Archive for June, 2009

Review of “Vintage Church” Chapter 6: “How Can a Church be Unified?”

Posted: June 30, 2009 in Book Reviews, Pastoral Theology
Tags: ,
0

In Ephesians there is doctrinal unity in chapters 1-3 and practical unity 4-6. Mark Driscoll’s five areas of unity, fall into these two big areas of doctrinal and practical unity and gives good examples and applications for preaching Ephesians.

1) Theological Unity

Driscoll writes about “closed hand of nonnegotiables” connected to the gospel of Jesus Christ for which he and his church would fight. There are other open hand issues, however, for which he and his church will not fight. Driscoll misses few chances to take a swipe at Fundamentalism: “But we don’t have to fight for every issue with a fundamentalistic spirit.”

Driscoll correctly blasts legalism’s attack on the gospel as found in Galatians. Modern-day legalism or secondary doctrines or open-hand beliefs for Driscoll include “worship styles; mode of children’s education (e.g., home school, private school, public school); church service times; method of Christian counseling; tongues; physical location of the church building; alcohol; mode of dress at church (especially the dress of the pastor); political party affiliation; church size; number of services; Bible translation; eschatological fine points; raising hands or swaying or dancing in worship; baptism in relation to Communion; and the age of the earth, as if it came with a ‘born on’ date like a can of Budwieser.” His list is much boarder than my list of what would be considered secondary. While eschatological fine points, which for Driscoll would be pre-tribulationalism), tongues, and the age of the earth are not Fundamentals of the Faith, they are issues I want the leadership and membership to agree on.

Driscoll writes a position paper on the open-hand issues which he stores as electronic copies to give to people who challenge him. I thought this was a good idea. If the challenger reads his position paper and still wants to meet with Driscoll, he will discuss the issue with him. But now in his very large church, Driscoll has a volunteer theological answer team that fields people’s questions.

2) Relational Unity

This unity includes loving one another by being respectful even with those that you do not agree (Ephesians 4:2-3). You may not like them, but you still love them with the love of God that has been poured into your heart.

3) Philosophical Unity

“In addition to Bible rules, the church family, like all families, also has house rules about how they do things “such as baptism, Communion, evangelism, etc. Church members need to be in close proximity on these. Otherwise you may get “the right fist of fellowship.”

4) Missional Unity

A mission statement will help ensure this unity.

5) Organizational Unity

Job descriptions, performance reviews, and polices are a must for organizational unity.

Next Driscoll identifies the reasons for division in a local church. Here are a few.

1) Heretics Divide Churches

Driscoll does an excellent job at exhorting the church to fight heretics supported with 38 Biblical references. He wrapped up this section with a good line: “The problem with some churches and their leaders is that they won’t fight, and the problem with others is that they won’t stop fighting.”

2) Pride Divides Churches

After dealing with devastating personal pride, Driscoll confronts organizational pride which “includes ‘not invented here’ syndrome, which means we only sing songs and do things that we created, and ‘that’s not how we do it here’ syndrome, which means that past success is used to resist future change for the sake of the mission.”

3) Legalism Divides Churches

Driscoll has a great paragraph that you will just have to buy the book to read. It is too long to quote.

Driscoll concludes chapter six by discussing conflict: “When a church grows, it changes, and that change causes conflict.” Driscoll does not give the early church in Acts as an example but it experienced growth and conflict. So church leaders are going to have to decide, do they want to worship Christ and lead others to worship Him by experiencing spiritual and numerical growth and also the conflict that comes with such growth and change, or are they going to worship comfort.

The Hermeneutics of Evangelical Feminism, Part 2

Posted: June 27, 2009 in Book Reviews, Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
5

Why are some denominations ordaining women as pastors and deacons? Because of an evangelical feminist hermeneutic.

We continue our review of Paul W. Felix’s discussion of  seven principles of evangelical feminist hermeneutics which contradict evangelical grammatical-historical hermeneutics. The first two are covered in the first post.

 1. The Principle of Ad Hoc Documents

2. The Principle of an Interpretive Center

3. The Principle of the Analogy of Faith

The Roman Catholic Church invented this principle to force all teachings of Scripture to conform to the dogma of the RCC. The feminist version says clear passages, like Galatians 3:25, should interpret obscure texts like 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15. “The principle of the analogy of faith is valid, but not when it is brought into the interpretation process too early, as evangelical feminists tend to do.” The analogy of faith, or as Ramm describes it “Scriptures interpreting Scriptures” should serve as a “double check” after the exegesis of a passage is complete.

4. The Principle of Slavery as a Model

The advocates of this principle say that there are parallels in Scripture between the subordination of the slave/master relationship and the wife/husband and just as slavery was wrong and eventually overcome so must the submission of women to male leadership be overturned.

There are two problems with this view. First, “The existence of slavery is not rooted in any creation ordinance, but the existence of marriage is.” Submission of women to male leadership is linked to creation in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and 1Timothy 2:11-15. In other words, male leadership was not just a first century cultural issue. Second, Paul in Philemon laid down instructions, if followed, would obliterate slavery.

5. The Principle of Culturally Biased Interpretation

This principle says we cannot objectively interpret Scripture and therefore we have the complimentarian view. “The view of the mythological nature of objective interpretation is contrary to the traditional grammatical-historical method of interpretation.” It is not only possible but necessary to push aside our preunderstandings and follow the rules of interpretation.

6. The Principle of Cultural Relativity

In this principle the issue is not interpretation but application. Gordon W. Fee agrees that 1Timothy 2:11-15 teaches male leadership in the local church but it was ad hoc and not relevant today. So the debate is between what is a timeless and normative principle and what is only a transient principle for just the 1st century.

J. Robertson McQuilkin’s view better reflects 2 Timothy 3:16 which states that “all Scripture is inspired and profitable.” McQuilkin writes: “My thesis is that a fully authoritative Bible means that every teaching in Scripture is universal unless Scripture itself treats it as limited.” Nowhere does Scripture limited the instructions of 1 Timothy 2:11-15.

7. Principle of Patriarchal and Sexist Texts

D. M. Scholer voices this view: “Evangelical feminist hermeneutics must face patriarchal and sexist texts and assumptions within biblical passages and understand them precisely as limited texts and assumptions.”

Scholer’s comments on 1Timothy 5:3-16 illustrate his bias in hermeneutics: “I submit again that the assumption behind this view is a view of sexuality that probably none of us really share or would admit to sharing. Again, it is rooted in the assumption that women are sexually irresponsible. If a 59-year-old or younger widow does not remarry the odds are very great that she will follow Satan.”  Paul is only giving the local church guidelines for helping widows. These guidelines are for the good of the widows and the local church. There is nothing sexist about them.

Felix responds: “This hermeneutical principle allows him to affirm evangelical feminism by limiting the passages that speak against it.” This principle is wrong because it accuses the apostle Paul of writing error instead of writing inspired, inerrant, and authoritative Scripture.

The evangelical feminist hermeneutic is clearly at odds with the evangelical grammatical-historical method of interpretation. The Feminist movement of the 60s and 70s corrected many abuses against women for which we are grateful. It also overreacted and created unbiblical attitudes such as a woman’s right of abortion. These cultural attitudes crept into the church and produced the evangelical feminist hermeneutic which likewise is unbiblical.

The Hermeneutics of Evangelical Feminism, Part 1

Posted: June 27, 2009 in Book Reviews, Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
6

The hermeneutics of evangelical feminist stands in direct contrast to evangelical grammatical-historical hermeneutics. Paul W. Felix Sr. highlights these radical differences in chapter 13 in Robert Thomas’ Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Verses the Old. Felix defines an evangelical feminist as “one who has a high view of Scripture and believes the Bible teaches the full equality of men and women without role distinctions between the two.” This puts evangelical feminist in a different class from “secular feminists,” “religious feminists,” and even “Christian feminists.” All of these have lower views of Scripture.

A representative of evangelical feminism is Christians for Biblical Equality (C.B.E.). A position paper states their mission: “The goal of evangelical feminism is that men and women be allowed to serve God as individuals, according to their own unique gifts rather than according to a culturally predetermined personality slot called ‘Christian manhood’ or ‘Christian womanhood.’”

Why is there so much debate over the role of women in the leadership of the home and church? Hermeneutics! Felix quotes Robert K. Johnson: “For behind the apparent differences in approach and opinion regarding the women’s issue are opposing principles for interpreting Scripture—i.e., different hermeneutics. Here is the real issue facing evangelical theology as it seeks to answer the women’s question.”

Felix discusses seven principle of evangelical feminist hermeneutics which contradict evangelical grammatical-historical hermeneutics.

 1. The Principle of Ad Hoc Documents

Gordon D. Fee, who originated and popularized this prinicple wrote in reference to the passage in 1 Timothy 2:11-15. This passage  forbids women usurping authority over men in the local church: “It must be noted again that 1 Timothy is not intended to establish church order but to respond in a very ad hoc way to the Ephesian situation with its straying elders.”

According to 1Timothy 3:14-15, this pastoral epistle is a “church manual” for all local churches in this age.

2. The Principle of an Interpretive Center

This principle states that one clear or defining passage, such as Galatians 3:25, should serve as a filter or grid for all other related passages (such as 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15).

One major problem with this principle is the plenary inspiration of Scripture which teaches that all Scripture is profitable for instruction, not just verses that favor our view. Another grammatical-historical principle of interpretation is the rule of non-contradiction. All of the Scripture Paul wrote on this subject do not contradict each other, therefore a interpretive center or locus classicus is not necessary. I will discuss the other evangelcial feminist hermeneutics principle in my next post.

Review of “Vintage Church: Timeless Truths and Timely Methods”

Posted: June 25, 2009 in Book Reviews, Pastoral Theology
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
0

In the following weeks, I want to review Vintage Church: Timeless Truths and Timely Methods. Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears produced their next Re:Lit book. Their first Re:Lit was Vintage Jesus. Mark Driscoll is pastor/founder of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, president of Acts 29 Church Planting Network and the Resurgence Missional Theology Cooperative. Gerry Breshears is professor of theology at Western Seminary. Also part of the Re:Lit series is Death by Love coauthored Driscoll and Breshears.

In Vintage Church, the authors discuss ecclesiology in layman’s terms. From “What is the church?” to “Who is supposed to lead the church?” to “What is a multi-campus church?” to “How can a church utilize technology?” The doctrine and practice of the church in 21st century culture is examined. Sounds like a mixture of Ecclesiology and Pastoral Theology. I am preparing to preach through Ephesians which is Paul’s most refined and developed teaching on the church and I thought reading this contemporary development of the doctrine and mission of the church would be helpful. We will see!

The theme of Ephesians is unity produced by love for God and one another. One of my sources is Harold W. Hoehner’s Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary which defends this theme of Ephesians. Chapter six in Vintage Church is  ”How can a church be unified?” fits the theme of Ephesians. I will review chapter six first in my next post.

Hermeneutics and Capital Punishment, Part One

Posted: June 24, 2009 in Book Reviews, Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
5

The Washington Post reported on March1, 2005 that “The Supreme Court abolished capital punishment for juvenile offenders yesterday, ruling 5 to 4 that it is unconstitutional to sentence anyone to death for a crime he or she committed while younger than 18.” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion.

The case that provoked this ruling concerned almost 18 year old Christopher Simmons who broke into the home of Shirley Crook, kidnapped and bound her with duct tape and threw her off the railroad trestle into the Meramec River in Missouri where she drown. Police easily apprehended Simmons who had bragged about the murder to his friends at school. Simmons had convinced friends to help him assuring them they would get away with this robbery and murder because they were minors. Simmons confessed and even produced the videotaped reenactment of the murder at the crime scene. A lower court recommended capital punishment, but Simmons appealed.

Even Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, not an advocate of capital punishment, disagreed with the majority opinion because Simmons’ murder was “deliberate, wanton, and cruel.”

One of the platforms for Kennedy’s decision was the findings of modern psychology that 18 years lack maturity to be responsible for murder. Kennedy quoted psychologist Eric Erickson. In other words, the modern culture of psychology not only outweighs jurisprudence, but Biblical mandates.

Roy Zuck in chapter three “Bridging the Cultural Gap” of hisBasic Bible Interpretation gives four important principles for “determining which cultural practices and situations, commands, and precepts in the Bible are transferable to our culture and which ones are nontransferable.” In this post, I will discuss the first.

1. Some situations, commands, or principles are repeatable, continuous, or not revoked, and/or pertain to moral and theological subjects, and/or are repeated elsewhere in Scripture, and therefore are permanent and transferable to us.

An example of this first principle is capital punishment which was first commanded by God in Genesis 9:6. Later in the Pentateuch specific capital crimes (such as adultery in Leviticus 20:10) and examples (Achan in Joshua 7) are stated that call for death. So this principle is repeated. Plus “the reason given in that verse (Genesis 9:6) is that man is made in God’s image.” There is therefore a clear moral and theological issue with this principle. Every modern day murder victim is person made in the image of God.

Capital punishment is a transcultural principle for all cultures and should be part of every human government. Human government has the authority to take life according to Romans 13:4: ”he bears not the sword in vain.” Human government doesn’t use the flat side of the sword to smack criminals on the wrest. The sword takes the life of murderers.  What was ordained by God in Genesis 9 is still in force today.  No matter what activist justices legislate from the bench, God’s Word must be interpreted independent of modern culture.

Sermon Illustration: What will your Obituary Read?

Posted: June 22, 2009 in Personal, Sermon Illustrations
Tags: , , , , , ,
1

Jill Carattini is managing editor of A Slice of Infinity at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Atlanta, Georgia wrote the following story that really made me think:

Swedish chemist Alfred Bernhard Nobel was once largely known as a maker and inventor of explosives. In 1866 Nobel invented dynamite, which earned him both fame and the majority of his wealth. At one point in his life he held more than 350 patents, operated labs in 20 countries, and had more than 90 factories manufacturing explosives and ammunition. Yet today he is most often remembered as the name behind the Nobel Prize, the most highly regarded of international awards for efforts in peace, chemistry, physics, literature, and economics.

In 1888 a bizarre incident occurred, which seemed to have afforded Alfred Nobel an unlikely opportunity for reflection. Many believe it was this event that ultimately led to his establishment of the Nobel Prize and subsequent change in his reputation. When Alfred’s brother Ludvig died while staying in Cannes, France, the French newspapers mistakenly confused the two brothers, reporting the death of the inventor of explosives. One paper’s headline read brusquely: “Le marchand de la mort est mort”—the merchant of death is dead.

 When I read that story this question hit me, “What one line obituary statement will capture my life?” If my friends or family were to write a premature obituary about me, what single statement summary would they pen?

In Romans 16:1-16, Paul sends greetings to some of his friends at the church at Rome. In these greetings, Paul portrays his friends with one line biographies. Here is a sampling:

“Phebe our sister who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea”

“Priscilla and Aquilla my helpers in Christ Jesus”

“Mary who bestowed much labor on us”

“Andronicus and Junia my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners”

About you and me, would our most intimate friends and family etch on our headstone or record in our obituary that we served God by helping others through His church because of Christ? If not, what one line would summarize our lives?

Are Stay-at-Home Dads Increasing?

Posted: June 21, 2009 in News
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
1

Inspite of what The Washington Post and msnbc.com are saying, stay-at-home dads are still less than 1 percent of parents according to the U.S. Census. Stay-at-home moms, however,  make up 24 percent of households.

W. Bradford Wilcox at National Review corrects the picture: The focus on Mr. Mom obscures another important reality. In most American families today, fathers still take the lead when it comes to breadwinning: In 2008, the Census estimated that fathers were the main provider in almost three-quarters of American married families with children under 18. Providership is important to protect children from poverty, raise their odds of educational success, and increase the likelihood that they will succeed later in life. Thus, the very real material contribution that the average American dad makes to his family is obscured by stories that focus on that exotic breed, the stay-at-home dad.

Are there times, such as lay offs, when Dad has to stay-at-home? Of course. Is it hard work? Yes! But stay-at-home dads are not taking over America.

Al Mohler is right when observes that “the role of the father is increasingly problematic in the context of modern American culture. Fatherhood has been marginalized and the rule and authority of fathers have been depreciated, ridiculed, and continuously redefined. From the Berenstain Bears to The Simpsons, fathers are all too often the object of ridicule or the subject of the laugh line.”

This Father’s Day, do or say something special to make your father feel important. Thank him for some meaningful influence he had in your life. My mom was a stay-at-home mom and my dad was a go-to-work day. I am grateful for both. By his example he taught me, “if a man will not work, neither should he eat.” My dad also made me work and earn the money to buy my first car. He refused to give me the money. He taught me the importance of working for what I wanted and not to expect handouts. I have thanked many times for that life lesson. One more time, Dad, thanks for teaching me, “six days shalt thou labor.”

How Does the New Testament Use the Old Testament, Part Two

Posted: June 19, 2009 in Book Reviews, Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , ,
2

The New Testament uses the Old Testament prophecies in one of four ways. We will discuss these four New Testament categories into which all Old Testament prophecies are used. Three of the four involve what Robert Thomas calls Inspired Sensus Plenary Application (ISPA) without violating the original and single interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies.

Direct Prophecy

The first way the New Testament uses Old Testament prophecies is what Dwight Pentecost calls direct prophecy (The Words and Works of Jesus Christ, 68) and Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum calls literal prophecy plus literal fulfillment (Israelology, 843). An example is the prophecy in Micah 5: 1-2 that predicted that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem. Matthew 2:5-6 said it was fulfilled. There is no New Testament fuller or plenary meaning attached to this prophecy. This prophecy was directly fulfilled.

Literal Fulfillment Plus Application

There is one point of comparison between Matthew 2:17-18 and the prophecy in  Jeremiah 31:15: In both cases Jewish women weep for their sons that they will never see again. Pentecost calls this a prophecy of double reference (page 71). Robert Thomas would object to the idea of double reference or fulfillment which would do away with the single meaning of Jeremiah 31:15.  Fruchtenbaum more accurately identifies this fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:15 in Matthew 2:18 as literal fulfillment plus application (page 844). The original meaning of the women weeping in Jeremiah 31:15 is not changed and has only one meaning or interpretation. This historical incident is applied by Matthew. This is an example of ISPA. The meaning of Jeremiah 31:15 was not altered but was applied and expanded to Jesus’ life.

Prophetic Summary

Pentecost calls the prophecy in Matthew 2:23 a prophetic summary of Old Testament prophecies (page 73). Fruchtenbaum simply calls this a “summation” (page 845). Matthew 2:23 even refers to the “prophets” in the plural… “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets that he should be called a Nazarene.”  There is no direct prophecy that predicted this incident. Here is Fruchtenbaum’s explanation: “Nazarenes were a people despised and rejected and the term was used to reproach and to shame (John 1:46). The prophets did teach that the Messiah would be a despised and rejected individual (e.g. Isa. 53:3) and that is summarized by the term Nazarene.”

Prophetic Type

I would like to focus on the ISPA of Hosea 11:1 and Matthew 2:15. Pentecost calls this a prophetic type (page 70) and Fruchtenbauw calls it literal plus typical (page 843). Hosea 11:1 is the historical reference to God calling Israel “my son” out of Egypt and is not even a prophecy. And yet Matthew 2:15 says when the child Jesus was brought out of Egypt by His parents Hosea 11:1 was “fulfilled.” Pentecost says “Matthew saw Israel’s history as a type of God’s future dealing with His people” (page 70).

Robert Thomas explains that the word “fulfilled” can also mean “complete.” “In the Matthew 2:15 citation of Hosea 11:1 Matthew uses it to indicate the completion of a sensus plenior meaning he finds in Hosea 11:1. The Hosea passage is not a prophecy, and translating the word fulfill in this instance is misleading. Matthew’s meaning is that in some sense the transport of Jesus by His parents from Egypt completed the deliverance of Israel from Egypt that had begun during the time of Moses. In Mark 1:15 Jesus uses the same Greek verb to speak of the completion of a period of time prior to the drawing near of the kingdom of God. The English word fulfill would hardly communicate the correct idea in a case like that” (page 263).

Roman Catholics, Covenant theologians, and newer evangelicals use sensus plenior to change the original of Old Testament prophecies and thus violate the single meaning principle of interpretation. Thomas’ ISPA is true to this classic principle in hermeneutics.

How Does the NT Use the OT?

Posted: June 17, 2009 in Book Reviews, Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
0

There is a Biblical and Unbiblical sensus plenior. We will begin with the unbiblical sensus plenior. The interpretation principle of “one interpretation, many applications” is an integral ingredient of classic hermeneutics. In contrast to this principle is sensus plenior or fuller or multiple meanings of a Biblical text. As we observed in our last post, Roy Zuck rejects this principle. Zuck correctly stated that the term sensus plenior was coined and used as a principle of interpretation by Roman Catholics who reject the literal interpretation of Scripture. Robert Thomas adds that sensus plenior “amounts to an allegorical rather than a literal method of interpretation” (page 361). Bernard Ramm (Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 40-42) and Milton S. Terry (Biblical Hermeneutics, 583) also reject sensus plenior. Terry writes that Bible interpreter “must not import into the text of Scripture the ideas of later times, or build upon any words or passages a dogma which they do not legitimately teach” (page 583).

This issue of sensus plenior or fuller meaning or multiple interpretations of Scriptures has to do with the New Testament use of the Old Testament. Arnold  G. Fruchtenaum states how Covenant Theology abuses the New Testament use of the Old Testament: “It has been shown several times that this is a major evidence Covenant Theologians use to prove that the Old Testament prophesies cannot be understood literally. They claim that the New Testament ‘changed’ the meaning of the Old Testament or ‘reinterpreted’ it” (Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology, Tustin: Ariel, 1994, 842).  Clearly the Roman Catholic, Covenant Theology, and newer evangelicals, employ the unbiblical sensus plenior. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology makes a distinction between the primary and plenary sense of interpretation: “Since the Bible is the church’s book, a further context within which any part of it may be read is supplied by the whole of Christian history…The primary sense is what the author intended to convey, established by the grammaticohistorical method; but the plenary sense, provided it does not violate the primary sense, enriches the appreciation of the Bible both in the life of the church as a whole and in the personal experience of Christian men and women” (F. F. Bruce. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 567). The primary interpretation of a passage is not influenced by the whole of church history to arrive at a plenary sense.

Robert Thomas, however, writes about inspired sensus plenior application (ISPA). Again this issue has to do with how the New Testament uses the Old Testament. About this controversial subject, Zuck writes: “The use of the Old Testament in the New Testament is one of the most difficult aspects of Bible interpretation” (Roy Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, page 250). There are times when the New Testament gives a sensus plenior or fuller meaning to Old Testament prophecies. When this happens, Thomas is quick to state that, this is not reading the New Testament back into the Old Testament and giving another meaning or interpretation to the Old Testament text, rather “it is an application  because it does not eradicate the literal meaning of the Old Testament passage but simply applies the Old Testament wording to a new setting” (page 242). Fruchtenbaum concurs: “A new application to an Old Testament text without denying that what the original said literally did or will happen” (page 843).  The New Tesatment uses the Old Testament prophecies in one of four ways. We will discuss these four New Testament categories into which all Old Testament prophecies are used. Three of the four involve what Thomas would call ISPA without violating the original and single interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies.

How Does the NT Use the OT?

Posted: June 17, 2009 in Book Reviews, Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
2

There is a Biblical and Unbiblical sensus plenior. We will begin with the unbiblical sensus plenior. The interpretation principle of “one interpretation, many applications” is an integral ingredient of classic hermeneutics. In contrast to this principle is sensus plenior or fuller or multiple meanings of a Biblical text. As we observed in our last post, Roy Zuck rejects this principle. Zuck correctly stated that the term sensus plenior was coined and used as a principle of interpretation by Roman Catholics who reject the literal interpretation of Scripture. Robert Thomas adds that sensus plenior “amounts to an allegorical rather than a literal method of interpretation” (page 361). Bernard Ramm (Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 40-42) and Milton S. Terry (Biblical Hermeneutics, 583) also reject sensus plenior. Terry writes that Bible interpreter “must not import into the text of Scripture the ideas of later times, or build upon any words or passages a dogma which they do not legitimately teach” (page 583).

This issue of sensus plenior or fuller meaning or multiple interpretations of Scriptures has to do with the New Testament use of the Old Testament. Arnold  G. Fruchtenaum states how Covenant Theology abuses the New Testament use of the Old Testament: “It has been shown several times that this is a major evidence Covenant Theologians use to prove that the Old Testament prophesies cannot be understood literally. They claim that the New Testament ‘changed’ the meaning of the Old Testament or ‘reinterpreted’ it” (Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology, Tustin: Ariel, 1994, 842).  Clearly the Roman Catholic, Covenant Theology, and newer evangelicals, employ the unbiblical sensus plenior. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology makes a distinction between the primary and plenary sense of interpretation: “Since the Bible is the church’s book, a further context within which any part of it may be read is supplied by the whole of Christian history…The primary sense is what the author intended to convey, established by the grammaticohistorical method; but the plenary sense, provided it does not violate the primary sense, enriches the appreciation of the Bible both in the life of the church as a whole and in the personal experience of Christian men and women” (F. F. Bruce. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 567). The primary interpretation of a passage is not influenced by the whole of church history to arrive at a plenary sense.

Robert Thomas, however, writes about inspired sensus plenior application (ISPA). Again this issue has to do with how the New Testament uses the Old Testament. About this controversial subject, Zuck writes: “The use of the Old Testament in the New Testament is one of the most difficult aspects of Bible interpretation” (Roy Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, page 250). There are times when the New Testament gives a sensus plenior or fuller meaning to Old Testament prophecies. When this happens, Thomas is quick to state that, this is not reading the New Testament back into the Old Testament and giving another meaning or interpretation to the Old Testament text, rather “it is an application  because it does not eradicate the literal meaning of the Old Testament passage but simply applies the Old Testament wording to a new setting” (page 242). Fruchtenbaum concurs: “A new application to an Old Testament text without denying that what the original said literally did or will happen” (page 843).  The New Tesatment uses the Old Testament prophecies in one of four ways. We will discuss these four New Testament categories into which all Old Testament prophecies are used. Three of the four involve what Thomas would call ISPA without violating the original and single interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies.

Older Entries