Quote:
Originally posted by blhowes
Using the dispensational hermeneutic, you seem to have come to a different conclusion than others in the dispensational camp. Can you show how you use your hermeneutic to come to your conclusion? Are those dispensationalists that conclude that each letter represents a different part of the church age using the same hermeneutic as you? Why the differences?
|
Wow, that would go way beyond what I am ready to take on right now. First, let's get through the basics, if you don't mind.
Who disagrees with these principles? How about the definitions? If all are agreed on these principles then we have a starting place. But to jump ahead to conclusions will turn into another long thread arguing for different interpretations without getting to the root of the differences.
I think you summed them up nicely.
As for why others come to different conclusions, it's usually because they've bought into a man made system. I would say the same thing has happened in CT. It's difficult for anyone in the CT camp to talk long without quoting somebody. The dispy camp is a bit different: many of them are not good Bareans and fail to think on their own. They read what others have said into their understanding of Scripture rather than letting the text speak first. This doesn't mean that I'll always be right. Far from it! But it does give me the authority to say "Thus saith the Lord" because I stick with the text... and sometimes to say "I dunno" when I just can't figure it out.
But, if you read through my explanations above you'll see that I'm shackled pretty tight to a set of principles that help keep me from straying too far.
We all bring so much with us to the table that this last set of questions has no simple answer. The statements made here should give a general idea though.
Another thought: why is it that we agree on so many of the core issues? It would be because the text says so, right? Why do we depart in other areas? For me, it's generally because of a lack of understanding when I'm wrong. Like anyone else, I bring presuppositions to the table and sway my judgment, and thus cunclusions. But I never start with a system. If I run across something that simply doesn't seem to fit with what I understand then it's time to search the Scriptures to find out where I'm wrong. I couldn't care less if it fits some dead guy's systematic theology (except as a check, which helps me to see if my conclusoins were right - then it's affirming). And when I get stumped I check my commentaries just like the next guy. Then we get into who a person reads. Bad theology is always picked up from men. It's never picked up from simply reading the Bible.
Well, hopefully that will get us back to the basics. I'm open to trying to answer any pointed questions. I think the posts above show much about how I use these hermeneutic principles to come to a conclusion. Remember, these are just basic definitions and principles in gaining a proper understanding.
Well, I've rambled a bit. Hope I didn't get off track too far.
Thanks Bob,