Best Way To Understand Entire Bible?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

what is the best way to understand the bible as a whole, OT and NT combined? covenant theology, dispensationalism, historical critical, socio-literary, narrative theology, hermeneutics of suspicion, story of redemption, salvation by grace through faith, christological hermeneutics, letter versus spirit, literal or something else? please expound on your preferred method.

The best way is to ask questions on AFF, then tally up the posts that support your pre-established position. IF those posts outnumber the ones contradicting your position, then you are vindicated! IF they do not, and your position is outnumbered, then obviously 'few there be that find life' and once again, you are vindicated!

[Dedicated Mind]

Originally Posted by Timmy

Can you give some examples of the text indicating that there should be a non-literal interpretation?

paul uses the allegorical method when for example he compares hagar to mount sinai and the law and compares sarah to grace and the promise. something like that. i haven't read the scripture but i intend to order this book on paul's method of interpretation.

http://www.amazon.com/Echoes-Scriptu...I2B2DOIX6BCMVB

some theologians disagree with paul's method and says he changes the original intent of the scriptures and reads christ back into the scripture.

[larrylyates]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

paul uses the allegorical method when for example he compares hagar to mount sinai and the law and compares sarah to grace and the promise. something like that. i haven't read the scripture but i intend to order this book on paul's method of interpretation.

http://www.amazon.com/Echoes-Scriptu...I2B2DOIX6BCMVB

some theologians disagree with paul's method and says he changes the original intent of the scriptures and reads christ back into the scripture.

I think you make an excellent choice in the example you chose.
while it is true that some theologians do disagree with Paul's methods. These are typically very liberal and also question the authority and inspiration of the scriptures themselves.

Paul himself expresses much in his writings that is not revealed elsewhere. But if we accept the truth of 2 Timothy 3:16--All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: as well as Paul's assertion that he received his revelation from Christ directly; there is no merit in the contention that Paul "added to the scriptures" in an improper manner.

[navygoat1998]

Originally Posted by larrylyates

I think you make an excellent choice in the example you chose.
while it is true that some theologians do disagree with Paul's methods. These are typically very liberal and also question the authority and inspiration of the scriptures themselves.

Paul himself expresses much in his writings that is not revealed elsewhere. But if we accept the truth of 2 Timothy 3:16--All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: as well as Paul's assertion that he received his revelation from Christ directly; there is no merit in the contention that Paul "added to the scriptures" in an improper manner.

I just started "How to read the Bible for all its worth" - Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart.

[Lafon]

Originally Posted by larrylyates

Paul himself expresses much in his writings that is not revealed elsewhere. But if we accept the truth of 2 Timothy 3:16--All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: as well as Paul's assertion that he received his revelation from Christ directly; there is no merit in the contention that Paul "added to the scriptures" in an improper manner.

Would you expound some upon the statement I've highlighted (i.e., provide several examples)? Thanks!

[larrylyates]

Originally Posted by Lafon

Would you expound some upon the statement I've highlighted (i.e., provide several examples)? Thanks!

I was not actually thinking in specifics when I wrote that! What I am referring to is the fact that much of what we learn about in the Letters of Paul are details, explanations, and understandings of thing only hinted at in the Gospels or Acts. Which I believe is precisely as designed by the Lord.

Many liberal theologians have posited the idea that it was Paul that "developed" Christianity all on his own, thus negating the inspiration and authority of scripture. It is the same spirit that was at work in the early 1900's that produced so-called Higher Criticism. This is simply fruit from the same tree.

I think one specific would by Romans 10:8,9 where we learn details about what actually happened at our redemption. The details of the "Lord's Supper" and Spiritual Gifts, the Fruit of the spirit and the look "behind the scene" as it were of what happened from the Cross to the throne. We could also add the instructions to and qualifications for Ministers .

[larrylyates]

Originally Posted by navygoat1998

I just started "How to read the Bible for all its worth" - Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart.

Excellent resource! I highly recommend it.

[Dedicated Mind]

Originally Posted by navygoat1998

I just started "How to read the Bible for all its worth" - Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart.

navygoat, can you post a review of the book when you finish? i have it on my "to read" list but haven't gotten to it yet.

[Praxeas]

Grammatically
Contextually
Audience
Author
Historical

[Lafon]

Apostle Paul (writing by inspiration) advises that "...the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God" (I Corinthians 2:11, KJV).

Seeing that the Bible contains "the things of God" in written format, then it must be recognized and acknowledged that only God does truly understand it's content.

Indeed, even Paul acknowledged this fact when he wrote that "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God" (I Corinthians 2:14, KJV). (The word "receiveth" implies "understandeth.")

The Lord Jesus Christ expressly stated that "when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth ... and he will shew you things to come" (John 16:13, KJV), therefore I am persuaded to embrace the belief that it is impossible for one to properly understand "the things of the Spirit of God" that are recorded upon the pages of the Bible unless one possesses the "Spirit of Truth" (which is the Holy Ghost).

Because the contents of the Scriptures are "esoteric" in their essence, then regardless of the methods one endeavors to employ in attempting to understand the language of the Bible, it will be to no avail if one has not been endowed with the "Spirit of Truth."