Are there schools-of-thought on how to interpret the Bible?
In economics, we have different schools-of-thought on how to approach the economy. Mainstream economists (e.g. Keynesians) generally use an "a posteriori" approach, using statistical data to produce economic theories. Hetereodox economists (e.g. Austrians) use an "a priori" approach, using economic facts (a.k.a. praxeology) to confirm data. The former uses induction whilst the latter uses deduction.
Does the same exist in Christian theology? I often read a Protestant website called gotquestions.org, and they said that their approach is to "let the Bible speak for itself". Which makes me ask, are there different ways of interpreting the Bible? Should we take certain quotes into context and cite them when met with a similar context (that is, we can't use a quote from the Bible from one context to a real-life situation that is in a dissimilar context)? Should we first read the works of philosophers and then use that to understand the Bible (e.g. reading about Stoicism and relating that to St. Paul's teaching)?
Obviously, as Catholics, interpretation of the Bible has to be stacked up to what the Church teaches. But the Church has left vast areas of the Bible uninterpreted, which makes this question relevant.
Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk
|
Threaded Mode
