# Hermeneutics of Baptist covenant theology



## steadfast7 (Jan 7, 2012)

I'd like to get the ball rolling on a list of key principles in the hermeneutics of doctrine for covenant theology. I believe these principles are essentially the same for exegesis as with dogma. My hope is for the differences between baptist and paedo to come to light and some judgment to be made on the pros and cons the various perspectives.

1. Christ is the centre, theme, and purpose of Scripture.
2. Close context takes priority over distant context. 
3. The old testament is read in light of the new testament. 
4. The new testament's interpretation of the old has the greatest weight and relevance for Christians.
5. The most recent or "forward edge" of revelation takes priority in its relevance and usefulness over previous revelation. 
6. Only what is positively commanded should be practiced in the churches.

how would you tweak the above and what should we add?


----------



## Herald (Jan 7, 2012)

Dennis, how about the right approach to biblical hermeneutics comes to light, not necessarily the difference between credos and paedos? The reason I say this is because there are hermeneutical differences between paedos; the same for credos. For the most part Reformed paedos and credos agree more than they disagree. As far as the six points you posit, here are my thoughts:

1. This can be worded so many different ways but you have the essence of it. 
2. Correct, although this can (and has) been abused by some as in, for example, the RPW.
3. I have no problem with this.
4. I'd word this a bit differently. I don't believe the N.T. _interprets _the Old; the N.T. reveals the Old. Perhaps this is just semantics, but I want to avoid the possible argument that the N.T. supersedes the Old; it doesn't. There is one written revelation of God consisting in 66 books. This is an important point to stress because there are those who outright refuse to teach from the O.T. believing it has been replaced by the N.T. That is a dangerous position to hold. 
5. If you're arguing for progressive revelation in scripture I would agree.
6. What do you mean by this? Are you restricting this to worship (RPW) or beyond?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 7, 2012)

steadfast7 said:


> how would you tweak the above and what should we add?


Almost too much to suggest. Since you say that the principles are the same for exegesis you have left out a lot of exegetical principles. Hermeneutics typically acts as a principle by which one organizes exegetical information and then is used to shed further light, systematically, on exegesis. Exegesis informs systematics and systematics, in turn, informs exegesis.

Your list is sort of a hodge-podge of some exegetical principles mixed in with hermeneutical principles but they're sorted in a strange way and huge leaps from basic exegetical levels to hermeneutical principles and leaving out syntactical, authorial, literary, and other exegetical steps. Exegetical steps are relatively standard so you would probably benefit from picking up a book on Exegesis and Hermeneutics.

Toward that end, may I suggest that you are repeatedly trying to boil things down that are more complex. You're too hastily trying to apprehend topics that take some time to study and that includes the tools necessary to perform that study. Thumbnail sketches are true as far as they go but the quest to produce a pithy list of hermeneutical principles without these tools will only confuse without the broader vocabulary and use of tools necessary to make sense of them.


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 7, 2012)

> 6. Only what is positively commanded should be practiced in the churches.



Well, it may be more (or less?) enlightening to think of two Qs, rather than one:

(a) Are children in any sense in the Covenant?

(b) Should they therefore be baptised?

Some Baptists like John Gill, so I've heard, believed Scripture taught (a), but didn't go along with (b) because they believed it contadicted the RPW.


----------



## steadfast7 (Jan 8, 2012)

Hi Rich, I agree that the list is a sort of hodgepodge of principles that is somewhat reductionistic, but this is not to say that the items listed are any less true or helpful (though they need tweaking, I'm sure). It is often very helpful to boil things down and simplify in order to see the essence, especially when we are trying to compare and contrast views. See how the acrostic TULIP boils down some of the most complex and greatest truths of our faith.



steadfast7 said:


> 4. The new testament's interpretation of the old has the greatest weight and relevance for Christians.





Herald said:


> 4. I'd word this a bit differently. I don't believe the N.T. interprets the Old; the N.T. reveals the Old. Perhaps this is just semantics, but I want to avoid the possible argument that the N.T. supersedes the Old; it doesn't. There is one written revelation of God consisting in 66 books. This is an important point to stress because there are those who outright refuse to teach from the O.T. believing it has been replaced by the N.T. That is a dangerous position to hold.



Good point, Bill. We wouldn't want to say that the NT _replaces_ the OT in the vein of Marcion, nor does it supercede it such that the OT becomes obsolete and useless for teaching. However, wouldn't you agree that the NT is a fuller revelation, nay, the very fulfillment of the promises and the substance of the shadows of the OT? As one theologian quipped, the OT is one very long sermon illustration. 

so, revised:
1. Christ is the centre, theme, and purpose of Scripture.
2. Close context takes priority over distant context. 
3. The old testament is read in light of the new testament. 
4. Where the New Testament interprets the Old, that interpretation becomes the standard for doctrine. For example, Gal. 3:16 (the "seed" is Christ).
5. The most recent or "forward edge" of revelation takes priority in its relevance and usefulness over previous revelation. 
6. Only what is positively commanded is what should be practiced in worship.
7. Didactic portions of scripture take priority over narratives in formulating doctrine.

are any of these fundamentally disagreed upon by Reformed Covenant Theology?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 8, 2012)

steadfast7 said:


> Hi Rich, I agree that the list is a sort of hodgepodge of principles that is somewhat reductionistic,


You missed where I also noted that many intermediate exegetical steps are missing. Even if you're trying to be reductionistic, there are a bunch of missing exegetical steps. I would suggest you focus on distinct principles that belong to hermeneutics.


----------



## Herald (Jan 8, 2012)

steadfast7 said:


> However, wouldn't you agree that the NT is a fuller revelation, nay, the very fulfillment of the promises and the substance of the shadows of the OT? As one theologian quipped, the OT is one very long sermon illustration.



Eschatologically, yes. Thus the old axiom "the old is revealed in the new." 

I began a sermon series on the book of Ruth this morning. When I get to the part about the kinsman redeemer I am going to have to make the christologic implications clearer by going to the New Testament.


----------



## steadfast7 (Jan 8, 2012)

Semper Fidelis said:


> You missed where I also noted that many intermediate exegetical steps are missing. Even if you're trying to be reductionistic, there are a bunch of missing exegetical steps. I would suggest you focus on distinct principles that belong to hermeneutics.



Rich, I'd be interested in hearing from you other of some of the principles of exegesis that are relevant to our formulation of doctrine. While I think the principles of exegesis and theology do overlap, they are not in a one-to-one relationship. Plus, I'm after those things which directly influence our formulation of covenant theology. This would include issues of trans-testamental interpretation, and where the emphasis lies on that continuum among the testaments, etc.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 8, 2012)

steadfast7 said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > You missed where I also noted that many intermediate exegetical steps are missing. Even if you're trying to be reductionistic, there are a bunch of missing exegetical steps. I would suggest you focus on distinct principles that belong to hermeneutics.
> ...





Semper Fidelis said:


> Toward that end, may I suggest that you are repeatedly trying to boil things down that are more complex. You're too hastily trying to apprehend topics that take some time to study and that includes the tools necessary to perform that study. Thumbnail sketches are true as far as they go but the quest to produce a pithy list of hermeneutical principles without these tools will only confuse without the broader vocabulary and use of tools necessary to make sense of them.



Dennis, You might want to start by asking what tools you need to work with in order to help you grow in this. You lack so much and you need to listen instead of making hasty conclusions.


----------



## steadfast7 (Jan 8, 2012)

Randy, where have I gone wrong? where is this criticism coming from?
First, I don't agree that it is not helpful to boil down complex theological issues into its essence. I think we do it all the time, so I don't see the ill-effect of doing the same with the hermeneutics of covenant theology.
Secondly, this thread is an attempt TO learn and for others to contribute by critiquing, adding on, and building. I have requested that some of the more elemental principles of hermeneutics be presented specifically IF they are required and relevant in creating the structure for covenant theology. I'm currently waiting on that.

btw, most of the items on the above list, I got from Fred Malone's talk on this very topic found here, so this is not just me spouting things off the top of my head.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 8, 2012)

steadfast7 said:


> While I think the principles of exegesis and theology do overlap, they are not in a one-to-one relationship.


Dennis, what do you mean by this? Exegetical study is necessary for understanding theology. Comments like this make me think and post to you like I do.


----------



## steadfast7 (Jan 8, 2012)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Dennis, what do you mean by this? Exegetical study is necessary for understanding theology. Comments like this make me think and post to you like I do.


 I completely agree in the importance and priority of exegesis. One needs to know what is being said before one collects the various passages and builds a theology. Theology is similar but not identical to exegesis, however. Theology employs the laws of logic and argument. It infers, speculates, synthesizes, and develops. It answers our questions, not the original audience's. It operates at a broader level. If exegesis is the cell, theology is the organ, and a system of theology is the organism.


----------



## steadfast7 (Jan 10, 2012)

Would any paedobaptists have any problem with the above list?
If I may venture a guess, a paedobaptist would not require _as much_ of an emphasis on New Testament priority as a key for interpreting the whole Bible. Would this be accurate?

I get the sense that the baptist tends toward letting New Testament themes arch backwards to inform and fill in the themes of the Old, whereas presbyterians would tend to keep things flat and linear.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 10, 2012)

steadfast7 said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > You missed where I also noted that many intermediate exegetical steps are missing. Even if you're trying to be reductionistic, there are a bunch of missing exegetical steps. I would suggest you focus on distinct principles that belong to hermeneutics.
> ...



All of the principles of exegesis are relevant to doctrinal formulation. You can't understand the intent of the original authors without exegesis and you cannot determine broad Biblical contours without it either. I did not state that there is a one-to-one relationship. I stated that your list is a mish-mash that includes one or two exegetical steps and then leaps into hermeneutical principles. Read some Books on exegesis and hermeneutics.

http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Exegesis-Handbook-Students/dp/0664223168

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-...=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326196927&sr=1-3

http://www.amazon.com/Hermeneutical...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326196975&sr=1-1


----------

