In another thread, I wrote the following, with some of Joe's (Wannabee) response following it.

Let's help Joe with his fictional assignment of writing an argument against dispensationalism from the CT perspective, without raising any straw men. As a good seminarian, I think Joe is correct that its important to start with the hermeneutic behind dispensationalism, making sure that we really understand what that is. At the same time, to argue from the CT perspective, we need to understand what that hermeneutic is as well.

In this thread, I'd like for us to focus on trying to come to a common understanding of what the basic hermeneutic is for dispensationalism, then for CT. No CT bashing, no dispy (this term isn't offensive to anybody, is it?) bashing. Let's forget about all the wackos on TV or wherever who give either approach a bad name. For us ex-dispy's, let's try and set aside our emotions about how we feel about dispensationalism, and add our two cents about what exactly is the hermeneutic, the basic principle(s) that are behind the method of interpretaton. What would also be helpful, as we work through this, would be to include the scriptural reasons that drive each hermeneutic. How does God help us, using His scriptures, to know how to properly interpret His scriptures?

Anybody?

[Edited on 5-30-2006 by blhowes]

__________________
Bob Howes
Framingham, MA

A reoccurring thought:

Rev 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Just to get things started, here's what I found when I did a quick search on 'dispensationalism' and 'principles of interpretation':
Is this a good starting point for understanding the dispensational hermeneutic? How is this similar to or different from the CT hermeneutic?

[Edited on 5-27-2006 by blhowes]

Just so that I don't put words into people's mouths, this isn't saying to take into account metaphors, simile, hyperbole, and figurative language...but then interpret it literally, is it? When taking into account such things, what principles are used to determine if the literary devices override the literal interpretation?

Excellent question and exactly why it's so difficult to debate dispensationalists! For example, the very beginning of Revelation. The letters to the seven churches were written to a literal seven churches correct? CT and Dispy beliefs would agree with that regarding literalism. So where does the idea that these seven letters were also written to a future generation as well? How do we know what "Church age" we are in?

It's simple stuff like this that convinced me of the errors of dispy thought and teaching. Literally!

__________________


http://www.myspace.com/aleavelle
"Speak wisdom to a fool and he'll think you have no sense at all"

Good start Bob,
You understand number one correctly. Some would prefer to say, "the clear and simple meaning" rather than "literal" because it can lead to misunderstanding. However, the conditions in you definition are fair, as long as they're handled responsibly.

For clarity, where I use the word "allegory," cut some slack. I understand that "symbolism" or "spiritualize" may be preferred by some. Please, simply accept that we're talking about the same thing and let's not get hung up on how I've used these words in the past. I can use any of the three that anyone else is comfortable with.

Here's a thread with some nuggets
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/vi...7881#pid250661

Here's a quote from http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/vi...d=11598&page=5Some more infoAnd thisSo, progressive revelation is also a big part of the dispensational hermeneutic. The NT does shed light on the OT, but only when the NT passage took place. The OT writers/audience did not have the same insight (revelation) as the NT audience.


Well, that should throw out a few nuggets. Bob, if you're up to it, maybe you can summarize or bullet point in order to keep things on track.




What about someone articulating the CT hermeneutic principles? I've offered up the challenge many times in our discussions, and yet to have someone do so.

__________________
For the Glory of our King,
Joe Johnson
Married up in 1988 and blessed with two wonderful sons
TMS graduate
Preacherboy at Cornerstone Community Church, Escanaba, MI
http://www.SoundLife.org

I'd never heard that they were written to a future generation, but that each letter represents a part of the church age. Maybe we're saying the same thing, different words.

Maybe we can use this and other passage examples to try see how they use their hermeneutic to arrive at an interpretation. The reasoning I've heard is:

Rev 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

This verse, from what I've been taught, helps us understand the timeframe for various parts of Revelation. Some of Revelation is past, some present, and some is still future. If the early part of Rev 4 represents the rapture of the church, a future event, those things happening after Rev 4 would also be future, those before (7 letters) represent the present church age.

Is that a fair representation of dispy reasoning, and use of their hermeneutic, on this passage?

That's how I understood it when I was dispensational.

You've jumped to interpretation. It's part of it, but not the first step.

All the books of the Bible were addressed to someone (s or pl) at the time. That doesn't mean that they're not applicable to us today. This argument could be used against any of the epistles.

I wouldn't say that each church represents an era so much as to point out that each church in Revelation does represent, at least to some degree, present day churches. In other words, if the shoe fits then pay attention.

Don't wanna (short for...) jump the gun here. What's the first step?

OK, never mind. I went back and read what you wrote in another post:

Application is 100% dependent upon interpretation.
Interpretation is 100% dependent upon the meaning.
The meaning is 100% dependent upon exegesis.
And proper exegesis is 100% dependent upon good valid hermentical principles.
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?

[Edited on 5-27-2006 by blhowes]

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "...but only when the NT passage took place"

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,

Sorry Bob. That wasn't clear. My point was that there are many things that could not be understood until the NT was written. We can't read NT understanding into OT passages in cases where there was no way the OT audience could have understood it that way. The church is a good example. Their is no way the OT saints could understand "church" as we know it. Jesus made it clear that the church began at Pentacost (though there are some arguments that it may have been at other times, this is generally accepted by Dispies). There are other examples, but times burning and I must run.
Hope that was clearer.

Joe,
You had mentioned that you wanted someone to also provide the reformed hermeneutic so we could take a look at it as well. I did a little search and found this, written by Dr. R. Scott Clark:
Bob

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?

Dispensationalism wouldn't view it as discontinuity, but rather as progressive. But this would be a result, not a cause. We have to start with the text. The hermeneutics deside how we get to the interpretation. You might look at the definitions I gave above again. They might be helpful.

I have to admit though, that some dispensationalists would see discontinuity here. I can't speak for them, because I consider them to have forced a grid on their understanding. This is a possible result of not following the hermeneutic consistently (or being completely ignorant of it, like most dispensationalists are.).

...the reformed hermeneutic I posted reflects, according to Joe, the way he as a dispensationalist approaches scripture. Anybody know anything unique about the reformed hermeneutic that I missed that would differentiate it from the dispensational hermeneutic?

Coming at this as a novice. It seems that CT has the same goals as disp. in its hermenuetic (i.e., blhowes 2nd post). The CT adds that if a literal interepretation of the NT modifies OT, then it understands OT as modified. The disp. exegete does not believe that that type of modification is possible. So he qualifies (limits, modifies) the NT reasoning that the modification must be implied otherwise the OT prophecies hold no knowable meaning until they are fulfilled.

__________________
Greg Bednarchik
Sovereign Grace Church
(part of Sovereign Grace Ministries)
Cherry Hill NJ

One of the books I found very helpful was Dispensationalism Today, Yesterday, and Tomorrow by Curtis Crenshaw and Grover Gunn, both of whom were former students at DTS. They spoke of the apostolic hermeneutic, i.e., interpreting the OT as the apostles did. It's my impression that dispensationalism isn't always faithful to the apostolic hermeneutic.

DTK

__________________
Sola Scriptura est norma normans non normata
David T. King, pastor
Christ Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Elkton, Maryland
Augustine (354-430): Therefore what He [i.e., Christ] has deigned to speak to us, we ought to believe that He meant us to understand. But if we do not understand He, being asked, gives understanding, who gave His Word unasked. NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate XXII, §1.

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.

I think you've found at least one difference between the dispensational and reformed hermeneutic. Just for clarification, when you say "OT point of view", whose view would that be? For example, during the time Jesus walked the earth, there was quite a difference in points of view when it comes to looking at OT passages, case in point the Pharisees vs the Sadducees.