Is Dispensationalism Wrong for Emphasizing Literal Hermeneutics?

Explains how Literal-Grammatical-Historical Hermeneutics was affirmed by "The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics" in 1982, a document signed by over 100 scholars including dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists.

[fredanderson]

I love your teaching on hermeneutics. Throughout my 32-year ministry at the church I pastor, I have intentionally taught, in many different settings, including from the pulpit, the literal, grammatical-historical method of interpretation as you have described it here, and in your book, Dispensational Hermeneutics. I am convinced that one of the most important things I can teach my church family is how to accurately interpret Scripture so they can accurately apply it to their daily lives. Thank you for your ministry and your emphasis on proper hermeneutics.

[thebiblesojourner]

Great job connecting the hermeneutic with the broad conservative Christian movement! Fascinating to see how there was once a lot of agreement between different eschatological camps.

[pastorpitman]

I appreciate your ability to present these succinctly. Well done.

[reformedpilgrim]

I don't have a problem with what you presented here. I'm a Reformed Baptist (Covenant Theology), but that all sounded good to me.

[AidenRKrone]

As far as I'm concerned, dispensationalists are using the proper method of interpreting the Bible. Unlike the anagogical, typological, spiritual, and allegorical interpretative methods used by covenantalists, supersessionists, and other non-dispensationalists, dispensationalists are textualists, which means that they let the Bible interpret itself! They don't use subtle eisegesis to read preconceived ideas into the text. The historical-grammatical hermeneutic and literal interpretative method let the meta-narrative of the Bible unfold naturally. And for the record, I'm not a dispensationalist (although I lean toward progressive dispensationalism), however, I appreciate dispensationalist ideas.

[TheoFaith]

Excellent discussion and appreciated how you showed the LGHH approach is criticized but also affirmed by critics. I think this demonstrates their hermeneutic inconsistency, and the way they employ special pleading when attacking dispensationalism. Even our critics admit that our dispensational conclusions are correct if we use a consistent hermeneutic. Here are some examples: 

“Now we must frankly admit the literal interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies gives us just such a picture of an earthly reign of the Messiah as the premillennialist pictures.”— Floyd Hamilton, The Basis of the Millennial Faith, 38-39.

“…the Old Testament Prophecies if literally interpreted cannot be regarded as having been yet fulfilled or as being capable of fulfillment in this present age.”—O.T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 238.

“It is generally agreed that if the prophecies are taken literally, they do foretell a restoration of the nation of Israel in the land of Palestine, with the Jews having a prominent place in that kingdom and ruling over the other nations.”—Loraine Boettner, The Meaning of the Millennium, 95.

[Harpadzo]

Hummel mostly seems upset and a bit crowded by the Dispensational Hermeneutic. In other words, it is cramping his style. It forces him to re-think a few presumptions he has, probably with respect to ecclesiology and eschatology, were I to guess. So he is lashing out. I run into this among my Reformed brethren frequently and I number myself among them particularly with respect to soteriology. The primary difference I see is, Dispensationalists continue to reform.

[hajoel]

I notice this all the time when listening to sermons or sitting under Bible studies of Old Testament books. Compare Vaughan Roberts with say, Chuck Missler at the popular level, Missler tends to leave the OT say what it says, while Vaughan keeps asking in light of Jesus’s death the cross what it is saying. Plus Missler will be paying as close attention to the text as NT while Roberts or other covenantal teachers tend to skip over a lot of the details.

[geraldpolmateer]

Hal Lindsey is an excellent example of a literal interpretation of apocalyptic literature. The way he interpreted it was not consistent with the language of apocalyptic literature. Western ways of interpreting non-Western texts does not work in about 3/4 of the world. Missionaries who go to non-Western countries soon realize that what they were taught does nothing to communicate to the people. The Old Testament is full of stories and Jesus taught stories. Before people could read and write they were taught using stories. All of the Bible was read to those people who could not read and write. So they learned by oral communication only. Those kind of people arrive at a biblical theology, but not a systematic theology.

[jimandcarolyn]

I didn’t read Hummel’s book but listened to the interview with Al Mohler. The interview was disappointing (in my opinion) as they both treated somewhat lightheartedly the LGHH method especially in the prophets and Revelation. God is the One who created human language and it should be obvious that apart from following the LGHH no one could understand what anyone else intended to say. The non-LGHH folks just want wiggle room to interpret the Scriptures according to their own ideas rather than what God intends.

[albertperdomo]

In what book do you discuss Mathew 24 and this generation?

[mannyc]

Not at all wrong, no matter what that Joel Richardson has said, he is a bit to big, with that EGO.