Historicism and Literalism: Strange Bedfellows

For some time I have been considering the thesis that both historicism and literalism emphasize the historical in such a way that said emphasis creates a barrier to significance for each, but in different ways. For this post I will limit my considerations to how this common emphasis is exemplified within Christianity; however, a similar critique may be applicable elsewhere.

Comments on "The Idolatrous Use Of Scripture"

I should say more about the last post "The Idolatrous Use of Scripture." The content of that post is as follows:

The Idolatrous Use Of Scripture

Scripture interprets scripture. Yes. First, the scriptures reveal Christ. Second, the scriptures submit to Christ.

The scriptures are always a means to an end. Christ is that end. The authority of the scriptures derives from that same end. Scripture becomes an idol whenever it serves itself or serves another end. And as an idol, the book has no authority. The history of humanity after Christ is scarred from the idolatrous use of the scriptures. 

A Phenomenological Approach To The Scriptures

The goal of this post is to present a (seminary) model, an environment that allows scripture to speak for itself.  In other words, one which would take a “phenomenological approach” to scripture.