Are there not different forms of Dispensationalism? ... Thus, yes, if one is not CT, more than likely they are using some form of dispensational hermeneutic somewhere in their methodology.
(Fred) Joe, the reason for my objection to the term
dispensational hermeneutic is that is inaccurate. Dispensationalism has specific tenets connected to it: discontinuity between Israel and the Church, two separate covenants for the church and Israel, and so forth, but discontinuity utilized in one's hermeneutic does not equate with a
dispensational hermeneutic. This is just plain simple mindedness to insist that it does. Like I stated in my first post on the subject: To say anyone who uses discontinuity in their hermeneutics is practicing some form of dispensationalism is like Jesse Jackson saying all Conservatives are racists (which is something he frequently does). By making such an asinine assertion it robs the word "racist" from any genuine meaning. One can argue like you have and say "Don't all racists practice some form of conservativism?," but such an argument would still be inaccurate.
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.
(Fred) I would agree with you that a
dispensational hermeneutic sees too much discontinuity, however, and once again, discontinuity does not equate a
dispensational hermeneutic. Is it your contention then, that CTers can see too much continuity? Say for instance the reconstructionist/theonomy crowd? The reverse is also true in my case: The more proper discontinuity the more proper interpretation of scripture. In my mind, CTers see too much continuity by judiazing Christianity and thus have the less proper interpretation. As for Gerstner, he reveals a certain amount of myopia with his criticism, because I would argue that a CTer's theology also determines his hermeneutic.
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.
(Fred) You seem to be making the argument that there exists no discontinuity between the OC and the NC. If you think there is discontinuity between the two, please elaborate why that then is not a dispensational hermeneutic.
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) I guess if you say Malone's hermeneutic falls apart in Jer. 31 it does, but I have yet to see anyone give any credible evidence to that fact. That aside, Malone is only employing a general hermeneutical principle practiced by any serious exegete. Is it your contention that the later, more fuller revelation of the NT does not shed light on the earlier, more veiled revelation of the OT, so as to help interpret it more clearly? I would contend that CTers do this the same way and in point of fact have read their works in which they argue this is the approach we have to take when reading and interpreting the Bible. I find it a bit fascinating that you would fluff this off as some anomalous way of studying the Bible, when your own people argue for this method. Take for instance Curtis Crenshaw and Grover E. Gunn's work critiquing dispensationalism,
Dispensationalism: Today, yesterday and tomorrowThe Reformed interpreter regards the NT as the source of an added clarity and fullness in the understanding of the OT that was not available to the OT saints. This position is consistent with the scriptural teaching that God's truth is revealed with greatest clarity in the NT ... The NT then is the final, full and clearest revelation of God. pg. 206.
And then this comment from another post:
Moreover, the “new” in New Covenant does not mean “brand new.” Normally, readers of the NT use Hebrews 8:13 which states, “In that he saith, A new covenant he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away,” and say the OC is GONE.
(Fred) In all fairness to Malone and his work on this, I would direct folks who have his book to flip to pages 86-87 where he addresses this idea of newness with the new covenant. That portion is a smaller part of an entire section outlining the uniqueness of the New Covenant as it is a fulfillment of the Old. I would also direct folks to James White's article on the section of scripture found in the Reformed Baptist Theological Journal. A portion of it can be read here:
The newness of the new covenant Be that as it may, you pointed out a couple of "mistakes" by people supporting the newness of this covenant.
However, they fail to read the text: (1) it is in the present tense—thus it is still passing away, why, because it is eternally connected to the NC and can never fully pass away and thus the beautiful use of the Greek present tense.
(Fred) The present may be beautiful to behold, but it doesn't necessarily support your assertion. Most Reformed commentators believe the writer is referencing the continued temple sacrifices that were on going when he wrote Hebrews. His point being is that all that is related with the OC temple will be done away with at the coming of Jerusalem's destruction.
(2) moreover, Jesus' own words in the Sermon on the Mount, that He had come not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17-18) resound even more here. “New” here has the meaning the fulfilling of the OC, not a brand new covenant! To confuse the two is to make yet another grave hermeneutical error in interpretation.
(Fred) O. Palmer Robertson disagrees with you. Re-read his last chapter
Christ: The Covenant of Consummation. Through out that chapter he makes statements like, "This uniqueness sets the NC apart from the previous covenantal dealings with his people" and "A 'new' covenant shall
replace all of God's previous covenantal dealings" and "Because of the radical incapacity of man to keep God's covenant, no lasting purpose will be served through a future
reestablishment of this same covenantal relationship." pp. 276, 281. [emphasis mine]. Robertson's basically argues in the same manner as Malone. So, why is he wrong?
Moreover, Carl B. Hoch in his book
All Things New: The significance of Newness in Biblical Theology provides some compelling reasons why the New Covenant cannot be a mere renewing of the Old. The most significant one is the use of
kainos (New) at Hebrews 8:13, rather than other perfectly good words for "renew" like
anakainizo and
anakainoo. Kainos has as a working definition "unused, uncommon, fresh, unprecedented, recently made and unworn." If there wasn't something "Brand" new about this covenant, why does the author employ a word that emphasizes something "Brand" new?
There are just too many exegetical and grammatical points against your assertion that it is a "grave hermeneutical error in interpretation" to understand the NC as being what the Bible calls it, New.
Fred
