The Essentials of Dispensationalism
Great post responding to Riddlebarger and recommending an excellent read on the subject of Dispensationalism.
Information and Links
Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.
Reader Comments
Mike, I certainly have Dr. Ryrie’s book. My guess is that his point is that Dispensationalism is the result of a consistent hermeneutic. I would highly suggest getting a copy of Feinberg’s “Continuity and Discontinuity.” Also, Kaiser’s “Toward an Exegetical Theology,” is an excellent approach to the sort of hermeneutics that I think is most consistent.
I also found Barry Horner’s book “Future Israel” to be an excellent description of a more consistent hermeneutical approach to Scripture that leads one in a more Pre-millennial route (Dispensational some might say).
My aim is not to promote Dispensationalism per se, but to push what I believe is a more proper hermeneutical approach to the Scripture. I simply don’t find classic covenentalism to be hemeneutically consistent and thus Scripturally compelling.
Bret, thanks for the suggestions.
Bret,
Thanks for the recommendations. I look forward to keeping a balanced study about the issues of hermeneutics and the eschaton.
However, in regards to the link, I think Matt Waymeyer has a great deal more to wrestle with to respond appropriately to Riddlebarger. I would like to see him discuss and wrestle through “the more significant exegetical issues” that he mentions that he has with Riddlebarger’s Amillennialism.
Be that as it may, thanks for the link and also for your desire to faithful to the Word of God.
Bret, have you read Ryrie’s book entitled “Dispensationalis”? I read it about two or three months ago and was pretty disappointed with the way he opened the book. In setting forth his argument for Dispensationalism he made alot of discussions about there being dispensations in scripture and how even covenantalists agree that there are at least some sort of “dispensations.” But when he got to the end of the chapter and went to summarize the essentials of Dispensationalism he didn’t say anything about dispensations. Instead he gave literal interpreation of scripture, separation of Israel and the Church, and being premil as the essentials of Dispensationalism without ever laying the groundwork for holding these to be true. It came across to me that he took these as “givens” that didn’t even need to be established. It wasn’t until later on in the book that he made arguments for holding these “essentials.” Any thoughts?
The link that you posted suggests Feinberg for a good defense of Dispie Theology, would you agree??