The following is a very helpful excerpt from http://www.netministries.org/churches/ch01134/solascrp.htm

The author is a non-Dispensational tripper, which is why I did not simply have a link to the entire piece when I wanted to draw particular attention to what is copied below. I apologize for the light blue font in places - I was unable to change it to black.

Hermeneutics (hermaineutikos), from (hermaineu'ein), "to interpret," ¹⁷ is the science of interpretation and is the culmination of Exegetical Theology. There are two basic questions that Exegetical Theology seeks to answer:

FIRST, What does the Bible say? —a matter of the reading of the text. This question is concerned with such issues as textual criticism, parallel passages, the larger and more immediate context. It takes into consideration an exegesis of the text in the original language, which includes the lexical, historical, cultural, and syntactical significance of words and their relationships.

SECOND, What does the Bible mean? —a matter of interpretation. Hermeneutics is based on the first question and deals with this second question. There is only one possible and consistent interpretation, although there may be several avenues of application. ¹⁸

There must be an attempt to formulate a consistent hermeneutic, i.e., a system of interpretation. ¹⁹ The history of Christianity reveals the following attempts:

FIRST, the Allegorical or Spiritual. This approach seeks a deeper meaning than the literal or common and ordinary usage of the language (the usus loquendi). Any method or system is only in the mind of the interpreter. Such allegorizing of Scripture is necessarily arbitrary, fanciful, and often irrational.

This approach began with the Greeks and their ancient writings. It entered into early Christianity through Alexandrian Judaism, and especially the writings of Philo the Jew, who sought to synthesize Greek philosophy and the Hebrew religion by allegorizing the Old Testament Scriptures. This approach became the predominant method of interpretation until the Protestant Reformation. It was largely an attempt by the early Church Fathers to make the Old Testament a "Christian Book" by spiritualization, and so confused Old Testament typology with allegory.

Farrar points to the first instance in the Patristic writings:

...Clement of Rome [c.90-100]. This ancient bishop ...is the first... who endows Rahab with the gift of prophecy, because by the scarlet cord hung out of her window she made it manifest that redemption should flow by the blood of the Lord to all them that believe and hope in God. As the pictoral fancy of a preacher, such an illustration would be harmless; but when it is offered as the explanation of an actual prophecy it is the earliest instance of the overstrained Allegory, which was afterwards to affect the whole life of Christian exegesis. ²⁰

The development of the allegorical approach may be noted in examples taken from the Church Fathers, who finally applied it to the New Testament as well:

Clement of Alexandria (c. 155-220) taught at least five possible meanings in any given passage: (1) The historical sense, or actual and literal. (2) The doctrinal sense, or moral, religious and theological. (3) The prophetic sense, or prophetic and typological. (4) The philosophical sense, or finding meaning in natural objects and historical persons, following the psychological method of the Stoics. (5) The mystical sense, or the symbolism of deeper truths. An example of Clement's approach to Scripture is noted in the following:

...[Clement] commenting on the Mosaic prohibition of eating the swine, the hawk, the eagle, and the raven, observes: "The sow is the emblem of voluptuous and unclean lust of food... The eagle indicates robbery, the hawk injustice, and the raven greed.". . . Clement of Alexandria maintained that the laws of Moses contain a four-fold significance, the natural, the mystical, the moral, and the prophetical. ²¹

Origen (c. 155-254) held that, as the nature of man is composed of body, soul and spirit, so the Scriptures possess a corresponding three-fold sense: the literal, the moral and the spiritual.

Augustine (354-430) "justified the allegorical interpretation by a 'gross misinterpretation' of 2 Cor. 3:6. He made it mean that the spiritual or allegorical interpretation was the real meaning of the Bible; the literal interpretation kills." ²² He was forced into such an approach by his polemic encounters with the Manichaeans and the Donatists. Thus, he justified the use of force by the civil authorities to "compel" dissenters to return to the Catholic Church by interpreting the parable of the great supper to the "Church" (Cf. Lk. 14:16-24, esp. v. 23). Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) typifies the Medieval approach:

The author of Holy Writ is God, in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by words only (as man can also do), but also by things themselves. So... that the things signified by the words have themselves also a signification. Therefore that first signification whereby words signify things belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal. That signification whereby things signified by words have themselves also a signfication is called the spiritrual sense, which is based on the literal, and presupposes it. Now this spiritual sense has a threefold division... the allegorical sense... the moral sense... the anagogical sense. Since the literal sense is that which the author intends, and since the author of Holy Writ is God, Who by one act comprehends all things by His intellect, it is not unfitting, as Augustine says (Confess. Xii ), if, even according to the literal sense, one word in Holy Writ should have several senses. ²³

SECOND, the Mystical. "Manifold depths and shades of meaning are sought in every word of Scripture. ²⁴ " This approach not only characterized most of the allegorists, but included the Medieval mystics and such later heretical writers as Jakob Boehme (1575-1624) and Immanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) with his three-fold sense of Scripture: the natural or literal, the spiritual and the celestial.

THIRD, the Pietistic or Devotional. Pietism was a reaction against the neo-scholasticism and cold theological dogmatism that followed the Protestant Reformation. It approached the Scripture in a very practical and subjective way for personal edification. Such an approach characterized the ministry and writings of such men as Philip James Spener, A. H. Francke of Halle, and such groups as the Moravians and Quakers. Some Pietists and the Quakers claimed to be guided by an "inner light" in their interpretation of Scripture—an extreme view of 1 Jn. 2:20. Such an approach tended toward confusion, irrationalism and a mystical approach to Scripture.

Much modern so-called "devotional" use of Scripture violates basic and consistent hermeneutical principles, such as a complete disregard for the grammar or context of Scripture. E.g., Gen. 31:49 is used as a benediction, when it was actually a covenant between two deceivers who did not trust each other, and so called upon God to watch the other! E.g., In Psa. 118:24 the indicative "rejoice" is changed to the imperative mode and given as an exhortation. If one changes the grammar of the Scripture, he necessarily changes the meaning, and so speaks or writes without scriptural authority. E.g., Psa. 2:8 has been used as a missionary text, but the context (v. 6-9) refers this to the reign of the Messiah-King, who shall judge the nations! Care must be taken to make the absolutely necessary distinction between interpretation and application.

FOURTH, the Liberal or Modernistic. This approach, which denies the inspiration of Scripture, and reconstructs the contents and teachings of the Bible on a mere naturalistic foundation, includes the Rationalistic (The Scriptures approached by unaided human reason, with a denial of the supernatural. Destructive, rationalistic criticism of such men as F. C. Baur and the Tubingen school, Julius Wellhausen, and K. H. Graf, et. al.), Moral (The approach of Immanuel Kant, who held that the Scriptures were given for their practical and moral value only), Mythical (The historical truth of the Scripture must be freed from the alleged myths and legends, i.e., its supernatural element. This is characteristic of such rationalist-critical scholars as David Friedrich Strauss and Rudolf Bultmann.), and the Accommodation Theory (the supernatural element was actually an accommodation to the primitive or superstitious nature ofthe peoples and cultures of that time. The originator of this type of rationalistic approach was J. S. Semler.). ²⁵

FIFTH, the Apologetic, Polemic, or Dogmatic. This is generally synonymous with the "proof-text" method of interpretation, by which various passages are asserted to teach or buttress a given opinion or theological position. Such an approach can be readily noted in any religious dispute concerning Christianity. It is historically prominent in such controversies as the Romanist-"heretical" debates of the Middle Ages, The Romanist-Protestant disputes of the 16^th century, the Calvinist-Arminian debates, the polemical disputes between paedobaptists and Baptists over the mode and subjects of baptism, and the disputes among evangelicals over the "invitation" or "altar call" system, revival and revivalism, etc.

SIXTH, the Neo-Orthodox. The Scriptures are viewed as a record or a witness to Divine revelation and not the very revelation or Word of God. God is encountered in or through the Scriptures in a crisis experience. According to this approach, the Scriptures are neither the inspired Word of God nor is there propositional revelation in Scripture; God allegedly reveals Himself in an existential way. ²⁶

SEVENTH, the Grammatico-Historical. This is the only valid, consistent and reasonable method of biblical interpretation. It is such an interpretation that is necessitated by and in accordance with the rules of grammar and the facts of history. It is common-sense interpretation (i.e., adhering to the principle of the usus loquendi). It seeks no spiritual or hidden meaning unless necessary in the normal figurative, symbolic, idiomatic or typical expression of the given language, culture, or historical context of a given passage. It presupposes that God has given His revelation in an intelligent and understandable form.

Within the proper, consistent, grammatical and historical approach there are general principles of interpretation:

The perspicuity of Scripture or the Analogy of Faith, i.e., Scripture interprets Scripture. The more obscure passages are understood by clearer passages, presupposing that the Scriptures, as the very Word of God inscripturated, are not self-contradictory, but complementary.

The textual, historical, theological, cultural and psychological context must be determined for an accurate interpretation of any given passage.

Within any given passage, the words must be studied both lexically (as to their basic and subsequently-derived meanings) and syntactically (i.e., as they occur in a given context). Words are to be taken in their literal or common sense and usage (usus loquendi) unless they bear some figurative or idiomatic connotation.

The use of figurative language—types, symbols, figures of speech, poetic, parabolic, and prophetic references—must be considered in the immediate context and in the larger context of the whole of Scripture, culture and history.

Even within the historico-grammatical method, there are certain tendencies to be avoided: E.g., that of traditional, Reformed Covenant theology which tends to obliterate the distinctions between the Old Testament or covenant and the New; and that of a Dispensational hermeneutic which tends to divorce the Old Testament or Covenant from the New without proper regard for their unity. Our hermeneutic, therefore, determines our whole approach to understanding the Bible.²⁷

¹⁷(Ermeneutikos) is derived from Hermes, the god of Greek mythology who served as a herald and messenger to the other gods.

¹⁸It seems to be a rather common fault of the pulpit that little or no distinction is made between interpretation and application. Thus, many are often led into thinking that the application is the interpretation.

¹⁹For a full discussion of the history of interpretation and the various approaches, cf. The following works: Louis Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1969, pp. 19-39; F. W. Farrar, History of Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1961. 553 pp.; A Berkley Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1966, pp. 20-53; Bernard Ramm. Protestant Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1969. pp. 23-84; Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1964. pp. 163-174.

²⁰F. W. Farrar, Op. cit., p. 166.

²¹Milton S. Terry, Op. cit., pp. 163-164.

²²Bernard Ramm, Op. cit., p. 35.

²³Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part 1, Question 1, Article 10.

²⁴Milton S. Terry, Loc. cit.

²⁵For a discussion of the subject of Biblical Criticism and the influence and principles of so-called rationalistic or "Destructive Higher Criticism," See: Wick Broomall, Biblical Criticism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1957; Jerry Wayne Brown, The Rise of Biblical Criticism in America 1800-1870: The New England Scholars. Middletown, CN: Wesleyan University Press, 1969; Louis Gaussen, Theopneustia, or The Divine Inspiration of the Scriptures. Grand Rapids: Kregel reprint of the 1841 ed.; R. Laird Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1957; Carl. F. H. Henry, Ed., Revelation and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1958. Further study can be done in the various General Introductions to the Bible, and such as the works by H. S. Miller, Geisler and Nix, and the multi-volume work by Thomas Hartwell Horne. Much valuable information can also be obtained from the many critical introductions to the Old and New Testaments. Cf. the Old Testament Introductions by such scholars as Gleason L. Archer, Jr., William Henry Green, R. K. Harrison, Merrill F. Unger, and Edward J. Young; and the New Testament Introductions by such scholars as Everett F. Harrison, Donald Guthrie, J. Gresham Machen, Henry C. Thiessen, and Theodor Zahn.

²⁶Cf. the works by R. Laird Harris and Carl F. H. Henry in Footnote 25.

²⁷Baptists have historically made what we believe to be necessary distinctions in both the unity and diversity of the biblical covenants (plural). Theologically and historically, we have held to the eternal covenant of redemption and grace or the eternal Divine redemptive purpose in Divine election and predestination. Reformed Covenant Theology holds to the unity of the Abrahamic covenant (singular) to such an extent that it largely denies the diversity.