kenod

It depends on your POV - many regard the "fig tree" in Mat 24:32 as figurative/metaphoric language for Israel ... others say it is indulging in "sensus plenior" (finding a hidden meaning). I don't think POV has much to do with interpreting figurative language. Something is either a figure, or it is not. Sensus Plenior does not deal with those issues. Sensus Plenior holds that even texts that have no figurative language can have a "fuller meaning" than even the original author intended for the text. So which are you talking about? Try a few examples so I know where you are coming from. Is this the sort of thing you mean: Psa 118:22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner. That would be an example of a figure of speech, not Sensus Plenior Hey, it must be your turn now - I've tried twice and failed both times it seems! BTW is the 'budding fig tree', when read as the restoration of modern Israel, a figure or SP? Do you think the author of Ps 118:22 understood the "fuller meaning"?

It depends on your POV - many regard the "fig tree" in Mat 24:32 as figurative/metaphoric language for Israel ... others say it is indulging in "sensus plenior" (finding a hidden meaning). I don't think POV has much to do with interpreting figurative language. Something is either a figure, or it is not. Sensus Plenior does not deal with those issues. Sensus Plenior holds that even texts that have no figurative language can have a "fuller meaning" than even the original author intended for the text. So which are you talking about? Try a few examples so I know where you are coming from. Is this the sort of thing you mean: Psa 118:22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.

What I'm really talking about are "ways" of knowing. How do you know when you meet your wife that she is the one for you? You just know! There are truths in the Bible that I cannot prove to anyone else's satisfaction intellectually, but they are very real to me. One example is when God took from the side of Adam a rib to make his bride, Eve. This foreshadows when on Calvary Jesus' was pierced in His side by a spear so His "bride" (the Church) could be formed. We are "bone of His bones, and flesh of His flesh". Intellectually, that understanding may not meet the rigorous criteria of exegetical analysis, nevertheless it resonates so deeply within my soul that I know it is true, with or without examining it closely with my mental faculties.

It's not a problem at all. The mind, at least the intellectual portion, is what makes us human. It thinks about the deeper things of life that no other species in this world does. No other species comes up with mathematical discoveries, develops tools to know the universe, thinks of their condition and place in the world, etc. Man is the only creature that does this because we are made in the image of God. Our mind, the intellectual side of man, is the spirit/soul of man. To split the two is to take this away from man and to inherently lower the intellectual attribute. If the heart is defined as "emotions" or "gut feeling," then the intellect will always supersede the heart. If, however, you take a Hebrew view of the heart - which includes the mind and places it above the emotions and feelings of man - then there is no dichotomy. When one uses his intellect for good, he is inevitably working within his spirit. and do you love intellectually?

So God is an idiot is what you're saying. He gave us minds that, in the end, don't do us any good. He gave you a mind ... he also gave you a spirit ... use both is what I'm saying. They're the same thing. Now I see the problem! God speaks to our mind - He also speaks to our spirit/heart Some people call it "intuition", or "gut feeling", or "inner witness", or "understand with the heart", or "revelation" "I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind." "The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children."

So God is an idiot is what you're saying. He gave us minds that, in the end, don't do us any good. He gave you a mind ... he also gave you a spirit ... use both is what I'm saying.

And we know that well meaning exegesis also results in numerous different interpretations ... including the very quacky preterist version! "Accountability" must be Scripturally based, and not rely upon applying arbitrary man-made rules. One cannot say "this means that" without sound Scriptural evidence. Let the Bible interpret the Bible. And how do you get sound scriptural evidence? Through exegesis, not through what you're proposing. I'm not proposing that we dispense with good solid Bible study, that provides continuity and integration of the Scriptures. But frequently I have seen an understanding of Scripture rejected (eg the "fig tree") because it does not meet the perceived criteria of exegetical excellence ... so called. There is a place for understanding that transcends the limitations of our human minds.

And we know that well meaning exegesis also results in numerous different interpretations ... including the very quacky preterist version! "Accountability" must be Scripturally based, and not rely upon applying arbitrary man-made rules. One cannot say "this means that" without sound Scriptural evidence. Let the Bible interpret the Bible.

One of the underlying principles of hermeneutics is that the Bible does not contain hidden meanings ... what if it does? What if the "fig tree" is not just a fig tree? What if the "virgins" with "oil" in their lamps, and not just virgins with oil in their lamps? It depends on the context. Obviously parables, Psalms, and other metaphorical passages are not meant to be taken prima facie. That is not to say there is a "hidden meaning," but instead that sometimes the first impression is not the best one. The whole idea of a "hidden meaning" actually comes from an ancient Jewish interpretation method that was influenced by Platonism (the forerunner to Gnosticism). The Alexandrian rabbi Philo was a huge proponent of the theory. Later Christians, mostly the Alexandrian fathers, adopted this method as well. The problem with this method is that it is inherently Platonic at its core, assuming that the written word is too "physical" or "material" and that there is a deeper form behind it. It degrades God and says that He cannot really use written language to say what He means, but has to hide it in some form of code. It does not degrade God, it acknowledges the way in which God has chosen to reveal His Word. By reading The Revelation one becomes very aware of that concept.

It depends on your POV - many regard the "fig tree" in Mat 24:32 as figurative/metaphoric language for Israel ... others say it is indulging in "sensus plenior" (finding a hidden meaning).

One of the underlying principles of hermeneutics is that the Bible does not contain hidden meanings ... what if it does? What if the "fig tree" is not just a fig tree? What if the "virgins" with "oil" in their lamps, and not just virgins with oil in their lamps?

That is a sound approach. I am sure you have encountered situations where Bible scholars, studiously applying their knowledge of exegetical principles, have come up with opposing points of view, and I wonder how you resolve such situations. Some questions are not vitally important (What was the exact order of events at the tomb on resurrection morning?), and some are very important (Should baptism be by immersion or not, and does it matter?).

As you can see, I said "range of possible interpretations". I also said: "That there is one true interpretation of Scripture (sometimes with varying applications in our personal lives) is generally agreed by all." For example, there are a range of possible interpretations of Genesis chapter 1 - that there is one true interpretation, I have no doubt! It is my opinion that observations about a person's perceived failings are unnecessary. Posts are usually far more effective without personal comments that might be construed as disaparaging. Like most people, my posts contain general comments as well as addressing specific issues raised. Sometimes (like the first para in your last post) it is a reference to what one has encountered elsewhere. Having some experience with a number of discussion groups, I am aware that the principles of hermeneutics are appealed to for support by a wide diversity of theological perspectives ("you are wrong because you have not considered the cultural context; or you do not understand the author's intent"; etc.) Sometimes these criticisms are valid and sometimes they are not, but the application of hermeneutics can only be a guide at best. This approach can never be the source of absolute truth. (And before you say no one said that - again - please read my first sentence again

It is not unusual in discussions such as this to exaggerate the other point of view for the purposes of rebutting it. It seems to me that suggesting one position opposes using your brain at all, while the other position proposes relying solely on using your brain, are equally distorted. I think it is really a matter of emphasis: one will spend more time in prayer and waiting on the Holy Spirit to reveal God's Word, while the other will spend more time in exegetical analysis. Both approaches are helpful, and one without the other, will not succeed in arriving at the truth. Having said that, I believe intellectual analysis can only provide a basis for considering the range of possible interpretations of Scripture. We must rely on the Holy Spirit to provide the ultimate confirmation of Truth. As humans, even if we had an infallible method of analytical investigation, not one of us could apply it infallibly. Our mental conceptions will always contain elements of error. That there is one true interpretation of Scripture (sometimes with varying applications in our personal lives) is generally agreed by all. It seems unlikely to me that any one person will correctly understand every teaching of Scripture perfectly. However, I do believe that the Holy Spirit will guide each one into the portion that is right for him/her.

A point I added to my last post is that the rules of hermeneutics are not infallible - you seem to be implying you think they are. Hermeneutics was designed by fallible men based on a set of rational assumptions - you may think those assumptions are correct - good for you. I think they are flawed. They are flawed precisely because human reasoning is not capable of understanding the mind of God - that's why the Holy Spirit was given. 1 Cor 2:9-11 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.