-
What is the Root Word Fallacy Danger
A fallacy is simply a mistaken idea. In biblical studies, a root word fallacy is a mistaken belief that a word inherently carries one meaning in all of its uses. It unfortunately happens frequently. For example, a preacher is preaching away and then gets to an important word in the text and says, “Now this word comes from the Greek root word which always means [fill in the blank], and so we can import that root meaning here.” Now, the connection made is not always incorrect. But, it is a flawed methodology. Language is not static, but dynamic. Hence, words can change in meaning over time. In fact, one of the most interesting things about language is that words sometimes take on a life of their own and develop meanings which were never found in the root meaning of the word! For example, take the English word “nice.” Coming from…
-
7 Beliefs that Don’t Define Dispensationalism
Readers of this blog may be curious as to what makes someone a dispensationalist. Simply put, dispensationalism is a set of doctrinal beliefs that deal with hermeneutics (how to read Scripture), ecclesiology (how the church operates), and eschatology (what the end times look like). Hence, a dispensationalist holds a distinctive set of beliefs about understanding Scripture, the role and function of the church, and about the end times. I have written elsewhere about how one can define dispensationalism, but in this post I want to highlight seven fundamentally errant beliefs that are sometimes associated with dispensationalism. These are charges that are often leveled against dispensationalism in a variety of circles. I have listed them in their accusatory forms. Dispensationalism teaches multiple ways of salvation. Unfortunately, this myth is often repeated, but has no basis in reality. Some people accuse dispensationalists of believing OT saints were saved by keeping the Law…
-
How do You Define Dispensationalism?
I have written previously on the beliefs that are often linked with a dispensationalism, yet should not be associated with the theological system itself. Those beliefs are not inherent to the system of dispensationalism, and therefore are not essential to a dispensationalist. Today we turn the page and look at which beliefs define dispensationalism. We can define dispensationalism as a set of doctrinal beliefs that deal with hermeneutics, ecclesiology, and eschatology. This means that within those three spheres, a dispensationalist must hold to a specific set of beliefs concerning how one understands Scripture, the role and function of the church, and the end times. Thus, what follows are the four beliefs which each dispensationalist must hold to. Dispensationalism teaches that the Old Testament must be interpreted within its own context. This is, in my opinion, the most important belief of a dispensationalist because it leads to the rest. The core…
-
Should Women Wear Head Coverings?
If you walk into almost any church in North America this Sunday you will not see many (if any) women wearing a head covering. However, 1 Cor 11:2-16 seems to indicate that head coverings should be worn by women during the church service. To further complicate matters, one of the reasons given in 1 Cor 11 is because of God’s created order. If Paul is supporting head coverings from the created order, are we not obligated to continue this practice which all the churches of Paul’s time observed (1 Cor 11:16)? This is notoriously one of the most difficult passages to interpret. Some people claim that because of the many exegetical difficulties, this passage should not be used for discussion on gender and roles. However, despite some of the contextual difficulties, I think the passage is clear enough to trace the overall argument and make an informed theological decision regarding…
-
The Use of Amos 9 in Acts 15 in JODT
I recently became aware that The Journal of Dispensational Theology published one of my articles in October. The bibliography information is as follows: Peter J Goeman, “The Role of the LXX in James’ Use of Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15:15-18” Journal of Dispensational Theology (Summer/Fall 2014): 107-25. Although the article itself requires a certain proficiency in Greek and Hebrew, I will try to summarize the main point of the article here. First, notice the comparison between Amos 9 and Acts 15: Amos 9:11-12 (MT) Amos 9:11-12 (LXX) Acts 15:16-18 In that day I will raise up the fallen booth of David, And wall up its breaches; I will also raise up its ruins And rebuild it as in the days of old; that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by My name,” declares the Lord who does this. (Amos 9:11-12, NASB) On that day I will raise up the tent…
-
The Prophecy of Caiaphus and Sensus Plenior
Sensus plenior is Latin for “fuller sense.” It is the belief that there is at least a partial disconnect between the human author and the divine author of Scripture. In other words, what the human author means in his historical context may not be the full intent of the meaning of Scripture. Those who believe in sensus plenior say that God can have a “fuller” intention behind the words that He inspires, and this “fuller sense” may not be understood until later on. I believe the best understanding of how Scripture is written is best described by what is called confluence. Confluence is the belief that God works through the understanding and the words of the human author so that God’s words and meaning are supernaturally the same words and meaning of the human author. This belief is largely based passages such as 2 Peter 1:20-21 which states: