Retrieval work has forced us modern Christians to wrestle with theology proper, political theology, nature/grace, etc.
One area that hasn’t become as “mainstream” in the retrieval world, and it’s always perplexed me as to why, has been regarding the doctrine of Scripture. I’m thinking of things like providential preservation, textual criticism, TR vs MT vs CT, etc.
There are certainly folks like @Lanier_Greg and @William_A_Ross and @Riddle1689 and others who are engaged in this work and represent different approaches. And there are circles where these issues are debated more.
But as I’ve seen all this retrieval work take off in recent years, the fact that retrieving and wrestling with our forefathers views on Scripture hasn’t gotten as much attention as it probably should get, it has always perplexed me.
-What did the divines mean in WCF 1.8 that the Scriptures have been “kept pure in all ages?”
-How do Turretin and Owen and Whitaker’s views line up with modern scholarship?
-Am I fine with using the ESV?
-Am I fine preaching the longer ending of Mark or John 8?
-Do I need to use the NKJV or KJV?
etc.
There’s a lot of thought and nuance that go into these matters, but I’d love to see the retrieval efforts focus on this area too and bring these discussions to the “mainstream” more.
It's often said of baseball that as soon as you think you have it figured out, the game will quickly humble you. The same is true of ministry. A good reminder here, from a good man 👇🏼
"Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books." ~CS Lewis
If you begin theology with Christology, it does not become more Christian.
Rather your account of God is liable to become more human and you risk losing the wonder of Jesus, God with us.
While of course there are predictive prophecies in Revelation, the primary thrust of the book is current realities that first-century cultural pressures might cause first-century Christians to miss.
~Piotrowski quoting Bauckham
"revelation" does not mean "future stuff.”Rather, “revelation" means showing readers present truths that might be hidden for one reason or another. And so the book of Revelation is appropriately named.
~Piotrowski
As followers of the risen Christ, we should learn our hermeneutics from him. If the heart of Christian discipleship is faithfulness to the teachings of Jesus Christ (on issues like doctrine, ethics, missions, etc.), then why would we not learn our hermeneutic from him as well? ~P
It could only be our self-made philosophical systems,…In-stead, we should be imitators of the apostles, "exemplars of canonical competence, skilled at seeing the broader symbolic, thematic and historical patterns that crisscross on Jesus Christ and unify the Scriptures” 4/4
Sometimes it is argued that the apostles were inspired by the Spirit in a unique way, so we cannot reproduce their hermeneutic. But that is like saying, "Yes, the Bible teaches this, but we will do it differently anyway." ~Piotrowski 1/2
just that we are trying to follow the apostles' example in methods of interpretation as best we can. There is no indication in the New Testament that the apostles hermeneutic is off-limits. If it were, where else would we turn for a hermeneutic? 3/3