Clare73
Blood-bought
- Jun 12, 2012
- 25,248
- 6,182
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
That's just it, in conversation we consider the speech-act as much as we do the words themselves. If someone is delivering a sermon we take it differently than if we are in a conversation with them.
Strawman. . .The same is true for the Bible, things delivered in a narrative are different than things delivered in a psalm or a letter. Each of these different literary contexts must be accounted for and removing them
in single verses to create a system ignores and belittles the proper meaning.
Would you please decide whose side you are on. You just said:There is no such thing as a "plain text" reading because every statement-written or spoken-has ambiguity that we rely on contextual questions to fill in. When taking verses to build a system of theology
what informs the ambiguities is not the original context but
the debates throughout church history surrounding those verse and modern biases.
Too much cutting and pasting. . .There are no 'Biblical demonstrations' on the table, as your method does not fully reveal the Biblical picture as it appeals to church history for defining terms
Who made that rule?. . .and who said that he did?Exegetical rigor is not about improving on Paul's communication skills, but correctly bringing out the context to match the Biblical context. Paul didn't write dogmatic treatises,
Strawman. . .so to treat his letters as dogmatics
Paul's "chosen method of communication" is given in 1Co 2:12-13:is to ignore Paul's chosen method of communication. . .
"what God has freely given us. . .is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words (interpreting spiritual truths to spiritual men)."
What "choice of genre?"as if he were mistaken in his choice of genre.
Paul is not the author of Scripture, the Holy Spirit is the author of Scripture, Paul is simply the penman, the writer.
And because Scripture is penned, written by humans, you reduce the God-breathed Holy Scriptures to the level of human literature,
subjecting it to human rules regarding human literature.
You don't believe that Scripture is God-breathed (theo pneustos--2Tim 3:16),
nor that the Holy Spirit is its author, not Paul.
Who gave you the authority to evaluate God-breathed Holy Scripture as human literature?
And that my friend, is the unbridgeable great divide between us.
Genre. . .pericope. . ."works as a whole" . .nor anything else has anything to do with the meanings of the words Paul pens.
Strawmen are not about distorting the argument.Again, if you're going to accuse me of presenting strawmen you're going to have to
explain in what manner I have distorted the argument.
And? . .systemization of what? Chinese recipes. . .dog diseases. . .road-building materials?No, your wheel house is systematic theology
No!. . .it's God-breathed Holy Scripture!. . .which is not subject to your rules for interpreting human literature.
And pray tell, how much of anything multifaceted, inside or outside the Bible, do you understand without systemization.
So. . .for the sake of your hermeneutic, you deny the only human way of understanding anything multifaceted.
More legislation from the methodology memo. . .
Agreed. . .now if you would just let it do that.Biblical theology allows the Bible itself to define its terms
And that is done from the texts themselves. . .not by any authority imposed upon them from outside the text, as in your following:
translate: the context is incapable of making sense on its ownby fully making sense" of the context
and there's your problem again. . .Paul is not the author, the Holy Spirit is the author. . .starting by looking at the pericope, moving onto the chapter, then to the book, then to the author's work as a whole, etc.
and the above sounds a whole lot like what you call a "whole Bible approach" which
you say "is a way of introducing your own biases into the material."
I couldn't have better described your own methodology.Taking a "whole Bible" approach is simply a way of introducing your own biases into the material as it so often
involves ranking and setting verses at odds,
declaring some things need context and
others can simply be understood as they are.
Physician, heal thyself.
And in what universe would the above description be viewed as a "whole Bible approach"?
Sorry, what gives the words their meanings are the meanings of those wordsAs I mentioned above, no statement is separate from the manner of delivery
so without an explicit method to combat foreign conceptualizations and
history giving words their meaning
in the language they are written.
You're "methodology memo" is just full of ways to assume authority over the God-breathed Holy Scriptures.
Sorry. . .you don't get to introduce any authority over the language used by the writer.
OH, NO!. . .NOT PROOF TEXTING!!! . . .Quick! Bring the Genre Sauce! . . .Or is it the Pericope Sauce?these things will be introduced and the Bible will not be saying what it actually says.
Whether you claim it or not you have a method, and that method is proof texting.
More legislative authority over God-breathed Holy Scripture from the methodology memo,
which disallows Biblical texts in demonstrating Biblical meaning.
Your "hermeneutic" is prima facie absurd.
Those imaginary dangers spun from the methodology memo. . .If you don't want to recognize the dangers and how that style of interpretation introduces modern thinking and worldviews into the text that's on you.
That's what good teaching is for. . .which begins with no authority over the God-breathed Holy Scriptures. The language is its meaning.
Last edited:
Upvote
0