Results 1 - 20 of 21
|
||||||
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 | 243139 | ||
Using Ex 21:24 and Matthew 5:39 as supporting arguments for or against a certain theological position is very weak. Pink was a anti-dispensationalist and as such would look for holes in dispensational arguments. Certainly dispensationalist would look for holes in Pink's arguments. Fact is both sides make valid arguments and both sides contain nearly equal numbers of true faithful and brilliant Bible scholars. So what is the point of posting quotes that are nothing more than pot shots, to see if they hit something. Or using them as cheap shots in a veiled attempt to forward a certain theology without violating Lockman guidelines. Distasteful at best, violation of Lockman guidelines at worst. |
||||||
2 | Harmonizing the Word Hermeneutically | Deut 19:21 | DocTrinsograce | 243140 | ||
This might help as a definition. I cannot find a confessionalized one signed off on by Benny Hinn through John MacArthur. https://carm.org/dispensationalism |
||||||
3 | Harmonizing the Word Hermeneutically | Deut 19:21 | EdB | 243144 | ||
Is a confessionalized definition proof of correctness? I don't think so and neither did the Reformers that virtually threw every established confession, creed and sacrament to the wind to press their position. Martin Luther realized too late an error the Reformation allowed to propagate. That was that each man could decide for himself what scripture was saying to him. Thus opening the door to 3000 plus ( some say as high as 30,000) different interpretations of scripture that open the door for so many different Protestant denominations all with their own confessionalized creed. Let me ask what is the difference between a confessionalized definition and a papal definition? |
||||||
4 | Harmonizing the Word Hermeneutically | Deut 19:21 | DocTrinsograce | 243147 | ||
Dear Ed, The more I read on Dispensationalism (from its proponents) the more confusing it seems to me. So these are just a few thoughts. I am not even close to threatening the core issues of this teaching. A confessional on Dispensationalism would not insure its correctness. What it would achieve is concensus. It would fully expose the essential teachings to examination by anyone. It would serve as a tool of instruction and persuasion. It would also allow the theologians who studied it to dispense with minor differences, and work cooperatively toward deeper questions. Without such a statement, what you have is chaos -- internally and externally. As an example, Charles Ryrie asserts, "On the basis of a definition of a dispensation as a distinguishable eceonmy in the outworking of God's purpose, it is not difficult to deduce how many dispensations are revealed in Scripture." (He thought there were seven.) Thus, that would be a great start for agreement, if, indeed, the hermeneutic made it not difficult to deduce. However, taking just this question of, "how many" out to the many teachers of Dispensationalism we get the following: John Nelson Darby - Six Dispensations James M. Grey - Eight Dispensations Cyrus I. Scofield - Seven Dispensations Clarence Larkin - Eight Dispensations Robert Thieme - Four Dispensations Harold L. Wilmington - Nine Dispensations Finis Dake - Nine Dispensations A. E. Koch - Twelve Dispensations Charles H. Welch - Eighteen Dispensations Clarence Mason - Five Dispensations John Phillips - Nine Dispensations None of these men agree on the first Dispensation. Two of these men agree on the second Dispensation. None of these men agree on the third Dispensation. Two of these men agree on the fourth Dispensation. Possibly two of these men agree on the fifth Dispensation. Two of these men agree on the sixth Dispensation. Two of these men agree on the seventh Dispensation. None of these men agree on the eighth Dispensation. etc. I could not find any explicit number from John MacArthur and John Piper -- let alone Copeland and Swaggart. Even Ellen White doesn't quite take a stand. If this is an easy deduction from the Word, why don't any two of these scholars/teachers fail to arrive at the same conclusion? With this kind of division in Dispensational ranks, there are only two possibilities: Only one of them is right; or none of them are right. You said you thought highly of Ryrie. Is he your preferred Dispensational teacher? Truth always unites (Ephesians 4:1-3; 1 John 3:18; 1 Peter 1:22). In Him, Doc |
||||||
5 | Harmonizing the Word Hermeneutically | Deut 19:21 | EdB | 243148 | ||
Dispensationalism is an understanding of the differences of God's interaction with mankind. These are easily seen within scripture, what is not always so obvious is the minute differences that occurs between them. Some will see more and some will see less. As the Reformers insisted each man was able to interrupt scripture for him self, so we can expect to see that with the elimination of an qualitative guides There would be more than one answer to the question. Before the fall God dealt with man directly, after the fall God spoke to man but appeared to him in forms of burning bushes and such, later God dealt with man through the law as levied by the Judges, then Kings with prophets, then Christ Himself and later through the Holy Spirit with scripture providing boundaries. Each of these interactions are unique and can clearly be seen. How they are interpreted or what importance is to be placed on each interaction is up to the interpretator. And to try to deny their existence is a consequence again of a man's interpretation of scripture. A can of worms brought into being by short sighed thinking that each man can throw off all normal shackles (education, resources, history, comparative study, Holy Spirit) and interpret scripture for himself. Good luck with that! As I said even Martin Luther realized later what a mistake that was, but alas the horses were already out of the barn. We now have everyone living by many different opinions of what God said instead of one. |
||||||
6 | Harmonizing the Word Hermeneutically | Deut 19:21 | DocTrinsograce | 243162 | ||
Dear Ed, Do I understand correctly that you are saying that all of these men are right? Did they all "throw off all normal shackles?" As I read excerpts from each of these Dispensational Scholars, several of them argued that the reason the others differed in the enumeration and identification of the dispensations was because they were either insufficiently spiritual (I'm not sure what that means) or they were inadequately learned in sound interpretation of the Scriptures. If they said that of one another, it is hard to imagine them all rendering sound doctrine. I'm sorry, but it sounds like they did, indeed, need luck (or some other equivalent means) to discern the Word. Certainly the Holy Spirit would not have led them into contradictory and confused interpretations. As Martin Luther wrote, "And what is it that preachers do, to this very day? Do they interpret and expound the Scriptures? Yet if the Scripture they expound is uncertain, who can assure us that their exposition is certain? Another new exposition? And who will expound the exposition? At this rate we will go on forever. In short, if Scripture is obscure or ambiguous, what part is there in God’s giving it to us?" The law of non-contradiction would not permit us to -- in soundness of mind -- accept the diversity of Biblical exegesis as each every one right in the same sense and in the same way. Some of those men must have been way off base. I cannot feret through all of this confusion. It is like being in a room where everyone is talking at once in a different language on different topics. What hope is there for me to understand Dispensation rightly if there is no consensus amongst its adherents? Share with me the textbook that you used in your Bible college on Dispensationalism, and I promise to read it cover to cover (Proverbs 2:4-6). As in the time of Jeremiah (5:1-3), I believe that any sound doctrine can be articulated consistently and with perspicuity (cf Revelation 2:24). In Him, Doc |
||||||
7 | Harmonizing the Word Hermeneutically | Deut 19:21 | EdB | 243165 | ||
I don't think I said they were right or wrong. I addressed Dispensationalism which to me has been defined as the various stages seen in scripture where God interacted with man in different ways. We see God actually walking with man, then communicating with man by voice or phenomena, then through the judges,kings and prophets, then by sending his actual Son to walk among man and then through scripture and the church being lead of Holy Spirit. Call it what you will but you have to see those diifferences. What struck me as most odd is a reformer looking for a confession that details Dispensationalism. To me that smacks of Rome's methodology. I thought the Reformer was a staunch believer of letting every man decide for himself how to interpret scripture instead of having some "organization" through creeds tell him what scripture means. The importance of Dispensationalism boils down to where God and man started out and how down through the ages God has used different means to draw man unto him. First it was selected men, then a selected family, then a select nationand now all that have accepted Jesus as their savior. Each produced the results God desired but the last completes the definition of God's love for man. |
||||||
8 | Harmonizing the Word Hermeneutically | Deut 19:21 | DocTrinsograce | 243167 | ||
Dear Ed, I recall one of my seminary professors who said, "Never contend with a doctrine until you are able to fully articulate it to its proponents. Anything else is dishonoring to the character of our Lord. A straw man argument is fundamentally dishonest." You criticized Romanist approaches, but even they have their beliefs fully documented. I have a rather large book in my library that is their most recent and most exhaustive confession. (It is just as large as the other systematic theologies that sit beside them.) You see, I can render up to you any number of texts on hermeneutics, soteriology, Christology, covenantalism, eschatology, ecclesiology, anthropology, ontology, pneumatology, ethics, epistemology, theology proper, etc. etc. I can even render up a very clear definition of what I believe to be essential doctrines. Even my profile here gives a pretty good summation. Please understand me, I am not abjuring your beliefs. At Covenant Theological Seminary (a very Reformed school indeed), Dispensationalism was discussed a number times. However, I think that the surface was hardly scratched. Nothing much else than what Theopedia says, was ever presented. http://www.theopedia.com/dispensationalism Would you read through that page and tell me what I think? Do you agree with the definition there? Also, sorry for continuing to press the point; but if you used no textbook for your seminarians, allowing them to learn by implication; did you have a textbook from which you learned Dispensationalism? If not, may I press you to do a google search on "dispensationalism textbook" and point me in the right direction? I read A. W. Pink's book, but it was clear that the Dispensationalism in his time was very different from what it is in ours -- if it can be pinned down at all. I intend to read Vern Poythress' book on the topic. Before I do, though, it would be helpful if I read something definitive -- by which I mean something that won't require my reading everything those dozen or so Dispensational theologians wrote. Someone must have taken up the challenge to define it. Peter Abelard (a theologian of the 12th century) asserted that if you cannot explain something then you do not understand it. Finally, if I can even press you further: What are the differences between Dispensationalism, Progressive Dispensationalism, and Hyper Dispensationalism? Again, thank you for your help, Ed. In Him, Doc PS We can talk about Historic Creedalism, Hermeneutics, and the distinctions between Antiochian and Alexandrian schools of thought in another thread. I'd enjoy doing so; but let's try to stay focused on Dispensationalism for now. |
||||||
9 | Harmonizing the Word Hermeneutically | Deut 19:21 | EdB | 243169 | ||
First I'm not a "dispensationalist" so I'm certainly not prepared to evaluate any definition of it. I do clearly see differences of God's interactions with man. I don't see these as God tried this and it failed so God moved on and tried that. I see situations, different social/geopolitical situations that God used to interact with man. To me the biggest mention of dispensation theology mostly comes in connection with AG position on "End Times" . We believe in a Rapture, in a Tribulation, in a Second common and in a Millennium. I see Isreal's involvement in the End Times, Howver I'm finding myself less certain that Daniel 9:27 should be applied to the Book of Revelation to establish a time line for the Book of Revelations. What struck me odd and initially brought me into this discussion is your demand for a "confessional/creed" to establish the validity of the doctrine of dsipensationalism. It was if you were saying for a doctrine to be valid it must be included in some sort of decree by man. Again to me that appeared in opposition to the Reformed position that man was able to decide for himself what the scripture was saying. That man did not need the "church" to tell him what was true or false. To summarize my confusion, it involves the Reformers rejection of the Catholic Catechism as manufactured by man but then totally accept the Westchester confession which again is manufactured by man. Where does man's own understanding of scripture come into Reformation theology? I hope I clearly stated my confusion not as a challenge or against but rather a loss to see one of the primary tenets of the reformation in actual use. |
||||||
10 | Harmonizing the Word Hermeneutically | Deut 19:21 | DocTrinsograce | 243170 | ||
Dear Ed, Demand? Oh ho... do you think I have such authority? I just want to minimize the amount of reading I need to do (per #243147). Surely somebody thought it fitting to explain it all in a single volume. I just noticed that no two Dispensationalists agreed on the same doctrine. What I have learned from you is that there is another kind of Dispensationalism of those who disavow Dispensationalism in general. Instead of minimizing the amount of reading, now if I am to understand, I must read even MORE and varied positions. The amount of effort to understand this document increases exponentially. Your questions regarding the Reformation are out there to uncover as you wish. None of these things were done in a corner. Just as my efforts to understand Dispensationalism will require further attention. We who do not comprehend these doctrines have little authority to comment on them. To summarize my confusion, it involves the Pentecostal embracing of Dispensationalism, while rejecting or accepting en toto, the teaching of Dispensationalists through history. A rose by any other name, you know? I have a couple other AOG professors I can ask. Thus, I will seek the answers elsewhere with those who are apt to teach. Sorry for bothering you with questions of your Non-Dispensational doctrines expressed in the context of Dispensationalism. In Him, Doc PS You continue to want to talk about Reformed perceptions... Seems odd that a Pentecostal wants to know about Reformed Theology. Please start your questions on another thread. Branching off topic would confuse everyone. In another thread, I'll be happy to answer any questions that you might have. PSS I got an answer from one of my AOG pastor friends. He writes, "Standard A/G doctrine IS dispensational, pre-tribulational and pre-millenial. PERIOD." (sic) He further tells me that there are dissenters among those ordained as AOG pastors. Another one says, "Smile and nod. Just take his name to prayer and hold forth a hand of friendship with a view to hopeful fellowship." These statements have confirmed my growing suspicions that Dispensationalism is a moving target. Reformed theology had that problem at one time. It took a hundred years to iron it out. It looks like it will take more than two hundred years for Dispensationalists to arrive at agreement. |
||||||
11 | 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. |
||||||
12 | 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. |
||||||
13 | 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. |
||||||
14 | 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 |
||||||
15 | 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. |
||||||
16 | 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? |
||||||
17 | 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.. |
||||||
18 | 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. | ||||||
19 | 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.. | ||||||
20 | 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. |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |