Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional & Progressive Views

This is not your average 'bathroom reader'. Bateman puts together in 345 pages one of the best comparisons of the dispensational views on the three critical issues that there is contention over. He, however, is not unbiased in his presentation. He obviously favors the Progressive position. The Progressive view is flawed,however,in the core area of metheodology...hermeneutics. If the core is wrong then everything that attaches itself to it is also wrong. I would recommend this book for its thoroughness to any who have wrestled with these issues [as is currently going on] and one must come to a satisfactory position given the Biblical evidence.

Have only read selected portions, but observations by the editor regarding changes were helpful in understanding why some movement toward Progressive Dispensation is warranted. Will add more when completed. Wondering if there is anything on the topic since this was published, or if most of the dialog is occurring in the primary literature which I don't have ready access.

I read this book as the last of three books required for a master's level class on premillennial dispensationalism. This book was a perfect "capstone" for this class as it answered many questions brought up through the discussions in the class. I enjoyed reading it and thinking through the varying viewpoints presented in relation to the Scriptures.

great for the money

excelente

In a nutshell, this book contains essays by traditional dispensationalists and progressive dispensationists, discussing pertinent issues with one another. On each of the three topics, a traditional dispensationalist will give his view, to which the progressive dispensationalist will give a brief response. Then the progressive dispensationalist will give his view, which the traditional dispensationalist responds to.One might imagine that as a non-dispensationalist, I would be biased towards the progressive dispensationalist (because, though they still see a distinction between Israel and the church and a future for the nation of Israel, they have more in common with non-dispensationalists than their traditionalist counterparts). And that is true. But for me, the progressive dispensationalists (Darrell Bock and J. Lanier Burns) didn't just make a more compelling case than their more traditional counterparts (Elliot Johnson and Stanley Touissant); they demonstrated to me a view that, though not correct in my opinion, is nonetheless reasonable, possible, and just not as blatantly wrong as traditional dispensationalism. A lot of what I really hate about dispensationalism they also disagree with. They interpret the Bible pretty literally still, but they don't then ignore how the New Testament applies Old Testament texts to the church. They don't believe in two different eternal fates for the church and for the saved people of Israel (which, to be fair, a lot of more traditional dispensationalists no longer believe in either). Although they see a distinction between Israel and the church, they acknowledge that the church is brought into the same fold, the same one people of God, and that therefore the promises made to the Jews also apply to gentile believers in Christ, at least to some extent. To the credit of traditional dispensationalist Stanley Touissant, he even acknowledges this last part at then end of his chapter. Put bluntly, they don't force their belief in a distinction between Israel and the church into their interpretations, so that rather than ignoring the straightforward teaching of a passage that seems to indicate some shared qualities or equality between the church and Israel (after accusing everyone else of not taking the Bible "literally"), they acknowledge that there is some continuity between the church and Israel (though still believing there will be a future kingdom of Israel int he millennium).As for the traditional dispensationalists, their cases were much weaker. You can honestly sense at times just a complete, I would dare say even emotional, aversion to allowing any continuity between the church and Israel. At times (like in Stanley Touissant's response to J. Lanier Burns), the whole reason why the other person can't be right is because if they are, it would mean that the church has some continuity with Israel. It's as if such an idea is so unthinkable that it just is not possible, so anything that would suggest it must be wrong. You read it and you're just like "well, so what if it suggests some continuity between the church and Israel...?"). It kind of gave me the feeling that these assumptions were core to their hermeneutic, so rather than gaining them from the Bible, they read the Bible in light of them. Given that some dispensationalists will say so outright (like Tim Lahaye in Rapture, who insists that you must acknowledge a complete distinction between the church and Israel before you can properly understand prophecy), this might not just be a stereotype of traditional dispensationalist writing. The progressive dispensationalist arguments were much stronger and scripture-based than their traditionalist counterparts.Am I convinced by the progressive dispensationalist case? No, but to be fair, the book isn't aiming to convince non-dispensationalists. The things they debate are only pertinent to dispensationalism. Because they already agree with each other on a number of issues (the literal millenial kingdom after Christ's coming, pre-tribulation rapture, a future national Israel, the argument that the promises to Israel are unconditional), these things are assumed to be true. So obviously, then, a non-dispensationalist will stay a non-dispensationalist. Nevertheless, this book has demonstrated to me that the Bible isn't so clear-cut an issue, and that dispensationalism does need to be taken seriously (insofar as the more reasonable, "progressive" strand of dispensationalism goes). It's kind of, funny actually, since this was an in-house discussion. Nevertheless, it was useful to even a non-dispensationalist.

This book is a good introduction of the differences between the old (traditional) and new (progressive) dispensationalism. The first essay of the book (by Bateman) deals with the origins and historical developments of dispensationalism. Bateman goes through the revisions that started after the Darby-Scofield-Chafer era, and through the middle of the Century (McClain-Pentecost-Ryrie-Walvoord days). Those wanting a good historical background on the developments of dispensational thought should consult Bateman's essay.The first section deals with the hermeneutical differences between traditional and progressive dispensationalism. The difference being that progressives use a complementary hermeneutic which takes into account extra-biblical literature during the post-exilic era. Progressives have changed the structure of dispensationalism due to the realization that a wooden literal hermeneutic cannot be taken for granted, and that the practice of exegesis must be understood in the historical and cultural context of the period when the OT prophetic books were written.The second section deals with the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants promised in the OT and how they relate to the Church. Both traditional and progressive dispensationalists agree that the Abrahamic and New Covenants have been partially realized in the Church today; the question is how much of these covenants have been realized in the Church. However, both camps agree that the OT covenants cannot be totally relegated to Israel during the Millennial Kingdom.The third section deals with the differences between Israel and the Church. Both groups share the belief that Israelites were saved by grace through faith alone. That salvation has always been by God's grace and sovereignty. That there is no distinction between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven. The only differences between both camps is that progressives believe that there is more continuity between Israel and the Church spiritually, and that the Church is not an interruption in God's soteric purposes. However, both groups tend to have more similarities than differences since both agree that Israel still has a place in God's redemptive plan.Overall, a good debate between traditional and progressive dispensationalists on key theological issues.