Hermeneutics: Interpreting Scripture

[Hakawaka]

The problematic part of the tulipist interpretation of election is not the term “elect”, which simply means “choose souls to be saved”,
but rather it is whether God shows favoritism by determining that only some sinners will be saved while the majority of humanity are condemned to hell. Here is the tulipist dogma and Scriptures indicating the opposite understanding in parentheses:

T – total depravity, meaning souls are unable to exercise sufficient MFW to seek salvation. (Matt. 7:7, Rom. 1:20, 2:5, 3:22-28)

U – unconditional election, meaning that souls need not satisfy a divine requirement such as faith or repentance, but God chooses to save some while damning the rest to hell. (Matt. 4:17, 7:21, John 3:16, Eph. 2:8-10, Gal. 5:6, 1John 3:23)

L – limited atonement, meaning that Christ died to pay the penalty of sin only for elect souls. (Rom. 3:22-26, 5:18, 2Cor. 5:14-19, Heb. 2:14-17, 1John 2:2)

I – irresistible grace, meaning that elect souls cannot resist or refuse God’s will for them to be saved. (Matt. 13:14-15, 23:37, 1Tim. 2:3-4, Tit. 2:11, 2Pet. 3:9)

P – perseverance of the saints, meaning that the elect cannot repudiate their salvation and commit apostasy, because God perseveres in keeping them saved. (Rom. 11:22, 1Cor. 15:2, Gal. 5:4, Col. 1:22-23, 2Thes. 1:4-5, 2Tim. 2:12, Heb. 3:6&14, 10:35-36, Jam. 1:12, 2Pet. 1:10-11, 2:20, 1John 2:24-25 and Rev. 2:10)

The viewpoint opposed to TULIP affirms God's fairness and love for all souls, who may choose to repent and be saved because God graces all sinners with sufficient conscience or Moral Free Will (MFW). Thus, this interpretation of Scripture may be termed "MFWism".

I've given up on the TULIP debate. I put my hands in the air and confess it truly is a mystery how the decree/sovereignity of God works together with free will. Its an endless debate and based on what I have read on this forum, it is fruitless as well. Unfortunately to my shame I have also been part of these debates in a not so constructive way.

 

[GWH]

I've given up on the TULIP debate. I put my hands in the air and confess it truly is a mystery how the decree/sovereignity of God works together with free will. Its an endless debate and based on what I have read on this forum, it is fruitless as well. Unfortunately to my shame I have also been part of these debates in a not so constructive way.

I sympathize with your insights, bro, but instead of debating I am sponsoring a systematic study of the issue on the Resolving Problematic Interpretations thread, if you would like to join me there. After I defined TULIP and MFW, Jon777 joined and shared The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination for awhile before pooping out (by post #55). timf and tablet123 also joined the discussion for a few posts. Then I continued the study by considering the U vs. F per Romans 1-9, where we are at the moment.

 

[GWH]

I began a discussion of tulipism vs. mfwism in post #677 by considering Scripture cited by tulipists in support of the T, which include Rom. 3:10-12/Psa. 14:1-3 = 53:1-3, 1Cor. 2:14, 2Cor. 4:3-4, Jer. 17:9a, Eph. 2:1, 4:17-19, Matt. 13:13/Isa. 6:9-10, Ezek. 36:26, Mark 7:21-23, John 3:19, 6:44&63-65.

Rom. 3:10-12 was interpreted in the context of Rom. 1-16, which taught that all are sinners who should repent and accept Christ’s atonement (Rom. 3:23-24).

Then 1Cor. 2:14 was interpreted in the context of 1Cor. 1:21-24 and 15:1-11, which indicated that God graces everyone with the opportunity to be saved (1Cor. 15:1-2).

In post #686 2Cor. 4:3-4 was interpreted in the context of 2Cor. 4:1-2&5, which showed that God wants everyone to have a change of heart and be saved (2Cor. 5:11-12 & 1Tim. 2:3-4).

Rather than continue interpreting the T passages in context, I cited passages that oppose tulip in #687.

Then I shared Rom. 1-9 as context for interpreting what might be considered the main passage from which TULIP springs, Rom. 9:10-24.

Then in #690 & 691 Blue shared about the danger of Calvin’s tulipism.

Then I shared TOP that show how to interpret the OT in light of the NT.

I also shared Scripture teaching that God loves everyone and is just/does not show favoritism.

In #698 I shared Scripture supporting the view that we should think and attempt to learn the best beliefs/opinions or solutions regarding issues including the arguments or accusations of atheists—which also applies to the arguments of tulipists.

In #700 I cited the examples of Jesus harmonizing Scripture to refute Satan’s prooftext and of Paul interpreting the story of Sarah and Hagar figuratively.

Not sure which direction to go from this point. Any ideas?

 

[GWH]

As we have noted on some other threads I sponsor, only four chapters of the NT are devoted to Christmas,
while the remainder is related more directly with Easter, which indicates that our celebration of Christ's advent
should include and perhaps emphasize the gift God gave on Easter. As Paul indicated in 1Cor. 15:17, "If there is no Easter,
faith in Christmas is futile."

 

[GWH]

Anyway, returning to the topic of this thread, Paul indicated his hermeneutic regarding God’s Word in 2Tim. 3:14-17 saying,
“Continue in what you have learned and have been convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

Several truths are taught in this pericope:

1. “Continue” indicates that perseverance is needed.
2. “Convinced” speaks of confident faith rather than of absolute certainty.
3. “Learning GW from infancy” refers to God’s “plan A” for parenting.
4. “Able” speaks of having volition or faith to seek–or not (Matt. 7:7, Rom. 3:11).
5. "Make wise for salvation" is the overarching purpose of GW.
6. "Through faith in Christ Jesus" states how salvation is attained.
7. “All Scripture is God-breathed and useful…” refers to the reason God inspired the OT and NT canons.
8. “Teaching” implies LGW as the main method of becoming mature or fully equipped, which means having humility = teachability.
9. "Rebuking/correcting" implies willingness to change previous beliefs.
10. "Training in righteousness" speaks of practicing godly/loving works following/continuing saving faith (Eph. 2:8-10).
11. “Servant of God” (the meaning of “Muslim”) is the one who obeys GW.
12. “Equipped” refers to having spiritual armor by which to defeat the devil’s unrighteous schemes (Eph. 6:10-18).

 

[GWH]

Paul explains how LGW may be accomplished in Eph. 4:11-13: "Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ."

For Christians who desire to read the entire Bible, it makes sense to start with a gospel such as Matthew and then an epistle such as Romans or Ephesians before reading Genesis, followed by Acts to learn how the church began and Hebrews to learn why the Gospel superseded the Torah. Then a person might want to alternate between OT and NT books winding up with Revelation about the ultimate destiny of souls.

We see that God’s goal for our faith before the end is attaining Christ-like moral maturity and spiritual unity (Eph. 1:4 & 2:10), so God’s will is resisted or contradicted by people who have a judgmental and divisive spirit rather than God’s loving or Holy Spirit. Jesus warned against this evil spirit early in his ministry (Matt. 7:1-5&21). Also near the end of his earthly life, Jesus prayed for godly unity (John 17:20-23). It is up to each of us to cooperate with God in answering this prayer.

 

[GWH]

When interpreting Scripture we should keep in mind that fallible humans cannot claim to have inerrant understanding,
whether of the original languages or via the KJV or modern translations,
so we must walk by sufficient confidence (aka humble faith) rather than by absolute certainty.

 

[GWH]

My reason for sharing my hermeneutic is simply to share my fallible faith with others, hoping they will find what I have learned helpful for understanding ultimate truth, and I am grateful to all people—famous philosophers, anonymous acquaintances and CC posters—who have helped shape my beliefs.

I believe reality is interconnected or unified, so that it is not necessary to worry about where to start exploring, and that hermeneutics, apologetics and soteriology are all aspects of the same Truth, and that the extant Bible/Scripture contains God's Truth/Word, although it might contain a few grains of sand mixed in with the gold. Those who believe the Bible must be inerrant do not realize that the dictation theory has a caveat: It refers to the original manuscripts (which we do not have), correctly/infallibly interpreted (which we sinners cannot claim).

The key to correct interpretation/hermeneutics (and apologetics) is viewing the Bible as concerned with communicating God’s will to humanity regarding His requirement for salvation (soteriology): THAT is the Gospel and what is inerrant! My understanding of the Gospel or Christian creed is this:

The normative way of stating the Gospel kerygma/GRFS in the NT is “Accept Christ Jesus as Lord” (as in Acts 16:31, 2Cor. 4:5 & Col. 2:6). The main points of Christian orthodoxy implicit in this statement can be explained or elaborated as follows:

1. There is a/one all-loving and just Lord or Creator God (Deut. 6:4, John 3:16, 2Thes. 1:6), who loves sinful humanity (Rom. 5:6-8, John 3:16) and who is both able (2Tim. 1:12) and willing (1Tim. 2:3-4, Ezek. 33:11) to provide all morally accountable human beings salvation or heaven—a wonderful life full of love, joy and peace forever.
2. Human beings are selfish or sinful (Rom. 3:23, 2Tim. 3:2-4, Col. 3:5), miserable (Gal. 5:19-21), and hopeless (Eph. 2:12) or hell-bound at the judgment (Matt. 23:33 & 25:46) when they reject God’s salvation (John 3:18, Rom. 2:5-11).
3. Jesus is God’s Messiah/Christ and incarnate Son, the way that God has chosen (John 3:16, Acts 16:30-31, Phil. 2:9-11) of providing salvation by means of his atoning death on the cross for the payment of the penalty for the sins of humanity (Rom. 3:22-25 & 5:9-11), followed by his resurrection to reign in heaven (1Cor. 15:14-28).
4. Thus, every person who hears the NT Gospel needs to repent and accept God’s grace or justification in Jesus as Christ/Messiah the Lord or Supreme Commander (Luke 2:11, John 14:6, Acts 16:31), at which moment God’s loving Holy Spirit of Christ indwells/baptizes the believer into the church (Rev. 3:20, Rom. 5:5, 1Cor. 12:13).
5. Loving Christ Jesus as Lord (Luke 2:11), God the Son (Matt. 16:16) or God in the human dimension (Col. 2:9) means reflecting divine love as empowered by the Holy Spirit, thereby obeying His command to love one another (Matt. 7:21, 22:37-40, John 13:35, Rom. 13:9)—forever (Matt. 10:22, Psa. 113:2), which will eventually achieve spiritual maturity on earth and heaven after Christ returns at God’s resurrection (John 14:6, 17&26, Rom. 8:6-17, Gal. 6:7-9, Eph. 1:13-14, Phil. 3:12-16, Heb. 10:36, 12:1, Jam. 1:2-4).

My hope and prayer are that we all agree regarding these essential beliefs, even though we may disagree about some secondary issues or teachings (which may be called the didache). If I have omitted any essential element of saving faith, please let me know.
I have already made a few fine-tuning adjustments due to feedback from CC folks.)

 

[GWH]

On another thread a case has been made for viewing the KJV as better than modern English Bibles,
but viewing any version as perfectly pure is problematic, given that sinful and fallible human hands
are involved in the origination, copying, translation and interpreting of Scripture.

By citing certain OT passages, Jesus and the NT writers indicated how to understand OT teachings
in light of the NT Gospel, although they did not reveal how GW applies to various modern issues,
including abortion, pacifism, how Genesis 1 jibes with physical science and why Joshua killed babies.

Thus, we must use our God-given logic guided by God's HS combined with our understanding of God's loving nature
to arrive at humble opinions regarding the best beliefs regarding doctrines and translations. No papalism.

 

[JohnDB]

Hermeneutics without apologetics causes warped homiletics.

Meaning....
MOST all translations are good and viable to use. (Notable exceptions are widely known)
But....
They all are limited in some fashion depending upon what exactly you wish to know. However, today, we are not limited to a single translation except by self limitations. Which is tantamount tonusing scissors on scripture to ignore the parts you find troubling.

 

[GWH]

Hermeneutics without apologetics causes warped homiletics.

Meaning....
MOST all translations are good and viable to use. (Notable exceptions are widely known)
But....
They all are limited in some fashion depending upon what exactly you wish to know. However, today, we are not limited to a single translation except by self limitations. Which is tantamount tonusing scissors on scripture to ignore the parts you find troubling.

Yes, both Bible-based hermeneutics and apologetics are needed for correct homiletics and evangelism,
Hermeneutics interprets translations for applying what is revealed in witnessing to atheists and heretics.
Although folks may have their preferred translations, "put 'em in the tank and they all burn."

 

[GWH]

I have shared that IMO a biblical hermeneutic might begin well with the instruction of Paul (1Thes. 5:21) to test everything and hold on to the good, and my testing has come to value two NT teachings as key for interpreting the Bible.

First, God loves and wants to save everyone. Seven Scriptures teaching divine omnilove (1John 4:7-12, Rom. 5:8, Matt. 5:44&48, Gal. 5:6&14, Eph. 3:17b-19, Eph. 5:2 and 1Tim. 2:3-4) might be deemed the “7 pearls”. Christ died to show God’s love and the possible salvation of all (Rom. 5:6-8) including His enemies: atheists, anti-Christians, and pseudo-Christians (Matt. 7:21, John 8:42-44, 1John 2:18-19).

Second, God is just and does not show favoritism (2Thes. 1:6a, Rom. 3:25-26, 9:14, Eph. 6:9, Col. 3:25, 1Pet. 1:17, Deut. 32:4, Psa. 36:6,
Luke 11:42, Rev. 15:3). Explanations of God’s Word should not impugn God’s justice and love for all people (Joel 2:13, John 3:16). This parameter is affirmed in the OT (Psa. 145:17): “The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.”

What key verse(s) serve as your lens for viewing Scripture?

 

[GWH]

We can infer the key Scriptures for the following dogmas:

papalism - Matt. 16:18-19

tulipism - Rom. 9:11-18

sabbatarianism - Exo. 20:8-11

glossolaliaism - Acts 2:4

water-baptismism - Mark 16:16

evangelism/Gospelism - Matt. 28:19-20, John 3:16, Acts 17:30, Rom. 3:22-26, 1Tim. 2:3-4, 2Pet. 3:9, Tit. 2:11, Col. 1:23, Ezek. 18:23, etc.

 

[GWH]

Regarding the key Scripture cited in support of papalism (Matt. 16:18-19), the counter argument is indicated by Matt. 23:9,
where Jesus says, "And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven".

The other dogmas are addressed in the thread titled Resolving Problematic Interpretations of Scripture. The key counter
Scriptures are as follows:

For tulipism (Rom. 9:11-18): Rom. 3:21-5:1, John 3:16, 1Tim. 2:3-4, Deut. 30:19, Matt. 23:37, etc.

For sabbatarianism (Exo. 20:8-11): Col. 2:16, Gal. 4:9-11, Rom. 14:5, Heb. 3:7-4:11, etc.

For glossolaliaism/speaking in tongues (Acts 2:4): The absence of Scriptures affirming SIT in the four gospels and epistles speaks volumes, but there is Scriptural warrant for viewing love as signifying Spirit filling rather SIT (John 13:35, Rom. 5:5, 1John 4:7-21).

For water-baptismism (Mark 16:16): Acts 16:31-34, 17:30-34, 26:16-18, Col. 2:11-12, Eph. 4:4-5, 1Cor. 12:13, 1John 4:7-21, Heb. 8:13.

For evangelism/Gospelism (Matt. 28:19-20, John 3:16, Acts 17:30, Rom. 3:22-26, 1Tim. 2:3-4, 2Pet. 3:9, Tit. 2:11, Col. 1:23, Ezek. 18:23: no counter Scriptures.

 

[GWH]

“Pyramid Logic”

God at the apex
We around the base,
The closer we come to God,
The closer we become.

Pyramid logic.

 

[GWH]

Paul’s Possible 4th Missionary Journey
(Based on Information in Paul’s Epistles not Chronicled in Acts)

1. Released from prison in Rome (A.D. 62?)

2. Went to Spain in fulfillment of the desire expressed in Rom. 15:23-24a&28 (62-63?):
“But now that there is no more place for me to work in these regions, and since I have been longing for many years to visit you [Christians in Rome], 24 I plan to do so when I go to Spain… So after I have completed this task and have made sure that they [leaders of the church in Jerusalem] have received this contribution, I will go to Spain and visit you on the way.”

3. Went to Corinth and then to Miletus (via Crete), where he left Trophimus per 2Tim. 4:20 (64?):
“Erastus stayed in Corinth, and I left Trophimus sick in Miletus.”

4. Went to Crete (on his way to Miletus), where he left Titus per Tit. 1:5 (64?):
“The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished [on his first visit in Acts 27:7-13] and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.”

5. Went to Colosse per his plan mentioned in Phm. 22 (65?):
“And one thing more: Prepare a guest room for me, because I hope to be restored to you in answer to your prayers.”

6. Went to Ephesus and then to Macedonia per 1Tim. 1:3 (66?):
“As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer.”

7. Went to Philippi as indicated in 1Tim. 1:3 (above) and Phil. 2:23-24 (66?):
“I hope, therefore, to send him [Timothy] as soon as I see how things go with me. And I am confident in the Lord that I myself will come soon.”

8. Went to Nicopolis [on west coast of Macedonia] per Tit. 3:12 (66-67?):
“As soon as I send Artemas or Tychicus to you, do your best to come to me at Nicopolis, because I have decided to winter there.”

9. Went to Rome, where he was martyred by Nero along with other Christians (67 or 68?).

 

[GWH]

The purpose of hermeneutics is to interpret Scripture by harmonizing it with other passages on the same topic. The topic introduced by this post is the parables of Jesus. Let us conduct a systematic study of every parable recorded in the gospel of Mathew in order to learn their meaning and purpose.

The Parable of the Seeds (Matt. 13:1-23)

In this parable a farmer sowed seed on four types of soil: a path, rocky ground, thorny ground, and fertile soil–with appropriate results. Discerning the meaning involved understanding the metaphors that were used, most of which were explained by Jesus in v.18-23: seed = GW re the KOH, understands = believes, healed = saved, ears = normal adult souls, hear = be good seed. The apparent meaning of the parable per v. 9 is thus, “Let all accountable souls be allowed to hear and be saved.”

However, this meaning is made problematic by what Jesus told his disciples between relating the parable and then explaining its meaning (v.10-11) regarding his purpose of speaking in parables: “The knowledge of the secrets of the KOH has been given to you (disciples), but not to them (the rest of the people).” Jesus said (in v.14-15) the people fulfilled Isa. 6:9-10, which says in part, “you will be ever seeing but never perceiving, for this people’s heart has become calloused… Otherwise they might… turn, and I would heal them.” In v.12 Jesus said, “Whoever has will be given more… and whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.”

A person might interpret what Jesus said regarding the secrets to mean that he wanted them to remain unknown except by his disciples, but a few verses later in Matt. 13:34 it says that Jesus spoke in parables in order to fulfill “what was spoken through the prophet: I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world”, which implies that he wants to share the secrets with the people.

Thus, unless these statements (Matt. 13:10-17 & 13:34-35) can be harmonized, one must choose between two contradictory interpretations: 1. Jesus purposefully hid knowledge from some while revealing it to others according to His will, or 2. Jesus allowed souls to reject saving knowledge or to accept it and be his disciples. Deciding which understanding to adopt necessitates considering the other parables of Jesus.

Comments? Discussion?