Trust in Others' Interpretation of the Bible

[InSlaveryToChrist]

Is it wrong to trust in others' interpretation of the Bible over your own? For example, if one is convinced that salvation is somehow dependent on man, while the great majority of last 2000 years of church history contradict this view, is it irrational to still trust in your own interpretation of the Bible?

As a personal example, much (though not all) of the confidence for my own position in eschatology -- I'm Amillennialist -- is due to my trust in the majority view of Reformed theologians over my own reasoning. Is this wrong?

If Christians are to interpret the Bible as a whole, united body, as opposed to individual, separate body parts, should we not place more authority to the majority view of the Bible over our own reasoning?

At the end of the day, we are always bound to trust in our own interpretation of the world around us. We all have our own presuppositional frameworks through which we interpret anything. So, even when one says he trusts in the majority view of the interpretation of the Bible, he really is trusting in his own interpretation of the situation, that is, he assumes he has taken all necessary things in consideration to rightly conclude that that's the majority view (when it maybe is not). And so, if here you choose to believe someone else's (preferrably the majority) view of what really is the majority view of the interpretation of the Bible in the whole history of Christianity, you've just presupposed that the majority view of what really is the majority view of the interpretation of the Bible in the whole history of Christianity IS the majority view. And so, to use the same methodology, the next logical step would be to trust in the majority view of what really is the majority view of what really is the majority view of the interpretation of the Bible in the whole histority of Christianity, etc. But everytime you're forced to presuppose, to trust in your own interpretation of, what is the majority view of anything.

Just want to hear your thoughts on all of this. Thanks.

 

[KMK]

LBC Chapter 1

Paragraph 4. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, depends not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.7
7 2 Pet. 1:19-21; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Thess. 2:13; 1 John 5:9

Paragraph 5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church of God to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, and the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, and many other incomparable excellencies, and entire perfections thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.8
8 John 16:13,14; 1 Cor. 2:10-12; 1 John 2:20,27

The authority of Scripture lies not in the testimony of men, but in the authority of the Scriptures themselves being authored by God. Our full persuasion and assurance of the truth of Scripture is from the inward work of God by way of the HS. However, we are to allow the testimony of the church to 'move' us and 'induce' us. In other words,, we humbly submit to the testimony of the church as 'helper' but not 'lord'.

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

LBC Chapter 1

Paragraph 4. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, depends not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.7
7 2 Pet. 1:19-21; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Thess. 2:13; 1 John 5:9

Paragraph 5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church of God to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, and the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, and many other incomparable excellencies, and entire perfections thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.8
8 John 16:13,14; 1 Cor. 2:10-12; 1 John 2:20,27

The authority of Scripture lies not in the testimony of men, but in the authority of the Scriptures themselves being authored by God. Our full persuasion and assurance of the truth of Scripture is from the inward work of God by way of the HS. However, we are to allow the testimony of the church to 'move' us and 'induce' us. In other words,, we humbly submit to the testimony of the church as 'helper' but not 'lord'.

I understand what you're saying. The objective truth of the Scriptures is our authority. But the problem is that nothing will remain objective once you put a person to interpret it. All our interpretation of the Bible belong to the category of "the testimony of men." So, the question becomes: which "testimony of men" is more trustworthy: the majority view or your own view?

---------- Post added at 04:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:31 PM ----------

Now that I think about it, there is no reason to think that 1000 Christians is better than 1 Christian, unless the Bible makes the claim that the Holy Spirit preserves sound doctrine in the theology of the majority of Christians in each generation. But as far as I know, that's not the case.

 

[JoannaV]

Scripture is self-authenticating. The Spirit interprets.

Study Scripture. Find a good church. As you grow in knowledge and wisdom you are better able to discern which church is preaching truth. And better able to determine which group of people to consider when determining the majority opinion, lol. Pray that God will show you these things, and He will.

 

[J. Dean]

I understand what you're saying. The objective truth of the Scriptures is our authority. But the problem is that nothing will remain objective once you put a person to interpret it. All our interpretation of the Bible belong to the category of "the testimony of men." So, the question becomes: which "testimony of men" is more trustworthy: the majority view or your own view?

---------- Post added at 04:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:31 PM ----------

Now that I think about it, there is no reason to think that 1000 Christians is better than 1 Christian, unless the Bible makes the claim that the Holy Spirit preserves sound doctrine in the theology of the majority of Christians in each generation. But as far as I know, that's not the case.

Let me give you a rephrasing of the idea that you may find helpful. There is one interpretation of the Bible, but multiple applications of that interpretation. I think Sproul said this.

That being said, the essential and vital doctrine of our faith is not up for "interpretation." You are right in stating that we like to put our own "spin" on things, but the Word of God is to be approached WITHOUT our "spin," even when (and sometimes especially when) it makes us uncomfortable.

While there is certainly some Scriptural misapplication due to misreading or failing to search the whole of the Scriptures regarding a given topic, I would say based upon many things I have seen in my modest age that a good number of variations on interpretation are due to people reading their own bias into the Scriptures.

You brought up Amillenialism. And you're right: just because a majority believes it does not make it true. That being said, the fact that a good majority believed it for a great many generations AT LEAST forces us to consider that there is a good possibility that such long-held belief gives it credence. Still, we search the Scriptures dilligently in order to make our position and beliefs sure.

 

[JML]

Depends on how convinced you are about a particular doctrine. If it is something that you are still unsure about, sometimes you have to trust another's interpretation until you can study the topic in more detail. If it is something that you are convinced is Biblical but you are in the minority, trusting in another's interpretation is not a good idea. They won't be there with you to defend you when you give an account on the last day. If it is something that you are convinced about but it seems you are the only one in history to see it that way, then there is a problem with your interpretation.

For example, I am EP, and I am convinced that it is correct. However, I am in the minority position. I don't mind being in the minority though because I am convinced that is what the Scriptures teach. If I were just studying EP and was not convinced but just unsure, I would probably hold to what my church taught (if it was not EP) until I was convinced in my own mind. Since I am convinced of EP and consider the singing on uninspired hymns in the worship of God to be wrong, how would I answer God on the last day that I knew what was right but did not do it because I was in the minority position or trusted in others more than my own conviction?

Obviously, if we are talking about something that is crystal clear from the Scriptures, it doesn't really matter what our interpretation is.

 

[steadfast7]

In the end, you need to lean on something to gain insight, whether it's your own limited knowledge, a magisterium, a commentator, or a pastor. Doesn't it seem prudent to lean on the confessions, written by a community of divines more knowledgeable and godly than us, who debated and wrestled with deep theological truths for much longer than us, and who lived out their beliefs with a piety that was more devout that ours?

 

[TimV]

is due to my trust in the majority view of Reformed theologians over my own reasoning. Is this wrong?

Wouldn't it be arrogant and stupid to do otherwise? The other day an uneducated lady told me I was wrong to have my kids vaccinated because she had secret knowledge that vaccinations were evil. I wondered what she thought she had going for her. Anyway, if you think your understanding of Reformed theology is so vast and wonderful and insightful that lesser minds can't comprehend your wisdom and knowledge, then by all means, ignore the majority and lean onto your own understanding.

 

[py3ak]

You should labor to be fully persuaded in your own mind: your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God, and your conscience must be captive to the word of God, not the authority of men. But at the same time, you should never forget that you are not the only one to have received the Spirit. A reformed view should not seize you because it is the majority, but because by manifestation of the truth its exponents have commended their view to your conscience.

If that means that you suspend judgment on certain points, that's fine: we can be patient in our grasp of doctrine as in anything else. But you should certainly hesitate to dogmatically assert and defend a view that has been rejected by the consensus of the church. Others are fallible and cannot be made the masters of your faith; but you are also fallible.

 

[jwithnell]

It's far better to lean on the expertise of like-minded scholars than to feel like you have to announce an opinion on every topic of theology. As you read and study, you may well become convinced that the Bible teaches a particular viewpoint. We have another option; to say "I don't know."

 

[steadfast7]

Now, there are those who subscribe to a theologian, tradition, or confession because they want to identify with a particular tradition or body of believers and not because they are convinced that it is an accurate summary of biblical doctrine. I think more people do this than would like to admit. This can be dangerous and can lead to idolatry.