Results 1 - 11 of 11
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Harmonizing the Word Hermeneutically | Deut 19:21 | EdB | 243171 | ||
Again having taught in both AG ministerial and other denominational seminaries and Bilble collages I'm not aware of dispensational teaching as such. I know of professors that teach against and some that teach a form of Dispensationalism in passing. Frankly I'm unaware of Dispensationalism holding any importance to AG theology. It certainly is not listed in AG 16 doctrines of faith. I asked one friend about it and he thought there was an AG position paper on the subject. Neither of us have been able to find it. From what he thinks he remembers was the AG took a position in opposition to what Dake presents as Dispensationalism. Again I don't hold to any Dispensationalism that suggests or alludes in any way to God's plan failing or having to make changes. But since I have never set out to study dispnsationalism I can not defend or critique it. It just isn't important to me. Sorry I can't be more help. Why the interest about Dispensationalism? It was a popular subject maybe 30 years ago but I haven't heard anyone mention the subject lately. Perhaps Hagee and his blood moons or ads for " full color" charts but nothing serious. |
||||||
2 | Harmonizing the Word Hermeneutically | Deut 19:21 | DocTrinsograce | 243172 | ||
Dear Ed, Good clarifications there! You asked, "Why the interest about Dispensationalism?" Well, to be as honest as possible: Perhaps you have read our Reformed Baptist confession at least in part. Chapter 32 of the 2 LBCF 1689 speaks to eschatology. I have always been satisfied with the old Baptist Divines assertions. Indeed, I find that they go as far as possible, yet no farther, than what we ought to say about the final consummation of God's eternal purpose. Revelation 22 is that denouement that Christians look to with hope. After I posted the quote by A. W. Pink (#243137), you criticized the his assertion in post #243139. That got me thinking. Returning to Pink's "A Study of Dispensationalism" I found that he was definitive in his expression of the fundamental principles of this teaching. However, as we know in properly handling the Word: context is king. I was very erroneously neglecting that rule in my reading of Pink; for, as we certainly ought to be aware, each and every text (be it Biblical or external to the Bible), was penned in a specific historical and grammatical context. So, if I am to understand Pink, I need to understand the teaching he was critiquing. Going back through his study, I found that Pink's primary focus was on the teaching by John Nelson Darby (1800-1882); the father of Dispensationalism and Futurism. I read what Darby had to say on the topic; verifying that Pink was representing him accurately. Then I began to try to read what the various Dispensational teachers had to say on the topic. Oy... there is a lot of stuff out there! What became apparent was that they all seemed to use different assumptions arriving, obviously, upon differing conclusions. Too much to study! One could spend a lifetime trying to harmonize them. Anyway, I thought I could the study down a bit by focusing on the simple question, based in Ryrie's assertion: How many dispensations are there and what characterizes each? Unfortunately, even using that most basic approach failed to show any consensus. That was when I posted #243147. Over the years I had noticed that you affirm various assertions found in Dispensationalism. I consider you to be as representative of Pentecostalism that I could easily find. (The internet repeatedly asserts that Dispensationalism is a fundamental and necessary extension of Pentecostalism.) I knew that any question that I might ask of you would be regarded by you as some kind of attack. However, thought I, maybe by setting out what I found, I might hope to draw you into explaining this thing that I found so diverse as to be almost incomprehensible. No offence, Ed, but your responses failed to clear the muddy waters. Then your assertion that "I am not a 'dispensationalist's'" (sic) confirmed that the job ahead of me was like trying to kill a whole flock of ducks with a single shot. I conclude, therefore, that there is hardly any unanimity in the very diverse teachings about Denominationalism. The diversity resists the efforts of anyone coming from the outside to try to understand. Particularly sans textbooks. I will, therefore, look to more fertile grounds: the Preterists and the Historicists are much more unified in their beliefs. It probably won't happen in my lifetime, but I suspect that ultimately Dispensationalists will need to produce a statement of consensus. Until they do, there really is nothing with which any can argue. Now I understand why my professors touched so lightly upon the tenets of Dispensationalism: They stated as much as was possible those things upon which Dispensational teachers agree. It makes for a very tiny set of statements. I will be leaving off this subject, unless there is anything else that you would like to add. So, as I look at Preterism and Historicism, don't be surprised if I post a few quotes. In the meantime, Ed, thank you for sharing what you could. In Him, Doc PS If you ever do study Dispensationalism, let me know what you find out. Certainly let me know if you find one or another of the Dispensational teachers to be the most persuasive to you. |
||||||
3 | Harmonizing the Word Hermeneutically | Deut 19:21 | EdB | 243173 | ||
First let me say I felt no attack and I hope i didn't become defensive. My interest was in Pink saying Dispensationalism was wrong which seemed to me to preclude any consideration for each man deciding for himself what scripture was saying. You then added that since it was not confessionalized in some form that, that lack made it open to error. Again where was each man,s decision in that? Obviously my problem is not with Dispensationalism or anti Dispensationalism but rather the teaching that each man can decide for himself what scripture was saying. I believe that has lead to the confusion we now call Protestantism 3000-30000 different denominations all working to their end instead of God's. Let me say the Internet is wrong to connect Dispensationalism with Pentecostalism. Neither depends on the other for any support or doctrine. The Assemblies of God is the largest Pentecostal denomination in the US and as such makes no mention of Dispensationalism in any doctrine, creed or confession of faith. If anything the AG is often critical of dispensational teaching and concepts. |
||||||
4 | Harmonizing the Word Hermeneutically | Deut 19:21 | DocTrinsograce | 243174 | ||
Dear Ed, The doctrine you have abjured so persistently is called the Perspicuity of Scripture (or the Clarity of Scripture). It is one of three doctrines that are assertions on which the doctrine of the authority of Scripture Alone is based. (The second is the Sufficiency of Scripture and the third is the Necessity of Scripture.) However, it does not edify anyone if these doctrines are so utterly mischaracterized; not me, not our readers, and not even you. (cf Ephesians 4:29-32; Peter 3:14-16) If any of us hope to learn the truth, it will not be through anything save honorable means -- for our King is of infinite honor. Since you evidently don't want to start a new thread, I will continue. I can help with your starting point explicitly. That way, you can tear and ridicule the REAL belief instead of a synthesized one. So here is the actual doctrine: "The Holy Scriptures are the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule [standard] for saving knowledge, faith, and obedience. (Isa 8:20; Luk 16:29; Eph 2:20; 2 Ti 3:15-17) Although the light of nature [this means what man can perceive by his senses of the world around them] and the works of creation and providence give such clear testimony to the goodness, wisdom and power of God that they leave people without excuse, (Psa 19:1-3; Rom 1:19-21,32; 2:12a,14-15) yet they are not sufficient to give the knowledge of God and His will that is necessary for salvation. (Psa 19:1-3 with 7-11; Rom 1:19-21; 2:12a,14-15 with 1:16-17 and 3:21) Therefore it pleased the Lord to reveal Himself at various times and in different ways, and to declare His will to His church; (Heb 1:1-2a) to ensure the preservation and propagation of the truth, and to establish and support the church against human corruption, the malice of Satan, and the world, He committed His complete revelation to writing. The Holy Scriptures are therefore absolutely indispensable, (Pro 22:19-21; Luk 1:1-4; 2 Pe 1:12-15; 3:1; Deu 17:18ff; 31:9ff,19ff; 1 Co 15:1; 2 Th 2:1-2,15; 3:17; Rom 1:8-15; Gal 4:20; 6:11; 1 Ti 3:14ff; Rev 1:9,19; 2:1, etc.; Rom 15:4; 2 Pe 1:19-21) for God's former ways of revealing His will to His people have now ceased. (Heb 1:1-2a; Act 1:21-22; 1Co 9:1; 15:7-8; Eph 2:20)" 2 1689 LBCF 1.1 Now all three doctrines of Sola Scriptura are in that paragraph above. Let's just hold on to the one doctrine that you abjure -- it is too involved to get into all the others. We'll keep it simple. Note also that the old theologians cited Scripture. They had to do so because Scripture alone is authoritative. Okay, now focus here a moment: Please provide all the Scriptures on which you base the belief that only an elite group can understand the Word, while all the rest of mankind lack that ability. Remember, just that one doctrine of the Clarity of Scripture and just by Scripture. Thank you. In Him, Doc |
||||||
5 | Harmonizing the Word Hermeneutically | Deut 19:21 | EdB | 243177 | ||
First I don't suggest that only elite groups can understand scripture! What I find as interesting is the fact some are criticized for their doctrine and others are exempt when in fact both were derived by the same means. I don't abjure any Sola Scriptura doctrine as such. What I find almost comical is how it is used to defend some doctrines and to attack others when in fact all claim they were developed using the methodology of Sola Scriptura but reached differing conclusions. Most major denominations in the US hold to doctrine that they derived from scripture that differ from other denominations that also claim to derive their doctrine from scripture. Obviously there is scripture that is confusing even to the experts (the "elite"). Rather than sitting down and resolving those differences each goes happily on their way claiming they are right and the rest of Christdom is wrong. And their justification for doing this is "their" use of Sola Scriptura. To me that is totally messed up thinking. Not the doctrine but how it is used to say we are right and all of you are wrong. Each that steps up to the soap box claims Sola Scriptura yet each profess a doctrine the others disagree with. |
||||||
6 | Harmonizing the Word Hermeneutically | Deut 19:21 | DocTrinsograce | 243187 | ||
Meh (I love that word that the kids came up with) Opinions about opinions. Sheesh. Where's the beef? Again, please cite specific scriptures that deny the Perspicuity of Scripture. You should at least have one or two, Ed? |
||||||
7 | Harmonizing the Word Hermeneutically | Deut 19:21 | EdB | 243196 | ||
The beef in this discussion is Reformed theology, Evangelical theology, Dispensationalism, covenant theology, once saved always saved, Pentecostalism, cessationalism, Baptist, Methodist, Nazarene, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Church of God, Assemblies of God, independent, Jesus only Trinitarians, infant baptism, sprinkling, immersion, charismatics, pre/ post amilennialism, historistic, futuristic, perterist, spiritualist. There are thousands of interpretations of the meaning of the same scripture as seen by each Protestant denomination, not to mention Catholics, Protestants, Greek othodox, Eastern Orthodox, Russian orthodox and on and on the list goes. I'm actual taken back when you say "where is the beef, this is all opinion" in light of all the evidence that clearly shows there are differences in the iterpretation of scripture.. |
||||||
8 | Harmonizing the Word Hermeneutically | Deut 19:21 | DocTrinsograce | 243197 | ||
No, the beef would be some solid Scriptures on which to base this opinion of yours. You're being less persuasive with each post that lacks Biblical support. | ||||||
9 | Harmonizing the Word Hermeneutically | Deut 19:21 | EdB | 243199 | ||
What opinion. The fact that denominations came into existence because of differing interpretations of scripture? Not sure there is a scripture that supports separate denominations in Christianity.. | ||||||
10 | Harmonizing the Word Hermeneutically | Deut 19:21 | DocTrinsograce | 243201 | ||
Oy vey iz mere. Scriptures on your assertion that only the magisterium are of sufficient wisdom to understand Scripture and dole it out to the masses. Scriptures that support your denial of the Clarity of Scripture. Of course, I cannot imagine that you have any... so never mind. |
||||||
11 | Harmonizing the Word Hermeneutically | Deut 19:21 | EdB | 243203 | ||
Already did :-) | ||||||