The t.r.u.m.p ignorantly speaks Scripture

[Grailhunter]

What is said here and what is implied.
There are a lot of people that do not go to church and or do not believe in going to church or supporting the church.
So they criticize the churches or they criticize the teachers.
What scripture supports that attitude or that behavior.

For the first three centuries Christians risked their lives to gather in house churches, catacombs, out in the wilderness to praise and worship the Lord. Now a days you would have to use a cattle prod to get them to go to church.
Non-participant Christians, giving lip service to the Lord.
How will an armchair preacher fair on Judgment Day?

 

[GeneZ]

I agree. We may be coming from two different places doctrinally, while both being saved.

That is exactly why I want to keep coming back to the text itself.

Neither your theological system nor mine should get to supply a missing step and then treat that step as Scripture.

If Scripture establishes:

many bad teachers → very few sound teachers → believers must find one of those few to reach full maturity in Christ,

then I want to see it and accept it.

But if Scripture does not establish that chain, then neither of us should add it.

And I don't think believers coming from different doctrinal places is unusual.

Philippians 3:15–16 is especially interesting here because Paul is speaking about maturity and still says that if believers “think otherwise” about something, God can make that clear to them, while they continue walking according to what they have already attained. Mature believers are not presented as necessarily possessing an identical doctrinal package.

Romans 14:2–6 makes the same point from another angle. Believers can reach different conclusions about food and days, and Paul does not tell one side that spiritual maturity requires duplicating the other side's conclusion. He tells each to be fully persuaded in his own mind and to act unto the Lord.

1 Corinthians 8:7–13 likewise shows believers possessing different levels of knowledge and different consciences, while still belonging to Christ.

And 1 Corinthians 12:4–27 describes one body with different gifts, ministries and functions. The unity of the body does not require every member to be identical.

So our different starting points don't bother me.

The question is whether we are both willing to let Scripture correct those starting points, wherever the text leads.

What if you exposed yourself to one of the good teachers?

And, saw a major difference in content and approach?

And, noticed the teachers who teach what people approve of are in a vast majority?

 

[Spiritual Freedom]

What if you exposed yourself to one of the good teachers?

And, saw a major difference in content and approach?

And, noticed the teachers who teach what people approve of are in a vast majority?

I would gladly expose myself to a good teacher.

In fact, if someone could show me from Scripture that something I believe is wrong, I would want to know it.

But that raises the important question: how do I identify the good teacher?

A major difference in content and approach does not establish that the teacher is sound. Neither does being unpopular. A teacher can be very different from the majority and still be wrong.

And even if I granted that a vast majority of teachers tell people what they want to hear, that still would not identify which minority teacher is correct.

That is why I keep coming back to testing the teaching itself.

The Bereans listened to Paul and then examined the Scriptures to see whether what he taught was so. Acts 17:11.

Paul says, “Test all things; hold fast what is good.” 1 Thessalonians 5:21.

So yes, expose me to the good teacher.

But then let me test what he teaches against Scripture.

If it survives that examination, I want it.

If it does not, the fact that the teacher was unusual, unpopular, highly educated, or different from the majority cannot make the teaching true.

 

[GeneZ]

The question is whether we are both willing to let Scripture correct those starting points, wherever the text leads.

When exegeted accurately that should be the case.
Scripture from translations have been misleading at times, but what was said feels right to the reader.

 

[Spiritual Freedom]

When exegeted accurately that should be the case.
Scripture from translations have been misleading at times, but what was said feels right to the reader.

Agreed. When Scripture is exegeted accurately, it should be allowed to correct our starting points.

And I also agree that translations can sometimes obscure or even mislead on a particular point.

But the same caution has to apply to the person doing the exegesis.

Knowing Greek does not automatically make an interpretation accurate. An interpreter can also import a doctrinal assumption into a Greek word, give a word more meaning than the context allows, or turn an explanatory label into something the text itself never actually says.

So for me the test cannot be:

“This came from the Greek, therefore it is correct.”

The test has to be:

Does the claimed Greek meaning actually hold up grammatically, lexically, and contextually?

And whether something “feels right” to the reader is not enough in either direction.

A translation can feel right and still be wrong.

An exegetical explanation can also feel authoritative and still be wrong.

That is why I keep wanting to test the actual claim against the text itself.

 

[GeneZ]

Agreed. When Scripture is exegeted accurately, it should be allowed to correct our starting points.

And I also agree that translations can sometimes obscure or even mislead on a particular point.

But the same caution has to apply to the person doing the exegesis.

Knowing Greek does not automatically make an interpretation accurate. An interpreter can also import a doctrinal assumption into a Greek word, give a word more meaning than the context allows, or turn an explanatory label into something the text itself never actually says.

So for me the test cannot be:

“This came from the Greek, therefore it is correct.”

The test has to be:

Does the claimed Greek meaning actually hold up grammatically, lexically, and contextually?

And whether something “feels right” to the reader is not enough in either direction.

A translation can feel right and still be wrong.

An exegetical explanation can also feel authoritative and still be wrong.

That is why I keep wanting to test the actual claim against the text itself.

I do not attempt to play exegete.
It is way too much a responsibility me and for those who like to concentrate on the original languages.

My pastor stopped a message once to tell listeners who were becoming bored with his expounding
and exegesis, to tell them that pastors from all over the country were ordering his messages.
And that his detailed exegesis was for them to study as to justify why he was translating and interpreting as he was doing.

You also have to master history for certain passages to be understood properly as to why they were written.

For example. Some accuse Paul is copying the gnostics and stoics.
What Paul was doing was using their vocabulary and terms to show stoics how without Christ
that their desired outcome was impossible, and only possible by grace to be achieved for the first time.

Over the years I have had contact with only a very few who were highly skilled and knowledgeable.

They are to be found.
If only in their preserved works today.

 

[Spiritual Freedom]

I do not attempt to play exegete.
It is way too much a responsibility me and for those who like to concentrate on the original languages.

My pastor stopped a message once to tell listeners who were becoming bored with his expounding
and exegesis, to tell them that pastors from all over the country were ordering his messages.
And that his detailed exegesis was for them to study as to justify why he was translating and interpreting as he was doing.

You also have to master history for certain passages to be understood properly as to why they were written.

For example. Some accuse Paul is copying the gnostics and stoics.
What Paul was doing was using their vocabulary and terms to show stoics how without Christ
that their desired outcome was impossible, and only possible by grace to be achieved for the first time.

Over the years I have had contact with only a very few who were highly skilled and knowledgeable.

They are to be found.
If only in their preserved works today.

I agree that exegesis carries a serious responsibility, and I agree that historical context can be essential.

But something you just said raises an important question for me.

You said, “I do not attempt to play exegete.”

Fair enough. None of us has to personally become a professional Greek scholar.

But if I delegate the original-language work to someone else, I still need some way of determining whether that person's exegesis is correct.

Other pastors ordering his messages tells me that other pastors considered the material worth studying. It doesn't establish that every translation or interpretation in those messages was correct.

And detailed exegesis offered to justify a translation is valuable evidence, but the justification itself still has to be examined. Otherwise we end up with:

the teacher says the Greek means X → the teacher explains why he says it means X → therefore X must be correct.

That is the very point I am trying to avoid.

The same applies to historical background. Yes, history matters. But a historical reconstruction can also be mistaken or imported into a passage, so I want to know what evidence supports it.

So I don't think either of us has to become a professional exegete.

But I do think we retain responsibility to test the exegete.

If a teacher tells me, “The Greek actually says this,” I want to be able to ask:

Does the word actually have that meaning?
Does the grammar support it?
Does the context support it?
Does the historical evidence support it?
And does the rest of Scripture support the conclusion being drawn?

Otherwise I haven't really tested the teaching. I have simply transferred my trust from an English translator to an interpreter of Greek.

 

[GeneZ]

I agree that exegesis carries a serious responsibility, and I agree that historical context can be essential.

But something you just said raises an important question for me.

You said, “I do not attempt to play exegete.”

Fair enough. None of us has to personally become a professional Greek scholar.

But if I delegate the original-language work to someone else, I still need some way of determining whether that person's exegesis is correct.

Other pastors ordering his messages tells me that other pastors considered the material worth studying. It doesn't establish that every translation or interpretation in those messages was correct.

And detailed exegesis offered to justify a translation is valuable evidence, but the justification itself still has to be examined. Otherwise we end up with:

the teacher says the Greek means X → the teacher explains why he says it means X → therefore X must be correct.

That is the very point I am trying to avoid.

The same applies to historical background. Yes, history matters. But a historical reconstruction can also be mistaken or imported into a passage, so I want to know what evidence supports it.

So I don't think either of us has to become a professional exegete.

But I do think we retain responsibility to test the exegete.

If a teacher tells me, “The Greek actually says this,” I want to be able to ask:

Does the word actually have that meaning?
Does the grammar support it?
Does the context support it?
Does the historical evidence support it?
And does the rest of Scripture support the conclusion being drawn?

Otherwise I haven't really tested the teaching. I have simply transferred my trust from an English translator to an interpreter of Greek.

There has been a problem with idiomatic language being taken seriously.
There has been a problem at times with how the meaning of words changed at times.
(can you imagine in 1000 years some scholars trying to explain Michael Jackson's song "I'm Bad.")

It takes a dedicated full time scholar who is constantly growing to get to where others can begin to finally benefit.
My pastor had admitted that at an earlier time presented a mistake that he wanted to correct.
Only someone who is always learning and growing can do that. I have seen too many who will not admit a mistake
after it was clarified. They lack the needed integrity required for exegesis.

 

[Spiritual Freedom]

There has been a problem with idiomatic language being taken seriously.
There has been a problem at times with how the meaning of words changed at times.
(can you imagine in 1000 years some scholars trying to explain Michael Jackson's song "I'm Bad.")

It takes a dedicated full time scholar who is constantly growing to get to where others can begin to finally benefit.
My pastor had admitted that at an earlier time presented a mistake that he wanted to correct.
Only someone who is always learning and growing can do that. I have seen too many who will not admit a mistake
after it was clarified. They lack the needed integrity required for exegesis.

I agree with you about idiom, changes in word usage, and the importance of historical context.

And I especially agree that integrity includes being willing to say, “I was wrong about that earlier.”

But your example actually reinforces the point I am making.

If a dedicated, highly trained pastor who spends his life studying the original languages can still make an exegetical mistake and later correct it, then the pastor's scholarship cannot itself be the final test of whether an interpretation is correct.

His willingness to correct the mistake is evidence of integrity.

But the fact that a correction was necessary is evidence of fallibility.

That is why I think the hearer still retains a responsibility to test what is being taught.

Not because every believer must become a professional Greek scholar, but because no scholar, pastor, translation or theological system should become functionally immune from examination.

I can benefit greatly from someone else's scholarship while still asking whether the lexical, grammatical, contextual and historical evidence actually supports the conclusion.

In fact, if the teacher himself is still learning and correcting mistakes, then surely the student should remain willing to keep examining what he has been taught as well.

 

[GeneZ]

I agree with you about idiom, changes in word usage, and the importance of historical context.

And I especially agree that integrity includes being willing to say, “I was wrong about that earlier.”

But your example actually reinforces the point I am making.

If a dedicated, highly trained pastor who spends his life studying the original languages can still make an exegetical mistake and later correct it, then the pastor's scholarship cannot itself be the final test of whether an interpretation is correct.

His willingness to correct the mistake is evidence of integrity.

But the fact that a correction was necessary is evidence of fallibility.

That is why I think the hearer still retains a responsibility to test what is being taught.

Not because every believer must become a professional Greek scholar, but because no scholar, pastor, translation or theological system should become functionally immune from examination.

I can benefit greatly from someone else's scholarship while still asking whether the lexical, grammatical, contextual and historical evidence actually supports the conclusion.

In fact, if the teacher himself is still learning and correcting mistakes, then surely the student should remain willing to keep examining what he has been taught as well.

Those issues were minor isolated side lines,

Most of the teaching has proven helpful for those who study the original languages.

But if the Holy Spirit is not putting it on your heart to find out what the teaching entails?
So be it.

 

[Spiritual Freedom]

Those issues were minor isolated side lines,

Most of the teaching has proven helpful for those who study the original languages.

But if the Holy Spirit is not putting it on your heart to find out what the teaching entails?
So be it.

Fair enough. The mistakes you have in mind may have been minor and isolated, and much of the teaching may have been helpful.

I am not arguing that everything a fallible teacher teaches must therefore be wrong.

My point is much narrower:

Once we agree that even a highly trained teacher can make an exegetical mistake, then each particular claim remains open to examination.

And I don't think the question should become whether the Holy Spirit has “put it on my heart” to investigate a particular teacher.

I am investigating the claims now.

If an interpretation is correct, the lexical, grammatical, contextual and historical evidence should support it.

If it is wrong, my willingness or unwillingness to study the teacher does not make it right.

So I am quite willing to hear the teaching.

I just want the freedom—and responsibility—to test it.

 

[GeneZ]

His willingness to correct the mistake is evidence of integrity.

But the fact that a correction was necessary is evidence of fallibility.

That is why I think the hearer still retains a responsibility to test what is being taught.

He always encouraged us to do our own thinking.
Not to parrot back what we were taught.
He told us that he was open for a correction someone may want to give.
But only under one condition.
That it must be done objectively.

Because of the quality of his extensive teaching over time, I found myself surprised to be discovering answers to problems that he never taught.

He said more than once that he desired not to tell us what to think.
But rather, to give us what is needed to do our own thinking with.
Problem-solving was one of his main thrusts.

Being retired military, he lived a well-disciplined life.
A very relaxed and tranquil life, though his demeanor might cause some to miss seeing it.

 

[Spiritual Freedom]

He always encouraged us to do our own thinking.
Not to parrot back what we were taught.
He told us that he was open for a correction someone may want to give.
But only under one condition.
That it must be done objectively.

Because of the quality of his extensive teaching over time, I found myself surprised to be discovering answers to problems that he never taught.

He said more than once that he desired not to tell us what to think.
But rather, to give us what is needed to do our own thinking with.
Problem-solving was one of his main thrusts.

Being retired military, he lived a well-disciplined life.
A very relaxed and tranquil life, though his demeanor might cause some to miss seeing it.

Could you give a specific example of something you discovered on your own that your pastor never taught?

And maybe a specific example of what he gave you that helped you reach that conclusion for yourself?

Did you ever approach your pastor with what you had concluded?

 

[JimKnox]

I do not attempt to play exegete.
It is way too much a responsibility me and for those who like to concentrate on the original languages.

My pastor stopped a message once to tell listeners who were becoming bored with his expounding
and exegesis, to tell them that pastors from all over the country were ordering his messages.
And that his detailed exegesis was for them to study as to justify why he was translating and interpreting as he was doing.

You also have to master history for certain passages to be understood properly as to why they were written.

For example. Some accuse Paul is copying the gnostics and stoics.
What Paul was doing was using their vocabulary and terms to show stoics how without Christ
that their desired outcome was impossible, and only possible by grace to be achieved for the first time.

Over the years I have had contact with only a very few who were highly skilled and knowledgeable.

They are to be found.
If only in their preserved works today.

The elite Pharisees also believed like that.

 

[GeneZ]

That is why I keep coming back to testing the teaching itself.

When I began listening to my pastor I ended up with a small library of reference books. And, visiting libraries at two different Bible colleges.
And, would stop at Christian bookstores in my travels to see what certain reference books might say about what I recently heard.

The Bereans listened to Paul and then examined the Scriptures to see whether what he taught was so. Acts 17:11.

Interesting point....

When my pastor exegeted that passage about the Bereans from the Greek he showed us that the Bereans searched the Scriptures for themselves, because to their ears what Paul was teaching sounded too good to be true. They wanted to make sure it was true for that reason.

 

[Spiritual Freedom]

When I began listening to my pastor I ended up with a small library of reference books. And, visiting libraries at two different Bible colleges.
And, would stop at Christian bookstores in my travels to see what certain reference books might say about what I recently heard.

Interesting point....

When my pastor exegeted that passage about the Bereans from the Greek he showed us that the Bereans searched the Scriptures for themselves, because to their ears what Paul was teaching sounded too good to be true. They wanted to make sure it was true for that reason.

I understand that you checked reference books and visited libraries, and I understand what your pastor taught about the Bereans.

I’m not certain Acts 17:11 indicates that Paul’s teaching sounded “too good to be true.” It seems more directly to say that the Bereans examined the Scriptures to determine whether what Paul was teaching was actually so.

But I don’t think that quite answers the specific example I was asking for.

You said you were surprised to discover answers to problems that your pastor never taught.

Could you give me one specific example of one of those discoveries?

And then, specifically, what had your pastor taught or given you that enabled you to reach that conclusion on your own?

 

[GeneZ]

You said you were surprised to discover answers to problems that your pastor never taught.

Could you give me one specific example of one of those discoveries?

And then, specifically, what had your pastor taught or given you that enabled you to reach that conclusion on your own?

Have you not had the same kind of experience yourself?

 

[Spiritual Freedom]

Have you not had the same kind of experience yourself?

Yes, I have had experiences where further study led me to conclusions I had not previously been taught.

But I was asking about your specific statement.

You said you found yourself “discovering answers to problems that he never taught,” and that your pastor gave you what you needed “to do your own thinking with.”

What is one specific example of something you discovered that he had never taught?

And what specifically had he given you that enabled you to discover it?

 

[GeneZ]

Yes, I have had experiences where further study led me to conclusions I had not previously been taught.

But I was asking about your specific statement.

You said you found yourself “discovering answers to problems that he never taught,” and that your pastor gave you what you needed “to do your own thinking with.”

What is one specific example of something you discovered that he had never taught?

And what specifically had he given you that enabled you to discover it?

My pastor's insightful teaching about the resolving of the prehistoric angelic conflict, walked me into insight as to why the Lord commanded Abraham to offer Isaac for a sacrifice.

 

[Spiritual Freedom]

My pastor's insightful teaching about the resolving of the prehistoric angelic conflict, walked me into insight as to why the Lord commanded Abraham to offer Isaac for a sacrifice.

Okay, I see that your pastor’s “Angelic Conflict” framework led you to the conclusion.

But what exactly was the conclusion you reached about why God commanded Abraham to offer Isaac?

And did you ever take that conclusion back to your pastor and discuss it with him?

If you did, had he ever considered that same conclusion before, or was it actually something new to him?