The dangers of YEC'ism

[Iosias]

No, I interpret scriptures according to Weselyan theology.

Which was my point when I said "You let Man interpret scripture " after all Wesley was a man was he not?

I let knowledge of the earth and the fossil record inform that interpretation.

So you are interpreting scripture according to books written by falliable Man. If you factor into the equation a mature earth and a flood then dating techniques become faulty...I am sure paulewog can explain better than I.

No, you interpret it, too.

Ha ha ha...actually I let the Holy Ghost illuminate His words and I let scripture speak for itself instead of interpreting it through a theological outlook. But don't let the facts get in the way of an attempted cheap shot though

 

[Vance]

If you are a "Classical Dispensationalist", this shows that you follow a certain approach to Scripture handed down to you by "fallible man". This is inevitable. Every person reading Scripture is involved in interpretation, whether influenced by others or influenced by our own "humanness".

I also allow the Holy Spirit to illuminate God's Word. I am a Bible-believing, Spirit-led Christian, and like many others who allow the Spirit to guide, we have been guided to a non-literal reading. You say the Spirit has led you elsewhere. The fact that the Spirit can lead people to differing interpretations is immensely significant. Of course, if you believe that the Spirit only really guides YOU, and not the majority of Christians who accept a non-literal reading, then you have bigger issues than I can deal with on this forum.

As for allowing the evidence of God's Creation, to inform our interpretation, aren't you glad that Christians allowed the evidence of heliocentrism, even though presented in the "books of fallible men", to alter their long-held literal interpretation that the Bible taught geocentrism? While it took the Church all the way to the late 1800's to finally abandoned their literal interpretation, and accept a non-literal interpretation, I still think the Spirit was at work in this decision.

Of course, there are still geocentrists today who hold on stubbornly to a literal reading of Scripture. They are not willing to let secular science alter their literal reading since doing so would be compromising with the World, weakening in the force of atheistic science, etc, etc.

Sound familiar?

 

[Iosias]

If you are a "Classical Dispensationalist", this shows that you follow a certain approach to Scripture handed down to you by "fallible man". This is inevitable. Every person reading Scripture is involved in interpretation, whether influenced by others or influenced by our own "humanness".

I only hold to classical dispensationalism in so far as scripture agrees with it

I also allow the Holy Spirit to illuminate God's Word. I am a Bible-believing, Spirit-led Christian, and like many others who allow the Spirit to guide, we have been guided to a non-literal reading. You say the Spirit has led you elsewhere. The fact that the Spirit can lead people to differing interpretations is immensely significant. Of course, if you believe that the Spirit only really guides YOU, and not the majority of Christians who accept a non-literal reading, then you have bigger issues than I can deal with on this forum.

The Holy Bioble is the word of truth and as such is exclusive in its meaning. This means that either you are correct or I am...and you are not because in your hands the Holy Bible means nothing more than the person reading it who says "this is what I believe this passage means" well fantastic but the Holy Bible has one meaning and this does not depend upon you. Instead we should ask "what does this passage mean if I did not exist?"

While it took the Church all the way to the late 1800's to finally abandoned their literal interpretation, and accept a non-literal interpretation, I still think the Spirit was at work in this decision.

Actually the literal method was replaced by the spiritualising method from about the Third century due to the works of Augustine and the rise of Popery. However the glorious reformation saw a return to the literal method and since then it has been practiced by a Christian remenant.

Of course, there are still geocentrists today who hold on stubbornly to a literal reading of Scripture. They are not willing to let secular science alter their literal reading since doing so would be compromising with the World, weakening in the force of atheistic science, etc, etc.

I will not let Man's interpretation shape how I read the Holy Bible. The Holy Bible (word of truth) says that the earth was created in six-days (six 24 hour periods) and if modern 'science' contradicts this then modern 'science' is wrong.

 

[Vance]

The Holy Bioble is the word of truth and as such is exclusive in its meaning. This means that either you are correct or I am...and you are not because in your hands the Holy Bible means nothing more than the person reading it who says "this is what I believe this passage means" well fantastic but the Holy Bible has one meaning and this does not depend upon you. Instead we should ask "what does this passage mean if I did not exist?""

Exactly, but that does not get around the fact that we do have the text in our hands and we must make sense of it. Of course, we are both seeking to determine what that objective truth is, rather than our own subjective idea, but we only have our own interpretative abilities and the Spirit's guidance to reach this actual truth. This is why we have thousands of different beliefs by Christians based on varying understandings of what the text means. Yes, there indeed may be only one true reading, but it would be the height of arrogance, not to mention sinful pride and hubris, to believe that your own interpretation is always correct. I do not make such claims. I *think* my interpretation of Genesis is correct because it makes sense, fits the evidence of God's Creation, and I feel led to this interpretation by the Spirit. I am fully at peace with a non-literal translation.

"Actually the literal method was replaced by the spiritualising method from about the Third century due to the works of Augustine and the rise of Popery. However the glorious reformation saw a return to the literal method and since then it has been practiced by a Christian remenant."

Well, it is odd that so many of the Christian denominations, including many Protestant denominations now accept evolution, which requires a non-literal reading:

http://www.christianforums.com/t780332


" will not let Man's interpretation shape how I read the Holy Bible. The Holy Bible (word of truth) says that the earth was created in six-days (six 24 hour periods) and if modern 'science' contradicts this then modern 'science' is wrong."

So, then, what do you say to the modern geocentrist? The Church, and almost every Christian, believed that a literal reading of Scripture required a belief in geocentrism. The Church, and almost every Christian, eventually came to accept heliocentrism instead of their literal reading and the ONLY reason for doing so was because of the evidence of God's creation presented to them by scientists. So, if you believe in heliocentrism, you have (whether you know it or not) accepted a scientific conclusion OVER a plain literal translation.

The geocentrist would say about your acceptance of heliocentrism everything that you are now saying about evolution and an old earth.

So, what to do you tell the geocentrist?

 

[herev]

Which was my point when I said "You let Man interpret scripture " after all Wesley was a man was he not?

Once again, you are twising my words (which I believe is a claim you make against TE's, isn't it--twisting words?) or simply not paying attention...

Wesley does not interpret the scriptures for me--He's dead--has been for a long time. I said, and I said it plainly--that I interpret according to Wesleyan theology. Wesley gave us a method--it's called the Wesleyan Quadralateral. It is a method to interpret--not a dictation of what we must believe. Again, I interpret what I read, just as you do.

So you are interpreting scripture according to books written by falliable Man.

I am taking the lessons that fallible men have taught about creation from their observations which have been confirmed over and over again and using them to inform my interpretation. You, on the other hand are accepting an interpretation of fallible men who have taught for the last hundred years or so, that the creation accounts must be literal.

If you factor into the equation a mature earth and a flood then dating techniques become faulty...I am sure paulewog can explain better than I.

I don't need him to explain it, I understand the argument just fine, thanks--and you and he are welcome to hold to it . I, on the other hand, hold to a different notion of origins theology.

Ha ha ha...actually I let the Holy Ghost illuminate His words and I let scripture speak for itself instead of interpreting it through a theological outlook.

Exactly by what teaching to you propose that you alone are entitled to claim the Holy Spirit's illumination. I never study scripture without requesting His assistance. I listen, and I STUDY as I interpret. To assume that I don't have access to the H.S's teaching is insulting. To assume that I ignore it is even more so. YOur interpretation of scripture does not give you a trademark claim to being the only one who reads the Bible, believes in the truth of the Bible, or has any more of a direct link to God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit. To assume so is dangerously close to judging my salvation.

But, that is besides the point, you claim to not have a theological outlook.

This is not only wrong, it is so wrong, it does away with the validity of any of your teaching. Are you a Christian? If the answer is no, then you have a specific theological outlook when reading, studying and interpreting scripture. But guess what? If the answer is yes, then you still have a theological outlook when reading, studying and interpreting scripture. Being a Christian IS a theological outlook.

You also have your experiences, the traditions of the teachings you have been given in Christian discipleship, Bibliography, and hermaneutics. You have a particular world-view that comes from the geographical and sociological framework of your environment not only as a developing Christian, but also that results from your physical upbringing. You have the fact of whether or not your parents are/were Christians when you were growing up--whether or not you were exposed to other denominations, Teachings, or religions as you were growing physically and spiritually. You grew up speaking english in a Western culture (I'm assuming), which also affects your theological outlook and your interpretation--Your screen name indicates that you are probably a KJV-only type of Chrsitian--this, too affects your theology and interpretation.

Unless you grew up (physically and spiritually) in a room with no contact with another single soul, your theological outlook and interpretaion is affected by others that you have been involved with your whole life--and if you were reared in such an enviornment, then that, too affects your theological outlook and your interpretation of scripture.

All of these things, whether you choose to admit it or not, understand it or not--have an effect on your spiritual outlook, and thus your theological outlook. Your theological outlook affects your interpretation when reading, studying, and applying scripture to yourself, to the world around you and to the way you interact with the world around you. It cannot be avoided or dismissed, it can only be recognized to assist you in discerning the Holy Spirit's voice--but if you reject it or even fail to admit you have one--then the HS must speak through a haze of denial to even get close to you.

There is no getting around it, you have a theological outlook and you do interpret.

We simply interpret differently than you--it is no crime, it is no sin, and it has no bearing on my salvation (or yours).

 

[gluadys]

The Holy Bioble is the word of truth and as such is exclusive in its meaning. This means that either you are correct or I am...


...but the Holy Bible has one meaning....

I have run across this strange statement before, though not often. Does anyone have a clue as to its origin?

To me it is a complete misrepresentation of the rich meaningfulness of the bible. Can psalm or a parable really be cut back to only one meaning? Why would anyone want to place such a restriction on the beautiful texts of scripture.

To me, one of the joys of bible study is discovering new meanings I didn't realize were there before.

The only place I expect to find just a single meaning is in a mathematics text, where each problem has only one right answer.

The bible is a book about life, and life can't be reduced to math.

 

[Vance]

Song of Solomon. Is it's "one meaning" a sensuous (even erotic) love poem, with a man and a woman (unmarried, man and woman, btw) praising the physical beauties of the other's bodies and yearning for the time when they can consummate their love (not to mention lust)?

Or might it have an additional meaning as well? Maybe an allegory? A metaphor?

Well, no, of course not, the literalist would have to say. We have to go with the "plain meaning", not resort to mushy and uncertain "allegories" or "metaphors".

After all, if you accept that Song of Solomon can be read allegorically, you would have to accept Genesis can be read allegorically. There are no specific references in Song of Solomon which would indicate that it should be read allegorically.

 

[fuzzyh]

I believe in a single one meaning of scripture. However, I do believe that the application of scripture can be more than just one way. I also can not say that I know the ONE TRUE meaning of every verse. I can get very very close though in most cases, IMHO.

Also to keep this on topic here. I believe in a hierarchy of revelations. This means that God's written word the Bible is more of an authority than say the general revelation of God, ie creation. The Bible clearly says that the creation of the world occured in 6 days. If you believe that it is refering to time periods, please look up the hebrew word and sentence structure and refer to your local hebrew scholar.

Lastly, I'd like to just say one thing. The spirit can not lead two different people into two different ideas. The spirit can not lead one man to TE while still leading the other to YEC. I take this from the character of God.

1Co 14:33 for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. (NASB)

This leads me to believe that, one if not both people are wrong. What does that leave us with? All of us needing to search for what is right according to God's revelation to his people.

 

[herev]

I believe in a single one meaning of scripture. However, I do believe that the application of scripture can be more than just one way. I also can not say that I know the ONE TRUE meaning of every verse. I can get very very close though in most cases, IMHO.

Good for you

Also to keep this on topic here. I believe in a hierarchy of revelations. This means that God's written word the Bible is more of an authority than say the general revelation of God, ie creation.

Why does it have to mean that? Could a heirarchy of revelations not also say the opposite?

The Bible clearly says that the creation of the world occured in 6 days. If you believe that it is refering to time periods, please look up the hebrew word and sentence structure and refer to your local hebrew scholar.

Yes it does, but when I look up the Hebrew word and sentence structure and refer to my local Hebrew scholar, I am told it is not, nor has it ever been, intended to be literal.

Lastly, I'd like to just say one thing. The spirit can not lead two different people into two different ideas. The spirit can not lead one man to TE while still leading the other to YEC. I take this from the character of God.

Assuming you are correct about the spirit and these passages (which I do not agree with, but assuming for now), why is it that TE's are always the one's who are assumed to act in a manner contrary to the Holy Spirit's leading?

This leads me to believe that, one if not both people are wrong. What does that leave us with? All of us needing to search for what is right according to God's revelation to his people.

Agreed

 

[findingneo]

IMHO I think that often the dangers with certain YEC's or TE's is their insistence in being dogmatic to the detriment of loving one another.

 

[Vance]

IMHO I think that often the dangers with certain YEC's or TE's is their insistence in being dogmatic to the detriment of loving one another.

This is the point I have been trying to make all along. I don't care one little whit whether a particular Christian believes in YEC theories regarding origins. What I vehemently oppose is their insistence of being dogmatic about it and telling people that if Scripture is true, evolution is not true, and vice-versa. Many YEC's have even made such dogmatic statements like "well, if evolution were to be true, then we should just throw the Bible away!" or, just as dangerous, "a belief in evolution contradicts the salvation message".

They say this, they preach this, they teach our children this dogmatism. The problem with this dogmatism is that it is dangerous whether they are right or not!

These statements can, and do, prevent people who accept evolution from coming to Christ. These statements, made to our children, can cause them to unecessarily doubt their faith later on.

"Unecessary" is the key word here. There is no need whatsoever to draw this line dogmatically.

 

[herev]

IMHO I think that often the dangers with certain YEC's or TE's is their insistence in being dogmatic to the detriment of loving one another.

agreed, we need to love each other as Christian Brothers and Sisters, disagreement without condemnation