How I approach/interpret Scripture
- Thread starter ViaCrucis
- Start date
Your criteria are traditional ones, but some of them have problems.
1) Christocentrism. This has led people to read into the OT content that the original author didn't intend. I agree that the purpose of Scripture is to tell us about Christ, but I think we have to be very careful about using that purpose in detailed exegesis. My commitment is to look at what the original author would have meant.
2) Clarity over ambiguity. That is a problem as well. It can lead us to accept the most unlikely reading because it's the most explicit. So Paul seems to accept female leaders but never come out and says "there can be female leaders." 1 Tim, however, rejects them. So we go with 1 Tim. Bad idea. The exegesis of Gen 3 in 1 Tim is absurd.
I think what we need to do is look at how a topic is treated throughout Scripture, and how Jesus treats it, and try a synthesis. But I'm not averse to ignoring an extreme voice.
3) Homolegomena > antilegomena. That I agree with, though not everyone would agree on which are antilegomena. I include the NT outside the Gospels, Acts and the undisputed letters of Paul. It seems like you may agree.
4) Literary context. yes
5) General context. yes. In addition to what you say, I suggest that one of the first things we should ask about a passage is "what point was the author trying to make." Sometimes an author's incidental belief becomes the main significance of a passage (e.g. Rom 1 is about idolatry, not sexual ethics, though it certainly shows us something about Paul's attitudes to sex).
6) Description is not proscription. ok
7) Tradition. Looking at historical understanding is certainly useful. E.g. I often refer to Calvin's commentaries. But at times our views change. This happened in the Reformation, the Enlightenment, and more recently with better understanding of the Jewish background of the NT. That means that the relevant tradition at times may only be those who are informed by these things.
We both belong to confessional churches. At least in the PCUSA, this means that we understand Scripture as a community. It does not mean that the community's understanding can't change. Indeed if there was no change given the major developments in science, archaeology, literary criticism, and understanding of the 1st Cent, I'd be very suspicious.
Upvote
0
- Oct 2, 2011
- 37,425
- 26,864
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
I see it as a straightforward Homologoumena/Antilegomena distinction to be made: certain books of the New Testament received universal or near universal acceptance almost from the very beginning, these undisputed books have a primary importance. Whereas the Antilegomena has a varied history of dispute and controversy. Homologoumena, therefore, takes precedence. That doesn't mean Antilegomena is less-than-inspired, only that it should be read and interpreted in light of Homologoumena, not the other way around. We should read Hebrews, James, et al in light of the Gospels, Paul, and the Acts.
This is a big reason why I think the Chiliast interpretation of the Apocalypse is wrong, it attempts to force a literal interpretation of the Millennium and then shoehorn the rest of Scripture into fitting into that mold, like forcing a square peg into a round hole. Instead, our eschatological views should be built upon the more solid foundation of the general consensus of Scripture, such as the Gospels and the Epistles of St. Paul; and then how we read the Millennium as mentioned in the Apocalypse should be informed by the larger picture of what was believed and taught.
St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 says that Christ must reign until all things are subject to Him, and that the last enemy to be defeated is death, and that the defeat of death is at the resurrection ("Death is swallowed up in victory"). We know that the resurrection occurs at Christ's Parousia; we can, therefore reasonable understand that the reigning of Christ refers not to a post-Parousia temporal reign, but to Christ's glorious reign at the right hand of the Father which is right now, and that Christ shall reign in heaven until He comes, the dead are raised, and victory over death is complete. We can compare this, also, to what St. Peter says in Acts ch. 3, that Christ is reigning in heaven, and heaven must receive Him until the "restoration of all things" (Acts 3:21). So how do we understand the Millennium as described by St. John in the Apocalypse? In light of everything else we can be confident that Christ reigns even now as King of kings and Lord of lords, for God has made Him "both Lord and Christ" having ascended into the heavens, seated at the right hand of the Father, having been given all power and authority ("All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me...") So is the kingly reign of Jesus a temporal reality that lasts for a literal thousand years at some point in the indefinite future, or does Jesus reign as King now? The biblical answer is that Jesus reigns as King now. When He comes, He does not become King--for He is already King--but He brings with Him the everlasting kingdom, to lay all things at the feet of the Father, so that God may be all in all.
-CryptoLutheran
Upvote
0
But the post you're responding to also put the Gospels ahead of Paul. I agree with this. I am *not* rejecting Paul. We'd be much poorer without him. But I think Jesus should set the overall shape of Christianity.
There are, as I just commented in a different thread, two different definitions of the Gospel in Jesus and Paul. I start with Jesus' definition. I'm then willing to see what Paul has to add, but the overall shape of the Gospel comes from Jesus' definition.
This is a big deal because Protestants have usually worked in the reverse way: Romans set the overall shape, and Jesus' teachings were fit into it.
Upvote
0
Cappadocious
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2012
- 3,885
- 860
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Cappadocious
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2012
- 3,885
- 860
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
I'm down with that, I'm against authorial intent as a legitimizing criterion for anything in any context
Upvote
0
- Jul 1, 2013
- 9,199
- 8,425
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
Your label says you're non-denominational.
This is one thing about the whole non-denominational enterprise that's always baffled me. And when I say "always", that's not hyperbole. Even when I was an evangelical, the ND thing just made no sense to me.
Man has spent century upon century poring over the scriptures. People have committed their lives as a sacrifice to God to study His words, men have risked (or sacrificed) their lives for their faith and risen above a lot of bloody persecution to live out their Christian witness.
All that time, prayer, patience and study... and it took until, like, 2006 or whatever year for some graduate from "Bible college" to start a non-denominational ecclesial community in order for somebody to FINALLY "get it right"?
I get that a democratic majority is no guarantor of fidelity. But come on!
Upvote
0
~Anastasia~
† Handmaid of God †
- Dec 1, 2013
- 31,133
- 17,455
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
This might be a good time to post a reminder to please read the Statement of Purpose for Traditional Theology - Statement of Purpose - Traditional Theology Statement of Purpose - if you have not done so. The rules for discussion in this area are fairly specific.
If anyone has questions, please feel free to ask.
This is a topic-driven forum where Traditional Christians can discuss matters in light of Tradition. Absolutely not a place to debate against it.
Again, if there are questions, please feel free to ask.
Thank you all!
If anyone has questions, please feel free to ask.
This is a topic-driven forum where Traditional Christians can discuss matters in light of Tradition. Absolutely not a place to debate against it.
Again, if there are questions, please feel free to ask.
Thank you all!
Upvote
0
royal priest
debtor to grace
- Nov 1, 2015
- 2,666
- 2,655
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Married
That depends on what, if anything, the Scripture says about an issue in the context of Creation, the Fall, and Redemption. With respect to the roles of men and women, there is matter to be gleaned from each of those contexts to which Paul appeals in support of his argument.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
