In his book Basis of the Premillennial Faith written in 1953 Charles Ryrie gave a summary of the issues surrounding the "New Covenant" in dispensationalism: "If the Church does not have a new covenant then she is fulfilling Israel's promises, for it has been shown that the Old Testament teaches that the new covenant is for Israel alone. If the Church is fulfilling Israel's promises as contained in the new covenant or anywhere in Scripture, then premillennialism is weakened. One might well ask why there are not two aspects to one new covenant. This may be the case, and it is the position held by many, but we agree that the amillennialist has every right to say of this view that it is 'a practical admission that the new covenant is fulfilled in and to the Church.' However, since the New Testament will support two new covenants, is it not more consistent premillennialism to consider that Israel and the Church each has a new covenant?" [emphasis added] (Ryrie, Basis of the Premillennial Faith [Neptune,NJ: Loizeaux Bros., 1953], p. 118).

To stress the importance of recognizing two New Covenants he says that "the one covenant, two aspects interpretation absolutely contradicts the entire premillennial system" (Ibid., p.108)

Today things have changed and the "traditional" dispensationalists no longer even attempt to defend the idea of "two" New Covenants. Progressive Dispensationalist Bruce A. Ware writes the following: "First, readers are perhaps aware of an earlier dispensational view, advocated, for example, by Chafer and at one time by Walvoord and Ryrie. According to this view, in order to maintain the distinction between Israel and the church as separate peoples of God, the new covenant promised to Israel was distinct from the new covenant enacted with the church. Although this view was defended vigorously by its proponents, it has been uniformly abandoned by dispensationalists (including Walvoord and Ryrie), who recognized, as Blaising acknowledges, that such a two new covenants view 'is really a defenseless position'" (Blaising & Bock, Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, [Zondervan Publishing House, 1992], p.91).

This study has demonstatrated that the "two new covenants view" is NOT a defenseless position. In fact, one of Progressive Dispensationalist's leading experts on typology himself makes remarks that can lead to only conclusion, and that conclusion is that Israel's New Covenant is a "type" of today's New Covenant.

Robert P. Lightner, adjunct faculty member of Tyndale Theological Seminary and former Professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary, offers a stern warning in regard to the danger of Progressive Dispensationalism: "Again, it is my privilege to have an opportunity to talk to you about this matter of Progressive Dispensationalism...We are afraid of the long, slippery slope and of what will happen...I am deeply concerned about what has happened in the last 10 or 15 years, and I honestly fear for the future in some areas...We're losing ground, not only to covenant theology, but to progressive dispensationalism as well" (An Address Given Before the: Conservative Theological Society 2nd Annual Meeting, August 3, 1999 Tyndale Seminary, Ft. Worth, Texas).

The foundation of the ideas promoted by the Progressive Dispensationalists is the mistaken belief that there is only one New Covenant. Progressive Dispensationalist Robert L. Saucy writes: "While the new covenant stands as a replacement for the Mosaic covenant, it bears an entirely different relationship to the covenants of promise, that is, the covenants made with Abraham and David. Nowhere does Scripture speak of the new covenant's rendering either of these covenants obsolete. Rather, the new covenant is the means through which these covenants attains final fulfillment" (Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism [Zondervan Publishing House, 1993], p.121).

The mistaken belief that the Scriptures speak of only one "New Covenant" is but one link in a catena of errors promoted by the Progressive Dispensationalists. However, it is the first and most important because that false idea is the very foundation of their false teaching. Take away that foundation and Progressive Dispensationalism comes tumbling down like a child's house of cards.

Zane Hodges says the following about Psalm 40 and Hebrews 10:5: "This Psalm prophetically anticipated some of Christ's words at His First Advent. The phrase 'a body You prepared for Me' is one Septuagint rendering of the Hebrew expresssion 'You have dug ears for Me'. The Greek translator whose version the author of Hebrews used (obviously translating with the help of the Holy Spirit), construed the Hebrew text as a kind of figure of speech (technically called synecdoche) in which a part is put for the whole. If God is to 'dig out ears' He must 'prepare a body.' " (Walvoord & Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary; New Testament (ChariotVictor Publishing, 1983), p.803).

July, 2007