Were you taught Dispensationalism in Bible College or Seminary?

[rsc2a]

The 'building materials' of the New Jerusalem are the least of my hermenuetical problems.
I don't understand why some have such a problem with seeking a literal interpretation as much as possible.

A Premillennial position is, to me, the only logical and intelligently honest way to interpret the whole body of prophetic scripture.
And, dispensationalism is the most logical way to carry out a consistent Premillennial hermeneutic.

There are problems with other systems as well....infant baptism is the circumcision of the old covenant, but we baptize male and female babies.....
There is no rapture....if not, is 1 Thess. 4 talking about the Second Coming where we meet Christ in the air on His way to setting his feet on the Mt of Olives?

Just sayin....

TB -

I'm wondering. What is your interpretation of John 6:53?

 

[Reformed Guy]

The 'building materials' of the New Jerusalem are the least of my hermenuetical problems.
I don't understand why some have such a problem with seeking a literal interpretation as much as possible.

If a Jew stood at the foot of Golgotha, taking in the scene unfolding in our Lord's crucifixion, with his scroll opened to Psalm 22, he would, upon "seeking a literal interpretation as much as possible, be compelled to decide that the scene before him was not the fulfillment of the passage before him, as there are no "literal" "Strong bulls of Bashan" compassing Him, no "lion's mouth" in which He is held, no literal "dogs" holding Him in their power.  And that creates a problem-- precisely the same problem that compelled the Jews to reject the Lord as their promised Messiah.  They were strict "literalists," blinded by an expectation that the promised Messiah would Literalistically fulfill the OT promises in His advent.  One simply cannot see that many prophecies of the OT were fulfilled in types and shadows in our Lord's advent, then turn around and insist that all "unfulfilled" prophecies must be interpreted Literalistically.

By that, I do not mean that scripture is a wax nose that can be twisted to wild and speculative "allegorical" interpretations.  I do mean, however, that a certain sort of humility must prevail in seeking to understand these prophecies, a humility that sees that dogmatic assertions should not be made in light of the types and  figures in already fulfilled passages, and a humility that is willing to accept the NT interpretation of the OT promises.  Hence the Joel passage Peter refers too-- it should be understood as fulfilled exactly as Peter stated that it was, even if that interpreation does not fit a "literal"-ist scheme.

A Premillennial position is, to me, the only logical and intelligently honest way to interpret the whole body of prophetic scripture.
And, dispensationalism is the most logical way to carry out a consistent Premillennial hermeneutic.

I would be more comfortable with the premise stated this way-- "An interpretation of the whole body of prophetic scripture is the only logical and intelligently honest way to arrive at a Premillennial position."  Stated the former way, the statement implies that one's hermeneutic, or eschatalogical position, should inform scripture.  Stated the latter way, the statement implies that scripture informs one's hermeneutic, or eschatalogical position.  That is what I was getting at earlier when I stated that the first rule of interpretation is that scripture is it's own best interpreter-- a principle known as the "analogy of faith"- a principle which dispensataionalists reject altogether.  The only way for a consistent Dispensational hermeneutic to work is for the hermeneutic to come prior to scripture-- one must come to scripture with the predetermined scheme of interpretation.  That is a premise that I cannot accept.

 

[AresMan]

Hence the Joel passage Peter refers too-- it should be understood as fulfilled exactly as Peter stated that it was, even if that interpreation does not fit a "literal"-ist scheme.

And let's not forget the meta tauta issue of Acts 15:16 with the Amos 9:11 quote and the reading of the Septuagint to determine what James meant with the quotation. Was Amos 9:11 fulfilled in the current events that the Jerusalem council were discussing, or in the future when the "church" is raptured?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

The 'building materials' of the New Jerusalem are the least of my hermenuetical problems.
I don't understand why some have such a problem with seeking a literal interpretation as much as possible.

If a Jew stood at the foot of Golgotha, taking in the scene unfolding in our Lord's crucifixion, with his scroll opened to Psalm 22, he would, upon "seeking a literal interpretation as much as possible, be compelled to decide that the scene before him was not the fulfillment of the passage before him, as there are no "literal" "Strong bulls of Bashan" compassing Him, no "lion's mouth" in which He is held, no literal "dogs" holding Him in their power.  And that creates a problem-- precisely the same problem that compelled the Jews to reject the Lord as their promised Messiah.  They were strict "literalists," blinded by an expectation that the promised Messiah would Literalistically fulfill the OT promises in His advent.  One simply cannot see that many prophecies of the OT were fulfilled in types and shadows in our Lord's advent, then turn around and insist that all "unfulfilled" prophecies must be interpreted Literalistically.

By that, I do not mean that scripture is a wax nose that can be twisted to wild and speculative "allegorical" interpretations.  I do mean, however, that a certain sort of humility must prevail in seeking to understand these prophecies, a humility that sees that dogmatic assertions should not be made in light of the types and  figures in already fulfilled passages, and a humility that is willing to accept the NT interpretation of the OT promises.  Hence the Joel passage Peter refers too-- it should be understood as fulfilled exactly as Peter stated that it was, even if that interpreation does not fit a "literal"-ist scheme.

A Premillennial position is, to me, the only logical and intelligently honest way to interpret the whole body of prophetic scripture.
And, dispensationalism is the most logical way to carry out a consistent Premillennial hermeneutic.

I would be more comfortable with the premise stated this way-- "An interpretation of the whole body of prophetic scripture is the only logical and intelligently honest way to arrive at a Premillennial position."  Stated the former way, the statement implies that one's hermeneutic, or eschatalogical position, should inform scripture.  Stated the latter way, the statement implies that scripture informs one's hermeneutic, or eschatalogical position.  That is what I was getting at earlier when I stated that the first rule of interpretation is that scripture is it's own best interpreter-- a principle known as the "analogy of faith"- a principle which dispensataionalists reject altogether.  The only way for a consistent Dispensational hermeneutic to work is for the hermeneutic to come prior to scripture-- one must come to scripture with the predetermined scheme of interpretation.  That is a premise that I cannot accept.

When the plain sense of scripture makes sense, seek no other sense.

I do not mean to come across as dogmatic, in that there is no room for intelligent disagreement.
And I would hope you know that I don't adhere to the contortion school of hermeneutics.

On the 666 , Smellin Coffee was trying to place the words of Jesus above those of Paul....and he saw Paul contradicting Christ. I suggested to him that a proper hermeneutic would help him overcome his confusion.
I also suggested that he look at a Covenant view of hermeneutics as a viable option.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

The 'building materials' of the New Jerusalem are the least of my hermenuetical problems.
I don't understand why some have such a problem with seeking a literal interpretation as much as possible.

A Premillennial position is, to me, the only logical and intelligently honest way to interpret the whole body of prophetic scripture.
And, dispensationalism is the most logical way to carry out a consistent Premillennial hermeneutic.

There are problems with other systems as well....infant baptism is the circumcision of the old covenant, but we baptize male and female babies.....
There is no rapture....if not, is 1 Thess. 4 talking about the Second Coming where we meet Christ in the air on His way to setting his feet on the Mt of Olives?

Just sayin....

TB -

I'm wondering. What is your interpretation of John 6:53?

I believe it is obvious from the context that Christ is referring to His death as payment for our sins....salvation. The OT often uses blood as a metonym speaking of Christ's death on Calvary as the final sacrifice for sin.

I said we should use a literal interpretation as often as possible....again....when the plain sense makes sense seek no other sense. Scripture does contain types, allegory and metaphors.

 

[Reformed Guy]

When the plain sense of scripture makes sense, seek no other sense.

How rigid is that rule?  How WOULD you counsel the Jew standing at Golgotha reading Psalm 22 saying that the scene before him did not fit the "plain sense?"

I do not mean to come across as dogmatic, in that there is no room for intelligent disagreement.
And I would hope you know that I don't adhere to the contortion school of hermeneutics.

I know that you are quite level-headed, brother.  And I never meant to imply the second.  However, that IS what is frequently stated by "Literalists" against us who prefer to lend more credibility to letting scripture itself  interprer scripture, rather than holding to a wooden, dis-jointed "plain-sense" rule.

On the 666 , Smellin Coffee was trying to place the words of Jesus above those of Paul....and he saw Paul contradicting Christ. I suggested to him that a proper hermeneutic would help him overcome his confusion.
I also suggested that he look at a Covenant view of hermeneutics as a viable option.

That was a worthwhile suggestion.

Of course, I reject out-of-hand any notion that contradictions occur in scripture.  As far as I know, most all Dispensatioanlists do as well.  However, at least to me, it seems that the "analogy of faith" principle presents far fewer opportunities for apparent "contradictions" and is far more consistent in preserving a unified Biblical Theology that doesn't set portions of scripture against one another.

The principle of the analogy of faith, which is rejected by dispensationalists, is stated in the 1st chapter of the WCoF:

7. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

9. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.



I cannot fathom any possible reason why the statement expressed in #9 must be rejected.  But it, and a rigid "plain sense" rule are mutually exclusive.

"...Seek no other sense."-- Not even in the rest of scripture?

 

[Reformed Guy]

Hence the Joel passage Peter refers too-- it should be understood as fulfilled exactly as Peter stated that it was, even if that interpreation does not fit a "literal"-ist scheme.

And let's not forget the meta tauta issue of Acts 15:16 with the Amos 9:11 quote and the reading of the Septuagint to determine what James meant with the quotation. Was Amos 9:11 fulfilled in the current events that the Jerusalem council were discussing, or in the future when the "church" is raptured?

It was fulfilled as James said-- in the events under discussion.

That IS the "plain sense."

 

[AresMan]

I said we should use a literal interpretation as often as possible....again....when the plain sense makes sense seek no other sense. Scripture does contain types, allegory and metaphors.

Of course.
When the inspired apostles say "This is that which is spoken by the prophet Joel," "to this agree the words of the prophets," "He hath made us able ministers of a new covenant," and other statements, we should let their use of OT Scripture determine how we understand them rather than to make our "literalized" interpretation of OT Scripture determine what the apostles intended to say.

For instance, it seems obvious that Peter in Acts 2 is saying that the events of Pentecost are direct and complete fulfillment of Joel's prophecy; however, classic dispensationalists are forced to say that Peter was only referring to the Holy Spirit who is promised in the prophecy, but that the events of the prophecy itself are still future.

It also seems obvious that James in Acts 15 is saying that the conversion of Gentiles under discussion at the Jerusalem council is the actual fulfillment of Amos' prophecy that God would "rebuild the tabernacle of David that is fallen" and that they would possess "the heathen, which are called by my name." However, classic dispensationalists are forced to suggest that James was saying that what was going on was before the rebuilding of the "tabernacle of David," which, of course, has to be future. This idea totally makes mincemeat of what James was saying regarding the discussion in question. It also runs afoul of the fact that the words "after this" (meta tauta = "in that day") is part of James' quote of Amos 9:11 in Acts 15:16 and is proven with the Septuagint. These two words make all the difference and prove that the prophecy of Amos 9 declaring "In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:" is fulfilled in the church consisting of Jew and Gentile equal, and not in some future rebuilding of a literal tabernacle/temple of David.

 

[Castor Muscular]

I audited a class at Philadelphia College of Bible, and the teacher was a dispie.  On the recommendation of my girlfriend at the time, I used a Scofield Bible, and Scofield was a big dispie, too. 

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Hence the Joel passage Peter refers too-- it should be understood as fulfilled exactly as Peter stated that it was, even if that interpreation does not fit a "literal"-ist scheme.

And let's not forget the meta tauta issue of Acts 15:16 with the Amos 9:11 quote and the reading of the Septuagint to determine what James meant with the quotation. Was Amos 9:11 fulfilled in the current events that the Jerusalem council were discussing, or in the future when the "church" is raptured?

It is obviously both.

Jesus sent His disciples to the house of Israel only, not to the Gentiles.
The Great Commission given after His death and resurrection was to go into all the world.
The Gentiles were given the gospel, they respond in faith and are therefore prepared for His coming....the rapture.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I am a proponent of literal interpretation as much as is possible.
I also concur that, when a literal interpretation doesn't, make 'plain sense', that other scripture is the best guide for interpretation.

 

[christundivided]

I also concur that, when a literal interpretation doesn't, make 'plain sense', that other scripture is the best guide for interpretation.

Sorta like those "golden streets"?

 

[Ransom]

Something I copied down from a book once, and I always like to go over now and then when I'm trying to deal with difficult prophetic passages:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Prophecy can be infallibly interpreted only by an inspired interpreter. In I Corinthians 2:1-10 Paul affirms this principle.
[*]It is not an issue of "literalism" versus "spiritualism." The question is whether the original, intended meaning of a given prophecy has a temporal or spiritual fulfillment. If a prophecy has a spiritual meaning, then the spiritual or figurative application of it is a literal fulfillment.
[*]If an inspired New Testament speaker or writer affirms that a certain prophecy is fulfilled in a certain way, that should settle the matter.
[*]If Old or New Testament events have already fulfilled Old Testament prophecies, then those same prophecies cannot be changed to mean a future fulfillment.
[*]If prophecies that Scripture links to certain events are not fulfilled in those events, then those events fulfill nothing.
[*]To speak of the postponement of prophecy is nonsense. No prophecy can be taken centuries later to have a fulfillment in a way and at a time other than that which was intended when the prophecy was spoken or written. To say a fulfillment is deferred because of prevailing circumstances is to say that the prophecy is wrong, and makes a false prophet out of the one making it. A prophecy cannot be wrong about time and right in every other detail. It deprives the prophecy of the element of inspiration. Prophecy then becomes mere prediction. If circumstances force the postponement of fulfillment, then there is no assurance that circumstances will permit fulfillment at a later time.
[*]New Testament writers and speakers do not always quote the full prophecy or even quote verbatim. Often a paraphrase is used. Enough is given, however, so that one may know the source of the prophecy being explained.
[*]"Before His birth, and during the early part of His ministry, it was emphasized that Christ came to do a spiritual work, and that the cross was before Him from the very beginning. Any theory of the interpretation of prophecy which does not take these two facts into consideration is unscriptural."4
[/list]

This last principle is critical. It is decisive. It is Scriptural:

Having therefore obtained the help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those things which the prophets and Moses did say should come: That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles (Acts 26:22-23).

 

[Fresh Air]

I said we should use a literal interpretation as often as possible....again....when the plain sense makes sense seek no other sense. Scripture does contain types, allegory and metaphors.

Of course.
When the inspired apostles say "This is that which is spoken by the prophet Joel," "to this agree the words of the prophets," "He hath made us able ministers of a new covenant," and other statements, we should let their use of OT Scripture determine how we understand them rather than to make our "literalized" interpretation of OT Scripture determine what the apostles intended to say.

For instance, it seems obvious that Peter in Acts 2 is saying that the events of Pentecost are direct and complete fulfillment of Joel's prophecy; however, classic dispensationalists are forced to say that Peter was only referring to the Holy Spirit who is promised in the prophecy, but that the events of the prophecy itself are still future.

It also seems obvious that James in Acts 15 is saying that the conversion of Gentiles under discussion at the Jerusalem council is the actual fulfillment of Amos' prophecy that God would "rebuild the tabernacle of David that is fallen" and that they would possess "the heathen, which are called by my name." However, classic dispensationalists are forced to suggest that James was saying that what was going on was before the rebuilding of the "tabernacle of David," which, of course, has to be future. This idea totally makes mincemeat of what James was saying regarding the discussion in question. It also runs afoul of the fact that the words "after this" (meta tauta = "in that day") is part of James' quote of Amos 9:11 in Acts 15:16 and is proven with the Septuagint. These two words make all the difference and prove that the prophecy of Amos 9 declaring "In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:" is fulfilled in the church consisting of Jew and Gentile equal, and not in some future rebuilding of a literal tabernacle/temple of David.

Are you implying here that you don't believe in the concept of partial fulfillment? At all?

 

[AresMan]

Having therefore obtained the help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those things which the prophets and Moses did say should come: That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles (Acts 26:22-23).

This is one of those passages I use when arguing with hyper-dispensationalists (Acts 9+, 12 out).

I also use this:

Act 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, [n]It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you:[/b] but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
Act 13:47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.
Paul and Barnabas quote Isaiah 49:6, saying that God commanded them in this passage to preach salvation to the Gentiles. This, to me, proves that the gospel to Israel is the same gospel to the Gentiles and that the ministry of Paul to the Gentiles was according to prophecy. Hyperdispensationalists (and it would seem just about any consistent dispensationalist) would have to argue that Paul was being "loose" with OT prophecy by applying it to himself. Dispensationalists believe that the gospel that Paul preached was a "mystery" that has nothing to do with prophecy. All prophecy related to Gentiles being saved has to do with those who are saved under Israel's "program," and thus future. The salvation of Gentiles in this present "church age" "parenthesis" is entirely new and unrelated to the prophecies of Gentile salvation. Yet, Paul said that he was obeying a command given to Israel in Isaiah, and he was an Israelite. Hmmm.

 

[Izdaari]

Something I copied down from a book once, and I always like to go over now and then when I'm trying to deal with difficult prophetic passages:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Prophecy can be infallibly interpreted only by an inspired interpreter. In I Corinthians 2:1-10 Paul affirms this principle.
[*]It is not an issue of "literalism" versus "spiritualism." The question is whether the original, intended meaning of a given prophecy has a temporal or spiritual fulfillment. If a prophecy has a spiritual meaning, then the spiritual or figurative application of it is a literal fulfillment.
[*]If an inspired New Testament speaker or writer affirms that a certain prophecy is fulfilled in a certain way, that should settle the matter.
[*]If Old or New Testament events have already fulfilled Old Testament prophecies, then those same prophecies cannot be changed to mean a future fulfillment.
[*]If prophecies that Scripture links to certain events are not fulfilled in those events, then those events fulfill nothing.
[*]To speak of the postponement of prophecy is nonsense. No prophecy can be taken centuries later to have a fulfillment in a way and at a time other than that which was intended when the prophecy was spoken or written. To say a fulfillment is deferred because of prevailing circumstances is to say that the prophecy is wrong, and makes a false prophet out of the one making it. A prophecy cannot be wrong about time and right in every other detail. It deprives the prophecy of the element of inspiration. Prophecy then becomes mere prediction. If circumstances force the postponement of fulfillment, then there is no assurance that circumstances will permit fulfillment at a later time.
[*]New Testament writers and speakers do not always quote the full prophecy or even quote verbatim. Often a paraphrase is used. Enough is given, however, so that one may know the source of the prophecy being explained.
[*]"Before His birth, and during the early part of His ministry, it was emphasized that Christ came to do a spiritual work, and that the cross was before Him from the very beginning. Any theory of the interpretation of prophecy which does not take these two facts into consideration is unscriptural."4
[/list]

This last principle is critical. It is decisive. It is Scriptural:

Having therefore obtained the help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those things which the prophets and Moses did say should come: That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles (Acts 26:22-23).

Those all seem to be very sound principles.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

It seems to me that this debate will continue to rage....if the collective genius of the FFF can't definitively settle the issue, it's doomed to continued controversy.

Until the Rapture.... ;D

 

[T-Bone]

It seems to me that this debate will continue to rage....if the collective genius of the FFF can't definitively settle the issue, it's doomed to continued controversy.

Until the Rapture.... ;D

I always promise to say "hi" to my amil and post-mil friends on the way Up!

 

[rsc2a]

The 'building materials' of the New Jerusalem are the least of my hermenuetical problems.
I don't understand why some have such a problem with seeking a literal interpretation as much as possible.

A Premillennial position is, to me, the only logical and intelligently honest way to interpret the whole body of prophetic scripture.
And, dispensationalism is the most logical way to carry out a consistent Premillennial hermeneutic.

There are problems with other systems as well....infant baptism is the circumcision of the old covenant, but we baptize male and female babies.....
There is no rapture....if not, is 1 Thess. 4 talking about the Second Coming where we meet Christ in the air on His way to setting his feet on the Mt of Olives?

Just sayin....

TB -

I'm wondering. What is your interpretation of John 6:53?

I believe it is obvious from the context that Christ is referring to His death as payment for our sins....salvation. The OT often uses blood as a metonym speaking of Christ's death on Calvary as the final sacrifice for sin.

I said we should use a literal interpretation as often as possible....again....when the plain sense makes sense seek no other sense. Scripture does contain types, allegory and metaphors.

So you don't believe you should always seek "a literal interpretation as much as possible"?