1. The Bible is the God-breathed truth. It is written by human authors under the inspiration and oversight of God and is, because God is, true, correct, without error.
2. The Bible is God's expression to Man. That means that the aim in correct Bible interpretation is to figure out what God is trying to say, not what we want Him to say or what we think He should have said. If the Bible doesn't surprise you with some of the things you read, you probably aren't understanding it correctly. Since it is God's expression to Man, let the Bible say what He intends it to say.
3. The Bible is a set of books (66), but they are not distinct books. That is, God breathed them as an overarching revelation of what He wants His people to know.
- As such, context is absolutely important.
- Scripture interprets Scripture. As a unified presentation from God, Scripture will not contradict itself and will reinforce itself.
- Definition. What does the word mean? In English (when it was translated)? In its original language?
- Usage. How was the word (or phrase or concept) used when it was written? How would an Old Testament Jew or a New Testament Christian have understood it when it was first presented?
- Context. What does the context give you for the meaning of the text. (Rule of thumb: Never read a single verse.)
- Historical Background. Is there anything in the events surrounding the writing at the time that might shed light on meaning?
- Logic. Does the interpretation make sense? Does it contradict other known texts?
- Precedent. How is the word used elsewhere?
- Unity. What does the unified whole teach? (Prime example: The Trinity does not appear in Scripture, but the principles, ideas, and parameters are drawn directly from Scripture.)
- Inference. Logically it is possible to infer meaning by implication. However, the explicit always outweighs the implicit.
Keep these in mind and I think you'll find you'll encounter less confusion in Scripture. Let the Bible say what it wants to say and I think you'll hear better what God is trying to convey. There will always be texts that are hard to understand, and it is always, always important to let the Spirit lead and teach in this process, but Scripture was intended to be God's revelation to His people. Making it infinitely variable, completely subjective, and prone to error and personal judgment would make no sense ... for God. We aren't aiming to figure out new things; we're aiming to see what God intended and that can be checked against the history of the Church. If you arrive at something new, beware. It's not likely. The Spirit was supposed to lead His people into all truth; He's not that sloppy. There is truth in the pages of the Bible and it can be reasonably understood and anyone who suggests otherwise is casting aspersions on God. Don't be that person.
20 comments:
what is the point of scripture apart from the Spirit of God to lead us?
Apart from the Spirit, it is just a bunch books written by flawed people.
without the Spirit, it is just a book full of apparent contradictions.
ah but Once the Spirit of God Moves a believer to see... mysteries unfold, obscurity becomes clarity. confounding contradictions become sublime pathways to reason.
the Gospel is foolishness to those that are perishing. but to the Spirit filled Child of God,
thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path.
Yes, the Spirit is sent to lead His people into truth. The only problem is some think this is an individual thing where "The Holy Spirit showed me THIS" where "this" is not actually in there, but you can't discuss or debate it because "The Holy Spirit showed me." Nice to have a few more checks and balances.
Dont forget to add, that there is a page in the back, that when you lick it, it taste like candy. that should motivate those that are less inclined to read.
I think that one thing that a lot of people ignore when interpreting the specific passages is the overarching narrative. They might look at the surrounding verses, or the chapter for context, but I don't think we often think of looking at the meta narrative as often as we should. The first time I was exposed to this line of thinking I was surprised, but realized that it gives a perspective that we don't often get when looking at context. H/T John Piper, I don't remember the book right off hand, for this.
I do find it interesting when people put a verse in the larger context of a book, or chapter, or narrative, but then remove it from the context of the verses immediately surrounding it. It seems strange to me, but...
Do you think what you do with 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 is a matter of, "This is what that passage says, so I accept it"? Or is it more, "I don't think that can be true, so I am going to sweep it under the rug"? Or is it that you find a passage somewhere else that you think cancels out the Thessalonians passage so that it is null and void? Or maybe, "I'll bet Paul was waxing poetic"?
(I would rather you suppress this comment than to run it and say something snarky in response to it.)
Craig, I have been amazed at the difference the whole metanarrative approach makes fitting Scripture with Scripture.
Anonymous, taking the text in context grasping the sense in which it's presented doesn't cause me any problems. It does you?
I completely agree. When I read that it was a revelation about how to look at scripture.
Was that the correct address? Nothing seemed obscure or controversial to me.
Agreed, David
"That passage was not a failed prophecy by Paul. The event came to pass in AD ____ as noted by historians all around the world."
That is the sort of response I was hoping for.
Oh, I see what you're hoping for. Most Bible-believing Christians understand that to be future yet. I don't see anything there with an expiration date, so to speak. We are anticipating several prophecies yet to be fulfilled.
Paul would have known that Hebrew scriptures call for a man to have a help meet. So he wouldn't have taught "It is good that you remain single" unless he saw his day as a singular moment in history, calling for a departure from traditional norms. Don't plan for months or years down the road, he is telling folks, because that huge dividing line in history, the second coming, is imminent in these days of Roman (and even Jewish) persecution, and your time spent making mundane plans will have been wasted.
Can't you see that believers of Paul's time would have understood "we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord" to mean, "I, Paul, or if not me then some of my friends, will still be alive when Christ returns"? Can you say in sincerety that Paul would have been fine with someone taking him to mean, "Some of you thousands of years after my time will experience the coming"?
If Paul understood that the Hebrew scriptures called all men to have a wife, then he believed Jesus to have sinned for having no wife. If he understood it to be a generally good idea, although some would be "eunuchs" by birth or by choice, then neither he nor Jesus violated Scripture.
All believers have expected Christ to finally return in their day. We do today. All Jews before them expected a Messiah king. Nothing in the text gave a deadline. "Void if not completed by ..." The fact that the story is not yet complete doesn't bother believers because none of the Scriptures give a date. Any such dating is unsubstantiated conjecture.
You seem to be taking away something different than me. He's not saying that Christ will return in his lifetime. All I see that he said is that the dead are already with Christ, and when He returns, the living will follow the dead. He says nothing about these events happening while he lives. You ended your quotation before the sentence ended. Which is exactly what Stan was speaking against doing.
My main point was that an honest reading of Paul's letters has a sense of urgency not compatible with the second coming taking thousands more years. HOWEVER, I concede that Stan and David are never going to agree with me on that.
So changing the topic a bit, David says "the dead are already with Christ." Suppose Lydia died saved in AD 300 and Cletus died unsaved in AD 300. Not necessarily looking for an argument with David, just clarification...
* Where is Lydia's soul here in 2020?
* Where is Lydia's body here in 2020?
* Where is Cletus's soul here in 2020?
* Where is Cletus's body here in 2020?
This is often difficult because these kinds of questions are not asked in good faith. The questioner is asking a question not to gain insight or answers, but to make an argument. For instance, "Where is Lydia's body?" What kind of answer would suffice? Latitude and longitude? A map? Does "I don't know the physical location" constitute a viable answer? But even more vague is "Where is Lydia's soul?" In the universe? Some physical location in space? Is something like, "Over there a bit left of Orion's Belt" required? What kinds of answers are acceptable? The likelihood is that no answers are acceptable.
Having said that, Lydia's body is where she was buried, decayed to dust. Her soul is with Christ, because, for believers, to be absent from the body is to be at home with the Lord (2 Cor 5:6). "But," the objection is sure to rise, "that kind of decay offers no genuine body. How can it be resurrected?" To a believer the question is actually kind of silly. Cannot the Creator of the Universe who assembled Adam from dust assemble decayed bodies? God is not so weak. This, of course, assumes we believe in a God who is Omnipotent. "In Him," Paul says, "all things hold together." Existence itself is predicated on Him. Why would we doubt His ability to resurrect long-dead bodies?
I'm not Catholic, so I don't believe our eternal final body is some how dictated by our current body. Lydia's souls is with Christ. The body she left behind no longer exists by now, I'm sure. We're told we will have a new body in heaven, so the old one is unnecessary. As for Cletus, his soul is not with Christ and his body is gone like Lydia's. We're not given any information about the eternal body of the damned.
However, like Stan, I don't believe you are asking a genuine question from actual curiosity. You seem like you're just trying to throw out a confusing question to prove the absurdity of Christian beliefs. And I have to ask, why? What do you gain from casting doubt in others? What is so horrible about our religious views that they offend you so much that you don't want us to hold to them, even when our belief in them does absolutely nothing to you?
Finally, eschatology is a very vague arm of theology. If you're trying to trip up someone's faith, calling out the confusing nature of end times and unfulfilled prophecy is weird. In the end, the locations of the saved and unsaved bodies and souls doesn't effect my belief in the validity and Truth of the Bible.
My hypothetical people's bodies are still in the ground--that's the sort of answer I was looking for, so thank you for your forthrightness on that. John 5:28-29 is pretty suggestive that judgment only comes after the physical resurrection, which if true would mean that in 2020 Lydia and Cletus have not yet been judged, so their soul is... where? Under the ground tucked away with their bodies? Limbo? But you are saying they are with Christ, using 2 Corinthians 5 as justification. Do you feel any urge to work out a way to harmonize the John passage with the Corinthians passage, giving due weight to both?
As David admits, the Bible's eschatology is vague. My instinct is that a book written under the guidance of a being of unlimited intelligence and tidiness of mind wouldn't have any aspect that we would characterize as vague.
As I'm sure you know from direct experience, Christians are not in agreement on how to interpret eschatology. My purpose in this thread was to see what conclusions you have come to and what support you find for them, not to get into a prolonged argument--so I will hold my horses and try my best not to send any more comments to this thread.
I was about to hit the PUBLISH button and then remembered I wanted to ask Stan something about his "left of Orion's belt" idea. In view of the sixth seal of Revelation where the physical universe (certainly at least the stars) melts away, how sure can you be that you are going to be issued a glorified body that walks and breathes air and talks in the afterlife? Couldn't that seal be taken as prophesying a permanent end to physical material (atoms), leaving nothing but pure spirit beings communing with a pure spirit God in some dimensionless realm?
I have to say I can't fully grasp your objections. If, as Paul clearly states, to be absent from the body for believers is to be present with the Lord, that constitutes a violation of ... judgment? Like God is unclear on this until the final judgment? "Hang on, kids. We'll figure this out." I was clear. Scripture says those who belong to Christ are with Him when they die. There will be a final judgment in the end, but why would that preclude heaven now for those who are His? What am I trying to harmonize since I see no tension between the two.
Surely the vagueness of prophetic understanding shouldn't be a surprise. How would you write a book that could communicate with humans in 1000 B.C. with the same clarity and comprehensibility as to humans in the 21st century? Perhaps not all of Scripture is crystal clear, but there is nothing of real consequence that isn't possible to grasp.
What form will my body take after the resurrection? Not a clue. The Bible is clear we don't have a clue. "But someone will ask, 'How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?' You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. But God gives it a body as He has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body." (1 Cor 15:35-38) He goes on to say, "So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body." (1 Cor 15:42-44) What will I eat or breathe? I can't even imagine spending much mental effort thinking about it. Scripture argues for a "new heaven and a new earth," so, no, I don't think it will be the end of the material, but in what shape? Who knows?
Post a Comment