What do you think?
Rate this book
Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, The
Debate abounds on the future of Israel and Israel's relation to the Church. Saucy affirms that the Old Testament prophecies are completely fulfilled in the future, the nation of Israel has a prophetic future, and Israel is not the Church. But he shows that the fulfillment of OT prophecy begins in the present church age and there is a continuity between the Church and the OT messianic program rather than an unrelated mystery parenthesis.
- GenresTheology
336 pages, Paperback
First published September 13, 1993
8 people are currently reading
71 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
January 22, 2013
The Positive
It is laden with fewer assumptions than more classical dispensationalist writings. For example, it isn’t just assumed off the bat that Israel and the church are two completely separate peoples of God with two separate eternal rewards. Instead, Saucy gives some texts that demonstrate that, although they are separate entities and the nation of Israel has a future, they are ultimately one people of God. The new covenant, though not fulfilled, has been inaugurated, and the Gentiles who know Christ are partaking of the blessings of the Jewish Messiah already. Thus it is progressive dispensationalism. It is, though accessible, nonetheless much more scholarly and much freer of emotional rhetoric and appeals than the writings of some popular-level dispensationalists (e.g. Lahaye, Hagee)
Dr. Saucy does a good job of refuting some of the arguments of covenant theologians. He points out successfully that there is certainly an earthly dimension to many prophecies and passages about the Messiah. They aren’t all just metaphors where the original meaning has been superseded and it all speaks of us flying away from earth to heaven.
Overall, a lot of what I find clearly wrong with traditional dispensationalism is shed from the view Saucy holds (at least insofar as he holds it). Although I do take issue with Saucy’s literalism, it is less extreme and better explained than that of some other writers I have come across. Also, this form of dispensationalism doesn’t relegate Christ’s bride to a sort of Plan B for God, nor does it claim that the church, this current union of Jews and Gentiles in the Messiah, was totally unheard of in the Old Testament.
And some of what Saucy says makes sense. For example, when the New Testament speaks of “Israel,” it clearly is referring to the Jewish people at least most of the time. There are good points to be made.
The Negative
- At times it is noticeable that assumptions about the end times color Dr. Saucy’s interpretations of key passages he points to. In the chapter on the Davidic covenant, in order to argue that Jesus is not currently reigning today, he points to several passages from Luke and Acts to demonstrate that Luke taught that Jesus would not begin reigning until after His physical return. And yet, the passages he cite include Luke 19:31 (which is from a parable, and if the timing is followed precisely, would if anything say the opposite), Luke 22:31 (where Jesus speaks of the kingdom coming after a bunch of stuff happens, and then in the next verse tells the disciples that “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all things take place” which partial preterists like me are quick to point out for good reason), and Acts 1:6-7, where disciples ask about when the kingdom will be restored o Israel (which only proves that Jesus’ kingdom reign begins at His physical return if you already believe that it only begins with this restoration of Israel and not before). Regarding Psalm 110, he says that it demonstrates that the messianic prophecy has been inaugurated (thereby disproving the traditional dispensationalist idea that all messianic prophecy is irrelevant to the church and only applies to the Jews), but considers it “radically re-interpreting the Old Testament” to suggest that Jesus is currently ruling as well (which Verse 4 says is the case of the one in view, in the midst of His enemies, no less). And yet, He doesn’t clearly explain why that is. It is more or less assumed that David was referring to a strictly earthly reign in the Psalm, and thus, the Psalm proves that Jesus’ reign is not occurring the earth now from Heaven. But, that’s a bit circular, isn’t it? We know that the Psalm teaches this because we know the Psalm teaches this?
Another such example: Similarly, how Luke 14:14 is demonstrated as a prooftext that there are two different resurrections that occur apart from one another, one before the millennium, and one after. But, to speak of the “resurrection of the righteous” need not mean that it occurs at a different point in time. Even if both are resurrected at the same time, there is quite a huge difference between them. One awakes to salvation, the other to damnation (John 5:29). One will reap decay, the other, eternal life (Galatians 6:8). What makes them so distinct isn’t when they occur (even if they do occur at different times), but what happens when they do. Same goes for passages like Philippians 3:11. With the exception of a literal interpretation of Revelation 20:1-6, none of the passages he points to which that speak of 2 different resurrections actually places a difference in time between them. In fact, John 5:28, taken at face value, seems to indicate the two different resurrections happen at the same time (although it is not necessarily so).
- At times, points are unjustifiably extrapolated from things Saucy does successfully demonstrate. For example, as mentioned before, he argues against the view, fairly common among critics of dispensationalism, that things spoken of as pertaining to earth are all just some metaphor for us dying and going to Heaven. However, this doesn’t really prove that there is a literal millennium. I think the reasoning here is supposed to be that since the Messiah will reign on earth, where else would it be but during the millennium? But why not during the eternal state? After all, the meek will inherit the earth. There will be a new heavens and a new earth. In Revelation, the holy city comes from heaven to earth. The Bible never says you “go to heaven,” but that we have heavenly rewards, a heavenly city, etc. Well, if heaven and earth are remade, and if it is anything like the admittedly metaphor-filled description seen at the end of Revelation, who is to say that God doesn’t bridge heaven and earth? That would solve a lot of our problems of interpretation. Of course, that also means that all Saucy has demonstrated is that Jesus will rule on earth, not that He does so in a special, really-great-but-still-not-perfect millennium.
- It has the occasional false dilemma and loaded question. For example: “But does the New Testament support this hope and include what we might call a millennial phase in the fulfillment of the kingdom? Or have the Old Testament prophecies been transformed by apostolic teaching concerning the unbelief of Israel and the establishment of the church?” (pg. 273). No one is saying that the apostles transformed what the prophets said. Those who don’t hold to premillenialism don’t think the prophets meant that in the first place...
- His attempt to prove premillenialism in Chapter 11 is a weak point. Admittedly, this is somewhat secondary, as there are premillenialists who are not dispensationalists, and although few use these use the D-word, some hold to a dispensational view of the place of Israel without holding to premillenialism. But it is key overall system most dispensationalists, progressive and traditional alike, hold to, and thus was a significant part of the book (pretty much all of Chapter 11).
Considering the binding of Satan in Revelation 20, for example, he doesn’t even argue against the specific arguments commonly employed (like the possible allusion to Matthew 12:29, or the fact that, as even Saucy admits, there will still be sin in the millennial kingdom, meaning Satan’s work isn’t exactly without its fruit even while he is bound). It also applies a very literal hermeneutic to what is the most symbolic and arguably figurative book in the whole Bible. It’s not that amillenialist don’t know that “come to life” means physical resurrection in pretty much the whole New Testament. The argument is that, in a book of dragons and women clothed in the sun and beasts who represent people and empires, where an angel just threw a dragon into a big hole, that this vision itself represents something. He sees the men come to life, a resurrection, but this itself is symbolic of one of several ideas that amillenialists have. These things aren’t even mentioned or considered. Even if they aren’t great arguments, they are better than the nothing that Saucy tries to refute here.
Some arguments made are questionable. He cites a number of passages that speak of saints reigning with Christ in the future, and since in “the end” Christ gives the kingdom to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:28), this period must be the millennium. But some of the passages he cites calls that into question. It is true that the Hebrew “olam” doesn’t always mean everlasting in a literal sense, but in Daniel 7:27, there is no mention of a distinct period of rule before the actual everlasting Kingdom that will be God’s in the new heavens and earth. Here is nothing there to point to or indicate an end to the saints having this kingdom. Then again, that is true of a lot of passages about the future glories after Jesus returns...
He then admits that the saints will reign with God in eternity, according to Revelation 22:5, but that this cannot be what is in view because...well, after rereading this part several times, I don’t get what he means (this is in Chapter 11). He points to passages like Psalm 8 and 110 and Hebrews 2 and how they show that Christ’s current rulership over creation does not fulfill these passages, showing that the reign with Christ must be something future, and not current. That makes sense, but then that just becomes evidence that it can’t be referring to the eternal state, which is future. I feel that there was some sort of disconnect there.
The theological and philosophical argument that Christ’s work just isn’t fulfilled if it doesn’t take place within “history,” a distinction the Bible never makes, is also weak and assumption-laden. Two can play at this theology-philosophy game. For example, if the righteous are already in Heaven with God, wouldn’t their being resurrected in a millennial world that Saucy admits still has sin and strife be a downgrade of their condition?
- Some arguments made just don’t follow. For example, it is argued that there is no gradual subjugation of Christ’s enemies currently, something that was begun a the cross and will be completed and/or made manifest at his physical return, because He is currently sitting at God’s right hand as His enemies are made a footstool (he just refers to “Hebrews” but I assume he means 1:13). But what if God, who is specifically the one who is said to put the enemies under Christ’s feet in the first place, is doing that now? It doesn’t say that Christ is waiting for the moment where He will come and start doing it; it says He is waiting for this to be made the case. One might counter that Jesus can’t be reigning if right now He is not subjugating His enemies. But if we are going to take these statements so literally that Jesus is inactive in the process now (never mind that He is the Lord and that God is triune), then we would have to say it is, as 1 Corinthians 15 never says Jesus destroy His enemies, but that God does it for Him. By this reasoning, Jesus would never reign at all, since He never is the one who puts His enemies under His feet!
Things I Would Ask If this Were a Doctoral Dissertation and I Was on the Committee
- That said, certain questions, some rhetorical, still remain.
- What of the passages that I pointed to above that I don’t think were adequately addressed (like Psalm 110:4)? (I’d be more specific if this were a doctoral dissertation committee, of course.)
- How can we say the prophets should be read at face value in just about everything they say when both sides, at some point, have to ignore the face value meaning of a prophecy and interpret it differently to maintain the integrity of scripture? Take Isaiah 65:17-24, for example. Some take the whole passage is being figurative and understated. In the new heavens and the new earth that Isaiah mentions in Verse 17, it is not that there will literally be death anymore. After all, Isaiah already said that there will be no more death in Chapter 25. And even if men live well over 100, sure there will still be tears. Yet Isaiah tells us in Verse 19 that there will be no more crying or weeping. How can this be if there is death? Even the patriarchs, who were as old as dirt, left tearful loved ones behind (e.g. Genesis 50:1). His talking of men living well over 100 if they are righteous is simply appealing to a vision of things that people could understand better than the ethereal, pie-in-the-sky (though absolutely true) things he says in other places in his book. It’s like telling a kid that Heaven will involve getting to eat all the hot fudge sundaes you want they can better relate to it, even though you’ve told them that it will actually be quite different (in some ways), and way better. It’s hard to imagine way better,” but its easy to imagine sundaes. That may sound like a bit of verbal gymnastics to some, but the only alternative is to take it literally and say that Isaiah contradicts both himself (both in 25:9 and the same freaking chapter) and the rest of scripture by saying that the righteous will die in the new heavens and earth, giving people cause to weep, or that Isaiah, starting in Verse 18, is actually talking about the millennium. Even though Isaiah never mentions a millennium here (or anywhere), or says anything that would indicate to the reader that he is going from a vision of the eternal age with no death that he just mentioned to a vision of the age before it, he is doing that anyway. That isn’t exactly taking it literally or at face value...In several other passages, including ones that Saucy points to, to actually take it literally (not just dispensationalist “literally) leaves us some theological problems. To just assume that anything that, if taken literally about the future would be at odds with New Testament teachings, is the good but still imperfect millennium even when no indication is given isn’t necessarily any less arbitrary than taking things a bit more figuratively. That’s why Bible scholars and apologists need to be really knowledgeable about the Bible and how it works and how to interpret it, because not everything can be taken literally all the time (like Isaiah 65).
In regards to the above, I will say, as a credit to Saucy, although I don’t think it is perfectly applied in some of the prophetic passages he looks at, he does make the point that the dispensationalist vs. covenantalist debate isn’t a difference in literal vs. figurative, but to when and how passages will be taken literally vs. figuratively.
Conclusion
So, this book leaves me not convinced of progressive dispensationalism. In fact, in some ways it leaves me somewhat more convinced that much of what I like about progressive dispensationalism is that it is simply less like traditional dispensationalism than traditional dispensationalism is. It definitely doesn’t change my mind, and I am by no means part of the “dispensationalists are barely Christians if at all!” camp within Reformed circles that brought us its fair share of anti-dispensationalist polemical writings in the last century. However, he does show that it is a much stronger view than the traditional dispensationalism of Darby and Scofield that Saucy himself critiques, which is half the battle. And fairly often, I did found myself saying that the broader, less specific theological insights he makes were good. Overall, the book was okay, succeeding in some parts while being less successful in others.
It is laden with fewer assumptions than more classical dispensationalist writings. For example, it isn’t just assumed off the bat that Israel and the church are two completely separate peoples of God with two separate eternal rewards. Instead, Saucy gives some texts that demonstrate that, although they are separate entities and the nation of Israel has a future, they are ultimately one people of God. The new covenant, though not fulfilled, has been inaugurated, and the Gentiles who know Christ are partaking of the blessings of the Jewish Messiah already. Thus it is progressive dispensationalism. It is, though accessible, nonetheless much more scholarly and much freer of emotional rhetoric and appeals than the writings of some popular-level dispensationalists (e.g. Lahaye, Hagee)
Dr. Saucy does a good job of refuting some of the arguments of covenant theologians. He points out successfully that there is certainly an earthly dimension to many prophecies and passages about the Messiah. They aren’t all just metaphors where the original meaning has been superseded and it all speaks of us flying away from earth to heaven.
Overall, a lot of what I find clearly wrong with traditional dispensationalism is shed from the view Saucy holds (at least insofar as he holds it). Although I do take issue with Saucy’s literalism, it is less extreme and better explained than that of some other writers I have come across. Also, this form of dispensationalism doesn’t relegate Christ’s bride to a sort of Plan B for God, nor does it claim that the church, this current union of Jews and Gentiles in the Messiah, was totally unheard of in the Old Testament.
And some of what Saucy says makes sense. For example, when the New Testament speaks of “Israel,” it clearly is referring to the Jewish people at least most of the time. There are good points to be made.
The Negative
- At times it is noticeable that assumptions about the end times color Dr. Saucy’s interpretations of key passages he points to. In the chapter on the Davidic covenant, in order to argue that Jesus is not currently reigning today, he points to several passages from Luke and Acts to demonstrate that Luke taught that Jesus would not begin reigning until after His physical return. And yet, the passages he cite include Luke 19:31 (which is from a parable, and if the timing is followed precisely, would if anything say the opposite), Luke 22:31 (where Jesus speaks of the kingdom coming after a bunch of stuff happens, and then in the next verse tells the disciples that “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all things take place” which partial preterists like me are quick to point out for good reason), and Acts 1:6-7, where disciples ask about when the kingdom will be restored o Israel (which only proves that Jesus’ kingdom reign begins at His physical return if you already believe that it only begins with this restoration of Israel and not before). Regarding Psalm 110, he says that it demonstrates that the messianic prophecy has been inaugurated (thereby disproving the traditional dispensationalist idea that all messianic prophecy is irrelevant to the church and only applies to the Jews), but considers it “radically re-interpreting the Old Testament” to suggest that Jesus is currently ruling as well (which Verse 4 says is the case of the one in view, in the midst of His enemies, no less). And yet, He doesn’t clearly explain why that is. It is more or less assumed that David was referring to a strictly earthly reign in the Psalm, and thus, the Psalm proves that Jesus’ reign is not occurring the earth now from Heaven. But, that’s a bit circular, isn’t it? We know that the Psalm teaches this because we know the Psalm teaches this?
Another such example: Similarly, how Luke 14:14 is demonstrated as a prooftext that there are two different resurrections that occur apart from one another, one before the millennium, and one after. But, to speak of the “resurrection of the righteous” need not mean that it occurs at a different point in time. Even if both are resurrected at the same time, there is quite a huge difference between them. One awakes to salvation, the other to damnation (John 5:29). One will reap decay, the other, eternal life (Galatians 6:8). What makes them so distinct isn’t when they occur (even if they do occur at different times), but what happens when they do. Same goes for passages like Philippians 3:11. With the exception of a literal interpretation of Revelation 20:1-6, none of the passages he points to which that speak of 2 different resurrections actually places a difference in time between them. In fact, John 5:28, taken at face value, seems to indicate the two different resurrections happen at the same time (although it is not necessarily so).
- At times, points are unjustifiably extrapolated from things Saucy does successfully demonstrate. For example, as mentioned before, he argues against the view, fairly common among critics of dispensationalism, that things spoken of as pertaining to earth are all just some metaphor for us dying and going to Heaven. However, this doesn’t really prove that there is a literal millennium. I think the reasoning here is supposed to be that since the Messiah will reign on earth, where else would it be but during the millennium? But why not during the eternal state? After all, the meek will inherit the earth. There will be a new heavens and a new earth. In Revelation, the holy city comes from heaven to earth. The Bible never says you “go to heaven,” but that we have heavenly rewards, a heavenly city, etc. Well, if heaven and earth are remade, and if it is anything like the admittedly metaphor-filled description seen at the end of Revelation, who is to say that God doesn’t bridge heaven and earth? That would solve a lot of our problems of interpretation. Of course, that also means that all Saucy has demonstrated is that Jesus will rule on earth, not that He does so in a special, really-great-but-still-not-perfect millennium.
- It has the occasional false dilemma and loaded question. For example: “But does the New Testament support this hope and include what we might call a millennial phase in the fulfillment of the kingdom? Or have the Old Testament prophecies been transformed by apostolic teaching concerning the unbelief of Israel and the establishment of the church?” (pg. 273). No one is saying that the apostles transformed what the prophets said. Those who don’t hold to premillenialism don’t think the prophets meant that in the first place...
- His attempt to prove premillenialism in Chapter 11 is a weak point. Admittedly, this is somewhat secondary, as there are premillenialists who are not dispensationalists, and although few use these use the D-word, some hold to a dispensational view of the place of Israel without holding to premillenialism. But it is key overall system most dispensationalists, progressive and traditional alike, hold to, and thus was a significant part of the book (pretty much all of Chapter 11).
Considering the binding of Satan in Revelation 20, for example, he doesn’t even argue against the specific arguments commonly employed (like the possible allusion to Matthew 12:29, or the fact that, as even Saucy admits, there will still be sin in the millennial kingdom, meaning Satan’s work isn’t exactly without its fruit even while he is bound). It also applies a very literal hermeneutic to what is the most symbolic and arguably figurative book in the whole Bible. It’s not that amillenialist don’t know that “come to life” means physical resurrection in pretty much the whole New Testament. The argument is that, in a book of dragons and women clothed in the sun and beasts who represent people and empires, where an angel just threw a dragon into a big hole, that this vision itself represents something. He sees the men come to life, a resurrection, but this itself is symbolic of one of several ideas that amillenialists have. These things aren’t even mentioned or considered. Even if they aren’t great arguments, they are better than the nothing that Saucy tries to refute here.
Some arguments made are questionable. He cites a number of passages that speak of saints reigning with Christ in the future, and since in “the end” Christ gives the kingdom to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:28), this period must be the millennium. But some of the passages he cites calls that into question. It is true that the Hebrew “olam” doesn’t always mean everlasting in a literal sense, but in Daniel 7:27, there is no mention of a distinct period of rule before the actual everlasting Kingdom that will be God’s in the new heavens and earth. Here is nothing there to point to or indicate an end to the saints having this kingdom. Then again, that is true of a lot of passages about the future glories after Jesus returns...
He then admits that the saints will reign with God in eternity, according to Revelation 22:5, but that this cannot be what is in view because...well, after rereading this part several times, I don’t get what he means (this is in Chapter 11). He points to passages like Psalm 8 and 110 and Hebrews 2 and how they show that Christ’s current rulership over creation does not fulfill these passages, showing that the reign with Christ must be something future, and not current. That makes sense, but then that just becomes evidence that it can’t be referring to the eternal state, which is future. I feel that there was some sort of disconnect there.
The theological and philosophical argument that Christ’s work just isn’t fulfilled if it doesn’t take place within “history,” a distinction the Bible never makes, is also weak and assumption-laden. Two can play at this theology-philosophy game. For example, if the righteous are already in Heaven with God, wouldn’t their being resurrected in a millennial world that Saucy admits still has sin and strife be a downgrade of their condition?
- Some arguments made just don’t follow. For example, it is argued that there is no gradual subjugation of Christ’s enemies currently, something that was begun a the cross and will be completed and/or made manifest at his physical return, because He is currently sitting at God’s right hand as His enemies are made a footstool (he just refers to “Hebrews” but I assume he means 1:13). But what if God, who is specifically the one who is said to put the enemies under Christ’s feet in the first place, is doing that now? It doesn’t say that Christ is waiting for the moment where He will come and start doing it; it says He is waiting for this to be made the case. One might counter that Jesus can’t be reigning if right now He is not subjugating His enemies. But if we are going to take these statements so literally that Jesus is inactive in the process now (never mind that He is the Lord and that God is triune), then we would have to say it is, as 1 Corinthians 15 never says Jesus destroy His enemies, but that God does it for Him. By this reasoning, Jesus would never reign at all, since He never is the one who puts His enemies under His feet!
Things I Would Ask If this Were a Doctoral Dissertation and I Was on the Committee
- That said, certain questions, some rhetorical, still remain.
- What of the passages that I pointed to above that I don’t think were adequately addressed (like Psalm 110:4)? (I’d be more specific if this were a doctoral dissertation committee, of course.)
- How can we say the prophets should be read at face value in just about everything they say when both sides, at some point, have to ignore the face value meaning of a prophecy and interpret it differently to maintain the integrity of scripture? Take Isaiah 65:17-24, for example. Some take the whole passage is being figurative and understated. In the new heavens and the new earth that Isaiah mentions in Verse 17, it is not that there will literally be death anymore. After all, Isaiah already said that there will be no more death in Chapter 25. And even if men live well over 100, sure there will still be tears. Yet Isaiah tells us in Verse 19 that there will be no more crying or weeping. How can this be if there is death? Even the patriarchs, who were as old as dirt, left tearful loved ones behind (e.g. Genesis 50:1). His talking of men living well over 100 if they are righteous is simply appealing to a vision of things that people could understand better than the ethereal, pie-in-the-sky (though absolutely true) things he says in other places in his book. It’s like telling a kid that Heaven will involve getting to eat all the hot fudge sundaes you want they can better relate to it, even though you’ve told them that it will actually be quite different (in some ways), and way better. It’s hard to imagine way better,” but its easy to imagine sundaes. That may sound like a bit of verbal gymnastics to some, but the only alternative is to take it literally and say that Isaiah contradicts both himself (both in 25:9 and the same freaking chapter) and the rest of scripture by saying that the righteous will die in the new heavens and earth, giving people cause to weep, or that Isaiah, starting in Verse 18, is actually talking about the millennium. Even though Isaiah never mentions a millennium here (or anywhere), or says anything that would indicate to the reader that he is going from a vision of the eternal age with no death that he just mentioned to a vision of the age before it, he is doing that anyway. That isn’t exactly taking it literally or at face value...In several other passages, including ones that Saucy points to, to actually take it literally (not just dispensationalist “literally) leaves us some theological problems. To just assume that anything that, if taken literally about the future would be at odds with New Testament teachings, is the good but still imperfect millennium even when no indication is given isn’t necessarily any less arbitrary than taking things a bit more figuratively. That’s why Bible scholars and apologists need to be really knowledgeable about the Bible and how it works and how to interpret it, because not everything can be taken literally all the time (like Isaiah 65).
In regards to the above, I will say, as a credit to Saucy, although I don’t think it is perfectly applied in some of the prophetic passages he looks at, he does make the point that the dispensationalist vs. covenantalist debate isn’t a difference in literal vs. figurative, but to when and how passages will be taken literally vs. figuratively.
Conclusion
So, this book leaves me not convinced of progressive dispensationalism. In fact, in some ways it leaves me somewhat more convinced that much of what I like about progressive dispensationalism is that it is simply less like traditional dispensationalism than traditional dispensationalism is. It definitely doesn’t change my mind, and I am by no means part of the “dispensationalists are barely Christians if at all!” camp within Reformed circles that brought us its fair share of anti-dispensationalist polemical writings in the last century. However, he does show that it is a much stronger view than the traditional dispensationalism of Darby and Scofield that Saucy himself critiques, which is half the battle. And fairly often, I did found myself saying that the broader, less specific theological insights he makes were good. Overall, the book was okay, succeeding in some parts while being less successful in others.
September 7, 2022
Saucy's treatment of progressive dispensationalism, along with its opponents and contrary systems is always fair, irenic, and thorough enough to make this the definitive work on PD.
August 21, 2021
A heavy but good read. It's heavy partly because the writing style feels a bit like a data dump, which is my main reason for not giving it 5 stars. It's also heavy because the topic is expansive and nuanced, which is to be expected. Overall the other does a very thorough job of arguing from Scripture that 1) there remains a distinct place for Israel in the future plan of God, and 2) there is also some unity between Israel and the Church as the people of God. It's a very helpful read and I fully agree with Saucy's take on this issue.
April 4, 2018
An interesting and surprisingly coherent case. The whole thing falls apart in the last chapter, though, because what he thinks the purpose of Israel is in the millennium is entirely vague. Without that clarity, it becomes pretty much historic premilennialism with a strong emphasis on Israel's land promise.c
April 2, 2020
Excellent! It is the first Saucy book that I’ve read and I was most impressed!
April 22, 2013
It took me a while to get through this book. There were many points of agreement with Saucy, but it was a really difficult book to read. Saucy isn't a horrible writer, but he's not great either. He doesn't have the ability to convey complex ideas in an accessible way. I had to stay really focused as I read and had to read paragraphs over and over again to understand what Saucy was saying. I had the same issues with Bock and Blaising's Progressive Dispensationalism. Either people of this persuasion are not great writers or their theology is just more complex. I'm not convinced this means they are wrong, they are just harder to understand. For example, it would be easier to say that the kingdom is either fully present or fully future, but to say both makes things tougher to comprehend. I will probably have to reread this book a couple years from now hoping that I will be able to understand his arguments better.
January 23, 2012
The title of this work may obscure the extent of what Saucy covers in this book. The first chapter does deal with the differences between dispensational theologies and between dispensational and non-dispensational theologies. But the rest of the book is not so much a cumulative case as it is studies of key biblical issues from Saucy's dispensational perspective. One part of the book looks at several of the biblical covenants as well as the theme of the kingdom in Scripture. Another part of the book examines aspects of ecclesiology. The final section of the book looks at the purpose of Israel in God's plan, prophecies about Israel in the OT and NT, and the fulfillment of those prophecies. There is much valuable information here.
April 25, 2023
Hyper-dispensationalism is problematic in several areas. Traditional Dispensationalism is unwilling to even talk about sacrifices in the Kingdom age. Saucy hits this head-on and early-on. However, his “Kingdom Now” theology misses the mark.
Many of us continue to take the prophecies of Israel and the Kingdom to be intact and to be fulfilled in the future. Saucy does a fine job of bringing the Scripture concerning these truths together in a logical manner. However, his “Kingdom Now” position seems to contradict it to some degree.
There were some days that the chapters drug on. And, I'm not sure the book could have ended more abruptly. I prefer the writing style of Michael Vlach in "He Will Reign Forever". That said, this is a worthy read.
Many of us continue to take the prophecies of Israel and the Kingdom to be intact and to be fulfilled in the future. Saucy does a fine job of bringing the Scripture concerning these truths together in a logical manner. However, his “Kingdom Now” position seems to contradict it to some degree.
There were some days that the chapters drug on. And, I'm not sure the book could have ended more abruptly. I prefer the writing style of Michael Vlach in "He Will Reign Forever". That said, this is a worthy read.
August 30, 2016
This book was extremely well-researched and well-written. It covers most, if not all, of the crucial points of contention within the eschatological debate, and does a fine job in handling them. I was challenged by Saucy's approach to the relationship between Israel and the Church. When many people think of Dispensationalism, they are thinking of old-school, or classic Dispensationalism, but in reality Dispensationalism has undergone serious refinement and groundbreaking changes since Darby and Scofield, and it is unfair to the movement--and simply uneducated--to fail to recognize this progression.
This book is an absolute must-read for anyone wanting to serious engage in eschatology.
This book is an absolute must-read for anyone wanting to serious engage in eschatology.
November 15, 2022
Definitely some strong exegetical work from the progressive dispensationalist side, however, the book dedicates no more than a paragraph on 1 Peter 2, and with staple covenant theology texts such as Galatians 3-4 and Romans 9, seeks not to tell the reader what they mean positively, but rather that they don’t have to mean what covenant theologians take them to mean. This form of argumentation is not particularly compelling.
February 27, 2009
This is not really a light reading on eschatology. In order to get all that this book has to offer one must come into it with a significant amount of previous understanding on the topic. All that to say, it is not an easy read. Though I do believe that this could be the fullest description of Progressive dispensationalism by an fantastic systematic theologian.
May 17, 2007
Talbot Course: Systematic Theology 4 - Eschatology
Dr. Saucy is one of the pioneers on Progressive Dispensationalism. After reading this book, I was influenced greatly on this position.
Dr. Saucy is one of the pioneers on Progressive Dispensationalism. After reading this book, I was influenced greatly on this position.
June 3, 2016
Will someone please put dispensationalism out of its misery already?
November 16, 2014
This book by one of my old professors is a step in the right direction. See also Progressive Dispensationalism by Blaising & Bock who inched a little closer to the Reformed view than Saucy.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews