best Way NOT To Read Our Theological Gridlock Into text Of Bible!

[JesusFan]

ALL of us come from a particular theological "gridlock" when we attempt to try to study and apply the Bible...

Instead of coming to the Bible and read it as means to "proof text" out pet doctrines, are there goods way to read it with intent of "getting from it, not reading into it?"

 

[pinoybaptist]

ALL of us come from a particular theological "gridlock" when we attempt to try to study and apply the Bible...

Instead of coming to the Bible and read it as means to "proof text" out pet doctrines, are there goods way to read it with intent of "getting from it, not reading into it?"

nope, for as long as either side accuses the other of "reading into" the Bible which is basically a nice way of saying one or the other is unscriptural in his reading.
the flesh immediately gets in the way.
true for everybody.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

nope, for as long as either side accuses the other of "reading into" the Bible which is basically a nice way of saying one or the other is unscriptural in his reading.
the flesh immediately gets in the way.
true for everybody.

Doctrine is supposed to be written from scripture, not the other way around & not if we are being honest. Then good sound doctrine is used as a bulk work against bad interpretations & theological deviations. In other words sound doctrine finds it's origins in the teachings of Jesus which has been preserved throughout the church in many periods, and which has always been characteristic of the church at its greatest periods of faith and expansion. I dont know how else to explain it.

 

[Van]

I think the key is the principle of minimalization, making as few assumptions as possible. When it says something, but does not explicitly define the scope, use the context to limit the scope to the least it could be saying. So when Christ high and lifted up draws all men, think, well at least all men who are aware of His death, and that He died for them and thus they are attracted by lovingkindness. Now it might mean a lot more, that that is the minimum. This rule is consistent with the warning not to add or take away from scripture. When it says God does not remember our sins forever, that is what it means and do not add the qualifier that it really means He remembers but does not hold our sins against us.

If you think carefully about the doctrines that divide, Arminianism, Calvinism, Open Theism,etc, they all take scripture too far in the eyes of the opponents.

God Bless

 

[Greektim]

ALL of us come from a particular theological "gridlock" when we attempt to try to study and apply the Bible...

Instead of coming to the Bible and read it as means to "proof text" out pet doctrines, are there goods way to read it with intent of "getting from it, not reading into it?"

One way that has been very efficient for me is to read extensively from those of different theological persuasions. I force myself to be openminded on the things that are not so clear cut in Scripture. I make myself the student, willing to learn and under the guidance of a teacher.

THe result for me was that I realized I did not have everything figured out as I once told myself. I have more questions and less dogmatic answers than ever. And somehow, I am liberated by that fact. I trust less in systematic theology and more in biblical theology. I seek the grand narrative of Scripture rather than the minutea of details and systems.

I allow as best as I can the meaning of the text determine my theology. I have done so to the detriment of my former theological views. I won't explain what they are, but I have been able to turn off my indoctrinated beliefs and come to the text with as clean a slate as is possible.

It all started with the realization that (1) I don't have all the answers and I can very easily be wrong, (2) I don't need ALL the answers but I need to search from different perspectives (within reason of course), & (3) there are some things thare are more important than others therefore I will spend more time on those things.

 

[Winman]

It is also important to compare scripture with scripture. If the scriptures are truth, they cannot contradict themselves.

 

[Rippon]

It is also important to compare scripture with scripture. If the scriptures are truth, they cannot contradict themselves.

Yeah,if the word "world" is used in one place in a certain sense,it doesn't necessarily mean the same in other contexts. Scripture indeed does need to be compared with Scipture.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Yeah,if the word "world" is used in one place in a certain sense,it doesn't necessarily mean the same in other contexts. Scripture indeed does need to be compared with Scipture.

In one of the forums on the board I quoted a poster, thus:

I certainly hope our intelligence agencies are serving our president Obama better than they served our president Bush. After all, every intelligence service in the world agreed that Saddam Hussein had the WMDs. Did everyone lie?

I asked: is this true ? referencing the statement bolded, colored, and underlined.

Nobody caught up with what I was trying to convey, and of course I didn't pursue the issue because the forum was not a theological or doctrinal forum.

Apparently, the person I quoted thought of "the world" as the world he knew, that world that looked at Saddam Hussein as a threat, that part of the "world" whose world view may be the same as his, where the idea of freedom from tyranny is the prevailing idea. To him, that is "the world" to which every intelligence service belonged.

I do not know if the person I quoted thinks that the world in John 3:16 for example is the entire world, from the Jewish world to the Roman world to the Greek world to the pagan, barbarian world across seas and in isles that have not come under the dominion of the Roman or Greek world familiar to John, but the fact is that the term "entire world" most often than not is used in accordance to the user's view.

Definitely my country's intelligence services neither agreed or disagreed with the WMD accusation against Saddam Hussein for the simple reason that I think they were not even consulted. Yet the Philippines is part of the world, when we think of the whole planet.

So with the intelligence services of Malaysia, or Hongkong, or the People's Republic of China, or Taiwan, or India, or Nepal, or Pakistan, yet all of these are countries of the world.

So, yeah, context rules.

 

[pinoybaptist]

ooopppsss!!! My bad, again.
I quoted a poster from one of the online news services, not a poster from one of the forums of this Board.
Sorry.

link to the forum

 

[drfuss]

One way that has been very efficient for me is to read extensively from those of different theological persuasions. I force myself to be openminded on the things that are not so clear cut in Scripture. I make myself the student, willing to learn and under the guidance of a teacher.

THe result for me was that I realized I did not have everything figured out as I once told myself. I have more questions and less dogmatic answers than ever. And somehow, I am liberated by that fact. I trust less in systematic theology and more in biblical theology. I seek the grand narrative of Scripture rather than the minutea of details and systems.

I allow as best as I can the meaning of the text determine my theology. I have done so to the detriment of my former theological views. I won't explain what they are, but I have been able to turn off my indoctrinated beliefs and come to the text with as clean a slate as is possible.

It all started with the realization that (1) I don't have all the answers and I can very easily be wrong, (2) I don't need ALL the answers but I need to search from different perspectives (within reason of course), & (3) there are some things thare are more important than others therefore I will spend more time on those things.

I agree with the above. In many cases, we get out of scriptures what we take to them as reflected in the doctrine we have been taught. Consider the standardized Baptist interpretations on here concerning scriptures that affect doctrine. It is obvious that these interpretations are doctrine dependent and have been passed around within the denominations.

I have attended for years Pentecostal, Wesleyan Arminian, Classic Arminian, and eternal security doctrinal churches. Having been fully exposed to their doctrines, I have developed my own system of beliefs. The more I grow in the Lord, the more I realize that I don't know all the answers. Also, the more I realize I don't need to know all the answers.

 

[Winman]

Yes, and when John the Baptist said, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world", you can compare it with scripture like Isa 53:6 to see that John meant each and every person.

Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

There is no way to pervert this verse, if all men and every one are sinners, then the sin of all men were laid on Jesus.

So, by comparing scripture with scripture you can refute those who pervert the true meaning of scripture.

 

[Rippon]

Yes, and when John the Baptist said, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world", you can compare it with scripture like Isa 53:6 to see that John meant each and every person.

Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

There is no way to pervert this verse, if all men and every one are sinners, then the sin of all men were laid on Jesus.

In Isaiah 53 we see certain words like:we,our,us all,many,their etc. The iniquity of us all refers to the sins of all Christ was to save.

In the first verse of the chapter we see that not everyone has been shown the arm of the Lord. But His mighty arm has been revealed to some.

In John 10 it speaks of sheep --the same sheep that Is.53 does. In John it says that the Shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. Jesus said he knows the sheep and they know him.Those that don't believe are not his sheep -- that is why they don't believe. He gives eternal life only to His sheep.

Back to Isaiah 53 for a moment. In verse 11 it says that He will justify many -- He will bear their iniquities. Matthew Henry stated :"Thus He shall bear the iniquities of the many that He designed to justify." Amen. He bore the sin of many (verse 12) not each and every person past,present and future even those in eternal perdition when He sacrified Himself.

 

[Winman]

In Isaiah 53 we see certain words like:we,our,us all,many,their etc. The iniquity of us all refers to the sins of all Christ was to save.

In the first verse of the chapter we see that not everyone has been shown the arm of the Lord. But His mighty arm has been revealed to some.

In John 10 it speaks of sheep --the same sheep that Is.53 does. In John it says that the Shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. Jesus said he knows the sheep and they know him.Those that don't believe are not his sheep -- that is why they don't believe. He gives eternal life only to His sheep.

Back to Isaiah 53 for a moment. In verse 11 it says that He will justify many -- He will bear their iniquities. Matthew Henry stated :"Thus He shall bear the iniquities of the many that He designed to justify." Amen. He bore the sin of many (verse 12) not each and every person past,present and future even those in eternal perdition when He sacrified Himself.

Vain babbling. You have to write a novel to attempt (unsuccessfully I might add), to explain away a very simple and easily understood verse. If all have sinned, and every one turned to his own way, then those person's iniquities were laid on Jesus. You present the ridiculous argument that Isaiah was only reproving the elect, when the book of John quotes this chapter to show it was speaking of unbelievers.

John 12:37 But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: 38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?

The verse quoted here is Isa 53:1.

Isaiah was speaking of unbelievers in chapter 53 as clearly confirmed in John 12.

 

[Van]

Post #12 represents the very behavior that creates divisions within the body of Christ. Rather than making the minimum assumptions it makes huge ones. Has every person go astray? Yes, both those that will be saved and those who will not be saved. So the all refers to everyone and not some segment. Next, we get we have turned everyone to his own way. Again this must refer to everyone and not to a segment of mankind such as the imagined non-elect. And then it says the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. To make the assumption is this not also taking about everyone, that the author is creating a confusing sentence is not the minimalist approach. Thus the views of some, like me say it is absurd to read that much (the introduction of the elect only without any mention in context). But others do not care, they must expand, reduce and alter scripture as necessary to support what they believe it really says. Thus scripture is interpreted through the lens of overarching doctrine which results when doctrines differ in divisions within the body of Christ. Ephesians 4:1-3 should prevent such behavior but instead, that passage is understood not to apply. And the beat goes on.