Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | denominations. | Eph 4:3 | Hank | 148929 | ||
Ed, I believe I know what you're asking, but if this response is way off target, please let me know. ..... Interpretation is of two kinds. One is objective ("good") interpretation, which is synonymous with exegesis, in which ages-old principles of interpretation are carefully observed, such as, for example, context, semantics, historical and cultural settings, and synthesis -- the combining of Scripture segments to form a cohert whole, i.e., allowing Scripture to be its own interpreter by comparing Scripture with Scripture. In exegesis all possible meanings are carefully weighed and evaluated with the aid of and in the light of these established principles. The other is subjective ("bad") interpretation, which is synonymous with eisegesis. This is a personal interpretation of the text using one's own ideas and not infrequently imposing one's preconceived ideas on the text in an effort to force the text to say what it does not say, while ignoring the standard conventions and exacting methods set down by exegesis. Some examples, although extreme, of the possible blunders of subjective interpretation would be to teach that God commands all believers to build arks, as He did Noah; or that all who come to Christ will be struck blind for three days and commanded to go to Damascus, as Paul was. These examples, albeit absurd, are only slightly more absurd than some of the things that are being passed off as biblical truth in some churches in our time. Ed, I believe that it has always been of utmost importance, and is no less important still, to follow the command of 2 Timothy 2:15 to be diligent to divide rightly the word of truth. And yes, I see it as self-evident in today's conflicting teachings in the splintered church that a great deal of personal (subjective, bad) interpretation has most definitely led to doctrine, and false doctrine at that. Examples are not hard to find. --Hank | ||||||
2 | denominations. | Eph 4:3 | EdB | 148936 | ||
Hank I think we are traveling down the same road but let us see after you read this. You said, "One is objective ("good") interpretation, which is synonymous with exegesis, in which ages-old principles of interpretation are carefully observed, such as, for example, context, semantics, historical and cultural settings, and synthesis -- the combining of Scripture segments to form a cohert whole, i.e., allowing Scripture to be its own interpreter by comparing Scripture with Scripture. In exegesis all possible meanings are carefully weighed and evaluated with the aid of and in the light of these established principles." Let focus first on the last sentence, "In exegesis all possible meanings are carefully weighed and evaluated with the aid of and in the light of these established principles." Carefully weighed and evaluated! Interesting and right sounding but who decides? When I carefully weigh and evaluate I pay little attention to historical social customs because I believe the Bible was written for all people of all times. However there are many that pay great importance to historical social customs saying they actually effect the real meaning of the passage. Therefore the outcome is two entirely different interpretations of the same verse based on seemingly right reasons. Was this God intent or have we allowed our liberty to take us to a place we should have never visited? I believe God gave men the true intent of the passage when they wrote it and there was no doubt in their mind what God meant. However we in our righteous stand of Sola Scriptura have all but eliminated any apostolic testimony from our decision. You also said, “"One is objective ("good") interpretation, which is synonymous with exegesis, in which ages-old principles of interpretation…” Let us look at age old principles of interpretation. How many that are reading and interpreting the Bible for themselves know even one “ages-old principle” ? I think the forum proves most people do their own interpretation and reach their conclusions and have no idea that the word exegesis exists let alone defines how something should be interpreted. In effect the Christian community has thrown off all requirement to seek God’s meaning of a passage and replaced it with the requirement that the passage should mean what we think God is saying about this passage. I resist using a specific example but I think we need one. One the issue of tithing, many claiming correct exegesis claims it is for today, others using the same argument says it was condition of the law and we are free of the law so it does not apply. Others say yes it applies but means before tax money and still others say it is referring to expendable income only. The church by in large remains under- funded while some ministries that are only after money have money to waste. Yet all were based on what we have termed exegesis and all have scripture to support their position. Yet we know God intended for the church to be funded to meet the “real” needs of Christian community benevolence, missions, salaries, indebtedness and etc. |
||||||
3 | denominations. | Eph 4:3 | Morant61 | 148938 | ||
Greetings Ed! Excellent example my friend! It is much easier to discuss a real example rather than an abstract. Allow me to make a couple of points about your example. 1) There is not a single command to the church to tithe - period! 2) There are plenty of commands to the church to give. So, to me this is quite simple. Demanding 'tithing' when there isn't a single verse that commands Christians to do so is an example of eisgesis. The same 'effect' can be accomplished by simply focusing on what Scripture does say, that we are to give and support those who minister. Problem solved! ;-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | denominations. | Eph 4:3 | EdB | 148952 | ||
Tim You said, "The same 'effect' can be accomplished by simply focusing on what Scripture does say, that we are to give and support those who minister. Problem solved!" But is this all we are to support just whose who minister? What about benevolence, missions, support groups, facility. Not all of this is mentioned in scripture should we not support them. Then how much? Is a dollar’s support enough? Or ten dollars? Or 10 percent before taxes or 10 percent after or should I give only what is left in my budget? Again none of this is discussed in New Testament. Does that mean all the blessing of Malachi can't be enjoyed by me today since tithing isn't in the New Testament. So who sets the guidelines, do we submit to earthly authority? Or just let every one do what seem right in their eyes? Or do we continue with principals that were established in the Old Testament? Since I’m sola scruiptura and must be convinced by scripture alone and there is no mention of building maintenance support I’m only giving to support the preacher. Also music minister is on his own since I don’t like all that singing anyhow. EdB |
||||||
5 | denominations. | Eph 4:3 | Morant61 | 148987 | ||
Greetings EdB! Again, I would ask my friend, who do you think should decide? Would you be content for me to tell you what Scripture means? Would you be content for Searcher to tell you? Suppose several of us got together as a group, would you be content for the group to decide for you? I understand your frustration, but there is no workable solution. I would not be content for you to tell me what a verse means, if I can read it and it obviously doesn't say what you claimed. :-) So, what would your solution be my friend? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6 | denominations. | Eph 4:3 | EdB | 148992 | ||
Tim I did not say I had a solution nor do I really offer one. My complaint is while Sola Scriptura and boldly stating every man can decide for himself sounds good, it has opened the door for the mess we are in. In truth I’m tired of everyone claiming Sola Scriptura and inventing, holding, arguing, and forcing down the throat of everyone else their view. I’m also very concerned over the increasing divisions within the church. I’m beginning to see denominations fracturing within themselves further isolating one body of believers from genuine fellowship with other believers. I suspect the only real way to fix the problem would be to take the established doctrine of the church in say 100 AD and uncover the; what, when, why, where and how come of each doctrine. Requiring it to be traced by proper exegesis to scripture and/or oral explanation by an apostle. Then use that as litmus test and say any that does hold or modifies these teachings is not a true Christian. Incidently Sola Scriptura would not be one, that is a fairly recent concept and one that was not practiced in the church for 1500 years. EdB |
||||||
7 | denominations. | Eph 4:3 | Morant61 | 149026 | ||
Greetings EdB! Methinks that you are giving 'Sola Scriptura' a bad rap! ;-) This doctrine does not say that we can make Scripture say anything that we want it to say. It simply says that Scripture is the only source for faith and practice - i.e. that neither you nor anyone else can force a teaching down my throat unless it is found in Scripture. ;-) Sola Scriptura is about submiting to the authority of God as revealed in His Word. It is not about 'deciding for myself' what I want to submit to! There are many things in Scripture that I wish I could take out! ;-) But, because I have submitted myself to God and His Word, I can't! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
8 | denominations. | Eph 4:3 | EdB | 149035 | ||
Tim There is an ancillary side of sola scriptura that no one ever wants to discuss. That is every man would decide for himself what scripture is saying. Forget training, forget understanding of social/historical customs and traditions, the social and economic pressures Christians were facing and in some cases the scripture is addressing. If you try to bring those into to focus people will say I don’t see it in the Bible therefore that should have no effect. While others will excuse away much because they say this was just addressing a one time situation or a custom or social tradition of the time. There are definite prohibitions listed in the Bible, one groups takes them as finite and follows them to the letter, another group tempers them and bends them saying this is addressing a situation that doesn’t really exist today, another group embraces what was prohibited saying the prohibition was merely resolving an issue in that one circumstance and God never intended it for today. Look around the homosexual agenda is making inroads into the church convincing people that the prohibition was addressing prostitution not the act of homosexuality. And the people have thrown off the restraint of earthly council saying I can decide for myself what God meant here. Of course I agree that no law, doctrine, ordinance be made that is not specifically in the Bible. I have no problem with that what I have the problem with is everyone deciding for themselves what exactly the Bible says. We see in scripture that God established earthly council setting in place the five ministry positions and that man has continually resisted that council. In almost every case of resistance the word “my interpretation of scripture says thus and such so I stand in ‘opposition’ to you.” The word ‘opposition’ should be ‘rebellion’ if we believe God in fact is sovereign and places those in one of those five ministry positions that he desires to be in there. EdB |
||||||