A Comparison of Three Systems

[JM]

I found this little tid bit on SolaGratia.com, enjoy. http://solagratia.org/Articles/A_Comparison_of_Three_Systems_Dispensationalism_Covenant_Theology_New_Covenant_Theology.aspx

Quote:

• [DISP] May be Arminian or modified Calvinist. Almost never five-point Calvinist.
• [CT] Always Calvinist. Usually five-point Calvinist.
• [NCT] Same as CT.

• [DISP] Stresses \'literal\' interpretation of the Bible.
• [CT] Accepts both literal and figurative (spiritual) interpretation of the Bible.
• [NCT] Same as CT.

• [DISP] Usually does not accept the idea of the \'Analogy of Faith.\'
• [CT] Almost always accept the idea of the \'Analogy of Faith.\'
• [NCT] Same as CT.

 

[Dave Taylor]

Stresses the Literal Interpretation of the Bible.

That's the problem though.

This is bantered about 'as if' it is a strong point.

It isn't, and it can't be.

Why?

Because it can't be objectively and consistently applied.

Dispensationalism can only 'selectively' hold to a primary literal interpretation; because if it fully and consistently applied only a literal interpretation, you would find:

Jesus being a piece of bread
and
Jesus being a door
and
Jesus being a rose
and
Jesus being a lily
and
Jesus being a lion
and all kinds of other intended and contextually non-literal passages in scripture being forced to be literal.

Scripture is not and should not be forced into a literal interpretative box.

The only interpretative model that should be used in regards to Scripture is that it should harmonize with both the context and the intent of the scripture.

Many, many Biblical Scripture employ symbolism, allegory, metaphor, simile, parallelism, irony, and all kinds of literary presentations that are incorrectly understood when screen through a 'primary literal interpretation'.

Context and Intent.
(both locally within the passage, within the book, and within the entire paneplea of the canon of Scriptures)
not Stressed or 'forced' Literalism.

That's should be the proper mechanism of interpretation.

 

[msortwell]

Stresses the Literal Interpretation of the Bible.

That's the problem though.

This is bantered about 'as if' it is a strong point.

It isn't, and it can't be.

Why?

Because it can't be objectively and consistently applied.

Dispensationalism can only 'selectively' hold to a primary literal interpretation; because if it fully and consistently applied only a literal interpretation, you would find:

Jesus being a piece of bread
and
Jesus being a door
and
Jesus being a rose
and
Jesus being a lily
and
Jesus being a lion
and all kinds of other intended and contextually non-literal passages in scripture being forced to be literal.

Scripture is not and should not be forced into a literal interpretative box.

The only interpretative model that should be used in regards to Scripture is that it should harmonize with both the context and the intent of the scripture.

Many, many Biblical Scripture employ symbolism, allegory, metaphor, simile, parallelism, irony, and all kinds of literary presentations that are incorrectly understood when screen through a 'primary literal interpretation'.

Context and Intent.
(both locally within the passage, within the book, and within the entire paneplea of the canon of Scriptures)
not Stressed or 'forced' Literalism.

That's should be the proper mechanism of interpretation.

And when have we arrived at the correct interpretation of a particular text?

A) When we understand what the Scripture means in light of what the remaining text of the Canon teaches?

B) When we understand what the original recipients would have understood as they recieved it.

C) When we understand the intended message of the original human author of the text.

D) Other?

 

[Dave Taylor]

All three....along with the understanding, wisdom, and teaching/corroboration of the Holy Spirit.

Too many folks 'claim' to be taught and lead by the Holy Spirit into 'knowing' the correct interpretation without doing any of A, B, or C....they just rip a passage out, 'say' it applies a certain way, and then claim the Holy Spirit led them to that belief.

The Scripture will not lie.
The Holy Spirit will not lie.

And we can know the truth....neither the Holy Spirit nor the Scripture will be in conflict with each other.

A taking a 'primary literal approach' as a first and foremost step; will create many conflicts if it is consistently applied in all scriptures.

Again, the Holy Spirit, in conjunction with a contextual study of the scriptures will bring understanding. Do you think God would try to confuse those who really earnestly seek to know His truth on a passage or matter?

 

[msortwell]

All three....along with the understanding, wisdom, and teaching/corroboration of the Holy Spirit.

Too many folks 'claim' to be taught and lead by the Holy Spirit into 'knowing' the correct interpretation without doing any of A, B, or C....they just rip a passage out, 'say' it applies a certain way, and then claim the Holy Spirit led them to that belief.

The Scripture will not lie.
The Holy Spirit will not lie.

And we can know the truth....neither the Holy Spirit nor the Scripture will be in conflict with each other.

A taking a 'primary literal approach' as a first and foremost step; will create many conflicts if it is consistently applied in all scriptures.

Again, the Holy Spirit, in conjunction with a contextual study of the scriptures will bring understanding. Do you think God would try to confuse those who really earnestly seek to know His truth on a passage or matter?

Do I believe that God wold intentionally try to confuse? No.

A primary tenet in the historical-grammatical hermenuetic (the hermeneutic endorsed by dispensationalists and conservative CTers) is that a particular text, considered within a single context, can have only one true sense, one true meaning.

Is it your expectation that all three meanings (A, B, and C) would be the same understanding? That is, for example, all prophets understood the full meaning of each prophetic utterance that they put into writing? When Isaiah 53 was written, did the prophet see clearly before him the suffering Messiah? Did Daniel see clearly, a prediction of the Romish church? When Noah was erecting the ark, did he understand it to be a picture of the deliverance of men from God's wrath buy the death of His son?

What do you mean by "all three?"

 

[JM]

Ahhhh, the ol' red herring!

"When the plain sense of Scripture makes sense, seek no other sense."

In other words the literal interpretation DOES recognize the use of words in their context. Plain, and figurative meanings are employed. Using figures of speech adds expression but both connotative and denotative gives us a literal meaning.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

Ahhhh, the ol' red herring!

"When the plain sense of Scripture makes sense, seek no other sense."

In other words the literal interpretation DOES recognize the use of words in their context. Plain, and figurative meanings are employed. Using figures of speech adds expression but both connotative and denotative gives us a literal meaning.

Really?

Why then does dispensationalism take the Letters to the Seven Churches in Asia in Revelation 2 & 3, which are literal churches and read into them 7 dispensational church ages, when there is nothing in the slightest in the text that would lead to such a distorted intrepretation as that?

No, what dispensationalism does is to interpret in accordance with the presuppositions of dispensationalism.

 

[JM]

Really?

Why then does dispensationalism take the Letters to the Seven Churches in Asia in Revelation 2 & 3, which are literal churches and read into them 7 dispensational church ages, when there is nothing in the slightest in the text that would lead to such a distorted intrepretation as that?

No, what dispensationalism does is to interpret in accordance with the presuppositions of dispensationalism.

Covenant theology is based upon the presupposition that unity in God's revealed will has to exist for it to be of God...when the Bible clearly doesn't teach such a thing...if so, where's your seven day Sabbath? At least the SDA church is consistent. If one over reaching covenant exists, then the Sabbath exists. :o

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

Covenant theology is based upon the presupposition that unity in God's revealed will has to exist for it to be of God...when the Bible clearly doesn't teach such a thing...if so, where's your seven day Sabbath? At least the SDA church is consistent. If one over reaching covenant exists, then the Sabbath exists. :o

Nice dodge. Rather than deal with the issue presented, you ignore it and launch into an attack.

I guess the best defense is a good offense, eh?

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

Covenant theology is based upon the presupposition that unity in God's revealed will has to exist for it to be of God...when the Bible clearly doesn't teach such a thing...if so, where's your seven day Sabbath? At least the SDA church is consistent. If one over reaching covenant exists, then the Sabbath exists. :o

So God's will is disunified, eh?

Where did you come up with that nonsense?