Defining a Reformed hermeneutic

[Stephen L Smith]

I know a number of Calvinistic Dispensationalists here in this country (they studied at the Masters Seminary). They argue that Reformed theology is inconsistent in its 'literal' hermeneutic.

I have been trying to think of the best way to define our hermeneutic and explain it to my Dispensationalist friends.

I believe the Reformed hermeneutic is Historical Grammatical, Historic Redemptive, interpreted in a Covenantal framework. We believe in a careful literal study of the text. That said we reject Dispensationalism because we believe the promises made to national Israel have to be interpreted in a historic redemptive framework.

For example, we do not believe that there will be literal animal sacrifices in a future Millennium because the book of Hebrews teaches us that Christ's once for all sacrifice is fully sufficient for the sins of mankind. To argue there will be animal sacrifices in a future Millennium weakens the importance of Christ's once for all sacrifice. Thus dispensationalism is not only inconsistent with it's own literal hermeneutic, it is insensitive to importance historic redemptive shifts in the Bible.

Any thoughts?

 

[Eyedoc84]

Dispensationalist: “You’re not reading the bible literalistically.”
Me: “Good. You shouldn’t either.”

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I know a number of Calvinistic Dispensationalists here in this country (they studied at the Masters Seminary). They argue that Reformed theology is inconsistent in its 'literal' hermeneutic.

I have been trying to think of the best way to define our hermeneutic and explain it to my Dispensationalist friends.

I believe the Reformed hermeneutic is Historical Grammatical, Historic Redemptive, interpreted in a Covenantal framework. We believe in a careful literal study of the text. That said we reject Dispensationalism because we believe the promises made to national Israel have to be interpreted in a historic redemptive framework.

For example, we do not believe that there will be literal animal sacrifices in a future Millennium because the book of Hebrews teaches us that Christ's once for all sacrifice is fully sufficient for the sins of mankind. To argue there will be animal sacrifices in a future Millennium weakens the importance of Christ's once for all sacrifice. Thus dispensationalism is not only inconsistent with it's own literal hermeneutic, it is insensitive to importance historic redemptive shifts in the Bible.

Any thoughts?

Once this camp has pre-defined their analytical form as "the literal," and the literal as the correct method (when it accords with their bounds of affirmation), any disagreement with them amounts to "allegory" or some other discredited method or opinion. They look to the Reformation as the era of recovery of the basic priority of the "literal," hence JMac's common accusation of "inconsistency."

Resist letting them set the term of the debate. Question the premise before you get into the weeds.

 

[py3ak]

I know a number of Calvinistic Dispensationalists here in this country (they studied at the Masters Seminary). They argue that Reformed theology is inconsistent in its 'literal' hermeneutic.

I have been trying to think of the best way to define our hermeneutic and explain it to my Dispensationalist friends.

I believe the Reformed hermeneutic is Historical Grammatical, Historic Redemptive, interpreted in a Covenantal framework. We believe in a careful literal study of the text. That said we reject Dispensationalism because we believe the promises made to national Israel have to be interpreted in a historic redemptive framework.

For example, we do not believe that there will be literal animal sacrifices in a future Millennium because the book of Hebrews teaches us that Christ's once for all sacrifice is fully sufficient for the sins of mankind. To argue there will be animal sacrifices in a future Millennium weakens the importance of Christ's once for all sacrifice. Thus dispensationalism is not only inconsistent with it's own literal hermeneutic, it is insensitive to importance historic redemptive shifts in the Bible.

Any thoughts?

"Literal" cannot be legitimately defined or described without reference to the NT method of interpretation.

 

[TheInquirer]

Scripture interprets Scripture is a fundamental rule. The Bible itself is our guide hence NT use of OT is incredibly important.

They aren’t consistent within their own literal rules either by the way. I worked myself out of dispensationalism by reading the Bible through over and over again using their hermeneutics and realized it just didn't work. They have to be selective in their use of the hermeneutic in order to come to their conclusions in my opinion.

Also, JMac’s literalism led him to teaching a Trinitarian heresy for a couple decades so there’s that.

And not sure how you get a "secret" rapture out of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 when the coming of the Lord here is anything but secret when the text tells us "literally" the event is accompanied with a shout, an archangel's voice, a trumpet etc. but I guess that's perhaps a different issue.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I suggest one aspect of this debate is the question: how does genre affect interpretation? In my experience, dispensationalism tends to flatten all texts by what they term: the literal interpretation. Probably better to call it "literalistic." Poetry and prophecy (which is often poetic in form, with it's future description couched in contemporary idiom) are by nature comprised of picturesque language, hyperbole, dramatic effects, and more--it is not meant to be taken "at face value" in every (maybe most) instances

But if you listen to some teachers, Revelation and other biblical books with similar themes, should be read as if just another historical narrative, or apostolic epistle covering explicit doctrine and practice. Jesus and his apostles show us how to interpret the OT by their example. The historic church has tried to do this, even when they were erring into allegory. The Reformation corrected, but some overcorrected, and reduced hermeneutics to a matter of lexography and syntax, to grammar and sentence structure.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Thanks for all the insights. Specifically I was wondering if my definition would be helpful in clarifying what is a Reformed hermeneutic. Our Calvinistic Dispensational friends argue for a Historical Grammatical hermeneutic. I would explain that Reformed theology takes a Historical Grammatical hermeneutic very seriously, it is simply that our hermeneutic is more nuanced:

the Reformed hermeneutic is Historical Grammatical, Historic Redemptive, interpreted in a Covenantal framework.

I would also add that our Calvinistic Dispensationalist friends use our hermeneutic for their 5 point Calvinism, but not for the rest of their theology. Thus their theology is inconsistent.

I would be interested in your thoughts on my definition of a Reformed hermeneutic, especially if it is helpful for explaining Hermeneutical similarities and differences with our brethren.

 

[Charles Johnson]

The hermeneutic of both the Reformed and Lutherans is basically that laid out by Matthius Flacius in De Interpretatione in the 16th century.

In regards to literalism, he taught that a text should be understood as literal as long as that did not imply a contradiction or absurdity.

Dispensationalists are happy to take the Bible as literal even when it is both contradictory and absurd to do so.

 

[TheInquirer]

When discussing, do the MacArthurites you engage with define what they mean by “literal”? Human speech has always been full of figures. God has been using symbols of all kinds in His communication with man since Genesis.

The fundamental question of Bible interpretation is simply “What did God intend to communicate”? A good hermeneutic simply wishes to honor the authority and integrity of written divine speech.

Let me give an example of what I experienced learning from the JMac crowd. First guy I ever learned hermeneutics under was a nephew of John MacArthur. He went through Moody and then Talbot (before Master's was a thing). He taught us the way the Apostles used the Old Testament in the NT couldn't be replicated by us because they were under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in a way we weren't.

I was shocked when I first heard that and thought about it a lot over the years. So if the Holy Spirit, who is the ultimate author of Scripture, and provides illumination to us to understand the Scriptures, is showing us through the NT writers how to understand the OT which He wrote, we somehow can't model that???

The way I got out of Dispensationalism was simply reading the Bible through over and over again, using the hermeneutics he taught, and saw, over and over again, how the system was contrary to Scripture. I wasn't listening to or reading R.C. Sproul or any other author - just reading Scripture over and over again. God, through His Word and Spirit, led me out of that deception.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

When discussing, do the MacArthurites you engage with define what they mean by “literal”? Human speech has always been full of figures.

That is why I included Historic Redemptive in my definition. I also gave this example

For example, we do not believe that there will be literal animal sacrifices in a future Millennium because the book of Hebrews teaches us that Christ's once for all sacrifice is fully sufficient for the sins of mankind. To argue there will be animal sacrifices in a future Millennium weakens the importance of Christ's once for all sacrifice. Thus dispensationalism is not only inconsistent with it's own literal hermeneutic, it is insensitive to importance historic redemptive shifts in the Bible.

Perhaps in our discussions with Calvinistic Dispensationalists we need to emphasise that Reformed theology has given the church at large a Historic redemptive legacy that gives important checks and balances when interpreting the scriptures. We stand on the sholders of great Historic Redemptive theologians such as John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, Geerhardus Vos, and Greg Beale

 

[MW]

We stand on the sholders of great Historic Redemptive theologians such as John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, Geerhardus Vos, and Greg Beale

The trajectory predates these men, as I am sure they would readily acknowledge. Dispensationalism is an anomaly to the Christian tradition in general.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

The trajectory predates these men, as I am sure they would readily acknowledge. Dispensationalism is an anomaly to the Christian tradition in general.

Actually I neglected to include one of your countrymen- Graeme Goldsworthy. I understand he is Anglican, not Reformed, so did wonder how this affected his hermeneutic.

 

[Sam Jer]

These hermeneutical discussions get very theoretical very fast. Some of your friends may not process that very easily. Let's be concrete, at least when speaking to laypeople we disagree with.

A few points that helped me:
- False assumptions. Ezekiel 40-48 discusses a material future temple? Why? Where does he say that? I remember even finding a verse explaining this vision's purpose that dosen't even come close to affirming it's material.
- A lot more prophecies were fulfilled in the OT era itself than Dispensationalists think. Many others were fulfilled in the calling of the gentiles, 70 AD, and the papacy. Why assume it's future?
- Metaphors
- The double meaning of words such as Israel and Zion. Note how Peter calls the church the chosen people in 1 Peter 2, how the olive tree of Romans 11 is one tree, how even the OT prophesies often of the expansion of Israel to include the gentiles.

The Reformed understanding is more coherent than the dispie one. I too had to read the bible baffled a bunch of times due to my dispensationalism.

 

[MW]

Actually I neglected to include one of your countrymen- Graeme Goldsworthy. I understand he is Anglican, not Reformed, so did wonder how this affected his hermeneutic.

A good simplifier of Vos but he lacks Vos' understanding of dogmatics. I recall he and Trueman had a back and forth many years ago.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Coming back to the OP, what do you think of my definition of a Reformed hermeneutic. Is this definition sufficient when discussing hermeneutics with a Dispensationalist?

I believe the Reformed hermeneutic is Historical Grammatical, Historic Redemptive, interpreted in a Covenantal framework

 

[MW]

It is a good starting point but as discussion advances you will need to expand on certain aspects. Historical-grammatical affirms that Reformed hermeneutics takes Scripture seriously in its original context, but dispensationalists also claim this method. Historic-redemptive emphasises the unity of Scripture's development of redemption which culminates in Christ. This will challenge Dispensationalism’s tendency towards "dividing" Scripture. But then they might argue you still have epochal distinctions. The key differentiator is the covenantal framework. The covenant of grace administered progressively through biblical covenants unifies Scripture, whereas dispensationalism stresses discontinuity between Israel and the Church.

The two additions necessary to clarify will be typology & continuity. E.g., Israel to the Church, Land to the New Creation. Dispensationalists usually resist such interpretations of OT promises and insist on taking them literally. At the end of the day we reject the "literal where possible" hermeneutic which dispensationalists share in common with unbelieving Israel and which led to the rejection of Christ. Yet we must still affirm progressive revelation without radical discontinuity between covenants.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Historical-grammatical affirms that Reformed hermeneutics takes Scripture seriously in its original context, but dispensationalists also claim this method.

I do believe it is wise to state to our Dispensational friends that our hermeneutic is Historical-Grammatical with an important nuance. Dispensationalists charge Reformed Christians with allegorising the scriptures. A common argument I hear from Calvinistic Dispensationalists is that Calvin brought important Reform to the Church but Dispensationalists completed the Reformation by giving the Church the Historical-grammatical hermeneutic. We must refute this argument.

Historic-redemptive emphasises the unity of Scripture's development of redemption which culminates in Christ.

Agreed, and this is why I tell my Dispensational friends we believe in the Historical-grammatical hermeneutic with an important nuance. The animal sacrifices in a future Millennium argument I made in an earlier post is a theological quandary for Dispensationalists. It can only be resolved by a Historic-redemptive hermeneutic.

The key differentiator is the covenantal framework

Which is why I included the covenant in my definition. This raises another problem for Calvinistic Dispensationalists. Historically the Reformed have argued that there is an inextricable link between Covenant Theology and Calvinistic Theology. Calvinistic Dispensationalists build their Calvinism on weak theological foundations.

E.g., Israel to the Church, Land to the New Creation. Dispensationalists usually resist such interpretations of OT promises and insist on taking them literally.

I have Beale's NT Biblical Theology on my reading list so I can further understand this important point. I understand Beal's work beautifully continues Vos' Biblical Theology.

 

[MW]

I have Beale's NT Biblical Theology on my reading list so I can further understand this important point. I understand Beal's work beautifully continues Vos' Biblical Theology.

I am not sure "continues" is the right word. There are some marked differences as Beale attempts to round out some key insights of the 20th century, especially the way inaugurated eschatology informs NT doctrines. He consciously "refines" biblical theology in terms of the new creation. I will let him speak for himself: "My own view, then, is broadly similar to those of Dumbrell, Vos, and Gaffin, but I am trying to establish the crucial role of the kingdom of the new creation in a much more consistently exegetical and theologically trenchant manner. My thesis is that the major theological ideas of the NT flow out of the following NT storyline (which I repeat from above), of which the new-creational kingdom and its expansion are the central element (underlined in the following idea) leading to God’s glory: Jesus’s life, trials, death for sinners, and especially resurrection by the Spirit have launched the fulfillment of the eschatological already–not yet new-creational reign, bestowed by grace through faith and resulting in worldwide commission to the faithful to advance this new-creational reign and resulting in judgment for the unbelieving, unto the triune God’s glory."

This leads Beale to make the following assessment of his own project: "In fact, it is my contention that the definition of eschatology should be refined
as the movement toward the new-creational reign, with other associated eschatological concepts being understood as subcategories of this."

 

[Joseph&Jami]

I did a formal debate on this topic recently arguing that Reformed theology is properly more faithful to the literal sense of Scripture than dispensationalism:

Monergism wrote up my side of the argument here:

Is Covenant Theology More Literal Than Dispensationalism? | Monergism

A Biblical and Hermeneutical Evaluation of Joseph Weissman’s ArgumentPosted by: Monergism | April 2025“The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is

www.monergism.com

(The amillennialism of the comparison chart at the end isn't a full reflection of my views though)

 

[MW]

I did a formal debate on this topic recently arguing that Reformed theology is properly more faithful to the literal sense of Scripture than dispensationalism:

I normally wouldn't watch over two hours of video but given the exceptional summary on Monergism I might be compelled to. Hopefully I will find some time next week to do so.

The strength of the presentation is in its appeal to core theological concepts which allows the Scripture to define its own terms. This is true literalism.