??????
Prove Post 210 is a second-hand account? Sure. You did not write Pseudo-Ephraim. Ephraim did not write Pseudo-Ephraim. Post 210 explicitly states, "
The sermon was written some time between the fourth and sixth century." That means Pseudo-Ephraim is post-canonical. It is extra-canonical. It is not part of the canon of scripture. Ephrem the Syrian lived between 306-373 but the earliest dating for The Apocalypse of Pseudo-Ephraim is in the 400s (most scholars date it much later). Your own post states it was written as late as the sixth century! If it was written in the 400s or the 500s then it is definitely not written by Ephrem of Syria. The name of the book states it is pseudepigraphic. That is why it is called
Pseudo-Ephrem. The meaning of the prefix "pseudo-" literally means "
false," "
pretended," "
unreal," or "
imitation". "
Pseudo-science is not real science, any more than
pseudo-intellectual is true intellect, a
pseudopod has real feet, and a pseudonym is a real name. Mark Twain is the
pseudonym of Samuel Clemens. Geroge Orwell is the
pseudonym of Eric Arthur Blair. George Eliot's real name was Mary Ann Evans! The reason the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Ephraim is names
pseudo-Ephraim is because Ephraim was not the actual author!
I have just proved Post 210 is a second-hand report, and Pseudo-Ephram is a second-hand report.
Now.....
Since you have not answered the question asked but have instead obfuscated and delayed proving Darby's hermeneutic was used prior to Darby, I will provide the correct answer without further delay or obfuscation. According to
Lewis Sperry Chafer and
Charles Caldwell Ryrie, in their books, each titled "
Dispensationalism," the book later Dispensational Premillennialists like John Walvoord, Thomas Ice, Michael Vlach and other all reference, the Dispensational Premillennial hermeneutic is...
- Literal interpretation of scripture. This is defined by Ryioe as, "Literalism means giving every word the same meaning it would have in normal usage, whether employed in writing, speaking, or thinking".
- Grammatical-Historical Method: This is a hermeneutical approach that examines scripture in the context of grammar and history of the time in which it was written.
- Consistency: Scripture must consistently be interpreted literally and not allegorically or spiritualized.
- Distinction between Israel and the Church: Scripture must always be read and interpreted with the understanding Israel and the Chhurch are never the same. As such God has a different "program" or purpose for Israel than He does for the Church. Two different people. Two different purposes. All scripture must be understood with this in mind. Therefore, Old Testament promises made to the national of Israel are always to be interpreted literally, applied solely to Israel, and are expected to be fulfilled by Israel as a nation in a future earthly kingdom (the Millennium), not reinterpreted and applied to the Church.
- Progressive Revelation: The Bible is a continually unfolding revelation of God's plan, with each dispensation introducing new responsibilities and a different "economy" in God's outworking of His purpose.
- Scripture is to be read and understood within the dispensation in which the text occurs. A dispensation is a distinct period of time during which God manages His relationship with humanity according to a specific stewardship or economy God has declared. Dispensations are different than covenants and they may or may not coincide or overlap scripture's report of covenants.
- Scripture is largely discontinuous, not continuous. The New Testament can build upon the Old Testament but does not change the original meaning of Old Testament promises. One dispensation is not related to nor dependent upon any prior dispensation other than as a function of God's revelation progressing through history.
HERE is one of the original sources in which the above can be verified.
HERE is another.
One or two of these precepts can be found in use prior to Darby, but the whole cannot. For example, the grammatico-historical model was used long before Darby was born. There's nothing new to Darby using that long-existing model
but Darby mdofied the model by requiring scripture
always be read literally, eschewing any and all legitimacy to other models, especially when it comes to allegorical content. The traditional use of the grammatico-historical approach does not exclude or deny the existence of allegorical content. It, instead, seeks to understand allegorical content in the context of its historical context. Another example would be the use of the word "
dispensation." That specific word can be found in scripture and it can be found in extra-biblical sources beginning with the ECFs
but none of them defined a dispensation the way Darby
(or Chafer, Ryrie, Walvoord, Ice or any other DPist) does. The ECFs always used the word "dispensation" in the context of and consistent with covenant. Other sources are cited by the leading Dispensationalists, such as the aforementioned Pseudo-Ephraim are not canonical and they are often written by people considered outside the pale of orthodoxy. Some of them were excommunicated and/or considered heretics. Theologians using the word after the 1500s were overwhelmedly Reformed Theology and Covenant Theology thinkers.
Isaac Watts would be an example of this. Watts was a covenantalist, NOT a Dispensationalist. He was also known to be nonconformist
(in other words, his views were not always consistent with orthodoxy). He NEVER used the word "
dispensation" the way Darby did. Many of these theologians were also premillennialists
but they were all
Historical Premillennialists, not Dispensational Premillennialists
(basic distinctions between the two premillennial models can be found HERE).
There is no evidence anyone prior to Darby held to all of the seven principles above when reading scripture. This was Darby's invention, an assemblage of various approaches to scripture into an amalgam unique to Darby.
The onus is on
you,
@CrowCross, to prove otherwise, and you did not do so despite multiple opportunities to do so.
