PROLEGOMENA
DEFINITION...Literally it means pro, “before,” and lego, “speak”...“It deals with the necessary preconditions for doing systematic theology”
What Are Some of Those Preconditions?
1. The triune God of the Bible exists and He has communicated to man in the revelation of the Bible, the 66 books of the Old and New Testament.
2. This necessitates at least three things:
a. God is capable of giving revelation
b. Man is able to receive the revelation
c. The medium of the revelation is possible
God Is Capable of Giving Revelation...This point is demonstrated in the study of the attributes of God found in the
Bible. The omniscient God knows all truth and by His omnipotence He creates the means to reveal this truth.
Man Is Able to Receive the Revelation...Man is made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:27).This at least means that man is moral and rational being capable of receiving moral and rational revelation from God. There are three basic laws of rational thinking:
1. The law of noncontradiction (A is not non-A)
2. The law of identity (A is A)
3. The law of excluded middle (either A or non-A)
The Medium of the Revelation Is Possible: First God has revealed Himself in General Revelation...
1. In God’s creation – Romans 1: 18-20; Psalm 19:1-6 (Acts 17:24-25)
2. In Human nature – Romans 2:14-15
3. In Providence – Matthew 5:45; Acts 14:15-17
The Medium of the Revelation Is Possible: Second, God’s Special Revelation is found in Christ and in the written word, the Bible – Psalm 19:7-11
1. In Christ: John 1:1-5,14-18; Hebrews 1:1-3
2. In the Bible: 2nd Timothy 3:16-17
Contrast Between General and Special Revelation are as follows...
What Are Some of Those Preconditions?
1. The triune God of the Bible exists and He has communicated to man in the revelation of the Bible, the 66 books of the Old and New Testament.
2. This necessitates at least three things:
a. God is capable of giving revelation
b. Man is able to receive the revelation
c. The medium of the revelation is possible
God Is Capable of Giving Revelation...This point is demonstrated in the study of the attributes of God found in the
Bible. The omniscient God knows all truth and by His omnipotence He creates the means to reveal this truth.
Man Is Able to Receive the Revelation...Man is made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:27).This at least means that man is moral and rational being capable of receiving moral and rational revelation from God. There are three basic laws of rational thinking:
1. The law of noncontradiction (A is not non-A)
2. The law of identity (A is A)
3. The law of excluded middle (either A or non-A)
The Medium of the Revelation Is Possible: First God has revealed Himself in General Revelation...
1. In God’s creation – Romans 1: 18-20; Psalm 19:1-6 (Acts 17:24-25)
2. In Human nature – Romans 2:14-15
3. In Providence – Matthew 5:45; Acts 14:15-17
The Medium of the Revelation Is Possible: Second, God’s Special Revelation is found in Christ and in the written word, the Bible – Psalm 19:7-11
1. In Christ: John 1:1-5,14-18; Hebrews 1:1-3
2. In the Bible: 2nd Timothy 3:16-17
Contrast Between General and Special Revelation are as follows...
General Revelation
God as Creator Norm for Society Means of Condemnation In Nature, Conscience & providence |
Special Revelation
God as Redeemer Norm for Church Means of Salvation In Christ & the Bible |
The Importance of Preconditions: 1.There is a mind capable of sending a message. 2.There is a mind capable of receiving a message. 3.There is a common mode of communication (like a language shared by both persons).
Without those three preconditions, evangelical systematic theology is not possible. The Bible is an infallible, absolutely true communication in human language that came from an infinite, personal, & morally perfect God.
1.There is a theistic God who created the world and can miraculously intervene in it.
2. A God who has revealed Himself in both general & special revelation.
3. Revelation is subject to the laws of logic and contains objectively meaningful statements that are true objectively and exclusively and can be understood in analogous language (God-talk).
4. The meaning and truth of revelation can be understood objectively including those elements relating to historical events. Christian faith is rooted in real history and can be understood from history.
5. Revelation can be systematized by a complete and comprehensive theological method.
Evangelicals believe that the Bible is God’s Word in human words. Therefore we must have the belief that finite human language is capable of meaningfully expressing the nature of the infinite, personal God, which is displayed in both general and special revelation. The nature of truth is crucial to the Christian faith. Not only does Christianity claim there is absolute truth (which is true for everyone, everywhere, and always) but it also insists that truth is that which corresponds to the way things really are.
What is Truth? Fundamentally truth is whatever conforms to the mind of God (Psalm 111:7-8; John 14:6; 16:13)
1. The Bible applies “truth” to facts (Eph. 4:25), all predetermined by the mind of God (Ephesians 1:11; Isaiah 46:9-11)
2. The Bible applies “truth” to what is eternal and absolute (John 17:3,17,19; Psalm 119:160)
3. The Bible applies “truth” to what is ethically right (John 3:21; 2nd John 4)
4. Propositions which correspond to God’s mind will be coherent with each other, conform with facts or reality and be correct. To have true coherence in our knowledge there must be correspondence between our ideas of facts and God’s ideas of these facts. The starting point is God.
The Importance of the Bible...
INSPIRATTION – “God superintended the human authorsof the Bible so that they composed and recorded without error His message [revelation] to mankind in the words of their original writings.” (2nd Timothy 3:16; 2nd Peter 1:20-21)
INERRANCY – The International Council on Biblical Inerrancy in its Chicago statement says, “Scripture is without
error or fault in all its teaching. . . .” (e.g. John 10:35)
CANONICITY – “The term canon and canonical thus came to signify standards by which books were measured to
determine whether or not they were inspired.”
Criteria for the Canon...Self authenticating: Inspiration...Apostolic Authorship: Authority...Antiquity: 1st Century... Orthodoxy: Consistency with previous revelation...Catholicity: Widespread recognition and use.
The Unity of the Bible: The Human and the Divine Together...
The Human...1. About forty different authors with diverse vocations 2. They wrote at different locations (Europe, Middle East & Africa) and circumstances 3. Wrote over a period of about 1500 years.
The Divine...1. There is a unity and consistency without error 2. Progressive Revelation – God revealed His word over time, therefore, “God may add or even change in one era what He had given in another.” 3. God’s Word is authoritative and true.
Illumination:
Definition: “The ministry of the Holy Spirit whereby He enlightens those who are in a right relationship with Him to comprehend the written Word of God.”
1. John 16:12-15
2. 1 Corinthians 2:9 – 3:2
Notice the following points from the Scriptures:
1. The Spirit is the teacher
2. Unbelievers cannot experience illumination
3. Carnality of a believer thwarts this ministry
4. The purpose of the Spirit’s ministry is to glorify Christ
5. The Spirit uses the gift of teaching in this ministry
6. It is not direct revelation, but it is given through study and meditation on the Scripture.
Without those three preconditions, evangelical systematic theology is not possible. The Bible is an infallible, absolutely true communication in human language that came from an infinite, personal, & morally perfect God.
1.There is a theistic God who created the world and can miraculously intervene in it.
2. A God who has revealed Himself in both general & special revelation.
3. Revelation is subject to the laws of logic and contains objectively meaningful statements that are true objectively and exclusively and can be understood in analogous language (God-talk).
4. The meaning and truth of revelation can be understood objectively including those elements relating to historical events. Christian faith is rooted in real history and can be understood from history.
5. Revelation can be systematized by a complete and comprehensive theological method.
Evangelicals believe that the Bible is God’s Word in human words. Therefore we must have the belief that finite human language is capable of meaningfully expressing the nature of the infinite, personal God, which is displayed in both general and special revelation. The nature of truth is crucial to the Christian faith. Not only does Christianity claim there is absolute truth (which is true for everyone, everywhere, and always) but it also insists that truth is that which corresponds to the way things really are.
What is Truth? Fundamentally truth is whatever conforms to the mind of God (Psalm 111:7-8; John 14:6; 16:13)
1. The Bible applies “truth” to facts (Eph. 4:25), all predetermined by the mind of God (Ephesians 1:11; Isaiah 46:9-11)
2. The Bible applies “truth” to what is eternal and absolute (John 17:3,17,19; Psalm 119:160)
3. The Bible applies “truth” to what is ethically right (John 3:21; 2nd John 4)
4. Propositions which correspond to God’s mind will be coherent with each other, conform with facts or reality and be correct. To have true coherence in our knowledge there must be correspondence between our ideas of facts and God’s ideas of these facts. The starting point is God.
The Importance of the Bible...
INSPIRATTION – “God superintended the human authorsof the Bible so that they composed and recorded without error His message [revelation] to mankind in the words of their original writings.” (2nd Timothy 3:16; 2nd Peter 1:20-21)
INERRANCY – The International Council on Biblical Inerrancy in its Chicago statement says, “Scripture is without
error or fault in all its teaching. . . .” (e.g. John 10:35)
CANONICITY – “The term canon and canonical thus came to signify standards by which books were measured to
determine whether or not they were inspired.”
Criteria for the Canon...Self authenticating: Inspiration...Apostolic Authorship: Authority...Antiquity: 1st Century... Orthodoxy: Consistency with previous revelation...Catholicity: Widespread recognition and use.
The Unity of the Bible: The Human and the Divine Together...
The Human...1. About forty different authors with diverse vocations 2. They wrote at different locations (Europe, Middle East & Africa) and circumstances 3. Wrote over a period of about 1500 years.
The Divine...1. There is a unity and consistency without error 2. Progressive Revelation – God revealed His word over time, therefore, “God may add or even change in one era what He had given in another.” 3. God’s Word is authoritative and true.
Illumination:
Definition: “The ministry of the Holy Spirit whereby He enlightens those who are in a right relationship with Him to comprehend the written Word of God.”
1. John 16:12-15
2. 1 Corinthians 2:9 – 3:2
Notice the following points from the Scriptures:
1. The Spirit is the teacher
2. Unbelievers cannot experience illumination
3. Carnality of a believer thwarts this ministry
4. The purpose of the Spirit’s ministry is to glorify Christ
5. The Spirit uses the gift of teaching in this ministry
6. It is not direct revelation, but it is given through study and meditation on the Scripture.
Knowledge versus Opinion ~ Adapted from Mortimer J. Adler’s How to Think About The Great Ideas
Consider the following...
If something is knowledge, then is it possible for it to be false knowledge or wrong knowledge?
Is your response to the above an opinion or knowledge?
Knowledge consists in having the truth and knowing that you have it because you know why what you think is true is true. Knowledge can’t be wrong. If something is knowledge, it’s impossible for it to be false knowledge or wrong knowledge.
Opinion consists in not being sure that you have the truth, not being sure whether what you say is true or false. Even if what you say happens to be true, you aren’t confident because you don’t know why it is true. So, opinions can be right or wrong.
Criteria for distinguishing between knowledge and opinion is 5-fold:
1st Criteria: The criteria is whether or not everyone must agree. If everyone must agree, then it isn’t opinion but knowledge.
2nd Criteria: Doubt and believe are relative only to opinion, never to knowledge.
Knowledge: 2+2=4:
a. I know this; I don’t doubt it; I cannot even properly say that I believe it.
b. I don’t disbelieve that 2+2 equals 4; I know it.
c. “Belief” is too weak a word for this truth that 2+2 =
Opinion: “Gentlemen always prefer a triple shot soy latte.”
a. I have something I don’t know;
b. Some people doubt it;
c. some believe may believe it;
d. no on knows it to be true.
Consider the following statements and determine whether the statements are statements of knowledge or opinions:
1. “There is always a state of war, either a cold or a hot war between sovereign nations.”
a. Anyone who thinks for a moment will see this is true
b. Everyone understands it to be true.
2. “There will be another World War in the next 5 years.”
a. No one actually knows.
b. At best it is a probable prediction.
c. Some people may believe it and some may doubt it, but it is not a statement of knowledge.
“I have some dice. And as I roll those dice I can only say it is my opinion that they will come up a certain number. I don’t know it. I can make bets in terms of it, but I certainly don’t know what number will turn up. Now I have in my pocket here another set of dice which are loaded. These dice are so loaded they will only come up seven or eleven. And as I shoot these dice I have no doubt, not bit of doubt, that each time they will turn up either seven or eleven. That is something that I know, not doubt or believe.”
3rd Criteria: We can only have freedom of thought only about matters of opinion.
In matters of opinion everyone has a right to their own opinion but no one ever says this about knowledge. I don’t say, “I have a right to my own knowledge.” 2+2 = 4. Do I have freedom of thought here?
4th Criteria: Matters of opinion are subject to conflict, knowledge is not.
“We don’t say there is a conflict of knowledges on this point as we say there is a conflict of opinions on this point. Because it is the very nature of what it is that we have an opinion about to be subject to conflict and that is not true of things we can know” (Adler, How to Think about the Great Ideas, 17).
5th Criteria that differentiates between knowledge and opinion is consensus.
1. It is only with respect to opinion that we mention about taking a consensus. In fact, we say a consensus of opinion, majority opinion, minority opinion, expert opinion, inexpert opinion.
2. We never say the “majority knowledge” as opposed to “minority knowledge or “expert knowledge” as opposed to “inexpert knowledge.”
In summary:
1. Whether or not everyone must agree.
2. Doubt and believe are relative only to opinion, never to knowledge;
3. We can only have freedom of thought only about matters of opinion, never knowledge.
4. Consensus differentiates between knowledge and opinion; with respect to opinion do we talk about consensus.
5. Matters of opinion are subject to conflict, knowledge is not.
Problems regarding opinion and knowledge that one should consider:
1. What sort of objects are the objects of knowledge as opposed to the objects about which we can only have opinions?
2. What is the psychological difference between knowledge and opining as acts of the mind?
3. Can we have knowledge and opinion about one and the same thing?
4. What is the scope of knowledge? How much knowledge do we really have as opposed to the kinds of things about which we can only have opinions? What is the limit or scope of opinion in the things of our mind?
If something is knowledge, then is it possible for it to be false knowledge or wrong knowledge?
Is your response to the above an opinion or knowledge?
Knowledge consists in having the truth and knowing that you have it because you know why what you think is true is true. Knowledge can’t be wrong. If something is knowledge, it’s impossible for it to be false knowledge or wrong knowledge.
Opinion consists in not being sure that you have the truth, not being sure whether what you say is true or false. Even if what you say happens to be true, you aren’t confident because you don’t know why it is true. So, opinions can be right or wrong.
Criteria for distinguishing between knowledge and opinion is 5-fold:
1st Criteria: The criteria is whether or not everyone must agree. If everyone must agree, then it isn’t opinion but knowledge.
2nd Criteria: Doubt and believe are relative only to opinion, never to knowledge.
Knowledge: 2+2=4:
a. I know this; I don’t doubt it; I cannot even properly say that I believe it.
b. I don’t disbelieve that 2+2 equals 4; I know it.
c. “Belief” is too weak a word for this truth that 2+2 =
Opinion: “Gentlemen always prefer a triple shot soy latte.”
a. I have something I don’t know;
b. Some people doubt it;
c. some believe may believe it;
d. no on knows it to be true.
Consider the following statements and determine whether the statements are statements of knowledge or opinions:
1. “There is always a state of war, either a cold or a hot war between sovereign nations.”
a. Anyone who thinks for a moment will see this is true
b. Everyone understands it to be true.
2. “There will be another World War in the next 5 years.”
a. No one actually knows.
b. At best it is a probable prediction.
c. Some people may believe it and some may doubt it, but it is not a statement of knowledge.
“I have some dice. And as I roll those dice I can only say it is my opinion that they will come up a certain number. I don’t know it. I can make bets in terms of it, but I certainly don’t know what number will turn up. Now I have in my pocket here another set of dice which are loaded. These dice are so loaded they will only come up seven or eleven. And as I shoot these dice I have no doubt, not bit of doubt, that each time they will turn up either seven or eleven. That is something that I know, not doubt or believe.”
3rd Criteria: We can only have freedom of thought only about matters of opinion.
In matters of opinion everyone has a right to their own opinion but no one ever says this about knowledge. I don’t say, “I have a right to my own knowledge.” 2+2 = 4. Do I have freedom of thought here?
4th Criteria: Matters of opinion are subject to conflict, knowledge is not.
“We don’t say there is a conflict of knowledges on this point as we say there is a conflict of opinions on this point. Because it is the very nature of what it is that we have an opinion about to be subject to conflict and that is not true of things we can know” (Adler, How to Think about the Great Ideas, 17).
5th Criteria that differentiates between knowledge and opinion is consensus.
1. It is only with respect to opinion that we mention about taking a consensus. In fact, we say a consensus of opinion, majority opinion, minority opinion, expert opinion, inexpert opinion.
2. We never say the “majority knowledge” as opposed to “minority knowledge or “expert knowledge” as opposed to “inexpert knowledge.”
In summary:
1. Whether or not everyone must agree.
2. Doubt and believe are relative only to opinion, never to knowledge;
3. We can only have freedom of thought only about matters of opinion, never knowledge.
4. Consensus differentiates between knowledge and opinion; with respect to opinion do we talk about consensus.
5. Matters of opinion are subject to conflict, knowledge is not.
Problems regarding opinion and knowledge that one should consider:
1. What sort of objects are the objects of knowledge as opposed to the objects about which we can only have opinions?
2. What is the psychological difference between knowledge and opining as acts of the mind?
3. Can we have knowledge and opinion about one and the same thing?
4. What is the scope of knowledge? How much knowledge do we really have as opposed to the kinds of things about which we can only have opinions? What is the limit or scope of opinion in the things of our mind?
Introduction to Theological Method
HOW TO DO THEOLOGY:
A study into the process of doing theology “Systematic Theology may be defined as the collecting, scientifically arranging, comparing, exhibiting, and defending of all facts from any and every source concerning God and His works.”
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 1:6
A study into the process of doing theology “Systematic Theology may be defined as the collecting, scientifically arranging, comparing, exhibiting, and defending of all facts from any and every source concerning God and His works.”
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 1:6
I. The Nature of Theological Method
Definition of Coherence: Critical to theological method is coherence. Coherence is an epistemological test for validity by examining the harmony, unity, and consistency of an idea to an already established system or harmonization of beliefs. If the propositional statement does not harmonize with the system of beliefs, then either the idea is wrong, needs refinement, etc. or the system as we know it is wrong.
Critical to theological methodology is an examination into one’s spiritual life before the process is to begin for you
don’t want to hinder the illuminating ministry of the Holy Spirit. Stated differently, since we are dealing with divine truth, seeking to accurately represent His interests, we must be dependent upon the Holy Spirit. To study and “do” theology “according to the flesh” is disrespectful, dishonoring, short-sighted, and even hypocritical.
1. Are you rightly related to God?
2. Have you confessed all known sins (1st John 1:9)?
3. Are you grieving the Holy Spirit?
4. Are you quenching any aspect of the Holy Spirit in your life?
5. Are their areas in your life whereby you are unwilling to submit over to God?
6. Are you yielded to God?
Level 1: Biblical Theology - This deals with inductive study of the Bible with sound hermeneutics to apply the correct exegesis to books.
Level 2: Integration or synthesis across the canon of Scripture. This involves correlation and comparison to check the parts with the whole (synchronic approach).
Level 3: Categorization or systematization of the results of integration. This deals with deductive, logical statements from exegesis, correlation of passages and implications from both; then it should be compared with other systematic works & doctrinal statements throughout the history of the Church.
Level 4: Validation or invalidation – The primary validation is done in Level 3. However, validation should also be from outside the Bible – the use of general revelation.
Level 5: Application to Life - The goal is not just to satisfy the mind but to change the life.
Critical to theological methodology is an examination into one’s spiritual life before the process is to begin for you
don’t want to hinder the illuminating ministry of the Holy Spirit. Stated differently, since we are dealing with divine truth, seeking to accurately represent His interests, we must be dependent upon the Holy Spirit. To study and “do” theology “according to the flesh” is disrespectful, dishonoring, short-sighted, and even hypocritical.
1. Are you rightly related to God?
2. Have you confessed all known sins (1st John 1:9)?
3. Are you grieving the Holy Spirit?
4. Are you quenching any aspect of the Holy Spirit in your life?
5. Are their areas in your life whereby you are unwilling to submit over to God?
6. Are you yielded to God?
Level 1: Biblical Theology - This deals with inductive study of the Bible with sound hermeneutics to apply the correct exegesis to books.
Level 2: Integration or synthesis across the canon of Scripture. This involves correlation and comparison to check the parts with the whole (synchronic approach).
Level 3: Categorization or systematization of the results of integration. This deals with deductive, logical statements from exegesis, correlation of passages and implications from both; then it should be compared with other systematic works & doctrinal statements throughout the history of the Church.
Level 4: Validation or invalidation – The primary validation is done in Level 3. However, validation should also be from outside the Bible – the use of general revelation.
Level 5: Application to Life - The goal is not just to satisfy the mind but to change the life.
Level 1: Biblical Theology - This deals with inductive study of the Bible with sound hermeneutics to apply the correct exegesis to books.
The Source of the Word Hermeneutics - The word “hermeneutic” comes from the Greek word eJrmheuw (hermeneuo), which means to interpret. “Closely kindred is also the name JErnh, Hermes, or Mercury, who, bearing a golden rod of magic power, figures in Grecian mythology as the messenger of the gods, the tutelary deity of speech,
or writing, or arts and sciences, and of all skill and accomplishment.” (Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testament, p. 17, footnote #1)
Definition of Hermeneutics - “Hermeneutics is the science and art of Biblical interpretation. It is a science because it is guided by rules within a system; and it is an art because the application of the rules is by skill, and not by mechanical imitation” (Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A Textbook of Hermeneutics, 3rd revised edition, p. 1). The hermeneutical art, properly applied, cultivates and establishes a valid method of exegesis. “Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation. . . . This science assumes that there are divers modes of thought and ambiguities of expression among men, and, accordingly, it aims to remove the supposable differences between a writer and his readers, so that meaning of the one may be truly and accurately apprehended by the others.”
Important General Statements Concerning Hermeneutics
A. The laws and methods of procedure of hermeneutics “become to the practical exegete so many maxims, postulates, and settled rules. He is supposed to hold them in the mind as axioms, and to apply them in all his expositions with uniform consistency.” (Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, p. 161)
B. How do we ascertain the correct principles of hermeneutics? We must go to the Scriptures themselves and ascertain the principles of the sacred writers. We call these principles the Grammatico-Historical interpretation of Scripture. “Its fundamental principle is to gather from the Scriptures themselves the precise meaning which the writers intended to convey” (Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, p. 161). The Grammatico-Historical approach is concern for the authorial intend of the inspired writer. “A fundamental principle in grammatico-historical exposition is that words and sentences can have but one signification in one and the same connection. The moment we neglect this principle we drift out upon a sea of uncertainty and conjecture” (Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, p. 205). To see the significance of Terry’s statement in today’s morass of hermeneutical confusion, consult Robert L. Thomas’s Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Verses the Old (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2002).
C. A further explanation of the Grammatico-Historical Interpretation - “The grammatico-historical exegete, furnished with suitable qualifications, intellectual, educational, and moral, will accept the claims of the Bible without prejudice or adverse prepossession, and, with no ambition to prove them true of false, will investigate the language and import of each book with fearless independence. He will master the language of the writer, the particular dialect which he used, and his peculiar style and manner of expression. He will inquire into the circumstances under which he wrote, the
manners and customs of his age, and the purpose or object which he had in view. He has a right to assume that no sensible author will be knowingly inconsistent with himself, or seek to bewilder and mislead his readers” (Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, p. 173).
Premodern: Hermeneutic of Trust...The Bible’s Author: Divine/Human...The Reader: Believes in the supernatural...Method: Grammatical-Historical Interpretation
Modern: Hermeneutic of Doubt...The Bible’s Author: Human assumed, no divine...The Reader: Antisupernatural, science explains it...Method: Historical-Critical, Bible unreliable
Postmodern: Hermeneutic of Suspicion...The Bible’s Author: Human assumed, divine?...The Reader: Supernatural?, science can’t do it...Method: Socio-Critical, community interpretation
SUBJECTIVITY HERMENEUTICS
1. Existential Hermeneutics (e.g. Martin Heidegger) - Denied objective meaning was possible
2. Deconstructionism of Jacque Derrida – Nothing can be known for sure
3. Demythology of Bultmann – The supernatural in the Bible “is not objective, space-time history, it is an event
of subjective history, that is, it is an event of faith in the hearts of the early disciples.”
4. Allegorical Hermeneutics – Words are not taken in their normal or literal sense but in a symbolic sense.
OBJECTIVITY HERMENEUTICS
1. Semiallegorical or Semiliteral – Usually literal interpretation is abandoned in certain passages in the area of eschatology
2. Theological Interpretation – The hermeneutical methodology which uses the NT to inform and change the meaning of the OT.
3. * Literal Interpretation – This position acknowledges figures of speech but seeks to take words and phrases in the literal or normal sense unless the context indicates otherwise. It believes that the OT and NT should be understood from its own context.
GRAMATICAL HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION
(Literal Interpretation)
1. Interpret Grammatically
2. Interpret Contextually
3. Compare Scripture with Scripture
4. Recognize the progressiveness of revelation
5. Look for the author’s meaning to his original readers, but not the readers meaning of later generations (reader-response)
BASIC PREMISES OF INTERPRETATION
1. Literal - All other premises are derived from the development of the scope of what literal affirms. “It is to commit oneself to a starting point and that starting point is to understand a document the best one can in the context of the normal, ususal, customary, tradition range of designation which includes ‘facit’ understanding.” (Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, p. 121).
2. Grammatical - “affirms that these textually based meanings are expressed within the limits of common language usage.”
3. Historical - “affirms that these textually based meanings refer, depending on their textual usage, either historical or heavenly realities or to either natural or spiritual or spiritual subjects.” “We can look for allusions and references to situational meanings of the time when the piece was written.”
4. Literary - the textually based meaning is, in part, determined within the context of textual design which incorporates literary genre.
5. Theological - the textually based meaning are ultimately expressed by God through human agency. The source of the meaning is God. Therefore, it must be understood in a sense consistent with theological meaning which was progressively revealed in the canon of Scripture.
THE 24 RULES OF INTERPRETATION
Studying, Interpreting, Applying the Bible by Henrichsen and Jackson
General Principles of Interpretation
1. Work from the assumption that the Bible is authoritative.
2. The Bible interprets itself: Scripture best explains Scripture.
3. Saving faith and the Holy Spirit are necessary to fully understand and properly interpret the Scriptures.
4. Interpret personal experience in the light of Scripture and not Scripture in the light of personal experience.
5. Biblical examples are authoritative only when supported by a command.
6. The primary purpose of the Bible is to change our lives, not increase our knowledge.
7. Each person has the right and responsibility to investigate and interpret the Word of God for himself.
8. Church history is important but not decisive in the interpretation of Scripture.
9. The promises of God throughout the bible are available to believers of every generation through the Holy Spirit.
Grammatical Principles of Interpretation
10. Scripture has only one meaning and should be taken literally.
11. Interpret words in harmony with their meaning in the times of the author.
12. Interpret a word in relation to its sentence and context.
13. Interpret a passage in harmony with its context.
14. When an inanimate object is used to describe a living being, the statement may be considered figurative.
15. When an expression is considered out of character with the thing described, the statement may be considered figurative.
16. The principal parts and figures of a parable represent certain realities. Consider only these principal parts and figures when drawing conclusions.
17. Interpret the words of the prophets in their usual, literal and historical sense, unless the context or manner in which they are fulfilled clearly indicates they have a symbolic meaning. Their fulfillment may be in installments, each fulfillment being a pledge of that which is to follow.
Historical Principles of Interpretation
18. Since Scripture originated in a historical context, it can be understood only in the light of biblical history.
19. Though God’s revelation in Scripture is progressive, both Old and New Testaments are essential parts of the revelation and form a unit.
20. Historical facts or events become symbols of spiritual truths only if the Scriptures designate them so.
Theological Principles of Interpretation
21.You must understand the Bible grammatically before you can understand it theologically.
22. A doctrine cannot be considered biblical unless it sums up and includes all that the Scriptures say about it.
23. When two doctrines taught in the Bible appear to be contradictory, accept both as scriptural in the confident belief they will resolve themselves into a higher unity.
24. A teaching merely implied in Scripture may be considered biblical when a comparison of related passages supports it.
Exegesis (inductive Bible study) with Grammatical Historical Hermeneutics ==> Books of the Bible (Biblical Theology) Johannian, Pauline, Petrine, etc.
The Source of the Word Hermeneutics - The word “hermeneutic” comes from the Greek word eJrmheuw (hermeneuo), which means to interpret. “Closely kindred is also the name JErnh, Hermes, or Mercury, who, bearing a golden rod of magic power, figures in Grecian mythology as the messenger of the gods, the tutelary deity of speech,
or writing, or arts and sciences, and of all skill and accomplishment.” (Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testament, p. 17, footnote #1)
Definition of Hermeneutics - “Hermeneutics is the science and art of Biblical interpretation. It is a science because it is guided by rules within a system; and it is an art because the application of the rules is by skill, and not by mechanical imitation” (Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A Textbook of Hermeneutics, 3rd revised edition, p. 1). The hermeneutical art, properly applied, cultivates and establishes a valid method of exegesis. “Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation. . . . This science assumes that there are divers modes of thought and ambiguities of expression among men, and, accordingly, it aims to remove the supposable differences between a writer and his readers, so that meaning of the one may be truly and accurately apprehended by the others.”
Important General Statements Concerning Hermeneutics
A. The laws and methods of procedure of hermeneutics “become to the practical exegete so many maxims, postulates, and settled rules. He is supposed to hold them in the mind as axioms, and to apply them in all his expositions with uniform consistency.” (Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, p. 161)
B. How do we ascertain the correct principles of hermeneutics? We must go to the Scriptures themselves and ascertain the principles of the sacred writers. We call these principles the Grammatico-Historical interpretation of Scripture. “Its fundamental principle is to gather from the Scriptures themselves the precise meaning which the writers intended to convey” (Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, p. 161). The Grammatico-Historical approach is concern for the authorial intend of the inspired writer. “A fundamental principle in grammatico-historical exposition is that words and sentences can have but one signification in one and the same connection. The moment we neglect this principle we drift out upon a sea of uncertainty and conjecture” (Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, p. 205). To see the significance of Terry’s statement in today’s morass of hermeneutical confusion, consult Robert L. Thomas’s Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Verses the Old (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2002).
C. A further explanation of the Grammatico-Historical Interpretation - “The grammatico-historical exegete, furnished with suitable qualifications, intellectual, educational, and moral, will accept the claims of the Bible without prejudice or adverse prepossession, and, with no ambition to prove them true of false, will investigate the language and import of each book with fearless independence. He will master the language of the writer, the particular dialect which he used, and his peculiar style and manner of expression. He will inquire into the circumstances under which he wrote, the
manners and customs of his age, and the purpose or object which he had in view. He has a right to assume that no sensible author will be knowingly inconsistent with himself, or seek to bewilder and mislead his readers” (Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, p. 173).
Premodern: Hermeneutic of Trust...The Bible’s Author: Divine/Human...The Reader: Believes in the supernatural...Method: Grammatical-Historical Interpretation
Modern: Hermeneutic of Doubt...The Bible’s Author: Human assumed, no divine...The Reader: Antisupernatural, science explains it...Method: Historical-Critical, Bible unreliable
Postmodern: Hermeneutic of Suspicion...The Bible’s Author: Human assumed, divine?...The Reader: Supernatural?, science can’t do it...Method: Socio-Critical, community interpretation
SUBJECTIVITY HERMENEUTICS
1. Existential Hermeneutics (e.g. Martin Heidegger) - Denied objective meaning was possible
2. Deconstructionism of Jacque Derrida – Nothing can be known for sure
3. Demythology of Bultmann – The supernatural in the Bible “is not objective, space-time history, it is an event
of subjective history, that is, it is an event of faith in the hearts of the early disciples.”
4. Allegorical Hermeneutics – Words are not taken in their normal or literal sense but in a symbolic sense.
OBJECTIVITY HERMENEUTICS
1. Semiallegorical or Semiliteral – Usually literal interpretation is abandoned in certain passages in the area of eschatology
2. Theological Interpretation – The hermeneutical methodology which uses the NT to inform and change the meaning of the OT.
3. * Literal Interpretation – This position acknowledges figures of speech but seeks to take words and phrases in the literal or normal sense unless the context indicates otherwise. It believes that the OT and NT should be understood from its own context.
GRAMATICAL HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION
(Literal Interpretation)
1. Interpret Grammatically
2. Interpret Contextually
3. Compare Scripture with Scripture
4. Recognize the progressiveness of revelation
5. Look for the author’s meaning to his original readers, but not the readers meaning of later generations (reader-response)
BASIC PREMISES OF INTERPRETATION
1. Literal - All other premises are derived from the development of the scope of what literal affirms. “It is to commit oneself to a starting point and that starting point is to understand a document the best one can in the context of the normal, ususal, customary, tradition range of designation which includes ‘facit’ understanding.” (Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, p. 121).
2. Grammatical - “affirms that these textually based meanings are expressed within the limits of common language usage.”
3. Historical - “affirms that these textually based meanings refer, depending on their textual usage, either historical or heavenly realities or to either natural or spiritual or spiritual subjects.” “We can look for allusions and references to situational meanings of the time when the piece was written.”
4. Literary - the textually based meaning is, in part, determined within the context of textual design which incorporates literary genre.
5. Theological - the textually based meaning are ultimately expressed by God through human agency. The source of the meaning is God. Therefore, it must be understood in a sense consistent with theological meaning which was progressively revealed in the canon of Scripture.
THE 24 RULES OF INTERPRETATION
Studying, Interpreting, Applying the Bible by Henrichsen and Jackson
General Principles of Interpretation
1. Work from the assumption that the Bible is authoritative.
2. The Bible interprets itself: Scripture best explains Scripture.
3. Saving faith and the Holy Spirit are necessary to fully understand and properly interpret the Scriptures.
4. Interpret personal experience in the light of Scripture and not Scripture in the light of personal experience.
5. Biblical examples are authoritative only when supported by a command.
6. The primary purpose of the Bible is to change our lives, not increase our knowledge.
7. Each person has the right and responsibility to investigate and interpret the Word of God for himself.
8. Church history is important but not decisive in the interpretation of Scripture.
9. The promises of God throughout the bible are available to believers of every generation through the Holy Spirit.
Grammatical Principles of Interpretation
10. Scripture has only one meaning and should be taken literally.
11. Interpret words in harmony with their meaning in the times of the author.
12. Interpret a word in relation to its sentence and context.
13. Interpret a passage in harmony with its context.
14. When an inanimate object is used to describe a living being, the statement may be considered figurative.
15. When an expression is considered out of character with the thing described, the statement may be considered figurative.
16. The principal parts and figures of a parable represent certain realities. Consider only these principal parts and figures when drawing conclusions.
17. Interpret the words of the prophets in their usual, literal and historical sense, unless the context or manner in which they are fulfilled clearly indicates they have a symbolic meaning. Their fulfillment may be in installments, each fulfillment being a pledge of that which is to follow.
Historical Principles of Interpretation
18. Since Scripture originated in a historical context, it can be understood only in the light of biblical history.
19. Though God’s revelation in Scripture is progressive, both Old and New Testaments are essential parts of the revelation and form a unit.
20. Historical facts or events become symbols of spiritual truths only if the Scriptures designate them so.
Theological Principles of Interpretation
21.You must understand the Bible grammatically before you can understand it theologically.
22. A doctrine cannot be considered biblical unless it sums up and includes all that the Scriptures say about it.
23. When two doctrines taught in the Bible appear to be contradictory, accept both as scriptural in the confident belief they will resolve themselves into a higher unity.
24. A teaching merely implied in Scripture may be considered biblical when a comparison of related passages supports it.
Exegesis (inductive Bible study) with Grammatical Historical Hermeneutics ==> Books of the Bible (Biblical Theology) Johannian, Pauline, Petrine, etc.
Level 2: Integration or synthesis across the canon of Scripture. This involves correlation and comparison to check the parts with the whole (synchronic approach).
Exegesis (inductive Bible study) with Grammatical Historical Hermeneutics ==> Books of the Bible (Biblical Theology) Johannian, Pauline, Petrine, etc. ==> Books of the Bible (Integration/Synthesis) Check this part with the
rest of the author’s writing & other parts of the Bible.
1. Inductive Approach: Ascertain and state the truths of Scripture using proper hermeneutics.
2. Integration or synthesis across the canon of Scripture. This involves correlation and comparison to check the parts with the whole (synchronic approach). Synchronic Approach...Begin with the “Word” and progress towards “Bible”.
Exegesis (inductive Bible study) with Grammatical Historical Hermeneutics ==> Books of the Bible (Biblical Theology) Johannian, Pauline, Petrine, etc. ==> Books of the Bible (Integration/Synthesis) Check this part with the
rest of the author’s writing & other parts of the Bible.
1. Inductive Approach: Ascertain and state the truths of Scripture using proper hermeneutics.
2. Integration or synthesis across the canon of Scripture. This involves correlation and comparison to check the parts with the whole (synchronic approach). Synchronic Approach...Begin with the “Word” and progress towards “Bible”.
Level 3: Categorization or systematization of the results of integration. This deals with deductive, logical statements from exegesis, correlation of passages and implications from both; then it should be compared with other systematic works & doctrinal statements throughout the history of the Church.
Exegesis (inductive Bible study) with Grammatical Historical Hermeneutics ==> Books of the Bible (Biblical Theology) Johannian, Pauline, Petrine, etc. ==> Books of the Bible (Integration/Synthesis) Check this part with the rest of the author’s writing & other parts of the Bible. ==>Books of the Bible (Categorization / Systematization) Check this part with Doctrine & History (commentaries, systematic & historical theology)
Validation or invalidation – The primary validation is done in categorization or systematization . However,
validation should also be considered from outside the Bible – the use of general revelation. However, caution should be taken here not to overturn clear statements of special revelation by general revelation. “An imperfect induction of facts led men for ages to believe that the sun moved round the earth, and that the earth was an extended plain. In theology a partial induction of particulars has led to like serious errors.” (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:11-12)
3. Categorization or systematization - Any systematization must be thoroughly comprehensive and, if possible, exhaustive; every detail must be examined and correlated.
Exegesis (inductive Bible study) with Grammatical Historical Hermeneutics ==> Books of the Bible (Biblical Theology) Johannian, Pauline, Petrine, etc. ==> Books of the Bible (Integration/Synthesis) Check this part with the rest of the author’s writing & other parts of the Bible. ==>Books of the Bible (Categorization / Systematization) Check this part with Doctrine & History (commentaries, systematic & historical theology)
Validation or invalidation – The primary validation is done in categorization or systematization . However,
validation should also be considered from outside the Bible – the use of general revelation. However, caution should be taken here not to overturn clear statements of special revelation by general revelation. “An imperfect induction of facts led men for ages to believe that the sun moved round the earth, and that the earth was an extended plain. In theology a partial induction of particulars has led to like serious errors.” (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:11-12)
3. Categorization or systematization - Any systematization must be thoroughly comprehensive and, if possible, exhaustive; every detail must be examined and correlated.
Level 1: Biblical Theology - This deals with inductive study of the Bible with sound hermeneutics to apply the correct exegesis to books.
Level 2: Integration or synthesis across the canon of Scripture. This involves correlation and comparison to check the parts with the whole (synchronic approach).
Level 3: Categorization or systematization of the results of integration. This deals with deductive, logical statements from exegesis, correlation of passages and implications from both; then it should be compared with other systematic works & doctrinal statements throughout the history of the Church.
Level 4: Validation or invalidation – The primary validation is done in Level 3. However, validation should also be from outside the Bible – the use of general revelation.
Level 5: Application to Life - The goal is not just to satisfy the mind but to change the life.
Level 2: Integration or synthesis across the canon of Scripture. This involves correlation and comparison to check the parts with the whole (synchronic approach).
Level 3: Categorization or systematization of the results of integration. This deals with deductive, logical statements from exegesis, correlation of passages and implications from both; then it should be compared with other systematic works & doctrinal statements throughout the history of the Church.
Level 4: Validation or invalidation – The primary validation is done in Level 3. However, validation should also be from outside the Bible – the use of general revelation.
Level 5: Application to Life - The goal is not just to satisfy the mind but to change the life.
Consider Dr. Norman Geisler’s Approach from Systematic Theology, 1: 218-25
Step 1: Inductive Basis in Scripture.
Step 2: Deduction of Truths from Scripture.
Step 3: Use of Analogies (illustrative support by good analogies).
Step 4: Use of General Revelation.
Step 5: Retroductive Method (use of all information to refine, nuance, and fill out our understanding of what is meant in previous steps).
Step 6: Systematic Correlation (of all information into a fully orbed doctrine through the use of the laws of logic that insist all truth must be non-contradictory)
Step 7: Each doctrine is correlated with all other doctrines. (Systematic Theology)
Step 8: Each doctrine is expressed in view of the orthodox teachings of the Church Fathers (Historical Theology)
Step 9: Livability is the final test for Systematic Theology (Christianity is not merely metaphysics or theoretical; it is also ethical and practical).
Step 1: Inductive Basis in Scripture.
Step 2: Deduction of Truths from Scripture.
Step 3: Use of Analogies (illustrative support by good analogies).
Step 4: Use of General Revelation.
Step 5: Retroductive Method (use of all information to refine, nuance, and fill out our understanding of what is meant in previous steps).
Step 6: Systematic Correlation (of all information into a fully orbed doctrine through the use of the laws of logic that insist all truth must be non-contradictory)
Step 7: Each doctrine is correlated with all other doctrines. (Systematic Theology)
Step 8: Each doctrine is expressed in view of the orthodox teachings of the Church Fathers (Historical Theology)
Step 9: Livability is the final test for Systematic Theology (Christianity is not merely metaphysics or theoretical; it is also ethical and practical).
II. Why is Theological Method Necessary?
A. Since the Holy Spirit inspired the Scripture (verbal, plenary), there is continuity of thought from Genesis 1:1-Revelation 22:20
B. Since God is logical, coherent, and consistent, His Word is going to be logical, coherent, and consistent even within literary, historical contexts.
C. We are purposefully designed to analyze, arrange, categorize, collect, and correlate; it is one purpose of our God-given design.
D. The use of the mind is critical in seeking, learning, & loving God as opposed to antiintellectualism, experientialism, and mysticism.
The bottom line…
The Goal of having a coherent Biblical-Theological Method is to:
(1) Expose inadequate justifications for belief.
(2) Provide a solid basis for validating or invalidating truth claims.
(3) Present a life of godliness for God’s glory.
B. Since God is logical, coherent, and consistent, His Word is going to be logical, coherent, and consistent even within literary, historical contexts.
C. We are purposefully designed to analyze, arrange, categorize, collect, and correlate; it is one purpose of our God-given design.
D. The use of the mind is critical in seeking, learning, & loving God as opposed to antiintellectualism, experientialism, and mysticism.
The bottom line…
The Goal of having a coherent Biblical-Theological Method is to:
(1) Expose inadequate justifications for belief.
(2) Provide a solid basis for validating or invalidating truth claims.
(3) Present a life of godliness for God’s glory.
III. How Should We Then Live?
A. Appreciate the Author of our theology: The one and only Triune God; if God said it, we need to know it.
B. Learning theology is pleasurable for there is no greater pursuit than that of the study of God.
C. Correct theology is crucial for appropriate and godly behavior.
D. Teach people how to do theology for themselves. It is not merely enough to assist them, we need to enable them. It is not merely enough to teach them what they believe, they need to know why.
E. Remember: What we believe in one area of theology tends to directly or indirectly impact all other areas of theology.
F. Don’t neglect, overlook, or reject certain facts in Scripture that are uncomfortable or unpopular.
G. Don’t distort or pervert claims of Scripture because they don’t cohere to your theological worldview. It is better to be teachable than arrogant, especially since you are representing God.
As Dr. Charles Hodge says: “He [theologian] should remember that his business is not to set forth his system of truth (that is of no account), but to ascertain and exhibit what is God’s system. . .The temptation is very strong to press the facts of the Bible into accordance with our preconceived theories.” Systematic Theology, 1:13-14
“First, All truth must be consistent. God cannot contradict himself. He cannot force us by the constitution of the nature which He has given us to believe one thing, and in his Word command us to believe the opposite. And, second, All the truths taught by the constitution of our nature or by religious experience, are recognized and authenticated in the Scriptures. This is a safeguard and a limit. We cannot assume this or that principle to be intuitively true, or this or that conclusion to be demonstrably certain, and make them a standard to which the Bible must conform. What is selfevidently true, must be proved to be so, and is always recognized in the Bible as true.” Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:15
“The true method in theology requires that the facts of religious experience should be accepted as facts, and when
duly authenticated by Scripture, be allowed to interpret the doctrinal statements of the Word of God. So legitimate and powerful is this inward teaching of the Spirit, that it is no uncommon thing to find men having two theologies, - one of the intellect, and another of the heart. The one may find expression in creed and systems of divinity, the other in their prayers and hymns.”We should always pray and seek to have both theologies in harmony with each other as it accords with the Word of God!" Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:16
B. Learning theology is pleasurable for there is no greater pursuit than that of the study of God.
C. Correct theology is crucial for appropriate and godly behavior.
D. Teach people how to do theology for themselves. It is not merely enough to assist them, we need to enable them. It is not merely enough to teach them what they believe, they need to know why.
E. Remember: What we believe in one area of theology tends to directly or indirectly impact all other areas of theology.
F. Don’t neglect, overlook, or reject certain facts in Scripture that are uncomfortable or unpopular.
G. Don’t distort or pervert claims of Scripture because they don’t cohere to your theological worldview. It is better to be teachable than arrogant, especially since you are representing God.
As Dr. Charles Hodge says: “He [theologian] should remember that his business is not to set forth his system of truth (that is of no account), but to ascertain and exhibit what is God’s system. . .The temptation is very strong to press the facts of the Bible into accordance with our preconceived theories.” Systematic Theology, 1:13-14
“First, All truth must be consistent. God cannot contradict himself. He cannot force us by the constitution of the nature which He has given us to believe one thing, and in his Word command us to believe the opposite. And, second, All the truths taught by the constitution of our nature or by religious experience, are recognized and authenticated in the Scriptures. This is a safeguard and a limit. We cannot assume this or that principle to be intuitively true, or this or that conclusion to be demonstrably certain, and make them a standard to which the Bible must conform. What is selfevidently true, must be proved to be so, and is always recognized in the Bible as true.” Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:15
“The true method in theology requires that the facts of religious experience should be accepted as facts, and when
duly authenticated by Scripture, be allowed to interpret the doctrinal statements of the Word of God. So legitimate and powerful is this inward teaching of the Spirit, that it is no uncommon thing to find men having two theologies, - one of the intellect, and another of the heart. The one may find expression in creed and systems of divinity, the other in their prayers and hymns.”We should always pray and seek to have both theologies in harmony with each other as it accords with the Word of God!" Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:16
Charts
The following are charts on Systematic Theology. They where put together (comprised) by another professor I had the priviledge and honor to study under...Dr. Paul Shockley.