This subject is a mine field. I won’t pretend to know much (if anything) about the distinctions but I do value Paul Henebury’s opinions.
Those in the progressive dispensationalist camp are comfortable with disposing of grammatical-historical hermeneutics, whereas normative dispensationalists align themselves closely with it. The fact that Darrell Bock could write a Forward commending William Webb’s controversial X-Y-Z approach shows that they are both influenced by modern hermeneutical theorizing. Bock himself emphasizes the supposed problem with saying that Scripture may be read in a consistently literal manner; Schleiermacher’s warning about imposing a rigid set of rules upon the text before we actually read it; the importance of “preunderstanding”; and sensitivity to literary genres. This is why he, along with his fellow Progressive Dispensationalists, has bid adieu to consistent grammatical-historical interpretation (G-H) and has adopted a “complementary hermeneutic” wherein the passage being read is helped by the rest of the Biblical Canon. The hermeneutical tool chosen to ground this approach is an adaptation of the “already-not yet” hermeneutic....Progressive Dispensationalism and Normative Dispensationalism: Separate Hermeneutical Assumptions
A Review of Harrison Perkins, “Reformed Covenant Theology” (Pt. 4)
-
PART THREE As I complete this review one of the things that stands out to
me is how much the author leans upon Reformed Confessions and writers from
the pa...
9 hours ago
No comments:
Post a Comment