An other-planetly hermeneutic?

by | Mar 24, 2011 | Hermeneutics

In one sense, believing the Bible contains its own hermeneutic is other-planetly. It is pre-critical, pre-enlightenment, neither modern nor post-modern. The Endarkenment (:-)) brought with its rationalism a hermeneutical revolution that humanized the Bible and made it like any other book. However, it is not like any other book, at least in one very crucial sense – behind its various human authors is one divine author. So when the Bible interprets the Bible it is doing so infallibly and, as a result, establishing infallible principles of interpretation revealed by God himself! The only infallible interpreter of the Holy Scripture is the Holy Spirit in the Holy Scripture – so said John Owen. When the Bible comments upon itself (which it does in various ways in both testaments), we need to listen and emulate its methods. There is intertextuality occuring in both testaments. There are various allusions throughout Scripture to itself. These things are so because of divine authorship, something an Enlightenement-tainted hermeneutic does not take into account, at least not properly.

Follow Us In Social Media

Do We Still Believe in Sola Scriptura?—Three Years Later … | Sam Waldron

Do We Still Believe in Sola Scriptura?—Three Years Later … | Sam Waldron

Almost three and a half years ago I waded into an issue in a blog for which in some circles I was scorched with disagreement and (by some people) with ridicule. I warned that respect for what is called widely “the Great Tradition” was beginning seriously to cause the boat of sola scriptura to list. Events since then have shown that my concerns should not have been dismissed as foolish and ridiculous.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This