Basis

When I write I often refer to "biblical Christians" -- real Christians -- as a differentiation from "nominal Christians" -- Christians in name only. (Maybe I should use "CINO" instead?) That's because of the importance of the Word of God. Now, of course, there are lot of nominal Christians -- Christians in name only -- who will tell you they're biblical. They follow the Bible. "Well, of course, not the Bible you follow, perhaps. I mean, you know Genesis is myth, that the Flood never happened, that God never ordered Israel to attack the Amalekites," and so on. "But we follow the Bible; we just don't interpret it as you do."

Now, the truth is all of us -- "real Christians" -- will find, at some point or another, a difference in interpretation. Hopefully not big ones. Certainly not critical ones. But we all have differences, even among those who have a high degree of agreement. So when the one Christian says, "We just don't interpret it as you do" and I don't call that one a "biblical Christian", what do I mean? That is the critical question. If genuine "biblical Christians" can disagree on points and "nominal Christians" claim to simply "disagree on points" (so to speak), what do I see as the difference? Let me explain what I mean.

The fundamental difference between these two is the basis for the interpretation. When the CINO says, for instance, "The Flood never happened," you have to ask them why they say that. The types of answers you will get will be things like, "Science doesn't support it" or "The God I believe in wouldn't do that" or things like that. The biblical Christian would start with, "Well, it says it, so it must be." It might turn out that a further analysis will result in a different answer, but if the basis is "the Word of God as truth", then the first response is, well, "The Word of God is true." Everything else shifts around that.

Let me illustrate. Years ago I was discussing this passage:

Women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness -- with good works. (1 Tim 2:9-10)

I said, "I don't see this as a prohibition of women wearing braided hair. I see it as Paul describing what 'respectable apparel' is for women -- modesty and self control. I don't understand the phrase to indicate a prohibition, but more of a 'I'm not talking about braided hair or jewelry or clothing; I'm talking about godliness.'" "See," someone retorted, "you don't take Scripture as written!" Someone else pointed out the difference. "The difference between him and you," this other commenter said, "is that if Stan was to be convinced that what was actually intended here was a prohibition of braids and jewelry for women, he would encourage the prohibition of braids and jewelry for women. You will refuse to prohibit braids and jewelry for women and, therefore, refuse to allow this text to mean that." Do you see the difference here? In one case Scripture interprets Scripture and the reader will follow whatever Scripture says, even though we don't all agree with what it means by what it says; in the other case, Scripture is interpreted by people whose original basis is their own point of view.

Take, for instance, the story of God commanding the deaths of the Amalekites. If your basis is "God's Word is true," (Rom 3:4) then you're approach will be along the lines of "How do I make sense of this from Scripture?" If your basis is "my point of view", your approach will be "How does this line up with what I already know to be true?" CINOs will argue that the event didn't occur as written because "That's not the God I know" or "that's not what Jesus was like" or something like it. If your predetermined basis produces a contradiction in Scripture, then your predetermined basis is not Scripture. And that is not a "biblical Christian" as I am using the term.

It is certainly possible, even valuable, to compare Scripture with Scripture. In doing that, you might conclude, "This text doesn't mean what it appears to imply because that text says the opposite." In this case, Scripture is still the basis for the interpretation. That's perfectly acceptable. That's the point. But if you're basis is "me" first -- your views, your outlook, your preferences, your ideas, your science, your philosophy, your morals, etc. -- then you have a basis for your interpretation, just not a biblical one. When I offer arguments that go something like, "God's Word says ..." and the response is to explain that I'm wrong without offering any biblical basis for it, it's not a biblical argument. Telling me, "That's not what it means" because it doesn't align with your predispositions doesn't make it biblical. Telling me, "I don't have to explain from Scripture why you're wrong because that's not the bottom line" simply makes my point. Basis, you see, is important. And "differences of interpretation" aren't always on the same basis.