Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Deuteronomy 19:21 "Thus you shall not show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Deuteronomy 19:21 "You shall not show pity [to the guilty one]: it shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. |
Subject: Harmonizing the Word Hermeneutically |
Bible Note: 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. |