Dispensational vs Reformed Hermeneutic

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by py3ak
Therefore, Paul's hermeneutic was not inspired. We KNOW what Paul's hermeneutic was. Please, read Beale's work. Paul's hermeneutic was not utterly unique in the 1st century (or before or after).

It can be replicated. We can observe the principles he used. He virtually gives them to us. We can observe the way the other NT writers use the OT.
Click to expand...

Dr. Clark, if you get a minute could you expand on Paul's hermeneutic not being inspired? Does that mean it was not revealed? Does it mean that it was not infallible? I agree that we should try to imitate it, by the way.
Click to expand...

What I mean is that we shouldn't think that when Paul went to the store or made tents he was inspired. In our zeal to defend the inerrancy/infallibility of Scripture we have not always been very careful about how we (defenders of the Bible) have spoken.

What we confess is that the words, ideas, expressions, etc of Scripture are inspired.

Inspiration cannot be repeated. It's the work of the Spirit. It's part of redemptive history. It's part of the formation of the covenantal canon.

Hermeneutics refers to a system for reading Scripture. We can deduce what Paul's principles and system were. We don't need to be inspired. The principles that Paul used were not inspired, even if what he wrote was.

Since the principles he used to interpret Scripture can be observed and imitated, one need not be inspired to use them. One need only be faithful to the methods and conclusions of the apostles.

Paul (et co) did not perform exegetical or hermeneutical magic. They did careful, grammatical, historical, Christ-centered exegesis of the Hebrew Scriptures -- actually more likely the Septuagint (Greek trans. of the OT).

If we will, we too will find, as we read Abraham, Moses, David, and the Prophets: "That rock was Christ."

The same Savior who became incarnate was operating in redemptive history before the incarnation. He thundered from the top of Sinai (Heb 12). He spoke to Adam in the garden. That same Son who said, "Adam, where are you?" Who clothed him in bloody clothes, himself became the 2nd Adam, entered the garden, defeated the evil one, was struck on his heel, died, was buried and raised victorious the 3rd day.

rsc
 
Dr. Clark,

Beale? Who is he, I want to read this, looked through your posts & can't find the name or title of the book. Could you list it again/
 
Originally posted by turmeric
Dr. Clark,

Beale? Who is he, I want to read this, looked through your posts & can't find the name or title of the book. Could you list it again/
Click to expand...

Perhaps Dr. Clark has in mind: Gregory K. Beale (ed), The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Text?, Baker, 1994, and Gregory K. Beale, "Did Jesus and His Followers Preach the Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts?" Themelios 14 [1989].

[Edited on 6-6-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]
 
Yes, these are they.

He was on campus this spring and did a terrific job lecturing on this material.

It was very encouraging.

rsc

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Originally posted by turmeric
Dr. Clark,

Beale? Who is he, I want to read this, looked through your posts & can't find the name or title of the book. Could you list it again/
Click to expand...

Perhaps Dr. Clark has in mind: Gregory K. Beale (ed), The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Text?, Baker, 1994, and Gregory K. Beale, "Did Jesus and His Followers Preach the Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts?" Themelios 14 [1989].

[Edited on 6-6-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]
Click to expand...
 
If we will, we too will find, as we read Abraham, Moses, David, and the Prophets: "That rock was Christ."

The same Savior who became incarnate was operating in redemptive history before the incarnation. He thundered from the top of Sinai (Heb 12). He spoke to Adam in the garden. That same Son who said, "Adam, where are you?" Who clothed him in bloody clothes, himself became the 2nd Adam, entered the garden, defeated the evil one, was struck on his heel, died, was buried and raised victorious the 3rd day.
Click to expand...
Preach it! Good stuff. And exactly the same conclusions from a Dispensational hermeneutic. So, what's the rub? I think it's the time during our exegesis that we look more at the broader context. In the immediate context Adam and Eve obviously couldn't clearly understand the implications of bruising of the heel and head. And of course we see this as prophetic in regard to Christ. And in a text such as this I suppose I couldn't help but see Christ in it as I read, unless I hadn't seen the NT yet. And while I would definitely preach on Christ from this text (and every text, for that matter), the immediate context has a lot of different (I purposely avoided using "more" :) ) things to offer before I would bring it around to Christ. Would it be that the DT attempts to keep things in more of a progressive mindset, especially during the early stages of exegesis? And the CT takes more of a bird's eye view of all of Scripture from the beginning of his exegesis?
 
Originally posted by Wannabee
If we will, we too will find, as we read Abraham, Moses, David, and the Prophets: "That rock was Christ."

The same Savior who became incarnate was operating in redemptive history before the incarnation. He thundered from the top of Sinai (Heb 12). He spoke to Adam in the garden. That same Son who said, "Adam, where are you?" Who clothed him in bloody clothes, himself became the 2nd Adam, entered the garden, defeated the evil one, was struck on his heel, died, was buried and raised victorious the 3rd day.
Click to expand...
Preach it! Good stuff. And exactly the same conclusions from a Dispensational hermeneutic. So, what's the rub? I think it's the time during our exegesis that we look more at the broader context. In the immediate context Adam and Eve obviously couldn't clearly understand the implications of bruising of the heel and head. And of course we see this as prophetic in regard to Christ. And in a text such as this I suppose I couldn't help but see Christ in it as I read, unless I hadn't seen the NT yet. And while I would definitely preach on Christ from this text (and every text, for that matter), the immediate context has a lot of different (I purposely avoided using "more" :) ) things to offer before I would bring it around to Christ. Would it be that the DT attempts to keep things in more of a progressive mindset, especially during the early stages of exegesis? And the CT takes more of a bird's eye view of all of Scripture from the beginning of his exegesis?
Click to expand...
Joe
I can only speak for myself here. As I moved away from dispensationalism it was also because of my readings on modernity's influence on the church and a Calvinistic understanding of original sin. The tools I was given for reading the Bible seemed to be contradicted by the Bible. I was told that if the Bible was read in a particular way (disp. herm.) that I could always count on getting the same correct result. The Bible was to be read as any other book, albeit infallible. Correct results could even be obtained, assumably, by unbelievers since it was proper methodology that assured correct results. Quite mechanistic, very modern - that's why people couldn't come up with these results in early days, they didn't have the advantage of modern knowledge as we do. Now I move to the Bible and read, say Romans, that tells me unrighteous men are actively suppressing the truth and that there is none righteous. I turn to the doctrine of original sin and total depravity and realize that even my best lunges at righteousness are tainted by my God-dishonoring self-glorifying motives. Now I am in a bind, won't these conditions lead me away from truth if I am relying on my powers of logic (inductive Bible study) and "commonsense"? (insert Wild Boar Podcast #6 "Seeker's Prayer" http://www.apuritansmind.com/podcast/WildBoarNewsPodcast.htm)
It seems my only hope is to pray to God, rely on His wisdom and follow the footsteps of the apostles to a true understanding of the text before me.
I understand where you're coming from. I, too, generally start with what the text appears to say to me. But I am very suspicious of those initial understandings.
This might not sound terribly scholarly and I'm sure it produces some conundrums of its own, but I did want to share how I got from point A to Point B. I hope I haven't said anything to dissuade from your current pursuit of truth that does seem to be heading in this direction.
 
Greg,

You haven't said anything at all to dissuade me a bit. While I do see value in inductive Bible study (not that you don't, but you did put it in a negative light), and I am not suspicious of my initial understanding of a text so much as I realize that I can't settle there. It's just the beginning. The NT is applied, but not in my initial exegesis (well, not intentionally, but it's probably impossible not to be considering it the whole time). The rest of what you said was right on. I love what you say about Romans. This is so foundational to the Gospel, and freeing in our efforts to pour the truth into the hearts of the lost.

You say that you were given the disp. herm., but what you describe is not, I can assure you. What you were given seems strange to me. That's one of the things I've been trying to express. Much of what passes for the disp. herm. is simply a fabrication used by many modern dispensationalists. They are dispensational because of their theology, and have been taught some poor methods of Bible study. I hesitate to even call it exegesis.

Also, I am not unsettled in my hermeneutics, nor confused. I don't have all the answers, but am perfectly comfortable with the exegetical process I have been taught. Remember, that's what they do at TMS. It's not about training men for other pursuits in ministry here. It's about training men to study Scripture and preach. The curriculum is language heavy, exegetically heavy, theologically heavy and expositionally heavy. There are some pastoral ministries classes as well, but that's pretty much it. It's almost impossible for someone to go through the program here and not receive good training from exegesis to exposition. Then it's a matter of practice and implementation.

I read (quickly) "Seeker's Prayer." I'm mostly in agreement. I don't give altar calls (except to challenge people's hearts where they are). I don't say a prayer with them. I don't have them fill out a card. I don't have them raise their hands. I don't have them walk the aisle. In fact, you might even find my approach to church membership and baptism a bit stifling. Many definitely think it's too stringent. But I'm called to protect the bride of Christ, not placate the whims of man; especially in regard to the abominations of easy-believism.

It seems to me more a matter of many here not quite understanding the hermeneutics I'm speaking of. The practice of many within the dt camp is being read into all dispensationalists. I did not discover the power of the sovereignty and grace of God through Covenantalism (though some who were CTs helped). I realized it through the power of God's Word, just like most of us did. Dispensationalism doesn't threaten that in the least. TULIP is not denigrated by Deut. God is just as sovereign for a DT (who submits to Scripture) as a CT. And even those who understand and are faithful to the hermeneutic do not necessarily come to the same conclusions or agree on every issue; just like in CT. I hope I've shown that to some degree here.

So, again, what is the root of our difference in hermeneutics?




Sovereign Grace Ministries, eh? My son had CJ autograph his MacArthur Study Bible. MacArthur hasn't even autographed it (yet), just CJ. Two of his favorite preachers and authors are CJ and RC Sproul. But he's still a Dispensational... :D It's hereditary you know... :)

[Edited on 6-8-2006 by Wannabee]
 
I'll come back to the main point later. I need to go back and see if the question has been asked and responded to, the question being who defines the DT hermeneutic? I learned under a DTS '76(?) grad, who grew up in a Brethren household. He was very much what Bock/Blaising would label "modified" with some "classical" leanings. Let me come back to it later.
Just wanted to reply to this.

Originally posted by Wannabee
Sovereign Grace Ministries, eh? My son had CJ autograph his MacArthur Study Bible. MacArthur hasn't even autographed it (yet), just CJ. Two of his favorite preachers and authors are CJ and RC Sproul. But he's still a Dispensational... :D It's hereditary you know... :)
Click to expand...
Yeh, it been kind of strange. I went looking for a church that was anchored in reformed baptist teachings (after 20yrs in an independent Bible church). It is not a popular set of teachings here in South Jersey and the Cherry Hill church was the only thing reasonably close to me. (I found them tracking down a copyright on one of their songs.) To this day I am skeptical of charismatic worship styles, but the preaching is has been very sound (esp. for an area that seems to abound in "purpose driven" type churchs) and they do community life very well. By this last point I mean that the people are in each others lives, encouraging (including the confrontation of sin) one another to godly lives by the power of the Gospel. We are encouraged to read Owen, Piper, Bridges, Spurgeon, Carson, "Valley of Vision". Humility abounds among the leaders. I wrote a letter rebuking a visiting senior pastor for the way he handled the text in his sermon (talk about bad hermeneutic, it is a rarety there though). The next time he visited, he sought me out to thank me and said he was convicted that he was preaching his word rather than God's word. In another church that joined the affiliation, a senior pastor said that he believed someone was better equipped to lead his congregation and worked hard to have another pastor come in and be accepted by the congregation as the senior pastor.
Now if they would just let me take over the order of service...
I find the relationship between CJ and John a very interesting one. Actually, I find reassurance in CJ's working with Dever, Mohler, etc.

Your son studying??? I thought you were a young guy when you said you were in school. Reading Sproul, uh-oh the seed is planted; maybe I can send him a book by Poythress ;)
 
Your son studying??? I thought you were a young guy when you said you were in school.
Click to expand...
Yea, with Wannabee as a handle it gives the iimpression of youth. I guess it's a matter of perspective. If you look at my signature you'll see that I've been married for over 18 years though. So, by Paul's measurement I need to not let them despise my youth. But after 3 years of seminary I sure don't feel young any more. :) My older son is in college (started at 16) and my younger one probably will be next semester. If you'll endulge a father, they both can translate Greek, the older one can translate Hebrew, the younger one is struggling to learn Hebrew and both of them are pretty incredible with computers. They've become the TMS de-facto computer repair men. Okay, okay, "brag off."

I'm curious, is CJ covenantal or Dispensational? Obviously he has a high view of God.

As for who is qualified to define the DT hermeneutic. It is decidely not someone in the CT camp. I think (hope) we could agree on that. How about someone with Dallas, Talbot, Moody and TMS credentials? Dr. Robert L. Thomas is just the man. I disagree with his conclusions in many instances. However, I do so with great concern over my own pride and ability to handle God's Word. I've referenced his book, Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old on a few occasions here. He sets forth a clear definition of the dispensational hermeneutic. The book is only 4 years in print, so it's still contemporary. I've studied under him, and was incredibly blessed by his knowledge coupled with humility. He has an engeneering background, and it shows. The man is still like a machine when it comes to remembering things. He references footnotes, without looking, in Metzger's The Text of the New Testament.





Bob,
How's Zechariah coming? You've been quiet. Still working on the Hebrew?
 
Originally posted by Wannabee
Bob,
How's Zechariah coming? You've been quiet. Still working on the Hebrew?
Click to expand...
No, the Hebrew isn't the problem. I can honestly say that my Hebrew translating skills have not diminished over the years. They're as sharp now as they ever were...the same is true for Greek, Aramaic, Swahili, and Chinese, for that matter.

Unfortunately, work has become pretty hectic, with an upcoming deadline next week. I haven't been able to study Zechariah as much as I had hoped, though things should ease up after next week.

Right now, I view the whole scene in Zechariah 6 as an object lesson of sorts, the question being what is the object of the lesson. A group of men (priests?) are told to go to somebody's house to make crowns out of silver and gold, and to place them onto Joshua's (the high priest) head. They are then told to speak to Joshua about the branch who is going to build the temple of the Lord.

I haven't gotten much farther than that, other than to ponder what the people of that time might have thought. When the people of Zechariah's time read this, they may very well have thought that the temple would be a physical temple that would be built, since that is what they were accustomed to and had always known. For consistency's sake, I'd have to look at verse 13 in the same way and ask the same question (what would the people of that time have thought?)

Zec 6:13 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.

Since they don't have the information that we have about Jesus' priesthood, when it says that 'he shall be a priest upon his throne', they would be most familiar with a priest that offered sacrifices according to the Levitical priesthood. They would (I presume) have expected the priest to perform regular sacrifices, once a year to go into the Holy of Holies, etc., just like they always had.

Those are just some initial thoughts. I'll try to look at the passage more when time allows.

Bob

[Edited on 6-8-2006 by blhowes]
 
I was thinking at lunchtime, that a person living in the OT times would probably have thought it was a little different for a priest to occupy the office of a king. Who was that king who took it upon himself to offer a sacrifice, ended up getting leprosy, and getting ushered out of the temple (can't recall, offhand). Anyway, they were not use to that, and may have thought, "Hmm. That's different". If they thought that, then they may also have thought, "Maybe the rest of this 'lesson' is different from what we're use to...maybe the nature of the temple is different...".

Could be. Maybe, maybe not.

Well, back to work,
Bob
 
Originally posted by Wannabee
Your son studying??? I thought you were a young guy when you said you were in school.
Click to expand...
Yea, with Wannabee as a handle it gives the iimpression of youth. I guess it's a matter of perspective. If you look at my signature you'll see that I've been married for over 18 years though. So, by Paul's measurement I need to not let them despise my youth. But after 3 years of seminary I sure don't feel young any more. :) My older son is in college (started at 16) and my younger one probably will be next semester. If you'll endulge a father, they both can translate Greek, the older one can translate Hebrew, the younger one is struggling to learn Hebrew and both of them are pretty incredible with computers. They've become the TMS de-facto computer repair men. Okay, okay, "brag off."
Click to expand...
It's funny cause I was going to brag on my son, so now that you opened that can up. My son just finished his freshman year. He loves his iPod. I bought him a real nice unit that was powered speakers/subwoofer/charging station - cost me $200. He figured out I got it and a couple of days before his birthday, he asked if I could take it back and buy him some books instead. The list was comprised of some good references like Carson's "Introduction to the New Testatment", the Dictionary of Biblical Theology, Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, etc. and some books on Biblical Theology, like Vos and "According to Plan" by Goldsworthy and "The God of Promise and the Life of Faith: Understanding the Heart of the Bible" by Hafemann. I was so proud. (Greek & Hebrew?, nice job).

Originally posted by Wannabee
I'm curious, is CJ covenantal or Dispensational? Obviously he has a high view of God.
Click to expand...
I haven't read or listened to a lot of CJ. Just one sermon and couple of his books that could be read in one sitting. The pastoral training uses Grudem for systematic theology. The pastors I have met also refer to themselves as reformed and like the Puritans a lot. I think you have to put him in the covenantal camp.


Originally posted by Wannabee
As for who is qualified to define the DT hermeneutic. It is decidely not someone in the CT camp. I think (hope) we could agree on that. How about someone with Dallas, Talbot, Moody and TMS credentials? Dr. Robert L. Thomas is just the man. I disagree with his conclusions in many instances. However, I do so with great concern over my own pride and ability to handle God's Word. I've referenced his book, Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old on a few occasions here. He sets forth a clear definition of the dispensational hermeneutic. The book is only 4 years in print, so it's still contemporary. I've studied under him, and was incredibly blessed by his knowledge coupled with humility. He has an engeneering background, and it shows. The man is still like a machine when it comes to remembering things. He references footnotes, without looking, in Metzger's The Text of the New Testament.
Click to expand...
Ok. I printed out 2 of his papers from JETS and 4 from MTSJ, give me a few days to read and familiarize myself with his thoughts.
 
Hey Bob,

Did you give up on this? I wouldn't blame you, but it was an interesting conversation.

Blessings
Joe
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

panta dokimazete
  • Locked
Covenant vs Dispensational Theology
Replies
9
Views
9K
Christusregnat
Christusregnat
Scott
  • Locked
dispensational quotes
Replies
11
Views
8K
Dan....
D
J
  • Locked
Am I dispensational?
Replies
23
Views
6K
C. Matthew McMahon
C. Matthew McMahon
Fly Caster
  • Locked
Dispensational Nature of Israel?
Replies
3
Views
4K
Iconoclast
Iconoclast
M
  • Locked
Sources refuting Dispensational Antinomianism
Replies
16
Views
9K
Captain Picard
C
Back
Top