----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Skiles" <skiles@...>
To: <soundofgrace@...>
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 9:00 AM
Subject: [soundofgrace] Hermeneutical technique


Dear Sounders,

Question one-
If you are convinced that the opposite of a literal meaning is a "spiritual"
meaning how would you explain symbolic?  JGR:  The opposite of "spirtual" is
"natural." A prophecy can be "literally" fulfilled in either a natural or
spiritual way.

Question Two-
"How" and or "When" do you know to spiritualize the text?  JGR:  That is
$64,000 question. I believe you interpret symbolic passage with a different
hermeneutic that oridinary language. In one case you take
everything"literal" (natural) unless the context forces you to spiritualize
it. In the other case you do not take anything "literal" (natural) unless
the context forces you to. All prophectic is symbolic unless the context
didtates otherwise.

Question Three-
Should a hermeneutical technique follow typologies or transformisms?  JGR:
Pass.

Question Four-
Why were 99.9% of all Covenant theologians A-millennialists?  JGR:  They are
not. Many are Post-mil.

It is debatable which is more irresponsible; changing the truth of Scripture
into the errors of tradition, or preaching truth from the wrong passages.
JGR:  The former is usually more dangerous.

Question Five-
If the rule of "literal when possible" isn't adhered to rigidly, how can
there be grounds for assuming that the literal sense is the primary meaning
in *any* context?  JGR:  I do not accept the "literal where possible."

Consistency in continuing reform, my friends.  Doug
--
Read the Sound of Grace pages at
http://www.soundofgrace.com

To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...

To view our online archive go to our web page at
http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace