Disclaimer: Note that I am not against other scholarly or spiritual approaches to hermeneutics. In fact, I employ these approaches as well as the one that I am proposing here.
I have never been an official member of any denomination or church. This is my attempt to minimize inconsistencies in theologies among different denominations and doctrines.
Axiom: The 66 books of the OT and NT autograph manuscripts were God-breathed.
To ensure that everyone is talking about the same thing, it is important to have an agreed operational definition of the key terms. Let's say we are talking about freewill. Then definition D(x) will decide whether x is an instance of freewill or not. Freewill needs to be objectively recognized or measured by some procedure D. Without an agreed-upon D, there is little point to proceed any further in the debate.
I instinctively practice
Occam's razor. I put more weight on simple arguments over complicated ones, more weight on direct statements over implied conclusions, and more weight on unifying explanations over ad-hoc explanations. I look for elegance. E.g., see Homosexual acts are sinful.
I try to stick precisely to the words and wordings in the Bible. See
Mother of God and
My Take on Trinity.
I try to avoid isms because they tend to over-generalize, e.g., Onanism, Calvinism, etc. I find that people who like to generalize tend to over-generalize.
Frequently,
I use First-Order Logic for formal reasoning. I am slow in the sense that I'd like to the detailed step-by-step logical deduction without any missing steps. People who are not trained in formal logic tend to jump to conclusions. They conflate ∃-for-some with ∀-for-all.
Analogical reasoning is not a valid method within the framework of FOL. I rarely use it. When others do, I don't put much weight on it.
Many passages are symbolic and poetic, rich with figures of speech. They must be considered first before applying first-order logic to the resultant proposition statements.
However, FOL does not always resolve a problem. Then I employ probabilistic analysis.
David did as well.
Step 1: When there is no clear binary (yes or no) answer to an issue, I automatically resort to probabilistic reasoning by weighing the evidence. This process is dynamic. As I learn more evidence, my opinion may change dynamically. I almost never refute anything 100%; I weigh every piece of...
Some paradoxes/contradictions such as false dichotomy can be nicely solved by
Co-Reality Model, i.e., the horizontal perspective actually complements the vertical perspective.
When it comes to eschatological stuff, I often take the lazy way out, i.e., wait until after the facts.
I try to use the following words only in their formal sense: prove, deduce, conclude, imply, contradict, therefore, unique, etc.
I try to avoid these words of extreme: absolutely, certainly, obviously, clearly, irrefutable proof, the only way, no doubt, must, have to, of course, absurd, debunk, easily, simply, most, best,
very, etc. I find people who overuse these words and superlatives are sometimes unbalanced and intellectually immature. How do I know that? Well, because I was like that in my younger hormonal days
When disagreeing, I try to accommodate and find common ground. I admit different options with probabilities. I'm actually happy when someone proves me wrong because that means I would have learned something that I didn't know before. I enjoy the freedom to learn from everyone in the forum.
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right until the other comes and examines him.
Proverbs 19:11 Good sense makes one slow to anger, and it is his glory to overlook an offense.
Psalm 131:1 My heart is not proud, LORD, my eyes are not haughty; I do not concern myself with great matters or things too wonderful for me.
Titus 3:9 avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, arguments, and quarrels about the law because these things are pointless and worthless. 10 Reject a divisive man after a first and second admonition
I visit
Biblehub.com every day.
I have been reading the Bible every day since 1994.
Familiarize yourself with the whole Bible by daily reading.
People tend to believe what they subjectively want to believe. This approach offers a degree of objectivity in biblical interpretation. It will not resolve all differences but it guarantees to terminate any arguments within a practical number of steps provided all the participants agree to follow all the rules in this OP.
The goal is to arrive at a consentaneous set of Christian beliefs by logical and probabilistic reasoning to Biblical hermeneutics. This can be a unifying force but I'm not interested in building an echo chamber. I welcome anyone who is sincere, objective, and civil. The potential collective intelligence of this kind of community is unbeatable