Dispensational vs Reformed Hermeneutic

[blhowes]

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

Originally posted by blhowes
You hold to, and are very knowledgeable about dispensationalism. Let's say as part of a seminary class your assignment was to argue against dispensationalism from the CT perspective, without raising up any straw men. How would you go about doing that? It seems like, no matter what argument is raised against dispensationalism, it could always be said that the argument doesn't represent all who call themselves dispensationalists, and therefore would be considered a straw man.

Originally posted by Wannabee
Bob, you're assignment would be fair. The problem is that you would have to start with the hermeneutic behind dispensationalism. In order to do that you have to understand it.
<snip>
Also, while you're at it, it would be nice if someone could present the basic hermeneutical principles behind covenantalism.

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 Dispensational (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-Dispensational'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]

 

[blhowes]

Just to get things started, here's what I found when I did a quick search on 'dispensationalism' and 'principles of interpretation':

Dispensation theology is built upon the principles of literalism and normalcy in understanding what the text means.

1. Literal (also called normal): interpret Scripture literally taking into account normal literary devices such as metaphors, simile, hyperbole, and figurative language

2. Historical: interpret Scripture in light of the historical situation of the day

3. Grammatical: interpret Scripture in light of the precise grammar rules of Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic.

3.Etymological: interpret Scripture in light of the meanings of words based on their roots and derivations

4. Contextual: interpret Scripture in light of the immediate context: sentence, paragraph, chapter, and book; as well as the general context: book, testament and at times even extra-biblical material.

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]

 

[blhowes]

1. Literal (also called normal): interpret Scripture literally taking into account normal literary devices such as metaphors, simile, hyperbole, and figurative language

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?

 

[ReformedWretch]

Originally posted by blhowes

1. Literal (also called normal): interpret Scripture literally taking into account normal literary devices such as metaphors, simile, hyperbole, and figurative language

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 Dispensational 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 Dispensational thought and teaching. Literally!

 

[Wannabee]

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/viewthread.php?tid=17881#pid250661

Here's a quote from http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=11598&page=5

You have to start with the text. From there, what are the prinicples that allow you to assert your conclusions?
If you are not ready to accept the literal [simple and clear] meaning of the text, then what guidelines are you using to allow you to allegorize [spiritualize - consider symbolism]?
What guidelines are in place to keep you from over-allegorizing? [One theologian says that all rounded numbers of high value are allegorical -millennium, 144000, etc. Interesting, but on what authority?]
Once you think you've figured out what the text says then the rest of Scripture must be brought to bear.
What did the original author intend?
How would the readers of the time perceive it?

This challenge is in no way exhaustive, but the point is that we have to know the boundaries of how we draw our conclusions. If we don't define them then we can make Scripture say anything we want it to, whether it's pretrib, CoW, NPP, easy believism or Arianism.

Some more info

Hermeneutics - a set of principles
Exegesis - implemenation of valid interpretive principles
Meaning - truth intention of the author
Interpretation - understanding of the truth intention of the author

And this

I think we need to add application to our list. This is very important. (look at the definitions as I say this) We CANNOT apply until we've exegeted and interpreted. It's too dangerous, and forces meaning into a text that may not be there. This is poor hermeneutics. Furthermore, a common mistake is to confuse application with interpretation. They have to be held appart. 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.

So, can we establish the definition of application - the use or practice of God's message in personal lives? Simply put, application is how God's Word shows us how to think and live. Maybe too simple, but I think it should serve our purposes.

What does the text say? We can make it say whatever we want to. But, what did the HS intend in writing this. The original audience has to be considered. Finally, if we're going to allegorize then we need stringent rules to keep us from going to far. I would challenge you to show the where/when/what/how/why of allegorizing. For me it's simple, if the text says it's an allegory, if it's an idiom, or if it's simply too far fetched to be a possibility (i.e., Jesus is not a literal door). I see no need to go any farther. One commentator says that all large rounded off numbers in Revelation are allegorical. Okay, if that's your principle fine, but make sure you stick to it and are consistent. Also, make sure you can say why that's your hermeneutic. What in Scripture makes that principle clear? You know I don't buy it, but I would at least challenge anyone making this type of claim to be able to clearly define the structure that allows them to allegorize. Is it arbitrary, based on Scriptural example, a man made system, etc?

While the NT does shed some light on the OT, God did things historically. Revelation was progressive, and is, since we one day our faith will be sight. I think the danger in looking backwards is that it is easy to read things into the text, rather than letting it say what it says.

So, 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.

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by houseparent
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 Dispensational 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?

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 Dispensational reasoning, and use of their hermeneutic, on this passage?

 

[ReformedWretch]

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

 

[Wannabee]

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.

 

[blhowes]

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

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.

Originally posted by Wannabee
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.

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]

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by Wannabee
So, 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.

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

 

[Wannabee]

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 Dispensational 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,

 

[Wannabee]

Originally posted by blhowes

Originally posted by Wannabee
So, 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.

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

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 Dispensationalists). There are other examples, but times burning and I must run.
Hope that was clearer.

 

[blhowes]

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:

A Reformed hermeneutic requires the skilled application of a set of principles which accounts for the following:

* The original setting (author and audience);
* The original language (vocabulary), grammar and style;
* The original intention of the human and divine authors;
* The narrower (immediate) and broader (canonical) context of a passage.

Thus we believe that the clearer passages help us to interpret the less clear and the newer passages teach us how to interpret the older (this is the analogy of Scripture). Christian interpretations of Scripture must fall within the confines of our "catholic, undoubted Christian faith," which we call the analogy of faith (HC 22).

So there are objective principles on which we have agreed to operate. The business of interpretation is not completely subjective -- sitting in a small group asking one another "what does this passage mean to you?" is a good example of a poor hermeneutic.

Bob

 

[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.

 

[blhowes]

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?

 

[Wannabee]

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.).

 

[blhowes]

...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?

 

[gregbed]

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.

 

[DTK]

Originally posted by blhowes
...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?

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

 

[Wannabee]

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.

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by Wannabee
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 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.

 

[gregbed]

Originally posted by Wannabee
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.

Just wanted to be clear that I was just stated what I understood a DT perspective to be, this statement was not my personal belief.

Originally posted by Wannabee
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 a CT approach says the same thing - they are not rightly understood until Jesus rose from the dead. What the CT adds is that what is revealed by the NT's use of this Psalm is that it is perfectly legitimate to understand OT prophecies that had David as their referent to be referring to Christ. I think usually the DT is onboard for this (although I have heard some state that David will be resurrected to rule in Jerusalem, this has been on the fringe). Usually were they part company is when you start doing this with the temple.

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by gregbed
What the CT adds is that what is revealed by the NT's use of this Psalm is that it is perfectly legitimate to understand OT prophecies that had David as their referent to be referring to Christ. I think usually the DT is onboard for this (although I have heard some state that David will be resurrected to rule in Jerusalem, this has been on the fringe).

It would seem that I've been very successful finding those churches that are on the fringe. From my experience, the fringe has been the norm.

 

[blhowes]

Just for the fun of it, I'd like to take a look at a passage and step through how we would arrive at an understanding of the passage using the dispensational hermeneutic. Let's look at the passage in Zechariah that I mentioned in another thread:

Zec 6:12 And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:
Zec 6:13-16 Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.
Zec 6:14 And the crowns shall be to Helem, and to Tobijah, and to Jedaiah, and to Hen the son of Zephaniah, for a memorial in the temple of the LORD.
Zec 6:15 And they that are far off shall come and build in the temple of the LORD, and ye shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto you. And this shall come to pass, if ye will diligently obey the voice of the LORD your God.

At first glance, since most agree that Jesus is the branch spoken of here, it seems from the passage that he will build the structure (?) of the temple and others will build inside the temple. I'm not sure if this is how those in the time of Zechariah would have understood this passage, but it certainly seems feasible. If this is correct:

How do we determine who they that are far off is referring to, who will help Jesus build the temple?

How do we determine how far 'far off' is (within Israel, neighboring countries, other continent, etc)?

When will Jesus and those far off build the temple?

While I'm thinking about how to use the dispensational hermeneutic to answer these question, feel free to chime in.

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by blhowes
How do we determine who they that are far off is referring to, who will help Jesus build the temple?

Two possibilities so far:

Gentile Christians
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

Sabeans
Joe 3:8 And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off: for the LORD hath spoken it.

[Edited on 5-31-2006 by blhowes]

 

[Wannabee]

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.

Hermeneutics - a set of principles
Exegesis - implemenation of valid interpretive principles
Meaning - truth intention of the author
Interpretation - understanding of the truth intention of the author



So, the first step would be to work through the original text. I won't be able to work on that right away. My Hebrew is rusty and it will take me a little bit to get it done. Still competing assignments for summer classes right now. Anybody up to it?

 

[turmeric]

Originally posted by blhowes
...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?

How's this, from John Owen;

"This principle is always to be retained in our minds in reading of the Scripture, namely, that the revelation and doctrine of the person of Christ and His office is the foundation on which all other instructions of the prophets and apostles for the edification of the Church are built, and in which they are resolved."

From The Glory of Christ by John Owen

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by turmeric
How's this, from John Owen;

"This principle is always to be retained in our minds in reading of the Scripture, namely, that the revelation and doctrine of the person of Christ and His office is the foundation on which all other instructions of the prophets and apostles for the edification of the Church are built, and in which they are resolved."

From The Glory of Christ by John Owen

Thanks, Meg. Good stuff.

I like also what he says in the previous paragraph:

2. Diligently study the Scripture and the revelations that are made of this glory of Christ in them. To behold it is not a work of fancy or imagination; it is not conversing with an image framed by the art of men without, or that of our own fancy within, but of faith exercised on divine revelations. This direction He gives us Himself (John 5:39): "Search the scriptures; for they are they which testify of me." The way whereby this is done is fully set before us in the example of the holy prophets in the Old Testament (I Peter 1:11"”13).

Definitely a good principle to keep in mind as we study the scriptures.

 

[Wannabee]

It might help if the above hermeneutic was clarified and stated succinctly. For instance, while Christ is evident throughout the OT, some take this too far. I suspect that CTs would see Christ in more passages than DTs. What guidelines are used to keep one from eisegesis (I-see-Jesus ).

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by Wannabee
What guidelines are used to keep one from eisegesis (I-see-Jesus ).

...or, what guidelines are used to keep one from eisenogesis (I-see-no-Jesus)

It's getting late, I'm getting silly, good night!