Progressive Dispensationalism

[bearbear]

Many of us who came out of the LCs hold to a traditional dispensational theology which WL inherited from Nee and Darby and which also is the predominant theology in evangelicalism. In this view Israel and the church are viewed as distinct so God's covenants with the Church and Israel are also separate. In most versions this extends even to the New Testament where some would say the Olivet Discourse (Matt 24, Mark 13, Luke 21) which contains Jesus' teachings on the second coming applies to Israel and not the church. This always bothered me because Jesus' audience during this sermon are his followers and not unbelieving Jews. Traditional dispensationalists would agree that Messianic Jews like Jesus' disciples who are his audience in Matthew 24 who put their faith and trust in Jesus would presumably be raptured before God's wrath, yet somehow they redirect the Olivet discourse to unbelieving Jews forming a clear contradiction.

In recent decades, a view coined as "progressive dispensationalism" has been gaining ground. Similar to Commonwealth theology this view treats Israel and the Church as distinct but not separate inheriting One New Covenant with an ongoing partial fulfillment and a future complete fulfillment for Israel. I believe this view is closer to what the early church believed. They were premillenialists yet they believed all of Jesus' teachings were applicable to themselves and not unbelieving Israel. Unfortunately Augustine introduced the heresy of preterism and replacement theology into the church around 400AD and the view the early church fathers held faded away until 1400 years later when teachers like JN Darby eventually discovered that the church has not replaced Israel and God's promises still apply to Israel. However I believe he swung the pendulum too far by overly dividing the church and Israel.

In progressive dispensationalism, the Olivet discourse and all of Jesus and the apostles teachings can be interpreted to apply to his followers which compose the Church. Wikipedia has more information on this view and can probably explain it better than I can: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progre...pensationalism

Progressive dispensationalists, like Blaising and Bock, argue for one new covenant with an ongoing partial fulfillment and a future complete fulfillment for Israel. Progressives hold that the new covenant was inaugurated by Christ at the Last Supper. Progressives hold that while there are aspects of the new covenant currently being fulfilled, there is yet to be a final and complete fulfillment of the new covenant in the future. This concept is sometimes referred to as an "already-but-not-yet" fulfillment...
..
These differences between traditionalists and progressives show up in how one views the Old Testament texts and promises in the New Testament and how they are handled by the New Testament writers. For traditionalists, who perceive the present dispensation as a parenthesis, the standard approach has been to view Old Testament quotations in the New Testament as applications rather than fulfillment. If an Old Testament quotation is said to have a fulfillment role in the New Testament (outside of the gospels), then that may imply that the present dispensation is no longer a parenthesis, but has a relationship or connection with the prior dispensation. In contrast, progressives, instead of approaching all Old Testament quotations in the New Testament as application, attempt to take into account the context and grammatical-historical features of both Old Testament and New Testament texts. An Old Testament quote in the New Testament might turn out to be an application, but it also might be a partial fulfillment or a complete fulfillment or even something else.
...
For example, in Jeremiah 31:31–34, the original recipients of the new covenant were Jews—i.e., "the house of Israel and the house of Judah." Progressives hold that in Acts 2, believing Jews first participated in the new covenant based on Jer 31:31–34. Gentiles were not named as original participants. However, additional revelation came in Acts 9–10 concerning believing Gentiles where God (through Peter and Cornelius) formally accepted believing Gentiles as co-heirs with the Jews. In other words, God used additional New Testament revelation to further expand the participants of the new covenant to include believing Gentiles. God did not replace the original recipients or change the original meaning of the new covenant, He simply expanded it...

This theology is relevant to the second coming because it then allows for a simpler literal reading of Jesus' teachings on his coming which I believe is consistent with the prewrath rapture view. I will introduce the prewrath rapture view in another thread here: https://localchurchdiscussions.com/v...380#post113380