Does the Holy Spirit Interpret the Bible?

I tie the Spirit’s work more to the submission to God indicative of divine wisdom. For example, Proverbs indicates that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge and understanding; that the one who is wise is the one who has his life grounded in the reality of God’s oversight and guidance. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1 that the wisdom of the world has been overturned by the revealed foolishness of God. This message of weakness is completely upside down from the world’s thinking: strength in weakness, victory in death, etc.

So a person who agrees with that is ejecting their own wisdom and aligning with that which is perceptually foolishness but is actually salvation. It takes a heart that is, effectively (if not in actuality) suicidal in the sense that it is the end of merely-human answers.

Now how that occurs is up for some debate. The Calvinist might say that the heart is changed then she is drawn (John 6) and the Arminian would say otherwise (Rom 10)–whatever on both cases.

The point I’m making is that a life of true wisdom demands a rejection of a life of man’s wisdom which is antithetical to personal survival. The rulers of this world can’t understand it because it means an end to their system. The natural man can’t accept it because it is antithetical to the natural path he’s walking on when refusing to look further than his own hairline.

My 2 shillingsworth.

Lisa,

How familiar are you with historical hermeneutics? The reason why I ask is that your post basically negates over 2000 years of seeing the Bible as both spiritual and physical. I know your post says that the Bible is both physical and spiritual, but you’ve inferred that this means something completely different than what the church has taken it to mean. The people of God have always seen the evident meaning of the text (that which everyone can understand), but they have always believed that God has placed something cryptic or spiritual within those things as well. I realize that this is not popular within the literalist movement within the historical-grammatical movement of hermeneutics, but I think it is going to take a larger role as the historical-grammatical becomes the symbolic as people further study the Bible.
Here’s my question for you: Do you think the apostles needed the Holy Spirit to understand the OT? If so, why would we not need Him for the same? If the apostles, who were more in tuned with Christ than any other, needed the Holy Spirit in order to understand what He was talking about, why would we not need Him as well for the purpose of understanding deeper truths of what was said?

Hodge,

I added a sentence to the paragraph right after Dan Wallace’s quote to clarify that I do believe the Spirit guides us in understanding correlation of events. I don’t think anything I’ve written negates the fact the apostle’s needed spiritual guidance to understand how the OT made sense in context of the advent of Christ. In fact, that is specifically what Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians 2.

However, the NT was based on the apostolic witness and I do believe they are incorporated into the holy men that Peter speaks of in 2 Peter 1:19. Not directly, since Peter is speaking of the OT writers. But by way of revelation, they underwent the same process to inscribe God-breathed words. Yes, this does employ a plenary verbal understanding of inspiration but one that I think is consistent with what scripture is. And the process by which the NT writers wrote scripture, very much involved correlating the events of the OT with the NT for application to the new body of believers, which is explained for us in completed canon of scripture.

In terms of historical hermeneutics, while it is true that the early church fathers employed a more allegorical approach to scripture, there was development along the way to pull back the reigns on the spiritualizing of passages and gaining some hidden insight, specifically with the rise of the Antiochene school of thought. As you know, the late church fathers, most notably Augustine and Jerome captivated pushed back and influenced centuries of allegorizing scripture and a mysticism approach, expect for Thomas Aquinas, who adopted a more literal approach, I think. Fast forward to the reformation, both Luther and Calvin (Calvin more so) employed a more literal-grammatical hermeneutic from what previously existed and set the stage, I believe for a stronger literal-grammatical approach employed with the rise of Darby’s dispensationalism. Feel free to correct anything I’ve said but I don’t see how what I’ve written is inconsistent with the historical development of hermeneutics, especially the divergence of thought that has always existed.

But, I will be taking History of Exegesis in the fall and am eager to learn more…much more.

Lisa,

Thanks for a balanced post.

The point I take away is that we cannot ask the Holy Spirit to replace our embodied intellectual engagement with the text.

We should not think to ourselves: I can ignore what we have come to understand our the languages of the Bible – the Holy Spirit will make up for my inattentiveness to the language itself. By grace the Spirit helps us in our weakness very often, but as soon as we take grace for granted, it ceases to be grace and we are judged rather than saved by it.

Nor can we ignore the cultural matrices over against which and in dialogue with biblical authors wrote.

It is my conviction that the Holy Spirit blesses our good faith efforts at making sense out of the text with all the tools that are at our disposal. This even holds true for someone like Bart Ehrman no less, though it doesn’t (yet) extend to the healing, saving knowledge of the Gospel. Whether Ehrman likes it or not , the Holy Spirit blesses his good faith efforts at making sense out of the text with all the tools at his disposal.

I expect that your short answer to your title question is ‘yes,’ but there seems to be some confusion. At one point you have ‘The Holy Spirit does NOT interpret the Bible but will illuminate our understanding of the message so that it resonates in our hearts.’ The next paragraph begins ‘Another passage that I believe lends to the belief that the Holy Spirit needs to interpret the Bible is John 14-16…’

Perhaps you mean that the Spirit doesn’t teach us outright or doesn’t indicate to us when we have made a correct interpretation but applies our interpretations, whatever they may be, to strengthen our faith and our love of God. Our Christian experience would seem to confirm this, and we could cite the current trinitarian debate as an example: The Holy Spirit is guiding both Rob an Dave in their beliefs and both are strengthened in faith by their respective beliefs.

Otherwise, we need to explain why the Spirit doesn’t guide every believer exactly the same way.

Lisa,

Thanks for the clarification. I think I understand where you are coming from on this now. My point, however, was not that your post was inconsistent with the historical development of hermeneutics. I think it’s clear that this thinking is in perfect alignment with it. My point was that the retreat to only the surface meaning of the text, in terms of the historical-grammatical interpretation thereof, flows contrary to seeing the text as both spiritual (i.e., that which cannot be seen by the eye) and physical (i.e., that which can be seen by everyone) trajectory that the historic church has taken for the past 2000 years. I realize that Calvin’s interpretation lays the foundation for our modern hermeneutics, but Calvin himself did not always follow this pattern, and he was often accused of being a Judaizer because his hermeneutic, if applied consistently, removed Christ from the pages of the OT. He was heavily influenced by certain Jewish interpreters, like Kimchi, who retreated themselves to an early form of the historical grammatical hermeneutic in order to remove any hint that a text in the Hebrew Bible spoke of Christ.
I believe in the historical grammatical interpretation, but I would still say with most Christians that the text has an unseen aspect and understanding to it that only the HS can illumine to the believer.
BTW, I don’t know a single patristic writer who didn’t believe that the text was both literal and historical in the way that I’ve described above. All of them, that I can tell at least, believe that the text speaks of something tangible in history, but that it has a greater meaning as well. I see this with Paul’s use of Abraham as well. Thanks again.

It is my view that the Spirit is faith, faith which is required for the correct application of Jesus’s words in our own lives, thereby revealing their truth, or “mystery”. It is the fire in our hearts that keeps the message alive, the fire that spreads to others when we share that message.

Rayner,

What I meant regarding the John 14-16 passage, is that some will view that as the Spirit will guide us into understanding what we are reading means. That is, why use study tools or even learn the original languages to understand the grammatical structure because the Spirit will provide the interpretation? That is what I am attempting to address with this post. I for one, used to take that position and in fact, had the audacity to give sermonettes on a few occasions based on what I believed the Spirit was revealing through the text but did not do any investigative work to understand what it means according to what the author intended. When we study a passage or book according to how the author intended, we will have to understand things like context, culture and who the audience is. But by doing so, the Spirit enables that message to come to life and resonate with our hearts or should anyway.

And to respond to your question of why the Spirit does not guide every believer the same, it is because we are fallible creatures and capable of getting stuff wrong. This also makes a strong case for studying the text to determine what the author is communicating, which will require study aids.

When I read, “your post basically negates over 2000 years of seeing the Bible as both spiritual and physical.” I think that overstates your case.

In fact, from my reading of the history of hermeneutics, it seems to me a rather recent development that there is a spiritual truth of the Bible that is understood APART from the words that are written and understood by our minds. It is often covered up in lofty words that sound spiritual, but when it comes down to it, the question is, “Is there more to understand than what the author is communicating in the words that he uses? ”

Is there a spiritual truth that is communicated OTHER THAN the spiritual truth that is expressed in the words themselves?

For those that say yes, there is not much history to back that up outside of the last 100 to 200 years. True, there are ancient authors that seem to take this approach, but they are hardly mainstream or orthodox. And regardless, the question remains, “Is there a spiritual truth that exists “beyond” the words that the author uses to convey the spiritual truths expressed in the words themselves????

I would say that the meaning of Scripture can be (and is) understood through the words (linguistic meaning) of the authors as expressed in the text of Scripture. Now, aside from God’s grace, I may not RECEIVE those words, but I can certainly understand what they communicate. In fact, this seems the exact point that Christ makes (that we all can understand things just fine, but we choose not to respond to certain truth (because of our wicked hearts) and we are scolded, “you know how to discern the signs of the sky, but do not discern the signs of the times?” We have the ability to understand these things, but sometimes we morally reject.

Thanks for your response and clarifications. In John 14-16 Jesus says that his Spirit will teach and guide his followers after He has left. This applies to everything they do and so would include reading the Bible. If the author were thinking of scripture (which is not at all hinted at in my opinion) it would, I’m sure, be the OT, but the author’s intent isn’t much help here; we really want to know Jesus’ intent.

I guess you are saying that the Spirit does guide everyone the same, and we turn out different because we are fallible and therefore likely to be wrong. Sure, we are fallible, but I would suggest another explanation: We are different—in our backgrounds and needs—, and various interpretations and understandings are not necessarily wrong. Besides our fallibility, we are also limited by finite language and comprehension and thus no single interpretation may be ‘right.’

You put a lot of importance on author’s intent and original languages, yet scholars who use such study aids still may disagree. I’m not saying they are a complete waste of time, but they are not a perfect remedy either. The original languages have their own limitations. We even learn some things from Christian experience rather than the Bible itself. For example, from Jesus’ simple statement about sending the Holy Spirit, we might think that the Spirit would make all his followers in complete agreement. However, we have seen that is not the case.

On one level Christ’s message is very simple; even children and unlearned people come to Him. What the Spirit really needs to remind us of is to apply His Spirit in our daily lives.

Interpretation of the Bible comes through studying each book as grasping what each author was attempting to communicate. It is the same approach we would use in reading any other literature. Each book must be understood in its cultural, historic and linguistic context. The use of study aids will enhance the comprehension of cultural and historic background and enable the reader to correlate what is going on in each book to the overall redemptive message. Each book has been produced under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. He will indeed guide our understanding of how each piece fits together so that God’s story resonates with us, but that is contingent upon us reading each book as it was meant to be read.

This morning I was reading 2COR3:16: “but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.” Paul is quoting EX34:34, though what he writes differs from the LXX (which seems to replicate the Hebrew); in fact, Paul seems to be rephrasing the verse to support his argument.

How is Paul’s interpretation/application an instance of understanding the text in its cultural, historic and linguistic context? The plain meaning of EX34:34, even in translation, is that though Moses covered the shining of his face so as not to frighten the Israelites, he would remove this veil whenever he went in before YHWH to talk to Him, and then put it back on when he came out. I see no suggestion there that when one turns to the Lord, the Spirit removes the veil from their non-understanding mind or heart, though that is apparently how Paul understood the verse, even changing the text (esp. the verb) to fit his argument.

If EX34:34 and 2COR3:16 were both produced under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, how does one formulate a doctrine of inspiration that encompasses the way Paul read and used this verse? And what does this say about the way the Holy Spirit either does or does not interpret the Bible, whether for us or for Paul?

Eric,

Borrowing from what JJ said here,

“I would say that the meaning of Scripture can be (and is) understood through the words (linguistic meaning) of the authors as expressed in the text of Scripture.”

The linguistic meaning encompasses a variety idioms. So when I say literal, that does not mean a wooden literal translation everywhere, but one which accounts for how the author is utilizing language.

So for Paul’s reference of 2 Corinthians 3 passage in correlation with the actual event described in Exodus, Paul is utilizing an event as a shadow of what was to come. Isn’t that a common use of the OT in the NT? I don’t think that takes away from inspiration as the Spirit revealed to Paul that event in context of the advent of Christ. But my point is that the reader of the text can make that correlation of Paul’s use of that event. It doesn’t mean they believe it, though.

Lisa:

But I don’t think Paul is using EX34:34 as a “shadow” for 2COR3:16. He’s not only changing the text and the context of the Exodus passage, but also the meaning. Types and shadows should have some kind of correlation to each other – e.g., the earthly tabernacle had a heavenly counterpart; the first man came from the earth; the second man came from heaven.

Also, I don’t think how Paul reads/writes his quote from EX34 has anything to do with it perhaps being idiomatic language in the OT passage. He nearly completely changes the meaning as well as the application of the text.

You wrote:

There is no hidden spiritual meaning in the words, but the words convey a spiritual message by using plain language to explain it.

Yet that seems to be what Paul is doing to the Exodus passage, because what the Exodus words explain is NOT what Paul interprets them to mean in 2COR, ISTM.

Very interesting article. I think anyone can read and understand parts of the Bible – Proverbs for instance is very practical and many passages are present fairly simply. But hard for any of us who already have the Holy Spirit in us to say for sure how it is for non-believers. I’ve encouraged others I know to open their Bibles, and often the response is lukewarm at best. Is this just laziness? Are they having trouble understanding? Or are they missing the Holy Spirit to make the reading both important and impactful.

I think it is safe to say that only God and His Spirit can direct you and guide you through what you read in the Bible. In fact, I’d say that if you are beginning to understand any of the Scripture in a way that makes you reflect on your life, the Spirit is already at work.

JJ,

I’m sorry, but as one who is very familiar with historical hermeneutics, your statement falls completely flat. The understanding I just described has been held from the time of the Second Temple Period. The NT authors, ;including Christ Himself, use it. The Fathers use it. Christians in the Middle Ages use it. Even the Reformers use it to some extent. What is recent in the past 100 to 200 years is the exclusivity of the historical grammatical method due to our false dichotomy in terms of natural vs supernatural (i.e., what is obvious to everyone = physical, what is fantasy and made up subjectivism = spiritual/allegorical/symbolic). So my question is to you: If Hos 11:1 says that God called His son out of Egypt, and according to the historical grammatical method, “son” refers to Israel as a nation in context, then Matthew’s use of the verse as referring to Christ is bogus. How would you answer that claim?

Lisa,

These two statements are contradictory:

“The linguistic meaning encompasses a variety idioms. So when I say literal, that does not mean a wooden literal translation everywhere, but one which accounts for how the author is utilizing language.”

and

“So for Paul’s reference of 2 Corinthians 3 passage in correlation with the actual event described in Exodus, Paul is utilizing an event as a shadow of what was to come. Isn’t that a common use of the OT in the NT?”

A “shadow” is the exact thing I was referring to above. It is an allegorical or cryptic meaning that is hidden or hinted by the Spirit of God in His text. This is why Paul uses Sarah and Hagar as allegories, and he believes them to be literal and real people as well. This is what he means by the term “mystery,” a term used often in the DSS to describe this cryptic meaning that cannot be seen by the natural man.

Hodge,

I don’t negate that Paul uses allegory and specifically where the OT is concerned. According to the passages I cited, there were mysteries unbenownst to the OT saints. But doesn’t Paul explain them now by looking back at getting the “aha” as the Spirit revealed? Does that mean there are hidden things in the text for us readers, especially considering that he is writing about what these mysteries are? The latter question is what I was trying to address. And is what cannot be seen by the natural man a spiritual message hidden in the text or his need for what that message is conveying?

Eric,

I don’t know, I do see that as a shadow as there is a correlation, although that was not known to Moses. I’m gonna have to investigate that some more.

Great discussion.

Hate to state the obvious, but Lisa and Hodge are both right.

Take Song of Solomon for example. If you want the historical-grammatical interpretation of it, you’re not going to find much in either Jewish or Christian interpretation until modern times. In Christian tradition, I think Karl Barth was the first heavyweight to advocate for it. And what a beautiful gift it is to read the Song in its plain sense.

But the Song of Songs made it into the canon because it was interpreted allegorically. Aqiba loved the song for that reason. It defiled the hands (was a holy text) for that reason.

But allegory has its own rules, which. like historical-grammatical interpretation, are understandable by all. Thus Origen and rabbis of his day engaged in Christian – Jewish polemics based on competing allegorical interpretations of the Song.

It is great stuff and gets to the heart of Jewish and Christian self-understandings far faster than does plain-sense interpretation.

It is absurd to throw non historical-grammatical interpretation into the waste basket. It a great shortcut to get to the heart of something. At the same time, it is absurd not to make historical-grammatical interpretation the touchstone and foundation of all other kinds of interpretation. It acts as a control on allegory. If allegory cannot be backed up by plain-sense interpretation of the canon as a whole (which, to work it out, takes a ton of time and therefore is usually skipped over), it is worthless.

Good stuff here Lisa. I agree with the posting that the author’s intended meaning of the written text in Scripture can be understood by both believer (who would be indwelled by the HS) and unbeliever (who would not be) given that they work through the literal/historical context. Accepting and acting on the truth is where the HS comes into play.

I guess for those advocating a more “spiritual meaning” beyond the author’s intent and literary/historical context, it might be helpful to understand a passage that is seen in this way (that is not an OT passage interpreted by an inspired NT author) and how the reader can reliably come to trust that their interpretation is actually Spirit led and not something else. Are we looking for “bible codes” or other typologies?

It might also be helpful to understand how faithful Christians that are Spirit led can come to such different interpretations. How do we determine which is correct?

MikeB

weird… did I just lose my comment…

Not sure what happened to last comment, so I am attempting to rewrite and post it… sorry if there is a technical glitch and this appears twice

Good stuff here Lisa. I agree with the posting that the “plain meaning” or author’s intended meaning of the written text in Scripture can be understood by both believer (who would be indwelled by the HS) and unbeliever (who would not be) based on the literal and historical context. Accepting and acting on the truth is where the HS comes into play.

I guess for those who are advocating a more spiritual meaning beyond the author’s intent, it might be helpful to see a passage (that is not the OT passage being used by an inspired NT author) as an example. What is the Spirit revealing? New information or are we talknig about “bible codes” or symobolic typologies or something else. It might also be helpful to see how the modern reader knows that the interpretation of the passage is Spirit led or something else.

Lisa,

I think what you may be getting at is that the Holy Spirit was only needed to illumine cryptic understanding of the text through the apostles. Now, we can just read their decryption plainly. Is that what you mean?

The problem I would have with this is that when we read something like the SofS, as John mentions above, do we read this Christologically or anthropologically, or both? It would seem, if it lacked apostolic commentary, then your post would tell us to only read it anthropologically (and I would even argue, anthropocentrically, as God isn’t really in the picture there). What’s the plain sense of the Song to the modern reader? If not romanticized by psychological eisegesis, it really is nothing more than two swimsuit models wanting to have sex with one another. Read it without any notions from modern books and commentaries for what it literally says, and you may see what I mean there. Is the message really that people will want to have sex with people who are attractive?

John,

Thanks for the insight. I would disagree that the plain reading of SofS is not as an allegory, but I definitely acknowledge that the historical grammatical is the foundation. I don’t think Second Temple interpreters, patristic authors, etc. would disagree with that. They believe the plain sense is true. They just believe that a far deeper sense, i.e., the spiritual sense, is more an advancement of understanding the text. I’m sure you already know this. Hence, they do, for the most part, keep themselves in check with the plain sense. Also, good words in terms of canon. That is an important point to make. Thanks again.

It might also be helpful to understand how faithful Christians that are Spirit led can come to such different interpretations. How do we determine which is correct?

Why, that’s what The Magisterium is for. Get your Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur from them and you’re good to go! 😀

I DO appreciate that someone finally addressed this subject. I always found it absurd when people told me to ask the Holy Spirit to help me understand the Bible.

As if the English language would somehow be different if I just had the Holy Spirit helping me. Crazy!

Now if they were saying that the Holy Spirit will tell my spirit that it’s all God’s word or true, I can understand that a little more.

Anyway, thanks for bringing this up. People say stuff like this all the time in Christianity, and it makes no sense.

I’m sorry Hodge, I shouldn’t have used your quote as a touchstone.

I would agree that rabbis of the second temple period widely used allegorical interpretation. And many early Christian apologists did as well. However, one merely needs to read the rabbis, especially 200AD era, as well as the Christian allegory, to see that this hardly leads to valuable understanding, as there is not any “check” of validity. If the rabbi’s theology is sound, then his allegory is fairly sound, and if not, then not.

However, when the rabbi’s took the method of taking, for instance, a mashal and gave it’s teaching, they provided a Nimshal to interpret. The same question is left to us: Is there a spiritual meaning to the text of Scripture that is somehow found through special enlightenment of the Holy Spirit and is not found by reading the text with a view toward understanding it as one would understand any other book?

25. JJ on 17 May 2010 at 10:11 pm
…
Is there a spiritual meaning to the text of Scripture that is somehow found through special enlightenment of the Holy Spirit and is not found by reading the text with a view toward understanding it as one would understand any other book?

I think there can be. A book that deals with this subject is BEYOND THE OBVIOUS by James DeYoung, Th.D., and Sarah Hurty, Th.M.:

http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Obvious-Discover-Meaning-Scripture/dp/1885305141/

JJ,

I think you hit the nail on the head there: If the person’s theology is sound . . . It is theology that directs interpretation in the first place. That’s why historical grammatical interpretations have led to nothing but multiple interpretations ad infinitum, just as much as allegorical interpretations did. It’s not that allegorical interpretations are not kept in check and historical grammatical interpretations are. It is that all interpretations are kept in check by orthodox theology and ethics, and if it isn’t, then it is driven by other theology and ethics. It is not the method, therefore, but the theology that drives it.

@Hodge:

I think you hit the nail on the head there: If the person’s theology is sound . . . It is theology that directs interpretation in the first place.

Is this really the right way to go about interpreting Scripture, based on our theological suppositions? I agree that this does happen, but I would think that this is a presupposition that the reader brings to the text and must be acknowledged and controlled because it will influence and guide interpretation potentially to an incorrect result.

How does one know if their theology is sound, if sound theology is the prerequisite for sound interpretation?

MikeB

How does one know if their theology is sound, if sound theology is the prerequisite for sound interpretation?

MikeB:

See my answer above (23.) re: the role/function of The Magisterium, in response to your previous question (19.)

The same answer applies. 🙂

MikeB,

I wanted to ask Hodge the same question you did. Theolgy does come from our understanding of Scripture after all. Yes, we all bring presuppositions to our understanding on many issues that do effect our understanding. But if those presuppositions (theology) are wrong, we end up in a wrong place. And we can’t build our ultimate theological grid in the first place without it coming from Scripture–or at least we certainly should not do so!

Besides that, all of the people and different churches, denominations, sects, etc. in this world think that their theology is the sound one. So according to them, they have interpreted Scriputre correctly according to their “sound” theology even thought it is 100% opposite of my “sound” theology. So how is that helpful?

@EricW

How do I know that your theology regarding the Magisterium is right?

😉

“Is this really the right way to go about interpreting Scripture, based on our theological suppositions? I agree that this does happen, but I would think that this is a presupposition that the reader brings to the text and must be acknowledged and controlled because it will influence and guide interpretation potentially to an incorrect result.

How does one know if their theology is sound, if sound theology is the prerequisite for sound interpretation?”

Because even though Eric is joking, there is such a thing as the historic Church. It teaches what is true, and people can reject it for their private interpretations. I know that evangelicals believe they approach the text to learn from it, and there is a reciprocal learning that goes on from the text, I’m not denying that. However, my point is that one who believes as Arius will not be persuaded by Scripture because he interprets Scripture through his theology. Even evangelicals, who think they have come to Scripture to get their theology first, were taught what to believe first, or at least taught to think about Scripture in a certain way. Theology that is taught drives one’s interpretation. Hence, it is not the hermeneutic that is important, but the theology that one is taught. That’s why every person in the church can believe accurate theology without being Bible scholars.

Once again, I’m not saying that historical grammatical methodologies are not worth anything. I use it almost exclusively myself. My point here is that it hasn’t brought unity because theology, not the methodology, drives the interpretation, whether one realizes it or not (and most don’t realize it).

“Besides that, all of the people and different churches, denominations, sects, etc. in this world think that their theology is the sound one. So according to them, they have interpreted Scripture correctly according to their “sound” theology even thought it is 100% opposite of my “sound” theology. So how is that helpful?”

This is actually my point. They’re all using the historical grammatical method. Why don’t they all agree? I must believe before I understand. Understanding does not precede faith. Hence, belief in what is true comes before understanding it in the Scripture. All you have to do is look at all of the past posts to see that this is the case. If one does not believe a certain theology, all of the historical grammatical interpretation of Scripture in the world will not convince them, and they will believe that their historical grammatical interpretation is the correct one.

Hence, it is not an individual church, but the historic Church that one finds sound doctrine. Most of what we would consider solid churches adopt historic theology whether they realize it or not. Those who part from it are in error, not because they don’t have explanatory power in their hermeneutics, but because they have departed from the faith on the issue.

Hodge,

I agree with you to a point. However, there is a lot that simply doesn’t follow what you are saying here.

Take the issue of baptism for instance. Not only is there a difference of opinion on if it should be done by sprinking or immersion, there are multiple different ideas of what the meaning and purpose of it are. There are those that believe it is a symbol of what has already happened in a believer’s heart, those that believe it truly unites a baby with Christ when Christian parents come to have that baby baptized, those that believe that it is the way the Apostles taught that people were to reach out and appropriate the gift of salvation that Jesus gives–an act of faith. I am sure there are other variations too. But these variations alone show that people have many different takes on things and all believe they are doing what the Bible teaches and will stand vehemently behind their conclusions.

What “historic” church are you going to appeal to for the sorting out of this matter?

cherylu:

Add “communion” (the Eucharist) to “baptism” and these two make the issue of adherence to what “the (chimerical?) historic Church” has taught even murkier, esp. since these two things are so intimately connected with salvation in the mind/doctrine/teachings/worship/life of the two largest historic Churches, the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox.

I came to this posting late but I find it fascinating. All I have to say is I know this is just anectdotal, my own experience, but Scripture while understandable before my regeneration, did not mean much to me and many parts simply made no sense to my unrenewed mind. And why is it that the morning after I was born-again, I awoke with an insatiable urge to read Scripture? The living Word via the Holy Spirit was drawing me to His written form. And cannot the Holy Spirit also draw us to various hermeneutical tools too? What’s the big debate?
Nonetheless…. sola Scriptura. “In the beginning was the Word…” and he had not yet become a book.

Hodge,

I believe you inserted a very valid component to scriptural interpretation and that is, tradition. We evangelicals tend to negate its influence but it plays a significant role in our hermeneutics. That alone, will keep us on a different page, even when employing the same methods.

Cherylu and Eric,

Where does the Bible talk about those aspects of baptism and the eucharist? What you guys are referring to is not something taught by Scripture, but philosophy and tradition alone. Furthermore, I’m talking about theological and ethical issues that govern the Christian’s life, not esoteric aspects and speculations of all things. People in the Church have differed on those things because, frankly (at the risk of offending every sacramental theologian), they aren’t important to life and practice. They try to discover something about the sacraments that is not revealed about them. I am talking about what is revealed. What causes an Arian or Modalist to read Scripture differently than a Trinitarian? Not the hermeneutic method. That’s obvious if you have been following these debates. Hence, one must believe what is past down to him through the historic orthodox Church about the Trinity first. Then he will see it in Scripture, whether allegorically or literally. What causes a Pelagian to see the Scripture differently than an Augustinian? A Gnostic from an Non-Gnostic? As I stated before, of course, the Scripture is not silent, but it does not speak alone. The Spirit is needed to witness to the individual through tradition and the Scripture so that he can come to the truth on a matter. Hence, one is given faith and that faith then sees the truth in all Scripture, regardless of hermeneutic. What I am trying to get from you guys is the acknowledgment that the problem with division isn’t one of hermeneutics, but of faith. Hence, it is not simply that a person is employing the wrong method (something not associated with themselves), but that a person is in rebellion, knowingly or unknowingly, toward the truth. Hence, unless he is born of the Spirit, he cannot even see the kingdom of God.

Lisa,

Amen. I think you get what I’m talking about.

BTW, I just want to reiterate that I believe, as did everyone in Church history, that even the unregenerate person can understand the basic meaning of a text as literature. The spiritual truth of it, however, is not plain to him.

38. Hodge on 18 May 2010 at 1:28 pm # wrote:
.
Where does the Bible talk about those aspects of baptism and the eucharist? What you guys are referring to is not something taught by Scripture, but philosophy and tradition alone. Furthermore, I’m talking about theological and ethical issues that govern the Christian’s life, not esoteric aspects and speculations of all things.

Furthermore, I’m talking about theological and ethical issues that govern the Christian’s life, not esoteric aspects and speculations of all things.

These things aren’t “esoteric aspects and speculations” to the two largest bodies of “the historic Church,” the institution whose teaching you are appealing to in support of your theology and hermeneutical methods. In fact, they are salvific/soteriological and sacramental and hence impinge on all the theological and ethical issues that govern and impact and affect the lives of the members of these communions. Read, e.g., what some of the scholars and theologians and saints in those churches have written about the Eucharist.

Where does the Bible talk about those aspects of baptism and the eucharist? What you guys are referring to is not something taught by Scripture,

Try telling a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox priest or bishop that the Scriptures don’t teach what they and their churches teach about baptism and the eucharist. 😀

Eric,

That’s where you’re missing me. The RCC and EO are medieval religious institutions, not orthodox Christianity themselves. They are orthodox in so far as they ascribe to historic orthodoxy. Only novices in the church history make them equivalent to one another. They view them as important because of Aristotelian and Platonic philosophical considerations applied to the acts. I know what it is applied to, my point is talking about what is Biblical. I have told them. Thank you, Eric. Mission accomplished. You ought to try and make an argument now that we’ve got that established.

BTW Eric,

What’s the name of your church again? You wouldn’t happen to have anything against what I’m saying a priori, would you?

Either the Holy Spirit is interpreting scriptures for you, or you are.

42. Hodge on 18 May 2010 at 1:51 pm # wrote:
.
Eric,
.
That’s where you’re missing me. The RCC and EO are medieval religious institutions, not orthodox Christianity themselves.

I think a Roman Catholic or Orthodox priest or bishop or theologian would take issue with that statement/dismissal of their authority/orthodoxy/historicity/Christianity/Ecclesiology. 🙂

43. Hodge on 18 May 2010 at 1:52 pm # wrote:
.
BTW Eric,
.
1. What’s the name of your church again? 2. You wouldn’t happen to have anything against what I’m saying a priori, would you?

1. It doesn’t have a name.
2. No.

Eric Lewis,

Can you expound on this?

“Either the Holy Spirit is interpreting scriptures for you, or you are.”

What does it mean for the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture for us?

Hodge,

I happen to know people that believe in every understanding of baptism that I mentioned above. As a matter of fact, at one time or another in my life, I have been affiliated with a body of Christians that strongly believed each one of those understandings. And every single one of them would say that their understanding, which is of course probably most often the understanding of the denomination or body that they are a part of, is Scripturally based. It is not something that someone just came up with out of thin air and passed along as tradition, for goodness sake. And to each of them, it is something that does have great importance in how they live their lives as believers.

Eric and Cheryl,

Please read the words that I write. I don’t care what people believe. That’s not the point of what I’m saying. Gnostics today would believe that they are orthodox and that their doctrines and takes on baptism are historic orthodox teachings. Who cares? My point is that there is a historical orthodox line of theology and ethics that informs the Christian. It is through theology that he or she comes to understand Christ. Hearing or reading the Bible is directed by this. It is inescapable, and I don’t think the HS means for us to escape it, as He uses it as a tool to interpret the Bible.

Cheryl, you’re kind of making my point for me by showing that everyone tries to justify his or her denomination and views with Scripture. That’s why it is so important to have the right views in the first place. That’s my point. And they are using the historical grammatical method, so it doesn’t save us from disunity, does it?

Eric, really? Your church has no name? It’s just a white building with no name attached? If you were to advertise you would just give a street address and phone number?

48. Hodge on 18 May 2010 at 8:01 pm #
.
1. Eric, really? 2. Your church has no name? 3. It’s just a white building with no name attached? 4. If you were to advertise you would just give a street address and phone number?

1. Really.
2. That is correct. But you can call us Joe Manco, if you wish. Or Blondie.
3. Presently more of a dark red or brown, I think. And no name attached.
4. “Yes” to just giving a street address or location, but “No” to giving a phone number, or maybe giving a participant’s contact phone number.

Hodge,

So what historic church teaches the right orthodox line of theology on an issue like baptism so we can all believe what they teach and read the Scripture according to that right theology?