Presuppositions

[msortwell]

On another thread, it seemed largely uncontested that Dispensationalist and Covenant Theologians 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 would be interested in a listing of differing presuppositions embraced by the two theological camps. I am not interested in the Dispy presuppositions as identified by CTers 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).

 

[Phileoeklogos]

You have asked the impossible, don't you know that dispy's don't have presuppositions, they "just believe the Bible", Now you must identify your own presuppositions of why you believe dispy's have presuppositions.







































I'm kidding..............................

 

[student ad x]

On another thread, it seemed largely uncontested that Dispensationalist and Covenant Theologians 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 would be interested in a listing of differing presuppositions embraced by the two theological camps. I am not interested in the Dispy presuppositions as identified by CTers 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).

Good evening brother,

Are you looking for something like C.T. stressing the 'analogy of faith'. Or C.T. uses of both literal and figurative hermeneutics depending on the context of the passage or chapter, ex: 'Israel' may mean either physical descendants of Jacob, or spiritual Israel? Or are you looking for something like C.T. viewing the whole of God's redemptive plan as one covenant of grace.

Cam

 

[msortwell]

Student . . .

The following link will bring you to one man's observation on the subject. I believe he is trying to wrestle with the right issues and question.

A Comparison of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology

I am referring to what each person brings to his approach to interpreting Scripture. I am not sure that the gentlemen accurately identifies genuine presuppositions, but he's trying.

I must add that I am not 100% convinced that the difference between the two camps arises from presuppositions. I am just exploring.

The first response to this thread may have provided significant insights. It may well be that dispensationalists reject the notion that their hermeneutic is presuppositional.

John MacArthur, a self professing dispensationalist, made the following statement that seems to endorse this view.

But I believe...I don't believe it's a presuppositional hermeneutic, I believe it is a hermeneutic that rises out of an understanding of the text.

But I am confused. How can a hermeneutic "rise out of an understanding of the text"? Hermeneutics is defined as, "of or pertaining to interpretation." How can a hermeneutic (a method of interpretation) rise out of an understanding of the text, when the text must be interpreted (i.e., a hermeneutic applied) in order to derive the understanding. As much respect as I have for Dr. MacArthur, this seems to be nonsensical.

 

[Apollos1]

Hey msort -

(I am trying to get more repsonse here - I hope my remarks help and not hinder.)

You quote and then remark on John MacArthur's comment. I agree. It seems to me that his remark is the definition of what a presupposition is rather than that of what a hermeneutic is.

It is my humble observation that dispys begin with a presupposition that there were -2- different gospels in the NT, and then set out to prove this presupposition by interpreting scripture through that presupposition.

Another way I can put this is - dispys start "in the middle" and work their way outward from that presupposed thought.

I would certainly like to see if any (including dispys) would agree with this observation. These thoughts are offered sincerely in view of gaining a better understanding...

 

[msortwell]

I have recently been re-reading a section of a book I have found most useful. I obtained the book when I was a dispensationalist. It is titled, “Issues in Dispensationalism” it is edited by Mr. Charles Ryrie. It is a collection of papers written by acknowledge experts in dispensational thought. One paper, written by Thomas Ice provides a discussion regarding the dispensationalist’s hermeneutic. Having reviewed this section again, I offer the following imaginary discussion between a reasonably well-informed proponent of Covenant Theology (CTer) and a reasonably well informed Dispensationalist (Dspy).

CTer: Say brother what is your hermeneutical approach?

Dspy: I interpret the Bible literally – I am a dispensationalist.

CTer: You mean that you believe that at varying times Jesus was actually a door or bread?

Dspy: Don’t be silly, that was figurative language.

CTer: But I thought you interpreted the Bible literally.

Dspy: I do. But you should not assume that means that I ignore the use of figurative language.

CTer: But “literally,” according to Webster’s means, “in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the literal meaning of a word.”

Dspy: However, that is not what dispensationalists mean by “literal.” We mean that we first determine the literal meaning of the words and then determine if the words have a figurative or metaphorical sense.

CTer: But that’s not consistent with the literal meaning of “literal.”

Dspy: What you are referring to, relates to what we call macroliteralism or microliteralism.

CTer: My dictionary doesn’t have those words in it. I haven’t been able to find one that does.

Dspy: You won’t find them in a dictionary. However, I have a paper that explains our hermeneutical method, it provides the definitions, if you would like to see it.

CTer: So, the term ‘literal,’ as used in the title that you affix to your “literal hermeneutic” is not intended to literally mean ‘literal.’ Rather it (the term 'literal' in "literal hermeneutic") represents an approach to the interpretation of Scripture that literally applies the use of figurative and metaphorical language.

Dspy: Correct!

CTer: But the label that you affix to your literal hermeneutic does not apply the literal meaning of the terms used in labeling your . . . literal . . . but . . .

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

On another thread, it seemed largely uncontested that Dispensationalist and Covenant Theologians 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 would be interested in a listing of differing presuppositions embraced by the two theological camps. I am not interested in the Dispy presuppositions as identified by CTers 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 appreciate the last sentence. Its hard enough for people to recognize their own presuppositions. And if they can't recognize their own, what they think they see in others is liable to be inaccurate.

Hermeneutics is pretty heady stuff - its really reflection upon why one thinks about something. Don't expect a lot of people to be into it. I've even seen well known writers, scholars and theologians drop the ball on this one. Many people also have an "us" vs. "them" mentality that clouds the issues even further and makes it near impossible to do any kind of reflection.

There have been a number of attempts to describe the essence of dispensationalism. MacArthur reduces it to 1 essence - distinction between Israel and the Church - Ryrie lists 4, and Feinberg lists 8. Many dispensationalists when asked about the core or essence of dispensationalism, will also say that it would be the distinction between Israel and the Church.

These help describe something of what dispensationalists believe, but (with the exception of Feinberg) these really don't touch upon the why. Why do dispensationalists "think" the way they do? Keep in mind that there are a wide variety of dispensational beliefs, and that there are different strands. Well, the key presupposition to dispensationalists is progressive revelation.

Keep in mind that even a term such as progressive revelation has subtly different definitions among Christians. Dispensationalists hold that earlier revelation is the basis or foundation of the promise. Later revelation can add to or expand upon that foundation. However later revelation does not replace that original promise or foundation. Many non-dispensationalists hold that later revelation explains earlier revelation more FULLY. So earlier revelation can be interpreted in LIGHT of what later revelation said about it. Or in other words, the original promise or foundation is replaced with the later promise or revelation. This is a KEY difference between dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists, and can be seen in all the "essentials" in dispensationalism.

Its the difference in 1) prioritizing the NT "over" the OT, or 2) prioritizing the OT "over" the NT.

For example, look at the Abrahamic covenant with the land promise. The covenant is to Abraham and his descendants (Jews). Dispensationalists see the land promise and the original recepients as part of the original promise. In the NT Paul mentions two kinds of Abraham's descendants - Jews and those of Abraham's faith. Dispensationalists see the original promise as still intact to Abraham's physical descendants. God has promised, and God will do as He promised. Dispensationalists also see believers as those of Abraham's faith. Its additional or expanded revelation - and it doesn't replace the original promises.

So the major presupposition for dispensationalists is progressive revelation. Its the major reason why we dispensationalists draw conclusions the way that we do. Its why dispensationalists insist that there is a difference between Israel and the Church.


LDG

 

[msortwell]

. . . Well, the key presupposition to dispensationalists is progressive revelation.

Keep in mind that even a term such as progressive revelation has subtly different definitions among Christians. Dispensationalists hold that earlier revelation is the basis or foundation of the promise. Later revelation can add to or expand upon that foundation. However later revelation does not replace that original promise or foundation. Many non-dispensationalists hold that later revelation explains earlier revelation more FULLY. So earlier revelation can be interpreted in LIGHT of what later revelation said about it. Or in other words, the original promise or foundation is replaced with the later promise or revelation. This is a KEY difference between dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists, and can be seen in all the "essentials" in dispensationalism.

. . . Its the difference in 1) prioritizing the NT "over" the OT, or 2) prioritizing the OT "over" the NT.

. . . So the major presupposition for dispensationalists is progressive revelation. Its the major reason why we dispensationalists draw conclusions the way that we do. Its why dispensationalists insist that there is a difference between Israel and the Church.

Your explanation of "non-dispensationalist" views would seem to be consistent with Berkhof's Reformed hermeneutic which he explains as follows: "At the same time, the revelation they [the OT and NT] contain is progressive, and gradually increases in definiteness, clearness, and spiritual conception. As the New Testament is implicit in the Old, so the Old is explicit in the New."

I am interested in exploring if these "presuppositions" are actually that, or if there is something in the two theological systems that fosters the different approaches to progressive revelation.

Any thoughts out there?

 

[epistemaniac]

not sure if this will help or not... its from a paper on NCT which examines the presuppositions of the NCT appraoch, but with comments on what at least this author takes to be presuppositions of the Covenant theologians as well as the Dispensationalists...

"[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica]No one approaches the Scriptures neutrally, as if he is absolutely objective and void of predispositions. Unconverted men, obviously, approach the Scriptures as prejudiced sinners. Converted men, having the Holy Spirit, come to Scripture with the ability to discern spiritual things. Among professing Christians, then, you discover different emphases, or interpretive schemes, which account for the various systems. For example. dispensationalists come to Scripture with the presupposition that God has an earthly purpose for Israel, and a heavenly purpose for the church. Covenant theologians, on the other hand, come to Scripture with the presupposition that there is one covenant of grace with various administrations. Since there is no neutrality in approaching Scripture, and since presuppositions are a given reality, the necessity of presuppositions being based on careful exegesis is underscored. Thus our understanding of the whole of Scripture affects our approach to the parts; and our examination of the parts. methodologically speaking, leads us to make generalizations about the whole (cf. Eddie Johnston, "Biblical Interpretation and the Church," BRR, Vol.9, #1, pp.21-23)." [/FONT]

An Examination Of The Presuppositions...

blessings,
ken​

 

[msortwell]

Epi,

You quote the author that you reference as saying . . .

Since there is no neutrality in approaching Scripture, and since presuppositions are a given reality, the necessity of presuppositions being based on careful exegesis is underscored.

What is it about "presupposition" that i am misunderstanding? Every definition that I see for the term requires that it relates to a principle accepted as truth prior to considering a matter. How can very learned people repeatedly refer to "presuppositions" fundamental to their interpretation and understanding of Scripture as being "based on careful exegesis" (as shown above) or coming from the the text (John MacArthur, as noted previously).

Isn't it the case that if these principles, as acknowledged by different theological systems, are genuinely derived from the text of Scripture, then they are NOT presuppositions, but what presuppositions there are, have yet to be acknowledged?

Am I missing something?

 

[heymikey80]

I think there are a few things driving covenantal presuppositions that impact on our positions. It's tough to tease them out in distinctive language though, because they're embroiled in our thoughts about the nature of God, revelation, history.

I guess the biggest one is progressive revelation. The idea that God may say one thing to someone, yet mean something vastly more than that person comprehended, or than later generations really caught onto.

Abraham's promises are an instructive example. Gentile Christians are told to think of ourselves as figuratively Isaac, the child of promise (Gal 4); to think of ourselves as children of Abraham (Gal 3, Rom 4). That's something that Judaism really didn't catch. The Judaizing view held that Gentiles should become Jewish Christians in submission to the Messiah of Israel.

Yet there are references of substance in Genesis, references that Paul pointed out, that really show the Gentiles -- the "ethnoi" or "nations" -- were to be Abraham's children. "Through you shall all the nations be blessed", and Abraham's renaming, "father of nations" are indications of what God's doing in this covenant. Even the promise of a child through nothing the flesh could do .... These ideas seemed to be vaguely understood by Israel's theology, and clarified in Christian theology.

How this is applied in covenant theology in comparison with dispensational theology is so subtle, it's easy to miss, though.

Covenant theology focuses on God's eternal meaning as the significant meaning; other aspects promised aren't the true meaning but are assigned to typology: at core an "interim arrangement", an "educational phase" or an "earnest payment" on the real promise. Typological promises -- often considered "figuratives" to dispensationalists -- don't last. They exist to point out what's important. They don't exist as a desired, eternal endpoint God is headed toward.

As a result Covenant theology assumes this ultimacy is more important than present realities, and tends to play down current conditions or temporary fulfillments as less important.

Oh, and btw: typological "educational phases" are shared with dispensationalists in progressive revelation. It's just that they're downplayed, they're constantly considered in the direction of the overarching covenant.

 

[AMR]

My only presupposition has been that an unchangeable God exists and He has spoken to us in His special revelation. I have found myself viewing dispensationalism as dilutive of God's attributes, as if He was somehow double-minded. Hence I landed in the covenantal camp where the singularity of grace from a wholly sovereign God is in focus.

AMR

 

[Fenstermacher]

A couple CT Presuppositions:

1. God has only one wife.

2. God has not changed the way people are reconciled to him.

3. Israel was the "church under age", therefore the Church is Israel.

Presuppositions are not necessarily bad or wrong. Scripture makes sense when we read it understanding these things. They are inferred from a complete reading of the Bible, and are therefore deduced from Scripture, but become an assumed framework for understanding a larger, eschatological purpose.

 

[heymikey80]

1. God has only one wife.

2. God has not changed the way people are reconciled to him.

3. Israel was the "church under age", therefore the Church is Israel.

I guess for me, these are conclusions from other statements. The idea of the "church under age" being Israel is to me kind of a misnomer. I'm not attracted to the idea of identity between the church and Israel. But I see both as being the visible "people of God" throughout human history.

And maybe that's another issue. Some of us have built certain propositions in other ways, from other basic principles. So it's hard to pin down the propositions that aren't based on some earlier presupposition.

 

[msortwell]

I have been considering the responses provided above, as well as those received on anther thread treating essentially the same subject. Allow me to offer up a straw man.

A fundamental difference in the presuppositions held by knowledgeable CT’rs and the presuppositions held by knowledgeable Dspy’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.

Thoughts?

 

[Missionary Joshua]

I have recently been re-reading a section of a book I have found most useful. I obtained the book when I was a dispensationalist. It is titled, “Issues in Dispensationalism” it is edited by Mr. Charles Ryrie. It is a collection of papers written by acknowledge experts in dispensational thought. One paper, written by Thomas Ice provides a discussion regarding the dispensationalist’s hermeneutic. Having reviewed this section again, I offer the following imaginary discussion between a reasonably well-informed proponent of Covenant Theology (CTer) and a reasonably well informed Dispensationalist (Dspy).

[...]

CTer: But the label that you affix to your literal hermeneutic does not apply the literal meaning of the terms used in labeling your . . . literal . . . but . . .

I found that dialogue to be very hilarious. You have brightened my day as I am at work and very tired... It is 4:30am and I have 3 hours left before I get to go home and sleep...

 

[Missionary Joshua]

A fundamental difference in the presuppositions held by knowledgeable CT’rs and the presuppositions held by knowledgeable Dspy’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.

Thoughts?

I think that has been my frustration... Or you could with some Dspy's state it this way:

"The fullest meaning of the New Testament is gained when it is understood through the lens of the Old Testament."

 

[msortwell]

I think that has been my frustration... Or you could with some Dspy's state it this way:

"The fullest meaning of the New Testament is gained when it is understood through the lens of the Old Testament."

And it seems to me that the significance, the impact, of progressive revelation, held up as a distinguishing presupposition by both CTers and Dispys, is lessened, if we hold that the full and deepest sense of text is attained when the understanding of the original recipients is understood.

 

[msortwell]

I found that dialogue to be very hilarious. You have brightened my day as I am at work and very tired... It is 4:30am and I have 3 hours left before I get to go home and sleep...

Well . . . It seems that only you and I were greatly amused.

And . . . According to my wife, that should give you cause for concern.

Blessings!

 

[myways]

"The fullest meaning of the New Testament is gained when it is understood through the lens of the Old Testament."

I think this is very accurate and illuminating of the other side. So, to self apply the question that the above is an answer to makes me arive at:
"The fullest meaning of any covenant is gained when it is understood through the lens of the Atonement"
Yes! The Cross, of course!
I believe that the Atonement is God's rational starting point. Consider my signature below: Of all of human history, I think the Atonement was the first thing to come to God's mind, and was the rational basis for the form and meaning of all other events.
In the natural world, we see the simple and rudimentary as more fundamental than the complex and mature. Thus "simple machines" like the lever and wedge, preceed the complex machines that they comprise. And, of course this is totally natural and obvious. But, in theology, we must take great care to remember that the opposite is true. That, before there was anything, there was God in his infinite complexity and perfection. He is the starting point, and reality gradually simplifies from Him on down.

In the thread "Pork: The Other White Meat" I have likened submission to the Kosher Law to presenting unbelievers "Christ on one hand, and a picture of Christ on the other, wherein [the judaizers] instruct unbelievers that 'this picture is what this person looks like' [which is] confusing to them and embarrassing to Him"

It's much like my own marriage and Christ's union to Us. in a functional, practical sense each teaches me a lot about the other, but really, when it comes to the ground level of deciding which concept is giving meaning to the other, the rational lineage clearly goes one way. When interpreting the meaning behind my marriage, Christ's marriage to the Church is the context that I must refer to. It's the same with the Covenants--and just as obvious! How can the literal be more fundamental than the spiritual?