 |


Main Menu
PFRS Home
Doctrinal Studies
Progressive
Dispensationalism
Introduction
PD Summary
Pro-Disp 101
Pro-Disp 102
PD In Depth
Kingdom Hope in the OT
Kingdom Hope in Psalms
Kingdom Hope in Gospels
Kingdom Hope in Parables
That Prophet
The Abrahamic Covenant
Heaven Destiny Origin
Israel's Role
The Mystery Revealed
Paul & the Mystery
Church in the OT - I
Church in the OT - II
Church in the OT - III
Kingdom Hope in Hebrews
Daniel's 70 Weeks
Jesus & David's Throne
Excessive Dispensationalism
Dispensationalism's Future
PD Debate
Intro: Couch vs. Warner
I. Opening - Warner
I. Rebuttal - Couch
I. Response - Warner
I. Closing - Couch
II. Opening - Couch
II. Rebuttal - Warner
II. Response - Couch
II. Closing - Warner
|
 |
PFRS Home
>
Doctrinal Studies > Progressive Dispensationalism
Progressive Dispensationalism
Introduction
Copyright
© Tim Warner
The Problem:
Even the casual student of
Scripture is aware that the Old Testament and the New Testament present
different
approaches to how God deals with man. The Bible itself recognizes this.
In John's prologue to his Gospel, he drew this distinction by saying, "the
law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."
The book of Hebrews opens with a similar statement. "God, who at
various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by
the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He
has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds."
The entire book of Hebrews goes on to compare and contrast the "better
covenant" with the Law given through Moses. Christianity must reconcile
both Testaments in order to embrace the whole Bible as the Word of God.
The apparent disparity between Testaments has led to the
development of several theological systems.
Jesus and the Apostles
handed down a complete system which harmonized both Old and New
Testaments. However, from the very beginning men allowed their own
human philosophies
to color how they viewed the Scriptures. Just as Paul warned the
Ephesian elders in Acts 20, after his departure false teachers began to
draw away disciples after themselves. Because of this, the early
orthodox Christian churches found themselves competing with a variety
of false pseudo-Christian cults, called Gnostics. They were forced to
defend the Pristine Faith against these heresies springing up
attempting to choke the Word of God and the primitive Church. While
their struggle against heresies was difficult and often put the early
Church in turmoil, it forced the orthodox Church to refine Christian
apologetics, and put down in writing the oral teaching of the Apostles.
The Jewish Solution
The disparity between Testaments was not a problem for the Jews. They
simply rejected Jesus Christ and the entire New Testament. To the Jews,
the New Testament represented a false religion of the followers of an
executed criminal. The "Father" Jesus proclaimed was not the God of
Israel, in Jewish thinking. Moses was the final authority for the Jews.
Jesus of Nazareth was an impostor.
The "Mystical" Solution -
Gnosticism:
The Gnostics were a group of
cult
like sects who claimed to be Christian, yet rejected most of the
Christian
fundamentals. Some of these sects developed very early, while John was
still
alive. They multiplied greatly throughout the second century and became
a real problem for the orthodox churches. Many of them found a home in
Alexandria, Egypt, the center of philosophy and mystical thought. The
prologue
to John's Gospel (John ch. 1) and his first and second Epistles deal
with
an early form of Gnosticism. The Gnostics were mystics, heavily
influenced
by the Greek philosophers, particularly Plato. The Gnostic world view
was
vertical. That is, Greek thought viewed the cosmos as engaged in a
dualistic struggle between heaven and hades, with the physical creation
in the middle of this struggle. The primary premise of Gnosticism was
that matter (the tangible
creation and physical reality) is inherently evil. That is, the source
of all evil that we see around us comes from physical matter.
"Salvation" or escape from the influence of evil was to escape the
physical creation. It was attaining to a higher spiritual heavenly
reality which they called the "pleroma" (Greek for "fulness"). Gnostics
viewed the earth and physical reality as the basest existence.
Attaining
the cosmic destiny by escaping the bondage of the physical creation was
their ultimate goal. This goal could be attained only
through receiving mystical "gnosis" (hidden knowledge), and with the
help of spiritual being called "Aeons."
Because Gnostics viewed
the creation
as corrupt and evil, they thought the Creator (the God of the Jews) was
a defective God who imprisoned man with His laws and selfishly demanded
worship. They claimed the God of the Old Testament was not the "Father"
Jesus proclaimed, but a lesser god, a defective "Aeon." They got rid of
the problem of harmonizing
the Old and New Testaments with a dichotomy between "gods" who had
completely
different and conflicting "programs."
One of the best known
Gnostic cults,
followers of Marcion, claimed that only Paul's Epistles and Luke's
Gospel
were inspired. They used Paul's explanation of the "mystery" to claim
that
the new revelation of Gnosticism was not prophesied at all in the Old
Testament.
They flatly rejected the Old Testament concept of a restored creation
and the Kingdom of God coming to earth. Rather, they envisioned a
cosmic destiny for a special "elect," who, despite the bungling of the
creator Aeon, had a divine spark within them. Because of their loathing
of the material creation, they naturally denied the resurrection of the
body, and a literal Kingdom of Christ on a restored earth. Gnostics
relied heavily on allegorical interpretation of Scripture. To them,
the real truths of Scripture were secret, meant only for this
enlightened "elect." The secrets of Gnosticism were therefore not
derived from the normal
literal reading of the text of Scripture.
The Orthodox Solution -
Chiliasm:
Early orthodox Christian
writers
denounced the Gnostic approach, and insisted on holding to what had
been
handed down by the Apostles. Irenaeus (AD120-202) wrote five volumes
cataloging
and refuting the beliefs of the various Gnostic cults. His approach was
to demonstrate HARMONY between the Old Testament and New Testament. He
proved from a multitude of Scripture citations and logical arguments
that
the present dispensation was prophesied in the Old Testament, and is
the
next step in a single progressive plan for the redemption of mankind.
To
the early orthodox Christians, the "mystery" was the Gospel contained
in
the Old Testament, hidden in such a way that it could not be understood
until revealed by Jesus to His Apostles. Now, through the Church, it is
being made known to all nations. It was no longer hidden.
The Gnostics sought to
climb to a
higher cosmic reality and to escape the lower physical creation through
the accumulation of mystical knowledge. But, the orthodox Christians
(and
the Jews) had a horizontal world view. They viewed man's existence in
consecutive
ages within the created order. They believed the destiny of believers
was
Christ's coming eschatological Kingdom. Their hope was not a spiritual
existence in the "pleroma," but the "restoration of all things, which God
has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began"
(Acts 3:21). That is, the redemption of the physical
creation at Christ's coming Kingdom. This theology was called
"Chiliasm" (kil'-E-az-um) after the Greek word "chilia" (kil'-E-a)
meaning "millennium." They were called this by later writers because
they interpreted the 1000 year "millennium" in Rev. 20 literally.
Orthodox Christianity
differed fundamentally from Gnosticism at its basic premise. That is,
the creation was made by God, and was originally "good." God came into
His creation, and began the restoration process through the incarnation
of Christ, the God-man. The physical body of the Christian was destined
for salvation. It was called "resurrection." Likewise, the rest of the
creation was destined for renovation as well, in which resurrected
mankind could enjoy intimate and tangible fellowship with the Creator.
The orthodox writers used
the literal
method of interpretation in both Testaments to support this position.
Some
of them also used "types" from the Old Testament as additional support,
but not typically at the expense of the literal interpretation.
(Sometimes
this is confused with allegorical interpretation which claims non
literal
meanings at the expense of the literal meaning). They recognized that
the
"mystery" of which Paul wrote, was the Gospel contained in the Old
Testament
in enigmatic form so that it could not be understood until Christ came
and revealed it to His Apostles, and then sent them out to all nations
with the good news of the Kingdom.
Origen's Solution -
Semi-Gnosticism:
The orthodox opinion about
the creation and its destiny was not all that appealing to the educated
Greeks. The idea that the material creation was to be redeemed, and the
bodies of believers were destined for resurrection in a material form,
was seen as silly to the intellectuals steeped in Greek philosophy.
Origen, a third century Alexandrian
writer, attempted to merge Christian orthodoxy with the same dualistic
Greek philosophies that drove Gnostic thinking. Origen was skilled in
Greek philosophy and Christianity. He attempted to make Christianity
acceptable to students of Greek philosophy. In doing so, he went far
beyond what the Apostles and prophets taught. He used an allegorical
interpretation of the Old Testament to inject the philosophy of Plato
into the Scriptures. Origen's theology had a familiar ring for Gentile
Christians
raised in the Greek culture steeped in philosophy, and seemed to
harmonize
the Bible with the familiar Greek poets. But, Origen's allegorical
methodology subtly undermined the fabric of orthodoxy. By his skill in
writing, his command of Greek philosophy, and his apparent zeal in
winning over the intellectuals, Origen's influence began to sway
Christian thinking away from Chiliasm.
While Origen acknowledged
one God
in both Testaments, he accepted the "cosmic destiny" ideas of
Gnosticism,
and opposed the eschatological physical Kingdom of Christ held by the
orthodox
writers before him. His world view was mostly vertical, like the
Gnostics
and Greek philosophers. Origen was a teacher, and head of the
Alexandrian
school. His theology was based on a teacher's mindset. Origen taught
that
the whole creation was a classroom for the education of mankind. God's
interaction with man within the creation was a maturing process to make
him fit for inhabiting his cosmic destiny. Origen believed souls
existed prior
to birth, but were sent to earth for training in the physical realm so
they could excel in their "cosmic" roles after this training was ended.
He denied the resurrection of the body for the saved. And he taught
that in the end, everyone would be saved and achieve their cosmic
destiny, including Satan himself!
Origen is considered the
father of allegorical
interpretation of Scripture at the expense of the literal meaning.
Thanks
to Origen, the allegorical interpretive methods, formerly used almost
exclusively by Gnostics, became acceptable. It was Origen and his
Alexandrian school that turned
many of the churches away from the Pristine Faith to a hybrid orthodox
- Hellenistic Faith. While Gnosticism itself, with its absurd
speculations, was an external problem for the churches
founded by the Apostles, Origen brought some of the subtle thinking and
assumptions of Gnosticism into mainstream Christianity.
Augustine's Solution -
Amillennialism:
Augustine (4th century) was
no doubt
strongly influenced by Origen, but was more orthodox. Unlike Origen,
he maintained a physical resurrection of the body. In short, he
developed
what is now called "amillennialism." Augustine's world view was both
vertical
and horizontal. He saw history coming to a climax with the return of
Christ.
All men then either went to heaven or hell for eternity. Like Origen
and
the Gnostics, He did not believe in a future material Kingdom of Christ
on earth, nor a redeemed and restored creation.
Augustine used a dual
interpretive
method. Very often he interpreted Scripture literally, and was quite
orthodox
in many areas. But, where Old Testament prophecy was concerned,
especially regarding the restoration of the earth and Kingdom of God,
he felt free to allegorize
the Scriptures. Augustine's influence dominated
Christianity from the fourth century, and still dominates both
Catholicism
and Reformed theology of mainline Protestantism. His cosmic destiny for
the saved remains a staple of Christianity in the minds of many
Christians.
Darby's Solution -
Dispensationalism:
The Reformation overturned a
great deal of Roman Catholic theology. But, the overall views of
cosmology remained. Augustine's ideas that had endured for a thousand
years continued in the Reformed churches. Things began to change,
however, in the early nineteenth century. John Nelson Darby, founding
member
of the Plymouth Brethren, recognized the error of interpreting Old
Testament prophecy allegorically. He insisted on using a more literal
method. However, he was once again faced with the original
problem. God has dealt differently in the Old Testament with Israel
than
in the New Testament with the Church. The destiny of the redeemed
according
to the Old Testament was Christ's coming Kingdom, and the restoration
of the creation. Yet, Darby had no reason to doubt Augustine's heavenly
destiny concept for Church. Darby's solution was
to claim a complete dichotomy between Israel and the Church. Up until
Darby,
Christians have always considered "the Church" to include all of the
redeemed,
including Old Testament saints. Darby devised two classes of "elect,"
an
"earthly people" which was consistent with the Messianic Kingdom hopes,
and a "heavenly people" which he thought was consistent with the
"heavenly
hopes" of the Augustinian view.
In our estimation, Darby did
a lot
of good by bringing the literal method of interpretation back into use
regarding prophecy, and once again popularizing the ancient millennial
view (what is today called "Premillennialism"). However, Darby was
still
influenced by his amillennial - Augustinian background in the Anglican
Church. The "cosmic destiny" ideas that had been a staple of Christian
theology since the 4th century, remained firmly fixed in Darby's
thinking. By rediscovering
the literal hermeneutic and applying it to the Old Testament, yet still
holding the "cosmic destiny" ideas of
amillennialism and using allegory when dealing with the "Church,"1 Darby was forced to develop a dichotomy
between Israel
and the Church in order to explain two seemingly radically different
destinies
for the elect. We believe dispensationalism was a step in the right
direction. But, Darby was mistaken to simply
assume amillennialism's "cosmic destiny" for the Church, originally
borrowed from Gnosticism. In order to harmonize his literal
interpretation of the Old Testament and his Augustinian view of the New
Testament, Darby was forced to adopt some of the dualistic thinking of
one of Christianity's earliest heretics, Marcion. This included
Marcion's view that Paul was exclusively the Apostle of the "mystery,"
and that the "mystery" had no basis whatever in the Old Testament
Scriptures which concern a different people and program.2
Darby did not, however, take this step to such an extreme as to divorce
the God of the Jews from the God of Christians, as did Marcion. We are
not the only ones to notice Darby's adoption of some of Marcion's
thinking.
"Marcion's teachings have
points of similarity with the doctrine of dispensationalism, as taught
by some later Protestants such as J. N. Darby (1800-1882). Both saw the
true church, as they defined it, as being outside world history in a
sense; both saw one law had been made for the Jews, and that Christians
lived under a different law (or dispensation), that of grace." 3
PFRS' Solution - A
Return to "Chiliasm"
/ Progressive Dispensationalism:
In keeping with the whole
purpose of the Pristine Faith
Restoration Society, which is to discover and restore the earliest
Christian tradition, we naturally must promote and defend the earliest
Christian view of the destiny of the redeemed. Our "system," if one
must call it that, is a
radical modification of Darby's Dispensationalism, called "Progressive
Dispensationalism." Don't let the name scare you. It is simply a
return to the "Chiliasm" of the early Church before the Greek influence
overturned the ancient hope of a restored creation. Darby took the
first major step, that of taking a literal approach to Old Testament
prophecy. We are simply taking the next step that puts our theology in
line with that of the early Church (and the Bible). Progressive
Dispensationalism holds to a
single progressive plan
of redemption that includes Israel and the Gentiles, as well as the
whole creation. It includes a single destiny for
the redeemed — Christ's eschatological Kingdom and a restored creation.
And it interprets the Old Testament promises to Israel literally, being
fully realized in that coming physical Kingdom. Progressive
Dispensationalism is able
to use
a consistent hermeneutic in both Testaments, and explain the
differences
between God's dealings with Israel as a nation and the whole Church as
a redeemed body. Progressive Dispensationalism does these things
exactly the same way Irenaeus did
in the second century when he refuted Marcion and other Gnostics. It is
by illustrating
that the present "Church" was prophesied in the Old Testament, albeit
in
a kind of enigma (mystery). This mystery was explained to the Apostles
by Jesus from the Old Testament Scriptures. Progressive
Dispensationalism relies heavily on the actual interpretations
of the Old Testament by the New Testament writers.
In the following
articles, we will
present the biblical arguments in support of Progressive
Dispensationalism.
These articles were written primarily for traditional
dispensationalists, and
will be best understood by those of that background (which is also the
background of this author). However,
amillennialists will no doubt also find them informative and helpful.
Our approach is not to tear down competing systems held by other
Christians.
Rather, we intend to build our case from a positive exposition of
the Word of God. Occasionally we will have to point out errors of other
systems. Our premise is that this view is the oldest Christian view
historically, and the view most consistent with the natural reading of
both Testaments. The articles are listed in the left column. They are
best read in sequence.
Notes:
1. In Darby's first article
on prophecy, published in 1830, he wrote: "First, in prophecy, when
the Jewish church or nation (exclusive of the Gentile parenthesis in
their history) is concerned, i.e., when the address is directly to the
Jews, there we may look for a plain and direct testimony, because
earthly things were the Jews' proper portion." "And on the contrary,
where the address is to the Gentiles...there we may look for symbol,
because earthly things were not their portion... When therefore facts
are addressed to the Jewish church as a subsisting body ... I look for
a plain, common-sense, literal statement.... On the other hand, as the
church was a system of grace and heavenly hopes...it is...symbolized by
analogous agencies." [p. 35]. (J. N. Darby, On Days Signifying
Years in Prophetic Language, Prophetic No. 1, The Collected writings of JND,
compiled by William Kelly, p. 35. First appeared in The Christian
Herald Dec. 1830, Dublin, Ireland)
2. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Bk. III,
ch. XIII, 1
3. Clifton, Chas S., Encyclopedia
of Heresies and Heretics, Barnes & Noble, 1992, p. 91
Back to the
top
|
 |