Posted on 07/06/2014 3:39:40 AM PDT by HarleyD
It is widely recognized that the formal principle underlying the Reformation was nothing other than sola scriptura: the reformers' diehard commitment to the other great solas was an effect arising from their desire to be guided by scriptures alone. The exegesis and interpretation of the bible was the one great means by which the war against Roman corruption was waged; which is almost the same thing as saying that the battle was basically a hermeneutical struggle. In light of these observations, one could say that the key event marking the beginning of the Reformation occurred, not in 1517, when Martin Luther nailed his theses to the church door in Wittenberg; but two years prior to that, when he rejected Origin's four-layered hermeneutic in favor of what he called the grammatical-historical sense. This one interpretive decision was the seed-idea from which would soon spring up all the fruits of the most massive recovery of doctrinal purity in the history of the Church. We would do well to learn from this: our ongoing struggle to be always reforming, always contending for the faith which was once delivered to the saints, is essentially a process of bringing every doctrine under the scrutiny of scripture. And in order to have the confidence that we are doing so legitimately, we must give much effort to being hermeneutically sound. Hermeneutics is the battlefield on which the war is won or lost.
If it is indeed the case that the recovery of a grammatical-historical hermeneutic was the formal principle underlying the Reformation, then we ought to be highly interested in what exactly Luther (and the other Reformers) intended by the expression. If Luther's hermeneutic was so effective in preserving the purity of the gospel in his day, then we may, with some reason, assume that it would benefit us in the gospel-battles of our day. Most, if not all, evangelicals today would certainly affirm that they are laboring with the grammatical-historical hermeneutic of the Reformation but do they mean by this term everything that Luther meant by it? In many cases, one would have to assume that they do not; because it is often the case that a basically un-Christian reading of much of the Old Testament in particular is supported by means of a literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic. For Luther, the grammatical-historical hermeneutic was simply the interpretation of scripture that drives home Christ. As he once expressed it, He who would read the Bible must simply take heed that he does not err, for the Scripture may permit itself to be stretched and led, but let no one lead it according to his own inclinations but let him lead it to its source, that is, the cross of Christ. Then he will surely strike the center. To read the scriptures with a grammatical-historical sense is nothing other than to read them with Christ at the center.
What exactly do I mean when I say that many evangelicals demonstrate basically un-Christian reading of much of the Old Testament? Simply put, I mean they employ a hermeneutic that does not have as its goal to trace every verse to its ultimate reference point: the cross of Christ. All of creation, history, and reality was designed for the purpose of the unveiling and glorification of the triune God, by means of the work of redemption accomplished by the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. The bible is simply the book that tells us how to see Christ and his cross at the center of everything. It tells us who God is by showing us the person and work of Christ, who alone reveals the invisible God. If we do not intentionally ask ourselves, How may I see Christ more clearly by this passage, in our reading of every verse of scripture, then we are not operating under the guidance of Luther's grammatical-historical hermeneutic. If we would follow in the steps of the reformers, we must realize that a literal reading of scriptures does not mean a naturalistic reading. A naturalistic reading says that the full extent of meaning in the account of Moses' striking the rock is apprehended in understanding the historical event. The literal reading, in the Christ-centered sense of the Reformation, recognizes that this historical account is meaningless to us until we understand how the God of history was using it to reveal Christ to his people. The naturalistic reading of the Song of Solomon is content with the observation that it speaks of the marital-bliss of Solomon and his wife; the literal reading of the reformers recognizes that it has ultimately to do with the marital bliss between Christ and his bride, the Church. And so we could continue, citing example after example from the Old Testament.
But how was it that this shift came about in the commonly perceived meaning of the term "historical-grammatical sense" from the reformers' day to our own? In a word, the rise of academic liberalism. The reformers were contending for the truth in a society in which the supernatural world was as definitely accepted as the natural world. They had no need to demonstrate that the Bible was a spiritual book, given by God to teach us spiritual truths, that is, truths about Christ and the cross everyone accepted that much. They were contending instead with a hermeneutic that essentially allowed one to draw from any text whatever spiritual significance he liked – if he had the authority of the Church behind him. But the Enlightenment so radically changed the face of society, that it was soon thereafter no longer sufficient to speak of a "literal" hermeneutic: one also had to make clear that this literal hermeneutic had as its object a thoroughly spiritual and Christ-centered corpus of writings. The basic intent of the liberal theologians subsequent to the Enlightenment was to downplay the supernatural; hence, their reading of the scriptures emphasized the human authors and human historical settings entirely apart from the God who was governing all. And, although the thoroughgoing naturalism of the liberals was soundly defeated by many evangelical scholars, some of its emphases seem to have seeped into the very idea of a grammatical-historical hermeneutic, where they continue to exert a deadening influence on much of evangelical scholarship even today. Three specific ways in which, I would contend, the modern conception of a literal hermeneutic has been colored by the Enlightenment, are, first, the maximized emphasis on the human authors of scriptures (together with the corresponding de-emphasis of the divine author); second, the naturalizing of the hermeneutic, so that it intends to discover what a natural man, upon an acquaintance with the natural setting, would immediately understand about a text; and third, the resultant fragmentation of the bible, so that it reads less like one unified, coherent story about a promised Redeemer and how he actually came in human history and accomplished his work – and more like a handful of loosely related sacred documents, with various purposes, intentions, and themes.
Our task as modern reformers has much to do with the recovery of the Christ-centered element of the grammatical-historical hermeneutic. If we would let our sola scriptura lead us to solus christus, then we must be willing to battle against the modern corruption of one of the reformers' most precious legacies; a literal hermeneutic. To that end, I would submit the following six reasons why any hermeneutic which does not see Christ at the center of every verse of scripture does not do justice to the Reformed worldview.
1. A naturalistic hermeneutic effectively denies God's ultimate authorship of the bible, by giving practical precedence to human authorial intent.
2. A naturalistic hermeneutic undercuts the typological significance which often inheres in the one story that God is telling in the bible (see Galatians 4:21-31, for example).
3. A naturalistic hermeneutic does not allow for Paul's assertion that a natural man cannot know the spiritual things which the Holy Spirit teaches in the bible; that is, the things about Jesus Christ and him crucified (I Corinthians 2).
4. A naturalistic hermeneutic is at odds with the clear example of the New Testament authors and apostles as they interpret the Old Testament (cf. Peter's sermon in Acts 2, Paul's interpretations in Romans 4 and Galatians 4, James' citing of Amos 9 during the Jerusalem council of Acts 15, the various Old Testament usages in Hebrews, etc.).
5. A naturalistic hermeneutic disallows a full-orbed operation of the analogy of faith principle of the Reformation, by its insistence that every text demands a reading "on its own terms".
6. A naturalistic hermeneutic does not allow for everything to have its ultimate reference point in Christ, and is in direct opposition to Ephesians 1:10, Colossians 1:16-18, and Christ's own teachings in John 5:39, Luke 24:25-27.
We already know that the 'church' is not the apostles, or magisterium as your religion calls them...
Act_8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.
Act_15:4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
So we see from the scriptures the apostles and the Catholic religion's false apostolic succession is NOT the church...
Paul says he has written so the people (the church) will know how to carry on in the body of Christ...
Well low and behold then, it is not the body, the church which is the pillar and ground of the truth...
It is the HEAD of the body which is the pillar and ground of the truth; GOD...
It is not surprising that your religion constantly tries to steal the glory of God as its own but what is always surprising is that so many of you repeat these perversions of scripture...
And right after the bible tells you 3 verses before that:
1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
Husbands...Of one wife...With children...Own houses...
This is not optional...
The bible certainly is an inconvenient book for your religion...
1Chronicles 27:2-3 Over the first course for the first month was Jashobeam the son of Zabdiel: and in his course were twenty and four thousand. He was of the children of Perez, the chief of all the captains of the host for the first month.
Later, Korah rebellion was to want to do the things God had not appointed for them to do. Korah felt that all the Levis should be able to enter the Holy of Holies. He wasn't content with the position God had placed him. It showed the contempt of Korah to submit the will of God.
We should be content with what God has given us.
Thanks so much for pointing that out. This is an excellent work and I really had hoped to find the author.
For a religion which perverts scripture to justify its existence, those questions have no legitimacy...
Jesus had children?
None of them...Expecially yours...The one closest to the truth of the scriptures is the church of Philadelphia...
Rev 3:7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;
And it is not Peter who has the key of David...
Rev 3:8 I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.
Rev 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
Well that eliminates your religion right off the bat...You guys are the 'new' Jews...The 'new' Israel...
Rev 3:10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.
It is your 'Church' that will not be delivered from the hour of temptation...In fact, your 'Church' doesn't even understand what the verse means...
LOLOLOL!!!
I’m always confusing this in my geology with ancestors and have to think (which is difficult) about which chart to print off (ancestors or descendants).
At least 2 months ago I answered every one of those questions to you. I got zero response. All the questions of course are silly, but if you want my answers you only have to check your pings
“That is your opinion.”
No, a fact.
“I take Scripture to mean what it says. I believe “This is my Body” means “This is my Body”
Actually, no one uses wooden literalism, unless they are ignorant.
“You are the one who needs to ‘interpret’ Scripture to support your man-made beliefs. You change the clear words of Scripture to say “This REPRESENTS my Body” By what authority can you change the words of Scripture?”
You are on the wrong thread. Perhaps you can start one on that topic and ping me.
“I’m puzzled and curious at why you believe that is an inaccurate statement.”
... Because it is unprovable and incorrect. But I was criticizing the whole article for the reasons I stated.
It wasn’t a “church” it was “ecclesia” and it certainly wasn’t the Catholic Church. In no way would God institute a “church” that incorporates paganism.
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8-9
Please show us another source for what the apostles taught. If you can’t, we are left with what we know they wrote.
>>Other than the specific command to John to pen the Revelation, where did Jesus tell His apostles to write anything down and compile it into an authoritative book?<<
Do a search on how many times Jesus said “it is written”. Think that may be a hint?
>>Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book?<<
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Maybe a hint we should do the same?
>> Where is the concept of ‘Trinity” explained?<<
Where did the Catholic Church come up with it from?
>> Where is the concept of ‘Sola Scriptura’ explained?<<
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8-9<<
Once again, please find another inspired source for what the apostles taught.
Did Christ eat His own body? When He said He would once again partake of the “fruit of the vine” did He mean that once again He would eat His own body? You perhaps should listen to what Jesus said about that concept.
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
No where in scripture nor in that verse is the word “church” used as it is conceptualized by the Catholic Church. The word used is “ecclesia” which means an assembly of those called out. They were to take it to the “assembly” they worshiped with, not to some corrupted conglomerate that has become the Catholic Church. Catholics start with a corrupted term "church" and build many corrupted concepts that are totally against what scripture teaches.
You should really leave those kindergarten picture posts in the kindergarten caucus threads. Leave the adults to discuss adult issues
1Chronicles 27:2-3. Pointing out one person in a list dos not point to Christ. This verse simply says what his duty station was and when it was to be done, NOTHING more.
Numbers 2:2 There is nothing about Korah or his rebellion. This is simply the location of one group[ of Israelites in relation to the tent of meeting.
Judges 16:1 Sorry have to disagree, this is the exact opposite, Satan is running Samson. This is Samson violating the 6th commandment and fornicating out side of marriage.
Adults? Cretins who mock those who celebrate Christmas and Easter are hardly worthy of being called adults CB. Now go cry to the adults and point out that you made it personal but still whimper when called out anyhow. Whiner child.
In the Religion forum, on a thread titled The Reformers’ Hermeneutic: Grammatical, Historical, and Christ-Centered, CynicalBear wrote:
No where in scripture nor in that verse is the word “church” used as it is conceptualized by the Catholic Church.
This coming from an apostate whose claims are that those who celebrate Christmas, Easter and Sunday Worship are “pagan”.
An odd, wimpy and childish view, but there it is.
In NT Greek “Gospel” literally translates to “Good News.”
Nothing there about a bible, or even a book. If you want to hold to erroneous thoughts about Ekklesia than you need to be consistent at least with “Gospel”.
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.