Page 1 of 3

Hermeneutics: the right questions, the right answers

Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 2:39 am
by _Rick_C
Greetings,

This board is more or less a debate board; the title says as much. Iow, when we post "here" we are usually presenting a case for or against a doctrine or belief system within "Calvinism, Arminianism, or Open Theism" categories.

The thing of it is: what about those of us who don't subscribe to any of these systems of thought? For example, though I don't really believe in "Arminianism," I'm "more Arminian than Calvinist" (which I am not in any sense of meaning, that I know of). Many, if not most Calvinists would, therefore, see me as an "Arminian" by default. However, it doesn't essentially matter to me what guys in the 16th century thought: I'm not locked into any system of thinking (or any systematic theology)! Almost every Calvinist I have met thinks you HAVE to either be an Arminian OR a Calvinist! Once again, I don't subscribe to the worldview of 16th century thinkers. As a general principle of solid hermeneutics I base my views on the First Century and the worldview of the NT authors! (and, of course, of the other Bible writers in their own context as well)! I don't have to ask what 16th century thinkers asked, leave alone answer their questions---in either an Arminian or Calvinistic way. Now, I may arrive at conclusions that are, or may seem to be, compatible with one of these systems to greater or lesser degrees. But this doesn't mean that I "am" a Calvinist or an Arminian, or "in" any other camp or system of theology.

"Unquestioned answers are far more dangerous than unanswered questions," I've heard it said. (Why did I just post this)?

As I read and study the Bible, the laws of hermeneutics demand I read it from its own historical context, paying strict attention to the original authors' meaning and intention. If I ask the Bible something that was foreign to the Bible writers' thought (worldview); what would I be doing? I would be attempting to "force" the Bible authors -- and the Bible -- to answer a question it has no answer to! "Ask the wrong questions and you will get the wrong answers," I've also heard it said....

The question, "Does regeneration happen before -- or after -- faith?" is one that has been asked, perhaps, as early as Augustine. We know for sure it has been asked and hotly debated since the Reformation. But is this a biblical question? Iow, was this something the Bible writers really asked or had answers to? Did they even think about regeneration and saving-faith in terms of "Which order did they happen in?" categories?
Personally, I don't believe they did.

The biblical authors were Eastern by worldview, and, the Eastern mind can accept things that Western thought sees as either paradoxical or contradictory. And, of course, since the death of the last Apostle, the Church became predominantly Gentile (with its Western worldview) and began to ask -- and answer -- questions from a "Gentile framework" that was outside of the biblical (Jewish, first century and earlier) worldview. The post-NT Church wasn't "wrong" to ask questions that were being asked in their era any more than we are in error doing the same thing. I mean, people ask what they ask and wonder about answers.

But when any system of thought is placed "onto the Bible" in a way that "sections it into categories" that are totally foreign to it -- and essentially redefines it! by ignoring its historical context! -- the danger dramatically increases of arriving at conclusions:
FALSE conclusions to questions the Bible may NOT even address !!!

Enter: "proof-texting" and really (really) bad theology....

Thanks,
Rick

Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 5:36 pm
by __id_1887
Rick-

Which method of biblical hermeneutics do you use?

Here are some links and a quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical ... cal_method

http://www.xenos.org/CLASSES/principles ... ics.htm#a2

http://www.bible-interpretation.com/

The historical-grammatical method (also called grammatico-historical) is a component of biblical hermeneutics that strives to find the intended original meaning in the text. [1] This original intended meaning of the text is drawn out through examination of the passage in light of the grammatical and syntactical aspects, the historical background, the literary genre as well as theological (canonical) considerations.[2] The historical-grammatical method distinguishes between the one original meaning and the significance of the text. The significance of the text includes the ensuing use of the text or application.
(The quote is taken from the first link)

In Christ,

Haas

Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:35 pm
by _tartanarmy
Personally, I don't believe they did.
Why? and can you elaborate on this positive assertion of yours?

Mark

Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:23 pm
by _Paidion
Good post, Rick!

You are right, we don't have to be tied to any theological system.

It was because of second century Christian writers that I saw the error of my Calvinist ways as a teenager and continued to hold until I was about 24. No matter what scripture anyone brought up to the contrary, I was able to give it a Calvinistic interpretation. Then, through reading second-century Christian writings, I was struck to the heart, saw the error of my beliefs, and repented of the false doctrines of Calvinism which I held.

I begin to believe in the free will of man as the early Christians taught. I rejected the Calvinistic concept of "predestination" and "eternal security". Later, I began to see the contradiction in believing that anyone could know in advance what a free-will agent would choose. Not until last year did I realize that this was a teaching of "Open Theism". Indeed, I had never heard of Open Theism until last year. Then I began reading some of the Open Theism books, and realized that I had come to many of the same conclusions independently just by studying the Bible.

Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:26 pm
by __id_1887
Rick wrote:
As I read and study the Bible, the laws of hermeneutics demand I read it from its own historical context, paying strict attention to the original authors' meaning and intention. If I ask the Bible something that was foreign to the Bible writers' thought (worldview); what would I be doing? I would be attempting to "force" the Bible authors -- and the Bible -- to answer a question it has no answer to! "Ask the wrong questions and you will get the wrong answers," I've also heard it said....

Maybe we could put this into practice. I suggest we take a look at the Parable of the Sower found in Matthew 13:1-23 (Mark 4:1-20, and Luke 8:4-15). In each case Jesus addresses the people he is teaching, then he explains to the disciples why he is teaching in parables, and then he explains the parable. Also, Jesus quotes Isaiah 6:9 in all three gospel accounts. I think it would interesting to look closely at all of Isaiah 6 as well (being that Christ quoted Isaiah 6 each time).


In Christ,

Haas

Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:57 pm
by _Rick_C
Haas,
You wrote:Which method of biblical hermeneutics do you use?

Quote:
The historical-grammatical method (also called grammatico-historical) is a component of biblical hermeneutics that strives to find the intended original meaning in the text. [1] This original intended meaning of the text is drawn out through examination of the passage in light of the grammatical and syntactical aspects, the historical background, the literary genre as well as theological (canonical) considerations.[2] The historical-grammatical method distinguishes between the one original meaning and the significance of the text. The significance of the text includes the ensuing use of the text or application.
(The quote is taken from the first link)
I use Historical-Grammatical but am "critical" while doing it. By critical I mean I really try to get to the original meaning and am kind of "suspicious" of opinions -- especially and including my own -- that can't be demonstrated to come from the text (the authors themselves). I'm almost skeptical about anything I have been told or taught...and try to question everything from every angle (including what I think or believe I have learned too).

On [2], above. Agreed, with Wikipedia, that hermeneutics is incomplete without making life applications of the text for today. After we know, as best we can determine, what they meant back then; we then, need to see what that means for us now.

I differ from many in that I have a general distrust of systems of theology; preferring Biblical Theology over Systematic Theology as a rule. My main reason for this is that systematics tend to categorize the Bible into sections that sort of "chops it up." There's nothing wrong with systematizing beliefs or doctrines. I just try to make sure that when I systematize I'm not making a "mold" or "frame" that I lay over the Bible...I might only see parts of it. Biblical Theology seeks to let the whole Bible speak for itself...yeah, that!
I see you also wrote:Rick wrote:

Quote:
As I read and study the Bible, the laws of hermeneutics demand I read it from its own historical context, paying strict attention to the original authors' meaning and intention. If I ask the Bible something that was foreign to the Bible writers' thought (worldview); what would I be doing? I would be attempting to "force" the Bible authors -- and the Bible -- to answer a question it has no answer to! "Ask the wrong questions and you will get the wrong answers," I've also heard it said....

You replied:
Maybe we could put this into practice. I suggest we take a look at the Parable of the Sower found in Matthew 13:1-23 (Mark 4:1-20, and Luke 8:4-15). In each case Jesus addresses the people he is teaching, then he explains to the disciples why he is teaching in parables, and then he explains the parable. Also, Jesus quotes Isaiah 6:9 in all three gospel accounts. I think it would interesting to look closely at all of Isaiah 6 as well (being that Christ quoted Isaiah 6 each time).
Yes, this would be an interesting study and an example of doing hermeneutics...that's how to do it: Scripture interpreting Scripture....

What I think you may have missed is that, though I didn't specifically mention "Calvinism," I believe it is a system of theology that is "laid over the Bible" as I mentioned, above. Mark asked me a question that I will reply to soon. Actually, my reply won't be as much of a challenge to Calvinism, per se, as it will be "What does the Bible really say?" (open to answers from anyone, Calvinist or not).....

I gtg for now though...Paidion, will reply to you later too. Thanks.....................Rick

Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:19 pm
by _Rick_C
tartanarmy wrote:
Personally, I don't believe they did.
Why? and can you elaborate on this positive assertion of yours?

Mark
Yes, I can. But first:
I wrote:The question, "Does regeneration happen before -- or after -- faith?" is one that has been asked, perhaps, as early as Augustine. We know for sure it has been asked and hotly debated since the Reformation. But is this a biblical question? Iow, was this something the Bible writers really asked or had answers to? Did they even think about regeneration and saving-faith in terms of "Which order did they happen in?" categories?
Personally, I don't believe they did.
I've been looking for it (it's a challenge I've undertaken)...Would anyone else care to accept it? Accept what?, you may ask...(see below)....

I know of no place in the Bible where anyone ever asked:
1. "Does regeneration come before or after faith?"

In the Bible I've not read where:
2. Anybody said a single thing about "What order did they happen in?"

I have never seen in the Scriptures where:
3. These things were "issues" of concern (from Genesis to Revelation).

Tentatively, therefore, I present an argument that:
4. The people who wrote the Bible didn't think in EITHER Calvinistic OR non-Calvinistic (or Arminian) categories.

If it can be demonstrated they didn't (cannot be proven otherwise):
5. Why should we? (if we are serious about having a Biblical Worldview)?

There's my Challenge! to all of you Bible Scholars!

(Btw, I'm really looking for any evidences for this...haven't found a thing yet)....
Thanks,
Rick

Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:49 pm
by _Steve
I couldn't agree with you more, Rick. I don't think it ever crossed the minds of the apostles or Christ to address the issues that are the center of the debate between Calvinists and Arminians. It was only when Greek philosophical paradigms were wedded to Christian theology that this became a controversy in the church.

My reasons for responding to Calvinist arguments is really the same as my reason for presenting alternative views to that of the dispensationalists, namely, to allow those who push for the universal acceptance of these views to see that the scriptures can easily be seen more in harmony with historic Christianity than their novel systems would let on. I don't care even a little bit whether a man is a Calvinist, a dispensationalist, or an adherent to historic Christian beliefs--so long as he is following Jesus with all his heart and strength.

Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 12:46 am
by _Rick_C
Hi Steve...it's always great when you get a chance to come round these here parts :)
You wrote:I couldn't agree with you more, Rick. I don't think it ever crossed the minds of the apostles or Christ to address the issues that are the center of the debate between Calvinists and Arminians. It was only when Greek philosophical paradigms were wedded to Christian theology that this became a controversy in the church.
I couldn't agree with you more, Steve!

Some Calvinists readily admit their beliefs come straight from the philosophers and even "praise" them! Oh, yes! I have some sermons (someplace) by Calvinists who literally claim the philosophers were "inspired by God!" as did some Early Fathers (oO, Sola Scriptura?)! Take a quick click here: A Calvinist Guy's ESV page. See that? "Luther, TULIP, Zwingli, Knox, PLATO...ARISTOTLE"! (I know this guy, he's ex Assemblies of God & we went to the same college at diff times). He left for Calvinism, I left for Amillennialism (exactly as you mentioned in one of your lectures about the A/G man who said your "arguments (for amill) are reasonable but I'm not allowed to believe that")....sigh.......

Back on topic. Interesting, how the Catholics accepted Augustine's Ecclesiology but rejected his Soteriology...and how the Calvinists picked up on the latter (Augustine: we really could have done withOUT the Neo-Platonism & the remnants of your Manicheanism...but..I'm not Catholic, so I guess you didn't hear that).....
You also wrote:My reasons for responding to Calvinist arguments is really the same as my reason for presenting alternative views to that of the dispensationalists, namely, to allow those who push for the universal acceptance of these views to see that the scriptures can easily be seen more in harmony with historic Christianity than their novel systems would let on.
What you say about knowing "alternate views" is great! We should know them, get informed, open discussion, serious & civil debate (even), Amen!
I think I see what you mean by confronting (or debating) those who push for universal acceptance of their views. If they knew there were legitimate "other (reasonable) interpretations"...maybe they would be more open to dialog? or less likely to propagate (for lack of a better word)?

And I'm sure you've seen Calvinists quote Early Fathers who they think were "Calvinists." Yes, they have quotes from same Fathers that are quoted as "Non-Calvinists" (just pick yer Chapter & Section for the prooftexts), lol

What I try to target is the actual beliefs of Christ and the Apostles ("Was Peter Supralapsarian?" How could he be? hahaha). Of course, all Protestant Christians "say" they go by the Bible, and, whether or not Early Fathers believed this or that isn't really important in a primary sense (as all Protestants would agree). I do agree with you, though, that the majority of EFs were not "Calvinists."

Now, when people start going by the Philosophers...my goodness, what a Gentile mess! "PLATO! ARISTOTLE!" gimme a booo-rake!
Lastly, you wrote:I don't care even a little bit whether a man is a Calvinist, a dispensationalist, or an adherent to historic Christian beliefs--so long as he is following Jesus with all his heart and strength.
"What did Paul believe will happen during the Millennium?" j/k Steve ;)

I've heard you say (the above) before and it confuses me. I, too, think the main thing is to love God & follow Jesus. However, I, myself, do care when Christians believe things that I consider false (and especially so if it is heretical). I believe dispesationalism is heretical: But I don't think most dispensationalists know that. Calvinism might be a "theory" for Christians to "look back" on what happened in their salvation (I mean, I can understand it from this side of conversion and appreciate what it "wants" to say, though I still don't agree with it on technical points, which are many-many). At the same time, when Calvinism is presented to the unbelieving world -- at this point, is where I oppose it. (People might think they are rejecting God when they are rejecting Calvinism! Won't be an excuse for them on Judgment Day but...still).....

Can you clarify what you mean on this, please? (throws me off, some), lol

Always good to see you, Steve.......God bless...........Rick

Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 2:18 am
by __id_1887
Rick,

Paul lays out an order in Romans 8:29-30 (regeneration is not mentioned here). Do you think Paul, moved by the Holy Spirit, had a purpose for the order that is laid out?
Romans 8:29-30 (King James Version)
29For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Romans 8:29-30 (English Standard Version)
29For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Romans 8:29-30 (New American Standard Bible)
29For those whom He (A)foreknew, He also (B)predestined to become (C)conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the (D)firstborn among many brethren;
30and these whom He (E)predestined, He also (F)called; and these whom He called, He also (G)justified; and these whom He justified, He also (H)glorified
Romans 8:29-30 (New International Version)
29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

Romans 8:29-30 (Amplified Bible)
29For those whom He foreknew [of whom He was [a]aware and loved beforehand], He also destined from the beginning [foreordaining them] to be molded into the image of His Son [and share inwardly His likeness], that He might become the firstborn among many brethren.
30And those whom He thus foreordained, He also called; and those whom He called, He also justified (acquitted, made righteous, putting them into right standing with Himself). And those whom He justified, He also glorified [raising them to a heavenly dignity and condition or state of being].



Don't you think it would have been strange if the foreknew, predestined, called, justified, and glorified part would have been in a different order?


On another topic.

Rick wrote:

At the same time, when Calvinism is presented to the unbelieving world -- at this point, is where I oppose it. (People might think they are rejecting God when they are rejecting Calvinism! Won't be an excuse for them on Judgment Day but...still).....


I attend a church that preaches and teaches the doctrines of Grace. This summer alone I have heard three different testimonies from three different men at the church (two were guys I was having one-on-one conversations with and the third I heard on a cd from the men's conference). All three individuals where brought to church by either a spouse or one of their children.

I hear the pastor week in and week out preach expository messages. He also preaches the gospel (Matthew 4:17, Luke 13:1-5, Romans 3:23-25, Romans 6:23, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Romans 5:6-8, I John 4:10, Acts 17:30-31, Romans 10:9-13, Ephesians 2:8-10, etc.).

Back to these men. Each one expressed how they didn't want to be there. Two of them, separately, expressed that they couldn't stand the pastor and what he was saying. Then what?........God rocked their worlds! Just like he rocked mine, just like he rocked yours. They are cool with the pastor now and they are cool when they hear the Word. Praise God for His amazing grace.


1 Thessalonians 1:4-5
4 For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, 5 because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction.



Blessings in Christ,

Haas