Is there anything to..........?

[martincisneros]

I pretty much know that this is suspect, but I'm looking for feedback on it.  I noticed A.E. Knoch take a brief swing at it in one of his books, but he didn't take the time to really address it, at least not in that particular book.  I'm sorta teetering on laughing right now 'cause it's a sacred cow of Arminian theology.  The sacred, most holy, unquestionable:

"Law of first mention in the Bible"

which presupposes that the Bible isn't progressive revelation, but that earlier references to something in the Bible necessarily help to shape/taint further revelation in the Scripture.  And there's also the presupposition that the order of the books in our Bible was given by God rather than by theologians over the centuries.

I have a sneaky suspicion that this came out of Calvinistic "theonomy," but I'm not sure and would love more info, examples of refutation, etc.

[jabcat]

Don't know about the "law of first mention"...for the second point, I don't believe anything related to God happens by accident.  IMO, this includes initial mistranslations, and now ever-increasing accuracy of translations and related revelations. 

Wrt the order of the books, I see that the same way as I see which books were chosen.  It was "done through men", but only as God arranged, and for His purposes.  IMO, the order was also orchestrated by God, for some divine purpose...to edify us, to confound us, or to confound us until He provides further revelation and understanding and then edifies us in the very things that were hidden...(He confounds the wise, i.e., those who trust their own imaginations instead of His sovereignty).  He works all things according to the counsel of His will.  He can use our futility and ignorance to work His master plan...just as He uses Satan as His instrument of His good pleasure, He ultimately works all things for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purposes.  God's blessing, James.

[martincisneros]

I've seen "interesting" things preached through this "law of first mention" and can agree as to how far the Lord's sovereignty might reach in the choice and ordering of the books of the canon. 

And I would suppose that bro Knoch would have taken a swing at it as an interpretation principle because of the type of dispensationalist that he was where sooo few of the New Testament books genuinely belong to the Gentile nations.  I don't want to turn this thread into a critique of dispensationalism, but that can be done even just off of the epistles that that form of dispensationalism would allow us.  I've often wondered about that type of dispensationalist, that if they suddenly discovered Judaism to be extremely strong in in their personal geneology, would they -- by their own principle of interpretation -- feel obligated towards the entire New Testament, or towards everything else but Paul.  And then I wonder about the lack of the prepared materials specifically to natural Israel if only certain letters of the New Testament belonged to Israel, but on the premillenialist plan we're supposedly believing that Jesus could come back at any minute.  Genuine curiosities and not criticisms.

On the alleged principle of "first mention," for instance, riches are associated with "glory" in the book of Genesis.  Though other things obviously develop our interpretation of "glory" as the Biblical revelation progresses, I've never known of a verse that specifically excludes wealth and riches just because Gentiles suddenly start getting mentioned and/or addressed.  The alleged principle of "first mention" seems to have Scriptural support with the statement about God having "spoken the end from the beginning," but one of my big question marks is the fact that the books aren't in either the order that they were written or in an order that's particularly revelatory to the careful, humble observer.  And if this principle of "first mention" hearkens back to the Rabbis, is there evidence that this was a part of the "leaven of the scribes and Pharisees" that Jesus warned against?

I haven't studied this out far enough to know if this necessarily builds the Pharisaical into Christianity, if it necessarily mixes law with grace, or any other "problems" arise from this interpretive theory.  Has anyone that comes to these boards used this "first mention" principle to it's conclusion and started finding genuine theological contradictions and conflicts with New Testament grace?  Although this is usually meant to be taken as an interpretive tool when looking at the Bible as a whole from Genesis to Revelation, has anyone found curious applications of this with the 4 Gospels and/or Acts on the rest of the New Testament?  On a certain level, it would make sense based on Mark chapter 4, but is it consistent with the canon [and the order of the canon] as we now have it -- on every doctrine you've looked at rather than just isolated doctrines that various areas of the Church teach?

[Reverend G]

Mary Ellen....

I must say that when I started reading your posts I found myself pre-judging and forming a negative opinion, but you did a wonderful job in overcoming my presuppositions!!  I have to agree with what you had to say, and add that you voiced yourself in terms I only wish I had found the vision to express myself.  Thank You.

Martin and Jabcat...

As to the law of first mention, and all the talk about the order of the books of the bible and newer and more accurate translations.....I am not sure I agree with those concepts.  I'm not saying anybody is right or wrong, just that my thoughts on the concept differ.  I understand that God can do anything, but since I do believe in free will,  we are still free to mess up His words.  I guess my evidence for this is in the works of people like the "Jesus Seminar" who are basically editing out much of the Gospels, or some of the newer translations of the Word which have diluted things to the point where they hardly resemble the originals.  So, perhaps on one hand, the more accurate translations are testimony to His will, the lessor translations evidence of man's will?
I dunno.  It doesn't really matter what I think, but that's my three cents (inflation ya know).