First, if hermeneutics was as easy as a little phrase we would not need the volumes that appear in the libraries of seminaries throughout the world.

Second, read He Gave Us Stories by R. Pratt (he teaches hermeneutics at RTS) and you will find the hermeneutic similar to that Malone “originally” learned (depending of course on which campus and professor he studied under. If I am not mistaken Malone studied at Jackson where Pratt use to teach.). RTS, nor “true” Presbyterians teach a dispensational hermeneutic!!! And if you would have read the whole post, instead of just your cut and pasted portion, you would have more fully understood the discussion being--dispensational vs. Covenant hermeneutics. Here is a list of books you can purchase for yourself.

Quote
Tom’s "Respectable" Heresy Charge <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />

I want to be as respectful to you as possible, but by you saying that the OT should be the final interpreter of the NT, it would seem to me that you are making the same error that Norman Shepherd and the Auburn Avenue theology makes.

"In attempting to make relevant the movement from election to reprobation of Israel under the old covenant, Mr. Shepherd asserted that the individual elected according to Ephesians 1 also could become reprobate. But it must be questioned whether he has communicated adequately the progress of Scriptural revelation as described by Vos. Instead of letting the finalized revelation of the New Testament provide the framework for understanding the shadowy form of the Old Testament, it may be that Mr.Shepherd has allowed the typological forms of the Old Testament to exercise too much control over the manner in which the New Testament is to be read. As a consequence of this perspective on election, a corresponding perspective emerged in his development of the idea of a “justification” that actually could be lost (97)."
Me thinks you have not understood. First,where did I say that, "the OT should be the final interpreter of the NT?" Where is the "quote." I said in essence that the O.T. is the foundation for understanding the N.T.!!! (Example formally alluded to: interpret Heb 11 without the O.T.). Second, look who you are making the quote from, O. Palmer Robertson (WTS), who uses the same hermeneutic as I do <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" /> Third, the quote is not about baptism, and, finally it speaks of there being too much control BUT, not "no control" at all. Tom if you remove ALL the O.T. references from the N.T. how much do you have left? The O.T. clearly pervades the N.T. Additionally, I am sure you are well aware of my other posts concerning O.T./N.T. continuity and discontinuity. Tom, you need the O.T. to more fully understand the N.T. and if you will look at my whole post, and not just the partial cut/paste that you did, that is what I originally stated. Pure and simple Tom a dispensational hermeneutic sees too much discontinuity! The less proper continuity the less proper interpretation! The more proper continuity the more proper interpretation.

Reformed and Always Reforming,