Progressive Dispensationalism进步时代论 中文 - Zhong Wen
General
Information一般资料
Introduction简介
In recent years there has been a rise
in what has become known as Progressive Dispensationalism (PD) (Other labels for
PD include "revised," "reconstructed," or "new"
dispensationalism.).近年来一直上升已成为被称为进Dispensationalism（PD）（为PD其他标签，包括“修订”，“重建”或“新”dispensationalism。）。
Adherents to PD see themselves as being
in the line of normative or traditional dispensationalism, but at the same time,
have made several changes and/or modifications to the traditional dispensational
system.
PD的追随者看到自己规范或传统dispensationalism，但在同一时间，取得了一些变化和/或修改的传统时代论系统。Thus, PD adherents view themselves as
furthering the continual development of dispensational
theology.因此，PD的信徒认为自己作为促进不断发展的时代论神学。It is also true that progressive
dispensationalists seek a mediating position between traditional
dispensationalism and nondispensational
systems.逐步dispensationalists寻求传统dispensationalism和nondispensational系统之间的中介地位，这也是事实。
The meaning of
progressive渐进的含义
According to Charles Ryrie, the
adjective 'progressive' refers to a central tenet that the Abrahamic, Davidic,
and new covenants are being progressively fulfilled today (as well as having
fulfillments in the millennial
kingdom).据查尔斯Ryrie，形容词“进步”是指中央的原则，亚伯拉罕，大卫，和新的公约，正在逐步履行今日（以及在千禧年国度fulfillments）。
According to Craig Blaising, The name
progressive dispensationalism is linked to the progressive relationship of the
successive dispensations to one
another.据克雷格Blaising，名称渐进dispensationalism是链接到另一个连续特许递进的关系。
Origin of
PD帕金森氏病的起源
The public debut of PD was made on
November 20, 1986, in the Dispensational Study Group in connection with the
annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Atlanta,
Georgia.PD的首次公开亮相是1986年11月20日，在时代论的研究小组在福音派神学协会在佐治亚州亚特兰大的年度会议。
.。.。.。Actually, the label 'progressive
dispensationalism' was introduced at the 1991 meeting, since 'significant
revisions' in dispensationalism had taken place by that
time.其实，在1991年的会议上介绍了“渐进dispensationalism”标签，因为“显著修订”在dispensationalism采取了由当时的地方。
Some view Kenneth Barker's presidential
address at the 33rd annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society on
December 29, 1981 as the precursor to some of the views of
PD.有人认为，丁巴克总统地址在福音派神学学会第33届年度会议上，1981年12月29日作为PD的一些看法的前身。His address was called, False
Dichotomies Between the Testaments.他的讲话被称为之间的约，虚假的二分法。
PD
proponentsPD的支持者
Craig Blaising, Darrell Bock, Robert
Saucy, Kenneth Barker, David Turner, John Martin.克雷格Blaising，达雷尔 -
博克，罗伯特俏皮，午巴克，大卫特纳，约翰马丁。NOTE: It should not be thought that all
who have associated themselves with PD in some way are agreed on all
issues.注意：它不应该认为所有那些与PD自己在某种程度上是在所有问题上都达成一致。Blaising and Bock have been the most
prolific in promoting PD so it is their views that will mostly be
examined.Blaising和Bock已经在促进PD的最丰富的，所以这是他们的，将主要审议意见。
Beliefs of
PD信念的PD
Jesus' is
currently reigning from David's throne in heaven耶稣是目前在位大卫的宝座在天上
According to
traditional dispensationalism, Jesus is currently exalted at the right hand of
the Father, but He is not sitting on David's throne nor has His messianic
kingdom reign begun
yet.根据传统dispensationalism，耶稣是目前崇高的父亲右手，但他不是坐在大卫的宝座上也没有他的弥赛亚王国统治尚未开始。
Progressive dispensationalism, however,
teaches that the Lord Jesus is now reigning as David's king in heaven at the
right hand of the Father in an 'already' fulfillment aspect of the Davidic
kingdom and that He will also reign on earth in the Millennium in the 'not yet'
aspect.进dispensationalism，然而，教导，主耶稣是卫冕右手的父亲大卫在天上大王在一个“已经”大卫王国的履行方面，并认为他会还统治在“千年宣言”在地球上在“尚未“方面。
Thus, according to PD, the Davidic
throne and the heavenly throne of Jesus at the right hand of the Father are one
and the same.因此，根据PD，大卫的宝座，并在右手的父亲耶稣天上的宝座，是同一个。The use of Psalm 110 and 132 in Acts 2
are used to support this claim that Jesus is currently reigning as Davidic
King.在使徒行传第二章诗篇110和132使用，是用来支持这种说法，耶稣是目前davidic国王统治。HOWEVER, This view is suspect for a
number of reasons:然而，这种观点是怀疑的原因：
- Distinction in
thrones.在宝座上的区分。In Revelation 3:21, Jesus makes a
distinction between His throne (the Davidic throne) and the Father's throne
(of which He is on now in
heaven).耶稣在启示录“3:21，使他的王位（大卫的宝座）和父亲的宝座（他现在在天上）之间的区别。Thus, the throne Jesus is currently
on (the throne of deity) is different than the one He will assume when the
millennium starts (Davidic
throne).因此，王位耶稣（神的宝座）是一个不同的，他将承担的千年开始时（大卫的宝座）。The writer of Hebrews also indicates
that Jesus "sat down at the right hand of the throne of God" not the throne of
David (12:2).希伯来书的作者还指出，耶稣“坐在上帝的宝座，右手向下”大卫的宝座（12:2）。
- Matthew 25:31
places Christ's seating on David's throne at the time of the second coming:
"But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then
He will sit on His glorious
throne."马修25:31地方基督的座位，大卫的宝座上，在第二次来的时候：“但是，当人子在他的荣耀，和他的天使，那么他就会坐在他荣耀的宝座。”
- Acts 2 shows
identity not function.使徒行传2显示身份无法正常工作。In Acts 2, Peter argues that Jesus'
resurrection is proof that Jesus is the
King.在使徒行传2，彼得认为，耶稣的复活，证明耶稣是王。He does not state that Jesus is
currently reigning as King.他没有说明耶稣是目前作为国王统治。Acts 2, then, shows Jesus'
identity as King not a present function of His reigning as
king.使徒行传第二章，那么，显示耶稣的作为国王的身份不是他作为国王统治的当前功能。(It should be noted that David was
anointed king before His actual reign began.) In fact, nowhere in the NT is
Jesus said to be currently reigning as messianic king.
（应当指出，大卫是受膏者国王之前，他的实际统治的开始。）事实上，没有在NT是耶稣说是目前作为救世主的国王统治。His reign is associated with His
second coming and Kingdom (see Matt. 25:31; Rev. 11:15;
20:6).与他的统治是他第二次来和王国（见马特25:31;启示录11:15; 20:6）。
- NOTE: PD
proponents Blaising and Bock differ somewhat from Saucy on this
issue.注：PD的支持者Blaising和Bock在这个问题上有些不同从俏皮。Blaising and Bock equate the "right
hand of God" with "David's throne" and see a current reign of Jesus as
Davidic King.Blaising和Bock等同与“大卫的宝座”，“上帝的右手”，看到了耶稣davidic国王统治
。Saucy also
equates the right hand of God with the throne of David but does not see Christ
ruling from this throne.俏皮，也等同于大卫的宝座在神的右边，但没有看到基督从这个宝座的裁决。According to Saucy, being at the
right hand of God, ie David's throne affirms the present exaltation of Jesus
but not a present function of
ruling据俏皮，在神的右边，即大卫的宝座肯定耶稣目前超升，而不是目前的执政功能
- Evaluation:
There is not enough biblical evidence to show that David's throne is the same
as the right hand of God in
heaven.评价：没有足够的圣经的证据表明，大卫的宝座是作为上帝在天上的右手一样。It is best to understand David's
throne as an earthly throne that Christ will assume at His second
coming.最好是了解大卫作为一个人间王位的宝座，基督将在他第二次来承担。
The "already"
aspect of the Kingdom arrived (and stayed) with the first coming of
Christ第一个基督王国方面“已经”抵达（留）
Thus, when Jesus said the kingdom of
heaven is near this meant the kingdom had actually
arrived.因此，当耶稣说，天国，这是近意味着实际到达的王国。HOWEVER:但是：
- The kingdom was
near in proximity not arrival Saucy, again disagreeing with Blaising and Bock,
shows the improbability of this view: "Jesus said this kingdom was 'at
hand.'王国在接近附近没有到来俏皮，又与Blaising和Bock不同意，说明这种观点是不可能的：“耶稣说，这个王国”在手。“
Though some
scholars have said the term eingiken [near] means that the kingdom had
actually arrived, most see it as indicating only that the kingdom had drawn
near or was imminent. Kummel says the term denotes 'an event which is near,
but has not yet taken place.'虽然有学者说， 长期 eingiken
[近]是指实际上已抵达王国，最见王国附近已制定或迫在眉睫。库慕尔说一词表示“附近的事件，但一直没有尚未发生。“According to Hill, 'to declare that
the kingdom is at hand means that the decisive establishment or manifestation
of the divine sovereignty has drawn so near to men that they are now
confronted with the possibility and ineluctable necessity of repentance and
conversion.'据希尔，“申报王国在手意味着是决定性的建立或神圣主权的体现，已引起如此接近男子，他们现在面临着不可避免的忏悔和转换的可能性和必要性。”
Thus in Jesus'
preaching the kingdom had drawn near, but its actual arrival had not yet
occurred. The disciples could still be taught to pray for its coming (Matt.
6:10)".因此，在耶稣的说教王国已制订近，但其实际到达尚未发生。门徒仍可教祈祷其未来（太6:10）“。
- Kingdom is
future.王国的未来。If the kingdom arrived with Jesus'
first coming why did the apostles see the kingdom as future in Acts
1:3-7?如果抵达王国与耶稣第一次来为什么使徒看到在使徒行传1:3-7作为未来的王国？
- The
"already/not yet" unproven: PD sees the kingdom as already here but also
awaiting a future fulfillment as well.
“已经/尚未”未经证实的：PD看到王国已经在这里，但还在等待未来履行以及。This already/not yet construct,
popularized by CH Dodd in 1926, though, is highly
suspect.不过，这已经/尚未兴建，由CH多德在1926年普及，是非常值得怀疑。This is evident by the confusion
shown by those who accept it.那些接受它所示的混乱，这是显而易见的的。Amillennialists, Covenant
premillennialists and PD's all accept the idea but disagree on the outworking
of what is already and what is not yet.
Amillennialists，“公约”premillennialists和PD的，所有接受的想法，但不同意已经和尚未outworking。
The church is not
a distinct anthropological group:教会是不是一个独特的人类学组：
As Blaising states, "One of the most
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 precisely redeemed humanity itself (both Jews and Gentiles) as it
exists in this dispensation prior to the coming of Christ" HOWEVER: It is hard
to discern what Blaising means by this but this view seems to blur the
distinctions between Israel and the
church.作为Blaising国家“的一个最显着的进步和早期dispensationalists之间的差异，是进步不认为教会作为一个人类学类如以色列，詹蒂莱联合国，犹太人和外邦人的人在同一类。。。教会正是救赎人类本身（包括犹太人和外邦人）在本福音，因为它存在的基督“，但前：这是很难辨别这Blaising意味着什么，但这种观点似乎模糊了以色列和之间的区别教堂。
One PD advocate, John Turner, for
example, refers to the church as the "new Israel".
PD的主张，约翰特纳，例如，是指教堂为“新以色列”。ALSO: Paul does treat the church as an
anthropological entity distinct from Israel and the Gentiles when he writes,
"Give no offense either to Jews, or to Greeks or to the church of God" (1 Cor.
10:32).
：保罗治疗作为一个人类学的实体，不同的来自以色列和外邦人的教会时，他写道，“没有犯罪的犹太人或希腊人或神的教会”（林前10:32）。If the church is kept distinct from
Israel (even believing Israel) how can the church not be a distinct
anthropological group?如果教会是保持有别于以色列（甚至以为以色列），教会如何能不成为一个独特的人类学组？
NOTE: This
appears to be another area where Saucy disagrees with Blaising and
Bock.注：这似乎是另一个领域俏皮不同意Blaising和Bock。Saucy argues strongly for a clear
distinction between Israel and the church.俏皮强烈主张以色列和教会之间的一个明显的区别。
As he states, "The biblical teaching
about the roles of Israel and the church in history reveals that although they
have much in common, they remain distinctively
different".正如他指出，“关于以色列和教会在历史上的角色的圣经教导表明，虽然他们有很多共同点，但他们仍明显不同”。
Saucy, however, does use confusing "one
people of God" terminology.俏皮，然而，不使用混淆的术语“神人”。By this he means that Israel and the
church are saved in the same way, which is
correct.他通过这种手段，以色列和教会都保存在以同样的方式，这是正确的。But if Israel and the church are
"distinctively different," why refer to them as "one people of
God"?但是，如果以色列和教会是“明显不同，”为什么把它们称为“神人”呢？The one people of God concept can
easily be interpreted in the covenant theology sense of no essential distinction
between Israel and the
church.一个人的神的概念可以很容易地在以色列和教会之间没有本质区别的盟约神学意义上的解释。
The mysteries of
the NT have been revealed in some manner in the
OT以某种方式在旧约已经显露新台币的奥秘
Saucy writes, "Contrary to the former
[traditional dispensationalists], the contents of both mysteries-ie, the equal
participation of Jew and Gentile in the body of Christ (Eph 3) and his
indwelling in his people (Col 1)-are best understood as fulfillments of Old
Testament
prophecies".俏皮写道，“相反，前者[传统dispensationalists，既奥秘，即犹太人和外邦人在基督的身体（弗3）平等参与和他在他的人的留置（COL
1）的内容是最好的理解为旧“旧约预言fulfillments。While traditional dispensationalists
have taken the NT mysteries to be truths now being revealed that were absolutely
not found in the OT, PD's take the mysteries of
Eph.虽然传统dispensationalists已采取NT的奥秘，现在被揭示出来的真理，是绝对没有发现在旧约，PD的弗的奥秘。
3 and Col. 1 to be truths that were
partially hidden in the OT that are now being fully revealed in the NT.1
3和上校将在目前正在完全在NT中透露的逾部分隐藏的真理。The big difference is that PD's see the
NT mysteries as being found in some manner in the
OT.最大的区别是，PD的被发现在一些在OT方式NT奥秘。HOWEVER: though it is true that the
ideas of Gentile salvation and Gentile participation in the covenants were found
in the OT, the body concept including Jew and Gentiles and the "Christ in you"
concept were not found in the
OT.不过：虽然它是真正的外邦人的救恩和詹蒂莱在参与公约的想法是在OT发现，身体的概念，包括犹太人和外邦人和“在你的基督”的概念并没有在旧约中找到。
The biblical
covenants have been inaugurated and today we are experiencing a "partial"
fulfillment of their promises圣经公约已落成，今天，我们正在经历一个“局部”履行其承诺
PD's see a
partial fulfillment of the spiritual promises of the covenants (Abrahamic,
Davidic and New) but see a future fulfillment of the physical promises in the
millennium.PD的部分履行了公约的精神的承诺（亚伯拉罕，大卫和新的），但看到了未来千年的物理承诺的履行。ON THE OTHER HAND: Traditional
dispensationalists do not see the Davidic covenant as being partially fulfilled
in any sense in this
age.另一方面：传统dispensationalists没有看到任何意义上在这个年龄段的部分履行大卫的公约。They are also reluctant to say that the
New covenant is fulfilled in any way in this age, though they do believe that
some spiritual benefits of the New covenant are being applied to the
church.他们也不愿意说，新约履行，任何方式在这个年龄段中，虽然他们认为，新约的一些精神上的好处被应用到教会。As Homer Kent states, "There is one new
covenant to be fulfilled eschatologically with Israel, but participated in
soteriologically by the church today. This view recognizes that Christ's death
provided the basis for instituting the new covenant, and also accepts the
unconditional character of Jeremiah's prophecy which leaves no room for Israel's
forfeiture. At the same time it also notes that the New Testament passages
definitely relate New Testament Christians to this
covenant".正如荷马肯特州“之一的新公约，以将履行与以色列eschatologically，但参与的教会今天在soteriologically。这种观点认识到，基督的死为实行新约的基础上，还接受了耶利米的无条件字符预言叶没有对以色列的没收余地，同时还指出，新约圣经段落肯定这个“公约”有关新约圣经的基督徒“。
Dispensations as
successive arrangements作为连续安排的特许
Progressive dispensationalists
understand the dispensations not simply as different arrangements between
God and humankind, but as successive arrangements in the progressive revelation
and accomplishment of
redemption.不能简单地作为上帝和人类之间的的不同的安排，但作为在渐进式的启示和赎回的成就的连续安排进dispensationalists了解特许。
These dispensations "point to a future
culmination in which God will both politically administer Israel and Gentile
nations and indwell all of them equally (without ethnic distinctions) by the
Holy
Spirit".这些特许“点神无论在政治管理以色列和外邦国家和indwell所有的人都同样的圣灵（无种族区分）”未来之大成。
Holistic
redemption in progressive revelation整体赎回渐进的启示
God's divine plan is holistic
encompassing all peoples and every area of life: personal, cultural, societal
and political.上帝的神圣计划是全面的包括所有的人民和生活的各个领域：个人，文化，社会和政治。
Pre-tribulation
rapture前患难狂喜
PD's, for the most part, accept the
pre-tribulational view of the Rapture though most of their writings ignore the
issue altogether.PD的，在大多数情况下，接受着迷前tribulational，尽管他们的著作中最忽略的问题完全。
Hermeneutics of
PD诠释学的PD
The foundational difference between
PD and traditional dispensationalism is hermeneutical. With PD's desire for
cordial relations has come a hermeneutical shift away from literal
interpretation, also called the grammatical-historical method, which has been
one of the ongoing hallmarks of dispensationalism.
PD和传统dispensationalism之间的基本差异是诠释学与PD的友好关系的愿望，来了一个诠释学转向从字面解释，也称为语法历史的方法，已dispensationalism正在进行的标志之一。
Elements of PD
hermeneuticsPD的诠释学的要素
Meaning of texts
can change文本的意义，可以改变
Blaising and Bock believe the meaning
of biblical texts can change.Blaising和Bock相信可以改变经文的意义。"Meaning of events in texts has a
dynamic, not a static, quality."“在文本中的事件的含义有一个动态的，而不是一个静态的，质量。”
"Once a text is produced, commentary on
it can follow in subsequent texts. Connection to the original passage exists,
but not in a way that is limited to the understanding of the original human
author."“文本一旦产生，它的评论在以后的文本可以按照原来的通道的连接存在，但没有一个是有限的原始人类作者的认识方式。”
"Does the expansion of meaning entail a
change of meaning? . . .The answer is both yes and no. On the one hand, to add
to the revelation of a promise is to introduce 'change' to it through
addition."“的含义的扩大是否意味着改变的意义？。答案是既肯定又否定。一方面，添加到一个承诺的启示是”变“除了引进。”
Preunderstanding
as part of the interpretive processPreunderstanding作为解释过程的一部分
The PD emphasis
on "preunderstanding" as part of the interpretive process is confusing.
“preunderstanding”作为解释过程的一部分的PD的重点是混乱。If all they mean by it is that the
interpreter should be aware of one's predetermined ideas so that he can suppress
them and come up with the intended meaning of the text, it is a good
thing.如果所有这些意味着它是预定的人的思想，翻译应该意识到这样他就可以压制他们，并与文本的原意，这是一件好事。They do not say this,
though.他们不说这一点，虽然。The implication of their writings is
that we all have presuppositions and preunderstandings that influence our
understanding of Scripture but they say nothing on how to deal with
these.他们的著作中的含义是，我们每个人都有影响我们对圣经的理解的前提和preunderstandings，但他们说没有就如何处理这些。
What are they getting
at?他们是什么？Does this mean all our interpretations
are the product of our
preunderstandings?这是否意味着我们所有的解释是，我们preunderstandings的产品呢？Is it not possible with the help of the
Holy Spirit to lay aside our biases and come up with the intended meaning of the
text?它是圣灵的帮助，放下我们的偏见和与文本的原意不可能呢？This is one area where PD advocates are
too vague.这是PD的主张过于空泛的地方之一。What they say, in and of itself is not
wrong, but it could lead to faulty
conclusions.他们说什么，本身并没有错，但它可能会导致错误的结论。
The complementary
hermeneutic:互补诠释学：
According to this approach, the New
Testament does introduce change and advance; it does not merely repeat Old
Testament revelation.根据这一方针，新约圣经并引进改变和推进，它不只是重复旧约的启示。In making complementary additions,
however, it does not jettison old promises.在互补性增加，然而，它并没有抛弃老的承诺。
The enhancement is not at the expense
of the original promise.增强是不是在原来的承诺为代价。For example, with PD, the Davidic
throne is both earthly (as revealed in the OT) and heavenly (as supposedly
revealed in the NT).例如，帕金森氏病，大卫的宝座是俗世（如透露，在OT）和天上的（据说在NT中透露）。
Evaluation of PD
hermeneuticsPD的诠释学的评价
Part of the confusion over PD is that
its adherents claim to hold to the grammatical-historical method of
interpretation but by it they mean something
different.通过PD的混乱，部分是其信徒声称持有至语法的解释历史的方法，但它意味着不同的东西。Historically, the
grammatical-historical method meant that biblical texts had only one meaning
that could not change.从历史上看，历史语法方法意味着经文只有一个无法改变的意义。This meaning was what the biblical
author intended.这意思是“圣经”作者的意图。This meaning could be found as the
believer put aside his biases, with the help of the Holy Spirit, and sought the
author's meaning by looking at the grammar of the text and taking into account
the historical situation facing the biblical author. PD advocates, though,
say the meaning of texts can change and we cannot be sure of our findings
because of our "preunderstandings." This approach places PD outside the
realm of
dispensationalism.信徒把抛开自己的偏见，与圣灵的帮助，并试图寻找文本的语法和考虑到的历史形势面临的圣经作者作者的意思，
这意思是PD的主张，虽然说，可以改变文本的意义，我们不能确保我们的研究结果，因为我们“preunderstandings。”这种做法以外的地方dispensationalism境界的PD
。
The future of
PD未来的PD
Drift toward
Covenant Theology漂移朝着“公约”的神学
The hermeneutical doors that PD has
opened make very possible the eventual shift to covenant
theology.诠释学PD已打开门，很可能神学“公约”的最终转变。As a covenant theologian, Vern
Poythress is appreciative of the moves PD's have been
making.作为公约的神学家，Vern Poythress是PD的一直在进行的动作表示赞赏。But he also says, "However, their
position is inherently unstable. I do not think that they will find it possible
in the long run to create a safe haven theologically between classical
dispensationalism and covenantal premillennialism. The forces that their own
observations have set in motion will most likely lead to covenantal
premillennialism after the pattern of George
Ladd."但他也说，“不过，他们的立场是内在的不稳定性，我不认为他们会发现它可能在长远来说，古典dispensationalism和圣约premillennialism神学之间建立一个安全的避风港。部队设置在自己的观察议案将极有可能导致圣约premillennialism后，乔治拉德的格局。“
Walter A. Elwell: "the newer
dispensationalism looks so much like nondispensationalist premillennialism that
one struggles to see any real difference" Commenting on the one people of God
concept of PD, Bruce Waltke states, "That position is closer to covenant
theology than to dispensationalism".沃尔特A
Elwell宣布了：“这么多，斗争看到任何真正的差别”在评论一个人的神PD，布鲁斯Waltke国家的概念，新的dispensationalism看起来nondispensationalist
premillennialism，“这一立场是接近盟约神学比dispensationalism “。
Further revisions
and changes进一步修订和变化
"One expects that there will be further
revisions and changes in progressive dispensationalism as time passes. Where it
will all lead and whether or not it will be understood and received by those who
have embraced normative dispensationalism, no one knows. But already progressive
dispensationalism certainly appears to be more than a development with normative
dispensational teaching. Some so-called developments are too radical not to be
called changes" (Ryrie).
“预计将有进一步修改，并随着时间的推移逐步dispensationalism变化在哪里，它都会导致与否将会理解和那些已经接受了规范dispensationalism，没有人知道，但已经逐步dispensationalism肯定似乎更不是一个规范的时代论教学的发展，一些所谓的发展过于激进，不被所谓的变化“（Ryrie）。
M
Vlach中号瓦拉几
Bibliography
参考书目
C Ryrie,
Dispensationalism; C Blaising and D Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (1993);
RL Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism (1993); Dispensationalism,
Israel and the Church (1992) edited by C Blaising and D Bock; RL Saucy, The
Presence of the Kingdom in the Life of the Church; V Poythress, Understanding
Dispensationalists; H Kent, The Epistle to the Hebrews; WA Elwell,
"Dispensationalists of the Third Kind," Christianity Today, 9/12, 1994,
p.彗星Ryrie，Dispensationalism，C Blaising和D博克，逐行Dispensationalism（1993）;
RL，进Dispensationalism（1993）俏皮Dispensationalism，以色列和教会（1992）编辑彗星Blaising和D博克;
RL俏皮，在教会生活中的王国存在; Poythress
V，了解Dispensationalists，书信希伯来H肯特;西澳Elwell宣布，“第三类Dispensationalists，”今日基督教“，9 /
12，1994年，第28; RL Thomas, "A
Critique of Progressive Dispensational Hermeneutics," When the Trumpet Sounds,
p.28; RL托马斯，“进步时代论诠释学的批判，”当小号响起，第415; E. Johnson, "Prophetic
Fulfillment: The Already and Not Yet," Issues in Dispensationalism; C Ryrie,
"Update on Dispensationalism," Issues in Dispensationalism; D Bock, "The Reign
of the Lord Christ," DIC, pp. 37-67; B Waltke, DIC, p.415;
E.约翰逊，“预言应验：已经和尚未”Dispensationalism问题，C
Ryrie，“更新的Dispensationalism，”在Dispensationalism问题;
D博克，“主基督的统治，”DIC的第37-67;乙Waltke，DIC，第348.348。
Also, see:此外，见：
Dispensationalism
dispensationalism
Ultradispensationalism
ultradispensationalism
Covenant
盟约
This subject presentation in the original English language这在原来的主题演讲， 英语
Send an e-mail question or comment to us:发送电子邮件的问题或意见给我们：E-mail电子邮件
The main BELIEVE web-page (and the index to subjects) is at:的， 主要相信网页（和索引科目），是在：
BELIEVE Religious Information Source相信宗教信息来源
http://mb-soft.com/believe/beliecha.html