Posted on 06/07/2007 11:23:25 AM PDT by topcat54
"For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Luke 21:22)
Like most everything else from Gary DeMar, this article is undiluted nonsense.
Agreed!
Interesting article. Dispensationalists are reaping what they've sown.
This means that...Me means you...Black means white...
Ruined the Rapture and Pre-Millienialism on one word and someone’s opinion of what the ‘original’ Greek interpretation of that word is...
Sure, I’ll buy that...You got a bridge I can buy as well???
Which is why his work is a pile of dung. Dispensational premillenialism is a natural result of the historical grammatical approach to biblical interpretation combined with proper theological method. What he is proposing as an explanation is incoherent.
and without any need for debate
Mr. DeMar should stop trying to determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. He should study all of Gods word and try to understand that Our Lord also tells us in Matthew 24 Take heed that no man deceive you.
Exactly. Gary DeMar has absolutely no foundation upon which to make his argument against dispensationalists (even ignoring the fact that his arguments about Greek demonstrative pronouns are not sound in the least). DeMar's eschatology, and Reformed eschatology in general, are based upon a completely figurative and exceptionalist approach to Biblical interpretation - in essence they twist the Scriptures to force them to fit into a historicist mold. The way DeMar and other anti-dispensationalists approach the Scriptures essentially turns the Word of God into a "choose-your-own-adventure" book like the ones we read as kids.
I see it's easier to throw stones than address the substanmce behind the charges. E.g.,
How will we ever convince skeptics of the truthfulness of the Bible when it is distorted to defend interpretations where "this" means "that," and "this is that" actually means "this is like that"?
Thus the true state of dispensationalism and it's fundational methodology is revealed.
You missed the point. The basic assertion of his work, a priori, is wrong. There is no need to dissect point 4 when point 1 is seriously flawed.
There is absolutely no basis in his assertion. He is making an argument by starting with a false premise. The interpretive framework for Dispensational premillenialism rests on its own merit, not on the perceived relationship to a theological position that some evolutionist doesnt support.
No I didn't as evidenced by your non-response.
The article clearly states the authors underlying belief ...
He believes that the interpretive methodology of dispensational premillennialism is inexorably linked to the way its advocates defend their position on creation.
My response was ...
Dispensational premillenialism is a natural result of the historical grammatical approach to biblical interpretation combined with proper theological method.
Whether all dispensational authors recognize the same approach is debatable. But it is theological method that separates dispensational from non-dispensational threology. Only dispensationalism is grounded in proper method. The reason why non-dispensational eschatology (i.e., Reformed) is a hogde-podge of uncoordinated results is its inability to deal with the OT. A dispensationalist develops a Biblical theology of the OT from the OT text. The non-dispensationalist develops a Biblical theology of the OT from a NT understanding of the OT text.
That is why a non-dispensationalist has no use for Israel, the millenium, an earthly kingdom of God ... everywhere you see the kingdom of God in the OT, you are thinking "Kingdom of God in the heart."
The reason why non-dispensational eschatology (i.e., Reformed) is a hogde-podge of uncoordinated results is its inability to deal with the OT.
One of the silliest statements I've seen in a while.
“A dispensationalist develops a Biblical theology of the OT from the OT text. The non-dispensationalist develops a Biblical theology of the OT from a NT understanding of the OT text.”
You are absolutely correct. Because dispensationalists refuse to read the Bible in its whole unity they become confused and fail to see the unity of God’s purposes.
"This generation shall not pass" doesn't need to be turned into "That generation" to make sense. I read it as Christ saying, "This generation (in which all these things I'm speaking about will happen) shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled".
And as far as the "new testament's" claim that "this" is a fulfillment of "that," one has to first believe in the authority of the "new testament" before one accepts any of its claims. This means "proving" the claims by merely quoting them is an exercise in circular reasoning.
The non-dispensationalist develops a Biblical theology of the OT from a NT understanding of the OT text.
Mind telling me why you think it's a bad idea to pay attention to the way Jesus, Paul, the gospel writers, Peter, Jude, James and whoever it was who wrote Hebrews interpreted the Old Testament?
If you read the NT back into the OT, it is a trivial matter to impute to a passage a meaning that would not be gained from grammatical and historical associations. I.e., you can read into the passage whatever you want.
Instead of considering textual, grammatical, and historical factors as the primary instruments for interpretation, the non-dispensationalist considers theological factors of primary importance. The OT context is downplayed and gives way to the NT theological interpretation. I.e., by reading the NT back into the old, you minimize the OT background of the NT text ... and at the extremes dispense with it altogether.
By starting in the OT, the dispensationalist enhances and expands the NT understanding as he already has his Biblical theology of the OT in hand when he comes to the New. When you start in the New and read back into the Old, the tendency is to undo or replace the understanding that would have been had by constructing a true Biblical theology of the OT.
Gary DeMar should check out the website reformation.org, owned by Niall Kilkenny. That website promotes a young earth and a global flood, yet Niall Kilkenny is not a dispensationalist. She is a historicist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.