Quote:
Originally posted by Wannabee
I'm not sure how to proceed Bob. These are principles that I would use.
One note: The analogy of faith shouldn't be applied until after the interpretation is done. This can lead to making passages parallel when they might not actually be. It also can force a preunderstanding into the text instead of allowing that passage to simply say what it says and mean what it means.
If you have an idea how you want to proceed then I'm still here. If not, maybe we could approach a somewhat controvercial passage (short one) and walk through it, applying the principles we would use.
|
I'd like to walk through a controversial scripture passage, but first I'd like to nail down what it is that makes the dispensational hermeneutic different from the CT hermeneutic. I'm not knowledgeable about hermeneutics, so it'd be great if somebody who's seminary trained and is knowledgeable about the reformed hermeneutic could chime in and help us determine what's unique about it.
Bare with me, but both systems recognize that God spoke to certain key people in the OT (Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David), but CT stresses the continuity between these events and dispensationalism the discontinuity. Is this different way of viewing the events part of the two hermeneutics, or is this the result of them?