Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is this verse referring to Christians | Luke 12:47 | winstonchurchill | 81641 | ||
The context would indicate that it is. Note Peter's question that prompts the answer: "Lord, are You addressing this parable to us, or to everyone else as well?" |
||||||
2 | Do parables alone prove doctrine? | Luke 12:47 | Radioman2 | 81643 | ||
Are parables alone sufficient to prove a doctrine? Many verses used to support the notion that a true believer can lose his salvation are taken from parables. This, in spite of the fact that clear verses of Scripture directly teach otherwise. I would not base a doctrine on parables (alone or primarily) -- not when there are so many clear passages of Scripture that support and establish doctrine. Although they have their place in Scripture, parables are easily misunderstood and misinterpreted. Too often people assign to parables meanings that simply are not there. Which of the following essentials of the historic Christian faith (basic Bible doctrines) are built PRIMARILY or ONLY on parables? None of them, not one. Rather they are based upon clear passages of Scripture taken at their face value. The essentials of the historic Christian faith include: the plenary inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures; the triune Godhead composed of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; the virgin birth and Deity of Christ, the necessity and efficacy of His atoning work; Christ's bodily resurrection and ascension; His imminent coming for His Church and His visible return to the earth; the everlasting felicity of the redeemed; and the everlasting punishment of the lost. Although there may be parables that teach or apply some truth(s) concerning the above basics, all of the above doctrinal truths are established in Scripture without depending primarily upon parables alone. |
||||||
3 | Do parables alone prove doctrine? | Luke 12:47 | winstonchurchill | 81696 | ||
While there are many fine Christians who believe in the concept of 'once saved, always saved', 'eternal security' or 'perserverance of the saints' (as Calvin initially phrased it), whether one accepts that view has more to do with whether one accepts the deterministic world view that Augustine and Calvin brought to the Scriptures rather than the Scriptures themselves. From your passing comments, I suspect that you and I would disagree on whether the Scriptures really teach a deterministic world view, but I think that issue misses the very interesting question you raise on the use and interpretation of parables. Prior to the last century, there was a strong tendency among Christian writers and thinkers to 'spiritualize' parables and assign detailed 'meanings' to every detail of a parable. Wonderful sermons were given in this manner, with the preacher supplying detailed explanations of the 'deeper meaning' of each detail of a parable. However, I believe that most Bible teachers and expositors addressing hermeneutics (i.e. the study of the methodological principles of interpretation) now agree that parables were intended by Christ to have a single point or, at most, a single thrust for each participant in the parable (although this latter view has somewhat less support). So, the better question is not whether a parable can teach a 'doctrine', but whether the asserted teaching of the parable (however categorized) is the central thrust of the parable or some spiritualization of a detail of the parable. The latter is an unreliable use of Scripture whether directed at a 'doctrine' or some other category of teaching. I think yours was a wonderful question because so many people tend to 'digitize' Scripture and ignore both the literary and historical context. By asking the question you raise that issue. |
||||||
4 | Do parables alone prove doctrine? | Luke 12:47 | BradK | 81701 | ||
Dear winstonchurchill, Welcome to the Forum! You do have an interesting screen name:-) I want to offer my acknowledgement of your wise and well spoken comments. I do concur with respect to interpreting Parables. Interestingly, I was recently studying the Parable of the Prodigal Son and came across an article on the same by the late D. Martin Lloyd-Jones. I thought a couple of his observations were worth repeating and would echo your comments. He makes two initial points: 1. "we must always beware of interpreting any portion of Scripture in a way that conflicts with the general teaching of Scripture elsewhere." 2. "we should always avoid the danger of drawing any negative conclusions from the teaching of a parable. This applies not only to this particular parable (Lk.15:24), but to all parables. A parable is never meant to be a full outline of truth. Its business is to convey one great lesson, to present one big aspect of positive truth." Speaking The Truth In Love, BradK |
||||||