If there are two (or more) conflicting positions on how to interpret

[1213]

If there are two (or more) conflicting positions on how to interpret a scripture verse,....

I have found that the problems usually come because of interpretations. And the solution is usually to remain in truth and not add own meanings to the scriptures. By that ways the problem is usually solved.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I have found that the problems usually come because of interpretations. And the solution is usually to remain in truth and not add own meanings to the scriptures. By that ways the problem is usually solved.

When someone says this, I take this to mean that they need to repent of the sin of pride, because they think their interpretation is just the scripture.

 

[aiki]

If there are two (or more) conflicting positions on how to interpret a scripture verse, I tend to chalk this up to our education system being flawed and us not knowing how to think properly.

Not necessarily. There are other possibilities: presuppositional commitments theologically or philosophically, personality quirks, poor hermeneutics, etc.

Instead of declaring all theologies wrong, I set all conflicting opinions aside that feel the need to disagree with one another and live in the questions that they present.

I have no idea what "live in the questions they present" means. Can you explain?

Since I do not have a time machine, no amount of historical research will provide me the intuitive understanding of that time that living in that time would.

Why should this be crucial to understanding God's word? Do you think God did not anticipate that you and I would read His revelation of Himself in Scripture without direct access to the cultural milieu in which the writing of the Bible occurred? Do you think God would not communicate to us in such a way as to circumvent this deficit in our knowledge? Why wouldn't He? Why would He make it impossible to access from Scripture His real meaning? What sort of a revelation of Himself and a guide to our spiritual life would such an impenetrably obscure text be? Not a very good one, I think! Certainly not one worthy to be called the word of God.

What matters in terms of theology is what it does, if all it does is confuse and divide and in some cases inhibit spiritual devotion, then it's basically worthless.

Well, hang on. If Joe has one perspective on a particular subject in Scripture about which he feels very certain and for which he has a solid scriptural basis and Bob can say the same about a very different perspective he holds on the same subject, does it follow that therefore they are spiritually inhibited and their perspectives/convictions/beliefs are "basically worthless"? Of course not! To them, at least, their perspectives - different though they may be from each other - may be a great aid to spiritual living and of immense value to them as a consequence! It seems to me, then, that you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater in your comment above.

 

[Ken Rank]

If there are two (or more) conflicting positions on how to interpret a scripture verse, I tend to chalk this up to our education system being flawed and us not knowing how to think properly. Instead of declaring all theologies wrong, I set all conflicting opinions aside that feel the need to disagree with one another and live in the questions that they present. I find this tends to cover more ground theologically than trying to figure it all out with a mindset that the writers of the bible did not possess.
.
Since I do not have a time machine, no amount of historical research will provide me the intuitive understanding of that time that living in that time would. So living in questions and continually being renewed by the transforming of my mind by God seems to be the best bet.
.
What matters in terms of theology is what it does, if all it does is confuse and divide and in some cases inhibit spiritual devotion, then it's basically worthless. So finding value is the first task with such theologies, and part of it may be removing the false dichotomies that don't need to be there in the first place.

I like your premise but disagree on a few counts. First, we are not taught how to find time period sources but there are ways to do this and historical research can shed much light. One of our elders has a 16 hour seminar he does that teaches people how to find time period sources and to use them to fill in some NT context. We also have the factor of time... sometimes God takes His time revealing meaning to things. I remember one time I was told something that came from that same elder, and I didn't grasp it. But knowing how well studied he is, and how balanced he is... I knew that even if I ended up not agreeing, that is was ok to file it away until I had more background to properly consider the point. About a year later I went back to the topic and was able to work through it and see depth and harmony to a point that originally seem more like chaos in my mind. I needed TIME... and God uses time to His benefit. I would never give up on something because I didn't "get it" today... I would just wait on God to reveal it in His time.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Not necessarily. There are other possibilities: presuppositional commitments theologically or philosophically, personality quirks, poor hermeneutics, etc.

I tend to take this further that our education system's education system was flawed. The things you have listed tend to be related to education or societal conditioning so it's not unrelated to my answer.

I have no idea what "live in the questions they present" means. Can you explain?

Living in questions is allow a question to remain a question not needing an answer, pose the question, but then continue on if it is not obvious. In the past I used to just ask the question, then God would reveal it when I was reading something unrelated elsewhere in the scripture ... but this takes it a little further and just leaves it until something more conclusive (that actually displays the fruit scripture expresses) arises.

Why should this be crucial to understanding God's word? Do you think God did not anticipate that you and I would read His revelation of Himself in Scripture without direct access to the cultural milieu in which the writing of the Bible occurred? Do you think God would not communicate to us in such a way as to circumvent this deficit in our knowledge? Why wouldn't He? Why would He make it impossible to access from Scripture His real meaning? What sort of a revelation of Himself and a guide to our spiritual life would such an impenetrably obscure text be? Not a very good one, I think! Certainly not one worthy to be called the word of God.

I think this should be crucial to understand what is being said. The question lived in when it is a "cultural" text is whether we really get the point of what is being said in terms of 2000 years ago, let alone 200 years ago. Certainty is a damaging assumption, because we rely on God to reveal the scriptures for us, and God opposes the proud .. so beginning with a proud assumption cuts us off from the source of all truth to begin with.

Well, hang on. If Joe has one perspective on a particular subject in Scripture about which he feels very certain and for which he has a solid scriptural basis and Bob can say the same about a very different perspective he holds on the same subject, does it follow that therefore they are spiritually inhibited and their perspectives/convictions/beliefs are "basically worthless"? Of course not! To them, at least, their perspectives - different though they may be from each other - may be a great aid to spiritual living and of immense value to them as a consequence! It seems to me, then, that you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater in your comment above.

This was meditating on James when He said faith without works is dead, one of his other statements, if your faith doesn't help anyone it is worthless. So in a sense, a lot of our theologies are useful to us, like speaking in tongues is said (in the scripture) to edify the person doing it, but since many of these theologies don't edify anyone else, (or only people exactly like the expositor) they're useless in terms of the global church that Jesus is building.
.
To explain with more punctuation: Some theologies only confuse people. Some theologies only divide the children of God. Some theologies inhibit spiritual devotion. These theologies are worthless, because they do not edify.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I like your premise but disagree on a few counts. First, we are not taught how to find time period sources but there are ways to do this and historical research can shed much light. One of our elders has a 16 hour seminar he does that teaches people how to find time period sources and to use them to fill in some NT context. We also have the factor of time... sometimes God takes His time revealing meaning to things. I remember one time I was told something that came from that same elder, and I didn't grasp it. But knowing how well studied he is, and how balanced he is... I knew that even if I ended up not agreeing, that is was ok to file it away until I had more background to properly consider the point. About a year later I went back to the topic and was able to work through it and see depth and harmony to a point that originally seem more like chaos in my mind. I needed TIME... and God uses time to His benefit. I would never give up on something because I didn't "get it" today... I would just wait on God to reveal it in His time.

This is a crucial reason for living in a question, we need more time. Thank you for posting.

 

[mindlight]

If there are two (or more) conflicting positions on how to interpret a scripture verse, I tend to chalk this up to our education system being flawed and us not knowing how to think properly. Instead of declaring all theologies wrong, I set all conflicting opinions aside that feel the need to disagree with one another and live in the questions that they present. I find this tends to cover more ground theologically than trying to figure it all out with a mindset that the writers of the bible did not possess.
.
Since I do not have a time machine, no amount of historical research will provide me the intuitive understanding of that time that living in that time would. So living in questions and continually being renewed by the transforming of my mind by God seems to be the best bet.
.
What matters in terms of theology is what it does, if all it does is confuse and divide and in some cases inhibit spiritual devotion, then it's basically worthless. So finding value is the first task with such theologies, and part of it may be removing the false dichotomies that don't need to be there in the first place.

Thanks for posting. It is a really interesting discussion. The reality of theological conflicts in the church is a real one but the extent to which it is divisive or a process by which understanding is deepened is I suppose our own choice. Sometimes Christian pluralism is a sickness and sometimes a God ordained difference of emphasis that has spurred missionary movements and religious reforming zeal down the centuries. Personally I never join in the Catholic - Protestant discussions cause I see little value in those. I regard the pope as a Christian brother while disagreeing with him about Marian theology but the most important thing is that he loves God. Catholics and Protestants can both say the Nicene creed and on all the doctrines that matter are recognisable to Muslims and atheists as being in the same Christian community. Semites and Antisemites often have valid things to say about Jews. The promises remain but they rejected their Messiah. Old and Young Earth Creationists cannot both be right but hierarchically the more important fact of God as Creator is accepted by both. The list goes on but there is both a value in these disagreements and a schismatic detraction from witness. At the end of the day it comes down to how and where you do your theology and how well grounded what you are saying is in Gods word. If the person you debate with is not equipped to deal with truthes you have direct from scripture then that is not really entirely your problem. You can only speak Gods word and let God handle the rest. Gods word will not return to Him empty...

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I tend to take what is good about it and make it my own, and leave the other parts that do not edify. I have no way of knowing if the other parts are part of God's developmental program in a person's life based on where they came from, and if I didn't come from that same place I wouldn't see it. I wouldn't say all interpretations are correct, but all interpretations are useful in the maturity process, and in some cases very wrong interpretations is someone reaching out to God with a mind full of thoughts that are hostile to what He represents. Since we are born again by being prepared in advance to trust Him, and we grow by the continual renewing of our minds, in the sense of maturity of children .. it's good to keep an open mind and leave room for growth for each individual in Christ.

Brother Michael, sorry for getting a little carried away in my original response. It happens sometimes for any number of reasons. I agree with you here as it is. In this life, we're continually works in progress, ever in need of our Savior, ever in need of reminders, and the humility to be formed by the Potter.

I used to find it frustrating as well. However, over time, I stopped needing certainty, and noticed the questions that ever increase with each person and each generation, becomes like a dialogue mapping out everything. It's still a bit much for me to take in, another area where there is room for growth for me.

Well, it's not so much "need" per say as it is given by the Spirit by faith, the certainty that comes by faith. In myself, I have no certainty about anything, neither can I arrive at it in a justifiable manner. So there is a Spiritual tension between the flesh and Spirit, one of unbelief and belief, one of uncertainty and certainty. I find that in some areas I have a high level of confidence, while in other areas, I am still in earlier developmental stages, and in other areas while I am fairly certain, I am not one hundred percent certain. I find it helpful to prioritize, to be certain in the essentials and areas closely related to the essentials, and from there down, more open minded and less certainty, while still having or holding to positions, depending on what it pertains to, in some instances I may not really even have a position.

I agree, the scriptures should be interpreted from a God centred mindset. However, even among those who would claim from daily disciplines and intimacy with God and spiritual maturity ... I have the Mind of Christ, have various disagreements.

There's plenty of room for disagreements in non-essentials, which probably make up for a vast majority. This is one reason I find statements or confessions of faith so helpful, some more so than others and some content, depending on the statements, are more essential than others, but nevertheless they can be helpful guides.

One bible translation that commonly changes the words due to the need to be able to keep a copyright used to say Love believes all things, this was in context of love rejoices in the truth. Since the church is so divided, finding a means to use conflicting theologies as one where possible is a worthwhile endeavor, the church cannot continue in its carnal infancy (according to Paul) forever.

I was just thinking about "believes all things" if taken as is hyper literally, how ridiculous such a statement would be. But it's a context content thing and another instance where "all" doesn't mean all.

When I said "What matters in terms of theology is what it does, if all it does is confuse and divide and in some cases inhibit spiritual devotion, then it's basically worthless. So finding value is the first task with such theologies, and part of it may be removing the false dichotomies that don't need to be there in the first place."

Sometimes division is necessary, I believe with all of my heart the Reformation was a necessary division. In many instances though, I agree division was not necessary, and sadly the whole denomination thing in Protestant Christianity is way beyond ridiculous and spun out of control, but it is a consequence of the Scriptures being in the hands of anybody and everybody, that and freedom, and enough willing "followers". It is saddening the degree of divisions, people just cannot get along and there are too many chiefs and not enough Indians. Part of this, in America anyway, is people either have no clue, or little to no knowledge about the history behind their beliefs, when history is forgotten, people tend to make the mistakes of the past.

I was referring to bits of western logic that force us to debate things like determinism and freewill when the bible promotes both (at the same time, thus either or is flawed thinking). Individualism is the issue here, the concept of facing life's problems with God together is a foreign concept because individualism has influenced many doctrines, and has caused many pointless debates to arise over selfish theology A and selfish theology B, and a deer in the headlights gaze when someone ignores both positions and makes it about Jesus.

Well, I do not see logic as belonging to western civilization, any more than language belongs to western civilization, logic in it's purest and complete form, is a property of, the being of God, of how God has made language meaningful and possible. I'll be honest, I was a Christian for quite a long time before getting into or feeling comfortable enough to get into any debates involving determinism and free will. Out of debating it though (and other means of conditioning), God brought more maturity to my faith, to many beliefs, however for the ways I may be mature, I am immature in so many other ways. I tend to agree about individualism, and because of it, I have become more and more interested and fond of historical theology, and the study of it, for many many reasons.

 

[sparow]

If there are two (or more) conflicting positions on how to interpret a scripture verse, I tend to chalk this up to our education system being flawed and us not knowing how to think properly. Instead of declaring all theologies wrong, I set all conflicting opinions aside that feel the need to disagree with one another and live in the questions that they present. I find this tends to cover more ground theologically than trying to figure it all out with a mindset that the writers of the bible did not possess.
.
Since I do not have a time machine, no amount of historical research will provide me the intuitive understanding of that time that living in that time would. So living in questions and continually being renewed by the transforming of my mind by God seems to be the best bet.
.
What matters in terms of theology is what it does, if all it does is confuse and divide and in some cases inhibit spiritual devotion, then it's basically worthless. So finding value is the first task with such theologies, and part of it may be removing the false dichotomies that don't need to be there in the first place.

I think it would be wrong to say a scripture is basically worthless; the error would lie else where. The error is trying to extract precise meaning instead of the scripture being the bread of life, when eaten a person grows into harvestable fruit. The scriptures are a living endless stream; it is wrong to fix a specific meaning to a verse. One should receive new vitality each time he reads. Theology as a science misses the point; pushes God out of the way.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I think it would be wrong to say a scripture is basically worthless; the error would lie else where. The error is trying to extract precise meaning instead of the scripture being the bread of life, when eaten a person grows into harvestable fruit. The scriptures are a living endless stream; it is wrong to fix a specific meaning to a verse. One should receive new vitality each time he reads. Theology as a science misses the point; pushes God out of the way.

I'd agree, it would be wrong to say scripture is worthless. It is not however wrong to say interpretations of scripture can be worthless.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Brother Michael, sorry for getting a little carried away in my original response. It happens sometimes for any number of reasons. I agree with you here as it is. In this life, we're continually works in progress, ever in need of our Savior, ever in need of reminders, and the humility to be formed by the Potter.



Well, it's not so much "need" per say as it is given by the Spirit by faith, the certainty that comes by faith. In myself, I have no certainty about anything, neither can I arrive at it in a justifiable manner. So there is a Spiritual tension between the flesh and Spirit, one of unbelief and belief, one of uncertainty and certainty. I find that in some areas I have a high level of confidence, while in other areas, I am still in earlier developmental stages, and in other areas while I am fairly certain, I am not one hundred percent certain. I find it helpful to prioritize, to be certain in the essentials and areas closely related to the essentials, and from there down, more open minded and less certainty, while still having or holding to positions, depending on what it pertains to, in some instances I may not really even have a position.



There's plenty of room for disagreements in non-essentials, which probably make up for a vast majority. This is one reason I find statements or confessions of faith so helpful, some more so than others and some content, depending on the statements, are more essential than others, but nevertheless they can be helpful guides.



I was just thinking about "believes all things" if taken as is hyper literally, how ridiculous such a statement would be. But it's a context content thing and another instance where "all" doesn't mean all.



Sometimes division is necessary, I believe with all of my heart the Reformation was a necessary division. In many instances though, I agree division was not necessary, and sadly the whole denomination thing in Protestant Christianity is way beyond ridiculous and spun out of control, but it is a consequence of the Scriptures being in the hands of anybody and everybody, that and freedom, and enough willing "followers". It is saddening the degree of divisions, people just cannot get along and there are too many chiefs and not enough Indians. Part of this, in America anyway, is people either have no clue, or little to no knowledge about the history behind their beliefs, when history is forgotten, people tend to make the mistakes of the past.



Well, I do not see logic as belonging to western civilization, any more than language belongs to western civilization, logic in it's purest and complete form, is a property of, the being of God, of how God has made language meaningful and possible. I'll be honest, I was a Christian for quite a long time before getting into or feeling comfortable enough to get into any debates involving determinism and free will. Out of debating it though (and other means of conditioning), God brought more maturity to my faith, to many beliefs, however for the ways I may be mature, I am immature in so many other ways. I tend to agree about individualism, and because of it, I have become more and more interested and fond of historical theology, and the study of it, for many many reasons.

I appreciate your response. I strongly believe that maturity is one of the things that will bring the faith together again someday.
.
"Sometimes division is necessary, I believe with all of my heart the Reformation was a necessary division."
- I tend to think so also, how I have benefitted from the reformation is the political freedom to explore so many theologies without being exposed to violent situations.

"I was just thinking about "believes all things" if taken as is hyper literally, how ridiculous such a statement would be. But it's a context content thing and another instance where "all" doesn't mean all."
- I think that old NIV rendition that is no longer in print is still very helpful, but cannot be taken to an extreme, the context of love in that passage is helpful in understanding it better. Even the rendition "love always trust" can be harmful to an extreme due to the world we live in, perhaps love is just dangerous by nature and our God is too safe? time will tell.

 

[aiki]

Living in questions is allow a question to remain a question not needing an answer, pose the question, but then continue on if it is not obvious.

Not sure how this is living in the question...Sounds to me like you're just ignoring the question.

Certainty is a damaging assumption

Are you certain this is so? If you are, then your statement here self-destructs. If not, then why should we give it any weight?

we rely on God to reveal the scriptures for us,

And when He does, can we not, then, be certain of it?

so beginning with a proud assumption cuts us off from the source of all truth to begin with.

Not all things of which a person may be certain are "proud assumptions." I am certain that 1+1=2 but this is not a thing in which I take any pride. And if pride could cut us off from the Source of All Truth who is Christ (Jn. 14:6), none of us would ever come to a saving faith in him; for at the heart of every unrepentant sinner stands dark and terrible hubris. Of course, pride is not particularly helpful in getting at the truth, but it is not nearly the truth-preventative that you assert that it is, I think. Then, too, in my experience those who are least confident in what they know tend to see those who are as "arrogant," and "conceited," and "prideful." Others take pride in their uncertainty, believing that avoiding the claim to know anything is admirable and wise. It seems to me both perspectives are evidently foolish and ought to be avoided.

These theologies are worthless, because they do not edify.

I'm afraid I can't agree. The value of a particular theological fact isn't determined by its edifying effect on people but on its being a truthful revelation of God.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Not sure how this is living in the question...Sounds to me like you're just ignoring the question.



Are you certain this is so? If you are, then your statement here self-destructs. If not, then why should we give it any weight?



And when He does, can we not, then, be certain of it?



Not all things of which a person may be certain are "proud assumptions." I am certain that 1+1=2 but this is not a thing in which I take any pride. And if pride could cut us off from the Source of All Truth who is Christ (Jn. 14:6), none of us would ever come to a saving faith in him; for at the heart of every unrepentant sinner stands dark and terrible hubris. Of course, pride is not particularly helpful in getting at the truth, but it is not nearly the truth-preventative that you assert that it is, I think. Then, too, in my experience those who are least confident in what they know tend to see those who are as "arrogant," and "conceited," and "prideful." Others take pride in their uncertainty, believing that avoiding the claim to know anything is admirable and wise. It seems to me both perspectives are evidently foolish and ought to be avoided.



I'm afraid I can't agree. The value of a particular theological fact isn't determined by its edifying effect on people but on its being a truthful revelation of God.

I appreciate your disagreement. Thank you for your perspective.

 

[sparow]

I'd agree, it would be wrong to say scripture is worthless. It is not however wrong to say interpretations of scripture can be worthless.

I agree with that. Interpretation is required to understand what we read or hear and there are so many steps forward and so many steps backward as we progress. The problem arises when interpretations are institutionalised.

 

[Greek2Me]

What matters in terms of theology is what it does, if all it does is confuse and divide and in some cases inhibit spiritual devotion, then it's basically worthless. So finding value is the first task with such theologies, and part of it may be removing the false dichotomies that don't need to be there in the first place.

What matters (theologically speaking) is NOT whether a teaching "unites or divides", but whether or not it is TRUE! The reason many "get along" is because they have so diluted their positions that there is no longer any disagreement... when in fact, their SHOULD be. Jesus Himself asked, "Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division...' (Luke 12:51). There must necessarily be a divide between those who accept Christ and those who do not.

Much of the difficulty, however, stems from determining whether a difference of opinion is serious enough to "divide" (that is, to separate ourselves) from others who also call themselves "Believers". There are many secondary or even tertiary issues where we may disagree without separating. But there are primary issues (i.e. Divinity of Christ) for which there can be no leeway, no surrender of firm position. There, the Holy Spirit may place in us such a strong conviction as to what God intends that we have no alternative but to separate from those who hold otherwise.

Study the Word faithfully, intently and prayerfully. Without doubt, the loving God who has given His own Son for our salvation will bring clarity to the minds, hearts and souls of those who are honestly seeking Him. I have a feeling that when we finally arrive before Him, MOST of us are going to have a moment where we "smack our foreheads" (figuratively speaking) as we realize how much time and effort was spent dickering over details that had nothing to DO with salvation, which was what God was focused on all along, no?

Maranatha

 

[Gregory Thompson]

What matters (theologically speaking) is NOT whether a teaching "unites or divides", but whether or not it is TRUE!

To consider: The bible teaches truth in a number of ways through the person of Jesus Christ.

Jesus said to the Father "thy word is truth"
Jesus said you will know the truth and the truth will set you free
Jesus also said I am the truth

Whether something unites or divides is regarding spiritual maturity according to Paul, this relates to Truth Setting Free, and Truth being part of who we are participating in the divine nature.

To illustrate further, during the temptation of Christ in the wilderness, the devil quoted scripture .. but this was not a representation of truth, so we too should take heed scripture's instruction regarding what truth is.

 

[Greek2Me]

To consider: The bible teaches truth in a number of ways through the person of Jesus Christ.

While I would agree that Scripture may "come at truth" from a variety of perspectives, it is still approaching the same truth. When interpretations, denominational perspectives or "folk theology" clearly indicate a belief that cannot be plainly and strongly drawn from Scripture, we now have a "necessary division". Jesus spoke to Samaritans one way, to Pharisees another, and to His disciples in a totally different fashion... yet He was not speaking contradictory messages. So how in the WORLD have we wound up with SO many contradictory interpretations and resulting opposing truths?

1) Poor scholarship and/or study methods
2) Reliance on wisdom of men, rather than guidance of the Spirit
and most sadly...
3) INTENTIONAL perversions of Scripture, to justify ungodly lifestyles

So, we find that Satan is not the only one who can present the Truth of Scripture, but do so with false sincerity and misleading intentions.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

While I would agree that Scripture may "come at truth" from a variety of perspectives, it is still approaching the same truth. When interpretations, denominational perspectives or "folk theology" clearly indicate a belief that cannot be plainly and strongly drawn from Scripture, we now have a "necessary division". Jesus spoke to Samaritans one way, to Pharisees another, and to His disciples in a totally different fashion... yet He was not speaking contradictory messages. So how in the WORLD have we wound up with SO many contradictory interpretations and resulting opposing truths?

1) Poor scholarship and/or study methods
2) Reliance on wisdom of men, rather than guidance of the Spirit
and most sadly...
3) INTENTIONAL perversions of Scripture, to justify ungodly lifestyles

So, we find that Satan is not the only one who can present the Truth of Scripture, but do so with false sincerity and misleading intentions.

This response only appeals to one dimension of Godly truth, that being "thy word is truth" I recall there being at least three illustrated through the words of Jesus Christ.

I tend to meditate on the saying in the bible "may God be true and every man a liar" that way it covers everything. There are so many interpretations .. because there are so many people, and that's all there is to it.

However, perhaps we can agree on the statement "I Know God is Right" .

 

[Ron Gurley]

There is only one way to spiritually discern Scripture.
Let God the Holy Spirit guide and use “systematic theology”.Google that