Against LSM's Allegorizing

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I was just quoting Tomes. If God is the author, then by Tomes' definition, there is only one valid meaning of the biblical text--that intended by God.



Well then, if Paul allegorized in the Bible, it's OK by that criteria.



Is that an argument against interpreting the Hebrew Bible according to the intentions of the "OT saints?" So then you disagree with Tomes?



Right. Did someone suggest that? I think it would be pointless to add to it since it has already been posited. Of course, there are disputes among Christians about what books should be included in the Bible that we have inherited along with it. So Christians don't necessarily agree on what addition or subtraction to it would entail.

I would say that I do not agree with the article. I do agree that there is an issue with much of WL interpretation. But I am using the word issue, not problem. I think OBW is much more strident than I am on WL and would characterize much of his interpretation as error where I would say that I take issue with it.

What I strongly disagree with is the solution. I think it is completely unworkable to say that "things not intended to be allegorized should not be allegorized". To quote the immortal George Bush, who is "the decider" as to what was intended to be allegorized and what wasn't.

Also, to quote OBW, you should not say something is there in the word that isn't there. I find nothing in the word that says we should "limit" our allegorizing. Now if you want to use Paul's limited use of this as an example to imitate I can understand that and appreciate that. But you are not basing your teaching on Paul's teaching, only on what you perceive to be his example which is based on very limited data (I expect that the letters of Paul are no more representative of his speaking and growth in life as anyone else's would be).

I think the key principle was provided by Peter, no verse is of its own interpretation.