Hermeneutics: Interpreting Scripture
- Thread starter GWH
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I have to point out that "justness" is not the same thing as "righteousness", for even a corrupt and wicked judge can occasionally dispense justice; Jesus told a parable to this effect.
The statement, "God is just" means that when He exercises judgment, it is always without partiality for any reason, and that He takes into account all relevant evidence. As an aside, He's also not bound by human legalese like a statute of limitations.
One of the key lessons (for me) from my seminary training was a brief exercise where we read a passage and then summarized what it said about God. Most of the students (myself included) extrapolated from the text. The professor gently corrected us, explaining that the text says exactly what it says and no more. So in our studies, we do well to resist the temptation to claim the text says more (or different) than it actually does.
The statement, "God is just" means that when He exercises judgment, it is always without partiality for any reason, and that He takes into account all relevant evidence. As an aside, He's also not bound by human legalese like a statute of limitations.
One of the key lessons (for me) from my seminary training was a brief exercise where we read a passage and then summarized what it said about God. Most of the students (myself included) extrapolated from the text. The professor gently corrected us, explaining that the text says exactly what it says and no more. So in our studies, we do well to resist the temptation to claim the text says more (or different) than it actually does.
That will be a catastrophic blow for so many churches.
How could you do that?
Paul,
No, you can NOT have unity without agreeing on one interpretation of scripture. For example, if we do not agree with Paul's answer to the Philippian jailer in ACTS 16:31 that in order to be saved we must believe in the Lord Jesus, then we will not be in the one body of Christ, and if we do not agree with Jesus' prayer for unity in JN 17:20, then we will not be ecumenically minded.
No, it is NOT the quest to settle on one interpretation of scripture that causes disunity, but rather apathy about the same.
Yes, we know only in part (1 Cor. 13:9, 12), so our knowledge and unity will not be perfect, but we can try to be better at answering the prayer of Jesus.
Regarding 1CR 8:1-3, since all of us (two Pauls + me who named my son Paul) are sharing what we think we know, obviously we should agree the passage does NOT mean the solution is to know nothing but rather to know or discern correctly and humbly (cf. MT 7:3-5)--no papal infallibility.
Regarding remaining in fellowship with those who hold different interpretations of scripture: Obviously that does not include those who hold a different gospel (GL 1:6-9). Do we have agreement/unity on this interpretation of Scripture?
If we can achieve agreement/unity regarding these interpretations, then we should be able to agree on more, and so I would like for us to explore how much we agree on before we begin to diverge. Did you agree with me regarding the Scriptures I have posted above summarizing the doctrinal points implicit in ACTS 16:31, 2CR 4:5 & CL 2:6? Are there any more Scriptures you wonder if we agree on?
No, you can NOT have unity without agreeing on one interpretation of scripture. For example, if we do not agree with Paul's answer to the Philippian jailer in ACTS 16:31 that in order to be saved we must believe in the Lord Jesus, then we will not be in the one body of Christ, and if we do not agree with Jesus' prayer for unity in JN 17:20, then we will not be ecumenically minded.
No, it is NOT the quest to settle on one interpretation of scripture that causes disunity, but rather apathy about the same.
Yes, we know only in part (1 Cor. 13:9, 12), so our knowledge and unity will not be perfect, but we can try to be better at answering the prayer of Jesus.
Regarding 1CR 8:1-3, since all of us (two Pauls + me who named my son Paul) are sharing what we think we know, obviously we should agree the passage does NOT mean the solution is to know nothing but rather to know or discern correctly and humbly (cf. MT 7:3-5)--no papal infallibility.
Regarding remaining in fellowship with those who hold different interpretations of scripture: Obviously that does not include those who hold a different gospel (GL 1:6-9). Do we have agreement/unity on this interpretation of Scripture?
If we can achieve agreement/unity regarding these interpretations, then we should be able to agree on more, and so I would like for us to explore how much we agree on before we begin to diverge. Did you agree with me regarding the Scriptures I have posted above summarizing the doctrinal points implicit in ACTS 16:31, 2CR 4:5 & CL 2:6? Are there any more Scriptures you wonder if we agree on?
I have to point out that "justness" is not the same thing as "righteousness", for even a corrupt and wicked judge can occasionally dispense justice; Jesus told a parable to this effect.
The statement, "God is just" means that when He exercises judgment, it is always without partiality for any reason, and that He takes into account all relevant evidence. As an aside, He's also not bound by human legalese like a statute of limitations.
One of the key lessons (for me) from my seminary training was a brief exercise where we read a passage and then summarized what it said about God. Most of the students (myself included) extrapolated from the text. The professor gently corrected us, explaining that the text says exactly what it says and no more. So in our studies, we do well to resist the temptation to claim the text says more (or different) than it actually does.
The statement, "God is just" means that when He exercises judgment, it is always without partiality for any reason, and that He takes into account all relevant evidence. As an aside, He's also not bound by human legalese like a statute of limitations.
One of the key lessons (for me) from my seminary training was a brief exercise where we read a passage and then summarized what it said about God. Most of the students (myself included) extrapolated from the text. The professor gently corrected us, explaining that the text says exactly what it says and no more. So in our studies, we do well to resist the temptation to claim the text says more (or different) than it actually does.
I have to point out that even Satan can appear as an angel of justness and righteousness. A broken clock that is right twice a day is just lucky.
Re God's just judgments, they could also be termed right judgments.
Re reading what a text says: Did the professor only quote Scripture and say no more?
What do key Scriptures say in your opinion? Do you agree with me regarding the Scriptures I have posted above summarizing the doctrinal points implicit in ACTS 16:31, 2CR 4:5 & CL 2:6? Are there any more Scriptures you would hope we agree on?
RA,
I trust you realize that the "things" Paul speaks of in 1CR 2:13-14 includes the Scripture that I am hoping we can agree on. I have suggested the need to agree on those I have posted above summarizing the doctrinal points implicit in ACTS 16:31, 2CR 4:5 & CL 2:6. Are there any more Scriptures you believe to be key or of primary importance that you would hope we agree on?
I trust you realize that the "things" Paul speaks of in 1CR 2:13-14 includes the Scripture that I am hoping we can agree on. I have suggested the need to agree on those I have posted above summarizing the doctrinal points implicit in ACTS 16:31, 2CR 4:5 & CL 2:6. Are there any more Scriptures you believe to be key or of primary importance that you would hope we agree on?
Hello,
I was taught and firmly believe that scripture is best understood "IN IT'S MOST NORMAL, NATURAL CUSTOMARY SENSE, EXCEPT FOR OBVIOUS PARABLES, ILLUSTRATIONS ETC..."
the original languages of Scripture was written in the language of common man of the day and was meant to be understood by all.
Clarence
I was taught and firmly believe that scripture is best understood "IN IT'S MOST NORMAL, NATURAL CUSTOMARY SENSE, EXCEPT FOR OBVIOUS PARABLES, ILLUSTRATIONS ETC..."
the original languages of Scripture was written in the language of common man of the day and was meant to be understood by all.
Clarence
1 Corinthians 2:13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
I take it you think that 1CR 2:13 and GL 5:1 are Scriptures that shape your faith, and I agree with you, so we have unity so far, and my goal on this thread is to see how far our unanimity will go before we disagree regarding an interpretation of Scripture.
Do you agree with my summary of the Scriptural points implicit in ACTS 16:31, 2CR 4:5 & CL 2:6? Are there any more Scriptures you would hope we agree on?