In my recent studies on hermeneutics I ran across these words by James White in the text of his work, "The Newness of the New Covenant". They seem to clearly state a principle hermeneutic that would likely help in balancing us between (or above) the errors of the hyper-literalization and over-spiritualization of the texts we attempt to interpret.
"When a consistent interpretation of the passage is at hand that requires no disruption of the flow of thought, we need a truly compelling reason to look for anything other than the plainest meaning of the words as they would have been read by the original audience."
"When a consistent interpretation of the passage is at hand that requires no disruption of the flow of thought, we need a truly compelling reason to look for anything other than the plainest meaning of the words as they would have been read by the original audience."
12 comments:
I like you blog as it challenges me to read from a bible educated man's prospective. I write a Christian based on-line Journal, and my wife and I attend Victory Baptist church near Kenosha, WI. I am retired from Chrysler and a disabled Vietnam Vet: 68-70. PTL.
Cordially,
Tom Schuckman
tschuckman@aol.com
Tom,
Thanks for reading. If I have anything edifying or useful to say about God's Word, then it is by grace alone that God has made it possible. I will check out your blog soon. Thanks for your service to our country.
Jason
I haven't been able to keep up with your writings, so maybe you've been addressing this more in the past few posts. But here are my thoughts on that statement by White. Calling for the "plainest interpretation" is fine. I don't think that any scholar would disagree with that, except maybe the Gnostics who go looking for hidden wisdom. But scholars regularly disagree over what a "plain" or, as it is more commonly called, a "literal" interpretation is. Language is inherently symbolic, beyond the fact that words themselves are symbols. There is a Modernist ideal that humans can get behind the symbolic to the real. But there is no "real" that isn't also "symbolic". One might argue that the only "real" thing is God, but even He reveals himself in symbolic ways, because it is impossible for us to encounter Him in any other way. Also, God can't be circumscribed, and so we can never get to some core thing that is "God", some thing that we can apprehend 100%. This isn't to say that we can't encounter Him at all or have a relationship with Him. Rather, He is ever elusive and ever "Other". One can even question whether we can fully comprehend anything in the world around us. Each time scientists find smaller particles in creation, they realize that those particles must be made up of even smaller particles. This isn't to say that creation is unbounded in the same way that God is, at least not fully. But I've long ago entered into the speculative here, and hit the end of my knowledge.
If this is in a piece on the newness of the New Covenant, I suppose White is using this argument to stand against infant baptism? Everybody reads some Bible passages non-literally, even the most consistent Dispensationalists.
I think there are also layers of meaning to words, phrases, and texts. To assume that one can determine one precise meaning per word or phrase is naive. Authors always say more than they intend to say.
As I said, I think this is an area where Modernism still has a hold on the church to a degree. It not only affects the interpretation of certain passages, but also life in general. It affects how we do worship. Reformed worship (and other traditions, such as the Plymouth Brethren) strives to be very literal, for instance, in eschewing symbols. But this is an unintentional yet implicit denial of the creation. And the end result is the creation of a new set of symbols, to some degree, and eventually secularization.
Since your piece was so short, I don't know how much of this addresses your thoughts on this, or what White was saying. But I guess it tripped my trigger, and put me in a mood to write. :)
Kerry,
If my words can put someone in the mood to write, then at least they have helped to do that.
You're right, White is a Baptist, but he is "Reformed", and I mean by that, covenantal, except for the continuity of signs between the OC and the NC. So he isn't a dispensationalist at all, and the thing I liked about his quote was the idea of balance between say, the gross allegory employed by Origin and the hyper-literalism employed by Ryrie, Vlach, or even MacArthur.
I heard a sys theo prof at RTS Char. say that the distinction can be drawn between what we finite creatures can apprehend about God but that we cannot comprehend Him.
Yeah, I was aware White isn't a Dispensationalist. But it seems to me that Reformed Baptists fall into the same pit as Dispensationalists do on this, though not at the same points. There is a general failure to understand how language and literature work on the part of both Dispies and Reformed Baptists. Dispies would accuse White of over-spiritualization as soon as he sought to take prophecies given to Israel in the OT and apply them to the Church. White would accuse me of over-spiritualization in some of the ways I would deal with typology. But for one to accuse another of over-spiritualization is to claim for oneself adherence to some ideal of literalism. Referring to the "plain meaning of the text" is just code language for this. My point is that this ideal is mythical. Who determines what is an "overly-spirtualized" interpretation? Hal Lindsey and his Blackhawk helicopters in Revelation? James White with his Spiritual Israel is the Church? Me with my baptismal efficacy in Titus 3:5? While Origen and some of the Early and Medieval Scholars had some fanciful and wrong interpretations, based largely off of the influence of pagan Greek philosophy, the categories of "spiritualization" and "over-spiritualization" are Rationalistic categories, in that they dismiss to some degree the legitimacy of metaphor and other symbolism. And while most interpreters aren't consistent in their dismissal of all symbols, they still fall prey to this, and the more Rationalistic the particular interpreter is, the more guilty he is of this.
I'm sensitive to this, I guess, from having dealt with the Brethren on issues of interpretation. On two different occasions, when talking to people about certain texts of Scripture, I've said to them, "I don't agree with your interpretation of that passage," to which they've replied, "I'm not interpreting the passage. You're interpreting the passage. I'm just reading what it says." One of these people was Brethren, the other a Baptist. Obviously, they didn't understand what "interpreting" meant. But the point is the ideal of "literalism" to which they held. The notion of a "literal" reading or a "plain" reading doesn't get at the point of disagreement and really deal with it, but functions instead often as a shibboleth and a red herring. I know you don't mean it that way, however.
You might not agree with me on this, but I offer as something to consider nonetheless.
Traditional Reformed folks are often hesitant to apply the term "Reformed" to Reformed Baptists. Reformed Baptists may use the covenant as the scheme by which they interpret the Scripture, but it has little practical benefit in that system, it seems to me. It remains merely an abstract construct. While I'm not sure of his current practice, in the past Michael Horton has often even preferred to refer to Reformed Baptists like Ken Jones as "Classical Baptists", because he doesn't really consider them Reformed. That isn't meant to be a slight on them, but rather an accurate categorization. You may consider yourself to be a Reformed Baptist, I don't recall, so I hope this isn't insulting to you.
No, no insult at all. As far as the issue over baptism, I am struggling with it right now. While in a difficult transition at our last church, the precise definition of "Reformed" was constantly in dispute. In our ignorance, those of us who were becoming more Calvinistic (but remained dispensational and baptistic) began to refer to ourselves as reformed in some sense yet unknown to us. Then when the church came to a cross-roads determining whether we would remain dispensational or become covenantal, those of us who were not dispensationalists referred to ourselves as reformed (again, in relative relation to those who remained dispensational). In the end, the title wasn't really the matter, but the way in which we interpreted a set of passages relating to the issues at hand. So, in the process I and others became aware that even those Calvinistic, and otherwise covenantal theologians who remained baptistic, were not necessarily considered "Reformed" but our paedobaptistic brethren.
I certainly don't take offence at anyone who wouldn't refer to me as Reformed, but the tag has been somewhat helpful as a means of designating a certain set of beliefs when in debate with others...even if it had been, unfortunately, falsely applied. The interesting thing is that, during the debate over hermeneutical constructs, MacArthur presented his diatribe against Amillennialism at the 07 Shepherd's Conference, which turned out to be a catalyst for some helpful (and some destructive) discussions.
I agree that the "plain meaning" can change from one person's interpretation to another, but the reason I posted the quote was in part due to the circumstances in which I read it. I was going through Calvin's comments on Jer. 31:31-34, and I had read the previous day, his opinion of Origin's methods of interpretation (which I had heard comments on before) and then read part of White's piece from which the quote was taken. Even when I quoted it, I was aware that the "plainest meaning" and the things that would be considered "truely compelling" would be disputed from one interpretor to another. Perhaps the degree of ambiguity in which the statement was made is what has made me thing that more people could agree with it, whether dispensational, Classic Baptist, or Reformed. Btw, the Classic Baptist label, for anyone who remains creedobaptistic and covenantal, seems very agreeable to me. As stated before, I think that the reformed part of the Reformed Baptist title is mainly used to distinguish one from non-Calvinistic dispensationalism...but I could be wrong.
Well, you get variations among paedobaptists on this designation as well. The insistence on reserving the title "Reformed" for paedobaptists seems to be more common among those who count themselves a part of the Continental Reformed tradition, where strict subscription to the confessions is necessary for church membership. In Presbyterianism, however, where you can generally be a Dispensational Baptist and still be a member of a Presbyterian church, the term "Reformed Baptist" isn't questioned as much.
I'll use the term "Reformed Baptist", mainly because that is how said people refer to themselves, and because it isn't that big of a deal to me. But from a Paedobaptistic perspective, while we are glad that Reformed Baptists are closer to what we consider the truth than Dispensationalists, the debate between Reformed Baptists that consider themselves Covenantal and Dispensationalists seems to be little more than a discussion over who has the more correct chart. If there is no practical outworking to the doctrine, then who cares which schema one holds to? For us, Covenantalism affects how we view childrearing, corporate worship, political involvement (that is, for those of us who are Reconstructionists and therefore more in line with Scripture and Reformed history), and general culture. The fact that MacArthur the Dispensationalist is so regularly invited to Reformed Baptist conferences like the Shepherd's Conference is in itself a sign that something is amiss in Reformed Baptist circles, I would say.
But I recognize that it's easy for me to say all this from my perspective. I never really struggled with Infant Baptism once I had accepted Covenantalism. I listened to tapes from the White Horse Inn and Dr. Sproul, and after hearing their arguments, I was convinced rather quickly. So keep struggling, I say.
I never struggled with the Jeremiah 31 passage. I think there are probably different ways to address it, and I don't think it's the watershed passage that Baptists would have one to believe.
The PCA church where we are members doesn't require that the general membership adhere to every point of the confession, but make a profession of belief. The leadership is bound by it though, and communion would likely be withheld from someone who persistently denied the doctrine of the Trinity etc, but their belief should actually be called into question in that case. So it is theoretically possible for a member to be a non-Calvinistic dispensationalist, however that is unlikely.
I think the practical outworking of Reformed Baptist Amillennialism is: no secret rapture, "realized millennialism", Christ is seated on "David's" throne now, a "Two-Age Table" of eschatology, an expanded continuity between the old and new covenants, except for the sign.
The RBs with whom I'm familiar (Sam Waldron and others) hold to a 2 kingdom view, so their political involvement is tailored thus. The view of communion seems to vary (unfortunately), but for me (though I don't really consider myself a RB anymore—don't know what I am right now, except for, in flux) even before we left the baptist church where we were, I didn't share the memorialist view, but accepted the sacrament as a means of grace, thanks largely to the WHI guys. As far as child rearing, though RBs don't consider them (until a profession of belief is made) covenant members, I believe they have a more gospel centered approach. Even at TCBC where we were, we used Paul and Ted Tripp's and Lou Priolo's books on child rearing.
The Sheperd's Conferrence is actually a pastor's conference put on by his church. What never fails to surprise me is the perpetual invitation he seems to get from Sproul. Don't get me wrong, I think JM has been a blessing to the church, but his understanding of and disagreement with covenant theology (Amill in particular) is very discouraging. He has participated in the Together for the Gospel conferences, but they aren't really RB...Sproul, Ligon Duncan also participate in those.
I agree that Jer 31 isn't the main passage dealing with the continuity or discontinuity of the covenant sign, but rather, it is very important in the dispy premil/amil debate.
You should check out Waldron/Barcellous book called A Reformed Baptist Manifesto if you want to hear their own words regarding covenantalism of the baptist variety.
BTW, we should try to get lunch some day, or maybe we're too far to do that...I work in HP at the corner of West Lexington and Main.
The things you mentioned in your second paragraph, such as "no secret rapture, 'realized millennialism'", etc., don't really get at what I meant by "practical outworking". Those are theological positions. But how do they affect how a person lives their everyday life? Does a person's theology dictate how he conducts himself, and that in every area of life? Or are there grey areas, areas in life about which God does not speak? That's what I'm getting at. One thing, for instance, that the WHI guys have made very clear is that in their views one cannot derive a philosophy of civil government from Scripture. So one could just as easily be a Christian Communist as a Christian Republican. This might sound like a harsh accusation, but that is the outworking, I would say, of the two kingdoms model, and I'm basing this off of things that have been said on WHI. My experience with local LCMS clergy and laity has also confirmed this.
You got a little more at what I was aiming at in your next paragraph. My concern with childrearing in Baptistic circles has to do with how children are perceived. I knew a couple once who grew up in RB circles. They had several children themselves. They couldn't see paedobaptism in Scripture, they said, but they chose to remain in Presbyterian circles and would not return to RB circles. In their experience, children who had not made a profession of faith were effectively ostracized in the life of the church. They weren't allowed to participate in the covenant community of the church, and this led to apostasy. This seems to me to be a logical result of RB doctrine. If one believes in original sin, therefore eliminating the idea of an "age of accountability", and yet doesn't allow for the idea of familial covenantal solidarity, then children before making a profession of faith are in a sort of nebulous realm. They are wicked, our doctrine of total depravity tells us, but we know little else about them.
Thanks for the correction on the Shepherd's Conference. I think I was confusing it with a Reformed Baptist church conference that I had been familiar with from a few years back.
I've known of a number of Reformed people who loved MacArthur, and for whom MacArthur provided a way into a more Reformed approach to Scripture. I never really fell in love with MacArthur the way some do, though I've read portions of a few of his books.
My work schedule varies occasionally, so we might be able to work out a lunch meet up some time. I might find it to be a mistake to put my email here, but you can shoot me an email at kermitlewis{at}gmail.com and we can communicate that way.
Jason,
I enjoyed reading a few of your post. There are some very controversial topics here that will perhaps only be settled in glory.
I do agree we must have a balance in our hermeneutics and presuppositions. If we fail to come to the Scriptures presupposing that it is the complete inspired Word of God we will automatically fail in having a consistent hermeneutic. On the other hand, if we have a dual hermeneutic we will tend to spiritualize the Word of God.
I guess you would label me a hyper-literalist. However, I don't fully agree with the term "hyper." I do believe that the Scriptures must be taken literally unless otherwise indicated by the author. We must read the Bible with a literal, grammatical, contextual, and historical approach. When similes, metaphors, and hyperboles are used, then we are to recongnize them as such. To Ryrie's defense I would not catagorize him as a hyper-literalist either. I hope you understand where I am coming from. Maybe you could clarify your definition of hyper-literalism.
I do appreciate the fact that you don't set up straw men just to knock them over. Your approach to these topics are carried out in a professional way.
P.S.
It is good to talk with you, even if it is in the "virtual world." It has been a long time; I hope things are well.
Jamie,
I an so glad you decided to read some of my posts. In general I think of them simply as a way to think these things through for myself.
I'll admit, I came from a dispensational background so I really hope to come across as more sympathetic than critical, but it's never easy to criticize, even when you think it is important enough to do so...I just pray that I do it in grace and love. I am glad that you didn't think I have built up strawmen; I am trying my best to make sound arguments without misrepresenting. Also, some of the posts I made regarding hermeneutics have become dated with regards to my own understanding, and I have edited them some...a work in progress I guess you could say. In that vein, I am not bound to the "hyper-literalist" term, and perhaps it is misapplied, especially if someone like yourself thinks it's an overstatement. As a matter of fact, most of what I posted on my blog was part of an essay I am working on, and has changed some even from the form you read. I am currently having people like my dad and others help me say things clearly and accurately represent the positions I intend to critic. So if you'd like to take a look just let me know. My dad is a dispensationalist and doesn't take his que from Ryrie so much, but rather from Darby, Mackintosh, and Newell (SP?) and maybe a bit from Pentecost (who I personally consider to represent Dispensationalism very well), but I am finding out that the contrasts I am making between my position (Covenant Amil) and others, doesn't always represent all dispensationalists. No real surprise, but like all systems, Dispensationalism isn't monolithic either. Of course, like in Cov. Amil and Postmil, there are things that either must be affirmed of denied in order for it to qualify (sorry Bock, Blaising, Saucy and MacArthur). :)
Btw, my wife Melissa graduated from PBC back in 2000 or so. I met her there as I was taking the night institute courses (don't know if they have that program any more). You know, I don't remember the nature of our conversations while in school together, but I sure am glad to find out you're a brother! Who knows, I may not even have really been saved back then...praise the Lord I know I am now! Where do you go to church?
Jason
Jason,
I appreciate the response. I did not take your position as being critical. I was just trying to understand what your definition of a "hyper-literalist" was. I agree, when attempting to explain a certain viewpoint it is often hard to do so without someone taking offence. Like yourself, I am interested in theology but I think you have alot more study under your belt than myself. I respect your position (Covenant Amil.) and would agree in many points. However, concerning the Church, eschatology, and possibly soteriology (to some degree) I would have to disagree. I will have to admit, the more I learn the more I realize that I know very little. I try not to get so involved with my studies that I neglect my Savior, if that makes sense.
I'm glad we were able to contact through facebook. I remember you in school as a kind person with a great personality. That alone will take you far in life. I can't say that life turned out as I would have planned. Looking back I really don't know if I was saved early in life. I made a profession when I was 7 but did not attend church until years after highschool. My life was a mess and I began to search many places (wrong places) for the meaning of life. This search ultimately brought me back to what I remembered as a child. It took many people used by God to bring me to where He wanted me. I did receive assurance of my salvation in 1998; whether I was saved or not, I am now. In 2005 I began to feel God's call on my life. I struggled with this calling for about a year until I just completely broke down and surrendered to do the Lord's will. I quit my full time job and started PBC in 2006. I believe with all my heart that God has called me to be a pastor. I don't know where He will lead after school, but I will most likely continue my education at Piedmont (online).
I currently attend Reedy Creek Baptist Church in Lexington. I work with the youth and my wife Angela and I teach Sunday School. The Lord has confirmed His call on my life by giving me opportunities to preach often. It is encouraging when these opportunities arise. I just want to serve Him and become more like my Savior.
Post a Comment