Study of the Bible

[Arial]

Study of the Bible is quite different than Bible Study as in a Bible study group associated with a particular congregation. I have been in a lot of Bible studies over the years, and not a single one of them actually studied the Bible. With one exception and that was a Calvinistic church. However, it was not Reformed (Covenant theology) but Dispensational. Which I was eschatologically, at the time. It adhered to the Doctrines of Grace and referred to itself as Calvinism. However, Calvin was not dispensational but Reformed (a covenant framework of Bible interpretation.) So, it was a misnomer to say they were Calvinist. Nothing can be done about that. At least it identifies them as holding to the DoG.

Since Dispensationalism uses a different hermeneutic, (and I strongly believe that is not a correct biblical hermeneutic) in an actual study of the Bible, it is not just the end times and last days, that would be off, but most of their interpretation of the OT would be.

If we are going to do a study of the Bible, we must do so with a correct Bible hermeneutic. So, let's look at the classical hermeneutic used in Reformed theology. Just a note, it is called Reformed because it is the theology and doctrinal statements that came out of the Reformation as Protestants broke away from the heresies in the RCC.

Hermeneutics is the study of the principles and methods of interpreting texts, especially the Bible.

Reformed theology uses a covenantal structure. It does not view the Bible as a collection of isolated stories or as God dealing with/relating to humanity in different time periods. It sees the Bible as a unified covenantal drama, the eternal Covenant of Redemption between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit before creation, unfolding through history. The various covenants God makes with creation (Noah), individuals and Israel, are all connected to the overarching Covenant of Redemption.

The Reformed tradition that grew out of the Protestant Reformation. emphasized six guiiding principles for interpretation.

1. Sola Scripture. Scripture alone is the highest authority ofr faith and practice.
2. Christ-Centered. All of Scripture ultimately points to and is fulfilled in Christ (Luke 24:27).
3. Analogy of Scripture. Scripture interprets Scriputre; clear passages shed light on less clear ones.
4. Literal but Contextual Readinng. The Bible is read according to its plain sense, respecting grammar, history, and literary form.
5. Covenantal Framework. The Bible is one unified covenant story, not a collection of disconnected writings.
6. Redemptive-Historical Focus. Every passage contributes to the unfolding plan of God's redemption in Christ.

The key hermeneutical methods are:

• Grammatical-Historical
• Redemptive-Historical

What does this entail?

The grammatical-historic method interprets Scripture by examining the meaning of words (grammar) in their original setting (history). It discovers what the author intended to Communicate to the original audience. It anchors interpretation in the text's plain sense.

The redemptive-historical method interprets Scripture in light of the overarching story of God's redemptive plan. Remember, Reformed hermeneutics considers all of the Bible to be one story; the historic progressing through history (the plan)) of the Covenant of Redemption before the world was created. This shows how each passage fits the covenantal drama that culminates in Christ. This method prevents moralistic or fragmented readings. It keeps Christ and the gospel at the center.

The grammatical-historical meaning comes first. What did the passage mean then and there? Then the redemptive- historical asks how does this meaning fit within the larger drama of redemption.

After this is done, we can draw out principles that are timeless truths for God's people. Having done that, those truth's (theological principles) can be applied to the believer and the church, without compromising or contradicting anything else in Scripture., or misapplying it by treating it as an isolated statement.

Why? Because it comes out of a solid foundation with Christ as the Rock upon which it is built. It is exactly what the apostles did when they interpreted OT scriptures.

There is no other hermeneutic that does this, and yet, those who scoff at Reformation theology, do that scoffing without even knowing how it came to be.

.

 

[Josheb]

Well said.

If I may add two points: 1) The classic, Protestant (and thereby Reformed) hermeneutic holds the Old Testament informs the New Testament but it is the New that explains the Old. This is a precept rejected in Dispensational Premillennialism, and 2) It is incomplete to talk about Dispensationalism as if it exists apart from its conjoined premillennial eschatology and separated ecclesiology. We use the word "Dispensationalism" as a standalone label, but the greater truth is there is no Dispensationalism apart from its version of premillennialism and both are radical departures from everything taught about the study of scripture throughout Christian history. The Calvinist redemptive-historical hermeneutic is not a radical departure from historical Christianity, but a return to and affirmation of it.

 

[makesends]

Well said.

If I may add two points: 1) The classic, Protestant (and thereby Reformed) hermeneutic holds the Old Testament informs the New Testament but it is the New that explains the Old. This is a precept rejected in Dispensational Premillennialism, and 2) It is incomplete to talk about Dispensationalism as if it exists apart from its conjoined premillennial eschatology and separated ecclesiology. We use the word "Dispensationalism" as a standalone label, but the greater truth is there is no Dispensationalism apart from its version of premillennialism and both are radical departures from everything taught about the study of scripture throughout Christian history. The Calvinist redemptive-historical hermeneutic is not a radical departure from historical Christianity, but a return to and affirmation of it.

In the "modern" (last two hundred years or so) innovative Christianity, whatever is new rules the day, and that was the appeal of Dispensationalism. That, plus the simple logic of dotting-the-I's-and-don't-think-no-further, doesn't require anything except to listen to someone who has line and seems sure of himself.

 

[John Bauer]

The grammatical-historic method interprets Scripture by examining the meaning of words (grammar) in their original setting (history). It discovers what the author intended to Communicate to the original audience. It anchors interpretation in the text's plain sense.

The redemptive-historical method interprets Scripture in light of the overarching story of God's redemptive plan. Remember, Reformed hermeneutics considers all of the Bible to be one story; the historic progressing through history (the plan)) of the Covenant of Redemption before the world was created. This shows how each passage fits the covenantal drama that culminates in Christ. This method prevents moralistic or fragmented readings. It keeps Christ and the gospel at the center.

The grammatical-historical meaning comes first. What did the passage mean then and there? Then the redemptive- historical asks how does this meaning fit within the larger drama of redemption.

I have a slightly different understanding of it—and I am open to correction—namely, that grammatical-historical exegesis uncovers the text's meaning in its immediate literary and historical context, while a redemptive-historical hermeneutic interprets that meaning in relation to the whole storyline of scripture and its fulfillment in Christ. In this scheme, (a) hermeneutics gives the framework, that is, the rules and principles for reading scripture; (b) exegesis applies those rules to a specific passage, working through language, context, and history; (c) interpretation is the outcome, the meaning that we finally grasp and articulate.

• (a) blueprint, (b) construction, (c) completed house.

Redemptive-historical + grammatical-historical + canonical + theological are natural partners in Reformed exegesis. The redemptive-historical, grammatical-historical, canonical, and theological (analogia fidei) hermeneutics converge as natural allies, grounding interpretation in real history, honoring the text's grammar and context, situating each passage within the canon, and upholding the unity of scripture, all while directing the reader ultimately to Christ himself.

 

[Carbon]

Study of the Bible is quite different than Bible Study as in a Bible study group associated with a particular congregation. I have been in a lot of Bible studies over the years, and not a single one of them actually studied the Bible. With one exception and that was a Calvinistic church. However, it was not Reformed (Covenant theology) but Dispensational. Which I was eschatologically, at the time. It adhered to the Doctrines of Grace and referred to itself as Calvinism. However, Calvin was not dispensational but Reformed (a covenant framework of Bible interpretation.) So, it was a misnomer to say they were Calvinist. Nothing can be done about that. At least it identifies them as holding to the DoG.

Since Dispensationalism uses a different hermeneutic, (and I strongly believe that is not a correct biblical hermeneutic) in an actual study of the Bible, it is not just the end times and last days, that would be off, but most of their interpretation of the OT would be.

If we are going to do a study of the Bible, we must do so with a correct Bible hermeneutic. So, let's look at the classical hermeneutic used in Reformed theology. Just a note, it is called Reformed because it is the theology and doctrinal statements that came out of the Reformation as Protestants broke away from the heresies in the RCC.

Hermeneutics is the study of the principles and methods of interpreting texts, especially the Bible.

Reformed theology uses a covenantal structure. It does not view the Bible as a collection of isolated stories or as God dealing with/relating to humanity in different time periods. It sees the Bible as a unified covenantal drama, the eternal Covenant of Redemption between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit before creation, unfolding through history. The various covenants God makes with creation (Noah), individuals and Israel, are all connected to the overarching Covenant of Redemption.

The Reformed tradition that grew out of the Protestant Reformation. emphasized six guiiding principles for interpretation.

1. Sola Scripture. Scripture alone is the highest authority ofr faith and practice.
2. Christ-Centered. All of Scripture ultimately points to and is fulfilled in Christ (Luke 24:27).
3. Analogy of Scripture. Scripture interprets Scriputre; clear passages shed light on less clear ones.
4. Literal but Contextual Readinng. The Bible is read according to its plain sense, respecting grammar, history, and literary form.
5. Covenantal Framework. The Bible is one unified covenant story, not a collection of disconnected writings.
6. Redemptive-Historical Focus. Every passage contributes to the unfolding plan of God's redemption in Christ.

The key hermeneutical methods are:

• Grammatical-Historical
• Redemptive-Historical

What does this entail?

The grammatical-historic method interprets Scripture by examining the meaning of words (grammar) in their original setting (history). It discovers what the author intended to Communicate to the original audience. It anchors interpretation in the text's plain sense.

The redemptive-historical method interprets Scripture in light of the overarching story of God's redemptive plan. Remember, Reformed hermeneutics considers all of the Bible to be one story; the historic progressing through history (the plan)) of the Covenant of Redemption before the world was created. This shows how each passage fits the covenantal drama that culminates in Christ. This method prevents moralistic or fragmented readings. It keeps Christ and the gospel at the center.

The grammatical-historical meaning comes first. What did the passage mean then and there? Then the redemptive- historical asks how does this meaning fit within the larger drama of redemption.

After this is done, we can draw out principles that are timeless truths for God's people. Having done that, those truth's (theological principles) can be applied to the believer and the church, without compromising or contradicting anything else in Scripture., or misapplying it by treating it as an isolated statement.

Why? Because it comes out of a solid foundation with Christ as the Rock upon which it is built. It is exactly what the apostles did when they interpreted OT scriptures.

There is no other hermeneutic that does this, and yet, those who scoff at Reformation theology, do that scoffing without even knowing how it came to be.

.

Nicely explained. Amen!

 

[Carbon]

Well said.

If I may add two points: 1) The classic, Protestant (and thereby Reformed) hermeneutic holds the Old Testament informs the New Testament but it is the New that explains the Old. This is a precept rejected in Dispensational Premillennialism, and 2) It is incomplete to talk about Dispensationalism as if it exists apart from its conjoined premillennial eschatology and separated ecclesiology. We use the word "Dispensationalism" as a standalone label, but the greater truth is there is no Dispensationalism apart from its version of premillennialism and both are radical departures from everything taught about the study of scripture throughout Christian history. The Calvinist redemptive-historical hermeneutic is not a radical departure from historical Christianity, but a return to and affirmation of it.

Amen!

 

[EarlyActs]

Study of the Bible is quite different than Bible Study as in a Bible study group associated with a particular congregation. I have been in a lot of Bible studies over the years, and not a single one of them actually studied the Bible. With one exception and that was a Calvinistic church. However, it was not Reformed (Covenant theology) but Dispensational. Which I was eschatologically, at the time. It adhered to the Doctrines of Grace and referred to itself as Calvinism. However, Calvin was not dispensational but Reformed (a covenant framework of Bible interpretation.) So, it was a misnomer to say they were Calvinist. Nothing can be done about that. At least it identifies them as holding to the DoG.

Since Dispensationalism uses a different hermeneutic, (and I strongly believe that is not a correct biblical hermeneutic) in an actual study of the Bible, it is not just the end times and last days, that would be off, but most of their interpretation of the OT would be.

If we are going to do a study of the Bible, we must do so with a correct Bible hermeneutic. So, let's look at the classical hermeneutic used in Reformed theology. Just a note, it is called Reformed because it is the theology and doctrinal statements that came out of the Reformation as Protestants broke away from the heresies in the RCC.

Hermeneutics is the study of the principles and methods of interpreting texts, especially the Bible.

Reformed theology uses a covenantal structure. It does not view the Bible as a collection of isolated stories or as God dealing with/relating to humanity in different time periods. It sees the Bible as a unified covenantal drama, the eternal Covenant of Redemption between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit before creation, unfolding through history. The various covenants God makes with creation (Noah), individuals and Israel, are all connected to the overarching Covenant of Redemption.

The Reformed tradition that grew out of the Protestant Reformation. emphasized six guiiding principles for interpretation.

1. Sola Scripture. Scripture alone is the highest authority ofr faith and practice.
2. Christ-Centered. All of Scripture ultimately points to and is fulfilled in Christ (Luke 24:27).
3. Analogy of Scripture. Scripture interprets Scriputre; clear passages shed light on less clear ones.
4. Literal but Contextual Readinng. The Bible is read according to its plain sense, respecting grammar, history, and literary form.
5. Covenantal Framework. The Bible is one unified covenant story, not a collection of disconnected writings.
6. Redemptive-Historical Focus. Every passage contributes to the unfolding plan of God's redemption in Christ.

The key hermeneutical methods are:

• Grammatical-Historical
• Redemptive-Historical

What does this entail?

The grammatical-historic method interprets Scripture by examining the meaning of words (grammar) in their original setting (history). It discovers what the author intended to Communicate to the original audience. It anchors interpretation in the text's plain sense.

The redemptive-historical method interprets Scripture in light of the overarching story of God's redemptive plan. Remember, Reformed hermeneutics considers all of the Bible to be one story; the historic progressing through history (the plan)) of the Covenant of Redemption before the world was created. This shows how each passage fits the covenantal drama that culminates in Christ. This method prevents moralistic or fragmented readings. It keeps Christ and the gospel at the center.

The grammatical-historical meaning comes first. What did the passage mean then and there? Then the redemptive- historical asks how does this meaning fit within the larger drama of redemption.

After this is done, we can draw out principles that are timeless truths for God's people. Having done that, those truth's (theological principles) can be applied to the believer and the church, without compromising or contradicting anything else in Scripture., or misapplying it by treating it as an isolated statement.

Why? Because it comes out of a solid foundation with Christ as the Rock upon which it is built. It is exactly what the apostles did when they interpreted OT scriptures.

There is no other hermeneutic that does this, and yet, those who scoff at Reformation theology, do that scoffing without even knowing how it came to be.

.

The analogy of Scripture line is actually about 4 principles, according B Ramm.

Also, if this grew out of the Reformation, then did D’ism grow out of Catholicism. The D’ists usually say that a view that ignores the race-nation of Israel is of Catholic origin, and was not ‘fixed’ by the Reformation.

 

[EarlyActs]

In the "modern" (last two hundred years or so) innovative Christianity, whatever is new rules the day, and that was the appeal of Dispensationalism. That, plus the simple logic of dotting-the-I's-and-don't-think-no-further, doesn't require anything except to listen to someone who has line and seems sure of himself.

“Someone who has line”?

The D’ists I’ve read say they are the apostolic method; that ignoring the race-nation of Israel is a temporary step while Gentiles are being saved but which matters in the future. To permanently ignore it is Catholic to them,

This causes them to resist treating Acts 2:30, 31 as genuinely Davidic; they expect the world to be ruled from Jerusalem by Christ.

 

[Josheb]

In the "modern" (last two hundred years or so) innovative Christianity, whatever is new rules the day, and that was the appeal of Dispensationalism. That, plus the simple logic of dotting-the-I's-and-don't-think-no-further, doesn't require anything except to listen to someone who has line and seems sure of himself.

The first clause is incorrect, imo, but the rest is true.

There is an appearance modern futurism "rules the day," but as far as what Christians report believing according to polls Dispensational Premillennialism is not the majority viewpoint. It does not "rule" the minds or hearts of anyone but modern futurists and according to polls and research they amount for only a third of self-identifying Christians. That means two-thirds of Christians disagree with modern futurism. Those of us who've been Christians for more than two decades may recall when Reformed Theology had a resurgence and the resurgence was considered a fad. Surges and resurgences happen. They are usually temporary. They do not "rule" in any enduring way any more than modern futurism rules in numbers or normalcy (statistical and normative norms). The appearance of numerical superiority occurs because they dominate media (cable, television, radio, and to a lesser degree, social media). The most prominent Christian radio station in my area (and one of the largest in the nation) is WAVA. Its programming is overwhelmingly dominated by modern futurists, giving the appearance that viewpoint is synonymous with Christianity. It is one of the reasons I, and most of the former Dispies here) were unwitting Dispies. I did not know there was any alternative position in Christendom. R. C. Sproul was one of the few Reformed thinkers on that station and when he died he was not replaced with another RTer . Not only was the void in RT not filled BUT no one with his prowess examining scripture replaced him, either. By comparison, Sproul was far superior to every other preacher on that station. The entire Christian community, futurist or not, suffered a grievous loss when Sproul died. He was methodical. He was thoroughly Reformed but also frequently included judgment-free commentary pertaining to how other povs read the text of whatever scripture he was covering.

Here's an experiment everyone here can enjoin, and I encourage all to try it: List to your local station for a day and listen for whan any teacher says something like, "This verse says X, Y, and Z ........ Write it down. Then go get out your Bible and see if what the preacher said the verse says is what the verse actually states.

The results will be appalling if the exercise is applied to multiple preachers because media preachers constantly make scripture say things it does not state .

And there's little to no accountability.


As the op observes, hermeneutics matter. Generally speaking, everyone (regardless of theological orientation) is working from a grammatical-historical hermeneutic but it gets combined with some other model (like the Dispensationalist or Redemptive models). Even Liberals and liberals (including those in the Jesus Seminar ) work from a basic grammatical-historical hermeneutic. Hugely different results ensue when different additions to that model are used. Underneath the hermeneutical models are supposed to be the rules of exegesis. They do not vary from model to model but those using one model or another either emphasize one rule at the expense of another, or they are inconsistent with the rules altogether. Everyone here has dealt with the modern futurist hermeneutical requirement to read scripture literally. All of us non-futurists have challenged a futurist about their inconsistency and every futurist has been on the receiving end of that challenge. The word "near" means near! How many Christian head would explode if the translators used the word "nearby" to remove all ambiguity?

Exegesis is supposed to be a scientific methodology applicable to all forms of literature.

The problems arise because exegesis is not easy. The basics are easy, but the more rules one applies, and the more consistently they are applied, the more challenging the examination. Every single mistake every single theologian has ever made can be traced back to at least one inconsistency in exegesis. This is why most "Bible studies" do not actually study the Bible. That's acceptable i most cases because the average proverbial Bible study is not intended to do so. They are intended to familiarize the participants with scripture and provide a means of fellowship for all. In order to study the Bible a person first has to have some structure for doing so. Hermeneutics and exegesis matter. @Arial has been Reformed for awhile but she's recently been reading books applying the redemptive model and we can all observe how doing so has (commendably) influenced her posts. We've been witnesses to how a hermeneutic positively influences understanding . When we read modern futurists we observe how a hermeneutic can adversely affect understanding .

 

[Arial]

The analogy of Scripture line is actually about 4 principles, according B Ramm.

Also, if this grew out of the Reformation, then did D’ism grow out of Catholicism. The D’ists usually say that a view that ignores the race-nation of Israel is of Catholic origin, and was not ‘fixed’ by the Reformation.

Let's look at the Dispensational hermeneutic, contrasting it in brief with the Reformed.

Before I make the contrast, I will list the five hermeneutical points of Dispensationalism.

1. Literal Interpretation (always grammatical- historical)
2. Distinction between Israel and the Church
3. Progressive revelation through dispensations
4. Emphasis on eschatological fulfillment
5. Doctrinal consistency across Scripture.

A note here that by doctrinal consistency they do not mean the same thing as Reformed does. To D'ism it means God's faithfulness across all administrations (dispensations). It sees the Abrahamic, Davidic, and the New Covenant as remaining binding on Israel and await future fulfillment. In the Reformed hermeneutic it actually means consistency from beginning to end with Christ the center and focus. In none of the above five points is Christ even mentioned.

Dispensational: Literal, plain-sense interpretation across all Scripture. It means exactly what it says (prophecies, promises, and covenants) in the original context.
Reformed: Uses a grammatical-historical method, but the emphasis is on how each passage fits the unfolding story (plan) of the Covenant of Redemption, in Christ.

As to Israel and the Church:
Dispensational: Clear and ongoing distinction.
Israel: God's earthly people with land/kingdom promises.
Chruch: a mystery revealed in the NT, God's heavenly
people.
Reformed: Unity of God's people across covenants.
OT Israel foreshadows the NT church.
Promises to Israel are fulfilled in Christ and extended to
Jew and Gentile together in the church. That is the
Mystery that is revealed in the NT.


As to Covenants:
Dispensational: OT covenants (Abrahamic, Davidic, New) are unconditional and await literal fulfillment in Israel.
Reformed: All covenants unfold under the Covenant of Redemption by grace, is fulfilled in Christ. The church (Jew
and Gentile alike) inherits the promises as the true Israel of
God.

As to Dispensations vs. Redemptive Epochs
Dispensational: History divided into distinct dispensations,
each a stewardship with unique responsibilities.
Reformed: History understood as unfolding epochs of the one plan of redemption. The focus is continuity in Christ as the climax of God's saving purpose.

As to Eschatology:
Dispensational: Strongly premillennial.
Future, literal 1,000-year reign of Christ on earth. (Note,
this is the first time Christ appears in the Dispensational ' view.)
Israel restored to land and prominence as a nation.
Rapture (usually pre-trib) distinct from Christ's second
coming.
Reformed: Typically, amillennial or postmillennial.
Christ reigns now through the church.
No future restoration of national Israel.
Christ's second coming ushers in final judgment,
resurrection, and restoration of all things.

As to Application:
Dispensational: The application of scripture is drawn after establishing the original plain-sense meaning for Israel, the church, or the future kingdom.
Reformed: The application flows from how a text reveals Christ and redemption and then extends to the life of the believer and church today.

After I have a bit of a break, I will go through the seven dispensations with a few bullet points, one by one, in separate posts so commenting will be more contained to the crucial points of each. In doing that, it will leave a wealth of possibility of disputing the very notion of a dispensational hermeneutical framework; and to do so with the Bible itself, as well as the "ism's" own shortcoming in establishing the validity of their claim before using it. I look forward to all those "great minds" out there bringing their perspectives and scripture backup.

If any Dispensationalist weigh in, and I look forward to that as discussion, not fight, it will be important that you begin supporting your view by providing evidence for each dispensation in order. As opposed to picking say, the one pertaining to eschatology, because you have your defense of that down pat. It is my assertion that the others have to be "proven" from dispensational view first. The end time view of a pre trib, pre mil, interpretation will not stand alone as valid unless the others are first proved valid.

 

[makesends]

“Someone who has line”?

The D’ists I’ve read say they are the apostolic method; that ignoring the race-nation of Israel is a temporary step while Gentiles are being saved but which matters in the future. To permanently ignore it is Catholic to them,

This causes them to resist treating Acts 2:30, 31 as genuinely Davidic; they expect the world to be ruled from Jerusalem by Christ.

Being dogmatic about a thing doesn't make that thing true, but it can convince others not to look further, (or to follow only the reasoning that convinced the one who is dogmatic).

 

[makesends]

The first clause is incorrect, imo, but the rest is true.

The first clause was a hyperbolic generalization.

There is an appearance modern futurism "rules the day," but as far as what Christians report believing according to polls Dispensational Premillennialism is not the majority viewpoint. It does not "rule" the minds or hearts of anyone but modern futurists and according to polls and research they amount for only a third of self-identifying Christians. That means two-thirds of Christians disagree with modern futurism. Those of us who've been Christians for more than two decades may recall when Reformed Theology had a resurgence and the resurgence was considered a fad. Surges and resurgences happen. They are usually temporary. They do not "rule" in any enduring way any more than modern futurism rules in numbers or normalcy (statistical and normative norms). The appearance of numerical superiority occurs because they dominate media (cable, television, radio, and to a lesser degree, social media). The most prominent Christian radio station in my area (and one of the largest in the nation) is WAVA. Its programming is overwhelmingly dominated by modern futurists, giving the appearance that viewpoint is synonymous with Christianity. It is one of the reasons I, and most of the former Dispies here) were unwitting Dispies. I did not know there was any alternative position in Christendom. R. C. Sproul was one of the few Reformed thinkers on that station and when he died he was not replaced with another RTer . Not only was the void in RT not filled BUT no one with his prowess examining scripture replaced him, either. By comparison, Sproul was far superior to every other preacher on that station. The entire Christian community, futurist or not, suffered a grievous loss when Sproul died. He was methodical. He was thoroughly Reformed but also frequently included judgment-free commentary pertaining to how other povs read the text of whatever scripture he was covering.

Here's an experiment everyone here can enjoin, and I encourage all to try it: List to your local station for a day and listen for whan any teacher says something like, "This verse says X, Y, and Z ........ Write it down. Then go get out your Bible and see if what the preacher said the verse says is what the verse actually states.

The results will be appalling if the exercise is applied to multiple preachers because media preachers constantly make scripture say things it does not state .

And there's little to no accountability.


As the op observes, hermeneutics matter. Generally speaking, everyone (regardless of theological orientation) is working from a grammatical-historical hermeneutic but it gets combined with some other model (like the Dispensationalist or Redemptive models). Even Liberals and liberals (including those in the Jesus Seminar ) work from a basic grammatical-historical hermeneutic. Hugely different results ensue when different additions to that model are used. Underneath the hermeneutical models are supposed to be the rules of exegesis. They do not vary from model to model but those using one model or another either emphasize one rule at the expense of another, or they are inconsistent with the rules altogether. Everyone here has dealt with the modern futurist hermeneutical requirement to read scripture literally. All of us non-futurists have challenged a futurist about their inconsistency and every futurist has been on the receiving end of that challenge. The word "near" means near! How many Christian head would explode if the translators used the word "nearby" to remove all ambiguity?

Exegesis is supposed to be a scientific methodology applicable to all forms of literature.

The problems arise because exegesis is not easy. The basics are easy, but the more rules one applies, and the more consistently they are applied, the more challenging the examination. Every single mistake every single theologian has ever made can be traced back to at least one inconsistency in exegesis. This is why most "Bible studies" do not actually study the Bible. That's acceptable i most cases because the average proverbial Bible study is not intended to do so. They are intended to familiarize the participants with scripture and provide a means of fellowship for all. In order to study the Bible a person first has to have some structure for doing so. Hermeneutics and exegesis matter. @Arial has been Reformed for awhile but she's recently been reading books applying the redemptive model and we can all observe how doing so has (commendably) influenced her posts. We've been witnesses to how a hermeneutic positively influences understanding . When we read modern futurists we observe how a hermeneutic can adversely affect understanding .

Agreed. But...

One problem that even the most thorough exegete has, is his own basic assumptions about the nature of reality.

 

[Arial]

I have a slightly different understanding of it—and I am open to correction—namely, that grammatical-historical exegesis uncovers the text's meaning in its immediate literary and historical context, while a redemptive-historical hermeneutic interprets that meaning in relation to the whole storyline of scripture and its fulfillment in Christ. In this scheme, (a) hermeneutics gives the framework, that is, the rules and principles for reading scripture; (b) exegesis applies those rules to a specific passage, working through language, context, and history; (c) interpretation is the outcome, the meaning that we finally grasp and articulate.

• (a) blueprint, (b) construction, (c) completed house.

Redemptive-historical + grammatical-historical + canonical + theological are natural partners in Reformed exegesis. The redemptive-historical, grammatical-historical, canonical, and theological (analogia fidei) hermeneutics converge as natural allies, grounding interpretation in real history, honoring the text's grammar and context, situating each passage within the canon, and upholding the unity of scripture, all while directing the reader ultimately to Christ himself.

I agree with this. though I don't exactly see how it is a different understanding of the hermeneutical method. Isn't it just more detail?

 

[Josheb]

The first clause was a hyperbolic generalization.

Agreed. But...

There is not "But...."

One problem that even the most thorough exegete has, is his own basic assumptions about the nature of reality.

No, thorough exegetes do not have that problem. You have that problem AND you have a difficult time letting go of that problem. This is why you have such difficulties with my replies to your ops. I often approach things in discussion boards presuppositionally. Many do not know how to examine their own unstated, unrecognized "assumptions" (as you put it). It's why you're not sure anything can be known, and nothing can be known fully. These are all epistemological problems humans have addressed centuries ago, resolved many of the dilemmas, corrected many of the mistakes, and thereby continue to grow in knowledge, wisdom, and understanding NOT nihilism and perpetual doubt. It's why you had such problems with my set of very, very basic inquiries in the "smoky, dark, thickness" thread. Asking you to prove doctrine induces incomplete thoughts caused problems. The question is not the cause of the problem. The problem is the inability to explain the assumption (or at least a lack of preparation to do so). The net result, once eventually engaged, turned out the problem was one of a poorly worded truth claim. Doctrines do not induce incomplete thoughts..... what people do with doctrine causes incomplete thoughts! Examining your assumption cured that particular incomplete thought! That incomplete thought was replaced with a completed one: Let's discuss what people do with the doctrine of divine simplicity.

Great. Before we start, how about we establish a shared understanding of that doctrine?

What? jibqberzishab! You/;nonklsequitfberjiblberRishW. How about owqubERedTivherhdPringef:K?​

No. How about we establish what the doctrine teaches be fore proceeding? Can you provide me with a source for what was posted, because I would like to better understand that content.

Knowledge and understanding are impossible. Doctrine induces speculation. Knowledge and reason are insufficient for making self-assured claims and even the best exegete has problems with his own basic assumptions.​

No. You have those problems and assume everyone else does AND you're unwilling to consider that possibility.

I do not think as fast as you and I do not want to bicker.​

No one is bickering. I asked a few very basic questions that are intentionally designed for you to examine your assumptions. They are intended for you to address the problem you say we all have! No bickering would occur at all if the questions asked were answered when asked to the best of your ability. You will then find it is possible to shed assumptions, start with actual axioms instead of assumptions, and prompt much more functional and efficacious discussions once that happens. It is not easy. It is possible. Try it sometime.


And I will respectfully suggest, lest it be thought I am unduly critical, what you're going through as you wrestle with the problems of time, causality, and epistemology isn't actually a problem. It's simply developmental and the more you confront your own assumptions, engage what can be known, and put up with the likes of me, the more likely it is you'll learn Post 57 is correct. More courageous engagement shortens the process, too. It has nothing to do with how fast one thinks or how much confidence a person possesses. None of us are starting from scratch. The wisest of us are building on centuries worth of work by others.

The most thorough exegetes exclude their assumptions about the nature of reality other than the presuppositions something rather than nothing can be known and that supposition is readily inferred from both explicit and implicit assertions of scripture.



Why study the Bible if its contents are unknowable? Why post anything if knowledge does not exist, no understanding of reality is possible, and no one can get past their assumptions?

 

[Arial]

The seven dispensations in Dispensationalism. (Most traditional dispensational teaching). These are said t be ways inwhich God deals with manking in different timeperiods. Each concerns a responsibility, a failure, and a judgement.

1. Innocence: Creation to the fall (Gen 1-3).

• Responsibility: Adam and Eve to obey God's command and not eat from the tree.
• Failure: They disobeyed and as a result sin and death came into the world.
• Judgment: Expulsion from Eden.

What, according to Scripture is wrong with looking at creation and the fall as a dispensation?

I say, it had nothing to do with a specific time period in which man was innocent, had certain responsibilities unique to that period, failed those unique responsibilities and received a one time, just for them, judgement. And that having completed that, God moved on to the second time period, with different responsibilities. And so on and so on.

All of the responsibilities that God gave to Adam and Eve stand for mankind to this day. They have not changed, and the fall did not diminish them as our responsibilities.

Gen 1:27-30 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he creat4d them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so.

In Gen 2, we have the fall of mankind---not just Adam and Eve (Rom 5:12) and they are forbidden access to the Tree of Life. In Gen 3 God curses the serpent and makes a covenant promise. Gen 3:14-15 The Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall crush your head, and you shall bruise his heel" This is a covenantal promise of redemption. Not only of fallen man but of the entire creation that was subjected to futility because of our corruption.

The he cursed the woman, the man, and creation (Gen 3:16-19).

The second dispensation in Dispensationalism begins with chapter 4 (to be discussed in next post). Chapter four begins with the account of Cain and Able. There is no break in the storyline, and no logical reason to make it a whole other dispensation with different responsibilities, different failures, a different judgment. Gen 1-2 is the story of creation from two different perspectives. One dealing with the creation of everything establishing God as the Creator, King, Govenor; everyhting comes from him and is subject to him, has its existence in him. He is God and there is no other. He is perfect in all his ways. The second is more detail oriented.

Chapter 3 shows how humanity and this world came to be in the state in which it now is. These things were first revealed to Moses and given to the congregation of those God brought out of Egypt---a shadow redemption promised centuries before to Abraham--the assurance of all the covenantal promises made in the future. The original hearers did not know about creation or the fall or Abraham, the land promise, the covenant.

We know from NT revelation that Christ participated in creation. We know from NT revelation that Christ is that seed of the woman. We know from the genealogies given, that the Bible itself in the OT is focused on this Seed of Gen 3:15. In the dispensations, we do see Christ show up until #5 Law and then in reference to Acts 1, and again as being for national Israel. He doesn't show up again until #7 Kingdom (millennial reign) and again pertaining only to national Israel.

In just the first four chapters of Scripture it is obvious that one continuous story is being told. No other book would ever be read as though it was broken into dispensations, but it would be read as a unity. Why do that with the most important book and story of all?

 

[John Bauer]

I agree with this. though I don't exactly see how it is a different understanding of the hermeneutical method. Isn't it just more detail?

I guess you could say that. I was just trying to clearly identify and articulate the difference and relationships between (a) hermeneutics, (b) exegesis, and (c) interpretation. I agree that a study of the Bible must employ a correct Bible hermeneutic—a nod to your opening post—but exegesis and interpretation are also crucial to that study. There is also more than the two hermeneutics you mentioned, so I briefly identified two additional ones and how these four integrate to produce a Reformed interpretation.

 

[makesends]

There is not "But...."

No, thorough exegetes do not have that problem. You have that problem AND you have a difficult time letting go of that problem. This is why you have such difficulties with my replies to your ops. I often approach things in discussion boards presuppositionally. Many do not know how to examine their own unstated, unrecognized "assumptions" (as you put it). It's why you're not sure anything can be known, and nothing can be known fully.

This is a little amazing from someone who detests the word, "you", in posts.

You have misrepresented me here. I know that all things are known by God and known fully by him. I also know that a great many things can be known by us ignorant blind humans. But you are correct that I don't believe anything is known fully by us, until we are glorified. I do know that we can be certain of many things, which confidence is certainly applicable to anything that God says. But being certain of a fact isn't the same as fully knowing that fact.

These are all epistemological problems humans have addressed centuries ago, resolved many of the dilemmas, corrected many of the mistakes, and thereby continue to grow in knowledge, wisdom, and understanding NOT nihilism and perpetual doubt. It's why you had such problems with my set of very, very basic inquiries in the "smoky, dark, thickness" thread. Asking you to prove doctrine induces incomplete thoughts caused problems. The question is not the cause of the problem. The problem is the inability to explain the assumption (or at least a lack of preparation to do so). The net result, once eventually engaged, turned out the problem was one of a poorly worded truth claim. Doctrines do not induce incomplete thoughts..... what people do with doctrine causes incomplete thoughts! Examining your assumption cured that particular incomplete thought!

Yes, as I have stated repeatedly. Are we beating a dead horse, here?

That incomplete thought was replaced with a completed one: Let's discuss what people do with the doctrine of divine simplicity.
Great. Before we start, how about we establish a shared understanding of that doctrine?

My OP was never intended as a treatise on Divine Simplicity. It was only to reference a facet of it that I consider poorly represented in modern Christendom, and would like to hear from members here, thoughts on the question.

What? jibqberzishab! You/;nonklsequitfberjiblberRishW. How about owqubERedTivherhdPringef:K?​

No. How about we establish what the doctrine teaches be fore proceeding? Can you provide me with a source for what was posted, because I would like to better understand that content.

Knowledge and understanding are impossible. Doctrine induces speculation. Knowledge and reason are insufficient for making self-assured claims and even the best exegete has problems with his own basic assumptions.​

No. You have those problems and assume everyone else does AND you're unwilling to consider that possibility.

I do not think as fast as you and I do not want to bicker.​

No one is bickering.

Ok.

I asked a few very basic questions that are intentionally designed for you to examine your assumptions. They are intended for you to address the problem you say we all have! No bickering would occur at all if the questions asked were answered when asked to the best of your ability. You will then find it is possible to shed assumptions, start with actual axioms instead of assumptions, and prompt much more functional and efficacious discussions once that happens. It is not easy. It is possible. Try it sometime.

Josh, I'll repeat this yet again. You've heard it before, in different words. Things don't need to progress according to your meter. Yours is not the measure of civil and intelligent, cogent conversation.

And I will respectfully suggest, lest it be thought I am unduly critical, what you're going through as you wrestle with the problems of time, causality, and epistemology isn't actually a problem. It's simply developmental and the more you confront your own assumptions, engage what can be known, and put up with the likes of me, the more likely it is you'll learn Post 57 is correct. More courageous engagement shortens the process, too. It has nothing to do with how fast one thinks or how much confidence a person possesses. None of us are starting from scratch. The wisest of us are building on centuries worth of work by others.

The most thorough exegetes exclude their assumptions about the nature of reality other than the presuppositions something rather than nothing can be known and that supposition is readily inferred from both explicit and implicit assertions of scripture.

Why study the Bible if its contents are unknowable? Why post anything if knowledge does not exist, no understanding of reality is possible, and no one can get past their assumptions?

Strawman, and unrelated to the subject of the OP.