Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional & Progressive Views

by Herbert W. Bateman IV, Stanley D. Toussaint, J. Lanier Burns

For several years two groups of dispensationalists, commonly known by the terms traditionalists and progressives, have engaged in an ongoing debate centered around three crucial issues: 1. The interpretation of Scripture. What rules of hermeneutics our understanding of Scripture? 2. The Abrahamic, Davidic, and new covenants. To whom do these covenants apply and how are they fulfilled or yet to be fulfilled? 3. Israel and the church. How are we to understand the present relationship and future destiny of these two peoples of God? In an irenic debate format, this book demonstrates that those on either side of the issues care deeply about Scripture and its meaning. "Each (contributor) should be given credit for a congenial and helpful contribution to the dispensational discussion."

Genres: Theology

346 pages, Paperback

First published November 11, 1999

About the author

Born in Camden, New Jersey, Herb Bateman grew up in Pennsauken, a suburb of Camden. He attended and graduated from Pennsauken High School in 1974. During those years, he played the trombone in the school’s orchestra and marching Band as well as wrestled for their athletic department.

After graduating from high school, Bateman worked as manager of Kushner’s Hardware Store in Pennsauken. He spent five years developing skills in retail business before attending college. Although skeptical about his academic abilities, he graduated from Philadelphia Biblical University (PBU) in 1982. It was there that he met his wife, Cindy Ann (nee Ohner), and was married 1 September 1979. They celebrated their first anniversary in Jerusalem where Herb was completing a one-year study program at Jerusalem University College in Israel (1980-1981).

After graduating from PBU, Herb and Cindy moved to Dallas, Texas in 1983 to attend Dallas Theological Seminary where he earned a four year masters degree and subsequent doctorate degree in New Testament Studies. After living in Dallas for twelve years, he accepted a teaching position in northern Indiana where he taught predominately at Grace Theological Seminary. In 2008, he accepted a position at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, left the Midwest, and returned to Texas where he currently resides.

Reviews

[Christopher Humphrey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dispensationalism is a hermeneutic and a theology. The central issue of dispensationalism vis a vis eschatology is the status of Israel in God’s plan, especially as it relates to the fulfillment of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants in the Church age and/or the Millennium. Both Traditional and Progressive dispensationalists believe that God has a plan for the Nation of Israel. But traditional dispensationalists believe that the fulfillment of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants will not occur until the 1,000 year reign of Christ. In other words they see mostly discontinuity between Israel and the Church. Progressive Dispensationalists believe in a partial fulfillment of the Abrahamic, Davidic and New Covenants during the Church age (thus, continuity) and during the Millennium (thus, discontinuity) as viewed through an already/not yet paradigm. This helpful volume explores this debate.

This volume contains 3 specific contemporary issues in a debate-type format. These issues include: Hermeneutics, The Abrahamic, Davidic and New Covenants, and Israel and the Church. The sections helpfully solidify areas of agreement while exploring areas of disagreement. The debate is ardent, yet respectful.

This is an intermediate to advanced book. If the topic of dispensationalism is a new one for you, then I would recommend a more general work to begin with, such as Charles Ryrie’s “Dispensationalism Today.” This is an area that received much focus over the last 30 years and it deserves more study as the conclusions one draws from this debate will impact one’s view of issues throughout Scripture and especially the study of Eschatology. For someone willing to roll up their sleeves to engage in serious Bible study, this is a wonderful and helpful book. Happy reading!

[Joseph · Rating 3 out of 5]

Though I am not a dispensationalist, I liked this book.

In a nutshell, this book contains essays by traditional dispensationalists and progressive dispensationists, discussing pertinent issues with one another. On each of the three topics, a traditional dispensationalist will give his view, to which the progressive dispensationalist will give a brief response. Then the progressive dispensationalist will give his view, which the traditional dispensationalist responds to.

One might imagine that as a non-dispensationalist, I would be biased towards the progressive dispensationalist (because, though they still see a distinction between Israel and the church and a future for the nation of Israel, they have more in common with non-dispensationalists than their traditionalist counterparts). And that is true. But for me, the progressive dispensationalists (Darrell Bock and J. Lanier Burns) didn't just make a more compelling case than their more traditional counterparts (Elliot Johnson and Stanley Touissant); they demonstrated to me a view that, though not correct in my opinion, is nonetheless reasonable, possible, and just not as blatantly wrong as traditional dispensationalism. A lot of what I really hate about dispensationalism they also disagree with. They interpret the Bible pretty literally still, but they don't then ignore how the New Testament applies Old Testament texts to the church. They don't believe in two different eternal fates for the church and for the saved people of Israel (which, to be fair, a lot of more traditional dispensationalists no longer believe in either). Although they see a distinction between Israel and the church, they acknowledge that the church is brought into the same fold, the same one people of God, and that therefore the promises made to the Jews also apply to gentile believers in Christ, at least to some extent. To the credit of traditional dispensationalist Stanley Touissant, he even acknowledges this last part at then end of his chapter. Put bluntly, they don't force their belief in a distinction between Israel and the church into their interpretations, so that rather than ignoring the straightforward teaching of a passage that seems to indicate some shared qualities or equality between the church and Israel (after accusing everyone else of not taking the Bible "literally"), they acknowledge that there is some continuity between the church and Israel (though still believing there will be a future kingdom of Israel int he millennium).

As for the traditional dispensationalists, their cases were much weaker. You can honestly sense at times just a complete, I would dare say even emotional, aversion to allowing any continuity between the church and Israel. At times (like in Stanley Touissant's response to J. Lanier Burns), the whole reason why the other person can't be right is because if they are, it would mean that the church has some continuity with Israel. It's as if such an idea is so unthinkable that it just is not possible, so anything that would suggest it must be wrong. You read it and you're just like "well, so what if it suggests some continuity between the church and Israel...?"). It kind of gave me the feeling that these assumptions were core to their hermeneutic, so rather than gaining them from the Bible, they read the Bible in light of them. Given that some dispensationalists will say so outright (like Tim Lahaye in Rapture, who insists that you must acknowledge a complete distinction between the church and Israel before you can properly understand prophecy), this might not just be a stereotype of traditional dispensationalist writing. The progressive dispensationalist arguments were much stronger and scripture-based than their traditionalist counterparts.

Am I convinced by the progressive dispensationalist case? No, but to be fair, the book isn't aiming to convince non-dispensationalists. The things they debate are only pertinent to dispensationalism. Because they already agree with each other on a number of issues (the literal millenial kingdom after Christ's coming, pre-tribulation rapture, a future national Israel, the argument that the promises to Israel are unconditional), these things are assumed to be true. So obviously, then, a non-dispensationalist will stay a non-dispensationalist. Nevertheless, this book has demonstrated to me that the Bible isn't so clear-cut an issue, and that dispensationalism does need to be taken seriously (insofar as the more reasonable, "progressive" strand of dispensationalism goes). It's kind of, funny actually, since this was an in-house discussion. Nevertheless, it was useful to even a non-dispensationalist.

[Clark Goble · Rating 4 out of 5]

Three Contemporary Issues in Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views is written to provide the reader with a “forum whereby traditional and progressive dispensationalists might present [a] frank yet congenial” debate (Bateman 307). This debate concerns “three central issues frequently discussed among today’s dispensationalist: (1) hermeneutics; (2) the Abrahamic, Davidic, and new covenants; and (3) Israel and the church” (Bateman 13). Ultimately, the text is concerned with leading the reader to a “deeper understanding of the debatable issues related to dispensational theology” (Bateman 11). The general editor of the text, Herbert W. Bateman writes that his former teachers “stirred [him] to pursue, investigate, and expand [his] understanding of dispensationalism” (Bateman 14). Bateman’s description would aptly serve as the stated purpose for this book as a reading of it is sure to “stir the pot” of anyone with more than a passing interest in dispensationalism.

Bateman sets about his task by first providing the reader with a history of dispensationalism in his chapter titled Dispensationalism Yesterday and Today. In this chapter, Bateman writes that dispensationalism is distinguished from other systems of theology by several characteristics; “its exposition and high regard for God’s Word, … emphasis on Biblical prophecy, … its divisions of salvation-history events into dispensations, by its stress on the uniqueness of the church, by its anticipation of Jesus Christ’s premillennial return, and by its confidence in a future for national Israel” (Bateman 22). While these characteristics may aptly describe dispensationalism, a complete reading of this chapter seems to reveal that Bateman is preparing the reader to accept the positions presented later in the text by the proponents of progressive dispensationalism. For example, Bateman writes, “Since its early beginnings, however, distinguishing characteristics of dispensationalism have undergone clarification, modification, and change” (Bateman 23). While there is no doubt that Bateman’s comment regarding the changes throughout the history of dispensationalism is true, it appears that he chooses to emphasize this change far more than he does any unity that has always been present in dispensational thought. Later in the chapter, Bateman provides the details for what he calls the First and Second Transitional Stages in dispensational history. I am of the opinion that by titling these “stages” as such, Bateman seems to be overemphasizing them in an attempt to lend more credence to the progressive writers presented later in the book. A fair and balanced approach to the history of dispensationalism should lend as much weight to the unity present throughout dispensational thought as it does any transitions.

Aside from this slight quibble with Bateman, the rest of Three Contemporary Issues in Dispensationalism is remarkably well presented. Representatives of both traditional and progressive dispensational camps take turns writing essays concerning the three topics of interest; hermeneutics; the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants; and Israel and the Church. After each essay, a representative from the opposing camp provides a response. The layout of the debate, along with the congenial and scholarly attitudes of the presenters, makes for a most insightful exchange. Of the contributors, I was most impressed with Darrell L. Bock’s ability to communicate his position; perhaps it is because I am naturally inclined to agree with traditional dispensationalism that I found Bock’s defense of the progressive position interesting. However, Bock seemed to shine at times while contradicting himself at others. For example, Bock writes that “complementary [hermeneutics] do not introduce instability into interpretation because meaning is never lost; it is only deepened and enhanced” (Bateman 81). This statement would seem to be an apt defense for complementary hermeneutics if Bock had not written just a page before that “meaning that comes one day in the future is not lost” (Bateman 80). Bock appears to be arguing for “a constant reaffirmation of the importance and abiding value of the original … meaning” (Bateman 80) while at the same time asserting that the true meaning of a passage is one that develops over time. In fairness, such contradictions seem inherent in the progressive position rather than a flaw in Bock’s defense.

I was also impressed by Stanley D. Toussaint’s response to the progressive points concerning continuity between Israel and the church. Toussaint’s seems to offer a wise approach to the debate when he writes, “These discussions indicate that each passage must be examined carefully before undue continuity may be claimed” (Bateman 293). Toussaint’s advice to approach the text carefully seems applicable to each of the three issues examined throughout this text. Toussaint seems to offer a wise voice to the debate. Before engaging these issues, one must approach the Bible carefully. Bateman echoes these sentiments in his conclusion when he writes, “such discussions [should] reflect an ultimate respect for the text of Scripture” (Bateman 316). It is the fact that each of the contributors to this book are dedicated to remaining loyal to Scripture that makes it such a valuable read.

In conclusion, Three Contemporary Issues in Dispensationalism succeeds in providing the reader with a congenial discussion between traditional and progressive dispensationalists. Though the introduction written by Bateman seems slanted in favor of preparing the reader to accept the progressive points, the contributors to the text represent themselves well enough to help the reader understand the issues. Most notably, Darrell L. Bock provides an interesting defense of progressive dispensationalism despite the contradictions that seem inherent to the system. In addition, Stanley D. Toussaint grounds the discussion by reminding the reader to carefully approach the Bible before reaching a conclusion. Ultimately, this text succeeds in its goal of provoking an interest in and a deeper understanding of the debatable issues within dispensationalism.

[Mark Ackeret · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book attempts to be a compare and contrast between traditional dispensationalism and progressive dispensationalism. It is written in a way that unfairly gives progressive dispensationalism the upper hand - the editor seems to be a progressive himself and this book is far from neutral or honest. The traditionalists introduce each subject and are forced to present the entire theological issue and also refute the other views within dispensationalism. Each chapter then contains the progressive response, naturally an easier task than was required of the traditionalists. Format aside, it's an informative book but reveals much of the progressive attitude.

[Kristopher Schaal · Rating 5 out of 5]

Helpful clarification on the differences between traditional and progressive dispensationalism. I found myself more drawn toward the progressive views, but the issues are complex and many of them are beyond my current ability. However, I have now been exposed to more of the arguments and debates, which was very helpful.

[Brian Chilton · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book showing the differences between traditional dispensationalists and progressive dispensationalists. I prefer the latter.

[Joelendil · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dispensationalism is the theological system that emphasizes that the church has not replaced Israel in God's plan (as is believed in replacement/reformed/covenant theology). This book explores the differences between two "flavors" of dispensationalism: traditional and progressive.

The main issue of disagreement is whether the covenants of promise (Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants) in the Old Testament are in some sense being partially fulfilled during this era with complete fulfillment at the return of Christ (Progressive Dispensationalism) or have been put entirely "on hold" until the return of Jesus Christ (Traditional Dispensationalism).

The book features essays and rebuttals from theologians on both sides of the issue (all associated with Dallas Theological Seminary). The overall tone is amicable and all four contributors are clear in their presentations. I'm still thinking through the issue, but I felt that the "already-not-yet" theology of the progressive position flowed more naturally from Scripture than the traditional "no partial fulfillment in the church age" position. It seemed to me that the traditional position requires a lot more hair-splitting definitions and "this verse doesn't mean what it sounds like it means" explanations than the progressive position.

This isn't one of those doctrinal issues to call each other "heretics" over, but it does have implications for those who want to do deep Bible study.

[Read1000books · Rating 2 out of 5]

I found this book disappointing, mainly because the discussions were so scholarly and complicated. The book is divided into three main sections on the topics of hermeneutics (i.e. Bible interpretation), the covenants, and the "Biblical promises to Israel and/or the Church" issue. Presented in debate (statement/response) format, the discussions are on at least a master's degree level if not above and will be far too complex (or boring) to the average layman (like myself). Statements such as the phrase "the issue of the intrabiblical, Christocentric hermeneutic' (from page 258) illustrate my point well. Not to mention that the issues raised and defended by the "progressive dispensationalists" seem to be unnecessary hair-splitting anyway. They should sit down and come back to the traditional dispensational fold. Chapter one was a good history of the dispensational ideology in American Christianity, which was what I had hoped the entire book would expand on. This was confusingly not the case.

[Mark · Rating 3 out of 5]

Great read, outside of my approach to scripture but still benefited from the argumentation.