Good start Bob,
You understand number one correctly. Some would prefer to say, "the clear and simple meaning" rather than "literal" because it can lead to misunderstanding. However, the conditions in you definition are fair, as long as they're handled responsibly.
For clarity, where I use the word "allegory," cut some slack. I understand that "symbolism" or "spiritualize" may be preferred by some. Please, simply accept that we're talking about the same thing and let's not get hung up on how I've used these words in the past. I can use any of the three that anyone else is comfortable with.
Here's a thread with some nuggets
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/vi...7881#pid250661
Here's a quote from
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/vi...d=11598&page=5 Quote:
You have to start with the text. From there, what are the prinicples that allow you to assert your conclusions?
If you are not ready to accept the literal [simple and clear] meaning of the text, then what guidelines are you using to allow you to allegorize [spiritualize - consider symbolism]?
What guidelines are in place to keep you from over-allegorizing? [One theologian says that all rounded numbers of high value are allegorical -Millenium, 144000, etc. Interesting, but on what authority?]
Once you think you've figured out what the text says then the rest of Scripture must be brought to bear.
What did the original author intend?
How would the readers of the time perceive it?
This challenge is in no way exhaustive, but the point is that we have to know the boundaries of how we draw our conclusions. If we don't define them then we can make Scripture say anything we want it to, whether it's pretrib, CoW, NPP, easy believism or Arianism.
|
Some more info
Quote:
Hermeneutics - a set of principles
Exegesis - implemenation of valid interpretive principles
Meaning - truth intention of the author
Interpretation - understanding of the truth intention of the author
|
And this
Quote:
I think we need to add application to our list. This is very important. (look at the definitions as I say this) We CANNOT apply until we've exegeted and interpreted. It's too dangerous, and forces meaning into a text that may not be there. This is poor hermeneutics. Furthermore, a common mistake is to confuse application with interpretation. They have to be held appart. Application is 100% dependent upon interpretation. Interpretation is 100% dependent upon the meaning. The meaning is 100% dependent upon exegesis. And proper exegesis is 100% dependent upon good valid hermentical principles.
So, can we establish the definition of application - the use or practice of God's message in personal lives? Simply put, application is how God's Word shows us how to think and live. Maybe too simple, but I think it should serve our purposes.
|
Quote:
|
What does the text say? We can make it say whatever we want to. But, what did the HS intend in writing this. The original audience has to be considered. Finally, if we're going to allegorize then we need stringent rules to keep us from going to far. I would challenge you to show the where/when/what/how/why of allegorizing. For me it's simple, if the text says it's an allegory, if it's an idiom, or if it's simply too far fetched to be a possibility (i.e., Jesus is not a literal door). I see no need to go any farther. One commentator says that all large rounded off numbers in Revelation are allegorical. Okay, if that's your principle fine, but make sure you stick to it and are consistent. Also, make sure you can say why that's your hermeneutic. What in Scripture makes that principle clear? You know I don't buy it, but I would at least challenge anyone making this type of claim to be able to clearly define the structure that allows them to allegorize. Is it arbitrary, based on Scriptural example, a man made system, etc?
|
Quote:
|
While the NT does shed some light on the OT, God did things historically. Revelation was progressive, and is, since we one day our faith will be sight. I think the danger in looking backwards is that it is easy to read things into the text, rather than letting it say what it says.
|
So, progressive revelation is also a big part of the dispensational hermeneutic. The NT does shed light on the OT, but only when the NT passage took place. The OT writers/audience did not have the same insight (revelation) as the NT audience.
Well, that should throw out a few nuggets. Bob, if you're up to it, maybe you can summarize or bullet point in order to keep things on track.
What about someone articulating the CT hermeneutic principles? I've offered up the challenge many times in our discussions, and yet to have someone do so.