Identifying the Problem with our Interpretation Processes, and Offering a Solution

[SJ Newell]

The primary problem with the way most Christians interpret the Bible, is that often, the final deciding factor in what causes them to accept one doctrine, and reject another, exists outside of the Bible, internally, within themselves. And as long as your process is internal, it isn't objective. Because objective means EXTERNAL to the mind, and that which can be observed. If your process cannot be observed by outside parties, there is no way to know it's reliable, and even if it is, to know when or if, human manipulation is taking place.

The solution is shockingly simple. Stick with what the Bible says.

The Bible is full of statements of fact that can be OBSERVED and EXTERNALLY verified. Making it an objective standard. Like any objective standard, the way to use it in determining what is true and false, is if it contradicts that standard.

Any doctrine that says what the Bible says, is true. Any doctrine that contradicts a statement within the Bible, is false.

This, by itself, will immediately eliminate many popular doctrines within the Body of Christ.

---------------------------------------
Just a few examples:

"Jesus did not die for all."

False. The Bible says Jesus died for all (2Cor 5:15).

"The gifts mentioned in 1Corinthians 12 are no longer being given."

False. The Bible says of these gifts: IS GIVEN (present tense).

"God doesn't want all of us to speak in tongues."

False. The Bible says "I want you all to speak in tongues." (1Corinthians 14)

---------------------------------------

Questions, or objections?

 

[TuxAme]

What if two people can't agree on what makes up Scripture? If that were to happen, appeals to Scripture would be useless because there isn't agreement on what Scripture is.

 

[Southernscotty]

What if two people can't agree on what makes up Scripture? If that were to happen, appeals to Scripture would be useless because there isn't agreement on what Scripture is.

I can't help but think that, just like our DNA is all different, as is our personalities, That God made differing ways of interpretation to reach the different levels of mentality and groups. Just like the gifts are given out differently as well.

 

[SJ Newell]

What if two people can't agree on what makes up Scripture? If that were to happen, appeals to Scripture would be useless because there isn't agreement on what Scripture is.

This approach I describe would be for Christians who believe and accept the Protestant Bible.

 

[SJ Newell]

I can't help but think that, just like our DNA is all different, as is our personalities, That God made differing ways of interpretation to reach the different levels of mentality and groups. Just like the gifts are given out differently as well.

Yeah, I wouldn't disagreeing with that. What you say here, doesn't necessarily exclude the premise I set forth. I would believe both can be, and are true.

 

[SJ Newell]

I can't help but think that, just like our DNA is all different, as is our personalities, That God made differing ways of interpretation to reach the different levels of mentality and groups. Just like the gifts are given out differently as well.

I'd agree with that. I think both what I said, and what you say here can coexist.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The primary problem with the way most Christians interpret the Bible, is that often, the final deciding factor in what causes them to accept one doctrine, and reject another, exists outside of the Bible, internally, within themselves. And as long as your process is internal, it isn't objective. Because objective means EXTERNAL to the mind, and that which can be observed. If your process cannot be observed by outside parties, there is no way to know it's reliable, and even if it is, to know when or if, human manipulation is taking place.

The solution is shockingly simple. Stick with what the Bible says.

The Bible is full of statements of fact that can be OBSERVED and EXTERNALLY verified. Making it an objective standard. Like any objective standard, the way to use it in determining what is true and false, is if it contradicts that standard.

Any doctrine that says what the Bible says, is true. Any doctrine that contradicts a statement within the Bible, is false.

This, by itself, will immediately eliminate many popular doctrines within the Body of Christ.

---------------------------------------
Just a few examples:

"Jesus did not die for all."

False. The Bible says Jesus died for all (2Cor 5:15).

"The gifts mentioned in 1Corinthians 12 are no longer being given."

False. The Bible says of these gifts: IS GIVEN (present tense).

"God doesn't want all of us to speak in tongues."

False. The Bible says "I want you all to speak in tongues." (1Corinthians 14)

---------------------------------------

Questions, or objections?

First. Welcome to CF! I hope you have a productive and interesting time of interaction here.

Second. I don't think the Bible was written to give us a comprehensive view of reality as it is; rather its purpose as a collective work is to inform us of "what God is up to" in Christ. So, being that the Bible doesn't teach us science, or how to understand and safely work with electrical currents, or how to read Hebrew or Koine Greek, or how to treat serious medical issues, or even what to specifically expect when we pray, I'd prefer to read at least several good books [or more] on Hermeneutical issues and methods rather than wing it just by reading the Bible alone. Then, I think I'd use my God-given brain to do my best, in tandem and in partnership with all of the other people who are also trying to make heads or tails of the Bible, to (hopefully) understand and apply the Bible as it was intended.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[TuxAme]

I can't help but think that, just like our DNA is all different, as is our personalities, That God made differing ways of interpretation to reach the different levels of mentality and groups. Just like the gifts are given out differently as well.

How far would you take this? What if someone's interpretation challenged the divinity of Christ?

 

[Doug Melven]

How far would you take this? What if someone's interpretation challenged the divinity of Christ?

You have to compare Scripture with Scripture.
By taking a verse out of context you can prove pretty much any doctrine you want.
But, when you look at Scripture as a whole these false doctrines will be proven wrong.

Take your example for instance.
If you focus on the verses that show Jesus praying to God, you could make the point of saying Jesus is not God.
But there are so many other verses that state He is.

 

[TuxAme]

You have to compare Scripture with Scripture.
By taking a verse out of context you can prove pretty much any doctrine you want.
But, when you look at Scripture as a whole these false doctrines will be proven wrong.

Take your example for instance.
If you focus on the verses that show Jesus praying to God, you could make the point of saying Jesus is not God.
But there are so many other verses that state He is.

I don't disagree- I'm just trying to figure out how far the Scotty takes this view.

 

[Southernscotty]

How far would you take this? What if someone's interpretation challenged the divinity of Christ?

Then I would refute it. It would be wrong.

 

[Southernscotty]

Believe me, I mean this using the bible as the standard. You can view my other post on here and see where I stand on that. Christ is the foundation. None other will stand.

 

[SJ Newell]

First. Welcome to CF! I hope you have a productive and interesting time of interaction here.

Second. I don't think the Bible was written to give us a comprehensive view of reality as it is; rather its purpose as a collective work is to inform us of "what God is up to" in Christ. So, being that the Bible doesn't teach us science, or how to understand and safely work with electrical currents, or how to read Hebrew or Koine Greek, or how to treat serious medical issues, or even what to specifically expect when we pray, I'd prefer to read at least several good books [or more] on Hermeneutical issues and methods rather than wing it just by reading the Bible alone. Then, I think I'd use my God-given brain to do my best, in tandem and in partnership with all of the other people who are also trying to make heads or tails of the Bible, to (hopefully) understand and apply the Bible as it was intended.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

I'm not attempting to set forth a method that gives us all the answers. The Bible, as you mentioned, only says so much about so many issues. I'm merely putting forth a way to use it in order to have an objective way to measure if a doctrine is true or false. Most Christians don't use the Bible as the final deciding factor in what they believe. They use a subjective process that can't be verified by outside observers.

 

[SJ Newell]

Nobody else?

 

[Doug Melven]

Nobody else?

You should start a thread where you start slaying some people's Sacred Cows.
Example: people don't believe healing is for today because they pray for it and they aren't healed, so God must not be healing today. Because there doctrine couldn't possibly be wrong.

 

[SJ Newell]

You should start a thread where you start slaying some people's Sacred Cows.
Example: people don't believe healing is for today because they pray for it and they aren't healed, so God must not be healing today. Because there doctrine couldn't possibly be wrong.

Oh that's coming

 

[Ron Gurley]

The "author" should be used to interpret Scripture:
God the Holy Spirit.

SEE:
1 Corinthians 2: 6-16 (NIV1984)
...Wisdom From the Spirit

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

 

[Brotherly Spirit]

People's opinions influence their interpretations, but so does other external sources. This includes other areas considered objective, history and science. When both cause doubts about the Bible or conflict with it, we're forced to reconcile the differences if our interpretation contradicts historic and scientific facts. But this further divides for example Genesis and creation as literal or metaphorical given evolution, what about theistic evolution having Adam and Eve as the first modern humans. Also history complicates it, do we believe secular or church history about what's in the Bible.

Ideally I like the idea of simply agreeing to what's in the Bible. Sadly not all believe it's the inerrant word of God, even if they do, not everything in the Bible is literal and clear. What is directly to be understood as written could be taken out of context. So if we want any consistent doctrine among Christians it would require a focus on the fundamentals generally accepted and supported by the Bible. All else where it's less agreement and the Bible is less clear be left to people personally. Leaving certain things to the mystery of God for people to discover themselves.