Have a good trip. Overseas?

I’m full-time with an organization called Worldview Resource Group (www.wrg3.org). And so don’t have the luxury of going to a “normal” school. So I’m working on the PhD via Canterbury Christ Church University in England (via Trinity Seminary here in America).

My wife and I attended Prairie Bible College (Alberta, Canada) — and were quite dispensational as well. That is up until about five years ago. At that point, God did a work in our lives that moved us into the “Reformed camp” theologically. It was no small move. I had been a quite happy and content dispensatiional semi-pelagian (although I would not have admitted it!)

Again, thanks and have a most profitable trip. Mike

As far as your presuppositionalism thought goes: I can definitely see a correlation — the pagan epistemologies that, insofar as they are not Christian, are not able to apprehend true reality, are as much an obstacle to interpreting the scriptures as they are to embracing the gospel. In other words, if Van Til was right, that it is fruitless and wrong to accept a pagan epistemology and worldview in order to have a “point of contact” at which one may give the gospel (as I believe he was) — then how much more so must that be the case in interpreting the scriptures? One simply cannot concede a naturalistic/humanistic post-Enlightenment hermeneutic and expect to understand the scriptures by it — especially in light of such passages as I Cor. 2, regarding natural man’s inability to understand God’s revealed truths.

I’m about to leave on a rather lengthy trip, during which time I may or may not ever have internet access — so if I am silent concerning any future responses, that is probably the reason.

By the way, where are you pursuing your PhD?

Sorry about the Dr. mistake. I assumed. (Wrong again.). Anyway — where did you go to Bible school/seminary?

Thank you for the “Immanuel principle” idea. I like it a lot. It seems to me that this principle is a kind of undergirding principle/main theme undergirding of all the covenants — “God with us.” The whole Bible story is one of “God with us” — the story of God working redemption for mankind. I like this idea a lot.

On another note — it would seem (actually this is a question) that presuppositionalism enters this whole conversation also. Could it be that “what presuppositionalism is to apologetics” is also what it is to hermeneutics? That is, it is as core and basic to hermeneutics as it is to apologetics.

It is late. I am starting to ramble. Again, I thank you for your thoughts.

in His grace — and with much thanks, Mike

First of all, I’m not a Dr. (far from it!). I definitely understand where you’re coming from, as I too feel that “I’m still dumb when it comes to this topic.” When I was in Bible college, I had drilled into me the idea of a literal hermeneutic, by which, as I quickly became aware, was intended a hermeneutic which could be fully understood by a natural man, reading the bible as a compilation of writings by unrelated human authors. Any attempt to relate the events of any Old Testament history or prophecy directly to Christ (with a couple of notable exceptions such as Isaiah 53, and sometimes a few psalms, like 2 and 22) was met with a scholarly contempt, and the unilateral assertion that this was the product of a spiritualizing hermeneutic, and was simply unallowable. I began to become convinced that none of the Old Testament saints had any idea that Christ was even coming — except perhaps a few of the more astute Jews of the exilic and post-exilic periods.

At this time, I began to become acquainted with the writings of the Reformers and Puritans, and I was shocked to see how they, who had (as I was also taught) rescued a “literal” hermeneutic from almost universal corruption, really demonstrated a hermeneutic that would be called anything but literal by all of my professors. They saw Christ everywhere, and seemed to view the Old Testament as a unified and ever-increasing revelation of the Messiah and his promised work.

At first I wasn’t sure what to make of this quandary; but what really began to change my opinion was a renewed reading of the New Testament, with particular attention to the NT authors’ usage and explanation of OT passages (and also Jesus’ usage of the OT, as recorded in the gospels). From that time on, I’ve thrown myself headlong into a fresh study of the OT, with the attempt to understand it in the same way the NT authors understood it. And God has used this renewed study to bless me richly and increase my knowledge of Christ our Savior more than I previously would have thought possible from those largely irrelevant texts (as I used to view them).

I guess I’m just telling you all this because I want you to know I am thrilled with your idea for a dissertation topic — we desperately need some more work along those lines. My one “idea” would be to do a study of the NT authors’ (or a particular NT author’s) usage of the OT, and draw some conclusions as to how their underlying hermeneutic should inform our interpretive task in the OT. Of course, if you have more of a historical bent, you could do some work on the hermeneutic of the Reformers, Church fathers, Puritans, or some such thing. I’m sure that would be enlightening as well. Or perhaps taking some theme such as the “Immanuel principle” that is evident in the creation account and is central to the unfolding plan of redemption throughout the rest of the biblical story (culminating in the Revelation 21:3 announcement) and showing how an artificial divorcing of oneself from that previously-developed principle, when examining even seemingly unrelated scriptural genres (e.g. wisdom literature) renders a satisfactory hermeneutic impossible. In other words it is impossible to forget that you are a “Christian” (whether looking back to Christ’s taking on human flesh as Immanuel or looking forward to the Christ who would bring God’s presence once again to his people) — it is impossible to “forget” that vital principle, held in common by God’s people of all ages, and still have the sufficient information to interpret any scripture correctly. You can’t demand of each text a “reading on its own terms” if by this you mean an artificial separation from already established Christological promises and revelation.

Obviously I’m just spouting off a few scatter-brained ideas here — maybe something will pique your interest in some way.

Oh, one more thing: a few authors who have been particularly helpful to me, on this topic:

Jonathan Edwards, especially in his biblical theology, A History of the Work of Redemption has been phenomenally influential in my approach towards the OT.

Robert Reymond is always good — his systematic is excellent, and deals with hermeneutics in a few scattered places. I just read one of his latest works, The Lamb of God, and, while very brief and simple, it was a good overview of the unity of the Bible story.

Vern Poythress has written some good articles on Christ-centered hermeneutics. I can’t think of any titles off the top of my head, but I’ve linked to the website he shares with John Frame on my sidebar — you should be able to find some good stuff there.

I’ve heard good things about Graeme Goldsworthy, but I haven’t read him.

And really, anything you read by the Reformers and the Puritans will probably flesh out, to some degree, a very Christ-centered way of dealing with the OT.

Unfortunately, I haven’t yet read an actual text on hermeneutics that I would really recommend, without some considerable caveats. They may be out there, but I haven’t found them yet.

Anyway, I hope you’ll excuse my incessant rambling. I really do love your dissertation idea, and I wish I could be a little more help. May God bless you richly in your endeavors!

Yours in Christ, Nathan