Hermeneutics and Exegesis

T

TomFL

Guest
Since the concept of "exegesis" has come up in another thread as well, it has caused me to think more about it, and to bring to light some ideas that have been previously more instinctive.

1) To be proper exegesis, one has to be wary of projecting your own beliefs into the text. It is absolutely wrong to come to a verse and think to yourself, "How can I fit this verse into my beliefs?", as that is the textbook definition of "eisegesis".

2) To make sure that you're interpreting Scripture based on what the text says, and not according to your theology, it's important to put your beliefs "aside", and engage in some intentional "cognitive dissonnance". Put your beliefs in one compartment, and Scripture in another compartment, and begin studying Scripture in isolation, at the start. This is arguably a difficult thing for most to do, as they want everything to conform to their beliefs. But it gets easier over time.

The source of much of your error

Such as your a priori assumption world never refers to more that the elect of every nation
 

praise_yeshua

Well-known member
Atheists can use the Historical Grammatical Method but they can't be convinced without the Holy Spirit. Atheists know the Bible teaches the Bodily Resurrection, etc. Since Atheists know the Fundamentals, no one here has an excuse for disagreeing with the Fundamentals...

I'd like to see your list of Fundamentals. Everyone tends to have their own list.
 

civic

Well-known member
2) This same Jesus is coming again!
This is a classic example of how sound doctrine all fits together. For example Jesus being now in the present the son of man is connected to His 2nd Coming. The same with the gospel , the bodily Resurrection/ Ascension, Incarnation being permanent , high priest, mediator, prophet , king etc….. are all connected to His continued humanity as our representative for man and His Deity representing God as our Mediator representing both parties.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
This is a classic example of how sound doctrine all fits together. For example Jesus being now in the present the son of man is connected to His 2nd Coming. The same with the gospel , the bodily Resurrection/ Ascension, Incarnation being permanent , high priest, mediator, prophet , king etc….. are all connected to His continued humanity as our representative for man and His Deity representing God as our Mediator representing both parties.
Yes, all of those are Fundamentals...

The reason I restated 2) is because it's a Fundamental, and PY asked for a list. Thus Full Preterism isn't a Fundamental...

But the danger of discussing Fundamentals is that someone's personal opinions will collapse if Fundamentals are applied Hermeneutically. IE Full Preterism collapses, Unitarianism collapses, etc...
 

civic

Well-known member
Yes, all of those are Fundamentals...

The reason I restated 2) is because it's a Fundamental, and PY asked for a list. Thus Full Preterism isn't a Fundamental...

But the danger of discussing Fundamentals is that someone's personal opinions will collapse if Fundamentals are applied Hermeneutically. IE Full Preterism collapses, Unitarianism collapses, etc...
Ditto
 
T

TomFL

Guest
There are Preterist Calvinists. I know that there are plenty of Calvinists that deny this but they are wrong. There are Full Preterists that believe in the bodily resurrection.
Preterists or full preterists ?

It seems to however full preterism and the bodily resurrection are antithetical
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
Preterists or full preterists ?

It seems to however full preterism and the bodily resurrection are antithetical
Interesting thought. You are saying that full preterism would mean that the scriptures about our bodily resurrection would be referring to something that already happened?
 
T

TomFL

Guest
Interesting thought. You are saying that full preterism would mean that the scriptures about our bodily resurrection would be referring to something that already happened?
That is full preterism

Everything has already passed
 
T

TomFL

Guest
Curious. And this is tied to some reformed thinking?
Do you know what they teach in place of that?
I have not experienced that full Preterism is a reformed distinctive

Generally Amillenialism is what is taught
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top