Thread: The Theology That Says All Scripture Must Be Taken As Literal
Admin
The Theology That Says All Scripture Must Be Taken As Literal
Posted : 4 Jul, 2011 08:39 AM
On http://www.monergism.com/directory/l...ensationalism/
they say:
"Dispensationalism is a system of biblical interpretation formalized in the nineteenth century by John Nelson Darby and later popularized by the publishing of the study Bible of C. I. Scofield and the establishment of Dallas Theological Seminary by Lewis Sperry Chafer. It is the foundation of what is known in eschatological studies as "pre-tribulational premillenialism" and involves the division of history into (usually) seven distinct periods of time known as "dispensations". Twentieth century writers such as John Walvoord, Dwight Pentecost, and Charles Ryrie brought the doctrines of Dispensationalism into mainstream scholarship, which are often summarized by Ryrie's famous "sine qua non", i.e., his statement of the three primary tenets of the system. These are:
1) a clear distinction between Israel and the Church,
2) literal interpretation of Scripture..."
On http://www.realapologetics.org/blog/...lism/#_ftnref3
they quote C. I. Scofield, the first classical American dispensationalist as saying:
""[Prophecy is] the ground of absolute literalnesss."
Jerusalem is always Jerusalem, Israel always Israel, Zion always Zion�Prophecies may never be spiritualized, but are always literal."
"Prophecies may never be spiritualized, but are always literal?
Where in the Bible did Scofield get this?
In Matthew 13: 35 Christ says "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world."
Mark 4: 34 says "But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples."
In Hosea 12: 10 God says "I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets."
Where does the New Testament say that all prophecy must be taken to be literal? It does not say this anywhere.
If we always had to follow the rule that prophecy must be literal, then when God says in II
Kings 21: 13 that he will turn Jerusalem upside down, this means turning that literal city upside down and somehow ripping it off the ground, and raising it up so that streets and buildings would show at its bottom in the sky.
"Jerusalem" is not the literal city of Jerusalem. Second, turning it upside down is a figure of speech, not a literal turning of a city upside down. Taking this prophecy to be literal takes away its meaning.
In fact, what is the meaning of turning Jerusalem upside down?
Again, in Ezekiel 37: 1-12 when the Lord showed Ezekiel many dry bones down in the valley, told Ezekiel to prophesy on the dry bones, and the bones became alive like a great army, this must - for the dispensationalists - mean a miracle in which the bones of people long dead are suddenly brought to life. But, as is often the case in Bible prophecy, this description is metaphoric and not literal. The dry bones in a low place signify spiritual death of the children of Israel. When they are brought back to life and stand upon their feet like a great army, this means physical Israel, long spiritually dead, is given an opportunity to be brought back to life in Jesus Christ. They were to be transformed by being reborn in Christ.
Stephen H. Tyng, Jr., host of the first International Prophetic Conference in 1878, said Common sense proved that "a literal rendering is always to be given in the reading of Scripture, unless the context makes it absurd."
But how do you determine if a dispensationalist interpretation of a prophecy is absurd?
Hal Lindsey makes use of the dispensationalist literalist
interpretation of prophecy in suggesting in his New World Coming (1973), that the locusts of Revelation 9: 3, etc might be an advanced kind of helicopter.
See page 8 and page 141 for a reference to Cobra helicopters.
One problem is that popular dispensationalists contradict one another in their literalist interpretations of the Book of Revelation. For example, in their interpretation of Revelation 9:13-19, Tim Tim LaHaye and Hal Lindsey contradict one another.
Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins say the 200 million army of Revelation 9: 16 are a supernatural horde of 200 million demonic horsemen while for Hal Lindsey and Schuyler English they are literal Chinese soldiers.
Tim LaHaye & Jerry B. Jenkins, Are We Living in the End Times?, (Wheaton, Tyndale House, 1999), pp190-192.
From Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye's writings, it seems that in practice dispensationalist literalism is not necessarily any more consistent or free of bias than any other system of Bible interpretation.
And it often leads to a failure in understanding of Bible prophecy.
What if the main purpose of the tribulation was to send a fire upon the church (Zechariah 13: 8-9), and hail (Isaiah 28: 15-18) to purge it and bring out some who arrive at the truth, and to judge the church (I Peter 4: 17, Hebrews 10: 30)? Their entire system, including literal interpretation and the pre-tribulation rapture, can cause them to miss the beginning of the tribulation and not to know its main purpose is to deal with the falling away of II Thessalonians 2: 3. Some followers of dispensationalism may come to think that the tribulation has started and they have not been raptured, and may then question the pre-trib rapture. But they are likely to stick to their belief in Jewish supremacy.
The Theology That Says All Scripture Must Be Taken As Literal
Posted : 5 Jul, 2011 04:51 PM
II Kings 21: 13; "... and I will wipe Jerusalem, as a man wipeth a dish, wiping it, and turning it upside down;"
When you wipe a dish of something that has been in it, so that what was in the dish is mostly wiped off, and then you turn the wiped dish upside down, what might be left all drains out.
Jerusalem is Israel under the Old Covenant, under the law, including the ceremonial law. God is saying he is going to wipe physical Israel clean of the law and its beliefs and practices under the Old Covenant.under the law clean. It makes sense that Isaiah 29: 16 ties this turning upside down with the potter's clay, which refers to Jeremiah 18: 1-6. In Jeremiah 18 God shows that he is going to change physical Israel into a new, different vessel, as the potter who has control over the clay.
This parable of the potter making a pot that he considers to be marred and then taking the same lump of clay and making of it something he finds good is what is important in this whole thread.
Its not just the turning of the world upside down that signifies what God says he is going to do with Israel. Its the making of Israel into a spiritual body out of Israel which was a physical body that is most important.
Paul's ministry to the Gentiles was rejected by most Jews, who in Acts 17:5 assaulted the house of Jason. Most Jews did not want their religion to be changed, or turned upside down. They wanted to remain as they were in their physical type religion with entry through the physical DNA of Abraham, circumcision in the physical body, a physical building as the temple, feast days, etc, etc.
Paul did not turn the world upside down in any sense with his ministry, and when Christ appears again he will turn turn the world that Paul turned upside down right side up. Paul's work was a part of the transformation of Israel into a spiritual faith.
The Theology That Says All Scripture Must Be Taken As Literal
Posted : 5 Jul, 2011 08:18 PM
It�s literal as in a literary interpretation, not literal as in the opposite of figurative. You take each sentence or each phrase and interpret it in a literary sense. Some books have a combination of literary styles in them, so you can�t always say that a book needs to be interpreted in its entirety the same way.
You really work hard at proving Dispensationalism wrong.
I think you need to take a page from R.C. Sproul. He determined early on that he would make every effort to truly understand what someone else�s argument was before he tore it apart. It is really easy to make someone look bad if you misrepresent their position.
