Subject: Study Bible Forum or Bible Philosophy |
Bible Note: EdB: "How much trouble am I in?" Now, Ed, you know I wouldn't touch that line with a ten-foot pole! :-) Let's discuss principles, not troubles. ...... As I read your post, a tale of two preachers came to mind. Several years ago my wife and I were members of a liberal church with a liberal preacher. Week after week we sat in the pew seeking to be fed, but we always went away as hungry as when we came. The preacher never quoted any Scripture. None. He dispensed little pallid 20-minute homilies from the pulpit about how nice it is to love one another and enjoy Christian fellowship. One could call these limp talks brief excursion into "Bible philosophy" I suppose. The pastor never gave a "thus says the Lord" for anything he said. No mention of sin, judgment, the Cross, redemption, atonement, repentence, regeneration, or hell. Not any of that. And not any Scripture. But -- and here's the kicker -- he didn't DISAGREE with biblical truths. He simply ignored them in the interests of not offending anyone. He developed a broad, sweeping "Bible philosophy" style that was as limp as a wet noodle. It had no meat. It had no substance. It was not the kind of message that Paul envisaged when he told young Timony to preach the word. ...... Eventually we changed churches. The pastor of the church to which we now belong is a man who does preach the word in season and out of season. He cites Scripture upon Scripture every time he comes to the pulpit. He gives a reason for the hope that lies in him, he cites a "thus says the Lord" as his authority for his faith and practice. He keeps the worshipers busy "searching the Scriptures" to see whether those things they are being taught are so. ..... So, we have a tale of two preachers. Given a choice, which had you rather sit under -- a Bible philosopher (whatever that means) or a preacher of the gospel of Christ? ..... No, Ed, I disagree with your premise. I believe you are in error here. Please think about this: I've never advocated on this Forum "proof texting" in the sense you use it. Major doctrines should be derived from much more biblical evidence than an isolated verse or two. But this does not invalidate the proper quoting of verses -- one or a hundred -- that clearly teach biblical truth, for all of them do. The error lies not in the text, but in faulty interpretation. One can draw erroneous conclusions from a single verse of Scripture. But one can draw erroneous conclusions from the entire Bible too. The person who makes broad, sweeping statements, who subscribes to "Bible philosophy" in place of the exact words of Scripture, is every bit as prone to error and bad teaching -- I should think he is even more so -- than the person who comes to the table with his "proof texts." Proof texting can be annoying when Scripture is twisted in an effort to prove an unbiblical doctrine. ...... But let's suppose someone comes and makes a broad, "philosophical" statement to the effect that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a myth and fable. How are you going to rebut him? What else can you do but cite the passages of Scripture that clearly attest to His resurrection? Are you not, in a certain sense, "proof texting" him? It carries little weight to respond in kind, i.e., to assert (without giving any scriptural references) that Christ did so rise from the dead. Your "philosophy" carries no more weight than his does. ...... I hear these "Bible philosophers" spout off their opinions frequently. Theses opinions are usually preceded by some phrase such as 'the Bible teaches this' or 'it says in the Bible that." A couple of weeks ago someone who had suffered a civil wrong and who had sufficient grounds to file suit for redress, said to me, "I don't plan to sue, because the Bible says its wrong." That was his "Bible philosophy." How are we to know whether this man was right or wrong unless we get more specific and find out whether the Bible forbids legal redress for wrongs inflicted? And how are we to know what the Bible teaches unless we produce a biblical text for it?. ...... I've rambled long enough, Ed. I maintain that it is impossible to engage in Bible study unless one studies the Bible. It is important to synthesize Scripture for an over view. But it is also important to analyze Scripture verse by verse. Each verse is true, each verse is vital, each verse has a relationship to the whole. Each brick has its own peculiar relationship to the whole structure, and it is wise to keep that relationship in mind while examining each brick, each verse of Scripture. But it is still important to examine each brick very carefully. One doesn't do that when he engages in broad sweeping statements, when he posts his opinions and conclusions which, he claims, is "Bible philosophy." --Hank |