Proposed Perspectives For Dispensational Theology

At the outset, it should be acknowledged that it is nearly impossible to capture every variation within dispensational theology with precision. Any attempt at classification will inevitably invite calls for further nuance or other forms of categorizations. With that said, my aim here has been to be both fair and faithful to the ongoing discussion, while also attempting to introduce greater clarity where I believe some ambiguity has persisted.

The primary motivation for constructing this table is personal. I have found the existing categorizations of dispensationalism increasingly overwhelming and, at times, unclear. Most of the current framing has been reduced to a discussion between traditional vs. progressive dispensationalism. While there are many overlapping components among the various positions, there are also crucial theological and hermeneutical distinctions that are frequently flattened or obscured by broad labels.

For well over a decade I have called myself a “revised/progressive” dispensationalist, however, over time I have found that language to be too ambiguous to be genuinely helpful. What I have been seeking is a way to identify a theological “sweet spot” between what is commonly called traditional (or revised, using Blaising’s earlier terminology) dispensationalism and what is now more fully developed as progressive dispensationalism.

I am calling this “sweet spot” soft-progressive dispensationalism—I know, I know, bear with me. With the recent online publication by Cory Marsh, where James Fazio represented Traditional Dispensationalism, and Michael Vlach represented Progressive Dispensationalism, I really felt that I needed to clarify some things in my own mind on this subject.

Link to the articles:

An Introduction to the Major Biblical-Theological Systems

While Vlach was apparently comfortable with the progressive designation, his stated theological commitments do not align with what have become defining features of progressive dispensationalism as articulated by Blaising and Bock—most notably an inaugurated Davidic kingdom and the use of a complementary hermeneutic. In other words, Vlach does not affirm the core tenants that make progressive dispensationalism what it is today, yet he felt comfortable enough to bear the torch for the “progressives” which I thought was quite interesting.

Further complicating matters is the work of Paul Martin Henebury, who attempts to chart a different trajectory toward a new position he calls “biblical covenantalism.” Henebury has set the idea of “dispensations” to the side while opting for more focus upon the biblical covenants as well as a more Christological focus. This development also shows that there is a de-emphasizing of core aspects of traditional dispensationalism.

Taken together, all of this shifting suggests that something is happening within dispensational theology itself. I am convinced that traditional dispensationalism is being pushed toward new formulations, while there is still a resistance to go fully toward what Bock and Blaising have formulated.

An additional caveat should be mentioned. None of the men that I list under “soft-progressive” have affirmed my proposed new category, nor have they publicly identified themselves using this label. I simply believe that as a descriptive label it provides value to help those of us charting our own way to better understand where our theology might align.

Why the category “soft-progressive“? The motivation for introducing a soft-progressive category is methodological in nature. It doesn’t imply a new school, movement, or tradition, but rather it functions as a *descriptive* category intended to capture a consistent set of theological beliefs that cannot be adequately classified as either traditional or what I am calling “hard-progressive.”

Several dispensational theologians commonly grouped under the umbrella of “progressive dispensationalism” explicitly reject key commitments that have come to define that framework—most notably: an inaugurated Davidic kingdom, complementary hermeneutic, and a prophetic typology. At the same time, these theologians are somewhat sympathetic to variations of inaugurated eschatology, pressing for some form of “spiritual/mystery” kingdom during the church age, and a greater integration of kingdom-covenant and Christological details—this includes a greater emphasis on the redemptive-historical continuity and less on the discontinuity that is often associated with dispensations.

With that said, it is my opinion that dispensationalism is morphing here into a something else that isn’t completely progressive, nor is it quite traditional. It’s a sort of “soft” or “lite” form of progressive theology that avoids much of the baggage that comes with that term.

If you’ve made it this far, please feel free to leave a comment, provide some thoughts and opinions. As one that has wrestled with this I am always happy to have the input of others.

Thank you all, I pray this is helpful in moving the dialogue forward.

Click to access proposed-perspectives-for-dispensational-theology-v3.pdf