tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4666049145812503636.post3599864601907092310..comments2024-01-21T00:35:11.324-08:00Comments on Mike Vlach: Yes, "Reinterpret" Is Sometimes Used By Non-dispensationalistsMike Vlachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11901564537165580259noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4666049145812503636.post-64941305478425483432011-05-20T18:23:34.397-07:002011-05-20T18:23:34.397-07:00This is a discussion I'd like to see more on.
...This is a discussion I'd like to see more on.<br /><br />Any and all eschatological positions claim scriptural foundation for their views. Therefore, the issue does not rest in any position being “more biblical” than the other but in hermeneutics. The crux issue of eschatology is hermeneutics leading to the relationship of the OT to the NT.<br />A literal vs. symbolic hermeneutic is not the issue, because a “literal hermeneutic” allows for symbolic use of language. Both Amillennial and Pre-Millennial use literal and symbolic language!<br /><br />Since my time in both seminar's I've attempted to refine my hermeneutical presuppositions. All eschatological positions affirm what we will call, for the sake of the argument, “testamental priority.” Below is the refinement I've attempted to accomplish.<br /><br /><br />1. The Old Testament is the starting point of constructing theology. It can stand alone to provide salvation (2 Tim 3) and inform New Testament ideas. OT theology informs the NT, not vice versa. NT theology does not inform OT theology. If it does, it would undo original intent of the progress of revelation. NT reinterpretation of the OT will misinform eschatology. <br /><br />2. The only time NT may explain a fuller meaning is with type/anti-type relations. However, types are valid only when the NT explicitly states it as such. Consequently, reading the OT with an understanding of the type/anti-type relation does not nullify the original intent of the OT passage. The original intent does not have a pre-understanding the type/anti-type fulfillment.<br /><br />3. Not all OT promises need to find fulfillment in Christ to have validity. Any promise/fulfillment not culminating in Christ is not less important or invalid.<br /><br />4. If promises are made in the OT that do not find fulfillment within the OT or NT era, than there is still anticipation of its fulfillment. Promises or prescripts finding no fulfillment are still valid unless stated to be otherwise. (E.g. Mosaic Law with 10 Commandments. With the abrogation of the M.L. with the N.C., the 10 commandments should cease to bear weight. However, every one of the 10 commandments are re-instated in the N.T. Consequently, they lose their Mosaic purpose of providing prosperity to obedience.)<br /><br />5. Having the OT preceding the NT within the progress of revelation will prohibit “promise transference.” If a promise or prophecy is given in the OT to a designated people, person, or object, there will not be a transference or abrogation even if it is silent in the NT or has a different application in the NT. If having a new object or application in the NT, it will add to the original promise not remove the original intent.shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03700175018731054145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4666049145812503636.post-61100553686599272672011-05-12T13:16:04.509-07:002011-05-12T13:16:04.509-07:00Dr. Vlach -
You are correct that some non-dispens...Dr. Vlach -<br /><br />You are correct that some non-dispensationalist do use reinterpretation terminology. However, as you also said, there are some who do not. Rather they use fulfillment language.<br /><br />I'd love to see you interact with some non-dispensationalists who do not speak of reinterpretation but of fulfillment. Men that come to mind are: D.A. Carson, Thomas Schreiner, & Greg Beale.<br /><br />This understanding that the NT fulfills the OT is primary as we see a renewed interest in the area of Biblical Theology. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see many dispensationalists doing work in this area. If my observations are correct, do you have any ideas why?P. Chase Searshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13132802409027291392noreply@blogger.com