Posts Tagged ‘Bernard Ramm’

THE EVANGELICAL APOLOGETIC CHART

Posted: August 26, 2010 in Apologetics
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
1

Thomas Aquinas represents Rationalism which propounds that Christianity could be proven by pure logic which includes the theistic arguments for God’s existence: cosmological, teleological, anthropological, and the ontological arguments. These arguments for the existence of God in theory came from Thomas Aquinas. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was a Roman Catholic theologian whose Summa Theologica, was declared by Poe Leo XIII to be the official doctrinal statement of the RCC in 1879. Aquinas was influenced by the Greek philosophy of Aristotle and his famous a posteriori argument from effect to cause. The classical arguments for God’s existence as discussed by Ryrie, in part, follow Aquinas’ famous Five Ways or proofs for God’s existence. Here is a summary of Aquinas’ Five Ways or five rational arguments.

Dr. Bowman has excellent notes entitled A Theological Investigation of Evangelical Apologetics in which he classifies evangelical apologetics into four groups. I would suggest you purchase these notes from our book store. The first group is Rationalism. This is the group in which Aquinas would fit. The three other groups are semi-rationalism, semi-persuppositionalism, and presuppositioalism.

Thomas Aquinas’ Five Ways or five rational arguments for the existence of God

The argument from motion: All things in motion need a Mover

The cosmological argument: All effects have a Cause

The argument from contingency: All things exist in dependence

The argument from perfection: There is an increasing degree of perfection among things

The teleological argument: The observable design in the world suggests that there must be an intelligent Designer

Semi-Rationalism is represented by Edward John Carnell, who believes that Christian Evidences are necessary to prepare the sinner for the gospel. When I think of this view, Romans 1:16 comes to my mind where Paul said, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes.”

Edward John Carnell wrote An Introduction to Christian Apologetics, A Philosophic Defense of the Trinitarian-Theistic Faith and he taught apologetics at Fuller Theological Seminary. Carnell taught that Christian Evidences are necessary to prepare the sinner for the gospel. His methodology for witnessing to a Type B agnostic who sincerely has intellectual problems with Christianity includes the following steps.

First, present evidence, such as archaeological proof, to prepare the sinner for the gospel. According to Carnell you dare not start with the gospel until you have answered all of the intellectual difficulties.

Second, if the sinner is impressed turn to the Scripture.

Third, if the sinner is unimpressed use logic and pure rationalism.

Fourth, if the sinner is still unimpressed, stop and go no further.

When Carnell was a freshman at Wheaton College, under the philosophy teacher Gordon Clark, Carnell stopped witnessing at the street meeting when certain men asked him questions about Christianity which he could not answer. What do you think he should have done?

Semi-Presuppositionalism is similar to the Semi-Rationalism view. Semi-Presuppositionalism has a little more dependence on God than Semi-Rationalism. Semi-Presuppositionalism believes Christian Evidences may be used by God.

Bernard Ramm in his book Protestant Christian Evidence explains: “Apologetics and Christian evidences are not the gospel, but if a man has a prejudice against the gospel it is the function of apologetics and evidences to remove that prejudice” (Bernard Ramm, Protestant Christian Evidence (Chicago: Moody Press, 1953, p. 15). I do not have a problem with God using Christian Evidences or Apologetics to remove the prejudices but God is not limited to Apologetics or Christian Evidences to remove the prejudices.

Lee Strobel in his The Case For Christ interviewed archaeologist John McRay on the role of archaeology in apologetics. McRay’s response was as follows. “Archaeology has made some important contributions, but it certainly can’t prove whether the New Testament is the Word of God” (Lee Strobel, The Case For Christ Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998, p.95). Can God use archaeology to enhance the reliability of the New Testament with an unsaved critic? He can! But God is not limited to using archaeology to remove the critic’s prejudice. If God is limited to archaeology in removing prejudices then why did He wait until the 20th century to confirm the Bible through archaeology or other Christian Evidences. This means that 1st century believers did not have such confirmations.

The final category in the Chart of Evangelical Apologetics is Presuppositionalism.  This view is represented by Cornelius Van Til, F. F. Bruce, and modern theologians like Dr. Robert Reymond, Dr. John Whitcomb, and Dr. Hoyle Bowman.

Let me start with a few quotes: “Like his first-century predecessors, the apologist of today must confront men with the truth about God – Creator, Provider, Lord of history, Judge of all – and His command to repent” (F. F. Bruce, The Defense of the Gospel in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1959, p. 48).

“The so-called theistic arguments (ontological, cosmological, teleological) do not really prove the existence of God. One must already be a Christian before these theistic arguments would have any confirming weight” (Hoyle Bowman, A Theological Investigation of Evangelical Apologetics P.B.C. notes, 1970, p. 29).

The Presuppositionalist assumes that God exists (Gen. 1:1; Ps. 14:1; John 1:1; and Heb. 11:6) and has already convinced sinners that He exists. Romans 1:18 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness.”

The Presuppositionalist believes the sinner is totally depraved and totally blind to the gospel (2nd Cor. 4:4a) and only the Spirit of God using “the glorious gospel of Christ” (2nd Cor. 4:4b) can opened satanically blinded eyes.

The Presuppositionalist follows the example of Paul in Acts 14:1-18 at Lystra with the unsaved pagans.

1. Paul first preached the gospel and not a rationalistic argument (14:7).

2. Paul assumes they believe in the existence of a higher being (14:15).

3. Paul’s apologetics started with special revelation in verses 15-17 which allude to Gen. 8:22; Ps. 4:7; and Isa. 25:6.

Review of Basic Bible Interpretation: Chapter 8 “Testing the Types and Sensing the Symbols” Part 2

Posted: July 28, 2009 in Book Reviews, Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
7

I want to continue to answers some questions on typology. In my first post I answered What is a Type?

Why Should we  Study Types?

Because God Himself used types (Heb.8:5; 9:8-9; 10:19-20). Revelation mentions “Lamb” 29 times. Christ used types (Luke 24:25-44; John 6:32-35). I take Christ expounding Himself from the OT to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus as at least in part in types. The Bible uses vocabulary that speak of types in relationship to the Tabernacle: Heb. 8:5 “example” (hupodeigma), “shadow” (skia),  Heb. 9:8-9 “figure” (parabole), and Heb. 10:1 “image” (eikon). Also in relationship to the Wilderness wanderings (1 Cor. 10:6, 11 “examples” tupoi). Zuck makes an important point when he states that typos is not always a technical word. Only 1 of the 15 times typos is used is theological (Hebrews 8:5).

What are the Different Views Concerning Types?

A. No types in the Bible: The Liberal view which denies the supernatural aspect of predictive prophecy.

B. Excessive use of types: Every nut, bolt, socket, and board of the Tabernacle typifies Christ. Every puddle in the Wilderness typifies the baptism. Walter L. Wilson has 1163 types in the OT (Wilson’s Dictionary of Bible Types) this is in stark contrast with Zuck who sees only 17 types.

Allegorizers accuse Dispenstionalists of allegorizing in their typology and I believe their accusation is correct in some cases: “While Dispensationalists are extreme literalists, they are very inconsistent ones. They are literalists in interpreting prophecy. But in the interpreting of history, they carry the principle of typical interpretation to an extreme which has rarely been exceeded even by the most ardent of allegorizers” (Allis, Oswald T. Prophecy and the Church, p.21) p.8 in Things to Come. The Scofield Study Bible provides an example on page 89 in reference to Exodus 15:25 where God tells Moses to cast a tree in the bitter waters of Marah which then became sweet: “The ‘tree’ is the cross (Gal. 3:13), which became sweet to Christ as the expression of the Father’s will (John 18:11).”

Is the allegorical and typological interpretation the same method or different methods?

Ammillennialists see little difference. The allegorical interpretation finds meanings in a text that is foreign, peculiar, or hidden. It is independent of the literal meaning of a text. The typological interpretation proceeds directly out of the literal explanation.

C. The Moderate view: The are two kinds of types which is Milton S. Terry’s view (255-256).

An innate type is specifically designated in Scripture. An inferred type is strongly suggested. If the whole of the Tabernacle or Wilderness journey is typical then are the parts typical (Dr. Steven’s view). Bernard Ramm “If the whole (e.g., the Tabernacle, the Wilderness journey) is typical, then the parts are typical. It is up to the exegetical ability of the interpreter to determine additional types in the parts of these wholes” (228).

D. Types are types only if the NT designates: “The former (type) must not only resemble the latter, but must have been designed to resemble the latter. It must have been so designed in it’s original institution” (Bishop Marsh). This is preferrable view to avoid the excesses of the Scofield example.

How do we interpret a type?

Zuck gives the following helpful tips.

A. There must be a resemblance between the type and the antitype. But there must be more than a resemblance.

B. There must be a historical reality (Hebrew 8:5; 9:23-24).

C. There must be a prefiguring. “Does this mean that people in the OT knew that various thing were types?” Answer: Hebrews 9:8. Illustrations look back: Elijah (James 5:17) Jonah (Mt. 12:40). Types look forward. Allegorical interpretation looks behind.

D.  There must be a heightening of truth. “The antitype were on a higher plane than the types” (Zuck, 174).

E. There must be divine design.

F. There must be a designation of a type in the NT. “Scripture must in some way indicate that an item it typical” (Zuck, 176).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Review of Basic Bible Interpretation: Chapter 8 “Testing the Types and Sensing the Symbols” Part 1

Posted: July 25, 2009 in Book Reviews, Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
7

“The Old Testament can well be called the kindergarten of the Bible. Intricate doctrines, abstract truths, and metaphysical concepts involved in the story of redemption as set forth in the New Testament are broken down in the Old and laid out in pieces. Someone has said that the study of types is a study of Christ in parts” (Dr. Charles H. Stevens. The Wilderness Journey, Scripture Truth, 11).

Types have been called “picture prophecies” because types are a kind of prophecy. Types prefigure coming reality while prophecies verbally describe the future. Types are expressed in events, persons, and acts while prophecies are expressed in words. “In the Old, we have the portrait; in the New we have the Person” (Dr. Charles H. Stevens, 12). For example, the brazen serpent (Numbers 21:9) was a picture prophecy or type of Christ’s death. Isaiah 53 is a verbal prophecy of Christ’s death. Both are predictive. Prophecy is verbally predictive. Types are typically predictive. “Typology is but the handmaiden of theology. Typology is the OT visual aid to the NT doctrines” (Dr. Charles H. Stevens, 12).

What is a Type?

Dwight Pentecost defines a type: “A type is an institution, historical event or person, ordained by God, which effectively prefigures some truth connected with Christianity” (Pentecost, Things To Come, page 51). Bernard Ramm states his definition: “In the science of theology it properly signifies the preordained representative relation which certain persons, events and institutions of the Old Testament bear to correspoinding persons, events, and institutions in the New” (Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 227).

Allegorial interpretation is not ordained nor preordained by God but comes from the imagination of the interpreter: “A fitting example of the wolf dwelling with the lamb is seen in the change that came over the vicious persecutor Saul of Tarsus, who was a wolf ravening and destroying, but who was so transformed by the Gospel of Christ that he became a lamb. After his conversion he lost his hatred for the Christians, and became instead their humble friend, confidant, defender” (Isa. 11:6). (Loraine Boettner, “Postmillennialism,” in The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, ed. Robert G. Clouse (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1977, 90).

In my next post I will discuss why we should study types.

Review of Basic Bible Interpretation: Chapter 7 “Figures of Speech” Part 1

Posted: July 17, 2009 in Book Reviews, Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
7

Jeffrey D. Arthurs, in Preaching With Variety, states in his discussion of the apocalyptic genre in Revelation: “Numbers are also highly symbolic in this genre. In Revelation there are seven letters, seals, trumpets, plagues, angels, and bowls. The foundation of the city is made of twelve precious stones, and twelve thousand servants of God from each tribe of Israel are sealed.” Then later he asks this question: “What is to be gained from fantasy that cannot be gained from realism? Visionary symbols are more than stylistic choices; they are powerful rhetoric” (Preaching With Variety, 185) implying the numbers in Revelation are fantasy and serve a purpose.

Bernard Ramm states that the “parent of all excessive manipulation of Bible numbers is to be found in the Jewish Rabbinical method known as Gematria. Examples of such are as follows: In Genesis 49:10 the Hebrew numerial value of ”Shiloh come” is 358, which is in turn equivalent to Meshiach, and so Shiloh is identified with the Messiah.” Ramm believes “that there is a basic symbolism of numbers in the Bible” and that Revelation is “especially rich in the symbolic use of numbers.” But Ramm reveals his covenant or reformed prejudice for allegorizing numbers when he gives an example of the symbolism of the number seven: “seven represented the covenant of grace” (Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 235). One of the problems with Covenant Theology is that its three big covenants: Covenant of Redemption, Works, and Grace are not specifically mentioned in Scripture. And so, it appears in some cases, if the literal interpretation of Scripture cannot support your theology, symbolism must be subsituted.

The amillinnialism of Milton S. Terry influenced his hermeneutics of numbers in Revelation. In his discussion of numbers, he says, that numbers have symbolic meanings, but “we must not suppose that they thereby necessarily lose their literal and proper meaning. The number ten, as shown above, and some few instances of the number seven authorize us to say that they are used sometimes indefinitely in the sense of many. But when, for example, it is written that seven priests, with seven trumpets, compassed Jericho on the seventh day seven times, we understand the statement in their literal sense” (Biblical Hermeneutics, 384). I agree. Numbers can have symbolic meaning without stripping them of their literalness.

When it comes to the 1000 year reign of Christ in Revelation 20:1-7, Terry’s ammillinnialism does not allow this number to be literal. “We understand that the millennium of Rev. xx, 1-6, is now in progress. It dates from the consummation of the Jewish age. It is a round definite number used symbolically for an indefinite aeon….It may require a million years” (487).

Just because there are symbols and symbolic or figurative language in God’s Word does not mean that the grammatical-historical method of literal interpretation must be abandoned.

Roy Zuck asks this question, “Is figurative language the opposite of literal interpretation?” To which he answers, “Figurative language then is not antithetical to literal interpretation; it is a part of it” (Basic Bible Interpretation, 147). Zuck gives a helpful explanation and example: “Generally an expression is figurative when it is out of character with the subject discussed, or is contrary to fact, experience, or observation. If we hear a sports announcer say, ‘The Falcons beat the Lions,’ we understand him to be referring to two football teams, and not to be suggesting that birds of prey are attacking literal lions” (146). Even in our everyday modern conversation, figurative language is used and understood.

Zuck provides the following guidelines for interpreting figurative language.

1. Always take a passage in its literal sense unless there is good reason for doing otherwise.

There is no reason why numbers in Revelation cannot be interpreted literally. There is no more hidden meaning in the 144,000 (12,000 from the 12 tribes) Jews who will endure the Tribulation in Revelation 14 than the armies of Israel who were numbered in the O.T (2 Samuel 24:9). In Revelation 21:12, the wall around the New Jerusalem has on it the names of the twelve tribes of children of Israel. If this is a symbolic with no literal meaning, were the twelve tribes of Israel in the O.T. also not literal tribes? On the twelve foundations of the New Jerusalem are the names of the twelve apostles. If this is only symbolism were the twelve apostles that Jesus chose only symbols? Of course the number the preterists want to symbolize and get rid of is the literal 1000 year reign of Christ in the future on David’s throne.

Robert L. Thomas addresses this specific number in Revelation: “Attempts to assign a symbolic connotation to the thousand years in Revelation 20:1-7 have been multiplied…. All who adopt this tactic, however, cannot explain how two resurrections in 20:4-5 can be described as separated by one thousand years without referring the millennium to the future and dispensing with the need to spiritualize its significance. The two resurrections are designated by the same verb, ezesan (“they lived,” “they came to life”). By common agreement, the later resurrection is clearly a bodily one, so the former one must be too. That means both are future, with a future thousand-year period between them. The literal approach is fair to the text and consistent. To interpret otherwise marks an end of ‘all definite meaning in plain words” (Evangelical Hermeneutic, 336-337). In Part 2, I complete this list of guidelines.

Genres and Interpreting the Bible, Part 4

Posted: July 16, 2009 in Book Reviews, Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
6

It is important to note the major differences between the book of Revelation and non-canonical apocalyptic literature for our next discussion of the interpretation of numbers in Revelation. Just because numbers were symbolized and not interpreted literally in non-canonical apocalyptic literature does not force us to treat numbers in Revelation the same because Revelation is different.

Robert L. Thomas states some of the differences.

1. “Other apocalypses are generally pseudonymous, but Revelation is not.

2. The epistolary framework of Revelation also sets it apart from works that are similar in other respects.

3. Other writings lack its repeated admonitions for moral compliance (Rev. 2:5, 16, 21, 22; 3:3, 19).

4. Revelation is not as pessimistic about the present as other works in this category.

5. In others the coming of the Messiah is exclusively future, but in Revelation, the Messiah has already come and laid the groundwork for future victory through His redemptive death.

6. Most distinctive is the fact that this book calls itself a prophecy (1:3; 22:7, 10, 18, 19). Its contents fully justify this self-claim” (Evangelical Hermeneutics, 325).

Andy Woods in his helpful article, Dispensational Hermeneuics: The Matter of Genres, elaborates on the these differences stated by Thomas, but adds some additional differences:

Furthermore, other apocalypses typically use numbers to convey concepts rather than count units. By contrast, Revelation appears to use many numbers to indicate specific count units. For example, many futurist scholars believe that various numbers found in Revelation, such as 1260 days (Rev 12:6) or 42 months (Rev 11:2; 13:5), are direct references to the unfulfilled aspects of Daniel’s seventy weeks prophecy (Dan 9:24–27). Hoehner’s calculations indicate that the fulfilled aspects of this prophecy had the potential of being accurate to the exact day (Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977, 115-39). Therefore, it stands to reason that the prophecy’s unfulfilled aspects will also be fulfilled to the minutest detail. Thus, the numbers 1260 days and 42 months should not be taken as merely communicating concepts but rather should be interpreted as specific count units. According to Thomas, Revelation contains no verifiably symbolic numbers. Rather, non-symbolic utilization of numbers is the norm (Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1 to 7: An Exegetical Commentary, Chicago: Moody Press, 1992, 38).

Roy Zuck agrees with both Thomas and Woods: “But are all the numbers he (John in Revelation) mentions to be taken as symbols? Do they not have meaning as ordinary, literal numbers? If 7, 42, 1,260 are not to be taken literally, then what about the reference to the 2 witnesses in 11:3? And if 1,000 means simply a large number, then what about the reference to 7,000 people in verse 13? On what basis do we say that 7,000 does not mean a literal 7,000? And if 1,000 is a large indefinite number, do the references to 4 angels (7:1) and 7 angels (8:6) mean simply small numbers? If these numbers in the Book of Revelation have no normal, literal numerical value, then what has happened to the principle of normal, grammatical interpretation? How can we say that 144,000 is a symbolic number, when 7:5-8 refers specifically to 12,000 from each of 12 tribes in Israel” (Basic Bible Interpretation, 244-245).

In my next post, I will show how Bernard Ramm and Miltion S. Terry violate their own literal hermeneuic when it comes to numbers in Revelation because of their amillinnial view. My next post is entitled: Review of Basic Bible Interpretation: Chapter 7 “Figures of Speech.”

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.

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.

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.

Interpretation Principle of Single Meaning, Part 2

Posted: June 13, 2009 in Book Reviews, Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
3

Robert Thomas discusses and documents the following current evangelicals who have abandoned the classic interpretation principle of the single meaning of Scripture advocated by men like Milton S. Terry and Bernard Ramm: Clark Pinnock, Greg Beale, Grant Osborne, William Klein, Craig Blomberg, Robert Hubbard, Gordon Fee, James DeYoung, Sarah Hurty, Dan McCartney, Charles Clayton, Kenneth Gentry, Darrell Bock, Graig Blaising, and C. Marvin Pate (Robert L. Thomas. Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old, pages141-154). Grant Osborne ‘s interpretation of the two witnesses in Revelation 11 will illustrate the consequence of interpreting a text with multiple meanings. Osborne sees the two witnesses as individuals and also the future church. “Yet the rapture of these two witnesses pictures only the church, he says. One would ask, What happened to the two individuals?” (Robert, page 146).

Robert Thomas gives history’s first example of the grammatical-historical interpretation and the first person who rejected the single meaning principle. God commanded Adam in Genesis 2:16b-17 saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Apparently Adam clearly understood what God said and meant and communicated that grammatical-historical interpretation to Eve. That certainly is the case because when the serpent tempted Eve, she repeated the single meaning of God’s statement to the serpent: “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden: but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.” Thomas comments on this dialogue: “Eve’s hermeneutics were in great shape, as was God’s communicative effectiveness. She worded her repetition of God’s command slightly different from God’s recorded message to Adam, but God probably repeated His original command to Adam in several different ways. Genesis has not preserved a record of every word he spoke to Adam.”

The serpent, however, abandoning the single meaning of Scripture, said to Eve, “You shall not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”  The serpent informed Eve that she had missed the deeper meaning or the sensus plenior of God’s Word. The predecessor of all who reject the single meaning of Scripture is quite infamous. My next post will discuss what is the sensus plenior meaning of Scripture.

Interpretation Principle of a Single Meaning, Part 1

Posted: June 11, 2009 in Book Reviews, Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
3

The Single Meaning Principle is stated well in the words of Bernard Ramm, “Interpretation is one, application is many” (Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 113). In chapter three “Bible Interpretation—Then and Now” Zuck surveys the different methods of interpretation throughout church history. The different approaches are literal, allegorical, traditional, and rationalistic, and subjective. What separates all the approaches from the literal i.e., the grammatical-historical interpretation is the rejection of authorial intent or one interpretation of Scripture. Zuck quotes Bernard Ramm’s evaluation of Augustine’s teaching: “Scripture has more than one meaning and therefore the allegorical method is proper.” Zuck gives an example of Augustine’s allegorical interpretations: “In his allegorizing Augustine taught that the four rivers in Genesis 2:10-14 are four cardinal virtues and that in the Fall the fig leaves represent hypocrisy and the skin covering is morality (3:7, 21). Noah’s drunkenness (Gen. 9:20-23) represents Christ in His suffering and death. The teeth of Shulamite in Song of Songs 4:2 speak of the church ‘tearing men away from heresy.’” These far out interpretations are obviously not what the original authors of Scripture meant when they wrote to their ancient audiences. Did Moses have Christ in mind when he wrote of Noah’s sin of drunkenness? No!

The emphasis in interpretation has shifted from what the text says to what the interpreter thinks or feels the text says. The epicenter in hermeneutics is no longer the one objective meaning of the text but the various and sundry subjective meanings of the interpreters.

This is clearly a departure from the classic hermeneutical theoreticians of the past. In his classic on hermeneutics, Milton S. Terry in chapter 6, “The Grammatico-Historical Sense”, defined the single meaning principle: “A fundamental principle in grammatico-historical exposition is that words and sentences can have but one signification in one and the same connection.” Then Milton issued this warning and prophecy in 1883: “The moment we neglect this principle we drift out upon a sea of uncertainty and conjecture” (Terry, Biblical Hermeneutic, 205). Evangelicalism is adrift on the sea of uncertainity today in hermeneutics.

I began this post with a quote from another classic on hermeneutics. Here are the follow up statements of Ramm’s great line: “Interpretation is one, application is many. This means that there is only one meaning to a passage of Scripture which is determined by careful study.” In my next post tomorrow, I will review Robert Thomas’ chapter “The Principle of Single Meaning” in his Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus The Old and cite today’s theological heavy weights who have abandoned the single meaning principle.

Older Entries