The proper Biblical Theological Hermeneutic (BvsP)

[tellville]

This question has mainly come from my interactions in the Baptism thread:

My hermeneutic can be summed up in this statement: The OT is our (God's covenant people) Bible. The NT tells us how to interpret it.

But it seems like on this board, that Presbyterians follow this hermeneutic: The NT is our (God's covenant people) Bible, and the OT tells us how to interpret it.

It just seems like to me, given that for the earliest Christians their Bible would have been the OT, and what the apostles taught would have showed them how to interpret it properly. A good example would be Messianic prophecy in the Psalms or Isaiah. Without the NT, there is no way I would ever interpret many of the OT prophecy's as referring to Christ or even typologically being related to the Messiah.

Anyway, what do you guy's think?

 

[BobVigneault]

HUH????

Where did you get that? You are expressing a false dichotomy. Your hermeneutic denies apostolic authority. The NT and OT make a complete Bible to be interpreted using the analogy of scripture. Perhaps you are over simplifying and that's why this sounds weird.

http://www.prmi.org/hermeneutics.html

 

[tellville]

I'm off to work, so I wont be able to reply for a while after this (which sucks!):

[quote="BobVigneault] Your hermeneutic denies apostolic authority. he NT and OT make a complete Bible to be interpreted using the analogy of faith.[/quote]

1. I am not denying apostolic authority as I am saying it is apostolic authority which allows me to properly interpret the OT.

2. Of course I believe the OT and NT make a compete Bible and that you can not have one without the other. Without the OT, the NT would make no sense and its purpose would be gone, take away the NT and the OT never "finishes" and thus we are left wanting our Messiah.

3. What do you mean by "analogy of faith"? I interpret my Bible through the faith of the Apostolic Christians (NT).

4. I've obviously hit the nail on the head why I am not convinced of Padeo arguments. I am approaching the text in a way that seems foreign to people.

 

[Greg]

3. What do you mean by "analogy of faith"? I interpret my Bible through the faith of the Apostolic Christians (NT).

Analogy of Faith

 

[Davidius]

So if the Apostles used the Old Testament to explain what was going on in the New, why shouldn't we?

 

[tellville]

So if the Apostles used the Old Testament to explain what was going on in the New, why shouldn't we?

That's my argument! They showed us how to use the OT properly by interpreting it properly. But it seems to me that the Presbyterians here are instead using the OT as a guide on to how to interpret the NT.

When I look at Isa 7:14 for example, I see the prophecy of Christ's virgin birth because that is the apostolic interpretation of that passage. However, if I am a Jew, who is stuck in the OT, I am going to interpret that passage as being Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, or possibly someone down the line in David, but not necessarily Christ.

Maybe I'm not making myself clear?

 

[crhoades]

That's my argument! They showed us how to use the OT properly by interpreting it properly. But it seems to me that the Presbyterians here are instead using the OT as a guide on to how to interpret the NT.

When I look at Isa 7:14 for example, I see the prophecy of Christ's virgin birth because that is the apostolic interpretation of that passage. However, if I am a Jew, who is stuck in the OT, I am going to interpret that passage as being Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, or possibly someone down the line in David, but not necessarily Christ.

Maybe I'm not making myself clear?

Maybe providing an example of what you're thinking Presbyterians are doing with a specific doctrine and the relevant OT and NT texts may help.

 

[tellville]

Maybe providing an example of what you're thinking Presbyterians are doing with a specific doctrine and the relevant OT and NT texts may help.

Like I said in the OP, this question arose out of my discussions in the Baptism thread. It just seems to me that Presbyterians use the OT to define and dictate the practice of Baptism, while Baptists use the NT to define Baptism. It seems to me a big reason for the difference in interpretation is hermeneutical (though I wouldn't say that's the only reason). Thus, I decided to lay out my hermeneutical method and see if it was a good one or not.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

When I look at Isa 7:14 for example, I see the prophecy of Christ's virgin birth because that is the apostolic interpretation of that passage. However, if I am a Jew, who is stuck in the OT, I am going to interpret that passage as being Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, or possibly someone down the line in David, but not necessarily Christ.

If you were OT Jewish, and you didn't see Christ promised in Is. 7, then I just think you weren't listening, or you had a sorry pastor/teacher. All revelation has to do with the focus of revelation: The Coming/Come Messiah. And this is a particularly direct reference.

As for what passage "interprets" the other, the NT doesn't 'spin' the OT. It merely caps it off. Later revelation always adds to, clarifies, expands on the former. But its always "complete," at whatever stage it's at. Revelation is complete now, for this age, thanks to the NT written. But there IS revelation coming. So what, then it's NOT complete?

In heaven, what are we going to say about the OT & NT? Are we going to interpret them differently then, than now (other than correcting our errant theology)?

I second the request for a specific example of what you're talking about.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

This question has mainly come from my interactions in the Baptism thread:

My hermeneutic can be summed up in this statement: The OT is our (God's covenant people) Bible. The NT tells us how to interpret it.

But it seems like on this board, that Presbyterians follow this hermeneutic: The NT is our (God's covenant people) Bible, and the OT tells us how to interpret it.

It just seems like to me, given that for the earliest Christians their Bible would have been the OT, and what the apostles taught would have showed them how to interpret it properly. A good example would be Messianic prophecy in the Psalms or Isaiah. Without the NT, there is no way I would ever interpret many of the OT prophecy's as referring to Christ or even typologically being related to the Messiah.

Anyway, what do you guy's think?

Brother and fellow baptist,

One thing I did wrong, was assume something I didn't even know about. CT does not interpret scripture in that manner. Even though I disagree with my fellow brothers and sisters on their CT beliefs, I do know, to some degree, what they are talking about.(I'm still learning about CT.... Man it's frustrating)

I would really suggest trying to understand CT.

http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Covenant-Theology/

 

[tellville]

Thanks Andrew for your advice. I am as well still studying CT. All I know is that I agree with the 1689 confession!

If you were OT Jewish, and you didn't see Christ promised in Is. 7, then I just think you weren't listening, or you had a sorry pastor/teacher. All revelation has to do with the focus of revelation: The Coming/Come Messiah. And this is a particularly direct reference.

I went to a more liberal theological school for my undergrad in Religion and Theology. It was drilled into me that the immediate hearers of this prophecy would in no way have understood this as meaning the Messiah. It would have made no sense to give a prophecy that was to be fulfilled hundreds of years later (in this context). Further, when Matthew is using this passage he is using it typologically as opposed to saying this passage originally meant "the messiah" to the first hearers.

Anyway, since my tenure at Taylor, it has been very hard for me to see any Messianic prophecy, or Trinitarian text, in the OT WITHOUT the NT telling me as such.

I guess for me it was either adopt my NT hermeneutic or abandon several key Christian truths. Given that I am the only remaining orthodox person left from my graduating class (almost everyone was orthodox in my first year), I am glad for my hermeneutic!

But the points you make Bruce are very thought provoking and would make the way I interpret the OT void. Which would then put me in a very interesting situation....

 

[BobVigneault]

Mark, I'm no expert on Covenant Theology but I'll tell you this: nothing has changed my experience of scripture more than reading it while looking for the unifying themes.

As you read scripture think on these things:

The history of the world is the story of how God the Father is forming a bride for His Son.

The entire bible forms one history of redemption that hinges on Genesis 3:16.

In Biblical history God is always appointing a mediator between himself and his people.

How are the themes of prophet, priest and king being developed.

Find Christ in the passage you are reading.

One thing you might do is go to this site and work through the course on Biblical Theology. Dr. Van Groningen is such a sweet, gentle man who will enhance your appreciation for the Word and redemptive history. It's free.

 

[tellville]

Thanks Bob, I think I will go through that course. I took a senior course on Biblical Theology for my degree, but something tells me covenant seminary's course will be much much different than mine

BTW, I finally listened to the Shisko/White debate on Baptism. James White actually declared my hermeneutic method and asked Shisko if he followed suit, which Shisko agreed to. It was in the second half of the debate, 10:05-11:06. James White says basically EXACTLY what I have been trying to say! Talk about providential

Maybe I have just really not been explaining myself at all.