Explanatory techniques are a hindrance to an understanding of the ‘deep meaning’ of a text—its existential significance—only if we allow ourselves to believe that they are an adequate substitute for interpretation.#
[M]any say this assertion [of the authority of scripture] nullifies or minimizes the crucial role of the Holy Spirit in giving life and light. . . . One might [also] argue that emphasizing the brightness of the sun nullifies the surgeon who takes away blindness. #
The Reformers rejected either the tendency to collapse the New Testament into the Old or the Anabaptist tendency to radically separate the two testaments. In fact, Luther and Calvin both concentrated not so much on the nature of Scripture as its content.#
[M]any Reformed Protestants, especially in America, have allowed these trends rather than confessional distinctives to determine the reading and preaching of Scripture. . . . It is often moralized, exegeted in verse-by-verse isolation, psychologized, politicized, and always with the demand for “more application”—which really means “more Law.”#
If one reads Aristotle on politics merely to find out what Aristotle thought, one does a disservice to Aristotle; one should read Aristotle’s Politics to learn about politics.#