# Dispensationals and Exegesis



## JesusIsLord (Feb 5, 2018)

Guys, I have a dear brother and co-worker that is a staunch dispensationalist. He and I work together so we get plenty of time to discuss our differing view points. However, one that keeps coming up is exegesis. He makes it seem as though anyone who is not Dispensational, just doesnt exegete the text correctly. In my experience, most often the Dispensational guys will make it seem as though they have the monopoly on exegesis. Is this true? 

Ive even heard my friend say things like "John macarthur resurrected exegetical teaching in our lifetime".


----------



## ZackF (Feb 5, 2018)

JesusIsLord said:


> Guys, I have a dear brother and co-worker that is a staunch dispensationalist. He and I work together so we get plenty of time to discuss our differing view points. However, one that keeps coming up is exegesis. He makes it seem as though anyone who is not Dispensational, just doesnt exegete the text correctly. In my experience, most often the Dispensational guys will make it seem as though they have the monopoly on exegesis. Is this true?
> 
> Ive even heard my friend say things like "John macarthur resurrected exegetical teaching in our lifetime".





JesusIsLord said:


> Guys, I have a dear brother and co-worker that is a staunch dispensationalist. He and I work together so we get plenty of time to discuss our differing view points. However, one that keeps coming up is exegesis. He makes it seem as though anyone who is not Dispensational, just doesnt exegete the text correctly. In my experience, most often the Dispensational guys will make it seem as though they have the monopoly on exegesis. Is this true?
> 
> Ive even heard my friend say things like "John macarthur resurrected exegetical teaching in our lifetime".



Monopoly is a loaded word. I can be applied to anyone with conviction about anything disputed.

With charity toward brethren in another traditions, I think it is obvious that dispensationalists think they are right. That's normal. I think most covenant theologians think that they are right. That doesn't prove anything either way. I expect many dispensationalists to admire MacArthur. Covenant theologians admire MacArthur for reasons other than dispensationalism. It make sense that both kinds of theologians would contend strongly. Some are disagreeable and some are not.


----------



## arapahoepark (Feb 5, 2018)

JesusIsLord said:


> Guys, I have a dear brother and co-worker that is a staunch dispensationalist. He and I work together so we get plenty of time to discuss our differing view points. However, one that keeps coming up is exegesis. He makes it seem as though anyone who is not Dispensational, just doesnt exegete the text correctly. In my experience, most often the Dispensational guys will make it seem as though they have the monopoly on exegesis. Is this true?
> 
> Ive even heard my friend say things like "John macarthur resurrected exegetical teaching in our lifetime".


As with many fundamentalists and their mindset, they believe for the clarity of Scripture to be true they must interpret almost everything (seven headed monsters don't exist of course) wooden literally.
You should ask him how in the world does he get to insert a gap in Daniel's 70th week that the NT knows nothing of.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 6, 2018)

Hello Pablo,

Here's a book by Sam Waldron from Reformed Baptist Academic Press replying to John MacArthur's saying that all Calvinists should be Dispensational: _MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response_. I just bought three of these for the elders of our church, as there are quite a few Dispensationalists joining us, and we need to give a clear response (on Amazon it's going for $68 - I don't know why - as at RBAP it's only $11 + PH). Waldron is an excellent exegete and teacher.

Also I attach (below) a section, "Critique of Premillennial Dispensationalism", from Dean Davis' _The High King of Heaven_ (I have his permission), one of the top-notch hermeneutical examinations of the various schools of eschatology (he's amil).

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## RefPres1647 (Mar 8, 2018)

I mean, John MacArthur has used eisegesis (something he accuses paedos of using in their defenses) when he's explaining the rapture:

"People always say, 'Where, where does the rapture come in?' it’s in the white spaces between chapter 3 and 4. Yeah, the church on earth in chapter 2 and 3, and all of a sudden, we appear in heaven, and I want you to see what happens. The theme of Heaven is worship. We go from earth to heaven."

https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/1290/a-jet-tour-through-revelation

So they may use some exegesis, but in order for that doctrine to be fully explained, there is a lot of eisegesis (even their version of the rapture has to be found "in the white spaces".

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 8, 2018)

Tell him to read Poythress's book _Understanding Dispensationalists_. The hermeneutical issues are at the forefront here. How does the Scripture itself tell us to do interpretation?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 8, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> Tell him to read Poythress's book _Understanding Dispensationalists_. The hermeneutical issues are at the forefront here. How does the Scripture itself tell us to do interpretation?



Or read it online here:
https://frame-poythress.org/ebooks/understanding-dispensationalists/

Go here to see what is available online:
https://frame-poythress.org/ebooks/

Click the actual image of the book in question, not the small icons shown below the images. The result will be that some are excerpts and others are the full text.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 8, 2018)

JesusIsLord said:


> "John macarthur resurrected exegetical teaching in our lifetime"


I used to say (it's been ages since I listened to radio ministry) that it took me less than a minute of listening to any speaker on the radio and I could tell if he was reformed (-ish).

One day, many years ago, I was tuning to Christian radio, and I heard JMA talking for the first time. Didn't know who it was, didn't know he was a "four-pointer" at the time, he wasn't doing anything but preaching Scripture, I'm pretty sure the topic had nothing to do with Calvinism--and within a minute I decided to listen to him whenever I heard him. And I did, except for if he was teaching on Daniel or Revelation.

Here's the thing: if JMA "resurrected" exegetical preaching, how could I recognize "my listening style" when I heard him the first time? I'd been listening to OPC preachers since I was born. The quote at the top is a parochial and blinkered comment.

JMA rekindled interest in fresh exegetical preaching "on the radio," more or less taking Barnhouse' and JVMcGee's places. I'm sure he helped lots of people who were in the wasteland of American evangelicalism. But that's a commentary on American evangelicalism's shallow theological and biblical depth, not on churches that refused to be part of that bandwagon from the get-go.

Some of us were blessed (all grace, no deserving) to grow up under good preaching and far away from the spotlight of notoriety. JMA was blessed to rise up and fill a prominent, public niche that stood empty; and he's done a thankworthy job, even if I find him unlistenable at certain points.

Some people assume Baptists (alone) are the most "natural Christians" who recently lost their way on preaching, and JMA singlehandedly and heroically resuscitated the faith. JMA doesn't believe that.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 8, 2018)

JesusIsLord said:


> Ive even heard my friend say things like "John macarthur resurrected exegetical teaching in our lifetime".



He resurrected the word-study commentary. The idea was killed off by James Barr's book on biblical semantics. Macarthur brought it back to lfie.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 9, 2018)

JesusIsLord said:


> Guys, I have a dear brother and co-worker that is a staunch dispensationalist. He and I work together so we get plenty of time to discuss our differing view points. However, one that keeps coming up is exegesis. He makes it seem as though anyone who is not Dispensational, just doesnt exegete the text correctly. In my experience, most often the Dispensational guys will make it seem as though they have the monopoly on exegesis. Is this true?
> 
> Ive even heard my friend say things like "John macarthur resurrected exegetical teaching in our lifetime".


There are some good points Dispensational would hold with, as most of the prominent ones teach and hold to a fully inspired Bible, hold to Conservative understanding of it, and do , among the Calvinistic ones, hold to a strong reformed Sotierology.
I hold more in common with them, especially those who are Baptists, than to any Arminian Theology holding Christian, or to Charismatics, for examples.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 9, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> He resurrected the word-study commentary. The idea was killed off by James Barr's book on biblical semantics. Macarthur brought it back to lfie.


That would be a good thing.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 9, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> That would be a good thing.



Not really. Words form sentences and that is where the meaning is. And word studies tend to take on a life of their own.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 9, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Words form sentences and that is where the meaning is. And word studies tend to take on a life of their own.


This is a proper and reasonable critique of word-study exegesis. Nevertheless, it is fair to argue that there is a need for exegetes to study the* words* that make up the sentences. And sloppy or hasty treatment of those words moves the careful exegete away from the_ precision_ of the biblical text.

The words matter.

Case in point. Recent arguments/defenses of paedo-communion. In some defenses I have read and heard, weight is given to a particular read of Ex.12 and the institution of Passover. v47 is singled out here for its language "All the _*congregation*_ of Israel shall keep it."

Note the *bold* term. This sentence is, by certain PC advocates, assumed to mean that ever-after the entirety of the nation--great & small, old & young (as small as can eat meat), male & female ought to eat; and the operative term in the sentence for this understanding is "congregation." As if that term had self-evident meaning.

This is the fourth use of this term in this chapter, all which is without question contextually relevant. ALL THREE previous uses of this term call for a distinct, nuanced meaning in its own sentence context. The import is: each previous use narrowly considered has nuance not proper to the other two.

The correct use of word-study is exactly what is needed in such cases, because a definition that is 1) broad enough to encompass every use of the term, or to use Barr's trenchant critique, one that is 2) an instance of "illegitimate totality transfer": that is the imputation of every possible nuance of the word's meaning to any particular case of its use--either one flattens the value of the term. Meaning is taken away, or definitions are vacuumed up indiscriminately; and no good use can be made of the jumble.

Therefore, when one comes to v47, it is simply false to say that the meaning of the term "congregation" is self-evident from the sentence. Does it mean exactly what it meant in ANY of the previous 3 uses, which nuances are all distinct? Or is it even a FOURTH nuance, and distinct from the previous 3?

Paedo-communionist defenders flee from such a challenge; their arguments and defenses are simplistic. (In rationalist fashion they frequently resort to an alleged "cumulative case" stance; making it necessary to painstakingly crush each PC postulate, in order to prove the house of cards that it is.)

Word-studies properly done force the exegete to grapple with the full semantic range of a term, and argue for one (or possibly double-entendre) intentional use in the text under immediate consideration; as well as how a term found in a given passage may be intentionally taken up and reused by a later author (or how a later author took the previous term), in order to stretch its benefit or its application.

Either way can shed light on the original or later/earlier text. It just cannot add or take away the fundamental communication-purpose for the use of the word in a given context.

Final note: Barr's insight shouldn't be allowed to overrule the Holy Spirit's purpose for his words in a given text. In ordinary human prose or poetry, considered as art, even an author may return to his own text-creation and acknowledge additional layers which he may attribute to his own subconscious (or his "muse"). How much more, then, may we with due respect (and not by a surrender to postmodern anti-rubrics) regard the language of the Inspiring Author.

Words matter.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 9, 2018)

I agree. And I think Barr downplayed true elements of biblical thinking in his fear of "illegitimate totality transfer."


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 9, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Not really. Words form sentences and that is where the meaning is. And word studies tend to take on a life of their own.


yes, bad uses of word studies are well known, as in DA Carson book on Exegetical Fallacies well documented, but the basic concept at looking at the individual word in its proper use and context is still sound.


----------



## monoergon (Mar 10, 2018)

Perhaps you could suggest to your friend this following book:
_Dispensationalism Today, Yesterday, and Tomorrow _by Rev. Grover Gunn and Curtis Crenshaw.
Its a great refutation to dispensationalism.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 10, 2018)

More to the original post, someone recommended Poythress's book on Dispensationalism. It is great. He examines the assumptions _both _sides bring to the text, and he is able to treat Dispensationalists without thinking they are all Hal Lindsey types.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 12, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> More to the original post, someone recommended Poythress's book on Dispensationalism. It is great. He examines the assumptions _both _sides bring to the text, and he is able to treat Dispensationalists without thinking they are all Hal Lindsey types.


This was one of the books that I read while in strictly Dispensational theology, and did appreciate that the author was showing kindness to me at that time, as I was wrong and sincere. Before him, I had read other books, but those authors seem to not want to not only show the errors in Dispensational thinking, but made sure was shown as being pretty much non-Christian, period.


----------



## RefPres1647 (Mar 12, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> This was one of the books that I read while in strictly Dispensational theology, and did appreciate that the author was showing kindness to me at that time, as I was wrong and sincere. Before him, I had read other books, but those authors seem to not want to not only show the errors in Dispensational thinking, but made sure was shown as being pretty much non-Christian, period.


Understanding Dispensationalists by Polythress is a great one too.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 12, 2018)

RefBapAmil said:


> Understanding Dispensationalists by Polythress is a great one too.


It would be nice to have available for the Body of Christ a couple of solid books for Dispensationalists to understanding Covenant theology, and for the Reformed/Calvinist to get a handle of why Dispensationalists hold with what they do. The books would not be designed to really change minds, but to give an accurate representation.


----------



## RefPres1647 (Mar 12, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> It would be nice to have available for the Body of Christ a couple of solid books for Dispensationalists to understanding Covenant theology, and for the Reformed/Calvinist to get a handle of why Dispensationalists hold with what they do. The books would not be designed to really change minds, but to give an accurate representation.


I agree, I just know that one gives a good representation as to why they think the way they do so we can understand their mindset. There's this one book that explains covenant theology really well and gives a decent explanation as to why dispensationalism doesn't work: it's called the Bible.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 12, 2018)

RefBapAmil said:


> I agree, I just know that one gives a good representation as to why they think the way they do so we can understand their mindset. There's this one book that explains covenant theology really well and gives a decent explanation as to why dispensationalism doesn't work: it's called the Bible.
> 
> Jordan Stone
> Member of Immanuel Bible Church
> ...


The problem is that those who hold to a differing theology would also claim the Bible.


----------



## RefPres1647 (Mar 12, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The problem is that those who hold to a differing theology would also claim the Bible.


I agree, that was just me trying to be funny. Trust me, I grew up in a Dispensational Arminian church growing up and I understand the way they think and their biggest arguments are whether the rapture is pretrib or posttrib. Most of them would probably find the truth if they researched for themselves like I did, but unfortunately, most are content to getting all their Bible time from the pastor and don't read it themselves.

Jordan Stone
Member of Immanuel Bible Church
(Confessional (SLBC) Reformed Baptist)
Northern Virginia, United States
Soli Deo Gloria


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 12, 2018)

RefBapAmil said:


> I agree, that was just me trying to be funny. Trust me, I grew up in a Dispensational Arminian church growing up and I understand the way they think and their biggest arguments are whether the rapture is pretrib or posttrib. Most of them would probably find the truth if they researched for themselves like I did, but unfortunately, most are content to getting all their Bible time from the pastor and don't read it themselves.
> 
> Jordan Stone
> Member of Immanuel Bible Church
> ...


I grew up on a Scofield/Ryrie SB, so know pretty much what that viewpoint is all about from the scriptures.
Since changing, I have found it harder to get a handle on not so much Covenant theology, but how and why Reformed baptists , as I now see myself being, and Presbyterians disagree on some crucial areas of biblical understanding.
I wonder if it really should be labeled Reformed for both groups, as there seems to be enough differences to have it maybe under a subset category?


----------



## RefPres1647 (Mar 12, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I grew up on a Scofield/Ryrie SB, so know pretty much what that viewpoint is all about from the scriptures.
> Since changing, I have found it harder to get a handle on not so much Covenant theology, but how and why Reformed baptists , as I now see myself being, and Presbyterians disagree on some crucial areas of biblical understanding.
> I wonder if it really should be labeled Reformed for both groups, as there seems to be enough differences to have it maybe under a subset category?



I agree that we (RB) & Presbyterians agree on much more than we disagree on, but of course, the way we view the covenants and baptism is enough to separate us. I also think that Reformed is a name for both groups because they are both arguing against Rome's view of justification. 

If anything (and I'm sure I'll get attacked for saying this), the Reformed Baptists deserve the big "R" since the Roman Catholic view of baptism was for infants. I understand Presbyterians look at it as an entrance into a covenant community and not regeneration; having said that, Presbyterians didn't really reform from the RCC *practice* of infant baptism. However, Reformed Baptists did turn away from it (and we reformed to what we believe is biblical teaching on baptism). 

If we're basing our reformation on what we believe is back to biblical teaching, then sure, we're both reformed, but it gets under my skin when some say that Reformed Baptists can't be "Reformed" because we don't adhere to infant baptism since that was what Rome was doing along with the practices we both recognize as unbiblical.


----------



## RefPres1647 (Mar 12, 2018)

RefBapAmil said:


> I agree that we (RB) & Presbyterians agree on much more than we disagree on, but of course, the way we view the covenants and baptism is enough to separate us. I also think that Reformed is a name for both groups because they are both arguing against Rome's view of justification.
> 
> If anything (and I'm sure I'll get attacked for saying this), the Reformed Baptists deserve the big "R" since the Roman Catholic view of baptism was for infants. I understand Presbyterians look at it as an entrance into a covenant community and not regeneration; having said that, Presbyterians didn't really reform from the RCC *practice* of infant baptism. However, Reformed Baptists did turn away from it (and we reformed to what we believe is biblical teaching on baptism).
> 
> If we're basing our reformation on what we believe is back to biblical teaching, then sure, we're both reformed, but it gets under my skin when some say that Reformed Baptists can't be "Reformed" because we don't adhere to infant baptism since that was what Rome was doing along with the practices we both recognize as unbiblical.



I'm not trying to attack my Presbyterian brothers, two of my best friends are Presbyterian, I just feel like we get the short end as RB sometimes


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 13, 2018)

RefBapAmil said:


> I agree that we (RB) & Presbyterians agree on much more than we disagree on, but of course, the way we view the covenants and baptism is enough to separate us. I also think that Reformed is a name for both groups because they are both arguing against Rome's view of justification.
> 
> If anything (and I'm sure I'll get attacked for saying this), the Reformed Baptists deserve the big "R" since the Roman Catholic view of baptism was for infants. I understand Presbyterians look at it as an entrance into a covenant community and not regeneration; having said that, Presbyterians didn't really reform from the RCC *practice* of infant baptism. However, Reformed Baptists did turn away from it (and we reformed to what we believe is biblical teaching on baptism).
> 
> If we're basing our reformation on what we believe is back to biblical teaching, then sure, we're both reformed, but it gets under my skin when some say that Reformed Baptists can't be "Reformed" because we don't adhere to infant baptism since that was what Rome was doing along with the practices we both recognize as unbiblical.


My understanding on Reformed would be that the reformer such as Luther and Calvin were vested so much into getting across the correct biblical teaching regarding Justification /salvation, that they just kept and assumed over some of the RCC teachings, such as infant baptism, but did not view that exactly same fashion Rome still does. 
The common complaint I have read on Calvin and others were that they did not reform far enough away from Rome, as someone like Luther really did not want to invent a new church, but to see Rome reform itself from within.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 13, 2018)

RefBapAmil said:


> I'm not trying to attack my Presbyterian brothers, two of my best friends are Presbyterian, I just feel like we get the short end as RB sometimes


I have wondered if the Reformed baptistsviews on water baptism especially, causes some reformed to see us teaching a distinctly different take on what is perceived as being real Covenant theology proper.


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 13, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The common complaint I have read on Calvin and others were that they did not reform far enough away from Rome, as someone like Luther really did not want to invent a new church, but to see Rome reform itself from within.



If it is a common complaint, I think it comes from people who have not studied Calvin's work very carefully. Anybody who reads more than a couple of different works by Calvin would see that he did not shy away from controversial stands if he thought Scripture demanded it.

For what it is worth, I'm a wool-dyed sometimes militant "Reformed Baptist," but after studying covenant theology from the Presbyterian perspective, I would never accuse them failing to reform "far enough."


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 13, 2018)

I think that would be more as to how some who are Presbyterian might view Reformed baptist actually, as thankful that we throw off the Dispensational and Arminian thinking, but wishing us to complete the voyage over by becoming full blown Covenant theology holders, as they would define that term.


----------

