Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary

THE CASE FOR PROGRESSIVE DISPENSATIONALISM

BY ROBERT L. SAUCY

– A CRITICAL INTERACTION

Submitted to Dr. Gary E. Yates

in partial fulfillment of requirements for THEO 695

by

Elke B. Speliopoulos

Downingtown, PA

April 20, 2010

 CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1

FINDING A MIDDLE GROUND..................................................................................................1

INCONSISTENCIES......................................................................................................................6

CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................7

BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................................9

ii
 1

INTRODUCTION

Many heated debates have taken place and continue to take place between

dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists on the role of Israel and the church as salvation

history progressed from the pages of the Old Testament to those of the New Testament. Over

recent years, an approximation has occurred on both fronts. From the dispensationalist side, this

renewed look at the scriptural evidence supporting one view or another has been termed

“Progressive Dispensationalism”. This view is described as “a recent effort to fine-tune the

hermeneutical system.”0 It has gathered quite a number of hearers even thought it has received

criticism from supporters of classical dispensationalism. This approach does allow a narrowing

of the gap to non-dispensational thinking and provides the hope that it “could thereby serve as a

bridge to unite evangelicals on biblical and theological matters.”0

Robert L. Saucy’s 1993 book “The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism” is a strong

effort to explain his view of this theological position. He leverages the biblical text to make

salient points as to why the kingdom of God has been inaugurated in part, why Israel cannot be

the church and why there is a very pronounced future role for national Israel in eschatological

fulfillment. As such, he convincingly argues that classical dispensationalism is too structured in

its delineation of Israel and the church in this present time.

FINDING A MIDDLE GROUND

Saucy takes his readers through a four part structure: the first part is an introductory part,

which evaluates the elementary differences between dispensational and non-dispensational

thinking. In the second part, he discusses significant Old Testament covenants and the concept of

the kingdom of God. In the third section, Saucy points out the particularities of the

0
. Chad Brand, Charles Draper, Archie England et al., Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN:
Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 432.
0
. Ibid.
 2

dispensational vs. non-dispensational view of the church and the mysteries and the baptism with

the Spirit. He also discusses what the “people of God” mean as it pertains to Israel and the

church. In the concluding fourth part, Saucy inspects the role of Israel in the context of Old and

New Testament prophecy, as well as its future purpose.

In part one of the book, Saucy points out that while there are many discussion points,

only some of these are truly those, which cause theologians on each side to part ways. He

provides a list of those issues that have found a consensus between dispensational and non-

dispensational scholars, in particular the relationship of law and grace (resolved to understanding

that salvation is achieved only by a “single divine method”, grace through faith)0, the

interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount and specifically whether its application to a kingdom

at hand or not (resolved to be understood as applying to believers today living in anticipation of

the kingdom)0, and the discussion around the synonymous or distinct use of the terms “kingdom

of heaven” and “kingdom of God” (resolved in favor of synonymous use)0.

Saucy states that the remaining point of discussion and contention is the purpose and plan

God has within biblical history.0 Analysis done on the interpretive systems suggests that non-

dispensationalists use the same grammatico-historical hermeneutical approach as their

dispensational counterparts, yet, as Saucy highlights, the “intellectual, emotional, and spiritual

background as well as the Zeitgeist in which one works” affect interpretation. He continues, “It is

here, not in a priori hermeneutical beliefs, that we should look to explain the differences in

interpretation and application among dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists.”0

0
. Robert L. Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism: The Interface between Dispensational &
Non-Dispensational Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993), 14.
0
. Ibid., 17.
0
. Ibid., 19.
0
. Ibid.
0
. Ibid., 20.
 3

He correctly points out that while one of the key issues in this discussion is the non-

dispensational view that there is no room for a nation of Israel in God’s redemptive unfolding of

history if the conviction of a unity of the people of God exists, in particular the Holocaust and

the reestablished state of Israel seem to indicate that God is not completely finished with his

distinct people Israel0. At the same time, Saucy notes that dispensationalist teaching in its

traditional form does not allow any part of the Old Testament kingdom prophecies to be fulfilled

in this present age.0 It is commendable that Saucy chooses the expression “the kingdom” as a less

weighted term in this discussion, rather than “covenant” or “promise”, which have the potential

to bring with them certain pre-judgments for some readers.0 It is through this concept that he can

elegantly develop over the course of the next few pages that God’s plan for history “does not

entail separate programs for the church and Israel”0.

One of Saucy’s most convincing arguments in this section of the book centers around his

discussion of the prophetic announcement of the New Covenant in the pages of the Old

Testament (and leading into the New Testament), thereby making this one fluid and unified

history of salvation, which shows a consistency that does not allow the text to be read “as merely

shadows and types that become outmoded with the coming of Christ.”0 Rather, this reading of

the text allows an understanding that “Scripture teaches a ‘unity with distinctives’”0.

Saucy emphatically reiterates that the relationship between the two testaments would

make it “seem logical that these eschatological elements should be understood in their Old

0
. Ibid., 23.
0
. Ibid., 27.
0
. Ibid.
0
. Ibid., 28.
0
. Ibid., 30.
0
. Ibid., 29.
 4

Testament meaning unless later revelation indicates a reinterpretation”0 A few pages later, he

again reminds his readers that “the lack of detail about the Old Testament prophecies in the New

Testament does not necessarily mean they are invalid or superseded. To the contrary, the

situation of the early church suggests that we should consider the prophecies valid unless there is

explicit teaching to the contrary.”0 With these pronounced statements, he drives home one of his

main points, which he will demonstrate throughout the book: the non-repetition of Old

Testament prophecies in the New Testament are too readily interpreted by non-dispensational

theologians as a sign that the promises are no longer valid for Israel who in their mind has

forsaken her God.

Saucy does correct a classical dispensationalist view of the kingdom as not having been

inaugurated, but does caution that it must be assumed that “this initially proclaimed kingdom did

not come in its totality”0, rather that only certain dimensions of it have been inaugurated. Saucy

does fence in this inauguration by highlighting that while spiritual and individual aspects have

arrived, societal have not0, and as such only particular aspects were inaugurated, while some of

the fulfillment of kingdom promises are still waiting for future realization. In a later discussion

around the binding of Satan as part of millennial considerations, Saucy states that it is apparent

“not only that nothing is said of Satan’s being presently bound, but also that he is extremely

active on the earth during this present age.”0 Also here, it is apparent that kingdom aspects have

begun but have not been brought to their completion and await further future development.

0
. Ibid., 30.
0
. Ibid., 35.
0
. Ibid., 98.
0
. Ibid., 99.
0
. Ibid., 277.
 5

Saucy’s discussion of the role of Israel fills a large portion of the book – and rightfully

so, as it is one of the major points of divergence in theological thought between

dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists. His journey via the Abrahamic and Davidic

covenants to the New Covenant clearly depicts the unfolding of God’s salvation plan. Provisions

set forth in the New Covenant, forgiveness of sins, an obedience enabled through the indwelling

of the Spirit and a new relationship to God together with physical blessings point towards Christ,

in particular as the fulfillment cannot be found for Israel in the pages of the Old Testament. Yet,

important for the further discussion, Saucy points out that “nowhere does Scripture speak of the

new covenant’s rendering either of these covenants obsolete”0. Instead, this new covenant serves

as a vehicle to bring about the ultimate fulfillment of the others. Saucy convincingly argues that

this covenant includes Gentiles in its blessings, not by making them Israel, but by being

beneficiaries alongside Israel0. As such, there is no contradiction in seeing Israel and the church

as distinct entities in New Testament writing, which is also made clear by consistent application

of the term Israel throughout its pages as standing for national Israel. In reviewing the mysteries

Paul speaks about, Saucy clarifies that “although they share with Jews, nothing is said about

Gentiles’ becoming Jews or part of Israel unless we redefined ‘Israel’, which is difficult to justify

exegetically.”0.

The final portion of the book brings Saucy’s outstanding argumentation of Romans 11

and God’s pronouncement through the words of Paul that Israel’s “unbelief has not changed the

purpose of God for the people.”0 Ultimately, as Saucy points out, Israel’s presence as a nation is

a fundamental part of future fulfillment of biblical prophecy. Israel’s role has multiple facets as

0
. Ibid., 121.
0
. Ibid., 123.
0
. Ibid., 156.
0
. Ibid., 250.
 6

the channel of revelation to the nations. Not only will the nations understand God’s purpose

through the judgment of Israel, but even more so will see the reliability of his promises through

the revelatory restoration of Israel. Saucy, by citing both passages from Ezekiel 36 as well as

Gustave F. Oehler, makes an extremely convincing point that “the restoration of Israel is not

only a display of God’s love and power in behalf of his people, but also ‘an event necessary to

the preservation of the honor of the true God.”0 Finally, Israel has a mediatorial ministry in

bringing about the completion of salvation. Saucy reiterates that in the realm of socio-political

salvation, “Israel still has a role to play”.0

INCONSISTENCIES

There are a few inconsistencies in the book that would need further clarification, e.g.,

Saucy discusses the Servant of the Lord as a singular person, the Messiah in Isaiah 42:60, yet

describes at another place in the book that “most scholars view the Servant as a fluid concept

referring at times to the entire nation of Israel (e.g., Isa 42:19), …”0

Likewise, he refers to the “bestowal of the Spirit by the Messiah promised by the Old

Testament prophets”0, when a few pages earlier he explains that “the Old Testament prophecies

depict the Spirit as coming from God and never expressly the Messiah”0.

0
. Ibid., 315.
0
. Ibid., 322.
0
. Ibid., 163.
0
. Ibid., 308.
0
. Ibid., 181.
0
. Ibid., 176.
 7

In parts of the book, he describes that a particular aspect is “generally agreed”0 to, but

does not provide sufficient footnoted references to confidently make such an assertion. Again,

these are minor inconsistencies in an otherwise outstanding act of scholarly research.

Last but not least, while Saucy does an outstanding job of contrasting dispensational to

non-dispensational thought, on one occasion, he leaves this contrast wanting: while he references

Radmacher’s statement0 as a proof point of dispensational thought that the church had its

beginning at Pentecost, he does not elaborate on what the non-dispensational view is.

CONCLUSION

Saucy’s book on progressive dispensationalism stands out because of his continuous

effort to argue from the Scripture extensively rather than “wax theological” without the

appropriate backing from the two testaments. In addition, Saucy does not fall into the trap of

allegorically interpreting those passages that seem to hinder rather than help his argumentation,

but rather allows for future interpretive space.

As reviewer Morrison points out, “As all participants in this discussion must be, Saucy is

and wants only to be a hearer and teacher of the Word. In the past both sides have often lacked

his concern and peaceable temper.”0 Saucy has succeeded in giving this reader a renewed

confidence in arguing the continued role of Israel in the future development of God’s plan.

0
. Ibid., 146. See also p. 272.
0
. Ibid., 175.
0
. John D. Morrison, “Book Reviews,” in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Volume 38, 1
(Lynchburg, VA: Evangelical Theological Society, 1995), 117.
 8

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brand, Chad. Charles Draper. Archie England et al., Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary.
Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003.

Morrison, John D. “Book Reviews.” In Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Volume
38. 1. Lynchburg, VA: Evangelical Theological Society, 1995.

Saucy, Robert L. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism: The Interface between
Dispensational & Non-Dispensational Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993.