-
A History of Hermeneutics
Consider these questions and share your responses:
- In your opinion, is the Pentecostal worldview, as described by Smith, more compatible with a strictly literal approach to biblical interpretation, or is it better suited to a patristic or medieval approach that emphasizes a plurality of interpretations?
- Consider how central the aspect of testimony is to Pentecostalism. How might this factor impact how Pentecostals read the Bible? Should it impact how Pentecostals read the Bible, or should we strive for a neutral position independent of personal testimony?
-
1 Reply
-
I personally believe that Smith’s description of the Pentecostal worldview is better suited to a multi-faceted interpretation approach. He paints a nuanced picture of Biblical interpretation, one that understands context and cultural backgrounds, not only in terms of the times of Scripture, but also in terms of the times we live in today and everything in between. I believe that Smith sees Pentecostalism as diverse, much in the same way that I do, and that extends to interpreting the Bible in both literal and more metaphorical or “enchanted” terms.
I believe that personal testimony definitely shapes how we read and interpret the Bible, and I believe that it is supposed to do just that. Yes, Scripture is the word of God, and yes, it does teach us universal truths and concepts. But it also speaks to us all differently, because God does. He has a unique relationship with each of His children, and I think that part of that manifests in how we relate to His word. That being said, a personal spin on Scripture can be a slippery slope. I do not believe in altering what the Bible says to better suit our own thoughts or opinions, regardless of how difficult certain truths may be to face.
Log in to reply.