Blood sacrifice during the millenium

Yes, he follows his presuppositions, as we all do. But his presupposition is not as you claim, but rather one of NT priority of interpretation. The dispensationalist's presupposition is one of inconsistent literalism and OT priority.

Not at all. Why must every detail of symbolic prophecy be taken literally? that is not necessary theologically nor interpretationally, according to numerous NT passages. Is every detail in Revelation was/or to be fulfilled literally?

Yep, we are. Apostolic hermeneutics vs dispensational

Not sure what that means, but it sounds like the old dispy charge "unless you interpret dispensationally, you really don't understand Scripture."

 

It only means that you understand that my words to have one meaning -- the one communicated by the signs and symbols in historical context of this discussion. You read the newspaper the same way. WHen you read Mathison, you understand that he has a single meaning to his words. It is only when you come to Scripture that you argue for a deeper or more than one meaning.

 

Pastor Larry, On this one I'm the big fat guy in the back yelling AMEN,preach it brother!!!
Bob

 

And Chris is the one beside you who is also yelling ...

Chris and I have been through this before and we won't get anywhere this time either ... unless he is willing to repent and believe

 

While you are at it don't forget to preach this: the prophets, in all the precepts, promises, types, figures, prophecies, &c. thereof, had their full accomplishment in the person, miracles, obedience, sufferings, and death of Christ... Even Brother Ezekiel!... Brother Glen

 

But is Scripture to be read like a newspaper, or as the deeper revelation of God, and through the interpretational lense of the NT writers?

 

Pastor Larry,
And, as has been stated earlier, we have a very good reason for interpreting this way: This is clearly what the apostles have often done with OT prophecies. Its difficult to read the Scriptures like a newspaper, when the apostles didn't. You keep accusing non-dispensationalists of ignoring the clear meaning of Scripture. I guess I feel you are doing the same thing. Hebrews says no more sacrifices. Your response to this is that it has to mean that there will be no more sacrifices in the OT sense of the word. But, the passages say the sacrifices are finished, not that sacrifices with a certain symbolism are finished. As I said earlier, Hebrews is clear, and if we believe in progressive revelation, it takes priority. The Ezekiel passage may then either describe a temple that was never built, because it was predicated on Israel's obedience; or it may be interpreted figuratively, on the basis that the church is called "the temple" of God. Either way, Ezekiel would then be consistent with Hebrews.

There are numerous cases in the NT where the Jews ran into problems because they interpreted literally what Christ and the apostles said were to interpreted spiritually. I fear that dispensationalism has a tendency to fall into that same trap.

 

While you are at it don't forget to preach this: the prophets, in all the precepts, promises, types, figures, prophecies, &c. thereof, had their full accomplishment in the person, miracles, obedience, sufferings, and death of Christ... Even Brother Ezekiel!... Brother Glen </font>[/QUOTE]This is short sighted becasue it leaves out an important part of 1 Peter 1 ... the glory to follow. That is what we are talking about here. What is strange is that the person, birth, death, miracles, obedience, sufferings, and resurrection are all the result of my hermeneutic applied in the OT. But when it comes to teh glory to follow, all of the sudden we are supposed to switch hermeneutics. That is the problem I have. It just doesn't make sense.

To Chris and Mikehayu,

I, as you know, seriously dispute that you are using the apostolic hermeneutic. I think the apostles refuted your hermeneutic on many occasions. I don't think the "smoking gun" passages you refer to are difficult at all. You simply use your presuppositions to determine what they cannot mean because of your system.

For instance, you say the church is the temple of God, then you say that Christ is the temple of God. Well which is it? Or is it both depending on context? And if the plain meaning of teh words leads us to understand that both are true in their respective contexts (which they are) then why do we have such a problem with a temple that is a temple?

Furthermore, I think I can make a case that your view of progressive revelation is a bit skewed, at least as I understand it. Progressive revelation cannot change the meaning of previous passages; it cannot deny what was previously taught. A text cannot mean what it never meant. It is true that the NT builds on the OT but I am not convinced that it does so in the way you suggest.

Do we read as a newspaper or as the "deeper revelation of God." With the given of inerrancy, I am not sure there is a difference. I certainly can see no biblical reason for one. The revelation of God uses words that can be understood by the reader in the historical context in which they are written. They are not intended to cloud understanding (that is done through the hardening of the Spirit); they are intended to bring understanding.