The Scandal of Evangelical Biblical Ignorance

[Uber Genius]

"More than half of evangelicals (59 percent) believe the Holy Spirit is a force and not a personal being—in contrast to the orthodox biblical teaching of the Trinity being three Persons in one God." (CT Magazine Blog by Ed Stetzer)

Why this statistic is alarming is that Evangelicals consistently top the charts in Biblical literacy when compared to their counterparts in other Christian denominations.

"We will not believe more than we know, and we will not live higher than our beliefs."

This quote came from a blog recently posted by Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

He has been described as "one of America's most influential evangelicals".

"The many fronts of Christian compromise in this generation can be directly traced to biblical illiteracy in the pews and the absence of biblical preaching and teaching in our homes and churches." Albert Mohler

Recently, when pointing out some oddities in John 10 and their relation to Psalm 82, I was accosted with a number of "well what this means to me," responses. While disturbed by the lack of basic exegetical understanding, not everyone has had exposure to proper bible study process.

More surprising was the "cut and paste from our favorite internet commentary that agrees with our view," responses.

Scholarship, and by that I simply mean getting at what the original audience would have understood, is a well-established process that engages the text.

Instead of engaging the text I was told I was a member of a cult-group.
Instead of engaging in exegesis, I was treated to commentary roulette.
Instead of engaging the text, I was treated to modern definitions of words that don't comport to the broad lexical range of their Hebrew counterparts, pulled from Wikipedia no less.

Calling all exegetes.

If you know the difference between exegesis and eisegesis without looking it up,
...please reply.

If you understand the difference between hermeneutics and exegesis,
...please reply.

If you have kept notebooks filled with your own book outlines, sentence diagrams, summations, greek or Hebrew grammar notes, and key take aways (personal application),
...please reply.

I am trying to find a group of people who post on CF that are reliable and willing to engage the text in an intellectually, emotionally, and spiritual mature fashion. Just engaging texts, scholarship, exegetical process to maximize our understanding, and minimize our ignorance, that's all.

Personal opinions based on surface reads, cutting and pasting from Wikipedia to determine lexical range, fallacious appeals to authority of 1950s scholarship, rhetoricians spewing personal invective, need not apply.

 

[Dave-W]

"More than half of evangelicals (59 percent) believe the Holy Spirit is a force and not a personal being—in contrast to the orthodox biblical teaching of the Trinity being three Persons in one God." (CT Magazine Blog by Ed Stetzer)

Disturbing? Definitely. But not surprising.

Most evangelicals are cessationists and therefore the Holy Spirit does not even appear as a radar blip in their lives. So when they read the Bible, those passages get glossed over; especially the verses in John's gospel where the Holy Spirit is referred to in personalble terms.

 

[Tree of Life]

So you're basically looking for seminarians?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

"More than half of evangelicals (59 percent) believe the Holy Spirit is a force and not a personal being—in contrast to the orthodox biblical teaching of the Trinity being three Persons in one God." (CT Magazine Blog by Ed Stetzer)

Why this statistic is alarming is that Evangelicals consistently top the charts in Biblical literacy when compared to their counterparts in other Christian denominations.

"We will not believe more than we know, and we will not live higher than our beliefs."

This quote came from a blog recently posted by Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

He has been described as "one of America's most influential evangelicals".

"The many fronts of Christian compromise in this generation can be directly traced to biblical illiteracy in the pews and the absence of biblical preaching and teaching in our homes and churches." Albert Mohler

Recently, when pointing out some oddities in John 10 and their relation to Psalm 82, I was accosted with a number of "well what this means to me," responses. While disturbed by the lack of basic exegetical understanding, not everyone has had exposure to proper bible study process.

More surprising was the "cut and paste from our favorite internet commentary that agrees with our view," responses.

Scholarship, and by that I simply mean getting at what the original audience would have understood, is a well-established process that engages the text.

Instead of engaging the text I was told I was a member of a cult-group.
Instead of engaging in exegesis, I was treated to commentary roulette.
Instead of engaging the text, I was treated to modern definitions of words that don't comport to the broad lexical range of their Hebrew counterparts, pulled from Wikipedia no less.

Calling all exegetes.

If you know the difference between exegesis and eisegesis without looking it up,
...please reply.

If you understand the difference between hermeneutics and exegesis,
...please reply.

If you have kept notebooks filled with your own book outlines, sentence diagrams, summations, greek or Hebrew grammar notes, and key take aways (personal application),
...please reply.

I am trying to find a group of people who post on CF that are reliable and willing to engage the text in an intellectually, emotionally, and spiritual mature fashion. Just engaging texts, scholarship, exegetical process to maximize our understanding, and minimize our ignorance, that's all.

Personal opinions based on surface reads, cutting and pasting from Wikipedia to determine lexical range, fallacious appeals to authority of 1950s scholarship, rhetoricians spewing personal invective, need not apply.

I'm here, Uber. But, you're going to find that my position on Biblical interpretation incorporates, and sits at, another point between the traditional and the post-modern. At the same time, I don't and won't make the mistake to pretend that I'm an 'expert' on Biblical interpretation. I'm more of an academic explorer ... and more than willing to sift and sort through the various positions related to various issues pertaining to the Bible's meaning.

I'm also going to come at this more from the angle of someone like, say, Mark Noll, if you catch my drift.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Uber Genius]

So you're basically looking for seminarians?

Not at all.

"Scholarship, and by that I simply mean getting at what the original audience would have understood, is a well-established process that engages the text."

Just someone who is able to look at a book, write a synopsis about the occasion of the authors writing, cultural context, goal, style (is it poetry, historical narrative), outline like one would any book, and look to see if the structure or figures of speech are telling us anything.

While far from "what this means to me doing a surface read out of context of a couple verses is," it is not an exhaustive search of BDAG or COS followed by theories about the text from the majority scholarly camps.

No greek or hebrew required. I don't have those. I use resources for my grammars.

 

[Uber Genius]

I'm here, Uber. But, you're going to find that my position on Biblical interpretation incorporates, and sits at, another point between the traditional and the post-modern. At the same time, I don't and won't make the mistake to pretend that I'm an 'expert' on Biblical interpretation. I'm more of an academic explorer ... and more than willing to sift and sort through the various positions related to various issues pertaining to the Bible's meaning.

I'm also going to come at this more from the angle of someone like, say, Mark Noll, if you catch my drift.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

Get your drift. Welcome! I'm no expert either. Looking to share in the research and interpretive process. Having been a Christian who has studied the scriptures for over forty years I continue to find that I have false beliefs about the scriptures. Not in the fundamentals perhaps but in other places where I didn't do my own work but relied on a Pastor who made some exegetically dubious points that I just lapped up uncritically.

I have put that approach (making the bible support my view) in the rear view mirror (25) years ago. Looking to root out my own long-held false beliefs and replace them with true beliefs, like any learning.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Get your drift. Welcome!

So, what would you like to discuss about biblical interpretation, Uber?

As to the blog article you cited by Stetzer, I'd like to suggest that it takes more than simply meeting in small groups to get Christians to "think better" about Biblical theology. In fact, I'd say that leaders of any size bible study group need to become better prepared to address the underlying social and philosophical influences that permeate our society and affect (or infect) the minds and interpretive approaches of our less studios Christian brethren.

Leaders also need to be more discerning in the ways that various thoughts can affect people emotionally, and leaders need to (sometimes) be less dogmatic themselves as to the "proper" biblical exegesis required to "know the Mind of Christ."

How's that for starters?

2PhiloVoid

 

[Dave-W]

So you're basically looking for seminarians?

Why not? The pastors of each congregation should be able to teach what they learned in seminary to their congregants.

 

[Tree of Life]

No greek or hebrew required. I don't have those. I use resources for my grammars.

I see. I also use resources for certain grammar and syntax issues but if I didn't know Hebrew then I would find them a bit obtuse. Which resources do you find helpful?

 

[Tree of Life]

Why not? The pastors of each congregation should be able to teach what they learned in seminary to their congregants.

Indeed. However I would not expect congregants in my parish to have familiarity with the original languages.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Instead of engaging the text I was told I was a member of a cult-group.
Instead of engaging in exegesis, I was treated to commentary roulette.
Instead of engaging the text, I was treated to modern definitions of words that don't comport to the broad lexical range of their Hebrew counterparts, pulled from Wikipedia no less.

Yes, those easy accusations and simplistic praxes can be resorted to by our fellow Christians who are less studied; but, I've seen it go both ways, too! Church leaders can be faulty in their exegesis (and hermeneutics) as well.

 

[Uber Genius]

I see. I also use resources for certain grammar and syntax issues but if I didn't know Hebrew then I would find them a bit obtuse. Which resources do you find helpful?

Used to use kittlel (10 vol set) then work and family overwhelmed time. Sold it and use Basic Hebrew Grammar by Van. Pelt , and someone I can't remember now. Came out about ten years ago.

Also use scholar google to get articles published on SBL, IBR, ETS and other scholarly journals. I do this to see if there is a consensus of a text. Or if a variant is becoming much more likely due to the preponderance of the many second temple manuscript finds that are coming to light.

I focus on distillation where the phrase is so severely changed that It seem awkward. Lots of editing went on in the creation of the Masoretic text. When comparing the Allepo codex or leningradensis to Septuagint manuscripts found in Dead Sea we get some significant differences, often in the isaiah messianic prophecies etc.

BDAG for NT context
Context of scripture for OT (3 vol) but the 1 vol is more practical.

 

[Uber Genius]

Yes, those easy accusations and simplistic praxes can be resorted to by our fellow Christians who are less studied; but, I've seen it go both ways, too! Church leaders can be faulty in their exegesis (and hermeneutics) as well.

Yep, I'm more dainty with pastors than I used to be, as most are fragile to intellectual criticism. "Some teach the pericope adulterea without knowledge that it doesn't appear in any early manuscripts. Some make the most fundamental exegetical errors. But most of there mistakes are common and inconsequential theologically, so I only engage the ones that are interested.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yep, I'm more dainty with pastors than I used to be, as most are fragile to intellectual criticism. "Some teach the pericope adulterea without knowledge that it doesn't appear in any early manuscripts.

Some pastors definitely are sensitive to criticism, which seems to be a characteristic unbefitting to their role in the Church. However, even though the story involving the Adulteress is admittedly "added" material, it could probably could still be taught as a form of "early Christian tradition," reflecting the kind of compassion and discernment that Jesus was definitely capable of.

Some make the most fundamental exegetical errors. But most of there mistakes are common and inconsequential theologically, so I only engage the ones that are interested.

True. And it's likely we all make "errors" of some sort when handling the Word of God. Hopefully, my own errors about the Bible's meanings are of the "inconsequential" sort, but who can say for sure?

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[mark kennedy]

"More than half of evangelicals (59 percent) believe the Holy Spirit is a force and not a personal being—in contrast to the orthodox biblical teaching of the Trinity being three Persons in one God." (CT Magazine Blog by Ed Stetzer)

Why this statistic is alarming is that Evangelicals consistently top the charts in Biblical literacy when compared to their counterparts in other Christian denominations.

"We will not believe more than we know, and we will not live higher than our beliefs."

This quote came from a blog recently posted by Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

He has been described as "one of America's most influential evangelicals".

"The many fronts of Christian compromise in this generation can be directly traced to biblical illiteracy in the pews and the absence of biblical preaching and teaching in our homes and churches." Albert Mohler

Recently, when pointing out some oddities in John 10 and their relation to Psalm 82, I was accosted with a number of "well what this means to me," responses. While disturbed by the lack of basic exegetical understanding, not everyone has had exposure to proper bible study process.

More surprising was the "cut and paste from our favorite internet commentary that agrees with our view," responses.

Scholarship, and by that I simply mean getting at what the original audience would have understood, is a well-established process that engages the text.

Instead of engaging the text I was told I was a member of a cult-group.
Instead of engaging in exegesis, I was treated to commentary roulette.
Instead of engaging the text, I was treated to modern definitions of words that don't comport to the broad lexical range of their Hebrew counterparts, pulled from Wikipedia no less.

Calling all exegetes.

If you know the difference between exegesis and eisegesis without looking it up,
...please reply.

If you understand the difference between hermeneutics and exegesis,
...please reply.

If you have kept notebooks filled with your own book outlines, sentence diagrams, summations, greek or Hebrew grammar notes, and key take aways (personal application),
...please reply.

I am trying to find a group of people who post on CF that are reliable and willing to engage the text in an intellectually, emotionally, and spiritual mature fashion. Just engaging texts, scholarship, exegetical process to maximize our understanding, and minimize our ignorance, that's all.

Personal opinions based on surface reads, cutting and pasting from Wikipedia to determine lexical range, fallacious appeals to authority of 1950s scholarship, rhetoricians spewing personal invective, need not apply.

I spent a lot of time on creation vs evolution. I mention to on of my fellow creationists that the Sun wasn't created 'bara', but it was set 'nathan' in the sky. All the sudden I'm compromised and no different then Hugh Ross, which is a really mean thing to say to a creationist if you don't know. Then I mention the triple paralalism describing the creation of Adam and Eve, which you would think is a straight forward literary feature, he just keeps saying there are a lot of rules for paralalisms. How are you supposed to study Scripture like that.

I'm about 8 classes shy of a bachelors degree in Bible and theology. I learned a little about decensioning nouns and conjagating verbs in Greek but I literally have no clue about Hebrew. My favorites study tools are Strings and Vines dictionary. Last few years I've been going on Blue Letter Bible and using their resources.

Digging into the semantics has it's place but the single biggest stumbling block for me is the prevalence of unbelief. I can generally find my way around just fine with a lexicon, dictionary and some cross referencing. It would be refreshing to find a group that could see The obvious right in front of them, I would really love it if I could find something in depth.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Uber Genius]

Some pastors definitely are sensitive to criticism, which seems to be a characteristic unbefitting to their role in the Church. However, even though the story involving the Adulteress is admittedly "added" material, it could probably could still be taught as a form of "early Christian tradition," reflecting the kind of compassion and discernment that Jesus was definitely capable of.

True. And it's likely we all make "errors" of some sort when handling the Word of God. Hopefully, my own errors about the Bible's meanings are of the "inconsequential" sort, but who can say for sure?

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

Both good points.

With a mature Pastor there will be little to no pushback when you go out for a cup of coffee and engage a view from a different perspective.

This type of inference to the best explanation of the scriptural data is common to seminary. But a couple of my Pastors never had that opportunity. Most of the time it doesn't matter, occasionally, when preaching the nature and work of Christ, the center set of Christian doctrine, it does matter.

There is some evidence for early preaching (late 4th century), of the Pericope adulterea. I teach the concept it demonstrates but use other texts for support. But I don't even bring up the lack of early manuscript attestations when others teach it. It's not important.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Interestingly enough, Jesus said call no man master

and yet today many so called men of God are called "Masters of divinity" and they act as Lords over the flock. Jesus said believers were not to be as the gentile authorities where those that are great among them have dominion and authority over others. He said it should not be so among us, but the greatest among us should be as servants and ministers. These have no authority in the world but they do as they live and speak the word of God.

John said we have no need that any man should teach us the same anointing teaches all things and is truth. 1 John 2:27

But some will say, Yes but God gives teachers and other gifts to the body. I agree but these teachers and gifts are in the NEW MAN in Christ as their head. Not in the old man. We have no need that man teach us. but Christ in the new man in the spirit teaches us. So if a man is in Christ the words should be an outflow from the revelation of the anointing in Christ.

 

[miknik5]

I love the TRUTH of 1 John 2:27

And John's directive reminding us that we are to keep ever before us what we began in

And that is sufficient