Against modernist hermeneutics

[bibleprotector]

Proper Bible doctrines can be upheld without modernist hermeneutics. In fact, modernist hermeneutics do damage to proper doctrines.

In "The Fundamentals", the first few articles there are related to Higher Criticism. The fact is that modernist hermeneutics are affected by Higher Criticism/Liberal Theology/Rationalism.

The Reformation occurred, the 39 Articles were written and the Westminster Confession were formulated without modernistic hermeneutics. These unbelieving principles and methods of Bible study are not only, therefore, unnecessary, but are in opposition and contradiction to sound doctrine.

When the modernist exegete says that we need to understand the mindset of the scripture and read it within its own historical context, they are divorcing the post-medieaval believer from the Holy Ghost, as though the same Holy Ghost who originally inspired cannot bring illumination to the present Christian without the need of the intervention of an intermediary scholarly class.

The problem is that modernist hermeneutics have seeped through the Calvinist, Evangelical, Fundamentalist and Pentecostal worlds. Modernist hermeneutics permeates works as diverse as Patrick Fairbairn to Gordon Fee.

 

[FSSL]

Does the Holy Spirit say something different than what was originally written and intended?

 

[bibleprotector]

Does the Holy Spirit say something different than what was originally written and intended?

The modernist method of interpretation claims to be uncovering what the Holy Spirit "really" meant, as though Christians did not know properly until the modernist method had been developed progressively in the nineteenth century.

The true approach is that the Holy Ghost gives understanding of what He originally said.

Since the Holy Ghost is God (infinite), He is saying more than what was written in the Scripture (which is finite), but not in contradiction to it.

What He intended to communicate was communicated, though men in old times did not always understand it, and we see a progressive revelation through the Scripture. We also see a growing understanding beyond the close of the Canon of what was contained in the Canon (e.g. Trinitarianism, Reformation, Baptism, etc.)

 

[FSSL]

Rather bold statements. The Trinity and Baptism was understood well before the close of the canon.

Are you suggesting that there is ongoing revelation?

 

[bibleprotector]

The Trinity and Baptism was understood well before the close of the canon.

Are you saying that it was wrong for the Nicene Council and others to articulate the doctrine of the Trinity? Are you saying that the Baptists etc. were wrong to restore the faith-based (rather than infant) full immersion (rather than sprinkling)?

Are you suggesting that there is ongoing revelation?

The Canon was closed with the Apostle John. Are you saying that the Holy Ghost has ceased His work with believers?

 

[FSSL]

Modernism comes through German rationalism ...

It also comes by an eccentric understanding of the Holy Spirit that divorces the Scripture from Holy Spirit illumination.

 

[bibleprotector]

Modernism comes through German rationalism ...

It also comes by an eccentric understanding of the Holy Spirit that divorces the Scripture from Holy Spirit illumination.

The problem is it is likely that you have accepted some of the ideas as espoused by the German rationalists which does divorce the Holy Ghost from His work today. The Grammatical-Historical approach is modernist hermeneutics.

 

[FSSL]

The Grammatical-Historical approach is modernist hermeneutics.

As "modernist" as the reformers.

 

[bibleprotector]

The Grammatical-Historical approach is modernist hermeneutics.

As "modernist" as the reformers.

So you admit that you support this method, even though it was coined by German Rationalists, and quite unknown to the Reformers (who actually believed the Scripture).

 

[FSSL]

A grammatical-historical approach goes back centuries and even predates the Reformers. The Reformers made it popular. German rationalists have an entirely different approach.

I let the text and historical context guide my understanding of Scripture.

I am not given to some "unbridled license" which gets blamed on the Holy Spirit.

 

[bibleprotector]

A grammatical-historical approach goes back centuries and even predates the Reformers.

Really? Yet that terminology was coined by German Rationalist K. A. G. Keil and further advocated by German Rationalist Schleiermacher, who essentially tried to bring together the views of Ernesti and Semler. German Rationalism came a long time after the Reformers. If you really support this, you would be rejecting the Reformers and proper Protestant tradition.

 

[subllibrm]

A grammatical-historical approach goes back centuries and even predates the Reformers.

Really? Yet that terminology was coined by German Rationalist K. A. G. Keil and further advocated by German Rationalist Schleiermacher, who essentially tried to bring together the views of Ernesti and Semler. German Rationalism came a long time after the Reformers. If you really support this, you would be rejecting the Reformers and proper Protestant tradition.

So the "coiner of the phrase" is credited with the concept? Since TULIP was not "coined" by Calvin then he should be let off the hook by those who despise him so. IW by your logic, the idea didn't exist until someone "coined a phrase" to describe the concept.

 

[subllibrm]

The modernist method of interpretation claims to be uncovering what the Holy Spirit "really" meant, as though Christians did not know properly until the modernist method had been developed progressively in the nineteenth century.

Kind of like dispensationalism.  If you are going to be against "new" stuff at least be consistent.

 

[FSSL]

German Rationalists combined Higher Critical methods in their system.

The Reformers were all.about understanding the grammar and historical context of a passage.

Anyone familiar with the history of hermeneutics understands the distinction and recognize that the Reformers (and others before them) used a grammatical-historical approach.

 

[bibleprotector]

The modernist method of interpretation claims to be uncovering what the Holy Spirit "really" meant, as though Christians did not know properly until the modernist method had been developed progressively in the nineteenth century.

Kind of like dispensationalism.  If you are going to be against "new" stuff at least be consistent.

I agree with new stuff as based on old stuff. I disagree with new stuff that doubts old stuff. Thus, modernism (doubt, unbelief, explaining stuff away) gets the boot, while progressive understanding of Bible doctrines gets the tick.

By progressive I mean the Church having restored or coming to articulate precisely what was there all along. The following examples include: the Canon, the Nicene Creed, the Reformation doctrine, water baptism, etc.

 

[bibleprotector]

German Rationalists combined Higher Critical methods in their system.

And how do you explain your modern versionism and your hermeneutic understanding then, since it clearly is affected by (and has some of the same assumptions as) German Rationalism/Higher Criticism.

The Reformers were all.about understanding the grammar and historical context of a passage.

Yet, it is the modernist who says that it is good to be cold (see Revelation 3:15, etc.) because it is "refreshing". That's not a Reformation nor Reformation-derived understanding, that's your middle ground, lukewarm modernism, which accepts some influence of the Higher Critics with your "believing" view. It is leavened fundamentalism.

There is plenty of information on my youtube channel and on my website about this issue, for example, this video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_aDPDcDbKE

Anyone familiar with the history of hermeneutics understands the distinction and recognize that the Reformers (and others before them) used a grammatical-historical approach.

Those who wrote about the history of hermeneutics can be traced back to the German Critics, and they themselves point to the German critics, see Cellérier, Fairbairn, Farrar, Terry, Tenney, etc. Clearly the Historical-Grammatical (or, Grammatical-Historical) method is modernistic.

 

[FSSL]

And how do you explain your modern versionism and your hermeneutic understanding then, since it clearly is affected by (and has some of the same assumptions as) German Rationalism/Higher Criticism.

Post Canon, we see the grammatical-historical approach as early as 300-400ad. It was the method of the Antiochans. (see SCHAFF-HERZOG ENCYCLOPEDIA 9:159.)

My method is consistent with conservative evangelicalism which looks at the manuscripts, grammar and historical context. We do not engage in JEDP or Q document theories.

Yet, it is the modernist who says that it is good to be cold (see Revelation 3:15, etc.) because it is "refreshing".

The text states that it is better to be "cold" and "hot." So, what is difficult for you in understanding this? Are you unaware that both cold and hot waters in Laodicea has positive benefits? THIS is where the historical context is real important.

Without understanding the importance of cold and hot water in Laodicea, you will not understand the full impact of this passage.

Those who wrote about the history of hermeneutics can be traced back to the German Critics, and they themselves point to the German critics, see Cellérier, Fairbairn, Farrar, Terry, Tenney, etc. Clearly the Historical-Grammatical (or, Grammatical-Historical) method is modernistic.

Then you have a very selective reading breadth on the subject.

 

[bibleprotector]

My method is consistent with conservative evangelicalism which looks at the manuscripts, grammar and historical context. We do not engage in JEDP or Q document theories.

Rightly you reject the Higher Critics on their JEDP and Q source views. That's not the issue here. The issue is that some of the same assumptions of the Rationalists are the same assumptions you have in both your "Historical" and your "Grammatical" sides of the equation.

When you state your method is "consistent with conservative evangelicalism", you must realise that you are now admitting to following something not in line with the pre-Enlightenment (Reformation) view of Scripture.

Reformation, Puritan and pre-Enlightenment interpretation was at worst Textus-Receptus/Traditional Text based. In regards to the grammatical side, even the WCF allowed the use of English as true Scripture. On the historical side, they did not "reinvent the past".

If Higher Criticism is just source document theory, it is not just that, but the Liberal Theology and the other stuff that exists along side it. So when it comes to the Laodicean issue, which the proper context makes HOT = ZEALOUS and therefore COLD = OUT, we see the whole fantastic (i.e. mythical) story about how good cold water was from Colosse.

The text states that it is better to be "cold" and "hot." So, what is difficult for you in understanding this? Are you unaware that both cold and hot waters in Laodicea has positive benefits? THIS is where the historical context is real important.

Jesus does not say it is good to be cold. He says he would rather them be cold, because the choice is a dichotomy. Elsewhere the Bible rebuked people for halting between two opinions. The issue is not difficulty of understanding, the issue here is the battle between proper interpretation of the Scripture (belief) versus modernistic hermeneutics.

Modernism reads in information INTO the Bible which is unhistorical and therefore ultimately of the spirit of error. Modernism tries to excuse being cold, pretending that it is "refreshing", that Jesus really doesn't mind. But notice that this modernist view is both relatively recent and novel.

Without understanding the importance of cold and hot water in Laodicea, you will not understand the full impact of this passage.

This is incorrect on several grounds.

First, the Creed/Tradition of Scripture itself states that what is stated in the Scripture is sufficient. To then argue for "historical information" which is beyond the Scripture, and then to read it in, is erroneous. (Note, this is not the same as interpreting from the Scripture, e.g. identifying the big horn of the goat in Daniel 8 as Alexander. The difference is between concluding FROM Scripture, as opposed to the modernist view, of imposing ONTO Scripture.) The modernists then have the temerity to say that KJBOs engage in eisegesis, when they themselves are reading in an OPPOSING meaning to the word "cold".

A true interpretation would recognise that the coldness was both literal with a direct symbolical bearing to the Church at Laodicea, and also would apply it to mean the general unbelief in the modern times, particularly exemplified by rationalism, formalism, etc. But the moral nature would be the same, that is, that COLD is negative.

Whereas the modernist interpretation attempts to argue that the COLD is a positive, e.g. refreshing (which is not even borne out of the context of the passage).

Actually, to understand the full meaning of Scripture, you need the Holy Ghost. Human made "rules" of interpreting are not necessary, but the modernistic ones are tainted. The Higher Critical ones are definitely wrong.

Then you have a very selective reading breadth on the subject.

I have read widely, but you are obviously in denial of the Rational/Critical/Liberal modernistic influences onto your own belief system. (Or are attempting to justify it.)

 

[FSSL]

A true interpretation would recognise that the coldness was both literal with a direct symbolical bearing to the Church at Laodicea, and also would apply it to mean the general unbelief in the modern times, particularly exemplified by rationalism, formalism, etc. But the moral nature would be the same, that is, that COLD is negative.

Jesus made ZERO moral assertions against "cold" or "hot" water. He simply stated, "I would thou wert cold OR hot." <--Grammar

If you understood that two water systems existed in Laodicea which provided healing (hot waters) and refreshing (cold waters) you would understand why Jesus did not make a moral judgement against "hot" or "cold." Both were good and "lukewarm" was worthless <--Historical


If you applied a GRAMMATICAL and HISTORICAL approach, you would see the meaning and not make stuff up.

Actually, to understand the full meaning of Scripture, you need the Holy Ghost. Human made "rules" of interpreting are not necessary, but the modernistic ones are tainted. The Higher Critical ones are definitely wrong.

Since the Holy Spirit gave us His words. Words have meaning and context (linguistically/historically), we are able to understand what was really meant.

Unfortunately... you have missed the meaning on both accounts -- you misunderstood the grammar and the historical context. The Holy Spirit is not in the business of overcoming those who misread what He already said.

 

[rsc2a]

KJVo-ism : ignoring basic grammar and redefining words since 1611.