Contemporary Dispensational Theology, 1992

CONTEMPORARY DISPENSATIONAL THEOLOGY

Introduction

This paper will examine recent developments in dispensa-tional theology, generally known as progressive dispensationalism. To do so, the broad history of dispensational theology will !rst be surveyed. Several broad groups within the spectrum of dispensa-tionalism will be identi!ed, some of the key questions that are crucial in the hermeneutics of that school will be noted, and !nally, a key tenet of progressive dispensationalism will be brought into focus: the relationship of the church to the kingdom. The approach will be primarily descriptive rather than analytical.

The Origins of Contemporary Dispensationalism

Popular discussions of dispensationalism often claim, or at least imply, that Paul was the !rst dispensationalist.1 If dispensa-tional theology is a legitimate hermeneutical system, then it must be a re"ection of the biblical text. That is quite different from asserting that the apostle was a dispensationalist. It is unlikely that Paul would !nd the de!nitions and terminology of contemporary dispensationalism familiar. To claim that he was a dispensationalist is as presumptuous as claiming him as a Calvinist or an Arminian. Dispensationalism would sound as foreign to him as infralapsar-______________

1Ryrie correctly points out that “informed dispensationalists do not claim that. They recognize that as a system dispensationalism was largely formulated by Darby, but that outlines of a dispensationalist approach to the Scriptures are found much earlier.” Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody Press, 1965), 66.

2 Contemporary Dispensational Theology

ianism or limited atonement. Modern terminology and systematic formulations should not be read backward into apostolic writings.

Paul Karleen points out one of the problems that results when this principle is ignored.

As an example of carelessness by dispensationalists, I would point to the use of oikonomia in Eph. 3:2 to establish a rationale for dispensa-tions. Often the dispensationalist says, on the basis of all its uses in the NT, that this word refers to responsibility as a steward, management of a household, a speci!ed time, etc., and then maps all of this onto the concept of “dispensation.”32 Not only does this involve illegitimate totality transfer, but I suspect that in context the word refers only to Paul’s responsibility, not a plan of the ages. I hope we stop using this argument. It involves poor exegesis and poor lexicography. ____________

32See Ryrie’s discussion in his Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody Press, 1965), 24–33.2

This preliminary summary statement does not mean that dis-pensationalism is without a biblical foundation. The principle con-tention of dispensationalism (in all its forms) is that a historical, cultural, grammatical exegesis of the biblical text will result in a dispensational view of God’s dealings with man.

At another end of the spectrum, particularly among antidis-pensationalists, it is quite common to charge that dispensation-alism originated with John Nelson Darby (1800–1882)—one of the early leaders in the Brethren movement.3 Allis argued that this ______________

2Paul S. Karleen, “Understanding Covenant Theologians: A Study of Presuppositions,” Grace Theological Journal 10.2 (1989): 137. This is a paper originally presented at the fourth public meeting of the Dispensational Study Group in San Diego on November 16, 1989. Feinberg points out the same problem: John S. Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments: Essays in Honor of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., John S. Feinberg, ed., 63–86 (Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1988), 68–69. For a helpful discussion of illegitimate totality transfer, see Moisés Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meanings: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 25–27.

3E.g., William E. Cox, An Examination of Dispensationalism (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1963), 1. Cox places Darby in the same camp as Joseph Smith, William Miller, Judge Rutherford, and

Origins of Contemporary Dispensationalism 3

“relatively new interpretation of prophecy” “can be traced back directly to the Brethren Movement which arose in England and Ireland about the year 1830.”4 That dispensationalism is “a com-paratively new doctrine”5 apparently proves that it cannot be cor-rect.6 Others make more extravagant claims, suggesting that Darby learned of the pretribulational rapture from the visions of a 15-year-old girl (Margaret MacDonald) in 1830.7 There has been little

Charles Taze Russell. The “spiritual vacuum” of this time period (all the men listed were active in the mid-nineteenth century) incubated many “fantastic millennial theories” and “rediscovered truths” (p. 4). All are tarred with the same brush. This guilt-by-association is illegitimate.

4O. T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church (2d ed., [Philadelphia]: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1947), vi, 9.

5Cox, Examination, Introduction. 6This ignores the fact that much of the contemporary theological

landscape can be called recent. If continuous historical pedigree is the determinative factor in theological and exegetical legitimacy, Roman Catholicism would win by default since it dominated from the fourth to the sixteenth century. As Showers has pointed out, “Covenant Theology did not begin as a system until the 16th and 17th centuries. It did not exist in the early Church…Nor was the system developed during the Middle Ages or by the prominent Reformers Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, or Melanchthon.” (Renald E. Showers, There Really Is a Difference! A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology [Bellmawr, NJ: Friends of Israel, 1990], 7.) See also Ryrie’s comments in Dispensationalism Today, 66f.

7One of the more popular attempts in recent years is Dave McPherson, The Great Rapture Hoax (Fletcher, NC: New Puritan Library, 1983). Gary North has recently echoed this same claim in his foreword to House Divided: The Break-up of Dispensational Theology by Greg Bahnsen and Kenneth Gentry, Jr. (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), xxviii. Thomas Ice cites a number of others who have suggested the same or a variation of this charge, including Tregelles, Boettner, and Bray: Dispensational Distinctives (newsletter of Biblical Awareness Ministries, Austin, TX), Nov.-Dec. 1991. Ryrie cites similar statements from E. J. Carnell and D. Fuller: Dispensationalism, 65f. Others seek to discredit dispensationalism by maligning the personal life of in"uential leaders in the dispensational movement, e.g., Joseph M. Can!eld, The Incredible Sco!eld and His Book (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1988). For a


documentation offered to support these claims. R. A. Huebner has recently traced Darby’s dispensational theology back as far as 1826. This would suggest that charges of a sectarian, 1830 origin of the idea is unfounded.8

Precursory In"uences to the More Recent Systematizing

Dispensationalism was !rst set forth by Darby as a systematic approach to Scripture (although there are a number of signi!cant differences between Darby and, e.g., Sco!eld).9 This does not pre-

dispensational review of this book, see John D. Hannah, “A Review of The Incredible Sco!eld and His Book,” BibSac 147 (1990): 351–64.

8R. A. Huebner, Precious Truths Revived and Defended Through J. N. Darby: Vol. One, Revival of Truth, 1826–1845 (Morganville, NJ: Present Truth, 1991), cited by Ice, Dispensational Distinctives, 1–2.

9“There is no question that the Plymouth Brethren, of which John Nelson Darby (1800–1882) was a leader, had much to do with the system-atizing and promoting of dispensationalism. But neither Darby nor the Brethren originated the concepts involved in the system.” Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 74. Note, however, the clari!cation that is nec-essary. “Darby’s teachings…[were] obviously not the pattern which Sco!eld followed. If Sco!eld parroted anybody’s scheme, it was Watts’, not Darby’s. Although we cannot minimize the wide in"uence of Darby, the glib statement that dispensationalism originated with Darby, whose system was taken over and popularized by Sco!eld, is not historically accurate.” Ibid., 76. More recent research by Crutch!eld has con!rmed these state-ments. “There appears to be little evidence to connect Sco!eld directly to the works and in"uence of Darby…But that there was an indirect link to his works through Gaebelein and perhaps Brookes, seems also fairly sure. In any case, Darby seems to have set the stage and guided the way for the dispensational theology which was to follow him.” A few pages later he concludes that “In at least a predigested form, there is little doubt that Sco!eld bene!ted from Darby’s labors. There is little doubt too that some of the metal from Darby’s ore, as well as that from other scholar’s [sic], is intermingled with Sco!eld’s theological sculpture. But whatever the source, it cannot be fairly denied that Sco!eld !rst gave the ore the acid test of Scriptural scrutiny before re!ning and integrating it into his own work.…In the final analysis, we may probably never know for sure where Darby got the ideas for some of his concepts, if in fact they did not come


clude earlier dispensational ideas. Such theological antecedents have been traced, in one shape or another, to the second century.10 These include premillennialism, an imminent return of Christ, a system of dispensations, and a distinction between Israel and the church.11 Crutch!eld claims that “one !nds rudimentary features of dispensationalism that bear a striking resemblance to their con-temporary offspring.”12 Other scholars, including dispensation-alists, look at this evidence and !nd that it “has never really been convincing.”13 Although there are some similarities, it is probably best to conclude that a great deal of weight should not be placed on historical arguments in defending dispensationalism.

There are some interesting developments in the two centuries before Darby that point to theological interaction and development in areas that became central in dispensational theology. Ryrie cites several theologians from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries who discussed God’s dealings with man in terms very similar to

directly from Scripture. We may never know for sure to what extent, either directly or indirectly, that Scofield was the beneficiary of Darby’s theo-logical labors.” Larry V. Crutch!eld, “The Doctrine of Ages and Dispensations as Found in the Published Works of John Nelson Darby (1800–1882)” (Ph.D. diss., Drew Univ., 1985), 345, 347.

10There have been two major efforts to do so: Arnold H. Ehlert, “A Bibliography of Dispensationalism,” Th.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1945; reprinted in BibSac 101–03 (1944–46): et passim; and Larry Crutch!eld, “Rudiments of Dispensationalism in the Ante-Nicene Period,” Part 1: “Israel and the Church in the Ante-Nicene Fathers,” Part 2: “Ages and Dispensations in the Ante-Nicene Fathers,” BibSac 144 (1987): 254–76, 377–401.

11Ibid., 255–56. These ideas are not formulated precisely as modern dispensationalism and some contradict speci!c aspects of the contem-porary formulation. Crutch!eld must acknowledge that “the position of the Fathers on the relation between Israel and the church has problems” (Ibid., 270). The similarities are much closer than most detractors are willing to admit.

12Ibid., 398. 13Blaising, “Development of Dispensationalism by Contemporary

Dispensationalists,” Part 2 of “Developing Dispensationalism,” BibSac 145 (1988): 254.


Darby’s.14 These probably constitute a closer parallel with Darby’s thought than the early church.

These precursors to modern dispensationalism ought not to be claimed as earlier teachers of the same system known today. “Dis-pensationalists are aware that their system has introduced a new theological synthesis into the history of postapostolic Christian thought.”15 There has been development in all areas of theology throughout the history of the church. This is to be expected.16 No theologian has perfect understanding of God, Scripture, or the-ology.17 The history of doctrine demonstrates these points in many areas, ranging from the early discussions of Christology to the Reformation debates regarding soteriology. It should not be sur-prising that basic concepts in the areas of hermeneutics, ecclesi-ology, and eschatology have developed and are developing.18 The

______________ 14Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 71–74. 15Blaising, “Development of Dispensationalism,” 254. 16Craig Blaising has discussed the issue of doctrinal development at

length: “Doctrinal Development in Orthodoxy,” Part 1 of “Developing Dispensationalism,” BibSac 145 (1988): 133–40.

17“History evidences the truth that no system of interpretation or theology can justly claim !nality in all details. Under the continuing illu-mination of the Spirit the Church grows in its knowledge of God’s reve-lation found in Scripture.” Robert Saucy, “Contemporary Dispensational Thought,” TSF Bulletin, 7 (1984): 11.

A number of theologians counted among the precursors to dispensa-tional theology held views in other areas that would today be considered incorrect or even heretical. Some of the “dispensational” Fathers taught a sex-/septa-millennial view (6,000 years of human history followed by a 1,000 year millennial reign). (Crutch!eld, “Rudiments of Dispensationalism,” 255.) Isaac Watts taught a Christology that leaned toward Arianism. (Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 73.) Similar things could be said about many of the Fathers and other theologians in the his-tory of the church. No believer consciously and willingly holds what he considers to be erroneous doctrine. The task is not to defend everything one believes as inerrant (a presumptuous and arrogant claim), but to con-tinually test one’s beliefs on the basis of biblical revelation.

18Blaising argues that “Dispensationalists should be open to, sensitive to, and ready to entertain any future development of theology based on a


task of the church19 is to evaluate these developments and deter-mine which are legitimate, biblical developments in understanding and which are illegitimate, unorthodox developments.

proper theological method, giving primary consideration to the ongoing work of interpreting Scripture.” “Development of Dispensationalism,” 255.

19Church is not used here in the sense of Christendom. The issue is not majority vote of those churches professing the name of Christ, but the consensus of the true church. That is easier to state than to de!ne. In the early centuries the ecumenical councils (Nicea, etc.) served as the forum to hammer out statements of doctrinal orthodoxy. Such councils have been practically impossible for most of the history of the church since those days. Today orthodoxy must content itself with theological argumentation in the forum of separate churches, seminaries, and in the books and jour-nals.

Local churches often feel impotent to voice their mind in such debates, yet Paul declares that the local church is “a pillar and buttress of the truth,” 1 Tim. 3:15. #$%&' ()* +,'-. /0123.4 /05674 1,89 (: /4 &';6*· /<4 =: >,$=?4., @4$ 6A=B9 1C9 =67 /4 )DEF 56)% G4$(&,H-6(5$*, I&*9 /(&J4 /EE0K(2$ 56)% 3C4&)9, (&%0)9 E$J L=,$2.M$ &N9 G0K562$9, vv. 14–15] Only as individual churches stand true to the Word of God will “the church” remain orthodox. This is the only preventive and cure for liberalism in denominational machinery and in seminaries. If local churches refuse to support and tolerate such teaching in their church, there will be no progress of such doctrine. Unfortunately, there are now so many churches that do not concern themselves with such matters that the likelihood of a major change, at least on the American scene, appears dim.

The Spectrum of Contemporary Dispensationalism

Dispensationalism is often viewed, both by outsiders and insiders, as a monolithic structure with a homogenous doctrinal system.20 Such is not the case. Doctrinal development within dispensationalism did not cease with Darby. It is true that there was a period early in this century when dispensationalism “began to change from a creative to a defensive posture [and] Sco!eldism approached confessional status in the newly established schools.”21 That is not as true today, at least in most circles.22 Dispensation-alism is “an actual theological movement and tradition that grew and developed to the point of Sco!eldism but was neither always that…nor only that…nor was it simply premillennialism or simply

______________ 20Blaising discusses this conception in some detail and suggests some

of the reasons for it: “Development of Dispensationalism,” 256–58. It is encouraging to note that some more recent covenant theologians have been more sensitive to this issue. O. Palmer Robertson in particular makes a point of noting this development: The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1980), 202–03, as does Vern Poythress in his book, Understanding Dispensationalists (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), see esp. ch. 3. See also Tremper Longman III, “What I Mean by Historical-Grammatical Exegesis: Why I Am Not a Literalist,” Grace Theological Journal 11.2 (1990): 138. Unfortunately, some recent writers perpetuate the myth. Gary North acerbically lumps together the “pop-dispensationalists” (e.g., Edgar Whisenant and Hal Lindsey) with all others of the dispensational family (House Divided, xxii).

21Craig Blaising, “Dispensationalism at the End of the Twentieth Century” (A paper presented to the Evangelical Theology Group of the American Academy of Religion, November 19, 1990), 5. He proposes that one reason for this is “the catechetical-ministerial orientation of those schools.” Ibid.

22The “mother school” of dispensational theology, Dallas Theological Seminary, has been particularly inclined in the direction of development in recent years. Faculty members from Dallas have been key leaders in progressive dispensationalism.


the recognition of some difference between the OT and NT.”23 “Any discussion of contemporary dispensationalism must recog-nize at the outset that there exists within this broad theological school a considerable variety of interpretive opinion.”24 “Dispensa-tional theology traditionally as well as currently represents a broad spectrum and is continually being re!ned.”25

Four26 major forms of dispensationalism may be identi!ed if the twentieth century is (somewhat arbitrarily) designated as the

______________ 23Ibid. 24Robert Saucy, “Contemporary Dispensational Thought,” 10. 25Witmer, “Review,” 145. 26It should also be noted that, in addition to the four groups noted

above, there has been an adaptation of dispensationalism in mainstream Pentecostalism that is, in a number of ways, similar to progressive dispen-sationalism. It is not discussed separately in the body of this paper. The following comments by Douglas Oss will provide a brief sketch of the sit-uation.

Historically Pentecostals have considered themselves to be dispensa-tionalists. Early Pentecostals were in"uenced signi!cantly by dispensa-tionalism and American fundamentalism. The Sco!eld Reference Bible was endorsed by of!cial Assemblies of God publications, and the denomination’s chief organ, The Pentecostal Evangel, commonly af!rmed the dispensational stance of the movement.

Although mainstream dispensationalists rejected Pentecostalism from the very beginning of the movement, it was from their ranks that many of the !rst Pentecostals came. In particular, many early Pentecostal leaders came from traditions associated with the Bible con-ferences of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It was in the course of these conferences that dispensationalism gained a foothold in the milieu out of which Pentecostalism arose.

However, while a “Pentecostalized” version of dispensationalism has been part of the Pentecostal framework from the beginning, the rigid dualism of Sco!eldism has never been part of mainstream Pentecostal scholarship. In fact, the Sco!eldian hermeneutic is particularly repug-nant to the foundational Pentecostal view that Acts 2 records the ful!llment of the prophecy of Joel 2:28–32 during the last days. In the Sco!eldist approach, the events of Acts 2 did not constitute ful!llment but only pointers to, or shadows of, the real ful!llment for Israel at a future time. Of course more recent expressions of the dispensational

The Spectrum of Contemporary Dispensationalism 11

period of “modern dispensationalism”: classic, modi!ed, pro-gressive, and hyperdispensationalism.27 Although there are differ-ences between each of these approaches, they are all members of the dispensational family. The !rst three may be distinguished doctrinally and chronologically. The group listed as classic dispen-sationalism refers to the Sco!eld/Chafer formulation of the !rst half of the twentieth century. Modi!ed dispensationalism devel-oped in the late 1950s and 1960s. Progressive dispensationalism is

hermeneutic reject this position and af!rm that there is real ful!llment in the church.

Pentecostals have maintained that the “last days” came fully into reality with the events on the day of Pentecost recorded in Acts 2. Moreover, both the animistic and dynamistic works of the Spirit are held to be characteristic of the entire epoch. Spiritual ful!llment of the kingdom promises is realized in the church (e.g., Joel 2:23, 28–32; Isa. 32:15; 44:3). This understanding of the redemptive-historical signi!cance of the last days has shaped the hermeneutics of Pentecostalism more than any other single factor, and is largely responsible for the reformulations of dispensational thought within Pentecostalism. Indeed, it brought about several decades ago in Pentecostalism the kinds of development now taking place in contem-porary dispensational thought. The model closest to the historical posi-tion in Pentecostal hermeneutics is to be found in the emerging approach that mediates between covenantalism and dispensation-alism—a “progressive” dispensational hermeneutic (Douglas A. Oss, “The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism within the Pentecostal Tradition” [A paper presented to the Dispensational Study Group of the Evangelical Theological Society, November 21, 1991], 2–5).

The numerous and extensive footnotes in this section have not been included in the above quote. Dispensationalism has traditionally not acknowledged the Pentecostal form as having much, if any, relationship to dispensationalism. Only with the advent of some of the more recent dis-cussions in progressive (nonpentecostal) dispensationalism has this been discussed.

27The designations “classic” and “modi!ed” are primarily those of the writer. The title progressive dispensationalism has become generally accepted in recent discussions. Hyperdispensationalism has also been called ultradispensationalism. The “hyper” and “ultra” modi!ers have been used by the other positions for some time, though they are not accepted or used by those who hold the position so designated.


the most recent member of the family, originating in the 1980s. It is interesting that these changes have come with new generations of scholars.28 The modi!ed school arose after the death of Chafer (1952)—the major advocate of the classic version in this century. Progressive dispensationalism followed the rise of a new gen-eration of scholars who had largely been trained by the leaders of modi!ed dispensationalism. Many of these changes have origi-nated at Dallas Theological Seminary, although a number of the progressive dispensationalists have come from or teach at other seminaries.29

In many ways the three major forms of dispensationalism form a continuum, each with its own cluster of distinctive features. There is no absolute point at which one moves from one category to another.30 Individual theologians may fall at any point in the continuum. One’s position in the overall range is not determinative of orthodoxy: all on this scale are orthodox. The spectrum likewise does not specify “how dispensational” one is. A classic dispensa-

______________ 28“Because the need for development has been ignored and even

treated as movement away from truth into error, legitimate development has been hindered or delayed. This causes development to occur in dis-com!ting lurches at the end of generations.” Gerry Breshears, “Response to Craig Blaising, ‘Developing Dispensationalism,’” (A paper presented to the Dispensational Study Group at the Evangelical Theological Society meeting, November 1986), 12. Breshears has perhaps missed the point that there has been development over the last century, but he makes a good point that the shifts do often come at generational junctures!

29Other seminaries involved in the discussions of progressive dispen-sationalism include Talbot, Grace, Grand Rapids Baptist, and Western Conservative Baptist. This does not suggest that the seminaries have of!-cially endorsed such a movement, but rather that the key players in the discussion teach at these schools. There remains considerable disagreement among the faculty at Dallas over these issues, some defending the modi!ed form and others championing the progressive movement.

30This is the element that prevents the hyperdispensationalist from being listed as part of the continuum. There is one feature that uniquely characterizes that position: multiple churches in Acts.


tionalist is not “more dispensational” than a modi!ed or progress-ive dispensationalist.

Hyperdisp.

Classic Modified Progressive

Dispensationalism

Classic Dispensationalism

No of!cial name for this form exists. It is sometimes referred to as traditional dispensationalism, scholastic dispensationalism, or (by detractors) Sco!eldism.31 This is the form of dispensationalism that is most commonly known by the widest spectrum of people, largely due to the impact of the Sco!eld Reference Bible (2d ed., 1917) and the ministry, not only of C. I. Sco!eld (1843–1921), but of H. A. Ironside (1878–1951), L. S. Chafer (1871–1952), and many other popular speakers in the Bible conference movement early in this century.32 ______________

31Some progressive dispensationalists have also begun using the term “Sco!eldism” in an effort to distance themselves from the classic formu-lation. Bailey, speaking of a wider time span, refers to the formative era (Darby to Gaebelein), and the crystallization era (Sco!eld to Chafer). Mark Bailey, “Dispensationalism De!nitions of the Kingdom” (A paper pre-sented to the Dispensational Study Group at the Evangelical Theological Society meeting, November 1988), 2.

32These men were also proli!c writers and reached a very wide audience. Ironside is reputed for his careful, practical exposition in the pulpit. Many of his sermons were transcribed and published as commen-taries. Every book of the New Testament was covered and many from the Old Testament. They have been widely read and used by laymen and pas-tors (especially those who graduated from the early Bible institutes). They are not scholarly works and are not exegetical. They do re"ect a good Bible student who knew how to communicate the Word very effectively. Also to be noted is Chafer’s Systematic Theology (8 vols., Dallas: Dallas Seminary


In its most popular form,33 classic dispensationalism is known for seven dispensations, two new covenants, two peoples of God with two different destinies, pretribulational rapture, complete dis-continuity between the Testaments, the Sermon on the Mount as the ethic of the Kingdom, a distinction between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God, postponement of the kingdom, and a Jewish millennium. Other features are often ascribed to this system (some unjustly34), but these form the core of classic dispen-sationalism.

Several things should be said about this portrait of dispensa-tionalism. First, “most dispensationalists would acknowledge that some of the early statements of distinctions were overstated. This is often the case when a position is !rst espoused against another

Press, 1947–48). Although mocked by some (e.g., Bernard Ramm, After Fundamentalism [San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983], 206–09), this has been a very in"uential, dispensational theology. Thousands of Bible college and seminary students have been trained with it. BibliothecaSacra, edited by Chafer, has also been very in"uential. As a result of these factors, Sco!eld’s and Chafer’s versions of dispensationalism (which are nearly identical) have become very widely viewed as the “classic” form.

33The reader should remember that there is diversity even within classic dispensationalism. Some in this group would reject, e.g., the two new covenants view. Chafer was the chief advocate of two new covenants.

34It has been common to charge classic dispensationalism with teaching two ways of salvation. This has been rebutted many times, though the charge is still heard. The most recent examples of this unfair carica-turing are John Gerstner, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1991) and Greg Bahnsen and Kenneth Gentry, House Divided: The Breakup of Dispensational Theology (Tyler, TX: ICE, 1991). These both provide a stark contrast to the more accurate and irenic discussion of Vern Poythress: Understanding Dispensationalists (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987). For a (devastating) review of Gerstner’s book, including numerous examples of factual and historical errors as well as gross misquotation and misrepresentation, see John Witmer, “A Review of Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, part 1,” BibSac 149 (1992):131–45. (Part 2 had not yet been published at the time of this writing.)


position.”35 This is especially true of classic dispensationalism (and the 19th century developments that preceded it). Second, there are historical reasons that in"uenced these expressions. Breshears points out that

Dispensationalism was developed as a reaction to the prevailing “leveling” of the Testaments, of negating the differences between the church and Israel, of outrageous failure to do justice to the Old Testa-ment prophecies. Because dispensationalism was a reaction to grievous error, it overreacted in several places.36

Since this paper is not intended as a critique of the older views, additional discussion of classic dispensationalism will not be included. Some aspects will be re"ected in the following discus-sions of other dispensational positions.

Hyper/Ultradispensationalism

Also known as Bullingerism,37 hyperdispensationalism is not “more dispensational” than other forms. Dispensationalists of other camps would say they are inconsistent dispensationalists.38 The name, being a pejorative one, is not satisfactory, but nothing better has been suggested. Those who hold it call themselves simply dispensationalists.

The unique feature that distinguishes this form from all others is the advocacy of more than one church in the book of Acts. All other forms of dispensationalism mark Pentecost as the beginning of the church. Hyperdispensationalism asserts that this was the

______________ 35Robert Saucy, “The Crucial Issue Between Dispensational and Non-

Dispensational Systems,” Criswell Theological Review 1.1 (1986): 149. Saucy also discusses this matter in “Contemporary Dispensational Thought,” 10.

36Breshears, “Response to Blaising,” 1. These words echo Saucy’s earlier comments in “Contemporary Dispensational Thought,” 10.

37The system is named after its originator, Ethelbert W. Bullinger (1837–1913).

38Ironically, detractors charge that this is the logical result of con-sistent dispensationalism; e.g., Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 15.


beginning of a Jewish (bride) church. The “real” church—the body of Christ, did not begin until later in the book of Acts. Bullinger taught that the church began in Acts 28. Thus, only the Prison Epistles are for this dispensation. Both baptism and the Lord’s Table are rejected as Jewish church ordinances.

A more moderate form of this system is now common. Charles Baker, J. C. O’Hair, C. R. Stam, Ernest R. Campbell, Grace Gospel Fellowship, Grace Bible College, and Canyonview Bible College are the names associated with it. This position begins the church in Acts 9 or 13 rather than in Acts 28. The Lord’s Table is usually accepted, but baptism is still rejected. Ultradispen-sationalism as a system is very small, though it is sometimes sur-prising where individuals or small groups in"uenced by them appear.39

Modi!ed Dispensationalism

Although the changes that produced modi!ed dispensation-alism40 can be traced earlier as dispensationalism developed, the mid-1960s is a convenient anchor point. The key events that make this date pivotal are the publication of Ryrie’s Dispensationalism Today (1965)41 and the revision of the Sco!eld Reference Bible (The ______________

39Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 192–205, provides a more com-plete summary and critique. A positive presentation of the system may be found in Charles Baker, A Dispensational Theology (2d ed., Grand Rapids: Grace Bible College, 1971) and in the notes of The Companion Study Bible, originally edited by Bullinger (though his name is curiously omitted from current editions).

40This modi!cation of the classic system has also been called essen-tialist dispensationalism, re!ned, revisionary, or revised dispensa-tionalism.

41“Probably the clearest indication of a transition into a revisionary period for dispensationalism is Charles Ryrie’s book, Dispensationalism Today, published in 1965. While Ryrie personally endorsed many tradi-tional features of scholastic dispensationalism, his identi!cation of a sine qua non philosophically oriented dispensational scholarship in a revi-


New SRB, 1967). As the classic form gained popularity, it invariably received considerable criticism from opponents—particularly covenant theologians. Many of the charges were presuppositional in nature. Others were illegitimate straw men or misrepresen-tations of the classic position, but some valid criticisms were also made. Modi!ed dispensationalism is partly the result of answering these legitimate objections. The earlier extreme and incautious statements had to be corrected. Exegetical challenges had to be addressed. The system of Sco!eld and Chafer was modi!ed to address these areas. It was largely Chafer’s successors at Dallas who spearheaded this development: John Walvoord, Charles Ryrie, J. Dwight Pentecost, et al. The work of Alva J. McClain should also be included here.42

One new covenant in which both Israel and the church partici-pate (though perhaps in different ways) is the norm. Greater conti-nuity is seen between the Testaments (though not a great deal). The classic interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount has been modified, and the kingdom of heaven is recognized to be the same as the kingdom of God.43

Some of these changes seem like major concessions, especially to a classic dispensationalist. The basic system, however, has not been altered a great deal. The continuity between the classic and modi!ed forms of dispensationalism is very obvious, even to an outsider. It is more of a tune-up than an overhaul. Most dispensa-tionalists have accepted these changes. They have come gradually, not always without controversy. A number of differences may be observed in the published works of many modi!ed dispensation-

sionary way.” Blaising, “Development of Dispensationalism,” 266. It has also been noted that “within the writings of Charles Ryrie, one can see some of the most signi!cant changes in the dispensational view of the kingdom.” Bailey, “Dispensationalism De!nitions of the Kingdom,” 13.

42The Greatness of the Kingdom, (Winona Lake, IN: BMH, 1968). 43Blaising has documented a number of these changes, so it will not

be necessary to repeat the material in this survey. The reader who has not followed these developments over the past years is encouraged to study that article and the sources cited in it. “Development of Dispensa-tionalism,” 258–63.


alists.44 Their earliest books re"ect a system closer to the classic formulation. Their later writings re"ect their continued study and interaction with Scripture and literature critical of dispensation-alism.

Progressive Dispensationalism

Though seldom formally stated, a question has certainly been lurking in the corners of the dispensational system: how much may dispensational theology change and still be called dispensation-alism?45 This query has become a major issue in the past few years with the proposals of the progressive dispensationalists.

______________ 44As just one example, Ryrie defends the two new covenants position

in his book (originally his doctoral dissertation at Dallas), The Basis of the Premillennial Faith (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux, 1953), 105–25, even asserting that any other interpretation weakened premillennialism (118). His more recent Ryrie Study Bible (1976) teaches one new covenant (cf. notes on the relevant verses), as does his article in The Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia (Chicago: Moody Press, 1975), 1:391–92.

45Stanley Gundry’s evaluation at the initial meeting of the Dispensational Study Group in 1986 is most interesting. It also points to the fact that the ideas that were publicly debated at that time were by no means new or even recent.

“It seems to me that the value of continuing to call oneself a dispen-sationalist is reduced to:

a) A shibboleth necessary to pronounce in a dispensationally ori-ented denomination or parachurch organization.

b) A sense of theological roots or the value of belonging to a certain evolving hermeneutical/theological tradition.

c) The importance of identifying oneself with certain critical hermeneutical considerations and resulting conclusions, even though we realize that we can no longer claim them as our exclusive property.”

“Developing Dispensationalism (by Craig Blaising) A Response” (A paper presented to the Dispensational Study Group at the November 1986 meeting), 1.


The 1980s mark the origin of this form of dispensationalism.46 This has not been an abrupt beginning. Rather, the questions of modi!ed dispensationalism have continued to develop to the point where a number of scholars are now willing to challenge some of the more fundamental issues in dispensational hermeneutics.47 This section will summarize the general approach taken by pro-gressive dispensationalism. The next major section will summarize ______________

46The year 1986 might serve as a focal point (see paragraph following this note above), although the Dispensational Study Group that began in 1986 obviously had considerable preliminary interest and discussion by a number of the conveners prior to that year. There had been a private dis-cussion at Talbot Theological Seminary in 1985 of about two dozen dis-pensationalists to discuss current trends in dispensational theology. See Ronald Clutter’s account of this group: “Dispensational Study Group: An Introduction,” Grace Theological Journal 10.2 (1989): 123–24.

47Progressive dispensationalists would probably not distinguish, at least not sharply, between modi!ed dispensationalism and progressive dis-pensationalism. They would probably see what this paper titles progressive dispensationalism as merely the logical development of a process that began with modi!ed dispensationalism. Note Blaising’s remarks in this regard.

From the 50s to the 70s, dispensationalism was by temperament incapable of generating open self criticism. The reduction of the term dispensationalism allowed dispensationalists to deny any novelty or change in theology. This compounded confusion by leading its oppo-nents to think there was no change in Sco!eldism. On the other hand modi!cations to Sco!eldism were occurring. The Sco!eld Bible was revised in 1963. Charles Ryrie in his 1965 work, Dispensationalism Today, cut past the ambiguous defense of dispensationalism as the common theological recognition of dispensations in Scripture and attempted to dispel the notion that dispensationalism was rigid Sco!eldism while he nevertheless tried to establish continuity with it by identifying an essence in dispensationalism which distinguished it from other forms of theology.

“Dispensationalism at the End of the Twentieth Century,” 2. He also later comments that “Ryrie’s identi!cation of three essential tenets served as the initial referent and basic agenda for discussion [at the Dispensational Study Group meeting in 1985].” Ibid., 7. See also his statement, quoted earlier, that Ryrie “philosophically oriented dispensationalism in a revisionary way” (f.n. 41).


several key questions. The !nal section will develop one of their key contentions (the present existence of the kingdom) in greater detail.

The Dispensational Study Group began in 1986 as a pre-meeting to the national meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. The of!cially preferred term at that meeting in Atlanta was “re!ning dispensationalism.”48 The more recent term, progressive dispensationalism, originated in 1991—perhaps as an uninten-tional designation on the ETS program listing a meeting of the “Progressive Dispensationalists Society.” A letter was mailed out by the study group coordinator almost immediately after the mailing of the ETS program noting the “erroneous title.” Yet the term stuck and was widely used at the November 1991 meeting of the Dispen-sational Study Group in Kansas City by almost all participants. The sessions and speakers at the actual ETS meeting that related to dispensational theology (including the plenary session) also used this term.

Since 1986 the Dispensational Study Group has met each year just before the Evangelical Theological Society. Major papers have been presented each time with responses from several scholars. A number of these have been published in BibSac and Grace Theo-logical Journal. The major topics discussed over the last six years are as follows:

1986: Craig Blaising, “Developing Dispensationalism”49 1987: Darrell Bock, “The Reign of the Lord Christ” 1988: Mark Bailey, “Dispensational De!nitions of the Kingdom” 1989: Discussion of Vern Poythress’s book, Understanding

Dispensationalists50 ______________

48The moniker “revisionist” was also used at that meeting. 49Published in two parts in BibSac 145 (1988): 133–40, 254–80. 50This consisted of papers by Paul Karleen (“Understanding

Covenant Theologians: A Study in Presuppositions”) and Robert Saucy (“A Response to Understanding Dispensationalists, by Vern S. Poythress”). Dr. Poythress was present at the meeting and responded to each of the two papers just noted. All the papers and the responses were published in Grace Theological Journal 10.2 (1989): 125–64.


1990: Elliott Johnson, “What I Mean by Historical-Grammatical Interpretation & How That Differs from Spiritual Interpretation” Tremper Longman, “What I Mean by Historical-Grammatical Exegesis: Why I Am Not a Literalist”51

1991: Douglas Oss, “The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism within the Pentecostal Tradition”

During the 1991 meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, there were a number of sessions scheduled which speci!cally focused on dispensational theology. These included a general session: “New Directions in Dispensationalism” by Gerry Breshears and a two-hour parallel session during which Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock presented “The Kingdom of God in Progressive Dispensationalism.” A paper of related interest was also presented by Craig Blaising at the 1990 meeting of the American Academy of Religion: “Dispensationalism at the End of the Twentieth Century.”

These meetings have begun a much broader dissemination of the new approaches taken by the progressive dispensationalists. Obviously these proposals have been in development, individually and in community, for quite a few years. Only in the last six years has there been any effort to identify and test them publicly. The response by the dispensational community will be interesting to observe.

Most progressive dispensationalists have opted to view the New Testament as having a much greater degree of continuity with the Old Testament than had previously been accepted by either classic or modi!ed dispensationalism. The results of this are rather extensive. They now speak of one people of God rather than two (though some still distinguish Israel and the church within this framework). Perhaps the most signi!cant changes are the relation-ship between the church and the kingdom.52 There is diversity ______________

51Johnson, Grace Theological Journal 11.2 (1990): 157–69; Longman, Grace Theological Journal 11.2 (1990): 137–52. Longman’s response to Johnson’s article is included on pages 153–55.

52See the !nal section of this paper for a more detailed explanation.


here. Blaising and Bock are arguing vigorously for the present reign of Christ on the Davidic throne. This means that the kingdom has already been inaugurated, though not consummated. The church is not a parenthesis or intercalation between Jesus’ offer of the king-dom and the future establishment of the kingdom. Rather the church is presently part of the kingdom. This does not deny a future, premillennial kingdom. Much of this is based on their understanding of how the church relates to the ful!llment of speci!c Old Testament prophecies. Others, such as Robert Saucy, speak of an inaugurated kingdom but do not by that mean that Christ is now reigning on the Davidic throne.

Key Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism

The following section will very brie"y sketch some of the key issues in dispensational hermeneutics. None will be expounded, though some preliminary direction for further study will be indi-cated.

Literal Interpretation

A standard slogan of dispensationalism in its earlier forms has been “literal interpretation.” Especially in its classic form, the dif-ference between dispensationalism and covenant theology has been said to be literal interpretation.53 If anything has changed in her-meneutical discussion over the last twenty or thirty years, it is the de!nition of literal interpretation. When forced to de!ne the literal method, it proves to be a greased pig. Perhaps the most dif!cult hermeneutical task is to de!ne consistently the nature of literal interpretation. Many scholars now prefer to speak of historical-grammatical interpretation rather than literal interpretation.

______________ 53Tan, e.g., lists the four eschatalogical/hermeneutical systems as dis-

pensational premillennialism, covenant premillennialism, postmillen-nialism, and amillennialism. He then concludes that “we may say that these systems, respectively, interpret the Bible on the basis of the most consistently literal approach to that of the least so.” Paul Lee Tan, Literal Interpretation of the Bible (Rockville, MD: Assurance Publishers, 1978), 13. Similar statements could be multiplied from classical and even modi!ed dispensationalists. In that light, Eliott Johnson’s comments are most inter-esting. “The differences [between the hermeneutics of dispensational and covenant theology] are not basically in principle. All agree on the necessity of grammatical interpretation and historical interpretation and most agree on the legitimacy of literal interpretation and interpretation by the analogy of faith” (Historical-Grammatical Interpretation,” 157).


An ironic twist is that classic dispensational interpretation has included nonliteral interpretation. While they insisted that all Scripture be interpreted literally, especially prophecy, Old Testa-ment narrative was frequently spiritualized to provide “practical application” for the Christian today. The consequent meaning of the text has, as a result, been far from the original author’s intent.54 ______________

54“Authorial intent” is closely connected with the question of literal interpretation. This has been a hotly debated topic in recent years. The following are a few of the more important discussions. Gordon D. Fee, “Normativeness and Authorial Intent: A Proposal Regarding New Testament Imperatives,” ch. 3 of Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics, 37–51 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991); E. D. Hirsch, Jr., Validity in Interpretation (New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press, 1967); Elliott E. Johnson, “Author’s Intention and Biblical Interpretation,” in Hermeneutics, Inerrancy and the Bible, ed. Earl D. Radmacher and Robert D. Preus, 407–430 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984); idem, “Dual Authorship and the Single Intended Meaning of Scripture,” BibSac 143.571 (1986): 218–27; idem, Expository Hermeneutics: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), see the index s.v.: author, authorial ignorance, authorial intent, authority of author, intended, and intended meaning; Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., “The Fallacy of Equating Meaning with Reader’s Understanding,” Trinity Journal 6 OS(1977): 190–93; idem, “Legitimate Hermeneutics,” in Inerrancy, ed. Norman Geisler, 117–50 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979); idem, “Response to ‘Author’s Intention and Biblical Interpretation,’” in Hermeneutics, Inerrancy and the Bible. ed. Earl D. Radmacher and Robert D. Preus, 439–48 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984); idem, “The Single Intent of Scripture,” in Evangelical Roots: A Tribute to Wilbur Smith, ed. Kenneth Kantzer, 123–41 (Nashville: Nelson, 1978); idem, Toward an Exegetical Theology: Biblical Exegesis for Preaching and Teaching (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), see esp. pp. 24–36, 106–14; Raju D. Kunjummen, “The Single Intent of Scripture—Critical Examination of a Theological Construct,” Grace Theological Journal 7.1 (1986): 81–110; Tremper Longman, III, “Historical-Grammatical Exegesis:,” 140–41; idem, Literary Approaches to Biblical Interpretation, vol. 3 of Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), see the index s.v.: author/intention; Douglas J. Moo, “The Problem of Sensus Plenior,” in Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon, ed. D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge, 175–212 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986); Grant R. Osborne, “The Problem of Meaning: The Issues,” and “The Problem of Meaning: Toward a Solution,” Appendices 1

Key Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism 25

Poythress rightly takes Sco!eld to task for this inconsistency,55 as does Allis.56 This remains a major area of study for contemporary dispensationalism in any of its forms.

Progressive dispensationalism has grappled with de!ning hermeneutical method in a more detailed way than have previous scholars. Coming from a classic or modi!ed dispensational her-itage, they have heard the claim to literal interpretation for many years. It would appear that they have sensed the practical contra-dictions of this principle as well. They have also been willing to acknowledge that literal is a slippery term—very dif!cult to de!ne.

Covenant theologians have also been working in this area. The older scholars, e.g., O. T. Allis, made no bones about advocating a spiritual hermeneutic, especially in prophetic passages.57 More recent covenantal exegetes, however, have begun proclaiming that

and 2 of The Hermeneutical Spiral (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 366–96, 397–415 respectively; Ramesh P. Richards, “Application Theory in Relation to the New Testament,” BibSac 143 (1986): 205–17; idem, “Levels of Biblical Meaning,” BibSac 143 (1986): 123–33.

55Vern S. Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 22–27, 52–55. Chapters 8 and 9 of this book (78–96) deal exclusively with the question of literal interpretation from the perspective of a modi!ed covenant theologian. The chapters are worth reading, as are the sources cited there. Most of the recent literature on hermeneutics discusses the issue in one form or another. For examples from a dispensational perspective, see Elliott E. Johnson, Expository Hermeneutics: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), cf. the index s.v. “literal,” and Karleen, “Understanding Covenant Theologians,” 129–31. From a nondispensational, neoorthodox view, James Barr’s article is quite provocative: “Literality,” Faith and Philosophy 6 (1989): 412–28. (There is a helpful summary by Bruce Miller in BibSac 148 [1991]: 118–19.)

56“While Dispensationalists are extreme literalists, they are very inconsistent ones. They are literalists in interpreting prophecy. But in the interpreting of history, they carry the principle of typical interpretation to an extreme which has rarely been exceeded even by the most ardent allegorizers.” Prophecy and the Church, 21.

57He declares that “there are at least three reasons why a thoroughly literal interpretation of Scripture is impossible.” Ibid., 17.


they use a literal hermeneutic. Poythress58 and Robertson59 both use this terminology. Longman asserts: “I do not believe that my approach to the text differs from a literal approach when the term ‘literal’ is properly understood.”60

Turner’s argument for greater attention to actual exegetical cases rather than focusing on theory is also worth noting.61

It would appear that vague generalities about theoretical herme-neutics accomplish very little. The cavalier dismissal of eschatalogical systems on the sole ground of hermeneutical theory serves only to obscure the more pertinent issues. Advocates of a “dual hermeneutic” cannot be dismissed with the charge of “allegorizing” and neither can dispensationalists be shouted down with the rebuke of being “hyper-literalists.” However, hermeneutical conclusions on speci!c issues may be viewed as being inconsistent with one’s professed hermeneutical method. When there is a discrepancy between the two, both dispensa-tionalists and covenant theologians should take heed.

The main burden of these thoughts on the hermeneutical question is that any pro!table debate must focus upon concrete issues, such as the NT use of the OT and the nature of progressive revelation. Here speci!c passages may be exegeted and pro!tably debated.62

Relationship Between the Old Testament and the New Testament Or Between Israel and the Church

The major issue between those who espouse some form of historical-grammatical interpretation is the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament, or, to use different ______________

58“Modi!ed dispensationalists…use the word [literal] to refer simply to grammatical-historical interpretation.… In that case I do not disagree with them” Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 78.

59Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants, 300. He does use the term in quotation marks to suggest that he would nuance that term in some way, but that he even uses it is signi!cant.

60Longman, “Historical-Grammatical Exegesis,” 148. 61David Turner, “The Continuity of Scripture and Eschatology: Key

Hermeneutical Issues,” Grace Theological Journal 6.2 (1985): 175–87. 62Ibid., 278.


terminology, the degree of continuity and discontinuity between the Testaments. What is the relationship between Israel and the Church? The greater the degree of continuity one sees between the Testaments, the closer one will be to covenant theology. The greater degree of discontinuity one sees, the closer one will be to classic dispensationalism.63

The polarizations have already been suggested. On one hand, classic dispensationalism sees two distinct people of God: Israel and the Church. Never the twain shall meet. Covenant theology, on the other hand, sees complete continuity between these two. The New Testament Church is the New Israel—replacing Israel as the people of God and ful!lling all her promises. Israel is the Old Testament Church. Between these two extremes are those who argue for greater continuity, some maintaining a distinction between the two groups, others merging the temporally distinct groups into one people in eternity.64

______________ 63The following items may be noted for further research. Kenneth

Barker, “False Dichotomies Between the Testaments,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25 (1982): 3–16; John S. Feinberg, ed., Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments: Essays in Honor of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. (Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1988); S. Lewis Johnson, “Paul and ‘The Israel of God’: An Exegetical and Eschatalogical Case-Study,” in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, ed., Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 181–96; Robert Saucy, “The Crucial Issue Between Dispensational and Non-Dispensational Systems,” and “The Locus of the Church,” Criswell Theological Review 1 (1986–87): 149–65, 387–99; Howard Taylor, “The Continuity of the People of God in Old and New Testaments,” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 3 (1985): 13–26; Turner, “The Continuity of Scripture and Eschatology,” 275–87.

64Saucy’s article, “Israel and the Church: A Case for Discontinuity,” in the Johnson festschrift listed in the preceding footnote is an especially helpful article in regard to the people of God issue (239–59). Cf. also Bruce N. Fisk, “The People of God in the Pauline Corpus: A Semantic Field Study,” M.A. thesis, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1986.


Contemporary Kingdom Presence

In what sense, if any, is the kingdom present today? “The issue is whether or not the Church is the kingdom.”65 Some classic dis-pensationalists would deny that there is any sense in which the kingdom is present.66 The opposite extreme is the traditional amil-lennial position which contends that the present reign of Christ in the heart of the believer and in the church is the only kingdom—there is no future millennial reign at all, except on the new earth in eternity future.67 Between these two positions are several varia-tions, largely associated with modi!ed and progressive dispensa-tionalism. The key modi!cations are discussed in Bailey’s article.68 They include the position taken on the kingdom by McClain,69

______________ 65Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 173. Cf. Robert Saucy, “The

Presence of the Kingdom and the Life of the Church,” BibSac 145 (1988): 30–46. Cf. also Emory R. Young, “The Presence of the Kingdom in the Church,” M.Div. thesis, Grace Theological Seminary, 1986.

66Most dispensationalists have related the parables of the kingdom in Matthew 13 to the present era. Some would concede a qualified statement of kingdom presence if the kingdom of God/kingdom of heaven dichotomy is maintained. They would acknowledge that the kingdom of God is always present, de!ned as his sovereign rule over all creation at all times. That is a quite different statement, however, than the one posed above. Others speak of a mystery form of the kingdom, but also (inconsistently?) deny that there is any sense in which the kingdom is present.

67“Amillennialists believe that the kingdom of God was founded by Christ at the time of his sojourn on earth, is operative in history now and is destined to be revealed in its fullness in the life to come.” Anthony A. Hoekema, “Amillennialism,” in The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, ed. Robert G. Clouse (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1977), 178.

68Mark Bailey, “Dispensational De!nitions of the Kingdom,” 11–21. This article provides a very helpful survey of the intradispensational dis-cussion from Darby to the present.

69Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom. His work is best known for the term theocratic kingdom and his three essentials for a king-dom: ruler, realm, and rulership.


Pentecost,70 Ryrie,71 Walvoord,72 Saucy, and Bock.73 Bailey pro-poses that Peter’s Theocratic Kingdom74 has had a major impact on modi!ed dispensational theologians.75

There have been several factors that have brought this ques-tion to the fore in recent years. As Bailey summarizes,

With the exception of a few articles and popular treatments, dispen-sationalists have not been pursuing the discussions of the nature of the kingdom. However, with the rise of dominion theology, Christian reconstructionism, and the kingdom apologetic of the Third Wave movement, the subject of the kingdom has again become a focus of attention and needed discussion.76

These factors have an impact, not only on theological formulations, but on a practical, social level as well.

Social Involvement

Dispensational theology has had a considerable impact on the involvement of local churches in the social area. The deemphasis of social concern may be due as much to the reaction against the lib-______________

70J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958). Note his later modi!cations in The Parables of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982) and especially his most recent book, Thy Kingdom Come. Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1990.

71Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today. 72John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 1959). Walvoord is one of the few contemporary dispensation-alists who still maintains a distinction between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven, though he does not emphasize that dichotomy as much as Sco!eld and Chafer.

73Saucy’s and Bock’s views will be noted in the last section of the paper.

74George N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus, the Christ, 3 vols. (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884; reprint, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1952).

75Bailey, “Dispensational De!nitions of the Kingdom,” 11. 76Ibid., 18. These factors are discussed by Saucy, “The Presence of the

Kingdom and the Life of the Church,” 30–32.


eral social gospel (e.g., Walter Rauschenbusch77) as its own the-ology. Dispensationalists have always, and premillennialists gen-erally, maintained that salvation is personal, not sociopolitical.78 This does not mean that a church should not be involved in social activity. That is an overstatement, for the rami!cations of the gospel do include ethical implications, both personal and social. Dispensational churches have been involved in such projects throughout the preceding two centuries, though that has not been their primary focus.

Gary North claims that dispensationalism preaches a culturally impotent gospel. His (deliberately) inflamatory analysis is that dis-pensationalism is pessimistic—a condition he implies is not good. Although no one likes to be labeled a pessimist,79 if the biblical outlook is pessimistic, then that verdict ought to be accepted. Some dispensationalists do argue that brass should not be polished on a sinking ship.80 Thus, they conclude there should be no social

______________ 77Rauschenbusch (1861–1918) “developed a strong interest in

Christian socialism, and emphasized the necessity of economic as well as political democracy as a method of realizing the kingdom of God upon this earth.” Wycliffe Biographical Dictionary of the Church, ed. E. Moyer, rev. E. Cairns (Chicago: Moody Press, 1982), 342.

78Cf. Robert Saucy, “Dispensationalism and the Salvation of the Kingdom,” TSF Bulletin 7 (1984): 6–7.

79Walvoord, e.g., prefers the term realistic (“Our Future Hope: Eschatology and Its Role in the Church,” Christianity Today, Feb. 6, 1987, 11), but North is unimpressed: “‘Realism’ sounds a lot better than ‘pessimism,’ but the psychological results are the same: retreat from cul-tural involvement” (House Divided, xv). House and Ice note that “Dispensationalists are often accused of being defeatist, just sitting around waiting for the rapture. It is unfortunate but true that pietism has infected many in the dispensational camp. However, social and cultural impotence is not organic to dispensationalism” (Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse? An Analysis of Christian Reconstructionism [Portland: Multnomah, 1988], 241).

80North cites this phrase from a dispensational newsletter (Ibid., xvii).


involvement. The reconstructionists rightly object to this out-look.81

The usual analogy is imperfect, however. The crew does not know when the ship will sink, only that it is ultimately doomed. The pop-apocalypticists and date-setters proclaim an immediate demise of the vessel. That misconstrues biblical imminency. Scripture does teach an imminent return of Jesus Christ. The believer is also exhorted, not only to be ready for that blessed hope at any moment, but also to be ready for a full life of ministry if the Lord does not return soon. Imminency declares that he may come soon. It does not assert that he will come soon. Wishful thinking to the contrary will not change the time the Father has set by his own authority. Since that date has not been revealed (even in general terms), dispensationalists dare not pervert Scripture by declaring when Christ will return. Some dispensationalists have been at fault in this area.82

If the ship’s crew realizes that they may be aboard for quite some time (they may even notice that Christian funerals occur quite regularly on this ship), they will exercise reasonable prudence in maintaining the ship. For Christians to serve as salt is not incon-sistent with dispensationalism. It certainly does proclaim the futility of man’s efforts to establish the kingdom on earth, but social involvement is not precluded.

North’s perspective is perplexing. He argues for the superiority of postmillennial reconstructionism on the basis of a more opti-mistic eschatology. Dispensationalism is wrong because, in that system, “anything that Christians do today to build a better world will be destroyed during the seven-year tribulation period.”83 Yet even the !nest results postmillennialists hope to achieve will be ______________

81Ibid. 82Hal Lindsey, Salem Kirban, and others who, though not !xing dates

as Edgar Whisenant has done, have made implicit predictions (based on the supposed signi!cance of Israel’s restoration as a nation in 1948) that demand the return of Christ in this millennium. Such is illegitimate dis-pensationalism and is rightly censured.

83North, House Divided, xiv.


destroyed at the return of Christ as the present heavens and earth will be consumed with !re prior to the new heavens and new earth.84 It is not clear how this is in any way superior to God judging a sinful world prior to establishing his kingdom.85

Sine Qua Non of Dispensationalism

What is a dispensationalist? What is the sine qua non of dispensationalism? What are the absolute minimum requirements necessary to claim the title dispensational legitimately? Some sug-gest there is no standard. Breshears, e.g., says that “we must realize that there [are] few, if any, factors which are unique to dispensa-tionalism.”86 There are other suggestions.

Some suggest (one wonders if seriously or sarcastically), “Anyone who doesn’t offer blood sacri!ces is a dispensationalist.” By this de!nition anyone who recognizes any change from Old Testament to New Testament is a dispensationalist. Since that would make all Christians dispensationalists, it is obviously an unworkable suggestion. Indeed it would make the blood run cold in the veins of amillennialists and postmillennialists!

Ryrie’s triad has been the standard for modi!ed dispensation-alists—indeed it was his book that popularized the term sine qua non with regard to defining dispensationalism. His three points are: 1) a distinction between Israel and the Church, 2) the con-______________

84The writer does not intend to misrepresent the theonomist’s position on 2 Peter 3:10. He has not read any statement regarding this passage from their pen. The only possible way to escape what appears to be an inevitable destruction of the hard-earned kingdom, and that at its pin-nacle, would be to argue for some nonliteral interpretation of the text.

85Dominion Theology (House and Ice) explores the rami!cations of a reconstructionist as opposed to a dispensational approach to social involvement.

86Breshears, “Response to Blaising,” 2. This statement is true of some forms of progressive dispensationalism. It is not as true of modi!ed and classic dispensationalism, though there is more overlap and less uniqueness than some have proclaimed.


sistent use of a literal hermeneutic, and 3) the doxological purpose of God in history.87

More recently Feinberg has proposed six essentials, which he thinks constitute an adequate sine qua non. Although the present writer would nuance some of these items differently, he considers them to be the most adequate resolution of the question. Feinberg begins by specifying !ve items that are not legitimate in de!ning the essence of dispensationalism: 1) the de!nition of )AE)4)M2$ [oikonomia, stewardship, dispensation], 2) God’s purpose in his-tory, 3) the number of dispensations, 4) the Calvinism/Arminian controversy, and 5) the relationship between law and grace.88 These points involve issues that have been suggested at one time or another as part of the sine qua non of dispensationalism.

His six positive elements are as follows. 1) The terms Jew, seed of Abraham, chosen people, and Israel are recognized as having multiple meanings in Scripture.89 The precise meaning of such terms must be determined by the context.

What is distinctive of dispensational thinking is recognition of all senses of these terms as operative in both Testaments coupled with a demand that no sense (spiritual especially) is more important than any other, and that no sense cancels out the meaning and implications of the other senses. The more one emphasizes the distinctness and impor-tance of the various senses, the more dispensational and discontinuity-oriented his system becomes, for the distinct senses necessitate speaking of Israel ethnically, politically, and spiritually, as well as speaking of the church.90

2) A proper hermeneutic must take each Testament on its own, refusing to make the New Testament normative for under-standing the Old Testament. This approach recognizes progressive revelation, the provisional nature of the Old Testament, and Old Testament typology, but argues that these are not determinative of

______________ 87Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 44–47. The !rst is said to be the

most basic. 88Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity,” 69–71. 89Ibid., 71–73. 90Ibid., 72–73.


New Testament priority in interpreting the Old Testament.91 “Both type and antitype must have their own meaning even while bearing a typological relation to the other, understanding the implications of NT reinterpretation of the OT, and realizing that progress of revelation only renders earlier truth inoperative if God says so leads one to see that the meaning of both OT and NT passages must be maintained.”92

3) The Old Testament covenant promises, made uncondition-ally to national Israel, which involve both social, political, eco-nomic, and spiritual blessings, will be yet ful!lled in fullness to a believing remnant of national Israel and in some way for the Church.93

4) There will be a distinctive future of ethnic Israel as a nation.94 The dispensational view is distinctive in that it is the only system that does so. (Even historical premillennialism, which does

______________ 91Ibid., 73–79. This issue is discussed at greater length by Feinberg

than the other !ve areas due to the considerable confusion regarding literal hermeneutics and the crucial distinctions that must be maintained. Historic premillennialism differs with dispensational premillennialism at this point. Ladd explains that “dispensationalism forms its eschatology by a literal interpretation of the Old Testament and then !ts the New Testament into it. A nondispensational eschatology [by which Ladd refers primarily to historic premillennialism, but includes other millennial positions as well] forms its theology from the explicit teaching of the New Testament. It confesses that it cannot be sure how the Old Testament prophecies of the end are to be ful!lled.” George Eldon Ladd, “Historic Premillennialism,” in The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, ed. Robert G. Clouse, 15–40 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1977), 27.

92Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity,” 79. 93Ibid., 79–81. Feinberg uses the term double ful!llment to express

the relationship of the church to the Old Testament covenants but does not elaborate in this section how that is to be understood.

94Ibid., 81–83. Feinberg allows for a present aspect of the future kingdom during which the church participates in the spiritual aspects of the kingdom.


hold to a future 1,000-year reign of Christ on the earth, does not see it as having any special reference to the nation Israel.95)

5) The church is a distinctive organism that began on the Day of Pentecost. It is not present in the Old Testament in any form.96

6) The purpose of God in history is the multifaceted and gradual working out of his kingdom purpose.97 This is offered in place of Ryrie’s doxological purpose and the nondispensationalist’s soteriological purpose. Neither of these two suggestions are seen as particularly unique to either system. Both would af!rm that God is implementing a doxological purpose and both agree that salvation is fundamentally the same throughout history (by grace, through faith).

______________ 95Cf. Ladd, “Historic Premillennialism.” 96Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity,” 83–84. 97Ibid., 84–85. Saucy also argues for a similar explanation of the pur-

pose of God: “The Crucial Issue Between Dispensational and Non-Dispensational Systems,” 149–65. Note especially his concluding summary on pages 163–65. This is also very similar to Pentecost’s recent argument in Thy Kingdom Come. He suggests that the doxological theme is “too sim-plistic” though obviously true (Ibid., 9).

The Proposal of Progressive Dispensationalism

Some information has already been provided to sketch the general nature of progressive dispensationalism. This concluding section will summarize their proposals concerning the relationship of the church to the kingdom. It should be remembered that even within the pale of the “progressive” label, there is diversity. It is an emerging movement and is still wrestling with key questions. Since there are several expressions of this issue, the following paragraphs will summarize the contributions of individual scholars who have published their position. The members of each group hold fairly similar positions. The second group has made a more far-reaching proposal than the !rst.

An Inaugurated Kingdom

A number of progressive dispensationalists have begun using inaugurated kingdom, both/and, already/not yet terminology.98 ______________

98This should not be confused with realized eschatology as advocated by C. H. Dodd, etc., nor should it be taken to imply that there is not a future 1,000-year millennial kingdom reign of Jesus on this earth within history. Although the present writer doubts any such acknowledgment would be forthcoming, it is interesting to speculate on the in"uence of realized eschatology on the inaugurated kingdom eschatology of progressive dispensationalism. (Such in"uence would not be proof that error was involved. Dodd’s in"uence can be seen in the technical reference works that all scholars use.) For those unfamiliar with Dodd’s system, the following brief description is given. Realized eschatology “is the technical term for the understanding that the aspects of the eschaton awaited by the OT prophets and their successors are no longer to be looked for in the future, but have been made present by the incarnation of Christ” (Nicholas Turner, Handbook for Biblical Studies [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982], 119). “Most interpreters have argued for a synthesis of realized and futurist eschatology. Dodd convincingly demonstrated that Jesus’ appearance


Classic dispensationalists have contended that there is no relation-ship between the church and the kingdom.99 Many would not even use kingdom with church. In both classic and modi!ed forms, king-dom means primarily postponed kingdom.

Robert Saucy has proposed that the church presently shares in some aspects of the kingdom. The complete ful!llment is still future, yet there has been one phase already inaugurated. Since Dr. Saucy has addressed this form of an inaugurated kingdom more fully than others, his position will be taken as representative of a large segment of progressive dispensationalists. The following extracts explain his concept.100

We would suggest therefore that God’s historical working is a uni!ed plan. Contrary to traditional dispensationalism, it does not entail separate programs for the Church and Israel which are somehow ultimately uni!ed only in the display of God’s glory or in eternity. The present age is not an historical parenthesis which is unrelated to the history which preceded it. Rather it must be viewed as an integrated phase in the development of the mediatorial kingdom.101

Some dispensationalists, however, have come to see a greater unity in the historical program of God centered in the Messianic kingdom. Without giving up the ful!llment of the promises for the nation of

brought to bear on history an eschatological crisis in the present; however, we would add that history still awaits its consummation in the future, when the kingdom will come in apocalyptic power.” G. M. Burge, “Realized Eschatology,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. W. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 914–915. The article “Kingdom of God/Kingdom of Heaven” by C. C. Caragounis is a very helpful survey at this point (Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992], 417–30; see esp. section 4.

99See L. S. Chafer’s comments on the present form of the kingdom: Systematic Theology (Dallas: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1947–48), 5:349–54.

100Dr. Saucy has a book forthcoming from Zondervan, hopefully in 1992. It is tentatively titled, The Interface Between Dispensation and Covenant Theology. This, along with a similar book by Blaising and Bock (see f.n. 118), will be the !rst full-length defense of progressive dispensa-tionalism.

101Saucy, “The Crucial Issue Between Dispensational and Non-Dispensational Systems,” 164–65.

The Proposal of Progressive Dispensationalism 39

Israel when Christ returns to reign openly in glory, this form of dispen-sationalism agrees with non-dispensational premillennialism that it is preferable to interpret this age as the !rst phase of the ful!llment of the one promised Messianic kingdom. The present age involves the spiri-tual aspects of the Messianic kingdom, that is, the blessings of the New Covenant (i.e., regeneration, the indwelling spirit, etc.). The remainder of the promises including those concerning Israel and the nations will !nd their ful!llment following the second advent.102

In discussing the Sermon on the Mount in another article, the implications of this view become clear.

Many dispensationalists today…no longer understand the ful!ll-ment of the Messianic kingdom announced by Jesus as postponed entirely until the second advent. They understand the spiritual sal-vation of the kingdom as available now through the work of Christ at Calvary. Since the sermon relates fundamentally to the personal life of the disciple of the kingdom in a world that has not yet become the kingdom of Christ overtly, this dispensational understanding accepts the teaching of Jesus as directly applicable to the believer today in the church.103

This approach to the Sermon on the Mount is likely to be dis-concerting to a classic dispensationalist. Yet it does appear that much classic exegesis in this area assumes the strictly future rele-vance of the passage and then seeks to resolve the exegetical prob-lems that this brings to the surface within the text (e.g., the perse-cution alluded to in Matt. 5:11). It should be admitted that Saucy’s explanation is just as consistent and provides an adequate expla-nation for the text.104 There are portions of the Sermon that will be dif!cult for the progressive dispensational interpretation (e.g., “inherit the earth,” Matt. 5:5), but no more so than the classic view—it is simply a different set of verses.

Saucy sees many New Testament references to the kingdom (that have been distinguished by the classical system) as referring ______________

102Saucy, “Contemporary Dispensational Thought,” 11. 103Saucy, “Dispensationalism and the Salvation of the Kingdom,” 6. 104This interpretation provides a much more realistic and less forced

explanation for verses such as Matt. 5:10–12, 40–41, 44; 6:10, 13, than does the classic, future-kingdom interpretation.


to the overall kingdom plan of God in history. Instead of postu-lating a series of unrelated kingdoms as is sometimes done in classic dispensationalism (kingdom of God, kingdom of the Son, millennial kingdom or kingdom of heaven, Father’s kingdom, etc.), these are seen as various aspects of a uni!ed, theocratic kingdom program.105 Thus, the parables of the kingdom (Matt. 13), Jesus’ references to the kingdom (e.g., Matt. 23:13), the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven, Paul’s references to kingdom power (1 Cor. 4:20) and qualities (Rom. 14:17) and to the saint’s inheritance of the kingdom of the Son (Col. 1:13), all refer to (perhaps different aspects of) the same kingdom.106

Regarding the nature of the kingdom power at work in and through believers [i.e., today in the church], two important characteristics are evident. First, the primary thrust of kingdom power relates to the inner person.… The blessings of the kingdom for today focus on the spiritual aspect of life and not the material.…

Second, the present kingdom power is fundamentally a power dis-played through outer weakness (cf. 2 Cor. 12:9–10).… The enemy is yet given provisional power to overcome the saints (1 Pet. 5:8; cf. Rev. 11:7). Thus care must be taken to distinguish the arena and expression of kingdom power promised for today.107

This is not a unique idea with Dr. Saucy. A number of others have echoed the same sentiments. Gerry Breshears, in his response to Bock’s 1987 paper, indicates that he agrees with a “basic inaugu-ration-culmination scheme.”108 His oral presentation at the 1991 ETS meeting af!rmed a position very similar to Saucy’s. There seemed to be fairly widespread agreement with this terminology at ______________

105There is similarity at this point to the approach taken by Pentecost (Thy Kingdom Come, cf. esp. 282–84), though Saucy’s proposal goes beyond that of Pentecost.

106Saucy, “The Presence of the Kingdom and the Life of the Church,” 36–44.

107Ibid., 44–45. 108“Response to Bock, ‘The Reign of the Lord Christ’” (A paper pre-

sented to the Dispensational Study Group of the Evangelical Theological Society, 1987), [4]. Breshears remains critical of Bock’s proposal (which is described in the next section of this paper) for a present phase of an inau-gurated Davidic kingdom.


that meeting. The printed summary of the 1988 discussion cites David Turner to the effect that “the church…is proleptically in the kingdom.… Not all the promises are exclusive to the millennium. The realm of the kingdom is present, earthly and redemptive, though the extent is not universal.”109

It would appear to the present writer that Saucy’s statement regarding the church as “an integrated phase in the development of the mediatorial kingdom”110 is a legitimate clari!cation of the rela-tionship between Israel and the church if “mediatorial kingdom” is understood as God’s over-arching kingdom purpose in history. The distinction between those two groups must be maintained, as must the literal ful!llment in history of the kingdom promises to Israel. The church is not the Davidic kingdom and will not pre-empt the ful!llment of Israel’s national promises. This is very similar to the position advocated by Pentecost in his recent book on the kingdom.111

This would be consistent with one New Covenant in which both Israel and the church participate.112 The future, national ______________

109“Discussion of the Kingdom of God Concept, Dispensational Study Group, November 1988,” [2]. The summary was prepared by Gerry Breshears. Turner goes further than Saucy and aligns himself with Bock. His response to Bock’s 1987 paper (co-authored with Steve Spencer), though critical of some issues, concludes that “Bock’s approach is a strong step in the right direction.…It is altogether appropriate to trace the rela-tionship of the Church to the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants as Bock has done in Acts 2–3. His thesis is well supported and strongly argued. In the main we heartily approve of the direction and conclusions of his essay.” David L. Turner and Stephen R. Spencer, “Response to Darrell L. Bock’s The Reign of the Lord Christ, ETS 1987” (A paper presented to the Dispensational Study Group of the Evangelical Theological Society, November 1987), [1]. See also f.n. 123.

110“The Crucial Issue Between Dispensational and Non-Dispensational Systems,” 165.

111Thy Kingdom Come. 112Since many dispensationalists still assume two new covenants, the

following summary of the one new covenant view will be included. “In its historical setting, the disciples who heard the Lord refer to the New Covenant in the upper room the night before His death would certainly


ful!llment to ethnic Israel is unquestioned and is all that can be demonstrated from the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. That God has extended the bene!t and blessing of that covenant to the church is not a problem. God cannot do less than he has promised, but he may do more.113 Since the church is a mystery, not revealed in the Old Testament, it would not have been possible for Jeremiah to include such a reference. That Jesus and the New Testament do connect the church with the New Covenant is consistent with the progressive revelation of God’s kingdom program. This does not mean that the church ful!lls the New Covenant even though she participates in some of the blessings of that covenant.

This conclusion is not a great deal different from Ryrie’s explanation of a spiritual kingdom, though certainly there is a wider statement of the church’s relationship to it.114 Pentecost’s

have understood him to be referring to the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31.” (Pentecost, Thy Kingdom Come, 172.) “Since the disciples would certainly have understood any reference to the New Covenant as referring to Israel’s anticipated covenant recorded in Jeremiah, it seems certain that the Lord was stating that that very covenant was being instituted with His death, and that they (the disciples) were ministers of the blood (the soteriological aspects) of that covenant (2 Cor. 3:6).” (Ibid., 172–73.) “Since the church receives blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gal.3:14; 4:22–31) by faith without being under or ful!lling that covenant, so the church may receive blessings from the New Covenant without being under or ful!lling it, simply by God’s grace.”(Ibid., 173.) “Because of our Lord’s statement to the Eleven in the upper room on the eve of the Cruci!xion, it seems impossible to say that the church has no relationship to the New Covenant! A more acceptable understanding is that while the New Covenant was made with the house of Israel and Judah, there are bene!ts from the enactment of that covenant of which the church (comprising both Jews and Gentiles) partake.” (Ibid., 175.) Detailed studies of the New Covenant from similar viewpoints may be found in Homer Kent, “The New Covenant and the Church,” Grace Theological Journal 6.2 (1985): 289–98 and R. Bruce Compton, “An Examination of the New Covenant in the Old and New Testaments,” Th.D. diss., Grace Theological Seminary, 1986.

113This last phrase was proposed by Gerry Breshears at the 1991 ETS meeting.

114Dispensationalism Today, 172–73.


view of the church and the kingdom is likewise similar in many ways. He argues that the rejection of Jesus as Messiah raises the question,

In what form would God administer His theocracy on earth in the interval between Israel’s rejection of the messianic kingdom and Israel’s future reception of the Messiah and His kingdom? The series of parables that Christ used were designed to describe the important fea-tures of the new and unexpected form in which the theocracy would be manifested in this present age.…

The church is a part of the kingdom, but the kingdom is more exten-sive than just the church. The church age is within the new age of the kingdom, but the kingdom age extends beyond the church age. Thus the present parables [Matt. 13] do not primarily reveal truth about the church but rather about the kingdom of which the church is a part.115

An Inaugurated Davidic Kingdom

Some progressive dispensationalists have made kingdom pro-posals that go a signi!cant step beyond the position described above. Darrell Bock and Craig Blaising are arguing that Jesus is presently reigning as Davidic King in ful!llment of the Old Testa-ment prophecies to Israel. This position was !rst presented in Bock’s 1987 paper, “The Reign of the Lord Christ.”116 It has recently been elaborated at the 1991 ETS meeting during two back-

______________ 115J. Dwight Pentecost, The Parables of Jesus, 49, emphasis added. See

also his most recent discussion: Thy Kingdom Come, 215–45. The com-ments above should not be construed as suggesting that Pentecost is a pro-gressive dispensationalist. His position (and that of the present writer) is still that of a modi!ed dispensationalist. These comments do acknowledge that both modi!ed and progressive dispensationalists are seeking to clarify the precise relationship of the church and the kingdom. Although a modi!ed dispensationalist may suggest that the church is one aspect of God’s ongoing kingdom program, they would not assert that the (Messianic) kingdom is present today. Saucy argues for an inaugurated (but not consummated) Messianic kingdom.

116A paper presented to the Dispensational Study Group of the Evangelical Theological Society, 1987.


to-back parallel sessions,117 both of which were attended by a standing-room-only crowd of both dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists. A book edited by Bock and Blaising will present these ideas to an even wider forum when it is published in the fall of 1992: Israel, the Church, and Dispensationalism: The Search for De!nition.118

This is a major shift in dispensational thinking. Walvoord has stated the usual dispensational view on the matter quite forcefully.

A search of the New Testament reveals that there is not one reference connecting the present session of Christ with the Davidic throne. While this argument is, of course, not conclusive, it is almost incredible that in so many references to David [59] and in so frequent reference to the present session of Christ on the Father’s throne there should be not one reference connecting the two in any authoritative way. The New Testament is totally lacking in positive teaching that the throne of the Father in heaven is to be identi!ed with the Davidic throne. The infer-ence is plain that Christ is seated on the Father’s throne, but that is not at all the same as being seated on the throne of David.119

The basis of this new kingdom scheme may be summarized as follows.120 “The principle of mystery means that old and new are ______________

117Darrell L. Bock, “The Kingdom, Covenants, and Promise in Biblical Theology: A Progressive Dispensational Overview,” A paper pre-sented to the Evangelical Theological Society, 1992; and Craig A. Blaising, “The Kingdom of God in Progressive Dispensationalism,” A paper pre-sented to the Evangelical Theological Society, 1992.

118Grand Rapids: Zondervan, forthcoming [Oct. 1992?]. This is the same book that was previously advertised as simply Israel and the Church. If it is available in time, it will form the focus for the discussion of the November 1992 session of the Dispensational Study Group in San Francisco.

119John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, 203. More recently he has stated, “there is a present form of the kingdom which is spiritual. In a sense God is reigning, but that is not ful!lling the Old Testament prophecies” (“The Kingdom of God in the New Testament ,” BibSac 139[1982]: 207, emphasis added). Bock and Blaising’s proposal asserts, to the contrary, that OT kingdom prophecies are being ful!lled today.

120The following summary is taken from Bock’s 6-page handout at the 1991 ETS session (see f.n. 117). Individual statements are not footnoted above. Exact quotes from the handout do appear in quotation marks.


placed side by side in the plan of God (Matt. 13:52). This means that NT teaching does not replace OT expectation but complements it.” There is a greater continuity between OT prophecy and present-era ful!llment than customary in classic and modi!ed dis-pensationalism. There are new elements of discontinuity, namely, the equality of Jew and Gentile (Eph. 3:3–9) and the indwelling of Messiah in the Gentiles (Col. 1:25–29).

The OT covenants are viewed as a unity (Mosaic excepted). There is a “common and progressive pattern of promissory ful!llment” for the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants. Each of the three is viewed as having “current era ful!llment.” The pre-sent ful!llment of the Abrahamic covenant is seen in the blessing of all nations through Abraham. The Davidic is said to be ful!lled today in a number of NT texts including Luke 1:68–79 (provision of salvation), Acts 2:30–36 and 13:32–39 (ascension and current reign of Christ, the Davidite, on the Davidic throne), and Rev. 1:5–7 (forgiveness and the constitution of the church as a kingdom and priests). The New Covenant !nds contemporary ful!llment in the indwelling and baptism of the Spirit (Luke 3:15–18; 24:49, seen to be the ful!llment of Joel 2 in Acts 2), and the new birth (John 3:3–10). “The key link allowing such expansion in the other covenants is the promise of blessing to the nations through the seed of Abra-ham as promised in the Abrahamic Covenant, the base covenant.”

The present authority of Christ as King of Kings is deduced from statements of authority he exercised during his incarnate ministry (e.g., Luke 6:1–6) and statements relating to his future authority when he returns (e.g., Luke 21:27). [This would imply continued authority as King/Lord during the interval?] The Son of Man designation is also seen as implying authority. The use of that title as the disciples confess him as Christ shows the connection between [salvi!c?] confession of Christ and his current reign as [Davidic?] Lord.

Considerable emphasis is placed on passages that speak of the presence of the kingdom, including Luke 11:20; 17:21; John 3:3–10; Romans 14:17; Colossians 1:13–14; and Revelation 1:9. (These pas-


sages are also relevant to the inaugurated kingdom terminology of Saucy, though Bock takes them much further.)

This approach does not eliminate a future, earthly reign of Christ.121 It is acknowledged that all things are not yet in sub-jection (Heb. 2:5) and will not be until Christ returns. The usual premillennial view of a 1,000-year reign is maintained. In contrast to historic premillennialism, however, that future reign is seen to be distinctively Jewish in character. Israel will be restored as a nation in ful!llment of the OT prophecies. This earthly reign does not totally ful!ll the prophecies, however. To do so requires an extension into eternity future during which “the ultimate unity of God’s people” will be achieved. (Does this mean that there will be no distinction of Israel and the church in eternity future?)

Bock has also defended his approach in an earlier paper devoted to Acts 2 and 3.122 That paper is a helpful exegetical dis-play of the theory. In it he argues that Acts 2 views the OT Davidic and New Covenant promises as being ful!lled now, while Acts 3 focuses on the future aspects of ful!llment. Acts 2 is a key to his system. Joel 2, Psalm 16, and Psalm 110 are seen to be ful!lled in the resurrection, ascension, and present session of Christ in heaven.

The period of the “last days” is by its very nature a period of ful-!llment. In saying this, it is not necessary, or correct, to go on and say the period of consummation is present, for the NT can still speak of the “Age to Come”. What is present is an inauguration-transition, not a completion as the nature of the ful!llment of Joel will show. The “last days” points to the presence of the eschaton, but not to the presence of all of it.

…What is present is the declaration of an initial ful!llment in a series of events that make up a large period of time known as the “last

______________ 121Bock comments elsewhere that “the future hope has not been

absorbed in the theme of present inauguration, but remains alive, con-nected to its OT roots. God is faithful and brings all of his promises to fruition” (“Luke, Gospel of,” Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992], 504).

122“The Reign of the Lord Christ,” 1–16.


days”. Peter is saying a promised program is in the process of coming to pass and a key element of what God promised has taken place.

…The eschaton has begun and the movement toward the culmi-nation of the eschaton has started. The bene!ts associated with the coming of the Day of the Lord have begun.123

His concluding summary statement regarding Acts 2 refers to the “‘already,’ ‘invisible’ kingdom” as “a rule that ful!lls in an ini-tial and in an inaugural way both the Davidic and New Cove-nants.”124

The complementary paper presented at the ETS session by Craig Blaising does not focus on exegesis but theological synthesis. The following (rather lengthy) citations from that paper will serve to put this proposal in systematic form. To understand the refer-ences that follow, it is necessary to remember that Blaising speaks of three dispensations as progressive stages in the realization of redemption: the past, present, and future dispensations. These are separated, respectively, by the advent of Christ and the parousia.

The presence of the kingdom in the community of the King (i.e., the church) is explained in the !rst paragraph below. The

______________ 123Ibid., 8–9. It is interesting that Turner and Spencer (“Response to

Bock,” [2]) take him to task for not being willing to use more consistent language.

On another front, Bock is reluctant to say that in Luke’s theology “the period of consummation is present…” This reluctance seems to re"ect some inconsistency, since Bock has argued elsewhere that “the last days” are present and that the church experiences ful!llment of the OT promises. If the Church is the eschatalogical people of God, and if it has genuinely experienced the OT promises, then it appears futile to argue that the “Age of Consummation” is not yet present. This seems once again to understate the dynamic rule of the Lord Christ in the Spirit-led community. It also may overstate the distinction between the present and future phases of the reign of Christ. Of course, we grant with Bock that the present rule of Christ is not the total or ultimate consummation of God’s program. Nevertheless, the age to come is already present dynamicly [sic] in the life of the Church through Christ’s bestowal of the Spirit.”

124Bock, “The Reign of the Lord Christ,” 12.


presence of the kingdom in the empire of the King (i.e., the mil-lennial kingdom) follows.

After offering himself as the sacri!cial basis for the new covenant, Jesus, Son of David (and consequently priest according to the order of Melchizedek), was raised from the dead, and after giving evidence of that fact, he ascended into heaven where he was honored with the position that belongs to the Davidic King—enthronement at the right hand of God the Father. All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to him. He waits upon the Father for the time of His bodily return to the earth. But prior to this return, he (being God and the Son of David) has, as an act of his regal and divine authority, sent a gift—the eschatalogical Spirit to inaugurate the transforming, sanctifying spiritual blessings of the new covenant which serve as an earnest, a down payment on the future ful!llment of all new covenant kingdom blessings. (This is consistent with his Davidic function of mediating covenantal blessings.) He has drawn to himself a remnant from Israel and from many Gentile nations as a sign of his kingly authority, forming them together as a temple for the dwelling of God on the earth (this also belongs to the covenantal authority of the Son of David), constituting them as his body. Through the regenerating and indwell-ing activity of the eschatalogical Spirit, he unites the peoples in a new society which manifests the peace and righteousness of the eschato-logical kingdom. He demonstrates grace, mercy, compassion, and for-giveness in this kingdom community as he bestows upon them eternal life and they respond with love and joy worshipping and serving him in the knowledge of God. Although aliens in the world, this remnant of the nations, the church, is a present manifestation of the future escha-talogical kingdom, a stage in the progress of its revelation. It proclaims and manifests the gospel of the Messiah and the grace of His blessings. It looks forward to the coming of its inheritance, the fullness of the kingdom yet to be revealed at the return of the King.125

At the time set by the Father, Jesus, Messiah, Son of David, will return to the earth to rule the nations. His coming marks a “Day of the Lord,” a time of wrath and judgment against sin and injustice yet deliverance and salvation for those who have put their trust and hope in him. Together with those whom he has raised from the dead or transformed to immortality, he will administer human life on the earth in its national and political dimensions. As Messiah of Israel, he will ful!ll for that nation the promises covenanted to her, and he will rule

______________ 125Blaising, “The Kingdom of God in Progressive Dispensation-

alism,” 4–5. (The inconsistent capitalization above follows the original.)


over all nations so that through him all nations might be blessed. He will rule with a rod of iron, imprisoning spiritual wickedness and sub-jugating all human authority to himself. In fact, all things will be pro-gressively subjected to him during this time which Scripture calls a millennium. The spiritual blessings which were displayed in the pre-vious dispensation in the life of an eschatalogical community, the church, will be extended in this stage of the kingdom through national and political dimensions of human life as well. The earthly blessings which were glimpsed in individual messianic works during the !rst advent will be extended around the world. At the end of this stage of the kingdom, evil itself will be destroyed in a display of Christ’s judg-ment against Satanic and human rebellion, and death along with sin will be eliminated.126

What is to be said of this proposal? There are some valid points that should be appreciated. The treatment of the New Cove-nant, very similar to that discussed earlier,127 seems least objec-tionable and a major improvement over the classic dispensational position of two separate, unrelated new covenants. The insistence of some aspect of the Davidic kingdom today needs to be weighed carefully.

Perhaps it is valid to suggest that Bock and Blaising have done something that was not uncommon in classic dispensationalism, but with a different presupposition. It may be that they have assumed that all (or at least most) kingdom references in the New Testament refer to the Davidic, millennial kingdom.128 Since they also hold that the kingdom is present today, they must conclude that the King is now reigning on the Davidic throne—i.e., the Davidic, millennial kingdom has already begun.129 Some older dispensationalists have made the same mistake. They likewise

______________ 126Ibid., 5. 127See f.n. 112. 128“I wonder if he is not guilty of attempting to class all meanings of

kingdom under one heading.” (Breshears, “Response to Bock,” [1].) 129Breshears makes a related point when he notes that “Bock’s

argument centers on the assumption that the kingdom arrives in stages. Christ Himself represents the !rst stage, the present session of the exalted Lord the second, and the millennial kingdom the third. The continuity between the three stages is foundational to the argument.” Ibid.


assumed that all (or most) references to the kingdom in the New Testament are to the Davidic, millennial kingdom. Since they assumed that kingdom could only be future, not present, they con-cluded that all kingdom references are also future. In either case it becomes necessary to squeeze some dif!cult passages into odd shapes to !t the system.

It is at this point that the concept of an overriding theocratic kingdom program, manifested in different ways at different times in history, can be helpful.130 Such a proposal does not "inch at speaking of the church’s relationship to the kingdom today, but by that it is not meant that the Davidic, millennial kingdom is present today. There is no necessity to see Christ seated on the Davidic throne. Just because the kingdom was present in some sense when the King was present131 does not demand that the promised king-dom has begun. Neither does this necessarily change at the ascen-sion and glori!cation of Jesus as Bock argues from Acts 2.

The nature of Bock’s argument from Acts is slightly discon-certing. There is no explicit statement of his interpretation there. It largely depends on the correctness of the connections and infer-ences Bock makes. It seems a bit tenuous to hinge such a major shift on such a basis. His argument is cohesive and consistent, but it is not explicit nor the only or necessary paradigm.

There are other questions raised by Bock and Blaising that are beyond the scope of this paper. Included are hermeneutical ques-tions related to the use of the Old Testament in the New and the ______________

130Cf. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom, and Pentecost, Thy Kingdom Come.

131Luke 17:21 is a common statement of the presence of the kingdom in the presence of the King: “the kingdom of God is within you” (KJV, NIV; /4&89 OMC4 /(&*4 [entos humon estin, in you it is]). This is a dif!cult passage, but certainly does not mean that the kingdom was internal to the audience Jesus addressed: the Pharisees! More likely it means in your midst, or, as a number of scholars argue, within your reach. (G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986], 102; I. Howard Marshall, Commentary on Luke, New International Greek Testament Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978], 655; Breshears, “Response to Bock,” [2].)


extent to which Old Testament prophecies are ful!lled in or by the church. The entire continuity/discontinuity issue is involved here. Although the older forms of dispensationalism did not acknowl-edge suf!cient continuity, it may be that progressive dispensation-alism will overreact and abandon most elements of discontinuity. The speci!c differences between Bock/Blaising and historic premil-lennialism also need to be considered.132 Exegetical questions should be asked regarding Bock’s handling of speci!c statements in Acts 2.133 The implications of the quotation from Joel 2 raise both hermeneutical and exegetical issues.

Conclusion

It is too early to pass !nal judgment on all aspects of pro-gressive dispensationalism. Many questions are still being worked out. The forthcoming books by Blaising/Bock and by Saucy will undoubtedly clarify (and perhaps correct) earlier statements. Dis-pensationalists, especially those trained in the classic version (which includes this writer), need to avoid the temptation to make the Sco!eld/Chafer formulation an inerrant, unchanging standard of orthodoxy from which no deviation is allowed. The older framework was submitted to the scrutiny of the Word. So must the more recent ideas. Some will be rejected as inconsistent with Scripture. Some will demonstrate the weaknesses of previous statements. Some will stimulate revised or clari!ed positions. So ______________

132There are differences, primarily related to the future place of Israel in the kingdom and the hermeneutical independence of the Old Testament (see f.n. 91), but there are probably more areas of agreement with Ladd than with Sco!eld/Chafer in the overall system. For a study of the hermeneutics of historic premillennialism, see Rolland McCune, “An Investigation and Criticism of ‘Historic’ Premillennialism from the Viewpoint of Dispensationalism,” Th.D. diss., Grace Theological Seminary, 1972.

133Breshears raises a number of these questions. “Response to Bock,” [3–4].


long as the Word remains the !nal authority and its students con-tinue to strive for mastery of it, the current debate will be healthy for the church.

Appendix

After the preceding material was prepared for printing, the following information was received. It was contained in a letter from Dr. Campbell, president of Dallas Seminary, addressed to alumni (5/28/92). An excerpt is included here for the perspective it provides on the discussions at Dallas.

Discussions continue on several campuses, including our own, and in the dispensational study group that meets before the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. Some alumni have expressed concern about the teachings of Dr. Darrell Bock, professor of New Testament Studies, and Dr. Craig Blaising, professor of Systematic Theology. They are offering a modified definition of dispensation-alism, but it is not in conflict with the Doctrinal Statement of the Seminary. Drs. Bock and Blaising have adopted what they call a com-plementary hermeneutic, meaning that God can do more (in the New Testament) than He has promised (in the Old Testament), but never less. They teach that Christ is now sitting on the throne of David in heaven and reigning, not over the house of Israel, but over the church. In their view, the church therefore participates in the Davidic Cove-nant just as believers participate in the spiritual aspects of the Abra-hamic and New Covenants. Their current modifications of dispensa-tionalism emphasize an “already/not yet” kingdom, but fully preserve the Jewish elements of the millennial kingdom. Darrell Bock recently spent a day at Reformed Seminary in Orlando, Florida, and in his ses-sions with students and faculty he affirmed premillennialism, pre-tribulationism, and dispensationalism. He stated that in the future millennium Christ will reign on the throne of David in Jerusalem, that a millennial temple will be built, and that sacrifices will be renewed as memorials. Drs. Bock and Blaising are emphatic about a future for national Israel in the land.

From Dr. Chafer to Dr. Walvoord to Dr. Ryrie to Dr. Pentecost and now to Drs. Bock and Blaising, I have observed that dispensationalism has been modified and, to some degree, redefined. In a recent state-ment Dr. Walvoord said, “Theology by its nature is a changing force, and each generation redefines some of its major elements. Change can


be for the better or for the worse, but it is felt that the changes now being proposed at the Seminary are within the bounds of orthodoxy and the Scriptures, and therefore, should not give rise to the false im-pression that the Seminary is backing away from its dispensational position.” Not all of our faculty, of course, hold this modified position, but all are dispensationalists as defined by our Doctrinal Statement.

Bibliography

The following bibliography includes most of the works cited or to which reference was made in the preceding discussion. The bib-liography regarding authorial intent included in note 54 above has not been repeated.

Allis, O. T. Prophecy and the Church. 2d ed. [Philadelphia]: Pres-

byterian & Reformed, 1947. Bahnsen, Greg and Kenneth Gentry, Jr. House Divided: The Break-

up of Dispensational Theology. Tyler, TX: Institute for Chris-tian Economics, 1989.

Bailey, Mark. “Dispensationalism De!nitions of the Kingdom.” A paper presented to the Dispensational Study Group of the Evangelical Theological Society , Nov. 1988.

Baker, Charles. A Dispensational Theology. 2d ed., Grand Rapids: Grace Bible College, 1971.

Barker, Kenneth. “False Dichotomies Between the Testaments,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25 (1982): 3–16.

Blaising, Craig. “Development of Dispensationalism by Contem-porary Dispensationalists.” Part 2 of “Developing Dispensa-tionalism,” BibSac 145 (1988): 254–280.

________. “Dispensationalism at the End of the Twentieth Cen-tury.” A paper presented to the Evangelical Theology Group of the American Academy of Religion, Nov. 1990.

________. “Doctrinal Development in Orthodoxy.” Part 1 of “Developing Dispensationalism,” BibSac 145 (1988): 133–40.

________. “The Kingdom of God in Progressive Dispensation-alism.” A paper presented to the Evangelical Theological Society, Nov. 1991.

Bock, Darrell L. “The Kingdom, Covenants, and Promise in Bib-lical Theology: A Progressive Dispensational Overview.” A


paper presented to the Evangelical Theological Society, Nov. 1991.

________. “Luke, Gospel of.” In Dictionary of Christ and the Gos-pels. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992, 495–510.

________. “The Reign of the Lord Christ.” A paper presented to the Dispensational Study Group of the Evangelical Theological Society, 1987.

Bock, Darrell L. and Craig A. Blaising. Israel, the Church, and Dispensationalism: The Search for De!nition. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, forthcoming.

Breshears, Gerry. “Response to Bock, ‘The Reign of the Lord Christ’.” A paper presented to the Dispensational Study Group of the Evangelical Theological Society, 1987.

________. “Response to Craig Blaising, ‘Developing Dispensation-alism,’” A paper presented to the Dispensational Study Group of the Evangelical Theological Society, November 1986.

Breshears, Gerry, ed. “Discussion of the Kingdom of God Concept, Dispensational Study Group, November 1988.” Unpublished paper.

Burge, G. M. “Realized Eschatology.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Edited by W. Elwell. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984, 914–915.

Caragounis, C. C. “Kingdom of God/Kingdom of Heaven.” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1992, 417–30.

Clutter, Ronald. “Dispensational Study Group: An Introduction,” Grace Theological Journal 10.2 (1989): 123–24.

Compton, R. Bruce. “An Examination of the New Covenant in the Old and New Testaments.” Th.D. diss., Grace Theological Seminary, 1986.

Cox, William E. An Examination of Dispensationalism. Philadel-phia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1963.

Crutch!eld, Larry. “The Doctrine of Ages and Dispensations as Found in the Published Works of John Nelson Darby (1800–1882).” Ph.D. diss., Drew Univ., 1985.

Bibliography 57

________. “Rudiments of Dispensationalism in the Ante-Nicene Period.” Part 1: “Israel and the Church in the Ante-Nicene Fathers.” Part 2: “Ages and Dispensations in the Ante-Nicene Fathers,” BibSac 144 (1987): 254–76, 377–401.

Ehlert, Arnold H. “A Bibliography of Dispensationalism.” Th.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1945. Reprinted in BibSac 101–03 (1944–46): et passim.

Feinberg, John S. “Theological Systems and the Testaments: Systems of Discontinuity.” In Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments: Essays in Honor of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. Edited by John S. Feinberg. Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1988, 63–88.

Feinberg, John S. ed., Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments: Essays in Honor of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1988.

Gerstner, John. Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism. Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1991.

Gundry, Stanley. “Developing Dispensationalism (by Craig Blaising): A Response.” A paper presented to the Dispensa-tional Study Group of the Evangelical Theological Society, Nov. 1986.

Hannah, John D. “A Review of The Incredible Sco!eld and His Book,” BibSac 147 (1990): 351–64.

Hoekema, Anthony A. “Amillennialism.” In The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views. Edited by Robert G. Clouse. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1977, 153–87.

House, H. Wayne and Thomas Ice. Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse? An Analysis of Christian Reconstructionism. Portland: Multnomah, 1988.

Johnson, Elliott E. Expository Hermeneutics: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990.

________. “What I Mean by Historical-Grammatical Interpre-tation & How That Differs from Spiritual Inter-pretation.”Grace Theological Journal 11.2 (1990): 157–69.


Johnson, S. Lewis. “Paul and ‘The Israel of God’: An Exegetical and Eschatalogical Case-Study.” In Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost. Edited by Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986, 181–96.

Karleen, Paul. “Understanding Covenant Theologians: A Study in Presuppositions.” Grace Theological Journal 10.2 (1989): 125–38.

Kent, Homer “The New Covenant and the Church.” Grace Theo-logical Journal 6.2 (1985): 289–98.

Ladd, George Eldon. “Historic Premillennialism.” In The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views. Edited by Robert G. Clouse. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1977, 15–40.

Longman, Tremper, III. “What I Mean by Historical-Grammatical Exegesis: Why I Am Not a Literalist,” Grace Theological Journal 11.2 (1990): 137–52.

McClain, Alva J. The Greatness of the Kingdom. Winona Lake, IN: BMH, 1968.

McCune, Rolland. “An Investigation and Criticism of ‘Historic’ Premillennialism from the Viewpoint of Dispensationalism.” Th.D. diss., Grace Theological Seminary, 1972.

North, Gary. Foreword to House Divided: The Break-up of Dispen-sational Theology by Greg Bahnsen and Kenneth Gentry, Jr. Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989.

Oss, Douglas A. “The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism within the Pentecostal Tradition.” A paper presented to the Dispen-sational Study Group of the Evangelical Theological Society, Nov. 1991.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. The Parables of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zonder-van, 1982.

________. Things to Come. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958. ________. Thy Kingdom Come. Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1990. Peters, George N. H. The Theocratic Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus,

the Christ. 3 vols. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1952.

Poythress, Vern S. Understanding Dispensationalists. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987.

Bibliography 59

Robertson, O. Palmer. The Christ of the Covenants. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1980.

Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. Dispensationalism Today. Chicago: Moody Press, 1965.

________. The Basis of the Premillennial Faith. Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux, 1953.

Saucy, Robert. “Contemporary Dispensational Thought.” TSF Bulletin 7 (March–April 1984): 10–11.

________. “The Crucial Issue Between Dispensational and Non-Dispensational Systems.” Criswell Theological Review 1.1 (1986): 149–65.

________. “Dispensationalism and the Salvation of the Kingdom.” TSF Bulletin 7 (May–June 1984): 6–7.

________. The Interface Between Dispensation and Covenant Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, forthcoming.

________. “Israel and the Church: A Case for Discontinuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments: Essays in Honor of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr.. Edited by John Feinberg. Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1988, 239–59.

________. “The Locus of the Church.” Criswell Theological Review 1.2 (1987): 387–99.

________. “The Presence of the Kingdom in the Life of the Church.” BibSac 145 (1988): 30–46.

________. “A Response to Understanding Dispensationalists, by Vern S. Poythress.” Grace Theological Journal 10.2 (1989): 139–46.

Showers, Renald E. There Really Is a Difference! A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology. Bellmawr, NJ: Friends of Israel, 1990.

Silva, Moisés. Biblical Words and Their Meanings: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983.

Turner, David. “The Continuity of Scripture and Eschatology: Key Hermeneutical Issues,” Grace Theological Journal 6.2 (1985): 175–87.


Turner, David L. and Stephen R. Spencer. “Response to Darrell L. Bock’s The Reign of the Lord Christ, ETS 1987.” A paper pre-sented to the Dispensational Study Group of the Evangelical Theological Society, Nov. 1987.

Walvoord, John F. The Millennial Kingdom. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959.

Walvoord. “The Kingdom of God in the New Testament.” BibSac 139 (1982): 205–15, 302–11.

Witmer, John. “A Review of Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, Part 1,” BibSac 149 (1992):131–45. (Part 2 had not yet been published at the time of this writing.)

Documents

Contemporary Dispensational Theology, 1992