Rules of Biblical Interpretation

[TCGreek]

The passage in question:
1 Timothy 2:11-13 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

The principle that Paul sets forth, that is the why and the reason for the commands:'
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

This has nothing to do with the passage in question. Women are not to have authority over men or to teach men. So what if some in another church were trouble-makers. That is a red herring.

This was a fulfillment of prophecy; a unique and special event that happened during the first century. The spiritual gifts have ceased. This doesn't take place today. Even then it was not common for the women to prophecy. It was for the men to prophecy, preach, etc. Not for the women. To admit that this is a common thing for the women is a contradiction of Scripture. It contradicts the requirements of a deacon and a pastor. The word deacon is simply one that serves. It would include the one who prophesies, etc.

Phoebe was not a "deaconess" per se. The word means servant as it is correctly translated in the KJV. Diakonos simply means servant and should thus be translated also. A deacon is simply a servant, and nothing more. We put too much stress on the "office" of a deacon. Even the old English word "office" had more to do with "service" than that of holding any position.

Prominent in what way? Does it say that they had authority over men or that they were teachers of men?

There is nothing that you have said to warrant such a conclusion.

Yep! That's why I never prevented letting my wife step in the ring with Mohammed Ali.
She also plays one on one with Shaq.
She's entering the Olympics hoping to get gold in weight-lifting.

Where does the Bible say that "role distinctions" have been nullified? TC are you the one that gets pregnant in your family and gives birth to the children? Are you sure there is no role distinction??

DHK,

You've just demonstrated why I'm not Egalitarian.

The arguments that I employed in the above were largely taken from Gordon Fee's commentary on the Pastorals and also from How to read a Bible for All it's Worth?

I'm not sure if I've done the Egalitarian full just, but that is how they principally argument their position.

I remember reading the late NT scholar FF Bruce on the issue, and he too is Egalitarian, and he makes the same arguments that Gordon Fee makes.

 

[TCGreek]

The passage in question:
1 Timothy 2:11-13 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

The principle that Paul sets forth, that is the why and the reason for the commands:'
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

1. Paul use of the creation account was simply to illustrate a local point and must not be viewed as a universal prohibition but only local.

This has nothing to do with the passage in question. Women are not to have authority over men or to teach men. So what if some in another church were trouble-makers. That is a red herring.

2. Only a red herring if I had said the church at Philippi, but I referred to women in Ephesus (5:11-15; 2 Tim 3:6-9).

This was a fulfillment of prophecy; a unique and special event that happened during the first century. The spiritual gifts have ceased. This doesn't take place today. Even then it was not common for the women to prophecy. It was for the men to prophecy, preach, etc. Not for the women. To admit that this is a common thing for the women is a contradiction of Scripture. It contradicts the requirements of a deacon and a pastor. The word deacon is simply one that serves. It would include the one who prophesies, etc.

3. Paul says that women prayed and prophesied in Corinth and there're no reasons why these acts in question were not done in the local assembly.

Phoebe was not a "deaconess" per se. The word means servant as it is correctly translated in the KJV. Diakonos simply means servant and should thus be translated also. A deacon is simply a servant, and nothing more. We put too much stress on the "office" of a deacon. Even the old English word "office" had more to do with "service" than that of holding any position.

4. 4. I quite agree with your use of diaconos but from Rom 16:1-3 Phoebe was no doubt in leadership position at Cenchreae.

Prominent in what way? Does it say that they had authority over men or that they were teachers of men?

There is nothing that you have said to warrant such a conclusion.

5. Once you understand that these aristocratic women were influenced by the false teachers at Ephesus and totally disrespected the men at Ephesus, you'll understand that Paul's prohibition is only local.

Yep! That's why I never prevented letting my wife step in the ring with Mohammed Ali.
She also plays one on one with Shaq.
She's entering the Olympics hoping to get gold in weight-lifting.

6. Now you arguing from a woman's physical make up.

Where does the Bible say that "role distinctions" have been nullified? TC are you the one that gets pregnant in your family and gives birth to the children? Are you sure there is no role distinction??

7. A woman will always be a woman, and a man will always be a man; but in light of the question before us, Gal 3:28 answers your concerns.

 

[TCGreek]

HP: I appreciate your willingness to engage in discussion. I fully understand that we are NOT necessarily dealing with a position you hold, and realize that you are at this time trying to establish a point of view from Scripture ‘as if though’ it was your position.

I have to agree with DHK on this one so far. Although I have heard some of these arguments made in the past, I believe them to be lame and in no wise established by wisdom or in light of sound rules of interpretation or in accordance to any other truth God has revealed to man.

Paul clearly states that regardless of any or all positions women might or might not hold within the assembly, women were not to teach men nor to usurp authority over the man within the assembly.

If you so desire, try taking any single one of the references you gave, and again, examine it carefully in light of sound biblical rules of interpretation. Take the one that you feel might best support the notion of spiritual equality, and expound on that one reference, again in light of rules of biblical interpretation. Try to give supporting evidence, much as I attempted on the passage of Psalms 51:5, if you have kept up with that discussion at all.

Well, I've notice a few things with your above posts on Ps 51:5:

1. It seems like the perspecuity of the OT is in question.

2. I'm interested in how you established your rules of interpretation. Were they arbitrary or did you get them from a book? How did you establish the rules?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TCGreek: Well, I've notice a few things with your above posts on Ps 51:5:

1. It seems like the perspecuity of the OT is in question.

HP: Why would you say that?

TCG: 2. I'm interested in how you established your rules of interpretation. Were they arbitrary or did you get them from a book? How did you establish the rules?

HP: The rules I posted are NOT original with me. I believe they were established by a man used mightily of the Lord 150 years or so ago. I took the liberty to slightly amend one of the rules them to include the ideas of “historical/ cultural.” Other than that I had no part in their development. I feel they are very well stated and carry with them all the basic tools of a fair and balanced approach needed to interpret the Scriptures fairly and accurately. Prayer is not mentioned, but that is a given.

 

[BobRyan]

1. Paul affirms that when ALL come together ALL have a "prohecy, a tongue or a teaching" in 1Cor 14 and in that 1Cor 14 context he does not require that "only some men be allowed to speak".

2. Prophetess Anna speaks in synagogue at the presentation of the Messiah on the 8th day according to the gospels.

3. Deborah serves as both prophetess and judge of Israel.

But of course those two examples are before women were freed under the Gospel to remain silent if men are present in church.

Many churches today allow their women to sing in the congregation, some allow them to pray from the pulpit, many allow them to give announcements from the pulpit -- even to tell children's stories while men are still in the congregation during church!!

Hard to believe - but it happens!

And so we see that the practice of 1Cor 14 did not differ so much even from our own practice today. Particularly consistent with Paul's Eph 2 teaching that there is no spiritual distinction (in spiritual matters) between Jews and Greeks, slave and free, male and female.

The Spiritual law is that there is no difference between male and female as Paul instructs us in Eph 2.
The Bible "example" is that we have prophetess activity in the case of Deborah and Miriam and others "in scripture" (for those that have 66 books in their bibles ) and we have the NT example of Anna and Philip's daughters and all the women of Corinth.

Do you suppose there just might happen to be any other Scriptures that might have something to say concerning this issue?

And by the way, BR, are you certain that the “Prophetess Anna speaks in the synagogue?” Was it in the outer court or in the inner sanctuary? That might make a slight difference you know.

I doubt that it matters because in both places "men were present at a religious service" which is the only objection today to hearing a woman speak (even today by those who imagine that women's voices can not be heard in "the right" church service).

HP
As for “Deborah serving as both prophetess and judge of Israel” was this not a sign of weakness concerning the men of her day?

Miriam was a prophetess according to scripture so also many others listed in both OT and NT and in no case does God say "this gift is given to women only because men are weak".

In fact in 1Cor 12 God "claims" to be giving the gifts out "to each one as he pleases" -- the argument that "God does it wrong some times but that is just because men are making him do it wrong - by being weak" is hard to sustain "sola scriptura".

This would be like saying that because Israel had a King it must have been God’s will that it was so,

If "being King" was a Spiritual Gift that COULD only happend at God's own initiative there would NEVER have been a "Northern Kingdom outside of the line of David" -- and as Samuel observes "they rejected God" not Samuel.

If you think that "the church will be given spiritual gifts by rejecting God" then I would say -- step one is to find a Biblical basis for the teaching.

Neither male nor female, slave or free, Jew or Greek is the "spiritual law" of the kingdom.

In fact in 1Cor 12 -- it is God's perogative "alone" to give out the gift of prophecy and in 1Cor 14 "EACH ONE has a tongue, a teaching, a revelation" -- there is no "ONLY MEN have these gifts" teaching in 1Cor 14 OR in 1Cor 12.

I am going with scripture on this one - and I think it is a good example of Biblical rules of interpretation.

Another good example is in the case of the "Loose salvation thread" regarding Matt 18.

That chapter shows "forgiveness revoked" by every measure of exegesis.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BR:
"That chapter shows "forgiveness revoked" by every measure of exegesis."

GE
This is for the strong to tackle! I am one of those weak ones who shall take the time to rather read the Puritans, forgive me!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I am very lucky - collected a good representation of the Puritans through the years from second hand shops and so on. Maybe I'm very selfish to keep it all for myself, but really don't have the time to share them here. Internet should be able to give enough to whoever may want to read them. I have the feeling too I'll just waste my time -- as often before on this Forum.

 

[BobRyan]

BR:
"That chapter shows "forgiveness revoked" by every measure of exegesis."

GE
This is for the strong to tackle! I am one of those weak ones who shall take the time to rather read the Puritans, forgive me!

The topic is "methods of Biblical interpretation" -- remember??:laugh:

(Or are you suggesting that the way we practice a sola-scriptura model for Bibical interpretation is not to read the bible - just Puritans?:tonofbricks:

 

[BobRyan]

The point is that in the "can you loose salvation" thread the subject of Matt 18 has come up - and the "response" to the "unpleasant teaching of Christ" is anything BUT "sound methods of Bible interpretation".

This begs the question on THIS thread - what do you when something you find in scripture "does not please you"? Do you "gloss over the details"? "flee to the Puritans??" - "refuse to study the chapter?" -

None of those "Bible avoidance solutions" showed up in the list given here on this thread for understanding a given text of scripture.

Does this mean that sinful human nature will simply "short circuit" the methods described here for interpreting scripture as soon as "we find something we don't like"???

Sadly - I think it does mean exactly that!j

(And note on this part of the message board that EACH time that happens -- the ones who EMBRACE the inconvenient details IN the TEXT that others "so desperately need to avoid" will continually raise "the text's details" and those fleeing from them will continually "flee" the points raised.)

So the question for this thread is - where does this fit in with our study of "best ways to read and accept scripture"? Do we then embrace the honesty of looking at the list provided here on THIS thread and admit that "feeing the details of scripture" IS NOT one of them??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

1Co 14:34 ¶ Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

HP: I am still waiting for a fair examination of these passages in light of an established set of rules of biblical interpretation. Take for instance the notions that are often floated. One is that there were women yelling across the isle in the assembly at their husbands asking them questions, and that these verses are location and time specific in that there were simply ‘some’ women in a particular place and at a particular time that were being drawn away by false teachings, and it was to these group alone in a specific time and place in which these prohibitions were directed. What about the notion “as saith the law’ in 1Cor. 14:34 all about?

Where is the supportive evidence for these ideas and how is any sound rule of biblical interpretation being used in the establishment of those ideas?

 

[TCGreek]

HP: Why would you say that?

Well, according to your post, you are using the NT to help you understand Ps 51:5. Why not work with Ps 51:5 in the context of OT theology and so on?

HP: The rules I posted are NOT original with me. I believe they were established by a man used mightily of the Lord 150 years or so ago. I took the liberty to slightly amend one of the rules them to include the ideas of “historical/ cultural.” Other than that I had no part in their development. I feel they are very well stated and carry with them all the basic tools of a fair and balanced approach needed to interpret the Scriptures fairly and accurately. Prayer is not mentioned, but that is a given.

I think they are fine rules, but as you and I know, it depends on the person in whose hands those tools end up.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TCGreek: Well, according to your post, you are using the NT to help you understand Ps 51:5. Why not work with Ps 51:5 in the context of OT theology and so on?

HP: I at least thought I was making an honest attempt at doing exactly that when I addressed the passage in light of the clear and substantiated position of the Jews which wrote the OT, in that they had no place in their theology for any such notion as original sin or constitutional depravity. I did my best to not simply state my opinions but to document works by one of the finest OT historians familiar with the culture and practices of the Jews in the day it was written, Alfred Edersheim, who testified clearly to the position I espoused.

I am certain I leave much room for improvement in anything I try to write or communicate. Hopefully I will improve at least somewhat over time.

 

[TCGreek]

HP: I at least thought I was making an honest attempt at doing exactly that when I addressed the passage in light of the clear and substantiated position of the Jews which wrote the OT, in that they had no place in their theology for any such notion as original sin or constitutional depravity. I did my best to not simply state my opinions but to document works by one of the finest OT historians familiar with the culture and practices of the Jews in the day it was written, Alfred Edersheim, who testified clearly to the position I espoused.

I am certain I leave much room for improvement in anything I try to write or communicate. Hopefully I will improve at least somewhat over time.

It seems to me that you are more indebted to what Edersheim said about the Rabbis than what the OT says about the issue.

Isn't one of the key rules of biblical interpretation is to do your own studies first and then consult other works?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TCGreek: It seems to me that you are more indebted to what Edersheim said about the Rabbis than what the OT says about the issue.

Isn't one of the key rules of biblical interpretation is to do your own studies first and then consult other works?

HP: Funny you would think that way. That is simply not the case. I had established my position on this issue years before I ever heard of Alfred Edersheim. I bought his books as resources, having NO earthly idea as to how he felt on the issues. His books were not recommended to me, nor had I ever heard or read a single quote from the man before buying his books and started to read them. Needless to say, what I found was a man that seemed bent on establishing the truth of the matter, even when the truth held by the Jews ran counter to his own established views on the matter. It is a rare thing to see a man that would hold truth in such a high regard, that even when he had the opportunity to suppress the truth concerning the beliefs of the Jews or any other, (and it most likely would have been to the advancement of his own ideas), he did not even at the expense of providing fodder for a view counter to his own. I like that open honesty in a writer. That is indeed a rare commodity these days. I see his works as an invaluable resource into the life and times of not only Christ, but life and beliefs as they existed in the days of the Temple. I owe a great debt of gratitude towards many of those old wise and godly writers that have gave me insight I otherwise would not have been privy to. Just the same , I certainly do not hold their writings, or the writings of any other man or women, in the same light as I do Scripture.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TCGreek: Isn't one of the key rules of biblical interpretation is to do your own studies first and then consult other works?

HP: No, as a matter of fact it is not. In my case my studies began on the knee of a godly mother and in the home of my godly father who lived a life before me in such a way as to command my faith to accept what they taught me as truth. As I matured in the Lord, some issues have changed for me over the years. God does not reveal truth by Scripture alone. In dealing with some issues Scripture is NOT the best source of evidence to establish the truth. If one is seeking the beliefs of the culture of the Jews, certainly Scripture is a source, but many of their own writing in some cases shed light upon their culture and beliefs that cannot be gleaned from Scripture alone. Many ideas in matters of truth and justice are ingrained in our conscience by God from our youth up in a way that without which one could not approach any writings without some idea gained outside of Scripture as to their meanings. Ideas of right and wrong, although primitive at best, are engrained within our conscience long before the first page of Scripture could ever be understood.

It is not a matter of what necessarily needs to be examined first, but rather that we examine every source of truth available to us from whatever means God places at our disposal. I fully understand that when it comes to the writings of men, much caution is in order. Just the same, for one, such as we have witnessed at least one on this list, to insinuate or act as if though they have not been influenced by the dogmas established by other men, and that they have arrived at their opinions ‘sola scriptura,’ is about as believable as if they told me they dropped in from Mars on a spaceship. Whether or not one desires to face the facts or not, we all have been influenced by individuals and dogmas in so many ways apart from our own studies ‘sola scriptura’ that to believe otherwise might be viewed in comparison to an ostrich with their head stuck in the sand.

No man approaches Scripture from a vacuum of knowledge gained form multiple sources. The key is to be honest enough to examine what we believe honestly and openly in light of any source of God-instilled or God- provided knowledge in whatever order we are granted it. We need to have or develop the metal fortitude to allow our beliefs to be challenged openly to the end that we can not only establish the validity of our own beliefs, but to learn how to help others in areas they by themselves are in want to see.

God uses others in the development and dissemination of truth within the body of Christ. If we were to establish a rule of biblical interpretation that states we should always do our own studies first, that would certainly curtail the work of all religious education, would it not? Religious education would consist of four walls with desks with a Bible on each one, with a guard at the door insuring that no one influenced any other until they had done all the study possible on their own first.......which of course could never be changed for we all should be studying and learning our entire lifetime.

Any such rule as you suggest would seem to me as not only impractical but logically impossible to follow.

 

[TCGreek]

HP: No, as a matter of fact it is not. In my case my studies began on the knee of a godly mother and in the home of my godly father who lived a life before me in such a way as to command my faith to accept what they taught me as truth. As I matured in the Lord, some issues have changed for me over the years. God does not reveal truth by Scripture alone. In dealing with some issues Scripture is NOT the best source of evidence to establish the truth. If one is seeking the beliefs of the culture of the Jews, certainly Scripture is a source, but many of their own writing in some cases shed light upon their culture and beliefs that cannot be gleaned from Scripture alone. Many ideas in matters of truth and justice are ingrained in our conscience by God from our youth up in a way that without which one could not approach any writings without some idea gained outside of Scripture as to their meanings. Ideas of right and wrong, although primitive at best, are engrained within our conscience long before the first page of Scripture could ever be understood.

1. I really thought you were interested in understanding the sacred Scriptures.

2. All the truths we need to be thoroughly equipped before God are preserved in Scripture:"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:16, 17, NIV).

I really do believe what the Bible says. The sacred Scripture is enough. That's what I see in these verses.

It is not a matter of what necessarily needs to be examined first, but rather that we examine every source of truth available to us from whatever means God places at our disposal. I fully understand that when it comes to the writings of men, much caution is in order. Just the same, for one, such as we have witnessed at least one on this list, to insinuate or act as if though they have not been influenced by the dogmas established by other men, and that they have arrived at their opinions ‘sola scriptura,’ is about as believable as if they told me they dropped in from Mars on a spaceship. Whether or not one desires to face the facts or not, we all have been influenced by individuals and dogmas in so many ways apart from our own studies ‘sola scriptura’ that to believe otherwise might be viewed in comparison to an ostrich with their head stuck in the sand.

3. I'm not speaking of scientific truths here; rather, I'm speaking of truths so that we may be thoroughly equipped to please God.

No man approaches Scripture from a vacuum of knowledge gained form multiple sources. The key is to be honest enough to examine what we believe honestly and openly in light of any source of God-instilled or God- provided knowledge in whatever order we are granted it. We need to have or develop the metal fortitude to allow our beliefs to be challenged openly to the end that we can not only establish the validity of our own beliefs, but to learn how to help others in areas they by themselves are in want to see.

4. So it is not rules of biblical interpretations. Rather, they are rules of how to prove that the traditions of a particular church are true.

God uses others in the development and dissemination of truth within the body of Christ. If we were to establish a rule of biblical interpretation that states we should always do our own studies first, that would certainly curtail the work of all religious education, would it not? Religious education would consist of four walls with desks with a Bible on each one, with a guard at the door insuring that no one influenced any other until they had done all the study possible on their own first.......which of course could never be changed for we all should be studying and learning our entire lifetime.

5. I've been taught in seminary to study the text first for myself and then compare my conclusions against the efforts of others.

The apostle Paul would be proud of me, for it is he who says, "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth" (2 Tim 2:15, TNIV).

Any such rule as you suggest would seem to me as not only impractical but logically impossible to follow.

6. So it becomes, not about trying to understand the Scripture as it is, but trying to prove already established traditions.

Well, that might work for you but not for me.

Paul told Timothy the following: "Reflect on what I am saying, for the Lord will give you insight into all this" (2 Tim 2:7, TNIV).

I like Paul better. :thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TCGreek: I like Paul better. :thumbs:

HP: I like Paul as well! I am a Paulinist. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TCGreek: 2. All the truths we need to be thoroughly equipped before God are preserved in Scripture:"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:16, 17, NIV). I really do believe what the Bible says. The sacred Scripture is enough. That's what I see in these verses.

HP: Before you can read the first word of Scripture, God has already began to enlighten you to truth in some measure, without which you could not grasp the concepts which Scripture portrays. Even the heathen have some knowledge of God, right and wrong, selfishness and benevolence.


What do you mean by ‘enough?’ Enough of, or for, what?
If you are saying that Scripture is all we need for truth, can you establish that by this text? You simply saying that it does in no wise provides any evidence to enlighten the listener. If a shoe cobbler tells us that he is the best cobbler in town, is his statement all the evidence one needs to believe him?

 

[TCGreek]

HP: Before you can read the first word of Scripture, God has already began to enlighten you to truth in some measure, without which you could not grasp the concepts which Scripture portrays. Even the heathen have some knowledge of God, right and wrong, selfishness and benevolence.


What do you mean by ‘enough?’ Enough of, or for, what?

1. What happened to Lydia is what happens to everyone who understands truth and comes to God. God must first open their hearts (Acts 16:14)

If you are saying that Scripture is all we need for truth, can you establish that by this text? You simply saying that it does in no wise provides any evidence to enlighten the listener. If a shoe cobbler tells us that he is the best cobbler in town, is his statement all the evidence one needs to believe him?

2. 2 Tim 3:16-17 says that Scripture is able to complete the believer:

"All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (HCSB, emphasis mine).

According to Paul, I don't need to go anywhere else.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TCGreek: According to Paul, I don't need to go anywhere else.

HP: This is not about ‘going anywhere, it is about where one has been in the post and the knowledge and light that one must of necessity bring to the advent of the hearing of the Gospel. The Scripture you bring to the table in no wise addresses the knowledge God grants to every man intuitively, that has nothing to do directly with the gospel message in the least, yet is necessary light for all to have antecedent to the gospel.

Truth should be consistent with truth. God does not reveal to us truth in Scripture that refutes intuitive truths, such as principles of justice, that are revealed to all moral agents intuitively by God. The point is that when we come to Scripture and our interpetation runs counter to the intuitve truths God grants to man, we can assure ourselves that we have misinterpreted Scripture. We have either erred as theologians or philosophers. To deny the validity of intuitive truths, such as truths concrning justice, is paramount to denying ones own personal physical existence. It obviously can be done but to the peril of truth.

You are toying with the truth of this passage, trying to make it say something it does not. There is a clear distinction between light of salvation and light to become ‘complete in Christ.’ There is necessary intuitive light granted to all moral agents subsequent to even hearing the first mention of the gospel, without which man could not understand the slight moral truth of the cure for our sinful intents and subsequent actions that salvation provides. Ro 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

Of a truth, God has not limited the truth of Himself or the truths necessary for moral agency, to those who have heard the gospel or read Scripture.