With Permission: Peter Lumpkins Comment on New Calvinist Interpretation
To begin with, the phrase “preach the gospel to ourselves” is prima facie nonsensical. It apparently is a clever phrase which means something other than what it literally communicates. What is that “something other than”?
More importantly, what I see happening with the parable is laying a needless filter upon it which effectively, at least in some important ways, hides the real meaning of the text. That is, a rhythmic literary pattern is employed to glean the proper interpretation. In your case, it’s “gospel>>>righteous living.” For others in this “preach the gospel to myself everyday” community, it’s “indicative>>>imperative.”
Yet, from my perspective, this is nothing less than a direct assault on what some call the “perspicuity” of Scripture or what Wayne Grudem calls the “clarity” of Scripture. Who would have imagined the Holy Spirit wanted to communicate, from the passage you cited–or any passage for that matter–the “imperative” is “preceded by” or “grounded in” the “indicative” or some other interpretative pattern, a pattern which is not derived from standard canons of literary interpretation, but rather from theological presuppositions imposed upon the text?
My fear is, we’re substituting theology for basic Bible study. And by basic I mean neither shoddy nor surface. Rather, I mean raw, fundamental textual interpretation based upon sound exegesis.
Contrarily, to lay a “preach the gospel to myself” (i.e. indicative precedes imperative) filter upon the page of Scripture seems to me predetermines the text’s meaning before one even reads the text, before one exegetes the text.
If I am anywhere near correct, the common man or woman just got left out of actually understanding the Word of God. Why? Well, they don’t have the secret interpretative principle to guide them–the indicative precedes the imperative. And, without that filter, they’re doomed to gospel ignorance.
Yet, no where in all God’s Word do we get the impression that the Bible in general needs special filters to discern its meaning, especially filters designed by Christians hundreds and even thousands of years after the Bible was written and after so many other believers–stalwart believers, learned believers, brilliant believers–read the Bible with understanding but without the contemporary filters about which some now so desperately insist.
Indeed the Reformation began when filters were discarded not when new filters were employed. The Baptist movement was built upon a simple reading of the New Testament, not upon innovative nonsense like indicative precedes imperative created by incipient immersionists. They took the plain meaning of Scripture rather than an alleged literary pattern they discovered to read the Scripture aright.
Why, to believe some today, the whole of Christianity crumbles if we don’t perpetuate the indicative precedes the imperative gospel principle. Millions of evangelicals are lost because they don’t understand that the indicative precedes the imperative.
Where this ultimately leads only our Sovereign Lord knows for sure. I do know one thing: I want no part or parcel in this hermeneutical madness.
Maranatha. Come Lord.
With that, I am…
Peter

It sounds like the New Calvinists are moving toward Catholicism when it comes to interpretation of the Word of God. I suppose everybody knows there was problems with this during the Reformation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 1994) says this:
“The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and the bishops in communion with him. (CCC par. 100).”
The problem with the New Calvinist and Catholic filters is that we are told in Scripture that each man is
ultimately responsible to God, not men. We are not going to be judged based on what some fallible man says about the Bible. Our standards by which men will be judged come not from “human standards” but by God’s standards. Has He not written it down for us? “Have you not read?”
Arkansas Bill
LikeLike
Dave Hunt does an excellent job exposing such hermeneutical madness in his book “What Love is This? Calvinism’s Misrepresentation of God”. I highly recommend Hunt’s 600-page treatise on this subject.
LikeLike
Max, Might be a good read–thanks. I am reevaluating my Calvinistic positions.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Paul,
Try to locate the Third Edition (2006) of Hunt’s book … an enlarged and revised edition in which Hunt responded to fervent opposition and criticism of earlier editions.
LikeLike
A very nice book that is pricey, however, is Preserving Evangelical Unity: Welcoming Diversity in the Non Essentials by Meiring, published in 2009.
It features some well written intro material, and then goes into a Pro and Con discussion of several intramural debates, then allows for a response from each writer holding the opposing view. It was quite well done.
http://www.amazon.com/Preserving-Evangelical-Unity-Welcoming-Non-Essentials/dp/160608268X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265183171&sr=8-1
I also recently bought a copy of “Ten Myths About Calvinism” by Stewart, but I have not been able to get into it, and I had other pressing matters to address.
http://www.amazon.com/Ten-Myths-About-Calvinism-Recovering/dp/0830838988/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1315009614&sr=1-1
LikeLike