And just for the record I've been here for years and I'm glad to hear that your thinking of donating to Pilgrim. Its a worthy cause. I know I've learned much from the various articles and interaction with the worthies of this board.
To me, it is easily worth as much as a good book. Ummm........a great book. I hope to donate regularly.
While I think we'll disagree, agreeably, I still consider baptists as christians. I can think of several I could recommend reading......White, Paisley, Spurgeon, and actually own books by some of these great scholars. Please don't let my fervent discussion make it seem otherwise. The baptists that are on this board are a fine lot of people, and I appreciate their input.
Sorry I am rehashing an old thread, but unfortunately it took me quite a while to research some of your points and even now I feel like I am only scratching the surface.
You said: “Well Fred would be right except for one very serious error. Paul used the O.C. to explain the new! Even Hebrews shows the fulfilling of the O.C. in the New. Look at Hebrews 11, where does the author begin on the issue of "faith?" Thus, the proper hermeneutic is to use the Old to explain the New—a principle taught in every seminary I know of (most of them Baptist), except when it comes to baptism & eschatology—interesting!”
So far in my research of the issue, what I have found tells me that the common Reformed understanding is that the OT is the background and foundation of the NT, but also that the NT is the final interpreter of the meaning of the OT.
To quote Augustine (from Fred Malone): “The New is in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed.” Also from reading Fred Malone on the issue, he didn’t learn this from a Baptist Seminary; he learned it from Presbyterians at Reformed Theological Seminary.
I want to be as respectful to you as possible, but by you saying that the OT should be the final interpreter of the NT, it would seem to me that you are making the same error that Norman Shepherd and the Auburn Avenue theology makes. Let me explain this by quoting O. Palmer Robertson O. Palmer Robertson -- from "The Current Justification Controversy"---
"In attempting to make relevant the movement from election to reprobation of Israel under the old covenant, Mr. Shepherd asserted that the individual elected according to Ephesians 1 also could become reprobate. But it must be questioned whether he has communicated adequately the progress of Scriptural revelation as described by Vos. Instead of letting the finalized revelation of the New Testament provide the framework for understanding the shadowy form of the Old Testament, it may be that Mr.Shepherd has allowed the typological forms of the Old Testament to exercise too much control over the manner in which the New Testament is to be read. As a consequence of this perspective on election, a corresponding perspective emerged in his development of the idea of a “justification” that actually could be lost (97)."
Please understand I am not saying you agree with Shepherd and Auburn Avenue theology, I am just saying that they come by their theology through the same hermeneutical principle you are espousing. I hope I am in some way misunderstanding what you are saying. Please forgive me if this post sounds disrespectful, believe me it is not meant to be.
Tom, You make some excellent points. My OPC pastor says that the New Testament is the commentary of the Old Testament. The OT contains shadows and types that find their fuller expression in Christ.
First, if hermeneutics was as easy as a little phrase we would not need the volumes that appear in the libraries of seminaries throughout the world.
Second, read He Gave Us Stories by R. Pratt (he teaches hermeneutics at RTS) and you will find the hermeneutic similar to that Malone “originally” learned (depending of course on which campus and professor he studied under. If I am not mistaken Malone studied at Jackson where Pratt use to teach.). RTS, nor “true” Presbyterians teach a dispensational hermeneutic!!! And if you would have read the whole post, instead of just your cut and pasted portion, you would have more fully understood the discussion being--dispensational vs. Covenant hermeneutics. Here is a list of books you can purchase for yourself.
I want to be as respectful to you as possible, but by you saying that the OT should be the final interpreter of the NT, it would seem to me that you are making the same error that Norman Shepherd and the Auburn Avenue theology makes.
"In attempting to make relevant the movement from election to reprobation of Israel under the old covenant, Mr. Shepherd asserted that the individual elected according to Ephesians 1 also could become reprobate. But it must be questioned whether he has communicated adequately the progress of Scriptural revelation as described by Vos. Instead of letting the finalized revelation of the New Testament provide the framework for understanding the shadowy form of the Old Testament, it may be that Mr.Shepherd has allowed the typological forms of the Old Testament to exercise too much control over the manner in which the New Testament is to be read. As a consequence of this perspective on election, a corresponding perspective emerged in his development of the idea of a “justification” that actually could be lost (97)."
Me thinks you have not understood. First,where did I say that, "the OT should be the final interpreter of the NT?" Where is the "quote." I said in essence that the O.T. is the foundation for understanding the N.T.!!! (Example formally alluded to: interpret Heb 11 without the O.T.). Second, look who you are making the quote from, O. Palmer Robertson (WTS), who uses the same hermeneutic as I do <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" /> Third, the quote is not about baptism, and, finally it speaks of there being too much control BUT, not "no control" at all. Tom if you remove ALL the O.T. references from the N.T. how much do you have left? The O.T. clearly pervades the N.T. Additionally, I am sure you are well aware of my other posts concerning O.T./N.T. continuity and discontinuity. Tom, you need the O.T. to more fully understand the N.T. and if you will look at my whole post, and not just the partial cut/paste that you did, that is what I originally stated. Pure and simple Tom a dispensational hermeneutic sees too much discontinuity! The less proper continuity the less proper interpretation! The more proper continuity the more proper interpretation.
Susan said: Tom, You make some excellent points. My OPC pastor says that the New Testament is the commentary of the Old Testament. The OT contains shadows and types that find their fuller expression in Christ.
IMHO, while I would agree that the "OT contains shadows and types that find their fuller expression in Christ," the N.T. is much more than a mere commentary of the O.T.
Tom asks: I hope I am in some way misunderstanding what you are saying.
Joe is certainly capable of speaking for himself and answering your question. But being one who knows Joe better than most here, I can assure you that Joe is NOT saying that the Old Testament is the final authority in interpreting the New Testament. He would hold just as clearly to the Augustinian ditty as most others. BTW.. the way I learned it was, "The New is in the Old contained. The Old is in the New explained."
I think that Joe is saying that the foundation for understanding the New Testament is found in the Old Testament. In short, you simply cannot come to a right and/or full understanding of the N.T. without first understanding of the O.T. In fact the N.T. consists of over 80% quotes or allusions to the O.T. This truth is, of course, totally ignored or rejected by most modern "Christians" for either theological or other reasons. This is why you see so many people handing out little "N.T. Bibles" rather than the whole inspired Book.
Anyway..... for example, a right understanding of the doctrine of justification by faith is rooted in the writings of the O.T. upon which Paul builds and explains it in the New. And that is what the New Testament does in the main; explain the truth found in the Old, not necessarily introduce everything as "new" in total contradistinction to the Old, as if the O.T. can be dispensed with now that the N.T. has come. This, I believe, is what Joe was expressing, albeit not in language you were able to discern. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" /> What he is saying is that our understanding of "Covenant" is found in the O.T. not in the N.T. What we read of "Covenant" in the N.T. is founded upon the teaching and examples of which are found only in and throughout the O.T. writings. So, if you want to rightly understand what a "covenant" is according to the Scriptures, you don't look to the New Testament but to the Old Testament. Is this so hard to comprehend or perhaps accept? It's nothing new, Tom (and all who are wrestling with this hermeneutical issue). Our understanding of God is mainly found in the Old Testament, not the New Testament. The doctrine of the atonement is mainly found in the Old Testament, not the New Testament. The Bible's eschatology is mainly found in the Old Testament, not as most assume, in the New Testament. (e.g., you simply cannot understand "Revelation" aright until you have grasped the teachings of the Old Testament) . . . etc.
I hope this sets the record straight as far as what Joe holds true hermeneutically..... admittedly an assumption on my part, but one which I believe is an accurate one and which I am very sure Joe will correct if I have misrepresented him. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
In short, you simply cannot come to a right and/or full understanding of the N.T. without first understanding of the O.T. In fact the N.T. consists of over 80% quotes or allusions to the O.T. This truth is, of course, totally ignored or rejected by most modern "Christians" for either theological or other reasons. This is why you see so many people handing out little "N.T. Bibles" rather than the whole inspired Book.
You know.......it took me several years of wandering to understand this. Once I came to this understanding of hermeneutics, the entirety of the Bible seemed 'easier' to comprehend.
I have noticed this as well. Several times I have heard young christians ask what to read I almost always hear a response of , "the NT first", or,"at least the entire NT". It occured to me, about three months after becoming reformed, that christians are suppose to be people of the book...the entire book.
First of all, I am glad that I misunderstood you. However, I will say that I am not the only one who understood your meaning to be "the OT should be the final interpreter of the NT". That of course wasn't a dirrect quote from you, it was just my understanding in a nut shell of what you were saying.
My understanding was not just based on the quote I mentioned in my post, but your entire post. I only quoted that part because I thought it went right to the nitty gritty.
You said: "RTS, nor “true” Presbyterians teach a dispensational hermeneutic!!!"
I agree whole heartedly, but what puzzles me is why you believe people like Fred Malone teach a dispensational hermeneutic. Like I said he learned this hermeneutic principle at RTS. I also know that the phrase by Augustine is quoted in that manner by many other people. I would also agree with you that hermeneutics is not easy. In fact I doubt that Augustine used that phrase in that manner, he probably just used it as a principle in which to study hermeneutics.
Just to make myself clear, I am in no way advocating that we shouldn't use a whole Bible hermeneutic. For indeed the OT is the background and foundation for the NT. But I also believe that the NT is the final interpreter of the meaning of the OT.
I agree whole heartedly, but what puzzles me is why you believe people like Fred Malone teach a dispensational hermeneutic. Like I said he learned this hermeneutic principle at RTS.
Tom, Malone is teaching that there is less continuity in the Covenants which is IMHO a dispensational hermeneutic (this is the terminology we use. Again, as previously explained this is not meant as derogatory, but only descriptive). Now he DID NOT learn a discontinuity of the covenants in relationship to baptism either (1) at his Presbytery exam (for he would not have passed, etc.), or (2) at RTS in hermeneutics class(es). The only way he may have picked this up at RTS is in a separate session (luncheons, et. al.) as I, and others (some Baptists), occasionally have with Dr. Nicole (a Reformed Baptist) and/or others. But, this is not considered a "normal class."
IMHO, while I would agree that the "OT contains shadows and types that find their fuller expression in Christ," the N.T. is much more than a mere commentary of the O.T.
Joe, You are the one who chose the word mere. I can assure you my pastor would never speak of inspired Scripture in any way but with the greatest respect.
IMHO the N.T. is more than just "the commentary of the O.T." I am not doubting the sincerity of your pastor's heart here Susan, but the N.T. is a testament in its own right (with which I am sure your pastor would agree, but his statement appears to speak otherwise). The N.T. is also a testament that is grounded and has a foundation in the O.T., since most of its content come from the O.T. There is a continuity between them that is rich and as we discover and apply this continuity of truth it enriches us a well.
You don't really want to quarrel with me do you, Joe? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bif.gif" alt="" />
I wasn't intending to explain everything my pastor believes about the Old and New Testaments, only one point that was germane to the topic Tom brought up.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)