The Principle that Scripture has a Single Meaning?
Posted: January 20, 2009 Filed under: Questions & Answers 4 CommentsQuestion: Dewalt can you please defend the principle that Scripture has a single meaning? How do you go about trying to draw out that single meaning? Illustrate in the case of Genesis 22. Can you have a single meaning here and still bring in Christ?
Answer:
Scripture has one single meaning? Yes! To the dispensationalist, the die on that hill (which I love) but only understand it to mean original writer to original reader. However, the church today can see the one-single-meaning of the text (original writer to original reader) but more so, see how it fits into all of the Scriptures. What was said to Moses or Abraham, writer to reader is our first and foremost meaning of Scripture, but seeing how that is played out in all of Scripture and our biblical theology progresses in time with promises in covenants are where dispensationalist fall. Let me give an example:
Dispensationalism – One meaning- Meaning 1. A is to the reader then as it is today. (One-fold)
Reformed/Covenantism – One meaning- Meaning 1.A is to the reader then as it is today, 1.B is to the reader sees the OT in the NT, 1.C is to the reader as we see today through out all of Scriptures. (Multi-fold)
How I draw this out and you ask for Gen.22 so I’ll try to do that, however other passages would be easier.
Gen. 22 The Sacrifice of Isaac
1.A is that Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son, and God provided redemption else where.
1.B is that in the New Testament and today’s church we can see some similarities that lie in this event that seem to be a shadow and a type of example of which God did with his Son, Jesus Christ in dying at the cross.
Now, have we in the reformed camp change the one meaning no, but do we seem systematically in how Scripture has one progression in to show its goal of redemption throughout all of the cannon, yes.
Gospel-Centered Musings 
What about our friend Peter in Acts…”This is what was spoken about through the prophet Joel” from the Sermon at Pentecost? I was actually told by a certain Dispensationalist seminary that Peter (under the “influence” of the Holy Spirit) was mistaken.
I like some of the stuff that I have read on your site but would caution you not to place all dispensationalist’s in the same camp. You are being awful general in your definition and doing as many ‘reformers’ do … demonizing dispensationalist. Careful or people might consider you to be a ‘hyper calvanist’ and it doesn’t sound like you fit that bill.
Try to keep it Biblical and edifying to all the elect not just those who agree with you.
I do not place all dispy’s in on cat.
However all can be placed in one cat. at times.
I have studied dispy’s longer then Reformed theology and have issues like many should in both camps, however dispy hermeneutics seem to have a number of issues more then covenant theology does. (My Opinion) Thanks for your comments and keep learning the Gospel brothers!
(Rob) – I as well was told the same thing by a professor at Baptist Bible College in 2006 in a class on churches ministry. ha-ha!
My Opinion – Sad…