“During the ongoing dialogue, it became readily apparent that Steve embraces nuda sciptura, rather than sola scriptura. Steve maintains that one does not need any tradition when approaching the Scriptures, but rather, one only needs a "sound" hermeneutic—but what is a "sound" hermeneutic?”
http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2008/08/apostolic-hermeneutic.html
Of course, I never said that when we exegete the Bible we should disregard the history of interpretation. Indeed, I’m on record as saying that when we exegete the Bible we should take the history of interpretation into account. Give it a respectful hearing.
And that’s not limited to “Reformed” interpretations of Scripture.
But the history of interpretation is not, itself, a method of interpretation.
Waltz has forgotten the context of his own question, which had to do perspicuity and schism.
“Steve embraces the "the grammatico-historical method" and maintains that the clarity of true doctrine/s will emerge if one is armed with this hermeneutic. I then posed a question: was this the hermeneutic of Jesus and His apostles? His answer: the hermeneutic of Jesus and the His apostles is irrelevant. I kid you not…”
That’s a polar misrepresentation of what I actually said.
I guess, in David’s furry brain, because he thinks that there’s a disconnected between apostolic exegesis and grammatico-historical exegesis, then if I endorse grammatico-historical exegesis, I’m dismissing apostolic exegesis.
But this involves him in imputing his own assumptions to me, then deriving a conclusion which reflects his own self-projection.
If David is that deficient in critical detachment, he has no business defending his faith or attacking mine.
“Steve’s approach has been criticised by an Evangelcial scholar.”
And Peter Enns’ approach has been criticized by other Evangelical scholars:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/februaryweb-only/106-52.0.html
Is David ignorant of the counterargument? Or is he aware of the counterargument, but suppresses the counterargument to give his readers a misleading impression of the actual state of the debate?
“Steve embraces the "the grammatico-historical method" and maintains that the clarity of true doctrine/s will emerge if one is armed with this hermeneutic. I then posed a question: was this the hermeneutic of Jesus and His apostles? His answer: the hermeneutic of Jesus and the His apostles is irrelevant. I kid you not…”
ReplyDeleteThat’s a polar misrepresentation of what I actually said.
-------
Actually, this is one of the reasons people say Waltz is a "stalker" of particular persons on the internet, for he seems to be conflating what Steve and I have written and then stating, the hermeneutic of Jesus and the His apostles is irrelevant," as if this is what we have actually stated.
I must be on his list, because he seems to be using something I said (and only in part), and blending it with what Steve said. If you'll notice, also, in the combox in the thread below this one, he does the same thing, using MY name in lieu of Steve's name in the first comment he posted. So, he's confusing Steve with me.
Here's what Steve wrote:
The real issue is fidelity to the word of God
Here's what I wrote:
a. We are not God.
b. We are not Apostles.
c. Are we to exegete Scripture exactly like the Apostles? Which of us is writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
d. The NT, among other things, is an infallible commentary on the OT. The way to understand the NT is by the GHM, thereby the GHM takes account of the "primary hermeneutic of Jesus and the Apostles." The issue isn't the way THEY exegeted the Scriptures, but how WE are to properly understand THEM when they did so.
Neither Steve nor I have stated that the hermeneutic of Jesus and the Apostles is irrelevant. If Waltz thinks we've stated this, then he needs to quote us to that effect. Otherwise, he's openly lying to his readers.
Steve: Or is he aware of the counterargument, but suppresses the counterargument to give his readers a misleading impression of the actual state of the debate?
ReplyDeleteThis is a serious question. And there should be a genuine response.
"We are not Apostles."
ReplyDelete"The way to understand the NT is by the GHM"
Would you say the christians of the first 1000 years all used the GHM in their exegesis and disputes with heretics? A majority? If not, did the ones who did not and used other methods fail to understand the NT? Did the ones who did always hold to orthodoxy?
THE DUDE SAID:
ReplyDelete“Would you say the christians of the first 1000 years all used the GHM in their exegesis and disputes with heretics?”
The answer to that question depends on what hermeneutical method we use to interpret Christians of the first 1000 years. Speaking for myself, I’d have to use the GHM to ascertain if they used the GHM.
And if the GHM is valid to interpret the church fathers, why is it invalid to interpret Bible writers?
Or do you think I should use a different method to interpret the church fathers? Should I use the allegorical method?
Using the allegorical method, I’d say that every Christian of the first 1000 years used the GHM. And you can’t challenge my interpretation since the allegorical method enables me to impute anything I please to Christians of the first 1000 years.
“If not, did the ones who did not and used other methods fail to understand the NT?”
If you consistently use the wrong hermeneutical method, you will consistently misunderstand the text. Of course, it’s still possible for you to be inconsistently correct from time to time.
“Did the ones who did always hold to orthodoxy?”
Orthodoxy should be grounded in the correct meaning of revealed truth.
Are these folks illiterate?
ReplyDeleteI mean, wow.
Hey Steve,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
>>I guess, in Michael’s furry brain...>>
Who is Michael???
Grace and peace,
David
"And if the GHM is valid to interpret the church fathers, why is it invalid to interpret Bible writers?"
ReplyDeleteCould be, but it might be invalid to use it *exclusively* considering the divine origin of the writing. Is Scripture to be treated just as any other normal document? Do you think the GHM applied to any document, such as your posts or the ecf writings, pretty much ensures an exhaustive understanding/interpretation of those documents? I would say it seems it would. Do you think the understanding of Scripture/Word of God is not exhaustible?
"If you consistently use the wrong hermeneutical method, you will consistently misunderstand the text. Of course, it’s still possible for you to be inconsistently correct from time to time."
Sure, I have not done nearly sufficient research on this, but it would be interesting to see how much/little of an impact GHM had in the ecf's disputations with heretics or their more well-known exegetical works that gave a lot of foundation for the progression of christianity - if the GHM was being relatively rarely used in many of these instances, and yet orthodoxy was still borne out, seems a stretch to think they were just getting lucky so many times; they should've been reaching erroneous conclusions far more often it would seem (again, assuming the GHM was rarely being used, which could be a completely invalid assumption). Or the reverse, with how much/little impact GHM had with heretics who were deriving erroneous conclusions.
"Orthodoxy should be grounded in the correct meaning of revealed truth."
Right, but even those of the Antiochene school missed out on certain spiritual/Christological aspects of OT texts with strict adherence to using the GHM. Perhaps they were misapplying it though. And I have not read Carson/Beale which I realize you've endorsed before - is it your belief then that Christ and the NT writers used the GHM *exclusively* in their interpretation of the OT?
Dude,
ReplyDeleteBefore we take this any further, perhaps you should begin by defining what the GHM means to you.