It Does Not Matter What the Bible Means to You
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.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!Got Theology? Everything starts next week.
- The Exegetical Process: What Does it Mean to You?
- Friday Night Odds and Ends
- Case Studies in Inerrancy: A New P&P Series
- God’s Hiddenness
- Does the Holy Spirit Interpret the Bible?
Print This Post

Leslie on 17 May 2009 at 11:10 pm #
I am currently reading the updated HOW TO READ THE BIBLE FOR ALL ITS WORTH, and your post is an additional inspiration to read-study the Bible correctly. Thanks, Michael.
Eclectic Christian - Michael Bell on 17 May 2009 at 11:12 pm #
Hi Michael,
Nice post. It is good to see that although we might disagree on particular interpretations, we at least approach scripture in the same way.
I am not sure though that I would agree with the statement that “most Christians are reading the Bible with a subjective hermeneutic” at least not in the circles in which I have traveled.
One final note: Knowing that you are a complementarian (if I remember correctly), do you know what a complementarian calls hermeneutics? Hiswomeneutics!
bethyada on 18 May 2009 at 2:19 am #
There is no secret hidden meaning. The only meaning that we can discover is what the original author meant.
There is much truth in what you have written Michael, but I think there is a supernatural element which you appear somewhat sceptical of.
I am a strong believer in authorial intent. Note that with Scriptures we have dual authorship. Thus there may be meaning that the human author was not aware of. There may be a double meaning intended by God.
Further, I think that substandard hermeneutics, while not preferable, can be overcome by the Spirit working in those who truly desire to follow Jesus and understand God’s word.
Lastly, while I am cautious how I would teach thus, God is able to use his own word to specific people that may not apply generally. I would argue that people have had God speak into their situation through Scripture that may not be applicable to all people.
I do agree that the Bible does not give contradictory teaching, all interpretations are not all valid. And we should fight against the popular false philosophy known as pluralism. And we should teach what does the Bible mean, not how do I see it, or how does it make me feel. But I would be cautious in your reaction against modern Gnosticism not to dismiss concepts excessively.
JohnO on 18 May 2009 at 2:35 am #
Michael,
I think you’re being a little disingenuous when you speak of having lost the spirit of Reformation hermeneutics and spend the previous part of the article championing historical-critical methods. Reformation hermeneutics, as I’m sure you’re aware, were most definitely not historical-critical. They often relied heavily on such approaches as typology. This, I would suggest, has nothing to do with authorial intent.
I also think that your opening statement betrays the basis of your approach. By calling hermeneutics a science (albeit qualified by also calling it an art) you fall into the same trap as the enlightenment thinkers whose positivistic outlook led them to dismiss the ‘woolly’ thinking of religion and champion ‘the truth’ that can be discovered through scientific analysis. Give due consideration to any more contemporary literary theories and you’ll soon discover that ‘authorial intent’ is about as far from a science as you can get.
I am not suggesting that your approach isn’t valuable, but it needs to be tempered with the knowledge and understanding that, at best, we can only make a good guess at what the author intended, and that we bring so much of our own baggage to a text that we can never ‘know’ what an author intended. Where such an approach is indeed enormously valuable is stopping us from stepping too far beyond the boundaries of the text. It offers us some of the checks and balances that keep us from applying whatever interpretation we like to the text.
As always though, a good and challenging article.
John
C Michael Patton on 18 May 2009 at 2:38 am #
John, I agree somewhat, and might I say that I have made a “good guess” about what you intended.
You can thank me later!
Douglas K. Adu-Boahen on 18 May 2009 at 4:00 am #
A clear and powerful demonstration that modern Evangelicalism has becoming self-centred is when everyone’s favourite question is now “What does this mean to you?”
And this viewpoint is everywhere – even sometimes represented on this blog (of course not by the beloved authors of this blog). If anything it is rather disingenous and narcissistic.
Sometimes I wonder whether it is just laziness, selfishness or both that lead us to this conclusion that unless it speaks to me directly, it means nothing. Personally, were I a pastor (and thank heavens I am not), every new convert to the faith would get a Bible, Wayne Grudem’s Christian Beliefs (the mini-systematics text) and How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth. It would save them a lot of spiritual shipwreck.
P.S. The lady from your post saddens me. Why stop reading the Word of life just because it won’t tell you X and Y?
JonWesley on 18 May 2009 at 6:31 am #
It’s a scary thing to see such in “black and white.” It makes me rethink and double-check my method. I agree that “authorial intent” is important, as much as the enviroment in and to which the author wrote. Our senior pastor loves the quote, “Text without context is pretext.” Thanks for your candor and courage.
P.S. I agree with Douglas K. Adu-Boahen, it IS sad that someone would decide to stop reading the Bible just because one could not render it to one’s own feelings. May God protect us all from coming to that point.
Latte Links (5/18) | Caffeinated Thoughts on 18 May 2009 at 7:00 am #
[...] C. Michael Patton: “It Does Not Matter What The Bible Means To You” I was teaching the other day on hermeneutics (the science and art of biblical interpretation). More [...]
rayner markley on 18 May 2009 at 7:06 am #
Jesus Himself gave us the secret decoder ring when He left His Holy Spirit with us. We must guide our lives and our interpretations in line with that Spirit, which has to be within us. We see that Spirit in the way He lived His life. Still, hermeneutics is valuable in helping us understand how the Spirit has guided other people, i.e., the authors. Its strengths are in the areas of doctrine, but we have become almost too dependent on the written word.
Kara Kittle on 18 May 2009 at 7:24 am #
CMP,
As much as you probably feel safe in your teaching, do you have a greater grasp of scripture than I do even though I have been reading it since I was 15 and now am 40? That seems to be the core issue, your interpretation vs. my interpretation. The thing is, when we say “what does this mean to you?” is exactly that, what does it mean?
If we take the Bible on the merit of being a textbook that needs to be studied so we can learn the meanings of the Greek and Hebrew and why the author used the words they did then we do miss out on the wonderful meaning of what it means for us today in our situation today. If we limit God’s revelation to just for them back then, it no longer applies to us.
Should we no longer be seeking revelations or deep meanings just on the basis of us not living in the right century or being in the original location? The Bible itself says there are mysteries of God. It does seem to me your position is one of “it’s impossible for there to be secret meanings because the authors do not imply so”. If that be the case, why did Belshazzar have Daniel translate the handwriting on the wall? That was a secret meaning even though there were Hebrew speakers among his own council. But the words were supernatural, by a supernatural author, with a supernatural meaning…all leading to a natural consequence.
And as for the person above suggesting extra-Biblical books to understand how to read the Bible is the same as accusing Mormons of reading the Book of Mormon. Same concept.
The Word of God is sharper than any two edged sword. It cuts truth from lie and it cuts good from bad. If we then sit and study the way swords are made, what they are made from and the metal from the country the author came from then we miss why the sword is being used and how to avoid being hurt from it.
dac on 18 May 2009 at 7:27 am #
Leslie – it is a great book
Second, a qoute for the day
The text doesn’t mean one thing today and something else tomorrow. Whatever it means, it means forever. But you will never cease the process of applying the truth to your life (Howard and William Hendricks)
When people ask “what does this mean to you?”, are they really suggesting some secret message, or are they asking the Hendricks second point?
David
Kara Kittle on 18 May 2009 at 7:29 am #
I just have one more question…
Why are we asked to question the motives of Bible authors (even though the Bible plainly states they were given the words by inspiration of the Holy Spirit as God moved on them), but we are never expected to question motives of theologians?
Dr_Mike on 18 May 2009 at 7:45 am #
I think, Michael, that what you are saying is that no verse or passage is a matter of private interpretation.
That sounds familiar, although I must confess that its meaning does depend on one’s hermeneutic. Oh, the irony.
But I suppose we could fall back on the “to each his/her own” style of understanding Scripture and remain in our private, special, insider-trading view of God. Truth is not universal but changes according to private interpretation.
One more thing: you are right, Michael, to call the privatization of interpretation “magic.” That is exactly what it is, not much different from the pagan practice of cutting out a lamb’s liver and determining a message from the gods by how the liver quivered. The Bible becomes our own little talisman when we treat it in such a way. Or to pay for someone to interpret the ramblings of an oracle who perches above a volcanic vent and babbles incoherently while under the influence of toxic fumes.
That is not rightly handling the word of God. But I confess that I am limited by my hermeneutic and not privilege to the special knowledge that the initiated seem to possess.
Woe is me.
Evenshine on 18 May 2009 at 7:47 am #
Gnosticism? Perhaps. I’d be more comfortable chalking it up to the post-modern obsession with relativism and a thoroughly 21st-century discomfort with stepping on anyone’s toes. Black and white are no longer socially acceptable. Then again, neither is Christianity. Interesting post.
Dr_Mike on 18 May 2009 at 7:55 am #
“Why are we asked to question the motives of Bible authors (even though the Bible plainly states they were given the words by inspiration of the Holy Spirit as God moved on them), but we are never expected to question motives of theologians?”
This is an excellent example of what Michael is saying, Kara. You have read into Michael’s words meaning that was not present. You have failed to understand his intent and therefore failed to understand his post.
Michael said we need to discover the author’s intent, not question it. But you, assuming that however you take something is the way it was meant, are corrupting the meaning of Michael’s words. You assume your understanding equals his intent. I assure you it does not.
Is this what you do to Scripture, too? If so, it is a dangerous practice.
We all want to find what we’re looking for in the Bible and, without discipline (i.e., hermeneutics), we’ll “find” it whether it’s actually there or not. Reading our own meaning into God’s word makes discovering His meaning virtually impossible.
A good hermeneutic honors the Holy Spirit by respecting what He has written and not imposing our own ideas upon His message. That is what Michael is saying.
EricW on 18 May 2009 at 8:27 am #
The Jews say that Christians took the Old Testament out of its historical and religious context when creating and writing the New Testament, and continue to do so in their exegesis and interpretation of it, and hence misuse and misinterpret and misapply it.
The Catholic and Orthodox Christians say that Protestants took the Bible out of its historical and religious and conciliar and ecclesiastical context, and hence misuse and misinterpret and misapply it.
Evangelical Protestants theologians say that individual Christians who don’t adhere to a historical-grammatical authorial intent hermeneutic take the Bible of its context, and hence misuse and misinterpret and misapply it.
Pots and Kettles and Black, oh my!
William S. on 18 May 2009 at 8:49 am #
Is there a fancier name for that subjective, “luck-lotto” hermewhatics???
Sometimes I will be reading something (not necessarily the Bible) and Something jumps out to my mind as TRUE. Or I will hear the words of a song on the radio, and it speaks to ME as if It were composed and written and played over and over again on the radio–just so that I might hear it at that exact moment when I needed to hear it.
This revelatory epistemology does seem contrary to what you are saying is proper… But what about prophecy? Isn’t there a verse in the New Testament that says something about prophets not understanding the meaning of their message? How can you determine the intent of the author in that case?
spooky on 18 May 2009 at 8:54 am #
(1 Cor 2:14) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
EricW on 18 May 2009 at 9:04 am #
William S.:
And that raises another issue: It does not appear that the NT authors bound themselves to a historical-grammatical authorial intent hermeneutic.
Is it possible that the NT was given to us not only as the canon/rule/measure of the faith, but also as an example of how to read the Bible, both Old and New Testament?
See, e.g., Beyond The Obvious: Discovering the Deeper Meaning of Scripture by James DeYoung and Sarah Hurty (out of print or Wipf & Stock) for a critique of the historical-grammatical hermeneutic as the be-all and end-all of interpretation.
Lisa S. on 18 May 2009 at 9:25 am #
This is a complex and relevant issue in my own little Christian circle. We want people (in my case, women since that’s the ministry I’m involved in) to read their Bibles. In fact, we insist on it because of the vital, indispensable role it plays in spiritual growth. And we don’t want people to feel like they have to be Michael Patton
to get something out of their Bibles. But on the whole I think we (meaning my church) err on the side of not giving enough instruction as to how to read it well. So you do get a lot of “what this means to me is…”
Nevertheless, I have some issues with authorial intent. Part of that is from my own academic background that was heavy on reader-response. And although I don’t think reader-response is the way to go (a little disrespectful to Dickens if you read A Tale of Two Cities that way, but potentially dangerous is you read the Bible that way.) I do see many of the criticisms of authorial intent as worth considering. I think Michael is being balanced in his approach in that he recognizes there is some subjectivity at play (here, I go ascribing intent!). But the biggest issue I have is the way the New Testament authors frequently quote the Old. Matthew and Hebrews in particular can leave you scratching your head.
I’ve been reading/listening to Carson, Keller, Goldsworthy, and Clowney talking about typology. Michael, I would love it if some day you would give your perspective on this approach.
Always on the journey,
Lisa
Mark|hereiblog on 18 May 2009 at 10:14 am #
I really appreciate this post. This is certainly an issue that needs to be dealt with in local churches. I’ve heard so many times people say “Just listen to the Holy Spirit”. What does that even mean?
I like to use a phrase that I heard once. I can’t remember where I heard it. It is, “What would this passage mean if you were dead?”
Minnow on 18 May 2009 at 10:22 am #
One minor point–No matter how objective an approach we take to understanding scripture, faith, doctrine, etc. it eventually goes through the subjective lenses of our own eyes. At the same time, the more objective beginning we can get the better. I think the Holy spirit does help us see the truth in scripture but should begin with understnading what the Spirit was doing when the authors originally penned their various parts–thus authorial intent.
Vance on 18 May 2009 at 10:26 am #
Bravo, Michael! I have not yet had time to read through the responses yet, but I will add my support to this post whole-heartedly. As one with a degree in ancient history and a background of researching the literature genres of the ancient near east (ANE), I can say that much damage has been done in the evangelical community by their misinterpretations of much of the OT. And, this is caused almost entirely by the subjective, modernistic reading of what are ancient texts. I even wrote a long post one time about how the young earth creationist movement is a classic example of modern gnosticism.
While there are many current evangelical scholars reversing this trend (like Peter Enns) and pointing out the actual authorial intent of the writers of the early OT, we still have too many out there insisting on reading from Genesis 1 onward as one simple genre – literal historical narrative. They rely entirely on “what makes sense to them” and what seems like the “plain meaning”, not taking into account that what makes sense, or seems plain, to them is entirely dependent on being raised in a modern, and Modernistic, culture.
While I think that the basic truths of the salvation message in Scripture are there for everyone to read and understand (I do believe that God made sure of that), to think that this collection of ancient texts written over a 1,500 year period by dozens of authors in more than one culture, would be readily understandable in all of its nuance to a modern reader is not realistic. Even St. Augustine pointed out that Scripture was not always clear, and I believe the Westminster Confession states the same thing.
God created a community of believers. Why would he mandate a role for “Teachers” if everyone could understand it all without the need of teachers?
We have a responsibility as believers to read and study Scripture, and to believe it, but God also appointed teachers over us to help us along the way with the more difficult areas. Just like pastors, of course, these must be worthy of our trust.
Nick Norelli on 18 May 2009 at 10:29 am #
Michael: I seem to remember you posting about the same subject a while back. I believe that I mentiioned the manner in which certain NT authors certainly drew meanings from OT passages that were surely not intended by the authors. If I remember correctly, you said something to the effect that they were a different story because they were the NT authors. I’ll check the archives and see if I can find the post, but has your position changed since then (if I’m remembering it correctly)? Do you think that the NT authors get a free pass to go beyond authorial intent while we don’t?
Kara: Read more broadly and you’ll find a lot of people suggesting that we should question the motives of theologians. BTW, were the Bible’s authors not theologians?
ChestertonianRambler on 18 May 2009 at 10:40 am #
If the ticker at the bottom of the news channel is God’s way of speaking to us, then we we should all be very, very scared.
Craig on 18 May 2009 at 10:45 am #
The problem that I run into quite often is when people say something to the effect of “The Bible means X to me.” they exclude the community, they haven’t checked their interpretation with the interpretative tradition in the church. As a Lutheran, I believe that biblical interpretation happens within the community, not a vacuum. There is a long history of biblical interpretation for one to go back and check their personal interpretation. Without checking ones personal interpretation with the community, it’s hard to tell if it is the Holy Spirit working or if it’s just indigestion.
ScottL on 18 May 2009 at 10:46 am #
What happens when God actually does use a Scripture verse to speak to you outside of its context?
For example, God spoke to me from a simple phrase in Isaiah 43:9 – ‘I will make a way.’ In the context, it is speaking of the restoration and return from exile. We could go on to say that this could be divided into the initial restoration of Israel in mid 5th century BC and those of us in Christ being restored, though some might disagree, which is fine. But God spoke to me completely out of those two possible contexts. Something difficult was going on in my life and, lo and behold, God leads me into Isaiah 43 and to vs19.
I hung on to those words tightly for a few weeks, and still remember them at times when I hit difficult times.
The Spirit can subjectively speak to people, right? I love hermeneutics and teach them to people all the time. But we would want to guard against swinging the pendulum too much, right?
Vance on 18 May 2009 at 11:04 am #
ScottL:
I think God can and DOES speak to us using Scripture in that way, even out of context. As much as I agree with Michael in this post, I agree entirely that God works the way you describe as well.
But what we are pointing out is that this subjective use of Scripture, or use out of historical/genre context, is not the proper basis for doctrine or foundational beliefs.
So, while God may legitimately use a single Scripture to speak to you in an “out of context” manner for a personal purpose, it would be inappropriate to then argue that this particular meaning was THE meaning and begin teaching it in that way (which I think you would agree with).
Kara Kittle on 18 May 2009 at 11:09 am #
Dr._Mike,
I as a Christian take my Bible study very seriously, and yet if you and I read the same Bible word for word, why do we come to different conclusions? And if we do come to different conclusions, why?
So is it because one of us is more or less intelligent than the other? Or is it because one of us is more or less taught than the other? I reiterate…it is because we innately understand differently.
Do not think by telling me that I need to learn by reading Wayne Grudem, do you know the motive and intent and place of mind he was in when he wrote it? Or Sproul, or Spurgeon or any other theologian? So by placing them on equal standing with the Bible authors, are we saying then they have just as good as understanding as the original? So then would I not as well? If Sproul and I read the same Bible, is he better than I?
If a=b and b=c, then a=c. Would you not agree? So then by telling us who don’t read extra-Biblical that we are wrong in our approach are you simply telling me that I am wrong because I don’t agree?
Vance on 18 May 2009 at 11:24 am #
Kara, yes, sometimes there ARE folks much better at understanding what God is telling us in Scripture than we can know ourselves. God established the structure of the Church as He did for a reason. There are pastors and there are teachers. Why would we need this guidance and leadership if each of us were entirely self-contained “interpretive units”?
Every time you pick of a bible, you are relying on the expertise of hundreds of scholars, unless you are reading straight out of the original Greek off of the original manuscripts. You are placing your trust in the collective checks and balances of the Church as a whole to weed out faulty translations or to guide you to the most accurate translations. Even then, it is just that: a translation. Sure, God can guide that process, but you then have to decide WHICH end product is the one God guided, since they are all different!
Similarly, we must trust those with expertise on historical setting, cultural background, etc, to get the most out of Scripture. And, on theological matters, you can’t expect Joe-six-pack, or my sixth-grade educated grandmother, to grasp the nuance and often contradiction that is Paul. Yes, the Gospel message is there, but for the full richness of Scripture, we often must place our trust in the structure of teaching and preaching that God has established, using our own wisdom and discernment in choosing which teachers are providing the closest thing to God’s Truth most consistently.
Jonathan Enns on 18 May 2009 at 1:08 pm #
AMEN!
Thanks Michael for this challenge!
It means a lot to me! (just joking)
It really me when doing small group bible studies how people draw out meaning that IS NOT INTENDED and is not present. Even if the “meaning” is good, it can lead to serious doctrinal error if this hermeneutic is applied everywhere.
Often we think of our hermeneutic in deep studies or sermon prep, but Thank you for this reminder to continually be looking at our hermeneutic even in our private devotions & small group bible studies.
Scott Kern on 18 May 2009 at 2:20 pm #
Amen Vance! 1 Corinthians spells out the various gifts given by the Spirit for the common good which include prophecy, the word of knowledge and the word of wisdom. These gifts have to do with rightly handling God’s word and revelation.
Kara, there are those in the church that God has appointed to exhort the Body of Christ through the study and teaching of His word. Paul tells Timothy to use the word to correct those in error. Clearly, Paul trusted that Timothy’s inerpretations of the word were more objective than those he was correcting. I really struggle with this concpet as a Sunday school teacher as I feel that as a “teacher” God will reveal His word to me in a vaccuum – without commentaries, etc. Humbly, I have learned that I need to seek the counsel of others to temper my reading of the Bible. I want to be faithful to God, His word and those he has given me to teach. That is not to say that it is not accessible to all of God’s people but it ought to be done in the conjunction with those whom God has gifted in understanding His word.
Michael on 18 May 2009 at 2:30 pm #
Scott L,
The problem with reading a promise into scripture that was not intended is that you essentially create a god in your own head who is not the real God. Eventually this god you’ve created is bound to fail you in some way because he doesn’t live up to the promises you’ve attributed to him. This happens to many people and it is at this point they lose their faith and walk away.
Kara,
You indicated that if you and someone else, both Bible-believing Christians, sat down and read the Bible word for word you would come to different conclusions about its meaning. This is undoubtedly true and I think is exactly the problem CMP is getting at. We must get out of relying on simply what it means to us because we will end up with a million different and often contradictory meanings. To do this we must to some degree rely on fallible experts in the areas of history and theology. Yet it is not any one expert anyone should rely on, but rather the collective knowledge of thousands of learned individuals over two thousand years of church history. There is always of course going to be a degree of gray in determining original meaning, but it is far superior to the anything goes of personal meaning interpretation.
Kara Kittle on 18 May 2009 at 2:37 pm #
Vance,
Again, because someone has a better understanding, does that negate us from our own personal examination of the scripture? You feel very comfortable when you do understand something you ask someone who might. I stated in another post that I do the same thing.
The point is not in your understanding, which is going to be limited anyway, but in the person you have put your trust in to explain it to you. And to assume that God speaks only Greek and Hebrew you miss what He is saying in English. There is a reason we have the Bible in English and what is wrong with studying it in English, or Russian or Tagalog…whatever language you speak you should know what the Bible says in your own language.
Now that being said, do you fully understand all the nuances of English? Can you using English tell a Chinese speaker what it says and stay true to the message? Well not unless you speak perfect Chinese (Mandarin or Catonese). Language is a nuance, is it not always directly understood.
For example, remember the passage in the Bible where the Israelites were testing certain people and asked them a word…well they said the wrong word…not that it was a different word but a different inflection of the same word and therefore they were killed. Because it detracted from a meaning understood only by the speakers. And that is where we are. We must understand an important concept about linguistics…many words have more than one meaning. Communication is not always straightforward in singular meaning. Think of the Navajo code talkers.
We need to look at the Bible as it is living today. What is the meaning today? Where you are in your situation, how is it going to speak to you and lead you…today?
Jugulum on 18 May 2009 at 2:39 pm #
Kara,
I’m curious. What do you think was the point Vance was trying to make in his comment (#30)?
Kara Kittle on 18 May 2009 at 2:55 pm #
Michael,
You bring up a very good point. But I have to say this, I write plays. I explained before how I understand context and subtext and implied meaning and meaning that shocks but only to those who understand the meaning.
I am not comparing the Bible to a play, but it seems we are applying literary composition and technique to Bible study when we say context. So if I look at the Bible in almost a secular way of study then I have to begin looking for context. And by doing so I will indeed find it. But God is a great author. He does use context (because people keep saying we need to take the context meaning). So then it becomes secular on that merit. We are no longer studying the Bible to learn how to apply it to ourselves and we look for meanings that might not even be there, but superimposed or interpolated by a previous commentator.
Text is the written
Context is background
subtext is author hidden meaning.
When Jesus said “It is finished” what did He mean? Just on that merit alone, without interpolating anything else you know about the Bible or the history of the times. What did He mean?
If you approach the Bible only academically then you end up with a show on the History Channel.
dac on 18 May 2009 at 3:24 pm #
CMP
FYI – my pastor, who is teaching a 4 week Wed Morning class on basic bible reading, likes your post so much he is handing it out at our last class on Wed.
He has been teaching the authorial intent method to about 25 men, focusing on getting each of us on how to follow the basic steps
Kara Kittle on 18 May 2009 at 3:51 pm #
Just to reiterate my point…the link in the other post says exactly what I said and it is written by Thomas Aquinas.
Vance on 18 May 2009 at 4:20 pm #
“If you approach the Bible only academically then you end up with a show on the History Channel.”
True. And if you approach the Bible only subjectively, you end up with a cult.
Vance on 18 May 2009 at 4:32 pm #
Note: exaggeration for effect.
Jugulum on 18 May 2009 at 4:45 pm #
There’s also a bit of a difference between reading the Bible to understand what it says, and then seeking to understand how that applies to your own heart and mind and life.
I suppose they can happen simultaneously, but I think of the first part as the first step. Then: “Ok, now that I understand what it says, what does that imply for me? How is the Spirit of God convicting me through the Word?”
In those terms, Michael’s post about hermeneutics is dealing with the first step. And I agree with him: Learning those steps and tools will help each one of us to better understand the Scriptures. (I don’t know that it means I’ll understand it better than you do, but I’ll understand it better than I otherwise would.) And “talking to other people about the Bible” is also important. I don’t just read it by myself, I talk with other people about it. Consulting helps. And reading commentaries is part of that. It all helps us to see the things that we might have otherwise missed. (Though we must be discerning! Commentaries aren’t inspired.)
Kara, if your concern is, “Don’t leave out the rest!”, then I completely agree that it needs to be said. (1 Cor. 13:2 and James 1:22 come to mind.)
But Michael was addressing the first part–and I can’t tell from your comments whether you agree that that’s a real concern, too.
Jugulum on 18 May 2009 at 5:12 pm #
In other words:
The academic part is the hearing-to-understand. The rest is the hearing-to-be-changed.
If we only hear-to-understand, it’s worse than faith-without-works—it’s understanding-without-faith! Unbelievers can do that.
But if we only hear-to-be-changed without doing the best we can to understand, then how can we claim to respect & love His Word? “Sure, I’ll follow your guidance. But no, I can’t be bothered to correctly understand it first.”
It Does Not Matter What the Bible Means to You « The Reluctant Puritan on 18 May 2009 at 5:32 pm #
[...] Read the whole thing here. [...]
Seth R. on 18 May 2009 at 5:57 pm #
CMP,
I realize that “Gnositicism” is fast becoming the trendy insult for conservative Christians to throw at anything they don’t like, but this connection is tenuous at best.
That woman in the audience you talk about didn’t like what you were saying about hermeneutics because she was secretly combing the Bible for a “hidden decoder ring?” And since only gnostics believe in “that hidden knowledge stuff” the woman in our example must be a gnostic!
Really?
Where on earth did you pull that conclusion from?
Did it ever occur to you that some people just open up their Bibles and let the sight of the familiar words invoke all of their years of reading the book? Not to get some “secret code.” But simply to connect their minds and thoughts with the God they’ve come to know and love through a lifetime of pondering and study of scripture.
It actually works, believe it or not.
I’ve at times simply opened up my scriptures and the mere sight of the familiar language has brought flashes of scripture-based insight into problems I might be thinking about or questions I might be wrestling with.
And, dare I say it, such a mental state even invites the witness of the Holy Ghost promised by Jesus Christ. God can speak to us if we are willing to listen. But we can tune him out if we are too obsessed with our own study agenda.
Do you think that what God has to say to us is limited by what page of the Bible we happen to be parked on?
Like God is up there thinking “Oh, I’d just love to give Sally some inspiration about how love is patient and kind – but unfortunately, she’s reading Revelations right now… Darn it, I’ll just have to wait until she hits 1 Corinthians 13 on her next read through…”
Is that really how you think God works?
And… sigh… mandatory public service disclaimer: yes, I am a Mormon. Hopefully you’ll find my comment useful in spite of that fact.
Michael L on 18 May 2009 at 6:12 pm #
Great post and lots of good comments
Kara
How about this passage ? For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 1Cor 11:6
Do you always cover your hear when attending Church ?
All kidding aside. Without knowing the context (call it authorian intent if you like), this passage has been misinterpreted, misused and completely mistaking for centuries in European Roman Catholic environments. First hand witness to that.
However you do point out a little later that We need to look at the Bible as it is living today. What is the meaning today? Where you are in your situation, how is it going to speak to you and lead you…today?
Yet I pose you can’t do that without understanding what it meant back when it was written. It is divinely inspired, but written by human hands for a human audience.
The Spirit definitely plays a role in this process. Jugulum put it quite well.
Ok, now that I understand what it says, what does that imply for me? How is the Spirit of God convicting me through the Word?
I believe that’s the correct way to interpret Scripture. And yes it can be done in English… and ESV is perfectly acceptable to me.
Anything outside that… we’re on the History channel, either as a documentary on historical events or as a cult. Thanks for that quote Vance !!
I may use !
In Him
Mick
Vance on 18 May 2009 at 6:30 pm #
MichaelL
Very good point about understanding how it would be applied then to know how to apply it now. And the verse you gave is a very good example. Some would say, “well, it says women should stay covered, and the Bible says what it means and means what it says, so I guess all the women should have their heads covered in church!”
And, without some historical context, I don’t see how any woman today blithely goes uncovered.
With historical context, which is NOT in Scripture, and has to come from historical analysis, we see that in the culture at the time it was written, a woman coming into church uncovered would be a complete and utter distraction and very damaging to worship. Going in with a bare head would be like a woman today showing up to church in a bikini! So, the message is not “women should be covered” but “women (and men for that matter) should be appropriately dressed for the culture and time so as not to be a detriment to the worship”, or some such.
That could not be gotten from reading the text by itself, nor can we expect the Spirit to let everyone know that bit.
Dave Z on 18 May 2009 at 6:58 pm #
Kara writes:
“If we then sit and study the way swords are made, what they are made from and the metal from the country the author came from then we miss why the sword is being used and how to avoid being hurt from it.”
Maybe so, but if you don’t understand some of the background details of swords and sword-making, you risk going into battle with a stick covered by aluminum foil, thinking it’s the real thing. You either have to learn to make swords or trust someone who has studied sword making.
BTW, did I see you referring to Aquinas as an authority? You’ve made it pretty clear that you don’t consider anyone better than you regarding theology. So why cite support from Aquinas?
EricW on 18 May 2009 at 7:11 pm #
Maybe.
Maybe the message REALLY IS “women should not pray or prophesy with their heads uncovered…because of the angels.” I.e., maybe it’s NOT totally a culturally-dependent instruction. Maybe it’s not simply about not being a distraction in worship, but is instead an instruction about how all Christian men and women are to dress and not dress, or wear or not wear their hair. After all, “does not nature itself teach…?”
Even though Jews and Jewish Torah scholars know that the kosher food laws don’t fit any consistent logical scheme (per Richard Elliott Friedman COMMENTARY ON THE TORAH), observant Jews still adhere to them because…well, because they’re commanded to.
Can we be absolutely positively 100% sure that Paul doesn’t have some ontological and Christological and metaphysical and spiritual reason for the instructions he gives in 1 Corinthians 11 re: headcoverings, and that he is only speaking to the cultural mores of his time?
JOHN on 18 May 2009 at 7:21 pm #
CMP:
I agree with what you are saying but (you are not going to like this). I have not read or studied the Bible in depth and I had not heard about the historical-grammatical hermeneutic method until recently when I started to take TTP. After taking the Bibliogy-Hermeneutics class I bought several of the books you recommended about hermeneutics.
Unfortunately, I’m so busy reading Grudem and Olsen for the next class that I hav’nt had time to read them.
I’m just the opposite of the lady you mentioned. I’ve been reluctant to dive in until I’ve read the textbooks you recommended.
Probably not what you wanted to hear.
Despite that I continue to read and study.
John
Kara Kittle on 18 May 2009 at 7:25 pm #
Dave Z,
I merely pointed that out to show sometimes without trying we can be just as smart even though we think we aren’t.
Yes, you are right about the aluminum foil point. And no I do not consider myself better than anyone concerning theology.
If you would please listen to me. When I say we have the same God the church fathers did, we are just as intelligent. To say something must be true because they said it is like saying Ronald McDonald is true about Happy Meals. I am sure they invested a lot of time and energy into studying. But why look at it through their narrow scope? We don’t live under their stiff brand of Christianity, we have freedom of religious expression which was granted for a reason. To live in gladly.
We know the Midrash is a collection of writings by Jewish scholars and the Haddith is a collection of writing by Muslim scholars. Both books are opinion. And that is what I want to know, are the church fathers also writing opinion? You can believe them if you want but I as a Christian have the right to not believe them. Where is the command in the Bible to believe them?
Dave Z, I would like to think we aren’t ignorant. And I would also like to think we have learned because we trust the Spirit to teach us what is right and what is wrong. Let me ask this…if a person is granted irresistible grace and perseverance that God does it all for the person, why then does He not already give the meaning of His message then why are people investing great amounts of time and energy? Why didn’t God do it already if He covered every aspect already of your salvation?
Again, do I have to listen to the church fathers? Where is the command from Jesus? Didn’t He say His sheep know His voice, and none other shall they follow? That is what I say, Jesus is the Word of God made flesh, let me find Jesus when I read the Bible, and let me find the answer Jesus has for me now in my situation and in my time. I have the right to do so because it’s my relationship with Him. Study all you want with the old “masters”, it’s ok for you. Allow others their right to freedom of religious expression.
Kara Kittle on 18 May 2009 at 7:31 pm #
Jugulum,
The whole Bible.
Eric W,
Yes, my husband is my covering.
Vance,
We are always calling each other’s churches cults. I know what you mean about that. Cults come about because of saying their leader is a messiah and applying all scripture to that one leader. I advocate Jesus as my leader and the Holy Ghost as my teacher.
Dave Z on 18 May 2009 at 7:36 pm #
Interesting post over at MMI
http://mondaymorninginsight.com/index.php/site/comments/do_you_interpret_the_bible_literally_take_the_quiz/
Here is the article Todd links to in his post
http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4066&Itemid=9
EricW on 18 May 2009 at 7:42 pm #
KK wrote: Eric W, Yes, my husband is my covering.
But Kara, Paul never says that a husband is to be his wife’s covering. He says the man/husband is the head of the woman/wife, but he also says a woman’s [long] hair – not her husband – is given to her for her covering, and that she is to have authority over her own head, not that someone else has exousia over her head.
Jugulum on 18 May 2009 at 8:16 pm #
Kara,
Eh? What question were you responding to?
JulieJ on 18 May 2009 at 8:41 pm #
Wow– I am amazed at how a relatively straightforward concept like using the Bible as the primary source for interpreting the Bible itself can turn into a convoluted discourse on who can sound the most theologically adept. The responses on this site, although intriguing, often give me a headache.
Michael, I wholeheartedly agree with your original post (what was it about, now?) on the approach to Bible study. The of approach you describe best fits with the term “inductive” Bible study (IBS). Context is King, and Scripture interprets Scripture. Observation first, then interpretation, and only then finally comes application. In contrast, the mystical approach seeks to sidestep the hard work and go straight for the application…”what does this mean TO ME?” Instead, the questions for us should be “what does the text SAY?”, “what does the text MEAN?”, and then “how can I apply the meaning of the text to MY LIFE?”
I have been teaching IBS since 1992, both through Precept Ministries International, and also just straight from the Word itself. When there is a systematic approach to Bible study, we realize that although the Holy Spirit empowers, He also reveals meaning to us in a logical and reasonable way, and that anyone indwelt by the Spirit, not just the elite superspirituals (i.e. Gnostics) can understand God’s message to His world.
Bravo, Michael, for shedding light on this much misunderstood issue of Biblical interpretation and study.
Ron on 18 May 2009 at 9:56 pm #
Michael,
It’s sometimes amazing how God organizes circumstances. The subject of authorial intent and proper hermeneutics has been the theme for my week! I am developing an article concerning this for my own blog, it turned out to be the topic of the Sunday School class that I attended this week, and then your article appears. I need to check my “decoder ring” to discover the significance!
Thanks for the time that you put into this blog. Keep up the great work.
Ron
Michael S on 18 May 2009 at 10:00 pm #
Given the Protestant branch theory of the Church, how do you come to any sense of doctrine with Scripture “not being given to private interpretation?” Does it become simply which tradition backs up your predispositions?
C Michael Patton on 18 May 2009 at 10:15 pm #
Michael,
The best answer that I could give you is to read some more about what Protestants believe.
On this site, I have written two articles that would explain your issues:
“An Emerging Understanding of Orthodoxy” http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/06/an-emerging-understanding-of-orthodox-2/
My series on Sola Scriptura:
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/category/sola-scriptura/
Hope that helps.
Badda Being on 18 May 2009 at 11:33 pm #
Re: “Can the text have different meanings? Only if you are practicing a Gnostic hermeneutic where the Bible becomes a magic book with a secret spiritual meaning that transcends the literal.”
As if there is nothing at all magical about a man literally coming back from the dead! If that is possible, why can’t the Bible become a “magic book”? Shall we spare those who discover personal meanings in the Bible a literal interpretation of their testimony?
Herme - What? | Seeker's Journey on 19 May 2009 at 12:20 am #
[...] that the proper way to read the bible? I read a great article on this just yesterday on the Parchment and Pen blog (I am an avid read of this blog). This article and what [...]
Lisa Robinson on 19 May 2009 at 1:28 am #
Kara said:
“Should we no longer be seeking revelations or deep meanings just on the basis of us not living in the right century or being in the original location? The Bible itself says there are mysteries of God.”
Kara, actually it says the secret things belong to God but that which He has revealed has been given to us (Deut 29:29) So while there remains some mystery with God, there is no mystery to what He has revealed but we do need to discover what that is.
One thing I think you are overlooking is that when God breathed out His word, He did so through human authors who lived in a particular culture at a particular time. Unless you believe in a strict dictation view of inspiration, the authors were penning literature pertinent at that time according to their observations of what they were recording, whether it be an historical narrative (like the gospels), a poem (like Psalms) or a letter (like the epistles). That means we don’t throw out rules of reading when looking at the particular book and type of literature it is.
When Paul sat down to write a letter to one of the churches, it is just as if you were to write a letter. If you wrote something to someone, wouldn’t you want them to understand what you were trying to convey? Would you want someone to rip something out of the context of the letter and distort what you were trying to say? Or if you were recording events, would you want someone to “add-to” the picture you are trying to paint? So yes, that means everything has to read in its proper context. It is no different when it comes to reading the books of the Bible. This is what God used to breath out His word. So the difference is that as we apply normal rules of reading, what we are reading are God’s very words. But we have to read the books, as they were meant to be read. If we would not want our words to be taken out of context, why do you suppose He would?
D E F O R M A T I O N S on 19 May 2009 at 1:29 am #
[...] Badda Being 0 Comments Categories: Uncategorized Over at Parchment and Pen, C. Michael Patton signals a warning against what he construes as an odious habit among Christians: [...]
collapsing hermeneutics « D E F O R M A T I O N S on 19 May 2009 at 2:04 am #
[...] By Badda Being 0 Comments Categories: Uncategorized Over at Parchment and Pen, C. Michael Patton signals a warning against what he construes as an odious habit among Christians: [...]
Douglas K. Adu-Boahen on 19 May 2009 at 5:22 am #
Let me ask this…if a person is granted irresistible grace and perseverance that God does it all for the person, why then does He not already give the meaning of His message then why are people investing great amounts of time and energy? Why didn’t God do it already if He covered every aspect already of your salvation?
As ever, it all stems back to baby-barbecuing, sadistic evil that is Calvinism – NOT! We invest time and energy because it is just as much worship as singing, speaking in tongues, etc.
We are commanded to study and use our minds by Scripture:
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of truth – 2 Tim 2:15, KJV
Here’s something to chew over, Kara:
When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments. – 2 Tim 4:6
You’ve never written a shred of Scripture, yet the man responsible for penning half the NT under inspiration of the Spirit said he needed BOOKS! Not a revelation, not a word of knowledge – BOOKS AND PARCHMENTS! I’m sorry, but it would seem Paul used his brain as well as his spirit in the knowledge of God. God gave you a brain and didn’t take it from you when you were born again. Glorify your Maker and use what he gave you to His glory!
D.Williams on 19 May 2009 at 5:31 am #
The protestant mind is very concerned about the historical grammatical method because to abandon it could lead *anywhere*.
On the other hand, the proposal can’t deal with the fact that the apostles didn’t use that method, at least not exclusively.
The tradition based churches are constrained by the tradition and the community. Only those allegorical interpretations that tradition approves of can be considered as having much force. There seems to be good reason to believe that this is the same criteria used by the scriptures themselves.
For example, when Matthew often says “…. and this was to fulfill the prophesy of….”, are we to believe that Matthew simply decided for himself which scriptures were prophesies that were fulfilled? I doubt it. I think these opinions were already circulating in the community, and Matthew weaved them into his narrative. Some of them are not very convincing on a historical grammatical level, but I think the tradition approved of those.
If you want to say we can’t imitate the apostles, because they are special (1Cor. 4:16 Therefore I urge you to imitate me!! ), I have to say, prove it. Show me from the scriptures.
ScottL on 19 May 2009 at 6:29 am #
Vance -
I think God can and DOES speak to us using Scripture in that way, even out of context. As much as I agree with Michael in this post, I agree entirely that God works the way you describe as well.
But what we are pointing out is that this subjective use of Scripture, or use out of historical/genre context, is not the proper basis for doctrine or foundational beliefs.
I completely agree. I was only asking that we not make such a hard-lined ruling about this. And, interestingly enough, the NT writers took passages out of their OT context and used them to speak into Christ and the new covenant. Now maybe they get a free pass at such, but it is possible to consider a ‘deeper’ meaning of a text (though that word needs breaking down) or that God would speak to us out of the original context of a passage. I very much want to guard against weird stuff, but what I have learned is that misuse and abuse should not lead to no use, it should lead to healthy use. That is what I am lobbying for in all of this.
Michael (not CMP) -
The problem with reading a promise into scripture that was not intended is that you essentially create a god in your own head who is not the real God. Eventually this god you’ve created is bound to fail you in some way because he doesn’t live up to the promises you’ve attributed to him. This happens to many people and it is at this point they lose their faith and walk away.
I only want to consider His promises and I want to consider them with the Scriptures in mind as a helpful measuring stick. I am by no means trying to teach an over the top name it and claim it theology. I am just very, very aware that the same Holy Spirit that indwelt and empowered and spoke to the first believers also indwells and empowers and speaks to Christ’s followers today. That is exciting. And I am aware He speaks to me, and even to a corporate body/gathering. It happens frequently, but we need to do such with healthy and biblical considerations. We need to stay in line with Scripture, accountable to the body of Christ and considering the historical orthodox teachings of the body for 2000 years. But that should never negate the beautiful reality that He is still alive and speaking. And I think you would agree.
Stan Hankins on 19 May 2009 at 6:52 am #
When John the baptizer saw Jesus, he told the people around him, “Look, there is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world”
It is easy to read that quickly and move on, but did you get it? Jesus TAKES AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD!!
Truth Unites... and Divides on 19 May 2009 at 9:54 am #
CMP: “I believe that Gnosticism, at least in the West, is the biggest problem in conservative Christianity today.”
I nominate theological liberalism as the biggest problem in conservative Christianity today.
Michael L on 19 May 2009 at 10:07 am #
JulieJ #55
The responses on this site, although intriguing, often give me a headache
Amen sister !!!
And there’s a lot of not so loving comments that keep popping up. That’s maybe why I start to like blogs less and less. It’s too easy to type something in and walk away without seeing the reaction (read ‘hurt’ or ‘grief’) the comment may be causing with the person it’s being addressed to. And they come from all sides. Both defenders and challengers of the topic at hand.
Oh well… sinful fallen world we live in right…
I do agree with careful use of Scripture (see my post #45),
Read-Understand-Listen-Employ is what I have found to be a good RULE for Scripture study:
Read the passage, preferably the entire pericope
Understand the context, historically, culturally, etc
Listen to the Spirit on what it means for you today
Employ (use or apply) it in your daily life.
Without any of those 4, some not-so-careful interpretations have led to rather painful situations ranging from “Let’s all Love and sing kumbaja because everyone is going to heaven” via “Let’s bomb this abortion clinic” and “Why don’t we all drink a bunch of Kool-aid” to “Let’s set this place on fire because the FBI is knocking on our door”. All in the name of a so-called form of “Christianity” ? Me thinks not….
In Him
Mick
Vance on 19 May 2009 at 10:20 am #
ScottL, agreed. I think we are saying the same thing, coming it at from both sides and meeting in the middle.
Kara: What I meant by “cult” (and pointed out that I was using the term as an exaggeration) was more in the sense of “sect”. Far from limiting it to messianic shysters, there are many groups which pull a text or two out of context and build an entire doctrine around it. Then, they break away and cling to that doctrine as a distinguishing mark, very often with an odd sense of superiority in being the group that “gets it right”.
And God did not just appoint the Spirit as your teacher, but established an entire church structure through Paul, which includes human pastors and teachers you are instructed to follow. That is what God says to do.
EricW: yes, that is another possible interpretation, and if so then the historical information does not, after all, inform the text. But what the historical analysis does is provide a bigger picture and a broader range of possible interpretations so that we are more likely to get it right.
Kara Kittle on 19 May 2009 at 11:28 am #
Douglas K,
As much as I appreciate your efforts to escape the shackles of your doomed life under Arminianism and a new one under Calvinism I noticed you very quickly understood something not explicitly stated.
And yet you never read my posts in the other blog. When I introduced myself I stated this is how I read the Bible…
1:I read each verse word for word
2:I search and ask why God was using a particular person, place or thing in the verse
3:If I don’t understand a word, I look up the meaning
4:If that does not help then I ask someone smarter than me.
To which one of the sisters in Christ told me I was naive. Then I post on this blog…of which many people in this blog say that is exactly how one must study…and then still deride me…so which is it?
And yet you want to quote Paul, I quoted many times and people told me my quoting was inappropriate. Which is it? You have not read all my responses before you jump on a completely different blog site saying my name telling them how you want me to see. Don’t you think a little inappropriate there?
Galatians 1
10For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
11But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Is Paul greater than we are? Is Paul greater than Peter? When we begin to understand the author and finisher of our faith is the one who wrote the book, only that author can teach us what he means himself.
Ephesians 4
20But ye have not so learned Christ;
21If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:
22That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
23And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
24And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
Where does learning come from? And there are people on here who have told me there is no such thing as a new man.
mbaker on 19 May 2009 at 11:45 am #
I think there is a danger in making it and either or thing, when approaching the Bible. I understand where everyone here is coming from, and all have valid arguments.
However, we cannot approach the Bible as merely a book of theology, any more than we can approach it as only applying to us personally. I remember once having a Bible teacher who stressed putting our names in the verses to get the ‘real’ message. I have also had Bible teachers who dissected scripture to the point that it was more about the method than the message. Neither made me understand it any better. It is/was those who first explain God’s word the way HE meant it, and then give the life application that are far more effective in getting across Biblical truths, in my opinion They will generally include some historical context as well so as to connect/disconnect the cultural meaning from the scriptural meaning as well.
If we approach it from the point of view that it can be both a teaching and a learning guide, time spent studying scripture can and should be of great value in both respects.
EricW on 19 May 2009 at 12:00 pm #
And there are people on here who have told me there is no such thing as a new man.
Really? How so? The New Man/New Creation is central to Paul’s Christology and soteriology and eschatology.
Michael L on 19 May 2009 at 12:04 pm #
Kara
I have not very often responded to your direct comments and I do want you to know I love you as a sister in Christ and do appreciate your input. It has made me reflect on things more than once, although I don’t necessarily agree with everything being said from either you or others.
I struggle with your reference to there are people on here who have told me there is no such thing as a new man.
Would you mind pointing me to the blog and/or (even better) the comments on which topic this was said ?
I do recall there was a conversation, either on the entry Is Mormonism a true representation of Christianity or on the Arminians, Catholics, etc are all liars whether we adhere to the belief on whether someone can be free from sin after justification. I do recall a position, which I do agree with, which was based on 1John, Romans 7, etc.. that if we were to be able to be free from sin, we would not have a need for Christ anymore. And that the scripture passage referenced indicated the same.
The new man refers to the fact that we realize our sin, that with the help from the Spirit we turn away from sin, but we will always fall short of the Glory of God. Which is not the same as saying there is no such thing as the new man.
I can’t recall anyone has ever said that there is no such thing and I believe it’s grossly taken out of context. Which shows that we can take anything out of context, including Scripture if we’re not careful
But please… correct me if I’m wrong.. but kindly please.. I’m a sensitive person
In Him, with love, patience and care
Mick
Kara Kittle on 19 May 2009 at 12:14 pm #
mbaker,
I try to balance my study in both ways but have come to learn that what works for one does not work for another. We have to study under our own convictions by the leading of the Spirit.
For one thing, we can all read Grey’s Anatomy (the book, not the show) but that does not make us all doctors. We can read the Physicians Desk Reference and it does not make us pharmacists and we can use other examples. But it is when we start applying that knowledge is what makes the difference.
I just try to point out that studying from such a narrowly defined lens or viewfinder we miss out on a lot. I am not a journalist so I won’t be able to understand journalism the same way you do. But that is great that God made you a journalist. We need spirit filled journalists especially in this day and time. There seems to be no balance in a lot of people’s definitions of how we must do things and we can’t save people from bondage by putting them under another kind.
I think it does matter what the Bible means to me, after all when I open my Bible to read I have to know God is speaking to me, so what is He saying to me? I am not opposed to learning, or education but what I am opposed to is people who say we must do it their way or it is wrong. A story I must tell…
My 7 year old niece and her little friend were riding in my car as we were going to drive through an National Historic site eating our food from McDonald’s. As I was driving they were talking to each other as children do. Suddenly my niece says to her friend “Jesus is the lighthouse, did you know that?” Referring to the song which is my husband’s favorite. Her friend replied that she did not know and my niece began to explain “because if there is a storm or it is dark out and you don’t want to crash, Jesus is a big light so you can see him.”
Had I said that to her? She determined it on her own simply by listening. She understood something that some grownups miss. God is a wonderful teacher. He knows how to teach every person according to their ability to understand. My niece was not trying to save her friend, she did not condemn her in any way, she just said where to look.
Yes, a balanced perspective is what we need.
Douglas K. Adu-Boahen on 19 May 2009 at 12:19 pm #
Kara,
I don’t think you’re reading me right either. I began by noting that you seem to love attacking Calvinism – even on a post about hermeneutics. I dare say it’s almost like an obsession for you.
Secondly, I noted on Nick’s blog that I find you inconsistent in that in one breath, you talk of being highly educated, yet the same rigour it takes to be educated, you don’t apply to Scripture and the things of God.
Third of all, in a sense, since you and I haven’t been inspired to write either a 28th NT book or to pen half of a Third Testament, Paul is actually higher than both of us. I don’t quote you as an authority, neither will I quote my pastor, learned as he is, because he is not Scripture. Scripture, not a voice I hear in my head or the words of Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, Beza, Grudem or Reymond, is my final authority and I stand accountable to that authority as long as I have breath in my lungs to breathe.
Finally, no real Christian would ever say that there is no new man in Christ. Paul makes this point over and over again in the NT in such places as Ephesians 2:14-18, 2 Corinthians 5:17, et al. I really don’t see the relation to this conversation.
Your continual derision of anyone who thinks a little mental effort is good for Bible study is wearying and in fact is rather Gnostic. God gave the church the spiritual gift of teacher – could it be that the evil theologians may well be the ones with the gift of teacher?
Kara Kittle on 19 May 2009 at 12:35 pm #
Michael L,
Thank you for that kind comment. There was that comment made by a person who has not posted for a while. That is a good example of what I mean, we all have a different ability to understand, therefore God teaches us according to our ability and not someone else.
It reminds me of what my pastor taught in church this past Sunday. He was teaching about Peter being asked if he loves Jesus, and he replied three times of course he did and Jesus said “Feed my sheep” three times. Then Peter is upset over John and makes an offhand comment about John to which Jesus replies “what is it to you if this man lives until I come again”. And the point was “what is it to you what I tell this person or that person?” We all have a work to do for God, we all have to either build, plow, harvest, tend sheep, fish, collect taxes, whatever it is that we are called to do, so what is it to us what that other person is called to do?
The point is we are not all fishermen so we can’t expect everyone to be fishermen. And that is what I would like people to see. We can’t limit God, we can’t limit those who He has set free and keep them confined. The way of Holiness is narrow, and few be that find it. But that does not mean we need to dislike others who stumbled onto the road just because they didn’t get onto the road the same as we did. And that is from Isaiah. We must point to the cross as the way of salvation. We don’t need to punish those who stumbled across salvation, could be they were led that way.
Kara Kittle on 19 May 2009 at 12:40 pm #
Douglas,
God is not a respecter of persons.
mbaker on 19 May 2009 at 12:53 pm #
Kara,
I hope you took my comment in the spirit it was meant-that we learn in ways from God that we cannot explain and from ways which should be explained so that none of us falls into interpretative error.
God does work in both mysterious ways His wonders to perform, as scripture points out, and He has appointed Godly teachers to help us learn to be discerning about His word.
I think both ways are important.
That was a great story by the way.
I’m very busy right now as it is planting season, and we are just getting started cleaning up and planting and fertilizing, so I won’t be making comments or even be following the discussion, but wish you all well.
God bless.
Lisa Robinson on 19 May 2009 at 1:02 pm #
Kara, in reference to this comment here:
“Where does learning come from? And there are people on here who have told me there is no such thing as a new man.”
I can only suppose that I am one of these people to which you are referencing. If so, I would say that once again you have twisted what was expressed. I never said there is no such thing as a new man for clearly Scripture tells us there is. What I said was that we still have the old nature to contend with as well. You may not agree with the fact that we still contend with the old nature, fine. But please stop misstating what others write. And Douglas is right, a Christian who has any understanding of the Bible would not make these statements.
Most certainly the Spirit inside quickens the words in the Bible, since the words are God’s and meant for us to know Him and how to live. But that doesn’t mean we throw out how to read the literature they were written in or rely on others to teach us how to do this. In fact, that will only enhance what God intended for us to know.
Michael L on 19 May 2009 at 1:12 pm #
Kara
All very true… unfortunately there’s a “yet” or “but” associated with it.
As I mentioned before 1John is probably my favorite book. Read chapter 4…and please read the entire chapter.
How do we test the Spirits ? By just waiting for God to speak to us ? If so, how do you know whether it’s accurate or not ? If you adhere to that, why wouldn’t Joseph Smith be accurate ? And as you pointed out before, you don’t agree with that. Or why wouldn’t Calvinism be accurate ? Shall we only listen to the Spirit and accept those doctrines, stances or ideas that fit within our mindset ?
It becomes quickly a narcissistic and untenable position.
I think that’s the danger that some of the writers here are trying to point out and why most of them (and me) often encourage a balanced view.
For your reference, since you seem to like personal experiences and stories, I have worked with drug addicts who can’t read a word. And yet I’ve given some of them a bible. And some of them have started to read. But all of them need help in understanding what it really says. If not, we end up (and this is a true story) where one of them came to me and said Oh but if creation came from God, why can’t I smoke pot ? After all, God created it for our enjoyment ? Needless to say, dangerous interpretation.
In Him
Mick
Jugulum on 19 May 2009 at 1:23 pm #
Kara,
So… Does that mean that you agree with the balance I tried to talk about in my earlier comments (#41-42)? Or not? I said at the time that I couldn’t tell. Perhaps I should have been explicit in asking, “Do you agree, or not?”
I bring it up again, because judging by the last paragraph of Liza’s last comment, she also can’t tell whether you’re actually looking for balance or not. She just said how she agrees with you, but also wants to emphasize other aspects of how we read the word. So… Do you agree with the balance of her last paragraph, or not?
(In other words, it seems like you’re saying, “I want balance!”, but only pointing in one direction. And when we point somewhere else and say, “Sure, but what about over here, too? Isn’t this really important, too?”, you’re dismissive or non-responsive.)
Kara Kittle on 19 May 2009 at 1:44 pm #
Jugulum,
“The academic part is the hearing-to-understand. The rest is the hearing-to-be-changed.
If we only hear-to-understand, it’s worse than faith-without-works—it’s understanding-without-faith! Unbelievers can do that.”
Yes. But whose academic school of thought do we ascribe to? Seems to me there are many. As I have said I read Blaise Pascal’s Provential Letters and it it he describes the many issues over one particular point in question and interviewed all the people in all sides.
All these men were very learned scholars and still debated on one thing and the sad thing about it was that some had made the point that even if they didn’t agree to it they still were forced to accept it. And that is not right to do to anyone.
And what Michael said about the drug addicts who never read…suppose you knew a drug addict who had read? I know some of them as well. Yes, people are going to say things they think are in the Bible…like God helps those who help themselves and cleanliness is next to godliness. Those idioms are not in the Bible but people believe they are.
Douglas K. Adu-Boahen on 19 May 2009 at 2:04 pm #
Kara,
Your one-line comment is confusing. I never said God was a respecter of persons. I said, in a wager-type fashion, and I quote myself now:
God gave the church the spiritual gift of teacher – could it be that the evil theologians may well be the ones with the gift of teacher?
Or does Ephesians 4 not exist anymore, when it says that God has given the Church teachers? The teachers aren’t disembodied spirits – they are clearly people of flesh and bone.
Jugulum on 19 May 2009 at 2:06 pm #
So… How should I take your answer?
Something like, “Yes, I agree with the kind of balance you and Lisa are looking for. But there’s also more to be said about how to be discerning in the way we use study resources.” ?
JohnO on 19 May 2009 at 4:36 pm #
I had a lot of reading to catch up on since I made my first comment, but having skimmed most of it, I can’t help but think the entire conversation here thoroughly undermines CMP’s stress on authorial intent. It seems that just about every comment has somehow misinterpreted every other comment – and that’s with the authors here, trying to explain what they mean! OK, exaggeration, but I hope you see the point.
And to add to the irony, those who argue for a Spirit-led reading or for revealed understanding simply because the Bible is God’s Word, are just as guilty of privileging a particular hermeneutic over another.
For what it’s worth, I’m a big fan of Stanley Fish. And before anyone shoots me down in flames for being a wishy-washy po-mo, have a think about what he says about interpretive communities (someone mentioned it earlier but I’m too lazy to search). Because that’s pretty much the position that everyone is arguing from whether they acknowledge it or not. We cannot ever approach a text as a ‘tabula rasa’. To think that we do not have preconceptions or can set them aside is utter nonsense.
And frankly, that’s what the arguments have degenerated into I fear – entrenched views and sniping.
Kara Kittle on 19 May 2009 at 4:45 pm #
Jugulum,
Yes, that is what I am saying. Have discernment about the study resources.
You understand what I meant. Because it seems to me in offering others some academic theologians, only a select few are being presented. And that was what I wanted to know, why only those few? And if we select those few how do we know what they truly represent? Not that you are the one presenting them.
Kara Kittle on 19 May 2009 at 5:41 pm #
Jugulum,
What also bothers me is this…and I will say it bothers me…if people want us to post comments on this site knowing there are those who don’t agree with certain positions…why do they keep asking others to read books by authors they already know the person does not agree with?
I think that is disrespectful to the person’s point of view. No, I do not agree with Calvinism. And yet I have never said…read this book or that book by any Arminian author. Never once. I think that we need mutual respect…and that is mutual.
CMP has made it clear this is not a Calvinist Only Zone. Why do people treat it as though it is?
Regarding hermaneutics…why should I read Wayne Grudem?
Jugulum on 19 May 2009 at 5:55 pm #
So… does your version of “have discernment about study resources” mean, “Only read people I agree with about everything”?
Lisa Robinson on 19 May 2009 at 5:57 pm #
Kara, Grudem’s book is Systematic Theology not hermeneutics. There are some well respected Arminians who have written books on hermeneutics, I, as well as others who agree with Calvinism, would be happy to recommend. The issue is or never was Calvinism but hermeneutics.
Also, what better way to know what you disagree with unless you read it from a proponent of that position? Just a thought. Otherwise, on what are you basing your disagreement?
Michael L on 19 May 2009 at 6:03 pm #
Kara
Why should you read Wayne Grudem ??
Well.. because he’s a Calvinist…
Scratch that..
Well… because it’s a big thick book….
Scratch that too…
Because he’s well regarded in Christian milieus as an orthodox writer with a quite concise view on things. And most of his writings are quite irenic in spirit.
Yeah ! That’s it !
And note… the book everyone is referring to is on Systematic Theology… not hermeneutics, which is what’s being discussed here.
In Him
Mick
Lisa Robinson on 19 May 2009 at 6:11 pm #
Michael L (and Kara if you are listening),
Regarding respected Arminian authors, I love Olson’s work. His Mosaic of Christian Belief is a decent and balanced systematic work. Also, I recently borrowed Stanley Grenz’s Theology for the Community of God for a couple of papers I was working on. I really enjoyed his work, especially the theme of tying everything back to community and have that on my must buy list.
Jugulum on 19 May 2009 at 7:07 pm #
Lisa,
So… you’re saying that you read people from other traditions, and recommend them to people?
Like… Recommending a book to someone doesn’t mean, “You need to join the author’s tradition!”
And it’s important not to dismiss an author simply because you disagree with him on some things? (Because you might agree with him on other important things?)
And it’s even important to read people you disagree with, just for the chance to think about things from a different perspective?
Lisa Robinson on 19 May 2009 at 7:51 pm #
Jug, absolutely. And I’d say at least Arminianism and Calvinism is in the same tradition. Try reading stuff from the Catholic or Orthodox tradition (I’m sure you have_. In fact, I had to do a paper last fall on Avery Dulles, Models of Revelation. A Catholic with some well respected work on the topic but the prof has not been able to come up with a better book on the topic.
There’s value in learning what those that don’t agree with us on everything have to say.
What were we talking about again? Oh yeah, hermeneutics….
C Michael Patton on 19 May 2009 at 7:55 pm #
Models of Revelation is a great book. Dulles is a top rate Catholic scholar. I would say that the book is somewhat hard to understand without some background to the issue.
Kara Kittle on 19 May 2009 at 7:56 pm #
Jugulum,
Might I say this though, and I know it is out on a limb, ok.
Suppose you don’t agree with Satanism…but someone suggests you read the Satanic Bible just to get a perspective on what they believe? Should you read it? Now I realize it might be farfetched to think that way…but what about Wiccans?
And is every book by every author not going to reflect their ideology in some way? See we do have a problem and it can’t be approached with such an easy solution as that. Because I have met people who call themselves Buddhist Christian, Taoist Christian, Hindu Christian and even Muslim Christian. And my favorite of course if Wiccan Christian.
And these are not ignorant people. They read the Bible, they read philosophy, they read many things…and yet they can’t seem to grasp the concept those traditions are contradictory.
It is very easy to tell a Bible believing person what theology books are good to read, but how do you tell someone who has indeed read the Bible and then includes things extra-Biblical?
Take for instance a group of people who live not far from me called The Way International…those people invest a great amount of time in theology and hermeneutics…I mean that is what they promote…Bible study hermeneutics. But they are also on the FBI watch list because they are a cult. They have a compound with armed guards. But yet they devote so much time into hermeneutics and theology. What happened to them? Obviously hermeneutics and systematic theology is not working.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 20 May 2009 at 1:14 am #
John O: “For what it’s worth, I’m a big fan of Stanley Fish.
Go Fish!
P.S. One of my daughter’s favorite card games!
Douglas K. Adu-Boahen on 20 May 2009 at 1:35 am #
Kara,
In regards to your question about Grudem, here’s one:
Why listen to your pastor? He’s a man, he purports to teach you God’s Word. Why listen to him?
JohnO on 20 May 2009 at 2:19 am #
TU…aD,
It’s no good trying to take the discussion off topic, you know. You’ll only get in trouble for it.
So, back to the topic of discussing Calvinism v. Arminianism…
Oh, wait! What was the topic about again?
John C.T. on 20 May 2009 at 8:47 am #
Some useful words from Firstthings.com, in the May 20th post:
“. . . Let’s start with the jerk problem. Sad but true, the internet was made for jerks. Every comment is more or less anonymous and every comment goes up whether the person has a clue or not. So we end up with a world of senseless blog fury where some anonymous clown with a name like “Spider86x” or “Cowgirl_B52” can rip you every which way but loose. Post something critical about Obama’s socks or point out that the Big East had more teams in the tournament than anyone else because there are, like, thirty-seven teams in the conference, and someone out there will curse the day you were born. Instead of responding to your arguments against inflationary monetary policy, “KeynesKid24” will mock your Blogger picture, lay down some none too subtle sexual innuendo, and call you a liar. Hell hath no fury like a scorned blogger with too much free time.
So the jerk problem is easy to see. But the nice problem can be just as bad. Think of all the work you have to do nowadays before you can disagree with someone. First, you have to do a lot of “I’m not saying . . . I’m just saying.” Then you have to reassure everyone that so-and-so is probably a great guy. Next, you make clear that you appreciate that he doesn’t kill people and his family seems sweet. And finally you admit that you could be wrong about everything anyway. All this to suggest that maybe, just maybe, God the Father is not best understood through the lens of Aunt Jemima.
A few months ago I was doing a phone interview for a new book I had coming out. Part way through the conversation, the gentlemen asked me why I had taken two pages to be critical of a popular Christian author. I explained that I thought he made some serious mistakes in theology, mistakes that can easily confuse laymen in the church. The man interviewing me then asked why I wrote some nice sentences about the author before critiquing him for two pages. Wasn’t I talking out of both sides of my mouth? I explained that I hoped not. I really meant what I said. I didn’t want to question the author’s sincerity; I trusted that his motives were good. To which my interviewer replied something like, “Don’t you think we should be able to disagree with others without so many caveats? It sounds phony.” . . .
The problem with the nice problem is twofold. First, we are all victims or want to be victims. We argue emotions not ideas. We debate who has been hurt more or who was meaner, rather than who is right and who is wrong. If I can position myself as the one under attack and you as the attacker, then I’m more than halfway to winning in the court of public opinion. We all want to root for the underdogs. We all want nice guys to finish first.
Second, we are all proud. . . .”
Regards
John
Biblical Interpretation « Simul Eustis et Pecator on 20 May 2009 at 9:13 am #
[...] 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 [...]
Dave Z on 20 May 2009 at 10:10 am #
John, that’s geat stuff.
So…howzabout some details on the book?
Michael L on 20 May 2009 at 11:11 am #
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
cheryl u on 20 May 2009 at 11:25 am #
“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.
JohnO on 20 May 2009 at 11:58 am #
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.
Michael L on 20 May 2009 at 1:01 pm #
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
cheryl u on 20 May 2009 at 1:50 pm #
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.
Jugulum on 20 May 2009 at 2:00 pm #
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.”)
John C.T. on 20 May 2009 at 2:13 pm #
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
Kara Kittle on 20 May 2009 at 3:49 pm #
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.
John C.T. on 20 May 2009 at 4:06 pm #
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
Seth R. on 20 May 2009 at 4:08 pm #
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.
Paul on 20 May 2009 at 4:22 pm #
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”?
Kara Kittle on 20 May 2009 at 4:29 pm #
John CT,
I would love to read your book.
cheryl u on 20 May 2009 at 5:25 pm #
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.
Kara Kittle on 20 May 2009 at 6:23 pm #
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.
Seth R. on 20 May 2009 at 6:52 pm #
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?
Seth R. on 20 May 2009 at 6:57 pm #
I mean… Surely the Bible is not so fragile that it cannot stand in the company of other books?
Kara Kittle on 20 May 2009 at 7:20 pm #
Seth,
No the Bible is not, but the reader…yes.
Badda Being on 20 May 2009 at 11:36 pm #
Kara: In a literary vacuum, the Bible’s strength would be meaningless.
Douglas K. Adu-Boahen on 21 May 2009 at 4:14 am #
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?
Kara Kittle on 21 May 2009 at 7:59 am #
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.
cheryl u on 21 May 2009 at 9:39 am #
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.
cheryl u on 21 May 2009 at 9:51 am #
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.
Michael L on 21 May 2009 at 10:25 am #
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 !
Douglas K. Adu-Boahen on 21 May 2009 at 10:26 am #
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
cheryl u on 21 May 2009 at 10:57 am #
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.
Kara Kittle on 21 May 2009 at 11:15 am #
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?
Kara Kittle on 21 May 2009 at 11:30 am #
Hence..Bart Ehrman…
Douglas K. Adu-Boahen on 21 May 2009 at 11:58 am #
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…”
Kara Kittle on 21 May 2009 at 12:11 pm #
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?
Douglas K. Adu-Boahen on 21 May 2009 at 12:33 pm #
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)
Kara Kittle on 21 May 2009 at 2:23 pm #
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?
Jugulum on 21 May 2009 at 2:49 pm #
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.
Douglas K. Adu-Boahen on 21 May 2009 at 3:24 pm #
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.
mbaker on 21 May 2009 at 3:28 pm #
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.
Kara Kittle on 21 May 2009 at 3:35 pm #
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.
cheryl u on 21 May 2009 at 3:46 pm #
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.
Kara Kittle on 21 May 2009 at 3:46 pm #
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.
Kara Kittle on 21 May 2009 at 3:59 pm #
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?
Douglas K. Adu-Boahen on 21 May 2009 at 6:29 pm #
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.
Kara Kittle on 21 May 2009 at 7:04 pm #
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.
Kara Kittle on 21 May 2009 at 7:06 pm #
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.
mbaker on 21 May 2009 at 7:17 pm #
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.
Douglas K. Adu-Boahen on 21 May 2009 at 7:28 pm #
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.
Kara Kittle on 21 May 2009 at 8:38 pm #
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.
Douglas K. Adu-Boahen on 22 May 2009 at 4:33 am #
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.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 22 May 2009 at 6:24 am #
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.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 22 May 2009 at 7:09 pm #
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!!!
Gnostic hermeneutics « Castle of Nutshells on 22 May 2009 at 10:37 pm #
[...] 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 [...]
Ryan on 25 May 2009 at 10:13 am #
Well said. The American church is doing a similar thing “seeking God’s will” that they are doing in their Bible reading; Christian mysticism indeed. I like the thought that with the gnostic methodology God could just as easily speak to you using Moby Dick as he could the Scriptures! Great blog!
Grace on 08 Nov 2009 at 7:05 pm #
Very thought provoking. Thank you for sharing.