Baptist Hermeneutics

By the works of the Law, no flesh is justified.

 

They never were, but yes, The Law was abrogated.

 

No flesh was ever justified by the works of the Law (Acts of the Apostles 15:10; Romans 4:2-3).

 

Certainly. I was just saying that The Abrogation of The Law is a sizable Doctrine.

 

Certainly. I was just saying that The Abrogation of The Law is a sizable Doctrine.

And THERE IT IS.

 

1) The Word of God presents a coherent whole, except that later revelations sometimes abrogate earlier scripture.

For example, we as believers are part of the Priesthood, with Jesus as our high Priest. The Levitical Priesthood has been abrogated.

It appears both Alan and Martin agree with rule #1.

 

The Abrogation of The Law is a worthy and large profitable Doctrine.

Here's a readable version:
5. Of the Abrogation of the Old Covenant.

A Body of Doctrinal Divinity


"2a. It was a typical covenant; the people on whose account it was made, was a typical people, typical of the whole Israel of God, consisting of Jews and Gentiles; of the spiritual Israel, chosen of God, redeemed by Christ, and who shall be saved with an everlasting salvation;

... the works, duties, and services enjoined them, and required of them with so much strictness, rigor, and severity, were typical of the obedience of Christ, the surety of the spiritual Israel; of that righteousness he was to fulfil and bring in, by which they are made righteous in the sight of God.

"The blessings promised unto them were typical ones; they were only shadows of good things, of spiritual blessings that were to come by Christ (Heb. 10:1; 9:11).

"As the earthly Canaan was a type of the heavenly inheritance, obtained in him; the sacrifices offered under that covenant were typical ones; the priests that offered them, the garments they offered them in, and the gifts and sacrifices offered by them, "served to the example and shadow of heavenly things" (Heb. 8:4,5; 9:23).

"The mediator of it, Moses, was a typical mediator, typical of Christ, the Mediator of the new covenant; the blood with which the first testament, or covenant, was dedicated and confirmed, was typical blood, typical of the blood of Christ, called, "The blood of the everlasting covenant" (Heb. 9:18; 13:20).

"Now when the Antitype of all this came, the types must cease; when Christ, the body, the sum and substance appeared, these shadows must flee away, and disappear, in course (Col. 2:17)."

...

Then, * "The apostles and prophets and Jesus himself all declare that the very event of Christ’s return will be the end of sin and death.

"The Second Coming immediately brings the final separation of the righteous from the wicked, the end of the opportunity for repentance, and the eternal glory of a new creation freed from sin’s curse.

"Further problems also arise when a dispensational hermeneutic is applied to Zechariah 14. (my note: and all Prophecy).

"Because the role of apocalyptic symbolism is minimized, the result is a renewed Judaism, complete with temple worship and required annual feasts.

"Although some details may differ from earlier historical iterations, this is essentially the Mosaic system of worship resurrected.

"It would be a titanic reversal of Christ’s blood-bought accomplishments and a return to those types and shadows which his priestly work has rendered obsolete (Heb. 7:18–22; 8:13; 9:8–10; 10:1, 8–9, 18)" *

* An Amillennial Interpretation of Zechariah 14 (1 of 8) – cbtseminary

So, The References God Makes in Prophecy are USING Mosaic System symbolism and figures to Express New Testament Spiritual Realities.

Not to suggest a reinstatement of The System of Law, with sacrifices, etc., THA WAS TYPICAL to START WITH.......

THAT is Very Powerful Hermeneutics that will get you somewhere and let you see, as a 'scribe' Jesus Says,

"Then said he unto them,

Therefore every scribe
which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder,

which bringeth forth out of his treasure
things new and old."

The 'scribe', according to Jesus, brings Spiritual Treasures of his understanding of The Kingdom of Heaven, from The Old and New Testament.

(not 'left behind', etc., stupidity)

 

Unless the "Abrogation of the Law" is specifically defined, and specifically supported from scripture it should be viewed as dubious.

 

Maybe due toi the truth that God gave to use gifted men to understand the scriptures better, and that unless one knows and can use biblical original languages, should consult those who can use tem?

 

If I have a trustworthy translation in my own language, I don't need to know the original languages.
I also don't need men in order to give me my understanding.

You may see it that way, but I respectfully must disagree.

However, I do admit that God has given men to he body of Christ to edify His people by their scholarship, and to delve into the Greek and Hebrew in order to provide accurate translations.
As for commentaries, I have no use for them.
They can be helpful, but ultimately, I should be checking out their conclusions and questioning whether or not they are believing the words on the page.

I'll put it this way...
Believers did just fine without commentaries for centuries.
They are no less necessary now, than they were then.

If a person cannot understand the Scriptures for themselves by doing the one thing that God commands them to do...study ( 2 Timothy 2:15 )...then to me, their problem goes a lot deeper than they realize.

John 8:43-47.
Romans 8:6-7.
1 Corinthians 2:14.
2 Corinthians 4:3-4.
and several others that come to mind.

To me, there's a reason "bible colleges" exist, and it isn't because Scripture is being properly understood by those who profess Christ.
There's Someone lacking in their studies, and it's the Spirit.

That's why I don't believe or subscribe to the modern construct of "hermeneutics".
Because each group of men have their own "cookie cutter" version of it.

Even Baptists have them... 3 sets of them, depending on which Baptist church one goes to.

 

The idea of 'getting' what God Has for us in The Bible is Love.

Do I Love God?

Do I Love God's Word?

Do I Love God enough to Surrender to His Holy Spirit in Worship and TRUST THE HOLY SPIRIT to Show me what God wants me to see?

Am I Worshipping God through Believing and Loving God?

Am I on God's Side?

Do I Love God enough to Bow to His Word when The Bible Opposes my flesh?

Being Honest, Spiritually, with The Bible is A TEST of Our LOVE of GOD.

 

Can other Saved individuals benefit me, Spiritually, and have The Holy Spirit Teach meaning Bible Truths to Enable me to Love and Worship God?

Of course.

Do most 'Bible Students' know 1% of the titles of major categories of deep, comprehensive, Bible Doctrines that involve dozens, to hundreds of Wonderful, God-Honoring Scriptures each, like, 'The Abrogation of The Law', as The First Administration of The Triune Godhead's Eternal Plan of Salvation, in The One Covenant of Grace?

Nah.

They've never even heard of what 99% of The Bibles Subject Matter would be called.

They don't know they exist.

They could Love and Worship God by knowing them and carrying copies of different Teachings with them all day.

But, who cares to Love God?

 

This blog of mine has a nice Bible teacher who gives several audio messages about good ways to approach Bible Study.

He is some type of 'scribe' is what I call them.

The Lord's churches are of Divine Origin and Existence, so Saved folks outside Jesus' churches are in The Kingdom of His Dear Son.

If they are not against us, they are for us.

Try the Spirits to see if they are of God.

I heard 'preachers' say the stupidest things imaginable, but also have had many, many, many of God's children that I HAVE BENEFITTED FROM.

This guy is one.

My Pasteur used to say, "don't make me" (to be stated that he would...)"believe everything written by those in the books of his library".

Collecting those that know something is an art.

I gave 1,000's of good commentary and reference books to a Bible College.

The Pastor of that church came running, because he said, "I know your taste'.

I am an Artist and had a hundred books just on Bible Art.

Let the young folks learn from them.

...

"Books on Books" is a delightful endeavor for Bible Students.

In other words, along with some fine Commentaries, what person has a good Teaching on a Certain Book of The Bible?

Then, there are 65 to go...

! 0.0.1 Bibliology: Introduction

...

This is a whole collection of his Teachings on Studying The Bible.

Make a list from there, too, if you'd like.

Systematic Theology Series | SermonAudio

 

The chances of me agreeing with any of your 'rules' are small indeed. However, the first seven words are OK. But God does not change His mind Whatever actions He takes were decided in eternity past.

 

God Desided to have One Eternal Covenant of Grace.

God Decreed to Administer that One Covenant in two different Testaments.

The first was abrogated and succeeded by the second.

It is The First "Administration" that was abrogated, not The One Eternal Covenant of Grace.

 

Amazingly, your off topic again, and you failed to provide an alternate to rule #1.

1) The Word of God presents a coherent whole, except that later revelations sometimes abrogate earlier scripture.

 

Lets list a few of the rules we as Baptists use to interpret scripture.

1) The Word of God presents a coherent whole, except that later revelations sometimes abrogate earlier scripture.

2) "The Old Testament Laws have been fulfilled and abrogated or cancelled with Christ's death, and replaced with the Law of Christ of the New Covenant, although many of the Old Covenant laws are re-instituted under the New Covenant."

3) The meaning of words and phrases should be understood as the original audience would have understood them, given their historical meaning of that time, the grammatical version of the word in the text, and the cultural beliefs of the time.

4) Avoid speculation that nullifies the meaning, or adds or expands to the scope of a statement, Ask "what is the least the text is saying."

5) Do not use preconceptions (i.e. prior doctrinal belief) to result in an agenda driven interpretation.

No one proposed additional interpretation rules, so the consensus agrees.