Dispensationalism is renowned 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 dispensationalism.” Progressive dispensationalism began on Nov. 20, 1986 in the Dispensational Study Group in connection with the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Atlanta, GA.
Since that time, this revisionist view of dispensationalism has made a profound impact on leading dispensational theological seminaries and Bible colleges. This new form of dispensationalism purports to be “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 from traditional dispensationalism? What has progressive dispensationalism sought to accomplish?
It appears, based on the writings of its 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 premillennialism (George Elton Ladd, and modernist C. H. Dodd), while de-emphasizing distinctive features of traditional dispensationalism, such as the rapture of the church, the literal millennial reign of 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.
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 “complementary hermeneutic.”
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 dispensationalism” (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 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 replied, “It may and perhaps it should” (Christianity Today, Oct. 25, 1993).
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. Although Progressive Dispensationalists have ardently set forth this paradoxical “already but not yet” view, many do not see it clearly supported by Scripture. This has led the former president of Dallas Theological Seminary, Dr. John Walvoord, to write, “Progressive Dispensationalism, as it is called, is built upon a foundation of sand and is lacking specific proof” (Issues in Dispensationalism, edited by Willis and Masters, p. 90).
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 nondispensationalist 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 prophetic timetable.
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, Sept. 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 into the local church, moving ever closer toward Covenant Theology. May God grant us wisdom and discernment concerning this difficult and important issue.
Suggested Resources
Wesley Willis and John Master (ed.), Issues in Dispensationalism, (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1994)
Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today Revised, (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1997)
Mal Couch, Dictionary of Premillennial Theology, (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1996)