Thank you for your thoughtful reply Dr.
Forgive me if I don't know all that you've said on other threads. I don't spend much time here; just a discussion here and there. So I've missed much of what you've said.
My reference to being called dishonest is in light of
Quote:
|
Historically considered, Dispensationalism" is about 150 years old. It isn't the hermeneutic of historic Christianity. Honest Dispensationalists will admit this.
|
I disagree, to a point. Systematically I see little to refute this, though there are some references they show "some" dispensational thought. Hermeneutically I disagree, but only basically.
I have not studied the fathers as you have, so lean on the teaching of my professors. Would you expect me to trust my professors any less than you expect your students to trust you? Of course we must search for ourselves, but there is only so much time in the day and many irons in the fire. We all lean on the teachings and references of others until we can search and and own it for ourselves. Either way, that's where I perceived you as calling me dishonest. Furthermore, if the quotes are accurate then the truth stands. But you've already said as much, in other words.
Even CTs see different administrations of God's relationship with man. This is part of progressive revelation. Did God interact with man the same prior to the flood as after? Prior to Abraham? Prior to Moses? Prior to David? Prior to the cross? Even immediately after the cross? Yes, salvation has not changed. But God's interaction with man has. Often the two call it by different names and talk past one another simply by reason of symantics and different perceptions on covenants.
The bullying perception came from what I saw as authoritarianism and brandishing of credentials, rather than presenting facts. This in light of being called dishonest and naive didn't come across as very humble or gracious.
As far as hermeneutics go, I used Terry to keep away from contemporary divisions. Dr. Robert Thomas, whom I'm sure you know, has the same basic position (
Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old, Kregel, 2002). Though aged, his experience and knowledge in the area of exegesis and hermeneutics does give him a certain credibility in defining hermeneutics, dispensational or not (we'd both disagree with some of his conclusions).
This leads to one more observation: You stated that theology and hermeneutics are the same thing. I obviously disagree, seeing theology as completely dependent upon hermeneutics. However, this may be where our roads fork. It seems that CT is more reliant upon its systematics than DT (sensationalistic eschatology excluded, which departs from the dispenstational hermeneutic often). Perhaps I am mistaken, but this often seems to get in the way of common understanding, as the disagreement here in regard to hermeneutics seems to imply.
Again, thank you for your thoughtful reply.
Joe
Bob,
Yes, I do think that this would be taken to mean a literal temple, unless there was another passage that clarified it to mean otherwise. But the clear and simple meaning of the passage would be a literal temple. Those who are "far off" would most likely refer to the Gentiles, pointing out that it would include all peoples. This would have to happen after the arrival of the BRANCH.
Walk through the passage and tell me what you see here, trying not to read a preunderstanding into it (which is admittedly hard to do). We agree that the Branch is Christ. It says he shall build the temple of the LORD (not rebuild). He shall bear the glory. He shall sit and rule on His throne (this obviously hasn't happened yet, unless one takes it to mean a heavenly throne, but then the "far off" needs to be explained clearly). The uniting of the priestly and kingly office takes place in v 13.
Well, don't take my word for it. You walk through it and share what you see.
Blessings
Joe