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

Rating:
Summary: Good Debate Between the "Old" and "New" Dispensationalists
Review: 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.