Hermeneutics: the right questions, the right answers

[Guest]

Mark,

You wrote (although you said you were finished posting here several weeks ago):

"Considering the reformation was the clearest and most blessed time in Church history, for which none of us would even be Christians today, is it really wise to just make those involved out as being overly concerned about such things?"


I believe that you may romanticize the Reformation as you say we romanticize the primitive church. I doubt that you or I would wish to live during those days. The leaders of the Reformation were persecuted and hounded by the Roman Catholics, and then they themselves did the same thing to others, with whom they disagreed. There was the peasant revolt (sparked by Luther's influence) and then there was Luther condemning that revolt, recommending in his tracts that the peasants should be crushed and slaughtered. Zwingli took the same approach to the Anabaptists. Calvin did the same to Servetus. It was not the glorious period that you imagine it to have been...unlike the original apostolic church.

You wrote:

"Man, if we could only grasp a small glimpse of what those guys had!
Yet, some here want to judge them like they were bringing up such non Biblical ideas as regeneration preceding faith etc. Incredible really."

These men were, no doubt, commendably courageous, but I don't see how that exempts them from criticism of their doctrines or of their emphasis. They were products of their times, much as we are products of our own times. Different emphases are deemed appropriate in the eyes of Christians living in different eras. I am not sure that the reformers were the greatest Christians to come along since the apostles, nor am I willing to place their ideas above the reach of biblical assessment and cross-examination. There would seem no reason for us to idolize them.

[_Rick_C]

Alrighty then, the idea that regeneration precedes faith has no biblical warrant based upon the notion that no one ever discusses it, debates it, mentions it even. Is that the challenge?

I don't know if you're familiar with Roger Olson. I would imagine you are, if you follow "USA debates" on Arm/Calv as Olson has had strong disagreements with Michael Horton (which was one reason Olson wrote his recently released (2006) book: Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (see the new "CWS" thread for further info).

I listened to Olson's CWS presentation last night. In it he was talking about what he advises his students to do "to decide on" Arminianism and Calvinism. He recommended some books and that they should know their Bibles (yeah, that, anyway)!

He went on to say that they should pick the one that seems the best or has the best answers to their questions (and, of course, both Arminianism and Calvinism do have their problems). "Their" questions? (Ask the wrong question = wrong answer).....

While I agree more with Arminianism than Calvinism (by a long shot, but I really do NOT consider myself "Arminian") I have to disagree with Olson. It goes back to what I posted before. It seems to me that Calvinism and Arminianism are asking the wrong things...Post-Apostolic things that seem to be totally foreign to the worldview of the biblical authors (and, obviously, the people of the Bible). We need to ask the right questions! I mean, wouldn't that help us resolve things? or at least get us on our way?

The Reformers did great stuff to pull away from Rome. But CONTRA-Olson, I, by no means, have to "choose" which 16th century guy to follow. I refuse to see the Bible through a 16th century lens! THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS WRITTEN IN THE FIRST CENTURY: has anyone noticed this? "Historical-grammatical" they keep saying...bah-humbug!

And, sorry, but I still think N.T. Wright is not only onto something: To quote Aliester McGrath, "If Wright is right, Luther was wrong" (Wright thread coming soon)

If Roger Olson or anyone else thinks I have to be an Arminian "or" Calvinist; they need a history lesson! Um, those guys weren't even alive when Paul and the NT people were. And if seeing the New Testament (and Bible) in its real setting and interpreting its actual meaning is anathema...so be it! Calvin, Arminius, and all them other boys weren't POPES.

HERE I STAND!

FIRST CENTURY JUDAISM BASED New Testament exegesis!
Mark, ^^^ that ^^^ is THE Challenge.
Real historical-grammatical exegesis plus and minus nothing, imo.

Rant over, thanks,
Rick

[_Rick_C]

Hello Bob

Quote: "We know that, since the Reformation, people have been saying (and debating about) these things. But no one in the Bible did, that I know of."

Well, maybe not in the Bible. But the Rabbi's did and had their own schools of thought on many subjects; i.e., salvation, messiah, resurrection, etc... I am trying to find some good sources for a better understanding of the Hebraic sense or nuances in scripture. Can you recommend any? If we are really trying to capture the 1st century understanding of Jesus and the Apostles, it seems it would be helpful
to have a Hebrew perspective. Amen?

Aaaaaaamen!

Josephus, writing to a primarily Gentile audience, described the various sects of first century Judaism as comparable to certain Greek philosophical schools; he made something like "parallels" between what the philosophers and they believed. The question of "Fate and free will" was something the philosophers had long been asking.

He wrote, "The Pharisees ascribe all things to fate and God, yet allow that to do what is right or the contrary is principally in man's own power, although fate cooperates in every action"; the Sadducees denied "fate" altogether and believed in absolute free will; and that, to the Essenes "....all things are left in the hand of God."

The Essenes, it would seem, were kind of like or similar to the Stoics who were fatalistic (determinists, where everything in life is predetermined or...."predestined"....Have you seen this word in the Bible)? Yes! Paul used it.

Now, imo, just because a philosophical term is used by Josephus or in the Bible; this doesn't mean that the sects of Judaism (which included "the followers of the way," the first Jewish-Christians) had a full endorsement of these philosophies. The Essenes weren't Stoics! though they were "like" them in some ways. When Paul wrote about predestination, etc., he was simply using words his hearers could immediately understand, as Gentiles in the first century really "knew" the philosophers. Was he laying out a philosophy of determinism? I don't think so, any more than Josephus said, "Essenes are Stoics."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why Christians are so "obsessed" with the Early Fathers when trying to find something out about the Bible confuses me. Sure, I read them too, to find out what traditions continued on, were modified, totally changed, or ignored!

Christians who always say, "I believe in the historical-grammatical method" but who do not study the ACTUAL FIRST CENTURY and the JEWISH CONTEXT...are to me a bit of a misnomer. It goes something like this, "Okay, we know Paul wrote this book to this people in this town at this time. Now, where's my prooftext?" (while completely ignoring how Paul's hearers would have understood his very words)! Frankly, I just don't follow this kind of "reasoning." This isn't all that "historical." And it's, um, not very reasonable, imo....

Scholars like N.T. Wright delve deeply into first century (and earlier) Jewish writings such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the writings of Philo of Alexandria, etc. Here we have more direct "parallels" and, within the Jewish community itself (yes, the NT authors were Jewish and/or adherents of Judaism, if Luke was a convert or God-fearer before he became a Christian).

I study Intertestamental (and earlier Jewish) literature also. Why? Weren't the contemporaries of Jesus and the Apostles, like, that? If I really wanted to know, for example, about the Civil War in the US...I could ask people who are alive today about it, ask what they know. To get more information I might read post-war historians from about 1900. But if I had access to the actual writings of the people who were in the Civil War, and studied what "their world" was all about...I could learn the inside story.

I do the same thing with the Bible. Jewish and/or Jewish-Christian writings of the NT Era itself yield more (much much more) inside information than, um, Gentile guys who weren't there at the time...And who, also, may not have understood "how the Jewish mind thought." The NT appeared in its context. When I know that context I can interpret it much more accurately.

Jesus taught against certain Essene regulations on marriage (he spoke to contemporary issues and wasn't just making things up)! Did you know Essenes were all over the place when Jesus lived? and that "the poor" mentioned in Acts may have actually been Essenes? Jesus' teaching on "love your enemies" was a direct rebuttal to "hate your enemies" in one of the Dead Sea Scrolls (where it was seen as a commandment of God). The room the Last Supper was held in was part of an Essene monastery. Some Jews believed the Messiah would come to earth, but go back to heaven to reign for: 40, 400, 600, and, in Revelation, 1,000 years (before coming to earth again). Stuff like that....

The average person with a library card and a computer can find out more about First Century Judaism than the Early Fathers could!!!

Thanks Bob,
Rick

[Guest]

Rick,

You wrote:

The Reformers did great stuff to pull away from Rome. But CONTRA-Olson, I, by no means, have to "choose" which 16th century guy to follow.

Excellent point! A wise man once pointed out that the reformers ran so hard to escape Babylon that they ran right by Jerusalem in some respects.

You make another excellent point in that there is a significant difference in the way people of the east think and what they valued in biblical times, continuing to this day, as compared to our western, individualist way of seeing things.

[Guest]

(although you said you were finished posting here several weeks ago)

And we both know why that came about.
Listen, do you want me to post here or not?

I shall not post further here at your board until I receive a reply.

Mark

[Guest]

I get the hint.
Mark

[Guest]

I get the hint.
Mark

Steve responded here: http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=1858

[Guest]

Oh, I just read it. Thanks Sean, you have only ever been a gentleman in our exchanges.

I have provided a final response in that same thread.

Blessings
Mark