Kay Arthur's Inductive Bible Study Method

[Civbert]

Anyone familiar with Kay Arthur's Inductive Bible Study method. I have a Inductive Study Bible I got from the in-laws years ago. I read the front matter of the book, and it seemed like it had some possibilities.

Aside from induction/deduction issues, what do people think about it? Is it really a denomination neutral method of studying the Word? Does it have any fatal hermetical flaws as a method? Does it steer one toward Arminianism?

I'm thinking of picking it up again an giving the method a try. I think it avoids using commentaries and third party exegeses. You do all the study for yourself and come to your own conclusions. I don't think that's necessarily the best approach - but it seems to have some benefits - mainly that it makes you dig down into the Word for yourself so that you really know what's there for yourself.

 

[LadyFlynt]

All the making up symbols and marking the passage takes away from actually reading and understanding the passage. Looking up words, I don't have a problem with...but she gets so into the marking up parts that I literally started turning a blind eye to what the passage was actually about.

 

[RamistThomist]

Modern Reformation (Mike Horton) interviewed her one time. It was funny. I could tell that Horton was trying to be nice and not embarrass her.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Okay, is there a transcript of that interview, Jacob?

 

[RamistThomist]

Okay, is there a transcript of that interview, Jacob?

It is in the RTS library. Give me a few days and gently remind me and I will type up the relevant section and post it here.

 

[turmeric]

Mom gave me one of her books, called, I believe, How to Study the Bible. I was so excited because I was finally going to become knowlegeable about Scripture. After reading all her markups and symbols, I got discouraged and gave the book away, I think. Anyway, I can't find it and I'm not looking for it.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Thank you, Jacob.

Meg, hubby's grandmother gave us that book also...it's collecting dust.

 

[crhoades]

Best tool to help understand and read the Bible? Calvin's Institutes. That's what they were designed for. As a key to help unlock doctrines so he didn't have to explain the larger concepts or go as in-depth in the commentaries.

Give them a read.

Oh yeah, the Confession and Catechisms help too.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The "problem" with the Inductive Study method is that it is usually presented as an alternative to Systematic Theology instead of a supplement to it. The issue of Modern Reformation referred to above was critical of the notion that Inductive Study proponents assume we come to the Scriptures with no bias or system and should just interpret the Scriptures and induce the meaning of Scripture passage by passage. The idea of looking for an overall system with which to test inductive conclusions is eschewed.

The Inductive Study method is very popular with Calvary Chapel. Since they don't believe in extensive theological preparation they view this as superior especially for those who wouldn't be able to bring theological texts along with them.

Inductive proponents are usually unaware of the fact that they're often bringing concepts into their study that arose out of systematic study. The Trinity, for instance, is one of those doctrines that a pure inductive approach would not yield. That doctrine is an example of a good doctrine they've brought with them into their "purely objective, let's see what the Scriptures say" method.

What is ironic is when the same people that say they dislike systems and we should always let each passage do so for itself come to the passages about the Sovereignty of God and, especially, Romans 9. Then, they unknowingly become systematic theologians and their Arminianism explains away what their inductive method would produce.

I guess my bottom line assesment of the approach is this: it's naive. It doesn't do justice to a good gramattico-historical approach and it doesn't understand the place of systematic or even Biblical theology to aid in interpretation.

 

[jaybird0827]

I was in Campus Crusade for 3 years back in the 70's. They, too, encouraged this inductive Bible study sort of thing. They gave some of us a course in how to do it and used the book of Romans as the example. For me, the upshot was the effect that Romans 8 had on me as far as the idea of praying "the sinner's prayer" and I actually started thinking down the path of, if someone actually does this in truth, they must already be converted! Romans 9 had a devastating effect on how I viewed their theology in general. The message I consistently got from these people was that if you read the commentaries and what other divines said about what you studied, it was bad because you're supposed to do your own work! I eventually learned to thank God for the faithful who have gone before us and have left us a legacy of sound exegesis and instruction.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I was in Campus Crusade for 3 years back in the 70's. They, too, encouraged this inductive Bible study sort of thing. They gave some of us a course in how to do it and used the book of Romans as the example. For me, the upshot was the effect that Romans 8 had on me as far as the idea of praying "the sinner's prayer" and I actually started thinking down the path of, if someone actually does this in truth, they must already be converted! Romans 9 had a devastating effect on how I viewed their theology in general. The message I consistently got from these people was that if you read the commentaries and what other divines said about what you studied, it was bad because you're supposed to do your own work! I eventually learned to thank God for the faithful who have gone before us and have left us a legacy of sound exegesis and instruction.

You're supposed to do your own work as long as you don't induce from Romans 9 what it says very plainly.

 

[bookslover]

You're supposed to do your own work as long as you don't induce from Romans 9 what it says very plainly.

Seems to me there was a book years ago with a title like "Inductive Bible Study" or something like that, by a guy named Robert A. Traina. Anybody ever hear of it?

 

[3John2]

I've never read her book but I believe I bought one of her's but can't remember it which means it wasn't of any worth to me. I bought a book by a guy named Terry Lawson called "How to Study The Word". At the time I didn't think much of it & I thought it was good & bought some of the bibles & aids it recommended. However looking back there are MANY questionable things in there that I don't approve of as a Reformed believer now. For example when talking about the subject of THEOLOGY books "A theology book could be a book by Kenneth Hagin, EW Kenyon, Kenneth Copeland or ANY other author who's "theology" you FEEL is SOUND."
A lot of the other stuff was pretty good though. It did make me buy many things i still use today.
One of the things that has REALLY helped me a lot is I use Ligoniers (Sprouls) Tabletalk magazine. I use the devotionals & devour the magazine every month. It has exposed to me to many docrtrines or the Reformed faith & many wonderful men of God. It is there that I first heard of Mohler, Michael Horton, Dever, John Owen, BB Warfield etc.
It is a great aid.
Sometimes I'll go through a period of say a few weeks or perhaps a month where I want to do NOTHING BUT read the Word on my own with no other input.
By the way Romans 9 stumped me about 2 years ago or so. I spent about several months just reading through it every day telling myself "Thankt CAN NOT possible be correct. I KNOW it SAYS that but it simply can't MEAN what it APPEARS to say."
It was a turning point in me going from Word Of Faith charismatic to raging Reformed. I love it & I thank & give glory to God for His mercy & grace in using His Holy Spirit to reveal the truth of His Word to me.
Well I'm off the subject As for Kay Arthur again....you can do better than that. Get yourself a good STUDY bible with aids & dig in.
I'm using Grudems Systematic in addition to the Tabletalk magazine. I'm not even counting the other numerous books I go through.

 

[TeachMe]

Kay Arthur

I joined a group that was going to go through the How to Study the Bible, and I never completed it. There was too much emphasis on the process, and we didn't seem to get to any "meat". I don't recommend the book.

 

[JoeRe4mer]

Anyone familiar with Kay Arthur's Inductive Bible Study method. I have a Inductive Study Bible I got from the in-laws years ago. I read the front matter of the book, and it seemed like it had some possibilities.

Aside from induction/deduction issues, what do people think about it? Is it really a denomination neutral method of studying the Word? Does it have any fatal hermetical flaws as a method? Does it steer one toward Arminianism?

I'm thinking of picking it up again an giving the method a try. I think it avoids using commentaries and third party exegeses. You do all the study for yourself and come to your own conclusions. I don't think that's necessarily the best approach - but it seems to have some benefits - mainly that it makes you dig down into the Word for yourself so that you really know what's there for yourself.

I have read her book How to study the Bible and I have looked at her study bible. As for the book I think it has some good ideas but is lacking. There is another book similer to it that I found to be MUCH better called Methodical Bible study by Robert A. Traina. That said I think you are on the right track by trying to develop a good bible study method instead of just running back and forth between commentaries like so many others tend to do. Not that I am against commentaries per se its just I feel they are over used in many cases and at the expense of scripture.

 

[3John2]

That was the point I was trying to make. Like it said in the Lawson book many think they are studying THE BIBLE but they are not. They are more into reading commentaries & what others have said & don't allow the Spirit to speak to THEM. Very good point. Having said that I have many commentaries & books etc but my main objective is to get into THE WORD. Everyone has to have SOME method to get into the Word on their own. For that the Lawson book was quite good. As for markings etc I have my own. I know when I look at a page WHAT it is that I'm highlighting etc. Works for me. I don't think using Kay Arthurs or ANYONE elses would have worked for me. It's got to be real to you.