Essentialist dispensationalism has always employed a consistent, literal interpretation of the Scripture from Genesis to Revelation.  Today a new, compromised hermeneutic of the former is being employed by progressive dispensationalists called a “complementary hermeneutic.”  It is granted that there have been differences of opinion in the history of dispensationalism, however, the progressives’ new approach to hermeneutics is a major change compared to earlier dispensationalism, which always taught that there was only one intended meaning of a text.  Historically, the Protestant Reformers affirmed that subjects can change in paragraphs, but there is only one subject in view in any given passage.  In other words, there is no expanded meaning that can be derived beyond the original intent of Scripture.

Both Blaising and Bock edited a book in favor of this new form of dispensationalism with the subtitle The Search for Definition, wherein they reject Ryrie’s sine qua non but do not attempt to come up with any essentials themselves!  In fact, Blaising believes that essentialist dispensationalism is the product of Baconianism and would rather have Christians to be “text-based.”[1]  The issue is whether there can be clear essentials that are demonstrated to be valid by interaction with the text.  The interpreter is told that he must recognize his “human limitations” and preunderstanding (the “hermeneutical spiral”) before exegeting Scripture.  Certainly, one must rely on the Holy Spirit to illumine the mind (1 Cor. 2), but this is not to say that a sine qua non is irrelevant.  The conclusion is one of postmodern subjectivity rather than any form of objectivity.  The result is a multilevel (up to 3 levels) reading of the text that creates a complementary hermeneutic.[2]  Progressives do not offer clarity of the text; rather they obfuscate by introducing precariousness to hermeneutics.

The issue in regards to the difference in hermeneutics here has to do with the subject of progressive revelation, which is the gradual unfolding over a period of time of certain revealed truths of God as recorded in Scripture.  It is the issue of hermeneutics that is the major difference between progressives and essentialists.  Progressive revelation emphasizes development, or enlargement of God’s sovereign plan.  In fairness to progressives, they do not reject the grammatical-historical hermeneutic.  However, in saying that, it must be stated that the complementary hermeneutic does not emphasize development, rather it emphasizes change.  For instance, consider the following quote:  “The New Testament does not introduce change and advance; it does not merely repeat Old Testament revelation.  In making complementary additions, however, it does not jettison old promises.  The enhancement is not at the expense of the original promise.”[3]  In other words, “complementary additions” result in an unparalleled interpretation of the New Testament that goes beyond the original intent and creates an entirely new context.  The direction that progressives are taking is a liberal, at-will hermeneutic.

Certainly, there is a sense in which the biblical covenants are fulfilled progressively.  For instance, Abraham enjoyed some of the promises that God has covenanted with him.  The Davidic Covenant was fulfilled some in David and Solomon’s day, yet there will be a complete fulfillment in the millennial kingdom.  However, a change in progressive revelation is that Christ is reigning now of David’s throne in heaven.  Furthermore, the Land Covenant could imply another people based on the complementary approach which leaves the interpreter guessing as to whether or not a specific prophecy is fulfilled or not.  It is the progressive “change” that is revisionist of the Old Testament.  Complementary hermeneutics allows the interpreter to be liberal with the text.  While progressive revelation affirms developments in Scripture, there is not a change of meaning in the New Testament.

Clearly, progressive dispensationalism is not the historical antecedent of pre-tribulational, premillennial dispensationalism.  In dealing with this subject though, it is important to emphasize as Dr. Walvoord stated succinctly:  “The real issue is whether the Bible is inerrant, whether it is verbally inspired, and whether it should be interpreted literally.  The concept of literal interpretation is the real issue in the interpretation of prophecy today.”  Consistent, literal interpretation is the sine qua non of any theological system since it allows no fuller or extended meaning beyond the original intent of Scripture.