Hard questions on interpretation of the Bible

[Covenant Joel]

Recently I had a discussion with my uncle, who openly will deny the truth of the Bible, etc. It started out on the NPP (which I was surprised he knew about, but apparently he keeps up with current Christian issues, even though he repudiates Christianity).

His basic point was that here is a new interpretation of the Scriptures in the 21st Century, and therefore, even after this long period of time, no one knows what Scripture really says. He says there is no objective standard for interpreting the Scriptures.

(From his POV): Even if Scripture is objectively true, there is no objective standard of interpretation, therefore we have to "synthesize" verses with one another to make them fit (e.g., John 19:28-29 and Hebrews 6). Obviously we think there is no problem with these verses, because we put it all through our grid, and so we make them fit together.

How do you combat such thinking?

Joel

 

[blhowes]

Joel,
It looks like you've started what should be an interesting thread. To some extent, doesn't it seem like your uncle is right? If there was one objective standard for interpretting the scriptures, wouldn't we all be Baptists?
Bob

 

[blhowes]

...ok, ok! Or Presbyterians?

 

[Covenant Joel]

Originally posted by blhowes
Joel,
It looks like you've started what should be an interesting thread. To some extent, doesn't it seem like your uncle is right? If there was one objective standard for interpretting the scriptures, wouldn't we all be Baptists?
Bob

Indeed, it is an interesting question. And I had to tell him that these were things I would have to think over more before I could respond with complete confidence.

If we had an objective standard for interpreting the Scriptures, we'd at least be all Calvinists...baptists...don't push it....

Joel

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by Covenant Joel
If we had an objective standard for interpreting the Scriptures, we'd at least be all Calvinists...baptists...don't push it....

Yeah, you're probably right (?)

If you haven't already read it, you might find the thread called Our Faliable Interperation interesting, and might be a start in answering some of your questions.

 

[Robin]

I'm certainly not saying bad translations are no big deal...but you guys won't believe it --- even a Jehovah Witness Bible is not rendered completely ineffective. (And they design changes to the Word to promote their cult.) A testimony to the power of God's Word to stand against man's even willful violations to it.



Robin

 

[Contra_Mundum]

It sounds to me like Uncle is just a "hip" post-modernist. Ask him if communication is just relative, then why dwork the snufflepuss twaddle? If language is just a game then his conversation with you actually has no objective meaning, and you are both just playing meaningless games. Books are a joke. Movies, Drama, History--not only do they not tell us anything useful, they are positively criminal, because they purport to give out facts but are just "perspective".

If the Bible cannot be understood in a comprehensible manner, then at root your Uncle is denying communication, period. Frankly, postmoderns generally will admit this, though they turn around (like Hume, the skeptic) and deny their own philosophy in the very act of spreading it. So, they are self-refuting in the act of their own communication.

It's one thing to say, as classic liberalism does, "Yes, that is what the Bible says, we just think it's hogwash or non-applicable to today." Christians who played accomodational games opened the door wider to post-modernism (it might have come anyway, but only in the liberal's own backyard). Now the evangellyfish are "waste"-deep in PM sewage.

As for "objective standard of interpretation," the answer is that Scripture sets its own standard. God is a communicator. He has communicated, or so it claims in the Bible. Over and over again we are told that God's people will hear (or read) and respond appropriately to the Word of their Maker and Redeemer. If you can't hear, or you prefer to play games, then obviously you aren't (yet) a Christian.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Just force him to use logic and then accuse him of not being able to think without presupposing the Christian worldview. Debate over!

 

[BobVigneault]

Yes, tell him that before you can settle on a standard of biblical interpretation you need to establish an epistomological standard. Otherwise you can only talk past each other. Get him to admit to what is standard for knowing truth is and then show him that it's not consistent.

 

[Scott]

I don't know if the uncle is postmodern or not. When I read Joel's post, is sounded to me like the uncle just looked over Christendom and saw that countless inconsistent interpretations that pass around. Frankly, I am with the uncle on the NPP - did everyone in the world really miss this until today?

It may be helpful to point to the fact that there are mechanisms for coming to a public consensus and authoritative interpretation of conflicting views. Acts 15 provides an model. The decisions of ecumenical councils are examples.

The Westminster Confession summarizes these tools:

CHAPTER XXXI
Of Synods and Councils
I. For the better government, and further edification of the church, there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called synods or councils: and it belongeth to the overseers and other rulers of the particular churches, by virtue of their office, and the power which Christ hath given them for edification and not for destruction, to appoint such assemblies; and to convene together in them, as often as they shall judge it expedient for the good of the church.
II. It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in his Word.

 

[Evan Tomlin]

Joel,
If I might give my two cents, it seems as if this discussion with your uncle is over before it starts if he fails to recognize a key component of the debate.

First, while we believe Scripture to be objectively true because it is the self-attesting, self-authenticating revelation of God, interpretation of this revelation is not valid unless it takes place within the framework of the community of faith. The Apostles set forth the inspired account of Christ´s life and teaching (the Gospels) as well as elaborating upon this teaching and prophecy from the Old Testament (Pauline Epistles, Peters confirmation of the fulfillment of Joel´s prophecy, etc). The community of faith is composed of the followers of Christ who accept the Apostles teaching as the inspired word of God. However, I do not think it is enough to assert that God directed the Apostles to write inspired accounts of Christ´s life and give inspired teaching concerning Christian doctrine and practice. It is not as if the Apostles simply recorded a set of truthful teachings and left them as an objective, but isolated body of teaching. Such a body of teaching in isolation would create a vacuum that some interpretive construct would have to fill. Gnosticism, Hyper-Preterism, and various Post-Modern distortions are but a few example of how this vacuum has been filled over the years. Your Uncle´s objections are just another example of man stepping into the illusory vacuum he created and filling it with his own interpretive construct. The point I am making here is that the vacuum does not exist because God not only gave us objective truth in Scripture; He gave us the definitive interpretation of Scripture through the Apostolic tradition that was passed down to the community of faith. This Apostolic interpretation of Christ´s teaching is supplied for us in Scripture and is summarized for us in the Early Creeds. Obviously, there is a circularity here because our knowledge of Apostolic teaching is contained in the Scripture and summarized with creeds that are deduced from Scripture, but the point still stands that God both gave his truth in the objective sense, and he guarded his truth through supplying the community of faith with the parameters of orthodox belief. Please understand that I am not propagating Romanism, I am simply trying to show that new interpretations have no validity because the Apostles have already built the fence of orthodoxy. The primary doctrines of are faith are indisputable because they are the very foundation of Orthodoxy. The words of Christ and Apostles in turn are not open to new interpretation because the very tenets of Christianity rest upon the definitive interpretation of Scripture that elucidates the Deity of Christ, Trinity, Resurrection of Christ, Second Coming, etc. While within the community of faith there might be differing additional interpretive constructs (Baptists vs. Presbyterians), acceptance of primary doctrine is requisite for even having the discussion as Christians. In a sense, we must presuppose Orthodox interpretation of Scripture even to have a legitimate conversation concerning the interpretation of Scripture. If your uncle does not accept the Christian worldview, he in turn does not accept the tenets of orthodoxy and he creates a vacuum of interpretation of that can be filled with any random exegetical nuance. In VanTillian terms, he has blurred the creator/creature distinction, placed himself as the sole authority over Scripture, and thereby rendered the significance of Scripture (in his own view) to a temporary and arbitrary set of teaching.

I will leave the debate whether NPP deserves to be classified as completely outside the tenets of orthodoxy (and therefore heretical) to my smarter brothers here. My point with this post is to show that God has not only given us special revelation, he has given us means to correctly interpret this revelation to the point where we have a set of primary doctrines that has defined the boundaries of orthodoxy for 2000 years. Anyone outside of these boundaries has no right to assert their own autonomy over the Lordship of Christ. Our presuppositions concerning God and his revelation, namely the sacred interpretation of His Word (given to the Apostles and reflected in Scripture) allow us to reconcile such passages as John 19:28-29 and Hebrews 6 because we have already submitted under the standard of orthodoxy and our interpretive options are controlled by the foundational commitment that God´s Word is consistent and accurate. Whether difficult passages are always reconciled and explicated in a satisfactory fashion is certainly up for debate"¦but the fact remains that our presuppositions dictate that there is a point of reconciliation and cohesion in the Word of God. Your uncle must understands that our ultimate starting point is that

1) Nothing is intelligible unless God exists and His revelation is true. The truth of his revelation is accurately reflected in the primary doctrines that set up the boundaries of Orthodox Christian faith.
Therefore,
2) Any discussion concerning the interpretation of Scripture that does not follow with this starting point is sure to create an illusory vacuum of interpretation and assert man as the ultimate starting point for the interpretation of Scripture, thereby rendering the discussion fruitless and his method hopeless.

Orthodox interpretation defines the community of faith in which all-legitimate additional interpretation (e.g. reconciliation of difficult verses) takes places"¦..Until he accepts this, your uncle will not understand.

[Edited on 8-23-2005 by Evan Tomlin]

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

NPP is an old veiw of Covenantal Nomism. The heresy Paul battled in my understanding. Actually his argument falls apart in light of the confessions. There is to much agreement on the atonement and doctrines of God for his claims to be true. Jesus also taught that there would be false teachers. There is a devil. So why not teachings that oppose truth or the grid of orthodox confessional teaching. False teaching is to be expected.

 

[Covenant Joel]

I'll try to reply to more of the great posts a little later.

I don't know if this would change how you all would view this at all, but you should know that my uncle is not a typical postmodernist (if he would call himself that, I kind of doubt it. He's probably more in a classic humanist mold). He was at one being considered to be an elder in an OP church, taught Greek at a Christian school, and is well versed in much Reformed stuff, including, I think, presuppositionalism. How does that bear on what you think about what he was saying?

Joel

 

[rgrove]

I know I've seen that Douglas Wilson is persona non-grata here for obvious reasons, but as I read this I thought of a section in his book "Persuasions" that addressed this very shortly. Here's what he said (if it isn't deleted by mods as I'm not sure what the rules are regarding quoting him). It starts out by someone claiming that 100 people will get 100 interpretations in reading the Bible. Evangelist (the main character) continues:

"Well, perhaps it wouldn't be quite so bad, but let's grant it for the sake of argument. Now here is the question. Where is the variable? Is it in the Bibles or is it in the men?"
"Well, it is in the men."
"So the we should say that men are not to be trusted because they come up with so many interpretations?"
"No..." The speaker looked trapped and glanced at his companions for help. It was not forthcoming.
Evangelist continued. "It puzzles me that those who object most strongly to all the 'different interpretations' continue to trust those who are the source of the problem. They trust in men, not God. The problem you mention is a real problem, but the solution is to stay as close to the Bible's teaching as you can."

I think he makes a decent point or two here in a fairly understandable way for a regular person with no philosophy or theology background.

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by Covenant Joel
I'll try to reply to more of the great posts a little later.

I don't know if this would change how you all would view this at all, but you should know that my uncle is not a typical postmodernist (if he would call himself that, I kind of doubt it. He's probably more in a classic humanist mold). He was at one being considered to be an elder in an OP church, taught Greek at a Christian school, and is well versed in much Reformed stuff, including, I think, presuppositionalism. How does that bear on what you think about what he was saying?

Joel

Joel,

Well then, in light of this info...here a few ideas (in my opinion) that might help. First, in response to the "no body knows what the Bible means" excuse: ignore this, and simply READ what Scripture says. Read large portions - in context - considering the gramito/historico sense of the Text. Of course, everybody's got their own interpretation! A better question is: is their interpretation RIGHT? Don't allow verses to be ripped out of context. (Chpt./verse divisions were not in the originals, btw.)

2nd, use the Three Forms for topic references to doctrines (redemption; trinity; sin, etc.) This is for you to know. Know where to find Scriptures pertaining to these catagories. (3F's are great for this!)

Forget the book "Persuasions"! (Wasteful chatter offering nothing about the Gospel - which is the only ingredient that will change an unbeliever.)

The best hope is to expose your uncle to the information about Christ: life, death, resurrection. THAT is "toxic" to unbelief - in the sense, the Gospel will have it's effect....whether you see it or not.

Finally, I can't know details, but guessing, your uncle suffers from pride and self-sufficiency. Jesus treated this with the "Law". To those confident in themselves, Christ used tough language (see Rich young ruler; his sermons on hell.) Hearing "law-language" will drive him to Christ --- make sure the Gospel is clear, meanwhile. But, humbly and lovingly press the Law.



Robin

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by rgrove
I know I've seen that Douglas Wilson is persona non-grata here for obvious reasons, but as I read this I thought of a section in his book "Persuasions" that addressed this very shortly. Here's what he said (if it isn't deleted by mods as I'm not sure what the rules are regarding quoting him). It starts out by someone claiming that 100 people will get 100 interpretations in reading the Bible. Evangelist (the main character) continues:

"Well, perhaps it wouldn't be quite so bad, but let's grant it for the sake of argument. Now here is the question. Where is the variable? Is it in the Bibles or is it in the men?"
"Well, it is in the men."
"So the we should say that men are not to be trusted because they come up with so many interpretations?"
"No..." The speaker looked trapped and glanced at his companions for help. It was not forthcoming.
Evangelist continued. "It puzzles me that those who object most strongly to all the 'different interpretations' continue to trust those who are the source of the problem. They trust in men, not God. The problem you mention is a real problem, but the solution is to stay as close to the Bible's teaching as you can."

I think he makes a decent point or two here in a fairly understandable way for a regular person with no philosophy or theology background.

This is one of the best I have read on practical apologetics. It has been influential in my formulation of "Tales from Reformia."

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Robin
Forget the book "Persuasions"! (Wasteful chatter offering nothing about the Gospel - which is the only ingredient that will change an unbeliever.)


Robin

Really? What didn't you like about it?

 

[rgrove]

Originally posted by Draught Horse

Originally posted by Robin
Forget the book "Persuasions"! (Wasteful chatter offering nothing about the Gospel - which is the only ingredient that will change an unbeliever.)


Robin

Really? What didn't you like about it?

I'm interested as well. The chapter on marraige I thought was brilliant and went straight to the gospel. Other areas I felt Evangelist answered appropriately for the moment. But I don't rush to the gospel in all circumstances where I know others do. But Evangelist had some very short conversations focused on very specific aspects of an objection and give a person a way to think about handling that objection in a conversation. Anyhow, here's my review of the book for anyone interested:

http://rongrove.blogspot.com/2005/08/persuasions-dream-of-reason-meeting.html

 

[JKLeoPCA]

Originally posted by Covenant Joel
Recently I had a discussion with my uncle, who openly will deny the truth of the Bible, etc. It started out on the NPP (which I was surprised he knew about, but apparently he keeps up with current Christian issues, even though he repudiates Christianity).

His basic point was that here is a new interpretation of the Scriptures in the 21st Century, and therefore, even after this long period of time, no one knows what Scripture really says. He says there is no objective standard for interpreting the Scriptures.

(From his POV): Even if Scripture is objectively true, there is no objective standard of interpretation, therefore we have to "synthesize" verses with one another to make them fit (e.g., John 19:28-29 and Hebrews 6). Obviously we think there is no problem with these verses, because we put it all through our grid, and so we make them fit together.

How do you combat such thinking?

Joel

The simplest reasoning I use against such thinking is, that The Bible is a book of words, and words have definitions.

If we cannot trust the meaning of words, then I must not be able to understand the objective standard of interpreting their objection.