I do not accept the notion that the differences between dispensationalisms, let alone between dispensationalism and non-dispensational systems, are mainly due to disparate hermeneutical theories. Consistent “literal” hermeneutics has never been the sole domain of dispensationalists.Differences in exegetical conclusions are not primarily due to competing hermeneutical methods but due to our individual applications of a common methodology, different views on the complex matter of biblical intertextuality, the subtle yet real influence of our presuppositions, the uneven rigor of our efforts, and our common human foibles and finiteness.
That's the problem with dispensationalism. It takes what is otherwise a good hermeneutical consideration for understanding many passages and constructs a false system of analysis where passages are forced to conform to dispensationalistic structures in ways that the text doesn't indicate. It's no surprise then that different dispensationalists are going to invent their own structures.
That's the problem with dispensationalism. It takes what is otherwise a good hermeneutical consideration for understanding many passages and constructs a false system of analysis where passages are forced to conform to dispensationalistic structures in ways that the text doesn't indicate. It's no surprise then that different dispensationalists are going to invent their own structures.
ReplyDelete