“Saucy is in a difficult position. He has two audiences—he wants to address critique from non-dispensationalists and fly the (modified) dispensationalist flag at the same time…. he pleases nobody and frustrates everybody.” - London Lyceum
“The ultimate solution is to embrace the hope of Christ and the New Covenant he offers to both Jew and Gentile, to the people of Israeli and of Palestinian descent as well as to Muslims.
There are at least five reasons that progressive dispensational (PD) represents a departure from a normative hermeneutic (literal grammatical historical) and reading of the Bible. The first two pertain to methodology in arriving at conclusions, and the latter three have to do with theological conclusions which are not exegetically derived.
Blaising and Bock recognize that methodology is definitive in the formation of PD, and acknowledge that PD is the result of a methodological departure from the hermeneutic of classical and revised dispensational thought, as they observe that,
“The more biblical affirmations that can be affirmed without resorting to hermeneutical gymnastics should be affirmed—and the more biblical material that can be held together without resorting to theological gymnastics should be held together—wouldn’t you agree?” - Kenneth Berding
(From Dispensational Publishing House; used by permission. Read Part 1.)
My personal concerns have to do with some of the new proposals for a dispensational approach to the Bible, i.e., a critique of some of the structural points that hitherto were not characteristic of dispensational thought. One major principle will be discussed here—biblical hermeneutics. There are other factors that could be dealt with profitably as well.
Principles of Biblical interpretation are the first order of concerns in structuring a doctrine or a comprehensive method of interpreting the Bible, foundational to correct exegesis itself. Often the order is reversed. It is often asserted with vigor that Biblical hermeneutics must come from interpreting the Bible itself, i.e., a simple matter of exegesis. But this appears to be a circular procedure, i.e., using hermeneutical principles on the Bible in order to find the Bible’s hermeutical principles (to be used on the Bible).
If there were a line between Traditional Dispensationalism and Progressive Dispensationalism, I suspect I would be barely over that line. But there is no line. The relationship between Traditional Dispensationalism and Progressive Dispensationalism is anything but clear cut.
Although the Traditional Dispensational camp views the Progressive Dispensational position as a compromise or infringement upon the clarity of its divisions, modern Traditional Dispensational interpreters often interpret passages using the basic principles of Progressive Dispensationalism—either without recognizing it or without admitting it.
Editor’s note: This interview dates back to last fall, but I only recently discovered it—and found it quite interesting. The interview was conducted by Adrian Isaacs, M.Rel., Th.D (Cand.). He interviewed Dr. Christopher Cone for dissertation research at Wycliffe College, University of Toronto.
Isaacs: In your estimation, how would you describe the current level of scholarly, academic discussion regarding dispensationalism within the overall evangelical academic community (eg. virtually non-existent, some discussion exists, still a fair amount of discussion)?
Perhaps there is no issue which more clearly divides conservative Evangelicals, than the question of the relationship between Israel and the Church. Subsumed beneath that overriding concern are the intramural debates over soteriology (Calvinism, Arminianism or “neither”), eschatology (premillennial or amillennial and pre-trib or post-trib), and ecclesiology (paedobaptism or credobaptism).
