The revising of dispensationalism we talked about in the last post in turn gave way to a third form of dispensationalism which began in the 1980s called progressive dispensationalism (PD).
One of the major features of this new dispensationalism was that its adherents began to subject one of C. C. Ryrie's defining criteria -literal interpretation- to closer examination and found it wanting.
At the same time, dialogue took place between some dispensationalists and nondispensational1 theologians which brought about more understanding and greater unity between the two opposing groups.
The PD group believes that God has one plan of salvation. That plan is being unfolded through a series of different administrations (dispensations) but they emphasise the unity of the dispensations.
However, the PD group still holds to the main dispensational tenet that Israel and the Church are distinct; nevertheless, they also hold that both receive blessings through the Abrahamic, the Davidic, and the New Covenants.
1. I've used this category to designate premillennialists who are nondispensational, as well as amillennialists (those who don't believe in a millennium on earth). It would also included preterism (that most prophecy has already been fulfilled) of all types.
2. Modern translations omit 'new' because of their use of a variant text. However, the Gospel accounts are clearly describing a covenantal Meal.
3. Of course, it can also be said that Hebrews is not addressed to Gentiles but to Hebrew Christians who were in danger of going back into Judaism once again.
4. Another issue that dispensationalists are divided on is the time the Church actually began. Some hold to an Acts 2 beginning; others to Acts 13 with the beginning of Paul's ministry; others to an Acts 28: 25-31.
One of the major features of this new dispensationalism was that its adherents began to subject one of C. C. Ryrie's defining criteria -literal interpretation- to closer examination and found it wanting.
At the same time, dialogue took place between some dispensationalists and nondispensational1 theologians which brought about more understanding and greater unity between the two opposing groups.
The PD group believes that God has one plan of salvation. That plan is being unfolded through a series of different administrations (dispensations) but they emphasise the unity of the dispensations.
However, the PD group still holds to the main dispensational tenet that Israel and the Church are distinct; nevertheless, they also hold that both receive blessings through the Abrahamic, the Davidic, and the New Covenants.
Interpretation
This subject is a large one and highly vexed with strong differences of opinion.
But as an example I had always believed that Gentiles could claim to be beneficiaries of the New Covenant set out in Jeremiah 31.31-34 (even though I was brought up as a dispensationalist without even knowing it). This fact seemed to be clear from Jesus' words to his disciples at the Last Supper (1 Cor 11.25; Luke 22.202). We also have in The Letter to the Hebrews where the New Covenant is specifically mentioned as making the Old covenant obsolete (Heb 8.8-123).
But some consistent dispensationalists don't believe that the New Covenant benefits the Gentiles. They believe that the New Covenant is for Israel alone. They reason this way on the basis that Jeremiah's words address, 'the house of Israel [Northern Kingdom] and the house of Judah [Southern Kingdom]' (Jer 31.31) and say nothing about the Gentiles.
Such exegetes would argue that all they are doing is being faithful to the 'literal' meaning of the words of Jeremiah 31.31. Hence, differences are apparent even within the classical4 dispensational school and require that we look further at the subject of interpretation which will be examined in future posts.
But as an example I had always believed that Gentiles could claim to be beneficiaries of the New Covenant set out in Jeremiah 31.31-34 (even though I was brought up as a dispensationalist without even knowing it). This fact seemed to be clear from Jesus' words to his disciples at the Last Supper (1 Cor 11.25; Luke 22.202). We also have in The Letter to the Hebrews where the New Covenant is specifically mentioned as making the Old covenant obsolete (Heb 8.8-123).
But some consistent dispensationalists don't believe that the New Covenant benefits the Gentiles. They believe that the New Covenant is for Israel alone. They reason this way on the basis that Jeremiah's words address, 'the house of Israel [Northern Kingdom] and the house of Judah [Southern Kingdom]' (Jer 31.31) and say nothing about the Gentiles.
Such exegetes would argue that all they are doing is being faithful to the 'literal' meaning of the words of Jeremiah 31.31. Hence, differences are apparent even within the classical4 dispensational school and require that we look further at the subject of interpretation which will be examined in future posts.
1. I've used this category to designate premillennialists who are nondispensational, as well as amillennialists (those who don't believe in a millennium on earth). It would also included preterism (that most prophecy has already been fulfilled) of all types.
2. Modern translations omit 'new' because of their use of a variant text. However, the Gospel accounts are clearly describing a covenantal Meal.
3. Of course, it can also be said that Hebrews is not addressed to Gentiles but to Hebrew Christians who were in danger of going back into Judaism once again.
4. Another issue that dispensationalists are divided on is the time the Church actually began. Some hold to an Acts 2 beginning; others to Acts 13 with the beginning of Paul's ministry; others to an Acts 28: 25-31.
