A KJVO method of interpretation...

[FSSL]

Alot of words but you are not answering the question. You claim to know how Protestant Reformers viewed the historical context, but you dodge answering it.

Perhaps a more specific question will help... "Were Protestant Reformers at all interested in the Authors and Audience of the text and the culture in which they lived?"

 

[bibleprotector]

Alot of words but you are not answering the question. You claim to know how Protestant Reformers viewed the historical context, but you dodge answering it.

Perhaps a more specific question will help... "Were Protestant Reformers at all interested in the Authors and Audience of the text and the culture in which they lived?"

Please tell me the emphasis of this account, is it on trying to understand historical context or on receiving truth as a present reality?

I meditated night and day on those words until at last, by the mercy of God, I paid attention to their context: "The justice of God is revealed in it, as it is written: 'The just person lives by faith.'" I began to understand that in this verse the justice of God is that by which the just person lives by a gift of God, that is by faith. I began to understand that this verse means that the justice of God is revealed through the Gospel, but it is a passive justice, i.e. that by which the merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written: "The just person lives by faith." All at once I felt that I had been born again and entered into paradise itself through open gates. Immediately I saw the whole of Scripture in a different light. I ran through the Scriptures from memory and found that other terms had analogous meanings, e.g., the work of God, that is, what God works in us; the power of God, by which he makes us powerful; the wisdom of God, by which he makes us wise; the strength of God, the salvation of God, the glory of God.

(Martin Luther).

 

[bibleprotector]

Perhaps a more specific question will help... "Were Protestant Reformers at all interested in the Authors and Audience of the text and the culture in which they lived?"

Protestantism is not limited to just the 16th century, so attempting to limit inquiry to just that period would be too limiting.

As I have said, there is a vast difference between the believing approach (which of course knows that the Bible spoke about real people and real events) and the modern approach of attempting to read the Bible in a modern constructed lense of so-called first century near eastern thinking.

The believing view sees the Holy Ghost, not merely human authors, as writing the scripture, and therefore, see a perennial spiritual scope of the Scripture above the local circumstance as may be referred to in the scripture. (The same Holy Ghost is here today.) Otherwise, every statement of Scripture can be just limited to the original audience. But the Scripture itself states, "Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her." (Matthew 26:13). And if you believe that, you will find in the Scripture all you need, that Jesus sat and was not reclining, as the modernists wrongly say; and we are even told about the value of the ointment, like as if the reader/hearer of the Bible could be living in the 2nd, 7th, 15th or 21st century.

So what we are dealing with is a believing, receptive view of Scripture as opposed to the unbelieving, imposition view of modernism.

 

[FSSL]

As I already stated, clearly, the Holy Spirit is assumed.

Why is it "modernist" to understand the author, audience and historical setting of a book?

Why do you, and wrongly so, assume people like Martin Luther did not do grammatical analysis? Are you not familiar with his actual hermeneutics?

 

[FSSL]

So what we are dealing with is a believing, receptive view of Scripture as opposed to the unbelieving, imposition view of modernism.

You don't believe the scriptures. You are dismissive of the Greek and Hebrew, LXX, Vulgate, NIV, ESV and EVEN Luther's German Bible.

 

[bibleprotector]

As I already stated, clearly, the Holy Spirit is assumed.

Except, you assume the "Holy Spirit" working within a human, rational framework. You see the Holy Spirit outworking in the myriad of textual difficulties, the variations in translations, the uncertainties of interpretation. What you call the "Holy Spirit" is in fact looking at things seen, things understood by carnal reasoning. But that is not the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Ghost's works are actually perfect, good and right. What you see as good and what you call right is hardly good and right.

Why is it "modernist" to understand the author, audience and historical setting of a book?

It is modernist to read into the past a modern Infidel-leavened construction of the past. That is not "understanding", but imposition. When your side thinks they are trying to get into the shoes of a first century near eastern person who first heard the book of Matthew, you have utterly failed and disqualified yourself from actually "getting" the Book of Matthew.

The Holy Ghost did not inspire the Book of Matthew for modernists to try to "mentally role play" themselves in some artificially constructed historical-contextualisation worldview. He inspired it so that it would, in time, get to the current day, and speak directly to us, as it has infallibly through history.

Also, it is noticeable that the accusation arises that somehow a true Bible believer denies that the Bible was written in the past about real events and to real people. But if that is all the Bible is, then it is a highly limited and merely human book.

Your method of misconstruing Scripture by clever rules actually would be to object to what Paul wrote, when he said, "For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope." (1 Cor. 9:9, 10).

All your "grammatical" and "historical" would never have read the law the way Paul did.

Why do you, and wrongly so, assume people like Martin Luther did not do grammatical analysis? Are you not familiar with his actual hermeneutics?

In the example quoted of Martin Luther, he was not reducing the Bible merely to some wooden sequence of words, but clearly he was actually believing what was written.

What you are arguing now is that an analytical description of Luther's system is more important than actually believing the Scripture itself: that in order to fight against the meditating and understanding and believing that Luther did, you must rear up some mechanical monstrosity and say, "here, this is Luther's approach", rather than rejoice with him at the actual truth of the Scripture which relumed across Europe.

 

[FSSL]

If Martin Luther did not study the grammar of the text, he would have lost the first three points of his 95 thesis.

 

[bibleprotector]

You don't believe the scriptures. You are dismissive of the Greek and Hebrew, LXX, Vulgate, NIV, ESV and EVEN Luther's German Bible.

Where did the Scriptures say that they were or were not in Greek, Hebrew, LXX, Vulgate, NIV, ESV, etc. by name?

The Reformation view as that Scripture is Scripture. And Scripture is to be believed.

The Bible did not say that faith comes by hearing the Vulgate, but it said (to effect) that faith comes by hearing the Word of God.

If the Word of God by the Vulgate spoke to those who used Latin, then the issue is not Latin, but that the Word of God succeeded even as it promised.

The modernist tacks on his things to tradition, as though there is a line from history to modernism, when in fact, modernism is an alien, usurping force.

In textual work, there is a line going from the early Church through the Reformation and to believing Protestantism today. Modernism has come up with its variation, which appeals to human reason and sight, but is as much a falsehood as Antiochus Epiphanes' temple practices were not genuine, though they took place at Jerusalem.

Just because scores of millions of Christians may use modern versions does not mean that they have divine approbation.

So then, I believe the content of Scripture, and accept the setting forth of Scripture, but I do not accept that the modern versions are of the right spirit, nor of the right historical lineage. Even Luther's Bible, which did not have 1 John 5:7, is better than a modern version which cuts out 1 John 5:7. In fact, Luther's Bible is more wholesome really than the NKJV, which has 1 John 5:7. This is because the modern versions are affected by the spirit of error, that is, the leaven of Infidelity.

This also explains why people upholding proper doctrines (e.g. six day young earth creation, Bible inspiration, etc.) can be in the worst possible predicament, even while holding correct doctrines, if they allow their foundation to be destroyed under them. This is what modernism does. It undermines having a perfect Bible and undermines having a proper understanding of the Scripture.

Modernism has a great arsenal to call upon (like Romanism also), saying, that since they have seen many Christians with many different opinions, and have seen error and confusion multiplied, why should they trust this? Why should they trust the KJB since they see corruption in all versions, and yet, they say they are all (all legitimate ones) are commendable. Why should they trust a proper interpretation, when they say, but there are many who have orthodox views but who differ on unimportant details very widely (and differ on important ones very sharply too, as we all know).

The modernist can say amen to this Scripture: "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God." (Rom. 3:10, 11). But it gets worse. Instead of establishing the law, the modernist says, "it is right, it is good, to not understand". They will preach and promote that it is our lot to "never know". And then the modernist has their solution: you can only know in part by their knowing, by their rules of interpretation, so that their rules become the absolute knowledge. Not that you will ever know all things, but if you know their rules, you are counted to be great and worthy among them, a giant among scholars.

Thus, the real modernist today is the same as a Sadducee, a Nicolaitan or a medieval priest, who sneers at those who actually believe what is written in the King James Bible. That's just too much for them, as the Scripture says,

"From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report. For the bed is shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it: and the covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it. For the LORD shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act." (Isaiah 28:19-21).

But modernism is a subtle thing. It will feign incomprehension at clear violation of the grammatical-historical hermeneutical rules. Isaiah 28, they will say, had some other, muted, irrelevant, doubtful meaning.

 

[bibleprotector]

If Martin Luther did not study the grammar of the text, he would have lost the first three points of his 95 thesis.

If Martin Luther was a modernist, he would have had zero theses.

Notice how Luther not only actually believed what the Bible states in his first three theses, but he also did not restrict them to a first century near eastern context. In fact, he wrote as if the Lord Jesus (i.e. by the Spirit) was speaking to his generation saying "repent". The modernist approach is only a hindrance to the message of the Gospel.

So, to the point that Luther's understanding of words, he did not do, as the modernists are prone to do, read back into Greek any kind of meaning he wished, or a certain unbelieving meaning, but spoke in the common language (Latin) saying "repent", just as our English Bible speaks today. (Even the meaning of the English word "repent" is debated, but believers should accept the proper, spiritual meaning.)

 

[FSSL]

You really like to make things up as you go...

You have your own private definition for "modernist."
We are on post #89 and you still have not succinctly given us your method of interpretation.
You do not know the Reformers and their methods.

There is nothing to debate with Martin Luther's method. He cited a term that the Catholics also used and gave the real meaning (without supporting it through a conference of Scripture or the Holy Spirit speaking it in his ear). Martin Luther studied the grammar of the passages and their historical context.

 

[bibleprotector]

He cited a term that the Catholics also used and gave the real meaning (without supporting it through a conference of Scripture or the Holy Spirit speaking it in his ear). Martin Luther studied the grammar of the passages and their historical context.

A thoroughly modernist view given there, now blaspheming the Holy Ghost (as though He had nothing to do with the Reformation) and now denigrating the conference of Scripture (as though Scripture itself was not important, only human methodology).

The modernist seeks to recast all things into its image, so that Luther might be numbered among them, rather than among we, actual Bible believers.

 

[subllibrm]

Am I the only one who feel his bowels enlarging when reading this thread?  Or something like that. 8)

 

[bibleprotector]

You do not know the Reformers and their methods.

A modernist, I expect, would attack me for not knowing, because I do the worst thing imaginable, and that is reject the leaven of Infidelity.

 

[FSSL]

He cited a term that the Catholics also used and gave the real meaning (without supporting it through a conference of Scripture or the Holy Spirit speaking it in his ear). Martin Luther studied the grammar of the passages and their historical context.

A thoroughly modernist view given there, now blaspheming the Holy Ghost (as though He had nothing to do with the Reformation) and now denigrating the conference of Scripture (as though Scripture itself was not important, only human methodology).

The modernist seeks to recast all things into its image, so that Luther might be numbered among them, rather than among we, actual Bible believers.

No amount of demagoguery will cover the fact that we are nearing 100 posts and you cannot explain your methodology.

Your points would be more convincing if we actually knew how you approach scripture. So far... you falsely call us "modernists" and just go defensive. I, for one, would rather watch paint dry.

Since the Holy Spirit gave us the word, understanding the meanings of those words requires grammar skills and correct placement in its context.

 

[FSSL]

You do not know the Reformers and their methods.

A modernist, I expect, would attack me for not knowing, because I do the worst thing imaginable, and that is reject the leaven of Infidelity.

... or probably more fundamental... you have not read them.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

A KJVO method of interpretation...

If it's in the Authorized KJV, it's interpreted right.

If it's in any other English translation, it's wrong.

 

[bibleprotector]

Since the Holy Spirit gave us the word, understanding the meanings of those words requires grammar skills and correct placement in its context.

That's a non sequitur. Since the Holy Ghost gave us the Word, don't you think that the Holy Ghost would also indicate how to understand it, after all, He is the Holy Ghost, and knows how to communicate to us.

It is your man-made rules that then take the human onus, saying that man "requires grammar skills" (what an imposition on Scripture, that now only the elite educated with grammar skills have any right or hope to understand it!) And again, as though Scripture must be read by reading into its contextualised placement (what an affront to the millions who for centuries just accepted the Scripture as is!)

If the modern approach of reading into the Greek words their own meaning and reading into the past historical context their own ideas are "Spirit-led" skills, why are these things only formalised in modern times, and why are they not emphasised in the way the New Testament folks write about the Old Testament?

Why does the approach you advocate not only treat Scripture as a past tense exercise, but also why does it assume that error/impediments are in the way of reading/understanding it? Where did the Scripture prophesy that the modernist method would come and clarify the interpreting of the Scripture because it was, is or would be unclear?

Your points would be more convincing if we actually knew how you approach scripture.

I approach it as if it is true today. If you want to classify or categorise it, I take the Word and Spirit approach.

So far... you falsely call us "modernists"

Falsely? So, you are denying that it was the German Critics who coined the grammatical-historical approach?

You deny that you are following in the footsteps of their interpretation methodology, as can be traced directly from the Germans to your approach today?

As I said, this is not an issue about big "M" Modernism, Liberal Theology and Higher Criticism. This is an issue about derivative ideas of those philosophies and ideology which has crept into general evangelical, fundamental, reformed and pentecostal thinking. This is the contrast between the leaven of Infidelity allowed in versus that leaven purged.

The wrong underlying assumptions of your side and your approach are that error prevails, and that nothing can be actually perfect. So of course there is a wide rift between my believing Protestant-developed approach and your modernism-infected Protestantism approach.

This is a conflict centring around the effects and influence of the Enlightenment in (or out of) orthodox Christian theology. You are arguing for the side of the Enlightenment in this debate, as is plain by your lauding of the human activities of "grammar skills" and knowing historical "context".

 

[bibleprotector]

A KJVO method of interpretation...

If it's in the Authorized KJV, it's interpreted right.

If it's in any other English translation, it's wrong.

That may be A view, it is certainly not mine.

 

[bibleprotector]

... or probably more fundamental... you have not read them.

Yes, I know how these debates work. I say, I have read various things. And then you ask whether I read them in Latin. No, I have not read them in Latin. Well then, if not in Latin, then not the authentic Reformers' own words... blah blah.

 

[Ransom]

Resolved: Based on an utter inability to articulate a method of biblical interpretation in a thread now nearing 100 posts, Bibleprotector is what Paul terms an "empty talker" (Titus 1:10), having zeal without knowledge, and using great bluster to obscure the fact of his great ignorance. Discuss.