Wannabee
Obi Wan Kenobi
Charlie,
Those are some great thoughts. I think you err in regard to dispensationalism's heremeneutic though. In the early years it was still in form, and largely, as you said, founded on contemporary exegesis (eisogesis in many cases) from diverse men, and even perspectives. But over the years there has been an effort to clearly define what the dispensational hermeneutic really is. Ryrie tried, but I don't think he really was able to grasp at it himself. The best treatment of it that I know of would be Robert Thomas' Evangelical Hermeneutics. He gives what is a fairly clear set of hermeneutic principles for the dispensationalist. Most find him very helpful, even if they disagree. I found it clarifying in many ways, but restraining in many ways that I perceived as confining God's Word.
Perhaps much of the differences lie between those, like Thomas, who have a good thorough understanding of hermeneutics, church history, exegetical ability and are truly theologians, and others who simply believe what they're told by their denomination, bite onto every new idea that comes along and fall into the program oriented church program mentality. These two groups, within dispensationalism, are very diverse. It may even be appropriate to somehow devise separate labels for them because of their vast differences.
On the other hand, I have not read a clear statement on Covenant Theology's hermeneutic. In fact, a few years ago we had a rather lengthy discussion on hermeneutics here and CTs did not rise to the occasion to present a set of cogent hermeneutic principles. The discussion was very valuable though, I thought. While I might not completely agree with what I wrote then, this thread should be a bit enlightening, and hopefully squash the idea of some nebulous dispensational hermeneutic.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f56/dispensational-vs-reformed-hermeneutic-13965/
Those are some great thoughts. I think you err in regard to dispensationalism's heremeneutic though. In the early years it was still in form, and largely, as you said, founded on contemporary exegesis (eisogesis in many cases) from diverse men, and even perspectives. But over the years there has been an effort to clearly define what the dispensational hermeneutic really is. Ryrie tried, but I don't think he really was able to grasp at it himself. The best treatment of it that I know of would be Robert Thomas' Evangelical Hermeneutics. He gives what is a fairly clear set of hermeneutic principles for the dispensationalist. Most find him very helpful, even if they disagree. I found it clarifying in many ways, but restraining in many ways that I perceived as confining God's Word.
Perhaps much of the differences lie between those, like Thomas, who have a good thorough understanding of hermeneutics, church history, exegetical ability and are truly theologians, and others who simply believe what they're told by their denomination, bite onto every new idea that comes along and fall into the program oriented church program mentality. These two groups, within dispensationalism, are very diverse. It may even be appropriate to somehow devise separate labels for them because of their vast differences.
On the other hand, I have not read a clear statement on Covenant Theology's hermeneutic. In fact, a few years ago we had a rather lengthy discussion on hermeneutics here and CTs did not rise to the occasion to present a set of cogent hermeneutic principles. The discussion was very valuable though, I thought. While I might not completely agree with what I wrote then, this thread should be a bit enlightening, and hopefully squash the idea of some nebulous dispensational hermeneutic.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f56/dispensational-vs-reformed-hermeneutic-13965/