Baptist Hermeneutics

[37818]

Biblical Hermeneutics has been called the science of Biblical Interpretation. There are some things regarding Baptist Bible Interpreation which sets Baptist interpreation unique to Baptists. And then there are the eclectic interpretations in which individuals differ in interpretations of texts.

There are in distiction from Baptist Hermeneutics: Romans Catholic, Orthodox Church, Protestant, when it comes to interpreting passages of Holy Scripture.

Typically there is an eisegtical character to interpretations as opposed to their exegetical base which all good Biblcal interpreations have. Which sets an interpration apart from what the interpretated text actaully says.

So where there are Hermeneutical disagreements as to an interpreation of a text, it comes down to between eisegetical reading into the text versus the exegetical basis of an interpretation.

This issue is the identifying difference.

There is a broad range of issues of interpretation where this occurs.

 

[Revmitchell]

Kind of a drunk post.

 

[37818]

Kind of a drunk post.

So what specifically did I write that is not true? Or is the best you can do is resort to some kind ad hominem?

". . . Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. . . ." -- Romans 2:1.

". . . Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. . . ." -- 1 Corinthians 1:10.

". . . Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus: . . ." -- Romans 15:5.

 

[Revmitchell]

So what specifically did I write that is not true? Or is the best you can do is resort to some kind ad hominem?

". . . Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. . . ." -- Romans 2:1.

". . . Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. . . ." -- 1 Corinthians 1:10.

". . . Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus: . . ." -- Romans 15:5.

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

 

[JonC]

Biblical Hermeneutics has been called the science of Biblical Interpretation. There are some things regarding Baptist Bible Interpreation which sets Baptist interpreation unique to Baptists. And then there are the eclectic interpretations in which individuals differ in interpretations of texts.

There are in distiction from Baptist Hermeneutics: Romans Catholic, Orthodox Church, Protestant, when it comes to interpreting passages of Holy Scripture.

Typically there is an eisegtical character to interpretations as opposed to their exegetical base which all good Biblcal interpreations have. Which sets an interpration apart from what the interpretated text actaully says.

So where there are Hermeneutical disagreements as to an interpreation of a text, it comes down to between eisegetical reading into the text versus the exegetical basis of an interpretation.

This issue is the identifying difference.

There is a broad range of issues of interpretation where this occurs.

I thought of this today watching the news of the hurricane.

The reporter said that the storm wants a specific condition (I don’t recall the conditions).

The problem with the report is that it personifies the weather phenomena. The storm is not a situational or dependent on climate conditions. It is essentially a “person”. And this storm has desire. The storm wants specific things.

Sometimes words convey ideas that are missed in the direct “words have meaning” method some may employ regarding translating documents removed from the translators contemporary experience.

One argument on this forum has been with Scripture’s use of “death” to describe those not “in Christ” or “spiritually alive”. But those who make the argument assume too much. Employ the argument with the current reports of Dorian.

We are told that when a hurricane travels over land or cold water the hurricane dies. To die, the thing stops living. Does a hurricane have life?

 

[Reformed]

Typically there is an eisegtical character to interpretations as opposed to their exegetical base which all good Biblcal interpreations have. Which sets an interpration apart from what the interpretated text actaully says.

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

 

[Yeshua1]

Biblical Hermeneutics has been called the science of Biblical Interpretation. There are some things regarding Baptist Bible Interpreation which sets Baptist interpreation unique to Baptists. And then there are the eclectic interpretations in which individuals differ in interpretations of texts.

There are in distiction from Baptist Hermeneutics: Romans Catholic, Orthodox Church, Protestant, when it comes to interpreting passages of Holy Scripture.

Typically there is an eisegtical character to interpretations as opposed to their exegetical base which all good Biblcal interpreations have. Which sets an interpration apart from what the interpretated text actaully says.

So where there are Hermeneutical disagreements as to an interpreation of a text, it comes down to between eisegetical reading into the text versus the exegetical basis of an interpretation.

This issue is the identifying difference.

There is a broad range of issues of interpretation where this occurs.

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

 

[Alan Gross]

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.
...

 

[JonC]

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

This is an interesting claim, brother. While it is not a sentiment that I share, would you be so kind as to explain how Scripture interprets itself without involving the finiteness of the human element?

For example, Scripture indicates a that Abraham gave ten present of the spoils when God gave him victory over the King of Elam. Jacob vowed to give a tenth of what God gave him. How is this to be interpreted (not translated but interpreted)? Is it a principle or merely a passing statement of what these men did? What does Scripture say to its application?

How does Scripture interpret “Logos”? Is this the “Word” as an expression of God gone out through the world? Or is John using “logos” as it was culturally used within the Hellenistic culture contemporary to John?

What about “foreknowledge”? The word literally means prescience, it historically meant prescience (even amongst Calvinists) so is the neo-Calvinistic extension of the world to encompass a relational aspect eisegesis?

What about Paul’s instruction to Timothy regarding a deacon as being the husband to one wife? Does this exclude a divorced man from being a deacon? Does a deacon have to be married?

Interpretation should use Scripture to interpret Scripture BUT the idea that there is the “plain and literal sense” of the Scripture in many of these matters is perhaps a blindness to other interpretations that may stand at odds with the one someone holds.

 

[Yeshua1]

This is an interesting claim, brother. While it is not a sentiment that I share, would you be so kind as to explain how Scripture interprets itself without involving the finiteness of the human element?

For example, Scripture indicates a that Abraham gave ten present of the spoils when God gave him victory over the King of Elam. Jacob vowed to give a tenth of what God gave him. How is this to be interpreted (not translated but interpreted)? Is it a principle or merely a passing statement of what these men did? What does Scripture say to its application?

How does Scripture interpret “Logos”? Is this the “Word” as an expression of God gone out through the world? Or is John using “logos” as it was culturally used within the Hellenistic culture contemporary to John?

What about “foreknowledge”? The word literally means prescience, it historically meant prescience (even amongst Calvinists) so is the neo-Calvinistic extension of the world to encompass a relational aspect eisegesis?

What about Paul’s instruction to Timothy regarding a deacon as being the husband to one wife? Does this exclude a divorced man from being a deacon? Does a om God to us, that is scripture interpreting itself!deacon have to be married?

Interpretation should use Scripture to interpret Scripture BUT the idea that there is the “plain and literal sense” of the Scripture in many of these matters is perhaps a blindness to other interpretations that may stand at odds with the one someone holds.

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!

 

[JonC]

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!

I think I see what you mean. Are you speaking then of the Old Testament being revealed in the New Testament?

 

[Yeshua1]

I think I see what you mean. Are you speaking then of the Old Testament being revealed in the New Testament?

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!

 

[Dave G]

Biblical Hermeneutics has been called the science of Biblical Interpretation. There are some things regarding Baptist Bible Interpreation which sets Baptist interpreation unique to Baptists. And then there are the eclectic interpretations in which individuals differ in interpretations of texts.

There are in distiction from Baptist Hermeneutics: Romans Catholic, Orthodox Church, Protestant, when it comes to interpreting passages of Holy Scripture.

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.

So where there are Hermeneutical disagreements as to an interpreation of a text, it comes down to between eisegetical reading into the text versus the exegetical basis of an interpretation.

This issue is the identifying difference.

There is a broad range of issues of interpretation where this occurs.

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.

 

[Dave G]

What about “foreknowledge”? The word literally means prescience, it historically meant prescience (even amongst Calvinists) so is the neo-Calvinistic extension of the world to encompass a relational aspect eisegesis?

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.

 

[JonC]

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!

At the same time we probably should. Remember Christ's words to Nicodemus- just because we do not normally see those things does not mean we shouldn't have .

 

[JonC]

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 2:1-10.

I think both have implications with neither being perfect

Traditional Calvinism holds "foreknowledge" to be "pre-knowledge" but omniscience itself being rooted in divine decree (in the Institutions God has a foreknowledge/ pre-knowledge because Gid has decreed these things to pass).

Neo-Calvinism holds foreknowledge to be relational (like a man "knowing" a woman). I think this may be a move to exclude other interpretations by redefining the word.

But at the same time God is immutable AND when foreknowledge is presented as God looking through time then God is no longer omniscient but in a sense learns what will occur.

 

[Dave G]

Neo-Calvinism holds foreknowledge to be relational (like a man "knowing" a woman).

As do I.

I think this may be a move to exclude other interpretations by redefining the word.

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".

But at the same time God is immutable AND when foreknowledge is presented as God looking through time then God is no longer omniscient but in a sense learns what will occur.

Agreed.

 

[Dave G]

What about Paul’s instruction to Timothy regarding a deacon as being the husband to one wife? Does this exclude a divorced man from being a deacon? Does a deacon have to be married?

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

 

[JonC]

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

Nornally hamburgers.

 

[JonC]

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.

I agree with you on that principle if not for anything but the timelessness of God (and God's love). But that is not actually the meaning of the word "foreknowledge", so it becomes a literal vs explained meaning issue for me. I'm OCD that way