On another thread @Anthony D'Arienzo brought up a good point when it comes to differing doctrines, and that is the hermenutical principles and methods used in interpreting Scripture.
@Anthony D'Arienzo rejected the "literal" or traditional method as subjecting God to a "dictionary". Instead of using the meaning conveyed by a words grammatical construction and historical context, @Anthony D'Arienzo suggested words in the biblical text have a different meaning - a "biblical meaning".
I need to be forthright and say I am a SBC baptist. As a denomination we have had experience with liberal hermeneutics that colors many of our perceptions to this sort of liberal interpretation.
I hold to a "literal" method of interpretation which asserts that the biblical text is to be interpreted according to the plain meaning conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context
For this reason I do not believe in "biblical" meanings for words as opposed to "literal" meanings ("literal" being according to the plain meaning conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context).
Holding a traditional view of Scripture I believe several interpretive factors come into play when we interpret a text. We have to determine the "plain meaning" of the word and its English equivalent (as best we can). But we also have to examine the historic context and consider how the text would be recieved by the original audience.
What we (traditionalists in this regard) NEVER do (as best we can help it) is assign to these words "biblical" meanings. We try NOT to read theology back into the text but attempt to derive theology from the text itself.
I believe that God spoke through the authors (Scripture is "God breathed") to include word choices (not to redefine words into a sort of bible code but to have a "literal" meaning).
I hope to have a discussion about the topic. I have a few questions for those who share @Anthony D'Arienzo 's position. I do not understand how those who employ the liberal method can help but be subjective in their interpretations as it seems they read theology and philosophy into the text itself.
@Anthony D'Arienzo rejected the "literal" or traditional method as subjecting God to a "dictionary". Instead of using the meaning conveyed by a words grammatical construction and historical context, @Anthony D'Arienzo suggested words in the biblical text have a different meaning - a "biblical meaning".
I need to be forthright and say I am a SBC baptist. As a denomination we have had experience with liberal hermeneutics that colors many of our perceptions to this sort of liberal interpretation.
I hold to a "literal" method of interpretation which asserts that the biblical text is to be interpreted according to the plain meaning conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context
For this reason I do not believe in "biblical" meanings for words as opposed to "literal" meanings ("literal" being according to the plain meaning conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context).
Holding a traditional view of Scripture I believe several interpretive factors come into play when we interpret a text. We have to determine the "plain meaning" of the word and its English equivalent (as best we can). But we also have to examine the historic context and consider how the text would be recieved by the original audience.
What we (traditionalists in this regard) NEVER do (as best we can help it) is assign to these words "biblical" meanings. We try NOT to read theology back into the text but attempt to derive theology from the text itself.
I believe that God spoke through the authors (Scripture is "God breathed") to include word choices (not to redefine words into a sort of bible code but to have a "literal" meaning).
I hope to have a discussion about the topic. I have a few questions for those who share @Anthony D'Arienzo 's position. I do not understand how those who employ the liberal method can help but be subjective in their interpretations as it seems they read theology and philosophy into the text itself.
Last edited: