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.