A few responses: A) no - I didn't state that, it was the historic distinction between humanities and divinity. As I stated, our few presuppositions should match the original audience. but you are right about that last part as humanities is typically understood now. Not sure what argument you are referring to in C). As for D) that's not hermeneutics. It is Midrash. I am also not Jesus and thus unqualified to reinterpret texts in that way. I would never be so presumptuous as to speak for the for the almighty - he speaks for himself. There's a strong

danger of communicating what I want to say instead of what He wants to say - I'm not going to put words into God's mouth. But there's nothing inconsistent here. I'm claiming that many Jews fell short of the promise because they misunderstood and that many Christians do too. We have certainly made quite the idol for ourselves. But I did amend E) "on-topic questions should start from a conclusion. This makes complete sense. If they based on a hermeneutic conclusion, they are an answer for this site - not a question. Other questions are certainly good questions - just not for this SE.

A.) Addressing your last statements: "I am also not Jesus and thus unqualified to reinterpret texts in that way." Okay, conceded; BUT - the authority to interpret Scripture, or prophecy - without the Holy Spirit - based solely on human scholarship and intellectualism is actually a claim to greater authority than Jesus, (or the Apostles and Prophets) - who commanded the exact opposite. What authority is there, (apart from Catholic, Mormon, and Rabbinic cults) to disregard Scriptural commandments in order to justify interpreting Scripture according to intellectualism, as in the humanities?

B.) "So, In short, yes interpreting texts based on modern spiritual values and understandings represents poor hermeneutics" This presupposes that God had no intention of further revelation after Scripture was written. This is "begging the question", and circular reasoning. C.) Again, fundamentally - the "logical form" of this answer cannot possibly address the "soft-side", the "spiritual-objections" raised in this question. So, An entirely different "form" of answer is necessary, (again, this answer does sufficiently express the view-point of "exclusive academic authority").

Why is applying academic rigor and intellect a disregard for scriptural commandments? Aren't the Bereans given accolades for the veracity, rigor, honor, care and depth with which they studied scripture? Is this somehow not an academic/intellectual approach by the bereans?

James - You are absolutely correct about the Bereans - but, you are "glossing over" the context. The Bereans began with a spiritual leading, a "Systematic-Theology", (which Jesus expressed on the way to Emmaus - that all Scripture affirmed that the Christ had to die"). And THEN they searched out the Scriptures to validate it.

Re: B) won't that revelation come through additional scripture from God himself? Or are you arguing for that revelation coming through someone like the pope or LDS prophet? Or are you arguing that he intended scripture to be understood different ways by different cultures and both are right? What question is this begging and how is it circular exactly? and

C) What are the spiritual objections you are raising? And how does that not lead to additional spiritual problems like those I have highlighted?

@JamesShewey One at a time: Begging the Question - If the assumption is made that spiritual inspiration is no longer required to interpret prophecy, the gospels, or the epistles.

@JamesShewey The Catholics, Mormons, Rabbinicists, etc - all claim that academic authority supersedes spiritual revelation. Maimonides' introduction to the Talmud is infamous for the claim that Rabbinic authority supersedes prophetic authority.

@JamesShewey However - what you are in effect asking, in all of these questions, is for me, to answer my own question, with a view opposing your own. Which is exactly what I don't want to do, because I am hoping that an expert familiar with the view opposing your own, can affirm your own, by answering the "spiritual objections" to your own, (like the objections against Maimonides, etc).

Hold on, back up a second: Why does systematic theology (dogmas) require personal spiritual revelation from the holy spirit, but hermeneutics does not? I would maintain that it does and that insipration from the holy spirit is just as capable of coming through academic discipline and study as anything else.

The Systematic valuation of Academics over Spiritual Authority has allowed many cults to assert authority over others, claiming a traditional or intellectual authority... How can that possibly be avoided - given an "academic only" approach?

And if you are referring to my questions here: chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/38492813#38492813

I am neither asking you to answer your own question, but am instead trying to better understand what it is that you are saying and asking. I do that through clarifying questions.

okay, first ... I am defining "Dogmas" as Catholic doctrine, given through papal bulls, traditions ,etc ...

The "Oral Law" through Rabbinicism.

Mormonism through .. well, mormonism.

That is more or less accurate. Protestant Christianity also has dogmas.

These dogmas generally walk hand in hand with systems of theology.

Mormonism through... Golden plates and a magic hat and glasses?

FARMS, (the foundation for ancient research in mormon studies(?? I think?) uses academic studies to affirm the book of mormon, (although the last chapter of the book of Moroni appeals to direct confirmation by the Holy Spirit).

Well, they try. They are generally rejected by mainstream scholarship. They are also no longer called FARMS.

Because of their own appeal to "historic scholarship", and the catholic practice, and Rabbinic practices, they are "enabled" to assert authority to supersede the commandments in Scripture.

I am simply using Mormonism, Catholicism, and Rabbinicism, in an illustrative way - to show the "danger" of asserting an "academic-only" hermeneutic approach.

... especially since Scripture explicitly commands against this, many, many, places.

(or at least seems to - until "reinterpretted via academic or traditional authority")

This "academic hermeneutic approach" seems exactly the same as "academic literary humanities" ... and seems exactly opposite of what is instructed in the texts themselves.

places such as? I'm pretty sure that scripture is not anti-intellectual. In fact, I would argue the opposite - it encourages academic study in many, many places (acts 17 being one).

It is a misrepresentation to say that I am claiming that Scripture is "anti-intellectual".

Can you please rephrase that?

And exactly how are academic literary disciplines instructed against?

the weight of the trust placed in them.

not that NO trust should be placed in them ... but the proportion of trust - is what is addressed in Scripture.

To be sure: scholarship is a tool that can be used honestly or dishonestly with good intentions or bad. But I don't believe for a second it is inherently bad or evil.

Actually, "Lean not on your own understanding" ... kind of goes as far as "no trust", and "heart is deceitful", etc... but, as a whole ... no, I am not asserting that Scripture objects to people exercising "reason" - at all.

And no one is claiming that scholarship is evil - certainly not me.

Again - The question is about the appropriate place of Systematic theology and spiritual presuppositions in hermeneutics. I do not feel, (as you seem to claim), that the two are mutually exclusive.

I think that may be why some Christians work so hard to paint evolutionary scientists as evil. If they aren't ill-intentioned, then that presents a challenge to the traditional view of Genesis.

I am not sure anyone believes that people must be "ill-intentioned" in order to be wrong. But, I understand what you are saying.

Regardless, I am certainly not saying - nor is anyone - that "scholarship" is evil.

Idolizing scholarship - over Spirituality - is the contention.

In contrast to "lean not on your own understanding" (which is out of context by the way it is about trusting in god instead of trusting in yourself) Romans 1:20 says that "God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made"

I have no idea how Romans and Proverbs 3 relate. And "Lean not on your own understanding" is clearly in the context of understanding commandments.

regardless - let's assume you and I cannot agree on the context of Proverbs 3:5.

(as a case-study)

Does your "scholarship" outweigh Paul's own authority in Romans explaining people's disobedience, being darkened in their own minds and understandings?

No, no... that romans example can be objected to.

Let's make it far more concrete.

"I will write a new commandment - on their hearts - and no one will need to be taught ... The Holy Spirit will lead and guide into all truth" etc.

Romans and proverbs don't relate - Romans is in contrast to a direction of away from academia. We can study nature using our own understanding of the word and this will point us towards God. In studying the creation, we will find the creator.

So, let's say - I presuppose ... a Systematic theolgoy ...

A systematic theology that God's intimate, faithful, instruction towards people ... supersedes in supposed "faithfulness" on the part of man, to preserve the truth of God.

A systematic theology that God is desperate to reveal truth to anyone, and everyone who asks, (according to James).

Now - I begin with that theology, (which is reasonable) ... and then start searching through Scripture, to see if it is so.

No, my scholarship does not outweigh Paul. What Paul is saying is that people have developed their own systems of theology - their own understanding - and then begin to interpret scripture from that perspective and become lost.

Now, my Systematic theology, affirmed by every example in Scripture, contradicts your own conclusion - which begins from an academic understanding of a text ... and ends there...

Which hermeneutic is more valid? Why does one even have to be "more valid" than the other? Why must they be mutually exclusive?

So, a Mormon friend of mine, asked the Holy Spirit to confirm the "Trinity", though she didn't explicitly ask regarding mormonism, but whatever.

She states that the Holy Spirit DID bear witness to this truth ... (about the trinity).

and certain texts were brought to her rememberance, and she validated them - affirming that Spiritual Presupposition / Hypothesis / Revelation.

... This seems "proper" according to Scripture, yes? no?

Do you have any idea how many passages there are, affirming this view?

I wouldn't even know where to begin.

umm.. 1 Corinthians 2:1-6 ... is a good place, actually.

or maybe ..

So, I actually live in Salt Lake City and have done/do ministry with LDS. Your Mormon friend may have experienced the "burning in the bosom" (as the LDS colloquialism goes) but the likelihood is that her understanding of the Trinity and yours are vastly different. I actually wrote a pretty good explanation of that here: christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/44987/…

> NASB, 1 Corinthians 1:22-25 - For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, 24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

So, I'm guessing what was most likely affirmed to her was that the Trinity is 3 persons who are one in purpose.

I think this verse might illustrate the "conundrum" better than I can.

The Mormon illustration is turning into a "Red-Herring"... the intent was to illustrate the dangers of "all academic constructs", and "all spiritual constructs". The inner light movement, etc.

So I said that to say this, No: This doesn't seem "proper" according to scripture. Your friend needed to pursue a better (academic) study and understanding of just what exactly what the trinity is before seeking confirmation of it in that manner.

I just don't see how these are "mutually exclusive" and that both are not hermeneutically valid - together.

Meh. I didn't tell you what she said the Holy Spirit explained... but, what she realized from that "burning" is very very compatible with Scripture.

It's not that there is a problem with systematic theology or that it isn't "valid" it is that it happens after hermeneutics is is derived from it.

Why would you start from the conclusion, and work backwards into the text? This allows you to choose texts that support your own system of theology that you created (an idol that you created) instead of deriving your theologies from the texts. Let me give you some examples of how this can be dangerous:

Yes. I understand your conclusion. That Systematic Theology is an inference AFTER proper hermeneutics. I totally understand your point. But, as I have shared, Scripture illustrates the exact opposite.

Is there ANY example in Scripture where "Systematic Theology" (or just spiritual insight for simplicity), follows AFTER some exegetical process?

Ooh, Ezra maybe.

bad example, but almost close.

I am not saying that you are wrong. I am just saying, there needs to be an appeal to some authority to make such a claim - that is contrary to many, many, passages in Scripture.

And we agree : "Systematic Theology without valid exegesis, can be very dangerous." BUT, there is a contention: Isn't it also the case that valid exegesis without Systematic theology, can be very dangerous?

Spiritual insight and Systematic Theology (dogma) aren't the same thing. And literally every spiritual revelation occurs after a hermeneutic process in which an individual interprets the message from God according to their understanding of life (their system of theology; their experiences).

I have no idea why you are equivocating Systematic theology and traditional dogma.

that is a false equivocation. The falsity of that underlying premise might invalidate a subsequent conclusion.

If then, I seek to minimize and limit my assumptions about life (I leave behind my system of theology as much as possible) and read scripture anew with fresh eyes aren't leaning not on my own understanding, but Gods?

Are traditional dogmas not various systems of theology?

Okay - I am going to nip that red-herring in the bud. I am not about to get into an equivocation on what "Systematic Theology" is... which is why I explicitly said, "spiritual presupposition" - in the question.

So - skip the "Systematic theology" discussion ... (for now), as it is dependent on the "spiitual revelation / presupposition" anyway.

But - not for discussion: Systematic theology is a discipline of Christian theology that formulates an orderly, rational, and coherent account of the doctrines of the Christian faith. Subdisciplines are dogmatics, ethics and philosophy of religion. Systematic Theology can be completely independent of "Tradition" and "Dogma"

So - just for now, simplify...

Yes, it can be.

Or

"I prayed and asked God for wisdom, as God commanded, and I believe he gave me some. I would like to use proper exegesis to confirm it."

Systematic Theology is a subset of Eisagesis, which is a specific form of hermeneutics.

sorry, I used that word again.

"Divine Intimacy / Revelation / Understanding" is a subset of eisagesis, when taken to interpret Scripture.

Your answer seems to invalidate the personal relationships that people have with God, and saying - "why begin in prayer, when the only way is to begin through the text and scholarship!"

Again ... I am not saying that one shouldn't ALSO begin with texts ... why I am asking is what is the basis - from Scripture - to claim that these approaches are mutually exclusive?

That is the basis for almost every cult ... ever, (also possibly an exaggeration).

Okay, let me simpify a little more : Do you understand, to some degree, this other point of view?

I am not asking if you approve of it, but if you can see/understand why others might see the logic of that argument?

@JamesShewey Because, if you do: The best thing is to just "noodle" on it for a while. I have zero inclination, or authority, to dogmatically declare anything ... So, please don't think I am trying to / persuade / you of anything, other than : "it might be understandable that others hold this view, and if wrong, it would be helpful for them to see the issues with this view - according to the texts."

I understand it, I'm just leery of it. My promised example of why:

John Calvin received revelation that we don't choose to be saved, God elects us. He then consulted the text and lo and behold found confirmation for this revelation. Then Jacob Arminius received revelation that we have free will and that we choose salvation. He consulted the scripture and lo and behold, he too found confirmation! Who is right?

Umm.

I will just answer that with Scripture.

Hmm, having an issue finding the proper translation, but:

@JamesShewey The better question is: Who was wrong?, not "Who is right?" ... finding the verse, one moment please, (and no - this has nothing to do with election).

Similarly, Let me proceed from a (solid) premise that God created mankind and that he created the world and many of it's pleasures - one of which is sexuality. God created mankind, he created adam and eve to be together and saw that it was good.

Obviously, we then went through the fall and some things are tainted by sin while others were not. Now let's say for argument's sake I am really into BDSM and I receive revelation from God that it is good, and my wife who is not into it should participate in this activity with me even though she doesn't really want to. Now I am seeking a text to confirm this viewpoint and come across Paul's writings in Ephesians 5 and read:

"Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her"

So clearly I have scriptural confirmation we should be master and slave and submit our bodies to punishment just as Jesus did and we should take turns with who is the dom and who is the sub. Right?

Do you see the danger in that? It is basic confirmation bais.

I would argue that these kinds of confirmation biases are what are responsible for my weird BDSM cult. Not preceding from scripture having set aside my preconceptions from my system of theology, from my personal revelation that I need to test and going from the text to the theological conclusions the text is trying to make - instead of trying to find the conclusion I have made in the text. The guards against confirmation bias.

> NKJV, Ephesians 4:16 - from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.

How can a body require all members to have the same capacity, and the same gifts, not having accountability to other gifts? Who was "right"? No, the question is "Who was wrong to not bind themselves to others, to be accountable, and hold accountable"? Who removed themselves as Iron to sharpen iron?

The premise that "giftings" are mutually exclusive, "exegetical theologians", and "gifts of knowledge, wisdom, revelation, and prophecy", are not remotely necessary .. is completely a-textual.

I know all about confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias is exactly why these hermeneutic principles cannot be mutually exclusive. You cannot say that they are, and not have confirmation bias. That is not remotely rational, or internally consistent.

Then again, I suppose that injects an "inclusivity bias", Progressive!! WOO

*cough

If you can see the dangers of "Sola-Spiritual", can you also see the dangers of "Sola-Scripture"?

... because that is exactly what the prophets rebuked, (especially samuel rebuking saul, who had done everything according to Scripture, but yet "did not obey" - by simply standing together with Samuel, advocating for and with each other - as God ordained from the beginning).

Ironically It is understanding what "I desire mercy and not sacrifice" means, that proves that spiritual revelation cannot possibly come from Scripture - which is what Jesus proved when he said, "go and figure out what this means." There is just no "life" in academically researching Scripture. Never has been, never will be.

> NKJV, Zechariah 4:6 - So he answered and said to me: “This is the word of the Lord to Zerubbabel: ‘Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit,’ Says the Lord of hosts.

@JamesShewey The validity of "Systematic Theology", (the consistent application of a Spiritual principle to interpret the whole of Scripture) is established in that it is easily falsifiable. Any single valid exception - shown through exegesis - disproves the entire system of theology.