On two other threads, it seemed largely uncontested that Dispensationalists and those holding a to Reformed Theology employ the same basic hermeneutic (i.e., the historical-grammatical). It was then offered that whether one ends up in one camp or the other is largely governed by the presuppositions that one embraces.
I am interested in the differing presuppositions embraced by the two theological camps. I am not interested in the Dispy presuppositions as identified by the Reformed, or vice versa. I am interested in those presuppositions admitted to by those ascribing to a particular theological system (CTers or Dispy’s identifying their OWN presuppositions).
I no longer strictly speaking fall into the CT camp but I am amill. Paul said that all the promises are fulfilled in Christ and Jesus Himself said that all of Scripture was about Him. So ultimately when interpreting Scripture we should be looking for what it tells us about Jesus. I also hold to the antilegoumenna/homolegoumena distinction. I believe that books of the Bible such as the book of Revelation should be interpreted through the lens of undisputed books such as the Gospels. The book of Revelation is not primarily written as a book to show us future events but to offer comfort to persecuted Christians of every age--we learn that the Lamb conquers through suffering.
__________________ Poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese. - G.K. Chesterton
Well, unlike other forums where I posted this question, you actually provided a response that described what seems to be a true presupposition. It is surprising to me how many label a principle that they apply as a presupposition, then go on to describe how it was derived from Scripture (which, of course would make it something other than a presupposition).
But I am constrained to point out that while your presupposition is interesting, my question related to the difference in presuppositions between the Reformed and Dispensationalists.
Since they have remained silent, I will offer up a straw man.
A fundamental difference in the presuppositions held by knowledgeable CT’rs and the presuppositions held by knowledgeable Dispy’s is the following:
One Dispensational Presupposition: The fullest meaning of a text is gained when it is understood as it would have been by its original recipients.
One Covenant Theological Presupposition: The fullest meaning of a text is gained when it is understood through the lens of the completed revelation of Scripture.
This difference in hermeneutic approach is at the foundation of the disagreements between CT'rs and Dispys.
Well, here's one problem. Dispensations are a presupposition. You said the dispensational presupposition is that the fullest meaning of the text is gained when it is understood as it would have been by it's original recipients.
Well which original recipients understood the text as dispensational? I wouldn't think any of them. There's certainly no clear evidence in say the writings of the early church fathers for a dispensational understanding. So was it completely lost between the original Christians and those who came just behind? Would seem a real stretch to lose something so fundamental wouldn't it? I don't believe it was lost that rapidly but was never understood that way, until oh, 1800 years later.
Hence, I would say dispensationalism itself depends on not using a historical grammatical hermaneutic for it's foundation, but rather a framework of splits or dispensations which then and only then might one use a historical grammatical hermaneutic.
The big presupposition is dispensationalism itself.
__________________ Eze 36:25-27 ESV (25) I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. (26) And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. (27) And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.
Heb 10:22 ESV let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
Actually, I think both dispensationalists and the Reformed say that we get the fullest understanding of Scripture only when we understand it in light of the whole canon. Dispensationalists, am I right?
Linear Mode
