swanson church search for definition

7/30/2019 Swanson Church Search for Definition

1/38

THE CHURCH: A SEARCH FOR DEFINITION

Erik Swanson

Box #325

TH828- Seminar in Dispensational TheologyOctober 27, 2009


2/38

CONTENTS

Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1

Covenantal View of the Church...................................................................................... 3

Modified Dispensational View of the Church ................................................................ 5

The Nature of the Church............................................................................................ 6The Uniqueness of the Church.................................................................................... 7

Progressive Dispensational View of the Church .......................................................... 10The Nature of the Church.......................................................................................... 11

The Uniqueness of the Church.................................................................................. 16

Implications of the Dispensational Views of the Church ............................................. 23Implications of the Modified Dispensational View.................................................. 23

Implications of the Progressive Dispensational View.............................................. 26

Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 32

Bibliography ................................................................................................................. 35


3/38

1

Introduction

Over 40 years later, Ryrie is still right in pointing out that distinguishing between Israel

and the church is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a

dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive.1 The deciding factor

in eschatology is still what one does with the line between Israel and the church. Covenantalism

has no real line; classic dispensationalism has a broad, dark, and well defined line; and modified

dispensationalism has a narrower, but still well defined line. The most recent movement within

dispensationalism, known as progressive dispensationalism, has again altered the line between

Israel and the church by making significant changes to the definition of the church. Some would

say that progressives, by redefining the church, have blurred the line so as to destroy any

meaningful distinction between Israel and the church. If the church and Israel become so

blurred in dispensationalism that there is no separation between them, dispensationalism will

become as extinct as the pitied dodo bird.2

Some even question if the progressives can still

legitimately call themselves dispensational.3 Progressives would reject such claims though,

believing themselves to be finding the biblical center between dispensationalism and

covenantalism.

Are the progressive dispensationalists right? What is their new understanding of the

church? What are the implications of this view of the church and how does it affect eschatology

1Charles C. Ryrie,Dispensationalism, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2007), 46.

2Stanley D. Toussaint, Israel and the Church of a Traditional Dispensationalist, in Three Central Issues

in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views, ed. by Herbert W.

Bateman IV (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1999), 227.

3 Ryrie,Dispensationalism, 191.


4/38

2

and dispensationalism? The following paper aims to answer these questions. The purpose of

this paper is not to fully evaluate the movement and beliefs of progressive dispensationalism.

Rather the focus is on exploring progressive dispensationalisms redefinition of the church.

Many distinctives of progressive dispensationalism will be left out. Issues such as their view of

an inaugurated Davidic covenant fall outside the scope of this paper. Instead, focus will be paid

exclusively to what progressives say about the nature of the church.

In order to be able to better understand the progressives new definition of the church and

its many implications, a certain foundation is required. Therefore, this paper will first explore a

covenantal and modified dispensational understanding of the church. How do these other major

camps define the church, and for modified dispensationalism, what makes the church unique?

More attention will be paid to the modified dispensational view, as this view will be compared

and contrasted with the progressive view later. After laying this foundation, the progressive

understanding of the church will be explained. What do progressives think of the church and are

they able to maintain enough of a meaningful distinction between Israel and the church to remain

dispensational?

One final preface is needed before getting started. The purpose of this paper is to

explore relatively uncharted territory. Since progressive dispensationalism is so recent, there has

been very little scholarly interaction with their view of the church. It seems like the response or

interaction with progressive dispensationalism has been focused on their view of the Davidic

covenant, while their view of the church has taken a backseat. Therefore this paper aims to bring

the progressive view of the church to the forefront a little more. The goal of this paper is to help

others think through the definition of the church and understand what these different camps


5/38

3

believe. On the flip side, the goal is not to take sides or evaluate the merits of these views at this

point. Although this certainly needs to be done, this must be saved for a future paper.

Covenantal View of the Church

Although this paper does not aim to evaluate the covenantal understanding of the church,

nevertheless it is useful to see what they believe, especially since some accuse the progressives

of getting too close to a covenantal view of the church. What is the covenantal view of the

church and what is the basis for their belief?

Overall, covenantalists believe that the church is the people of God in every age. All of

the saved, past, present, and future, compose the true church. This of course includes Israel.

Israel in the OT was the church, and the church today really is just the new or true Israel.4

Some see the church as Israels replacement, while others see it as Israels fruition. One

definition is that the church is a congregation or an assembly of the people of GodThe church

existed in the old dispensation as well as in the new, and was essentially the same in both, in

spite of acknowledged institutional and administrative differences.5 Thus for covenantalists,

there is no real dividing line between Israel and the church.

Covenantalists of course claim their view of the church and Israel comes from a right

study of Scripture. Covenant theology begins with continuity rather than discontinuity, not

because of any a priori bias, but because Scripture itself moves from promise to fulfillment, not

4Anthony A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing

Company, 1979), 198.

5 Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941), 571.


6/38

4

from one distinct program to another and then back again.6

This claim is in a sense true, but

only when founded on a hermeneutic governed by New Testament priority. The New Testament

leads covenantalists to reinterpret the Old Testament promises and purposes for Israel as being

transferred to the church, so one can say that theNew Testamentmakes quite clear that God has

no such separate purpose for Israel. 7 What is it about the New Testament that leads

covenantalists to see such continuity between Israel and the church? Overall it is the

soteriological unity they see between the people of God. Poythress says, The unity of the

people of God is secured by the unity of the one Head, Jesus ChristWe find that the unity of

the one work of salvation implies a unity of the new humanity that is saved in Christ. Hence the

conclusion is not far behind that there is only one people of God.8 This soteriological unity is

seen to supersede any other meaningful distinctives between Israel and the church, and so the

two are seen as essentially one.

Much more can be said about the covenantal understanding of the church; this is just a

brief survey. A modified dispensationalist would strongly disagree with mostly everything just

stated. Progressives, however, would find many points of agreement. One in particular is the

soteriological unity among the people of God. In so doing, though, can progressives still

maintain a meaningful distinction between Israel and the church? Before answering this

question, an examination of what modified dispensationalists believe is needed.

6Michael Horton, God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006),

20.

7Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 199.

8Vern S. Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalism, 2nd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1994),

127.


7/38

5

Modified Dispensational View of the Church

Since the nineteenth century, there have been three basic trends within dispensationalism:

the classic dispensationalism of Darby, Chafer, and Scofield (late 1800s-1940s); the modified

dispensationalism of Walvoord, Pentecost, Ryrie, and McClain (1950-1985); and the progressive

dispensationalism of Blaising, Bock, and Saucy (1985-present).9 Classic dispensationalists

formulated a doctrine of the church based on a radical dualism between Israel and the church.

There are two separate and distinct peoples of God: Israel and the church. God also has separate

and distinct plans and purposes for these two people groups, with no overlap. Israel has an

earthly program and the church a heavenly. As such the discontinuity between Israel and the

church is great. Toussaint comments, In the original form of Darbys dispensationalism, the

line drawn between Israel and the church was heavy, dark, and broad.10

Although it is the

original view, the classical dispensational understanding of the church will not be explored any

further here because most dispensationalists since the mid-1900s have dropped this radical

dualism between Israel and the church. Rather, it is more worthwhile to discuss the more recent

modified dispensational view of the church. These modified dispensationalists have maintained

a strong discontinuity between Israel and the church while dropping the eternal dualism between

the two and terms like earthly and heavenly. But how exactly do modified dispensationalists

define the church? What support do they give for their view and what are its implications?

9Michael J. Vlach,Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths (Los Angeles: Theological

Studies Press, 2008), 9-12.

10Toussaint, Israel and the Church of a Traditional Dispensationalist, Three Issues in Contemporary

Dispensationalism, 228.


8/38

6

The Nature of the Church

Traditional dispensationalists see the church as a separate anthropological group in this

dispensation or a distinct body of saints in this age.11

The church is not a nation that competes

with other nations per se, but some have gone so far as to say that the church is a type of nation

based on 1 Peter 2:9.12 Inherent in this definition of the church as a distinct body of saints is the

church having a different divine program from Israel and the Gentile nations, both in the past and

the future. Walvoord writes, Dispensational ecclesiology defines the church as a distinct body

of saints in the present age having its own divine purpose and destiny and differing from the

saints of the past or future ages.

13

As mentioned above, traditional dispensationalists have

dropped the classical eternal dualism of heavenly and earthly peoples, but they have mostly

retained thinking of the church as a parenthesis or intercalation in Gods program. The church

has interrupted Gods plan for Israel and stands as a distinct group with a distinct plan. Along

these lines, modified dispensationalists have reorganized the people of God by people groups. It

is no longer the heavenly versus the earthly, but simply Israel and the church. Even though these

two groups enjoy the same salvation by Gods grace through faith, they are still distinct as they

have different structures, dispensational prerogatives, and responsibilities.14

In keeping with their view that the church is a distinct anthropological group, modified

dispensationalists also see the church as having a definite starting and ending time. To them, this

11Charles C. Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1953), 136.


13John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959), 224.

14Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Wheaton, IL: BridgePoint,

1993), 32.


9/38

7

is part of the very nature and definition of the church. The beginning of the church is marked by

the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost and the end of the church is marked by the pretribulational

rapture. Saints saved in this time frame make up the church, and the church is made up of only

those saints saved in this time frame. Walvoord notes that most expositors agree that the New

Testament church in some sense began on the Day of Pentecost and will likewise end when

Christ comes for His church at the rapture.15

Additionally, Pentecost explains how book-ending

the church with Pentecost and the rapture leads to a distinction between the church and Israel.

He comments, Prior to Pentecost there were saved individuals, but there was no church, and

they were a part of spiritual Israel, not the church. After the day of Pentecost and until the

rapture we find the church which is His body, but no spiritual Israel. After the rapture we find

no church, but a true or spiritual Israel again.16

Walvoord exemplifies how these definite

boundaries on the start and end of the church are absolutely central to the modified

dispensationalists definition of the church.

The Uniqueness of the Church

Modified dispensationalists argue that the church is a distinct people group or

anthropological category, but what exactly makes the church so distinct or unique? What

support do they give for the uniqueness of the church? First, in a general sense, many point out

how the New Testament authors consistently maintain a distinction between the church, Gentiles,

and Israel (Eph 2:11-16; 1 Cor 10:32). For instance, the term Israel is used seventy-three times

15John F. Walvoord, The Church in Prophecy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1964), 22. See also Lewis

Sperry Chafer and John F. Walvoord,Major Bible Themes, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 236.

16 Dwight J. Pentecost, Things to Come (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958), 199.


10/38

8

in the New Testament, each time referring to ethnic Israel (hence the significance of Rom 11:26).

Natural Israel and the Gentiles are contrasted (Acts 3:12; 4:8 21:28; Rom 10:1; 1 Cor 10:32);

natural Israel and the church are contrasted (Rom 11:1-25; 1 Cor 10:32); and Jewish Christians

and Gentile Christians are contrasted (Rom 9:6; Gal 6:15-16). These groups are not blurred, but

kept distinct, so the New Testament presents the church as unique.

In a more specific and helpful sense, though, the uniqueness of the character of the

church as put forth by modified dispensationalists is supported by three arguments. First is the

mystery nature of the church. For modified dispensationalists, a mystery is any truth that was

not previously revealed in Scripture. Although the church is never actually labeled a mystery,

the term mystery is used of the distinctive elements of the truth concerning the church.17 These

elements include the unity of Jews and Gentiles on equal footing in the church (Eph 3:4-6) and

the indwelling of Christ in believers which makes the church a living organism (Col 1:27).

Both of these distinctives are unique with the church and were not known or experienced by

Gods people in Old Testament times or even during the earthly lifetime of our Lord (c.f. Jn

14:20).18 The first of these distinctives, the church being the one new man, was not revealed in

the Old Testament and certainly wasnt in operation until after the death of Christ, according to

modified dispensationalists. The second distinctive, the new indwelling relationship of Christ,

was also unrevealed in the Old Testament and is now true only of the church. The context of

Colossians 1:27 speaks of the body of Christ three times (vv18, 22, 24), showing without a doubt

that it is the members of the church who are indwelt by Christ. For modified dispensationalism,

17Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, 231.



11/38

9

these two aspects of the mystery nature of the church set it apart as a distinct and unique body of

saints. With the appearing of these mysteries, clearly something new is taking place.

The second argument modified dispensationalists use to support the uniqueness of the

church in this age is Pentecost being the inauguration of the church with the baptism of the Holy

Spirit. Every Christian is made a member of the church through baptism with the Spirit (1 Cor

12:13) and this only takes placed after Pentecost (Acts 2), therefore the church is unique and

unlike any body of saints before it. Dispensationalism insists that the people of God who have

been baptized into the Body of Christ and who thus form the Church are distinct from saints of

other days or even of a future time.

19

Since the church is equated with the body of Christ (Eph

1:22-23; Col 1:18), and since the body is formed through Spirit baptism (1 Cor 12:13), then the

church (only) is formed through Spirit baptism and this sets it apart as a unique body of saints or

anthropological group in this dispensation.

The third argument modified dispensationalists use in favor of their view that the church

is unique is the use of specific terminology for the church, such as body. Ryrie argues that

the distinct character of the church is rooted in its unique relationship to the living Christ as the

body of which He is the Head (c.f. Eph 1:22-23; Col 1:18; 1 Cor 12:27).20

The body could not

exist without its head, Jesus, and He did not assume that role until after His death and

resurrection. Likewise the body could not have any spiritual gifts until after Jesus ascension,

when He gave gifts to the church (Eph 4:7-8). If the church was in existence in the Old

Testament, it would be without a head and without gifts and therefore useless. But it is clear that

19Ibid., 147.

20 Ibid., 144.


12/38

10

only the church is the body of Christ, and this makes the church unique to this age. Israel and

other Old Testament saints were not part of the body, did not have Christ as their head, and did

not have spiritual gifts. So modified dispensationalists conclude that the body of Christ

contrasts sharply with the relationship of God to Israel and Gentiles in the Old Testament and is

a unique situation limited to the present age.21 This makes the church unique.

To sum, modified dispensationalists view the church as a distinct anthropological group

or body of saints in this present age. The church began at Pentecost and will end at the rapture,

and during this dispensation God is fulfilling a different program with the church. A sharp line

of discontinuity is drawn between the church and all other people groups (most prominently

Israel) because of the distinct and unique nature of the church. The uniqueness of the church is

argued on three fronts: the mystery nature of the church as seen in the one new man and

indwelling relationship with Christ; the beginning of the church at Pentecost with Spirit baptism;

and the unique relationship of the church as the body of Christ. Since the church is so unique

and well defined, it must be a distinct body of saints existing only in this present age. This

modified dispensational understanding of the church of course has many far reaching

implications, which will be explored later. But first, an understanding of the progressive view of

the church is in turn.

Progressive Dispensational View of the Church

Over the past twenty years, a trend within dispensationalism has sprung up known as

progressive dispensationalism. The literature for this new iteration of dispensationalism has

been dominated by three men: Craig Blaising, Darrell Bock, and Robert Saucy. Their aim is to

21 Chafer and Walvoord,Major Bible Themes, 278.


13/38

11

find the biblical center, a mediating position between traditional dispensationalism and

covenantalism. Along these lines, progressive dispensationalism comes with a new definition of

the church.

The Nature of the Church

Progressive dispensationalism has modified and even redefined the traditional

understanding of the church. The best representation of this new understanding is found in

Blaising and Bocks defining workProgressive Dispensationalism. As representatives or

founding fathers of progressive dispensationalism, the best way to grasp this new view of the

church is by tracing the argument given in Progressive Dispensationalism. Three prominent

areas of changes are worthy of note: the definition of the church, the redemptive plan for the

church, and the future of the church.

First, progressive dispensationalists have redefined the church. As already mentioned,

earlier dispensationalists have always viewed the church as a separate people group or

anthropological category (like a nation). This makes the church a very definite group of people

which consequently can be easily contrasted with Israel. Indeed, earlier dispensationalism has

thrived off such stark discontinuity with Israel based on this view of the church. Progressives,

however, do not view the church as a separate people group but rather as redeemed humanity

itself. Blaising and Bock explain:

One of the striking differences between progressive and earlier dispensationalists, is that

progressives do not view the church as an anthropological category in the same class as

terms like Israel, Gentile Nations, Jews, and Gentile people. The church is neither a

separate race of humanity (in contrast to Jews and Gentiles) nor a competing nation

(alongside Israel and Gentile nations), nor is it a group of angelic-like humans destined


14/38

12

for the heavens in contrast to the rest of redeemed humanity on the earth. The church is

precisely redeemed humanity itself (both Jews and Gentiles) as it exists in this

dispensation prior to the coming of Christ.22

Certainly this redefinition is a step toward the covenantal view of the church. In fact the only

real distinction between the two is the phrase in this dispensation in the progressive view.

Progressives still maintain meaningful distinctions between Israel and the church though and

therefore still consider themselves dispensational.

Aside from redefining the church as simply the redeemed of this dispensation,

progressive dispensationalists also put forth a modified understanding of the redemptive plan for

the church. Like classical and modified dispensationalists, progressives definitely see a place for

Israel and the nations in Gods eternal plan of redemption. However, progressives believe that

the church is a vital part ofthis very same plan of redemption.23 In other words, when the

church comes on the scene, it is not Gods plan B or a secondary redemption plan for some elite

class of Jews and Gentiles (i.e. the church). God has just one eternal plan of redemption for all

mankind, not two or more. This is the exact opposite of classical dispensationalisms heavenly

plan for the church and earthly plan for Israel. And although modified dispensationalism has

dropped this heavenly/earthly distinction, they still see the church and Israel as having separate

futures and plans of redemption. So among dispensationalists, the progressives are alone in

promoting a soteriological and redemptive unity amongst all of the redeemed. Blaising and

Bock write:

22Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 49.

23 Ibid., 47.


15/38

13

Progressive dispensationalism advocates a holistic and unified view of eternal salvation.

God will save humankind in its ethnic and national plurality. But, He will bless it with

the same salvation given to all without distinction; the same, not only in justification and

regeneration, but also in sanctification by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. These

blessings will come to all without distinction through Jesus Christ, the King of Israel and

of all the nations of redeemed humanity.24

This soteriological unity amongst the redeemed is strikingly similar to the covenantal view, but

again, progressives claim to make other important distinctions between Israel and the church.

Finally, progressive dispensationalism represents a new understanding of the church by

modifying the future of the church. In keeping with a holistic and unified plan of redemption,

the church, which is just redeemed humanity in this dispensation, will join together with all of

the redeemed from the other dispensations and all will enjoy the same covenant blessings and

promises. This of course needs some explanation. To start, progressives believe that the salvific

promises and blessings given in the Old Testament, particularly those of the new covenant, will

be given to all the redeemed in the future without distinction. In other words, the spiritual

blessings of the new covenant are not just for millennial Israel in the future and the church right

now. In the future, after the resurrection, all of the redeemed will share equally in the blessings

of the Spirit. Again, Blaising and Bock explain, Those Jews and Gentiles who compose the

church prior to Christs coming join the redeemed Jews and Gentiles of earlier dispensations to

share equally in resurrection glory. Those who during their dispensation had certain blessings

only in promise or in an inaugurated form will all be brought to the same level of complete

24 Ibid., 47-48.


16/38

14

fulfillment when they are raised together from the dead.25

One can see how this makes for a

less distinct future of the church. It is a far cry from classic dispensationalisms very distinct

heavenly future for the church to say the least. However, keep in mind that progressives are not

claiming that all distinctions are removed from the people of God in the future. Rather, in a

redemptive or soteriological sense only, there is a unity among the people of God as all share in

the covenant blessings equally. This in one respect blends the future of the church in with the

other peoples of God.

The previous quote by Blaising and Block brings up one final point about how

progressives understand the nature of the church. It has to do with how progressives view the

dispensations. Progressives view each dispensation as a progressive revelation of the final

kingdom and people of God. What marks off the previous dispensation was that none of the

covenant blessings had been inaugurated; this present dispensation is marked off by the

inauguration of some of the covenant blessings; and the future dispensation will be marked off

by a complete fulfillment of all the covenant blessings.26

From the beginning of history until the

end, with each new dispensation, God is bringing redeemed humanity progressively closer to the

fullness of the blessing that awaits them in eternity. If the present dispensation is marked off by

the inauguration of some of the covenant blessings, then what does this mean for the church?

This means that the church is a sneak preview27

of the kingdom of God or a functional

25Ibid., 50.

26 Progressives have simplified their understanding of a dispensation. The test/fail scheme of earlierdispensationalists has been dropped. The number of dispensations has also been reduced or simplified to four. See

Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 48.

27Darrell L. Bock, The Reign of the Lord Christ, inDispensationalism, Israel, and the Church: The

Search for Definition, ed. by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House,

1992), 53.


17/38


18/38

16

are one people because all will be related to him through the same covenant salvation.31

All of

the redeemed of all the ages will share in the same covenant salvation and blessings in the future

after the resurrection. A soteriological unity doesnt mean the church and Israel are to be

equated though. Saucy adds, But this fundamental unity in a relation to God through Christ

does not remove Israels distinction as a special nation called of God Nor does it define the

totality of the people of God as Israel, requiring that the church is somehow a new Israel.32

Progressive dispensationalisms new understanding of the church seemingly comes very

close to the covenantal understanding. Yet Blaising, Bock, and Saucy would all maintain that

the church still has meaningful discontinuities with Israel that keep the two distinct. Instead of

asserting a radical dichotomy of purpose and destiny, they see both Israel and the church as

belonging to the one people of God and serving one historical purpose. Nevertheless, a clear

distinction between dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists remains.33 What is this clear

distinction? What discontinuities do progressives see between Israel and the church? They have

already broken from traditional dispensationalists in saying that there is a soteriological

continuity among the redeemed, so where do they find discontinuity?

The Uniqueness of the Church

First off, earlier dispensationalists saw the church as unique in three categories:

spiritually, anthropologically, and nationally. Spiritually, the church is distinct from Israel in

31Saucy, Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, 190.

32Ibid., 190; also Robert L. Saucy, Israel and the Church: A Case for Discontinuity, in Continuity and

Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, ed. by John S. Feinberg

(Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1988), 241.

33 Ibid., 187.


19/38

17

that it has a different redemption. Both are saved by grace through faith, but the church does not

share in Israels eternal plan of redemption or the fullness of Israels spiritual blessings.

Progressives have rejected this distinction as already expressed. Anthropologically, earlier

dispensationalists see the church as distinct from Israel in that it is a separate people group or

anthropological category. Modified dispensationalists support this belief with three primary

arguments: the mystery nature of the church, the church as being inaugurated at Pentecost and

undergoing Spirit-baptism, and the use of specific terminology for the church, such as body. 34

Because of these factors, argue modified dispensationalists, the church is a separate and well-

defined people group. Progressives reject these three arguments though, which will be shown

below. This of course leads them to see the church not as a separate people group, but rather as

simply all of the redeemed of this present age. Finally, nationally, earlier dispensationalists saw

the church as unique because it did notshare in the national identity and promises of Israel, nor

the physical blessings. This is the one distinct mark of the church that the progressives retain.

The church is nationally or politically unique and progressives argue that this is significant and

sufficient enough to maintain a discontinuity between Israel and the church. This too will be

shown below.

First in order then is an explanation of why progressive dispensationalism rejects seeing

the church as a distinct anthropological entity. For the sake of brevity, the focus will only be on

why progressives reject the three arguments modified dispensationalists gives for seeing the

church as a unique people group. Whereas Blaising and Bock were most helpful in explaining

the progressive definition of the church, Saucys work in The Case for Progressive

34 See the above section titled The Uniqueness of the Church under the Modified Dispensational section.


20/38

18

Dispensationalism is most helpful here in explaining why progressives reject these traditional

distinctions.

First, progressive dispensationalists do not see the church as a mystery in the traditional

sense.35

Saucy lists three ways a mystery may be considered to have been hidden and later

revealed: 1) A mystery may be hidden in symbol or language with an inner meaning (c.f. Rev

1:20; Eph 5:32); 2) A mystery may be hidden because its truth has never been the subject of

objective revelation (c.f. 1 Cor 15:51); and 3) A mystery may be hidden in the sense that its truth

has not yet been realized.36

Progressives raise the question, If the mystery of Christ and the

divine plan of salvation has already been the subject of Old Testament prophecy, then in what

sense can it be said to have been hidden and only now revealed by the New Testament apostles

and prophets?37

For this reason, they view the mystery of the church as belonging to category 3

abovethe church was hidden in the sense that its truth had not yet been realized. In other

words, hidden does not mean totally unknown but rather not yet existing. The mystery of

the one new man in Ephesians 3 is interpreted in this manner, leading progressive

dispensationalists to agree with the non-dispensationalists that Pauls teaching concerning the

mystery of the church as union of Jew and Gentile in Christ is a fulfillment of Old Testament

predictions.38 Since they view the one new man as teaching primarily a soteriological reality

among the people of God, they see this as in line with the Old Testament prophetic picture (c.f.

Isa 2:4; 12:3-4; 42:6; 49:6; 52:15; 53:12; 56:7; Mic 4:3; Zec 9:9-10). The same goes for the

35See Saucys chapter, The Church as the Mystery of God, inDispensationalism, Israel, and the Church.

36Saucy, Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, 148-50.

37Ibid., 150.

38 Ibid., 164.


21/38

19

mystery of the indwelling Christ, which traditional dispensationalists have used to support the

concept of the church as a unique work of God during the present age and consequently a distinct

entity from Israel and the nations.39

This is not unrevealed in the Old Testament, just

unrealized. So progressive dispensationalists reject the argument that the church is a distinct

body of saints based on its mystery nature. Keep in mind though that they believe the union of

Jew and Gentiles in the church does not rule out the possibility of functional distinctions between

Israel and the other nations in the future.40

The second way progressives reject the traditional argument for the uniqueness of the

church as a people group is by not seeing Spirit baptism as being unique to the church. Modified

dispensationalists contend that since the church is a distinct work of God in this present age,

Spirit baptism is only applicable to the church. Progressives find this especially problematic

because the New Testament writers frequently associate the coming of the Spirit with the

fulfillment of Gods promise.41

Saucy, after exegeting the six New Testament texts that

mention Spirit baptism, concludes that baptism with the Spirit is nothing less than the

fulfillment of the Old Testament eschatological promises related to the new presence and

ministry of the Spirit with the people of God.42

Progressives will admit that the Old Testament

did not explicitly promise that the Gentiles would receive the Spirit, but it did predict that the

Gentiles would share in the messianic salvation, which comes with the Spirit. Since progressives

hold that all believers of all ages will eventually share the same new covenant salvation in

39Ibid., 168.

40Ibid., 167.

41Ibid., 175.

42 Ibid., 182.


22/38

20

heaven, all will at that time receive the Spirit. To them the baptism of the Spirit is not a defining

mark of the church from Pentecost to the rapture, but rather is the sharing by members of the

church in the Spirits ministry of the new covenant, a ministry which others will share in as

well.43

Finally, progressives reject the traditional argument that specific terminology, such as

body, applies only to the church and sets it apart. Overall, progressives do not believe that the

body of Christ metaphor applies only to the church. Traditionally, such metaphors as the body

of Christ or the bride of Christ have been interpreted as descriptions of the church as a distinct

entity rather than as simply figurative language used to describe spiritual truth that may be

applied to others beside the church.44 In this case, the church is a separate people group like

Israel or the Gentile nations. But progressives see these metaphors as teaching a particular truth

in a given context and not making broad statements about the identity of the church. In other

words, these metaphors cannot be applied to other contexts unless this is made explicit. For

example, Paul finds the body metaphor a useful analogy for explaining the nature of the church,

but does he intend this metaphor to be used to define the church as a unique people group? This

depends on whether or not the truths communicated by this analogy can be found true of other

people groups. Progressives find in their examination of Scripture that yes, the truths

surrounding the concept of the body can be applied to the entire community of the redeemed.

Since the body metaphor is elaborating new covenant realities, and since all the redeemed share

in the same new covenant salvation, then this image is applicable to other believers outside the

43Ibid., 183.

44 Ibid., 184.


23/38

21

church. Hence progressive reject seeing specific terms and metaphors as making the church a

spiritually unique body of believers.

Regarding the three spiritual realities just discussed (the mystery nature of the church,

Spirit baptism, and metaphors of the church), Saucy concludes, We have argued that these

spiritual realities are essentially the fulfillment of the promised new covenant salvation. Since

this salvation was promised to both Israel and the nations, these realities that are new with the

coming of Christ and the Spirit are not unique to the church They belong to all Gods people and

are, in fact, that which finally binds them together as the people of God.45

Rather than seeing

these three spiritual realities as making the church unique, progressives see them as part of the tie

that binds the people of God together in the future.

Thus far, progressive dispensationalists have rejected the church as being spiritually and

anthropologically unique, as demonstrated above. Then in what sense do they maintain a

meaningful uniqueness for the church? How is the church distinct from Israel? The answer rests

in the national distinctiveness ofIsrael. Saucy puts it plainly: Rather than in spiritual realities

related to New Covenant soteriology, the distinction between the church and Israel is to be found

in Israels identity as a nation (c.f. Acts 15:14).46

The Old Testament foresaw such a

distinction. The nations were predicted to enjoy the same new covenant salvation blessings as

Israel, but this wouldnt happen by the nations becoming Israel and losing their national

distinctiveness. God would extend His new covenant blessings to the Gentiles, but the Old

Testament nowhere teaches that the Gentiles receive these blessings of the covenant by being

45Ibid., 208.

46 Saucy, A Case for Discontinuity, in Continuity and Discontinuity, 251.


24/38

22

incorporated into and becoming a part of Israel herself.47

The same is true of Israel and the

largely Gentile church. The church, where Jews and Gentiles come together to share in the same

new covenant salvation, is not Israel. The church is not a nation or even a people group. As

such the church does not assume any of the national or physical promises God made to Israel.

The church is unique from Israel because God made the Old Testament covenants and

promises with Israel and therefore these must be fulfilled with national Israel. All of the

redeemed will share in the spiritual blessings of these covenants, as foreseen in the Old

Testament, however only national Israel can fulfill the physical and national aspects of these

covenants. So Israel as a nation among the nations does have a different purpose than the

church. This is not a contradiction to what progressives have said earlier. Soteriologically, all of

the redeemed share in the same eternal plan of God. However, nationally, politically, and

socially, the church and Israel have different purposes. Dispensationalism is known for its

recognition of multiple purposes in divine redemption. These include earthly, national, political,

social, and spiritual purposesDispensationalists also recognize that some of these purposes

have been emphasized more strongly in some dispensations than others. However,

understanding the relationship between these different purposes has always been a problem.48

Traditional dispensationalism, Blaising and Bock go on to say, is known for giving Israel and the

church a different purpose in everything (e.g. earthly, national, political, social, and spiritual

purposes). Instead, though, they find it more accurate to see the only real difference being

national, political, and social. This, they argue, is certainly enough to make a distinction

47Saucy, Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, 125.

48 Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 46.


25/38

23

between Israel and the church. The church is not Israel therefore and this is the primary reason

progressives still call themselves dispensationalists. The church had not taken Israels place in

Gods program. Instead, it validated Gods faithfulness to His people through its Jewish remnant

of faith, and it has served as the provocative means of Israels future fullness that will bountifully

enrich the world.49

Implications of the Dispensational Views of the Church

The progressive dispensational view of the church is novel in the dispensational world.

Covenantalists have taken similar views of the church, but they go further by removing all

distinction between the church and Israel, including national and political differences. But what

are the implications of such a view coming from a dispensational camp? Are there

inconsistencies with their approach to the church? Before exploring the implications of the

progressive view, it is useful to point out some of the implications of the modified view as well.

Although it has had more time to develop, what are the implications of the modified

dispensational view?

Implications of the Modified Dispensational View

Entire books have been written on this subject so only a few pertinent points will be made

here. Modified dispensationalism has brought Old Testament Israel and millennial Israel

together into one eternal group: the redeemed of Israel. They have done the same with Old

Testament and millennial Gentiles. However, those Jews and Gentiles saved during the church

49J. Lanier Burns, Israel and the Church of a Progressive Dispensationalist, in Three Central Issues in

Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views, ed. b Herbert W. Bateman

IV (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1999), 275.


26/38

24

age belong to neither group but are kept distinct from those other Jews and Gentiles throughout

eternity.50 This is acceptable to modified dispensationalists because they view the church as a

separate people group or anthropological category, just like a nation. Is this a valid distinction

and then what implications does such an eternal distinction of the peoples of God have?

First one must question whether such an eternal distinction between Israel, the nations,

and the church is valid. Modified dispensationalists would stand by this distinction, but one

must question if this is an artificial distinction. The prophetic picture of the Old Testament

consistently contrasts Israel and the nations (or Gentiles). The church is not a part of this picture.

It is always Israel vs. the nations, not Israel vs. the nations vs. the church. Although modifieds

would answer that this is because the church is a mystery, even many New Testament authors

continue this trend. For instance, Paul in Romans 11 contrasts Israel with the Gentiles, not Israel

with the church. This present age is described as the time of the Gentiles, not the time of the

church (Lk 21:24). It is also interesting that in the picture of the new heavens and earth given in

Revelation 21-22, the church is not mentioned, but the nations are mentioned three times.

Revelation was written for the churches (Rev 22:16) but the church is not directly referenced as a

people group in the eternal state. Perhaps this is why every modified dispensationalist has a

different view on the churchs role in eternity. Either Scripture is just silent on the matter, or this

may be an artificial eternal distinction.

Breaking up the people of God like this may have some unforeseen implications as well.

Modified dispensationalism believes that Jews saved during the church age become Christians

and now belong to the church or body of Christ. As such they lose their Jewish inheritance and

50 Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 307 (note 33).


27/38

25

blessings. In the future, they will not join with national Israel, but will remain with the church.

So even though this large Jewish remnant within the church are Israelites, even true Israelites,

with whom God made these promises, God is going to set aside His promises with them because

they are part of the church now. Granted, one could argue that being part of the church carries

greater blessings than being a part of Israel, but this is not the point. The point is that God is

setting aside His promises and blessings for these Israelites. If God can set aside His promises

and blessings for this reason (or really for any reason), then what is to stop God from setting

aside His promises and blessings for the reason of unbelief? This of course is what

covenantalists argue. If certain Israelites can lose their national identity because they are placed

in the church, why cant other Israelites lose their national identity because of unbelief? If

national identity can be forfeited or superseded for any reason, then why not unbelief? Modified

dispensationalists would never argue this point, but one could justify replacement theology as an

implication of their view of the church.

The modified dispensational view also has some significant rapture-age implications.

Since they firmly believe in a pretribulational rapture, the church is no where to be found in the

seven year tribulational period. During these seven years, God is refocusing His attention on

national Israel, so Jews saved during this time belong to the category of Israel, and Gentiles

saved during this time belong to the category of nations. The category of church is full at

this point. But this has its implications. Even though all those saved during this time will be so

by faith in Jesus Christ, they will share none of the salvation realities that come with faith in

Christ. For one, all those saved during the tribulation will not be Spirit baptized. They will not

have any spiritual gifts. They will not be the body or bride of Christ and they will not have

Christ as their head. Christ will not indwell them. Because of all this, the dividing wall between


28/38

26

Jews and Gentiles will not be broken down. The spiritual unity between Jews and Gentiles

enjoyed by the church will seemingly be gone. Is not this a significant step backward, especially

considering the progress of revelation?

All of this can be hard to believe for some because even though the church is gone, the

situation is not like that of Old Testament times. Christ has been revealed. He has died, risen,

and ascended. The Spirit has come. The dividing wall has been broken down. The body has

been formed with Christ as its head. Christ has indwelt His people. Yet all of these realities that

modified dispensationalists say make up the church are rescinded during the tribulation.

Covenantalists grasp this implication of the modified view and criticize them for it. How can

this oneness of Jew and Gentile, which is an abiding result of Christs death on the cross, be set

aside in a dispensation yet to come?51

One could take this a step further and say that all of these implications for those saved

during the tribulation also apply to those saved during the millennium. Jews saved during the

millennium will join Israel and Gentiles saved during the millennium will join the nations; the

church is already full. This does raise the question that if Israel can be added to and the nations

can be added to, why not the church? Modified dispensationalists are known for creating

elaborate pictures of the tribulation, millennium, and eternal state to explain what everything will

look like, but anyone in this camp must earnestly and biblically grapple with these implications.

Implications of the Progressive Dispensational View

Progressive dispensationalism carries its own set of implications. On the positive side,

they escape many of the modified dispensational implications stated above. To them, the church

51 Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 200.


29/38

27

is not a people group to be eternally identified with, so Jews in the church still identify with

Israel and Gentiles in the church still identify with the nations. God has not set aside His

promises for those Jews in the church as they will participate in the fulfillment in the national

promises made with national Israel. Also, progressives, in keeping with the progress of

revelation, and seeing a spiritual unity amongst the redeemed, escape the above mentioned

tribulation implications. Tribulation saints will enjoy Spirit baptism, union with Christ, and

spiritual equality between Jew and Gentile in the body of Christ. The dividing wall will not be

rebuilt during the tribulation. This does seem to be more in keeping with living on this side of

the cross.

That being said, progressives do encounter potentially problematic implications relating

to the tribulation. Namely, does the church exist in the tribulation? If tribulation saints enjoy the

same spiritual blessings as church-age saints, then what makes them distinct from the church?

Progressives would hold to a pretribulational rapture view, so they would see the present church

as being raptured before the tribulation. But if tribulation saints have all the same identifiers and

characteristics as church age saints, then isnt the church simply being cleared and reset once the

tribulation starts? Arent tribulation saints then just repopulating the church on earth? Can

progressives escape this implication, or, in other words, can they find some sufficient

discontinuity between church age saints and tribulation saints? Since they define the church as

simply the redeemed in this present dispensation, would they define tribulation saints as simply

the redeemed of the tribulation period? Is this even a meaningful distinction? It does not seem

adequate. Would some then give up a pretribulational view of the rapture? Traditionally,

dispensationalists have supported a pretribulational rapture largely because of the promise made

with the church that it would escape Gods wrath (1 Thess 1:9-10; 5:9; Rev 3:10; 6:17). Indeed,


30/38

28

Walvoord points out two essentials to the pretribulational position, both of which progressives

seemingly fail to satisfy: (1) the definition of the church as a separate body of saints distinct

from saints of other ages; (2) the doctrine of a future tribulation of unprecedented severity.52

But since dispensationalists agree the purpose of the tribulation is for Israel and the nations, and

since progressives believe the identity of being in the church does not supersede ones identity as

a Jew or Gentile, do they then have any good reason why the church in one form or another

should not be in the tribulation? Although dispensationalism does not rise or fall on a

pretribulational rapture, this is an implication that many might want an answer to before they

adopt the progressives view of the church.

Related to these tribulation implications are the implications surrounding the

progressives understanding of identity. As previously mentioned, for the progressive

dispensationalist, belonging to the church does not supersede ones former identity. Jewish

Christians still identify with Israel; Gentile Christians still identify with the nations. But what

does this really mean for Jewish Christians today? How are they to act? Are they to see

themselves and still act as a nation among nations? Should they therefore ignore the call of the

church to make disciples of the nations (Matt 28:19), instead living in such a way that the nations

come to them? Most would probably answer no to such a question, but could not one argue that

if these Jewish Christians will still inherit the national blessings (as progressives suggest), they

should still carry on the national role and responsibilities? Especially since the nation as a whole

and its leaders are unbelieving, should not believing Israel be faithful to Gods original purpose

for them? This is perhaps what is implied in 1 Peter 2. 1 Peter 2:9 has posed difficulty for

52 Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, 252.


31/38

29

traditional dispensationalists because it implies that the church is to in a sense assume the role of

national Israel. But if 1 Peter was written to Jewish Christians (which seems likely given 1:1,

2:12, and the highly Jewish context of chapter 2), then these instructions are for Jewish

Christians to continue on as a holy nation among nations. The picture then is of a remnant of

Israel within the church carrying on the national purposes during the time of the Gentiles,

waiting for the day when the nation at large will be redeemed. One could potentially reach this

conclusion based on the progressive view of the church.

A related implication/question concerning Jewish Christians is should they practice the

Mosaic Law? Is it acceptable for them to observe the practices (e.g. Sabbath) and feasts (e.g.

Passover) of the Old Testament? In the New Testament, some Jews were looking to the Law for

salvation, while others were imposing the requirements of the Law upon Gentiles as a

requirement for salvation. These are not being advocated here; Paul clearly refuted both of these

errors. But Paul also made clear that the Law is good (Rom 7:12; 1 Tim 1:8) and there are

instances in the New Testament of Paul using the Law (e.g. having Timothy circumcisedActs

16:3). And Pauls language in 1 Corinthians 9 seems to prove that it can be acceptable for

Jewish Christians to observe the Law. Paul writes, To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I

might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself

under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law (1 Cor 9:20). Jewish

Christians have freedom from the Law and are under the Law of Christ, but that freedom

includes the ability to observe the Law in a lawful sense, as it was intended. Furthermore, in

Galatians 3:28, Paul writes that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave

nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Does he

mean here that there are no ethnic distinctions between Jew and Greek anymore in the church?


32/38

30

This would imply that there are no social or gender distinctions, but this is clearly not true.

Rather, his point is that within the church, ethnic distinctions no longer divide; spiritually, all are

accepted on equal footing regardless of ethnicity. But people within the church can and do still

have distinct identities (i.e. Jew and Gentile). This being the case, what distinguishes a Jew as a

Jew? Is it not the practice of the Mosaic Law? Perhaps this above picture of Jewish Christians

retaining their Jewish identity in the church would help explain the picture of the millennium

where the nation is fully restored, worshipping in the temple, and offering sacrifices.

Traditionally, dispensationalists have rejected such thinking, that a Jewish Christian

could or even should still observe the Mosaic Law. The point here is not to advocate either view,

but to show that one could argue for such a view given the progressive understanding of the

church and ones identity within the church. In fact, some would say that the progressive view

inevitably leads to this conclusion, and some progressives are just fine with that. Blaising and

Bock seem to make an application out of this implication. They claim that some traditional

dispensationalists have not been as sensitive as they should be to existing ethnic and cultural

differences in the church because of their view of the church as a separate people group. The

result historically has been the cultural domination of one group over another within the church

(e.g. Gentilization of Jewish Christians; Anglicization of third-world Christians). But this should

not be the case. The whole point of the church is that different ethnicities can come together in

spiritual unity without losing their distinctiveness. The work of the Spirit is not cultural

domination but reconciliation, not the elimination of human, ethnic, cultural, and national

differences, but the redemption of them from enmity against the true God to holiness and from a


33/38

31

state of hostility against one another to one of peace.53

Just because the church is dominated by

Gentiles, the goal is not to make Jewish Christians into Gentile Christians. The application then

is to accept different cultures and ethnicities within the church, not eliminate them or conform

them to something else.

Moving on, there is one final implication of the progressive view, namely a less distinct

view of the church. This is of course obvious given their redefinition of the church as simply the

redeemed of this present age. A less distinct view of the church comes with potential

consequences though. One of the major accusations against progressives is that they move so far

away from traditional dispensationalism that they are not far from becoming covenantalists.

Does the progressive view truly lead to such an implication (or consequence)? Some would say

that progressives holistic and unified view of salvation is essentially the same as the covenant

of grace. At the very least, both see a strong soteriological unity among all the people of God.

This is significant because progressives themselves identify this as their defining characteristic:

progressive dispensationalisms major distinctive is found in its conception of the progressive

accomplishment and revelation of a holistic and unified redemption.54 So if progressive

dispensationalism shares its major distinctive more with covenantalism than with traditional

dispensationalism, are the accusations that the progressive view of the church leads to

covenantalism fair? Some would say yes, but progressives still say no. A study of Scripture

discloses greater unity between the church and Israel than traditional dispensationalists allow,

53Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 51.

54 Ibid., 56.


34/38

32

but does not eradicate all distinction for Israel as non-dispensationalists generally contend.55

As

long as progressives hold this line, they will be within the dispensational camp.

Though remaining essentially dispensational, it cannot be denied that the progressive

view of the church places them much closer to the covenantalist camp. But even this fact could

have positive implications regarding the rift between dispensationalists and covenantalists. For

the progressive view, the discontinuity between Israel and the church has essentially boiled down

to national distinctiveness. National Israel must fulfill the physical promises God made with

them. Progressives have thus moved seemingly all the way to the covenantal view, but stopping

one step away. However, what this also means is that covenantalists only need to take one step

to become dispensationalists (regardless of what title they assume). And this is not an

unreasonable step. Is it so hard for covenantalists to see a distinct future for national Israel

according to the Old Testament promises? If there are nations in the millennium and even the

eternal state, why cannot Israel be among those nations? Why would it be so wrong for a

restored Israel to be chief among those nations? Perhaps the progressives move in the direction

of covenantalism might help mend the rift that currently exists between these two camps.

Conclusion

Like mentioned before, Ryrie is still right: The nature of the church is a crucial point of

difference between classic, or normative, dispensationalism and other doctrinal systems. Indeed,

ecclesiology, or the doctrine of the church, is the touchstone of dispensationalism.56

Throughout the history of dispensationalism, the church has been viewed as a unique people

55Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, 143.



35/38

33

group, sharply distinct from Israel in many ways. In the past twenty years, progressive

dispensationalism has come along and redefined the church, thereby removing much of its

distinction from Israel. Progressives most notably emphasize a spiritual unity amongst the

people of God in redemption and see the church not as a separate anthropological group, but

simply as the redeemed of this dispensation.

The purpose of this paper has been to explore these differing views of the church. The

primary goal has been to understand the beliefs and implications of the modified and progressive

views of the church. The goal has not been to make evaluations or pass judgments on the merits

of these views. Although it is crucial to evaluate the biblical merits of these theological systems,

this has been saved for a future paper. The reader is left to make such evaluations based on a

better understanding of the modified and progressive views and their implications. And

regarding the implications mentioned here, it should be noted that implications do not make or

break a theological system. It is very helpful to explore possible implications when seeking to

understand a viewpoint, and sometimes implications demand answers, but ultimately if Scripture

teaches some truth, then its implications must be accepted.

A final note on some areas for future research is in order. The progressive view of the

church seems to hang on whether or not the mediatorial kingdom has truly been inaugurated

today. The same goes for the inauguration of the new covenant today. Neither of these are

foregone conclusions. Progressives firmly state that the church is a present revelation of the

kingdom, but if they are wrong, if there is no present form of the Messianic kingdom, then the

present age is something of a parenthesis.57

If it can be shown that the progressive view of an

57Toussaint, Israel and the Church of a Traditional Dispensationalist, Three Issues in Contemporary

Dispensationalism, 249.


36/38

34

inaugurated kingdom is wrong, then much of their view of the church would fall. Additionally,

how does progressive dispensationalisms unique view of an inaugurated Davidic covenant with

Jesus ruling on the Davidic throne in heaven affect their view of the church? Is there any

correlation between these two concepts? These topics have not been covered in this paper, even

though they are significant. Hopefully though this paper can serve as a starting point for

understanding the issues surrounding the nature of the church and help others progress in their

own search for the right definition of the church.


37/38

35

Bibliography

Allis, Oswald T. Prophecy and the Church. Philadelphia, PA: The Presbyterian and ReformedPublishing Company, 1945.

Benware, Paul N. Understanding End Times Prophecy: A Comprehensive Approach. Chicago:

Moody Press, 1995.

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941.

Blaising, Craig A. and Darrell L. Bock. Progressive Dispensationalism. Wheaton, IL:

BridgePoint, 1993.

Bock, Darrell L. The Reign of the Lord Christ. InDispensationalism, Israel, and the Church:The Search for Definition. Ed. by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Grand Rapids:

Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Burns, J. Lanier. Israel and the Church of a Progressive Dispensationalist. In Three Central

Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and

Progressive Views. Ed. by Herbert W. Bateman IV. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications,

1999.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry and John F. Walvoord.Major Bible Themes. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 1974.

Couch, Mal, ed.A Biblical Theology of the Church. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1999.

Giles, Kevin. What on Earth is the Church? Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995.

Hoekema, Anthony A. The Bible and the Future. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans

Publishing Company, 1979.

Horton, Michael. God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Books,

2006.

Mathison, Keith A.Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God? Phillipsburg, NJ:P&R Publishing, 1995.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. Things to Come. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958.

. Thy Kingdom Come. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1990.

Poythress, Vern S. Understanding Dispensationalists. 2nd ed. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing,1994.

Ryrie, Charles C.Dispensationalism. Rev. ed. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2007.

. The Basis of the Premillennial Faith. Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1953.


38/38

36

Saucy, Robert L. Israel and the Church: A Case for Discontinuity. In Continuity and

Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments.

Ed. by John S. Feinberg. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1988.

. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism: The Interface Between Dispensational &Non-Dispensational Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

. The Church as the Mystery of God. In Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church: TheSearch for Definition. Ed. by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Grand Rapids:

Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Toussaint, Stanley D. Israel and the Church of a Traditional Dispensationalist. In Three

Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and

Progressive Views. Ed. by Herbert W. Bateman IV. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications,

1999.

Vlach, Michael J.Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths. Los Angeles:

Theological Studies Press, 2008.

Walvoord, John F. The Church in Prophecy. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1964.

. The Millennial Kingdom. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959.

. The Rapture Question. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979.

Woudstra, Marten H. Israel and the Church: A Case for Continuity. In Continuity andDiscontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments.

Ed. by John S. Feinberg. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1988.

swanson church search for definition

Documents