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.