I was teaching the other day on hermeneutics (the science and art of biblical interpretation). More specifically, I was teaching on the importance of what is known as “authorial intent” or “historical grammatical” hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is a fancy word that has to do with one’s method of interpreting the Bible. An “authorial intent” hermeneutic simply means that we must seek to understand what the text meant from the standpoint of the original author and audience before we can apply it to our lives. This involves an understanding of many things, including the argument of the writing, the situation of the audience, the rules that govern the particular genera (type of writing), the culture in which the book was written, issues of grammar and syntax, and personality and mood of the author (and how he was feeling at the time he wrote it). Sometimes this is self-evident, and sometimes it takes a lot of leg work. Sometimes you are sure, but sometimes there is some ambiguity that tempers your assurance.
While I was explaining this, many people were becoming very uncomfortable and squirming in their seat. One lady would have none of what I said, but continually pleaded that she does not need this. God simply speaks to her when she opens the Bible, bypassing all these difficulties and roadblocks that I was suggesting. She insinuated that if what I said were true that she would have to quit reading the Scriptures. Ouch! As an Evangelical Christian teacher, this is the last thing that I want someone to do.
Today’s reaction was not unique by any stretch. I have taught on this dozens of times and most people feel very uncomfortable with this presentation. I understand where they are coming from. Heck, I even find these propositions difficult to swallow sometimes. Why? Because the Bible is God’s word. Because we are taught that the Bible is “living and active.” Because we believe that the “Bible is God’s love letter to us.” This means that when we open it up, it becomes God’s message to us.
Most people normally don’t practice authorial intent hermeneutics when we read our Bible. We have a different hermeneutic altogether. It is a subjective, reader-response hermeneutic where the Bible speaks magically to us. In our mind (although we would never admit it as such), God bypasses the original intent of the author and opens our eyes to His teaching just for us. This is a “secret” hidden message that only Christians can find. One of my friends in seminary used to call this “lucky-lotto hermeneutics.” To play the ”lucky-lotto,” you simply pick up the Bible and the first thing you read will give you the answers to the questions you are after: God will speak directly to you.
I often tell people that if we were going to practice this type of hermeneutic, we might as well use Moby Dick. As a matter of fact, if this is our method, God can use any writing whether it be Harry Potter, the Dallas Morning News sports page, the Yellow Pages, the billboard as you are driving down the road, or the ticker at the bottom of the screen while watching FOX News (not MSNBC though 🙂 ). All of these would carry the same validity as God’s message if we are going to use a subjective hermeneutic which disregards what the text meant in its original context. If God is going to bless us and give us a message in such a way, He is doing it graciously in spite of our methodology, not because of it.
Where does such a hermeneutic arise? Why do we feel as if we can violate the Scriptures in such a way? Where do we come up with this method of mining out God’s “secret” hidden message?
I believe that Gnosticism, at least in the West, is the biggest problem in conservative Christianity today. To make a very complex subject overly simple, Gnosticism is a ancient Greek philosophy that separates the world into two categories: good and evil. All that is evil is associated with the mundane existence of a material world. All that is good is that which transcends the material world, being spiritual in nature. Therefore, Gnostics believed that the body, being material, was inherently evil. They believed that the earth and creation were evil. They believed that our goal was to transcend this material existence in every discipline of life, thus escaping the mundane. The ultimate redemption would come at death when our spirits would finally be released from our body.
In the New Testament, we see the Apostle’s having to battle this type of philosophy time and time again. Paul was scoffed at as he preached the resurrection of the dead to the Athenians. “Why would some one want to resurrect their evil body?” was the argument of the philosophers on Mars Hill. “That is ridiculous. We just got rid of our body; why would we want it back?” John had to defend the fact that Christ actually took on real flesh, a true material existence. Those Gnostics who wanted to be faithful to their philosophy of dualism (good=spirit and evil=physical) yet accept Christianity produced a new Christ. To them, Christ only seemed to have a body, but He really didn’t because a good God could not take on a physical existence since physicality is inherently evil. Yet John proclaimed that they had “seen” Christ and that their “hands have handled him” (1 John 1:1-2).
Where am I going with this? Hang with me…
It is my contention that we are still struggling with the basic presuppositions of a Gnostic worldview in the church today. Right now, I am simply dealing with this with regards to our Bibliology and Hermeneutic, but we can find the influence of Gnosticism infecting our view of Christ, Humanity, Culture, and the end times. As I mention above, most Christians are reading the Bible with a subjective hermeneutic. They read the text as if there is some secret, hidden, underlying meaning in the text. This hidden meaning is the true “spiritual” meaning that transcends the ordinary, physical, evident, mundane reading. This hidden meaning can only be discovered by Christians. Why? Because Christians have the secret decoder ring. We have the Holy Spirit who meets us at the text and whispers in our ear what the meaning really is.
This hermeneutic started very early in Church history in Alexandria and was predominant until the Reformation. Many in church history laid it out logically in this way: Just as the body has three parts—body (physical), soul, and spirit, so the Scripture has three interpretations—literal (physical), moral, and spiritual. While the literal was not completely disregarded, it certainly took a back seat to the more important spiritual meaning. The problem quickly became evident as people would search for this deeper hidden meaning without any rules or reliable guidelines for finding such. The result was that everyone came to different conclusions about what it meant (sound familiar?). The Reformers led the Church back to authorial intent hermeneutics, claiming that it is the only way for us to understand what the Scriptures really mean.
Today, I believe that we (evangelicals included) are dangerously close to Gnosticism with regards to our Bible study. We have lost the spirit of Reformation hermeneutics, especially in the pews. We sit around in Bible study circles and ask “What does this passage mean to you?” We applaud as someone gives their answer and then move on to the next and ask the same question. “What does it mean to you Billy?… And what does it mean to you Sal?… What does it mean to you Kevin?” We affirm each person’s response even if it means something different to each person. Can the text have different meanings? Only if you are practicing a Gnostic hermeneutic where the Bible becomes a magic book with a secret spiritual meaning that transcends the literal.
While the Bible can have different and subjective applications, it cannot have different and subjective meanings. It means what it meant. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no person, group, denomination, tradition, or magisterial authority who has a magic decoder ring. There is no secret hidden meaning. The only meaning that we can discover is what the original author meant.
While this does produce fear of the Scriptures, I believe that this is a healthy fear. After all, the Bible is God’s word, isn’t it? We can’t take it lightly.
152 replies to "It Does Not Matter What the Bible Means to You"
Jugulum,
The whole Bible.
Eric W,
Yes, my husband is my covering.
Vance,
We are always calling each other’s churches cults. I know what you mean about that. Cults come about because of saying their leader is a messiah and applying all scripture to that one leader. I advocate Jesus as my leader and the Holy Ghost as my teacher.
Interesting post over at MMI
http://mondaymorninginsight.com/index.php/site/comments/do_you_interpret_the_bible_literally_take_the_quiz/
Here is the article Todd links to in his post
http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4066&Itemid=9
KK wrote: Eric W, Yes, my husband is my covering.
But Kara, Paul never says that a husband is to be his wife’s covering. He says the man/husband is the head of the woman/wife, but he also says a woman’s [long] hair – not her husband – is given to her for her covering, and that she is to have authority over her own head, not that someone else has exousia over her head.
Kara,
Eh? What question were you responding to?
Wow– I am amazed at how a relatively straightforward concept like using the Bible as the primary source for interpreting the Bible itself can turn into a convoluted discourse on who can sound the most theologically adept. The responses on this site, although intriguing, often give me a headache.
Michael, I wholeheartedly agree with your original post (what was it about, now?) on the approach to Bible study. The of approach you describe best fits with the term “inductive” Bible study (IBS). Context is King, and Scripture interprets Scripture. Observation first, then interpretation, and only then finally comes application. In contrast, the mystical approach seeks to sidestep the hard work and go straight for the application…”what does this mean TO ME?” Instead, the questions for us should be “what does the text SAY?”, “what does the text MEAN?”, and then “how can I apply the meaning of the text to MY LIFE?”
I have been teaching IBS since 1992, both through Precept Ministries International, and also just straight from the Word itself. When there is a systematic approach to Bible study, we realize that although the Holy Spirit empowers, He also reveals meaning to us in a logical and reasonable way, and that anyone indwelt by the Spirit, not just the elite superspirituals (i.e. Gnostics) can understand God’s message to His world.
Bravo, Michael, for shedding light on this much misunderstood issue of Biblical interpretation and study.
Michael,
It’s sometimes amazing how God organizes circumstances. The subject of authorial intent and proper hermeneutics has been the theme for my week! I am developing an article concerning this for my own blog, it turned out to be the topic of the Sunday School class that I attended this week, and then your article appears. I need to check my “decoder ring” to discover the significance!
Thanks for the time that you put into this blog. Keep up the great work.
Ron
Given the Protestant branch theory of the Church, how do you come to any sense of doctrine with Scripture “not being given to private interpretation?” Does it become simply which tradition backs up your predispositions?
Michael,
The best answer that I could give you is to read some more about what Protestants believe.
On this site, I have written two articles that would explain your issues:
“An Emerging Understanding of Orthodoxy” http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/06/an-emerging-understanding-of-orthodox-2/
My series on Sola Scriptura:
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/category/sola-scriptura/
Hope that helps.
Re: “Can the text have different meanings? Only if you are practicing a Gnostic hermeneutic where the Bible becomes a magic book with a secret spiritual meaning that transcends the literal.”
As if there is nothing at all magical about a man literally coming back from the dead! If that is possible, why can’t the Bible become a “magic book”? Shall we spare those who discover personal meanings in the Bible a literal interpretation of their testimony?
[…] that the proper way to read the bible? I read a great article on this just yesterday on the Parchment and Pen blog (I am an avid read of this blog). This article and what […]
Kara said:
“Should we no longer be seeking revelations or deep meanings just on the basis of us not living in the right century or being in the original location? The Bible itself says there are mysteries of God.”
Kara, actually it says the secret things belong to God but that which He has revealed has been given to us (Deut 29:29) So while there remains some mystery with God, there is no mystery to what He has revealed but we do need to discover what that is.
One thing I think you are overlooking is that when God breathed out His word, He did so through human authors who lived in a particular culture at a particular time. Unless you believe in a strict dictation view of inspiration, the authors were penning literature pertinent at that time according to their observations of what they were recording, whether it be an historical narrative (like the gospels), a poem (like Psalms) or a letter (like the epistles). That means we don’t throw out rules of reading when looking at the particular book and type of literature it is.
When Paul sat down to write a letter to one of the churches, it is just as if you were to write a letter. If you wrote something to someone, wouldn’t you want them to understand what you were trying to convey? Would you want someone to rip something out of the context of the letter and distort what you were trying to say? Or if you were recording events, would you want someone to “add-to” the picture you are trying to paint? So yes, that means everything has to read in its proper context. It is no different when it comes to reading the books of the Bible. This is what God used to breath out His word. So the difference is that as we apply normal rules of reading, what we are reading are God’s very words. But we have to read the books, as they were meant to be read. If we would not want our words to be taken out of context, why do you suppose He would?
[…] Badda Being 0 Comments Categories: Uncategorized Over at Parchment and Pen, C. Michael Patton signals a warning against what he construes as an odious habit among Christians: […]
[…] By Badda Being 0 Comments Categories: Uncategorized Over at Parchment and Pen, C. Michael Patton signals a warning against what he construes as an odious habit among Christians: […]
Let me ask this…if a person is granted irresistible grace and perseverance that God does it all for the person, why then does He not already give the meaning of His message then why are people investing great amounts of time and energy? Why didn’t God do it already if He covered every aspect already of your salvation?
As ever, it all stems back to baby-barbecuing, sadistic evil that is Calvinism – NOT! We invest time and energy because it is just as much worship as singing, speaking in tongues, etc.
We are commanded to study and use our minds by Scripture:
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of truth – 2 Tim 2:15, KJV
Here’s something to chew over, Kara:
When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments. – 2 Tim 4:6
You’ve never written a shred of Scripture, yet the man responsible for penning half the NT under inspiration of the Spirit said he needed BOOKS! Not a revelation, not a word of knowledge – BOOKS AND PARCHMENTS! I’m sorry, but it would seem Paul used his brain as well as his spirit in the knowledge of God. God gave you a brain and didn’t take it from you when you were born again. Glorify your Maker and use what he gave you to His glory!
The protestant mind is very concerned about the historical grammatical method because to abandon it could lead *anywhere*.
On the other hand, the proposal can’t deal with the fact that the apostles didn’t use that method, at least not exclusively.
The tradition based churches are constrained by the tradition and the community. Only those allegorical interpretations that tradition approves of can be considered as having much force. There seems to be good reason to believe that this is the same criteria used by the scriptures themselves.
For example, when Matthew often says “…. and this was to fulfill the prophesy of….”, are we to believe that Matthew simply decided for himself which scriptures were prophesies that were fulfilled? I doubt it. I think these opinions were already circulating in the community, and Matthew weaved them into his narrative. Some of them are not very convincing on a historical grammatical level, but I think the tradition approved of those.
If you want to say we can’t imitate the apostles, because they are special (1Cor. 4:16 Therefore I urge you to imitate me!! ), I have to say, prove it. Show me from the scriptures.
Vance –
I think God can and DOES speak to us using Scripture in that way, even out of context. As much as I agree with Michael in this post, I agree entirely that God works the way you describe as well.
But what we are pointing out is that this subjective use of Scripture, or use out of historical/genre context, is not the proper basis for doctrine or foundational beliefs.
I completely agree. I was only asking that we not make such a hard-lined ruling about this. And, interestingly enough, the NT writers took passages out of their OT context and used them to speak into Christ and the new covenant. Now maybe they get a free pass at such, but it is possible to consider a ‘deeper’ meaning of a text (though that word needs breaking down) or that God would speak to us out of the original context of a passage. I very much want to guard against weird stuff, but what I have learned is that misuse and abuse should not lead to no use, it should lead to healthy use. That is what I am lobbying for in all of this.
Michael (not CMP) –
The problem with reading a promise into scripture that was not intended is that you essentially create a god in your own head who is not the real God. Eventually this god you’ve created is bound to fail you in some way because he doesn’t live up to the promises you’ve attributed to him. This happens to many people and it is at this point they lose their faith and walk away.
I only want to consider His promises and I want to consider them with the Scriptures in mind as a helpful measuring stick. I am by no means trying to teach an over the top name it and claim it theology. I am just very, very aware that the same Holy Spirit that indwelt and empowered and spoke to the first believers also indwells and empowers and speaks to Christ’s followers today. That is exciting. And I am aware He speaks to me, and even to a corporate body/gathering. It happens frequently, but we need to do such with healthy and biblical considerations. We need to stay in line with Scripture, accountable to the body of Christ and considering the historical orthodox teachings of the body for 2000 years. But that should never negate the beautiful reality that He is still alive and speaking. And I think you would agree.
When John the baptizer saw Jesus, he told the people around him, “Look, there is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world”
It is easy to read that quickly and move on, but did you get it? Jesus TAKES AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD!!
CMP: “I believe that Gnosticism, at least in the West, is the biggest problem in conservative Christianity today.”
I nominate theological liberalism as the biggest problem in conservative Christianity today.
JulieJ #55
The responses on this site, although intriguing, often give me a headache
Amen sister !!!
And there’s a lot of not so loving comments that keep popping up. That’s maybe why I start to like blogs less and less. It’s too easy to type something in and walk away without seeing the reaction (read ‘hurt’ or ‘grief’) the comment may be causing with the person it’s being addressed to. And they come from all sides. Both defenders and challengers of the topic at hand.
Oh well… sinful fallen world we live in right…
I do agree with careful use of Scripture (see my post #45),
Read-Understand-Listen-Employ is what I have found to be a good RULE for Scripture study:
Read the passage, preferably the entire pericope
Understand the context, historically, culturally, etc
Listen to the Spirit on what it means for you today
Employ (use or apply) it in your daily life.
Without any of those 4, some not-so-careful interpretations have led to rather painful situations ranging from “Let’s all Love and sing kumbaja because everyone is going to heaven” via “Let’s bomb this abortion clinic” and “Why don’t we all drink a bunch of Kool-aid” to “Let’s set this place on fire because the FBI is knocking on our door”. All in the name of a so-called form of “Christianity” ? Me thinks not….
In Him
Mick
ScottL, agreed. I think we are saying the same thing, coming it at from both sides and meeting in the middle.
Kara: What I meant by “cult” (and pointed out that I was using the term as an exaggeration) was more in the sense of “sect”. Far from limiting it to messianic shysters, there are many groups which pull a text or two out of context and build an entire doctrine around it. Then, they break away and cling to that doctrine as a distinguishing mark, very often with an odd sense of superiority in being the group that “gets it right”.
And God did not just appoint the Spirit as your teacher, but established an entire church structure through Paul, which includes human pastors and teachers you are instructed to follow. That is what God says to do.
EricW: yes, that is another possible interpretation, and if so then the historical information does not, after all, inform the text. But what the historical analysis does is provide a bigger picture and a broader range of possible interpretations so that we are more likely to get it right.
Douglas K,
As much as I appreciate your efforts to escape the shackles of your doomed life under Arminianism and a new one under Calvinism I noticed you very quickly understood something not explicitly stated.
And yet you never read my posts in the other blog. When I introduced myself I stated this is how I read the Bible…
1:I read each verse word for word
2:I search and ask why God was using a particular person, place or thing in the verse
3:If I don’t understand a word, I look up the meaning
4:If that does not help then I ask someone smarter than me.
To which one of the sisters in Christ told me I was naive. Then I post on this blog…of which many people in this blog say that is exactly how one must study…and then still deride me…so which is it?
And yet you want to quote Paul, I quoted many times and people told me my quoting was inappropriate. Which is it? You have not read all my responses before you jump on a completely different blog site saying my name telling them how you want me to see. Don’t you think a little inappropriate there?
Galatians 1
10For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
11But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Is Paul greater than we are? Is Paul greater than Peter? When we begin to understand the author and finisher of our faith is the one who wrote the book, only that author can teach us what he means himself.
Ephesians 4
20But ye have not so learned Christ;
21If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:
22That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
23And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
24And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
Where does learning come from? And there are people on here who have told me there is no such thing as a new man.
I think there is a danger in making it and either or thing, when approaching the Bible. I understand where everyone here is coming from, and all have valid arguments.
However, we cannot approach the Bible as merely a book of theology, any more than we can approach it as only applying to us personally. I remember once having a Bible teacher who stressed putting our names in the verses to get the ‘real’ message. I have also had Bible teachers who dissected scripture to the point that it was more about the method than the message. Neither made me understand it any better. It is/was those who first explain God’s word the way HE meant it, and then give the life application that are far more effective in getting across Biblical truths, in my opinion They will generally include some historical context as well so as to connect/disconnect the cultural meaning from the scriptural meaning as well.
If we approach it from the point of view that it can be both a teaching and a learning guide, time spent studying scripture can and should be of great value in both respects.
And there are people on here who have told me there is no such thing as a new man.
Really? How so? The New Man/New Creation is central to Paul’s Christology and soteriology and eschatology.
Kara
I have not very often responded to your direct comments and I do want you to know I love you as a sister in Christ and do appreciate your input. It has made me reflect on things more than once, although I don’t necessarily agree with everything being said from either you or others.
I struggle with your reference to there are people on here who have told me there is no such thing as a new man.
Would you mind pointing me to the blog and/or (even better) the comments on which topic this was said ?
I do recall there was a conversation, either on the entry Is Mormonism a true representation of Christianity or on the Arminians, Catholics, etc are all liars whether we adhere to the belief on whether someone can be free from sin after justification. I do recall a position, which I do agree with, which was based on 1John, Romans 7, etc.. that if we were to be able to be free from sin, we would not have a need for Christ anymore. And that the scripture passage referenced indicated the same.
The new man refers to the fact that we realize our sin, that with the help from the Spirit we turn away from sin, but we will always fall short of the Glory of God. Which is not the same as saying there is no such thing as the new man.
I can’t recall anyone has ever said that there is no such thing and I believe it’s grossly taken out of context. Which shows that we can take anything out of context, including Scripture if we’re not careful
But please… correct me if I’m wrong.. but kindly please.. I’m a sensitive person 😎
In Him, with love, patience and care
Mick
mbaker,
I try to balance my study in both ways but have come to learn that what works for one does not work for another. We have to study under our own convictions by the leading of the Spirit.
For one thing, we can all read Grey’s Anatomy (the book, not the show) but that does not make us all doctors. We can read the Physicians Desk Reference and it does not make us pharmacists and we can use other examples. But it is when we start applying that knowledge is what makes the difference.
I just try to point out that studying from such a narrowly defined lens or viewfinder we miss out on a lot. I am not a journalist so I won’t be able to understand journalism the same way you do. But that is great that God made you a journalist. We need spirit filled journalists especially in this day and time. There seems to be no balance in a lot of people’s definitions of how we must do things and we can’t save people from bondage by putting them under another kind.
I think it does matter what the Bible means to me, after all when I open my Bible to read I have to know God is speaking to me, so what is He saying to me? I am not opposed to learning, or education but what I am opposed to is people who say we must do it their way or it is wrong. A story I must tell…
My 7 year old niece and her little friend were riding in my car as we were going to drive through an National Historic site eating our food from McDonald’s. As I was driving they were talking to each other as children do. Suddenly my niece says to her friend “Jesus is the lighthouse, did you know that?” Referring to the song which is my husband’s favorite. Her friend replied that she did not know and my niece began to explain “because if there is a storm or it is dark out and you don’t want to crash, Jesus is a big light so you can see him.”
Had I said that to her? She determined it on her own simply by listening. She understood something that some grownups miss. God is a wonderful teacher. He knows how to teach every person according to their ability to understand. My niece was not trying to save her friend, she did not condemn her in any way, she just said where to look.
Yes, a balanced perspective is what we need.
Kara,
I don’t think you’re reading me right either. I began by noting that you seem to love attacking Calvinism – even on a post about hermeneutics. I dare say it’s almost like an obsession for you.
Secondly, I noted on Nick’s blog that I find you inconsistent in that in one breath, you talk of being highly educated, yet the same rigour it takes to be educated, you don’t apply to Scripture and the things of God.
Third of all, in a sense, since you and I haven’t been inspired to write either a 28th NT book or to pen half of a Third Testament, Paul is actually higher than both of us. I don’t quote you as an authority, neither will I quote my pastor, learned as he is, because he is not Scripture. Scripture, not a voice I hear in my head or the words of Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, Beza, Grudem or Reymond, is my final authority and I stand accountable to that authority as long as I have breath in my lungs to breathe.
Finally, no real Christian would ever say that there is no new man in Christ. Paul makes this point over and over again in the NT in such places as Ephesians 2:14-18, 2 Corinthians 5:17, et al. I really don’t see the relation to this conversation.
Your continual derision of anyone who thinks a little mental effort is good for Bible study is wearying and in fact is rather Gnostic. God gave the church the spiritual gift of teacher – could it be that the evil theologians may well be the ones with the gift of teacher?
Michael L,
Thank you for that kind comment. There was that comment made by a person who has not posted for a while. That is a good example of what I mean, we all have a different ability to understand, therefore God teaches us according to our ability and not someone else.
It reminds me of what my pastor taught in church this past Sunday. He was teaching about Peter being asked if he loves Jesus, and he replied three times of course he did and Jesus said “Feed my sheep” three times. Then Peter is upset over John and makes an offhand comment about John to which Jesus replies “what is it to you if this man lives until I come again”. And the point was “what is it to you what I tell this person or that person?” We all have a work to do for God, we all have to either build, plow, harvest, tend sheep, fish, collect taxes, whatever it is that we are called to do, so what is it to us what that other person is called to do?
The point is we are not all fishermen so we can’t expect everyone to be fishermen. And that is what I would like people to see. We can’t limit God, we can’t limit those who He has set free and keep them confined. The way of Holiness is narrow, and few be that find it. But that does not mean we need to dislike others who stumbled onto the road just because they didn’t get onto the road the same as we did. And that is from Isaiah. We must point to the cross as the way of salvation. We don’t need to punish those who stumbled across salvation, could be they were led that way.
Douglas,
God is not a respecter of persons.
Kara,
I hope you took my comment in the spirit it was meant-that we learn in ways from God that we cannot explain and from ways which should be explained so that none of us falls into interpretative error.
God does work in both mysterious ways His wonders to perform, as scripture points out, and He has appointed Godly teachers to help us learn to be discerning about His word.
I think both ways are important.
That was a great story by the way.
I’m very busy right now as it is planting season, and we are just getting started cleaning up and planting and fertilizing, so I won’t be making comments or even be following the discussion, but wish you all well.
God bless.
Kara, in reference to this comment here:
“Where does learning come from? And there are people on here who have told me there is no such thing as a new man.”
I can only suppose that I am one of these people to which you are referencing. If so, I would say that once again you have twisted what was expressed. I never said there is no such thing as a new man for clearly Scripture tells us there is. What I said was that we still have the old nature to contend with as well. You may not agree with the fact that we still contend with the old nature, fine. But please stop misstating what others write. And Douglas is right, a Christian who has any understanding of the Bible would not make these statements.
Most certainly the Spirit inside quickens the words in the Bible, since the words are God’s and meant for us to know Him and how to live. But that doesn’t mean we throw out how to read the literature they were written in or rely on others to teach us how to do this. In fact, that will only enhance what God intended for us to know.
Kara
All very true… unfortunately there’s a “yet” or “but” associated with it.
As I mentioned before 1John is probably my favorite book. Read chapter 4…and please read the entire chapter.
How do we test the Spirits ? By just waiting for God to speak to us ? If so, how do you know whether it’s accurate or not ? If you adhere to that, why wouldn’t Joseph Smith be accurate ? And as you pointed out before, you don’t agree with that. Or why wouldn’t Calvinism be accurate ? Shall we only listen to the Spirit and accept those doctrines, stances or ideas that fit within our mindset ?
It becomes quickly a narcissistic and untenable position.
I think that’s the danger that some of the writers here are trying to point out and why most of them (and me) often encourage a balanced view.
For your reference, since you seem to like personal experiences and stories, I have worked with drug addicts who can’t read a word. And yet I’ve given some of them a bible. And some of them have started to read. But all of them need help in understanding what it really says. If not, we end up (and this is a true story) where one of them came to me and said Oh but if creation came from God, why can’t I smoke pot ? After all, God created it for our enjoyment ? Needless to say, dangerous interpretation.
In Him
Mick
Kara,
So… Does that mean that you agree with the balance I tried to talk about in my earlier comments (#41-42)? Or not? I said at the time that I couldn’t tell. Perhaps I should have been explicit in asking, “Do you agree, or not?”
I bring it up again, because judging by the last paragraph of Liza’s last comment, she also can’t tell whether you’re actually looking for balance or not. She just said how she agrees with you, but also wants to emphasize other aspects of how we read the word. So… Do you agree with the balance of her last paragraph, or not?
(In other words, it seems like you’re saying, “I want balance!”, but only pointing in one direction. And when we point somewhere else and say, “Sure, but what about over here, too? Isn’t this really important, too?”, you’re dismissive or non-responsive.)
Jugulum,
“The academic part is the hearing-to-understand. The rest is the hearing-to-be-changed.
If we only hear-to-understand, it’s worse than faith-without-works—it’s understanding-without-faith! Unbelievers can do that.”
Yes. But whose academic school of thought do we ascribe to? Seems to me there are many. As I have said I read Blaise Pascal’s Provential Letters and it it he describes the many issues over one particular point in question and interviewed all the people in all sides.
All these men were very learned scholars and still debated on one thing and the sad thing about it was that some had made the point that even if they didn’t agree to it they still were forced to accept it. And that is not right to do to anyone.
And what Michael said about the drug addicts who never read…suppose you knew a drug addict who had read? I know some of them as well. Yes, people are going to say things they think are in the Bible…like God helps those who help themselves and cleanliness is next to godliness. Those idioms are not in the Bible but people believe they are.
Kara,
Your one-line comment is confusing. I never said God was a respecter of persons. I said, in a wager-type fashion, and I quote myself now:
God gave the church the spiritual gift of teacher – could it be that the evil theologians may well be the ones with the gift of teacher?
Or does Ephesians 4 not exist anymore, when it says that God has given the Church teachers? The teachers aren’t disembodied spirits – they are clearly people of flesh and bone.
So… How should I take your answer?
Something like, “Yes, I agree with the kind of balance you and Lisa are looking for. But there’s also more to be said about how to be discerning in the way we use study resources.” ?
I had a lot of reading to catch up on since I made my first comment, but having skimmed most of it, I can’t help but think the entire conversation here thoroughly undermines CMP’s stress on authorial intent. It seems that just about every comment has somehow misinterpreted every other comment – and that’s with the authors here, trying to explain what they mean! OK, exaggeration, but I hope you see the point.
And to add to the irony, those who argue for a Spirit-led reading or for revealed understanding simply because the Bible is God’s Word, are just as guilty of privileging a particular hermeneutic over another.
For what it’s worth, I’m a big fan of Stanley Fish. And before anyone shoots me down in flames for being a wishy-washy po-mo, have a think about what he says about interpretive communities (someone mentioned it earlier but I’m too lazy to search). Because that’s pretty much the position that everyone is arguing from whether they acknowledge it or not. We cannot ever approach a text as a ‘tabula rasa’. To think that we do not have preconceptions or can set them aside is utter nonsense.
And frankly, that’s what the arguments have degenerated into I fear – entrenched views and sniping.
Jugulum,
Yes, that is what I am saying. Have discernment about the study resources.
You understand what I meant. Because it seems to me in offering others some academic theologians, only a select few are being presented. And that was what I wanted to know, why only those few? And if we select those few how do we know what they truly represent? Not that you are the one presenting them.
Jugulum,
What also bothers me is this…and I will say it bothers me…if people want us to post comments on this site knowing there are those who don’t agree with certain positions…why do they keep asking others to read books by authors they already know the person does not agree with?
I think that is disrespectful to the person’s point of view. No, I do not agree with Calvinism. And yet I have never said…read this book or that book by any Arminian author. Never once. I think that we need mutual respect…and that is mutual.
CMP has made it clear this is not a Calvinist Only Zone. Why do people treat it as though it is?
Regarding hermaneutics…why should I read Wayne Grudem?
So… does your version of “have discernment about study resources” mean, “Only read people I agree with about everything”?
Kara, Grudem’s book is Systematic Theology not hermeneutics. There are some well respected Arminians who have written books on hermeneutics, I, as well as others who agree with Calvinism, would be happy to recommend. The issue is or never was Calvinism but hermeneutics.
Also, what better way to know what you disagree with unless you read it from a proponent of that position? Just a thought. Otherwise, on what are you basing your disagreement?
Kara
Why should you read Wayne Grudem ??
Well.. because he’s a Calvinist… 😉
Scratch that..
Well… because it’s a big thick book…. 😉
Scratch that too…
Because he’s well regarded in Christian milieus as an orthodox writer with a quite concise view on things. And most of his writings are quite irenic in spirit.
Yeah ! That’s it !
And note… the book everyone is referring to is on Systematic Theology… not hermeneutics, which is what’s being discussed here.
In Him
Mick
Michael L (and Kara if you are listening),
Regarding respected Arminian authors, I love Olson’s work. His Mosaic of Christian Belief is a decent and balanced systematic work. Also, I recently borrowed Stanley Grenz’s Theology for the Community of God for a couple of papers I was working on. I really enjoyed his work, especially the theme of tying everything back to community and have that on my must buy list.
Lisa,
So… you’re saying that you read people from other traditions, and recommend them to people?
Like… Recommending a book to someone doesn’t mean, “You need to join the author’s tradition!”
And it’s important not to dismiss an author simply because you disagree with him on some things? (Because you might agree with him on other important things?)
And it’s even important to read people you disagree with, just for the chance to think about things from a different perspective?
Jug, absolutely. And I’d say at least Arminianism and Calvinism is in the same tradition. Try reading stuff from the Catholic or Orthodox tradition (I’m sure you have_. In fact, I had to do a paper last fall on Avery Dulles, Models of Revelation. A Catholic with some well respected work on the topic but the prof has not been able to come up with a better book on the topic.
There’s value in learning what those that don’t agree with us on everything have to say.
What were we talking about again? Oh yeah, hermeneutics….
Models of Revelation is a great book. Dulles is a top rate Catholic scholar. I would say that the book is somewhat hard to understand without some background to the issue.
Jugulum,
Might I say this though, and I know it is out on a limb, ok.
Suppose you don’t agree with Satanism…but someone suggests you read the Satanic Bible just to get a perspective on what they believe? Should you read it? Now I realize it might be farfetched to think that way…but what about Wiccans?
And is every book by every author not going to reflect their ideology in some way? See we do have a problem and it can’t be approached with such an easy solution as that. Because I have met people who call themselves Buddhist Christian, Taoist Christian, Hindu Christian and even Muslim Christian. And my favorite of course if Wiccan Christian.
And these are not ignorant people. They read the Bible, they read philosophy, they read many things…and yet they can’t seem to grasp the concept those traditions are contradictory.
It is very easy to tell a Bible believing person what theology books are good to read, but how do you tell someone who has indeed read the Bible and then includes things extra-Biblical?
Take for instance a group of people who live not far from me called The Way International…those people invest a great amount of time in theology and hermeneutics…I mean that is what they promote…Bible study hermeneutics. But they are also on the FBI watch list because they are a cult. They have a compound with armed guards. But yet they devote so much time into hermeneutics and theology. What happened to them? Obviously hermeneutics and systematic theology is not working.
John O: “For what it’s worth, I’m a big fan of Stanley Fish.
Go Fish!
😉
P.S. One of my daughter’s favorite card games!
Kara,
In regards to your question about Grudem, here’s one:
Why listen to your pastor? He’s a man, he purports to teach you God’s Word. Why listen to him?
TU…aD,
It’s no good trying to take the discussion off topic, you know. You’ll only get in trouble for it.
So, back to the topic of discussing Calvinism v. Arminianism…
Oh, wait! What was the topic about again?
😉
Some useful words from Firstthings.com, in the May 20th post:
“. . . Let’s start with the jerk problem. Sad but true, the internet was made for jerks. Every comment is more or less anonymous and every comment goes up whether the person has a clue or not. So we end up with a world of senseless blog fury where some anonymous clown with a name like “Spider86x” or “Cowgirl_B52” can rip you every which way but loose. Post something critical about Obama’s socks or point out that the Big East had more teams in the tournament than anyone else because there are, like, thirty-seven teams in the conference, and someone out there will curse the day you were born. Instead of responding to your arguments against inflationary monetary policy, “KeynesKid24” will mock your Blogger picture, lay down some none too subtle sexual innuendo, and call you a liar. Hell hath no fury like a scorned blogger with too much free time.
So the jerk problem is easy to see. But the nice problem can be just as bad. Think of all the work you have to do nowadays before you can disagree with someone. First, you have to do a lot of “I’m not saying . . . I’m just saying.” Then you have to reassure everyone that so-and-so is probably a great guy. Next, you make clear that you appreciate that he doesn’t kill people and his family seems sweet. And finally you admit that you could be wrong about everything anyway. All this to suggest that maybe, just maybe, God the Father is not best understood through the lens of Aunt Jemima.
A few months ago I was doing a phone interview for a new book I had coming out. Part way through the conversation, the gentlemen asked me why I had taken two pages to be critical of a popular Christian author. I explained that I thought he made some serious mistakes in theology, mistakes that can easily confuse laymen in the church. The man interviewing me then asked why I wrote some nice sentences about the author before critiquing him for two pages. Wasn’t I talking out of both sides of my mouth? I explained that I hoped not. I really meant what I said. I didn’t want to question the author’s sincerity; I trusted that his motives were good. To which my interviewer replied something like, “Don’t you think we should be able to disagree with others without so many caveats? It sounds phony.” . . .
The problem with the nice problem is twofold. First, we are all victims or want to be victims. We argue emotions not ideas. We debate who has been hurt more or who was meaner, rather than who is right and who is wrong. If I can position myself as the one under attack and you as the attacker, then I’m more than halfway to winning in the court of public opinion. We all want to root for the underdogs. We all want nice guys to finish first.
Second, we are all proud. . . .”
Regards
John