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.
Are there not different forms of Dispensationalism? Does not
MacArthur, who you work for, embrace his own form of Dispensationalism? Does not
New Covenant Theology (NCT), which you support, embrace “some” Dispensational ideas? Dispensationalism, in all its many brands, sees
less continuity (some more than others) in the covenants than CT. Thus, yes, if one is not CT, more than likely they are using some form of
dispensational hermeneutic somewhere in their methodology. Pure and simple a
dispensational hermeneutic sees too much discontinuity! The less proper continuity the less proper interpretation. The more proper continuity the more proper interpretation. As Dr. Gerstner reveals, the dispensationalist's theology determines their hermeneutic and not the reverse.
The phrase “dispensational hermeneutics,” as stated in previous posts, is not meant to be derogatory—thus not meant to be a negative phrase (although some like
grace2u have "wrongly" taken it as negative and have been
reproved by
Baptists in this area before. Notwithstanding Grace2u has
allegedly repented of his actions, however keeps singing the
same ‘ol song). However, Fredman, if your perception of the phrase is so negative, one can only wonder why are you so intimately involved with different aspects of Dispensationalism? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />
Please realize “dispensational” in the phrase “dispensational hermeneutic” is being used by CTers in a very general sense. Basically, anyone who sees
less continuity in the covenants is using such a hermeneutic (of course there could be exceptions…) …. Have you read MacArthur (“…a Dispensationalist but also holds to some vital points of Covenant Theology”—John G. Reisinger), who states, “So, I see more continuity there (and I don’t want to get too technical here) than the old dispensationalists, but maintaining the clear distinction between Israel and the church, which is a hermeneutical issue?” Thus, MacArthur sees
more continuity than the “old dispensationalists,” but
less than the CTers. Malone is much the same way …, but a little more covenantal IMO than MacArthur.
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.
No one TMK has stated that there is not
any discontinuity between the OC and the NC. Our argument, which is factual, is that Malone and others see
less continuity then their CT brothers. Thus, his argument is more dispensational—that is, he sees
less continuity in the covenants. Maybe the terminology that would assist you the most would be
less covenantal, however this description normally meets with reprisal by many as well, for BCTers do not wish to be associated, in any form, with pure CT. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />
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?
Malone’s overall method of interpretation, as shown in Strawbridge’s articles, and by others here, is
more dispensational or
less covenantal a hermeneutic than CTers and honest biblical interpretation will allow. It clearly falls apart in their interpretation of Jer 31, etc. Moreover, Malone begins his
hermeneutic from the middle of the Bible (NT) and then moves backwards, instead of the beginning—that is at the beginning of the story of redemption and moving forward. This is clearly seen in his overall interpretative and writing method …
(Fred) To be honest, "refuted" is an overstatement of the facts…
And what more would we expect from someone who works for MacArthur’s ministry, who himself embraces his own brand of Dispensationalism, and you who support NCT? I believe “refute” is a proper term as seen by the fruit that has stemmed from our discussions on “baptism” here at
The Highway. The fruit being a number of former Baptists (
including myself) who now embrace paedo baptism as opposed to credo baptism. Pilgrim,
if the list is not confidential, can give the names of others that have made this successful journey in truth. Or, perhaps they will speak themselves …
