Donations for the month of November


We have received a total of $100 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Posts: 2,862
Joined: September 2003
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics6,533
Posts50,712
Members921
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,296
Tom 3,303
chestnutmare 2,862
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,748
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,578
gotribe 1,057
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 22
Pilgrim 18
John_C 2
Recent Posts
Law and Grace
by Tom. Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:45 PM
The Church of England Announcement
by Tom. Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:11 PM
Why I hate the left
by Pilgrim. Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:42 PM
What is a missionary work
by Pilgrim. Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:07 AM
Terrorist Attacks
by AJ Castellitto. Sat Nov 04, 2017 7:08 AM
Theonomy
by Pilgrim. Fri Nov 03, 2017 5:54 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
#44394 - Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:49 PM Song of Solomon  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,304
Tom Online content
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Online Content
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,304
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
I came across a blog series that John MacArthur did as a direct response to Mark Driscoll’s vulgarity, in his preaching on Song of Solomon.
This series MacArthur titles The Rape of Solomon’s Song
Which can be found here .
I believe Dr. MacArthur does a very good and fair job at dealing with the matter. However, my reason for bring this matter up has something to do with something Dr. MacArthur said during the third installment of this discussion called ‘Threes Your Crowd’.

In particular I am talking about the following.

Quote
I emphatically agree with those who say the Song of Solomon is not mere allegory. It is best understood when we take it at face value, like any other text of Scripture. Many interpreters whom I otherwise hold in high esteem (including Spurgeon and most of the Puritans) have unfortunately done more to confuse than clarify the Song's message by treating it in a purely allegorical fashion that eliminates its primary meaning.
For further reading on the context of this quote you can go to http://www.shepherdsfellowship.org/pulpit/Posts.aspx?ID=4172

While I agree with Dr. MacArthur on the over all thrust of his Driscoll critique. Never the less this particular MacArthur quote made me wonder what to think.
My first thought was what makes MacArthur think that his exegesis of the Song of Solomon is better than Spurgeon and most of the Puritan expositors?

Could it possibly be that MacArthur’s Dispensationalism is showing through?

At any rate I thought I would put these questions out for discussion here.

Tom

#44406 - Tue Mar 23, 2010 3:11 PM Re: Song of Solomon [Re: Tom]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,296
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,296
NH, USA
Tom,

It is possible that MacArthur's dispensational hermeneutic is dictating his view of that book, but he would know for sure. wink

The Puritans didn't actually "allegorize" (although it is possible some did) the book. Rather, they saw the spiritual realities in it, i.e., Christ and His Church. Although there are many practical things to be learned and applied, such as love and sexuality between husband and wife in marriage, I am convinced that the Puritans were fully warranted in understanding the depth of the book as being spiritual in its original intent, again to point to Christ. If that is rejected, what does one have left; nothing more than a marriage manual of a by-gone culture?

The inspired book of the Song of Solomon is a very difficult one for no other reason than the literary form it is written in; poetical form. But is the book of Revelation any easier to comprehend? scratchchin The Puritans and others born much later who believe that SoS ultimately speaks of Christ and His love for the Church and vice versa have no less biblical warrant to do so than any other symbolic, apocalyptic, poetic portion of Scripture. What I find incredibly ironic and even funny is that MacArthur can reject the "allegorical" interpretation/understanding of SoS but he can posit a most fanciful view of Genesis 6:1ff. What ever happened to his Dispie "plain reading of the text"? rolleyes2


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#44411 - Tue Mar 23, 2010 9:53 PM Re: Song of Solomon [Re: Pilgrim]  
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 969
Peter Offline
Old Hand
Peter  Offline
Old Hand

Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 969
USA
Well Pilgrim you know as well as I that literal interpretation is subject to their over riding presuppositions: Israel can only be the actual nation, the literal sense (plain sense)is the only sense (lets not even mention the concept of genre in the bible) and pre-millennial return of Christ. If we don't accept these then we just don't understand the text at all.


Peter

If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo
#44423 - Thu Mar 25, 2010 12:47 AM Re: Song of Solomon [Re: Pilgrim]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,304
Tom Online content
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Online Content
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,304
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Pilgrim you said:
Quote
What I find incredibly ironic and even funny is that MacArthur can reject the "allegorical" interpretation/understanding of SoS but he can posit a most fanciful view of Genesis 6:1ff. What ever happened to his Dispie "plain reading of the text"?


Let me guess, does MacArthur believe "the Son of God" were angels? Is that what you are referring to? But then again you said verse one; ”sons of God” isn’t mentioned until verse two.

Tom

#44424 - Thu Mar 25, 2010 5:55 AM Re: Song of Solomon [Re: Tom]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,296
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,296
NH, USA
Originally Posted by Tom
Let me guess, does MacArthur believe "the Son of God" were angels? Is that what you are referring to? But then again you said verse one; ”sons of God” isn’t mentioned until verse two.

Better go back and read what I wrote again, Tom. giggle

[Linked Image]Genesis 6:1ff[Linked Image]


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#44433 - Thu Mar 25, 2010 9:22 PM Re: Song of Solomon [Re: Pilgrim]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,304
Tom Online content
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Online Content
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,304
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
Originally Posted by Tom
Let me guess, does MacArthur believe "the Son of God" were angels? Is that what you are referring to? But then again you said verse one; ”sons of God” isn’t mentioned until verse two.

Better go back and read what I wrote again, Tom. giggle

[Linked Image]Genesis 6:1ff[Linked Image]


shrug Now I am really confused. I have read what you said several times over. What does the ff mean? I have several Bibles and have not found ff in any of them.

Tom

#44434 - Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:03 PM Re: Song of Solomon [Re: Tom]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,296
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,296
NH, USA
Originally Posted by Tom
shrug Now I am really confused. I have read what you said several times over. What does the ff mean? I have several Bibles and have not found ff in any of them.

Tom, it is a known abbreviation in literature which means "and the following", typically without a designated end. So, in this case, it simply means Genesis chapter 6, verse 1 and all that follows, i.e., the following verses. grin


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 16 guests, and 119 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
drewk, patrice, Robert1962, Ron, billmcginnis
921 Registered Users
Shout Box
November
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Popular Topics(Views)
651,889 Gospel truth
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.085s Queries: 15 (0.021s) Memory: 2.5968 MB (Peak: 2.8801 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-11-22 07:25:13 UTC