Drew
Member
In this thread, I invite readers to discuss a specific issue in relation to interpreting the Scriptures.
A certain position “X†in respect to some doctrine “Y†is often a critically unexamined starting point for the wannabe exegete. This starting position is not the result an entirely objective “let’s consider all possibilities†analysis of the Scriptures in respect to doctrine Y. Instead, through a kind of mysterious osmosis, the person has come to believe that X is true about Y. Perhaps the person has been influenced by the prevailing view within their denomination. Perhaps they have “psychological†inclinations to believe X is true. As a simple example, a person who has been raised by stern, domineering parents who laid down the law re dating might “rebel†by too easily accepting arguments that pre-marital sex is not really prohibited in the Scriptures.
Suppose that such a person is then challenged that scriptural text W speaks against X. I suggest that the person will effectively (although subconsciously) ask themselves the following question: Is there any way at all that I can interpret W so that it works with X, no matter how awkward and forced that interpretation is? If this kind of thing happens, and I think it often does, this is a recipe for error.
Consider the view that the earth is the center of the universe. When evidence started to mount that this was not so, die-hard “earth-centic†people invented complex modifications to their theory in order to incorporate the new data within the earth-centric view. You might be interested to know that this can indeed be done. If you are willing to believe that planetary bodies do “loop the loopsâ€Â, etc, you can indeed hold to the view that the earth is indeed the centre of the universe.
Needless to say, I think we would all agree that the better approach is to stand back from position X – let it go at least for the moment – and then consider whether there is not another position Z that better explains all the relevant texts. It will not be the end of the world if your “working†position turn out to be weaker than an alternative.
I do not think that what I have written here is particularly controversial so this may not generate a lot of discussion. Just something I wanted to put forward.
A certain position “X†in respect to some doctrine “Y†is often a critically unexamined starting point for the wannabe exegete. This starting position is not the result an entirely objective “let’s consider all possibilities†analysis of the Scriptures in respect to doctrine Y. Instead, through a kind of mysterious osmosis, the person has come to believe that X is true about Y. Perhaps the person has been influenced by the prevailing view within their denomination. Perhaps they have “psychological†inclinations to believe X is true. As a simple example, a person who has been raised by stern, domineering parents who laid down the law re dating might “rebel†by too easily accepting arguments that pre-marital sex is not really prohibited in the Scriptures.
Suppose that such a person is then challenged that scriptural text W speaks against X. I suggest that the person will effectively (although subconsciously) ask themselves the following question: Is there any way at all that I can interpret W so that it works with X, no matter how awkward and forced that interpretation is? If this kind of thing happens, and I think it often does, this is a recipe for error.
Consider the view that the earth is the center of the universe. When evidence started to mount that this was not so, die-hard “earth-centic†people invented complex modifications to their theory in order to incorporate the new data within the earth-centric view. You might be interested to know that this can indeed be done. If you are willing to believe that planetary bodies do “loop the loopsâ€Â, etc, you can indeed hold to the view that the earth is indeed the centre of the universe.
Needless to say, I think we would all agree that the better approach is to stand back from position X – let it go at least for the moment – and then consider whether there is not another position Z that better explains all the relevant texts. It will not be the end of the world if your “working†position turn out to be weaker than an alternative.
I do not think that what I have written here is particularly controversial so this may not generate a lot of discussion. Just something I wanted to put forward.
