You made a mistake here.. The classic dispy view is held by Scofield (I think Pentacost but I'm not sure) - this view is held by a large minority of dispensationalists.
Ryrie, MacArthur, Walvord hold to "Revised Dispensationalism which held in the majority and maintains not God does not 'do something else' as in having to create some new plan, regarding salvation and his dealing with man.
There are some large distinguishable differences between the two views.. Such as the classical view basically presents the church as a parenthesis in the history of redemption (not true with Revised Dispensationalism nor Progressive which is very new on the scene) as well as stating the Church and Israel have 2 separate eternal destinies.
Not true and even Covenant Theologians agree they do in fact spiritualize the passages regarding futuristic prophesies. It is not that they do this with ALL scripture nor is that the argument made by Dispy's, but rather specifically the scriptures pertaining to future events. It is and has been noted these passages are not taken in their normal interpretive pattern that is consistent with study of the scriptures. In fact.. Coventant Theology uses the literal hermeneutic up to that point, and then drops it to use something different for futuristic prophesies, spiritualizing the passages where the literal contradicts the theology.
They misunderstand what the term 'literal' actually means. Here is a paper on what "The Grammatico - Historical Method" is by Andy Woods. But I will also cite his intro here:
Most often I find those who claim to have taught a certain view that changed later on, seldom actually taught the view correctly. I'm not saying this necessarily of you but it in fact has been most often my experience. Other times, they were teaching a 'variation' of that view and presumed it was the predominantly held view, when in fact it was not. Thus the above is not so much for you Icon, but those who wish to see 'both' sides and compare them properly.
While I understand the above is your personal experience, it is noted this is the exact same stuff those coming from Covenant Theology to Dipsy state. And it aught to be if one is moving from one view to another. We should be convinced in our own minds.
And the above proves my point, that the understanding of the term 'literal' is misapplied with intentionally or not. The literal interpretation encompasses the idea of assigning to every word the same meaning it would have in its normal usage, whether employed in speaking, writing, or thinking. Additionally it ALSO takes into account and allows for types, symbols, figures of speech, and genre distinctions. The difference here between proper Hermeneutic and Coventant or Amill is that the text itself must identify them as being such.
This is the normal or plain interpretation, what is also call - the literal interpretation.
The prophesy regarding Satan and Christ in Gen. is not proof the literal is incorrect.. but proof it is the PROPER hermeneutic approach as the very rendering of the passage shows it is not to be understood in the 'wooden' literal sense which is Outside the normal or plain meaning of the text and is fulfilled to the letter which the imagery conveys. IOW - it is a poor strawman argument.
Refer to the above.
It is a silly argument used on those who don't understand proper hermeneutics. It is in fact a dishonest and slanderous attempt to demean a view, while knowing the above description of the hermeneutic is a fallacious declaration of how it is used. The normal sense shows it is metaphorical in nature while rooted in reality of what is to be, of which the NT writers clearly establish the very meaning of passages.
You bet but they were fulfilled in every detail. You are trying to apply a FALSE definition to the hermeneutic in question. It is so far off base/truth that I give you the benefit of the doubt, and presume you are parroting what you read and didn't actually study it out. If you taught this, you 'should' have known this but it is apparent you did not, and it is the very core of the interpretive method.
It is! However when the bible does not give things in a figuritive nor symbolic way, we do not have the right to make it something than the normal or plain interpretation conveys. It is for this very reason that promises to the ethnic people of Israel, are in fact to the NATION of Israel and not the church. The land promised is not figurative, the King promised to sit on David Throne IN Jerusalem from the lineage of David himself, was not figurative. The rapture of the body of Christ (the snatching away, whether pre, mid, or post) was not figurative.. nor did the early church for nearly 450 years think these and other futuristic prophetic items figurative either.
Last edited by a moderator:
