This series indeed is worth forwarding to many of my dear reformed baptist brethren who in their erudite and scholastic zeal for theology had skipped both the foundational tenets of "Sola Scriptura" & "Tota Scriptura" when it comes to future prophetic Writ.
This is the first time I've heard of the redemptive-historical hermeneutical method. Prior to this video, I was aware only of the historical-grammatical and historical-critical methods. I was under the impression that the Reformed tradition generally uses a variant of the historical-grammatical method that (over-)emphasized the person and work of Jesus Christ. It appears to me that the redemptive-historical method is just another name for amillennialism and covenantalism. As someone who uses the historical-grammatical method of biblical interpretation, the way I understand it is that when God spoke to the patriarchs and prophets during the era of the Old Testament, _He meant what He said and He said what He meant._ For example, when God told Abraham and his descendants that they would receive a particular region of land "from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates" (Gen. 15:18 KJV), He was referring to a _physical piece of land_ on planet Earth, not some sort of abstract, spiritual kingdom in the reign of Christ from Heaven. If God told the Hebrew people that He would give them physical land, but then revealed later that He was _actually_ talking about a spiritual/nonphysical reign of Christ, then that means God was, at best, being highly misleading, or, at worst, _lying_ to Abraham and his descendants, but we know this cannot be the case because God does not lie (Num. 23:19; Tit. 1:2; Heb. 6:18). Pick your poison, amillennialists: did God mislead His people or did He lie to them?
This is excellent guys. Thank you for pointing to the errors of the of the so called orthodox community. I appreciate what you are doing in advancing the TRUTH. Thank you!
Excellent presentation brothers. While there are many things that came from the reformation that I wholeheartedly embrance, there are some things that make my skin crawl. 😮
It’s always interesting to hear the outside view. It would be good to see a dialogue between one of the men here and someone who holds the orthodox reformed view. A reformed Baptist for say.
I did not know that there were different methods. Where would I go to learn about the grammatical and historical vs reformed hermeneutics? I want to learn how to do a deeper study of His word.
Chafer Theological Seminary is one of the few that follow the literal- historical-grammatical hermeneutic. It's found on the principles of Lewis Sperry Chafer (founder of Dallas Theological Seminary) and the current president is Dr Andy Woods who has some wonderful teachings here on RUclips.
Your position and arguments are pretty much the same as what I have concluded, though while I would affirm that the redemptive historical hermeneutic can be helpful, saying that it is valid is a little too generous.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
This series indeed is worth forwarding to many of my dear reformed baptist brethren who in their erudite and scholastic zeal for theology had skipped both the foundational tenets of "Sola Scriptura" & "Tota Scriptura" when it comes to future prophetic Writ.
This is the first time I've heard of the redemptive-historical hermeneutical method. Prior to this video, I was aware only of the historical-grammatical and historical-critical methods. I was under the impression that the Reformed tradition generally uses a variant of the historical-grammatical method that (over-)emphasized the person and work of Jesus Christ. It appears to me that the redemptive-historical method is just another name for amillennialism and covenantalism.
As someone who uses the historical-grammatical method of biblical interpretation, the way I understand it is that when God spoke to the patriarchs and prophets during the era of the Old Testament, _He meant what He said and He said what He meant._ For example, when God told Abraham and his descendants that they would receive a particular region of land "from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates" (Gen. 15:18 KJV), He was referring to a _physical piece of land_ on planet Earth, not some sort of abstract, spiritual kingdom in the reign of Christ from Heaven. If God told the Hebrew people that He would give them physical land, but then revealed later that He was _actually_ talking about a spiritual/nonphysical reign of Christ, then that means God was, at best, being highly misleading, or, at worst, _lying_ to Abraham and his descendants, but we know this cannot be the case because God does not lie (Num. 23:19; Tit. 1:2; Heb. 6:18). Pick your poison, amillennialists: did God mislead His people or did He lie to them?
This is excellent guys. Thank you for pointing to the errors of the of the so called orthodox community. I appreciate what you are doing in advancing the TRUTH. Thank you!
Excellent presentation brothers. While there are many things that came from the reformation that I wholeheartedly embrance, there are some things that make my skin crawl. 😮
There used to be a phrase, "big oil", back then. I would hear Rush Limbaugh use the phrase, "big ketchup". It was so funny.😂
Very very good. Thank you. Let us continue to pray for our friends that they will understand the Bible
It’s always interesting to hear the outside view. It would be good to see a dialogue between one of the men here and someone who holds the orthodox reformed view. A reformed Baptist for say.
You and Thaddues should discuss the topic with them!
I did not know that there were different methods. Where would I go to learn about the grammatical and historical vs reformed hermeneutics? I want to learn how to do a deeper study of His word.
Chafer Theological Seminary is one of the few that follow the literal- historical-grammatical hermeneutic. It's found on the principles of Lewis Sperry Chafer (founder of Dallas Theological Seminary) and the current president is Dr Andy Woods who has some wonderful teachings here on RUclips.
Your position and arguments are pretty much the same as what I have concluded, though while I would affirm that the redemptive historical hermeneutic can be helpful, saying that it is valid is a little too generous.
Thanks
Oh please cut the intro , ouach. The rest is deep and so more interresting get Ken phone number
From Québec