Quote:
Originally Posted by Christusregnat 
Rev. Myer,
With all due respect, Sir, I do not agree that interpreting a passage in its original context ever reduces the relevance of that passage to anyone.
In fact, it may be scarcely contradicted that this approach may be characterized as the Reformed or Calvinistic method of interpreting the Scriptures, and results in the maximum relevance of Scripture (see Calvin's commentaries for historical examples, as well as the notes in the Geneva Bible). Knowing what God said to Timothy in Ephesus, why He said it, and the original intention helps us to know how these things are to be applied in all areas of our lives.
Also, Sir, you said the following:
"It is also a classic case (along with Aaron's following post) of having to provide an unnatural reading of a passage(s) to conform to one's eschatalogical presupposition."
While it is entirely possible that I am engaged in the task of eisegesis, may I ask you to provide alternate interpretations for the passages alluded to? It may also be safely stated that the view stated in the Westminster Larger Catechism is (in my estimation) not eisegesis, and yet represents a distinctly optimistic eschatology, and therefore, I am a little more confident that my reading of the texts I mentioned is not too far amiss, despite my own peculiarities and/or misreadings.
Godspeed,
|
Okay, fellas, I've taken more than my fair share of exegesis/hermeneutics 101 courses, and have no where asserted something as silly as has been claimed by either of you.
Again, you will not find anything in my first post that states or implies that one should throw original context to the wind. What I am contesting against is a false and truncated hermeneutic that would seek to limit a passage's interpretation and/or application
strictly to the immediate historical context and/or original audience. To be frank, if you take that approach, you will find yourselves doing nothing other than a premillenial dispy (I've sat under them, and that is exactly what they advocate), although through inconsistencies in application of that practice you may come up with differing results.
No need for the historical lecture either; I've read Calvin's Institutes (several times), his commentaries, etc. etc., as well as the confession and catechisms. It might do you well to go back and read his commentaries on the minor prophets (or his sermons on, say, the prophet Micah) to see that he himself does not limit the context or the audience to the immediate and the historical, although he would incorporate them into his understanding, as would I.
Also, it is debatable/historically dubious to assert that one can claim that the Westminster Standards support a modern postmil interpretation. Most, if not all, the statements in that prayer fall in line with an amil understanding, but even more importantly (before you cite it as proof) is the understanding that it is setting forth a model of good things for which we are to pray. No one would contest that these are good petitions, what is contestable is whether or not their encouragement to pray for, what you assume, are certainly postmil petitions necessarily means that the bible's own eschatology is postmil. Prayer for good things does not always mean that we will be receiving them!