is required reading for my 'Theology and Language' course. So I was particularly pleased to find Tom Watts' summary here. Cheers, Tom!

I've just spent a very fun hour at New Life Thrift Store in Glenside. You literally could furnish a whole house from this shop, not to mention stocking your bookshelves and filling your wardrobe. I got a couple of jumpers, a really nice waterproof jacket, a counterpane, some snow boots and my favourite thing of all - a Betty Crocker cookbook.

And the very lovely people in the store waived the very reasonable prices they were charging because I'm an international student at Westminster. How kind is that!

When we move into the flat, I shall definitely be back to check out the furniture section. And kitchen equipment - there was a very tempting Kenwood chef.

So now I know where to take Jess McClellan when she comes to visit!

And felt I ought to link the funniest thing I've read in ages for the benefit of all my newer readers. Enjoy!

Dan McCartney paraphrases Stanley Gundry's observations regarding the correlation between the church's political fortunes, philosophical outlook and the current predominating view of the millenium:

When the church is persecuted or composed of the disenfranchised, there is a tendency to premillenialism. In optimistic times, when the church is prospering materially and numerically but has little political clout, postmillenialism seems to predominate. And when the church is more comfortable or in league with the state, amillenialism is the favourer option.

McCartney, Dan G.
1988 The New Testament’s Use of the Old Testament. In Inerrancy and Hermeneutic. Ed. H. M. Conn. Pp. 101-116. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. p105

McCartney recognizes that the correspondence is not exact.

Perhaps not quite. But here's some thoughts from Dan McCartney on forming a genuinely biblical hermeneutic:

Certainly grammatical-historical exegesis is the most basic part of the foundation for understanding any biblical text. However, the conviction that the grammatical-historical meaning is the entire and exclusive meaning of the text seems to stem more from post-Enlightenment rationalistic presuppositions than from an analysis of the Bible’s understanding and interpretation of itself. Since such analysis leads to "problems," I suggest that the problems are not really generated by the New Testament’s use of the Old, but rather by our expectations as to what the New Testament’s use of the Old ought to be.

He then proposes four theses to bear in mind when forming a biblical hermeneutic:

First, hermeneutical method is a product of world view. Even for Christians, this world view is influenced not by Scripture alone but inescapably by cultural, intellectual, linguistic (pace Barr), spiritual, and even physical environment.

Second, hermeneutical method is subservient to hermeneutical goal. That is, the method is simply the tool used to reach a goal which is at least vaguely known beforehand.

Third, our world view must be compatible with the biblical writers' world view. An interpreter must recognize the function of world view, not only in the biblical writers but also in one's own interpretations, and must seek consciously to bring his or her world view into harmony with that of the Bible.

Finally, our hermeneutical goal must maintain identity with the goal of the New Testament writers, namely, the focus on Jesus Christ and his redemptive program.

McCartney, Dan G.
1988 The New Testament’s Use of the Old Testament. In Inerrancy and Hermeneutic. Ed. H. M. Conn. Pp. 101-116. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. p103

In class yesterday, Professor McCartney was explaining how for him, this had been a difficult and long-drawn-out conclusion to reach because of his modernist presuppositions. Coming to the conclusion that grammatical-historical exegesis is not the be-all and end-all of biblical interpretation does not, however, turn you into a postmodernist (in any sense of the word) nor does it allow for any and all interpretations of the bible to be valid.

What it does do is remove some of those rules that we all find so comforting. And it may make it harder for us to give short, easy answers to show why some interpretations are wrong.

But I refer the reader to earlier discussions on 'psychopathic minimalism' on this and David Field's blog (links here). We short change the people we minister to if we underinterpret scripture just as much as if we overinterpret. And the sooner we get over our modernist, Enlightenment straight-jacket, the better.

I'm linking this here just so that I remember it when I come to write my paper on the perlocutionary force of the words spoken in the administration of the sacraments.

And this and this for my hermeneutics class.