How important is hermeneutics in these discussions?

[Dave...]

I sometimes feel like the person that I'm corresponding with in a thread is seeing our discussion as a tit for tat scripture posting war. They seem to be in a relativist mind set and are quite comfortable in the apparent contradictions between the scripture that they've posted, and any other scripture posted by others that appears to say something different.

When I post Scripture in reply to someone, it's always for context. While at the same time understanding that there cannot be any contradictions. I expect the scripture that I posted to be answered with actual alternative, reasonable translation of those passages that lines up all the scripture. I will always try to answer and present my understanding of the Scripture that they post when possible and reasonable. But they almost never allow others the same courtesy. They just keep up the relativist argumentation, and post their scripture again.

I'm sure others have dealt with this. I don't think that all the people posting here understand that there is a systematic, even scientific approach that most people are using here from one degree to another, and they have no idea about it. On the surface, in their minds, they are doing the same thing as you are.

Any way to fix this?

Dave

 

[WIP]

I sometimes feel like the person that I'm corresponding with in a thread is seeing our discussion as a tit for tat scripture posting war. They seem to be in a relativist mind set and are quite comfortable in the apparent contradictions between the scripture that they've posted, and any other scripture posted by others that appears to say something different.

When I post Scripture in reply to someone, it's always for context. While at the same time understanding that there cannot be any contradictions. I expect the scripture that I posted to be answered with actual alternative, reasonable translation of those passages that lines up all the scripture. I will always try to answer and present my understanding of the Scripture that they post when possible and reasonable. But they almost never allow others the same courtesy. They just keep up the relativist argumentation, and post their scripture again.

I'm sure others have dealt with this. I don't think that all the people posting here understand that there is a systematic, even scientific approach that most people are using here from one degree to another, and they have no idea about it. On the surface, in their minds, they are doing the same thing as you are.

Any way to fix this?

Dave

We cannot control how another person thinks, can we? Ultimately, the goal of a Theological discussion should be to gain understanding and truth and not to win arguments. But then, we are all human and one of our problems is that we have a certain amount of pride and that often gets in the way of a truly objective discussion.

 

[electedbyHim]

I believe the other issue is that many members on this forum, shun Systematic Theology, Biblical Theology, commentaries and the like.

I do not think many understand the principles of hermeneutics. I myself can struggle with that.

I am told they are manmade Doctrines and we only need the Bible. The Spirit will guide them in all teaching.

Too each his own I guess.

 

[Dave...]

We cannot control how another person thinks, can we? Ultimately, the goal of a Theological discussion should be to gain understanding and truth and not to win arguments. But then, we are all human and one of our problems is that we have a certain amount of pride and that often gets in the way of a truly objective discussion.

Hi WIP

No, we can't control what others think. The goal for me is about productive discussions, not about winning arguments. I'm always willing to learn. But if the discussion never gets past elementary levels, one has to wonder if at some level, this is not idolatry. A suppressing of the truth.

The deeper truths that we seek in scripture are often times revealed in the context. Which requires building truth upon truth. With the new relativist way of thinking, we seem to never be able to get past the opening level. It's a vicious cycle that won't allow for truth to be learned. What must one do to be ready for solid food? First, there has to be a willingness to want it. Then a recognition that there are certain principals necessary for interpreting scripture accurately. The simplest one would be that all scripture is without contradiction. Another would be to interpret the single or few obscure passages by the many clear ones, not vise versa. Stuff like that.

It would be foolish to believe that this relativist wave of indoctrination is not having it's effect, even here in these discussions. No, we can't control what others think. But we can teach them how to think.

What Is Hermeneutics?

“Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). These words

www.ligonier.org

Dave

 

[WIP]

No, we can't control what others think. The goal for me is about productive discussions, not about winning arguments. I'm always willing to learn. But if the discussion never gets past elementary levels, one has to wonder if at some level, this is not idolatry.

Perhaps the reason for not moving past an elementary level is due to the spiritual maturity level of the persons involved in the discussion. We are all at different levels of maturity in our faith but that does not mean we should not discuss theology. In fact, I'd say just the opposite. Part of our growth in faith maturity comes from discussion, which can lead to further study, etc. This is partly why I believe it is so important to not think more highly of ourselves than we ought but rather remember that we are at different places in our spiritual walks.

 

[Dave...]

Perhaps the reason for not moving past an elementary level is due to the spiritual maturity level of the persons involved in the discussion. We are all at different levels of maturity in our faith but that does not mean we should not discuss theology. In fact, I'd say just the opposite. Part of our growth in faith maturity comes from discussion, which can lead to further study, etc. This is partly why I believe it is so important to not think more highly of ourselves than we ought but rather remember that we are at different places in our spiritual walks.

I get that. Usually it's not hard to spot. I try to give new or young Christians the benefit of doubt. Like if someone thinks that their faith is all from themselves. I wouldn't beat them over the head with a theological hammer. It's part of the learning curve. Eventually they will get there. But this is different. Some are stuck on level one for a reason other than being new in their faith.

 

[Hopeful 2]

We cannot control how another person thinks, can we? Ultimately, the goal of a Theological discussion should be to gain understanding and truth and not to win arguments. But then, we are all human and one of our problems is that we have a certain amount of pride and that often gets in the way of a truly objective discussion.

How is "objective" determined ?

 

[WIP]

How is "objective" determined ?

I believe an objective discussion is one in which those involved are expressing their understanding without any motive other than to understand both the other parties in the discussion and the material being discussed. It also means that as individuals we all share our beliefs or understandings while realizing that others we are engaged with may not have the same beliefs, understandings, or level of maturity.

I'm reminded of what Jesus said when He sent out His disciples. "Whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet." (Matthew 10:14) In other words, in part share the truth and then let it go. The problem as I see it is we let our pride get in the way and feel we have to be more than just witnesses but also attorneys and judges as well.

We have had members complain about this and it is a major reason for my involvement in creating the Questions and Answers forum rules. People felt they were unable to ask questions without being beat up or forced into a corner and this included some that were more mature in their faith as well as some that were not. They wanted to be able to just ask questions and get answers from other Christians, feel safe doing so, and not have to defend their questions.

I consider myself to be only a toddler in my faith walk so I feel I understand what they were asking for. If I fail to use proper hermeneutics, and I will, to arrive at an understanding, I would hope that someone more learned could help me out by teaching me without belittling me so I feel foolish for my lack of understanding. I want to know the truth and know that I know the truth. I pray that the Holy Spirit enlightens me in all truth.

 

[Hopeful 2]

I believe an objective discussion is one in which those involved are expressing their understanding without any motive other than to understand both the other parties in the discussion and the material being discussed. It also means that as individuals we all share our beliefs or understandings while realizing that others we are engaged with may not have the same beliefs, understandings, or level of maturity.

I'm reminded of what Jesus said when He sent out His disciples. "Whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet." (Matthew 10:14) In other words, in part share the truth and then let it go. The problem as I see it is we let our pride get in the way and feel we have to be more than just witnesses but also attorneys and judges as well.

We have had members complain about this and it is a major reason for my involvement in creating the Questions and Answers forum rules. People felt they were unable to ask questions without being beat up or forced into a corner and this included some that were more mature in their faith as well as some that were not. They wanted to be able to just ask questions and get answers from other Christians, feel safe doing so, and not have to defend their questions.

I consider myself to be only a toddler in my faith walk so I feel I understand what they were asking for. If I fail to use proper hermeneutics, and I will, to arrive at an understanding, I would hope that someone more learned could help me out by teaching me without belittling me so I feel foolish for my lack of understanding. I want to know the truth and know that I know the truth. I pray that the Holy Spirit enlightens me in all truth.

Thanks for the input.
But it sounds like a rather dry and uninspired presentation would be the end result of such an offering.
Like...read from a script, instead of from the heart.
Some heart has to be involved, if it is important enough to share with others.
Don't you think ?

 

[Dave...]

I'm out of time for today. Carry on if you like. I'll try again tomorrow. Sorry.

 

[Dave...]

When I see an apparent contradiction, my first reaction is to find out why. I want to know what is being misunderstood and why. The structure with which I use is hermeneutics. The answers don't always come easy and in a blink of an eye. I can tell you by experience that it's the context that usually reveals the answer, and there's not short cut, not even learning the original languages. You have to put some time into it. I know that for me, God wants to see the effort or He rarely will show me the answers.

We are called to test all things, right? To what? The Bereans showed us. They searched the scriptures (OT) and Paul himself, who was the one being tested, commended them for it. Jesus showed us when He was tested in the desert by Satan himself, ("It is written..., it is written..., it is written..."). That's our sword to protect us against the lies of the enemy. If Jesus is the Word, then how we handle the Word is a direct reflection of our relationship with Jesus Himself, right? To whom ever is reading, please stop and think about that.

I just don't understand the mindset of the one who plays so fast and loose with the Word of God, our manna from heaven by which we live, other than it's idolatry. A 'building a god' in our own image by suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. I'm not perfect, far from it, and I don't care for perfection in others, but at least try to care enough to submit to the truth. That's Jesus.

Dave

 

[Indentured Servant]

I sometimes feel like the person that I'm corresponding with in a thread is seeing our discussion as a tit for tat scripture posting war. They seem to be in a relativist mind set and are quite comfortable in the apparent contradictions between the scripture that they've posted, and any other scripture posted by others that appears to say something different.

When I post Scripture in reply to someone, it's always for context. While at the same time understanding that there cannot be any contradictions. I expect the scripture that I posted to be answered with actual alternative, reasonable translation of those passages that lines up all the scripture. I will always try to answer and present my understanding of the Scripture that they post when possible and reasonable. But they almost never allow others the same courtesy. They just keep up the relativist argumentation, and post their scripture again.

I'm sure others have dealt with this. I don't think that all the people posting here understand that there is a systematic, even scientific approach that most people are using here from one degree to another, and they have no idea about it. On the surface, in their minds, they are doing the same thing as you are.

Any way to fix this?

Dave

I have studied scripture for nearly four decades... I translate from the original languages, show scripture support for the research I've done, using scripture to interpret scripture, and have presented it for those who prefer a systematic approach to interpretation, and have even written essays, articles, and short studies on common biblical topics and doctrines.

However, I find this to be meaningless to those who can't sink their teeth into the academic chewing gum of hermeneutics; and, as well, if another's systematic approach to scriptural interpretation is based on using scripture to validate an existing doctrinal position, it becomes a debate, and often ends with belittling comments over who's right or wrong.

Hermeneutics is not necessarily a solution, and is often used to establish the presenter's perspective on the truth, thereby denying anyone else the right challenge their point of view, which is likely no more than a systematically stated opinion.

Case in point, I translated the Greek word "en," as "in," and was accused of perverting scripture by someone who didn't think it was my right to learn and understand Greek. They were determined to believe it can only mean "for," because their theologians say so.

 

[Dave...]

Hey Servant.

If you had to sum up what hermeneutics was, how would you define it?

I've dabbled in the Greek enough to know that it wasn't the silver bullet that I thought it was. I owned my Wuest word studies from the Greek NT, 4 volume set. I know, big deal, right? If hermeneutics stresses context, I'm not sure how that can be a bad thing. If it stresses defining the obscure by the clear, that would be good, right? Understanding that all Scripture is God breathed and truth. What would be the alternative?

I searched "hermeneutics" on Moergism.com and was surprised at how much stuff there was out there on this topic.

Search | Monergism

Monergism.com is a free, comprehensive online theological library comprised of Reformed Christian resources designed to bring glory to Jesus Christ alone.

www.monergism.com

Dave

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Any way to fix this?

The bible has an overarching narrative which forms a basic Christian worldview with four pillars: Creation, Desecreation (or the Fall), Salvation and Glorification. There are these four rudimentary, philosophical questions which everyone would ask themselves from time to time - Where did we come from? Who are we? What is our purpose? Where are we going? These four pillars are the answers - Creation: We come from God, made in God's image; Desecreation - we are sinners fallen from God's perfection; Salvation - we are to redeem ourselves in Christ; Glorification - we return to God in the afterlife. These are the lens through which we understand ourselves and read the Scripture. If you don't have these four pillars, you'll read the Scripture through other preconceived worldview, which will only lead you to wrong conclusions. And when you challenge their conclusion, it subconsciously activates their inner defense mechanism, the shoot back with their own views, and it's very hard to have any civil discussion.

This might be a cliche, but think of the bible as a half filled glass, the difference is between the perspectives of glass half full and glass half empty. Some people may have a vertical aerial view from top to bottom, or they're looknig from another weird angle, they can't even tell how much is filled!

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I believe the other issue is that many members on this forum, shun Systematic Theology, Biblical Theology, commentaries and the like.

I do not think many understand the principles of hermeneutics. I myself can struggle with that.

I am told they are manmade Doctrines and we only need the Bible. The Spirit will guide them in all teaching.

Too each his own I guess.

It's not just hermeneutics, but also the nature of the Scripture, for what purpose was it written. Many people read it as doctrines or self-help guide, that's a huges mistake. I listened to a sermon this weekend, the pastor asked a group of seminary students about the purpose of the sermon on the mount. Crickets. Many of them have memoried the whole passage, but none of them know why Jesus preached it. The answer is the nature of many scriptural portions - polemic, which means a sharp rebuke on the opinions or principles of another. This is very obviously shown in the formula: "you have heard .. but I say unto you ..." The sermon on the mount was Jesus' polemic against the Pharisees' wrong interpretations of the Scripture. If you understand this, some of the previously very difficult or nonsensical passages would become easy. For example, "if your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out; if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off" The key is on the "ifs", these are Jesus's sarcastic response to the Pharisees' self justification for their sin of lust, which they attributed to their bodily impulses in a common saying: "my eyes and my hands cause me to sin!" And the right eye and the right hand are the dominant eye and hand. The modern equivalent would be "it's the hormones", "boys will be boys", "my nether region has a mind of its own", "I have my needs". Jesus challenged them: IF that's the case, I dare you to pluck out your eye and cut off your hand. Obviously Jesus didn't mean it literally, he was ridiculing them. However, if you don't know this historical and cultural context, of course you'll be puzzled, and that will lead you to wrong conclusions.

 

[Indentured Servant]

Hey Servant.

If you had to sum up what hermeneutics was, how would you define it?

I've dabbled in the Greek enough to know that it wasn't the silver bullet that I thought it was. I owned my Wuest word studies from the Greek NT, 4 volume set. I know, big deal, right? If hermeneutics stresses context, I'm not sure how that can be a bad thing. If it stresses defining the obscure by the clear, that would be good, right? Understanding that all Scripture is God breathed and truth. What would be the alternative?

I searched "hermeneutics" on Moergism.com and was surprised at how much stuff there was out there on this topic.

Search | Monergism

Monergism.com is a free, comprehensive online theological library comprised of Reformed Christian resources designed to bring glory to Jesus Christ alone.

www.monergism.com

Dave

Hermeneutics is merely a method of interpretation. There are differences in one person's method compared to others. Some more systematic, some not so much. If your method different, I can't say it's wrong merely because it doesn't align with my method. If we use the same hermeneutic method, we may still reach different conclusions. Often, our methods reflect the result we desire.

While I'm not discounting some value in using hermeneutics , as I have used it in my writing, teaching, and preaching, I no longer use it merely because others use it. I use it primarily in my personal studies.

I once pondered, what hermeneutic style would, or did, Jesus use? ........Parables!
And though one could use this technique to attempt to define the meanings of parables, these were used to only be interpreted in the Spirit.

 

[Dave...]

I like to think of hermeneutics as a rule of thumb. As Carry mentioned, the context is soooo important to get the right interpretation. The Biblical, historical and even the cultural. We might ask, is the different method from hermeneutics the absence of these contexts? Then I would say that it's wrong. Is the another way of interpreting scripture as apposed to hermeneutics using the obscure scripture to interpret the clear scripture? Then I would say it is wrong. That's not my truth vs. your truth. I believe It's just an obvious common sense approach to scripture. BTW, Jesus spoke in parables for a reason.

Indentured, can you give me an example of a way of interpreting scripture that is different from what has been mentioned in this thread so far, that may also have more value and be better?

I went to a church for a time where Holy Ghost goose bumps ruled the day. Scripture was just a friendly suggestion to them. That's an extreme, but...still. Approaching scripture systematically to seek truth was something that they ran from.

Dave

 

[Indentured Servant]

Hey Servant.

If you had to sum up what hermeneutics was, how would you define it?

I've dabbled in the Greek enough to know that it wasn't the silver bullet that I thought it was. I owned my Wuest word studies from the Greek NT, 4 volume set. I know, big deal, right? If hermeneutics stresses context, I'm not sure how that can be a bad thing. If it stresses defining the obscure by the clear, that would be good, right? Understanding that all Scripture is God breathed and truth. What would be the alternative?

I searched "hermeneutics" on Moergism.com and was surprised at how much stuff there was out there on this topic.

Search | Monergism

Monergism.com is a free, comprehensive online theological library comprised of Reformed Christian resources designed to bring glory to Jesus Christ alone.

www.monergism.com

Dave

Hermeneutics is merely a method of interpretation. There are differences in one person's method compared to others. Some more systematic, some not so much. If your method different, I can't say it's wrong merely because it doesn't align with my method. If we use the same hermeneutic method, we may still reach different conclusions. Often, our methods reflect the result we desire.

While I'm not discounting some value in using hermeneutics , as I have used it in my writing, teaching, and preaching, I no longer use it merely because others use it. I use it primarily in my personal studies.

I once pondered, what hermeneutic style would, or did, Jesus use? ........Parables!
And though one could use this technique to attempt to define the meanings of parables, these were used to only be interpreted in the Spirit.

I like to think of hermeneutics as a rule of thumb. As Carry mentioned, the context is soooo important to get the right interpretation. The Biblical, historical and even the cultural. We might ask, is the different method from hermeneutics the absence of these contexts? Then I would say that it's wrong. Is the another way of interpreting scripture as apposed to hermeneutics using the obscure scripture to interpret the clear scripture? Then I would say it is wrong. That's not my truth vs. your truth. I believe It's just an obvious common sense approach to scripture. BTW, Jesus spoke in parables for a reason.

Indentured, can you give me an example of a way of interpreting scripture that is different from what has been mentioned in this thread so far, that may also have more value and be better?

I went to a church for a time where Holy Ghost goose bumps ruled the day. Scripture was just a friendly suggestion to them. That's an extreme, but...still. Approaching scripture systematically to seek truth was something that they ran from.

Dave

As I said, hermeneutics is not inherently bad, but I don't think it should be an expectation for people to use this device.

If I have an insight given to me directly from the Holy Spirit, and then applied hermeneutics to explain it to someone, it would then be judged based on my hermeneutic technique, not as a revelation from God. Even if my hermeneutics were not directly challenged, if what I contribute violates someone else's doctrinal position, my hermeneutics would be dismissed as lacking, thereby denying what God has given. (tad extreme example, but I hope it illustrates what I am attempting to say)

Sure, if a culturally significant perspective is needed, I say use it to aid in understanding. If a translation is needed to provide an accurate meaning, use it. But I have studied Greek and Hebrew for nearly four decades, and I have yet to find anyone who supports accurate translation of words over their doctrinal orientation, even though they claim to use "proper hermeneutics."

Within the past 24 hours, on this site, I provided an accurate translation of a simple Greek word, and was told it was false... Why? Because it didn't fit the individual's accepted interpretation of a verse, or concept. They didn't care about hermeneutics, accurate translation, or anything that did not fit their narrative.

As a matter of fact, there are those who are taught not to trust the Greek and Hebrew texts by their preachers who have taught them to only trust one specific English version... and they apply hermeneutics to an English version of Scripture, dismissing the meaning of words that have been translated into English with ambiguity.

I will only offer simple examples gleaned from my hermeneutic-based research: (I am not showing my hermeneutic prowess, only the conclusions...)

1. Jesus didn't tell us that he was preparing a place FOR us; He actually said he was preparing a place IN us.

2. Revelation 3:10 does not say he will "keep" us from anything... He said He would WATCH OVER (guard) us from them. (I've never seen anyone apply hermeneutics to the greek word in question, but only interpret it based on the English word "keep," which is often interpreted as taking us to heaven, which is never said.)

3. "Whenever two are more are gathered, I will be with them." Is this the so-called "definition of church," or if viewed with a hermeneutic lens, is this really stating that God will be in agreement whenever two or more make a decision to expel someone from the gathering body of Christ?

Hermeneutics can be useful, but also very manipulative, depending on one's preconceived orientation, or interpretation, of God's Word.

 

[MisterE]

The deeper truths that we seek in scripture are often times revealed in the context. Which requires building truth upon truth. With the new relativist way of thinking, we seem to never be able to get past the opening level. It's a vicious cycle that won't allow for truth to be learned. What must one do to be ready for solid food? First, there has to be a willingness to want it. Then a recognition that there are certain principals necessary for interpreting scripture accurately. The simplest one would be that all scripture is without contradiction. Another would be to interpret the single or few obscure passages by the many clear ones, not vise versa. Stuff like that.

I suspect that those you call relativists would agree with everything you wrote here and also believe that the dissatisfaction you feel they also feel about you. Your posts seem far too naive. I could see a relativist write the same paragraph you just wrote and would say you are the problem, not them. They feel like you want to win an argument. How I wish it were as simple as you are trying to make it.

The discussion should begin with one's stated Hermeneutic. That is where the debate should center on. Once you state that you believe the book of Revelation is mostly symbols, you betray your hermeneutics. The debate does not center on the verses. Tell me your hermeneutics and I will tell you how you will interpret a text.

 

[Dave...]

Within the past 24 hours, on this site, I provided an accurate translation of a simple Greek word, and was told it was false... Why? Because it didn't fit the individual's accepted interpretation of a verse, or concept. They didn't care about hermeneutics, accurate translation, or anything that did not fit their narrative.

Unfortunately, you'll get a lot of that. I liken it to the equivalent of someone covering their ears with both hands and saying out loud LA, LA, LA, LA, I can't hear you, LA, LA, LA. It's called idolatry.

I would look at the Greek in the same way that you look at hermeneutics, which is part of the hermeneutics. It can be dangerous in the wrongs hands also. My compromise in this matter was to first find teachers who I trusted. I needed to be convinced that they love the truth and would yield to it no matter what. Even if it means being silent on matters that are not yet clear to them. I think that I have found a few, who have also studied the Greek much more than I ever will, or care to. I trust their interpretation when the Greek is necessary. BTW, John MacArthur came to the same conclusion about where two or more are gathered than what you did.

A

The following is an excerpt from The MacArthur New Testament Commentary on Matthew 18. Jesus first assures His people that the Father acts with them when they work to purify the church: Again

www.gty.org

As a matter of fact, there are those who are taught not to trust the Greek and Hebrew texts by their preachers who have taught them to only trust one specific English version... and they apply hermeneutics to an English version of Scripture, dismissing the meaning of words that have been translated into English with ambiguity.

Try telling a King James only-est that the KJV has error.

If I learned one very important lesson from Wuest, it's that there are some Greek words that require up to twenty four English words for an accurate translation. I often use the four words for 'love' in the Greek for an example. In the Greek they don't need context, they are four very specific kinds of love. But in translation, all four words are simple translated into English as "love", which sometimes requires context to further define the kind of love it is speaking of, but is not part of the translation. Like when Peter was asked by Jesus if he loves Him, three times.

So understanding that the English translations, like the NIV try to fix this by using a thought for thought method of translation, while others, like the NKJV (my go to), understands that thought for thought could inject error because the thought being translated may not be accurate. Where as a word for word doesn't allow for this error as much, also has it's own shortcomings in not fully translating the whole meaning of the word, because, unlike English to Spanish, there is not a English word equivalent to every Greek word, as demonstrated above with the word "love".

I think that hermeneutics, at least to my understanding, will try to harness all this and consider al of it when trying to make an accurate translation. And to apply my standards to myself, keeping silent on matters I'm not sure of, or at least noting publicly, that I'm not sure. I always thought that hermeneutics was, generally speaking, not open to personal definitions. I thought it was just a common set of rules applied. Maybe some go further than others, I never really looked that far into it to notice. Peace.

Dave