Jump to content
enoob57

Understanding is literal historical ...

Recommended Posts

In Biblical interpretation one has only two paths to establish oneself in understanding...
subjective: God speaks to me through Scripture: it sounds real spiritual, but it then could mean anything to anyone's personal view...
objective: God uses the literal historical means to communicate one message to all peoples and groups in all times...
I like what Ryrie says to this:
snip

Quote
 
The Dispensational Position
Literal hermeneutics. Dispensationalists claim that their principle of hermeneutics is that of literal interpretation. This means interpretation that gives to every word the same meaning it would have in normal usage, whether employed in writing, speaking, or thinking. It is sometimes called the principle of grammatical historical interpretation since the meaning of each word is deter mined by grammatical and historical considerations. The principle might also be called normal interpretation since the literal meaning of words is the normal approach to their understanding in all languages. It might also be designated plain interpretation so that no one receives the mistaken notion that the literal principle rules out figures of speech. Symbols, figures of speech, and types are all interpreted plainly in this method, and they are in no way contrary to literal interpretation. After all, the very existence of any meaning for a figure of speech depends on the reality of the literal meaning of the terms involved. Figures often make the meaning plainer, but it is the literal, normal, or plain meaning that they convey to the reader.
The literalist (so called) is not one who denies that figurative language, that symbols, are used in prophecy, nor does he deny that great spiritual truths are set forth therein; his position is, simply, that the prophecies are to be normally interpreted (i.e., according to the received laws of language) as any other utterances are interpreted - that which is manifestly figurative being so regarded.
Many reasons are given by dispensationalists to support this hermeneutical principle of literal, normal, or plain interpretation. At least three are worthy of mention at this point.
Philosophically, the purpose of language itself seems to require literal interpretation. Language was given by God for the purpose of being able to communicate with mankind. As Gordon Clark says,
If God created man in His own rational image and endowed him with the power of speech, then a purpose of language, in fact the chief purpose of language, would naturally be the revelation of truth to man and the prayers of man to God. In a theistic philosophy one ought not to say that all language has been devised in order to describe and discuss the finite objects of our sense - experience. . . . On the contrary, language was devised by God, that is, God created man rational for the purpose of theological expression.
If God is the originator of language and if the chief purpose of originating it was to convey His message to humanity, then it must follow that He, being all-wise and all-loving, originated sufficient language to convey all that was in His heart to tell mankind. Furthermore, it must also follow that He would use language and expect people to understand it in its literal, normal, and plain sense. The Scriptures, then, cannot be regarded as an illustration of some special use of language so that in the interpretation of these Scriptures some deeper meaning of the words must be sought. If language is the creation of God for the purpose of conveying His message, then a theist must view that language as sufficient in scope and normative in use to accomplish that purpose for which God originated it.
A second reason why dispensationalists believe in the literal principle is a biblical one: the prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the first coming of Christ - His birth, His rearing, His ministry, His death, His resurrection - were all fulfilled literally. That argues strongly for the literal method.
A third reason is a logical one. If one does not use the plain, normal, or literal method of interpretation, all objectivity is lost. What check would there be on the variety of interpretations that man's imagination could produce if there were not an objective standard, which the literal principle provides? To try to see meaning other than the normal one would result in as many interpretations as there are people interpreting. Literalism is a logical rationale.
Of course, literal interpretation is not the exclusive property of dispensationalists. Most conservatives would agree with what has just been said. What, then, is the difference between the dispensationalist's use of this hermeneutical principle and the nondispensationalist's? The difference lies in the dispensationalist's claim to use the normal principle of interpretation consistently in all his study of the Bible. He further claims that the nondispensationalist does not use the principle everywhere. He admits that the nondispensationalist is a literalist in much of his interpretation of the Scriptures but charges him with allegorizing or spiritualizing when it comes to the interpretation of prophecy. The dispensationalist claims to be consistent in his use of this principle, and he accuses the nondispensationalist of being inconsistent in his use of it.
Notice, for instance, the predicament one writer gets himself into by not using the literal principle consistently. He recognizes that some insist on a literal fulfillment of prophecy whereas others see only a symbolic meaning. His suggestion is that prophecy should be approached "in terms of equivalents, analogy, or correspondence. " As an example of the application of this principle he mentions the weapons cited in Ezek 39 and states that these will not be the exact weapons used in the future war; rather, equivalent weapons will be used. But suppose this principle of equivalents were applied to Mic 5:2. Then any small town in Palestine would have satisfactorily fulfilled the prophecy of where Christ were to be born. If the Bible says "like chariots" or "like Bethlehem" (which it does not), then there may be some latitude in interpretation. But if specific details are not interpreted literally when given as specific details, there can be no end to the variety of meanings of a text.
Consistency. In theory the importance of the literal principle is not debated. Most agree that it involves some obvious procedures. For one thing, the meaning of each word must be studied. This involves etymology, use, history, and resultant meaning. For an other thing, the grammar, or relationship of the words to each other, must be analyzed. For a third thing, the context, immediate and remote, must be considered. That means comparing Scripture with Scripture as well as the study of the immediate context. These principles are well known and can be studied in any standard text on hermeneutics.
(from Dispensationalism, Copyright © 1995 by Charles C. Ryrie. All rights reserved.)
  • Thumbs Up 2
  • Brilliant! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Greetings enoob57,

On ‎5‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 11:03 PM, enoob57 said:

Notice, for instance, the predicament one writer gets himself into by not using the literal principle consistently. He recognizes that some insist on a literal fulfillment of prophecy whereas others see only a symbolic meaning. His suggestion is that prophecy should be approached "in terms of equivalents, analogy, or correspondence. " As an example of the application of this principle he mentions the weapons cited in Ezek 39 and states that these will not be the exact weapons used in the future war; rather, equivalent weapons will be used.

I agree with most of the article that you quoted, but I question what he says in the above. Firstly I am not a dispensationalist, and possibly fit in with those that differ from the dispensationalist in the above statement. I would like to know if a dispensationalist demands that swords and spears and ploughshares and scythes need to be literal in the following passage, or would he be content to view this in a general sense, that money and industry that has been spent in manufacturing weapons of war will be redirected into agriculture during the Kingdom of God upon earth when Christ returns to sit upon the Throne of David in Jerusalem.

Isaiah 2:1-4 (KJV): 1 The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. 2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD’S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. 3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.  

In other words, does a dispensationalist demand that the future warfare preceding Christ's return, which I believe is very soon, will be fought with swords and spears?

 

Kind regards Trevor

Edited by TrevorL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, TrevorL said:

Greetings enoob57,

I agree with most of the article that you quoted, but I question what he says in the above. Firstly I am not a dispensationalist, and possibly fit in with those that differ from the dispensationalist in the above statement. I would like to know if a dispensationalist demands that swords and spears and ploughshares and scythes need to be literal in the following passage, or would he be content to view this in a general sense, that money and industry that has been spent in manufacturing weapons of war will be redirected into agriculture during the Kingdom of God upon earth when Christ returns to sit upon the Throne of David in Jerusalem.

Isaiah 2:1-4 (KJV): 1 The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. 2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD’S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. 3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.  

In other words, does a dispensationalist demand that the future warfare preceding Christ's return, which I believe is very soon, will be fought with swords and spears?

 

Kind regards Trevor

As I see this creation and God's written Word the instructional set of the Who of God... I with a beginning am reduced to that authority and submission to it! As the created source teaches us that laws of nature cannot be broken and reality is living within the constraints of those laws -so as- the written Word has same and everything that is written is to be considered literal unless the creative Word indicates not literal and example
[snip]

Figures of Speech in the Bible

Simile: A comparison using “like” or “as.” Example: “As lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man” (Matthew 24:27).

Metaphor: One thing described in terms of some other thing. “Do not be afraid,little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom” (Luke 12:32).

Anthropomorphism: God described in human terms. “The eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth” (2 Chronicles 16:9, New King James Version).

Words of association: One word stands for something else. Examples: “Circumcision” meaning the Jews (Galatians 2:9, King James Version); “sword” for all weapons (Romans 8:35).

Personification: Personal qualities assigned to an object. “The mountains skipped like rams” (Psalm 114:4).

Euphemism: Substituting an inoffensive word for a possibly harsh or crude one. “Adam lay with his wife Eve” (Genesis 4:1) means that they had sexual intercourse.

Hyperbole: Exaggeration. “If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out” (Matthew 5:29).

Irony: The literal meaning is opposite the real meaning. “You have become kings…! How I wish that you really had become kings so that we might be kings with you!” (1 Corinthians 4:8).

[snip]

OR the Word itself gives permission to do so...

What must be understood is that God has communicated to all people in all times an objective written format whereby staying within an hermeneutic of literary analysis a must …. anything taken out of context becomes a pretext to whatever your imagination can dream up BUT what good is it that to the authority of Scripture?

Now in regards to your question because of EMP and everything powered is susceptible to... it is now a probability that in the end hand held striking weapons is all that will be available it could also be word association... but whatever it is made of metal to convert to farming equipment ...

Edited by enoob57
  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings again enoob57,

18 hours ago, enoob57 said:

Now in regards to your question because of EMP and everything powered is susceptible to... it is now a probability that in the end hand held striking weapons is all that will be available it could also be word association... but whatever it is made of metal to convert to farming equipment ...

I appreciate the detailed information. We need to keep some of these things in mind as we read the Scriptures. Your mention of these aspects remind me of another Dispensationalist, Ethelbert Bullinger. I have a number of his reference books including Figures of Speech used in the Bible and The Companion Bible. This gives me the impression that Dispensationalists are very analytical. I am not a Dispensationalist and do not know fully what this represents, or the various versions of Dispensationalism. For my part, I believe that there has been one method of salvation from the Garden of Eden, and that is Justification by Faith in the Gospel. As far as Isaiah 2:1-4 I would suggest the common expression “guns or butter” is similar, but not altogether literal. I do not know what is “EMP”.

Kind regards Trevor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TrevorL said:

Greetings again enoob57,

I appreciate the detailed information. We need to keep some of these things in mind as we read the Scriptures. Your mention of these aspects remind me of another Dispensationalist, Ethelbert Bullinger. I have a number of his reference books including Figures of Speech used in the Bible and The Companion Bible. This gives me the impression that Dispensationalists are very analytical. I am not a Dispensationalist and do not know fully what this represents, or the various versions of Dispensationalism. For my part, I believe that there has been one method of salvation from the Garden of Eden, and that is Justification by Faith in the Gospel. As far as Isaiah 2:1-4 I would suggest the common expression “guns or butter” is similar, but not altogether literal. I do not know what is “EMP”.

 

Kind regards Trevor

 

You are leaning more in a Covenantal theology...

some of the broader strokes of understanding is
Heb 10:4

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
KJV


so why, one must ask, did the law come first? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Greetings again enoob57,

9 hours ago, enoob57 said:

You are leaning more in a Covenantal theology...

some of the broader strokes of understanding is
Heb 10:4

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
KJV


so why, one must ask, did the law come first? 

One explanation is that the Law was there to teach the pattern of things that would afterwards be fully revealed in Christ. Again you use a title that I do not understand “Covenantal theology”. I believe that the New Covenant consists of the promises made concerning Eve, and to Abraham and David and confirmed with the blood of Christ, and this replaces the Old Covenant, the Law given to Moses. What is EMP?

Galatians 3:24 (KJV): Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

 

Kind regards Trevor

Edited by TrevorL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Electro Magnetic Pulse
So if the law could do nothing but condemn Adam and his children why was did it come first?

Edited by enoob57

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings again Enoob57,

3 hours ago, enoob57 said:

So if the law could do nothing but condemn Adam and his children why was did it come first?

Salvation was available before the Law was given, as for example, Abraham was justified by faith Genesis 15:5-6, 22:15-18.

Kind regards Trevor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, TrevorL said:

Greetings again Enoob57,

 

Salvation was available before the Law was given, as for example, Abraham was justified by faith Genesis 15:5-6, 22:15-18.

 

Kind regards Trevor

 

We know through Christ God justifies sinners through all times... but were talking about how God's Word is written dealing with man and the different ways. Abraham was what is called the patriarchal period where God spoke directly to heads of households.  But the most important aspect of the dispensational system is the way God deals with people in different times and the understanding thereof :)  What I was trying to get you to realize is that God set forth the law not for salvation but condemnation because of sin... the why is evident to show no one could meet the righteous standard that is in God alone! This because repentance of being the necessary first step in being born again and God took 1400 years to show us this in OT...

Edited by enoob57
  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, enoob57 said:

We know through Christ God justifies sinners through all times... but were talking about how God's Word is written dealing with man and the different ways. Abraham was what is called the patriarchal period where God spoke directly to heads of households.  But the most important aspect of the dispensational system is the way God deals with people in different times and the understanding thereof :)  What I was trying to get you to realize is that God set forth the law not for salvation but condemnation because of sin... the why is evident to show no one could meet the righteous standard that is in God alone! This because repentance of being the necessary first step in being born again and God took 1400 years to show us this in OT...

Excellent points!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×