Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Dispensationalists Can't Argue for a Young Earth and a Global Flood
American Vision ^ | 1/16/2007 | Gary DeMar

Posted on 06/07/2007 11:23:25 AM PDT by topcat54

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-54 next last

1 posted on 06/07/2007 11:23:28 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ItsOurTimeNow; HarleyD; suzyjaruki; nobdysfool; jkl1122; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; Dr. Eckleburg; ...
Reformed Eschatology Ping List (REPL)

"For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Luke 21:22)

2 posted on 06/07/2007 11:25:07 AM PDT by topcat54 ("... knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience." (James 1:3))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

Like most everything else from Gary DeMar, this article is undiluted nonsense.


3 posted on 06/07/2007 1:09:47 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Run Fred RUN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Agreed!


4 posted on 06/07/2007 3:10:38 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; ears_to_hear; 1000 silverlings; Lee N. Field
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"? An evolutionist like Ruse may rightly argue that if Morris can make "this generation," with its obvious first-century meaning, "have the emphasis" of "that generation" (distant future), then why can't the time element of Genesis 1 (the use of yom= a 24-hour day) "have the emphasis" of long ages of time? Maybe the days of Genesis 1 are just like 24-hour days, given dispensational hermeneutics. If time indicators in the NT are not interpreted literally, then why must they be interpreted literally in the OT? The dispensationalists have a big problem on their hands, and so do the creationist ministries that tolerate their eschatological hermeneutic.

Interesting article. Dispensationalists are reaping what they've sown.

5 posted on 06/07/2007 4:41:29 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

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???


6 posted on 06/07/2007 4:59:25 PM PDT by Iscool (OK, I'm Back...Now what were your other two wishes???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
He believes that the interpretive methodology of dispensational premillennialism is inexorably linked to the way its advocates defend their position on creation.

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.

7 posted on 06/07/2007 9:27:40 PM PDT by dartuser ("If you torture the data long enough, it will confess, even to crimes it did not commit")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

“…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 God’s word and try to understand that Our Lord also tells us in Matthew 24…“Take heed that no man deceive you”.


8 posted on 06/08/2007 3:18:44 AM PDT by secessionist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
Dispensational premillenialism is a natural result of the historical grammatical approach to biblical interpretation combined with proper theological method.

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.

9 posted on 06/08/2007 5:15:01 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Run Fred RUN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus; dartuser; secessionist; LiteKeeper; Dr. Eckleburg
Exactly. Gary DeMar has absolutely no foundation upon which to make his argument against dispensationalists

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.

10 posted on 06/08/2007 7:19:59 AM PDT by topcat54 ("... knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience." (James 1:3))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
I see it's easier to throw stones than address the substanmce behind the charges.

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.

11 posted on 06/08/2007 7:50:54 AM PDT by dartuser ("If you torture the data long enough, it will confess, even to crimes it did not commit")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
You missed the point.

No I didn't as evidenced by your non-response.

12 posted on 06/08/2007 8:00:47 AM PDT by topcat54 ("... knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience." (James 1:3))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
It wasn't a non-response. I thought it was pretty cogent. A mathematician who recognizes a step 1 error in the "proof" of a theorem will not waste his time going through the other steps. He will look at his student and say "You have a big problem here in step 1, go fix it and come back when you have a solid proof."

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."

13 posted on 06/09/2007 6:52:55 AM PDT by dartuser ("If you torture the data long enough, it will confess, even to crimes it did not commit")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
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.

14 posted on 06/10/2007 10:21:46 AM PDT by Lee N. Field
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: dartuser

“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.


15 posted on 06/10/2007 10:36:33 AM PDT by the_conscience
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
I don't agree with the article either.

"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".

16 posted on 06/10/2007 11:20:41 AM PDT by Ping-Pong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
Sheesh. The problem is easily solved by discarding the "new testament" (and its Greek language) altogether.

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.

17 posted on 06/10/2007 12:59:30 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Vayehi kekhalloto ledabber 'et kol-hadevarim ha'elleh, vatibbaqa` ha'adamah 'asher tachteyhem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
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?

18 posted on 06/10/2007 2:30:37 PM PDT by Lee N. Field
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Lee N. Field
First, those strictly NT figures (which is precisely my point) didn't interpret the OT inconsistent with normal historical grammatical methods. Jesus read from Isaiah in the temple, closed the scroll, and stated "In your hearing this is fulfilled." The leaders got upset. Why? He was claiming, in himself, a literal fulfillment of the passage.

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.

19 posted on 06/11/2007 8:04:02 AM PDT by dartuser ("If you torture the data long enough, it will confess, even to crimes it did not commit")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

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.


20 posted on 08/05/2007 10:26:49 PM PDT by kevinw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-54 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson