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 Â
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 GodÂs 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. ItÂs was an early Ârevival movementÂ. 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?
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 Â
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 GodÂs 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. ItÂs was an early Ârevival movementÂ. 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?
posted by dschmaltz | 8:32 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home