POH - Iron sharpens Iron

Dude,Thanks for your candid response. And thanks for stating that my comments regarding the non-dispensational label creates too broad a distinction. I had to check my preconceived notions on this one, and I now recognize that my understanding of covenant theology up to this point has been a bit naive! My assumption has been that non-dispensational theology = covenant theology. So, I dug a bit and scanned through several articulations of CT from those who call themselves covenant theologians, and now I see more clearly the problem you (and other dispensational writers) are addressing. I also found a critique of CT from a non-dispensational author (his critique is specifically dealing with CT's presumption of over-arching, extra-biblical covenants that tend to govern the way they structure and understand the biblical covenants.)And your example from Daniel 9 was helpful in illustrating how the POH can affect one's hermeneutics. However, is this a necessary connection? I guess I'm not sure that I see that one's POH must necessarily affect one's hermeneutics. In an earlier correspondence, you had said that you are trying to determine whether you should accept the POH presented by Showers (which is decidedly dispensational), and then by proxy the hermeneutics that go along with that. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't our hermeneutic enable us to approach the text of Scripture in such a way that we are able to draw out the authors' intentions, with one result being that we develop a biblical POH? Iron sharpening iron,Justin Langley