A Valid Point Brought Out in Progressive Dispensationalism

Although I am in major disagreement with Progressive Dispensationalism (PD), I do see one benefit arising from the system. In the tag-team effort of Blaising & Bock, their book Progressive Dispensationalism climaxed a theological trend in evangelicalism which finally leaked over to Normative Dispensationalism, mainly being a shift in hermeneutics. It would be an error for any Dispensationalist to read this book and not come to a crossroads. It should cause Dispensationalists to do one of three things: continue to defend the inconsistencies brought out, change their view to a non-Dispensational system, or refine the inconstiencies of Dispensationalism which were brought out. I have chosen the third option.

Blaising, in his discussion on the overview, history, and varieties of Dispensationalism, pegged Normative (or what he called Revised) Dispensationalism with an inconsistent view of many different aspects of the Kingdom held within the system.[1] Concepts like a “spiritual kingdom” or the “mystery form of the kingdom” are a few good examples. Ryrie, Walvoord, Pentecost, Benware, and Fruchtenbaum all advocate a spiritual aspect of the kingdom or a mystery form aspect of the kingdom from Matthew 13 or both.[2] It is difficult to say that Christ is not presently reigning while He is ruling over the spiritual kingdom or the mystery form kingdom. Thus PD’s have surfaced this inconsistency within the Normative Dispensational system.

To fully understand this inconsistency, one must understand what is meant by the spiritual and mystery form of the kingdom. Of the spiritual form aspect, Ryrie stated that this form of the kingdom is the one “into which all believers have been placed (Col. 1:13), and it is entered by the new birth” (italics mine). He later explained the “spiritual kingdom” in relationship to the Church saying, “The true church, the body of Christ, is equivalent to this concept of the kingdom.”[3] In other words, the spiritual form of the kingdom is nothing more than a soteriological kingdom for all believers of all ages to which the Church is equated! This is not too far removed from the Covenant Amillennial notion of the Kingdom of God.[4]

Of the mystery form of the kingdom, Walvoord wrote that “Matthew 13 introduces a different form of the kingdom, namely the present spiritual reign of the King during the period He is physically absent from the earth…The mysteries of the kingdom, accordingly, deal with the period between the first and second advent of Christ”[5] (italics mine). This too is a very similar teaching to the Covenant Amillennial, Covenant Premillennial, and Progressive Dispensational schools of thought. To this Stanley Toussaint wrote, “If one grants that Christ here [in Matthew 13] presents a new concept of the kingdom, then the Amillennialist has perfect right to assert that Christ is attempting to correct the prevalent Jewish notions.”[6]

So where do these ideas of the soteriological and a mystery form of the kingdom come from within the Dispensational system? First, the logic of seeing more than 1 aspect of the Kingdom of God must be understood. “The Scriptures reveal much about God’s kingdom program and sometimes statements about the kingdom appear contradictory…However, all such seeming contradictions disappear once it is clearly realized that there are five facets to the kingdom program” (italics mine).[7] The contradictions Fruchtenbaum alluded to are the 3 distinctions of the Kingdom of God as noted by Showers – time (eternal vs. future), scope (universal vs. earthly), and administration (God’s direct rule vs. God’s indirect rule).[8] These dualities, primarily OT in origin, serve up the concept that the Kingdom of God is composed of at least 2 different aspects – a Universal/Eternal rule of God over all and a Mediatorial/Theocratic rule on earth yet to be consummated.

It seems to me that the refinement that needs to be made in Normative Dispensational teachings is that there are only 2 aspects of the Kingdom of God in both the OT & NT. As Fruchtenbaum and Showers pointed out, the OT does indicate that there are contrasting elements to the Kingdom of God. These seeming contradictions make it relevant to see more than one aspect of the kingdom. But since the OT mentions only 2 aspects of the kingdom, why not carry that idea into the NT? Why add a soteriological kingdom or a mystery form kingdom to the interpretation of the Kingdom of God in the NT when that was not in view in the OT? Where is the continuity in that? One of the hallmarks of Dispensationalism was its consistency within hermeneutics. This seems like one place where consistency needs to be applied.

I should mention that not all Dispensationalists hold to the spiritual/soteriological or mystery form of the kingdom.[9] In fact, more Dispensationalists are moving away from this view. What is even more interesting is that Blaising only briefly commented on Toussaint’s and McClain’s 2 Kingdom aspect view and was unable to show any inconsistencies.[10] Maybe this refinement in Dispensationalism should continue in order to help shape Normative Dispensational into its next (and perhaps final) stage of development. This article will then lead into future articles dealing specifically with the refinement of the Dispensational view of the Kingdom of God. It is my desire to come to a more consistent use of the Kingdom of God and to refute such ideas as the soteriological or mystery form of the kingdom views held previously within Dispensationalism.

Timothy L. Decker
-----------------------
[1] Blaising, Progressive Dispensationalism, pgs. 41-46.
[2] Ryrie, Basic Theology, pgs. 460-462; Walvoord, “Biblical Kingdoms Compared and Contrasted,” in Issues in Dispensationalism, pgs. 76-80; Pentecost, Things to Come, pgs. 428-445; Benware, Understanding End Times Prophecy, pgs. 140-145; & Fruchtenbaum, Israelology, pgs. 604-614.
[3] Ryrie, Basic Theology, pg 462.
[4] Berkhof says of the Kingdom of God, “The primary idea…is that of the rule of God established and acknowledged in the hearts of sinners by the powerful regenerating influence of the Holy Spirit, insuring them of the inestimable blessings of salvation.” Systematic Theology, pg. 568.
[5] Walvoord, Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come, pg. 97.
[6] Toussaint, Behold the King, pg. 175. Also see what Toussaint writes in “Israel and the Church of a Traditional Dispensationalist” from Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispnesationalism, pgs. 237-241.
[7] Fruchtenbaum, Isrealology, pgs. 608-609.
[8] Showers, There Really Is a Difference, pgs. 157-160. The Eternal Kingdom in time (Ps. 145:13), scope (103:19), and administration (Ps. 59:13). Also see Daniel 4:34-35 for the Eternal Kingdom. The Mediatorial Kingdom in time (Dan. 2:44 & 7:13-14), scope (Dan. 2:44-45 & Isa. 24:23), and administration (Ps. 2 & Dan. 7:13-14 for a human mediator).
[9] Showers, There Really Is a Difference, pgs. 156-167; McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom, the whole book; Couch, An Introduction to Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics, pgs. 291-299; & Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, 352-353 to name a few.

[10] Blaising, Progressive Dispensationalism, pg. 40.