P
- Status
H
hansgeorg
Guest
Protestant Reformation indeed got into a literalism that DENIED the non-literal senses (except insofar as Bible itself in its OT/NT relations offer symbolism).
But that did not replace a “non-literalism” that denied the literal senses.
But that did not replace a “non-literalism” that denied the literal senses.
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
A first step in understanding the spiritual sense of Scripture is to believe that God is incorporeal.
A great deal follows from His incorporeal being.
If one believes that God has a body–literalism tends to follow.
A great deal follows from His incorporeal being.
If one believes that God has a body–literalism tends to follow.
J
John7
Guest
I like the article…
1600s
“William Chillingworth: “The BIBLE, I say, the BIBLE only, is the religion of Protestants!”.”
1900s-2011
Harold Camping: “The BIBLE alone and in its entirety is the Word of God”
based on Harold’s (President of Family Radio in the U.S.) literalistic Biblical hermeneutic comes May21,2011 = Judgment Day
familyradio.com/index2.html
Also, a big effect of literalism, felt first in Britain then sweeping over US protestantism, is the rise of premillennial dispensationalism and its cult of Christian Zionism (early: Darby, Scofield, recent: John Hagee, Pat Robertson, Hal Lindsey, Jack Van Impe, Walvoord, Dallas Theological Seminary etc). Estimated 20-50 million voting Christian Zionists in US pushing policy here toward, well now its, ‘bomb Iran to keep state of Israel safe’ (take a listen to John Hagee).
literalism…they (eg, dispensationalists) like to call it the historical-grammatical method
Historical-grammatical interpretation
Another important theological concept is the emphasis on what is referred to as the historical-grammatical method of interpretation. This is often popularly referred to as the “literal” interpretation of Scripture. Just as Israel literally experienced the curses spoken of in the Old Testament, dispensationalists believe that they will one day, literally, receive the blessings spoken of in the Old Testament. Just as it is with progressive revelation, the historical-grammatical method is not a concept or practice that is exclusive just to dispensationalists. However, a dispensational distinctive is created when the historical-grammatical method of interpretation is closely coupled with an emphasis on progressive revelation along with the historical development of the covenants in Scripture en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism
1600s
“William Chillingworth: “The BIBLE, I say, the BIBLE only, is the religion of Protestants!”.”
1900s-2011
Harold Camping: “The BIBLE alone and in its entirety is the Word of God”
based on Harold’s (President of Family Radio in the U.S.) literalistic Biblical hermeneutic comes May21,2011 = Judgment Day
familyradio.com/index2.htmlAlso, a big effect of literalism, felt first in Britain then sweeping over US protestantism, is the rise of premillennial dispensationalism and its cult of Christian Zionism (early: Darby, Scofield, recent: John Hagee, Pat Robertson, Hal Lindsey, Jack Van Impe, Walvoord, Dallas Theological Seminary etc). Estimated 20-50 million voting Christian Zionists in US pushing policy here toward, well now its, ‘bomb Iran to keep state of Israel safe’ (take a listen to John Hagee).
literalism…they (eg, dispensationalists) like to call it the historical-grammatical method
Historical-grammatical interpretation
Another important theological concept is the emphasis on what is referred to as the historical-grammatical method of interpretation. This is often popularly referred to as the “literal” interpretation of Scripture. Just as Israel literally experienced the curses spoken of in the Old Testament, dispensationalists believe that they will one day, literally, receive the blessings spoken of in the Old Testament. Just as it is with progressive revelation, the historical-grammatical method is not a concept or practice that is exclusive just to dispensationalists. However, a dispensational distinctive is created when the historical-grammatical method of interpretation is closely coupled with an emphasis on progressive revelation along with the historical development of the covenants in Scripture en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism
C
COPLAND_3
Guest
I’ve got some thoughts on it, since I come from the Bible alone school of thought to the Catholic Church. After years of playing the game of ‘see who can quote the most Bible verses to win an arguement,’ I eventually began to see the need for Apostolic Authority, and I realized that unless it existed then the whole Christian faith seemed like it had no sure foundation. Questions that I began to ask was, “If there is no authority outside of the Bible then who had the authority to determine what books were to be in the Bible?” When I discovered the Early Church Fathers my life changed forver!!
L
Little_Mary
Guest
Good points. Something else I like to ask is “Who wrote the Gospel of Mark and how do you know?”
I have a SS Fundamentalist “friend” who recently declared quite vehemently that “All the church fathers are in error!!!”
“Really?”, I asked, “ALL of them?”
Funny but sad at the same time, ya know?
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
I would note that Jesus says to teach, not to write:
Further Saint Paul says to listen, not to read
He tells Saint Timothy
Mark 16:15 He spent three years teaching the apostles, very little of it is in the Bible. The Gospels are their lecture notes; not the lecture.
Further Saint Paul says to listen, not to read
Romans 10:17
He tells Saint Timothy
2 Timothy 3:16. It is profitable, it completes ones training, but nowhere does he say that it is complete, or even essential.
N
Non_sum_dignus
Guest
Beyond that, it doesn’t say what qualifies as “scripture”. How many dozens of gospels didn’t make the cut? I remember reading about one fraudulent Gospel of Thomas in which Jesus purportedly told his apostles that it is nearly impossible for women to achieve salvation because of their disjointed thinking or somesuch.
The bottom line is that scripture descends from the Church–the Church does not descend from scripture.
P
patrick457
Guest
Simon Peter said to them, “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.” Jesus said, “I myself shall lead her, in order to make her male, so that she, too, may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.”
A
abucs
Guest
To the OP,
Yes and no. We should read the Bible (as we develop) with an understanding of history, culture and literary style. But unfortunately there are many who have created their own fiction using the historical method (and to weaken the Church) and then hold their own thinking out as an enlightened understanding which everyone needs to follow. That is an insult as well as being non Christian.
Yes and no. We should read the Bible (as we develop) with an understanding of history, culture and literary style. But unfortunately there are many who have created their own fiction using the historical method (and to weaken the Church) and then hold their own thinking out as an enlightened understanding which everyone needs to follow. That is an insult as well as being non Christian.
C
Crumpy
Guest
I don’t think the article in the OP is very reliable. It seems that guy is talking just by the seat of his pants, which is a sola scriptura position.
Biblical literalism is a poorly defined term in this thread and how much anybody says depends on how you define it.
Protestantism is inherently fractured religion, because it spins people off into the idolatry of their own thinking.
If there are V verses in the bible, then each protestant has to have V interpretations. How many protestants have ever defined all of their V interpretations, to match them up with even one other person’s V’ interpretations. Just by law of probability,they will not agree. So, you have P protestants each with their own set of V interpretations – I don’t think that is Christianity. It might as well be nothing. Why do these P protestants even agree on the B books in the bible? what is that authority for even saying that such book is a Bible?
A Protestant guy by the name of Ryrie has his own study bible, and calls Romanism the error of the Catholic Church that the Bible came from the Church. But, that’s all he says about it, and he doesn’t say, in the same breath, where it did come from.
Say anything you want, biblical literalism took root in a political movement to overturn the power of the Catholic Church in Europe. These “enlightened” countries decided that they didn’t want any foreign influences, like from the Pope, in their country and they didn’t like church collections being shipped off to Rome.** The answer is in history, not the Bible.**
Biblical literalism is a poorly defined term in this thread and how much anybody says depends on how you define it.
Protestantism is inherently fractured religion, because it spins people off into the idolatry of their own thinking.
If there are V verses in the bible, then each protestant has to have V interpretations. How many protestants have ever defined all of their V interpretations, to match them up with even one other person’s V’ interpretations. Just by law of probability,they will not agree. So, you have P protestants each with their own set of V interpretations – I don’t think that is Christianity. It might as well be nothing. Why do these P protestants even agree on the B books in the bible? what is that authority for even saying that such book is a Bible?
A Protestant guy by the name of Ryrie has his own study bible, and calls Romanism the error of the Catholic Church that the Bible came from the Church. But, that’s all he says about it, and he doesn’t say, in the same breath, where it did come from.
Say anything you want, biblical literalism took root in a political movement to overturn the power of the Catholic Church in Europe. These “enlightened” countries decided that they didn’t want any foreign influences, like from the Pope, in their country and they didn’t like church collections being shipped off to Rome.** The answer is in history, not the Bible.**
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
A friend in the Assembly of God told me that her pastor claimed [in jest] that everyone knows that God gave the KJV to Adam and Eve as they left Eden.
H
hansgeorg
Guest
Now, that adresses the problem of Protestantism.Good points. Something else I like to ask is “Who wrote the Gospel of Mark and how do you know?”
I have a SS Fundamentalist “friend” who recently declared quite vehemently that “All the church fathers are in error!!!”
“Really?”, I asked, “ALL of them?”
How does that qualify as “Biblical Literalism”?
I of course know that St Mark wrote the Gospel of St Mark through tradition. This does not mean that the Destruction of Jerusalem was not literally predicted in it.
Dispensationalism generally fails because it fails to understand that the Church is a real PEOPLE of God, and the New and true Israel.
R
rcjones
Guest
This quote is using the language of Biblical riddle.
The name ‘Mary’ means ‘rebellion’.
The female represents those who do not see clearly (1Sa 28:12 1Ti 2:14 )
The male represents those who understand.
It simply says: Let the rebellious leave us, for those who do not understand are not worthy of life. I shall lead her so that she will understand… etc.
It is not likely a true saying since Mary was probably able to interpret the scriptures as well as any of the disciples having had all of Jesus’s formative years to learn from him. Her instructions to him at the wedding of Cana show that she understood the mysteries even then.
Though the Catholic church teaches that there are two senses of scripture, and even four meanings of the Quadriga, there are many here that continually deny it, since Literalism has also invaded Catholicism.
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
I think that the Mary referred to in the quotation is Mary Magdalene, not Mary, Mother of Jesus.
H
hansgeorg
Guest
The quote was not from the Bible. It was from a Pseudo-Gospel.
The Quadriga has the four senses: Literal, Allegorical, Tropological and Anagogical.
Literal sense is not wrong. Literal sense is not in conflict with Literalism. What is often enough complained about AS Literalism has no quarrel with the traditional other three senses of the Quadriga.
Saying the Six days of creation premonish Six Ages of Human History is traditional Allegorical Sense (St Augustine providing it), and Literalists are not usually protesting against it. Saying the Six days of creation WERE Six ages of pre-human pre-history is one thing a so-called Literalist would be annoyed by. It is also not a tradition to expose the Six Days thus allegorically: the Tradition of Allegory being about the Six Ages of Human History as already said.
- Status