Posted on 01/08/2010 9:41:32 AM PST by Gamecock
If we desire to study the bible, we must realize from the outset that there are certain rules or principles that we must keep in mind, if we would understand it accurately, and so be able to apply it appropriately. The study of the principles of interpretation that we use to help us understand the bible is called “hermeneutics”; and the hermeneutic that we have when we approach the text is of paramount concern, because it will shape our understanding of everything we read.
Although many Christians may not even know what the term “hermeneutics” means, yet in truth, everyone has a hermeneutic which governs how he understands and applies the scriptures. In contemporary western Evangelicalism, a post-modern, individualistic hermeneutic is the norm, and so home bible studies are often designed on the principle of going around the room and asking what a particular verse or passage “means to me”; and in answering that question, no one is right or wrong, but everyone can glean little tidbits of inspiring thoughts that they find personally encouraging or applicational. This hermeneutic is very destructive to a Christian's ability to understand what the bible is really saying, and has the effect of confirming him in his own wisdom, instead of casting him on the wisdom of God, as he has expressed himself in the bible.
There are many other influential and destructive hermeneutics in currency today, such as a literalistic reading of Old Testament prophecy which refuses to accept the New Testament teaching that all prophecies have found their fulfillment in Christ, and are inherited by everyone who is in Christ; so in order to avoid these and other false hermeneutics, it is important to know what the true and proper principles of hermeneutics are. At the most basic level, a proper hermeneutic will be characterized by the following adjectives: grammatical, historical, contextual, and Christ-centered; all of which will be examined a little more carefully in the following questions.
We ought to read the Scriptures with the express design of finding Christ in them. Whoever shall turn aside from this object, though he may weary himself throughout his whole life in learning, will never attain the knowledge of the truth; for what wisdom can we have without wisdom of God? - John Calvin Commentary on John 5:39
There are two ways to read the Bible. The one way to read the Bible is that it’s basically about you: what you have to do in order to be right with God, in which case you’ll never have a sure and certain hope, because you’ll always know you’re not quite living up. You’ll never be sure about that future. Or you can read it as all about Jesus. Every single thing is not about what you must do in order to make yourself right with God, but what he has done to make you absolutely right with God. And Jesus Christ is saying, “Unless you can read the Bible right, unless you can understand salvation by grace, you’ll never have a sure and certain hope. But once you understand it’s all about me, Jesus Christ, then you can know that you have peace. You can know that you have this future guaranteed, and you can face anything.” - Tim Keller
For Further Study
Must I Learn How To Interpret The Bible? by D.A. Carson
God-Centered Biblical Interpretation by Vern Sheridan Poythress
Hermeneutics and Biblical Authority by J.I. Packer
Jesus Christ: The Interpretive Key to the Scripture by John Hendryx
The Reformers’ Hermeneutic: Grammatical, Historical, and Christ-Centered by Nathan Pitchford
“false hermeneutics” = what a particular verse or passage “means to me” is different from what it “means to you.”
This difficulty is made especially clear by the fact that the authors are trying to instruct us as to the "proper" hermeneutic to use.
The need for a "proper" hermeneutic makes clear that Scripture alone is not sufficient -- proper judgment and perspective is also required. But that implies the need for an authority other than Scripture.
In a practical sense this is no big deal: the Holy Spirit exists to break the logjam. But the Holy Spirit is not equivalent to Scripture.
But when you get down to it, the Sola Scriptura doctrine has a rather uneasy relationship with the Holy Spirit. And what I've seen of Reformed theology reflects that uneasiness.
To study scripture, you must understand the foibles of “literalism”.
The Bible contains historical narrative, poetry, prophecy, letters, and psalms, all which must be interpreted in light of the form of literature you are reading.
Which is fine....
except the underlying principle put forth above is how Christ tells us to read Scripture.
Which is fine, except I was not so much commenting on the article itself, as I was looking at the logical consequences of it. Given that Reformed theology is big on Sola Scriptura, I was interested by the realization that a dissertation on "proper" hermeneutics stands as a tacit admission that Sola Scriptura is not a viable doctrine.
On that point, Christ doesn't actually tell us that Scripture alone is sufficient, and the authors' discussion of hermeneutics basically confirms this. Scripture does, too: in John 7, Jesus basically scolds the Pharisees for looking to Scripture for salvation. Instead, Christ promises His disciples (John 14) that He will send the Holy Spirit to them, to remind them of what He said, and to teach them all things -- which implies an authority that rests above and beyond Scripture as we have it.
Actually it isn't. If what you think you hear from the Holy Spirit is not consistent with Scripture, it is not the Holy Spirit that you are hearing from.
Blackaby is excellent upon this point. If what you hear is consistent with Scripture, The Doctrine of the church, The Leadership and fellowship of the church and is consistent with Conscience, then it may be the Holy Spirit trying to get your attention.
Thus we in the Reformed churches believe that Scripture is the first test, but not the only one.
Consistency does not imply equivalence. What you're saying is that the Holy Spirit will not tell us things that go counter to Scripture, which is true. explicitly covered in the text itself.
As Jesus notes in John 14, the job description of the Holy Spirit is not only to remind us of what Jesus said (which goes to the heart of your comment); but that He will also dwell in us as the Spirit of Truth, and teach us all things.
We cannot say that the Holy Spirit will only communicate Scripture to us. He also tells us things that are not covered by Scripture -- for example, how to apply Scripture to real, current situations. Hence the need for a hermeneutic, because Scripture has to be interpreted....
Not to mention that peace which surpasses all understanding, which is often a physical manifestation of God's presence and love -- stuff you just can't get from a book, no matter how good it is.
Martin Luther said, “The Christian reader should make it his first task to seek out the literal sense, as they call it. For it alone is the whole substance of faith and Christian theology; it alone holds its ground in trouble and trial.”
Luther also said that one. . . “should take pains to have one definite and simple understanding of Scripture and not to be a wanderer and vagabond, like the rabbis, the Scholastic theologians, and the professors of law, who are always toiling with ambiguities.”
Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools . . . Romans 1:22
Sorry, but this verse applies to your view of understanding scripture.
Actually John 14 qualifies all things as being what Christ said or the things of Christ and not things outside of Scriptures.
I agree on good hermanutics and good doctrine, but I always filter based upon the Scriptures first. If it contradicts Scripture - Guess what - Forgetaboutit.
But if it's something that Scripture doesn't directly address - Guess what - Sola Scriptura doesn't get the job done, but the Holy Spirit does.
Please define what you think Sola Scriptura means.
I did, in my first post on the thread.
Then what does “the doctrine that the Bible is the only infallible and inerrant authority for Christian faith” have to do with principles of understanding scripture? What conflict do you see?
Being able to translate the original language (Aramaic/Hebrew/Greek), and studying the history/culture of the times in question. Best way to understand what is being said.
It's pretty obvious: Let us arguendo grant the truth of Sola Scriptura, and say that the Bible is "the only infallible and inerrant authority for Christian faith."
And yet we know that the Bible sometimes (even often) requires interpretation to be understood within a particular context. And there's the rub.
The process of interpretation (into which I will lump exegesis as well as hermeneutics) involves the integration of what is in Scripture, and some body of knowledge, information, and reasoning that is not a part of Scripture.
In other words, the need to interpret implies that Scripture alone is not sufficient.
I'd actually agree with this. But we must be very careful about artificially restricting that word "church" to just the guys we like and agree with. The minute we do that, those two criteria of church doctrine and church leadership become meaningless--Joseph Smith could have said the same.
For them to mean anything, they have to be sufficiently broad to encompass the entire Church or at least the majority of it. In which case we might well wonder: why is the very local Synod of Dort given higher authority than the much more broad Council of Trent?
The only reasonable answer, I think, for the Reformed Christian can be that Trent did not follow Scripture, so it is excluded on that basis. But at that point, all the points r9etb brings up come into play. If Dort is entitled to its interpretation, then Trent is entitled to its own as well.
If I understanding you correctly, you are saying we need an infallible way to interpret scripture for Sola Scriptura to be true. Is that correct?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.