Bible Study According to Caldwell

[reformed1689]

Have you ever considered that what is written in Scripture is really enough - that we do not have to seek out what you call "good theology" by departing from what is written in Scripture to what we believe implied?

The way I left Calvinism was I simply read Scripture and took it at what it says (without all the additions you seem to believe make for "good theology"). If it makes sense without our input then why not just take God at His word?

John, I ask you this. How do we rightly interpret any given passage of Scripture?

 

[SovereignGrace]

I see him slowly going the way of Dr. Ray Hagins.

 

[Enoch111]

John, I ask you this. How do we rightly interpret any given passage of Scripture?

Is the start of Caldwellism? Almost rhymes with Campellism.

 

[Episkopos]

Well I know that it is very wrong to add in words to the bible that take away the plain meaning...such as adding in the word "self" when Jesus talks about the righteous....or adding in the words "the righteousness of Christ" when God declared Abraham was a righteous man (And it was counted to Him for righteousness).

People do this to obscure the truth and get themselves involved in the biblical message....by avoiding the cross themselves.

 

[reformed1689]

Well I know that it is very wrong to add in words to the bible that take away the plain meaning...such as adding in the word "self" when Jesus talks about the righteous....or adding in the words "the righteousness of Christ" when God declared Abraham was a righteous man (And it was counted to Him for righteousness).

People do this to obscure the truth and get themselves involved in the biblical message....by avoiding the cross themselves.

Thanks but I am really interested to hear @John Caldwell because of his claims I quoted in the OP.

 

[Willie T]

Is the start of Caldwellism? Almost rhymes with Campellism.

Hey, don't be dissin Alex. LOL

 

[Episkopos]

Thanks but I am really interested to hear @John Caldwell because of his claims I quoted in the OP.

No problem...public forum...and we also have private chat for personal type conversations.

 

[ScottA]

John, I ask you this. How do we rightly interpret any given passage of Scripture?

The term "interpretation" is not even consistently understood. Some would say that it is all interpreted by language, cultural understanding of the time, and by proper context. All of which is good.

However, according to the scriptures themselves, interpretations are by spiritual gift, by revelation. The written word is not enough, it must be spiritually discerned. Thus, those taking up the word only, suffer under the confounding of all language by God at Babel...which has not been rescinded.

 

[reformed1689]

No problem...public forum...and we also have private chat for personal type conversations.

Sent you a message about this to explain.

 

[Enoch111]

Well I know that it is very wrong to add in words to the bible that take away the plain meaning...

This is rich coming from Episkopos, who has manufactured his own theology.

 

[Episkopos]

This is rich coming from Episkopos, who has manufactured his own theology.

My theology is very sound of course...but you have to go back in history before the corruption of the gospel for it to make sense.

Today...as the bible said...many have turned aside to fables. This is the popular and now accepted way to distort the truth to one's favour...to the favour of carnal men. And it from these fables that you make your errant judgments.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

My theology is very sound of course

Um, not even close.

But tell us more about your superiority and how most others are lost devils.

 

[Episkopos]

Um, not even close.

But tell us more about your superiority and how most others are lost devils.

You first. Your condescensions are well known in these parts. Truth be told, you have neither fear of God nor humility nor any love to speak of. So what you say has no meaning or bearing on anything remotely edifying.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

You first. Your condescensions are well known in these parts. You have neither fear of God nor humility nor any love to speak of. So what you say has no meaning or bearing on anything remotely edifying.

You've just proven my point!

I have nothing against you, personally, and really honestly care for you. But your theology isn't biblical, and your hatred and ridicule of nearly everyone else who names the name of Christ is a well-known trait of yours. Luke 18:9-11 like.

 

[John Caldwell]

John, I ask you this. How do we rightly interpret any given passage of Scripture?

Insofar as presuppositions – I hold to a "literal" method of interpretation which asserts that the biblical text is to be interpreted according to the plain meaning conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context.

I have adopted the process(es) that I’ve learned from the works I’ve suggested elsewhere (New Testament Exegesis by Gordon Fee; The Hermeneutical Spiral by Grant Osborne; and Grasping God’s Word by Duvall and Hays). So for a source or fuller explanation of my method you may want to consult these references.

NOTE: When I’m teaching how to study one’s Bible I tweak Fee’s guidelines (as they will not be making a provisional translation but they will be dealing with the text and possible meanings).

My process is, briefly, as follows:

Pray.

At this time DO NOT open a commentary.

Read the entire book from which the passage you want to explore comes. Do not negate context. Pray. Read the passage again. Pray again.

Survey the historical context in general. Consider the original audience and how they are similar and how they are different from us. Confirm the limits of the passage and become acquainted with your pericope.

Make a provisional translation, examine this translation and make a provisional list of exegetical difficulties. Read the text through in several translations to include competing translations (especially competing translations).

Analyze sentence structures and syntactical relationships. Make a sentence flow and a sentence diagram (I prefer vertically if examining larger passages, indenting to show any shifts). Establish the text (what words did the author use, and in what word order) and analyze the grammar. Analyze significant words (if doing this on a word doc I use text colors draw out significant words). BUT do not get carried away with word studies.

The first thing you want to do in a sentence diagram is to distinguish between major and minor clauses. Clauses are those parts of the sentence that contain a subject and a predicate. The difference between a major and minor clause is that a major clause can stand alone while a minor clause cannot.

Research the historical and cultural background. Pay attention to how the original audience would have understood the authors words and how the words have been understood throughout history.

In a very short (and incomplete) summary that is a glimpse of my process and what I teach others.

I can't, however, teach you biblical literacy online and in a discussion forum. I recommend the references provided.

Good luck.

 

[reformed1689]

Insofar as presuppositions – I hold to a "literal" method of interpretation which asserts that the biblical text is to be interpreted according to the plain meaning conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context.

I have adopted the process(es) that I’ve learned from the works I’ve suggested elsewhere (New Testament Exegesis by Gordon Fee; The Hermeneutical Spiral by Grant Osborne; and Grasping God’s Word by Duvall and Hays). So for a source or fuller explanation of my method you may want to consult these references.

NOTE: When I’m teaching how to study one’s Bible I tweak Fee’s guidelines (as they will not be making a provisional translation but they will be dealing with the text and possible meanings).

My process is, briefly, as follows:

Pray.

At this time DO NOT open a commentary.

Read the entire book from which the passage you want to explore comes. Do not negate context. Pray. Read the passage again. Pray again.

Survey the historical context in general. Consider the original audience and how they are similar and how they are different from us. Confirm the limits of the passage and become acquainted with your pericope.

Make a provisional translation, examine this translation and make a provisional list of exegetical difficulties. Read the text through in several translations to include competing translations (especially competing translations).

Analyze sentence structures and syntactical relationships. Make a sentence flow and a sentence diagram (I prefer vertically if examining larger passages, indenting to show any shifts). Establish the text (what words did the author use, and in what word order) and analyze the grammar. Analyze significant words (if doing this on a word doc I use text colors draw out significant words). BUT do not get carried away with word studies.

The first thing you want to do in a sentence diagram is to distinguish between major and minor clauses. Clauses are those parts of the sentence that contain a subject and a predicate. The difference between a major and minor clause is that a major clause can stand alone while a minor clause cannot.

Research the historical and cultural background. Pay attention to how the original audience would have understood the authors words and how the words have been understood throughout history.

In a very short (and incomplete) summary that is a glimpse of my process and what I teach others.

I can't, however, teach you biblical literacy online and in a discussion forum. I recommend the references provided.

Good luck.

I'm not asking you to teach me anything. I already know how to interpret Scripture but you have just confirmed something. You do not "simply read Scripture and took it at what it says" as you claimed. You have to look at outside sources in order to get context and audience and how they would have perceived the text. So the very thing you trumpet that I should not be doing, is exactly what you do. Now that is not wrong, in fact, it is right, but it shows your deception on the matter.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I'm not asking you to teach me anything. I already know how to interpret Scripture but you have just confirmed something. You do not "simply read Scripture and took it at what it says" as you claimed. You have to look at outside sources in order to get context and audience and how they would have perceived the text. So the very thing you trumpet that I should not be doing, is exactly what you do. Now that is not wrong, in fact, it is right, but it shows your deception on the matter.

#doublestandard

 

[John Caldwell]

@Anthony D'Arienzo rejected the "literal" or traditional method as subjecting God to a "dictionary". Instead of using the meaning conveyed by a words grammatical construction and historical context, @Anthony D'Arienzo suggested words in the biblical text have a different meaning - a "biblical meaning". This is an example of eisegesis. It is a liberal method of hermeneutics which is subjective by definition.


@David Taylor comment in Calvinism, post 479 claiming that “good theology” is theology that is not dependent on what is written but what one sees implied in Scripture is just as much exegesis and subjective.

These are both excellent examples of why biblical literacy needs to be taught. The hyper-Calvinistic/ cult behavior would probably not be seen here if churches did not negate literacy in favor of indoctrination.

The very first thing that one MUST presuppose is that Scripture is God's Word (God "breathed") and is sufficient.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

I'm not asking you to teach me anything. I already know how to interpret Scripture but you have just confirmed something. You do not "simply read Scripture and took it at what it says" as you claimed. You have to look at outside sources in order to get context and audience and how they would have perceived the text. So the very thing you trumpet that I should not be doing, is exactly what you do. Now that is not wrong, in fact, it is right, but it shows your deception on the matter.

BAM!!!! Of course he uses outside sources, and yes, he's deceptive.

Here is where he went astray (imo by listening to him in the past) and was foolishly mislead: One of his professors convinced he and others at bible school to go and come up with their own conclusions on doctrine. He felt empowered by his own testimony, (a work of the flesh/pride) that was the best thing that ever happened to him, felt honored, and then ended up in rank heresy against fundamentally sound doctrines and dogmas.

He's been on that road ever since, and probably prior to it all as well. Not sure where he got all his fabricating practice from, but, that's there as well.

 

[reformed1689]

@David Taylor comment in Calvinism, post 479 claiming that “good theology” is theology that is not dependent on what is written but what one sees implied in Scripture is just as much exegesis and subjective.

And you continue to lie about what was said. And you wonder why I call you a snake....