Baptist Hermeneutics

Kind of a drunk post.

 

You make statements that are true but the post as a whole is incoherent

 

You need to tighten up this sentence. It makes little sense.

 

Baptists understand the plain and literal sense of the scriptures, that scripture imterprets itself, and that one takes into account literary genres!

 

Literary genres are the literal sense.

The Literal sense is the interpretation of literature.

Literature includes denotative speech ( denoting a thing expressed) and connotative speech ( giving the connotation).

Denotative speech ( denoting a thing expressed) and connotative speech ( giving the connotation) are both literal speech, in the literal sense, in Literature.

Connotative speech can actually be far more expressive of the information conveyed, than denotative.

"Jesus will come when you do not expect Him."

vs

"Jesus will come as a thief in the night."

...

A huge misgiving takes place when the idea of 'literal speech' is mistaken for 'letterism'. That is not how literature is read, or interpreted, and never in The Bible.

...

You would have to spell out your definition of 'an eisegtical (sp?) character to interpretations' as opposed to their 'exegetical base', for some to begin to fight you on a level playing field.

Right now, they are just swinging at anything, for no reason, other than they have been told to fight anything 'Baptists' claim.
...

 

When the Holy Spirit gave to us scripture references, and those have revealed for us what was actually meant, that would be scripture interpreting itself. Example, Bible stated that thru Abraham all would be blessed, and Paul tells us that blessing came by His seed, Jesus Christ!

 

Primarily, as we would not see God citing in OT "out of Egypt called my Son" as referring to Jesus and not Israel, but Matthrew under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit tied that into life of Christ!

 

Personally, I find it strange that the understanding of God's word gets lumped into types of "hermeneutics", considering that there's only supposed to be one...the understanding of the text by a born again child of God.

All others should be discarded.

But, since there are denominations ( I consider "denominationalism" to be a product of false teaching and false teachers ), and there is the problem of "wheat and tares", then everyone and their brother seems to have a different "take" on what the Scriptures say and mean.

I also find it odd, in a very knowing way, that the Bible seems to be the only book in existence that people feel the need to "interpret", rather than read and understand at face value.
In other words, I see that it was written for the believer, and for the Spirit-indwelt person whose understanding has been opened to it ( Luke 24:45 ) and who has "ears to hear" ( Matthew 11:15 ), who is "of God" ( John 8:47 ).

The unsaved cannot even begin to understand it.
Therein is the main problem.

To me, "tares" ( false brethren ( 2 Corinthians 11:26 )) who think they are saved, and false teachers who aren't what they seem ( 2 Peter 2 ) are messing up the works.

I think it goes deeper than that, and the problem is spiritual.
Please see John 6:63.

"Baptist Hermeneutics" are no more reliable than any other, in my estimation...
Though I find them historically far closer to the truth.

 

Scripture defining and "interpreting" Scripture, the definition of "foreknowledge" shouldn't be something that needs to be brought in from outside.

I remember corresponding with a Baptist pastor once, and he kept telling me that "foreknowledge" meant that God looks ahead to see something...
I thought to myself,
"God doesn't need to "look ahead" to see anything...when He knows something, it's because He decided to either allow it, or work it after His own purposes."

To me, here is where foreknowledge is defined:

" For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully [and] wonderfully made: marvellous [are] thy works; and [that] my soul knoweth right well.
15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, [and] curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all [my members] were written, [which] in continuance were fashioned, when [as yet there was] none of them." ( Psalms 139:13-16 )


" Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." ( Jeremiah 1:5 )

To me, it's intimate "foreknowing", as in "foreloving".
Why do I state this?

Because that is what I see those two passages ( and several others ) developing.
Also, there's Ephesians 2:4-5.

 

As do I.

Not in my case.
One day I was simply reading, and it hit me that this was the correct definition, because other Scriptures backed it up.

Rather than opening a book of "hermenuetics", I simply understood it that way according to my own "set of them".

Agreed.

 

Good point.
What do your "internal hermeneutics" dictate?