Consider This...
Theological Thoughts to Encourage the Heart & Stir the Mind ___________________________________________________
Volume I May 2011 Issue 21
This month, we have been looking at various theological positions found in society today. Foundationally, the differences between them would stem from a variation in the interpretation of Scripture, as well as the application of those interpretations. A couple months ago, we looked at the term Hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the process used to interpret Scripture. Correct interpretation or hermeneutics means to interpret Scripture A) literally, B) historically, and C) grammatically.
A movement that has made its way into society and “religion” is known as New Hermeneutics. New Hermeneutics is not an all together brand new concept. It has been around for hundreds of years. It has woven itself throughout time in various forms and shapes and rears its head today through a number of popular televangelists and modern messages.
Most people promoting this “new” process would claim that the main reason another method of Hermeneutics is necessary is because man is unable to understand what God was thinking when He inspired the Scriptures to be written. As a result, they lean on their own understanding of the Scriptures and align its interpretation with where they are in their life and what their impression of God is, rather than with who God is described as in His Word.
There are five primary things that those who promote this concept disregard or ignore.
The first one is that there is a pattern in the New Testament. Romans 6:17 and 2 Timothy 1:13-18 both define a pattern of logical reasoning based on Scripture. Verse 14 also speaks of keeping this “good thing” BY the Holy Spirit.
The second practice abandoned is establishing the Bible as the ultimate authority. By basing interpretation on their own ideas rather than Scripture, an individual elevates their thinking above that of the Word of God. Scripture clearly states that the Bible is the ultimate authority. 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:21, John 13:16, Hebrews 4:12, and many others declare this fact.
Third is the failure to use the New Testament as a book of law (James 1:21 -27, focus on 25).
Fourthly, they resist using deductive reasoning and logic when learning God’s will (Acts 17:2, 17:17; 26:25). Because of their position that man cannot understand what God meant by the Scriptures, they are unable to apply reason and logic to the Scriptures and find out what God is teaching through His Word.
Lastly, they are unable to claim that even they are incapable of knowing truth (John 8:31-32; 17:17).
Those who agree with New Hermeneutics do not live by any standard outside of themselves. When Christ and His Word are not foundational in interpretation, they themselves become the foundation and, therefore, completely distort what Scripture teaches. Because they are changing, their thoughts and minds are changing. Subsequently, their interpretation of the Word of God keeps changing. As a result, there can be no absolutes!
We are strongly warned throughout Scripture against this type of teaching (Gal. 2:4-5, Jude 3, 2 Peter 2:19).
Make no mistake. Those who would teach using this New Hermeneutics approach are false teachers. Their words are false and their message is a vile lie. Their teaching leads to Relativism, Humanism, Ecumenism, Subjectivism, Agnosticism, and on and on and on. They are revilers of truth and enemies of holiness.
By way of application, God’s Word is the ultimate authority in the life of a believer. Our experiences, ideas, opinions, and desires play no role in finding Biblical truth. God’s word is plain, clear, and without compromise. There is one correct interpretation of God’s Word.
It is such a comforting truth that God’s Word is constant, unchanging, and immovable. It does not sway with the times, it does not change with political temperatures. It remains now and forever the unshakable, immovable, trustworthy, authoritative, Word of the Most Holy, Righteous, Loving, God.
Jonathan Halk
I found your blog and appreciate your commitment to expounding the word of God, and there are a few comments I would like to make. I’ll reference your statement and follow with an observation.
ReplyDeleteCorrect interpretation or hermeneutics means to interpret Scripture A) literally, B) historically, and C) grammatically. On what basis is this “correct”? Is this a scriptural or dogmatic claim? Is the correct interpretation always the literal one? “Historically” how? The traditional interpretation throughout the life of the church or according to its original context?
There are five primary things that those who promote this concept disregard or ignore.
At this point an example would be helpful. Who in particular are you referring to as “promoting this concept”?
The second practice abandoned is establishing the Bible as the ultimate authority. By basing interpretation on their own ideas rather than Scripture, an individual elevates their thinking above that of the Word of God. Scripture clearly states that the Bible is the ultimate authority. 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:21, John 13:16, Hebrews 4:12, and many others declare this fact. I don’t see how these texts demonstrate the ultimate authority of scripture. Is it in reference to the word being “of God”? If so, what about the authority of the church, which is also “of God”? Also, is Heb 4:12 to be taken literally as though it were a metal blade dividing joint and marrow?
Fourthly, they resist using deductive reasoning and logic when learning God’s will (Acts 17:2, 17:17; 26:25). Because of their position that man cannot understand what God meant by the Scriptures, they are unable to apply reason and logic to the Scriptures and find out what God is teaching through His Word. . Later you claim that God’s word is plain, clear, and without compromise. If God’s word is plain and clear whence the need for logical deduction at all?
Our experiences, ideas, opinions, and desires play no role in finding Biblical truth. Is this true? Paul seems to be saying in Rom 7 that the experience of sin is basic (at least for him) in coming to an appreciation of salvation. I would also suggest that “’to know” in Paul is often an experiential knowing, and not a mere accumulation of facts.
There is one correct interpretation of God’s Word. Again, is this claim scriptural or dogmatic?
Just some thoughts that might stimulate some dialogue, which is possibly more edifying than satisfying a felt need to master the subject by cataloguing the “right answers”.