Against modernist hermeneutics

[FSSL]

And if you want to say you are also a hot Christian as well as a cold one, then you are the mixture of hot and cold, which is the exact thing Jesus condemned.

I do not see Jesus condemning the "hot" or "cold." If "cold" is bad in this context, then you have Jesus wishing people would be bad.

You have placed assumptions on the text.

What you call "conference of scripture" is what we call "comparing scripture with scripture." You lack a comparison. Comparing scripture is good, but, as your example shows... it can lead to faulty ideas foisting an alien meaning on another text.

Be that as it may... your point is that my interpretation flows from a liberal, modernism. I have demonstrated that the language of Rev 3:15 focuses on only one negative -- lukewarmness. The logic of the passage also speaks to this. (I didn't even have to go to the Greek).

We won't agree on this either. Other than the fact that liberals use the term grammatical-historical as well... You have not made the case where I am liberal.

I have shown that your interpretation demands assumptions that are not in the text.

 

[bibleprotector]

If "cold" is bad in this context, then you have Jesus wishing people would be bad.

And you are an instructor in Calvinism and you don't think God has vessels fit unto wrath?

You have placed assumptions on the text.

You do.

What you call "conference of scripture" is what we call "comparing scripture with scripture." You lack a comparison. Comparing scripture is good, but, as your example shows... it can lead to faulty ideas foisting an alien meaning on another text.

Lack a comparison?

I have give two kinds:

a. 1 Kings 8:21

b. Matt. 24:12 (cf also Jer. 20:9)

Be that as it may... your point is that my interpretation flows from a liberal, modernism. I have demonstrated that the language of Rev 3:15 focuses on only one negative -- lukewarmness. The logic of the passage also speaks to this. (I didn't even have to go to the Greek).

We won't agree on this either. Other than the fact that liberals use the term grammatical-historical as well... You have not made the case where I am liberal.

While you are not a liberal, you are certainly leavened with it.

I have shown that your interpretation demands assumptions that are not in the text.

What you have shown is my entire thesis, i.e. that your method is modernistic hermeneutics, that you do not believe what the Scripture properly teaches, but have substituted other things and treat them as correct, whereas you relegate the traditional Protestant and proper view as incorrect.

 

[FSSL]

And you are an instructor in Calvinism and you don't think God has vessels fit unto wrath?

Sure. Where is the wrath against the "cold" in Rev 3:15?

Lack a comparison?
I have give two kinds:
a. 1 Kings 8:21
b. Matt. 24:12 (cf also Jer. 20:9)

Yes. Contrived.

What you have shown is my entire thesis, i.e. that your method is modernistic hermeneutics, that you do not believe what the Scripture properly teaches, but have substituted other things and treat them as correct, whereas you relegate the traditional Protestant and proper view as incorrect.

I don't follow a tradition. What I do is look at the words of a passage and let the passage dictate the meaning.

Words have meaning and a historical context. Ignoring both in favor of a traditional understanding is not legitimate.

 

[bibleprotector]

I don't follow a tradition. What I do is look at the words of a passage and let the passage dictate the meaning.

Words have meaning and a historical context. Ignoring both in favor of a traditional understanding is not legitimate.

Jg 17:6 In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

Your tradition is semi-infidelity.

 

[FSSL]

<rolling my eyes>

Just prove or disprove the point. There is no need to treat scripture that way. We are both believers.

 

[bibleprotector]

<rolling my eyes>

It seems noble and right to believe the actual words and that the Bible was written at a real time to real people in history.

Except, what we find is that this method is employed in the very opposite manner by the other side.

They first view the scripture as present in a natural way, as though the Holy Ghost (the same person who inspired it originally) cannot communicate by it or about it properly today.

Instead of believing the words of Scripture as present, they must go to the original language (i.e. a modern day construction and lexicon of it), and then impose modern-day constructed understanding of the meaning of words upon those words.

Instead of believing the message of Scripture as self-sufficient, they must go to the historical cultural situation (i.e. a modern day understanding and imposition of it), and then impose modern-day constructed contextualisation of the message upon the Biblical narrative/communication.

So, we are not seeing certain, truthful and good interpretation arising from your side, but doubting, erroneous and spiritually dangerous interpretation.

The attack comes at every stage: Textually, translationally, interpretatively. The same assumptions about prevailing error and how the Holy Ghost could not and cannot get it right and fully to us imposes itself as a filter on how the Bible is totally viewed.

The proper approach is to start from the Scripture itself, and to believe what it says about itself doctrinally. There is no doctrine in Scripture that supports modern textual criticism any more than finding Paul extolling the principles of "grammatical-historical" hermeneutics. It is simply a modernistic fabrication.

 

[bibleprotector]

We are both believers.

Will you come out and say that you are a cold Christian then, in line with Revelation 3:15?

I am quite happy to say that I am a hot Christian.

 

[FSSL]

We are both believers.

Will you come out and say that you are a cold Christian then, in line with Revelation 3:15?

I am quite happy to say that I am a hot Christian.

Since the passage does not describe the characteristics (i.e., fruit/giftedness) of a "hot" or "cold" Christian, I am not inclined to project my own assumptions on the text.

Jesus wishes Christians be "hot" or "cold" in CONTRAST to "lukewarm."

What characteristics, in Revelation 3:15, cause you to think you are a "hot" Christian? Show us the very phrase...

 

[FSSL]

It seems noble and right to believe the actual words and that the Bible was written at a real time to real people in history.

I am not convinced that you believe these words. We do know the history of the Laodiceans. When we discuss the historical context, you quickly claim it is modernistic. You cannot have this both ways.

Instead of believing the words of Scripture as present, they must go to the original language (i.e. a modern day construction and lexicon of it), and then impose modern-day constructed understanding of the meaning of words upon those words.

I didn't do that with this passage. You cannot even properly understand what the phrase "I would thou wert cold or hot." means in English.

Why do you reject the original languages in which God chose to originally compose His word? It is pretty audacious for someone 2000+ years later to say that those words are not to be believed. I believe God's word in English, Greek and Hebrew. If I knew Swahili, I would believe His word in Swahili!

Instead of believing the message of Scripture as self-sufficient, they must go to the historical cultural situation...

You said above that it "seems noble and right" to believe that His words were written to real people in history. THEN you reject the historical context of those very same people.

So, we are not seeing certain, truthful and good interpretation arising from your side, but doubting, erroneous and spiritually dangerous interpretation.

You and I believe that the "lukewarm" people are under judgement. Nothing is really changed by our different takes.

Why do you think your unproven assumptions are that important in relation to "hot" and "cold"? Why reject my interpretation simply because you think I am a modernist? Are you unable to convince us from Revelation 3, itself?

The proper approach is to start from the Scripture itself, and to believe what it says about itself doctrinally. There is no doctrine in Scripture that supports modern textual criticism any more than finding Paul extolling the principles of "grammatical-historical" hermeneutics. It is simply a modernistic fabrication.

Actually, the grammatical-historical approach finds itself in Antioch as early as 300-400AD. It was a reaction against the allegorical Alexandrian approach.

It is the approach of Martin Luther who worked through the book of Matthew, exegetically.

It is the approach of JA Turretin in the early 1700s

Histories of hermeneutics are very clear and replete with examples of those who studied the grammar (in the originals and their own native tongue) and investigated the historical context.

You may "knee jerk" at this next statement, but it is YOU who is caught up in an allegorical understanding of Revelation 3:15. You want us to believe that a HOT Christian = Zealous and a COLD Person = OUT. I asked you to show us in this passage where the wrath of God is poured out on the COLD person. You cannot. Why? Because it is not in the text.

 

[Ransom]

Here is what the blurb on the youtube video that you refuse to watch states:

In Christianity, big "M" Modernism means unbelief, it means doubt, scepticism, Higher Criticism and Liberal Theology.

Well, thank you for justifying my not wasting my time. Your video is no more specific than your posts.

Unless you can come up with a more concrete definition of "modernism." I'm going to have to conclude that you are merely attempting to smear Christians with a broad brush merely because they don't worship at the altar of King James the way you do.

Of course, any hermeneutic that begins or ends with "And therefore, the King James Bible is the English translation God blesses and approves" is intrinsically suspect to begin with.

 

[bibleprotector]

Jesus wishes Christians be "hot" or "cold" in CONTRAST to "lukewarm."

So then, you should be willing to say, according to your own approach, that you are a cold Christian according to your interpretation of Rev. 3:15. You should be willing to say, that you not only hot or cold, but that you are cold.

I am saying I am hot according to the traditional interpretation of being zealous.

But why are you hesitating to say that you are cold according to your own interpretation?

 

[bibleprotector]

Well, thank you for justifying my not wasting my time. Your video is no more specific than your posts.

Unless you can come up with a more concrete definition of "modernism." I'm going to have to conclude that you are merely attempting to smear Christians with a broad brush merely because they don't worship at the altar of King James the way you do.

Of course, any hermeneutic that begins or ends with "And therefore, the King James Bible is the English translation God blesses and approves" is intrinsically suspect to begin with.

Thank you for watching the video. Clearly you can see where I am coming from now.

 

[bibleprotector]

I am not convinced that you believe these words. We do know the history of the Laodiceans. When we discuss the historical context, you quickly claim it is modernistic. You cannot have this both ways.

Your engagement in this discussion is commendable, though we have strongly contrasting opinions.

What you call the historical context from a modernist perspective is not the same as the historical context from a factual perspective. But, more importantly, there is no such requirement within Scripture nor by the Holy Ghost that "historical context" is necessary for interpretation.

I will attempt to briefly outline what I think modernist "historical context" is: it is a view which looks for isagogical, empirical (e.g. direct accounts) and rational (i.e. reasoned assumptions) information outside the Scripture, e.g. by interpreting non-Scriptural data, and then using this as a framework for viewing the Scripture. In the case of Laodicea, various histories, archelogical evidence, etc., are utilised first to create the "life situation" mindset from which to then read the Scripture. Please notice that this approach requires starting from information in the world and the human mind BEFORE reading the Scripture.

I didn't do that with this passage. You cannot even properly understand what the phrase "I would thou wert cold or hot." means in English.

Why do you reject the original languages in which God chose to originally compose His word? It is pretty audacious for someone 2000+ years later to say that those words are not to be believed. I believe God's word in English, Greek and Hebrew. If I knew Swahili, I would believe His word in Swahili!

The underlying issue here is that modernists are not going to, in the first instance, interpret what is in English, but first what is in Greek, considering the Greek as authoritative over translation.

Then, when examining in English, we cannot do as the very exegetes rebuke many for doing, by taking several words "hot or cold" out of the surrounding verse and passage, and say that Jesus is saying that He wishes the believer to be "hot or cold" when the word "or" means one or the other, not just to be in an absolute state in comparison to lukewarmness... and he is wishing people to be in an absolute state, but the opinions are hot OR cold.

You said above that it "seems noble and right" to believe that His words were written to real people in history. THEN you reject the historical context of those very same people.

No, the modernist "historical context" imposition onto the past is different to a factual understanding of historical context. The factual understanding is subservient to Scripture.

A classic illustration is thus: evolution ... read Genesis ... make Genesis fit into the evolutionary framework.
The proper approach would be: read Genesis ... see evidence which fits with young earth creation around us ... reject evolution.

Why do you think your unproven assumptions are that important in relation to "hot" and "cold"?

Unproven? Yet, there are myriads of commentaries and proper witnesses to this, including from the very folks you would consider as utilising the "grammatical-historical" method. (There is a sharp distinction between the traditional Protestant approach of interpretation of Scripture and the modernistic method, let alone the complete error of the Higher Critical method.)

Why does it matter that even in minor details, exactness be understood and advanced? Because the Bible is not just big picture stuff, but the very details of truth of the Spirit of truth. Your interpretation of Revelation 3 and various other passages by this modernistic method are at least blemishes, leading to wide departures from the truth.

Why reject my interpretation simply because you think I am a modernist?

It's not quite like that. It is rejecting the spirit of error, of infidelity on my part, which then contrasts in manifestation of views on the Bible textual criticism, translation and interpretation methodology.

It is not a Calvinist versus Arminian issue, it is not a TR versus KJBO issue. It is an ideological issue, which is divisive on grounds of belief in regards to Christian knowledge of God's actions in the time/place.

Your worldview does not begin with Scripture itself first, but begins from human perception/understanding first. This is why I can always expect your opposition, because your starting point on text, translation and interpretation are not doctrinal, but ideological.

Are you unable to convince us from Revelation 3, itself?

1. The case is in Rev. 3 itself.
2. I myself am unable to convince those who will not be convinced.
3. It is the Spirit which does the convincing, ultimately the two sides here must polarise to two different spirits.
4. Scripture meaning does include non-literal elements.

Actually, the grammatical-historical approach finds itself in Antioch as early as 300-400AD. It was a reaction against the allegorical Alexandrian approach.

No, that is revisionism, reading back into the past modern thinking. Yes there was an allegorising school. Yes, the Antioch school was grounded in literal reading, etc., but that good Antioch approach is not identical with the modernistic grammatical-historical approach.

Your own books should tell you that in fact, there was an element of moderate spiritualisation in the "literalist" Antiochian school, which is called the "theoria" method.

Thus Martin Luther, J. A. Turretin and many others cannot be corralled into the modernistic historical-grammatical school of interpretation, since the modernist historical-grammatical school arose from the German Higher Critics. Karl Keil, Ernesti, Semler were influential pioneers, Schleiermacher brought together from two strands of the grammatical side and the historical context side, and that led to folks like Cellérier, Fairbairn (one of your heroes!), and eventually Farrar, Terry and all the way to your Tenney, Mickelsen, Ramm, Berkhof, Kaiser, Fee, Carson, Moo, Osborne, Tate, Zuck, Klein, Silva and so on.

Histories of hermeneutics are very clear and replete with examples of those who studied the grammar (in the originals and their own native tongue) and investigated the historical context.

Again, you mix study of the words and study of science with the modernistic method of re-lexiconising the words and revising the past. It is obvious that many commentators from the Reformation would refer to words in Greek and refer to historical information, but the modernist rationalistic method has taken this in such a way as to begin to reject Protestant interpretations.

You may "knee jerk" at this next statement, but it is YOU who is caught up in an allegorical understanding of Revelation 3:15. You want us to believe that a HOT Christian = Zealous and a COLD Person = OUT. I asked you to show us in this passage where the wrath of God is poured out on the COLD person. You cannot. Why? Because it is not in the text.

Of course it is in the text, in the very context of the passage, where he says about being zealous, besides the logical reading of what is meant by verse 15, and of course, the witness of Protestant commentators agrees with my view.

To pit your modernistic hermeneutic against the traditional Protestant one which I uphold by accusing our side of "allegorising" is far fetched. What you are doing is smearing the proper spiritualising and identifying of symbols which fits in with a literal reading of the Scripture.

Not only are you in effect rejecting what has been widespread in normal historical Protestant interpretation, but probably you yourself actually do uphold spiritualised elements in your interpretations of passages, whether finding reference to the Church in the name "Israel", or in types, or in various poetic and linguistic devices, or in even language like this verse:

Isa 13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

I think your modernistic view is on a tempest, unable to correctly discern the meaning and mode of various passages. BTW that's a figurative tempest.

 

[FSSL]

Your engagement in this discussion is commendable, though we have strongly contrasting opinions.

Thank you for coming to our "turf." We are open to many contrasting opinions and do engage on a variety of issues without moderation.

What you call the historical context from a modernist perspective is not the same as the historical context from a factual perspective. But, more importantly, there is no such requirement within Scripture nor by the Holy Ghost that "historical context" is necessary for interpretation.

As well, there is no requirement within Scripture to explore the grammar of a passage. These things are sane and logical. Laodicea did have a "historical context from a factual perspective." You may not have known it. That does not mean it did not exist.

In the case of Laodicea, various histories, archelogical evidence, etc., are utilised first to create the "life situation" mindset from which to then read the Scripture. Please notice that this approach requires starting from information in the world and the human mind BEFORE reading the Scripture.

This does not even make logical sense. How would we know about the "hot" and "cold" metaphor if we didn't read it in the Scripture, first?

A classic illustration is thus: evolution ... read Genesis ... make Genesis fit into the evolutionary framework. The proper approach would be: read Genesis ... see evidence which fits with young earth creation around us ... reject evolution.

I am a YEC. I agree. I also defend YEC from the Hebrew Bible.

Unproven? Yet, there are myriads of commentaries and proper witnesses to this, including from the very folks you would consider as utilising the "grammatical-historical" method. (There is a sharp distinction between the traditional Protestant approach of interpretation of Scripture and the modernistic method, let alone the complete error of the Higher Critical method.)

Myriads of commentaries does not truth make. In fact, this flies in the face of the Protestant approach to Scripture. If your viewpoint cannot be supported from the text, in its context, then it is not fact.

I reject the idea that there exists a "Protestant Interpretation." Just because opinions predating the 1940s were lacking the historical data does not mean that interpretation must continue because it is the so-called historical Protestant interpretation. Can you not see how you are viewing historical Protestant opinions just like the Roman Catholics do with their interpretations?

Your own books should tell you that in fact, there was an element of moderate spiritualisation in the "literalist" Antiochian school, which is called the "theoria" method.

And Martin Luther, a reformer practicing the grammatical-historical approach still believed in eating the flesh of Jesus. Just because the Antiochian school was not perfect does not undermine the fact that they did practice a grammatical-historical approach. They were inconsistent.... just as all of us are inconsistent.

About answering the idea about "hot" and "cold." You do know that I reject your "zealous" and "out" categories as they are not established in that text. So, how can I answer this? If it still amuses you that I give an answer, here it is... Since it is the will of Christ that I be "hot" or "cold," then logically, I am either hot or cold. Perhaps I am hot today and cold tomorrow. Maybe I have two simultaneous streams and am hot and cold without the two mixing. Maybe I am hotter than you. Maybe you are colder than me. WITHOUT a definition of these categories in Rev 3:15, why must I claim one or the other?

The point of the passage is not to be "lukewarm." Don't be in the position where Christ spits you out of His mouth.

 

[Ransom]

So then, you should be willing to say, according to your own approach, that you are a cold Christian according to your interpretation of Rev. 3:15. You should be willing to say, that you not only hot or cold, but that you are cold.

Who says the traditional interpretation is the correct one? Jesus does not explain the difference between "hot" and "cold." He contrasts them both with the vomitous "lukewarm."

Laodicea stood near the cities of Colossae (which had excellent cold springs) and Hierapolis (which had renowned hot springs). Laodicean water, on the other hand, was lukewarm, and it stank. When Jesus said he wished the Laodiceans were hot or cold, and that since they were  lukewarm, they made him want to vomit, they would have understood exactly what he meant.

I'm happy to refer to myself as a "cold" Christian. Or  a "hot" Christian. There is no difference. Jesus commends them both.

 

[bibleprotector]

This does not even make logical sense. How would we know about the "hot" and "cold" metaphor if we didn't read it in the Scripture, first?

But it is in the Scripture, as I have pointed out.

If your viewpoint cannot be supported from the text, in its context, then it is not fact.

It appears that you are saying that your extra-Biblical method makes a fact. Whereas I am not saying that Protestant commentaries make a fact, I am saying that they can be found to witness to the truth which is found in Scripture on this point.

I reject the idea that there exists a "Protestant Interpretation."

Broadly speaking, there is a Protestant interpretation. Obviously differences exist on various points within Protestantism. But to reject this body of information is a very dangerous trend, because Jesus Himself has given teachers into the Church, and it is wrong to contend for the things which have been delivered to us.

In fact, to reject Protestant tradition is an avowed admission to modernism, to imposing something new, independent and beyond or regardless of what corpus of teaching has come to us. You are setting a dangerous precedent to reject Luther's revelation, or allowing an advance beyond your own Reformed theology tradition.

Just because opinions predating the 1940s were lacking the historical data does not mean that interpretation must continue because it is the so-called historical Protestant interpretation.

What happened in the 1940s? Was it because the World Council of Churches formed?

Why is more recent information thought to supersede what was said before? Surely your view is blatantly modernistic in the sense that the new outweighs the old.

And more tellingly, was the Holy Ghost unable to communicate for so many years, and so many Christians had the wrong idea for centuries in regards to the Laodicean prophecy, until the relatively small numbers of people who now assert a different interpretation?

Can you not see how you are viewing historical Protestant opinions just like the Roman Catholics do with their interpretations?

A strange accusation, because not only do Protestants view various teachings as not infallible (unlike Romanists) but it would mean that you are rejecting all your own pre-modernist basis for your views.

Just because the Antiochian school was not perfect does not undermine the fact that they did practice a grammatical-historical approach. They were inconsistent.... just as all of us are inconsistent.

This is bizarre and objectionable. The central tenet of modernism, as well as is heavily pushed in Romanism in different words, is that error prevails, that no one can get it right, and that all things suffer and languish from never arriving at certainty or perfection.

By your own measures and standards then, how can you insist that your interpretation of the "cold or hot" is right, and mine (and many others') wrong? Since you claim that you may be subject to error, you cannot insist that your view is the right one, and mine the wrong. Likewise, in your defence of the "historical-grammatical" method, again the same.

Since it is the will of Christ that I be "hot" or "cold," then logically, I am either hot or cold. Perhaps I am hot today and cold tomorrow. Maybe I have two simultaneous streams and am hot and cold without the two mixing. Maybe I am hotter than you. Maybe you are colder than me. WITHOUT a definition of these categories in Rev 3:15, why must I claim one or the other?

At least you try to say that you are cold. But you run into two forms of trouble:

1. Logic. You realise that you cannot be hot and cold at the same time because they mix to make lukewarm. Therefore you say one thing for one day, the other for another. How does this fluctuation work? And then you say you could be both, without the two mixing. Not only is this something clearly not said in the Scripture, it is mental gymnastics and ultimately violating this principle: "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." (1Co 14:33).

2. The witness of the Spirit. This is something which you yourself must know, that the Spirit would bear witness that what you are saying is wrong. I know that in normal circumstances people in debates and so on do not appeal to the conscience. But it is a vital part of the ministry of the Spirit, that people know truth and error. That is why I think you really would know that your interpretation is wrong, but are going to stick by it anyway, against the witness of the Spirit.

 

[bibleprotector]

I'm happy to refer to myself as a "cold" Christian. Or  a "hot" Christian. There is no difference. Jesus commends them both.

See my above reply.

Also, I could easily have predicted that you would be on the other side also in this. There is no wonder that there is a correlation of where people's opinions/beliefs sit on a range of matters like this.

 

[prophet]

I'm happy to refer to myself as a "cold" Christian. Or  a "hot" Christian. There is no difference. Jesus commends them both.

See my above reply.

Also, I could easily have predicted that you would be on the other side also in this. There is no wonder that there is a correlation of where people's opinions/beliefs sit on a range of matters like this.

Brother, it is obvious that you are applying a double standard of interpretation here.

We don't have an inkling of what "hot" and "cold" are in this passage.

I'll stick with IDK for an answer, over an assumption, any day.

I won't look to some lexicon for a slanted interpretation, or some commentary for an opinion.
Sufficient for me is the admonition here:

Phi 4:5
5 Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand.

It fits without a shoehorn.

I'm happy to refer to myself as a "cold" Christian. Or  a "hot" Christian. There is no difference. Jesus commends them both.

See my above reply.

Also, I could easily have predicted that you would be on the other side also in this. There is no wonder that there is a correlation of where people's opinions/beliefs sit on a range of matters like this.

 

[bibleprotector]

I'll stick with IDK for an answer, over an assumption, any day.

Assumption is bad, but IDK (I Don't Know) is actually against the gospel and really ultimately a sin.

1Co 14:38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

There are so many verses FOR knowledge:

Pr 22:20 Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge,
Pr 22:21 That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?

Truth is knowledge, and the Spirit of truth is here.

 

[prophet]

I'll stick with IDK for an answer, over an assumption, any day.

Assumption is bad, but IDK (I Don't Know) is actually against the gospel and really ultimately a sin.

1Co 14:38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

There are so many verses FOR knowledge:

Pr 22:20 Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge,
Pr 22:21 That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?

Truth is knowledge, and the Spirit of truth is here.

There is no condemnation for me, I am in Christ.

So, back to the interpretation of Rev. 3:

There is a lot we don't know about these churches, and Tradition does not equal knowledge.