Paperback Hermeneutics Book for Non-Dispensationalists

Status
Not open for further replies.
sparkmanrl

sparkmanrl

Puritan Board Freshman
Hi,

I have an additional question for jail ministry resources.

I am looking for a paperback book by a solid Reformed author who is non-dispensationalist on hermeneutics.

I have looked at some of the more popular ones and they seem to lean toward dispensationalist theology. I want a solid section that discusses shadows and types, as well as redemptive history, so I hesitate to use a book that supports dispensationalism.

In the past, I have experienced dispensationalists who have criticized me for obvious typology. Their view is that unless Scripture identifies something as a shadow or type, it is not a shadow or type, and I am imposing something upon Scripture that should simply be interpreted in a wooden, literal sense.

I saw some remarks in one book I was considering by a well-known individual that disparaged "allegorization", and there was no section regarding typology in his book. So, I am not real keen on using his book. I believe he was relating typology to allegorization in a subtle sort of way.

Another book is written by a Pentecostal author and uses Pentecostal theology as an example. While I've heard his book is good, I don't want to promote Pentecostal theology.

Anyways, if there is such a book that is suitable for a person of average intelligence, I would appreciate the reference. It needs to be paperback because the jail doesn't allow hardback.

With regards to this book, it is meant for a young man who commented to me that the Bible is used to promote a lot of different doctrines by different groups, and he doesn't hold to inerrancy although he believes that Scripture contains the word of God.

He thinks that men have tampered with it to support their own doctrines. I agree with him if he's talking about the Textus Receptus (in a minor way), and I acknowledge minor scribal errors and bad translations of all sorts, but that's really a difficult discussion to have with new believers in the room, so I didn't discuss it much.

I hold the classical view that the original writings were inspired, but we don't have them, and the manuscript evidence we have is very close. I acknowledge that there are translations which have supported the agendas of the translators or those who commissioned them (KJV definitely reflected some of James' agenda). I acknowledge that there are minor scribal errors in the text that aren't corrected by any manuscript, but they are very minor. So, I understand where the guy is coming from, but the issues are insignificant to me. I focus on materiality.

Thanks for any recommendations.

Robert
 
On the flip side, if the guy is bringing up issues about how amils platonize the OT promises, then we are a step above the basics.
 
I would recommend Poythress's book Understanding Dispensationalists. This book has a great reputation of being clear, non-technical, not too long, and very convincing, precisely because Poythress himself understands the pull of dispensationalism, and has rigorously avoided caricatures.
 
greenbaggins said:
I would recommend Poythress's book Understanding Dispensationalists. This book has a great reputation of being clear, non-technical, not too long, and very convincing, precisely because Poythress himself understands the pull of dispensationalism, and has rigorously avoided caricatures.
Click to expand...

Ditto on Poythress. Poythress made me a premillennialist (though not Dispensational).
 
sparkmanrl said:
Fee's book is the one I wanted to avoid as I think he's Pentecostal or charismatic and alludes to some of the doctrines as examples of inconsistent hermeneutics employed by others.
Click to expand...

He's only the coauthor, if that helps any. And for all his issues, so to speak, it is probably *the* best intro book on the subject.
 
I agree that the Fee/Stuart book is an excellent introduction, despite the Pentecostal leanings (which weren't that prominent at all). It was the first book I read on the subject in my early Reformed days and helped me a lot.

Another helpful basic introduction to hermeneutics is "Knowing Scripture" by R.C. Sproul.
 
BayouHuguenot said:
In the book he doesn't say anything like "Don't despise prophecies" or "Talk in tongues" or the like.
Click to expand...

The authors, most likely Fee, do seem to dwell excessively on the matter of tongues. They also are clearly anti-paedobaptism.

Non-contiguous examples follow:

The need to interpret is also found by noting what goes on around us all the time. A simple look at the contemporary church, for example, makes it abundantly clear that not all “plain meanings” are equally plain to all. It is of more than passing interest that most of those in today’s church who argue that, despite contrary evidence in 1 Corinthians 11: 2 – 3, women should keep silent in church, on the basis of 1 Corinthians 14: 34 – 35, at the same time deny the validity of speaking in tongues and prophecy, the very context in which the “silence” passage occurs. And those who affirm, on the basis of 1 Corinthians 11: 2 – 16, that women as well as men should pray and prophesy, usually deny that women must do so with some form of head covering. For some, the Bible “plainly teaches” believers’ baptism by immersion; others believe they can make a biblical case for infant baptism. Both “eternal security” and the possibility of “losing one’s salvation” are preached in today’s churches, though never by the same person! Yet both are affirmed as the plain meaning of biblical texts. Even the two authors of this book have some disagreements as to what certain texts “plainly” mean. Yet all of us are reading the same Bible, and we all are trying to be obedient to what the text “plainly” means.

How is it that in many evangelical churches women are forbidden to speak in church on the basis of a probably spurious moment in 1 Corinthians 14: 34 – 35 (spurious because it is a marginal gloss found in two different locations in the manuscript tradition, and clearly contradicts 11: 2 – 3), yet in many of the same churches everything else in chapter 14 is argued against, as not prophesying and speaking in tongues, belong only to the first-century church? Notice further how easy it is for twenty-first-century Christians to read their own tradition of church order into 1 Timothy and Titus. Yet very few churches have the plural leadership that seems clearly to be in view there (1 Tim 5: 17; Titus 1: 5 [Timothy was not the pastor; he was Paul’s temporary delegate to set things in order and to correct abuses]). And still fewer churches actually enroll widows under the guidelines of 1 Timothy 5: 3 – 15.

And have you noticed how our prior theological commitments cause many of us to read such commitments into some texts while we read around others? It comes as a total surprise to some believers when they find out that other Christians find support for infant baptism in such texts as 1 Corinthians 1: 16; 7: 14; or Colossians 2: 11 – 12, or that others find evidence for a two-stage second coming in 2 Thessalonians 2: 1, or that still others find evidence for sanctification as a second work of grace in Titus 3: 5. For many in the Arminian tradition, who emphasize the believer’s free will and responsibility, texts like Romans 8: 30; 9: 18 – 24; Galatians 1: 15; and Ephesians 1: 4 – 5 are something of an embarrassment. Likewise many Calvinists have their own ways of getting around what is said quite plainly in passages like 1 Corinthians 10: 1 – 13; 2 Peter 2: 20 – 22; and Hebrews 6: 4 – 6. Indeed our experience as teachers is that students from these traditions seldom ask what these texts mean; they want only to know “how to get around” what these various passages seem clearly to affirm!

After the last few paragraphs, we may well have lost a lot of friends, but we are trying to illustrate how thoroughgoing the problem is and how Christians need to carry on more genteel conversation with one another in this crucial area. What kinds of guidelines, then, are needed in order to establish more consistent hermeneutics for the Epistles?

For example, the most frequent justification for disregarding the imperatives about seeking spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 14 is a particular interpretation of a preceding moment, which states that “when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away” (1 Cor 13: 10, NASB). We are told that the perfect has come, in the form of the New Testament, and therefore the imperfect (prophecy and tongues) have ceased to function in the church. But this is one thing the text cannot mean because good exegesis quite disallows it. There is no way Paul could possibly have meant this; after all, the Corinthians did not know there was going to be a New Testament, and the Holy Spirit would not likely have inspired Paul to write something to them that would be totally incomprehensible.

Fee, Gordon D.; Fee, Gordon D.; Stuart, Douglas; Stuart, Douglas. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth: Fourth Edition Zondervan.

The ongoing hobby-horse used to bolster the otherwise useful principles is a disappointing (and ironic) feature of an otherwise useful book for the layman.
 
Maybe some others can speak for it but I haven't read 'Exegetical Fallacies" by D.A. Carson.
 
I think the logical choice is Louis Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Interpretation (https://www.heritagebooks.org/produ...erpretation-berkhof-westminster-discount.html). It's paperback, inexpensive, brief, and reliable. Although it's short and doesn't cover everything adequately, I don't think there's any weirdness in what it does cover. I thought the Fee & Stuart book was quite a disappointment.

If there's a desire for more, or a different approach, perhaps Sinclair Ferguson's From the Mouth of God would be suitable for your setting. You can see the table of contents here:
https://www.heritagebooks.org/produ...-reading-and-applying-the-bible-ferguson.html

I also notice that Vern Poythress' God-Centered Biblical Interpretation and Reading the Word of God in the Presence of God are both paperbacks; readers might be better equipped to tackle those if they have digested Berkhof first.
 
Last edited:
ZackF said:
Maybe some others can speak for it but I haven't read 'Exegetical Fallacies" by D.A. Carson.
Click to expand...
I think the same can be gleaned from James Barr's works, but I doubt any are available as paperbacks. I enjoyed and was informed by Carson's work and think all should read it to avoid the common mistakes.

I also think word studies have a place in heremeneutics, despite how often Carson seemed to discount them in his book.

The book sometimes tends to lead the newcomer to assuming some ideal checklist can be applied to interpretative principles. This mechanization of hermeneutics often leads one into the weeds.

All said, the book is probably better suited for someone who has a basic understanding of hermeneutics. A required "second course", if you will.
 
Ask Mr. Religion said:
I think the same can be gleaned from James Barr's works, but I doubt any are available as paperbacks. I enjoyed and was informed by Carson's work and think all should read it to avoid the common mistakes.

I also think word studies have a place in heremeneutics, despite how often Carson seemed to discount them in his book.

The book sometimes tends to lead the newcomer to assuming some ideal checklist can be applied to interpretative principles. This mechanization of hermeneutics often leads one into the weeds.

All said, the book is probably better suited for someone who has a basic understanding of hermeneutics. A required "second course", if you will.
Click to expand...

Exegetical fallacies is one of the most important hermeneutics/logical thinking books I've read. I don't think it is beginner level, though.

Barr is outstanding but not easy.

On another note, I have an audio that Alan Kurschner did at ETS explaining Barr's word=concept fallacy if anyone wants it. Just message me.
 
greenbaggins said:
I would recommend Poythress's book Understanding Dispensationalists. This book has a great reputation of being clear, non-technical, not too long, and very convincing, precisely because Poythress himself understands the pull of dispensationalism, and has rigorously avoided caricatures.
Click to expand...
I appreciate that he does not see them as being non Christians, or in gross error, but as those who are fellow saints in Christ, but are confused in some of their theology.
 
ZackF said:
Maybe some others can speak for it but I haven't read 'Exegetical Fallacies" by D.A. Carson.
Click to expand...
Very good book, to help explain how to avoid the pitfalls associated with various mistakes some tend to make while studying the scriptures.
 
Dispensationalists don't use a different hermeneutical approach that I am aware of. Covenant Theology vs. Dispensational Theology are presuppositions we bring to the text.

Both camps, correct me if I am wrong, look at the historical context and seek to find the original meaning to the original audience.
 
Reformed said:
Dispensationalists don't use a different hermeneutical approach that I am aware of. Covenant Theology vs. Dispensational Theology are
Reformed said:
Dispensationalists don't use a different hermeneutical approach that I am aware of. Covenant Theology vs. Dispensational Theology are presuppositions we bring to the text.

Both camps, correct me if I am wrong, look at the historical context and seek to find the original meaning to the original audience.
Click to expand...

presuppositions we bring to the text.

Both camps, correct me if I am wrong, look at the historical context and seek to find the original meaning to the original audience.
Click to expand...

Both would come to the scriptures seeing them as being the infallibble word of the Lord unto us, but their different assumptions would be determing their end results on what each would hold the Bible as teaching to us.
 
Dachaser said:
Both would come to the scriptures seeing them as being the infallibble word of the Lord unto us, but their different assumptions would be determing their end results on what each would hold the Bible as teaching to us.
Click to expand...

I agree, but the actual hermeneutical method would be the same for both.
 
Reformed said:
I agree, but the actual hermeneutical method would be the same for both.
Click to expand...

Respectfully I’d propose that presuppositions are hermanuetics. While there is considerable overlap between the two schools the hermanuetics themselves differ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Quatchu
  • Locked
Book Recommendation for a Non-Christian
Replies
10
Views
3K
epdenja
E
PaulCLawton
  • Locked
Recommendation for Book Club
Replies
3
Views
1K
Ray
Ray
A
  • Locked
recommendations for first book...
Replies
15
Views
3K
rembrandt
R
Constantlyreforming
  • Locked
Non-Christian music
2 3
Replies
65
Views
12K
Relztrah
Relztrah
Abd_Yesua_alMasih
  • Locked
Non-Theological Students
Replies
6
Views
2K
InevitablyReformed
InevitablyReformed
Back
Top