Progressive Dispensationalism

[natewood3]

I became a Calvinist about three years ago, and I have mainly studied the soteriology of the Reformed faith. I am just now becoming interested in Covenant Theology, eclessiology, and eschatalogy from a Reformed point of view. I became interested in Progressive Dispensationalism because I found out that Bruce Ware claims to be a PDist.

Anyone know any good resources on PD and CT? I have not studied CT enough to be able to distinguish the main differences in CT and PD, or even NCT. What is the difference between Chafer dispensationalism and PD? What are the fundamental differences between PD and CT or even NCT?

I have looked at charts explaining the differences, but the charts were not indepth enough to really give their arguments for why they believe what they do. Any help would be appreciated.

 

[austinbrown2]

A few thoughts-

I have had a fairly recent (several years) voyage from P.D. to covenant theology. Two staple books on NCT and P.D. are:

New Covenant Theology by Wells and Zaspel. Very readable. It will outline the debate fairly well.

The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism by Saucy.

Always check out monergism.com for ANYTHING. Look under covenant theology.

Also check out: http://www.ccir.ed.ac.uk/~jad/welty/

Progressive dispensationlism is better than old school dispensationalism for sure, but they still hold to a hard line seperation of Israel and the Church. Their hermeneutical approach is more nuanced than classic Disp., but they still don't fully appreciate typology.

For myself, I turned to the best stuff on covenant theology and that proved to be most excellent for helping me see the differences. O Palmer Robertson's "Christ of the Covenants" is a must read.

Actually, it was through studying warning passages in Scripture that first led me to covenant theology and infant baptism. I have since found out that many people have turned towards covenant theology/infant baptism by studying the warning passages in Scripture (McMahon, Strawbridge, Wilson, etc.). Even if you don't agree with paedobaptism, read some of the leading literature in the area. John Murray's book on baptism is a classic. Greg Strawbridge has some great stuff: http://www.wordmp3.com/gs/

Douglas Wilson's book "To a Thousand Generations" is excellent.

I would also recommend Kim Riddlebarger's "A Case for Ammillennialism." It deals with dispensationalism as well as eschatology (the two can't be seperated).

At the end of the day, all forms of Dispensationalism cling to their system because they believe God still has a plan for ethnic Israel, as a nation, that will fulfill the promises made in the OT. That is their theological constraint. This theological constaint leads to certain views on ecclesiology, eschatology, sacramentology, soteriology and Law and Gospel. It is truly amazing how far reaching the implications are to each system.

God bless,
Austin

 

[JM]

http://www.geocities.com/~lasttrumpet/prodisp.html

These guys are very anti-Calvinist, watch your step.

 

[RamistThomist]

Is Russell Moore at SBTS a PDist?

 

[ReformedWretch]

Progressive dispensationalism to me is a dispensationalist that is starting to understand that dispensationalism is incorrect.

 

[Bladestunner316]

but where would a Dispensational turn who was realizing the errors of the system? CT or something worse?

 

[ReformedWretch]

I turned to Partial Preterism

 

[Bladestunner316]

I'm leaning toward Historicism at the moment. But am still learning.

 

[ReformedWretch]

Cool, what's worse than dispensationalism though?

 

[bfrank]

Originally posted by houseparent
Cool, what's worse than dispensationalism though?

Full Preterism?

 

[ReformedWretch]

Ah, true.

 

[bradofshaw]

Progressive dispensational rock?

Only kidding. I hope your studies are fruitfull.

 

[gregbed]

Originally posted by Bladestunner316
but where would a Dispensational turn who was realizing the errors of the system? CT or something worse?

I know you said this in jest, but I remember well enough that the way most (at least among my fellowship) disp. believed CT is a half-step towards liberalism. "If you deny a literal understanding of the Bible, who knows what you will deny next"
PD may just be the fig leaf that some questioning dispensationalists "need" to ask the right questions without feeling like they are abandoning fundamentalism.
Once they meet some real CTs and find them more committed to the Word of God than themselves, they'll be ok.

With the uneasy feeling that I am justifying bad theology with pragmatism,
Greg

 

[Wannabee]

I think there's a good point you're making Greg. Obviously I hold dispensationalism lightly since I can't seem to submit to a label. The systems are all flawed somewhere though. Suppose that the truth is somewhere between dispensationalism and CT. Then the only direction a dispensationalist can move closer to the truth is to move closer to CT. Of course, the opposite is true as well, but we'll not go there.