Well, what I want to do tonight for this first hour on dispensations, by the way, this should be dispensation number 18 on your handout. Pastors sessions, which are coming next in Revelation are sessions 19 and 20. So you might want to note that on the handout so you have the proper sequence. But in light of the fact last time, for number 17, your last session on dispensations, you covered hyper-dispensationalism, which is an aberration of true biblical dispensationalism. Tonight we're going to pick it up right on the heels of hyper-dispensationalism and cover a subject that is similar in this sense, that it's also, I think, an aberration or a departure from the biblical view of dispensationalism. How many of you have ever heard of progressive dispensationalism? Most of you have. Do you really know what it's about, though? Do you feel like you have a good sense of what it is? Or have you just heard the term? It's kind of one of those things, isn't it, where it's out there, but people are foggy about it. And so hopefully tonight we'll have some clarity on this subject. Basically, since about the mid-1980s, there's been a new emphasis within dispensationalism, and I think it's a departure from biblical dispensationalism, that basically teaches that Christ is ruling on the Davidic throne in heaven. And thus, it merges the church with a present phase of the already inaugurated Davidic covenant. Now, if that sounds like a mouthful, we're going to unpack that tonight, so don't worry. of the already inaugurated Davidic covenant and kingdom. And so Christ is ruling right now, in case you didn't know that, over a kingdom. That's what they teach. They also teach that there's essentially one great redemptive program of God that encompasses both Jew and Gentile, Israel and the church. So there really aren't two great peoples of God, Israel and the church, plus Gentiles. Nor is there two great programs of God, one for Israel, one for the church. There's really just one overarching great redemptive program that encompasses all people of all ages, they teach. And they think this is making progress when it comes to dispensationalism. By the way, when it comes to your handout tonight, I'm going to repeat these fill-in-the-blanks so that you be sure to get the right answer down. And if you miss one, feel free to raise your hand and I'll repeat it for you. I'm also planning to send you some notes that will cover or repeat much of what I'm going to teach on tonight. So in case you missed something, you can go back and reread it because I know a lot of this will be new information to you and it will help to have something in print right in front of you, kind of a summary of things that you can review. But basically, this was a movement that started around the mid-1980s. And there's debate as to when exactly it started, but you could almost pinpoint it to the month, the day, and the year, November, I think it's November 20th or so, 1986. And the reason I say that is because those who identify themselves as progressive dispensationalists recognized that they started with this meeting at a gathering of about 2,500 so-called evangelical scholars that meet every year. But they met at the Evangelical Theological Society in 1986, it was in November, and they decided as a segment of these evangelicals, there were some dispensationalists there, many covenant theologians, Arminians, Calvinists, just a whole mixture of people who identify themselves as evangelicals. So there was this segment there who were dispensationalists of the Schofield, Ryrie, Dallas Seminary type mold. And these scholars broke away from the rest of the group and they got together among themselves and they said, you know what? We really don't like our form of dispensationalism. In fact, we've recognized that we've been running up against quite a bit of rejection from our peers here at ETS. and those who are non-dispensationalists and were looked down upon by the rest of the group, maybe we need to listen to some of their criticisms more. So as a group, these dispensationalists got together and they said, let's explore some areas where we could find potentially greater commonality with covenant theology. And so they did. And they met one year, the second year, and they invited some covenant theologians to come into their group and discuss things with them. Within a couple of years, the traditional dispensationalists started to get concerned, and they said, you know what? Things are changing here in this group. Things are starting to move more towards covenant theology. So this dispensational study group was the genesis or beginning of progressive dispensationalism. And really they began to view their convictions as an improvement upon existing dispensationalism. They identified basically three eras within dispensationalism. First there was the classical era, the era of Darby, Schofield, some of the older dispensationalists. Then they said that there's this, was a period that came after those men, and Chafer you could put in that classic mold I suppose. There was an era then of refinement from about the 1950s, 60s, 70s, and so forth. They called that refined or revised dispensationalism. During that era, you had teachers like Walvoord, Pentecost, Ryrie, Toussaint, maybe those are some names you've heard before. Ronald Showers, John Whitcomb, men of that era were considered revised or normative dispensationalists. But then these progressive dispensationalists in the mid-80s or so said, well, we represent the new phase of dispensationalism. We are progressing. So they called themselves progressives. And I'm always a little leery, I don't know about you, when I hear people identifying themselves as progressive, you know, I'm putting really positive labels on themselves. Because I think as you'll see tonight, what really progressive dispensationalism is, is regressive dispensationalism in the sense that it is a move back towards covenant theology. Another thing to keep in mind is that because progressive dispensationalism was not birthed in the local church by pastors who were studying the Word of God, but at this meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, and by the way, I've seen catalogs for the sessions and seminars that they have at these meetings. And I tell you, it is any brand, breed, and stripe of doctrine you want to hear taught, go to an ETS meeting. By men with PhDs who teach in schools all over the world, they gather every year to meet. And so at this Conehead Convention, they birthed this new theology. And really, I think what happened was there was a desire for acceptance by their peers, a desire for academic prestige, because dispensationalists have historically been looked down upon as believing in something that's too simple. It's kind of like, you know, when you say, when people ask you, maybe they're unsaved, your relatives or people you meet, they say, well, do you really take the Bible literally? You're not that. uneducated, unintelligent, are you? And you answer, well, I do take it literally. Whether you think I'm intelligent or not, it's immaterial. It means what it says. God said what he meant. So there's kind of this mentality that if you're intelligent, you won't be a dispensationalist. And these guys were feeling this. Now I'm generalizing, I can't, question the motives of everyone involved, of course, but this is what I've been told by others who, or I've heard on tape, men teaching and explaining what historically happened. A second point that you should recognize is that many so-called progressive dispensationalists view prior generations of dispensationalists as unsophisticated and naive. There is, at least originally, among the founders of PD, there was this air of superiority. And they consciously sought to distance themselves from traditional dispensationalists. I'll give you an example of this. Daryl Bach and Craig Blazing, two men who were pioneers in PD, claim that their method of biblical interpretation is, quote, developing in sophistication beyond that which was practiced by classical dispensationalists or even by early revised dispensationalists. And Craig Blazing says in one place that he views traditional dispensationalism as conceptually naive. It was conceptual naivety, naivete he says. And I just say that so you understand kind of how this whole movement was birthed. Now who are some of the main teachers or proponents of progressive dispensationalism? Craig Blazing is one. Daryl Bach, those two men taught together at Dallas Seminary for many years. Daryl Bach is still there. Craig Blazing has moved on to another school. But they had a tremendous impact at Dallas Seminary and basically while they were there promoting this view, the majority opinion at Dallas Seminary has now shifted towards progressive dispensation. It is no longer a thoroughly traditional or, we could say, revised dispensational school. The majority there, I would say, hold to PD, although there are still some who are classic or traditional dispensationalists. Craig Blazing and Daryl Bach are two big names. Robert Soce, it's spelled like saucy, S-A-U-C-Y. Robert Soce, who teaches at Talbot Seminary out in California, he has written books on this and he's a big promoter of it. Here's a name that you probably wouldn't expect, but Tony Evans, a popular radio preacher, he holds to progressive dispensationalism. That's why it's no surprise when you hear him talking about the kingdom quite a bit, that we are to build the kingdom, the kingdom builders, and that kind of thing, because he's bought into this view. And by the way, there are many who hold this view, probably too many to even mention by name, but there's just like four names that are significant you should probably be aware of. So that's an introduction to what progressive dispensationalism is. Let me just now give you some of their basic tenets so you get a feel for and somewhat of a grasp for what they teach. And then after we go over these basic tenets, we're going to break it down and we're going to look at this biblically. We'll look at passages that deal with their doctrine. So here's some of the basic tenets. First of all, the majority of PDs, and I'm just going to abbreviate throughout here, The majority hold that there are four dispensations, not seven. So they're condensing. Now, does the Bible ever say that there are seven dispensations? Does it give a number? No. So really, you know, that's not something that we would want to separate even per se over. That's not a, the number of dispensations has never been a defining feature of dispensationalism. It never has. But they have really taken things and reduced it considerably from seven down to four. And so here are their four. The first era they have, which spans from creation to Moses, is basically under the old system. It would be from creation to Mount Sinai. They call that period the patriarchal period. Now, why do they call it the patriarchal period? Because it covers the people of that era who were the patriarchs, basically. Now, one problem you're going to see right away, right off the bat, is are they defining these dispensations as distinguishable economies? When you hear the word patriarch, what do you think of as an economy? There really is none, right? That's not an economy. Like law is an economy, grace is an economy, kingdom is an economy, and so forth. Even promise, human government, those are system rules, house rules, so to speak. But when you hear patriarchal, it just, it's referring to the people of that era, not the economy. But they've relabeled that first dispensation as patriarchal. The second one they call mosaic. And that spans from Mount Sinai to Christ's ascension. So basically the period of the law. And we would have no objections really with that. But they rephrase it as the Mosaic period. So patriarchal, Mosaic. The third is Ecclesial, which is just a nice name for the ecclesia, the church. And they say that that ecclesial period spans from Christ's ascension to, get this, the second coming to the earth, not the rapture. The second coming to the earth. So they include the tribulation in the ecclesial period. Does that raise a red flag for you? Where's the church during the tribulation? It's not present, is it? So that is problematic. And the fourth dispensation they have is called the Zionic. Maybe they pronounce it Zionic, I'm not sure. But it's the Zionic. And that includes the millennial kingdom phase as well as the eternal state. So that's how they break it down. Now, progressive dispensationalism also claims that the church is presently sharing in the spiritual blessings of God's covenants with Israel. A major feature of PD is their claim that the church is presently, partially sharing in the fulfillment of the spiritual blessings that were promised to Israel that are now being experienced by the church. Those blessings that were promised as part of the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants. they would agree that we are not fulfilling the land covenants or covenant to Israel. But at least we're sharing in the Abrahamic, Davidic, and new covenants. They don't go as far as those who embrace covenant theology and claiming that the church actually replaces Israel and inherits all of Israel's promises. They don't go that far because PDs do believe that there will be a future for physical ethnic Israel. But they tend to blend the church with ethnic Israel as one people of God with one purpose and thus we share in each other's promises or actually we share in Israel's promises. So right away this raises another red flag. Just as you learned with covenant theology and non-millennialism and a non-literal hermeneutic What is one of the great dangers of that, of not rightly dividing the word? Well, when you start to believe that the church is sharing in and participating in Israel's covenants and the unilateral grace covenants, Abrahamic, Davidic, New Covenant, Even the land covenant is, I believe, a grace covenant. But one of the problems then is it's not very far removed from the possibility of sharing in that other covenant that Israel has, the Mosaic covenant. What is to stop us from saying that if there's one people of God and one great redemptive program that we're all under, that we can also share in the Mosaic covenant, which Israel is under. A third major point about progressive dispensationalism is their view of the Davidic covenant. They teach that it has been already inaugurated when Christ came as the king. The Davidic covenant, God hit the start button on the Davidic covenant. So where is this Davidic throne that the Old Testament promises? Is Jesus right now physically in Jerusalem? No, you won't find him there. But he's in heaven, reigning on the heavenly throne of David, they say. So the Davidic covenant has already been inaugurated, and Christ is presently reigning on the heavenly throne of David, they claim. And they claim that at Christ's ascension, this was really key, that when he ascended to heaven to the right hand of God and sat down at the right hand of God, that it was at that moment that the throne of David was established in heaven. And the promises like in 2 Samuel 7 were inaugurated. They weren't completely fulfilled, but they began to become fulfilled. So this promise This kingdom was already in one sense, already present, but in another sense, it was not yet. Not yet in the sense that the literal physical aspect is still to come, they say. So note this in your thinking. They have what they call, and this is their terminology, an already not yet hermeneutic. You'll hear that thrown around all the time as you read their writings. The already not yet hermeneutic. And again, the already phase is the spiritual phase that you can't see, that you're just supposed to take by faith that Jesus is in heaven on David's throne ruling from there. But the not yet phase is the literal aspect, the physical fulfillment, that there will be a throne, literally in Jerusalem one day, on which Christ will have his rule and that's where his throne will be. Now let's go to Acts 2 and look at scripture here for a moment. Acts 2 is one of their key passages. Of course, Acts 2 is Peter speaking on the day of Pentecost. He's appealing to his fellow Jews. who had rejected their Messiah. And right after speaking of Christ's resurrection, we'll pick it up in Acts 2 and verse 29. He says, men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Therefore, being a prophet and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body according to the flesh, he would raise up the Christ to sit upon his throne, He, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that his soul was not left in Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. Therefore, being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he poured out this, which you now see and hear. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says of himself, and he quotes Psalm 110 verse 1, and this is one of their major proof texts. The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand till I make your enemies your footstool. Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ. From that passage, they teach and they deduce that Jesus Christ at the Ascension was exalted to the throne of David in heaven and became king over the church. And the Davidic Covenant was now inaugurated. God pushed the start button. Now do you see that in that passage? Really all I see here is that Peter was trying to show his fellow Jews that Jesus Christ is the promised king of the Davidic covenant. He is the rightful Messiah. Not that the kingdom had presently started or that Christ is presently now reigning and ruling as king. You don't find that in that passage. That is an erroneous deduction or inference they make from this passage. So really, what is Acts 2 teaching? It's just teaching that Jesus Christ fulfilled these passages that David mentioned and predicted. That David had one who was greater than him. The Lord said to my Lord, well, who is David's Lord? He is Jesus Christ. Sit at my right hand, not sit on the throne of David in Jerusalem. In fact, this is one of the great problems that progressive dispensationalists have is they fail to distinguish between the throne of God or the right hand of God and the Davidic throne that will take place when Christ comes back to the earth and sets it up in Jerusalem. Let's look at Hebrews 12.2 next. Here's an example of a passage that mentions the throne of God. And by the way, is that where Jesus Christ went when he ascended? Certainly. Hebrews 12, 2, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of David. No, it doesn't say that. At the right hand of the throne of God. There is nowhere in the New Testament where it says that Jesus Christ is sitting on the throne of David. So they have to read that concept into the New Testament. It's not there. Here's another major problem that progressive dispensationalists face. They fail to make the distinction between one coming as king and when his reign as king actually begins. Turn with me to the Old Testament to 1 Samuel chapter 16. See this. Could somebody be anointed king and have the position of being the duly appointed king, but yet not be reigning yet as king? That's what we see in David's life. In 1 Samuel 16, it says in verse 1, Now the Lord said to Samuel, how long will you mourn for Saul, seeing that I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? Fill your horn. By the way, Samuel the prophet is to go now and anoint David king. Fill your horn with oil and go. I am sending you to Jesse the Bethlehemite. For I have provided myself a king among his sons. And then he goes on and says verse 3, then invite Jesse to the sacrifice and I will show you what you shall do and you shall anoint for me the one I named to you. And who did he name as king? The one who had a heart for God. As God sees the heart, it would be David who would be anointed king. But when does David begin to reign? Turn with me to 2 Samuel chapter 2. We're skipping ahead several chapters now. 2 Samuel 2 and notice in verse 4 says, then the men of Judah came and there they anointed David king over the house of Judah. And they told David saying the men of Jabesh Gilead were the ones who buried Saul. And so from this point on, he begins to reign. as king. He's actively reigning over the rightful kingship that he had received. And in the same way, Jesus Christ was the rightful king of Israel. He was the Messiah. He came as king of the Jews. In fact, that was his epitaph right above his throne, i.e. the cross. The real throne of Jesus in the New Testament on earth here was his cross, his first coming. But he will not begin to reign as king in fulfillment of the Davidic covenant promises until he comes back at the end of the tribulation to set up his kingdom on the earth. So there's an interval, just like there was in David's life. Another problem that progressive dispensationalists have is not only with the word throne or this idea of reigning, but just the word kingdom. They often fail to distinguish between the mediatorial kingdom of Christ, the eternal reign of God, His kingdom rules over all and always has from beginning to end, and between the millennial phase of the kingdom. So that word kingdom is something that they confuse. Now let's compare progressive dispensationalism for a moment with traditional dispensationalism. First of all, progressive dispensationalism does not follow a consistently literal hermeneutic. I've already mentioned this. Consistently literal hermeneutic. They use what is called the already not yet hermeneutic. And sometimes they'll call that the complementary hermeneutic. That the already complements the not yet portion. And if you're scratching your head at this point saying, that sounds to me like a contradiction, you would be absolutely correct. That's not, in my estimation, a complementary hermeneutic. That's what I would call a contradictory hermeneutic. But oftentimes in the writings, you will read about this dual hermeneutic, and you'll see that they use terms like Daryl Bach doesn't say, well, this means this. He'll say, well, this alludes to this. Or this provides for us a pictorial description which really gives them an interpretative license, so to speak, to read into passages their theology when it's just not there. And who becomes the authority then when you follow that kind of hermeneutic? Well, it depends then on the device and art of the interpreter rather than the text itself. The authority shifts to the interpreter and their fanciful interpretations. And by the way, liberal scholars do this all the time. They do not want to be bound by a literal interpretation of a text because they put themselves over the text. And I see now progressive dispensationalists doing this more and more. and they shouldn't be. The second point about progressive dispensationalism versus traditional dispensationalism is that PD does not consistently distinguish Israel and the church. It doesn't consistently distinguish Israel and the church. Now, they do distinguish the two, don't get me wrong, but they just don't do it consistently. It's just like they will say, well, we literally interpret the scriptures. Well, not consistently. There's times when you don't. Like when you have to do the already part. That's non-literal interpretation. So they will say there is a distinction between Israel and the church, but sometimes you'll hear them say things like, the church is the new Israel. David Turner says this in the book Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church. The church is the new Israel. Robert Soce also sounds at times like a covenant theologian when he says, Israel and the church are, quote, one people because all will be related to him, that is Christ, through the same covenant salvation. The same covenant salvation. So most would disavow that kind of terminology, but you do hear that coming from them, them saying those kinds of things. They slip up and their real theology comes out. Now, we have to be clear and be fair, too. Though progressive dispensationalists don't consistently distinguish between Israel and the church, they do claim to distinguish between the two, but they also reject replacement theology. They'll say that that is unbiblical. They do believe that there will be a future for national ethnic Israel And in that sense, they're different from replacement theology. Here's a third point as far as a comparison between the two views of traditional and progressive. P.D. sees redemption as the unifying principle of history rather than the glory of God. So they have a redemptive unifying principle of history rather than a doxological unifying principle. Listen to this quote from Craig Blazing in his book, Progressive Dispensationalism. He writes, Progressive Dispensationalists agree that God's work with Israel and Gentile nations in the past dispensation looks forward to the redemption of humanity in its political and cultural aspects. On the other hand, Progressive Dispensationalists believe that the church is a vital part of this very same plan of redemption. They believe that the church is a vital part of this very same plan of redemption. What does that tell you? That we have the very same plan of redemption as the Jews as Israel, and we're being lumped together under this same plan. He goes on to say, the appearance of the church does not signal a secondary redemption plan, either to be fulfilled in heaven apart from the new earth, or in an elite class of Jews and Gentiles who are forever distinguished from the rest of redeemed humanity. Instead, the church today is a revelation of spiritual blessings which all the redeemed will share in. in spite of their ethnic and national differences. In other words, the Church has the same salvation, redemption, blessings as the rest of all humanity. Now, do we have the same salvation, blessings as the Church, as saints of other ages? Or do we have an exalted position by virtue of being saved and in Christ? that is different from the other saints of other ages. It's the latter, isn't it? So at this point, you might be saying to yourself, well, this is sounding more and more like covenant theology. How is it really any different from covenant theology? Well, PD is different in some respects. It still maintains a greater degree of distinctiveness between Israel and the church than covenant theology does. It is also consistently premillennial, whereas most covenant theologians are amillennial, some are premillennial covenant theologians. They do allow for that. But in the case of PD, they're all premillennial. PD also allows for the literal fulfillment of Old Testament promises to be granted to national Israel in the millennium. not fulfilled strictly by the church, as covenant theology advocates. And we should add here, too, that as of right now, I don't know what the future holds, but currently, PDs still maintain a pre-trib view of the rapture. Though, as we'll see, the foundational support for the pre-trib rapture is severely weakened by P.D. and some of its main tenants. We'll get to that in a moment. So those are some differences between P.D. and covenant theology. P.D. is also similar though to covenant theology in certain respects. Here are some of their similarities. They both spiritualized the throne of David in Christ's current reign. Of course, to do that, you have to have a dual hermeneutic, sometimes literal, sometimes allegorizing. So they share that in common with covenant theology. Both also have the church inheriting Israel's spiritual blessings. Though PDs would say they're not inheriting them, they would say we're sharing them. Really, what's the difference? Okay, you own your house, Travis, but I'm going to move in and share it with you. How does that sound to you? So this difference between inheriting and sharing is really minimal. Another similarity is that both view the unifying principle of history in terms of salvation rather than doxological. Remember, PDs view all of history under the umbrella of one redemptive program, for one people of God, and doesn't that sound like covenant theology based on what, did you, by the way, you all had to read Schauer's book, right? There really is a difference. And remember, covenant theology has this overarching covenant for human history. The covenant of grace, they say, covenant of redemption, of eternity past. And so, PD puts us right under that same type of umbrella. That's why one covenant theologian who teaches at Westminster Seminary, his name is Vern Poitras, he predicts that the PD position is, quote, inherently unstable. I do not think that they will find it possible in the long run to create a safe haven theologically between classic dispensationalism and covenant premillennialism. The forces that their own observations have set in motion will most likely lead to covenantal premillennialism. In other words, progressive dispensationalism is so close to covenant theology, he sees it as basically progressive dispensationalism being eroded right into covenant theology. So what are some problems with PD biblically? Well, one huge problem is that practically it results in making Israel and the church one people and one divine program. Are they really one people? Or is this just something dispensationalists have created, this distinction among peoples? Well, what does 1 Corinthians 10.32 say? Give no offense, neither to the Jew, to the Gentile, or to the church, right? God makes that distinction. even after the ascension of Christ, after the birth of the church. God maintains this distinction, even into eternity. As Pastor Will teaches tonight on Revelation 20-22, as you read about the new Jerusalem and its gates, foundations, names of the 12 Tribes of Israel, 12 apostles, it does seem to be this distinction down through eternity that God himself makes. By the way, when Jesus Christ comes back at his second coming to planet Earth, what does Romans 11.26 say? It says that at that time, all Israel will be saved. It does not say all Jews who become part of the church will be saved at that time. Israel will be Israel when Christ comes back to planet Earth at the end of the tribulation. So God maintains these distinctions because he wants to bless certain people in certain ways that he doesn't plan to bless others. And that's his prerogative. We are a people of grace. So just because there are similarities, however, that you can find between Israel and the church doesn't mean they're one in the same. You probably remember all this from your class you had on biblical distinctions. Remember those lists you had of what is the church, what is Israel? You line them up, they're not the same. But do they have some similarities? Absolutely. If I had a chimpanzee up here with me tonight, You put them next to me, you'd say, they're virtually indistinguishable, right? You'd say, wow, boy, there's some similarities there. They both have a bald head. They're both kind of round. They have two arms, two legs, five fingers. five toes, et cetera, two eyes, one mouth, two ears, et cetera. Even in terms of their DNA, there's a lot of similarities there in the code, but that doesn't mean we're the same. There are some very important differences, and those differences are what distinguish us and what are significant. The same is true with Israel and the church. A second main problem with PD is that it redefines the church as an Old Testament mystery, or that it was there, redefines what an Old Testament mystery really is, claiming that the church was just not realized. That it was revealed in the Old Testament, but it wasn't realized. So P.D. redefines the church as an Old Testament mystery, claiming that it was not realized, but it was revealed. Turn with me to Colossians chapter 1. There are a couple of main passages in the New Testament that speak of the church being a mystery. Ephesians chapter 3, 1 through 10 is a key one. Paul explains the mystery of the church. Colossians 3 is even a little bit clear about this point when it comes to PD. So Colossians, did I say 3? Colossians 1. And verse 24, Paul writes in regard to the church, he says, I now rejoice in my sufferings for you and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ for the sake of his body, which is the church. of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God which was given to me for you to fulfill the word of God." And then he goes back to the idea of the church from verse 24 and he says, the mystery, i.e. the church is a mystery. And in what sense is the church a mystery? Was it revealed in the Old Testament but just not realized? Was it kind of like, you know, my son, when it comes to telling him to clean up his bedroom because you've got clothes on the floor, and they're there, but they're just not realized. I say, no, I see a sock there, there, and there, and he says, where? The covenant theologian and the progressive dispensationalist will say that Church truth was revealed in the Old Testament, but saints of the past just didn't realize it was there all along. Is that true? Well, going on, verse 26, the mystery, i.e. the church, which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to his saints. To them God willed, i.e. to church-age saints, to them God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is, Christ in you, the hope of glory. This passage very clearly shows that the church was not revealed in the Old Testament as it is now revealed in the Age of Grace. So there's a difference between realization and revelation, but P.D. blends the two. By the way, did the Old Testament predict that the Gentiles would be blessed? Yeah, absolutely. Several passages teach that, many. But that is a far cry from saying that Jew and Gentile will become one in the body of the Messiah himself, Jesus Christ. That is a new revelation you'll find only in the New Testament. Here's the third biblical problem that P.D. has. It diminishes the unique position of the church as a heavenly people. The unique position of the church as a heavenly people. While we're in Colossians, let's look at chapter 3, verses 1 through 4, a passage I trust you're very familiar with already. Paul writes to these Colossian saints, and he says, if you then were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God. Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth, for you died, and he's already said that we were raised, verse one, so we've died with Christ, we've been risen with Christ. He says, verse three, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, appears, then you will also appear with him in glory. You know, there was a time among dispensationalists when one feature of dispensationalism that distinguished us was our understanding that we have a position in Jesus Christ that is heavenly, as opposed to earthly, like Israel in the Old Testament. So that Israel was known as the earthly people of God, the church is known as the heavenly people of God. Even among so-called normative, traditional dispensationalists, This has been de-emphasized, and I think it's really tragic. In fact, I think it's a result of a lack of positional truth being taught in churches today. You cannot teach a passage like Romans 6 apart from an understanding of positional truth. But this is something that many Christians today are unaware of. This truth has been diminished. But I think it needs to be reemphasized. And this is something that PD actually kind of disparage people who have this heavenly versus earthly distinction. Notice what Craig Blazing says. He's a progressive dispensationalist. In his book called Progressive Dispensationalism, he writes, One of the striking differences between progressive and earlier dispensationalists is that progressives do not view the church as an anthropological category in the same class as terms like Israel, Gentile nations, Jews, and Gentile people. The church is neither a separate race of humanity in contrast to Jews and Gentiles, nor a competing nation alongside Israel and Gentile nations, nor is it a group of angelic-like humans destined for the heavens in contrast to the rest of redeemed humanity on the earth. That's a fancy way of saying, look guys, there's no such thing as the heavenly people versus earthly people. Let's forget that distinction. Yet how do you get around passages like Philippians 3, 20, 21 that say that our citizenship is in heaven? If that were preached during the time of Jesus Christ by the apostles, they would be stoned to death. Are you kidding me? Our citizenship's here. What are you talking about in heaven? There is this distinction. These anthropological categories are stated by God. 1 Corinthians 10.32 again, give no offense neither to the Jews, Gentiles or the Church of God. That sounds to me like an anthropological category. So the church has a unique position in Christ, where we've been blessed with all spiritual blessings in the heavenlies, Ephesians 1.3 says. We're a heavenly people, very different from where Israel saw their blessings located. If you were to read Psalm 37, compare it to Ephesians, put them side by side, note the similarities and differences, you'd be astounded. Psalm 37 said that Israel was to dwell in the land, abide there and wait for the coming of their covenant promises. Their promises were attached to the land, our promises are attached to our heavenly position in Christ. And you cannot claim that that difference is insignificant. A fourth biblical problem with PD is that it confuses the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the new covenant ministry of the Holy Spirit. And this sort of ties into the last point. If PD is diminishing the position of the church as a heavenly people in Christ, what goes right along with our position? How did we get in that position? We got in that position by the baptism of the Holy Spirit, right? Remember, the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not for power, but for position. You got in Christ, 1 Corinthians 12, 12 and 13 says, because the Holy Spirit put you there the moment you believed in Christ. But that baptism ministry, baptizing work of the Spirit, is not the same as the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It's not the same as the filling ministry of the Holy Spirit. There's a difference. Now, in the Old Testament, were people filled? Yeah. Were they indwelled? Well, there was selective indwelling, right, and selective filling. Not every Old Testament saint was indwelled. Now, the New Covenant promises that every saint will be indwelled. And so what they like to do is they like to take these passages out of the Old Testament that speak of the new covenant ministry of the spirit of indwelling, his ministry of indwelling, and they like to make it kind of vague and link that with the baptizing ministry of the Holy Spirit today. And there's a huge difference. Robert Soce says in his book, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, And I quote, the baptism with the spirit is therefore not some unique ministry only for the church of the present age, from Pentecost to the rapture, but rather it is the sharing by members of the church in the spirit's ministry of the new covenant. The fact that both Israel and the Gentiles participate in spirit baptism points to their common identity and their spiritual relationship to God and his salvation. So Israel participates in the baptism of the Holy Spirit? Really? Where can you find the baptizing work of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament? There's not one passage that speaks of it. Every time that Christ said, In Matthew, or John the Baptist predicted the baptizing ministry of the spirit. It was always spoken of as future tense. It was not something that was presently ongoing. Of course, it began on the day of Pentecost, because that's when the church began. Now a fifth biblical problem that PD has is that it redefines the Great Commission to include social and political redemption. We're no longer just to go out and catch fish. We're supposed to clean up the fish bowl too. And again, you can see that they've been, those who advocate this view, PD, at least those who originated this view, they were succumbing to pressure from their peers that you dispensationalists, you're not doing enough to go out and transform society. All you guys do is preach the gospel. So as part of that, peer pressure, they caved and they started to say, well, you know what, maybe we do have some social obligations as a church corporately and collectively. But of course, we know from the New Testament that the Great Commission is not go into all the world and change the societal laws and regulations to work for social justice and peace and so forth. we are to go and preach the gospel and to make disciples of all nations. And if people individually as Christians want to get involved politically and socially, that's your area of liberty. But we corporately have never been commissioned to do that. Bach and Blazing say in their book on progressive dispensationalism, They say, recognizing that God superintends the national polities of humanity and that existing political structures call for citizen participation, the church should exercise its responsibility along with worldly citizens in the legislation, execution, and adjudication of the law. Of course, you have the liberty to do that. But they're implying that you must do that. The church has been corporately called to do that. They go on to say, The plural communal nature of the church constitutes the church's social reality. The issue here is that the church intends to redeem humankind socially as well as individually. The social redemption of humanity begins in the church. They go on to say two pages later, in other words, if we as the community of Christ worked on creating our community as a model of social justice and peace, then we really would have some suggestions to make for social reform in our cities and nations. This is all part of what they now view as our Great Commission. And so our charter has been changed. That's another thing PD does. Here's the sixth thing that PD does. The sixth problem biblically is that it downplays the significance of the pre-trib rapture. Now currently, I don't know of any who hold to PD, who openly reject the pre-trib rapture. But I will say this, that their position on related issues undermines their view of the rapture, being pre-trib. So they don't disavow a pre-trib view, but I think they weaken it inherently. And they move closer to really what is a post-trib view. Their position lends itself better to post-trib than to pre-trib. Why do I say that? Well, a couple of reasons. One, PD believes that God's program for the church in Israel is running concurrently. So when the rapture happens, the tribulation is designed for what people group? Israel. Why shouldn't the church be there if it's running concurrently with God's program for Israel? So in other words, when Daniel 9.26 says that there are 70 weeks appointed for you, Daniel, and your people, your holy people, i.e. the Jews, why wouldn't that 70th week also include the church? In passages like Jeremiah 30, verse 7, that speak of the unique, unprecedented time in human history, that God's wrath and judgment will be poured out on the world, which that passage calls the time of Jacob's trouble. Why shouldn't it also be the church's trouble? See, there are inherent problems with their view. So based on what you've heard tonight, would you say that progressive dispensationalism is an advancement upon prior forms of dispensationalism held by, let's say, Darby, Schofield, Chaffer, Ryrie, Walvoord, Pentecost? Would you say it's an improvement on that? Or would you say there's been some regression towards covenant theology? Well, to me, it's pretty obvious it's the latter. But they view what they're doing as a development, whereas we would view it as a departure. And so there's a lot of debate. Well, is PD really dispensationalism? Can it still really legitimately bear that title? And I guess in one sense it is, but I think it has some serious, serious biblical problems. and it is really, truly inconsistent dispensationalism and it's looking more and more like covenant theology. I'll share with you a couple of other quotes here. Walter Kaiser is a popular author out there today, been around for decades. He wrote in response to progressive dispensationalism that one of the pleasant surprises, by the way, Walter Kaiser is not a dispensationalist. He says, one of the pleasant surprises that has emerged from contemporary defenses of dispensationalism is that few, if any, dispensationalists feel compelled to raise the topic once dear to their system, the postponed kingdom theory. He then goes on to say two pages later, I applaud both its spirit and its methodology, along with many of its conclusions. Walter Elwell. Another non-dispensational writer says regarding progressive dispensationalism that it will be warmly received by non-dispensationalists, and he concludes, quote, the newer dispensationalism looks so much like non-dispensational premillennialism that one struggles to see any real difference. Now, those aren't my words. Those are the words of people who are covenant theologians who see this about PD, that it's a move towards covenant theology rather than dispensationalism, traditional dispensationalism. Now, I mentioned to you at the very beginning that when PD started in the mid-'80s, there were these scholars that got together and they birthed this thing. And they wanted to find more similarities with covenant theology that they thought had been overlooked by traditional dispensationalists. And if they would just do this, Then the covenant theologians and other evangelical Christians would see the integrity of these PDs and they would come flocking to the PD position. Guess what has happened? I don't know any covenant theologians who have converted to PD, but I've known a whole lot of PD people who've just said, ah, let's just go the full route, go covenant theology. It has not helped dispensationalism at all. So I think it's a move backwards, and it's a very unfortunate move. But I think it's here to stay. So you need to be aware of it, what it teaches, where it airs biblically, and unfortunately, again, I think it's here to stay. It's entrenched in all the main seminaries that were once solidly dispensational. So stand firm by the grace of God. Any questions on that? 709, I don't see Pastor yet, so we'll take maybe a couple questions and then we'll break. This question is from my brother. He asks... Hey, Sanders. Hello? Is the mic on, Sanders? Yeah, it is now. Here we go. All right. The question is, the differences between classic, revised classic, and traditional dispensationalism, are those just regarding how they deal with the new covenant? Or are there other differences between those dispensational viewpoints as well? Is he asking how do progressive dispensationalists? No. He's asking how those classic, revised classic, and traditional differ from one another. Okay. Let me just say this, Eric, that that categorization of the classical traditional period and then the revised normative period of let's say the 50s to the 70s and then the progressive period That is a distinction not made by traditional dispensationalists. That is a distinction only made by PDs themselves as a justification for what they're doing so that they can claim we're just doing what the normative revised dispensationalists like Ryrie, Wolverd, Chafer, Pentecost, you know, Whitcomb, Showers, those guys. We're just doing what those men did with prior dispensationalists like Darby, Schofield, Chaffer, et cetera. But what they're doing is very different. In this sense, Ryrie, Walvert, Chaffer, those men of that normative, revised era, you could put Chaffer probably in the classic era, they didn't radically transform those three main points about your method of interpretation, they all agreed whether they were traditional or revised. Those two big categories, they all agreed that we should consistently interpret the Bible in a literal fashion. They all agreed that the overarching philosophy of history is the glory of God, not redemption or salvation truth. They all agreed that there's a distinction that has to be consistently maintained between Israel and the church. Now when you come to the PDs, all those sine qua nons, as Charles Ryrie defined them, those three main distinctions of dispensationalism, those defining features, the PDs have now just obliterated. So what the PDs are doing is not the same as what the revised men did with previous dispensationalism. Now there was never agreement on the new covenant among traditional dispensationalists and the revised. None of them agreed. Darby had one view that I think was closer to the truth. Schofield had a view that I think said, in essence, the church participates in the spiritual blessings of Israel's new covenant. Chafer came along and said, well, I don't think that's quite right. I think there's one new covenant for the church, one for Israel, and the church doesn't participate in Israel's in any sense. So when it comes to the new covenant, there was never full agreement. So, well, we better take a break. 10-minute break.