Resolving Problematic Interpretations of Scripture

[OMC]

I think you are illustrating the truth that translation only transfers the task of interpretation from one language to another.

From that point correct understanding requires harmonizing relevant Scriptures, which is more art/not as scientific as translating.
I remember making this point with Paul Thompson while we were studying Ephesians--which I only mention because I am proud of remembering something--but do you agree with the need to discern meaning in English using hermeneutics after translating from Greek?

I hope so, because I consider harmonizing Scripture to be perhaps my main spiritual/logical gift that I can contribute.

I agree with you that translation alone never settles meaning; it only moves the interpretive task from Greek into English.
Once the text is in English, the real work begins — and that work is exactly what you’re describing: hermeneutics,
Translation gives us the words; interpretation gives us the sense.

But this is precisely why I pushed back on the use of Romans 3:11, Romans 8:7, and 1 Corinthians 2:14 in your argument.
When we harmonize Scripture, we have to harmonize contexts, not just phrases.
Romans 3:11 is Paul’s universal indictment of humanity in Adam; Romans 8:7 is Paul’s description of the fleshly mindset, which applies to unbelievers and carnal believers alike; and 1 Corinthians 2:14 is about illumination, not sanctification.
Harmonization doesn’t allow us to pull these passages into a category they weren’t addressing.

So yes — I absolutely agree that after translation, we must use hermeneutics to discern meaning in English.
And I agree that harmonizing Scripture is essential.
But harmonization must respect authorial intent, context, and category, or else we end up blending texts that are speaking to different aspects of human inability.

Your gift for harmonizing Scripture is valuable — but harmonization only works when the passages being harmonized are actually addressing the same doctrinal category.
That’s why I’m pressing you here: the distinction you’re making between moral free will and Spirit‑driven sanctification is coherent, but the verses you’re using don’t actually anchor that distinction.

 

[GWH]

I agree with you that translation alone never settles meaning; it only moves the interpretive task from Greek into English.
Once the text is in English, the real work begins — and that work is exactly what you’re describing: hermeneutics,
Translation gives us the words; interpretation gives us the sense.

But this is precisely why I pushed back on the use of Romans 3:11, Romans 8:7, and 1 Corinthians 2:14 in your argument.
When we harmonize Scripture, we have to harmonize contexts, not just phrases.
Romans 3:11 is Paul’s universal indictment of humanity in Adam; Romans 8:7 is Paul’s description of the fleshly mindset, which applies to unbelievers and carnal believers alike; and 1 Corinthians 2:14 is about illumination, not sanctification.
Harmonization doesn’t allow us to pull these passages into a category they weren’t addressing.

So yes — I absolutely agree that after translation, we must use hermeneutics to discern meaning in English.
And I agree that harmonizing Scripture is essential.
But harmonization must respect authorial intent, context, and category, or else we end up blending texts that are speaking to different aspects of human inability.

Your gift for harmonizing Scripture is valuable — but harmonization only works when the passages being harmonized are actually addressing the same doctrinal category.
That’s why I’m pressing you here: the distinction you’re making between moral free will and Spirit‑driven sanctification is coherent, but the verses you’re using don’t actually anchor that distinction.

Okay, but the verses I use to guide my understanding of Scripture are not those three but rather these two:

A biblical hermeneutic or parameters for interpreting the Bible might well begin with the instruction of Paul (1Thes. 5:21) to “Test everything. Hold on to the good.” A truthseeker is guided by the question: What is most true or closest to the truth, especially the Truth of God’s Word? The method for discerning truth employs subjective logic that is made as objective as possible by learning from Scriptural and other truthseekers. Two NT teachings may be deemed key points from which to triangulate or use to guide an interpretation of the Bible, especially problematic statements.

First, God loves and wants to save everyone. Scriptures teaching divine omnilove include: John 3:16, 1John 4:7-12, Rom. 5:8, Matt. 5:44&48, Gal. 5:6&14, Eph. 3:17b-19, Eph. 5:2 and 1Tim. 2:3-4. Christ died to show God’s love and the possible salvation of all (Rom. 5:6-8) including His enemies (ungodly, atheist, anti-Christ, heretics).

Second, God is just (2Thes. 1:6a, cf. Rom. 3:25-26 & 9:14, Deut. 32:4, Psa. 36:6, Luke 11:42, Rev. 15:3). Explanations of God’s Word should not impugn God’s justice and love for all people (Joel 2:13, John 3:16). This parameter is affirmed in the OT (Psa. 145:17): “The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.” Even the wrath of God is an expression of His love and justice.

The writer of Heb. 12:4-11 indicates that divine wrath is intended as discipline for the purpose of teaching people to repent of their hatefulness and faithlessness (Pro. 3:12, Isa. 33:14-15 Rev. 3:19). If a righteous explanation cannot be found for a passage of Scripture purporting to describe God’s will (such as Josh. 6:17-24, 8:2&24 & 10:28-40, 11:6-23), then it should be considered as historical or descriptive of what people perceived rather than as pedagogical or prescriptive of God’s nature. Unrighteous rage should not be attributed to God.

What verses/teachings do you keep in mind as guides while considering how to interpret Scripture?

 

[GWH]

I just received this insight regarding tulipism infecting Protestant Christianity with a heretical virus called heresy or blasphemy, implicitly demeaning God's justness and love for humanity: tulipists may be the best example of those who barely make it to heaven through the flames, if they did not realize what they were doing (1Cor. 3:15, Luke 23:34).

 

[GWH]

On Matthew 16:18, I understand what you’re saying about the gender of the nouns, but I don’t think the gender argument alone settles the issue.
It’s true that Petros is masculine and petra is feminine, and that Jesus uses two different words.
That does show a distinction, but the shift in gender is also required simply because Peter is a man—Jesus couldn’t call him “Petra” without using a feminine noun for a male.
So while the gender difference is real, it doesn’t automatically preclude Peter from being the referent of the “rock.”
The larger context—Jesus naming him, the confession he made, and the structure of the sentence—has to be weighed alongside the grammar.
As for Ephesians 2:8, the point I was referring to is the gender of the demonstrative pronoun touto (“that”).
It’s neuter, while both grace and faith are feminine.
Because of that mismatch, touto cannot grammatically refer to “faith,” which means Paul is not saying that faith itself is the gift. Instead, the pronoun points back to the entire salvation‑by‑grace‑through‑faith reality as the gift of God.
That’s the grammatical issue I was highlighting.

Re Matt. 16:18, the gender argument is an arrow in the anti-pope quiver along with Matt. 18:18 as context re Matt. 16:19.

Re Eph. 2:8, thanks for adding the constructive point, which was missing from the discussion of this on another thread,
and which jibes with "IN" in Eph. 1:3-15.

 

[OMC]

Re Matt. 16:18, the gender argument is an arrow in the anti-pope quiver along with Matt. 18:18 as context re Matt. 16:19.

Re Eph. 2:8, thanks for adding the constructive point, which was missing from the discussion of this on another thread,
and which jibes with "IN" in Eph. 1:3-15.

You are right that the gender argument in Matthew 16:18 is not the whole case — and I never claimed it was — but it is one legitimate arrow in the quiver against the idea that Peter is the foundational “rock.”
The masculine Petros and feminine petra do not prove the point alone, but they support it, especially when read alongside the broader context of Matthew 18:18, where Jesus gives the same “binding and loosing” authority to all the apostles, not to Peter uniquely.
That context matters.
Systems that elevate Peter above the others must ignore Jesus’ own distribution of authority.
As for Ephesians 2:8, you are exactly right to note that the neuter touto cannot grammatically refer to the feminine faith or grace, and your observation that this fits perfectly with the repeated “in Christ” structure of Ephesians 1:3–15 is spot‑on.
Paul’s point is not that faith is the gift, but that the entire salvation‑by‑grace‑through‑faith reality is God’s gift, given in Christ, not earned by human effort. I appreciate that you saw the constructive value of that grammatical point — it is often missing in discussions dominated by theological systems rather than Scripture itself.

 

[DenDog]

Matthew 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

I must confess that I have not heard of this TULIP before. But doing a little digging on this, it is brought about by Calvinism.
I do not follow such practices as, like with many "religions" they are not biblical.
Remember, Satan only intends to push you off the "straight and narrow road" just a little bit--enough to try and create a "sin nature." A nature that one becomes addicted to and cannot shake. This is where we seek Christ to come and deliver that one from their sin.

I am happy that this is a non-hostile conversation. I only joined this site a few days ago, jumped right in with both feet and got totally beat up by some on this sight. Made me wonder if there are any true Holy Ghost filled Christians on this site. I hope so.

 

[GWH]

You are right that the gender argument in Matthew 16:18 is not the whole case — and I never claimed it was — but it is one legitimate arrow in the quiver against the idea that Peter is the foundational “rock.”
The masculine Petros and feminine petra do not prove the point alone, but they support it, especially when read alongside the broader context of Matthew 18:18, where Jesus gives the same “binding and loosing” authority to all the apostles, not to Peter uniquely.
That context matters.
Systems that elevate Peter above the others must ignore Jesus’ own distribution of authority.
As for Ephesians 2:8, you are exactly right to note that the neuter touto cannot grammatically refer to the feminine faith or grace, and your observation that this fits perfectly with the repeated “in Christ” structure of Ephesians 1:3–15 is spot‑on.
Paul’s point is not that faith is the gift, but that the entire salvation‑by‑grace‑through‑faith reality is God’s gift, given in Christ, not earned by human effort. I appreciate that you saw the constructive value of that grammatical point — it is often missing in discussions dominated by theological systems rather than Scripture itself.

And thank you for showing how Eph. 2:8 jibes.

 

[GWH]

Matthew 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

I must confess that I have not heard of this TULIP before. But doing a little digging on this, it is brought about by Calvinism.
I do not follow such practices as, like with many "religions" they are not biblical.
Remember, Satan only intends to push you off the "straight and narrow road" just a little bit--enough to try and create a "sin nature." A nature that one becomes addicted to and cannot shake. This is where we seek Christ to come and deliver that one from their sin.

I am happy that this is a non-hostile conversation. I only joined this site a few days ago, jumped right in with both feet and got totally beat up by some on this sight. Made me wonder if there are any true Holy Ghost filled Christians on this site. I hope so.

Welcome to CC and to this thread. I think you will find congenial conversation on all of the threads I sponsor because I discourage arguing and playing verbal ping pong, but I can’t vouch for others, although you will encounter mostly friendly people and learn to ignore a few folks.

 

[Lanolin]

There seem to be many rabbit holes you can go down on CC
But if you come here just to fellowship and make friends, there are other forums on CC that are just as interesting on a myriad of topics. We don't ALWAYS need to discuss (or argue about) the Bible and doctrines in every single thread.

Am not sure where this hostility seems to come from, but some peeps are determined to impose their own personal beliefs on everyone else rather than just share what they have learned and experienced.

 

[GWH]

There seem to be many rabbit holes you can go down on CC
But if you come here just to fellowship and make friends, there are other forums on CC that are just as interesting on a myriad of topics. We don't ALWAYS need to discuss (or argue about) the Bible and doctrines in every single thread.

Am not sure where this hostility seems to come from, but some peeps are determined to impose their own personal beliefs on everyone else rather than just share what they have learned and experienced.

I find myself kept busy enough exploring this forum and the one on Christian Music.
I post on CC both to discuss my love of God's Word and music and to fellowship and make friends.
I intend never to argue but only to share what I believe God has taught me during my 75+ years.
Because of that intent, sometimes my sharing is more of a monologue than I intend, because I also
want to continue learning, and I share insights prompted by discussions on CC in the thread with that OP.
We know where hatred comes from, and one of the things I have learned/honed on CC is to resist that temptation.
Please feel free to reprove me in love if/when you notice me appearing to be immature/carnal/unloving.
Thanks!

 

[GWH]

Tulipism (aka the TULIP Doctrine)

A major blind spot or unintentional heresy held by many Christians in the Reformed denomination is known as the doctrine of TULIP (tulipism), which may be described as follows:

T – total depravity, meaning souls are unable to exercise sufficient MFW to seek salvation (contradicting Deut. 30:19, Matt. 7:7, 23:37).

U – unconditional election, meaning that souls need not satisfy a divine requirement/condition such as faith or repentance, but God chooses to save some while damning the rest to hell (contradicting Eph. 2:8-10).

L – limited atonement, meaning that Christ died to pay the penalty of sin only for elect souls (contra John 3:16, Rom. 3:21-5:1).

I – irresistible grace, meaning that elect souls cannot resist or refuse God’s will for them to be saved (cf. Matt, 23:37, 2Thes. 2:10-13).

P – perseverance of the saints, meaning that the elect cannot repudiate their salvation and commit apostasy/blasphemy, because God perseveres in keeping them saved (cf. Heb. 6:4-6, Matt. 12:31).

The orthodox viewpoint opposed to TULIP may be termed Moral Free Will (MFW) and described as follows:

M – God’s requirement for salvation (GRFS) is a Moral condition called faith, which is manifested as seeking God’s righteousness or salvation (Matt. 4:17, 7:7), which presumes/implies sufficient human volition for sinners to make them morally accountable (Rom. 1:20, Deut. 30:19, Matt. 23:37), who may become totally depraved via committing apostasy/blasphemy against the HS (per Heb. 6:4-6, Matt. 12:31).
F – God enables all morally accountable souls sufficient Freedom to satisfy GRFS—or not because His grace is resistible, which means sinners are accountable and justly condemned when they do not repent and accept Christ’s atonement for their sins (John 3:16-18, Rom. 3:21-5:1, Heb. 9:26-28).
W – Faith is almost synonymous with Will, but volition focuses on saving faith God’s condition for forgiveness, and cooperating with God by accepting His grace through faith is NOT meritorious or working to earn heaven or salvation by obeying moral laws (John 6:29, Eph. 2:8-10).

The concerns of those who accept TULIP—to affirm the sovereignty of God and the inability of souls to earn salvation—are valid, but the solutions are problematic, because they deny or ignore Scripture teaching the love of God for all sinners and the moral accountability of sinners for rejecting the love of God, thereby effectively perverting the Gospel (Gal. 5:6) and impugning God’s justness/righteousness (Psa. 33:5, Isa. 9:7).

The apparent reasons for these errors are threefold: 1. Ignorance of Scripture that contradicts their dogma, such as those teaching the possibility of apostasy, 2. Viewing faith as a meritorious work rather than as the non-meritorious condition of cooperating with God’s grace, and 3. Unconcern about portraying God as unjust by showing favoritism toward the elect. Once these errors are cured by including Scripture supporting MFW, doctrinal harmony is enhanced.