over the past thirty or so years, and formally received its current label at the Evangelical Theological Society meetings in 1991. Spearheaded by adherents of RD who further refined historical-literal interpretive methods, its development has primarily been the result of advances in the study of biblical theology (with its focus on the historical progression of divine revelation).

Primary Distinctives

The primary distinctive of CD is its emphasis upon two separate groups of redeemed people. According to CD, redeemed persons living at the time of Christ’s return will comprise an earthly people relieved of the curse and restored from sin. On the other hand, redeemed persons (of any dispensation) who die before the Second Coming will comprise a heavenly people privileged to inhabit a celestial world. The distinction between these two redeemed groups will remain throughout eternity.

RD abandons the idea that two distinct groups of redeemed people will spend eternities separated from one another, but nonetheless maintains a rigid distinction between Israel and the Church. Interestingly, this has required adherents of RD to choose between an eternity of all redeemed peoples in heaven or on earth. Both options are supported in the RD camp.

Unlike both CD and RD, PD sees no eternal distinction in redemptive blessing upon various groups of people. Though the Church has its own identity, it is part of the same plan of redemption with Israel. This is a rather logical development, since the very nature of PD is a complementary relationship between the Old and New Testaments.

Well-known Adherents

The most visible, ardent defenders of CD are deceased. They included men such as John Nelson Darby, C. I. Scofield, Lewis Sperry Chafer, James H. Brookes, Harry A. Ironside, William Pettingill, Henry C. Theissen and Arno C. Gaebelein.

Published, influential adherents of RD include both deceased and living men the likes of Charles C. Ryrie, J. Dwight Pentecost, J. Alva McClain, Renald Showers, John F. Walvoord, Robert P. Lightner, Thomas Ice, and Paul Feinberg.

As far as I can tell, proponents of PD are considerably less aggressive about pushing an eschatological agenda and, in fact, are often better known for contributions to other areas of study. They include men like Darrell L. Bock, Robert L. Saucy, Craig A. Blaising, W. Edward Glenny, and J. Lanier Burns.

Preview of Forthcoming (and Much Shorter!) Entries

In the next entry, I’ll take a quick, comparative look at CD, RD, and PD with respect to their hermeneutical practices, the dispensations, and biblical covenants. In the third and final entry, I’ll overview each school’s teaching on the Church, the Kingdom, and salvation.

By the time the three-part mini-series is complete, it should be clear that not all dispensationalists today look the same. And thank God for that! As much as I admire Darrell Bock, I’m not ready to lose my hair!Similar Posts:

• What Comes to Mind When You Hear the Word “Dispensationalism”? (Part 2)
• My View of Dispensationalism: Progressive Covenantalism
• The Forgotten Gospel of the End Times
• Where I Stand on Dispensationalism
• Is the Hyper-Preterist Gospel a Different Gospel?