Against modernist hermeneutics

bgwilkinson said:
What arguments would bp have if he couldn't use constant ad hominem?

Well, you know . . . he could . . . um . . . You're a modernist, you modernist!
 
bibleprotector said:
Classic modernistic statement.

I still await evidence that when you use the term "modernist," it means anything more substantial than "something bibleprotector disagrees with."
 
Ransom said:
bibleprotector said:
Classic modernistic statement.

I still await evidence that when you use the term "modernist," it means anything more substantial than "something bibleprotector disagrees with."

There is extensive information on the subject on my website, far beyond the content of the youtube videos I mentioned. If you are unwilling to accept the "basic" information in the youtube videos, I wonder how you will approach my specific written material on the subject.
 
Anyone who cannot properly and concisely define "modernist" in a single post does not know what the term means.

This is a biblical principle: "The more the words the less the meaning."

Modernists repel at the thought that they explain their beliefs/methods. Hence we are on page 5 and Bibleprotector STILL cannot give a concise explanation of his method.
 
BP is, through and through,  a modernist which he would recognize if he had any inkling of history and philosophy about the topic.
 
bibleprotector said:
There is extensive information on the subject on my website

I'm not posting on your website. You're posting on this one.

Why is it so hard for you to just answer questions? It's obvious you actually have no answers, so you find it easier to obfuscate than provide actual information.
 
FSSL said:
Anyone who cannot properly and concisely define "modernist" in a single post does not know what the term means.

That's a fake criteria. Also, your reserving the right to determine whether I give the proper definition shows that you actually know what it means, and just will not accept what I say.
 
bibleprotector said:
FSSL said:
Anyone who cannot properly and concisely define "modernist" in a single post does not know what the term means.

That's a fake criteria. Also, your reserving the right to determine whether I give the proper definition shows that you actually know what it means, and just will not accept what I say.
Try to deny it, but if you really had something profound, you would have posted by now.

 
FSSL said:
Try to deny it, but if you really had something profound, you would have posted by now.

What we are observing is the sharp contrast between your view of textual criticism, originals-centric translation and grammatical-historical hermeneutics and my view of providential preservation, King James Bible perfection and Word and Spirit interpretation.

My whole point is that the different conclusions are because of different bases. My view begins from Scripture itself. Your view begins with a rational and empirical view of information (isagogics). We both see God as the origin and inspirer, but your view is deistic in that you have God lifting His hand, and so you look at natural processes in operation between inspiration and the present day (both in how you view the transmission of the Scripture and also how you interpret the Scripture) whereas I see the same Holy Ghost who inspired speaking always, at work today, and speaking by the KJB to the nations.

Sadly, your side has adopted some thinking and influence of the Modernists/Higher Critics/Rationalists. This is not only obvious on the ideological level, but can clearly be traced through the historical lineage of scholarship, e.g. to the formation of Critical Text editions, or through to the modernistic hermeneutics issuing forth from the ardent "antiKJBO" folks.
 
bibleprotector said:
What we are observing is the sharp contrast between your view of textual criticism, originals-centric translation and grammatical-historical hermeneutics and my view of providential preservation, King James Bible perfection and Word and Spirit interpretation.

What we are observing IS a sharp contrast. However, the contrast you imagine is not stated correctly.

You refuse to state your approach.

The contrast is that we have an approach... you do not. We cannot assume your nonstated approach is godly, Spirit led or even sane.
 
Bibleprotector... when you start to prepare for a sermon... what is the first thing you do (besides the obvious pray)?
 
bibleprotector said:
Sadly, your side has adopted some thinking and influence of the Modernists/Higher Critics/Rationalists.

We'd never know, because you are either unwilling or unable to define those terms.

Good grief. You're so evasive about defining your terms, even Taoists would want you to quit weaselling and get to the point.
 
Ransom said:
bibleprotector said:
Sadly, your side has adopted some thinking and influence of the Modernists/Higher Critics/Rationalists.

We'd never know, because you are either unwilling or unable to define those terms.

Good grief. You're so evasive about defining your terms, even Taoists would want you to quit weaselling and get to the point.

I'll do it for him.

Modernism:  "Something to rail against so you can sound more pious." 
Higher Critics:  "Critics on acid."
Rationalists:  "Those who believe in rationing supplies."

 
FSSL said:
Bibleprotector... when you start to prepare for a sermon... what is the first thing you do (besides the obvious pray)?

I would begin from either a topic or a passage that I had been allocated or been impressed by.

In the case of a topic, I would gather approximately 8 passages in order to teach it. Most passages I would know, but sometimes I explore with a concordance also. Being very familiar with a variety of subjects (e.g. by reading and hearing teaching from certain sources), I have become proficient, and do not need much in the way of notes. Topics may be doctrines, or may be concepts.

In the case of exposition of a passage, I would read it (context), find links within it to other passages (conference of Scripture with Scripture). Sometimes I may look in a commentaries (I did this extensively in the area of Bible prophecy). It is likely that this kind of preaching will be the result of my own previously written and/or meditated upon place. For example, I have done this mostly with Psalms, Isaiah, Daniel, Matthew/Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians and Revelation.
 
Ransom said:
bibleprotector said:
Sadly, your side has adopted some thinking and influence of the Modernists/Higher Critics/Rationalists.

We'd never know, because you are either unwilling or unable to define those terms.

Good grief. You're so evasive about defining your terms, even Taoists would want you to quit weaselling and get to the point.

Not only have I referred to these things, but they are well known: I don't have my own pet differing definitions to what others have to these terms.

Obviously, there are a number of different uses of the word "Modernism", but we are not talking about the art movement. This is not about the pedantic difference between Roman Catholic usage and Presbyterian usage. We are talking about the unbelieving movement which was manifest through the 19th century and beyond in regards to doubting the supernatural origin of the Scripture and moving away from proper Christian doctrines (e.g. to deism, etc.).

“The student of history is well aware that the sceptical and decidedly hostile attitude toward the supernatural which is so prevalent today is of relatively recent date, being largely the result of the ‘empirico-scientific’ world-view which so powerfully influences and even controls the thinking of the ‘modern’ man. Miracle and prophecy were formerly quite generally regarded by Christians as furnishing conspicuous, even irrefutable, proof of the truth and divine authority of the Christian religion. They have now come to be regarded in many circles, even professedly Christian, as constituting the great and even the insuperable obstacle to the acceptance of Biblical Christianity by the scientifically trained man and woman of today. Consequently, a vigorous and persistent effort has been made to eliminate the supernatural from the Bible, or at least to minimise its importance and to ignore it as much as possible. In text-books which represent the ‘critical’ or ‘higher critical’ viewpoint it is regarded as a matter of prime importance to explain the supernatural, which often means to explain it away, and to deal with the Bible in such a way that the supernatural will really cease to be supernatural. The seriousness of this attempt cannot be exaggerated. For it is not too much to say that ‘by its own claim the Christian religion must stand or fall with the reality of the supernatural. ... It presents itself to us, not as an evolution of the divine in nature, but as a direct revelation of and from God, who, though in nature, was alone before it and is also distinct from it and above it.’ In a word, to get rid of the supernatural in Christianity is to gel rid of Christianity. For Christianity is supernatural in its very essence.” (Oswald Allis).

“But the general intention of those who espoused these new principles was evidently to insinuate the insufficiency of Revelation as well as of Reason, and to excite a prejudice against Christianity by representing the uncertainty of its doctrines and its evidences. In the hands of such men, Scepticism ... was made to consist in the disbelief or doubt of truth of every kind, natural or revealed: and he only was held to be enlightened or scientific, who believed nothing, and ridiculed all pretensions to certain knowledge. The injury thus done to Christianity has been incalculably great. ... When once it became a received opinion, not only that Reason and Faith were irreconcilably at variance, but that no truth was with certainty to be deduced either from the one or the other, men were left to the guidance of a blind or perverted imagination, with liberty to think and to do, ‘every one, what was right in his own eyes.’ ... Accordingly it appears that in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, no countries abounded so much with false Philosophy and Atheism as Italy, the seat of Papal dominion. ... these new systems of Infidelity gained a footing in Protestant countries also.” (Bishop Van Mildert).

I have also pointed out that the influence of the leaven of Infidelity has come into evangelical, fundamental and Pentecostal Christianity. This is called lower case "m" modernism, in that proponents are those who believe in six day young earth creation, miracles, virgin birth, resurrection, second coming, eternal damnation, etc., but have accepted doubtful views in regards to what happened to the Scripture and its meaning beyond Bible times. Thus, they see no perfect text of scripture, no perfect translation and no possible way of having perfect interpretation or perfect doctrines until the Millennium or Future State. This is because they uplift a view that error is prevailing, despite their adherence to orthodox Christian doctrines (e.g. regarding salvation, Trinity, inspiration of Scripture, etc.)

I uphold the Word and Spirit view which is therefore promoting an attainment view of blessings and oppositional toward the leaven of Infidelity among those who are likely the truly born again Christians (from various denominations).
 
Top