The "New Hermeneutic" An Abandonment of Reason
	
by Wayne Jackson
 
		
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
Hermeneutics 
	is the procedure by which certain logical principles are applied to a 
	document in order to ascertain the author’s original meaning. All literature 
	is subject to hermeneutical analysis. In this country we have one branch of 
	our government, the judiciary, which has been designed to practice legal 
	hermeneutics, i.e., to interpret the law.
	
	Sacred hermeneutics is the 
	science of Bible interpretation. Everyone, to a greater or lesser 
	degree—either correctly or incorrectly—employs hermeneutics.
	
	Frequently these days, one 
	hears about the so-called New Hermeneutic. This method of viewing the Bible 
	has a number of erroneous components, one of which is this: no conclusion, 
	which has been drawn as the result of human reasoning, can be established as 
	a test of Christian fellowship. Note the following example of this approach:
	
	The “Fundamentals of the 
	Faith” must be held onto at all costs . . . . They are the only “absolutes” 
	I know. All other matters must be arrived at “hermeneutically” (that is, by 
	a process of reasoning!) . . . . But any conclusion reached by such a 
	process should not be made a test of fellowship (Phillips 1990, 5-6).
	
	In the same article, our 
	brother lists the “Fundamentals of the Faith” as: “the existence of God, the 
	lordship of Jesus, Bible authority, the one church, the new birth” and, 
	“genuine commitment to the will, way, and word of God.” Excluded as a matter 
	of fellowship, among other things, is the use of instrumental music in 
	Christian worship.
	
	The foregoing article, it 
	appears to this writer, reflects a very unreasonable and inconsistent 
	viewpoint. The fact is, not even those matters that our brother listed as 
	“Fundamentals of the Faith” are accepted independent of reasoning.
	
	His own argument, therefore, 
	if consistently pursued, would exclude the “Fundamentals” as matters of 
	faith and fellowship. Consider the following:
	
	(1) Does not inspiration show 
	that reason is essential in acknowledging the existence of Jehovah? In
	
	Romans 1, Paul argued 
	that the Gentiles who rejected the revelation of God in nature had become 
	“vain in their reasonings” 
	(v. 21). 
	Is not the argument of 
	Hebrews 
	3:4—“Every house is 
	built by someone; but he that built all things is God”—based upon the 
	reasoned premise that every effect must have an adequate cause?
	
	(2) How is the “lordship of 
	Jesus” established apart from reasoning? Isn’t the truth-seeker required to: 
	(a) assemble testimony from the Bible regarding Christ; (b) ascertain that 
	the biblical record is reliable; (c) draw conclusions from these premises 
	relative to the nature of Jesus?
	
	(3) Is reason involved in 
	establishing Bible authority? How does one know that the Bible is 
	authoritative unless he: (a) examines the Scriptures’ claim of divine 
	origin; (b) considers evidence in support of that claim; (c) arrives at the 
	deduction that the Bible is the word of God?
	
	(4) How does our brother know 
	that there is only “one church” of which the Lord approves? The New 
	Testament does not explicitly state that there is one church. It is true 
	that: (a) there is one body 
	(Ephesians 
	4:4); (b) the body is 
	the church 
	
	(Colossians 1:18); (c) 
	thus, there is one church.
	
	But this conclusion is 
	derived by reasoning—the very process repudiated by our friend.
	
	(5) If the “new birth” is a 
	matter of faith, this question is in order: does the new birth include 
	immersion in water? If so, how do we know? Our misguided brother cannot 
	demonstrate that baptism is a part of the new birth process without 
	employing hermeneutical reasoning.
	
	Some contend that the “water” 
	of 
	John 3:3-5 is not a 
	reference to baptism. How would one argue the case for baptism as an element 
	of the new birth without utilizing logic?
	
	The tragic fact of the matter 
	is this: the defenders of the New Hermeneutic are determined to have 
	“fellowship” with whomever they wish—regardless of what the Scriptures 
	teach. They do not intend that matters like instrumental music be a barrier. 
	Hence, the New Hermeneutic has been invented to justify their coveted 
	practice.
	
	The arguments which they are 
	making would not stand five minutes in a logical discussion wherein the 
	issues could be pressed with firmness. That is why these brethren, for the 
	most part, prefer to proselyte privately. The New Hermeneutic is a false 
	philosophy that undermines the very authority of the Bible.
	 
	
	Other Articles by Wayne Jackson
	
	Tradition Versus Scripture