tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4666049145812503636.post4073081948990248324..comments2024-01-21T00:35:11.324-08:00Comments on Mike Vlach: ‘Radical Reinterpretation,’ New Testament Priority, and the Hermeneutics of George LaddMike Vlachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11901564537165580259noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4666049145812503636.post-15623209980257292322022-08-05T14:48:46.804-07:002022-08-05T14:48:46.804-07:00Greatt blog you haveGreatt blog you haveHoffman Estates Packing Servicehttps://www.professional-packing.com/us/illinois-packers/hoffman-estates-packing-service.shtmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4666049145812503636.post-9643127522899724022017-03-06T14:14:34.465-08:002017-03-06T14:14:34.465-08:00Covenant Theology adherents would hold that OT peo...Covenant Theology adherents would hold that OT people had a sufficient understanding of the Finished Work of Christ to be Saved just the way we are after the Cross. (eg. C. Sproul and Sinclair Ferguson on January 12, 2012, “Theology Night with Sinclair Ferguson and R. C. Sproul,” http://www.ligonier.org/learn/conferences/ligonier_webcast_archive/jan_20_2012 - To hear their remarks, go 39 minutes into this video clip.)<br /><br />Surely they would go along with Ladd in their Hermeneutic and thereby invalidate their Soteriological claims, for if we can only understand the OT through the lens of the NT then OT people didn't stand a chance.<br /><br />Whereas Dispensationalists are clear that the Object/Content of Saving Faith differs through time while Salvation is always by Grace through Faith as Truth was Progressively Revealed at any particular point in God's Economy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4666049145812503636.post-19281851277909014272015-12-12T05:42:18.816-08:002015-12-12T05:42:18.816-08:00I just came across this as I have been studying to...I just came across this as I have been studying topic for a few months now (12/2015). As I am trying to sort this out, one question I have is how the dispensational hermeneutic answers the NT use of OT. I think dispensationalists would agree that the NT use of OT is "loose" at least, right? It doesn't take long in reading the NT to see that it references OT scripture in ways that the OT scripture doesn't lend itself to being used contextually. So why do the NT writers do this? I understand Feinberg's point, but it don't think it really answers the reason why Ladd and others think this way. Ladd thinks this introduces a hermeneutic we should follow of the OT, and Feinberg says no it doesn't. How can we really know? I tend to think Ladd's point is pretty strong - I can only believe that the NT authors used scriptures these ways under inspiration, but it does seem to open the door for willy-nilly interpretive views. What about a hermeneutic that says we take prophetic literature literally unless it is redirected by later Biblical revelation?dinohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10443372574978704892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4666049145812503636.post-57175727286002543012011-07-20T09:05:23.451-07:002011-07-20T09:05:23.451-07:00Very helpful response, as always. Thanks so much f...<i>Very</i> helpful response, as always. Thanks so much for your time.Mike Riccardihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06748453197783538367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4666049145812503636.post-41644335525912622072011-07-20T08:23:31.985-07:002011-07-20T08:23:31.985-07:00Mike, I think the error these guys are making is t...Mike, I think the error these guys are making is taking truths concerning the temporary nature of the Mosaic Law and then projecting a "shadow/type" paradigm on everything in the OT. Jeremiah 31:31-34 specifically tells us that the Mosaic Law was temporary and would come to an end. So when passages like Col 2:17 and Heb 10:1 tell us the Mosaic Law is fulfilled in Christ, this is a literal fulfillment. But people groups and eternal/unconditional promises cannot be types and shadows that get swallowed up. The NT reaffirms the signifcance of national Israel (Matt 19:28; Rom 11:26; Acts 1:6); Jerusalem (Luke 21:24); and a tribulation temple (2 Thess 2--"temple of God"). The Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation reaffirm OT eschatology.<br /><br />In sum, the Mosaic Law and its elements were types but this does not make everything in the OT a type that gets dissolved. Nondispensationalists take a "shotgun" approach to types and want to sweep everything in the OT under the rug of types and shadows. Dispensationalists take more of a "rifle shot" approach claiming that there are types if the NT makes the connection, but not everything in the OT is a type. <br /><br />By the way, I still have not forgotten about your question concerning antecedent theology. I'll get back to you on that.Mike Vlachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11901564537165580259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4666049145812503636.post-19380759409377919052011-07-19T22:48:28.783-07:002011-07-19T22:48:28.783-07:00Hi Dr. Vlach,
I think Feinberg's point is a f...Hi Dr. Vlach,<br /><br />I think Feinberg's point is a formidable one. That is, it's difficult for me to see how the Old Testament (or at least portions of it) maintain the status of <i>revelation</i> if we must give the NT priority. What's the rhyme? The Old is in the New restricted, and the New is on the Old inflicted.<br /><br />The response that I often here in response, though, is that the Old Testament was just "types and shadows," and so we should expect there to be a "hidden" quality to it. Passages often quoted in support are Col 2:17 and Heb 10:1.<br /><br />How would you respond to that line of argumentation?Mike Riccardihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06748453197783538367noreply@blogger.com