PREDISPOSITIONAL HERMENEUTICS: How to Start a Cult by Manipulating the Bible!
Filed Under (Paul's posts) by Paul on 20-11-2009
Tagged Under : hermeneutics, Paul's Post
We are once again given the opportunity to view another “scholarly” lecture in the principles of “Preteristic” interpretation as expressed in the academic musings of Norm. As side from the misspellings, Hyperpreterists theologian extraordinaire Norm responds to Michael Bennett about his system of interpretation and why it is dangerous:
Using your premise we could invalidate any Preterist approch (approach) to understandign (understanding) the language that we choose. The only way to solve this is to demonstrate the consistency of the language throughout the bible and trust that it was. If the language is not consitentent (consistent) then Preterism is not true and could not be proven under your approach. You are simply knocking the props out from under preterism (Preterism) and do not realize it.
There are various things that should be noticed in Norm’s comments. First, both Bennett and Norm speak of the historical grammatical interpretation previously in this thread, to which Norm is arguing against Bennett using this method. Actually, it is called the “grammatico-historical” method. Grammar comes prior to the study of history since the Words of Scripture are inspired (2 Timothy 3:16). However, it should be kept in mind that some terms are didactic and some are narrative. It must be remembered that when history is found in the Scripture it may be simply functioning as a narrative without being didactical. It might contain a didactic, but a narrative of itself is always interpreted in light of the “grammatical.” This is important in the use of “special analogy” and “general analogy” in development of Christian dogma. Secondly, note that Norm puts the emphasis on creating definitions for Bible terms that are to ensure that they are “Hyperpreterist” by nature. Think about this for a moment. If you define the terms they way you want them to read, and not the way God wrote them to be understood, then create a paradigm based on 70 AD, this would of necessity lead to a totally Hyperpreterist theology. Ya Think? The Hyperpreterists then force every term through the template of predisposed definitions and new paradigm. Folks, does that not sound a lot like prejudicing the final outcome of the Bible’s meaning? Talk about putting words into God’s mouth! Norm says, “if language is not consistent then Preterism is not true, and could not be proven under your (Bennett’s grammatico-historical) approach.” Talk about stacking the deck towards an assured theological outcome! Norm, do you realize that you just handed us (nonHyperpreterists) the victory! Norm, you are telling us that if a person interprets the Bible using the “grammatico-historical” method, that is, letting the Bible speak for itself (Scripture comparing Scripture), then you will not end up with a Hyperpreterist interpretation. BINGO! We agree Norm, under the grammatico-historical metheod it will be anything but a Hyperpreterists interpretation of the Bible! Norm actually does what he accuses Michael Bennett of doing, note that he states: “You are simply knocking the props out from under preterism (Preterism) and do not realize it.”
Norm, your approach is just another concept of Gnostic thought. Only the Hyperpreterists are capable through their “spurious” definitions to force the Bible to teach its Hyperpreterists doctrines! This is just not the ‘tweaking’ of some doctrine; this is the ‘twisting’ the whole of Scripture to make it say what you want it to say! Does not this sound cultic like? Norm, Michael Bennett needs to take you to the woodshed and give you a “spanking” like a redheaded step child! Once again, the Hyperpreterists are faced with a choice: (1) Do we twist the definitions of words to ensure that the Bible only teaches what we want it to teach (and not what God meant), you know, just like the Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and every other cultic group: or (2) Do you continue in the path of orthodox hermeneutics and let the Bible teach was God intended for it to teach? As far as Norm is concerned, the “fix is in” if he has his way! Norm, this comment was worth more than you will ever know! It will be thrown up to the Hyperpreterists from now on. Thanks for the help, keep up the good work! Norm it seems like you are making all of our points for us, we just need to let you continue in your meaningless tautologies and you will crash your own house down on your head! Folks Norm is just another example of 1 Corinthians 2:14.
I would maintain that the Bible itself should define and determine the use of any given word in the context in which the word is found and used. This also takes into consideration the necessity of seeing both the “remote” and the “immediate” context.
Everyone, Preterists or otherwise carry with them certain preconceptions with them into the text of Scripture. For example, John MacArthur in his exposition of I Cor. 15 what he believes to be the issue related to what was being denied in connection with the resurrection of the dead. In his case, he believes the Corinthians were dealing with issues related to early forms of Gnostic thought (a common viewpoint), Max King believes it was related to the Jew/Gentile issue (not a common view). How one defines the issue in the text often affects the end result or interpretation.
I do agree that Hermeneutics is a key consideration in the debate over Preterism (in any form). The method you mention is often championed by Premillennialists in the development and use of a “literal” method of interpretation. People such as Gentry are accused of “spiritualizing” verses Premillennialists see as “literal” The Bible remains its own best interpreter and thus the text needs to define the use of a term (literal or symbolic).
Larry,
Thank your for your thoughts,
Larry,
BTW, you do realize there is “literalism” verses a “literal” interpretation when it comes to the grammatico-historical method. There is a major difference between the dispensational premillennial approach to hermeneutics and that of historical premillennialism, I think you would agree. Grammar requires a study of (1) the etymology of a word, (2) the current usage at the time it was written, (3) synatical usage, and (4) contextual usage. This is always required prior to the consideration of any special interpretative approaches to typological, parabolical, or prophetical hermeneutic rules. The Protestant and Reformed position is that words are to be taken literal unless there is a contextual reason for considering figurative, typological, parabolic, or prophetical usage. Even then it is “literial meaning” in the figurative, parabolic, typological, and prophetical texts from which we are seeking to gain the proper understanding of what God is revealing to us. What we are witnessing with BCS is more akin to the “mysticism” of the Romanist allegorical approach, more preverted with BCS’s twisting of Scripture texts. Think of it Larry, Revelation, the most controverted book in the history of the Church is being used as the standard for interpreting the rest of the Scripture! Truly Norm and Jeff have created a new hermeneutic for Hyperpreterism, just what to call it is the question? I know, they could write a book on this new method and call it “The Magical Mystery Tour of the Bible.” I bet there is a song in there somewhere!
Once again Larry, thank you for your thoughts.
Paul said: “As side from the misspellings, Hyperpreterists theologian extraordinaire Norm responds. . . . ”
Submitted for your consideration:
If you’re going to jab someone for his spelling errors, you would be most effective if, in your criticism, you avoided making errors in spelling (1 or 2 errors) and in grammar (2 errors).
Dave
Thanks Dave, sage advice, although the edits were primarily intended to enable the audience to understand what I believed Norm to be communicating. BTW, thanks for reading the blog.
Paul,
I’m impressed with your graciousness in the midst of strong disagreement, and with your willingness to discuss the errors of us “hyper-preterists” with us.
There are a few anti-hyper-preterists out there who would do well to learn from your example. Treating all “hyper-preterists” as vile devils isn’t the way to go.
Thank you.
Dave
Paul
You and I are in agreement with respect to the basic approach to hermeneutics. One does not interpret the plain, literal passages by the language used in those contexts which are obviously symbolic or figurative. Sometimes a “tree” is just a “tree” and carries with no trace of symbolic meaning or import. There is a fine line and must be a careful distinction between those who employ the use of allegory as the basis from which to extrapolate a theory that removes the simple, plain meaning of the text itself. There no reason to assume that “sun, moon and stars” in some texts having any meaning other than the heavenly bodies to which they have reference. Once one starts down the road of finding symbolism in virtually everything, the text loses all objective meaning. The text then is at the mercy of the individual who interprets the meaning, and not what it may or may not actually mean when taken in context.
Thanks Dave, I appreciate defense of the self-attesting, self-authenticating Word of God. Those of you who are opposing the theistic evolutionists in your camp whose entire premise is to undermine the truth is spot on.
Larry,
Right on, Harold Camping here we come.
Sam writes,
This is very insightful. Indeed if interpretation of Scripture is conformed to fit norms as the individual sees it then “truth” is left up to the individual to decide. And if “truth” is left up to the individual to determine, how can we ever really know anything? I look forward to your paper.
[...] continues to comment, Here on 21 Nov 2009, at 3:06PM “This is very insightful. Indeed if interpretation of Scripture is [...]