MWood
Newbie
The basis of any "anti" is the frame of reference it is approached from, whether said frame, bias, or premise, or perspective is for or against what it is looking at, as well as whether or not one is aware one is being guided by said bias.
Matt. 16/Acts 2 Dispensationalism are subject to that. As are Acts 9 and Acts 28 Dispensationalism.
As are Amilliannialism, Preterism, and all the rest.
What information is gathered after one has decided on one of those, is impacted by the particular bias.
Intuitions arrived at from the particular synthesis looking at things from one of those above biases.
How does one free oneself of the error that can lead to?
By approaching a passage on its own merit regardless of one's chosen perspective.
My chosen "perspective" is, for example, Acts 9, also known as Mid-Acts - the distinction between what in Scripture was Prophesied [Prophecy] and that in Scripture which was kept secret til the Apostle Paul [the Mystery].
That is a distinction different from what the Mt. 16/Acts 2 Dispensationalist means when he speaks of "Prophecy," for example.
And that is going to result in difference in understanding some things in Scripture.
All schools of thought have these kinds of distinctions.
An overall perspective is helpful for its automatic synthesis of many things intoone, overall premise from which one can deduce various componants without having to check and recheck every knook and cranny said deduction might call for without it.
And yet, therein lies an important problem; often - very often - a blinding one...
The absence of the awareness of the need to nevertheless allow Scripture to render its own, intended sense by approaching outside of preferred persoective other than the simple laws of grammar, that the words through which the Holy Ghost teacheth the things of God, be allowed to do so.
For me, such moments call for my temporarily putting aside my Mid-Acts Perspective until I get at the intended sense of the passage. Only afterwards do I look for where it fits within my Mid-Acts Perspective, a perspective which I arrived at by this same means - pasages on their own merit, yea, or nay as to Mid-Acts.
An example is Romans 10:18. I can take it as it APPEARS, or, I can ask "what's it actually talking about - are there other passages that might shed light on it?"
The thing I do is to leave such things at that until more time in Scripture has resulted in awareness of more and more and more passages that arise from my memory due to time in Scripture - thus, why I harp on this over time in books supposedly about Scripture.
As a result, passages like Psalm 19 arise from my memory to make increase in my understanding by that which every member of Scripture - other, related passages - supplieth.
That is what arises - not Dr. So and so, the church fathers, the Greek and all these other SECONDARY resources that far too many turn into their idols, thus, their lack of any true understanding, together with their arrogance and inability to allow correction.
Its really that simple - in Romans 10, Paul is dealing with the issue that Israel had known the will of God even before the Law - which is why he connects that to Psalm 19.
And Psalm 19 is the same issue of Romans 1, as to the witness of God via creation.
One cannot arrive at that though, when one approaches it from the bias of one's chosen perspective - be that Acts 2, Mid-Acts, Preterist, Partial this, partial that, or what have you...
There is a principle in this example. The example itself is not my intended point.
Apply it, and you end up at Mid-Acts.
Negate it and you end up at "books about," and at "well, the Greek this, the Greek that..."
In short, you end up at various means of fitting a thing into your chosen bias.
You end up at an intuitive synthesis of the things of God of your own school, not His...
And after having said all of that...
It really boils down to Prov 3:5...Trust in the Lord with all thine heart: and lean not unto thine own understanding.
And be very sure that you don't use someone elses' understanding!
Upvote
0