|
These are good observations. That's what I was trying to convey earlier.
Unfortunately, dispensationalists are mostly inconsistent in their hermeneutic, as DTK mentioned. I hadn't heard the term "apostolic hermeneutic" though. It makes sense.
I'd modify Greg's statements a little. This is sort of hard to articulate clearly... at least for me it is. Bear with me here. The DT takes the OT at face value. If the NT uses the passage (Acts 2, where Peter uses Joel) differently than it was understood in the OT then it is new revelation. However, a DT would not allow the NT usage of the OT change the meaning (modify) the OT passage from an OT point of view. Whew! I hope that made sense.
I wouldn't necessarily say that the prophecies aren't knowable. However, the meaning wouldn't be clear until fulfilled. For example, Jesus will return. We all agree on that. He will return in like manner as He left. We all have an idea of what that means, but couldn't clearly picture it. He'll be returning on a horse. This leaves us wondering what that means. I can readily accept that it is a literal horse. But I sure wouldn't die on that hill. I can just as readily accept that it is figurative for something else, but I couldn't begin to figure out what. So, it's not unknowable. It's a matter of specifics and details that are unknowable.
Ps 16:10 - For You will not leave my soul in Sheol, nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption. (Acts 2:31-32)
From a DT perspective, David's words could not be rightly understood until Jesus rose from the dead.
I can work my way through that. But I don't understand the implications of the CT's approach to these passages.
|