_______________
Augustine is a good pre-modern interpreter, in my opinion. If the literal meaning of a text (as he perceived it) did not fit with his theology, he shifted into a non-literal interpretation.
Since one of the ways Protestantism argued against Roman Catholicism was by pushing the literal interpretation and since the modern era honed our skills at reading texts in their historical and literary contexts, we have found ourselves increasingly in a conundrum. Here are some of the strategies that have resulted:
- Fundamentalism--act like you're following the rules for reading in context, but find a possible way to interpret the evidence to make it come out your way.
- Evangelicalism at its best--highlight the distinction between "that time" and "our time," so that you can let the text mean what it meant, but then adjust the application for a different context. Deal with potential issues in your theology rather than playing games with the original meaning of the text.
- "Liberalism"--let the text say what it said and then dismiss it as wrong
- Theological interpretation--let the text say what it said literally but reopen the door for more than literal interpretations
8 comments:
So when the literal interpretation and "plain meaning" of the text supports historic, Orthodox and/or Roman Catholic doctrine, what do you call that?
;-)
This is about the "naughty verses" rather than the default...
Why defend "faith"? Is "faith" by definition defendable? MAN does not know everything, but in investigation, does a particular man seek to justify his own bias, without consciousness or without admitting that "faith" deals with another realm that man is not privy to, and that with what we know about science, anthropology, Church history, and Western civilization, man has come to understanding more about the world (whether he wants to claim it is "God's world", or not ).
Or do we hold onto faith mindlessly that whatever we know we know "by faith", not by the disciplines and human reason?
Why not say that IF God exists (which we have to say, since God cannot be proved, really, within our human realm/reality), humans have minds/reason that use them to investigate "God's world"? Such investigation is not in opposition to what anyone (believer or non-believer) would come to think/believe about the world and all that is.
Ah, yes: "naughty verses". I'm pretty sure many Protestants consider passages like John 20:21-23 to be "naughty".
FrGreg, you must be getting ready for Sunday's sermon ;-)
LOL. Now that you mention it, Ken... ;-)
I freely admit as a person who grew up under 'old school' AMH teaching these verses confuse me....and I'm aware they are interpreted differently by those in different camps. I think the old BBC commentary spoke of this as an 'earnest' or promise that was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost; other commentaries mention that this indicates just what it says, the Pentecostal dispensation was given to the disciples at that moment. How do you reconcile this with the accounts of Luke-Acts?
FrGreg may be speaking of the forgiving of sins....I don't fully understand that part either and the 'experts' don't agree....
Post a Comment