Question about Scriptural Interpretation

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Chester said:
I would say that doctrine should only be affirmed when it is clearly stated in Scripture. This "supported by the overall message of the Bible" allows a person to bring in whatever doctrine they think is that "overall message".

If one verse says something clearly and is interpreted correctly and clearly in the context that is enough for me. That is sound doctrine. There is not any verse in the Bible that if interpreted correctly will be incorrect or will conflict with another verse.

I would argue that the correct approach is to study a text to determine Biblical doctrine. I think the other approach is dangerous. That is: Do not use overall Biblical doctrine to determine the meaning of a text.
Click to expand...
Yea I agree.
Plus where do people get this overall Biblical doctrine from. Either they got it from somewhere else, or they had to read the entire Bible first before they focussed on certain scriptures.
Which is actually good thing to do. What do wel live on, not bread alone but EVERY word that comes out of the mouth of God.
But many people dont do it, they just get it from somewhere or someone else without reading the entire Bible first.
So..what to do...read the entire Bible FIRST before you study it in depth. Its only 1319 pages, (well, my copy is) surely not too hard eh?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chester and eternally-gratefull
Lanolin said:
Yea I agree.
Plus where do people get this overall Biblical doctrine from. Either they got it from somewhere else, or they had to read the entire Bible first before they focussed on certain scriptures.
Which is actually good thing to do. What do wel live on, not bread alone but EVERY word that comes out of the mouth of God.
But many people dont do it, they just get it from somewhere or someone else without reading the entire Bible first.
So..what to do...read the entire Bible FIRST before you study it in depth. Its only 1319 pages, (well, my copy is) surely not too hard eh?
Click to expand...
Thats why we test all spirit. This includes our own pastors.. Asuming they will get everythign right would be a mistake.
 
Chester said:
You want me to pull apart you analysis? you asked for it! LOL! :cautious: ;)

(1) First of all you bring in a wrong assumption, that there are "real Christians" and I guess not real Christians -- Sorry, there are only Christians and non-Christians

(2) The verse says absolutely nothing about repenting or not repenting of the sinning.

(3) And actually, it does not anything about sinning "willfully" - sinning continuously and sinning willfully are not the same thing

(4) And the verse says nothing about the Spirit convicting of the sin (Now of course this might happen but that is not what the verse says!)

I have nothing against what you say - it is probably pretty true, but it is not a correct exegetical meaning of the verse.
Click to expand...
What does it mean then?
 
  • Like
Reactions: eternally-gratefull
Chester said:
Exactly what it says: the one who has been born out of God will not keep on constantly sinning . . . LOL! What is so hard about that?
Click to expand...
Now what does the next verse say? The verse about those who do keep cnstantly sinning?
 
Hevosmies said:
How many "systematics" are there to choose from?
Click to expand...

there is 10 Category within systematic theology. Systematic theology is a discipline(scientific method of studying) of Christian theology meaning: by which one can look at doctrine(teachings) in an orderly and proper way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chester
CS1 said:
there is 10 Category within systematic theology. Systematic theology is a discipline(scientific method of studying) of Christian theology meaning: by which one can look at doctrine(teachings) in an orderly and proper way.
Click to expand...

I think systematic theology is great - it is simply an organized way to present the truths gained from an exegetical study of the Bible.

But please do not take your (or your denominations's ) systematic theology and use it to interpret Scripture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eternally-gratefull
MadHermit said:
Your second question illustrates "the unpardonable sin" of biblical exegesis from a modern scholarly interpretive perspective because believers who take that approach tend to force their own doctrinal bias into a text to make it fit their preconceived notions. I used to regularly attend the meetings of the top academic biblical convention in the world, the Society of Biblical Literature. I recall a round table on 1 Corinthians for which the participating scholars agreed not to allow their interpretations of specific texts tp be informed by Paul's other epistles. This wise agreement was intended to allow Paul to change his mind and evolve over the years. More importantly, it was intended to see whether and to what extent different insights might be gleaned if the bias of parallel texts from other epistles was provisionally kept out of the picture.
Click to expand...

I find your "story" here quite interesting. I agree very much with the approach used in this round table discussion. It seems like the goal of that meeting was to actually look at what Paul was saying in that one particular text (without outside biases allowed). That is exactly what I think is a key. However, the idea that this was intended to "allow Paul to change and evolve over the years"? Not sure what is meant by that? If you think Paul changed his mind about something (that is recorded in Scripture) you will find you are wrong! But you will find that his views matured and got deeper perhaps (maybe this is what is meant by "evolved"?)

However, I am not promoting or recommending The Society of Biblical Literature. I don't know much about them at all. I did look at the website a little, and found nothing about the need or importance of the new birth. It seems like an academic group primarily. If these men are discussing the Bible without the Spirit, they will not be able to interpret it properly. I don't know about this group, so I will just remain neutral.
 
Chester said:
I think systematic theology is great - it is simply an organized way to present the truths gained from an exegetical study of the Bible.

But please do not take your (or your denominations's ) systematic theology and use it to interpret Scripture.
Click to expand...
Im willing to bet that pentecostal churches dont have a systematic theology

Am i right?
 
Chester said:
I think systematic theology is great - it is simply an organized way to present the truths gained from an exegetical study of the Bible.

But please do not take your (or your denominations's ) systematic theology and use it to interpret Scripture.
Click to expand...
FYI, all denominations have theology were they formulate doctrine from. Including Yours. lol
 
Hevosmies said:
Seriously? WAAAAAAAH

I will look it up, I want to read it.
Click to expand...


your bias blinds you. and your attacks on Pentecostals who you disagree with show your unlearned in biblical doctrine. As Pentecostal and bible school grad, I know first hand of Systematic Theology. I humbly remind you that you did not explain what systematic Theology is, I did. A Pentecostal of over 35 years and still reaching into more educational Theologically. If you knew then you are a troll if you did not know as you stated you did not know; you have been enlightened by Pentecostal. Yes, you are wrong in your bet. The proof was given to you in my answer here. Now on with your meanless attacks.
 
CS1 said:
your bias blinds you. and your attacks on Pentecostals who you disagree with show your unlearned in biblical doctrine. As Pentecostal and bible school grad, I know first hand of Systematic Theology. I humbly remind you that you did not explain what systematic Theology is, I did. A Pentecostal of over 35 years and still reaching into more educational Theologically. If you knew then you are a troll if you did not know as you stated you did not know; you have been enlightened by Pentecostal. Yes, you are wrong in your bet. The proof was given to you in my answer here. Now on with your meanless attacks.
Click to expand...

Ah, not so hard on the guy! He was not attacking anyone, just having a conversation and asking questions . . . I like him! We were having a good conversation; not agreeing, but having fun!
 
  • Like
Reactions: eternally-gratefull
CS1 said:
your bias blinds you. and your attacks on Pentecostals who you disagree with show your unlearned in biblical doctrine. As Pentecostal and bible school grad, I know first hand of Systematic Theology. I humbly remind you that you did not explain what systematic Theology is, I did. A Pentecostal of over 35 years and still reaching into more educational Theologically. If you knew then you are a troll if you did not know as you stated you did not know; you have been enlightened by Pentecostal. Yes, you are wrong in your bet. The proof was given to you in my answer here. Now on with your meanless attacks.
Click to expand...

Ah, now I did it! I have been waiting, and waiting for the right time to use that "angry" face. I have never used it yet, and now I finally did! And then I realize I gave it to a moderator!

Now I am toast for sure! Please hang me out to dry while I serve my prison sentence! :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back