Question:

[JMC309]

What Biblical support is there for interpreting and using Scripture in a fundamentalist manner?

[Vambram]

Lets define the question first, please.
Please tell us what you think a "fundamentalist manner" is when it comes to interpreting Scripture.

[JMC309]

Good idea, but I believe that you are far more qualified than me to make such a definition. What do you see as a fundamentalist hermeneutic (method of interpretation) and how do you justify it from Scripture?

[Project 86]

Good idea, but I believe that you are far more qualified than me to make such a definition. What do you see as a fundamentalist hermeneutic (method of interpretation) and how do you justify it from Scripture?

Hermeneutic methods should be the same with any book you read. What is history should be read as such. What is allegory should be read as such. You can tell how it should be read by the context of the passage, including the other passages around that passage and the rest of the book you are in. So you are not asking a theological question even though hermeneutics can certainly effect your theology. What would be a better question is why do you read the flood of Noah as a historical event for example.

[JMC309]

Is history to be read as history and only history? Or could genres combine?

What is the purpose of history in the Bible, based on the purposes of Scripture outlined in 2 Timothy 3:16?

[dayhiker]

Besides the type of literature that one is reading in the Bible, I think one has to take into account how the author and audiance would have understood the writting in their time to understand what is being said.

dayhiker

[cubanito]

For one guide, we should interpret Scripture as Jesus interpreted Scripture.

When He spoke of Adam and Eve, or other figures in Genensis, He spoke of them as specific historical people, not as metaphors. So much so that in His answer to the Sadducees question re the ressurection, He based His argument on the TENSE of one verb, concluding that because God is written of as the God of Jacob in the PRESENT tense, rather than the past, that Jacob still lives.

Jesus warned that every letter of Scripture was important, and He treated it as inerrant, God-breathed and was meticulous in His exegesis.

Nowhere do we see Jesus treating a historical account of the OT as a metaphor.

By our fanaticism to the careful reading of the plain meaning of Scripture, and our rejection of fanciful metaphors and accomodations to modern revisionism, we are trying to follow Christ;s example. We also follow His example in His strenous and frequent rejection of oral traditions, or the re-interpretations and addedendums of the religious authoritiies of His day.

So, we try, not always succesfully, to find the plain meaning of Scripture and reject any tradition, modern accomodation or fanciful metaphor which is contrary to Scripture.

JR

[DarwinsChainsaw]

Biblical support for fundamentalism is the entire bible. Parts which are written literally were obviously intended literally, eg Deutronomy. Parts which are a historical account, eg the great flood are obviously intended as a true historical account.

Only problem is if you take this approach you have to regard the bible as flawless in its entireity, which means you think all homosexuals should be killed instantly, pi=3, the earth is the centre of the solar system, etc.

[cubanito]

1- As a dispensationalist, none of the laws meant for ancient Israel matter to me. I accept the OT as history, and the laws within it as appropiate for the time, place and people they were meant for. However, Moses made it quite clear that later on a Prophet would arise that would amend the Mosaic Law. Nowhere in the NT am I asked to kill anybody. You may want to post this question to someone from a covenental background, where u will get a different answer along the lines of moral vs civil vs ceremonial laws.

2- pi does =3 Ever heard of significant figures???

3- Let's put aside the simple (and true) answers dealing with phenomenological language, literary devices and all such. Let's blow your mind with another answer which is just as true.
The

[cubanito]

1- As a dispensationalist, none of the laws meant for ancient Israel matter to me. I accept the OT as history, and the laws within it as appropiate for the time, place and people they were meant for. However, Moses made it quite clear that later on a Prophet would arise that would amend the Mosaic Law. Nowhere in the NT am I asked to kill anybody. You may want to post this question to someone from a covenental background, where u will get a different answer along the lines of moral vs civil vs ceremonial laws.

2- pi does =3 Ever heard of significant figures???

3- Let's put aside the simple (and true) answers dealing with phenomenological language, literary devices and all such. Let's blow your mind with another answer which is just as true.
The earth is the center of the solar system. Moreover, I am the center of the solar system. In fact, any observer can claim they are the center of the universe. Einteinian relativity posits only kinds of observers. Those travelling below the speed of light, in which case there is no preferred viewpoint, as it is all relative. The other, oft forgotten by the post-modernists, is that of an observer at the speed of light. So, since neither I nor a theoretical observer who "might as well be walking on the surface of the sun" (like the song goes) is traveling at light speed, there is no greater merit of one to another in claiming to be at the center of the solar system.

Oh but there's more.

Let's suppose you don't care for Einsteinian relativity. After all, it was proposed by a Deist who when asked how he came up with such an odd concept said "I thought of how the Old One would have created an elegant and symmetrical universe." Even withing Newtonian Relativity the sun is not at the center either. For both the earth AND the sun revolve around the galactic core. And of course the galactic core is part of the galactic cluster (with Andromeda and us headed for a Big Showdown to see who is the Biggest and Baddest in our galactic cluster.

JR, juast another Neanderthalic Fundy

[cubanito]

And BTW, Chainsaw, u are hijacking this thread.

JR

[cubanito]

JMC 309, I am sorry but the quote feature seems to have failed, or maybe I failed. Well, this is meant for you,

Well, I can't give you a fair overall answer JMC 309.

You must understand that for fundamentalists the question of hermeneutics (how one interprets) is a key difference in answering your question.

I like to group Fundy hermeneutics into 4 camps, not in any particular order.

1- The allegorical, which are given to finding all manner of hidden meanings and spiritual significance. To be fair, and it is difficult for me to be fair when I am so unlike this, many of the prophecys that Matthew cites about Jesus are based on an allegorical reading of the OT. For example, when Matthew claims that Jesus being called out of Egypt is prophecy, Matthew refers to a part of the OT which CLEARLY means that God called Israel out of Egypt.

2- The covenental system. This is the Presbyterean method, and much in use by others as well. The question you raise seems to refer to that system. I cannot do it justice.

3- The Dispensationalists, like myself, who basically say the entire OT is done and gone. NONE of it's laws apply UNLESS they are re-iterated in the NT. Thus the OT for me is history, it also serves to show the character of men and God, and as an essential tool to understanding the NT. It is like an old schoolmaster. To be respected and even consulted for advice, but I would not ask my gradeschool science teacher to help me select the appropiate antibiotic for a patient. It is a book of foreshadowing, types and background

4- The Lutheran "theology of the Cross" with it's heavy emphasis on Law vs Grace. I know very little of it.

I hope the above helps. All we Fundys share a common belief that 1- the Bible is THE authority, 2- that the individual is ultimately responsible for interpreting it (though may and should seek guidance from others) and we also share the definitions of Chalcedon and several other things, as delienated in this thread.

However, when each of us reads the Bible, we each have on different glasses, and we all acknowledge that now "we see darkly." This leads to differences on some areas. Despite this, the level of agreement is surprisingly high.

JR

[BigNorsk]

What Biblical support is there for interpreting and using Scripture in a fundamentalist manner?

Well everything can be accused of being circular, but basically interpreting the bible in a fundamentalist manner is to interprete it as a unique book, different from others in that it is God breathed, and secondly that it is correct.

One can get all tied up in lingo and such, but that's the basic understanding.

I would ask what support there is to interprete the bible in a nonfundamentalist fashion. That is that it is just another book, so one should understand it like any othe book, and that it contains truth but maybe isn't all truthful.

Marv