Church And Israel

[Martin Marprelate]

just for clarification, I do not agree with the first chart but the position of the 1689 federalism whose article it is.

If you go to 1689 Federalism and scroll down to where it says "1689 Federalifm vs Difpenfationalifm" I think the differences are very well explained.

 

[Reformed1689]

Yeah, but was he a TV preacher, or did he just have a show of some kind. (I don't know--don't watch much TV & never saw him.) But if he was actually preaching on his show instead of teaching--then he was the exception.

He did both. Every preacher is a theologian by the way.

 

[John of Japan]

I knew you'd like that .


Would that be different from "sensus literalis" - according to the sense of the literature? That is, we interpret the text differently depending on whether it is historical narrative, poetry, didactic, or even prophetic. Having said that, I am guessing that interpreting with an historical-grammatical hermeneutic incorporates the method I've described here. Basically, I try to understand what the author meant, and how the original audience understood the message.

The historical grammatical (or grammatical-historical) method is the traditional evangelical method of hermeneutics. The historical part means we must look at the passage in its historical milieu, and the grammatical part means that we must interpret in the light of the grammar and semantics of the original language. A recent helpful development by some excellent authors is applying modern linguistics to the grammatical part, in particular the abandonment of etymology and the embracing of contemporary usage to determine meaning.

 

[Rob_BW]

Yes, but they are not theologians. Most of them are pastors or evangelists, some good men. However, if you have an eye problem you go to an ophthalmologist, not a dietician. So if you want to learn theology you sit under a theologian and read theologies.

You can be greatly blessed by a TV preacher, and learn about the Christian life and share in the thanks when he sees souls saved. But why would anyone want to get their theology from TV? That's about on the level of getting it from Wikipedia!

Yep, you gotta turn the TV off and go to YouTube for theology.

 

[John of Japan]

He did both. Every preacher is a theologian by the way.

No, every preacher should be a theologian, but I have heard many, many who didn't know their theology.

 

[Reformed1689]

No, every preacher should be a theologian, but I have heard many, many who didn't know their theology.

I didn't say a good theologian. But by definition, every preach is, in fact, a theologian. Actually, every person who studies the Bible at all is a theologian. In fact, according to Sproul, every person is a theologian because every person has an opinion about God.

 

[Lodic]

The historical grammatical (or grammatical-historical) method is the traditional evangelical method of hermeneutics. The historical part means we must look at the passage in its historical milieu, and the grammatical part means that we must interpret in the light of the grammar and semantics of the original language. A recent helpful development by some excellent authors is applying modern linguistics to the grammatical part, in particular the abandonment of etymology and the embracing of contemporary usage to determine meaning.

I'm a little confused. Wouldn't applying modern linguistics to the grammar take away from how the original audience would have understood it?

 

[Rob_BW]

I'm a little confused. Wouldn't applying modern linguistics to the grammar take away from how the original audience would have understood it?

Ask yourself, does language use words in a way removed from their original, etymological origins?

 

[John of Japan]

I'm a little confused. Wouldn't applying modern linguistics to the grammar take away from how the original audience would have understood it?

Not at all. Don't be fooled by the term "modern linguistics." This is simply referring to the science of linguistics as it developed in the second half of the 20th century. In this discussion, the point is that up until the middle of the 20th century, linguists tended to do semantics ("the study of meaning") based on historical linguistics, or etymology--how a word developed in history, rather than the usage at the time of the document. Illustration: read the word "gay" in 1950, and the meaning is quite different from the same word in 2019.

The goal in semantics of a modern linguist studying an ancient text is to find out how a specific word or term was used at the time of the author. Therefore, my son's Ph.D. dissertation looked at many 1st century usages of the Greek words prognosis/proginosko (to know before), including some never before translated, and concluded that predetermination was not part of the meaning in the 1st century.

 

[John of Japan]

I didn't say a good theologian. But by definition, every preach is, in fact, a theologian. Actually, every person who studies the Bible at all is a theologian. In fact, according to Sproul, every person is a theologian because every person has an opinion about God.

Well, we are obviously using the term "theologian" in very different ways. My definition would be someone who actually teaches or specializes in the subject. If everyone is a theologian, then everyone is a linguist (because we all know at least one language), and everyone is a cook (I've cooked, but you don't want to eat it), and everyone is a counselor (because we've all given advice).

 

[Lodic]

Ask yourself, does language use words in a way removed from their original, etymological origins?

Thanks. I'm just a poor boy from Arkansas who is still learning .

 

[Lodic]

Not at all. Don't be fooled by the term "modern linguistics." This is simply referring to the science of linguistics as it developed in the second half of the 20th century. In this discussion, the point is that up until the middle of the 20th century, linguists tended to do semantics ("the study of meaning") based on historical linguistics, or etymology--how a word developed in history, rather than the usage at the time of the document. Illustration: read the word "gay" in 1950, and the meaning is quite different from the same word in 2019.

The goal in semantics of a modern linguist studying an ancient text is to find out how a specific word or term was used at the time of the author. Therefore, my son's Ph.D. dissertation looked at many 1st century usages of the Greek words prognosis/proginosko (to know before), including some never before translated, and concluded that predetermination was not part of the meaning in the 1st century.

Thank you, Brother. That explanation and illustration have cleared it up for me. This method does describe the way I attempt to understand the Bible.

 

[Reformed1689]

My definition would be someone who actually teaches or specializes in the subject.

If someone has a degree in theology would you say they are a theologian?

 

[John of Japan]

If someone has a degree in theology would you say they are a theologian?

It depends on the degree and what they are doing with it. If it's just a B.A. but they are teaching a high school theology class, sure. But I know a man with a Th.D. who spends all his time on the KJV-only issue--but he does pastor. I don't consider him to be a theologian. He's not using his training.

 

[Reformed1689]

It depends on the degree and what they are doing with it. If it's just a B.A. but they are teaching a high school theology class, sure. But I know a man with a Th.D. who spends all his time on the KJV-only issue--but he does pastor. I don't consider him to be a theologian. He's not using his training.

Hmm, yes, we have very different definitions of theologian then.

 

[John of Japan]

Hmm, yes, we have very different definitions of theologian then.

I can live with that if you can.

Just yesterday I was talking with my Ph.D. (NT) son about an OT scholar named Mike Heiser who's written some crazy stuff, and my son said, "He's not a theologian. He needs to run that stuff by a theologian." In my world (Bible faculty academia) we look at a theologian as a specialist in theology. My son knows more theology than I do (especially on the New Perspective), but doesn't call himself a theologian, though the Pres calls him one. But I'm the one who teaches theology, though I don't have a Ph.D. Strange world.

 

[Reformed1689]

I can live with that if you can.

Just yesterday I was talking with my Ph.D. (NT) son about an OT scholar named Mike Heiser who's written some crazy stuff, and my son said, "He's not a theologian. He needs to run that stuff by a theologian." In my world (Bible faculty academia) we look at a theologian as a specialist in theology. My son knows more theology than I do (especially on the New Perspective), but doesn't call himself a theologian, though the Pres calls him one. But I'm the one who teaches theology, though I don't have a Ph.D. Strange world.

Yes I can live with that lol. I teach theology as well and, like you, do not have a Ph.D.

Ha! Heiser was actually a professor of mine in college. And yes I would say that Heiser has some different views on some things.

 

[John of Japan]

Yes I can live with that lol. I teach theology as well and, like you, do not have a Ph.D.

Really! Fun, eh?

Ha! Heiser was actually a professor of mine in college. And yes I would say that Heiser has some different views on some things.

Well that's a coincidence. He's gathered some disciples, apparently. Chris Putnam and Thomas Horn who follow him wrote a supposed non-fiction (kind of) book, Exo-Vaticana, which is weird enough that when someone gave some books to our college and that was one, my son and I (tasked with going through them) immediately rejected it. And my brother-in-law gave me the novel Noah Primeval by Brian Godawa, a screen writer. there are some essays at the end I'm trying to work through. Overactive imaginations!

 

[Reformed1689]

Really! Fun, eh?

Well that's a coincidence. He's gathered some disciples, apparently. Chris Putnam and Thomas Horn who follow him wrote a supposed non-fiction (kind of) book, Exo-Vaticana, which is weird enough that when someone gave some books to our college and that was one, my son and I (tasked with going through them) immediately rejected it. And my brother-in-law gave me the novel Noah Primeval by Brian Godawa, a screen writer. there are some essays at the end I'm trying to work through. Overactive imaginations!

Yeah Dr. Heiser is different for sure. He no longer teaches at the University I attended. He is the in-house academic for Logos Bible Software.

 

[John of Japan]

Yeah Dr. Heiser is different for sure. He no longer teaches at the University I attended. He is the in-house academic for Logos Bible Software.

Yeah, I saw that. My son writes for Logos on the Petrine epistles. (Proud papa.)