# Objectivity



## SolaSaint (Jul 9, 2011)

Hi all,


I'm currently reading Thomas Howe's "Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation". The premise of objectivity , is to come to interpretation with no preconcieved or presuppositions that will cloud or alter our interpreation. I haven't finished the book yet but I have a question that just came to my mind, "Is studying the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit considered objective?"


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jul 9, 2011)

It is impossible to approach something with zero presuppositions.


----------



## SolaSaint (Jul 9, 2011)

That is what many say, but how can we claim to know the truths of scripture if our interpretations are not based upon objective hermanuetics?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jul 9, 2011)

SolaSaint said:


> That is what many say, but how can we claim to know the truths of scripture if our interpretations are not based upon objective hermanuetics?



Even at the very basic we presuppose Scripture to be the very words of God. From this presupposition, we will have a certain hermeneutic. If one presupposes that Scripture is not the words of God, then they have a completely different hermeneutic.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Jul 10, 2011)

It is impossible to read anything without any presuppositions, however we should strive to take the Bible at it's word and not allow our theology to dictate our reading but let the reading dictate our theology.


----------



## SolaSaint (Jul 10, 2011)

Thanks, so do you think that a person who comes to scripture trying to be pruely objective and even setting aside the inspiration of scripture (not denial) is in error? Just a question.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Jul 10, 2011)

SolaSaint said:


> Thanks, so do you think that a person who comes to scripture trying to be pruely objective and even setting aside the inspiration of scripture (not denial) is in error? Just a question.



How would someone set that aside?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jul 10, 2011)

SolaSaint said:


> Thanks, so do you think that a person who comes to scripture trying to be pruely objective and even setting aside the inspiration of scripture (not denial) is in error? Just a question.



Even then you are presupposing that it "might" be the words of God.


----------



## Poimen (Jul 10, 2011)

Even the fair-minded Bereans had a hermeneutic because they were searching the scriptures to find out if what Paul was_ saying about Jesus_ was true (cf. Acts 17:3)


----------



## SolaSaint (Jul 10, 2011)

I'm sure there are a few liberal theologians hoping scripture isn't the true words of God. Not me! I'm just saying if we all come to the Bible with our own world view or presuppostions then who has the absolute truth?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jul 10, 2011)

This is why I believe that only the sanctified can know any spiritual truth. When we are regenerated, our presuppositions are changed.


----------



## SolaSaint (Jul 10, 2011)

I'm with you on this point Chap. I believe as you here, I know I have even gained a much clearer understanding of scripture ever since I was introduced to the doctrines of grace. I guess I'm troubled at the thought that we cannot come to scripture objectivily in an apologetic sense. But now that you have supplied this thought it makes sense, we don't have to claim pure objectivity to the unregenerate for they won't understand anyway, THANKS!


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jul 10, 2011)

Exactly. It is all foolishness to the unregenerate and they will not "get it" through intellectual arguments. They can't get it apart from the Spirit.


----------



## SolaSaint (Jul 10, 2011)

Amen Brother, are you in the military?


----------



## steadfast7 (Jul 10, 2011)

the closest thing to objectivity is not to interpret on our own, but through the collective reasoning of the Church - ie. through the confession.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 10, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> the closest thing to objectivity is not to interpret on our own, but through the collective reasoning of the Church - ie. through the confession.



Also one has to understand the language, vocabulary, culture, and the times in which the authors wrote. For an example.....

When I first read these passages.....



> (Pro 22:28) Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.(Pro 23:10) Remove not the old landmark; and enter not into the fields of the fatherless:



I read them in the wrong context of my own presupposition. I thought they had to do with things like this. 



> (Jos 4:1) And it came to pass, when all the people were clean passed over Jordan, that the LORD spake unto Joshua, saying,
> 
> 
> (Jos 4:2) Take you twelve men out of the people, out of every tribe a man,
> ...



Man was I wrong. I had to read some of the history of the people to understand this had to do with markers that proved a families land boundaries. 

Just saying.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jul 10, 2011)

Hey Martin,

Which hermeneutics book did that example come from? I remember reading it before. Was that Fee's "Reading the Bible for all it's Worth?"


----------



## Jack K (Jul 11, 2011)

The driving point of Howe's book is a good and sorely needed one. He wants to dismantle the idea that the Bible can only be understood subjectively: That there's no absolute, objective truth there. That what it means depends on how you approach it. That whatever it means to you is valid for you.

Many, many segments of the church need his encouragement to stop thinking of the Bible this way.

I say that some of the critical presuppositions we ought to bring to every text include these: The Bible is true. It is the Word God, spoken by the Spirit. It is a unified revelation of God, not just a collection of disagreeing parts. Its driving theme is salvation in Christ. It is profitable for equipping us to live as believers. It requires the Spirit's enlightenment to fully work in our lives.

But here's the thing. These "presuppositions" aren't just ideas _we_ made up. They don't come, subjectively, from our own minds. Each of these critical presuppositions comes from what the Bible says about itself. And because of that, even though we approach the Bible with these presuppositions we really are, in a sense, doing so objectively. We are starting with the Bible, taking it at its word.

It's probably true that total objectivity is impossible. But it is a grave error to decide that this means the Bible has no knowable objective meaning, which is what far too many people are saying these days. I've only skimmed through Howe's book, and it probably has things I'd disagree with, but his basic intent seems good.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 11, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Hey Martin,
> 
> Which hermeneutics book did that example come from? I remember reading it before. Was that Fee's "Reading the Bible for all it's Worth?"


Actually, I think it is stated in a lot of places. I think I picked up on it first from Sproul or even Hendrickson. I can't remember. It has been a long time ago.


----------



## Philip (Jul 11, 2011)

I don't like the term "objective." It smacks too much of a scientistic paradigm of approaching something without presuppositions or personal commitments, being disinterested in the conclusions.

In order to understand a text correctly, one must come to it with correct presuppositions and correct attitudes about that text. I think that speaking about correct interpretations and correct presuppositions is more helpful in this regard than the misleading language of "objectivity."


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jul 11, 2011)

Randy I apologize for the questions, but what presup did you have that was wrong? 

I can see where you had wrong ideas or info (I know I did when I first heard a sermon on this text), but I can't see a presup. 

Can you help me?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 11, 2011)

I entered my Bible reading as a young man trying to interpret scripture by scripture without understanding the Grammatical Historical understanding when I was young. I was lacking a lot of the fullness of true biblical interpretation and exegesis. I was even doing a bit of eisegesis. It is a common mistake to think that one can just pick up the Bible and understand it completely without a fuller knowledge of the author and his environment. After all I thought I didn't need for someone to teach me as I understood this passage to teach me. 



> (1Jn 2:26) These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
> 
> (1Jn 2:27) But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.



I also didn't understand a very important thing as I lifted this text out of context. For one thing St. John was teaching me. I needed his teaching. I was being guided by his words. The Church has been given gifts so that we may mature in the faith. Those gifts are Pastor's, Teacher's, and other things listed in Ephesians. Sure unlike a lot of Christian's I did come to faith in Christ by reading the Bible alone and learned Jesus was the great I Am and that He Chose me via John 8:58 and John 15:16. But that was by the mercy and grace of God. LOL. But I had a presupposition that I had all I needed without the Church and the Grammatical Historical Method of interpreting the Scriptures. 

Does that help clear the fog a bit?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jul 11, 2011)

Are you saying that your presup was that you could come to the proper interpretation on your own without using the Grammatical Historical Method?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 11, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Are you saying that your presup was that you could come to the proper interpretation on your own without using the Grammatical Historical Method?



I didn't even know such a thing existed for many years. LOL. Yes, and without the Church also.


----------



## SolaSaint (Jul 11, 2011)

Jack, I thought that was an excellent reply and it gves me the words I was looking for, thanks brother.


----------

