Why So Many Interpretations of the Bible?

[Salty]

Why are There So Many Different Interpretations of the Bible?


Often, when BB members - one will say YOU ARE WRONG!
IMHO, we should be careful about condemning a BB member

True, they might be wrong from YOUR point of view -
But we should also look at their point of view as well.

For example - dispensation - some are so against it.
but on the other hand some may see it as a minor issue

But most important - keep in mind that Interpretations can differ.

Our overall concern should be sharing the Gospel of Christ, so others may have the joy of salvation.

 

[37818]

@Salty,
The article listed a number of issues which cannot be taken into account all at once.

Logicly any point of disagreement can only be dealt with one point at a time. Then to the next point of disagreement.

The arguers need to agree on each point to compare. To come to an agreement or disagree. And if disagreeing, both sides must agree as to why they disagree.

I have yet to see this done.

 

[canadyjd]

Why are There So Many Different Interpretations of the Bible?


Often, when BB members - one will say YOU ARE WRONG!
IMHO, we should be careful about condemning a BB member

True, they might be wrong from YOUR point of view -
But we should also look at their point of view as well.

For example - dispensation - some are so against it.
but on the other hand some may see it as a minor issue

But most important - keep in mind that Interpretations can differ.

Our overall concern should be sharing the Gospel of Christ, so others may have the joy of salvation.

I think I stated about 20 years ago on BB that God desires us to work out our differences in interpretations by focusing on scripture in context, in humility, with fear and trembling, and in the end we would all grow in spiritual maturity and fellowship: even if not in agreement.

I was roundly ridiculed for being naive. In fact, I think I left the BB for several years because of that.

But, that’s still my answer.

peace to you

 

[Deacon]

The great diversity of interpretations really messes with the belief that by the Holy Spirit (alone) we can know all truth.

Rob

 

[Salty]

Candy-
Yes - we should be more concern on where we agree - so that we can be more concerned with sharing the Gospel

In our city - we have a Evangelical Association of Pastors.
Some of the pastors or Pentecostal - who believe in speaking in tongues

Currently, each Friday, we are having a city wide prayer meeting to pray for revival
(last week - we also gave praise for the SC ruling!)
but the Pentecostals did agree not to speak in tongues -eps since we meet in a Baptist church!

So we put some things aside - and concentrate on bringing Revival to our city.

378 said it best " And if disagreeing, both sides must agree as to why they disagree."
Key word "why"

Excellent advice!

 

[canadyjd]

@Salty,
The article listed a number of issues which cannot be taken into account all at once.

Logicly any point of disagreement can only be dealt with one point at a time. Then to the next point of disagreement.

The arguers need to agree on each point to compare. To come to an agreement or disagree. And if disagreeing, both sides must agree as to why they disagree.

I have yet to see this done.

Yes indeed. I think if we can honestly repeat back what others believe and acknowledge why they believe it, even if we disagree, that goes a long way toward civil debate.

As Salty said, very good advice. Thanks

peace to you

 

[37818]

@canadyjd,
What I had not mentioned is the common ground. The New Testament documents. It is what .makes us Baptist Baptist and all other professing Christians Christian. All Holy Scripture are revelation of Jesus Christ. Luke 24:44 & Revelation 19:10.

 

[AustinC]

An issue such as dispensationalism is relatively meaningless. Do I wish people had a better understanding of Covenant truths? Sure. It would make the conversation easier.

The preaching of the gospel and what that gospel actually is, is worth the debate. The Apostles dealt directly with gnosticism and judism, of which both perverted the gospel. Adding anything to the grace of God in redemption is a perversion of the gospel. Some, however, don't seem to discern that as a problem.

 

[37818]

An issue such as dispensationalism is relatively meaningless.

Your opening sentence has more than one issue. dispensationalism is more than one system of belief.

Do I wish people had a better understanding of Covenant truths? Sure.

There are disagreements over correctly understand the covenants. Even the New Covenant, Jeremiah 31:31-34, Ephesians 2:11-13.

. . . a perversion of the gospel.
Some, however, don't seem to discern that as a problem.

So unless you can pick one key point to start from. Not an argument of multiple issues such as dispensationalism or covenants. One point.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Why are There So Many Different Interpretations of the Bible?


Often, when BB members - one will say YOU ARE WRONG!
IMHO, we should be careful about condemning a BB member

True, they might be wrong from YOUR point of view -
But we should also look at their point of view as well.

For example - dispensation - some are so against it.
but on the other hand some may see it as a minor issue

But most important - keep in mind that Interpretations can differ.

Our overall concern should be sharing the Gospel of Christ, so others may have the joy of salvation.

It is very clear, that the Reformed/Calvinists are WRONG on the salvation of sinners, and this is NOT "MY point of view", but what the Infallible Word of God says.

WHY should we not say that this is WRONG, when the BIBLE says, like in John 3:16-18, that IT IS?

TRUTH is TRUTH, regardless of whether anyone may be offended or hurt by what is said!

We are NOT to be "MEN pleasers", but "GOD pleasers"

 

[Salty]

TRUTH is TRUTH, regardless of whether anyone may be offended or hurt by what is said!
"

Because we can also show Christian Charity!

 

[SavedByGrace]

Because we can also show Christian Charity!

But without any compromising

 

[Salty]

But without any comprises

AND to agree to disagree - and leave it at that.

 

[kyredneck]

All Holy Scripture are revelation of Jesus Christ. Luke 24:44 & Revelation 19:10.

Agree.

39 Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me; Jn 5

 

[AustinC]

Your opening sentence has more than one issue. dispensationalism is more than one system of belief.

There are disagreements over correctly understand the covenants. Even the New Covenant, Jeremiah 31:31-34, Ephesians 2:11-13.

So unless you can pick one key point to start from. Not an argument of multiple issues such as dispensationalism or covenants. One point.

Perhaps you missed my point.

I used dispensationalism as an example of a minor issue regarding Christian fellowship. I was not attempting to dig down into any particularity within dispensationalism. Nor was I attempting to dig into any particularity within covenant theology. RC Sproul and John MacArthur showed us that these different views can be deep friends. Where neither wavered was on the gracious work of Christ alone in saving souls. Upon this gospel they were in lock step union.

 

[AustinC]

AND to agree to disagree - and leave it at that.

Do we agree to disagree when one teaching is "man must do something to be saved" and the other teaching is "with man it is impossible, but with God all things are possible"???

Essentially, that is like saying the RCC and Baptists should just agree to disagree on the means of salvation.

If that is what you wish, why would you even have a discussion board? Their would be nothing to say, other than "Hey folks, the weather over here is..."
Is that your wish? Just shut down conversation and talk about the weather? I get it that you'd like the debate to be more formal with less rancour. Unless everyone has been formally trained in rhetoric, that isn't going to happen. Instead, you will see much more of a Mars Hill experience at Athens. When a trigger word happens ("resurrection") you will likely get a volatile reaction from those who are reading. Simply look no further than the one who has posted, on this thread, who demands human action be required before God can save. Shall we agree to disagree and not challenge salvation by works?

 

[37818]

Perhaps you missed my point.

I believe I did miss your point. From what I understood, you made imprecise generalities.

There are specifics which are disagreed upon.

There is a fundamental issue between the absolute sovereignty of God and the finite responsibility of man. Revelation 20:11-15.

 

[The Archangel]

It is very clear, that the Reformed/Calvinists are WRONG on the salvation of sinners, and this is NOT "MY point of view", but what the Infallible Word of God says.

WHY should we not say that this is WRONG, when the BIBLE says, like in John 3:16-18, that IT IS?

In what way does John 3:16-18 show that Calvinism is wrong?

The Archangel

 

[Salty]

In what way does John 3:16-18 show that Calvinism is wrong?

The Archangel

This OP is about Interpretations in general
If you want to talk about a specific doctrine - start a new thread.

In this case about C vs John 3:16 a new thread has been started
Calvinism and John 3:16

 

[JesusFan]

Why are There So Many Different Interpretations of the Bible?


Often, when BB members - one will say YOU ARE WRONG!
IMHO, we should be careful about condemning a BB member

True, they might be wrong from YOUR point of view -
But we should also look at their point of view as well.

For example - dispensation - some are so against it.
but on the other hand some may see it as a minor issue

But most important - keep in mind that Interpretations can differ.

Our overall concern should be sharing the Gospel of Christ, so others may have the joy of salvation.

Due to us being very fallible saved sinners, and many are adapting their church traditional theology, or their pastors, or parents over the word of God sometimes!