Quote
Fredman, first I am not speaking about Dispensationalism, “a specific theological view of the Bible,” as you stated! Second, I stated that some interpret the Bible using a dispensational hermeneutic, which is different than mere Dispensationalism. This is freehand, a short method, of stating that someone sees less continuity between the OC and the NC. I am speaking of hermeneutics and not merely a form of premillennialism originating among the Plymouth Brethren, (a central doctrine being the distinction between Israel and the church, stressing discontinuity … in the OC/NC...) etc.

(Fred) Well, Joe, I recognize you are attempting to differentiate between "Dispensationalism" as a theological system and a dispensational hermeneutic, but your explanation only creates more confusion. First off, suggesting some one is using a dispensational hermeneutic to interpret the Bible implies he is practicing some form of Dispensationalism, thus he is suspect and guilty by association due to his hermeneutics. Furthermore, you need to explain what is a dispensational hermeneutic, at least in your mind and I do not think you have adequately done this. Is it your contention that any recognition of discontinuity between the OT and the NT automatically equates a dispensational hermeneutic? I would argue that you as a CTer must recognize some form of discontinuity between the Testaments. Surely you note a distinction between how God operated in the OT with one theocratic people comprising the nation of Israel to how he is dealing with the Israel of God as a spiritual people? Is there anything "new" about the new covenant, or do you take McMahon's strained approach and suggest the new covenant is just the Abrahamic covenant renewed with spiritual Israel with the Gentiles sort of tacked on?

Granted, one of the distinction of a genuine Dispensational hermeneutic is a separation of Israel from the Church, but where has Malone emphasized this in his work on Baptism?


Quote
I used the example of Jer 31 earlier which is already posted and been refuted here at the Highway….. Several of the discussions can be viewed here or, as stated before, you can see his hermeneutic analyzed here (please check out all Strawbridge's resources). Or, you can do a search for Malone here at the Highway and get over 125 hits …

(Fred) To be honest, "refuted" is an overstatement of the facts. I have not read anything that has "refuted" what Malone has established in his book. McMahon, Strawbridge and even several others here on this board, have attempted some form of "refutation" but they have yet to adequately interact and answer Malone's penetrating critique of the paedo's core presuppositional hermeneutics of the "good and necessary inference" principle. He devotes at least the first 3 or so chapters of his book outlining it and interacting with it. What I found interesting is Malone's pointing out how paedo's and dispensationalists error in similar fashion. Dispensationalists do not give the NT revelation priority in defining the prophetic fulfillment of Israel and paedo do not give NT revelation priority in defining the subjects of baptism. Both systems read OT revelation into the NT, rather than allowing the fuller NT revelation to shed light on how the OT was fulfilled. Perhaps you may argue that such an approach is a "dispensational hermeneutic," but that is just normal biblical exegesis in my mind.

Fred

"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns