Student Response to abrown (Joseph Workman

I also struggled with that passage and section in our text. I am so glad that you understood what He was saying enough to present it. I am glad that I am able to now see and understand that verse in the right light. Awesome job!

Personal Reflection Question #7 joseph workman

How does has this weeks reading challenged me?

I have really enjoyed the study this week. All of these “Theological Perspectives” seemed foggy to me as I was reading. But as I began to break them apart and study the notes and book I really began to understand. The one that I believe challenged me the most was the one under the “unity of the meaning of Scripture”. Wow, that challenged me, especially under the “Protestant Pietism” about how a person can read the Scriptures and look for things that will “lead him through the day”. I can’t say that I have not done that before, and it just brings me back to the place of the Bible is a “God book” not a “Joseph book”.

Lecture Question Module #7 Joseph Workman

Lecture Question:

Please pick two of the "Theological Perspectives", explain them, and give an example of how it would affect the interpretation of scripture.

The “Scripture interprets Scripture” perspective sates that the “obscure passages in Scripture must give way to the clear passages”. This means that the single verses like: 1 Corinthians 15:29 and John 3:5, that have seemingly obscure meanings, should not be the passages we build our doctrines around with our “funny” interpretations. Instead we take passages like Romans chapters 1-3 and use it to help build doctrine on sin. Simply it is taking the clear, laid out passages of scripture and using them as foundation to help clear up the passages that seem obscure.
This can affect interpretation of Scripture in a very negative way if obscure texts are taken and doctrines are built out of them. The passage in Luke 2:36-38 is an example as it was taken and used by the Roman Catholic Church to justify the doctrine of nuns.
Scripture’s purpose is to be God’s immediate earthly instrument for spiritually affecting mankind. 2 Tim. 3:16 indicates all the things Scripture is to do to man. Under this “Theological Perspective” that there is a movement from interpretation to application. The principle is that there is one interpretation, but there can be many applications of this principle. The key to this perspective is that the primary meaning of the text is established concerning the applications of the text.
This can affect the interpretation of Scripture in a good way because it stretches the person teaching, preaching, or the one using the scripture, to keep the two matters separate. The meaning is one thing and the range is another. This I believe will keep us from the errors of devotional temptation, the discussion of last weeks lecture question, because it brings balance.

You have gone and done it...

Angie and all,

I believe that this is the first time someone has caught this example that Ramm uses. This is amazing isn't it? That the very man who writes to champion the cause against eisegesis, falls into its clutches when interpreting 1 Pet. 2:24. He says that this section does not speak of the healing of believers as a result of the vicarious atonement of Christ. Interesting...Ramm's Dispensational roots are showing here. To him it is impossible to see that healing is for today in this verse because he was taught that healing has passed away as we are in a new dispensation where the Bible is the "perfect" and that healing and other charismatic gifts are no longer needed. So, if one believed that supernatural healing as seen in the ministry of Jesus and the disciples IS still for today, then Is. 53:4-6 and I Pet. 2:24 would actually be perfect Old Testament and New Testament supporting texts wouldn't they??? I love it!!!! Angie, you were taught right girl...and you get an extra point!

Comments? (In addition to your other work, of course...)

Module 7: Protestant System of Hermeneutics Part 1

The Protestant System of Hermeneutics

Inspiration: The Foundation

The divine inspiration of the Bible is the foundation of historic Protestant hermeneutics and exegesis.

-We accept as our Canon the OT and the NT No Apocryphal books for our Catholic friends.
-2 Tim. 3:16, 17

Where Scripture separates from other writings.

-It has a moral or spiritual aspect. The Bible demands more of its readers than any other books.
-It has a supernatural aspect. We accept that there is an almighty God who performs miracles that are shown by the written testimony of the Word.
-It has a revelational aspect. There is added depth to the words in Koine Greek that are not in other writing of that time period.

Edification the Goal

The purpose of the Bible is “to promote the spiritual prosperity of man ". The Bible is not an end; it is a means.It is to make us wise unto salvation.

2 Tim. 3:16, 17

The end result is that we are men and women of God equipped for every good work. And also to have spiritual results in the listener.

The practical significance-to preach the word using the expository method. The pastor can then unfold the word to his sheep in a way that will help them to grow.

The Protestant Method of Hermeneutics

Theological Perspectives

These are extremely important to memorize when it comes to future testing. DS

1. The clarity of Scripture.

Luther talked of the external and the internal clarity of Scripture.

-External- the grammatical clarity. If one follows the rules of language ,then he will know what the passage is specifically saying.

-Internal- the work of the Holy Spirit illuminating the mind of the interpreter to see the truth of Scripture as the truth of God.

However, we cannot know all. There are many reasons for this such as not knowing the full context of the writing or the full cultural situation. “It is, therefore, no great thing nor something out of the ordinary that we should have words, concepts, and sentences that puzzle us in Holy Scripture."

2. Revelation as accommodated.

Holy Scripture is the truth of God accommodated to the human mind so that the human mind can assimilate it or to understand it.- written in a social environment and its analogies are drawn from that environment.- Revelation must have an anthropomorphic (using human characteristics, man-like qualities) character which is necessary for the communication of God’s truth to man.

3. Revelation as Progressive

- By this we mean that through the initiative of God He brings us from a state of theological infancy to the maturity of the New Testament.

- This is important in that one will expect the full revelation of God’s word in the NT, but must not try to force NT meanings into the OT. God revealed His will progressively ,but this does not make the OT any less inspired. It simply shows that it is to the NT that we must derive our theology in that it is the clearer revelation of God.

4. Scripture interprets Scripture.

“The obscure must give way to the clear.”- The Scripture in whole interprets the Scripture in specific.

“Everything essential; to salvation and Christian living is clearly revealed in Scripture.”- Our theology basically rests on those passages that are clear and not upon those that are obscure.

5. The analogy of faith.

Quote from Horn: the analogy of faith is the “the constant and perpetual harmony of Scripture in the fundamental points of faith and practice deduced from these passages in which they were discussed by the inspired penmen either directly or expressly, and in clear, plain, and intelligible language.”

-The assumption is that there is but one system that all doctrines or theologies must adhere to.

There are two different positions on the systematic study of the Scripture.

1. Theologies, but no theology. Many different writers with many different ways to understand God. Wrong!!!

2. Formal, systematic unity - to aim at a final system of theology deduced from a comprehensive study of scripture. This is what we believe and teach at GCD. DS

6. The unity of the meaning of Scripture.

This is a bit difficult to understand, but what Ramm asserts is that there is no room for eisegesis in that the Bible is unified to express just what it means to say. This is not to say that the Bible is a "woodenly" literal book, but that the language (figures of speech, typology, prophecy) give space for the Holy Spirit to speak to us creatively. Read this section carefully. It will make sense.

The Bible is unified in its meaning.

This is to deny the use of interpretation of the eisegete when he puts his meaning into the Scripture. Groups like: Allegorists, Cults, Protestant Pietism, in the end deform the word.

7. Interpretation and application.

The purpose of the Scripture is mentioned in 2 Tim. 3:16, but we must remember “Interpretation is one, application is many.”- There is only one meaning in Scripture, but this one passage may speak to a number of different issues. This is different than the "unity in the meaning of scripture" in that we are not talking about a dogmatic "this is what it means" but rather we extract the principle or the truth from what is being said.

For example: Jesus said, "Cast your net on the other side of the boat".

1. The intended meaning: Peter, stop doubting me and trying things in your own strength, and obey my voice. You will see that I am a miracle worker and , therefore, the Messiah.

2. Application: We need to stop doubting God and let him speak to us, obey His promptings and see that His ways are better than ours. Or...God can do anything.

3. Allegory or Eisegesis: You should stop what you are doing and go fishing...when you get out there, try fishing on one side and then switch to the other. There is a miracle waiting for you. Or...The boat represents your life, the net is your business, God is saying that if you switch businesses, you will experience a breakthrough. Or...The fishing journey is your marriage, stop fishing on one side and move to another. Time to get a new wife!!! (Ok. So that was really bad, but you never know. I have seen worse.

Lecture Question:

Please pick two of the "Theological Perspectives", explain them, and give an example of how it would affect the interpretation of scripture. Let's spread out and try to pick different ones so that we cover all seven.

Student Response #2 to Justin Crowther

I liked what you said about not worrying about how the Bible can benifit "me". I find somtimes I am just reading to see what it says to me, about me, and such. I have learned to say wait, this is God's book, it's about Him, why don't I look for Him. I learned during i believe one of the GIC teachings on missions, that it is a "God book" not a "me book".

Student Response #1 to abrown

I was encouraged by your seeking the answer through prayer about this weeks question. I think it is awesome how time and time again God is all about the little things, just helping us answer lecture questions.

Personal Reflection Question Module #6 Joseph

Reading on the liberal interpretation seemed to challenge me the most. I really see how it leads to a real situational ethics standpoint. I see this a lot, and hear it from people often. So I found their line of thought pretty interesting.

Lecture Question Module #6 Joseph

One of the first mistakes in Biblical interpretation was allegory. You see is starting in Greek culture then adopted by the Jews, and then taken to a real extreme. The counter to this was the literal interpretation, which when taken to the extreme of substituting letters for meaning, was a little too far. Coming back the other way towards allegory, devotional interpretation is weak in the fact that there is still a lot of allegory.
Devotional interpretation starts with a good intention to interpret Scripture in order to build ones spiritual life. I believe that the fact that one is looking to the Bible as its source of edification, instead of the One who wrote it, is the fallacy. When we deviate our focus from God, we leave the path.
In order to glean the good things from Devotional interpretation, God must be the focus, not my spiritual life. When our focus is on God, He does the changing. It is important not to allegorize the Old Testament as much of Devotional studies tent to do. Devotional is good on a personal level, but it needs to be balanced with a diet of good doctrinal study and exegesis.
It seems to me that Devotional interpretation looks good, because it is defined as, “the method of interpreting Scripture which places emphasis on the edifying aspects of scripture, and interpreting with the intention of developing the spiritual life.” But as it is practiced and demonstrated by the different schools it seems to stray. This has been pretty tuff to understand for me, so hopefully I am tracking.

Literal Schools Part 2: Devotional Use and Liberal Interpretation

All,

We are taking a different turn as we follow the history of the development of Hermeneutics. After the Reformation there began a great season of discovery of the word. However, as often happens, there began to be a dryness in the literal method. In other words, people obviously began to lose their love for Jesus and focus on just the words themselves. This created a need for the scriptures to feed and give life or create a devotional experience. In some ways it is a reversion to "spiritualizing" the word. However, now, the foundation of the Literal Interpretation is established and so the old abuses are avoided. There is a balancing that begins that will eventually take us to modern day.

The Devotional Schools

(Quote on page 60. The devotional interpretation of scripture is that method…… see rest for definition.)

a. The Medieval Mystics – read the scriptures as a means of promoting the mystical experiences in the scriptures. During that period there began to grow a spiritual desire to experience the scriptures in an intimate, experiential way.

DS - This is an interesting cycle. Historically, you can see this time and time again. A resurgence of an intellectual approach to scripture and then a pendulum swing back to experiential or devotional approach. One often breeds the need for the other. Too much spiritualizing or even allegorizing the scripture leads to error or heresy. But too much "heady" or intellectual produces dry, lifeless religion.

b. Pietism –

i. Grew out of a post-reformation time of dogmatism and heresy hunting. This discontent in finding life in the scripture, rather than proving theological truth, led to recover the Bible as spiritual food.

ii. Spener – He maintained that the Bible was the instrument in God’s hands for affecting true spirituality. Much truth in this don't you think?

iii. Franke – He was a scholar, linguist, and exegete. He believed that the Bible could be studied for practical life (i.e. Bill Gothard). He supported the teaching aspect of the Bible, but focused on the practical applications to youth, marriage, finances, etc.

iv. Pietisms’ influence was far reaching. It’s was an early “revival movement”. It influenced the Moravians, the Puritans, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, Matthew Henry, and the Quakers.

One day, when you have time, you should study of the history of these movements. They all were revivals during there time and influenced society in a major way.

v. Two weaknesses of Devotional interpretation:

1. It has a tendency toward allegorical interpretation for the most part, especially in the use of the Old Testament; an excessive typology to make a devotional point.

DS - We should be careful to not throw out all that they learned. The point was that they were hungry for something new, something fresh. They violated certain hermeneutical principles to get that "lovin feeling". :-)

Today, the devotional use of the Bible is likely the most often used approach. George Barna's research on the state of the church's doctrinal foundation may be indicative of this trend. He said that the mChristians Christains in the US are not clear on even the most basic of Orthodox beliefs - heaven, hell, trinity, Jesus as God, etc.
I highly recommend a book called "Boiling Point" to get a great overview of where the church stands on basic Christian beliefs and how our technological world is creating a hugh void of truth.

2. Devotional study may replace exegetical and doctrinal study.

DS - Bible teachers like Beth Moore are trying to refocus, but it needs to be Pastors who lead the way to solid expositional preaching and teaching that will help stem the tide. I recommend you follow up this course with "Homiletics" to learn how to preach a good expositional sermon. I will teach that class here in Roanoke Rapids. I think Steve Crowther will teach it in Fayetteville.

Liberal Interpretation

The real argument is between rationalism vs. authoritarianism.

Rationalism (Liberals) - The Bible is subject to mans scrutiny.

Authoritarianism (Us) - We are subject to the Bibles scrutiny.

Liberalism and Rationalism -During the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, a period of liberalism was accepted by most seminaries. Their goal was to try and determine what was divine and what was myth. By the late 1800's, some of the greatest seminaries on the earth, were poisoned by intellectualism, which gave way at the turn of the century to God being essentially dead. This started with Darwin's theory of evolution (Mid 1800's). Most of the great "Ivy League Schools" began as seminaries. They now are bastions of liberalism. I would consider them the most wicked institutions in America.

Seven points of the liberals:

1) With the liberals, the emphasis is on modern mentality so that the Scientific Method is valid, and can be applied to the scriptures.

2) They re-defined inspiration. They believed that inspiration is its power to inspire a religious experience in you.

3) They re-defined revelation. Revelation is our coming to an understanding of enlightenment of religious truth. DS - had nothing to do with the Holy Spirit.

4) Miracles are not supernatural, and in scripture, it has to be redefined. They believed that the miracles of Jesus were allegorical events (as if Zeus were to throw a lightening bolt)

5) There is evolution of thought in the Bible, from the primitive to the modern.

6) "Accommodation" to a liberal would be that statements in scripture were accommodated to the times they were written. (i.e. Sin would be understood by a Jewish person, but would be an outdated thing to a modern person).

DS - Situational Ethics of today. What is good for you may not be good for me. You have religion, I have sex and money. As long as we are both happy, so be it.

7) The Bible is to be interpreted historically. This has changed. There are liberals today who teach that even the history of the Bible is not valid. Ridiculous!!!

DS - This is interesting to me. If they believe that there is some valid historicity, then why do they not see the impact of Jesus life and claims? I know the answer...just venting.

Neo-Orthodoxy - Carl Barth was the creator. The liberals couldn't completely abandon Darwinism, but some liberals began to drift back to center. He said that scripture is not inspired, but it becomes inspired when it affects me. He said that the Bible contained the Word of God, but was not the Word of God from beginning to end.

DS - no need to camp on this much. When it comes to hermeneutics, it is important for you to understand where people are coming from. We will begin the Protestant System next week. So, nuf of the history already right?

Lecture Question:

Based on what we have learned from history, come up with a postulate for me. Devotional interpretation of the scripture is risky, but yet it is life-giving. How can one avoid the former, and gain the latter?

Student Response #2 to dkirik (Joseph)

It's amazing how discredited the Bible is today. So many people have a skeptical mindset and cannot see how everything in one book can be absolute truth. I work with lots of people like that and I find it interesting how they will refer to things in scripture, but only certain things and consider it just another book. So anyways, I agree that letters method of Scripture and reason were a great combination.

Student Response Module #5 to mholmes (Joseph)

I do think it was pretty awesome that the book talked about Luther's photographic memory. Pretty helpful I believe. I am encouraged by your desire for truth, and I find God really placing that desire in me as I am taking some other classes at GCD, especially my worldview philosophy. Everyone is searchin for truth. Finding Him is the best part.

Reflection Question to Module#5 Joseph Workman

I was really encouraged in the reading this week that talked about comparing passages. One of the principles of literal interpretation was the comparing of similar passages, and sometimes how a third scripture is needed to clarify between to seemingly contradicting ones. I liked that part and I enjoyed learning what Luther’s hermeneutical principles where. I liked the History behind it all.

Lecture Question to Module #5 Joseph Workman

Literalism provides an escape from the Catholic Church by providing simplicity. The Bible was not in the hands of the people, mainly because of the language barrier, but also because it was deemed to hard to interpret. Every passage could have lots of hidden meanings and only the church fathers could interpret it. Literalism is a much easier system, and reduces the human error in interpretation.
Principles like a word must be understood in terms of the sentence; a sentence in context, and a clearer passage is given preference over a obscure one were some good guidelines and brought simplicity to interpretation. Instead of trying to figure out the hidden meaning, you could just study the word or sentence and derive the interpretations. This type of study can often take you back to the Hebrew or Greek meaning, so it encouraged one to become familiar text also, instead of just Latin.
The Catholic Church neglected the history of the Bible basically, but at the Syrian School in Antioch, the history and grammatical interpretation was encouraged. This provided an Old Testament reality. This move towards more liberal art, historical, and geographical studies as the basis of exegesis really propelled a greater move away from the Catholic Church. The Victorines and Reformers emphasized these.
The reformers, one of the main being Martin Luther, really emphasized the philosophical system of Occam. This system separated reason and revelation. Along with the renewed study of Hebrew and Greek, the Occam system really helped prepare the way for a reformation and a beginning escape from the Catholic Church system.

By George...

All,

Excellent!!! You are by far the quickest to grasp this topic that I have taught on the internet. It tells me your reading and thinking. Thank you!!

I have written some comments on some of your entries. Check them out.

David

Module 5: The Literal Schools Part 1- Jews through the Reformers

The Literal Schools

Literal Method – to accept as basic the literal rendering of the sentences unless by virtue of the nature of the sentence, phrase, or clause, within the sentence, this is not possible Very good definition

A. Jewish Literalism –

Ezra is considered the first Jewish interpreter of the Bible. (ref. Pg. 45, 2nd Para)

1. The Isrealites are gathered when the law is found, and Ezra had to speak in Aramaic as he read the Hebrew.. This was the first instance of Biblical interpretation.

2. From their Bablyonian captivity they had lost so much of their culture and faith, that they had to create practices that would help them maintain the Jewish heritage since they were no longer in the Holy Land i.e. Jerusalem. The results were mixed.

3. They had two schools of Jewish Hermeneutics when they came back to Israel:

a. Karaites – The literalists

b. Kabalists – The Allegorists

4. The basic Jewish Hermeneutic principles that emerged:

a. A word must be understood in terms of it’s sentence; and a sentence in terms it’s context.

b. Scriptures dealing with similar topics should be compared, and that in some instances a third scripture would relieve the apparent contradiction between two scriptures.

c. A clearer passage is to be given preference over an obscure one.

d. Pay close attention to grammer, spelling, and figures of speech. Looking at the literal uses of language.

e. By the use of logic, we can determine the application of scripture to those problems in life scripture has not specifically treated.

f. They believed that God adapted His revelation to the recipients of it. (God came down, and poured out what He knew into our finite minds.) The perpescuity of God’s word (It’s clarity.) Accomodation and cultural conditioning of Divine revelation. (He allows us to understand it.)

5. The major weakness of their system was “hyper-literalism” – or “letterism”- In their intense devotion to the details of the text, they missed the essential and made mountains out of the incidental.

6. This led to fantastic interpretations of scriptures which were compounded by the enormous authority given to tradition.

a. Letterism and allegorism formed an alliance and this created:

i. “Notarikon” -Each letter of a word was to stand for another word.
ii. “Gemetria” – It associated numerical values to words for arbitrary associations to other verses. Bible Code??
iii. “Termura” – You change the letters around where so to extract new meanings from old words.

b. Some valuable exegetical work did come from those that did not take the extremes.

B. Syrian School of Antioch –

The first Protestant school of Hermeneutics flourished from the city of Antioch.

i. As a school, it influenced Jerome (the scholar responsible for the Vulgate) and modulated the allegorism of Alexandria in the west. It had influence.

ii. They asserted that the literal was plain literal and figurative literal. (They broke it into two parts)

1. Plain literal sentence – a straight forward sentence with no figures of speech i.e. God created the heavens and the earth….

2. Figurative literal sentence – a figure of speech, "under the shadow of His wings"

iii. Dogmatic exegesis eventually developed into Roman Catholic Authoritarian exegesis; but the Syrians insisted that the meaning of the bible was it’s historical and grammatical meaning, and interpretations must so be justified.

iv. The Syrians insisted on the reality of the Old Testament events. (The allegorists tried to bury the historicity of the Bible)

v. According to the Syrians, the historical and the messianic were blended together like woof and warp. Jesus can be found in the Old Testament. Bottom Line: History does reflect the Salvific message.

vi. The relationship of the OT & NT was made typological and not allegorical. Their commonality, their flow, was made so by types (shadows of things to come). These were plain. (i.e. you can find the "code book" of “types” in the book of Hebrews)

vii. They admitted that the unity of the bible was Christological and that the bond between
the two testaments is prophetic – predictive and typological) and was a progressive revelation throughout history.

1. Typological – prophetic in the sense of things to come (i.e. the temple symbolic of the Kingship of Christ)

2. Predictive – Christ concealed, but foreshadowed through “types”

viii. The result of these principles was some of the finest exetegical literature of ancient times.

C. Victorines

i. Great scholarship came from an Abby of St. Victor in Paris. They were influenced by the Jews for literalism, but they also insisted that liberal arts, history, and geography were basics in the understanding of exegesis.

ii. The literal rather than a preliminary of superficial study was the basic study of the bible. True interpretation of the bible was exegesis, not eisegesis.

D. The Reformers –

i. The Syrian school affected the Victorines and thus became the essential theory of the Reformers - thus Protestant hermeneutics.

ii. There was a "hermeneutical reformation" which preceded the ecclesiastical reformation.

iii. There were two main factors that prepared the way for the reformation in terms of hermeneutics.

1. The philosophical system of Occam –

a. Martin Luther was trained under this philosophy.

b. In this system we find a bold statement for that period of time that human reason and revelation were separated.

i. Human reason’s territory is nature, philosophy, and science.
ii. Revelation’s territory - receive revelation through faith (trusting God, etc.), salvation (knowing who I am in God), and theology (understanding God’s communicable and incommunicable attributes).

c. Grace and nature – Whatever we know about God, we know by revelation and NOT by reason.

d. Therefore, the authority for theological dogma rested solely on Divine Revelation, and therefore on the Bible.

e. Luther was well trained to make this his starting point.

2. The renewed study of Hebrew and Greek –

a. The Renaissance brought a renewed interest in Greek.

b. Erasmus published the first Greek New Testament in modern times in 1516 a.d., only one year before Martin Luther tacked his 96 thesis on the Wittenburg door.

c. Hebrew testament was printed in 1494.

iv. Luther’s background in the languages-

1. Luther learned Latin while a priest, and thus could handle the Latin Vulgate. He also knew Greek and Hebrew.

2. He had a photographic memory which helped in public debate.

3. Therefore, he was well prepared for exegesis.

v. Luther’s hermeneutical principles are broken down:

1. Psychological principle – Faith and illumination are the personal and spiritual requisites for an interpreter, and thus, prayer and meditation are a part of that.

2. Authority principle – The Bible is the final and supreme authority and is above all ecclesiastical authority or church authority. How is this compared to Catholic hermeneutics?

3. The Literal principle –

a. “Every word should be allowed to stand in its natural meaning, and that should not be abandoned unless faith forces us to it.” Quote from Luther.

b. The sub-principles of the literal principle:

i. Luther despised allegory as was used by the Catholics. However, he used it from time to time when it typified Christ and not the papacy. In other words he did not completely break from using it. (Notice the Lutheran Church today.)

ii. The primacy of the original languages. He felt preachers should seek learning the original languages for apologetics sake.

iii. The historical and grammatical principle. The interpreter must give attention to grammer, times, circumstances, and context of the passage.


4. Sufficiency principle – (1 Pet 2:9) The Bible is clear enough

a. The perspicuity of scripture

b. To Luther, the perspicuity of the Word, and the priesthood of the believer are indispensable.

c. The bible is clear enough, the believer is competent, and scripture interprets scripture.

5. Christological principle – The end of interpretation was not the literal, but it was to find Christ. If you will interpret well and securely and take Christ with you for He is the man with whom everything concerns.

a. Luther felt free to challenge anything not Christological.

6. Law-Gospel principle – We must carefully distinguish the two in scripture. These two major theological divisions are split, by Luther, between the OT , and NT .

a. God’s word is about human sin. The purpose of the law was to drive us to our knees under a burden of guilt. (to extract our need for God.

b. God’s grace is the power and provision to save, effectively removing that burden of guilt.

vi. John Calvin – 1st scientific interpreter. He approached the scriptures with all of Luther’s principles, and then began to develop doctrines and theology on God and man.

1. He wrote “The Institutes”. Luther broke into the Reformation with a new Hermeneutic, but it was Calvin who exemplified it with his touch of genius. He made it a very clear theology that could not be attacked.

2. Calvin said that the illumination of the spirit was the necessary spiritual preparation for the interpreter.

3. He rejected allegorical interpretation.

4. He believed in scripture interpreting scripture, and the importance of studying grammer, philology (the study of words), the context of the scripture, and comparing similar scriptures.

5. He showed caution in interpretation. Messianic prophecy for the historical background should be thoroughly studied first before any doctrine can be established.

Lecture Question:

In what ways do we see that "Literalism" helped the church go forward and escape the abuses of the Catholic Church?

Thoughts from the Teacher

All,

The posts continue to be excellent. I am very impressed with your grappling with the material and the obvious interest you are showing in the topic. Good work. It is interesting to note that just because we have a god-fearing heart, it doesn't necessarily equate to good biblical interpretation. However, it does cause one to wonder why God would allow this? I asked the same questions when I explored church history. Church history appears to be a good example of a father allowing his children to discover truths through trial and error. From time to time he has to step in and "make things right" as in the Reformation. Looking at the big picture, God has always been in charge and that now with the enormous population on the earth, the greatest amount of Christians are alive today and have available to them solid biblical interpretation. So, it has been a bit messy, but it all has been for our benefit hasn't it? It makes you truly respect the movements of the past as each one gave us a more complete picture of what the church should be and what it is going to be. Church historians call these changes paradigm shifts. Others call them denominations. Get the picture? Let's determine to walk in these two convictions: 1. That we will keep our hearts open and broken before God for he is much bigger than our systems and dogmas 2. That we will remain teachable in the application of the truths, principles, and practices that we have learned from scripture.

Pastor David

Personal Response #2 to mholmes

I have had the same feeling about weather something I had taught was wrong, or even my method. God has been showing me that He is big enough to work through me despite my wrong methods sometimes, and so I am really thankful for this class also.

Personal Response #1 to Angie

I really agree with your heart that goes out to people who are stuggling to leave somthing that has been the only thing they have known, or just what they have practiced for a long time. I think it really can be hard to leave the "norm" when a new truth is presented. Great reflection.

Personal Reflection Question Mod.#4

1. How does this reading challenge some of your personal beliefs?

I would say that many times I have been guilty of just agreeing with things I have been taught or just heard. I am not saying it has been wrong to agree, but I am saying, to nod my head yes to everything that comes into my mind is not good. This section has challenged me to be careful in “how I teach”, and to sometimes really study what I have been taught. What I really believe is how I really live. There are things that I know, but now God has been challenging me to live them out.

Lecture Question Module #4

Lecture Question:
Explain in your own words how Catholic interpretation developed. Also, take a moment to comment on Intent and Method. Where have you seen this?

Biblical interpretation was split into three categories, the allegorical, the tropological or the moral, and the anagogical. It was still believed that the most spiritual way of interpretation was still through allegorical. The Catholic scholars held that the Latin Vulgate was the supreme version of the Bible to teach, preach, or interpret from. The church would decide what the correct Biblical interpretation was, and the interpreter would accept that.
Historical and literal meanings were considered as the basis for study of the Bible, but the Bible held a deeper and more spiritual meaning not seen in the literal. The church was the official interpreter of scripture and so the “fathers” passed down their interpretations through generations sometimes in written form. The Bible was called the written tradition, but it was basically to hard to understand so they would tell you what it said. The made themselves the “official” interpreters of the “written tradition” and didn’t let you interpret anything. They told you “what to know” instead of “how to think”.
The fathers interpreted everything accurately, so if you ever do have trouble interpreting scripture just look up their works, and correct interpretation will be found. This only applies if you are an official interpreter of scripture in the Catholic Church.
I think the biggest thing I realized from the Intent and Method, is that you can have good intentions but still have a bad hermeneutics and others will experience repercussions. It’s so important how we teach. A teacher’s real job is not just to impart what is known, but to really teach a student how to think. If we can learn how to think, then we will recognize a bad method or faulty teachings.
I see this in schools. It’s like students are just given information. We have lots of knowledge yes, but who are the great thinkers of our day. I know there are some, but it seems as if we just take everything as we hear it, and then end up with some real messed up theology. I believe it is important to teach this generation, how to think, so that the garbage they receive everyday through the media, sometimes teachers, and friends doesn’t become part of their life. It is so important that we don’t become numb to it.
I am really enjoying leaning the history in on this subject. It pushes me to think and ask, “Where do I see these ideas working today.”

Module 4: Historical Schools- Allegorical Schools Pt. 2

All,

I am putting this week's post up very early because I am heading off to the GCI Pastors retreat. You can begin posting immediately or you can choose to wait till later. The Sun. Mid-Night deadline still applies. This is a continuation from last weeks lecture on the Allegorical Schools. You likely did not have more reading for this week as it was covered last week. However, this might be a good time to get ahead on your reading.


a. Catholic Allegorism / Please keep in mind that these conclusions were/are incorrect.

i. During the Middle Ages, the majority of exegetical work was allegorical in nature.

ii. They called it the “mystical” or the “spiritual” meaning of the Bible.

1. Three divisions of the mystical or spiritual meaning of the Bible.

a. Allegorical - deeper meaning, spiritual interpretation
b. Tropological – moral interpretations
c. Anagogical – escatalogical sense (focus on end times) how the church now anticipates the church glorified in the end times (what is to come; who we are going to be)

iii. Modern Catholic interpretation has been influenced by the Protestant hermeneutic changes, therefore, they no longer dogmatically hold to the Allegorical being the only true method of interpretation. Since the Reformation, the Catholic church has increasingly given ground. (I wonder where they will stand regarding celebacy for priests after the overwhelming evidence of pedophilia among priests.)

iv. Basic hermeneutical views of the Catholic church

1. Catholic scholars accept the Latin Vulgate as the only authentic version for all public expositions. No NIV's here!!!!

2. The catholic interpreter obediently accepts what the church says about matters of biblical introduction and authorship. (Problem: What the church says…goes)

3. The catholic interpreter accepts all verses which the church has officially interpreted.

4. The literal and historical interpretation of scripture is the foundation of study of the Bible. (the natural reading) Side note: This came as a result of the Reformation

5. The scriptures do posses a spiritual or mystical meaning which is beyond the literal.

6. The Catholic church is the official interpreter of scripture.

a. The church is the custodian of scripture, therefore, it has the right to have the official interpretation

b. There is the “original tradition” which is the deposit of faith passed down through the generations (what has passed down from the church fathers in the form of official church interpretations - these have been written down, but don't confuse it with the "written tradition" below.)

c. There is the “written tradition” which is the Bible itself.

d. Because the written tradition is obscure, it needs an official interpreter, thus the authority of the Catholic Church to do so.

i. At the Council of Trent, they decided:

1. The Catholic Church was the official interpreter
2. Individual interpretation is prohibited.

7. The "fathers" are to be the guide in interpretation.

8. Any obscure teaching in the written tradition is to be explained by the fuller teaching in the “original” interpretation. (i.e. if I read something in 2006 and don’t understand it, I need to seek the writings of the early church fathers to seek the true meaning of that particular obscurity.)

Bottom Line for Catholic Hermeneutics: The Catholic Church fathers of the past have interpreted the Bible, therefore, all other interpetations are unacceptable because they (the official interpreters) have already given the interpretation and no more light need be shed on the subject. Are you getting chills? This is scary isn't it?


Introduction to "Intent and Method"

When it comes to observing interpreters of the past and present, it becomes clear that two processes need to be considered. In my studies and attempts to understand others interpretations of scripture, I have found that interpreter/teacher may have good intentions, a good heart, but a faulty hermeneutic. For our purposes here, I won't even mention evil intentions. I think most people are sincere in their approach. They get excited about the revelation that they have received from scripture and they go to work proving that it exists almost everywhere in the Bible.

The other aspect is Method. When you have a faulty method in approaching scripture, you may still support a point that in the end is true, but the hermeneutics are bad. Herein lies the problem. Most people are not just learning what you teach, but how you teach. In other words, your hermeneutic (or method of interpreting scripture) is being passed on to other generations as well as the teaching. Often the original good intent is lost and future generations are left with faulty hermeneutics leading to even more skewed teachings. This is what we are seeing in the Catholic development of hermeneutics. The bad seed was planted from the very beginning.

But what is worse is that future generations are left with a hermeneutic that tends to be legalistic, prophetic, hyper-spiritual, self-focused, so on and so forth. I can give you lots of examples, but it is difficult to do within this writing enviroment. I have observed teachers who are convinced that faith and prosperity are built into almost every teaching in the Bible. This is what I call "macro-eisegetics" - eisegesis on a whole-Bible view. They come to the Bible with a pair of faith glasses and only see faith. They ignor the verses about struggle, and times of lack, or they explain them away. I actually heard a preacher say that if Paul understood the principles of faith, he would not have known lack. Whew!!! You probably have seen this done from other topics as well. Let's discuss this some.

Lecture Question; 250 -300 Word Module Post:
Explain in your own words how Catholic interpretation developed. Also, take a moment to comment on Intent and Method. Where have you seen this?

Teacher Comments

1. Only a portion of this class is studying error. Really, we are studying the development of hermeneutics. The good principles that came from centuries of discovery are ours to enjoy now. The real twenty-dollar bill is coming!!!

2. Again, the word "allegory" is used to describe an overall work. In that sense, the Bible is not allegorical. Does it contain allegory? No, we will describe the "deeper, spiritual truths" using more accurate terminology.

3. Eisegesis - Good points regarding this. I wish we had "in class" time to get into this more deeply, however, I would agree that it is very difficult to not bring into Bible study your presuppositions. It does take discipline. You will in time get better at being more cautious. I don't believe I have ever taught this course without students initially getting very "frisky" about hunting down "eisegetes". Don't burn them at the stake just yet. People need to be taught. Their hearts are good, but their methods stink. This is where this class can help us, and then we can help them. But, again, be careful, because this can become a very touchy subject for teachers. I have on more than one occassion challenged a well-respected teacher on their exegesis of a verse only to get a bit of a reaction that I had to wade through. In the end, I win them because I chose to be careful and gentile. This will make more sense the further we get into the class.

David

Student Response #2 (Mod #3) to Justin Crowther

I really like the example you used of those who are post-modernists. I have had some run ins with people who think just the way you described, they make the Bible fit their theology and their outlook. God has continued to remind me of the passage in Corinthians where he is saying that the Gospel really is foolishness to those who are not believers. To them the Bible is good, but is not truth. So I thought what you said was great.

Student Response #1 (Mod 3) Response to Tammy Crowley

I liked the comment you made about Luther and what He believed, "that the faithful Christian could find the proper interpretation with aid of the Holy Spirit working directly with the individual." I really believe that is the most crucial part of interpreting what we read in the Word. The Holy Spirit is so faithful to show us what we don't understand, even through others works and such. Thanks.

Comments from Pastor David

Some of you have mentioned the creative, literary use of allegory which is valid and enjoyable, not to mentione, helpful. However, what Ramm is showing us is that in referrence to the Bible, it was mis-used historically. The point is, the Bible is NOT an allegory. It is a literal recording of Jewish and Early Christian history. (We will discuss the other genres later.) These things did happen and the lessons learned referred to the Bible characters first, and then to us as they are applicable. We are tracing the roots of what became error. You will see as you continue to read that the church finally got on track. But, we must be careful to not repeat the historical mistakes.

Teacher Thoughts

All,

I did a redo on the Lecture Question to make it more clear. Sorry. I left out an important portion. Also, I am enjoying your posts. Good work. I especially like it when you quote the book. hint, hint.

Have a great weekend.

David

Personal Reflection Question Module #3

The reading seemed kind of confusing at first, but as I began to beak it down, I began to really enjoy it. I liked seeing where the idea of allegory came from. I did not how much it had influenced the Jews and even Christians, in the interpretation of the Word. I find this very interesting and I can see how it does apply to how we think sometimes.

Lecture Question Module #3

I would define Allegorism as underlying meaning, or having two meanings. I really enjoy the way C.S. Lewis uses it and I believe J.R.R. Tolkien in His “Lord of the Rings”. When studying the American, Greek, and English poets in school, lots of times we had to find the places where the author was implying two meanings. Many of the poets and epic writers use this allegory and I enjoy picking it out.
As far as looking an underlying meaning in everything, or to elevate allegory findings above the literal when it comes to scripture, I don’t think is very wise and can be misleading. That was one thing that caught my attention in the reading, “It was more spiritual to be allegorical than literal.” That is what many of the Christian and Parasitical allegorists thought. It was interesting to see how the Jews were influenced by this method of study and how so much of the Greek mindset influences our thoughts.
In the lecture it was stated that the, “problem is determining if the passage is even an allegory at all.” I thought this was a very good point. I believe that has a lot to do with modern biblical interpretation. Seeing everything as having the possibility of having two meanings seems to make interpreting scripture harder. In Theology, there was an idea called the Perspricuity of Scripture, that stated that the Bible is clear and understandable to all true seekers. Scripture is usually pretty straight forward, but when you apply allegory to everything it seems to become confusing.

Module 3: Introduction to the Historical Schools - Allegorical Schools Part 1

Historical Schools
Reading: Ramm, pg. 22-44

Ok. Here we go. As mentioned in the last lecture, it is good to study the history of hermeneutics in order to understand its development and, therefore, its need. There are new terms being introduced here so make sure you do your reading first before reading the lecture. We begin with the Allegorical Schools. The use of the word "allegorical or allegory" from now on with be considered a negative approach to scripture, as you will see. Look up the definition of allegory in your dictionary.

Introduction:

Knowledge of the history of Hermeneutics is important so that we can learn from others' mistakes. The two most important mistakes that others have made are:

(1) Believing that the system that someone was trained in, is the only system. You say, what system, I am just getting started. Well, believe it or not, you do have a system. It is likely that you have learned a system of studying and understanding the word by accidental approach or by what was modeled for you by a teacher or a pastor. You will see that as you go along, you are more affected by these "systems" than you realize.

(2) Believing that certain traditional and familiar interpretations are the only adequate interpretations. Now this is getting deeper isn't it? "You mean to tell me that some teaching that I have heard is not necessarily solid hermeneutics in it's approach?" You betch ya. Not at EWC though...

We begin by understanding how this happened...

1. Allegorical Schools - Symbolism on a grander scale.

*You will find thatallegoriesm is very commonly used today. It is just couched in different terms. During this course, be on the lookout for some uses ofallegoriesm in books, sermons, etc.

a. Greek Allegorism - where allegorism began.

i. Allegorical interpretation teaches that beneath the letter of the obvious is the real meaning of the passage. (Extended Metaphor or hidden meaning)

ii. Problem is determining if the passage is even an allegory at all

iii. Greek Method:

(1). Greek heritage was built in by the Greek fathers Homer and Hesiod. The works of these two writers were the bibles of the Greeks. They believed that anything of significance in life was going to be hidden in an allegory from their writings.

(2). They had a system of philosophy (deep thinking) and a historical tradition this was based mostly in mythology and fables that explained why things were as they were. These two stood juxtaposed or in conflict. The solution to accepting both was to allegorize the stories or myths to relieve the tension between the two. This method or system spread to the city of Alexandria were there was huge jewish population, and Christian population. The Jews began to be influenced by this process as it was cutting edge thinking.

b. Jewish Allegorism

i. As the Jews were immersed in the Greek lifestyle and culture, they were impressed with the culture, and the way the Greeks allegorized their writings. The Jews simply borrowed this to help them with their own problem with keeping the Old Testament relevant. They began to look beyond the letter of The Law. They thought there was something deeper and began to allegorize the scriptures. Tension was growJudaismudaisim was loosing its strength (we know why) and their traditions were being questionveracityericity and relevancy.

ii. They began to deal with the tension, and they too came to allegorize the Old Testament. They began to interpret their history (the stories) as mystical or allegorical. Ex. Moses represented Jews who had a desire to follow God. You can see where this would begin to create quite a mess. Every rabbi or teacher could come up with his own "hidden" truth.

iii. 1ST Jewish Allegorist - Aristobulus (160 b.c.)

- He believed that the teachings of Greek allegory could be found in the Old Testament. He took this even further and essentially denied the purpose of the Old Testament.

iv. Another well known man was Philo (20 b.c.)

(1). He said that in all philosophy you have the original idea, the antithesis, and then the synthesis (someone who reacts to both the originator and the challenger of an idea and creates a new idea.)

(2) He also said that the Bble is superior to Plato in Greek philosophy. He got rid of the concept of mythology, but still believed that there was allegory in the scripture.

v. Some of the Jewish methods of allegory were sound. Much of the scripture is allegorical in a positive sense, later this will be called "typology or symbolism, but not allegory".

However, this approach did help the Jews break out of their literalism and to begin looking for something deeper in their sacred writings. Again, we know that there were and are deeper meanings within the Old Testament. They just ignored the "one" with whom they have to do.

c. Christian and Patristic Allegorism

During the time of Christ, "the learned" began doing using allegorism to interpret scripture.

i. The early Christian fathers used the Greek Language to translate the spoken words as Jesus and the apostles used it. The NT was used to unlock the truths of the OT. They believed that the OT was a Christian story, only in allegory. They found symbols that did not exist. They would try to impose Christ into every facet of the OT. In essense, you are probably thinking that they were close to the truth, and you are right. However, it was the method that was wrong.

ii. Two things may be said of the early church fathers:

(1.) They sought to make the OT a Christian document

(2.) They emphasized the truths of the gospel in their fancies, so they imposed on the OT the various doctrines they wanted to see.

2. The problems with this method:

a. They had a lack of a historical sense of exegesis. Total lack of history of the people of God considered in their methods.

b. Their citing of the OT in much of their interpretation proved that they were very infantile in their understanding of the progress of revelation.

c. They considered that the OT and NT were filled with allegories which sufficed to bring the intended meaning. It was more spiritual to be allegorical than literal. Did you catch this?

d. They confused the allegorical with the symbolic (the symbology that was really there {i.e. The Lion of Judah}).

e. They believed that Greek philosophy was in the OT, and one had to use allegory to find it (the peoples and places represented something else [i.e. Joseph, Jerusalem, etc., were not real people and places but symbols])

f. It fostered a dogmatic interpretation of scripture.

g. The allegorical method obscures (they get close enough to the truth ,but the applications get outlandish, and can be used for a selfish purpose) the true meaning of the Word of God. It is the seed for cultic and heretical teachings (i.e. gnosticism)

Think for a moment. Are we not a place where some of this is being done in modern thinking? If one assumed that the Bible has mythological stories (none of it happened), but contained helpful information, one could come to the same conclusions, right?

Lecture Question:

You will notice that the "seed" of allegorism began with the Greeks. Describe Allegorism in your own words and give some examples of Greek allegorism from Greek History. You may need to do a little online research for this. How does this method of allegory appear in modern biblical interpretation? Ex. Liberalism or Postmodernism