Category Archives: Bible Interpretation

Bible Interpretation, Creeds

Do the Creeds Matter? Part 2

34 Comments

Post Author:  Darrell

In my last post, I conducted a poll as to whether or not the Nicene Creed is relevant and authoritative in Christianity today.  Thus far, the results are as follows:  48% believe it to be both relevant and authoritative, 21% believe it to be relevant, but not authoritative, and a relatively small number (17%) believe it to be completely irrelevant.  Given the tone of my post, you will find it no surprise that I fall in line with the majority opinion, holding the Nicene Creed to be both relevant and authoritative.

Those who oppose the idea of the creeds being relevant and authoritative often appeal to the doctrine of sola scriptura, i.e., the doctrine that scripture alone is authoritative.  The general claim is that the Bible is the only authoritative source on Christian doctrine and life, and, as a result, the creeds can’t possibly carry any authority.  This position grew out of the classic and radical reformers reaction to papal abuses, and quite honestly, I can understand the sentiment behind it.

However, those who hold this position often fail to realize that while our beliefs may be rooted in scripture, it is often not scripture itself that is believed.  Instead, our beliefs are based upon our interpretation of scripture.  For example, while the Bible says that God is one, it does not tell us exactly how God is one. Nevertheless, most conservative Christians assert that God is one in nature, essence, and being.  These words and this belief are not explicitly taught in the Bible.  Instead, they are inferred based upon what the Bible does say and are thus, an interpretation of the biblical teachings relative to the nature of God.

Personally, I believe this is exactly what the creeds are: correct interpretations of scripture contained in short statements of faith.  However, I believe that their connection to Apostolic Tradition and the culmination of Church history have demonstrated them to be authoritative.  Most of the creeds were hard won, coming at the expense of much blood, sweat, and tears.  In large part, they have served as a source of unity for Christians, placing fences that help to delineate orthodoxy from heresy and heterodoxy.  The Nicene Creed came out of a long, hard fought battle with the Arian Heresy (Mormonism’s ancient cousin) and answered the question of how God is one once and for all.

Admittedly, the belief that the creeds are authoritative is a position of faith.  Epistemological certainty is impossible in an area such as this.  However, it is a position of faith that is supported by good reason, logic, and evidence.  In addition, those who believe they can’t be authoritative because “scripture alone is authoritative” hold their position to their own peril.  For, if the creeds can’t be authoritatively correct because they aren’t scripture, how do you know your interpretation is correct and authoritative, and by what authority do you judge differing positions to be wrong?  After all, your interpretation isn’t scripture.

Have a blessed day!

Darrell

Bible Interpretation, Books of the Bible, Church History, Eschatology, Polls, Theology, Top Ten Posts of 2010

Did the Early Church Believe in a Literal Thousand-Year Reign of Christ on Earth? – #10 Post of 2010

53 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

The Book of Revelation, according to some Christians, teaches a literal thousand-year reign of Christ on earth after his second coming (see Rev. 20).  This will then be followed by the creation of a new heaven and new earth. This view is known today as premillenialism.

But there are other Christians, in fact, the majority, who interpret the thousand years in Rev. 20 as a spiritual reign of the church which started at Christ’s first coming and ends at his second coming.  This view is known today as amillenialism.

The proponents of both of these views have an array of arguments to support their positions, but what was the view of the early church?

It seems that up until the third century, the early church was primarily premillenialist.  Writers like Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian all thought the second advent of Christ was imminent and that he would inaugurate his thousand-year reign on earth.

The tide, however, started to turn with the writings of Origen in the early third century, who adopted an allegorical method of interpreting Revelation.  Origen believed that the thousand years represented a spiritual reign of the church.  His disciple, Dionysius of Alexandria, continued the attack against premillenialism and turned the eastern church away from it.

In the western church, Augustine, in the late fourth century, began to teach amillenialism, siding with the Alexandrians in the east.  His views of eschatology (the end times) were detailed in his most famous work, The City of God.

From the time of Augustine until the Reformation in the sixteenth century (~1,100 years), amillenialism was the dominant view in the church.

The story obviously doesn’t end there, but you now have a brief introduction of what happened in the first fifteen hundred years of Christianity with respect to the millennium scribed in Rev. 20.

What about you?  Which view do you think is more likely correct?  Do you think there will be a literal thousand-year reign of Christ on earth (i.e., premillenialism) or do you think the thousand years mentioned in Rev. 20 is a spiritual reign of the church which ends at Christ’s second coming (i.e., amillenialism)?

Bible Interpretation, Creeds, Mormonism

Do The Creeds Matter?

3 Comments

Post Author:  Darrell

I recently spent some time on a Christian Facebook page that ministers to Mormons.  It is mostly made up of ex-Mormon Christians who feel very strongly about their faith and want to reach out to Mormons.  They write articles explaining the differences between Traditional Christianity and Mormonism and the problems with Mormon Theology and History in general.

A few days ago I had a cordial conversation with a Mormon gentleman regarding the Nicene Creed.  We were discussing the development of the creed, what its terms mean, and what the ante-Nicene Fathers believed in regards to the nature of God.  For those who are not familiar with Mormonism, the Nicene Creed is a particular point of contention for them as its teachings are in stark contrast to Mormonism.

While we were in the midst of the conversation an administrator on the website stepped in and deleted nearly our entire conversation.  When I asked why she did this, she proceeded to tell me that the Nicene Creed doesn’t matter and that the creeds are irrelevant to the subject of defining God, and she chastised me for being “overly intellectual.”

This has led me to do some pondering over the last few days.  What do Evangelical Christians believe when it comes to the Nicene Creed?  Does it matter?  Are any of the creeds relevant today?  Are they authoritative or are they simply their writer’s opinions?

Share your thoughts with me on this poll.  Once I’ve had a chance to digest the various opinions, I’ll likely write a blog post sharing some of my thoughts.

Bible Interpretation, Difficult Bible Passages

How Do Biblical Proverbs Operate?

Leave a comment

Post Author: Bill Pratt

The Bible contains numerous proverbial sayings (not just in the Book of Proverbs), and these sayings have some characteristics that must be kept in mind when reading them.  These characteristics can also be found in non-biblical proverbial literature.

Biblical scholar Walter Kaiser lists a few of these characteristics in his book The Uses of the Old Testament in the New.  Here is Kaiser’s list:

1.  Universal moral statements in proverbial literature may be limited to:

a. only a certain tendency of some thing(s) to produce a certain effect (e.g., Prov. 15:1 – though there are times when it may have no effect on wicked men)

b. only telling what generally or often takes place without making it an irreversible rule for any and all situations (e.g., Prov. 22:6 – though some children occasionally will refuse the best of parental leadership and help)

c. only noting what is the normal course of action without listing some implied or understood exceptions (e.g., Matt. 5:34 – though this does not forbid us from taking legitimate oaths in court)

2.  Universal moral truths in proverbial literature may often be stated as direct opposites when they are meant to be understood in terms of priorities or to be taken comparatively in such expressions as:

a. “I desire mercy, not sacrifices” (Hos. 6:6; Matt. 9:13; Matt 12:7)

b. “To obey is better than to sacrifice” (1 Sam 15:22; Ps. 51:17, 19; Jer. 7:22-23)

3.  Universal moral truths in proverbial literature often assume that the correspondingly proper circumstance is also understood, thus:

a. Prov. 26:4

b. Prov. 26:5

I hope these three points help you to better understand what’s going on when you read proverbs in the Bible.

Bible Interpretation, Difficult Bible Passages

Has God Promised You New Revelation?

4 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Some Christians seem to think so, based on John 14:26, John 15:26, and John 16:12-13.   Here are each of these passages:

“But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” – John 14:26

“When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me.” – John 15:26

“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.” – John 16:12-13

After reading these passages, some Christians claim that the verses are promises to all believers, that the Holy Spirit will reveal new truths about God, will teach new things that have never been heard before to each of us.  They claim these verses promise that privilege.  Is that really what these verses are saying?

I think the answer is clearly “no” when we carefully read these verses in context.  All of these verses are from Jesus’ Upper Room discourse.  In this discourse, Jesus is specifically addressing his disciples about what is to come, with one of the primary themes being Jesus’ promise of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit would remind them of what Jesus said to them during his earthly ministry, but the Spirit would also give them new revelation.  What we have is an indication of how the New Testament letters and books would come together – the Holy Spirit acting in concert with Jesus’ disciples.  What we do not have is an open promise to all believers to receive new revelation from the Holy Spirit.  These promises were only for the disciples of Jesus who lived with him.

Old Testament scholar Walter Kaiser is worth quoting at length here from his book The Uses of the Old Testament in the New :

As any serious student of the Bible will recognize those passages were not directed to believers at large, but to those disciples who had been with Jesus during His earthly pilgrimage.  The promise was for additional revelation and thus we are given some hints as to how the NT canon was shaped.

Almost every cult and aberration from the historic Christian faith has appealed at one time or another to these three texts as the grounds for adding to or bypassing the inscripturated Word of God.  But all fail to meet the tests given in these texts because they never personally walked with our Lord on this earth.  They never heard instruction from His lips, so how could they recall what they never once heard?  Neither were they witnesses from the start of his three-year ministry.  But the apostles were!  Therefore, they were the ones who would record the life, words, and works of Christ in the gospels with the Holy Spirit’s aid of recollection (John 14:26); they were the ones who would teach doctrine (“what is mine,” John 16:14-15); and they were the ones who would predict the future (John 16:12); for they had been eyewitnesses and auditors of all that had happened to and was spoken by Christ (John 15:26-27).

These verses, my friends, do not promise that we will all receive a new word from God.  Instead they promised the inspiration of the Word of God we now have in the New Testament.  Instead of wishing for new words from God, maybe we should cherish the words He has already given us.

Bible Interpretation

What Are Nine Common Errors When Interpreting Biblical Narratives?

8 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Our local church, Cornerstone, has embarked on a year-long study of the Book of Joshua.  Our pastor, Dr. Byrd, is going to prepare detailed sermon notes each week, which will then be translated by the other pastors into lessons for Sunday school classes.

As we kick off this series in Joshua, I have been drawn back to one of my favorite books on biblical interpretation, Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart’s How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth.  In the past I shared ten principles for interpreting Old Testament narratives from their book, but this time I want to highlight nine errors that are commonly made when interpreting biblical narratives, also from their book.

Allegorizing.  “Instead of concentrating on the clear meaning of the narrative, people relegate the text to merely reflecting another meaning beyond the text.”

Decontextualizing.  “Ignoring the full historical and literary contexts, and often the individual narrative, people concentrate on small units only and thus miss interpretational clues.  If you take things out of context enough, you can make almost any part of Scripture say anything you want it to” (emphasis added).

Selectivity.  “It involves picking and choosing specific words and phrases to concentrate on while ignoring the others and ignoring the overall sweep of the narrative being studied.”

Moralizing.  “This is the assumption that principles for living can be derived from all passages.  The moralizing reader, in effect, asks the question , ‘What is the moral of this story?’ at the end of every individual narrative.  An example would be, ‘What can we learn about handling adversity from how the Israelites endured their years as slaves in Egypt?’  The fallacy in this approach is that the narratives were written to show the progress of God’s history of redemption, not to illustrate principles.”

Personalizing.  “Also known as individualizing, this refers to reading Scripture in the way suggested above, supposing that any or all parts apply to you or your group in a way that they do not apply to everyone else.  This is, in fact, a self-centered reading of the Bible.  Examples of personalizing would be, ‘The story of Balaam’s talking donkey reminds me that I talk too much.’  Or, ‘The story of the building of the temple is God’s way of telling us that we have to construct a new church building.'”

Misappropriation.  “It is to appropriate the text for purposes that are quite foreign to the biblical narrative.  This is what is happening when, on the basis of Judges 6:36-40, people ‘fleece’ God as a way of finding God’s will!  This, of course, is both misappropriation and decontextualizing, since the narrator is pointing out that God saved Israel through Gideon despite his lack of trust in God’s word.'”

False appropriation.  “It is to read into a biblical narrative suggestions or ideas that come from contemporary culture that are simultaneously foreign to the narrator’s purpose and contradictory to his point of view.”

False combination.  “This approach combines elements from here and there in a passage and makes a point out of their combination, even though the elements themselves are not directly connected in the passage itself.”

Redefinition.  “When the plain meaning of the text leaves people cold, producing no immediate spiritual delight or saying something other than what they wish it said, they are often tempted to redefine it to mean something else.”  Fee and Stuart use the example of 2 Chronicles 7:14-15: “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land. Now my eyes will be open and my ears attentive to the prayers offered in this place.”  Christians today want to apply this promise to their own land, but as Fee and Stuart point out, this promise was only directed toward the ancient land of Israel.

As our church moves through the Book of Joshua, I hope we can avoid these common errors.  The most important step in interpreting any biblical text is to first work very hard to discover what the original author was trying to communicate to the original audience.  Only after we have done the hard work of finding the original meaning can we then apply the text to our contemporary world.

Bible Interpretation, Creation, Essential Beliefs, Evolution, Human Nature, Theology

What Do God and Science Have to Do with Each Other?

5 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Ever since I became an evangelical believer in Christ, about 12 years ago, I have noticed that there is uneasiness among my evangelical brothers and sisters with certain fields of science.  This uneasiness, I quickly learned, has much to do with the age of the universe and the origins of mankind.  There are other areas, as well, but those are the two primary areas of dispute.

Because of the perceived hostility of science toward basic beliefs of Christianity, some evangelicals have forsaken science altogether.  So what I want to address today is what science and God have to do with each other.

Christians have long recognized that there are two ways that God communicates with mankind: special revelation and general revelation.

Special revelation is what is communicated about God through the incarnation of Christ and the Bible.

General revelation is what is communicated about God through the natural world, including physical nature, human nature, and human history.

Science offers a method for observing and then explaining facts about the natural world, so science is the study of God’s general revelation.  Christians that forsake science are, in effect, dismissing God’s general revelation.

Why?  Because they feel that the findings of science contradict the teachings of Scripture (special revelation).

But the answer is not to throw out one of God’s revelations.  In cases where general and special revelation overlap, we must examine our fallible interpretation of Scripture and compare it to our fallible interpretation of scientific findings.

You see, the Bible is infallible, but our interpretation of it is not.  Likewise, God’s revelation about himself in nature is infallible and will never contradict his revelation in Scripture.  But our interpretation of general revelation is not infallible.

What do we do when our fallible interpretation of science conflicts with our fallible interpretation of the Bible?  We seek the interpretation that seems more certain and we go with that.  If the special revelation interpretation seems more certain than the general revelation interpretation, then we go with special revelation.  If the general revelation interpretation seems more certain than the special revelation interpretation, then we go with general revelation.  We can’t just assume one is always right and the other always wrong.  That will lead to error.

Notice that this method of seeking the right interpretation requires the Christian to study diligently the Scriptures and the findings of science.  We cannot just study the Bible, but we must also dig into science if we want any hope of finding the answers to these tough questions where science and the Bible seem to conflict.

Fortunately, these perceived areas of conflict are few, and usually do not have to do with essential doctrines of Christianity.  However, they are still important and we owe it to God to honestly and earnestly seek the answers.

Bible Interpretation

Should You Only Read a Bible Verse?

3 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

If you do, don’t stop!  Read the rest of the chapter and even the book you found the verse in.

One of the biggest mistakes Christians make when reading the Bible is opening it up to a book and only reading one verse.  We all have favorite verses that we like to quote, but there is a danger.

The danger with only focusing on isolated verses is that the Bible wasn’t written that way and was never intended to be read that way.  The books of the Bible were originally written as complete works, and they did not contain verse or chapter numbers.  These were added hundreds of years later to help readers navigate the Bible more easily.

Verses and chapters are very helpful to Bible students, but they are also a curse.  They have taught Christians to atomize the Bible into thousands of isolated sentences.  Remember that a verse only makes sense in context with the surrounding paragraphs and the book it is found in.

Christian scholar Gary Habermas emphasizes reading verses in context.  He tells a story of a woman who was angry at God for allowing suffering in her life.  She continuously quoted James 5:15 as evidence that God had promised to heal believers of their suffering.

Here was his response.  Habermas asked the woman, “Did the same James that wrote James 5 also write James 1?”

Whatever verse 15 in chapter 5 means, it must be read in context with the rest of the book of James, which clearly says that Christians will suffer trials and that they should “consider it pure joy.”  This lady had fallen into the trap of reading a single verse and not reading the rest of the book the verse is found in.

Don’t make the same mistake.  If you find yourself quoting a Bible verse, that’s wonderful.  Just make sure that you have read the entire book the verse is in and make sure that your understanding of the verse is consistent with the context.

Bible Interpretation, General Apologetics, Truth

Do We Each Get Our Own Interpretation of Scripture?

7 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Darrell and I were talking today about people who claim that one interpretation of Scripture can be no better than another.  Or, put another way, we can’t know what the correct interpretation of Scripture is, so we shouldn’t debate it.  To each his own interpretation.

My sense is that people who say this in the midst of a discussion of a Bible passage feel trapped in an argument they can’t win, and this is their escape hatch.  If they relativize the Scriptures, making the meaning completely subjective, they get to keep their interpretation of Scripture and deflect anyone who disagrees with them.

This is the same tactic some people use when they are in a debate about a particular immoral behavior.  When they feel trapped, they say something like, “There is no objective morality any way.  Everyone decides for themselves what’s right and wrong.”  Again, if they relativize morality, then they no longer have to defend their position and they get out of an argument that they aren’t winning.

The real irony here is that the very people who relativize the interpretation of Scripture actually do believe that their view is objectively correct.  If they didn’t, then they wouldn’t have been debating in the first place.  They would have just agreed with everything their opponent said, because, after all,  everyone can have their own subjective interpretation of Scripture.

It seems to me that the best thing to do when someone plays the “relativism card” is to help them see that they really don’t believe what they are saying.  Remind them of some of the core beliefs that they have derived from Scripture and ask them if those beliefs are objectively true.

If they are honest, they will stand by their beliefs.  If they refuse to claim that their cherished beliefs about the Bible are objectively true, it’s probably time to move on, because they are more interested in saving face than having a conversation of substance.  Come back to them when they aren’t so defensive.

Bible Interpretation, Difficult Bible Passages

How Should We Not Read the Bible? Part 6

2 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Continuing from part 5 of this series, we now turn to the final three mistakes critics make when alleging errors in the Bible.  These mistakes are taken from Norman Geisler and Tom Howe’s The Big Book of Bible Difficulties.

Mistake #15: Forgetting that Only the Original Text, Not Every Copy of Scripture, Is without Error.

Christians readily admit that there are copyist errors in the manuscript copies of the Old and New Testaments (see What is Inerrancy?).  But we also hold that inerrancy only applies to the original words written by the biblical authors.  Finding an error in one of the manuscript copies may or may not trace back to the original writing.  It is only through the science of textual criticism that this investigation can be done (see How Do Textual Critics Choose Among New Testament Manuscript Variants?).

If it can be shown that an original writing contains an alleged error, then the critic must show it is truly an error, that it contradicts well-established facts, something which traditional Christians hold has never been successfully done.

Mistake 16: Confusing General Statements with Universal Ones.

Geisler and Howe explain: “Critics often jump to the conclusion that unqualified statements admit of no exceptions. They seize upon verses that offer general truths and then point with glee to obvious exceptions. In so doing, they forget that such statements are only intended to be generalizations.”

The Book of Proverbs, for example, contains numerous general statements of wisdom, but these proverbial sayings are not universally true.  Proverbs 22:6 says, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.”  Even though it is generally true, many of us can point to examples of children who, even though they were raised in a strong Christian home, rebel and never straighten out their lives.

Mistake 17: Forgetting that Later Revelation Supersedes Previous Revelation.

In God’s dealings with mankind, as recorded in the Bible, he progressively revealed more and more of himself as history advanced.  God tested mankind in the Garden of Eden with a tree, but this test is no longer in effect.  The commands to sacrifice animals for the forgiveness of sins was in effect for a time, but once Jesus died for mankind’s sins, the animal sacrifices were no longer necessary.  Jesus was revealed as the Son of God, but only to the people of his time, and not to those who lived before him.

Some critics point to later revelation and claim that it contradicts earlier revelation, but this accusation cannot be sustained if the “error” in question was a command given for a specific time period.  Again, God has dealt with mankind in many different ways throughout history.  This fact does not prove that errors exist in the Bible.

Conclusion:

All Christians are well advised to memorize the 17 mistakes that critics make when alleging errors in the Bible.  Truth be told, Christians sometimes make these same mistakes.  We may not accuse the Bible of error, but we often forget that the books of the Bible were written by human writers, in different literary styles, and with differing perspectives.  These 6 blog posts, therefore, are not just a call for critics to stop improperly maligning the Bible, but a call for Christians to better understand the Word of God that has been handed down to them.