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"
[…] a much larger discussion on interpretation, check out C Michael Patton’s post, “It Does Not Matter What the Bible Means to You“. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)“Hermeneutic is still go on”Go […]
John, that’s geat stuff.
So…howzabout some details on the book?
JohnO
Made me smile… Hell hath no fury like a scorned blogger with too much free time. Amen to that !
On the other hand.. nothing wrong with saying to someone “you’re wrong” or “I don’t agree”. A whole other ball of wax though to say to someone “You’re an idiot”. The first one is attacking someone’s beliefs, the other is attacking a person.
I’m not quite sure we’re quite giving a Christian approach when we do the latter. Christ didn’t do it very often either, except to pharisees and some other readily identified people. I think it’s a difficult balancing act.
Kara
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?
In my case.. yes. For “younger” believers, I’d say it can be dangerous indeed. If we don’t read what they read, it’s difficult to engage and we go by “hear say”. Perfect proof is a lot of the comments that were made against Mormons on the other topics came from anti-Mormon websites and known authors from people who hadn’t read anything published by Mormon authorities. It comes over as quite insincere.
how do you tell someone who has indeed read the Bible and then includes things extra-Biblical
By pointing out the contradictions. I have read Confucius, book of Mormon, Buddhist books, parts of the Koran,… It has allowed me to engage with them more profoundly.
It also depends on what is included “Extra-Biblical” and what the value is that is adhered to it. If it’s extra biblical, yet posed as “necessary for salvation”, you can engage from that perspective. It’s what Luther did with the 16th century RC Church.
I don’t know the way, but if they are being exclusive, which is what it sounds like, there’s more to it than what they promise.
Hope this helps
In Him
Mick
“Kara
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?
In my case.. yes. For “younger” believers, I’d say it can be dangerous indeed. ”
The “younger believer’s” part is a good share of the reason some of us find it necessary to caution people, specially on blogs where you have no idea who may be reading, instead of giving whole hearted recommendations to works by authors that many consider unorthodox.
Mick,
‘Fraid I can’t take the credit for the attributed quotation – it was John C.T. who posted it.
But wholeheartedly agree – excellent and astute analysis of blogging.
JohnO,
And John C.T. I guess.. woooppss… thanks for the correction.. credit goes where credit’s due.
Cheryl U.
True, on the other hand, I’ve rarely seen a book suggestion on this blog that I would call “Unorthodox”. If so, CMP is usually quick to jump in on that. Grudem, Olson, Dulles, etc.. all top rated scholars.
Lisa
Yes, I like Olson, yes as a TTP student I’m reading him as well. But I wanted a more detailed and complete “Systematic Theology” by an Arminian scholar, more so than his overview of Christian beliefs. Still haven’t found one.
In Him
Mick
Mick,
Just as a point of clarification here, it seems this discussion is a bit of a carry over from another thread, I believe it was the “Calvinists Please Calm Down” one.
On that thread, someone, don’t remember who, recommended a book by Gregory Boyd who is a known open theist. The book in question was asserted to be good by those that read it. It was concern over the author’s belief in open theism that caused several of us to urge caution.
Mick,
Are you looking for an Arminian in the strictest sense? Or in the looser sense of “Arminian” that is often used? (“Arminianish-ism”)
I would be inclined to consider Norman Geisler to be in the general “Arminianish non-Calvinist” category, and he has a 4-volume Systematic Theology.
(He calls himself a “moderate Calvinist”, but I can’t distinguish his modifications of TULIP from Arminianish-ism. The only discernible difference is his unique philosophical language for the relationship between predestination and foreknowledge.”)
Apologies to all for lack of clarity. I used quotes not to indicate that I was copying my own post, but to indicate that the post was by another, namely, Kevin DeYoung, titled “Kevin DeYoung”, in First Things’ “On the Square” section of it webpage. The link is http://www.firstthings.com/
It is a good read, and not very long.
Regards,
John
John CT,
I would read your book. BTW, I am not really much of a book reader because there are many health issues with my eyes. I can see my computer screen but that is because it is so huge I can’t miss it…lol.
Not to mention the dyslexia that I have to deal with, sometimes my arguments do seem convoluted that it makes me look almost schizophrenic. I communicate via the computer even more than in conversing with people because of that same problem. By brain does not process in the normal straightforward way that most people on this blog generally are used to dealing with. For that I do apologize.
KK, I did not mean to imply that I was referring to anyone in particular, and certainly not you. I am a regular reader of First Things, and found that particular post to be interesting and useful, given the often vigorous discussions engaged in on this site. And no need to apologize for physical or other limitations.
Regards,
John
Who cares if it’s Calvinist, Arminian, Open Theist or whatever?
If the exegesis and other evidences work, they work. Right?
Don’t really care about the messenger as long as the message works.
Well said, Michael.
We must be content to rest in God’s revelation of himself in Scripture, in His Son Jesus, and in the Holy Spirit’s presence in and among us. This is not to say that God’s Word is the only media through which the Almighty has revealed himself. Wondering what you think of J.P. Moreland’s important paper “How Evangelicals Became Over-Committed to the Bible and What can be Done about It”?
John CT,
I would love to read your book.
Seth R,
The way things sometimes seem to work is that when a person reads one book by a person where “the message works” they are often less likely to read further works by that same author in a discerning way. Once the message has been approved, further messages by the same messenger often carry a much greater weight in a person’s mind if the message continues to be correct,(work), or not.
SethR,
The problem that I see from this angle is this, suppose it does not work in the intended way? What if the author intended to subtly pull the reader in a certain way and that person did not know they were indeed manipulated in such a way? That is like Dan Brown’s book The DaVinci Code. He said at the beginning it was fiction but by the end people really did believe there was a conspiracy. I have a brother who just graduated from Indiana Wesleyian University with summa cum laude, and yet this highly intelligent guy bought into it.
He is not the only one who fell for it. We have to go all the way back to the beginning. When the serpent came to Eve and said “You will not surely die as God said you would. The only reason God does not want you to eat it is because He knows you will become as wise as Him and He doesn’t like it.” When I pick up a book to read is the information offered going to lead me closer or away from God? If I don’t have discernment it certainly will lead away.
But what if we are told to read because it will make us wise…is the Bible not enough to make us wise? That is the danger of extra-Biblical if it presents us with something that might make us wise. Sometimes those books are just so subtle that a word here or there can change a person’s entire idealism. And then you can see the necessity of having the Spirit to teach us…because the Spirit is the Truth and will never lead us contrary to the Bible.
Kara, I’m not sure Dan Brown is the best example of what you are talking about here.
I always figured there wasn’t much hope for anyone dumb enough to be uncritically taken in by all that.
I think encouragement of MORE reading is the appropriate remedy to such folly, not the restriction of reading.
Otherwise, you face the same criticism that always gets leveled at the Jehovah’s Witnesses about how they don’t allow their people to read anything “bad.” People who want to read more should be corrected by offering more reading, not by limiting their selection.
For instance, if a guy is into some of Greg Boyd’s work, you might summarize what you know of his work and suggest some stuff by John Piper, for example. But dismissing a book by mere name-calling isn’t going to lead anywhere useful.
“Oh – he’s a (gasp) OPEN THEIST.”
Maybe he is. But what if he’s also right?
I mean… Surely the Bible is not so fragile that it cannot stand in the company of other books?
Seth,
No the Bible is not, but the reader…yes.
Kara: In a literary vacuum, the Bible’s strength would be meaningless.
The reader is not so weak as to not be able to stand in the presence of other books. God gave you a brain and it is functional for working through theoretical issues and ideas. Wouldn’t it be a wonderful thing if we used that faculty to glorify God through the study of His Word?
Douglas,
I think really the issues you have with me are more than just me being a little “argumentative as you have said in other places. Yes, God gave you a brain, but what does he say about puffed up intelligence?
1 Corinthians 3
16Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
17If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
18Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
20And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
Does that sound like God trusts us with our brains? And yes studying God through HIS word, not everybody else’s word.
Galatians 3
1O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
2This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
4Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
5He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
6Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
7Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
9So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
What? You mean the Galatians started off Spirit filled and Spirit led until someone came along and preached something else and it bewitched them? You’ve got to be kidding that this could happen to Christians. The point is not the Judaizers (if that was who was preaching it, but I think not) but the fragility and vanity of the person who was gullible enough to go along with it.
I have to agree with Kara here. We can see around us all of the time sincere Christians that are getting caught up in all kinds of things that are promoted in the name of Christianity but that simply aren’t Scriptural at all. It seems to come from one of three things as far as I can see: either folks don’t realize it is not a Scriptural concept because they aren’t aware of all of the word of God on an issue, i.e. it is something taken way out of context; they trust the person giving the message to be correct and don’t stop to discern for themselves at all if it is wrong; or, they don’t recognize that the Bible is the final authority on things and so aren’t concerned that something doesn’t match up with Scripture.
I am a case in point. I got caught up into the super duper charismatic stuff to some degree–never all the way. But I know how easy it is to start believing something because someone else says it is true. In my case, it was more the people I was around and that probably makes it even easier to happen because of the peer pressure involved. However, I believe that it can happen from the books that we read too.
PS,
For a recent prime example of the power of books to change our beliefs, just take a quick look around the internet on comments made about people changing beliefs after reading “The Shack”.
If you believe that book was great or that it was a theological disaster, the point remains: it was a small book with great power to influence people’s thinking.
I have a solution ! Let’s burn all books except for the Bible. Then let’s all get in a room and read it for ourselves and form an opinion, praying that the Spirit would guide us.
NOT.
I agree that people get misled. But it happens whether they read just the Bible or whether they read the Bible plus other works.
I think Da Vinci code is a bad example. Dan Brown never clearly indicated it was fiction. On the first page it stated that all contents is historically accurate and factual. I don’t have my copy in front of me, but I’d be more than happy to pull if of my shelf tonight and put a scan of the page out there.
And it was that exact statement that got him the most flack. The presuppositions and conclusions are historic speculation at best. Entertaining, but fictional speculation.
The Shack is a way better example. The medicine for the malaise the Shack has caused is to educate people, teach them, engage with them, etc to point out where these writings are in conflict with Scripture and continue to hold Scripture higher than other writings. I can make the same case for the “Left Behind” series, which has generated some interesting conversations in the current political climate and events. People still talk about the “Antichrist” of Revelation. I’ll buy dinner to the person who tells me the verse where that word appears in Revelation.
But banning other writings or discouraging people to read sounds to medieval, inquisition or third reich to me. In addition, it opens up to the risk that Cheryl is pointing out that people will go by “hear say”, which becomes even more dangerous.
Just my concluding two cents worth.
In Him
Mick
PS: “False Prophet” or “Beast” is about as close as you can get to the “Antichrist” within the book of Revelation. The word appears only in 1John and 2John. Same author.. different word… why not use the same word ?? Food for thought. But not a lot of people realize this. Case in point…. balance other writings, rumors, teachings and ideas with Scripture.. always !
Well for a start, Kara, I don’t have anything against you as a person. I believe that you are 100% sincere and want to do the will of God. I just think that you seem to persist in demonizing any sort of intellectual pursuit when it comes to the faith.
Yes, knowledge can be puffed up, but is it the knowledge’s fault or the one who abuses that knowledge and becomes puffed up. That would be tantamount to saying that the Internet is evil because people use it to stream pornography or to commit fraud – it is not the Internet, per se, but it’s the people who use it.
God did give us a mind, but that mind needs to be renewed by the Word (Romans 12:1-3). As that mind is being renewed, it ought to be used to the glory of God in studying and understanding His truth.
I agree – men can lead us astray, but that doesn’t mean we don’t examine what the men say to say if it is so, and that requires reading what men say and weighing it up against the Bible (happened to the Apostle Paul – Acts 17:9-11). Case in point when it comes to testing everything – The Shack
Michael L,
You made two comments above:
“The Shack is a way better example. The medicine for the malaise the Shack has caused is to educate people, teach them, engage with them, etc to point out where these writings are in conflict with Scripture and continue to hold Scripture higher than other writings.”
“But banning other writings or discouraging people to read sounds to medieval, inquisition or third reich to me.”
I agree 100% that people need to be taught and engaged on this subject. However, when that is not possible or has not occurred yet, what is wrong with stating a caution or a concern to people regarding something that is perceived by a large group of people to be false?
Again, I raise the comparison of a toddler: Until they have matured enough and been taught enough, we don’t just turn them loose without any warnings about dangers involved in certain things. Why do we treat new, uneducated, or for whatever reason immature Christians any differently? To just turn them loose in a whole world of conflicting opinion some of which might have serious negative consequences for their spiritual life seems to me to be highly irresponsible and also extremely unloving.
Douglas,
As I stated in other posts, I have never read The Shack. Does that mean I would not say someone else should not? Never would I say that. But what I am indeed saying is this…if a person wants and desires a well-rounded theology that incorporates as many viewpoints as possible to bounce truth off to see which one truth sticks to then one should read as many different books by many different authors of many different theological viewpoints.
But Douglas, as much as that is wonderful to do, a person can become so overwhelmed with this that they become prey for disinformation and misinformation. If we read a book it needs to be compared by the primary source document that is the Bible…and if an author detracts at any point from the Bible then that author needs to be suspected right at that moment and all his theology should be brought into question.
Should we apply a trickle down theory to theology as we do with economics? Yes we should in the light of people who claim some form of Christian identity and do massively terrible things under that identity. A person who derives their theology from someone perceived to be in authority over them (theologically, academically, intellectually, whatever), then we take that higher authority to task. If the theology itself is perfect then we must think then it falls on the person. But if the theology is imperfect, the person ascribing to it falls under it.
The danger then is not the taking in of information because as Jesus said “it’s not what goes into the man that defiles him, but what comes out of him that defiles him.” And what comes out of the heart? We don’t have to count all the things. It is this though, what comes out of us is the sum total of all things absorbed into our hearts. While reading all of these works may be good to give you a well rounded view, if those replace the primary source document, what becomes us?
Hence..Bart Ehrman…
But Kara, I am not saying that we ditch the primary document in favour of all these guys or that we gullibly accept what they teach. Everything needs to go under the microscope of God’s Holy and Divine Word. I read more Scripture than theology, but I also understand that I am not the first person to read the Bible.
Men, filled with the Spirit just as myself, have gone before me and I’d be a fool to think that these men are less gifted with the Spirit than I just because they use a few multi-syllabic words and put the fruit of their Spirit-filled study into a book. Sure, I will disagree but at the end of the day, I see no reason to ditch books which point back to the primary text in every case.
The idea that a theology is flawed because of the way that certain people behave is, in my honest opinion, a smokescreen to justify the idea that theology is flawed and I don’t buy it. I know Calvinistic Christians who are among some of the nicest people you will ever meet. I know Arminians who are just as nice, even when you disagree with them. Like my old basketball coach used to say, “Always remember – don’t get upset with the game when you are fouled badly, get upset with the player…”
Douglas,
Let me ask this…is Arminianism theology flawed?
In your heart, do you feel it is flawed? If it is not, then why did you feel compelled to leave it?
What is the smokescreen? Saying “I left because some people….”.
“The idea that a theology is flawed because of the way that certain people behave is, in my honest opinion, a smokescreen to justify the idea that theology is flawed and I don’t buy it.”
And….
“Always remember – don’t get upset with the game when you are fouled badly, get upset with the player…”
So what are we supposed to think Douglas when you yourself made comments on this blog and another blog site…”I left because…” and the blame was on people.
If you want to make this point, first apply it to the words you have stated. You got upset with Arminians so you left…then is the fault of the theology or the fault of the people?
I think Arminian theology, on a Biblical and exegetical level, leaves a lot to be desired, hence why I’m a Calvinist after 16 years of being a Pentecostal. I acknowledged on Nick’s post, since you’ve clearly read it, that I grew up in an extreme angle of things and that it wouldn’t be representative of all Pentecostals. My reasons for leaving Pentecostalism were first and foremost Biblical ones, not people ones.
I still live with a Pentecostal pastor (my own Dad), still attend his church and still have hundreds of Pentecostal friends. The fact that some behave in a legalistic fashion is not the theology’s fault – it’s their fault.
Clearly you don’t know me well enough to know that I spent a whole summer slaving over the Biblical text, reading book after book, writing page after page of notes as I studied God’s Word, before I left Pentecostalism. My study of the Word led me to see a better perspective in the Reformed faith – the fact that some Pentecostals were cruel to me was their fault, not the theology’s.
I personally in the last year have had Pentecostal people who are members of my Dad’s church buy me things I needed for school, welcome me into their home when I needed somewhere to stay as the folks were out of town – even put money in my hands for no real reason on my part. I know firsthand that it is their faith that motivates them – even if I disagree.
People weren’t my reason for leaving Pentecostalism – it was a rigorous, time-consuming study of the Scriptures which led me to the Reformed Faith. (Some Calvinists are utter jerks as well – again it’s not the theology’s fault. They just happen to be utter and complete jerks)
Douglas,
I hope you do understand that I have also studied the Bible. But you present the theology as bad. You seem to still be saying it is because of the personal characteristics of the individuals that make it or break it with you.
Can’t you understand that in essence you are trying to punish God for the bad things that have happened because of what people have done? That is the same problem my brothers have had. Our dad was abusive in many ways. Our mother was silent and neglectful and non-existent even though she was there. We grew up in dire poverty. I don’t have to go into details about the abuse because it is too much for a blog like this. But from 7 to 16 I was a victim of not one but three men. And one was my father who was Pentecostal. But never did I associate the theology with him, I knew it was his own failure. So I can look past that and not place the blame on God.
I had to pray so much and I had nothing but Jesus to rely on. When I learned that I can be Pentecostal and experience the joy and comfort that comes in this understanding, I won’t trade it for anything.
But my brothers on the other hand have gone away. They decided to seek other traditions to lead them and their lives are so damaged today with broken marriages and alcoholism. Is that God’s fault? Certainly not but that is the excuse they use. Is it because Pentecostalism made my dad the way he was? No it is not. It was because he made a conscious choice to do those things. And within Calvinism there is the idea of Unconditional election and when I see people who justify the same behavior saying the theology allows them to be like that I know it is a load of boloney.
If we as Christians destroy the life of someone else, do we excuse it by saying we are elect and God is preserving us? Can we do this to someone else by saying it is not sin? There are some Calvinists who have said they can because they say it is no longer sin. There are Arminians who sin because they just don’t care.
If the behavior can’t be excused for Arminians, then the behavior can’t be excused for Calvinists. If the definition of a sin is applied to one then it should be applied for all. Again, don’t beat the theology because you didn’t like the people in it. There are good people in both camps. But the problem is this, we as Arminians are not really allowed to voice our objections. Why is that?
Kara, I have absolutely no idea how you could possibly read his last comment, and say that. He explicitly said otherwise. Every word said otherwise.
Consistently, the people who interact with you on this blog come away thinking that you are unable to listen.
Can’t you understand that in essence you are trying to punish God for the bad things that have happened because of what people have done?
I’m lost as to what in the world you mean by that. I didn’t leave Christianity, I didn’t deny Christ, neither did I become an atheist with a chip on my shoulder. I am still as much a Christian now as I was when I left Pentecostalism. I still love the Lord Jesus with all my heart, and I still love His people – be they Pentecostal, Reformed Baptist, Presbyterian or any other such creature.
And within Calvinism there is the idea of Unconditional election and when I see people who justify the same behavior saying the theology allows them to be like that I know it is a load of boloney.
Actually unconditional election is the doctrine is that before the foundation of the world, the Father chose a people unto Himself to the end that He would save and sanctify them to the praise of His own glory. Anyone who uses it to justify ungodly behaviour needs to go back and read Titus 2:11-14. Again, it is not the theology’s fault – it is those who abuse the theology to that end, and yes it saddens me that they would.
If the behavior can’t be excused for Arminians, then the behavior can’t be excused for Calvinists. If the definition of a sin is applied to one then it should be applied for all. Again, don’t beat the theology because you didn’t like the people in it. There are good people in both camps. But the problem is this, we as Arminians are not really allowed to voice our objections.
As I said, some Calvinists are utter and complete jerks, just as some Arminians are. I left Pentecostalism not because people were mean to me or abused me or were hurtful to me – I spent time in God’s Word, studying and praying before I reached the conclusions I did. There is voicing an objection which is all above board, and on my blog, I welcome them wholeheartedly, and making blanket statements which is neither helpful or conducive to discussion
I love my Arminian brethren and do not think them any less saved than myself, even though we disagree on a host of issues.
I will make this quick since I don’t have a whole lot of time to comment here lately, or respond to comments here because of other commitments right now.
However, I want to set the record straight on something. My comment about reading Greg Boyd’s book with caution has apparently touched off a whole string of comments that have placed reading with caution in a category equal to that of burning or banning books, censorship and etc; even though I attempted to clarify what I meant.
If we are going to read the Bible with proper hermeneutics, which means in proper context, and recommend that we read books who reflect both sides of a story the same way, then I certainly think that we can take comments that disagree with another commenter’s opinion in the same sense. For instance, I didn’t rant on and on about John CT’s low opinion of Bruce Ware, whom I happen to consider a very fine theologian, nor was his comment jumped upon by anyone else as mine was.
I have never, ever advocating not reading anything that was recommended here, and I’m sorry if some of you reacted that way. As a former journalist I would consider that kind of censorship quite dangerous indeed. However, I agree with others here that we have to exercise discernment in what we recommend for the sake of those who may not be mature enough to separate things in and about the Bible properly. That was the case in the discussion about the Shack, and I don’t think it should change because someone on this thread gets upset because they like a particular theologian that someone else doesn’t recommend.
Just wanted to clear up, in proper context, that I’m not on a witch hunt against Dr. Boyd, which is the way some of the ensuing comments certainly have made it unfairly sound.
God bless.
Jugulum,
I do listen. And I pointed to him directly what I also read on there. And before he says it is not fair to bring it up here, was it fair to bring it up there?
I have read his bio and I do hear what Douglas says. There is a double standard.
Kara,
This whole conversation today is leaving me utterly confused. On Douglas’ blog I only saw a very short bio. Maybe I missed something, I don’t know. However, I don’t know what double standard you are talking about.
mbaker,
Nice to see you back if only for a short time. I don’t know Dr. Boyd so I can’t say anything on that. You are right that we need maturity and discernment about what we read.
There are people who think I don’t believe we should read anything at all. That is simply not it. I think we must have discernment about the author before hand.
I am currently reading the Bible study of the Book of Luke from Yale University Divinity school and it is quite interesting. In fact I have read a bunch of things this past month. The most interesting was Koinonia House teaching.
I read a book by a man from Pensacola. The man said some very dangerous theological points. He said that we as Christians are going to rule from our own planets and the Jews are going to be our servants. That was from someone who had a BA in Theology from a well known Christian Bible college and was a professor there. The man also went on to say that leopards in the Bible were black people. So you can see where I would be leery of authors who have free reign to write what they want.
The problem with this book is that people in churches believed him and began preaching it. I do not remember his name because in the effort to get over the shock I have forgotten…lol. Yes, it is important to study. But WHAT you study is just as important.
Cheryl,
I think there needs to be accountability as Christians. But to require it of one and not all is what the double standard is.
We should discuss what is going on as one big church, but we can’t if we don’t see past the denominational lines. I never classified myself as such until I came to this blog site. All I wanted to know in his charge against us is this…is the theology bad because of the people, or are the people bad because of the theology? Because people who are not Christian think…we are bad because of our theology so therefore we make the theology bad.
The Bible does say we must have a ready answer for the hope that lies within us. There are two very bad and unfortunate things that happened just this week. One was the abuse scandal in Ireland and the other is the mother who is wanted by the police for not taking her son to chemotherapy. If we can’t address the issues then the rest of the world think we are hypocrites.
So that is the question, are the people bad because of the theology or is the theology bad because of the people?
Firstly, my bio at Wired4Truth is incredibly short, incredibly vague and intentionally so. In fact, here it is:
“Well, who am I? Simply put, I’m a 17 year old who is in the process of becoming Reformed in my lifestyle, ideology and theology. My name is Douglas, and I’m 17 years old. I live in Hackney, in east London, in the UK.
I left the Deeper Life Bible Church in July, following my reading of Reformed books, who led me to study out the beliefs which I had followed almost all my life. Since then, I’ve struggled to share my newly found monergist beliefs with others, then I heard of WordPress…and the rest as they say is history – I WISH!!! – Where in the world am I saying that I left for personal reasons???
After months of blogging, here is a much expanded edition of my life story thus far.
I was born in Hackney, in East London on the 14th of December, 1990 to Lay Pastor [later Pastor] Albert Adu-Boahen and Angela Adu-Boahen [I usually use the AA joke…which my parents still find funny after 5 years]. We lived in Hackney for a while, until my dad was sent to Germany to pioneer a Deeper Life Bible Church in Frankfurt, Germany. While there, I learnt the language and occasionally still read the German Bible my dad bought me while we were there.
At age 16, I began a journey which led me to the Reformed Baptist camp where I am today…” (the ellipsis is actually where it ends)
Nothing about my wanting to put all Pentecostals into a room and throwing away the key. Nothing about my hatred for those who believe in tongues. Just a small bit about me and how I moved from Pentecostal to Reformed Baptist.
You accuse me of being duplicitous – but in reality you are reading things that aren’t there.
I wonder: is this part of your anti-theology bent or are you sincerely deceived into believing that the only reason people would leave Pentecostalism would be PERSONAL? I can point out loads of people in my age bracket here in London who have ditched Pentecostalism for the exact same exegetical and Biblical reasons I did. These folks were from churches that my folks would call liberal Pentecostals, yet left for the same reasons. Maybe it wasn’t personal, but exegetical.
In response, I would say neither of those is always true. There are Mormons and JWs with abominable theology yet are the nicest people on the face of God’s good, green earth – just as there are Baptist Christians who will look down their noses at someone like me, since I like Christian hip-hop and play basketball a lot. It’s them that the problem is with – aside from their theological bent.
Douglas.
I am a 41 year old from Ohio. I am Pentecostal. Being nice does not make someone right. Being good does. And if you fall apart at theological debates now, just wait. Douglas, I did read what you had said and in the light of being “unusually argumentative” toward you then you should learn that it is not you, but your words. The music you listen to does not matter to me.
There are going to be those in here who might now feel compelled to commend you on your choice. But I have to ask this…how do your parents feel about this decision? Have you really sat down with them and said how you really came to this? I know that at your age you still need to be accepted and validated.
But right now at this moment with your dad as pastor, have you really talked this over with him? The fact that you still go to his church and still involve yourself but in disagreement makes you duplicitous. I think then you should begin to be honest first of all with yourself why you really are choosing to be Reformed. And you need to be fully honest with your parents. If you don’t agree with his theology then you need to discuss it, but with him. And you are going to have to man up to accept there may be consequences to that.
Do you realize that without honesty with the people in your church is going to cause damage in the long run. There are people who do have faith in your parents leadership. It is being dishonest to worship with them and be friends with them while disagreeing to the point of wanting to leave. And I know right now you cannot leave because you are too young. But you need to recognize that you need to be fully honest with them and the people in your church. That is my advice.
Douglas
“Where in the world am I saying that I left for personal reasons???”
When you stated you almost had a nervous breakdown over their legalistic views that you felt like every moment you were losing your salvation.
Once again folks, and I truly hate this, we are getting into personal defenses and /or attacks on one another to prove our points. Stop. Think. What is your motive, being right in your own opinions, or advancing what is true according to the Bible?
Please do not take this personally, anyone, I am simply asking: what is the real priority here? I can argue my own views till the cows come home, and make a good case, and so can you, but does how does that really advance the kingdom of God?
We are so far off the topic of this post, it is certainly not honoring proper biblical hermeneutics, either way, or CMP’s original intent in writing it.
Like Paul Harvey would say were he still with us, “…and now for the rest of the story”
Actually my Dad made me go back to his church after I left to join a Reformed Baptist church for over six months and I chose not to fight him on it. A Pentecostal church is still a church, even if I disagree with their theology and some of their practices. To be honest, I don’t go because I want to, but because I have to. But at the end of the day, he still sees me as a believer – a deceived one, but a believer nonetheless – and I am still his eldest son. And yes, Papa and I discussed this many times, even in the early hours of the morning. His church members are aware of my views – I have been forthright with as many as have asked, and I am hurt you would make assumptions about whether I have been truthful to them. I am not a liar, neither have I acted duplicitously.
I think then you should begin to be honest first of all with yourself why you really are choosing to be Reformed. And you need to be fully honest with your parents.
So in other words, you actually think I am lying to my parents. And you know this how? A word of knowledge? Like I said, Papa and I have broken it down and discussed it and though we still disagree, he didn’t condemn me to hell, neither did he throw me out of his home. In fact, he and my Mama are paying for my undergraduate degree in Journalism. I am not a liar neither am I a sneak, especially towards my parents.
Do you realize that without honesty with the people in your church is going to cause damage in the long run. There are people who do have faith in your parents leadership. It is being dishonest to worship with them and be friends with them while disagreeing to the point of wanting to leave.
Again, you assume they don’t know my views, and again I assert that I have been one hundred percent honest with them and they have still accepted me as their own. Further I have made my views clear to them and they still welcomed me into the congregation even after 6 months at a Reformed Baptist congregation.
I would encourage you not to cast aspersions where you have no authority to do so, and let us stay on topic if this conversation must continue, since you know nothing of my private life to make such baseless assertions.
Of course, were you to have read my blog for the last two years like most people who know me online, you’d have known all these facts since my blog serves as a sort of diary for me.
mbaker,
As usual you are the voice of reason to which I will humbly apologize for my atrocious behavior. I really don’t want Douglas to think I am against him. As a young Christian he should be held up in this time.
I am a Pentecostal. I don’t feel that I need to apologize for that. I had asked a philosophical question that I also posed to my Conservative Jewish friend. I asked about theology…do bad people make theology bad, or does bad theology make people bad?
That was the original question that we as Christians have to answer before a world of critics. The unsaved do not care if we call ourselves elect or not, they can only judge us by our works and our words. Many people on here daily take me to task for what I say.
I am not against intellectual pursuits Douglas. I am against pursuits that lead a person away from truth. The truth is found in the Bible. It’s not in popular books, movies or music. And this Bert Ehrman is an example of that because think of it this way…suppose only one person believed him, who will God judge more? Without assuming I am attacking you, which I am not, can you answer philosophically?
The question is, does a bad person make theology bad, or does bad theology make a person bad?
The Bible says judgment begins at the house of God, meaning with us who claim it. mbaker is gracious enough to remind me that I am not here to attack. For that sake I will apologize to you and to mbaker and all readers.
I am Pentecostal. I will not apologize for that.
And I’m no longer Pentecostal, and won’t apologise for that.
In response to your question, it’s bad people who make theology bad. Allow me to present an example. Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church profess to be Calvinistic – but listen to their message and compare with John Piper, for instance. As anyone knows, the Westboro people are some of the most vile, disgusting and loveless people on the face of the earth, yet John Piper, who is also a Calvinist, would recoil at what they’re doing and would call them to repent – yet supposedly they share a common theological bent. Clearly it’s not their theology which is at fault – it is the people abusing the theology.
Bart Ehrman, who you seem fond of quoting, is another example. Anyone who likes textual criticism – which is Ehrman’s field – would know that the material he presents at damning…has been common knowledge in the world of textual criticism for a long time. Dr. James White, who has debated Bart Ehrman, has noted it succinctly as “right facts, wrong conclusions”. Again, the facts are 100% correct, but Ehrman is twisting those facts to ruin people’s faith. Who will God judge? He will judge Ehrman – not the information that Ehrman presented.
You said you are against pursuits that lead people away from truth, but as yet, you have still to demonstrate how the use of hermeneutics and theological materials will lead people away from truth. What of the housewife gets a book on the Trinity and her heart is lifted in praise to her amazing and sovereign God? What about the teenager who learns how we got our Bible and takes it more seriously than ever, knowing that the Scripture he holds in his hands came on the back of many martyrs? What of the pastor in Africa who has never owned a commentary and when he gets one, learns more of the Word to proclaim to those under his care?
It would seem to me that such people are being led closer to the truth, thanks to a knowledge of theology, exegesis and hermeneutics.
Dear Douglas K. Adu-Boahen,
I salute you. And I applaud you. 1689 London Confession is biblically based and biblically sound. May your tribe increase in the UK and be Salt and Light for both the secularists in the UK and most of the nominal Anglicans in the UK.
Keep reading Spurgeon next to reading the Bible.
Pax.
Dear Douglas K.,
Glad that you already saw this post by Kevin DeYoung about why he’s a Calvinist.
For an 18-year old college student…, I’m quite impressed with your spiritual maturity!!
Godspeed and God bless you on your journey!!!
[…] Michael Patton speaks of hermeneutics over at Parchment and Pen: Most people normally don’t practice authorial intent hermeneutics when we read our Bible. We […]