Is Dispensationalism Elitist?

Oldreg, at best you are only critiquing classical dispensationalism. As I have pointed out though, they lack a monopoly.

 

A Plea for honesty and Christian ethics

Pastor Larry wrote,

As all can see, Larry has NOT given the published sources that clearly refute what he calls my “mistaken notions.” Indeed, none of the published sources that he has given say so much as one word about the use of the correct use of the adjective “literal” in describing the interpretation of literature.

 

Pastor Larry wrote,

Larry is totally wrong here as all can see.

Point #1. Merriam-Webster is without question the number one authority on how words are used in the English language whether the subject is basket weaving or the interpretation of literature. Unlike the publishers of other dictionaries, Merriam-Webster has collected over many years millions upon millions of examples of the use of words from ALL kinds of literature written in the English language from around the world. And Larry’s use of the adjective “literal” as posted above,

is foreign to Merriam-Webster.

Point #2. Larry’s use of the adjective “literal” as posted above is also foreign to the following Biblical scholars.

Lous Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Interpretation
A. C. Blackman, Biblical Interpretation
Alexander Balmain Bruce, The Parabolic Teaching of Christ
Bruce Corley, Biblical Hermeneutics, A Comprehensive Introduction on Interpreting Scripture
Bruce Corley, S. Lemke, G. Lovejoy, Biblical Hermeneutics, Second Edition: A Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting Scripture
Mal Couch, An Introduction to Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics
C. H. Dodd, Parables of the Kingdom
F. W. Farrar, History of Interpretaion
Fred L. Fisher, How to Interpret the New Testament
J. Edwin Hartill, Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics
Archibald M. Hunter, Interpreting the Parables
Joachim Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus
Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. & Moises Silva, An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics
Simon Kistemaker, Interpreting God’s Word Today
Gerherd Maier, Biblical Hermeneutics
A. Berkeley Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bible
Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation
James D. Smart, The Interpretation of Scripture
Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics
Anthony Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics
Robert Thomas, Evangelical Hermeneutics
Henry Virkler, Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation
Arthur S. Wood, Principles of Biblical Interpretation
James D. Wood, The Interpretation of the Bible
Roy Zuck, Rightly Divided: Readings in Biblical Hermeneutics

 

OldRegular,

You Wrote:

First what promises was Darby talking about? He was talking about the so-called promise of a so-called Messianic kingdom. As I have noted before a basic premise of Darbyism is that Jesus Christ came to establish the Messianic kingdom for the Jews, that they rejected Him, and that He established the Church instead [Herman Hoyt, a dispensationalist, in The Millennium, Four Viewpoints, by Clouse, pages 84-88].

Consider now the meaning of the word should in the context used by Darby. Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary gives the meaning as: must; ought [used to indicate duty propriety, or expediency]. So John Darby is saying that Jesus Christ was obligated to establish the Messianic kingdom.

This remark is in total disagreement with the words of Jesus Christ in His High Priestly Prayer as recorded in John 17:4 [KJV] I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. The only conclusion that one can draw from Darby’s remarks [as well as those of Hoyt] is that he is denying what Jesus Christ plainly states to God the Father and to us: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do..

Jesus Christ states in John 4:34 [KJV] My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work]. If Jesus Christ came to establish the ‘earthly’ Messianic Kingdom, He would have established it, otherwise He would not have been able to say to the Father I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. To claim that Jesus Christ came to establish such a kingdom but failed in that task and established the Church instead is to deny the words of Jesus Christ Himself. To do so is to call into question either the truthfulness and deity of Jesus Christ or the sovereignty of God. The truth of the matter is that the rejection of Jesus Christ by the Jews was for the simple reason that He did not fulfill their carnal desire for an ‘earthly’ Messianic Kingdom that would throw off the yoke of Rome.

Not all the Jews, however, rejected Jesus Christ. There were those who, like Nathanael, declared Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel [John 1:49] or who, like Peter, declared Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God [Matthew 16:16]. Those Jews who exercised such faith were born again into the Kingdom of God [or as Paul writes in Colossians 1:13] translated into the kingdom of his dear Son and formed the nucleus of the Church in its New Testament form.

Jesus Christ came to purchase His Bride [Revelation 21:2, 9], the Church, with His own blood [Acts 20:28]. That Church is the fellowship, the household, of all those who are redeemed to God through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, those chosen in Him from the foundation of the world [Ephesians 1:4]. Jesus Christ came to do the will of the Father and only the will of the Father and that He did, saying on the cross: It is finished [John 19:30].


TakeChrist4Life:

Jesus also said: Matthew 23:37-39, in which he clearly said what he would have done if Israel had accepted him. He also said in Matthew 11:14, in speaking about John the Baptist and how if they would receive it he would be considered the prophetic fulfillment of the return of Elijah as a forerunner to the Messiah. Jesus also said in Luke 19:11, in speaking about a real, physical, Messianic Kingdom, spoke a parable to His disciples to let them know that His Kingdom was not to immediately appear, but later on in history. Note how Jesus indicates the future appearing or coming of His Kingdom despite the fact that there is an aspect of His Kingdom that does not come by observation and is here already in the form of His Lordship and working in the believer’s life. Thus Jesus Himself gives two aspects of His Kingdom. His Kingdom is here and is also coming. Also, when Jesus said “it is finished” and “I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do”, he is making reference to His death and all that it entails in God’s plan for the ages. Jesus says so Himself in Luke 9:31 on the Mount of Transfiguration when He talked with Moses and Elijah about “….His decease which He should accomplish at Jerusalem”. This is the work that He finished

 

KNowing that the "work" in question is the redemptive work of Christ makes the problem go away. You wrongly defined "work" and came to a wrong conclusion. But even at that, dispensationalism, along wtih covenantalism, has undergone many changes for many changes, and neither is monolithic. Covenantalism is as splintered as dispensationalism is. You are debating straw men.

 

You are right both are wrong. So why waste your time on them?

 

Probably not. The OED is the #1 authority, but its multivolume work is pretty cumbersome for the average user.

But even at that MW does not define the phrase "literal interpretation" but only "literal" and does not do so in a theological sense. Since this is a theological discussion, it is best to let theologians say what they mean. Craig, much to his dismay and disappointment, does not get to tell others what they mean with the words that they use. I have cited sources and could cite many others, all of whom say exactly what I have said. Craig gives a list of names who he thinks agrees with him. For instance, he cites Virkler. Here is what Virkler says:

Now compare that with what Ryrie, MacArthur, and I said, and you will see the exact same thing. Literal interpretation means you interpret what they author intended: literal as literal; figurative as figurative. Milton Terry and Grant Osborne, both, I believe say the same thing. Walter Kaiser and Silva will say it as well, as I remember. In other words, Craig just doesn't seem to know what he is talking about.

Literal interpretation means interpreting according to the author's intent, using literal as literal and figurative as figurative. Dispensationalism does not use a woodenly literal approach to figurative passages. That is nonsense and everyone who has studied dispensationalism (whether for or against) knows that dispensationalism does not suggest that. The hallmark of dispensationalism is the consistent use of this literal hermeneutic. Dispensationalism tries to consistently use this hermeneutic, refusing to make literal intent figurative.

Lastly, I will challenge any and all to read the books listed by Craig. I will assure you that many of them will say just what I have said. I konw because I have read them. They will not all be dispensational, but they will say what I said about the meaning of "literal hermeneutics."

 

I don't think you understand literary genre very well to make such statements. Literal is not figurative nor allegorical. It is the plain sense of the word.

I have read most of the books Craig listed and many others besides and have not come up with what you have written.

To interpret figures of speech as literal makes no sense at all. They must be interpreted as figures of speech. What you have done is the same thing as many who try to slide by and redefine words to suite their own ways.

lit·er·al (litÆÃr Ãl), adj.
1. 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.
2. following the words of the original very closely and exactly: a literal translation of Goethe.
3. true to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual: a literal description of conditions.
4. being actually such, without exaggeration or inaccuracy: the literal extermination of a city.
5. (of persons) tending to construe words in the strict sense or in an unimaginative way; matter-of-fact; prosaic.

fig·ur·a·tive (figÆyÃr à tiv), adj.
1. of the nature of or involving a figure of speech, esp. a metaphor; metaphorical; not literal: a figurative expression.
2. metaphorically so called: His remark was a figurative boomerang.
3. abounding in or fond of figures of speech: Elizabethan poetry is highly figurative.
4. representing by means of a figure or likeness, as in drawing or sculpture.
5. representing by a figure or emblem; emblematic.

 

You're kiddding right? I have cited numerous sources who say exactly what I said. Look at what you said:

This is complete nonsense that I have already answered. Listen: Literal interpretation means interpreting language normally ... as the author intends it. When someone says "I am so hungry I could eat a horse" literal interpretation understands that he uses a figure of speech to talk about his hunger. I have not redefined a word. I have given sources that reflect my understanding, including some of the sources Craig gives. If you read them, you will see very clearly that literal interpretation is normal interpretation. It means taking the words according to authorial intent.

I could take up more pages here than anyone would read to cite examples that show my understanding to be correct. I will suffice for only a couple this time.

This distinction between "literal" and "literalistic" is what you guys keep missing. It is an easy thing to miss for those who haven't spent much time thinking about it and understanding, but for some who claim to have studied this in depth to miss it is bewildering. One can forgive a laymen for not knowing this; but a self-professed student has no excuse to not know this.

And lest you accuse me of making up my own definitions ... oh wait, you already did that ... but anyway, God and Revelation was written in 1958 (more than 40 years ago). Lange's definition of literalist was written in 1872 (more than 130 years ago). So quite clearly, it is not something I made up. I have just repeated what those before have said. But if you have read and studied hermeneutics sufficiently, it is a distinction of which you should be aware.

The point remains what I have said all along: LIteral interpretation is not literalistic. It is to interpret according to the author's intention, understanding figures as figures, but not understand non-figures as figures.

How much more proof needs to be cited?

 

OR,

I am not arguing against the parenthesis doctrine. I merely pointed out your definition of "work" which Jesus came to do is not the only definition that fits.

The church is a parenthesis. That doesn't mean it was an accident or a plan B. In fact, the quote you yourself gave from Chafer says that it was "hitherto unrevealed," meaning that it existed, but was not revealed. Therefore, he is saying that it was not a backup plan after the Jewish rejection of Christ. The OT prophesied such a rejection in many places including Isaiah 53 and Zech 12. If you read the OT, then you know that the Jews would reject their king. That was no secret.

You say If Jesus Christ finished the work that God the Father gave Him to to He obviously did not come to establish the Messianic Kingdom but the Church in its New Testament form. How about this: He came bring glory to the Father and atone for sins. That is what he came to do. He showed the glory of the Father. You are really reaching to try to make this point. It just doesn't wash. Nothing any of those quotes refutes what Christ said.

 

OldRegular,

I used Matthew 23:37-39 to point out the fact that there was something Christ could not fulfill due to Israel’s rejection of him. That something was the Messianic Kingdom that all the prophets attested to. We should not be surprised by this, and nor does it demean or lessen Christ’s sovereignty and power. Another Biblical example of this same type of phenomenon was when Jesus went back to his hometown of Nazareth, and he declared that He could not do many might works there because of their unbelief (Mat.13:58). So you see, unbelief and or rejection of Christ hinders the work of Christ in your life; or as in the case we’re discussing, the national life of Israel. In John 5:14-15 Jesus refuses to be made into a King by men. It does no harm to the notion of a Messianic Kingdom. I think it obvious that Jesus’ intent was to restore Israel spiritually first, and then restore them physically, i.e. the Messianic Kingdom. This is the point that the Israelites missed, and what led finally to their rejection of their own Messiah. In regards to John the Baptist, you’re not addressing the point that I made. I used John the Baptist as another example of how unbelief and rejection of Christ hinders or prevents the work of Christ in your life. If they had accepted Christ, then John the Baptist would have been the complete fulfillment of the prophecies concerning Elijah’s return as a forerunner to the Messiah. As it stands, John the Baptist is only a partial fulfillment of those prophecies, of which the greater or complete fulfillment shall take place shortly before the Second Advent. We all believe that Christ is coming back again, and before His second return, Elijah shall indeed return, and make His (Christ’s) paths straight. I think the point you made about Luke 19:11 is very trite, and relies heavily on semantics. Nowhere in the Bible do you see the words ‘Messianic Kingdom’. If this is the substance of your argument, we could have saved a whole lot of time. If you accept the fact that Jesus is God (Trinity Doctrine), then it’s no hard interpolation to say that the Kingdom of God, could just as easily be called the Kingdom of Messiah, or as we’ve used on this board, the Messianic Kingdom. At least you do agree with me that scripture gives at least two aspects of the Kingdom of God. One, is here right now in the Lordship of Christ in the life of every believer, and by extension His Church. The other is yet to be fulfilled. It’s interesting in your statements on this other aspect of the Kingdom, you point out physical realities such as Jesus Christ’ physical return, the physical resurrection of the dead, the physical Great White Throne Judgment, and the physical creation of a New Heaven and New Earth. It stands to reason as this other aspect of the Kingdom of God relies on these physical realities taking place, then it too must be physical. This is the point we dispensationalists have been making all the time, namely that there shall be an actual or physical Messianic Kingdom. The problem with your quote of the words of Jesus, in which He said “I have finished the work that thou gavest me to do”, is that you make it a carpet statement in which you cover all the words of Jesus, and ignores the dual aspect of the Kingdom of God, of which you agreed to in the earlier part of your post. Jesus came to establish His Messianic Kingdom by first restoring them spiritually, by removing the handwriting of ordinances and enmity created by the Law, through His sacrificial death. This is the work that He finished, and that God gave Him to do. He succeeded in setting up His Messianic Kingdom in its spiritual sense. He shall also succeed in its continued development into its physical sense, which will culminate in His physical Second Coming, and His physical restoration of redeemed National Israel. In regards to Mat.21:43, you said there is nothing in Scripture to revoke this, but there is. Here’s one, All Israel shall be saved. Another is that they (National Israel) shall be graffed in again to their own Olive Tree. As I said before, you think the Olive Tree is the Church, while I believe the Olive Tree is Christ. Jews will be saved at that time, and incorporated into Christ, just as everyone who is part of His Church is incorporated into Him. Christ is not the Church, nor is the Church Christ. Christ is in the Church, and the Church is in Christ. Righteous people who died in O.T. times are incorporated into Christ not the Church, and righteous people who die after the Church dispensation are incorporated into Christ as well. We all shall be one in Christ, not we all shall be one in Church.

 

Practically I think we are on the same page. But I have never taken one English, Greek or Hebrew class from anyone who would support the idea other than literal means the plain sense of the meaning. We must admit there are figures of speech and idiomatic expressions in scripture. I would never take a figure of speech and turn it into a meaning that literally means those same words. The literal meaning would be different.

You used a great example of eating a horse. That is a figure of speech and does not literally mean you are so hungry you could eat a horse. The correct interpreation of that phrase would be that the person is extremely hungry. The literal communication could be much more than just the person is extremely hungy. That would be revealed by the context.

Like the words, "Kill the umpire," are not words meant to be taken literally. The literal mesaage is the person saying that disapproves of the umpire.

I believe the Bible is a literal document with a literal message. But the literal message is not always found in interpreting all the words literally.

If you have ever used an idiomatic expression with people from foreign countries they will often look at you strangely because they do not know what you are talking about. That is because they take the words literally.

So I am wondering what part of the dictionary definition you do not understand? The dictionary is certainly a standard that supersedes you.

Could you give me one example of where a linguist would make such a claim as yourself.

 

GB, Go back and look at the claim. Your assertion that you would never take a figure of speech and turn it into a meaning that literally means those same words is exactly the claim of the literal hermeneutic. This is why I say that you appear not to understand "literal interpretation." I specifically pointed out Kevan's distinction between literal and literalistic, and showed how he said exactly what I have said, an in so doing refuted the ideas that you and Craig put forth. You are here talking about literalistic, which no one believes. Literal interpretation means "what the author intends" and takes into account that figures of speech are figures of speech. The thing it does not do is take non figures of speech and make them figures, nor take figures and make them non-figures. It interprets according to the author's intention. That is what literal interpretation is, and I have verified that from numerous sources.

Again, the distinction between literal and literalistic clearly explains this. The literal interpretation is that a person is extremely hungry. The literalistic interpretation has to do with big animals. The literal interpretation of the phrase, hermeneutically speaking, is that the person is hungry.

As I have pointed out from day one, literal interpretation means normal interpretation. I have given many references that verify that.

It is interesting here how you use the word "literal" in two different meanings. I understand exactly what you are saying. And you have correctly spoken. YOu have finally hit on exactly what I have been saying all along. Ryrie, Lange, MacArthur, Virkler, Kaiser, Terry, etc have all said the same thing, all of whom I have quoted or referenced in support of what I have said.

I have been to foreign countries and have experienced this, but this is a different issue since you have now brought in translation, which was where Craig earlier went wrong. In translation, a literal translation does not always communicate since idioms are different. That is wholly separate from interpretation of words in our own language. My point was about the latter.

Yes, I have given many above. I have quoted or referenced a number of sources, all of which say what I say. Now, you have come along and said the same thing, and ask me who makes the same claim I do. You do, for one. I think the problem is that you don't understand what I am saying.

Spend some time thinking about Kevan's point in my post above. You will see that I am saying what he said 40 years ago: that literal interpretation takes the figures of speech as figures of speech. The literal meaning is the author's intended meaning. Don't confuse terms because you use them in a way the author does not.

 

Larry wrote,

The adjective “literal” is NOT being used in this thread or any where else as a theological term, but as a literary term. Hermeneutics is not a discipline of theology, it is a discipline of literature (chiefly biblical literature), a discipline which Larry apparently knows absolutely nothing about. But, of course, for him to think that hermeneutics is a discipline of theology shows that he doesn’t know very much about theology either. And, of course, if he did understand biblical theology, he would understand how very different dispensational theology is from biblical theology, and therefore, how terribly wrong dispensationalism is.

Ryrie holds a Litt.D. from the University of Edinburgh, and I would be interested to know how badly Larry is mutilating what Ryrie wrote concerning the meaning of the adjective “literal.” Perhaps Larry will be so kind as to provide a quote from Ryrie from which he (Larry) gets his understanding of Ryrie’s use of this particular adjective.

Larry wrote,

Virkler uses the word exactly like I do and the quote that Larry provided proves that to be the case for, just as I do, he contrasts the “literal” meaning of text with the “symbolical” meaning of text.

This is the exact opposite of what Virkler wrote above. Larry, throughout his posts on this subject, is confusing the author’s intent with the literal interpretation, and Virkler writes above that such an understanding is completely wrong.

 

PLEASE, PLEASE stop posting grossly erroneous information on this Christian message board!!!

You are 180º off here!!! The “literal interpretation” is the literal interpretation!!! It is NOT a figurative interpretation!!!

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU HAVE DONE!!!

We have read them, and we have seen very clearly that the literal interpretation is the literal interpretation regardless of the “normal” interpretation or the author’s intent. You are posting fictitious information!!!

 

Craig,

I am right and if you have studied, then you know that. The fact that you don't know it means that you have not studied the issue very deeply. I konw you don't like to hear that because you take a lot of pride in your education. But you are lacking.

I have quoted many sources that show what I have said to be true. I told you where you can find the information in Ryrie's book. You claim to have studied dispensationalism more than I have (a dubious claim at best) but you don't even know what Ryrie said. How can you have studied dispensationalism when you don't know what one of it's prime proponents said????? I knew what he said and it took me less than one minute to find it. It took me longer to find the book on my shelf than it did to find Ryrie's comments about the matter. But for some reason, you don't seem to know it, or be willing to look it up.

The "literal interpretation" we are talking about here is a theological discussion. It is literary term to be sure (thanks for stating the obscenely obvious), but it is about theology and what theologians mean when they say literal interpretation. It means "normal." You interpret the language normally. The very confusion you show is why many dispensationalists prefer "normal interpretation" rather than "literal interpretation." Too many people, like yourself, simply don't know what it connotes.

It is very hard to discuss this with you when you repeatedly demonstrate an unwillingness to see what is being said. My point is quoting Virkler is that what Virkler says is exactly what Ryrie, Lange, and Kevan called "literal interpretation." I have given you other resources in which you can find the same information. Why are you unwilling to look it up and expand your horizons?

You abuse both Virkler and myself with your last paragraph and then sign off with a saint icon. Why? That was ridiculous. As was shown, literal interpretation is the pursuit of the author's intent. You can either accept that or be wrong. There is no third option. You don't get to define terms for dispensationalists. I have given adequate information to show you the truth. What Virkler said is the definition of "literal interpretation." The comment by Kevan about literal vs. literalistic shows your error. You confuse them and that has resulted in this discussion.

You need to learn the terms and how they are used in this discussion. It is becoming more and more obvious that you don't know much about dispensationalism and what they believe. If you are going to critique a dispensationalist, then use the terms the way they use them. Don't roll your own ...

 

Larry quotes Kevan,

"The presence of metaphor and symbol must be recognized, but this does not require the abandonment of hte principle of obedience to grammatical sense. The words must still be taken in their grammatical sense, though that sense will vary as the style of hte writing departs from prose and conforms to one or other of the modes of figurative speech. This recognition of matephorical style is not to be thought of as a return to allegorization, nor is it a 'spiritualizing' of the passage. When a writer employs metaphor he is to be understood metaphorically and his metaphorical meaning is his literal meaning: that is to say, it is the truth he wishes to convey. The term 'literal' stands strictly as the opposite of "figurative," but in modern speech it often means 'real,' and it is used in this way by those who want to be sure that they know what they writer really and originally meant. In this sense a metaphorical saysing is 'literally' true. ... a metaphorical statement is 'literally' true but cannot be 'literalistically' true. The 'literal' meaning, then, is what the particular writer intended, and although he used a metaphor, no one familiar with teh language in which he expressed himself could reasonably misunderstand him" (Kevan, "The Principles of Interpretation," in Revelation and the Bible, ed. Carl F H Henry, p. 294).

The emphasis in bold type is mine to show that Kevan himself wrote in this very quote, “The term 'literal' stands strictly as the opposite of ‘figurative . . .’" but goes on to admit that the term literal is often misused in “modern speech” to mean ‘real.’ I agree with Kevan that “The term 'literal' stands strictly as the opposite of ‘figurative,’” but I do NOT agree that “in modern speech it often means 'real,'” at least not unless by modern speech Kevan is referring to the careless speech of the uneducated layman.

Therefore it would appear that Larry is not the first to redefine the word “literal,” but it is very unfortunate that he has done so and argued so vehemently for a wrong interpretation of the word.

 

Who does not understand Webster's?

lit·er·al (litÆÃr Ãl), adj.
1. 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.