Disputations on Hermeneutics - 1

In the post below I am starting a short series on hermeneutical structures.  These will be excerpts from an essay I am composing called, "Disputations on Hermeneutics".  I realize that the form of Dispensationalism being represented in this series will not include all of those who call themselves Dispensationalists.  My hope is that I can get some feedback on my thoughts.

Hermeneutical Structures

Whether one admits it or not, we all have assumptions with which our understanding of the text of scripture is colored; some of those assumptions are useful and some are harmful.  It seems most appropriate to begin the section on systematic theology with a description of the different hermeneutical structures under which Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology operate.  I understand that the two lists below are not exhaustive, neither are they likely to represent everyone in the respective camps.  Also bear in mind that there is a degree of overlap between ones hermeneutical presuppositions and the consequent interpretations they help to form, in other words, the relationship between the two is fluid, which makes it difficult to categorize them.  In fact, I think that a strong argument could be made for the “analogy of faith” being the only true and pure hermeneutical presupposition and that all the other items listed below are consequential interpretations to one degree or another.  Assuming that position to be true, we could then illustrate our interpretive devise as a wheel, the analogy of faith being its hub, and our consequent interpretations radiate out from the hub.  As we interpret the bible through our hermeneutical filters (which, as I stated earlier, is not necessarily a bad thing) the degree to which we have confidence in some of our resulting interpretations is the degree to which some of those interpretations may work themselves into our set of presuppositions; once we establish confidence in an interpretation, it may creep into our set of presuppositions and that is something we need to guard against.  When that happens we can say that the road that our wheel was suppose to take us across, in part, becomes part of the wheel, almost like a build up of mud.  The difficultly that presents itself as one considers all this is, just where do we draw the line between our hermeneutical presuppositions and the interpretations they dictate?  That is in part why I've suggested that maybe the only pure hermeneutical principle is the analogy of faith, and all others are resulting interpretations...but then of course the wheel analogy breaks down because your hermeneutical devise would consist only of a hub without any spokes.