Categories
dispensationalism eschatology genesis hermeneutics israel

Abraham: The Hinge Point of Genesis

In Genesis, the author has not only repeatedly used specific terms (favor, blessing, cursing, etc.) but he uses them all in such a way that they interconnect across the entire book. I want to show that in this post but I know that this will be difficult without charts—but I’m going to have to make do without them because sometimes folk fall into reading the chart instead of following the argument.

Now, the argument I’m making isn’t a deductive argument (e.g. If p then q. p. Therefore q.) An inductive argument is where one concludes with the most probable answer as reasonable to hold (like you can’t deductively prove that there is someone posting this, but you can inductively support it to make belief in that reasonable).

Categories
dispensationalism hermeneutics

Words and Romans

Way back I noted that words are important but especially within their context; they are intended to communicate immediate meaning to the reader. Literary methods are also used as vehicles for this meaning: markers that unite ideas (structure) are accentuated with repetition (patterns) and are all used for carrying through the overall idea (the flow of thought).

Categories
hermeneutics

Should One Interpret Scripture?

Anytime I’m in a discussion with just about any Christian outside of Protestantism, the proof text of 2 Peter 1:20 comes up. The person, hearing my explanation of a passage, claims that my interpretation of the text is not valid by itself—I need the authority of the Magisterium or the Early Fathers or Something. But is that what the verse is teaching—that any interpretation of the text is dependent on the totality of the Church (be it the historical Church or the body of teaching from the Church) over (and against) the individual?

Categories
apologetics hermeneutics

Shadows and Not Typology in Colossians 2:17

Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. (Col 2:16-17 // NASB95)

I’ve seen this passage used quite a number of times to support several conclusions: (1) that the ceremonial portion of the Law were a type that pointed to Christ (the anti-type) and therefore should not be followed anymore—whereas the moral portions should be followed; (2) that the Torah was integral to pointing to Christ so that a person currently has the freedom to keep it (yes, including the ceremonial portions) as long as they do so in respect to Christ; and (3), that all those things that belonged to Israel (law, tabernacle, priesthood) were shadows that now belong to the body of Christ, the Church, to be used by her as she sees fit. Obviously some disagreement on to what should be done with the shadows in Colossians 2—but they are in agreement that the shadows are the things from the past. I deny all three positions.

Categories
apologetics hermeneutics

Slavery and Inerrancy

In a recent discussion regarding the evangelical doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture, an argument was raised which was supposed to be a slam dunk case against the doctrine. The doctrine basically states that the Biblical text is free from error. Some inerrantists have argued that this position is true of the original documents (which we don’t have) and others have stated that the inerrancy is in regards to every thing the Bible purports to speak on—be it science, history, geography; whatever. Now barring all the possible charges that might come up (the discussion can be found here and ranges some five hundred responses) I just wanted to deal with this one bit that came up.