I'm not suggesting a complete treatise on Covenant theology. What I am suggesting is giving the new believer some sign posts in which they may follow scripture. By providing the new believer with the general theme of scripture, the Kingdom .of God, when they read through it they can see the acts of God redeeming his people. This undergirding acts as the theme or plot to the bible.
Look at all the bible based cults. What is the main source of their heresy? Faulty exegesis. Look at the posts on this thread. There are basically two models of interpretation. There is the subjectivists model in which one pours himself into the text and the objectivist model in which one tries to let the text speak for itself. In the subjectivist model the reader is speaking to the text. In this instance the reader is saying the text means what I think it means based on my 21st century worldview. For example, Jesus said: "Ask and ye shall receive". Ask what? Receive what? In my 21st century mind I'm thinking if I ask for a new car Jesus will give me one. What seems to be forgotten is that the bible was not written directly to them but was written by a specific author to a specific audience that had a completely different worldview then we do today. OTOH, a completely objectivists viewpoint is faulty precisely because regardless of whatever methods or rules we apply their is still subjectivity in any analysis. We should approach the bible understanding that we all come with our failings and sinful nature and are predisposed to understanding the bible based on our experiences and culture.
In Part I you provide a good framework for intrinsic analysis but you include extrinsic analysis under interpretation. Shouldn't both of these be included under observation? Additionally, you ask the reader to ask certain questions assumining they have a knowledge of Ancient far east cultures without the aid of extra-biblical sources. How is the reader going to know how to ask the correct questions if he does not refer to secondary sources? Interpretation then is by use of the analogy of faith. How do these historical events lead me to the cross? How do these historical stories provide an example of God's redeeming work in my life?
Let me circle around back to my original contention. The new believer needs a general theme in which to interpret the bible. These are not just scattered stories of the Jewish nation. Rather, this is a book about the Kingdom of God and how he acts in history to redeem a remnant for himself. Thus, the reader should ask himself how did God inaugurate this Kingdom, how did it continue, and what will be the final outcome? Of course all of these questions should point to the cross.
I am not using this study for new believers though. These are folks who have been Christians for quite a long time. I am sure they are superficially familiar with the ideas of covenant and Kingdom of God, but they are only familiar with these as they have been told them through other writers or thorough preaching and such. Not through serious study of the Word itself for themselves.
If these were new believers then, yes, absolutely there would need to be some kind of introduction to the overarching theme of Scripture. But for who I will be talking to, and indeed, I believe for many Christians who have been going to Church for many years but still do not crack open their Bibles with any kind of regularity or commitment, then I think that this introductory approach to this type of methodology of study is sufficient.
Look at all the bible based cults. What is the main source of their heresy? Faulty exegesis.
Why just limit faulty exegesis to the cults? What is the difference between Calvinists and Arminians in regard to election and free will? Protestants and Catholics in regards to transubstantiation? What is the difference between denominations which forbid drinking and dancing to those who don't? They would ALL argue that their beliefs are correct because they have correctly interpreted a certain passage or passages and those who disagree with them, well, they are the ones with the faulty exegesis.
I will not fault this particular method of study just because it is open to abuse by the cults, when, let's be honest here, any method of study is open to abuse by anyone who thinks that God is with them and everyone else is against them (this includes very mainline denominations.)
We should approach the bible understanding that we all come with our failings and sinful nature and are predisposed to understanding the bible based on our experiences and culture.
Agreed. Maybe I should make this point stronger in the study.
Additionally, you ask the reader to ask certain questions assumining they have a knowledge of Ancient far east cultures without the aid of extra-biblical sources. How is the reader going to know how to ask the correct questions if he does not refer to secondary sources?
Context provides much of the clues to information. If you start asking yourself, "Why does that person ask that question of Jesus" or "Why does this person have these attitues towards that person or group" you can figure a lot of this stuff out. Not all by a long shot, but you would be able to have a good start for when you begin to look at secondary sources.
Let me circle around back to my original contention. The new believer needs a general theme in which to interpret the bible. These are not just scattered stories of the Jewish nation. Rather, this is a book about the Kingdom of God and how he acts in history to redeem a remnant for himself. Thus, the reader should ask himself how did God inaugurate this Kingdom, how did it continue, and what will be the final outcome? Of course all of these questions should point to the cross.
Agreed. But, beyond that, if you come to Scripture ONLY looking for signposts to the cross, then you would probably miss out on a myriad of other intragal messages that the Word has for us. This is why my focus here is more organized around method than message.