A word for the fallacy of assuming whatever brings God the most glory is the correct interpretation a text?

Question

I ran across the word somewhere in my reading, but I can't find it. It is a word that has the idea that it is not right to assume that an answer to any given question is right because it is assumed to be the most glorifying to God. While the actual answer, supported by the text, to any exegetical question does give God glory, this word has the idea that it is illogical to use God receiving more glory from a given thing as a support for an interpretation.

Answer 1

Normal (or plain) dispensationalism posits that the glory of God is the all-encompassing purpose of God above and beyond His saving purpose. Ryrie states that

At least in the awareness of most people, hermeneutics is one of the last things to be considered consciously. Most people know something of the doctrines they believe but little of the hermeneutics on which they have been built.

He continues and shows from Scripture that the glory of God is the all-encompassing, total purpose of God above (and beyond) His saving purposes, notwithstanding that "His saving purposes are one of the principal means employed in bringing to pass the greatest demonstration of His own glory." Thus the glory of God becomes the underlying hermeneutical assumption when interpreting the Scriptural texts.

Thus in plain, normal dispensationalism, the emphasis is on the plain, or normal interpretation of Scripture (which some also call the "grammatical-historical" form of interpretation). Thus the glory of God is the unifying principle or hermeneutic by which the dispensationalist interprets the Bible. Critics of dispensationalism cite this approach as a fallacy, and posit instead that God's soteriological purpose is His all-encompassing plan to bring Him glory.

In other words, whether God's ultimate, all-encompassing purpose is to save sinners, or that purpose is His self-glorification (by which saving sinners is part of that self-glorification), will necessarily affect how one interprets the Bible. At this particular point of hermeneutical interpretation is where dispensationalism and covenant theology part ways.

REFERENCE:
Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. "Dispensationalism." (Chicago: Moody Press, 2007), Chapter 5, "The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism."

Answer 2

Calvinism and its interpretive framework. Really. Calvin was brilliant. He was well-trained in the humanities (Renaissance baby) and undoubtedly was a Christian humanist (along lines of Erasmus), he even wrote a commentary on one of Seneca's work, who was Stoic philosopher. So like other Renaissance thinkers, Calvin brought liberal arts education into his understanding of scripture and saw this as path to enlightenment (he would say 'divine wisdom'). He begins Institutes by discussing epistemology for crying out loud, smart guy. I say all this so you know I respect Calvin. I disagree with him and think he formulated his theology at too young an age (he only later went back and referenced many Church Fathers to support his arguments, but only as afterthought to support his existing theology), but I still think he smart.

His followers were not as smart, but like most namesakes, Calvin was not a Calvinist (not was Luther a Lutheran or Augustine an Augustinian). Westminster Catechism says chief end of man is to glorify God. This and doctrine of grace becomes locus of all theology and exegesis for Calvinists today.

The problem is when discussing theodicy. Can't always use giving God glory most as interpretation, because doing so will make God a moral monster in many passages and situations. God becomes a divine narcissist.

As far as a word that sums it all up, I don't have one. The one you thinking of probably coined by author of whatever you read. With no idea what you read, can't help you. But can reflect on idea and note its association with Calvinist theology.