Case for Progressive Dispensationalism

by Robert Saucy

Overview

Debate abounds on the future of Israel and Israel's relation to the church, not only between dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists, but among dispensationalists themselves. In the past that debate has sometimes been acrimonious, and proponents of the differing viewpoints have found little common ground. In recent years, however, views have been modified and developed so that the dialogue is increasingly characterized by cooperation and a mutual exploration of diverse ideas. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism is intended to enlighten the debate in that same irenic spirit. The book is solidly dispensational in perspective in affirming that the Old Testament prophecies are completely fulfilled in the future, that the nation of Israel has a prophetic future, and that Israel is not the church. Dr. Saucy departs from classic dispensationalism, however, in showing that the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy begins in the present church age, and the church is not a parenthesis in God's program but represents a continuity with the Old Testament messianic program. This modified dispensationalism seeks to satisfy many of the objections of non-dispensational approaches to eschatology while retaining the crucial elements of biblical interpretation that characterize dispensational thought.

Product Details

ISBN-13:	9780310304418
Publisher:	Zondervan
Publication date:	09/01/1993
Pages:	336
Product dimensions:	6.10(w) x 9.00(h) x 0.81(d)
Age Range:	18 Years

About the Author

Robert L. Saucy was distinguished professor of systematic theology at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University, in Los Angeles.

Read an Excerpt

The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism

The Interface Between Dispensational and Non-Dispensational Theology

---

By Robert L. Saucy

Zondervan

Copyright © 1993 Zondervan
All right reserved.
ISBN: 0-310-30441-5

---

Chapter One

The Crucial Issue Between Dispensational and Non-Dispensational Systems

I. INTRODUCTION

THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY of discussion between dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists numerous points of contention have been raised. These differences stemmed largely from the particular emphasis of each system in its understanding of biblical history. As its name indicates, the dispensational view tended to emphasize the differences in the various periods of human history brought about through the progressive revelation of God's salvation program. Non-dispensationalists, on the other hand, inclined toward an emphasis on the unity of God's work in biblical history.

Continued study of the Scriptures has seen development and modification of both perspectives. Most dispensationalists would acknowledge that some of the early statements of distinctions were overstated. This is often the case when a position is first espoused against another position as was the situation of early dispensationalism against traditional covenant amillenial theology. At the same time the rise of the discipline of biblical theology with its emphasis on interpreting the Scriptures in their historical environment has contributed to a greater appreciation of the development within the historical redemptive plan and the resultant differences entailed on the part of many non-dispensationalists.

These developments within the two schools of interpretation have worked to bring closer, if not total, agreement on many points of prior disagreement. There yet remain, however, some broad areas of difference which focus on the understanding of the fulfillment of God's historical plan of redemption. Before looking at this crucial area, it will be beneficial to note first those areas which for many interpreters are no longer major areas of dispute.

A. Resolved Issues

Law and Grace. A primary point of difference in earlier years was the relationship of law and grace. The belief that Israel and the church play different roles in biblical history led dispensationalists to make many rather sharp distinctions regarding God's methods of dealing with the two entities. They viewed Israel as operating under the economy of the Mosaic law; the church, under the dispensation of grace.

Although dispensationalists apparently never intended to teach a dichotomy between law and grace as principles of God's salvation, some statements of early advocates were easily construed that way. C. I. Scofield wrote in his notes to the Bible, "The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ with good works as a fruit of salvation...." His comment on the petition for forgiveness in the so-called Lord's Prayer likewise promoted this dichotomy: "This is law. Forgiveness is conditioned upon a legal ground.... Under law forgiveness is conditioned upon a like spirit in us; under grace we are forgiven for Christ's sake, and exhorted to forgive because we have been forgiven." Since forgiveness of sins lies at the heart of salvation, it was easy for non-dispensationalists to construe this view as teaching a law-based means of salvation in Old Testament times.

Charles C. Ryrie acknowledges that such "unguarded statements" were the "primary reason for the persistence of the charge" that dispensationalists were teaching more than one way of salvation. Ryrie responds that these early dispensationalists did not mean to teach what might be implied from these statements and, had they known the issue would arouse such acrimony, would have been more careful in what they said.

While it cannot be denied that there is some unresolved tension in these earlier statements, dispensationalists have more recently been careful to explain that the progression in the dispensations involves no change in the fundamental principle of salvation by grace. Rather, they have affirmed more clearly that a single divine method of salvation by grace through faith has been in effect for all time; they have recognized an element of grace in the Mosaic economy; and they have asserted that the distinctions in the dispensations of law and grace refer to the rule of life rather than the means of justification before God. The two Scofield notes we cited have been radically altered in the New Scofield Reference Bible (1967). One note states that "prior to the cross man's salvation was through faith (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:3), being grounded on Christ's atoning sacrifice."

Contention over the issue of law and grace has, therefore, been rendered passé. This is acknowledged by Ryrie, who views the law as a revelation of God relating both to spiritual salvation and to life under the temporal theocracy of the nation of Israel. He concludes that "under the law God provided ways whereby man could be temporally acceptable before Him.... Therefore it is entirely harmonious to say that the means of eternal salvation was by grace and the means of temporal life was by law."

The new spirit in discussion is also affirmed by Daniel Fuller, a non-dispensationalist who sees modern dispensationalism and covenant theology coalescing on the problem of law and grace. Citing statements made in the New Scofield Reference Bible and in Ryrie's book Dispensationalism Today, Fuller comments, "In comparing these contemporary statements of dispensationalism with covenant theology, we conclude that there is no longer any substantive difference between the two on the subject of the law and the gospel."

Curtis Crenshaw and Grover Gunn reach the same conclusion. They assert that "the neo-dispensationalisms" have eliminated the problem of seemingly teaching "divergent ways of salvation in different ages" by "clearly teaching an Old Testament by-faith salvation."

Finally, several recent works on dispensationalism by non-dispensationalists make no mention of different ways of salvation, suggesting by their silence that this is no longer a divisive issue.

It would be going too far, however, to say that all differences on the relationship of law and grace have been erased. Dispensationalism's affirmation of the distinction between the church and Israel and its greater emphasis on the progressive working of God throughout salvation history cause it to place greater emphasis on the distinctions between the pre-Christian era and that of the new covenant following Christ's redemptive work. But none of these differences involves the fundamental way of salvation.

One such distinction that is often noted is the change in the specific object of faith which took place as the revelation of God's salvation unfolded. According to dispensationalists, the Old Testament saints could not have expressly placed their faith in Christ and the saving work of his death and resurrection in the same way believers could after those events took place.

Some differences also remain regarding the rule of the believer's life. Non-dispensationalists tend to emphasize the similarities in the role of the law in the Old Testament economy and the requirements for righteousness placed on believers in the New; they say little or nothing about differences. A full discussion of this issue lies beyond the purpose of this book, but we note that some scriptural statements suggest differences (e.g., Jn 1:17; Gal 3:17ff.), especially a contrast between the old and new covenants.

(Continues...)

---

Excerpted from The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism by Robert L. Saucy Copyright © 1993 by Zondervan. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

---