by David Dunlap
Dispensationalism is renown for its masterful
defense of its sincerely-held theological convictions. In the past, its loyal
detractors and critics usually lay outside its theological camp. Now, however,
one of the strongest and most concerted challenges to traditional
dispensationalism has come from within. An increasing number of former
traditional dispensationalists are now proposing substantial changes, this new
view being called "Progressive Dispenationalism". Progressive dispensationalism
began on November 20, 1986 in the Dispensational Study Group in connection with
the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Atlanta, Georgia.
Since that time, this revisionist view of dispensationalism has made a profound
impact upon leading dispensational theological seminaries and Bible colleges.
What is Progressive Dispensationalism?
This new form of dispensationalism purports
"a return to the roots of American dispensationalism"
(Bock, Christianity Today, Sept. 12, 1994, p. 27). However, is this worthy
goal truly the motivation of Progressive Dispensationalism? How is this view
different than traditional dispensationalism? What has Progressive
Dispensationalism sought to accomplish? It appears, based on the writings of
its own proponents, that Progressive Dispensationalism has sought to gently
push into the background those features of traditional dispensationalism that
are most disagreeable to current Amillennial scholars. In the process, these
new dispensationalists have incorporated elements from Amillennialism and
historic pre-millennialism (ie., George Elton Ladd, modernist C. H. Dodd),
while de-emphasizing distinctive features of traditional dispensationalism,
such as the rapture of the church, the literal millennial reign of Jesus
Christ, and marked distinctions between Israel and the church. This view has
been, at times, so stridently promoted that, in some cases, churches have been
split over this issue. At the forefront of this movement are leaders such as
Darrell L. Bock, of Dallas Theological Seminary, Craig A. Blaising, of Southern
Baptist Theological Seminary, and Robert Saucy, of Talbot Theological
Seminary, CA. These men have authored books which have been used by their
readers to further this ongoing doctrinal debate. These books include The Case
for Progressive Dispensationalism by Robert Saucy, Progressive
Dispensationalism by Bock and Blaising, and Dispensationalism, Israel and the
Church, edited by Bock and Blaising.
Is Progressive Dispensationalism Rightly Named?
Can one be rightly called a dispensationalist
who denies the foundational tenets of dispensationalism? For the sake of
argument, suppose one states that he is a "progressive Baptist". You ask him
what that means and he replies that he believes that infant baptism is
biblical and the mode of baptism should be sprinkling. Can a Baptist who denies
believer's baptism be rightly called a Baptist. Likewise, can a progressive
dispensationalist who rejects the tenets of dispensationalism be properly
called a "dispensationalist". The answer is obvious. It is of interest in this
regard, to know what Amillenialists are saying about the title "Progressive
dispensationalism". Amillenial author Keith Mathison writes,
"The church suffers too much damage when people do not idenify what they really
believe. For the sake of accuracy, honesty, and understanding, 'progressive
dispensationalists' should no longer claim to be dispensational....It is not
enough to redefine the essential doctrines out of a system and call the
resulting opposite teaching 'progressive'. Progressive dispensationalism is
not Dispensationalism....My hope and prayer is that they continue their journey
toward Reformed theology. Since they have come a long way already, it only
makes sense to discard the misleading title "progressive dispensationalism".
(Keith Mathison, Dispensationalism, Phillipsburg, NJ : P & R Publishing, 1995,
Progressive Dispensational Departure
What are the tenets of Progressive
Dispensationalism? At the outset, it must be mentioned that Progressives set
forth a unique and, some would say, unorthodox method of interpreting the
Bible. Progressive Dispensationalist Craig Blaising rejects Charles C. Ryrie's
insistence that an essential element of dispensationalism is the use of a
literal, plain, normal, and consistent method of Bible interpretation.
Blaising and Bock have put forth what they call a
They suggest that the New Testament makes complementary changes to Old
Testament promises without setting aside those original promises. This method
of interpretation appears to be a merging together of the literal method
(dispensational) and the allegorical/spiritualizing method (Covenant Theology).
The application of this type of interpretation has led to a de-emphasis on the
rapture of the church, an essential feature of dispensationalism. In the book
Progressive Dispensationalism, by Darrell Bock and Craig Blaising, the Rapture
is considered only briefly, and it is not mentioned when it would be natural to
do so. Some observers believe that this method of interpretation lies at the
heart of the subtle disappearance of Darby/Scofield dispensationalism.
Respected dispensationalist Thomas Ice warns,
"No one can doubt that some are proposing radical changes within the
dispensational camp. The question that arises relates to the nature and virtue
of the change... I believe that these men are in the process of destroying
(Biblical Perspectives, Nov./Dec. 1992). To some, this charge against
Progressive Dispensationalism has appeared to be too harsh. However, candid
statements by the new president of Dallas Theological Seminary, Chuck Swindoll,
have cast light on the accuracy of this suspicion. In an interview with
Christianity Today, when Chuck Swindoll was asked about traditional
dispensationalism at Dallas Theological Seminary, he replied,
"I think that dispensations is a scare word. I'm not sure we're going to make
dispensationalism a part of our marquee as we talk about our school."
When asked whether the term dispensationalism would disappear, Swindoll
"It may and perhaps it should"
(Christianity Today, Oct. 25, 1993).
Progressive Dispensationalism, the Reign of Christ, and Acts 2
Another area of serious concern is the change
concerning the thousand-year millennial reign of Christ on earth. Traditional
dispensationalists have always understood that the Davidic rule of Christ would
be in earthly Jerusalem on a literal throne where His ancestor David once
ruled. Progressives teach that the Lord already rules on the throne of David
in heaven, a rule that began at His ascension. Traditional dispensationalists
reject that Christ's present rule in heaven is a fulfillment of the Davidic
covenant of 2 Samuel 7:14. However, Progressives have further muddied the
waters by teaching that Christ's millennial rule is present and is yet future
at the same time. Acts 2:29-33, is used as support for this postition. This
passage speaks of the two thrones of Christ ; the throne of Heaven and the
throne of David, an earthly throne. Progressives, have taught that these two
thrones reflect two aspects of the millennial rule of Christ. They do not
acknowledge careful distinctions between these two thrones of God. Scripture
teaches clearly of a throne of God in Heaven.
"The Lord is in His holy temple; the Lord's throne is in heaven"
(Ps. 11:4). In contrast to this, the throne of David, Scripture teaches, is
future, earthly, and literal. The careful distinction between these thrones is
made in Rev. 3:21,
"He who overcomes, I will (future) grant to sit down with Me on My throne
(earthly), as I overcame and sat down (present) with My Father on His
Blurring these distinctions will lead to confusion concerning promises made
to Israel and promises made to the church. This confusion will greatly
determine our convictions on the Lord's return, the tribulation period, and the
Christian's relationship to the Mosaic law.
The third major change proposed in
Progressive Dispensationalism, which may prove to be the most serious, is the
removal of significant distinctions between Israel and the Church. Traditional
dispensationalists have taught that God has two programs of biblical history--
one program for Israel and another distinct program for the church. In his
book, "The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism", Robert Saucy explains,
"Contrary to traditional dispensationalism, it (Progressive Dispensationalism)
does not entail separate programs for the church and Israel that are somehow
ultimately unified only in the display of God's glory or in eternity. ...The
church today has its place and function in the same mediatorial messianic
kingdom program that Israel was called to serve"
(p. 28). Progressives see almost no difference between God's unique plan for
the church and His plan for Israel. This has led one Progressive
Dispensationalist to call the church "the new Israel " (Dispensationalism,
Israel and the Church, p. 288). Many non-dispensationalist observers have
commented that this view moves Progressive Dispensationalism closer to Covenant
Theology than to Dispensationalism (Bruce Waltke, Dispensationalism, Israel,
and the Church, p. 348). This view forces its proponents to de-emphasize many
fundamental features of dispensationalism, including the pre-tribulational
rapture of the church, an event uniquely involving the church on God's
Progressive Dispensationalism and the Future
What does this all mean for the future? Will
other leading features of dispensationalism fall in favor of current
theological trends? Will Progressives marshall the strength to resist the
criticism and even the praise of non-dispensationalists? Or will Progressive
Dispensationalism progress even further towards classical Covenant Theology?
Leading Progressive Dispensationalists have not been timid in expressing their
respect for amillennialism. Progressive Darrell Bock concedes his fondness
for amillennial distinctives when he writes,
"Progressive Dispensationalism is less land-centered and less future-centered"
(Christianity Today, September 12, 1994, p. 50). Observers can only hazard an
educated guess as to the future of Progressive Dispensationalism. However, all
of this has led Dr. Walter A. Elwell, of Trinity Theological Seminary, in a
book review of Progressive Dispensationalism to surmise,
"The newer dispensationalism looks so much like non-dispensational
pre-millennialism that one struggles to see any real difference"
(Christianity Today, Sept. 12, 1994, p. 28). If his evaluation is true, then
the future bodes badly for traditional dispensationalism.
In every generation, serious students of the
Word of God must seek to effectively declare biblical truth. However, in doing
so, they must not surrender important areas of Bible doctrine. May the
exhortation of the apostle Paul to rightly divide the word of truth (2 Tim.
2:15) challenge our hearts, especially as we see Progressive Dispensationalism
spreading from the seminary classroom to the Christian bookstore and then down
into the local church, moving ever closer toward Covenant Theology. May God
grant us wisdom and discernment concerning this difficult and important issue.
W. Wesley, J. Master (ed.), Issues in Dispensationalism, (Chicago,
Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today Revised, (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1997)
Mal Couch, Dictionary of Premillennial Theology, (Grand Rapids, MI:
"On the theological scene there has appeared an aberration from what has been
considered normative dispensational teaching. ...it is progressive
Dr. Charles Ryrie
"In some dispensational circles (progressive dispensationalists)... there may
be the attempt to redefine dispensationalism to make it less offensive to those
of other beliefs, such as amillennialists."
"Progressive dispensationalism is not Dispensationalism...My hope and prayer is
that they continue their journey toward Reformed theology. Since they have
come a long way already, it only makes sense to discard the misleading title
BIBLE & LIFE
A non-profit ministry of Bible and Life Ministry, Inc.
Bible & Life Newsletter is published periodically and sent out free of charge
and is supported entirely by the free will offerings of the Lord's people.
To join our mailing list, correspond, or to receive details of where to send cheques, please email us
at the following address: