Progressive Dispensational is is nothing new. It shares many similarities with non-dispensational premillennialism (also called covenant premillennialism or historic premillennialism). It’s a middle position between dispensationalism and covenant theology. It is a serious departure from dispensationalism, and since it denies many of the essential doctrines of dispensationalism, it is not worthy of the name. It teaches that the Davidic kingdom is operational today. It teaches that today Christ is ruling from David’s throne in heaven. It has blurred some of the sharp distinctions between Israel and the church. It has denied three essential elements of church truth:

1. It has denied the parenthetical nature of the church. Israel’s history from the rebuilding of Jerusalem to the second coming of Messiah is incorporated in the 70-week prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27. We know that Messiah was cut off after the 69^th week, and we know from the book of Revelation and other Scripture passages that the 70^th week is yet future and represents the final seven years before the Messiah returns to the earth. Between the 69^th and 70"’ weeks is a "gap" of nearly 2000 years, during which time God has been building His church (Matthew 16:18) and "visiting the nations to take out of them a people for His Name" (Acts 15:14). For an interesting book dealing with the parenthetical nature of the church, see Harry Ironside, The Great Parenthesis.

 
2. It has denied the mysterious character of the church, teaching instead that the "mysteries" of the N.T. were revealed in the Old Testament period but not realized yet. But a careful study of Ephesians 3:4-5; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:26 and Romans 16:26 indicates that a New Testament mystery is that which had been hidden, kept secret, and not made known to men in previous ages, but which has now been made manifest and revealed and made known to God’s saints in this present age by the N.T. apostles and prophets. See our study on The Mystery of Godliness (Middletown Bible Church publication). The Mystery of Godliness

 
3. It has denied that the church was established following the postponement of the kingdom. Dispensationalists have long taught that the offer of the kingdom to Israel was genuine, but it was also conditional and contingent on the nation’s repentance. Since the nation did not repent at the time of Christ’s first corning, the kingdom did not immediately appear but was postponed. See our publication, The Biblical Doctrine of Postponement. In the meantime God introduced a new program which is His church made up of both Jews and Gentiles united into one body. There is coming a day when the nation Israel will again be offered the kingdom (Matthew 24:14) and at this time the nation will repent and will trust their Messiah and the long-promised Davidic kingdom will be established. For an excellent study on these themes, see Alva McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom.

Dispensationalists, though varying on certain points of doctrine, have generally been unanimous on the three points given above. These are essential to dispensational truth and must not be surrendered or compromised.

Since PD has departed from such essential dispensational doctrines, they should not be labeled as dispensationalists. If we are to call this PD by the name dispensationalism, then I would suggest calling it "neo-dispensationalism" because it shares so many of the characteristics of the neo-evangelical movement, as illustrated below.

Similarities between Neo Evangelicalism
and Neo (Progressive) Dispensationalism

One of the key documents of the neo-evangelical movement was an article that appeared in Christian Life (March 1956) entitled, Is Evangelical Theology Changing? This article (referred to below as IETC) outlined eight characteristics of a new kind of evangelicalism which became known as new or neo-evangelicalism. Some of these characteristics will be quoted below to illustrate that some of the same trends which marked the beginning of neo-evangelicalism are taking place today within "neo-dispensationalism."

1. Both emphasize dialogue. New evangelicals engage in dialogue with neo-orthodox men or with others far removed from the Bible believing camp; neo-dispensationalists dialogue with covenant men and with others far removed from the dispensational camp. "A growing willingness of evangelical theologians to converse with liberal theologians....an evangelical can profitably engage in an exchange of ideas with men who are not evangelicals" (IETC). So also today, neo-dispensationalists believe they can profitably engage in an exchange of ideas with men who are not dispensational.

 
2. Both have questionable friends. Neo-evangelicals are highly critical of fundamentalists but reach out "in love" to those of questionable and divergent theological positions. Neo-dispensationalists are highly critical of dispensationalists but reach out to covenant theologians and other non-dispensationalists.

 
3. Both emphasize unity at the expense of doctrine. "Progressive Dispensationalism’s unity is based upon an inclusive, ‘don’t-let-doctrinal-differences-stand-in-our-way’ kind of unity" (Thomas Ice, A Critical Examination of Progressive Dispensationalism, Part 1, p. 5). "This work indicates where many dispensationalists are today, while recognizing that it is part of a larger theological community that is the body of Christ. Our discussion should continue, but not at the expense of our unity" (Blaising and Bock, Disp., Israel & the Church, p. 394).

 
4. Both waver on certain prophetic issues. "A more tolerant attitude toward varying views on eschatology...some are saying that the Bible doesn’t teach that the church will escape the tribulation" (IETC). Some neo-dispensationalists are very reluctant to discuss matters such as the timing of the rapture and Daniel’s seventy weeks prophecy. Since neo-dispensationalists share such close affinity with George Ladd on his kingdom views, is it possible that they will also, in time, adopt his post-tribulational views as well?

 
5. Both emphasize social action and include this as part of the church’s primary mission. "A more definite recognition of social responsibility...we must make evangelicalism more relevant to the political and sociological realities of our time" (IETC). Neo-dispensationalists, since they believe the church is phase one of the kingdom, believe that the church has a responsibility to society to make it more kingdom-like. Present society has a long way to go!

 
6. Both emphasize scholarship. "An increased emphasis on scholarship" (IETC). Of course we realize that there is nothing wrong with solid, Biblical scholarship that exalts Christ and honors His Word. Neo Dispensationalists, in their books, are enamored by covenant scholarship and by historic premillennial scholarship but they are highly critical of dispensational scholarship. See our previous discussion under "#7—Its Friends."

 
7. Both are very critical of dispensationalism. "A shift away from so-called extreme dispensationalism...The trend today is away from dispensationalism—away from the Scofield notes" (IETC). Neo-dispensationalists of today are continuing this trend.

 
8. Both are questioning basic issues pertaining to the Bible.  "A re-opening of the subject of biblical inspiration....the whole subject of biblical inspiration needs reinvestigation" (IETC). Neo-evangelicals re-opened the subject of Biblical inerrancy whereas neo-dispensationalists have re-opened the subject of Biblical interpretation, especially regarding the validity of literal interpretation of Scriptures.

 
9. Both reflect a "theological mood." Charles Woodbridge once wrote: "The New Evangelicalism originated not as a carefully thought out system of theology but as a theological mood or attitude quite different from that of the stalwart ‘Old Evangelicals’ (The New Evangelicalism, p. 23). Could the same be said of neo-dispensationalism? Did it originate as a carefully thought out system of theology or as a theological mood or attitude quite different from that of the stalwart ‘Old Dispensationalism’?

 
10. Both result in compromise. "NEO-EVANGELICALISM is a compromise toward Liberalism. Its progenitors were Dr. Carl F.H.Henry, Dr. Edward J. Carnell, and Dr. Harold J. Ockenga. It was spawned in the barren milieu of Fuller Seminary. NEO-DISPENSATIONALISM is a compromise toward Covenantism. Its progenitors are Dr. Craig A. Blaising, Dr. Darrell Bock and in absentia, Dr. Robert Saucy. It was spawned in the Chaferless milieu of Dallas Theological Seminary" (Miles Stanford).

George Zeller, revised 9/00, 1/04

 

COMPARISON OF TRADITIONAL AND  PROGRESSIVE DISPENSATIONALISM by Dr. Mike Stallard, Baptist Bible Seminary
Progressive Dispensationalism	Traditional Dispensationalism
The church age as a dispensation is best seen as a harmonious continuation in succession of the entire sequence of dispensations in God's plan rather than as a parenthesis in God's plan for Israel.	The present dispensation is a parenthesis with respect to God's dealing with Israel (explains the delay in His dealing with that nation) but is a harmonious continuation of God's plan with respect to the plan of the ages.
Rejection of any essential core beliefs to dispensationalism (no sine qua non) --only a list of hermeneutical and theological concerns.	Acceptance of a core set of beliefs that is generally true of all dispensationalists of all times, i.e., there is a common thread to the tradition that is rather substantial.
Rejection of literal interpretation as a major issue in the debate between covenant theology and dispensationalism.	Acceptance of literal interpretation as a major issue in the debate between covenant theology and dispensationalism.
Historical distinction between Israel and the Church and rejection of transcendental (heavenly/earthly) distinction between them.	Acceptance of both a historical distinction and the use of transcendental language to describe a distinction between Israel and the Church.
One people of God (soteriological--similar to covenant theology); God's plan is a single track.	One people of God soteriologically, but two peoples of God (or programs of God) historically and teleologically (God's purposes); God's plan is multi-faceted which better gives glory to Him.
Many OT and NT passages are integrated and harmonized using a complementary hermeneutic.	While such integration is possible, it does not override the distinction between Israel and the Church and it does not apply to the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant.
The Messianic Kingdom started at the Ascension (Acts 1-2).	The Messianic Kingdom will start at the Second Coming.
Kingdom rule in the present age should be emphasized in order to pursue the rebuilding of social structures according to the ways of Christ.	Christ's headship of the Church and His general sovereignty (reigning) in the world at large is recognized but it is denied that this is fulfillment of Davidic rule promised in the OT. Furthermore, no Davidic "kingdom authority" is needed to right injustices and demonstrate love for people in social action.
Seeks theological harmony with covenant theology.	Seeks no harmony with covenant theology other than spiritual kinship in Christ.

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/dispen/progresi.htm