Traditional vs. Progressive Dispensationalism Compared

This article is a summary of the opening chapter of my forthcoming book on Progressive Dispensationalism.

This comparative chart serves an indispensable role in dispensationalist literature. It is high time that critics of Progressive Dispensationalism moved beyond sweeping generalizations, misrepresentations, and caricatures of the position. The chart makes unmistakably clear that not every PD holds that Jesus literally sits on the Davidic throne, not every PD adopts the complementary hermeneutic, and not every PD claims the Davidic Kingdom has been inaugurated.

Several points should be kept in mind from the outset:

• Do not confuse an inaugurated Davidic covenant with an inaugurated Davidic kingdom: some progressive dispensationalists say that the Davidic covenant has already been inaugurated (Vlach and Saucy) while still denying that the kingdom itself has been inaugurated. That distinction has not been noticed as often as it should be.
• Only Darrell Bock, among the figures represented here, says that Christ is literally seated on David's throne.
• Robert Saucy makes the claim that Jesus is already on David's throne; however, he interprets it metaphorically as the reception of royal authority, not as Christ's literal session on the future Davidic throne.
• Not every progressive dispensationalist says that Jesus is already reigning. Michael Vlach and Robert Saucy both deny that Christ is presently reigning in the Davidic kingdom.
• Both Michael Vlach and Robert Saucy affirm kingdom postponement.
• The "Traditional Dispensationalism" column is presented as a tendency rather than as a single author. It is therefore intentionally generalizing, since the table is already too crowded to represent multiple traditional dispensationalist authors separately.

Comparison Table

99.99% of PD critics embarrass themselves with sweeping generalizations that amount to a crude caricature of the system. And these misrepresentations don't just show up in casual conversations or Facebook groups I'm part of—they appear heavily in the academic literature, in scholarly articles published in major theological journals.

It's striking that to this day, no one has bothered to map the internal differences within progressive dispensationalism. Instead, everything gets lumped together under a caricatured label that reflects at most one or two authors, while ignoring several others—Saucy, one of the system's own founders, among them. My hope is that this chart will help even traditional dispensationalists critique the system on its actual merits—and when a particular theme belongs to a specific author, treat it as such rather than projecting it onto the entire system. That alone would be a major step forward.

Based on the chart above, what I believe to be the true essence of Progressive Dispensationalism — the common ground shared by all its authors — can be stated as follows: Progressive dispensationalism holds that the present dispensation is not an intercalation in God's covenantal program but an organic phase of it, in which the Davidic and New Covenants have been initially inaugurated, the church participates in those covenant promises as the initial eschatological community, and Israel retains its distinct future role within a single people of God. This is the core of the system, and this is what ought to be critiqued when one sets out to critique Progressive Dispensationalism as a whole. Those who wish to criticize specific elements such as complementary hermeneutics or Christ's present session on the Davidic throne should direct their critique at the particular authors who hold those positions, not at the system itself.

I believe Vlach has indeed captured the essence of Progressive Dispensationalism. After affirming that PD holds to the core beliefs of dispensationalism, he then describes the real emphasis of PD in two points:

“

Progressive dispensationalism holds to the core beliefs of dispensationalism as found in the lists of Ryrie and Feinberg above. But there are certain noteworthy emphases. First, PD traces God's workings in history mostly from the unfolding of the biblical covenants in history, and less on the traditional seven dispensations. Many progressive dispensationalists believe in the traditional dispensations of dispensationalism but choose to focus more on the biblical covenants and the implications of Jesus's two comings for tracking God's workings in history.
Second, PD believes the church of this age experiences partial and realized fulfillments of the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New covenants. These covenants were made with Israel and will be fulfilled in all their dimensions with Israel, but since these covenants were also intended to bless Gentiles someday (see Gen 12:3; 2 Sam 7:19; Isa 52:15), it is accurate to see the church as experiencing spiritual blessings of the covenants of promise. Thus, PD uses the word "fulfill" for what God is doing with the church regarding the covenants. This fulfillment involves the arrival of Jesus and spiritual blessings associated with the covenants. Yet the fulfillment of physical and national promises, including those related to national Israel, awaits Jesus's return. (Michael J. Vlach, "Progressive Dispensationalism" in JBTS Vol. 9)

To illustrate the point: criticizing Progressive Dispensationalism on the basis of elements that are not constitutive of the system and not held by all of its authors is like criticizing Traditional Dispensationalism as a system that teaches the existence of two distinct new covenants — one made with Israel and another made with the church. Although Chafer, and initially Walvoord and Ryrie, did teach this, and although they are undeniably important authors within the tradition, the two-new-covenants view is not a defining characteristic of Traditional Dispensationalism as a system and does not represent all of its proponents. The same principle applies in reverse.

Dispensationalism as a whole has long suffered from misrepresentations and fake news — accusations of teaching two ways of salvation and many others. Progressive Dispensationalism now suffers the very same treatment, only this time the misrepresentations come from within the dispensationalist family itself. It is deeply ironic: the same kind of distortions that traditional dispensationalists have rightly complained about for decades are now being perpetuated by them against a sister system.

Again, it must be stressed: the initial inauguration of the Davidic covenant does not mean that all progressive dispensationalists affirm an initial inauguration of the Davidic kingdom. As the chart above demonstrates, Vlach and Saucy hold that the Davidic covenant has been inaugurated through the resurrection and exaltation of the Messiah, who has received all authority, while still denying that the Davidic kingdom itself has been inaugurated or that Christ is presently reigning in it. These are two distinct affirmations, and conflating them is one of the most common mistakes made by critics of the system.