Progressive dispensationalism

In Christian theology, progressive dispensationalism is a variation of traditional (or revised) dispensationalism. Together, progressive and traditional dispensationalism are referred to as mainstream dispensationalism. The term "progressive" is derived from this theological concept of "progression" between the dispensations. Progressive dispensationalism is not related to the social or political use of the term, such as progressive Christianity.

While elements of progressive dispensationalism are found in previous dispensational writers, the view itself was articulated in the late 1980s by a number of dispensational scholars. There are three scholars in particular—Craig A. Blaising, Darrell L. Bock, and Robert L. Saucy—who are considered the leading writers of progressive dispensationalism.

Comparison with traditional dispensationalism

Progressive and traditional dispensationalists hold to many common beliefs, including a distinction between Israel and the Church, a future pre-tribulation rapture, a seven-year tribulation, and a millennial kingdom, of which the rule of Jesus Christ will be centered in Jerusalem.

The major difference between traditional and progressive dispensationalism is in how each views the relationship of the present dispensation to the past and future dispensations. Traditional dispensationalism perceive the present age of grace to be a "parenthesis" or "intercalation" in God's plans, and is therefore unrelated to past and future dispensations. In general that means God's plans as revealed in the past dispensations have been "put on hold" until after the rapture. Progressive dispensationalists however reject this idea of a parenthesis, and perceive that this present dispensation is a key link between past dispensations and the future dispensations. In general that means God's plans have continued in this present dispensation, marking it as a crucial link between past and future dispensations and not a parenthesis.

Because of the main tenants of Progressive Dispensationalism, the relationship to true Dispensationalism has been debated. Many believe that this is not actually dispensationalism and is truly not.

"Progressive" relationship between the covenants

Progressive dispensationalists perceive a closer relationship between the old covenant and the new covenant than do most traditional dispensationalists. One of the covenants which highlight the differences between the two views is the new covenant. In the past, dispensationalists have had a variety of views with regard to the new covenant. Some dispensationalists, including Charles Ryrie and John F. Walvoord in the 1950s, argued for two new covenants: one new covenant for the Church and another new covenant for Israel. Other dispensationalists, including John Nelson Darby and John Master, argued for one new covenant applied only to Israel. And still other dispensationalists, including Cyrus I. Scofield and John McGahey in the 1950s, have argued for one new covenant for a believing Israel today and an ongoing partial fulfillment, and another new covenant for a future believing Israel when Jesus returns for a complete fulfillment.

Progressive dispensationalists, like Blaising and Bock, argue for one new covenant with an ongoing partial fulfillment and a future complete fulfillment for Israel. Progressives hold that the new covenant was inaugurated by Christ at the Last Supper. Progressives hold that while there are aspects of the new covenant currently being fulfilled, there is yet to be a final and complete fulfillment of the new covenant in the future. This concept is sometimes referred to as an "already-but-not-yet" fulfillment.

Hermeneutics

Both traditional and progressive dispensationalists share the same historical-grammatical method. As with all dispensationalists, progressive revelation is emphasized so that the dispensationalist interprets the Old Testament in such a way as to retain the original meaning and audience. Thus progressives and traditionalists alike place great emphasis on the original meaning and audience of the text. The primary differences in hermeneutics between traditionalists and progressives are that progressives are more apt to see partial or ongoing fulfillment, and progressives are more apt to utilize complementary hermeneutics.

These differences between traditionalists and progressives show up in how one views the Old Testament texts and promises in the New Testament and how they are handled by the New Testament writers. For traditionalists, who perceive the present dispensation as a parenthesis, the standard approach has been to view Old Testament quotations in the New Testament as applications rather than fulfillment. If an Old Testament quotation is said to have a fulfillment role in the New Testament, then that may imply that the present dispensation is no longer a parenthesis, but has a relationship or connection with the prior dispensation. In contrast, progressives, instead of approaching all Old Testament quotations in the New Testament as application, attempt to take into account the context and grammatical-historical features of both Old Testament and New Testament texts. An Old Testament quote in the New Testament might turn out to be an application, but it also might be a partial fulfillment or a complete fulfillment or even something else.

Complementary hermeneutics

Complementary hermeneutics means that previous revelation (such as the Old Testament) has an added or expanded meaning alongside the original meaning. For example in Jeremiah 31:31–34, the original recipients of the new covenant were Jews—i.e., "the house of Israel and the house of Judah." Progressives hold that in Acts 2, believing Jews first participated in the new covenant based on Jer 31:31–34. Gentiles were not named as original participants. However, additional revelation came in Acts 9–10 concerning believing Gentiles where God (through Peter and Cornelius) formally accepted believing Gentiles as co-heirs with the Jews. In other words God used additional New Testament revelation to further expand the participants of the new covenant to include believing Gentiles. God did not replace the original recipients or change the original meaning of the new covenant, He simply expanded it. This expansion of meaning while keeping the original intact is what is called complementary hermeneutics.