From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Sun Nov 02 2003 - 17:24:59 EST
I will answer Richard's post obliquely. It is an overstatement to say today
theologians regard "only naturalistic historical/grammatical and textual
critical methods as legitimate." Typology analogy etc are still employed ,
but less so by the more liberal.
However Hist/gram and textual critical methods are fundamental and form the
basis of all interpretation. Over the centuries some have over-emphasised
one thing or antother eg. allegory in early and medieval church,
dispensationalism with their artificail scheme which removes half of
scripture from our use. That is not to say multiple covenants or allegory
are wrong but rather they must be used with other methods. Numerolgy has
been used to a minor degree down the centuries (the quotew from the Cath
encyclopedia indicates that, but how far?) but Vernon and Richard make it
their controlling method and go beyond its validity and thus end up
denigrate the Bible they want to enhance.
Michael
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Nov 02 2003 - 17:27:25 EST