 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/3/2004 3:16 PM (GMT -6) |   | Recently there was a thread about the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inspiration (CSI). From what I read on this forum, it seems to me that the non-OV'ers have a high view of scripture. I would like to get some feedback from the non-OV'ers from a hermeneutic perspective. Below are some statements from the CSI that I accept. If any of you OV'ers accept these statements, how, given those statements, do you find that a non-OV interpretation of scripture is inferior, hermeneutically, to an OV interpretation?
quote:
We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.
We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture.
We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
 |
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 12/3/2004 4:10 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose.
Hi Jeff,
To me, this sounds an awful lot like a thinly veiled hermeneutical trump card, by which an interpreter might just write off evaluations of Scripture that threaten his presuppositions.
quote:
We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.
Agreed.
quote:
We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture.
Me too.
quote:
We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.
I guess the only thing I would feel the need to qualify in the above statement is the phrase, "Scripture is to interpret Scripture." To my mind, this is an impossible task, rather like the proverbial dog chasing its tail. The "let Scripture interpret Scripture," if by that is meant we should take into consideration all the scriptural evidence available in the process of forming a biblical theology, then I would of course agree. However, all too often I've seen Calvinists and other non-OVers take this "principle" and use it to basically just ignore scriptures that didn't fit with their presuppositions. (E.g., the frequent anti-OVer use of "God is not a man, that he should lie, nor the son of man, that he should repent," as if the two instances in Scripture where God says that by definition rules out the dozens of passages in which God specifically says he does repent in some cases.
My 2c
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/3/2004 5:16 PM (GMT -6) | | John,
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Jeff,
To me, this sounds an awful lot like a thinly veiled hermeneutical trump card, by which an interpreter might just write off evaluations of Scripture that threaten his presuppositions.
I think, for an example, what is being said in that denial is that the so-called historical writings are not pure historical chronicles - that, rather, the authors selected material for theological purposes and, thus, the so-called discrepancies in accounts of similar time frames are not necessarily contradictory.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 12/3/2004 5:20 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
John,
quote:
However, all too often I've seen Calvinists and other non-OVers take this "principle" and use it to basically just ignore scriptures that didn't fit with their presuppositions. (E.g., the frequent anti-OVer use of "God is not a man, that he should lie, nor the son of man, that he should repent," as if the two instances in Scripture where God says that by definition rules out the dozens of passages in which God specifically says he does repent in some cases.
Right. So if scripture is internally consistent, we have to allow context to reconcile the "apparent" contradiction. That hermeneutic which has in it's favor common sensical analogies and less ad hoc hypotheses should prevail, eh?
The approach I currently find most helpful in determining truth is a modification of the so-called "Wesleyan Quadrilateral." (I.e., "Scripture, Reason, Tradition, & Experience"--though obviously as an OVer I have to virtually drop the "Tradition" aspect in many cases, while I do affirm the trinitarian doctrine as expressed at Nicea and the canon and inspiration of the Scriptures as affirmed in A.D. 397).
The problem with common sense is that it is apparently not all that common.  Not to mention, it can easily lend itself to relativism.
I think the paramount issue in interpreting any single passage of Scripture is the context, which does include more than just the text itself, and takes into account the cultural background of the writing, the particular genre of the writing, its relationship to other writings by the same author, and also its relationship to the whole of Scripture.
But the "let Scripture interpret Scripture" principle all too often seems to be used to build or support doctrines that were never the writer's original intent, in addition to the fact that by its very nature this approach tends to divorce individual verses from their own context.
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 12/4/2004 3:14 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
You have argued previously that you think the responsibility of man and the sovereignty of God are not consistent - that it is a mystery. As John's example above indicates, there are all kinds of verses that seem to be contradictions which can be reconciled easy enough when the context of each is considered. What verses do you think are inconsistent as written even when context is considered?
Jeff,
I should have kept my mouth shut on the initial post, it isn't really too hard, but I don't have the interest in pursuing it. The posts on this subject on the verses involved are very numerous on this site. Members have constructed a rationale which they believe to be the most consistent with all the scriptures. I just find it weaker than they do.
To me it seems that both sides in this debate, the hyper-Calvinists and the extreme OVers, have difficult scriptures to overcome to have a leakproof system. I am in a position where I do not feel forced to have this concept "leakproof." I believe in both sovereignty and freewill. This dichotomy is something like I believe that God has all foreknowledge and is absolutely sovereign at His level, and yet I live in an "apparent" but somehow real world where I make decisions and these decisions have eternal impact. I think that the members of this board are more interested in pursuing their paradigm that they believe is true and plugging leaks than in changing the paradigm if it proves weak. I don't mean this as a criticism - I am sure that I do the same thing as it is natural.
Because of this preconceived assumption, I really don't find it too interesting to debate on the issue. I still value and find the input of those on this board interesting, but primarily for issues that are unrelated or tangental to the OV discussion.
Sorry I threw in my two cents without being willing to back it up, I wasn't being fair.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/4/2004 4:55 AM (GMT -6) | | John,
quote:
The approach I currently find most helpful in determining truth is a modification of the so-called "Wesleyan Quadrilateral." (I.e., "Scripture, Reason, Tradition, & Experience"--though obviously as an OVer I have to virtually drop the "Tradition" aspect in many cases, while I do affirm the trinitarian doctrine as expressed at Nicea and the canon and inspiration of the Scriptures as affirmed in A.D. 397).
I would think both tradition and experience are to be subject to scripture exegeted by unbiased reason. Obviously tradition and experience affect/bias us, and a good portion of both can be legitimate. But wouldn't you agree that the generally accepted rules of interpretation ARE generally accepted precisely because they are the rules of inductive and deductive reasoning applied to literature? And isn't that why the scriptures can renew our mind? Because we have the intellectual capacity to dispassionately judge our traditions and experience?
quote:
The problem with common sense is that it is apparently not all that common. Not to mention, it can easily lend itself to relativism.
True, but if we are to disregard a notion because it is not universally held, we will end up with nothing. The reason why experience cannot be completely disregarded is, it seems to me, because our common sense and experience are so intertwined. Like, for example, the notion of free-will - we think it AND we experience it.
quote:
I think the paramount issue in interpreting any single passage of Scripture is the context, which does include more than just the text itself, and takes into account the cultural background of the writing, the particular genre of the writing, its relationship to other writings by the same author, and also its relationship to the whole of Scripture.
I agree absolutely. Just like the example you gave about God repenting. Only by sticking to context can we resolve such apparent contradictions.
quote:
But the "let Scripture interpret Scripture" principle all too often seems to be used to build or support doctrines that were never the writer's original intent, in addition to the fact that by its very nature this approach tends to divorce individual verses from their own context.
True. But that doesn't invalidate the proper use of the method. As you said: "I think the paramount issue in interpreting any single passage of Scripture is the context, which does include more than just the text itself, and takes into account the cultural background of the writing, the particular genre of the writing, its relationship to other writings by the same author, and also its relationship to the whole of Scripture."
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 12/7/2004 6:00 PM (GMT -6) | | I hope it is not too late to add a little food for thought on this subject. One issue to consider, especially when using context as a tool for interpretation is the Midrash hermeneutic principles. It is believed that Jesus and those who wrote the New Testament interpreted scripture according to the Midrash principles. In the CSI, it speaks of interpreting scriture by grammatico-historical principles which basically are hellenistic in orgin. One of the Midrash hermeneutic principles is that the Hebrew looked at Old Testament prophecy as not only predctive, but also as a pattern of what is to come. Messianic jews look at the life of Joseph as a pattern of Christ's first appearance on the earth as the suffering servant. They also then look at the life of King David as a pattern of Christ's second appearance as the conquering king. Much of the Old Testament is messianic in pattern. An example is when Matthew quotes Hosea for when Joseph, Mary and Jesus came out of Egypt. The Hosea passage in context clearly speaks of Israel coming out of Egypt, but it is seen by the Jew as a pattern for Messiah. Paul uses the same principle for the believer in 1 Cor. 10, just as the children of Israel came out of Egypt, we too are to come out of this world. I think it is important to interpret the scriptures the same way Jesus and those who wrote the New Testament interpreted it. The Old Testament is rich with analogies and patterns concerning Christ's sufferings and glory, and we should use these very same principles when interpreting the New Testament.
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/8/2004 1:29 AM (GMT -6) | | At least SOMETHING is "paramount"!
Juuuuust kiddin, Jeff. 
Good morning everybody! Have a nice day. You determinists, I wish God has decreed a nice day for you all. But then again, my wishing that was also decreeed and...oh never mind. Have a good day!
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:25 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|