Response to Justin

Justin,

First, I cannot thank you enough for what you have done so far. The material you gave me is great. And the fact that you are willing to look deeper into this with me is very encouraging.

I am still trying to wrap my mind around what exactly I want to do. I want to examine dispensationalism, but not from the literal hermeneutics side of things. Granted, that is part of the overall picture. But I want to focus on a different part. I want to look at how that system directs its study and understanding of history, and whether or not the Showers version of dispensationalism is one that is beneficial to the teaching of the community of Christ. If we adopt Showers’ POH, will we find ourselves biblically oriented in our outlook or not? Even if one derives a POH from scripture and simple reason, it does not mean that this POH is infallible. The spiritualist notion of the covenant theologian, the literalist (or as the CT would call the carnalist) notion of the dispensationalist are not exactly polar opposites. They both offer the same critique, that the other system applies its hermeneutics in an inconsistent, and thus, fallible human way. So the herms are fallible and the POH is fallible, and on both sides.

Ultimately, the question is.. if I am to take the POH presented by dispensationalism seriously (and by proxy, the herms), then I am to see the fulfillment of history in a plurality of senses. All things do not find their unity in Christ, but in the glory of God, ie. The glory of God rests on the work of Christ for the elect, the program of the nation of Israel, and the program of the non-elect. The glory of God is not ultimately Christocentric.