![]() |
![]() |
#11 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,693
|
![]() Quote:
![]() Obviously, the matter of allegorizing can be taken to extremes in either direction. I suppose each one of us has to find his own "allegory comfort zone" within acceptable limits. When the Reformers came along, the situation with Rome was so out of control that serious Biblical literalism was called for by the Spirit and was indeed justified. Perhaps our exodus from the "Allegorizer of the Age" warrants similar measures for a season. This is an area where WL just refused to accept any balance, taking allegorizing to new heights, or should I say new depths. If WL had only allegorized scripture for the edifying of others, then perhaps we would not be having this discussion, but his motives included the extremes of self-exaltation. Where scriptures were silent, he allegorized in a vain attempt to connect his own personal ministry with the divine record. In this regard, his early days with the Brethren were not an asset to him. Tomes' paper says allegorizing is "redundant," and page 6 says, "Hence scholars assert that allegory’s “role, hermeneutically speaking, is parasitic,” it extracts its significance from the rest of the Bible, yet contributes nothing in return. I'm not sure if I totally agree with this assertion. Certain points in scripture are stressed redundantly for emphasis, using plain words, types, pictures, prophecies, etc. Allegorizing, thus, enhances the message in richer terms. I should think that the strictest of literalism would preclude the church from even the singing of songs and writing of commentaries.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
|