I started to see this book pop up on people’s blogs a few years ago. The title, Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations and Principles of Evangelical Biblical Interpretation by Graeme Goldsworthy, intrigued me. So, using a gift certificate, I bought the book. Recently, excited to begin reading, a friend wondered aloud why we need to read another book on hermeneutics.
I’m glad I didn’t listen. I have not yet finished the book, but I’ve found it quite stimulating, understandable and grappling with an important topic: how should we, as evangelical Christians, interpret the Scriptures?
Here we will cover Part 1 of the book: Evangelical Prolegomena to Hermeneutics. Goldsworthy introduces the idea of presuppositions into the question of hermeneutics: will we assume the supreme authority of God or assume human autonomy? This is the question upon which so much hinges in biblical interpretation. Our assumptions or presuppositions, in addition to this one, greatly affect the effectiveness of our attempts to understand, explain and apply the text of Scripture.
“The function of hermeneutics could be stated as the attempt to bridge the gap between the text inside its world and the readers/hearers inside their world.”
There are a number of gaps that much be bridged in the process of interpretation. There is the langague gap, culture gap, history gap, literature gap, textual gap and the intended reader/hearer gap. He briefly explains these before moving into the principles of communication (communicator, message & receiver). One thing that sets evangelical hermeneutics apart is that the communicator is ultimate God, though He used numerous prophets and apostles. Since we believe the Great Communicator is God, the Bible is the message He has spoken. Yes, we say this on the authority of Scripture. To employ a test of sorts to verify or deny this claim is to place something over Scripture as our ultimate authority.
As creatures made in God’s image, we are capable of receiving and understanding God’s communication. Yes, sin has affected us profoundly such that our main obstacle is spiritual, though there are noetic, or intellectual, effects to the curse. We are pre-disposed to ignore and undermine God’s Word to us in our flight to autonomy. But God has spoken so we can understand (as Calvin says, he lisps to us), and works in the hearts and minds of the elect to receive and understand His Word.
The message itself centers upon Jesus Himself and the good news about His work for, in and thru us. In other words, revelation is redemptive! We are to keep this message of redemption at the center of our interpretative process or we misinterpret the message.
Chapter 2 hits more clearly on the idea of presuppositions that affect our reading and understanding. He quotes John Frame in this matter.
“A presupposition is a belief that takes precedence over another and therefore serves as a criterion for another. An ultimate presupposition is a belief over which no other takes precedence.”
Every thinker and theorist has presuppositions, which can’t be proven, about reality. For the Christian, the biblical doctrins of creation and lordship mean that God alone can interpret all things truly. He notes some of the changes that have occurred in philosophy that muddy the process of interpretation.
He notes 3 major views that have shaped the church over time. Irrationalism or fideism means “I believe what is absurd” though I would say this ends up as “It’s true because I believe it.” You find this in many a cult or counterfeit version of Christianity. Rationalism says “I understand in order to believe.” This puts our reason above revelation as we strive for consistency and coherence (not bad in themselves, but dangerous if used improperly). Thomas Aquinas is the patron saint, so to speak, of the Christian Rationalists. Or at least many of them. Augustine’s famous dictum, “I believe in order to understand,” expressed Presuppositionalism. It places the authority on revelation. From an attitude of faith I seek to understand what God has said, depending on Him to illumine me, and recognizing I cannot grasp all that God’s mind contains.
Some of the presuppositions we should have, based on Scripture are:
Grace alone- God is the source of all things. This points to “the ontological priority of God.”
Christ alone- salvation, grace, is found in no one else. This “points us to the soteriological and hermeneutical priority of the gospel.”
Scripture alone- this is the only reliable source of knowledge of Christ and God. It “points us to the phenomenological and material priority of Scripture.
Faith alone- we are to trust this message of Christ’s life, death and resurrection on our behalf if we are to understand Scripture and receive the promises of God. It points “to the ontological inability of the sinner and the espistomological priority of the Holy Spirit.”
In light of all this, Goldsworthy spends time talking about the gospel and “noetic salvation.” It sounds so obvious, and yet no one seems to talk about it, particularly in the context of hermeneutics. Since our Fall into sin and death, our minds have been tainted by sin. One effect of justification is also the justification of our minds. The perfect mind of Christ is imputed to us (1 Corintians 2:16). As a fruit of this noetic justification, we experience noetic sanctification as God brings our minds into alignment with His own over time (Romans 12). This is completed at glorification. As we become more like Christ, we understand Scripture more accurately and more consistenly gospel-centered (1 Timothy 1-3).
“We can say that, while not all Scripture is the gospel, all Scripture is related to the gospel that is its center.”
Our task is, in part, to see its connection to that gospel center. Only then can we properly understand the text. Here’s why:
“All reality was created by Christ, through Christ and for Christ (Col. 1:15-16). God’s plan is to sum up all things in Christ (Eph. 1:9-10). In him are all the treasures of wisdom and understanding (Col. 2:2-3). As a consequence, the ultimate significance of all non-biblical literature can be summed up in biblical gospel terms.”
So, in the early chapters Goldsworthy lays out a good explanation for why we must keep the gospel at the center of our attempts to interpret and explain Scripture.
“will we assume the supreme authority of God or assume human autonomy?”
That’s a straw man caveman. Of course we assume God’s authority in everything, but why would you assume anything when approaching the scriptures in regard to interpretation other than the fact that God is the master communicator? God has many attributes, the problem with Christocentric hermeneutics is the choosing of which attribute of God that we want to use as the prism for interpretation. The only presupposition we should have is that God has something to say to mankind and then go to the scriptures to see what all that includes. If the Bible had a central theme, it would be in the introduction, that’s why the Gospel Sanctification crowd tries to make the creation account symbolic of the Gospel. Genesis chapter one is not about the Gospel, it’s about creation, anything else is an assumption and this is indicative of the basic problem with Chrisocentric hermeneutics. Because of who God is, it’s a good idea to let him pick the subject matter.
paul
Paul,
Do you know what a straw man argument is? I don’t think I used one, but pointed out the presuppositions we can take into interpretation. This is the basic shift that took place in the enlightenment which critical scholarship has fallen into.
I’m not sure why you limit the “Introduction” to Gen. 1. But if you want to- it points to the imago dei, distorted in Gen. 3 with a promise to restore it with the proto-evangelium which finds fulfillment in Christ, the exact representation of God (Col. 1 & Heb. 1) into which God is renewing all who believe (Rom. 8, Col. 3).
God has spoken- most clearly and completely in His Son- and that message is redemption in Christ (Heb. 1-2). Jesus revealed to the 2 disciples on the way to Emmaus that all the Scriptures pointed to Him.
Sorry, but perhaps you need to convert to Gospel Sanctification (please see Galatians).
Caveman,
Your straw man is any argument that would supposedly say no to your profound presupposition. Interpreting the Bible through presuppositions is ill-advised. What God has revealed about himself in scripture is not to be used as a hermeneutic. This is very risky territory, if for no other reason, because of the many paradoxes in the Bible. There are many major themes in the Bible, the Christocentric hermeneutic chooses redemption as the major theme and then uses the theme as a hermeneutic. The Redemptive Historical hermeneutic is not a hermeneutic, it is a theology. In other words, you are using a theology to interpret the scriptures. The scriptures determine theology, not the other way around. This is not to say that we don’t use scripture to interpret other scripture, it is saying that we don’t use a single theme to interpret all of scripture. This would seem somewhat obvious. I could very well argue that the major theme of scripture is who God is. Is all of scripture about God’s gift?, or what the gift says about who God is? I have read Galations, you had better read Revelation and what it says about taking away from God’s word. The Redemptive Historical approach rejects many, plain truths in the Bible because of the prism it uses for interpretation.
paul
Paul,
We all have pre-suppositions. What is dangerous is to either be ignorant of one’s presuppositions, or refusing to be honest about one’s presuppositions.
One of the major themes running through Revelation is redemption- as evidenced by the songs sung about the Lamb who was slain.
What plain truths does the R-H approach deny?
God reveals Himself as Creator, Sustainer, King and Savior in Scripture. He reveals His grace, justice, patience & faithfulness in his dealings with his people. The Redemptive-Historical approach recognizes these things and seeks to understand them. Christ Himself says that all the Scriptures point to Him (note his comments to the disciples on the road to Emmaus). Apart from Christ, and the message of redemption, Scripture will only condemn us as sinners before a holy, just God (Romans 1-3).
Oh, from Wikipedia:
“A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.[1] To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.”
I don’t think I have misrepresented anyone’s position, or substituted a superficially similar proposition. What I did is clarify the 2 choices regarding authority when it comes to Scripture- either it judges us, or we judge it. We either use sound interpretive principles to understand it, believe and apply it- or we find reasons to either reject its message or alter it to suit our needs. One example of that would be minimizing or eliminating one of the main messages of Scripture- redemption. It is not the ONLY, but clearly Scripture is much occupied with the subject.
Please, it is Cavman, not Caveman…. easy mistake to make.
Cavman,
I will grant you all of that for the sake of argument. So since the Bible is all about Christ and his redemption, let’s listen to him. He said in Matthew 18: “And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
This mandate by Christ to the Church seems very disconnected from a gospel metanarrative. The focus is MAKING DISCIPLES by teaching them to OBSERVE ALL THAT I HAVE COMMANDED. If the narrow prism is his personhood and the gospel, he didn’t get the memo.
That only betrays a narrow view of salvation….
Salvation is not only deliverance from the penalty of sin, but also from the power and presence of sin.
Those who trust in his substitutionary death have been saved from it’s penalty, are being saved from its power and will be saved from its presence.
We don’t disconnect, for instance, Eph. 2:10 from 2:8-9. As Paul said in Galatians, it is about faith expressing itself in love- Christ formed in us. He is restoring us that we might obey. The power to obey comes from the gift of the Spirit, which is part of our salvation.
You misunderstand the gospel if you (or anyone else) limit it to individual forgiveness of sin. It also includes the restoration of all of creation, as we see in Romans 8 & Rev. 21-22.
I fear you’ve been talking/listening to too many individualistic fundamentalists or something. We fully affirm that the great commission is about bringing people back into submission to our Lord & Creator THRU redemption. Does that help?
The issue here is balance. fundamentalist, as you call them, hold the Gospel as precious as any other Christian, they just stop short of torturing every verse in the Bible till it screams “Jesus and the Gospel.” Whether you look at Hebrews 5 and 6, or 2Timothy 3:16,17, a narrow prism that would present the scriptures as a source for revisiting the Gospel everyday is clearly absent. Also, this interpretive approach didn’t develop any theology, the Christocentric “hermeneutic” grew out of a theology, it’s the egg before the chicken. Thats a problem. Your right, I approach the scriptures with a presupposition, namely that God wrote the Bible and preserved it’s meaning. Once that is established, I let him say what he wants to say.
We would say that each individual verse is taken within the context of the whole- Scripture interpreting Scripture. If we take it out of the context of the whole we risk misinterpreting it. In this case, where the ability to obey and put sin to death comes from. True obedience flows out of the work of the Spirit increasingly applying the redemption of Christ to us as we await the redemption of our bodies and the renewal of creation.
Fundamentalists tend to reduce redemption to forgiveness of sin instead of having a fuller, biblical view of God’s plan.
” *True* obedience *flows* out of the *work* of the Spirit increasingly applying the redemption of Christ to us as we await the redemption of our bodies and the renewal of creation.”
Fair enough, who could disagree with the above? So let me throw some things against the wall here and let me see if it sticks:
Sanctification is a 100% work of the Spirit. Our role is to live out the Gospel everyday. That is why it is important to see the scriptures in a redemption context only. Approaching the scriptures in this way shows us the glory of the Gospel and therefore compels us to live it out. Furthermore, the Spirit will not honor any other approach. When we approach the scriptures, if we focus on the redemptive narrative, the Spirit will honor that and use it to change us. Living out the Gospel primarily concerns “deep repentance” or “intellegent” repentance. This makes sense, we could only repent when the Gospel saved us, so it stands to reason that we can only repent daily in order to live by the Gospel. Obedience and love then “flows’ naturally from us without effort. Any obedience that would require our efforts is well, works by our own efforts. We know it is coming from the Spirit because we obey joyfully and without hesitation.
What say you?
Justification is considered by the Westminster Confession of Faith to be monergistic- only God acts.
Sanctification is considered synergistic. We work as God works in us. We walk as the Spirit leads us. Much of that is faith & repentance, but also meditating upon Christ as he’s presented to us in the gospel & making use of the means of grace.
So, we do not lapse into a passivity, but a disciplined dependence/dependent discipline as Jerry Bridges lays out in his book Discipline & Grace.
Cavman,
Good response, this is where the rubber meets the road in iron sharpening iron. I agree with your first statement, because the scriptures concur, not because of some decree of men. Though to me, a monergistic salvation and a synergistic sanctification seem odd and disconnected, I do believe it is what the scriptures teach. I have no problem with us being able to co-labor with Christ since his life giving grace is the only thing that makes that possible. I have additional questions and comments concerning your above statement . I wanted to shoot off a quick response before work time, but let me say this, I will put the Bridges book at the top of my list. **It sounds like he actually explains a postion on how discipline [a form of our correct effort?] interacts with grace, **and how that is experienced on the ground level, an area where *most* perponents of Gospel Sanctification are woefully inept. I will buy the book and devour it over the weekend. Look forward to further discussion.
paul
The best proponants of gospel sanctification tie grace in with the appointed means of grace. It is not passivism, but in keeping with Scripture. we are just trying to be faithful to Scripture.
I am reading the Bridges book. On pages 134-141 of the latest edition, he takes the enablement view of synergism. His view of sanctification is very dispensational. He even makes a contrast with his original view of us working as God works thru us, which is a synergism that is only visable thru our actions, but it is really God doing it. He says he now rejects that view and is even troubled by it, so I am now going back and trying to see how that all fits in with his GS thing going on in the rest of the book. It’s like some Dispensationalist cut and pasted the thing in the middle of his book. Also, while I finish the book, Im hoping you find time to dissect my interpretive statement:
“Sanctification is a 100% work of the Spirit. Our role is to live out the Gospel everyday. That is why it is important to see the scriptures in a redemption context only. Approaching the scriptures in this way shows us the glory of the Gospel and therefore compels us to live it out. Furthermore, the Spirit will not honor any other approach. [because it is an inproper use of scripture] When we approach the scriptures, if we focus on the redemptive narrative, the Spirit will honor that and use it to change us. Living out the Gospel primarily concerns “deep repentance” or “intellegent” repentance. This makes sense, we could only repent when the Gospel saved us, so it stands to reason that we can only repent daily in order to live by the Gospel. Obedience and love then “flows’ naturally from us without effort [“New Obedience”] Any obedience that would require our efforts is well, works by our own efforts. We know it is coming from the Spirit because we obey joyfully and without hesitation.”
thanks,
paul
I’d have to look at the pages in my edition. He’s certainly not dispensational.
Oh, I know that, but you wouldn’t find a dispensationalist any where that would disagree with his new perpective on sanctification.
Be careful, I think what I have is a revised version or second edition, according to the book store.
If you want a pdf of my copy, let me know